India's MRCA Update

[walter]

India delays fighter request

New Delhi has decided to put on hold the eagerly-awaited global tender for its $6 billion procurement of 126 multirole combat aircraft until a bilateral nuclear co-operation deal has been cleared by US Congress, writes Shyam Ravindran.

Sources within India’s defence ministry say the government favours the foreign military sales purchase of US-sourced aircraft, such as the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or Lockheed Martin F-16, to replace its Mikoyan MiG-21s.

Such a selection would form part of a wider strategic partnership between India and the USA, although the defence ministry source says this will not disturb the country’s existing strong military ties with France. India last month requested that Dassault provide technical help in upgrading its air force’s existing fleet of 53 Mirage 2000H fighters to the enhanced 2000-5 standard.


http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/04/205823/India+delays+fighter+request.html

I do believe this is the first article I have read concerning this procurement that states US aircraft are favored by the government, so I thought it would be interesting to post. However, I haven't read this elsewhere, and while it states that "sources" within India's defense ministry favor a US aircraft, that still is far from concrete and I am sure there are others in high power positions in India who favor either French or esp. Russian offerings.

Nonetheless, I am sure it is a hotly debated topic among the decision makers in India, and if the US Congress does come through on the deal signed by Bush and Singh I believe there is a very good chance either Lockheed or Boeing (probably Boeing) will get the order.

[MIGleader]

er...havnt indian related subjects been banned?

[walter]

sorry, if that is the case then a mod can delete this thread.

Why were Indian related topics banned? This isn't a China-India comparison thread, just an update on Indian military procurement.

[KYli]

Because there are a lot of flame war, whenever people talked about Indians related topics they become childish;) . We already have quick a few members got warn, certainly until everyone cool down a bit. We should avoid it temporary.

[DPRKUnderground]

Why would they go after American aircraft? They won't go for the F-16 obviously b/c Pakistan will be operating them. And I think Australia and Canada will the them how bad the F-18s will do w/out an aircraft carrier.

[walter]

Well, the implication from this article is that the MRCA deal could go to the US pending the US Congress decision on the nuclear deal between Bush and Singh. It would mostly be a political decision if India decides for a US aircraft.

As for F-16 vs. F-18, I agree India would probably prefer the F-18s over the F-16s for the reason you mentioned. Also, this would be the FA-18E/F model probably with AESA radar--so there is no comparison with the older C/D modles operated by Canada or Australia.

Still, this MRCA story has been all over the place for a couple of years now so I would not put too much emphasis on this one recent story. We will just have to wait until the formal RFP is issued by India and wait for the results of the ensueing competition.

[vincelee]

Anyone else thinks that Indian would split the MRCA order between a US vendor and a French one?

Tech transfer of the F-18 with AESA is quite an attractive option, but the IAF heavily favors the M2k-5

[ahho]

i dunno, since AESA is really that good (as people had said), i think they should go for it and try to intergrate it into its indigineous plane

[PakTopGun]

The IAF operates a vast array of aircrafts, ranging from 60's Mig21 which it locally produces alongside the Mig27.. and newer Su 27(which have had problems) and operates Mig 29 and Mirage 2005 with a sprinkly of Jaguars and Harriers here and there.. Could it realistically incorporate another aircraft (US) into its air force inventory without creating a problem having soo many aircrafts of different types, and all the infrastructure required to maintain and operate such fleets... Also, Indian pilots are notoriously bad in the flying capabilities and would require extensive training to fly such aircraft...what would the logic be in procuring yet another aircraft like the F-18:coffee:

[crazyinsane105]

In my opinion it would be a logisitical nightmare for the IAF. Here is what the IAF already operates:

Mig-21
Mig-23
Mig-27
Mig-29
Mirage 2000H
Su-30
Su-30MKI

Throw in a 100 odd American aircraft and you'll get the picture. Not only would it take years to procure the Super Hornet, but a ToT can make things even worse: the Indian engineers are having enough trouble as it is with the MKI line. Whether or not India will have enough technicians to conduct ToT's for both the MKI and SuperHornet (and above that, the Superhornet being an American aircraft, can compound these problems) is quite doubtful. IMHO, the IAF shouild go for the Mig-35 and have it fitted with the AESA later on.

[Siddharth]

Why not go for MKI instead. production line is already in place, cheaper then any MRCA contestant. Just have to fit in AESA.

Since original demand for Mirage 2000-5 canot be fulfilled then india can continue with MKI program.:confused:

[crazyinsane105]

Why not go for MKI instead. production line is already in place, cheaper then any MRCA contestant. Just have to fit in AESA.

Since original demand for Mirage 2000-5 canot be fulfilled then india can continue with MKI program.:confused:

That's what I was thinking. Why go for the SuperHornet in the first place? The MKI is going to get AESA capability in several years anyway. And if India is having some trouble with the MKI production line, India's problems can be compounded even more with an American aircraft production line.

[Indianfighter]

newer Su 27(which have had problems) and operates Mig 29 and Mirage 2005 with a sprinkly of Jaguars and Harriers here and there..
There have been no problems with the operations of the Su-30 MKIs. A production-line exists in India for their manufacture.
Could it realistically incorporate another aircraft (US) into its air force inventory without creating a problem having soo many aircrafts of different types, and all the infrastructure required to maintain and operate such fleets...
Boeing has offered to reduce the cost of their contract by including a manufacturing unit of the F-18 in India, that shall also include joint manufacture of spare-parts and their export to other nations.
Thus, the problem of maintenance and logistics procurement shall not arise.

Most of the avionics of the Mirage-2000, MiG-21 Bison, MiG-23 and MiG-27 are indigenous and often similar in configuration, and thus do not pose problems in logistics.

The same arguments made by you may also be made in case of the PAF that operates Mirage III and Mirage 5, A-5Cs, F-7s, F-16 and shall operate JF-17 and J-10 jets int the future. That is greater than the number of current aircraft in the IAF, and only one less upon induction of the MRCA and LCA in the future.
Also, Indian pilots are notoriously bad in the flying capabilities and would require extensive training to fly such aircraft...what would the logic be in procuring yet another aircraft like the F-18
The attrition rates of only the MiG-21 aircraft is poor in the IAF. The attrition rates for all other aircraft is low, on par with other nations such as Pakistan or western nations.
In my opinion it would be a logisitical nightmare for the IAF. Here is what the IAF already operates:

Su-30
Su-30MKI
There shall not be any other version of the Su-30 in the IAF other than the Su-30 MKI. IAF is exchanging old Su-30 MK with Russia to procure Su-30 MKIs.

Anyway there is little difference in the logistics of the Su-30 MK and Su-30 MKI and thus cannot be considered as separate aircraft.

[maglomanic]

IndianFighter,
you still didnt answer crazyinsane's question. Why would IAF go for super hornet when MKI's will get AESA and have everything in place with a decade of experience behind it?

[Siddharth]

IndianFighter,
you still didnt answer crazyinsane's question. Why would IAF go for super hornet when MKI's will get AESA and have everything in place with a decade of experience behind it?

Its like this, if USN has F-14 which can carry more payload and is more powerfull F-18, then why build F-18? Why not build new F-14 with AESA and modernized avionics? In my openion its all money game.:confused:

MKI is a heavy weight long range fighter/bomber, and IAF requirement was for a medium range fighter to compliment it. sort of they were asking for Mirage 2000-5. but things didnt go that well and politics and money came in.

[maglomanic]

Its like this, if USN has F-14 which can carry more payload and is more powerfull F-18, then why build F-18? Why not build new F-14 with AESA and modernized avionics? In my openion its all money game.:confused:

MKI is a heavy weight long range fighter/bomber, and IAF requirement was for a medium range fighter to compliment it. sort of they were asking for Mirage 2000-5. but things didnt go that well and politics and money came in.
F-18 was developed way after F-14 (begining of evolutionary life of one airframe where the other was ending).Still alot many people consider it to be a wrong decision which involved politics. F-14 drivers hate F-18s guts to this day(some to the point that they would rather Iranian tomcat kick USN hornet ..ofcourse not seriously though)..lol.
But to be honest if india goes for F-18 then it will be total political decision (not even the one involving money on Indian side). Acquiring Migs for naval use then going for a similar fighter and then having another capable fighter in the same class which all belong to same era is bad decision IMO. It might come back to bite IAF. MIG-29 OVT sounds like the best solution for IAF.

[PakTopGun]

The same arguments made by you may also be made in case of the PAF that operates Mirage III and Mirage 5, A-5Cs, F-7s, F-16 and shall operate JF-17 and J-10 jets int the future. That is greater than the number of current aircraft in the IAF, and only one less upon induction of the MRCA and LCA in the future..

The mirages III, mirage V , the A-5's and F-6 /F-7 are being gradually phased out. nocking out 5 planes from their service.. I dont see any comparison.. in the end you'll find the PAF only flying the F-16, F-17 and F-10 in the immediate near future... :coffee:

[Indianfighter]

The mirages III, mirage V , the A-5's and F-6 /F-7 are being gradually phased out. nocking out 5 planes from their service.. I dont see any comparison.. in the end you'll find the PAF only flying the F-16, F-17 and F-10 in the immediate near future... :coffee:
Its unlikely that the PAF shall decommission the F-7 aircraft after only 13-18 years in service. The Mirage aircraft of the PAF have undergone or are undergoing upgrades. These upgraded jets were also acquired in the early 1990s upto 1996 and are thus unlikely to be decommissioned soon.

The MiG-25 was decommissioned from the IAF on 1st of this month. The MiG-23 shall be decommissioned by next year, and older MiG-21s are also being decommissioned.

By 2012, IAF shall be composed of the following jets:

125 MiG-21 Bison
MiG-27
67+29 MiG-29 (sent to upgradation to Russia for $888 million)
Mirage-2000 (being upgraded to Mirage-2005 standard)
126 MRCA contract winner
28 LCA
190 Su-30 MKI (2012 is the schedule set by Russia last week,instead of 2014)
Jaguars (being upgraded)
Sea-Harriers

If the 126 MRCA is either MiG-35 or Rafale, then the number of distinct aircraft in the IAF shall be 8 (France has assured India that the maintenance of Rafale is similar to the existing facilities of the Mirage-2000 in India).
IndianFighter,
you still didnt answer crazyinsane's question. Why would IAF go for super hornet when MKI's will get AESA and have everything in place with a decade of experience behind it?
The original tender proposed for the 126 aircraft was for MRCA or Medium Range Combat Aircraft.
Thus, initially F-16, MiG-35, Mirage-2005 were considered. But I never comprehended why Gripen was considered, because that would be an injustice to the LCA project. The Gripen--like the LCA-- is an interceptor or an area-defence jet and not a medium range aircraft.

Now aircraft such as F/A-18 E/F and Eurofighter typhoon are being offered that are Deep penetration strike aircraft, which the Su-30 MKI already is.

Thus, the question is not "Why does the IAF require F/A-18 when the Su-30 MKI shall get AESA radar", but rather "Why does the IAF need foreign DRCA jets like F/A-18 E/F and EF-2000 Typhoon when it already operates the Su-30 MKI ?"

[Gollevainen]

you still didnt answer crazyinsane's question. Why would IAF go for super hornet when MKI's will get AESA and have everything in place with a decade of experience behind it?


Why? becouse in the end it's all down to politics and buisness...
Why did finland buy F/A-18 hornets even if the intial requirement called for small modern single-engine interceptor?
Real world isen't some strategic computergame where a single "general" makes all the calls and selects the best possiple and most suitable equipment based on the exact operational requirements. If India feels that it's a good way of improving their relations to USA by buing the Super Hornets, then they will select it regardless if some other plane would be more suitable in the bigger picture. Requirements are not written in stone, if the situation changes or something new comes in hand it can be changed.

Ofcourse the requirements are not completely just frames, very often the ultimate decision is made quite closely following the orginal plans. Also in general, altough there can be several manufactures from different countryes to offer their products, a past expereinces and political commitments often narrows the choises to only few. But in Indian case, the long experience of operating equipments from several operational philosofyfield exclude it from this generalization. I wouldn't be suprized at all if they select the American plane in fafour of the russian ones...

PS. Cut the Pakistan discussion from this thread, next one continuing it gets a warnig!

[maglomanic]

oops. Golly i didn't mention PAF once in my post :confused:

[Gollevainen]

Did I name you specifically? I mented it for general guideline as someone managed to drag pakistan in to this thread. There are enough existing threads about Pakistan if you want to discuss on it.
....Don't be too paranoid;)

[FreeAsia2000]

Did I name you specifically? I mented it for general guideline as someone managed to drag pakistan in to this thread. There are enough existing threads about Pakistan if you want to discuss on it.
....Don't be too paranoid;)


Well at least you have them on their toes...subconcious defense

India Should Take It Slow With U.S. Weapons
By KAUSHIK KAPISTHALAM


Adblock
There has been a spate of reports about a recent U.S. offer to sell advanced fighter jets like the Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing’s F/A-18 to India as part of a new U.S. policy to help India become a “world power.” Unfortunately, some crucial facts have been missing in the reportage.
First, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has been looking to buy multirole fighters since 2002. Last year, the government announced plans to issue a tender by the summer of 2005 for these jets. So far, India has sent a request for information to France’s Dassault Aviation for the Mirage 2000-5, Russia’s RSK MiG for the MiG-29M, Sweden’s Saab for its JAS 39C Gripen and Lockheed Martin for its F-16.
To understand if F-16s or even F/A-18s make sense for the IAF, one must consider the military, financial, strategic and political considerations.
From a military standpoint, a fighter aircraft today is not just a plane but a weapon platform encompassing the airframe, avionics, radar, electronic warfare gear, air-to-air missiles and surface strike munitions. With the F-16, there were reports that Lockheed might offer India a custom built system, similar to the Block-60 plane that it is building for the United Arab Emirates. Boeing might bid with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, which it currently produces for the U.S. Navy.
Both jets, if fully loaded, clearly offer better technology in terms of weaponry, radar and electronic warfare gear than the non-American fighters. But there is a catch.
High-technology components and weapons need separate U.S. export licenses that may not be forthcoming. For instance, the Super Hornet’s Raytheon AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar is a new addition to the U.S. military itself, and it and other advanced subsystems are unlikely to be approved for export — even to “strategic allies.” Consequently, India may have to accept a toned down versions of the fighters or pay top dollar for research and development efforts to build customized subsystems.
From a financial standpoint, one needs to look at the purchase price and long-term costs, including training, support and maintenance costs of both the plane and its subsystems. The standard export version of the F-16 compares favorably price-wise with the Mirage and others, but as pointed out above, adding the latest subsystems tends to increase the price of American fighters disproportionately.
There is also the issue of training and maintenance. The IAF can induct the MiG-29M or Mirage 2000-5 easily since it already operates older versions of the planes, while the F-16 or F/A-18 would require massive investment in logistics. The IAF also will need a lot of time to train its pilots on their first-ever American platform.
This may delay the induction of these jets and defeat the whole purpose of the purchase — to maintain squadron strength as older jets are retired.
From a strategic standpoint, India tends to go for purchases that allow it to integrate local and third-party weapons and systems progressively. For instance, the Su-30MKI air superiority fighter that the IAF is currently inducting features French, Israeli and Indian subsystems on a Russian airframe that took years of multiparty collaboration to integrate. While Dassault and MiG may allow India to improve subsystems, it is hard to see Boeing or Lockheed doing the same.
India also typically asks for transfer of technology and local production rights with such purchases. Dassault and RSK-MiG have already offered a full transfer of technology, but it is extremely unlikely that Boeing or Lockheed Martin would make a similar offer — with good reason.
With the former firms, a deal for 126 jets is perhaps the largest they might obtain and therefore they may be amenable to handing over production rights just to get the contract. With American contractors, the Indian purchase pales in comparison to the numbers they sell to the U.S. military, and it makes little financial sense to acquiesce to Indian demands.
The Indian government also likes to use big-ticket deals to serve larger geopolitical ends. With purchases from disparate countries like France, Israel and Russia, India usually spreads the dollars equitably to smooth relationships. A fighter purchase from the United States could hurt India’s ties with Russia or France, for instance, and it would be unwise for the Indian government to take such a step without securing a major U.S. political concession.
Finally, there is the issue of reliability. Perhaps to a larger extent than with other nations, the United States utilizes weapon sales as an instrument of diplomacy and has on occasion imposed sanctions even on allies to support nonmilitary objectives. This issue tends to be the pink elephant in the room when India discusses military sales with the United States and is unlikely to go away.
India’s strategic partnership with the United States is still in its early days. It would be prudent for both sides to build confidence by smaller and more specialized military deals such as special forces gear or network-centric warfare components.
India needs to learn to work with the myriad American bureaucratic agencies in the Pentagon, Commerce and State departments. The American contractors need to gain knowledge of the Indian military and its strict and sometimes quirky requirements.
A U.S.-India fighter jet deal would be inadvisable at the present time. •
Kaushik Kapisthalam is a freelance South Asia analyst in Atlanta specializing in defense and foreign affairs.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=821174&C=commentary

I'm wondering also how the Russians would react to any such purchase because they might see it as the thin end of the wedge and the beginning of
he end for their lucrative arms market in south asia.

I mean look at russian pressure on algeria to buy it's arms

[adeptitus]

F-18 was developed way after F-14 (begining of evolutionary life of one airframe where the other was ending).Still alot many people consider it to be a wrong decision which involved politics. F-14 drivers hate F-18s guts to this day(some to the point that they would rather Iranian tomcat kick USN hornet ..ofcourse not seriously though)..lol.
But to be honest if india goes for F-18 then it will be total political decision (not even the one involving money on Indian side). Acquiring Migs for naval use then going for a similar fighter and then having another capable fighter in the same class which all belong to same era is bad decision IMO. It might come back to bite IAF. MIG-29 OVT sounds like the best solution for IAF.


The F/A-18 does have its advantages. It's said that the F-14 is the most expensive Navy aircraft to maintain, requiring 40-60 manhours of maintenance work per flight hour. The F/A-18 only needs 20 hours and F/A-18E/F 10-15 hours. Though I'll admit this might not be a fair comparison, because the F-14 has a more complex airframe with variable geometry wings.

Northrop excelled at building aircraft that were light, easy to fly, simple to maintain, and relatively cheap. From the T-38 to F-5, F-20, and YF-17. The ease of maintenance on the F/A-18 today is prolly from its YF-17 roots. With fewer manhours of maintenance required per flight hour, the overall life-cycle cost is reduced, and you can have faster turn-arounds in aircraft avail for operations. Also, the F/A-18 is said to be capable of operating from STOBAR carriers in the Indian navy, versus the MiG-29OVT (aka MiG-35) might not:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes/index.php
The naval requirement will be extremely significant because the current roster of competitors contains only two aircraft that qualify for future STOBAR1 carriers like the INS Vikramaditya (ex- Admiral Gorshkov) and the Vikrant Class (aka. Air Defence Ship), which will reportedly weigh in at 37,500 tonnes with a design that is heavily influenced by Italy's Cavour Class.

Those aircraft are the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Dassault's Rafale-M variant. Additionally, the MiG-35 is related to the MiG-29K naval variant slated for operation on INS Vikramaditya. If Russia wishes to invest in the idea, a carrier-capable MiG-35K may also be doable - if the extra weight of the new fuel tanks doesn't create a problem given the hard impacts of carrier landings.

=========

If you scroll down on the article, there's a detailed explaination to advantagers and distadvantages to various aircraft considered. Basically there is no "perfect" choice and you have to accept a trade-off somewhere. Personally, if I were in Indian AF's shoes and had to choose, I'd approach France and offer to purchase the Mirage-2000 manufacturing license & equipment. France is shutting down the Mirage-2000 production line anyway, so why not buy it and put it to good use. If France won't deal, then I'd buy Russian and negotiate for best possible tech transfer and local production terms. US Aircraft are good and battle-proven, but Americans are too stingy when it comes to tech transfers. If India is going to spend billions of dollars to import foreign weapons, it should include tech transfers to benefit domestic R&D. Otherwise you end up importing arms from others forever and remain at mercy of their foreign policy.

[maglomanic]

adeptitus,
We are talking about IAF's MRCA deal and not any acquisation for IN's naval wing. IN has already selected Mig-29Ks for it's carriers. So i i think the point that OVTs need to be able to land on carrier is moot.

I am in no way trying to belittle hornets. All i am saying is incase of IAF, it doesn't make much sense when comparable technology is available for which they already have considerable ground structure and expereince available.

Like you pointed out Mirage would have been very good solution (if i am not wrong IAF was all over it but red tapism delayed it to the point that French lost interest). Now OVTs sound like the second best solution in terms of technology and logistics. However Russia will have to solve alot of quality control issues in engine and avionics.

[crazyinsane105]

Wait a minute. I've read in some articles that the USN Superhornet is in the same class as the Indian MKI. Their both long range heavy bombers. Was I mistaken?:confused:

[Indianfighter]

Wait a minute. I've read in some articles that the USN Superhornet is in the same class as the Indian MKI. Their both long range heavy bombers. Was I mistaken?:confused:
The above statemet is true. As mentioned by me earlier, I never understood the entry of the Gripen in the MRCA tender as Gripen is not an MRCA but rather a point defender. This is exactly the role of the LCA, an aircraft which is similar to Gripen.

Now DRCA jets like EF-2000 and F/A-18 E/F are compeing for the tender. This too is unncessary as IAF already operate the Su-30 MKI.

There was a detailed article in the newspapers which asked IAF pilots for their choice of the MRCA. Their first choice was Mirage-2005 and then the MiG-35. F-16, Gripen, EF were not considered.
It is true that politics influences the entry of non-MRCA aircraft such as Gripen, EF-2000 and F/A-18.

It is likely that the tender shall be split into land aircraft and naval aircraft (for the 2 aircraft carriers that are being built i.e ADS and Admiral Gorshkov).
Thus the tender for the land version may be won by either MiG-35 or Rafale, and the Naval tender by F/A-18 E/F jets.

[Indianfighter]

My speculation about IAF splitting the order into naval and land aircraft has been proven to be incorrect very soon. I hope that my wish for the 1st LCA to join the IAF by this year should not be unfulfulled.

India asks Russian proposal for fighters
Thursday, June 1, 2006 (Moscow):

India has asked Russia's Mig aircraft corporation to send a request for proposal for the acquisition of 126 fighters, said Air Force chief SP Tyagi.

Tyagi, who watched a demonstration flight of the Mig-35 (Mig-29ovt) fighter at a Russian air force base near Moscow, termed the demonstration as "brilliant."

He also clarified that the IAF was looking for an aircraft "to win wars" and not for "impressive demonstrations".

"Any aircraft is nothing but a "khokha" (shell), but what matters is, what is inside it," Tyagi underscored.

The air chief is on a weeklong Russia visit, which he qualified as "military-diplomatic", saying it was "fallout" of strategic political relations between the two nations.

He said that for the first time the factor of "life cycle cost or ownership cost" was being taken into account while acquiring a fighter.

Tyagi said the tenders would be invited soon.

"How to calculate the ownership cost was the problem and that's why it has taken more time in taking a decision," he said.

Tough challenge

According to earlier reports, Russia's Mig-35 would be facing a tough challenge from the battle-proven US F-16 and F-18.{ Incorrect. F-16 is least preference of IAF pilots}

The air chief said that any decision would be taken after studying the merits of a fighter offered to India "at great depth".

He also declared that all the 126 fighters for the IAF would be purchased from a "single vendor."

Tyagi also held extensive talks with his Russian counterpart General Vladimir Mikhailov and visited Sukhoi and Mig aircraft corporations.

Joint training centre

The air chief discussed the opening of a joint training centre in India for regional countries acquiring Russian Sukhoi planes.

Local media reports claim that India is to acquire flight simulators produced by aerospace equipment corporation for training the pilots of SU-30mki multi role fighters.

Tyagi said that India was talking to Russia on the joint development and production of a fifth-generation fighter.

He said that the Indian and Russian Air Forces were evaluating their requirements, specifics and vision of fifth generation fighter.

After completing talks, Tyagi left for Irkutsk where he would inspect 12 SU-30mki fighters, which India is swapping for older FKF and FMKF versions.

On the last leg of his visit he will interact with the officials of St. Petersburg-based engine and avionics designers and producers in his capacity as a "customer" of their product. (PTI)

Source:
http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=India+asks+Russian+proposal +for+fighters&id=88601&category=National

[crazyinsane105]

Yes, it seems like the IAF is leaning heavily towards the Mig-35. Very smart choice since it will be much easier to integrate and will have an AESA capability in the near future. As for the Superhornet, best if the IN gets a hold of that since those Harriers need to get replaced anyway.