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

In article om, Roger
Conroy wrote:

On Nov 5, 11:25 pm, (Harry Andreas) wrote:
In article . com, 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

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

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.
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

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

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 . 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.

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

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 . 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?
--
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.

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?
--
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

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.

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.

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.