Why isn’t India buying American fighter jets?

[CarbonD]

Which country are you from.[/QUOTE]

England XD I know a lot mate is it that are you wondering about

 

[The enlightened]

if not thn why you go for C130, C-17, P8i, Apache ???????

As I said,
there jets weren't able to stand on the 643 parameters, the IAF wanted them too.
That decision had nothing political about it.

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

England XD I know a lot mate is it that are you wondering about

No,
Infact I was thinking that maybe you are from Italy or France, given your English.

 

[Rank]

Coz they are not frontline attack aircrafts. Apache will be couple with LCH.

P8i is more important, strategically/technically advance and more counter-productive platform in future of your whole NAVY and compare to your whole navy equipment lol

 

[foxbat]

the same reason India is not buying British or Swedish Jets. The French one was better.. Sometimes an answer is as obvious as it seems

 

[IndianTiger]

if not thn why you go for C130, C-17, P8i, Apache ???????

because we are not going to manufacture them in India, so ToT is nt constraint.

 

[The enlightened]

because we are not going to manufacture them in India, so ToT is nt constraint.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp the basic facts.
F-18, F-16, MiG 35, Gripen were not shortlisted because they failed to meet the required parameters the IAF wanted them to meet.
Now what is so hard about it.

 

[Rank]

Problems
No.1 TOT (Agreed)
No.2 conditions (explain bit more?)
No.3 US supply to Pakistan (C-17, C-130, P8i are also American lol)
No.4 we don't want to send any msg. to russia. (You already send message to Russia that is why Russia is now selling more weapons to China)
No. 5 much better planes are available (Rafale, EFT) (nor Rafale nor EF are battle proven and also not many countries interested except few in these both and UK/French tech far behind as compare to American technology reliability and quality - especially Naval and Airforce tech)

 

[CarbonD]

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------


No,
Infact I was thinking that maybe you are from Italy or France, given your English.[/QUOTE]

Actually its a bit welsh accent mixed into it as I comment in a more informal way and not care of grammar

 

[IndianTiger]

Problems
No.1 TOT (Agreed)
No.2 conditions (explain bit more?)
No.3 US supply to Pakistan (C-17, C-130, P8i are also American lol)
No.4 we don't want to send any msg. to russia. (You already send message to Russia that is why Russia is now selling more weapons to China)
No. 5 much better planes are available (Rafale, EFT) (nor Rafale nor EF are battle proven and also not many countries interested except few in these both and UK/French tech far behind as compare to American technology reliability and quality - especially Naval and Airforce tech)

kid we are talking fighter planes.
1.ToT (agreed, thank god.)
2. Conditions (check why P8i Is not coming with US made communication devices)
3. Supply to pakistan (so you gonna fire A2A missile with c130) lolzz.
4. Russia is stil developing FGFA with india 5GEN fighter, which fighter they are developing with china and russian didn't blocked componats of chinese carrier lolzz..
5. They failed in Technical evaluation, thats it. Lolz.

 

[Donatello]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp the basic facts.
F-18, F-16, MiG 35, Gripen were not shortlisted because they failed to meet the required parameters the IAF wanted them to meet.
Now what is so hard about it.

And what are those Parameters?

I can understand that Typhoons had some problems in the hot weather of the Indian Sun/desert....but F-16s? C'mon?

Pakistan, Egypt, Turky, Scandinavian countries and Israel have operated F-16s in all possible weather conditions possible......so i don't see how F-16 failed the parameter.

My guess is that India didn't want offensive weapons to be at the helm of uncle Sam....nothing else. F-16 is a proven fighter.....Rafale is not.

 

[Kazhugu]

And what are those Parameters?

I can understand that Typhoons had some problems in the hot weather of the Indian Sun/desert....but F-16s? C'mon?

Pakistan, Egypt, Turky, Scandinavian countries and Israel have operated F-16s in all possible weather conditions possible......so i don't see how F-16 failed the parameter.

My guess is that India didn't want offensive weapons to be at the helm of uncle Sam....nothing else. F-16 is a proven fighter.....Rafale is not.

no...unlike the countries you mentioned that basically have a small airspace to defend , indian airspace and future threat perceptions require double engined fighters...moreover....however steriods it may take, f-16 is basically 70's airframe compared to rafale and eft.....thirdly the detailed technical evaluations have been sent to all vendors who did not make the downlist as to why they were not selected and everyone agrees that the evaluation has so far been utterly transparent....

im not saying political decisions did not influence the decision...but the extent to which it influenced was very limited and till now it has been the iaf that has been in the forefront on evaluation and feedback....

 

[Tshering22]

Why are you rubbing it in? Rafale has won the deal and MRCA saga has come to an end at last. Owing to the fact that Rafale has won such a massive contract and that too after so many years of failure, Sarko would do his nut to make sure that negotiations are successful between both the countries. To him, it means not just $$ but also a stellar public image for upcoming elections.

It is a complete deal.

 

[Birbal]

American wishful thinking aside, India is still non-aligned.

 

[IndianTiger]

And what are those Parameters?

I can understand that Typhoons had some problems in the hot weather of the Indian Sun/desert....but F-16s? C'mon?

Pakistan, Egypt, Turky, Scandinavian countries and Israel have operated F-16s in all possible weather conditions possible......so i don't see how F-16 failed the parameter.

My guess is that India didn't want offensive weapons to be at the helm of uncle Sam....nothing else. F-16 is a proven fighter.....Rafale is not.

consider mirage and f16 both are is proven it doesn't mean Rafale and f35 are not good,
and capability is proven by rafale in technical evaluations.

---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

And what are those Parameters?

I can understand that Typhoons had some problems in the hot weather of the Indian Sun/desert....but F-16s? C'mon?

Pakistan, Egypt, Turky, Scandinavian countries and Israel have operated F-16s in all possible weather conditions possible......so i don't see how F-16 failed the parameter.

My guess is that India didn't want offensive weapons to be at the helm of uncle Sam....nothing else. F-16 is a proven fighter.....Rafale is not.

consider mirage and f16 both are is proven it doesn't mean Rafale and f35 are not good,
and capability of rafale is now proven in technical evaluations.

 

[lynx]

And what are those Parameters?

I can understand that Typhoons had some problems in the hot weather of the Indian Sun/desert....but F-16s? C'mon?

Pakistan, Egypt, Turky, Scandinavian countries and Israel have operated F-16s in all possible weather conditions possible......so i don't see how F-16 failed the parameter.

F-16 is a single engined 70s aircraft while Rafale is a modern fighter which has still room for improvement

My guess is that India didn't want offensive weapons to be at the helm of uncle Sam....nothing else. F-16 is a proven fighter.....Rafale is not.

You got that correct..We have learnt a lot from Pakistani F-16 experience. As for proving Rafale did not go much chance except for Libya may be where it gave a stellar performance. If you look at it almost in every poll about best tanks Leopard 2 comes on top of Abrams M1A1, but how many wars did Leo fight.