F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
A Bar Brother
Junior Member
None. The IAF will have to settle for MKIs. But that's like saying the USAF would have to buy more F-15s in case the F-16 failed. So failure isn't an option here.
Yes.
The navy might. It is too early to tell.
Anyway, India is allowed to buy the F-35.
Brumby
Major
What is the problem with India buying more MKI's as it is cheaper than the Rafale unlike the F-15 to F-16 comparison?
A Bar Brother
Junior Member
The IAF wants to diversify their supply line to the west. So, yes, it makes sense to induct the MKI. But the MKI is a foreign product and is prone to difficulties that come with dealing with other countries. By diversifying supplies, it gets easier to deal with the OEM.
And Rafale is meant to infuse large amounts of technology into the defense industry. That's not possible with more MKIs since the agreement signed with Russia at the time did not have offsets in it. Offsets came into the picture after 2002.
And some of Rafale's capabilities are unique and not present on the MKI, one being high sortie rates. And the MKI is an old jet, it doesn't make sense to buy another 200 or 300 more. That's a waste of resources when the IAF says 272 is more than enough. Rafale can eventually progress to 200 or 300 aircraft.
But, yeah, ultimately IAF will have to buy more MKIs if the Rafale deal fails.
Brumby
Major
Firstly, if diversification of supply is important than participation in the FGFA program is heading in the wrong direction. I understand there are mitigating reasons because it is a 5th gen program but military procurement is always about trade offs.
Secondly, if sortie rates is important then the FGFA will be a disappointment and so is every 5th gen platform because of the technology.
A Bar Brother
Junior Member
Nothing wrong with the FGFA there. The hi end is Russian and lo end is Indian/French. So IAF has two suppliers for both force components.
FGFA is not expected to have greater sortie rates. Hi end are meant to fly for extremely long times in a single sortie. That's why they carry so much fuel and large number of missiles. That's the principle behind all heavy aircraft, including the F-15 and Su-27.
It is the purpose of lo end aircraft to generate as many sorties as possible in a cheap manner, mainly for short range combat. That's why the F-35 is being designed to handle 3 sorties a day. It's range and payload also matches its mission profile.
Jura The idiot
General
Exactly, with sequestration, and all the Heinous butchering of the military, particularly the reduction of flying hours, and available aircraft, more time will be spent on simulators, even though that is a poor substitute for actually spending time in the aircraft, it will become a part of the BHO military, as Brumby pointed out, flying hours are tremendously expensive, and as I have pointed out, racking up lots of hours training on F-22s will cause excessive and premature wear and tear on those limited number of airframes, the other silver lining here is that you can do things with a simulator, that you wouldn't do with the real airplane for example, looping and rolling the Boeing 737, on a more practical note we could site, "unusual attitude" recovery,, etc.
So simulators are the next best thing, and they are very effective teaching tools, and as real as they are, they do lack in some of the finer elements of the flying experience????