Indian Naval Discussion

sum · Post by **sum** » 08 Dec 2011 14:43

One is not asking for special favours for certain nations,but a level playing field."Horses for courses",is what I've always said and a healthy competiton brings out the best results as we are seeing in the MMRCA deal. FMS does not allow for this.

Having a tendering process for 7-8 years( since you quote MMRCA procedure as a model) is the best result?

koti · Post by **koti** » 08 Dec 2011 14:51

It was our former CNS who was openly against the FMS route as it gave the seller an unequal advantage when determining the pricing and nuances of the deal.

Sir, but isn't the price of equipment same as that of what the mother country's forces pay?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Dec 2011 15:19

koti wrote:
It was our former CNS who was openly against the FMS route as it gave the seller an unequal advantage when determining the pricing and nuances of the deal.
Sir, but isn't the price of equipment same as that of what the mother country's forces pay?

Nope FMS sales are generally Higher prices since the uS has footed the bill for R&D. FMS prices also vary for equipment based on specific nature of the deal, time and specific sub components used. See C-130J, F-16 deals and you see vast differences in pricing.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Dec 2011 16:17

anjan wrote:
kancha wrote:Shaurya Chakra Awarded to Lieutenant Commander Firdaus Darabshah Mogal
A truly inspiring tale of valour at high seas ..
Truly sad. India has lost a brave son.

Losing our nation's best sons is truly depressing. His actions are truly inspiring.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2011 19:02

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/navy ... 63087.html

babudom in perverse action yet again.No US manufacturer is involved in the sub acquisition programmes,hence the indifference.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 09 Dec 2011 00:15

Austin wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Our P-8I has CAe MAD (the only new gen MAD available in the market), A2A & A2G modes in the radar, and additional Telephonics radar for 360 degree coverage over & above what US P-8A will have. And full Indian communication suites. The best of both worlds.
Like all other deals we would be getting export standard stuff , most certainly not the P-8I of US standard

No denying this. However, capabilities are measured against requirements, and in this case, we're getting requisite capabilities that are far superior to existing & alternately available, if not the best.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Dec 2011 00:35

It was our former CNS who was openly against the FMS route as it gave the seller an unequal advantage when determining the pricing and nuances of the deal.Thus Kartik and co.,I'm in good company!

There is a couple ex CNS who are peaceniks and WKK types - whats your point?? Want to be in the same company??

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Dec 2011 04:28

It was our former CNS who was openly against the FMS route as it gave the seller an unequal advantage when determining the pricing and nuances of the deal

How so? It cannot. IF it did, then the US DoD would be dupped too.

Did the CNS explain what he said?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Dec 2011 11:18

138 Naval Officer cadets pass out of the 82nd Integrated Cadets Course

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Dec 2011 11:47

We are not talking of erstwhile CNS's but the last one,when in office,at a confrence too.It was in an issue of the "F" mag not too long ago.If one thinks that the US DOD is a saintly institution,think again! Pricing can be engineered to suit different contracts for different customers based upon their individual requirements,how else is the UK which has such stringent watchdogs, able to give the Saudis their controversial alleged "bakseesh" over the EF deal? There are a "hundred ways to skin a cat"!

PS:REtd.CNS,Adm.Arun Prakash has in the latest issue of the "F" mag,written a superb piece about the "three invisible men",the service chiefs,in the complex realtionship in which they exist in the Indian security structure,where actually the Def. Sec. is the man upon whom the defence of the nation rests with! If you read this masterful piece,you will understand how little influence the services have vs the bureaucracy.

PS:MOre on the second line decision delay which is harming the IN.Main reason,MDL does not want another private yard to build subs (and warships) despite its "inadeuate infrastructure".AKA however has gone on record that the Scorpene delay has not been due to that reason.

The further delay in the Project 75 (India) submarines is bad news. As it is, the Navy is plagued by delays in the Project 75 for building six Scorpene submarines. Bad planning and inordinate delays have led to a situation where the Indian submarine fleet is down to 14 from a peak of 16. Over the next few years five more subs will retire, but their replacements may not come in on time. This is bound to affect the operational effectiveness of the Indian Navy.

The Navy began to think of replacement submarines back in 1999, and the plan was to acquire the vessels in two streams. But while the P-75 project (Scorpene) was chosen in 2005, the Ministry of Defence is likely to take another two or three years to decide on the P-75I. Even the Scorpene deliveries have been delayed by five years because the stateowned Mazagaon Dockyard lacks adequate infrastructure. This bodes ill for the new project as well. The government needs to rope in private sector shipyards to push through the projects urgently.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/dela ... 63270.html

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Dec 2011 18:12

Fits better in Intl naval Discussion, but, worth reading for Scorpene project in India

Last sections of the first Scorpene submarine for Brazil joined

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Dec 2011 04:32

Philip wrote:It was our former CNS who was openly against the FMS route as it gave the seller an unequal advantage when determining the pricing and nuances of the deal.Thus Kartik and co.,I'm in good company!

FMS deals are basically the US Govt. sourcing the product from the OEM, and transferring it to the export customer and charging 3% or thereabouts as a fee for the service it provides. There is a LOT less scope for hanky panky in this process than in the open tenders where a lot of palm grease is applied which in turn gets added to the cost of the deal in some way or the other.

And it was a former CNS who also said that the IN was more than happy to go with the P-8 when it was offered.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Dec 2011 04:44

Aditya_V wrote:
Nope FMS sales are generally Higher prices since the uS has footed the bill for R&D. FMS prices also vary for equipment based on specific nature of the deal, time and specific sub components used. See C-130J, F-16 deals and you see vast differences in pricing.

NO.

FMS sales do not include any additional levy to recover R&D costs. the US DoD in essence places the order and the customer benefits from getting the same price as the DoD. the DoD benefits in that its order size is larger and economies of scale help it to reduce its own unit price.

READ THIS ABOUT FMS deals

the DSCA in turn serves as an intermediary between the DoD and the customer and can be involved in handling procurement, logistics and delivery and many atimes, they provide product support, training, and infrastructure construction. Which is why they charge a 3% fee.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Dec 2011 05:21

We are not talking of erstwhile CNS but the last one,when in office,at a conference too.It was in an issue of the "F" mag not too long ago.If one thinks that the US DOD is a saintly institution,think again! Pricing can be engineered to suit different contracts for different customers based upon their individual requirements,how else is the UK which has such stringent watchdogs, able to give the Saudis their controversial alleged "baksheesh" over the EF deal? There are a "hundred ways to skin a cat"!

Reminds me of the physics prof, who started his lecture on "Atmosphere on Earth", over time he started talking of a related topic: stratosphere, then space, then how that is related to solar winds, and by the end of the lecture he was talking of the atmosphere on the moon!!!! Most physicists (sorry SunilS, if you are lurking) are out-of-this-world ..... so, what can one say. But what is the excuse here?

Saudi's would have been far better of getting the F-1X via FMS.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 10 Dec 2011 06:26

Kartik wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
Nope FMS sales are generally Higher prices since the uS has footed the bill for R&D. FMS prices also vary for equipment based on specific nature of the deal, time and specific sub components used. See C-130J, F-16 deals and you see vast differences in pricing.
NO.

FMS sales do not include any additional levy to recover R&D costs. the US DoD in essence places the order and the customer benefits from getting the same price as the DoD. the DoD benefits in that its order size is larger and economies of scale help it to reduce its own unit price.

READ THIS ABOUT FMS deals

the DSCA in turn serves as an intermediary between the DoD and the customer and can be involved in handling procurement, logistics and delivery and many atimes, they provide product support, training, and infrastructure construction. Which is why they charge a 3% fee.

Exactly and this is why 'ToT' or offset based deals don't come under the FMS program.

All Indian purchases of foreign arms should be on govt to govt basis.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 10 Dec 2011 06:28

Singha wrote:I agree that P8I < P8A. but even then, most of the US exported stuff esp in avionics, weapons and sensors is highly competitive or superior to the best of the rest. eg even the amraam C7 matches every well , even if we leave out the amraam-D. the hellfire is the best air launched atgm out there. the JDAMs and Paveways are cheap and matches the best. the APG79I on the Shornet has today what others will have in 2015 at best case.

and in drones, ucav and stealth khan is decades ahead. a export model global hawk still has no competition as a platform.

they will obviously not share data like library of worldwide submarine signatures built up over decades of snooping or the details of hostile emitters from their own stable like apg69 radars on F-solah or the radar inside the amraam. these we will have to provide ourself and populate the raw hw for our own use.

+1

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Dec 2011 07:05

Exactly and this is why 'ToT' or offset based deals don't come under the FMS program.

The C-17 has offsets. P-8I has 30% offsets too.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 10 Dec 2011 10:05

NRao wrote:
Exactly and this is why 'ToT' or offset based deals don't come under the FMS program.
The C-17 has offsets. P-8I has 30% offsets too.

FMS or no FMS if we want we cN get offsets, it is the Bear who does not give any offsets and goes on a fleecing drive.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 10 Dec 2011 13:17

Shrinivasan wrote:
NRao wrote:The C-17 has offsets. P-8I has 30% offsets too.
FMS or no FMS if we want we cN get offsets, it is the Bear who does not give any offsets and goes on a fleecing drive.

Does anyone really know how much of these "offsets" are real and how much are accounting scams?

i.e. are the offset we get anything more than the "screwdriver" equivalents in ToT, viz sound great on paper but do very little for industrial base or economy.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 10 Dec 2011 14:02

Guess what is now March 2012?

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Dec 2011 14:13

^^ Nerpa delivery after interior re-painting?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2011 15:00

Kartik,there were only two jet-engined ASW LRMP aircraft available,the Airbus and Boeing.It was competition,but if memory serves me correctly,some of it was done on simulators as the P-8 had yet to fly.Look,everyone knows that MMS made promises to get his N-deal and that was a list of defence weaponry which the US wanted to selll to us.It is why US wares are being decided upon while other contests are being run through the mill.The deepest disappointment was losing out in the MMRCA stakes,where,one has to congratulate the IAF and AKA for standign firm.The US-Paki military relationship was too close for comfort and the 20+ martyrs had yet met their 72 houris in firaus!

The latest "F" mag has a report on the progress made on the Vik,soon to start sea trials,and the huge diifficulties and extra work that ha gone into the carrier,because in replacing old machinery and wiring,they found even more tasks to be done.F also heard rumours that "4" more carriers are on the anvil/planned?

The Akula's arrival by March 2012,a few more months late is for reasons uknown and whatever they may be,will be kept a closely held secret.MY best guess is that the sub is already "flexing her muscles" where it best serves her interests,taking advantage of the delivery run from Russia.After all, a N-sub can stay at sea a long,long,time.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Dec 2011 15:55

^^^

The Chakra has kept on getting on delayed since October 2008. Each time by a period of 6 months or so. It seems that the Russians don't really want to part with the boat. One year ago the problem was stated to be of the paint job. What is the problem today? Ice?

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 10 Dec 2011 19:04

Read somewhere that the forward and aft bulkheads of scorpene would not be made by MDL, but procured from DCNS!!

found an old report
Work begins on first Scorpene submarine for India
Published: Friday, Apr 28, 2006, 19:30 IST

CHERBOURG, (France): France's state shipbuilder DCN began on Friday manufacturing parts for the first of six Scorpene submarines ordered by India.
It is equipped with modern sonar detection equipment, six torpedo tubes and missile launchers; these are among the parts being produced in France, along with the propellers, hatches and front and back bulkheads.

Shouldn't MDL be able to fabricate propellers, hatches and front and back bulkheads ?

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 10 Dec 2011 19:08

@narmad im not sure about hatches and bulk heads but propeller design and fabrication is a very well guarded secret of nations which produce them hence there is no way MDL will be given the know-how to manufacture it..

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 10 Dec 2011 21:44

@chiru thanks for your reply

Yes, these are the most import and complex mechanical pieces of submarine fabrication.
But, just like the SCB tech was transferred for the Sukhois ( restricted to only Sukhoi mfg), even this technology should have been part of the TOT.
W/o these we would not be able to fabricate an entire hull on our own.
Getting them directly from DCNS for the First couple of scorpenes is ok, but we should build them locally for the next Four at MDL.
At the least MDL can mfg them based on DCNS molds and Jigs. You wont know the intricacies of the design otherwise.

Question arises, whether these items were omitted because of the cost or MDL is not in a position to absorb this technology.

Wonder how the Whole ATV Hull was manufactured by L&T ?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Dec 2011 01:05

^^ An unfortunate case of GoI, MoD, MDL not able to enforce ToT of critical areas.

This is for Austin, who had requested confirmation of my earlier posts that IN had rejected Gorshkov multiple times in the 90’s http://cdasecbad.ap.nic.in/sankalan/COM ... 0India.pdf

Page 25

Two IN delegations that visited the foreign country in August 1995 and January 1998 commented on the deteriorating material state of the ship and stated that it was apparent that little or no maintenance efforts had been undertaken. A third delegation (October 1999) also observed that the material condition of the ship `Q' had further deteriorated and that the process of deterioration was likely to accelerate with the passage of time. The delegation indicated that the state of machinery and systems had worsened to such an extent that the refit could hardly be called `repair'.

Operationalising ship `Q' as a carrier required large-scale design changes as the ship ‘Q' was not an aircraft carrier but more of a cruiser equipped with a flight deck. Therefore, it had to be configured for a different type of service from that of its original design. However, the Working Design Documents and inputs from the original ship-builder. were not available. A large number of drawings required corrections and could not be finalised even three years after the conclusion of contract.

The vendor's shipyard that was to undertake the R&R work, had neither built nor repaired ships of this magnitude nor had any work experience on aircraft carriers.

In 2004, when IN agreed to award the contract worth USD 875 million, the shipyard's total revenue was USD 81 million.

Moral of the story – there is no “free” lunch. A harrowing experience of what never to repeat again.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Dec 2011 01:17

few more months late is for reasons uknown and whatever they may be,will be kept a closely held secret

FEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 11 Dec 2011 09:31

^^^
few more months late is for reasons uknown and whatever they may be,will be kept a closely held secret

Surya saar relax....no point in bursting a vein!

My reply here:

Akula Next Gen!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Dec 2011 10:32

Philip wrote:Kartik,there were only two jet-engined ASW LRMP aircraft available,the Airbus and Boeing.It was competition,but if memory serves me correctly,some of it was done on simulators as the P-8 had yet to fly.

Exactly. And the Airbus A-319 MPA solution was and is a paper product that hasn't been ordered by a single major customer as yet. They have the C-295 MPA and the CN235 MPA both of which are smaller aircraft and not really what the IN was looking for in terms of range and speed.

Compared to it, the P-8 had an almost guaranteed production run of over a hundred aircraft. The choice was quite obvious- buy a paper plane and assume the risks that it would entail, with the IN having to make sure it would have to handle the program management very closely, or buy a comparable MPA that would come with all or most of its problems sorted out. The schedule risk was present with them both, but lesser with the Boeing product since it had a customer like the USN backing it to the hilt.

So why were you whining about the deal going through too fast? Or about the IN's wish (and all us BRFites' as well) to get more than just 12 LRMPs by 2020 coming true? At the end of the day, it serves our own interests more than well.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Dec 2011 10:40

haha @anishns

where do you find these gems!

now philip saar will write a 200 line post which will start with "as I have been saying ....."

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Dec 2011 10:57

tsarkar wrote:^^ An unfortunate case of GoI, MoD, MDL not able to enforce ToT of critical areas.

This is for Austin, who had requested confirmation of my earlier posts that IN had rejected Gorshkov multiple times in the 90’s
Moral of the story – there is no “free” lunch. A harrowing experience of what never to repeat again.

I am not a great fan of buying older hull and simply refurbishing it ( so called as good as new ) , its better to build new hull and then module built the rest with new equipment ,engines etc , that would also take care of many older machinery on board that simply will not in production , considering Gorshkov is just one of a kind and a guranteed operational life of 30 years post upgrade I would bet it would be a PITA.

We were better off getting the Gorshkov monkey off our back and the russians would have gladly taken it back since they need more ships , it would have been win win for both and would have prevented Russian playing hard ball on it. It was an opportunity lost.

This deal has too much of political hang over plus the ex CNC is on record saying if you get a ship at this price any where he is ready to give a cheque , so its Money and Politics that is the deciding factor to continue with the deal. Plus too much of pride is at stake politically for both.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2011 17:41

There is a difference in having the "option" for extra systems (P-8s) and "buying"/ordering them before they have even entered service where their touted capabilities can be evaluated! You still miss the point that the aircraft still has not entered service with the USN.The key priority for the IN is the declining sub fleet,a decision which has entangled itself so much in babudom,despite several ex-admirals/analysts castigating the govt. for the same. It would be a blind man who would not acknowledge that pro-US deals are being completed in haste while others languish (No problem if the "horse fits the course",I've strongly backed the C-130Js and Apaches buy).This is the deal that MMS made in return for the N-deal.One must also see that these deals involve systems where there are few or no competition at all.It is so obvious.My only grievance at such speed in defence decision-making is why can't the same be done with other long-pending contracts/issues like the artillery,subs,etc.?

PS:For slow decision-making,the Gorshkov example is perfect.We took literally years,I think more than half a decade, to evaulate the ship and finally buy it.Remember that there was no other carrier available then for the IN and would we wouldn't we was the Q every year in naval mags.Yet we dilly-dallied allowing the vessel to deteriorate even further.I would've far preferred a buy of the Varyag,which was a true carrier instead of remodelling the cruiser-carrier Gorky.It would've been far easier to renovate and would've been able to carry the SU-33,the naval equivalent of the SU-30 which the IAF had ordered making it a lot easier to buy,operate and maintain.See how the Chinese have repaired the ship which is now afloat and engaged in sea trials.According to an Adm. some years ago involved in the evaluation ,when I asked him about the buy,the issue of which port would the Varyag be based at (none at that time capable of accomodating the ship) and the condition of her hull was the reason for her rejection.We could at least have bought her for scrap and studied the design,just as the PRC did with several other carriers over the years.Ironically,we now find that the Gorshkov.IAC-1 size is too small for our future needs!

I wonder how much it would cost today to buy a new Varyag class carrier from Russia as opposed to the Queen class RN carrier being built in Britain.There was some talk earlier that we were offered the second carrier which the RN may not build and now most unliklely to jointly operate with the French after the huge Euro spat! Both are about the same size,though the Q class carrier has some more interesting features,but will have to operate aircraft using cats.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Dec 2011 19:08

^^ Any second hand ship buy is a bad decision. Including Trenton, though that is supposed to be used only in a training role until our newer ships come online.

Firstly, the design is dated. 2. Spend money on, say, adding 50% new components. 3. Thereafter spend money on refurbishing remaining 50% with new components. So in the end one pays 100% for new components to an old design!

We've spent more money (despite incrementally over years) on Viraat than that would have cost to build our own in the 80's.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2011 20:15

Look,we are forgetting the massive battles the IN has had over decades to keep its naval Fleet Air Arm from being dumped because of intense efforts by the IAF! Whenever the question of a new carrier for the IN came along,it was deferred because of the overall cost factor.The IAF continued to assert that it could defend the Indian coastline and the fleet by land-based aircraft.The "lost decade" of the IN and Adm.Ramdas's statement "make do with less" or words equivalent,saw an entire decade without new ships orr subs being ordered.The IN has always been the "Cinderella" of the services getting the smallest share of the budget but innovatively actually doing far more in indigenisation with its share than the other two sister services! It is only in recent times with the energy resources rush worldwide and the massive expansion of the PLAN,threatening all of Asia that the security planners have wisely decided to enlarge and modernise the IN asap.Thus we now see a number of projects both indigenous and foreign construction,and one hopes more private yard orders on the order book,and the IN for th first time being used as an instrument of foreign policy in combating piracy in the IOR and in the "look east" diplomatic campaign which is maturing well in the ASEAN and also the Far East regions.

We owe it to Rajiv G who picked up the Viraat in the '80s .I remember an ACNS air remarking upon the excellent state that the carrier was in to his CNS shortly before it was due on its delivery voyage from the UK.So buying a second hand carrier is not always a bad thing,considering the fact that the Viraat has served us for so many decades and will do so for another 10+ years! Additionally,the costs that we have incurred in maintaining and modernising the carrier has been a pittance when compared with foreign yards.The admiral's statement about the Gorshkov cost too is also relevant and correct, (leave aside the interminal delay,we all know the reasons)for where will one buy today a similar carrier at the full cost of what we are paying,and also for the carrier aircraft ,MIG-29Ks whose cost should be compared with that of other naval carrier strike fighters.

In hindsight,we did make some stupid decisions about the Gorshkov,delaying the decision for years,and then not evaluating the actual cost of redesigning it,refitting it ,and the project management of the same.With the lessons learnt from this experience,it should not be repeated with the building of IAC-1 ,being built from scratch,by ourselves,and at home.Let us see how long this adventure is going to take ,as it will impinge upon the arrival of the next (larger) carrier meant to replace the Viraat by 2020.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 11 Dec 2011 20:38

Surya wrote:
It was our former CNS who was openly against the FMS route as it gave the seller an unequal advantage when determining the pricing and nuances of the deal.Thus Kartik and co.,I'm in good company!
There is a couple ex CNS who are peaceniks and WKK types - whats your point?? Want to be in the same company??

Er, why is FMS bad with US, but good with Russia? Thats what I would like to know?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Dec 2011 21:10

There is a difference in having the "option" for extra systems (P-8s) and "buying"/ordering them before they have even entered service where their touted capabilities can be evaluated! You still miss the point that the aircraft still has not entered service with the USN.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Dec 2011 21:51

Philip wrote:Look,we are forgetting the massive battles the IN has had over decades to keep its naval Fleet Air Arm from being dumped because of intense efforts by the IAF! Whenever the question of a new carrier for the IN came along,it was deferred because of the overall cost factor.The IAF continued to assert that it could defend the Indian coastline and the fleet by land-based aircraft.

Sirjee,

Very little of this is in the public domain.

It might have to wait for a suitable BR meet with lots of liquid social lubrication involved.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 12 Dec 2011 02:09

Philip wrote:Kartik,there were only two jet-engined ASW LRMP aircraft available,the Airbus and Boeing.It was competition,but if memory serves me correctly,some of it was done on simulators as the P-8 had yet to fly.Look,everyone knows that MMS made promises to get his N-deal and that was a list of defence weaponry which the US wanted to selll to us.It is why US wares are being decided upon while other contests are being run through the mill.The deepest disappointment was losing out in the MMRCA stakes,where,one has to congratulate the IAF and AKA for standign firm.The US-Paki military relationship was too close for comfort and the 20+ martyrs had yet met their 72 houris in firaus!

The latest "F" mag has a report on the progress made on the Vik,soon to start sea trials,and the huge diifficulties and extra work that ha gone into the carrier,because in replacing old machinery and wiring,they found even more tasks to be done.F also heard rumours that "4" more carriers are on the anvil/planned?

The Akula's arrival by March 2012,a few more months late is for reasons uknown and whatever they may be,will be kept a closely held secret.MY best guess is that the sub is already "flexing her muscles" where it best serves her interests,taking advantage of the delivery run from Russia.After all, a N-sub can stay at sea a long,long,time.

Better speak for yourself or people who have authorized you to speak for them. Everyone is too large a number for you or pretty much anyone.

You seems to claim MMS makes promises and decides all the defense deals......you must think of all of the head of states as your favorite macho mards like Putin, Ahmadinejad, Mushy, Chavez et al? FYI, Indian PMs don't have that kind of powers especially if they are mere "constable" "mouse" "spineless" controlled by "Antonia" etc.

You should realize how much of hardware is being bought from where before making baseless claims that "everyone" knows.

Bulk of indian armed forces's hardware is contracted with Russia and most of the rest is contracted from EU/israel. A list for you to consider

None of the IAF's 39 to 42 fighter Squadrons are going to be American. Most of them are contracted from Russia, when they were/are unproven paper products without any tendering or having entered into Russian services (MKI and FGFA). Most of the RADARs, tankers AWAC, Trainers (Hawak, Pilatus) SAMs (Brak, LR-SAM, MR-SAM, Igla), AAMs, UAVs, Helicoptors etc are/will also be from Ru/Is/EU.

None of the major surface or underwater ships for IN are contracted from America, neither are there any plans of inducting any US ships in the future. Ru is supplying/supplied (full or in part without much/any competition) all of the Frigates, Destroyers, Carriers, Carrier air assets, Helicopters, tankers, LST with some crumbs to EU/Is. MMS got Nuclear deal for Trenton, not bad i guess

IA is getting 1600 T-90s, Smearch, 150 Mi-17s, xyz BMP-2s, A-50s, thousands of Brahmos, Tatras, AAR tankers, AWACs, SAMS, ATGM, helis, Assualt rifles, artillery rounds from Ru and EU/Is

Any time Ru products are put to tendering they have lost spectacularly to their competitors from EU/Is/US. Most contracts are way behind schedule, over budget, below performance and promised technology was not delivered shared.

16 Mig 29s have not been delivered even after 7 years of contract signing albite we bought 29 more, neither have Gorshy anywhere close, Akula is coming for last 10 years, Kudamkulan started in 1989 and before they could finish one reactor (22 years and x time cost) they have orders for 6, MMS got those orders for Ru by doing a deal with US while US has received 0 orders so far. First batch of Kirvaks was behind schedule and underperformed and next batch is going through the same routine. In 16 years of MKI contract hardly 140 (9/ year) has been delivered so far. 10 years after T-90 we are told no ToT although we paid and IA is still validating if it works before signing indent with local manufacturer.

Most BRFites, politicians and armed forces still swear by Ru friendship, ignore arming of China directly and Pakistan indirectly and vote with them in UN for scum of the earth nations led by macho-turds. Somehow that is not becoming a vassal, lap-dog or doing dirty deeds of (past) super power but buy 2 dozen Apachis and you are all that plus 10X more. Everyone knows

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 12 Dec 2011 03:10

Katare wrote:
Philip wrote:Kartik,there were only two jet-engined ASW LRMP aircraft available,the Airbus and Boeing.It was competition,but if memory serves me correctly,some of it was done on simulators as the P-8 had yet to fly.Look,everyone knows that MMS made promises to get his N-deal and that was a list of defence weaponry which the US wanted to selll to us.It is why US wares are being decided upon while other contests are being run through the mill.The deepest disappointment was losing out in the MMRCA stakes,where,one has to congratulate the IAF and AKA for standign firm.The US-Paki military relationship was too close for comfort and the 20+ martyrs had yet met their 72 houris in firaus!

The latest "F" mag has a report on the progress made on the Vik,soon to start sea trials,and the huge diifficulties and extra work that ha gone into the carrier,because in replacing old machinery and wiring,they found even more tasks to be done.F also heard rumours that "4" more carriers are on the anvil/planned?

The Akula's arrival by March 2012,a few more months late is for reasons uknown and whatever they may be,will be kept a closely held secret.MY best guess is that the sub is already "flexing her muscles" where it best serves her interests,taking advantage of the delivery run from Russia.After all, a N-sub can stay at sea a long,long,time.
Better speak for yourself or people who have authorized you to speak for them. Everyone is too large a number for you or pretty much anyone.

You seems to claim MMS makes promises and decides all the defense deals......you must think of all of the head of states as your favorite macho mards like Putin, Ahmadinejad, Mushy, Chavez et al? FYI, Indian PMs don't have that kind of powers especially if they are mere "constable" "mouse" "spineless" controlled by "Antonia" etc.

You should realize how much of hardware is being bought from where before making baseless claims that "everyone" knows.

Bulk of indian armed forces's hardware is contracted with Russia and most of the rest is contracted from EU/israel. A list for you to consider

None of the IAF's 39 to 42 fighter Squadrons are going to be American. Most of them are contracted from Russia, when they were/are unproven paper products without any tendering or having entered into Russian services (MKI and FGFA). Most of the RADARs, tankers AWAC, Trainers (Hawak, Pilatus) SAMs (Brak, LR-SAM, MR-SAM, Igla), AAMs, UAVs, Helicoptors etc are/will also be from Ru/Is/EU.

None of the major surface or underwater ships for IN are contracted from America, neither are there any plans of inducting any US ships in the future. Ru is supplying/supplied (full or in part without much/any competition) all of the Frigates, Destroyers, Carriers, Carrier air assets, Helicopters, tankers, LST with some crumbs to EU/Is. MMS got Nuclear deal for Trenton, not bad i guess

IA is getting 1600 T-90s, Smearch, 150 Mi-17s, xyz BMP-2s, A-50s, thousands of Brahmos, Tatras, AAR tankers, AWACs, SAMS, ATGM, helis, Assualt rifles, artillery rounds from Ru and EU/Is

Any time Ru products are put to tendering they have lost spectacularly to their competitors from EU/Is/US. Most contracts are way behind schedule, over budget, below performance and promised technology was not delivered shared.

16 Mig 29s have not been delivered even after 7 years of contract signing albite we bought 29 more, neither have Gorshy anywhere close, Akula is coming for last 10 years, Kudamkulan started in 1989 and before they could finish one reactor (22 years and x time cost) they have orders for 6, MMS got those orders for Ru by doing a deal with US while US has received 0 orders so far. First batch of Kirvaks was behind schedule and underperformed and next batch is going through the same routine. In 16 years of MKI contract hardly 140 (9/ year) has been delivered so far. 10 years after T-90 we are told no ToT although we paid and IA is still validating if it works before signing indent with local manufacturer.

Most BRFites, politicians and armed forces still swear by Ru friendship, ignore arming of China directly and Pakistan indirectly and vote with them in UN for scum of the earth nations led by macho-turds. Somehow that is not becoming a vassal, lap-dog or doing dirty deeds of (past) super power but buy 2 dozen Apachis and you are all that plus 10X more. Everyone knows

In my years on BR no one has come close to stating the obvious facts as eloquently as Katare above...hats off...couldn't have said it any better...haven't read it said any better.