Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

[eklavya]

If the IAF doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, the MoD must be the one to put its foot down and make cost effectiveness of military expenditure a priority.

The prevailing smell is the putrid stinking rubbish being put out by the sore losers from the transparent and fair MMRCA process.

[Viv S]

Point is simple all the items you have listed are long overdue for the services , but linking the Rafale deal to every thing else pending for last 25 years is simply beyond logic.

Lack of decision making , poor planning and management etc in other areas should not be hidden behind cost of one deal.

You're missing the point completely, which wasn't about blaming the Rafale deal for funding crunches (and yes there have been funding crunches including for the IAC).

The argument made was that our requirements will always exceed our means. No amount of efficiency at the MoD can change that fact. The only thing we can do is ensure that we extract commensurate amount of value from every rupee or dollar spent. Sacrificing the value-for-money aspect to push through the Rafale deal doesn't help our equation against China (nor does the Apache or LUH for that matter), it thoroughly wrecks it.

Yes we need quality equipment's for sure , Rafale or NO RAFALE but I give a damn to the hope and pray part of war with China.

Not quality equipment but cost-effective equipment.

[NRao]

arthuro,

With the possible exception of a few things, you have done an excellent job of convincing me that I was right.

The only major issues - that still remain open - is the cost of the project. If it could be made to come in around $12 billion, then it would make sense. The rest - the plane, IAF's dire need for such a plane, fair and open selection process, politicians saying it is all well ( ) (that by itself speaks a lot) whatever-else - is all fine, no issues.

Cost? Issue.

(And, another issue, not related to this topic - directly - is the GDP.)

[Viv S]

Viv, China is out of reach as far as military is concerned.

So... just fold because the odds are against us, instead to trying to even them out?

Quality over quantity is an old debate and as far as I know MRCA is here for quality not sheer quantity.

I suppose acquisitions are determined by operational strategy.

Every military in the world that's geared to fight a full scale conventional war has retained a strong focus on its numerical strength -

USAF - 2200
USN - 1100

ROKAF - 300
JASDF - 400
IsAF - 450
TAF - 310

RuAF - 1000+
PLAAF - 1000+
IAF - 650 (approx by 2020)

______________

For purely expeditionary forces, on the other hand

RAF - 220 (to be reduced to about 170)
AdlA - 220 (to be reduced to 180)

(Surprisingly symmetrical)

Function thus determines the composition of the air forces.

Another platform could make for the qiantity, Hence the tejas was a different procurement process from MRCA.

Well since yuu've already made you views on the Su-30MKI and Tejas clear, one does wonder which 'another platform' can be inducted to make up the numbers. And how's it to be financed after paying for the Rafales.

It is the IAF (not me) which put the MRCA on the top of their list and the Indian gov which say negotiation is on.

Yes the Rafale made the down-select, I think we've already established that. And the Indian govt hasn't sanctioned the funding for the MMRCA yet (its not over till its over). If and when it does, I'm sure the forum will move on to discussing other things.

You should also keep in mind that installement are spread over years. Arbitrage can be to delay another program or spread deliveries over time.

You should keep in the mind that the deal isn't the only thing that has to be paid for every year. Which other program would you suggest be delayed? Or how far would you suggest the Rafale deliveries be spread? Under the current plan (assuming the deal is signed in 2015), they're to be delivered by 2026.

You should rather look to the expense forecast for each fiscal year rather than the total number. 20 billions over X years might not ne impossible to cope with.

What will China be spending during the same period and how much will fresh expenditure to keep up be accommodated in that budget?

There are financing solution as well like a long term loan from France with preferential conditions.

We can buy on credit, but there's always a reckoning.

In case of further options the non recurring costs Will ne greatly diminished (production facilities already there).

Meaning post 2025, the Rafale will be available at a somewhat lower price. Meanwhile every other 4th gen aircraft will have gone out of production and 6th gen development would be have begun.

[NRao]

So we should make no attempt to alter the military balance. Just fold because the odds are against it?

But make sure you buy the French Rafale for $20 billion.

[NRao]

On transparency, where exactly is the financial negotiations?

The technical evals were transparent, agreed. Are the rest of the phases supposed to have followed the same principles, or the financials was expected to be behind closed doors for a good reason?

Just curious.

[Manish_Sharma]

IAF operationals are fed up of waiting and don't want to make another risky experiment with tejas or AMCA, especially with China on the rise.

To repeat, China is producing over 50 J-10s & J-11s annually with that rate is being scaled up and technology employed continuously improving. The Rafale's production rate at HAL in contrast will average only 15 per year. The whole MMRCA program will deliver just about 25 fighters by 2020. Can the Rafale overcome a 4:1 numerical disadvantage against PLAAF fighters? I for one, would bet against it.

How would 15-20 F-35s destroy all this in a Rajnikant-chuck norris way?

As far as the IAF being 'fed up' is concerned, just FYI - the Army has not inducted a new field artillery gun in over 25 years. It needs carbines, replacement light helicopters, NVGs, ATGMs, mobile SAMs, new comm systems, attack helicopters, heavy lift choppers, more funding for large scale exercises, huge infrastructure overhaul in the NE region, etc. The IAF has requests for new Phalcons, stand off weaponry, MRSAMs, PGMs, BTTs, IJTs, Sukhoi & Jaguar upgrades etc waiting in the pipeline. The Navy's carrier construction had until recently been suspended because of a funding crunch. It also needs new anti-sub choppers as well as light choppers; too many of its ships are operating without any helicopters.

Which of the above do you suggest should be cancelled to help pay for the Rafale?

Meanwhile India's GDP growth this fiscal is projected to be about only 5.5%, a full two percentage points less than China (7.5%), and on much a smaller economic base.

If the IAF doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, the MoD must be the one to put its foot down and make cost effectiveness of military expenditure a priority.

Otherwise it should just hope and pray that a war with China never breaks out. Because valour and training only go so far.

Hudd ho gayi ! Isn't that what I'm saying that money has been wasted on buying C-17, they could have waited. The Il-76 could have been given midlife upgrade, bought second hands or ordered new Il-476, that too when there was no report in media, never a talk about IAF's desperate need for exactly same tonnage and volume as C-17s.

But then you bring in former air chief PV Naik for support of this billions deal.

While:

Dhan,tx for the note on the billions spent in acquiring the C-17 instead of fighters.I was most vociferous when the C-17 deal was inked.It suddenly appeared out of nowhere! This was confirmed to me by a Delhi source. It was never a high priority item of the IAF.

ACM PV Naik would disagree.

Do you agree and disagree with ACMs when it suits you?

Downplaying France’s inability to sell the Rafale to other countries, former Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major tells Bureaucracy Today, “That is a completely different matter. It would have happened due to the relation of France with other countries. It should not be the criteria for selection. The IAF concern is selecting the right weapon that meets its requirements. Definitely the Rafale is best for the IAF. After evaluating all the six jet fighters, the Rafale was shortlisted. And in the IAF during evaluation there is no ranking. The IAF just figures out planes which meet its needs. Suppose, three planes meet IAF requirements during evaluation, it lets the Ministry know that these aircraft have been shortlisted by the IAF. And from there it’s the work of the Ministry to lock the deal with any of the companies after cost negotiations.”

Viv Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major disagrees with you.

[Philip]

Even the most ardent supporter of a Indo-US strat. partnership well knows that the C-17 production was closing and Boeing had to make a quick big deal for it to stay open.Lo and behold the GOI fast tracked its acquisition.There was no competition.Uncle Sam said "buy it" an Quisling Singh saluted! That was part of the payback for the N-deal,itself highly controversial,where we had to separate our civilian and N-weapons establishments for the nuclear hypocrasies and enter into a deal which would perpetuate our dependence upon foreign N-fuel ,destroying Dr.Babha's masterplan for Indian nuclear independence.We are now rushing to Japan and Oz to sign deals that will cripple us further.So vital Indian def. requirements like the arty,26+ years and still no decision,subs for the IN,fighters for the IAF,etc,had to allow the queue-breaker the C-17 to head to the top of the list,that too when there was no emergency with the IL-76 operations and availability giving superb service for decades without an accident,and the same derivatives being used for our Phalcon AWACS and IL-78 tankers.The IL-476 with improved engine sgiving greater range,performance and increased payload was never considered.

Nevertheless,back to the Rafale deal. Yes,the IAF lists out the aircraft that have "made the grade",it does not list them in order of peference,so there will be alternatives to the GOI should it feel that the Raffy is way too expensive.However,the clever "shortlisting" of just the EF and Rafale raises a big Q.That came after the M-2000 upgrade deal at scandalous cost was signed. That for the UG cost for just one M-2000 one could get a brand new MIG-29K and still have $10M left suggests that the unhealthy profits from that deal allowed the Raffy to be offered at a cost lower than the EF.Some may recollect the suspicions of some members at that time.
Add to this Dassault's partner to produce the aircraft,that fantastic company with a massive track record of building aircraft...er...Reliance! The good Dr.Swamy has voiced his opinion on who benefits if this deal goes through.

[vic]

For cost of one C-17 we could have re-engined and upgraded our whole fleet of IL-76s. After getting the orders for unneeded C-17s, Uncle Sam thanked MMS by raping our diplomats and their children.

[eklavya]

On transparency, where exactly is the financial negotiations?

The technical evals were transparent, agreed. Are the rest of the phases supposed to have followed the same principles, or the financials was expected to be behind closed doors for a good reason?

Just curious.

The details of the technical evaluation (the 600+ parameters) were not made public, but the losing competitors did not dispute the outcome i.e. EF and Rafale made the cut. Similarly, the headline financial aspects will also be known once negotiations are complete, and all the sore losers and their touts will be poring over the numbers to find fault with the contract. GoI is well aware that these touts (for super dud F35, etc) are more than happy to damage India's national security by hoping to cancel key programmes to serve their narrow commercial interests. Independent media and opposition parties are also watching every move carefully. This PM will take the right decision for India's national security, if he gets this one wrong, his legacy and reputation are at stake.

[eklavya]

For advocates of cost effective, here is a HUGE mistake that India has no need to emulate:

How the F-35 boondoggle shows that deficit hawkery is a sham

Why the F-35 has been buried in a black hole

[Manish_Sharma]

For advocates of cost effective, here is a HUGE mistake that India has no need to emulate:

How the F-35 boondoggle shows that deficit hawkery is a sham

Why the F-35 has been buried in a black hole

Hari om hari om 45 billion dollars for 65 F-35:

The F-35 fighter jet is one such idea. The Harper government has been grappling with it ever since it took office in 2006. It has heard from experts that the super-sophisticated F-35 is not the right plane; that it does not suit Canada's modest military requirements; that its single engine makes it too dangerous for patrols across the country's vast distances; and that its humongous cost -- $45 billion or more for 65 aircraft -- puts it well beyond the reach of the budget-conscious Conservatives.

There have also been some recent developments to be considered. Safety is one. On the eve of the July 4 holiday, the Pentagon announced it was grounding its entire fleet of brand new F-35s following an engine fire during trials in Florida. It decided it would be too dangerous to fly the F-35s across the Atlantic to debut at two air shows in Britain, the Royal International Air Tattoo and the Farnborough International Airshow. Those appearances were cancelled.

Critics in the United States keep hammering away at the cost. The Pentagon plans to purchase 2,443 copies of the F-35 at an all-in cost (including operating costs over the lifetime of the aircraft) of something in excess of $1 trillion.

It used to be bbc-cnn favourite line, India hungry mouths to feed, no need for weapons:

To the critics, it's a question of spending priorities. Eliminate homelessness? The F-35 expenditure would be enough, one report calculated, to buy every homeless person in the United States a $664,000 house.

[Viv S]

How would 15-20 F-35s destroy all this in a Rajnikant-chuck norris way?

2-3 squadrons of F-35s. 10-15 squadrons of the Tejas. 3 more squadrons of AEW&Cs. 3-4 squadrons of ex-Emirati/Qatari Mirage 2000s.
____________

The F-35s in that mix are primarily for strike/ISR, but for the record, 4:1 against J-10/J-11s ends in the F-35's favour. And as a force multiplier, its comparable to the F-22, which enabled a (Rajnikant-esque) 242-2 kill ratio for the (F-15/16 centric) 'Blue Forces' at Ex. Northern Edge 2006.

Hudd ho gayi ! Isn't that what I'm saying that money has been wasted on buying C-17, they could have waited. The Il-76 could have been given midlife upgrade, bought second hands or ordered new Il-476, that too when there was no report in media, never a talk about IAF's desperate need for exactly same tonnage and volume as C-17s.

What you said was that for 1 C-17, you could buy 4-5 Il-476s. Which is just plain wrong. The C-17 costs about 50% more than the IL-476. Offers better operational availability, better turnaround times, a wide-body design capable of transporting oversized cargo, and over 100% greater load capacity (volume usually maxes out before weight).

But then you bring in former air chief PV Naik for support of this billions deal.

Do you agree and disagree with ACMs when it suits you?


Viv Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major disagrees with you

Yes I agree or disagree with them depending on the issue.

On the other hand, Philip's 'privileged information' about a new heavy lift aircraft being forced on the IAF is NOT an issue of agreement or disagreement. Either the IAF requested the purchase or did not. It is not a subjective question. According to the ACM, the request came from the IAF.

It is one thing to say that an individual is wrong, and another to say he's lying. I have questioned the IAF's choices/position on the MMRCA, I haven't questioned its integrity.

[Viv S]

Hari om hari om 45 billion dollars for 65 F-35:

I admit that is higher (per unit) than the $65 billion or so we'll spend on the 126 Rafales over the same period (i.e. 40 years).

On the other hand, its based on old figures that have fallen sharply since 2011. (U.S. GAO sees $11.5 billion drop in acquisition cost of Lockheed F-35.)

Critics in the United States keep hammering away at the cost. The Pentagon plans to purchase 2,443 copies of the F-35 at an all-in cost (including operating costs over the lifetime of the aircraft) of something in excess of $1 trillion.

That's $400M over 40 years on average, including procurement, spares, support, fuel, upgrades etc.

Just over $300 million for the F-35A variant, according to the Australian assessment.

[Manish_Sharma]

How would 15-20 F-35s destroy all this in a Rajnikant-chuck norris way?

2-3 squadrons of F-35s. 10-15 squadrons of the Tejas. 3 more squadrons of AEW&Cs. 3-4 squadrons of ex-Emirati/Qatari Mirage 2000s.

Hmmmm 60 F-35s, bought off the shelf from US. That's the thing. As you've been cleverly trying to convince here that ToT is useless not worth. So off-course the US factories their technicians will be paid there high salary from Bharat's pocket. The whole takleef is that why the money is going to a non-american. Plus world peacemaker the peace lover america must have complete control of IAF that with a wave of hand they sanction and suddenly these whole 60 F-35s are ground. Not only that those 126 Other country's jets would have been out of US control. On top of that whatever billions paid for these they have to be lined up for EULA ~ EUMA $hit every year so massa can come and intrusively check if cheater unworthy Bharatiyas have done something to their platform.

And of course this is another thing propogated by you that ToT is useless, but then why doesn't US share this useless ToT 100% ? If ToT is useless share it, don't charge anything extra for 100% raw material to platform mfrg. here.

That is another point that above article by eklavya says for canadians have to pay 45 billion dollars for mere piddly 65 F-35s.

The '98 sanctions by US had hit us hard, Sea kings were down, Tejas scientist were insultingly thrown out of US labs and even Bharat made Tejas part sent there were confiscated. The ugly american-ness was at its full display.

I shudder to think what will happen now! With Tejas engines, LM-2500 on naval ships C-17s, C-130s etc. in case chinooks too come with a wave of hand ugly americans will paralyse big part of armed forces just by sanctions. This poison has to be stopped.

If tomorow we do pokharan tests, the french or russians won't sanction. But US will and this time it'll hit much much harder. So anybody pretending to support american acquisition out of love for Bharat is just a pretender a hypocrite.

Didn't happen long back all those insults and sanctions the real wellwishers won't ever suggest going that way again. But under the garb of wellwishing.... well anything goes. Somebody can say that 60 F-35 without ToT (are available for 5 billion dollars + spares + training + weaponry + lifte time support) , and gareeb Bharat will still have money left for 16 squadrons of Tejas + qatari mirages + AEWs. While only and only for 126 Rafales it wont.

Yes I agree or disagree with them depending on the issue.

What issues? Only issue is in case they want to by american or at the most british platform then you agree, in case of french or russian you disagree.

[Manish_Sharma]

Hari om hari om 45 billion dollars for 65 F-35:

I admit that is higher (per unit) than the $65 billion or so we'll spend on the 126 Rafales over the same period (i.e. 40 years).

On the other hand, its based on old figures that have fallen sharply since 2011. (U.S. GAO sees $11.5 billion drop in acquisition cost of Lockheed F-35.)

Critics in the United States keep hammering away at the cost. The Pentagon plans to purchase 2,443 copies of the F-35 at an all-in cost (including operating costs over the lifetime of the aircraft) of something in excess of $1 trillion.

That's $400M over 40 years on average, including procurement, spares, support, fuel, upgrades etc.

Just over $300 million for the F-35A variant, according to the Australian assessment.

As someone said what IAF pilot told them, some time back that its ok that 1 Su 30 is equal to 6 Mig 21s but 1 Su 30 can be at one place at a time while 6 Mig 21s at 6 places.

I'm not saying that jsf is more capable than Rafale, on the contrary I see a big advantage of availability, range & payload in Rafale over jsf. While I can see now that how important Rafale is for IAF, while upto sometime back I wasn't sure.

A couple of years back, somebody had posted an article in international aviation thread about how suddenly other US jet's radars could see a particular jsf very clearly. When they checked it was found that part of surface was having 1mm fault and due to that the whole stealth thingy went out of window.

Of course canadian's doubt a single engined jsf flying over their vast empty lands isn't a safe bet. So imagining a single engined jsf flying over to cheenland in risky mission is just a fantasy.

This Rafale deal is going to very good for us. 4 billion as you have put for ToT and the jobs for our skilled technicians engineers taking the salary home and pumping back in Bharat against US technicians engineers taking our precious money.

While as Maitya ji stated that composites etc. on Rafale are generations ahead of Tejas, that's why probably it can carry much more payload than 42% bigger f-18.

Plus other secret deal probably as NRao ji put that french may've proofed our nukes or even ToT.

Not to mention GaA chips and GaN chips foundaries, we'll see what Hindu Baniya has gotten after prolonged negotiations.

And reading many arguments, I can see now that Rafale has its merits.

[arthuro]

Even though sharp differences of view exist between IAF and other government organization (see LCA roundtable) there is one strong consensus which is emerging : Independence. Be it ToT from a foreign country or R&D to develop an indegeneous aircraft the core idea remains to be as independent as possible while getting a suitable capability.

For now IAF belives that indian industry is not mature enough to go directly for a full indegeneous design which explains its support to MMRCA vs tejas.

Buying through FMS was never an option nor for IAF nor for Indian government. F35 will never be an alternative for this reason. With F35, India will be tight to US goodwill and will get no jobs and no ToT (+ it is damn expensive).

Some common sense should put an end to the F35 wet dream. Even those who advocates an F35 purchase know it wont happen.

[member_23694]

242-2 kill ratio for the (F-15/16 centric) 'Blue Forces' at Ex. Northern Edge 2006

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014 ... rformance/

Heavily-scripted Red Flag exercises are quite similar to the computer simulations which predicted and predict huge exchange ratio advantage for newer fighters. F-15A was predicted to have a 955 to 1 exchange ratio against the Russian MiG-21. F-14s missiles were predicted to have 100% Pk.

And some news on LM
http://aviationweek.com/military-govern ... egislation

When Northrop Grumman realized Lockheed Martin’s lobbying arm had caught it flatfooted in securing tax credits for a bomber win, the company swung into panic mode. Had the legislature not passed a measure equally offering the tax credits to both teams, Northrop would have been at a near half-billion-dollar disadvantage in the bidding, possibly sounding a death knell for its hopes to continue its B-2 legacy with a new bomber project.

Lockheed Martin’s lobbyists quietly and successfully campaigned for California law AB 2389, offering a series of tax credits applicable only to a "subcontractor" providing jobs in the state for a special access program, clearly referring to the secretive bomber project. Lockheed Martin is the subcontractor to Boeing on the bomber bid. Northrop Grumman is proposing a design as a prime contractor, excluding it from the potential tax advantages.

And probably LM would have won contract for another USAF aircraft followed by loads of mind blowing stuff about its capabilities all over the place.

[eklavya]

2-3 squadrons of F-35s. 10-15 squadrons of the Tejas. 3 more squadrons of AEW&Cs. 3-4 squadrons of ex-Emirati/Qatari Mirage 2000s.
____________

The F-35s in that mix are primarily for strike/ISR, but for the record, 4:1 against J-10/J-11s ends in the F-35's favour. And as a force multiplier, its comparable to the F-22, which enabled a (Rajnikant-esque) 242-2 kill ratio for the (F-15/16 centric) 'Blue Forces' at Ex. Northern Edge 2006.

Great force multiplier indeed:

Rough Ride for the F-35

Successive reports — from the Government Accountability Office, nongovernmental groups, even the Pentagon’s own testing office — have exposed serious deficiencies. The F-35’s most unusual aspect is its ability to integrate sensors and weapons, but the software still isn’t working. In March, an accountability office report highlighted “delays in software delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered, and the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions.”

In January, the Pentagon’s testing office called the F-35’s performance “immature” and said it “relies heavily on contractor support and workarounds unacceptable for combat operations.” William Hartung of the Center for International Policy has argued that even if the technical problems are solved, the plane “will be too small to serve as an effective bomber, not maneuverable enough for aerial dogfights and too fast and vulnerable to do well at supporting troops on the ground.”

Let's hope LM can spare enough people to support the 12 air forces flying the super dud during combat operations.

[TSJones]

^^^^ That's ridiculous. It's not about how many bombs a plane can carry or how close a plane can fly in CAS. The paradigm has been changed. It no longer takes lots of bombs to accomplish a mission. Pin point accuracy has changed the way we fight. It used to take an entire flight of planes to take out one target and you had to get fairly close to the target in order to see it. Not anymore. In fact you don't want to fly to close to the target or it will be alerted and take precautionary measures. Modern JDAMS can hit with complete accuracy from over 28 km's away. You also don't want to have racks of bombs hanging off the plane. You want them internally stored. Targets can be pinpoint designated by small drones or troops close to the scene with laser designators or even satellite's calculation of GPS. There is no reason to have the planes fly with in the target's heavy machine gun or manpad defenses.

If you don't realize the entire paradigm has shifted then you are somebody else's raw meat to be had. End of story.

[PratikDas]

TSJones, what you say is fine and even elegant but only from a US/NATO point of view. What you say is possible because the US has a constellation of high-res spy satellites for real-time imagery which provides target coordinates and enables mission success/fail assessment. How can India fight two fronts with our limited satellite assets using stand-off weapons?

Edit: I forgot to mention that we can't assume air superiority/dominance from the outset.

[NRao]

TSJones, what you say is fine and even elegant but only from a US/NATO point of view. What you say is possible because the US has a constellation of high-res spy satellites for real-time imagery which provides target coordinates and enables mission success/fail assessment. How can India fight two fronts with our limited satellite assets using stand-off weapons?

Edit: I forgot to mention that we can't assume air superiority/dominance from the outset.

++1.

Short and sweet. Very nicely put.

* Which is also why when someone says that the Rafale has "Data Fusion" it is nearly equally laughable
* However, there are other aspects of the F-35 that can be brought to bear. Enough of them have been posted in the Turkey thread


BTW, wondering in cyber space, found that the MMRCA RFP required a vendor to either have a AESA that is working on the plane or in a lab (para phrasing perhaps). A rec that was specified 10 years or so ago, is what is being enforced today!!!! IIRC, the good thing is that India gets the code for AESA, old gen, yet, code.

Does anyone know if the ToT involved building engines in India?

[Manish_Sharma]

http://www.stratpost.com/video-vayu-str ... undtable-v

When people talk about sanctions and delays – I was with the LCA program for about eight months, myself. And I used to hear this excuse every time that because of sanctions we lost it. Mr. Mishra will bear witness to this that when we were doing the bis-upgrade program; even at that time in ’93 we anticipated American sanctions. And therefore we kept away from American equipment – at that time. How ADA didn’t foresee this – DRDO – that American will put sanctions on them, sometime or the other – particularly when one arm of the DRDO was tinkering with nukes at that time. They should have known that this would come. And they should have gone for different technology. I also want to reiterate that we had opportunities at each stage to get the LCA going in a different direction and probably make it more of a success. We forsook those opportunities for some reasons or the other.

We have to wisen up, already same mistake done rejecting EJ-200 for GE-414 for LCA Mk.II also, what kind of masochistic behaviour is this.

So going over to buy anything from "I will sanction you at the drop of hat america" they need to be avoided at all times. Otherwise for next war instead of 126 war ready fighters we'll have sanctioned 45 billion dollar 3 squadrons on phat hippo the jsf.

[Manish_Sharma]

Money situation explained, how Bharatvarsh has not even touched a 2% GDP for years, so ofcourse we can buy whatever we want:

http://www.stratpost.com/video-vayu-str ... ndtable-vi

And whatever be that number has to be acquired. Of course you also have to factor in the fact that the composition has changed so materially from the MiG-21 era to what it is (now). I remember the chief telling me, ‘272 Sukhoi-30 – you want to take on the world?’ So that is the number we have put together for Sukhoi-30 aircraft. Similarly, now 126 MMRCA – so that apart, let the professionals – let the air force work it out. A lot of other independent inputs will also be there. But we have to go through that intense process and determine that number. Also taking into account other – the PGMs that you have, the combat UAVs may have a role – you have far more carriage capacity. So that number-crunching wouldn’t be easy, but it can be done.

So whatever be that number in whatever be the affordable time frame, you have to induct it. Resources can always be augmented. There are any number of options. Today air force accounts for 45 percent of the modernization budget of the entire Indian defense. So that is the kind of share they have come to acquire over the last ten-fifteen-twenty years. Because they went in for this kind of modernization effort, concentrating on sensors and armament and giving life extensions to platforms. So, they have gone about it quite sensibly.

Affordability, in relation to whatever is the optimal size that is determined – 30, 35, 40, 50 – that would have to be seen and how you stagger it over a period of time. And there one of the greater challenges is because the life cycle costs potentially account for four to five times the initial acquisition costs, so unless that business gets done here – looking after operations and maintenance, creating upgrade possibilities here – with all that, we still have very poor readiness levels as we discovered some time back. If it is forty-fifty percent, even if you buy two squadrons more you would be reaching where you ought to reach with what we already have. So that’s a huge area of concern.

All these upgrades have made what were single-role aircraft into multi-role aircraft with flight-refueling capability for most of them.

You need numbers as well as capability. That is well recognized. But that professional exercise to determine that optimal number has to take place. – Vinod Misra

What happens is that we’re worried about future availability of money. Now last year, the capital budget was around 70,000 crore and if we take normal inflation plus GDP growth it gives ups a figure of roughly twelve to thirteen percent. So if you just go on increasing by that amount, it’s a fairly good value. And last year it was 1.79 percent of GDP only. And our budget has fluctuated between 2.4 and 1.7 (percent) and we are at the lower end – it has actually gone down to 1.2 something in one of the years, but generally this figure is on the lower side.
If we have a marginal increase, plus utilizing the two issues which have mentioned which is budget and GDP growth, you get a fairly decent amount.

Why are some of the earlier programs in my comment about revenue and capital material is because of the exchange rate variation in the last one year. Because things had become expensive because rupee had depreciated and what you could buy from the same amount of money had reduced. And some of your expenditure remains sacrosanct. So you can’t touch that and so the balance available was less so that’s why that was a crunch.

Going forward, I feel that if air force has met most of its requirement in terms of force multipliers and some of the other assets and the number required to be inducted is now a little less, so this amount can provide you MMRCA induction plus Light Combat Aircraft induction plus many other things without any great strain on the figures.
We tend to take absolute figures without correcting them for time-related value and just arrive at a conclusion or compare horses with donkeys. You know you take the figure for absolute, basic aircraft procurement and compare it with total cost of induction. The two figures are different.

How is this 126 arrived at? 126 was in an era where DPP had not been introduced so our processes were file clearances and everything. So 126 amounted to six squadrons of replacement. And the figure continued. And some of the figures – the fifty percent offset was introduced in 2005. In 2007 when RFP was to be issued, we couldn’t change it because change process is very long.

And so was the case with the AoN figure.

And there is no bar in ministry of defense that if the AoN figure is low and the contracted figure is high then it has to be redone. No, it is not there, categorically. This is because if you fo the whole process in the stipulated time, things will be different. – Air Marshal (retd.) Nirdosh Tyagi

The interim budget that was announced by the outgoing government – the defense budget was 2,24,000 crores. And out of that around 83,000 crores was meant for capital acquisition. Soon after the new government came to power, the ministry of defense – because they have laid so much of stress in their political agendas that they will look after national security, has actually now asked for a 25 percent increase in the defense budget. If that is agreed to, it will take the budget that is going to be announced – I think ten days from now – will take it to 2,80,000 crores. And revenue budget for –let’s say this year – will not change very much. What does it mean? It means that our capital acquisition, actually, will jump by 60,000 crores, if it is agreed to.

But I don’t think that it is likely to happen. But what is a possibility is that they might increase the defense budget to 2,50,000 crores. Even with that figure it does not actually cross two percent of the GDP. In other words we will have 30,000 crores available for capital acquisition in this year alone. And that will take care of all our stalled – shall we say – new schemes that we are talking about.

Let’s look at the air force itself. We have the MMRCA, we’ve got the Chinook, we’ve got the Apache and we have not even been able to sign the C-130 additional – .So these things can become available.

As far as the country’s concerned, if we use our resources properly, two percent of the GDP, if it is used in defense, I think, is highly affordable. If we use it properly. And therefore, it will become affordable.
The other thing that I was going to talk about was the cost of the aeroplanes. But today let me say it that there is no fighter worth the – if you’re going to import it – going to cost less than about 500 to 600 crores apiece. We’re talking about 100 million dollars.

Let me also mention here that even the indigenous-produced Sukhoi-30 MKI today is costing between 450 to 500 crores apiece. So let us not get too worried about this.

Secondly, when we talk about the MMRCA and we stare at the 1,20,000 crores in front of us, it is not a one-time go. It is going to spread over a period of ten years. And we’re looking at something like 12,000 crores a year which is, once again, highly affordable. And therefore, we should not even discuss MMRCA – whether we’re going to – whether we should have it or we should not have it. I think that time has gone.

And if we start discussing or debating that issue now we’re putting ourselves back ten years.

This much money that we’re going to spend on the MMRCA – if we think ahead we should be able to use it absolutely properly. And now I’m coming to how we use the technology offset which are coming out of it.

We’re looking at fifty percent of this which is going to be spent on offsets. And this is where we need to build our technology capabilities for future aircraft that we’re going to produce indigenously.

MMRCA – when we started off it was 10.4 billion dollars. Rupee has depreciated. I did not know the dollar has also depreciated. Why is it that today in the media we’re talking about 20 billion dollars? Personally, I feel that we need to look at it very, very carefully again. Is it twenty billion dollars? 10.4 – you know rupee has depreciated from 45 to 60. But the dollar is very much there. It has not depreciated vis-à-vis the rupee very much on the world market. And therefore why is it that now we’re quoting twenty billion dollars?

If we want to use this offset that we’re talking about and technology accretion in the country to build self-sufficiency, I personally feel that the air force has to get into the driving seat. And they have to say that no we’re going to start looking after our programs ourselves. And if we can do that – and they decide as to what technology they want to import vis-à-vis the MMRCA offset, I think we’ll be working or moving in the right direction so that we can put it in the MCA or whatever aircraft is going to come in the future. – Air Marshal (retd.) Jimmy Bhatia

[TSJones]

TSJones, what you say is fine and even elegant but only from a US/NATO point of view. What you say is possible because the US has a constellation of high-res spy satellites for real-time imagery which provides target coordinates and enables mission success/fail assessment. How can India fight two fronts with our limited satellite assets using stand-off weapons?

Edit: I forgot to mention that we can't assume air superiority/dominance from the outset.

don't kid your self. India will have these satellites, probably before it ever has true 5th generation squadron fighter jets up and mission effective. it's that important. If I was in charge that the way I would do it.

However be forewarned. In any 5th generation armed war, the first casualties will be the satellites. Mandatory. So it's best to have a backup plan.

[Manish_Sharma]

Make no mistake US is now stakeholder partner of china, stop depending on it against china, khan will betray:

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/ ... ilemma.htm

In case, India attends the SCO at a prime ministerial level what will be its major considerations? The retired diplomat who favours India's closer relations with SCO argued, "India clearly recognises that American priorities are changing. America's containment policy against China is changing. China is becoming stakeholder in America's plans. They are talking about G-2 now. The US is bogged down in Afghanistan so their priority is and will be Pakistan. Eventually, Indo-US relations will suffer."

"What India expected and what George W Bush promised have become things of past. If India attends the SCO it is one manifest of this reality," he said.

[eklavya]

^^^^ That's ridiculous. It's not about how many bombs a plane can carry or how close a plane can fly in CAS. The paradigm has been changed. It no longer takes lots of bombs to accomplish a mission. Pin point accuracy has changed the way we fight. It used to take an entire flight of planes to take out one target and you had to get fairly close to the target in order to see it. Not anymore. In fact you don't want to fly to close to the target or it will be alerted and take precautionary measures. Modern JDAMS can hit with complete accuracy from over 28 km's away. You also don't want to have racks of bombs hanging off the plane. You want them internally stored. Targets can be pinpoint designated by small drones or troops close to the scene with laser designators or even satellite's calculation of GPS. There is no reason to have the planes fly with in the target's heavy machine gun or manpad defenses.

If you don't realize the entire paradigm has shifted then you are somebody else's raw meat to be had. End of story.

Oh great, so when will we see the super-dud F-35 in action over N Iraq, taking out ISIS with pinpoint accuracy?

[eklavya]

* Which is also why when someone says that the Rafale has "Data Fusion" it is nearly equally laughable

What's laughable is uninformed statements by people who haven't a clue about what data fusion Rafale has or has not, which sensors it relies on, etc.

[arthuro]

* Which is also why when someone says that the Rafale has "Data Fusion" it is nearly equally laughable

Nrao, do you know how sensor fusion works ? You don't need sattelites for This capability. Actually This capability was praised by IAF Just like in the swiss evaluation which dors not belong to Nato as well. You Can refer to swiss official technical évaluation (You Can easily find it via Google). As for the indian évaluation the document was posted on mp.net (on the rafale news thread) by an Indian poster a few days ago. Unfortunately he deleted this document due to the pissing contest it started to generate with typhoon supporters. You Can still see the deleted message though.

[eklavya]

This is what Dassault states publicly:

The sheer power of multisensor data fusion

It hinges on the computing power of the MDPU to process data from the RBE2-AESA radar, the “Front Sector Optronic” (FSO) system, the SPECTRA EW system, the IFF, the MICA infrared seekers, and the data link.

[eklavya]

US Government report on F-35:

F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER:
Slower Than Expected Progress in Software Testing May Limit Initial Warfighting Capabilities

The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) predicts delivery of warfighting capabilities could be delayed by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude will likely limit the warfighting capabilities that are delivered to support the military services' initial operational capabilities—the first of which is scheduled for July 2015—and at this time it is not clear what those specific capabilities will be because testing is still ongoing.

Additionally, the most recent cost estimate for operating and supporting the F-35 fleet is more than $1 trillion, which DOD officials have deemed unaffordable. This estimate reflects assumptions about key cost drivers the program can control, like aircraft reliability, and those it cannot control, including fuel costs, labor costs, and inflation rates. Reliability is lower than expected for two variants, and DOT&E reports that the F-35 program has limited additional opportunities to improve reliability.

Unreliable, unaffordable, and capabilities not know (and this is just what the US Government says) ... never mind, cancel the MMRCA and buy it for India anyway ... because it is cost effective

[vishvak]

F35 isn't that expensive for USA because several other countries will share the cost burden while most of the tech will be owned by USA with complete political control which is where the bigger concern is. An example is delivery of warplanes to Iraq which seems to have not taken place even when Russian jets flew to Iran (su-27 if not incorrect) and are already in action. Iraq paid for the jets but it is the USA forces doing all the ground work and flying and of course bombing the beheading Islamic caliphate of ISIL.

[NRao]

* Which is also why when someone says that the Rafale has "Data Fusion" it is nearly equally laughable

Nrao, do you know how sensor fusion works ?

Yes. Do it for a living. Civilians also have such a need (if you are not aware - it is called something else). In fact one of my clients is one of the largest companies in France. The challenges are slightly different, but the presentation to make decisions are very similar, so the techs used are comparable. There is an overlap.

You don't need sattelites for This capability.

Ya. That is very true.

But then if India were fighting the Marxists, who have no air force nor ground vehicles, why would India need an AESA?

SO, "don't need" is a relative need - it depends. And, I for one am saying India will need, once India has the capability. Which India claims to be building (see below for further comments on thsi topic)

Actually This capability was praised by IAF Just like in the swiss evaluation which dors not belong to Nato as well.

Typical of you to hide behind the IAF's skirt. What defense would I have once you say that? Silly.

Cannot talk to the others. but, sure, IAF would be thrilled. All they seem to have (and correct me if I am wrong) - TODAY - is data sharing. That is the best. I do not think the IAF has data fusion - yet. So, they will be and should be thrilled with what the rafale offers.

Don't be so thrilled with what the IAF says, after all it is a RFP that was written ten years ago. And, by *your own admission* technology moves on. And, "data fusion" has moved on. Rafale is great, but it will not be so great in 5 years and it will be a dud in 10 (or so). That is the way it is.

You Can refer to swiss official technical évaluation (You Can easily find it via Google). As for the indian évaluation the document was posted on mp.net (on the rafale news thread) by an Indian poster a few days ago. Unfortunately he deleted this document due to the pissing contest it started to generate with typhoon supporters. You Can still see the deleted message though.

What the Swiss do they do. They are not of importance to me (nor is Brazil, etc).

________________________

Now, what would make some sense is if Dassault gave the code in this "ToT" to the Indian Labs. That certainly will help. BUT, as *you yourself have stated* it will not take India to the next level - *INDEPENDENCE*.

France (or for that matter, no other nation) will allow - if possible - to let India become *independent*. India has to do it on her own, without any support.

________________________

I still feel that India should get the Rafale, but without the "ToT", use it for 20 years and throw it away (which is why I would prefer the MiG-29 for this instance).

________________________

On the F-35: Best plane there is out there today, hands down. *But* not yet meant for the IAF. IF at all it will find its way into the IN, not sure, but if at all (along with an E-2, EMALS, etc) - we will see.

________________________

BTW, what is up with the engine for teh Rafale, does anyone know? As part of the ToT is India getting anything for the Rafale engine?

[NRao]

Arthuro,

Since you were quoting the "round table":

Video: Vayu-StratPost Air Power Roundtable II

“I don’t know how much clarity there is in our air force. Take the MMRCA. If we go by the air force’s choice of the Rafale, which is 85 million dollars apiece, then buying 126 copies of that aircraft is going to cost 120 lakh crores (INR). Which is almost half the budget. Was that a wise decision? At the same time we’re also continuously criticizing our indigenous industry – for good reason. But the big question is for how long are we going to afford buying from abroad?”

Traditionally, the Indian Air Force mix – the inventory was light and medium aircraft. Sukhoi-30 was the first heavy aircraft and initially 190 were to be acquired. Now slowly we contracted 82 more. And the number is 272 now. This plus MMRCA – plus all other future inductions, will take the mix leaning towards medium and heavy. Now its implication is that your revenue expenditure – operational expenditure will progressively go up. It has already started going up

Why the cost could go up ....................

By the time the (MMRCA) RFP was issued the shortlist had turned around completely in favor of twin-engined, heavier aircraft…Did the air force also allow the market to define its requirement? This is something which they have to address.

“We also need to question an open-ended acquisition process where there are no timelines, there are no costs fixed and there is no accountability. We also need to question whether the ministry of defense is actually capable and competent to handle such acquisitions.

Availability, serviceability and reliability will be huge issues. And these are issues which need to be considered. With respect to MMRCA, it should have come, it should have been operational by 2008. Now that we’ve delayed it so long and we’re boxing ourselves into a situation where again cost-factor will come into the picture, you’ve got to decide between FGFA and MMRCA if you’re going to spend 30 billion dollars each on each of the programs – and the country has to take a call. And the reason – the responsibility for this ‘boxing’ is not with the air force. Its with the country as a whole – its with the entire system as a whole. And that’s what you need to look at. Why have you allowed yourself to get boxed in like this?

A point I have been trying to make - Rafale is expensive ................

In acquisition processes across th world, you were mentioning you seek capabilities at a particular cost. My point is that there’s no cost-consciousness. Obviously your requirements and even the capabilities have escalated – they’ve moved up. Sure, a Typhoon and a Rafale category has a higher capability than the others which you were considering. And yes, you may regard this as affordable but there’s a quantum jump in costs. The criticism is has the air force, by ‘over-specing’, has it made it the air force’s mountain strike corps?

Need to run, will post more l8r ...................................

[Philip]

Dhan,the sad fact is that during the last decade,the country was sold lock,stock and barrel to the Yanquis,tx to Quisling Singh and his firang "desi" boss.It is why inordinate delays were experienced with another joker in the pack,the whiter than white "Saint":AKA. Decisions to acquire non-US weapon systems were inordinately delayed or never taken,as with the arty and subs,while US weaponry was fast tracked in acquisition (P-8s,C-17s and decisions-Apaches,Chinooks).The inability of the LH gun from BAe to technically make the grade has prevented another from being added to the list.The rush is on now to shove the Javelin up our backsides when the IA prefers the Israeli Spike.

Most damaging has been the result to the Indian fighting machine,whose capability has deteriorated sharply so that Pakistan,America's favourite rent-boy did not suffer as a result! We were told not to hot up the border /LOC while Pak was desperately trying to fend off its own home grown Taliban,even as it kept on using cross-border terror as an instrument of state policy.The Yanquis were cleverly playing both sides.
What we have to see now is how far the new dispensation is taken in by the new round of US seduction,with the various crocodile praise emanating from the orifices of the US establishment.
There is a famous saying: "Beware of the flatterer,for he feeds you with an empty spoon"!

"Jet Li" is going to require the wisdom of a Solomon to square this MMRCA circle!

[Manish_Sharma]

BTW, what is up with the engine for teh Rafale, does anyone know? As part of the ToT is India getting anything for the Rafale engine?

Currently there is no word anywhere about details of ToT in MMRCA deal, but in olden times when the press used to report "8 billion MMRCA deal"... or later even 10 billion there used to be a few cliche sentences about AESA ToT GaA chips and engine crystal blades, but last 4 years that has stopped.

Though one thing always confused me about engines of two eurobirds:

M88:
Dry thrust = 50 kN each (11,250 lbf)

Afterburner = 75 kN each (17,000 lbf)


Ej200:
Dry thrust = 60 kN each (13,500 lbf)

Afterburner = 90 kN each (20,250 lbf)

How come inspite of such wimpy engines they managed to make Rafale so agile?

Maybe this data fusion flying experience can help IAF pilots form specifications for AMCA, but other than than on powerplant, M88 will be of no use to any other platform, Thrustwise Kaveri is at par with it already only in engine life M88 is ahead.

So for both LCA and AMCA the M88 doesn't count. If ef2k had been selected that would have been a lottery, 3 different types of jets using same engines, maybe AMCA using EJ220 but almost the same.

[Viv S]

Hmmmm 60 F-35s, bought off the shelf from US. That's the thing. As you've been cleverly trying to convince here that ToT is useless not worth. So off-course the US factories their technicians will be paid there high salary from Bharat's pocket.

The same 50% offsets deal can be comfortably obtained here as well. And unlike Dassault which isn't going to source any components for French aircraft from companies based in India, the 50% offsets here will mean a far greater degree of genuine value addition rather than through 'flexibility' in the accounting process.

The whole takleef is that why the money is going to a non-american. Plus world peacemaker the peace lover america must have complete control of IAF that with a wave of hand they sanction and suddenly these whole 60 F-35s are ground. Not only that those 126 Other country's jets would have been out of US control.

What are US' geopolitical objectives in the Asia-Pacific? Why did it place sanctions and then barely ten years later force an exemption for India, through the NSG and IAEA? Why does Japan all of a sudden want to start military exercises and exports to India? Why is the US preparing to lift an arms embargo on Vietnam, with whom it signed a nuclear agreement last year? Why has Vietnam boosting military relations with the Philippines and awarding of oil exploration contracts to India? Its important to look back at history and learn from it, but not at the cost of being blind what is rising in front of us.

On top of that whatever billions paid for these they have to be lined up for EULA ~ EUMA $hit every year so massa can come and intrusively check if cheater unworthy Bharatiyas have done something to their platform.

There's a provision for inspections in the EUMA but there aren't any inspections taking place.

And of course this is another thing propogated by you that ToT is useless, but then why doesn't US share this useless ToT 100% ? If ToT is useless share it, don't charge anything extra for 100% raw material to platform mfrg. here.

Since you put a high premium on ToT, let me ask you - aside from the AESA and composites, what other tech from the Rafale can flow into domestic programs? (No, the landing gear cannot be used for the AMCA.) As far as AESA is concerned, will we get radar schematics or will new foundries be built here. Also, where do the Rafale-sourced composites go, considering that the Tejas Mk2 will already be in production by 2020 while the AMCA will go into production only by 2030?

That is another point that above article by eklavya says for canadians have to pay 45 billion dollars for mere piddly 65 F-35s.

There are dozens of posts in the JSF thread that document the fall in the F-35's cost as more data about its operations became available.

Take a look at the recent Australian purchase of 58 F-35As: A$12 billion acquisition including base refurbishment and weapons (Probably closer to $9bn for just procurement). Plus A$12 billion to operate them over 40 years. (1 AUD = 0.91 USD)

I shudder to think what will happen now! With Tejas engines, LM-2500 on naval ships C-17s, C-130s etc. in case chinooks too come with a wave of hand ugly americans will paralyse big part of armed forces just by sanctions. This poison has to be stopped.

We're at an impasse then. You're concern is with a repeat of 1998. Mine is with a repeat of 1962.

If tomorow we do pokharan tests, the french or russians won't sanction. But US will and this time it'll hit much much harder. So anybody pretending to support american acquisition out of love for Bharat is just a pretender a hypocrite.

Aside from voicing disapproval, the US . This isn't 1998, we're not minor economy and have been accepted as a responsible nuclear power by most of the world. And the US' days as the world sole superpower are coming to a close as is its economic predominance.

Didn't happen long back all those insults and sanctions the real wellwishers won't ever suggest going that way again. But under the garb of wellwishing.... well anything goes. Somebody can say that 60 F-35 without ToT (are available for 5 billion dollars + spares + training + weaponry + lifte time support) , and gareeb Bharat will still have money left for 16 squadrons of Tejas + qatari mirages + AEWs. While only and only for 126 Rafales it wont.

The Rafale has zero VLO capability, unimpressive radar range and costs far too much to be acquired in large numbers. In that respect, even the PAK FA is a more cost effective purchase, let alone the F-35. At the same time the Chinese are building an IADS formidable enough to stave off a US-led alliance. A Rafale deal that depletes India's budget while still remaining incapable of penetrating heavily defended airspace, just helps contribute to China's security.

Yes I agree or disagree with them depending on the issue.

What issues? Only issue is in case they want to by american or at the most british platform then you agree, in case of french or russian you disagree.

The issue was the origin of the C-17 deal; the request came from the IAF as per ACM PV Naik. Whether one believes him is not predicated on whether one agrees/disagrees with the decision.

As far French/Russian purchases, when its a sensible purcahse, I'm all for them. Cases in point: (follow-on) Scorpenes, HMDs/TI/NVGs from Thales/Sagem, A330 MRTTs, Mi-171s etc.

[member_23694]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Simple question. Can India use an F 35 for nuclear strike with complete freedom. [please don't suggest that India can use other options]

while still remaining incapable of penetrating heavily defended airspace,

So an F 35 goes for a strike mission in full stealth mode and internal weapon load in a heavily defended airspace, what will be its internal weapon load capability and how much damage will it be able to do to such a heavily defended air space.
Seems you are trying to simulate a stealth fighter strike mission against Iraq ADS to a situation against China and expecting the same result.

Apart from stealth [and F 35 has VLO from only the front end] if the discussion is on sensor fusion , radars etc, then my understanding is that Rafale is not too far behind or at par in a lot of these with F 35. Further US would give a dumb down AESA or no source code for AESA, which is not the case with Rafale.
F 35 could be good but in an USAF eco system , rather than as an individual plane

Why did it place sanctions and then barely ten years later force an exemption for India,

Just heard somewhere sometime back, that while previous US govt. had a strategic long term vision for Indo-US relation , the current administration has more of a transactional approach towards the relation with India and this can be seen in the direction of the relation in the last 5-6 years.

[Viv S]

Though one thing always confused me about engines of two eurobirds:

Engines are compared on basis of TWR, SFC, MTBO, MTBF. Thrust rating is immaterial.

Maybe this data fusion flying experience can help IAF pilots form specifications for AMCA, but other than than on powerplant, M88 will be of no use to any other platform, Thrustwise Kaveri is at par with it already only in engine life M88 is ahead.

The Kaveri has a long long way to go to equal the M88. All the same it can employ for UAV/UCAVs.

So for both LCA and AMCA the M88 doesn't count. If ef2k had been selected that would have been a lottery, 3 different types of jets using same engines, maybe AMCA using EJ220 but almost the same.

The EJ-220 would have to be funded by India, the EF consortium isn't interested. EPE/EDE variants for the 414 on the other hand already exist.

[Viv S]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Simple question. Can India use an F 35 for nuclear strike with complete freedom. [please don't suggest that India can use other options]

Yes it can. UAI. It is of course wasted in such a role and will be expensive to adapt.

So an F 35 goes for a strike mission in full stealth mode and internal weapon load in a heavily defended airspace, what will be its internal weapon load capability and how much damage will it be able to do to such a heavily defended air space.

8 SDB IIs. Plenty of damage.

Seems you are trying to simulate a stealth fighter strike mission against Iraq ADS to a situation against China and expecting the same result.

They didn't really need stealth bombers in Iraq. Or stealth fighters in Libya. Older gen aircraft were quite sufficient.

Apart from stealth [and F 35 has VLO from only the front end] if the discussion is on sensor fusion , radars etc, then my understanding is that Rafale is not too far behind or at par in a lot of these with F 35. Further US would give a dumb down AESA or no source code for AESA, which is not the case with Rafale.
F 35 could be good but in an USAF eco system , rather than as an individual plane

- The VLO only-from-front-end argument (played up by Kopp & Co.) has been refuted (ref JSF thread).
- The Rafale is NOT at par when it comes to sensors or sensor fusion. Take a look at the F-35's ICP specs post TR2. 1,680 T/R AESA.
- There is no downgraded F-35 export variant. (Ref to JSF thread.) It would take billions to develop one.

Why did it place sanctions and then barely ten years later force an exemption for India,

Just heard somewhere sometime back, that while previous US govt. had a strategic long term vision for Indo-US relation , the current administration has more of a transactional approach towards the relation with India and this can be seen in the direction of the relation in the last 5-6 years.

The Pacific pivot is the cornerstone of US strategy for at least the next two decades at least. For the record, IMO a transactional relationship is quite sufficient. Buy weapons from it only if they're better than the competition, and provided there are no domestic alternatives. No need to get into an alliance with the US. Also, the current govt has just two years left in office.