There is no such thing in the real world as 'transfer of technology'. It is a particularly Indian concept which originated in planning commission speak during the late 1960s along with "R&D" investment in India.Shrinivasan wrote:^^^ Even Rafale purchase, Barak SAM, US2 purchases are in line with this Strategic Autonomy. Our insistence on ToT was also along this lines, but our DPSUs not being able to do $h1t with it has made ToT as ToTal waste.
One interesting comment on this article in comments section:srin wrote:A
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 459932.ece
So fending off pressure from the Indian Air Force (IAF) and European states on medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) should be easy, especially because favouring the French Rafale aircraft or the German Eurofighter is likely to permanently tar the reputation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party as the Bofors gun scam did the Congress party. A boondoggle lurks just below the MMRCA decision and requires, not finalising, but scrutiny by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The MMRCA was conceived by the IAF brass as means of procuring Western aircraft under the rubric of “diversifying supply sources”. The deficiencies in the MMRCA concept and the Rafale aircraft and deal have been analysed in my previous writings. But how supplier states brazenly play a con game using transfer of technology (TOT) provisions with the full connivance and complicity of the ministry of defence and services headquarters is astonishing and has, so far, gone unnoticed. An egregious example is that Dassault, as part of the Rafale contract, has promised gallium nitride (GaN) technology to make semi-conductor chips utilised in high-powered avionics but refused to part with technology for the foundries to fabricate the chips! India will thus pay through its nose for technology that cannot be converted into a component, which will end up being imported for the lifetime of the aircraft.
Your article was interesting. For the first time I read what we had heard in whispers the Tyagi / Browne combo cancelling the Qatar deal. In fact if the CVC / CBI so wishes / desires, the scandal of how Browne when he was ACAS Plans drafted the stupid RFP for the MMRCA and Tyagi ensured that Rafale was selected can be found out easily. I had heard whispers in the MoD corridors of how IAF officers were made to retire when they pointed out by analogy that instead of buying a Full Fledged Ferrari Car, the IAF had drafted specification such that a Ferrari can be purchased with an Ambassador engine. MoD & Antony knew this and other such glaring errors but the combo was all too powerful. Abroad when we questioned MoD about such glaring errors in evaluation (it was impossible to digest that Eurofighter had come in top 2) we were told hush hush stories. Stories which became true when the man in question was sent as Ambassador. A pity that we will be spending twice the money.
Most of India's backwardness is self-inflicted. These kind of decisions seem deliberate to not allow India to progress. Otherwise, the only explanation is that there is some kind of mental blindness and attitude problem.Akshay Kapoor wrote:^The MoD denied him permission. He was very disappointed.
You should. Buy the airframes off the shelf and insist they build the engines in India.NRao wrote:May be I should suggest the F-35 after all.
Lol.
To be bought and then become hanger queens when Unkil gets off the wrong side of the bed. India will be the biggest fools ever if we buy critical stuff like fighters from the US.ramana wrote:After Modi visit the F-35 is not far fetched.
‘IAF under US pressure in aircraft deal with Qatar’
To apportion the blame on IAF for the Qatar deal is dishonesty of the highest order. Even if the IAF Chief 'bend with the winds' to scupper the deal, the source of it lay in the Indian political establishment.The quoting of low price by the Indian Air Force (IAF) for the purchase of 12 secondhand Mirage 2000-5 fighters from Qatar was reportedly done under “subtle pressure” from the US that is pressuring India to buy its F 16/F18 multi- role combat aircraft (MRCA).
12 fighters were never going to make a differenceViv S wrote:First of all, it is obvious that torpedoing of the Qatari Mirage deal was a mistake and a very blatant one at that.
12 fighters wouldn't have been pivotal, but that doesn't make dropping what was a good deal any less of a mistake.GeorgeWelch wrote:12 fighters were never going to make a differenceViv S wrote:First of all, it is obvious that torpedoing of the Qatari Mirage deal was a mistake and a very blatant one at that.
Does buying smart mean that you take into account the 22 to 1 kill ratios and similar statistics that fighter aircraft run up against each other?Viv S wrote:First of all, it is obvious that torpedoing of the Qatari Mirage deal was a mistake and a very blatant one at that. The only thing left is the blame. If one is making the case that the responsibility lies with the MoD and not with the IAF, then lets also grant that the MMRCA decision should come from the MoD as well and any IAF 'lobbying' in the matter needs to be disregarded (since the responsibility for a screw-up will be apportioned to the MoD in the latter case as well).
With regard to the MMRCA being an 'absolute necessity' as many on the thread are stating, lets be clear, this is a first and foremost a matter of simple economics. (An aspect the IAF appears utterly oblivious to.)
The PLAAF is inducting at least 1 regiment each of J-10s and J-11/16s annually with deliveries of the JH-7B starting next year. That's at least 50 fighter inducted annually, rising to 70 fighters per year by 2016. Jane's 'high end' estimates put it at 80/yr.
We're currently inducting 15 MKIs annually ending around 2018. Rafale production will average 14 units/yr (2018-26). And Tejas' production rate will determined by how myopic the MoD/IAF are.
The J-10 & J-11's cost is little harder to pin down. The J-10A was reportedly priced at $42 mil for export customers (flyway presumably). The J-10B/C would likely cost about $50 mil. Factor in the fixed 'setup' costs, and the Rafale comes out to cost about two and half times higher than the J-10.
Does it offer two and a half times greater the combat capability? Keep in mind that the J-10B already fields an AESA, a comprehensive EW suite, high composite content, reduced RCS on an airframe offering more than decent aerodynamic performance. And that it will be replaced by a newer J-10C variant by the time the Rafale nears delivery (and that's without going into the J-31).
Faced with a foe that has budget at least 3 times greater, if cost effectiveness is not the single most important concern for the IAF, then the result of an air war against the PLAAF is predictable. Assuming that our military budget is fixed, the Rafale deal far from bridging the gap with China, will actually make it a lot worse.
Given that the blame for the ignominy of a defeat will inevitably be laid at the govt's door for not allocating 'adequate' resources for defence, the onus is on the MoD to buy smart, even if it means unapologetically overruling the IAF.
Doubt it had anything to do with the MMRCA or the US. The whole sham according to some sources was simply to nix the PAF's play for the aircraft and that India had no genuine interest in it.rohitvats wrote:And then, you've this news:http://archive.deccanherald.com/Deccanh ... 005715.asp
‘IAF under US pressure in aircraft deal with Qatar’
$600M for aircraft that retained '80-85%' of their airframe life according to the RM's statement (just 8 years old and used sparingly).And in 2005, they wanted USD 600 million for these 12 planes and 500 bombs/missiles. That works out to be USD 50 million per plane!The quoting of low price by the Indian Air Force (IAF) for the purchase of 12 secondhand Mirage 2000-5 fighters from Qatar was reportedly done under “subtle pressure” from the US that is pressuring India to buy its F 16/F18 multi- role combat aircraft (MRCA).
How would our Mirage-2000 upgrade deal in 2010 at USD 2.2 billion (USD 43.1 Mn per plane) compare with the price quoted by Qatar in 2005? Unless, the package was very exciting because it came with missiles and bombs? May be, Karan M can answer this better.
I don't know why it doesnt get into your head that the F 18, with its high wing loading, is not suitable for the hot and high conditions that are present at Tibet. It doesnt cut the mustard. Simple as that.GeorgeWelch wrote:
Again, I will point you back to the MRCA deal. Obviously both Boeing and Lockheed strongly believed all the required systems would have been available for India. They invested too much to simply get to the end and be like, 'Oops, guess we can't sell it to you anyways, oh well.'
Why invest so much in, not even last-gen, but pre-last-gen fighters and create yet another sub-fleet?Viv S wrote:12 fighters wouldn't have been pivotal, but that doesn't make dropping what was a good deal any less of a mistake.
Because that statement is incorrect. Simple as that.mahadevbhu wrote:I don't know why it doesnt get into your head that the F 18, with its high wing loading, is not suitable for the hot and high conditions that are present at Tibet. It doesnt cut the mustard. Simple as that.
Answer:12 fighters were never going to make a difference
This after the initial thought of moving the entire 2000K line to India.However, the Indian Government decided to go in for a multi-vendor tendering process. Requests for Information (RFI) were issued in 2004. The RFIs were initially sent to four vendors: Dassault (Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2), Lockheed Martin (F-16C/D), Mikoyan (MiG-29OVT), and Saab (JAS 39 Gripen)
Even if India did buy 100+ Mirage straight from Dassault, I still don't see the point of creating a sub-fleet of 12.NRao wrote:Answer:
This after the initial thought of moving the entire 2000K line to India.However, the Indian Government decided to go in for a multi-vendor tendering process. Requests for Information (RFI) were issued in 2004. The RFIs were initially sent to four vendors: Dassault (Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2), Lockheed Martin (F-16C/D), Mikoyan (MiG-29OVT), and Saab (JAS 39 Gripen)
mahadevbhu wrote:Does buying smart mean that you take into account the 22 to 1 kill ratios and similar statistics that fighter aircraft run up against each other?
Then, the F 22's 242 to 1 kill ratio means that stealth , in the form of the F 35 is absolutely necessary?
Is the US putting it on the table? If they are, will they allow them to be used in a war with China? @GeorgeWelch?
The Rafale isn't going to overly worry the Chinese. Between a high-end IADS coupled with AEW&C systems and a large fighter fleet, they know they can handle it. That comfort will evaporate when pitted against an aircraft with the range, stealth and EW kit to go after their force multipliers and triple digit SAMs, while rendering their rear areas vulnerable to attack.merlin wrote:To be bought and then become hanger queens when Unkil gets off the wrong side of the bed. India will be the biggest fools ever if we buy critical stuff like fighters from the US.
The deal was being negotiated back in 2005 when India has just inducted 12 new build Mirages from France. The Qatari Mirages like the IAF's fleet were off-the-shelf units and would have been perfectly compatible after modification with BEL's IFF and datalink modules.GeorgeWelch wrote:Why invest so much in, not even last-gen, but pre-last-gen fighters and create yet another sub-fleet?Viv S wrote:12 fighters wouldn't have been pivotal, but that doesn't make dropping what was a good deal any less of a mistake.
They were not the same as IAF's existing Mirages so will have their own unique issues.
You can make arguments for them, but you can easily make arguments against them. To say it was the obviously correct decision would be pushing the facts a bit far.
@GeorgeWelch, 60 years since the renowned WWII flying ace, whose name you are using as the forum handle, died, at least live up to that legendary name sake and give sensible, structured argument to justify your stand.GeorgeWelch wrote:Because that statement is incorrect. Simple as that.mahadevbhu wrote:I don't know why it doesnt get into your head that the F 18, with its high wing loading, is not suitable for the hot and high conditions that are present at Tibet. It doesnt cut the mustard. Simple as that.
Closer to $400M. The Rafale will probably clock in at about $300M over its lifetime (not including MLU & local production costs). Add in the cost of a cheaper munitions package and MLU for the F-35 and it'll move towards parity.George wrote:I hope and pray we dont end up buying the overengineered F35. I bet a 35 year lifetime cost for that plane will top 500 mill a piece at the very least.
Looks have nothing do with it (not a pretty aircraft though).And I am not even accounting for the MLD when I quote that number. It is utter madness. Forget capabilities or lack of it and look at plane (design and engineering) from a longevity perspective. We arent buying these planes for 5 years, more like 50.
i put design and engineering in brackets, i did not mean aesthetics. i meant a fat single engine that has to work at above 80% peak power most of its flying time just to keep the aircraft afloat, forget pulling g's. IAF maintenance crews will go nuts keeping that junk in shape. 400 million if not inflation adjusted, maybe if we are lucky, i dont think it will be anything under 500 million.Viv S wrote:Closer to $400M. The Rafale will probably clock in at about $300M over its lifetime (not including MLU & local production costs). Add in the cost of a cheaper munitions package and MLU for the F-35 and it'll move towards parity.George wrote:I hope and pray we dont end up buying the overengineered F35. I bet a 35 year lifetime cost for that plane will top 500 mill a piece at the very least.
Looks have nothing do with it (not a pretty aircraft though).And I am not even accounting for the MLD when I quote that number. It is utter madness. Forget capabilities or lack of it and look at plane (design and engineering) from a longevity perspective. We arent buying these planes for 5 years, more like 50.
What is the need for pulling g's? In a F-35 that is.forget pulling g's
On the contrary. IIRC the AMCA is emulating that aspect of the JSF.IAF maintenance crews will go nuts keeping that junk in shape
Maybe I missed something, but I never saw any credible links to that effect, just some rumor sites repeated endlessly.Krishnakg wrote:F-18 didn't make the grade in the high altitude tests neither the hot weather tests. Boeing reps were briefed about it in that aspect. IAF requirement of MMRCA is not only for filling the squadron numbers, but for effectively taking the fight to where it matters, high over and above, north of Himalayas.
Much has been written and debated about the tests in this forum. Now, is there something we missed and you know something which we don't ?
Need for pulling g's? Best to ask a fighter pilot. And the BVR logic really wont fly when our wars are at our doorstep as opposed to America's wars being at the enemy's doorstep. So we need a plane that can pull g's and fight close. The deal is for MMRCA, not a high altitude bomber escorted by interceptors.NRao wrote:What is the need for pulling g's? In a F-35 that is.forget pulling g's
On the contrary. IIRC the AMCA is emulating that aspect of the JSF.IAF maintenance crews will go nuts keeping that junk in shape
You can tell from its 'design and engineering' appearance that the aircraft goes into a stall under 80% thrust? (BTW its been tested to 9.9Gs and past 50 deg AoA)George wrote:i put design and engineering in brackets, i did not mean aesthetics. i meant a fat single engine that has to work at above 80% peak power most of its flying time just to keep the aircraft afloat, forget pulling g's. IAF maintenance crews will go nuts keeping that junk in shape.
$130M procurement cost. $30K x 8000h = $240M operating cost. The Rafale's cost isn't that much lower especially after accounting for a pricey weapons complement.400 million if not inflation adjusted, maybe if we are lucky, i dont think it will be anything under 500 million.
Best to ask the designers of the plane.Need for pulling g's? Best to ask a fighter pilot.
Maintenance without going nuts.What aspect?
It's not just the US. ANY imported a/c runs the same risk.As Russia gets isolated from the west, it has turned to PRC:merlin wrote:To be bought and then become hanger queens when Unkil gets off the wrong side of the bed. India will be the biggest fools ever if we buy critical stuff like fighters from the US.ramana wrote:After Modi visit the F-35 is not far fetched.