India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Sep 2011 01:20

^^^ from the above link...may be it got lost in translation...but it is doubtful India will agree to this if Katrina is chosen;

The wings of the Rafale will be manufactured in Brazil not only for Brazilians Rafale, if the Rafale is chosen, but also for other Rafale, both French and other exports.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Sep 2011 02:20

devesh wrote:http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/09/mm ... chief.html

'MMRCA, Inshallah By Year End': IAF Chief

well....now, apparently India needs the Will of Allah to buy military supplies.....how exactly are appointments done for IAF top posts??? do we have a crypto-Islamist as chief of the Air Force???

I don't understand what the ghabla is! The MMRCA are coming to go and put Pakis asses on fire first. And everything that happens in Pakistan, happens with the will of Allah onlee.

So the day we kick butt in Pakistan, we will be doing with the full will of Allah.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Sep 2011 03:13

well in-shall-ah!, if raptorisiki comes, so be it! there is a mute point in just rattling the chest alone. actually speaking we need the will of babooze to do deep strikes.

mmrca must be configured for deep strike missions with awacs and refuellers. yes, we can't be accepting wings being made from brazil for this... perhaps, it may happen to only first 18 ones, if ready.

we shall all see who is going to win before the mayan 2012... if it is pakis destruction, then all we need is a nod from new delhi.

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 04 Sep 2011 20:36

@Devesh... u need to know the meaning of words and then teh context they are used in. In middle east Insha Allah is a way of saying like a takiyakalam.
It is often / mostly used as being a sarcastic figure of speech when something doesnt go the way it is supposed to be.
Dont go by the literal sense of teh word but try to find out in what all context it is / can be used other than quranic studies and peace 24 channel..
and you will have your answer Insha Allah..

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Sep 2011 20:55

Inshallah is now the new buzz word for the MMRCA thread! Thanks Devesh!

Libya, AASM-IR is combat proven
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/09/ ... roven.html

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Sep 2011 21:52

On this thread, to the fans of both the euro canards.

What will the jingos say when the contract gets jinxed like the 155mm project.

Running away shouting helphyre

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2011 23:18

Pratyush wrote:On this thread, to the fans of both the euro canards.

What will the jingos say when the contract gets jinxed like the 155mm project.

Running away shouting helphyre

u mean "got" jinxed.

MMRCA - original is BACK.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Sep 2011 01:03

US envoy to Pak justified funds as ‘defence’ against ‘threat from India’
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-en ... a/841357/0

At least the threat to the US rent-boy will not come from F-16IN and F-18SH. Maybe the American fighters deliberately did not perform well ("match fixing" we call it in India) to ensure their ally did not feel any threat from US made weapons. Sounds like Lockheed Martin and Boeing were wasting our time, when all along the US Government believes that the key to Indo-Pak peace is to arm Pakistan. These Americans are so cunning.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Sep 2011 05:38

There are certain things to be learnt.. under secret setup, the CIA and some special ops forces in masan land can get funding for projects directly controlled from president with don't ask don't tell to anyone. Many of the top secret projects in defense is such.

India should learn from that.. We are now sandwiched with full of enemies and their chips, drinks supporters.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 05 Sep 2011 12:32

MMRCA could be split : ex-NSA told US

NEW DELHI: Although US firms lost out on India's mega fighter deal, former national security adviser M K Narayanan had told US diplomats that the $10 billion buy could be split into two contracts and that he would ask Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to keep both price and quality in mind.

The US aircraft were finally knocked on technical grounds, but higher pricing of fighters like the F-18 series put them at a disadvantage with regard to European rivals and discussion on the deal came up before Singh's Washington visit in 2009. According to WikiLeaks, a US cable from New Delhi spoke of undersecretary Bill Burns meeting with Narayanan to preview the visit during which Narayanan expressed personal interest in "counterterrorism deliverables" and suggested the Indian government may ultimately split the tender.

Narayanan also assured Burns of progress on civil nuclear cooperation ahead of the visit, including the imminent public announcement of reactor park sites for US firms and requested lifting of restrictions on high technology trade and expanded space cooperation.

In an indication of the clout he enjoyed in the PMO, Narayanan offered his personal assistance in brokering inter-ministerial approval of the counterterrorism deliverable, the proposed Law Enforcement and Security Cooperation Initiative.

In the one-on-one meeting, Narayanan suggested that the fighter tender may be split between two recipients, and that he would recommend that PM Singh take into consideration "both price and quality".

India had no "confrontation" with the US on outer space, and nothing stood in the way of further cooperation and this could fill the void left by the completion of the civil nuclear cooperation agreement.

Troy · Post by **Troy** » 05 Sep 2011 13:54

eklavya wrote:US envoy to Pak justified funds as ‘defence’ against ‘threat from India’
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-en ... a/841357/0

At least the threat to the US rent-boy will not come from F-16IN and F-18SH. Maybe the American fighters deliberately did not perform well ("match fixing" we call it in India) to ensure their ally did not feel any threat from US made weapons. Sounds like Lockheed Martin and Boeing were wasting our time, when all along the US Government believes that the key to Indo-Pak peace is to arm Pakistan. These Americans are so cunning.

There is no reason for US fighters to under perform deliberately. Just imagine, a South Asian arms race in which both sides are buying US weapons! It would be a total win-win situation for the US. India going for European fighters was an excellent choice, if only to deny the US milking money from an arms race which it itself instigates.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Sep 2011 19:09

If India's only threat was Pakistan, there would be no need for the MMRCA.

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 05 Sep 2011 19:28

"If India's only threat was Pakistan, there would be no need for the MMRCA."

Yes, but arming a known terrorist sponsoring state, whatever the ground realities and support in WOT be, is dishonest to say the least. Since TSP is the biggest sponsor in terror in the world, and the American people themselves know this, then what is the reason for Patterson to a) be an envoy in a terrorist state, b) even say that they will resort to unsymmetrical warfare (terrorism) so let us arm them with conventional weapons. Just trying to keep them out of China's influence will not work this way. Infact, nothing the US has done since 9/11 has worked in TSP, and watered down the US influence in India and Afghanistan.

The present stategies in TSP will get the US nowhere, and I think the US knows this, but there is no will to do anything else. I strongly believe that 10 years of war has brought the entire US economy down and its going to get worse. It hurts to say any more.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Sep 2011 19:48

GeorgeWelch wrote:If India's only threat was Pakistan, there would be no need for the MMRCA.

Says who? The Government that thinks that the solution to terrorism is to arm the terrorist.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Sep 2011 19:50

Troy wrote:India going for European fighters was an excellent choice, if only to deny the US milking money from an arms race which it itself instigates.

You can patent that statement my friend.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 05 Sep 2011 20:12

You cannot trust US, Period. Even the US public does not trust their government.

The only thing that is surprising to me is that Indian Foreign Service professionals also cannot be trusted now.

I would root for EF or Rafale over anything purely American.

Benefits are:
1. Superior technology
2. Dependability to some extent definitely more than Amrikaans
3. Survivability against sanctions

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 05 Sep 2011 20:30

"3. Survivability against sanctions"

More important than against the enemy's missiles

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Sep 2011 21:39

You all are living in a dream world if you think Euro planes are sanction proof

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 05 Sep 2011 22:09

^^^
The source of sanctions is only too well known. You wouldn't want to source your weapons from the supplier that takes your money and then shuts its doors on you or goads others into doing the same...

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Sep 2011 22:17

nakul wrote:^^^
The source of sanctions is only too well known. You wouldn't want to source your weapons from the supplier that takes your money and then shuts its doors on you or goads others into doing the same...

pop quiz: what country is currently blocking weapons sales to India?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 05 Sep 2011 22:19

^^^

Its called selective amnesia. Come over to India, my friend. Ayurveda has a remedy for it...

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 05 Sep 2011 22:20

pop quiz: what country is currently blocking weapons sales to India?

Germany ?

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 05 Sep 2011 22:21

GeorgeWelch wrote:You all are living in a dream world if you think Euro planes are sanction proof

May be we are in dreams, but we also have been awake to face US sanctions on us...

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Sep 2011 22:25

chiru wrote:
pop quiz: what country is currently blocking weapons sales to India?
Germany ?

We have a winner!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Sep 2011 22:31

Pop Quiz 2: What country
a) Is leading the charge to lift the arms embargo on China?
b) Refused to deliver arms that had already been paid for after being bullied with economic threats?
c) Was bullied into handing over the disabling codes of weapons they had sold to another country?

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 05 Sep 2011 22:38

GeorgeWelch wrote:Pop Quiz 2: What country
a) Is leading the charge to lift the arms embargo on China?
b) Refused to deliver arms that had already been paid for after being bullied with economic threats?
c) Was bullied into handing over the disabling codes of weapons they had sold to another country?

A) France - recently
B)france again donno when...
C) france - the falklands war..... Exocets

george sahib we dont need any nation to embargo us to hinder our capabilities, our babus are very proficient at that

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 05 Sep 2011 22:43

GeorgeWelch wrote: pop quiz: what country is currently blocking weapons sales to India?

Let me try to answer this;

The country that stopped the sale of civilian cryogenic engines to India?
Or, the country that helped sanctioned India for defending itself against nuke-armed China while maintaining nukes in Guam?
Or is it the country that could not even guarantee that it will able to supply weapons when India is defending herself?

I am afraid Mr GeorgeWelch, we Indians are too much like elephants when it comes to history.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Sep 2011 22:48

GeorgeWelch wrote:You all are living in a dream world if you think Euro planes are sanction proof

France did not impose sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests. Actions speak louder than words.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Sep 2011 22:53

GeorgeWelch wrote:Pop Quiz 2: What country
a) Is leading the charge to lift the arms embargo on China?
b) Refused to deliver arms that had already been paid for after being bullied with economic threats?
c) Was bullied into handing over the disabling codes of weapons they had sold to another country?

a) Its an EU embargo, and the UK (after all BAE's largest/second largest customer is the Pentagon) will ensure no lifting of EU sanctions

b) Don't know? Its not the Europeans vis a vis India.

c) India does not expect to fight NATO

By the way, Mr. Welch, why doesn't your Government propose to provide Block 52 F-16s to Hamas and Hizbollah? To follow the Patterson-logic, that must be the sure way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Sep 2011 23:04

eklavya wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:You all are living in a dream world if you think Euro planes are sanction proof
France did not impose sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests. Actions speak louder than words.

I wouldn't be worried about sanctions after a test, I would be worried about sanctions during a war.

France has repeatedly proven they will roll-over for whoever has the most money.

So I have to ask: How comfortable are you going to war against China with French gear?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 05 Sep 2011 23:13

GeorgeWelch wrote:
France did not impose sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests. Actions speak louder than words.
I wouldn't be worried about sanctions after a test, I would be worried about sanctions during a war.

France has repeatedly proven they will roll-over for whoever has the most money.

So I have to ask: How comfortable are you going to war against China with French gear?

The USA is only too happy to sanction nations during a war. I wonder how many Paki F-16s will be available during a war... (or for that matter F-16IN or F-18 in the IAF)

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Sep 2011 00:40

GeorgeWelch wrote:How comfortable are you going to war against China with French gear?

Very comfortable. The performance of the Mirage 2000 in IAF service is simply outstanding. The IAF's key successes in the 1999 Kargil war were based on the Mirage 2000. The IAF Mirage 2000 fleet was fully available because it had not been sanctioned after the 1998 nuclear tests.

I'm not saying US equipment doesn't work. Far from it. Our key losses in the 1999 Kargil war were due to Stingers supplied by the US to you know who

GeorgeWelch: you need to ask your Government why they feel the need to create a counter-balance to India. All the stuff that Obama said in the Indian parliament is worth a two dollar bill if the reality of US Government policy is to arm Pakistan so that it doesn't feel insecure about India. Why don't you leave that blessed role to the Chinese? At least the Chinese don't make a pretence of being our strategic partners.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 06 Sep 2011 00:46

GeorgeWelch wrote:
I wouldn't be worried about sanctions after a test, I would be worried about sanctions during a war.

France has repeatedly proven they will roll-over for whoever has the most money.

So I have to ask: How comfortable are you going to war against China with French gear?

TF alert

I would be worried, just like 1998 sanctions delayed the Tejas program badly.

French were very supportive during 1998 sanctions period.

Very comfortable, just like in Kargil M2ks performed superbly, Rafales are going to perform same way against pandas!

Not to mention the uselessness of teens huffing, puffing and panting to take of from Leh Airbase even without payload, while Rafale had no problem in take off from shorter runway and good payload!

Not to mention sanction happy, control freak nature of u.s.a.

Who looked the other way while pandas were stocking porkis with nukes & missiles?

Who provided porkis their first nuke delivery platform f16?

Who leaked Indian PM's letter to clinton mentioning china threat as the reason for tests, and ridiculing it?

Who insulted and kicked out Tejas scientists and confiscated all the equipment?

Who pretended to lose all evidence of 1992 bomb blasts in mumbai which showed porki hand?

I think we'll be happy to take our chances with French compared to u.s.a any day.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 06 Sep 2011 00:51

eklavya wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:How comfortable are you going to war against China with French gear?
Very comfortable. The performance of the Mirage 2000 in IAF service is simply outstanding. The IAF's key successes in the 1999 Kargil war were based on the Mirage 2000.

Since when were you fighting the Chinese in Kargil

Who has more money: India or Pakistan?

Ok so France is great if you're fighting Pakistan.

Now, who has more money: India or China?

Hmmmm . . .

eklavya wrote:if the reality of US Government policy is to arm Pakistan so that it doesn't feel insecure about India.

It's not. That's an excuse, not a reason. The US has zero love for Pakistan but they need them at the moment.

To be frank, Pakistan is no longer a military threat to India no matter what the US gives them. I know you have a lot of history with them, but it's just that: history.

I'm not saying they can't be pests, but a serious military threat? No.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 06 Sep 2011 00:53

Manish_Sharma wrote:Very comfortable, just like in Kargil M2ks performed superbly, Rafales are going to perform same way against pandas!

How will they do that when China pressures France into cutting off all spares and munitions and giving them access to detailed technical data?

Manish_Sharma wrote:I think we'll be happy to take our chances with French compared to u.s.a any day.

Right until the day they sell you out JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TIME THEY GET PRESSURED.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Sep 2011 01:16

GeorgeWelch wrote:Now, who has more money: India or China?

Insulting both India and France will get you nowhere. India, like other mature (to the point of being rotten

) civilisations, knows who to trust, and who not to trust; and France is not the w*hore of your imagination; a little bit greedy, but not a rascal.

eklavya wrote:if the reality of US Government policy is to arm Pakistan so that it doesn't feel insecure about India.

GeorgeWelch wrote:The US has zero love for Pakistan but they need them at the moment.

That's what I used to think until this Patterson dispatch. Now I am not so sure.

GeorgeWelch wrote: To be frank, Pakistan is no longer a military threat to India no matter what the US gives them. I know you have a lot of history with them, but it's just that: history. I'm not saying they can't be pests, but a serious military threat? No.

If India has to fight China in the future, I would much rather we did not have to keep 100 Su-30 MKI, etc in the Western Sector to control the Pakistani threat when facing hundreds and hundreds of Su-30 MKK in the East. Please peddle your "pests" theory to someone else.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 06 Sep 2011 01:19

eklavya wrote:France is not the w*hore of your imagination

History says you're wrong.

eklavya wrote:a little bit greedy, but not a rascal.

Ask for Argentina's perspective on that. Or Israel's.

People have mentioned that the multi-national nature of the EF Consortium makes them more prone to sanctions, and that's true to a point.

But if I had to choose between the EF and the Rafale, I would choose the EF because when it comes to a real fight, you're more likely to find at least one of the member states willing to supply you out of their inventory while France is a single point of failure.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 06 Sep 2011 01:23

No no insult Eklavya, he has asked the wrong question. It should be who is going to be more rich? With one child policy china is well on its way to be old people's nation. While India surges ahead like we already did 3 years back overtaking China in Car exports.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 06 Sep 2011 02:03

eklavya wrote:US envoy to Pak justified funds as ‘defence’ against ‘threat from India’
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-en ... a/841357/0

I used to believe the Americans when they blamed the Pakis for diverting the humanitarian aid towards military purchases against India, but this is as straight from the horse's mouth as it gets. Double speak is one thing but actively arming Pakis under the garb of aid as a state policy is truly eye-opening.

GeorgeWelch,
I hope India plays the Iran card and strengthens its Oil and Economic ties with them, while making all the right noises against them in public. Let's see how innocently US takes that.

GeorgeWelch wrote: ..<snip>..
Right until the day they sell you out JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TIME THEY GET PRESSURED.

And who's been selling us out ALL THIS TIME?

Kovy · Post by **Kovy** » 06 Sep 2011 02:09

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Ask for Argentina's perspective on that. Or Israel's.

Argentina, a military dictatorship at the time, was fool enough to attak France closest ally ! What did they expect ? BTW, France and UK being both part of NATO, there was no way that France would have betrayed UK. Argentina simply made a major strategic mistake and France cannot be blamed for that. France simply made a fair choice by supporting an allied democracy over a customer dictatorship.
BTW, since Argentina is a democracy, they have received all the support needed for their French kits, and most of the super etendard supplied in 1981 are still flying today after 30 years of service.

Israel got the full Mirage III Technology for free and key technology for their nuke program. Looks like a fair compensation to me.

People have mentioned that the multi-national nature of the EF Consortium makes them more prone to sanctions, and that's true to a point.

But if I had to choose between the EF and the Rafale, I would choose the EF because when it comes to a real fight, you're more likely to find at least one of the member states willing to supply you out of their inventory while France is a single point of failure.

I wouldn't bet on that. If only one partner refuses to supply, that means that you can't get the parts produced by this country. For example, UK refusal = no cockpit because all the EF cockpits are produced in UK and in UK only (I simplify, but you get the picture).

But More likely, a veto from one partner will result in the freezing of the whole supply chain from the 4 partners.