Recently, I talked about the proposal to sell India American fighter planes, the COPE India 2004 exercises in which the U.S. pilots lost, and how it all fit together. Bill Rice of Dawn's Early Light has some very interesting and thought provoking takes on all this...
- He thinks COPE India 2004 was about "Losing a Battle to Win a War." Read why.
- He also disagrees with me, and thinks that if the USA offers India F-16 Block 70s it could be part of an larger offer that's too good to refuse. He also sees some supporting evidence. Personally, I find the evidence thin. India can take all the other components and not have to buy the F-16s, and that won't be a dealbreaker, and both sides know it. I still think India has too many concerns re: standardization and embrago-proofing to make this work. Besides - the key isn't the air force, Bill, it's the naval cooperation.
- I like folks who argue honestly. Here, Bill Rice runs 2 Indian articles on the subject, one that supports his views and one that doesn't.
As an aside, kudos to Winds team member Bill Roggio of The 4th Rail, who acted as a background facilitator for these blog discussions.
Allow me to repost here,because I'm real curious now:
"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 develop a market for the plane,and giving indian aircraft industry a healthy high-tech injection."