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"
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
Perhaps so, but it's not like Boeing will give India the cream of the crop or at a competitive price. Australia's purchase of Hornets put us behind Indonesia's air attack capability, 18m a plane vs the 250k per mig, Hornets are nice planes but put us way out numbered against our nextdoor neighbors.
Boeing is over priced, French, russian, sweden all make pretty good fighters even so Boeing struggles to pull off cobra maneuvers. Russians can perform landing cobras and the, swedish planes can do variants of these maneuvers not quite as good as the US equivalent, actually the US equivalent matches up pretty poorly.
Stealth fighters would be the only reason to buy US and china is quickly filling that gap.
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.
You beat me to it.
But in all honesty, the UK had their missiles up Paris' ass so there wasn't much they could do about that.
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!
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.
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.
You're basing your performance assessment on the ability to perform a single specific maneuver? That's a little narrow minded isn't it?
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
Aerobatic maneuvers are useless. It's all about seeing first and shooting first. That means good radar, good missiles, datalinks, and stealth. I don't suppose India would be offered the best of those in any case, regardless of airframe.
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 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
Aerobatic maneuvers are useless. It's all about seeing first and shooting first.
That's what they said when they designed the F-4 Phantom without a cannon.
Back in the real world, we design fighters to shoot aircraft they can't see... and then impose rules of engagement which require a positive ID before they fire.
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
.
When and if we ever get in a war serious enough to justify the existence of the F35 and F22 in the first place, they will be unleashed.
Aerobatic maneuvers are useless. It's all about seeing first and shooting first. That means good radar, good missiles, datalinks, and stealth. I don't suppose India would be offered the best of those in any case, regardless of airframe.
I presume you are basing your opinions by looking at USAF fighting likes of Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
Tell me whether you'd prefer to be in Su-27 or F-16 when S-300 is coming your way...
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.
They'll be fine unless they get into a war with the British.
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.
Wel, I guess an open alliance with their arch-enemy made them look for somebody more relyable than the US. Just saying.
If they need to use those planes in Kashmir Pakistan will go sobbing to the US. The possibility of war between India and Pakistan is still there and as likely as ever.
20 minutes into the future
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?
Hornets are nice planes but put us way out numbered against our nextdoor neighbors.
Who cares? Is Indonesia really threatening to attack Australia these days?
The last time some idiot said that we lost a bunch of pilots and WW2 pilots were pulled out of retirement to instruct students at the newly formed Top Gun school. Dog fights will always be a part of air combat.
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.
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).
Just ask the Argentinians how that turned out. French weapons are worthless.
Actually the Argentians were "decimating" the royal navy with the exocets. And the British would have lost the war had the French not given away the frequencies necessary to jam the missiles in flight to the British (I think the French should have send the British and Thatcher to hell instead of rescueing them). So no, the exocets were not worthless not by a long shot.
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)
Are SO fare and transparent....right...... (ie. see most recent selling of cellphone spectrum that cost tens of billions in tax revenue)
Yeah, and the US totally never sold weapons to someone and then fight against them. Ask Saddam.
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.
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 the people who sold them to you give jamming frequencies to the people you're fighting against, that indeed makes them pretty worthless.
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)
And your pitching that Boeing has the best tech?
"please ensure that all mobile devices are switched off, if you have a mobile phone with airplane made, switch to this mode then switch your phone off"
Let's not forget the constant electrical issues qantas planes have experienced on their NEW commercial airliners.
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.
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
Are you familiar with concept of "existential threat"?
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
"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.
You do know that there is quite a big Muslim minority in France too, right?
and drones are completely fucking useless against countries with an actual air force (like pakistan, china).
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
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.
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
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
Let us know when those missiles are better then. In a decade or so, they might be better than 4th generation fighters - some of them anyway. Fighters won't have stopped there though...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
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.
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...
Out of that choice, SU-27 please.
The F-35 wasn't offered.
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.
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
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.
I would rather be in whichever one is going in AFTER the EA18G. I won't pretend to know a lot about the S300, but I doubt a cobra maneuver would throw it off. The F16 is a great workhorse but I don't think it would be sent out over enemy air defenses when it has no stealth.
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.
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
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 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...
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.
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
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.
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
> 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.
...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.
The government spent millions on technology, then shut it down after the Soviet spies stole it, so the USSR had the technology and Canada (who paid for it) didn't? Is that the sort of thing that passes for logic in your mind?
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.
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