If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
India is in the market for New Fighters. What would you buy????
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
India is in the market for New Fighters. What would you buy????
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
India is in the market for New Fighters. What would you buy????
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 . 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? 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/galeri...f15_active.jpg Rob ~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Missles, pt 5 - India prithvi.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 1 | October 6th 07 05:29 AM |
Flight Training in India? | [email protected] | Piloting | 4 | September 13th 07 10:33 PM |
(a little variety at) ORD - Air India 747-400 | John D. | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 26th 07 04:01 AM |
India retires Cold War spy MiG-25s | fruitella | Naval Aviation | 3 | April 11th 06 08:00 PM |
Cope India 2004 | Dionysios Pilarinos | Military Aviation | 1 | March 11th 04 06:06 AM |