Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Alamo, May 4, 2012.
So First world powers are basically going to make India a fighter now.
They couldn't just buy the existing export fighters like they had for decades why again?
How in the world is this an appropriate use of American taxpayer dollars?
And India is a hell of a lot more of a friend than Pakistan, China, or Russia.
I don't know. If I was trying to befriend India, I'd go and start a joint US-Chinese military project. You know, with the US military-industrial complex's ability to fuck up everything it touches and all. "Business as usual" in the DoD is apparently "purposeful sabotage" in the PLA.
The Indian Ocean is the largest ocean that the CONUS doesn't have a direct coastline with. India has the most coastline on the Indian Ocean out of any country. The US and India have signed a joint logistics agreement which can be used in times of war. India already has a few decades of experience operating carriers, and is planning to build its own. The navalized version of India's Light Combat Aircraft is intended to help India project power at sea and from the sea. You might similarly ask why it's useful for the US to station marines in Australia, or to maintain a base in Japan, or to mend ties with Vietnam, but there are reasons for it. For the foreseeable future, those reasons are only going to grow.
In the event of Sino-Indian conflict in the Indian ocean or adjacent areas, it's possible that the Chinese might threaten or pressure any supplier country that supplies weapons to India not to do so. If India can maintain a reasonable domestic defense production base, then its defense capabilities can remain afloat in spite of such pressures.
Why the fuck would we want to back India over China?
Besides the oogah boogah Chinese evil boogeyman propaganda
Because all of our call centers are in India?
India needs us to compete with China. China does not need us to compete with India.
It's easier to cut deals with the one that actually needs you.
Its going to be bigger, richer and more powerful than China in a few years.
It is a democratic and free state compared to China that shares many of our cultural views on freedom ect.
Its independance and origins are attributed to a man who chose peaceful resisitance and negotiation as opposed to Mao who used war and genocide to form China in his image.
Now which country do you think is a better possible freind for America?
Im going to go with India
Doesn't the LCA use at least a US engine?
Yep, the F404
I dispute the entire first sentence as even remotely possible You are clearly a Sinophobe.
I'd say that the mere fact that the demographics situation of China is.... poor, to say the least (a 1.6 fertility rate is not a sign of long term economic stability - heck, in all likelihood, the median Chinese age will exceed that of the US in the 2020s), gives India a strong chance of overtaking China in the coming decades.
China has various territorial conflicts with neighbors, and claims the entire South China Sea as its own, which is patently unacceptable to the rest of the world. Therefore China is going to bring about a containment response against it, unless it changes its ways.
That would require India to get its shit together, which it has not done and has not demonstrated the capacity for, and also require the demographics situation in China to be a result of natural causes instead of reversible legislation (which it is). In fact, the entire demographics situation is based on the fact that poor people have lots of babies and these babies require resources and time which keeps poor people poor and fucks everything up-it's the reason why India and China started as similarly West-oppressed shitholes but are in much different positions nowadays, at least in part.
It makes total sense for America to back India, since it's a potential ally and a counterweight to China, but not because it's some sort of sleeping giant waiting to become an unstoppable juggernaut that can overtake China. As much as it rankles Indians.
Yeah, and this too.
because India is a democracy and China isn't?
because China might want to invade Taiwan who we like and India is lined up against Pakistan who we basically don't.
Edit: also Tianman Square.
^ Yeah, sinophile.
Indian military procurement makes US procurement look like a paragon of efficiency, to the point that this project cooperation can only make sense on the political level and not anything else...
- India speaks English. There are many native tongues in India, so Indians use English to facilitate communication. In China, they use Mandarin, and not many Americans can converse in that.
- India is a democratic nation, founded by a pacifist. The People's Republic of China is not democratic, and the party in power essentially deposed a democracy.
- China is ruled by the Communist Party of China. Looking at stereotypical American reactions to communism does not help here. The history of the CPC does not help PR much either.
- India is not trying to assert control over a huge chunk of the Indian Ocean. China is trying to assert control over a huge chunk of the South China Sea, and the USA does not like the possibility of shipping routes being disrupted. Not to mention that some of the contested areas are uncomfortably close to other nations. The Paracel Islands are pretty close to Hainan Island. The Spratly Islands, on the other hand... are pretty close to the Philippines and Malaysia, which explains quite a lot about why the Chinese claim is controversial.
- China has conducted espionage on American technology. It has also reverse-engineered American technologies it could get its hands on, such as shot down UAVs and stealth technology from the downed F-117.
To summarise: Backing India instead of China will be more popular politically. The US military also balks at collaborating with someone who wants to steal secret technologies and has successfully done so.
Err, MJ is an actual Chinese native. Granted, his country is in the wrong and fully deserves the lockdown it may be about to get, but that's not really relevant.
Because nobody in the First World is interested in designing a successor to the Sea Harrier that isn't the F-35?
Well, this is ironic then, given that I'm of both Indian AND Chinese ancestry.
There is just no way, politically, that America would get involved with China in a project like this. They saw what happened with the Su-27 Flankers that the Russians sold the Chinese; China went and made its own copy, the J-11, and started selling that and undercutting Sukhoi. That isn't so likely with India atm.
Also, it's all about building goodwil with India. India is a large, burgeoning market. Yes, it will never be the juggernaut that is China. It doesn't have to be, however.
Also, as a Malaysian citizen, I find that the Spratlys are pretty much claimed by everyone in Southeast Asia. China, however, has been building military outposts there, as per what I've read in Newsweek (last bit of news I had a while back was some sort of refueling station FOB, and apparently there were plans to build airfields capable of supporting J-11s. Given that this was close to 6 years ago when I read that article, I'm admittedly unsure how far work has progressed, but I do know that the countries making up ASEAN are wary of China's claims, so far from home).
Notice that I was pointing at FBH, not MJ, and his talk of China invading Taiwan.
EDIT: Hum. I believe I used the wrong suffix. Sinophobe, is what I meant.
Never are they if you noticed. Their much delayed program is the Indian version of the Light Fighter program we had that lead to the F-35 in the first place or If you want to go old school, the F-16/F-18. Most of the world has no carriers and the Cold War been over for nearly 20 years. The odds we need a jet that can take off from a grass field or a km long stretch of Highway or what not is highly fucking unlikely so S/VTOL is not needed. F-35C, the non-hover like a insect, my god it's melting the runway, non-problem laden one works just fine. We have helicopters for a reason.
If anyone is going to make another VTOL design I want something like the SHIELD Transport in Avengers. That is one badass looking airframe and it makes sense as it purpose is to drop troops off in field regardless of terrain and shoot shit on the way to and from as needed like a gunship should. You want a light multi-role fighter the F-35 is not a bad place to start just avoid the stupid we saddled it with by trying to make it sixteen planes in one.
Right like the Russians and US ever gave a shit about what China thinks. China has no teeth so even Europe can provide planes no problem.
We're going to make their plane for them, negating why you have a program of your own, the learning experience. They might as well license the Griphen or something along those lines so they have a dependable light fighter and China can't raise a stink about it being Russian or American even though they license Russia's new jets themselves to copy them.
Other problem the F-35 had is that it was designed as a USAF platform first, with the navy and Marine requirements shoehorned in later.
What's forgotten about the F-4 and the F/A-18, the joint fighter, fits in all services success stories, is that these were Navy platforms that were then adapted for Air Force use - while the F/A-18 was never picked up by the USAF, plenty of air forces use it as their main fighter.
Separate names with a comma.