Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 17 Apr 2015 10:12

Also puts ? on higher upkeep cost of Mirage w.r.t. Sukhoi. And Rafale upkeep cost will be about 4 times! This is opposite to view that "western" aircrafts are cheaper to maintain.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 17 Apr 2015 10:12

Singha wrote:the SH was the weakest of the lot at high alt ops iirc. it will be hard for it to overcome that tag.


I never saw a credible source for that information.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9836
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Apr 2015 10:15

It may be unilateral decision of the PM. If IAF, MOD babus and all are not doing anything for years someone has to step in and take the decision making power out of their hands. That is what PM did. If anyone thinks it is a bad decision then whose fault is it? MOD and Saint and also IAFs who allowed this situation in the first place. Corruption ? who took the money in a GtoG purchase?

It is always the person who takes a decision get the blame and called names and if you do not take any decision for a decade you get an honest person tag. If the decision is a bad one, then nation has to live with it and make best use of what we are getting out of it.

In 10 years of UPA we lost a lot. This will be one of them.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 17 Apr 2015 10:15

Every one seems to be missing the point that the NaMo govt., has expressed its intention to have 250 LCA Mk2s to be built by the Pvt. Sector by 2025 in order to break the monopoly of the HAL on Aircraft making in the country.

Given the track record of the govt. It is only a matter of time before it is put into execution by the govt. So the space of any other platform is non existent.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 17 Apr 2015 10:17

nikhil_p wrote:The hornet is not going to make it. Two reasons why - one - it failed critical hot and high tests,


There were minor issues that were easily addressed, it was a non-issue.

nikhil_p wrote:2 - it doesn't bring much to the table compared to other contenders.


When it's the one that's more affordable and available in the time required (which are 2 of the most important criteria), the proper way to look at it is: What do its competitors bring compared to it?

And the answer is 'Not much.'

nikhil_p wrote:The EF could very well be the dark horse in this race. It was after all L2 and brings to the table Germany, England and a couple of other European countries which could be strategically important.


If that's the criteria, their 'strategic importance' pales compares to the US.

nikhil_p wrote:But IMHO the Gripen makes more sense overall


The Gripen is obsolete and the Gripen-NG is still a proposal.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14478
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby pankajs » 17 Apr 2015 10:53

We have 5-10 (2015 to 2020-25) very tricky years to navigate compounded by the fact that last decade was a wasted decade in every field but especially defense.

1. We already have sufficient MKIs on order. We don't want our Airforce to be only MKIs.
2. 36 Rafale is strategic in the sense that it plugs an immediate gap, diversification, reliable partner in France.
3. Whether we order more or go for local manufacturing depends on 1) Cost per plane 2) What happens to FGFA 3) Tejas MK2
4. If the PAKFA can start appearing by 2020 leading to FGFA, the need for further Rafale or MKI will not arise.
5. If Tejas Mk-2 can start induction by 2022 in numbers we will have no more Rafale.
6. Tejas Mk-1 will have to be ordered in numbers to fill in for Mig-21s. It is good enough.

MKIs and Rafale orders will be used to fill up gaps if the timeline on Tejas or FGFA slips.

Rafale remains expensive and further orders will depend on exceptional circumstance
1. Steep price discount
2. Real deep and path-breaking tot
3. Unexpected and Worrying shortfall in planned induction of other platforms (Primarily FGFA and Tejas Mk-2; 2020-25 timeframe)
4. Unexpected and Worrying development in our neighborhood (Appearance of a new very capable fighter on our border is large quantity)

Given the tricky nature of this transition period India will have to follow up on all the tracks in parallel. (Tejas, FGFA and Rafale). What will get the maximum orders will depend on the progress.

So what the GOI is saying/doing, i.e all paths are open, is not surprising at all but the ideal mix going forward remains Tejas, FGFA and AMCA.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2010
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby srin » 17 Apr 2015 12:27

Unilateral decision is good esp when the alternative route didn't yield anything for a few years - finally there is someone with enough backbone to make a decision without appointing a dozen committees.

OTOH, I'm ambivalent on doing away with RFPs for large deals - without RFP and fair competition, it wouldn't be possible to do proper price discovery and technical analysis. Otherwise, we'll end up comparing brochures.

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby alexis » 17 Apr 2015 16:35

^^
How can we say unilateral decision is good? By that metric, all decisions are good!

it is the cost of the decision that decides whether it is good or bad. By all indications Rafale is going to cost 140 mn USD without any technology transfer (i remember people quoting fly away cost of USD 80 mn for Rafale some time back). I am sure, if this decision was taken by UPA, we will all be discussing the kickback amounts. Quick decision is fine but under the circumstances, we can procure 1 Su 30 and 1.5 LCA mk1 for a rafale and these can come in the same timelines. irrespective of the credentials of the decision maker, i cant find it in my heart to support this decision.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2015 16:42

GeorgeWelch wrote:If you need large number of fighters fast, the SH is still the best decision. Nothing else combines the affordability with the industrial capability to get it done. The Rafale is currently at 11/year and it will take years to double that rate and just sold 2 years worth of production to Egypt. Not to mention, 100+ of them just isn't affordable. The Tejas, well HAL hasn't even built 20 total and of course it isn't even operational yet.

If an FMS purchase from the US was deemed to be politically feasible, it would still be an exceptionally foolish decision to purchase the SH, with the F-35A finally having arriving on the scene. It offers better value-for-money and even head-to-head it wouldn't be that much more expensive in two years time. Performance-wise it is of course in entirely different league altogether.

Both are utterly incapable of delivering the quantities needed in the timeframe required.

The SH is currently being produced at 36/year.

The F-35's production rate is currently 42/year which will increase to 60+ next year (unless a three year block buy is sanctioned).

As far as the Eurocanards are concerned, the EF consortium (and possibly Sweden/Saab) can probably off-load serving examples to the IAF on the cheap as a stopgap bridge to new aircraft. Less of an option for France with its Rafale fleet fairly stressed and strength reduced further with transfers to Egypt.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 17 Apr 2015 17:02

The F-35's production rate is currently 42/year which will increase to 60+ next year (unless a three year block buy is sanctioned).

As far as the Eurocanards are concerned, the EF consortium (and possibly Sweden/Saab) can probably off-load serving examples to the IAF on the cheap as a stopgap bridge to new aircraft. Less of an option for France with its Rafale fleet fairly stressed and strength reduced further with transfers to Egypt.


If the latest AO167 request is any indication, the block buy will be pursued for 9,10 and beyond. The only thing left to decide is whether the US aircraft would be clubbed into the first block buy or the second one. With hints coming from the IDF that they may up their order by a dozen or so, the possibility exists that it can happen when the first Adir's (2) land in Israel (Dec, 2016).

Lockheed has a very aggressive ramp up plan for the F-35 from 2016 and beyond. They won't get it spot on and there would be a learning curve associated just as there is a learning curve associated with current ramp up (deliveries that are stretching into the holiday season and shortened vacations to meet delivery targets). Moreover, the Congress is slowly adding back the USN's jets that it pushed to the right of the acquisition cycle. When combined, I seriously doubt that Lockheed can commit to a Pre-2020 FMS delivery for any significant amount unless someone somewhere pushes their orders to the right.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2015 17:45

brar_w wrote:When combined, I seriously doubt that Lockheed can commit to a Pre-2020 FMS delivery for any significant amount unless someone somewhere pushes their orders to the right.

A block buy ensures a single large order enabling contractors to reduce their prices in return for assured volumes. It by no means precludes the order book from being expanded with supplementary orders. The program would have to be run by lunatics to refuse a major new order (with huge growth potential considering the FGFA's woes) on technical considerations. The result may not be a conventional FMS purchase but that hardly makes it a non-starter.

And that's assuming units earmarked for the US aren't diverted to service exports, which remains a possibility. The USAF isn't nearly as desperate for new aircraft as the IAF (& USMC) and the current ramp-up is at least as much to support the F-35 program as it is to service military requirements.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 17 Apr 2015 18:02

^^ Replied in the appropriate thread.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 18:08

All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 18:16

Pratyush wrote:Every one seems to be missing the point that the NaMo govt., has expressed its intention to have 250 LCA Mk2s to be built by the Pvt. Sector by 2025 in order to break the monopoly of the HAL on Aircraft making in the country.

Given the track record of the govt. It is only a matter of time before it is put into execution by the govt. So the space of any other platform is non existent.

I missed this bolded part. can you link it?

HAL is not a monopoly. It is a govt organisation and disinvestment option still exist. Now that defense sector is opened up companies can setup their plants and try to compete for IAF orders and for export market. Nobody would prevent them.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2015 18:51

chaanakya wrote:All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do.

How do we intend to operate the AH-64E and P-8I without CISMOA? And carrying that further what exactly are the operational repercussions of signing the CISMOA (or a similar inter-government agreement)? I understand the LSA at least and it makes eminent sense, though the optics are discomforting. Should ideally be enacted through a bilateral treaty rather than boilerplate lettered document.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 17 Apr 2015 19:03

All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do


EMALS. Offer to help design the next air craft carrier. .....................

Like it or not, much water has flown.

It could reverse too.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 19:15

Viv S wrote:
chaanakya wrote:All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do.

How do we intend to operate the AH-64E and P-8I without CISMOA? And carrying that further what exactly are the operational repercussions of signing the CISMOA (or a similar inter-government agreement)? I understand the LSA at least and it makes eminent sense, though the optics are discomforting. Should ideally be enacted through a bilateral treaty rather than boilerplate lettered document.

Communications Interoperability And Security Memorandum of Association is required to access certain critical technologies provided by US. In absence of it ,US has removed critical technologies required for network centric encrypted communication with other US made aircrafts. Improves interoperability but also allows US to keep checking on its equipments, end use blah. We can't even rule out the possibility of hidden channels of communications , hacking and backdoors , trojans besides sanctions. At present whatever we are operating are without those equipments and India is using its own equipments. It includes P81, AH and Transport aircrafts.

LSA is contingent upon CISMOA. I don't see the need for LSA unless we join US in military pact. Do we want that? I doubt. Political cost will be high given that US has high penchant to sleep with Pakis. I have not forgotten their roles in 1971, giving billions in Aid which was used against India, giving false Nuclear clean chit certificates to pakis by Bill Clinton to continue aid, role of US Congress in passing anti India amendments and Acts, Military equipment aids to Pakis, and not but the least Headly and Rana. Where are they?? I don't trust USG.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12261
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 17 Apr 2015 19:17

Viv S wrote:
chaanakya wrote:All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do.

How do we intend to operate the AH-64E and P-8I without CISMOA? .


Dont know about Apaches but in P-8I and C-17 US communication equipment Datalinks were removed and BEL produced Datalinks and communication equipment was installed- Not NATO standard- Indian Standard. Don't know how it compares.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 19:17

NRao wrote:
All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do


EMALS. Offer to help design the next air craft carrier. .....................

Like it or not, much water has flown.

It could reverse too.


When India asked Cray X-MP super computers USA denied. When India developed its own they eased restriction and allowed second best to be shipped so that we don't advance. I would not touch this offer with a barge pole. India should design its own carrier. IAC-1 is there. No?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 17 Apr 2015 19:38

chaanakya wrote:I missed this bolded part. can you link it?

HAL is not a monopoly. It is a govt organisation and disinvestment option still exist. Now that defense sector is opened up companies can setup their plants and try to compete for IAF orders and for export market. Nobody would prevent them.




India Offers To Spend $12B To Break Monopoly

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 19:43

Thanks, That makes sense if read in conjunction with DM's statement and decision to scrap MMRCA. GOI can go a step further and offer disinvestment and cede management control to those wanting to get 49 % of HAL without ceding majority voice.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby RoyG » 17 Apr 2015 20:07

Pratyush wrote:
chaanakya wrote:I missed this bolded part. can you link it?

HAL is not a monopoly. It is a govt organisation and disinvestment option still exist. Now that defense sector is opened up companies can setup their plants and try to compete for IAF orders and for export market. Nobody would prevent them.




India Offers To Spend $12B To Break Monopoly


Finally, what I've been saying for some time is finally happening. It's the beginning of the end for HAL. In 2 decades or less, privates will eat up majority share of aeronautics sector in terms of new aircraft orders. What's happening with the C-295 deal?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby deejay » 17 Apr 2015 21:43



Pratyush Ji, in your link I found a familiar voice and look what it is saying now:

But Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired air marshal and adviser (for strategy) to the chairman of HAL, said no private-sector aircraft facility could build the LCA.

“There appears to be a misconception that if ADA wishes, the LCA can be produced by the private sector. Nothing can be further from truth. The LCA cannot be produced by anybody without the major involvement of HAL.” ■


Did I read right or did I see the Sun for too long. :wink:

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6999
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Anujan » 17 Apr 2015 21:57

^^^

The same argument would hold for HAL wanting to build aircraft through ToT from abroad, no?

This of this as an "internal" ToT. From HAL/ADA to a private player.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2015 22:51

chaanakya wrote:Communications Interoperability And Security Memorandum of Association is required to access certain critical technologies provided by US. In absence of it ,US has removed critical technologies required for network centric encrypted communication with other US made aircrafts. Improves interoperability but also allows US to keep checking on its equipments, end use blah.

You're confusing CISMOA with an end-user agreement. I'm still trying to nail down what exactly the CISMOA consists of.

We can't even rule out the possibility of hidden channels of communications , hacking and backdoors , trojans besides sanctions. At present whatever we are operating are without those equipments and India is using its own equipments. It includes P81, AH and Transport aircrafts.

I'm sure any fighter aircraft including those US-origin will be modified with Indian comm modules.

LSA is contingent upon CISMOA. I don't see the need for LSA unless we join US in military pact. Do we want that? I doubt.

LSA has nothing to do with CISMOA and signing it (or a similar arrangement) only changes existing arrangement from a cash-exchange method to a more efficient barter system. No alliances involved. At all.

Political cost will be high given that US has high penchant to sleep with Pakis. I have not forgotten their roles in 1971, giving billions in Aid which was used against India, giving false Nuclear clean chit certificates to pakis by Bill Clinton to continue aid, role of US Congress in passing anti India amendments and Acts, Military equipment aids to Pakis, and not but the least Headly and Rana. Where are they?? I don't trust USG.

No need to be pals to appreciate the utility of their military equipment (wherever valid). And I'm sure their interest in turn is driven by the wish to keep China off-balance rather any real love lost for India. I would however suggest a long hard look at the rate of Chinese military modernization program and only then deciding how badly we need (or don't need) that edge that appropriate cost-effective gear brings.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Apr 2015 23:00

Anujan wrote:^^^

The same argument would hold for HAL wanting to build aircraft through ToT from abroad, no?

This of this as an "internal" ToT. From HAL/ADA to a private player.


Exactly. I mean what does it take? Hive off the team building the LCA from HAL and place it in a private sector entity that is profit driven and has excellent project management skills.

Of course, HAL could be saying: "you can't build it with us or without us". That's a different story.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 17 Apr 2015 23:02

IAC-1 is there. No?


IF that is your standard or understanding, then please continue.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Karan M » 17 Apr 2015 23:07

deejay wrote:


Pratyush Ji, in your link I found a familiar voice and look what it is saying now:

But Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired air marshal and adviser (for strategy) to the chairman of HAL, said no private-sector aircraft facility could build the LCA.

“There appears to be a misconception that if ADA wishes, the LCA can be produced by the private sector. Nothing can be further from truth. The LCA cannot be produced by anybody without the major involvement of HAL.” ■


Did I read right or did I see the Sun for too long. :wink:


Who pays the piper calls the tune saar.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vasu raya » 17 Apr 2015 23:25

wasn't TASL building chopper airframes for export? and their workforce doesn't have any prior experience to start with

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4509
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Apr 2015 23:53

For those of you who are worried about Shornet's hot/high performance, remember Boeing is now offering the "international" version - heavily stealthified with stealth weapons pod + the EPE engines which will automatically make the TWR for the Shornet the highest out of all contenders.

Not that I am advocating the Shornet, just sayin'

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 18 Apr 2015 01:55

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast ... t-surprise

India hit the reset button on stalled contract talks with Dassault, opting for a government-to-government sale of 36 Rafale fighters. Our editors discuss what the deal means for India, Dassault and future combat aircraft competitions.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby brar_w » 18 Apr 2015 02:08

+ the EPE engines which will automatically make the TWR for the Shornet the highest out of all contenders


Provided someone pays for the development (engine) and certification. GE surely haven't indicated that they are going to do it by themselves and they have been trying to pitch the idea to the USN for a few years.

It all depends which configuration an export order takes. I am pretty sure that One ME customer will pick the Shornet but don't rule out the regular USN version as opposed to the more expensive Internaitonal/Advanced version, The Super-hornet is going to be in production possibly till 2020 or so.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 18 Apr 2015 08:44

Viv S wrote:
chaanakya wrote:Communications Interoperability And Security Memorandum of Association is required to access certain critical technologies provided by US. In absence of it ,US has removed critical technologies required for network centric encrypted communication with other US made aircrafts. Improves interoperability but also allows US to keep checking on its equipments, end use blah.

You're confusing CISMOA with an end-user agreement. I'm still trying to nail down what exactly the CISMOA consists of.

No I am not confusing. All I am saying is that any use of restricted US technology will include severe end use clause which would have detrimental impact. And here is the official list of equipment India won't be getting as a result of not siging CISMOA. It is from Livefist,i.e. if you trust him

Here's the official list of equipment that India won't get as a direct consequence of the hanging CISMOA:

* AN/ARC-222 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) - Manufacured by Magnovox and administered by the US Air Force

* KV-119 IFF Digital Transponder (Mode 4 Crypto Applique) - Manufactured by Raytheon and administered by the US Air Force

* TACTERM / ANDVT Secure Voice (HF) Terminal - Administered by the US Air Force

* VINSON KY-58 Secure Voice (UHF/VHF) Module - Administered by the US Air Force

* Finally, the Rockwell-Collins AN/ARC-210(V) SATCOM Transceiver's COMSEC/DAMA embdedded RT is replaced with an RT that has no COMSEC/SINCGARS

Sources say the Indian government has a few specific reservations about the CISMOA (I'm gathering more on this), and is not convinced that there is any particular hurry to conclude the memorandum.


We can't even rule out the possibility of hidden channels of communications , hacking and backdoors , trojans besides sanctions. At present whatever we are operating are without those equipments and India is using its own equipments. It includes P81, AH and Transport aircrafts.

I'm sure any fighter aircraft including those US-origin will be modified with Indian comm modules.

I don't think we will bother much. India has beaten US fighters available with Pakistan in past. Actually I would say free access to US weapons by Pakis is a bigger problem hindering US fighter jets and other defense related equipment besides possibility of sanctions as always. UnReliability of US establishment is in no doubt. We might get tidbits but thats about it all. Tarapur, remember.

LSA is contingent upon CISMOA. I don't see the need for LSA unless we join US in military pact. Do we want that? I doubt.

LSA has nothing to do with CISMOA and signing it (or a similar arrangement) only changes existing arrangement from a cash-exchange method to a more efficient barter system. No alliances involved. At all.

Again , you are not envisaging the importance of CISMOA for having effective LSA. LSA requires seamless integration of communication and datalinks which are highly integrated and encrypted platforms. Having different comms would not result in smooth operation. I would put it this way. It is necessary condition but not sufficient.

Political cost will be high given that US has high penchant to sleep with Pakis. I have not forgotten their roles in 1971, giving billions in Aid which was used against India, giving false Nuclear clean chit certificates to pakis by Bill Clinton to continue aid, role of US Congress in passing anti India amendments and Acts, Military equipment aids to Pakis, and not but the least Headly and Rana. Where are they?? I don't trust USG.

No need to be pals to appreciate the utility of their military equipment (wherever valid). And I'm sure their interest in turn is driven by the wish to keep China off-balance rather any real love lost for India. I would however suggest a long hard look at the rate of Chinese military modernization program and only then deciding how badly we need (or don't need) that edge that appropriate cost-effective gear brings.
Actually we have always appreciated their equipments. India is one of the unique places where Us and Russian origin equipments have been in an active face offs. Our armed forces know better. we always need something to counter US weapons with capabilities which US and its partner countries may not be fully aware of the potential. What you forgot is that US planes were ticked off in MMRCA. IAF certainly knows better or is it your case that you know better then them?

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 18 Apr 2015 08:53

NRao wrote:
IAC-1 is there. No?


IF that is your standard or understanding, then please continue.


Errr not exactly mine but IN's standards. If you get their philosophy, they are heavily into indigenous production rather than depending on undependable US. In fact one of their dispatches in wikileaks specifically mentions this.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 18 Apr 2015 09:04

Karan M wrote:

Who pays the piper calls the tune saar.


True that. I don't see why our corporate world can not step in and why their capacity is in doubt. If Reliance can get into oil exploration and refinery business from producing textiles and Tatas can get into IT from producing steels and both excel I don't see why can't they do better in defence. Let us give some chance. What's wrong with it? There is no need to resent their rise. They are ultimately Indians. MIC will consist of Indian Private Sector industries and PSUs and R&Ds. In fact I would suggest HAL can be hived off in different companies and management controls be handed over. We can retail control of security and access, apply defense of India Act, ask for no disclosure bonds and put severe penalties for info leaks, provide security ratings and levels of clearances for each employee and restrict their travels abroad.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 18 Apr 2015 10:22

chaanakya wrote:No I am not confusing. All I am saying is that any use of restricted US technology will include severe end use clause which would have detrimental impact. And here is the official list of equipment India won't be getting as a result of not siging CISMOA. It is from Livefist,i.e. if you trust him

Erm.. all that equipment has fancy acronyms and identifiers but that doesn't change the fact that the kit itself consists of radios, datalinks and IFF for all of which we have domestic equivalents. And that domestic gear ensures compatibility with the rest of the IAF fleet. Same for the SATCOMs; we'll have our own modules to link with our own satellites.

We can't even rule out the possibility of hidden channels of communications , hacking and backdoors , trojans besides sanctions. At present whatever we are operating are without those I don't think we will bother much. India has beaten US fighters available with Pakistan in past. Actually I would say free access to US weapons by Pakis is a bigger problem hindering US fighter jets and other defense related equipment besides possibility of sanctions as always. UnReliability of US establishment is in no doubt. We might get tidbits but thats about it all. Tarapur, remember.

Its not the one-eighth-our-size Pakistan that's the issue, its the the five-times-our-size China. We've fought only war with the latter and it did not end well. 70 fighter jets. That's what the Chinese are inducting annually. Just for reference, we inducted just 15 last year.

Again , you are not envisaging the importance of CISMOA for having effective LSA. LSA requires seamless integration of communication and datalinks which are highly integrated and encrypted platforms. Having different comms would not result in smooth operation. I would put it this way. It is necessary condition but not sufficient.

You have your facts mixed up. LSA has nothing whatsoever to do with comms, interoperability, datalinks et al.

Actually we have always appreciated their equipments. India is one of the unique places where Us and Russian origin equipments have been in an active face offs. Our armed forces know better. we always need something to counter US weapons with capabilities which US and its partner countries may not be fully aware of the potential. What you forgot is that US planes were ticked off in MMRCA. IAF certainly knows better or is it your case that you know better then them?

The aircraft 'ticked off in MMRCA' were all ageing legacy designs. Neither they, nor the Eurocanards, nor any Su-27 derivative can go up against the newest offering from same stable without suffering a very lopsided loss ratio. If the IAF says differently it would be wrong (though for the record, it does not).

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby chaanakya » 18 Apr 2015 13:11

Viv S wrote:
Erm.. all that equipment has fancy acronyms and identifiers but that doesn't change the fact that the kit itself consists of radios, datalinks and IFF for all of which we have domestic equivalents. And that domestic gear ensures compatibility with the rest of the IAF fleet. Same for the SATCOMs; we'll have our own modules to link with our own satellites.

We used that in all american supplied platforms. It reduces the effectiveness of their platforms which is optimised for their equipments,


We can't even rule out the possibility of hidden channels of communications , hacking and backdoors , trojans besides sanctions. At present whatever we are operating are without those I don't think we will bother much. India has beaten US fighters available with Pakistan in past. Actually I would say free access to US weapons by Pakis is a bigger problem hindering US fighter jets and other defense related equipment besides possibility of sanctions as always. UnReliability of US establishment is in no doubt. We might get tidbits but thats about it all. Tarapur, remember.

Its not the one-eighth-our-size Pakistan that's the issue, its the the five-times-our-size China. We've fought only war with the latter and it did not end well. 70 fighter jets. That's what the Chinese are inducting annually. Just for reference, we inducted just 15 last year.
You are parrying the point. Unreliable supplier, paki supplier, not a friend in defence field being friend of enemy.

Again , you are not envisaging the importance of CISMOA for having effective LSA. LSA requires seamless integration of communication and datalinks which are highly integrated and encrypted platforms. Having different comms would not result in smooth operation. I would put it this way. It is necessary condition but not sufficient.

You have your facts mixed up. LSA has nothing whatsoever to do with comms, interoperability, datalinks et al.

You must be knowing some different meaning of logistics sharing. When two equipments from same platform belonging to different airforce work in a shared environment CISMOA comes into effect for better coordination and comm. Military exercises, one of the component of LSA framework , will be difficult and not seamless in absence of CISMOA .

The US demands that unless India signs LSA along with two other technology safeguard agreements—the Communication
Interoperability and Security Agreement (CISMOA), and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA)
Beats me. Why all three??



The aircraft 'ticked off in MMRCA' were all ageing legacy designs. Neither they, nor the Eurocanards, nor any Su-27 derivative can go up against the newest offering from same stable without suffering a very lopsided loss ratio. If the IAF says differently it would be wrong (though for the record, it does not).

I never knew US was being so stupid to offer legacy designs in one of the largest ever deals by any country in recent years. And to top it all both versions were under development stages. I am dubmfounded. That my sixth sense or spider sense tells me "Keep off the stuff" But for record IAF technically disqualified both of 'em.

Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Altair » 18 Apr 2015 14:32

Gurus
In the event of a war breaking out between India and Pakistan in next few months, Will India get 36 Pre-Owned Rafael from armée de l'air on an emergency basis?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby deejay » 18 Apr 2015 14:51

^^^ I do not know what the gurus will say but my answer is - No. If they could, they would refuse to export rice and dal. They may not support Pakistan, but a weak India helps increase the duration of Western hegemony.

But a good question to ponder Altair ji.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 18 Apr 2015 15:53

chaanakya wrote:We used that in all american supplied platforms. It reduces the effectiveness of their platforms which is optimised for their equipments,

How is say... an IFF module optimized for a particular platform? And since we swap out gear on Russian & European types as well, how is this specific to the US platforms?

You are parrying the point. Unreliable supplier, paki supplier, not a friend in defence field being friend of enemy.

What you were implying was that since we won against Pakistan often with inferior equipment, we'll win against China and therefore the edge provided by better equipment is not needed.

You must be knowing some different meaning of logistics sharing. When two equipments from same platform belonging to different airforce work in a shared environment CISMOA comes into effect for better coordination and comm. Military exercises, one of the component of LSA framework , will be difficult and not seamless in absence of CISMOA .

The 'LSA framework' does not require any military exercises. So the whole point about 'better coordination and comm' is irrelevant. All the LSA does is switch the payments for using each others logistics from a cash basis to a reciprocal barter basis. Basically reducing the red tape and lowering the overhead costs for both sides. LSA or no LSA, sharing of logistics will continue to take place albeit on an ad hoc basis (eg. Indian ships in the Gulf of Aden regularly refuel from USN tankers).

I never knew US was being so stupid to offer legacy designs in one of the largest ever deals by any country in recent years. And to top it all both versions were under development stages. I am dubmfounded. That my sixth sense or spider sense tells me "Keep off the stuff" But for record IAF technically disqualified both of 'em.

You've been on this forum since 2010 with nearly 8000 posts. You can't seriously be claiming that the time-line and requirements of the MMRCA deal are new to you. But for the record, the RFI for the MMRCA was first released in 2001 which is when the F-16 entered the fray. It was re-released in 2004, which is when the SH threw its hat in the ring. They were 'under development' the way the Jaguar's DARIN III upgrade was 'under development'. In either case, its now 2015. Facts on ground have changed.

Nobody (aside from George Welch) considers either of the aircraft viable for an off-the-shelf purchase today. Different matter for the aircraft wrecking the export market for the Eurocanards.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests