India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

Eric Thompson · Post by **Eric Thompson** » 08 Sep 2011 09:35

In the category of "Nations have interest" (and NOT being a poodle is one of them, true)

US Poodle or Chinese Poodle?

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... r2442.html

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 Sep 2011 09:42

Rakesh wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:What you all aren't getting is that France doesn't care about 'India', they care about your money.

In all your past relationships with France, you've been the party with the most money so it works out well.

France always kowtows to the side with the most money.
And America is different how from the above? One can replace France with America in the above post and the same will hold true. So we are basically dealing with money grabbing whores? Nothing new

You would be DEAD WRONG.

Many times the US has stood by countries when it was clearly NOT in their economic interest to do so.

Their continued support of Israel in face of Arab oil embargoes cost DEARLY.

They're one of the few countries to even consider selling arms to Taiwan.

If that doesn't hit close enough to home for you, how about the US sanctions of India everyone loves to bring up? They clearly weren't done for the ECONOMIC benefit of the US, many companies lost valuable business as a direct result.

Bottom line: The US will sometimes act on principles instead of pure economic self-interest, which is what you better HOPE happens with whatever country you order from if there is a conflict with China, otherwise you're going to be up a **** creek without a paddle.

Eric Thompson · Post by **Eric Thompson** » 08 Sep 2011 09:46

PratikDas wrote: India-US cooperation is a good thing and I too would like to see it flourish, with the operative word being cooperation.

Indo-US civil nuclear deal begins to unravel

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general ... eView.html

Eric Thompson · Post by **Eric Thompson** » 08 Sep 2011 10:16

prabhug wrote:We Indians are honest (We dont reverse engineer whatever is given to us). But at the same time we don't want somebody to teach how honest we have to be(No agreements and punishments).

Taaganivaadiki Taagevaadu chedipoyinattu kanibiste Taagevaadiki Taaganivaadu chetakani vaadula kanibistaadu...

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 08 Sep 2011 10:42

What? about What?

Eric Thompson · Post by **Eric Thompson** » 08 Sep 2011 11:05

If the Americans decide to be difficult on a whim, the Indian bureaucracy can ensure they keep running around in circles.

Too much faith on Indianbureaucracy.com

Truth is agreements always favour the stronger party. Did the agreement with Russia prevent price escalation of Gorshkov?

Infact the stronger party does not even need an agreement but the agreement is an instrument that provides that stamp of legitimacy and righteousness for their actions.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 08 Sep 2011 12:01

Eric Thompson wrote:
If the Americans decide to be difficult on a whim, the Indian bureaucracy can ensure they keep running around in circles.
Too much faith on Indianbureaucracy.com

Truth is agreements always favour the stronger party. Did the agreement with Russia prevent price escalation of Gorshkov?

Infact the stronger party does not even need an agreement but the agreement is an instrument that provides that stamp of legitimacy and righteousness for their actions.

Indian bureaucracy moves fast if he right wheels are properly greased. And the Amirikis know these tactics very well

K

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 08 Sep 2011 12:33

GeorgeWelch wrote: Bottom line: The US will sometimes act on principles instead of pure economic self-interest, which is what you better HOPE happens with whatever country you order from if there is a conflict with China, otherwise you're going to be up a **** creek without a paddle.

And sometimes it act on pure economics and attack a defenceless country based on "known" false reports, to ensure there is enough profits in future for its oil and arms industry executives. I HOPE Mr Welch that the wisdom prevails in my country, to distinguish between the words and actions.

And as far as I have learned in the times of adversary a nation’s determination surpasses any "paddle" that you or anyone else can sell.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 08 Sep 2011 16:22

GeorgeWelch wrote:
aniket wrote:France has a tried and tested relationship with India.
What you all aren't getting is that France doesn't care about 'India', they care about your money.

In all your past relationships with France, you've been the party with the most money so it works out well.

aniket wrote:Recently in the news France had also stopped billion euro worth of supply of electronics and missiles to Pakistan under Indian pressure
EXACTLY!

Are you all blind? Do you not get it?

France always kowtows to the side with the most money.

As long as you're dealing with Pakistan, great.

But when you're dealing with China, hmmm . . . .

France cannot sell any weapons to China anyway because of the EU ban, so your "argument" (to the extent trash talk about France can be distingushed as such) holds no water.

The President of France was prepared to be seen and publicly meet the Dalai Lama much before the President of the US. If anything, it was the the US President that was hoping to extract some concession/favour from China, and when that was not forthcoming, decided to meet the Dalai Lama.

If you think France will sanction India (one of its most important partners in several fields: submarines, nuclear reactors, aircraft, etc) after it has been attacked by China (as I cannot imagine India attacking China), then you are living in some fantasy world. Frankly, you don't even believe it yourself, but maybe you think people in India are stupid enough to believe it. Maybe you're hoping that France sanctions India, as it will suit your commercial interests, but you are no well wisher of India.

The reality is that the US does not like France because France has an independent foreign policy, and a very competent arms manufacturing industry and military capability. The US likes followers (like the UK and Japan) and not partners. The fact that you are trashing a key Western nation like France speaks volumes about what respect the US has for smaller & less powerful democactic countries that want to maintain their independent foreign policy. India will also take heed.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 08 Sep 2011 16:34

GeorgeWelch wrote:Their continued support of Israel in face of Arab oil embargoes cost DEARLY.

Are you comparing India with Israel vis influence in Congress and the US more broadly? We do not hold such grand ambitions for India. Some mutual respect will do, love can come later.

GeorgeWelch wrote: If that doesn't hit close enough to home for you, how about the US sanctions of India everyone loves to bring up? They clearly weren't done for the ECONOMIC benefit of the US, many companies lost valuable business as a direct result.

Yeah, those sanctions were done to teach India to do as Uncle Sam says. I suspect many US companies are still losing valuable business 13 years later. Once bitten, twice shy ...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Sep 2011 16:47

Just a quick note on costs and the Gorky escalation.Current costs for US supercarriers of 100,000t are $11+ Billion.The next carrier will cost $13.5 B according to some US estimates in JDW.Let us assume that a non-nuclear carrier of around half that size-the Gorshkov at 45,000t+ should cost around $4-5 Billion.The RN's 65,000t+ are upward of that fugure.What we are paying for the Gorshkov is just $2.5 billion! This is why a CNS is supposed to have famously remarked ,"show me where I can get a similar carrier for this price"? Now add to that the cost of the MIG-29Ks,which are the cheapest modern carrier strike aircraft available,at around 60% the cost of a similarly capable F-18SH and you see the huge economic advantage that the IN has got by acquiring the Gorshkov,admitttdly with some heartburn at the delays and cost overeruns from the original estimates,but in hindsight were absolutely neccessary because of the enormity of the work to be done,underestimated earlier.

With the MMRCA acquisition,the price of both Eurobirds is very high.We saw that upgrades for 50+ M-2000s were more than double the cost of upgrades for 60+ MIG-29s which has been found by the IAF to be a superior air combat aircraft! Unfortunately,the LCA programme,a perfect case for any management school for being one of the worst examples of project management,was meant to be our indigenous low-cost solution to the need for large numbers of aircraft for the IAF.To date,it is neither wholly indigenous-with a goodly part of it "firang",with less capability than designed for,and gvien the cost of the entire proghramme from scratch,in the final analysis an expensive lesson for the nation as because of its failure to arrive we have to incur this additional huge expenditure for the MMRCA!

Even the Army (T-90s for delayed Arjun) and the IN (Talwars for delayed P-17s) have had to look abroad to make up the gaps in numbers and capability.The "F" mag has just had an article on the "Breathtaking Expansion" of the PLAN,which is coming very close to its goal of operating blue-water carrier task forces with the arrival of the Shi Lang (Varyag) accompanied with large numbers of newly built escorts and subs ,more under construction and an indigenous naval version of the SU-33 Flanker illegally built in China without the Russian's prmission from a unit alegedly stealthily acquired from Ukraine.

The Wikileaks had our former NSA "Mike",telling his US bum-chums that the deal might be split and that he would lobby the PMO for it.It apppears that St.Anthony has other ideas and that "Inshallah",as our new ACM "Charlie" Brown put it,before the year end we will know which European beauty will have wooed and won the IAF.Should we take a poll on the result folks? Since I adore the Moulin Rouge Can-Can damsels,my heart tells me that the French have the sultriest wench!

PS:Uncle Sam might gnash his teeth,scowl like a goon and howl at the moon...for all he pleases,but what did he offer India? Two aging hags,past their prime,with too much of make-up,at whopping prices,that too with conditions attached to them for regular intrusive "inspections" of their plumbing in our bedrooms too,whenever they pleased,while the rest offered their best with no stringes attached to whatever tricks we wanted the birds to perform,at reasonable prices,with the Euros offering their two newest "almost virgin" tarts with their new tricks to titillate us!

What else could the US offer us ? Even if it offered us Ms.Raptor,she is too delicate requiring much medical attention and make-up after every session in the sky,and simply quite unaffordable ,when you could have a "menage-a-trois",or even a "menage-a-quatre" from her rivals! As for the much delayed Miss JSF,this almost as expensive virgin bride is spending so much time putting on her lingerie and trousseau that her suitors are getting hot under the collar waiting for at the altar and are thinking of getting hitched to easily available divorcees!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 08 Sep 2011 17:00

Russian air force lifeline for near-dead MiG-35
Rediff

Guskov also reiterated that it has been decided that the Russian defence ministry will order the MiG-35 to enter service in the Russian Air Force, which will be equipped with the Zhuk-AE radars, and the company has also offered the radar for the MiG-29 upgrade for the IAF without any airframe changes.

In the MMRCA shortlist which was announced on April 28 this year, the MiG-35 was said to have about 14 flaws in it, on account of which it was rejected despite being competitively priced and fulfilling most of the requirements in the tender, the most important of which being the radar. The flaws are said to be connected with the aircraft's engines.

One factor which could have gone against the MiG-35 in this deal is that the IAF's 62-odd MiG-29s coming up for upgradation to the UPG standard, will have features close to the MiG-35 or even better. Most notable among them being the Zhuk AESA radar, navigation system from Sagem, the helmet mounted display from Thales, the search and track infrared sensor from OLS-UEM, an Indian DARE EW suite and a new glass cockpit featuring colour MFDs (multi-function displays).

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 08 Sep 2011 17:12

Philip wrote:Just a quick note on costs and the Gorky escalation.Current costs for US supercarriers of 100,000t are $11+ Billion.The next carrier will cost $13.5 B according to some US estimates in JDW.Let us assume that a non-nuclear carrier of around half that size-the Gorshkov at 45,000t+ should cost around $4-5 Billion.The RN's 65,000t+ are upward of that fugure.What we are paying for the Gorshkov is just $2.5 billion! This is why a CNS is supposed to have famously remarked ,"show me where I can get a similar carrier for this price"? Now add to that the cost of the MIG-29Ks,which are the cheapest modern carrier strike aircraft available,at around 60% the cost of a similarly capable F-18SH and you see the huge economic advantage that the IN has got by acquiring the Gorshkov,admitttdly with some heartburn at the delays and cost overeruns from the original estimates,but in hindsight were absolutely neccessary because of the enormity of the work to be done,underestimated earlier.

Why are you making excuses for the Russians for their breach of contract on the Gorshkov deal?

Why should India care if the cost overruns are necessary or not: they are for the pocket of the seller, not the buyer? We signed a fixed-price deal, not a cost-plus deal.

How can one compare a new USN nuclear powered carrier with a rusty burned-out old Russian bucket undergoing refurbishing? Talk about make-up, this is intensive plastic surgery.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Sep 2011 18:00

Our requirements are unique.. when we need to get a heavy combat aircraft/bomber, we have to consider air borne multiple missile carrier [10-15 brahmos], of at least brahmos+/ks172+ capability, with smart bombs[tactical].

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 08 Sep 2011 18:07

eklavya wrote:Why are you making excuses for the Russians for their breach of contract on the Gorshkov deal?

Why should India care if the cost overruns are necessary or not: they are for the pocket of the seller, not the buyer? We signed a fixed-price deal, not a cost-plus deal.

It was not a breach of Contract.

We had an agreement of renovation/replacement/refabrication of certain sections of missile cruiser gorshkov.

While in the course of implementing above mentioned contract it was found that many other sections/instruments needs replacment for the ship to be sea worthy for a sustained time period (coming decades). The additional costs were mainly because of these additional components. And maybe some increase in labour charges.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 Sep 2011 19:12

eklavya wrote: France cannot sell any weapons to China anyway because of the EU ban, so your "argument" (to the extent trash talk about France can be distingushed as such) holds no water.

1. They don't have to sell weapons to China to STOP selling/supporting weapons to India (that would only be fair, right?)
2. That ban may not last much longer anyways, and guess who is leading the charge to overturn it?

eklavya wrote: The reality is that the US does not like France because France has an independent foreign policy

No, I don't TRUST France, different issue.

They WILL sell you out at the drop of a hat. They completely subverted the UN oil-for-food program in Iraq because it made it was profitable for them. If/When they decide closer ties with China is more profitable to them than India, sayona.

eklavya wrote: The fact that you are trashing a key Western nation like France speaks volumes about what respect the US has for smaller & less powerful democactic countries that want to maintain their independent foreign policy. India will also take heed.

It's not about being 'independent', it's about a complete lack of principles and how that relates to India's situation. You say India will take heed? Good, take very close heed of how France treats the party with less economic power.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 Sep 2011 19:21

eklavya wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:Their continued support of Israel in face of Arab oil embargoes cost DEARLY.
Are you comparing India with Israel vis influence in Congress and the US more broadly? We do not hold such grand ambitions for India. Some mutual respect will do, love can come later.

Maybe not as much as Israel, but probably more than South Korea.

eklavya wrote:Yeah, those sanctions were done to teach India to do as Uncle Sam says.

They should also teach that we sometimes put principle ahead of profit, which is very important when going against a country who may be more profitable than you.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 08 Sep 2011 19:43

GeorgeWelch wrote:
eklavya wrote:
Are you comparing India with Israel vis influence in Congress and the US more broadly? We do not hold such grand ambitions for India. Some mutual respect will do, love can come later.
Maybe not as much as Israel, but probably more than South Korea.

You believe that India should become a poodle like South Korea? What a pity that they have to settle with the crappy "F-15 Silent Eagle" and the watered down F-35 when we can have the much better Su-30 and PAK-FA in the IAF!!

GeorgeWelch wrote:
eklavya wrote:Yeah, those sanctions were done to teach India to do as Uncle Sam says.
They should also teach that we sometimes put principle ahead of profit, which is very important when going against a country who may be more profitable than you.

The French have principles. THe American wh0re sells out to whoever she likes (sexy Pakistan and handsome Iraq) only to turn back & stab them!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Sep 2011 20:09

^^^ Why can't you express your opinion without being abusive ... please maintain the decorum of the forum!

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 08 Sep 2011 20:26

Sorry indranil ji

GeorgeWelch wrote:
eklavya wrote: The fact that you are trashing a key Western nation like France speaks volumes about what respect the US has for smaller & less powerful democactic countries that want to maintain their independent foreign policy. India will also take heed.
It's not about being 'independent', it's about a complete lack of principles and how that relates to India's situation. You say India will take heed? Good, take very close heed of how France treats the party with less economic power.

Departing from my usual stance, I agree with you George. Its the independence that is given priority, and not the economic parity which is a decisive factor. You support your arguments of sanctions by saying that sanctioning India will hurt the US. The US is not very clever in this game. It might support India against Pakistan now but will it do so against China? When China has a larger economy and a capability to hit back??

manum · Post by **manum** » 08 Sep 2011 20:39

These arguments are pretty old I guess of USA and french and british and who is eviler than the other wrt India...See there is only great nation who is highly moral in past, present and future is India...and we Indians are morally highest technologically...

There is no match, not even close in this high end technology...

so except the morality of who will do what...wrt. we great Indians, we can discuss something better...

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 08 Sep 2011 20:55

nakul wrote:The French have principles. THe American wh0re sells out to whoever she likes (sexy Pakistan and handsome Iraq) only to turn back & stab them!!

Sorry but here you are completely wrong sir. The whole point is that the French have no principles what so ever, the only language they understand besides french is that of money, and they're very good at it. If they see that they can make more money out of selling to China they'll do it in a heartbeat. Besides, France are the ones pushing the hardest to end the weapons embargo on China. Why do you think there is a saying in Europe, "Never trust the French"?

And Pakistan and Iraq to the US? They're no friends of the US, the only reason they support Pakistan financially is out of necessity. They need to keep the Pakistanis happy to be able to fly over them, use pakistani roads for logistics and most importantly to keep them from unleashing the taliban. Same with Iraq, if they leave Iraq as it is it will instantly turn into either an Iranian satellite state or an Al-Qaida free-for-all.

manum · Post by **manum** » 08 Sep 2011 21:23

Henrik wrote: Sorry but here you are completely wrong sir. The whole point is that the French have no principles what so ever, the only language they understand besides french is that of money, and they're very good at it. If they see that they can make more money out of selling to China they'll do it in a heartbeat. Besides, France are the ones pushing the hardest to end the weapons embargo on China. Why do you think there is a saying in Europe, "Never trust the French"?

why guys bring this thing again and again? how does it affect India of what Europeans call each other, though they remain united to keep their money in closet and not let it flow in terms of technology...

French were first to strike oil deal with Libyans with rebels climbing Tripoli...but its all business, so there is no point of emotions. There are few principles which are shared, rest everything else if negotiable...one of them is if your client is rich, make sure you don't loose him/her...while the rich client must keep varied option but not loose anybody...

I don't think you can fool a rich Individual by talking morality of a person, it doesn't matters when its all business. When its about money, or strategic interests forget all lullabies...

And Pakistan and Iraq to the US? They're no friends of the US, the only reason they support Pakistan financially is out of necessity. They need to keep the Pakistanis happy to be able to fly over them, use pakistani roads for logistics and most importantly to keep them from unleashing the taliban. Same with Iraq, if they leave Iraq as it is it will instantly turn into either an Iranian satellite state or an Al-Qaida free-for-all.

We all agree, actually Pakistani's aren't realizing they are being hugely underpaid...as they are renting the land, air space and other services to a foreign nations...Every one else is securing the long terms strategic interest while giving lollipop's and toys to them.

Pakistani's are themselves to blame to be exploited for it...

Texafr · Post by **Texafr** » 08 Sep 2011 21:33

GeorgeWelch wrote:Pop Quiz 2: What country
c) Was bullied into handing over the disabling codes of weapons they had sold to another country?

The source which claims France gave the Exocet missile code to Britain is dubious and reality doesn't corroborate this misinformation. If this was true, the Exocet missiles should have been neutralized. So, how could the Argentinians inflict so much damages to the Royal Navy with only 5 missiles ?
- 2 ships sunk, 1 badly damaged, 45 british killed, thousands of tons of equipment resting at the bottom of the ocean. Heavy toll and excellent combat performance for a rigged missile...
If the Argentinians had had more missiles, History would have been written differently. Despite the Argentinian defeat, the Exocet missile became a legend and an international export success.

The rest of your messages concerning France is the regular idiotic drivel by americans about France.

On top of this, americans are irritated because their 2 aircrafts have been eliminated after the trials and Rafale is still in contention. Sour grapes.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Sep 2011 21:51

GeorgeWelch wrote:They should also teach that we sometimes put principle ahead of profit, which is very important when going against a country who may be more profitable than you.

Yup, as long as those principles meet the short-term objectives of US, they put principles before profit, which is what every country does!

I guess US was putting principles before profit when it turned a blind eye to the nuke proliferation going on between China and Pakistan and still certified that pakistan didn't have capability to weaponise its nuclear arsenal, or when it refused to intervene in Rwanda when the genocide was going on, or the blind eye it turned to human rights violation in Saudi Arabia and other middle-eastern countries and still continued to sell billions of dollars in arms, or numerous other examples of the "prinicpled" foreign policy of US

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 08 Sep 2011 22:01

Henrik wrote:
nakul wrote:The French have principles. THe American wh0re sells out to whoever she likes (sexy Pakistan and handsome Iraq) only to turn back & stab them!!
Sorry but here you are completely wrong sir. The whole point is that the French have no principles what so ever, the only language they understand besides french is that of money, and they're very good at it. If they see that they can make more money out of selling to China they'll do it in a heartbeat. Besides, France are the ones pushing the hardest to end the weapons embargo on China. Why do you think there is a saying in Europe, "Never trust the French"?

That is why they are so good, a predictable enemy is better than an unpredictable friend...

Based on the french lust for money, we can summarize it as
Pakistan << India << China (based on economic size)

France can be expected to support India against Pakistan. Whereas, against China, France may not stand by us. This helps in keeping French-Indian weapons aimed at Pakistan during war. However, this is not the case with America. It may turn out to support Pakistan (like in 1971) to suit its interests.

Now, America says we are with you against China. But during war, what if they turn traitor and side with China based on their "principles"?

Henrik wrote: And Pakistan and Iraq to the US? They're no friends of the US, the only reason they support Pakistan financially is out of necessity. They need to keep the Pakistanis happy to be able to fly over them, use pakistani roads for logistics and most importantly to keep them from unleashing the taliban. Same with Iraq, if they leave Iraq as it is it will instantly turn into either an Iranian satellite state or an Al-Qaida free-for-all.

That is American friendship in short. They use you when needed and ditch you when it suits them. During Iraq-Iran war, they supported Saddam Hussein against the Iraqis. In the Gulf Wars, they fought him. Similarly, with India, in 1962, USA supported India against China.. But in 1971, it is well known that Soviet SSNs were the reason that USS Enterprise could not hamper Indian war efforts. Does an ally turn around to arm its friend's enemies? Enemy no 1 Pakistan has been given arms since its inception. The Americans supported the Pakistan nuclear program but placed sanctions on India after we tested a nuclear device.

They want us to sell weapons when it was due to them that LCA was delayed. All the hulaboo had been to remove sanctions placed by the US. Even at the security council, USA has been known to vote against us.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 09 Sep 2011 01:53

nakul wrote:That is American friendship in short. They use you when needed and ditch you when it suits them. During Iraq-Iran war, they supported Saddam Hussein against the Iraqis. In the Gulf Wars, they fought him. Similarly, with India, in 1962, USA supported India against China.. But in 1971, it is well known that Soviet SSNs were the reason that USS Enterprise could not hamper Indian war efforts. Does an ally turn around to arm its friend's enemies? Enemy no 1 Pakistan has been given arms since its inception. The Americans supported the Pakistan nuclear program but placed sanctions on India after we tested a nuclear device.

They want us to sell weapons when it was due to them that LCA was delayed. All the hulaboo had been to remove sanctions placed by the US. Even at the security council, USA has been known to vote against us.

I'm not going to argue with that, both the US and France are a bunch of hypocrites.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 09 Sep 2011 02:18

Eric Thompson wrote:
prabhug wrote:We Indians are honest (We dont reverse engineer whatever is given to us). But at the same time we don't want somebody to teach how honest we have to be(No agreements and punishments).
Taaganivaadiki Taagevaadu chedipoyinattu kanibiste Taagevaadiki Taaganivaadu chetakani vaadula kanibistaadu...

Ericji, English please or atleast provide an english translation.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 09 Sep 2011 02:26

Can someone explain why on this thread the discussions are between US and French suppliers credibility and capability and intentions etc?The MMRCA as it stands now is a contest between 2 European suppliers. I mean how does it help this thread to discuss US suppliers when they are out of the race at this point in time.

kelesis · Post by **kelesis** » 09 Sep 2011 03:37

Uhmmm... I disagree with some of the unbalanced and francophobe comments above :

1 - French industry, like US British and German companies, will sell weapons to China, If it is politically possible. BUT, in all these countries, any big deal with China (figthers, submarines) would raise great political issues because in Europe and US China is seen as a major military threat (just read the newspapers). In France the Mistral deal with Russia raised concerns among the public opinion, MMRCA in Germany as well... Just imagine what it would have been for a deal of Rafales with China! The political price to pay may not be such a good investment for the govs. I also doubt China really wants or needs help to build a strong army.
2- The idea that unlike US, England or Germany, France puts its financial interests above political and strategical considerations, is not serious and does not withstand scrutiny. The behaviour is for all the same : every deal that is acceptable on a political point of view should be done. US and UK sell more weapons in the world than France, and they are far to be more virtuous..
3- For all these western countries, in case of war between India and Pakistan or China, the main concern would be to determine who is the aggressor before supporting the one or the other. And it will probably not be India.
4- The french have a very good perception of India which has never been considered as an imperialist country and a destabilizing force for south asia. That's obviously not the case of China and Pakistan. For that reason, the history of military commercial relations between France and India has always been very good, even in hard times (I read that IAF has good records with M2000, the french are not less reliable than the others). I think this positive view of India is now shared by most european and western countries...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Sep 2011 05:22

Let us say, the Rafales are not chosen. That would mean no operational Rafale outside France. It would be hard for itself get a name forward.. and the likes of pakis and chinese will try to force a deal with france at high cost!? bull crap.. they are a bunch of cheapos and looters and copy khan networks would force france away in even selling a few squadrons.

Rafale will die as a lone warrior if it loses MMRCA deal.. It is entirely up to france to think about chewing our pockets or get their pockets chewed.. We have already gotten our pockets chewed for the M2K upgrades.. that is a ransom by any measure.

The "L" board sign is getting ready and being painted with stealth coatings.. Let us see who gets it soon.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 09 Sep 2011 10:00

BijuShet wrote:
Eric Thompson wrote:Taaganivaadiki Taagevaadu chedipoyinattu kanibiste Taagevaadiki Taaganivaadu chetakani vaadula kanibistaadu...
Ericji, English please or atleast provide an english translation.

Slightly OT. The rough translation: For non-drinker, drinker is a spoiled; for drinker, non-drinker is an incompetent.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 09 Sep 2011 10:03

Henrik wrote:I'm not going to argue with that, both the US and France are a bunch of hypocrites.

Who do you think in your notion is India’s friend in Western World ? Also, I think India is not looking to boost friendship with anybody via MMRCA deal. India is looking for a vendor to supply 4 th Gen fighters which meets its requirement. If friendship comes along with the deal, it’s just going to be icing on the cake. Raising concerns on making or breaking friendship via MMRCA deal is just absurd.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Sep 2011 13:13

The moment of truth as almost arrived.With the return of SG,some decisions will have to be taken soon,otherwise "drift" is the roder of the day and we shall all have to follow ACM Browne's example! Will the [performance of the two contenders in the Libyan war make a difference? This is certainly going to be touted by both sides as both their birds were in operation there.It gives the IAF a true glimpse of the actual ability of both in the strike role,sortie rates,maintenance ease during wartime,etc.The IAF should demand the data from the two is this insight might differ from the data obtainmed when thetwo aircraft when through their earlier techncial tests.The Libyans where nowhere near the capability of the opposition that we will face from the Sino-Pak combine,but the experience will prove an invaluable tool with which to firm up the decision,costs excluding.

PS:Ekky,Boreas has explained the Gorshkov deal well.No one is condoning any delay or cost overrun.The hard truth is that unlike building a new carrier or vessel,a hybrid battle cruiser-carrier had to be renovated into a true flat top! The massive work required was underestimated by both the IN and Russians,especially with the wiring/rewiing costs.The vessel was orginally built in the Ukraine and no plans were available.What has now emerged is an excellent carrier,with brand new engines,eqpt.,sensors and weapon systems.Even with the escalated price,it is still far below-almost half the cost, that of a new western carrier of similar size and capability.The figures given for US supercarrierswere done to show how massively expensive they are and simply unaffordable for the IN.

Here are details of a US carrier task force and its costs taken from a JDW article:
For a 40-aircraft carrier,one also needs 1 Aegis ,2 Arleigh Burke Aegis DDGs,1 SSN,1 T-AOE supply ship with its complement of missiles and other ordnance.The flight wing's crew of 2400 is apart from the carrier's crew of 3,200,plus 1000+ on the supporting warships.The air wing alone costs about $5-6 billion,the ships cost another $25 billion.The lifecycle costs per year for a Ford class carrier is another $1billion+ and this does not include training costs,R&D,etc.,etc. for the air wing!

In contrast an SSGN of the Ohio class (formerly SSBNs) with a crew of 150+ can carry the entire equivalent of Tomahawk missiles of the entire task force at a fraction of the cost,is highly mobile,stealthy and invulnerable to attack from missile boats and anti-ship missiles! Surface vessels have to add to their inventory of strike munitions and missiles a large amount of SAMs to defend themselves,adding even more to the cost and reducing strike capability.

Let's take a look at a poss. Indian scenario.Most of our frigates and DDGs will not possess more than 8-16 Brahmos anti-ship missiles.These warships would be of around 5-6000t+ and costing at least $1 billion+. A much smaller,stealthier SSG of 2500-3000t equipped with 8 Brahmos would cost half that amount.Look at the price that we are getting for a 10 yr. lease of a 12,000t Akula SSGN with a weapon load of 40 is approx. $1 billion.Here is an excerpt from a report about two being offered on lease.

As of 2005, the two Akulas, one said to be 70-85% complete and the other said to be 40-60% complete, were estimated to cost India some $400m. The leasing costs would amount to some $25m a year. The construction of both submarines and training of the crews could run up to around $2 billion.

These submarines are to be manned entirely by Indian crew. In August 2005 Bellona Web reported evidence of construction of a nuclear submarine training center for the Indian Navy in Sosnovy Bor, 70 kilometers west of St. Petersburg in Russia. The training center, large enough to train 300 submariners, was built following the visit of Russian President Vladamir Putin to India in December 2004. By 2007 there were reports that nearly 300 Indian naval personnel, or three sets of crews, had trained to operate the submarine the training facility in Sosnovy Bor. These personnel were reported to have returned to India in early 2007, after completion of training.

By late 2007 the two sides were said to be set to seal an agreement for the lease of two Akula class nuclear submarines to India. This agreement was to be the high point of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Moscow on 10 November 2007, a reminder of the heyday of the Indo-Russian relationship. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went to Moscow on a two-day visit, and nothing was publicly agreed. The visit was expected to envisage upgrading the predominant buyer-seller relationship between India and Russia in the defense sector to a new level of joint partnership for co-developing state-of-the-art future weaponries.

The Akulas were to be delivered to the Indian Navy in 2008 on a lease of at least seven years, and up to ten years. This acquisition was to help the Indian Navy prepare for the induction of the ATV, India's long-delayed indigenous nuclear-powered submarine, set for for sea trials in 2009. The cost to India of acquiring two Akula submarines and their support infrastructure along with training of the crews had been estimated at $2 billion. Other estimates suggested that the deal, which could be worth over Rs 2,000 crore, about $500 million to $650 million dollars.

Russia reportedly intended to use the money from the Indian lease to complete two Akula class submarines, long under construction at the Amur Shipbuilding yard. One of them [the Nerpa] was 70 to 85 percent complete, while the other one [Kaban] is 40 to 60 percent complete [other earlier reports had suggested that Kaban was only 25% complete].

From this example it clearly shows the advantageous economics of acquiring the Gorshkov-along with its MIG-29Ks at very reasonable costs when compared with acquiring a western built equivalent carrier.It also shows that there is also a limitation costwise for operating large carriers,beyond which it will be simply unaffordable for India.Augmenting the sub fleet is the key priority right now with SSGNs both locally built and extra Akulas,plus Brahmos equipped AIP subs of an Indian design/requirement.Having several amphibious warships which can also operate large ASW helos and in future any STOVL stealth fighter would be immensely useful and cost-effective in maintaining a sizeable blue-water air capabilty at affordable cost.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 10 Sep 2011 00:28

The French selling weapons and/or technology to the Chinese is far more of a risk to India than the US doing the same to Pakistan. I wouldn't chalk US reticence in selling weapons to China down to principles. At least not all of it. That said how does the reason matter. That the US chooses to actively deny technology to China is an advantage for India. And the only country that can force the EU to deny weapons tech to the Chinese is the US. I think the sooner we overcome our angst in recognizing this, the better for us.

That acknowledgement in itself doesn't mean we should buy US weapons. The fact that the US can exert enormous influence and WILL act against its economic interests when it comes to strategic decisions itself is a good enough reason not to buy American fighters for MMRCA competition.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 10 Sep 2011 00:47

Drishyaman wrote:
Henrik wrote:I'm not going to argue with that, both the US and France are a bunch of hypocrites.
Who do you think in your notion is India’s friend in Western World ? Also, I think India is not looking to boost friendship with anybody via MMRCA deal. India is looking for a vendor to supply 4 th Gen fighters which meets its requirement. If friendship comes along with the deal, it’s just going to be icing on the cake. Raising concerns on making or breaking friendship via MMRCA deal is just absurd.

I have no Idea who's "India's friend in the western world". But I do believe all nations in the western world wants to have a good business relationship with India.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Sep 2011 01:15

Henrik wrote: I have no Idea who's "India's friend in the western world". But I do believe all nations in the western world wants to have a good business relationship with India.

The problem is not about money. Its about control. India has the money to buy the planes contesting for the MMRCA competition. People might argue about the flyaway cost vis a vis the running costs, but would be factored for calculating the winner.

There is another component. The component of controlling usage. Its like telling India where to use the weapons India has payed for. Unfortunately for some, this does not bode well. It would be in everyone's best interest if this is cleared out. The situation in which the planes should be used should be at India's discretion. The moment this factor comes into the picture, the buyer starts having doubts. In such a case, it is better to go for a slightly inferior plane than a better plane with strings. I don't think Sweden would have limited the use of this plane unless external force was applied. The ability to resist this external force and stand by India is being emphasised here. As far as history goes, only two nations have done that viz. USSR and France

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 10 Sep 2011 02:02

Fantastic new rafale video display at RIAT with cockpit view in HD.
A good advice : watch it in HD and full screen, the quality and feeling is excellent. Enjoy !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKfeSYFZSsM

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 12 Sep 2011 13:55

>>> Rafale leads the race versus the Typhoon and gripen in Swiss technical evaluation :

One swing from above

The Federal Council wants to make the decision for a new-type fighter jet in the fall. The results of the evaluation are confidential. Yet now seeping through the results

The purchase of new fighter aircraft for the Swiss army has so far been anything but straightforward. Three providers of fighter jets were once invited to the competition. After completing the evaluation of the procurement decision, however, was postponed by several years. Now, however, is at the decision - and research shows the Basler Zeitung, that two of the tested types of aircraft in terms of technical capabilities that have the front nose. The lowest priced jet has therefore lost much of the competition. The French supplier Dassault Rafale, which has won with his methods. Close behind, in second place, followed by the Euro Fighter of the arms company, EADS, in which the countries Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Spain are involved...

http://bazonline.ch/schweiz/standard/Ei ... y/19950976

For the record several older articles alreadt pointed the rafale as the leader of the tech evaluation is the swiss race :

Switzerland slips slowly towards the Rafale Aeroplans , June 8

According to the Swiss press, the head of the Federal Department of Defence should finally propose the purchase of a first tranche of a dozen fighter planes instead of the 22 originally envisaged. In this country confront the Eurofighter, the Gripen and of course the Rafale. For several months, the maneuvers are increasing and the EADS fighter visibly loses ground against the two other planes.

http://www.aeroplans.fr/Aviation-mil...he-rafale.html

Tiger replacement issue soon in the Parliament
Neue Zurcher Zeitung , May 29

[...]Dassault has repeatedly said to be the “aeronautical winner” of the evaluation and referred to the offered cooperation opportunities. The French air space is open to the Swiss Air Force for training. The same applies to airfields and Rafale Simulators. And the Swiss side wanted to participate as a project team on the further development of the jet. It is known that the French product enjoys much sympathy in the Air force.

http://www.nzz.ch/

Ueli Maurer wants to stagger the purchase of fighter
Le Temps , June 6

In a new report submitted in June the Federal Council, the Head of the Department of Defense propose the purchase of a first tranche of a dozen aircraft
[...]

This purchase by tranches could be decisive as regards of the choice of the aircraft. The supplier should be able to secure new supplies and steady development over several decades. By opting for a phased acquisition beyond 2020 "it's no longer the replacement of the Tiger that is anticipated but well and truly the F/A-18 , it will take place around 2025, one said in parliament.

The gradual renewal of the Swiss fleet would automatically exclude a new assessment, so a U.S. offer.

But other models could not meet the collateral requirements beyond fifteen years. "With this installment purchase program, the Swedish Gripen is the one which offers the lowest long-term guarantees," said one aviation expert by emphasizing its less advanced technology. What strongly deny the Swedes. They ensure that their country has opted for the Gripen as the main component of its air force, so the future is assured. Furthermore, Switzerland would have access to technologies of the new generation that had not been submitted in April 2009

In any case, the final answer will come off only after the political return in September or October. But Ueli Maurer can already count on the support of the President of the Confederation and Minister of Economy, Doris Leuthard. In February, she had already proposed a purchase by tranche. Manufacturers of machinery and equipment, Swissmem, had exercised upon her a powerful lobby, making it sparkle 2.2 billion in business compensatory and technological spillovers.

Leuthard even spoke, last winter, about "an economic recovery plan" with this acquisition. Ueli Maurer, who met with the Defence Ministers of the three countries in line to provide future aircraft, was impressed by the possibilities of acquiring new technologies. We know that the Swiss Air Force, at least the pilots, bend to the Dassault Rafale, which, besides the possibility to use French airspace, promises to associate the Swiss to future developments.

But is buying new jets justified to only give a boost to the economy? The transaction remains expensive despite the salami considered by Ueli Maurer. The bill of 2.2 billion francs for 22 jets, long discussed, consisted in reality that the acquisition of "naked" aircraft , without armament, missile-related devices, pilot training, the cost of maintenance, etc..
[...]
Finance Minister Hans-Rudolf Merz, had put the replacement of Tiger on the list of abandoned projects as part of its savings program. We must ensure that the replacement F-5E will not be on the back of the troops, still poorly equipped. The parliament, but the army officers, are far from convinced that the 33 F/A-18 are not sufficient to provide air policing tasks. "we don't need more planes , but we need more collaborative arrangements with neighboring Austria, and German or French" said National Assembly member Eric Voruz (PS / VD), a member of the Policy Commission security. In fact, the shift from Ueli Maurer today betrays its weakness against his party, the UDC, and the rest of the Federal Council, the National Councillor J. Green Josef Lang

http://www.letemps.ch/Home

From former french Mindef Hervé Morin Interview :

You never miss an opportunity to be the "sales representative" of the French armament industry for export. What about the record of the purchase of the Rafale by Brazil and negotiations with the UAE and Switzerland?

We are confident. The Brazilians have announced a decision around May 15. The discussions are progressing constructively with the UAE. Switzerland, meanwhile, has completed its trials, and I do not doubt that the results are extremely favorable to the Rafale. I suggested to our Swiss friends to benefit from our air space , because theirs is limited , and offered them facilities on the Luxeuil airbase. We might even have a common maintenance on the aircrafts.
[...]

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Sep 2011 15:31

so, how many Rafales are the swiss buying?