MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

ldev · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **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....

ldev · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **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.

ldev · Post by **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

Rakesh · Post by **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

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 · Post by **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?

What good is a treaty with a country that no longer exists?

Roop · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **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 · Post by **abhik** » 14 Jan 2020 23:58

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

Rakesh · Post by **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 · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jan 2020 01:11

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

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Jan 2020 01:21

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

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Feb 2020 08:13

https://twitter.com/arvmishr/status/122 ... 57088?s=20 ---> Sir, What is your opinion about F21? Will it be good and cost effective for India?

Reply below from Group Captain HV Thakur (retd) to above question....

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12241 ... 24673?s=20 ---> Seems to have incorporated new tech into the workhorse, quite well. It'll be a good performer in the category of LCA Mk-2. If inducted ASAP, it'll enter service ~5 years ahead of Mk-2, terminating the need for Mk-2 altogether. We've to deliberate & choose our path carefully.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Feb 2020 08:17

The F-21 stands little to no chance of winning the MMRCA. Had Lockheed been serious they would have offered something based on the Block 60++ configuration. They know they can't bid with the F-35 so seem to be taking it easy with a minimum cost/risk bid.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Feb 2020 08:34

Brar, what is the Block 60++ configuration? The UAEAF has a Block 60 aircraft. I thought the F-21 exceeded that?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Feb 2020 08:45

We Are Open To Supporting India’s AMCA And Tejas Mk 2 Programmes: Vivek Lall, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
http://www.businessworld.in/article/We- ... A.whatsapp
29 January 2020

The F-21 will meet all of India’s performance, capability and advanced technology requirements, and provide unmatched opportunities for Indian companies of all sizes and suppliers throughout India.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Feb 2020 08:46

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12240 ... 20832?s=20 ---> LM is marketing F-21. They are lining up just like many others, with better machines. When they have a concrete partnership proposal on AMCA or Mk-2, they should approach DG DRDO, PGD ADA or CMD HAL. It appears, they have no specific proposal for AMCA/Mk-2. Just F-21.....

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Feb 2020 08:49

Twitter chat from two former IAF pilots on the F-35...

https://twitter.com/anshumig/status/122 ... 10689?s=20 ---> Get the bloody #F35, @LockheedMartin, @LMIndiaNews. At least get an exchange program instituted. Give the boys some flying on the jet. Called 'opening-the-door' policy

@IAF_MCC folks at @DefExpoIndia must be gunning for a ride.

Below is reply to the above tweet....

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12232 ... 19136?s=20 ---> Good aircraft. But not a very excitable proposition, to stand in line for Uncle Sam to give his blessings. Make-in-India not possible. Besides, mega deals tend to be messy. It's time to go silent, develop/co-produce optionally manned fighters. Mixed emotions on JSF import.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Feb 2020 09:21

Rakesh wrote:Brar, what is the Block 60++ configuration? The UAEAF has a Block 60 aircraft. I thought the F-21 exceeded that?

Lockheed is currently developing an upgrade package for UAE's block 60's. I believe one of the things the upgrade does is add the newer block 70 mission computers on the block 60 while also modernizing its EW systems. Block 60 is a superior configuration. It has more power, more cooling, and sensors and mission systems that can utilize it. Block 70 is a capable upgrade over 50/52 but it takes the basic 50/52 configuration and adds an upgrade package that conforms to its space, weight and power limits. It was designed to be a "drop in" upgrade as the main client for many if not most of these changes was the US Air National Guard. Both the Phalcon Edge (one of the first AESA based EW/EA suites on any 4th gen fighter) and the AN/APG-80 radar of the Block 60 are beyond the SwaP limits of the block 70 hence they standardized on the SABR radar which was to be a drop in replacement on block 50/52 aircraft.

One advantage the block 70 has is the Auto GCAS which I don't believe has been funded to retrofit back on block 60 aircraft. From Lockheed's perspective a lot of the IP and technical baseline for the Block 60 configuration is owned by the UAE so it is not profitable for them to offer offshoot variants of that configuration. This is why they chose to align new built F-16's (V configuration) to the configuration that they are using as an upgrade template to USAF and international F-16's. Lockheed views the F-16 as an upgrade program now given the installed base..Minimum viable production in South Carolina is being sustained because there were deals in the works and they had to shut down the plant in Texas to make room for F-35 expansion.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 03 Feb 2020 12:15

Better to just focus on AMCA and keep mk2 in slow mo upgrade path. Keep exploring mk1 'envelope' and call it good enough.

It was designed to be a "drop in" upgrade as the main client for many if not most of these changes was the US Air National Guard

Interesting though how a drop in is called upgrade for the record. Also to note that AMCA won't be tasked for bomb truck roles and LCA doesn't have much capacity for the role either.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Feb 2020 17:17

vishvak wrote: Interesting though how a drop in is called upgrade for the record.

What else would you call swapping out a MSA for an AESA, new mission computers, a new cockpit display, and other electronics changes along with a service life extension?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 03 Feb 2020 17:24

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/arvmishr/status/122 ... 57088?s=20 ---> Sir, What is your opinion about F21? Will it be good and cost effective for India?

Reply below from Group Captain HV Thakur (retd) to above question....

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12241 ... 13152?s=20 ---> Seems to have incorporated new tech into the workhorse, quite well. It'll be a good performer in the category of LCA Mk-2. If inducted ASAP, it'll enter service ~5 years ahead of Mk-2, terminating the need for Mk-2 altogether. We've to deliberate & choose our path carefully.

Latest in addition to above Tweets:
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12242 ... 82465?s=20

Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
Replying to
@Griffin09314548
No money to splurge. Uncle Sam will hand us both, a toy each & then remote control from his bedroom. We don't wanna be fighting Lockheed Martin's war. We've enough trouble between us, without their help.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Feb 2020 23:05

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12243 ... 40737?s=20 ---> F/A-18 Super Hornet does not meet SQRs for IAF's MMRCA. It's optimized for deck operations and quite heavy. So the point performance is quite low compared to the spec. It'll meet naval requirements.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12243 ... 92353?s=20 ---> F/A-18E/F variants are quite good. For Navy.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12243 ... 46112?s=20 ----> The Navy has said, it prefers twin engine. IAF is ok with single engine. Both SHQs have somewhat similar requirements. A common baseline platform may be beneficial. (Rafale, for ex).The tender is yet to be floated. Looking at the tender, one may be able to make some guesses.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Feb 2020 23:13

From all the tweets I am reading from Group Captain HV Thakur (retd), the impression I am getting is that the American birds are not in the IAF's favour. The F-35 kills AMCA, the F-21 kills the MWF and the F-18 is not effective. If one eliminates both American birds (F-21 and F-18) from the MRCA 2.0 contest, that leaves the Gripen E, Su-35, MiG-35, Eurofighter Tyhoon and Rafale.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Feb 2020 23:13

Thank you brar for the explanation of Block 60 versus F-21. Greatly appreciated.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Feb 2020 00:01

Kartik wrote: TBH- it better be rigged in favor of the Rafale. Otherwise, the IAF will have a fleet of just 36 Rafale that'll end up being one heck of a costly force to operate and maintain through 40 years. 36 doesn't even offer attrition reserves to keep either of the 2 squadrons at normal 18 per squadron strength. However, I expect the US to make a very strong pitch this time around. A lot could depend on election results in the US next year..Democrats come to power and the US jets will stand a much poorer chance, given how relations seem stronger when Republicans are in power.

Ideally, just another 36-48 Rafales would have been sufficient to close this MRCA thing entirely. But IMO, this is the pound of flesh that those who want an imported fighter (for a host of reasons) will demand in order to keep the Tejas and MWF line going.

I sometimes wonder if there is no one in our entire political establishment with the brains to sit together with stakeholders from the services (IAF and perhaps IN) and MoD/MoF and hammer out a compromise instead of this 114 aircraft boondoggle.

Anyone can tell you we simply do not have enough money to buy 114 Rafales. We did not have enough for 126. How are we going to find enough for 36+114? For that matter, the other contenders may not be all that cheaper and the investment made for the current 2 squadrons of Rafales will have to be made again for yet another type. None of the aircraft are financially viable. This deal is going to end up exactly like MRCA 1.0.

And it is not as if there are no options available to fulfil the IAF's requirements. Another 36 aircraft deal would have brought the numbers up to a usable 72. Additional Su-30s and/or those 21 Mig-29's that were being talked about plus more squadrons of Tejas Mk.1 can fill in the rest. The IAF is not so averse to the Tejas as it once was having seen what it is capable of now. But if the govt. keeps giving them the option of buying several squadrons of aircraft with twice the range and payload, who will say no? Never mind the fact that it is an empty promise since the govt.'s coffers are themselves empty.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Feb 2020 10:12

So it appears the squadron shortage is no longer acute in the IAF.

MRCA 2.0 is not going to be an inexpensive purchase, but the IAF is going to get the best aircraft that is out there in a staggered delivery schedule i.e. perhaps 12 aircraft a year. So much for the argument that companies like LM could scale up and match the output of F-16 delivery to the IAF, as in the US (30 aircraft/month) during the 1980s. And the IAF will go for less than 114 aircraft if the cost is too prohibitive, but they will not accept an aircraft that does not meet the ASQR criteria.

From the seven OEMs taking part in the competition (and taking into account HVT Sir’s tweets above about the F-21 and F-18), I am going to stick my neck out and say it is going to be the Rafale again. The Navy’s third carrier dream is also likely to take a hit and there goes Boeing and Dassault’s dream to win the 57 carrier borne fighter contest.

India to get military commands in 3 years, biggest restructuring ever
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-t ... er-2174788
04 Feb 2020

Similarly, for the Indian Air Force, the Chief of Defence Staff felt it is important to stagger the purchases of expensive fighter aircraft to ensure higher serviceability. India is looking closely at a deal to acquire 114 fighter aircraft for which a global tender is now under way. "Look at the maintenance cycle," said General Rawat explaining that several newly acquired aircraft would need to be simultaneously serviced if they were acquired within a short period of time. This would mean that many of these assets would be simultaneously out of commission for a period of time. Instead, a system of staggered acquisitions for the Air Force would mean that at least some key operational platforms such as fighters, helicopters and drones would be available while others were being serviced.

High-value military acquisitions, such as a proposed third aircraft carrier for Navy, "depends on how the economy progresses," said General Rawat as this costly acquisition would have "an impact on the other services." The Navy has fought for years for the government to sanction a third made-in-India carrier which would supplement INS Vikramaditya which is in service and INS Vikrant which enters trials soon before being inducted.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 05 Feb 2020 23:29

Ready to partner India, transfer technology of jet engine: Safran
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 950370.cms
By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | Feb 05, 2020, 09.16 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Leading French engine manufacturer Safran has said that it is ready to transfer the full technology for jet engines that can power next generation fighter jets and has initiated talks on the matter as it is committed to staying in India for the long term. The offer gains significance as India has embarked on an ambitious plan to develop an advanced multirole fighter jet, with the Air Force insisting that it should be powered with an indigenous engine and home developed weapon systems.

In his first remarks after taking over as Safran senior executive vice president, Alexandre Ziegler, who was the French Ambassador to India till last year, said exchanges have started between the two sides for a potential partnership for the next generation jets. “The development of an indigenous fighter jet engine is a key factor for strategic autonomy. If India chooses to cooperate with France in this field, we will be delighted and honoured to make our contribution. We are ready to propose a full transfer of technology and know-how. That is the strength of our partnership,” the senior executive told ET.

The French manufacturer is already a partner in major Indian space projects and helicopter engines, besides being a significant supplier of systems for the Rafale fighter jets ordered for the Air Force. “Our technologies make France one of the four countries in the world to master the complete development of a fighter jet engine. And if India needs us on this particularly strategic field, we will be there. Safran is definitely ready for a partnership with India, with the full support of the French government. Exchanges on this subject have already begun,” Ziegler said.

The comments come even as France has made fresh efforts to revive plans to develop the indigenous Kaveri jet engine as part of the Rafale offsets deal, with a briefing for the project made to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh during his visit to Paris in October.

As reported by ET, plans to revive the indigenous Kaveri project with the help of French technology stalled over differences in the pricing mechanism for the deal. The upgraded Kaveri engine is not being considered for the next batch of 83 LCAs to be made in India and the jets will be powered by engines supplied by US’ General Electric but the Indian Air Force has mandated that the next generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) has to operate on Indian engines after the first two squadrons.

Engines form a major part of the cost of fighter jets, with estimates showing that for a fleet of 200 LCAs in service, the cost of engines alone would be in excess of 25 billion euros over the lifecycle of the planes.

On its plans to utilise the offsets from the Rafale contract, Zeigler said Safram is committed to achieving the 50% offset clause with its Indian partners. “The Group’s purchases from Indian companies have grown considerably and now reach dozens of millions of euros each year. In addition, we have great ambitions in terms of Make in India and industrial investments in India, whether in production, like we are already doing in Bengaluru and Hyderabad, or in aeronautics MRO,” he said.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 06 Feb 2020 01:35

This govt. seems unwilling or unable to take major decisions. The lack of progress on Tejas Mk1A contract signature, the low budget allocations, the stagnant MRCA contest, all point to one thing; the 36 Rafale deal and the boldness shown there leading to all the controversies that the opposition created have spooked them. Add to that the stagnant economy and all we see is lip service.

Rather disappointing.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 06 Feb 2020 11:47

^^^
The "boldness" was shown only while doing importgiri, which is why i have been in b1tching mode for a few years now.