Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby kmkraoind » 16 Feb 2010 11:24

Lets impose a rule that to obtain a govt job or to be elected (from ward member to president) one should have at least 1 year of military experience. Probably, it will get into table some discipline and patriotism.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby arun » 16 Feb 2010 12:16

X Posted.

Xavier Marchal MD of DCNS India quoted in the Defexpo 2010 supplement carried with the Feb 16th edition of Financial Express on the Scorpene project:

"The whole pressure hull of the first submarine is now completed and all the structures are very well advanced. Construction of the second submarine started in 2008 is progressing quickly along with construction of the third and fourth submarine that already started.”

No link is available

dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby dorai » 16 Feb 2010 14:32

Saab and Samtel in cooperation on new generation Head-Up Display

Saab and Samtel Display Systems have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly develop, manufacture and market the RIGS Head-Up Display in India. RIGS is a new-generation advanced lightweight Head Up Display (HUD) designed by Saab to provide helicopters with a cost-effective display solution.

New Delhi, February 16
Samtel Display Systems (SDS), India’s leading private sector aerospace company, has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Saab to jointly develop, manufacture and market RIGS Head-Up Displays (RIGS HUD) in India. The announcement was made by Mr. Micael Johansson, Senior Vice President and Head of Saab’s business area Electronic Defence Systems, and Mr. Puneet Kaura, Executive Director, SDS today at the 6th Defexpo 2010 being held at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.

For commercial and military market
SDS is already in advanced stages of developing Head Up Displays for fighter aircraft. Subsequent to this MoU, SDS will now also be involved in the development of RIGS HUD together with Saab. SDS and Saab will jointly market RIGS in India to potential Indian customers for the Indian commercial and military airborne market. SDS will be involved in the development of RIGS electronics and software and will also develop and manufacture parts of the RIGS HUD. Initially, the parts manufactured by SDS will be for the Indian market, with the potential of serving international market in the long run. SDS may also, at a later stage, leverage its relationship with HAL for the joint marketing activities of RIGS.

“Our current goal with reference to this MoU is to help Saab serve the Indian market in the Head-Up Displays segment. But we are hopeful that through our focus on quality along with cost effectiveness this collaboration will extend to other international markets as well over the next few years,” says Mr. Puneet Kaura, Executive Director, SDS, about the collaboration.

This is the second MoU to be signed between Saab and SDS. The first MoU identifies SDS as an offset partner for Saab for the MMRCA contract in which Saab’s fighter aircraft Gripen is one of the contenders.

“India is a very important market for us and is an important cornerstone of our overall global strategy. We are very confident about SDS’ technological and manufacturing capabilities and are happy to partner with them. This collaboration marks our next step towards consolidating our position in the Indian aerospace and defense market,” said Mr Micael Johansson.

SDS and Saab are both exhibiting at Defexpo 2010. The RIGS HUD can be viewed in the Saab stand in Hall 14 (stand 14.12), and at the SAMTEL stand in Hall 18 (stand 18.19G).

About RIGS
The RIGS Head-Up Display provides pilots with information linked to flight and navigation as well as sighting, with aiming point and target reticule. It is easy to install and thus ideal for helicopters.

RIGS gives all-weather capability, ideal for flying and landing helicopters in challenging conditions, by presenting landing information and images from enhanced vision sensors enabling pilots to see through darkness, smog, smoke and various levels of snow, rain and fog. Safety is therefore enhanced via early detection of runway incursions and improved awareness of terrain during night and day operations.

RIGS consist of one or two display units, to serve one or two crew members in cockpit, and an electronics unit. The open system architecture allows customers to tailor applications to their specific needs and to upgrade the system capabilities.

Tapping on the vast experience in the development of HUD and display systems RIGS opens up endless display possibilities for users on new capabilities, increased safety and cost savings.

http://www.cisionwire.com/saab/saab-and ... up-display



Product PDF

http://products.saabgroup.com/PDBWebNew ... es&Id=8130

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby shukla » 16 Feb 2010 14:45

India in talks to acquire Javelin missiles from the US...


New Delhi/ Beijing: India is in talks with the United States to buy Raytheon's Javelin fire-and-forget missiles that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, Walter Doran, Asia president at the U.S. firm, told Reuters on Monday.



http://www.livemint.com/2010/02/1610162 ... re-in.html

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7741
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby rohitvats » 16 Feb 2010 15:08

shukla wrote:India in talks to acquire Javelin missiles from the US...


New Delhi/ Beijing: India is in talks with the United States to buy Raytheon's Javelin fire-and-forget missiles that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, Walter Doran, Asia president at the U.S. firm, told Reuters on Monday.



http://www.livemint.com/2010/02/1610162 ... re-in.html


It is high time that IA beefed up the anti-armor capability of its Infantry Units...our freinds across the border have distributed ATGM (and MANPADS) like seeds across the board.....


putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4523
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby putnanja » 17 Feb 2010 05:22

Khukri, please post a description on what the article is about instead of just posting a link. You can use the [ url ] tags to do it. You can use the url tags like this: [ url=<your url here. ] Something descriptive here[ /url ] .Remove the spaces around the brackets containing url as I have added it for illustrative purpose only.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby Brando » 17 Feb 2010 06:17

shukla wrote:India in talks to acquire Javelin missiles from the US...



The biggest problem with the Javelin is the cost! Its nearly $200,000 per missile! Its a great way to waste a couple of billion dollars but its not a great way to improve the Infantry's ATGMs capacity. Russian systems may be crude but they are MUCH cheaper and almost just as efficient at killing tanks. The Indian Army should be looking at acquiring cheaper ATGMs and producing them domestically under license rather than contemplating American systems.

American soldiers waste the Javelins by using them like RPGs to blow up small structure and kill snipers. The Indian soldier may also find himself a slave to the convenience of the Javelin and cost the Indian treasury a pretty sum.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby Craig Alpert » 17 Feb 2010 08:16

^^ What's wrong with using Nag?? Afterall they do the same thing Javelins do, albeit (nag needs a carrier Namica?? and is NOT man portable) the only advantage that Javelins offer is that they are man portable, proven design, and lighter weight..
Nag is heavier in terms of weight, has a longer range, cheaper?? but NOT man portable!!!!

darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3454
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby darshan » 17 Feb 2010 08:23

Brando wrote:American soldiers waste the Javelins by using them like RPGs to blow up small structure and kill snipers. The Indian soldier may also find himself a slave to the convenience of the Javelin and cost the Indian treasury a pretty sum.


I believe they use TOW for that purpose which is much cheaper.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby RayC » 17 Feb 2010 08:26

Sir, buy ‘flying Ferrari’ and let the public pay

he VVIP helicopters that the cabinet committee on security has decided to buy to fly the President, the Prime Minister and other notables are spacious machines that will hold private suites, business offices, a communications room and a self-contained chamber for escorts........

The AW101s have been delivered by the company for VVIP transport worldwide, including to the US. The cabin is 1.83 metres in length and nearly 2.5 metres in width. A brochure on the AW101 says “every interior is individually designed and crafted to satisfy the customer’s unique requirements. AW101 has the space to ensure VVIPs are provided with the highest levels of comfort and all the facilities expected aboard an executive aircraft….”

Besides, it will be equipped with self-defence missiles, chaffs and flares to direct attacking missiles away. The choice of the helicopters was made after evaluations by the Indian Air Force and the Special Protection Group (SPG). .....

This was a couple of hours before a Maoist-backed militia overran a police camp in Midnapore killing at least 24 jawans. A day before the inaugural of Defexpo, a suspected terrorist detonated a bomb in Pune’s German Bakery, snuffing out young lives.

That is perhaps a measure of New Delhi’s security priorities even as Antony promised that defence expenditure was set to rise proportionately with the GDP. It is not only that the expenditure on VVIP security overtakes improved management of public security.

It is also the public that foots the bill for VVIP security – at Rs 310 crore-plus the VVIP choppers are more expensive than smaller fixed wing aircraft.

Last year, US defence secretary Robert Gates cancelled a proposal to upgrade Marine One, the US Presidential helicopters. As a consequence, Barack Obama and his family continue flying Marine One helicopters that are a little outdated but at least do not attract the charge that they are making conspicuous consumption in times of recession............

Representatives of Sikorsky, which lost out to Agusta in the race for the Indian VVIP helicopter contract, allege that its S-92 Superhawks would be at least 30 per cent cheaper than the AW-101. Orsi, Agusta’s CEO counters by saying “You cannot buy a Ferrari at the cost of” an ordinary car


Obviously, the VVIP's security is more important than the common man or am admi (a resounding but apparently a hollow cry) as also the Nation's security since no other defence deal was announced by the Raksha Mantri and DEFEXPO, not even a word about the mid air refuellers for the IAF!


Al is well!

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby somnath » 17 Feb 2010 09:29

RayC wrote:Obviously, the VVIP's security is more important than the common man or am admi (a resounding but apparently a hollow cry) as also the Nation's security since no other defence deal was announced by the Raksha Mantri and DEFEXPO, not even a word about the mid air refuellers for the IAF!


It may not always be that BAD...Many a time, these "VIP purchases" are used to mask other things.. The EMbraer legacy jets for example..It is widely believed that quite a few of these jets have nothing to do with VIP transport, and a lot to do wtih ELINT..

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby khukri » 17 Feb 2010 09:59

putnanja wrote:Khukri, please post a description on what the article is about instead of just posting a link. You can use the [ url ] tags to do it. You can use the url tags like this: [ url=<your url here. ] Something descriptive here[ /url ] .Remove the spaces around the brackets containing url as I have added it for illustrative purpose only.


Noted.

ravar
BRFite
Posts: 257
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 11:30
Location: हिमालयम समारभ्य़ यावत हिन्दु सरोवरम, तम देव निर्मितम देशम हिन्दुस्थानम प्रचक्षते

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby ravar » 17 Feb 2010 10:12

Translated from http://www.mathrubhumi.com/story.php?id=83854

Image

Unmanned submarine undergoes trial at Idukki dam

Posted on : 17 Feb
Bangalore: The indigenously developed unmanned submarine has been tested successfully. The AUV (Autonomous Underwater Vehicle) -150 brought from Durgapur, West Bengal under utmost secrecy underwent the trials at the Idukki reservoir.
The vehicle has been developed by Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute (CMERI), based at Durgapur in collaboration with DRDO. It can collect information under water remotely without any crew or captain much like a remotely controlled pilotless aircraft. Built with the intent of coastal security, AUV 150 will also be used to study aquatic life and minerals and to map oceans, said Dr. S.N. Som, the head of Robotics and Automation, CMERI. IIT Gorakhpur is also collaborating in the project.
Brought in a container over land from Durgapur upto Kulamavu reservoir at Idukki , the vehicle was later taken to the middle of the reservoir on a boat. Though CMERI officials declined to comment on the exact date of the tests, they indicated that the trials were conducted in January. The current trials were that of runs in fresh water. Since Kulamavu has a centre associated with Navy and also the reservoir being very deep, the choice fell on Idukki. The vehicle is yet to undergo sea trials.
With a length of 4.8 metres and weighing 490 kgs, AUV 150 is controlled remotely from land using wireless technology. It runs on battery. Dr. Som added that it would render invaluable service to Coast Guard and Navy. The US, Russia, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea are the other nations having such submarines.


shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby shukla » 17 Feb 2010 17:57



Everyones scrambling for a piece of Indian defense pie!

Raytheon joins hands with L&T..

http://www.brahmand.com/news/LTRaytheon ... /3/13.html

& add Tata-IAI to the never ending list of tie-ups as well..

http://www.8ak.in/8ak_india_defence_new ... ogies.html


Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby Carl_T » 23 Feb 2010 04:06

Brando wrote:
The biggest problem with the Javelin is the cost! Its nearly $200,000 per missile! Its a great way to waste a couple of billion dollars but its not a great way to improve the Infantry's ATGMs capacity. Russian systems may be crude but they are MUCH cheaper and almost just as efficient at killing tanks. The Indian Army should be looking at acquiring cheaper ATGMs and producing them domestically under license rather than contemplating American systems.

American soldiers waste the Javelins by using them like RPGs to blow up small structure and kill snipers. The Indian soldier may also find himself a slave to the convenience of the Javelin and cost the Indian treasury a pretty sum.

Would it not be more efficient to use Air to ground missiles by air cover instead of $200K/ea missiles?

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby shukla » 23 Feb 2010 20:18


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby Gerard » 25 Feb 2010 06:46


Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby Juggi G » 27 Feb 2010 14:10


shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby shukla » 02 Mar 2010 07:09

Interesting developement... FM wants Defence ministry to have more autonomy to speed up procurement..

Currently, the defence minister is allowed by the Cabinet to clear projects up to Rs 200 crore without having to bring it to the Cabinet or CCS. For orders up to Rs 500 crore, the concurrence of the finance ministry is sufficient. Now, the finance ministry wants to raise the limit to Rs 1,000 crore to speed up the acquisition process by financially empowering the defence minister and giving him a larger measure of autonomy, in consultation with it.

A senior defence ministry official said: “If this proposal is accepted, it will solve the problem of delays in acquisition to a large extent.”


http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ls/387157/

I think it would be a great move..

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby arun » 03 Mar 2010 14:13

X Post.

Alcock Ashdown has launched two catamaran hulled hydrographic survey vessels for the Indian Navy. These 2 catamarans will be commissioned as INS Makar and INS Meen:

Gujarat builds 1st survey catamarans for Indian navy

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby arun » 03 Mar 2010 16:25

X Post.

Information culled from an Indian Navy hand-out. for Navy Day 2009. That would make the handout to date around Dec. 2009.

Interestingly the Arihant is not shown under the “Ships on order in India” though the Scorpene submarines are. Arihant is mentioned elsewhere in the handout though.

The nuclear submarine supposedly heading our way from Russia is not mentioned either.

SHIPS ON ORDER IN INDIA (34)

Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE) 10

- P-28 (ASW Corvette) – 04
- Fast Attack Craft (FACs) – 06

Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL) 01

- Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) – 01

Alcock Ashdown Gujarat Limited (AAGL). 06

Survey Vessels – 06

Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL) 12

- P-15A Destroyers – 03
- P-17 (Shivalik) – 03
- P-75 (Scorpene) – 06

Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL) 05

- Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) – 04
- Sail Training Ship – 01

SHIPS ON ORDER FROM ABROAD (06)

- Talwar follow-on (Russia) – 03
- Vikramaditya / Gorshkov (Russia) – 01
- Fleet Tanker (Italy) – 02


The handout which has other useful bits of information like current force levels (incl. aviation assets), inductions in 2010 and aviation acquisition plans, is available here:

SPS Naval Forces

sumshyam
BRFite
Posts: 552
Joined: 23 Sep 2009 19:30
Location: Ganga ki dharti.
Contact:

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby sumshyam » 03 Mar 2010 17:24

MOD sidelines private sector

The Ministry of Defence is poised to deliver a disheartening blow to India’s nascent private defence industry. After inviting private companies into the Rs 10,000 crore project for developing the Indian Army’s futuristic Tactical Communications System (TCS), the MoD is abandoning competitive bidding and handing over the project to a defence public sector undertaking, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). The reason cited by the MoD: secrecy.
Last edited by Gerard on 03 Mar 2010 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edited - copyright

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby arun » 10 Mar 2010 21:44

X Posted.

Craig Alpert wrote:Cabinet clears $2.34 billion INS Gorshkov deal with Russia

The Cabinet panel on security met over the controversial aircraft carrier Gorshkov deal with Russia on Wednesday and cleared an additional payment of $2.34 billiion for the aircraft carrier, rechristened INS Vikramaditya.

The deal comes on the eve of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's two-day visit to India beginning Thursday. During the visit, the two sided are likely to sign defence deals worth US $4 billion.

The Gorshkov carrier is scheduled to be delivered by 2013.

The Vikramaditya is currently undergoing repairs and refit at the Sevmash shipyard in Russia.


So the original price and delivery schedule of the Gorshkov / Vikramaditya as agreed in the Januray 20th, 2004 contract has slipped from USD 974 Million to USD 2340 Million and from August 2008 to some time in 2013.

The original price and deliver schedule is provided here:

COST AND DELIVERY SCHEDULE OF ADMIRAL GORSHKOV


Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby Juggi G » 16 Mar 2010 06:09

Big Bucks, Many Irritants
Business Standard
In the emerging field of joint aircraft development, the progress is slower than anticipated. It had been hoped that a $600 million joint venture would be set up during Putin’s visit, between India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), to develop a Medium Transport Aircraft (MTA) for the Russian and Indian Air Forces to transport 18.5 tonne payloads over 2500 kilometres. This expectation was belied, and Business Standard has learned that both sides continue to bargain hard in ongoing negotiations.

Also mired in negotiations is the proposed HAL-UAC joint venture to develop and manufacture 250 fifth-generation fighters each for the Russian and Indian Air Forces. This even after the prototype fighter, named the Sukhoi T-50 or the PAK FA, has already taken to the skies in January 2010.

Despite these initiatives, Indian officials complain bitterly that Russian officials, particularly in the important middle rung, are simply not interested in implementing Vladimir Putin’s vision of a close Russia-India relationship. Putin has recognised corporate India’s wish to invest in Russia and do business there, but little has been done to facilitate that.

“The relationship was far better during the Soviet era, because when a leader declared something, it was implemented faithfully by officials down the chain,” said a top-ranking government official. “But today, Putin’s genuine warmth is simply not translated into action.”

The unhealthy lopsidedness of the trade relationship will tilt further in Moscow’s favour after India’s purchase of nuclear reactors and supplies of nuclear fuel.

The visa regime remains a major hurdle for business.

“Getting a business visa, even for an industrial head like Ratan Tata, involves delays and all sorts of procedural requirements; and Moscow does absolutely nothing to ease that”, says a senior official in the Prime Minister’s Office. “Russian officials are focused entirely on Europe and America. They simply don’t see India as a priority.”

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7741
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 16 Mar 2010 23:10

Nothing wrong if it is across the board


We're having a circular argument here.If the GOI takes fast track decisions only in case of US puchase, what is the 'suspicious' in this? I've listed the weapon system to be brought by India from US and asked for alternate purchase options. Which are none, barring the debate on C-17.

Did not ordered before they were inducted (of course only 4 inducted, but they would have revealed their capabilities. It took hell lot of time for the reason being part of carrier deal which was in negotiation since 90s. Also, as i said, they were part of carrier deal and mind you only 4 (currently only 3) countries manufacture carrier based aircraft to this day. We all know how many country were willing to sell us carrier (even burnt second hand) in 1990 when the economic saga of this country was not thought of in the wildest dream, which was on verge of collapse, where foreign reserve sinked to the extent that it was not enough to fund 15 days purchase.


I think the timelines for the Gorshkov deal are way off the mark above. And I'm not questioning the efficacy or other wise of the MiG-29K aircraft. As you said, this was the only options available with Gorky and we went for it. And additional numbers were also signed for expanded requirement. Now that the IN has wider options, it has issued RFP for new-gen carrier borne aircraft. Will this deal be signed in the same timeframe as MiG-29K? Not unless IN says that plane X is the best options and we do not see the need for comparative trials. Take another example; if the requirement for MMRCA was felt in situation as obtained in late 80's and 90's, do you think there would have been an RFP? Or we would have settled for something like Mirage 2000-5?

So, what does this tell us? If an optimum solution (taking all factors into account) is available wth only single vendor, the deals happen that much quickly.

It is because of their own track of dealing with us and our rivals and even their close ally


What is suspicious about the deal in the above argument? The future behaviour of USA might well be suspect but where is the conspiracy in awarding the deal to US Companies? The way above argument is made, it seems to imply that GOI is circumveting some rules and regulation and advancing favors to the US firms in purchase of the equipment.

Agreed, hopefully they are delivered as they are promised to be and not some dumb sub standard equipment (reference radar of F 18)


While i'm no expert on things related to above argument, please do enlighten me on what exactly will be the "dumb" form of F/A-18 SH radar as compared to the ones in USN Service and how does the same compare with other competitors in service.

pegasus can cover some distance on its own, a crucial requirement to avoid counter fire. The difference in weight is most attributable to this feature which is absent in M777


And I've already covered the point of APU and weight penalty it places on the Pegasus ULH. So the trade-off, mobility of gun as underslung load versus APU, is best left to IA to decide. And while one has still develop means to counter the Counter Battery Fire (CBF) - we did that in Kargil, one cannot do anything about the excess weight of the gun.

As for the attack helo RFP, the reason Bell and Boeing did not participate was the initial insistence that helos be bought directly through Company while the same were availale through FMS Route. Which MOD accepted and the fresh RFP got issued. Also, Bell withdrew as the AH-1Z was in trials with US Marine Corps and not available for trials.

And I would want to trial AH-64 and AH-1Z in case I intend to purchase a good attack-helo.

As fo the LUH Tender, it is our own apples which were rotten. Something to do with EADS entering the competition with civilian version of their contender and IA certifying the same. A small matter cropped up later which showed that the person in IA evaluating the EADS Chopper and deal was the brother of EADS Rep. in India.

Every arms manufacturer will try his best to influence deals; it is just that some are more successful.

Which is more important currently? C 17 or A 330 MRTT? We have required air lift capability as of now.


You're getting into serious speculation territory unless you can back up above argument with some hard numbers. Let the IAF be the decision maker with respect to their requirement.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Sanku » 16 Mar 2010 23:36

rohitvats wrote:You're getting into serious speculation territory unless you can back up above argument with some hard numbers. Let the IAF be the decision maker with respect to their requirement.


Does IAF decide really? Shouldn't the additional Mirage 2000s be already a part of the fleet then? Say about 5 years back?

Also barring the reasons that the MoD has trotted out to go out of its way to include US equipment; the fact remains -- MoD has been exceptionally lenient towards US in cases even when it was clear that US equipment was by no means the only option (say like Gorky et al) -- this at the risk of massively delaying purchases.

On the other hand all Russian exceptions, were the fastest route available, but in case of US helos for example the ostensible reason given (that there exists some relationship between two individuals in IA and EADS ) has only delayed the procurement further.

At least with C 17, it may be a overpriced ill suited piece of gold covered shindig for us, it is coming soon, and that is all I care about frankly (lot of money is anyway wasted, whats some more) but in case of Helo's criminal delay in acquisition has been made just to include US convenience; and no it is not clear at all that the decision is that of the forces, in fact it is clear that the decision is forced on the forces.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby nachiket » 16 Mar 2010 23:40

Sanku wrote:On the other hand all Russian exceptions, were the fastest route available, but in case of US helos for example the ostensible reason given (that there exists some relationship between two individuals in IA and EADS ) has only delayed the procurement further.


That was not the reason given. The reason was as rohit said, that EADS brought the civilian version of their helicopter for trials which violated the RFP. The version wich is going to be acquired has to be the version brought for the trials. The link between the individuals was found later on.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby nrshah » 17 Mar 2010 11:50

If the GOI takes fast track decisions only in case of US puchase, what is the 'suspicious' in this?


When we are black listing every damn company when found of guilty, why LM is still in the race after finding that it got the confidential file of MOD? Suspicious or is it not?

I've listed the weapon system to be brought by India from US and asked for alternate purchase options. Which are none, barring the debate on C-17.


Options were available for M777 and P8I as well... In case of P 8I, it was navy to decide it was better than competitors... But in M 777, in spite of request by Cheif of army staff expressing his concern over black listing ST and other companies, we did not think it necessary to re consider the case.

If an optimum solution (taking all factors into account) is available wth only single vendor, the deals happen that much quickly.

Which hardly is the case.. So we should continue all this Rfp, negotiation and all drama till eternity? We are questioning our own selection process.... just 2 days back VVIP helicopter deal was cleared, estimated cost is 65 mn USD.... and we back of crucial requirement of refulers saying cost??
he way above argument is made, it seems to imply that GOI is circumveting some rules and regulation and advancing favors to the US firms in purchase of the equipment.

Same as first with additional example of bell and LUH competition
While i'm no expert on things related to above argument, please do enlighten me on what exactly will be the "dumb" form of F/A-18 SH radar as compared to the ones in USN Service and how does the same compare with other competitors in service.

That depends upon the whims and fancies of the US Congress and Mr President...tomorrow after another mumbai blasts if we go active on western front, we might even not get it... And if you claim no difference, i wander what is export version....

Compared to others no body have it right now but when available it will be the best of what they have and most importantly free of any bugs/ trojans etc....

Also, Bell withdrew as the AH-1Z was in trials with US Marine Corps and not available for trials.

Didn't bell knew it will be in trials with USMC and it will not be able to participate, than what the was point in delaying the rfp?

You're getting into serious speculation territory unless you can back up above argument with some hard numbers. Let the IAF be the decision maker with respect to their requirement.
Look it is not the requirement, i am questioning. I am concerned with price factor... Refuelers are rejected for price, but we are ready to buy costly transporters without even comparing the options as your rightly said when available...

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

subject: Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Develop

Postby nrshah » 17 Mar 2010 15:43

nachiket wrote:That was not the reason given. The reason was as rohit said, that EADS brought the civilian version of their helicopter for trials which violated the RFP. The version wich is going to be acquired has to be the version brought for the trials. The link between the individuals was found later on.


Going by same, MMRCA is already decided - either F 16 or F 18? Gripen NG has not come for trials, Similarly, Mig 35 was not present... Rafale and tiffy does not have working AESA

So why waste time when we are set on a road map to loose numerical superiority against even PAF (thanks to fishbeds that has arrested the situation inspite of being cursed like anything).. Just start negotiation and finalize one of them

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: subject: Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Develop

Postby nachiket » 18 Mar 2010 00:30

nrshah wrote:
nachiket wrote:That was not the reason given. The reason was as rohit said, that EADS brought the civilian version of their helicopter for trials which violated the RFP. The version wich is going to be acquired has to be the version brought for the trials. The link between the individuals was found later on.


Going by same, MMRCA is already decided - either F 16 or F 18? Gripen NG has not come for trials, Similarly, Mig 35 was not present... Rafale and tiffy does not have working AESA

So why waste time when we are set on a road map to loose numerical superiority against even PAF (thanks to fishbeds that has arrested the situation inspite of being cursed like anything).. Just start negotiation and finalize one of them


I don't know if the same condition is included in the MRCA RFP. If it is then yes, whichever contender does not adhere to it may be disqualified.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby VinodTK » 18 Mar 2010 05:48

'75% of our defence equipment is redundant'

At a time when the nation should be bracing for war on a ‘minimum’ of two fronts, 75 per cent of the military hardware available to the Indian armed forces is redundant, believes Bharat Verma, editor of Indian Defence Review.

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby Carl_T » 18 Mar 2010 09:06

Man, do people have anything good to say about our military?!

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7741
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby rohitvats » 18 Mar 2010 09:46

Carl_T wrote:Man, do people have anything good to say about our military?!


To quote General S.R.Chowdhary (not verbatim) from his book, "Officialy at Peace" on the state of Indian Army: "Indian Army in 1997 was not in position to repeat 1971". This, oufcourse, came after the disastorous decade of late 80's-90's.....A good barometer of where we stand is to analyze the changes (qualitative and quantitative) in the Indian Armed Forces setup.....A decade imo is ver short a period to bring about drastic changes in an organization as big as the Indian Army. The lackadaisical attitude of MOD and babucracy does not help the matter at all......Just as a minder, Army Plan 2000, envisaged by General Sundarji, planned for 4 Armored+7 Mechanized+4 RAPID+19 Infantry Divisions...Where are we wrt Mechanization?

ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby ASPuar » 18 Mar 2010 10:46

General Sundarji was an outspoken person, with (VERY) little time for bureaucrats, and pandering to their egos. Once, when Deshmukh, the Cabinet Secretary starting questioning him in a cabinet meeting, he point blank told him "Civil Servants need not concern themselves with these matters. This is a matter for cabinet deliberation".

As such, many of his plans were scuttled by bureaucrats out to make him look bad. Especially after Brass Tacks.

yossarian
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 07 Jun 2009 06:52

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby yossarian » 19 Mar 2010 15:21

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=12547

Based on this article, Russia's exports are more to China than to us (35% as opposed to 24%).

On BR, we have seen a hue and cry about the French, German, US etc supplying to both warring sides (w.r.t TSP). With our huge defence deals with Russia, why arent similar concerns raised? Is there something I am missing or since we are dealing with them for 50 years and so is China we just say 'Thats the way it is'?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

Postby Surya » 19 Mar 2010 15:26

Is there something I am missing


a deep emotional love which you and moi cannot see :mrgreen:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rajsunder, Rakesh and 45 guests