Rii,

Not quite sure where that was triggered from in the responses that precede it?. I dont see any salivation.

The thread moved from real world events — US warship movements in the context of Ukraine — to the purely hypothetical regarding a conflict between Turkish and Russian naval forces, and I was just glad that someone had finally seen fit to point out that this latter discussion had no grounding in reality. It is all well and good to discuss matters in the abstract and it has been an interesting discussion in that respect, but in the broader context of the thread it is problematic.

And it’s true that people haven’t been ‘salivating’ over the prospect of conflict; that’s my perhaps-exaggerated aggregate impression formed over the several threads where the situation has been discussed, and all the more troubling because it seems those who’re most ‘comfortable’ with the prospect of armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine originate from neither Russia nor Ukraine! (and the same pattern is repeated with this hypothetical Turkish-Russian conflict under discussion, where it took someone from Turkey to point out that Turks aren’t actually interested in fighting and dying for Crimea.

Also, discussion about Turkey is pointless, as we have no will, necessity or benefit to get involved in Ukraine/Russia crisis. We will stand aside, and continue our trade relations with whoever is left in Crimea in the end. No need to anger/alienate either sides.

Indeed. Despite the salivating of some here, almost nobody outside the United States has any interest in getting involved in Ukraine/Crimea. And even the American interest isn’t actually about Ukraine, but rather about America’s owned bruised ego. The realist school of international relations is rightfully congratulating itself regarding recent events in Ukraine, but there are other factors at work also that don’t fit so neatly into the realist framework, chief among those being the sheer petulance that certain nations are capable of displaying when they find out that they don’t, in fact, run the world.

Of course, as many nations from Cuba to Iran have discovered in the past, the tantrums of an overgrown child-nation can be dangerous regardless of how ridiculous they are. Fortunately for Russia it is strong enough to weather and probably continue to thrive amidst any storm that might be conjured against it.

Well that’s one way to throw money away.

If I were a Swiss citizen, this would sorely tempt me to vote ‘no’ in the upcoming referendum. SwAF clearly doesn’t need new jets after all if they can afford to **** them away on aerobatic teams.

Have you wondered why the USN is not in a big hurry to introduce the F-35C?

I suspect the answer is SH/Growler. 4.5 gen fighters should not be underestimated, and they should not be put in the same class as “4. gen” fighters like F-16 and the older Hornet.

Indeed; this is another classic sleight of hand from our American friends. The ‘generation’ nomenclature is derived from USAF procurement patterns and bears only an incidental relationship to the technologies embodied in a particular aircraft. Less critical (or more dishonest) observers take the nomenclature literally, to indicate only minor and inconsequential differences between e.g. F-16 and Rafale, and a comprehensive break between e.g. Rafale and F-35. The truth of the matter is, as one would expect, much more fine-grained, and in many respects the Eurocanards are a lot closer to the so-called 5th generation platforms than they are to the so-called 4th generation aircraft that dominate US, NATO, and other western air forces today.

There’s no harm in using the generation nomenclature because it’s a common frame of reference that everyone understands, but it’s important not to be seduced by it, not to reify a purely theoretical construct, one that exists to serve certain national and corporate ends.

As with any other kind, military institutions respond only to pressure of one kind or another. Let us hope this recent string of accidents is the impetus for comprehensive and far-reaching changes that will greatly strengthen the Indian Navy.

Sorry, it was not my intention to prompt open season of criticism of BRF; mostly I have found it a useful source of information and interesting discussion. I was just frustrated to go looking for details/confirmation of the reported conclusion of negotiations as posted by toan only to find the discussion dominated by ridiculous posts to the effect that India could buy an additional 100 Super Hornets for the price Dassault is asking for Rafale, as if Boeing would value its technology at $0.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]226216[/ATTACH]

Why Dassault is having second thoughts about “Rafale-with-deep-ToT “?

There is nothing to suggest they are; the recent news item even suggests that negotiations have been completed. But it is something that has to be paid for, not a freebie that comes with the aircraft as some posts on BRF seem to think by comparing Rafale MMRCA cost with off-the-shelf costs for e.g. Super Hornet. If India was so inclined Dassault would’ve been perfectly happy to sign a much cheaper contract for Rafales produced in France without ToT and it wouldn’t have taken two years of negotiation to do so. But that’s not what India wants, and sensibly so.