India Turns Down American Fighter Jets, Buys From France 600
An anonymous reader writes "While America had offered the F-16, F-18 and now the stealth F-35 fighter, India picked for its new multi-role attack jet a low cost, older French plane. Why? For one, it's cheaper, and two, if American/Indian relations go bad, can they get the parts and equipment to keep the planes in the air? It seems prudence beat out the latest in technology."
Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, the Rafale is hardly a 2nd rate fighter jet. Older? Yes, than the F-35 maybe. But on the other hand, the Rafale is already in operation and is a known cost vs. the F-35 which is not even ready to go yet. ... ahem ... Canada.
It seems some cool heads prevailed in this case, unlike other nut job countries like
Even Australia seems to have made a better choice in snagging the Super Hornet instead
Giving too much credit to Indian politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
It actually makes sense, if you're a nation where manpower is cheap-- a larger number of lower-awesomeness but cheaper jets may beat a smaller number of higher-awesomeness expensive jets. And they're not likely to be fighting the US-- they primarily need fighters that can beat Pakistan.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fighter jets aren't what they need. (Score:4, Insightful)
Rafale F16 (Score:5, Insightful)
The F16 is a "4th generation" fighter, whereas the Rafale is a "near 5th generation" fighter. Yes, it's cheaper, and also newer than the F16. Unfortunately, past US behavior has shown its willingness to use military supplies to arm-twist countries, and this unfortunately damages US credibility as a supplier. No sense buying jets you can't use because someone is witholding vital spares. Meanwhile, India is buying the C-17 Globemaster from the US for airlift capabilities.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Quantity has a quality all it's own.
Re:Giving too much credit to Indian politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
Indian law requires the government to negotiate a contract with the lowest bidder, that satisfies the requirements. If they wanted the capabilities of F-35, I am pretty sure the cheapest would have been the F-35.
News for american weapon dealers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the editors are drunk?
Was it that simple? Prudence beat out latest Tech? (Score:5, Insightful)
India needed a cost effective Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft. This procurement was a six year process. Probably the most transparent defence acquisition program in the world, ever.
Initial participants were Saab Gripen(Sweden), Mig 35(Russian), F16, FA18(US) Eurofighter(EU) and Rafale(French). F35 JSF was never part of it, and India doesn't need it right now (Hell! Even US doesn't 'need' it). It was offered for future discussions, to sweeten the deal in favor of Boeing and Lockheed.
Out of the 6 participants,
Gripen was too small, Gripen doesnt fit in because India's Indigenous LCA already matches capability.
Mig 35 was participant only because Russians have been friends always.
F16 and FA18 are probably the oldest models.Yes they have been enhanced, but without the AESA RADAR (US govt said No to giving it), they are useless to Indian requirements. They were expensive, did not match up to the RFP requirements. F16 is with Pakistan, there is no way in Hell India will base the future or Airforce on such an aircraft. FA18 was a good contender, but for its price without the AESA useless.
Typhoon and Rafale were the most practical choices. Technically typhoon would have been a nose length ahead. But it was too expensive and could probably not explain the logistics and speed at which it is manufactured.
And hence, Rafale was the right choice.
Might piss off the americans def contractors, but they have been given other deals like the C130J, C17 and others. There is enough for everyone in India defence market. And it will get better over next decade.theya retrying to achieve capabilities in years, that others have gained in decades.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:french military victories (Score:5, Insightful)
Tee hee! Surrender joke!
Guess Napoleon, Layette saving us during the revolution and WWI didn't count.
Re:Why wouldn't India develop it's own fighter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you ever done business with Indians or bought anything from India? The first and only rule is keep it cheap.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
"the odds were never 1:1"
There a huge load of wisdom in that observation. I guess it should suffice to point out that no War College or academy teaches that there is a set formula for winning a battle, or a war. It has always been doctrine in the US military to gain LOCAL air superiority, as quickly as possible. It doesn't matter that the opposition might actually have overall air superiority, if you can gain superiority in your own local theater or operations.
I'm kind of rambling here. My point is, officers like General Sherman or General Erwin Rommel can hand you victory after victory because they can take advantage of resources, mobility, local superiority, and a host of other factors. Both men faced superior forces, repeatedly, and beat those forces into the ground.
A good commander never allows the odds to be 1:1.
Re:Rafale F16 (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is willing to invest heavily in upgrading old avionics while keeping the source for all the software. Would you buy a piece of military hardware knowing that the aging paranoid warcrazy manufacturer may have retained the ability to disable all those planes with the flip of a switch?
Re:french military victories (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone in the India Ministry of Defense probably googled "American military victories". Turned up late to two World Wars after everyone else had already done all the work, dropped nuclear weapons on two civilian targets (that's some real bravery right thur Cletus), then proceeded to get buttfucked by amateurs from Saigon to Kandahar.
Just kidding America, we know you showed Grenada who's boss! USA! USA!
Easier to shoot down (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:News for american weapon dealers? (Score:3, Insightful)
How in hell is this on /. frontpage? Or on the site even? Will the editors cover every weapon sale from now on? Is this because it's a disappointment for the US of A? Because it involves the french?
Because the editors are drunk?
Short one-worded answer: China
Longer version: India hates China, and India wants to do everything to defeat China
Slashdot hates China, and Slashdot wants to do everything to make China miserable
Adding 2 and 2 together - any weapon system India buys is utmost important to Slashdot - because it determines whether or not China will be creamed
The F-18 is a heap of sh*t and the F-35 is a joke (Score:0, Insightful)
The F-18 and FA-18 are and always were a complete waste of time. They only work if you have a set of massive aircraft carriers, heaps of refuelling tankers, and enough support craft to get you in close to the enemy shoreline. Forget using them deep in the interior.
The F-16 would be an excellent choice except that the new Sukhois pretty much make it - and everything else - redundant.
The F-35 will never see active service. By the time this plane-by-committee either gets to a first rollout or - much more likely - is finally abandoned, it will be up against both manned fighters and UAV's that already outperform it.
So yes, I can understand them looking to Europe for some kind of fighter jet capability.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
The ratios is an interesting thing: First of all, the only American tank designed to actually go into tank vs tank combat was the Pershing, because the doctrine, thanks to an idiot general in the US, was that Tank Destroyer battalions should do the combat with the tanks, while tanks should only support infantry. The M4 with a 76mm gun was an emergency solution, and the gun was just roughly comparable to the 75mm on the Panzer IV, that is, not at all comparable to the short 88 on the Tiger, or the long 75 on the Panther. (As an aside: many people mix the KWK 36 L/56 together with the KWK/PAK 43 L/71 in terms of fearsome, but they used completely different ammunition. The KWK 42 L/70, that is the Panthers long 75 was actually a better anti-tank gun than the short 88)
In terms of ratios, the only hard ones I've seen are in regards to the Tiger.
US estimated that to deal with a Tiger, they'd need 6 Sherman with 75mm guns, and they'd lose 5
Russia estimated that to deal with a Tiger, they'd need 5 T-34, and they'd lose 4
UK, with their Firefly augmented tank troops, estimated that they'd need a troop of 5, and they'd lose 3 ordinary Shermans while the Firefly got into a position to kill the Tiger, and that's because the Firefly had a gun almost comparable to the KWK 43 L/71.
In terms of impact, yes the T-34 had an impact on following tanks in the war, but the Panther had a much larger impact on everything that came later, including the Centurion and the Leopard 1, and even carrying on to modern designs.
Re:Why wouldn't India develop it's own fighter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rafale F16 (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are kill switches in US hardware sold internationally, why is the US so worried about the Iranian Air Force and its fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters?
Re:sloped armor (Score:3, Insightful)
...at the angle a shell would hit it, it would present itself as a thicker piece of steel to an object impacting it.
Actually, that is the smaller part of the equation. The main factor is that the angle deflects the incoming mass, resulting in a much smaller transfer of energy to the target than is the case for a projectile that rams into a vertical wall and comes to a dead stop.
Re:Rafale F16 (Score:4, Insightful)
But they did not disable the missiles. Merely supplied the information on how they worked, which is expected in war time between allies. You're comparing rock throwing to gunning down with AAA.
Re:Slashdot flamebait headline misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
It sure would be nice if Slashdot editors started reading the articles they're posting about.
Bill
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pseudo-profundity of the kind one would expect from a humanities student, trying to sound profound in the hope of getting his fingers inside an impressionable fellow student.
War as a means of culling the population is inefficient and brings with it serious issues for any "ruling class" that'd wield the scythe. Western democracies have a very strong political need to minimize casualties, as excessive death would invite popular revolt. Iraq was invaded back in 2003, and in that time the US has lost less than five thousand servicemen. The powers that be could have killed far more people through encouraging gluttony, either through choking (which kills thousands each year) or by its long-term deleterious effects on health. It's also worth noting that military service is a pretty good way for people from poorer backgrounds to get an education and healthcare that they otherwise could not afford.
Anyway, why would somebody want to trim the population? A sinister ruling class would surely profit most from keeping a workforce poor and minimally educated. A significant drop in population would serve only to increase the value of the survivors - making it more difficult to maintain control. This was the experience of English landowners when the Black Death had ravaged the population, and arguably the same was true for women when World War II led to a shortage of working men.
War has far more practical uses. It's great for industry, and as it happens, the people making the decisions on war would tend to be rather chummy with the guys who can provide the tools. It can be a rather good way of uniting a nation, and helping them to ignore domestic deficiencies. War, and emergency in general, is a great lubricant for slipping in otherwise repugnant legislation.
Re:Slashdot flamebait headline misses the point (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand where do you see the "anti-US" sentiment in the article. It is US-centric, as it refers to a country's rejection of a US offer and then proceeds to call to question the US investment in expensive military projects such as the F-35, and also how US foreign politics has been handled and its influence on military supply contracts.
Yet, as you stated, the same country which rejected a US offering also rejected a half dosen or so offerings from other non-US suppliers, some of which for the same reasons.
So, it isn't an article designed to lambast the US. In fact, it barely mentions it. It is an article summary that is heavily US-centric and, as a consequence, lets this national narcisism ignore everything around them and in the process completely miss the point. But that isn't anti-US, is it?
Re:french military victories (Score:5, Insightful)
If you drive around France, even the smallest village has a WW1 monument with dozens of names on it. The decimation that France suffered in WW1, and the damage fighting the war on its own land, made many hesitant to fight again.
While there were some collaborators, and some of them were in high places, the general mood was anti German. There was a lot of bad history there.
This is what makes the French German cooperation in starting the European Union all the more impressive. It was a recognition that the past could not keep repeating.
Re:Fighter jets aren't what they need. (Score:4, Insightful)
The threat to india is men on foot or motorbikes with rifles and explosives in their backpacks. Fighter aircraft aren't very useful to counter that kind of an opponent.
-jcr
Yes because a country can only deal with one possible threat or problem at a time. All other threats apart from the most obvious one are irrelevant and can be ignored...
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, so Japanese civilian casualties were okay because it saved US military lives.
Pretty much, yes. It's war; war is an ugly "us-or-them" fight to the death where a nation's very existence is on the line. That's why it must be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, the US hasn't been very good at that of late.
In the case of Japan, while I don't take any pleasure out of the usage of nuclear weapons, in the end Japan was the aggressor. If you start a fist fight by punching me and I hit you over the head with a fire extinguisher, yes that's "cheating" in a fist fight, but I didn't ask for the fight.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much, yes. It's war; war is an ugly "us-or-them" fight to the death where a nation's very existence is on the line.
Except that the United States existence was never on the line with Japan.
In the case of Japan, while I don't take any pleasure out of the usage of nuclear weapons, in the end Japan was the aggressor.
That is a matter of debate. Japan knew it had slim chances of winning the war but arguably felt forced into conflict with the US and so decided to attack first. I'm not sure I agree completely with that, but if you look at the relative strengths and capabilities of each side and the dissent in the Japanese military for the war it is hard to imagine that it was a serious attempt to conquer the US. I looks more like a desperate move.
Plus the rest of the world has agreed on some rules for warfare that we mostly try to stick to, and one of the most important ones is not deliberately targeting civilians. The US tested two nuclear bombs on innocent people and that can never, ever, ever be justified. Maybe if Japanese troops were kicking down the door of the White House, but the reality is you wanted to know what the effects would be on cities and people so you could better plan military strategy and protect your own people.
Re:Better question (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe not for USA, but India borders China and Pakistan. And neither of those are really on good terms with India.
Seriously, Outside of ICBMs and submarines, nothing can really touch USA directly. And i wonder how uppity the international politics will become if ever USA develops a reliable ICBM shield.
Re:Okay did that :) (Score:5, Insightful)
First result returned by Google gives this list:
There are a few entries I didn't include because they gave only dates and not names, making it harder to look them up.
Oh, was your point to perpetuate the fucking tiresome meme (always repeated at every mention of France witnessed by any American it seems, certainly here on /. at any rate) that the French are all cowards and retreat at the drop of a hat etc. I will say it slowly for those of you who love this meme: "They lost in a war against a superior enemy. That is all".
In fact it took Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia (helped eventually by the USA of course, although years late to the party) to defeat that selfsame enemy. Should we be surprised that the French lost too? They got attacked right at the start and so faced the Germans pretty much on their own.
Caveat: I am English Canadian, not French. In fact I don't particularly like the French or France, but I am tired of this constantly repeated idiocy. All it does is scream "I am a fucking ignorant American" every time it gets repeated.
I guess none of you have ever heard of Napoleon either?
Sigh.
Re:Rafale F16 (Score:3, Insightful)
The Argentinian airforce probably lost for more reasons. Also, when I studied the history of this war, I was astounded by the crackpot idiocy of the Argentinian regime. The airforce, navy and army just went their own way, and the navy pulled out of the war before the airforce (!). Furthermore, the agentinian soldiers were /shocked/ when they landed on the island, and discovered that they weren't wanted. I could imagine the French sizing these guys up, taking their money, and selling them out. They deserved it.
Re:french military victories (Score:5, Insightful)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." - Penn Jillette