MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by putnanja »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Rakesh wrote: That is actually funny. Thanks for the humour! :rotfl: Guess you have not heard of EUMA.
That is the law, it applies to everyone.

There is no specific concern about India.
Doen't mean India needs to accept that rule. If we don't like it, we go to alternate sources.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Rakesh wrote:So I guess you would not have any clue if their Block 52s (which are actually yours) took off from Jacobabad and landed in Sargodha?
It's not easy to hide which planes are at which base.

Not only are there ground reports (planes are visible miles and miles from a base), but they also have this amazing technology called SATELLITES that take PICTURES of what's on the ground.

And of course that ignores that practically all of Pakistan is under Predator surveillance anyways.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

putnanja wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:That is the law, it applies to everyone.

There is no specific concern about India.
Doen't mean India needs to accept that rule. If we don't like it, we go to alternate sources.
While true, that is a separate discussion from the topic at hand.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by SaiK »

Is this a buyer's deal or a seller's one? just asking from the context of RFP. I have no idea what is written in it.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by shiv »

If a Paki F-16 developed "technical trouble: - "Funny noise in the cockpit" or "engine trouble" and landed at a base with Chinese - those guys could look at what they wanted. In any case any useful information the Pakis have to share will already be in Chinese hands. Particularly in terms of capabilities, weaknesses and tactics wrt to the F-16 - it puts the F-16s desirability on a lower level than other aircraft as far as India is concerned.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

shiv wrote: it puts the F-16s desirability on a lower level than other aircraft as far as India is concerned.
Just like the Su-30, eh?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by shiv »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
shiv wrote: it puts the F-16s desirability on a lower level than other aircraft as far as India is concerned.
Just like the Su-30, eh?

Yes - but unfortunately we already have the Su-30 and have developed tactics. The best we can do is to keep our tactics to ourselves. With the F-16 we would be taking on something that the Pakistanis and Chinese are familiar with.

I do know (now retired) indian Air Force pilots who have flown the F-16 in the USA in the 1980s. And there are many in the IAF who have tangled with F-16s in various exercises. That knowledge helps to some extent, but does not, in my view compensate for the fact that the Pakistanis have operated the fighter for 15 years.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

shiv wrote:Yes - but unfortunately we already have the Su-30
You could stop buying more of them.
shiv wrote:and have developed tactics.
Just like you could develop 'tactics' for the F-16.
shiv wrote:With the F-16 we would be taking on something that the Pakistanis and Chinese are familiar with.
Just like the Su-30.
shiv wrote: That knowledge helps to some extent, but does not, in my view compensate for the fact that the Pakistanis have operated the fighter for 15 years.
And how long has China operated the Su-30? Yet I see no wailing and gnashing of teeth that the Chinese know how to counter your top-of-the-line fighter.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by Singha »

back when su30 deal was done in mid 90s the chinese were not perceived as the #1 threat they are today. in any case there was no other choice of a heavy long range fighter then that was politically feasible (gripen is not, rafale/ef did not exist in service....it was either f15 or su30)..so we went su30.

today there are choices. we cannot do anything about sino-pak sharing, russo/ukr-chinese deals or us-pak deals, but we can control what we buy from the choices available now.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by shiv »

GeorgeWelch wrote: You could stop buying more of them
We could
GeorgeWelch wrote: Just like you could develop 'tactics' for the F-16.
We could
GeorgeWelch wrote: Just like the Su-30.
You are right. Sir.
GeorgeWelch wrote: Yet I see no wailing and gnashing of teeth that the Chinese know how to counter your top-of-the-line fighter.
I have no way of knowing what you see or you are unable to see. And what you see or do not see has no bearing on my own thoughts.

However I can clearly see that the F-16 would be a bad choice for India. We could certainly reject it. And I would be happy with that choice.

I believe you are trolling me because you don't like my opinion of the F-16. In any case we will know in a few days whether it has been rejected outright or not.
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by andy B »

Singha wrote:back when su30 deal was done in mid 90s the chinese were not perceived as the #1 threat they are today. in any case there was no other choice of a heavy long range fighter then that was politically feasible (gripen is not, rafale/ef did not exist in service....it was either f15 or su30)..so we went su30.

today there are choices. we cannot do anything about sino-pak sharing, russo/ukr-chinese deals or us-pak deals, but we can control what we buy from the choices available now.
To add to the above the versions of SU 30 MKI that IAF operates are significantly different from the MKK, J11, SU27 variants of the PLAAF. There are major differences in avionics, radars, armaments (to a very limited extent though), ECM, EW suites ityadi.

George, The F16 being operated by the PAF is extremely ingrained in the heads of every BRFite here so there may be some natural negativity that gets attracted to the F16 offering. Having said that in F16 Blk 60/70 airframe being offerred to the IAF is a very potent fighter no doubts...but you also have to consider all the strings that are always attached to the American weapons (nothing wrong with that from an American perspective weapon sales to countries are a major tool used by America to control the respective countries foreign policies etc...history is littered with examples!, however when you are the country at the recieving end of these strings its very inconvinient to say the least).

As the Admiral has mentioned the new bonhomie is here to stay....thing is given the history of India-US relationship it remains to be clearly seen to what extent the US will go to let India use the weapons as and when needed against whoever.

Things like Amraams C5 for the PAF...I mean what are they gonna shoot against you tell me?
Harpoons are these going to be deployed against Taliban skiffs?
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

shiv wrote:I believe you are trolling me because you don't like my opinion of the F-16.
I actually prefer the SH, but that doesn't mean I won't shoot down unsubstantiated arguments against other planes.
shiv wrote:However I can clearly see that the F-16 would be a bad choice for India.
Why's that?
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 26 Apr 2011 10:08, edited 1 time in total.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

andy B wrote:To add to the above the versions of SU 30 MKI that IAF operates are significantly different from the MKK, J11, SU27 variants of the PLAAF.
There are significant differences between the F-16 of Pakistan and the F-16I
andy B wrote:Things like Amraams C5 for the PAF...I mean what are they gonna shoot against you tell me?
They are going to have those regardless of what you buy.
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by andy B »

GeorgeWelch wrote:I actually prefer the SH, but that doesn't mean I won't shoot down unsubstantiated arguments against other planes.
So do many other people on this board.
GeorgeWelch wrote:
andy B wrote:To add to the above the versions of SU 30 MKI that IAF operates are significantly different from the MKK, J11, SU27 variants of the PLAAF.
There are significant differences between the F-16 of Pakistan and the F-16I.
Yes and I have pointed that in my orignal statement anyways.
GeorgeWelch wrote:
andy B wrote:Things like Amraams C5 for the PAF...I mean what are they gonna shoot against you tell me?
They are going to have those regardless of what you buy.
Exactly so are you saying that its okay for Uncle to arm PAF to the teeth but its not okay if that decision is taken into account by another prospective customer who has had historical teething problems with Pakistan.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

andy B wrote: Exactly so are you saying that its okay for Uncle to arm PAF to the teeth but its not okay if that decision is taken into account by another prospective customer who has had historical teething problems with Pakistan.
Of course not, however I do ask you to consider all the evidence.

All of Pakistan's sub fleet (useful for hunting the Taliban) currently comes from France.

Germany has been desperately trying to sell submarines to Pakistan.

Sweden is supplying Pakistan with the ERIEYE AEW system (also useful against the Taliban)

Russia has supplied countless arms to China and has become increasingly unreliable as a supplier.

France has been leading the push to lift the arms embargo on China.

The US used it's influence to block the sale of Israeli AEW planes to China.

Then there's the question of how you take tackle such an issue. If India refuses to buy from the US, that is little different than the status quo, and under the status quo the US has been supplying Pakistan for years.

So would not changing anything actually result in a change of behavior? It seems . . . unlikely.

Another option is to become more important to the US, in essence hook the US on India. And once India has its claws in the US, then it can start making demands of the US.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by shiv »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
shiv wrote:I believe you are trolling me because you don't like my opinion of the F-16.
I actually prefer the SH, but that doesn't mean I won't shoot down unsubstantiated arguments against other planes.
Correct sir - but it is the language of a troll to talk about gnashing teeth and wailing rather than asking politely. It appears to me that it was not the answer you wanted but the opportunity to take a dig at emotions of frustration that you attribute to someone else. We can always learn to be polite and talk without attempting to score rhetorical brownie points. The alternative is to troll - but in this case I will ensure that BRF will not be the place where such trolling continues. The trolling must end.
GeorgeWelch wrote:
shiv wrote:However I can clearly see that the F-16 would be a bad choice for India.
Why's that?
I prefer a larger twin engine fighter for the IAF. That second engine is important in a warm, moist tropical country overpopulated with humans and birds.

Apart from the "development of tactics" that can always be done (albeit in due course) - there is the question of knowing the weaknesses of the F-16. The weaknesses of the F-16, whatever they may be, well known to the PAF who have doubtless developed tactics to compensate for that. It will be years before the IAF figures them out and compensates for them.

The fact that the Su-30 surely has weaknesses that the Pakistanis and Chinese will know about makes no difference to the facts about the F-16. The presence or absence of wailing or gnashing of teeth again make no difference to the facts about the F-16. They also do not make any difference to my opinion except what I will state in the next paragraph

I am willing to debate with you but you will have to check any need to stray off topic and talk about emotions that you are able to read or unable to read. Or else this will be my last post to you after which you will go on my ignore list.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

shiv wrote:The presence or absence of wailing or gnashing of teeth again make no difference to the facts about the F-16.
I believe it does.

The IAF seems supremely happy with the MKI and can't order enough of them. No one here criticizes it or worries about it because the Chinese have the Su-30.

This leads me to conclude that the opponent having the plane is in fact NOT an issue, and it is in fact an issue purely manufactured by opponents of the F-16 for consumption by the masses ('useful idiots').

In other words, it is an EXCUSE, not a REASON for opposing it.
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by andy B »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
andy B wrote: Exactly so are you saying that its okay for Uncle to arm PAF to the teeth but its not okay if that decision is taken into account by another prospective customer who has had historical teething problems with Pakistan.
GeorgeWelch wrote:Of course not, however I do ask you to consider all the evidence.

All of Pakistan's sub fleet (useful for hunting the Taliban) currently comes from France.
- Agreed, however France just like the USA has been supplying for years...also unlike the USA India has not sufferred major string issues with France. The French sell to everybody equally (although they did give away the Excocets to the UK however logically the UK is a much more imp ally to France than Argentina will this be the case with Pakistan vs India remains to be seen I guess)...having said that in recent years France has been moving much closer to India than Pakistan.
GeorgeWelch wrote:Germany has been desperately trying to sell submarines to Pakistan.
- Mate, yet they havent have they? Not one single 212/214 in service with PN. Besides the PN doesnt have the money to buy em anyways and last time I checked they were ordering Chinese subs.
GeorgeWelch wrote:Sweden is supplying Pakistan with the ERIEYE AEW system (also useful against the Taliban)
- Sweden is imaterial in as far as political/strategic advantage through MRCA contract is concerned. Their political leverage as of today is zilch and unlikely to change in the near future. Having said that one must admit that the Gripen is an excellent aircraft. I feel the MRCA contract is a great way for India to tell Sweden to fob off as they will not entertain sales of such high end force multipliers to Pak.
GeorgeWelch wrote:Russia has supplied countless arms to China and has become increasingly unreliable as a supplier.
- This I agree and we can see the change flowing through with this dynamic. However India/Soviet Union now Russia have been trading for a very very long time and while the Russians are struggling with supply issues etc, they have always provided India with the most cutting edge stuff (at a price ofcourse).
GeorgeWelch wrote:France has been leading the push to lift the arms embargo on China.
- Yup again agree as I said before the French dont give two hoots about anybody else they are geographically too far off to suffer the consequences of China getting their hands on the latest French Tech. It is different for Uncle, India, Soko, Japan as they will bear the brunt.
GeorgeWelch wrote:The US used it's influence to block the sale of Israeli AEW planes to China.
- It did so because it was suitable to them not because they wanted India's interests.
GeorgeWelch wrote:Then there's the question of how you take tackle such an issue. If India refuses to buy from the US, that is little different than the status quo, and under the status quo the US has been supplying Pakistan for years.

So would not changing anything actually result in a change of behavior? It seems . . . unlikely.

Another option is to become more important to the US, in essence hook the US on India. And once India has its claws in the US, then it can start making demands of the US. -
[/quote]
I strongly think this will be the other way around and it willbbe Uncle who will get its claws deep in India
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by Austin »

Didn't an Air Chief ( now retd ) mentioned that PAF having F-16 is not a criteria for rejecting it as long as it suits and meets IAF needs.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

andy B wrote:will this be the case with Pakistan vs India remains to be seen I guess
I would be more concerned about China vs India. France is eager to sell-out to the highest bidder and no one can bid higher than China.
andy B wrote:Mate, yet they havent have they?
Not for lack of trying.
andy B wrote:It did so because it was suitable to them not because they wanted India's interests.
Exactly. The US and India have strong common interests in this area.
andy B wrote:I strongly think this will be the other way around and it willbbe Uncle who will get its claws deep in India
The money (now more than ever) is king. India can always find other countries eager to sell it arms. The US would have difficulty replacing an arms buyer as large as India.
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by andy B »

Austin wrote:Didn't an Air Chief ( now retd ) mentioned that PAF having F-16 is not a criteria for rejecting it as long as it suits and meets IAF needs.
Yes indeed remember seeing a video of the interview and the Chief rightly pointed out there are distinct differences in the variants and the tactics in deploying them.
Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by Christopher Sidor »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
shiv wrote: it puts the F-16s desirability on a lower level than other aircraft as far as India is concerned.
Just like the Su-30, eh?
There are differences between SU-30 and F-16s. One there is no other aircraft as capable as SU-30 which is on offer now or was on offer in the period 1996-2000, when India actually bought the fighter. With F-16 that is not the case. This aircraft, its limitations and performance are well known to Pakistan, as it has flown it for more than a decade. It is rumoured that pakistan which has allowed PRC to examine F-16 in detail. India buying F-16IN will not give us any edge over Pakistan or China.

Secondly it is likely that USA will in the future upgrade the F-16C/D avaliable with Pakistan to a level comparable to F-16IN if not better. This will negate all of the 10 billion USD investment that we would have made in this fighter. And once US does upgrade it, you can be sure that the chinese will get a good look at thos upgradations too.

Thirdly rewarding america for supplying F-16 to pakistan is not palatable.

Finally there are better fighters in the fray compared to F-16IN and F/A-18 SH.

Offcourse India did a big mistake with SU-30, it should have insisted that this fighter would not be sold to other countries, without India's consent. After all it was our money which enabled this fighter to get off the ground in the first place.
manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by manum »

moreover last but the least, we'll never like to give extra leverage to USA to deal with us, leaving us with no other options left...nor F18 is most attractive option we see on the table, and if its about growing friendship, we would like to see it naturally growing first to reach a point where it gets invaluable compared to any fighter deal....

so given all the reasons in all last pages...Indian inside me (try to put yourself in our shoes, through they are bit tight for you) still says in this competition no American is going to win. even if USA make it a prestige issue, India is known to be break point of all the victory campaigns call it Alexander or steve waugh...
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by shiv »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
shiv wrote:The presence or absence of wailing or gnashing of teeth again make no difference to the facts about the F-16.
I believe it does.

The IAF seems supremely happy with the MKI and can't order enough of them. No one here criticizes it or worries about it because the Chinese have the Su-30.

This leads me to conclude that the opponent having the plane is in fact NOT an issue, and it is in fact an issue purely manufactured by opponents of the F-16 for consumption by the masses ('useful idiots').

In other words, it is an EXCUSE, not a REASON for opposing it.
And so what if it is? We like what we like and your arguing over semantics is trolling. Or do I see some teeth gnashing going on? :D

Anyhow it was my mistake answering any of your posts in the first place. i apologise to others who might have been forced to read your responses as a result of that. I won't make that mistake again.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

shiv wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:
In other words, it is an EXCUSE, not a REASON for opposing it.
And so what if it is?
Then the people who keep banging this drum are knowingly bringing up an invalid point simply to confuse others.

In other words: trolling.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by putnanja »

Just because China has some ideas of SU-30, doesn't mean we should go in for F-16 which the pakis have operated for more than two decades, along with the free arms that US has supplied them to target India. In fact, it makes sense to go away from F16 to Rafale/Eurofighter which the pakis aren't exposed to yet.
rohankumaon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 63
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 14:34

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by rohankumaon »

Guys, I have whole of the discussion of F 16 and I believe both parties are making valid points. I am also of the opinion that India should not go with F16. The reasons are more or less discussed here on the forum but I would say the foremost reason will not be that Pakistan is flying F16. In using a fighter in real life, a lot more than just the knowledge of fighter is important such as tactics, weaponry, missions, awacs support and so on. Thus ruling out a fighter just based on that it has been operated by enemy air force is not valid. I completely agree when you have EF, rafael in the fray then you tend to move towards newer design. Also, the embargo put by uncle Sam does not go well with us. But let us suppose Uncle Sam does not put any embargo and Pakistan do not operate , then are we willing to buy F16....the answer would be still No. The reason it is still not the best plane that fulfills our requirement. We would like to go with F18, may be, good package, low cost and reliable supplies. I guess thats what Georgewelch is emphasizing. Another scenario, let us say F22 is operated by Pakistan and it is the best available in the world. Will USA offers us F22 with any embargo, will we buy it? The answer would of course! So in the end it all boils down to what suits us best in a given set of conditions! In the present scenario, F16 is not the best candidate because if we can higher end technology which our enemies are not exposed to without any restriction of its usage at an affordable price...we will take it.
Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by Ravi Karumanchiri »

^^^
No one should confuse arms sales to Pakistan, with gifts of military aid to Pakistan.
There is a very big difference, in that the former comes at a cost to Pakistan, and the latter is free.

AFAIK, the US and China are the only nations on earth making such gifts of military equipment to the TSP.
The French, Germans, Swedes and whoever else, all demand a price -- and I don't think that's a "friendship price".

BIG DIFFERENCE!
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:There is a very big difference, in that the former comes at a cost to Pakistan, and the latter is free.
It might not cost money, but that doesn't mean there is no cost . . .
arya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 17:48
Location: Kanyakubj Nagre

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by arya »

Now the Shabdbhedi Ashtra- here we go again :)
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/04/ca ... an-no.html
Image
rohankumaon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 63
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 14:34

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by rohankumaon »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:There is a very big difference, in that the former comes at a cost to Pakistan, and the latter is free.
It might not cost money, but that doesn't mean there is no cost . . .
Very True! in terms of hitting at targets at will inside the territory of Pak...
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by putnanja »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:There is a very big difference, in that the former comes at a cost to Pakistan, and the latter is free.
It might not cost money, but that doesn't mean there is no cost . . .
The cost that the US extracts from Pakistan in terms of support for its af-pak war and against militants attacking US interests is of no interest to india. And the US is happy supplying free arms for use against india for that support. so, that cost that the pakistan is paying US is of no consequence to India. But the hard cash that the pakis pay french/uk/sweden etc takes it out of its developmental budget and there is direct consequence of that which can be beneficial to india.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by Vivek K »

[groan]When will this nautanki get over[/groan]! Take a decision and start taking deliveries!! How much longer will this unending debate continue?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by SaiK »

yeah... bottom line - get that a/c that beats all specifications America can provide from Eu. That way, our neighborhood is charged up in arms build up struggle to beat the enemy, and finally helps the real product whose genuine interest is to help our doctrine succeed, and in turn let their product mature. Between the Eu contenders, all the three seems more than willing to provide the best, and more than what we ask. That needs to be appreciated first on this thought that makes production engineering and cost factors are taken on an a/c that helps us in the longer run.

I agree it has to be an Eu craft that helps us grow, in turn helps them achieve that market share. This would have to be a dual scratch-back arrangement for a successful MRCA, especially after waiting all these brutal years.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18275
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by Rakesh »

GeorgeWelch wrote:It's not easy to hide which planes are at which base.

Not only are there ground reports (planes are visible miles and miles from a base), but they also have this amazing technology called SATELLITES that take PICTURES of what's on the ground.

And of course that ignores that practically all of Pakistan is under Predator surveillance anyways.
Thanks for confirming that you are watching their planes. Now what is the guarantee that you are not going to do this to us? :) Because after all this "amazing technology called SATELLITES" can watch us too right?

You state that the US is not concerned about what we do with the aircraft, but yet you make us sign the EUMA agreement which is designed to inspect the aircraft that we bought (P-8) and may buy (F-18 or F-16). I can understand if the aircraft were leased, but that is not the case here. It would be a violation of the EUMA agreement, if we converted Rakhi Sawant to make her carry a nuclear weapon. Now if we cannot put what weapons we want to on these aircraft, then what is the point in buying them?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by SaiK »

Carrying Indian nukes on American fighter jet without signing any agreements is like a message that no genuine khan can appreciate. They would hate the very sentence you are proposing., and much against both Mr Jackal Khan and Mr Hyde Laws.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by NRao »

Because after all this "amazing technology called SATELLITES" can watch us too right?

Not "can". "Is".

Even Google and Apple "are"!!!! So, what to talk of entities that have far larger budgets and is their sole business?
.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by SaiK »

Not just watch, they can change the course of ops as well. GPS signal based remote activated programmable arrays can do what Uncle wants it to do. Right from modulating the engine power to thrust your a/c to the programmable AESA software systems. One return to base on emergency on just one push of a button. All plausible, but will they do it every time is a billion $ question.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Rakesh wrote:Thanks for confirming that you are watching their planes. Now what is the guarantee that you are not going to do this to us? :) Because after all this "amazing technology called SATELLITES" can watch us too right?
They watch everyone as a matter of course.
Rakesh wrote:You state that the US is not concerned about what we do with the aircraft, but yet you make us sign the EUMA agreement
Because it's the law and they don't have a choice, not that they are concerned about India.
Rakesh wrote:It would be a violation of the EUMA agreement, if we converted Rakhi Sawant to make her carry a nuclear weapon. Now if we cannot put what weapons we want to on these aircraft, then what is the point in buying them?
Because presumably you find them useful for things other than carrying nukes.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Post by GeorgeWelch »

SaiK wrote:Not just watch, they can change the course of ops as well.
:roll:
Locked