There is one problem with the Mig 35….they cannot start production anytime before 2015. There is only one prototype flying and the production lines are going to busy making about 40 Mig 29K for the IN and around 24 for the Russian Navy.

Well, if the Indians aren’t OK with that date, then the Russians shouldn’t be optimistic at all! 😀

The F-16 will never be chosen. For one it is an old airframe and the second is that Pakistan has 2 decades of experience on that craft.Not worth putting down all the infrastructure for it.

Yes, that’s a valid point. It’s an aircraft that will be known to the Pakistanis. Still it’s different block and fits well the multirole.

If both the Rafaele and EF are DQed due to cost(and the fact that with the Su 30 around and the Pak-FA to come they don’t need another air superiority aircraft) then the only choice left is the SH which may not be a bad choice as it is capable of raining down some super firepower. IMO the IAF needs a pure A2G aircraft. The Mig 27 and the Jags they have right now are not good enough.

If IAF needs pure A2G, then yes, SH should be more fitting. Rafale could do the same job, but it’s not worth the money for A2G. It would come too costly in the long run.

If Indians can’t wait for the Russians and don’t want American, i ‘d agree to scrap the project too. Spend their money more on Tejas and more Sus and PAK Fas.

Cancel the MRCA or buy the Mig 35. The remaining money can be pored into the LCA and Pak-FA program.

It will be insane to buy the EF or the Rafale at 100 million a plane or to set up new service lines to take care of the American jets.

I agree on both the choice of EF and Rafale. IMO, India should go for a cheap solution, multirole, not “heavyweight”.

Mig is the obvious choice if they want to stick with Russians.
F16 is another obvious choice, since they want to warm up relations with USA. I am not so fond of the SH.

With the PAK Fa coming and the existing Sukhois, EF is the least reasonable choice. Unless they give some huge ToT advantages that others can’t match.

But as a whole, it doesn’t make sense to buy the 2 most expensive aircrafts in the market, when you don’t have lack of options for air superiority. They should get a cheap multirole. The Gripen would be perfect if it wasn’t for the fact that doesn’t give anything politically.

There is a national understanding in Russia, which developed in the last three years, that hitech is the only way forward (Vladimir Putin is very specific here: aerospace, nano-technology incl semiconductors, energy), and they really put their money were their mouth is. So, yes, T-50 is a key national priority and not just a “defence programme” like the ATF or JSF is to the U.S., and Russia will push it with everything they have. As a national priority it is not a question of money. Plus they use it to give a future to a new generation of engineers, which is equally – if not more! – important than having a new toy for the VVS.

I think Putin has done a great job for Russia. What will be interesting to see, is , apart the costs, who else apart India will be politically “OK” to be offered the PAK FA.

Show gonads;

Step 1:

Issue a statement that every turkish fighter entering greek airspace is now going to be shot down after due warning. Radio, sign, then a warning burst, then shoot down.

Stop 2:

Do it.

Turkey isn’t going to attack greece. Their posturing is just that: posturing, to serve to the internal population.

They do it because they try to justify many of their internal policies, but they wouldn’t be able to attack Greece in any serious way.

IMO greece doesn’t have to put up with that BS.

Nic

That’s not going to happen. The only official, intentional shooting down was in 1996, under unclear circumstances. The most credible version i ‘ve heard, is that the greek M2000 pilot was shot at by gunfire just before the merge and he then outmanouvered and shot the Magic II. Because if it was so easy to have clear green light to shoot, in 40 years of this game, we ‘d have much more shootings from both sides. So something exceptional must have happened to make that pilot shoot.

But for political reasons and with current politicians (they don’t have gonads, they don’t take defence seriously and the PM thinks he is in Sweden, a very dangerous mix), it won’t happen again. Think of it, as if France was in common border in Russia and you ask nothing from Russia and you have multiple GDP per capita over Russia. Would you have interest to shoot first? Why? What are you asking to take that is french and the Russians have? You ‘ll only get poorer. We don’t want to change status quo.

@ Scorpion

Sorry, you are right. I won’t continue.

Greek pilots should shoot down any turkish fighter the very second it enters greek airspace.

Nic

In case you missed the 1st part of the turkish generals’ ‘plan, it included provoking greek pilots so much in order to make them shoot down a turkish aircraft or, if that becomes impossible, to crash on purpose one of their aircrafts and then blame it to the greek pilots.

Now, why do you think they wanted that? EXACTLY, so that they can claim to be the “victims of greek aggression” and so when the crisis starts, the international community to actually be hostile to Greece or in the worst case, neutral.

Another thing to consider, is , as an ex defence minister had said, that in the Aegean, it becomes very complicated to “prove” where exactly you shot someone down and what he had do to deserve that. Now you fly over an island, in 30 seconds after, you fly over international airspace, simply ignoring Athens FIR procedures refusing to accept contact with greek ground control. That’s not reason to shoot someone down. Even if you somehow manage to make the incoming aircraft to crash on say Agathonisi island, which is a small island that this year is regularly overflown by turkish aircrafts, they can still argue, that they were flying in their border and greek aircrafts forced them to a fight that ended over the island and crashed there.

I mean, in 1996, we almost went to war over the sovereignty of an island and all the foreign press was saying was “Greeks and Turks in the brink of war over disputed island”. Imagine, that the said island, although a small rock, is mentioned by name in the Italy-Turkey 1932 protocol which delimitates the borders. And the EU 15 days to study the treaties and come up with this resolution:

http://europa.eu/bulletin/en/9601/p104098.htm

Or full text:

http://www.hri.org/MFA/foreign/bilateral/europ.htm

The event happened on 30 January, the EU made the resolution on February 15. 2 weeks to study the treaties…

As for the US, they first removed from their electronic maps the label “Greece” from the islet and put it back after many months after greek protests.

Imagine how long it would take you (assuming that your goverments would have the political interest to tell you the truth), to figure out where the dogfight took place, whether shooting down was justified or not, who opened fire first, etc. Oh yes, the “Sledgehammer” turkish plan, in the context of forcing greek pilots to shoot down turkish aircraft, predicted the green light to turkish pilots to make use of “live fire” against greek aircrafts, “as defence”. (As defence, trying to provoke us to shoot them down. A weird concept of defence).

This is what CNN was writing in 1996:

Clinton urges Greece to resolve disputes with Turkey

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Clinton told the president of Greece Thursday that a peaceful resolution to the ongoing Greek-Turkish conflict would have a monumental effect on the world.

“The rest of the world has a lot riding on whether Greeks and Turks can resolve their differences,” Clinton said during a news conference with Greek President Constantinos Stephanopoulos.

Greece and Turkey have quarreled for years. The most recent dispute revolves around a tiny Aegean islet, which each country claims is theirs. The Greeks call it Imia, and the Turks, Kardak.

Stephanopoulos said Clinton’s stance pleased him. But the Greek president added that the dispute is not simply the fault of Greece.

“I would like to say here that the problems that arise in the Aegean are not at all our responsibility. We always try, and we succeed in behaving according to international law and democracy,” Stephanopoulos said.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/09/newsbriefs/

If we shoot down a turkish aircraft, it will write like this:

“A turkish jet was today shot down over the Aegean by greek airforce. Turkey’s goverment replied that such an incident can’t pass without an answer and called it cold-blooded murder, in international airspace. Greece claims they didn’t shoot the aircraft, but that they turkish pilot crashed it on purpose (or alternative, Greece claims that they were shot upon first). The turkish pilot died. Greece and Turkey have long been rivals over disputed Aegean.”

1 hour later:

“Turkey attacked Greece, in an act of retaliation over unprovoked attacked that led to the death of a turkish pilot.”

I let you imagine the confusion of what each goverment will be sustaining: “The Greeks were asking for it!”, “You can’t shoot down just like that and kill someone”, “Well, we will force peace once the Turks get their blood back and that’s a way to end the dispute anyway”.

Use your imagination…

For the same reason US and Russians weren’t regularly shooting each other down in their northern approaches or sinking each other subs.

These things are part of cold war. It’s always essential to ensure that the other appears the aggressor. For Turkey that is vital, not only because of her size, which makes it hard to convince others that she is the victim, but also the local population. Believe it or not, for decades, they ‘ve convinced the turkish population, that Greece was planning invasion of the turkish coast. And that’s officially also the reason that Turkey maintains the “Aegean Army” , which is outside any NATO structure or command, and numbers 100.000 men. Another 100.000 are positioned in the european Turkey (the 1st Army), from Istanbul up to the greek turkish border).

Just like in 1996, the turkish population was convinced they were the victims of greek provocation because the islet was turkish. They still believe that… And most believe that borders are in deed vague and there are in deed 150 islets of the Aegean that aren’t greek, but of “unknown sovereignty”, for which they call to “dialogue”, but they don’t want to go to court. In the “dialogue” they are free to put as many other claims as they like and connect them with other, irrelevant issues, as they please and bargain for things they aren’t turkish. If i bargain for 100 things that belong to Nicolas i ‘ve nothing to lose. They ‘re Nicolas’. He knows, i know it, but i don’t admit it. So i call Nicolas to dialogue to split our difference. I want your bank money, your garden, your car and your boat? Ok, give me your car and you can keep the rest. Ok?I am reasonable. At the same way, for example, Turkey wants to mix things in a “dialogue” that have no legal connection. For example “I want 150 islets. You say they ‘re yours? OK, let’s be reasonable. I get 10 islets and on return, you declare to the UN that you won’t expand your waters beyond 6nm which are now”. In a court, you can’t do such bargains. One thing is the law of sea and another is sovereignty over islands.

So, no… You don’t shoot them down. Or, if you ask me, if you ‘re going to risk being accused as the “mad greek who asked for it” , then you ‘d better get something more than 1 aircraft. Prepare a big operation and shoot down a big number of turkish aircrafts , with yours and SAMS, when they don’t expect it. There are several such occasions. But, our politicians don’t even dream about such scenarios.

Greece, will either manage to find a way to bring Turkey to Hague Court or, with the mentality of our politicians, we will make concessions to Turkey in the next 10-20 years. With or without use of force (a threat of force can suffice when you leave the firepower gap open too much).

The other strategical error of our politicians, is obvious again from the turkish plans. I have been saying it in this forum months ago. For decades our analysts have said, that Turkey would like a limited hot episode, localized, which would force 3rd parties to come in and force Greece to negotiations table with Turkey from the point of loser. Greece, would have to make concessions.

Turkey never wanted full scale war, not as long as Greece can do much damage to her. This was clear in the 1987 crisis and even in the 1996 crisis, when all the greek navy left port and there was mobilization in all borders.

The error of our morons is that exactly they have adopted the dogma of “small scale, local episode”. Our new PM actually told it before the elections that he wants “Small, swift army, for… assimetrical threats”. For him Turkey is assimetrical threat… Never mind. As i said, he grew up in USA, Canada and Sweden, he isn’t familiar with the area or the concept of war. The rest has to do with the “small, swift”. And in that purpose, they want to bring defence expenditure down to 1% of GDP if possible. The previous one too.

That’s why i say, that they ‘re clueless, they ‘ve no contact with reality and know zero about defence. Turkey has 550.000 ground troops and in our PM’s mind, that’s “assimetrical threat”. Assimetrical threat is a terrorist with a plane. 550.000 is a very simetrical, oversized threat. His father, although a politician, could understand basic concepts of strategy and deterrence.

http://johnhelmer.net/?p=59

He, the son, can’t. Maybe he thinks Greece is USA and if something goes wrong, there’s some secret facility with 3000 Tomahawks that we will launch…

So, we ‘ve changed our dogma towards a policy that better suits Turkey , decreasing our own deterrence and it shows… The turkish generals, speak of a limited scale conflict on Evros , invading the north part of the greek region. Question? How can they be sure that it will be limited there and won’t go to full scale? Answer: greek politicians say so all the time! And they show that they don’t take defence seriously all the time. So they were pretty sure that the episode will end quickly and without full extensions of the war. Same for the episode with the aircrafts. In all cases they talk of “low intensity conflicts”. In 1987 and 1996, Greece appeared to escalate and prepare for full war. That’s why they didn’t grab the chance to have their little war. And like in the “Sledgehammer” plan, the turkish generals don’t want “full scale, high intensity conflict”. YET. Because they know the current balance of firepower and they know that they will pay a heavy price in a high intensity warfare.

“It is little bit of a nasty surprise for us and very disappointing that this choice of Indian Air force, which works on the principle of the best value for money was rejected at political level,” Matussek said.

Yes, what a shock! Political criteria on defence deals? Who would ever imagine that! :rolleyes:

I am sure for example that Austria bought Typhoon without BVR missiles without politics being the main reason.

The Indian Airforce may work on the principle of best value for money. The Indian goverment though, works on the principle of best political choice and best possible value for money. The 2 must go together, as do 90% of the countries out there.

That is, what is less important in this competition is the plane, since all surely meet our operational needs, what matters is what Brazil will receive the aircraft BEYOND!

By far the most realistic approach a Brazilian journalist could write. Brazil doesn’t need to choose the “best performer” by criteria of an aviation enthusiast.

“The aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer
to take over our country unopposed. To prevent his
doing so, one must be willing to make war and be
prepared for it. In other words, it is the weak, those
most likely to need defence, who should always be armed
to not be overwhelmed.”
– Karl von Clausewitz, circa 1830s

Or to put it more shortly “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war – Roman proverb).

Something that for example Neville Chamberlain (and some of my local politicians) didn’t learn at school.