When you are talking of 1 squadron each, then no. But if you are talking about 5 squadrons each, then yes. Commonality goes to the dogs after 5 squadrons. Beyond that, it makes no difference.
If you go for 6 squadrons, you need 3 bases. If you go for 12 squadrons, you need 6. Cost of 6 bases of modern jets today will be similar. So it doesn't matter if you have two types or one.
For other bases, they send out detachments, which will cost the same. So a Rafale can operate in a F-35 base because the detachment will carry all the necessary equipment from base to base.
Cost of an MRO facility is not expensive compared to the cost of the LCC of hundreds of jets.
The cost of MRO is just one aspect and an expensive one when you have to setup the infra for two different types, which is unnecessary if you have only one type of fighter.
Also what about the others I pointed out in my previous comment? Why did you skip them?
You have confused yourself between Hornets and Super Hornets. They are two entirely different aircraft. If the F-35s aren't coming in to fill up the space for Hornets, they are replacing the aging Hornets with Super Hornets. The numbers are not big enough to quality as a replacement program.
The USN doesn't like the F-35 program, that's why they are going for another as a SH replacement.
F/A-XX: The U.S. Navy's 6th Generation Strike Aircraft...in 2035?
Different aircraft belonging to the same family, which means same infrastructure and training. It's a natural progression. Like LCA Mk-1 and Mk-2. It's not a replacement, but capability enhancement. So again, your argument is illogical.
Did the USN launch a separate competition to select the SHornet? Then how can you say they selected the Shornet just because they wanted a different fighter compared to those used by USAF?
It's too early for the F/A-XX program to say if there will/(not) be any commonality between USAF and USN requirements. So let's not speculate.
Also, stop comparing USN with IN. The amount of budget and industrial partnership they have is the stuff of dreams for IN. Your theory of separate fleet and requirements vis-a-vis IAF is not at all practical, at least for a decade or even two.
Change that to 600 Sea Harriers and 500 Rafale-Ms. Those are the numbers we are talking about.
Piddly numbers don't change anything, but when you start talking about huge numbers, enough to make an entirely new air force, you need complete abandonment of commonality, especially for India where IAF needs aircraft operating over mountains while IN needs to operate over the sea.
What are you talking about? I was replying to your comments about 'our country's destruction' or something along that line, if IAF and IN operate the same aircraft.
Again, i ask you, how did that affect those countries?
(stop pulling 500-600 fighter numbers out of your ***, like that guy who says India needs a 1000 squadrons)
Yes, it does. Or else, the guy with the bigger number creates ASR.
It's obvious that with the USAF wanting 1700 aircraft and the USN only 260, we know who's actually running the program. So how is that independent?
It means the IN will be one of the largest air forces in the world. So it's obvious they will plan their procurement based on what they need, not what the IAF wants.
It's always the case for any country other than the US.
WE DONT HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY, its simple as that.
There was no competition for the SH. You are confusing Hornet/Falcon competition with the Super Hornet.
Exactly! The USN selected Hornets over Falcons because it met the requirements, They would have selected the Falcons if it was the other way around, even if they were operated by USAF.
Then how can you say they selected the Shornet just because they wanted a different fighter compared to those used by USAF, since SHornet was a natural progression of Hornet?
They have come to the realization that the F-35 program is flawed. They should have gone for three different designs.
Yes, the US should have gone for different fighters, but the planning was done during the time they were also thinking about
sequestration. It was a bad move and they're paying the price for it.
All thoroughly researched. Haven't you heard of Theater Commands?
Oh, I know about theatre commands alright. Just not your version of its interpretation.
In 2001, the IAF projected its requirement under the Medium Range Combat Aircraft (MRCA) deal for single-engine jet fighters. The scope of the deal changed dramatically when the government said that they wanted to include twin-engine fighters in the IAF's fighter-fly off. Since twin-engine jets are heavier and more capable, "MRCA" warped into "MMRCA," or Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft, a deal which was ultimately scrapped altogether in 2016, after an incredible 15-year process.
Since the other thread was closed, i'll answer this here.
I've already agreed that IAF needed a
M-2000 class fighter. Quote me an IAF officer saying they need an SE fighter explicitly, separate from the LCA, before the MMRCA was launched.
