Target locked: IAF aims for Mirage 4000 (not F-16)

[Robb]

Kolkata, INDIA - The Defence Ministry might be on the lookout for a new Air Superiority Fighter (ASF) aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF) but it is not going to be the US F-16.

According to a senior official in the ministry, the government has zeroed in on Mirage 4000, manufactured by Dassault Bréguet of France.

Sources said that senior officials from both the Defence Ministry and the IAF had already checked out Mirage 4000 and had expressed satisfaction on its performance and the features provided by the French manufacturer. "A suitable quotation has been received from Dassault Bréguet and since the IAF has already used Mirage 2000, the latest from the Mirage stable is gaining over F-16," sources added.

(snip)

Sources, however, said that despite PowerPoint presentations and speculations from various quarters, the Government is not keen on buying F-16s because the aircraft is familiar to Pakistan’s.
"Chances of F-16 bagging the deal are not much because the IAF plans to buy an aircraft which Pakistan and other neighbours have not used," said a defence expert.

(more)

[madrchsod]

1. french and russian war birds for india

because i doubt they`ll buy saabs. i thought they were are friends? after all how many jobs did the frenches give them? you`d think they would show a little appreciation for all we have done for them!!

[cosmicone]

8. It is quite simple

If the US wants the Indian market, US needs to abandon Pakistan. As long as the US is giving military hardware to Pakistan, the bigger market, India, shall remain elusive.

Support of Pakistan has been a stupid foreign policy for about 50 years and it has earned nothing for the US.

Abandon Pakistan, let it collapse and balkanize and a major hotbed of terrorism in the world would be gone. Pakistan balkanized into Sindh, Baluchistan, Pakhtoonistan and a West Punjab is the way to go.

It will happen anyway -- US is only delaying the inevitable by supporting a string of military dictatorships there.

[TheWraith]

11. I seriously doubt they'd buy from the Russians.

The Russians pretty much never sell their high-end hardware, even to their allies. They prefer to sell older-generation models like the Mig-21s and 25s that they sold to Iraq in the 80s, when their current generation was the Mig-29. So if you're not buying from the Americans, your sole remaining source for high-quality aerospace tech is the French.

[Zynx]

12. Actually, Russia has sold them high end Su-27 versions.

[northzax]

14. the Soviets didn't sell the high end stuff

the Russians have no choice (frankly, they need the cash) in the past decade, they have sold SU-27s, MiG-31s, KILO subs and other top flight tech to the Chinese (along with a license for the SU-37, that not even Russia can afford to build) and they sold an unfinished carrier to the Indians, along with a contract to finish it and outfit it with maritime MiG-29s. India is also manufacturing SU-30s under license from Russia.

India also buys defense systems from Israel, including the Phalcon knockoff of the E-3 Sentry, and the Arrow anti-missile system.

[Pavulon]

17. India

is a long time customer of russia. They supplied their army through the cold war.

The fact that they are now buying from the french is very interesting.

[Hyernel]

2. Nice looking plane

Wonder if I can get a ride in one?

[wakeme2008]

3. looks ok

[Hyernel]

9. Ooo! Check the Super Guppy in the background

One of my favorite airplanes...for it's weirdlookingness.

[1932]

4. Two points to consider:

- If you're a foreign country and you need to by weapons you don't make, would you rather by them from a US company whose goverment someday might decide they don't like your politics and then refuse to service and provide spare parts for your purchase? Or would you rather buy from a European country with a decentralized political system that is probably more interested in having its industries thrive than in projecting its foreign policy?

- The US desperately needs these sales to keep dollars flowing back into the US which lose by sending so many dollars overseas. Without the dollars coming back, I believe the dollar would be worth much less.

[northzax]

5. worthless

not this Fighter in particular, but single seat fighters in general. For the price of that air-to-air fighter, I'll sell you 20 cruise missiles and 10 anti-aircraft missile batteries. They look impressive, but the only thing they can do is shoot down other fighters. Who cares any more? there hasn't been a dogfight since when, exactly? In an age where air to air missiles have a range of 10 km, and over the horizon weapons are even better, what's the point of having a plane with only one capability?

[Kagemusha]

6. Ground to air missiles present a static target...

And they don't have a good record either frankly. When's the last time a SAM shot down a US fixed wing aircraft? Desert Shield? Desert Storm?

Obviously there's a point of excess but, having decent air superiority fighters is a deterrent that promotes control of one's own airspace and denial of that airspace to opposing fixed wing aircraft, which is an issue to India. Beyond that limited goal you would be quite correct (one reason that many have opposed the F-22).

[northzax]

10. Desert Storm, if not Iraqi Freedom

when's the last time an aircraft shot down a US plane? Vietnam?

not to say that air to air fighters can't be useful, in certain situations, but I would think that multi-purpose aircraft, capable of air to mud as well would be put to better use.

[Kagemusha]

16. Multi-role generally reduces performance though.

Me, I'd have a limited number of pure air superiority fighters and a lot of multi-role. And a bunch of stuff like the A-10 or its Russian equivalent that's tough as all hell and can seriously hurt an opponent on the ground. Air superiority's great but if you can't use it for practical purposes, it's pretty meaningless.

Assuming this Mirage 4000 is all right for air superiority - I wouldn't know - then it might be a sound purchase in small numbers. But it gets silly. Shooting down a couple of planes is the least of India and Pakistan's problems.

[Stella_Artois]

7. Funny you say that

People have been saying that for 50 years.

The USAF said that before Vietnam, when missiles had made dogfights a thing of the past.

Then USAF F-105's etc started to fall out of the sky after being totally outclassed in dogfights with Mig-17's.

[Kagemusha]

15. As the famous story goes, that stopped after 'Top Gun'.

...and putting 20mm Vulcans on all the planes again.

And those advantages remain to this day because having a top notch air force takes money and the US is the only highly militarized nation with that kind of money (Japan and Germany don't count).

[daleo]

13. But aren't aircraft more effective corporate dollar delivery systems?

Your inexpensive systems look good on paper, but can they deliver the $billions needed by the military industrial complex?

[Paulie]

18. If that was the case, why did they put a gun in the F4 Phantom?

Because you need the ability to shoot at things in front of you.

We have this problem in Iraq where they can't shoot a target unless they have multiple confirmations of the target, and usually a visual, before they can shoot. Why? Because a missile doesn't know friend from foe. Fragging friends leads to LESS friends.

Technology is not always the answer. John Boyd proved this over and over.