India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Danell · Post by **Danell** » 07 Jun 2011 13:58

MUST READ: Tell-all interview with Pakistan Viper pilot
[...]
On the RAF Typhoon:
On one occasion - in one of the international Anatolian Eagles - PAF pilots were pitted against RAF Typhoons, a formidable aircraft. There were three set-ups and in all three, we shot down the Typhoons. The RAF pilots were shocked.
[...]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... w-w-1.html

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 07 Jun 2011 14:17

^^^

From F22 to meteorites , pakistani pilots can shoot down anything but the drones operating in northern pakistan. So, chill .

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jun 2011 17:17

I think you guys are speculating on Ge 414 end of life cycle..

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Jun 2011 18:32

A response to Ashley J Tellis' assessment of the MMRCA down-select
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/co ... ellis.html

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 07 Jun 2011 19:04

^^^
Mihir Shah completely rips apart Tellis' lifafa journalism. the most glaring fact is that Tellis was heaping praises on the IAF just months ago, and now does a 180 degree turn. I think we all know who he's working for...

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 07 Jun 2011 19:14

devesh wrote:^^^
Mihir Shah completely rips apart Tellis' lifafa journalism. the most glaring fact is that Tellis was heaping praises on the IAF just months ago, and now does a 180 degree turn. I think we all know who he's working for...

Considering he's a US analyst, I don't think there was any big mystery on that account. He remains the most pro-India of the major US "south asia specialists" though per RDji's sources.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jun 2011 20:00

^correct.

do not blindly read from an angle all namespace alone., [what is lifafa and hifafa, entirely depends on who pays you].

and don't shoot the messenger as always.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 07 Jun 2011 20:17

Why are we surprised at Dr. Tellis' turn around?

After all he is paid for every article he writes and the place he works for is funded by the US Dept. of Defense.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jun 2011 22:26

Total Shani effect. There was no need for Tellis to write the stuff and get smacked by a kid.

BTW,
Tellis article has made massa even more worried that their stuff was rejected on technical grounds. They were rubbing soothing balm (Amrutanjan called Tiger balm here) on their H&D thinking the rejection was a politicial decision due to their bad ties with TSP, unreliability, export controls etc., etc.

Now comes Tellis who says the stuff offered was no good in first place to let the other factors come into play!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 07 Jun 2011 23:21

ramana wrote:Now comes Tellis who says the stuff offered was no good in first place

No, he said the selection criteria failed to adequately account for their good.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Jun 2011 23:57

Wasn't it tellis who wrote last year confidently why Bhaarat will select teens for the reasons ......... blah blah blah, ending the article on the lines of "it is natural that rejected a/c countries will be unhappy/complaining but they have to understand that whatever choice country makes will be best in its own interest."

So confident he was of teens being chosen, and now the rude shock! It's time he took is own advice he was giving to others..........

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jun 2011 00:52

IAF: your bottle is half empty.
Teens: our bottle is half full

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jun 2011 01:13

SaiK, In the early 70s there was fighter competetion for NATO air forces and Mirage 2000 was supposed to win it. The F-16 tech demo flew rings around it and won the dog fight. When I heard the teens lost the IAF competetion to Euro planes I wondered if they had made such progress? Looks like the US handicapped the teens to slow them down (with CFTs almost like sand bags) and lost the fight. Shame on them to try to sell old stuff that didn't perform well.

Also don't forget one US executive left the country in hurry after his company turned in competition sensitive stuff but didnt get debarred from it. The fellow was a former diplomat!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Jun 2011 01:22

French firm targeting RMAF deal
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/74210-f ... -rmaf-deal

Another competition (in Malaysia) which has the same aircraft in contention as the MMRCA. This competition is to replace the MiG-29s in RMAF service. The four aircraft in competition are --> Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, F/A-18 Super Hornet and Saab Gripen. It would be interesting if India's down select has any bearing on the Malaysian decision.

The RMAF also operates the Su-30MKM and the Su-30MKI (Rambha) was examined by RMAF pilots prior to their purchase. HAL reportedly manufactured the canards, stabilizers and fins of the MKM variant. See link below...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mal ... kms-03336/

If Dassault or EADS wins the competition in Malaysia, HAL could be doing the same thing as they did for Malaysia's Su-30MKM aircraft.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 Jun 2011 03:29

ramana wrote: Shame on them to try to sell old stuff that didn't perform well.

Sigh, how many times do you have to be corrected on this?

1. It was no older than the other competitors
2. It did perform well at some tests and not so well at other tests, just like every other plane. The importance is in how those tests are weighted.
3. Which planes were they supposed to offer? The timing of the tender was unfortunate from an American perspective as they were caught in the middle of a development cycle. The F-35 wasn't ready so they offered the best they had available, which by the way, is to see front-line service for another 30 years. How is that shameful?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jun 2011 04:23

George, the shameful aspect I can explain.. This may not be best viewed sitting along with sales team, rather as a customer. We are not talking about any tom dick nation, here but USA which has the right stuffs to deliver, better than European countries.

So, think about that..

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 08 Jun 2011 05:31

All that aside, we should all breathe a sigh of relief the Americans have been cut from the competition. I can't understand why any patriotic Indian would have us rewarding those ******** for the untold misery and death they have brought down on us. What level of insanity could possibly drive us to purchase something as critical as multi-role combat aircraft from the same country that happily pays to have our citizens murdered and could cutoff spares and support at any moment. Buying F/A-18's from the US would make about as much sense as buying J-10's from China.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Jun 2011 05:42

ramana wrote:Total Shani effect. There was no need for Tellis to write the stuff and get smacked by a kid.

BTW,
Tellis article has made massa even more worried that their stuff was rejected on technical grounds. They were rubbing soothing balm (Amrutanjan called Tiger balm here) on their H&D thinking the rejection was a politicial decision due to their bad ties with TSP, unreliability, export controls etc., etc.

Now comes Tellis who says the stuff offered was no good in first place to let the other factors come into play!

What if this entire thing was to show the Pakis that US will not embrace India quite closely and put Pak air force in deep trouble. Hence they put sand bags during the testing and made this whole thing to show they are shocked.
Pakis are prone to mis understand relations and change

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jun 2011 06:06

SaiK wrote:George, the shameful aspect I can explain.. This may not be best viewed sitting along with sales team, rather as a customer. We are not talking about any tom dick nation, here but USA which has the right stuffs to deliver, better than European countries.

So, think about that..

Shameful may not be right word.

I'd rather say, its a shame that the US wasn't able to leverage its overall technological advantage in the competition. Had the first deliveries been expected in 2006-07, the SH would have been the front-runner, had they been expected in 2022, its the F-35 that would be leading the pack. Unfortunately for the US companies, the order fell bang in the middle.

The timing seems to be quite perfect for the Eurofighter though - ahead of the Gripen-NG's time, yet late enough to let critical EF abilities (eg. AESA) be operationalized. Who knows perhaps Arthuro nudge-nudge wink-wink was justified and MI6 has been pulling strings all along.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jun 2011 06:14

Y. Kanan wrote:All that aside, we should all breathe a sigh of relief the Americans have been cut from the competition. I can't understand why any patriotic Indian would have us rewarding those ******** for the untold misery and death they have brought down on us. What level of insanity could possibly drive us to purchase something as critical as multi-role combat aircraft from the same country that happily pays to have our citizens murdered and could cutoff spares and support at any moment. Buying F/A-18's from the US would make about as much sense as buying J-10's from China.

I don't think that degree of venom (or was it hyperbole?) is justified. Particularly as you seem to share your residence with those ********. I doubt they're very happy with the prevailing state of affairs vis-a-vis Pakistan either (certainly not after they found OBL enjoying an idyllic vacation in Abbottabad).

In any case, the thread is about the EF/Rafale and the IAF. Lets not go off on a tangent yet again.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Jun 2011 07:59

Viv S wrote:I'd rather say, its a shame that the US wasn't able to leverage its overall technological advantage in the competition. Had the first deliveries been expected in 2006-07, the SH would have been the front-runner, had they been expected in 2022, its the F-35 that would be leading the pack. Unfortunately for the US companies, the order fell bang in the middle.

The timing seems to be quite perfect for the Eurofighter though - ahead of the Gripen-NG's time, yet late enough to let critical EF abilities (eg. AESA) be operationalized. Who knows perhaps Arthuro nudge-nudge wink-wink was justified and MI6 has been pulling strings all along.

If the Eurofighter and Rafale were available in 2006-07, Rakhi Sawant would have *STILL* lost. Back then, as now, both companies were developing their AESA radars, while the SH had an operational AESA radar...however that still would not change anything in the "kinematics" department. The Eurofighter would still have a tighter turning radius against the Super Hornet and the IAF loves that

Who are we to argue?

Someone on the forum - in a previous MMRCA thread - put it best when it was stated that the Super Hornet is a newer aircraft when compared against the Eurofighter or Rafale...if that is the case, then the MiG-35 should be just as new. However like the MiG-35 which evolved from the MiG-29, the Super Hornet evolved from the Hornet. But then again, the IAF aptly described the loss of the MMRCA contract to the Amreekis..."If they wanted to win, they should have offered the F-35."

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Jun 2011 08:01

Ashley J Tellis On Livefist!!! Going Up @ 10:00 a.m. Indian Standard Time.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/co ... efist.html

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Jun 2011 08:33

Rakesh wrote:Another competition (in Malaysia) which has the same aircraft in contention as the MMRCA. This competition is to replace the MiG-29s in RMAF service. The four aircraft in competition are --> Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, F/A-18 Super Hornet and Saab Gripen. It would be interesting if India's down select has any bearing on the Malaysian decision.

And it appears to be so...

Rafale enters the Malaysia competition
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/06/ ... ition.html

On the contrary, it seems that 3 other fighters are now concidered : the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen and most probably the Dassault Rafale. This new Malay contest looks very much like a mini remake of the Indian MMRCA competition with almost the same actors. The Rafale being shortlisted in India might well be the reason why the French plane is now considered seriously by the RMAF. It is worth noting that Dassault usually does not bid if the contest is not percieved to be fair (Recently, Dassault did not respond to Japan and Korea RFI/RFQ).

Q. What were the competing aircraft in the Japan and Korea RFI/RFQs?

Rafale Upgrades
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/06/ ... ehong.html

First, the Rafale F3-04T (former Rafale roadmap) : 60 fighters ordered (25C, 25B, 10M) deliveries from 2013 to 2019
- RBE-2 AESA : Final evaluation in June-July with a qualification expected before the end of 2011
- DDM-NG : new missile warning receiver compatible with a future active IR jammer.
- OSF-IT : improved front sector optronic suite
- Damocles-XF : add a sharper TV channel to the current IR channel for better identification in urban zones. Should be introduced in 2016.
- M88-2-E4 engine : extended service life and 2 to 4% less consumption
- Export option : 9 tonnes M88 engine. Require a 1.5 cm air intake enlargement and material change to keep low RCS. Proposed to the UAE.

25C is the single seat 'C' variant
25B is the dual seater 'B' variant
10M is the single seater 'Naval' variant

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jun 2011 08:35

I would sense rafale and gripen as the leading bets there. thailand has already gone gripen. and buying a sdre f18 when neighbour has F15SG would hurt H&D.

I think the gripen-NG would be a good bet for RMAF - cheapest of the lot if saab is to be believed and maybe some common logistical agreement with thais can save some opex.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 Jun 2011 08:38

Rakesh wrote:If the Eurofighter and Rafale were available in 2006-07, Rakhi Sawant would have *STILL* lost. Back then, as now, both companies were developing their AESA radars

Back then, EF wouldn't have been able to demonstrate anything flying, which was apparently a key consideration

Rakesh wrote:But then again, the IAF aptly described the loss of the MMRCA contract to the Amreekis..."If they wanted to win, they should have offered the F-35."

If they offered the F-35, they would have been rejected because it wouldn't be ready in time.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jun 2011 09:03

Rakesh wrote:
Viv S wrote:I'd rather say, its a shame that the US wasn't able to leverage its overall technological advantage in the competition. Had the first deliveries been expected in 2006-07, the SH would have been the front-runner, had they been expected in 2022, its the F-35 that would be leading the pack. Unfortunately for the US companies, the order fell bang in the middle.

The timing seems to be quite perfect for the Eurofighter though - ahead of the Gripen-NG's time, yet late enough to let critical EF abilities (eg. AESA) be operationalized. Who knows perhaps Arthuro nudge-nudge wink-wink was justified and MI6 has been pulling strings all along.
If the Eurofighter and Rafale were available in 2006-07, Rakhi Sawant would have *STILL* lost. Back then, as now, both companies were developing their AESA radars, while the SH had an operational AESA radar...however that still would not change anything in the "kinematics" department. The Eurofighter would still have a tighter turning radius against the Super Hornet and the IAF loves that Who are we to argue?

Well add the Meteor to that equation. The IAF would have had an operational fighter with an AESA and AIM-120C7, whereas a Rafale bought at the same time would have been operating with MICA and an weakish RBE-2 PESA for nearly a decade, maybe more (if upgrades were done in a major MLU). Also the IAF's evaluation committee would have had no practical way of assessing the capability of future AESAs to be fielded by Europe (unlike the recent trials where AESA variants of both the RBE-2 and Captor were trialled).

Someone on the forum - in a previous MMRCA thread - put it best when it was stated that the Super Hornet is a newer aircraft when compared against the Eurofighter or Rafale...if that is the case, then the MiG-35 should be just as new. However like the MiG-35 which evolved from the MiG-29, the Super Hornet evolved from the Hornet. But then again, the IAF aptly described the loss of the MMRCA contract to the Amreekis..."If they wanted to win, they should have offered the F-35."

The F-35A and F-35C aren't expected go get there IOC until 2018, so offering them for the MRCA wasn't really an option.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jun 2011 09:20

okay.. sounds reasonable to say, US had none to offer for IAF that exceeds the Eurocanards in terms of new airframe/technology per IAF metrics, for future 40 years from now.

From a political angle, it is something good in the sense if we have kept the super hornets for the final 3, and we buy based on L1, then like someone said pakis would go wild and ask for parity with India.. Amrika must succumb to the staunch ally against terrorism, and provide them.. with 1:10 kill ratio against Indian hornet. I think we saved such idiocy by not stirring the hornet's nest, and prevented a fine a/c in the hands of terrorist nation.

koti · Post by **koti** » 08 Jun 2011 10:08

SaiK wrote:okay.. sounds reasonable to say, US had none to offer for IAF that exceeds the Eurocanards in terms of new airframe/technology per IAF metrics, for future 40 years from now.

F-15 sir, IMO would have had a better chance any day compared to the SH.
It wouldn't have been medium MRCA though but I bellieve it is the 600th parameter

From a political angle, it is something good in the sense if we have kept the super hornets for the final 3, and we buy based on L1, then like someone said pakis would go wild and ask for parity with India.. Amrika must succumb to the staunch ally against terrorism, and provide them.. with 1:10 kill ratio against Indian hornet. I think we saved such idiocy by not stirring the hornet's nest, and prevented a fine a/c in the hands of terrorist nation.

+1

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 08 Jun 2011 10:21

Rakesh wrote:Ashley J Tellis On Livefist!!! Going Up @ 10:00 a.m. Indian Standard Time.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/co ... efist.html

Ashley J Tellis On Livefist: The MMRCA, Once More

Posting in full.

Yesterday, Livefist hosted a contributed column which sought to refute arguments made in widely read article by Dr. Ashley J Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a well-known commentator on international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues. Dr Tellis sent me his response yesterday, one in which he seeks to "set the record straight". Here is what he sent Livefist, in full:

The MMRCA, Once More
by Ashley J. Tellis

I appreciate the trouble Mihir Shah has taken to respond to my recent piece, “Decoding India’s MMRCA Decision.” His response, unfortunately, perpetuates some extant misimpressions, while creating new ones. I would like to set the record straight.

First, although the claim that the IAF has “settled for a plane, not a relationship” has been widely attributed to me, that is decidedly not my personal view. What I did say consistently from the moment that the IAF’s choices became public—in an April 28, 2011 interview with the Hindu from which the quote is drawn—is that many in the United States, including in the U.S. Government, hold that by choosing the Eurofighter and the Rafale as the MMRCA finalists, India settled for an airplane rather than a relationship. The failure to see this critical distinction has led more than a few to wonder how I could urge the IAF to choose the best aircraft in my earlier report Dogfight! and question its choices subsequently.

Second, I have studied the six aircraft in the MMRCA fray quite carefully and I know their characteristics and performance in greater detail than I could ever write about without leaving the reader disoriented. Consequently, I will not reopen here the discussion about the merits of the six airplanes, except to say that Mr. Shah appears to have overlooked my extensive discussion in Dogfight! of the IAF’s threat environment, the operational demands made on the MMRCA in any future war, and the importance of the surface attack mission for success even in defensive counterair campaigns.

In this context, I will resist the temptation of refuting his claims about the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet’s multirole and high-altitude capabilities in order to focus solely on the most important argument suffusing the discussion in “Decoding India’s MMRCA Decision”: based on the standards of aerodynamic excellence, growth potential, longevity of puissance, and combat effectiveness, the IAF chose well in down-selecting the Eurofighter and the Rafale because they were, on balance, the leaders of the pack.

Mr. Shah seems to have overlooked this central point. “Decoding India’s MMRCA Decision” was not intended to be a comparative assessment of the various contestants, but rather a simple explication of the claim that the IAF did in fact make its choices solely on the basis on the four criteria above—“entirely on technical grounds,” I emphasized—rather than on the alternative variables posited by others (which have dismayed many U.S. policymakers and friends of India within the U.S. Government), such as the reliability of the United States as a supplier, supposed U.S. technology transfer constraints, or political considerations in New Delhi about hedging.

Yes, I did question how the IAF scored the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the flight trials on one or two issues, but these were in the scheme of things largely quibbles. The basic point that I intended to make—and hopefully made—was that far from being guided by other considerations, the IAF made its down-select entirely on the basis of technical factors, as any fighting force worth its salt ought to have done. Given the complexities of the comparisons at issue, I think the IAF acquitted itself in the MMRCA competition with remarkable professionalism, diligence and, my minor criticisms notwithstanding, impartiality and grace.

Nothing I said in this article repudiates my admiration for the IAF and the manner in which it conducted the MMRCA contest. Airpower specialists will argue endlessly about the merits of its choices—I did and several thoughtful Indians have as well—but that does not undermine my basic judgment that the IAF conducted a comprehensive evaluation that was fundamentally fair, a view I clearly expressed earlier in Dogfight!

(Incidentally, Mr. Shah misconstrues my use of the adjective “perverse” when he says I used it to “characterize the IAF and MoD’s adherence to the two-step acquisition process.” Actually, I noted the “perverse adherence to process” when I described the defense ministry’s failure to inform the external affairs ministry about its down-select, which was communicated to the international vendors without prior coordination with India’s diplomats who are tasked with managing its foreign relations.)

Third, the larger point which I did raise, and which Mr. Shah seized on but only partially, was the limitation of the “two-step” procedure. He argues that “a strict and almost pig-headed adherence to laid-down rules and procedures” is necessary to avoid “leaving even the smallest procedural gaps open to exploitation by vested interests,” with all the resulting dangers to India’s war-fighting capabilities.

I think this argument is highly misleading—and actually dangerous. There is no question that India should follow its own laid-down rules and procedures meticulously. I was making, however, a different and more consequential point, namely, that if the “laid down rules and procedures” do not permit costs (and any other pertinent variables) to be assessed at the very first step of the procurement process, there is no way for the acquisition system to judge the true value of the commodities it is purchasing relative to the alternatives. The failure to assess the cost-effectiveness of any given weapon system—which the current two-step procedure produces by definition—results in a potential misallocation of defense resources that could be just as, if not more, dangerous for Indian defense than all the problems posed by personal corruption.

The solution to this problem is to create a structured opportunity for policymakers to price everything that matters in a defense acquisition from the get go—technical characteristics, warfighting performance, technology transfer, offsets benefits, and yes, even strategic partnership—so that Indian security managers get a good sense of what the real direct and opportunity costs of their acquisitions actually are. This exercise has to be conducted by Indian officials themselves—and to insinuate that they are incapable of undertaking such analyses or are likely to fall prey to the lures of corruption during such a process is to sell them and India itself woefully short. That claim is actually more damning than anything I said in my piece.

The limitations of the present two-step procedure constituted the main criticism articulated in “Decoding India’s MMRCA Decision.” In effect, I argued that while the Eurofighter and the Rafale represented the best technical choices in the MMRCA competition—and as such were sensible, nay inevitable, selections by the IAF—the Ministry of Defense, and the Indian state more generally, has no way currently of assessing whether these two selectees represent the best value for the air force and the country at large. Undertaking this kind of an appraisal requires incorporating what matters to the warfighter, but also transcending it—by evaluating how any given acquisition fits into larger national objectives, existing resource constraints, and the strategic question of how India should maximize its advantages in a world of increasing danger.

In the United States, such evaluations are conducted systematically using interdisciplinary tools by the office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In India too, such judgments have been made in the past by senior policymakers but on the basis of intuitions and prudential judgment rather than rigorous analysis. Given the resources India will allocate to foreign weapons acquisitions in the future, applying formal analysis to this process will only help, not hurt, and doing so does not require India to sacrifice its “adherence to laid-down rules and procedures,” but it does necessitate a better assessment system that allows Indian leaders to price their multiple, sometimes competing, goals more effectively. It is a pity that Mr. Shah’s critique of my piece missed this fundamental point after all.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jun 2011 11:04

Plans For Further Rafale Upgrades Emerge

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 08 Jun 2011 11:32

Viv S wrote:I don't think that degree of venom (or was it hyperbole?) is justified. Particularly as you seem to share your residence with those ********. I doubt they're very happy with the prevailing state of affairs vis-a-vis Pakistan either (certainly not after they found OBL enjoying an idyllic vacation in Abbottabad).

Perhaps you're right; after all what are 50,000 dead Indians between friends? Indian lives are cheap anyway.

Ok - well I'm off to the armor forum. I've been lusting after those Chinese Type 99 MBT's for awhile now. I'm going to see if I can sell any BRF members on the virtues of buying tanks from the PLA.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 08 Jun 2011 12:13

The Tellis article has one major blunder amid many smaller ones. It appears to attribute maneuverability to a purely WVR scenario and sensor capability to a BVR scenario. In terms of BVR, airframe agility probably plays as great a role as sensor capability. The ability to accelerate,climb and turn quickly at supersonic speeds will give an edge during BVR combat- something that would have been rather obvious to the IAF.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Jun 2011 13:45

bharadwaj-ji, most of what i've read about BVR combat suggests that its more about position than maneuver, with aircraft rarely exceeding 3G. the big determinant is probably not onboard sensors, but AWACS and datalinks

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jun 2011 14:19

Y. Kanan wrote:
Viv S wrote:I don't think that degree of venom (or was it hyperbole?) is justified. Particularly as you seem to share your residence with those ********. I doubt they're very happy with the prevailing state of affairs vis-a-vis Pakistan either (certainly not after they found OBL enjoying an idyllic vacation in Abbottabad).
Perhaps you're right; after all what are 50,000 dead Indians between friends? Indian lives are cheap anyway.

Ok - well I'm off to the armor forum. I've been lusting after those Chinese Type 99 MBT's for awhile now. I'm going to see if I can sell any BRF members on the virtues of buying tanks from the PLA.

We're talking about buying SHs from the US not JF-17s from Pakistan/China. And contrary to conspiracy theorists, the US isn't trying to build up Pakistan as a counter weight to India. Had they been that devious and cunning, they wouldn't have been blundering through the conflicts over the last decade. I doubt if they can meet losing hundreds of lives at the hands of FATA based militants with equanimity.

But if we're talking in over-simplistic black and white terms a la 'US gives aid to Pakistan - therefore its our sworn enemy', we might as well add Israel - (Python 3, Lavi tech, cancelled Phalcon sale and so on) and Russia (practically everything), since they've passed on a great deal to China who's been Pakistan's all-weather friend and long time patron.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jun 2011 16:14

Tell-us has made some fatal assumptions.One,that a strategic decision to buy a US fighter ,no matter how inferior it is delivers the goods on the battlefield! Simply absurd as if the US would tell the Pakis or Chinese in a crisis to back off as ,"boys,a US made bird is better than yours"! He also forgets that in Indo-US air exercises,Cold War Bisons reportedly got the better of F-15s,giving the IAF an insight into the actual capabilities of much touted US aircraft.As many have pointed out,the F-18 is a naval strike fighter,whereas the IAF have to fight in the high Himalayas on two fronts,where aircraft performance must meet the IAF's requirements based upon its own unique experience.

The factor that probably decided for the IAF that a cutting-edge twin-engined fighter was required was the rude shock of recent PRC aggro and its ridiculous claims to Ar.P.The massive Chinese military build up in Tibet and infrastructure link to Pak,including a railway being planned ,demanded that the IAF got the best aircraft technically.No nation can dictate to India what is best for it.Moreover, the views of Tell-us,a civvie with no combat experience whatsoever ,can be considered merely academic.That the IAF would make its choice based upon an academic viewpoint beggars belief!

As for Sino-Pak acquisitions of systems and tech,esp. from Russia,post CWar,Russia was in desperate straights and had to sell its best weaponry abroad to all and sundry so that its military industry capabilities could survive.In recent times it has not sold its latest and best to either the PRC or Pak.Israel did the same too to make money.After Russia's refusal along with public outrage at China illegally reverse-engineering Russian systems,China has been forced to secretly buy a Ukrainian SU-33 and reverse engineer it for its planned carrier fighters.Russia will sell China what is wants to sell,inferior tech. and systems.A Paki dependence upon the PRC more and more will prove to be an Achilles heel in the future as western nations are reluctant to sell pak their best eqpt. (German U-boats)for fear of it being illegally transferred to the PRC.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jun 2011 16:37

Phillip, F16s loaded with bear are with pakis, and there is this fighter for the chinese for them to reverse engineer everything in it. Did they do it all these years?

They have been given the scope of freedom (rights and legal aspects) to go play around with Russian products largely. Wake me up, if their J20s run on their own engine without russian baseline engine version with schematics and data.

^This fear we need to shed, and reduce the DSI value.. and focus on where we want to go!

[Dhoti Shiver Index]

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Jun 2011 17:40

I do partially agree about Tellis' criticism of the two-step process though. Since the financial bids aren't opened till after the downselect, there is no way to know the relative costs of the participating aircraft beforehand, except for informed speculation at best. Tellis argues that this might lead to a less cost effective aircraft being chosen. My concern is different. The threat of the MMRCA acquisition ending up like the failed aerial refueller competition. If the bean counters at the Fin Min decide that neither the Rafale nor the Typhoon fit in the budget, what happens then? I would say that the Financial bids should be opened first to find out whether we can afford all of the participants at all.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jun 2011 18:34

The two step process ensures that the technical parameters are met before costs are considered. Other wise one will end up with a cheap plane that is not good for fighting but flypasts.

Mihir Shah's article allowed Tellis to explain/clarify his position in depth.

Which is a good thing.

In essence Tellis is consoling the US strategic community that it wasn't other factors (which are more important to them) but the technical factors that precluded the choice of the teens.

I still say the H&D blow of the teens being rejected on technical grounds is even more hurtful.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 08 Jun 2011 19:12

Viv S wrote:We're talking about buying SHs from the US not JF-17s from Pakistan/China. And contrary to conspiracy theorists, the US isn't trying to build up Pakistan as a counter weight to India.

I don't particularly care why the US has been showering Pakistan with free military aid for the past 60 years (and especially during the last 10). I only care that they do.

Had they been that devious and cunning, they wouldn't have been blundering through the conflicts over the last decade.

What looks like "blundering through conflicts" to you has actually been a series of incredibly money-making opportunities for the US military-industrial complex and all the various civilian-sector companies that benefit from said wars. This has always been the primary driver of America's wars, and the reason they invent enemies out of thin air (Serbia? Libya?) from time to time, when a new war is needed.

But if we're talking in over-simplistic black and white terms a la 'US gives aid to Pakistan - therefore its our sworn enemy', we might as well add Israel - (Python 3, Lavi tech, cancelled Phalcon sale and so on) and Russia (practically everything), since they've passed on a great deal to China who's been Pakistan's all-weather friend and long time patron.

Not even close to a valid comparison. Selling weapons is not the same as giving them away. When you sell weapons, the other guy still has to pay for them. This is why we don't get particularly annoyed with the French when they sell weapons to Pak. We're justifiably angry at the US because they are giving Pakistan tens of billions to build nukes and acquire conventional weapons to be used against us. The Chinese have been doing much the same thing (only with less generosity than the Americans). There is a key distinction between giving free aid and selling something. The former is an act of direct hostility; the latter is just business.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 08 Jun 2011 20:04

Lalmohan wrote:bharadwaj-ji, most of what i've read about BVR combat suggests that its more about position than maneuver, with aircraft rarely exceeding 3G. the big determinant is probably not onboard sensors, but AWACS and datalinks

Acceleration/climb for imparting energy to missiles, supersonic agility for exiting area after missile release/ returning to favorable positioning/ avoiding enemy locks etc are crucial aspects of BVR combat. These are airframe dependent.