IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

[Karan M]

Almost any engine will smoke at low altitudes when you are constantly tinkering with the throttle as would be the case in a display. The problem with the older migs were that they smoked all the time, even at a decent altitude and level flight.

there is smoking and then there is smoking. the klimov smokeless engine seems to be like a beedi smoker saying he is now smokeless since he moved to TFTA kings after a wills navy cut era.

[Austin]

India may not buy Rafale: French official

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2016/03/i ... icial.html

Qtiyapa ki had...

Underlining the irritation at repeated US offers to set up an assembly line in India to build the American F-16 Super Viper, the French official taunted: “If you don’t want the Rafale, go ahead and build the F-16 here. You can build it in India and supply it to Pakistan also.”

He was referring to Washington’s announcement last month of the sale to Pakistan of eight advanced Block 50/52 F-16 fighters for $699 million. Simultaneously, a senior Lockheed Martin official had publicly offered to “move our [F-16] production line from the US to India.”

Reminded that France too was supplying submarines to both India and Pakistan (DCNS is building six Scorpenes submarines with Mazagon Dock, after earlier selling Pakistan three advanced Agosta-90B submarines with air independent propulsion), he retorted, “That is different. Pakistan is getting a different submarine from what we are providing to India.”

So, India can get F-18s per this French official.
Better still, 75 F-35s which will anyday be better than equivalent number of Rafales..

If we have do chamchagiri, best ask for the best munna toys.

Could just be lifafa giri , quoting unnamed sources to get its point ........how many times in this decade long MMRCA news have we seen unnamed sources from IAF or other party claiming one thing or the other

[Karan M]

If you recall, even a French poster here was sanctimoniously claiming US and Russia supply TSP and Cheen only. We are different. When shown multiple reports of French doing the same, he got huffed up.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uDmln3KYjgM/ ... ironic.jpg

[Karan M]

^^^ KaranM, the best aircraft for the MMRCA needs remains Su 30. Unfortunately, that is not in favour among the decision makers. JMT.

completely agree. if we get serviceability up and fix any small/other issues with some of those jets, we have the equivalent of a MMRCA purchase right there without breaking the capex.

[Austin]

If you recall, even a French poster here was sanctimoniously claiming US and Russia supply TSP and Cheen only. We are different. When shown multiple reports of French doing the same, he got huffed up.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uDmln3KYjgM/ ... ironic.jpg

I am opinion to either go full fledge for Rafale 36 + 90 Locall built so that we dont end up making the same mistakes like M2K or just get out of the deal and then see what Plan B can be

[Karan M]

At this rate, your childrens children will be debating F-35 or Neuron. So don't worry have curry (meanwhile lets track Su-30 serviceability).

[srai]

MRCA is dead!

Illigimate offspring of MRCA is also in its deathbed!

The longer this sideshow goes on it continues to paralyze the IAF/GoI from alternatives. Time to execute options--use that money to buy more of existing types in service, force multipliers and PGMs as well as pay for fleet upgrades. Increase the potency of a smaller force while waiting for growth in quantities.

[Karan M]

^^ Just put a fraction of the funding into DRDO/Pvt industry for PGMs and Su-30 spares. The MRCA circus seems to have just been a manifestation of flawed program from the word go.

[arunsrinivasan]

By ignoring cost in the initial selection, we shot ourselves in the foot. I think it is high time we kill Rafale & look for a Plan B

[maitya]

^^^ KaranM, the best aircraft for the MMRCA needs remains Su 30. Unfortunately, that is not in favour among the decision makers. JMT.

Unfortunately IAF doesn't agree with you ... otherwise why on earth would they limit the MTOW basic requirement to 30T effectively excluding it (remember the original intended platform was a 18T one).
And then you had, legions of ex-IAF AM, AVMs etc went to town about how effective and professional their technical evaluation against those MRCA requirements were.
(if fact, most would agree to the "level of evaluation" claim bit - atleast I do. As long as it seen in complete isolation wrt the veracity of the requirements against which the evaluation is being done in the first place).

If you are now saying that Su-30 class would have been the best platform for addressing those requirements, then it puts a severe question mark on the veracity of that very requirement-specification exercise itself.

I think, we simply can't afford the platform that'd meet those requirements - so either we dilute those a bit (e.g. high altitude TO max weight, twin engine etc) and fit a platform that we can afford or we stick to those requirements and go with a smaller number.

Looks like the second option is not working, so we are back to F-18 etc which is essentially the first option.

Betw F-16 example, was a nice canard spread by the French gent (as was that laughable analogy of "Strategic Partnership" etc talk).
Not sure why shuklaji didn't ask him about the nice bait-and switch game they played by quoting a ridiculously low value to effectively eliminate the other contenders at the L1 down-select stage - most notably the EF (it wouldn't have been any cheaper, but hey who knows what we could have got as a part of that negotiation etc).

What a mess!!

[ramana]

KaranM and deejay, I think F-16 and f-18 talks will stretch interminably.
New build F-16 supply line is on IV.
F-18 will reach there in two more years.

Reason is that will kill off massa cheaper airplane supply line.

They will have to gift/'sell' F35s to Pak in future.

[brar_w]

As the F-35 ramps up, and the F-16 and F-18 draw down the cost difference will get lower and lower. There is really no strategic incentive for the Pentagon to keep the F-16 line open hence LMA is doing it on their own for the short term. Once the Navy buys the breathing room in its fleet which probably means about 2 production blocks (maybe 3) of F-18E/F and EA18G they will also abandon the Super Hornet production line since there investment would then focus on ramping up the F-35C, and moving ahead with the Navy NGAD effort. For Boeing, they would possibly retain the site if the win the T-X competition where they are the favorites. Lockheed will also be happy to eventually absorb its fort-worth work force as the F-35 line ramps up by 2019-20.

[Karan M]

Maitya, the reason for MMRCA was to hedge against Su-30 and basically compensate for lack of serviceability, we can make it out via multiple off the record interviews and status of Su-30 fleet in years past. Easy way out as versus invest in HAL and fix shortcomings by getting Russians to the table from IAF perspective. Short sighted thinking redux pushed and abetted by MOD and of course the omnipresent UPA specialty (we know what) since it ignored the fact that spending so much on MMRCA would never allow Su-30 to be given due attention.

[GeorgeWelch]

Maitya, the reason for MMRCA was to hedge against Su-30 and basically compensate for lack of serviceability

I thought it was to get access to Western technology, decrease reliance on Russia and boost falling squadron numbers

[chetak]

Almost any engine will smoke at low altitudes when you are constantly tinkering with the throttle as would be the case in a display. The problem with the older migs were that they smoked all the time, even at a decent altitude and level flight.

most russian engines did, almost as if they were burning coal.

The damned things were visible from many many miles out

[Karan M]

The access to western technology was/is a figleaf. MMRCA TOT level was at 60% with 50% offset - it wouldn't even match Su-30 (at 73% as of last year). The decrease reliance on Russia was plain & simple tied to serviceability issues, which are now getting resolved because the current DM has sanity. Falling squadron numbers could have been addressed by a variety of means, the MMRCA alone was not the only answer.

[chetak]

Maitya, the reason for MMRCA was to hedge against Su-30 and basically compensate for lack of serviceability

I thought it was to get access to Western technology, decrease reliance on Russia and boost falling squadron numbers

that way also be dragons, no??

sort of like from the frying pan and into the fire.

[GeorgeWelch]

The access to western technology was/is a figleaf. MMRCA TOT level was at 60% with 50% offset - it wouldn't even match Su-30 (at 73% as of last year).

But the west had different tech that you couldn't get from Russia.

The decrease reliance on Russia was plain & simple tied to serviceability issues, which are now getting resolved because the current DM has sanity.

That was certainly part of it, but that's not all of it. Frankly China is more important to Russia than India is, and in a conflict between China and India, Russia's response isn't clear. It would be prudent to hedge your bets.

Falling squadron numbers could have been addressed by a variety of means, the MMRCA alone was not the only answer.

It was never intended to be the only answer, it was supposed to work in concert with the LCA now and the FGFA and MCA in the future.

[srai]

KaranM and deejay, I think F-16 and f-18 talks will stretch interminably.
New build F-16 supply line is on IV.
F-18 will reach there in two more years.

Reason is that will kill off massa cheaper airplane supply line.

They will have to gift/'sell' F35s to Pak in future.

US will have plenty of F-16s in their boneyard to continue the act of "gifting".

[Kakkaji]

I think that in a direct air-to-air combat, the F-16 will beat the F-18.

So, if India goes with the F-18, it will not be used against the Pakis, but will be useful against China. But first it has to be made capable of taking off from high-altitude airfields like Leh.

The IAF MMRCA selection process was like me test driving Ferrari along with Toyota and Honda when going out to buy a car. Of course the Ferrari will be technically the best, but I will have to sell my house to buy it.

[Cain Marko]

The 40 MKI deal is on the anvil, and with Parrikar around, I think this will go through. Rafale will get chai-biskoot treatment forever. Instead, the F-18 Advanced version is a possibility - there are too many synergies with this bird vs the Rafale. A LOT depends on how quickly the LCA production gets going.

JMT

[Cosmo_R]

The access to western technology was/is a figleaf. MMRCA TOT level was at 60% with 50% offset - it wouldn't even match Su-30 (at 73% as of last year). The decrease reliance on Russia was plain & simple tied to serviceability issues, which are now getting resolved because the current DM has sanity. Falling squadron numbers could have been addressed by a variety of means, the MMRCA alone was not the only answer.

What exactly can we do with the 73% ToT on the SU-30? Can we build a derivative of the airframe to make it more stealthy like the Silent Eagle? Can we fit our own AESA? Can we tinker with the engine to make it more fuel efficient/increase the MTBO/ increase power? etc. etc. Anything really meaningful? I don't know just asking.

I am not focusing on a US vs. Russian thingie here. My point is that ALL access to ALL foreign tech is a fig leaf. The MMRCA was always a gap filler. The length of the gap being equal to the time it takes us to build our own from scratch. With a lot of wheezing, pushing and shoving we'll get the LCA out the door in some numbers by 2020. The AMCA will not show up until after 2025 or later. The FGFA will be an off the shelf purchase after much negotiation like the MMRCA until we discover each plane costs $500 million customized to to our specs (hot high humid bad roads narrow bridges) and we then buy 36 (at $800 mm a pop).

We are buyers. To get the best deal we must buy what is in the showroom because that is what the seller has a long production run on to pass on some savings. Special orders cost more and take time and allow the seller to run rings around us.

This ToT thing has been around since the 1970s when it was all about "localizing R&D" in exchange for access to the Indian market. Didn't work.

[Cosmo_R]

I think that in a direct air-to-air combat, the F-16 will beat the F-18.

...

I think in any form of direct combat A2A, A2G, G2G, desk to desk, the babus, MoD and HAL will beat the crap out of the IAF

[Kakkaji]

I think that in a direct air-to-air combat, the F-16 will beat the F-18.

...

I think in any form of direct combat A2A, A2G, G2G, desk to desk, the babus, MoD and HAL will beat the crap out of the IAF

I hope they similarly beat the crap out of the PAF. We won't need the IAF then.

[Cosmo_R]

....



I hope they similarly beat the crap out of the PAF. We won't need the IAF then.

The sequence is beat the crap out of us and then get to work on the PAF

[shiv]

I think that in a direct air-to-air combat, the F-16 will beat the F-18.

So, if India goes with the F-18, it will not be used against the Pakis, but will be useful against China. But first it has to be made capable of taking off from high-altitude airfields like Leh.

The IAF MMRCA selection process was like me test driving Ferrari along with Toyota and Honda when going out to buy a car. Of course the Ferrari will be technically the best, but I will have to sell my house to buy it.

The F-16A was nimble and agile. The F-16 E/F with conformal tanks is an ugly beast nowhere near the F-16A Two different aircraft

Once again I must question this naive idea that wars are fought like boxing matches where feather weight will not go against bantam weight etc. Using the logic that F-18 "will not be used against Pak" we should not attack Pakistan at all because Jags will all get shot down. Maybe that is why we refuse to fight Pak, SDRE cowards

I don't know why people imagine that an attacking enemy plane model is first identified and then another "more capable" fighter is sent. Someone please explain why people imagine this to be the case

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>I don't know why people imagine that an attacking enemy plane model is first identified and then another "more capable" fighter is sent. Someone please explain why people imagine this to be the case

Because that is the extent of logic and reasoning which people want to apply! Making effort to understand the brass tacks with some research is too much of an effort...such quotes and line of argument is easy.

[Karan M]

What exactly can we do with the 73% ToT on the SU-30? Can we build a derivative of the airframe to make it more stealthy like the Silent Eagle? Can we fit our own AESA? Can we tinker with the engine to make it more fuel efficient/increase the MTBO/ increase power? etc. etc. Anything really meaningful? I don't know just asking.

You can ensure that for that 73% you are no longer dependent on the suppliers apron strings, if you play your cards right. That's the primary purpose of TOT.
Second, we have integrated the following items on the Su-30 MKI on our own.

Astra on the Su-30 MKI (we are pleading with the French for the Rafale).
Siva pod for ARMs
Griffin LGB
RWR (didn't work out yet)
Brahmos-A (at least the structural part, flight tests remain)
On the future list:
NGARM
PGMs etc.

I am not focusing on a US vs. Russian thingie here. My point is that ALL access to ALL foreign tech is a fig leaf. The MMRCA was always a gap filler. The length of the gap being equal to the time it takes us to build our own from scratch. With a lot of wheezing, pushing and shoving we'll get the LCA out the door in some numbers by 2020. The AMCA will not show up until after 2025 or later. The FGFA will be an off the shelf purchase after much negotiation like the MMRCA until we discover each plane costs $500 million customized to to our specs (hot high humid bad roads narrow bridges) and we then buy 36 (at $800 mm a pop).

Disagree with the point in bold because "access to foreign tech" here is all about local maintainability (IMO, first and foremost) and then follow on derivatives really don;t come out because of licensing issues.

Regarding a gap filler - don't think so. The IAF regarded it as its core strategy, public claims apart and it did start as a Mirage 2000-V purchase.

We are buyers. To get the best deal we must buy what is in the showroom because that is what the seller has a long production run on to pass on some savings. Special orders cost more and take time and allow the seller to run rings around us.

Agree here. This is solid common sense.

This ToT thing has been around since the 1970s when it was all about "localizing R&D" in exchange for access to the Indian market. Didn't work.

TOT has worked to a degree, lets not dismiss its importance for specific attributes.

We would not be flying Jaguars and MiGs today (especially MiG-21s and 27s for so long) without TOT and local spares.

[Karan M]

But the west had different tech that you couldn't get from Russia.

There is no magic tech we can get from anywhere we can incorporate into our own platforms. So its a non sequitur. At the end of the day, whatever we make will have to be incubated locally. No Rafale gizmos will make the AMCA come faster. By the time HAL even absorbs Rafale or F-18 or wutever, the local programs will have to do their own thing.. plus license issues, tech restrictions.

That was certainly part of it, but that's not all of it. Frankly China is more important to Russia than India is, and in a conflict between China and India, Russia's response isn't clear. It would be prudent to hedge your bets.

Russia will supply both India and China and make hay while the sun shines. Same as every other nation does. BTW India has specific guarantees with Russia about technology access, and parliamentary guarantees reinforce that. China would have the same for its S-400 variants etc.

It was never intended to be the only answer, it was supposed to work in concert with the LCA now and the FGFA and MCA in the future.

But the IAF pretty much counted on it to be the only answer

[Karan M]

I think that in a direct air-to-air combat, the F-16 will beat the F-18.

So, if India goes with the F-18, it will not be used against the Pakis, but will be useful against China. But first it has to be made capable of taking off from high-altitude airfields like Leh.

The IAF MMRCA selection process was like me test driving Ferrari along with Toyota and Honda when going out to buy a car. Of course the Ferrari will be technically the best, but I will have to sell my house to buy it.

Not that straightforward..
All depends on what weapons come with the F-18.
If you get Aim-9X and AMRAAM-D, then your F-18 will have an edge over their F-16. Avionics wise, the F-18 packs more volume than the F-16 and hence the AN/APG-79 is ahead.

Of course Unkil might well pull enough strings so Burger King does not take on McD in the air.

http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.in/2009 ... force.html

F-16 CAPs could not have been flown all day long as spares support was limited under the prevailing US sanctions. Random CAPs were resorted to, with a noticeable drop in border violations only as long as the F-16s were on station. There were a few cases of F-16s and Mirage-2000s locking their adversaries with the on-board radars but caution usually prevailed and no close encounters took place. After one week of CAPs, the F-16 maintenance personnel indicated that war reserve spares were being eaten into and that the activity had to be ‘rationalised’, a euphemism for discontinuing it altogether. That an impending war occupied the Air Staff’s minds was evident in the decision by the DCAS (Ops) for F-16 CAPs to be discontinued, unless IAF activity became unbearably provocative or threatening.

[Austin]

At this rate, your childrens children will be debating F-35 or Neuron. So don't worry have curry (meanwhile lets track Su-30 serviceability).

To current GOI credit it has not really cleared big ticket item which needs to be imported and are new types , Only existing types which are in service were given green light and indiginious system received lot of attention and orders.

GOI seems to be in no hurry to clear new deals , Rafale may take the spot light but think of the many that are in negotiations for years , even deal of lesser value like Jag Engine Upgrade or DRDO-JV like Maitri program are stuck , only LUH Ka-226 seems to have got the green light recently

[Karan M]

I think their focus is on serviceability and WWRs ...

[GeorgeWelch]

But the west had different tech that you couldn't get from Russia.

There is no magic tech we can get from anywhere we can incorporate into our own platforms. So its a non sequitur.

Of course, you are right, Russia tech is the absolute best in every single area.

That was certainly part of it, but that's not all of it. Frankly China is more important to Russia than India is, and in a conflict between China and India, Russia's response isn't clear. It would be prudent to hedge your bets.

Russia will supply both India and China and make hay while the sun shines.

That is your hope. China might have a different hope. If Russia decided not to supply either side, who would that hurt more?

BTW India has specific guarantees with Russia about technology access, and parliamentary guarantees reinforce that.

What are those guarantees worth in the middle of a war and you're burning through your reserves and urgently need more parts to keep your fighters flying?

It was never intended to be the only answer, it was supposed to work in concert with the LCA now and the FGFA and MCA in the future.

But the IAF pretty much counted on it to be the only answer

Incorrect, they always talked about it as part of the solution with the LCA and FGFA.

[Karan M]

There is no magic tech we can get from anywhere we can incorporate into our own platforms. So its a non sequitur.

Of course, you are right, Russia tech is the absolute best in every single area.

What are you babbling about? You seem to lack any ability to read even basic statements. Fact, Russian or western tech - tech absorption takes far too much time to leverage locally. Go read up sometime if you can't even understand this.

That is your hope. China might have a different hope. If Russia decided not to supply either side, who would that hurt more?

India has parliamentary guarantees from Russia. I'll take that over some random chap on the net. Thanks much.

What are those guarantees worth in the middle of a war and you're burning through your reserves and urgently need more parts to keep your fighters flying?

Worth far more than some chaps claims on the net.

Incorrect, they always talked about it as part of the solution with the LCA and FGFA.

[/quote]

You know diddly squat about the IAF. So not taking your posturing as anything relevant.

[GeorgeWelch]

What are you babbling about? You seem to lack any ability to read even basic statements. Fact, Russian or western tech - tech absorption takes far too much time to leverage locally. Go read up sometime if you can't even understand this.

The question is: what was the purpose of the MRCA?

And from the beginning everyone mentioned 'access to western tech'. You may not agree with their reason, but it does not change the fact that that was one reason given for the MRCA project.

India has parliamentary guarantees from Russia. I'll take that over some random chap on the net. Thanks much.

If you let your national security depend on a 'guarantee' from another nation you are a fool.

Obviously the best way is to have true independence and be able to make everything yourself. And India is working in that direction, but they aren't there yet.

If you can't be truly independent, the second best method is to spread the risk around so your entire force isn't dependent on a single point of failure, especially one that is so closely tied to your largest potential enemy.

What are those guarantees worth in the middle of a war and you're burning through your reserves and urgently need more parts to keep your fighters flying?

Worth far more than some chaps claims on the net.

I am not 'claiming' anything. I am pointing out the basic truth that supplier diversity is important.

Incorrect, they always talked about it as part of the solution with the LCA and FGFA.

You know diddly squat about the IAF. So not taking your posturing as anything relevant.

Why was it called 'M'MRCA? That first 'M' stands for 'Medium', implying there was also a 'Light' (LCA) and a 'Heavy' (MKI/FGFA).

The assumption is built right into the name of the project.

[Kakkaji]

Once again I must question this naive idea that wars are fought like boxing matches where feather weight will not go against bantam weight etc. Using the logic that F-18 "will not be used against Pak" we should not attack Pakistan at all because Jags will all get shot down. Maybe that is why we refuse to fight Pak, SDRE cowards

I don't know why people imagine that an attacking enemy plane model is first identified and then another "more capable" fighter is sent. Someone please explain why people imagine this to be the case

Hakeem Saheb:

What I meant was that if India buys any US fighters, they will not even be based on the western borders facing Pakistan. They will be based on the airfields where they will be part of the order of battle against China. So the question of determining attacking enemy aircraft models and then sending appropriate aircraft will not arise in this case.

In case of war between India and Pakistan, the US will most likely impose sanctions on both, to appear even-handed. So, any F-18/ F-16 in IAF inventory will not be of much use against Pakistan.

[Viv S]

What I meant was that if India buys any US fighters, they will not even be based on the western borders facing Pakistan. They will be based on the airfields where they will be part of the order of battle against China. So the question of determining attacking enemy aircraft models and then sending appropriate aircraft will not arise in this case.

In case of war between India and Pakistan, the US will most likely impose sanctions on both, to appear even-handed.

Unless it interferes with US ops in Afghanistan (taking out the Karachi port will cutoff ISAF's primary supply route), the US isn't going to involve itself in a conventional subcontinental war beyond predictable exhortations for peace (similar to the EU & Japan). And the withdrawal from Afghanistan will not conclude for at least another three years.

The US' post-1991 status as a 'hyper-power'/'global-cop' is coming to a close, to be replaced by a more traditional superpower rivalry (versus China informally partnered by Russia).

So, any F-18/ F-16 in IAF inventory will not be of much use against Pakistan.

We'd have been fortunate if that were the case - since the corollary would be that PAF's fleet of F-16s would be useless against us. Which is obviously not the case.

We intend to use everything in our inventory against Pakistan, if and when the balloon goes up, including AH-64Es armed with Hellfires & Sidewinders and P-8Is armed with Harpoons & Mk.54 torpedoes.

[Philip]

Having a major weapon system that is of US would cripple us in any conflict if sanctions were imposed,as was done after P-2. In an Indo-Pak scenario,sanctions would be applied to both nations.This is exactly what the US wants,the ability to cripple both India and Pak's mil capabilities,both being N-weapon powers. It would be an enormous risk to have a US aircraft in large numbers in frontline service .Why I've kept insisting for a EJ powered TVC engine for the LCA to be developed simultaneously .

[Viv S]

Having a major weapon system that is of US would cripple us in any conflict if sanctions were imposed,as was done after P-2. In an Indo-Pak scenario,sanctions would be applied to both nations.This is exactly what the US wants,the ability to cripple both India and Pak's mil capabilities,both being N-weapon powers.

Nonsense. 12 years of continuing sanctions didn't 'cripple' the PAF's F-16 fleet (which had a better serviceability record than our MiG-29s throughout the 90s). A new round of sanctions will have a negligible effect on military capabilities over the short term. Nor will it make any difference to the two nation's nuclear capability, which will remain unchanged. In any event, given how the NSG exception was bulldozed through for India, its pretty much accepted as a defacto nuclear power.

It would be an enormous risk to have a US aircraft in large numbers in frontline service .Why I've kept insisting for a EJ powered TVC engine for the LCA to be developed simultaneously .

12 P-8Is are already going to form the first line i.e 'frontline' of defence against PN/PLAN submarines. The MEA, MoD, & IAF/IN have a pretty good idea about what reaction to expect from the US (& Russia, France, Japan, EU) in the event of a conflict with Pakistan and/or China.

[vishvak]

its pretty much accepted as a defacto nuclear power

The entire NSG thing was a drama to keep India out in the first place, formed as a response to Pokhran-I Smiling Budhdha nuke tests.

Logic fails there in the first place. The power is about discrimination more/less, and not right/wrong.

So there is no point spending humongous monies to buy arms first and then rely on de-facto status as decided during war times by alphabet soup treaties and bean counters in foreign countries.

All this while Pakis get F-16s, air-to-air missiles, anti-ship missiles to fight Taliban. There is no logic there either. No point in participating anymore than transnational basis or bother about what can be deployed where depending upon foreign constraints.