MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2011 04:55

with due respect money talks. again with utmost respect the Chinese are far ahead in their indigenous capabilities than we are. we are deluding ourselves when we think that the MKI's are better than the MKK's or that that the Sovremenny's are inferior to the Talwars. FGFA is a pipedream as of now but the MIG MFI is flying on chinese teritory. similarly the Shilang will sail before the Vikramaditya. Isnt it amazing that the russians delayed the delivery of the IL-76's for the AEW program till the chinese prototype flew?? Isnt it also amazing that another AEW is flying in China that bears a close resemblance to the SAAB array??

With ALL due respect (and I mean it), no, it is not amazing. I am of the opinion that no one with the bare research that the Chinese have HAD (past tense) could achieve that. I am of the opinion that much of that is "stolen". Which is why i am not impressed with Chinese "research" efforts.

IF I am right, then what China has produced is NOT based on their own research. For China to say (truthfully) that what they produced is their own the research HAS to have started somewhere in the 1970's (today would be 40 years). NOT possible.

Which is why it leads me to believe that most of what CHINA has is stolen.

Could I be wrong? Sure I can be.

Can I be right? Sure I can be.

More than likely I am right - just based on logic.

China, IMVVHO, is a extremely rich magician, who tries best to believe is what she says.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maya: What you experience is not true, what is true you cannot experience.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2011 04:58

malli wrote:50 years for a research project???? It would make sense if you you were a manager in HAL. it wont for anyone else.

Oh no!!

THAT does not include international contribution, because no nation can do it alone.

Not even China. (Stealing not included.)

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Apr 2011 04:59

malli wrote: What I've observed is that now no one seems to be questioning the advantage that the american birds will bring to the IAF. Everyone seems to be concentrating on the negatives. There aren't too many except for the conspiracy theorists.

Now coming to the competitors. we have a curious spectacle of a majority of the forum supporting either the Gripen or the Euro or the Rafale. Is it really justified?? The bare bones specs tell me that the F-16IN is the best single engined bird and the Hornet is simply the most cost effective and also the most evolved platform.
I just hope everyone smells the cofee and supports the right choice and does not hide under conspiracy theories.

Well, the issue is with the double standards of the govt backing these products and its policy towards us; more than the technology being offered. US has knowingly given the Pakis arms and alms worth over US $ 35 Billion in the last decade or so, all of which is now targeted against us - its for years known the nuclear proliferation being done by Pakis, yet turned a blind eye to it. Its the one country which has pressurized India to cease fire and return all territory every time we have been in the winning position in all our wars with Pak (heck, before the buggers went nuclear, and as recently as Kargil) and has done nothing when we have asked them to reign in the ISI backed terrorists.

How do you explain the recent protection and cover up of Tahawwur Hussain Rana and David Coleman Headley ?? Point is - can you trust these guys with critical national security equipment being paid for with billions of $ in tax payer money when you have alternatives ??? Would you buy this equipment from a country that arms and protects your worst enemy from your defence forces - even when they have attacked you every time ??? Conspiracy theorists ? I am wondering who needs to wake up and smell the coffee..

Please remember, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. What we have witnessed from Amrikhans in our not so distant past; and indeed in the current time certainly does not inspire this confidence, and the ball is squarely in the US court to display more sincerity to India and keep up the promises its Netas make when they are in Delhi.

If your definition is to be believed, Def Min and Air Chief should be on the top of the list of "Conspiracy theorists" for not signing CISMOA !!!

If the IAF is convinced that F16 IN or F18 Shornets is what they need, then every one will respect that, but if its a political decision to appease the Americans then sure the "Conspiracy theorists" will see red.

In my personal opinion, the test would be - if the decision is announced and endorsed by the current air chief before he retires or would it be announced conveniently after he retires.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2011 05:02

jai,

GoI and CAS can differ.

CAS makes a decision based on tech. GoI on strategy.

Two, totally, different things.

malli · Post by **malli** » 22 Apr 2011 05:13

"Please remember, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
i agree with your comment. we flogged a losing horse for 50 years and are condemned to repeat it.
someone a couple of decades back back tried to set us right and our present prosperity is a debt we owe to him. being the ungrates that we are we will not acknowledge him.
pse read PV Narasimha Rao's speech to the American Congress to get a better grip on where we should be heading.

malli · Post by **malli** » 22 Apr 2011 05:15

Every Indian should understand this saying -----' do not make the perfect the enemy of the good"

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Apr 2011 05:34

NRao wrote:jai,

GoI and CAS can differ.

CAS makes a decision based on tech. GoI on strategy.

Two, totally, different things.

Rao Saheb, with all due respect, IMO, the Air Chief would surely know more about war fighting and winning strategies, and which aircraft would help his force win wars more than Babus.

If its not defence strategy which is in question here, then there is a reason for concern, as this is the only one that ought to be !!

There are hazzar other ways to further diplomacy and business interests - specially for a high growth country like India. I for one would certainly hope that the govt leaves the defence of this country and its procurement to the services and not to babus. No one will mind partnerships or contracts to US companies in other high technology areas, Infrastructure development and management for example, rural healthcare, water systems, pollution control systems, development of solar and other renewable sources of power, etc etc ..I am sure a country of our development needs can find civilian ways to pay for US support for agreements on Civil nuclear power

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Apr 2011 06:50

Wasn't the MMRCA decision due to come in April?

Q: Was it April 2011?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 22 Apr 2011 06:59

shiv wrote:Wasn't the MMRCA decision due to come in April?

Q: Was it April 2011?

Technically its still 22nd April.

Still have a week to keep that promise..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Apr 2011 07:19

^^^ they left out the year for a reason ... chotti mooh badi baat

... sorry.

Don · Post by **Don** » 22 Apr 2011 09:26

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/ia ... n/770597/2

IAF’s mega buy delay to cost $1 bn
Huma Siddiqui

Posted: Saturday, Apr 02, 2011 at 0120 hrs IST

Tags: Combat Aircraft | Ministry Of Defence | Commercial Validity | Indian Air Force

New Delhi: For the second time in row, the commercial bid validity of the six contenders for the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) will be extended which may cost the government $1 billion more over and above the $10.4 billion for 126 planes.

Industry sources told FE that “the government is planning to seek extension of the validity of the commercial bid expiring on April 30 as none of the vendors have received any indication from the ministry of defence (MoD) about being down listed nor has the price negotiation committee been set up.”

Last year, the ministry had extended the commercial validity of bids on India’s 126-aircraft MMRCAbid by a year to April 28, 2011.

The Air Chief Marshal PV Naik had recently announced that by March end the price negotiation for the mother of all deals will take off.

However, sources revealed that “those who have been shortlisted have to be given enough time to get ready for the talks, with this extension, the negotiations for the Offsets too will get delayed.”

The ministry’s Technical Oversight Committee (ToC) is currently looking at the ‘offset’proposals — a requirement that the winning contractor source a certain amount of the value of each aircraft that India buys from Indian industry — submitted by the contenders for the deal.

Simultaneously, their proposals for transfer of technology, critical for the rapid development of an Indian capability to build advanced fighters, are also being examined. The chosen combat jet will be the mainstay of IAF's fighter aircraft fleet for the next 40 years. The new MMRCA will replace the IAF's existing fleet of MiG variants....

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 22 Apr 2011 09:55

Don wrote:http://www.financialexpress.com/news/ia ... n/770597/2

IAF’s mega buy delay to cost $1 bn
Huma Siddiqui

Why are we re-posting old articles again?? This is old news and already been discussed earlier.. Whats your point?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2011 15:08

Unrelated to the MMRCA, nonetheless a very important strategic data point:

India's new worry: PoK & an Ocean of instability

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 22 Apr 2011 19:51

By Rear Admiral (Retd) Sushil Ramsay

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Apr 2011 20:40

NRao wrote:
Kartik wrote: I do hope that in the future, additional Tejas Mk2+ or Mk3 batches are procured with this F414-EPE engine that can push its performance to even higher levels than with the F-414 INS6.
What of the Kaveri, Sir? (A noble thought tho'.)

My impression was that the F414 replacement, even in the LCA MK1 was the Kaveri (French core granted). (My spell checker KNOWs French, no matter haw badly I miss spell it!!!!!! God, these French are everywhere!!!!!! Wonder if india is stuck with the rafale.)

Its the very idea of an engine (the EPE that is) with an 11:1 T/W ratio that is so alluring. On a small fighter like the Tejas, with all the weight growth that already has taken place and what will happen when it enters service and goes through a development spiral, the Kaveri-M88 hybrid may or may not potentially be able to provide it with a great T/W ratio, unless the Kaveri itself really slims down and produces something like 95kN at the very least.

It's a tall order and given GTRE's record of broken promises, I'd hedge my bets against the Kaveri-M88 powering any future version of the Tejas.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Apr 2011 00:12

^^^

All signs indicate that the Kaveri-M88ECO hybrid is being designed for the AMCA and most likely will produce thrusts in the 85kN to 95kN range. For the AMCA requirements of at least 200 aircrafts, it amounts to potential order of 400+ Kaveri-M88ECO hybrid engines.

As for the LCA, there are no indications yet of the IAF's need for a Mk.3 variant. If there is a requirement for a further LCA development (aka Mk.3), Kartik is right in that Tejas will most likely get larger (... not smaller). So current Kaveri-M88ECO hybrid will not produce sufficient thrust. Even if Mk.3 variant doesn't take place, mid-life upgrade of the LCA Mk.2 will most likely get the F-414EPE engines.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Apr 2011 20:23

malli wrote:I am happy that somehow some sanity and logic has returned to this esteemed forum. what I've observed is that now no one seems to be questioning the advantage that the american birds will bring to the IAF. Everyone seems to be concentrating on the negatives. There aren't too many except for the conspiracy theorists. Are we going to fight against the Americans in the foreseeable future?? will the Americans cut a deal with the Chinese before the Russians or the Europeans do?? These are the questions.
Frankly whatever said or done the American Military Industrial Complex remains the most efficient and the most cutting edge. At least for now. the challengers are not the Europeans or the Russians but the Chinese. BRICS notwithstanding, does anyone seriously think that we will be jointly developing military hardware with the Chinese??? From an economic angle does anyone also think that the Chinese will overtake the Americans?? in the next two decades at least?? by then the Indo-American bloc would be the biggest economic entity in the world.
Now coming to the competitors. we have a curious spectacle of a majority of the forum supporting either the Gripen or the Euro or the Rafale. Is it really justified?? The bare bones specs tell me that the F-16IN is the best single engined bird and the Hornet is simply the most cost effective and also the most evolved platform.
I just hope everyone smells the cofee and supports the right choice and does not hide under conspiracy theories.

From a pure technical stand point, the F-18 Super Hornet is a superior aircraft - in the sensors arena - to all the other aircraft in the MMRCA contest. No one will dispute that and I am sure the IAF would like to get their hands on the same version that their USN counterparts are flying. However is that what we are going to get? NO. And I will NOT buy the argument that Rakhi Sawant meets the requirements set out in the MMRCA contest. Those are only the bare minimum we need and if you can supersede those requirements than all the more better.

Secondly, have you read the interview in which the PAF officer mentioned that their brand new F-Solah Block 52 aircraft are so bugged up that their pilots can't even take a piss without Uncle Sam knowing?

That is the issue here. We don't small black boxes fitted in these aircraft which tells Uncle Sam where we are flying and what we are doing. Give us the same aircraft you guys are flying and let us do what we want to it. Otherwise we don't need it. We don't CISMOA and LSA.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Apr 2011 20:49

Rakesh wrote ^^^: "Give us the same aircraft you guys are flying and let us do what we want to it. Otherwise we don't need it. "

Paging GeorgeWelch-- he'd responded to this 'bugging' point several times.

On the "let us do what we want with it.." probably negotiable via the offset mechanism. However, I don't think I would hold my breath on the source code for the AESA. We'll get object codes (like the UAE did for the F-16 Block 60) to integrate other weapons. I don't think we got the Bars source code for the MKI either from the Russians despite the 'deep licence" . In fact, at one point the Russians would not even allow India-sourced tires for the plane.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Apr 2011 21:29

Cosmo_R wrote:probably negotiable via the offset mechanism.

The key word is probably. Also, would Uncle Sam look the other way, if we modified Rakhi Sawant to make her capable of carrying a nuclear weapon? Much like France did when we did the same to the Mirage 2000? NO. And that is the difference. Although this discussion is pointless anyway, Rakhi Sawant it is for the IAF

arnabh · Post by **arnabh** » 23 Apr 2011 21:35

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... %3A45%3A18

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Apr 2011 21:43

malli wrote:The bare bones specs tell me that the F-16IN is the best single engined bird and the Hornet is simply the most cost effective and also the most evolved platform.

From the link below;

Air Marshal PK Barbora, Ex Vice Chief of Air Staff said, “The Air Force is not looking at price. That’s not our area of concern. What we want is QRs are focussed on technical aspects, latest technology.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... 9/#changes

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Apr 2011 21:45

What is expected out of the MMRCA (future additions, subtraction, modifications, etc) should all be there in the RFP. When GoI/IAF has stressed "life cycle", it has to include some amount of mods outside the RFP too. Besides, does not the MMRCA have a good amount on non-vendor components? Much like the MKI?

Uncle looking this way or that will depend on the political situation (actually the concern should be more about a leash than looking. I am sure he has learned from his Jihadi experience.)

Based on open source (CAS, Tellis, etc) I suspect that Uncle has declined to provide the amount of leeway Indian wanted. But, let us see. I find it hard to believe that India can - from a political PoV - let the F-18 go. And the US cannot let India go because of code or the like. Both, I feel will make a political decision. How much each gets we will see. May have to wait for a book to be published in 2025. JMT thought tho'.

arnabh wrote: Up to $251M for AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder missiles. (April 19/11)

The most advanced F-16s in the world are not American. That distinction belongs to the United Arab Emirates, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the forthcoming F-35A Joint Strike Fighter – and is being treated as such in countries like India and the Netherlands, as they contemplate their future fighter needs.

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 Apr 2011 21:46

Air Marshal PK Barbora, Ex Vice Chief of Air Staff said, “The Air Force is not looking at price. That’s not our area of concern. What we want is QRs are focussed on technical aspects, latest technology.

Sure shot recipe for a re-tender like for the refueller case where IAF does all the legwork and provides a winner and the MoF promptly returns the file saying "too expensive. reconsider the winner"

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Apr 2011 21:50

sum wrote:Sure shot recipe for a re-tender like for the refueller case where IAF does all the legwork and provides a winner and the MoF promptly returns the file saying "too expensive. reconsider the winner"

You just predicted how Rakhi Sawant will join the IAF

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Apr 2011 21:52

Rakesh wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:probably negotiable via the offset mechanism.
The key word is probably. Also, would Uncle Sam look the other way, if we modified Rakhi Sawant to make her capable of carrying a nuclear weapon? Much like France did when we did the same to the Mirage 2000? NO. And that is the difference. Although this discussion is pointless anyway, Rakhi Sawant it is for the IAF

'Probably' is the only consistent word in the whole MRCA saga. 'Probably' in the offset negotiations reflects the cost impact of what we might want to do to the planes. If it's anything material, LM/Boeing will (rightly) ask for a warranty limitation unless they test it and agree to include it under the warranty. This, as one might guess, is going to delay delivery and increase the price. So we 'probably' won't ask for 'it'.

Sorry, but who/what is Rakhi Sawant--the 'actress/model'?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Apr 2011 21:53

NRao wrote:What is expected out of the MMRCA (future additions, subtraction, modifications, etc) should all be there in the RFP. When GoI/IAF has stressed "life cycle", it has to include some amount of mods outside the RFP too. Besides, does not the MMRCA have a good amount on non-vendor components? Much like the MKI?

Uncle looking this way or that will depend on the political situation (actually the concern should be more about a leash than looking. I am sure he has learned from his Jihadi experience.)

Based on open source (CAS, Tellis, etc) I suspect that Uncle has declined to provide the amount of leeway Indian wanted. But, let us see. I find it hard to believe that India can - from a political PoV - let the F-18 go. And the US cannot let India go because of code or the like. Both, I feel will make a political decision. How much each gets we will see. May have to wait for a book to be published in 2025. JMT thought tho'.

Rao Saar: You missed the most important line in the article posted by Arnab.

The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) defines 300 km as the current limit for cruise missiles, and the terms of the sale allow the United States to regulate which weapons the F-16s can carry.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Apr 2011 21:55

Cosmo_R wrote:Sorry, but who/what is Rakhi Sawant--the 'actress/model'?

She is an item girl in Bollywood movies. She is like the bahu that no one wants to bring home, but at times you have no choice!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Apr 2011 00:06

Cosmo_R wrote:Paging GeorgeWelch-- he'd responded to this 'bugging' point several times.

What's the point?

Some are so invested in their belief that no amount of evidence will change their mind.

And of course there's whole problem of trying to prove a negative. How can you prove something isn't there? No matter what steps you take, they will always say 'well it's just hidden better' or 'you need to look closer'. No level of proof will ever satisfy them.

But a few points to consider:
1. The case broke open and they saw something that 'looked' like a tracking device. What does that even mean? What does a tracking device look like? Does it have a flashing red light and a label that says 'homing beacon'?

I'm sure the pilot is imminently qualified to determine what advanced electronics do simply by looking at them

2. If it's broadcasting a signal, that should be easy to determine. There is no such thing as a magic undetectable signal. If it broadcasts anything, the IAF will know.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 24 Apr 2011 01:29

GeorgeWelch wrote: 2. If it's broadcasting a signal, that should be easy to determine. There is no such thing as a magic undetectable signal. If it broadcasts anything, the IAF will know.

Now, I'm not saying for sure that this is how it is, but as the devil's advocate (with some understanding of technology)....

RFID tags do not continuously emit a signal either. Many are very, very small, with extremely thin 'form factors', and the top-of-the line ones employ sophisticated 'fractal antennae' that could be hidden under a coat of paint, so even close inspection would not find them. The more sophisticated ones will only respond to the correct signal, on the correct frequency, with the correctly attenuated (encrypted) coding -- meaning they are almost always 'silent'.

So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the US has a satellite in orbit, and it 'pings' a very low-power, encrypted signal downward... and a US-made piece of kit receives the signal... it could conceivably respond in a directional fashion, directly to the satellite in orbit, without drawing any power from on-board systems.

If the Americans are keen to win the MMRCA, they should invite DRDO inspectors to observe the fabrication and installation of every part on the American warplane.

Failing this, many of us will always have our doubts.

ADDED LATER: From the nominal page 16 of the linked-to document below; "Surveillance and information gathering is always limited by the covertness of the antenna. In general, small antennas mean limited reach and limited frequency range. Fractal antennas have been produced that have wide bandwidths, but also fit covertly in packages where no antenna is expected. Indeed, transparent antennas, when combined with fractal wideband capabilities, make proven examples of such."

http://rfdesign.com/mag/508RFDSF1.pdf

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Apr 2011 04:10

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Paging GeorgeWelch-- he'd responded to this 'bugging' point several times.
What's the point?

Some are so invested in their belief that no amount of evidence will change their mind.

And of course there's whole problem of trying to prove a negative. How can you prove something isn't there? No matter what steps you take, they will always say 'well it's just hidden better' or 'you need to look closer'. No level of proof will ever satisfy them.

But a few points to consider:
1. The case broke open and they saw something that 'looked' like a tracking device. What does that even mean? What does a tracking device look like? Does it have a flashing red light and a label that says 'homing beacon'?

I'm sure the pilot is imminently qualified to determine what advanced electronics do simply by looking at them

2. If it's broadcasting a signal, that should be easy to determine. There is no such thing as a magic undetectable signal. If it broadcasts anything, the IAF will know.

How about Boeing (for example) signing an agreement that contains a clause (pretty standard in software development agreements) wherein it certifies that there is no 'malware', tracking device such as keystroke logging, virus, worm or physical device that could be used by a third party to interfere with the standard operating parameters of the aircraft. Further that it understand and agrees that should such device or mechanism be found to be present and by a neutral and competent body, it agrees to a summary judgment in a neutral court of competent jurisdiction"?

Not 'best efforts', not 'absence of bad faith' etc. just a straightforward warranty that there is no 'stuxnet' in the software and that if there is one found later, it assume responsibility and liability under the above conditions related to jurisdiction.

Personally, I think both LM and Boeing would agree (not a FMS deal). To not agree would really set a cat among the pigeons and set off a global backlash.

Actually what is amusing is that Google and Apple both track users via GPS:

http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2011-0 ... ryid=72313

Theoretically, anyone using GPS to track themselves can be tracked by 'others' (with the best intentions of course).

Deals among nations are not a matter of trust but of convergence of interest however ephemeral.

George, FWIW, given the Euro shambles in Libya, I'd say we'd be really stupid not to select the SH or even the F-16IN. When you factor in cost (dollar/euro) supply chain, computerized ordering of spares and strategic convergence WRT to PRC, it's a no-brainer. But then.. I suspect the alternative is not Rafale, Gripen or EF, it is no action.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Apr 2011 04:12

Rakesh wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Sorry, but who/what is Rakhi Sawant--the 'actress/model'?
She is an item girl in Bollywood movies. She is like the bahu that no one wants to bring home, but at times you have no choice!

But to bring her home to parents..

Keep their blood pressure pills handy.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Apr 2011 04:22

Rakesh wrote:
NRao wrote:What is expected out of the MMRCA (future additions, subtraction, modifications, etc) should all be there in the RFP. When GoI/IAF has stressed "life cycle", it has to include some amount of mods outside the RFP too. Besides, does not the MMRCA have a good amount on non-vendor components? Much like the MKI?

Uncle looking this way or that will depend on the political situation (actually the concern should be more about a leash than looking. I am sure he has learned from his Jihadi experience.)

Based on open source (CAS, Tellis, etc) I suspect that Uncle has declined to provide the amount of leeway Indian wanted. But, let us see. I find it hard to believe that India can - from a political PoV - let the F-18 go. And the US cannot let India go because of code or the like. Both, I feel will make a political decision. How much each gets we will see. May have to wait for a book to be published in 2025. JMT thought tho'.
Rao Saar: You missed the most important line in the article posted by Arnab.

The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) defines 300 km as the current limit for cruise missiles, and the terms of the sale allow the United States to regulate which weapons the F-16s can carry.

Not a problem for us. Brahmos won't fit on a F-16/F/A-18. Nirbhay longer range but would not fit on the F-16 or the F/A-18. The air-launched Brahmos is being fitted to the MKI and I would guess so is the Nirbhay (eventually)

The MRCA req is different from the MKI otherwise we would have just ordered more MKIs

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Apr 2011 04:33

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: 2. If it's broadcasting a signal, that should be easy to determine. There is no such thing as a magic undetectable signal. If it broadcasts anything, the IAF will know.
Now, I'm not saying for sure that this is how it is, but as the devil's advocate (with some understanding of technology)....

Well yes, that's exactly the point. No matter what you say, someone will always come back with some theoretical way it COULD be done.

It's impossible to prove a negative.

I mean now we're to invisible fractal antennas.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2011 04:47

Admiral Sir,

With that kind of looks, do we reaaaaaaly need the MMRCA?

Anyways, on MTCR, it applies to everyone, not just Uncle!!!

With recent developmentS, my feel is that my predictions are coming true and I would not be surprised at all if the tables are turned on our dear friends due West. Someone needs to convince Foggy Bottom to turn those tables.

Here is another tea leaf read for you: I suspect that them pearls are coming apart, and THUS the Chicom move in PoK. IF (BIG IF) that is true, then I love what may happen. End game in sight. You can now get you balle-balle music out.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Apr 2011 04:59

Cosmo_R wrote:...strategic convergence WRT to PRC

Cosmo, I have heard that line one too many times. How does us buying 126 F-18s give us any advantage vis-a-vis China? Or for that matter 126 Rafales or 126 Typhoons? We are on our own against China and at the rate China is arming itself militarily, we are going to lose a war against them if one does occur. It will 1962 look like a picnic.

GeorgeWelch wrote:I mean now we're to invisible fractal antennas.

We SDREs are like that onlee...

NRao wrote:With that kind of looks, do we reaaaaaaly need the MMRCA?

Shaadi has to happen and we have to bring a bahu home, otherwise we will have no children of our own

And no matter how bad the bahu looks, we need offspring! The other scenario is adopting children like we are doing now. Talking about children (not sure how true this story is) but goes something like this, Marilyn Monroe told Albert Einstein that if we procreate just imagine the children we could have with your brains and my looks. Albert Einstein pondered over it (for a very SHORT time) and said, "Nice, but imagine if the child had my looks and your brains." No relation to MMRCA though

NRao wrote:Here is another tea leaf read for you: I suspect that them pearls are coming apart, and THUS the Chicom move in PoK. IF (BIG IF) that is true, then I love what may happen. End game in sight. You can now get you balle-balle music out.

I am waiting to play the balle balle music, but alas our GOI wants to play the star spangled banner

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2011 05:10

Music is music. No?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Apr 2011 05:11

Arey Saar, where is heavy metal/hip hop when compared to our classical Ragas and Ghazals? No comparison. Have to disagree with you 100%, albeit respectfully.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Apr 2011 06:05

Cosmo_R wrote: I don't think we got the Bars source code for the MKI either from the Russians despite the 'deep licence" . In fact, at one point the Russians would not even allow India-sourced tires for the plane.

They were but not any more [long story]. Now they are more open than anyone else without any shirt-collar holds that we can get choked at a press of a button.

If we can fire home grown Astra from MKI means we have enough source code to fire even Meteor from MKI.

Newer contracts, Russians are much more open. e.g. PAK-FA. But, there is of course what they call back-end engineering they still want to keep. Lot of things are still hidden, however our politico-defense establishment would not blind anymore to sign huge billion $$ agreements with Russia without going thru documents extensively.

Getting a no jaw-bone-bang-hold on super hornets would be only over unkill's dead body [meaning never, there will be always a hold, even if we agree no ToT and straight away purchase].

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 24 Apr 2011 06:28

GeorgeWelch wrote: It's impossible to prove a negative.

Nope. Mathematician's do it routinely.
Euclid's Prime Number theorem.

Now please provide the proof that the fighter won't be bugged ...

~Ashish

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Apr 2011 08:48

^^If we are this suspicious, it is better not to buy from the Americans at all, no? At least in cases where we have other options.