First of all, I've got a Defense Industry Daily article up that explains what's going on re: the U.S. offer to sell India F-16s and F-18s. The offer, and the situation, are a lot muddier than most people think.
If you want a truly excellent article that fills you in on the aftermath of Condi Rice's visit and some of the considerations at work, Indian magazine The Week has an outstanding piece that explains the ironies, tensions & opportunities. The Week comes across as very strongly Hindi-nationalist relative to other pieces I've read, so take that into consideration when reading. This defense analysis piece represents the opposite pole.
These decisions are never cut and dried, and the best learning comes from considering the different arguments... welcome to what Jinnderella calls "defenseology".
In related news, the US will participate in the "Cope india 2005" fighter exercises this November. You may have heard about the Indian Air Force having a lot of success against USAF F-15s in Cope India 2004, which was true; the linked article article explains why. Without taking away from the IAF's professionalism, I'm hoping for a more even exercise this year. That would tell us something about future fighter needs, at a time when more clarity is very helpful.
Personally, my bet is that India will turn the USA down - and buy 125 Mirage 2000-5 Mk2s to replace their accident-prone MiG-21s. Why? Several reasons.
Let's start with commonality and past experience. India just picked up 12 Mirage 2000-5s from Qatar the other day, and liked the performance of their earlier model Mirage 2000Cs in the 1999 Kargil crisis. They aren't eager to add new aircraft types, either, which makes some sense given the associated training and maintenance costs. Think of Southwest Airlines, which is famous for its fleet of nothing but Boeing 737s. The same cost logics apply in the military sphere.
The standardization factor could easily prove decisive all by itself, barring a level of offsets that would offer India a bigger prize in return - say, a major step forward for their domestic defense industry. Which may explain why India is asking the Americans about advanced technology transfers. BAE/Saab can't offer that with their excellent JAS-39 Gripen, so if standardization is a factor the existing shortlist shrinks to two: Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 Fulcrum.
Past experience isn't always positive, however. India also operates earlier versions of MiG's Fulcrum, but their experience with the MiG-29A wasn't all that good and it's being pressured re: India's carrier aircraft contract by the Sukhoi SU-27K (aka SU-33). This does not bode well for the MiG-29M's chances in the lightweight fighter deal - or for Mikoyan as a whole, which has fallen from the world's #1 builder of fighter jets to a company with few orders and little work in the pipeline. They really need this contract - and if they fail, it could be the beginning of the end for the company.
Which leaves the American fighters: F-16 Block 70 version, and F-18E/F Super Hornet. They have more room to "grow" than the Mirage 2000 in terms of upgrades, so that's a plus. On the other hand, you can't transfer everything - and India is understandably nervous about American weapons given past U.S. arms boycotts. Throw in the standardization argument, and the American fighters become longshot candidates even if some level of technology transfer is approved.
Which leaves Dassault's Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 as the probable last plane standing, to play the role of India's future light fighter counterpart to its beloved Sukhoi SU-30MKI heavy/strike fighter.
Like I said earlier, we still have a long way to go before this contract is awarded. What I'm telling you is which way I'm betting - and why. Have a look at the links in this article, and see if you come to the same conclusions.
UPDATE: Analyst Ravi Visvesvaraya Prasad neatly illustrates some of the key uncertainties on India's side in this June 9, 2005 India Times article: standardization, and worries about embargo.
Honestly, I'm a lot more worried about Israel selling our weapons to the Chinese. Not that you'd ever mention that.. wink
Israel is restricted from selling YOUR American technology, of course, without the USA's approval. Hence the restriction on selling Phalcon AWACS radars to China (and until recently, to India as well), etc. If some parts of an item use sensitive American technology, the whole thing is subject to approval/embargo.
I assume SAO knew that, but couldn't quite resist the opportunity to take a shot a the Great Jewish Conspiracy.
FYI, while we're talking fighter planes here...
Israel's domestically-designed Lavi fighter had the plans sold to China, but that country has had one heck of time turning that into working J-10 aircraft... because their version can't use American engines, or electronics. It's kind of like being sold a Ferrari chasis, nice conversation piece and now what?
The J-10 is being modified to use Russian Lyulka engines used in the SU-27/30 family (which then requires airframe redesign for center of gravity/ weight/ load reasons, of course), and electronics are something of a work in progress. The plane is still largely in the test bed phase of discussion, kind of like Russia's 5th-gen fighter projects but a little ahead.
China's moves to buy SU-30 Russian fighters are considered by many analysts to be something of a vote of no-confidence in the J-10 project. But a dictatorship can be bloody-minded enough to push these things to fruition despite costs or quality if they really wish. Especially if prestige or face is involved.
You can see similar dynamics at work in democracies, too: Japan's F-2 is almost 2x the cost to get a range gain, weapons load gain, size increase, and performance penalty over the F-16D on which it was explicitly based. But Japan wanted a 'domestic' fighter to replace its Mitsubishi F-1 (originally intended as a front line fighter, but even the Japanese wouldn't put it in that role). Or look at any number of (mostly failed) domestic projects in India - including the Tejas lightweight fighter mentioned in The Week's article. A Hindi nationalist media outfit won't mention the consistent failures of India's many ndigenous defense projects, but I'll mention it here and suggest that Tejas was unlikely to ever be a realistic, competitive option even with full funding and cooperation. As much as it may stick in The Week's craw, the only question about the lightweight fighter buy was how much money would be sunk into a domestic effort before the inevitable was acknowledged.
You know, when you consider the overall record of smaller countries trying to build indigenous defense industries and produce world-class hardware of their own, the Israeli defense industry's record of successful and world-leading projects (Merkava tank, Kfir fighter, Python air-air missile, Pioneer UAVs in war, Galil rifle, reactive armour) becomes even more remarkable.
Perhaps that remarkability is because Israel is a Western country Joe? (at least, Western right now and since its inception)
Joe,
You are being far to kind to the F-15 jocks here.
See what I wrote in Interview with a Weasel Pilot January 16, 2003:
Bear in mind this interview was based on a an e-mail conversation circa about 1998.
As far as I can tell USAF senior F-15 pilots are still as plug ignorant of the modern threat environment as my Weasel Jock correspondent described then.
God only knows what they are going to do, besides die, when the Chinese start shooting AA-10 and AA-12 missiles with anti-radar homing seekers at their precious F-15 AESA long range radars.
I think the IDF's innovation in combat medicine and PTSD treatment is even more impressive than the long list of weapons Israel has invented/perfected. It's also something we need to emulate now.
SAO, agree. Some new Israeli bandages are already at work in Iraq, and a blood test that helps diagnose high-PTSD risks within days of an incident also looks promising. If the U.S. military doesn't pick it up, some insurer or HMO probably will :-|
FH... India is a "Western" country in the same sense. Hasn't helped. Japan's record hasn't been great lately, and they certainly qualify. I honestly don't know the extact reasons behind this record, but it might be interesting as a research subject for someone. The universality of its draft may help, by ensuring that all engineers are developing from some level of inside knowledge. Don't know.
They've got a testing ground on their doorstep, but they've also got ingenuity. Obviously, the Uzi should be on that list :-)
Even if the F-15s were a better choice in terms of standardisation, India should be smart and go with the Mirage.
Trent,
I well recall that article. It made our "Best Of..." category for good reason.
But BVR missiles had nothing to do with Cope India 2004, because their use was banned for the exercise. This played a large role in the results.
Mind you, America may not be able to depend on having Beyond-Visual-Range superiority, as you note. The Russian R-77 missile (aka AA-12 "AMRAAMski") missile can be carried on India's SU-30s, and has greater range than AMRAAM. The European MBDA Meteor missile currently in development is also expected to outrange AMRAAM.
So that's one thing to pay attention to, as America looks ahead and plans for at the next 20 years of fighter aviation. A longer range missile like a ramjet AMRAAM is one response. Upgraded AWACS systems that were less vulnerable and gave even wider coverage would be another response. Building stealth into your fighters (F-22, F-35 JSF) is another still - and of course, the responses aren't mutually exlusive.
In the end, it comes down to a set of simple questions with difficult answers:
That's what India is trying to do... and what the USA is trying to do, too, as it looks ahead for its air force purchases.
We can have good arguments about what the right approach is, as long as it's an informed debate based on knowledge of the field and projection of threats, rather than simple anti-military animus or more psychological kinds of projection.
As long as political arguments revolve around liking or disliking the military as a whole, important points like Trent's become hard to discuss. And that's a shame, for all of us.
The traditional (non-approved) treatment for PTSD has been: alcohol, pot, heroin, cocaine, meth etc. Depending on the severity of the PTSD and the availability of the drug.
As far as I know there is no effective treatment other than to keep the patient drugged until the PTSD wears off. Which can take years or decades.
The length of time it takes to recover from PTSD is determined by the severity of the trauma and the genetic make up of the individual.
The Max Planck Institute's work on the CB1 receptor is very suggestive. B. Lutz is one of the authors of the study.
==========Funny thing is I began saying stuff like this in late 2002. Joe was interested but skeptical.
I think that that research has been confirmed, eh Joe?
Have another look at my "Addiction or Self Medication?" article or especially my piece on heroin. Called appropriately enough "Heroin".
Addiction or Self Medication?
Heroin
Genetic Discrimination
Cannabinoids - the Key to many Pains?
Big Mac - heroin attack
Capitalism, Pain and the War on Drugs
PTSD Pot Alcohol & Substance Abuse
Joe,
One thing you need to take into account is the hold of agents/lobbyists that the Russians have on the ground in New Delhi. Take decades of historical close defence cooperation, 'fan' mentality, still influential ex-military types and the interests of Russian arms companies and you have many of the pieces necessary to push through the sale of MiGs/SUs. The same holds, to a lesser extent, with the French Mirages.
This is not to say that the IAF procurement folks are not professional, but you can count on the Russian lobby's inside knowledge of the system to influence the outcome.
I just published a piece (online) about the PTSD research.
A test for PTSD
I credit SAO and Joe for giving me a heads up.
Thanks guys.
Joe,
If you want to use it in any way (including posting it on Winds) please feel free.
Simon
Ok,understand the cost/standardization argument,but if the Indians want a french plane(the french not being picky about who they sell to or what the clients do with the product)wouldn't the Rafale be a better deal for both?
The Rafale is,it seems,a pretty decent plane designed from the beginning as a F-16 style swing fighter(as opposed to a fighter that can also carry some bombs).
The french have a small domestic market and export competition from the similiar eurofighter/gripen as well as the established F-16/Mig-29.
Seems to me Paris would be eager to cut a deal,including generous tech tranfers to develope a market for the plane,and giving indian aircraft industry a healthy high-tech injection.
>But BVR missiles had nothing to do with Cope
>India 2004, because their use was banned for
>the exercise. This played a large role in the
>results.
Joe,
The problem is in the USAF's unrealistic training regime. The specific problem with BVR missiles was just one symptom of it.
See page 10 of 27 in the the PDF file at the link below:
Training Superiority & Training Surprise
Humm.
That link is broken according to DTIS when I hit it from Winds of Change, yet I can access it from google.
Try cut and pasting this:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001testing/chatham.pdf
The Week is an english daily. And because it says something +ve about Indias defence industry, suddenly it becomes nationalist Hindi! What the Fcuk is that.
To Joe katzman and company,its nice to hear REALISTIC comments on Indias fighter programs even though I am an proud Indian.Yes india is lagging behind in crusial technology regarding jet engines,but do you really think this is going to be the case for ever? Also remember that right now an modern fighters main strength will depend on Avionics ,Ecw,Ecm,Mission comp[comp programs],AAM,etc.Also you know what hand held antiaircraft missiles can do .So dude you are only telling the truth that we are lagging behind which we accept.Are you really freguented with research establishment in india and other countries such as china.You know not all indians with talent move to USA to build your proccesor for Intel or Nasa.Some of us do take the long and less paying jobs in India.Do you really believe that all national security projects are available on Internet.Do you know where all the defence scientist disappeared after collapse of USSR and certainly not all of them turned up in USA.Technically speaking an jet engine can be reverse enginneredalso think yourself we turned down offer to codevelop Rafale of France. Codevelopment of brahmos is already sucess with russiaand india.Now both countries are codeveloping Fifth generation aircraft.Us is also showing willingnesss to play ball with India. Also dont forget you got your jet tech from defeated Germany after ww-11.And lastly have you ever visited india true we have our own share of poverty as they might be teaching you from highschool but still you might get surprised .
hoping to get your reply
Regards
YDC
Mr. Churi,
Most countries around the world these days do not develop all aspects of front-line fighter aircraft in-country. The list of those who can and do is very small: USA, France, Russia. That's it - and that list may shrink in the next generation.
There's a reason for that: these things need buying scale that's consistent over long periods of time. The expense of modern weapons means few national programs can achieve this goal alone.
I can emotionally understand the impetus behind India's wish to join that "we can do it all" club, but I don't think it's smart. China has succeeded with a number of their defense programs precisely because they have NOT insisted that everything be native, or even natively built. As a result, their military capabilities are growing faster than India's. Pride can come from many sources, and if it's up to me I'd rather be proud that my military capabilities are growing really fast, rather than being proud that I'd done it all myself irrespective of the results (Arjun tank, anyone?).
This "we must do it all" approach sends off signals of insecurity.
Security would be knowing that India has great software programmers, many highly educated and talented engineers - and can cooperate with others to get the country what it needs. Brahmos is a good example of what works.
But fighter jet engines... India will be lagging for a long time. It's not about talent, but economics.
LCA (which seems like a fine light fighter) should just get over it and keep using the F404 engine. It's in widespread use in different fighter aircraft, it's proven, it has scale. Or if you were paranoid about export cut-offs for some reason, LCA could use the Rafale's engine instead.
It doesn't make a lot of sense these days to develop a jet engine for an aircraft that will only see limited production, then work through all the inevitable reliability and performance issues that accompany EVERY new jet engine. Especially not given India's total defense budget.
If growing local capability matters, decide if its really hugely strategic and insist on full local licensed production/integration (India decided that submarines are - good decision), or back off and focus on integration with local builds only in some areas. Do cooperative deals and promote India as an aerospace outsourcer, and build capability that way over time instead of the flashy stuff that's harder to sustain. It's like compound interest - less every year for a long time is way better than a short burst of more, now, followed by nothing.
To give another example, India could also have cooperated with Israel based on the Merkava design, and started locally building licensed tank designs several years ago, with parts from multiple countries. The result? For the same money wasted on Arjun and then spent on Russian tanks as an urgent stopgap, India would have tanks that would significantly overmatch Pakistan's.
I am seeing things improve on those fronts, however. India is reaching out for foreign designs more and is less hung up on "all indigenous at all costs." Meanwhile, the new US-India relationship continues to progress, and permission to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a growing possibility that could change the landscape on this fighter deal.
But really, a decision that the Mirage 2000 would do for this deal would be just fine. It's still a very capable aircraft, and many countries want a "$25 million or less" plane to get the numbers up. That's why F-16s keep selling so very well, and the Mirage 2000 is in the same cost category - whereas F-35s are mid-tier multirole ($35-50M, so same money only get you around 75) and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets are in a totally different ballpark at the high end ($60-120M).
You see, it isn't always about having the best, but having the best of the class you want to buy in - and knowing which price class that should be, based on your needs. India already has the 4th Generation, high end (and very good) SU-30MKI, after all. The question now is what ELSE to get, and why.
As for Russia...
Russia's defense scientists have largely remained in Russia. Many are either out of the industry, or in companies that are just scraping by with the collapse of the Russian budget and the loss of the former Warsaw Pact countries' market. Others remain in companies that are part of the Great Russian Military Technology Discount Sale to China. Which continues, by the way.
One exception: quite a few technologists (not always military) were Jews and wound up in Israel. Hence Israel's tech boom, and also its recent successes in high-tech military products (like the avionics in many of India's fighters).
Hope this helps.