India Considering The F-16?

[Slater]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...dc&e=2&ncid=731

 

Potential for F-16 vs F-16 in a conflict with Pakistan? Then again, how realistic is this anyway?

[Priyank]

Then again, how realistic is this anyway?

 

Not at all realistic. I think it is just a negotiating tactic to get the French to lower their prices.

 

Added later - It might also be to get the French to agree to a better deal, technology wise.

Edited February 10, 2005 by Priyank

[Vijay Reddy]

 

The chances of IAF buying F-16s fluctuate between bupkus and nada. The reason is that the IAF wants Mirage 2000-5s but their civilian bosses want them to go through a tender process first. The funds tentatively set aside are around $9 Billion for 125 planes, so its most likely M2K or Rafale.

 

But its a darn shame though. For around $25M, F-16s are are great deal and such capable fighters. If the IAF goes to the French, hope they go for the Rafale and try to see if they can get AESA tech.

 

BTW, IN seems set to order about 8 P-3Cs. There are no other systems available in the world that come close to the Orion's ability.

 

I hope to have enough money to go to Aero India 2007. I had a standing invite from an IAF officer who is a batchmate of the Yelahanka base commander, but no moolah for the ticket or stay.

[Rod]

Why would India prefer Mirage 2000-5s instead of F-16s. Given that IAF already has Su-30s for air superiority, F-16s seems a better suited for tactical attack fighter than the Mirage 2000.

[TSJ]

Potential for F-16 vs F-16 in a conflict with Pakistan? Then again, how realistic is this anyway?

 

This is not a realistic scenario at all.

 

1. India does not trust the US as an arms supplier. In their view, what we would give one day, we would take away the next if we were displeased for some reason (their quest for nuclear weapons and ICBMs).

 

2. The US plays same-same (or in their terminology, equal-equal) with Pakistan and India. This drives them right off the cliff in frustration. They consider Pakistan nothing but a low-down nation of terror. I happen to agree with them.

 

3. The only reason why India is getting the P-3 Orions is because we are giving them to Pakistan as well. This, puts a sand burr under my saddle. You can imagine what it does to India.

 

4. India has access to Russian weapons. Cheap. The Russians don't care about India developing nuke tipped ICBMs because they know who the ICBMs are to be used against: The US.

 

5. The Russians do not play games like the US does. They don't take away after they sell the weapons like we do. They intend to be a very reliable weapons seller to India.

 

6. India would never trust the US in any major weapons deal because they don't know who we would supply information to if we were vendors and consultants to them. In their view, what we would find out about India, Pakistan would know the next day. Pakistan has penetrated our military already in their view.

 

For all of the above reasons, plus the fact that we won't destroy Pakistan or withdraw our support for them *and* they feel f-16s are old technology, there will never be any f-16 deal unless we wanted to give them gratis a squadron or two for opposition forces testing.

Edited February 10, 2005 by TSJ

[Priyank]

Why would India prefer Mirage 2000-5s instead of F-16s. Given that IAF already has Su-30s for air superiority, F-16s seems a better suited for tactical attack fighter than the Mirage 2000.

143833[/snapback]

 

Rod,

 

Several reasons. The IAF has been operating the Mirage 2000H for a quite some time now. The Mirage 2000-5/9 will fit into the existing logistical infrastructure for maintainence, the supply of spares, engine and airframe overhauls etc. with a minimum of hassles. The same goes for training the personnel involved in all of the above, as well as the training programme for pilots. Now, contrast this to the effort involved in introducing a completely new aircraft and when we consider that the new aircraft will not bring in any significant boost in capabilities or technology, then it starts looking less and less attractive.

 

Also, from all accounts, the IAF loves its Mirage fleet. As far as the role of a tactical attack aircraft is concerned, the IAF has been using it in that role since the very begining. For instance, all the LGBs used during Safed Sagar were dropped from the Mirage 2000.

 

The most important factor against the F-16 is that the United States is perceived to be a capricious and unreliable supplier and that such a large deal with come with all kinds of political strings attached.

 

Take all the above factors into consideration and you will see why talk of this deal can not be taken seriously.

[swerve]

Everyone here is talking as if the only potential suppliers are France & the USA. Is a modernised MiG-29 totally out of the running? Last I heard it was still on the list.

 

BTW, I don't think the Rafale is realistic. Too expensive, & the IAF already has too many types in inventory (another argument against F-16). But maybe it's possible to upgrade the Mirage 2000-5 with some Rafale avionics.

[larrikin]

 

 

4. India has access to Russian weapons. Cheap. The Russians don't care about India developing nuke tipped ICBMs because they know who the ICBMs are to be used against: The US.

 

Aarh, wouldn't that be China, or the Failed Republic of Islamofascists to their left?

[Yama]

Everyone here is talking as if the only potential suppliers are France & the USA. Is a modernised MiG-29 totally out of the running? Last I heard it was still on the list.

143858[/snapback]

 

India's MiG-29 experience has not been wholly positive. Though MiG situation has been improved since early '90s, there is still the matter of not being too dependant from one supplier country. India doesn't want wholly give up Western fighters, and France is the most logical supplier.

 

I don't think Rafale is a realistic choice, it would be much more expensive than Mirage and add more diversity to already diverse fleet. Though, who knows - French are desperate to get some export orders for it.

[Stevely]

4. India has access to Russian weapons. Cheap. The Russians don't care about India developing nuke tipped ICBMs because they know who the ICBMs are to be used against: The US.

143837[/snapback]

 

WTF?

[TSJ]

Gentlemen:

 

India already has medium range rockets that can reach China, or at least I have read of such. Why would they need ICBMs? Surely not for next door Pakistan? However, I am not saying India wants to bomb the US out of hand. I guess I need to re-phrase: India wants to develop ICBMs in order to:

 

1. Gain world prestige and as a basis for superpowerdom.

 

2. To assert their right to deter agression from any source any where in the world.

 

3. They instinctively do not like what they consider to be US hegemonism.

 

4. They feel safer and they feel the world would be more "fair" in what they call a "multi-polar world".

 

5. They feel that Nixon/Kissinger threatened India with nukes during the 1971 East Pakistan/Bangledesh war by sending a US Navy carrier into the Bengal Bay

 

6. They have seen the US threaten other countries with nukes, namely Iraq, if Iraq used WMDs during the first Gulf War.

 

7. When a leading Indian Army General was asked after the first gulf war what he thought of the weapons and tactics of the US, he replied "I think it is great to have nuclear weapons" (or words to that effect). India now has nuclear weapons.

 

Finally and lastly, I can't think of any other country that Indian ICBMs are needed for except as a deterrant against the US. As this message is off thread topic, I will no longer post any more messages about Indian ICBMs or nukes. Thanks.

Edited February 10, 2005 by TSJ

[Slater]

OK, just assuming that the unlikely actually happens and India opts for some F-16's, what model would they want or could afford? A standard Block 50/52 or the F-16E/F with it's AESA radar, conformal tanks, etc?

[Vijay Reddy]

OK, just assuming that the unlikely actually happens and India opts for some F-16's, what model would they want or could afford? A standard Block 50/52 or the F-16E/F with it's AESA radar, conformal tanks, etc?

143898[/snapback]

 

India can afford virtually any 4th gen fighter out there in the market. As I said, the IAF has allocated $9 Billion for 125 fighters, about $72M per unit.

 

But I somehow don't see the US granting export licenses for the E/F versions with AESA radars. For one, the US is still playing the India-Pakistan hyphenation game despite a stated desire not to do so. Pakistan is all but sure of getting around 30 Block 50/52 F-16s in 3-4 months and already have licenses to upgrade their existing fleet of Block-15s to that level. Granting India licenses for E/Fs would mean that sooner or later, Pakistan will ask for and get the same.

 

That said, the F-16s are still some of the best value for money available in the fighter market today. The French charge way too much. The Gripen is half American anyway.

 

As to the Mig-29s, the main role for the IAF acquisition is for a strike platform, so the Fulcrum is very doubtful in that role. Besides, the IAF doesn't like to be too tied up to one country, given the other mainstay is the Su-30MKI. The younger generation of IAF pilots don't have the nostalgia for Russian planes and are keen on Western style systems. IAF wants the Mirage 2000s.

 

TSJ,

 

Sounds like you are basing the ICBM idea on some hormone driven teens at BRF. I somehow don't see the US changing its policies or showing more "respect" to India if India were to build an ICBM. Like the US, India too has its cold warriors and non-Aligned type dinosaurs. The type of "respect" that the Indian strategists crave for will happen gradually as India's economy grows, poverty is reduced and India learns to take care of its own neighborhood.

 

I feel that India will gradually buy more weapons from the US, but the F-16s are unlikely.

[Slater]

Heck, hold out for some F-35's

[TSJ]

Sounds like you are basing the ICBM idea on some hormone driven teens at BRF.

 

That would be some hormone driven on-line Indian newspapers as well.

[Rod]

If India will be paying $9 billion for 125 aircraft, they can afford to introduce a new weapons system, since there will be enough aircraft to make the investment justifiable. Besides politics, what would be the most effective aircraft to perform the functions of this new order requirement? The bottom line is for the strike and support role which aircraft is best suited for the IAF's needs: F-16 Block 50/52 or Mirage 2000-9?

[Shalav]

TSJ,

 

I'm not sure where you get this ICBM idea from - from internet chat boards or from newspaper opinion columns? Either way its not a good idea to base your opinion on others peoples' opinions in newspapers and chat boards, rather than stated public policy of the government.

 

Leaders of all political parties have publicly and specifically stated that India does not currently need ICBM's, and they do not intend to order development of these missiles as far as they can forsee.

 

DRDO's head has stated in January 2003 "In offensive weapons, we have almost come to whatever [is] needed by the country. Now we are looking at defensive weapons." He said the defensive weapons under development would give India the means to counter "incoming missile threats." (The Hindu 10.2.03).

 

Currently with the Agni I and II India can reach the destinations it needs to. Bejing will be within reach with the testing of the Agni III later(?) this year. Why would the US be a target for India? Unless you can show some substantial strategic gain for India with ICBM's - this is just fear-mongering on your part.

 

Getting back to topic and the F16's, RFP's were sent out to SAAB, Dassalut, MiG and LM. This was due to a policy change by the new government, which insists on competetive tenders from all potential suppliers for military purchases.

 

In all probability only MiG and Dassault will respond to this RFP. LM has not decided whether to respond or not, and will do so through the US government. SAAB may or may not respond. Most likely it will be the M2K for the IAF, so the bureaucrats get what they want and the IAF gets what it wants.

[Shalav]

The bottom line is for the strike and support role which aircraft is best suited for the IAF's needs: F-16 Block 50/52 or Mirage 2000-9?

143944[/snapback]

 

The IAF wants the M2K-9 AFAIK.

[Vijay Reddy]

Heck, hold out for some F-35's 

143934[/snapback]

 

India can only wish!

 

There was some talk of India playing some part in the JSF program, but there are too many US laws that prevent such cooperation between the two nations.

 

I think the current pace of cooperation is good and it can be slowly increased. India should buy things like the P-3Cs, C-130s, possibly PAC-3s (if offered), step up cooperation in Ballistic Missile Defense etc. There should be more focus on interoperabilty and India should not refuse IMET opportunities. During my last trip home, I spent some time with some IA people involved in training special forces. Everyone was impressed with American equipment and tactics and wanted IA to get some of the same goodies. These sorts of things can hel build up a good relationship.

 

On the civilian side, India should and currently is trying to become an outsouring hub for civil aviation.

 

That would be some hormone driven on-line Indian newspapers as well.[

 

Yes TSJ. There are lots of Indian analysts/commentators today who are basically super-nationalists living in Western countries. It's fun to read them and many do have this "America is out to screw India" thing. But I don't see any evidence that such thinking has an audience in the Indian strategic circles. The Indian govt brainstrust definitely has a "non-aligned" type chip on the shoulder but that does not mean that India will develop an ICBM to gain "respect" from America. Like I said, India will gain that respect gradually, after it learns to fix its internal and neighborhood problems by itself.

[TSJ]

Well, since I have constrained myself about writing about Indian nukes and ICBMs on this thread, I just wanna say:

 

India is a complicated country (no duh?). Americans by and large think that because India is a democracy then India wants things the same way that America does. How else, how else I must rhetorically ask, does one account for the repeated requests for Indian troops to based in Iraq by the US government? We hire Georgetown and Princeton educated Americans to be diplomats and this is what we get? Do they not read India's on-line newspapers? Hell, do they not read the online chatrooms where the sons of high ranking Indian military officers and other glittterratii post? Appearantly not because if they did they would have known asking for Indian troops for Iraq was dead in the water from the git go.

 

I am continually astounded by the ignorance, nay the *arrogance*, exhibited by the US government, my government, in its dealings with India. India is not some republican or democrat used car dealer in small town America eager to compromise on its principles and values in order to get a sweeter deal. India feels put upon by America *especially* in America's dealings with Pakistan. In fact, some in India lay all of their terrorism problems at America's feet because of this. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I agree with this, it is just that we, as Americans, must take our blinders off and see things as the way they are, not as the way that puts us in some kind of comfort zone. No, we are not ugly Americans, it is just that sometimes we are too self absorbed.

 

So no, India is not buying any damned F-16s unless we are gifting them.

[Shalav]

So no, India is not buying any damned F-16s unless we are gifting them.

143965[/snapback]

 

You grokked that right!

 

The IAF thinks F16s are sanctionable. They have to send out the RFP to LM because of the policy change. I don't think they even expect a response from LM and SAAB! With this they can state they only got responses from MiG and Dassault, and the M2K fit their needs better than the MiG 29 SMT! End of story as far as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is concerned.

 

Getting back to ICBM's there is strong public feeling in India (and this not only within the "gliteratti" and "sons of high ranking military officials") regarding development of nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.

 

Some of this dates back to 1971, when the USS enterprise sailed from Vietnam via Thailand into the Bay of Bengal ostensibly to evacuate US citizens from the then East Pakistan.

 

The US at that time had stated that all its aircraft carriers in Vietnam carried nuclear weapons, and the same time there was no US policy against non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. This was regarded by Indians as the US threatening India with nuclear weapons.

 

The order to weaponise designs (designs which were ready since the 1960's, and never politically sanctioned for weaponisation) was given soon after the liberation of Bangladesh, because it was felt that no country should be able to threaten India with nuclear weapons ever again without considering reprecussions. This policy has been followed by ALL subsequent governments in India regardless of political affiliation.

 

If you see the above as India wanting to threaten the US then your opinion is as good or as bad as those "Georgetown and Princeton educated Americans".

[Gregory]

Everyone here is talking as if the only potential suppliers are France & the USA. Is a modernised MiG-29 totally out of the running? Last I heard it was still on the list.

 

BTW, I don't think the Rafale is realistic. Too expensive, & the IAF already has too many types in inventory (another argument against F-16). But maybe it's possible to upgrade the Mirage 2000-5 with some Rafale avionics.

143858[/snapback]

 

I wouldn't consider Mig-29 to be a viable contender - but what about Su-27IB/Su-34? This gives IAF excellent commonality between their strike and interceptor platform, and Su-34 is no slouch A2A, if it comes to that.

[swerve]

I wouldn't consider Mig-29 to be a viable contender - but what about Su-27IB/Su-34?  This gives IAF excellent commonality between their strike and interceptor platform, and Su-34 is no slouch A2A, if it comes to that.

 

India won't buy the Su-34, because it's building the Su-30MKI. Why go to the trouble & expense of getting their own version of the Su-30 (which isn't an interceptor, but multi-role, & tasked with strike as well as A2A - it'll carry Brahmos), & then buy another big Su-27 derivative?

 

The proposed new fighter purchase is intended to replace MiG-21, MiG-23 & MiG-27 & supplement the Su-30s: a high-low mix, like the F-15 & F-16 in the USAF. India's been doing this for years: buy some relatively high-end planes, & make up the numbers with something cheaper. The Mirage 2000 was high-end when originally bought, but times have changed.

 

The MiG-29 version offered isn't the original short-range plane with dials & hardly any BVR capability: it has much more internal fuel, A2A refuelling (buddy-buddy capable with a plug-in bit of kit), glass cockpit, new radar, the R-77 missile & a range of Russian PGMs, with the option of integrating Western PGMs. It's viable, & and IIRC an upgrade of any current MiG-29 airframes with low enough hours to make it worthwhile is on offer as well.

 

But I think those who say the decision has been made, & the competition is to get a better deal financially & technologically from the French may be right. Just like the Koreans did with the F-15, but that time France got the short end.

[Guest Hans Engström]

The Gripen is half American anyway.

 

143929[/snapback]

Well, not really. The engine's american (possibly the ejectorseat as well), otherwise it's all european IIRC.

 

I think the Gripen is out for 2 other reasons;

 

1. Not a great history on large military deals between the twp cpontries.

 

2. The (relatively) limited range of the Gripen.

 

The AMRAAM problem (in the Finnish competition) is no longer as appatent as beore, especially since there are alternatives coming.

[Slater]

Leaving aside big-ticket items like aircraft, what other equipment would India want from the US? India (as far as I know) has a reasonably capable defence industry. Some programs such as their indigenous tank and light fighter aircraft seem to have taken an inordinate amount of development time, but I would think that items like infantry equipment, missiles, radars, etc. could be developed and bought at home.