No, it didn't think it would meet the specifications as set forth in the tender. That's a legalistic determination and has nothing to do with how they view the capabilities.
For example, during the first KC-X competition, the USAF decided they liked the KC-30 better than the KC-767 even though it didn't meet some of the requirements they themselves set forth in the RFP. So they chose the plane they liked better. Oops, legally they were in the wrong because they didn't follow the rules they set forth. The IAF is trying to avoid a similar fiasco.
Proof. Where is the proof of this accusation of yours?
Which is clearly what we were talking about. Standard SHs first to be upgraded at a later date.
What makes you think that the Shornet has a leg up on the Typhoon and Rafale in this respect? Both of them could also be produced to current specifications in 36 months.
So the opinion of the largest operator is 'selective cherry picking'?
When we talk of the IAF's opinion of the Shornet which led to its rejection, you basically dismiss it as being rigged. Conversely, you ask me why I consider the opinion of the largest operator as cherry picking- Why would I give a rat's ass about what the USN thinks of the Shornet when the operator I'm interested in (the IAF) has rejected it?
You need to study the history of the F-22 more. The kinematics weren't what made it expensive . . .
Why was it even required? It added very little to the overall capability of the F-22 if one was to go by your theory. Even a F-117 would've sufficed then would it not, since stealth was the primary requisite if one is to believe you, and airframe design that hinders good supersonic performance doesn't matter.
Why do they do it? Because it's worth it.
However it is also why they're excited about the F-35 and it's much more durable stealth coating.
Yes, its worth it, which is why the order size was reduced from 800 odd to 187. Clearly they couldn't get enough of it. PM's can promise the moon. The proof will be when the F-35 enters service and they have data to back up what they're claiming right now.
Yes, you can overcome drag with more thrust. You find that surprising?
No I don’t- but it emphasises the poor basic design of the Shornet, a fighter that carries its carrier legacy over to the land based version as well, bringing along a design that is uncompetitive against fighters like the Typhoon and Rafale (which despite having a naval variant, isn't handicapped performance wise, like the Shornet).
Correct. And also why the USN has no interest in it. It exists solely to check one datapoint on the IAF list of requirements.
And those requirements (which you so blithely dismiss) are the prerogative of the IAF- why do they need to give a flying f**k about the USN's requirements? Is the USN going to fight the IAF's wars for it?
If the Shornet cannot meet those requirements then sorry, it doesn't make the cut. Better luck with some other US ally whose requirements mirror those of the USN, like Australia.
You aren't paying attention to what I said.
You didn't put it across well enough then- what was it you said ? That the F-35's ToT would've been as good as that of the Shornet? I don't believe you and I don't think anyone else here will either.
Except the amount being spent isn't 'bulk-up' money, it's 'core of the future' money, and the F-35 will be far better to be a core of the future.
To spend so much on obsolete fighters solely to 'bulk-up' boggles the mind.
I find it truly amusing that you refer to the Typhoon and Rafale as obsolete while extolling the virtues of the Shornet ! I now understand what marketing folks are like- they believe what they peddle is truly the best, even if it is slam bang in the mediocre category of the same generation that the person is ridiculing. If it boggles your mind that India is spending so much on the MRCA, so be it. I couldn't care less. As far as I, an Indian citizen, am concerned, they're making the right choice instead of chasing a mirage (not the Dassault one either).
Too late for what?
To be of any real use when it is badly needed.
Kartik wrote:Are you even aware of the JSF consortium's rules ?
Then you wouldn't be trying to say that India will become a partner nation. Israel isn't a partner- it’s a participant. India would be the same.
Development will be ongoing and India will undoubtedly have their own requirements (perhaps weapons integration). As you see, countries got partner status for as little as $110 million. You really think they would deny India who will invest so much more?
Secondly this gets back to where you misunderstood my earlier comment about ToT. I don't know how much of the F-35 they would be willing to share BUT they would obviously be willing to share what would have been included in the SH/SViper package, which would have met the MRCA requirements.
So you still get the same or better ToT than you get for ordering the EF/Rafale.
There is so much conjecture on your part that its not worth discussing this any more with you. If you believe that India would've been given the same level of technology as it would've been given with the Shornet, then you're welcome to hold that view. I don't buy it, never will. We've seen far too often how restrictive the US has been with technology transfer clauses. I don't fault the F-35 itself- it may well end up being a fine piece of kit- but I don't believe that it fits into our scheme of things for now.
You must stop confusing what makes sense with what legalistically has to happen. There is minimal overlap between the two. For instance they couldn't even CONSIDER bid price before the downselect. Some people have questioned the wisdom of such a policy, but it is the policy and they have to follow it whether it makes sense or not.
If they'd considered the bid prices before the downselect, then there were other fighters that would've been in a better situation than even the SHornet. The objective was first select which equipment meets your requirements, and then select the cheapest of them. Question its wisdom if you will, it is the law. It is intended to prevent a situation from arising where some bidder offering a cheaper product can undercut another bidder, even if the cheaper product doesn't satisfy the armed forces' requirements fully. The Shornet would've done that.
Exactly, can't have it demeaning the almighty process.
So now you admit that you're basically trolling here. This is my last reply to you.
The second has no relation to the first.
Yawn…I don't care about your opinion and will not bother to reply any further. I'll just be happy in the knowledge that the IAF is getting its requirements met.
And if the need was desperate, they would have gotten over themselves and let it happen.
They haven't had any problem sole sourcing more MKIs.
Is the secret to simply split the order into smaller bite-sized chunks? If they had ordered 40 more there would have been no problem. Then another 40 and still no problem. And another 40 and voila! You're at 120!
Those smaller follow-on orders happened because the IAF would've shrunk to PAF levels if more MKI's weren't ordered. That wasn't the case when the IAF was actively seeking Mirages. Anyway, I've seen others trying to explain this to you and you don't understand it still. Either you're dumb as a doorbell or clearly choosing to ignore what others and I have tried to explain. Either way, not my concern anymore.