chaanakya wrote:I will give counter example for c130j , c17. In absence of critical technologies under CISMOA, low level flights are impacted. As per some report. Please search chacha.
Shive Aroor tells "It is important to remember that this is equipment that has specifically been asked for by India".
1. Its not affected by the CISMOA, its affected by the BECA. 2. It applies only when operating in blackout conditions. 3. Low level operations are still regularly carried out. Even in blackout conditions the pilots can operate with night vision. 4. Doesn't change the fact that data-links, IFF, Satcom will be swapped out even on French & Russian will 'less effective' Indian equivalents.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Al I implied is that India with its equipments ( russian and british and french ones) proved more than match for american ones in all wars it had with pakistan. It is you who is implying that Indians had inferior weapons and american ones are Soup-e-rear and hence needed. I am mostly pitching for indigenous one or from friendly reliable countries. I think we have better weapons in technicals for MMRCA.
Discussing Pakistan gives that feel-good factor, but its time to drop that and start thinking in relation to the actual behemoth on our borders. And its fine to look at 'friendly reliable countries' when they provide similar equipment for the same price. Unfortunately, the Rafale is neither a cost-effective workhorse like the Su-30MKI and Tejas (esp. in low volumes) nor capable of deep penetration missions like the F-22 & F-35. And that's still fine if all we were facing was a stumbling Pakistan, rather than a superpower in the making.
Why don't you quote exact wordings of LSA. AFAIK it does include specific clauses for Military cooperation and exercises and compatibility of platforms ( that implies CISMOA)
Like I said, it has nothing to do with CISMOA, implied or otherwise.
2. This Agreement applies to the reciprocal provision of logistic support, supplies, and services between the military forces of one Party by the other Party in return for either cash payment or the reciprocal provision of logistic support, supplies, and services to the military forces of the other Party.
3. All obligations of the Parties under this Agreement and any Implementing Arrangements are subject to the availability of appropriations for such purposes.
4. The following items are not eligible for transfer under this Agreement and are specifically excluded from its coverage:
a. weapon systems;
b. major end items of equipment (except for the lease or loan of general purpose vehicles and other nonlethal items of military equipment which are not designated as significant military equipment on the U.S. Munitions List); and
c. initial quantities of replacement and spare parts associated with the initial order quantity of major items of organizational equipment covered in tables of allowances and distribution, tables of organization and equipment, and equivalent documents.
1. As used in this Agreement and in any Implementing Arrangements, which provide
specific procedures, the following definitions apply:
a. Logistic supplies, support, and services which may be provided as approved by the Parties under this Agreement are defined and subject to the following:
(1) Supplies - Food, water, petroleum, oils, lubricants, clothing, ammunition, spare parts and components, provided during an approved activity.
(2) Support and Services - Billeting, transportation (including airlift), communication services, medical services, operations support (and construction and use of temporary structures incident to operations support), training services, repair and maintenance services, calibration services, storage services, and port services, during an approved activity. Storage units and ports shall at all times remain under the control and supervision of the host state.
(3) Logistic supplies, support, and services include the temporary use of general purpose vehicles and other nonlethal items of military equipment which are not designated as significant military equipment on the U.S. Munitions List, during an approved activity.
I think you are forgetting that tests were concluded only in 2011 and in Jan 2012 Only two aircrafts were cleared. And to my best knowledge both were not from US. What changed on the ground that made them fit for MMRCA in two years' time?? Except that you saw and opening in scrapping of MMRCA. Well I don't think that is opened for US. I could be wrong.
I'm afraid you're wrong again. The technical evaluations for the MMRCA ended by 2009-10. The first aircraft will be delivered no earlier than 2018, almost a decade later. And for the record, the MMRCA has already
been scrapped. By the govt. Local assembly, license production, ToT, domestication... all out the window.