India is in the market for New Fighters. What would you buy????
Tiger
Eruofighter Typhoon
Saab Gripen
Boeing's F-18
Lock Mart's F16
Mig's 29 & 35
Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
See Story below:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071102/bs_afp/indiausmilitaryweaponsaviationlockheedcompany;_ylt=Alt.ZIu0bUiLcqLyZWTntzkE1vAI
Lockheed Martin to meet deadline for India's war jet deal
Fri Nov 2, 12:45 PM ET
US aerospace giant Lockheed Martin on Friday said it would meet a March 2008 deadline set by India to bid for the world's largest military aircraft deal estimated at 10 billion dollars.
It is among six global armament firms in the race to sell 126 fighter jets to the Indian air force.
"We have sought no extension and plan to meet the deadline," company vice president Orville Prins told reporters in New Delhi.
The remarks came amid reports that three of the bidders have sought an extension to the March 3 deadline to submit proposals to the Indian defence establishment.
"(But) we are not seeking any changes or dilutions, but some clarifications to make our bid robust," Prins said.
India floated the global tenders in August and said six contenders were on its short list.
US manufacturer Boeing and the Russian makers of MiGs are among those who have asked for more time, officials told AFP.
Industry sources say the Russian-built MiG-35 and MiG-29 aircraft and the Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing F-18 are front-runners.
Also in the race to replace India's ageing MiG-21s are Eurofighter's Typhoon, Saab's Gripen and Dassault's Rafale and Mirage.
Eighteen of the fighters would be bought off the shelf by 2012 while the remaining 108 planes would be manufactured under licence in India.
India would also hold the option of purchasing another 64 fighters from the top bidder, Indian officials said.
New Delhi called for bids as the operational fighter fleet of the Indian air force in 2007 plunged to a low of 576 aircraft, from nearly 750 in early 2000.
The contract will be the first time India's huge defence establishment has bought fighters after evaluating rival bids through a global tender.
Under the tender, the deal would be subject to so-called "offset obligations" -- meaning a large part of the cost will have to be spent in India.
The Indian military introduced this clause into all major defence deals in the mid-1990s as a way of protecting itself from non-delivery as well as boosting its own domestic armament industry.
With US offerings seen as having a strong chance, the deal could also mark a major shift away from India's traditional dependence on Russian military hardware.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information
contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten
or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
dumbstruck
> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> Eruofighter Typhoon
> Saab Gripen
> Boeing's F-18
> Lock Mart's F16
> Mig's 29 & 35
> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
But I would expand the search box. On the more futuristic side,
consider unmanned hunter-killer drones like General Atomics MQ-9
Reaper, adding sidewinders. Using the price from Wikipedia, India
could afford 12000 of these instead of 126 of the above. Well, maybe
China or sombody could figure out how to jam UAV's.
My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
of India's vast manpower. I'm thinking of a plywood overcast: 126000
rocket/cruise-missle carrying Mosquito's. Get the DeHavilland assembly
plans from the internet, and make it's plywood from recycled scrap
wood in a thousand village workshops. For engines, Russia must have
heaps of worn out Kuznetsov turboprops used on Tupolev Bear bombers -
those awesomely fast ones with counterrotating props might be rebuilt
cheaply. Quantity has a quality of it's own, and that is India's
forte.
Rob Arndt
Easiest answer is whatever meets India's needs in the region and not
what Russia, Europe, or the US think they need...
With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
indigenous design, with a little help from their allies ;)
In the 21st century there will be 5 powers: US, United Europe, China,
Russia, and India. China and India constitute 1/3rd of the entire
world population and are growing while the US, Europe, and Russia are
declining by birthrate. The West needs to start taking these nations
seriously.
Rob
William Black
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1194256877....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
> of India's vast manpower.
With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
indigenous design, with a little help from their allies
-------------------
The Indian military has a problem with completing large projects.
They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about it,
but nothing much seems to work.
This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
ffff
> "Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1194256877....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>> My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
>> of India's vast manpower.
>
>
> With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
> indigenous design, with a little help from their allies
>
> -------------------
>
> The Indian military has a problem with completing large projects.
>
> They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about it,
> but nothing much seems to work.
>
> This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.
>
>
The US military has a problem with completing large projects.
deem...@aol.com
> William Black wrote:
Could you please try to make sense with your next post?
ffff
PetroChina 1st firm worth $1 trillion
By ELAINE KURTENBACH, AP Business Writer 2 hours, 31 minutes ago
SHANGHAI, China - PetroChina became the world's first company worth more
than $1 trillion on Monday, surging past Exxon Mobil as the Chinese oil
producer's shares nearly tripled in their first day of trading in China.
State-owned PetroChina Co., a unit of state-owned China National
Petroleum Corp., is the country's biggest oil and gas producer. Its
Shanghai initial public offering of 4 billion shares raised $8.94
billion — a record for a mainland bourse.
Adding the value of PetroChina shares traded in Shanghai, Hong Kong and
New York — and those still owned by the government — the company's total
market capitalization ballooned to just over $1 trillion, compared to
Exxon Mobil Corp.'s $488 billion.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
I would advise buying something that is in existence right now.
Musharraf is going to be looking for something to unify a country that
consists of four minorities. A nice nuke war with India would suit for
the present.
La N
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1194271873.2...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I was listening to a CBC Radio program a few weeks ago related to that
region which dealt with relations between the two countries, and the
commentator was saying that currently the region of India/Pakistan is the
most dangerous place in the world, apocalyptically speaking, and bears
close watching.
- nilita
Roger Conroy
> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> > Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> > 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > Eruofighter Typhoon
> > Saab Gripen
> > Boeing's F-18
> > Lock Mart's F16
> > Mig's 29 & 35
> > Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> > So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> > Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> > come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>
> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>
Snip fantasy............
I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
maintenance.
Tiger
On Nov 4, 5:53�pm, dumbstruck <dumbst...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10 Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig 21's. There are about 6 ?Firms/ planes up for consideration. Eruofighter Typhoon Saab Gripen Boeing's F-18 Lock Mart's F16 Mig's 29 & 35 Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
"Eighteen of the fighters would be bought off the shelf by 2012 while the remaining 108 planes would be manufactured under licence in India.
India would also hold the option of purchasing another 64 fighters from the top bidder, Indian officials said."- http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071102/bs_afp/indiausmilitaryweaponsaviationlockheedcompany;_ylt=Alt.ZIu0bUiLcqLyZWTntzkE1vAI
Tiger
On Nov. 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck <dumbst...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov. 3, 3:24 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10 Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration. Eruofighter Typhoon Saab Gripen Boeing's F-18 Lock Mart's F16 Mig's 29 & 35 Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force?? Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane come with political strings attached (like Pakistanis f-16 deal).Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offerings still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
Snip fantasy............ I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia". The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of maintenance.
William Black
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1194271873.2...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
India's too big, far too well equipped and ready for exactly that war.
Islamic extremists have been blowing up Indian cites for a couple of years
now and the Indian public, in my estimation, is about ready to see
Pakistan given a sound thrashing.
Pakistan needs someone they can beat, not someone who'll invade and make
speeches about 'reunifying mother India' and 'destroying the legacy of
colonialism' in the UN while looking smug as their tanks roll into
Islamabad.
PaPaPeng
wrote:
>Easiest answer is whatever meets India's needs in the region and not
>what Russia, Europe, or the US think they need...
It won't be a US plane. The F-16s and F-18s are somewhat dated
designs that carry a high purchase cost and bring with them too much
political baggage. Should India not meet US expectations in certain
US geopolitical goals delivery and support is held up.
>
>With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
>indigenous design, with a little help from their allies ;)
From an interview with Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew
This is the most important insight.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=79541
Q: On India, there's been a lot of hype in America, in foreign affairs
publications and so on, about India becoming the next superpower. I
was in New Delhi about three months ago -- it seems to me India's got
a long way to go.
Lee: They are a different mix, never mind their political structures.
They are not one people. You can make a speech in Delhi; [Prime
Minister] Manmohan Singh can speak in Hindi and 30, 40 percent of the
country can understand him. He makes a speech in English and maybe 30
percent of the elite understand him.
In China, when a leader speaks, 90 percent will understand him. They
all speak one language, they are one people. In India, they have got
32 official languages and in fact, 300-plus different languages. You
look at Europe, 25 languages, 27 countries, how do you? The European
Parliament? Had we not moved into one language here in Singapore, we
would not have been able to govern this country.
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> Pakistan needs someone they can beat, not someone who'll invade and make
> speeches about 'reunifying mother India' and 'destroying the legacy of
> colonialism' in the UN while looking smug as their tanks roll into
> Islamabad.
If Pakistan wants someone to shoot their neighbour Afghanistan will
keep the Army busy for a few decades.
Andrew Swallow
William Black
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:DIOdncZvEMzb-7La...@bt.com...
They won't even try.
They keep bouncing of the NWF Province, they won't go further in, they're
not that daft...
One of the 'stans' might be a possibility if the US or Russia isn't propping
them up...
Such a pity Nepal doesn't have a border with Pakistan...
Harry Andreas
> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> Eruofighter Typhoon
> Saab Gripen
> Boeing's F-18
> Lock Mart's F16
> Mig's 29 & 35
> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>
> See Story below:
>
> Lockheed Martin to meet deadline for India's war jet deal
Lockheed is trying to push a rope.
I've been saying for a couple of years now...Pakistan has F-16s
therefore India will not buy F-16s.
The Gripen would be a fine choice for the lightweight end of
India's requirement.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
Harry Andreas
Conroy <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
What on the list is newer?
Roger Conroy
> In article <1194274003.141684.38...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Roger
>
> - Show quoted text -
The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
last weeks news!
Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
envelope please...) the F16!
The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
All they can offer are aircraft that were designed before their pilots
were even born!
The only customers they get are countries that already operate older
model F16s and F18s, and can't afford anything better.
Roger Conroy
>
> - Show quoted text -
>From www.janes.com
Indian air force chief warns of reliance on imports.
The competence of the Indian defence industry has been "dulled" by
"lack of competition and a readiness to import", India's Chief of the
Air Staff has warned. Delivering the inaugural address to the 2nd
International Conference on 'Energising Indian Aerospace Industry: New
Partnerships, New Opportunities', Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major
said private defence companies "must not be merely business partners
of foreign vendors".
And a side note - Thailand's purchase of 12 Grippen's is to go ahead
after the US State Department cleared export of US made components to
Tailand.
deem...@aol.com
Why is that a fundamental problem?
Dan
They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
adequate multi-role defense aircraft.
Dan
Harry Andreas
Conroy <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
> last weeks news!
I think you don't have the faintest clue as to the extent of the F/A-18
redesign, and the aerodynamic and structural changes that went
into it. By the way, basic airframing is not that big a deal. Stealth
aspects aside, most airframes are pretty similar design.
It is actually the so-called bells and whistles that are the discriminators
in selling the aircraft.
> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
> envelope please...) the F16!
> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
> All they can offer are aircraft that were designed before their pilots
> were even born!
> The only customers they get are countries that already operate older
> model F16s and F18s, and can't afford anything better.
Like Korea, Singapore, Australia, etc
Harry Andreas
> >> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
> >> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
> >> last weeks news!
> >> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
> >> envelope please...) the F16!
> >> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
> >> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
> >> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
> >
> > Why is that a fundamental problem?
>
> They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
> needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
> adequate multi-role defense aircraft.
So you actually think someone is going to sit down and design from scratch
a brand-new second-rate fighter?
With so many existing designs on the market to choose from, why would
they do that and who would they sell it to?
If you're going to the trouble and vast expense to design a new a/c, it better
compete with the very best or you will have no market. Otherwise your new a/c
will cost more than existing designs (F-16, Rafale, etc) and be no better.
Benjamin Gawert
> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> Eruofighter Typhoon
Very capable aircraft (probably the most capable and most advanced
aircraft on the list) but also very expensive.
> Saab Gripen
Probably the best buy for Inda. Modern multirole-capable aircraft at a
competitive price, and Sweden probably hasn't much interest of forcing
their politics to India.
> Boeing's F-18
> Lock Mart's F16
Decades old designs that also come with the price of being fully
dependent on US politics. Probably the least India wants.
And even if being dependent on US politics isn't a problem opting for
the F-35 and leasing some other aircrafts for the interim time probably
is the better option.
> Mig's 29 & 35
The MiG29 is old design, too (and the MiG-35 is just an upgraded version
of the MiG-29), and with a questionable reliability, and of course with
the price of being dependent on Russian politics. Probably the second
least thing India wants (after being dependent on the US).
> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
The Mirage is also an old design and outdated (will soon be or is
already retiring in most airforces that fly them). If India wants cheap
fighters they also can buy the retired Tornado IDS from the GAF and the
Tornado ADV from the RAF which both are still technically much more
advanced than the Mirage, especially with ASTA2 avionics and AESA radar.
The Rafale might be a good choice but French politics is often somewhat
scary.
> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
Based on the (sparse) information that are floating around I'd opt for
the Gripen.
Benjamin
Dan
Sure, if the stupid marketing department gets off their collective asses
and shows management the market that obviously exists.
> With so many existing designs on the market to choose from, why would
> they do that and who would they sell it to?
So, you are saying US engineers are bottom of the barrel?
> If you're going to the trouble and vast expense to design a new a/c, it better
> compete with the very best or you will have no market. Otherwise your new a/c
> will cost more than existing designs (F-16, Rafale, etc) and be no better.
>
Well, hardly. The advances I would expect to see in the aircraft I
envision involve serviceability and ruggedness, and decent and efficient
engines. In reality, the top end electronics drive up the cost, but
against the enemy most countries would ever face, the Mk I eyeball and a
good ground attack capability are far more desirable. No need for the
latest avionics, composites, over-water capability, or stealth, which
are huge price drivers. If one cannot afford to run the aircraft and
train pilots, it is just a nice-looking dust collector.
Older aircraft have some decent features (mature technology, no
surprises) but tend to be maintenance nightmares. They also have a hard
time fitting newer, more efficient engines. Not to say that some older
airframes cannot be reengineered - I'm sure the F5 plan could be dusted
off for some of the smaller countries.
The problem, of course, is political. As in the days of sail, fighters
are a showcase for the regime more than an actual tool of diplomacy/war.
Dan
guy
Remember - BAE Systems owns something like 30% of Saab (well ,they did
the last time I looked)
So the BAE Systems fighter line up is Typhoon-Gripen-Hawk in order of
capability
Guy
Harry Andreas
That's the thing I was trying to point out...there is no market for a new,
second-rate fighter.
> > With so many existing designs on the market to choose from, why would
> > they do that and who would they sell it to?
>
> So, you are saying US engineers are bottom of the barrel?
No, you said that. I say the US engineers and marketing guys are too smart
to design something that no one will buy.
> > If you're going to the trouble and vast expense to design a new a/c,
it better
> > compete with the very best or you will have no market. Otherwise your
new a/c
> > will cost more than existing designs (F-16, Rafale, etc) and be no better.
> >
> Well, hardly. The advances I would expect to see in the aircraft I
> envision involve serviceability and ruggedness, and decent and efficient
> engines. In reality, the top end electronics drive up the cost, but
> against the enemy most countries would ever face, the Mk I eyeball and a
> good ground attack capability are far more desirable. No need for the
> latest avionics, composites, over-water capability, or stealth, which
> are huge price drivers. If one cannot afford to run the aircraft and
> train pilots, it is just a nice-looking dust collector.
See, that the thing about actually being in the industry, you realize
that the latest and greatest avionics are far more reliable and maintainable
than older versions, as well as being more capable. But a dilettante wouldn't
know that, and therefore think that there's no need for the latest avionics
while at the same time decrying serviceability and ruggedness.
BTW, composites have better reliability and ruggedness than metal.
BTW2, India has stated explicitly that they want an AESA radar in whatever
they buy. Apparently they don't share your philosophy.
> Older aircraft have some decent features (mature technology, no
> surprises) but tend to be maintenance nightmares. They also have a hard
> time fitting newer, more efficient engines. Not to say that some older
> airframes cannot be reengineered - I'm sure the F5 plan could be dusted
> off for some of the smaller countries.
Of course, I was speaking of new builds of existing designs, not a hand-me-down
airframe.
Speaking of the F-5 (F-20 actually), it pretty much fits in with what you've
proposed. How well did it sell? What was the market?
Benjamin Gawert
> Remember - BAE Systems owns something like 30% of Saab (well ,they did
> the last time I looked)
Right, but then regarding the size of BAE it gets difficult to find
anything where they don't participate in any way ;-)
> So the BAE Systems fighter line up is Typhoon-Gripen-Hawk in order of
> capability
Well, even with BAE having some stakes in Saab the Gripen isn't really a
BAE asset.
Benjamin
Dan
Latest, yes. Greatest, not at all necessary.
However, AS I POINTED OUT, fighter purchases are not about necessity,
but about appearances and politics.
> But a dilettante wouldn't
> know that, and therefore think that there's no need for the latest avionics
> while at the same time decrying serviceability and ruggedness.
Spoken like a true believer. So, how is that BetaMax you have doing...
> BTW, composites have better reliability and ruggedness than metal.
At SUBSTANTIALLY increased costs: purchase, maintenance, and lifetime.
> BTW2, India has stated explicitly that they want an AESA radar in whatever
> they buy. Apparently they don't share your philosophy.
Politics (as I pointed out).
>> Older aircraft have some decent features (mature technology, no
>> surprises) but tend to be maintenance nightmares. They also have a hard
>> time fitting newer, more efficient engines. Not to say that some older
>> airframes cannot be reengineered - I'm sure the F5 plan could be dusted
>> off for some of the smaller countries.
>
> Of course, I was speaking of new builds of existing designs, not a hand-me-down
> airframe.
Good.
> Speaking of the F-5 (F-20 actually), it pretty much fits in with what you've
> proposed. How well did it sell? What was the market?
Again, politics. Far better fit for most countries, but they couldn't
get the political backing of the US government OR their target market.
Hey, it's a tough business, and people want to make money, but staying
behind the times is hardly helping the US producers now... They'll have
a small market for their VERY expensive planes, but not much more, as
anyone who could afford them can develop their own.
Dan
deem...@aol.com
They're probably counting on selling lots of F-35s.
Tiger
>Of course, I was speaking of new builds of existing designs, not a hand-me-down
>airframe.
>Speaking of the F-5 (F-20 actually), it pretty much fits in with what you've
>proposed. How well did it sell? What was the market?
>
Hmmm, speaking of the F-5 /F-20 And air frames.... I noticed The
Pakistiani/Chinese JF-17 jet & the New Iranian built fighter seem to
have design elements the basic f-5/f-20 design. So now the export
customers are building their own reverse engineered versions to fill the
void it could have sold to.
Tiger
>
> "However, AS I POINTED OUT, fighter purchases are not about necessity,
> but about appearances and politics."
Actually There is a need. Many Powers with 3rd Generation planes Like
the F4, Jaguar, Mig 21& 23's Are really at he end of there service life.
I was surprised to see Japan & Greece still Phantoms in 2008. The large
purchase by India fullfills such a long term supply need.
Tiger
Well at least Benjamin your on topic. :-)
I think you conclusions are good ones. However I think the desire to
possibly domestically build part of the order makes Boeing & Lockmart
non starters. Too many would whine about the technology transfer & our
own Congressional politics. While I'm a huge Saab fan, (if i win the
lottery I'd buy a Grippen as a toy), I think the Raffale has merit.
India's navy is looking to replace it's Sea Harrier equiped force with a
ex Russian Carrier & one domestically built to replace it's ex Hms
hermes ship. Being Navalized already, I think they could push it's
ability to serve both needs.
Mr.Smartypants
> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> > 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > Eruofighter Typhoon
> > Boeing's F-18
> > Lock Mart's F16
>
> > come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>
> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>
> consider unmanned hunter-killer drones like General Atomics MQ-9
> Reaper, adding sidewinders. Using the price from Wikipedia, India
> could afford 12000 of these instead of 126 of the above. Well, maybe
> China or sombody could figure out how to jam UAV's.
>
> My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
> of India's vast manpower.
Blimps. They should build a million blimps.
Harry Andreas
You keep ascribing to me things I haven't said or done. Since most people
write based on their own personal experiences, I have to assume that you
had a Betamax. I never did. Not really into toys.
> > BTW, composites have better reliability and ruggedness than metal.
>
> At SUBSTANTIALLY increased costs: purchase, maintenance, and lifetime.
Not hardly. If you're building onesey-twoseys that's true, but in a production
run composites can be much cheaper than riveted aluminum.
And lower maintenance too.
> > BTW2, India has stated explicitly that they want an AESA radar in whatever
> > they buy. Apparently they don't share your philosophy.
>
> Politics (as I pointed out).
Or maybe their pilots and engineers know something about radar capabilities
that you don't. In case you haven't noticed it, every air force in the world is
going to AESA radar, and you almost can't even sell a pointy-nosed a/c these
days without an AESA. Are they ALL wrong, or is it you?
> >> Older aircraft have some decent features (mature technology, no
> >> surprises) but tend to be maintenance nightmares. They also have a hard
> >> time fitting newer, more efficient engines. Not to say that some older
> >> airframes cannot be reengineered - I'm sure the F5 plan could be dusted
> >> off for some of the smaller countries.
> >
> > Of course, I was speaking of new builds of existing designs, not a
hand-me-down
> > airframe.
>
> Good.
>
> > Speaking of the F-5 (F-20 actually), it pretty much fits in with what you've
> > proposed. How well did it sell? What was the market?
>
> Again, politics. Far better fit for most countries, but they couldn't
> get the political backing of the US government OR their target market.
>
> Hey, it's a tough business, and people want to make money, but staying
> behind the times is hardly helping the US producers now... They'll have
> a small market for their VERY expensive planes, but not much more, as
> anyone who could afford them can develop their own.
There's a slew of aircraft producers out there (Embraer, Marchetti, Pilatus
etc) but where are the designs you speak of? Those are all good
businessmen running those companies. If the market was there I'm sure
they'd move on it.
guy
BAE market the Gripen for SAAB either outside Scandinavia or Europe,
not sure which
Guy
Benjamin Gawert
> Well at least Benjamin your on topic. :-)
Well, I just tried to evaluate the situation based on the sparse few
facts that I have (i.e. I left out naval useage completely).
> I think you conclusions are good ones.
Thanks.
> However I think the desire to
> possibly domestically build part of the order makes Boeing & Lockmart
> non starters. Too many would whine about the technology transfer & our
> own Congressional politics.
Yes, the US indeed is probably over-cautious when it comes to sharing
technology. On the other side companies like EADS basically give their
technology away just too easy when there only is a chance that the deal
increases their stock value. To decide what technology to give away and
what not isn't easy. If you give away too much you waste a big advantage
over your competitors, if you give away too few you might miss out great
deals and in the end the competition develops the same or similar
technology by themselves.
> While I'm a huge Saab fan, (if i win the
> lottery I'd buy a Grippen as a toy)
Well, as a Tornado die-hard I'd buy one of the retired German Tornado
IDS aircrafts and have it retrofitted with the MK.105 engines if I'd win
the lottery - which of course would require that I at least participate ;-)
> , I think the Raffale has merit.
The Rafale is indeed a great aircraft and probably better than the
Gripen. However, it's also more expensive.
> India's navy is looking to replace it's Sea Harrier equiped force with a
> ex Russian Carrier & one domestically built to replace it's ex Hms
> hermes ship. Being Navalized already, I think they could push it's
> ability to serve both needs.
Right, but like the US the French also aren't eager to give away
technology. So even if India opts for the Rafale, the deciding question
is if France is willing to offer technology for a Rafale export
contract. Personally I doubt they will.
Benjamin
Benjamin Gawert
> BAE market the Gripen for SAAB either outside Scandinavia or Europe,
> not sure which
Not any more. BAE which didn't had a single engine fighter (only Hawk
which basically is a trainer on the lower end and Typhoon and Tornado on
the upper end) did market the Gripen outside Sweden until 2005. Since
then the Gripen responsibility returned to Saab.
Benjamin
dumbstruck
> the Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing F-18 are front-runners.
>
> Also in the race to replace India's ageing MiG-21s are Eurofighter's
> Typhoon, Saab's Gripen and Dassault's Rafale and Mirage.
OK, it's a tie. Industry sources voted for the "proven" legacy
fighters from the first line, and internet voters favored the mostly
newfangled ones from second line. It's left to me to break the tie,
and I say to leapfrog a generation and go UCAV.
If "unmanned combat air vehicle" sounds too bleeding-edge, then go for
the MiG Skat which retains the option of a cockpit
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MIG082307.xml&headline=First%20Look%20At%20MiG%20Skat%20UCAV%20%5BUpdated%5D&channel=null
If mainstream is desired (something that should be sort of a cousin to
Saab Gripen) go for the Dassault nEUROn http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/neuron/
But best of all may be the EADS Barracuda, which apparently doesn't
work due to software problems. India's strength in that area might
bring it back to life and furthermore conquer the problem of making a
drone effective in interception as well as strike or spy mode.
http://www.air-attack.com/page/75/Barracuda.html
Benjamin Gawert
> OK, it's a tie. Industry sources voted for the "proven" legacy
> fighters from the first line, and internet voters favored the mostly
> newfangled ones from second line. It's left to me to break the tie,
> and I say to leapfrog a generation and go UCAV.
UCAV still can't fully replace manned aircrafts.
> If "unmanned combat air vehicle" sounds too bleeding-edge, then go
> for the MiG Skat which retains the option of a cockpit
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MIG082307.xml&headline=First%20Look%20At%20MiG%20Skat%20UCAV%20%5BUpdated%5D&channel=null
Settling on a project that even doesn't have reached the stage of a
flying prototype probably isn't a good idea.
Besides the fact that this means being fully dependent on Russian politics.
> If mainstream is desired (something that should be sort of a cousin
> to Saab Gripen) go for the Dassault nEUROn
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/neuron/
Did you even *read* the text?
"Neuron is the European Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator
for the development, integration and validation of UCAV technologies and
is not for military operational deployment."
> But best of all may be the EADS Barracuda, which apparently doesn't
> work due to software problems.
Nope. EADS Barracuda doesn't work because they sunk the thing into the
Sea. Barracuda llike Neuron also was a demonstrator and not a finished
product ready for prime time. The next EADS UCAV demonstrator project is
already in the planning stage but will be a multinational project with
France and Italy. If this project doesn't get dropped it will probably
take 5+ years until we see some results and probably a decade until
production.
Then it's probably better to wait for results from the BAE Taranis UCAV
program.
> India's strength in that area might
> bring it back to life and furthermore conquer the problem of making a
> drone effective in interception as well as strike or spy mode.
> http://www.air-attack.com/page/75/Barracuda.html
This won't happen for obvious reasons.
Benjamin
dumbstruck
> * dumbstruck:
>
> > OK, it's a tie. Industry sources voted for the "proven" legacy
> > fighters from the first line, and internet voters favored the mostly
> > newfangled ones from second line. It's left to me to break the tie,
> > and I say to leapfrog a generation and go UCAV.
>
> UCAV still can't fully replace manned aircrafts.
>
> > If "unmanned combat air vehicle" sounds too bleeding-edge, then go
> > for the MiG Skat which retains the option of a cockpit
>
> Settling on a project that even doesn't have reached the stage of a
> flying prototype probably isn't a good idea.
>
> Besides the fact that this means being fully dependent on Russian politics.
You are still in denial of the original article, which was the serious
part of my post. Maybe you are right or maybe wrong. However, how
about some engagement on why your pronouncements of good vs less good
candidates were the EXACT REVERSE of the sources in article?!
I have a minor anecdote about the India/Russia engagement. Long ago we
had hosts in India who seemed euphoric to be taken off of "Russian
duty" (escorting/schmoozing); they seemed to honestly think that
Russian culture as epitomized by (MiG?) visitors was less bearable by
Indians than visitors of other western cultures. They had little
reason to flatter us, and anyway both of us had taken the trouble to
learn the Russian languange. By their particular complaints about
visiting wives, I would guess the Swedish and thus SAAB might have an
edge :) . And happiness of bureacracy can trump Indian national
interests; they appear ready to give up the US nuclear deal in order
to preserve a few months of perks according to
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10026472
But I wouldn't stick my neck out to say Russia was out. You HAVE, in
spite of the article calling it a frontrunner. Has Russia yanked India
around... during it's long history with MiG so far?
> > If mainstream is desired (something that should be sort of a cousin
> > to Saab Gripen) go for the Dassault nEUROn
> >http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/neuron/
>
> Did you even *read* the text?
>
> "Neuron is the European Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator
> for the development, integration and validation of UCAV technologies and
> is not for military operational deployment."
Why be so harshly literal? There are many examples of rapid
advancement from a demonstrator to something productive when
motivated. Think WW2 or Pakistan as a motivator. Think of P-80 being
developed in 90 days. Think of the Indian telephone system leaping
from 1930's era landline to 21st century cell phones overnight. And
don't be so tone deaf to slight tongue in cheek - the original post in
this thread sat idle for almost 2 days until I provoked it a bit (and
fixed a typo in the distribution options).
> > But best of all may be the EADS Barracuda, which apparently doesn't
> > work due to software problems.
>
> Nope. EADS Barracuda doesn't work because they sunk the thing into the
> Sea.
BECAUSE OF SOFTWARE PROBLEMS! Indians have a proven track record for
excellance in software, and might more than "fix" bugs but in time
bring things to unexpected heights of capability.
''The first Barracuda demonstrator had been planned for use as a major
trials asset in the Agile programme, but was lost on its second test
flight in September 2006 because of software errors.
The proposed Barracuda II would be identical to the first
demonstrator, says Dr Peter Becher, vice-president autonomous airborne
systems for EADS Defence & Security. "We will rebuild. It will be the
same configuration as the Barracuda I," he says''
Rob Arndt
> In article <UI%Xi.28$zj4...@newsfe02.lga>, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
We could always sell them this:
http://www.ginklai.net/images/galerija/1039_f15_active.jpg
Rob ;)~
Benjamin Gawert
> You are still in denial of the original article,
You mean the article linked by the OP?
> which was the serious
> part of my post. Maybe you are right or maybe wrong. However, how
> about some engagement on why your pronouncements of good vs less good
> candidates were the EXACT REVERSE of the sources in article?!
I don't know and honestly I also don't really care. Yahoo News isn't
known to be always right, and the article sound very much like a press
release from LMCO. As to the statements that are contrary to mine: well,
I don't know Yahoo's nameless "industry sources", but after almost two
decades working in the fighter business I take freedom to draw my own
conclusions instead of relying on some news articles.
> I have a minor anecdote about the India/Russia engagement. Long ago we
> had hosts in India who seemed euphoric to be taken off of "Russian
> duty" (escorting/schmoozing); they seemed to honestly think that
> Russian culture as epitomized by (MiG?) visitors was less bearable by
> Indians than visitors of other western cultures.
Sounds familiar to me ;-)
> They had little
> reason to flatter us, and anyway both of us had taken the trouble to
> learn the Russian languange. By their particular complaints about
> visiting wives, I would guess the Swedish and thus SAAB might have an
> edge :) . And happiness of bureacracy can trump Indian national
> interests; they appear ready to give up the US nuclear deal in order
> to preserve a few months of perks according to
> http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10026472
Don't underestimate political independence from "superpowers" like
Russia and the US.
> But I wouldn't stick my neck out to say Russia was out. You HAVE, in
> spite of the article calling it a frontrunner. Has Russia yanked India
> around... during it's long history with MiG so far?
Well, times changed a bit since India bought their MiG-21s from Russia.
India isn't the 3rd world like country it has been regarded then
anymore. There is money, and there is increasing activity in the high
tech market. India now can afford to stay independent of Russia, and it
very likely will think twice if it replaces Russian dependency with US
dependency.
>>> If mainstream is desired (something that should be sort of a cousin
>>> to Saab Gripen) go for the Dassault nEUROn
>>> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/neuron/
>> Did you even *read* the text?
>>
>> "Neuron is the European Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator
>> for the development, integration and validation of UCAV technologies and
>> is not for military operational deployment."
>
> Why be so harshly literal?
Simply because it's a fact. Neuron is just a demonstrator and nothing
else. Results out of the Neuron program will probably lead to a
sales-ready product some time. Neuron definitely will never be a
sales-ready product.
> There are many examples of rapid
> advancement from a demonstrator to something productive when
> motivated. Think WW2 or Pakistan as a motivator. Think of P-80 being
> developed in 90 days. Think of the Indian telephone system leaping
> from 1930's era landline to 21st century cell phones overnight.
I prefer to think about how development cycles for military equipment
are working today and stay with the facts, thanks.
>>> But best of all may be the EADS Barracuda, which apparently doesn't
>>> work due to software problems.
>> Nope. EADS Barracuda doesn't work because they sunk the thing into the
>> Sea.
>
> BECAUSE OF SOFTWARE PROBLEMS!
Nope. Software was only one part of the problem.
> Indians have a proven track record for
> excellance in software, and might more than "fix" bugs but in time
> bring things to unexpected heights of capability.
Yeah, right. If they can fix a bug in some VisualBasic program than they
can easily fix software problems in a UAV demonstrator aircraft ;-)
Hint: it requires much more than just "excellance in software" to get
mission-critical flight operation software ready for prime time.
Besides the fact that there is much more to fix than software, and even
if it gets fixed India would end up with a UAV demonstrator aircraft
that still isn't useable as a combat-ready system.
> sez http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/2786/EADS-to-give-nod-for-replacement-Barracuda-UCAV.html
> :
>
> ''The first Barracuda demonstrator had been planned for use as a major
> trials asset in the Agile programme, but was lost on its second test
> flight in September 2006 because of software errors.
>
> The proposed Barracuda II would be identical to the first
> demonstrator, says Dr Peter Becher, vice-president autonomous airborne
> systems for EADS Defence & Security. "We will rebuild. It will be the
> same configuration as the Barracuda I," he says''
As I said I don't care what some articles say. But I know that it is
very unlikely that the Barracuda program will be revived any more,
especially with the very limited foundings not only of EADS but also of
the GAF, and also because another totally different multinational UAV
demonstrator program is in the works already.
Benjamin
dumbstruck
> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
Some more looming deals, sez http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7091951.stm
"India and Russia have agreed to boost economic and military ties at
the end of Indian PM Manmohan Singh's two-day visit to Russia.
The two sides signed agreements to jointly develop a military
transport aircraft and mount a join mission to the moon, among other
things."