Manish_Sharma wrote:
Read the context:
Nirav wrote:. I see the F16 proposal being criticized on this thread.
The more we debate that, the more it becomes clear to me that almost all of that criticism is equally applicable to the LCA.
In answer to the bolded part, I wrote:
They are not applicable from angle of nationalists
All I am pointing out is that Indigenous platform like Tejas can't be weighed on the same scale as a 'foreign platform' , anyone looking from nationalist angle won't.
It's very ugly behaviour of you to insert "T' word where none was used.
On technical parameters French tanker had beaten the Boeing tanker for usaf competition. Still nationalists in USA forced govt to purchase defeated indigenous tanker.
First, USAF tanker deal being scrapped has nothing to do with 'nationalism' - even if that is the fig leaf under which it is advertised by the media. Boeing made a representation to US Government on technical matters, disputed the award criteria to EADS and got a stay from the US government.
If you've time - read this document from Government Accountability Office (GAO) of US Government on why it recommended the discussions to be re-held after listening to protest by Boeing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080625201 ... boeing.pdf
As to why Boeing won the bid in re-contest - here is what the then Chairman of EADS had to say about the Boeing bid:
Ralph Crosby, chairman of defeated rival EADS North America, termed the winning Boeing proposal "very, very, very aggressive" and "much lower than we would have gone."
EADS, the parent company of Airbus, announced Friday it will not formally protest the Pentagon's Feb. 24 decision and provided detailed bid data that shows Boeing prevailed with a bid 10 percent below that of its European rival.
Crosby asserted there's a high risk that Boeing will lose money if there are any setbacks in developing and building the 179 tankers under the fixed-price contract, and he called for "vigilant oversight" by the Pentagon to ensure Boeing keeps to its commitments.
Boeing insists that its bid is financially sound and based on improved efficiency at its Everett plant.
According to EADS, Boeing's bid of about $31.5 billion, paid over 17 years of production, was $3.6 billion less than the EADS bid. And it was fully $7 billion lower than the figure that won the previous 2008 round of the competition for EADS.
Crosby said the Air Force fairly enforced the terms of the competition, so there are no grounds for a protest.
"It's time to put the interest of the war-fighter first and we're stepping aside," Crosby said at a news conference.
So, next time you decide to use an example to further your argument, do spend few minutes researching what you're saying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now coming to your nationalistic tag because you're pushing for more LCA induction instead of one more light category fighter - Actually your position is not much different from Philip who continuously pushes for Russian fighter. Just because you've 'indigenous' tag in your argument, does not automatically make it THE right choice.
And when I refer yo you, I refer to all self proclaimed nationalists whose only claim to this fame is gunning for LCA, come what.
If that involves make creating straw-man arguments and then knocking them down or not even bothering to carry an argument to its logical conclusion, so be it. Hey! I'm gunning for a home grown product, so I get a leeway in branding people traitors and agents and call them names. And of course, moderators are sleeping the wheel and allow such nonsense to persist.
- So, an F-35 fighter pilot in USAF says F-16 is vulnerable in present battle space while F-35 is the answer, presto, F-16 Block 70 is useless. Never mind that Tejas will be vulnerable as well in the same battles-space.
- We should not get F-16 Block 70 because USAF will retire 'most' of its F-16 fleet over next 10-15 years. Never mind that 'limited' remaining numbers will be bigger than most air forces on God's earth.
- We've no clue on what permanent ASR waivers are on LCA Mk1 and how it impacts the fighters operational capability but hey, what does the IAF know! Aren't they all sold out to Russians/French/'What have you' for a few bottles of Vodka/Champagne/take you pic. Off with their heads.
- 9 out 10 posters will not be able to put together ORBAT of IAF and how this structure will evolve in future. Over next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. When will each fighter type enter/exit, how squadron strength will vary, what capability gaps will arise etc. But let us all whine about IAF not ordering 300 Tejas!
- No one has any clue on what exactly will be achieved on Tejas Mk1A beyond some oft-repeated items. Imagine, an aircraft developer by ADA will be modified by HAL and this will what lead to larger order of the a/c! This absurdity does not seem to bother people. And by God, shaving 1,000 kg for LCA in weight....this is the heights. So, people at ADA were buffoons to not know so much weight could be saved on LCA? Or is someone in HAL trying to be clever by half?
- And of course, we'll never talk about the timelines. We're only bothered about the numbers being ordered. Not about when they enter service, how they're supported and how they mature. Sure, we'll pass a comment or two on timeline slippages but don't expect more from us. After all, what can we do. If its a real world and existential problem which IAF has to grapple with, well, its their job.
- Best of them all - why does IAF even need 42 squadron strength air force!!! No, we've no bloody clue about how IAF considers future wars will shape up, its responsibilities, strength of enemy AF, emerging strengths, air defenses, range requirements, sortie rates, per sortie ordnance carrying capacity....NOTHING. But still, why does IAF need 42 Squadron strength AF. But while we're at it, we still want it to order 300 Tejas!
Most of the time nowadays, we're so ahead of the curve that we leave reason, logic and facts behind!!!
)