Of course, but then you’re just paying for over manning old platforms rather than paying for defence capability, which is a poor use of resources no matter how wealthy you are. And as has been pointed out, the US struggles with personnel costs despite outspending all others in defence and European navies have invested large sums in following commercial lean manning practices despite being wealthy nations. This isn’t just about cost of the actual platform in question, it is lost value in other areas of defence and also a question of personnel resources, OK India isn’t short of people but how will the Indian forces attract the best talent in a growing economy where there are lucrative career streams, one of the problems facing many military organisations is less the cost per se but just attracting people of the right quality, and squandering a lot of those quality people on over manned platforms is again a pointless waste of resources. There is a good reason expensive automation and heavy investment in lean manning is so popular, and it isn’t entirely driven by cost. Bear in mind this applies to the whole defence budget, it isn’t just about crews on aircraft carriers, at the moment India and China get an awful lot more for each $ spent on defence than the USA, Japan, Australia or EU countries as the low cost industrial base applies right down the whole chain, as the economy grows general wage inflation, economic growth, competition for economic capacity etc. will all mean that India and China will hit the same problem of having to spend ever larger sums just to stand still as the mature economies which again means that expensive labour intensive platforms will not be especially sensible.

I get your point.:)

This will be especially relevant for India over the coming decades, as their economy grows so will labour costs and it is likely that by the mid-life of these carriers crewing costs will be a much bigger burden for the Indian Navy than they are now.

Your assertion is valid, but then ability to maintain will also increase with growing economy isnt it?

Russia launches final satellites for its own GPS
Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:45pm GMT

Email | Print | Share | Single Page | Recommend (2)
[-] Text [+]

1 of 1
Full Size

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia successfully launched a rocket on Tuesday carrying the last three satellites to complete a navigation system to rival America’s GPS.

The military-run GLONASS mapping system works over most of Russia and is expected to cover the globe by the end of 2009, once all its 24 navigational satellites are operating.

A space rocket blasted off from Russia’s Baikonur cosmodrome on the steppes of neighbouring ex-Soviet Kazakhstan, from which Russia rents the facility.

“The launch was carried out smoothly at 10:32 p.m. (1932 GMT),” RIA news agency quoted a spokesman for the Russian space agency as saying. “We expect satellites to separate from the booster on the orbit at 2:24 a.m. (2324 GMT)”.

Work on GLONASS — or Global Navigation Satellite System — began in the Soviet Union in the mid-1970s to give its armed forces exact bearings around the world.

The collapse of the Russian economy in the late 1990s drained funds and the plans withered, but President Vladimir Putin has ensured the project is now being lavishly funded from a brimming government budget.

Officials said GLONASS would mainly be used alongside the U.S. global positioning system, which Washington can switch off for civilian subscribers, as it did during recent military operations in Iraq.

(Writing by Chris Baldwin, editing by Richard Meares)
http://en.rian.ru/world/20071226/94238985.html

oh usual MOD IAF stuff. holding out for the best technology with least cost. the french are asking for $500 million. according to mod rules, now 30% of that has to be reinvested in india so all that jazz

Yeah you are right most probably..i was basing my opinion on the saudi fiasco by the French..

its stubborn arm-twisting to include weapons that the Saudis do not want, like the Rafale combat aircraft, in these packages.
While the Saudis were willing as late as the fall of 2006 to sign two or three medium-sized helicopters deals, covering 42 Fennec light helicopters, 20 Cougar Combat Search and Rescue helicopters and 10 NFH-90 naval helicopters, sources say they indefinitely postponed these plans after French officials continued to insist that the package also include Rafales, several FREMM frigates and Gowind corvettes, and Leclerc tanks

😀

while the mig-29 will be upgraded first and then the mirage 2000, it still makes no sense as to why they are taking things so slowly. the aim should be to maximize the punch. and by beginning the upgrade sooner, fewer aircraft can be moved from the flightline to the workbase and then back.

Maybe they want to push in some Rafales with the upgrade;so taking all the time in negotiations!:eek:

about the Armats they are obsolete i think they will be effectively blind once the radar goes off.they have already been retired by the french??Any country other than India still fielding the Armat anyone know?

Well well…I see that a mountain is being made out of a molehill here.I think people here tend to view things too much as black and white,whereas in the real world a lot of it is neither black nor white.For example this F-16 vs bison thing.F-16 blk 50/52 radar+Aim-120 combination is better than Kopyo+R77 and yes in most cases the F-16 would use that to its advantage.Now let us put some variable into it.What happens when one side has Awacs and the nother doesnt?Will the F-16 still have the advantage?WHat happens if there are 3 Bisons for every F-16?Another thing people tend to do is to compare scenarios where two opposing aircraft come in a straight line facing each other.But a2a battle is seldom one dimensional.Its a 3-d space and an aircraft can be approached from several directions.A pilot would try to approach its adversary from that angle which gives him the maximum advantage.The direction to approach could be ralated to many factors like taking advantage of a blindspot in the opposing a/c sensor coverage etc. And then there are tactics when multiple aircrafts are involved.

In the IAF forward airbases the principal GAI aircraft are the Bisons.Now think what could happen if suddenly a Paf F-16 crosses the border and the Bisons are scrambled to intercept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-66
http://milparade.udm.ru/21/38.html

You fight a system and not a mark of a fighter. So every claim is questionable, when not related to the elements of such a system.

Exactly.You fight a system.That means an well organised airforce with Bison as their principal a/c may succesfully defeat another ill organiosed/ill-advised airforce with a superior plane like the F-16 right?
What “claim” are you questioning?Now,arent you taking these statements too seriously?

And also I dont know why you thought of providing those links?[I dont get your statements very clearly..sorry].I am well aware about the radars each of them carry and their characteristics.

Pilots do not suffer under a lack of confidence in general. If justified or not is another question in total. Even today a “Zipper-driver” may claim, that there is no threat around, he will not overcome with it. Everyone of the 22 “formula-one” drivers does see himself as the next world-champion. The seasoned ones will give a more balanced view, when not under a nationalistic pressure.

This is not a case of
a)confidence
b)nationalism
This is why.The statement (Bison can handle F-16) if judged technically is meaningless.Against what block F-16?The older blocks can be handled by the Bison.Even by virtue of its RVV the Bison could probably put up a decent fight against the F-16 blk-50/52.The blk-60 F-16s(or F-16IN , if India gets it) would be too much to handle for the Bison.So that statement is technically nonspecific; and has been said as a general statement based upon the experience of the exercises.

Plus everybody was against the F-16 doesnot mean that all of them were against it because it could be handled.Many who were against F-16 were against american products in general and also because it serves with the PAF.