backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by skyyspam.. on Nov 8 at 6:46 AM

U.S. offered India F-16 and F-18, India said no

The F-35 program is finally moving along with a head of steam even though it is years behind schedule thanks to delays and problems. The aircraft is finally ahead of its schedule for this year though and is moving along well with all versions of the fighter including the most trouble prone F-35B STOVL jet.
 
Washington has now announced that it is prepared to sell the F-35 fighter to India. According to the Pentagon, India is a vital partner in the F-35 program and the U.S. government wants to improve cooperation with India including joint exercises and arms sales such as the F-35.
 
India is also looking at other aircraft to meet the needs of its military. The first round of bidding for aircraft for India included the Dassault from France and the Eurofighter. The U.S. offered F-16 and F-18 jets, but India rejected the offer.
 
"Despite this setback, we believe U.S. aircraft, such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), to be the best in the world," said the Pentagon report, referring to the radar-evading F-35 jet. "Should India indicate interest in the JSF, the United States would be prepared to provide information on the JSF and its requirements ... to support India's future planning."
 
Improvements on relationship between the U.S. and India are a priority with the increasing military strength in China. The American version of the F-35 won’t be ready for our military until 2014 and beyond barring any additional setbacks.
 
While the F-35 is ahead of schedule for flight tests in 2011, the delays and costs of the program are causing a call by some in Washington to end the program. Military leaders, however, continue to defend the F-35. Military leaders have said that eliminating the F-35B STOVL would severely and irrevocably damage the U.S. Marines STOVL capability.
 
"The two capabilities that are being solely built throughout the world, the only place it's being built is the United States of America, and that's tilt-rotor technology and that's the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B. There is not another nation in the world," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, testifying before Congress on November 2.
 
"If those lines were closed, that becomes terminal. That becomes irreversible. You will not be able to gain that back."

Sources: DefenseNews, DefenseNews



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No China wouldn't get a look...
By Spinne on 11/4/2011 5:51:46 PM , Rating: 5
China and India aren't on the best of terms. Large sections of the border are disputed and China claims large chunks of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh while India has claims in Aksai Chin. Both claims are based on historical agreements handed down from the late 19th and early 20th century. India and China fought a war in 1962 after chinese troops crossed the MacMahon Line en force. The result is a perpetual, though justified, paranoia about Chinese military intentions and ambitions. Recently, the PRc has begun building extensive road networks and fortifications in Aksai Chin.

So no, India has absolutely no interest in bolstering the Chinese military with technology. In fact, most Indian military purchases are made to counter the growing menace of the PRC, the Indian military having long ago surpassed the Pakistani military as a fighting force.

At the same time, I don't see any reason why India would want the F-35. It's very expensive, and is not indigenously designed or produced. Based on India's forays into military aviation production with the LCA Tejas and AMCA, and the T-50 in partnership with Russia, it's clearly the case that India wants to develop the capability to design and produce it's own fighters and attack aircraft. The MMRCA is a stop-gap measure to replenish India's depleted Air Force strength, rather than a long term solution. Therefore, it seems to be the case that India will try to complete the induction of the Tejas over the next year or two, develop a naval variant of the Tejas, induct the MMRCA winner by the middle of the next half-decade and then introduce the T-50 and AMCA by the beginning of the next decade. If one of those two last projects fails, then of course, India might choose look at the F-35, but as of now that possibility is too far into the future to say anything reliable about.




RE: No China wouldn't get a look...
By v9s on 11/5/2011 12:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
most Indian military purchases are made to counter the growing menace of the PRC, the Indian military having long ago surpassed the Pakistani military as a fighting force.


In numbers definitely....in fact they've had superior numbers since independence.

But as a fighting force? I think you're giving them too much credit.

Also, a majority of their mighty su-30MKI's are stationed at their western air command (near Pakistan).


RE: No China wouldn't get a look...
By Spinne on 11/5/2011 3:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
Not really - they beat Pakistan four times ('47, '65, '71 and most recently in '99) and have only been increasing their capability since then.
They've recently begun deploying the S-30 MKI in the NE to counter Chine. India's big problem and big strength is that sometimes they don't move their feet fast enough - if the gear is needed, then it's a problem, otherwise, they've just managed to save money and effort. The hardest thing for a country to do is to spend just enough that you can keep out of conflicts and exert your will on others, but not totally overspend on pointless capabilities. The US regularly errors on the latter side of the equation.


RE: No China wouldn't get a look...
By v9s on 11/6/2011 5:24:03 AM , Rating: 2
It seems Indian generals disagree with your viewpoint.

As far as the wars are concerned, apart from '71 war (proxy war fought by India), there was no decisive victory...Pakistan gained more territory and lost some and this was the case with India.


RE: No China wouldn't get a look...
By albus on 11/6/2011 6:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
America was gracious enough to side with Pakistan on each occasion. Partly due to India's treaty with the USSR, America treated Pakistan believing that the enemy's enemy is my friend.

However, the Berlin Wall has collapsed, and it does not hold true. Since then Pakistan has been fighting a losing battle against terrorists, its own creations to fight the Soviets. The Soviets are not around anymore, nor is the need for Islamic terrorists. Unfortunately, this message is yet to seep into the Paki psyche.


RE: No China wouldn't get a look...
By v9s on 11/6/2011 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since then Pakistan has been fighting a losing battle against terrorists, its own creations to fight the Soviets.


You're deluding yourself if you think they were solely Pakistan's creations.

The CIA had every bit of a hand in creating the mujahideen as the ISI.

The mujahideen later disbanded, but later different tribal groups, lead by mullah omar formed the taliban.
Pakistan did not create the taliban at all...but it did recognize it as the group in power in Afghanistan.


‘Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.’
- Hillary Clinton


RE: No China wouldn't get a look...
By albus on 11/6/2011 11:32:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The mujahideen later disbanded, but later different tribal groups, lead by mullah omar formed the taliban.
Pakistan did not create the taliban at all...but it did recognize it as the group in power in Afghanistan..


Is this the same kind of recognition given to Haqqanis, Al Qaeda, and the other 998 terrorist groups running amok in Pakistan?

America was smart enough to disconnect itself from terrorists in 1991 itself. Pakistan, not so much...


RE: No China wouldn't get a look...
By v9s on 11/7/2011 4:34:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is this the same kind of recognition given to Haqqanis, Al Qaeda, and the other 998 terrorist groups running amok in Pakistan?


Oh come on. You know exactly what i mean by recognition. The taliban in power meant a stable (no warlords running around or drug-running) western neighbor for Pakistan.

Afghanistan is a Pashtun majority country and supporting the northern alliance (a group that consists solely of ethnic minorities) is a mistake the US has just realized, which is why the US is now desperate to negotiate with the Haqqanis (which is also why Pakistan, severely affected by the WoT and homegrown terrorism, hasn't attacked the Haqqanis - they don't want to create another enemy like the Pakistani Taliban).
Funny, the US does it, it's all good, but Pakistan does it (for obvious legitimate reasons, after all Afghanistan isn't 5000 miles away), Pakistan is lambasted for it.


RE: No China wouldn't get a look...
By albus on 11/7/2011 5:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The taliban in power meant a stable (no warlords running around or drug-running) western neighbor for Pakistan.


Are you a Pakistani? Because only they believe that having a regime that sheltered bin Laden will make Afghanistan stable. Its no secret that bin Laden was living in a neighborhood of retired Army officers. Now, Pakistan is keen to negotiate with the Haqqanis.

Sorry, but from your posts, it seems that supporting regimes that shelter terrorists will make the world a safer place.


RE: No China wouldn't get a look...
By v9s on 11/7/2011 8:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
sigh

That's what you came up with?

I have come to the conclusion that you seem to have little to no clue about what you're talking about.

I'm not going to spoon-feed you anymore. Good day to you.


yeah...
By kleinma on 11/4/2011 2:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
"The two capabilities that are being solely built throughout the world, the only place it's being built is the United States of America, and that's tilt-rotor technology and that's the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B. There is not another nation in the world,"

Until China steals the plans and starts pumping out their own in a fraction of the time it took the US because they won't have to deal with the setbacks we are solving for them...




RE: yeah...
By 91TTZ on 11/4/11, Rating: 0
RE: yeah...
By Ringold on 11/4/2011 2:55:33 PM , Rating: 5
He was a Marine. As long as he excels at mass destruction, I'm not too bothered. :P


Pakistan is gonna love that
By BZDTemp on 11/5/2011 12:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
NOT!

agajsgjjaj asgjags asgajgs jasgjhas j (garbage needed since posting with just one word gets a "Your post consists of mostly non-alphanumeric characters.!- rejection).




RE: Pakistan is gonna love that
By Bubbacub on 11/5/2011 5:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
i dont think lockheed has any realistic hope that india will any f35s (at 150 million a go - as much coincidentally as an f22 - wtf).

india insists on tech transfer for any aerospace purchases to further improve india's aerospace tech - the US doesnt have a good track record of sharing tech in this way (from the POV of the purchaser)

i think this is just a calculated FU to pakistan - they usually used to be the south asian country to get offered nice shiny new US aerospace stuff.


By FishOutOfTheWater on 11/5/2011 11:53:18 PM , Rating: 1
this has been the greatest money laundering money project ever. 1 Trillion dollars in development and they complained the Space Shuttle was expensive. Forgive me if 1-Trillion in developement costs for a lemon and $1.7billion for a shuttle - $450mil per launch. 1/10th again 1/10th.
People really think their going to send these into battle.
I want what they are smoking.
Can we say grounded... to expensive to fly. forbid one gets shot down.




By skyyspam on 11/8/2011 6:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
The F-35 is a POS. Fighter pilots already know this, and the rest of the world will know soon enough. It's got one engine, a piss-poor thrust-to-weight ratio, and a ton of drag. This pig of a jet will never see Mach 2, and will rarely break mach with a standard combat loadout.

If I were India's dictator, I'd keep buying Su-30 (gen 4+) Flankers, instead of these shitty single-engine F-35s. If I had even more money to blow, I'd buy some Sukhoi PAK-FAs as well. It's too bad the US didn't opt for the YF-23 instead of the F-22. Apparently,. government contracts aren't awarded based on superiority...rather, they're based on politics/pork barreling.

The F-35 project is a waste of money. I'd rather fly a (combat-proven!) F-15C in air combat than fly a brand-new F-35, even though the Eagle is over 30 years old. At least it has two engines, and can soar at over Mach 2.5!


Open Source
By albus on 11/4/2011 2:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
India has requested source codes of the software used in the plane. Until the US government agrees to share the code with India, the F 35 will be sidelined by the Russian Pak-FA.




duh
By Aberforth on 11/4/2011 2:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is only because India is developing a next-generation stealth fighter with Russia known as FGFA/PAK-FA - which is more freakier than F22.




By xanthor on 11/4/2011 4:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The first round of bidding for aircraft for India included the Dassault from France

Dassault is the manufacturer of aricraft and not the name of an aircraft. The name you're looking for is Rafale




Ouch....
By gamerk2 on 11/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch....
By gamerk2 on 11/4/2011 2:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
And thats not even mentioning the AMCA under development by India, which looks to be the next country [After the US, Russia, and China] that will field a stealth fighter...


RE: Ouch....
By AssBall on 11/4/2011 3:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well the other important thing is that the F-35 WORKS AND IS AVAILABLE right now, not a hypothetical 10-15 years down the road after billions spent in testing and development. It is a pretty good deal when you consider it that way.


RE: Ouch....
By Iaiken on 11/4/2011 6:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-35 is undergoing testing right now and will be available to countries outside the US after in 5-10 years.


Fixed.


RE: Ouch....
By AssBall on 11/4/2011 9:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone that thinks other countries interested in the JSF will have a workable fleet worth jack compared to the F-35 (economically, feasibly, effectively) by then are smoking something. That was my point that you missed.


RE: Ouch....
By Amiga500 on 11/5/2011 5:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone that thinks other countries interested in the JSF will have a workable fleet worth jack compared to the F-35 (economically, feasibly, effectively) by then are smoking something.


So what are you smoking again?

I'd wager the F-35 will prove to be one of, if not the, most cost in-effective production fighter in history.

A fleet of Rafales, or of GripenNGs, or of Su-37, or of F-15SEs will prove significantly more cost effective than an F-35 fleet.


RE: Ouch....
By AssBall on 11/5/2011 9:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
Except that none of those will be produced anywhere near the order that the jsf will be. The program was shoddy, sure, but the airplane is pretty solid and versatile.


RE: Ouch....
By osalcido on 11/7/2011 4:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
They wouldn't have to... India has a long track record of licensing the technology to manufacture export variants of many vehicles, particularly Russian vehicles.


RE: Ouch....
By nafhan on 11/7/2011 9:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A fleet of Rafales, or of GripenNGs, or of Su-37, or of F-15SEs will prove significantly more cost effective than an F-35 fleet.
I think that boils down to requirements and possible usage scenarios. If they require something stealthy, for instance, none of the aircraft you mentioned would meet the requirements, and therefore would not be cost effective.


RE: Ouch....
By Cygni on 11/4/2011 3:03:40 PM , Rating: 3
China and India are not close friends in the slightest, and anything sold to India (like the US P-8 systems) are very unlikely to ever see Chinese inspection. Also the F-15 was not part of the MMCA because Boeing chose the Super Hornet as it more closely fit the RFP.

Finally, India has never been a major purchaser of US aircraft, having not operated US built combat aircraft since they owned ex-Thai B-24s after WW2. Their P-8 order and likely order of Apaches will be the first direct sale of combat aircraft.

It is a market, and a political ally, that the US would like to draw closer. But 'losing' the sales to France, Russia, or Eurofighter is not really a huge blow.


RE: Ouch....
By Jedi2155 on 11/5/2011 1:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
While they are currently not close friends, and warred with each other, they seem to be moving in that direction. Which way for sure, is unknown to me, but it could go either way right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_relations


RE: Ouch....
By AnnihilatorX on 11/5/2011 7:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
India being such a close neightbour and powerful, I don't see why China wouldn't want to befriend India more, and cooperate more economically rather than trying to be arch rivals


RE: Ouch....
By dlapine on 11/4/2011 3:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'd argue that we've already "lost them", as India is currently under agreement to fund 35% of the development the T-50 (production version of PAK-FA) and is set to purchase 200 units in total. (see: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/17/new-fighter-j...

The first 50 single seat T-50's would be delivered in 2016. Why would India want to purchase even F15's if the T-50's are available? I wonder why the US even bothered to submit those older aircraft to the competition.

As for the F-35, the only reason I can see that India would even be interested in it is that they are available now, so they don't have to wait the 5 years to get a 5th gen Stealth fighter.


RE: Ouch....
By bug77 on 11/4/2011 4:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd argue that we've already "lost them", as India is currently under agreement to fund 35% of the development the T-50...


Once, the US were under agreement to fund 50% of ISS. We all know how that went.


RE: Ouch....
By dlapine on 11/4/2011 5:06:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Once, the US were under agreement to fund 50% of ISS. We all know how that went.


Not sure where you're going with this, so obviously I don't know how that went.

We put up half the modules, the Russians did the other half.
We sent up crews/supplies in the Shuttle, and they sent up crews/supplies in Soyuz.

That sounds like a 50/50 split to me.

Of course, now that we retired the shuttle fleet, we're paying the Russians to cover the costs of getting our astronauts to orbit. At least, until NASA can develop our follow-on to the shuttle, or we can pay some US company to do commercial space ops, like SpaceX.

I don't see how that applies to a deal the Russians and Indians have worked out to jointly fund development of the T-50. As far as I can tell, it's all Russian Aerospace work, with the Indians just paying for a portion of it. It's the same thing we're doing with the Brits and the F-35B.


RE: Ouch....
By bug77 on 11/4/2011 9:50:59 PM , Rating: 3
Well, the russians promptly started to complain about their poor economy and started asking for more funds from the US. The outcome? http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-space-stat...


RE: Ouch....
By Jedi2155 on 11/5/2011 1:12:06 AM , Rating: 2
International Space Station Costs (NASA) Total: $54 to 59 from 1994 to 2016.

Total expected cost of the Station is $100 Billion not including the space shuttle. So we paid a bit more than 50% since the Space Shuttle was considered a separate project.


RE: Ouch....
By Calin on 11/7/2011 2:40:41 AM , Rating: 2
Technically, Soyuz and Saliut. One was cargo, one was crew


RE: Ouch....
By rameshms on 11/4/2011 3:24:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
of course, no way China wouldn't get a sneak peak of the aircraft once in India's hands...


Two things..
1. Like China wouldn't know the secrets anyways with all this cyber attacks and leaks from with in US soil..
2. US can continue selling Fxx's to Pakistan who harbors criminals like Osama, sells US secrets to China (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-15/world/pakistan.... and uses Chinese technology for their nuclear weapons.. I bet there wouldn't be any questions about that..


RE: Ouch....
By v9s on 11/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch....
By garagetinkerer on 11/5/2011 1:38:23 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah well what about those friendly neighbourhood ISI trained militants which came into Mumbai in '09. There are several more instances, but Pakistan and ISI is a strategic ally, which is why US tolerates them. Funny thing, CIA had all the evidence (of Pakistani culpability) which Indians provided to them beforehand regarding this incident in Mumbai. Nevermind that. Only Indians could know how much an incident like Mumbai '09 (amongst others) endears Pakistan to us. We've been suffering them insufferable lot for about 60 god-damned years.

Two good reasons why India doesn't buy stuff from US:
1) Remember Bhopal Gas Tragedy? US companies doesn't own up to liability arousing out of any event. Same is the story with US supplied nuclear power plants, where US companies involved have very limited if any liabilities. Our politicians sold us out on this one (like many, many, MANY other times). There's evidence to prove this allegation in cables that wikileaks published.
2) There's never a technology transfer. While others, Russians and French in particular, have no problem sharing technology.

All in all, whenever India has tried to deal with US, India was getting the short end of the stick, even as a paying customer. So India teamed with nations which acted as a partner, rather than a snooty boss.


RE: Ouch....
By v9s on 11/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch....
By albus on 11/6/2011 6:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No proof that they were trained by ISI


Ajmal Kasab begs to differ. He has testified in an Indian court about the support provided by the ISI for the Mumbai seige.

quote:
You mean David Headly? lol hahaha
This part of your post shows that you don't know jack

Unfortunately, you have been reading too much of Pakistani news. I am afraid, just like some Americans like to believe that allying with Pakistan was the best thing to do, you too seem to be deluded about Pakistan and its nefarious activities. Pray, then why was David Headley, son of a Pakistani diplomat conducting recce in Mumbai prior to the blasts.


RE: Ouch....
By v9s on 11/6/2011 10:52:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
He has testified in an Indian court about the support provided by the ISI for the Mumbai seige.


Seems you've been reading too much of Indian news (or Bharat Rakshak) since Ajmal Qasab never claimed that the ISI supported him.

quote:
David Headley, son of a Pakistani diplomat conducting recce in Mumbai prior to the blasts.


http://tribune.com.pk/story/179550/isi-leadership-...


RE: Ouch....
By albus on 11/6/2011 11:27:11 AM , Rating: 3
From your link:

quote:
Headley, who pleaded guilty to 12 terror charges arising out of the attacks on India’s financial capital and other unrealised plots, testified that no more than a handful of ISI agents were involved in the Mumbai plot .


Ajamal Kasab, by extension, is an ISI agent or a recruit.


RE: Ouch....
By v9s on 11/7/2011 4:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
This is what you said:

quote:
Ajmal Kasab begs to differ. He has testified in an Indian court about the support provided by the ISI for the Mumbai seige.


Ajmal Kasab never said this. Nor is he an "ISI agunt" lol :P

Headly later retracted his statement claiming that the ISI wasn't involved, and said perhaps some rogue or ex-agents of the ISI (laughable really), which means Ajmal kasab is NOT an ISI recruit.


RE: Ouch....
By albus on 11/7/2011 6:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Headly later retracted his statement claiming that the ISI wasn't involved, and said perhaps some rogue or ex-agents of the ISI (laughable really) , which means Ajmal kasab is NOT an ISI recruit.


You need to understand how intelligence agencies work. None of them will openly claim their handiwork. They always work under a thin veil of plausible deniability. This is typical intelligence operandus.

Those who can see, know the truth. The rest listen to the Pakistani-equivalent of Fox News.


RE: Ouch....
By v9s on 11/7/2011 7:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You need to understand how intelligence agencies work. None of them will openly claim their handiwork. They always work under a thin veil of plausible deniability. This is typical intelligence operandus.


I did not know that. You win.


RE: Ouch....
By ats on 11/4/2011 4:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Um, India and China aren't exactly friendly. They have a shared disputed border and have had numerous military conflicts with each other. Until recently the the military and political friction between the two was high enough that it prevented the historical Silk Road from actually being open.

Now Russia may get a look, but I doubt china would. Russia and India have been tight military partners for decades.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki