Indian Air Force To Buy 126 Multi-Role Planes

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
SABRE said:
one question aaaditya....what does lockheed-martin has to do with F-18s & its sales to India. 2ndly u r again quoting bharat rakshak which is, as gf says, an indian airforce fan club.
Sabre, LM haven't said anything about F-18's, it is apparently the fact that the US Govt has released Boeing to be able to sell as well. That would stand to reason if LM has been cleared as it would be an open market

BR are actually one of the more reliable sources, so I wouldn't be too harsh on them The fan club comment was with regard to F-16.net

SABRE said:
I'll believe it when state department says any thing abt it. I wont even take it from Indian FO spokesmen.
Hence why I am interested in follow up confirmations. The Indian Govt is unlikely to make comments which it can't stand by, so if it comes from the Dept of Defence or the Defence Minister I would regard it as substantiated.

My caution is only because of what we saw in here with respect to fighters for the PAF. Some people were making outlandish comments which spread like a forest fire - to the point where the Swedish Govt as well as SAAB had to make a public announcement denying the issue of process.

I have no faith in public media that can't be supported by the manufacturer or a govt source.

I cannot see the IAF accepting F-18's for a number of reasons.

Before people get excited about which plane is being offered they need to remember that aircraft are purchased on a requirements basis - not on an availability or modernity basis.
 

aaaditya

New Member
actually it is quite a recent news so we can expext something more tommorow.however gf if you receive the indian news channel headlines today you will know what iam saying,indian defenceminister pranab mukherjee has stated in an exclusive interview that the f-16s have been offered and that indian airforce is actively considering them9now thatys coming from the horse's mouth).i didnt meen that india will purchase them(unless they prove to be clearly superior to the competitors),but atleast it will be a thorough evaluation for the best possible platform(each competitor will try to outperform the other).:coffee
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
aaaditya said:
actually it is quite a recent news so we can expext something more tommorow.however gf if you receive the indian news channel headlines today you will know what iam saying,indian defenceminister pranab mukherjee has stated in an exclusive interview that the f-16s have been offered and that indian airforce is actively considering them9now thatys coming from the horse's mouth).i didnt meen that india will purchase them(unless they prove to be clearly superior to the competitors),but atleast it will be a thorough evaluation for the best possible platform(each competitor will try to outperform the other).:coffee
matey we don't get the Indian or Pakistani news services, so I can only rely on what I see in here, other web sites or on google.

being lazy I was hoping that one of you locals would be able to provide sources. I'm aware of the F-16 deal - but I was unaware of any confirming news on the offer of Hornets.

a Hornet offer would make sense with resepect to US companies wanting open competition - but Boeings offer would be late as I'd thought that India had only indicated an F-16 interest.

I was also interested on seeing whether India would still be interested in US aircraft after the US Govt decision to offer up F-16's to Pakistan.

My reason for wanting official releases is the fact that I have seen far too many instances where people talk up platform purchases in their local media - but there is no substance in it at all.

So, the outstanding unknown issue for me is the Hornet offer.
 

aaaditya

New Member
well gf cant confirm the f-18 news ,since it is still just a news in the media whereas the defence minister seems to have words only for f-16.by the way www.indiadefence.com has posted an article on this issue.the true gains for india are cooperation in civilian nuclear and space technology and defence technology which usa has offered.US was always reluctant to cooperate with india on space and nuke front(that has changed now,india can gain immensely from it).by the way i would love to know why australia selected the f-18 and how was their experience with the aircraft.:coffee
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
aaaditya said:
by the way i would love to know why australia selected the f-18 and how was their experience with the aircraft.:coffee
well, this is what the americans think of australian pilots..

The following article is from Aviation Week & Space Technology. Sep 3, 2001.
Australian Training Yields Top-Notch Fighter Pilots
WILLIAM B. SCOTT/RAAF BASE WILLIAMTOWN, AUSTRALIA

High standards, intense training and a steady diet of practice are the secrets to RAAF fighter pilots' success in the air. The Royal Australian Air Force has developed a high-standard training regimen that ensures its F/A-18 pilots consistently fare very well during simulated air combat engagements against their allied counterparts.

As a result, the RAAF's reputation for fielding excellent fighter pilots has sparked a recurring question among humbled mock opponents for years: What are the Australians doing differently?

Testimony from U.S., U.K. and other fighter crews seems to support the RAAF's reputation. A U.S. Navy officer who flew F-14s in several multinational exercises throughout the Pacific said, "It was easy to find the Aussies--look behind you. Those guys were always on your tail."

In a report submitted to Pacific Air Force headquarters, a U.S. Air Force pilot who recently returned from a 2.5-year exchange tour as an instructor at the RAAF's Fighter School gave high marks to the Australian training program. Later, in a pithy e-mail message--which, to his chagrin, was immediately circulated around the globe--he gave flying buddies a glowing account of his experience down under.

"The RAAF has avoided the political-correctness wave . . . and has retained a culture that emphasizes war-fighting over politics. It was interesting to watch the [RAAF] absolutely pummel visiting U.S. fighter squadrons . . . . These bumpkins from down under treat us the way the North Vietnamese Air Force treated us 35 years ago--they are kicking our platinum [tails] with 20-mm. gunshots from 2,000 ft. back, like the Red Baron," he wrote.

Australia transforms newly winged airmen into dual-role F/A-18 pilots at its Fighter School, which is located on RAAF Base Williamtown near the continent's eastern coast. Since 1985, when the RAAF started flying its 75 Hornets, F/A-18 training has been handled by No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit, commonly known as 2OCU Sqdn.

Sixteen years later, the small air force still has an inventory of 71 A- and B-model Hornets. A three-phase upgrade program and a separate structural refurbishment effort is modernizing the fleet and extending its operational life to about 2012-16, senior officers here said (see p. 96). After the upgrade, RAAF aircraft will be roughly equivalent to a U.S. Navy F/A-18C.

The 2OCU training squadron runs several courses, but its primary role is to graduate a "D-Category" fighter pilot proficient in both air-to-air and air-to-surface tactics. About 70 hr. of flight time during the 23-week F/A-18 conversion course will produce a pilot having basic fighter skills, including formation, instrument and night flying. Typically, 37 sorties are dedicated to air-to-air training, another 22 are air-to-surface--including maritime attack--and the final four or five are live-fire missions with high-explosives. The latter require deploying to a range near Townsville, a fighter base about 850 mi. north of Williamtown. Throughout the course, students also "fly" eight air-to-air and 12 air-to-surface missions in a ground simulator.

The squadron's 14 instructors (including USAF and Canadian Air Force exchange pilots) train two classes of 6-10 students each year. Of the unit's 18 Hornets, 10-12 are two-seat F/A-18B versions. Some of those "duals are shared with operational squadrons at times," said Sqdn. Ldr. Alan Clements, an instructor and the 2OCU executive officer. During peak flying periods, the unit can generate 25-30 F/A-18 sorties per day, but a normal daily schedule will produce 15-20 flights. About 3,000 hr. are flown each year.

"By comparison, an operational unit will fly 2,500-3,000 hr. a year," Clements said. "We fly more hours than an operational squadron, [because] we graduate dual-role pilots qualified in both air-to-air and air-to-surface."
However, those flight hours are hard on 2OCU's aircraft, particularly the two-seaters. "When you only have about eight dual-seat aircraft on the flightline at once, they're pretty precious commodities," said Wing Cdr. William Henman, a former 2OCU commanding officer now attending the USAF Air War College. "They spend a lot of time at high angles-of-attack and pulling gs, so our [B-models] are getting tired. Our per-flight-hour stress accrual is quite high; some of the duals are fleet-leaders in fatigue."

This editor spent three days at 2OCU, talking to students, commanders and instructors, flying on a 2-versus-1 air combat maneuvering (ACM) training mission, and looking for a "magic something" that might explain why RAAF pilots consistently either beat or at least humble their air-to-air opponents. Surprisingly, I found 2OCU instructors reluctant to claim they might be superior combat pilots. Humility is hardly a trait associated with a fighter jock, who typically firmly believes he is the best pilot on Earth--a conviction that's essential for survival. No pilot here denied the RAAF's hard-won reputation, though, and acknowledgments were carefully phrased.

"I think we have a cost-effective training program that produces a qualified combat fighter and strike pilot in a relatively short time," said Air Commo. Paul F. Devine, commander of RAAF's Tactical Fighter Group. "And I think we do pretty well against world[-class] standards--as good as anybody else, and better than some. The RAAF holds to high standards--in selection and training--to ensure a high-quality pilot product."

"We've done fairly well during multinational exercises," Henman echoed. "When we've fought our Hornets against U.S. Air Force units, we've compared very favorably. But we get a lot of practice here, and I believe we get more opportunities than U.S. operators of the Hornet. The Navy and Marine Corps, just due to their operations tempo and deployments, don't have the luxury of spending [considerable] time on the core skills like we do. And I can't overemphasize that we benefit greatly from our exchange programs with the U.S. Navy and Air Force. We take a lot of lessons they learn during foreign deployments and [actual] operations, then modify our tactics."

ONE NOTEWORTHY TRAINING DIFFERENTIATOR I observed is the degree of regimentation and flexibility. U.S. pilots normally are restricted from "pushing the envelope"--mainly for safety reasons and to ensure consistency of training throughout a large force--but I detected a difference in attitude and freedom to explore new concepts, as well.

"I think we do have a different ethos in training at the squadron level, and that makes us effective in the air-to-air [arena]," said Sqdn. Ldr. Phil Eldridge, a 2OCU instructor who also heads the Fighter Combat Instructor course--which is the RAAF equivalent of the U.S. Navy's "Top Gun" and USAF's Weapon School (see p. 94). "We don't highly regiment our 'bandit' (aggressor) presentations. That's a big difference from other air forces, I think.

"We often allow very wild, aggressive maneuvering of our 'bandits' during air-to-air flows. I don't think that's very representative of what we'll see if we go to war . . . but training to the extreme is very challenging," Eldridge explained. "We take the gloves off and tell guys, 'You're cleared weird.' When you're fighting someone who's 'cleared weird,' you know that every time you try to lock [an enemy] on radar, they're going to split into singles, or one's going to drop 20,000 ft. of altitude, or turn into the [Doppler radar's] 'notch,' or dispense chaff. You work real hard to get them--and that takes you out of your 'safe' area; you peak with a [higher] level of skills. Your reactions become very fast. You're quick to manipulate the radar and its employment--and that's one of our strong points, I think. This forces you to think faster, while reinforcing a lot of basic skills."

He and other pilots here attributed the RAAF's air combat success to aggressive training, a focus on countering complex enemy maneuvers or "presentations," and a concentration on short-range radar tactics. Another subtle but important factor is the RAAF's emphasis on air combat skill-building rather than procedure-following. Squadrons make sure pilots develop good situational awareness, targeting techniques and defensive skills, rather than rote by-the-numbers maneuvers, Eldridge noted.

SOME MAY DISPUTE THE RAAF'S EMPHASIS on close-in fighter tactics, noting that modern air combat tactics have moved toward beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagements and away from "dogfighting." However, most nations' rules of engagement (ROE) dictate a potential enemy aircraft must be visually identified before firing a long-range missile.

"You really don't want to be in a visual arena anymore," Henman agreed. "The focus should be on weapons systems and rules of engagement that allow you to employ those weapons BVR. Why have a long-range Amraam if you're forced to get in close enough to see the other guy's tail flash? But, until we have different ROEs, or enough systems to get a positive ID at BVR, we're going to have to get into that visual arena. Then, all the skills we teach are required to come out of the battle alive."

He noted that, historically, every time a new missile seeker has been developed, an effective countermeasure to it is close behind, negating some advantage of BVR systems. In contrast, that limitation disappears in a close-in fight where a short-range gun or cannon is effective. "You can't jam a bullet," one pilot said.

"In the end, if you can pull your airplane to a [position of] leading the other guy, and he gets big in your windscreen, you're going to scare him. If you build a fighter that has no gun or no [short-range] missile capability, I think you're a bit foolish," Henman declared. Consequently, much of the 2OCU training program is dedicated to developing skills necessary for visual engagements.

Another effective RAAF pilot-building technique is "block training," where a squadron will fly exclusively air-to-air or air-to-surface missions for up to four weeks. "If everybody in the squadron is flying four-ship [air engagements] every day--talking, briefing, flying and debriefing nothing but four-ships--it gets us to a higher skill level," Eldridge said. "It's particularly effective for junior pilots; they can focus on just one set of procedures associated with air-to-air. Then we might go to a four-week block of air-to-surface training. [Next,] we'll probably fly an exercise that combines air-to-air and air-to-surface."

Henman, Clements and Eldridge were quick to also point out the RAAF's shortcomings in preparing for modern coalition warfare. "The one thing we really lack is exposure to large-force [air combat] packages and integrating with specialized force-multipliers, such as AWACS and electronic warfare platforms," Clements said. "We don't get to see a lot of these. And, as a relatively small defense-oriented force, we're not able to provide those on our own."

In recent years, though, RAAF units have deployed overseas and taken part in a Cope Thunder exercise in Alaska and Canada's Maple Flag, providing valuable exposure to large-force operations.

It appeared to me that the RAAF's air combat training program is closely aligned with those of the U.S., U.K. and other Western air forces, but is distinguished by subtle, perhaps important differentiators. The Australians are uncompromising in setting high training standards, and are adamant about flying a lot of hours to hone and sustain perishable skills. Those standards have come under scrutiny recently, since the RAAF is having a tough time recruiting and retaining enough pilots in its three operational F/A-18 squadrons. A relatively small national population, an airline hiring spree, and competing career opportunities during the last five years have led to a shortage of line pilots and 2OCU instructors.

"WE'RE UNDER PRESSURE AT 2OCU TO GET MORE people through the [conversion] program," Henman said. "If we take in nine students and consistently only graduate five, we have to question whether we're being too elitist. 2OCU has always been absolutely uncompromising about our graduation requirements, and that gives us a high-quality pilot. If we backed off our training standards, and don't put people through the difficult [regimen] we do now, we will graduate more pilots. I assure you, though, if the squadrons start losing airplanes, it will be traced back to training, and we'll be right back to our [stringent] requirements."

Ultimately, the winner of an air-to-air engagement comes down to small advantages in technique, skill and speed of thought--all elements honed through practice. Therein may lie the biggest differentiator, some pilots here believe. The RAAF dual-role fighter pilot trains for fewer types of missions than USAF, for example, becomes proficient with a smaller array of air-to-ground weapons, and--thanks to being a smaller force--can train with a keener focus.

"The RAAF flies more air-to-air sorties in a given time than U.S. crews do--not like our air force, which has to deploy a lot and fly around over Bosnia or Iraq, losing its edge," said Maj. Dan Spires, a USAF exchange officer serving as an instructor at 2OCU. "Here, they train to be flexible and to fit into coalition forces [by] adopting others' warfighting tactics and procedures."

That winning-edge "magic" factor remains somewhat of a mystery, even to RAAF pilots. "The consensus of U.S. Navy, USAF and Marine Corps exchange pilots is that the Cat-D pilot 2OCU graduates tends to be at a higher proficiency level than U.S. conversion graduates in a particular fighter type," Clements said. "That may be due to good screening or intense training or something else. We're not real sure what makes our graduates slightly more proficient."
Bear in mind that the RAAF Hornets have been upgraded with HMCS etc... so they're not standard. At the time of the article they were just standard "Bugs".
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Sri these are either indian or Pakistani sources. At the moment dont trust indian sites & Pakistanis are quoting indians. Believe me niether India nor Pakistan have got any news on this. Only thing for sure is that US is willing to sell advance weapons to India.
 

aaaditya

New Member
also there is an article on www.ndtv.com(but srirangan they mentioned a price of 6-7 million dollars,i think it would be more in the range of 60-70million dollars per aircraft.18aircrafts in flyaway condition rest to be built in india(how is that possible if it is to be a redesigned aircraft).the sales would however be through fms.
 

srirangan

Banned Member
SABRE said:
Sri these are either indian or Pakistani sources. At the moment dont trust indian sites & Pakistanis are quoting indians. Believe me niether India nor Pakistan have got any news on this. Only thing for sure is that US is willing to sell advance weapons to India.
That's what I said all along in my comment mate. Most sources from the subcontinent lack credibility in this regard.

Aaaditya,
Now don't get me started on NDTV ;-)
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
The news about US selling F-18s / F-16s and or nuke tech has NOT been confirmed by any US media, US foriegn dept, DoD. Whatever Pakistani media is reporting is just what we saw in India media, pakistani media (if there is one) just copied off Indian media and that is what what Indian side wanted... those news have NOT been confirmed by official entities so as far as I am concerned its' nothing but bullshit until we see something from DoD or atleast press releases from white house/indian government.

F-18 news first appeared in Times of India during later part of the day when F-16s to Pak news came out. From that moment on, F-18 news slowly but surely was copied by other Indian news sites and when they were done, it made its way to Washington Times, which did nothing different but copied Times of India.

On one hand people dismiss Pakistani media for its "biases and what not" and on the other hand they use it to show how credible it is (or how credible Indian media is for that matter that Pak media is confirming the same news) even though they are doing nothing different than copying what has already appeared in Indian media.

I think, it's time people grow out of their insecurities and wait for official confirmation before jumping the guns... what Indian media is doing is same as "my dick is bigger than your dick..." by publishing unconfirmed and untrue reports just to ward off news about F-16s to pakistan, its very childish of such well established media to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kilo_4que

New Member
Something that just shone to light is an old articlei once read regarding the russians being upset with india considering other sources for arms. Now i very much doubt that the russians would be entirely pleased if india purchased a squadron of F-16s from america where its closest ally has fighters at hand to provide.

It is funny how coincidently that after the confirmation of the F-16s to pakistan, there has been a sudden outburst of "deals" offered to india which have not been condirmed by CREDIBLE sources such as Janes and AFM. Please refer to such sources to solidify your claims.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
There is no need of refering to any source/media/website .... what media will write & show any thing to either earn money or hide their faces. Dnt believe any thing unless its coming out of the mouth of governments them selves specialy the seller, USA in perticular. Unless ,like F-16 sale to PAF, F-18 sell to India comes out of the state department's statments.

About india's plan to purchase new aircrafts. I have few questions.

1. Wouldnt Russia resent the purchase???

2. Wouldnt another front line fighter (Adding to Su-30MKI, Mirage-2000 & MiG-29) put burden on IAF also exceed its cost of maintainance etc...(too little to be left for perossonal & their training/development)???

3. According to a news artical, posted by one of our moderators, India has postponed the purchase of 126 ACs to facilitate Scorpian Subs for IN....what abt that issue???
 

A Khan

New Member
U.S. to Sell Jets to Pakistan; India Upset



[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
Saturday March 26, 2005 3:01 AM
[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]

AP Photo ISL101

By ANNE GEARAN

AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration rewarded Pakistan, an improbable ally in the war on terrorism, with a promise Friday that it could buy sophisticated U.S.-built F-16 warplanes. Pakistan's nuclear rival, India, immediately complained the sale would threaten its security.

The sales would represent a shift in policy after years of sanctions and harsh rhetoric from Washington over Pakistan's nuclear ambitions and what U.S. administrations have seen as tolerance for Islamic extremism. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, however, Pakistan has become an important partner in hunting suspected terrorists and cracking down on anti-American extremists.

Mindful of the fragile balance of power in South Asia, the administration also gave a green light to India for its own purchase of sophisticated weapons.

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the administration sent reports to Congress on Friday describing proposals to sell armaments to both Pakistan and India. Congress must sign off on the sensitive technology export.

Ereli said, ``We are looking to improve security and improve prosperity and improve development of the entire region as a whole.''

``Part of that is a decision to begin negotiations with the Pakistani government and Congress to sell F-16s to Pakistan and to respond favorably to a request for information from India for the possible sale of multi-role combat aircraft,'' he said.

U.S. defense companies are now ``free to talk to India about what they have to offer, and it will be up to India to decide what it wants,'' to buy, Ereli said.

The move allows Pakistan to finally move ahead on planned purchases of two dozen F-16s dating to the 1980s, before the United States blocked the sale because of Pakistan's increasingly obvious drive to build nuclear weapons.

There is no limit on future sales to Pakistan, a State Department official said on condition of anonymity.

Pakistan's information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, called the decision a ``good gesture by the United States'' and said the transaction would ease anti-American sentiment in the Islamic nation.

``This will fulfill our defense requirements,'' he said. ``We had been lagging behind (India) in conventional weapons. This will improve the situation.''

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she discussed sales of F-16s to both Pakistan and India during back-to-back visits to those countries earlier this month. Rice chose not to announce the Pakistan decision on that trip in part to avoid angering India.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since the former British colony was partitioned in 1947 into predominantly Hindu and predominantly Muslim states.

President Bush tried to head off Indian worries with an early morning phone call to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Calling from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Bush told Singh that the administration was moving ahead with the sale, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

At the same time, Bush told Singh that the United States was responding to India's request for information on its own future warplane purchases, Perino said.

The United States reassured India that it had the administration's blessing to buy F-16s, or perhaps F-18s. India is contemplating a multibillion dollar purchase of fighter planes, including U.S.-built or foreign-made aircraft.

The United States has sold a variety of weaponry to India since lifting a ban on arms sales three years ago that had been imposed after an Indian nuclear test. Last year, in a move seen as a coup for India, the administration gave the go-ahead for Lockheed Martin to give India information for prospective sales of F-16s.

Singh told Bush that sales to Pakistan would endanger security in the region, and expressed ``great disappointment'' over the decision, Sanjaya Baru, the prime minister's spokesman said.

New Delhi is worried that arming Pakistan with the advanced jet fighters would tilt the military balance in the region and could adversely affect peace talks between India and Pakistan. The F-16 sale to Pakistan is meant to remove a persistent irritant in U.S.-Pakistani relations. Pakistan struck a deal with the United States to buy the nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets 15 years ago, but the agreement was scrapped in the 1990s when Washington imposed sanctions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4893028,00.html

A non-South asian website also mentioning the F-18s... and i'm quite certain reading somewhere that Adam Ereli, the US spokesman who comfirmed the F-16 news yesterday, has said the same thing, just forget to post it here. But again even if the US has offered F-18s, what are the chances of full TOT? and given the price tag, what are the chances of India buying them? in my view not many. India will most likely get other things from the US then F-16s or F-18s... maybe PAC-3...
[/font]
 

A Khan

New Member
A every interesting point regarding the US offer to India: (source Reuters )

The Bush administration played down India's security concerns, and signaled a willingness to sell sophisticated fighters to India if it chooses to buy them in the future, but made no firm commitments. A U.S. official said India is contemplating a "very large" purchase of fighters, including U.S.-built F-16s and possibly F-18s.

Full article:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8005307
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
If u read what we have been saying u'll notice that we mentioned that some Pakistani as well as western sources are quoting Indians media. US state department did not announce any such deal. It would only become credible when they announce it.
 

aaaditya

New Member
well saber the sanctioning of f-16 for pakistan will definitely get the iaf and the defence ministry worked up ,it will be no surprise if the 128 aircraft is given top priority along with the scorpenes.:coffee
 

kilo_4que

New Member
SABRE, where you say disregard media metaphorically speaking, u need to be more precise as anything nowadays as a means of information can be called media. Further to add, not all the time do official government reports need to act as evidence of claims otherwise there would be no point in certain media such as Janes and AFM which im sure as the rest would agree with me on are probably the finest sources of military information.
 

srirangan

Banned Member
No matter what who says, India won't be procuring the American fighters. The IAF has already made it public that its first choice is the french jets.

The American offers, Govt Statements and the Indian media spin off is just an attempt to avoid any anti-US sentiment within the country.
 

mysterious

New Member
India considers purchasing F-16s

* Lockheed Martin offers ‘exclusive’ F-16s to India

NEW DELHI: India is considering buying F-16 fighter aircraft for its air force, a news report said on Sunday, just days after New Delhi protested a US decision to sell the same aircraft to Pakistan.

American fighter aircraft and weapons’ manufacturers “are willing to work with us and they have submitted some proposals to usâ€, the Press Trust of India news agency quoted Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee as saying in Calcutta.

“Naturally, we will discuss them (the proposals), and if the military aircraft and other weapons needed for our national interest are available from the US, we will certainly consider them,†Mukherjee said.

His statement came on Saturday evening, a day after US officials announced the sale of F-16 jet fighters to Pakistan and signalled that India could move ahead with its own weapon buys.

India expressed “great disappointment†over the US decision to sell fighter aircraft to Pakistan, and said doing so would tilt the military balance in the region and could harm India-Pakistan peace talks that began last year. India has bought more than $30 billion worth of Soviet and Russian arms since 1960. It has been diversifying the sources of its weaponry since the break-up of the former Soviet Union.

India’s aging fleet of MiG-21 fighter jets – dating back to the 1960s – is currently the backbone of its fighter inventory. On Saturday, Mukherjee said “cooperation in economic and other areas between the US and India has increased manifold, but so far there has been no defence agreement between the two countriesâ€.

Meanwhile, F-16 manufacturer Lockheed Martin has offered to build ‘exclusive’ F-16 warplanes for the Indian Air Force (IAF), much superior to any existing fighters in service world over.

“If India’s requirements are beyond any existing fighters, we are prepared to make upgraded F-16s to India’s specifications with a complete transfer of technology,†Mike Kelly, senior executive of Lockheed Martin, said in comments that assume importance after the US administration’s decision to clear sales of high-technology fighters to India and Pakistan. “We have in the past taken up building such exclusive fighters for the United Arab Emirates and are prepared to manufacture F-16s to India’s special requirements,†he said.

The F-16 deal, like the weapons-locating radars and new contract for the US Navy cover for Indian naval submarines in distress, is going to be concluded as a government-to-government deal under the FMS system, which would enable delivery of fighters on a fast track basis.

The deal, estimated to cost about $6 million to $7 million, projects supply of 18 aircraft in flyaway conditions and the rest 108 assembled in India under technology transfer. Analysts said the administration’s announcement on Saturday meant that along with the sales of the fighters, Washington may allow the sale of an entire array of weapons platform mounted on it, including beyond visual range air-to-air missiles and 100 kilometre standoff ground target engaging missiles. Lockheed Martin is currently manufacturing F-16s in two versions. While Block 50-52 was being supplied to US and European air forces, Block 60 was developed exclusively for the UAE. “We are ready to develop Block 70 for the IAF,†the Lockheed Martin official said. AP/NNI

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-3-2005_pg1_6

This is just amusing to read through! All I see is a weapons manufacturer desparately trying to receive orders to stay alive. They know that 126 aircraft requirement is good enough for LH-M to survive a few more years and that Pakistan wouldn't go for as many aircrafts; so they're trying to sell to both parties and last more than just 'a few years'. However, I dont see IAF officials being so naive as to fall for this bait. They're inventory and operational apparatus just wont do well with American hardware (for now atleast); and it would just be a logistical nightmare the way I see it. Better they stick to Mirages I'd say. On the other end, I think that PAF should press LH-M for an 'exclusively' configured F-16 production line for themselves! :coffee
 

highsea

New Member
Desperately trying to stay alive? Lol :rolleyes:

Pakistan had been asking for these AC for years. Now the US agrees, and it's only because LM is "desperately trying to stay alive". Sheesh. FYI, the F-16 production line has a couple more years of production, even without the new planes. And if the line did shut down, most of the workers would move over to the JSF, F-22, one of the many other projects at LM, or in the worst case, just go to Boeing. 2,000 workers can easily be absorbed in a company the size of LM, even if it just means not replacing workers that are retiring.

I don't think you need to start up any collections for Lockheed just yet. :coffee
 
Top