sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Just take a look at WAH Apache (RR engine instead of GE engine, european weapons instead of US, as well as european defense and comunication systems), or the trouble UK has to use their own parts in F35. It is obvious that they want less dependence on US and if such a close ally puts priority on it, we should think about it too.Well domestically produced is an advantage, but it doesn't have to over-emphasized, especially in the case of NATO militaries. Having more independent air-to-ground weapons isn't a valid reason for pursuing a course that was unacceptable to not just the UK but Germany and Italy as well.
What shows that France was right, because at the end UK also wanted a N-EF, but couldn't efford it.The main hurdle was France's insistence on design and development leadership and on the inclusion of a carrier capable version.
That's my point too, they are limited now to F35B which is the least capable of the F35 versions (less space internally, less internal fuel, so less range and starting via ski-jump means less MTOW).Well the ski-jump vs CATOBAR argument is only as relevant as the aircraft launched from it. That's the eventual kicker.
As I said with external ordinance the F35 will loose much of it's advantage. You only thought about striking land targets, with support of other land based fighters, but a carrier aircraft must defend it's carrier group against air targets, as well as against sea targets. So with Harpoon carrierd externally in sea control missions, it can be a different story and I have some doubts that there will be so much difference, that the costs still will be worth it (Rafale $80 - 90 million, F35 $100 - 130 million).
However, for Indian carriers I prefer N-FGFA and N-UCAVs anyway!
Haven't heard that one. AFAIK, they're in a decent shape given their age and the Harrier having one of the highest attrition rates in the world(USMC's crashed an airforce-worth of Harriers).
Bharat-Rakshak.com :: NAVY - Westland Sea KingSanctions imposed by the Clinton Administration for India's May 1998 nuclear tests, led to an acute shortage of critical spare parts for the Sea King fleet. On 23 November 2000, in a parliamentary session in the Lok Sabha, Defence Minister George Fernandes stated in a written reply that an acute shortage of critical spare parts had affected the operational efficacy of the Sea King fleet, with 60% of the helicopters grounded. Flights of the Sea King were cut down to a bare minimum and the SAR role taken over by the smaller, single-engined HAL Chetak helicopters. The British Government continued with its efforts to press high level US authorities for flexibility, particularly in view of the Sea King's SAR role. On 19 January 2001, the Clinton Administration lifted the sanctions and the go-ahead was given for the sale of spare parts for the Sea King fleet.
As you can see, even if they want something else, without US approval, UK can't do anything. So although UK is a veto power it won't give India any political benefit, because it is not independent and will only do, what US want's them to do. If US puts sanctions on India, EFs main a2g weapons will hardly be available and it's not only UK, ITA and even Germany won't go against US either.
Some might say with the new Indo-US relationship sanctions are unlikly, but with the experience of the past, we have to keep such things in mind if we go for an important and costly procurement like this!
As I showed you that is simply not true, it still will take years till all a2g weapons are integrated and with 2 main members already going for F35 as their main strike fighter, I bet there will be more issues on funding and integration.The Eurofighter will reach full A2G capability in a few months time, while the first delivery isn't expected for a few years yet. Not a worry at all.
Still like how do you reckon the Rafale is better than the Eurofighter at A2G and by what factor do you estimate its so?
Because although they look close in design, their intended roles was different! EF was aimed as an air superiority fighter against Russias Flankers, with added multi role capabilities. Rafale instead was designd from the beginning to be equally good in all roles, because it has to replace many different fighters types, in different roles, just like the JSF.
Rafale might lack the speed and long range radar of EF (or MKI), but has still a better maneuverability than most other MMRCAs. In IAF is easily should take over the a2a roles of Mirage 2000 and even Mig 29.
In the ground attack role it has all weapons ready and proven, has the highest payload the most weapon stations and a good range (more than EF). Combined with a very low RCS and the Spectra EWS (which is claimed to be one of the best at the moment) its survivability was proven to be very good in several simulations (Red flag, tiger meet).
Of course MKI, M2K and upg Mig 29 are multi role fighters with strike capabilities and after air superiority is achieved they will do a good job in that role too. But try to send them cross border with their bigger RCSs against numbers of SAMs, fighters and the biggest problem, AWACS aircrafts. Exactly here the Rafale has a clear advantage and will give IAF a new capability to do preemtive strikes in highly protected areas.
Not correct:Well the MiG-21 is interceptor with the M/MF variant lacking a ground attack capability.
Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - MiG-21 'Fishbed'MiG-21PFMA 'Fishbed-J' First model with ground attack capability, greater fuel capacity, improved radar, an internal 23-mm gun, and four underwing pylons instead of two
MiG-21M or Type 96 Similar to the MiG-21PFMA and built under license in India
BR also count them as ground attack fighters:
Indian Air Force :: Aircraft Fleet Strength
Don't forget that most of them are old and need new engine and airframe upg, of course they are intended for war, but are old gen fighters with less performance than actual multi role fighters. They can't protect them selfs and will need escorts, unlike latest fighters. We can't replace the Migs and the Jags at the same time, that's why they were upg before, but with around 70 optional MMRCAs, not all of them must get DARIN III.All of them will be/have been upgraded to DARIN II AFAIK. Well, it would have retired if it weren't intended to serve in wartime.
However, I hope that IAF will upg them all too, because it would give us time to develop a stealth UCAV. No doubt that these will be the strike platforms of the future and till then IAF could keep the Jags at the low end.