VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jan 2020 21:46

How can the program be structured exactly the way MMRCA 1.0 was structured? That would make no sense. If 1.0 was unaffordable, 2.0 would also be unaffordable. So unless the babus at the MOD have no idea of what they are doing, they would have made some pretty significant alterations for affordability reasons alone.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Jan 2020 04:57

And now we have RB006 up in the air too.

RB006 at Bordeaux Mérignac. Roundel once again back to being behind the canard.

pic credit in the image itself

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Jan 2020 05:16

brar_w wrote:I wouldn't be so sure on cost because there is cost much beyond that of just the aircraft and its immediate sub-systems. How much did the MOD spend on the Rafale's India specific mods? How much in terms of money and time will a similar effort cost on other competitors? That is an unknown but it is reasonable to assume that it will cost around the same (at least). Dassault knows this and it also knows that the Life Cycle cost and support is to its advantage as well (one fleet vs a fragmented fleet) so it is incentivized to negotiate harder than it did with the original deal. It knows that it is in a very comfortable position on many fronts.

That's correct. the 36 Rafale deal already included costs for simulators, ground handling and testing equipment, mission planning and debriefing equipment and software, the spares, etc. Basically enough has been bought to ensure that commonality between those things already paid for will keep those costs lower on the new batch of 114. As for those India Specific Enhancements, some competitors may not need all of them to be developed, but all of them would require some level of ISE customization. Those ISE costs would also benefit the Rafale, since it has already been spent.

Basically Rafale would be more cost competitive in MRCA 2.0 than it was in MRCA 1.0.

Question is- will costs even figure in the evaluation? Or will it be like MRCA 1.0 where the sticker shock came very very late in the game, after the first and second contenders were already decided and it was too late to do anything about it?

Or will they be more pragmatic and say that choose top 4 (and eliminate the bottom 3) in the first round and in the next round take into account the financial aspects and provide weightage for each aspect- ability to meet IAF requirements (say 50%), offsets (say 20%) and cost (say 30%). If they ask all the contenders to provide costing and offsets data up front, it'll take the IAF and MoD 2-3 years to sift through all that data and figure out which top 2 or 3 to take to the last round of discussions.

As of now, it is really not clear as to what the MRCA 2.0 process will be. But as you rightly pointed out, if MRCA 1.0 was unaffordable, so will MRCA 2.0 unless something changes. And only thing that can change is the Strategic Partner mandate, the offsets obligations, the % of ToT required and taking into account the Quoted Costs for each type much earlier in the evaluation.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jan 2020 05:26

^^ This is why I said that Dassault has little incentive to look to generate additional cost savings and try to pass those along. Likewise for France, it too has no incentive to put additional pressure on the company and its supplier base. They have a backlog and have yet reduced production/delivery targets for 2020 to extend the program. That is not a sign that a program is getting ready to reduce the cost-to-build of its aircraft (They know they have a great shot at MMRCA 2.0 and a fairly good shot at the Swiss fighter replacement program..they'll take those two and wait it out for additional French orders mid 2020's). So it is unreasonable to expect Dassault to offer additional discount or succumb to a lower price during bidding or negotiations. They have an advantage and they know it. Overall, Dassault's commercial business is not doing that great so they are unlikely to go above and beyond and make additional investments to reduce price (like bulk buy components etc). The threat from the MOD to walk away and buy another type is going to be much reduced as Dassault would have a great understanding of the financial implications (to MOD's finances) of such a move. I think the decision to not negotiate a couple of dozen options to the original contract was a shortsighted decision.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Jan 2020 06:23

Even I couldn't fathom why at least 18 jets were not added as options. They did it in multiple contracts, such as the MiG-29Ks that were bought off the shelf. The current 36 numbers are simply too small to make a worthwhile difference except as a silver bullet force or using them in mixed packages with the numerous Su-30MKIs. that is what ACM Bhadauria also hinted at in one of his interviews.

Saurav Jha, one of the best defence journos in India, did mention that he felt that Gripen E had a good shot this time around. I still don't believe they do, thanks to the lack of any strategic gains from such a deal with Sweden. LM, MiG and Saab will be the ones likeliest to offer the lowest bids and additional discounts since a 114 order would make a lot of difference to them. Typhoon is too damn expensive even if offered with discounts.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jan 2020 07:54

The technical process will not change. MRCA 2.0 will not run differently than MRCA 1.0, in that sense. The IAF will still evaluate the parameters of all aircraft and provide a score. As per ACM Bhaduria, the IAF is moving ahead with the process after the issuance of the RFI, which happened in 2018 if I am not mistaken. The next stage IIRC is the RFP, which the OEMs are all waiting for. I am not sure, but I do not believe the RFP has been issued yet. Once the OEMs respond to the RFP, they will be opened by the MoD/IAF to see which OEMs are compliant and then technical trials will be conducted. I believe all the OEMs will make it to the technical stage. The top 2 or 3 scoring candidates will move on to the next round, where the GOI gets involved politically (i.e. strategic gains) and financially.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jan 2020 07:59

Has the RFP been issued since this article from July 2019? I googled, but came up short.

India edges forward with rebooted plan to acquire 110 fighters
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 36.article
04 July 2019

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Jan 2020 08:14

Rakesh wrote:The technical process will not change. MRCA 2.0 will not run differently than MRCA 1.0, in that sense. The IAF will still evaluate the parameters of all aircraft and provide a score. As per ACM Bhaduria, the IAF is moving ahead with the process after the issuance of the RFI, which happened in 2018 if I am not mistaken. The next stage IIRC is the RFP, which the OEMs are all waiting for. I am not sure, but I do not believe the RFP has been issued yet. Once the OEMs respond to the RFP, they will be opened by the MoD/IAF to see which OEMs are compliant and then technical trials will be conducted. I believe all the OEMs will make it to the technical stage. The top 2 or 3 scoring candidates will move on to the next round, where the GOI gets involved politically (i.e. strategic gains) and financially.

In which case nothing is different this time around but the IAF and MoD expect the result to be different somehow. They’ll once again end up with the costliest 2-3 and find no budget for any of them.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jan 2020 08:23

I find it baffling that nothing will change from a technical evaluation perspective. What is the point of the whole exercise? Requirements process is an important aspect in determining the right qualitative and quantitative balance in any acquisition process. You cannot divorce the two from one another (IAF picks the absolute best and the MOD picks the absolute cheapest). You have to strike a balance between performance and cost and the ONLY way to do it is to reflect that in the requirements process.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jan 2020 08:25

That technical process is set in stone. There is no way beating around that bush. On what basis can the GOI get involved in the technical evaluation? They do not have knowledge of air combat. Only the IAF does.

You are correct Kartik. They will end up with the costliest 2 - 3 and then acquire a reduced number and that is where the Rafale will outshine the rest. Both yourself and brar have laid out a logical argument - with relation to costs - in your posts above.

The only way to beat around the shortfall is to order additional Tejas Mk1As. There is no two ways about that. And that realization will dawn on the IAF, if it already has not.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jan 2020 08:32

Even if one goes with the cheapest aircraft in the contest, the MiG-35. At 114 aircraft, the MiG-35 will not cost less than $15 - $20 billion....considering everything the IAF has requested for in the RFI is handed over. I doubt the MoD will ever find the political gumption to sign such a deal. That will reek of corruption, even where there is no stink.

If 7.87 billion Euros gave this much takleef to the opposition in India (which led to not one, but two Supreme Court verdicts!!)...imagine what minimum $15 - $20 billion USD will do. There were will frothing at the mouth...from the opposition. Convulsions and Exorcism will follow

No Indian Govt will touch this time bomb with a 100 ft pole.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jan 2020 08:43

In modern defense acquisition data allows one to build highly dynamic performance/requirements models that can be used to develop a trade-space between performance and cost. For example, recently there have been efforts that define minimum (threshold) and maximum (objective) performance specs and then attributed a fixed $ amount the end-user is willing to pay to go above threshold to a point where the performance and cost curves intersect. One would hope the MOD would do something like that otherwise this program is going to suffer from the same fate as the MMRCA 1.0.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 25 Jan 2020 10:18

IAF planning 'swift trials' in Rs 1.5 lakh crore 114 fighter jet deal

According to this December 2019 news article, the IAF has asked the Defence Acquisition Council for Rs 150,000 crores for the 114 aircraft order. That translates into Euro 19074 million at the current exchange rate. The all in cost of the each Rafale in the 36 aircraft order is 7850 million Euro divided by 36 = Euro 218 million per Rafale. So 19074 million Euros will buy 87 Rafale or if the IAF wants 114 Rafale, then Dassault will have to reduce the all in price per aircraft to 19074/114 = Euro 167 million per aircraft, that is a 23.4% reduction in price. The chance of a price reduction of that magnitude IMO is zero.

Lockheed Martin is selling F35s cheaper than Euro 167 million (which is about US $ 183 million) for it's overseas sales. Trump is coming to India in late February. IMO Modi should have a serious discussion on this with Trump. Yes the S400 will be an issue....but it is insane to pay such prices for a 4th generation aircraft which cannot operate in a AD environment with the S400 i.e. even the Rafale will not be able to penetrate Chinese airspace if it is defended by the S400 just as the Israeli Air Force no longer sends it's 4th generation F-15s or F-16s into Syria, it relies exclusively on the newly acquired F35i, because of the presence of S300 (Syrian Air Force) & S400 (Russian Air Force) SAM systems in that country. India needs a stealth aircraft to be able to seriously penetrate Chinese air defences. And for the Rs 150,000 crores which the IAF is asking for, it will be able to buy 114 F35s. No point in wasting money on the Rafale. Otherwise put all efforts into the AMCA and get it operational asap.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jan 2020 11:42

There is no interest in F-35 by the Indian Air Force. It is not meant as a knock against the F-35, the IAF just does not have any interest. Not my words...see below. And India is no mood to back down or bend over backwards to cancel the S-400 deal. So if tomorrow the IAF changes its mind, it will matter little. For now, the US will not sell the F-35 to any nation that operates the S-400.

When your nation's own Air Chief is openly telling the media....that they have no interest in the F-35 (or any other foreign 5th generation platform for that matter) how can the Govt adopt a contrary approach?

When you begin to operate a platform, you realise the capabilities and the limits of the system. And same will be true for the enemy as well, if they operate the exact same system. The difference will be in how well one makes optimum use of the system and exploits the system's weaknesses, which like any "human" system will have, to one's advantage. With the S-400, it is going to be a matter who among the two (India & China) will blink first in a conflict.

India Doesn’t Want F-35s or THAAD; Little Interest in U.S. Hardware Offered to Replace Russian S-400
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... sian-s-400
08 June 2019

While it was reported by a number of Western outlets in 2018 that Delhi had shown interest in acquiring the F-35, a single engine lightweight fifth generation fighter, this has been firmly refuted by a number of high ranking Indian officials. Air Chief Marshal B. S. Dhanoa, speaking publicly in New Delhi on April 26th of that year, stated: "There is not talk on F-35. The Indian Air Force has not evinced interest and not talked to anyone. It is incorrect to report that we are interested in F-35.”

This was from Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa and he made this statement in 2018, although the news article is dated 2019. And below is from Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhaduria in Oct 2019. Nothing has changed for the IAF leadership on the 5th generation aircraft. They are not interested in the Su-57 either, which has the only chance of a foreign 5th generation fighter (if one wants to call it that!) flying the IAF roundel. And the Chief also insists that the 114 MRFA deal is going ahead. This is it for all the OEMs. Only local maal after this.

IAF Chief strongly backs indigenous 5th generation jet, says no plan to import
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 444141.cms

“On the fifth generation (requirement), the AMCA has been given a go ahead and we have given it our whole support and are putting in our energies there. No import is planned in the foreseeable future,” the air chief said in response to a question by ET.

'IAF could consider Su-57 stealth jet after it enters Russian service'
https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/ ... rvice.html
19 July 2019

When asked about the possibility of India participating in the development of combat aircraft with Russia, Dhanoa said the Russian fifth-generation fighter was not being considered yet. “When it (Su-57) is already put into service with you, only then can we make a decision for ourselves. We are ready to consider it for acquisition after we see it in the case,” Dhanoa noted.

One can read the writing on the wall for the Su-57

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 25 Jan 2020 12:40

I don’t know when this continuous mindset of sharing prices will end. People act as if it is coming out of their own personal pocket like buying onions in the market or moong/toor daal in sabji mandi market or become some sort of munshiji who is debating about getting the right interest rate or like a person here who is trying to get the best streaming package....sling tv/Hulu/Disney tv/...saying...oh can I also get this package...can I get showtime or hbo in that too?

This is just absurd...

They have got a good platform that will serve their purpose. Let the finance ministry worry about from where they can arrange the funding.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Jan 2020 14:39

ldev wrote:IAF planning 'swift trials' in Rs 1.5 lakh crore 114 fighter jet deal

According to this December 2019 news article, the IAF has asked the Defence Acquisition Council for Rs 150,000 crores for the 114 aircraft order. That translates into Euro 19074 million at the current exchange rate. The all in cost of the each Rafale in the 36 aircraft order is 7850 million Euro divided by 36 = Euro 218 million per Rafale. So 19074 million Euros will buy 87 Rafale or if the IAF wants 114 Rafale, then Dassault will have to reduce the all in price per aircraft to 19074/114 = Euro 167 million per aircraft, that is a 23.4% reduction in price. The chance of a price reduction of that magnitude IMO is zero.

It is not so simple as dividing 36 by the deal cost and using that figure. In fact, it's better not to use that 36 jet deal too accurately as the benchmark if Rafale is the winner, since it involved establishing facilities and infrastructure at 2 bases + ISE which doesn't need to be paid for again (i.e. a one time non-recurring expenditure). The costs involved for 114 Rafale jets will be for airframes, engines, spares, ground infra, additional simulators, weapons and training and a big whopper for ToT and setting up of the assembly facility in India.

However, if any other fighter wins, then there will be new bases identified that will require infrastructure investment plus ISE costs since I'm sure none of the fighters will be meet all IAF requirements without any customization.

If the IAF wants another base to be set up for the MRCA winner then ALL of them will require money to be spent on it, although I'd expect the Russians to have a big edge in this cost wise. Dassault actually has a big advantage over the rest since of all the 7, it is the only one that already has some commonality with the infrastructure already set up, and the ISE package.

In fact, if 18 or 24 more Rafale jets were added as options to the original contract, they'd have ended up costing just ~$100-110 million each, since all the other investments were already made with the 36 Rafales. Additional weapons would have been needed, but 2 bases could have easily supported 54-60 Rafale jets. Just like how Gwalior AFS hosts 50 odd Mirage-2000 jets.

Lockheed Martin is selling F35s cheaper than Euro 167 million (which is about US $ 183 million) for it's overseas sales. Trump is coming to India in late February. IMO Modi should have a serious discussion on this with Trump. Yes the S400 will be an issue....but it is insane to pay such prices for a 4th generation aircraft which cannot operate in a AD environment with the S400 i.e. even the Rafale will not be able to penetrate Chinese airspace if it is defended by the S400 just as the Israeli Air Force no longer sends it's 4th generation F-15s or F-16s into Syria, it relies exclusively on the newly acquired F35i, because of the presence of S300 (Syrian Air Force) & S400 (Russian Air Force) SAM systems in that country. India needs a stealth aircraft to be able to seriously penetrate Chinese air defences. And for the Rs 150,000 crores which the IAF is asking for, it will be able to buy 114 F35s. No point in wasting money on the Rafale. Otherwise put all efforts into the AMCA and get it operational asap.

There are just too many issues with the F-35.

1) Local assembly with ToT
2) S400 and what it means for the F-35 user community. Turkey was ejected out of the F-35 program despite having been a partner nation with so much at stake when it came to F-35 production. It is simply not possible for us to get that done. Just getting a waiver from sanctions itself would have required extensive lobbying.

One question - if the S400 means that no 4th gen fighter can penetrate the AD, then that effectively means Pakistan is neutralised isn't it? Till they don't get FC-31 or whatever other Chinese stealth fighters, they cannot even approach the border if there is a S400 battery anywhere nearby. Do you really think that will be the case?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 25 Jan 2020 20:54

Kartik wrote: It is not so simple as dividing 36 by the deal cost and using that figure. In fact, it's better not to use that 36 jet deal too accurately as the benchmark if Rafale is the winner, since it involved establishing facilities and infrastructure at 2 bases + ISE which doesn't need to be paid for again (i.e. a one time non-recurring expenditure). The costs involved for 114 Rafale jets will be for airframes, engines, spares, ground infra, additional simulators, weapons and training and a big whopper for ToT and setting up of the assembly facility in India.

Does it specify whether the cost of the ISE is for development or the marginal cost of adding ISE equipment to each aircraft? Also, where the cost head for facilities and infrastructure at 2 bases? Unless there is clarity on these cost issues, isn't it a lot of kite flying?

One question - if the S400 means that no 4th gen fighter can penetrate the AD, then that effectively means Pakistan is neutralised isn't it? Till they don't get FC-31 or whatever other Chinese stealth fighters, they cannot even approach the border if there is a S400 battery anywhere nearby. Do you really think that will be the case?

You have posed the fundamental question which the IAF should answer. What kind of an air war will it fight with Pakistan and China in an S400/HQ9 defended environment? On the face of it, punitive action by the IAF such as Balakot was retribution for cross border terrorist incidents in India. So let us assume that the IAF gets the Rafale, however many as it can get within it's budget, then what? China has the S400 and Pakistan will undoubtedly get the Chinese HQ-9. Pakistan is undoubtedly studying the potential of the Rafale with the IAF and is working out a defensive solution with their all weather friend China. Another terrorist incident occurs killing 300-400 people in India and the IAF is charged with pulling off a Balakot 2? If a determination is made that the Rafale cannot really cross the border, either border, then all that the IAF is relying on is it's stand-off capability with SCALP? But the SU-30 with Brahmos has that capability today. So what new capability is the Rafale really bringing to the table for 20 billion Euros? If a 4th generation non stealth aircraft is really what the IAF is getting, then it is optimal to get the cheapest 4th generation aircraft which meets a basic level of capability. Because IMO, the Rafale has got a gold plated price but still will be unable to penetrate the AD environment in the next 20-30 years when it will operate. So Pakistan will not be able to penetrate Indian air space, nor will China, but similarly the IAF with an all 4th generation fleet will also not be able to penetrate either border. So will terrorist incidents go un-punished? Or will India respond with a missile strike and Pakistan reciprocates? But then the escalation ladder could spin out of control. India was at pains to point out after Balakot that it was a non-military target.

If the IAF says they must have the capability to penetrate PAF and PLAAF air defences then the Rafale is the wrong choice. Get the F35, if available. If they say that they can prosecute their operations without the requirement to cross the border, then get the cheapest 4th generation aircraft.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jan 2020 21:09

Kartik wrote: Turkey was ejected out of the F-35 program despite having been a partner nation with so much at stake when it came to F-35 production. It is simply not possible for us to get that done. Just getting a waiver from sanctions itself would have required extensive lobbying.

This is an important point. Not only was Turkey a partner on that program, it had a pretty substantial industrial production footprint, not to mention an order size of about a 100 aircraft + over the life of the program. The US has had to assume to cost of creating industrial capacity in order to provide for the parts that were alloted to Turkish firms. Some of this has taken a year plus and millions of $$ to do (and Turkish firms will still continue to supply parts till end of the year). The USDOD which advises the White House, and the Congress seem to be very rigid when it comes to having its Low-Observable aircraft and LPI networks operate in the vicinity of advanced Russian IAD Systems. This is logical as 5th generation aircraft are very different than 4th or 4+ generation aircraft and given how important the F-35 is to both USAF/N/MC and NATO users they will go to great lengths to protect that capability. I don't think Lockheed even considered ever replacing the F-21 offer with the F-35 offer. They've remained committed to the F-21 because they too know that post S-400 decision the F-35 is never going to happen. Add IAF comments of not picking a 5GFA until AMCA matures..and we can tell why no one is offering it.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 25 Jan 2020 21:21

I think it is time now to move on from Rafale to F-35. F-21 sorry that boat sailed long ago. The cutting edge has to be F-35 (and let's not get blackmailed by that F-35 can only come if you order F-21), Rafale is neither here nor there, F-35 is at least a generation ahead (much more capable) and at a lower price. The bulk of IAF unfortunately cannot be F-21 or Rafale, it has to be LCA and its derivative (mk1a,mwf, mk1b/c/d)(just from budget perspective).
Whatever extra capital budget we have, will be needed for aircraft that can neutralize J-3X and s/400 knockouts that both China and TSP will field now and in near to distant future. Rafale is inadequate for that, F-35 is not.
I don't think we can do MMCRA and 5th gen fighter both, and we need 5th gen now to even be respectable, say 5 years now.
TSP is fielding JF-17 block 3 with PL-12 (which is meteor equivalent). Guaranteed, both Rafale and Meteor are way way ahead of JF-17 and PL-12 (to the extent that it is apple to oranges comparison), but newer planes and better missiles are getting produced by Chinese every day. The best way to beat them assuredly say 5 or 10 years down the line is F-35 and not Rafale. And we will need them 5-10 years down the line. We cannot afford to spend all that money on MMCRA, on a plane that adds number but capability wise not much more over 36 Rafale and 272 SU30MKI (even 100 Mig 29 and 51 m2k). The number can be added by LCAMK1A, MWF

nam · Post by **nam** » 25 Jan 2020 21:56

We should get a sqd of F-35. If not for anything. just to block out Pak.

Paks are very sure, they will get F35. And they will. US is just waiting for us to induct Su-57 or AMCA.

Couple of more years F-35 will become the currency for every deal Pak makes with US. Like F-16.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jan 2020 22:26

Fanne, no F-35 is coming. Neither side is willing to budge on that issue. No point in raising that up. It is futile. LM will fight tooth and nail to preserve the secrets of the F-35 and even Trump will not be able to override LM on that. But if the S-400 deal is cancelled, there is an opening.

And you are correct ---> Additional Tejas variants should form the bulk of the air force. That is the best option for the India, especially from the angle of India developing its own MIC.

ldev wrote:Does it specify whether the cost of the ISE is for development or the marginal cost of adding ISE equipment to each aircraft? Also, where the cost head for facilities and infrastructure at 2 bases? Unless there is clarity on these cost issues, isn't it a lot of kite flying?

Pouring a bucket of ice cold water over the whole ‘Rafale scam exposed’ fiasco
https://www.opindia.com/2018/03/dassaul ... es-expose/
17 March 2018

* an identical unit price to that paid by the French armed forces (as per the article)
** such costs are one off and will not be incurred for any future batches (as per the article)

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jan 2020 22:31

nam wrote:We should get a sqd of F-35. If not for anything. just to block out Pak.

Please go here ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7266&p=2409254#p2409254

nam wrote:Paks are very sure, they will get F35. And they will. US is just waiting for us to induct Su-57 or AMCA.

Couple of more years F-35 will become the currency for every deal Pak makes with US. Like F-16.

If the Americans are interested in having the F-35 fall over into the hands of the Chinese, then by all means they should sell the F-35 to the Pakistan Air Force. And if the Chinese sell the HQ-9 to Pakistan, the deal will move that much quicker.

Just a word of caution, that sale will not be a sale by any stretch of the imagination. Pakistan is broke and could not afford the follow on batch of 18 F-16 Block 50/52s. It will have to be in the form of baksheesh onlee. Baksheesh will be the currency.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 25 Jan 2020 23:01

Rakesh wrote:But if the S-400 deal is cancelled, there is an opening.

The issue is that there should be a discussion on all implications of getting the S400 vs getting the F35. And this choice will impact many other systems across the Indian Navy as well in a nutshell.

The S400 gives India great AD capability. But it precludes the ability to get a stealth offensive system like the F35. As I pointed out above, the S400 with an all 4th generation IAF fleet locks the 3 adversaries (China, Pakistan & India) largely into their own air space. But it keeps the Russians happy and India benefits from cooperation in the N submarine area, homegrown submarines as well as Akula leases. The result of this course of action will be that India for the indefinite future will have limited options for punitive actions following any Pakistan sponsored terrorism or risk an un-controlled spiral of escalation. So every time there is a terrorist attack and lives are lost, there will be a huge outpouring of rage but options will be limited.

If India cancels the S400 system it must only do so if it getting the F35. And the IAF will need to add AWACs and MRSAMs systems as needed. India also has to be prepared that Russia will cut off cooperation in the N submarine area.

Tough choice.

Ideally decisions such as these that involve trade offs between the 3 services on the one hand and vendor countries on the other, should involve a dialogue between the NSA and the Chief of Defence Staff. Unfortunately e.g. when the S400 decision was made there was no CDS to advise that buying the S400 will close off certain other options in the future and all 3 services would have been clamouring for their own pet projects with the DAC, NSA etc.

kit · Post by **kit** » 26 Jan 2020 00:52

I feel the S 400 itself will provide deterrence but only for a finite period as threat perceptions and technology advances, in the meantime hopefully IAF will have advanced by a few dozen squadrons of 4+ gen fighters ( maybe a squadron of 5th gen as well) and DRDO successfully builds a four tier Air defence umbrella.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Jan 2020 01:25

nam wrote:We should get a sqd of F-35. If not for anything. just to block out Pak.

Paks are very sure, they will get F35. And they will. US is just waiting for us to induct Su-57 or AMCA.

Couple of more years F-35 will become the currency for every deal Pak makes with US. Like F-16.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2409392#p2409392

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Jan 2020 03:50

ldev wrote:[

The S400 gives India great AD capability. But it precludes the ability to get a stealth offensive system like the F35.

How?

An f35 can be a choice for the Navy. Doesn't have to be for the IAF. Three Navy doesn't operate the s400.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jan 2020 04:12

ldev wrote:The issue is that there should be a discussion on all implications of getting the S400 vs getting the F35. And this choice will impact many other systems across the Indian Navy as well in a nutshell.

ldev, where is the discussion originating from? That is the issue.

To be honest though, I would do the same if I were LM. The F-35 is a game changer in every respect. Why have the S-400 and the F-35 work together and threaten LM's tech? The F-35 is the future of air combat for three branches of the US Military - Air Force, Navy and Marines. No military will want to compromise their prized unicorn. If the US sells the F-35 to a S-400 operating nation and the F-35 is then compromised not just for the US...but for all the international operators of the F-35 as well. Thus the heavy push to cancel the S-400 deal, which to date, India is not budging on. I cannot predict the future, but this is the impasse right now.

ldev wrote:The S400 gives India great AD capability. But it precludes the ability to get a stealth offensive system like the F35. As I pointed out above, the S400 with an all 4th generation IAF fleet locks the 3 adversaries (China, Pakistan & India) largely into their own air space. But it keeps the Russians happy and India benefits from cooperation in the N submarine area, homegrown submarines as well as Akula leases. The result of this course of action will be that India for the indefinite future will have limited options for punitive actions following any Pakistan sponsored terrorism or risk an un-controlled spiral of escalation. So every time there is a terrorist attack and lives are lost, there will be a huge outpouring of rage but options will be limited.

India's military actions are not limited only to air strikes. There are other options, besides entering an enemy's airspace to take out a high value terrorist camp.

- Why resort to a repeat of an air strike, when BrahMos can also do the job? Balakot is less than 10 kms away from the LoC. What counter does the S-400 (or the HQ-9 clone) have against a Mach 3+ missile from lets say 5 to 10 kms away from the LoC? Assuming the Mach 3+ missile is detected in time....think of the reaction time involved in getting the order to stop the missile which has to move up the chain of command and then come back down the chain of command. BrahMos will have done its job by then.

- BrahMos too expensive? ATAGS, Sharang, Dhanush, Bofors, etc will do the same job with High Explosive Base Bleed ammunition. During ATAGS test firings, ranges of almost 50 kms was achieved, well within the 10 km distance of terrorist launch pads at Balakot. Is S-400 designed to counter artillery rounds?

- Artillery rounds not jazzy enough? Pinaka MBRL will do the same job as SPICE did in Balakot, but with just way more panache. Just imagine Diwali, but only this time you are the one exploding and that too spectacularly. Pinaka-I has a 40 km range and Pinaka-II has a 90 km range. A 125 km range is being developed. Is S-400 designed to counter a saturation rocket attack?

The point is ldev, options are varied for India and not limited to just air strikes. The air strike option was adopted at Balakot, because the IAF knew the PAF would be caught with their chaddi down and the IAF was proven right. Next time, it could be any of the above options or something that no thought of.

Obviously the equation changes, when the target is not a terrorist camp, but a military installation beyond the capabilities of the BrahMos, Artillery Guns, MBRLs, etc. But since you raised the issue of terrorist camps, I am highlighting just that aspect. Military targets are also gamed in various scenarios. If a military target is that imperative for India to take out, a solution will be worked out.

And Balakot proved one other key thing - Pakistan's nuclear bluff. The IAF went into Pak airspace uncontested, dropped LGBs on terrorist camps and came out unscathed. Now with Pakistan, there is no un-controlled spiral of escalation. Threaten the Gernails existence at Abbotabad and elsewhere in Pakistan, and the Gernails will fall in line. Threaten a man's lifestyle (corner plot bungalow, servants, luxury cars, unaccounted money, etc) and see quickly how compliance will come. No Pak Gernail is interested in seeing that going up in a nuclear cloud.

Escalation can only work when you are confident that you will - at the least - match what the enemy can throw at you. Does Pakistan have that capability vis-a-viv India? War also has an economic cost. Can Pakistan bear that burden? They are beggars who survive on daily handouts from the US and FATF. How much can they rely on China to have their back? Where was China when Balakot happened?

To quote Major Gaurav Arya (retd), "The reason why they keep asking Abhinandan how was the tea?, because tea is all they can afford!"

ldev wrote:If India cancels the S400 system it must only do so if it getting the F35.

The problem ldev is cancelling the S-400 has no relation to the IAF's lack of interest in the F-35. They are two different issues and are being treated as such by India. It is the US that is joining both issues at the hip and from their perspective, they are correct. But India's perspective is equally valid. India feels they need such a system and the US offer of THAAD was not impressive enough for India. What do you do now? You said it best - Tough Choice. But that choice is not in India's lap to make.

ldev wrote:And the IAF will need to add AWACs and MRSAMs systems as needed.

The IAF already has 3 Phalcons and 1 (+1) Netra AEW&C in service. The latter was used at Balakot successfully. Two more Phalcon AWACS are in the pipeline and more Netra are planned as well. Same with MRSAMs and both - local and phoren maal - are being procured. Can you clarify a bit more what you mean by India needs to add more AWACS and MRSAMs?

ldev wrote:India also has to be prepared that Russia will cut off cooperation in the N submarine area. Tough choice.

Look at it from India's perspective ---> what will I gain from F-35 versus giving up cooperation in the nuclear submarine area? Am I prepared to risk the viability of my second strike nuclear capability for a plane? Or will America replace Russia for cooperation in the nuclear submarine area? You do not need to convince me of the F-35, but convincing has to happen to the Indian policy makers.

ldev wrote:Ideally decisions such as these that involve trade offs between the 3 services on the one hand and vendor countries on the other, should involve a dialogue between the NSA and the Chief of Defence Staff. Unfortunately e.g. when the S400 decision was made there was no CDS to advise that buying the S400 will close off certain other options in the future and all 3 services would have been clamouring for their own pet projects with the DAC, NSA etc.

They have a CDS right now. His name is Bipin Rawat and he holds the rank of General. New to the role, but not new to the issues you have raised above. The ball is in India's court to cancel the S-400. No one is holding a gun to India's head.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jan 2020 04:14

Cain Marko wrote:
ldev wrote:[

The S400 gives India great AD capability. But it precludes the ability to get a stealth offensive system like the F35.
How?

An f35 can be a choice for the Navy. Doesn't have to be for the IAF. Three Navy doesn't operate the s400.

No Cain-ji. The US will not agree to that.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jan 2020 04:20

The S-400 is not some magic pill that makes countries have a shield of mythical armour. It is a great system, highly effective. But as I mentioned earlier ---> the S-400 will have its flaws. And both India and China will know the capabilities of the S-400 and the system's limits as well. Neither nation - India or China - is getting takleef over this. The only one that is getting takleef is the US, when it comes to the issue of operating the F-35 alongside it.

Why the S-400 Missile is Highly Effective — If Used Correctly
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/ ... -effective
12 July 2019

But the reality remains that the value of long-range SAMs does not directly equal their theoretical capabilities, depending far more on who is using the system — and how.

An S-400, for instance, could be a formidable threat to a limited enemy incursion, but even a full S-400 battalion only has around eight missile launchers, typically with four missiles each. 32 missiles are certainly enough to cause serious harm to a limited attack. But if an S-400 battalion is acting in isolation or is not backed up by other modern air defenses, it likely doesn't have enough missiles to withstand a determined onslaught.

Furthermore, geographical factors weigh heavily on a system's usefulness, with mountainous features able to block the systems' sensors. A low-flying target can take advantage of geographical features and the curvature of the earth to avoid an S-400 interception for far longer than a high-flying target. So, against a low-flying cruise missile, an S-400 will more likely find success at a distance in the tens of kilometers rather than in the hundreds. Ultimately, an isolated S-400 battery or even battalion will, therefore, be vulnerable to a saturation standoff attack and may even be destroyed without destroying a single enemy aircraft.

While Syria's S-300s could theoretically cause some damage to the Israeli aircraft that constantly raid the country, they wouldn't survive for long after firing their first missile.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 26 Jan 2020 07:39

Rakesh wrote:
ldev wrote:The issue is that there should be a discussion on all implications of getting the S400 vs getting the F35. And this choice will impact many other systems across the Indian Navy as well in a nutshell.
ldev, where is the discussion originating from? That is the issue.

The issue is the planned capex of 19 billion Euros equivalent which will buy India less than 114 aircraft if the Rafale is chosen with no guaranteed capability of penetrating the AD environment as it exists in China with the S400 and probably in Pakistan if the China transfers the HQ-9.

- Why resort to a repeat of an air strike, when BrahMos can also do the job? Balakot is less than 10 kms away from the LoC. What counter does the S-400 (or the HQ-9 clone) have against a Mach 3+ missile from lets say 5 to 10 kms away from the LoC? Assuming the Mach 3+ missile is detected in time....think of the reaction time involved in getting the order to stop the missile which has to move up the chain of command and then come back down the chain of command. BrahMos will have done its job by then.

That is the entire point isn't it? Brahmos is available today with the SU-30. What incremental capability is 20 billion Euros spent on Rafale buying for the IAF that a cheaper 4th generation will not in terms of capability?

The point is ldev, options are varied for India and not limited to just air strikes. The air strike option was adopted at Balakot, because the IAF knew the PAF would be caught with their chaddi down and the IAF was proven right....
And Balakot proved one other key thing - Pakistan's nuclear bluff. The IAF went into Pak airspace uncontested, dropped LGBs on terrorist camps and came out unscathed. Now with Pakistan, there is no un-controlled spiral of escalation. Threaten the Gernails existence at Abbotabad and elsewhere in Pakistan, and the Gernails will fall in line. Threaten a man's lifestyle (corner plot bungalow, servants, luxury cars, unaccounted money, etc) and see quickly how compliance will come. No Pak Gernail is interested in seeing that going up in a nuclear cloud.

Balakot was a bolt out of the blue. Nobody in the sub continent has their radars on 24x7 in peacetime and you know that. I dare say that if the PAF had pulled a similar raid, they also could have had some success. But the next day when both air forces were on full alert, it was a stalemate. The scorecard was 1-1. And you've got to be joking to say that India was ready for escalation. In fact it did everything to avoid escalation. The MEA spokesperson called Balakot a non-military target. And when the PAF attempted unsuccessfully to attack Indian Army targets in their raid, the IAF did not counter strike a Pakistani military target which would have been the logical thing to do in terms of escalation.

The pivotal issue about the Pakistani Punjabi psyche is this. Against any other country the Pakistani Gernail will fold when his lifestyle is threatened. Read the US or China. Against India it is a very different ballgame. It is tied with history, religion, identity, pride, that all of India should have been theirs, the humiliation of the formation of Bangladesh etc. etc. When it is war against India, Pakistan will fight to the end. Against any other country they will fold and give up. But against India they will escalate all the way, no mistake about it. That is why India needs overwhelming superiority at every level of the escalation ladder.

The IAF already has 3 Phalcons and 1 (+1) Netra AEW&C in service. The latter was used at Balakot successfully. Two more Phalcon AWACS are in the pipeline and more Netra are planned as well. Same with MRSAMs and both - local and phoren maal - are being procured. Can you clarify a bit more what you mean by India needs to add more AWACS and MRSAMs?

I meant this:

Four people directly involved in the process said that the need for PHALCON AWACS was felt as Pakistan has seven of them in service as compared to five in service with IAF. After the Balakot strike, the requirement was felt more acutely with Islamabad deploying two AWACS round-the-clock in the north and the south, while India had AWACS up for only 12 hours a day along its northern and western borders. Both sides put AWACS to good use during the February 27 air skirmish in the Nowshera sector of Jammu.

Look at it from India's perspective ---> what will I gain from F-35 versus giving up cooperation in the nuclear submarine area? Am I prepared to risk the viability of my second strike nuclear capability for a plane? Or will America replace Russia for cooperation in the nuclear submarine area? You do not need to convince me of the F-35, but convincing has to happen to the Indian policy makers.

The requirement for a 2nd strike is a low probability high impact event. The requirement for the F35 is a high probability medium impact event. Without the F35 the IAF will in the not too distant future not be able to penetrate Chinese and Pakistani airspace. If Russian technical support were withdrawn today, I believe the Indian SSBN & SSN programs will continue, albeit at a slower pace of upscaling the reactors.

Bottom line is this. If the S400 purchase stays the course, does it make sense to spend 19 Billion Euros and get less than 100 Rafale. When the same amount of money will buy about 180 Grippen, 180 F-16s and more than 250 Mig 29s, although I suspect that the last thing the IAF wants is 250 Mig 29s. None of these aircraft will be able to penetrate Chinese and Pakistani air defences probably right from the time they are inducted. So why not go for the most cost effective solution that meets the squadron strength requirements of the IAF?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jan 2020 09:42

ldev wrote:The issue is the planned capex of 19 billion Euros equivalent which will buy India less than 114 aircraft if the Rafale is chosen with no guaranteed capability of penetrating the AD environment as it exists in China with the S400 and probably in Pakistan if the China transfers the HQ-9.

Even the IAF knows that they will never hit the magic number of 42, despite all the inductions that are underway. Do the math and you will see that the numbers come up short. And as I mentioned earlier, there are other ways to penetrate a dense AD environment besides a 4th generation fighter, including the Rafale. And the article about the S-400 is equally apt. Depending on where the target is, India is not limited to just using fighters.

Therefore the IAF feels it is better to focus on quality vs quantity. Do a contest with a large number of aircraft, see who offers the best tech and then negotiate for that aircraft at 114 birds or even a lesser number. I am sure you remember successive chiefs - during the MMRCA 1.0 contest - stating that there was no Plan B. It was 126 fighters from the same OEM and nothing else. What happened?

Since the end of MMRCA 1.0 to date, the MiG-29 upgrade has been completed. The Mirage 2000 upgrade is underway. 12 additional Su-30MKIs are being negotiated. 21 MiG-29s are being negotiated. 83 Mk1A aircraft have been ordered. Two Mk1 (40 birds) units are being inducted. Super Sukhoi upgrade is underway. Darin III upgrade is underway. And yes 114 MRFA contest is also underway. It is not just a numbers game, quality is also necessary. Otherwise just reopen the MiG-21 line and churn out some BISONs. Far cheaper than even 250 MiG-35s! Will that work? Philip Saar will be happy though

A reduced number will not paralyze or be detrimental to the Indian air force.

ldev wrote:That is the entire point isn't it? Brahmos is available today with the SU-30. What incremental capability is 20 billion Euros spent on Rafale buying for the IAF that a cheaper 4th generation will not in terms of capability?

The cost factor will only come in, when the technical contest is done. That is how the process is set up.

Formally, all the required parameters in the RFP will be tested. Informally, the evaluation team will look at this ---> What do the other competitors in the contest do better than the Rafale? Is that worth setting up a whole new set of infrastructure, training, new weapons, etc? That question will be answered first. Technical down select has to occur before even the talk of costs come into play, which the MoD/GoI plays a more prominent role.

At that stage, if and when it works out to $19 or $20 billion Euros...that is a decision for the MoD/GoI to decide if they want to cough up the cash. But you cannot go back to another OEM just off the cuff. As per DPP 2013, that cannot occur. There is nothing to state it has changed in DPP 2016, so the 2013 directive stands. The process has to start anew. The IAF is not prepared to go down that route, because they know how long that process will take again. At that stage, either they scrap the contest or go with a reduced number (more likely scenario). It is whatever the IAF wants to do.

ldev wrote:Balakot was a bolt out of the blue. Nobody in the sub continent has their radars on 24x7 in peacetime and you know that. I dare say that if the PAF had pulled a similar raid, they also could have had some success. But the next day when both air forces were on full alert, it was a stalemate. The scorecard was 1-1.

Wars are not won on scorecards, but on objectives met. India does not view war with Pakistan as a game of battleship. India achieved what it wanted to at Balakot. It successfully destroyed the terrorist camps. The Pulwama attack occurred on Feb 14th and plans were set in motion soon after. But India waited till Feb 26th to strike. Almost two weeks had passed, with no military action from India.

One would imagine, after the Uri episode, the Pak military would have been more wiser. But then again - true to form - Pakistan thinks only tactically and not strategically. A secondary objective was also achieved by India - calling Pakistan's nuclear bluff. And that was a repeat event. Even in Uri, they Pak Army did not retaliate using the nuclear button.

A big win for India. Next time, the options available to India are more. For Pakistan, the options are now limited. They can no longer hide behind the excuse of these are non-state actors or freedom fighters. That argument is not going to fly and India will retaliate.

ldev wrote:And you've got to be joking to say that India was ready for escalation. In fact it did everything to avoid escalation. The MEA spokesperson called Balakot a non-military target. And when the PAF attempted unsuccessfully to attack Indian Army targets in their raid, the IAF did not counter strike a Pakistani military target which would have been the logical thing to do in terms of escalation.

I am not joking at all

This is from General Bipin Rawat in Dec 2019. And he answered the very point you just raised.

India was ready to retaliate had Pakistan hit military installation post-Balakot: Army chief
https://theprint.in/defence/india-was-r ... ef/337348/
18 Dec 2019

“The situation along the LoC can escalate at any time. We are always prepared for a response along the escalatory matrix,” Rawat said. In an interaction with a select group of journalists at Army Headquarters, senior officers explained that they had prepared for a number of scenarios to retaliate against the Pakistani military. “There would definitely have been a response from the Army had the Pakistani fighters hit any of the Army installations. However, they failed to hit,” a top officer said. Asked by a journalist what the retaliatory action would have been, the officer said: “Why should I say in public what the action would have been? The enemy would come to know. Suffice it to say that a number of contingency plans were prepared by the Indian military on the possibility of escalation.”

And this video of Admiral Sunil Lanba from 30 May 2019. Please see from 14:40 in the video. Indian military chiefs are not in the business of talking hyperbole. They had full directive to escalate, if Pakistan chose to go down that route.

Had Push Come To Shove Post-Balakot, Would Have Decimated Pak Navy: India’s Navy Chief

And as per Air Marshal Haseeb Paracha, DCAS Operations for Pakistan Air Force ----> the PAF did not miss the ammunition depot at Naushera by mistake, they missed on purpose. I am not making that up ldev, he actually said that. Listen to this yarn from 9:30 in the video, he talks about the pilot being asked to purposely miss the target (the PowerPoint presentation uses the term ---> off-set impact point) of the Indian Army ammunition depot at Naushera. He continues on that issue till around 11:20 in the video.

PAF Operation Swift Retort Revealed

ldev wrote:The pivotal issue about the Pakistani Punjabi psyche is this. Against any other country the Pakistani Gernail will fold when his lifestyle is threatened. Read the US or China. Against India it is a very different ballgame. It is tied with history, religion, identity, pride, that all of India should have been theirs, the humiliation of the formation of Bangladesh etc. etc. When it is war against India, Pakistan will fight to the end. Against any other country they will fold and give up. But against India they will escalate all the way, no mistake about it. That is why India needs overwhelming superiority at every level of the escalation ladder.

Nothing could be further from the truth. All this talk of being tied with history, religion, identity, pride, etc is for the gullible Pak citizenry to swallow. Pak Gernails know the longer the pull this charade on their own people, the longer they can continue to live their life of unabated luxury. They are not about to threaten all of that over conflict with India. Jihad is meant only for the underprivileged of Pakistan. Pak Gernails and their children don't fight Jihadi wars, they only direct them from their corner bungalow plot. They have been lying to their people for the past 72+ years and will continue to do so. What the Pak military does to her citizens is what Pak feudal landowners do to their working folk. Servitude for eternity or till death, which ever comes first.

No current Pak Gernail is about to give up his lifestyle over humiliation of Bangladesh and whatever other nonsense they believe. They know it is not worth it. Imran Khan recently said that no Indian Muslim will be allowed in Pakistan, if they flee India because of CAA. Whatever happened to the Muslim Ummah (which has ties in history, religion, identity and pride)? I thought Kashmiris were their "persecuted" brothers, no?

Imran Khan On Citizenship Amendment Act: Pakistan Won't Accept Muslim Refugees From India
https://news.abplive.com/news/world/imr ... ia-1126569

ldev wrote:The requirement for a 2nd strike is a low probability high impact event. The requirement for the F35 is a high probability medium impact event. Without the F35 the IAF will in the not too distant future not be able to penetrate Chinese and Pakistani airspace. If Russian technical support were withdrawn today, I believe the Indian SSBN & SSN programs will continue, albeit at a slower pace of upscaling the reactors.

Depending on the sources one looks at, the Arihant Class runs at 4 - 5 boats...with successive boats weighing greater in tonnage than the preceding boat. Following the Arihant Class, comes the S5 Class of SSBNs which is another 3 - 4 build program and will weigh almost double in weight of the Arihant Class. Then there is the SSN program of six boats, which is yet another design.

It is fairly easy for anyone to understand where on the totem pole of importance, reactor design and nuclear submarines are in relation to the F-35 stealth fighter for Indian policy makers and Indian military leaders. And the F-35 is an aircraft that now two successive Air Chiefs have dismissed. You have to convince the IAF of the F-35, not the GoI. If the IAF does not want it, the GoI cannot force it on to them. So it is a moot point to keep on beating that drum.

ldev wrote:Bottom line is this. If the S400 purchase stays the course, does it make sense to spend 19 Billion Euros and get less than 100 Rafale. When the same amount of money will buy about 180 Grippen, 180 F-16s and more than 250 Mig 29s, although I suspect that the last thing the IAF wants is 250 Mig 29s.

Answered above at the top of the post.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 26 Jan 2020 13:36

Aircraft are not potatoes to be cooked. The need repair infrastructure, spare parts, pilot training, a whole of weapons, etc etc. And they take time to produce. Given all these it makes no sense to go for a new imported 4 gen aircraft to be inducted after 2025.

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 26 Jan 2020 21:03

Aditya_V wrote:Aircraft are not potatoes to be cooked. The need repair infrastructure, spare parts, pilot training, a whole of weapons, etc etc. And they take time to produce. Given all these it makes no sense to go for a new imported 4 gen aircraft to be inducted after 2025.

My thoughts exactly

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Jan 2020 11:42

brar_w wrote:How can the program be structured exactly the way MMRCA 1.0 was structured? That would make no sense. If 1.0 was unaffordable, 2.0 would also be unaffordable. So unless the babus at the MOD have no idea of what they are doing, they would have made some pretty significant alterations for affordability reasons alone.

The very fact that there is a MRCA 2.0 procurement program instead of just a limited follow on Rafale order should tell you that we have learnt absolutely nothing from the 1.0 fiasco. In fact I would venture to state that the MoD and MoF babus probably consider MRCA 1.0 to be a complete success because the "process" was followed to a T. That it resulted in no actual aircraft being procured and/or built in India is of course immaterial to our versions of Sir Humphrey Applebee.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 28 Jan 2020 13:48

Don't worry IAF first choice is 114 Rafales . The circus is just to get the best deal. Expect 114 Rafales in the timeperiod 2022-32 @12/yr for 2billion dollar per year for total 20b dollar.
It is for this only. More Su 30 and Tejas are not being ordered than planned to keep finances free post 2022.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Jan 2020 00:39

sankum wrote:Don't worry IAF first choice is 114 Rafales . The circus is just to get the best deal. Expect 114 Rafales in the timeperiod 2022-32 @12/yr for 2billion dollar per year for total 20b dollar.
It is for this only more Su 30 and Tejas are not being ordered than planned to keep finances free post 2022.

More Su-30's or no the probability of the IAF getting 114 new Rafales is the same as that of me becoming the next King of England. If we could afford so many we would have bought them during the first MMRCA procurement.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Jan 2020 00:47

Your Royal Highness, will we be invited for the coronation event?

P.S.That was a joke...

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Jan 2020 01:14

Rakesh wrote:Your Royal Highness, will we be invited for the coronation event?

Sure.....if I get my mithai

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Feb 2020 01:39

Truly the merc of fighter jets ! ( or Tesla if you prefer ! )

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 02 Feb 2020 02:22

...I wish for an experience. At least now some folks will relish the experience. Good decision by government to make it happen.