India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 11 May 2011 07:53

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Khalsa wrote:Perhaps I can give you a small analogy that will help you in understanding what we mean.
All these conditions were known up front. If they were never going to be accepted, they shouldn't have been allowed in the competition to begin with.

Khalsa wrote:I once met a friend of mine in the IAF who flies Mig29s. Since he was no decision maker I asked him about his opinion on the F-16 for MRCA. His answer was as follows.
The Pakis fly it.
And of course no one has a problem buying more MKIs even though the Chinese have the Su-30.

Khalsa wrote:So my friend George, the F-16 was never in the competition due to Pakistan
If that's true, then India was fundamentally dishonest to ever allow it in the competition.

Khalsa wrote:and the F-18 was way outside the competition due to its rather large overlap of skills, weight, capability and class with the Su-30 MKI.

If that's true, then India was fundamentally dishonest to ever allow it in the competition.

Please read the posts from before.

LM was invited, not F-16
They knew the requirements, and pitched the F-16.

Their choice not IAF.

Choice to leave out components or degrade components, their choice, not india's.

They knew the criterion as well as others did.

I would say fundamentally dishonest to waste IAF's time and energy if purposefully the equipment fielded didn't meet up with the tech requirements. You may think opposite. We hold different perspectives.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2011 07:57

koti wrote:So it was a technical miscalculation IMO by the LM that Boeing that led to their unimpressive performance.

Trouble is its not a 'technical' miscalculation if it was ejected on any grounds except that which relate to the aircraft's performance.

And no, they aren't going to delay the process by legal means for two reasons -

1. Its not going to get them the contract.
2. The MoD will very comfortably sideline them from the Indian military market (maybe even shake things up on the civil side). Its under no legal obligation include any foreign company in its dealings.

In any case all this is a non issue. We know that the Eurofighter and Rafale had highest conformance to the 643 technical parameters on which they were judged. Boeing would like more details for their own satisfaction as probably would LM, Saab and MiG. The IAF is happy to oblige. They haven't threatened or even hinted at legal action.
End of story.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 11 May 2011 07:58

LOL George my my what a quick reply ... you are seriously pissed off about this aren't you? Hopefully it gets better for you my good friend.

No one forced America to send its planes to the competition. You came of your own free will.
And No all the conditions were not crystallised by the Americans in the beginning.

Also ponder what do i mean by America and Americans in 'my' sentence above?
Does that mean the Corporations or the Govt ?
Does it include Senators and congressmen promising or saying something that is remarkedly different from what American policy states ?

The statements from USA changed every week. Have a read of the news articles regarding ToT, AESA and CISMOA etc.

Maybe we misunderstood on what Americas were saying about F-16s and F-18s and allowed it to continue.

Regarding the Su-30s you are correct, let me put it this way if a better than a Su-30 aircraft such as an untampered F-22 with No CISMOA was on sale, India would have got that over the Su-30 MKI. Thats why were are investing in the PAK FA/FGFA to replace the MKIs in the future.

In the F-16s I think Rafale/ Typhoon is better than a F-16 anyday and they are both for sale.

Please stop being a sore loser. Its painful to see this

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2011 08:04

Avid wrote:I would say fundamentally dishonest to waste IAF's time and energy if purposefully the equipment fielded didn't meet up with the tech requirements. You may think opposite. We hold different perspectives.

Actually I don't think he's saying anything to the contrary. Boeing and LM were invited under the understanding that they'd be given a fair shot and not hampered by legislation or politics that was much the same in 2007. As long as that occurred (which Boeing will probably have to concede happened), there's no need for recriminations of any sort.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2011 08:20

some of the fatbox designs like JSF and F18 are only feasible given bleeding edge engine tech of the F136 variety - vast amt of thrust but also good fuel economy. vast thrust at high fuel consumption was seen in the Mig25/31. the F18 does not have as high tech a engine and suffers...hence the EPE/EDE futures of F414....

I would imagine no other country could make a airframe like the JSF and make it perform as a F16 aerodynamically and range/load unless they had the F136 type engine technology. and thats why nobody is even going the internal bay route without twin engines (AMCA/J20). Pakfa has a long airframe so isnt so much of a fatbox and it needs twin engines anyway for A2A intimidation thing.

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 May 2011 08:55

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Khalsa wrote:and the F-18 was way outside the competition due to its rather large overlap of skills, weight, capability and class with the Su-30 MKI.

If that's true, then India was fundamentally dishonest to ever allow it in the competition.

Added, I also see it as fundamentally dishonest (Morally too)for both LM and Boeing to even participate in the MMRCA contest as they very well knew that US foreign policy does not allow for the ToT required for the MMRCA bid.

So, I guess they wanted to pull off a few bucks by trying to use US diplomacy to put pressurize IAF/MOD to accept the ineligible planes.

No Offence intended.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 11 May 2011 09:08

Koti
I would even suggest that Boeing and LM would have pressurised even their own policy makers to let this one slip through. Its that kind of unassured under the table kind of guarantee that may have put us off the US planes. If we had bought the planes we would have constantly lived under the fear of being cut off from supplies or spare parts or sanctions for one fine day when someone in the US Govt would have gathered the courage to call a Spade a Spade

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 11 May 2011 09:48

How not to sell Fighter Aircraft

I listed all the American Sins here.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 May 2011 09:48

Avid wrote:Please read the posts from before.

LM was invited, not F-16
They knew the requirements, and pitched the F-16.

Their choice not IAF.

If there was nothing in the requirements about 'Not being an aircraft operated by Pakistan', then that cannot be grounds for disqualification.

Avid wrote:Choice to leave out components or degrade components, their choice, not india's.

As long as the components meet the requirements set by India, then that is no grounds for disqualification.

If the components did NOT meet the requirements, then so be it.

Avid wrote:They knew the criterion as well as others did.

Did they? People here seem to be making up all sorts of additional criteria (operated by Pakistan, CISMOA, etc) that was not specified in the RFP.

Avid wrote:I would say fundamentally dishonest to waste IAF's time and energy if purposefully the equipment fielded didn't meet up with the tech requirements. You may think opposite.

No, I agree that they shouldn't have bid if they knew it wasn't compliant.

Avid wrote:We hold different perspectives.

However, I also hold the reverse to be true. If India wouldn't let it win even if it did meet the specifications, it would be fundamentally dishonest to waste LM/Boeing's time and energy like that.

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 May 2011 10:05

^ The MMRCA process is pretty transperent.
The reasons why each of the plans is disqualified is communicated to the vendors.

Also, the 600 odd parameters are just a criterion to eliminate the plane that does not fit the requirement. Once that is done, the next level will be to match the technical benefits to the strategic benefits. If any plane is not having required balance, it should be out.

I see no reason to cry foul if F-16 is eliminated due to its service with PAF. If the F16 had any better prospects with the ToT or said Govt. level agreements, maybe it would not have been eliminated.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 May 2011 10:13

koti wrote:Once that is done, the next level will be to match the technical benefits to the strategic benefits

We are still in the technical evaluation phase so your argument has no merit.

koti wrote:I see no reason to cry foul if F-16 is eliminated due to its service with PAF.

Because that wasn't one of the stated requirements . . .

If you are going to claim an open and fair competition, then you have to follow your own rules.

koti wrote:If the F16 had any better prospects with the ToT or said Govt. level agreements, maybe it would not have been eliminated.

All vendors met the ToT requirement and the offset bids haven't even been examined.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 May 2011 10:14

Bottom line:
The two best planes have made the cut. The EF or the Rafale are the best selection out of the six competing aircrafts.

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 May 2011 10:19

GeorgeWelch wrote: We are still in the technical evaluation phase so your argument has no merit.

So George, you imply that the argument has merit in the later stages?

Like eliminating the F16 at the later level once it makes it as the L1 bidder on this ground?

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 May 2011 10:21

koti wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:If that's true, then India was fundamentally dishonest to ever allow it in the competition.
Added, I also see it as fundamentally dishonest (Morally too)for both LM and Boeing to even participate in the MMRCA contest as they very well knew that US foreign policy does not allow for the ToT required for the MMRCA bid.

So, I guess they wanted to pull off a few bucks by trying to use US diplomacy to put pressurize IAF/MOD to accept the ineligible planes.

No Offence intended.

Also, may I know your response to this post?
Thnx.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 11 May 2011 11:15

^^^ IMHO, it is the US foreign policy which lost.

Donwgraded avionics, radar modules - responsibility US foreign policy.
Level of ToT or sharing of source code etc as other 5 - responsibility US foreign policy.
Lack of assurance of continued spares/service - responsibility US foreign policy.
St.Antony did not take a vacation due to fear - dishonest (under-the-table) pressure from US lobbyists

We (Asians and Americans) talk and do business in different ways. The buyer has to understand the seller to do business. Being very direct is considered rude and seen as a challenge in some cultures. IMHO, the downselect might have a strong/valid technical reasons. But the most important factor is the flawed US Foreign policy.

US has plenty of cross-cultural knowledge and intelligence to understand the true issues. Looking at F35 for Israel, UK, I doubt whether Uncle will ever relax or change his policies.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 May 2011 11:53

koti wrote:
koti wrote: Added, I also see it as fundamentally dishonest (Morally too)for both LM and Boeing to even participate in the MMRCA contest as they very well knew that US foreign policy does not allow for the ToT required for the MMRCA bid.

So, I guess they wanted to pull off a few bucks by trying to use US diplomacy to put pressurize IAF/MOD to accept the ineligible planes.

No Offence intended.
Also, may I know your response to this post?
Thnx.

It is incorrect, all bidders met the mandatory ToT.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 May 2011 11:58

Kailash wrote:^^^ IMHO, it is the US foreign policy which lost.

The IAF disagrees with you.

Kailash wrote:Donwgraded avionics, radar modules - responsibility US foreign policy.

There is no indication the supplied avionics failed to meet the requirements

Kailash wrote:Level of ToT or sharing of source code etc as other 5 - responsibility US foreign policy.

All bidders met the required ToT.

Kailash wrote:Lack of assurance of continued spares/service - responsibility US foreign policy.

Again you pull stuff out of thin air.

Kailash wrote:IMHO, the downselect might have a strong/valid technical reasons. But the most important factor is the flawed US Foreign policy.

It is clear that a lot of people here have fallen into a hopeless state of wish fulfillment. Even when the IAF gives very clear reasons, they deny it and put their own spin on it to fulfill their own desires, even when it has zero basis in reality.

You can come up with a thousand and one bogus reasons to support your pre-existing prejudices, or you can simply take the IAF at its word: they failed to meet some mandatory technical requirement.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 11 May 2011 12:13

GeorgeWelch wrote: You can come up with a thousand and one bogus reasons to support your pre-existing prejudices, but it's probably much, much simpler: they failed to meet some mandatory technical requirement.

George -- I agree with you on your above quoted statement.

I think it really and truly came down to the technical capabilities/performance of the aircraft in contention. The Rafale and Eurofighter made the down-select cut, because for the IAF's purposes, these were the two top contenders. (Keeping two planes in contention, probably also has something to do with bargaining/negotiating; because in all liklihood, the IAF already has a favourite -- though I will not speculate on which it is).

The planes that didn't make the cut, probably just had other strengths or plusses that didn't match-up with the IAF requirements. Said another way, these planes had weaknesses or minuses that meant those planes came-up short somehow.

I don't think that if the American bidders were able to dispose of the USG's legal/treaty resrictions a la CISMoA, et cetera, that either the F-16 or F-18 or even the F-15 or F-35 would suddenly make the IAF's cut. That's not a general slight against all of these planes -- but in the specific context of the MMRCA, these planes are not, shall we say, "well suited".

Now can we all just move on and please try to stick to the Rafale and Eurofighter, and only mention other planes in the context of how these two planes would rip them to pieces while defending India?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 11 May 2011 12:19

This is getting hopeless. This is my last post on contenders who lost.

This deal is not an isolated incident. It is one page from our book of strategic partnership. We have a past (of mistrust) with the US , we have a present (agreements being forced down out throats, and the need for fighters), and our judgements would be based what is said and what is unsaid.

Like it of not, its our competition, we are the judge - and the customer is right. Now IAF or MoD might wrap up these strategic/political reasons into 643 technical points. If I had any brains, I would figure out the real reasons are way beyond that. JMT.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 May 2011 12:40

koti wrote:
Added, I also see it as fundamentally dishonest (Morally too)for both LM and Boeing to even participate in the MMRCA contest as they very well knew that US foreign policy does not allow for the ToT required for the MMRCA bid.

So, I guess they wanted to pull off a few bucks by trying to use US diplomacy to put pressurize IAF/MOD to accept the ineligible planes.

This is clear that there is a hint of a client state treatment and CJ has implied it in his article.
WIth a restricted access to TOT and operational limitation it is not correct to put these planes on a bid.
India is not a small country.

manum · Post by **manum** » 11 May 2011 12:45

Mods what is stopping to ban this superbug troll george...he has gone on to make more than 700 posts...most of them are useless...

Are we again playing good host to this BS...let him burn his tashreef somewhere else why here?...why so much patience on his one liners...

And why waste bandwidth on him...if he going to pull down everything to dunia gol hai...

sacdan · Post by **sacdan** » 11 May 2011 12:50

I think we should not worry too much about whether it was technical decision or political decision but that GOI made the correct decision and IAF is getting one of the best fighter planes available in market.

In mega deals like this political factors will also play a major role. Some of the technical reasons will be discussed in public domain and some of the political decisions like access to latest tech etc will be communicated implicitly and explicitly to US politicians/companies behind closed door.

US does not have any right to talk about morality of the deal. What they say and do is always different. On one hand they talk about strategic partnership and so called "war on terror" and on other hand they indirectly sponsor terrorist organisations based in Pakistan who kill innocent people in India. Personally I am happy IAF have rejected US planes.

manum · Post by **manum** » 11 May 2011 13:00

same arguments again and again...
Hey did you read all the MRCA thread...did you think before posting that you are not repeating something said a million times...did georgewelch posts made you think, what you said is very genuine feeling?

What compelled you to write this? Is it a voting thread, I support this and I support that...

sorry...but for two days its been irritating to see the posts...

sacdan · Post by **sacdan** » 11 May 2011 13:11

Apologies for repeating same argument. Yes, I have read the MRCA thread. Could not help myself when Georgewelch started talking about morality of the deal.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 May 2011 13:37

sacdan wrote:Could not help myself when Georgewelch started talking about morality of the deal.

Just to be clear, I was not talking about the morality of the deal, I was talking about the morality of the fictional reasons people were coming up with for the US loss.

I actually have more faith in the professionalism of your procurement office, that they were excluded for not meeting well-document technical requirements, than most people here.

It just seems kind of funny that I'm the one defending Indian professionalism while everyone else is trying to say 'Well that's not what REALLY happened.'

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 11 May 2011 13:39

^^

It's not a big deal, it's just armchair speculation on a forum. No need to get hot and bothered.

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 11 May 2011 14:31

@George Welch
We are all here for the very purpose..to dissect and discuss the decisions that have been taken.
And your sticking to the `IAF documents` and reasons given by it as point of argument is akin to mullahs quoting the books all the time.
We also have no less faith in the IAF but they arent God and might have been influenced by many factors...
Besides arent statistics the things that are easiest to manipulate??
Regards
Rajesh Soami

paramyog · Post by **paramyog** » 11 May 2011 15:02

<del>

what's the point of writing in devnagri and that too without a translation ?
especially when a number of people who read this forum do not read or understand it ?

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 11 May 2011 15:06

I think George Ji is right in a way.

Correct me if I am wrong George Ji: You beleive that if US and Swedish companies do not agree with IAF's technical clarifications and in thier opinion, they think that some of the important factors are missed / overlooked /misunderstood by IAF guys, then they should look at the legal route.

According to you this not only help IAF pick an aircraft by making an informed decision, it will also help US companies comply with thier shareholder obligations.

Am I correct on this part George Ji?

If yes, then why the takleef in the US strategic circles? Why did Ambassador Ji quit even before rebutting the IAF technical evaluation?

Thing is George Ji, we here in BRF believe that SH and F solahs had NO chance from the begining in strictly technical terms. Why do you think that just meeting the 600 odd criteria technically, these two aircrafts should have automatically qualified for the next stage? Do you fathom a possibility that may be Katrina and EF not only met the criteria but in many important technical issues they performed much better.

My thought process is that bothe American comapnies felt that just by meeting the technical criteria, they would be shortlisted for commercial + strategic rounds. And it is in this round Amrican foriegn policy and other geostrategic factors will tilt the deal in American favor specially with UPA in power.

But IAF acted Paki. Because it not only looked for just achieving the set criteria may be they looked for a better plane.. plain and simple. And in it's very humble and professional (although 20 to 30 years behind US as per Ambassador Ji) opinion, IAF thought that this time and only this time may be the Europeans had a more oomph factor...

Also George Ji, F 16s... seriously? You give them free to pakistan. Why should SDREs pay billions of our hard earned cash to a program which supports PAF?

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 May 2011 15:29

George Ji...
You are facing a saturation attack...

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 11 May 2011 15:41

We are locking horns now

and so we must all desist and put an end to this. Atleast I do.
However to the credit of George Welch and the rest of us, I must say I have enjoyed this rather civilized spat as all of us refrained from getting low and cheap.
Once again thanks George, it was wonderful to be enticed by a thread on BR after a long time. You do BR a lot of credit.

May the IAF continue to touch the sky with glory !!

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 11 May 2011 15:50

So Am I having the Last word ?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 May 2011 16:52

This is too good. I am laughing way too hard...my stomach hurts. Good job guys!

paramyog · Post by **paramyog** » 11 May 2011 17:01

Last post deleted owing to Hindi/ Devnagri. Honestly I didnt know that some of the people couldnt read Hindi here.
Apologies if this violates the clause of participation in a discussion in an Indian forum.

1) FA -18 failed at High altitude tests.
2) F-16 if bought allowed India to have F-35 as a future option from LM.

I couldnt figure out if this actually made sense.

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 May 2011 17:13

Kailash wrote:This is getting hopeless. This is my last post on contenders who lost.

This deal is not an isolated incident. It is one page from our book of strategic partnership. We have a past (of mistrust) with the US , we have a present (agreements being forced down out throats, and the need for fighters), and our judgements would be based what is said and what is unsaid.

Like it of not, its our competition, we are the judge - and the customer is right. Now IAF or MoD might wrap up these strategic/political reasons into 643 technical points. If I had any brains, I would figure out the real reasons are way beyond that. JMT.

Well to paraphrase Unkil's greatest ally; this is not India's failure it's in fact a global failure so the whole world should take a collective responsibility for LM and Boeing returning empty handed.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 May 2011 17:43

It is a learning process for me in understanding George's views, and how he responds.. I have to tackle few people in life with similar behavior. Thanks George W.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 11 May 2011 17:56

negi wrote:Well to paraphrase Unkil's greatest ally; this is not India's failure it's in fact a global failure so the whole world should take a collective responsibility for LM and Boeing returning empty handed.

And also we never knew that LM and Boeing planes were ever in India. 400% sure that they are in our neighborhood.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 May 2011 18:07

^^interesting LoL their uddu, in the neighborhood, both the seller and buyer operate similar a/cs from LM and Boeing, but one doesn't know the other arrived and just finished an important job. It is one place where both seller and buyer operates discretely [with stealth condom sheaths].

The same kaam (work) sutra would not work out with India.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 May 2011 18:48

Sri wrote:Why do you think that just meeting the 600 odd criteria technically, these two aircrafts should have automatically qualified for the next stage?

If that's what the rules say . . .

Sri wrote:Do you fathom a possibility that may be Katrina and EF not only met the criteria but in many important technical issues they performed much better.

It totally depends on how the rules are setup. Are the requirements strictly pass/fail? Is there 'extra credit' for surpassing requirements by a certain amount? We don't know.

Sri wrote:My thought process is that bothe American comapnies felt that just by meeting the technical criteria, they would be shortlisted for commercial + strategic rounds.

Well if that's what the rules say, why shouldn't they think that?

Sri wrote:And it is in this round Amrican foriegn policy and other geostrategic factors will tilt the deal in American favor specially with UPA in power.

Or maybe they thought their superior package would tilt the deal in their favor. If you look at the original purpose of the MRCA, it was to get a gap-filler to QUICKLY arrest falling squadron strength until the FGFA/MCA came online. From this perspective they make imminent sense because by the time something like the EF is finally ready, the FGFA will already be here.

They are also significantly more mature (whose importance should not be underestimated), significantly cheaper, offer more advanced avionics and (in the SH case) offer a significantly brighter future in terms of available upgrades.

In fact the only area where they might have a significant disadvantage is kinematics, which is becoming less and less important.

So as I say, it would be a mistake to think they would automatically lose on their merits. It depends on what you're looking for. If all you care about is flashy kinematics, then ok, but if you look at the total package of what actually makes an effective fighter, they have a lot to offer.

I really don't want to go through all the arguments in their favor again, but this attitude that there was no way they could possibly the best choice without outside 'interference' is just flat-out wrong.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 11 May 2011 19:12

An interesting read on the downselect..

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME11Df04.html