Re: India is in the market for New Fighters. What would you buy????

[dumbstruck]

On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> Eruofighter Typhoon
> Saab Gripen
> Boeing's F-18
> Lock Mart's F16
> Mig's 29 & 35
> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).

Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?

But I would expand the search box. On the more futuristic side,
consider unmanned hunter-killer drones like General Atomics MQ-9
Reaper, adding sidewinders. Using the price from Wikipedia, India
could afford 12000 of these instead of 126 of the above. Well, maybe
China or sombody could figure out how to jam UAV's.

My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
of India's vast manpower. I'm thinking of a plywood overcast: 126000
rocket/cruise-missle carrying Mosquito's. Get the DeHavilland assembly
plans from the internet, and make it's plywood from recycled scrap
wood in a thousand village workshops. For engines, Russia must have
heaps of worn out Kuznetsov turboprops used on Tupolev Bear bombers -
those awesomely fast ones with counterrotating props might be rebuilt
cheaply. Quantity has a quality of it's own, and that is India's
forte.

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Nov 4, 5:53�pm, dumbstruck > wrote:
> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>
> > India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> > Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> > 21's. There are about 6 *Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > Eruofighter Typhoon
> > Saab Gripen
> > Boeing's F-18
> > Lock Mart's F16
> > Mig's 29 & 35
> > Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> > So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> > Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> > come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>
> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>
> But I would expand the search box. On the more futuristic side,
> consider unmanned hunter-killer drones like General Atomics MQ-9
> Reaper, adding sidewinders. Using the price from Wikipedia, India
> could afford 12000 of these instead of 126 of the above. Well, maybe
> China or sombody could figure out how to jam UAV's.
>
> My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
> of India's vast manpower. I'm thinking of a plywood overcast: 126000
> rocket/cruise-missle carrying Mosquito's. Get the DeHavilland assembly
> plans from the internet, and make it's plywood from recycled scrap
> wood in a thousand village workshops. For engines, Russia must have
> heaps of worn out Kuznetsov turboprops used on Tupolev Bear bombers -
> those awesomely fast ones with counterrotating props might be rebuilt
> cheaply. Quantity has a quality of it's own, and that is India's
> forte.

Easiest answer is whatever meets India's needs in the region and not
what Russia, Europe, or the US think they need...

With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
indigenous design, with a little help from their allies ;)

In the 21st century there will be 5 powers: US, United Europe, China,
Russia, and India. China and India constitute 1/3rd of the entire
world population and are growing while the US, Europe, and Russia are
declining by birthrate. The West needs to start taking these nations
seriously.

Rob

[William Black[_1_]]

"Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
> of India's vast manpower.


With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
indigenous design, with a little help from their allies

-------------------

The Indian military has a problem with completing large projects.

They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about it,
but nothing much seems to work.

This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[ffff]

William Black wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>> My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
>> of India's vast manpower.
>
>
> With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
> indigenous design, with a little help from their allies
>
> -------------------
>
> The Indian military has a problem with completing large projects.
>
> They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about it,
> but nothing much seems to work.
>
> This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.
>
>

The US military has a problem with completing large projects.

They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about
it, but nothing much seems to work.

This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 5, 8:34 am, ffff > wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> > "Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> >> My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
> >> of India's vast manpower.
>
> > With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
> > indigenous design, with a little help from their allies
>
> > -------------------
>
> > The Indian military has a problem with completing large projects.
>
> > They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about it,
> > but nothing much seems to work.
>
> > This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.
>
> The US military has a problem with completing large projects.
>
> They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about
> it, but nothing much seems to work.
>
> This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.

Could you please try to make sense with your next post?

[ffff]

Rob Arndt wrote:
> On Nov 4, 5:53�pm, dumbstruck > wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>>
>>> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
>>> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
>>> 21's. There are about 6 �Firms/ planes up for consideration.
>>> Eruofighter Typhoon
>>> Saab Gripen
>>> Boeing's F-18
>>> Lock Mart's F16
>>> Mig's 29 & 35
>>> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>>> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
>>> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
>>> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
>> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
>> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>>
>> But I would expand the search box. On the more futuristic side,
>> consider unmanned hunter-killer drones like General Atomics MQ-9
>> Reaper, adding sidewinders. Using the price from Wikipedia, India
>> could afford 12000 of these instead of 126 of the above. Well, maybe
>> China or sombody could figure out how to jam UAV's.
>>
>> My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
>> of India's vast manpower. I'm thinking of a plywood overcast: 126000
>> rocket/cruise-missle carrying Mosquito's. Get the DeHavilland assembly
>> plans from the internet, and make it's plywood from recycled scrap
>> wood in a thousand village workshops. For engines, Russia must have
>> heaps of worn out Kuznetsov turboprops used on Tupolev Bear bombers -
>> those awesomely fast ones with counterrotating props might be rebuilt
>> cheaply. Quantity has a quality of it's own, and that is India's
>> forte.
>
> Easiest answer is whatever meets India's needs in the region and not
> what Russia, Europe, or the US think they need...
>
> With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
> indigenous design, with a little help from their allies ;)
>
> In the 21st century there will be 5 powers: US, United Europe, China,
> Russia, and India. China and India constitute 1/3rd of the entire
> world population and are growing while the US, Europe, and Russia are
> declining by birthrate. The West needs to start taking these nations
> seriously.
>
> Rob
>
>

PetroChina 1st firm worth $1 trillion

By ELAINE KURTENBACH, AP Business Writer 2 hours, 31 minutes ago

SHANGHAI, China - PetroChina became the world's first company worth more
than $1 trillion on Monday, surging past Exxon Mobil as the Chinese oil
producer's shares nearly tripled in their first day of trading in China.

State-owned PetroChina Co., a unit of state-owned China National
Petroleum Corp., is the country's biggest oil and gas producer. Its
Shanghai initial public offering of 4 billion shares raised $8.94
billion — a record for a mainland bourse.

Adding the value of PetroChina shares traded in Shanghai, Hong Kong and
New York — and those still owned by the government — the company's total
market capitalization ballooned to just over $1 trillion, compared to
Exxon Mobil Corp.'s $488 billion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105/ap_on_bi_ge/china_petrochina_ipo;_ylt=AtEksScgVXr0sPCH9O4dbVNv 24cA

[Jack Linthicum]

On Nov 5, 6:59 am, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
> > of India's vast manpower.
>
> With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
> indigenous design, with a little help from their allies
>
> -------------------
>
> The Indian military has a problem with completing large projects.
>
> They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about it,
> but nothing much seems to work.
>
> This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

I would advise buying something that is in existence right now.
Musharraf is going to be looking for something to unify a country that
consists of four minorities. A nice nuke war with India would suit for
the present.

[La N]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Nov 5, 6:59 am, "William Black" >
> wrote:
>> "Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>> > My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
>> > of India's vast manpower.
>>
>> With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
>> indigenous design, with a little help from their allies
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> The Indian military has a problem with completing large projects.
>>
>> They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about
>> it,
>> but nothing much seems to work.
>>
>> This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.
>>
>> --
>> William Black
>>
>> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
>> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
>> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
>> All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
>> Time for tea.
>
> I would advise buying something that is in existence right now.
> Musharraf is going to be looking for something to unify a country that
> consists of four minorities. A nice nuke war with India would suit for
> the present.
>

I was listening to a CBC Radio program a few weeks ago related to that
region which dealt with relations between the two countries, and the
commentator was saying that currently the region of India/Pakistan is the
most dangerous place in the world, apocalyptically speaking, and bears
close watching.

- nilita

[Roger Conroy]

On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>
> > India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> > Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> > 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > Eruofighter Typhoon
> > Saab Gripen
> > Boeing's F-18
> > Lock Mart's F16
> > Mig's 29 & 35
> > Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> > So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> > Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> > come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>
> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>

Snip fantasy............

I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
maintenance.

[Tiger]

Rob Arndt wrote:

>On Nov 4, 5:53�pm, dumbstruck > wrote:
>
>
>>On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
>>>Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
>>>21's. There are about 6 ?Firms/ planes up for consideration.
>>>Eruofighter Typhoon
>>>Saab Gripen
>>>Boeing's F-18
>>>Lock Mart's F16
>>>Mig's 29 & 35
>>>Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>>>
>>>
>>>So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
>>>Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
>>>come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>>>
>>>
>>Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
>>still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
>>to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>>
>>But I would expand the search box. On the more futuristic side,
>>consider unmanned hunter-killer drones like General Atomics MQ-9
>>Reaper, adding sidewinders. Using the price from Wikipedia, India
>>could afford 12000 of these instead of 126 of the above. Well, maybe
>>China or sombody could figure out how to jam UAV's.
>>
>>My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
>>of India's vast manpower. I'm thinking of a plywood overcast: 126000
>>rocket/cruise-missle carrying Mosquito's. Get the DeHavilland assembly
>>plans from the internet, and make it's plywood from recycled scrap
>>wood in a thousand village workshops. For engines, Russia must have
>>heaps of worn out Kuznetsov turboprops used on Tupolev Bear bombers -
>>those awesomely fast ones with counterrotating props might be rebuilt
>>cheaply. Quantity has a quality of it's own, and that is India's
>>forte.
>>
>>
>
>Easiest answer is whatever meets India's needs in the region and not
>what Russia, Europe, or the US think they need...
>
>With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
>indigenous design, with a little help from their allies ;)
>
>In the 21st century there will be 5 powers: US, United Europe, China,
>Russia, and India. China and India constitute 1/3rd of the entire
>world population and are growing while the US, Europe, and Russia are
>declining by birthrate. The West needs to start taking these nations
>seriously.
>
>Rob
>
>
>
>
Well part of my orignial post stated that the deal would include
provisions to domestically build.

"Eighteen of the fighters would be bought off the shelf by 2012 while
the remaining 108 planes would be manufactured under licence in India.

India would also hold the option of purchasing another 64 fighters from
the top bidder, Indian officials
said."- http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071102/bs_afp/indiausmilitaryweaponsaviationlockheedcompany;_ylt =Alt.ZIu0bUiLcqLyZWTntzkE1vAI

[Tiger]

Roger Conroy wrote:

>On Nov. 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
>
>
>>On Nov. 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
>>>Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
>>>21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
>>>Eruofighter Typhoon
>>>Saab Gripen
>>>Boeing's F-18
>>>Lock Mart's F16
>>>Mig's 29 & 35
>>>Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>>>
>>>
>>>So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
>>>Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
>>>come with political strings attached (like Pakistanis f-16 deal).
>>>
>>>
>>Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offerings
>>still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
>>to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Snip fantasy............
>
>I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
>come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
>The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
>ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
>of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
>maintenance.
>
>
>
>
I'm a Saab fan as well. However...... Just to throw another curve into
the job requirements. India's Navy is Buying/ building new Ski jump
equipped carriers to replace the ex-HMSHermes. They are slated to use
Mig 29-K Naval versions of the MIG. The Built in naval capability of
the Raffale and small size make it a contender as well. France also
lacks the political strings.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Nov 5, 6:59 am, "William Black" >
> wrote:
>> "Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>> > My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
>> > of India's vast manpower.
>>
>> With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
>> indigenous design, with a little help from their allies
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> The Indian military has a problem with completing large projects.
>>
>> They know they have a problem and they keep trying to do something about
>> it,
>> but nothing much seems to work.
>>
>> This is why they prefer to buy big stuff.
>>
>> --
>> William Black
>>
>> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
>> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
>> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
>> All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
>> Time for tea.
>
> I would advise buying something that is in existence right now.
> Musharraf is going to be looking for something to unify a country that
> consists of four minorities. A nice nuke war with India would suit for
> the present.
>

India's too big, far too well equipped and ready for exactly that war.

Islamic extremists have been blowing up Indian cites for a couple of years
now and the Indian public, in my estimation, is about ready to see
Pakistan given a sound thrashing.

Pakistan needs someone they can beat, not someone who'll invade and make
speeches about 'reunifying mother India' and 'destroying the legacy of
colonialism' in the UN while looking smug as their tanks roll into
Islamabad.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[PaPaPeng]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:01:17 -0800, Rob Arndt >
wrote:

>Easiest answer is whatever meets India's needs in the region and not
>what Russia, Europe, or the US think they need...

It won't be a US plane. The F-16s and F-18s are somewhat dated
designs that carry a high purchase cost and bring with them too much
political baggage. Should India not meet US expectations in certain
US geopolitical goals delivery and support is held up.

>
>With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
>indigenous design, with a little help from their allies ;)


From an interview with Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew

This is the most important insight.

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=79541

Q: On India, there's been a lot of hype in America, in foreign affairs
publications and so on, about India becoming the next superpower. I
was in New Delhi about three months ago -- it seems to me India's got
a long way to go.

Lee: They are a different mix, never mind their political structures.
They are not one people. You can make a speech in Delhi; [Prime
Minister] Manmohan Singh can speak in Hindi and 30, 40 percent of the
country can understand him. He makes a speech in English and maybe 30
percent of the elite understand him.

In China, when a leader speaks, 90 percent will understand him. They
all speak one language, they are one people. In India, they have got
32 official languages and in fact, 300-plus different languages. You
look at Europe, 25 languages, 27 countries, how do you? The European
Parliament? Had we not moved into one language here in Singapore, we
would not have been able to govern this country.

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

William Black wrote:
[snip]

>
> Pakistan needs someone they can beat, not someone who'll invade and make
> speeches about 'reunifying mother India' and 'destroying the legacy of
> colonialism' in the UN while looking smug as their tanks roll into
> Islamabad.

If Pakistan wants someone to shoot their neighbour Afghanistan will
keep the Army busy for a few decades.

Andrew Swallow

[William Black[_1_]]

"Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
...
> William Black wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Pakistan needs someone they can beat, not someone who'll invade and make
>> speeches about 'reunifying mother India' and 'destroying the legacy of
>> colonialism' in the UN while looking smug as their tanks roll into
>> Islamabad.
>
> If Pakistan wants someone to shoot their neighbour Afghanistan will
> keep the Army busy for a few decades.

They won't even try.

They keep bouncing of the NWF Province, they won't go further in, they're
not that daft...

One of the 'stans' might be a possibility if the US or Russia isn't propping
them up...

Such a pity Nepal doesn't have a border with Pakistan...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Harry Andreas]

In article om>, Roger
Conroy > wrote:

> On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
> >
> > > India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> > > Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> > > 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > > Eruofighter Typhoon
> > > Saab Gripen
> > > Boeing's F-18
> > > Lock Mart's F16
> > > Mig's 29 & 35
> > > Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
> >
> > > So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> > > Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> > > come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
> >
> > Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> > still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> > to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
> >
>
> Snip fantasy............
>
> I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
> come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
> The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
> ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
> of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
> maintenance.

Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
What on the list is newer?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Roger Conroy]

On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> In article om>, Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> Conroy > wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>
> > > > India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> > > > Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> > > > 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > > > Eruofighter Typhoon
> > > > Saab Gripen
> > > > Boeing's F-18
> > > > Lock Mart's F16
> > > > Mig's 29 & 35
> > > > Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> > > > So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> > > > Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> > > > come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>
> > > Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> > > still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> > > to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>
> > Snip fantasy............
>
> > I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
> > come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
> > The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
> > ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
> > of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
> > maintenance.
>
> Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
> What on the list is newer?
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
last weeks news!
Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
envelope please...) the F16!
The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
All they can offer are aircraft that were designed before their pilots
were even born!
The only customers they get are countries that already operate older
model F16s and F18s, and can't afford anything better.

[Roger Conroy]

On Nov 5, 5:17 pm, Tiger > wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 5:53?pm, dumbstruck > wrote:
>
> >>On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>
> >>>India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> >>>Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> >>>21's. There are about 6 ?Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> >>>Eruofighter Typhoon
> >>>Saab Gripen
> >>>Boeing's F-18
> >>>Lock Mart's F16
> >>>Mig's 29 & 35
> >>>Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> >>>So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> >>>Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> >>>come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>
> >>Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> >>still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> >>to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>
> >>But I would expand the search box. On the more futuristic side,
> >>consider unmanned hunter-killer drones like General Atomics MQ-9
> >>Reaper, adding sidewinders. Using the price from Wikipedia, India
> >>could afford 12000 of these instead of 126 of the above. Well, maybe
> >>China or sombody could figure out how to jam UAV's.
>
> >>My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
> >>of India's vast manpower. I'm thinking of a plywood overcast: 126000
> >>rocket/cruise-missle carrying Mosquito's. Get the DeHavilland assembly
> >>plans from the internet, and make it's plywood from recycled scrap
> >>wood in a thousand village workshops. For engines, Russia must have
> >>heaps of worn out Kuznetsov turboprops used on Tupolev Bear bombers -
> >>those awesomely fast ones with counterrotating props might be rebuilt
> >>cheaply. Quantity has a quality of it's own, and that is India's
> >>forte.
>
> >Easiest answer is whatever meets India's needs in the region and not
> >what Russia, Europe, or the US think they need...
>
> >With 1.1 billion people, maybe they should emulate China and think
> >indigenous design, with a little help from their allies ;)
>
> >In the 21st century there will be 5 powers: US, United Europe, China,
> >Russia, and India. China and India constitute 1/3rd of the entire
> >world population and are growing while the US, Europe, and Russia are
> >declining by birthrate. The West needs to start taking these nations
> >seriously.
>
> >Rob
>
> Well part of my orignial post stated that the deal would include
> provisions to domestically build.
>
> "Eighteen of the fighters would be bought off the shelf by 2012 while
> the remaining 108 planes would be manufactured under licence in India.
>
> India would also hold the option of purchasing another 64 fighters from
> the top bidder, Indian officials
> said."-http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071102/bs_afp/indiausmilitaryweaponsavi...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



>From www.janes.com

Indian air force chief warns of reliance on imports.
The competence of the Indian defence industry has been "dulled" by
"lack of competition and a readiness to import", India's Chief of the
Air Staff has warned. Delivering the inaugural address to the 2nd
International Conference on 'Energising Indian Aerospace Industry: New
Partnerships, New Opportunities', Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major
said private defence companies "must not be merely business partners
of foreign vendors".

And a side note - Thailand's purchase of 12 Grippen's is to go ahead
after the US State Department cleared export of US made components to
Tailand.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Roger Conroy > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article om>, Roger
>
> > Conroy > wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>
> > > > > India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> > > > > Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> > > > > 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > > > > Eruofighter Typhoon
> > > > > Saab Gripen
> > > > > Boeing's F-18
> > > > > Lock Mart's F16
> > > > > Mig's 29 & 35
> > > > > Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> > > > > So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> > > > > Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> > > > > come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>
> > > > Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> > > > still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> > > > to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>
> > > Snip fantasy............
>
> > > I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
> > > come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
> > > The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
> > > ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
> > > of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
> > > maintenance.
>
> > Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
> > What on the list is newer?
>
> > --
> > Harry Andreas
> > Engineering raconteur- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
> last weeks news!
> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
> envelope please...) the F16!
> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.

Why is that a fundamental problem?

> All they can offer are aircraft that were designed before their pilots
> were even born!
> The only customers they get are countries that already operate older
> model F16s and F18s, and can't afford anything better.

[Dan[_9_]]

wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Roger Conroy > wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article om>, Roger
>>> Conroy > wrote:
>>>> On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>>>>>> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
>>>>>> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
>>>>>> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
>>>>>> Eruofighter Typhoon
>>>>>> Saab Gripen
>>>>>> Boeing's F-18
>>>>>> Lock Mart's F16
>>>>>> Mig's 29 & 35
>>>>>> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>>>>>> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
>>>>>> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
>>>>>> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>>>>> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
>>>>> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
>>>>> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>>>> Snip fantasy............
>>>> I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
>>>> come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
>>>> The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
>>>> ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
>>>> of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
>>>> maintenance.
>>> Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
>>> What on the list is newer?
>>> --
>>> Harry Andreas
>>> Engineering raconteur- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
>> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
>> last weeks news!
>> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
>> envelope please...) the F16!
>> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
>> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
>> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
>
> Why is that a fundamental problem?

They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
adequate multi-role defense aircraft.

Dan

[Harry Andreas]

In article m>, Roger
Conroy > wrote:

> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> > In article om>, Roger
> > Conroy > wrote:
> > > > > India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> > > > > Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace
their Mig
> > > > > 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > > > > Eruofighter Typhoon
> > > > > Saab Gripen
> > > > > Boeing's F-18
> > > > > Lock Mart's F16
> > > > > Mig's 29 & 35
> > > > > Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
> >
> > > > > So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your
force??
> > > > > Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any
US plane
> > > > > come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
> >
> > > > Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> > > > still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> > > > to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
> >
> > > Snip fantasy............
> >
> > > I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
> > > come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
> > > The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
> > > ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
> > > of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
> > > maintenance.
> >
> > Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
> > What on the list is newer?
>
> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
> last weeks news!

I think you don't have the faintest clue as to the extent of the F/A-18
redesign, and the aerodynamic and structural changes that went
into it. By the way, basic airframing is not that big a deal. Stealth
aspects aside, most airframes are pretty similar design.
It is actually the so-called bells and whistles that are the discriminators
in selling the aircraft.

> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
> envelope please...) the F16!
> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
> All they can offer are aircraft that were designed before their pilots
> were even born!
> The only customers they get are countries that already operate older
> model F16s and F18s, and can't afford anything better.

Like Korea, Singapore, Australia, etc

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Dan > wrote:

> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Roger Conroy > wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> >>> In article om>, Roger
> >>> Conroy > wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
> >>>>>> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> >>>>>> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> >>>>>> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> >>>>>> Eruofighter Typhoon
> >>>>>> Saab Gripen
> >>>>>> Boeing's F-18
> >>>>>> Lock Mart's F16
> >>>>>> Mig's 29 & 35
> >>>>>> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
> >>>>>> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> >>>>>> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> >>>>>> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
> >>>>> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> >>>>> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> >>>>> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
> >>>> Snip fantasy............
> >>>> I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
> >>>> come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
> >>>> The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
> >>>> ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
> >>>> of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
> >>>> maintenance.
> >>> Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
> >>> What on the list is newer?
> >>> --
> >> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
> >> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
> >> last weeks news!
> >> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
> >> envelope please...) the F16!
> >> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
> >> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
> >> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
> >
> > Why is that a fundamental problem?
>
> They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
> needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
> adequate multi-role defense aircraft.

So you actually think someone is going to sit down and design from scratch
a brand-new second-rate fighter?

With so many existing designs on the market to choose from, why would
they do that and who would they sell it to?

If you're going to the trouble and vast expense to design a new a/c, it better
compete with the very best or you will have no market. Otherwise your new a/c
will cost more than existing designs (F-16, Rafale, etc) and be no better.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Dan[_9_]]

Harry Andreas wrote:
> In article >, Dan > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Roger Conroy > wrote:
>>>> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>>>>> In article om>, Roger
>>>>> Conroy > wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>>>>>>>> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
>>>>>>>> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
>>>>>>>> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
>>>>>>>> Eruofighter Typhoon
>>>>>>>> Saab Gripen
>>>>>>>> Boeing's F-18
>>>>>>>> Lock Mart's F16
>>>>>>>> Mig's 29 & 35
>>>>>>>> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>>>>>>>> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
>>>>>>>> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>>>>>>> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
>>>>>>> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
>>>>>>> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>>>>>> Snip fantasy............
>>>>>> I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
>>>>>> come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
>>>>>> The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
>>>>>> ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
>>>>>> of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
>>>>>> maintenance.
>>>>> Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
>>>>> What on the list is newer?
>>>>> --
>>>> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
>>>> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
>>>> last weeks news!
>>>> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
>>>> envelope please...) the F16!
>>>> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
>>>> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
>>>> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
>>> Why is that a fundamental problem?
>> They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
>> needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
>> adequate multi-role defense aircraft.
>
> So you actually think someone is going to sit down and design from scratch
> a brand-new second-rate fighter?

Sure, if the stupid marketing department gets off their collective asses
and shows management the market that obviously exists.
> With so many existing designs on the market to choose from, why would
> they do that and who would they sell it to?

So, you are saying US engineers are bottom of the barrel?

> If you're going to the trouble and vast expense to design a new a/c, it better
> compete with the very best or you will have no market. Otherwise your new a/c
> will cost more than existing designs (F-16, Rafale, etc) and be no better.
>
Well, hardly. The advances I would expect to see in the aircraft I
envision involve serviceability and ruggedness, and decent and efficient
engines. In reality, the top end electronics drive up the cost, but
against the enemy most countries would ever face, the Mk I eyeball and a
good ground attack capability are far more desirable. No need for the
latest avionics, composites, over-water capability, or stealth, which
are huge price drivers. If one cannot afford to run the aircraft and
train pilots, it is just a nice-looking dust collector.

Older aircraft have some decent features (mature technology, no
surprises) but tend to be maintenance nightmares. They also have a hard
time fitting newer, more efficient engines. Not to say that some older
airframes cannot be reengineered - I'm sure the F5 plan could be dusted
off for some of the smaller countries.

The problem, of course, is political. As in the days of sail, fighters
are a showcase for the regime more than an actual tool of diplomacy/war.

Dan

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Dan > wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
> > In article >, Dan > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Roger Conroy > wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> >>>>> In article om>, Roger
> >>>>> Conroy > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> >>>>>>>> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace
their Mig
> >>>>>>>> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> >>>>>>>> Eruofighter Typhoon
> >>>>>>>> Saab Gripen
> >>>>>>>> Boeing's F-18
> >>>>>>>> Lock Mart's F16
> >>>>>>>> Mig's 29 & 35
> >>>>>>>> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
> >>>>>>>> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your
force??
> >>>>>>>> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any
US plane
> >>>>>>>> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
> >>>>>>> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> >>>>>>> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> >>>>>>> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
> >>>>>> Snip fantasy............
> >>>>>> I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
> >>>>>> come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
> >>>>>> The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
> >>>>>> ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
> >>>>>> of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
> >>>>>> maintenance.
> >>>>> Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
> >>>>> What on the list is newer?
> >>>>> --
> >>>> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
> >>>> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
> >>>> last weeks news!
> >>>> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
> >>>> envelope please...) the F16!
> >>>> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
> >>>> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
> >>>> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
> >>> Why is that a fundamental problem?
> >> They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
> >> needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
> >> adequate multi-role defense aircraft.
> >
> > So you actually think someone is going to sit down and design from scratch
> > a brand-new second-rate fighter?
>
> Sure, if the stupid marketing department gets off their collective asses
> and shows management the market that obviously exists.

That's the thing I was trying to point out...there is no market for a new,
second-rate fighter.


> > With so many existing designs on the market to choose from, why would
> > they do that and who would they sell it to?
>
> So, you are saying US engineers are bottom of the barrel?

No, you said that. I say the US engineers and marketing guys are too smart
to design something that no one will buy.


> > If you're going to the trouble and vast expense to design a new a/c,
it better
> > compete with the very best or you will have no market. Otherwise your
new a/c
> > will cost more than existing designs (F-16, Rafale, etc) and be no better.
> >
> Well, hardly. The advances I would expect to see in the aircraft I
> envision involve serviceability and ruggedness, and decent and efficient
> engines. In reality, the top end electronics drive up the cost, but
> against the enemy most countries would ever face, the Mk I eyeball and a
> good ground attack capability are far more desirable. No need for the
> latest avionics, composites, over-water capability, or stealth, which
> are huge price drivers. If one cannot afford to run the aircraft and
> train pilots, it is just a nice-looking dust collector.

See, that the thing about actually being in the industry, you realize
that the latest and greatest avionics are far more reliable and maintainable
than older versions, as well as being more capable. But a dilettante wouldn't
know that, and therefore think that there's no need for the latest avionics
while at the same time decrying serviceability and ruggedness.
BTW, composites have better reliability and ruggedness than metal.
BTW2, India has stated explicitly that they want an AESA radar in whatever
they buy. Apparently they don't share your philosophy.

> Older aircraft have some decent features (mature technology, no
> surprises) but tend to be maintenance nightmares. They also have a hard
> time fitting newer, more efficient engines. Not to say that some older
> airframes cannot be reengineered - I'm sure the F5 plan could be dusted
> off for some of the smaller countries.

Of course, I was speaking of new builds of existing designs, not a hand-me-down
airframe.
Speaking of the F-5 (F-20 actually), it pretty much fits in with what you've
proposed. How well did it sell? What was the market?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Dan[_9_]]

Harry Andreas wrote:
> In article >, Dan > wrote:
>
>> Harry Andreas wrote:
>>> In article >, Dan > wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Roger Conroy > wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>>>>>>> In article om>, Roger
>>>>>>> Conroy > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
>>>>>>>>>> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace
> their Mig
>>>>>>>>>> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
>>>>>>>>>> Eruofighter Typhoon
>>>>>>>>>> Saab Gripen
>>>>>>>>>> Boeing's F-18
>>>>>>>>>> Lock Mart's F16
>>>>>>>>>> Mig's 29 & 35
>>>>>>>>>> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>>>>>>>>>> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your
> force??
>>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any
> US plane
>>>>>>>>>> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>>>>>>>>> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
>>>>>>>>> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
>>>>>>>>> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>>>>>>>> Snip fantasy............
>>>>>>>> I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
>>>>>>>> come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
>>>>>>>> The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
>>>>>>>> ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
>>>>>>>> of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
>>>>>>>> maintenance.
>>>>>>> Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
>>>>>>> What on the list is newer?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
>>>>>> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
>>>>>> last weeks news!
>>>>>> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
>>>>>> envelope please...) the F16!
>>>>>> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
>>>>>> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
>>>>>> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
>>>>> Why is that a fundamental problem?
>>>> They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
>>>> needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
>>>> adequate multi-role defense aircraft.
>>> So you actually think someone is going to sit down and design from scratch
>>> a brand-new second-rate fighter?
>> Sure, if the stupid marketing department gets off their collective asses
>> and shows management the market that obviously exists.
>
> That's the thing I was trying to point out...there is no market for a new,
> second-rate fighter.
>
>
>>> With so many existing designs on the market to choose from, why would
>>> they do that and who would they sell it to?
>> So, you are saying US engineers are bottom of the barrel?
>
> No, you said that. I say the US engineers and marketing guys are too smart
> to design something that no one will buy.
>
>
>>> If you're going to the trouble and vast expense to design a new a/c,
> it better
>>> compete with the very best or you will have no market. Otherwise your
> new a/c
>>> will cost more than existing designs (F-16, Rafale, etc) and be no better.
>>>
>> Well, hardly. The advances I would expect to see in the aircraft I
>> envision involve serviceability and ruggedness, and decent and efficient
>> engines. In reality, the top end electronics drive up the cost, but
>> against the enemy most countries would ever face, the Mk I eyeball and a
>> good ground attack capability are far more desirable. No need for the
>> latest avionics, composites, over-water capability, or stealth, which
>> are huge price drivers. If one cannot afford to run the aircraft and
>> train pilots, it is just a nice-looking dust collector.
>
> See, that the thing about actually being in the industry, you realize
> that the latest and greatest avionics are far more reliable and maintainable
> than older versions, as well as being more capable.

Latest, yes. Greatest, not at all necessary.

However, AS I POINTED OUT, fighter purchases are not about necessity,
but about appearances and politics.

> But a dilettante wouldn't
> know that, and therefore think that there's no need for the latest avionics
> while at the same time decrying serviceability and ruggedness.

Spoken like a true believer. So, how is that BetaMax you have doing...

> BTW, composites have better reliability and ruggedness than metal.

At SUBSTANTIALLY increased costs: purchase, maintenance, and lifetime.

> BTW2, India has stated explicitly that they want an AESA radar in whatever
> they buy. Apparently they don't share your philosophy.

Politics (as I pointed out).

>> Older aircraft have some decent features (mature technology, no
>> surprises) but tend to be maintenance nightmares. They also have a hard
>> time fitting newer, more efficient engines. Not to say that some older
>> airframes cannot be reengineered - I'm sure the F5 plan could be dusted
>> off for some of the smaller countries.
>
> Of course, I was speaking of new builds of existing designs, not a hand-me-down
> airframe.

Good.

> Speaking of the F-5 (F-20 actually), it pretty much fits in with what you've
> proposed. How well did it sell? What was the market?

Again, politics. Far better fit for most countries, but they couldn't
get the political backing of the US government OR their target market.

Hey, it's a tough business, and people want to make money, but staying
behind the times is hardly helping the US producers now... They'll have
a small market for their VERY expensive planes, but not much more, as
anyone who could afford them can develop their own.

Dan

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 6, 10:27 am, Dan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Roger Conroy > wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>
> >>> In article om>, Roger
> >>> Conroy > wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
> >>>>>> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> >>>>>> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> >>>>>> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> >>>>>> Eruofighter Typhoon
> >>>>>> Saab Gripen
> >>>>>> Boeing's F-18
> >>>>>> Lock Mart's F16
> >>>>>> Mig's 29 & 35
> >>>>>> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
> >>>>>> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> >>>>>> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> >>>>>> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
> >>>>> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> >>>>> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> >>>>> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
> >>>> Snip fantasy............
> >>>> I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
> >>>> come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
> >>>> The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
> >>>> ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
> >>>> of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
> >>>> maintenance.
> >>> Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
> >>> What on the list is newer?
> >>> --
> >>> Harry Andreas
> >>> Engineering raconteur- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
> >> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
> >> last weeks news!
> >> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
> >> envelope please...) the F16!
> >> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
> >> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
> >> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
>
> > Why is that a fundamental problem?
>
> They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
> needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
> adequate multi-role defense aircraft.
>
> Dan

They're probably counting on selling lots of F-35s.

[Andrew Venor]

Dan wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Roger Conroy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article om>,
>>>> Roger
>>>> Conroy > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
>>>>>>> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace
>>>>>>> their Mig
>>>>>>> 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
>>>>>>> Eruofighter Typhoon
>>>>>>> Saab Gripen
>>>>>>> Boeing's F-18
>>>>>>> Lock Mart's F16
>>>>>>> Mig's 29 & 35
>>>>>>> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>>>>>>> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your
>>>>>>> force??
>>>>>>> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US
>>>>>>> plane
>>>>>>> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig
>>>>>> offferings
>>>>>> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very
>>>>>> motivated
>>>>>> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>>>>>
>>>>> Snip fantasy............
>>>>> I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
>>>>> come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
>>>>> The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
>>>>> ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
>>>>> of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
>>>>> maintenance.
>>>>
>>>> Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
>>>> What on the list is newer?
>>>> --
>>>> Harry Andreas
>>>> Engineering raconteur- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
>>> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
>>> last weeks news!
>>> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
>>> envelope please...) the F16!
>>> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
>>> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
>>> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
>>
>>
>> Why is that a fundamental problem?
>
>
> They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
> needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
> adequate multi-role defense aircraft.
>
> Dan

That reminds me of when Northrop tried to build a second line fighter
plane for the export market with the F-20 Tigershark almost thirty years
ago. In the end they couldn't find a single country that wanted to buy
a fighter plane that the US wouldn't buy for the USAF.

ALV

[Tiger]

Harry Andreas wrote:

>Of course, I was speaking of new builds of existing designs, not a hand-me-down
>airframe.
>Speaking of the F-5 (F-20 actually), it pretty much fits in with what you've
>proposed. How well did it sell? What was the market?
>
Hmmm, speaking of the F-5 /F-20 And air frames.... I noticed The
Pakistiani/Chinese JF-17 jet & the New Iranian built fighter seem to
have design elements the basic f-5/f-20 design. So now the export
customers are building their own reverse engineered versions to fill the
void it could have sold to.

[Tiger]

Dan wrote:

>
> "However, AS I POINTED OUT, fighter purchases are not about necessity,
> but about appearances and politics."

Actually There is a need. Many Powers with 3rd Generation planes Like
the F4, Jaguar, Mig 21& 23's Are really at he end of there service life.
I was surprised to see Japan & Greece still Phantoms in 2008. The large
purchase by India fullfills such a long term supply need.

[Mr.Smartypants]

On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, dumbstruck > wrote:
> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
>
> > India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> > Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> > 21's. There are about 6 Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > Eruofighter Typhoon
> > Saab Gripen
> > Boeing's F-18
> > Lock Mart's F16
> > Mig's 29 & 35
> > Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
>
> > So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> > Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> > come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
>
> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
>
> But I would expand the search box. On the more futuristic side,
> consider unmanned hunter-killer drones like General Atomics MQ-9
> Reaper, adding sidewinders. Using the price from Wikipedia, India
> could afford 12000 of these instead of 126 of the above. Well, maybe
> China or sombody could figure out how to jam UAV's.
>
> My personal favorite would be a low tech option that takes advantage
> of India's vast manpower.



Blimps. They should build a million blimps.




I'm thinking of a plywood overcast: 126000
> rocket/cruise-missle carrying Mosquito's. Get the DeHavilland assembly
> plans from the internet, and make it's plywood from recycled scrap
> wood in a thousand village workshops. For engines, Russia must have
> heaps of worn out Kuznetsov turboprops used on Tupolev Bear bombers -
> those awesomely fast ones with counterrotating props might be rebuilt
> cheaply. Quantity has a quality of it's own, and that is India's
> forte.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Dan > wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
> > In article >, Dan > wrote:

> >>>>>> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
> >>>>>> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
> >>>>>> last weeks news!
> >>>>>> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
> >>>>>> envelope please...) the F16!
> >>>>>> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
> >>>>>> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
> >>>>>> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
> >>>>> Why is that a fundamental problem?
> >>>> They have ignored a large and growing market segment. No one actually
> >>>> needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
> >>>> adequate multi-role defense aircraft.
> >>> So you actually think someone is going to sit down and design from scratch
> >>> a brand-new second-rate fighter?
> >> Sure, if the stupid marketing department gets off their collective asses
> >> and shows management the market that obviously exists.
> >
> > That's the thing I was trying to point out...there is no market for a new,
> > second-rate fighter.
> >
> >>> With so many existing designs on the market to choose from, why would
> >>> they do that and who would they sell it to?
> >> So, you are saying US engineers are bottom of the barrel?
> >
> > No, you said that. I say the US engineers and marketing guys are too smart
> > to design something that no one will buy.
> >
> >>> If you're going to the trouble and vast expense to design a new a/c,
> > it better
> >>> compete with the very best or you will have no market. Otherwise your
> > new a/c
> >>> will cost more than existing designs (F-16, Rafale, etc) and be no better.
> >>>
> >> Well, hardly. The advances I would expect to see in the aircraft I
> >> envision involve serviceability and ruggedness, and decent and efficient
> >> engines. In reality, the top end electronics drive up the cost, but
> >> against the enemy most countries would ever face, the Mk I eyeball and a
> >> good ground attack capability are far more desirable. No need for the
> >> latest avionics, composites, over-water capability, or stealth, which
> >> are huge price drivers. If one cannot afford to run the aircraft and
> >> train pilots, it is just a nice-looking dust collector.
> >
> > See, that the thing about actually being in the industry, you realize
> > that the latest and greatest avionics are far more reliable and maintainable
> > than older versions, as well as being more capable.
>
> Latest, yes. Greatest, not at all necessary.
>
> However, AS I POINTED OUT, fighter purchases are not about necessity,
> but about appearances and politics.
>
> > But a dilettante wouldn't
> > know that, and therefore think that there's no need for the latest avionics
> > while at the same time decrying serviceability and ruggedness.
>
> Spoken like a true believer. So, how is that BetaMax you have doing...

You keep ascribing to me things I haven't said or done. Since most people
write based on their own personal experiences, I have to assume that you
had a Betamax. I never did. Not really into toys.


> > BTW, composites have better reliability and ruggedness than metal.
>
> At SUBSTANTIALLY increased costs: purchase, maintenance, and lifetime.


Not hardly. If you're building onesey-twoseys that's true, but in a production
run composites can be much cheaper than riveted aluminum.
And lower maintenance too.


> > BTW2, India has stated explicitly that they want an AESA radar in whatever
> > they buy. Apparently they don't share your philosophy.
>
> Politics (as I pointed out).

Or maybe their pilots and engineers know something about radar capabilities
that you don't. In case you haven't noticed it, every air force in the world is
going to AESA radar, and you almost can't even sell a pointy-nosed a/c these
days without an AESA. Are they ALL wrong, or is it you?


> >> Older aircraft have some decent features (mature technology, no
> >> surprises) but tend to be maintenance nightmares. They also have a hard
> >> time fitting newer, more efficient engines. Not to say that some older
> >> airframes cannot be reengineered - I'm sure the F5 plan could be dusted
> >> off for some of the smaller countries.
> >
> > Of course, I was speaking of new builds of existing designs, not a
hand-me-down
> > airframe.
>
> Good.
>
> > Speaking of the F-5 (F-20 actually), it pretty much fits in with what you've
> > proposed. How well did it sell? What was the market?
>
> Again, politics. Far better fit for most countries, but they couldn't
> get the political backing of the US government OR their target market.
>
> Hey, it's a tough business, and people want to make money, but staying
> behind the times is hardly helping the US producers now... They'll have
> a small market for their VERY expensive planes, but not much more, as
> anyone who could afford them can develop their own.

There's a slew of aircraft producers out there (Embraer, Marchetti, Pilatus
etc) but where are the designs you speak of? Those are all good
businessmen running those companies. If the market was there I'm sure
they'd move on it.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Andrew Venor]

Tiger wrote:
> Harry Andreas wrote:
>
>> Of course, I was speaking of new builds of existing designs, not a
>> hand-me-down
>> airframe.
>> Speaking of the F-5 (F-20 actually), it pretty much fits in with what
>> you've
>> proposed. How well did it sell? What was the market?
>>
> Hmmm, speaking of the F-5 /F-20 And air frames.... I noticed The
> Pakistiani/Chinese JF-17 jet & the New Iranian built fighter seem to
> have design elements the basic f-5/f-20 design. So now the export
> customers are building their own reverse engineered versions to fill the
> void it could have sold to.
>

Do you really think that the US aircraft manufacturers would be trying
to export fighter planes to China or Iran?

ALV

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Nov 6, 9:17�am, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> In article >, Dan > wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Roger Conroy > wrote:
> > >> On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> > >>> In article om>, Roger
> > >>> Conroy > wrote:
> > >>>> On Nov 5, 3:53 am, dumbstruck > wrote:
> > >>>>> On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
> > >>>>>> India's AF is looking to make a huge purchase & production deal. $10
> > >>>>>> Billion dollars for 126 aircraft. They are looking to replace their Mig
> > >>>>>> 21's. There are about 6 *Firms/ planes up for consideration.
> > >>>>>> Eruofighter Typhoon
> > >>>>>> Saab Gripen
> > >>>>>> Boeing's F-18
> > >>>>>> Lock Mart's F16
> > >>>>>> Mig's 29 & 35
> > >>>>>> Dassualt's Rafale & Mirage series
> > >>>>>> So if you had $10 Billion to spend? What would you buy for your force??
> > >>>>>> Keep in mind the needs of India, the potential foes & that any US plane
> > >>>>>> come with political strings attached (like Pakastians f-16 deal).
> > >>>>> Rough field capability would be a plus; do the Saab and Mig offferings
> > >>>>> still favor that? Eurofighter and Dassualt are probably very motivated
> > >>>>> to negotiate price, but maybe Mig most of all... logical winner?
> > >>>> Snip fantasy............
> > >>>> I'd say go with the SAAB. Avoid the political "strings attached" that
> > >>>> come with buying from "Uncle Sam" or from "Brother Russia".
> > >>>> The Grippen is a really good 5th generation multirole fighter, way
> > >>>> ahead the F16 and F18 are antique designs that are really at the end
> > >>>> of their useful life. The TCO is a lot lower too and so is ease of
> > >>>> maintenance.
> > >>> Fantasy indeed if you think the F/A-18E/F is an antique design.
> > >>> What on the list is newer?
> > >>> --
> > >> The FA-18E/F is just the latest "upgrade" of a decades old design.
> > >> Sure it has all he latest bells and whistles but the basic airframe is
> > >> last weeks news!
> > >> Everything on the list is newer - except for (<drum roll> ...the
> > >> envelope please...) the F16!
> > >> The fundamental problem the US has is that their industry is so
> > >> heavily invested in the F22 and F35 that they have neglected the
> > >> market segment now served by the Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon, etc.
>
> > > * * Why is that a fundamental problem?
>
> > They have ignored a large and growing market segment. *No one actually
> > needs the top line fighters, but most countries do need serviceable and
> > adequate multi-role defense aircraft.
>
> So you actually think someone is going to sit down and design from scratch
> a brand-new second-rate fighter?
>
> With so many existing designs on the market to choose from, why would
> they do that and who would they sell it to?
>
> If you're going to the trouble and vast expense to design a new a/c, it better
> compete with the very best or you will have no market. Otherwise your new a/c
> will cost more than existing designs (F-16, Rafale, etc) and be no better.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We could always sell them this:
http://www.ginklai.net/images/galerija/1039_f15_active.jpg

Rob ;)~