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."

Comments

Good move

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
It seems some cool heads prevailed in this case, unlike other nut job countries like ... ahem ... Canada.
Even Australia seems to have made a better choice in snagging the Super Hornet instead

Giving too much credit to Indian politicians

[longacre]

FTA: "Indian law requires the government to negotiate a contract with the lowest bidder." That would seem to be the end of it.

Re:Giving too much credit to Indian politicians

[ThatsMyNick]

Indian law requires the government to negotiate a contract with the lowest bidder, that satisfies the requirements. If they wanted the capabilities of F-35, I am pretty sure the cheapest would have been the F-35.

Many versus Awesome

[Geoffrey.landis]

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.

Re:Many versus Awesome

[amiga3D]

Quantity has a quality all it's own.

Re:Many versus Awesome

[Runaway1956]

"the odds were never 1:1"

There a huge load of wisdom in that observation. I guess it should suffice to point out that no War College or academy teaches that there is a set formula for winning a battle, or a war. It has always been doctrine in the US military to gain LOCAL air superiority, as quickly as possible. It doesn't matter that the opposition might actually have overall air superiority, if you can gain superiority in your own local theater or operations.

I'm kind of rambling here. My point is, officers like General Sherman or General Erwin Rommel can hand you victory after victory because they can take advantage of resources, mobility, local superiority, and a host of other factors. Both men faced superior forces, repeatedly, and beat those forces into the ground.

A good commander never allows the odds to be 1:1.

Re:Many versus Awesome

[Shinobi]

The ratios is an interesting thing: First of all, the only American tank designed to actually go into tank vs tank combat was the Pershing, because the doctrine, thanks to an idiot general in the US, was that Tank Destroyer battalions should do the combat with the tanks, while tanks should only support infantry. The M4 with a 76mm gun was an emergency solution, and the gun was just roughly comparable to the 75mm on the Panzer IV, that is, not at all comparable to the short 88 on the Tiger, or the long 75 on the Panther. (As an aside: many people mix the KWK 36 L/56 together with the KWK/PAK 43 L/71 in terms of fearsome, but they used completely different ammunition. The KWK 42 L/70, that is the Panthers long 75 was actually a better anti-tank gun than the short 88)

In terms of ratios, the only hard ones I've seen are in regards to the Tiger.

US estimated that to deal with a Tiger, they'd need 6 Sherman with 75mm guns, and they'd lose 5

Russia estimated that to deal with a Tiger, they'd need 5 T-34, and they'd lose 4

UK, with their Firefly augmented tank troops, estimated that they'd need a troop of 5, and they'd lose 3 ordinary Shermans while the Firefly got into a position to kill the Tiger, and that's because the Firefly had a gun almost comparable to the KWK 43 L/71.

In terms of impact, yes the T-34 had an impact on following tanks in the war, but the Panther had a much larger impact on everything that came later, including the Centurion and the Leopard 1, and even carrying on to modern designs.

Re:Many versus Awesome

[wjsteele]

Yep... the last thing you want in a battle is for it to be a fair fight. Because if it's fair, you could lose!

Bill

Re:Many versus Awesome

[Slashdot Assistant]

This is pseudo-profundity of the kind one would expect from a humanities student, trying to sound profound in the hope of getting his fingers inside an impressionable fellow student.

War as a means of culling the population is inefficient and brings with it serious issues for any "ruling class" that'd wield the scythe. Western democracies have a very strong political need to minimize casualties, as excessive death would invite popular revolt. Iraq was invaded back in 2003, and in that time the US has lost less than five thousand servicemen. The powers that be could have killed far more people through encouraging gluttony, either through choking (which kills thousands each year) or by its long-term deleterious effects on health. It's also worth noting that military service is a pretty good way for people from poorer backgrounds to get an education and healthcare that they otherwise could not afford.

Anyway, why would somebody want to trim the population? A sinister ruling class would surely profit most from keeping a workforce poor and minimally educated. A significant drop in population would serve only to increase the value of the survivors - making it more difficult to maintain control. This was the experience of English landowners when the Black Death had ravaged the population, and arguably the same was true for women when World War II led to a shortage of working men.

War has far more practical uses. It's great for industry, and as it happens, the people making the decisions on war would tend to be rather chummy with the guys who can provide the tools. It can be a rather good way of uniting a nation, and helping them to ignore domestic deficiencies. War, and emergency in general, is a great lubricant for slipping in otherwise repugnant legislation.

Re:Many versus Awesome

[Leebert]

I see, so Japanese civilian casualties were okay because it saved US military lives.

Pretty much, yes. It's war; war is an ugly "us-or-them" fight to the death where a nation's very existence is on the line. That's why it must be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, the US hasn't been very good at that of late.

In the case of Japan, while I don't take any pleasure out of the usage of nuclear weapons, in the end Japan was the aggressor. If you start a fist fight by punching me and I hit you over the head with a fire extinguisher, yes that's "cheating" in a fist fight, but I didn't ask for the fight.

Re:Many versus Awesome

[AmiMoJo]

Pretty much, yes. It's war; war is an ugly "us-or-them" fight to the death where a nation's very existence is on the line.

Except that the United States existence was never on the line with Japan.

In the case of Japan, while I don't take any pleasure out of the usage of nuclear weapons, in the end Japan was the aggressor.

That is a matter of debate. Japan knew it had slim chances of winning the war but arguably felt forced into conflict with the US and so decided to attack first. I'm not sure I agree completely with that, but if you look at the relative strengths and capabilities of each side and the dissent in the Japanese military for the war it is hard to imagine that it was a serious attempt to conquer the US. I looks more like a desperate move.

Plus the rest of the world has agreed on some rules for warfare that we mostly try to stick to, and one of the most important ones is not deliberately targeting civilians. The US tested two nuclear bombs on innocent people and that can never, ever, ever be justified. Maybe if Japanese troops were kicking down the door of the White House, but the reality is you wanted to know what the effects would be on cities and people so you could better plan military strategy and protect your own people.

Rafale F16

[sanman2]

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.

News for american weapon dealers?

[ant-1]

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?

Was it that simple? Prudence beat out latest Tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:french military victories

[Anonymous Coward]

Tee hee! Surrender joke!

Guess Napoleon, Layette saving us during the revolution and WWI didn't count.

Re:Rafale F16

[Swampash]

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?

Re:Rafale F16

[jonwil]

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?

Re:Slashdot flamebait headline misses the point

[wjsteele]

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

Re:french military victories

[expatriot]

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.

Re:Okay did that :)

[Phrogman]

First result returned by Google gives this list:

• Battle of Allia - 387 B.C. Battle of Gergovia - 52 B.C. Battle of Soissons - 486 A.D. Battle of Tolbaic - 496 Battle of Vouille - 507 Battle of Tours / Battle of Poitiers - 732 Battle of Pavia - 773 Battle for Paris - 885-886 Battle of Val-es-Dunes - 1047 Battle of Hastings - October 14, 1066 Battle of Dorylaeum - July 1, 1097 Battle of Ascalon - August 12, 1099 Battle of Montgisard (1177) Battle of Bouvines - July 27, 1214 Battle of Morlaix - 1342 Battle of Ardres - 1351 Battle of Cocherel - May 16, 1364 Battle of Montiel - 1369 Battle of La Rochelle - June 22, 1372 Battle of Chiset - 1373 Battle of Roosebeke - November 27, 1382 Battle of Bauge - March 21, 1421 Siege of Orleans - October 12, 1428-May 8, 1429 Battle of Jargeau - June 11-12, 1429 Battle of Beaugency - June 16-17, 1429 Battle of Patay - June 18, 1429 Siege of Compiegne - June 18, 1429 Battle of Gerbevoy - 1435 Battle of Formigny - April 15, 1450 Battle of Castillon - July 17, 1453 Battle of Agnadello - 1509 Battle of Marignano - 1515 Battle of Ceresole - 1544 Battle of Rocroi - 1643 Battle of Nordlingen - 1645 Battle of Lens - 1648 Battle of Dunes - 1658 Battle of Fleurus - 1690 Battle of Beachy Head - 1690 Battle of Landen - 1693 Battle of Denain - 1712 Battle of Fontenoy - May 11th, 1745 Battle of Roucoux - 1746 Battle of Lauffeld - 1747 Battle of Hastenbeck - 1757 Battle of Carillon - 1758 Battle of Yorktown - 1781 Battle of the Chesapeake - September 5, 1781 Battle of Valmy - September 20, 1792 Battle of Fleurus - 1794 Battle of the Vosges - July 13, 1794 Battle of Castiglione - 1796 Battle of the Bridge of Arcole - November 17, 1796 Battle of Diersheim, April 20th, 1797 Battle of Rivoli - 1797 Battle of the Pyramids - 1798 Battle of Mount Tabor - 1799 Battle of Abukir - 1799 Second Battle of Zurich - 1799 Battle of Marengo - 1800 Battle of Hohenlinden - December 3, 1800 Battle of Austerlitz - December 2, 1805 Battle of Jena-Auerstedt - October 14, 1806 Battle of Friedland - June 14, 180 Battle of Tudela - November 23, 1808 Battle of Ucles - January 13, 1809 Battle of Ciudad-Real - March 27, 1809 Battle of Eckmuhl - April 21st, 1809 Battle of Wagram - July 5-6, 1809 Battle of Medellin - 1809 Battle of Ocana - 1809 Battle of Smolensk - August 17, 1812 Battle of Borodino - September 7, 1812 Battle of Dresden - 1813 Battle of Lutzen - May 2, 1813 Battle of Vauchamps - February 14, 1814 Battle of Ligny - 1815 Battle of Trocadero - 1823 Battle of Navarino - October 20, 1827 Invasion of Algeria - 1830 Battle of Balaclava - October 25, 1854 Battle of Malakoff - 1855 Battle of Solferino - 1859 Battle of Foochow - 1884 First Battle of the Marne - 1914 Togoland - August 26, 1914 Battle of Ypres - October 19-November 22, 1914 Battle of Verdun - 1916 Second Battle of the Aisne - April 16-May 9, 1917 Second Battle of the Marne - 1918 Second Battle of the Marne - 1918 Battle of Belleau Wood - June 1-26, 1918 Battle of Chateau-Thierry - July 18, 1918 Battle of Amiens - August 8-11, 1918 Battle of Maysalun - 1922 Battle of Koufra - 1941 Operation Dragoon - 1944

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.

Re:french military victories

[tbannist]

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." - Penn Jillette