Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

[Karan M]

Sure. And the hard fact is that there's been a sea of change in India's military-economic strength and in the US' threat scenario since 1998.

Is that the sea change which has seen Pak armed like anything (far more than even in the 80's) over Indian objections. And Indian diplomats being mistreated without a second thought (until India made a hue and cry)?

What you are quoting is your individual perception. It's not bankable given how fickle these things can be.

What problems? I suggested putting ourselves in their shoes to predict their responses, not to empathize with them.

Fair enough, but so far India's record with predicting the US's actions has been fairly dodgy.

[Karan M]

Victor- US supplies Pakis with its own aid money free of cost and looks the other way when Pakis, Arabs and Chinees flout all these laws. And this has been going on since we can clearly tell since 1971.

Exactly. Its the brazen hypocrisy which has been galling.

Regarding US engines, today we have no choice,

The plus point and I agree with the original decesion. The GE 404 has proved to be a very relibale engine over 2500 flights and no LCA crashed, any other engine and Given the record of Mig21, 27, 29 etc and we probably had 1 crash and arms mafia would have terminated the LCA.

That's as much to do with our careful mission planning rather than with the engine itself TBH.
And we did have an option, the EJ200 or a variant. To dismiss it on L1 was (IMHO) a strategic folly.

ON rafale having gone down the road this far, unless the French have some really unreasonable demands which may not be in the public domain, I think we should induct these aircraft as soon as possible.

Agreed.

[NRao]

Dassault Rafale deal mustn’t be delayed

[Viv S]

Is that the sea change which has seen Pak armed like anything (far more than even in the 80's) over Indian objections. And Indian diplomats being mistreated without a second thought (until India made a hue and cry)?

None of the arms delivered to Pakistan have ever come free. Pakistan for the US today is basically a thoroughfare between the Arabian Sea and Afghanistan. Its territory is routinely struck by US drone and aircraft (which have on occasion killed Pakistani soldiers as well). The CIA has operated with impunity. Their special forces conducted an operation deep the Pakistani heartland while American fighter aircraft stood ready to shoot down PAF aircraft (in their own country). And what do they have to show for it at the end of the decade - just a few new fighter jets and widespread anti-Americanism.

And while Pakistan's current situation can hardly be blamed on the Americans, fact is their participation in the GWOT against their erstwhile allies in Afghanistan, began with 'you're with us or against us' and "against us" means being 'bombed back to the stone age'.

For us in India, the question is - in retrospect, if we could have somehow prevented the US campaign in Afghanistan, should/would we have done so? For the first time since 1992, India has concrete influence in a strongly pro-India Afghanistan while Pakistan's ability to do us harm is lower than ever before, so the evidence would suggest not.

Fair enough, but so far India's record with predicting the US's actions has been fairly dodgy.

That's true and we have a bumpy ride ahead. But sanctions are a major irrevocable step that the US will not take lightly. And with 33 out 100 US Senators and 150/435 House Reps being official members of the India Caucus (in 1998 there were just dozen of the latter and no Senate caucus at all), and the Pentagon strongly focused on China, that's just not the sort of thing that'll get through.

[Viv S]

Dassault Rafale deal mustn’t be delayed

The good general unfortunately punctures his argument by starting out with -

In its overzealous anti-corruption campaign, the Union Government has cancelled the AgustaWestland helicopter contract, with unintended consequences for the ongoing modernisation of the Armed Forces which seriously lag behind their twin adversaries — Pakistan and China — in capability accretion.


And then he follows it up with -

The LCA for many is a mirage.


('Mirage'.. maybe, but not a mirage. )

[Karan M]

None of the arms delivered to Pakistan have ever come free.

Yup, give them aid, repatriate that as part of US arms payments... that isn't free?
Look at the state of the Pak military before the US spigot opened and look at it now..

Pakistan for the US today is basically a thoroughfare between the Arabian Sea and Afghanistan. Its territory is routinely struck by US drone and aircraft (which have on occasion killed Pakistani soldiers as well).

Or, it's the US which is exiting Afghanistan & Pak establishment, after having created the Taliban, is operating with impunity. And getting more moolah for facilitating the exit.. for that one incident you quote, check out how many Hekmatyar and other attacks likely originated in Pak with Pak mil assistance.

The CIA has operated with impunity. Their special forces conducted an operation deep the Pakistani heartland while American fighter aircraft stood ready to shoot down PAF aircraft (in their own country). And what do they have to show for it at the end of the decade - just a few new fighter jets and widespread anti-Americanism.

Hmmm... the Pak military -praetorian deep state remains intact... and all they have is a few new fighter jets? Lets see
- Additional P3s, additional Choppers
- Tons of NVGs, comms gear & tandem warhead TOW2As (Taliban must have ERA equipped infantry), AN/TPS-77 radars
- A bunch of F-16s with around a thousand PGMs & the latest Sniper pods. Plus EW, plus AMRAAMs
- Also, by financing all the above, Pak gets more money to pour into its Al Khalids, JF-17s, etc. And now has a nuke program on steroids, plus 3 Erieyes & 4 Chinese AWACS

...etc etc etc.. the above is not even a comprehensive list.

Once the US leaves, even the forced Pak COIN campaigns against the Taliban will come to an end.

The big mistake you are making here is projection. You are projecting Indian or even American belief in what a powerful state should be on to the Pakistani decision matrix run by the Pak mil elite. They don't think like that.

For those pinpricks you are talking about, they extracted billions of $ & military supplies from the US, revitalized their conventional forces, got money to restart their nuclear armaments program on a bigger footing, and after all that, they continue with their terrorism.

Whats not to like for them?

They don't really care about peace & building up the economy etc. and that civilians (the average guy) has a lousy life.

Over time, if US aid ebbs, they will be broke once more. But till then, as things stand, the US took a 50 pound weakling, and gave him an exoskeleton to think of taking on a 200 pound opponent. Till the batteries run out, that stupid armament program championed by the US is an issue. And the batteries wont run out for several decades.. all those nukes they built because their conventional arms were being paid for by the US wont disappear overnight either.

And while Pakistan's current situation can hardly be blamed on the Americans, fact is their participation in the GWOT against their erstwhile allies in Afghanistan, began with 'you're with us or against us' and "against us" means being 'bombed back to the stone age'.

So who cares? Were they bombed back to the stone age? No. That tough talk was just talk & lets face it, Pak showed the limitations of US tough talk very well.

They couldn't do diddly against all the ISI/Pak mil guys who set up, trained and created the Taliban folks attacking US in Afghanistan. Best US could do is drone a few of the proxies. Paks chuckled and sent more across. And made money out of it.

At the end of the day its the US, after getting its troops shot and bombed, which is running back to the mainland. And paying Pak for it again.

Another glorious "victory" and it will be the Indian armed forces which will have to manage the aftermath, of their hubris.

For us in India, the question is - in retrospect, if we could have somehow prevented the US campaign in Afghanistan, should/would we have done so? For the first time since 1992, India has concrete influence in a strongly pro-India Afghanistan while Pakistan's ability to do us harm is lower than ever before, so the evidence would suggest not.

Irrelevant today. Because we are dealing with situations today.

That's true and we have a bumpy ride ahead. But sanctions are a major irrevocable step that the US will not take lightly. And with 33 out 100 US Senators and 150/435 House Reps being official members of the India Caucus (in 1998 there were just dozen of the latter and no Senate caucus at all), and the Pentagon strongly focused on China, that's just not the sort of thing that'll get through.

When push came to shove even on a relatively minor issue like energy supplies from Iran, many of these guys suddenly started cribbing. Come a big issue tomorrow & I doubt they won't toe the official line.

As the DK issue shows, the Indian diaspora is no jewish one, latter for the most part mobilizes solidly on pro Israel issues. For various reasons, the Indian diaspora is neither so politically powerful or able to be so blatant in their use of the power either.

[Karan M]

The sad part is that when the US started forcing Pak into fighting its own cretins, if there was a govt in Delhi which was remotely independent, it would have done its best to exploit that & in turn get leverage on Pak. Instead, India had US's very own fave, MMS in power. Enough said on how good that was for India.

[Viv S]

Yup, give them aid, repatriate that as part of US arms payments... that isn't free?
Look at the state of the Pak military before the US spigot opened and look at it now..

I'm not referring to FMF. The allusion was to the state of their sovereignty. That's a heavier price than most other countries would be ready to pay.

Funny, because as I recall, it's the US which is exiting Afghanistan & Pak establishment, after having created the Taliban, is operating with impunity. And getting more moolah for facilitating the exit.. for that one incident you site, check out how many Hekmatyar and other attacks likely originated in Pak with Pak mil assistance.

They're exiting the region yes. But Pakistan hardly in a condition to reap the benefits. Their hands are full if not positively overflowing with just managing the TTP. Kabul is a very long way off. Najibullah's regime survived the Soviet withdrawal, outlasting the USSR itself. The collapse of the Afghan establishment is easier predicted than achieved.

With regard to the support for Haqqani network and Hizb-e-Islami, it just goes to show the true US-Pak dynamic. Its at best transactional relationship, with neither side interested in doing any favours for the other.

Hmmm... the Pak military -praetorian deep state remains intact... and all they have is a few new fighter jets? Lets see
- Additional P3s, additional Choppers
- Tons of NVGs, comms gear & tandem warhead TOW2As (Taliban must have ERA equipped infantry), AN/TPS-77 radars
- A bunch of F-16s with around a thousand PGMs & the latest Sniper pods. Plus EW, plus AMRAAMs
- Also, by financing all the above, Pak gets more money to pour into its Al Khalids, JF-17s, etc. And now has a nuke program on steroids, plus 3 Erieyes & 4 Chinese AWACS

...etc etc etc.. the above is not even a comprehensive list.

- 50,000 people dead including 15,000 soldiers.
- Deployment on the LoC/IB at all time lows.
- A new hostile 300,000 strong professional army on the western front.
- 140,000 troops locked into the counter-insurgency circuit.
- Massive internal migration.
- Dried up foreign investment.
- Economic losses from the GWOT pegged at over $65 billion and counting.

And worst of all for them, no possible end to the crisis is visible on the horizon.

Once the US leaves, even the forced Pak COIN campaigns against the Taliban will come to an end.

Which campaigns against which parties will come to an end? Disparate Afghan groups? TTP? SSP? LeJ? Offshoots of all the same? You're vastly overestimating the control exercised by the Pakistani establishment over the major militant organisations and their splinter groups. There was a time when it was all pervasive but utter chaos reigns there now and there is no part of the country that remains unaffected.

So who cares? Were they bombed back to the stone age? No. Talk is cheap & lets face it, Pak showed the limitations of US tough talk very well.

They capitulated to American demands so the threat never needed to be carried out.

For us in India, the question is - in retrospect, if we could have somehow prevented the US campaign in Afghanistan, should/would we have done so? For the first time since 1992, India has concrete influence in a strongly pro-India Afghanistan while Pakistan's ability to do us harm is lower than ever before, so the evidence would suggest not.

Irrelevant today. Because we are dealing with situations today.

Its very relevant because there is a narrative espoused by many here on BR, that claims that the US entered the region to somehow prop up Pakistan against India, while the fact is the US campaign was to pursue its own objectives in Afghanistan (which happen to coincide with India's) and all of their actions since then vis a vis Pakistan have been in pursuit of the same.

When push came to shove even on a relatively minor issue like energy supplies from Iran, many of these guys suddenly started cribbing. Come a big issue tomorrow & I doubt they won't toe the official line.

That's true only if the threat from China evaporates. Until then US' strategic interests are firmly aligned with India's and they'd be undoing their position by backing sanctions against India. Energy supplies from Iran is not a minor issue; all-pervasive sanctions on Iran are a cornerstone of western policy on Iran. And while the Indian establishment is happy to led the west remain at the forefront, it has no more interest in seeing a new nuclear power emerge in its neighborhood.

As the DK issue shows, the Indian diaspora is no jewish one, latter for the most part mobilizes solidly on pro Israel issues. For various reasons, the Indian diaspora is neither so politically powerful or able to be so blatant in their use of the power either.

The DK arrest was hardly a fallout of official US foreign policy (at best it was a result of negligence on the State Dept's part).

[NRao]

at best it was a result of negligence on the State Dept's part

It was a Dept of Justice "action" (whatever it is called).

[Singha]

at best it was a result of negligence on the State Dept's part

It was a Dept of Justice "action" (whatever it is called).

the DSS agent who drew up the chargesheet that started it all (posted a few pages back) comes under the state dept I think. May the expelled diplo was also DSS.
it comes under Dept of State I think, just like FBI and marshals.

[Manish_Sharma]

That's why we shouldn't get pathetic phat panting teens, f-18 didn't even have proper IRST, couldn't take of from leh!

Let's equip them with the winners: rafale or ef2k.

We can't afford the Rafale. If you want something that offers us genuine value for money, you have to look no further than the Tejas.

Satya vachan, I 100% agree, as posted in LCA thread:

HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore

The Tejas Mark I will be one of the world's most affordable fighters in its class. Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources tell Business Standard that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has quoted a price of Rs 162 crore per aircraft for the first 20 Tejas fighters that have begun production in Bangalore. That translates into a dollar price of approximately $26 million a fighter.

This is a fraction of the cost of the comparable Mirage-2000, which was bought relatively cheaply in the 1980s, but is currently being upgraded for Rs 280 crore ($45 million) per fighter. On December 19, 2011, Defence Minister A K Antony had told Parliament that Thales would get Euro 1.4 billion (Rs 11,830 crore today) for upgrading the Indian Air Force (IAF) fleet of 49 Mirage-2000 fighters, while HAL would get Rs 2,020 crore, i.e., a total of Rs 13,850 crore. Since the upgrade will only be completed by 2021, that cost would rise further if the rupee falls.

Antony also told Parliament the IAF's fleet of 69 MiG-29 fighters was being upgraded for $964 million, that is about Rs 87 crore per fighter, over and above the acquisition cost.

The Sukhoi-30MKI, a heavier and, therefore, more expensive fighter that HAL builds in Nashik, currently costs the IAF more than Rs 400 crore ($65 million) each. The Rafale medium multi-role fighter, which is currently being negotiated with Dassault, could cost between Rs 750 crore and Rs 850 crore ($120-140 million) each.

The JF-17 Thunder, the Pakistan Air Force's new light fighter that was "co-developed" with China is believed to be marginally cheaper, at $23-24 million per aircraft. However, the Tejas is significantly more advanced than the JF-17, being built from composite materials, incorporating an advanced fly-by-wire system, and fitted with more advanced avionics.

The MoD is bargaining with HAL over the Tejas' Rs 162 crore price tag, pointing that HAL had, in 2006, quoted a unit price of Rs 116.49 crore per fighter. HAL argues the rupee's decline (some 45 per cent of the Tejas comes from abroad) and inflation over the past 8 years warrants a 40 per cent rise.

During a recent tour of the Tejas assembly line, Business Standard was briefed about HAL's initiatives to slash the cost of the Tejas, rendering it more attractive to the IAF. HAL's first step has been to target economy of scale by developing its assembly line and supply chains for 200 fighters, though the IAF has only committed to buying just 40 Tejas Mark I fighters so far.

In planning ambitiously, HAL has the MoD's support. Antony announced last month in Bangalore, when the Tejas was being inducted into the IAF, that about 200 fighters would be eventually built in Mark I and Mark II configurations.

By HAL's reckoning, these include 20 Tejas Mark I fighters in the current configuration; and 20 more once Final Operational Clearance is received at the end of 2014 (the IAF has already committed to buying these two squadrons). Next, HAL plans to build 84 Tejas Mark II (four squadrons). The navy has already ordered 8 Naval Tejas; and is planning to order 11 Naval Tejas trainers soon. When development is complete, about 46 Naval Tejas will be ordered for India's two indigenous aircraft carriers - INS Vikrant and its successor.

HAL is also developing a cost-effective supply chain by establishing Long Time Business Agreements (LTBAs) of 3-5 years with its sub-vendors. Instead of giving them piecemeal orders, HAL assures its sub-vendors of production orders for up to 40-50 aircraft sets. Having provided them business confidence and driven down prices, HAL negotiates yearly requirements with them in tandem with its production rate, ensuring the in-flow of raw materials and parts to keep the Tejas line rolling. As IAF/navy orders grow, these vendors are assured of further business provided their performance and prices remain satisfactory.

Long lead components, which require time to build and sometimes have a high rejection rate, have been identified and addressed. The Tejas line will have a high quality machining shop with state-of-the-art five-axis CNC machines. For critical parts like the Tejas' carbon composite wing skin, these machines will replace the manual drilling of 8,000 holes, using instead a computerised drilling programme that will reduce cycle time, errors and production cost.

"With measures like these, we will improve the Tejas' build quality and eliminate rework, rejection and delays. Bringing down the 'Standard Man Hour' for series production, when compared to building prototypes, will automatically reduce the production cost of the Tejas," says RK Tyagi, chairman of HAL.

[Viv S]

the DSS agent who drew up the chargesheet that started it all (posted a few pages back) comes under the state dept I think. May the expelled diplo was also DSS.
it comes under Dept of State I think, just like FBI and marshals.

The FBI and US Marshals Service comes under the Dept of Justice, but you're right about the DSS being part of the State Department.

[Manish_Sharma]

As the DK issue shows, the Indian diaspora is no jewish one, latter for the most part mobilizes solidly on pro Israel issues. For various reasons, the Indian diaspora is neither so politically powerful or able to be so blatant in their use of the power either.

Exactly, the Indian diaspora consists likes of mms, montek & bobby jindal types who'll do anything against Bharatvarsh to get and maintain some personal status in and with US.

As usual clear and crisp post.

[srin]

Is that the sea change which has seen Pak armed like anything (far more than even in the 80's) over Indian objections. And Indian diplomats being mistreated without a second thought (until India made a hue and cry)?

None of the arms delivered to Pakistan have ever come free. Pakistan for the US today is basically a thoroughfare between the Arabian Sea and Afghanistan. Its territory is routinely struck by US drone and aircraft (which have on occasion killed Pakistani soldiers as well). The CIA has operated with impunity. Their special forces conducted an operation deep the Pakistani heartland while American fighter aircraft stood ready to shoot down PAF aircraft (in their own country). And what do they have to show for it at the end of the decade - just a few new fighter jets and widespread anti-Americanism.

From the American perspective, it makes sense. From Indian perspective, the TSP got F16 Blck52 with AMRAAM, for free - ostensibly to fight the Taliban - but will be used to fight India (AMRAAMs were supplied to destroy Taliban tents ?).

And while Pakistan's current situation can hardly be blamed on the Americans, fact is their participation in the GWOT against their erstwhile allies in Afghanistan, began with 'you're with us or against us' and "against us" means being 'bombed back to the stone age'.

For us in India, the question is - in retrospect, if we could have somehow prevented the US campaign in Afghanistan, should/would we have done so? For the first time since 1992, India has concrete influence in a strongly pro-India Afghanistan while Pakistan's ability to do us harm is lower than ever before, so the evidence would suggest not.

Fair enough, but so far India's record with predicting the US's actions has been fairly dodgy.

That's true and we have a bumpy ride ahead. But sanctions are a major irrevocable step that the US will not take lightly. And with 33 out 100 US Senators and 150/435 House Reps being official members of the India Caucus (in 1998 there were just dozen of the latter and no Senate caucus at all), and the Pentagon strongly focused on China, that's just not the sort of thing that'll get through.

Doesn't matter. If the US feels it is in its self-interest or political justified to apply sanctions, they will happen. The US discards its "allies" and changes the power equations almost instantly overnight. We can't rely on the graciousness to cater to our self-interest.

[Victor]

The sad part is that when the US started forcing Pak into fighting its own cretins, if there was a govt in Delhi which was remotely independent, it would have done its best to exploit that & in turn get leverage on Pak. Instead, India had US's very own fave, MMS in power. Enough said on how good that was for India.

IIRC NDA and Vajpayee were in power and offered landing facilities to the Americans in 2001 but refused boots in Afg.

[member_28334]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... deals.html

Now thats some news for the day!! Finally things on the move for the "mother of all defence deals".

[Manish_Sharma]

My answers in maroon:

US supplies Pakis with its own aid money free of cost and looks the other way

A very old and valid argument (and if you have read news reports US states it is in their self interest).

Bharat not buying american equipment is also in its "self interest". On what basis can anyone guarantee that sanctions won't be applied ever by US govt. in future whatever decision a future PM(what he/she percieves to be Bharat's self-interest) takes?

The IN was the first to venture into a "strategic partnership" and here is a very interesting point made by Adm Prakash (thanks to RajitO), for your consideration:
April 21, 2007 :: Admiral Arun Prakash On The New Indo-US Strategic Partnership

LiveFist: The Navy was at the forefront of the new strategic Indo-US complexion with exercises and exchanges at the topmost levels. How did you personally see this evolving equation, and what are the risks India needs to keep in mind with such a resolute foreign policy initiative on the military front?

Admiral Prakash: In international relations you cannot go wrong if you proceed on the basis of two premises: It is not altruism but self-interest that invariably motivates nations. There are no free lunches, and a price will one day have to be paid for everything. And, when you negotiate in the big league, you should be prepared to play “hard ball”.

US doesn't want us to be player in big league OR anyone else for the matter. At the most you can be a poodle like uk. Admiral (Retd.) Arun Prakash is remiss in explaining that what steps the navy took while negotiating P-8s that Seaking Helicoper like situation won't happen ever in future. IT IS IN BHARAT'S SELF-INTEREST TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER EQUIPMENT WE BUY WILL NEVER BE SANCTIONED BY amrika.

That should cover all concerns presented here.

Every nation acts in her own self interest - US giving "aid" to Pakis, Soviet subs pinging in 1971 or Russia sending arms to India, BOTH nations are acting in their own self interest. (Which is one of the main reasons why Russia is crying foul when India looks elsewhere for arms - their national interest is hurt, even when India acts in her own interest.)

Now like CIA's term "plausible denial" was very useful during cold war, the same way this term "self interest" seems to be used to advocate subjugation of Bharat.

1. Pakistan warred with us in its self-interest, we fought back in our "self-interest".

2. From the the hot war of '62 till today's cold war by china is in its own "self-interest", we should fight back not only through armed forces but by arming Vietnam with nukes and Prithvis and Agnis is our "self-interest".

3.
a.) Russia pinged and stopped Amrika from attacking/intimidating Bharat was in its own "self-interest" during '71.

b.) Russia countered US' kashmir resolution against Bharatvarsh continuously UNO with its 'Veto' was in its "Self-interest".

c.) Russia didn't apply sanctions against us on '98 tests was in its "self-interest". amrika sanctioned us for the same in its own "self-interests".

Is it in Bharat's self interest to dump the russians whose "self-interests" have not been at odds with our "self-interests"? Is it in our "self-interest" to REWARD US for sanctioning us in their "self-interest" and PUNISH Russians for standing by us in their "self-interest"?

No it is in our "self-interest" to stay away from sanction prone equipment of US and use Russia (Arihant help, Shucka-B lease etc.) to shift over to indigineous platforms + equipments.

Believe me we can let the russian bear go at some stage, but won't be able to get rid of this virus called United States of America once it fully settles down in our market. Nope its not in our self-interest.


And, a price, for every action, will be paid at some point in time.

a.) To me its clear the price, people like Moneytake Singh Ahluwalia, MMS and other US powered men ruling us.

b.) Kashmir separation as fordfoundation funded naxalites are sitting on Delhi State's Throne who are openly making statements like "Kashmir should be given independence".

c.) Disintegration of Bharatvarsh.

And, of course, perhaps the most important one: "hard ball". A strategist, no matter what happens or what does not, that person sleeps very, very well - with very normal BP.

Great powers obviously have fewer scruples in international relations and are far more conscious of “realpolitik” than novices like India. We have to get used to the idea that everything is negotiable if the supreme national interest is at stake. Therefore clarity of vision and maintenance of aim are vital principles in geo-politics.

This covers the UNSC veto and other similar aspects.

No matter who it is - how big a nation - it really does not matter. Everything has a price - the question is who pays what and when. AND, it works both ways. Just because a nations pulls a fast one today does not mean it will last for ever.

I don't understand what we get for this price? What did we get for buying C-130J or P8s? Or Trenton? Or C-17s? At least russian cheats take money for T-90 and don't give the barrel tech. But here there is no tech-transfer. Not even a talk.

This has come out quite clearly in the Indo-US Nuclear Cooperation negotiations. The actual US goal right through has been to get India to “cap and roll back” its nuclear weapon programme, and every attempt has been made to push this agenda through. When faced with determined opposition by Indian negotiators, they have slowly stepped back, but still done their best to extract the maximum out of India.

US and Indian"interest".

How come this merges? I thought the whole post upto now was SEPARATE US "self-interests", Russian/Soviet "Self-interests" and so on...

How come this India is Indira and Indira is India type US and Indian "interests" become one?

As far as the IN-USN paradigm is concerned, in 2004 it was obvious that we had been sparring around for over a decade (since the Kicklighter Proposals) and while joint exercises and Op Sagittarius (the Malacca Strait patrol), did signify considerable progress, the US industry was chafing at not getting its teeth into the lucrative pie which they saw the Indian market as. It was obvious that a “hardware transfer” at this stage would enable the US industry to put a foot in the door and make an opening in the Indian market.

Again, another US "interest".

Tell me LCA and Seaking parts sanctions was US "self-interest" too?

As far as the IN was concerned, we had managed without US origin hardware (except some components of our German origin HDW submarines) for over 50 years, and having established multiple other (more reliable) sources, were quite content to do without it. On the other hand, it was obvious that cutting edge technology in many warfare areas was to be had only in the USA, and an entry into the US arms market could have great operational benefits for us. It would also create a badly needed alternate source of supply for us.

Hard facts (to deal with while making decisions) - which way do you want to go? Both are open.

Hard fact is that when it comes to ToT; US is the most miserly constipated sonofabitch. Which deal is bringing tech to Bharat? As you said "US had honestly told us what very little tech they'll give us in MMRCA, while russian cheats promise the moon but deliver nothing". Is Javelin bringing some tech?

However, there were numerous roadblocks. Wherever the US industry representatives went, the first question they had to answer was: “What happens if your government imposes sanctions again?” They really did not have an answer for this, so after some time people stopped asking. Moreover, we found that not only is the US system full of internal tensions and contradictions, but that their bureaucracy is as strong and obtuse as ours.

Age old question, with no real answer in the business sphere, but there is an answer in the strategic sphere.

No there is no answer in strategic sphere too. Please provide one. The thing is its very easy for US to make a law and contracts that they won't ever sanction us. But they don't. Because they know they are going to sanction us in future if we step out of line ever. A line of course drawn by US "self-interests". Where is Bharat in all this? Just babaji ka thullu?

I challenge you to spell out clearly the answer about sanctions in strategic sphere. Just ishaarebaazi won't cut it.

On a number of occasions, because they could not obtain complete alignment between the Pentagon, the Department of State, and Department of Defence, many well-intentioned acquisition plans fell through. The transfer of USS Trenton thus became a test case and a prestige issue for both navies. A determined push was applied at multiple points (NHQ, MoD, MoF and their counterparts in the USA) at the highest levels to ensure that the deal fructified at the eleventh hour.

Problems on both side, but overcome by strategic needs.
Yup some say problems from both sides of border on LoC, porkistan isn't alone to be blamed. That US wants to charge full amount of money for its equipment but wants to impose EULA and EUMA, and doesn't want to commit that it won't ever sanction half the blame should go to Bharat.
__________________

Also, if this Indo-US "Strategic partnership" has to be derailed, there are plenty of other opportunities: Iran is perhaps teh most volatile one (and there have been a handful of US Senators that have questioned Indian policies), then there is the ever present Pakistan (no need to get into that) and in the very recent past, Afghanistan and BD. In BD, it appears India and the US are sitting at the opposite end of the table and literally hitting each other.

Not just Bangladesh but kashmir and porki issue too, just porkistan lover mms is there so its not so visible now.

[member_26535]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... deals.html

March end ? Wishful thinking ?

[shukla]

Will Rafale F3R Upgrade Impact Indian MMRCA Procurement?

As the development and integration of a new-standard Rafale fighter, the F3R gets underway by Dassault, its impact on the Indian MMRCA procurement could be significant.

With the current official information on the Indian deal being that ‘negotiations are underway’, it might just be possible that the Indian side might look at the F3R configuration seriously before freezing the aircraft configuration.

[NRao]

France’s Rafale Fighters to get F3R Upgrades, PDL-NG pods

Jan 10/13: F3R. French defense minister Jean-Yves le Drian hands Dassault Chairman and CEO Eric Trappier the Rafale F3R development contract, during a visit to Dassault Aviation’s Merignac plant. The contract, which is reported to be worth about EUR 1 billion ($1.32 billion), had actually been ratified by the DGA on Dec 30/13.

Key additions to the Rafale F3R include full integration with the SBU-64 laser/GPS AASM smart bomb and the Meteor long-range air-to-air missile, improvements to Thales SPECTRA self-defence system, an Identification Friend or Foe interrogator/transponder with full Mode-5/Mode-S-compatibility, and assorted incremental improvements to the plane’s navigation systems, data links, and radar.

At the same time, the DGA announces the expected EUR 119 million development deal with Thales Optronics for the F3R’s new PDL-NG surveillance and targeting pod, under the 2014-2019 budget. That’s on top of the initial EUR 55 million risk-reduction phase that confirmed the system’s architecture, integration, and development schedule (q.v. Jan 28/13). The French military expects to order 20 pods during a subsequent initial production phase, with 16 delivered between 2018 – 2019. The full program is expected to order 45.

French Rafale orders currently stand at 180 production aircraft, with 126 delivered: 39 Rafale-M naval single-seaters, 42 Rafale-B twin-seaters for the air force, and 45 Rafale-C single-seaters for the air force. Sources: French DGA, “Lancement du nouveau standard du programme Rafale” | French DGA, “La DGA lance le developpement du PDL-NG” | Dassault Aviation, “RAFALE “F3 R” standard launched” | Thales Group, “Thales begins development of New Generation Laser Designation Pod”.

[Philip]

The good Gen.'s article should be posted in full.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/ ... layed.html

The contract for the 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft needs to materialise more sooner than later. Otherwise, the Indian Air Force will be in deep trouble

With the country transfixed on the ‘pehle AAP’ strategy of subsidised water and electricity and corruption-free governance in an election year, will someone also spare a thought for defence and national security, without which all populist measures will be on shaky terrain ?

In its overzealous anti-corruption campaign, the Union Government has cancelled the AgustaWestland helicopter contract, with unintended consequences for the ongoing modernisation of the Armed Forces which seriously lag behind their twin adversaries — Pakistan and China — in capability accretion. India has evolved a complicated and laborious defence procurement system which has been revised several times since its inception in 2003. In the next five years of the nearly Rs 6,00,000 crore defence budget, Rs 65,000 crore is to be spent on capital acquisitions.

Poor strategic political direction, bad planning, unrealistic expectations from the public sector defence industry and an obsession with corruption-free transactions, especially in this last decade, have led to hollowness in critical operational assets and capabilities. Unable to make and/or buy value-for-money deterrence in time, the Services are forced to live dangerously, stretching the life of equipment through upgrade and jugaad which could prove costly in battle. The barrel of the Bofors Mark II gun, which the Ordnance Factories Board is trying to manufacture on 30-year-old technology, keeps exploding during trials leaving the Army without a new gun for the last three decades.

With most routes closed either due to blacklisting of companies or fear of scandals, the Government has chosen the foreign military sales route of acquisition from the US which is emerging as the biggest supplier of military hardware, replacing Russia. In some 50 years, India bought equipment from the US worth a mere $500 million. Then suddenly in the last five years, purchases shot up to $15 billion with another eight billion dollars on order and five billion dollars planned. Besides annoying the Russians, India’s traditional defence suppliers, has anyone factored the possibility of future US sanctions? In 2004, when the Hawk AJT contract was signed with the UK, the clause, “there will be no US parts” was specifically inserted.

The Service most seriously challenged in the new year by Government’s indifference to defence preparedness and enforced reliance on Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is the Indian Air Force which, with relevant hard and software, can tilt the outcome in a short and sharp war. It was surprising that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did not make even a proforma mention of national security at his Press conference last week considering that former Army chief General VK Singh, like his predecessors, had gone public about unprecedented voids in operational readiness. The IAF has failed to convince the Government and familiarise the country about likely serious shortfalls in combat power if ongoing fighter aircraft replacement programmes dislocate or derail any further.

The big question is why the delay in finalising the 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft contract with Rafale (Dassault) which emerged the winner in January 2012 in the mother of all defence deals worth $20 billion. Then Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, the Chief of Air Staff, had said he expected the contract to be signed by March 31, 2013. Now the hope is that it will be done during the current financial year. One of the reasons for the delay was the sudden death of the officer in the Ministry of Defence who was handling the transfer of technology negotiations. Given that an election is due within five months, will the UPA2, encumbered by corruption scandals, have the political gumption to go ahead with the deal? Unlikely!

The IAF’s desired combat strength based on a two-front war, ideally providing one to one-and-a-half squadrons for close air support of each Army division is around 50 squadrons. At the present 34 squadron strength, a massive gap in order of battle is emerging, requiring 16 additional combat squadrons on a war footing. All MiG 21 and MiG 27 aircraft will be phased out by 2018-2020, leaving 26 squadrons consisting of six Jaguars, three MiG 29s, three Mirage 200s and 14 Sikhoi 30s. With LCA Tejas Mark I awaiting final operational clearance, the advance Tejas with upgraded GE 414 engine can materialise by the end of the decade. Under this phase-out plan, any delay, or heaven forbid, cancellation of the MMRCA contract by the new Government will leave the IAF in operational lurch. If the contract is signed in 2015, the first of 18 aircraft will be delivered after 32 months in 2018 and the last of the remaining 108 aircraft, to be made in India, will become operational in 2025. Air Chief Marshal PV Naik, former Chief of Air Staff has said: “We are in deep trouble”. And there is no Plan B.

Rafale’s rival, the Euro-Fighter Typhoon, is waiting in the wings for a re-bid, resulting from the internal enquiry to examine how Rafale emerged as the L1 — lowest bidder. EF hopefuls are expecting the deal to unravel due to price escalation, failure to meet specifications and wrangling over life-cycle costs. Wishful thinking apart, the EF consortium is preparing a package deal. The Typhoon is L-2 and will remain in that position till L-1 Rafale wins the contract. The EF is displaying strategic patience as the consortium feels the French offer has become unviable, as Dassault does not have the industrial strength and capacity to deliver the contract successfully and implement offsets. Transfer of technology is believed to be posing difficulties. The EF offer of offsets for indigenisation, willingness to reduce price and deliver upto 20 aircraft within days of signing the contract may be the clincher.

If the MMRCA contract is cancelled for whatever reason, the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft, which is of a different class, being jointly produced with Russia, could possibly step in but only in 2021. The LCA for many is a mirage. The unacceptable combat void will, however, remain between 2018 and 2025 unless MMRCA is signed this financial year.

Without a Plan B, the MMRCA contract not materialising soon could land the IAF in deep trouble. An all-party meeting to clear the contract is a way out. French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian was in New Delhi twice in five months last year, expecting the Rafale to fly away with the contract. British and German Ministers, on behalf of EF, were also doing the rounds of South Block. Only the IAF is maintaining silence over future risks and dangers from gross political mismanagement of its operational preparedness, for which it too is culpable.

[member_22539]

^you never loose ANY opportunity to undermine indigenous efforts do you? Maybe the Russians can magically produce a engine with the dimensions and capabilities of the current US one, that would make you very happy right? Of course thats the real reason why the LCA burns you so much, it has a US engine instead of a Russian one. So, you rake up what every reason you can and parade it around on the forum, posting it on any thread at the slightest excuse. It matters not to you that an aircraft is more than the engine and radar, and that in the LCA we have at least achieved that much. You would have us have a 100% foreign fighter rather than 50% to 60% Indian one. Of course, any Indian capability being developed would threaten future Russian sales, so I can imagine why that would be threatening to you.

[Sancho]

IAF also has begun integrated CBU-97/105 SFW serious cans of whoop ass on these birds.

Is there any official source that confirms the integration to the Jags?

[Philip]

IA Arun is referring to moi,then I feel sorry for his personal instead of objective posts.If anything hurts me it is not that the LCA is not flying with a Russian engine,I have never advocated it to fly with one,but that it does not fly with an Indian one! It is for over a decade that I've been stressing the need for a full-fledged engine R&D establishment that can design and develop engines for aircraft and rotary applications.I belong to the generation that grew up with the HF-24,whose excellent prospects were scuttled by an inadequate engine.We do not forget those memories or the lost years of indigenous aircraft design and development.With the failure of Kaveri for the LCA,We are back in time as we were with the HF-24 .The same disease has afflicted the LCA too with the 404 simply delivering not enough power ,requiring a more powerful 414 fitted.That is going to entail a lot of redesigning,time and cost.When MK-2 will actually arrive-the deadline,is open to Q.Is the AMCA too going to repeat history?

However,as BC and many of us on BR have been saying for long,we will be totally dependent upon the US for engines,whose track record of sanctions is a fact.Neither the Russians or the French have ever shafted us in the manner that the US did after P-2,and if it becomes neccessary for a P-3 in the future,can anyone guarantee that the US will not play to form? This is why many on BR have also realised that it would be prudent for us to also develop a prototype which can fly with an EJ,SNECMA or whatever.If the Kaveri can be upgraded to meet MK-2 requirements,use it by all means! This way we will be insured in the event of another betrayal by the US.The DK affair just shows us the true mentality and lack of respect for India that exists in the majority of the US political establishment.

Back to Raffy,I was going through a not too long ago press meet by former ACM Browne,in which he said that ,I quote,"we have no back up plan for the MMRCA,if we make a back-up plan we will get lost". It is in this context that BC has made his piece about "dependency" and the IAF's years of trouble ahead from 2017-2025.There is no way that the LCA can replace the MMRCA requirement,given the huge amount of hundreds of MIG-21s and 27s being retired ,without the Bisons being added to that number.
However,if the Rafale deal gets "derailed ,shunted to a siding,or loses some of its bogies",meaning cut to size,the IAF will be like the TV series,"LOST" groping for interim alternatives to maintain both numbers and capability.

[andy B]

2 x meteors
2 x MICA IR
2 x MICA RF
6 x AASM
3 x Droptanks

GD does this tickle your fancy for a DSPA configuartiona?

[Viv S]

^^ Any guesses about its RCS in that configuration? 5 m2? 10 m2? More?

[Viv S]

IAF also has begun integrated CBU-97/105 SFW serious cans of whoop ass on these birds.

Is there any official source that confirms the integration to the Jags?

India Buys GPS-Guided “Cans of Whup-Ass”

Sept 13/13: Jaguar integration. Textron Defense Systems in Wilmington MA receives a $9.1 million contract modification to develop the Sensor-Fuzed Weapon’s remote terminal interface control document for IAF Jaguar munitions control units. All funds are committed immediately.

[member_20292]

^^^ fancy picture boss. Now I know why the IAF wants it and why it costs so much.

but still at 126 million $, while F 18 is 60 million, Su 30, 60 mil $ and LCA Tejas is 30 mil$....too much!

[andy B]

^^^ fancy picture boss. Now I know why the IAF wants it and why it costs so much.

but still at 126 million $, while F 18 is 60 million, Su 30, 60 mil $ and LCA Tejas is 30 mil$....too much!

400% agreed saar was putting the pic up as its a new weapons config with the meteor under the central fuselage and mica on no.3 station. The prices being potrayed for the rafale are increasingly looking outrageous at best. I'd be perfectly happy with more SU30s, LCAs and rest of the saved funds ploughed into AMCA. A frontline weapons platform like a fighter is IMHO a big no no from Khan. Dont get me wrong fwiw the SH is a beaut of an aircraft and an absolute workhorse with a massive capability investment pipeline. But Khan has screwed us before and will most certainly do so again and I'd rathrr have my sword arm mostly free of any 'sudden' cho#$iyagiri. The other thing is the way IAF has pursued and implemented the Vajra upgrade makes me think that if they really want the rafa they are probably gonna end up getting it somehow.

[Brando]

^^ Any guesses about its RCS in that configuration? 5 m2? 10 m2? More?

Next we'll want to know "How much does it give?" (mileage) .

I'd say that loadout on the Rafale isn't too concerned with RCS considering it's begging for a fight.

[Viv S]

Next we'll want to know "How much does it give?" (mileage) .

I'd say that loadout on the Rafale isn't too concerned with RCS considering it's begging for a fight.

If you're not concerned about RCS and want an aircraft begging for a fight -





^ x 2 for the cost of 1 Rafale

[Brando]

^^ That's nice but the Su30mki costs "x2" as much per flight hour in maintenance and fuel costs. Until the Russians can come up with something akin to the JDAM or AASM, the Su30mki isn't going to have the same versatility in the "swing role".

If the Su30MKI can carry 6 A2A munitions, 6 A2G munitions while still maintaining its extended range, it could rightfully claim to be a superior multirole but even that would still be offset by its higher cost per flight hour and turn around time compare to the Rafale.

Also,

[Viv S]

^^ That's nice but the Su30mki costs "x2" as much per flight hour in maintenance and fuel costs. Until the Russians can come up with something akin to the JDAM or AASM, the Su30mki isn't going to have the same versatility in the "swing role".

Given that the Rafale's acquisition cost is being estimated at over $160 mil/unit, the running costs will need to be very low to bridge that differential. Once the Rafale's MLU bill arrives, the Sukhoi is all but sure to have a lower life-cycle cost.

Better yet, buy more Tejas to complement the Su-30MKIs. You could get what.. five of them for the cost of one Rafale. That's 35 hard-points laden with fuel, missiles, support pods and bombs.

[biswas]

^^ That's nice but the Su30mki costs "x2" as much per flight hour in maintenance and fuel costs. Until the Russians can come up with something akin to the JDAM or AASM, the Su30mki isn't going to have the same versatility in the "swing role".

Given that the Rafale's acquisition cost is being estimated at over $160 mil/unit, the running costs will need to be very low to bridge that differential. Once the Rafale's MLU bill arrives, the Sukhoi is all but sure to have a lower life-cycle cost.

Better yet, buy more Tejas to complement the Su-30MKIs. You could get what.. five of them for the cost of one Rafale. That's 35 hard-points laden with fuel, missiles, support pods and bombs.

And you'd need to pay 5x pilots, maintenance crew, increased training facilities, improved logistics chain.

[arthuro]

Quoted rafale prices on this forum are pure fantasy or comparison completely bias...Like comparing rafale unit program acquisition cost for india which includes cost of ToT, spares, support equipment etc with simple flyaway costs of competing aircrafts.

You cannot have more official and more up to date sources on rafale unit cost : 2014 senate report on french military expenditures:

Rafale C : 68,8 Meuros
Rafale B : 74 Meuros
Rafale M : 79Meuros


http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html

As for rafale RCS in heavy config, it should still be smaller than a clean SU-30mki. Pylons and missiles (AtA) on rafale are RAM treated. No one claims that in a heavy config the rafale will be a LO aircraft...But better start with a clean 1m2 RCS than with a clean 10-15 m2 RCS (mki).

[Viv S]

And you'd need to pay 5x pilots, maintenance crew, increased training facilities, improved logistics chain.

And they will generate five times as many sorties, attack dispersed targets, will handle attrition better and still be as effective when coupled with a force multiplier such as an AEW&C aircraft or Su-30MKI.

[Viv S]

Quoted rafale prices on this forum are pure fantasy or comparison completely bias...Like comparing rafale unit program acquisition cost for india which includes cost of ToT, spares, support equipment etc with simple flyaway costs of competing aircrafts.

Except that the fixed/non-recurring/sunk costs associated with the Tejas and Su-30MKI have already been invested/allocated. Additional orders can be placed at near flyaway costs. The Rafale on the other hand will be a new system, so the relevant cost to the Indian taxpayer will be close to the PAUC and the not flyaway cost.

You cannot have more official and more up to date sources on rafale unit cost : 2014 senate report on french military expenditures:

Rafale C : 68,8 Meuros
Rafale B : 74 Meuros
Rafale M : 79Meuros

Agreed. Now how about a guess from your side, as to the total acquisition cost for India?

As for rafale RCS in heavy config, it should still be smaller than a clean SU-30mki. Pylons and missiles (AtA) on rafale are RAM treated. No one claims that in a heavy config the rafale will be a LO aircraft...But better start with a clean 1m2 RCS than with a clean 10-15 m2 RCS (mki).

'RAM-treating' the pylons, missiles, or most importantly fuel tanks wouldn't change the fact that they interact poorly with the airframe as far as RCS is concerned. For that matter I can claim that the Su-27 has an RCS of 10-15m2, so the 'RAM treated' Su-30MKI should have a much lower RCS.

[arthuro]

Sure the rafale will cost more for india than the simple flyaway cost paid by France which is around 70-80 Millions euros depending on version (with VAT).

But there is nothing shocking with that as India is also buying full ToT from France which represent decades of research and billions invested...And india is aiming at full indigenous manufacturing as well which mean you have to replicate effort to build all the facilities to make the rafale.

And this is not just Dassault to HAL/Relliance but the hundreds of suppliers working for the rafale in France (500 claimed by Dassault) to India.

It would be unfair for France/Dassault to sell the jewel of the crown with all the know-how and manufacturing tools without a premium compared to the flyaway cost paid by France.

This rationale would be the same for any competing aircraft. That's why it is odd to compare unit rafale cost for India which include license manufacturing, full ToT etc with simple flyaway costs of F35, F18 etc...

For instance the F35 flyaway cost is already quoted at more than 100 Millions euros but if india "could" and had to pay for full ToT and manufacturing capabilities what would be F35 unit price for India ? 200 millions ? More ?

For this reason the whole discussion on rafale price for india is bias and flawed as the price encompass much more than the aircraft itself.

[arthuro]

On RCS before adding external stores you better start with rafale RCS (about 1m2) than with a SU-30 mki which was assessed at 15m2 during Garuda exercise in France by mirage 2000-5 pilots.

Sure a rafale with external loads will not be VLO. But 5m2 or even 10m2 with a full load is still far better than a loaded SU-30 mki.

Also this could hardly be an issue for the rafale as all the competition had to carry its weapons externally. And if you want to compare to the F35 no way it could match such a massive fire power and range with internal store only.

[Viv S]

Sure the rafale will cost more for india than the simple flyaway cost paid by France which is around 70-80 Millions euros depending on version (with VAT).

But there is nothing shocking with that as India is also buying full ToT from France which represent decades of research and billions invested...And india is aiming at full indigenous manufacturing as well which mean you have to replicate effort to build all the facilities to make the rafale.

I'm referring to the PAUC which is more than just Flyaway cost and ToT. The Rafale cost of production for France was around $145 mil/unit in 2009 IIRC. Subtract VAT and then add the cost of inflation over five years plus a profit margin and you'll still go well over $150 mil. And this before the cost of ToT is applied.

Its no wonder that the CEO of Dassault was quoted saying that value of the deal was 'much more' than $20 billion ($160mil/unit).

This rationale would be the same for any competing aircraft. That's why it is odd to compare unit rafale cost for India which include license manufacturing, full ToT etc with simple flyaway costs of F35, F18 etc...

For instance the F35 flyaway cost is already quoted at more than 100 Millions euros but if india "could" and had to pay for full ToT and manufacturing capabilities what would be F35 unit price for India ? 200 millions ? More ?

First off the F-35's ToT is not for sale. And given that the cost of development was around $60 billion, its probably not affordable either. To add to which its flyaway cost is under $100 mil (for delivery 2017), most probably under $90 mil by the end of the SDD phase.

Secondly, the comparison being made (at least by me) is with the cost of Su-30MKI + Tejas (the former already being in-service and the latter official cleared for service), not with the flyaway cost of the F-35 or F-18 (neither of which are viable replacements at this point).

The two between them (esp backed up by an AWACS) can do 90% of the missions performed by a Rafale. And for the remainder i.e. deep strike, a fifth generation platform is preferable in any case.