MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Oct 2010 06:00

Russians will never make that mistake. Theirs will be always the lowest bid!

But don't talk about life cycle cost!

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 07 Oct 2010 07:35

Shanksinha, that is exactly what I would have said, thank you. And we do not have to wait and see USA( specifically the US govt ) has treated us badly and still do.

I agree that the CWG has not been organised well but do I smell a lot of racism in the comments from UK, Canada, Australia and even piddly NZ( WASP nations ).

They still look down upon us even when the world is fast changing.

inki aukat to dekho.
And here in the US when the playing fields are even ( they rarely are )
and even when they are not we beat the hell out of them.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 07 Oct 2010 09:09

More of Kevin's Rafale shots here

More Naval Rafales on this link ⇓

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 07 Oct 2010 09:19

very good pic's of Rafale

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Oct 2010 10:00

Singha wrote:how does the USN plan to deal with masses of chinese flanker/j10 over taiwan using fa18/ef ? will they play a low profile and depend on land based fighters from korea and japan?

The current mix of American fighters on Diego Garcia will give you an idea of how USN/AF will deal with this situation should the Chinese get some bright ideas.They have already war gamed extensively the possible scenarios and *are* prepared for a war in defense of Taiwan.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Oct 2010 11:34

Look,gents,its a very simple issue.Be objective.Look at the track record of the supplier.If one compares Russia and the US and what they've given to India for good or bad over decades,it is a "no contest".The US "tilt" towars Pakistan still exists as it has done from the days of Nixon and Kissinger.

Nevertheless,we must acknowledge that Dubya Bush,despite his diastrous misadventures gobally, did show remarkable insight into India as a contributing force for good in the world and wanted to engage with India positively.Dr.Singh responded in turn with overwhelming zeal,but the pound of flesh that the US establishment appears to want from India is a relationship akin to that which it enjoys with Pak,a client servant relationship,something that is unacceptable to any self-respecting Indian.I do not see the same enthusiasm emanating from Obama and the "O-Team" as was seen with the Bush White House. Therefore ,in dealing with the US,we must as the Chinese say,"hasten cautiously".I do not say that everything about the US-Indo relationship is bad,but each issue should be dealt with on equal terms and on its merit.Above all,the US has to acknowledge that in the IOR region,India faces a huge challenge from the Sino-Pak combine and it must choose between India and Pak if the so-called "strategic relationship" is to develop any further.Thus far all that we are seeing are continuing Cold War era attempts to "contain" India through rent-boy Pak.Gen.Mushy has just revealed how the Paki military is training and letting loose terrorists in J&K and we do not even have a murmur of disapproval from the US!

Corporate India and corporate America though appear to "dance the tango" better than both govts., who often tread on each other's toes diplomatically! The visa issue is just one of many annoying incidents that impede relations even here.The supply of military eqpt. to Pak and annual "pocket money" of $2 billion for the Paki military,plus whatever aid Pak gets above and under the table form Uncle sam is highly detrimental to India.Pak 's lifeline support system is heavily dependent upon US largesse and there is no sign that the abandoning of Pak will ever take place despite all Pak's chicanery and diabolic acts of terror. Just look at the abject "apology" from the US today about drone attacks kiling a few Paki troops when the ISI has been daily burning dozens of NATO tankers in revenge for the drone strikes!
Above all,the US has to acknowledge that in the IOR region,India faces a huge challenge from the Sino-Pak combine and must choose between India and Pak if the so-called "strategic relationship" is to develop any further.Thus far all that we are seeing are continuing Cold War era attempts to "contain" India through rent-boy Pak.

In the MMRCA deal therefore,one must view the statements emanating from the IAF,CoAS,etc.,and look at the issue of the IAF's future strength and inventory holistically.Firstly,we need as many LCAs as we can produce and quickly before the aircraft is a victim to "obsolescence creep" thanks to "Father Time".Hopefully,we will have about 120+ of Mk1 and 2s at least by the end of the decade and the foundation of our indigenous design and manufacturing base should have been well and truly laid.But locally built LCAs will only be a slow replacement for the MIG-21s about to be pensioned off in the near future.This is where the MMRCA comes in.The 5th-gen fighter,to be the IAF's mainstay will appear only by 2017,so within the next 5 years,we need to induct these 126+ aircraft asap.The big Q is what level of tech/TOT do we expect from this deal? If it is the "best of the west",then the two major European contenders stand out from the rest.Let's face it,as many have pointed out,the two US contenders might have had a lot of plastic surgery,look good,highly touted by their manufacturers,but they have limitations in the further design growth when compared with the Typhoon and Rafale.It is why US friends and allies aren't ordering any more of these two types because the JSF and F-22 are vastly superior.A Q mark also hangs over the US providing us with full TOT for the entire aircraft and its specs.It wants us to sign agreements that would affect our independence of action.The Gripen is too close to the LCA and if acquired might kill off the LCA if developing MK-2 is taking too much time and we will resort to ordering "more of the same" as we are doing with the Su-30MKIs.If the exercise is to acquire numbers at the best price possible,then the MIG-35 should easily win hands down.Western tech and TOT will prove invaluable if we decide to produce an MCA,now AMCA to follow after the LCA and replace the motley bunch of fighters we are upgrading and ideally reduce the number of types in service.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Oct 2010 12:07

>> The current mix of American fighters on Diego Garcia

er, all the pics I see of diego garcia show only B1 and B52 .

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Oct 2010 12:51

ok, i am casting my vote in stone: eurofighter typhoon (we can rename it toofani like the old ouaragans in IAF service)

capability - strong, growth path, access to leading edge tech
political benefits - big, brings us closer to Germany, UK, Italy and Spain in terms of G7-G20 issues and votes - good balance against unkil's tendency to bully, france doesn't lose out entirely either through participation in EADS, and other deals, e.g. subcomponents and also other upgrades
industrial benefits - huge, if we get proper industrial integration with EADS

strategically, this carries more benefits than pleasing unkil with short term payoffs and long term liabilities

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 07 Oct 2010 13:04

the basic idea behind MRCA wa s to replace Mig 21 s since LCA was delayed
so obviuosly cost was a factor and also numbers
some where along the line we started thinking of best of best aircraft to replace the cheapest aircraft in the world in our inventory
and there started the confusion in logic
Add to that IAF liked Mirage 2000 and Kargil made a big Mirage 2000 fan following
So the competition was between Mirage 2000 and Mig 21 but forgetting Mig 21 costs 1/25th a Mirage 2000
Rafale and Typhoon was added on but surely u cannot get them to replace Mig 21 in numbers - so the budget increased to 10 billion plus and possible number to 200 plus but the mirage 2000 production line closed pushing us to consider Rafale for fishbed replacement
IAF never wanted F-16 simply becasue Pakistan has them and the memory of sanctions on LCA was too fresh

So came in the F-18 when US realized F-16 has no chance
only plus of F-18 is its AESA radar so that started being touted as big selling point
Russia responded in kind

back to square one -today Mig 35 is the cheapest AESA equipped bidder with no sanction history and do hope it wind the bid so that we can buy the 200 plus good robust functional aircraft to fill the void to be created by mIG 21 retirement - with fastest induction time and also available engine manufacturing facility and pilot familiarity

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 07 Oct 2010 13:05

Shankar wrote:alcoholic friend who designed out our nuclear submarine - and our stealth fighters and our stealth frigates and our supersonic cruise missiles - and sober friends who still not have agreed to most guarded technology even when offered a 10 billion dollar deal

Agreed, but you also need to know that Russia is supplying China from way before Indo-US relationship grew positive. Now I can't believe any Indian Leader if not all tried to talk with Russia on that but still the Vodka loving friend of our kept supplying weapons from top end fighters, bombers, missiles, ASAT tech, etc to the Panda and allowed it to grow bigger threat to India. Atleast US won't supply such stuff to China. Pak is a different issue (Also note, US is being supplying Pak for 40 years now it still isn't a big challenge for India)

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 07 Oct 2010 13:17

India to buy 250-300 fighter jets from Russia: Antony
AFP, Oct 7, 2010, 12.51pm IST
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 705406.cms

NEW DELHI: India has agreed to buy 250 to 300 advanced stealth fighter jets from Russia, Defence minister AK Antony said Thursday, announcing a deal that could be worth up to 30 billion dollars.

Antony told a press conference with his counterpart Anatoly Serdyukov that the countries had agreed that Russia would supply the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) as well as 45 transport planes.

"India will receive 250-300 most advanced FGFAs," Antony said. "These are the two major projects for the next ten years which will be a shining example of Indian-Russian cooperation."
Experts say each FGFA is worth up to 100 million dollars.

It is the end of Mig-35's story as far as MRCA is concerned.. looks like the message has been convayed to Russian DM by AKA.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Oct 2010 13:29

Yes,the IAF chief said 200-250.Now the number of 5th-gen fighters has been upped to "250-300",100 more at $100 mil. each! So Russia has ben compensated splendidly and has firmed up the most importanrt IAF project,the acquisition of the 5th-gen fighter,which will last out for two+ decades at least.250-300 stealth fighters plus about 300 Flankers will form the mainstay of the IAF,no matter which aircraft is chosen for the MMRCA,which now looks like being a stop-gap arrangement,as the LCA will not be abandoned and the DRDO/ADA/HAL will be plumping for the AMCA to follow the LCA.That leaves a much smaller piece of the cake for the MMRCA to chew on.Here the Q of what TOT the aerospace establishment want is going to matter most,to kickstart the AMCA.Let the "dogfight" begin bewteen the best of the west!

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 07 Oct 2010 13:45

dinesha wrote:"India will receive 250-300 most advanced FGFAs," Antony said. "These are the two major projects for the next ten years which will be a shining example of Indian-Russian cooperation." [/b]

purchase of expensive stuff from overseas is not a shining example of cooperation.

its a shining example of cash and carry with near-zero development of India's R&D base.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 07 Oct 2010 13:46

Acquisition and exercising of options for US orders viz. C-17, C-130 P-8I etc approximates to $10B or equivalent to MRCA tender value..

For geo-political reasons alone, I think the MMRCA will be won by either the Typhoon or Rafales.. most likely Typhoon.. in this way India keeps “most nations” happy..

Going with Europeans will also help in India maintaining a somewhat equilateral relationship with both the Russians and Americans.. this way it would be easier for India to have and enjoy the Russian strategic weapons and technologies as announced by the head of CAST accompanying Russian’s DM .. May be they all had detailed discussions.....

This way everyone (at least most nations) is happy as everybody get’s to share the loot?

The tech access also justifies this choice, as:
US will never share their technology plus their numerous monitoring and agreements ..
We already have access to accessible Russian technology via FGFA..
Going with Europeans will open a new avenue..

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Oct 2010 14:00

shankar - the mission has changed
LCA was meant to be the Mig21 replacement
MMRCA was always going to be more capable

jai · Post by **jai** » 07 Oct 2010 15:15

nrshah wrote:
Kartik wrote: bhai sahab, its the same situation everywhere ! Or do you believe that other nations are offering their fighters/transports/helicopters/tanks/howitzers is because they are in love with India ?! Its business as usual everywhere, so what is with the non-stop US bashing ? Its frankly getting very very tiring between you and Philip and few other posters constantly bringing in the evil US Uncle angle into every damn discussion.
The reason is we don't have sweet memories of our dealings with US... hence the evil angle which is so common you see... They want US specific Nuke Liabliity bill, EUMA, CISMO, Logistic agreement and every hell restriction that they can think of.. Evil angle is because of sudden stoppage of supply for everything (incl nuts and bolts) because US president finds himself on the wrong side of the bad on one fine morning... With Russians and france, it is only money.......

Correct. Its the Khan's double standards and contradictions that are creating the doubts.

For example (apologies if OT) - If the war in Afghanistan/else where is really on fighting terrorists, then do something about reforming the education system / numerous Madarsas across the border (breeding ground for millions of future terrorists) instead of gifting them state of the art weapons - which in all likely hood are landing in Panda land for copy paste into 000's. Why arm the pukis (and Panda indirectly) first ? (to arm twist us to buying higher tech??)

I am also wondering why no condemnation from US on Musharraf's candid admission on Puki state sponsored terrorism so far; True - the others have not either, but they are also not gifting pukis free weapons and are not claiming to lead the global fight on terror.

My Vote is with EF, followed by Rafale followed by MIG 35.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Oct 2010 15:28

jai wrote:I am also wondering why no condemnation from US on Musharraf's candid admission on Puki state sponsored terrorism so far; True - the others have not either, but they are also not gifting pukis free weapons and are not claiming to lead the global fight on terror.

Why should they condemn on something they have been knowing since decades , Weapon and Cash supplied by US to pakistan is a way to win PA loyalty and to check mate India.

Similarly weapons supplied to India is a way to supply systems that can help India deal with China , its a three way arms race that is in US interest . Its a state of unstable equilibrium between the three that helps US strategic objective and arms industry.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 07 Oct 2010 15:32

Austin wrote:
jai wrote:I am also wondering why no condemnation from US on Musharraf's candid admission on Puki state sponsored terrorism so far; True - the others have not either, but they are also not gifting pukis free weapons and are not claiming to lead the global fight on terror.
Why should they condemn on something they have been knowing since decades , Weapon and Cash supplied by US to pakistan is a way to win PA loyalty and to check mate India.

Similarly weapons supplied to India is a way to supply systems that can help India deal with China , its a three way arms race that is in US interest . Its a state of unstable equilibrium between the three that helps US strategic objective and arms industry.

Got that right ,there!! They build up India to needle China and prop up Pakistan to keep India in check. That way uncle SAM keeps everyone tied up regionally while maintaining US as the paramount power.

koti · Post by **koti** » 07 Oct 2010 15:41

Neshant wrote:
dinesha wrote:"India will receive 250-300 most advanced FGFAs," Antony said. "These are the two major projects for the next ten years which will be a shining example of Indian-Russian cooperation." [/b]

purchase of expensive stuff from overseas is not a shining example of cooperation.

its a shining example of cash and carry with near-zero development of India's R&D base.

Can you suggest a better solution sir?

IMO it is not feasible to start another 5th Gen co development with Russia or another nation given the reasonable stage of PAK-FA and try for 50-50 R&D share.
Also, I don't see a better opportunity for our scientists to get that level of advanced technological exposure as they would as part of FGFA.

My Vote is with EF, followed by Rafale followed by MIG 35.

I give the Mig better position then Rafale. But EF is on top.(Only if the intended level of ToT will come).
I don't mind MIG if the rest get dirty.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Oct 2010 15:50

I think better then FGFA deal is the MTA deal because it will help the Indian designers work closely with Russian counterpart and design a Transport aircraft from scratch , this will help the local industry to get the ground level work done to a level that can match international standard and we can be confident on designing and developing the next civil/aircraft aircraft on our own.

Beyond that every aircraft sold and atleast 60 has been earmarked for export will generate revenue to Indian industry and nothing speaks like money does , does a lot good to ones confidence.

Plus there is scope to build a 80 to 100 seater passenger aircraft from the MTA for regional transport aircraft

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Oct 2010 15:56

Willy wrote:Got that right ,there!! They build up India to needle China and prop up Pakistan to keep India in check. That way uncle SAM keeps everyone tied up regionally while maintaining US as teh paramount power.

Yep we will be too busy dealing with Pakistan and China which means more arms which means more sales , in the mean while US will keep supplying Pakistan free arms and money and will turn a blind eye to our problem.

US does not like direct competitors and challengers so they make sure any country that could rise as a challenger like China and India are dealt and bled via local issues which keeps them busy and occupied.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 07 Oct 2010 15:59

India's fighter-jet program soars past Japan's (Asia Times)

Interesting comparisons between Indian and Japanese jet plans.

On the face of it, India has strong political reasons to favor one of the two US suppliers - Boeing and Lockheed Martin - as ties between Washington and New Delhi continue to warm. President Barack Obama will stress these political incentives when he doorsteps India, model planes in his briefcase, in November. Yet sources close to the competition suggest that the American aircraft did not shine in the Indian Air Force's technical evaluation, that they compare poorly on cost, and that their promised level of technology transfer is underwhelming. ''We need to get full technology transfer: India will not budge on that issue,'' says Arun Sahgal, of India's United Services Institute. ''Some of the bidders need to bring their prices down and offer a lot more than license manufacturing''.

America's rivals are fighting hard. Sahgal describes Swedish company Saab's offering of full technology transfer as ''phenomenal''; the Eurofighter Typhoon is understood to be highly rated by Indian decision-makers; and Russia, a long-time Indian defense partner, is also seen as a safe backup option with its MiG-35. The point is that the US - just like other hopefuls - must offer India a genuinely excellent deal if it wants to secure this contract, not merely hold out vague prospects of American friendship.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 07 Oct 2010 16:01

True, MMRCA was to augument the numbers of mid range combact aircraft. LCA was the 21 replacement.

jai · Post by **jai** » 07 Oct 2010 16:12

Austin wrote:
jai wrote:I am also wondering why no condemnation from US on Musharraf's candid admission on Puki state sponsored terrorism so far; True - the others have not either, but they are also not gifting pukis free weapons and are not claiming to lead the global fight on terror.
Why should they condemn on something they have been knowing since decades , Weapon and Cash supplied by US to pakistan is a way to win PA loyalty and to check mate India.

Similarly weapons supplied to India is a way to supply systems that can help India deal with China , its a three way arms race that is in US interest . Its a state of unstable equilibrium between the three that helps US strategic objective and arms industry.

I suspect the Pukis are not capable of loyalty. If they have any, it seems to be with the Panda right now. Khan is being taken for a ride

Then we should ask for free gifts and ultra cheap rates to build quantity in quality as well..IMO that's what we need against the panda.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 07 Oct 2010 18:14

" US does not like direct competitors and challengers so they make sure any country that could rise as a challenger like China and India are dealt and bled via local issues which keeps them busy and occupied."

This is not a sustainable policy post Cold War. US gets it back with due interest as a payback by keeping it busy in Korean Peninsula, Iraq, Afganistan to name a few.
The deal is not going American way. Thats why we see purchases for C-17 and Hercules aircraft to create lobbying pockets in US. Even giving GE time to come back with extent of tech transfer will depend upon what kind of political package (w.r.t China) comes with Obama visit.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 07 Oct 2010 19:08

austin sahab,

you hit the nail on the head on this one

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 07 Oct 2010 20:53

nice detailed post philip makes a lot of sense to me

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 07 Oct 2010 23:16

Lalmohan wrote:ok, i am casting my vote in stone: eurofighter typhoon (we can rename it toofani like the old ouaragans in IAF service)

capability - strong, growth path, access to leading edge tech
political benefits - big, brings us closer to Germany, UK, Italy and Spain in terms of G7-G20 issues and votes - good balance against unkil's tendency to bully, france doesn't lose out entirely either through participation in EADS, and other deals, e.g. subcomponents and also other upgrades
industrial benefits - huge, if we get proper industrial integration with EADS

strategically, this carries more benefits than pleasing unkil with short term payoffs and long term liabilities

We should rename it Cyclone because the mega storms in the Indian Ocean are called Cyclone.
In the western Pacific they are called Typhoons, in the eastern Pacific and in the Atlantic, the storms are called Hurricanes.

I also agree with choosing the Eurofighter (or even Rafale). But Eurofighter might give us more political, strategic, industrial/technological benefits. We've already given enough sweets to the Americans and the Russians to keep them satisfied. The only thing that concerns me about the Eurofighter is that UK has been significantly cutting down on the total numbers that it wants to acquire. I'm wondering what is up. Are the Europeans trying to pawn the Eurofighter on us while they'll abandon it and go with something else ....F-35, F-22, etc.? If we do acquire Eurofighter will the French then turn around and try to sell the Rafale to the pukis? Not sure if the pukis can afford them without unkil's subsidy but unkil might not be interested in subsidizing fighters of another country's make.

Hmmm, interesting thought came to me just now .... the chicoms might subsidize the puki purchase of the Rafale to get their hands on the technology and reverse engineer which they do all the time. If it's up the French they would sell the Rafale directly to the Chinese. I'm wondering what has stopped them from doing that so far.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 Oct 2010 23:29

@Luxtor^^^ Not worried about Rafales to the Pakis they want free stuff. It's the Chinese I'd worry about. The French are pressing the EU to lift the PRC arms embargo.

Just curious, what 'strategic benefits' do you think the EU might bring to the table?

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 08 Oct 2010 01:18

Bhai US-bashers,
US was not a reliable weapons supplier because we were close to USSR.To expect US to be a perfect businessman when we do dealings with their sworn enemy is unreasonable.
So invoking past experiences of US dealings should not apply to present times.US but of course seeks its interest but so does everybody else.Now that our interests are converging(china,taliban etc) I dont see why we shouldnt take their help or expect them to ditch us.
Well I hope the Eurofighter wins.It badly needs orders and without these EADS will shut down.Next time we may not ve six but only two, three to chose from.
Europe is going down.
what a pity.

Jamie Boscardin · Post by **Jamie Boscardin** » 08 Oct 2010 01:30

Cosmo_R wrote:@Luxtor^^^ Not worried about Rafales to the Pakis they want free stuff. It's the Chinese I'd worry about. The French are pressing the EU to lift the PRC arms embargo.

Just curious, what 'strategic benefits' do you think the EU might bring to the table?

Good question.
Some food for thought:
1. France, Italy are defense suppliers to Pak. France is vigorously fighting/lobbying to lift the weapons embargo on China by EU.
2. Coz of lot of annoyance within EU due to french selling to Russians(Mistral), there is a ongoing discussion that the defense policy should be mandated to the EU commission, which is currently independently handled by each EU country. If this succeeds, then we will have the entire EU block to contend with. And in-case even a handful can be bought over (read China), who knows what problems it has on the typhoon's supplyies etc. Rt now, there is no EUMA. TOT or partial TOT or whatever, India is not going to built factories for each and every part of the plane's, they will be sourced from existing plants purely for economics purpose and so the possible annoyance to keep every EU nation happy.
3. Germany is a strong contender to the UN security council seat and in an event of a tie between India and Germany for a single seat, the typhoon might just come handy.
4. Rich EU blocks are themselves introducing restrictions on poorer one's for restricting people movement, god knows what strategic benefits they will give us.

In one way, the entire EU block really thanks US for saving them from the Nazi's. So, to me it makes sense to have to deal with one single country in US rather than so many in EU.

Indians have played a important and visible role in US economy and continue to do so. India with the kind of investments its making in US, in terms of showcasing factual reports on how Indian companies are investing more in US and creating jobs in US etc, thus trying to win over the hearts and minds of the US people. This strategy to me is remarkable in a way that by directly creating a "Feel Good about India" feeling across the US landscape, we are trying to negate the need based American politics which is purely use-and-throw.

Now, some logic based theory of mine:
1. We all remember that only 2 of the 6 AC's were successful in the Leh trials. And for sure the Gripen succeeded (I can get the article if someone wants, but that's not a direct quote but to=be-inferred kind of). So, coz of the similarity in engine, could be that SH also succeeded.
2. SH and Gripen both require short runways, Gripen can land in even paved roads, so in an event of a missile strike on airbases, the gripen can still be 100% operational.
3. Gripen NG has a cost of 45-51MUSD piece (as per wiki), with full TOT & the source code (a very BIG THING) transfer, gives us ability to scale the deal to 150-170 AC's which the other contenders cant (ruling Mig35 out of this discussion).

So, my take would be the GRIPEN NG.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 08 Oct 2010 01:44

Out of curiosity why is it a problem if France wants to sell things to China/Pak? If we join the Rafale program wouldn't we effectively have a say in who gets the Rafale?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 08 Oct 2010 02:26

Carl_T wrote:Out of curiosity why is it a problem if France wants to sell things to China/Pak? If we join the Rafale program wouldn't we effectively have a say in who gets the Rafale?

AFAIK, Dassault has never offered to make India a partner in "Rafale Program". So, I do not see why we will have any say regarding the sale of Rafale by France to any third Nation.
May be you are confused with Eurofighter. It was EADS which has offered to include India into the European Consortium if we decide to go with Eurofighter.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 08 Oct 2010 03:26

Cosmo_R wrote:@Luxtor^^^ Not worried about Rafales to the Pakis they want free stuff. It's the Chinese I'd worry about. The French are pressing the EU to lift the PRC arms embargo.

Just curious, what 'strategic benefits' do you think the EU might bring to the table?

...maybe the gain in technology...may lead to other industrial partnerships in other, non-military commercial products etc. This might be the case with U.S. as well with Boeing and LM setting up shops and R&D centers in India (atleast they're appearing to be probably trying to enhance their prospects in the MMRCA race) which might open the door for commercial partnerships with U.S. companies. Before you say American companies have factories or rather produce many of their products in China but that doesn't mean it will lead to strategic partnership with China, that maybe due to LOW cost of manufacturing in China, thanks to China's "slave labor" force. But with India I think the Americans might be less averse to truly setting up a nice working commercial partnership. This maybe the same with Europeans.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Oct 2010 03:39

RSoami wrote:Bhai US-bashers,
US was not a reliable weapons supplier because we were close to USSR.To expect US to be a perfect businessman when we do dealings with their sworn enemy is unreasonable.

While I'm not a US basher, this statement of yours is amusing, since the U.S. continues to gift billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment to our sworn enemy.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Oct 2010 03:43

luxtor-mian
uk is cutting back on eurofighter because they have a huge budget deficit... simply put, they cannot bail out the banks, prop up the economy and fight a war in afghanistan simultaneously whilst keeping their citizens in the level of services, subsidies and benefits that they have gotten used to. also to fight wars in afghanistan - you need boots on the ground and helicopters, they cant cut trident (for h&d reasons) so the only other things are teh new carriers and numbers of fighter jets...

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Oct 2010 04:51

nachiket wrote:
RSoami wrote:Bhai US-bashers,
US was not a reliable weapons supplier because we were close to USSR.To expect US to be a perfect businessman when we do dealings with their sworn enemy is unreasonable.
While I'm not a US basher, this statement of yours is amusing, since the U.S. continues to gift billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment to our sworn enemy.

Well lots of people on this thread have raised the point about the US propping up Pakistan and none of them have been truly objective. Especially, the theory about the US using Pakistan as a counterweight to India.

Think about it dispassionately. Put yourself in their shoes. Do they really have a choice but to placate Pakistan for the time being? Supplies for ISAF forces are mainly routed through Pakistan. They've been trying to acquire alternative routes through the central asian states to the north but with limited success. Some measure of cooperation from the ISI is also required for intelligence operations. Also, the drone program requires a degree of tacit approval from the Pakistani military and state. Of course, one may argue that the US with all might at its disposal should simply strong-arm Pakistan into toeing its line, but that's not a very pragmatic approach over the long term.

And least anybody think that Pakistan has got a sweet deal, its necessary to point out that the insurgency has spilled over across the Durand Line into its NWFP. The resulting chaos has left their economy in shambles with nobody willing to invest in Pakistan anymore. In fact given their propensity to resort to 'non-state' actors to achieve their ends, I must admit, I feel a little smug.

In the early '60s the US supported Pakistan through SEATO, CENTO etc but sanctioned it in '65 during the war. They again built up ties to counter the USSR in central asia but cut off all aid once the Cold War was over(read: Pressler Amendment). If history is any indication, Pakistan will find itself reliant solely on China as soon as the US pulls out of Afghanistan.

Given India's disputes with China, something our neighbor doesn't seem very eager to solve, it makes sense for India to move closer to the US, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam etc. No reason why there should be only one 'string of pearls' in the Asia.

With regard to the MRCA, I agree with the majority opinion - the Eurofighter seems to be the best option. The decision to purchase the GE414 over the EJ-200 was very disappointing, especially given that the EJ was supposed to be easier to install on the Tejas.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Oct 2010 05:32

Jamie Boscardin wrote:

"3. Germany is a strong contender to the UN security council seat and in an event of a tie between India and Germany for a single seat, the typhoon might just come handy. "

Not sure I follow. Germany is supposedly taking the lead on selling us the EF2K. Are you saying they'll step aside if we buy the EF2K?

"SH and Gripen both require short runways, Gripen can land in even paved roads, so in an event of a missile strike on airbases, the gripen can still be 100% operational."

I may be wrong but the Gripen landing on the highways was due to Sweden being a small country and having an extensive highway system. India is not small and with AA refuelers , fighters can catch a drink and land elsewhere. Also, the 'roads' in Ladakh are perhaps not built to the same load standards as Swedish highways purpose built for wartime landings. It's a plus to be sure but not a winning punch. Again, I don't know just asking.

Luxtor^^^ wrote:

"But with India I think the Americans might be less averse to truly setting up a nice working commercial partnership. This maybe the same with Europeans."

The Americans work on an economic rationale: This is why we have so many US outsourcers to India. It makes dollars and cents. The Europeans have not outsourced in any meaningful way to India. Their companies particularly those like EADS and the EF consortium, have to listen to unions and governments—for them it is about NOT moving jobs to reduce costs.

That said, the biggest worry I have is the so called 'death spiral' in costs. As development costs mount (as they have for example with the F-35), the orders are reduced and this in turn causes unit costs to skyrocket. I fear that with the debt reduction programs in the EU (Spain, Italy, UK), you're going to see reduced orders and that is going to be bad for unit costs. Now, the EF folk may come with a great package but the unit costs of those spares are going to kill the IAF over time. TOT does not mean we make everything. Also, what ToT are we talking about? The Gripen NG has a GE 414- engine (not as was the case with the 404 which was made by Volvo Flygmotor), the canopy is made by BAE. We make mission computers and RWRs and we're pretty good with airframes. So I guess it would boil down to control law software source code and the AESA. But the AESA is going to be from Selex which an extensive sales presence in the US:

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/ ... ystem.html

The US can still squeeze us through Selex, GE and BAE.

The Gripen could still be the best bet but it's not risk free and one has to look at how much less risk it involves compared to the SH. Also, it would be an interesting analysis to see how much of the cost differential between the SH and the Gripen is due tot the engines. OTOH, the SH economies of scale probably reduce that differential quite a bit.

Anyway, I don't know and am simply curious.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Oct 2010 05:57

nachiket wrote:
RSoami wrote:Bhai US-bashers,
US was not a reliable weapons supplier because we were close to USSR.To expect US to be a perfect businessman when we do dealings with their sworn enemy is unreasonable.
While I'm not a US basher, this statement of yours is amusing, since the U.S. continues to gift billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment to our sworn enemy.

I agree. It's hard to accept why the US feeds the beast.

One way I've tried to rationalize it is that the Pakistani nation (such as it is) has and continues to pay a huge price in terms of sovereignty. Ever since Zia signed on for the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets, the Pakistani nation and people have lost. The PA have won but they are a criminal enterprise anyway. The US controls the list of who can travel out of Pakistan, has kala pani guys running amok and daily predator strikes not to mention hostility for even government and army wallahs when they come to the US. Humiliation in a thousand ways seems to be the price.

In short, the Oliver Hazard Perrys, the F-16s and assorted instruments can cause India a lot of pain but they are not free. Unkil is not in the free lunch business. It is a price India would not pay and as a buyer (if it wants to) has the opportunity to make the US go through the seller buyer wooing process. Cash is king.

On a completely different if slightly off color topic, I saw Michelle Flournoy the other day. She is certainly not handsome. The term 'rugged' along with other less flattering adjectives come to mind. I am convinced she could stop a clock (the 'L' being silent as in the Polish language) at 200 hundred paces. But she has personality for what that's worth.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 08 Oct 2010 07:17

Cosmo_R wrote:I agree. It's hard to accept why the US feeds the beast.

One way I've tried to rationalize it is that the Pakistani nation (such as it is) has and continues to pay a huge price in terms of sovereignty. Ever since Zia signed on for the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets, the Pakistani nation and people have lost. The PA have won but they are a criminal enterprise anyway. The US controls the list of who can travel out of Pakistan, has kala pani guys running amok and daily predator strikes not to mention hostility for even government and army wallahs when they come to the US. Humiliation in a thousand ways seems to be the price.

In short, the Oliver Hazard Perrys, the F-16s and assorted instruments can cause India a lot of pain but they are not free. Unkil is not in the free lunch business. It is a price India would not pay and as a buyer (if it wants to) has the opportunity to make the US go through the seller buyer wooing process. Cash is king.

On a completely different if slightly off color topic, I saw Michelle Flournoy the other day. She is certainly not handsome. The term 'rugged' along with other less flattering adjectives come to mind. I am convinced she could stop a clock (the 'L' being silent as in the Polish language) at 200 hundred paces. But she has personality for what that's worth.

Sure Pakistanis are in a deep mess. However, that doesn't justify our week stance. National interest first. I hate to be quoting Nitin Pai so often but he is right when he says that Pakistan isn't a problem, those scaffolding Pakistan are a problem.