VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

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.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4259
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karthik S » 14 Nov 2018 16:22

Seems there's a slip up on a technology in our Rafales during court hearing today? Potentially affecting Indo French ties. Govt. should have stopped IAF personnel from appearing for this very reason.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1228
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Sumeet » 14 Nov 2018 16:33

Karthik S wrote:Seems there's a slip up on a technology in our Rafales during court hearing today? Potentially affecting Indo French ties. Govt. should have stopped IAF personnel from appearing for this very reason.


What happened ? I didn't read that in news, perhaps missed it

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4259
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karthik S » 14 Nov 2018 16:40

Look up @LiveLawIndia handle in twitter.

naruto
BRFite
Posts: 104
Joined: 23 Aug 2016 08:59

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby naruto » 14 Nov 2018 17:36

Sumeet wrote: What happened ? I didn't read that in news, perhaps missed it


Regarding stealth.

Edit: Since this has come out, I am putting it here, Mods you can take a call.
https://twitter.com/Aryanwarlord/status/1062638496211443713
Last edited by naruto on 14 Nov 2018 18:22, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 14 Nov 2018 17:59

A whole lot of idiotic statements seems to have been made in SC today. Stuff like - LCA/Su30 are 3.5 Gen, Rafale is 5th Gen, Su30 is the latest induction in IAF etc (reportedly by very senior IAF officer), How can PM talk about deal which was not concluded so on and so forth.

- source @barandbench tweets

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3030
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Kashi » 14 Nov 2018 18:37

I wonder if that was the plan all along, to somehow get the details into the public domain.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 14 Nov 2018 18:47

Kashi wrote:I wonder if that was the plan all along, to somehow get the details into the public domain.

Could be and GOI idiotically fell for it. They could have shown middle finger to SC. SC asked either the details or an affidavit on why details cannot be submitted. GOI shared details by choice.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 14 Nov 2018 21:43

Nothing has been revealed bar an overwrought Twitter users fevered imagination.
See
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/indianex ... 7350/lite/

Chinese J-20 stealth fighter not cause for concern, Rafale too has stealth features: Air Marshal

.......

The internets.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6157
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby CRamS » 15 Nov 2018 02:05

Ajai Shukla with an atrogant smirk on his face seems he has supposedly ‘nailed govt’s lie’ on pricing. But he won’t reveal his sources though. But govt must release all detals :-).

As I expected, SC has thrown Pappu & Co a few dog bones, one of which is this letter of sovereign guarantee or lack thereoff. I see opposition and their media mouthpiecrs have latched on to this. I am sure there are other safeguards built in so Dassault does not renege, but this dog bone will be enough for opposition to hammer away.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5973
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 15 Nov 2018 02:17

They can say what they want, but as long as the SC gives the clean chit on the following, the Modi Govt is in the clear;

1) Acqusition procedure was followed
2) Pricing was accurate as advised
3) No evidence of cronyism in offset

If those three are in favour of Govt, the opposition and their minions can say whatever they want to under the sun.

The NDA Govt needs an effective PR department. They have lost the perception battle.

Everyone knows who Ajai Shukla's sources are. Let him smirk :)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2018 02:39

The IAF honchos both serving and retd. should've stayed out of the debate except for saying that the Rafale was chosen after intense technical evaluation.Some of their conflicting statements and some over-enthu statements have helped the Oppn.The IAF brass should not comment on the negotiations and contract which should be solely by the MOD which negotiated the package and nuances of the deal.

Barring M.Hollande's statement- and he's no saint and a good reason for finding an alternative to HAL given Trappier's statement about 95% finalised with HAL just days before the deal was signed, thete is no evidencd to show culpability by the GOI of yhe day.I suspect that if thete arguably was somd hanky- panky, it was to facilitate some santhosam for French politico intetestsl.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2307
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Nov 2018 03:03

Courts can call any govt servants to testify so there was really no option to not go. You go willingly or in cuffs.

Anyhow what is wrong in it? I think IAF's words would be considered more impartial than the answers from bureaucrats. IAF brass is competent enough to handle it without revealing secrets or getting ensnared in traps. Remember elected executives have to stay away from the court proceedings. Neither they are called to testify nor they are asked to submit or get involved in court proceedings.

The whole thing went really well so far for the GoI and IAF. Media needs something to talk and it'll regardless of what happens in court. As long as court stay away from making adverse comments or find troubling documents this is dead horse not matter how much RaGa flogs it, it aint going no where.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6157
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby CRamS » 15 Nov 2018 05:43

Rakesh wrote:They can say what they want, but as long as the SC gives the clean chit on the following, the Modi Govt is in the clear;

1) Acqusition procedure was followed
2) Pricing was accurate as advised
3) No evidence of cronyism in offset

If those three are in favour of Govt, the opposition and their minions can say whatever they want to under the sun.



I don’t think this ‘battle’ is as simple as that. Even if current SC in their minds know the above are true, I doubt they will say so in stark terms because that would be to the abject detriment of their Pappu. Sorry our SC judjes are not saints. However, I agree with you, the converse is true. Even if there is a tiny shred of evidence or doubt that one or more of the above looks murky, you can be rest assured that Chandrachaud and Gogoi will declare in Shudh grandiose Oxford English that ModiJi ‘betrayed the trust of the people’ and hand over ‘victory’to Pappu on a silver platter.


Everyone knows who Ajai Shukla's sources are. Let him smirk :)


Who are his sources? I don’t know. But he holds a virulent hatred for BJP, he loathes ModiJi with passion, he dispargiingly refers to any ModiJi supporter as ‘bhakts’, his position on J&K sounds suspiscous to me, he all but disparages army chief Bipin Rawat’s statements against terrorism in J&K, and like all other opposition Pappus, he bats for TSP against BJP, and he advocates p!ss talks with them.

Reason I take him seriously is because he is an ex col in Indian army and knows a lot, he is part of the Lutyen mafia and sounds very personable to goras, in fact I see a lot of wannabe traits from his twitter line, and I wonder whom he is working for? I can see him being a very useful idiot for US/UK deep states. He is relentless in his effort to bring down BJP. Whether or not he is working for queen madam and her Pappu, he is assured of a mighty powerful role in a thugbandhan govt should they ever come to power.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Pratyush » 15 Nov 2018 06:54

All the above is true. But su 30 is a 3.5 gen plane. Please give us a break.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5973
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 15 Nov 2018 08:04

CRamS wrote:I don’t think this ‘battle’ is as simple as that. Even if current SC in their minds know the above are true, I doubt they will say so in stark terms because that would be to the abject detriment of their Pappu. Sorry our SC judjes are not saints. However, I agree with you, the converse is true. Even if there is a tiny shred of evidence or doubt that one or more of the above looks murky, you can be rest assured that Chandrachaud and Gogoi will declare in Shudh grandiose Oxford English that ModiJi ‘betrayed the trust of the people’ and hand over ‘victory’to Pappu on a silver platter.

I am not well versed in the political inclinations of the SC judges. So I will defer to you on that issue.

CRamS wrote:Who are his sources? I don’t know.

His sources are the Congress onlee. Where else do you think he gets his Lahori logic from? :)

CRamS wrote:Reason I take him seriously is because he is an ex col in Indian army and knows a lot, he is part of the Lutyen mafia and sounds very personable to goras, in fact I see a lot of wannabe traits from his twitter line, and I wonder whom he is working for? I can see him being a very useful idiot for US/UK deep states. He is relentless in his effort to bring down BJP. Whether or not he is working for queen madam and her Pappu, he is assured of a mighty powerful role in a thugbandhan govt should they ever come to power.

Book knowledge (of which he has plenty!) does not equal to being aware of the issues. He is representative of many defense reporters in India. Act smart, throw around a few numbers and prices, highlight a few passages from the Ministry of Defence procurement policy, sensationalize the issue and all of sudden you become an expert on Indian Defence matters. That is all he is. I read his articles for entertainment, of which he provides loads of.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5973
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 15 Nov 2018 09:04

Rafale - The Gust of Wind
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/tr ... 3cc4796fce

By Air Marshal Anil Chopra (retd), 09 November 2018

Srutayus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 05:53

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Srutayus » 15 Nov 2018 10:34

Rafale - The Gust of Wind
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/tr ... 3cc4796fce

By Air Marshal Anil Chopra (retd), 09 November 2018


Note Air Marshal Chopra’s breakdown of the price in the article. The residual price of about 91 million Euros per plane is in line with other price breakdown estimates that have looked into the cost of the weapon, maintenance and other options packages.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2307
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Nov 2018 10:42

If court dismisses the pleas, govt wins (Judge Loya case). If they order SIT than damage is done!

Govt’s been fighting with SC for a while by sitting on files or proposing MOP for judges selection that are clearly unacceptable. I only hope no one at SC is holding grudges like Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie

My money is on out right dismissal of all pleas when the verdict is delivered.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2307
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Nov 2018 10:47

Pratyush wrote:All the above is true. But su 30 is a 3.5 gen plane. Please give us a break.


That is sounds so wrong based on how west and we at BRF classify fighter aircrafts. We go on adding + signs like 4th gen and 4+ gen and 4++ gen to quantify major improvements but. IAF may have different terminology of its own.

China too uses different generation classifications than west for its fighters.
Baseline is that Rafale is half a generation ahead of the MKI which is very reasonable assertion.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby SaiK » 15 Nov 2018 12:45

Rafale: This Is A Matter For Experts To Examine, Not A Case For Judicial Review : AG KK Venugopal To SC [Courtroom Exchange]

In the course of the Rafale hearing which is underway in the Supreme Court, Attorney General K. K. Venugopal advanced that “This is a matter for experts and not one where judicial review may be undertaken based on media reports and other documents which is not clear how they are in the (petitioners’) possession”

“The big question Your Lordships should ask is whether the court is competent to review (the deal to acquire 36 Rafale fighter jets) on the basis of what has been filed”, pressed the AG.

“With all due respect, Your Lordships asked for the procedure (followed in the procurement) to be filed. The government of India did so. You asked us to give extracts of it, which can be brought into the public domain, to the petitioners, and to share the pricing details with the court in a sealed cover. We have done so”, continued the AG.

“The agreements between the government of India and the government of France, of which one is the Inter Governmental Agreement, regard certain information as classified which can be disclosed only with the permission of the government of France. Even the Parliament has not been given the complete cost. Please Sanjay Singh’s (AAP MLA) petition- the cost of the aircraft has been stated as being Rs. 670 crores, which is exclusive of the associate equipment, the maintenance support and services, etc. This is not the cost of the loaded aircraft. The secrecy is sought to be maintained as to the weaponry and the avionics, and not for the aircraft, so as to avert the risk of our adversaries taking advantage of this information. The IAF (Indian Air Force) Air Marshal has given a letter concurring on this point. If we are to disclose the pricing of the whole, loader aircraft, the consent of the government of France is needed....such information is protected against disclosure even under the RTI Act….”, was the case of the top law officer.

“But because of the respect for the Supreme Court, we will make available the details of price and the break-up as to weaponry and avionics, and even the advantages of the jet”, conceded the AG.

However, he voiced concerns over the possibility of leakage from his office of such sensitive information.

“Any discussion as to pricing will happen only if we allow these stats to come into public domain”, assured Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
On why the earlier deal of procuring 126 fighter jets, of which 18 would be in fly-away condition and 108 would be manufactured in India by HAL on the basis of Technology Transfer was scrapped, Mr. Venugopal contended that there could be “No understanding with HAL in respect of the man hours required for manufacture, which were 2.7 times higher than Dassault and would have resulted in a huge delay”.

“The contractual obligations and the issue regarding manufacture in India could not resolved between 2012 and 2015....there could not be allowed to be any danger of accident and the jets and The equipment was to be in perfect condition and of perfect efficacy....the difference in the price came on account of the inflation and the change in the euro-rupee exchange rate in this time gap”, explained the AG.

“Our adversaries were upgrading their existing aircraft and acquiring more advanced ones. They had inducted more than than 400 fighter jets as against our
126. These were Fourth generation aircraft. This enhancing by the adversaries of their combat strength made the situation asymmetrical and critical. And Daily Wagers E

“Our adversaries were upgrading their existing aircraft and acquiring more advanced ones. They had inducted more than than 400 fighter jets as against our 126. These were Fourth generation aircraft. This enhancing by the adversaries of their combat strength made the situation asymmetrical and critical. And hence, the process for withdrawal of the earlier RPF was initiated in March, 2015, with the Indo-french joint statement being issued on April 10, 2015, for the supply of 36 Rafale jets ‘as quickly as possible’….”, he continued.

“There was a long delay from 2007 to 2015 and we were still in the process of finalising, when it was decided that the government would withdraw the deal for 126 aircraft with only 18 in flyaway condition and instead procure 36 in the flyaway condition”,

“These 36 were compatible with the quality requirements of the earlier MMRC (Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft), and of the same configuration. The operational requirement of the IAF, the acceptance of necessity, the approval by the requisite financial authority, the commercial negotiations- all steps were fulfilled. It was brought to the notice of the DAC (Defence Acquisition Council)”, he asserted.

“After the joint statement, we followed the 2013 Defence Procurement Procedure. The earlier procedure, in respect of the RPF issued in 2007, was deemed to be valid....”, he stated.

“So there was no RPF for these 36 jets?”, inquired Justice K. M. Joseph.

“Is the RPF required for the intergovernmental agreement Or only for competitive deals?”, asked the Chief Justice.

“No, the intergovernmental agreement does not need the RPF. However, the Rafale deal was sent to all committees and it was okay-ed....”, responded the AG. “Are these new aircraft the same as those 126? Otherwise, the procedure (of procurement) has to be repeated”, reflected Justice Joseph.

“is the base aircraft same as earlier”, the Chief Justice sought to know.

“Yes, it is the same”, replied the AG.

“Under the earlier procurement of 2007, did you at any time disclose the machinery and the weapons to be loaded which you are now refraining from haring?”, asked Chief Justice Gogoi. “No, it was never officially disclosed even under the old law”, said the AG.

“We take it that The weaponry and the equipment have never been in public domain”, noted the Chief Justice.

“Are the deliverables for both sets of aircraft the same?”, quizzed Justice Joseph.

“The additional secretary of the defence ministry says there have been improvements in the deliverables because of the time gap”, stated Mr. Venugopal.

The Chief Justice asked if anyone from the IAF was present in court. When the AG indicated the secretary of the defence ministry, the Chief Justice declined, saying the court wished to quiz an officer of the IAF as to the requirements of the air force and no one from the ministry.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby SaiK » 15 Nov 2018 12:48

Q: Why does the court needs to know the requirements of IAF?

WTF is going on?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2018 13:01

Karan M wrote:Nothing has been revealed bar an overwrought Twitter users fevered imagination.
See
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/indianex ... 7350/lite/

Chinese J-20 stealth fighter not cause for concern, Rafale too has stealth features: Air Marshal

.......

The internets.


Was wrt the pricing details that GOI has given to SC in sealed lifafa. Its not a long stretch of imagination that it could be leaked from there. Those details were to be remain classified as per G2G deal. GOI had no need to share those details. Looking at the IQ of the folks in the court room I don't think anything of technical importance would come up for discussion, such as what sort of stealth features Rafale going to have.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2018 14:32

whats with branding Su30MKI, LCA and M2K as 3.5 Generation and Rafale being 5th Genration by the Senior IAF officers..? I see statements by IAF officers to SC bench reported by many sources -

- "So, virtually no induction has taken place between 1985 and 2018".
- M2K, LCA, Su30 are 3.5 generation aircrafts, rafale is 4th gen aircraft.
- Rafale is 5th Gen aircraft
- IAF has no forth or fifth generation aircraft

and things like that. Since when IAF started having its own generation classification..?

What the hell is even 3.5 generation. I never heard anyone saying 3.5Gen before.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Viv S » 15 Nov 2018 14:48

naruto wrote:
Sumeet wrote: What happened ? I didn't read that in news, perhaps missed it


Regarding stealth.

Edit: Since this has come out, I am putting it here, Mods you can take a call.
https://twitter.com/Aryanwarlord/status/1062638496211443713

Ahh.. that one always makes me crack up. LM gets a lot of flak for using buzzwords, but true masters of marketing IMO have always been Dassault.

They've managed to convince people that the Rafale isn't multirole, its "omni-role" and it doesn't use DRFM jamming, it employs "active cancellation".

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2307
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Nov 2018 19:43

JayS wrote:whats with branding Su30MKI, LCA and M2K as 3.5 Generation and Rafale being 5th Genration by the Senior IAF officers..? I see statements by IAF officers to SC bench reported by many sources -

- "So, virtually no induction has taken place between 1985 and 2018".
- M2K, LCA, Su30 are 3.5 generation aircrafts, rafale is 4th gen aircraft.
- Rafale is 5th Gen aircraft
- IAF has no forth or fifth generation aircraft

and things like that. Since when IAF started having its own generation classification..?

What the hell is even 3.5 generation. I never heard anyone saying 3.5Gen before.


Lot of misreading and misunderstanding by media, from what I gather from all the reporting is as follows-

CJI asked and IAF officer confirmed that No induction of “next generation” aircrafts have taken place since 1985

IAF’s classifies MKI as half a gen ahead of M2ks. The thinking here is that if Rafale is 4 th generation than M2ks have to be 3rd generation. Upgraded Mirages would be considered 3.5 gen aircrafts. With same logic they would classify original Su27 as 3rd generation and MKI as 3.5 gen. In that case Su35, if it qualifies IAF standards, would be 4th gen aircraft and FGFA would be 5th gen

Rafael was not called 5th gen. IAF only said it can take care of planned Chinese 5th gen aircrafts because it has stealth features too

This is weired but the logic has internal consistency.

3rd Gen - M2k, Su27, Mig 29, Mig 21
3.5 Gen - M2k-5, Su30 MKI, Mig29SMT/K, Tejas Mk1
4th Gen - Rafale, Su35, Mig 35, Eurofighter, Tejas Mk2
4.5 Gen - Future midlife upgrades on Rafale, Eurofighter,TejasMk2
5th Gen - J35, FGFA and J20
5.5 Gen- future upgrades to 5th gen aircrafts
Last edited by Katare on 15 Nov 2018 21:22, edited 1 time in total.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby sivab » 15 Nov 2018 21:10

JayS wrote:whats with branding Su30MKI, LCA and M2K as 3.5 Generation and Rafale being 5th Genration by the Senior IAF officers..? I see statements by IAF officers to SC bench reported by many sources -

- "So, virtually no induction has taken place between 1985 and 2018".
- M2K, LCA, Su30 are 3.5 generation aircrafts, rafale is 4th gen aircraft.
- Rafale is 5th Gen aircraft
- IAF has no forth or fifth generation aircraft

and things like that. Since when IAF started having its own generation classification..?

What the hell is even 3.5 generation. I never heard anyone saying 3.5Gen before.


DDM trying to create false impression. Here is what Air Marshal said:

As the hearing in connection with the controversial Rafale deal continued post lunch, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi interacted with Air Marshal V R Chaudhari and two other officers from Indian Air Force as to the requirements of the Airforce.

“What has been the latest induction in the IAF in terms of combat aircraft?”, he asked.

When the Air Marshall cited the relevant type, the Chief Justice inquired if the manufacture of the same is ongoing by HAL.

Replying in the affirmative, the officer stated that the process is carried out in Nasik and that the delivery is received every year.

If there are any other aircrafts being manufactured in India, the Chief Justice wanted to know. The Light Combat Aircraft which is being made in Bangalore and is to be inducted in the IAF, he was informed.

When Chief Justice Gogoi asked as what generation, the third or the fourth, the Air Marshall would describe these aircraft, he was told that they could be called “3.5-4th generation”.

“So your requirement is of the fifth generation, if not the sixth?”, quizzed the Chief Justice. “We would say the technology is very niche in the fifth generation”, was the officer’s reply.


https://www.livelaw.in/sc-interacts-wit ... e-hearing/

As for what is 3.5, I think they mean 4th gen technologies (such as radar) in a 3rd gen airframe. YMMV.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2018 21:21

^^Yesterday I was seeing feed from similar law related handle which give live commentary on key cases. It was reporting pretty much the same as what DDM is saying today. I have read the above version too, but then it became difficult to know who is giving most accurate factual description of what really happened. I wish there was a video recording of the hearing.

I might have been ignorant so far, but I have never heard or seen anyone clarifying that IAF has its own generation classification system which does not agree with commonly accepted definitions of genrations. I would like to know what forms the basis of the classification, in terms of technical and operational capabilities, which defined Su30MKI and LCA MK1 as 3.5Gen while Rafale is 4 Gen. Now when I did some googling, there is definite patten in calling LCA not a/not yet a 4th Gen Fighter by various IAF officers including one IAF chief. But then there are other innumerable instances when various IAF officers have called LCA or Su30 as 4th or even 4.5th Generation aircraft.

BTW, MiG-21 would have to be 2nd Gen by any standard. It cannot seat with M2K and MiG29. And the backward extrapolation would make pre-WW2 era aircrafts as -1 Generation.

Would be a good question to ask to any chaiwalla source in IAF about this. I wish deejay was around to clarify.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2307
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Nov 2018 21:28

Jay,
This is the first time anyone has heard of this 3.5 gen classification from IAF. Hope some clarification comes out from official circles in near future.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 16 Nov 2018 00:51

He says 3.5 to 4. And tomorrow if it gets AESA, who knows he might say, it will become 4.5. All these personal descriptions of generation are meaningless, even though they will be used for propaganda by the usual suspects, because who apart from him, would really classify the Rafale as a niche 5G plane.

What's really important, which you guys are missing, is what he says is that as a pilot, he is really eager for the LCA to enter service and really likes the aircraft. Now if that is not positively a sea change from the earlier IAF attitude I dont know what is.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 16 Nov 2018 00:56

Rakesh wrote:
CRamS wrote:I don’t think this ‘battle’ is as simple as that. Even if current SC in their minds know the above are true, I doubt they will say so in stark terms because that would be to the abject detriment of their Pappu. Sorry our SC judjes are not saints. However, I agree with you, the converse is true. Even if there is a tiny shred of evidence or doubt that one or more of the above looks murky, you can be rest assured that Chandrachaud and Gogoi will declare in Shudh grandiose Oxford English that ModiJi ‘betrayed the trust of the people’ and hand over ‘victory’to Pappu on a silver platter.

I am not well versed in the political inclinations of the SC judges. So I will defer to you on that issue.

CRamS wrote:Who are his sources? I don’t know.

His sources are the Congress onlee. Where else do you think he gets his Lahori logic from? :)

CRamS wrote:Reason I take him seriously is because he is an ex col in Indian army and knows a lot, he is part of the Lutyen mafia and sounds very personable to goras, in fact I see a lot of wannabe traits from his twitter line, and I wonder whom he is working for? I can see him being a very useful idiot for US/UK deep states. He is relentless in his effort to bring down BJP. Whether or not he is working for queen madam and her Pappu, he is assured of a mighty powerful role in a thugbandhan govt should they ever come to power.

Book knowledge (of which he has plenty!) does not equal to being aware of the issues. He is representative of many defense reporters in India. Act smart, throw around a few numbers and prices, highlight a few passages from the Ministry of Defence procurement policy, sensationalize the issue and all of sudden you become an expert on Indian Defence matters. That is all he is. I read his articles for entertainment, of which he provides loads of.


Regarding Shukla and the opposition party. Not sure how many are aware of this. He is the brother in law of Suman Dubey, who is a coaccused in the national herald case with you know who. The links run deep.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby sivab » 16 Nov 2018 01:28

Karan M wrote:Regarding Shukla and the opposition party. Not sure how many are aware of this. He is the brother in law of Suman Dubey, who is a coaccused in the national herald case with you know who. The links run deep.


There is a bit more to it. Suman Dubey's wife and Arun Shourie's wife are sisters. Ajai Shukla is the brother of those two sisters. Arun Shourie with his buddy Prashant Bhushan was in SC during Rafale hearing yesterday.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby ramana » 16 Nov 2018 04:55

Guys dont waste time discussing Col Shukla. Thanks.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3977
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Kartik » 16 Nov 2018 04:58

sivab wrote:
Karan M wrote:Regarding Shukla and the opposition party. Not sure how many are aware of this. He is the brother in law of Suman Dubey, who is a coaccused in the national herald case with you know who. The links run deep.


There is a bit more to it. Suman Dubey's wife and Arun Shourie's wife are sisters. Ajai Shukla is the brother of those two sisters. Arun Shourie with his buddy Prashant Bhushan was in SC during Rafale hearing yesterday.


Clear conflict of interest. It explains a lot about his deep dislike for the BJP and Modi in particular.

venkat_r
BRFite
Posts: 292
Joined: 20 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby venkat_r » 16 Nov 2018 10:09

So what’s wrong if the Supreme Court is questioning it? In my opinion it is pretty good and things are going to be out in the open.

Too much fear mongering and speculation going on here - Supreme Court would be interested if the due process was followed and if it was done by GOI then that would end there.

If anything that this exposure has brought out, that is how badly IAF needs these fighters and might mobilize enough support to pull the trigger on the rest of the fighters.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 16 Nov 2018 10:38

Its a matter of judicial overreach, not the one of transparency. We need to keep some leeway for people at the top so they can take decisions based on judgement calls. Question can be asked on how Ambani was chosen as a partner company. In this particular context and the case topic should have been limited to that one if at all SC couldnt resist taking up the case, question should not be asked on why Rafale was chosen and why only 36 were chosen. Lets say they are chosen to maintain our Air Arm of Nuclear Delivery capability and 36 are minimum numbers decided by that criteria, do you want GOI to put that one in public against its better judgement not to do so in first place in National Security interest...? That too forced by petty folks who have nothing but political mileage to gain through the whole excercise..? On top of it SC wants GOI to disclose details which are classified as per the G2G deal..? Can they not trust GOI when it is on record in Parliament in saying those details cannot be disclosed due to the agrememnt with French government? Where the lines are drawn..? Tomorrow SC might ask details on Arihant or our Nuclear program. We have routine mechanisms like CAG audit or Parliamentary committees or Expert committees to look into the relevant details of the deal in proper manner. So why SC takes up case in such haphazard manner with frivolous arguments which had no solid basis..? I see gross political overtone to the whole drama, both from the appealing party and from the GOI. This case is a pure mockery.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Philip » 16 Nov 2018 17:34

https://deccanchronicle.com/opinion/op- ... fight.html
False info, false testimony in Rafale dogfight
Published Nov 16, 2018,
We have a tradition in India, actually a discipline, that officers in uniform don’t take part even in political discussions, let alone debates.

Doing a postman's job.Don't fire a meteor at him! One mistake in his piece.It's not the F-117 but the F-22 .The F-117 has long departed.

Nevertheless,the manner in which our IAF brass have been making their mouthings in the SC leave a lot to be desired.The crude manner in which they're trying to turn the Rafale into a magic bullet without which the IAF cannot fight is simply ludicrous.The backbone of the IAF repeated by many an AM is the SU-30MKI which has bested the best of the west time and again,barring the F-22.Even MP said that it was an alternative to the Rafale when there was a logjam in negotiations.The "3.5" gen. classification is a new one in aviation circles! Certainly the SU-27 was first sen at Farnborough by the West along with the MIG-29 3.5 decades ago.The MKI however,is definitely a 4++ fighter ,esp. with BMos,along with the SU-35.The Rafale cannot carry BMos,neither does it have TVC and cannot perform the aerodynamics which the Flanker can as we've witnessed at several air shows in the past.
This doesn't mean that the Rafale isn't reqd. by the IAF.That fact is not in dispute and the IAF brass who've been always kept outside financial negotiations should keep their feet out of their mouths and not embarrass the GOI further.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby JayS » 16 Nov 2018 20:33

Philip wrote:https://deccanchronicle.com/opinion/op-ed/161118/false-info-false-testimony-in-rafale-dogfight.html
False info, false testimony in Rafale dogfight

This doesn't mean that the Rafale isn't reqd. by the IAF.That fact is not in dispute and the IAF brass who've been always kept outside financial negotiations should keep their feet out of their mouths and not embarrass the GOI further.


Not true for this one AFAIK. Officers from IAF were involved in PNC. They had to be since the costing is based on LCC.

prat.patel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby prat.patel » 16 Nov 2018 21:39

JayS wrote:Its a matter of judicial overreach, not the one of transparency. We need to keep some leeway for people at the top so they can take decisions based on judgement calls. Question can be asked on how Ambani was chosen as a partner company. In this particular context and the case topic should have been limited to that one if at all SC couldnt resist taking up the case, question should not be asked on why Rafale was chosen and why only 36 were chosen. Lets say they are chosen to maintain our Air Arm of Nuclear Delivery capability and 36 are minimum numbers decided by that criteria, do you want GOI to put that one in public against its better judgement not to do so in first place in National Security interest...? That too forced by petty folks who have nothing but political mileage to gain through the whole excercise..? On top of it SC wants GOI to disclose details which are classified as per the G2G deal..? Can they not trust GOI when it is on record in Parliament in saying those details cannot be disclosed due to the agrememnt with French government? Where the lines are drawn..? Tomorrow SC might ask details on Arihant or our Nuclear program. We have routine mechanisms like CAG audit or Parliamentary committees or Expert committees to look into the relevant details of the deal in proper manner. So why SC takes up case in such haphazard manner with frivolous arguments which had no solid basis..? I see gross political overtone to the whole drama, both from the appealing party and from the GOI. This case is a pure mockery.


+1
Very well said sir!!!!

Srutayus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 05:53

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Srutayus » 16 Nov 2018 22:11

JayS wrote:
Its a matter of judicial overreach, not the one of transparency. We need to keep some leeway for people at the top so they can take decisions based on judgement calls. Question can be asked on how Ambani was chosen as a partner company. In this particular context and the case topic should have been limited to that one if at all SC couldnt resist taking up the case, question should not be asked on why Rafale was chosen and why only 36 were chosen. Lets say they are chosen to maintain our Air Arm of Nuclear Delivery capability and 36 are minimum numbers decided by that criteria, do you want GOI to put that one in public against its better judgement not to do so in first place in National Security interest...? That too forced by petty folks who have nothing but political mileage to gain through the whole excercise..? On top of it SC wants GOI to disclose details which are classified as per the G2G deal..? Can they not trust GOI when it is on record in Parliament in saying those details cannot be disclosed due to the agrememnt with French government? Where the lines are drawn..? Tomorrow SC might ask details on Arihant or our Nuclear program. We have routine mechanisms like CAG audit or Parliamentary committees or Expert committees to look into the relevant details of the deal in proper manner. So why SC takes up case in such haphazard manner with frivolous arguments which had no solid basis..? I see gross political overtone to the whole drama, both from the appealing party and from the GOI. This case is a pure mockery.


Once gain Dassault and their partners are engaging not just Reliance Defense but dozens of Indian companies to execute the offsets.This includes TASL, Mahindra Aersospace, HAL etc. and tech transfers to DRDO. They will have to, as billions of Euros of offsets into Indian Industry is a daunting task. See MoD docs here: https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1061907819656560640. Note that Dassault's share in the offsets is only about 20% https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1061907819656560640
They have till Oct 2019 to report compliance with the offset criteria to the MoD. GoI cannot officially say anything about Dassault's offset partners, other than quoting publicly available information, until the compliance report is officially submitted to them.
As you can understand planning and contracting offsets of this magnitude in just 3 years with Indian Industry in a hi-tech, high performance and safety-critical sector is very challenging and the final list of Indian entities for the offsets will include several Indian companies.

Also the procurement of the 36 aircraft in flyaway condition was due to the long hiatus in induction from the MMRCA fiasco, with falling squadron numbers in the IAF and increased inductions into the PLAAF & PAF https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1061907819656560640. There is a larger requirement, but that is associated with a longer process.

Hope this provides some background regarding the offsets. I am somewhat disappointing in the lack of research underlying many of the posts as I have a high opinion of BRF and our contributors.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby ramana » 16 Nov 2018 22:34

Philip, Please don't get polemic on this issue.
IAF have done their duty.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JohnWalker, nash, sankum and 40 guests