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."
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
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."
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.
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.
Tee hee! Surrender joke!
Guess Napoleon, Layette saving us during the revolution and WWI didn't count.
Have you ever done business with Indians or bought anything from India? The first and only rule is keep it cheap.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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?
Someone in the India Ministry of Defense probably googled "American military victories". Turned up late to two World Wars after everyone else had already done all the work, dropped nuclear weapons on two civilian targets (that's some real bravery right thur Cletus), then proceeded to get buttfucked by amateurs from Saigon to Kandahar.
Just kidding America, we know you showed Grenada who's boss! USA! USA!
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.
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.
Indian arms manufacturers are notoriously corrupt and inefficient. They tried to create a domestic fighter, but the problem is if the gap between your fighters and the competition is wide enough, you may as well not have any at all. India can't afford to do what China is doing, which is to create a world-class fighter industry by taking the long view and realizing their stuff won't be competitive for a decade or two.
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?
...at the angle a shell would hit it, it would present itself as a thicker piece of steel to an object impacting it.
Actually, that is the smaller part of the equation. The main factor is that the angle deflects the incoming mass, resulting in a much smaller transfer of energy to the target than is the case for a projectile that rams into a vertical wall and comes to a dead stop.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
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.
Agreed... it also mentions specifically in the last paragraph that they are still evaluating the F35, which wasn't a part of this contract.
It sure would be nice if Slashdot editors started reading the articles they're posting about.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
I don't understand where do you see the "anti-US" sentiment in the article. It is US-centric, as it refers to a country's rejection of a US offer and then proceeds to call to question the US investment in expensive military projects such as the F-35, and also how US foreign politics has been handled and its influence on military supply contracts.
Yet, as you stated, the same country which rejected a US offering also rejected a half dosen or so offerings from other non-US suppliers, some of which for the same reasons.
So, it isn't an article designed to lambast the US. In fact, it barely mentions it. It is an article summary that is heavily US-centric and, as a consequence, lets this national narcisism ignore everything around them and in the process completely miss the point. But that isn't anti-US, is it?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
If you drive around France, even the smallest village has a WW1 monument with dozens of names on it. The decimation that France suffered in WW1, and the damage fighting the war on its own land, made many hesitant to fight again.
While there were some collaborators, and some of them were in high places, the general mood was anti German. There was a lot of bad history there.
This is what makes the French German cooperation in starting the European Union all the more impressive. It was a recognition that the past could not keep repeating.
Maybe not for USA, but India borders China and Pakistan. And neither of those are really on good terms with India.
Seriously, Outside of ICBMs and submarines, nothing can really touch USA directly. And i wonder how uppity the international politics will become if ever USA develops a reliable ICBM shield.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
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
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.
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." - Penn Jillette
Fanatically anti-fanatical