I agree. take the case of the Jaguar in the IAF- India plans on supporting its Jaguar fleet till 2030 or thereabouts ! the new build twin-seaters have 6000 hours service life as compared to 3000 hours on the single seater. That means that the 17 DARIN-II twin seaters that were inducted recently in the night-attack role can easily last another 30 years, unless the IAF really flogs them and they’ll definitely require another major upgrade in the 2020 time period for the surviving airframes.
and apart from Oman, there isn’t any other note-worthy Jaguar operator, so if the IAF and HAL can support that fleet with their own upgrades (such as DARIN II and DARIN III), supporting a fleet of F-16s or F-18 with indigenous upgrades shouldn’t be a problem, as long as the OEM doesn’t raise a stink. BAe allows the IAF to incorporate its own changes to the Jags and I’m not sure if they get a royalty fee or not apart from the licencing fee.
I can’t help but feel that the IAF had little choice in the matter thanks to delayed acquisitions. Of course, the Jag plays a niche role in the IAF and as such is superb for that spot. Also, when the IAF purchased it what better alternatives did it have?
I am afraid the ex CNS’s words on the teens however, esp. the F-16 have considerable merit. The IAF is looking to get an a/c for the next 40 years via the MRCA. Yes, they could flog it like they did the 21s or even the Jags but ideally why would they want to? The design itself is showing limitations. Why beat an almost dead horse when better alternatives are obviously available? The IAF in the last few decades, has tended to induct designs that are relatively new – esp. if it is meant to be an uber asset. Jags, Mirage-2000s, and MiG-29s for example. Its reluctance to look at the MiG-35 is possibly another indication of this.
I think it is the mentality, if such a word can be used, of the IAF that it considers itself on par with top notch AFs across the globe. This is of course also driven by its threat matrix in that it seeks a qualitative edge over both the PLAAF and the PAF while retaining a numerical adv. over the latter. As such I don’t expect it will look at a/c that other prominent AFs are not considering. Not now – when the MRCA’s gap filling objective is all but lost and serious alternatives are available.
The F-16 & F-18E will be in US service for quite a long time, especially the latter. The last USAF F-16 was delivered in 2005, & the F-18E will be in production for the USN for a few more years. I’d say at least 20 years before they retire the last F-16, more for the F-18E.
Support for the F-16 should be no problem even after the USAF retires it, because there are very large numbers in service. LM will want to keep making money out of that fleet, & there are other firms with the expertise to provide support & upgrades, in Europe & the USA, which will compete for business. Costs of upgrades should go up, though, as it will cease to be possible to piggy-back on upgrades for which the US military pays the development costs.
Swerve, I am afraid I did not make myself v.clear – it is not a question of support. I was thinking more in terms of the age of the design, its ability to further evolve, and probably the level of indian involvement allowed into product upgrades, marketing as well as access to technology. Btw, they expect the F-16 to be phased out by 2025 as per some internet reports.
Also, the F-16 was offered to india as an intermediate step to something bigger – the JSF. It is this aspect I think that somewhat reflects the bottom dollar approach that Aroor mentioned. “Buy these fantastic F-16s @ a bazillion bucks NOW, and then why just move up to an even more fantastic bird for another bazillion”! The IAF is bound to take this badly – if LM meant that they can start moving on to something bigger (JSF) in the short term, it comes across as quite aggressive (greedy). If it expects the IAF to buy the JSF after 25 odd years, it may come across as a bit patronizing.
Vikas:
As far as transferring the entire production line to India is concerned (thereby enabling it to make a nice profit of supplying components to somewhat smaller AFs), so far no such noises have been made afaik. I think it is this aspect of full TOT, production transfer where the Russians edge out the teens despite being a relatively older design (of course it does help that it has certain design advantages over both the 16 and the 18 as well).
USS.
Sign In
