by 2 Cylivers
Any decision of such strategic dimensions and magnitude, I am sure will have huge Government and Military thought processes in the play as there are geo-political, strategic, technological, competitive and self interests at play
1. Technologically Western is any day better because of R&D budgets, huge user base and actual war deployment experiences
2. Basic A/C fighter characteristics, aerodynamics, I guess the Russian systems may be equal if not better
3. Quality wise and spares reliability – Western is better by very nature of the Industry – non government controlled and driven by market forces
4. Power pack – bomb for bomb, missile for missile, perhaps both are similar, but Western are still ahead due to other critical sub systems for delivery and guidance which is an advantage in today’s high tech battles
5. Aerobatic performance – good for shows and general bravado, but useless for BVR with high tech missiles locked on to you 100s of miles away coming in at mach 2+ (akin to choosing ones partner by going to a strip tease bar and seeing how well her wares are?)
6. Cost ratio of Russian to western aircraft = 1: 2 on average (assuming avg MRCA price being $70M+ each
Geo-political speaking
1. The Russians and French have always stood by us and have adapted to our idiosyncrasies whereas the Western world have not
2. The Russians/French don’t treat us differently due to government or power changes
3. They don’t care whether we went nuclear, smuggled Uranium or tested another one
4. Both seem to run an independent foreign policy (from Nat0, US and Europe)
5. Both are willing to give TOT and share in new technologies
6. Sanctions – that’s is an American/European word as far the Russians and French go
7. America and India may want to appear to get close due to our similarities (democracy, government, common causes etc), and it is great if we do, but current scenario – till India learns to understand the functioning of the US Government, internal politics and bickering, bipartisan politics, lobbying etc, there is no chance of India being able to substantially get on the American law makers mind share any time soon (the Nuclear deal was by few good souls there)
8. Another nuke test, and believe me another auto/ immediate sanction for next 20 years till another 911 type. So absolutely no go this direction until the yanks guarantee by both houses that unless there is direct war between India and the U.S, spares and support will not be affected even if there is a sanction due to some other cause
Strategically and threat wise
1. For us basically only 2 threats Pak and China
2. Pak threat for next 50 years is F-16, JF-17, J-10 and the Aim-120 if they get it
3. China – I see no great threat (to the degree of Pak) except helping arm Pak.
4. Now question is do we need an $80M plane to counter the Pak toys for air dominance and air superiority?
5. I guess no, if we can do it safely and with a large margin of success with say anything of the $40M to $50M range
6. So assume you get a lower tech/performance plane than the best the Americans/British have got to offer say something like the Grippen, Rafale or Mig-35 armed with Mica/Meteors/Derby/R77 with AESA coupled with Phalcon AWAC cover, you have more than what is needed to cover the PAK threat + neutralize or hold the Chinese threat.
Bottom-line
1. Considering all above factors – 3 good choices, Grippen, Rafale and Mig-35
2. Grippen and Rafale totally new platforms, untested and difficult logistics issues
3. That leaves Mig-35 with AESA (either Russian, French or Israeli) + all the matching WVR/BVR next-gen A2A arms and of course longer range and punch
4. We can take care of spares, upgradeability, quality by going the MKI route (Israeli/French/Indian components) + local manufacturing (pvt), and R&D sharing
5. A huge logistical and cost nightmare will be avoided due to commonality between Navy, Air force and getting benefits of standardization for spares, manufacturing, pilot training, knowledge management and logistics
BANG for the BUCK – MIG-35 is my choice
1. Technologically Western is any day better because of R&D budgets, huge user base and actual war deployment experiences
2. Basic A/C fighter characteristics, aerodynamics, I guess the Russian systems may be equal if not better
3. Quality wise and spares reliability – Western is better by very nature of the Industry – non government controlled and driven by market forces
4. Power pack – bomb for bomb, missile for missile, perhaps both are similar, but Western are still ahead due to other critical sub systems for delivery and guidance which is an advantage in today’s high tech battles
5. Aerobatic performance – good for shows and general bravado, but useless for BVR with high tech missiles locked on to you 100s of miles away coming in at mach 2+ (akin to choosing ones partner by going to a strip tease bar and seeing how well her wares are?)
6. Cost ratio of Russian to western aircraft = 1: 2 on average (assuming avg MRCA price being $70M+ each
Geo-political speaking
1. The Russians and French have always stood by us and have adapted to our idiosyncrasies whereas the Western world have not
2. The Russians/French don’t treat us differently due to government or power changes
3. They don’t care whether we went nuclear, smuggled Uranium or tested another one
4. Both seem to run an independent foreign policy (from Nat0, US and Europe)
5. Both are willing to give TOT and share in new technologies
6. Sanctions – that’s is an American/European word as far the Russians and French go
7. America and India may want to appear to get close due to our similarities (democracy, government, common causes etc), and it is great if we do, but current scenario – till India learns to understand the functioning of the US Government, internal politics and bickering, bipartisan politics, lobbying etc, there is no chance of India being able to substantially get on the American law makers mind share any time soon (the Nuclear deal was by few good souls there)
8. Another nuke test, and believe me another auto/ immediate sanction for next 20 years till another 911 type. So absolutely no go this direction until the yanks guarantee by both houses that unless there is direct war between India and the U.S, spares and support will not be affected even if there is a sanction due to some other cause
Strategically and threat wise
1. For us basically only 2 threats Pak and China
2. Pak threat for next 50 years is F-16, JF-17, J-10 and the Aim-120 if they get it
3. China – I see no great threat (to the degree of Pak) except helping arm Pak.
4. Now question is do we need an $80M plane to counter the Pak toys for air dominance and air superiority?
5. I guess no, if we can do it safely and with a large margin of success with say anything of the $40M to $50M range
6. So assume you get a lower tech/performance plane than the best the Americans/British have got to offer say something like the Grippen, Rafale or Mig-35 armed with Mica/Meteors/Derby/R77 with AESA coupled with Phalcon AWAC cover, you have more than what is needed to cover the PAK threat + neutralize or hold the Chinese threat.
Bottom-line
1. Considering all above factors – 3 good choices, Grippen, Rafale and Mig-35
2. Grippen and Rafale totally new platforms, untested and difficult logistics issues
3. That leaves Mig-35 with AESA (either Russian, French or Israeli) + all the matching WVR/BVR next-gen A2A arms and of course longer range and punch
4. We can take care of spares, upgradeability, quality by going the MKI route (Israeli/French/Indian components) + local manufacturing (pvt), and R&D sharing
5. A huge logistical and cost nightmare will be avoided due to commonality between Navy, Air force and getting benefits of standardization for spares, manufacturing, pilot training, knowledge management and logistics
BANG for the BUCK – MIG-35 is my choice
Comments
- groberts, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:11 AM PST said:
RFP is "Request for Proposal"
- BUZZARDBOYLE, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:08 PM PDT said:
U.S., India Seek Durable Defense Partnership, Defense Dept. Says U.S. military plans to transfer amphibious ship to India in 2007 Washington –- The United States and India want to pursue a durable defense partnership, the Defense Department says. In conjunction with President Bush’s trip to India, the Defense Department issued a statement March 2 that points out examples of recent U.S.-Indian military cooperation and predicts the conclusion of an agreement in the near future on logistics support. The March 2 statement cites defense trade and technology cooperation as a vital component of the relationship because it helps “ to build ties among our defense establishments and industries and to develop interoperability among our armed forces.” The U.S. goal, according to the release, is to help meet India's defense needs and “to provide important capabilities and technologies that India seeks.” The statement cites the U.S. commitment to providing India with a modern fighter aircraft.
