MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

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.
ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 27 Dec 2019 20:24

Rakesh wrote:Are we now stating that the CAATSA waiver is tied into the MRCA purchase? I believe the US Administration denied that accusation. I thought the below article was "fake" news onlee.

Washington lets Delhi know: Buy our F-16s, can give Russia deal waiver
https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... r-5409894/
20 Oct 2018


I will be shocked if it is not. You have a transactional President and a transactional PM. If India does not buy US planes I think CAATSA will forever remain in a grey area. There will be no formal waiver, but probably no enforcement either. On the other hand if India does buy US planes, then I fully expect a formal CAATSA waiver. But IMO, what India should ask for in that case is not just a CAATSA waiver which can be annulled by the next administration, but a formal agreement ratified by the US Congress with a life equal to the expected life of the aircraft purchased. That way the US is treaty bound to respect it until expiry. And if India is negotiating a $20-$30 Billion aircraft purchase, you can bet your bottom dollar that LM, Boeing will lobby Congress long and hard to get it passed.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 27 Dec 2019 20:38

My dear sir, to quote former US Vice President John Nance Garner (under President FDR), agreements with the US are not worth a bucket of warm piss. It is not meant as a knock, but just is that the political reality with the American political set up. And being the sole superpower in the world, other nations just have to accept that reality.

If Boeing wins, it will be in the industrial package offering. Boeing's tie up with HAL and Mahindra is a masterstroke move. Do screwdrivergiri at HAL, but have Mahindra do any meaningful work. Also reportedly, Boeing is leading in the Navy contest. The IAF is dead set against the F-18. So it remains to be seen which service will get its way.

The CDS appointment will be interesting to see with regards to the MRCA purchase.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 27 Dec 2019 20:47

Rakesh wrote:My dear sir, to quote former US Vice President John Nance Garner (under President FDR), agreements with the US are not worth a bucket of warm piss. It is not meant as knock, but just is that the political reality with the American political set up. And being the sole superpower in the world, other nations just have to accept that reality.


Inspite of all of the vilification of Russia in the US over the last 3 years, the US has scrupulously adhered to all treaties signed with the former USSR, including START 2 and the Open Skies Agreement and the ABM treaty. In case you are not aware, under the Open Skies Agreement Russian spy planes still formally fly over the US inspecting sites covered by the Open Skies Agreement. If agreements/treaties with the US are not worth the paper that they are written on, Russian planes would have been stopped from doing their inspections a long time ago no? All these agreements were ratified by the US Congress and hence adhered to.

Can you think of one bilateral agreement/treaty signed by the US and ratified by the US Congress that the US has dis-honored? I am talking about agreements where there is no opt out clause. Unlike the climate accords.....

https://qz.com/1605624/russia-flying-op ... across-us/

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5640
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby vishvak » 27 Dec 2019 20:58

Why do we need alphabet soup treaties for S400?!

And why we need a binding treaty to buy mrca (which plane exactly) and for dodging something for (what sanctions exactly) defence RADAR that we need. Just flip the argument and make things look simpler to buy another package deal.

Why we need such nice treaty that 'usa will definitely adhere to' for S400, and maybe next iterations/parts of similar purchase related.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 27 Dec 2019 21:07

ldev wrote:Inspite of all of the vilification of Russia in the US over the last 3 years, the US has scrupulously adhered to all treaties signed with the former USSR, including START 2 and the Open Skies Agreement and the ABM treaty. In case you are not aware, under the Open Skies Agreement Russian spy planes still formally fly over the US inspecting sites covered by the Open Skies Agreement. If agreements/treaties with the US are not worth the paper that they are written on, Russian planes would have been stopped from doing their inspections a long time ago no? All these agreements were ratified by the US Congress and hence adhered to.

You are aware that the ABM Treaty has been scrapped right? It has been nearly two decades since that happened.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ball ... ile_Treaty

On 13 December 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that required six months' notice before terminating the pact—the first time in recent history that the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty. This led to the eventual creation of the American Missile Defense Agency.

Supporters of the withdrawal argued that it was a necessity in order to test and build a limited National Missile Defense to protect the United States from nuclear blackmail by a rogue state. The withdrawal also had many critics. John Rhinelander, a negotiator of the ABM treaty, predicted that the withdrawal would be a "fatal blow" to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and would lead to a "world without effective legal constraints on nuclear proliferation." The construction of a missile defense system was also feared to enable the US to attack with a nuclear first strike. Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry also criticized the U.S. withdrawal as a very bad decision.

And Trump wants to get out from the Open Skies Agreement. He has not succeeded as of yet.

Unfriendly Skies: Trump Wants to Scrap Valuable Intelligence Treaty
https://thebulwark.com/unfriendly-skies ... ce-treaty/
15 Oct 2019
The president reportedly intends to pull the U.S. out of the Open Skies Treaty—will his party push back?

And this is the latest on the NEW START treaty, signed by President Obama and President Medvedev in 2010.

Exclusive: In call with Putin, Trump denounced Obama-era nuclear arms treaty - sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN15O2A5
09 Feb 2017
In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.

ldev wrote:Can you think of one bilateral agreement/treaty signed by the US and ratified by the US Congress that the US has dis-honored? I am talking about agreements where there is no opt out clause. Unlike the climate accords.....

Why require an opt out clause, when China is the bigger enemy? But since you asked....

Here are all the treaties and agreements Trump has abandoned
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics ... index.html
February 01, 2019

It’s not just Trump. The US has always broken its treaties, pacts and promises
https://qz.com/1273510/all-the-internat ... iran-deal/
May 12, 2018

List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ted_States

India's Strategic Partner.... :mrgreen:

Image

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 27 Dec 2019 21:21

The ABM treaty signed in 1972 was in force for 30 years until 2002 and the US did not renew it. Hardly walking out of the treaty during it's lifetime. Yes? If at the end of the treaty life the US chooses not to extend it, is that breaking the treaty while it is in force? But did the US test ABM interceptors during the life of the treaty? No

Ditto the INF treaty. It has expired in February 2019 and to address the Chinese proliferation of thousands of SRBMs and IRBMs, the US will not renew it.

Yes, also the Open Skies Agreement. All these treaties have a life and an expiry date. And at the end of that period, any signatory can choose not to renew it. Not choosing to renew it is hardly equal to breaking the treaty.

Ratification or lack of it is a different issue. Obviously if a treaty is not ratified the US can walk out of it. But I am talking of ratified treaties broken during their tenure in the last 50 years? And I would forget things like climate change etc... which are in any event not ratified.

And that is why India should ask for say a 30 year agreement exempting it from the provisions of CAATSA if it wants to buy US planes. And have that agreement ratified by the US Congress.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 27 Dec 2019 21:29

I think India has crossed the rubicon of distrusting the US for supply of military equipment a long time ago. If not I doubt that India would have purchased the P-8, C17, Apache AH-64 etc. and signed all those foundational agreements. I personally think that if India does choose a US fighter aircraft, it will not even ask for a formal agreement ratified by the US Congress just a formal waiver.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 27 Dec 2019 21:49

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was ratified in the US Senate in 1988, only for the US to walk out in Feb 2019. Yes?

Trump says US will withdraw from nuclear arms treaty with Russia
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... aty-russia

“We’ll have to develop those weapons,” the president told reporters in Nevada after a rally. “We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out.”

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iran nuclear deal) did not require ratification, but Trump walked out in 2018. And former President Obama put out a statement that said this...

Obama reacts to Trump's withdrawal from Iran deal
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/a-serio ... -deal.html
"Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to, risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers."

With regards to the Paris Climate Accords, former President Obama said this.

Barack Obama Responds to Withdrawal From Paris Climate Deal
http://oceanfutures.org/barack-obama-re ... imate-deal
The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.

Since we are going down the legalese path, should India hold off purchasing American planes till a CAATSA waiver is signed and then ratified in the US? Perhaps the IAF should wait till such an agreement is signed and ratified?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 27 Dec 2019 21:52

ldev wrote:I think India has crossed the rubicon of distrusting the US for supply of military equipment a long time ago. If not I doubt that India would have purchased the P-8, C17, Apache AH-64 etc. and signed all those foundational agreements. I personally think that if India does choose a US fighter aircraft, it will not even ask for a formal agreement ratified by the US Congress just a formal waiver.

I wish that were true, but if that was the case....India should have signed the vanilla CISMOA foundational agreement instead of the COMCASA one. In fact the trust level between the two nations is so great, that India has specifically requested in the agreement that the data acquired through such systems cannot be disclosed or transferred to any person or entity without India’s consent. Why the need for such "distrusting" language between two strategic partners?

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 28 Dec 2019 01:04

Rakesh wrote:
ldev wrote:I think India has crossed the rubicon of distrusting the US for supply of military equipment a long time ago. If not I doubt that India would have purchased the P-8, C17, Apache AH-64 etc. and signed all those foundational agreements. I personally think that if India does choose a US fighter aircraft, it will not even ask for a formal agreement ratified by the US Congress just a formal waiver.

I wish that were true, but if that was the case....India should have signed the vanilla CISMOA foundational agreement instead of the COMCASA one. In fact the trust level between the two nations is so great, that India has specifically requested in the agreement that the data acquired through such systems cannot be disclosed or transferred to any person or entity without India’s consent. Why the need for such "distrusting" language between two strategic partners?


That is quibbling now. Data collected from US equipment installed on Indian platforms will now be transmitted to the US. If GOI had such distrust of the US, it would never have signed anything.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 28 Dec 2019 01:10

Why would that be quibbling? :) That is the language in the agreement, insisted by India.

And it is for the data not to be handed over to a third party.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 28 Dec 2019 01:11

Rakesh wrote:The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was ratified in the US Senate in 1988, only for the US to walk out in Feb 2019. Yes?


No, the treaty expired in February 2019 and was no longer in force as of that date. The US did not walk out. Just as India signed a friendship treaty with the USSR in 1971 which has since expired.

Since we are going down the legalese path, should India hold off purchasing American planes till a CAATSA waiver is signed and then ratified in the US? Perhaps the IAF should wait till such an agreement is signed and ratified?

That would be my preference as part of the negotiating process. But if I am a betting man I would say that GOI will not insist on it but instead will be satisfied with a simple waiver because IMO GOI whether headed by the UPA or the NDA/BJP has reached a level of comfort dealing with the US on military equipment purchases.
Last edited by ldev on 28 Dec 2019 01:12, edited 1 time in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby ldev » 28 Dec 2019 01:12

Rakesh wrote:Why would that be quibbling? :) That is the language in the agreement, insisted by India.

And it is for the data not to be handed over to a third party.

Maybe, to ensure that it is not handed over to Pakistan :shock:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 28 Dec 2019 01:13

ldev wrote:That would be my preference as part of the negotiating process. But if I am a betting man I would say that GOI will not insist on it but instead will be satisfied with a simple waiver because IMO GOI whether headed by the UPA or the NDA/BJP has reached a level of comfort dealing with the US on military equipment purchases.

ldev wrote:Maybe, to ensure that it is not handed over to Pakistan :shock:

If the UPA or NDA/BJP has reached a level of comfort in dealing with the US....is such language necessary in the COMCASA agreement?

If this is India's stance with COMCASA, it does not look like a CAATSA simple waiver will suffice. Perhaps, as you have indicated above, it will become part of a negotiation process if an American fighter is chosen.

US’ Comcasa Assurance
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

The first important assurance the US has given is that, as long as the COMCASA is in play, it will ensure any equipment provided under the agreement will remain operational at all times. This was an important issue for India because it wanted a safeguard against the US using the COMCASA tool to limit or influence Indian decision-making in deployment and use of the US-origin equipment.

The second assurance was on the security of data obtained from India. While the Comcasa might make it technically possible for the US to access Indian data because the encryption and decryption codes for communication equipment will be sourced from the US, insiders said, India has managed to secure a specific assurance from Washington that it will not share Indian data with any entity without prior consent from New Delhi.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 28 Dec 2019 01:18

ldev wrote:
Rakesh wrote:The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was ratified in the US Senate in 1988, only for the US to walk out in Feb 2019. Yes?

No, the treaty expired in February 2019 and was no longer in force as of that date. The US did not walk out.

Please look up as to why the treaty is no longer in force. Here is the official statement from the US State Department website...the US walked right out of that one! The reason that the US provided was that Russia violated the treaty. Please read that link below and kindly highlight if you see any reference to the word "expiration".

U.S. Withdrawal from the INF Treaty on August 2, 2019
https://www.state.gov/u-s-withdrawal-fr ... st-2-2019/

On February 2, 2019, the United States provided its six-month notice of withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty due to the Russian Federation’s continuing violation of the treaty.


ldev wrote:Just as India signed a friendship treaty with the USSR in 1971 which has since expired.

You are aware that the USSR dissolved in 1991...Yes? :roll: What good is a treaty with a country that no longer exists?

Roop
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Roop » 28 Dec 2019 05:16

I believe LDev is right about the trust level that now exists between India and the US. I would not be surprised to see the F-18 win the naval fighter contest. I'm not necessarily recommending that, I'm simply assessing it as a realistic possibility.

No doubt (if that happens) Modi will demand and receive a formal assurance from both POTUS and COTUS that sanctions etc. won't be applied. Whether you trust that "formal assurance" or not is for you to decide, but I think the GoI probably will (for reasons already mentioned above, i.e. the trust level). Deals of this political magnitude are not (and should not be) made solely on a mil-tech/economic basis. Politics is very important too (and in any case, American equipment generally offers mil-tech/economic benefits second to none).

As far as the attitudes of the respective military services towards buying US fighter planes are concerned, my impression is that IN is nowhere near as suspicious of / hostile to the idea as IAF is.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11445
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Aditya_V » 28 Dec 2019 11:46

Any F-18 deal should be combined with supply of GE 404 and Ge 414 engines in India with MRO facilities manned by Indians which can keep the engines running for at least 10-12 year with lots of spare engines kept in India as replacement for Aircraft.

Expecting any sharing of real manufacturing of Blades, sharing of technology is unrealistic. But we can expect them to have Indian technical workforce based in India who can overhaul and maintain these engines and check performance.

Without this a deal will be a disaster- having to have a new Foreign 4-4.5 gen fighter which will take 4-5 years to Induct. Please see Rafale- Su-30MKI, M-2000, MIg-29, all take about 5 years to Induct from the time of ordering. Expect the same when recommending any aircraft.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 14 Jan 2020 21:20

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1216692250240880641 ---> Anyway, there is now little doubt that the 114 x multi-role fighter aircraft (MRFA) procurement via the strategic partnership model for the Indian Air Force will materialize. In my view, the Dassault Rafale and the Saab Gripen are front-runners.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1216694656244666368 ---> Ideally, given the investments already made for operating & customizing the 36 x Dassault Rafale being directly imported, license producing the same makes sense, provided France is willing to give us what we want on the engine side of things.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1216695934647558149 ---> The French have proved useful in the past, given that the Vikas rocket engine used on the PSLV etc. started off as the Viking. I wonder if Paris will be amenable to something similar on the low-bypass turbofan engine side as well. Then MRFA might just become theirs to lose.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1216701520466460674 --> Sweden's statement on Kashmir was followed by the visit of its royals to Delhi. And just a few days ago India & Sweden signed a MoU on Polar science cooperation. It would be simplistic to think that Stockholm is out of the fray. Sweden is important for India's arctic policy.

=========================================================================

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1216696686573080576 ---> It is wrong to think that India has never received strategic technology from abroad:

1. Vikas rocket engine/ help with Fast-Breeder Test Reactor: France
2. Help with naval nuclear reactors/ missile seekers/heavy alloys: Russia
3. Solid-State radar: Israel

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1216703482033397761 ---> This tweet is being used by some to run down indigenous R&D. They are barking up the wrong tree. Not only were these improved upon but there are now many ab-initio developments which are entirely indigenous in terms of design. Everybody starts somewhere.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1214800114272759808 ---> Geopolitical & Geo-economic trends that may seem threatening can be used to India's favour. New Delhi must maintain strategic autonomy & internally Indians must stop seeing each other as enemies. Jai Hind! Jai Jagannath!

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby abhik » 14 Jan 2020 23:58

Who is is Dassault partnering with? Sticking with chota bhai will be a poison pill IMO.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jan 2020 00:51

Chota Bhai is a disaster in the making.

Going per ninjamonkey's tweet (which I still do not believe to be true) dated 13 Aug 2019, the partner will be the Govt of India.

https://twitter.com/Aryanwarlord/status ... 8638174208 ---> 200 Rafale coming. Deal almost finalized with Govt of France. Chota Bhai out. DRAL will become DAIL( Dassault aviation India limited) with GOI as 50% partner. Firm will be independent of HAL. Dassault will help with GHATAK & AMCA. Wait & watch!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7886
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Indranil » 15 Jan 2020 01:11

That's a boat load of belief in marketing material.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8106
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jan 2020 01:21

If you are referring to Ninja Monkey, then yes I agree.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dhyana and 70 guests