Kartik wrote:Fully capable in what way?
Carrying out the mission assigned to it.
Kartik wrote:It didn't meet the IAF's requirements !
Again certain arbitrary requirements whose actual importance is somewhat dubious.
There's no reason for it to take 36 months if India wanted it sooner.
Boeing is on record as having stated that the first deliveries would be made 36 months after the deal was signed.
Because that's what the deal calls for.
Kartik wrote:Yet, 36 months was the minimum.
Clearly not. They delivered the first Australian SH in 27 months so obviously faster is possible.
Kartik wrote:So accelerating to supersonic 50% faster is a minor advantage? If that is so, why is the F-22's performance touted so much? I don't care about why the USN didn't show any interest in it.
Why not? Because it doesn't fit your narrative? They are the biggest operator of it, shouldn't their opinion on the matter be worth something?
Kartik wrote:I could simply say "Why don't you go sell this crap of the non-importance of kinematics to the USAF who seemed quite enamoured with their F-22s?"..
The USAF is far more excited about the F-22's stealth than they are about it's kinematics (although obviously they love those too).
Kartik wrote:it seems like you're tailoring your argument based on the lack of kinematic performance of the F/A-18, ignoring what else it represents- on a hot and humid day at a high altitude airbase, an F/A-18 with lower thrust is likely to have lower payload and fuel capacity than a Typhoon.
Completely false. The supersonic acceleration issues are partly due to the wing being optimized for low-speed operations (like landing on a carrier . . .). And the SH's engines are already more powerful than either of the euro's. Strong engines + wing optimized for low-speed lift = great liftoff capability in hot and high conditions.
Kartik wrote:So the answer is that because the USN had no other choice to make- it was a captive customer.
Of course they had a choice, they could have ordered the Rafale
Kartik wrote:Filling numbers is a first priority- but ToT is a big priority as well. And we all know that the F-35 will not match the Euro offers in this matter.
Another falsehood. The SH offer met the ToT requirements, there's no reason the F-35 couldn't too. If nothing else, they could offer the exact same ToT you would have gotten with the SH.
Kartik wrote:Nor will it be available quicker than the Euro fighters.
That's a given . . .
Kartik wrote:Nor will we have as much autonomy on how we operate it and against whom
If India ordered 126+, they would be a full partner.
Says who? is that an official LM line or just something you're saying?
Partner is based on money invested. Buying that many jets automatically puts you at the table.
Just pointing out the cold, hard facts. The IAF is blowing a ton of money on a fighter that will soon be obsolete.
I want to be polite, but this is absurd nonsense. I wonder if you'd said that if the SHornet was selected.
I know the answer and hence your statement is just that- nonsense.
If you had been paying attention, you would know that I've ALWAYS questioned need for the MRCA, BUT that IF you were going to go forward with it, it would make sense to go with the SH as it would be available soonest and cheapest.
You have GOT to be joking.
The MRCA is going to be a 15 year process to add 126+ jets. When it became clear the F-35 was going to be delayed, the US acted quickly and ordered another 124 SHs. THAT sort of swift and decisive action is what happens when there's actually an urgent need. A 15-year process for an 'urgent' need indeed . . .
Processes that work in the US doesn't necessarily work in India. Its slower, there's more red-tape and there was a competition to be carried out- the USN's job was a lot simpler. Simply buy more of a fighter that it already operates.
The IAF had and has the same option!
They could have bought more Mirages. They could have bought more MiGs. They HAVE repeatedly bumped up orders for MKIs. Those didn't seem to run into any red-tape. So don't say you can't do it, you ALREADY HAVE when the situation warranted it. And apparently they don't feel the situation warrants any great haste in this case.
Kartik wrote:the MRCA was a lot more convoluted, with evaluations, in-country and out-of country, RFIs, RFPs, changing DPPs, and all that.
Exactly, it could have been streamlined a ton if it had to be.
Kartik wrote:It was a GoI decision, not an IAF one.
If the need was urgent, the IAF would have sold the GoI on the need. They didn't. That should tell you something.
Kartik wrote:Read up more on the MRCA competition itself to see how the IAF's request to buy Mirages was turned down on the premise that a competition was required for such a large order.
How much of a competition was there for the MKI?