Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

Thread: What if we were all like India?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    997

    What if we were all like India?

    So, we have just had two very thought-provoking threads on what if our air arms had had to standardise on one fast jet in a particular decade (just to pre-empt, my vote goes to F15 for 80s and also the 70s if we relax the had to be in service for at least half the decade rule)

    The opposite question now; what if your air arm was told to maximise economic, trade, military and political links with other nations by buying small numbers of air-frames from as many different supplier nations as possible. In short what if we were all like India?

    My starter

    UK MPA replacement

    US - Boeing Poseidon to protect the SSBNs
    Sweden - SAAB Swordfish for ASuW and South Coast ASW
    Japan - ShinMaywa US-2 for SAR
    Rule zero: don't be on fire

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,172
    Please specify a timeframe. We had 60's and 50's for the "whats the best aircraft in disguise threads". Are we selecting aircraft for a current requirement or say the post cold war period for the air forces of our countries ?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    89
    India had a pattern when it came to aircraft acquisitions

    A Soviet/Russian type
    A similar European type (either French or British)
    American types exist but limited to transports, helicopters, or ASW

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    997
    Given the pace of posts on this forum (which is a strength not a weakness) I leave this for a couple of days and am in danger of necro-ing my own thread by responding to question!

    I didn't explicitly have a time-frame in mind, I suppose subconsciously I was thinking now. Or the very recent past.

    If your air arm was equipped with current technology, and your government had a policy of maximising links with other nation states through small numbers of a large variety of airframe types; what role and what airframes?
    Rule zero: don't be on fire

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    89
    I guess if you were in that situation..

    that means your enemy has some powerful friends .. creating uncertainty over supplies
    so I guess it really depends on the type your enemies are using.

    Looking at other examples, air forces operating a diversity of planes tend to purchase the same type of aircraft
    India - M2K and Mig-29
    Egypt - F-16 and M2K, and now Rafale and Mig-35
    Greece - F-16 and M2K
    Malaysia - MiG-29 and F-18, and likely to transition to Su-30 and something western
    UAE - F-16 and M2K
    Qatar - Typhoon and Rafale and more?

    Its probably imperative to keep the fighters/attackers diversified (most likely to face supply problems), compared to other non-combatant types like tankers and transports which are more likely to get spares.

    with that in mind, one option is a French type. Rafale
    the other will either be US or Russian, depending on the political orientation of you and your enemy. F-35 or Su-35

    F-16 or M2K if you want to take it a previous generation.

    I would love to have the Gripen, but its large American components means if the US places sanctions, the Gripen could be rendered useless (correct me if I am wrong).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    997
    Vans
    I would love to have the Gripen, but its large American components means if the US places sanctions, the Gripen could be rendered useless (correct me if I am wrong).
    No, sadly I think that you are spot on. Despite Gripen's better export success than Viggen it is if anything more vulnerable to US sanctions. It is also vulnerable to UK sanctions and political pressure. Specifically the avionics.

    Still a great little airframe though.
    Rule zero: don't be on fire

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Vans

    No, sadly I think that you are spot on. Despite Gripen's better export success than Viggen it is if anything more vulnerable to US sanctions. It is also vulnerable to UK sanctions and political pressure. Specifically the avionics.

    Still a great little airframe though.
    The "sanction" piece is a bit overblown on here. While AECA and ITAR can prevent sales (and resales), one look U.S. equipment operated by sanctioned regimes makes the argument moot.
    Iran is still operating F-14's some 39 years after the revolution (there have been peaks and valleys in numbers operational aircraft, but given the USN experience with the F-14, Iran's ability to keep them flying is nothing short of impressive). Venezuela still operates their F-16's (despite threats to sell them), there are simply too many operators to prevent them from obtaining spares. Egypt doesn't seem too worried about their fleet of F-16's or M1A1 (though they are clearly diversifying due to poor relations and the shutting off of of the aid spigot).

    Most of the time (as in the case of Israel), the U.S. and others will shut off resupply for the duration of the conflict. All this is to say that Saab wasn't worried about installing US engines and U.S. fly by wire tech on their Gripen. In fact, even when BAE was sued over improper notification and payments for export licences for the Gripen to Czechs and Hungary, the US didn't block the actual leases.

    There is a simple work around, if your going to use weapons with US content be sure to stockpile spares and munitions. Sadly, even most NATO nations have a paltry war reserve (even during the Cold War few kept more than a 30-15 day supply of munitions, based on hopelessly optimistic expenditure predictions).
    Last edited by FBW; 1st February 2018 at 15:43.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    319
    For the future, there would be plenty more options, especially china.

    Look at the middle east, saudi, uae, kuwait, qatar has been buying plenty of chinese weapons as an option to western hardwares.

    Another way of skirting sanctions is to buy dual use civilian versions, especially aircrafts and ships.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    346
    Canada present day:
    EF Typhoon to strengthen ties with Europe. Scrap F-35 plans
    KC-390. Strengthen ties to Brazil. Retire early Hercules and Polaris.
    CH-47. Maintain US relations

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,813
    The "sanction" piece is a bit overblown on here. While AECA and ITAR can prevent sales (and resales), one look U.S. equipment operated by sanctioned regimes makes the argument moot.
    Iran is still operating F-14's some 39 years after the revolution (there have been peaks and valleys in numbers operational aircraft, but given the USN experience with the F-14, Iran's ability to keep them flying is nothing short of impressive). Venezuela still operates their F-16's (despite threats to sell them), there are simply too many operators to prevent them from obtaining spares. Egypt doesn't seem too worried about their fleet of F-16's or M1A1 (though they are clearly diversifying due to poor relations and the shutting off of of the aid spigot).

    Most of the time (as in the case of Israel), the U.S. and others will shut off resupply for the duration of the conflict. All this is to say that Saab wasn't worried about installing US engines and U.S. fly by wire tech on their Gripen. In fact, even when BAE was sued over improper notification and payments for export licences for the Gripen to Czechs and Hungary, the US didn't block the actual leases.

    There is a simple work around, if your going to use weapons with US content be sure to stockpile spares and munitions. Sadly, even most NATO nations have a paltry war reserve (even during the Cold War few kept more than a 30-15 day supply of munitions, based on hopelessly optimistic expenditure predictions)
    F-14 is primitive aircraft compared to Gripen. but than in the era F-14 introduced manpower was either cheap or countries don't care how much manpower it takes to maintain it. now most countries have aging population or too expensive to do this kind of work. absolute minimum manpower is allocated to maintain.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    997
    sandiego89
    EF Typhoon to strengthen ties with Europe. Scrap F-35 plans
    KC-390. Strengthen ties to Brazil. Retire early Hercules and Polaris.
    CH-47. Maintain US relations
    That's the spirit.

    But I was thinking turning it up to 11: EF Typhoon to strengthen ties with EU, Rafaele to strengthen ties with France and as patronising sop to Quebec and buy a reduced order of F35.
    Rule zero: don't be on fire

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    319
    That would be just like Qatar mk2.

    If you are really in desperate situation like Qatar, fine. But what other countries currently in such a dire situation that needs something like this?

    Taiwan probably? Or is there any other countries?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,172
    For Germany (let's say the last decade):
    Fast jet fleet:
    1st: Vastly more investment in Typhoon development:
    For T2 a GaAs AESA, full DASS (laser warners !), PIMAWS, PIRATE, GBU 54, Meteor, increased capacity supersonic drop tanks.
    For T3 GaN AESA, airframe refinements, EJ 220/230, improved DASS + ARMIGER for SEAD, Brimstone and integration of GBU-54 on that British unitary launcher, HOPE/HOSBO and full T3B order.

    2nd: Gripen C lease and subsequent participation in Gripen NG. I really want a lighter Gripen NG with EJ 220/230's. Taking over tac recon/CAS mission from the Tornado fleet + the usual QRA duties.

    3rd: Rafale B for JaBoG 33 to take over the strike role from our Tornados. Sarkozy offered nukes, that's the carrier system for them. Integration of Iris-T and Taurus.

    4th: Rafale M for MFG 2 -> integration of RBS-15 F-ER

    Transport fleet:
    That's were I would actually increase numbers.
    24 C-17's. Would allow for easier deployment of heavy equipment and creates more wiggle room to sort out the A400M programme.
    24 A330 MRTT for PAX, MEDIVAC and of course a2a refuelling.
    Depending on the ability of Airbus to solve A400M issues a C-130J order for helicopter refueling and tac airlift.
    24 Bombardier Global 6000. 6 VIP/troop transport, 12 Gobaleye (replacing the ill fated Eurohawk) and 6 fitted with an ELINT suite to replace the ELINT Atlantiques.

    Helicopters:
    Merlins as Sea King replacement. This Sea Lion thing was such a bad idea.
    Further development of the Tiger armed scout. Yes, I don't consider it an attack helicopter, but that's not necessarily bad. Improved engines, maybe a new 5 blade rotor. Improved sensor package + integration of a laser designator/laser guided rockets.
    CH-53K to replace CH-53G/GS.
    Keeping the original NH-90 order instead of switching part of the order to Sea Lion.
    H145M for the SOF's.

    And 8 Be-200 for our THW- not strictly military, but would allow to fly the flag globally.

    The Swedish Tidls data link fleetwide to complement MIDS.

    Not directly aircraft, but related:
    Instead of MEADS ASMP-T. No Gepard retirement without a replacement on Boxer and Puma chassis.

    Yeah, not exactly a global shopping spree. Intended to improve European/NATO integration while at the same time increasing capabilities (see Merlins instead of those half-assed NH-90 Sealions). Emphasis on expanding support assets.
    The Global 6000 order, some commitment and additional capability may even persuade the Canadians to consider this supercruising twin engined fighter from Europe as Hornet replacement. ;-)
    Last edited by Aurel; 1st February 2018 at 23:55.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,617
    Hmmm for the UK:

    Domestic jet trainer aircraft.
    Shared development of a Stealthy harrier replacement with the US.
    Mixed fleet of US and domestic/European rotorcraft.
    Shared development of a fighter/interceptor/ground attack aircraft with Europe.
    Mixed fleet of domestic/European and US transport aircraft.
    Domestic UCAV.
    US MALE UAV.
    European/domestic unmanned naval rotorcraft.


    Should be perfectly doable

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,922
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    Hmmm for the UK:

    Domestic jet trainer aircraft.
    Shared development of a Stealthy harrier replacement with the US.
    Mixed fleet of US and domestic/European rotorcraft.
    Shared development of a fighter/interceptor/ground attack aircraft with Europe.
    Mixed fleet of domestic/European and US transport aircraft.
    Domestic UCAV.
    US MALE UAV.
    European/domestic unmanned naval rotorcraft.


    Should be perfectly doable
    Wait a minute, if you try to do all that and replace the Vanguard class, add two Carriers, eight large and five small frigates, the UK defense budget might come up short! Hold on..... Calculating..... by some 20+ billion pounds!


    Oh my good, I'm a seer:
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKBN1FL4CH

    Seriously though, anyone at MoD own a calculator?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,617
    Well it's nice not to have to explain myself for once

    I'll wager that there is the same problem across a swathe of government departments at the moment, it's just that Primary schools having to teach at twice the pace with half the staff won't create headlines of such a dramatic nature.
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 2nd February 2018 at 15:01.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    89
    The "sanction" piece is a bit overblown on here. While AECA and ITAR can prevent sales (and resales), one look U.S. equipment operated by sanctioned regimes makes the argument moot.
    Iran is still operating F-14's some 39 years after the revolution (there have been peaks and valleys in numbers operational aircraft, but given the USN experience with the F-14, Iran's ability to keep them flying is nothing short of impressive). Venezuela still operates their F-16's (despite threats to sell them), there are simply too many operators to prevent them from obtaining spares. Egypt doesn't seem too worried about their fleet of F-16's or M1A1 (though they are clearly diversifying due to poor relations and the shutting off of of the aid spigot).

    Most of the time (as in the case of Israel), the U.S. and others will shut off resupply for the duration of the conflict. All this is to say that Saab wasn't worried about installing US engines and U.S. fly by wire tech on their Gripen. In fact, even when BAE was sued over improper notification and payments for export licences for the Gripen to Czechs and Hungary, the US didn't block the actual leases.

    There is a simple work around, if your going to use weapons with US content be sure to stockpile spares and munitions. Sadly, even most NATO nations have a paltry war reserve (even during the Cold War few kept more than a 30-15 day supply of munitions, based on hopelessly optimistic expenditure predictions).

    On IRAN:

    Iran is a unique situation because they have the Human Resources, knowledge, and an aviation industry that is capable (to some extent) of reverse engineering aircraft parts and building their own. That's one reason why their American made jets have lasted so long. Most other air forces don't have that option. For example, I don't think Indonesia or Malaysia would be able to manage as well should some spare support for their F-16s or especially, the 18s gets suspended.

    on VENEZUELA:

    If you follow F-16.net, Venezuela has two squadrons operating the vipers. Both are flying early block 15 models. Because of spare issues, both are no longer flying air to air missions and are limited to air to ground. The reason why they are lasting so long is because they were fortunate to have done some upgrades right before Chavez came into power. But now that is no longer an option and it is very likely both squadrons will be grounded soon due to lack of upgrades and airframe fatigue on such an old model

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,922
    That would be incorrect, they’ve been spotted flying very recently. Still toting python missiles and litening pods. More likely, the arrival of Su-30’s make their air defense role secondary as the F-16’s with targeting pods are better for air to ground missions. Not hard to circumvent sanctions when one nation has oil an lots of nations (Israel for one) have surplus F-16A for parts. Wouldn’t be the first time Israel sold hardware to nations ole uncle would prefer them not to.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    89
    Wrong. You really need to check dates and news articles

    The Israeli upgrade and sales happened BEFORE Chávez. What they are flying with is remnants from that time and they can’t return to Israel for more.

    The flanker sale happened AFTER Chávez. Specifically due to US spare issues. It’s well covered. Use google

    I also think you need to check out how Venezuela’s oil economy is doing. Hint, it’s not so good.

    This also further confirms that not every country has the luxury of a domestic aviation industry or large oil reserves that can help mitigate spare shortages.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,922
    Wrong, wrong. Use google photos from this fall show them flying with the litening and pythons. Never said they acquired them recently. BUT they are still flying and there have been rumors they were getting support AFTER 2006 from Israel, and that they’ve been able to get parts via black market. Or just look for recent photos of them flying.


    Happens more than u think:
    http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/so...-force-6548227

    Intercept from 2016; not grounded:
    https://www.insightcrime.org/news/an...mixed-results/
    Last edited by FBW; 3rd February 2018 at 04:45.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    89
    Wrong Wrong and Wrong again. ROFLMAO.

    You seem like one of those guys that is determined to get the last word.

    Yet you could have easily used that effort to actually look up the dates, and look up news articles. They are all easily available.
    You would've discovered how old the Venezuelan F-16s are
    You would've discovered when they received upgrades, its relationship with Israel
    You would've discovered how they could and couldn't get spares after the US began reducing its supply
    You would've discovered when it purchased the Su-30MK2 and why they did it

    instead you're just posting pictures and making analysis using mk.1 eyeball.

    there's really no way around it as it is really clear cut fact on Venezuela's F-16 situation. You just refuse to actually do your homework.

    Here's another tidbit, the US also has a policy of withholding certain weapons systems unless another Air Force nearby also fields an equivalent missile.
    google singapore.

    This is my last word on the subject since its pretty cut and dry, no matter how many times you wanna cry Wrong. tons of information on F-16.net and google about the spare situation, the F-16 roles, etc.

    do your homework.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,922
    Overall, not disagreeing with the idea that the FAV f-16’s are an expiring asset, or that since Maduro ran the economy into the ground they’ve been able to support their F-16’s. But the rumors of grounding since sanctions are wrong, and until they expire the captive carry hours of the pythons and other weapons, the arms deals they made prior to 2004 mean a portion of that small fleet is still combat capable.

    There is always someone willing to circumvent sanctions for money, but without OEM support, those F-16’s aren’t really a future threat.

    K, done with you, I posted articles you posted opinion, cool. Your right they aren’t flying (though they are flying).if your going to accuse someone of not doing their “homework” , please cite sources. Or are you an “f-16.net I’m right people”, which is fine that says all.
    Last edited by FBW; 3rd February 2018 at 05:44.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    89
    For those interested in actual facts about the Venezuelan F-16 situation instead of making up stories based on photos
    here are some important articles. A lot of these are pretty well known but there are a few who are pretty unfamiliar with Venezuela

    This of course ties into the main rationale behind this thread on diversifying suppliers

    https://emerge85.io/articles/venezue...uns-over-food/

    But relations soon turned sour. Part of Chavez’s socialist rhetoric was to present himself as a force against the US bogeymen. “Around 2005, the US became resistant to supplying spare parts for the F-16 jets, so in frustration, the left-leaning government had to look elsewhere,” Ellis said. Venezuela first turned to Europe to update its equipment but had little luck with the US ally. It was forced to approach new strategic partners, the first being Russia.

    This move to the Kremlin has since transformed into an $11bn relationship. Russia began selling Venezuela mid-level capability aircraft, which are considered a backbone of its national air force.
    http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/400101?date=2011-06-4
    The Venezuelan Airforce is suffering F16 aircraft spare part shortage due to the US -imposed embargo on weapons sale to Caracas.
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...tionism-01390/
    pressure from Washington has now forced Israel to freeze a $100 million contract with Venezuela to upgrade its U.S.-manufactured F-16 fighter jets. The Fuerza Aaerea Venezolana (FAV) had originally purchased the F-16A/B aircraft in 1982.
    also cited by
    http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1481.html

    the last time the US supplied spares to Venezuela was 2005, but there was a case where a Florida man illegally sold some parts in the mid 2010s
    http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1501.html

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,922
    Fool, so you didn’t even read the links like the original story I posted above about the Florida f-16 parts. You just read f-16.net and assumed you knew what you were talking about.....facts. Do your homework, read people’s posts and links before looking like an a*s.

    Everything you posted about the US denying the upgrade is known by every freaking person who follows aviation or defense news. Apparently you missed the last decade where they didn’t give away the F-16’s and are still flying them. Doesn’t take a genius to find that out, though being able to read Spanish and look beyond one aviation site that pretty much everyone knows about helps...homework.

    So now it’s obvious from your above post that you didn’t actually click on my links or you wouldn’t have been so stupid to quote an story from f-16.net that I had already posted the original of, go back and click on my other link. Are they or are they not still flying air policing missions with F-16’s?
    Last edited by FBW; 3rd February 2018 at 06:47.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    89
    news reports and articles > mk.1 eyeball

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,922
    K, I’ll embarrass you again until you read:
    https://www.insightcrime.org/news/an...mixed-results/

    Were they flying air policing as recently as 2016 as stated above?

    Here is another sanctioned FAV F-16,not flying this year:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KNTp-PGX4PQ
    Last edited by FBW; 3rd February 2018 at 07:15.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    89
    You seem like one of those guys that is determined to get the last word.
    and I was correct

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,126
    McDonald's would be screwed.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NI, UK
    Posts
    544
    In short what if we were all like India?
    As mentioned upthread, that's pretty unfair to India. Once they selected their balance of east-west types for each role they bought them by the hundreds.

    For a real example of unworkable fragmentation just look at Thailand. F-5E, F-16, Gripen, tried to buy F/A-18 but didn't have enough cash, A-7, Harrier ( both now retired due to lack of support ).

    Trainers T-50, PC-9, Fantrainer, L-39, Alpha Jet...

    Transports and helicopters I can't even begin to do from memory, about three of everything on the market.


    There's an anecdote about Rhodesia selecting the Cessna 337 based on its entry in Jane's All the World's Aircraft. The Thais seem to have taken that as a recommendation to pick something from every new edition... all on a defence budget of $6 billion per year.
    Last edited by Cherry Ripe; 6th February 2018 at 20:20.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,269
    Indians should stop behaving like gypsies in the market. Take better, but in moderate quantities, from two suppliers from different countries. Today is the best option:
    heavy fighter - Su-30MKI
    marine fighter - MiG-29K / KUB
    light fighter - Grippen

    Tomorrow:
    heavy fighter - FGFA
    light / sea fighter - LMFS, unfortunately there are no other options yet

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES