Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 23 Aug 2014 05:02

just a question : i have seen many costs quoted as for sure here (like 20 or 30 billions for MMRCA). Any serious source? Any idea of the content?
Oh btw, Safran has let Air & Cosmos magazine know that indian M-88 would be purely indian made (after ToT) a few months ago. Noone noticed?
Etc. Etc. Too many things to notice and/or discard, sorry.
Will son publish a fully documented screenshot about data fusion in Rafale btw, need some time sorry.
Cheers to all.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2014 05:48

Purely on the cost factor alone,the JSF would be even more unaffordable than the Rafale,with operating costs far higher than any 4th-gen aircraft.There are too any issue with the aircraft right now for any serious look at it.If and when it sorts out its problems,is available at reasonable cost,one might take a dekko .

But the issue now is spreading the money allocated to the IA holistically,instead of dumping it all on a hideously expensive aircraft.Latest reports about the extra MIG-29SMTs that Russia has ordered is for an astonishing low price of just $30M.aircraft.Our MIG-29Ks were bought for just $32M apiece.If the IAF wants to augment numbers,replacements for the hundreds of MIG-21s to be retired,then this is one very cost-effective option,apart from buying as many LCAs as HAL can manufacture,as of now just 8/yr.,far too low a prod. rate.

Surely for the N-delivery role,a dedicated SU-34 would be a far better option than the Rafale,easy to induct along with the to-be inducted and earlier MKIs upgraded Super-Sukhois,or even acquiring on lease Backfires/Blackjacks? The IAF also needs extra force-multipliers which really make a difference like the 3 extra Phalcon AWACS,the smaller desi AEW bird on an EMB platform,tankers,etc.Splurging everything on the Rafale is like a gambler placing all his money on one number!

With the Raffy in financial trouble,the other failed candidates will certainly spring into action,as they've reportedly done,clouding the picture.$Billions saved is a very strong persuasive argument for the Fin. Min who is also the Def. Min,who has to feed a billion hungry Indian souls!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 06:34

i have seen many costs quoted as for sure here (like 20 or 30 billions for MMRCA). Any serious source?

IIRC, it was the CEO of Dassault that said it would more than $20 billion.

Need to find the article.

Safran has let Air & Cosmos magazine know that indian M-88 would be purely indian made (after ToT)

Did it say anything beyond that?

For instance that India could use that engine as she pleases OR even more pertinent, India could use the IP as she pleases.

What use is such a "ToT" - outside of local support and spares.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Aug 2014 07:50

^^^

Based on prior so-called TOT deals, assembly of raw or other precision parts sourced from foreign OEM tend to be labeled as "Indian made". Even the equipment for these assemblies are imported. If you look at it from technology perspective what India is doing is low value addition work with low-quality knowledge acquisition.

True test for the quality of TOT that India is getting is if India can perform a full MLU on the Rafales (with very little input from French OEMs) in say another 15 years time. If the MLU turns out to be another Mirage-2000 upgrade type of deal, then you know the whole Rafale TOT was a fiasco and India paid premium prices for very little gain in aerospace technology knowledge. We will know in another 15-20 years time; that is the time that would be "lost" to indigenous R&D while the French continue to keep its technology lead using the money from Indian deal (x 2 - one for initial acquisition and second for MLU) to fund its R&D.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 08:12

The French are already planning on folding their MLU into the MMRCA, so an Indian MLU in 15 years would mean the plane would be flying backwards.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Aug 2014 08:35

^^^

MLU is mid-life upgrades. Are you saying all French MLU is going into the Indian Rafale deal that is being signed now? What about MLU that would take place in 2035 or beyond for Indian Rafales? Or are you saying Indian Rafales won't have any MLUs down the road?

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 23 Aug 2014 09:11

IIRC, it was the CEO of Dassault that said it would more than $20 billion.

Need to find the article.

Not really, it is from an interview at MAKS. Point is un (one) and twenty (vingt) have very close pronunciation in french, specially for a russian lady journalist... That said, MMRCA may in the end cost as much depending if you count ToT, industrialization costs, indianization costs, full life cycles etc. The only important thing is that Eric Trappier never quoted such a price.

The only thiing i can say (because i know little) about Rafale MLU is that a senior DA executive quoted to me that "it would be stupid not to partner with india as far as MLU upgrades are concerned".

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2014 10:30

NR,would the raffy MLU have forward swept wings like the Berkut?!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Aug 2014 11:49

Philip wrote:Purely on the cost factor alone,the JSF would be even more unaffordable than the Rafale,with operating costs far higher than any 4th-gen aircraft.

It'll be comparable if not cheaper than the Rafale on direct acquisition costs. Operating cost is currently higher than the F-16 but still lower than the F-15C (and by extension the Su-30MKI). With a cheaper MLU and munitions complement, it'll have a lower life-cycle cost than the Rafale.

There are too any issue with the aircraft right now for any serious look at it.

So you keep insisting but at this point that's a pretty weak argument. Most technical issues you've brought up are out-of-date or have been otherwise rebutted on the JSF thread. The engine fire was been identified as a isolated non-systemic problem, the bulkhead cracking on the 'B' has been fixed, the 'C' variant is successfully testing the new tail-hook, the Gen 3 helmet has been delivered and so on.

Also, (i) the cost has been halved since LRIP 1, (ii) the final flyaway cost of $75 mil is being squeezed down further, (iii) the IOC software has been delivered for testing, and (iv) the first squadron is all set to IOC next year (which month remains to be seen). And it'll likely receive its FOC before the first Rafale is delivered to the IAF.

But the issue now is spreading the money allocated to the IA holistically,instead of dumping it all on a hideously expensive aircraft.Latest reports about the extra MIG-29SMTs that Russia has ordered is for an astonishing low price of just $30M.aircraft.Our MIG-29Ks were bought for just $32M apiece.

1. The Su-30SM contract for Russia is 'officially' about $35M each as opposed to the $70-100M for a near-identical HAL-built Su-30MKI. No amount of Russian efficiency can justify that disparity in costs. Its probably advisable not to take these 'astonishingly low prices' at face value. The cost to an export customer could well be twice as high.

2. The MiG-29K was $42-50 million in 2010, depending on which figure is accurate ($1.2/1.5bn for 29 fighters). In 2015, you can comfortably assume a figure of $60 million each after factoring in five years of inflation. More, if you want it with AESA, TVC etc.

Surely for the N-delivery role,a dedicated SU-34 would be a far better option than the Rafale,easy to induct along with the to-be inducted and earlier MKIs upgraded Super-Sukhois,or even acquiring on lease Backfires/Blackjacks?

The PAK FA may or may not be capable of deep penetration in PLAAF airspace (sustained loiter being a different ballgame). The Rafale will not be capable of penetrating PLAAF defences, not unless its accommodated with gaping holes in the IADS.

But even the Rafale is better off than a Su-34 that will get chewed up a long way off, with neither a high-end EW system nor any VLO capability for survivability, to say nothing of a whopping huge Tu-22M. Even the Georgians managed to down one of those.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 23 Aug 2014 14:31

Viv S wrote:The Rafale will not be capable of penetrating PLAAF defences, not unless its accommodated with gaping holes in the IADS.

Bold statement, not backed up by any facts or analysis, so potentially total rubbish.

So, tell us about the technical capability and coverage of the PLAAF IADS in Tibet, the ingress/egress routes of the Rafale, the ECM/stand-off capability of the Rafale, and why Rafale loses.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 23 Aug 2014 15:21

^They project from their own bitter experience. As their F-117 was shot over Yugoslavia. It was a rude shock for believers of boeing, LM, mcdogless brochure believers about how advanced their platform was compared to russian and east european defences.

But some people never learn now they're sold to jsf brochure figures.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 23 Aug 2014 15:23

Viv S wrote:the final flyaway cost of $75 mil is being squeezed down further

Is that a promise? US will sell F-35 to India for $75m a piece?

Meanwhile, in the real world ....

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661842.pdf

The DoD finds the cost of operating and supporting the F-35 "unaffordable" ....

Detailed report on potential Canadian procurement costs of F-35A ($45bn lifecycle costs for 65 a/c, excludes any new weapons to be acquired, with the exception of some gun ammunition and flares, where the CF-18 stock is incompatible with the F-35):

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-report ... page#toc7b

On the $9bn initial acquisition cost, $6.2bn is the Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost. Another $15bn for Sustainment and $20bn for Operating costs.

Wish India MoD would publish such detailed reports ...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 18:11

srai wrote:^^^

MLU is mid-life upgrades. Are you saying all French MLU is going into the Indian Rafale deal that is being signed now? What about MLU that would take place in 2035 or beyond for Indian Rafales? Or are you saying Indian Rafales won't have any MLUs down the road?

Ref Pagot's post (tail end).

But this "folding" will not come free or I doubt that it will be included in this cost. If you notice the language they are already thinking in terms of partnering on the MLU, when the Rafale, as a MMRCA - as defined in the RFP - should in theory suffice for India.

@Pagot,

Makes sense. I did find a Russian article (that did not translate well).

I know it is coming, but only because there are alternatives I do not like the cost.

Will the plane help - damned sure it will (what does India have that is better?).

Will the ToT help - sure it will (what does India have that is better?)

BUT neither will solve the reliance issue. India will go back to a France/Russia/whoever in another 30-40 years. For the next gen. Even then India will be able to build a 0.5 gen behind all these nations - just like the LCA. Great but not good enough.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Aug 2014 19:19

eklavya wrote:
Viv S wrote:The Rafale will not be capable of penetrating PLAAF defences, not unless its accommodated with gaping holes in the IADS.
Bold statement, not backed up by any facts or analysis, so potentially total rubbish.

The implication being stealth is superfluous and 4th gen aircraft can do it all? The application of VLO is available all over the web. Google away.

So, tell us about the technical capability and coverage of the PLAAF IADS in Tibet, the ingress/egress routes of the Rafale, the ECM/stand-off capability of the Rafale, and why Rafale loses.

The PLAAF's current composition in the TAR is irrelevant. What counts is what its structure will be in 2020 when the Rafale becomes operational and in 2026 when Rafale deliveries conclude.

A Rafale with two EFTs, 6 AASMs, 4 AAMs, an LDP and requisite pylons and hardpoints will have an average RCS of no less than 5m2.

Pit it against S-400 class systems, medium & long range 3-D surveillance radars including aerostat-based systems, interspaced with half a dozen full sized AWACS and another half dozen smaller AEW&Cs tracking 'fighter-sized' targets at 400km and beyond, backed up by numerous 'mini-AWACS' of the Su-27 family, all sporting jam-resistant AESAs and all tied together within a comprehensive C4I network; well.. there's no ingress/egress route for the Rafale through that.

You want to ~~bulldoze~~ jam a path through that, you need something like the Growler. A spoofing approach might work on older systems, but against a frequency agile AESA, likely driven by greater computing power than the aircraft, the latter will trip up. In either case, the Rafale gives its location away, every dormant sensor in the sector lights up and every CAP flight in the vicinity races onto its location.

eklavya wrote:Is that a promise? US will sell F-35 to India for $75m a piece?

Flyaway cost in 2014 dollars, yes that's what every export customer including India will pay. That's how the FMS system works.

Meanwhile, in the real world ....

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661842.pdf

^ Quote: Since the F-35 program restructuring was completed in March 2012, acquisition cost and schedule estimates have remained relatively stable, and the program has made progress in key areas.

The report was based on data from 2012-13. Since then the program has nearly caught up with the schedule and the Block 2B software in question has been operationalized (and is currently being verified in flight testing). The USMC is on course to declare IOC next year (ref Q&A session posted by Brar on the JSF thread).

Also in the real world, contract value from agreements signed in 2013 -

LRIP 7: $98M - LM, $14M - P&W.
$112M total.

The DoD finds the cost of operating and supporting the F-35 "unaffordable" ....

The DoD just increased the latest batch size to 100 units (up from 71 for the last batch).

Detailed report on potential Canadian procurement costs of F-35A ($45bn lifecycle costs for 65 a/c, excludes any new weapons to be acquired, with the exception of some gun ammunition and flares, where the CF-18 stock is incompatible with the F-35):

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-report ... page#toc7b

On the $9bn initial acquisition cost, $6.2bn is the Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost. Another $15bn for Sustainment and $20bn for Operating costs.

Those costs are based on US audits from 2012. Those figures have been falling as data from operational squadrons is incorporated in those figures and as the ALIS is operationalized.

Wish India MoD would publish such detailed reports ...

Indeed. Would be worth knowing upfront what the Rafale's weapons, MLU, support and operations will cost over its lifetime.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Aug 2014 19:48

Dhananjay wrote:^They project from their own bitter experience. As their F-117 was shot over Yugoslavia. It was a rude shock for believers of boeing, LM, mcdogless brochure believers about how advanced their platform was compared to russian and east european defences.

But some people never learn now they're sold to jsf brochure figures.

One early-80s era aircraft employing poor tactics (out of complacency) downed. A type that was retired in 2008 after 27 years of operation.

As for what people learned from it -

Dassault Neuron
BAE Taranis
AVIC 601-S
MiG Skat
DRDO AURA

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 20:29

Pagot,

Please read up on this article. It is perhaps the closest to an ideal India:

Interview with Dr Avinash Chander, DRDO Chief and Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister

The expectation is very clear:

DRDO today is being asked to not merely catch up with the west in the realm of military technology but actually create 'technological surprise' for the rest of the world.

The Rafale, with its "ToT", will never achieve this - it plain simple cannot. And, yet, that is about the expectation a "ToT" has - unfortunate.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Aug 2014 22:28

"BUT neither will solve the reliance issue."
How will any USA equipment any more reliable when we have to think about sanctions as per rules set forth by USA - for example nuclear tests. In fact kind of ToT will go that much to decrease foreign reliance directly and more in case the industry can pick up tech know how. Does it not go against idea of hedging risks as per which, as it is claimed, Russian jet didn't make it.

As far as tech evaluations are concerned, it is Rafale/EF made it to shortlist already for MMRCA as per requirements of IAF.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 23:01

vishvak wrote:"BUT neither will solve the reliance issue."
How will any USA equipment any more reliable when we have to think about sanctions as per rules set forth by USA - for example nuclear tests.

The very same way that they are leaning on the Syrian leader to deal with ISIS.

The very "Leader" they were fighting with a month ago.

Or Iran, who was vehemently opposed to US intervention in Iraq ........ until a month ago, and now the same Iran is mum about F/A-18s bombing away at ISIS.

IF one has such fear, yes, I agree, India *must* keep away from *all* US products. No two ways about that.

In fact kind of ToT will go that much to decrease foreign reliance directly and more in case the industry can pick up tech know how.

here was an article, just before Hagel landed in India. One of the arguments that article made is that "Co-development + Co-production" would prevent this reliance and went so far as to argue that India will not have to fear about "sanctions". Makes some sense, but perhaps needs to be thought through further.

"ToT" will decrease reliance for sure - BUT, only for that one product and that too at a greater cost (producing in India is estimated to cost 1.5 more than native country). Once that product's life is over, you are back to being reliant. Double that cost.

Does it not go against idea of hedging risks as per which, as it is claimed, Russian jet didn't make it.

No idea what that means.

As far as tech evaluations are concerned, it is Rafale/EF made it to shortlist already for MMRCA as per requirements of IAF.

Sure.

However, two things:
* the evals were not tied to the cost - up front. So, the argument will force a cost that otherwise should have made India withdraw from this. I think this new gov will still do something about it. This cost is too much - does not mean the product is bad
* And, on techs, the RFP was written more than 10 years ago. So, how relevant is it today. IF the IAF were to rewrite the RFP what would they have in that? Would the IAF, as an example, use the same RFP for the AMCA?

The the IAF needs planes is not an issue.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 23:12

BTW ........................... talking of sanctions ...................

Jan, 2010 : US offers F35JSF to India as India-US Defence Cooperation grows

In fact, as the US Administration had imposed restrictions on the sale of military equipment to India after the 1998 nuclear tests, President Bill Clinton went out of the way in 2000 to allow United Defense-Bofors an exception to sell its guns to India if the Indian Army opted for them. BAE is now in the race to sell upgraded versions of Bofors as well as to modernize the 410 units that the Indian Army had bought.

The very US President that imposed the sanctions, a few years later, made an exception too.

Eh?

$hit happens. Stand up and be counted. If you fear, they will make you fear.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Aug 2014 23:28

Didn't Bill Clinton gave nukes to pakis? Or was it Chinese who gave free nukes to pakis so that India will have a threat on the border in the first place? USA is also giving pakis free weapons by the way. And how does it help, going by arguments against Rafale, to help save monies and not affect our own homegrown programs? By the way, more USA weapons will only increase chances of sanctions as per whims and fancies of USA.

During Kargil war, paki PM Badmash Sharif claimed that attacks on India were carried by motley group of militants and USA and others were silent about such bogus crap, as if USA knew nothing about it. This excuse, in the age of satellites, continued all though the Kargil war. We need to be very much careful about such super powers especially when purchasing war machines. This actually is valid even for equipment purchased already and it does not help if USA is selectively helping Assad/rebels after forcing Syrians to give up chemical weapons in the first place.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2014 23:41

Not sure why old args have to be revisited, but Russia, by providing to China, is equally a threat. So is France (China), so is Israel (China).

Does any of them matter?

Those Pali nukes, guess whom are they a threat to too? Who is equally scared of them, before India?

Btw, who gave nukes to China?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2014 23:53

Yes,as allies sales stagnate,the search for new markets (suckers) continues! With India having bailed out Boeing over the C-17 production,saving many US jobs,the great white hope is that we will sign onto the JSF!
Secondly,where is the guarantee of a $75M figure? SoKo dithered over the JSF precisely because the price crossed the budgeted figure of $70M+ and became too expensive. Other posters have given figures of around $100M without the engine.

Yes,the reliance factor is an issue,but should be spelt out with a capital "R",as "Reliance". They are supposedly Dassault's partners in the deal,which may explain why the costs have escalated!

The GOI/MOD would do well to take a quick holistic review of the entire issue of the IAF's future force plans and list priorities that are achievable financially. The F-22 may be the best aircraft in the skies today and even if was available to India would a price tag of $200M be justifiable for us?

If the IAF's goal is to achieve a sqd. strength of 40-45 sqds.,then it must realise hat gold-plated aircraft cannot fit the bill.One needs affordable "bomb trucks" as well as high-performance aircraft.sadly with the LCA still yet to fructify in a meaningful manner,the numbers cannot be achieved unless affordable multi-role fighters are acquired.Equipped with PGMs and the same assortment of AAMs already in service/planned for the bulk of the IAF's fleet,they may not have the refinement of the Rafale,but equal to the task of "doing the business"...at much cheaper cost.

Let's face it.Global arms manufacturers all want to keep their industries humming and make profits out of our misery.When we have neglected our own domestic industry in certain spheres,succeeding only in areas like strategic rocket/missile tech and nuclear weapons,which the West will NEVER give us,where we have been forced to develop it on our own ,we will continue to be dependent upon acquiring weapon systems from abroad. China is an excellent example where it has combined self-reliance as well as acquisition of foreign tech where possible,if only to further its own capabilities. When we are faced with having to choose from foreign suppliers,care should be taken that we get the requisite "bang for the buck" and not later exclaim when the bill of fare arrives ,"what the f*ck!"

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2014 03:40

India Said to Target Signing Rafale Fighter Jet Deal by End 2014

The deal will probably be for more than $11 billion.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Aug 2014 05:14

^^^

The cost being thrown around need to be looked at in detail to see what it includes. There may be an initial deal that is close to $12 billion but excludes for example majority of TOT. Then years following another series of smaller contacts are signed that includes TOT, weapons, other subsystems etc. True eventual cost is hidden. We have seen this type of deal structuring in T-90S MBT and Scorpene SSK.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Aug 2014 05:30

Dhananjay wrote:320.5 billion $ in kitty and still like misers we're crying no money - no money. Funny that too by people who found american C-17 at 10 billion cheap.......

Develop helicopter but buy american apaches, develop your own guns but buy m-777, develop your own tech but don't buy Rafale buy F-35s. Hmmm! what was it both A & B.

$320 billion? you mean FX reserves? They are not 'kitty'. They are 'assets' against which there are liabilities. Much of the FX reserves are based on short term investments.

Take a look at the 'net foreign assets' account of India and you'll see the picture. Our FX reserves are not the same as China's. They accumulated the reserves from selling goods. We accumulated them from borrowing.

You want to know what is in the kitty? Take a look at the budget deficit. We are broke. Of course, we could just print money....

The Rafale is not affordable and I for one, still don't get why this symmetry of Light/medium/heavy mix is a must for the IAF.

Imagine if the original deal for M2Ks had materialized in the early 2000s and they replaced the MiGs. We would not be hearing a peep from the IAF.

LCA + AMCA bolstered in the interim by SU30s.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Aug 2014 05:36

vishvak wrote:Didn't Bill Clinton gave nukes to pakis? Or was it Chinese who gave free nukes to pakis so that India will have a threat on the border in the first place? USA is also giving pakis free weapons by the way.

No the decision to provide porkis with nukes was taken in late 70s jointly by cheenis and amreekis. The agreement was cheen will provide nukes while US the platforms. Hence the F-16s were given to porkis by US and by 90s taking to next stage porkis were having both warheads + missiles. At that time IAF thought of employing jaguars for nuke role but found deficient in space underbelly. So French allowed the Mirage 2000H for that role.

Later when Shri Vajpayee conducted Shakti tests in pokharan the US was very agitated that porki nukes shouldn't be acknowledged and make Bharat nukenude + force CTBT.

The Chanakian Hindu nationalist rightwing BJP played the game very well. Suddenly Home Minister Shri L.K. Advani started giving porkis warning that now Bharat will start "hot pursuit" due to our nuke capability.

While US was desperately making efforts for nawaz sharief not to come out of closet thus embarrising US. But due to Advani ji's provocations porkis also tested thus checkmating US plan of stocking up porkis with nukes while keeping Bharat as incapable nukewise, here is one of their reports later:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340687/t/pak ... cials-say/

WASHINGTON, June 6 — Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is vastly superior to that of rival India, with up to five times the nuclear warheads, say U.S. military and intelligence officials now reassessing the South Asian balance of power. Interviews with senior U.S. officials in the past week revealed the view that Pakistan not only has more warheads than its longtime adversary, but has far more capability to actually use them.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS by India and Pakistan in May 1998 caught American intelligence off guard. While U.S. agencies long had known about weapons-development research in both countries, the decision by both to go public with their capabilities shocked policymakers.

Since then, U.S. intelligence and diplomacy has focused on South Asia with a new intensity. Until recently, for instance, Pakistan was considered to have somewhere between 10 and 15 nuclear weapons and India between 25 and 100.

But after two years of intelligence gathering, officials now believe those figures overstate the capabilities of India’s home-grown arsenal and understate those of Pakistan, whose program has relied on generous Chinese assistance. One official said the Pakistanis “are more likely to have those numbers [25 to 100 weapons] than the Indians.”

Perhaps most important, the official said, is that Pakistan appears far more capable than India of delivering nuclear payloads. “I don’t think their [the Indian] program is as advanced as the Paks,” the official said, speaking particularly of ballistic missiles.

Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said longtime assumptions that India had an edge in the South Asian strategic balance of power were questionable, at best.

“Don’t assume that the Pakistani nuclear capability is inferior to the Indians,” said Zinni, the senior U.S. officer responsible for the Middle East and South Asia.

Other military and intelligence officials, as well as an intelligence analysis of South Asia’s nuclear balance obtained by NBC News, shed more light on the revised view. NBC News is the broadcast partner of the MSNBC.com joint venture.

“They both have a capability,” said one senior military official. “Pakistan’s may be better than India’s, with more weapons and more capability.

“You can’t underestimate the Pakistani program,” said the official. Like most of the officials NBC News contacted, this one would speak only on condition of anonymity.
Advertise

DOCUMENTS SUPPORT REVISED VIEW

India country profile
These officials believe India understands that it is behind. A recent Defense Department analysis of the Indian program obtained by MSNBC.com states that India is moving to address its shortcomings.

Quoting India’s recently publicized draft nuclear doctrine, the Defense Department report said that “India announced its plans to develop a minimum nuclear deterrent force comprised of a triad of nuclear delivery systems - air, mobile land-based launches and sea-based platforms. The air component of its triad is the only one that may be in place already.”

The U.S. report also states that “India probably has a handful of nuclear bombs,” meaning about five. With regard to delivery systems - the missiles and bombers needed to launch a nuclear strike - U.S. officials now believe Indian capabilities to be seriously lagging.

According to the Defense Department document, which is unclassified, India has no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer aircraft capable of delivering a nuclear payload than Pakistan does. India has twice tested a new intermediate-ranged missile, the Agni, which may eventually provide the basis of a nuclear missile force. However, current U.S. analysis suggests the Agni will not be fielded with nuclear warheads for another 10 years. Additionally, India appears to only have begun work on missile warhead design and on the miniaturization of weapons - two critical hurdles to the actual use of weapons.

InsertArt(891823)The U.S. assessment of Pakistan, on the other hand, has been greatly upgraded.

A U.S. official stated that Pakistani air and missile delivery systems are now believed to be “fully capable of a nuclear exchange if something happens.” Other officials noted that Pakistan’s air force, with its U.S. F-16’s and its French Mirage fighter-bombers, are superior at penetrating enemy airspace than India’s Soviet-designed MiGs and Sukhois.

Most importantly, Pakistan is now thought to possess about 30 nuclear-capable missiles: the Chinese M-11 short-range missile and its Pakistani variant, the Tarmuk, as well as the North Korean Nodong intermediate-range missile (known locally as the Ghauri).

HAIR-TRIGGER CONCERN

The mystery that shrouds both of these growing nuclear arsenals has become a major cause for concern among U.S. policymakers, who even before the 1998 tests had deemed South Asia the most likely site of a nuclear war. According to one analysis done by the U.S. Air Force, more than 150 million Indians and Pakistanis could perish in an all-out nuclear exchange - three times the total number of people who died in World War II.

One frequently cited fear among U.S. intelligence officials is an accidental nuclear war in which Pakistan mistakes the firing of an Indian missile bearing a conventional warhead as a nuclear strike.
Advertise

Despite what appears to be a healthy fear of the other on both sides, the United States still fears there could be a series of crises that lead to something worse. Last year’s Pakistani incursion in the Kargil area of Kashmir, the disputed Muslim territory controlled by India, is a good example of the region’s unpredictability.

InsertArt(891821)“Kargil scared both sides,” Zinni said. “There is usually a gentleman’s agreement to keep conflict around the Line of Control,” he said, referring to the U.N. cease-fire line set after the two nations’ 1947 war over the region. “It escalated with mobilizations on different fronts - tit for tat. Both sides are now very concerned about how escalation works and how it could happen very quickly.”

Zinni said the United States intervened in the “nick of time” with Kargil. The United States doesn’t exert much influence on the daily level of fighting, but a senior military official does believe that Washington has some sway in terms of escalation because neither side really wants an all-out war, despite some hard-liners on both side who publicly claim they want to bring the issue to a head.

Also the mission of replacing "Indian Subcontinent" with "SOUTH Asia" has been a mission powered and thought up by americans. On the lines of Shri Rajiv Malhotra's book "Breaking India".

They even ordered HBO to change from HBO India to HBO southasia. These coc)%$($%)(%$ are our biggest enemies after porkis.

They don't just hate the ekta and akhandta of Bharat but Hindus also. That's why obamas, clinton husband wife are ready to give blo*$% to musharraf a military dictator and let him roam free in US giving lectures, inspite of his genocide of Bugti tribe, but preventing NaMo the elected Chief Minister from entering US. Even now that obama woman is sulking at giving state dinner, she prefers quick luncheon on NaMo invite. I've written to NaMo to cancel it at 11th hour and go to some conference with RM instead.

I

at american stuff promoters who on the other threads proudly annouce javelin ToT jv but diss ToT here.

I

at american salesmen who were just few pages back giving duhai of empty coffers in buying Rafale, but feel our coffers are full for 24 C-17s and 60 F-35s.

I

at american supporters who present concept of ToT useless here, but on other threads proudly present 97% ToT offer of Javelin.

Arrre bhai if ToT is useless then americans should put pressure on their govt. to just give 100% from raw material to end product completely with charging a penny.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Aug 2014 05:48

Cosmo_R wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:320.5 billion $ in kitty and still like misers we're crying no money - no money. Funny that too by people who found american C-17 at 10 billion cheap.......

Develop helicopter but buy american apaches, develop your own guns but buy m-777, develop your own tech but don't buy Rafale buy F-35s. Hmmm! what was it both A & B.
$320 billion? you mean FX reserves? They are not 'kitty'. They are 'assets' against which there are liabilities. Much of the FX reserves are based on short term investments.

So you agree that purchasing C-17s for billions of dollars was fiscal profligation? You agree that we shouldn't go for 24 C-17s? Or all the 7 deals US defence secretary offered javelin etc.? The apaches? The P-8s?

Or we have esteemed posters like septimus who think only american F-18 should be bought as it'd just suffice as Rafale/ef2k is overkill. Or we should buy supercool american jsf which is much ahead of others.

Funny coincidence both americans.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2014 06:15

As long as one agrees there is nothing in the "kitty" ................................................. Even the FGFA is unaffordable. So is the T-90, Talwars, Scorpeans, Apaches, C-17, C-130J, Insas rifles, Arjuns, Arihant class subs, more MKIs, trainers, missiles (Agni) ............... indeed the entire defense department.

Oh, forgot to add the AMCA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2014 06:34

srai wrote:^^^

The cost being thrown around need to be looked at in detail to see what it includes. There may be an initial deal that is close to $12 billion but excludes for example majority of TOT. Then years following another series of smaller contacts are signed that includes TOT, weapons, other subsystems etc. True eventual cost is hidden. We have seen this type of deal structuring in T-90S MBT and Scorpene SSK.

And, the thumb rule for "made in India" based on "ToT" is 1.5X.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Aug 2014 06:49

NRao wrote:BTW ........................... talking of sanctions ...................

Jan, 2010 : US offers F35JSF to India as India-US Defence Cooperation grows

In fact, as the US Administration had imposed restrictions on the sale of military equipment to India after the 1998 nuclear tests, President Bill Clinton went out of the way in 2000 to allow United Defense-Bofors an exception to sell its guns to India if the Indian Army opted for them. BAE is now in the race to sell upgraded versions of Bofors as well as to modernize the 410 units that the Indian Army had bought.
The very US President that imposed the sanctions, a few years later, made an exception too.

Eh?

$hit happens. Stand up and be counted. If you fear, they will make you fear.

Yeah I can imagine, huma abedin having tea with clinton couple asks bill "...you didn't seem too happy with sanctions on india...."

Bill : "yeah there was hardly anything to sancton except their fighter jet and some sea kings...., .... ummm wish there was more to santion the ($%(*$% with..."

"I feel jealous of next president who will sanction these people bringing down Jaguar fleet......., LM 2500 naval engines, LCA, m777, C-130, C-17s, apaches, wlr, P-8s....."

I wonder what guarentees author has that sanctions won't happen again. Author has some special right to fear the Rafale's weakness in 2040?

I agree Bharat should disband the armed forces completely as keeping them nourshing them weaponising them is also based on fear about china-porki attack. If you disband that shows you have no fear, so nobody will attack. Great wisdom.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2014 07:35

I wonder what guarentees author has that sanctions won't happen again.

*None*.

That is strategy.

This crying about US doing this and doing that has gone on for 15+ years (on BR). That is the problem. Stop crying and do something that the US will respect Indian policies and will not sanction no matter what. Heck there are tiny nations doing something.

Learn to live with uncertainty and act with certainty. Then you will never fear. (WTO is a great example as far as I can see. Stand up and be counted.)

Author has some special right to fear the Rafale's weakness in 2040?

None.

The fear is not with the Rafale - India can always pay more and make it work better (which is what will happen). France will take care of my fears - pay them, that is all they care about.

The fear is about India falling even further back. (Of course the answer to that is why do you have to fear and some special rights and other never ending nonsense.)

Even with India's special geographic location, huge population, China, now ISIS, etc people are still crying about what the US did or did not do 16 years ago?

Nations do what they have to do, what has India done to mitigate such fears?

And, now with the internet: emoticons. Wow!! Impressed. Crabbing at its best.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2014 07:54

And, are the Russians any better?

They already cracked the whip on the C-17 move and now they are tossing FUD on the Phalcon and the FGFA (or is it PMI or PMF, now that they have taken over and want $5 billion for that).

But, you see, that is par for the course - for all nations/vendors. They *all* - BD and SL included -behave the same - it is rather predictable. With one exception. And that one cries. constantly.

Karma.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Aug 2014 08:06

NRao wrote:
I wonder what guarentees author has that sanctions won't happen again.
*None*.

That is strategy.

This crying about US doing this and doing that has gone on for 15+ years (on BR). That is the problem. Stop crying and do something that the US will respect Indian policies and will not sanction no matter what. Heck there are tiny nations doing something.

Oh we did! We rejected 2 US platforms as inferior, announcing to the whole world, no sir F-18 promoted by some here who didn't worry about them going obsolete by 2040:

hnair wrote: Acharayaji, the takleef is this - currently. Khan power is personified by two things amongst World public. Its aircraft carrier sailing ominously over a calm sea and the multi-role fighters that dash off to smote "God's righteous anger". Forget the fact that those 10s of bus-size satellites make it all possible. In fact no lowly tinpot cringes when these satellites silently flit over their heads. But the stock footage of roaring teen fighters and stock footage of a carrier with lots of conveniently parked craft in CNN makes them assume the worst......

So any number of orders for transports is not going to get khan to acknowledge that their wazikashi is blunt. Especially when said by an SDRE warrior with a barely straight face. There is going to be bitterness against India. Bitterness of a kind that would make a paki jihadi or Osamy-mama contemplate apostasy.....

Geez, I cant afford a 2$ meal, but boy am I laughing

http://bit.ly/SMiCU8

Learn to live with uncertainty and act with certainty. Then you will never fear. (WTO is a great example as far as I can see. Stand up and be counted.)

See we're already doing that buying Rafale with ToT WITHOU ANY WORRY AND FEAR, many are expressing their own insecurities and fears by:
1. Coffers are empty, there is no money
2. It'll be obsolete by 2040, what about the upgrades?

And, now with the internet: emoticons. Wow!! Impressed. Crabbing at its best.

Emoticons? Like one used here?

NRao wrote:
Eh?

$hit happens. Stand up and be counted. If you fear, they will make you fear.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Aug 2014 08:08

24:00 to 29:55 =

Look at our sme balance sheets, we've closed smes in the last 5-10 years, there is no power, Vinayak Chaturthi Vinayak comes from china of course its nose is flattened, on Holi the holi powder comes from china, everything comes from china, why is it that we have not made? The planning commission comes with an answer that 60 million jobs were added between '98 to 2004 WHILE ONLY 2 MILLION JOBS WERE ADDED FROM 2004 TO 2010, why because smes(what?) we wanted them to be closed. Credit to Smes is not there. So what happens? china get 249 billion dollars worth of goods into Bharat in the last 4 years. 50 to 60 billion dollars every year and what r they giving you, they're not giving you jets to fight, they're giving to supercomputers, not arms not armaments nothing!

WE MUST STOP CHINESE IMPORTS! But how to stop chinese imports we have signed FTAs all over the place. It'll come via thailand via asean route and we'll say, oh wow fdi so good!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Aug 2014 08:11

NRao wrote:And, are the Russians any better?

They already cracked the whip on the C-17

I say it'd have been more honest if those suggesting now to buy some second hand Rafales and dump them by 2035 would have suggested by 20 second hand Il-76s instead of C-17s.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Aug 2014 08:17

It's official: US overtakes all to become India's largest defence supplier

Stunning new figures on Indian defence imports by Defence Minister Arun Jaitley in Parliament on Tuesday have revealed that for the first time, the United States has overtaken all competitors to become India's largest defence supplier in the past three financial years.

The statistics revealed by Jaitley, who holds dual charge of defence and finance ministries, show that almost 40 per cent of the money spent by India on defence imports in the past three years have gone to the Americans, followed by the Russians (30 per cent) and the French (14 per cent). Israel is a distant fourth with merely 4 per cent share.

This reversal - in the past Russia and Israel have remained India's largest suppliers of weaponry - has come on the back of several mega deals struck by the previous UPA government with US companies in the past three years, primarily using the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) or government-to-government sales route.

In terms of actual numbers that have been shared by Jaitley in Rajya Sabha, out of the Rs.83,458 crore spent on defence imports, the US has got Rs.32,615 crore followed by Russia at Rs.25,363 crore. France has managed Rs.12,046 crore while Israel - burdened by blacklisting of several companies on corruption allegations - is at Rs.3,389 crore.

The dismal numbers achieved by Israel, which had risen as one of India's primary suppliers during the NDA regime, are mostly due to a glut in procurement that hit hard with the banning of IMI and the cancellation of a contract to set up an ammunitions factory in Raebareli in UP. The ban on purchasing of Barak missiles has only been recently lifted.

The US' rise to the number one position is after a series of deals inked mostly in the aviation sector. The largest has been the deal for C 17 transporters at $4.7 billion followed by a contract for P 8I maritime reconnaissance aircraft and additional orders for C 130 J special operations aircraft.

The Russians have remained steady suppliers despite coming down to number two and have been getting major payments for T 90 tanks, Su 30 MKI fighters as well as a host of other smaller contracts.

The French imports have primarily been to upgrade the Mirage fighter fleet for over $2 billion and continued payments for the Scorpene submarines.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/us-i ... 76743.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2014 09:17

Oh we did!

On the one hand you cry and on the other you post such relevance.

See we're already doing that buying Rafale with ToT WITHOU ANY WORRY AND FEAR, many are expressing their own insecurities and fears by:
1. Coffers are empty, there is no money
2. It'll be obsolete by 2040, what about the upgrades?

1. Cost is the issue with the MMRCA (not the planes / techs). If you can present some args that are based on logic we can perhaps discuss this matter

2. On "obsolence". Check out reports coming out of Europe - I have posted a few

Emoticons? Like one used here?

Yes, that too is very bad taste. Apologies.

I say it'd have been more honest if those suggesting now to buy some second hand Rafales and dump them by 2035 would have suggested by 20 second hand Il-76s instead of C-17s.

Simple reasons:
* The current IL-76s with the IAF were recently upgraded, which is why they are to last till some 2022 (last one)
* Based on their experience the IAF took the unusual step of issuing a global request to support the IL-76s within the IAF. This is unheard of - MoD did not support this call
* Per reports the IAF was facing less than 50% availability

Granted a contributing factor was the disintegration of the USSR, but the Russians, for a long time, did nothing to abate this problem. By the time the Russians decided to consolidate their efforts within Russia, the IAF had already started the upgrades and had to make a decision on what-next. The IL-476 was not sanctioned till 2005 and it was expected to com on-line around 2010ish (it still is not there - I am sure you are aware).

I cannot say if MMS had any thing to do with the C-17, but even if he did, it is part of such transactions - look at the MKI as another example. Like the MKI, the C-17 has been an equal success. On cost, sure, relative to the IL-76 series it is a lot more, but the C-17 is far better in many other respects - does that mean it is a better buy - ask the IAF. But, again look at the MKI, which started around $30-40 mil and is now between $70-80 mil. It happens.

C-17:
* It is a better strategic plane (for those that do not keep up with such things: Red Sea (west) to China Sea (East) and Antarctica (south) that is the expected reach for Indian services)
* 80% availability guaranteed. (time for an emoticon.)
* Superior operating costs, far better support/MRO/etc, Russia cannot compete on things like supply chain - not even close
* Very, very timely delivery (something of importance to the IAF)
* A very, very happy customer (especially because of the strategic reach), and
* This reflected in increasing the orders from 16 to 24 (funds permitting)

BTW, it was the Russians that had IDed a rec for 25 IL-476, which translate to about 16 C-17s (the original order - 10 + 6). (BTW #2: Where is the IL-476?)

It's official: US overtakes all to become India's largest defence supplier

Ya, I am surprised too.

the deal for C 17 transporters at $4.7 billion followed by a contract for P 8I maritime reconnaissance aircraft and additional orders for C 130 J special operations aircraft.

So, what is the gripe here? Alternatives?

* C-17: ref above
* P-8I, is there a serious alternative? (Serious replies please - avoid repeating old posts). (On this topic I have more to say, but will reserve that for another post)
* C-130J, I do not think there is a contest here. The SF liked this plane and what it does, so there was no thinking in terms of an alternative. This is one plane that should have been manufactured in India - worth it

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 24 Aug 2014 10:56

Viv S wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:^They project from their own bitter experience. As their F-117 was shot over Yugoslavia. It was a rude shock for believers of boeing, LM, mcdogless brochure believers about how advanced their platform was compared to russian and east european defences.

But some people never learn now they're sold to jsf brochure figures.
One early-80s era aircraft employing poor tactics (out of complacency) downed. A type that was retired in 2008 after 27 years of operation.

As for what people learned from it -

Dassault Neuron
BAE Taranis
AVIC 601-S
MiG Skat
DRDO AURA

But all of those are *unmanned* systems that cost a fraction of the JSF or F-117. What we've learned is how to minimize the loss of life and cash when those systems are shot down. Not supportive of your argument. The very use of an UCAV/UAV implies that the user has accepted attrition as an reality. If even 10% of JSFs are lost the US would go broke very quickly. It frankly won't kill Bharat if we lose 1,2, or even 10 Aura to take out one HQ-9 site. You can't say the same. Losing 10 JSF to kill one HQ-9 will leave the US nowhere.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 24 Aug 2014 13:12

Kargil war was fought entirely within Indian borders. In this age of satellites and otherwise sharp intelligence, pakis got away with claims of random militants attacking Indian soldiers, in full view of the world. This went on for months. Only when Indian army started winning back mountain peaks that Clinton et all started talking of peace.

Point is, even during and especially during war, fourfathers will let jihadi rabid dogs run as much and yell peace otherwise- this is the standard(as could be seen during bangla genocide very clearly). All these expensive gear with strategic reach is for peace time only, and during war time the sanctions and threats will come into play as there are no alternatives. Tiptoeing around during wartime isn't exactly the best option - which is why Indians should start planning for alternate wartime arrangements.

By the way why should our outlook be only china specific and not pak & china specific combined, in fact increasing with time. Also Clintons and his buddies are at the very top in USA so all this is relevant. In fact I am not sure when will this become irrelevant and USA is very open about it, especially during war and during sanctions.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 24 Aug 2014 13:35

NRao wrote: Simple reasons:
* The current IL-76s with the IAF were recently upgraded, which is why they are to last till some 2022 (last one)
* Based on their experience the IAF took the unusual step of issuing a global request to support the IL-76s within the IAF. This is unheard of - MoD did not support this call
* Per reports the IAF was facing less than 50% availability

Granted a contributing factor was the disintegration of the USSR, but the Russians, for a long time, did nothing to abate this problem. By the time the Russians decided to consolidate their efforts within Russia, the IAF had already started the upgrades and had to make a decision on what-next. The IL-476 was not sanctioned till 2005 and it was expected to com on-line around 2010ish (it still is not there - I am sure you are aware).

I cannot say if MMS had any thing to do with the C-17, but even if he did, it is part of such transactions - look at the MKI as another example. Like the MKI, the C-17 has been an equal success. On cost, sure, relative to the IL-76 series it is a lot more, but the C-17 is far better in many other respects - does that mean it is a better buy - ask the IAF. But, again look at the MKI, which started around $30-40 mil and is now between $70-80 mil. It happens.

C-17:
* It is a better strategic plane (for those that do not keep up with such things: Red Sea (west) to China Sea (East) and Antarctica (south) that is the expected reach for Indian services)
* 80% availability guaranteed. (time for an emoticon.)
* Superior operating costs, far better support/MRO/etc, Russia cannot compete on things like supply chain - not even close
* Very, very timely delivery (something of importance to the IAF)
* A very, very happy customer (especially because of the strategic reach), and
* This reflected in increasing the orders from 16 to 24 (funds permitting)

BTW, it was the Russians that had IDed a rec for 25 IL-476, which translate to about 16 C-17s (the original order - 10 + 6). (BTW #2: Where is the IL-476?)

The very purpose of ToT is that we support the aircraft from desh. We can be certain that HAL can never sanction us. We have a very strong intimate relationship with the Russian MIC, where they have supplied us multiple vital technologies we could not develop on our own. Arihant, cryogenic tech for rockets, and many many more such examples. The US won't sell us a bloody Dell PC. A desktop PC!!!!!!

They have treated Bharat shabbily over tech transfer and told us to be grateful over obsolete crap like the Hawk and the C-17. Russia has offered us nothing less than entry into the civil market for jets. The IL-76, the An-124-150m, the Sukhoi regional superjet and the MTA are all co production developments that take Bharat from 0 to hero. The US has nothing to offer. Where is the US offer of technology? Technology is key.

I would rather bet on the Russian horse, which gets us a modern, 2013 era plane with current tech, instead of the obsolete C-17. The Russian tech meets modern safety and reliability standards, which isn't something you can say of the C-17, which closes production in 2015. On price, technology and the ability to co develop and co produce the Russian maal wins. The US isn't even in the running.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/il- ... rts-07569/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... ft-russia/
http://en.ria.ru/business/20130319/1801 ... -2014.html

The Russian plane will remain in production till 2020.

NRao wrote:
the deal for C 17 transporters at $4.7 billion followed by a contract for P 8I maritime reconnaissance aircraft and additional orders for C 130 J special operations aircraft.
So, what is the gripe here? Alternatives?

* C-17: ref above
* P-8I, is there a serious alternative? (Serious replies please - avoid repeating old posts). (On this topic I have more to say, but will reserve that for another post)
* C-130J, I do not think there is a contest here. The SF liked this plane and what it does, so there was no thinking in terms of an alternative. This is one plane that should have been manufactured in India - worth it

P-8I. The DRDO has their AWACS ready. It simply doesn't make sense to import another AWACS style platform. We should have standardized on the DRDO platform, rather than expensive imports. Order the DRDO AWACS to be modified to naval use, and we can dispense with the P-8I. The P-8 is good technology, in comparison to the obsolete C-17, but it's too expensive. It fails a Cost Benefit Analysis. We get no tech whatsoever for billion dollars is too much for too little. Radar technology is one of our strong points. Just like China, we should bet on the quality of domestic maal.

If the US was willing to transfer technology, unlike the other deals I would be happy with the P-8 deal, since it *IS* a capability we lack. But no tech = no deal. Low tech obsolete junk like the C-17 and Javelin are no good. Hi tech P-8I is great, but lack of ToT is the deal killer. Price is not the issue! Technology, Technology, Technology.