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 . com, 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