MRCA News and Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jun 2009 05:19

wunderbar.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 07 Jun 2009 06:55

VIDEO: Saab's new Gripen marketing promo for India
@The DEW Line

U.S.-India ties a three-stage rocket, says Obama official
Siddharth Varadarajan

Asked about the prospects of India and the U.S. speedily concluding an agreement on reprocessing arrangements and procedures essential if there was to be any prospect of American nuclear reactor sales to India, the official said it was too early to say how the discussions would shape up. Would Indo-U.S. bilateral relations survive the bypassing of American nuclear vendors altogether in the event that the final terms on offer to India were less attractive than what French and Russian suppliers gave? Absolutely. There is a lot more to the relationship than just nuclear, was the reply.

The official was less categorical when asked about the prospects for an upswing in ties in the event that the contract for 126 multi-role combat aircraft went to a non-American company.

Humourous postcript: A former U.S. secretary of defense who was listening keenly to this entire conversation -- indeed it was he who led me to said senior official to allay the apprehensions prevalent in India of Obama being aloof -- interjected at the very end when I asked if the U.S. would be ok if the fighter aircraft deal went elsewhere. "Wait a minute", he said. "We lobbied really hard in Congress for the India nuclear deal. It's one thing if reactors don't get sold. But if now you are saying no fighter jets either, then what's left for us?"

^^ Probably .. William Cohen

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jun 2009 08:01

thats a dull gripen promo video!.. full of textual noise rather.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 07 Jun 2009 18:31

SaiK wrote:thats a dull gripen promo video!.. full of textual noise rather.

Agreed, the Scandinavians are not great at marketing (unlike the US), but having lived in Scandinavia for nearly a third of my life and being on my 5th Saab (car) at present, I have a very high regard for Swedish quality...and Saab. If how Sweden makes cars can be extrapolated to the quality of their jets...then Gripen should be given serious consideration... ie not be fooled by flashy promos.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jun 2009 18:54

sure.. but i am doubtful that kind of considerations purely on technical merits may happen in desh. hence, my thoughts are valid enough even at the final stages or perhaps minutes before announcing the winner of the mrca contract.

a private message from linguinie can turn the contract awarded to anyone. mrca is defence t-20.. of course, there is a little bit of "whine" here, basically caused by various CBI files blacklisting agents and defence industries.. and intentionally left israeli blacklist due to "serious considerations" of the nth kind.

i have my evidences for such feelings. btw, i sincerely hope, we have this deal done on technical merits alone.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 07 Jun 2009 19:16

I have one question.

Has India considered the JSF at all or probed that question with the US. The JSF will be exported to a lot of countries so it is not all that super-secret. However, from a capability point of view, its significantly better stealth characteristics truly make it in a different class. It will cost more but will unlikely to become obsolete for much much longer.

Now that the BHO has put an end to new orders for the F-22, the manufacturers will gradually start lobbying for export of that plane too. The probability of India being the first export customer of the Raptor is close to zero but not zero.

If the political objective is to keep the US lobby happy, then it does not hurt India to ask for the best in return. For all practical purposes the F-16/18 are previous generation airframes upgraded with a better sensor suite/armament mix. They do not offer the same leap of capability which a stealth fighter can.

With TurboTaxTim lying prostrate in China following the footsteps of BHO's bow to the Saudi Arabians, I do not see this happening. However from the Indian POV, asking for the best is definitely worth it. Even a 3 squadron (48 aircraft) order is likely to provide a huge boost to the IAF's overall capabilities.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 07 Jun 2009 21:29

VikramS wrote:I have one question.

Has India considered the JSF at all or probed that question with the US. The JSF will be exported to a lot of countries so it is not all that super-secret. However, from a capability point of view, its significantly better stealth characteristics truly make it in a different class. It will cost more but will unlikely to become obsolete for much much longer.

And how many sqads of F-35 are in operation with USAF?

If we wait for JSF then I can bet we will have to wait for another 20 years for the next MRCA bid.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jun 2009 23:44

(It would be nice if we could use google more often.)

JSF has been offered and with a production line in India.

2007 :: F-35 Lightning II News : Lockheed Martin offers F-35 JSF to India

To sweeten the deal he indicated the JSF could come at the same price as the F-16.

More here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 225333.cms

I had posted some pages ago the offer to produce the JSF in India. Cannot find it today.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 07 Jun 2009 23:47

AmitR wrote:
VikramS wrote:I have one question.

Has India considered the JSF at all or probed that question with the US. The JSF will be exported to a lot of countries so it is not all that super-secret. However, from a capability point of view, its significantly better stealth characteristics truly make it in a different class. It will cost more but will unlikely to become obsolete for much much longer.
And how many sqads of F-35 are in operation with USAF?
If we wait for JSF then I can bet we will have to wait for another 20 years for the next MRCA bid.

Many other contenders especially from Russia have the same problem.
If this order is going to be 200+, it should be divided into two tranches, one with continuity with existing IAF inventory (think M2K++, SuMKI+++, Mig29+++) the other which provides a significant leap.

The JSF, if it is available, might be worth waiting for with the gaps being filled with the LCA being put into service in numbers.

NRao: That news item is 2years old. Perhaps the delay in the MRCA award is a wait and watch policy from MOD about the JSF? It is unlikely that there will be any TOT with the JSF, but the technological leap provided might be worth it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jun 2009 23:53

That news item is 2years old.

Do we know since then if they have taken the offer off the table?

Else age does not matter.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 07 Jun 2009 23:56

NRao wrote:
That news item is 2years old.
Do we know since then if they have taken the offer off the table?

Else age does not matter.

And what you are trying to say is ... (apart from scoring interweb points)?

Clearly with JSF the TOT and the local production clauses will have to be diluted. Is the wait and the dilution of TOT/local production worth it. Definitely IMHO as long India is not constrained by where and when it can use the planes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jun 2009 00:04

And what you are trying to say is ... (apart from scoring interweb points)?

That BRiets should stop saying "Was JSF offered", or "Why did India not consider the JSF", etc

That is all. It was offered.

(BTW, a CAS stated that JSF cannot be considered for MRCA - just google - that is there too. Only as FYI.)

Clearly with JSF the TOT and the local production clauses will have to be diluted. Is the wait and the dilution of TOT/local production worth it. Definitely IMHO as long India is not constrained by where and when it can use the planes.

All that is open for (worthless?) discussion. I agree.

For that matter even the current set of MRCA contenders are in the same predicament. Until all nails have been hammered. Which is why this thread has existed for years.

BUT, none of this has to do with "JSF offer".

(Did I get another web point?)

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Jun 2009 01:38

this thread wouldn't be the same unless each issue can be regurgitated at least 15 times. isko abhi lock kar diya jaye...

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 08 Jun 2009 06:09

First EJ200 engine achieves 1,000 flying hours onboard a RAF Eurofighter Typhoon

kit · Post by **kit** » 08 Jun 2009 08:54

Why not just go for a fighter whose manufacturer can provide some real technology transfer across the entire spectrum and provide advanced manufacturing technology to ramp up production and some real time help in doing it (Rus is not doing so well in this direction) There has to be a 50% offset so that the deal will help in building up the infrastructure and the industrial base for future gen aircraft.As regards F35 , its ok even if we dont get it, one has to be realistic about threat perceptions and affordability, not to mention economic benefit.Without technology transfers F35 is simply a an instance of where the best is not necessarily the ideal.Let India go on to the pilot less 6 gen fighters gleaned from experience for 4+ and 5 gen technologies.Like i said gripen is a good deal if provides the industrial and technological offsets.Indias prowess in the tech field can translate this capability to 6 gen fighters., something that will hold its own against both F35 and maybe even the F22.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 08 Jun 2009 10:52

kit wrote:Why not just go for a fighter whose manufacturer can provide some real technology transfer across the entire spectrum and provide advanced manufacturing technology to ramp up production and some real time help in doing it (Rus is not doing so well in this direction) There has to be a 50% offset so that the deal will help in building up the infrastructure and the industrial base for future gen aircraft.As regards F35 , its ok even if we dont get it, one has to be realistic about threat perceptions and affordability, not to mention economic benefit.Without technology transfers F35 is simply a an instance of where the best is not necessarily the ideal.Let India go on to the pilot less 6 gen fighters gleaned from experience for 4+ and 5 gen technologies.Like i said gripen is a good deal if provides the industrial and technological offsets.Indias prowess in the tech field can translate this capability to 6 gen fighters., something that will hold its own against both F35 and maybe even the F22.

I think we are again going in circles with this topic. All the points that you have mentioned are exactly the reason that we have MRCA bid and have been discussed to their bones. There can never be ToT across the entire spectrum (whatever that means).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jun 2009 16:42

War has broken out in Britain between the heads of the three servcies,with the RN chief,Admiral Band on one side while the heads of the RAF and British Army are strafing and shelling him from every angle.The spat is about the Typhoon-waste of money says the navy,while the army calls the navy's planned new large carriers were Cold War relics.The RAF chief has gone evn further saying that the Navy's fleet air arm should be handed over to the air force!The Intl. navy thread has fullerd etails,but the words about the Typhoon are worth posting as the aircraft is in the race for the MMRCA prize.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... power.html

Excerpt:"Privately, many senior officers believe that the aircraft (Typhoon) is a Cold War relic and a waste of money. But Sir Glenn dismissed these claims as "rubbish", adding that it was "disappointing" to learn that such smears were being peddled from within the Ministry of Defence. "

Sir Glenn, 55, heaped praise upon the Typhoon, the RAF's controversial multi-role combat jet, which, like the carriers, has been widely dismissed by many senior officers as a waste of money.

The RAF chief said that anyone – including his fellow senior officers – who suggested that the aircraft was a waste of money was speaking "rubbish".

He also revealed for the first time that the Typhoon force will consist of around 123 jets and not the 232 as originally planned

But it will be Sir Glenn's claim that future fixed wing combat operations would be flown and commanded by the RAF that will cause most concern in the other services.

If Sir Glenn's prediction is borne out, the move will effectively spell the end of the Fleet Air Arm, which was formed in 1912 and has seen action in every major campaign since the First World War.

Among the FAA's battle honours are the crippling of the Italian Fleet in Taranto Harbour by Swordfish biplanes in 1940 and its part in the sinking of the German pocket battleship Bismark the following year.

During the Falklands War, the FAA's Sea Harriers played a vital role in protecting the task force, shooting down 21 Argentine aircraft in air-to-air combat.

The FAA is composed of 6,200 personnel and currently flies the ground attack version of the Harrier as well as helicopters. The Royal Navy is hoping its role will be significantly expanded when two new large aircraft carriers are built, allowing it to fly supersonic F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft from the new vessels' desks.

But Sir Glenn predicted that the RAF would take over control of all fixed wing aircraft operations, effectively seizing control of the JSFs from the Royal Navy.

Sir Glenn told this paper: "Resources and finance drive you to rationalisation. I think over time you will see further rationalisation. I think you will find over time that the air force.... will end up doing aviation."

When asked whether such a move would mean the end of the Fleet Air arm and the Army Air Corps, he said: "Well we'll wait and see what happens. We'll see further consolidation, it is an inevitability as we try and make ourselves as efficient as possible.

He continued: "We have got to kill some scared cows to make ourselves efficient. The general public demand and deserve value for money and if that means we have to rationalise, that is what we have got to do."

Sir Glenn accepted that the move would be highly controversial but added: "It's something we have to do because otherwise you will not be delivering the maximum from the defence budget."

The Air Chief later clarified his position and said that he was referring to fix wing operations and not helicopters. But sources within the Army Air Corps feared that any shake up of military air power would have far reaching consequences.

Sir Glenn was equally forthright on the Typhoon, the RAF's latest combat jet, which came into service years late and over budget.

Privately, many senior officers believe that the aircraft is a Cold War relic and a waste of money. But Sir Glenn dismissed these claims as "rubbish", adding that it was "disappointing" to learn that such smears were being peddled from within the Ministry of Defence.

He added: "There is no other aircraft better than the Typhoon except for a US F22 Raptor and an F22 is significantly more expensive. Typhoon is truly multi-role, it is a world class aeroplane. It is absolute rubbish to call it a cold war relic and that just demonstrates that people do not understand what the aircraft does."

The RAF will only receive just over half the original number of the 232 Typhoons which were originally ordered, the rest will be sold to foreign allies to help pay for the cost of the aircraft.

Sir Glenn admitted that the 19-year operation in the Gulf, which began in 1990 and ended last week, and the war in Afghanistan had taken its toll on the RAF, from which it would take years to recover.

He praised the men and women who had served during the Iraq deployment in which more than 300,000 sorties were flown, describing the campaign as an "historic achievement".

But he added that the mission had damaged the RAF's resilience to deal with the unexpected and added that the impact of the war had been compounded by a reduction in RAF troop levels from 48,000 to 41,000, which he said was "too deep".

PS:In the dawning age of UCAVs,is the Typhoon and aircraft like it "Cold War relics"? Is the IAF in roping in almost every possible fighter on the market,as one worthy said,making a big mistake,because the big unanswered Q is,what does the iAF want and what does it truly need?

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 08 Jun 2009 16:59

UCAV's are future,but there is no way that they get operational until next decade or 2,and by the time the tech reaches subcontinent it will be another decade ,i think IAF is looking at Immediate threat from TSP and Chinks together.we have yawning gaps to fill before we think of UAV's.MRCA is right choice if we can get them in 5-6 years of time.

we will have huge lead on our nearest rivals with Phalcons 6,Su-30 MKI -230,MRCA-200+,Tejas 100+,and 200 second line stuff

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jun 2009 18:14

We will never get 200 MMRCA's within the time frame mentioned.The first MMRCA's will arrive only late 2012 if a decision is taken before the year end.At a rate of 30 per year,it will take four years,2016, to complete the first 126+ and a second batch will take another 3-4 years more,maning 2020.As many air force retd. officers and analysts have been saying,the fastest way for the IAF to make up numbers is tpo increase the rate of local production of SU-30MKIs,plus ordering 100 moe from Russia.The cost factor also will be lower than that of a western MMRCA aircraft.Qualititatively wise too,as far as China is concerned,the longer range and endurance and payload of the SU-30MKI's will be far better suited to the Chinese borders than a Gripen or F-16 for example,where the IAF will also have to fend off inferior Chinese Flankers.On the westren front,our "masala" of aircraft in adequate numbers will be superior to Pak's birds.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jun 2009 18:32

shhh.. let that fight go on.. it might help us perhaps on the cost factor. the faster newer techs become relics, the better would be IAF's needs.

What do IAF want, is what all everyone (contenders) can provide. /?:

kill enemy (multi role) at BVR {120-150km} not sure about land targets that pakis/chinese may have for IAF.. your imaginations could be better. I would go extreme including nbc installations and especially sead setups and vital utilities infrastructure, and not to forget carpet bombing to destroy mountainous mules launched weapon systems. if air targets include awacs, then i guess mrca is not the candidate is my assumption. air tagets should include regular paki planes, irregular irrational paki planes (hijacked commercial airliner), crop dusters, blistering thunder that takes off paki highy way roads (need a strong IFF setup), all weather day/night operations. facing east, must support in the destruction of dragon air bases, and similar to paki targets. most 30-50knot ships & boats..btw, can the multi roles, destroy sub-surface targets? or launch terrain hugging cruise missile that skims over the himalayas and ranges and hit a paki-chinki air base that houses couple of nbc squardrons?

bottom line, no one would tell anyone what IAF wants.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jun 2009 19:41

I think, as Sai states, let that fight go on. Let them build the carrier and the Typhoon. When and if they do not want them perhaps India can get them for a great price.

On the UAVs. This technology is really good/great. BUT, India being India, I have to suspect that netas would love to get involved in decision making. Therefore such autonomous creatures may not be of much use - in India - for some time to come. This gen of netas have to "ride" into the sunset naturally. IMHO of course.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jun 2009 22:57

AW&ST has a article in its recentmost issue, where Bob Kemp, VP Marketing and Sales for the Saab Gripen and a couple of other head honchos give their statements on how vital the strategic markets of India and Brazil are..

Bob Kemp is more candid in that he says that if Saab doesn't win in either Brazil or India, it'll most likely be out of the fighter business altogether later. he says that of the 7 fighter manufacturers today (MiG, Sukhoi, LM, Boeing, Saab, Eurofighter Consortium and Dassault) only 5 will be in the export market in a few years time, depending on the outcome of the results of competitions in strategic markets (which he defines as those that include sales of more than 50 fighters)..he mentions that the IAF MRCA will be 120 plus 60 options and then likely to even exceed that to 200-220. Brazil will be 36, leading to 120 plus attrition replacements. the Gripen NG will be still-born if it doesn't win in India or Brazil, which implies that they will go really hard at trying to sell to both the nations.

Interestingly, Dassault's exec said that MRCA was not a make-or-break deal for them, as the French order alone would keep their production line going till 2020 and would mean that till then, the Rafale would be offered for export..Boeing's exec said much the same, that wins in India or Brazil was not a make-or-break deal for them either..

Kemp states that MiG is the likeliest to go bust if it doesn't win the MRCA contest, as its not in contention anywhere else and efforts to sell the MiG-35 to the RuAF are not making much headway. and MiG's plans to develop a Light Frontal Aviation fighter after the MiG-35, were shelved as a shift in priorities under Mikhail Pogosyan meant that all attention was to be paid to the T-50/PAK-FA.

LM has the F-35 to ensure that it stays in the fighter business well into the 2030s. and the order book for the Eurofighter consortium is very large as well, for their internal demands.

so it appears that of all the contenders, it might be easiest to get the best concessions and deals from Saab and MiG.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jun 2009 23:11

Need to consider this deal as a future hedging position for India. Which countries can offer the hedge to India? Sweden is to pipsqueak to do that. Maybe during Cold War one could use them as a neutral place but now its too small to hedge.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jun 2009 00:40

why did the swedes ever thought of building an aggregation of a fighter in the first place? why didn't they charter a loss making venture right from the begining if they felt, if they are not going to win the Indian MMrCA, they are to close shop? Why would they spend billions for just assembling of products, that only has integration software merits and perhaps some good LRU aspects? Why didn't their management think these risks?

For any reason if this contract goes to gripen, they have to make a big loss for having to under quote to get this deal. And, for any reason they win, and they boast having made good profits, then it only shows two cases: 1. Indians are fools to pay money for this assembly, that relays all Toting and legal structure back to its supplier. or 2. Some big buck buttered hands are having /going to have some fun very soon, and it does not need a CBI/FBI brain to find this.

/

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 09 Jun 2009 01:32

ramana wrote:Need to consider this deal as a future hedging position for India. Which countries can offer the hedge to India? Sweden is to pipsqueak to do that. Maybe during Cold War one could use them as a neutral place but now its too small to hedge.

I would hedge with French, they will sell to absolutely anyone as long as they pay the mullah. They are the ones who currently sell defence hardware to China even with the European sanctions. I know ultimately there is no complete hedge against Americans except Russia, since France sells only thingies like helicopter and stuff, but still much better than America.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 09 Jun 2009 02:04

abhiti wrote: I would hedge with French, they will sell to absolutely anyone as long as they pay the mullah. They are the ones who currently sell defence hardware to China even with the European sanctions. I know ultimately there is no complete hedge against Americans except Russia, since France sells only thingies like helicopter and stuff, but still much better than America.

When you have a country that will sell to anyone, you have no strategic hedge at all.

It might be my personal opinion, but I don't think we need a hedge against the Americans at all, just like we don't need a hedge against the Russians. What we need is a hedge against China but I doubt we will find that in the Americans or the Russians. The short episode with the weak American economy exposed the leverage China has over the US for being America's largest creditor. The Russians sell military hardware and technology to the Chinese just like they do to us, so I doubt they'll support one customer (India) preferentially.

We have only ourselves to rely upon. As long we have a reliable platform and plenty of spares in our inventory, we can bank on our own strengths.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jun 2009 02:30

good realizations ..but our strengths are not established still on various critical requirements for achieving the strategic goals.

kishan · Post by **kishan** » 09 Jun 2009 02:33

hi everyone,
i think F-35 was never an option for IAF,because if F-35's were really offered to IAF it would be highly unlikely to get the first bird before 2015.even if IAF was patient enough to wait for that long, i don't think US will agree on ToT.even for its(U.S) closest ally's all the birds are delivered in fly away mode.so lets forget about F-35.
for me the best option would be to select a twin-engined plane (i wish mig-35 or f18 SH) which will also help with the MCA project of ours.i guess for me IAF would think along this lines
though i personally like F-16's it should be the very last option for IAF to go for these planes.coz pakis already have them and the chinese J-10's are stated to be slightly superior to f16's and more over USAF has already stopped to induct any more of these birds long back.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 09 Jun 2009 04:19

SaiK wrote:good realizations ..but our strengths are not established still on various critical requirements for achieving the strategic goals.

If in other words you're trying to say that we're much weaker than China then I might agree based on the sheer volume of the offense that China can pose. But if you are saying that we still need the MRCA contract to morph into a solid strategic partnership because we're still a small player then I think we're expecting too much. Its just business.

I am unable to forget French involvement, under duress or otherwise, during the Falklands war between Argentina and the UK. France had earlier sold Exocet missiles to Argentina, which the Argentinians used very effectively against the British Navy. British aluminium ships were burning quite easily with a single hit from the exocet missiles and the UK was faced with the prospect of a defeat, even if temporary. When Margaret Thatcher took to the French the threat of dropping a nuclear bomb on Buenos Aires, France spared Argentinian souls by leaking the missile codes to Britain. That turned the tide of the war in Britain's favour.

We don't need our MRCA vendor, whoever it may be, to do Indian souls any such favours.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jun 2009 13:15

The Russians for pride will not let the "MIG" name go bust.It will exist with some orders like the MIG-trainers,etc.If it is a cheaper option than the SU-30 Flankers,they might also buy MIG-29Ks for their future carriers with a heavy-med. mix of Su-33s and MIG-29Ks.Upgrading Russian MIG-29s is another task.The Malaysian and all other nations who operate the MIG-29s too will need their aircraft upgraded. The IN is also going to buy more MIG-29Ks fior its three planned carriers as the naval LCA (which in any case is far smaller and will lack both long range and endurance) has yet to arrive.So there is still a lot of work for another decade for MIG even if they lose the IAF contest.Moreover,in the future,almost all air forces will require a light-heavy mix of fighters along with a range of high,med. and low alt. UAVs/UCAVs.Going by the US example,there is a limit of how many advanced high performance fighters an air force can buy like the Raptor F-22 and JSF F-35.One still needs "bomb trucks" apart from air dominance aircraft,which is why some air forces are going back to examining the worth of going back to turbo-prop aircraft for the counter-insurgency/GA role,far cheaper to buy and operate.

The Gripen has made some sales to S.Africa,the Czechs and Romania(?) One can expect more numbers to be acquired in time by these countries.The Swedes will try and preserve their independent industry for as long as possible and one must remember that all nations cannot afford exensive aircraft like JSFs,Typhoons,etc. The Gripen and Russian aircraft will attract buyers from those who tilt either towards Russia or the west.

The French will always want their own independent aircraft for their air force even though they are rejoining NATO.The Typhoon is rapidly becoming hideously expensive attracting criticism within the air forces of the nations building the fighter.The RAF is now going to buy less and the Typhoon might probably be the last major joint aircraft project from Europe.

Looking at developmenst,the primary need of the IAF is more aircraft to keep up numbers,preferably multi-role to expand capability.These do have to be acquired at cost effective prices if the deal is going to be relevant,as upgrades of existing aircratf is on apart from the Sukhois being manufactured locally,the LCA and the 5th-gen fighter.Money is scarce and the IAF cannot prance around like billionaires with an unlimited budget.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 09 Jun 2009 16:34

kit wrote:Why not just go for a fighter whose manufacturer can provide some real technology transfer across the entire spectrum and provide advanced manufacturing technology to ramp up production and some real time help in doing it (Rus is not doing so well in this direction) There has to be a 50% offset so that the deal will help in building up the infrastructure and the industrial base for future gen aircraft.As regards F35 , its ok even if we dont get it, one has to be realistic about threat perceptions and affordability, not to mention economic benefit.Without technology transfers F35 is simply a an instance of where the best is not necessarily the ideal.Let India go on to the pilot less 6 gen fighters gleaned from experience for 4+ and 5 gen technologies.Like i said gripen is a good deal if provides the industrial and technological offsets.Indias prowess in the tech field can translate this capability to 6 gen fighters., something that will hold its own against both F35 and maybe even the F22.

Can you name an aircraft manufacturer who will do it ?

K

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jun 2009 17:04

Only as a FYI:

F-35 was first offered when Fernandez was the defence minister!!!!!

He/MoD declined the offer. That was early 2000s.

Then:

The Hindu :: Jul, 2007 :: U.S. offers F-35 fighters to India

In a major move, the United States has sent feelers that it is now ready for transfer of hi-technology weaponry to India, including its 5th generation Joint Strike Fighter F-35.

More news in this article:

Rediff :: Jul, 2007 :: US offers F-35 fighters to India

Also:

2007 :: F-35 Lightning II News : Lockheed Martin offers F-35 JSF to India

To sweeten the deal he indicated the JSF could come at the same price as the F-16.

BUT, CAS declined ALL these offers in 2007.

HOWEVER< from the LM PoV, the offer is still there - with ToT. (Now what constitutes a "ToT" remains to be seen and is up for reasonable discussion.)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jun 2009 17:06

So, F-35 offer includes "ToT" and same price as F-15.

Any takers?

What is to be noted is that the MRCA deal will be F-16s "Block 70".

The F-35s will be in addition to the F-16 MRCA.

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 09 Jun 2009 18:06

PratikDas wrote:
SaiK wrote:good realizations ..but our strengths are not established still on various critical requirements for achieving the strategic goals.
I am unable to forget French involvement, under duress or otherwise, during the Falklands war between Argentina and the UK. France had earlier sold Exocet missiles to Argentina, which the Argentinians used very effectively against the British Navy. British aluminium ships were burning quite easily with a single hit from the exocet missiles and the UK was faced with the prospect of a defeat, even if temporary. When Margaret Thatcher took to the French the threat of dropping a nuclear bomb on Buenos Aires, France spared Argentinian souls by leaking the missile codes to Britain. That turned the tide of the war in Britain's favour.

We don't need our MRCA vendor, whoever it may be, to do Indian souls any such favours.

Hope you won't be in the town to be nuked, then...

Your POV is irrealistic:
1 - French and English people are allies despites their (small) differences in views.
2 - I hope you don't intend to attack a strategic ally of one of your weapon sellers, because french or not, your supplied weapon systems will end up compromised.
3 - India, being a regional nuclear power is nowhere near the tactical situation of Argentina during the Falklands.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 10 Jun 2009 03:18

Jean_M wrote: Hope you won't be in the town to be nuked, then...

We understand what it means to have a nuclear-equipped neighbour and we understand our actions could have repercussions. We don't need our hardware vendors taking pre-emptive decisions on our behalf, thank you very much.

Jean_M wrote: 2 - I hope you don't intend to attack a strategic ally of one of your weapon sellers, because french or not, your supplied weapon systems will end up compromised.

Thanks for being clear on that. [Added later] What guarantee does India have that France and China won't have a strategic alliance in the future? If the French government can guarantee they won't have such a deal in the next 50 years or so then this would be the deal of the century. But that is unrealistic. Does the Rafale come with a "no first use" clause? If it isn't obvious, C in MRCA stand for combat. We might actually want to take these fighters to combat some day. It won't take much time for our opponent to go to the French government and allege a "treacherous" offensive by India punishable by nuclear retaliation. If that's all it takes for the French government to compromise property sold (not leased) to India then that's tantamount to a no first use clause.

Jean_M wrote: 3 - India, being a regional nuclear power is nowhere near the tactical situation of Argentina during the Falklands.

Actually quite irrelevant to the greater point.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 10 Jun 2009 11:46

From Shiv Aroor's Blog

*FLASH* Officials from all six MMRCA firms currently in Bangalore, finalising flight evaluation parameters with IAF-ASTE officials today.

Things seem to be moving

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jun 2009 12:40

ET says that Airbus is toying with setting up another aircraft manufacturing plant in India in Karnataka or Tamilnadu! They have already set up an A-320 plant in China and since they're buying many aircraft components from India,are contemplating this seriously.If this is confirmed,it could very well swing the MMRCA deal in the direction of either the Typhoon or Rafale,as Airbus is 80% owned by EADS which is the manufacturer of the Typhoon and can use this massive investment as part of the offset clause.There is absolutely no way that either of the US aircraft manufacturers will be able to match this.Catch Boeing setting up an aircraft plant in India.The boost this will give to the aviation industry in the country will be phenomenal.

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 10 Jun 2009 13:58

PratikDas wrote:
Jean_M wrote: Hope you won't be in the town to be nuked, then...
We understand what it means to have a nuclear-equipped neighbour and we understand our actions could have repercussions. We don't need our hardware vendors taking pre-emptive decisions on our behalf, thank you very much.

Okay, I think I didn't made myself clear. Every country of the occidental world is tied to each other by strong military alliances (European union, NATO etc.). Would one of them consider its vital assets/possessions in danger that every other one would provide at least technical and in most cases military assistance. Falklands being a simple territorial dispute England took care of it itself. French being what they are (never bored to see Albion glued in some mud), we took our time to provide assistance, allowing Argentina to make free use of its weapons. But when Thatcher came up with her "nuke attitude", I guess our politics understood this was serious and provided what was asked.

PratikDas wrote:
Jean_M wrote: 2 - I hope you don't intend to attack a strategic ally of one of your weapon sellers, because french or not, your supplied weapon systems will end up compromised.
Thanks for being clear on that. [Added later] What guarantee does India have that France and China won't have a strategic alliance in the future? If the French government can guarantee they won't have such a deal in the next 50 years or so then this would be the deal of the century. But that is unrealistic. Does the Rafale come with a "no first use" clause? If it isn't obvious, C in MRCA stand for combat. We might actually want to take these fighters to combat some day. It won't take much time for our opponent to go to the French government and allege a "treacherous" offensive by India punishable by nuclear retaliation. If that's all it takes for the French government to compromise property sold (not leased) to India then that's tantamount to a no first use clause.

What guarantee does India have that any european country or even USA wouldn't have such a deal with China in the coming 50 years ? OTOH, I am speaking of mutual protection/assistance, this is not something you see coming on the table everyday and, frankly speaking, I don't see what interest could China and any other occidental hypothetical partner find in that in the current state of the world. Yes, in 50 years that can change, but that's the same for everyone, I guess Indian politics are aware of that and doing what they can to reduce these risks. This kind of deal isn't only financial.

PratikDas wrote:
Jean_M wrote: 3 - India, being a regional nuclear power is nowhere near the tactical situation of Argentina during the Falklands.
Actually quite irrelevant to the greater point.

Could you please argument a little ?
What I was meaning here is that we (or any other country, as far as I know) wouldn't meddle in a conflict between two nuclear powers when we don't have strong alliances with them. As for the tactical situation, China and India are well aware that if one of them nuke the other, retaliation would follow. Argentina was nowhere near of getting this mean of pressure against England.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 10 Jun 2009 15:42

Jean_M wrote: Okay, I think I didn't made myself clear. Every country of the occidental world is tied to each other by strong military alliances (European union, NATO etc.). Would one of them consider its vital assets/possessions in danger that every other one would provide at least technical and in most cases military assistance. Falklands being a simple territorial dispute England took care of it itself. French being what they are (never bored to see Albion glued in some mud), we took our time to provide assistance, allowing Argentina to make free use of its weapons. But when Thatcher came up with her "nuke attitude", I guess our politics understood this was serious and provided what was asked.

In short the explanation is so simple. We want your moolah, but when you want the "item" you bought with your hard earned money, to actually work, we would hang you dry if you are not occidental.

Thank you, we got your point.

What guarantee does India have that any european country or even USA wouldn't have such a deal with China in the coming 50 years ? OTOH, I am speaking of mutual protection/assistance, this is not something you see coming on the table everyday and, frankly speaking, I don't see what interest could China and any other occidental hypothetical partner find in that in the current state of the world. Yes, in 50 years that can change, but that's the same for everyone, I guess Indian politics are aware of that and doing what they can to reduce these risks. This kind of deal isn't only financial.

You havent seen the future nor have I. So let us put all those speculations of what happens 50/100 years later to rest, shall we. We know the past and can see the present. So lets talk about them. But at present let me see the "only" occidental country which is providing china military assistance.

You are right, the deal is not only financial, so all the better if we choose a "better ally".

Could you please argument a little ?
What I was meaning here is that we (or any other country, as far as I know) wouldn't meddle in a conflict between two nuclear powers when we don't have strong alliances with them. As for the tactical situation, China and India are well aware that if one of them nuke the other, retaliation would follow. Argentina was nowhere near of getting this mean of pressure against England.

and yet france cheated argentina and hung them dry.
In case you didnt get what french did about argentina, it is simple. Whether argentina was ready to even risk a nuclear confrontation for falklands is a decision of argentina, not french/xyz who sold some equipment to them. and the equipment you sold to them, was meant for the purpose which argentina was using it for.

Let me know next time, your ipod refuses to work at all because you have legally downloaded a music file from apple's competitor.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 10 Jun 2009 16:24

^^^
Between France, US and Russia, a majority of Indian defence planners and servicemen will prefer France because:

Their products work
When they say ToT, it really is ToT unlike the Russians
No nasty end user clauses like the Americans

The Argentina analogy is not really a good one, given the nature of relationship between UK and France. India has sold stuff to Ecuador, if hypothetically Ecuador attacks US , do you think India will keep servicing the stuff? There is no one supplier in the world *right now* that will deliver "no matter what"... everyone knows that. The trick is to find the "relatively" reliable one of the lot.

That being said, I believe the contract will be given to the Americans. Not because its good or reliable, but because of other compulsions such as the Nuke deal.