India Delays Fighter Jet Deal (MRCA)

[TechLahore]

Actually it still makes sense because we won't be going in for the older jets like F16. Other than F16 none of the jets are old.
Gripen NG - development stages
F16IN - not developed yet (although old platform)
EF2000 - 2003
F18 SH - introduced in 1999
Rafale - 2000
Mig35 - development stages

So all the planes are new except for F16.

The F-18 dates back to the '70s.
Rafale made its maiden flight in 1986
Eurofighter made its maiden flight in 1993, whereas the project began in the mid-80s
Mig 35, being a mod of the Mig-29K, traces its roots to the 1991 first-flight of the 29K tech demonstrator, or even earlier to the Mig-29 program itself in the late '70s/early '80s

Of course, all these systems - just like the F-16 - can be upgraded with newer avionics and weapon systems, but I was alluding to the basic design being seriously dated in all cases. For example, if India goes with the F-18, the basic design would literally be about 80-85 years old when the MRCA is eventually phased out.

Given that this is the case, I was wondering why India doesn't focus instead on the existing SUs and the PAK-FA.

 

[dq_2010]

Indian politics ..........its unique in the sense that anything might happen at anytime .......difficult to understand whats in their mind when it comes to national issue.........why they are taking too long to decide whats better for them..........anyway lets wait and watch

 

[karan.1970]

The F-18 dates back to the '70s.
Rafale made its maiden flight in 1986
Eurofighter made its maiden flight in 1993, whereas the project began in the mid-80s
Mig 35, being a mod of the Mig-29K, traces its roots to the 1991 first-flight of the 29K tech demonstrator, or even earlier to the Mig-29 program itself in the late '70s/early '80s

Of course, all these systems - just like the F-16 - can be upgraded with newer avionics and weapon systems, but I was alluding to the basic design being seriously dated in all cases. For example, if India goes with the F-18, the basic design would literally be about 80-85 years old when the MRCA is eventually phased out.

Given that this is the case, I was wondering why India doesn't focus instead on the existing SUs and the PAK-FA.

@TL.. I may be wrong here, but wasnt the super bug an almost complete redesign of the original F-18 (Hornet), including a redesign of the airframe as well. Which means a new platform alltogether.. And was operationalized in late 90s

 

[CONNAN]

Given that this is the case, I was wondering why India doesn't focus instead on the existing SUs and the PAK-FA.

three answers

1)pakistan phobia
2)poltical beurocracy
3)miss management

 

[karan.1970]

Make that a minority of two. I lean towards a combination of SH & Gripen, neither of which seems to be the choice of most here.

Splitting apparantly has been ruled out by MoD it seems. If upto me, I would go with Super Hornet and tie up with Gripen for LCA MkII and III

I mean 6 years back a 10 billion deal was a big item. Now, really not.. Specailly with deals like the globemaster (some 5 billion it seems), the 42 flankers (2+ billion) already done in 1st 3 months of the year..

Get the MRCA to the older teen and focus on LCA's next upgrades with Gripen.. If only countries were run like Corporates....

 

[harrymohan]

I don't know what fantasy ppl have with American fighters...though they serve best with US armed forces they are pain for other countries which operate them! for instance take Pakistan! when they received their F-16's in 1980 they were intentionally given planes which didn't had look down shot down capability, Finland F18 lack something so they can't be used as Ground attack only A-2-A fighter! where as if you buy from Europe/ Russia there is as such no strings attached for example Mirage 2000 was heavily modified for attack role in 1999 Kargil war!! F-16/18 might be best of the lot but it comes with lot of strings attached! in the form of limited capability that US would put!

 

[TechLahore]

I don't know what fantasy ppl have with American fighters...though they serve best with US armed forces they are pain for other countries which operate them! for instance take Pakistan! when they received their F-16's in 1980 they were intentionally given planes which didn't had look down shot down capability, Finland F18 lack something so they can't be used as Ground attack only A-2-A fighter! where as if you buy from Europe/ Russia there is as such no strings attached for example Mirage 2000 was heavily modified for attack role in 1999 Kargil war!! F-16/18 might be best of the lot but it comes with lot of strings attached! in the form of limited capability that US would put!

It's not about "fantasy". It's just that American fighters are better. Look at the historical performance of Sabres vs. Mig-15s/Hunters (Korea/Pak-India 1965), F-4s vs. Mig-21s, F-14s vs. Migs (Iraq-Iran), F-16s vs. assorted Migs and SUs (Bekaa, Afghanistan, Iraq).

The same goes for AA weapon systems. The AMRAAM is widely acknowledged to be a more accurate and reliable missile than Russian counterparts.

 

[TechLahore]

@TL.. I may be wrong here, but wasnt the super bug an almost complete redesign of the original F-18 (Hornet), including a redesign of the airframe as well. Which means a new platform alltogether.. And was operationalized in late 90s

You could make the same case for the F-16. The Block 52/60 are worlds apart from the YF-16... and that includes structural changes.

 

[harrymohan]

I don't know what fantasy ppl have with American fighters...though they serve best with US armed forces they are pain for other countries which operate them! for instance take Pakistan! when they received their F-16's in 1980 they were intentionally given planes which didn't had look down shot down capability, Finland F18 lack something so they can't be used as Ground attack only A-2-A fighter! where as if you buy from Europe/ Russia there is as such no strings attached for example Mirage 2000 was heavily modified for attack role in 1999 Kargil war!! F-16/18 might be best of the lot but it comes with lot of strings attached! in the form of limited capability that US would put!

It's not about "fantasy". It's just that American fighters are better. Look at the historical performance of Sabres vs. Mig-15s/Hunters (Korea/Pak-India 1965), F-4s vs. Mig-21s, F-14s vs. Migs (Iraq-Iran), F-16s vs. assorted Migs and SUs (Bekaa, Afghanistan, Iraq).

The same goes for AA weapon systems. The AMRAAM is widely acknowledged to be a more accurate and reliable missile than Russian counterparts.

I would recommend you to read again my post, they serve best when they are operated by US armed forces! if you have seen/ read Charlie Wilsons war movie/book there he mentions the F-16s given to Pakistan lack look down shoot down capability so can't be used against Soviets! same is with other countries armed forces! they are given with cut down functionality and not full fledged which US airforce enjoys!

As far as Sabre is concerned there were no sanctions placed on Pakistan hence full capability but anyway those times plane weren't so advanced to add/remove stuff which will make them only A-2-A or A2G

Again, what I am saying is American Planes are the best but not best when operated by non-US forces! Anyday US planes are overpriced $80 million for F-16IN are you kidding me!! where as SU-30 MKI cost $45 million a piece!

 

[harrymohan]

The F-18 dates back to the '70s.
Rafale made its maiden flight in 1986
Eurofighter made its maiden flight in 1993, whereas the project began in the mid-80s
Mig 35, being a mod of the Mig-29K, traces its roots to the 1991 first-flight of the 29K tech demonstrator, or even earlier to the Mig-29 program itself in the late '70s/early '80s

Of course, all these systems - just like the F-16 - can be upgraded with newer avionics and weapon systems, but I was alluding to the basic design being seriously dated in all cases. For example, if India goes with the F-18, the basic design would literally be about 80-85 years old when the MRCA is eventually phased out.

Given that this is the case, I was wondering why India doesn't focus instead on the existing SUs and the PAK-FA.

Going by your logic even F-22 was first tested in 1990 and I am not including when the project was actually started! and it was inducted in 2005. Every plane dev takes time. If US phase out F-22 in 2040 it would be 50 yrs old.

 

[TechLahore]

Again, what I am saying is American Planes are the best but not best when operated by non-US forces! Anyday US planes are overpriced $80 million for F-16IN are you kidding me!! where as SU-30 MKI cost $45 million a piece!

Yes, but then again, I would take an F-16in over an su30 anyday as long as I had a western equipment oriented air force. Please keep in mind that many countries that have a choice between western and Russian equipment always choose western equipment. Have you ever heard a country return its f16s because they didn't function to spec? Mig 29s have been returned in a highly public spat...

http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/algeria-returning-flawed-air-force-mig-29s-to-russia.html

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2009/01/mig29_is_lebano.php

http://rupeenews.com/2009/03/14/rus...plans-fails-to-ground-its-new-flying-coffins/




As for Charlie wilson's comments, I dont believe that Pakistan accepted hobbled F16s. Yes, they didn't have bvr capability when we originally got them, but many here will tell you that sparrows were part of the delivery. For the time, that would still make the f16s we received a very capable platform.

---------- Post added at 06:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 AM ----------

Going by your logic even F-22 was first tested in 1990 and I am not including when the project was actually started! and it was inducted in 2005. Every plane dev takes time. If US phase out F-22 in 2040 it would be 50 yrs old.

Your math is correct but there is a huge difference between 50 and 80 years.

 

[karan.1970]

You could make the same case for the F-16. The Block 52/60 are worlds apart from the YF-16... and that includes structural changes.

Its true that block 52 and more significantly block 60 is a world apart from the original YF 16, but in line with your earlier arguement of advanced avionics and similar changes around weapon s etc.. But the base airframe has remained same with minor alterations.

otoh, super hornet is a different plane all together from hornet. The airframe itself is about 1.5 meters longer, the wing span i s 10% more and wing area is over 25% larger and loaded weight over 33% more.

The only reason it shares a name with the F 18 Hornet is probably to sell it to the armed forces as a derivative of a proven platform than anything else..

 

[faithfulguy]

It's not about "fantasy". It's just that American fighters are better. Look at the historical performance of Sabres vs. Mig-15s/Hunters (Korea/Pak-India 1965), F-4s vs. Mig-21s, F-14s vs. Migs (Iraq-Iran), F-16s vs. assorted Migs and SUs (Bekaa, Afghanistan, Iraq).

The same goes for AA weapon systems. The AMRAAM is widely acknowledged to be a more accurate and reliable missile than Russian counterparts.

If the guy who is making the purchase can see the obvious as you see, it won't take this long.
So the decision must be more than a political, military or even logical. Is how much kick back would each company/gov provide. That is whats holding up the negotiations. I feel really bad for the Indians and especially the guys in this forum and they are screw over by their politicians again and again and again. When something not as complicated become so much more complicated, someone is making money on the side.

 

[TechLahore]

otoh, super hornet is a different plane all together from hornet. The airframe itself is about 1.5 meters longer, the wing span i s 10% more and wing area is over 25% larger and loaded weight over 33% more.

scaled up, not 'different altogether'. the design remains the same.

 

[pkd]

Its true that block 52 and more significantly block 60 is a world apart from the original YF 16, but in line with your earlier arguement of advanced avionics and similar changes around weapon s etc.. But the base airframe has remained same with minor alterations.

Based on this line of reasoning, it can be concluded that indian su-30mki is not very different from su-30 that uganda is getting. Right?