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."
french military victories (Score:5, Funny)
someone in the india ministry of defense should google "french military victories"
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.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Reminds me of a line about WWII I came across years ago that ran something like: "The superior German tanks could outperform anything the Allies threw at them, 10:1. Unfortunately, they built 11 tanks for each German tank."
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Quantity has a quality all it's own.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Quantity has a quality all it's own.
Quantity has a quality all it's own.
Up to a point. But the Battle of 73 Easting [wikipedia.org] is a good example of what can happen when superior technology is used against superior numbers
Casualties and losses:
American/British: 1 Bradley IFV is destroyed,1 killed, 12+ wounded
Iraqi: 85 tanks, 40 armored personnel carriers, 30 wheeled vehicles, 600 killed or wounded to thousands killed
What superior numbers? (Score:5, Informative)
From the very same Wikipedia article linked in the post above:
The main U.S. unit in the battle was the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (2nd ACR), a 4,500 man reconnaissance and security element assigned to VII Corps.
It consisted of three ground squadrons (1st, 2nd and 3rd), an aviation (attack helicopter) squadron (4th), and a support squadron.
The 2ACR combat team numbered around 10,000 soldiers.
Each ground squadron was made up of three cavalry troops, a tank company, a self-propelled howitzer battery, and a headquarters troop.
Each troop comprised 120 soldiers, 12 M3 Bradley fighting vehicles and nine M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks.[1]
The corps' main body consisted of the American 3rd Armored Division (3rd AD) and 1st Infantry Division (1st ID) and 1st Armored Division (1st AD), and the British 1st Armoured Division (1 AD).
The primary battle was conducted by 2ACR's three squadrons of about 400 soldiers, along with the 1st Infantry Division's two leading brigades, who attacked and destroyed the Iraqi 18th Mechanized Brigade and 37th Armored Brigade) of the Tawakalna Division, each consisting of between 2,500 to 3,000 personnel.[1]
During the battle, 2nd ACR destroyed 160 tanks, 180 personnel carriers, 12 artillery pieces and more than 80 wheeled vehicles, along with several anti-aircraft artillery systems.
That's 189 armored vehicles, plus their support.
Plus air support.
Scout and attack helicopters of Fourth Squadron and 2-1 Aviation Battalion (AH 64 Apache) supported the fight as weather allowed.
Plus a shitload of TOWs.
After defeating that force, McMaster sent a scout platoon north to regain contact with Troop G. In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T72s which they destroyed with TOW missiles.
All of the above (and more) used at the same time whenever they encountered the enemy, during 24+ hours of the battle.
So, all at the same time, but not all at once.
Combat became so intense at times that only massed artillery and mortar fires, attack helicopters and Air Force close air support prevented the enemy from closing with G Troop.
.
.
.
Artillery fire and air strikes played a large role in the battle, especially in the far north. Colonel Gary Bourneâ(TM)s 210th FA Brigade in direct support of 2nd ACR fired missions out to the 78 Easting. Close air support missions struck targets in greater depth preventing some Iraqi units from closing with G Troop or escaping the battle area. Attack helicopters flew in support of air scouts at key intervals during the day and the 2-1 Aviation Battalionâ(TM)s Apache helicopters, led by Lt Colonel Jon Ward, destroyed two batteries of enemy artillery and struck march units along the IPSA Pipeline Road at 4:30 p.m. just as the battle began in earnest.
During Desert Storm Coalition troops numbered at 956600 - versus 650000 Iraqi troops.
They didn't go there to test "what can happen when superior technology is used against superior numbers".
That is not how you win wars.
You win wars by being the side with BOTH superior technology and superior numbers, AND by bringing both down heavily on your enemy's head.
That's why during the Desert Storm US troops numbered basically the same number of battle deaths and "slipped in the shower/fell from a chair" [archive.org] deaths.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:4, Funny)
Especially when it comes to apostrophes. Always better to have too many than too few.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the Russian T-34 was a nasty surprise to the Germans. The Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks the Germans used in the early part of the Russian campaign were woefully under-armoured and under-gunned for dealing with the T-34. However, the Germans actually knew how to use their tanks, and the Russians had handicapped the T-34 with a crappy gun. Eventually, the T-34 got it's better gun, but and the Germans built a long 75mm gun that finally had real armor penetration. And the they built the Panther and Tiger tanks.
That said, the German tanks got their real reputations fighting Sherman tanks, and the Sherman was definitely inferior to most German tanks. That is one place where a 6:1 ratio was pretty much accurate.
So essentially, the war started with the Russians having the better tank and then it flipped around. Unfortunately for the Germans, even though they ramped up production significantly after 1943, they still insisted on building over engineered vehicles that were so complex and touchy that they'd actually lose half of the tanks on the way to the front and could not be easily manufactured. That's what happened to the Panther on it's first outing on the Eastern Front.
I'd say then, the best tank of the entire war, in terms of impact, was probably the T-34, and not the German ones, despite their individual capabilities and crew training being much higher than the Allied tanks.
sloped armor (Score:4, Informative)
Re:sloped armor (Score:5, Informative)
You information is false. T-34 had multitude of innovations granting it advantages, and sloped armour was just one of them. Others included excellent main gun, significantly less flammable fuel, being very light for its capability while having wide tracks and very good suspension and finally significantly simplified construction process. There was also an issue of often remaining mobile even after losing its main turret, which meant loss of 2/3 of the crew, because of driver having his own front facing machine gun, allowing him to continue to provide cover and suppression fire against infantry.
Essentially T-34 could outrun, outmaneuver and outgun any early WW2 Wermacht medium tank, outrun and outmaneuver most light tanks and still stand toe to toe with heavy tanks because of its armour and gun. It's this versatility that allowed for cheap mass production because instead of having to build light, medium and heavy tanks, USSR could focus on one medium tank that could perform well in light and heavy roles as well.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
In keeping with the aircraft theme...
What about the Il-2/10 Stormovik ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormovik )? That damn thing helped to decide the battle of Kursk (claims of a squadron of Il-2s to have blown away about 70 tanks in 20 minutes). The idea and performance of the Stormoviks and the adaptations of the P-47, A-1 Skyraiders, and the venerated "Spooky" gunship during Viet Nam led to our modern equivalent, the A-10 Warthog.
The thing is, the Air Force didn't like a "low and slow" ugly POS in their arsenal - they wanted big, fast, and expensive Eagles and Falcons. The Gulf War would show everyone what that big ugly bastard could do. Anyone remember the footage of an A-10 landing with one wing blown off?
Now, when you take a military that doesn't bat an eyelash over dropping $40-60 million on a fighter, and have that industry try to convince other countries to pony up the dough, you get this.
How do we compete? Back when the F-22/23/35s were being developed, Northrup had already put together an updated version of the F-5E "Freedom Fighter", they called the F-20 Tigershark. They updated the avionics, threw in the same engine as the Falcon, lightened things up with carbon fiber, and streamlined a few things. The result? Well, when some guy named Chuck "Fsck the sound barrier" Yeager climbed out of his test flight, he had an ear-to-ear grin. It was cheap (~$12M), fast (2 minutes to operational altitude), and used standard parts that allowed for front-line field-swaps. The kind of thing some country like India might want, wouldn't you say?
I'm seeing the same mentality in cars. I don't need GPS, ABS, WiFi, Bluetooth, heated seats, backup camera, or even a cigarette lighter. I just want a car that gets me there, for little cost. Like India, I can't seem to find any...
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: (Score:3)
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
"tanks were not an option"
Citations?
" In the Pacific Theater, the Sherman was used chiefly against Japanese infantry and fortifications; in its rare encounters with much lighter Japanese tanks with weaker armor and guns, the Sherman's superiority was overwhelming."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman [wikipedia.org]
Tanks were most definitely an option in the Pacific theater. Granted, they had their drawbacks. But, if the Allies had decided to go ahead with the invasion of Japan, I'm quite certain that when the fleets were finally marshaled, they would have been carrying huge convoys of tanks. The US and allies had already figured out that 'combined forces' won more victories, more rapidly, and at reduced costs than any more conventional method of combat. And, armor is part of the 'combined forces' concept.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:4, Informative)
You can google for the story behind purple hearts. The United States was fully expecting to invade Japan, and they had already planned for a quarter million casualties. With the expectation that 250,000 American soldiers, sailors, and airmen would be killed or wounded, plans for the invasion proceeded. These "predictions" of casualty figures had been remarkably accurate all through the second world war. There is no reason to suspect that this estimate was any less accurate than any previous estimate.
The US government had already purchased those purple heart medals, in preparation for the invasion. Those losses were deemed "acceptable".
Tanks were an option, the casualties were an option - right up until the time that science provided a better option. Without those atomic bombs, plans for the invasion would have proceeded on schedule, and the war would have been concluded in another several months, with horrifying casualty figures on both sides.
As for those bombs - there has already been discussion here on slashdot about the more conventional firebombings. I had been unaware that one single firebombing in Japan caused more deaths than either of the atomic bombs.
Here, read the discussion for yourself: http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/01/08/0629238/north-korean-nuclear-facilities-from-30000-feet [slashdot.org]
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:4, Interesting)
Actually Japan had a standing order to kill all Allied POWs in the event of an invasion of the mainland. About 400,000 people, many of them civilians. The U.S. new about it through the broken Japanese codes. Given this information, the a-bombs made even more sense.
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:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
American tanks were designed to be superior to the German tanks that began the war, but by the time they actually saw combat Germany was fielding tanks that were far superior in terms of armor and armament. This was a surprise to the tankers, but not to the production planners, who were well aware that the Germans were fielding heavier tanks, but they made a conscious decision to go with quantity over quality, as switching to heavier tank production would have led to manufacturing delays as factories were re-tooled. That in turn could have delayed the invasion of Europe, something that the US wanted to achieve at the earliest possible date.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
A similar quote that DOES refer to the Soviets is "quantity has a quality all its own."
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
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:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
That is not proof that the US is better than the USSR at innovation or producing military equipment. It is proof that the US was not invaded by the Germans.
.
For the record: I'm not saying Stalin or communism were a good things, I'm just trying to point out facts that are sometimes overshadowed by myths. The T-34 is in my opinion the best tank of WW II, the Sherman isn't even close.
Besides that, I still visit memorials and graveyards to pay my respects to US and Commonwealth soldiers that liberated Europe. Do you?
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:Many versus Awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
They call it a World War. Not an American-German war. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: Allied military deaths - 16 million, Axis military deaths: 8 million
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, and for them World War 2 started in 1939.
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: (Score:3)
The U.S. is also willing to invest heavily in upgrading old avionics, making what "generation" it is in to be relatively irrelevant. For example, look at the operational history of the B-52.
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:Rafale F16 (Score:5, Informative)
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?
USA is not the only country in the world doing that - The French are more untrustworthy than Uncle Sam !
Remember the Falklands War ?
Argentina bought the Exocet missiles from the French but the French gave the British secrets to Exocet's code and homing radar ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#cite_note-15 [wikipedia.org] ) resulting in the total defeat of Argentine's air force
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:Rafale F16 (Score:4, Informative)
Not disputing your point but the size of tech transfer part of this deal means that India should be capable of going it alone even if France decides to cut them off in the future.
Re:Rafale F16 (Score:4, Interesting)
much higher than having the same happen in the US
I don't know where you are but, here in the UK, we seem to have a lot less police violence than the USA. If any government comes in here, it will be, like now, because some people voted for it. The US supposedly has "checks and balances" and a written constitution. I understand from comments here that the Constitution isn't doing too well at present, what with "Homeland Security" and various criminal organisations like the RIAA etc. (I know they are legal but they are still a bunch of crooks).
"I see your constitution and raise you a Queen."
Re: (Score:3)
There is also nothing to prevent a kill switch being planted in the software. With the right radar or other signal the radar and/or other systems could be shutdown. I'd want full access to the source code of whatever software will come with the plane even if it's dumbed down for foreign sales.
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?
India's defense dilemmas (Score:5, Interesting)
But India's relationship w/ the US has been pretty good. The only strains were when Bush, after 9/11, decided that Pakistan was an ally, rather than an enemy, and this understandably teed India off. Also, since 1991, one of India's closest defense allies has been Israel - India happens to be Israel's biggest customer for defense equipment.
I think India is buying from France, aside from cost reasons, to make US understand that there is a price tag involved if it continues to support & supply Pakistan. If the US were to cut all the billions of aid it gives Pakistan, there could be an improvement. Also note that if India were to buy more expensive equipment over something less expensive, politicians would scream 'corruption'. In the 80s, that's precisely what happened w/ the Swedish company Bofors, and even though there was no wrongdoing on the government's part, the perception of wrongdoing was what led to the defeat of the government in the 1989 elections. Yeah, there have been many corruption scandals since, but no government in its right mind would want to jeopardize its very existence over the country's security.
Re:India's defense dilemmas (Score:5, Informative)
India's military relationship with the US has not always been very good. For example, when India supported the Bangladeshis during their Liberation War, Nixon's response was to send in a carrier battle group [wikipedia.org] to support Pakistan, despite evidence of genocide [wikipedia.org] by the West Pakistani army. Given India's closeness to the USSR, the US was always somewhat wary of military ties. Operation Smiling Buddha [wikipedia.org] and Operation Shakthi [wikipedia.org] didn't help very much either, but the US rather quickly learned that economic sanctions against India didn't really prove effective and withdrew them in a few years.
The IAF also has a relatively long [wikipedia.org] history [wikipedia.org] of using fighter [wikipedia.org] aircraft [wikipedia.org] and helos [wikipedia.org] of French origin. The French are not shy about sharing technology either, such as the Master AP [thalesgroup.com] system that's integrated into India's Ballistic Missle Defence network, or SAGEM's numerous avionics subsystems that are part of the HAL Tejas [wikipedia.org].
Bottom line, then, is that while I'm sure US support of Pakistan would have had some influence, many other factors (much of it historical) contributed to the final decision.
Re:Rafale F16 (Score:5, Interesting)
Canada is currently in the process of adding new [www.ctv.ca] ships to its navy via the 'Single Class Surface Combatant Project' [wikipedia.org], and is modernizing its fleet of Halifax class frigates [wikipedia.org]. Because America's International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is a pain in the ass [defenseindustrydaily.com] and frequently abused for political purposes, one of the big mandates at least for the Halifax frigate modernization is to try to reduce the dependence on U.S. (weapons) systems as much as possible; opting for systems from Canada, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and Israel. IIRC I believe this started with issues around exporting and/or updating torpedoes (or at least that is what I remember being the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of naval weapons systems). It is unclear if this will continue with the new combat ships; there has been no clear indication published (pdf) [drdc.gc.ca] in the news one way or another. Now if a close ally of the United States is forced to look elsewhere [dmag.info] to avoid a lot of issues raised by the abuse of ITAR rules by American politicians and companies, then it is likely a very smart decision of India to avoid buying from the U.S.
But I don't know why they didn't go with the Typhoon. It looks marginally better. The wing load is higher, the thrust, speed, and climb is better, and it super cruises faster. These kinds of things are what allows a plane to return home at the end of the day when the shit hits the fan. Mind you, the Americans did do a bit of a study in the 80s I believe, where they had a bunch of top guns in F-5s go after standard operational F-14s and F-15s and pretty much proved that a bunch of small manoeuvrable fighters were a credible and significant threat to the bigger less manoeuvrable modern planes. Not sure where they went with that after. Maybe the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about [youtube.com] took issue with the results of that study.
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed! There are (admittedly very simplified) models of combat that indicate that the power of a fighting force is proportional to the square of its number of members.
This is something that I stumbled across when developing simple ODE models of Starcraft combat, and later discovered is known as Lanchester's Square Law [wikipedia.org]. The idea is simple: Suppose you have two opposing groups of identical combat units, with x and y members, respectively. If you assume that all units concentrate fire on the weakest enemy, then the rate at which enemy units is depleted is proportional to the number of units you have, and vice versa. In symbols,
dx/dt = -y
dy/dt = -x
It turns out that the quantity D = x^2 - y^2 is conserved by this system (to verify this, just differentiate D with respect to time, use the product rule, and substitute in from the ODEs). What this means is that the fighting power of a fighting force is proportional to its square, and when the smaller force is eliminated, the larger force will have lost as much fighting power as the smaller force had, in order to defeat it.
You can modify the equations to include constants that reflect unequal kill rates, but you will find that the equivalent conserved quantities still depend quadratically on the number of units, but only linearly on the kill rate coefficients. The conclusion to be drawn is that, given a choice between a unit that's twice as effective, and twice as many units, you should choose to have twice as many units.
All this is predicated on the accuracy of the mathematical model, of course, and that model, I freely admit, is a rather drastic simplification. However, its aesthetics are appealing, and I think it may have a grain of truth. If it does, than Rafales or Super Hornets may indeed be the better choice than F-35s.
Quality vs. Quantity in fighter jets (Score:5, Informative)
Quoting Defense Industry Daily article The F-35’s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy [defenseindustrydaily.com]:
The core problem in Pacific Vision 2008 was that even an invulnerable American fighter force ran out of missiles before it ran out of targets, at any number below 50% of missile firings resulting in kills. Whereupon the remaining Chinese fighters would destroy the American tankers and AWACS aircraft, guaranteeing that the USAF’s F-22As would run out of fuel and crash before they could return to Guam.
To reiterate: RAND’s core conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It is about the theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics conditions. RAND’s Project Air Force argues, persuasively, that based on history and current trends, numbers still matter – and so does the “Lanchester square.” That’s the theory under which the combat performance of an outnumbered combatant must be the square of the outnumbering ratio (outnumbered 3:1 must be 9x better, etc.) just to stay even.
Or, as the oft-repeated Cold War era saying goes, “quantity has a quality all its own.”
Additional problem with F-35 is that it has limited missile carrying capacity, range, and stealth (stealth requirements were downgraded from very low observable, to low observable).
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
The Rafales has a radar cross section of 0.72m2, its not designed to be a stealth fighter.
The F22 is around the size of a marble, the F35 the size of a golf ball
Try beach ball. To quote The Sydney Morning Herald [smh.com.au] after the stealth capabilities of the F-35 were downgraded from the original plan:
A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.
Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.
(and can carry 3000lb of bombs in internal bays)
Which makes it a light bomber. It's really more of a ground strike aircraft than a fighter, multi-purpose or not. And that is basically what the US wants its allies to have to help fight its wars - you can't subdue Iran with Flankers; they are far more useful for actual defense than offense, and the US is all about attacking others.
Re: (Score:3)
And they're not likely to be fighting the US-- they primarily need fighters that can beat Pakistan.
... or China. But then China doesn't have any particularly advanced planes, either (yet).
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:4, Funny)
Other than motherfucking DRAGONS!
Re: (Score:3)
And the french are selling rafales with a technology transfer. Same deal they had with Brazil. The Eurofighter was the best fighter in the competition, but no technology transfer at the same level (manufacturing exchange though). The french spent some absurd amount of money developing the Rafale ( I think 40 billion euros, which works out to 200 million per aircraft for france). They're desperate to recoup some of those costs, otherwise the Rafale, which is a decent but not spectacular aircraft is look
Re:Many versus Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
India got the deal of the century - if you read the fine print, France is only selling India 18 fighters - India gets the CAD files and source code and will build the remaining 108 themselves - presumably for the cost of labor and materials. That means instead of paying $90 million for each jet, they're looking at final production costs of $5-20 million each. Who knows how the Rafale's technology will fuel their own defense industry over the next 20-30 years? It's a win-win-win for India, and France gets to stop propping up a failing industry for a few more years.
This sort of "buy some, build the rest" deal is rapidly becoming the standard for large BRIC contracts with the west.
Re:french military victories (Score:5, Informative)
Re:french military victories (Score:5, Interesting)
There was also this whole newfangled thing called "blitzkrieg". What the US today would call Shock and Awe.
The Germans didn't stop to secure the areas their tank divisions had overrun - they kept pressing forward, completely counter to essentially all military strategies that were thought to be viable.
This meant that by the time the French had a chance to regroup and do anything, they were, in effect, already defeated.
Re:french military victories (Score:4)
Uh-huh. Good luck with the credit crunch you'll get after outlawing charging interest.
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:french military victories (Score:5, Informative)
The major reason for the rapid capitulation of French to Germany in 1940 is that we were crushed.
There were between 50 000 and 100 000 French military killed during the 2 months of the German invasion in 1940 (+ the wounded of course). The French army was vastly oversmarted and overpowered but it did attempt to resist.
Please read a bit of history and stop spreading nonsense. The vast majority of French people still deeply hated the German 20 years after the first world war.
Re:french military victories (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks for the recommendation. I found this, which was interesting:
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7061&IBLOCK_ID=35 [exile.ru]
Re:french military victories (Score:5, Informative)
'Someone in the india ministry of defense should google "french military victories'
Top hit for me is below, it describes a string of victories (And some defeats) going back to 387 B.C. In particular Joan of Arc and Napoleon where involved in french victories.
What is you point, other than documenting your typically ignorant American attitude, i bet you call still call them freedom fries at your house.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp [militaryfactory.com]
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:french military victories (Score:5, Insightful)
Tee hee! Surrender joke!
Guess Napoleon, Layette saving us during the revolution and WWI didn't count.
Slashdot flamebait headline misses the point (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot's usual BS political linkbait headline has nothing to do link the actual story. This is not about French vs. US aircraft, France vs. the US in general, or anything like that. If you read either of the linked TFAs, they say specifically that:
Both of TFAs talk about how this decision is a blow to the Eurofighter, not to the US - not anymore than it is to Sweden or Russia. It is just another poorly edited (or edited at all?) Slashdot anti-US linkbait, flamebait article.
I swear I'm almost done with Slashdot except that it still has some informative comments on science stories, I need to just browse that section and ignore the rest since they just piss me off.
Re:Slashdot flamebait headline misses the point (Score:4, Interesting)
I am sorry to have no moderator points at the moment. I completly agree with you about /. being now mostly a place were people push their agenda, I can bear corporate or even Web site's submissions (discovery, universetoday) in need of click flow but political agenda against other countries is very ugly. LIke you I came here for science discussion not for stupid submissions that have nothing to do with the /. motto "stuff that matters".
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: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, Informative)
Re:french military victories (Score:5, Insightful)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." - Penn Jillette
Re: (Score:3)
India used to be an ally of the Soviets during the Cold War, and they too bought MIGs against Pakistan's (never delivered) F16s. While there is no telling how they would have fared, in 1971, India w/ Soviet aircraft did defeat Pakistan w/ US aircraft.
The quality of personnel does matter a lot. The reason Israel won is that they had a far better trained military, including Air Force, than the Arabs, and the same goes for India over Pakistan. Just b'cos Israel trounced the Syrian Air Force in Lebanon in
Why wouldn't India develop it's own fighter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why wouldn't India develop it's own fighter? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why wouldn't India develop it's own fighter? (Score:4, Informative)
It's developing it's own light fighter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas [wikipedia.org]
The Rafale looks like it'll be the strike fighter, while the Su-30 will be used for air superiority.
Re:Why wouldn't India develop it's own fighter? (Score:4, Informative)
HAL Tejas [wikipedia.org]
Sukhoi/HAL FGFA [wikipedia.org]
HAL AMCA [wikipedia.org]
While the Tejas is close to entering service, it is a lightweight aircraft, designed to be cheap (~$25M) and keep the numbers. This contest was for a medium-sized aircraft bringing in more capability and to be able to support the Su-30MKI which are the IAF's primary fighters.
The FGFA and AMCA are long-term projects which are not likely to enter service before the decade is out.
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.
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
Re:Good move (Score:5, Informative)
Australia "snagged" the Super Hornet to fill a gap left by the retirement of the F-111 fleet before the much over-hyped, over-priced and over-late F-35 is delivered (as 'early' as 2014).
Re:Good move (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good move (Score:5, Interesting)
Never mind that USA can get up to all kinds of tricks to get their contracts.
When Norway was evaluating Eurofighter, F-35 and Saab JAS 39 Gripen, the Gripen was held back by radar performance issues. Later on it is found that Saab was in talks with Lockheed or some other US company about buying radars, but the final contract was held back by Washington until after said evaluation.
At times i wonder if the F-35 is an attempt at rescuing the US economy...
Giving too much credit to Indian politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering the scandal in Indian telecom, which their supreme court has just now finally made its ruling on, I'm not sure how often the Indian government keeps to that premise. It is a damned corrupt country. I expect the result probably had as much to do with French envoys with brown paper bags filled with hard currency as anything else.
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.
There is a lot more to it than this article (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fighter jets aren't what they need. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on whether or not pakistan gets F16's, whether or not india wishes to involve itself with Iran, or anywhere else in the middle east, what the situation in Indonesia or burma may do to future indian interests, and chinese interests.
When you're buying aircraft for the next 15 or 20 years you have a lot of broad 'what if's' to consider beyond just the immediately obvious threats. A radical shakeup in the middle east or indonesia or even pakistan or burma could leave india very much in need of operatio
Re:Fighter jets aren't what they need. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fighter jets aren't what they need. (Score:4, Informative)
The threat to india is men on foot or motorbikes with rifles and explosives in their backpacks.
India has last fought a conventional, if brief and low-scale, war with Pakistan in 1999 [wikipedia.org], not exactly a long time ago. It specifically involved [wikipedia.org] air strikes, and several fighter planes have been lost.
Re:Fighter jets aren't what they need. (Score:4, Informative)
I understand what the OP was about. But he claims that they are the (only) threat to India, which is evidently not true - it has borders with two not exactly friendly states, which it had already fought wars with. They certainly have a use for a conventional military, including an up-to-date air force.
Re: (Score:3)
I dont think that terrorists are really a threat to a nation... they are a threat to individuals within the nation, and probably less of a threat than say... cigarettes, or the Indian traffic, but terrorism is not the nation itself.
China and Pakistan are much more credible threats, and I agree, those threats require having proper military deterrents.
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...
cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the 1950's, Canada tried to develop its own plane called "The Arrow". Apparently, the program was squashed in parliament by the CIA paying off key representatives. This sort of technology costs billions and takes years to develop as well as keeping an industrial infrastructure in place to keep it going.
Isreal developed its "Lion" prototype, but the US offered to give Isreal US's top of the line state of the art planes to keep them from pursuing that line.
Maybe over the course of several decades, other countries would develop sufficiently advanced air breathing technology and then where would the US be.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. During the American Revolution, private citizens owned gun boats. Mostly a few converted smallish coastal cargo ships with a few cannon, but gun boats none the less. It was common in those days for the wealthier British navy officers to own a crew-served gun or two of their own that they took along with them. Privately owned field artillery is.... uncommon... today. And I've never seen the shells at WalMart, either.
Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
They do just that, actually. Their primary air superiority fighter is Su-30, and MiG-29 is the second most common fighter plane - and they have orders open for both. They also participate in the PAK FA project.
However, they wanted a multi-role fighter. Soviet/Russian planes are awesome in the air, but not as versatile. IAF has actually been using French planes before for that role, they're just upgrading to the next gen one.
Re: (Score:3)
Officially, and probably unofficially, they want a diverse set of suppliers. India isn't in bed with Russia the way it has been for years. They have a joint fighter the SU-30MKI which is a damn good aircraft relatively, but they don't want to be seen as purely on the russian side in the arms markets. When you're as big as india you want to make sure you have friends in a lot of places. Who knows what the russians are going to be doing in the next 15 or 20 years, and they don't want to be tied to one sup
News for american weapon dealers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the editors are drunk?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
Seriously, TFA doesn't even mention the F-35 as being a final candidate: this was more of a blow to the Eurofighter than the F-35. The F-35 is much higher spec than the Rafale (for one thing, it is a true stealth aircraft), while the Eurofighter and the Rafale are pretty close (solid 5t gen fighters, radar reduction but not stealth). Had they needed the F-35 specs, they probably would have bought it. They just weren't looking at that high-end an aircraft.
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.
Decision was between Rafale vs Typhoon (Score:5, Informative)
The American entries were never contenders, the F-35 is still in development, the F-15 and F-18 quite old and the F-22 is not offered for export, all have been out of consideration for over a year, this was always Dassault Rafale vs Eurofighter Typhoon. Personally, I have no idea why they didn't buy more Su-30s, as they already have 100 of them, meaning there is no shortage of parts and expertise and to my knowledge are just as capable as the Rafale.
In the end, the Indian government liked the Typhoon best, but Rafale gave a far lower bid. This is probably because it's Rafale's first export order and will mean that Dassault can stay in business.
Some Background (Score:5, Informative)
While America had offered the F-16, F-18 and now the stealth F-35 fighter ...
The F-35 was never offered for this contest .. it wouldn't even be eligible. Only aircraft that were already in production and could start deliveries by 2013 were allowed. The other American aircraft were eliminated in the first round ... The Indian Air Force liked the F/A-18's AESA radar so much that it was made a mandatory requirement for the other contestants too. However, in size the Hornet is just too big for the role the IAF was looking to fit it into. The F-16 never had a chance since Pakistan is a major operator of the type.
... a low cost, older French plane. Why? For one, it's cheaper ...
Cost is not that significant a factor ... like I mentioned earlier, the tenders were unsealed only after the aircraft that didn't meet the performance parameters were eliminated. By law, the IAF has to choose the lowest-cost successful bidder.
Both the Rafale and Eurofighter are more expensive than the Hornet or Falcon (and significantly more so than the Gripen). If the Hornet or Gripen had gotten to the second round, they'd probably be the winner of the contest.
... if American/Indian relations go bad, can they get the parts and equipment to keep the planes in the air?
That's one of the criteria where the American aircraft failed. India's defence policy requires multiple vendors from different countries of origin to minimise the control that can be exerted. (Which is why the IAF flies such a plethora of types). After the Indian nuclear tests in 1996, US sanctions meant that most Western-built designs in IAF service were affected due to a lack of spare parts (Sea King helicopters, F404 engines for the Tejas fighter etc.).
Cheap and good enough beats state of the art. (Score:4, Interesting)
The dassault rafale has the advantages of being more flexible in its roles, easier and less costly to maintain and has more
modular parts.
UAVs (Score:3)
I am surprised they are buying a plane with a pilot.
India Will Produce the Fighte (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Relying on french weapon systems? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps so, but it's not like Boeing will give India the cream of the crop or at a competitive price. Australia's purchase of Hornets put us behind Indonesia's air attack capability, 18m a plane vs the 250k per mig, Hornets are nice planes but put us way out numbered against our nextdoor neighbors.
Boeing is over priced, French, russian, sweden all make pretty good fighters even so Boeing struggles to pull off cobra maneuvers. Russians can perform landing cobras and the, swedish planes can do variants of these maneuvers not quite as good as the US equivalent, actually the US equivalent matches up pretty poorly.
Stealth fighters would be the only reason to buy US and china is quickly filling that gap.