IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Apr 2016 22:39

Karan M wrote:Cassegrain antenna - N019, N001, RDM.
Planar mechan arrays - RDI, RDY, N010, N011, Captor, BlueFox, APG-69, APG-63v1
PESA- RBE-2, N011M
AESA-APG-63v2, RACR/SABR, APG-77/81/80, Zhuk-AE, N036 etc

Good list, to the AESA category, add AN/APG-79, AN/APG-79/X (In place of the larger RACR), SABR-L (B-1 bomber), CAPTOR-E, RAVEN-AESA, Uttam, Chinese J-10,J-20 and possibly J-31 AESA radars etc. To list them all would yield in a huge list of in-development or fielded modern AESA radars meant for combat fighters. Essentially there isn't a light, medium or heavy multi-role fighter aircraft that hasn't adopted, or isn't on a path to completely switch over to an AESA. Some have an advantage of having ported over more than a decade ago, and through that time iteratively improved on the radar, the way it is fused with other systems, and the way it responds to threats. The IAF was well within its right to ask for one under the MMRCA, and there is really no reason to go back on and look for older options just because...

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 09 Apr 2016 23:00

What can the Jag do that the LCA cannot? Is replacing an engine a plug and play operation? Probably not. It would need modifications to the airframe and then flight testing. Why waste time and resources on a dead design that is near obsolescence? Best option for fleet enhancements could be:
a) Buy more 2-3 sqdn additional MKIs and buy a couple of billion dollars worth of spares inventory from the Russians
b) Buy additional (2-3 sqdn) used Mig 29s that can be upgraded to current IAF std - commonality with Navy's 45 will allow greater flexibility, must buy a large spares inventory from the untrustworthy Russians
c) Build 250 LCAs Mk1 and Mk1A standard. And then start a run of 250 MK2. Mk1As should start relieving Jags.
d) Phase out M2Ks after current upgrade has outlived usefulness. No more French aircraft after the M2K.

HAL needs to be divided into smaller companies and then sold to private companies so that it can be objective and accountable. Players like Taneja and Mahendra in addition to others should be encouraged.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Apr 2016 02:03

India may buy F16s if US transfers tech

Confirmation of certain aspects of what I had stated:

"We are not discussing buying the fighter (aircraft). We want to make it in India through transfer of technology for our requirement. But the American government has technology transfer restriction regime. So unless the American government gives permission to transfer a particular technology, the American companies, even if they want to do it, cannot," Parrikar said, while speaking on the sidelines of an event.

"When I went last to the US, I suggested to Carter, that if I have to consider then you have to first tell me what it is that you are going to permit. In advance in-principle sanction for the proposal that they are making has to be there from the US government, then only I will let them join the race," Parrikar said.

Speaking to reporters, Parrikar confirmed that several delegations from the US government and from the two companies had met and presented their proposals.

At the just concluded DefExpo 2016, both Lockheed Martin and Boeing had offered the F16 Super Viper and F/A 18 Super Hornet along with a production line in India. Defence ministry officials stated that while US defence manufacturers promise full technology transfer, the US government often invokes certain clauses or rules to restrict key technology transfer.

More MKIs or LCAs cannot replace this thinking. It is *not* about the number of planes - numbers is a very easy solution.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Apr 2016 02:20

Vivek, the options you point out are the most reasonable - and I doube Parrikar is not aware of the same. My guess is that the options above, ep. MKIs and more LCAs is the default option (plan

. The problem as you have surmised in the last line is HAL, PSUs don't turn on a dime, and MP/Namo want to create a viable MIC without PSU monopoly. It is for this reason that the second line is being explored. They are trying to achieve the foll:

1) Quick induction of numbers - 250+ fighters before 2025 (this would include 150 LCA, 40MKI, Rafales?)
2) Stable inductions post 2025 (LCA mk2 - HAL, MRCA - private - another 250 a/c)
3) Stable inductions post 2030-35 (AMCA, FGFA)
4) A viable private aerospace industry that offers above capability in short order, which can only mean a vendor that buys into MII - and speeds up private involvement, preferably non-russian and cheaper than Uber Euro crowd like Rafale/E2000, which leaves - Boeing, LM or Saab
5) Offers some shared TOT with relevant IPR (for foreign partner) and Reliability (for INdia) to boost desi tech base - SAAB comes up short here
6) Offers easier induction and inter-operabililty - LM comes up short here
7) Boeing has a very solid chance provided they can break the IPR/Sanctionsproofing boondoggle.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Apr 2016 03:02

NRao wrote:India may buy F16s if US transfers tech

Confirmation of certain aspects of what I had stated:

"We are not discussing buying the fighter (aircraft). We want to make it in India through transfer of technology for our requirement. But the American government has technology transfer restriction regime. So unless the American government gives permission to transfer a particular technology, the American companies, even if they want to do it, cannot," Parrikar said, while speaking on the sidelines of an event.

"When I went last to the US, I suggested to Carter, that if I have to consider then you have to first tell me what it is that you are going to permit. In advance in-principle sanction for the proposal that they are making has to be there from the US government, then only I will let them join the race," Parrikar said.

Speaking to reporters, Parrikar confirmed that several delegations from the US government and from the two companies had met and presented their proposals.

At the just concluded DefExpo 2016, both Lockheed Martin and Boeing had offered the F16 Super Viper and F/A 18 Super Hornet along with a production line in India. Defence ministry officials stated that while US defence manufacturers promise full technology transfer, the US government often invokes certain clauses or rules to restrict key technology transfer.

Liked this greatly. I have no preference for American or Russian fighters. For me, the differentiator is going to be what we can learn and what we can reuse for our own programs. It is great to see that the DM shares this common sense.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Apr 2016 07:53

See no reason why US should not let TOT to satisfaction of India , F-16 is the oldest in the stable but still a good single engine fighter

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Apr 2016 08:08

While it is the most in need of a boost (so the highest amount of OEM desperation) it would be imho considerably behind in capability compared to the Shornet simply given the time, effort and resources spent to add capability to it. The SABR and RACR are no doubt good solid AESA options, but they are drop in systems with at least half a decade to a decade of work the USAF would have to do once they eventually get the former onboard their own Vipers. The Super-Hornet, on the other hand comes with mission systems that are mature, and data-fusion that is different than even where it was 5 years ago. By 2020 the Super Hornet will possess a lot many capabilities that will be present in the F-35, and that was the USN's plan i.e. to get the SH up to a level where it along with the Growler can play alongside the Charlie Lightnings. Up next are the radar enhancements, IRST-21 full operational capability, AdvDataLink enhancements, a new A2G targeting pod (Lockheed vs Northrop for that), additional weapons clearance and of course the passive-growler concept, parts of which have already found their way onto the rhino as mentioned towards the end of the article I posted on the last page. All out, the Viper is clearly a much inferior option out of the two US, and once you factor in the Gripen, possibly the least impressive western option that the IAF could potentially exercise.

On the USAF's side, the plan to significantly improve the capability of some of the younger F-16C's in service has taken a back seat to significantly enhancing the survivability of the F-15C's and E's by adding an AESA and GaN based EPAWSS EW suite. Viper modernization would begin in the next year or so but would be considerably watered down compared to what was planned earlier and they would not be creating the sort of software and capability the UAE did which could have been taken to a whole different level had the USAF also adopted it at the time. Again, I just value institutional support that makes upgrades and enhancements sustainable, affordable and frequent for all potential end users..the problem with the Mig-35, and F-16 V is that unless the RuAF and the USAF invest in these systems in a big way, and for the long haul they will remain tier 2 or tier 3 priorities while the F-18E/F is NAVAIR's number 1 priority and would remain so since the JSF is a multi-service/nation project with plenty of other sources of funding. The Future RDT&E budget for the Rhino will be many many times that of the Viper since the USN is no longer a 3 or more fighter force. There is just one fighter, that is NAVAIR's sole responsibility till perhaps the NGAD fighter that won't consume a lot of RDT&E resources till starting late next decade and there are already plans to keep it upgraded and match it to a threat, which in the case of NAVAIR are chinese fighters and air-defense systems.

Nothing like this is ever going to exist for the F-16 going forward : https://www.scribd.com/doc/164334848/Ad ... edia-Brief

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 10 Apr 2016 10:43

Wow, so to break dependency on Russia, we are getting dependent on America.

Why can't we learn the chinese way. Use what we have. Use in numbers for deterrence. Use in numbers for low efficient systems. Invest large scale, improvise. Induct mark 2. Improvise further, induct mark 3 in numbers and so on. All the while we beg, borrow, steal or whatsoever.

BTW, There is one thing i like about Americans. There diplomacy is top class. They can sleep with both us and pakis while being capable of convincing both of us being their only and beloved wife.

Besides are we the same, who always maintained that TOT is farce. We have learnt nothing from past TOT from russian or french or anyone. Magically TOT from America will make us learn the trick of the trade such that it is good to buy a dying horse which is now getting number plated in its own country.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Apr 2016 10:55

Why can't we learn the chinese way.

Steal.

And, then try and sell a half baked, stunted, EOL product on the cheap to cover costs.

srin · Post by **srin** » 10 Apr 2016 14:18

I'm not sure if the current 4th gen aircraft would be operationally useful for more than 20-25 years.
So, if we really need a medium range plane, we should simply go for the *cheapest* one with a good airframe - be it F-16 or Mig - and engine and build up the numbers quickly. Then gradually start putting our own Uttam radar and integrating our own munitions - astra, NGARM, glide bombs etc.
Everything else is an overkill and a waste - we'd be spending money on technologies we already have (or will soon have) and can produce far cheaper.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Apr 2016 15:49

NRao - thanks for posting that Parrikar statement.

It is very refreshing to see such attitude in our decision makers. And gives confidence that things are on track.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Apr 2016 16:20

Austin wrote:See no reason why US should not let TOT to satisfaction of India , F-16 is the oldest in the stable but still a good single engine fighter

F-16 Tech is still state of art by many standards. Apart from stealth, what's on it can be used by any industry to learn a lot. Not that india ever would. hal would go by "spirit of agreement" and make sure it even imported the screws since the TOT agreement said it should.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 10 Apr 2016 18:22

Karan M wrote: Not that india ever would. hal would go by "spirit of agreement" and make sure it even imported the screws since the TOT agreement said it should.

That is why IMO this GOI wants a private sector competitor for HAL, because of this "Mera baap ka kya jaata hai"/"What goes of my father", attitude. This attitude will never change because there is no concept of "pride in ownership" in these PSUs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Apr 2016 18:25

Time to replace thread title removing Rafale and focus on the real medium combat requirements.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Apr 2016 19:43

SaiK wrote:Time to replace thread title removing Rafale and focus on the real medium combat requirements.

Not until we hear any official mod word on Rafale.

The rest of discussion is bcoz of lack of progress on Rafale , we might hear soon some positive dev on Rafale

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Apr 2016 19:47

SaiK wrote:Time to replace thread title removing Rafale and focus on the real medium combat requirements.

LCA Mk.2 should be scaled up a bit, i.e. Mirage-2000 size and range, to meet the "medium" category role. That was the original requirement. NLCA Mk.2 is already close to Mirage-2000 dimensions. F414-INS6 would provide more than sufficient thrust at 98 kN. Target date 2025.

Until then, order additional Su-30MKI and LCA Mk.1/A to tide things over. Three more Su-30MKI squadrons should more than adequately address the needs set for MRCA. Increase LCA Mk.1/A order to ten squadrons and production capacity to 24 units/year.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Apr 2016 20:05

Karan M wrote:
F-16 Tech is still state of art by many standards. Apart from stealth, what's on it can be used by any industry to learn a lot. Not that india ever would. hal would go by "spirit of agreement" and make sure it even imported the screws since the TOT agreement said it should.

You can't blame HAL for this , the best we can hope for is MKI type deal where they built in CKD and gradually build from locally source material provided say US or other vendor agrees.

TOT would jst help IAF maintain the type locally without running to OEM at drop of pin with adequate spares and stuff like that also factor like how soon HAL can absorb or will this be 3rd party like Reliance.

I find MOD hypocrisy at nth level on one hand they are not ready to open second line and let the real made in India type Tejas go in big number and they are happy to look around another type beyond Rafale 36 and excluding the long in production MKI and then complain about high cost or lack of made in India stuff

Instead of looking at new type irrespective of how 36 Rafale go they should like Tejas 2nd line with private player and boot up MKI numbers save the money for other needs of IAF

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Apr 2016 20:10

both HAL and MOD are to blame, former less ok, but HALs fixation with imports and easy CKD/SKD is also well known by now as is their attempt to sabotage the LCA by giving it less support initially and later took up IJT, without even committing properly to LCA.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 10 Apr 2016 20:14

indranilroy wrote: Liked this greatly. I have no preference for American or Russian fighters. For me, the differentiator is going to be what we can learn and what we can reuse for our own programs. It is great to see that the DM shares this common sense.

Karan M wrote:
F-16 Tech is still state of art by many standards. Apart from stealth, what's on it can be used by any industry to learn a lot. Not that india ever would. hal would go by "spirit of agreement" and make sure it even imported the screws since the TOT agreement said it should.

ldev wrote:
That is why IMO this GOI wants a private sector competitor for HAL, because of this "Mera baap ka kya jaata hai"/"What goes of my father", attitude. This attitude will never change because there is no concept of "pride in ownership" in these PSUs.

Don't expect significant ToT. F18 for India will be manufactured by Boeing India (and probably similar for LM) with some sub-systems being manufactured to spec by Indian companies.

http://idrw.org/remember-boeings-make-i ... e-to-that/

Boeing official confirmed to idrw.org that Boeing is not planning to tie up with any Indian Private or Public defence partner to manufacture F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in India . Boeing India its Indian subsidiary will be lead integrator for producing F/A-18E/F fighter jets in India with major chunk of work to be outsourced to many Indian defence partners like Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) which will be tasked to develop various subsystems and also to manufacture major aerostructures of F/A-18E/F fighter jets. Indian partners will also be tasked to produce many spare parts for the jet while it is operated by Indian Air Force . When asked about the possible sale of Boeing’s electronic warfare based EA-18G Growler to India , he responded by saying that ” India particularly has not asked for it , and explained that Growler is Airborne electronic warfare aircraft in operation with US Navy and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) .

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Apr 2016 20:21

^^^

That's how these companies operate. They will open subsidiaries and keep their IPs. Western countries are fine with that practice. However in India's case, it wants those IP/ToT to be transferred to a GoI entity. That becomes a major stumbling block and negotiations go on for many many years along with the sticker price ticking upwards.

In that same regards, Dassault would more than happily open up a subsidiary in India and outsource some of the work to other Indian companies while retaining its IP for the Rafale deal.

Talk of secondary foreign aircraft is really just a diversion, IMO. It has the same pitfalls as with the Rafale. India wants 50% offset, large amount of ToT, local production, manufacturer's guarantees, LCC package and multiple infrastructure setup all for a "low" price. This is unrealistic. Regardless of which one is chosen, each one of them will cost over $200 million/unit when everything is added up.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Apr 2016 20:27

Don't expect significant ToT. F18 for India will be manufactured by Boeing India (and probably similar for LM) with some sub-systems being manufactured to spec by Indian companies.

http://idrw.org/remember-boeings-make-i ... e-to-that/

Boeing official confirmed to idrw.org that Boeing is not planning to tie up with any Indian Private or Public defence partner to manufacture F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in India . Boeing India its Indian subsidiary will be lead integrator for producing F/A-18E/F fighter jets in India with major chunk of work to be outsourced to many Indian defence partners like Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) which will be tasked to develop various subsystems and also to manufacture major aerostructures of F/A-18E/F fighter jets. Indian partners will also be tasked to produce many spare parts for the jet while it is operated by Indian Air Force . When asked about the possible sale of Boeing’s electronic warfare based EA-18G Growler to India , he responded by saying that ” India particularly has not asked for it , and explained that Growler is Airborne electronic warfare aircraft in operation with US Navy and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

Reporters need to ask proper questions in order to get proper responses.

Here is the *expectation* from Parrikar":

Parrikar - a FAR better source than idrw.org wrote: "But the American government has technology transfer restriction regime. So unless the American government gives permission to transfer a particular technology, the American companies, even if they want to do it, cannot,"

The question he should asked Carter (NOT Boeing) is will the US transfer tech that is not exportable today. Boeing has *nothing* to do with what can be transferred.

*That* is what all this is about. Not some local manufacturing and SDK kits and something else based on past experiences.

That's how these companies operate. They will open subsidiaries and keep their IPs. Western countries are fine with that practice.

Even then, would you be happy with techs that India as asked for and has been in discussions in for over a year?

You can't blame HAL for this , the best we can hope for is MKI type deal where they built in CKD and gradually build from locally source material provided say US or other vendor agrees.

One has to realize that this is an Indian initiative - asking the US to release technologies of interest to India. This is NOT about the US/LM/Boeing trying to sell a pane - although that is a subset of the bigger picture. And, yes, as part of that bigger picture CKD or whatever kits will be a means to get the "line" rolling.

But you just cannot shove the rest of the tech transfer stuff under the rug. *That* is the key.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Apr 2016 20:36

srai wrote:^^^

That's how these companies operate. They will open subsidiaries and keep their IPs. Western countries are fine with that practice. However in India's case, it wants those IP/ToT to be transferred to a GoI entity. That becomes a major stumbling block and negotiations go on for many many years along with the sticker price ticking upwards.

This is still very much an informal discussion about a perspective proposals from various OEM's. IF and WHEN a solicitation is officially crafted, released to the wider industry you can very easily specify both the terms of domestic production under MII, and/or the specifics of TOT being sought. It would only be natural for a corporation to offer a proposal that suits its interests the best, that simply is a position they start with in the absence of an official framework such as a global tender.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 10 Apr 2016 20:39

I think it is time to start a new thread relating to Make in India- F-16 /F-18.
Mods?

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 10 Apr 2016 20:42

NRao wrote: The question he should asked Carter (NOT Boeing) is will the US transfer tech that is not exportable today. Boeing has *nothing* to do with what can be transferred.

*That* is what all this is about. Not some local manufacturing and SDK kits and something else based on past experiences.

You are missing the point that IF and WHEN US govt gives its consent, this is what Boeing is planning to do. The reporter asked the right question to the right person.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Apr 2016 20:51

Austin wrote:Not until we hear any official mod word on Rafale.

The rest of discussion is bcoz of lack of progress on Rafale , we might hear soon some positive dev on Rafale

Its all about perspective. For most of us, the lack of progress on the Rafale is a positive development. Lol.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 10 Apr 2016 20:52

I will be surprised if this GOI i.e. Modi/Parrikar insist on IP transfer to a PSU and a PSU alone. I think they will be satisfied with IP transfer to an Indian entity, whether PSU or private.

Boeing wants to remain an integrator, the real issue is what major sub-systems and components are being outsourced to people such as TASL and what is the IP transfer there. If there is tangible transfer there, that in itself will be a big step towards building a domestic MII.

HAL has enough experience as an integrator, it's assembling aircraft for donkey's years, the problem is the major components and sub-systems and the engine.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Apr 2016 20:54

sivab wrote:
You are missing the point that IF and WHEN US govt gives its consent, this is what Boeing is planning to do. The reporter asked the right question to the right person.

The reporter tried to get a peep inside of what Boeing plans to offer, however he/she should really be trying to peep inside what the IAF and the MOD seek from a potential MMRCA 2.0 under MII. Unless there is an eternal vacuum as far as requirements and specifics Boeing can't really choose on its own, how it wants to offer a proposal under the MII framework. A company has to comply with explicitly stated requirements or else risk disqualification.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Apr 2016 20:55

sivab wrote:You are missing the point that IF and WHEN US govt gives its consent, this is what Boeing is planning to do. The reporter asked the right question to the right person.

Whatever its plans are will be communicated to the MoD directly. If it doesn't gel with whatever the MoD has planned, they'll probably tell Boeing to come back with a better offer, or failing that, pass on it in favour of a different offer (possibly Lockheed Martin's).

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 10 Apr 2016 21:06

In the LCA book by Rajkumar Sir, LCA claw was initially tested on F-16 and I think it was reported that it handled better much to amusement of the test center officials. If we get to own F-16 production we will again get a chance to load customized local software into it. History repeating itself. F-16 might turn out to be pseudo LCA mk-3.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Apr 2016 21:12

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:Not until we hear any official mod word on Rafale.

The rest of discussion is bcoz of lack of progress on Rafale , we might hear soon some positive dev on Rafale
Its all about perspective. For most of us, the lack of progress on the Rafale is a positive development. Lol.

True ... longer the delay the better odds for LCA to establish itself and win more orders. The followup enlarged LCA Mk.2 can be the "medium" aircraft that the IAF requires. 2025 is just round the corner.

From the looks of it, this deal will drag on to the next government. Previous UPA delayed as much as they could because there was no money. Things haven't changed from the financial side of things.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 10 Apr 2016 21:36

arvin wrote:In the LCA book by Rajkumar Sir, LCA claw was initially tested on F-16 and I think it was reported that it handled better much to amusement of the test center officials. If we get to own F-16 production we will again get a chance to load customized local software into it. History repeating itself. F-16 might turn out to be pseudo LCA mk-3.

The strategic handshake seems to be moving from transactional buy/sell to sell ToT and now directly hand holding or dipping off US MIC. The first thing we should do is set up production engineering dept for LCA Mk-3 (and for other such programs like Nag, domestic howitzers, et al), and think about pseudo LCA Mk-3 as exception not rule.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Apr 2016 21:42

You are missing the point that IF and WHEN US govt gives its consent, this is what Boeing is planning to do. The reporter asked the right question to the right person.

The discussions have ALWAYS been at the Gov level, never at the vendor level (It is only when the US DOD told LM/B to go and talk, they did). Secondly - as posted above - it has been about transfer of technologies that have been on the no-export list (and this is crucial to this discussion). Which is why the reporter could have contributed if he approached the right entities.

On Boeing's response, what did you expect? A part for a US plane can be made in the US or in India (perhaps in some cases in a 3rd nation). In India there are two cats: Gov or pvt entities. Furthermore MII has always laid an emphasis on the pvt sector.

But if people want to get high on the obvious, pvt sector will do this, public will do that, we will send it as kits for 3 years, after which .......................... fine. Up to you. Like someone said "Very original". May be he should have asked, who is going to cut the ribbon? Complete the picture.

Point being, here is what seems to be a informational moment for India (IMVVHO) and all we can post is from yester years. I do not know about others, but this - even if it does not come through - is a major deviation from MOD thinking.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Apr 2016 21:43

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:Not until we hear any official mod word on Rafale.

The rest of discussion is bcoz of lack of progress on Rafale , we might hear soon some positive dev on Rafale
Its all about perspective. For most of us, the lack of progress on the Rafale is a positive development. Lol.

The

MOD think otherwise hence still thinks it can be doneand so all it matters

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Apr 2016 21:48

Karan M wrote:both HAL and MOD are to blame, former less ok, but HALs fixation with imports and easy CKD/SKD is also well known by now as is their attempt to sabotage the LCA by giving it less support initially and later took up IJT, without even committing properly to LCA.

So what's stopping MOD from giving the second line Tejas to Pvt player when Tejas is done deal with trial by fire why the hypocracy of trying to see another type when they cannot even complete or exit the first IE Rafale deal.

HAL is after all MOD baby if mod is not stopping HAL from skd/CKD route it means it's only encouraging it, the buck ultimately stops at MOD.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Apr 2016 21:55

Austin wrote:
Viv S wrote:Its all about perspective. For most of us, the lack of progress on the Rafale is a positive development. Lol.
The

MOD think otherwise hence still thinks it can be doneand so all it matters

Are you sure of that?

I'm certainly not.

“Four weeks will be a reasonable time. Upto four months. It will be too long if it goes beyond that” - Francois Richier, Jan 27

"I should not… put a time line on my price negotiation." - Manohar Parrikar, Feb 17

"I am not putting a timeline because ultimately money is a problem and we should get a good deal." - Manohar Parrikar, Mar 27

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Apr 2016 22:12

He also keeps saying we will complete the negotiation soon. LoL

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Apr 2016 22:13

NRao wrote:
You are missing the point that IF and WHEN US govt gives its consent, this is what Boeing is planning to do. The reporter asked the right question to the right person.
The discussions have ALWAYS been at the Gov level, never at the vendor level (It is only when the US DOD told LM/B to go and talk, they did). Secondly - as posted above - it has been about transfer of technologies that have been on the no-export list (and this is crucial to this discussion). Which is why the reporter could have contributed if he approached the right entities.

On Boeing's response, what did you expect? A part for a US plane can be made in the US or in India (perhaps in some cases in a 3rd nation). In India there are two cats: Gov or pvt entities. Furthermore MII has always laid an emphasis on the pvt sector.

But if people want to get high on the obvious, pvt sector will do this, public will do that, we will send it as kits for 3 years, after which .......................... fine. Up to you. Like someone said "Very original". May be he should have asked, who is going to cut the ribbon? Complete the picture.

Point being, here is what seems to be a informational moment for India (IMVVHO) and all we can post is from yester years. I do not know about others, but this - even if it does not come through - is a major deviation from MOD thinking.

In the absence of clear, and explicitly stated requirements and expectations of the MII as it applies specifically to a foreign medium-class fighter production line Boeing will do/offer what anyone in their position would i.e.: Respond to MAKE IN INDIA initiative by offering to MAKE the F-18E/F and many of its components and parts IN INDIA through an arrangement that best suits its financial interests. Of course, if this track ever materializes ( the entire ' setting up of a foreign second assembly line' ) then the MOD would come into the picture, and as a reasonable stakeholder, express explicitly its requirements for both the sort of integration between foreign OEM's and Domestic institutions (private or otherwise) and the leave of transfer of technology. Other than provide a generic answer Boeing or Lockheed, or Dassault or MiG can't really offer any specifics as there are nuances to the MII deal that can only be known once a global solicitation for offers is sought. For all we know, it could all be a negotiating tactic to lower the Rafale price. There's a lot of unknown to even begin speculating, other than there are bi-lateral discussions about such a deal between the US, and India and between US-India-US OEM's. Similar discussions no doubt also occurred when the Swedish Defense Minister came to meet Parrikar and are likely to occur with other governments and OEM's interested in producing their weapons system in India.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 10 Apr 2016 22:16

Well, Carter has arrived in Goa.

Make-in-India to reflect in US-Indo defence co-op: US defence secretary Ashton Carter

"Make-in-India is on Prime Minister Modi's priority list and (Indian defence minister) (Manohar) Parrikar is reflecting it in our defence activities by stressing on co-production, co-development and technology sharing," US defence secretary Ashton Carter said.
He was talking to media persons at Old Goa Church complex near here in presence of Parrikar.
"India buys military systems from other countries in a very different manner. We are going to have a different kind of relations," he said in reference to the Indo-US ties on the defence front.
Carter, touring India for a second time in a year, said his visit is significant "because India and the USA are doing many activities together to help secure this part of the world and other parts of the world."
"We have a great partner in the form of India. India and our interests overlap in many important ways. We are together to make world safer," he said.
Responding to a query on Carter's visit, Parrikar said the trip was very important as it reflected in the fact that he is coming to India for a second time within a short span.
The top American defence official, who arrived in Goa this afternoon, visited Mangueshi Temple, 20 km from Panaji and Basilica Bom Jesus at Old Goa, 9 km from here.
"I am honoured to be at such a holy place. I am grateful to my hosts for having invited me here," he said.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Apr 2016 22:20

The French negotiating team arrived in New Delhi on March 29.

Anyone know if they're still around, watching Parrikar & Carter on TV discussing F-16s & SHs, from their hotel rooms? Or have they already left for home without finalizing an agreement?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Apr 2016 22:21

Viv S wrote:The French negotiating team arrived in New Delhi on March 29.

Anyone know if they're still around, watching Parrikar & Carter on TV discussing F-16s & SHs, from their hotel rooms? Or have they already left for home without finalizing an agreement?

Well if they were still around they could have always been sent an invitation to join the Lockheed-Boeing-MOD open house