Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 May 2016 19:12

Akshay Kapoor wrote: Finally just before going back to the cockpit says - we have heard that the IAF is one of the best airforces in the world'. I said 'not one of.....'

Jai Hind

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 May 2016 19:15

Karan M wrote:And who was the "thoughtful advisor" quoted by "Indian lover" Shri Ashley Tellis in claiming the Tejas is inferior to the bla bla bla...
"Prodyut Das".

Hey no fair! I like that gasbag Prodyut Das. He does not have linear thinking and will not agree with anyone. But I love his style of writing and the oddball stuff he quotes as fact

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 21:23

Shiv, even I have non linear thinking.

Sarcasm on shri das follows..

I think the Indian Army should train a squad of ninjas equipped with bladed weapons for close in fights, because at distance the guns they use may miss. I am upset the IA officers and jawans are so fit for the long range fight, they can't fly around like I saw the chinese do in Crouching Tiger and stab their opponents to death, face to face. I have seen our soldiers become very hefty. I want them light. They shouldn't be too intelligent or too complex. All that is not required.

So clearly the Indian Army sux, my thinking rox, and I should spend the next decade calling the Indian Army names because because because they (and the rest of the world) don't appreciate my singular brilliance. I'll call the Indian Army names, contest their professionalism, because how dare they not fly around? With a knife? For the close in fight.

But never mind, Ashley Tellis loves me.

....

I think more than all the above, the moron Prodyut Das clearly had no qualms in running down a national project for his own petty ego and desire to score points against ADA. IMHO thats the galling part.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 May 2016 21:40

Karan M wrote:
I think more than all the above, the moron Prodyut Das clearly had no qualms in running down a national project for his own petty ego and desire to score points against ADA. IMHO thats the galling part.

I judge him also from the totally novel way he suggested why the HPT 32 was being discarded with considering some of the most obvious (to him) reasons for stoppage of the engine. He pointed out that the HPT 32 as simply being thrown out based on very flimsy logic without looking at a list of things that he says. I read the article many years ago - so he is not all negative. No one will now talk about the HPT 32 - flush with pride and joy as we are with Swiss maal

He is also the one who suggested a super MiG 21 or Marut or something IIRC.

He was also scathing about "supercruise" as a demand for 5 gen and he is turning put to be right in his prediction.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 21:52

Shiv, even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

The propaganda he has engaged in vis a vis the LCA is disgraceful. We tar and feather DDM who do it. This joker did it for his ego and to score points on ADA whom he dislikes. In turn, he was busy giving certificates to IJT, which has been a disaster of a project overall.

Besides which, his quixotic ideas - A super MiG-21? Would IAF buy it? They want state of the art.

Supercruise? How is he right...? Every AF is asking for it. Supercruise - less fuel in supersonic dash - optimal weapons employment. The AMCA will have to have it, no ifs and buts.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 May 2016 21:55

Karan M wrote:Shiv, even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

Karan we need to drop this topic. You have your views. I have mine. I just pointed out what I thought and have no intention of trying to convince you that you are wrong, but like you, I make my own choices about what to think about anything or anyone.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2016 22:34

Shiv your choice to make.
IMHO he jumped the shark with his diatribes on the LCA for his petty ego. As and when the LCA gets inducted and comes good, that'll serve him plenty.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 04 May 2016 07:44

Karan M wrote:Shiv your choice to make.
IMHO he jumped the shark with his diatribes on the LCA for his petty ego. As and when the LCA gets inducted and comes good, that'll serve him plenty.

It is possible that this is his (PD's) way of retribution. Of course once LCA squadrons come online, we may see many a (anal)yst eat a humble pie.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2016 08:17

I think the motivations of people like Prodyut Das are being misinterpreted. That man is hardly an ignorant media bum. He will simply find new stuff to write about. One has to be really petty to actually feel hurt because someone disagrees and I think Das is too smart for that and may actually turn the barbs directed at him back at the source and get them even more riled up. Especially when people are hoping that he shows remorse or suffers for his views, that is the last thing he will do.

The AMCA offers him a whole new world to talk about as also modifications to LCA and avionics/weapons choices. Like him or hate him he has readership and his lateral thinking is interesting even if one does not agree. His views are no more outrageous than many we find on BRF, but he has a standing in the aerospace community that gets him eyes and ears that we will not get.

I would be cautious about making predictions - it is going to be far easier to come up with scathing criticisms or wise suggestions about AMCA than actually making one and getting it to fly. If he is really vindictive he is going to be on a roll every time there is an AMCA hiccup, but typically his articles cover a wide variety of topics, and tends to drip with easy to understand aero gyan - at least the ones I get to see.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 May 2016 08:30

Yes I agree that Prodyut brings in a thinking lateral and critical that is not the usual MSM types we are so used to , reading the usual media crap over years leads us to believe if this is 5th gen then we need stealth SC etc etc and if its 4th gen it has to have xyz etc , that sort of thing is firmly ingrained in to peoples mind be it armed forces , analyst or people like us , since we are so used to think Oh that is the right way to do things and if x is missing from yz then something is so wrong with that product.

Prodyut challenges these kind of notion and bring in an alternate way to look at things that probably less that 1 % of people in media would that today , it never used to be the case even in western media in the 70-80's where alternate thinking was encouraged and put across through media like Janes or others, now a days they all parrot the same thing.

We may like him or not for his way of looking at things but we need more people like Prodyut to look at things from different prespective may be critically but still look at it and should encourage his write up , He is certainly not the Rahul Bedi and other DDM types , though I am not sure in years ahead we will see writeup from people like him not just india but globally writing for reputed magazine giving an alternate pov.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 08:37

Critical thinking, and expert analysis no longer resides in the defense media even in the west. Those sort of folks are now more attracted towards the think tanks where they have access to obtain grants to pursue their lines of research.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 May 2016 08:42

brar_w wrote:Critical thinking, and expert analysis no longer resides in the defense media even in the west. Those sort of folks are now more attracted towards the think tanks where they have access to obtain grants to pursue their lines of research.

Even so called think tank rarely come up with alternate stuff and even if some one dares they are sidelined or career destroyed if they are persistant. We stay more and more in a corporatised media and defence world and not sticking to their line of thinking or daring to challenge wont take your career far enough. Eventually every one has to think about how to make their living and have no option but to follow the diktat or fade away

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 08:52

Even so called think tank rarely come up with alternate stuff and even if some one dares they are sidelined or career destroyed if they are persistent.

There job isn't really to come up with alternative stuff for entertainment but to challenge assumptions and conduct a data driven analysis which they do both in the classified and un-classifies setting (a lot of times open source analysis getting them on to classified work). I am yet to come across any consistent case of think tankers getting sidelined or snubbed because they came up with an alternative viewpoint and I have been following defense and aerospace related think tanks for nearly 2 and a half decades. Media does not earn enough money, and pay its journalist enough with specialized defense media now greatly reducing its experts replacing them with those that can report news faster than the competitor. The public consumer is largely to blame for all are guilty of providing more clicks to a blog run by a person who's qualification is doing ice-cream floats and hot dogs than to another run by someone who has technical and first hand real world experience. Thats just the digital media.

If you want technical information and data, follow the trade shows, and specialized conferences (They occur year round, around the world and publish a ton of stuff)..and follow key think tank initiatives if you want specific analysis that is most of the time peer reviewed and based on data, regardless the conclusion fitting with a preconceived notion or status quo. Thats the best you'll get and with the explosion of data, its a lot better than what was available in the past, there's just less of it now!.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 May 2016 09:30

brar_w wrote:I am yet to come across any consistent case of think tankers getting sidelined or snubbed because they came up with an alternative viewpoint and I have been following defense and aerospace related think tanks for nearly 2 and a half decades.

I know atleast one or say two Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon , The Aussie goverment told them to shut their research work for good and hence their had to bring down or say stop any further writing on APA.

I know a few of them in India but I dont want to name them here but they are my friends.

The so called trade show or conference and I had the previlage to attend few , are just but corporate event or government funded one of mix of both , they are just there to parrot their view and show that is the right way.

Most of the media is funded by advert or partially funded by government or fully in case of think tank , if an individual write something that challenges the notion of something that goes against their line of thinking , that individual gets sidelined or gently told to change his view point , if that does not happen the media advertisement revenue is threatened which which leave them not much choice.

The only way these days to get a good alternate view is either by blogs there are just very few who can put out such view or some crowd funded think tank if that works out , there is really no hope with government or corporate media to put out any thing except what the truth that the companies want to or government want to.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 13:50

I know atleast one or say two Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon , The Aussie goverment told them to shut their research work for good and hence their had to bring down or say stop any further writing on APA.

Thats really not who it went down. They had just one paying client, that did not like what the sort of analysis they were providing since their data showed otherwise. Meanwhile, Dr. Copp and Goon still get around quite well on the talk circuit talking about how the entire world can't seem to understand their viewpoint. Their story of how they lost their only 'real' client is well documented by an Aussie on f-16.net. Worth digging up, but needless to say they weren't really a very heavily research driven think thank, but rather a few folks who worked as independents on whatever that pleased them.

The so called trade show or conference and I had the previlage to attend few , are just but corporate event or government funded one of mix of both , they are just there to parrot their view and show that is the right way.

I didn't mean the government-industry trade shows, but more on the technical ones. AIAA conferences are a great place to start - mostly technical, academic and scholarly work on the various matters pertaining to aerospace and related and allied fields. There are trade shows that are SHOWS in the very sense but there one must look for breakout sessions...

Most of the media is funded by advert or partially funded by government or fully in case of think tank , if an individual write something that challenges the notion of something that goes against their line of thinking , that individual gets sidelined or gently told to change his view point , if that does not happen the media advertisement revenue is threatened which which leave them not much choice.

Could be globally, in the US if there are such individuals they usually end up in front of congress and do so routinely and get plenty of opportunities to pursue their work. The disarmament community is a perfect example - constant thorns for the operator/NATSEC community, but as a results the most vocal, and we'll regarded experts on strategic issues. Then there are the so called POGO (in all honesty they are more of an activist organization as opposed to a think tank) stick bearers for the left are routine invitees and have an entire constituency that feeds into their garbage (which it most certainly is).

The only way these days to get a good alternate view is either by blogs there are just very few who can put out such view or some crowd funded think tank if that works out , there is really no hope with government or corporate media to put out any thing except what the truth that the companies want to or government want to

Some of these BLOGS are written at times by folks who have no 'skin in the game', at times don't even reveal their actual identity (there is the classic case of the French industry shill letting an obscure blogger/comment-section troll post as an author on the front page of his dubbed " the professional website for aerospace"). Its good entertainment with some really decent ones but hardly anything ground-breaking in terms of revelations. I'd still read the latest issue of the Journal of Aircraft, or go through the AOC (old crows) that this month posted a fairly lengthy RED analysis of Russian systems in Syria that would put Janes's analysis on them one the last year to shame, in addition to their cover story on DARPA and semi-conductor programs. There are some really really good technical folks who post for their various technical organizations through their publications. Aviation Week / Avionics Mag. in the past used to get them in as guests..these are some very good sources for some analysis, done by folks that have lived and breathed similar systems or challenges for a living. The traditional sources, Aviation Week, Flight etc have slowly had the talent drain.There are handful of folks that remain that had a technical background and those are also not he way out for better careers...Janes has now practically become a global defense reporting organization with most of the technical stuff buried in their paid reports that I stopped subscribing too given how poorly prepared some of the recent ones were. Same with AWIN - Both of them (AWIN and Jane's) have positioned themselves as providers of analysis and data to the industry and particularly the investor community and the financial industry which gets them a lot of subscription and funds their reporting. Good for the investors int he defense sector, bad for military aficionados.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 May 2016 13:53

brar_w wrote:Thats really not who it went down. They had just one paying client, that did not like what the sort of analysis they were providing since their data showed otherwise. Meanwhile, Dr. Copp and Goon still get around quite well on the talk circuit talking about how the entire world can't seem to understand their viewpoint. Their story of how they lost their only 'real' client is well documented by an Aussie on f-16.net. Worth digging up, but needless to say they weren't really a very heavily research driven think thank, but rather a few folks who worked as independents on whatever that pleased them.

I dont know what they throw out at F-16.net

The fact their website was shutdown under pressure from Australia Government is someting Dr Copp mentioned to me when I inquired.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 13:58

I dont know what they throw out at F-16.net

Goon used to post not hat website iirc, and has claims (open source) have been well rebutted, by using open source materials over there. He now sometimes posts in the comments section of various news-articles, particularly pertaining to his F-35 vs F-22/High End F-111 duo..gets rebutted there as well but that's good because those are the sort of arguments everyone likes..

The fact their website was shutdown under pressure from Australia Government is someting Dr Copp mentioned to me when I inquired.

Under pressure as in we'll throw you guys in jail? I find that hard to believe but hey its their word against the world I guess. That they had one client and that client didn't really want to pursue the relationship further really spelled doom for them anyways so unless they found some takers for their analysis, they would have been dead in the water anyways. What they do as a part of promoting their website, is no one's concerns. It wasn't like they were throwing out confidential sources..Their analysis was entirely open source and based on open source material with their own agenda driven twist and conclusions which they are/were entitled too.. That F-35 SIMAF was the perfect example, which took them how many weeks to come clean on, and finally reveal that the analysis by the organization that performed it was done using a video game? Why would a client trust a video-game analysis when they had an entire lab at Wright Patt. for themselves for nearly 6 months to run the simulations based on real-world data? And then these folks and their proponents can't seem to understand why the RAAF doesn't trust their analysis and conclusions. There is a fine line between conducting a data driven analysis (even if the data is insufficient as long as you state the assumptions and limitations) to inform your client or as part of the broader academic effort, and to pull out each and every dirty trick in the book to influence policy. This is what they did and the parliamentary hearings brought that out quite clearly, through the RAAF leadership rebuttals and counter-points.

Anyways, lets move this to the International thread before the mods do so...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 May 2016 18:49

A lot of Copps analysis was spot on. How he slanted the conclusions though was different.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 19:04

Most of it was open source and done in the past. The conclusions he was drawing were the ones that made it stand out and gave him the notoriety. Where Copp did a really good job was condensing academic work down to digestible nuggets for a hybrid audience that craved technical information that was easy to understand and they weren't bored to death going through it. There's some very very good data and research conducting in his areas of study that never really gets a mention in the more mainstream media because the media lacks the technical capability to digest it and repackage it for their audience. Copp is/was great at doing that. For example, how many that read the defense media would even know that there is an annual military radar summit, and that there are technical papers presented there, some of which talk about some really amazing stuff down to the very granular level. A person like Copp could fill a dozen articles from just one session. The defense media would only cover the keynote and go home.

Same thing Bill Sweetman and his broken-record persistence on VHF radars spelling doom and the US needing to wake up to them. It took a Col. level AFRL officer to drive the point at an AFA event 2 years ago, by pointing to the VHF research projects ( He put a slide with a ginormous US VHF radar complex on with the caption " The Lights are still On"). initiated specifically to develop operational level survivability models and understanding, for real-world operational hardware and future projects. In fact if one digs in a lot of uncle bills articles he borrows, sometime quite clearly from them and doesn't even attempt to change some of the tone and language from the papers. The niche he occupied was one where you do an analysis but don't get held to the peer reviewed standard that academic work may. It was good, but now he goes to work (PR) for an OEM that is very heavily invested in stealth

. But both at least attempted to understand something that was beyond marketing. Far better than the newer crop of hipsters like Axe, Majumdar, Rogoway et al who are either invested in a marketing brochure, or ex POGO (Dave Maj), or want to be at POGO .

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 May 2016 19:14

One can do a lot from open source if you have the willingness and knowledge. Copp did.

His conclusions weren't what were important. The information he was putting out there was amazing. You don't have to buy what he says x leads to. If x is given that's a lot. The stuff he has out there (still) is datamined by many serious folks.

Sweetman is not in the same league as Copp. Both were biased (right or wrong) against JSF.

But Kopp - its surprising how he managed to get away with a lot of the stuff he was publishing, for so long.

The Australian Govt crackdown was bound to occur.

Agree that Axe, Majumdar et al are hipsters.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 May 2016 19:38

Karan M wrote:One can do a lot from open source if you have the willingness and knowledge. Copp did.

His conclusions weren't what were important. The information he was putting out there was amazing. You don't have to buy what he says x leads to. If x is given that's a lot. The stuff he has out there (still) is datamined by many serious folks.

Sweetman is not in the same league as Copp. Both were biased (right or wrong) against JSF.

But Kopp - its surprising how he managed to get away with a lot of the stuff he was publishing, for so long.

The Australian Govt crackdown was bound to occur.

Agree that Axe, Majumdar et al are hipsters.

This was email communication sent by him some time back

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

APA's initial four submissions to the Canberra Senate F-35 Inquiry went online a short time ago.

Given the predominantly lay audience, we limited the body of each submission to two pages, and bundled supporting material and reading into multiple Annexes per submission.

As we closed down all APA research and publishing due to the Soviet-style DTCA legislation in October 2012, we have drawn heavily on prior publications either by citation or borrowing pages or slides for Annexes, so a lot of supporting material would have been seen previously. There is some third party public material we added that is post 2012.

The fourth submission we put in deals specifically with the new DTCA censorship regime that goes active in Australia in April this year - two months hence.

We have frequently used the term "senior defence officials", as we did not believe it was appropriate to name individuals, in any event reading the Canberra Parliamentary record and other public documents shows most if not all Canberra senior defence officials providing evidence to Parliament were doing so off a common script, verbatim, errors of fact and other misrepresentations being identical, regardless of the document or Parliamentary hearing in which these claims have appeared. That is a pattern we have observed since 2003 - 2004, when the Canberra DoD placed all external communications, including those with Parliament and the office of the Defence Minister, under centralised internal controls.

Apropos other submissions to the inquiry, a large number have been authored by people APA does not know, and did not know of. Very clearly, some in the public have been doing a lot of reading.

Please feel free to distribute the above link to any interested parties.

Cordially,

Carlo

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 May 2016 19:42

Karan , Just check the link above posting here too , In each of the individual pdf you have some very interesting info on radar capabilities etc

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2016 19:49

Austin wrote:Karan , Just check the link above posting here too , In each of the individual pdf you have some very interesting info on radar capabilities etc

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p2014273

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 May 2016 21:35

Austin wrote:Karan , Just check the link above posting here too , In each of the individual pdf you have some very interesting info on radar capabilities etc

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

Yes, thanks for sharing very interesting. Looks like the Aus Gov shut them down. No wonder, the updates stopped.
I have to admit that despite some of Kopp's out there conclusions & his somewhat blinkered worldview (Aussie supremacist, looks down on Asian countries and thinks they are all threats), his data/analysis was fairly correct in some areas.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 May 2016 22:13

Austin, I had seen that Submissions webpage before, but great stuff for bringing it up again. Its an information gold mine.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2016 17:31

Indian Navy to replace Sea Harrier fighter planes with Russian MiG 29Ks
India had planned to replace the Sea Harriers with the homemade Light Combat Aircraft (Naval) version but the program is more than 15 years behind schedule.
Manjeet Singh Negi | Edited by Parthshri Arora
New Delhi, May 4, 2016

The Indian Navy will de-induct its Sea Harrier fighter and induct a new squadron of MiG 29K planes at a formal ceremony at its naval station in Goa on May 11.

Britain-manufactured Sea Harriers, which have been the mainstay of the Indian Navy's aerial arm since their induction in 1983 and were stationed aboard the INS Vikrant, will now be replaced by the Russian MiG 29Ks, which are all-weather carrier-based multirole fighter aircraft.

The Sea Harrier pilots are now being trained to fly the Russian MiG 29K fighter aircraft.

India had planned to replace the Sea Harriers with the homemade Light Combat Aircraft (Naval) version but the program is more than 15 years behind schedule.

State-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. conducted a limited upgrade to the Sea Harriers in 2009 but acquisition of spares has become a problem because BAE Systems has stopped manufacturing the aircraft.

The limited upgrade included mounting of Israeli Elta-made multimode fire control radars and Derby beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 May 2016 23:04

Bad reporting once again

There are 45 MiG-29K/KUBs on order, and they were always meant to form 2 squadrons. Now that INAS 300 White Tigers are retiring their SHars, naturally they'll take on the surplus MiG-29K/KUBs from the INAS 303 Black Panthers.

There was never a plan to have the White Tigers re-equip with the N-LCA since the planned induction dates for the N-LCA are way behind those of the MiG-29Ks. First they'll fully induct those then look at the N-LCA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 May 2016 00:12

Kartik wrote:There are 45 MiG-29K/KUBs on order, and they were always meant to form 2 squadrons.

Are you sure? Should be three squadrons I think.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 06 May 2016 01:40

An air-force squadron is 16 + 2 trainer + 2 WWR (war wastage reserves)
So for Two Squadrons that will be 32 (fighters) + 4 (trainers) + 4 (WWR) = 40

Additional 5 is Naval Strategic Reserve ???
Order them at a cheaper rate in Bulk as opposed to replacements ordered on/after loss of aircraft).

(funny I started my argument thinking 3 squadrons like you VivS but I think 2 maybe more accurate).

The N-LCA will be the third squadron - YIPEEEEE !!!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 May 2016 03:30

This is scathing, not only to the IAF but also to IAS and ofcourse the UPA and a strong caution to the Modi government.

Bureaucrat facilitators of corruption

Bureaucrat facilitators of corruption

The BJP government has picked up on the fact mentioned in a post from a week ago about all IAF acquisitions of late being scams. Those that have come to light are the Rs 3,700 crore Agusta-Westland VVIP helo deal and, not entirely unconnected with it, the contract for the Pilatus 7C basic trainer aircraft, and potentially a big scandal relating to the Rafale combat aircraft, with the same dramatis personnae featuring prominently in all three deals.

The one curious aspect that emerges from the media brouhaha about defence corruption is that while the political and military ends of these two deals — the Congress Party involved in both cases as the political driver, and the IAF dispensations under ACM SP Tyagi for the Agusta item and ACM NAK Browne for the Pilatus, are under the scanner, the facilitative bureaucratic element — the IAS officers in MOD have yet to be identified and their roles investigated.

The Pilatus scam arose from a simple fact: The exacting Staff Requirements (SRs) for a basic turboprop trainer were drafted by IAF for an indigenous aircraft to be designed and developed indigeneously by HAL. Once Vayu Bhavan succeeded in convincing the Govt of the day that HAL couldn’t hack it and the immediate need for a trainer necessitated the purchase of a foreign aircraft the IAF HQrs, mysteriously, lowered the SRs to accommodate the obsolete Pilatus 7C (just how ancient? Well, Burma used it in 1977 and Australia just discarded it after 30 years of use!), even though the higher standards for indigeneous plane were met by the 9C version of Pilatus and the other entrants in the trainer competition, in the main, the South Korean KT-1 and the American Beechcraft T-6C. Owing to the lowest tender (L1) system, Pilatus 7C Mk-II won the race but at a high price, with ceiling originally set for the more modern 9C or equivalent aircraft. The differential in price between the old inferior trainer IAF procured and the more advanced and current technology aircraft it passed up is the money available for filling the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats, and the senior air force officers in the loop.

The Italian court documents relating to Augusta helos reveal the proportion in which the loot is distributed, with roughly 30 million Euros in payoffs being disbursed in all — 16 million euros reserved for politicians, 8 million for MOD (mostly IAS) babus, and some 6 million euros for IAF officers. The ratio works to approximately 1:1.3:2.7, with the militarymen being the bottom-feeders and the political leaders the top-feeders. And these are the two sets of culprits who get fingered. But how come the bureaucrat-facilitators who take a big chunk of the payoffs and bribes in the middle go virtually unidentified and scott free, happy in their retirement to loll in their ill-gotten wealth stacked in prime real estate and properties, and dummy companies in the names of their spouses and near relatives?? This last is what needs a thorough investigation.

If one examines the bureaucratic big shots who were in play in both the Agusta and Pilatus deals, there were many of the same people in MOD, whose roles in these deals need investigation. Times TV is the only television channel to highlight one main MOD babu who was central to progressing these deal through the GOI maze — Shashikant Sharma, who was appointed to the Constitutional post of Comptroller & Accountant General (CAG), and asked him about his involvement in these scams. He replied nonchalantly that the Agusta (and also Pilatus) needed to be investigated.

Consider his postings — he pulled almost 10 years only in MOD, rather rare for an IAS babu. His postings (per Wikipedia) are as follows:
December 2003-February 2007, Joint secretary (Air), MOD
February–April 2007, Additional Secretary, MOD
April- August, 2007, Additional Secretary,Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances
August 2007 – November, 2009, Additional Secretary, DG (Acquisition), MOD
November, 2009-September 2010, Secretary, DG (Acquisition), MOD
September 2010- February 2011,Secretary, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology
February–July 2011,Secretary,Ministry of Finance
July 2011- May 2013, Defense Secretary, MOD

Now match up his posts with procurement decisions: As JS(Air). MOD, in 2003 he was in the thick of the Augusta VVIP helo decision; as Add Sec and DG Acquisition and Sec and DG Acquisition in 2010 onward he decided on Pilatus 7C, before being, perhaps, rewarded for his services, post-retirement in May 2013 by being appointed as CAG — a Constitutional post beyond the pale of the law. Was this deliberate? Of course the indefatigable Prashant Bhushan has filed a PIL (public interest litigation) case in the supreme court challenging Sharma’s appointment as CAG for reasons of “conflict of interest” because his office may have to rule on the propriety of the financial dealings concerning the Agusta helo, Pilatus trainer, and Rafale. And starting as head of Acquisitions, MOD, he lubricated the Rafale deal as well, which is yet to blow up in public, but most certainly will. As I have warned in my posts, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is best advised to swallow his pride and for the BJP govt to peremptorily junk the Rafale deal. Because if the 36 Rafale buy goes through, assuming just one term for Modi, the govt that succeeds his in 2019, will ensure his name and that of BJP’s will become synonymous one with the Rafale coruption scandal as the Congress party is forever tainted by the Bofors scam.

Incidentally, Sharma has got his Sancho Panza from the MOD — his JS(Air) when he was DG Acquisitions and Defence Secretary and his junior in IAS — GR Rao, appointed as Deputy CAG!!! And recall that as Defence Secretary his role was seminal in ruling against extension in service of the then army chief and now minister of state, MEA, General VK Singh.

So, how kosher does all this look? The Constitutional issue that arises is whether a CAG and his cohort implicated in a defence procurement scam are above the law? Or will the BJP govt have to await his retirement as CAG in 2017 before indicting him and throwing him in jail?

The problem for defence minister Manohar Parrikar, assuming he discards the Rafale altogether and doesn’t have to worry about being hauled up in the future for it, is how to explain his decision to buy the additional 38 7C trainers, when the facts of wrongdoing and payoffs in the deal were known to just about everybody in MOD and which have caused the BJP regime to investigate the Pilatus deal. If it is argued that Parrikar did not apply his mind then the lesson for him to learn is not to trust the advice of babus and militarymen, discard what they say, but study issues and seek advice of outside experts, before making treasury-emptying decisions where military procurement is concerned that can make or mar the reputation of his govt. Were the BJP to also order a probe into the Rafale deal as it has so far unfolded, there will be revelations there that will take the country by surprise, primarily in how smoothly the embedded system of corruption kicks into action every time there is even a whiff of military acquisition in the air.

The point to make is that bureaucrats, as handmaidens of corruption, invariably get away with the vilest wrongdoing, assisting their political masters to milk the system while keeping a lot or little for themselves as nest egg, even as everybody else gets hauled up. This has to end. Consider just how crucial the IAS babus are in the procurement game. The military service’s role is limited primarily to the drawing of SRs. The DG Acquisitions, MOD, is actually central to approving hardware purchases. And Price Negotiation Committee (PNC) headed by Add Sec, MOD, Joint Sec (concerned service) and Defence Finance officers, with a one-star rank military officer asked to fill space at the negotiating table and not actually participate, firming up the contract. And because IAS babus in MOD are generalists — whose knowledge of military matters even after serving many years in the Ministry ranges between iffy and nonexistent, the contracts that accrue almost w/o exception favour the foreign vendor (whose negotiators are all specialists in legal nuances and technical minutiae in their fields and run circles around the noncomprehending dolts on the Indian side).

If the BJP govt is serious about accountability and bringing all the culprits in the Agusta, Pilatus, and potentially Rafale boondoggles to book, it better not overlook their main bureacrat facilitator. Seek the counsel of the attorney general about whether a serving CAG can be prosecuted, at a minimum, for his apparent malfeasance and fiduciary irresponsiblity. If as CAG he cannot be touched by law, then it is incumbent on the govt to prepare an airtight legal case against him, and to prosecute him the day he demits office as CAG, which is only a year away. If the Gandhis and ACM Tyagi & “Fratelli Tyagi” and ACM Browne (now ambassador to Norway) are to be made examples of, so should the IAS officers involved in these three deals.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 May 2016 06:18

Khalsa wrote:An air-force squadron is 16 + 2 trainer + 2 WWR (war wastage reserves)
So for Two Squadrons that will be 32 (fighters) + 4 (trainers) + 4 (WWR) = 40

That's only for a (NATO-pattern) air force squadron. Standard size for a Navy fighter squadron AFAIK is 12 aircraft.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 May 2016 13:24

Tx Shaurya for the full report. However,the poor Pilatus is a good bird,like Bofors,and the IAF was really in a bind without a reliable BT that would ,unlike the HAL bird,stop crashing. No idea if we could've got the more advanced versions for the same price though.One will have to look at other nations who've acquired the same and the price they paid. The brilliance of the babus though is amazing.When the prices/contract is negotiated,they have a uniformed dummy,also dumb,sitting in for his thumb impression. The contracts are drawn up heavily in favour of the firang OEM on liability,etc. This is where the advice that the AG must step in is v.well advised. The Rafale deal is a veritable minefield to traverse in its current state. All the Opposition need is just one deal and accusations to hurl at Mr.Modi to try and tarnish his clean reputation and counter the huge number of scams that they've been responsible for.

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 06 May 2016 13:39

with all these scams the iron is hot to declare that going forward only desi/indigenous weapon systems will be inducted by the military except for G2G deals. That one outcome might be the ray of sunshine in an otherwise very depressing situation around our armed forces

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 May 2016 15:00

Shiv wrote: think the motivations of people like Prodyut Das are being misinterpreted. That man is hardly an ignorant media bum. He will simply find new stuff to write about. One has to be really petty to actually feel hurt because someone disagrees and I think Das is too smart for that and may actually turn the barbs directed at him back at the source and get them even more riled up. Especially when people are hoping that he shows remorse or suffers for his views, that is the last thing he will do.

I can only speak for myself, Das pretty much openly admitted his dislike for ADA thanks to his own association and identification as HAL first, and in the process of landing a few good ones for the sake of ego, does not care if he deliberately hurts Indian interests. In that he is no different from the petty nawabs and feudals of a bygone era who would side with colonial powers because their relations with their peers were fraught and they felt sidelined. Prodyut Das's articles have been gleefully quoted by the Gripen team (and that article appeared just as reports were emerging of how the IAF would not likely take the Gripen for MMRCA as it had the LCA), and he ran articles in Vayu praising the latter and rubbishing the LCA on the basis of randomly pulled out of assertions. Then continued the campaign to run down ADAs attempts to add more teeth to it based on IAF input. He is no better IMHO than many of our so called journalists who are called endearing names now, because their motivations too are similar.

So he is not an ignorant media bum, he is as smart as they are, in that his bias & dislike for his perceived opponents who did not do champi tel maalish in ages back, drive him. In the process if he runs down IAF test crew by implying their praise for the LCAs handling is motivated, cooks up claims about the LCAs performance by quoting gobbledegook while ignoring statements from the former, deliberately plays down its accomplishments in avionics and systems. No two concerns about national objectives and objective evaluation of the LCA.

The AMCA offers him a whole new world to talk about as also modifications to LCA and avionics/weapons choices. Like him or hate him he has readership and his lateral thinking is interesting even if one does not agree. His views are no more outrageous than many we find on BRF, but he has a standing in the aerospace community that gets him eyes and ears that we will not get.

Its ok to have differing views but they need to be tempered with views on attrition about availability of platforms with the opponent, about the rate of progress in systems and technologies. He ignores all those. I remember one article wherein he only wanted simple fighters. Yes, and if those simple fighters got smashed by more expensive ones would he be then getting us pilots magically? These basic things are missing from his analysis.

This is why, unfortunately for him, and thankfully for us, the key decision maker in the aerospace community, the IAF has no time for his whimsical views and is busy making all the very choices he claims they shouldn't be for their platforms. They are asking for full stealth and enhanced sensor reach on the FGFA, are looking at high power AESA radars to handle LO targets for GBAD.. the list goes on and on and on..

The scientific community also concurs with the IAF if we go by the advances happening. I have posted a few excerpts in the R&D thread which show what they are focusing on. Das's views are completely out of synch with what current day scientists who are monitoring and working with peers worldwide, believe is the future.

That is because Das literally takes no account of the folks actually flying the aircraft or technology advances. He is stuck in a bygone era where the impact of advances in sensors, munitions et al are not factored in and this is a recurring theme in his articles wherein he completely ignores the improvements in modern day munitions and their disproportionate combat power vis a vis earlier developments.

I would be cautious about making predictions - it is going to be far easier to come up with scathing criticisms or wise suggestions about AMCA than actually making one and getting it to fly. If he is really vindictive he is going to be on a roll every time there is an AMCA hiccup, but typically his articles cover a wide variety of topics, and tends to drip with easy to understand aero gyan - at least the ones I get to see.

If his LCA articles are any indication, he will revel in any AMCA hiccup, because he does not identify with national objectives at all, and nor is he even handed, eg giving HAL liberal dollops of cover for the disaster that is the IJT.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 May 2016 15:18

And Vivek Ahuja's simulations openly contested many of Das's claims about the LCA in the aerodynamic arena. It also speaks volumes that people who are opposed to the LCA for various reasons (Tellis, Gripen folks because the LCA success automatically impacts the "solutions" they are peddling) openly cite something like Das's claims, but would not publicize anything else like the quotes by Shukla about the LCA from test pilots or Ahuja's sims.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 06 May 2016 16:22

This witch hunting will only hurt our forces in the long run, as no party will dare to clear a deal out of fear of political fallout in next election cycle. Bofors caused Army to go without new gun for 20+ years (and counting). All this BS gave birth to DM like Mr CleanX, who caused more scandals under him then Mulayam singh.

If they are not politically motivated then it's good for the nation, else our forces will be doomed for another decade or so.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 May 2016 17:23

Sid, no slight intended but that reason has been trotted out - we get hurt with imports etc 24/7 by a huge clique of media, bureaucrats and rtd service folks in think tanks.. the alternate way to think is why not put a proper system in place that minimizes political interference or corruption?
Fact is our forces have been used to enrich certain folks by deliberately restricting local R&D, acquisition procedures and at the end of the day, they don't even get what they professionally need?

That is because the people who claim to be working on their behalf and thanks to rank, hierarchy in a highly disciplined services environment manage to convince their peers and juniors they did what was right, even though there were clear issues of malfeasance or even the wrong items get selected time and again.

For instance, the T-90. Yet to get fixed, and we are saddled with over 1000 pieces of a unit with operational limitations, while Arjun went through hoop after hoop. Tejas's delay has definitely been exacerbated by vested interests like Shri CWG scam. Many folks wrote all sorts of motivated articles on it, including journalists and rtd think tank types who openly lobbied, supported the Gripen.

Somewhere, someone has to cut the Gordian knot and the nexus of corruption, pelft and privilege that prevented a man like VKS from continuing and ensures pliant chaps are foisted at the highest ranks whose statements and actions are never questioned by anyone in the setup because it benefits everyone.

The services and even we as a public need to get this fixed. Economic growth has not translated to better combat power as it should have to the degree required. It has only broadbased corruption and made it widely acceptable. Or ensured the wrong items are foisted on services which then are not combat ready to the degree the lay public expects.

There are dime a dozen such cases and in each case, the usual bakras are "PSUs", R&D, this, that.. who didn't get them the right weapons. But when the so called import comes, its never serviceable. The IAF has radars on its upgrades that don't work. Missiles which are unserviceable. Army has tanks without TI sights that can be used around the clock and they have to be carefully managed for wartime. The Rocket launchers from Russia don't work. The Navy has fighters which are trotted out for public displays but a careful perusal of Russian and Indian reports indicates many issues.

All this requires systemic fixing, which has deliberately not been done because it inconveniences many vested interests. The same way accelerated funding and coordination between PSU/Pvt sector would have sped up the LCA and reduced the scope of upgrade programs, the same way Bofors drawings lay unused at OFB while attempts to make an Indian one were scuttled or went nowhere, because imports were available, for ages.

Thing is defence scams allow for easy access to huge gains with minimal oversight and if that has to be fixed, it better be fixed now.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 May 2016 03:21

Karan M wrote:...

... Tejas's delay has definitely been exacerbated by vested interests like Shri CWG scam. Many folks wrote all sorts of motivated articles on it, including journalists and rtd think tank types who openly lobbied, supported the Gripen.

...

The timing of such articles and the numbers of them released around the same time are no mere coincidence. It's plain for all to see.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 May 2016 03:39

Yes, and that is why I openly pointed out that Prodyut Das and co's "lateral thinking" articles conveniently emerge at a select time and why somebody like Ashley Tellis, conveniently has to quote Das as the expert on Tejas, when his bias against it is overwhelming and has to warn the GOI not to drop the MMRCA by taking the "less capable" Tejas.

This is an attempt to lobby the GOI plain and simple, the same way Dick V has to yackety yack about tolerance so that our copy cat artists will echo the same. He is clearly hoping that Indian decision makers and folks will spread the FUD.

Of course, we will have Phillip also emerge to curse the program as well and decry its developers, the aircraft etc by gleefully copy pasting such articles saying F-mag said or whatever.

I mean, its not even subtle anymore.

The desparation is obvious.

The angst that the Tejas is getting AESA & state of the art mission systems just has to be downplayed somehow by raising bogeys of it being compromised or unproven and similar stuff.

The F/A-18 E/F with 7.5G load limits is "powerful", whereas the Tejas @8G is not.

The Tejas is not equal to the MiG-21 bla bla.. it has "ergonomic issues".. whereas actual pilots note:

Feb 2013

Air Commodore (Retd) Harish Nayani is a former LCA test pilot who has flown the MiG-21 Bison aircraft extensively and commanded a Bison squadron. IDP Sentinel elicited his opinion on the matter and this is what Nayani had to say.

"There is absolutely no doubt that the Mk 1, even if limited to 20 alpha would be many magnitudes better than the venerable Bison on all fronts. Notably, handling, safety, pilot comfort, and performance in the subsonic and trans-sonic regimes."

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/12/t ... n-war.html

The Tejas’ avionics --- radar, laser and inertial navigation system --- enhances the accuracy of these weapons. Its highly rated Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar provides multi-role capability, allowing the pilot to fire air-to-air missiles at enemy aircraft; and also bomb ground targets with a highly accurate navigation-attack system. The pilot operates his weapons through a head-up display (HUD), or through a helmet-mounted sighting system (HMSS) by merely looking at a target. Experienced fighter pilots say the Tejas is the IAF’s most “pilot friendly” fighter.

The Tejas’ capability is best known to the air force and navy test pilots in the National Flight Test Centre, who have tested it in 2,400 flights. They claim it may be more versatile than the MiG-29 (primarily built for air-to-air combat); the MiG-27 and the Jaguar (both oriented to ground strike); and all variants of the MiG-21, including the multi-role BISON.

The Tejas’ likely adversary, the Pakistan Air Force’s F-16 fighter, has a slightly larger flight envelope, but the Tejas’ superior avionics give it a combat edge over the PAF’s older F-16A/Bs (currently being upgraded in Turkey); and superior to their new JF-17 Thunder light fighter, co-developed with China. Only the PAF’s 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, flying since 2010-11 from Jacobabad, may be a match for the Tejas.

Said an NFTC test pilot during the IOC ceremony on December 20: “As a multi-role fighter, the Tejas is at least the equal of the IAF’s upgraded Mirage-2000. It can more than hold its own in our operational scenario.”

So who the heck are the likes of Prodyut Das and Ashley Tellis kidding with their propaganda?

Do they seriously think folks are silly enough to fall for their BS all the time.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 07 May 2016 05:34

Guys, the U.S has tried to scuttle Tejas long back. Remember how the U.S company told George Fernandes, then defense minister. that this aircraft will not take off and will crash. They are worried about their own fighter market being taken over by India in the coming decades (With Tejas and AMCA leading). Hence all this circus.