Slashdot Mirror
India Turns Down American Fighter Jets, Buys From France
An anonymous reader writes "While America had offered the F-16, F-18 and now the stealth F-35 fighter, India picked for its new multi-role attack jet a low cost, older French plane. Why? For one, it's cheaper, and two, if American/Indian relations go bad, can they get the parts and equipment to keep the planes in the air? It seems prudence beat out the latest in technology."
someone in the india ministry of defense should google "french military victories"
Just ask the Argentinians how that turned out. French weapons are worthless.
I guess the brass in India really liked France's drapeau blanc auto-recall originally conceived in early September of 1939.
I would think it would be a matter of national pride. They certainly have enough technical resources.
Look, the Rafale is hardly a 2nd rate fighter jet. Older? Yes, than the F-35 maybe. But on the other hand, the Rafale is already in operation and is a known cost vs. the F-35 which is not even ready to go yet. ... ahem ... Canada.
It seems some cool heads prevailed in this case, unlike other nut job countries like
Even Australia seems to have made a better choice in snagging the Super Hornet instead
FTA: "Indian law requires the government to negotiate a contract with the lowest bidder." That would seem to be the end of it.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
India is buying weapons to counter an ever increasing Chinese & Pakistani threats across its borders. However, this particular deal was stupid . Although, the link below is not the best source of news, it provides some insight as to what happened with this deal. http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-why-iaf-does-not-need-either-eurofighter-or-rafale/20111111.htm [warning - slide-show] Most of the issues regarding this deal exist mainly because Indian govt did not want to wait for the US to complete testing on their latest F35s and wanted some order fast event though the F-35s are much better than the Dassault aircraft. I think this was mostly due to politics given that elections are around the corner next year.
It actually makes sense, if you're a nation where manpower is cheap-- a larger number of lower-awesomeness but cheaper jets may beat a smaller number of higher-awesomeness expensive jets. And they're not likely to be fighting the US-- they primarily need fighters that can beat Pakistan.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The threat to india is men on foot or motorbikes with rifles and explosives in their backpacks. Fighter aircraft aren't very useful to counter that kind of an opponent.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
US planes like this are very expensive from the US.
Back in the 1950's, Canada tried to develop its own plane called "The Arrow". Apparently, the program was squashed in parliament by the CIA paying off key representatives. This sort of technology costs billions and takes years to develop as well as keeping an industrial infrastructure in place to keep it going.
Isreal developed its "Lion" prototype, but the US offered to give Isreal US's top of the line state of the art planes to keep them from pursuing that line.
Maybe over the course of several decades, other countries would develop sufficiently advanced air breathing technology and then where would the US be.
If they didn't want to wait on the Americans to finish up the F35s, why didn't they just go talk to the Russians for some surplus MiGs? Proven design, and they work.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
The F16 is a "4th generation" fighter, whereas the Rafale is a "near 5th generation" fighter. Yes, it's cheaper, and also newer than the F16. Unfortunately, past US behavior has shown its willingness to use military supplies to arm-twist countries, and this unfortunately damages US credibility as a supplier. No sense buying jets you can't use because someone is witholding vital spares. Meanwhile, India is buying the C-17 Globemaster from the US for airlift capabilities.
What if French/Indian relationship goes bad? How's that different? :)
How in hell is this on /. frontpage? Or on the site even? Will the editors cover every weapon sale from now on? Is this because it's a disappointment for the US of A? Because it involves the french?
Because the editors are drunk?
India needed a cost effective Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft. This procurement was a six year process. Probably the most transparent defence acquisition program in the world, ever.
Initial participants were Saab Gripen(Sweden), Mig 35(Russian), F16, FA18(US) Eurofighter(EU) and Rafale(French). F35 JSF was never part of it, and India doesn't need it right now (Hell! Even US doesn't 'need' it). It was offered for future discussions, to sweeten the deal in favor of Boeing and Lockheed.
Out of the 6 participants,
Gripen was too small, Gripen doesnt fit in because India's Indigenous LCA already matches capability.
Mig 35 was participant only because Russians have been friends always.
F16 and FA18 are probably the oldest models.Yes they have been enhanced, but without the AESA RADAR (US govt said No to giving it), they are useless to Indian requirements. They were expensive, did not match up to the RFP requirements. F16 is with Pakistan, there is no way in Hell India will base the future or Airforce on such an aircraft. FA18 was a good contender, but for its price without the AESA useless.
Typhoon and Rafale were the most practical choices. Technically typhoon would have been a nose length ahead. But it was too expensive and could probably not explain the logistics and speed at which it is manufactured.
And hence, Rafale was the right choice.
Might piss off the americans def contractors, but they have been given other deals like the C130J, C17 and others. There is enough for everyone in India defence market. And it will get better over next decade.theya retrying to achieve capabilities in years, that others have gained in decades.
Or possibly someone doesn't know their history.
There exists a myth in Indian history that they went to war against Pakistan in 1965 with inferior non-American air fighters. India rather thoroughly beat Pakistan. It would make very good sense today that India feels it doesn't needs a cutting edge air force.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
The U.S. is also willing to invest heavily in upgrading old avionics, making what "generation" it is in to be relatively irrelevant. For example, look at the operational history of the B-52.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
And let the fun begin! Why buy FIGHTERS if you ain't gonna fight, hm?
Missiles > Planes.
Buying better missiles makes better planes obsolete.
The American entries were never contenders, the F-35 is still in development, the F-15 and F-18 quite old and the F-22 is not offered for export, all have been out of consideration for over a year, this was always Dassault Rafale vs Eurofighter Typhoon. Personally, I have no idea why they didn't buy more Su-30s, as they already have 100 of them, meaning there is no shortage of parts and expertise and to my knowledge are just as capable as the Rafale.
In the end, the Indian government liked the Typhoon best, but Rafale gave a far lower bid. This is probably because it's Rafale's first export order and will mean that Dassault can stay in business.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Remember America if France hand't saved your butts in the revolutionary war you would all be speaking english right now.
Why buy expensive F35's when they'll be obsolete in 10-15 years compared to drones. Drones can pull more Gs, and sustain more Gs, loiter longer (no need to pee or eat), and take risks that a human might balk at. Imagine a fleet of say 100 really cheap drones with 4 or 5 expensive armed ones mixed in, the cheap drones have the same radar signature and thermal profile as the expensive ones. What do you do now? You can't shoot them all down without using missiles that probably cost more than the cheap drones. You can't use guns because maneuvering into a firing position means one of the expensive drones will fly up behind you and shoot you down. If anyone can think of a good way to deal with hundreds of cheap drones that have a few expensive killer drones mixed I'm sure the US military would love to hear form you (and the answer: more and cheaper air to air missiles is a possibility, but then the drones you're going up against will probably have them too...).
While America had offered the F-16, F-18 and now the stealth F-35 fighter ...
The F-35 was never offered for this contest .. it wouldn't even be eligible. Only aircraft that were already in production and could start deliveries by 2013 were allowed. The other American aircraft were eliminated in the first round ... The Indian Air Force liked the F/A-18's AESA radar so much that it was made a mandatory requirement for the other contestants too. However, in size the Hornet is just too big for the role the IAF was looking to fit it into. The F-16 never had a chance since Pakistan is a major operator of the type.
... a low cost, older French plane. Why? For one, it's cheaper ...
Cost is not that significant a factor ... like I mentioned earlier, the tenders were unsealed only after the aircraft that didn't meet the performance parameters were eliminated. By law, the IAF has to choose the lowest-cost successful bidder.
Both the Rafale and Eurofighter are more expensive than the Hornet or Falcon (and significantly more so than the Gripen). If the Hornet or Gripen had gotten to the second round, they'd probably be the winner of the contest.
... if American/Indian relations go bad, can they get the parts and equipment to keep the planes in the air?
That's one of the criteria where the American aircraft failed. India's defence policy requires multiple vendors from different countries of origin to minimise the control that can be exerted. (Which is why the IAF flies such a plethora of types). After the Indian nuclear tests in 1996, US sanctions meant that most Western-built designs in IAF service were affected due to a lack of spare parts (Sea King helicopters, F404 engines for the Tejas fighter etc.).
My understanding also is that IAF is currently using Mirage for this, so there's already well established relation (and therefore logistics etc) with Dassault.
A week ago, piles of them. Today nothing.
It's unclear why /. is trying to make this into some kind of referendum on American weapons or Indian-American relations.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Why have fighter jets at all? Is it still worth buying expensive war machines with the asymmetric threats larger nations face now days?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
The F16 is a "4th generation" fighter, whereas the Rafale is a "near 5th generation" fighter.
The generation of the fighter is irrelevant if it lights up brighter than a christmas tree on radar.
The dassault rafale has the advantages of being more flexible in its roles, easier and less costly to maintain and has more
modular parts.
I am surprised they are buying a plane with a pilot.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
France routinely engages in arms embargoes, no less then the US.
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot.
India didn't turn down American jets. They turned down the Eurofighter Typhoon, which isn't US related at all, in favor of the Dassault Rafale.
Unmodding...
There is also nothing to prevent a kill switch being planted in the software. With the right radar or other signal the radar and/or other systems could be shutdown. I'd want full access to the source code of whatever software will come with the plane even if it's dumbed down for foreign sales.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Argentina bought french planes and the french helped the British and point out all the planes weakness and disabled some of them electronically.
Spending money on decent sanitation would save more Indian lives than any Jet.
1. News that the American jets were rejected is old news, lockheed and boeing were informed exactly why their jets were not preferred after 2 rounds of technical trials. The F-35 was only dangled and not formally offered, even if it was, it is not going to be fully operational in the next 2 years, which is the time frame India wants these batch of jets to be stationed.
2. India has used French Mirage 2000 and Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguars since the late 70s / early 80s. So they have a good relationship with Dassault and the equation works out nicely in terms of logistics and manufacturing.
3. India is working on a medium role fighter, but it will easily be a decade+ before they have a credible indigenous fighter jet. Their LCA Tejas itself is just proving itself operationally.
4. French planes have proven their technology for the past 40 years. Also the IAF is a very professional air force and is known to have successfully used different fighters with diverse technical capabilities in a cohesive manner. Ex. MiGs/Mirages/Jags/Sukhois/Harriers.
5. To the US jingoists out there who get pissy about India buying French planes, India has bought 6 C-17 Globemasters/ 8 P8 Poseidon aircraft and a bunch of Harpoon missiles/M777 howitzers and other equipment, the total value of which (~$15 billion+) is close or even more when added in totality to the MRCA deal with the French.
Airbus is from France this better not have the same auto autopilot and auto throttle idea as airbus.
So they go with the new F35. They are only $US 122.5Million.... oh wait, thats $US 183.5 million (excluding development costs). And we aren't done yet. And there is no access to the software. And so you don't know if some bunny somewhere decides to do a software upgrade while you are on a tactical mission and either things go badly, the plane crashes, or suddenly your screens all go blank while people are shooting. The *official* US response is always 'oops, sorry, my bad'. But the smoking hole doesn't bring plane or pilot back. ...And the US never gives refunds. The Russian Su-30C Flanker only costs $45 million. And you can get them right away. It would even be better to upgrade an F-15. If you insist on all new, the Eurofighter Typhoon is available today, comparable to the F35 (with all software available). Depending on US goodwill when the Democrats and Republicans are running hot and cold on damn near everything and not sure whether anyone is an ally or an enemy is not good policy. They can't even get together on domestic issues. With most Americans (and most American Politicians) believing that there are two nationalities in the world (American and Foreign), its better to buy elsewhere. Other people need safety and security too. When it comes to life and death, bickering American politicians aren't what I would rely on. Just sayin'.
Don't know where you got that from. Here's the first line of the article:
The Indian Air Force has opted for Dassault’s Rafale fighter jet to fulfill its multi-billion dollar contract. It’s a major blow to the Eurofighter.
And here's the /. summary title:
India Turns Down American Fighter Jets, Buys From France
I'd say that /. title is pretty damn accurate. You're probably just confused by the use of the term "Eurofighter." I believe it's German/Martian in origin and was used by the druids of Colombia to mean "America had offered the F-16, F-18 and now the stealth F-35 fighter."
Don't feel bad. Most people aren't as incredibly knowledged in ancient Samoan and probably wouldn't understand it either.
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot.
No, actually Digg is pretty awesome. Why do you hate on them so?
But India's relationship w/ the US has been pretty good. The only strains were when Bush, after 9/11, decided that Pakistan was an ally, rather than an enemy, and this understandably teed India off. Also, since 1991, one of India's closest defense allies has been Israel - India happens to be Israel's biggest customer for defense equipment.
I think India is buying from France, aside from cost reasons, to make US understand that there is a price tag involved if it continues to support & supply Pakistan. If the US were to cut all the billions of aid it gives Pakistan, there could be an improvement. Also note that if India were to buy more expensive equipment over something less expensive, politicians would scream 'corruption'. In the 80s, that's precisely what happened w/ the Swedish company Bofors, and even though there was no wrongdoing on the government's part, the perception of wrongdoing was what led to the defeat of the government in the 1989 elections. Yeah, there have been many corruption scandals since, but no government in its right mind would want to jeopardize its very existence over the country's security.
True.
And hence the unit cost of Rafale falls way below others. Lots of logistics similarities. While the standard cost of Rafale unit might be around USD75Mn , (compared to superhornet IN at USD60Mn) , it would still be very cost effective. I also think its the AESA integration and Full Technology transfer(including all software) that contributed in clinching the deal. I mean just imagine, what a boost it could be for the aeronautics industry in India, and how much will that end up contributing to the MCA programme.
If you perfect the art of war you have already lost
I assume the French will install a run switch...
The real story is India gets the rights to produce the French Rafale. France will transfer their technologies to India so they can build the airplanes themsellves. There is no way the US State Department will allow that transfer of stealth technology to India. This has been the sticky point with India.
Speaking of which, some years ago, one of the Indian airlines bought a major fleet of Boeing planes, in preference to Airbus.
The US is willing to invest heavily in upgrading old avionics while keeping the source for all the software. Would you buy a piece of military hardware knowing that the aging paranoid warcrazy manufacturer may have retained the ability to disable all those planes with the flip of a switch?
"Indian law requires the government to negotiate a contract with the lowest bidder. The only way it can reconsider the tender is if Dassault says it can’t fulfill the contract, said Mrinal Suman, an arms-procurement adviser for the Confederation of India Industry."
The French had remote activated kill switches on the Exocet missiles Argentina used against Britain in the Falklands. Prime Minister Thatcher contacted the French government and demanded the codes necessary to shut down the Exocet and she got them. Prior to this Argentina had already destroyed and disabled several British ships using the missiles but they stopped using them after it became evident they had been compromised. They could have destroyed every British ship in the area if they had continued using their Exocet's because Britain had no effective defense against them other than hiding in isolated coves and using their jets to attempt destroying them. The US has got to have a similar kill switch on all the advanced jets and missile systems they sale internationally. They also make sure the buyer can only receive parts and upgrades from the US. As it stands now the jets India just bought are nothing but easy targets for the latest generation of F-15's and F-22's.
Slashdot's usual BS political linkbait headline has nothing to do link the actual story. This is not about French vs. US aircraft, France vs. the US in general, or anything like that. If you read either of the linked TFAs, they say specifically that:
Both of TFAs talk about how this decision is a blow to the Eurofighter, not to the US - not anymore than it is to Sweden or Russia. It is just another poorly edited (or edited at all?) Slashdot anti-US linkbait, flamebait article.
I swear I'm almost done with Slashdot except that it still has some informative comments on science stories, I need to just browse that section and ignore the rest since they just piss me off.
"95% of all Slashdot
Canada is currently in the process of adding new ships to its navy via the 'Single Class Surface Combatant Project', and is modernizing its fleet of Halifax class frigates. Because America's International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is a pain in the ass and frequently abused for political purposes, one of the big mandates at least for the Halifax frigate modernization is to try to reduce the dependence on U.S. (weapons) systems as much as possible; opting for systems from Canada, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and Israel. IIRC I believe this started with issues around exporting and/or updating torpedoes (or at least that is what I remember being the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of naval weapons systems). It is unclear if this will continue with the new combat ships; there has been no clear indication published (pdf) in the news one way or another. Now if a close ally of the United States is forced to look elsewhere to avoid a lot of issues raised by the abuse of ITAR rules by American politicians and companies, then it is likely a very smart decision of India to avoid buying from the U.S.
But I don't know why they didn't go with the Typhoon. It looks marginally better. The wing load is higher, the thrust, speed, and climb is better, and it super cruises faster. These kinds of things are what allows a plane to return home at the end of the day when the shit hits the fan. Mind you, the Americans did do a bit of a study in the 80s I believe, where they had a bunch of top guns in F-5s go after standard operational F-14s and F-15s and pretty much proved that a bunch of small manoeuvrable fighters were a credible and significant threat to the bigger less manoeuvrable modern planes. Not sure where they went with that after. Maybe the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about took issue with the results of that study.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
They can buy anything they want, but, pretty much anyone that comes up against a trained U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine aviator will get their butts shot down.
Is Indonesia really threatening to attack Australia these days?
Indonesia has better trick up its arm
Indonesians don't even need to attack Australia to kill hundreds of Australians - and all they have to do is to lure the stupid Australians to their Bali island and then " KABOOM !!!!! "
The T-34's main advantage was the sloping angle of its forward armor. While only a couple inches thick, at the angle a shell would hit it, it would present itself as a thicker piece of steel to an object impacting it. Between that, and the sheer number of T-34's thrown at the Germans, they just overwhelmed them.
Everything in pak air force belongs to US. In worst case US can provide all secrets to Pak. Maybe this is the reason and I think India has taken right decision. On the other hand somebody told me that French First Lady is Italian who is good friend of Sonia Ghandi and thats why they got the deal(Unauthenticated).
The US is willing to invest heavily in upgrading old avionics while keeping the source for all the software. Would you buy a piece of military hardware knowing that the aging paranoid warcrazy manufacturer may have retained the ability to disable all those planes with the flip of a switch?
USA is not the only country in the world doing that - The French are more untrustworthy than Uncle Sam !
Remember the Falklands War ?
Argentina bought the Exocet missiles from the French but the French gave the British secrets to Exocet's code and homing radar ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#cite_note-15 ) resulting in the total defeat of Argentine's air force
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The US is willing to invest heavily in upgrading old avionics while keeping the source for all the software. Would you buy a piece of military hardware knowing that the aging paranoid warcrazy manufacturer may have retained the ability to disable all those planes with the flip of a switch?
as a humble citizen in a western european country, the answer is "Yes", because the odds of some effing pseudo goverment taking over here and eliminating my civil rights is much higher than having the same happen in the US. call it life insurance.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
The F-18 and FA-18 are and always were a complete waste of time. They only work if you have a set of massive aircraft carriers, heaps of refuelling tankers, and enough support craft to get you in close to the enemy shoreline. Forget using them deep in the interior.
The F-16 would be an excellent choice except that the new Sukhois pretty much make it - and everything else - redundant.
The F-35 will never see active service. By the time this plane-by-committee either gets to a first rollout or - much more likely - is finally abandoned, it will be up against both manned fighters and UAV's that already outperform it.
So yes, I can understand them looking to Europe for some kind of fighter jet capability.
Are SO fare and transparent....right...... (ie. see most recent selling of cellphone spectrum that cost tens of billions in tax revenue)
The generation of the fighter is irrelevant if it lights up brighter than a christmas tree on radar.
You do know that the Rafale has a similar radar signature cross-section to the F16, right? (Dassault claims 0.1-0.2 m^2, while in reality both are more like 1-2 m^2, the Rafale somewhat smaller.)
Neither can be called "stealth", but then again the Indians are working with the Russians on a new larger and stealthier fighter, the PAK-FA, a Raptor killer.
If you were a french citizen, you wouldn't say that the Rafales are low cost, cause you'd be paying them with your taxes. Dassault is to France what Halliburton is to the USA, a private company living with public money.
It's because the american planes contain DRM.
seems a wise move... especially since we're moving to a more drone centric air theater and it makes little sense to double down on dog fighters.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If there are kill switches in US hardware sold internationally, why is the US so worried about the Iranian Air Force and its fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters?
What is not said in both article is that something like 80% of the planes will be built in India, and that there has been a huge technology transfer.
I don't know if it was the case with Eurofighter too, but I'm almost sure the Americans would have ever accepted it.
The F-5 was developed by Northrop into the F-20 Tigershark which Northrop wanted to export to foreign air-forces. But the US government and military colluded to block Northrop from selling any F-20s, mostly because any sales of the F-20 meant less sales of aircraft like the F-16 Fighting Falcon (the military had a vested interest in seeing the F-16 sold to foreign military forces as that made the US F-16 purchases cheaper)
But they did not disable the missiles. Merely supplied the information on how they worked, which is expected in war time between allies. You're comparing rock throwing to gunning down with AAA.
Quoting Defense Industry Daily article The F-35’s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy:
The core problem in Pacific Vision 2008 was that even an invulnerable American fighter force ran out of missiles before it ran out of targets, at any number below 50% of missile firings resulting in kills. Whereupon the remaining Chinese fighters would destroy the American tankers and AWACS aircraft, guaranteeing that the USAF’s F-22As would run out of fuel and crash before they could return to Guam.
To reiterate: RAND’s core conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It is about the theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics conditions. RAND’s Project Air Force argues, persuasively, that based on history and current trends, numbers still matter – and so does the “Lanchester square.” That’s the theory under which the combat performance of an outnumbered combatant must be the square of the outnumbering ratio (outnumbered 3:1 must be 9x better, etc.) just to stay even.
Or, as the oft-repeated Cold War era saying goes, “quantity has a quality all its own.”
Additional problem with F-35 is that it has limited missile carrying capacity, range, and stealth (stealth requirements were downgraded from very low observable, to low observable).
Dyslexics have more fnu.
This is exactly correct.
Consider Lanchester's laws. He uses mathematical formulas for calculating the relative strengths of a predator/prey pair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws
No doubt this can be applied in this situation as well.
The US is willing to invest heavily in upgrading old avionics while keeping the source for all the software. Would you buy a piece of military hardware knowing that the aging paranoid warcrazy manufacturer may have retained the ability to disable all those planes with the flip of a switch?
That's true. All you need is one Muslim in the US air-force to put his duty religion first and all your planes are disabled while Pakistan attacks.
Rafale is CHAEPER THAN Eurofighter Typhoon. And both Rafale and Eurofighter were judged BY Indians to be TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR to F16,F18 and rest of participating planes
USA is not the only country in the world doing that - The French are more untrustworthy than Uncle Sam !
Are they? From an Indian perspective, the US is an ally of their arch enemy Pakistan...
Indian Air Force is mostly MIGs, Sukhois, Jaguars and Mirages. If they are buying French planes, then the bigger story is that Russians lost the bid. US was never a viable contender.
Not disputing your point but the size of tech transfer part of this deal means that India should be capable of going it alone even if France decides to cut them off in the future.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
They wouldn't even give the UK the source code.
India is planning to use its own radar and slowly replace systems with its own over the aircraft's lifetime. They want to be making all this stuff themselves next time round, but right now they don't have their own suitable aircraft.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Every single country, given the right conditions, will happily leave their customer out to dry. Arm sales is not exactly the most ethical business in the world.
Now, as for the Exocet missile story, parent is omitting a very important element: France did indeed give up the Exocet codes, but the episode is famously known as a case of Thatcher strong-arming a very reluctant (French president) Mitterrand by, among other things, threatening to go nuclear on Argentina if he refused to help. She may have been bluffing, but given her record on ruthless domestic policies at the time, many a smarter man would have wavered.
"She may have been bluffing, but given her record on ruthless domestic policies at the time, many a smarter man would have wavered."
Sounds like the excuse what the French and British agreed to as a cover story.
What's reported to the press is often what you're supposed to think.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Minor gripe, the F/A 18E/F entered service in 2000 so it's the same age as the Rafale. It really is a completely different plane than the earlier F/A 18s, they only kept the F/A 18 designation to make it easier to sell to congress as an interim measure while they wait for the F 35. Also, it's quite a bit cheaper than the Rafale. But as you said, it doesn't match the requirements, it's too big.
this may compete for the worst articles ever featured on ./
a) most interestingly, the seriously competing offer was from WADS
b) Since USA are not liked very much in the region (and dont like the region very much) and everybody knows that export issues in the USA for weapons are always very political, it is a good choice not to depend on the spare parts.
c) It is a good example on the misconception of the population in USA on that weapons designed for the cold war of the war with USSR are anyhow more convincing in modern (asymmetric) conflicts than weapons not on the cutting edge of this race. Yes. The American military planes are good. But if you look at Afghanistan, even the western forces would need *more* aircrafts and not *higher advanced* aircrafts. And the same holds true for india
and their army was mostly made of horses.
The US will no doubt act like it has done India the greatest favour ever and owns them. Even if the US planes were better, it'll be better to have a slightly inferior plane and not get bullied by a bunch of war hungry jack-offs in the US government.
Or US/Israel relations - Here is a quote from the outspoken Russia Today http://rt.com/news/iran-us-war-israel-strike-439/
"Atlanta Jewish Times – recommends in an article published on page 3 of his newspaper on January 13.Adler wants Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to act now against Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, either severally or jointly; and to:
1. 'Order a pre-emptive strike against Hezbollah and Hamas.'
2. 'Order the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities at all costs'
3. 'Give the go-ahead for US-based Mossad agents to take out a President deemed unfriendly in order for the current Vice-President to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies'
The above is a verbatim quote from Mr Adler’s article, What would you do?”
Russia Today is probably not the most reliable or politically correct source in the world. And, it is probably more Putin-friendly than they care to admit. However, by ignoring the fantastic F35 offer, one can probaly guess that India doesn't want to be part of the winning team referred to above.
You do know that there is quite a big Muslim minority in France too, right?
They don't keep all the avionics sw as secret from customers, some customers do their own tweaking and development.
You don't want to rely on their missiles when the French might give your enemy the tools to render them useless.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
F-16 and F-18 offered to India were significantly cheaper than the Rafale which was finally selected. Cost wasn't a factor in their rejection. F-16/F-18 were rejected because they were deemed technically deficient. in a 640 point flyoff competition.
Rafale turned out to be about 5 mil a pop cheaper than the Eurofighter.
Trust remains an issue in the Indo-US relations. Hence most purchases have been low key - P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, MC-130J transports for the Special Forces, Apache attack helicopters etc.
If the article is actually read, you will see that the big loser is actually the Eurofighter, not an American jet.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
much higher than having the same happen in the US
I don't know where you are but, here in the UK, we seem to have a lot less police violence than the USA. If any government comes in here, it will be, like now, because some people voted for it. The US supposedly has "checks and balances" and a written constitution. I understand from comments here that the Constitution isn't doing too well at present, what with "Homeland Security" and various criminal organisations like the RIAA etc. (I know they are legal but they are still a bunch of crooks).
"I see your constitution and raise you a Queen."
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
http://economyincrisis.org/content/boeing-technology-transfer-warning-us-companies
Boeing has already done enough technology transfer to China for China to be able to build their own 737
The F15-SE is better than anything else they were offered and about the same price point. Korea, Australia and Japan are all looking at them too since they can't buy the F22.
I don't know why they didn't go with the Typhoon
According to the article - price. The Typhoon is ridiculously expensive.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
But I don't know why they didn't go with the Typhoon. It looks marginally better. The wing load is higher, the thrust, speed, and climb is better, and it super cruises faster.
The Typhoon doesn't come with garlic bread
Sigs are for losers....oh wait...damnit
F16: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon -> Intro date 1978
F18: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet -> Intro date 1983
F35: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II -> Intro date: TBD (sometime 2016-2018)
Rafale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale -> Intro date: 2000
Now, can you explain to me how the Rafale becomes "older technology"?
Older than any airplane not yet in service alright, but the other contenders do not qualify as newer technology either.
I remember Falkland War. A UK ship was sunk by an exocet missile.
Good luck with that... while you're pilots are getting blown out of the sky.
This is what the United States gets for being fickle and unreliable when it comes to our allies and our enemies. We don't stop politics at the shoreline the way we used to, and it's cost us much life and treasure over the past 50 years or so.
Plus given the enemy India is likely to fight they didn't really need the highest end, highest tech fighters.
Hopefully this will shake up the US a bit. I doubt it, but I can hope.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
The main reason they didn't go for the Typhoon is because they wanted a carrier capability, which doesn't currently exist on the Typhoon - it was part of the proposal to develop it but that certainly would result in extra cost and time.
It's interesting, because the French split from the Eurofighter project (well, really the other countries withdrew from the joint project with France and went on to develop the Eurofighter) because only France wanted a carrier capable aircraft, and now there are several demands for a similar capability for the Eurofighter...
At least they didn't buy French cars.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
The F-35 wasn't offered.
Who said the US is worried about the plane? It's the armament that matters...
France is a smaller player and could not as easily afford to kick India's ass
why is the US so worried.They are? Nobody worries about Iranian offensive power. It's a bit like during the time of Iraq. All the time there were stories about how dangerous Iraq was, and then there's this little comment of Wolfowitz saying he could take that country with 10.000 people.
Turns out Dassault sweetens the hell out of the deal with full transfer of tech, training and even presidential aid.
They did the same thing on Brazil.
First result returned by Google gives this list:
There are a few entries I didn't include because they gave only dates and not names, making it harder to look them up.
Oh, was your point to perpetuate the fucking tiresome meme (always repeated at every mention of France witnessed by any American it seems, certainly here on /. at any rate) that the French are all cowards and retreat at the drop of a hat etc. I will say it slowly for those of you who love this meme: "They lost in a war against a superior enemy. That is all".
In fact it took Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia (helped eventually by the USA of course, although years late to the party) to defeat that selfsame enemy. Should we be surprised that the French lost too? They got attacked right at the start and so faced the Germans pretty much on their own.
Caveat: I am English Canadian, not French. In fact I don't particularly like the French or France, but I am tired of this constantly repeated idiocy. All it does is scream "I am a fucking ignorant American" every time it gets repeated.
I guess none of you have ever heard of Napoleon either?
Sigh.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Really, how does a muslim air-force mechanic disable all planes? I'm guessing USAF operations are a little bit too sophisticated for a rouge agent to disable the entire fleet of aircraft. LOL, then pakistan overwhelms forward operations with superior fire power. LOL. LOL. go back to your paperbacks idiot.
Because if they weren't publicly worried about it, then people would suspect a kill-switch?
And also, right now we're trying to blow Iran up into a bigger threat at home, in order to twist their arm with the prospect of a war.
This couldn't have had anything to do with science, technology, or business. The French "pot-de-vin" was probably sweeter compared to American, for the politicians of the world's 95th least corrupt nation! I
You do know that there is quite a big Muslim minority in France too, right?
Absolutely, if the French systems were being sold without software source code then they should be even more nervous of them.
Really, how does a muslim air-force mechanic disable all planes? I'm guessing USAF operations are a little bit too sophisticated for a rouge agent to disable the entire fleet of aircraft. LOL, then pakistan overwhelms forward operations with superior fire power. LOL. LOL. go back to your paperbacks idiot.
That is not the suggestion. The suggestion is that as the US are not releasing source code there could be a "disable" function in systems sold to foreign powers. If there is it would involve some secret key, maybe a particular combination of IFF signals received. I would imagine it would be accessible by people in strategic command rather than mechanics too.
"Sounds like the excuse what the French and British agreed to as a cover story. What's reported to the press is often what you're supposed to think."
Have you actually even glanced at the source before making this blanket statement?
This (and many other comments that would be embarrassing for all parties involved) came to light, 20 years later, when the French president's very own shrink decided to publish his former patient's confidences in a book.
Sure: it might have been an incredibly elaborate long game con by Mitterrand to retroactively exonerate himself 10 years after his death, when his psychoanalyst would decide to break doctor-patient confidentiality and publish a book... Personally, I'll go with Occam's razor.
Why would India want to buy the same planes which US gives pakistan for free?
India's current fleet of mirages reduces the training costs.
India can get better deal out of ToT and price since french are more desperate since this is their first order outside of france.
What? No it's not. The unit cost of a Rafale is around $90M USD. The unit cost of the F-16 is around $20M.
The Rafale is a little cheaper than the F-35, but it's 4G+, not "near 5th generation." There's a reason nobody else is buying them... everybody else is buying Eurofighter Typhoons or waiting for the F-35.
The Argentinian airforce probably lost for more reasons. Also, when I studied the history of this war, I was astounded by the crackpot idiocy of the Argentinian regime. The airforce, navy and army just went their own way, and the navy pulled out of the war before the airforce (!). Furthermore, the agentinian soldiers were /shocked/ when they landed on the island, and discovered that they weren't wanted. I could imagine the French sizing these guys up, taking their money, and selling them out. They deserved it.
From the very same Wikipedia article linked in the post above:
The main U.S. unit in the battle was the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (2nd ACR), a 4,500 man reconnaissance and security element assigned to VII Corps.
It consisted of three ground squadrons (1st, 2nd and 3rd), an aviation (attack helicopter) squadron (4th), and a support squadron.
The 2ACR combat team numbered around 10,000 soldiers.
Each ground squadron was made up of three cavalry troops, a tank company, a self-propelled howitzer battery, and a headquarters troop.
Each troop comprised 120 soldiers, 12 M3 Bradley fighting vehicles and nine M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks.[1]
The corps' main body consisted of the American 3rd Armored Division (3rd AD) and 1st Infantry Division (1st ID) and 1st Armored Division (1st AD), and the British 1st Armoured Division (1 AD).
The primary battle was conducted by 2ACR's three squadrons of about 400 soldiers, along with the 1st Infantry Division's two leading brigades, who attacked and destroyed the Iraqi 18th Mechanized Brigade and 37th Armored Brigade) of the Tawakalna Division, each consisting of between 2,500 to 3,000 personnel.[1]
During the battle, 2nd ACR destroyed 160 tanks, 180 personnel carriers, 12 artillery pieces and more than 80 wheeled vehicles, along with several anti-aircraft artillery systems.
That's 189 armored vehicles, plus their support.
Plus air support.
Scout and attack helicopters of Fourth Squadron and 2-1 Aviation Battalion (AH 64 Apache) supported the fight as weather allowed.
Plus a shitload of TOWs.
After defeating that force, McMaster sent a scout platoon north to regain contact with Troop G. In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T72s which they destroyed with TOW missiles.
All of the above (and more) used at the same time whenever they encountered the enemy, during 24+ hours of the battle.
So, all at the same time, but not all at once.
Combat became so intense at times that only massed artillery and mortar fires, attack helicopters and Air Force close air support prevented the enemy from closing with G Troop.
.
.
.
Artillery fire and air strikes played a large role in the battle, especially in the far north. Colonel Gary Bourneâ(TM)s 210th FA Brigade in direct support of 2nd ACR fired missions out to the 78 Easting. Close air support missions struck targets in greater depth preventing some Iraqi units from closing with G Troop or escaping the battle area. Attack helicopters flew in support of air scouts at key intervals during the day and the 2-1 Aviation Battalionâ(TM)s Apache helicopters, led by Lt Colonel Jon Ward, destroyed two batteries of enemy artillery and struck march units along the IPSA Pipeline Road at 4:30 p.m. just as the battle began in earnest.
During Desert Storm Coalition troops numbered at 956600 - versus 650000 Iraqi troops.
They didn't go there to test "what can happen when superior technology is used against superior numbers".
That is not how you win wars.
You win wars by being the side with BOTH superior technology and superior numbers, AND by bringing both down heavily on your enemy's head.
That's why during the Desert Storm US troops numbered basically the same number of battle deaths and "slipped in the shower/fell from a chair" deaths.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Is the USA a "real" ally of Pakistan or just an ally?
My ignorant guess is Pakistan is an ally of .. proximity to Afghanistan. and not an ally like the USA-UK friendship.
If India was to smash Pakistan and annex (or re-annex .. however you want to call it) I think the USA would simply deal with their Afghanistan operations from India and not Pakistan (till 2013 or when the withdraw date is)
Shit! They're on to us! Time to come up with a new world domination plan.
WWII started earlier than 1939. Japan was expanding its empire into China, Germany and Italy were fighting in Spain. Italy had invaded Abyssinia. Germany invaded Czech, annexed Austria, and others.
It was when Germany invaded Poland, which had a treaty with England and France, that it was expanded. Also Pearl Harbour was a reaction to American blockades against the Japan expansion.
They were worried about Irak forces aswell. Praising the enemy force is an old PR tactic used literally since the Antiquity. They just prepare the country for a long war because they cannot win against Iran in a better fashion than they won in Iraq - not with guns anyway.
Wow, sounds like every RFP NH issues for IT-related products and/or services will now be exactly one bullet item longer.
Time for all the misty-eyed Linux advocates to start asking - "Maybe this is when Linux/FOSS will take off?"
Uhm, no.
Ken
The Rafale design that is being sold to India is not a cheap, old design. It is top notch, supercedes the f16 and f18, but also is a lot more expensive, usually (altough the specials of this particular deal may change the pricepoin, it has usually been uncompetitive plane in export market, because of its price). While de f35 is a more advanced superiority fighter, it is a farcry from a multirole aircraft. If Dassault could make a good pricepoint (or offered technology transfers that equates to a lot of savings in R&D for the buyer, which seems to be what the deal is), the Rafale is indeed the logical choice.
The Arrow was cancelled because it was discovered that the program was compromised by the Soviets - they had agents on the inside of the company sending information about the technology home, and that's why when the Arrow line was shut down (by the Canadian Mounted Police), they also destroyed the prototypes, as well as the jigs and tools. The United States didn't bribe anyone to get rid of it because they were afraid of the competition, in fact, the pentagon was keenly interested in having the Arrow in it's stable because of it's fantastic capabilities.
Not that you can tell that to anyone who has a vested interest in maintaining their resentment of the US.
The US opted to go to the fight with bigger longer range gun (weapons systems) than the enemy. It seems to be much more determinant than hoping your dog fight training is better than the enemy's. The F5 was designed as a dogfighter, the f-1x's were designed as weapons platforms. Dog fighting from this perspective is the ability to maneuver with speed and agility outside of your enemy's radius of combat. Like shooting fish in a barrel so to speak. Whether or not this works in real life depends largely on you countries ability to out spend and out develop any potential combatant state. It doesn't matter in the end how many fighters you send to the fight, if none of them ever reach it.
once more into the breach
Good point. But this was also the thinking when they removed the guns when on the initial F-4s. Then they had to add them back quickly when reality bit them in the ass in Vietnam. I think this works if you are going up against less effect planes (and even though the Iraqis had a few good planes they weren't as numerous nor did they have the advanced technology that the Russians outfit them with). I would bet that against.equal tech with effective electronic warfare suites, jamming etc. that dogfight capabilities will factor in again. Then the platform will lose to the sports car. Same idea with all the foolish weapons that rely on GPS. You know the first things to be shot down will be the satellites in any really serious conflict where the technology matters. But then again America has outsourced all it electronic subcomponents to China (Russian ally), India and elsewhere. So even the devices made in America are really foreign made. Who know what logic has been built in. Likely if they ever had to get into a dogfight with any of them, the other pilot will just flip a switch and shut of the American plane's engines!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Please elaborate on how the secrets of an anti-ship missile results in total defeat of the air force?
I think it was refreshed after France refused to join in the Coalition of the Easily Duped back in the Iraq War days. You know, when George "nucular" Bush notoriously wanted French fries renamed into Freedom fries...
Argentina bought the Exocet missiles from the French but the French gave the British secrets to Exocet's code and homing radar ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#cite_note-15 ) resulting in the total defeat of Argentine's air force
The code thing has nothing to do with the ' defeat' of the Argentine air force. The problems was that they had only a few Exocet' s as delivery had not yet begun. They fired al the missiles they had. If I recall correctly they had 3 missiles. They sank 2 ships with them and the British task force was forced to operate a long distance from the Falklands because of the Exocet threat.
The biggest problem the Argentine air force had was the AIM 9L's that where provided to the British by the US.
Summary is infuriatingly inaccurate. The competition originally had 6 competitors- the F-16, F-18E/F, Eurofighter, Gripen NG, Rafale, and MiG-35. The F-35 was not included.
The Eurofighter and Rafale were downselected on technical/performance grounds- that is they were found to offer superior performance than the American, Russian, and Swedish offerings. They are newer than the Russian and American aircraft too. And they are also the most expensive 2 aircraft of the bunch!
The US offered the F-35 at this point, but it is not in service, doesn't meet India's schedule, and was not evaluated technically along with the original 6.
This left the Eurofighter and Rafale to fight it out based on the lowest bidder. This was the Rafale. They got an aircraft with excellent performance and technology at a price that was likely the second highest of the bunch.
"Prudence beat out the latest in technology"
Seriously, this kind of sentence freaks me out.
May you please explain where you read that USA fighters are better than French fighters ?
If there are kill switches in US hardware sold internationally, why is the US so worried about the Iranian Air Force and its fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters?
The US arn't worried, but the appearance that they are is useful.
Outside of grinding up all the F-14 spares and leftovers not going to museums, I doubt anyone in the military is "so worried" about the few(?) operational F-14s they still have flying. Most of the Iranians who were trained on the F-14, to fly them or maintain them, fled Iran post Shah for fear of getting killed for being associated with America (like going there to train at F-14 tech school). They managed to kick the shit out of Iraqi AF here and there if I recall, but I seriously doubt the capabilities of any Iranian F-14As against any of our current F/A-18s (assuming that is who they'd square off against) and pilots.
The U.S. is also willing to invest heavily in upgrading old avionics, making what "generation" it is in to be relatively irrelevant.
The U.S. keeps investing heavily in upgrading old avionics, mainly because it can't seem to get new fighters off the ground. Or the ones that we do get off the ground, mysteriously choke their pilots. Really, the only bright spot we've had on our recent avionics history are the drones.
The F-16 is older than a lot of the people working on it. That's... kind of embarrassing for us.
The ______ Agenda
If there are kill switches in US hardware sold internationally, why is the US so worried about the Iranian Air Force and its fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters?
I guarantee you it's not. In fact, It's doubtful that many of those F-14s are even airworthy; a good many would probably crash on their own due to poor maintenance. Those planes have been cut off from parts and service for over thirty years. (This is also what India is afraid might happen if it buys US planes, by the way.)
The USA is worried about the prospect of another ten-year, multi-hundred-billion-dollar middle eastern ground war. It's worried about an Iranian strike against Israel, and the resulting Israeli counterstrike. Its worried about the regional fallout (no pun intended) of another "intervention" in a Muslim country.
What a load of crap. Do you really believe that? First, Britain would in no way have dropped a nuclear bomb on Buenos Aires. Especially not for a relatively minor territorial dispute. Britain would have become a pariah of epic proportions. Even a hard ass like Thatcher (who I liked in a cringing way) knew that it would have sunk the country economically for years, hurting it far worse than even losing the Falklands would have. There isn't anything Britain contributes that much that would make countries keep wanting to deal with it if it had dropped an unnecessary nuclear warhead on a major metropolitan city that had not done anything even remotely worth that kind of response. If Thatcher would have done that, Iran would have looked Disneyland in comparison; and the ayatollah would have looked like Mr. Rogers compared to her. England would have fucked itself in the arse like a carnal oroborus with that move. No fucking way. For abso-fucking-lutely sure that was a load of crap put out there so Mitterrand could say it wasn't his fault.
You know if Britain would have done that they would just know that they would be ostracized internationally. Meanwhile the rest of the world would have flocked to Argentina's defence. Argentina would have got so much aid that not only would they likely have become a serious powerhouse, they would like have ended up with the Falklands in the end because of it.
And for another thing, of course France would give up the codes. Argentina was fighting a huge ally of France. France and Britain are only 30 miles apart and are HUGE trading partners. If Argentina went to war with Chile, I sincerely doubt if France would ever give up the codes even if one side threatened to drop a nuclear bomb. But Chile isn't that close an ally as the U.K. is. Seriously anyone who thinks they wouldn't give up the codes just for that is a complete idiot.
Rule number two in the chapter on logistics when going to war in the modern era: Don't buy your high tech gear from someone who is better friends with your enemy than they are with you (and especially not if your supplier is BFFs with your new enemy... for Christ's sake, even school yard kids can figure that one out). Of course rule number one is don't buy anything from the guys you are about to go to war with. The corollary to this last one that America should remember is don't offshore all your parts manufacturing to countries that could be a potential enemy... especially not if they have started flexing their muscles lately. That goes even if the greedy manufacturers actually believe that their 'secret' technology is actually secret when made in another country. And I would bet cash money they know they can keep no technology secrets from the foreign countries' governments in their offshore factories and contract manufacturers, but won't admit to the politicians so that the politicians can maintain 'plausible deniability'. The key word there is plausible. Claims on succumbing to threats of nuclear disaster on a country you don't care much about isn't plausible. Especially not when the long term damage done to the perpetrator would be just a harsh or worse (actual casualties not withstanding).
There are so many reasons that this is bullshit. Try and remember that even if it shows up in a newspaper that it doesn't mean it is true. Governments all over the world use propaganda; even [Fill In Name Of Your Country].
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
You forgot the American Revolution.
"If there are kill switches in US hardware sold internationally, why is the US so worried about the Iranian Air Force and its fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters?"
That deal is quite old, you don't think the US would want to prevent this from happening again?
And if you have full access to the software, what's preventing a kill switch from being present in the hardware?
There is nothing. I would not want to put such a thing into hardware due to the costs of testing the system to ensure it can't be accidentally activated and that if it were to be compromised fixing it carries a hellish logistical cost since something physical has to be engineered, manufactured and replaced. With a software only solution it's much easier to wipe and install.
I believe US systems also have feature reductions in hardware but I don't have any ready example handy.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Does anyone know how arms deals work? He who pays the biggest bribes gets awarded the contract. Duh!
> For one, it's cheaper, and two, if American/Indian relations go bad, can they get the parts and equipment to keep the planes in the air.
For one, you are silly and for two, you are even more silly.
French aircraft are notoriously expensive to run, because of their high maintenance requirements and poor reliability. Taiwan pays 4-5x as much to keep the Mirage 2000 flying compared to the F-16, which they also operate. Rafale is twinjet, so it costs twice as much to fly compared to the single-jet Mirage 2000.
Greece was essentially bankrupted by its love of the M-2K, which they kept as a fast-climbing interceptor against the neighbouring turks's F-16s, despite the astronomical costs of french flight hw. BTW, guess why the zionists are no longer flying french planes, even though they've been crazy over Mirage in previous decades? Wearing a yarmulke grants financial wisdom, that's why they avoid french planes for US ones, now that they can!
(This really says something about excessive cost of french flight hw, since the F-16 isn't exactly lean to run, according to the polish, who now envy the neighbouring czech's budget-friendly Gripens).
Secondly, Taiwan never stops complaining about the gold-priced, yet totally unreliable supply of spare parts for the french Mirage 2000 and rich arab countries have already dumped the M-2000 and got US planes in replacement.
Today there are only two kinds of supersonic warplanes worth buying: Super Hornet for big twinjet and Gripen for light single jet. Both have a proven track record of being delivered within budget and timeframe and good servicability and low running costs. Everything else is waste of huge money, you pay upfront for sexier or more raptorous looks and they you pay throuh the nose daily for running costs with the EFA, Rafale, F-35, Su-35 etc. F-22 shouldn't even be mentioned, it's cheaper to hire imperial star destroyers than that, reportedly 90-95k usd per flight hour. (Gripen grand total is 4.000 usd/h, based on mid-2011 jet fuel prices).
The hindi would have been better off buying the F-18E/F and demand a complete new firmware base for it, with source code access, if they are so afraid of zionist-planted computer backdoors (exactly the same way the UAE's one-off F-16 block 60 warplane order went).
A major factor that could have tilted the decision in favour of the French Rafale is the support the french have offered India over the years. During the Kargil war with Pakistan, the french and the Israelis worked behind the scenes and delivered laser guided munition that could be fitted onto the french mirages. The US aircraft never stood a chance during the MMRCA selections. The Eurofighter typhoon is made by 4 countries 2 of which are bankrupt. I would guess the Indians have really thought about the next 20 years before making a decision.
It's worth noting that with the crusades, the French have decimated an awful lot of people (some estimates are around 9 millions), so they're not really about surrendering, but it's rather that they don't go along with what the US wants. (I'm American & French, so I have the right to bash either side :))
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Decoding_Indias_MMRCA_Decision.pdf
> Remember the Malvinas War ?
There, fixed it for you.
Meh, the F-4 was Vietnam era.. most of it was fought over 40 yrs ago. Tech is much more solid than it was back then. There haven't been a lot of dogfights since then. Jamming frequency hoppers is nearly impossible/unrealistic (you would need to pump a massive amount of power into the air). Modern fighters rely on more than just gps satalites for navigation, and most of those defense electronics are either made here, or by in England at BAE systems. Old tech by some standards, but purpose built and solid.
once more into the breach
The Iranian F-14's have not been updated since 1979. If they attempted to engage the US Air Force or any other country with a modern and up to date Air Force would be committing suicide. Even the Mig's they have in their inventory are not the top of line models Russia produces and are nothing but target practice. And if the US decided to attack Iran it is most likely the Iranian Air Force and a good number of their command and control would be destroyed on the ground.
I have to ask the question, that should be obvious to everyone, but apparently the media are unable to actually cover the news any longer.
Question, Why are well offering to sell our most advanced Military Technology to a nation that considers us a possible enemy in the future?
That to me is the most insane thing in this world, but I plan on making a difference in 2012, I will vote them out of office.
That is the only way to stop this stupidity, protect our children from ignorant men who do not understand how the "Real World works"
Vote... It may be the only right you have left.
much higher than having the same happen in the US
I don't know where you are but, here in the UK, we seem to have a lot less police violence than the USA. If any government comes in here, it will be, like now, because some people voted for it. The US supposedly has "checks and balances" and a written constitution. I understand from comments here that the Constitution isn't doing too well at present, what with "Homeland Security" and various criminal organisations like the RIAA etc. (I know they are legal but they are still a bunch of crooks).
"I see your constitution and raise you a Queen."
Having spoken with military types on both sides of the India Pakistan kerfuffel: I don't think we really need to worry about India mounting a massive air attack to gain the ski-slopes of Kashmir.
In support of Gonoff I say "here,here!" on behalf of the commonwelth.
Jet fighters are only used against 3rd world nations or your own domestic population. No fighter can outmanuever a decent 1st world missile regardless of what the press releases say. Our fighters are all fly-by-wire now (the last hydraulic plane was the F-14 retired in 2006) which means their computers can probably be disabled mid-air as needed. Nothing is stealthy against modern phased array radars, just reduced signature. Given that a signal 1/10 th as strong as the noise is easily retrieved, well you do the math.
A major cause of the cease fire in June 1940 was that, thanks to the abominable USA and USSR, Hitler's allies, France and Britain were defeated by surprise and treachery (the ex-British king informed Hitler about the frecg defenses he had inspected for a month).
The battle of France saw 185,000 soldiers killed in 5 weeks, at least. In truth, more. Official Nazi losses; 50,000 dead, with a very high proportion of officers. In truth, Nazi losses were even higher. more.
The betrayal of the USA in 1939 and 1940 is what caused a cease-fire in late June, after 10 months of war including bombings on major cities, such as Paris and Berlin. The French did not want losses even higher than in the First World War (1.7 killed in combat). They had more than 5 million soldiers made prisoner. As it turned out, the French empire lost two million dead in World War Two. The USA: 415,000 dead.
Also it is the USA which recognized Vichy. The leaders of Vichy were later condemned to death, and many, executed, including the past Prime Minster, Laval.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
...and very expensive, very long turnaround time (TAT) airframes. The problem with betting all of your money on one technology is your prospective enemy only has one technology to defeat - and in this case once stealth technology is defeated those very expensive, very high TAT airframes are instantly vulnerable to relatively cheap missiles with far lower TATs. Perhaps the finest example - and apropos, given that it was also a form of "stealth" technology that was eventually rendered useless - of assuming your technology is and will remain superior is Enigma .
There is another facet to this decision: Were I a strategic planner, I would be far more concerned by the fact that India did not choose to purchase highly "stealthy" airframes of whatever manufacture. It is a fact that India has benefited as much as the PRC has from the Republican and neoliberal Democratic effort to weaken America strategically and tactically through exporting dual-use technology (to include the computational power to model everything and anything and, far worse, by offshoring the heart and soul of any nation's true arsenal: The technology of mass manufacture.).
Consequently India's aircraft selection causes me to wonder if India can themselves defeat stealth technology...or if they have reason to believe that someone else will...or has. Knowing a technology is or will soon be obsolete junk has affected many a buying decision, and they do have a neighbor that was quick to use their gifted technology to accomplish the non-trivial task of shooting a satellite down.
(Note: It is rather a shame that the greed of America's right was so obviously America's one and only weakness...to think that it has been used to transform us into Mao's "paper tiger" is both tragically sad and infuriating.)
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Cutting costs for production often shows up elsewhere. In the Arrow's case, maintenance was an afterthought, sometimes requiring unscrewing entire panels. Lining up the holes to re-fasten them was nearly impossible with the tension changed. Also it had major landing gear problems. It was an amazing jet, but a lot of its shortcomings were somewhat whitewashed in order to win support to continue the program.
a study of Indian history shows that the first military weapon, armoury production alliance in India was between Tipu Sultan and the French.
Agreed. Americans have also forgotten that France won their War of Independendence for them and gave them their precious liberty. I have no particular love of France either - being Australian.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
India has the common sense to not purchase the F-35 because it is obsolete; and so does a branch of the US military who refuses to buy it as well; further proof rests with the fact that Canada bought it; they(Canada) also are known for buying derilict submarines from the Brits
What you are saying is that costs were an important part of the decision, and that other aspects such as technology, risks, etc. were reviewed objectively via a comparison matrix.
Great news. Our Canadian Government did the same with a ship building contract. The favourite supplier lost to a lower cost competitor.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Add one more to the India's glorious list of scams https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_scandals_in_India_(state_wise)
Casteism
> Remember the Malvinas War ?
There, fixed it for you.
Die in a fire. Or a hail of Eurofighter Typhoon fire if you try to invade the Falklands again.
Well, I have to say that this move of the Indian Government was particularly clever. Let's put it that way: They want an airplane with the latest technology, right?
Forget the F-16 and the F-18: both fighters were introduced in the 80s and even if they've benefited from improvements (and even the F-16 is one of the cheapest fighters in terms of purchase price, its maintenance is DAMN expensive), they can simply not beat the F-35, Eurofighter and French Rafale.
Now, the F-35 has made it's FIRST night flight on February 2nd 2012 (http://www.gizmag.com/f-35a-night-flight/21325/). The Indian Secretary of Defense does not want an airplane which can be operational in 2023. They want an airplane they can use tomorrow.
Eurofighter and Rafale were then the only two real competitors in this story. However, Eurofighter has never been used in real combat, whereas the Rafale was, and in many occasions. When the UK, France, Germany, Italy, the US and their allies attacked Libya, the countries owning the Eurofighter used it for mere recon missions and used their Tornado jet fighter for combat missions. French used their Rafale for BOTH recon and combat missions (2.000 flight hours over Libya).
By choosing the Rafale, I guess the Indians really affirmed that they want a modern and operational jet fighter, that's all.