[Jeroen]

I would think that in most, if not all democracies, the military hardware is never a choice left to the military. Government and parliament will always have other criteria. Such as local assembly, knowledge transfer, counter orders, (e.g. we buy your plane if you buy our cars, ships etc.)

It is like that in countries such as the UK, France, Germany, The Netherlands and even in the USA politicians will be weary of interests from different states. Senators will back military spend if it brings jobs and investment to the senator's state.

If you want be cynical, or at least simplify, it means that by and large all these weapon systems from different suppliers are more or less similar. The real selection criteria have nothing to do with the weapon system as such. More or less any would do a good enough job. Other interest and criteria prevail.

Jeroen

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

It is like that in countries such as the UK, France, Germany, The Netherlands and even in the USA politicians will be weary of interests from different states. Senators will back military spend if it brings jobs and investment to the senator's state.

Just looked up wikipedia. For a tiny country, Netherlands seems to have a pretty decent Air Force -> 52 F16s and 35 F-35s (on order).

NATO duties? Fear of Russian invasion?

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Just looked up wikipedia. For a tiny country, Netherlands seems to have a pretty decent Air Force -> 52 F16s and 35 F-35s (on order).

NATO duties? Fear of Russian invasion?

The F35 will replace the F16, so ultimately we go from 52 aircraft down to 35 in due course.
I am not familiar with how things work within the NATO in detail. But there are a few things I do know. Each member state is required to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on its military force. Trump has been bitching about most, if not all NATOmembers not keeping to this commitment. The Netherlands is below as well, but has been increasing its spend over the years. We have always been very involved in just about any NATO undertaking. Only way a small nation gets to have some say and impact in an organisation such as NATO.

Also, within NATO agreements exist about who does what. So certain countries will invest more in certain capabillities and other countries will invest in different capabilities.

So in general our military hardware is a reflection on the main roles and responsibility we have within the NATO. We are a tiny nation, but of strategic importance due to our geographic locationa and infrastructure. In many different ways the Netherlands is a Gateway into/from Europe.

Some might even argue that the Dutch are still concerned about what happened with our airforce during ww2. We were vastly outnumbered and outclassed by the German Luftwaffe. In fact most of the Dutch Airforce was destroyed in the very first hours of the German invasion on the ground and never made it into the air.

Jeroen

[N.r.K]

A genuine doubt to the experts.
How good or bad are UAVs?
Wouldn't it be better for us to develop/buy a stealth UAV, keep a larger number of these presumably cheaper units and keep a smaller squadron of manned planes?

Or is the human element indispensable in the sky?

[aim120]

We could use uav, but no government yet is willing to offer us stealth UAV let alone UCAV(and our drone tech is much worse then some hobby company drones(Just have to look at the concepts at AeroIndia)
Also, If a country like Iran could bring down a a highly classified stealth drone such as a RQ170, my guess is they are only good for striking ground to air, when the airspace is clear of enemy planes and other air defense.
The weakest link in UAV is its wireless communication link which can be jammed.
For dominating the skies you will still need a manned fighter, based on the current Uav out there.

China is leaps ahead of us in both manned and unmanned aircrafts.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by N.r.K

A genuine doubt to the experts. How good or bad are UAVs? Wouldn't it be better for us to develop/buy a stealth UAV, keep a larger number of these presumably cheaper units and keep a smaller squadron of manned planes? Or is the human element indispensable in the sky?

UAVs are ideally suited for counter insurgency operations and reconnaissance. Pakistan already has armed UAVs called Burraq



Problems with UAVs:

- UAVs have low payload (1 tonne) while a manned fighter aircraft can lug around 6 tonnes of bombs and missiles.

- UAVs can only be used in an environment of complete air dominance (like US has over Afghanistan or Pakistan over their own country). There should be no threat from SAMs or other fighter aircraft.

Stealth UAVs used by United States are not armed (I think).

[arunphilip]

So, does this news report about Boeing making the F/A-18 Super Hornet in India mean this decision is completed? Or is that decision separate from this?

Boeing India, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Mahindra Defence Systems on Thursday entered into an agreement to manufacture fighter aircraft F/A-18 Super Hornet in the country.

Boeing India, President, Pratyush Kumar, HAL Chairman and Managing Director, T Suvarna Raju and Mahindra Defence Systems, Chairman, S P Shukla exchanged a ‘Memorandum of Agreement for ‘Make in India fighter’ at the on-going ‘DefExpo’ near here.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

So, does this news report about Boeing making the F/A-18 Super Hornet in India mean this decision is completed? Or is that decision separate from this?

No. It means if F/A-18 is chosen, then Boeing will build the planes with HAL & Mahindra. Lockheed Martin has a similar tie-up with Tatas for made in India F16s.

https://in.reuters.com/article/airsh...-idINKBN19B0AI

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by smartcat

No. It means if F/A-18 is chosen, then Boeing will build the planes with HAL & Mahindra. Lockheed Martin has a similar tie-up with Tatas for made in India F16s.

Ah, got it. For a moment I was surprised that this decision was closed off this quickly, but that was just me making the wrong assumption. Thanks for clearing that up

So it's just demonstrating their commitment to "Make in India" and building partnerships to show exactly how they will execute it, if they win the tender.

[PGA]

Sometimes I feel that discussions in the media and various forums that goes on towards purchase of military equipment is akin to discussion that one would have towards buying a car or any other high value item at a personal level. Its often discussed that should India go for Rafale or F-16 or MiG XXX etc, the attitude that gets displayed is 'oh I have the moolah, what's the deal'.

Buying military equipment is not a 'for benefits' business deal. And selling military equipment is also not a 'for profit activity' alone.Why should a country give you its years of hard labour in technology development, just for the money! In the past, did we ever buy/ got military equipment on the basis of pure business deals on the contrary some of our past purchases have been in exchange for bags of potatoes and wheat.

All defence deals are strategic in nature, capability and cost can be compromised to an extent for strategic interest. We may want the moon, but will our neighbors let that happen easily, they have the clout and the ability to scuttle a deal not only from abroad but from within as well. Any defence deal and foreign policy are inextricably linked. Only when both of them work in sync will it result in fructification.

DPP and DPM are outcomes of past scandals and with a purpose to keep the powers that be safe by keeping the whole decision making process fuzzy.

Insofar as need for manning the fighter is concerned, just consider if we were to remove human from the cockpit how much simpler the aircraft can be. The near future as I see is a swarm of fighters few manned and majority unmanned going about completing the mission.

Regards

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by PGA

Insofar as need for manning the fighter is concerned, just consider if we were to remove human from the cockpit how much simpler the aircraft can be. The near future as I see is a swarm of fighters few manned and majority unmanned going about completing the mission.

How right you are. Drone swarm technology is being tested now after being designed in the recent past. The USAF even conducted a test in 2016:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38569027

The US military has launched 103 miniature swarming drones from a fighter jet during a test in California.

Three F/A-18 Super Hornets were used to release the Perdix drones last October. The drones, which have a wingspan of 12in (30cm), operate autonomously and share a distributed brain.

A military analyst said the devices, able to dodge air defence systems, were likely to be used for surveillance. Video footage of the test was published online by the Department of Defense.

"Perdix are not pre-programmed synchronised individuals, they are a collective organism, sharing one distributed brain for decision-making and adapting to each other like swarms in nature," said William Roper, director of the Strategic Capabilities Office.

"Because every Perdix communicates and collaborates with every other Perdix, the swarm has no leader and can gracefully adapt to drones entering or exiting the team."

The drones were originally designed by engineering students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and were first modified for military testing in 2013.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by jraj

Like I stated already,these deals are too simply too big and unfortunately for IAF,they will have to make do with whatever has been pushed on to them.

I fully agree with you on the political & bureaucratic ineptitude in being clear about our objectives and having a 50 year vision. However with the exception of the Avro HS748 no Govt has ever forced a sub optimal selection on the IAF to best of my knowledge. And The HS748 was the mistake of Krishna Menon alone who signed an MoU without even a phone call with the IAF.

Originally Posted by N.r.K

A genuine doubt to the experts.
How good or bad are UAVs?

Smartcat and Aim120 have both explained this well in their answers. To this I would add that thus far UAV's have only been operated not only in zones of complete air superiority but also where the enemy is a non-state actor without access to sophisticated SAMs and ECM suites. We do not know how a UAV would fare if used against China or Israel or India. Notice with all the chest thumping Trump has not used UAVs against North a state with relatively old armament but properly organized nevertheless. The challenge with a UAV is that the arms are connected to the brain & eyes by radio link - always a weak spot.

Originally Posted by smartcat

No. It means if F/A-18 is chosen, then Boeing will build the planes with HAL & Mahindra. Lockheed Martin has a similar tie-up with Tatas for made in India F16s.

The Americans especially Boeing have moved fast and thoughtfully here. By bringing HAL into the tent Boeing might have an edge.

Originally Posted by locusjag

How right you are. Drone swarm technology is being tested now after being designed in the recent past.

Thank you for sharing this. Swarm Drones designed for one time use could be a big thing in the future of man's desire to make war.

Originally Posted by AJITHAAA

I assume the new bonhomie with the Americans is the reason behing scuttling the Rafale deal. Hope they do not end up buying some expensive american junk. Sadly politics trumps real needs of the nation.

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

I did watch a video somewhere about how American fighter jets are generally more delicate vs their Russian counterparts.

I don't agree with a lot of American foreign policy but from experience I back their aviation hardware on ruggedness and reliability. The geo-politices of ToT is the same with all and (now) worst with the Russkies.

I think India would be better off pursuing their development of the FGFA with Sukhoi.

The old Soviet friendship is a thing of the past. Sadly. The Russians are as difficult on negotiations as any one else without the follow on customer support that is needed. We are dealing with a very different animal today. Most support services and spares get routed through Rosoboronexport a notoriously bureaucratic & obstructionist animal.

Disclaimer: I am no expert

We're all arm chair generals here

We are paying the price of not having developed any indigenous aeronautical capability of consequence 57 years after the HF-24 Marut first flew. Since the late 1970s the only successful aircraft we can talk of is the Dhruv/Rudra. In comparison between 1961 and 1974 we designed and flew the HF-24 Marut, the HJT-16 Kiran, basic trainer, the HPT-32 Deepak primary trainer and the Ajeet (improved Gnat) and put all into successful service. Like a good Indian, I needless to say, have have my strong views on this sorry state of affairs. And the IAF has to carry some of the blame here too.

[no1lives4ever]

Originally Posted by N.r.K

A genuine doubt to the experts.
How good or bad are UAVs?
Wouldn't it be better for us to develop/buy a stealth UAV, keep a larger number of these presumably cheaper units and keep a smaller squadron of manned planes?

Or is the human element indispensable in the sky?

I was told by a fighter pilot friend that there is not a very good case for any further development beyond 5th generation fighters and that UAVs will take over sooner or later.

It is more a factor of time. I personally would like to think of the cruise missiles as a 0th generation fully autonomous fire and forget UAV.

The pilot's role in modern warfare is to execute a mission and handle any challenges along the way. With the development of AI and machine learning, we will see more and more of those roles getting automated and thus allowing autonomous UAVs and drones to take over a lot of the functions that are done by soldiers and pilots in modern warfare. I feel that over a period of time, we will see humans move more from actual mechanics of war into becoming generals and officers who control the electronic army of the future.

We may not see a complete takeover by UAVs anytime soon, but we will surely see more and more UAVs and drones being used in addition to existing aircrafts. A fighter aircraft is heavily limited because of the requirement of having a human pilot in a seat. You need to make it reliable, have an ejection seat, operate within performance envelopes that is suited to a human, make it big enough to carry a human to enemy target and back, etc.

UAVs and drones can do way more than what a fighter aircraft is capable of.

We already have small hand launched drones available for photography and fun. With advancement in machine learning and AI, we will soon be able to equip our soldiers with a set of tiny drones that they can toss into the air/around a corner and get to see beyond visual range. Now make those same drones communicate with each other and form a swarm and think about the possibilities. Add AI/machine learning to that swarm to warn soldiers in real time about enemy and what they are upto.

The military is already uses ammunition that costs money and which can only be used once. Now imagine attaching tiny and cheap drone capabilities to ammo. Modern technology already allows us to create a drone bomb that does not cost a whole lot more than a dumb bomb with a electronic detonator.

I could come up with tons of such ideas on how drones and UAVs can change the face of war in future. And I am pretty sure that all countries, India included are doing extensive research on these lines.

-- no1lives4ever

[PGA]

Do we really need new fighters at all, generations are gone one would say after watching this video ???

Please have a look at the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecClODh4zYk

and then read the article

http://time.com/5230567/killer-robots/

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by PGA

Do we really need new fighters at all, generations are gone one would say after watching this video ???
Please have a look at the video
http://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=ecClODh4zYk
and then read the article
http://time.com/5230567/killer-robots/

Over the next 50 years robots or drones or A.I. equipped guided missiles will in all probability play a greater role in our defence set up. Of that there can be little doubt. The technology this speaker talks of will be real but it is too early to say in what configuration it will enter the Armed Forces, how it will actually be used in war when first contact is made with the enemy and what will happen when the enemy exercises its own innovation and good planning.

But will the drones and AI replace the human being – maybe not. After all ground can only be occupied and controlled by the humble infantry foot soldier and in war & defence occupation is 99.99% of the law as Pakistan discovered in Siachen and we in Aksai Chin and the Chinese in Arunachal Pradesh. This post is not meant to be a criticism of PGA’s post as it is but natural for most of us to get influenced by theories put forth every time a big new technology makes an appearance.

Allow me to expand…..

There is an ocean wide difference between defense and war and within war killing other humans or destroying an asset is but one aspect of the many other things that are equally or more important. In defence whenever any philosopher starts to proclaim that the wunderbar weapon has been invented which will dominate the battle field and make certain other weapons and the human obsolete then give it a healthy discount. Almost always these philosophers are folks who have never been responsible for their country’s defence, never patrolled the LoC, never even flown a peacetime patrol sortie. They are simply technologists excited about their invention - and one cant blame them for being excited. A lot of new technology often first starts with the military especially in advanced economies and therefore is often operating in a grey area of how useful it is or is not.

In 1957 with the advent of the first guided missiles Britain’s Defence Minister one Duncan Sandy’s declared all manned aircraft obsolete and actually cancelled all existing military aircraft programmes save two. And this when guided missiles were only a tenth as clever as they are now. All Mr Sandys achieved was to kill off his country’s then robust aeronautical industry. In the early 1960s Premier Khrushchev of the USSR declared all naval vessels obsolete because he assumed that any future war will be a nuclear one and any ship that is not a ballistic missile carrying submarine has no future. A huge shipbuilding programme was cancelled and the Soviet Navy needed upto the early 1980s to even partially catch up with the West.

So coming to defence and war. Defence which is the active component 99.99% of the time is a continuous stream of acts of deterrence which at times can break into a warning shot and still further a localized skirmish. The key attributes are flexibility, constantly assessing and acting on an ever changing situation and often times coping with brand new situations that have never been seen before. War too has many attributes of which killing is but one – occupation is the primary one, breaking the enemy’s morale and ability to communicate is another, the threat of over whelming destruction (often more effective than the destruction itself) is a third followed by many others. The need for flexibility, thinking on your feet and constantly coping with new situations is where the human operator comes in be it the humble infantryman or a fighter pilot or the captain of a frigate. I cannot say where technology will be 75 years from now. But I am quite sure few on this forum will agree to remove all the Army & IAF from the LoC and replace them with robots, drones and AI.

How about replacing both pilots in all commercial airliners with AI. That actually is well within current technology. Would you do it?? - Why not? Some Air Forces, such as the USAF , have been flying real aircraft re-configured as drones, in dozens, for over 25 years.

And most importantly your enemies are not sitting still. They too are clever, patriotic and innovative and capable of out of the box thinking. The defeat in Vietnam of the US Forces with all their over whelming technology is but one example. The use of IEDs by the opposing forces in Iraq is another.

Drones will come - actually they are already there - but for the next generation I would like the fighter pilot to patrol at least some of the time.