Victor wrote:Arre bhai, agreed but what are we going to do about it if they don't want to give it to us? That is what we are trying to figure out no?
We walk. To Eurofighter. And if not EF, then the Boeing team. Point is this deal is important to Dassault & if they want to mess up something like this, its their choice to make. We should stick to our guns and not cede an inch. Please remember Dassault does this sort of game a lot. In the LCA program, they gave us half baked info on the FBW & told the ADA team, that it didnt matter what ADA thought as Delhi would swing them the deal (Source: SR Valluri in Vayu, reminiscing about the LCA). That FBW deal ultimately went to the US (Germany lost out because of inexperience). Point is we do have a good reason to play hard ball.
disagree. No matter how we try to paint it, LCA/Kaveri non-appearance is the main reason for MMRCA to plug in the gaps left by MiG-21s that are gasping on their last few legs. It does us no good to obfuscate and try and hide/rationalize this gaping failure. A working LCA would free up the Sukhois to take on the heavies and do DPSA.
These are your opinions and adjectives (obfuscation/hide/rationalize etc) but the facts are different. The IAF has been asking for the MMRCA since the mid-80s. The Standing Committee of Defence reports on what the IAF classes its fighters as - light, medium and heavy. As a result of which IAF plans are for around 270 Su-30 MKIs, roughly equal number of mediums (126 Rafales, with 100 Jaguars and around 100 Mirages/MiG-29 upgrades) with the rest made up of Light combat aircraft (40 MK-1, 83-124 MK2). Like it or not, the IAF has moved to a heavier, longer ranged force. They lack numbers and need larger numbers of more powerful platforms.
If you look at the LCA program, the hard facts speak for themselves. Radius of the LCA class of fighter is mentioned in the 300-400 km range, w/o tanks/IFR. In contrast, the Sukhoi achieves 1500 km. The Rafale thanks to its design, approaches the Sukhoi. That in fact is its USP.
Now do some basic calculations with the number of pylons and supporting assets (check out the number of IFR we have for instance) and it becomes rapidly evident that light fighters can no longer provide the bulk of the fleet along with Sukhois.
Even if the LCA were to arrive, the IAF would STILL ask for a medium fighter with greater performance (range/payload) than the LCA, since the MiG-21 class fighter is designed to operate within limited ranges & is at risk when asked to divert from FOB, has to loiter for extended periods (a key requirement when taking out missile carriers or in extended SEAD missions, both of which are key requirements when operating against an adversary like the PLAAF).
Forgotten Kargil already have we? If France had not given us clearance (and probably a lot more) to fit Israeli and Russian laser-guided bombs to the Mirage 2k, we would not have been able to dislodge the pakis, at least not without terrible further losses. Our Mig's were totally ineffective.
Who says the French gave us clearance and we were beholden to them? Don't go by mass media rubbish. No Russian LGBs were fitted to the Mirage 2K and nor were any Israeli LGBs. The LGBs - all of 8/9 - used by the Mirage 2000 were Paveways, hand modified by IAF armorers to fit onto the Mirage 2000, rapidly qualified in India and with Israeli Litening pods integrated on fast track basis. The bombs used at Muntho Dhalo were Spanish 250 kg bombs originally acquired for the Ajeet. And FYI, the Mirages, propaganda apart, pulled only a fraction of the missions the MiGs did. It was a MiG-25 pilot who flew rock steady and under the Stinger envelope to get the high resolution pics. It were MiG-29s which pulled CAPs. MiG-23 flew EW missions. MiG-27 and MiG-21s flew high risk rocket attack profiles, safeguarding their EO PGMs for an all out war. To judge by your posts, the Mirage 2000s single handedly won us the Kargil war.
And for all the air action, it was the tip of the spear, namely our infantry, backed by huge amounts of artillery, that actually won us Kargil. Lets not overplay the French angle, it was a feel good positive psy-ops to state the IAF had sophisticated aircraft in its inventory, but it only goes so far.
Also, the French were the only westerners to support us after the Shakti tests
Did they do us a favor? Or were they concerned about losing access to a future market?
and they don't have any problems with our Mirages and Rafales going nuclear.
Again, a USP for them to hard sell their products. Otherwise, why shouldnt we buy Russian? They'd be the only ones with no issues.
However, my point is that we show ourselves in poor light if we bad mouth others while giving a clean chit to the real culprits--ourselves.
Sorry, but why this self flagellation? We are not the only culprits here. The west (including the French) has been part and parcel of putting India specific embargos, happily doing everything and anything to deny India the tech it requires and then seeking to take our money to sell us 2nd Gen hand me downs. France keeps RDY equipped Mirage 2000s and sells us RDM equipped Mirage 2000-Hs. Do you think this requires some sort of gratefulness on our part? Or an acknowledgement that the French are hard nosed businessmen and need to be treated as such?
Again, its one thing to foam at the mouth and smoke from the ears but what can we actually do about it?
Who exactly is foaming at the mouth here? These are adjectives you are employing, and for no reason that I can see. The rest of us are merely noting that the French are trying to as usual revise a done deal to their benefit, and we should do what it takes to make sure our interests are served. Nothing particularly against France, but at the same time, no particular love for them either.
If we are going to be angry, I believe we should be angry at ourselves for allowing this condition to exist in the first place. Just like we should blame ourselves for being invaded and subjugated by all manner of thieves and sub-humans over the centuries.
That falls well in line with the belief that only if we were perfect, things would be ok. However, even if we were the toughest, most self aware breed of people, these things would continue to happen. No empire lasts forever and our ancient civilization fell when it became too focused on philosophy as versus practicality. But we survived. And hopefully as the Indian population becomes more educated, rises on Maslows hierarchy, it too will expect more of its leaders, and demand more. But that does not mean we excuse the crooks who make use of our weakness, however self inflicted it may be and on top of it, seek to influence that weakness to continue. There really are no ifs and buts here. If one is weak and unable to defend oneself, that does not really excuse the neighbourhood thugs and bullies for being what they are and taking advantage of the weak either right? Both situations exist hand in glove. We can improve, but we need to realize we are dealing with hypocrites.
Take the United States for instance as an example of arguably the best there is. Rule of law, yes. Politicians subservient to the public yes. Yet, an out of control MIC, massive exodus of money thanks to a broken financial system, near non functional healthcare system in some areas, worthless expeditionary wars wasting money and crippling otherwise healthy American citizens. This, from a nation, that has had enough time to get things right and started from a higher baseline. My point is there is a lot that is wrong in India, but its by no means unique to our Indian genome, though understandably to those of us (like you and I) the current situation is frustrating.
Have we really done everything we can to make sure we can make a jet engine and fighter after 70 years of independence? I think not. We still have people bellying up to protect the known national disasters that are HAL/GTRE and painting any attempt to break their monopoly as somehow anti-national "macaulayism" whatever that is.
The point is that simply, to the GOI neither HAL or GTRE were necessary as you and I deem them to be. Tavleen Singh makes an important point in Durbar that the Congress never really invested in cities, because the votes were from rural areas. Similarly, there was no gain in making a proper MIC fully funded and autonomous.
In resource constrained states - like India was - the only time a MIC thrives is if the state is militaristic. Thats China, thats ex South Africa (Apartheid days), thats Israel, thats NoKo. They anticipate an existential crisis and respond accordingly. In India, we have never had that mindset. Also, in what way is having a state owned monopoloy, or duopoly a drag on weapons development. Funding and prioritization are what are required. The Soviet Union is a perfect example.
Anyways, the issue today, about creating competitors to HAL/GTRE is about making the right competitors. Merely choosing a RIL, and having them propped up, is the wrong way to go. Its just making a new cartel, and unlike HAL, RIL will be much more adept at playing the my way or the highway game. Please take a look at this satirical article to understand the common perception in India:
http://www.fakingnews.com/2012/10/iim-s ... -reliance/
Excuse me? We deserve only what we can make ourselves with our own smarts and our own resources. The seller can and will dictate the rest or tell us to take a hike, which still could happen here. It's up to us to take it or leave it but we certainly are in no position to force the issue.
Why are we in no position to force the issue? What exactly is with your sympathy for these guys who agree to sell stuff and then try to negotiate their own way out of it? Do you seriously think the Israelis developed their industry on entirely their own smarts or the Russians developed their first jet engine through their own genius? We have every right to get every bit of technology that we pay for. If the seller can and will dictate the rest, we will find a new seller. Thats our prerogative. To prevent this, cartels like MTCR were formed, to prevent business from giving away tech for the profit motive, to artificially lock in several states into 2nd tier status, while the haves played/shared tech with each other. Using our money, we should break this, and do whatever it takes to get our moneys worth.
In case you didn't know, Reliance is a 100% Indian company, 100% subject to Indian laws and with 100% Indian interests. It has built the world's largest petroleum refinery in less than 3 years which is running at almost 100% utilization with minimal downtime. This is a super-hightech petroleum refinery which is arguably far more complex and demanding to run than an aircraft production line.
Missing the point. The issue is not of how great Reliance is in setting up a line. The issue is of what happens to all the tech Reliance acquired to set up the line and how it is leveraged and whether the Reliance - D JV is firmly in Reliance control. Currently HAL has multiple complexes working for Sukhoi, ALH, LCA, Hawk & have multiple COE for aggregates and avionics. As a result of which they do a lot of work for DRDO/ISRO and many other programs. Its their choice to make, driven by GOI priorities. That is not something which can be said necessarily of a program driven by a foreign OEM which seeks to protect its own interests despite agreeing to a deal, where TOT was part and parcel of the deal. And then works it with a company with zero experience in setting up an aircraft line.
Once you do something like this, little else needs to be said and this could be one reason why Dassault chose them as a partner.
Again, you are missing the point here.. If engineering competence was the yardstick, then both the TATAs and L&T rank above RIL in terms of defence related engineering capabilities. You might also want to consider whom they work for, and as a result of which they'd be considered a risk as much as HAL is.
Feel free to expect such a company to play second fiddle to Dassault but I expect it to manhandle Dassault if needed and squeeze every single drop of contracted ToT a hundred times more forcefully than HAL can even dream of, then absorb it and put it to use on 100% Indian fighter planes in the future a hundred times more quickly and efficiently than HAL.
That's speculation at this point, given RIL has yet to make a single airframe let alone a Rafale.
It is in a different class altogether. I would consider Reliance to be a far more valuable Indian asset than the deadbeat HAL any day and all sensible Indians should do so too. If Indians hold HAL up as the holy grail for Indian aerospace, we are done for, plain and simple.
And here, you are interjecting your opinions as facts. "Deadbeat HAL", "far more valuable Indian asset" etc. Sorry, but against these sort of subjective arguments, one really cant debate seriously as its just opinions we get down to.
Correct and the best way to do this is to funnel these offsets to Indian companies that have a demonstrated track record of excellence in R&D and execution, not a demonstrated track record of non-performance, under-performance and shoddiness. What am I missing?
What you are missing is that most Indian companies which have received offset contracts are actually private sector, and not all of them have a demonstrated record of excellence in R&D and execution either, since the entire purpose of offsets is to grow an aerospace sector, so some one will start from a limited base. Not parcel out contracts to large industrial houses which are often risk averse.
You forgot to mention the smell of sh!t and urine everywhere. This is an issue that should cause every Indian to question WTF are we doing wrong. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of insecure "Indians" pretending to be deshbhakts doing the exact opposite. Jai Ho.
Educated Indians do question what is wrong, but both cognitive bias (the ruling party has long sold the idea that it is uber liberal which appeals to the people like us demographic and hence the only choice there is - see the visceral reaction of some of our super educated elite on this board to both the NDA/Opposition and the regional parties) and the caste obsession of other portions of India (of which many people who are locked into a lower economic strata seek comfort with their immediate demographic groups) has meant the politics of patronage take precedence over the politics of development.
