Replies

The French offer also featured substantially lower costs of ownership, according to the same reports, thanks to lower fuel consumption and simpler maintenance requirements.

Hmm... low fuel... that's like saying you want your best swimmer to be restricted on calorie intake and outburst ability.

US fighters were fine, imo. I do not understand Indian leftist politicians. They complain about how they were colonized, but they always use that to bash America, the one which had to also free itself from British colonization. Yet India having lost to Russians in the past and been colonized by the French and the British keeps coming back to them like a puppy dog... communists are really clever in how they orientate nationalism of various nations against AMerica.

I don’t blame the Indians for not trusting us. The U.S. sends Pakistan $2 billion per year, and we know that Pakistan supports terrorists who are fighting against India. Even if 0.1% (one-tenth of one percent) of that aid we send to Pakistan makes it into the hands of the terrorists, that’s still $2 million. That’s plenty of scratch to wage a terrorist campaign indefinitely.

I totally understand not trusting us in any situation.

If this was all about American bashing, how come India has started buying billions worth of US weaponry since 2005? While the US still ships off military aid to the Pakis.

The US aircraft, while more mature and affordable, lost because they were nearing the end of their development curves and had lower kinematic performance. Unlike the newer European designs, which were optmised to take on threats like the SU-27, which is flown by the PLAAF.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/dogfight.pdf

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/the-rafales-long-flight-to-india/464320/

Hmm... low fuel... that's like saying you want your best swimmer to be restricted on calorie intake and outburst ability.

That was the last, and least, of 10 other reasons given why the decision made was made. Also, they never said American planes were not adequate (and the F/A-18 was the most mature plane in the competition) ...just that the two finalists (the Rafale and the Typhoon) were better.

That is something that has been said in other competitions, most recently the Switzerland competition in 2011 where the Rafale won the technical trials easily, and the Swiss selected the Gripen due to cost. The benchmark for the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen in the competition was the F/A-18E, which the Rafale and Typhoon easily beat. I have a chart from the competition in one of my posts from last week but one. I just don't see how the Indian selection is America bashing ...especially considering the points given, and the fact that India has spent billions on other key equipment. Just not first line of battle equipment for very good reasons given in the article. For instance, taking the example of the Kargil escalation, do you really believe the US would have given India permission to make adjustments to equipment on the fly in the way France did? Or give almost full transfer of technology on advanced avionics technology and make them a full partner like the Eurofighter consortium was doing? Or would the US lease a Virginia class submarine, or even an older LA class submarine, to India the way Russia did? What about the comfort of knowing that there will not be restrictions of using equipment, and in the even of a conflagration Delhi doesnt have to get DC's approval to waft left or shunt right?

Then it shouldn't be a surprise that American equipment will not win 100% of the time. Furthermore, even with those considerations, India has spent billions on such equipment as C-130s and Apache helicopters and Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft. Just don't expect India to select the F-35 over the PakFa or the F-16 over the Rafale.