IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Sep 2016 08:18

Kakkaji wrote:Rafale deal comes with 50 per cent offset clause

"The French government has in principle agreed on these points under the offset commitments. Once a final contract for 36 Rafale aircraft is signed, the French government will give subject wise clearance and concrete talks will start,"

"Concrete talks" on offsets scheduled for after the signing of the contract..!!

Vashishtha · Post by **Vashishtha** » 24 Sep 2016 08:22

DDM repeating like monkeys that this is the first fighter acquisition by the IAF in 20 years!!

Guess SDRE LCA does not count as a “fighter“ for our media...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2016 08:26

To colonized Indian minds India and Indians don't count.

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 24 Sep 2016 08:48

Rajat Pandit in TOIlet States that Rafale is Good becuase MKI is inferior to PAF F-16 .To Counter each F -16 IAF have to deploy 2 MKI'S. With RAFALE PAF will have to deploy 2 Falcons to Counter a Rafale.

This chap Calls himself a defence Expert and News is on Front Page. Hey Bhagwan!!!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Sep 2016 08:54

Christopher Sidor wrote:Wow saving of 328 million is justified by reducing the number of aircraft to just 2 squadrons. Forget making 100+ aircraft in India, like the original deal called for. In deal the number of aircraft being made in India is ZERO.

Dassault will never allow HAL to build the Rafale and rightfully so. HAL has a poor track record of quality control and Dassault has cultivated an image - over the decades - of building quality products. Why ruin that image? Dassault even told that to the Indian Govt during negotiations. A private company - under Dassault's thumb - is a different story though.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2016 09:24

Did I read that the negotiations agreed that the French must be responsible for keeping the Rafale fleet at an operational readiness level of 70%? Hey I thought all the high tech and French wizardry should give us 90% uptime without breaking a sweat. Su-30s are at 60+ % now and will themselves hit 70.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Sep 2016 10:40

As per contract, operational readiness must be at 75% or greater, which will not be hard for Dassault to achieve. The Mirage 2000 has had a high serviceability with the IAF and the Rafale will be no different. A more realistic scenario would be minimum 80% fleet availability with the Rafale. Any lower than 75% would suggest something is amiss.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Sep 2016 10:53

Looks like rbe2aa and the deleted osf2 irst is also there.

Indian express

Although the base version of Rafale remains the same as the one being used by the French Air Force, the Indian version of the fighter jet will have 14 India-specific enhancements. Sources said these include the helmet mounted display, Doppler beam radar, IR search and track, and towed decoy. It is because of these enhancements that the delivery time of the first aircraft cannot be less than 36 months.

In addition, the French are also guaranteeing performance-based logistics support, which means that 75 per cent of the fleet will be airworthy at any given time. According to sources, the airworthiness of the Russian Sukhoi Su-30, the mainstay of the IAF, has reached 55 per cent with great difficulty from 46 per cent two years ago.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 24 Sep 2016 11:48

Rakesh wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:Wow saving of 328 million is justified by reducing the number of aircraft to just 2 squadrons. Forget making 100+ aircraft in India, like the original deal called for. In deal the number of aircraft being made in India is ZERO.
Dassault will never allow HAL to build the Rafale and rightfully so. HAL has a poor track record of quality control and Dassault has cultivated an image - over the decades - of building quality products. Why ruin that image? Dassault even told that to the Indian Govt during negotiations. A private company - under Dassault's thumb - is a different story though.

Rakesh sir what will then be quality of LCA, AMCA ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Sep 2016 12:14

Rakesh wrote:Dassault will never allow HAL to build the Rafale and rightfully so. HAL has a poor track record of quality control and Dassault has cultivated an image - over the decades - of building quality products. Why ruin that image? Dassault even told that to the Indian Govt during negotiations. A private company - under Dassault's thumb - is a different story though.

I have seen the build quality of HAL built MKI and late model Mirages we bought from Dassault side by side and the build quality of MKI were as good as the Mirages if not better ..........Any body who has visited AI should be testimony to that.

Dassault had their own business reason to fleece money from MOD and guess who they selected to build Rafale ....Reliance !

Other than HAL no one in India has the experience to build aircraft for MOD over decades much less a fighter jet of 4 plus generation and HAL is building both Tejas and MKI

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 24 Sep 2016 12:38

Singha wrote:Looks like rbe2aa and the deleted osf2 irst is also there.

Indian express

Although the base version of Rafale remains the same as the one being used by the French Air Force, the Indian version of the fighter jet will have 14 India-specific enhancements. Sources said these include the helmet mounted display, Doppler beam radar, IR search and track, and towed decoy. It is because of these enhancements that the delivery time of the first aircraft cannot be less than 36 months.

In addition, the French are also guaranteeing performance-based logistics support, which means that 75 per cent of the fleet will be airworthy at any given time. According to sources, the airworthiness of the Russian Sukhoi Su-30, the mainstay of the IAF, has reached 55 per cent with great difficulty from 46 per cent two years ago.

Could be a noob pooch, but what is performance-based logistic support?

Also, how can only the vendor be responsible for the availability rate? Isn't the service staff equally important/responsible? Does the guarantee given by Desault mean that they will stockpile every single nut-bolt for all 36 planes at Indian bases?

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 24 Sep 2016 12:39

Rafale is a strong contender for 120nos make in India fighter @12/year in 2020-30 timeframe unless replaced by LCA mk2 or F16/F18/gripen.

India to select fighter jet under Make in India by March 2017

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Sep 2016 13:11

Singha wrote:Looks like rbe2aa and the deleted osf2 irst is also there.

Indian express

Although the base version of Rafale remains the same as the one being used by the French Air Force, the Indian version of the fighter jet will have 14 India-specific enhancements. Sources said these include the helmet mounted display, Doppler beam radar, IR search and track, and towed decoy. It is because of these enhancements that the delivery time of the first aircraft cannot be less than 36 months.

Actually the RBE-2AA is now standard for the Rafale since 2012 (with PESA out of production). The IRST meanwhile is a plug-and-play device. Can be installed on even the newer French Rafales. If was deleted from the later tranches because of severe performance issues that reduced the marginal utility of further acquisition.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Sep 2016 13:28

sankum wrote:Rafale is a strong contender for 120nos make in India fighter @12/year in 2020-30 timeframe unless replaced by LCA mk2 or F16/F18/gripen.

India to select fighter jet under Make in India by March 2017

They should simply buy 4 squadron more of Tejas Mk2 and 2 Squadron more of MKI and wrap it up with local production already under way for both and to keep logistics simple as possible , MOD himself admits that he can buy 1 MKI and 1 Tejas at the cost of 1 Rafale which now cost far more than quoted in the link.

Selecting either Gripen or Teens or Eurofighter will just add to the complexity of logistics & cost with marginal gains if at all ....Which Lunatic Advises MOD to buy make these in India must surely deserve Bharat Ratna.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 24 Sep 2016 13:41

Does anyone know if there is any penalty clause on non delivery of offsets in the Rafale Deal

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 24 Sep 2016 14:05

For G2G deals, even in case of US FMS procurement, offset clause is not guaranteed by USG, it is a direct agreement with the supplier.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Sep 2016 14:40

Viv S wrote:

"Concrete talks" on offsets scheduled for after the signing of the contract..!!

I don't exactly remember if the negotiations for offests in C 17 deal was before or after, I think it was after but no sure.

Though desi dork media was going gaga over boeing setting up a state of art testing tunnel in Bharat. Which stealthily now they reported on last page in smallest font size that how americans cheated and set up 60 years old rotten testing tunnel. Many parts of which are being sent back for replacement.

Though as your nature you'd defend anything from US or UK.

sooraj · Post by **sooraj** » 24 Sep 2016 15:09

Dassault to start delivery of rafale from 2019. By that time how many LCA will IAF get????

arvin · Post by **arvin** » 24 Sep 2016 15:51

^^^ Minimum 20 LCA MK-1 should be there with 1 squadron formed in sulur....More can come if fav munna HAL delivers.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Sep 2016 15:51

Sumeet wrote:Rakesh sir what will then be quality of LCA, AMCA ?

Aiyoo!! Please don't call me sir. I am a joker whose only claims to fame are mithai (which I still have not delivered because it is not Akula 2) and giving movie star names to fighter aircraft. I am learning and have been rightfully called out (or pulled up) when I say something dumb.

Here are some articles on HAL's track record. Not pathetic, but lots of room for improvement. Rome was not built in a day. Takes time.

HAL to build 8, then 12, Tejas fighters each year
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2013/12/h ... s.html?m=1

Within ADA and in HAL, there is expectation that better production could improve aircraft performance. “Better build quality could well improve the Tejas’ aerodynamic performance, reducing drag, and improving its speed, rate of climb and turn rate,” says a designer.

Boeing ends contract with HAL over ‘poor quality’ of production
http://www.financialexpress.com/economy ... al/110345/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Sep 2016 16:14

Austin wrote:I have seen the build quality of HAL built MKI and late model Mirages we bought from Dassault side by side and the build quality of MKI were as good as the Mirages if not better ..........Any body who has visited AI should be testimony to that.

Dassault had their own business reason to fleece money from MOD and guess who they selected to build Rafale ....Reliance !

Other than HAL no one in India has the experience to build aircraft for MOD over decades much less a fighter jet of 4 plus generation and HAL is building both Tejas and MKI

Aishwariya and Rambha side to side is not a fair comparison. Yes both are women, but that is where the comparison ends. You cannot ask Rambha to do what Aishwariya did in Dhoom 2 or in Devdas. Rambha excels in brute force, not finesse. And despite the Su-30 having a visual appearance of being similar in build quality to the Mirage 2000, the serviceability of the former when compared to the latter speaks for itself.

Air Marshal Harish Masand's article on the MiG-29 va the M2k basically said the same thing. But the former soundly beat the latter in almost very performance parameter.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Sep 2016 16:46

Manish_Sharma wrote:I don't exactly remember if the negotiations for offests in C 17 deal was before or after, I think it was after but no sure.

Try remembering. Squeeze your eyes shut and push on the brain muscle. Of course, most people would just google it, but why take the easy way out huh? So go on.. deep breaths.

Though desi dork media was going gaga over boeing setting up a state of art testing tunnel in Bharat. Which stealthily now they reported on last page in smallest font size that how americans cheated and set up 60 years old rotten testing tunnel. Many parts of which are being sent back for replacement.

Though as your nature you'd defend anything from US or UK.

And the lesson you got from wasn't to start negotiating and drafting better contracts, but to instead bank upon the 'goodwill' of the other party (after all the Scorpene deal, Mirage upgrade, Mirage spares, Shakti engine, MMRCA contracts were implemented in both letter and spirit).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Sep 2016 17:02

kapilrdave wrote: Could be a noob pooch, but what is performance-based logistic support?

Also, how can only the vendor be responsible for the availability rate? Isn't the service staff equally important/responsible? Does the guarantee given by Desault mean that they will stockpile every single nut-bolt for all 36 planes at Indian bases?

Here is my take

Suppose French AF experience has shown that spare part X needs inspection & servicing after every 100 hours and part Y needs that after 250 hours of use, but Indian Air Force operations and Indian climate show that X needs inspection every 150 hours and Y every 100 hours then it is up to the vendor to have greater numbers of these available at short notice (locally) rather than being surprised and saying "Hey we do that only every z hours. You are overusing/your weather is bad" This has happened time and again to us. In fact a similar issue was discussed wrt to maintenance of ALH rotors and what AF wanted and what HAL had suggested

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Sep 2016 17:11

PBL contracts do come with clauses where the utilization and SOP's are specified for many support functions but in the end of the day there is a risk since you are agreeing to meeting all component demand through a fixed price contract that offers a guaranteed availability rates with proper protection for he vendor. You hedge the risk by adjusting the profit margin. PBL's work great if you have lots of products operating in different operational environments around the globe so that you have a robust data base on component reliability given the variability in climate, utilization, etc.

Big data has allowed these companies to aggressively offer these services at a much lower fleet size and on much higher performing aircraft. Dassault has done this with the Rafale that has a small fleet that has mostly operated in France. Lockheed was contractually offering a PBL on the F-35 even before it was declared operational despite the risk to their bottom line that entails. For the operator it works great since many prefer paying a little bit extra margin for assured availability and its always good to know your out year costs in advance so that you can plan your budget accordingly. It also incentivises the OEM to drive up component reliability without asking the operator for funds to do the same much like other capitated payment models.

If done right, its a win win.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Sep 2016 17:32

Though not as heavy striker like eagle or flanker, rafale is a masterpiece of packaging so many systems onto a small carrier qualified chassis. In that its like a expensive uber ssk.

Time will tell if its lower claimed opex and higher uptime balances the 2x capex premium over more su30

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Sep 2016 18:41

brar_w wrote: Big data...

If done right, its a win win.

Just by keeping track of actual mission profiles flown by every jet every time it flies (Life Tracking System), you can increase life by 20-30% (I know one practical example which I won't quote for obvious reasons). This is where big data comes into play. OEMs are leveraging this to extend life of components. When OEMs have PBL they are more interested in extending life of components for obvious reasons. And this is a win-win situation for both the customer and the OEM, since manufacturing costs come down for customer while profile margin improves for OEMs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Sep 2016 18:51

Rakesh wrote:
Austin wrote:Aishwariya and Rambha side to side is not a fair comparison. Yes both are women, but that is where the comparison ends. You cannot ask Rambha to do what Aishwariya did in Dhoom 2 or in Devdas. Rambha excels in brute force, not finesse. And despite the Su-30 having a visual appearance of being similar in build quality to the Mirage 2000, the serviceability of the former when compared to the latter speaks for itself. Air Marshal Harish Masand's article on the MiG-29 va the M2k basically said the same thing. But the former soundly beat the latter in almost very performance parameter.

Sirjee , Build Quality and Serviceability are different things since you mentioned Build Quality and spoke about HAL Reputation , I stated HAL Build Quality of MKI is as good as Mirage-2000 or for that matter Rafale , I have seen both of them , Visually you find them equally good unlike previous gen aircraft say Mig-29 where shoddy build quality is visible.

Serviceability is a question of spares available to aircraft , We are paying to Dassault through our nose to maintain high servicibility of 75 % through PBL contracts , We dont have such contracts for MKI or other types of fighter in service , The entire Su-30MKI contract with TOT ,Lic Build , Make in India etc is worth ~ $12 - 15 Billion for 272 aircraft while just 36 Rafale cost ~ $9 billion , If we were to implement a PBL type contract for MKI storing spares rotable etc for 5 years like Rafale deal the cost will go up exponentially.

Still through MOD effort they managed to increase servicibility of MKI from 45 % to 55-60 % , plus parrikar himself said he would like to bring it up to 70 % with recent spare contract works $500 million signed with Russia.

Having said that I still think Rafale is the best aircraft for Nuclear Detterent and can serve SFC for the next 30 years with suitable upgrades cost not withstanding

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Sep 2016 18:53

About rotten facilities and the like ^^^:

"The Defence Minister also complimented Boeing for keeping its word in this regard :"Boeing kept their word, the promise which was given to me after we concluded Apache and Chinook deals that this particular facility will be located in India and to be shifted from a place where they head a facility. And I always keep in mind that those who remember what they say at the time of celebration and complete them afterwards are the people to be noted for future reference."

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 491_1.html

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Sep 2016 18:56

Also interesting info graphic in today's WSJ on fighter plane requirements over the next 15 years

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/ima ... 180905.jpg

http://www.wsj.com/articles/foreign-jet ... 1474709401

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Sep 2016 19:15

^^^ Thank Fully these Rotten Facilities and equally Rotten HAL has been keeping IAF fighters flying for decades and winning wars for India

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 25 Sep 2016 01:06

Serviceability is a question of spares available to aircraft , We are paying to Dassault through our nose to maintain high servicibility of 75 % through PBL contracts , We dont have such contracts for MKI or other types of fighter in service , The entire Su-30MKI contract with TOT ,Lic Build , Make in India etc is worth ~ $12 - 15 Billion for 272 aircraft while just 36 Rafale cost ~ $9 billion , If we were to implement a PBL type contract for MKI storing spares rotable etc for 5 years like Rafale deal the cost will go up exponentially.

Still through MOD effort they managed to increase servicibility of MKI from 45 % to 55-60 % , plus parrikar himself said he would like to bring it up to 70 % with recent spare contract works $500 million signed with Russia.

Austin, great post.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Sep 2016 01:27

Before bashing HAL for terrible availability rate of Su-30 or even Russians for their design philosophy, we should not forget that we have deployed Su-30MKIs in US/Europe for exercises with 100% availability multiple times. And doing that for extensive ones like Red flag is not a trivial thing, especially when western AFs themselves routinely struggle to achieve this in Red flag despite having commonality with h USAF and readily available support around. Also looking at the sortie rate in Syria by Russian AF, its amply clear that Russian maal can be maintained at high availability rate if need be.

Previously brar_w has explained many times in great details, just as Austin above. Availability is matter of how much money you are willing to put on table. We have had discussions in Su-30 thread how HAL offered PBL but IAF didn't take the offer for various reasons. Su-30 are not Hero Honda Spender that one will get spares dime a dozen everywhere. They have to be pre-stocked or else take months or even years once ordered. Moment HAL started spares depot in Nashik, availability number started showing improvement.

I personally find this HAL bashing funny. Clearly HAL has issues, but then HAL has to wade through same waters that other desi orgs have to.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Sep 2016 01:32

There are two things critical to having high mission availability. One is spare/support availability and the other is component reliability. You can acheive high availability by either having a huge pool of spares and components to keep changing them, or having components that are highly reliable. Both are tracked in any organized system. While the former is a matter of funding and you can simply improve performance by keeping a stockpile (hence you can get near 100% availability over a duration as in a conflict) while the other is a deeper process that takes a long time to correct. Why light aircraft like the Gripen are impressive in this regard is that they are designed around very high MA numbers at a very low cost since they were designed for western forces where component reliability can mitigate a lot of very high manpower cost and thereby allow for higher availability at lower cost.

If there is proper planning and a well oiled logistics machine then availability is a matter of funding. You get the availability you can afford. Take the F-22A numbers for example. There is no reason the USAF can't be at 80% but they wouldn't be able to afford that without making trades elsewhere. Getting to that 80% would require a level of investment that it may not wish to make. F-22 --> F-35 and now B-21, GE has suffered some extremely significant defeats and is going to have to commit a ton of resources for NG systems to make sure that they can win the next round...Doesn't bode well for them creating a NG variant of the F414 and a customer picking it up.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Sep 2016 04:17

Viv S wrote: And the lesson you got from wasn't to start negotiating and drafting better contracts, but to instead bank upon the 'goodwill' of the other party (after all the Scorpene deal, Mirage upgrade, Mirage spares, Shakti engine, MMRCA contracts were implemented in both letter and spirit).

Awwwww soooo upset at the exposure of american cheating.

See we went to french for Shakti 'cause your american refused to give the helicopter engine deal. They flatly refused, but happily gave it to turkey.

What is wrong with Mirage spares? IAF is very happy with m2k which were bought as an answer to f-16 given to porks by usa.

I'm sure usa is in exchange to lemoa now is going to lease and part with technology of seawolf subs and we won't have to deal with scorpene, Akula etc.

As someone said 1 Rafale = 6 M2k, so 25 available Rafale = 150 M2k

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Sep 2016 04:58

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 362719.cms

India to select fighter jet under 'Make in India' by March 2017

NEW DELHI: The government will zero in by the end of current fiscal a fighter jet it wants to build under 'Make in India' initiative, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said today, as he expressed confidence that the deal for 36 Rafale jets will be wrapped up in "weeks".

He said India will decide on either Boeing's F18A, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen.

Parrikar said various issues, like cost and necessity among others, will have to be taken into account before selecting a foreign fighter even as he pointed out that Rafales are expensive.

"I cannot tell you the dates but it is very near. It is near completion. Need a few more weeks to fine tune it," he said in an interview to All India Radio.

He said the price was still under negotiation. "You will have to bring down the cost. If you give away the price they demand, our coffer will soon become empty," he said.

Parrikar pointed out that a Rafale would cost anywhere between Rs 600 and Rs 750 crore each and a Sukhoi 30 and Tejas can be bought together at the same price.

However, it is expected that the 36 Rafales will cost about Euro 7.25 billion without armaments. This will work out to be about Rs 1,500 crore per aircraft.

Strongly backing the quality of Tejas, Parrikar said it has the same qualities as Rafale.

Tejas is in light weight category and its range is also half compared to Rafale, but in terms of avionics, electronics and fire power it is no less to Rafale, he said.

The minister said India will select a good fighter by the end of this financial year to be made domestically.

"It is not yet decided which aircraft it would be. It may be F18, Rafale, Eurofighter or Grippen. The decision in this regard will be taken in this financial year," he said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Sep 2016 07:57

In addition to the points made by others regarding high mission availability and spares I want to point out one huge difference between 3 Gen and 4 Gen aircraft - and that is modular construction with Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) and self diagnosis. I think the Mirage 2000 and possibly the Rafale have gone exceptionally far in making all "frequently accessed" items easily accessible unlike on old aircraft where the engine had to be removed to access the radio involving a week of work. So this is a design feature - from bottom up - allowing components to be easily replaced without disassembling the entire aircraft for a small component failure. IIRC the Eurofighter people boast that the engine itself can be replaced in less than an hour

The LCA too was designed with LRUs but there was some news recently that some redesign has been done to make some items more easily accessible

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Sep 2016 09:50

Manish_Sharma wrote:Awwwww soooo upset at the exposure of american cheating.

I taking it you're still racking your brains and unwilling to use Google..

See we went to french for Shakti 'cause your american refused to give the helicopter engine deal. They flatly refused, but happily gave it to turkey.

What is wrong with Mirage spares? IAF is very happy with m2k which were bought as an answer to f-16 given to porks by usa.

Why did HAL issue an RFP for the LUH engines instead of carrying forward the Shakti? Why did the Scorpene deal get delayed by 4 years? Why was the MMRCA cancelled? As for the disputes with Mirage spares deal.. well kindly do your own research before you start chiming in. You cannot expect the world to keep spoon feeding you.

I'm sure usa is in exchange to lemoa now is going to lease and part with technology of seawolf subs and we won't have to deal with scorpene, Akula etc.

As someone said 1 Rafale = 6 M2k, so 25 available Rafale = 150 M2k

Nobody ever said that.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Sep 2016 10:10

Seawolf coming,he!he!Adm.Koshy,what variant therefore is our Akula? Don't renege on the mithai!
The Mig-29 was meant to be a cheaper smaller fighter than the Flanker,more affordable.Large numbers,greater availabilty with lesser maintenance,Sov. philosophy.Replace the entire engine not a component,etc.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Sep 2016 19:30

phir se shuroo..
http://www.businessinsider.in/Pakistan- ... 498413.cms

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 25 Sep 2016 21:42

Manish_Sharma wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 362719.cms

India to select fighter jet under 'Make in India' by March 2017

It seems likely that uncle is going to dump one of its other deadend assembly line F-A/18 hornet into India. Just like at the start of the IT era IBM and HP were dumping obsolete computers at prime rate in India now USA is going to dump even more obsolete technologies into India. Chinook being the prime example.