Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

[Karan M]

If it is to be believed.Certainly,if Sukhoi is not keeping to agreements,then invoke penalty clauses,whatever,that is if the deal was negotiated by our wonderful MOD properly.
I do remember that in the case of the Shtil problems with the first Talwar/s,well publicised,which led to a delay in commissioning the warship,a penalty was imposed and was adjusted (?) in the price of the second lot. The fact remains that a penalty was imposed. Now what about the CAG report on the failure of the IN's Derby AAMs on the Sea Harriers which failed to achieve promised range,etc.? What about Barak 8's delays? The AW scam,Tatra scam,etc.? Hawk delays? Scorpene delays and poor negotiations of that deal which has cost us a few billions extra?
And most of all the massive failure by our very own DPSU's to perform on almost every weapon system barring the strategic missiles,on performance,massive delays in years,huge cost overruns and inadequate infrastructural support for indigenous systems.The IN's woes recently have some of the blame to be laid at the door of poor quality of refits and maintenance by our own dockyards.

The hard fact is that almost firang and desi manufacturers have failed from time to time. To resolve these issues there must be a level playing field in dealing with such delays. Just look at the absurdity of the AW VVIP helo scam. The bank "guarantees" for almost $400M are not being returned to us despite the corruption in AW exposed and prosecuted by Italy!! Who deserves to take the rap? If not for our "Roman" empress,diplomatic relations with Italy would've been suspended by now,or Italian assets in India seized. My gut feeling is that this is in response to our prevarication about the case of the Italian marines."The mills of Indian courts....."

Nice FUD.

What does Sukhois lack of desire to fix the issues and holding out for money (at cost of Indian preparedness) have to do with DPSUs, AW and so forth?

Whilst comparing in development programs with a ready product not being supported thanks to the manufacturers greed.

Seriously, one line on the Russians, that too grudgingly, 100 on the dastardly Indians, and everyone else.

Instead of posting these long rambling pro-Russia pieces, no matter what they do, why don't you just manage with this?



Saves us the trouble of getting the same message with all the bile against Indians mixed in.

[Karan M]

Here we go again.

http://idrw.org/?p=34927#more-34927

Maybe a reason why we need a non Russian aircraft.

Agreed. The Rafale will hedge our bets against Sukhoi's arm twisting. At the end of the day, such stupid delays by Russian firms do more to harm their reputation than 100 articles or business delegations from their rivals.

The code for the displays is with Russkaya Avionika, they own the overall integration, and the deal with Sukhoi clearly states that even if price disputes occur, maintenance goes on unimpeded even as these issues are resolved.

Yet, these guys either a) ignore the matter or b) play such games.

And its high time, the IAF woke up and started ordering more LCAs and asking for the AMCA program to be sped up. Several of these Sukhoi squadrons are being deployed to tac AFB and with roles (against Pak) which can be fulfilled by shorter ranged, smaller aircraft as well.

At least, by ordering more LCAs we have a ready pool of available aircraft locally, when these games are played by external suppliers. Even if the average LCA is not as powerful as a Sukhoi or a Rafale, its still firmly Jaguar/Bison/Mirage 2000 class and hence potent vs the PLAAF/PAF.

As long as we remain dependent on external suppliers, these people, Russians or others, will continue to gyp us off. One can see the arrogant condescension amongst Russians and many other folks who think they are some gift to India and Indians and they are doing us some favor when we purchase stuff from them.

Just take a look at the near racist diatribes from many Russians when they couldn't stomach the fact the Arjun beat the T-90 in IA trials.

When it comes to Russia, political reliability, TOT is all very well, but these delays in providing support are silly.

Last time around, they couldn't even supply tires & guess what, India went and had MRF make them.

I bet, it is this very reason that the Russians can't even spare resources (or wont) on the display, that the IAF is looking to completely indigenize the display system in the Super-30 upgrade.

http://aeroindiaseminar.in/index.php/te ... ?value=108

At the end of the day, I hope all these incidents serve as a wake up call to the IAF. For far too long, they (and the IA) have looked abroad for everything, and now they should start putting things in place to get out of it asap.

[Philip]

If you remember my posts for aeons,I've been advocating raising the LCA acquisition/production from 200 to 300.,because we need a few hundred aircraft to first replace MIG-21s and other legacy aircraft on their last legs.However,it's all very well advocating desi products but what about timely delivery? At a production rate of just 8 /yr,gradually increasing to 12+,its going to take 2 decades before we build over 200 LCAs,that APJAK stated in 2003 would be built by 2010!.AMCA is going to take us at least 15 yrs to production,not available now.The problem is that until we get our house in order,desi products comes in late and with patchy performance.Just look at the BT and IJT issues.There was another media report today about the trainer shortage,recommending an urgent decision to buy/assemble more PCs and dump the HAL BT ,and the acute xrisis with the Kirans being given life extensions to the death since the IJT was in trouble.We are in a stage of transition and until and unless accountability is enforced in the DPSUs and pvt. industry brought in in strength,there will be no change in us having to import and suffer the associated problems,trying to alleviate it as far as possible by setting up local support entities with the help of the OEMs.

Unfortunately,it has been proven that the current dispensation under Scamthnoy,only spoke about promoting indigenisation,but never walked the talk.His catastrophic indecision barring US imports has depleted the services,whose legacy weapon systems are being held together with string and tape,and in the final analysis dome b*gger all for indigenisation.
We have the dubious reputation (SIPRI) of being the world's largest importer of arms today.No one ,least of all myself,wants us to be dependent upon foreign wares whether they be from the east or west,but to maintain combat capability it is inevitable that we import,establish JVs,etc. for weapon systems that we cannot either design and develop ourselves or perish.
Why are we then importing P-8Is,C-17s,C-130Js,Chinooks,Apaches,etc., from the US? They want to sell us as much of their wares as possible,making us dependent upon their specialities! So we lurch from dependence upon Russia to dependence upon the US! At least with the Russian wares,they are being built/assembles in India,though we are told that our local built Sukhois cost us more than a direct import.Had we been able to develop the Kaveri in tome ,there would've been no need for the GE powerplants for LCAs MK-1 and 2. One can argue that with our LCH flying,why do we need Apaches-same argument made out by some for ditching the Rafale and buying more LCAs,but are they available right now when we need them?

Of course the Rafale will "hedge our bets against Sukhoi" ,and beggar ourselves in the process! A swift way to disaster if our pockets are empty.

[Karan M]

You don't get it at all, do you sir? It is irrelevant if India walks around with holes in its clothes, it still does not mean another person can walk upto you, take your money, promise better stuff and behave like a jerk. And then say, aha, you had a hole in your shirt, so what if the one I gave has one too!!

The entire reason India purchases from abroad is using the same bunch of excuses you trot out, xyz locally is not good enough. Using that excuse local production has been effectively stifled, whilst assembling other peoples kits is license production.

Each time you bring in these excuses for Russian (mis)behaviour, you are giving them a free pass. Ah, look they are bad, so are we. Or so is this. Or that.

That doesn't excuse how badly they botch up contracts.

And its ironic you are worried about India beggaring itself with Rafales, when the money paid for Russian gear doesn't result in optimal outcomes! The Sukhoi is a rare case of a successful program apart from the Brahmos, and logically, Sukhoi should have gone to extreme lengths to keep it so. But see the nonchalance on their side.

Time and again, examples are presented of Russian orgs messing up implementations either out of incompetence, or greed. And your statements only seek to excuse them. Wherein if it had been anyone else, you would have spewed fire and brimstone.

Apply consistency.

At the end of the day, the very people you mock and disparage, in the DPSUs etc will ultimately compensate for lack of Russian product support by developing local alternatives.

[Viv S]

Guys,I would argue for M-2000s with upgrades,but look at the colossal cost of the M-2000 upgrades.$2.5B for just 40+ in comparison to just around $1B for 60+ MIG-29ss,which the IAF found (AM Masand in Vayu) superior to the M-2000 in mano-a mano combat! This works out to 3 times the price for just one M-2000 upgrade.It would make far more sense to buy old/new MIG-20s for a song and get them upgraded to IAF std.

The Qatari, Emirati and bulk of the Hellenic Mirage fleets either consist of Dash 5 version or have been upgraded to Dash 5 standards. No upgrades required aside from basic customization; datalinks, IFF and possibly Litening pod integration.

There is no point in buying western eqpt. just for the sake of doing so. We won the '71 war using mostly Soviet eqpt. which served us well. The problem is the after sales support of spares and maintenance. Things are far better in Russia today and pvt. industry should be roped in for MRO tasks. Even if the IAF come on bended knees for a Rafale buy,we could perhaps afford only 2 sqds. for the N-delivery task )costing at least $3B),buying more MIG-29s -80-120,which would also cost about $3.5B to $5B. For around $8.5B we would thus get 160 aircraft,both western and Russian.

The Tejas isn't a western aircraft. It already delivers considerably better value-for-money than the MiG-29, and with the Mk2, will be an indisputably superior fighter head-to-head.

[Philip]

Please apply the same yardsticks to your analysis.I've said,if any manufacturer welshes,penalise him/them.Whose fault is it if it is not being applied? What about the shortcomings in Israeli weaponry,Hawk contracts,Scorpene subs? Only the Russians have "botched up contracts"? What about your "free pass" too to our splendid DPSUs,whose performance has come in for severe criticism from the services for decades ? It appears that you don't get it,Apply consistency!

Viv,I mentioned this earlier too.Set up a second manufacturing line for the LCA,transfer some of HAL's less important work to the IAF depots and create the required infrastructure,that is if the MOD/HAL/IAF are serious.

[Viv S]

Please apply the same yardsticks to your analysis.I've said,if any manufacturer welshes,penalise him/them.Whose fault is it if it is not being applied? What about the shortcomings in Israeli weaponry,Hawk contracts,Scorpene subs? Only the Russians have "botched up contracts"? What about your "free pass" too to our splendid DPSUs,whose performance has come in for severe criticism from the services for decades ? It appears that you don't get it,Apply consistency!

Unlike western OEMs, the Russians have displayed a tendency to blatantly ignore the terms of a contract.

When they can hike the asking price for a ship from $800 million to $3.2 billion, just what exactly is the point of a $115 million penalty clause? Not that they were willing to pay the penalty either -

President of the Unified Shipbuilding Corporation Andrei Dyachkov said in late October that Russia would hand over the Vikramaditya to India by the end of October 2013. Russia had earlier refused to pay India an estimated $115 million in compensation for the delay of delivery. (link)

Viv,I mentioned this earlier too.Set up a second manufacturing line for the LCA,transfer some of HAL's less important work to the IAF depots and create the required infrastructure,that is if the MOD/HAL/IAF are serious.

Where does that leave your MiG-29/35 acquisition proposal?

[Philip]

Viv,the Gorshkov/VikA modernisation was a massive botched up effort ,no doubt here,with both sides underestimating the amount of work involved and costs.We also have to share part of the responsibility as we took 7 years in finalising the deal and after much inspection,etc. The renovations involved a lot of removal,rebuilding and installation of new eqpt. which kept on increasing as old wiring etc. was found beyond repair and use.The boiler cladding issue was one of our making,as it was our specs that failed.In retrospect we have to see what the eventual cost has been and compare that cost with that of a brand new carrier of similar size. We would not have got a new western carrier for the price we've ultimately paid and our own IAC-1 's costs have also been steadily rising.The supply of MIG-29Ks has gone smoothly,no problem there though.

However,compare the above deal with that of the Talwars.That has been very successful as well as that of the original delivery of the 10 Kilos,which are now being operated beyond their lifespan with patchy maintenance at our yards,failure to find replacements in time,etc. The Scorpene deal has also been plagued with massive cost overruns,time delays which prompted the IN to ay that "by the time the subs arrived they would be obsolete"! I mentioned other deals involving western manufacturers also plagued by delays,etc. Ultimately,the buck stops with the MOD and the DM. We all know who is responsible for the fiascos that have hurt the armed forces severely. The mismanagement of the MOD and dereliction of duty by Scamthony has to be set right by the new dispensation on a war footing,if not,we may have another war thrust upon us.

Extra LCAs,where does it leave the MIG-29/35s? The IAF's intended sqd. strength to meet future challenges is stated to be over 40,almost 850-900 aircraft.The 300 LCAs will only replace the MIG-21s and 21-Bisons which are again being extended in service to fly beyond 2020.There is a shortfall of over 100 aircraft to be procured over and above replacing MIG-27s,Jaguars,etc.,which will be required by 2020,long before 2030 when LCAs will still be in production if there is just one plant manufacturing them.Even if we acquire the 120 MMRCAs,if the Rafale deal is signed will again take 6-7 years,and we will still be short in numbers.That's why a cost-effective interim solution would be buying around 120 MIG-29/35s at around $40M /unit,approx. half the price of a Rafale, and another 40 Rafales,SU-34s whatever for the N-strike role.A second line of production for LCAs would halve the time required for delivery,plus also make use of the IAF's infrastructure to manufacture less complex aircraft like BTs,transports,etc. Everything would be in-house production making max. use of our infrastructure and promote indigenous manufacturing.It still is patently obvious that the LCA as of now flies with a firang engine,radar,most of its weaponry,etc. With a large guaranteed production order of about 300,it would be attractive for pvt. industry to provide the chain of components required replacing firang ones. Having two production lines would also benefit the production of the AMCA once that bird is fully developed,side-by-side production along with LCA MK-2/3 which will be tapering off as the last tranches are being delivered.

[nrshah]

Phillip,
I am a taxpayer of the country. Also, I am staunch Russia supporter as against US. however, the recent issues with Russian wares and this attitude is not doing any good. perhaps it also answers your question on why such haste in closing the deals with US/Europe.

BTW, I am all for Rafale even if it means being begger. Being begger is better than relying on this Sukhoi who you never know will stop displaying the details in the event of war. What should i do sitting on cash when my forces are dying at the hands of enemy because sukhoi is incompetent to correct even display issues. Guess what they think they think they are capable of 5th gen aircraft.

And penalties, that is crap. Aircrafts are purchased to defend the nation and not to earn money out of it in form of penalty

[Philip]

I'm posting this 3 yr/. old media report on the CAG's finding,if only to illustrate how the MOD has been lethargic in a genuine push for true indigenisation. More recent reports say that still lip service is being paid to this goal.What we term indigenous weapon systems actually have huge component and financial firang %ages.How much progress has been made after this CAG finding will have to wait for its next one.

Indigenous? Dhruv advanced light helicopters are '90% foreign'
Rajat Pandit,TNN | Aug 6, 2010,

NEW DELHI: After 34 years of development, the foreign component in the "indigenous" Arjun main-battle tank still hovers around 50%. Similar is the case with the still under-development Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, which will even in the future fly on imported engines.

And now, it has come to light that another so-called major indigenous defence project, the twin-engine Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH), whose design and development began way back in 1984, is still around 90% foreign.

With the defence ministry floundering to lay the foundations for a robust military-industrial base or cutting-edge defence R&D by involving the private sector in a big way, India will continue to import huge quantities of armaments and military sub-systems for a long, long time to come.

"As against the envisaged indigenisation level of 50% (by 2008), 90% of the value of material used in each ALH is still imported from foreign suppliers," says the latest CAG report, tabled in Parliament on Thursday.

"Even though ALH has been in production for 10 years, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has not been able to identify alternative indigenous suppliers," said CAG, which conducted a "performance audit" on the ALH project being run by the defence PSU.

Technical glitches and crashes have also continued to dog the ALH project, which has a sanctioned cost of Rs 2,103 crore till now, putting paid to much-touted ambitious plans to sell the 5.5-tonne helicopter to other countries.

"HAL could not penetrate the international market in the absence of international certification despite showcasing ALH in foreign airshows since 2003 (at a cost of Rs 59 crore). It could not also successfully execute the orders received from the civil market," said CAG.

Even the Indian armed forces, which have inducted around 80 ALHs till now, are not too happy. There has been a huge delay in de-induction of the old Cheetah and Chetak helicopter fleets, adversely affecting operations in high-altitude areas in forward locations.

"The technical requirements finalised in 1979 by Army and IAF have not been fully achieved. The ALH has been found unsuitable for the intended multi-role requirements due to excess weight and limited engine power," said CAG.

The 40 ALHs, inducted by Army under a Rs 1,747 crore contract in March 2006, for instance, cannot fly over 5,000-metre altitude, even though the force had wanted them to have the capability to fly over 6,500 metre. Nevertheless, another Rs 9,490 crore contract for another 105 Dhruvs was inked with HAL in December 2007.

Moreover, the development of a new higher-powered engine Shakti for ALH, in collaboration with foreign company Turbomecca, as well as the helicopter's "weapon system integration version" have both been long delayed.

Here is an IDSA monograph on the same issue. Please read it for a better understanding of our defence production policies ,indigenous efforts,progress,etc.
http://www.idsa.in/system/files/monograph21.pdf
Some Excpts:
Time and cost overruns of CCS projects:
LCA est. 4 yr. delay in Ph-2,costs from 3300+ cr. to 5777cr.
NLCA 4 yr. delay,costs from approx. 950cr. to 1714 cr.
Kaveri,13 yr. delay still being extended,cost from 383cr to 2839cr.
AEWC aircraft.3yr delay,costs from 1800cr to2157cr
LR SAM 4 yr. delay 2600+cr. est.on revised costs as yet.

This shows that there has in general been no dearth of funds available,as the cost overruns have been huge.The management of projects seem to have little accountability and lack of true concern by the govt. at the helm.

[member_22539]

The above argument has been made time and time again and has been proven to be nothing but sophistry. This 90% valuation is by cost only. We all know how COSTLY French equipment is and ALH Shakthi engine is French made (license manufactured here I think). In fact it was this high cost or rather “extortionist prices” as quoted by MOD, for the engine and its integration on the ongoing LUH project that got the French into trouble. By this logic, if HAL had inflated the price of indigenous content, there would have been less foreign content (magical isn't it?). Also, by this logic the miserable Russian T-90 tank which has foreign parts (thermal imager) is also not really Russian. Neither is any of the new aircrafts produced by China. To top it all, you have quoted an article written by the infamous Rajat Pandit. To quote him with regard to indigenous defense efforts is to quote a Fox network anchor on Russian rights in Crimea.

[NRao]

Ser Philip,

As mentioned above, that 90% is by "value of material", not the quantity of material.

So, 90% of it can be from Indian made material, yet the, by value 90% could be imported.

Then the article was written in 2010, with 2008 financial numbers. So, what is it in 2014? Do we have numbers?

On Vikram. I still fail to understand why India is at fault for the original cost. India never estimated anything. It was teh Russians that did the estimation AND assigned the price. So kaide se India should have never been asked to pay a dime more.

OK mishtakes do happen. But, by a factor of 4 or more? That is called taken-for-a-ride.

Dunno, understand it is a very, very touchy issue granted, but ......................... India should have got a better deal than that.

On MiG-29K, nice plane. But, I doubt anyone knew it would be that good when it was first thought about. I am fairly confident that - from the Rusky PoV - they were trying to get someone to pay to keep MiG afloat. Which is why I think there is a correlation between the MKI problems and the FGFA. I mean $5.5 billion is a boat load to not get. (Which beggers the question, what is the situ with the PAK-FA?)

[Karan M]

Philip, there is a famous saying, please stop talking so that you listen and understand, unfortunately 90% of your posts on BR are driven, with the urge to "win" as versus actually even understanding the topic.

Your CAG report on ALH is a prime example. HAL imports raw material unavailable in the country, manufactures items out of it, CAG releases a flawed report criticizing it, and then you claim it as a reference with a citation from Rajat Pandit, another individual who takes that report and adds further misinfo on top of it.

You quote a Govt thinktank, the IDSA and expect it to publish an open indictment of the manner in which the Govt has funded these programs? Or even undertake a honest evaluation of how the power structure identified arms sales as a nice way to keep moolah flowing and hence deliberately disincentivizes local Design, Development and Manufacture, as versus overpriced license production?

Ha! Pigs will fly before the IDSA, staffed with retired, serving officers ever takes square aim at the GOI for all its acts of omission or commission, or even looks beyond the obvious.

Net, you have a set of biases, and you will never look beyond them, or even attempt to.

Until and of course, Strat Page or AWST publish an amateurish piece on India and you will come post that as some sign of acknowledgment.

Ultimately, most of the understanding of Indian affairs comes from the non glamorous work of looking for and cataloging details which are available via periodic vetted sources, as versus picking up agenda driven rubbish by trade mags.

You sir, still haven't got there and beat us over the head with vapid claims and statements whose import you don't even understand.

Spare us!

[nrshah]

Phillip,
How is India failing to develop home grown MIC as claimed by Mr. pandit, which even if considered true related to Sukhoi display issues except that if we could have our own fighter, MKI would not have been brought.

It is like saying the my AC not working as per warranty from Daikin is not Daikins fault but mine that i did not have my own factory manufacturing them.

Let me ask you a question if you allow. Is the current display problem technical incompetency of Sukoi to correct or is it is because of the attitude. in any case, does not make a good cause for FGFA

[vic]

HAL seems to have delayed the first flight of both LUH and HTT to 2017. From indications, LCA mark-2 first flight is delayed to 2019 while UCAV & AMCA are nowhere on horizon. Saras continues to be deadbeat. LCA SP-1 production started in 2009 and is still not complete after 5 years. And HAL ****** up with IJT continues.

[Philip]

Karan,I understand hard-boiled facts,like the news above which Vic has posted.Why do we have excellent JVs like Brahmos on the one hand and patchy performance with others like Barak-8? If penalties have to be enforced on recalcitrant suppliers as alleged by you on Sukhoi,they should be enforced and whose fault is it if a contract is poorly negotiated as it was with the Scorpene deal?

You condemn IDSA,the services,retd. and serving officers and rank and file,like the ones who have just died on the SRatna thanks to what appears to be an incompetent refit,but mainly due to the inaction of the MOD and Scamthony.You appear more concerned with the welfare of the seat warming babus in the MOD and underachievers of the DPSU than those in uniform.If HAL's performance was so great,why did its BT keep crashing,neccessitating an import? You are totally colour blind to the incompetence of the DPSUs and ignore the stats put out in the IDSA paper which was in answer to Q's in the Rajya Sabha.The massive cost overruns speak for them selves.Every media report from whatever source,Indian or foreign you ridicule and condemn if it criticises the DPSUs and MOD.They are as blameless to you as much as Scamthony's dhoti is spotless!

[Anthony Hines]

And how wrong was I to think that the loquaciousness stemmed from unbiased research.

[vic]

Sorry, my post is mis-understood, I am supporter of Higher funding for indigenous R&D and not import. My main argument is that HAL and DPSU mess up as they are not given adequate funds.

[Philip]

A couple of months ago I posted data (CII?) which showed that under FM Chiddu,last year R&D funding for defence dropped dramatically.Plus we also had a 10% drop in the defence budget when China increased its already huge budget by 12%! There .seems to be a sort of anomaly here.Cost escalation of "indigenous" DPSU projects appear have little problem in funding to the tune of thousands of crores,but R&D gets screwed.
Ultimately policy rests with the govt. of the day.A fish rots from the head.Scamthony has been the head of Indian defence for almost a decade.The longest serving deaf min.History will record his pathetic legacy.

[member_20453]

The only easy day was yesterday

These issues with MKI spares offcourse again brings to light the dismal after sales support and with the French 'screaming show me the money' it becomes clearer that the SH Interntional would hold the most promise in terms of price, quick deliveries and good after sales support (offcourse unkil can't be trusted entirely either) We are now between a rock and a hard place.

I guess the only solution is to continue with the Rafale, it will cost a ton on the fighters but with little Israeli/ Unkil help, perhaps we can save a ton on weapons. Aim-120C-7s (till Astra Mk-2 comes alive)/Derby/Python-5/ Griffin MK-3/ Paveways/ JDAM-ERs, SDBs, Popeye Turbos (till Nirbhay and Brahmos mini come alive) should keep the weapons bill from going over board.

[Anthony Hines]

Without any potential orders, the French ought to be a little pragmatic with their pricing - unless the haggling has nothing to do with the pricing to begin with. Inspite of the perceived shortcomings being mentioned with regard to F-18s, I think it makes eminant sense to go for this proven platform. People can disagree all they want but it is hard to beat the Price-Bang ratio that it brings to the table.

[Karan M]

Karan,I understand hard-boiled facts,

and..

like the news above which Vic has posted.Why do we have excellent JVs like Brahmos on the one hand and patchy performance with others like Barak-8?

Philip saar, I query not your patriotism or your passion but seriously when it comes to defence topics, you have a bias a mile wide on these issues wherein the Russians can do no wrong whereas the low class desis need to be flogged.

What a query and a quarter. You compare a relatively lower risk program such as the Brahmos which ran on the back of Russian investment in a mostly developed Yakhont program (for the propulsion & seeker, which fed off of multiple similar programs) & the Akash & Prithvi programs from the Indian side (for the C3I and INS respectively) to a completely new program which is pretty much developing all from scratch, including a new AESA complex, a C3I system, even a new missile system by itself, and think all is equivalent.
Never mind that the Israelis themselves are diverting resources between multiple programs - David's sling, Iron Dome, Arrow and are struggling to cope.

And you think both programs are the same.
Frankly, this comparison itself just shows how badly you mix up issues re: matters defence or technology.

If penalties have to be enforced on recalcitrant suppliers as alleged by you on Sukhoi,they should be enforced and whose fault is it if a contract is poorly negotiated as it was with the Scorpene deal?

Ha sir! The above report clearly says that the deal includes support to continue even if contractual negotiations on pricing are unresolved. As usual, you introduce a completely irrelevant claim in an attempt to protect the Russians.

You condemn IDSA,the services,retd. and serving officers and rank and file,like the ones who have just died on the SRatna thanks to what appears to be an incompetent refit,but mainly due to the inaction of the MOD and Scamthony.You appear more concerned with the welfare of the seat warming babus in the MOD and underachievers of the DPSU than those in uniform.

ROTFL - I merely pointed out that expecting the folks in IDSA to finger the GOI when they have been handpicked to their posts, is a bridge too far.

In response to the obvious conflict of interest there, all you have in response is to hold it against "scamthony", as if before scamthony, it was a land of milk and honey & IDSA ever pointed out the fact that arms imports in India are deliberately pegged up.

Do think. When was the last time any defence official serving or retired in any of these think tanks flagged stuff like what we now know of Arms imports and how the DPSUs are used as patsies in the process?

No, all we get are simplistic analysis about % of GDP spent on defence, how arms imports are required, xyz program is delayed - but nobody will address the elephant in the room, which is how procurements are magically delayed till emergency purchases are made at 3x-4x, how local D&D receives peanuts in funding versus worldwide compares.

And its not as if they don't know. Vested interests permeate the system and omerta ensures that those who manage the gravy train will even shut down IDSA or any other think tanks if such hard questions are raised.

If HAL's performance was so great,why did its BT keep crashing,neccessitating an import? You are totally colour blind to the incompetence of the DPSUs and ignore the stats put out in the IDSA paper which was in answer to Q's in the Rajya Sabha.The massive cost overruns speak for them selves.Every media report from whatever source,Indian or foreign you ridicule and condemn if it criticises the DPSUs and MOD.They are as blameless to you as much as Scamthony's dhoti is spotless!

More FUD sir! Of course, we also have to be as blind as a bat, and ignore how various arms vendors, including the Russians are busy shilling their wares to India and would rather local programs disappeared. Of course, the innocent Russians are never bothered by programs like the Arjun hey, even as they support others where they can make a quick buck! No nuance at all. No sirree.. can't ever happen that a vendor can be buddy buddy on one program (and get dinero) whilst planting stuff to force its way in another. Nope, can't happen.

Meanwhile, when the Russians indulge in massive cost overruns to the tune of billions, it is all OK!

When MiGs crash willy nilly, it is not MiGs fault but India's! Of course you posted that the Russian claim that it was India's fault to buy dubious spares never mind they were checked and IAF dismissed these claims.

And now your concerns over BT crashes and how incompetent HAL is? What happened to the much vaunted MiG?

The Russians used this occasion to hit back at the IAF, holding it mainly responsible for the high rate of accidents. Perhaps for the first and only time in a relationship going back four decades; they blamed India for the frequent crashes of its MiG fighter aircraft and "delivering a heavy blow to MiG's reputation around the world". A senior MiG executive, Vladimir Zhukovsky, accused India of "creating conditions for frequent crashes by buying low quality spares" from Ukraine and East European countries. "At times, it even buys spares that have outlived their utility," he is reported to have told media persons at the MAKS-2001 International Air show at a Moscow suburb.

Many in the country fell for the Russian allegation and some sections of the press went hammer and tongs to emphasize that all accidents were a result of poor quality of spares. Unfortunately, neither Air HQ nor MoD refuted these to state that there was no correlation between quality of spares and accidents. But the Russian allegations did not go completely unchallenged, as retired officers are not restricted in their access to the press.

IAF faced a critical spare parts crunch after the collapse of USSR when Air Chief Marshal SK Kaul was the CAS. Now retired, he dismissed the Russian outburst as “an old MiG ploy. MiGs were crashing even when the USSR was supplying spares. They never admit that the design is bad, and quickly blame crashes on bad maintenance”. Air Chief Marshal Kaul also questioned the need to make so many modifications in the MiG-21, the mainstay of the IAF, "if there were no design problems". His successor, Air Chief Marshal (Retd) S K Sareen singled out MiG-27 ground-attack aircraft for "design inadequacies". Air Chief Marshal Sareen disclosed that India was forced to look elsewhere when the "Russians started taking us for a ride by overcharging up to four times. This forced India to shop for spares in the East European market. "They had the same kind of weapon systems as ours, had reduced their forces almost overnight by half, and had surplus spares to offer," he recalls. Some of the parts were made available by cannibalizing aircraft. "But these were purchased after stringent quality control checks," Unofficially, the former Chiefs must have viewed the Russian outburst as a "desperate sales pitch".

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... uresh.html

So tell me if it is HAL which is so messed up how is it that it was HAL which solved MiGs design flaws for them?

And do you think it was mere happenstance that HAL, DPSUs et al had no design authority for decades or it was allowed to stagnate while coincidentally imports flowed in?

When the Indian side does buy Indian and doing so for the first time, it leads to cost overruns, and yet the money actually remains in India, your complaints still reach sirenesque proportions.

Russian planes crash? India's fault. Indian trainers crash? India's fault. Russians overcharge us? India contracted poorly, so India's fault. Basically India's fault in everything. A Gorshkov becomes more and more a rip off? India's fault. Russia refuses to honor contractual pledges? India's fault. Russian trainer engines dont work as advertised? India should have known, so India's fault.

Basically, Indians are all idiots, the overlords in Russia can never be wrong. Oh wait, India's fault.

The above merely demonstrates how biased you are when it comes to picking and choosing claims. Its a blind spot a mile and a quarter wide.

My approach on the other hand is simple. I track those Indian organizations which deliver and those which don't. Which don't (like OFB) need reforms or replacement. Those that do, need encouragment and more resources rather than being deliberately underequipped and underresourced, which it is clear from enough data which is now available, has been a deliberate strategy to keep the import gravy train going. And not merely bad planning, etc. The same gent who was linked to the CWG scam, an ex IAF fighter pilot (though I wager the IAF would distance itself from him if it could), did his level best to scuttle programs like the LCA.

The great Russians visited Avadi in the 90's and consistently pushed the line that India did not need the Arjun since the T-72s were sufficient for Indian needs.

Please open your eyes & attempt to understand what folks are saying, as versus thinking that whatever appears in a bunch of so called think tanks or copy pasted TOI articles is somehow accurate.

You were tom tomming how TOI said everything in Indian programs is imported. If you had actually gone into the details, you would have seen how farcical the report was. 67% of the AEW&C is imported. Of course it would be, by value, since the cost of the platform factors in and India does not make business jets. But no, you complained about that.

Oh, the program is delayed by x years. Oh wait, did you factor in the issues with the IAF changing specifications midway & the program then being started again & also the complexity of the endeavour - see the sensor farm of the Indian AEW&C versus the one on the Erieye for instance.

It is this amazing lack of context in your posts & your blanket condemnations of anything & everything Indian, whilst at the same time, defending the most obstructionist Russian antics which really surprise. Please do think about it.

[Karan M]

Without any potential orders, the French ought to be a little pragmatic with their pricing - unless the haggling has nothing to do with the pricing to begin with. Inspite of the perceived shortcomings being mentioned with regard to F-18s, I think it makes eminant sense to go for this proven platform. People can disagree all they want but it is hard to beat the Price-Bang ratio that it brings to the table.

There is a basic problem with this platform and it is politics.
With a new Govt coming into power in India, the MMRCA can be held hostage to the whims of those who want to "restrain" aggressive moves on India's part.
Why, a prominent think tanker even crowed about how India;s selection of a US jet would give the US greater leverage to influence South Asian peace.

Then there is the A2A angle.Thanks to its naval heritage, the F/A-18 carries a lot of excess weight, i a draggier design and has modest agility (as versus maneuverability). That places it in the lower tier versus the EF/Rafale in energy management and retention.

[Philip]

Dear Karan,I am merely being pragmatic.Due to historical facts,the major part of our weaponry is of Soviet/Russia origin.In general they have served us well.After the collapse of the USSR,the problems of spares,etc. began.We didn't help by buying from the grey market sub-std. spares which caused many MIG-21 crashes.There are also reports of sub-std. MIG-21s delivered to the IAF,I've posted them before.Quality control is a major problem with our DPSUs,we can't ignore the fact.The SU-30MKI acquisition has been in general a v. successful programme.However,if the Russians are as alleged being difficult with contract obligations then the MOD has to sort out the matter,impose penalties,whatever.There is no point in saying that the penalties are inadequate,etc.,as who negotiated them in the first place? Not the IAF but the MOD.

There are/were also serious delays with the Scorpene subs,Barak-8,Hawk deal,etc.,not to mention the AW VVIP fiasco where we are being denied our bank guarantee of almost $400M Euros.We have problems with almost all foreign manufacturers not just the Russians.As far as the MIG-29 deliveries and local engine manufacturing,there seems to be no problem at all,why as a cost-effective measure,acquiring more of them in our constrained eco. situation ,if available at reasonable costs,would be a sensible decision. The BMos JV is a great success,why Barak-8 hasn't been one in comparison needs to be examined.The LCA MK-1 is yet to come off the production line,and at the initial rate of just 8 per yr. ,totally inadequate for the numbers required.The long gestation period of projects result in the desire of the services to change specs as newer tech appears.What the IN said about the Scorpene's,quote again,that they will be obsolete when they finally arrive.Of course one would love to have LCAs in the hundreds for the IAF,but are they available right now? Why I've said that one production line will not do and how we can shift some less complex projects to the IAF,so that we can increase LCA production so that by the time the last versions arrive,they too would not be obsolete. If you read the IDSA paper,it praises those DPSUs/projects which have performed well,but in general,these have not been the big tkt. items which are the ones most urgently needed.

Desi projects and escalation.The money remains in India.How much of it when the foreign content is so high? There can't be a sliding scale for the DPSUs and a fixed rate for firang manufacturers.There are budgets.Plus as with the requirement for the MMRCA,the IAF desperately needs the aircraft (whatever is eventually bought) when it simply is not available locally.Why is it also a fact that with some locally manufactured weapon systems,the cost is much higher than a straight import? There are also accusations against the DPSUs that they simply import a component ,manufacture/assemble it at home passing it off as "indigenous".

Just make a list of the major projects undertaken by the DRDO and DPSUs.How many of them have arrived on time and within reasonable cost escalation? How long can the services operate obsolete eqpt.? The MIG-21 type has been serving us for over 50 yrs! The IN's sub disasters another case in point.The Kilos were acquired in the '80s.As for the arty. requirement,it is now 26 yrs on without new arty. How can anyone blame the services for such dereliction of duty by the MOD Deaf Min.Scamthony and patchy performance by the DPSUs? So many decisions are pending,even the LUH deal is hanging fire after years requiring the ancient Chetaks/Cheetahs to fly until they crash.

The only silver lining at the moment is that a new dispensation is most likely to replace Scamthony and co. One hopes that a clean up of the MOD and swift decision making is undertaken so that our goal of increasing the local % in arms manufacture and the services get the weaponry urgently required.For the forseeable future,importing arms is inevitable and we will have to make the most pragmatic decisions given the financial crisis.It will take at least a decade before we can significantly increase local content and costs.

[alexis]

^^^

Whatever posted above has no bearing on the topic that Russians DONT ADHERE to written contracts...

This is irrespective of delays in Indian projects, dispensation in power etc.

[maitya]

Dear Karan,I am merely being pragmatic.Due to historical facts,the major part of our weaponry is of Soviet/Russia origin.In general they have served us well.After the collapse of the USSR,the problems of spares,etc. began.We didn't help by buying from the grey market sub-std. spares which caused many MIG-21 crashes.There are also reports of sub-std. MIG-21s delivered to the IAF,I've posted them before.Quality control is a major problem with our DPSUs,we can't ignore the fact.

As usual, you don't get it (or try your best to throw fud and somehow dodge the main-issue of honoring contractual terms and conditions).
But, all these points are mere symptoms of our over-dependence on an entity which will not honor contracts .

You mention the issue grey market for sub-standard spares for MiG-21/23/27 etc. in late 80s and early 90s.

Pray tell us, what would a user do, if the OEM simply is incapable of supplying spares in time - and suddenly decides to over-subscribe the price by 10times etc (actually there were reports where parts, for which the price was jacked up 20-30times overnight)?
Stop flying a platform which comprises 50-60% of the combat strength and wait for the OEM parts to re-appear (according to whims and fancies of the OEM mgmt) at a price which is now being asked for?
So IAF/MoD took the next best approach, scouring for similar users across the globe and scavenging parts from mothballed (or sometimes even active) platforms - and still pay a higher price, mind you, as the new "grey-market" supplier would have sensed blood by then and jacked up the price anyway. Yes the price wouldn't be as high as the OEM is now asking for, but higher nevertheless.

And for each crash that happened, there were hundreds more flights possible with these same "grey-market" parts. Heck even our much-maligned DPSUs and HAL stepped up and did indigenously produce some (whatever they can).
Despite such “pure black-marketing” tactics by the OEM, IAF could maintain somewhere around, IIRC, 40-50% flight-availability, thanks to this “strategy”.
And yes, they lost some platforms (and more importantly, and infinitely more precious, fighter-pilots ) in the process – but what exactly is the alternative that they had, then? As the mistake, of overdependence on a single OEM has been done three-four decades back, then.

And how is quality-control of DPSUs (which nobody would question) even relevant to this point? Isn’t it this same DPSU who first pointed out the combustor-turbine interface design issue (after RCA of, a couple of crashes)? What was the OEM response then – except from plain ignoring, disparaging and belittling it (and finally accepting it)?

May I ask, how many pilot-life and platform was saved due to this DPSU brilliance? Where is the acceptance and gratitude for the same?

And, as an Indian, you have the gall to demean them in order to shore-up Russian OEMs?

The SU-30MKI acquisition has been in general a v. successful programme.However,if the Russians are as alleged being difficult with contract obligations then the MOD has to sort out the matter,impose penalties,whatever.There is no point in saying that the penalties are inadequate,etc.,as who negotiated them in the first place? Not the IAF but the MOD.

Nice try … but as usual very low on facts and mostly on rhetoric. Question to be answered is, who funded the MKI development? Today the same OEM who wouldn’t be in existence today, without that life-saver (nothing was coming from their own govt.), has the galls to renegade that contractual obligations.

And instead of condemning them, what we get from is you this circular logic why can’t penalty be imposed – well it can’t be, as that OEM platform happens to be the 100% of your heavy-fighter composition.

And impose penalty on whom and how, pray tell?
Don’t tell me about withholding a part of the payment of a contract which would be front-loaded heavily (80% or so) in the name of R&D etc. After all “Strategic” contracts are never about price-points mentioned there-in.

Penalties for “Strategic Contracts” need to be imposed “strategically” … and some of it’s already in witness vis-à-vis the MMRCA saga.
The OEM of 21/23/27 played footsie (admittedly, some of it was due to factors outside their control s usual – but they could have acknowledged it and be a lot more co-operative, and most importantly, not price-gouge etc).

A lesson learnt – a diversification was tried (M2K) and successes there actually contrasted the Russian OEM behavior more.

For example, the user was shocked to find out that 70-80% up-time etc is actually achievable – Parts supply can be actually automated and inventory mgmt. is much more than “simply stock up 10x times of all parts” in some warehouse (and hope some of them are actually used and don’t expire etc.). This is part of a paradigm called “life-cycle-cost” calc etc.
The 29s were in-running then, and what do we see, the user (IAF) used all tricks possible to pressurize MoD/GoI to get the M2K in 100s, enough to make it an alternative enough to fight atleast an one-theater war.
After all, what was the point of getting 70+ odd platforms and not able to form more than 3 sqds – because sqds are formed not by simply counting platforms assigned, but also by the number of platforms these sqds are able to put on air on a daily basis.
Isn’t that with 30-40% availability, that 70+ odd platform would be equivalent to 45-odd platform with 75% uptime, isn’t it?

And, as usual, the risk-averse MoD/GoI didn’t want to be seen favoring an OEM etc, brought out this whole almost-quarter-of-a-decade long MMRCA tamasha – and thankfully (to you and your Russian friends), this atleast allowed to have the 35s to compete.
Too bad, it lost – but hey, the parameters of the contest (on which it lost) were known before the contest.


So pls don’t talk about monetary-penalties etc when the deal is about an OEM who still supplies 70% of your defense needs – if penalties are required to be imposed, they will be imposed “strategically”.

Another heavily-IAF-pushed “penalty” is the C17 and heavy-transport category. And there again the USA is continuing to surprise IAF on what delivery-schedule-adherence and post-delivery-support means. And as a lollipop, most of the naysayers have only got the MMS-favoring-US line-of-crying, while the delivery and paradigm-shift-in-operational-thinking in the user community continues to happen, quietly!!

After all, when the user starts pressuring for funds to buy more of your products, what exactly is left there in terms of selling effort?
Take that, as a “Strategic Penalty”!!

Betw, none-of-these –above-points make the 35s and the Gajrajs any less acceptable etc – but if your mgmt. team messes up in managing the customer expectations, brilliant platforms will not sell and remain showpieces.

There are/were also serious delays with the Scorpene subs,Barak-8,Hawk deal,etc.,not to mention the AW VVIP fiasco where we are being denied our bank guarantee of almost $400M Euros
…

Rest is all pure FUD.

Betw, wrt cost-percentage vs parts-percentage of a system/sub-system/platform. Let’s take AL-31FP (or for that matter, any aeroengine) as an example.

It’s a commonly known fact that HPT blades comprise as much as 20% (and thus LPT blades would be another 10%) of the total engine cost. Now be refusing to do an effective ToT of allowing the user to manufacture HPT/LPT blades from ingots etc, and forcing them to import these blades and screwdriver it locally, are you not straightway forgoing approx. 30% of the total engine cost?

Now an engine has around 5-7K parts – some small and some big stuff like the Turbine Disks, Shafts, Vanes, HPC blades and disks and Fans. The count of these “big” parts (also called the core parts and comparably costly to the turbine blades mentioned above) will not cross a few hundreds (approx. 200-300 max). If you ensure some of them are also basically exported in it’s finished form, how much cost-saving of the local-assembly of an AL-31FP would entail?
So, except for another larger chunk, the labour cost (approx 10-20%) where-in Indian labour is supposed to be cheaper by about 30%, where is this cost-saving going to come from?
And what about the various Capital costs of importing and settin gup Infra and specialised Rigs, Machines, Testing Equipments etc.?
And what about the opportunity cost of re-using some of these infra for another program?

So all these talk about Indian-lic-produced-equiment is costlier than those imported is all pure hogwash!!
And more silly is to try and compare component-cost % of a platform-in-R&D-or-dev with the unit cost of that of an already mass-produced-platform.


But it will still help the customer, as now he’ll be relatively free-of -your-whimsically-controlled supply-chain of the relatively numerous smaller parts , and make the whole platform relatively independent of your ransom-based whimsical-pricing (as was seen on 21/23/27 parts of the late 80s and early 90s).
Sure, these “big” components can be still be withheld, but then they can be also be stockpiled to some degree, by lying about “stock usage” etc. (for example, you can always call a particular runway “dusty” and ask for a more frequent D checks etc requiring replacement of some turbine blades on each of these checks – but on reality, the number those checks would have required only some-of-the-reported blades to be replaced, in the first place).

Games people play …

Oh betw, compare the above AL-31FP Turbine Blade scenario wrt Adour Turbine Blades (DS blades) that are manufactured from the raw-material by the HALs Engine division, indigenously. No prizes for guessing, which one has a higher % of cost-based-indigenous component counts.

[Philip]

As usual,you've missed the point.No one is for "shoring up" foreign OEMs,east or west.If as alleged,contractual obligations by OEMs flounder,OEMs unable for whatever reason,genuine or otherwise incapable of supplying vital components,we have no alternative but to try and manufacture them at home .

For not meeting contractual obligations,hold back payments,whatever,we've done so/attempted with AW with the VVIP helo scam.,but the Q is have we tried hard enough to resolve the issue? It does not appear so.If yhe problem was so acute what has prevented THE GOI/MOD from issuing a public statement castigating the OEM? It would certainly affect its foreign sales to other countries (since the issue is about alleged shortcomings in the SU-30 deal,it would be an interesting exercise to see how other nations who have bought the same bird are faring) .Similar delays and deeliction of contractual obligations on other non-Russian deals,such as the Scorpene,Barak-8, rarely if ever find indignation from you,there has to be a level playing field for all suppliers,both firamg and Indian!

This govt. has in reality shown scant concern for defence issues and therein lies the root of the problem. Who takes us seriously when deal after deal is postponed because of anonymous allegations of kickbacks that see contest after contest discarded,suppliers blacklisted as with the case of arty.,helicopters,etc.? HDW was cleared after kickback allegations after two decades.The problem of spares,etc. for legacy Soviet aircraft has been an issue for a couple of decades now.It has been no great secret.Given that experience,why have we not pursued the path of indigenisation at least for vital components more aggressively,or at the outset acquired large stocks of vital components for the type in Q? I again ask,what have the DPSUs been doing all these decades,and whose fault is it? The truth is that the regime in Q for the last decade have given only lip service to indigenisation for reasons best known to themselves.Any attempt to also bring in Indian pvt. industry to assist in defence production has been resolutely resisted by the DPSUs,the LTA a case in point. There is a huge conspiracy by vested interests to protect the patchy performance of the DPSUs at any cost.The inordinate delays in the BTT,IJT,LCA,etc. along with massive cost overruns are facts that speak for themselves. The Indian taxpayers have every right to criticise errant DPSUs and demand explanations and improvement of the DPSUs as much as foreign contracts

Here is a quote from another poster in another td:

But simultaneously HAL management should be held accountable and asked why it took them four years to decide which engine to use (BTT). I support indigenisation but one cannot be blind to corruption and incompetence of HAL.

You also seem to ignore the vital fact that as of now the LCA flies with a firang engine,radar,etc,very vulnerable to sanctions if imposed.Notwithstanding this,we have no alternative but to push the programme as energetically as possible if only to replace all the MIG-21s with LCAs.That would be a tremendous achievement,which would ensure 1/3rd of the IAF's inventory being a deso design.But this can only be achieved if production is ramped up and local vendors are found for the supply chain,otherwise we will be in the same boat as with foreign types.

The issue in this td. is still about the Rafale deal,is it affordable and still a viable option given the economic constraints.The debate about HAL's capacity (according to the French) to absorb the tech involved in TOT and assure quality of the same is as yet an issue. If not what are the options?

[Viv S]

For not meeting contractual obligations,hold back payments,whatever,we've done so/attempted with AW with the VVIP helo scam.

AW is a private firm. Denel is a private firm. IMI is a private firm. UAC on the other hand is a Russian PSU (80% owned by the Russia govt). But unlike Dassault or EADS (which also have substantial govt ownership), UAC is for all means and purposes a part of the state. Which means the company's actual boss is Vladimir Putin. The MoD can't take any action without factoring in the diplomatic consequences.

Also unlike the West, Russia doesn't have a truly independent judiciary. Bottomline: the GoI has far less leverage with Russian defence companies than it does with their competitors.

the Q is have we tried hard enough to resolve the issue?

So the fault is ours for not having 'tried hard enough'?

Similar delays and deeliction of contractual obligations on other non-Russian deals,such as the Scorpene,Barak-8, rarely if ever find indignation from you,there has to be a level playing field for all suppliers,both firamg and Indian!

No non-Russian company disregards its contractual obligations. In both the Scorpene and Barak-8 cases, delays and cost overruns were a result of poorly drawn up contracts.

As concerns the level playing field, every contract awarded to the Russians has been on non-competitive basis.

This govt. has in reality shown scant concern for defence issues ....

None of that has anything to do with the ongoing debate.

You also seem to ignore the vital fact that as of now the LCA flies with a firang engine,radar,etc,very vulnerable to sanctions if imposed.Notwithstanding this,we have no alternative but to push the programme as energetically as possible if only to replace all the MIG-21s with LCAs.

The criticism of the Tejas' foreign content would have been more credible had you not being plugging for an acquisition of a competiting Russian (i.e entirely firang) aircraft.

[member_20453]

I think SH though Naval is ideal its strong landing gear should allow for unparalleled reliability in take offs and landings, no matter where, as for the Leh dilema, well these can be quickly treated with minimal efforts, what I find incredible about the SH is its ability to perform a variety of dances from AWACS (its a little awacs onto its own with radar range scales going upto 220NM) to fleet tanking its does it all, do love its aerial performance & with GE EPE we can have better energy, its radar is by the most advanced on offer very long range, great resolution. Its range is also decent, carries the latest and deadliest of Unkil's cans of whupp ass, with stealth pods, new MAWS, Laser Warning system, IRST, Large Panel Display it would be the best we could get for the price. It also brings in ease of maintenance and engine commonality with the LCA MK-2 which will end having a bigger order book than initially expected.

The LCA mk-2 will have CMCs being incorporated into the its GE414 INS6 and EPE will have the same tech, weight savings due to this is expected at over 400lbs per engine, the TWR should be better on the SH as well due to these engine upgrades. With USN bankrolling the upgrades for now and certain usage of SH in USN beyond 2030 make it ideal. Future MLU upgrades can have more airframe upgrades such as much more Composites to reduce weight drastically, this will make the SH even more deadly aerodynamically.

Absolutely love the 3D Large Panel Display in the works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZk8wSyuFg0

[maitya]

As usual,you've missed the point.No one is for "shoring up" foreign OEMs,east or west.If as alleged,contractual obligations by OEMs flounder,OEMs unable for whatever reason,genuine or otherwise incapable of supplying vital components,we have no alternative but to try and manufacture them at home. For not meeting contractual obligations,hold back payments,whatever,we've done so/attempted with AW with the VVIP helo scam.,but the Q is have we tried hard enough to resolve the issue?

Yes ... but how? When the OEM, despite having the basically a single-vendor uses all possible method towards denying any worthwhile Production Tech knowhow (due to the fear, and I'd agree somewhat of it's justifiable, of reverse-engineering and IP loss). Basically problem is of perception about honoring contractual terms in letter and spirits - "hey, if we and the Chinese do it so blatantly, Indians will do it as well", seems to be driving this.

I have many examples while knowing generic manufacturing processes and methodologies of a component, doesn't necessarily mean we will be able to easily crack the exact proprietary details of it.
And it’s extremely time-consuming and expensive to “fit-in” and flight-qualify an alternative component.
So as long as basic platform level diversification is not there, a client will have to suffer the idiosyncrasies of the OEM.

And earlier M2K purchase and the current MMRCA saga addresses just that.
And pls don’t mix-up one-time non-strategic buy contractual terms like that of AW for VVIP Chopper etc with “strategic” main-line procurements that is beign talked about here – pure apples and oranges!!

It does not appear so.If yhe problem was so acute what has prevented THE GOI/MOD from issuing a public statement castigating the OEM? It would certainly affect its foreign sales to other countries (since the issue is about alleged shortcomings in the SU-30 deal,it would be an interesting exercise to see how other nations who have bought the same bird are faring)

How does it help … irrespective of GoI/MoD saying it loud, the interested parties would exactly know of these issues and take appropriate contingency steps.

Pls understand Su-30MKI or it’s variants sale, except that with India, hasn’t happened with NO other customer in the world (in the scale at which it can be called “influencing” either the OEM or the “user”).
Chinese sales, is a separate case altogether, as the Chinese wanted the platform to basically reverse-engineer and no other “heavy” class aircraft was available anyway to it.
Either way it doesn’t help in Indian context.

Similar delays and deeliction of contractual obligations on other non-Russian deals,such as the Scorpene,Barak-8, rarely if ever find indignation from you,there has to be a level playing field for all suppliers,both firamg and Indian!

Another trademark torn-shirt-open-fly argument … pray tell us, how delays in Scorpene (all of which is non-attributable to the OEM in between) or Barak-8 deals justifies the obnoxiousness of the Russian OEM behavior wrt honoring contractual terms?

Betw, the Scorpene delays are mostly attributable to the slowness on MDL side to absorb the manufacturing tech and MoD/MDL side to arrange for the non-OEM equipment/systems, that was agreed to. How the OEM is liable when the 3rd Party team that is supposed to be building the Submarine can’t build up competence as per contracted schedule or the 3rd party procured systems (aka receivables) aren’t available according to the scheduled plan.

This is what Defense Minister said in the Lok Sabha in 2012,

“The delay in construction of Scorpene submarines is attributable to initial teething problems in absorption of new technology, delay in augmentation of industrial infrastructure at MDL and delay in procurement of items by MDL due to their high cost as compared to the earlier indicated cost”.
Link : Scorpene delayed by 3 years
Scorpene sub delayed by one more year

So pls point out contractual obligation dereliction etc before we start talking about indignation etc.

This govt. has in reality shown scant concern for defence issues and therein lies the root of the problem. Who takes us seriously when deal after deal is postponed because of anonymous allegations of kickbacks that see contest after contest discarded,suppliers blacklisted as with the case of arty.,helicopters,etc.? HDW was cleared after kickback allegations after two decades.

How is this above any relevant to the current discussion? No Political party would like to be seen as tainted when it comes to corruption allegation, but you are right, white-mundu-loving Mr Anthony took it to the dizzying heights, no doubt.

Ultimate losers, are defense forces, of course !!

The problem of spares,etc. for legacy Soviet aircraft has been an issue for a couple of decades now.It has been no great secret.Given that experience,why have we not pursued the path of indigenisation at least for vital components more aggressively,or at the outset acquired large stocks of vital components for the type in Q? I again ask,what have the DPSUs been doing all these decades,and whose fault is it? The truth is that the regime in Q for the last decade have given only lip service to indigenisation for reasons best known to themselves.

Hullo … who says that it’s incumbent on DPSUs/Private Companies to indigenize systems and subsystems when the OEM itself has refused to do a ToT. Legally, even today for example, for the AL-31FP no Indian entity should be casting the turbine blades. And you are suggesting somehow, they need to create the subsystems indigenously – why and how? If the IAF/MoD were concerned about this kind of blackmailing etc sufficient ToT-depth would have been put in the contract. And how the lack of it or plain-and-simple-dadagiri (wrt contractual obligation fulfillment) becomes a DPSU fault?

And why do you always have to bring the DPSU peforance/productivity etc whenever any Russian OEM fault is being analyzed? Nobody is trying to paper over DPSUs myriad issues but why bring those un-related points and try attempting at issue diversion?

Plus talking about stocking up etc just educate yourself on how long the MRO-deal for the 29s took to finalise mainly due to recalcitrant Russian side (hint: start looking at mid 90s when this was first proposed).

Any attempt to also bring in Indian pvt. industry to assist in defence production has been resolutely resisted by the DPSUs,the LTA a case in point. There is a huge conspiracy by vested interests to protect the patchy performance of the DPSUs at any cost.The inordinate delays in the BTT,IJT,LCA,etc. along with massive cost overruns are facts that speak for themselves. The Indian taxpayers have every right to criticise errant DPSUs and demand explanations and improvement of the DPSUs as much as foreign contracts

I agree the 1st point wrt not allowing Pvt Industries into defense production etc - and also on the point on criticizing and fixing accountability etc on DPSUs.
But, while trying to substantiate it, you got completely wrong on the delay part again. I’ll not belabor LCA delay etc – they have discussed and analyzed multiple times and if you are unwilling to understand it, so be it (after all there’s no point in wasting time in trying to explain it, all over again).

But the IJT one needs talking about – because it’s plain wrong to put the WHOLE blame on HAL for it. The same harrumph tribe in IAF which is frothing blue in the face about the delay (mind you, they have every right to do so, as it’s very very very delayed impacting IAF Training plans) were falling over each other, in their younger days in 1999 or so, to praise HAL for being able to achieve design-to-rollout of it in 2 yrs flat (with 1st flight within an 2 more year or so).

You’ll be surprised the real culprit for the delay is again is due to another successful lemon-selling by the Russians – worse they not only sold a lemon, but were successful in getting India to fund a rare missing element in their arms-portfolio viz a turbofan engine for trainers in 5-7 Tonne class.
I’ll not help you on this, but do some searches and find out lemon-selling by the Russians (starting from Victor Mikhailovich Chepkin of Lyulka-Saturn in 1998) wrt this.

But it still doesn’t get HAL or MoD off the hook – because for falling to those sweet-talk and agreed to be sold a Lemon. After all, the HAL folks also don’t come from Mars – years of Russian equipment screwdriver-giri results in treating the Russians as the all-knowing gospel-spewing mai-baaps. There’s no way they would have even questioned high-and-mighty Lyulka-Saturn chief designer etc (wrt feasibility of downscaling the core of AL-31F and such a short period and coming up with an operational turbofan).

Plus of course, we have 2 crashes in betw, and now after a new engine is integrated, a problem with spin-recovery has surfaced.

But to be fair, in terms of pure engine tech, AL-55 is a generation ahead of Larzac H-20s (40% more thrust with approx. same weight), being based on AL-31F tech – but then such evolution takes time. So why bemoan when it gets delayed, and more importantly, why lay the blame of the delay WHOLLY on HAL.

But that also means, where were these IAF gents when HAL/MOD were being led on the garden-path by Russia in 2003 - surely, they should recognised the lemon-selling, of all people. Or is it possible that they also got led on the very same garden path? But then, why today blame only HAL-PSU et all for the IJT delay - is not some of the fingers are also pointing towards them for the above delay? If yes, where's a single acknowledgement (or atleast the utterance of we, instead of they) of it, when such blame-fingerpointing happens?

So net-net, we have the program already delayed, mainly due to delays in the engine-development by Russia and then saddled with an engine with a 100h TBO (which Air Force, worth their salt, would accept such an engine-based aircraft), plus few other delays, but whole delay is now HALs fault.

What kind of logic is this?

[Philip]

We also suffered sanctions from the US after P-2,delaying the LCA and affecting Sea King availability. We are now vulnerable again if we ever have to test again.They are needed in the future as the West/China/Russia have conducted innumerable tests ,data from which they can simulate tests and design new warheads without having to test them in the field.

The problem is that in our foreign acquisitions,we enter into weak agreements which in the event of a crisis-as you've spelt out allegedly reg. SU-30 components,cannot be resolved to our satisfaction easily.The AW scam is a case in point where retd. CJIs reportedly told the Italians that the GOI was on a weak wicket and would not demand compensation! If the MOD,which draws up the contracts,do not protect our interests 100% we are only asking for trouble. By the time the sh*t hits the fan,the babus responsible would've retd. perhaps with a fat "golden handshake" from friendly firang manufacturers.

The IJT engine issue was discussed in depth recently,reg changing the engine mid-stream in the project,TBO time,etc.,with our side allegedly imagining that they would get rights of the engine for exports,etc. But this again shows up our fundamental attitudinal weakness and flawed logic when initiating indigenous programmes,in not identifying the key component/s and acquiring the same building the programme around it.We've learnt nothing from the HF-24 episode.Even for the LCA,it would've been prudent to have evaluated two engines on diff. prototypes,giving us an insurance policy if one manufacturer failed to perform.The disconnect between DPSUs and the services in the past only added to the problems.

I agree that the IAF too must share some of the blame,not being visionary enough like the IN,but then the IN has always been the Cinderella of the services and has had to improvise.The IAF in particular has been the most favoured when it came to foreign imports,but the licensed manufacture of MIG-21s was a great success,in that it gave the IAF a large inventory of an affordable and highly capable fighter (at a time when we were denied the best western aircraft ) ,acclaimed by all chiefs,still soldiering on 50+ years on. However,as far as the LCA goes,when the MOD itself was lukewarm about the project in its formative development years,so too was the IAF,until the stark truth was realised by all stakeholders.

Coming back to the issue at hand,what should we then do with the Rafale? Modify the deal ,cutting our coat according to the cloth,or dumping it altogether? The new dispensation should take a holistic look at the entire future perspective plans for the IAF ,and modify them if required to suit our changed financial condition.

[maitya]

We also suffered sanctions from the US after P-2,delaying the LCA and affecting Sea King availability. We are now vulnerable again if we ever have to test again.They are needed in the future as the West/China/Russia have conducted innumerable tests ,data from which they can simulate tests and design new warheads without having to test them in the field.
...
...
Coming back to the issue at hand,what should we then do with the Rafale? Modify the deal ,cutting our coat according to the cloth,or dumping it altogether? The new dispensation should take a holistic look at the entire future perspective plans for the IAF ,and modify them if required to suit our changed financial condition.

This is circular logic …

Yes there were sanctions due to P-2 – actually you got it wrong, sanctions were there for more than a decade (or thereabouts) before even P-2 happened (our Agnis and Prithvi development program were just too much for the Uncle to handle, wrt baksheesh to their favorite munna). And yes those sanctions hurt the LCA program wrt delaying it by a couple of years (junk SeaKings were already junks by then, so sanctions-or-no-sanctions it didn’t matter much).

But atleast there was an once-in-a-lifetime type event like P2, for bringing out those “impacts”.
Contrasting to, what-kind of event that led to the Russian tech-transfer denial for the Cryogenic Upper Stages in early 90s – pls let us know.
We all know the reason for Russians imposing it, but hey, what exactly was India’s contribution to the reasons for which Russia was forced to impose it – if none, then why does India had to suffer for full two-decades because of it?

So, is the debate now going to be, since both are due to tech-denial sanctions, of comparing the impacts of 4-5year delay to LCA program vis-à-vis two+ decade of delay (and thus foreign reliance) towards our GSLV launchers?

After all, if C-17s and LCAs are at risk, then so are the Akulas and Su-30s, isn’t it?
And these kind of never-ending debates are good-for what … nothing!!
As the underlying reason behind the actual impact is something else – and it’s no self-reliance (and quite a bit of it due to a non-strategic/purely-tactical mentality/culture of our armed forces) culture towards key strategic technology development.
So, irrespective of a P-3 or not, we should be prepared to be shafted likewise, if we are not self-reliant on such strategic tech-dev areas.


But one thing I’ll tell you … we won’t be shafted on Ballistic/Cruise Mijjile (and thus ABM) arena, for sure (plus also on military Surveillance/Fire-Control Sensors like Radars and of course of Satellite vehicles and their Launchers).
On other areas like Heavy-Combat Aircrafts to MBTs to Transport Aircrafts to Submarines to Surface Ships (some extent) etc etc etc., we should to ready to bear the pain either from Sanctions or from Price-gouging or from plain simple Dadagiri.

But what exactly are the mitigating steps for these, if at all?
Simpleton one-word answer like indigenization etc isn’t the full answer – as it requires time and the forces can’t be expected to be forever waiting for an indigenous weapon platform to be made available. And moreover, it requires money, loads of it, which for a country like us will always be a constraint. And of course tenacity and a die-hard can-do national attitude, but I digress (again!!).


So then, what exactly is the correct risk-mitigating steps wrt weapon platforms that are currently not available via indigenous routes?
One word – “Diversification” towards multiple OEMs across countries (aka Western and Russian) while,
a) steadfastly following an indigenization route atleast the larger sub-system/component level where-ever possible, and
b) by acquiring true manufacturing-from-raw-materials rights at a further smaller sub-system level

In the context of IAF fighter context, if the heavy-component (IAF calls it Air-dominance) is from Russia, diversification is achieved via going the Western route for the medium-component (light component is via indigenous LCA etc.). And this is where Rafale (or Eurofighter or even SH) makes sense vis-à-vis the MMRCA saga.

And the a) and b) above is where MMRCA and Su-30 contract comes into picture.
As the earlier Su-30 (and Jaguar even before that - and not MiG-21 as you are mistakenly thinking) contract, and now the alleged MMRCA contracts, tries to shift most of the manufacturing of the smaller sub-system level components to India (under license, of course) – thereby reducing the whims-and fancies of the OEM.
For example the most of the structural components and many accessories in Su-30 are manufactured in India (approx. 70% of components, by count, are manufactured from raw materials) etc.

It doesn’t mean, that they’ll be completely sanction-free etc – they will not be, as the remaining 30% or so will be directly imported in their finished form and pure assembled in India. So, it will impact their availability if they are made unavailable, but that can be somewhat mitigated temporarily by stockpiling etc.

This obviously is the 2nd best solution.

But if the above is beneficial for the user-country it’s also potential revenue-growth blocker (except for the std royalty-fee etc) for the OEM isn’t it? Revenue, a part of which is directly linked towards recovering quite a bit of the tech R&D cost incurred by the OEM.
So some entities (mostly western, in case of MMRCA, Dassault) would jack-up this license-manufacturing bit (so higher contract/procurement cost), but also follow the contract in letter and spirit.
And others, will agree for a lower license manufacturing cost, but price-gouge whenever it suits them (contractual terms and conditions etc are of minimal consideration to them).

So IMO, MMRCA and Rafael deal being costly etc needs to be looked into from that perspective, including (and there are other factors like opportunity-cost of infra being developed for manufacturing vis-a-vis ongoing and upcoming indigenous tech-devt programs etc) all of these above mentioned variables (and their weightage) - and not by simple division and comparing unit-cost etc.

Pls note that this aspect of dependence can be further reduced by coming up alternative subsystems/subsystems indigenously developed (point a above). So, in Su-30 case, the radar antennae assembly, Turbine Blades, MC etc etc – but the exact manufacturing know-how is proprietary, so they need to be freshly developed from scratch which takes time, money and huge effort to do so – and the dependence stays, till then.
(e.g. Adour Turbine blade dependency is no longer there – approx. 2.5 decades after they were started to manufactured here).

[sohels]

If half the Sukhoi fleet is sitting on the ground, and a Sukhoi costs half as much as a Rafale, wouldn't the Rafale fleet need at least 100% availability to be cost competitive with the Sukhois? #forgiveme

[member_23694]

If half the Sukhoi fleet is sitting on the ground, and a Sukhoi costs half as much as a Rafale, wouldn't the Rafale fleet need at least 100% availability to be cost competitive with the Sukhois? #forgiveme

with due respect, but what kind of logic is this -
cost being proportionate to range/availability/weapons load

[tushar_m]

Antony refuses govt guarantee to France for Rafale deal

With the UPA-II's tenure coming to an end, France had wanted India to sign a pact to provide government guarantee for completion of negotiation for 126 fighter aircraft with Dassault company but Defence Minister A K Antony has refused to do so.

France, whose company Dassault has been shortlisted for supplying the multi-role medium combat Rafale aircraft, had proposed the signing of the agreement apparently to ensure that negotiations for the multi-billion dollar deal do not get affected if a different party comes to power after the Lok Sabha elections.

"The French side wanted government guarantee to the negotiations," sources said.

Antony, however, refused to sign such an agreement, arguing that governmental guarantee cannot be provided as negotiations were still underway, they said.

The Defence Ministry is still negotiating the price and terms and conditions of the contract with the French firm Dassault Aviation, whose Rafale combat aircraft was selected as the lowest bidder two years ago for supplying 126 warplanes.

Antony had recently ordered that the process to arrive at the lowest bidder in the multi-vendor tender be reviewed after completion of the whole procedure involved in the procurement as questions had been raised over it.

The two sides are trying to tackle the issue of life cycle costs (LCC) relating to Rafale.

"There are complaints about the procedure of calculating the life cycle cost and that issue is not yet settled. Before bringing the deal to the Cabinet Committee on Security for final approval, we would like to get clear on that aspect," he had said.

As per the Indian defence procedure, the firms offering lowest prices and meeting the requirements of the respective services are given the contract and in this deal to procure 126 combat aircraft, LCC has been taken into view to determine the lowest bidder.

Senior BJP leader and former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha has written to Antony raising a number of questions over the "conceptual shift" in the defence procurement policy and expressed fears that LCC concept may bring in corruption.

[Philip]

I agree to an extent,that we (the def. establishment) ,seem to be going round in circles.What has been of serious concern,is the actual deterioration of indigenisation,with India earning the dubious distinction of being the world's largest arms importer...under Scamthony and his Congress led regime.Not too long ago I posted details from a CII paper which showed that the amt. of money for indigenous R&D last year was slashed by the UPA! So all our intellectual effort in devising models for promoting local increase in def. production in a meaningful way,right from desi designs to indigenous manufacture of key components ,developing manufacturing technology in house,etc.,etc.,will go down the drain if the MOD and regime in charge act indifferently and not stick to plan.

Assuming that the "heavy" element of the IAF is centered round the SU-30MKI and in the future the FGFA,the light element being the LCA and the Medium force coming from the West/EU; in principle appears pragmatic,but for the price of French wares.The upgrade costs of just one M-2000 is more than a brand new MIG-29K,vastly more capable than the early versions of the MIG-29.One alternative that has been given little thought,because of its similarity with the LCA is the Gripen,which is gradually gaining more admirers from air forces worldwide,and which in its latest avatars AWST has lauded (in its latest issue) as a genuine cost-effective alternative to more expensive 5th-gen fighters. However,all hope is not lost for the Rafale,as the expectation of a BJP/Modi victory has seen the Rupee break the psychological barrier of 60/- to the $,and if it gains further will brighten the chances of the deal going through in some form or the other post-elections.

If an alternative is to be chosen ,as a worst case,It is worthwhile looking back at the rationale for the IAF's choice of the Rafale over the other contenders in choosing an alternative.Here is the viewpoint as perceived by Tellis of the US,writing about the IAF's decision to downselect,grumbling about the IAF's predeliction as being a "fighter force",while the US aircraft are better at the strike role,pointing to 5 key factors behind the decision:

Xcpts:

IAF’s Air Staff Quality
Requirements (ASQRs) — in five areas,
some of which were of critical importance to the service: growth potential;carefree handling (and automatic sensing of external stores); sustained turnrate; engine change time; and assurance against obsolescence over a 15-year period.

The IAF, however, has laid its bets on the hope that the Eurofighter and the Rafale would provide both superior close-in air combat capabilities as well as effective BVR performance, in contrast to their American rivals which appear arguably weaker at least where close-in air combat manoeuvring is concerned. (Note that close-in air combat manoeuvring is not synonymous with close-in air combat capabilities because
even less agile fighters can be dreadfully effective in shorter-ranged dogfights if they possess the requisite sensors and high off-boresight air-to-air missiles, as all American aircraft do.

The F-16IN Super Viper is already a mature aircraft and while it is likely to evolve further where its sensors and weapons are concerned — especially for foreign markets — it is unlikely to remain the premier dogfighter it was when first introduced into the United States Air Force. Since the IAF was looking to acquire an aircraft that would remain competitive over the next 30 years, the F-16IN appeared like a poorer
choice relative to the competition in both growth potential and assurance against obsolescence. Although the
IAF’s judgment on both these counts can be debated by airpower specialists, even the most ardent supporters of the F-16IN would find it difficult to claim that this legendary airplane would remain the world’s most nimble close-in combatant or its premier multirole combat aircraft in, say, 2030.

The point of note, however, is that while the American contestants exemplified war-fighting proficiency — the end result of possessing superior sensors,avionics and weapons in a highly integrated package — the IAF was simply unprepared to privilege this component at the expense of platform manoeuvrability, the age of the basic airframe design, and the overall finesse of the aircraft when judged as both an aviation platform and a combat system. The ASQRs defined in the Request for Proposals reflect this clearly and the IAF’s
evaluation of the F/A-18E/F Super hornet only corroborates the point

Most significantly, the F/A-18E/F was perceived to have fallen short in aerodynamic performance, especially with respect to those parameters that distinguish the nimblest of fighters from the
rest. These assessments are not surprising. Although the Super hornet remains one of the most carefree aircraft in the world where handling is concerned,
with a high alpha performance to boot, it has traditionally been hampered by weaker energy addition compared to its contemporaries. Further, it still remains qualified only for manoeuvres up
to 7.5G, in contrast to the IAF’s ASQRs which specified a criterion of 9G. These limitations can place the F/A-
18E/F at a disadvantage in turning fight

[tushar_m]

new & unexpected news coming in at this time

Deal for 126 Rafale fighters close to being signed

just days after this

Antony refuses govt guarantee to France for Rafale deal

[shukla]

Didn't ask for Rafale deal guarantee: France
Times of India

"Negotiations have recently achieved significant progress. We are looking to sign the intergovernmental agreement together with the commercial contract for the planes," said Richier, speaking exclusively to TOI.

Reacting to recent reports that France had asked the Indian government to sign a government guarantee to safeguard the negotiations for the fighters, Richier denied that any such agreement was asked for. "We have worked very closely with all Indian governments, so we have no reason to ask for such an agreement," he said.

The final MMRCA contract is expected to be inked by the next government that comes to office in May-June after the general elections. Even the ongoing French Scorpene project, under which six submarines are being built at Mazagon Docks, was eventually signed by the UPA-1 government in October 2005 despite the bulk of its negotiations taking place under the previous NDA regime.

"We are confident about the progress in the negotiation process (for the MMRCA project)," said Richier. Though the pace of the final negotiations has been glacial since the Rafale was finally selected over its rivals in January 2012, the IAF is also now quite hopeful that the contract with French aviation major Dassault will be inked in the 2014-2015 fiscal.

Dassault and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) finalized the MMRCA work-share agreement in February, under which the Indian defence PSU will have a 70% role, after months of bitter wrangling. Under the MMRCA project, while the first 18 jets will come in "fly-away condition", HAL is to manufacture the rest 108 fighters under licence over six years.

"Now that issues like work-share, warranty and liquidity damages have been resolved, the responsibility matrix of all Indian production agencies is being finalized. Once that is done, the draft contract will be readied for the final government clearance," said a source.

[shiv]

The Rafale deal, to my knowledge, has sparked off the greatest number of fake rumour news items presumably fed to the media by vested interests - although I would not put it past some GoI babu to do it simply to obfuscate issues and keep everyone on tenterhooks

[Will]

new & unexpected news coming in at this time

Deal for 126 Rafale fighters close to being signed

just days after this

Antony refuses govt guarantee to France for Rafale deal

Yawwnnnnnn.... the way things are going the signing of the deal will be "imminent" every month for the next five years. By that time the rafale will be as outdated as the Mig-21