MRCA News and Discussion

[Cain Marko]

And for those who thought the Super Hornet might be cheap, here is some news. From the ongoing latin american MRCA saga:

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36...azil_09-35.pdf

Defense Security Cooperation Agency
NEWS RELEASE
On the web: http://www.dsca.mil Media/Public Contact: (703) 601-3859
Transmittal No. 09-35
Brazil – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft

WASHINGTON, August 6, 2009 – Today the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Brazil of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, a host of spare parts and munitions at an estimated value of $7.0 billion.

Nice ~ $ 200 million per a/c sounds quite cheap, wot? Tiffy, Rafale anyone? Of course, there are those who will say it includes all sorts of goodies, so lets hear it from the horses mouth:

If the Government of Brazil selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal, the Government of Brazil will request a possible sale of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, four F414-GE-400 spare engines, 36 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 36 M61A2 20mm Gun Systems, 36 AN/ALR-67(V) three Radar Warning Receivers, 144 LAU-127 Launchers, 44 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), 28 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), 28 AIM-9M SIDEWINDER Missiles, 60 GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), 36 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW), 10 AGM-88B HARM Missiles, and 36 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods. Also included are 36 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures. 40 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 112 AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoys, Joint Mission Planning System, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, ferry and tanker support, flight test, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

Notice the paltry amounts of weapons being sold (must be for test and demo only). Notch another $ 5 billion for weapons package at a later date. And lest we forget, I think india procured about 230 Su-30MKI for just about $ 8.5 billion including all sorts of support and TOT. Boeing better offer something much better for the Desis.

CM.

[ramana]

The EUM makes the planes form US fit for flypast and joint exercises only.

The INS Jal Aswaha(Hippo) formerly USN Trneton is to be used only for search and rescue missions in the aftermath of tsunamis etc. The Phalanx is to be maintained by US technicians (service or commercial).

In the mids 80s there was an idea to acquire C130s for kick starting a UPS kind of courier service in India. Nixed as dual use and might be used for commando raid on AQK labs.

These new C130Js acquisitons will be restricted to para jump trgs, displays etc.

Muuna is a supreme national interest of US. and not so in India's interest. So all arms are to help further Indian interest. US maal wont help that. There is track record of it.

look at flip flop on ENR.

Trust but verify is fine only when there are alternatives to protect the adverse consequences.

[NRao]

EUM? Perhaps someone needs to do some research before mentioning "EUM". The one that India "signed".

[NRao]

The INS Jal Aswaha(Hippo) formerly USN Trneton is to be used only for search and rescue missions in the aftermath of tsunamis etc. The Phalanx is to be maintained by US technicians (service or commercial).

In the mids 80s there was an idea to acquire C130s for kick starting a UPS kind of courier service in India. Nixed as dual use and might be used for commando raid on AQK labs.

These new C130Js acquisitons will be restricted to para jump trgs, displays etc.

Muuna is a supreme national interest of US. and not so in India's interest. So all arms are to help further Indian interest. US maal wont help that. There is track record of it.

look at flip flop on ENR.

Trust but verify is fine only when there are alternatives to protect the adverse consequences.

If there is such a time-line of documented futility, then some Indians are very, very stupid. And, the rest are even worse for being mere watchers from the sideline.

[NRao]

If and when India sells a BrahMos, I for one would hope and expect India to embed a "Indian property - do not fire" technology inside it.

Why not?

Makes eminent sense.

It would be incredibly stupid not to do so.

Now, the question I would have is would the US term a Paki F-16 as a USAF air craft. Best is to test it before paying for it.

Seriously, IF there is SO much lack of confidence it would be more than fair to insist on such a test. How Boeing or LM does it is their problem.

Even then, why is India even entertaining a F-16 or F-18. After purchasing a P-8I, C-130J-30, etc, etc, etc?

Incredibly stupid.

[a_kumar]

The gall of BO's posse on this thread (maybe I would have been sympathetic an year earlier wrt Bush's regime).....

Since US is the God that provides/encourages "freedom" in all countries , whatever that means , they think the following is "proper"
"We WILL NOT guarentee that we won't throw in a spanner or harass you"
"We WILL NOT guarantee that we will supply service/spare-parts in your need"
"We WILL NOT guarantee that there won't be any trojans or hanky-panky in delivered wares"
"Yes, I need your enemy in my bed 24x7"


quickly followed by..
"Oh btw, my bi1ch needs a boob job, can you please give her some silicone Doc?"
"How dare you not buy our soooper-doooper and expensive F-18! You are mad"

And then Genuinely . Really, Einsteins?

[Katare]

the terrorists were trying to fire smuggled missiles that had a FoF indentification that worked. now somehow this is an example of USA sold weapons have super secrate bugs that no one can detect. I would have beleived it if they bought those missile legally and they refused to fire. Any half decent country would have enough technical expertise to detect any mischief by CIA types.

How does it compare with russian missiles, if you beleive CAG, half of them have died on the shelf itself.

[putnanja]

Now, the question I would have is would the US term a Paki F-16 as a USAF air craft. Best is to test it before paying for it.

This happened to the Israeli aircraft. So either the chip recognizes all US products generically or it can recognize those sold to friendly countries (like Israel). If it is #1, then it will be a problem. However, that assumes that the US itself will never have to face pakistan in a battle, as it would be a double edged sword. The other option where only the US & close friends are recognized and TSP may be out of it. We need to verify that.

Given US' shennanigans in the neighborhood and its latent hostility towards India wrt Pakistan, I want to make sure we are covering all bases if we need to buy US equipment.

Also it is strange that the sanctions that were imposed just 10 years back has been forgotten so soon by our forces. And our politicians, in spite of latest snubs regarding ENR and other issues, continue to pander to US. Some elephants we are, if our memory is so weak!!

[Katare]

It is slightly amusing all the whines about how the US is arming Pakistan to 'take on' India, yet Pakistan is subjected to FAR more intrusive EUM than anything India does or will face.

So choose which side you believe:

1. EUM is toothless and the Pakis will use all their toys against India.

If it is so toothless, then why should India care about any EUM restrictions? They don't matter right?

2. EUM makes any weapons from US worthless except for 'flypast and joint exercises'

If this is the case, then all the things going to Pak are of no concern because they aren't fit for any use against India

Pick one already, but your applying both contradictory positions gets tiresome.

[a_kumar]

There was a news article earlier that the stingers obtained by hamas in palestine couldn't be used against F16s of IsAF as it recognized it as an american product.

Lets not go OT here.. lets not bring in smuggled/traded equipment and muddle the discussion. With CIA feeding so much of this equipment into gun-runners and black-marketeers and two-faced partners like Pakistan, I can see US's paranoia (or anybody in place of US).

Its a different thing if India (supposedly US strategic partner) buys it from US after paying the price (not charity). I would expect US to open up such measures and take India into confidence.

[NRao]

RaviBg,

The article mentioned that such a chip was introduced about 10 years ago. So, I suspect that it was an offshoot of the Great Paki stinger crap.

IF true, then India has a BIG problem. Paki stingers will shoot down Indian F-16s, but Indian US weapons MAY not work with any opposing weapons (all Pakis have to do is to part with their weapons at the right time - for instance give them to China).

a_kumar,

I would think the issue is about IFF.

[a_kumar]

a_kumar,
I would think the issue is about IFF.

IFF?

[Virupaksha]

a_kumar,
I would think the issue is about IFF.

IFF?

identification for friend or foe library..

[pgbhat]

ramana,
Correct me if I am wrong ....wasnt INS Jalashwa bought for training purposes .... based on which an Indian design can be created for future vessels?

You can move it to another thread if can't reply here .

[Rkam]

For the US selling aircraft to India is as much about establishing a position to influence the Indian Armed Forces and Indian foreign policy as it is about simple commerce. The question is whether India is comfortable with the US establishing such a position. The relationship is probably still to immature for that sort of strategic purchase. The US still has to establish a record of reliability as a partner and a supplier, before it starts winning strategic contracts.

[a_kumar]

a_kumar,
I would think the issue is about IFF.

identification for friend or foe library..

Got it!! Yeah.. that seems to be the case. I just do not fathom a scenario where US would have NO such capabilities. Uncle is too paranoid and devious that way.

It could be alleviated by opening up IFF/FoF capabilities to Indian Engineers and anything found outside this arrangement should penalize Boeing in $$$$

"Yeah.. right!"

[a_kumar]

The relationship is probably still to immature for that sort of strategic purchase. The US still has to establish a record of reliability as a partner and a supplier, before it starts winning strategic contracts.

Well put. We also need to have sufficient soft-power/clout to influence the US Congress/media.

We are not there yet. Indian lobby seems to have lost steam this year.

US congress is notorious for being meddlesom and unpredictable beast. The only way to deal with Congress is to have either one of US polity/media/pentagon/think-tanks reasonably pro-India. While the winds in Indo-US relations have been changing in past decade, it is miles away from being capable of guarding India's interests, unlike Jewish/Arab influence, heck even China and Pakistan have better handle with sauve commentators and writers.

....
....
Until India gets a foot in the US centers of power, any buy should be big enough to keep US engaged, but small enough to keep US from getting any bright ideas.

[NRao]

The concern that the US/US Congress may intervene to mold Indian foreign policy is genuine. There is no two ways about that.

However, while there is some amount of leeway provided by diplomacy (which acts both ways) there is no substitute for local development of core components that will actually enhance FP.

The thinking that 'Us will do ......' has been on BR for more than 10 years!!

MRCA specific proposal: ask ONLY for those things (from the US in particular) that can be replaced/modified to nullify US from thinking to influence Indian FP. Perhaps what the US vendors bring to the table can be deployed for the most part (say 80% at least) along the Chinese border (just thinking aloud)?

Is India/Indians THAT bankrupt that they cannot tackle this situation in 10+ years?

[Brando]

If the Government of Brazil selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal, the Government of Brazil will request a possible sale of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, four F414-GE-400 spare engines, 36 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 36 M61A2 20mm Gun Systems, 36 AN/ALR-67(V) three Radar Warning Receivers, 144 LAU-127 Launchers, 44 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), 28 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), 28 AIM-9M SIDEWINDER Missiles, 60 GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), 36 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW), 10 AGM-88B HARM Missiles, and 36 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods. Also included are 36 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures. 40 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 112 AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoys, Joint Mission Planning System, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, ferry and tanker support, flight test, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

Notice the paltry amounts of weapons being sold (must be for test and demo only). Notch another $ 5 billion for weapons package at a later date. And lest we forget, I think india procured about 230 Su-30MKI for just about $ 8.5 billion including all sorts of support and TOT. Boeing better offer something much better for the Desis.

The argument is misleading. The weapons included in the Brazilian deal are enough for a small nation to go to war easily; 60 JDAM's are enough to level a large city! How can that be for "test and demo" ?? Also all the extra munitions and additions add costs. The JHMCS is extremely advanced technology and quite expensive. And adding together things which you havent highlighted like "Joint Mission Planning system", "Ferry and tanker support", "flight test", "US contractor engineering", "Logistics support services", "personnel training" etc which are not trivial components and cost money!

The 230 Sukhois are much much more labor and logistically demanding than the F-18 making any disparity in upfront costs pay off in the long run in spares and fuel to get the aircraft airborne. The fly-away cost is still about $50 million! Besides even with the Russians the Sukhois dont come with a complete munitions package and ECCMs! And things like AIM-120C, ALE-45 and ALE-50 etc are the latest weapons that are currently being procured by the USAF itself. They are bound to be more expensive. You get what you pay for! Budget or reverse engineered or foreign copies aren't available for things like JDAM kits etc which are themselves relatively cheap and accurate.

[Brando]

And what is BO's? The only BO I know stands for Body Odor!

Am sure your rasor-sharp intellect will fill BO with pride!!

As will your "razor" sharp spelling!

[Ted Kotcheff]

What stops the Americans from adding their trojans to other MMRCA's eg Typhoon, in a grand conspiracy ?. How do we know that the Russkies/Israelis do not do the same ?

Don't know if Russkies are adding trojans now.
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2009/07 ... osses.html
This links says

Officially, Moscow has claimed that it lost only four aircraft during the Georgian campaign, a TU-22M Backfire bomber and three SU-25s, all shot down on the first day of the war (8 August). Russian Air Force officials say the four jets were downed by Georgian SA-11 SAM batteries.

Soviet/Russkie jets downed by Soviet SAMs

[NRao]

Soviet/Russkie jets downed by Soviet SAMs

SAMs (sold)that predate some date (let us say 10 years ago), cannot have such logic embedded in them.

I would think that stingers sent to Afghanistan during the Russian occupation would also fall in this category. I have to wonder if these were to reach the ME what would happen.

CNN :: 2007 :: U.S. helos in Iraq possibly downed by U.S. Stinger missiles

Sunni insurgents may have used U.S. Stinger missiles to shoot down four helicopters over Iraq, the most recent being an Apache helicopter near Taji on February 2nd, 2007. Taliban fighters, suspected of having Stinger missiles left over from Afghanistan's conflict with Russia, are reportedly cooperating with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.

[ramana]

ramana,
Correct me if I am wrong ....wasnt INS Jalashwa bought for training purposes .... based on which an Indian design can be created for future vessels?

You can move it to another thread if can't reply here .

If one doesnt get gun license in India one says its for display only.

[a_kumar]

Soviet/Russkie jets downed by Soviet SAMs

SAMs (sold)that predate some date (let us say 10 years ago), cannot have such logic embedded in them.

I would think that stingers sent to Afghanistan during the Russian occupation would also fall in this category. I have to wonder if these were to reach the ME what would happen.

Explains why Uncle was trying to pay for the Stingers starting from 1990's to until as late as 2005. I bet Uncle's only interest are the vintage kind . Price of buy back.. $183K each in 1993.

U.S. Increases Fund To Outbid Terrorists For Afghan Missiles

The Central Intelligence Agency's covert operations division will spend $55 million in a new effort to buy back more than 300 Stinger antiaircraft missiles it gave to guerrillas fighting the Soviet-backed Government of Afghanistan in the 1980's, Government and intelligence officials say.

The effort reflects the agency's fear that it may be outbid by terrorists and hostile governments in the black market for the Stinger, a lightweight, shoulder-carried, highly accurate antiaircraft missile considered the best weapon of its kind, the officials said.
.....
The new effort to reclaim the missiles, which was first reported in The Los Angeles Times today, followed a $10 million effort that proved insufficient, the officials said. The spending increase reflected the intensity of bidding for the weapons, they said.

The fate of the Stingers is a particularly messy aftermath of one of the cold war's great struggles. The C.I.A. and the Pentagon secretly shipped nearly 1,000 Stingers to the Afghan rebels from 1986 to 1989. At least 300 are now unaccounted for, officials say. The missiles were a small but highly significant part of a $3 billion covert action program, the intelligence agency's biggest paramilitary operation since Vietnam.

[Drevin]

Ok it seems that the RFP can change things significantly. So I wouldn't eliminate Grippen from the list just yet.

For example, the RFP could have explicitly stipulated a different engine for the indian MRCA. This immediately improves Grippen's prospects. Imagine a Grippen powered by a co-developed EJ230 with/without TVC.

Since khan will not allow non US engine or radar on its plane F16 is the highest risk and should probably bow out first from the competition. The latest pratt and whitney engine is a huge risk considering only UAE operates something similar.

[Philip]

Pak has now been given/assured of $15 billion with which to "fight terror" from the US.How much has the US given India to fight our "terror" from across the border? Not even a dime! The billions that Pak is getting from the US will simply vanish into arms and development of its nukes and missiles to be used against India.Pak can easily handle the Taliban with the leftover arms and ammo from the time the Soviets were in the region,as the country is simply wawsh wiht weaponry,especially small arms,RPGs,etc.

Buying any US weaponry with the EUM in place is akin to committing harakiri.Buying US weaponry even without an EUM is suspect,given the ability of the US Congress to impose sanctions whenever it wants to.This should be the first key criteria for the deal,buying the aircraft and associated weaponry,spares,etc.,from a nation that assures us of no impediment of supplies even if we are at war and even if we conduct further N-tests.The track record of the nations peddling their wares should be seriously bexamined and key weightage given to this factor.Ignoring this is not only sending $10 billion down the drain,but also significantly weakening the IAF at a criticla stage in the nation's security,keeping in mind the events of 26/11,when Pak has not brought a single mastermind to book and the US has done bugger all to help us,only looking after its own interets eliminating those Taliban leaders who are fighting it in Afghanistan.

The incoming British Army chief has let the cat out of the bag,in that NATO and the US will stay in Afghanistan for at least 40 years in "nation building".
What poppycock! It is a squt in the subcontinent in similar manner as the former east India Co. did,coming first to trade,then taking over the country through the British Raj.So now we have the "nation builders" of the US & co. ,who go about killing more inncoent civilians than the enemy,experts at "nation building"!Tell that to the Vietnamese my friends,they'll tell you a different story.

The US aircraft should be eliminated from the race first and a mix of a European aircraft plus additonal MIG/35s/SU-30MKIs also be bought to stop the "numberplating" of IAG squadrons.The IAF need at least a strength of 1000 combat aircraft by 2015 to met present and future challenges.I cannot see us building or buying more than 180 LCAs,as the MK-2 version has yet to be developed.The MK-1 will serve us just as the HF-24 did,in limited number,with limited capability.300+ SU-30MKIs and SU-34/35s,120+ MIG-29/35s,160+ upgraded Jaguars and MIG-27s,160 Mrages and MMRCA (Rafales if selected),plus 60-80 5th-gen fighters coming on stream to progressively replace the upgraded existing aircraft like the MIGs and Jaguars,would be a good force to have sometime between 2015-2020.

[vardhank]

@ Philip
Agree, but I'd look at even more aircraft. We need a 'healthy' squadron strength of 45, but a projected 60 if we're really to control the IOR. It's how many, about 30 aircraft a squadron, including spares? So about 1,800? Whoa!

[Philip]

That would need double++ the IAF's budget.I doubt that it will get enough to even reach 800 aircraft.The problem is how to attain both numbers and sophistication in the force,aircraft acquired at a reasonable cost and easy to train,support and maintain.The LCA was supposed to replace the 400 MIG-21s we had thanks to the Soviets,but its failure to be developed in time,has resulted in the technology gap appearing,which if the MK-2 version does not emerge very soon,will see the end of the programme sooner rather than later.Production capabilities will also hamper its future,as large-scale annual production is going to be very difficult.

[Anabhaya]

We must remember that the first idea was to buy 125+ Mirage-2000 jets and be done with it. But knowing the French are going to charge you the sky and earth for it, and given that Rafale maybe a better choice the only way to make the French charge less for Rafale is to announce a MMRCA competition.

Oh and buying the F-18 is not entirely out of the question yet. GoI might look forward and make a political decision. We can always stock spares required for a two year period to overcome sanctions if any plus some of the production is going to be local.

[nelson]

Problem is stock required for two to three years of spares would be a few days WWR or requirement in action/ war
At the best SHornet will be a bold gamble.

[GeorgeWelch]

There was a news article earlier that the stingers obtained by hamas in palestine couldn't be used against F16s of IsAF as it recognized it as an american product.

You all really need to dial down the paranoia around here.

They couldn't get a lock because the planes were fitted with stuff like DIRCM

Nope, that isn't what I was talking about. Just search on the web and you will quite a few articles on this:

Hamas' Stinger Missile Arsenal Failed to Launch Because of Embedded ID System

The source said Hamas smuggled four Stinger systems in 2008. The source said the Hamas military deployed the Stingers against Israel Air Force AH-64 Apache attack helicopters during strike missions in the northern Gaza Strip.

"Our gunners couldn't fire the weapon," the source recalled. "A notice came up on the display saying 'friendly aircraft.'"

Those articles are complete fiction.

How do I know? The Stinger DOESN'T HAVE A DISPLAY. It has a glass sight with no electronics in it. There is an audible tone to indicate a lock and that's it.

There is an OPTIONAL IFF component, but IFF depends on the codes for the day being programmed into it. There is no autorecognition of aircraft types.

Besides, with only a 128x128 IR sensor, such a feat from long distance is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE. No image recognition capability is good/robust enough to be worth fielding.

See here for a link on how the IFF works:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 18/Ch2.htm

[NRao]

I think this ability to lock weapons for use against friendly forces is going in the wrong direction. IF this capability is true, then India should buy US product and gleefully support upgrade of ALL US products with Pakistan. Then, no US product can be used against each other and a war will break down to MKIs meeting aged air crafts of the PAF. It should not take more than 2-3 days to dominate the Pakistani skies - I would imagine as a arm chair Air Marshal.

Unless of course the US decides India is the bad country and Pakistan the Pure One. Then of course might as well go back to listening to Bollywood music and watching cricket.

Another question arose in my mind: if IFF was that trivial why in hell can we all not put that tech in RPGs and even rifles? All one has to do then is point the weapon in a particular direction and the "display" should tell you who is there. But then the enemy might get that tech from a dead comrade and use it against you?

In A'stan there have been US planes who have bombed UK soldiers. So what gives?

The only argument I agree with as I post is that the US Congress is more potent than any US weapon system. But there too I have always stated that it is only Indians that fear that thinking. Or it could be a fear strategy to buy something else? Whatever, the cat is out of the bag: P-9I, C-130J-30, etc. (Does not mean automatic purchase of the US planes. IAF, IMHO, should select what is best for them, there are enough Indian politicians to sell India after that (IF IT comes to that). Not the job of the IAF.)

[GeorgeWelch]

Another question arose in my mind: if IFF was that trivial why in hell can we all not put that tech in RPGs and even rifles? All one has to do then is point the weapon in a particular direction and the "display" should tell you who is there. But then the enemy might get that tech from a dead comrade and use it against you?

In A'stan there have been US planes who have bombed UK soldiers. So what gives?

IFF is NOT trivial. Those articles are complete bunk.

IFF depends on a coded challenge/response system. Of course the codes have to be changed frequently or the enemy would just copy the codes and always appear as a friendly to your system. Thus week-old codes are worthless.

The idea of some sort of 'image recognition' is just nonsense. The closest the US has to that is NCTR with some AESA radars, but even those aren't perfect, but they have far more sophisticated sensors and far more computing power than you could ever hope to pack into a Stinger

[JaiS]

RaviBg, GeorgeWelch, NRao and others, regardless of which aircraft gets selected as the MRCA, thank you all for an informative discussion.

[svinayak]

The incoming British Army chief has let the cat out of the bag,in that NATO and the US will stay in Afghanistan for at least 40 years in "nation building".
What poppycock! It is a squt in the subcontinent in similar manner as the former east India Co. did,coming first to trade,then taking over the country through the British Raj.So now we have the "nation builders" of the US & co. ,who go about killing more inncoent civilians than the enemy,experts at "nation building"!Tell that to the Vietnamese my friends,they'll tell you a different story.

This is the original plan - to control the access to the Central asian landmass. This was the desire of the British for the last 200 years

[srai]

If the Government of Brazil selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal, the Government of Brazil will request a possible sale of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, four F414-GE-400 spare engines, 36 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 36 M61A2 20mm Gun Systems, 36 AN/ALR-67(V) three Radar Warning Receivers, 144 LAU-127 Launchers, 44 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), 28 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), 28 AIM-9M SIDEWINDER Missiles, 60 GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), 36 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW), 10 AGM-88B HARM Missiles, and 36 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods. Also included are 36 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures. 40 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 112 AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoys, Joint Mission Planning System, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, ferry and tanker support, flight test, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

...

The argument is misleading. The weapons included in the Brazilian deal are enough for a small nation to go to war easily; 60 JDAM's are enough to level a large city! How can that be for "test and demo" ?? Also all the extra munitions and additions add costs. The JHMCS is extremely advanced technology and quite expensive. And adding together things which you havent highlighted like "Joint Mission Planning system", "Ferry and tanker support", "flight test", "US contractor engineering", "Logistics support services", "personnel training" etc which are not trivial components and cost money!

...

The package seems ideal for attaining FOC of the F/A-18F into the Brazilian air force. It gives a wide variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons and enough spares to have the new force to test out weapons for tactics and still have enough for isolated skirmishes (as in most fighting seems to be nowadays) and be seen as a deterrent. It is, however, not enough to sustain any bigger campaign lasting more than a few of days at most. Most of the stocks of each of these weapons inventory will be built up over time (probably within 5 years in batches) to reach an ideal numbers to sustain a war as thought out in the Brazilian doctrine.

[Gerard]

This is the original plan - to control the access to the Central asian landmass. This was the desire of the British for the last 200 years

How does Afghanistan control access to the Central Asian landmass?

There are road and rail links from European Russia and China.

[ShauryaT]

This is the original plan - to control the access to the Central asian landmass. This was the desire of the British for the last 200 years

How does Afghanistan control access to the Central Asian landmass?

There are road and rail links from European Russia and China.

Because it is the weakest link in the chain, among available options and hence the costs are relatively manageable.

[Cain Marko]

The point about SHornets being extravagantly expensive remains. The support deal is pretty standard and the weapons package is paltry, lets take a look at it:

28 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM),
Cost: $ 84 million @ $ 3million per missile (Bahrain deal)

28 AIM-9M SIDEWINDER Missiles
Cost = $ 3 million @ $ 110K per missile (Paki Deal)

60 GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM),
Cost = $ 2.4 million @ $ 40k per unit

36 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW),
Cost = $ 12.6 million @ $ 350k per unit

10 AGM-88B HARM Missiles
Cost = $ 3 million @ $ 300K per unit

So the weapons package = $ 100 million out of the fabulous $ 7 billion. Yes that is paltry.
Even if it is somewhat reasonable for the FAB, it hardly would work out for the massive needs of a much larger force such as India, which tends to have missile stocks in the 1000s.

What kind of price tag can India expect here? Of course there are economies of scale and 126 a/c should put a dent in that price but how much? Damn, the Rafale and tiffy look affordable compared to this ripoff.

CM.

[GeorgeWelch]

The point about SHornets being extravagantly expensive remains.

Not really. You would have to compare to the equivalent offers from Gripen and Rafale, and we don't have those.

I could point this article:
http://translate.google.com/translate?p ... ry_state0=

that says:
Rafale 50 million Euro (71 million USD)
SH 55 million USD
Gripen 50 million USD

Further this quote comparing the SH to the Rafale

The Super Hornet won in logistics, as their parts and their armaments are cheaper and easier to be found