Lockheed-Martin offers F-35 to India pending US-gov approval

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The role of fighter jets are diminished in the 21st Century, ie overrated . Aerial Dogfights are just no longer part of modern warfare since you can blast your enemy out of the sky from miles away. The defense contractors want us to believe we still need them like we used to.

+1

[Pooky 3,347]

The role of fighter jets are diminished in the 21st Century, ie overrated . Aerial Dogfights are just no longer part of modern warfare since you can blast your enemy out of the sky from miles away. The defense contractors want us to believe we still need them like we used to.

If you have unrestricted Rules of Engagement, I'd agree. But that's going to be a rare occasion, due to the types of operation being carried out and the opposition being faced.

Remember, they said the same thing before Vietnam. The standard aerial platform for most of that conflict was the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, the C and D models for the USAF and the J model for the USN and USMC. None of them carried an internal gun, because the "accepted " thinking was that a gun was obsolete and that missiles would do the job. Then the US government slapped the RoE on the military, specifically the one about visual identification of the enemy, which made the long-range missiles next to useless and the short range ones were left to show their less-than stellar performance.

Within 3 years, M-D brought out the E-model Phantom for the USAF, recognisable for the six-barreled 20mm cannon in the nose. It was the best-selling model of the plane by far.

Now, times have moved on and the missiles are much better, with off-boresight launch capability and pilot's helmet mounted sighting, but they are only tools. If political intrusion rears its head in a conflict, the pilots may again find that they cannot engage at 100 miles, they need to close to visual range and then they're going to need a plane that can manoeuvre and that has a gun. At least the RAF recognised this with the Typhoon, which had a gun, but it wasn't operational (??!!) to begin with. Now it is.

The problems with the Thunderpig are that it can't carry enough internally to remain stealthy, one of its big selling points, it doesn't meet its required mission specs and it will be tasked to go up against platforms with more weaponry and better manoeuvrability. If you think it's just a few countries that are getting top-line Russian hardware these days, you'd be mistaken.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Rafale it is, then.

Good, the IAF don't need to get bogged down in the Thunderpig fiasco.

BTW, on your statement on Rafale--I checked Wiki, and Typhoon also has navalised version already available.

[Pooky 3,347]

BTW, on your statement on Rafale--I checked Wiki, and Typhoon also has navalised version already available.

You believed Wikipedia on that one! Sorry, had to laugh.

There is a nice sketch of a navalised Typhoon in Indian navy colours, but that's all it is, a drawing. If there was a navalised Typhoon, the Royal Navy would not be buying the Thunderpig. The BAE part of E.urofighter say it can be done, and not too expensively, but it's just a drawing board exercise at the moment.

Wish it was real.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

You believed Wikipedia on that one! Sorry, had to laugh.

There is a nice sketch of a navalised Typhoon in Indian navy colours, but that's all it is, a drawing. If there was a navalised Typhoon, the Royal Navy would not be buying the Thunderpig. The BAE part of E.urofighter say it can be done, and not too expensively, but it's just a drawing board exercise at the moment.

Wish it was real.

the nickname "thunderpig" may be part of the reason why India doesn't want it--as it has to face another fighter, JF-17 [b}Thunder[/b] on both fronts, it decided it didn't need the name-confusion.