Tshering22
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 18,431
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Dear fellow countrymen, I was thinking that as our country is advancing towards military development and we are developing our own stealth fighter, we must involve in a couple of close allies to speed up the project.
We should continue developing the entire MCA ourselves with our knowledge but if it involves in foreign allies, it would mean:
1) A strong strategic base reiterating our foreign policy
2) Faster work as partners would be keen to induct the fighter incase our government becomes slow--they would act as accelerators
3) Singapore and Israel are both strategically beneficial for us--- Israel is one of the strongest technological contributor to our military while Singapore is one of the top 5 allies in the Indian Ocean Regions.
There are two reasons why I mentioned Singapore and Israel specifically:
1- both the countries have warm ties with us
2- they don't pose any strategic threat to us even in long term
3- they are safe enough to be given our source codes to modify their versions of MCA as they want
The benefits these two coutnries have would be:
*) Israel was recently rumored to be rejected for the F-15 Silent Eagle; Russia isn't that close with them while European weapons are too expensive for their small defense budget. So they can get reinforcements for their F-35s that they will receive from USA replacing their older F-15 'Neshers'.
If they join the MCA program, it will strengthen our ties with them, we can share some of their advanced know-how in exchange for giving them access to source codes and also mend our recent diplomatic blunder that our government made by condemning Israeli action (As a neutral country, our government could have remained silent and refused to comment).
*) Singapore has aquired latest F-15s but needs to replace its F-16s in the near future. They are a financially well off country and also an advanced technological hub having strong military ties with us.
Asking them to join the project would mean additional technical know-how, better inter-operability and SAF earning themselves a good stealth fighter at reasonable cost effectiveness.
What do you think?
We should continue developing the entire MCA ourselves with our knowledge but if it involves in foreign allies, it would mean:
1) A strong strategic base reiterating our foreign policy
2) Faster work as partners would be keen to induct the fighter incase our government becomes slow--they would act as accelerators
3) Singapore and Israel are both strategically beneficial for us--- Israel is one of the strongest technological contributor to our military while Singapore is one of the top 5 allies in the Indian Ocean Regions.
There are two reasons why I mentioned Singapore and Israel specifically:
1- both the countries have warm ties with us
2- they don't pose any strategic threat to us even in long term
3- they are safe enough to be given our source codes to modify their versions of MCA as they want
The benefits these two coutnries have would be:
*) Israel was recently rumored to be rejected for the F-15 Silent Eagle; Russia isn't that close with them while European weapons are too expensive for their small defense budget. So they can get reinforcements for their F-35s that they will receive from USA replacing their older F-15 'Neshers'.
If they join the MCA program, it will strengthen our ties with them, we can share some of their advanced know-how in exchange for giving them access to source codes and also mend our recent diplomatic blunder that our government made by condemning Israeli action (As a neutral country, our government could have remained silent and refused to comment).
*) Singapore has aquired latest F-15s but needs to replace its F-16s in the near future. They are a financially well off country and also an advanced technological hub having strong military ties with us.
Asking them to join the project would mean additional technical know-how, better inter-operability and SAF earning themselves a good stealth fighter at reasonable cost effectiveness.
What do you think?
