Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

[Cain Marko]

If price is a problem, which it is, why not lease a few sqd of su30sm/35 or rafale? Or even m2k?

Outright purchase of cheaper mig29smt or k (since the kuze is out of commission) can also be considered.

[jpremnath]

Any action at the border will be quick and decisive. We won't have the luxury of waiting.

If it is about leasing Sukhois and Migs, why would Russia anger the Chinese by arming us against them? And even if they want to help us, China won't let them. The Chinese have the Russians by their balls..The French won't give us any Rafales either..Neither would they back us against China, nor they have spare jets. Even if they did, how many pilots can fly them without any type experience and tactics?

Best case scenario is getting Israelis to supply us with some ready to deploy SAMs..And if we are ready to compromise on self respect and sovereignty, THAAD from US.

We had this coming..Chinese' salami tactics at our borders were known for ages. It should have been clear to our leadership that one day things would come to pass that armed conflict would be needed to avert significant loss of land. But our purchases to be battle ready in the mountains were moving at a glacial pace. While LCH was needed urgently, the army and air force showed more urgency in buying Apaches. LCH is waiting for orders to be placed for months..They should have sped up it's testing and induction. Bharat forge was showing multiple Light Howitzers for years..Why didn't the army show any alacrity in entertaining them when the BAe ones were too expensive to induct in numbers.? We could go on about the QRSAMs and MRSAMS in the same breath. Items which could have been inducted if the MoD or the forces wanted them to...Now that the yellow matter is going to hit the fan, we want to go around begging for help in Moscow and Washington?

[brar_w]

Best case scenario is getting Israelis to supply us with some ready to deploy SAMs..And if we are ready to compromise on self respect and sovereignty, THAAD from US.

THAAD isn't a traditional SAM system, it is a highly specialized BMD system aimed at a particular target set which is unlikely to play a role here though it would have some signalling value. But ordering, producing, training, and equipping (with certification) a THAAD batteries takes around 4 years and the US Army literally has ZERO spare batteries between the ones that are forward deployed, ones that are part of training and dev/ops testing, and those being modernized and therefore unavailable. Israel likewise probably doesn't have spare systems given it is conducting active combat ops against Syrian and Iranian interests in Syria and would therefore have to prepare and be on alert for retaliatory strikes.

[jpremnath]

Best case scenario is getting Israelis to supply us with some ready to deploy SAMs..And if we are ready to compromise on self respect and sovereignty, THAAD from US.

THAAD isn't a traditional SAM system, it is a highly specialized BMD system aimed at a particular target set which is unlikely to play a role here though it would have some signalling value. But ordering, producing, training, and equipping (with certification) a THAAD batteries takes around 4 years and the US Army literally has ZERO spare batteries between the ones that are forward deployed, ones that are part of training and dev/ops testing, and those being modernized and therefore unavailable. Israel likewise probably doesn't have spare systems given it is conducting active combat ops against Syrian and Iranian interests in Syria and would therefore have to prepare and be on alert for retaliatory strikes.

My bad...The point is that there is no point in waiting for others to supply us with some wonder weapon to save our ass..Because none is coming..It didn't come during 62 and won't come in 2020 also. More so considering how complex today's weapons are to make and train on.

[Rakesh]

The IAF does not want THAAD.

Press reports indicate that it was offered in lieu of the S-400 purchase. The IAF turned it down. They want the S-400.

It is not the GOI that is the interested party in the S-400 system, it is the IAF. They will be the operator of the system. The IAF makes the final call in what system, platform, aircraft, etc they will operate. The GOI plays no role in that. The GOI gets involved only in payment.

For the GOI to get involved and force anything down the services' throat will reek of corruption. No Govt will want to do such a thing. Bofors still haunts the Congress.

Why the IAF wants the S-400 missile
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2019-07-16
16 July 2019

The Indian Air Force (IAF), which has closely studied the S-400 system for the past five years, was impressed by these capabilities. The IAF's air defence missiles can currently only engage targets 40 kilometres away. The Medium-Range Surface-to-Air Missile or MRSAM to be acquired from Israel next year will increase its engagement range to nearly 80 kilometres. The S-400 on the other hand, more than quadruples the IAF's missile reach. "Deploying one S-400 system allows you to cover an entire spectrum of aerial threats," says a senior IAF official. The missile system offers such a quantum jump in its capabilities that, the official says that the IAF advised the government to purchase it even at the risk of incurring US wrath. India also rejected US counter-offers of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to stop the sale.

This imbalance changes with the acquisition of the S-400. The missile system can undertake a bulk of the airspace defence role. From their locations in India, the S-400's radars can look deep inside Pakistani territory and pick up enemy aircraft almost as soon as they are airborne. Deployed along the eastern border with China, the missile system can monitor fighter jets taking off from airfields along the Tibetan plateau. "In case of hostilities, the S-400s will free up our multi-role fighters for other tasks like air-to-ground bombing missions, instead of tying them up in the air superiority role of shooting down enemy fighters," says a senior IAF official.

[brar_w]

PATRIOT and THAAD are really optimized for BMD ( nearly 100% of Patriot modernization $$ for have focused on TBM defeat capability often at the expense of Air Defense capability which isn’t a pressing need for the US) where as the S-400 is optimized for Long range Air Defense. So, hard to imagine these systems being looked at and contrasted is one is interested in one end of the spectrum.

[Rakesh]

And that is why the IAF rejected it. Surprising why it was offered in lieu of S-400, when they are two different systems

[brar_w]

And that is why the IAF rejected it. Surprising why it was offered in lieu of S-400, when they are two different systems

What else would they offer?

[Rakesh]

That is for them to decide no? As you so aptly put it - both systems play two different roles.

Whoever made such an offer, obviously did not do their homework and understand the IAF's requirements.

[brar_w]

That is for them to decide no? As you so aptly put it - both systems play two different roles.

Whoever made such an offer, obviously did not do their homework and understand the IAF's requirements.

This is not how political offers work. Technical offers get made by OEM's in partnership with the sponsoring government office (usually the service that handles that FMS case) based on the OEM's ability to respond to set of requirements. Political offers are just that - offers made without an actual RFP in hand but as an outreach. The IAF didn't float a tender after the S-400 was chosen. An unsolicited political offer is usually devoid of any technical framework (receive requirement --> asses req ---> prepare technical response ---> present FMS case to Congress). The Trump administration's political appointees usually make offers everytime an ally chooses a Russian system as an off ramp. This isn't a formal offer based on a firm set of technical requirements. In fact these political offers don't even have to be of the same system. They are free to pursue whichever strategy they see fit as it is the govenrment (and not the OEM) deciding, unilaterally, to make an unsolicited outreach.

[Rakesh]

But when a counter is made, one does not offer a system that does not cater to anything what is being looked for?

If the Russians offer IL-76MD, the American counter to should be the F-16? Obviously not. The counter to that is the C-17, which is an inherently better system.

Perhaps political offers should consult first with their military counterparts before making any offers? Perhaps that would be a better option?

[brar_w]

But when a counter is made, one does not offer a system that does not cater to anything what is being looked for?

It could very well be that the political offer has nothing to do with it.. As I said they are looking for a politically negotiated outcome..not one based on technical abilities. Take Turkey for instance. They could simply offer them an on-ramp back into the F-35 program plus extending the deployment of US Patriot batteries there for X number of years as Turkey gets its indigenous systems. There are no hard and fast rules when it comes to political offers on actions that they may take. This isn't like an OEM requesting the government for approval to respond to a formal RFP. The administration can pretty much offer all that it wants within congressionally approved bounds. Like all government officers these offers don’t always make sense logically speaking but they are free to do what they see fit.

Perhaps political offers should consult first with their military counterparts before making any offers? Perhaps that would be a better option?

There is no reason for them to consult. It is a political move, not a technical one. If they were interested in making a serious technical offer they'd make it in response to a technical requirement. They aren't trying to convince the technical authorities but make a political offer from which to launch further discussions. Its part of a broader negotiation that both the GOI and GOTUS will enter in as part of this process. So the political offer was just one element of that broader discussion.

[Rakesh]

Who in the GOTUS made a THAAD/Patriot offer to counter the S-400? I am going to go out on a limb and say it was someone who had no clue on what the S-400 does and what the THAAD/Patriot does. But it is not the GOI's job to determine that. How would they know any different like their political counterpart in the US?

But when an offer was made, that offer was taken back to the user (IAF) who soundly rejected it. And rejection came about not because it is an ineffective system, but it is not something that the IAF was looking for. And that is why the author of the articles states that India rejected the counter offer.

Where exactly is the takleef?

There is no reason for them to consult. It is a political move, not a technical one. If they were interested in making a serious technical offer they'd make it in response to a technical requirement. They aren't trying to convince the technical authorities but make a political offer from which to launch further discussions. Its part of a broader negotiation that both the GOI and GOTUS will enter in as part of this process. So the political offer was just one element of that broader discussion.

Therein lies the disconnect. The GOI does not speak for the services on technical matters. Whatever geopolitical decisions both the GOI and GOTUS take, bears little influence on what the services' needs are. In the US it is perhaps different - you would know best. It does not work that way in India. If that was indeed the case, MMRCA 1.0 should have gone to the Americans on 27 April 2011 (technical downselect) and 31 January 2012 (L1).

Any weapon platform offer made, has to be cleared by the services. No Indian Govt will make such a move.

[brar_w]

Who in the GOTUS made a THAAD/Patriot offer to counter the S-400.

Don't know. But you can search and find out if it has been reported.

I am going to go out on a limb and say it was someone who had no clue on what the S-400 does and what the THAAD/Patriot does.

That is A) unlikely and B ) Immaterial. Since CAATSA was enacted by US Congress the generic response has almost always been to offer existing US AD systems and other military equipment as an initial response to any S-400 procurement. This is then followed by future G2G discussions, offers, counteroffers etc etc etc as they look to hash out the issue.. GOTUS is not really fully committed to CAATSA so this is their mechanism to engage allies who have chosen Russian systems. It's not about them going through technical briefings and crafting something that is technically similar in the hope that it will sway technical decisions. It's just a response to allies acquiring a Rusisan system. Political decisions are policy focused and don't always make or need to make technical sense or pass muster with the technical operator. In this case, the offer was probably made knowing full well that the chances of a decision reversal were next to nil.

But it was just a political move in probably what will likely to be a series of political discussions and negotiations that occur in the background between the two governments. At what level the offer was made and what technical level exchanges occurred are largely immaterial here..you are looking at this from a technical angle. But political decisions are not ripe for that type of analysis. The 2 govenrments meet a number of times each year..what gets discussed, offered, accepted, rejected, and sidelined for further negotiation is part of a political process. Formal offers require the putting together of a series of "serious" technical packages that then get sent to Congress for approval. This is not one of those types..

Where exactly is the takleef?

??

[Mort Walker]

And that is why the IAF rejected it. Surprising why it was offered in lieu of S-400, when they are two different systems

Going by the history of acquisitions of strategic Russian weapon systems, they will come late, limited operational availability, and with reduced capability. It is when the Indian armed forces put more resources and personnel to the weapon system does it meet their operational capability.

Both THAAD and S-400 will have political or operational strings attached to them. Instead the same amount of money should have been put into the development of variants of the Rajendra Radar and Akash SAM systems. Yes, it would have taken a long time, but with proper funding and oversight this could have been done.

[abhik]

If price is a problem, which it is, why not lease a few sqd of su30sm/35 or rafale? Or even m2k?

Outright purchase of cheaper mig29smt or k (since the kuze is out of commission) can also be considered.

Who is leasing or selling?

Only the US has the kind and numbers of weapons that can affect the outcome, and whose interest it is in actually helping us - I hope we can all agree to that at least.

And being mostly dependent on foreign arms and then making bombastic claims about not needing any foreign power's help in a war is plain stupid.

[Rakesh]

I am going to go out on a limb and say it was someone who had no clue on what the S-400 does and what the THAAD/Patriot does.

That is A) unlikely and B] Immaterial.

You said it was a political offer made during broader negotiations. I highly doubt that should be considered immaterial. Everything that comes out during a policy negotiation - from either side - is considered serious. Neither side is arguing over a bottle of Heinz ketchup.

We can disagree on Point A, but I think it is fairly obvious that this offer was made by someone who has no clue on how these systems work. You have illustrated the difference - quiet beautifully - on both systems.

Since CAATSA was enacted by US Congress the generic response has almost always been to offer existing US AD systems and other military equipment as an initial response to any S-400 procurement. This is then followed by future G2G discussions. GOTUS is not really fully committed to CAATSA so this is their mechanism to engage allies who have chosen Russian systems. It's not about them going through technical briefings and crafting something that is technically similar. It's just a response to allies acquiring a Russian system. Political decisions are policy focused and don't always make or need to make technical sense or pass muster with the technical operator. In this case, the offer was probably made knowing full well that the chances of a decision reversal were next to nil. But it was just a political move in probably what will likely to be a series of political discussions and negotiations that occur in the background between the two governments.

If what you are saying above is true - and I have no reason to doubt it - perhaps a rethink should occur on how GOTUS is approaching the S-400 issue? While they do not have to make technical sense, that offer is taken back to the user to pass muster. The GOI cannot speak on behalf of the IAF when such an offer is made. That is why the author of the article stated that the IAF rejected the offer. When the user sees the offer being made, on what basis should they expect the offer to have merit? Or for that the matter, should the entity making such an offer be taken seriously? Such an offer may work in Turkey, that system does not work in India.

Secondly, if the GOTUS is not fully committed to CAATSA, that is quite troubling. Because it is a US law, passed by Congress no? While waivers exist, they are not guaranteed and are handed on a case-by-case basis. Then again, this is the Trump Administration. How seriously does anyone take the Trump Administration?

At what level the offer was made and what technical level exchanges occurred are largely immaterial here. Political moves often don't make technical sense.

If offers are being made by a low level foreign service employee, is he/she really speaking on behalf of GOTUS or are they just shooting from the hip? If it is the former, that is concerning - who is leading the negotiations then? Are they authorized to make such an offer? Are parallel offers being made? If such offers are being made - without being cleared at the highest levels - who should we trust in GOTUS?

[brar_w]

That is A) unlikely and B] Immaterial.

You said it was a political offer made during broader negotiations. I highly doubt that should be considered immaterial. Everything that comes out during a policy negotiation - from either side - is considered serious. Neither side is arguing over a bottle of Heinz ketchup.

The technical merits would most certainly be immaterial here if your political intentions aren't dependent on them. As a generic offer i.e. "our first move in the negotiations would be to offer a US AD system" this is the path they've often chosen when it comes to S-400 sales in the post CAATSA environment. Does it always align with users technical needs in all use cases? No. But this is what the politicos have decided is going to be one of their initial moves.

We can disagree on Point A, but I think it is fairly obvious that this offer was made by someone who has no clue on how these systems work. You have illustrated the difference - quiet beautifully - on both systems.

Without knowing (if in fact the offer was made) and who in fact made the offer (and the offered involved what exactly) I wouldn't conclude it but that is just my opinion.

perhaps a rethink should occur on how GOTUS is approaching the S-400 issue?

Perhaps the GOTUS needs to re-think a lot of its decisions it has made of late. But I am not in a position to advise it

Secondly, if the GOTUS is not fully committed to CAATSA, that is quite troubling. Because it is a US law, passed by Congress no?

Reality is more nuanced. Congressional powers and laws often have to be implemented by the GOTUS and its there where you can craft a wiggle room depending upon what your stance is on the matter. GOTUS hasn't issued any waivers (i don't think) but yes that is certainly one possibility in a multi-step negotiated settlement which would be case by case. Other could be that they just perpetuate the negotiations until the laws are changed or the situation is otherwise altered. This again is a political decision and not technical in nature. How the Trump admin decides to proceed is entirely up to it (for the most part). But to suggest that they shouldn't be out making offers that don't have 100% technical basis, and if they do they must not know what they are taking about, disregards the possibility that their offer was political and not technical in nature i.e they were either seeking a political resolution or it was part of a political strategy that gets triggered based on an ally buying Russian equipment. Geopolitics is geopolitics and no always fully understood based on just technical assessments.

If offers are being made by a low level foreign service employee, is he/she really speaking on behalf of GOTUS or are they just shooting from the hip? If it is the former, that is concerning - who is leading the negotiations then? Are they authorized to make such an offer? Are parallel offers being made? If such offers are being made - without being cleared at the highest levels - who should we trust in GOTUS?

Unfortunately, the link you provided does not help answer any such question. I don't know anything more than what you have shown me. That doesn't inform us much.

[abhik]

And that is why the IAF rejected it. Surprising why it was offered in lieu of S-400, when they are two different systems

Going by the history of acquisitions of strategic Russian weapon systems, they will come late, limited operational availability, and with reduced capability. It is when the Indian armed forces put more resources and personnel to the weapon system does it meet their operational capability.

Both THAAD and S-400 will have political or operational strings attached to them. Instead the same amount of money should have been put into the development of variants of the Rajendra Radar and Akash SAM systems. Yes, it would have taken a long time, but with proper funding and oversight this could have been done.

+1. Anyways I think S-400 was bought more for geopolitical reasons (i.e. hafta) rather than an actual requirement form the IAF. By Indian standards the deal was signed almost overnight with no global tenders, no trials, no ToT, no offset, and while the armed forces go horse asking for for more basic equipment year over year (of course the armed forces will not look a gift horse in the mouth, they did not when they got C-17s etc). 5B+ dollars signed to prop up pootin's MIC while domestic industry is starved of orders.

[Mort Walker]

+1. Anyways I think S-400 was bought more for geopolitical reasons (i.e. hafta) rather than an actual requirement form the IAF. By Indian standards the deal was signed almost overnight with no global tenders, no trials, no ToT, no offset, and while the armed forces go horse asking for for more basic equipment year over year (of course the armed forces will not look a gift horse in the mouth, they did not when they got C-17s etc). 5B+ dollars signed to prop up pootin's MIC while domestic industry is starved of orders.

It may turn out like the FGFA fiasco where the S-400 is nothing more than a re-packaged S-300 system. The IAF may have to pay a couple of hundred million dollars for some drawings and design specifications.

[nam]

Just a word on the notion that PLAAF will be handicapped in Tibet due to altitude. LCA took off with 3.5 tonnes in Leh.

Tibet airports are 300-400M higher.

Long runaway + plus low fuel + higher thrust engines on J10/J11 compared to LCA should allow PLAAF to take off with atleast the same tonnage.

Once in air, tank up.

PLAAF has drawbacks, but it would be naive for us to think, they would not have planned working around the drawbacks. I don't expect PLAAf A2A sorties to be effected much. A2G might be.

[Kartik]

On the contrary, the IAF wanted the S-400 and it wasn't some geopolitical games that dictated it's purchase. It is seen as a strategic system that will be a game changer. And no, the S-400 is not a re-packaged S-300. Please do read up on what it capable of before making such claims.

[Rakesh]

+1. Anyways I think S-400 was bought more for geopolitical reasons (i.e. hafta) rather than an actual requirement form the IAF. By Indian standards the deal was signed almost overnight with no global tenders, no trials, no ToT, no offset, and while the armed forces go horse asking for for more basic equipment year over year (of course the armed forces will not look a gift horse in the mouth, they did not when they got C-17s etc). 5B+ dollars signed to prop up pootin's MIC while domestic industry is starved of orders.

What is the geopolitical reason for the GOI to purchase a system it has zero clue about? Who in the GOI knows anything about this system, that they don't think twice and just go out & buy it? GOI does not go shopping for military equipment without the services listing their requirements. Please understand how the procurement system works.

Just because tenders were not public, no trials were conducted, no offset were given...that does not mean it did not occur. Like the Akula deal, negotiations were done & finalized and then publicly announced. Much of the deal is under wraps. We will never know and neither should we.

Why does the GOI need to go out its way to antagonize GOTUS, unless there is a valid reason from the IAF for this purchase? Why go through the CAATSA headache? What is the plus in that? If the IAF did not want this system, I can think of a plethora of items that the services could have gotten from the US;

* Additional MH-60R ASW helos
* Sea Guardian UAS
* Additional CH-47s
* Additional C-130s (or perhaps even the KC-130)
* Additional P-8Is
* Screwdrivergiri of GE F404/F414 turbofans (or at least a MRO facility for them)

One can go on and on....

[Rakesh]

The technical merits would most certainly be immaterial here if your political intentions aren't dependent on them. As a generic offer i.e. "our first move in the negotiations would be to offer a US AD system" this is the path they've often chosen when it comes to S-400 sales in the post CAATSA environment. Does it always align with users technical needs in all use cases? No. But this is what the politicos have decided is going to be one of their initial moves.

Reality is more nuanced. Congressional powers and laws often have to be implemented by the GOTUS and its there where you can craft a wiggle room depending upon what your stance is on the matter. GOTUS hasn't issued any waivers (i don't think) but yes that is certainly one possibility in a multi-step negotiated settlement which would be case by case. Other could be that they just perpetuate the negotiations until the laws are changed or the situation is otherwise altered. This again is a political decision and not technical in nature. How the Trump admin decides to proceed is entirely up to it (for the most part). But to suggest that they shouldn't be out making offers that don't have 100% technical basis, and if they do they must not know what they are taking about, disregards the possibility that their offer was political and not technical in nature i.e they were either seeking a political resolution or it was part of a political strategy that gets triggered based on an ally buying Russian equipment. Geopolitics is geopolitics and no always fully understood based on just technical assessments.

I am surprised with GOTUS...if this is the line of reasoning. I understand offering an AD system, but there has to be some semblance of practicality in the offer. Offering one system for another is fine, but if the latter does not meet the requirements...then that is quite frankly puzzling. But no point in beating a dead horse. I believe you have explained it quite well. Thank You.

Unfortunately, the link you provided does not help answer any such question. I don't know anything more than what you have shown me. That doesn't inform us much.

That article would not be able to provide anything further that what it stated. As you are aware, such discussions are confidential.

[brar_w]

I am surprised with GOTUS...if this is the line of reasoning. I understand offering an AD system, but there has to be some semblance of practicality in the offer. Offering one system for another is fine, but if the latter does not meet the requirements...then that is quite frankly puzzling. But no point in beating a dead horse. I believe you have explained it quite well. Thank You.

I think getting stuck on political offers making technical sense is a bit like beating a dead horse. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't and when they don't it is usually not because those who make any unsolicited offer don't know what they are doing but for other considerations. There were no "requirements" to this. The IAF did not, to the best of my knowledge, hold a competition and invited bidders. The current US government has shown a tendency to do a particular things in cases when it is confronted allies wanting or proceeding to acquiring Russian systems. One of the things it has done was to very quickly make counter offers some that are for AD systems while others probably not having anything to do with the systems in question. With Turkey the position was multi-pronged with a quick FMS approval for an Air Defense package and initiating negotiations to reassess Turkey's continued participation in the JSF program.

Once they took deliveries the FMS offer was withdrawn and Turkey was removed from the F-35 program. In the background, they probably also politically offered the Turks an on ramp (and probably still continue to) if they could arrive to a mutually agreeable situation. I mean Erdogan was, as recently as this February/March, wanting the US to deploy Patriot batteries to protect his troops. So back channel discussions are likely to continue. The same is probably the case between GOI and GOTUS. At the political level there will continue to be discussions. These discussions are likely to be political and diplomatic in nature as opposed to clear cut technical discussions, offers and counter offers. Some of this is also done for the domestic audience i.e. they want to negotiate and not have to enforce CAATSA and as such want to put some of the Congressional rumblings to easy by claiming to still be involved in discussion.

[Rakesh]

India's procurement system does not mirror Turkey's.

Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952. The latter has been operating F-16s for more than three decades. Until their S-400 purchase, they were invested in the F-35 program. None of this applies to India. Offering THAAD/Patriot perhaps makes sense for Turkey. Offering the same to India, makes no sense whatsoever.

Some of this is also done for the domestic audience i.e. they want to negotiate and not have to enforce CAATSA and as such want to put some of the Congressional rumblings to easy by claiming to still be involved in discussion.

Perhaps that is what this is --- to placate the audience in the US Congress.

Outside of GOTUS, I doubt anyone would be interested in this.

[brar_w]

India's procurement system does not mirror Turkey's.

Do you think this is something that is going to be unknown to those whose job it is to engage and work with the GOI? I mean the defense trade between the two nations is now at a very high level. I think you assume that they thought that they'd make the offer..and the GOI will simply accept it and everyone will live happily ever after. That really isn't a valid assumption. There may be a myriad reasons why a political decision would be made to offer X vs Y or A in exchange for B.

Reality is likely to be a bit more complicated than that and any political, informal offer or counter offer is likely to just be one move in a diplomatic (G2G) chess game as the two nations engage and try to find a mutually agreeable position. In the case of the alleged "offer", nothing even advanced to actually notifying anyone of the consideration to sell so this was probably not something that was very seriously thought out as one would a proper technical package that the OEM and the relevant US authority (the Missile Defense Agency in this case) would put together.

Offering THAAD/Patriot perhaps makes sense for Turkey. Offering the same to India, makes no sense whatsoever.

No it makes sense to neither because if one was only interested in offering something that would 100% sway the decision then that too would have not worked with Turkey (just like India) because in Turkey's case the move to buy was political. But they offered it nonetheless as part of a broader attempt to reach a settlement and then rescinded it as it became clear that that a different off ramp would have to be found. Geopolitics does not always make sense but you do things sometimes keeping a particular broader picture in mind as opposed to just a transactional tactical decision which may govern a particular business decision like "hey I think my product can be competitive compared to a particular RFI so I'll pursue my government to allow me to offer product X".

[Mort Walker]

On the contrary, the IAF wanted the S-400 and it wasn't some geopolitical games that dictated it's purchase. It is seen as a strategic system that will be a game changer. And no, the S-400 is not a re-packaged S-300. Please do read up on what it capable of before making such claims.

I would wait until the initial units are delivered later this year as promised and see what reports are. The S-400 radar has been made out to have all sorts of capabilities, and I'm sure if it is successful, then it will get some good press. There is no reason why Rajendra could not have been evolved. When the IAF and DRDO have the ability to make a multi-mission AWACS radar, they could have made an indigenous one more capable than the S-400.

[ldev]

I would wait until the initial units are delivered later this year as promised and see what reports are. The S-400 radar has been made out to have all sorts of capabilities, and I'm sure if it is successful, then it will get some good press. There is no reason why Rajendra could not have been evolved. When the IAF and DRDO have the ability to make a multi-mission AWACS radar, they could have made an indigenous one more capable than the S-400.

+1
There is a lot of brochuritis in Russian weapons.

For example in the article which speaks of the air exercises between the Royal Thai Airforce and the PLAAF in 2015:

Once the exercise transitioned to beyond visual range (BVR) combat, the superiority of the JAS-39 became readily apparent. The Swedish aircraft shot down 41 Su-27s over a period of four days with a loss of only nine JAS-39s.

The Su-27s flown by the PLAAF were operating with a modified version of the NIIP N001 radar that could fire the Vympel RVV-AE active-homing air-to-air missile (AAM). But its effective detection range was only 120km in comparison with the JAS-39’s Ericsson PS-05/A at 160km. The Gripen’s Raytheon AIM-120 AAM also outranged the RVV-AE at 80km versus only 50 km for the Russian missile.

Funny that wiki states the exact opposite i.e. the NIIP N001 has a detection range of 160 kms and the Ericsson PS-05/A a detection range of 120 kms. But during the exercises the actual ranges were inverted. The Ericsson radar overperformed and NIIP N001 underperformed. Ditto the AMRAAM AIM 120 vs the RVV-AE. Russian brochuritis. But India found that out the day after Balakot.

Li stated that the JAS-39C/D’s much smaller radar cross-section (RCS) at 1.5-2.0 m2 was a major factor, as the much larger Su-27 is easier to detect at 12 sq miles. The JAS-39 can also ripple-fire up to four AIM-120s simultaneously but the Su-27 can fire only one RVV-AE at a time.

And this is the Ericsson pulse doppler radar which outperformed the Russian radar. The E/F variants of the Gripen have the Raven AESA radar.

The point IMO is that the IAF is doing everything it can within the limitations of the equipment it has. It just needs better equipment, French, US or Swedish. It does not matter. And it needs numbers. 36 Rafale is just not going to be enough.

And that is why I would agree, that the S-400 may be touted as the best, but let us wait and see how it performs. Let it be tested in actual combat before celebrations begin. Russia has deployed the S-400 in Syria but in spite of the Russian Air Force SU-24 being shot down by Turkish Air Force F-16 there has not been a retaliation via the S-400. Similarly the Syrians shot down a Russian IL-20 reconnaissance with their S-300 by mistake. And supposedly the Israeli Air Force flies over Syria with impunity with their stealth F-35s. Not exactly a stellar record so far.

[manjgu]

i am of the considered opinion that naval budget should be reduced... and pumped into army & AF. wars in the coming time will be short sharp with AF and Army calling the shots... we are pumping too much money into an area with no commensurate returns on the battleground.

[Karan M]

I would wait until the initial units are delivered later this year as promised and see what reports are. The S-400 radar has been made out to have all sorts of capabilities, and I'm sure if it is successful, then it will get some good press. There is no reason why Rajendra could not have been evolved. When the IAF and DRDO have the ability to make a multi-mission AWACS radar, they could have made an indigenous one more capable than the S-400.

+1
There is a lot of brochuritis in Russian weapons.

For example in the article which speaks of the air exercises between the Royal Thai Airforce and the PLAAF in 2015:

Once the exercise transitioned to beyond visual range (BVR) combat, the superiority of the JAS-39 became readily apparent. The Swedish aircraft shot down 41 Su-27s over a period of four days with a loss of only nine JAS-39s.

The Su-27s flown by the PLAAF were operating with a modified version of the NIIP N001 radar that could fire the Vympel RVV-AE active-homing air-to-air missile (AAM). But its effective detection range was only 120km in comparison with the JAS-39’s Ericsson PS-05/A at 160km. The Gripen’s Raytheon AIM-120 AAM also outranged the RVV-AE at 80km versus only 50 km for the Russian missile.

Funny that wiki states the exact opposite i.e. the NIIP N001 has a detection range of 160 kms and the Ericsson PS-05/A a detection range of 120 kms. But during the exercises the actual ranges were inverted. The Ericsson radar overperformed and NIIP N001 underperformed. Ditto the AMRAAM AIM 120 vs the RVV-AE. Russian brochuritis. But India found that out the day after Balakot.

Li stated that the JAS-39C/D’s much smaller radar cross-section (RCS) at 1.5-2.0 m2 was a major factor, as the much larger Su-27 is easier to detect at 12 sq miles. The JAS-39 can also ripple-fire up to four AIM-120s simultaneously but the Su-27 can fire only one RVV-AE at a time.

And this is the Ericsson pulse doppler radar which outperformed the Russian radar. The E/F variants of the Gripen have the Raven AESA radar.

First of all, the N001 is advertised as having 100km class performance against a 3 sq mtr target. The Gripen claims to be even lower than that, at 1.5 -2 mtr square. That a N001VE detected and targeted it at ranges greater than the advertised range actually speaks volumes for Russian gear and implies the N001VE was significantly upgraded over the original N001!

Second, the JAS-39 C/Ds radar is a generation ahead. It was developed in the late 2000s, and then upgraded significantly thereafter. It is now seeking to detect and target a target which is multiples ahead in RCS, the Su-27 vs the Gripen. That it achieved a 40km range differential only, as versus more, speaks to the fact that a small nosed radar set has to do so much more to achieve a far better response.

In fact, for 2 sq mtr, which the N001VE was able to detect or rather target, at 120km per your own claim above, a 160km radar which was able to do so for a 12 sq mtr target can only target it at 102km! So which radar is "better" in terms of max range? Should we now claim the Swedes engaged in brochuritis, after all the N001VE has a 20km range advantage over it?

Third, both the sets are pulse doppler sets. Both are capable of multi-targeting with ARHs - the quote above is wrong. The N001VE as I recall could dual target with the R-77. It can single target only if a SARH missile is involved. If the PRC brought only SARH simulation to the exercise, they were automatically at a severe disadvantage.

Fourth, in effect both sets performed exactly the way they were meant to, with the Russian radar set actually performing quite well, given the fact its merely an upgrade of the original N001 developed for the Su-27 in the late 70's and early 80s.

Fifth, the Russians even then knew they would combine active EW to "mask" the Flankers greater RCS. That would automatically address any marginal advantage lower powered opponent radar sets enjoyed in picking up the Flankers earlier. The above quote does not show the PRC took those EW sets with them for the exercise, or it doesn't mention they did anyhow. Why is that? Do think.

The point IMO is that the IAF is doing everything it can within the limitations of the equipment it has. It just needs better equipment, French, US or Swedish. It does not matter. And it needs numbers. 36 Rafale is just not going to be enough.

And that is why I would agree, that the S-400 may be touted as the best, but let us wait and see how it performs. Let it be tested in actual combat before celebrations begin. Russia has deployed the S-400 in Syria but in spite of the Russian Air Force SU-24 being shot down by Turkish Air Force F-16 there has not been a retaliation via the S-400. Similarly the Syrians shot down a Russian IL-20 reconnaissance with their S-300 by mistake. And supposedly the Israeli Air Force flies over Syria with impunity with their stealth F-35s. Not exactly a stellar record so far.

You are literally resorting to the worst kind of speculation here. There is no evidence that even if the S-400s detected the F-35s they would engage it. The Russians have better things to do than pick an open fight with the Israelis. Second, why would they use a S-400 to retaliate against the Turks when the Turks cried uncle after the Russian economic retaliation and paid off Russia by buying the S-400 itself? As to the Syrian friendly fire or lack thereof, the US has routinely shot down its own aircraft using Patriots. What does that supposedly say for US gear? Or the shootdown of the Iranian airliner by the Vincennes?

But what we do know is whosoever purchased the S-400 has been categorically told that the US will not sell them the F-35. Why is that you think. If the S-400 was so useless and underpowered, would the US even care if the radar was in theater with the F-35 flying around.

[srai]

i am of the considered opinion that naval budget should be reduced... and pumped into army & AF. wars in the coming time will be short sharp with AF and Army calling the shots... we are pumping too much money into an area with no commensurate returns on the battleground.

^^^
Naval blockade on oil supply lines put Pakistan on its knees the last time round.

[Karan M]

On the contrary, the IAF wanted the S-400 and it wasn't some geopolitical games that dictated it's purchase. It is seen as a strategic system that will be a game changer. And no, the S-400 is not a re-packaged S-300. Please do read up on what it capable of before making such claims.

I would wait until the initial units are delivered later this year as promised and see what reports are. The S-400 radar has been made out to have all sorts of capabilities, and I'm sure if it is successful, then it will get some good press. There is no reason why Rajendra could not have been evolved. When the IAF and DRDO have the ability to make a multi-mission AWACS radar, they could have made an indigenous one more capable than the S-400.

Time. DRDO has a lot on its plate and a new LRSAM program was going to take several years of development and then testing, time which we simply don't have.

[chetak]

i am of the considered opinion that naval budget should be reduced... and pumped into army & AF. wars in the coming time will be short sharp with AF and Army calling the shots... we are pumping too much money into an area with no commensurate returns on the battleground.

There have been numerous such attempts in the past, which one would not like to go into, and this is what causes interservice friction and one of the many reasons that CDS was blocked over the years helping the devious babuz to remain on top of the warring pile.

Privately, the babuz during "informal" consultations, have always encouraged such unethical behavior and in reality, unscrupulously used such opportunities to do what they do best considering their colonial training, that is to divide and continue to rule.

all such proposals have been slyly (and repeatedly) made directly to the MoD, wilfully bypassing the sister services and later claiming that some junior level officer made the mistake "inadvertently" and the standard disclaimer that he would be "disciplined".

the standard response of the devious babuz to such tactics has always been to "refer" such shady and unsolicited proposals directly to the affected sister service and then "innocently" ask for "comments".

for many years now, one service, in particular, has habitually been at the forefront of always sending, "inadvertently", of course, many such unsolicited proposals and has been shot down every single time but the distasteful after taste has always lingered on.

It is the sea leg of the triad that gives our NFU policy the solidity it deserves and undoubtedly makes our assured second strike retaliatory deterrence posture sustainable and redoubtable.

[deejay]

i am of the considered opinion that naval budget should be reduced... and pumped into army & AF. wars in the coming time will be short sharp with AF and Army calling the shots... we are pumping too much money into an area with no commensurate returns on the battleground.

Sir, we cannot forget China and focus only on Pakistan. China needs a tri service solution and IN has a bigger AOR than IA or IAF.

[manjgu]

i am of the considered opinion that naval budget should be reduced... and pumped into army & AF. wars in the coming time will be short sharp with AF and Army calling the shots... we are pumping too much money into an area with no commensurate returns on the battleground.

^^^
Naval blockade on oil supply lines put Pakistan on its knees the last time round.

which last time sir? we blockaded Pakis on the sea during 1971 ..yet the war continued and was decided on the ground. the battles will be decided on the ground and in air. the wars are not going to last months/years ... anyway our views count for little. Pakis have rightly invested v little in navy ...and invested heavily in Army/AF which is a good strategy for them IMHO.

[Karan M]

Good strategy till an IN blockade arrives or IN Brahmos start taking out all key infra.

[Aditya_V]

This is a stupid logic, under funding the Navy is the sure way to achieve disaster. We need to fund all 3. We need our Triad to stop outside interference.

We need to blockade the Pakis and defend our trade and coastline.

Such thinking will lead to a disaster, we can stop wasting money on cinemas and serials and rather fund the Navy- all defense services are inter related.

[srin]

i am of the considered opinion that naval budget should be reduced... and pumped into army & AF. wars in the coming time will be short sharp with AF and Army calling the shots... we are pumping too much money into an area with no commensurate returns on the battleground.

There is a tendency to fight the last war. We see action in Balakot and post-Balakot and now on the LAC, the impulse is to strengthen IAF and IA.

But the real achilles heel of PRC is in the sea. They depend upon Indian ocean shipping for their oil. They also rely on shipping in Pacific to drive their export economy. Unless we start threatening them, we'll always be on the defensive. We need to take advantage of what we have - Andamans and Lakshadweep - and make strategic use of them.

So, IMO, we should *strengthen* the IN, not reduce it. More submarines, more submarine hunters (choppers and ships), more guided missile corvettes ...

[mody]

The S400 if available would have helped. But right now, for an emergency procurement, I would much rather prefer additional units of the SpyDer systems and perhaps Barak-8 as the MRSAM is not available as yet. The MRSAM (same as barak-8), should have had all its issues sorted out by now and production should have started.

The worst criminal negligence is delay in placing orders for the additional 7 squadrons of Akash missiles. The order should have been placed in 2015-16. Instead it has been placed a few months ago (has the final order been placed or just approval given?).