Why not expand it to whatever you or your allies have built? IMO, that would give a bit more flexibility, otherwise we’ll end up with a lot of force lists that look remarkably like what’s been used.

Oh no this thread has potential flame war written all over it!

IBTL :diablo:

“As for Typhoon, blech. Just don’t like it. For the attack role it seems too limited to me….”

You have to realise that Typhoon has just pretty much came into service, can’t expect it, or any other fighter for that matter to have all the bells & whistles and some more bits & bobs just for good measure fresh from the factory ready for the off…All these things take time and a hell of a lot of skill & patience to get sorted out. Give it a chance & some time and it’ll be a hell of an aircraft.

But thats your opinion of course and I respect that. 🙂

It’s been in development for how many years? About the same as Rafale, yet Rafale is quite a bit more capable when it comes to multimission ability. I’m sure that someday Typhoon will have all the bells and whistles, but until then it won’t and is hobbled in what it can do; things other airframes do as a matter of routine.

Really, the US has far fewer string than many believe. Remember, Europe (including France) have very similar policies and restriction. Also, the Rafale is not nearly as mature and will very likely cost more than the American Competitiors. With that just being the tip of the iceberg……….IMO

So, the Rafale would likely have better odds than the Russians at this point. Yet, less than the US……..

I think that in addition to maturity level, the Indians are going to look at something that to me is more important at this stage of the game, growth potential. The Viper has been pushed pretty much to the limit of what the airframe can hold so what are the realistic upgrade/expansion options for the plane? The F-18E has a couple strikes against it when compared to the competitors; a design that causes it to burn more fuel than it should per mile covered (the stupid pylons) and it lacks an IRST unless you want to put one in the centerline tank.

My money is on Rafale for India. There’s an established working relationship between the IAF and France/Dassault, the M2k has proven itself in service, and the aircraft has good range, good electronics, and is at a stage of its development where it hasn’t been pushed to the limits.

As for Typhoon, blech. Just don’t like it. For the attack role it seems too limited to me; you have to make more compromises to get a similar capability to Rafale than any of the other aircraft mentioned.

All of this is IMO.

Unless we see a drastic improvement in the Pakistan / Afghanistan Situation. I would consider that extremely unlikely………

Remember, President Elect Obama has been very critical of Pakistan……..The US now see a strong Strategic relationship with India as its primary goal in the coming years.

This is what the tea leaves are telling me, too. Pakistan has weeks to a couple months to show noticeable improvement that it’s cleaning up it’s own house before the new administration starts to consider moving them to the “them” column. They were helpful in 2001 and shortly thereafter, but since then it seems like more and more problems are originating inside their borders than they’re solving.

All IMO.

I suspect you might have noticed the tiny bit of economic doom and gloom sweeping the world. In the next few years, the biggest concern for yards around the world would be how to get enough orders to keep their expensive docks occupied. You would need to be a real optimist if you think many yards are going to have problems with excess demand.

It is widely suspected that the timing of the carrier orders has more to do with the current world economic climate then any actual operational need.

By placing large naval orders, not only would China be massively boosting the combat capabilities of its navy, but will also help boost the national economy and keeping thousands of highly skilled jobs safe, so that the shipbuilding industry does not suffer too much lasting harm, and can emerge comparatively stronger then competitors who were forced to shed jobs and cut capacity.

Are all the orders that are booked suddenly being canceled? And what happens if the economy perks up in a year?

In this day and age of computer based designs and far more accurate modeling and testing methods, you would need to do something special to allow a crippling flaw to go unnoticed until the actual ship has been built. Thats just the realities of the modern shipbuilding industry. Thus, ruling out such a spectacular screw up, any design flaws would be more of an annoyance instead of major hinderance, and any crew should expect such things as part of their lot. Again, thats just the realities of the world.

Nothing is perfect. The French had to redesign CdG to handle the E-2 and they’ve had experience in building carriers, operating carrier aircraft, and had the cooperation of the country supplying the aircraft to help them.

I’m not dismissing computer design, but it’s only as good as the programmers and their experience. 787 looked perfect on the screen, but in reality they’re finding glitches here and there. And I’d suspect a carrier is far more complex than an airliner, and if a company like Boeing can make mistakes, it’s well within the realm of believeablity that a country with zero experience building warships of that size and design will produce something with issues. They may not be show stoppers, but they’ll be there.

What more, if you have not noticed, I posted early that there is no reason for the PLAN to built two identical carriers.

Even if they did build two twins, and a flaw is found, that would give then the option of keeping one ship in drydock and correcting the problem while the other ship is commissioned and put into service. Thats like added insurance that they will have at least one new carrier ready for operations no matter what.

So lets spend all this money on building two unproven designs with yards that have never built something like it before and then spend more money, time, and resources fixing it…twice. That sounds like something mandated by Congress, not logic.

If they just built one ship, then the PLAN high command would face a hard choice of either sending the ship back to be fixed and not have a new carriers as was planned, or to just use the flawed ship as it has until a major re-fit many many years down the line.

If they built one ship, they’d learn their trade and isolate the mistakes. The USN didn’t go from USS Langly to USS Essex simultaneously, it took decades of experience to get to that stage.

I’m not saying they can’t do it, just that I’m think that by doing it this way that they’re going to get two ships that are going to be more than yard queens for the first few years of their waterborne lives.