ramana wrote:KiranM, Good way of looking at things.
1)To me the MRCA is to hedge against PRC. IA 12 mtn divs are good but need IAF strength to be augmented.
2) Need to hedge against single supplier handicap.
3) Need to ensure TSP doesnt get supplies sustained by Indian order
4) Need to ensure there is a surge capability in the country of origin, in case things go south.
5) Need to ensure path for induction of future systems
2) Requires splitting the order or ensuring a major power is in good humor. So may be increase the order and get the increase from this power.
4) Is important for weapons are to deter and fight wars. Neither Sweden or France has the surge capability.
3 & 5 will be the deciders for the remanent.
1) and 2) I agree with you. 2) goes against Mig.
I understand 3 emotionally but not rationally. Say India does not buy MRCA from US. But hypothetically the wheat bought from US, same currency was used to fund F-16s to PAF. It still is bankrolling indirectly. In an open world economy, the trade between India and US will have some connection (like Indian blood relations ) to bankrolling Pak. IMHO 3) should not be too much of a bother.
For 4); given that any future conflict can last over just few weeks before global pressure mounts, I am not sure surge in fighters can help. But surge in weapons surely will. This and hedging against sanctions (be it Us or Sweden, or even France/ Russia by wildest chance), only way is to stock reserve spares and weapons in quantities (Say for for 3 weeks to maintain 500 sorties per day )
Unless we enter into tech JV or reverse engineer the tech, I dont see how 5) will help. IMHO, tech JV can anyways be independent of MRCA if we flash enough money.