MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Mar 2011 06:41

If IAF does not get these planes, this is the way I see it:

The "MiG-35" is dead. I bet even the RuAf, with a larger budget, will not buy it in the future.

Typhoon. Dunno. I suspect it is close to dead. It MAY survive because of Saudi Arabia, but I very much doubt that ANY of the "partners" will go beyond their current commitments.

Rafale, with even the UAE wanting "better" it may just about survive or it may not beyond the current version.

F-16: dead. Deader.

Grip: will survive. In what form, dunno.

F-18L Will survive. Best of the lot as far as survival is concerned. Like it or not, best of the lot for growth - even with that old frame. : )

My prediction: Rafale + F-18.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 17 Mar 2011 07:02

GeorgeWelch wrote: More importantly, you completely miss/misrepresent the point.

You were trying to argue that the US would never open up a core defense competition to foreign competition like India is with the MMRCA and I was pointing out that was clearly wrong.

If I have misinterpreted what you were trying to say, please explain what you were trying to say.

When America picked between the Boeing and the Airbus tanker in the KC-X, the decision was either, A] domestic, or B] a consortium of NATO allies -- not exactly an exotic choice for an American to make.

In the MMRCA, there is no domestic choice, and India does not have a formal alliance with any of the countries from which the contenders hail.

Two contenders are American, one of which offers a plane that is already in the Pakistani inventory. One of the European contenders is also a consortium (but their plane is in the Saudi inventory, which worries me, although seemingly no one else here on BRF). Then there is a French plane and a Swedish plane that has an American engine. Sweden is non-NATO and I would characterize France as only quasi-NATO, but unlike the Swedes, the French have their own engine. Lastly there is a Russian plane.

GeorgeWelsh, do you honestly not agree that the geopolitical field is much wider in the MMRCA than it was in the KC-X?
Maybe if the KC-X had contemplated the Ilyushin Il-78 you might have a leg to stand on -- but Boeing versus Airbus? Are you kidding me?

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 17 Mar 2011 07:21

Awesome post that, RaviK saar. Hats off only.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 17 Mar 2011 08:32

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Maybe if the KC-X had contemplated the Ilyushin Il-78 you might have a leg to stand on

They would have evaluated the An-112 if they could have got their act together.

The competition was open to all, if no one else wanted to or was able to bid, there's nothing you can do.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 17 Mar 2011 09:42

The Pentagon is hardly backing off --- contrary to what opponents of the F-35 JSF love to believe --- from the large-scale induction of this fifth generation strike fighter into the US military.

Make no mistake all ye sceptics! The Joint Strike Fighter will sport the IAF roundel by 2020. I'm not so sure about the MMRCA.

US Marine Corps reaffirms the faith with the F-35.

Shuklaji seems to be all-out supporter of F-35 of late,Quite Surprising.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2011 10:04

imo long term the IN needs a high end "Rafale" and a low end "Tejas-N" to form a seaborne carrier wings and land based naval strike squadrons (the tiny IAF Jag-IM based in pune is clearly NOT survivable against a serious threat of the PLANAF variety and are getting old).

Mig29K is a evolutionary dead end and best restricted to Vikramaditya and training role in goa only.

we can kill two birds with one stone by PMO enforcing a split in the MRCA deal and dual-purposing it for IN + IAF.

60 Rafale with m88mk4 & rbe-aesa, meteor, mica, astra, sudarshan, aasm, exocet (4 sqdns)...no great hurry there...IAC1 wont be entering the ranks before 2015 and IAC before 2020 for sure...so stage it out to reduce capex.
90 F18 or EF for the IAF (6 sdns)
150 of Tejas mk2 for IAF
60 Tejas-N for IN

enuf to take the fight to the big lizard using two carrier air wings of 40 planes each...and absolutely overrun lesser foes.

btw 3 yr delay in Scorpene IOC is confirmed. new date is 2015 mid.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Mar 2011 10:26

Singha wrote:Mig29K is a evolutionary dead end and best restricted to Vikramaditya and training role in goa only.

Woow.. woow. That is like sticking a stick into a giant anthill of Natashas. They aint gonna like you one bit for that and will come swarming out to bite your Musharraf. Take cover!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 17 Mar 2011 13:59

Dassault defence orders worth EUR 792 M in 2010, dip 69% compared to 2009

WRT Rafale

F3 Standard retrofits ended for RAFALEs initially delivered with F2 standard. Dassault qualified and operationalised the "shooter and laser" capability of the laser-guided weapons with the DAMOCLES Laser Designation Pod (LDP). In addition AEROS Pod with reconnaissance capability was put into service.

WRT UAE Mirages

Dassault also integrated GBU-12 and GBU-24 laser-guided bombs on the UAE MIRAGE 2000-9.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 17 Mar 2011 15:35

ravi k,

great analytical post by you. full marks.

but as always every analysis is far from being correct and at best becomes one's pov and depending on how another person looks at it, he may accept it totally or rubbish it. the reason for this - every deal, every history is much more complex than one can envisage in pure black and white on any given day. while i broadly agree with you on the analytical part, i find it hard to agree on certain specifics which i feel you have looked at rather simplistically.

take for example the gorshkov case. it was supposed to be a 'freebie' with only refurbishment/renovation/addon cost and an assorted number of Mig 29k as a 'sort of' compulsory buying with it. now to surmise, as you do, so simplistically - that the russians were poor in their estimation/schedule/managing skills (compared to their western peers) and also you add similar analogy to the indians - for the delay and cost overrun, is hard to beleive.

now even if i grant that factor to a degree, it simply beats my mind that the estimation could go 'sooo wrong' that only the renovation/refurbishment/addon cost will balloon to such an extent that it will cost us 'as much as a new aircraft carrier'!!! well almost. case in point our own IAC 1 which is similar STOBAR AC. surely russians with decades of experience in ship building/selling would not be 'so naive' as to estimate the cost in the way you think they did. similarly i would not think indian experts also would be so naive in their estmation too. to cut the story short and in hindsight this was a case of a trap - however difficult for us - to swallow as one!!! atleast IMO.

similarly to accept the russian selling SU 30MKs to China (let me clear myself here. i have no issue with that) - a bigger and dangerous adversary to us - as a case of dumbed down version (natural corollary - and hence not a great threat to us) and that we got a better version is also a very simplistic way of looking at it. the fact is Russian technology was not good enough for us and hence we went french/israeli/local systems for it and hence the point we got better version has no truth in it. it became better 'because' we went non russian for onboard systems. russians only integrated them. that aside what stops the chinese in putting similar systems like the ones we have on our SU 30MKIs?? may be with their own cloned versions or otherwise?? what about the Kilos/S 300s/R-77s(the list would be long) etc... are they too dumbed down versions??

my point is not to argue with you, nitpick or to rant against the russians but just to say every country looks at it's own interest and that every seller out there has done enough of this sort and we better accept it and be prepared for that rather than making allowances for them and their practices.

regards.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Mar 2011 19:17

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:But, don’t parallel Russian and French sales to the Chinese, to the American *gift* of F-16s to the Pakistanis, because this isn’t just another business transaction, particularly since it’s a freebie deal.

There is a context to everything, including the F-16s that the PAF has received from the US in the last few years, and that context is the supply routes into Afghanistan that Pakistan provides to the US to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda (both of which are dangerous enemies of India). In return for this blatant compromise of their sovereignity, the Pakistan armed forces do need to be given something they value, otherwise why would they accept the violation. The US of 2011 gives weapons to Pakistan not out of choice but out of compulsion. Pre 9/11, with Pressler in full force, the Pak armed forces were effectively sanctioned by the US. 9/11 changed many things: the US having to re-engage with Pakistan was one unfortunate consequnence. The US fully understands that Pakistan is back-stabbing them in Afghanistan, spreading terrorism, spreading drugs, proliferating nukes, spreading islamic fundamentalism, and handing over US technology to China. But the US is nevertheless compelled to deal with this rogue nation while they have an army of 100,000 in Afghanistan to supply and support. As and when this army withdraws, the support levels to Pakistan's military will also plummet.

The relationship with India is on a completely different level. This relationship is not going to be about 126 fighter jets. Its about the rules according to which the 21st century will be governed. The US and its allies defeated the Third Reich, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. The risk and the challenge from a totalitarian imperialistic China in the 21st century cannot be underestimated. As China is India's neighbour, frankly the potential risks to India are a lot greater than the potential risks to the US. It is far better to face this challenge as an alliance of democratic nations - India, US, Japan, Europe, etc - than on our own. Of all of these countries, the US remains the most powerful and the richest, and therefore the most important, also to India.

We should also not forget that many US actions are in favour of India's long-term security needs:
- blocking the sale of Phalcons to China
- permitting the sale of Phalcons and much else from Israel to India
- the nuclear deal
- taking DRDO and ISRO off the list of companies denied technology
- support for a permanent seat at the UNSC
- etc

The improvement in the relationship with India is already manifest in several forms including regular interaction between the armed forces, intelligence sharing, sales of military equipment (C-130, P-8, etc), etc.

The MMRCA deal is not the litmus test of this relationship. This relationship has to and will be strengthened regardless of what India decides on the MMRCA.

But to those who have a knee-jerk anti-US stance, that is also not in India's interest; it is dangerously against India's interests.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 17 Mar 2011 19:19

so similarly, the US should be mature enough to trust India to choose the best aircraft for its airforce... and not throw toys out of the pram if that choice happens to be non-US

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 17 Mar 2011 19:24

One of the important points Ravi Karumanchiri made is that there has to be a decoupling between any purchase of American systems/platforms and India joining the league of American client states.

Another point to notice is that it's absolute rubbish to say that India and the US are 'natural allies'. No they not and never will be for the simple reason that their civilizational ethos differs completely. To use other nations as manure to sustain yourself/for your own growth is not the Dharmic paradigm, but it perfectly describes the American/European way of thinking.

manum · Post by **manum** » 17 Mar 2011 19:33

what are you talking man...you seem to have fit 1+1 =2....in real world it can be anything....i don't think those plates in Japan shifted so much that china will not be our neighbour...
You can change houses not neighbouring nations...so its ideal that you dont make theories like hollywood and paint the worls in risk of chinese imperialism...
It is important that we take chinese power as a challange and not deal them as enemies...it'll help us take a breath and untangle us from any pre-concieved notion...
India and China are oldest civilizations and largest...they will outlast any of these theories...nor you rely on history...most of the bloody history you see in the recent past because few theoreticians and speakers thought they are making sense...but look what happened...

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Mar 2011 19:34

Lalmohan wrote:so similarly, the US should be mature enough to trust India to choose the best aircraft for its airforce... and not throw toys out of the pram if that choice happens to be non-US

Exactly ... even if the disappointment is intense ... there is so much else at stake .. and MMRCA is about equipping the IAF with the best that we can afford .. and not about sealing some grand alliance. Our diplomatic corps better get this story right ... the IAF got what it wanted, that's all there is to this deal.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Mar 2011 19:39

manum wrote:what are you talking man...you seem to have fit 1+1 =2....in real world it can be anything....i don't think those plates in Japan shifted so much that china will not be our neighbour...
You can change houses not neighbouring nations...so its ideal that you dont make theories like hollywood and paint the worls in risk of chinese imperialism...
It is important that we take chinese power as a challange and not deal them as enemies...it'll help us take a breath and untangle us from any pre-concieved notion...
India and China are oldest civilizations and largest...they will outlast any of these theories...nor you rely on history...most of the bloody history you see in the recent past because few theoreticians and speakers thought they are making sense...but look what happened...

People dump on the US for giving F-16s to Pakistan. China gave nuclear bombs to Pakistan.

Enemy Recognition 101 ...

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 17 Mar 2011 20:00

NRao wrote:

The "MiG-35" is dead. I bet even the RuAf, with a larger budget, will not buy it in the future.

Typhoon. Dunno. I suspect it is close to dead. It MAY survive because of Saudi Arabia, but I very much doubt that ANY of the "partners" will go beyond their current commitments.

Rafale, with even the UAE wanting "better" it may just about survive or it may not beyond the current version.

F-16: dead. Deader.

Grip: will survive. In what form, dunno.

F-18L Will survive. Best of the lot as far as survival is concerned. Like it or not, best of the lot for growth - even with that old frame.

You're assessment sounds right. But my worries could be summarized thus:

1. Will the Super Hornet be able to hold it's own in fight against Chinese/Paki 4th generation fighters once it's avionics advantage is negated? (Some say that the SH is a bomb truck with very advanced electronics.)

2. Will the US transfer any worthwhile tech to India: manufacturing of all important parts in India, e.g. SC blades, T/R modules of the AESA radar, hot section of the engine, etc..

3. After we buy the SH, we use it as we see fit and any US monitoring has to be on India's terms.

To Manum and Eklavya: China is India's threat/enemy number 1, at least this much should be clear to BRF readers. Also when China attacks us, no country will come to our aid, infact the US, Europe and other players would be delighted to see India and China expend their forces/strenght fighting each other.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Mar 2011 20:06

Multatuli wrote:

You're assessment sounds right. But my worries could be summarized thus:

1. Will the Super Hornet be able to hold it's own in fight against Chinese/Paki 4th generation fighters once it's avionics advantage is negated? (Some say that the SH is a bomb truck with very advanced electronics.)

2. Will the US transfer any worthwhile tech to India: manufacturing of all important parts in India, e.g. SC blades, T/R modules of the AESA radar, hot section of the engine, etc..

3. After we buy the SH, we use it as we see fit and any US monitoring has to be on India's terms.

To Manum and Eklavya: China is India's threat/enemy number 1, at least this much should be clear to BRF readers. Also when China attacks us, no country will come to our aid, infact the US, Europe and other players would be delighted to see India and China expend their forces/strenght fighting each other.

SH has a tracking device which gives operational location of the aircraft to US satellites/
THis could cripple Indian use of this aircraft permanently

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 17 Mar 2011 20:10

Can we circumvent/disable those tracking devices?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Mar 2011 20:12

Multatuli wrote:Can we circumvent/disable those tracking devices?

And also circumvent Uncle. No way. Once you are with Uncle you will always be with Uncle.

manum · Post by **manum** » 17 Mar 2011 20:14

eklavya wrote:People dump on the US for giving F-16s to Pakistan. China gave nuclear bombs to Pakistan.

Enemy Recognition 101 ...

well USA not only gave F-16 to Pakistan, it also helped it in last two wars we fought with Pakistan...it also gave it all the training they have traces left...
But now we are natural allies, yes why not, time has moved on and we found ourselves side by side.
but anybody could have stopped China from giving nukes to Pakistan, may be they couldn't (yeah but they could give us nukes, why not we are friends), so they wont be able to be friendly in any other tougher instances (Except selling more to us and bit of lecture), would they? May be none of them can stop China from doing what it feels right to do with very few friends it feels impelled to help.

Lets fight our own war, our own way, and I am dead sure Teens will be disgrace in that. Nukes will find their own ways to trickle if We remain the Second nation to USA...Why blame China for it, we were helpless anyway except crying loudest...its a foul...

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 17 Mar 2011 20:21

Multatuli wrote:1. Will the Super Hornet be able to hold it's own in fight against Chinese/Paki 4th generation fighters once it's avionics advantage is negated?

Except its avionics advantage won't be negated. The USN is very strongly committed to keeping it current, far more so than any of the other competitors. It will always be ahead of the others simply because the USN is willing to invest the money to make it so.

Multatuli wrote:Will the US transfer any worthwhile tech to India

All competitors meet the ToT requirement apparently.

Multatuli wrote:After we buy the SH, we use it as we see fit and any US monitoring has to be on India's terms.

That is understood.

Multatuli wrote:Also when China attacks us, no country will come to our aid

I would not be so hasty to jump to such a conclusion.

Multatuli wrote:Can we circumvent/disable those tracking devices?

There are no tracking devices to circumvent except in certain over-excited imaginations.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 17 Mar 2011 20:50

GeorgeWelch wrote:

Except its avionics advantage won't be negated. The USN is very strongly committed to keeping it current, far more so than any of the other competitors. It will always be ahead of the others simply because the USN is willing to invest the money to make it so.

Okay. For the time being the US is prepared to sell the advanced avionics to India, which is good, but what if, say 15 years after the IAF starts operating the SH (when it's time for a MLU), the US changes it's position, for whatever reason. Certainly we would need a guarantee that this will not happen. Such a guarantee can not be only political in nature (just on paper), for the US could renege on it with impunity. Instead we would need substantial manufacturing as well as R&D, of high tech components to be transferred to India (not just for the Indian SH's but also the US and other users) to bridge the trust deficit that exist (and for which the US is responsible).

You see, most here on BRF are worried about the GoI going for the SH not because we are anti-American or whatever, but because US foreign policy is so fickle and immature with respect to India.

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 17 Mar 2011 21:39

Now that people have started quoting Ravi sir`s post I would like to as well

The original American strategic rationale for the Pro-Pakistan tilt was set in the Eisenhower Administration, on the desks of John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Welsh Dulles, who created the ideological schema through which all ‘Cold War’ matters were viewed by Americans. This thinking still colours institutionalized American foreign policy making to this very day. Together, the Dulles brothers successfully promulgated an extremely simplistic (mis)understanding of the Post WWII dispensation, wherein, “You’re either with us or against us”. Rakshaks will recall very similar sentiments expressed by Bush-43 after 9/11.

It was the definite tilt of India towars Soviet Union that forced USA to support Pakistan...

because to the Indian mind, alliance is an obligation, whereas to the American mind, alliance is an opportunity

From dirty yindoos we are turning into innocent yindoos...

Consider that India’s Non-Aligned stance gave the Americans enough of a reason to back Pakistan in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, despite the complete lack of any moral justification to do so.

It was not perfect non alignment anyway.

It means that the Americans will offer India “the moon” (including a UNSC P-seat, F-16, F-18, even F-35, etc.), but only because of America’s own interests (such as Af-Pak, countering China, US manufacturing jobs, etc); American interests which seemingly are always calculated on very short time frames, subject to change without notice.

Two can play the same game if needed unless you sticking to innocent Yindoo theory.

Now, I will admit that I have no way to prove this, but let me ask you, dear Rakshak, if India had ‘fallen in line’ with US interests when she first had the ‘opportunity’, do you think America would have exhibited the Pro-Pakistan tilt from 1950-1979? Of course you don’t and neither do I. Make no mistake, America of that day would have quickly disposed of Pakistan had India ‘played ball’.

That would ve proved their common sense.You should not hold it against them.

Furthermore, in a very real sense; America’s arming of Pakistan contributes to Indian insecurity, which (they hope) leads to Indian purchases of American weapons, thereby profiting America. In a way, India purchasing American weapons validates and facilitates this dynamic, and feeds into a continuing cycle of insecurity and American weapons purchases. The only way to effectively break this dynamic is to not buy American weapons. If the Americans see that the instability and insecurity they foster goes to enrich Russia or France, they will not play that game with the same gusto they have been.

Are they arming pakistan to foster instability or to sell weapons to India??
What is the main motive.
Well they are arming Porkis because they can and because they need pakroachi help...You are giving sinister connotations to US policies needlessly. Why not play hardball and buy unkill MMRCA with the condition that US stop arming pak??!! Why not?

When America’s interests shift, which they inevitably do because of the short-sightedness inherent in expedient strategymaking, so too does American support for her client states. In fact, I would argue, that the structural dynamics of the American establishment itself – with its ‘checks and balances’, open access for paying lobbyists, two-year-long election cycles, the milindustrial complex itself and the combined heavy dependence on middle-eastern oil and Chinese sovereign credit – this virtually guarantees that America’s interests vis a vis India will shift over the coming decades, as they have over the past decade, making it by no means certain that relations will improve along the current trajectory.

Two can play the same game unless you sticking with innocent Yindoo theory...Aren we shifting from Russia to Amrika..we will shift again..may be to Uganda..

If history provides any salient lesson, we can be assured that the present push for warming relations will not last indefinitely, especially as the ramifications of global climate change increasingly pit the so-called ‘developed world’ at loggerheads with the ‘developing world’. If India plans to fly the MMRCA winner for 30-40 years, as I’ve read; then India should consider buying from a country that has exhibited a far greater degree of geopolitical constancy than has the United States of America. By my geopolitical estimation, that would indicate either Russia or France (Mig-35 or Rafale, respectively).

Now we are digressing.We should focus on the US of A I think and why we should not buy from them if anyone.

IMHO, far too many here on BRF are keen to kick Russia to the curb. I think this is also a short-sighted response to the aggravation of perceived cost overruns on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya, and also the supply disruptions that came in the wake of the Soviet collapse. I also think there is some significant misperception of the strategic position of Russia.

It’s because we have the best of Russian stuff already and would like to diversify.

Third, with regards to Russia’s geostrategic position; like India, Russia has concerns about Chinese expansionism; like India, Russia has concerns about terrorism and Islamist militancy; like India, Russia has concerns about petro-dollar fuelled Islamism; WHILE AT THE SAME TIME; unlike the United States, Russia is an energy exporting country; and unlike the United States, Russia’s sovereign debt is below 10% of GDP (much lower than any other MMRCA contender)

Most of the things you have mentioned would apply to Unkill as well.Besides Uncle can offer different things too. Perhaps we should make a table and match who has to offer more..I think Unkill will win.

Undeniably, Russia has gone through a rough patch since the collapse of the USSR, but things are improving rapidly. If India wanted to pick a geopolitical power with which to partner to march into her preferred future, it should not be one that is so beholden to China, which would include America, of course, but increasingly also the EADS member countries.

Europe is going downhill. And its a very close ally of Unkill. Why not Unkill then.??

Some additional rebuttals:
1) A number of posters have commented that India, the world’s largest democracy, is a “natural ally” of America, the world’s oldest democracy. This depiction of America is wrong-headed because the United States didn’t become a true democracy until the Civil Rights act of 1964(!) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965(!!). By this measure, India is an older democracy than is the United States, so please spare us the revisionist depiction of American democracy – overlooking a recent history of racial segregation and disenfranchisement.

Whats your point?How is this important.?

2) America didn’t enter WWII on the side of the British until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in December 1941! That’s right, America stayed out of the fray from 1939-1942, and in fact a number of American companies and businessmen were trading with the Nazis even after the Americans entered the European theatre, notably IBM which provided a punch-card system the Nazis used to “catalogue” concentration camp prisoners, thereby improving the efficiency of Hitler’s holocaust machine. The take-away lesson here: America has demonstrated a depth of moral bankruptcy that should give any Indian pause when considering formal alliances with the United States.

British and French appeased Hitler to the extent of fighting the only phoney war in history and you were recommending we should buy from them.

3) Have no concern about blow-back on the US-India nuclear deal. For starters, there are entirely different lobbies in the US for nuclear equipments and warplanes, and so little chance that a sour note for one will taint the other. More importantly, India has already made the sound decision to operate low-enriched fuel, heavy-water moderated nuclear reactors, and the Americans have long ago made the *cheap* decision to operate light-water moderated reactors. This means that India doesn’t really want US reactors, only access to other NSG products and fuel. BRIEFLY, the main safety advantage of heavy-water moderated reactors is that a loss of containment, and leakage of heavy water, would result in an automatic shutdown (because the reaction requires ‘slow neutrons’), whereas in the light-water reactors offered by America, a loss of containment and loss of water would result in a meltdown, which is exactly what we’re seeing in Fukushima right now. For this reason, I don’t think India or anyone else would consider buying a light water reactor anymore, because they are inherently unsafe, whereas pressurized heavy-water reactors will always ‘fail safe’. (IMHO, India would be better off buying an AECL reactor from Canada, like the CANDU-6 or ACR-1000, both of which will burn thorium, unlike any American reactor.)

IMHO all this is irrelevant.

Regards

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Mar 2011 21:48

Just add the tags yourself around the statements you want to quote.

For e.g, to quote "abc", write this [ quote ]abc[ /quote ]
To quote "xyz" who said "abc", write this : [ quote="xyz" ]abc [ /quote ]

I have added an extra space after and square brackets ([]) so that it doesn't actually quote. remove that when you write your post so that it appears as quote. Try it out a few times using the "preview" option and when you get it right, hit "Submit" to submit the post

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 17 Mar 2011 21:52

Lakh lakh dhankyawaad..
Finally got it done...phew

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 17 Mar 2011 21:53

Multatuli wrote:what if, say 15 years after the IAF starts operating the SH (when it's time for a MLU), the US changes it's position, for whatever reason.

The flip answer is that 'Well, you would still be no worse off than with any other plane which won't have an available MLU to begin with.'

More seriously, as India becomes more important to the US, I don't see that happening any more.

Also you say the US interest is fickle, but so are other countries. Just because they haven't impacted India directly yet doesn't mean they won't. France changed its mind on supplying Israel when the Arab nations threatened it with an oil boycott. France sold Exocet missiles to Argentina then gave the codes to disable them to the UK. In the future they may well cave to Chinese pressure to avoid selling advanced products that 'increase tensions.'

In the end the sort of guarantees you seek are impossible from ANY country, which is why, as you correctly point out, the only true guarantee is to be self-sufficient. And while not there yet, India is working towards that goal.

Which is why 15 years from now doesn't worry me so much from a national-security standpoint. India will have FGFA and possibly AMCA and her own native technologies, so obtaining updates for the relatively small MMRCA fleet, while still important, won't be critical. The main focus of the MRCA is the immediate future, to be a stop-gap to keep squadron numbers from falling dangerously low. Then of course once she has the aircraft, it would be pointless and wasteful to just throw them out as newer model come online.

This is where I believe the SH really shines. It's lifecycle costs are outstanding, making it an affordable stop-gap now and an affordable supplement in the future.

manum · Post by **manum** » 17 Mar 2011 22:02

This is where I believe the SH really shines. It's lifecycle costs are outstanding, making it an affordable stop-gap now and an affordable supplement in the future.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Mar 2011 22:08

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Mar 2011 22:14

GeorgeWelch wrote:The flip answer is that 'Well, you would still be no worse off than with any other plane which won't have an available MLU to begin with.'

GeorgeWelch wrote:More seriously, as India becomes more important to the US, I don't see that happening any more.

Thanks for the humour

In the words of one US Congressman, after Indira Gandhi declared emergency in India in 1975, "Now India is just another third world country exporting diseases." That is all we are to the US and that is all we will be to the US.

GeorgeWelch wrote:This is where I believe the SH really shines. It's lifecycle costs are outstanding, making it an affordable stop-gap now and an affordable supplement in the future.

Thanks Again

You guys have mastered the art of bullshit. Hats off to you guys. And I say that without any sarcasm. You are amazing. We need to learn how to sell ice to an eskimo from guys like you.

Anyway this line of discussion is pointless. Super Hornet or Super Viper it is for India. Thanks Manny Singh!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 17 Mar 2011 22:24

Rakesh wrote:In the words of one US Congressman, after Indira Gandhi declared emergency in India in 1975, "Now India is just another third world country exporting diseases." That is all we are to the US and that is all we will be to the US.

So the best quote you could come up with was from one congressman 35 years ago?

I think even you know that your statement doesn't reflect the view of the US government in the slightest.

Rakesh wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:This is where I believe the SH really shines. It's lifecycle costs are outstanding, making it an affordable stop-gap now and an affordable supplement in the future.
Thanks Again

You guys have mastered the art of bullshit. Hats off to you guys. And I say that without any sarcasm. You are amazing. We need to learn how to sell ice to an eskimo from guys like you.

You can roll all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the SH is a very affordable system, and the continued investment of the USN means it will REMAIN affordable to keep current.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Mar 2011 22:34

What some silly congressman said in 1975 is of little or no interest. We should pay attention to what the President of the USA said to the Parliament of India in 2010 (we hope the speech was not prepared by the marketing department at Boeing, etc!):

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/barac ... t/708277/0

And it is my firm belief that the relationship between the United States and India -— bound by our shared interests and our shared values -— will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. This is the partnership I’ve come here to build. This is the vision that our nations can realize together.

An ancient civilization of science and innovation; a fundamental faith in human progress -- this is the sturdy foundation upon which you have built ever since that stroke of midnight when the tricolor was raised over a free and independent India. (Applause.) And despite the skeptics who said this country was simply too poor, or too vast, or too diverse to succeed, you surmounted overwhelming odds and became a model to the world.

Here in India, two successive governments led by different parties have recognized that deeper partnership with America is both natural and necessary. And in the United States, both of my predecessors —- one a Democrat, one a Republican -— worked to bring us closer, leading to increased trade and a landmark civil nuclear agreement.

relationships between our countries is unique. For we are two strong democracies whose constitutions begin with the same revolutionary words —- the same revolutionary words -- “We the people.” We are two great republics dedicated to the liberty and justice and equality of all people. And we are two free market economies where people have the freedom to pursue ideas and innovation that can change the world. And that’s why I believe that India and America are indispensable partners in meeting the challenges of our time.

As two global leaders, the United States and India can partner for global security —- especially as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years. Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Mar 2011 22:35

GeorgeWelch wrote:So the best quote you could come up with was from one congressman 35 years ago?

Not really...I was just highlighting one of the jewels in the crown of statements

GeorgeWelch wrote:I think even you know that your statement doesn't reflect the view of the US government in the slightest.

Oh yeah it does not. In fact CISMOA is actually supposed to help us.

GeorgeWelch wrote:You can roll all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the SH is a very affordable system, and the continued investment of the USN means it will REMAIN affordable to keep current.

Oh yeah very affordable to the US Navy, but out of reach to us SDREs.

Give us a F-18 without a downgraded AESA radar, without CISMOA agreements, all the source codes and then we might be interested in taking a second look.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Mar 2011 22:42

eklavya wrote:We should pay attention to what the President of the USA said to the Parliament of India in 2010 (we hope the speech was not prepared by the marketing department at Boeing, etc!):

What do you expect him to say in Indian Parliament? He is on an official visit to India. He has to sugar coat the speech. You can't expect him to talk about CISMOA and LSA.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 17 Mar 2011 22:44

GeorgeWelch wrote:France sold Exocet missiles to Argentina then gave the codes to disable them to the UK. In the future they may well cave to Chinese pressure to avoid selling advanced products that 'increase tensions.'

In the end the sort of guarantees you seek are impossible from ANY country, which is why, as you correctly point out, the only true guarantee is to be self-sufficient. And while not there yet, India is working towards that goal.

Which is why 15 years from now doesn't worry me so much from a national-security standpoint. India will have FGFA and possibly AMCA and her own native technologies, so obtaining updates for the relatively small MMRCA fleet, while still important, won't be critical. The main focus of the MRCA is the immediate future, to be a stop-gap to keep squadron numbers from falling dangerously low. Then of course once she has the aircraft, it would be pointless and wasteful to just throw them out as newer model come online.

This is where I believe the SH really shines. It's lifecycle costs are outstanding, making it an affordable stop-gap now and an affordable supplement in the future.

To buy a bomb truck design of 60s, with overweight landing gear (not needed for our airforce) would be the most outrageous decision. Not to talk about the problems forces face for buying platforms like c17, c130 regarding cismoa etc.

Now in MEDIUM MULTIROLE COMBAT AIRCRAFT deal a heavy plane like SH because of its weight itself is least fitting. Instead of buying it why not just buy more rambhas?

When even in radio communications etc. in c17 and c130 khan had such pains, then where do we get ToT in AESA etc.?

Even in 15 years time the FGFA + AMCA will be platinum bullets and for long term war Tejas + MediumMRCA + Su 30 will be doing most of the work. Are you saying that India gifts US 15 billion dollars for a plane which will be relevent (in your above stated opinion) from 2015 to 2025?

In ef2k or rafale at least we are getting latest designs amongst the MediumMRCA contestants.

Just imagine a PM in 2019 sees a situation where he takes a decision to test a new nuclear warhead design. And he goes ahead with it. Which country is in the habit of imposing santions at the drop of a hat, which country gets piles attack when India tests, hmmmmmmmmm let's see :
US?
No?

Even if GoI ignores the fact that teens are least maneuverable jets in whole of MediumMRCA, SH having a carrier based Landing gear. AESA will surely be dumbed down from USN version. Why should we buy this "Ustron ki Mala(Garland of razors)". The present Govt. should respect the right of a future Govt. of India to take the decisions without least amount of fear regarding sanctions.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Mar 2011 23:02

Rakesh wrote:
eklavya wrote:We should pay attention to what the President of the USA said to the Parliament of India in 2010 (we hope the speech was not prepared by the marketing department at Boeing, etc!):
What do you expect him to say in Indian Parliament? He is on an official visit to India. He has to sugar coat the speech. You can't expect him to talk about CISMOA and LSA.

The intentions of the US are sincere enough. Obviously if they offer down-graded equipment, their chances of winning will be affected ...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Mar 2011 23:15

count down: 6 more months to sept 2011.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Mar 2011 23:15

Somebody please move this thread to the hot air...err... Strat forum.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 17 Mar 2011 23:17

Manish_Sharma wrote:To buy a bomb truck design of 60s

The SH first flew in 1995 and is hardly a 'bomb truck'. It is the front-line fighter of the USN and is expected to take on any threat anywhere in the world.

Manish_Sharma wrote:Now in MEDIUM MULTIROLE COMBAT AIRCRAFT deal a heavy plane like SH because of its weight itself is least fitting. Instead of buying it why not just buy more rambhas?

Because it's half the price and helps to wean India off total reliance on Russia and gives India access to a whole new source of technology to study and absorb.

Manish_Sharma wrote:then where do we get ToT in AESA etc.?

The IAF has said all competitors met the ToT requirements.

Manish_Sharma wrote:Are you saying that India gifts US 15 billion dollars for a plane which will be relevent (in your above stated opinion) from 2015 to 2025?

No, you misunderstand my point.

The SH will be ready the quickest.
The SH will also be relevant the longest.

But to argue that you shouldn't buy US because of what MAY happen 15 years from now is silly because 1) you can't guarantee the behavior of ANY country 15 years from now and 2) in 15 years, the most critical period for the MRCA will have passed.

Manish_Sharma wrote:In ef2k or rafale at least we are getting latest designs amongst the MediumMRCA contestants.

Both are older than the SH and more importantly have far more questionable futures.

Manish_Sharma wrote:Which country is in the habit of imposing santions at the drop of a hat, which country gets piles attack when India tests, hmmmmmmmmm let's see

It wasn't at the drop of a hat, it was required by US law which was set well before the tests. More importantly, the law has since been changed.

Manish_Sharma wrote:AESA will surely be dumbed down from USN version.

The offered radar will be evaluated on its own merits. If it's better than the other offerings, then it's still the best choice.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 17 Mar 2011 23:58

GeorgeWelch wrote:The SH first flew in 1995 and is hardly a 'bomb truck'. It is the front-line fighter of the USN and is expected to take on any threat anywhere in the world.

Nope! The word Hornet in its name from old hornet, its just a modified hornet that's all. In that sense Mig 35 will be the latest in the world. No?

GeorgeWelch wrote:Because it's half the price and helps to wean India off total reliance on Russia and gives India access to a whole new source of technology to study and absorb.

Exactly! The dependence on russians isn't as bad as ungle 'cause russians don't try to run other countries policies nor are they sanctimonious like UK-US. If we buy from US we are not just gambling away 15 billion dollars, we are gambling with one fifth of IAF's fleet. Future we may have a strong PM who would like to initiate a war against porkis in 26/11 like situation, but US won't like it. To gamble with such a big part of frontline war machinery would be criminal.

GeorgeWelch wrote:But to argue that you shouldn't buy US because of what MAY happen 15 years from now is silly because 1) you can't guarantee the behavior of ANY country 15 years from now and 2) in 15 years, the most critical period for the MRCA will have passed.

Yes to a certain extent we can, like China and Porkis won't be our wellwishers, its 100% sure they'll be enemies, No its not "silly" to factor in the crippling of big chunk of fronline warmachine.

GeorgeWelch wrote:It wasn't at the drop of a hat, it was required by US law which was set well before the tests. More importantly, the law has since been changed.

But still you don't know we may have an Al Gore/Clinton like president at that time who may go ahead and impose sanctions. Or is there some reason that you believe US won't sanction India? 'cause just taking a gamble on one fifth of IAF's strength won't be a good idea for any patriot. Just take off your hardselling US salesman's hat and instead of dismissing the concerns of sanctions as "silly" just try to see it from India's perspective.

GeorgeWelch wrote:The offered radar will be evaluated on its own merits. If it's better than the other offerings, then it's still the best choice.

In fact everything should be evaluated on its merits and no demerits should be covered under "future partnership with US" tag.

kit · Post by **kit** » 18 Mar 2011 00:13

Would you like a middle aged moderately good looking woman with a lot of make up and coming up with um good recos (but have to take it at face value) or a much younger good looking girl with a lot of potential and the willingness to learn ?

If you ask me i would rather go for the latter one