India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

jessmo111 · by **jessmo111** » 01 Jul 2016, 12:31

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 26657.html

India is keen to consider Boeing's offer to supply F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets to the Indian Air Force (IAF).

Sources said that New Delhi will take a hard look at the proposal in April when a high-level delegation will engage the Indian officials on the construct of the offer. US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter will be in India on April 10 in a visit that is expected to take lift cooperation to a new level.

Boeing has offered F/A-18 Super Hornets under the "Make in India" framework of the Indian government. Sources said the proposal is worth considering as IAF is facing acute shortage of fighter jets. The IAF has already made it clear that the 36 Rafale fighter jets that are being negotiated with France are inadequate to meet its operational requirement

KamenRiderBlade · by **KamenRiderBlade** » 01 Jul 2016, 13:47

I really wish Boeing and other companies would just say, "Buy in my country", no make in yours.

You want Super Hornet, ok! but made in USA or no dice.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 01 Jul 2016, 15:09

Talk about a mixed fleet!

SU-30MKI
Rafael
Super Hornet
Mig 29's too?

Sounds like a logistics nightmare...

bigjku · by **bigjku** » 01 Jul 2016, 15:42

KamenRiderBlade wrote:I really wish Boeing and other companies would just say, "Buy in my country", no make in yours.

You want Super Hornet, ok! but made in USA or no dice.

There is no production future in the US for the Hornet. Boeing would be selling them an asset that has no practical value to them any longer. Indias interest is tied to being able to build in India. Boeing can't keep the US line going much longer. That is the reality of things.

KamenRiderBlade · by **KamenRiderBlade** » 01 Jul 2016, 19:19

If India was going to buy Hornets anyway, than it should be made in the USA, no production line move to India.

The US government can mandate that.

bigjku · by **bigjku** » 01 Jul 2016, 19:26

KamenRiderBlade wrote:If India was going to buy Hornets anyway, than it should be made in the USA, no production line move to India.

The US government can mandate that.

There are two outcomes.

India doesn't buy Hornets at all

India buys them but builds them in India.

That would be the only reason they are looking at doing this. You can mandate till the cows come home. The result will either be that Boeing gets some money or none. The government could mandate that Boeing can't sell them the design and help them setup the line, but that just means Boeing gets nothing.

You clearly don't understand the decisions in place here.

madrat · by **madrat** » 02 Jul 2016, 03:00

Only one outcome possible:

India doesn't buy Hornets at all

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 02 Jul 2016, 03:59

Moving American jobs to India?

KamenRiderBlade · by **KamenRiderBlade** » 02 Jul 2016, 04:22

XanderCrews wrote:Moving American jobs to India?

I don't want that to happen.

If foreign countries want to buy the F-15 / F-16 / F-18 and they are on our approved list of countries. They should be able to buy those airplanes, but it has to be built in the USA.

Simple as that. Keep the friggin jobs in the USA.

jessmo111 · by **jessmo111** » 02 Jul 2016, 05:18

What about a compromise?
What about a FACO plant in India, or 1/2 the order in the states and 1/2 in India?

bigjku · by **bigjku** » 02 Jul 2016, 12:28

KamenRiderBlade wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Moving American jobs to India?

I don't want that to happen.

If foreign countries want to buy the F-15 / F-16 / F-18 and they are on our approved list of countries. They should be able to buy those airplanes, but it has to be built in the USA.

Simple as that. Keep the friggin jobs in the USA.

There will be no jobs building the hornet in the us period in 5 years or so. That is what you don't seem to get.

KamenRiderBlade · by **KamenRiderBlade** » 02 Jul 2016, 18:08

bigjku wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Moving American jobs to India?

I don't want that to happen.

If foreign countries want to buy the F-15 / F-16 / F-18 and they are on our approved list of countries. They should be able to buy those airplanes, but it has to be built in the USA.

Simple as that. Keep the friggin jobs in the USA.

There will be no jobs building the hornet in the us period in 5 years or so. That is what you don't seem to get.

A big buy from India would extend the life of the factory for just a little bit longer.

bigjku · by **bigjku** » 02 Jul 2016, 20:06

India doesn't want the aircraft. They already picked the French. What they want is tech transfer and domestic production. They have zero desire for foreign assembled 4th generation aircraft at this point. If they did they would just buy more Rafale.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 02 Jul 2016, 20:46

bigjku wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Moving American jobs to India?

I don't want that to happen.

If foreign countries want to buy the F-15 / F-16 / F-18 and they are on our approved list of countries. They should be able to buy those airplanes, but it has to be built in the USA.

Simple as that. Keep the friggin jobs in the USA.

There will be no jobs building the hornet in the us period in 5 years or so. That is what you don't seem to get.

I'm pointing out that Boeing "winning" an Indian contract where the aircraft must be built in India, will be perceived as moving jobs overseas. Is that really the case? No. But will it be taken that way? Hell yes. You don't get that the St Louis job holders aren't going to take this good naturedly. Good news! Building more hornets! Bad news, they are built in India now. Here is your pink slip, unemployment office is that way.

"We'll shucks guys we had a good run, fair play india, fair play" lol come on. They are going to take it out on those elected officials boeing owns, they will wonder why any order anywhere wasn't coming to their factory and blame the people that failed to bring the orders to STL failed period

arian · by **arian** » 03 Jul 2016, 00:05

XanderCrews wrote:I'm pointing out that Boeing "winning" an Indian contract where the aircraft must be built in India, will be perceived as moving jobs overseas. Is that really the case? No. But will it be taken that way? Hell yes. You don't get that the St Louis job holders aren't going to take this good naturedly. Good news! Building more hornets! Bad news, they are built in India now. Here is your pink slip, unemployment office is that way.

"We'll shucks guys we had a good run, fair play india, fair play" lol come on. They are going to take it out on those elected officials boeing owns, they will wonder why any order anywhere wasn't coming to their factory and blame the people that failed to bring the orders to STL failed period

American planes are and have been "build" in other countries for decades. Lots of locally "build" F-16s and F-104s and F-35s even. Build in parentheses because they're not mostly build there, but assembled there.

This is nothing new, nor does it mean moving jobs anywhere. Without the local assembly contract, there'd be no orders in the first place. Second, these are assembly plants. It doesn't mean everything is build in Italy or Japan or Turkey or India. Parts come from all over the world, most of them from the US, and are assembled locally. Production of an aircraft is not an activity that takes place all in one place.

So even with this potential (hypothetical) Indian assembled F/A-18, most of the parts, if not all, will be build by Boeing anyway or dozens of their contractors, and just shipped to India for assembly. The same thing happens with China: most of the components are build all over the world, and just final assembly takes place in China. Ie, the lowest value-added activities.

Loss (not really) of some assembly jobs means gain (or continuation) of many parts manufacturing jobs for both Boeing and its contractors. How does one make that trade-off? Companies make that trade-off every day. Either way, this isn't likely to go through since India is only interested in technology transfer, which will likely not be allowed by the US Congress anyway.