IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Apr 2016 11:54

Because there is always the chance of war under a nuclear overhang a la Kargil, with PRC.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2016 12:02

Karan M wrote:Because there is always the chance of war under a nuclear overhang a la Kargil, with PRC.

I don't think so , such action are only previlage of paki jihadi fanatics who have sucidal tendencies and won't hesitate to get shahadat , PRC economy would be greatly impacted and second in line would be India, that is the reason I consider PRC as strategic rational player where we need to play the long drawn out chess game.

We need to engage pakis too if any thing else to chain the mad dog , the next war with pakis if only Kargil type is next big terror strike away and that depends on which side of bed ISI rises up , which is to say we don't know when it will happen but most certainly it will happen

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2016 12:13

Viv S wrote: And Pakistan advocates MAD against us (nullifying our conventional advantages). MAD all around. So what purpose do conventional arms serve, if there's no space between a show-of-strength and an all-out nuclear exchange?

India faces unconventional and hybrid war too for a long time , conventional arms makes that costly and strengthen deterrent, for irrational player like Pakistan conventional arms serve a purpose and for rational one like China its defence in depth

into some socially productive avenues instead, like infrastructure and education for example?

I can agree with you on that , we are bad in both and can improve a lot with money spent in it which in end will strengthen our security

We need to realistically look into conventional weapons procurement and focus on needs of COIN ops whr we end up loosing more men daily and IS requirement

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Apr 2016 12:16

Karan M wrote:Because there is always the chance of war under a nuclear overhang a la Kargil, with PRC.

Precisely...we can't entirely do away with the conventional stuff...in any case, it is absolutely essential against tsp.

Keep big stick but also carry pocket knife...old jungle saying. Big stick use is dual purpose...for show or death against big bad wolf. Whatever happens in the middle, we use pocket knife for it.....Keep it sharp

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2016 12:37

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rafale-j ... eststories

Sources say that as part of the government's push to develop and support military manufacturing at home, in exchange for selling India off-the-shelf Rafales, French companies including Dassault will have to invest three billion dollars in India to help firms here with stealth-capability and radar technologies. France had initially agreed to a 30 per cent offset obligation to be invested in India, while India had sought a minimum of 50 per cent. France has now agreed for 50 per cent offset obligation.

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 16 Apr 2016 12:52

^^^^This is very very hazy,
let's wait for the final champagne cork to come out to make more out of these underlines, speaking for myself I am not very optimistic on this "JEE coaching" style of help,
the only comfort i will draw from this agreement is that it is more likely to leave ample of space for LCA to fill in the numbers. any other bird approaching 100s in number was bound to eat into Tejas.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Apr 2016 13:06

Austin wrote:India faces unconventional and hybrid war too for a long time , conventional arms makes that costly and strengthen deterrent, for irrational player like Pakistan conventional arms serve a purpose and for rational one like China its defence in depth

Why wouldn't the Pakistani nuclear arsenal deter a rational state, which in this case is India. After all, we expect our nuclear arsenal to deter China, another rational state (can we be sure it has the necessary internal pressure valves to stay rational?).

And having duly deterred them with our nuclear weapons, why do we need to expend so much money on high end conventional capability?

I can agree with you on that , we are bad in both and can improve a lot with money spent in it which in end will strengthen our security

No you're missing the point. If our nuclear capabilities have reliably and permanently forestalled the possibility of a conventional clash against China, why shouldn't we be spending the $9 billion budgeted for the Rafale (as well as other acquisitions) on the roads and bridges and schools instead?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Apr 2016 13:17

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:Because there is always the chance of war under a nuclear overhang a la Kargil, with PRC.

I don't think so , such action are only previlage of paki jihadi fanatics who have sucidal tendencies and won't hesitate to get shahadat , PRC economy would be greatly impacted and second in line would be India, that is the reason I consider PRC as strategic rational player where we need to play the long drawn out chess game.

We need to engage pakis too if any thing else to chain the mad dog , the next war with pakis if only Kargil type is next big terror strike away and that depends on which side of bed ISI rises up , which is to say we don't know when it will happen but most certainly it will happen

PRC economy dwarfs India. Beating India wont do anything to do their economy, they think it will reinforce their status as top dawg in Asia.
Which is why they keep sending their troops across to provoke India and we merely push back a bit.
As their military strength grows and our stagnates, their adventurism increases.
Pakistan barks because we let it.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 16 Apr 2016 13:32

No you're missing the point. If our nuclear capabilities have reliably and permanently forestalled the possibility of a conventional clash against China, why shouldn't we be spending the $9 billion budgeted for the Rafale (as well as other acquisitions) on the roads and bridges and schools instead?

Just to note, an irrational player like Pakistan has (been) stopped cross border firing because of retaliation by BSF. This is also in face of terrorists loaded with modern equipment (GPS included, even night vision devices looted off NATO trucks going to Afghanistan).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2016 13:46

Karan M wrote:PRC economy dwarfs India. Beating India wont do anything to do their economy, they think it will reinforce their status as top dawg in Asia.
Which is why they keep sending their troops across to provoke India and we merely push back a bit.
As their military strength grows and our stagnates, their adventurism increases.
Pakistan barks because we let it.

Any war would mean funds will flow out at rapid pace , more so with renminbi getting reserve status there would be dumping it left right center knowing well that India has a very potent nuclear capability and can gurantee MAD , Its also a Psychology thing and economy is as much about trust and confidence PRC will loose both in case of war and quickly, they wont like to loose something that took them 30 years to build

It will be the same with India except on much lower scale , Reason why our leadership too is shit scared to start any war with a nuclear unpredictable pakistan .......IIRC even during Kargil and Parliament attack the industrialist were pleading for no war option and some like Infy were ready to move ops to Mauritius or was it maldives where they have a standby failover center for such events , I clearly remember those days.

Ofcourse the world economy too will get impacted its what you call the domino effect.

While I agree there is a great disparity between our spending power , their budget revenue and expenditure is much greater then ours but there is a reason why Nuclear Weapon is a great equaliser , all we need is to build upon it and selective conventional capability against PRC.

Paki is a Mad Cow disease if needed they will just convince them self of self destruction leads to 72 , their mind set is very Jihadi in Nature just polished one , the only way we can deal with them is over whelming conventional and nuclear superiority and our own self belief that we can deal with them without developing cold feet in the same way Israel has in them when dealing with their own jihadi problem brutal and with no mercy it may be.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Apr 2016 14:14

^^ You are again applying your logic to an expansionist power which has been doing everything opposite to what you say.

Nuclear weapons are merely a final arbiter - why/how can India use them if the war remains conventional? Will India agree to use nukes if PRC takes over NE and is India prepared to lose all its metros in turn?

PRC can wage war conventionally and merely brandish nukes to deter us.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Apr 2016 14:20

vishvak wrote:Just to note, an irrational player like Pakistan has (been) stopped cross border firing because of retaliation by BSF. This is also in face of terrorists loaded with modern equipment (GPS included, even night vision devices looted off NATO trucks going to Afghanistan).

On the other hand, China's status as a 'rational player' didn't stop a PLA speedboat from ramming two IA motorboats on the Pangong Tso, killing six Indian soldiers.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Apr 2016 14:28

One thing I will say about China, though, is you also have to be pretty firm with them, because they will push as hard as they can until they meet resistance. They’re not sentimental, and they are not interested in abstractions. And so simple appeals to international norms are insufficient. - Barack Obama

(A hard learned lesson after his G2 fantasy fell flat on its face, and China pushed hard in the SCS.)

By banking on nuclear weapons to level the playing field, we give the Chinese free reign to push all the way to the edge of our nuclear threshold.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Apr 2016 14:35

Work of brilliance this:

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 16 Apr 2016 16:44

^I kind of agree with that wonderful clip (I have binge watched the whole series once, a must see for everyone interested in politics and bureaucracy).

Though I want the nuclear threat in our hands to be credible (along with our missile defenses), I don't think we will ever use them unless we have a existential threat and border wars/naval power struggles the type China hopes to indulge in are really not going to provoke their use.

Mad dog threats works for porkistan because it is a dog and most of the time behaves like a lunatic. They are also hopeless for the future, quite unlike us. So, let us stop this nonsense of how it would work for us because it works for the porkis. There is a difference between the both.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 16 Apr 2016 17:54

Austin wrote:http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rafale-j ... eststories

Sources say that as part of the government's push to develop and support military manufacturing at home, in exchange for selling India off-the-shelf Rafales, French companies including Dassault will have to invest three billion dollars in India to help firms here with stealth-capability and radar technologies. France had initially agreed to a 30 per cent offset obligation to be invested in India, while India had sought a minimum of 50 per cent. France has now agreed for 50 per cent offset obligation.

I hope a good deal is negotiated both in terms of commercial value and ToT. The Su-30, Turbomeca Ardiden Shakti, Scorpene, T-90, Vikramaditya were not well negotiated due to our implicit good faith in these countries, lack of understanding of negotiating process, lack of negotiating skills, hesitation, a foolish unwritten MEA diktat of not offending anyone, and similar reasons. I sincerely hope we do it better this time.

Some IN officers who were part of Scorpene negotiations at a junior level, are now at senior positions. They've vowed not to repeat past mistakes after having learned from them.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 16 Apr 2016 19:47

RAFALE
"France Demanded 9 Billion Euros- While India Was Expecting Price To Be Brought Down To 7-8 Billion Euros"
"France Came Back With Revised Price Quote- Including Maintenance Training And Support And Offsets"
"France Considered Lower Price Than Quoted To Egypt & Qatar , As India Deal Was “All Cash”
"India Has Agreed To Pay 7.89 Billion Euros- Nearly Rs 59,000 crore "All Cash" , For The #Rafale Deal To France"
"India Wants Changes In #Rafale Jet- Including Israeli Helmet Mounted Display- And Specific Weaponry- Among Others"
"Offset Clause Of 50 Percent Means- Half Of The Value Of #Rafale Deal Will Come Back- Boosting Domestic Industries"
"The Contract Have Mandatory Clause For Acquisition Of Another 18 #Rafale Jets At The Same Price"
...
https://twitter.com/Ajit_Dobhal

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Apr 2016 19:59

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Apr 2016 20:45

Karan M wrote:^^ You are again applying your logic to an expansionist power which has been doing everything opposite to what you say.

Nuclear weapons are merely a final arbiter - why/how can India use them if the war remains conventional? Will India agree to use nukes if PRC takes over NE and is India prepared to lose all its metros in turn?

PRC can wage war conventionally and merely brandish nukes to deter us.

So why can't we do that to Pakistan? Alternatively, why can't we Pakistan China? They have more to lose than us and they will suffer great wounds which would only help the US.

IOW, why do mad dog strategies work for others but not for us?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Apr 2016 21:04

Austin, I like your Tejas Mk3 4.88! brilliant strategy.

mad dog strategies would not for us because of our institutions. we are very reactive onree

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Apr 2016 21:10

I'd have to agree that China is a more rational player and so a full confrontation against it is unlikely...doesn't mean that they won't take every chance to put India in its place. Simply means that we have enough conventional force to make such adventures back fire...but nuclear deterrent had to be pursued and advertised aggressively.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Apr 2016 21:15

the chinese were modi-fied some 50 years back. they have that advantage.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 16 Apr 2016 21:58

We're borrowing money from our future generations to pay for this senseless deal. History will point to this deal as one that made sure that India could never become a sovereign, self reliant nation. History will also not spare IAF as their stubborn pursuit of such systems will destroy the beginnings of an aerospace industry.

Just like M2k MLU that cost more than the original purchase without including engine upgrades, we better keep $20 billion ready so that IAF can keep these 36 aircraft flying.

India is very poorly served.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 16 Apr 2016 22:00

Andher Nagari Chaupat Raja, take ser bhaji ...... Chanted the French laughing all the way to the bank!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Apr 2016 22:34

Cosmo, we right now are mostly a nation of chalta hain types.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Apr 2016 22:51

I strongly feel the same Vivek K, that this deal was totally unnecessary given a local program that is going strong. We need to strengthen LCA and AMCA factory lines more than Rafale. JMT, and biased to the fact that there is no clear and present danger to absorb such costly machines.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 16 Apr 2016 23:22

SaiK wrote:I strongly feel the same Vivek K, that this deal was totally unnecessary given a local program that is going strong. We need to strengthen LCA and AMCA factory lines more than Rafale. JMT, and biased to the fact that there is no clear and present danger to absorb such costly machines.

It will eat up resources for many years to come.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Apr 2016 23:51

resources are there to be utilized. optimal utilization is what needed driven out of appropriate needs.

how do we use it and when is all that makes a difference between and advanced country and a tamed country.

if you ask me, I would spend 10K crores on making GTRE to GE standards. that is a much needed expense, long-term and strategic.

chota mota purchase has to be tactical, and ensure it does not drain the exchequer, but aid the long-term strategies.

modi sarkar is showing all weaknesses here.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 17 Apr 2016 01:25

Modiji has just shown that he has no idea what "Make in India" really means! I guess we have another MMS.

Couldn't agree with Saik more.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 17 Apr 2016 02:09

is it really $$$ which is holding back out institutions?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Apr 2016 03:00

is this a done deal?

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Apr 2016 05:28

sunilUpa wrote:is it really $$$ which is holding back out institutions?

Money is one of many. India spends far less on R&D than other leading nations. So if it expects more then more funds need to be made available. Apart from money, India requires better synergy between academic institutions, public and private sectors. Also, hurdles, such as India's famous bureaucracy, to innovation needs to be rooted out. Good "risk-taking" should be encouraged (without facing severe personal consequences). Attitudes toward perceived "failures" would need to change. After all, one success may require thousand "failures" (or learn of thousand ways it didn't work as Edison would say).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Apr 2016 06:03

srai wrote:
sunilUpa wrote:is it really $$$ which is holding back out institutions?
Money is one of many. India spends far less on R&D than other leading nations. So if it expects more then more funds need to be made available. Apart from money, India requires better synergy between academic institutions, public and private sectors. Also, hurdles, such as India's famous bureaucracy, to innovation needs to be rooted out. Good "risk-taking" should be encouraged (without facing severe personal consequences). Attitudes toward perceived "failures" would need to change. After all, one success may require thousand "failures" (or learn of thousand ways it didn't work as Edison would say).

In short, a massive change in culture.

Might as well add, all/most pulling in the same direction - consult, consult, consult.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 17 Apr 2016 06:58

Vivek K wrote:Modiji has just shown that he has no idea what "Make in India" really means! I guess we have another MMS.

Couldn't agree with Saik more.

Okay though the deal was stuck due to prices and that is the main reason. The high prices wasn't his headache alone, he could have let it drift on. However, investing some $$ back is part of it and can be interesting. With 50% invested within country, the negotiations must have prolonged due to working out details.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Apr 2016 09:48

Karan M wrote:^^ You are again applying your logic to an expansionist power which has been doing everything opposite to what you say.

Nuclear weapons are merely a final arbiter - why/how can India use them if the war remains conventional? Will India agree to use nukes if PRC takes over NE and is India prepared to lose all its metros in turn? PRC can wage war conventionally and merely brandish nukes to deter us.

Look if PRC decides to attack India and occupy major part NE and we cant make a counter movement into their territory inspite of Nuclear deterrence then primarily MAD has failed to prevent a major war.

India will have no choice but to use tactical nuclear weapons on the troops of PRC at selective places near PRC border to nullify the advantage and present it with little choice , either risk full scale nuclear war in which china will have to loose exponentially far more or leave the occupied area and come to peace treaty. Not doing that would mean PRC will be bolden to move deep into India or even use Nuke to achieve its goal.

Its all about how we act/react to it then what they do , If we are docile and supplicant with 26/11 like approach of sending letters to 118 countries then not even God can help us and no one will respect us for that.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 17 Apr 2016 09:57

Vishvak please read srai' post above yours. The Rafale saga shows the inability of the political brass in to reign in the military brass (the IAF brass in this case). The IAF has a better force today even with the lower squadron strength than it did in the 90s with Mig-21s/23s and 27s either grounded due to lack of spares or flying and crashing due to defective spares. So the IAF has exploited the bogey of lower squadron strength to the fullest extent to make it appear that the sky is falling and Rafale is the only option with no plan B. Mr. Modi/Parrikar have shown their naivete in falling for this trick.

The IAF will let the LCA come in then show it the way out just like it did in the case of the Marut.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 17 Apr 2016 10:25

fanne wrote:is this a done deal?

I hope not. The Rafail will not serve India in the long run.

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 17 Apr 2016 11:22

Stuff I stumbled upon on other forums:

long day.. just reached home.. but straight to the PC to type good news...
Deal is done.. final papers exchanged..
its officially 36 flyaway
90 make in India tranche 1
Final numbers would be 300 Rafales with 100+ Rafale Ms
The original 36+18 follow on.. The follow on will be later exercised for Rafale M for Indian Navy..
Expect deal announcement soon..
The 18s was pitted very aggressively but a question was asked what besides the jet and cooperation on other projects, the answer was inconclusive.
The deal papers were exchanged in the meeting of March 29,2016.
Bankers are confirmed...
The first 36 flyaway, last batch jets will see a small job work in Indian facilities
Details of the deal and actual contours wont be released in public except limited information.
LnT is getting something very very big from French side as a part of the deal..Will straight forward go to an interesting project where 2 specific products with nuclear propulsion will simultaneously get constructed for 2 very different strategic roles.
Officially certain news will be out soon..but before that expect a flurry of anti Rafale media reports
Big folks expected soon to sign...dates will be announced soon..

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/dassault-rafa ... z4641K5Yjq

Le 14 April 2016 à 3:46 AM, Darkjmfr a dit :
They were reportedly promised PAN and SNA? it will be interesting to see where do the plans.
It's Thales who made the plans of the aircraft carrier English, with corrections DCNS ...
But it seems that it would be 6 SNA and a new generation SSBN. DCNS have a say for IAC2 but the Indians want to see if the US is able to cooperate on this.

Source: https://translate.google.co.in/translat ... page%3D419

Does any of this make sense / seem credible?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Apr 2016 11:46

^^ Dont know if its credible but the bigger deal sounds very promising also the offset obligation negotiated are military in nature and promising technology

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 17 Apr 2016 12:21

Tell me that such expensive (and one of the greatest - don't debate on this - IAF has done a detailed study for about 2 years based on 750 parameters) fighters making up 2 squadrons will be based in NE against China. None in BRF has remotely attempted/done any lungi dance since many months/years on this Rafale thing. Probably, confirmation of putting these assets in NE will make me do bit of Lungi Dance.