NationStates Jolt Archive


So what fighter plane should India buy?

Aryavartha
30-06-2007, 02:08
After years of dilly dallying...finally India has floated the tender to purchase 126 MRCAs (if you don't know what that is...you should probably skip this thread :p).

It is a mega deal..about $10 Billion, methinks...and will be replacing the aging Mig 21s (which were supposed to be replaced by the homegrown LCAs...which are still in the making...:( ).

So what fighter plane should India buy? and why ?

http://www.expressindia.com/print.php?newsid=88842
India OKs mega fighter plane deal

Agencies

New Delhi, June 29: India cleared the floating of its biggest ever global tender for purchasing 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft in a defence deal that could run up to a staggering Rs 42,000 crore (approximately USD 10 billion).

Ending almost 6 years of suspense since the Request for Information was circulated in 2001 among international manufacturers, an official announcement said the ‘process for procurement of the fighters had been cleared’.

The Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued by the first week of August, Defence Ministry spokesman Sithansu Kar said.

Under the deal, India will acquire 18 fighters in a flyaway condition and 118 will be manufactured under licence in the country.

In a break from existing norms, the chosen manufacturer will have to spend 50 per cent as direct offsets on the aircraft or defence manufacturing industry in India, the official announcement said. Under current rules, there is a 30 per cent offset clause in all defence deals worth over Rs 300 crore.

Though the official announcement did not specify any timeframe for the supply and manufacture of the fighters, top Defence Ministry sources said the first of the jets were expected to be delivered within three years of the signing of the contract.

With few countries placing bulk orders for fighters, leading international defence aviation companies have for long been awaiting the floating of the Indian contract.

Six major firms--American firm Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-16, the world's largest selling fighter, Boeing with its F-18/A Super Hornet, France's Dassault with its Rafale, Sweden's Saab with the JAS-39 Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon made by an European consortium and Russia's Mikoyan Design Bureau with its MiG-35--are expected to vie for the lucrative contract.

With the purchase of these new generation fighters, the Indian Air Force hopes to make up its fast depleting fighter squadron strength, which is expected to hit an all-time low of 29 squadrons by 2010 against the sanctioned strength of 45 squadrons.

The new fighters will replace the IAF's ageing MiG-21 jets, the bulk of which are expected to be phased out by 2009.

The new jets are also expected to fill the gap caused by repeated delays in the programme to develop the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The LCA was intended to replace the MiG-21s.
Gartref
30-06-2007, 02:10
So what fighter plane should India buy?



P-51s

Cause their freakin' awesome!
Lacadaemon
30-06-2007, 02:12
Well don't buy anything from lockheed. They aren't trustworthy.
Oklatex
30-06-2007, 02:15
126 MRCAs (if you don't know what that is...you should probably skip this thread :p).

Hummm. I have over 40 years experience in the aviation industry, 26 of it in the USAF, and I read Defense Industry Daily daily. I have no clue as to what a MRCA is. :confused:
Myrmidonisia
30-06-2007, 02:15
The funny thing is this...Even after the Indian government decides which aircraft to buy, it's going to be years in the negotiations for the contract. By the time they actually do pay and get the aircraft delivered, these aircraft will be as obsolete as the Mig-21s are now.

Tell me that's not true, Aryavartha.

And they should buy F-16s, if we can sell them.
Similization
30-06-2007, 02:16
I have some cheap lightweight ones they can buy. Made of folded paper too.

EDIT: Did this place get even more caught up in morbid arms fascination and warmongering while I was away, or am I just imagining it?
Myrmidonisia
30-06-2007, 02:16
Hummm. I have over 40 years experience in the aviation industry, 26 of it in the USAF, and I read Defense Industry Daily daily. I have no clue as to what a MRCA is. :confused:

Celt, you gotta Google...It's a Tornado.
Oklatex
30-06-2007, 02:19
Celt, you gotta Google...It's a Tornado.

Thanks. Oh, now I know what it is. Damn I'm gettin old.

By the way DID http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ They have a free subscription for all you military buffs. I get it daily for business purposes as I need to keep up with the civilian and military aircraft market.
Lacadaemon
30-06-2007, 02:19
Celt, you gotta Google...It's a Tornado.

In this context, I don't think it is.
German Nightmare
30-06-2007, 02:20
I guess Multi-Role-Combat-Aircraft? (No, I didn't look it up. I just made it up.)
Myrmidonisia
30-06-2007, 02:21
In this context, I don't think it is.

Really? Every time I've ever read about a Multi role combat aircraft, MRCA, it's been about Tornados. What is it this time?
Oklatex
30-06-2007, 02:27
In this context, I don't think it is.

It appears you are correct and the MRCA is not an aircraft. Here is what I came up with searching on DID.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes/index.php

and this...100-200 plane MRCA medium fighter competition, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft or its substitute, the MRTA medium transport jet, and other projects designed to modernize the force and extend its reach.

which I found here

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/02/india-intends-to-spend-35b-for-military-aircraft-over-the-next-25-years/index.php#more

So, to the OP, what the heck does MRCA stand for as neither article gives the definition of the acronym.
Oklatex
30-06-2007, 02:29
I guess Multi-Role-Combat-Aircraft? (No, I didn't look it up. I just made it up.)

I think you win the cookies. So, MRTA would be Multi Role Transport Aircraft. Here are the cookies :fluffle:
Lacadaemon
30-06-2007, 02:32
Really? Every time I've ever read about a Multi role combat aircraft, MRCA, it's been about Tornados. What is it this time?

I'm just guessing here, but I don't think they make them anymore. And I can't see anyone spending 70,000,000 per aircraft for panavia junk.

Might be dead wrong though.

I think they are looking for something along the lines of tranche C eurofighter.
German Nightmare
30-06-2007, 02:32
It appears you are correct and the MRCA is not an aircraft. Here is what I came up with searching on DID.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes/index.php

and this...100-200 plane MRCA medium fighter competition, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft or its substitute, the MRTA medium transport jet, and other projects designed to modernize the force and extend its reach.

which I found here

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/02/india-intends-to-spend-35b-for-military-aircraft-over-the-next-25-years/index.php#more

So, to the OP, what the heck does MRCA stand for as neither article gives the definition of the acronym.
Looking at the list provided in the OP/poll, I would say it is what the Tornado as an MRCA would have filled in the past - only now they're looking for something newer.

I mean, honestly - what else would MRCA mean?
Todsboro
30-06-2007, 02:34
Hummm. I have over 40 years experience in the aviation industry, 26 of it in the USAF, and I read Defense Industry Daily daily. I have no clue as to what a MRCA is. :confused:

Multi Role Combat Aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft).

Background on the Indian project to acquire MRCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_Competition).
Wilgrove
30-06-2007, 02:35
They should've brought the F-22 Raptors!
Myrmidonisia
30-06-2007, 02:35
I'm just guessing here, but I don't think they make them anymore. And I can't see anyone spending 70,000,000 per aircraft for panavia junk.

Might be dead wrong though.

I think they are looking for something along the lines of tranche C eurofighter.
Yeah, the license to manufacture in India is probably the giveaway that they're not Tornados. Typhoon?
Aliquantus
30-06-2007, 02:37
My dad is working on a large number of gearboxes for the Indian Air Force, the F-16 looks like a no-go for them.

To be honest, the British Aerospace EAP bumble bee dressed in processors is going to be short lived as a true fighter. Conversion fleets have noted that the Typhoon would be no match for F-22s without a new modified batch.

F-22s are not India's most likely enemy, they should take a multi-role aircraft but not the Typhoon.
Oklatex
30-06-2007, 02:39
I'm just guessing here, but I don't think they make them anymore. And I can't see anyone spending 70,000,000 per aircraft for panavia junk.

Might be dead wrong though.

I think they are looking for something along the lines of tranche C eurofighter.

This article might be a little long but it lists all the aircraft in the competition.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes/index.php
Oklatex
30-06-2007, 02:42
Multi Role Combat Aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft).

Background on the Indian project to acquire MRCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_Competition).

Tanks!

http://www.sandia.gov/RADAR/images/tanks_optical.jpg

:D
Lacadaemon
30-06-2007, 02:48
Yeah, the license to manufacture in India is probably the giveaway that they're not Tornados. Typhoon?

Well, it's also technology grab, since they want to manufacture in India, so I don't think they are that choosy in respect of the Eurofighter (typhoon). Could be anyone wins. That's why I told him to stay away from lockheed. They aren't trustworthy in terms of tech transfer.
Myrmidonisia
30-06-2007, 02:50
Well, it's also technology grab, since they want to manufacture in India, so I don't think they are that choosy in respect of the Eurofighter (typhoon). Could be anyone wins. That's why I told him to stay away from lockheed. They aren't trustworthy in terms of tech transfer.
It appears that the term MRCA is used generically. Not a term that is on the tip of my tongue, but I understand.

I would like the sale to go to a US company, but I don't want to see India with our twentieth century technology. We'd see it again -- as an adversary.
Lacadaemon
30-06-2007, 03:09
I would like the sale to go to a US company, but I don't want to see India with our twentieth century technology. We'd see it again -- as an adversary.

Lockheed won't even give it over to the UK, so I shouldn't ought to worry about that if I was you. And Boeing really isn't in this competition.
Aryavartha
30-06-2007, 03:16
The funny thing is this...Even after the Indian government decides which aircraft to buy, it's going to be years in the negotiations for the contract. By the time they actually do pay and get the aircraft delivered, these aircraft will be as obsolete as the Mig-21s are now.

Tell me that's not true, Aryavartha.

Well, squadron strength is getting steadily degraded by the Mig21s fast approaching non-airworthiness. And India has money to buy...courtesy of the booming economy. I am guessing they will procure this faster than later.


And they should buy F-16s, if we can sell them.

Why? India already has the superior Su30s. Besides, Pakistan will be getting a lot of F16s.

F18s are viewed as high maintenance. Unless there is some nice concessions, with other things like the nuclear deal etc thrown in...I don't think it is going to be F16s or F18s.

Russian lobby is quite strong in India and unlike America, they don't threaten us with sanctions. ;)
Deus Malum
30-06-2007, 03:24
Well, squadron strength is getting steadily degraded by the Mig21s fast approaching non-airworthiness. And India has money to buy...courtesy of the booming economy. I am guessing they will procure this faster than later.



Why? India already has the superior Su30s. Besides, Pakistan will be getting a lot of F16s.

F18s are viewed as high maintenance. Unless there is some nice concessions, with other things like the nuclear deal etc thrown in...I don't think it is going to be F16s or F18s.

Russian lobby is quite strong in India and unlike America, they don't threaten us with sanctions. ;)

Relic of the Cold War, that.

It's funny that when it was the US vs. the Commies, India was friendlier with the USSR and the US was friendlier with Pakistan.
Now that it's the US versus them ebil Muslims, India's suddenly a best buddy.
Sel Appa
30-06-2007, 04:06
The MiG of course.
Ghost Tigers Rise
30-06-2007, 04:08
Hummm. I have over 40 years experience in the aviation industry, 26 of it in the USAF, and I read Defense Industry Daily daily. I have no clue as to what a MRCA is. :confused:

It's a Multi-Role Combat Aircraft.
Dododecapod
30-06-2007, 04:21
None of the above. They should buy the Su-27.

India has a long history of buying Soviet weapons systems, and everything they currently have is compatible with the Su-27. The 27 is a better ground attack aircraft than the Mig, for about the same price (i.e. about a quarter what anyone else on the list is charging).

India doesn't need top-of-the-line. They need reliable and effective. the Su-27 gives them that.
Troglobites
30-06-2007, 04:50
The Sea Dart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2Y_Sea_Dart)
OuroborosCobra
30-06-2007, 05:17
If they want an LCA, I'd go with the Saab Gripen. Otherwise I'd go with Super Hornet, or a Russian jet in the Flanker family.

The Gripen is a good jet for the cost, comparable to an F-16. The advantage over the Falcon is that it is a newer design. The Gripen has room to grow where the Falcon may not.

The Sea Dart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2Y_Sea_Dart)

:eek::D
Aryavartha
30-06-2007, 05:44
The Sea Dart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2Y_Sea_Dart)

yay ...a fighter that comes with its own aircraft carrier :cool:
Sansname
30-06-2007, 05:56
Eurofighter Typhoon is a nono. Big, slow, AND a lousy name.







I'd prefer a Spitfire or P-51 Mustang (kudos earlier post)
Vandal-Unknown
30-06-2007, 06:30
Lockheed Martin F-16?

Boeing F-18?

Shouldn't that be, General Dynamics and McDonell Douglas?

I opt for Gripens for ease of maintenance.
OuroborosCobra
30-06-2007, 06:47
Lockheed Martin F-16?

Boeing F-18?

Shouldn't that be, General Dynamics and McDonell Douglas?

No. Lockheed Martin bought General Dynamics fixed wing aircraft in 1993. Look in any Janes book written in that time, F-16 is listed as a Lockheed Martin product. Look at Lockheed's own magazine "Code One", you will always find the F-16.

McDonell Douglas was merged with Boeing in 1997 to form The Boeing Company, thus the F/A-18 is now a Boeing product.
Linker Niederrhein
30-06-2007, 08:41
Eurofighter Typhoon is a nono. Big, slow, AND a lousy name.One of two fighters presently in existence that can manage supercruise (Unless I've missed a Russian product, anyway), significantly higher topspeed than the Rafale or F/A-18 (And equal to the F-16 at altitude. Of course, the F-16 is a thirty year old design)...

Generally considered the second-best fighter in the world (Second only to the F-22, which, well, isn't exported), already has, or will soon have, pretty much the best AAMs in the world (Iris-T & Meteor, respectively, though both would fit with American kit, too - with Russian kit, not so much)...

Additionally, EADS & BAE Systems are bending over backwards to allow technology transfers (Which is stupid and I disagree with it, but hey), and it's meant to be piss-easy to service.

Nevermind that the Typhoon - rather like the F-22, though on a smaller scale - has so far won every mock fight with F-16s and F-15s (Expected, of course - thirty years are a significant difference. And German MiG 29s managed to kill F-16s in close-range mockfights in 100% of all cases, too, so this alone doesn't say too much, other than that all planes that aren't F-16 or F/A-18 are good enough to deal with Pakistan).

All of which generally means that I look at your post and go 'Huh?'

This said, if I was India, I'd definitely go for the Rafale. Not as good as the Typhoon - if still equal to the Russian planes -, but it's got a nifty carrier version, and that's a big plus for India. Besides, the French are known to support customers even when these customers are warring with NATO countries (As they did with Argentina), which has its uses, too.
Soviestan
01-07-2007, 02:46
Mustangs, or spitfires. They would own the skys.
Neo Undelia
01-07-2007, 02:54
Nothing from a US contractor. They have enough business.
Brachiosaurus
01-07-2007, 03:38
F16s and or Eurofighters.
Prumpa
01-07-2007, 05:04
There's nothing more dependable and reliable than an F-16. The US has used them for eons, and to this day, not one of them has been lost in air-to-air combat.
However, I think the US should authorize the sale of an F/A 22 or two to India. She will soon become our most important ally in Asia, and we should arm her. Pakistan will gripe, but there are ways we can deal with that peacefully.
South Lizasauria
01-07-2007, 05:09
They should try to get Raptors jet fighters.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-22_Top_Desert_lg.jpg
OuroborosCobra
01-07-2007, 05:11
They should try to get Raptors jet fighters.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-22_Top_Desert_lg.jpg

US would never sell Raptors to India. They have links too close to Russia, and Russian defense contractors.
Neo Undelia
01-07-2007, 05:12
There's nothing more dependable and reliable than an F-16. The US has used them for eons, and to this day, not one of them has been lost in air-to-air combat.
That might be due to not having any r4eal enemies to fight.

What I think we're discovering with the war in Iraq is the blatant unaccountability of weapons manufactures and the ridiculousness of much of their claims. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the whole "smart-bomb" area.
Good Lifes
01-07-2007, 05:19
So what fighter plane should India buy? and why ?

[

None, there is no reason for India to own a fighter. They couldn't stop China and they have nukes to stop anyone else. Would be far better to spend money on their people.
Ghost Tigers Rise
01-07-2007, 05:23
There's nothing more dependable and reliable than an F-16.
Old Faithful.

The Clock Tower of London.

The US has used them for eons,
20 years =/= an eon.

and to this day, not one of them has been lost in air-to-air combat.

Plenty have been lost to SAMs. And I'm pretty sure F-16s have only managed to take down 1 aircraft of similar quality: a Yugoslavian MiG-29. Said MiG was 15 years old and was deprived of spare parts.

The MiG-29 is generally deemed better than the F-15 and F-16 at close range, and at long range it's more of a contest of the training and discipline of the pilots, and the range of weapon systems.
Neo Undelia
01-07-2007, 05:24
None, there is no reason for India to own a fighter. They couldn't stop China and they have nukes to stop anyone else. Would be far better to spend money on their people.
See now, you're thinking sensibly and compassionately. That's something generally frowned upon by the average poster in this thread. See that picture of that camo-fighter a few post up? That's their porn.
Please no
01-07-2007, 05:33
None of the above. They should buy the Su-27.

India has a long history of buying Soviet weapons systems, and everything they currently have is compatible with the Su-27. The 27 is a better ground attack aircraft than the Mig, for about the same price (i.e. about a quarter what anyone else on the list is charging).

India doesn't need top-of-the-line. They need reliable and effective. the Su-27 gives them that.

If wikepedia can be trusted, India already has the Su-30 (updated from Su-27), but its classified as air superiority rather than MRCA. If that is the case Im going to have to go with the Mig.
New Stalinberg
01-07-2007, 05:33
Anything American.

After all, we invented the airplane. True, Germany invented the Jet fighter, but I DO believe we stole their scientists to make our planes even better!
The Crystal Mountains
01-07-2007, 05:34
I'm a little surprised that they went with the Tornado. It is a good, solid aircraft but most of its development took place in the late 70s, early 80s.

It is a combat proven aircraft. British Tornados flying ironhand and runway denial in the Gulf War did an excellent job- but again performance is more of a function of training.
Ghost Tigers Rise
01-07-2007, 05:37
See now, you're thinking sensibly and compassionately.
And unrealistically. And outside the scope of the thread.

The question is "Which Fighter Plane Should India Buy?", not "Where Should India Spend It's Money Instead Of The Military?"

That's something generally frowned upon by the average poster in this thread.
I'm all for spending government funds on the welfare of citizens instead of the military.

See that picture of that camo-fighter a few post up? That's their porn.

Just because we find it aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean we masturbate to it.

And there's no such thing as a camo-fighter. It's a stealth fighter with a camouflage paint scheme.

And this is my porn:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c4/MiG-35.jpg/800px-MiG-35.jpg

F-22s are very meh.
Neo Undelia
01-07-2007, 06:00
And unrealistically. And outside the scope of the thread.
Unrealistic? You really think India, or any nation for that matter, is going to facing any serious airborne threat anytime in the near future? It's thinking like that which perpetuates the unending cycle of violence in the world.
Just because we find it aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean we masturbate to it.
No, but it certainly does not speak for your temperance or compassion.
Ghost Tigers Rise
01-07-2007, 06:04
Unrealistic? You really think India, or any nation for that matter, is going to facing any serious airborne threat anytime in the near future? It's thinking like that which perpetuates the unending cycle of violence in the world.
I'm just saying its unrealistic to think that a government is going to spend money on welfare rather than it's defense budget.
No, but it certainly does not speak for your temperance or compassion.
Yes, I find the idea of flight to be beautiful and liberating, so I must be a truly evil, sick bastard. Yup, makes sense to me.

:rolleyes:
OuroborosCobra
01-07-2007, 06:06
Unrealistic? You really think India, or any nation for that matter, is going to facing any serious airborne threat anytime in the near future? It's thinking like that which perpetuates the unending cycle of violence in the world.

Actually, India is one of the nations of the world most likely to face serious airborne threats, along with Pakistan, Israel, and Syria.

India and Pakistan are only neutral with each other for the moment, but they have a long history of fighting over various territorial issues, and standard for that fighting even when they are not at war is to tangle with each others' air forces.
Neo Undelia
01-07-2007, 06:10
Actually, India is one of the nations of the world most likely to face serious airborne threats, along with Pakistan, Israel, and Syria.

India and Pakistan are only neutral with each other for the moment, but they have a long history of fighting over various territorial issues, and standard for that fighting even when they are not at war is to tangle with each others' air forces.
Yes, and they both have nukes. There will never be any full-scale fighting between Pakistan and India. Not as long as atoms continue to function in the same manner, anyway.
OuroborosCobra
01-07-2007, 06:38
Yes, and they both have nukes. There will never be any full-scale fighting between Pakistan and India. Not as long as atoms continue to function in the same manner, anyway.

If you read what I said, you will note that it does not need to be full scale fighting. Or did that part about small fighting between wars involving aircraft tangling each other miss your screen?
Delator
01-07-2007, 10:01
This said, if I was India, I'd definitely go for the Rafale. Not as good as the Typhoon - if still equal to the Russian planes -, but it's got a nifty carrier version, and that's a big plus for India. Besides, the French are known to support customers even when these customers are warring with NATO countries (As they did with Argentina), which has its uses, too.

Beat me to it. :p

However, since neither you nor I are India, I'm guessing they'll go with something Russian. My guess would be the Su-33 (also a carrier variant)...but there are plenty of other options.
UN Resolution Keeper
01-07-2007, 11:28
I reckon they should get the Su-37 Flanker-F
Soleichunn
01-07-2007, 12:49
Anything American.

After all, we invented the airplane. True, Germany invented the Jet fighter, but I DO believe we stole their scientists to make our planes even better!

Well, there was the British contribution as well...
Soleichunn
01-07-2007, 12:50
I thought the paper plane idea is a good one.
Aryavartha
01-07-2007, 13:26
None, there is no reason for India to own a fighter. They couldn't stop China and they have nukes to stop anyone else. Would be far better to spend money on their people.

Why don't you take care of the homeless and those people in New Orleans before you comment on other countries' defense expenditure? :p

As it is, as a percent of GDP, India spends a lot less than other major countries in the world and certainly less than both Pakistan and China - its threats in its neighborhood.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_per_of_gdp-military-expenditures-percent-of-gdp


Unrealistic? You really think India, or any nation for that matter, is going to facing any serious airborne threat anytime in the near future? It's thinking like that which perpetuates the unending cycle of violence in the world.

No, but it certainly does not speak for your temperance or compassion.

Yes. That is called being prepared. Not being prepared was what resulted in losing Northern Areas and AJK to Pakistan and Aksai Chin to China.

Excuse us for not being willing to be victims of hegemony again.

Yes, and they both have nukes. There will never be any full-scale fighting between Pakistan and India. Not as long as atoms continue to function in the same manner, anyway.


LOL.

There was a mini-war as recent as 1999. It was the complete air superiority that India enjoyed (courtesy of Pak not having BVR capability), that made it easy for Indian troops to evict invaders.

With F-16s and Thunder showing up in Pak inventory soon, it is imperative to be prepared for this, to deter them from future adventures.

Plus, there is the airborne nuclear bomb delivery threat that has to be countered.
Dododecapod
01-07-2007, 13:33
If wikepedia can be trusted, India already has the Su-30 (updated from Su-27), but its classified as air superiority rather than MRCA. If that is the case Im going to have to go with the Mig.

Ah. Last I knew, they were using the Mig-25 as their standard interceptor. If they have the Su-30, then I agree the Mig would be their best option.
The Phoenix Milita
01-07-2007, 13:38
Poll and article use inaccurate nomenclature so thread fails. :/
German Nightmare
01-07-2007, 16:21
Anything American.

After all, we invented the airplane. True, Germany invented the Jet fighter, but I DO believe we stole their scientists to make our planes even better!
Then I take it you have never heard of Karl Jatho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Jatho) from Hanover, Germany.

You might also want to read up on him here (http://www.karl-jatho.com).
Good Lifes
01-07-2007, 19:07
Why don't you take care of the homeless and those people in New Orleans before you comment on other countries' defense expenditure? :p

As it is, as a percent of GDP, India spends a lot less than other major countries in the world and certainly less than both Pakistan and China - its threats in its neighborhood.


The US does spend an obscene amount on military. The problem with that is when you have it sooner or later you'll have a leader that will use it.

The US has this thing about being the biggest dog on the porch no matter what it costs, even if it costs all civilian spending.

That doesn't mean that the home of both Hindu and Buddhism wouldn't understand the value of peace and fellow mankind more than that of "Conservative christian?" worshipers of the "Prince of Peace".

US interests demand a larger military than India. India isn't running around the world killing anyone that doesn't agree with them. If all the US did was protect it's borders (another big subject) we wouldn't need fighters either.
Aryavartha
01-07-2007, 19:31
That doesn't mean that the home of both Hindu and Buddhism wouldn't understand the value of peace and fellow mankind more than that of "Conservative christian?" worshipers of the "Prince of Peace".

Yeah but being pacifists only made us sultanates and colonies.

Even after independance, Nehru was talking about dismantling the army altogether with his Panch Sheel and stuff. A noble thought but reality hit in the form of Pakistani and Chinese invasion in 47, 62 and 65 when we lost the first two and managed to draw the last.

It was only after that, when Indira Gandhi came to power, did India get into the whole "militarisation" thing. Results can be seen in the decisive wars of 71 and 99 with Pakistan and the Sumdorong Chu skirmish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Sino-Indian_skirmish) with China.

I don't like the fact that we are spending good money on this, but I don't see a choice. We spend only as much is needed to maintain status quo and deter others. We are not spending to embark on foolish adventerous conquests and wars with others. Like I pointed out earlier, we spend way below what China and Pakistan spend on their militaries.
Rhursbourg
02-07-2007, 00:23
the English Electric Lighting
Soleichunn
02-07-2007, 01:04
Yeah, we had those for a while, then we got F111s.

Though if you have a few lying around in a hanger somewhere I'd be quite happy to take them off your hands...
OuroborosCobra
02-07-2007, 16:15
Well, there was the British contribution as well...

You mean the centrifugal flow jet engine that everyone has abandoned in favor of the German axial flow design? :p
OuroborosCobra
02-07-2007, 16:31
With F-16s and Thunder showing up in Pak inventory soon, it is imperative to be prepared for this, to deter them from future adventures.

Plus, there is the airborne nuclear bomb delivery threat that has to be countered.

Or allow for your own adventures :p

Have either India or Pakistan invested in airborne delivery of nukes? Would seem a waste of money to me, since neither of you can defend against ballistic missile delivered nukes both of you already have...
OuroborosCobra
02-07-2007, 16:32
US interests demand a larger military than India. India isn't running around the world killing anyone that doesn't agree with them. If all the US did was protect it's borders (another big subject) we wouldn't need fighters either.

Considering that one of the Fighters primary roles is defending the airspace of national borders, I'd say you have ignored about 90 years of aviation history if you are going to make a claim that "if all we did was protect our borders we would not need fighters."

Even if we go with the fact that no one on our borders have an air force that threatens to attack us, political climates can change, and there are more distant neighbors with air forces that can reach us (Russia and Ukraine, and the least, possibly China). If all we spent on was national defense, that force would actually be composed almost entirely of fighters, useful in defense against both aircraft attacks, ground attacks (when acting as strike aircraft or close air support), naval assaults (when carrying anti-ship missiles that many fighters can carry), etc. I remind you that Japan, which primarily has its military spending all on defense, has its own large fighter force with F-15s and F-2s (an indigenously produced upgraded F-16).

I'd also remind you that we are threatened from air attack by terrorists, as demonstrated by 9/11. One of the primary reasons our fighters were unable to protect us then was that they scrambled out to sea when the call came, expecting an attack from outside the US. Training and tactics have been modified since 9/11 to allow quick response within US borders, thus greatly increasing the chances that a 9/11 style attack could be thwarted.

India, unlike the US, has neighbors directly bordering it with air forces threatening to attack (Pakistan and China). Their ability to defend against such attacks depends on fighters.
Soleichunn
03-07-2007, 06:37
You mean the centrifugal flow jet engine that everyone has abandoned in favor of the German axial flow design? :p

Nah, I was talking about the stabilator.
Jeuna
03-07-2007, 06:44
Domestic model?

I don't know if they can pull it off, but it'd be a boon to the chosen aircraft corporation if the government decides not to outsource.
Soleichunn
03-07-2007, 06:48
Domestic model?

I don't know if they can pull it off, but it'd be a boon to the chosen aircraft corporation if the government decides not to outsource.

Most of the planes will be assembled in India AFAIK with only an initial batch being completed units.
Aryavartha
03-07-2007, 12:33
Or allow for your own adventures :p

Independant India has never invaded or attacked. All its wars were defensive.

Even historic India rarely went outside its civilizational boundaries in conquest. The only instance I can think of would be the tamils under Cholas conquering Java, Sumatra, Malaysia etc.

We are happy with what we have. :cool:


Have either India or Pakistan invested in airborne delivery of nukes? Would seem a waste of money to me, since neither of you can defend against ballistic missile delivered nukes both of you already have...

Pakistan was denied delivery of 77 F-16s (that they had already paid for) because the US president could not longer verify that they were not building/having nuclear bombs (as required by the Pressler amendment).

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/aircraft/index.html

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/panukes.html#air

Since both the countries had bombs before they had missiles, it can only be assumed they invested in airborned delivery of nukes.

Currently, India is building a BMD to counter missile delivery threats. It is only prudent to maintain the edge in air superiority.
The Phoenix Milita
03-07-2007, 14:37
Pakistan was denied delivery of 77 F-16s (that they had already paid for) because the US president could not longer verify that they were not building/having nuclear bombs (as required by the Pressler amendment).

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/aircraft/index.html

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/panukes.html#air


That information is out of date. Due to American-Pakistani cooperation in the war on terror, the embargo has been lifted and Pakistan is expecting delivery of the remaining ~40 F-16s.
Risottia
03-07-2007, 14:46
After years of dilly dallying...finally India has floated the tender to purchase 126 MRCAs (if you don't know what that is...you should probably skip this thread :p).

It is a mega deal..about $10 Billion, methinks...and will be replacing the aging Mig 21s (which were supposed to be replaced by the homegrown LCAs...which are still in the making...:( ).


Sukhoj's Su-30MKI (India's already got them) or Su-35 (canard Flankers). Or even the latest export version of the MiG-21 - it carries up to six AA-11/AA-12, you know, and Indian pilots already know that plane. And maybe then Su-32(34?) Fullback, but I don't know if Russia exports them.
The MiG-35's range is too short for the vast indian airspace. The Gripen and the F-16 are outdated.

Btw, the Panavia MRCA Tornado IDS is still one of the best attack bombers in the world.
Neo Bretonnia
03-07-2007, 15:11
The F-16:

-Inexpensive on a per unit basis
-Easy to learn to fly
-Carries 35,000 lbs of ordinance.
-Proven combat record
-Reliable

AFAIK This is the only fighter with ALL of those traits
Vandal-Unknown
03-07-2007, 15:22
The MiG-35's range is too short for the vast indian airspace. The Gripen and the F-16 are outdated.

Btw, the Panavia MRCA Tornado IDS is still one of the best attack bombers in the world.

Gripen outdated? Come on, this aircraft's service year entry was in 1996,... rather than the Tornado's 1979.

Or maybe you're thinking of the older Viggen?
Allied Tion
03-07-2007, 15:55
Dust off the Lavi program, stick a new set of avionics and software in it and you have a cheap, light, easy to opperate aircraft that would serve well in the region. It was designed from the start to be a true muti role fighter, it's being shelved in response to American pressure was a tradgedy.
Rambhutan
03-07-2007, 15:56
Sopworth Camels
Isselmere
03-07-2007, 15:58
If the IAF was reasonably sure of getting what it needed when it needed it, I would have to side with the MiG-35. As others have noted, the IAF already has the Su-30MKI for air superiority and is looking for the light end of the fighter equation. The Eurofighter Typhoon will take ages to make it to Tranche 3, the Rafale will take time to make it to F3 standard (at which point it will make a decent small strike fighter), and Pakistan bought the F-16 (which may remove that aircraft from contention). The Super Hornet might make a decent aircraft, and Boeing seems marketing it well to the IAF, but the IAF will probably choose the MiG-35.