MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

[Rakesh]

Well, if F5 variant is offered, then Dassault will also have to include the stealth-UCAV (unnamed) platform along-with as well.
As except for the MUMT capability, the avionics etc of the F5, can/will be matched by the F15EX/Eurofighter and maybe even the F21/Gripen-E.
And that'd mean serious price-escalation (as it will have to include unit-price of the Stealth UCAV as well), over an already high-priced platform - which can make it an automatic reject category purely from the pricing pov.

Had it been a straight G2G kind of deal, Dassault could have packaged it as a "joint-dev-jointly-funded" kind of an option, which can then somehow justify the high prices etc - however in a open contest, they can't do so, and unit-price (incl the UCAV unit-price + R&D cost etc) will be a deal-breaker.

In MMRCA 1.0, cost was equally a factor back then. And yet on 27 April 2011, the Rafale and the Typhoon won the technical downselect despite the F-16IN and F-18SH being cheaper. The pricing issue never even came to play at that stage. And this is what will happen again. Air Force will evaluate and Air HQ will advise the Govt on the choice of aircraft that have passed the technical smell test. Then, and only then, will the Govt/MoD take over.

This is what happened even in the 2023 MRCBF contest. F-18SH is cheaper than Rafale M, but the latter won the technical downselect. Boeing was touting integration of the F-18SH with the P-8I Neptune and the MQ-9B drone. Still they lost. That must hurt. Some folks became truly blue (with embarrassment). And when that process was over, only then did our MoD and France's DGA hold multiple rounds of negotiation on cost and other issues.

Who is/are the qualified soul(s) in the Govt or in the MoD, that is going to overrule Air HQ on technical issues?

Before we even get to pricing, Air HQ will see which aircraft are going to participate in the contest. I don't see the Russians offering the MiG-35 or the Su-35. They are well aware they are not going to win the contest with those offerings. The Russians will put the Su-57 Felon into the mix instead. The Typhoon will participate, along with the F-21 from Lockheed Martin and the F-15EX from Boeing. I am assuming the latter has smartened up, after both the IAF and the IN soundly rejected the F-18SH and therefore I don't see Boeing offering that aircraft. Saab lives in a fantasy world of its own marketing spin and thus the Gripen-E will also enter the fray. And then there is the Rafale, which is the IAF's preferred choice.

The new RFI will place emphasis on RCS / low visibility and when Air HQ drafts the RFI, they will ensure that this parameter will be given weightage. To quote Group Captain MJA Vinod (retd), "The Rafale has a RCS of a small bird." I doubt the F-15EX has a RCS similar to that of the Rafale. I do not know about the F-21 or Gripen E, but it should be better than that of the F-15EX.

Let the technical downselect be completed. Then based on who is left, then we can talk about pricing

P.S. Rafale will make the cut in the technical downselect. Who else will make the cut is what remains to be seen.

[Rakesh]

A couple of articles from prior years, but interesting insight into the Eagle-II program.

New Acquisition Report: F-15EX Unit Cost Will Be $94 Million
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/new-a ... unit-cost/
03 Oct 2023

F-15EX Wins Some, Loses Some in Northern Edge
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/f-15e ... hern-edge/
20 May 2021

The USP of the Eagle II is right here ---> https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/e ... tem-epawss

[Rakesh]

Enjoy the following brochure

Unit cost of the F-15EX has not hit US $80 million - despite the claim in the brochure below - as of yet for the USAF. Expect a unit cost (of a possible sale to India) in the triple digits, just like with the Rafale. Also expect to pay exorbitant sums of money in annual OPEX costs.

Joining Up on the F-15EX
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/artic ... he-f-15ex/
01 Nov 2020

[Rakesh]

VIDEO: https://x.com/ShivAroor/status/1852332080698372537 ---> India reboots hunt for 114 foreign fighter aircraft under the MRFA contest, Govt signals global contest to be opened. But after IAF’s Rafale tryst, how did we EVER reach this point again? Here’s my detailed background explainer.

VIDEO: https://x.com/livefist/status/1852363181408030943 ---> “You know what they say about the definition of madness. We’ve essentially found ourselves back there,” says @zone5aviation on the Indian Govt hinting at another global contest to acquire 114 fighters under MRFA.

[Rakesh]

कृपया दिवाली के अवसर पर अमेरिका से यह उपहार स्वीकार करें

New Measures Targeting Third-Country Enablers Supporting Russia’s Military-Industrial Base
https://www.state.gov/new-measures-targ ... rial-base/
30 Oct 2024

https://x.com/sidhant/status/1852231963467485473 ---> US state Dept puts Indian companies, Indian nationals on sanctions list for supporting Russia’s Military-Industrial Base. US State Dept List. Companies from China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Türkiye and the UAE put on the sanctions list.

[maitya]

...

However, all depends upon which path MoD wants this contest to charter - all it takes is to make Unit Price (the dreaded life cycle cost calc boondoggle that MMRCA endlessly meandered thru) as a deciding factor, with sufficient weight attached to it, in the first down-select (called technical evaluation) phase itself.

None of the platforms, Rafale included, will be hard-pressed to bring-in their RCS advantage to play too much. All 25Ton MTOW class platforms will have similar RCS profiles, more or less - most employ composites to reduce RCS and extensively use their SPJs to delay detection/tracking - and that's about it really.

I'm still not sure exactly where F-15EX and Su-35 variants fit-in alongside these contenders - being 35T (as opposed to 25T) behemoths, irrespective of all their shiny-brochure-based tall claims about RCS-reduction etc, I do not see how exactly they can compete with these 25Ton platforms, wrt their own RCS reduction techniques.

I also don't think Unkil will simply allow any other country OEM to simply walk-way with such a large deal.

So I think, IMNHO, this contest should have been split into 2 parts:
1) a std 4/4.5Gen 25Ton MTOW class restricted to one part of the contest (which has Make in India an mandatory aspect)
2) while the other is purely a 5th Gen Stealth platform of 35Ton class (where Make in India can be optional).

Something like a 76 + 38 (or even 76 and 38 + 19 optional) split between them.

This will have something for all sides to aspire for, and 2nd option can address (partially) the 5th Gen nood status till 2035.

[Rakesh]

However, all depends upon which path MoD wants this contest to charter - all it takes is to make Unit Price (the dreaded life cycle cost calc boondoggle that MMRCA endlessly meandered thru) as a deciding factor, with sufficient weight attached to it, in the first down-select (called technical evaluation) phase itself.

If all OEMs are to participate with their offerings, then Air HQ will have to conduct an evaluation of the platforms. In MMRCA 1.0, the "dreaded" life cycle cost was also part of the evaluation. Still the US lost on technical grounds. And this time around, the Rafale will hold the prime spot in that aspect. None of the other OEMs have the advantage that Dassault presently has i.e. the platform being offered in active service. The 75% fleet availability (PBL agreement) with the 36 Rafales is working out exceptionally well, as fleet availability is working out to well above 75% and from what I have read, it is above 90%.

The other OEMs can promise the moon, but there is nothing that beats verifiable fleet availability data that the Rafale is currently offering. And Dassault is well aware of this ace up their sleeve and so do the other OEMs. The LCC is going to largely work out in Dassault's favour. And post-Galwan, the induction of the Rafale has been a great force multiplier for the IAF. Perhaps the US offerings can do the same, but where is the data to back that up? Brochures are not going to cut it and neither is data from the experience of other air forces.

If the Rafale was not in active service with the IAF, one could argue that Dassault's claim is just as valid as the claims of all the other OEMs that are participating in the MRFA contest. But that is not the case, is it? And the longer this contest plays out, that much more will the Rafale display her strengths (and even her weaknesses) to the evaluators in the IAF.

* Rafale - 4 years, 3 months and counting in active service with the IAF.

* Gripen-E, F-21, F-15EX, F-18SH, Typhoon - how many years of active service with the IAF?

Even the Su-35S (youngest cousin of the Su-30MKI) has more familiarity with the IAF than any of the above. The Rambha is currently at 22+ years in active service with the IAF, as No 20 Squadron (the first Rambha unit) was raised in Sept 2002.

And making unit cost the "deciding" factor is a sure fire way of making the Russians win

Secondly, there are very few air forces - if any - that operate combat aircraft in the varied geographical locations that India does. And IAF Rafales have now served in all of them and are well aware of the platform's limitations. In fact, in MMRCA 1.0 this was evaluated as well. The Americans had lost points here, as one of their turbofans suffered technical issues. If I were a foreign OEM (non-Dassault), I would mention LCC as per required in the RFI documents. But I would not crow about it , knowing that the IAF has in-service data on their main competitor.

What the MoD can do - however - is remove all the non-US fighters from the contest. It will then become a G2G deal, but between the F-21 and the F-15EX and the F-18SH. But this is not what the relaunched MRFA contest is about. In MMRCA 1.0, the main complaint from the US is that "geopolitical" weightage is not being given its due importance. They know when pitched against the Typhoon and the Rafale, the sheen of their 4th generation offerings begin to lose their shine. Against Russian maal, this comparison worked. But it is proving a much harder nut to crack against the Euro canards.

Thirdly, the US will lose out with the F-15EX in the dreaded LCC calculation, as the OPEX of the F-15 is not for the faint of heart. But here is where LM's offering will shine. The question then remains is what is the game changer technology in the F-21 (or even in the F-15) that will trump over the Rafale F5, that will require investment in a whole new fleet of aircraft? Air HQ will evaluate everything, including LCC (in which Dassault has the advantage). The last time I checked, these are all 4th generation platforms and we had a very robust discussion on the pitfalls for the IAF of a 5th generation US platform.

Fourthly, all data on LCC has to be conducted and graded by the Indian Air Force. Even the parameters to be measured will be determined by the IAF. There is not a soul in the MoD that will even know where to begin and how to evaluate. The MoD will rely on the IAF for this information. Babus are pencil pushers with horse blinders on. They follow processes and procedures at all times, because that is what they have been trained to do. The IAF will advise the Babus at the MoD of the data acquired and these Babus will swallow that data lock, stock and barrel. Good luck!

None of the platforms, Rafale included, will be hard-pressed to bring-in their RCS advantage to play too much. All 25Ton MTOW class platforms will have similar RCS profiles, more or less - most employ composites to reduce RCS and extensively use their SPJs to delay detection/tracking - and that's about it really.

I'm still not sure exactly where F-15EX and Su-35 variants fit-in alongside these contenders - being 35T (as opposed to 25T) behemoths, irrespective of all their shiny-brochure-based tall claims about RCS-reduction etc, I do not see how exactly they can compete with these 25Ton platforms, wrt their own RCS reduction techniques.

I am glad you mentioned the above, because this will result in the F-15EX scoring low in the RCS evaluation. I am not going to bring in the Su-35S (as of yet), because the crux of this discussion is acquiring a US platform at all costs. So F-15EX will score low in the OPEX and RCS evaluations. That leaves only the F-21 and the not-too-desired-after F-18SH.

The same question then remains ---> What is the game changer technology in the F-21 vis à vis the Rafale?

I also don't think Unkil will simply allow any other country OEM to simply walk-way with such a large deal.

This is the same advice that was given in MMRCA 1.0, the SE fighter contest and even in the MRCBF contest. And we know how they ended up.

The problem for Air HQ is with Unkil's platforms being offered;

1) F-18SH: Production line to close in 2027. Rejected by the IAF and the IN in two different contests. Fighter jocks at Air HQ don't consider her to be a viable AF fighter. Aware of this, Boeing is pitching the F-15EX - as a second option - in lieu of the F-18SH.

2) F-15EX: Massive OPEX costs + huge RCS + duplication of capability with the arrival of the Super Sukhoi. And India's local missile programs are just as effective as the AMRAAMs being offered. Then what is the point really?

3) F-21: Can it prevail over Rafale F5? If both are equally capable, then what is the point of the F-21?

When the Euro canards were developed in the 1980s, the earlier iterations of the above three were already in active service. Therefore the benchmark for Airbus and Dassault were fighter aircraft that had to be at least on par (if not better) than the above three. And while the above three are combat proven platforms, the Euro canards can stand toe-to-toe against the F-teens and in many respects, better. And when pitched in a contest - like with the MMRCA and the MRCBF - is it any surprise that the Euro canards are the winners?

There is nobody in India - apart from the IAF - that will decide which OEM will get the red rose. If an American fighter is indeed chosen, it is because the IAF wanted it. No one is going to tell the IAF what to do, on the choice of platform. If you want an American plane, then remove all the non-US OEMs from the contest. You are not going to get very far with that scheme though, but you are more than welcome to try.

The technical downselect will also be publicly announced, just like with the MMRCA 1.0 announcement of 27 April 2011. What will be the "sound" rationale for re-introducing fighters that were eliminated from the technical downselect? Better yet, who will provide that rationale? PMO? MoD? There is no other sure fire way to bring down an elected government in India, like a defense scandal. Bofors ring a bell?

If you want America to win this contest, then kindly advise the Americans to understand what the IAF wants from the MRFA purchase. This is not a MiG-21 replacement. And neither is this a purchase to wean India away from the evil clutches of Russia. What the IAF wants is an effective door breaker with LO capability. Such a capability can easily be met by the Americans, but with the F-35 and will exceed the technical parameters of the MRFA contest. But that will not happen, because either India or the US has to blink first. And neither side will give in.

So I think, IMNHO, this contest should have been split into 2 parts:
1) a std 4/4.5Gen 25Ton MTOW class restricted to one part of the contest (which has Make in India an mandatory aspect)
2) while the other is purely a 5th Gen Stealth platform of 35Ton class (where Make in India can be optional).

Something like a 76 + 38 (or even 76 and 38 + 19 optional) split between them.

This will have something for all sides to aspire for, and 2nd option can address (partially) the 5th Gen nood status till 2035.

Agree with you here. A split could be likely, with the Su-57. But I am not sure how pleased the Americans would be to share fighter aircraft orders with their arch nemesis. CAATSA?

Sell US planes to India with the right hand and sanction India for buying Russian planes with the left hand. Great strategy!

The French have no such qualms.

[Rakesh]

I posted this on the previous page, but posting again....

https://x.com/Tej_Intel/status/1851612761240863210 ---> It's Dassault Rafale. It was *ALWAYS* Rafale. The order book of Dassault will not have a significant impact on MRFA. Dassault's upcoming MRO facility at Noida, buying the Reliance's stake in the JV, etc - everything is carefully planned.

[VKumar]

One squadron of Rafale every year till AMCA is available

[maitya]

Nice time-pass to-and-fro going on - but then again, tamashas like these, are meant for such to-and-fros anyway!!
Isn't it?

Anyway, here goes another long post:

...

Right ... the idea (of MMRCA) was always to have an Western platform in fleet, given the stranglehold of Russian platforms in the IAF inventory in late 90s adn early 2000s - and rightly so!!

But that was then, when there were no indigenous platforms in the horizon - and the anti-indigenous cabal (I recoil to even mention these worthies names) who were calling all the shots (including having almost all say in the selection committee etc) for the MMRCA contest.
Currently, with some indigenous %, wrt offensive platforms in the inventory, the situation is very different - and hopefully, that % will continue to increase. So, these worthies have been now relegated to history with 0-value-attached to whatever they said/did - i.e. whatever that selection committee did or didn't then, has that much less sheen currently, barring maybe some institutional memory etc.
So it shouldn't influence too much any future MRFA selection committee, if at all ...

Anyway MRFA etc, is (always was) all about increasing Rafale sqns, in IAF inventory, some more - ofcourse, the numbers can vary depending upon, what the perception is, but it's all about Rafale, all the way.
And which, I'm assuming, most of us will be agreeable to - for the simple reason, that they have already gone thru this selection process, spanning years, and proved their suitableness wrt our requirement. And more so, their recent operational performance have been very very good.

Unkils 4/4.5 Gen offerings must be great, no doubt, and in fact with unmatched combat/operational history etc - but, unfortunately they didn't meet our stated requirements compared to the level that Rafale (or Eurofighter) did. Nothing much has changed since then, and the platforms on offer, barring maybe F-15EX, will not match-up with even Rafale 3R versions.

So, for this MMRCA/MRFA requirement, which is for std 4/4.5gen platforms, it can't be anything but Rafale all the way.

But let's be not so naive, as to assume MoD/Politicos has zero influence on IAF's shortlisting ability. With sufficient winks-and-nudges, they can surely influence the shortlisting process etc. And in all such cases, it'll be for the shortlisting agency to "fill in the gaps" on the shortlist report, to suit a certain mix of intended winners - hope you get the drift!!

What has complicated the issue, is GoI insistence of a fresh competition etc - which would mean Unkil re-pitching F-21/F-18SH but also adding F-15EX into the mix. Ditto with Russia (IIRC, Mig-35 were there in the original MMRCA as well), Sweden and ofcourse UK/Eur Consortium.

And that's where lies the problem - the evaluation etc will be done by an agency, which does have it's share of "alignment" with Unkil platforms. So, atleast I'm a bit skeptical, with enough pressure tactics, that it'll be that easy to eliminate the Unkil options, this time around.
And when I say that, I mean F-21/F-18SH, have relatively lesser risk putting strong fight with Rafale - it's the heavy (F-15EX) entrant, which will quite difficult to negate.
Offering Rafale-5, which is itself is currently in merely conceptual stage, wouldn't simply cut it.

Plus, as I've already said it, with Trump most probably coming back, some amount of quid-pro-quo will have to be there (same as some sort of baksheesh, to allow French/Rafale to go win this huge deal, which Unkil, rightly or wrongly, assumes it's theirs).
Moreover, I do sense (and I may be wrong in it as well), some amount of French arrogance/taking-us-for-granted (wrt pricing and sharing IP etc), post the Rafale deal. The MRCBF deal (read pricing and sheer refusal to token Indianization that was later dropped, in guise of huge price escalation and timelines) is a good example.
And, frankly, it suits them as well - their current order-book, is a very good reason for it. But hope they may as well remember, prior to IAF's seal of approval, Rafale was just another platform, struggling big time (and monotonously losing to US offers) for export customers.
There are no other better advertisement, than being able to land a export order from IAF.

So, as a corollary, ironically this open tendering etc, will hopefully make them see some sort of reason - it was always their deal to loose, and there's very high chance they will win again as well, but it's certainly no longer a 0% chance of losing either. The danger of losing is now real, albeit still quite small/less.


Anyway, long story short, from our pov, the only way to "secure" this increasing Rafale numbers, via an MRFA program that is poised to go for open tendering/competition mode, it to breakup the requirement into 2 parts (as I've said before):

1) a std 4/4.5Gen 25Ton MTOW class restricted to one part of the contest (which has Make in India an mandatory aspect)
2) while the other is purely a 5th Gen Stealth platform of 35Ton class (where Make in India can be optional).

Something like a 76 + 38 (or even 76 and 38 + 19 optional) split between them.

That way, (a) is more or less secured for the Rafales, contest etc notwithstanding - and alongwith the MRCBF bid, they certainly get the adequate numbers to justify an desi production line etc.

(b) is a signal to Unkil and mother-Russia to pitch their 5th Gen wares - sort of direct contest between F22/F35 and Su-57.
And no danger of any IP-sharing/disclosing etc, as these will be direct imports. Plus any side, wanting to limit our "operational freedom post deployment etc" to justify "protecting their Stealth IP/Technology" etc, will simply loose the contest.
So, no point in complaining that we didn't provide a reasonable chance to you.

For Unkil, the msg would have been quite simple:
We are not poodle-nation, and whilst we do acknowledge your supah-pawah/unambiguous-tech-leadership etc, there's limit to which we will be willing to sacrifice our sovirginity etc wrt operational deployment of your platforms- we are different from Turkiya, your-royal-poodle etc after all!!
Splitting the deal is the max we could have done, for you to atleast have a stab at this deal, but that's about it!!
Simply let the option(a) winner be, and concentrate on this option(b), and try it win it on merits.
(aka none of this F-15EX nonsense)

For mother Russia, the msg is simpler:
You have again got your assessment wrt our technological capability etc, simply wrong (a la FGFA snub, earlier) - and this is probably the last chance to salvage whatever little influence that is left.
So quietly agree to some sort of a joint-production etc, which will not be on offer for the Unkil platforms - and thus negate the obvious stealth-tech-capability shortfall of Su-57s vis-a-vis those available in F22/F35 ... and betw tech-sharing of Izdeliya-30 would be really really nice!!
Otherwise, wait for Unkil to demand an unacceptable level of operational-deployment compromises, which will automatically disqualify their bid.
Betw joint-production tech/IP sharing "in future" was your own stated goal when we were forced to walk away from the FGFA program - remember!! So nothing new here - you'll anyway, not be able to ramp-up your mfg ability, on your own given your war constraints on your MIC.

This will also test our (govt) mettle, wrt being able to withstand all sort of pressure(s) from multiple quarters.

Let's see, as I've said, interesting times ahead ...

[Rakesh]

Right ... the idea (of MMRCA) was always to have an Western platform in fleet, given the stranglehold of Russian platforms in the IAF inventory in late 90s adn early 2000s - and rightly so!!

It depends on who you ask.

For American Apologists: A "western" fighter is an American fighter. Not French (Rafale) or the Euro consortium (Typhoon). It must be American at all costs. The other western fighters do not align with American values i.e. investing in the American MIC.

For the Indian Air Force: A "western" fighter that is the most effective door breaker. A "western" fighter that is devoid of end use inspections. A "western" fighter that is open to integration of Indian kit, even if the price quoted is exorbitant.

The customer here is not the Govt of India or the Babus that work in the MoD. They are just there to sign the cheque and cut the inauguration ribbon. The customer / user is the Indian Air Force, who will be operating this platform at least the next 4 decades. And they know how to work the system. They have done this before and they will do it again. And there is not a soul in the GOI or in the MoD that will have any iota of a clue otherwise. If you want an American fighter to be acquired, you have to convince the end user.

Barring the true blue F-35, that has yet to happen.

Anyway MRFA etc, is (always was) all about increasing Rafale sqns, in IAF inventory, some more - ofcourse, the numbers can vary depending upon, what the perception is, but it's all about Rafale, all the way.
And which, I'm assuming, most of us will be agreeable to - for the simple reason, that they have already gone thru this selection process, spanning years, and proved their suitableness wrt our requirement. And more so, their recent operational performance have been very very good.

When I saw the below from IDRW, I rolled my eyes to be honest. Because it comes from IDRW after all and I was convinced that the article was full of horsesh1t. But curiosity got the better of me and I still clicked on the link to read more.

Angad Singh on MRFA Tender: “IAF Wants Rafale, An Open Tender Would Waste Time”
https://idrw.org/angad-singh-on-mrfa-te ... aste-time/
03 Nov 2024

After reading the article, I said to myself ---> There is no way IDRW would make such a bold claim and even put the person's name who said it. This goes even beyond IDRW's standards, which is a very low bar to begin with. And then I saw this VIDEO (https://x.com/livefist/status/1852363181408030943) in which Angad Singh says the exact same thing.

Angad is an aviation photographer by profession and not a military journalist. There is no incentive for him to make such a claim, because it is not like he has an article or runs a blog that needs a wide viewership. What Angad is saying is nothing more than an open secret at Air HQ ---> The Indian Air Force only wants the Rafale. They want nothing else. Even the peon who serves chai at Vayu Bhavan in New Delhi knows that Rafale is want Air HQ wants.

The issue with the GOI is that the "fake" Rafale scandal has given them cold feet in going with a G2G deal with France. They want to run the open tender, so when Rafale wins the technical downselect (a process conducted entirely by the IAF), then it is a clear path for the GOI. This is not an issue of Amreeka putting pressure on the GOI or any other fairy tale of the sort. The GOI wants to cross her Ts and dot all her Is. And if they have no qualms about putting the IAF through the ringer for that. And they are not doing it on purpose. But issues like squadron shortage, fleet availability, etc are not topics that live "rent free" in the minds of the PMO or in the MoD. For them it all about the process.

Where this acquisition could fail is when it comes to cost. But to be honest, none of the other Western competitors will be any cheaper either, when one factors in all the other variables into the mix. And if push comes to shove, the IAF will cannibalize funding for local programs in order to acquire the Rafale. This is what Mao Sir has been clearly stating and a fact that even KaranM mentioned in the Rafale thread as well.

Air HQ gets up in the morning with Rafale on their lips. They eat breakfast, lunch and dinner with Rafale on their mind. They go to bed at night dreaming about Rafale. Convince the end user otherwise and then everything else in your post will stand merit.

But let's be not so naive, as to assume MoD/Politicos has zero influence on IAF's shortlisting ability. With sufficient winks-and-nudges, they can surely influence the shortlisting process etc. And in all such cases, it'll be for the shortlisting agency to "fill in the gaps" on the shortlist report, to suit a certain mix of intended winners - hope you get the drift!!

Saar, we are naïve onlee. Why don't you tell us how exactly the MoD/Politicos will influence the IAF? I am honestly asking.

What justification can they provide to the IAF on the shortlisting process? We are not getting the drift, so please illustrate.

What has complicated the issue, is GoI insistence of a fresh competition etc - which would mean Unkil re-pitching F-21/F-18SH but also adding F-15EX into the mix. Ditto with Russia (IIRC, Mig-35 were there in the original MMRCA as well), Sweden and ofcourse UK/Eur Consortium.

And Air HQ is well aware of how this is going to end up. At that stage, it will be a case of TOLD-YOU-SO!

And that's where lies the problem - the evaluation etc will be done by an agency, which does have it's share of "alignment" with Unkil platforms. So, atleast I'm a bit skeptical, with enough pressure tactics, that it'll be that easy to eliminate the Unkil options, this time around.

There was more "alignment" with Unkil in the MRCBF contest than there is with the IAF.

The entire aviation combat wing (both fixed and rotary) of the Indian Naval Air Arm is US in origin. See below;

1) Maritime Patrol Aircraft: P-8I from Boeing
2) Anti-Submarine Warfare: MH-60R from Sikorsky
3) Remotely Piloted Aircraft: MQ-9B from General Atomics

The F-18SH would have been a perfect compliment to the above. And Boeing was uber confident that they were going to win. And in their over confidence, they were resorting to outright lies about the Rafale M (remove the nose cone during transport from the hangar to the lower deck and vice versa).

But over confidence got the better of Boeing. The F-18SH was only present in the MRCBF program to avoid any issue of ending up as a single vendor contest. The Indian Navy knew from day one what they wanted and that was the Rafale M. They have been eying that bird, well before Air HQ even took a first look at it. But the navy put the F-18SH through it paces and at the end of the day, selected the aircraft they always wanted. Boeing lost and not a peep came out from Boeing, apart from a little whining whimper about the arrestor hooks on INS Vikrant being unable to handle the weight of the F-18SH.

"Alignment" ka phuss hogaya!

And when I say that, I mean F-21/F-18SH, have relatively lesser risk putting strong fight with Rafale - it's the heavy (F-15EX) entrant, which will quite difficult to negate.

Saar, unfortunately Super Sukhoi will spoil the party for the Eagle-II. But okay, bring it on.

Offering Rafale-5, which is itself is currently in merely conceptual stage, wouldn't simply cut it.

Various exceptions are made for sought after phoren maal. Dassault will promise and IAF will say a-okay!

There are numerous examples of this - in India - with the Jaguar, the MiG-29, the Mirage 2000, the Su-30 and even the Rafale.

Plus, as I've already said it, with Trump most probably coming back, some amount of quid-pro-quo will have to be there (same as some sort of baksheesh, to allow French/Rafale to go win this huge deal, which Unkil, rightly or wrongly, assumes it's theirs).

Where was the quid pro quo for the 123 Nuclear Agreement? That was supposed to be the MMRCA 1.0 deal no? What came out of it?

Quid Pro Quo, Donald Trump, American Exceptionalism, American Geopolitical Influence. American Sanctions*

How much longer are we going to use this argument as a crutch? Drop it saar, it has become stale.

*How isolated in Russia again with US-led western sanctions?

Moreover, I do sense (and I may be wrong in it as well), some amount of French arrogance/taking-us-for-granted (wrt pricing and sharing IP etc), post the Rafale deal. The MRCBF deal (read pricing and sheer refusal to token Indianization that was later dropped, in guise of huge price escalation and timelines) is a good example.

And, frankly, it suits them as well - their current order-book, is a very good reason for it. But hope they may as well remember, prior to IAF's seal of approval, Rafale was just another platform, struggling big time (and monotonously losing to US offers) for export customers.
There are no other better advertisement, than being able to land a export order from IAF.

So, as a corollary, ironically this open tendering etc, will hopefully make them see some sort of reason - it was always their deal to loose, and there's very high chance they will win again as well, but it's certainly no longer a 0% chance of losing either. The danger of losing is now real, albeit still quite small/less.

When the Americans do the same to India, it is okay. Lets GUBO (Grease Up & Bend Over) for the Americans. JETJWG mein kya hua? What happened to the supposed sharing of engine technology? When GE keeps 20% of the GE F414 turbofan technology, it is fine?

The French are evil, while the Americans are going to provide salvation for India out of their benevolence and love. Is this the Lahori logic that we are peddling now? You of all people know that no OEM will give you their IP, no matter how much money you throw at them. But it is okay when the Americans do this, but how dare the French do the same!

Just on the previous page of this thread, you were perfectly fine with taking 2 - 3 squadrons of true blue stealth technology F-35 from Amreeka, with our sovereignty in a vise and with zero IP sharing. But when the French do it, it is bad onlee

[maitya]

...
When the Americans do the same to India, it is okay. Lets GUBO (Grease Up & Bend Over) for the Americans. JETJWG mein kya hua? What happened to the supposed sharing of engine technology? When GE keeps 20% of the GE F414 turbofan technology, it is fine?

The French are evil, while the Americans are going to provide salvation for India out of their benevolence and love. Is this the Lahori logic that we are peddling now? You of all people know that no OEM will give you their IP, no matter how much money you throw at them. But it is okay when the Americans do this, but how dare the French do the same!

Just on the previous page of this thread, you were perfectly fine with taking 2 - 3 squadrons of true blue stealth technology F-35 from Amreeka, with our sovereignty in a vise and with zero IP sharing. But when the French do it, it is bad onlee

You know Rakeshji, something that many of us (you included) have been saying for decades together, hoping that more and more folks, reading these posts, are able to see thru all these ToT tamashas and any/all such glib talks.
No country, no OEM, will ever part their cutting edge technology and IP - period.
All these ToT, joint dev etc, are all geared towards sharing (or collaborating or whatever you want to call it) tech that the OEM (or their country) is quite sure, that we have already mastered it or on the verge of mastering it, in a couple of years etc.

So, another bad example maybe, but if we had AMCA in flight testing mode today, I'm sure there'd have been multiple ToT, local manufacturing etc etc talk/offers from all these very same 5th Gen/Stealth Tech OEMs.
But unfortunately we are not there yet.

Similarly, about a decade or so back, mother Russia behaved so abominably with us during FGFA "collaboration" days, because according to their assessment, we were not anywhere near developing any of these tech on our own.
They are making the same mistake with Izdelia-30 tech as well today, but let's leave those details for the Kaveri thread.

But French behavior wrt MRCBF deal, was for technologies that were already developed by us - all that was being asked was for integration-help.
Big difference - but they had to deny it, as that'd mean lessening of our dependence on them wrt Rafale. More so after charging an astronomical amount for the so-called ISE program, and then proceeding to apply those to all other Rafale platforms as well.
(and please, glib reasoning like 8 years effort etc, is just that).
And that's not the first one betw - Meteor integration with other platforms (not that it made a lot of sense, given the unit-prices involved), refusal to play ball wrt last-mile technologies for the Kaveri program, super-expensive M2K modernization etc etc.

But, that's plain and simple, an OEM securing it's future business prospects - something that's quite normal actually.

But that also signals to the buyer country, it's a std buy-sell transactional nature of an engagement, so there's a better deal from any other OEM, we should have no second thoughts about going for it.
Having said that, fortunately though, for MRFA, there are simply no other offering from the other competitors (except maybe Eurofighter and F-15EX), that can match-up with Rafale, by any count.
Yes, F-21 and Gripen-E etc are all capable platforms, and each have a few systems which will outperform Rafale's corresponding systems as well, but as an whole integrated platform capabilities, they are nowhere close to Rafale (and Eurofighter and F-15EX).

But that's very different from what a 5th Gen platform will be offering - we have 0 5th Gen/Stealth capability, atleast until 2035, that 2 OEMs (from Unkil and mother Russia) can bring to the table.
So, unlike Rafale, expecting them to share technologies via a Lic Mfg setup (whatever little that gets shared by that) etc, is naive.

Oh, one more point, since you brought this topic up - I think, it's fairly well-known what my views are wrt impending 414 ToAsT deal. However, I'll still say this (in the current context)
This so-called 80% ToAsT has atleast been offered by Unkil, what is the equivalent counter-offer wrt M88 variants from Safran/French, so far - Zilch/Nada/Nothing.
And it's not that they didn't get any chance to make such offers - in fact, they got more chances then any other engine OEMs, actually.

Yes, again this doesn't make GE any better "friend" etc - here also, given the future business prospects (wrt Turbofan for all future indigenous programs), it's very small price to pay.
So, GE/Unkil, just like Safran/French, are carefully evaluating their offerings vis-a-vis their perspectives wrt our respective capabilities, and suitably tailoring them with one and only one goal - furthering their respective interests at our expense.
Strategic partnerships/friendships and all other such gibberish, be damned.

So back to the topic - there's no equal-equal zero-sum game of tech/IP sharing, when comparing technologies we simply don't have (5th Gen Stealth etc) vis-a-vis technologies we may have but not in a integrated platform level.
Neither are there any saints nor any evils in such "partnerships".

So, I have advocated splitting up the 114 MRFA competition into 2 distinct contracts:
a) 4/4.5gen 25T class acquisition (with mandatory deep Lic Mfg, and daresay, incl the engines as well) - which I personally believe should go to Rafale (without belaboring why so, any more).
And I'm not discounting Eurofighter as well, but I doubt they will be able to match what Rafale can and will bring to the table, so that's more of a pedantic discussion.

b) Limited vol/numbers of 5th Gen/Stealth direct acquisition (non-mandatory Lic Mfg etc) - which should be a toss up between F35/F22 and Su-57.
If the French are able to pitch for an equivalent platform, then they are welcome to do so for (b) as well.

But there's shouldn't be any illusion that all will simply land-up with Rafale/French - for which to happen, the pricing needs to be way lower then they can ever offer.
And I doubt, given their orderbooks, French would be that desperate anymore for this contract, as they were in the MMRCA days.


After all, what matters most is our own interests - not Unkils, not French or anyother country.
We are 5th Gen nood, vis-a-vis our adversaries, until 2035, so if we are going to spend such obscene amounts for betterment of some other countries economy, why not try and address it via this program/competition itself.
It's our money after all, isn't it - and nobody is doing us a favor by selling their wares to us.

Lastly, I find all this talk about us and GUBO etc as frankly strawman type arguments. Just because the Royal Poodle or Turkiya or other poodles are willing due to their own national desperation about F35/F22, why does that have to be linearly transportable to us as well.
We should have the wherewithal to draw a line, and I think we have done so, many times in the past (you yourself have given some examples, actually) as well.
Beauty of a contest is, there's always an option (Unkil/mother Russia) - heck, Option b can also be forgone altogether as well, if the "price/compromise" being asked for by both the contestants are breaching our thresholds.
All that is needed, is to have the national resolve to do so, and I somehow feel, we have adequate wherewithal to do so.

[Manish_P]

...
b) Limited vol/numbers of 5th Gen/Stealth direct acquisition (non-mandatory Lic Mfg etc) - which should be a toss up between F35/F22 and Su-57.
...

Maitya sir, the F22 is not on offer even to cousins-across-the-pond

The F-35 is in service with NATO but with very tight restrictions both on access (to software, libraries, components) and on operational usage (to prevent capture by Russian/China...)

If certain recent reports are to be believed Turkiye can get the F-35 but only if they involve the americans in the command and control of the S-400 systems.

So both the aircraft seem to be No Go for us

That leaves just the Felon with whatever levels of true 5th Gen it is able to bring to bear.

[maitya]

...
b) Limited vol/numbers of 5th Gen/Stealth direct acquisition (non-mandatory Lic Mfg etc) - which should be a toss up between F35/F22 and Su-57.
...

Maitya sir, the F22 is not on offer even to cousins-across-the-pond

The F-35 is in service with NATO but with very tight restrictions both on access (to software, libraries, components) and on operational usage (to prevent capture by Russian/China...)

If certain recent reports are to be believed Turkiye can get the F-35 but only if they involve the americans in the command and control of the S-400 systems.

So both the aircraft seem to be No Go for us

That leaves just the Felon with whatever levels of true 5th Gen it is able to bring to bear.

Brilliant ... and that's exactly what I've been saying, right?
i.e. We create a small window of opportunity for Unkil (the sole supah-pawah, before whom we need to kneel down and beg yada yada) to offer these 5th Gen platforms, and after that it's Unkil's call to offer or not to offer - which then may* result in Su-57 winning it, unopposed.

And who says we have to accept whatever pre-conditions Unkil may (or maynot) want to impose wrt it's 5th Gen platform offerings - it's a contest, so it's well within our remit to simply refuse the bid** itself.

In which case, the worst case scenario is that there are no offerings left for this option (b) - right? Big deal ...

Have you noticed, in all these, the option (a) going to whole-sole Rafale, has become risk free from Unkil pressure tactics (wrt it's own offerings F-21/ F-18E/F /F-15 EX etc).
Also from our desi naysayers pov, the price-related rona-dhona (I doubt there'll be too much of an price diff between Rafale offers and either of these 5th Gen platforms) is also blunted - as since, none of the OEMs were ready to make an offer in the first place (so no direct comparo wrt unit-prices between these and Rafale).

Yeah, our 5th Gen nood status (until 2035) continues, but atleast we tried!!

Betw how are you so sure, Unkil will ask exactly same terms as they have for their Royal poodle or even Turkiya. Is the value of siding with us, aligning with us, same as those wrt siding with them?
If yes, such terms/preconditions are universal etc, why are the terms, for the very same platforms, so different for Israel?
=====================================================================================
* Betw, why are we (you included) so sure, mother Russia will offer Su-57 Lic Mfg etc, just like that - in their minds we haven't yet reached the state "to absorb" (whatever that means) such advanced technologies (FGFA snub, remember!!). They are already stonewalling Izdeliya-30, without which there are no Su-57 Lic Mfg offer in the first place.

** In fact, my original submission was to go for a 10-year Lease deal (instead direct buying etc) wrt option (b) - better still insist that they bring their requisite weapons and their maintenance/support setup for their offerings as well. We have no qualms in hosting them.
That way, the OEM countries can have their satisfaction of "controlling/owning" these platforms, which they can then simply take-back according to their whims and fancies.
Plus, the question of selling-out etc of our autonomy etc doesn't even arise - hey we were leasing, these are your platforms, pls take them back whenever you want or feel so, but don't ask for any changes/compromise to our own deployment strategies etc, if you are willing to stay.

[drnayar]

Why are we even discussing F35s.. people have gone to town saying it can be remotely operated/shut down by the Americans ..not to mention involuntary sharing all the aircraft "sees"/ operations.. only American vassals need it.

[Manish_P]

...
Betw how are you so sure, Unkil will ask exactly same terms as they have for their Royal poodle or even Turkiya.
...

Just my prejudice probably. I can't be sure even though Unkil has such a stellar record with us - Eastern Pakistan, Kargil, Khalistan, ...

...
* Betw, why are we (you included) so sure, mother Russia will offer Su-57 Lic Mfg etc, just like that - in their minds we haven't yet reached the state "to absorb" (whatever that means) such advanced technologies (FGFA snub, remember!!)...

I was more along the lines of outright purchase - Government to Goverment. Or that buzzword 'Make in India' thingie. Place a big enough order * and there might be room for some amount of MKI-sation like integration with our weapons at the high end, MRF tyres at the lower end

Of course the serious stuff like RAM coating (if any), engine tech etc would stay firmly with Mother Russia. They will be offered when we are very close to making our own (as you have pointed out yourself)

* And consequently the orders for the total number of Tejas in all variants comes down and stays in the double digits only.

...
** In fact, my original submission was to go for a 10-year Lease deal (instead direct buying etc) wrt option (b) - better still insist that they bring their requisite weapons and their maintenance/support setup for their offerings as well. We have no qualms in hosting them.
...

That's an out-of-the-box thought. Might as well get the firang pilots as part of the deal (like there are Russian personnel on the leased nuke subs). That way not much rona dhona if those planes crash and the firangs won't even be able to say 'you casteist savages can't even fly our advanced planes'. Of course they can still blame us for the crashes - stubble burning low visibility conditions, PTSD due to diwali patakas, foreign object ingestion due to Makar Sankranti etc

A bonus - No OROP issues too

[Manish_P]

Why are we even discussing F35s.. people have gone to town saying it can be remotely operated/shut down by the Americans ..not to mention involuntary sharing all the aircraft "sees"/ operations.. only American vassals need it.

As Maitya sir has astutely pointed out, when we are very close to an advanced tech we find that all doors to import that tech are opened to us by the firangs and eager hands on our own side (lobbyists, dalaals, journos, retired
military personnel...) try to push our netas and babus inside
(Not that they need much convincing).

[Rakesh]

But French behavior wrt MRCBF deal, was for technologies that were already developed by us - all that was being asked was for integration-help.
Big difference - but they had to deny it, as that'd mean lessening of our dependence on them wrt Rafale. More so after charging an astronomical amount for the so-called ISE program, and then proceeding to apply those to all other Rafale platforms as well.
(and please, glib reasoning like 8 years effort etc, is just that).
And that's not the first one betw - Meteor integration with other platforms (not that it made a lot of sense, given the unit-prices involved), refusal to play ball wrt last-mile technologies for the Kaveri program, super-expensive M2K modernization etc etc.

1) French behaviour wrt MRCBF deal was for the Uttam radar integration. The price quoted was exorbitant and it had a long lead time. Set aside the cost of this for a minute, but do we really have the time for this? Why should we take takleef if they are stating 8 years for integration? We are at the mercy of the OEM and thus we have to play by their rules. Uncomfortable as that is, what is the other viable recourse? As mentioned earlier, the Uttam radar can certainly be integrated at a future mid-life update of the Rafale M fleet, if the IN still insists on that.

Like any other OEM the world over, France's MIC are for-profit organizations and are only interested in that goal. That is their sole motivation. And with regards to cost, the French will charge an astronomical price for everything as their MIC is miniscule when compared to the US. Their production output is also significantly smaller, when compared to the US. So while the French make amazing platforms and weaponry, they are boutique in nature. This should not be surprising to anyone, especially you Saar.

And while Uttam was certainly developed by us, we are asking for integration of that radar on a platform that is foreign. But now look at it from Dassault's perspective - what's in it for them? They should just throw the idea of protecting their business interests out the window? If Dassault does this for us, what is the guarantee that other international customers of the Rafale will also not ask for the exact same thing during their MLU refits? After all, Uttam will be significantly cheaper than a future variant of Thales' RBE2 GaA-powered AESA. You and me both know 8 years is just an excuse. But if you want to avoid excuses, then develop your own aircraft...including turbofan. But we don't want to do that, do we?

2) The IAF wanted Meteor integration on the Mirage 2000I/TI and on the Tejas Mk1A. With the former, that was not going to happen as even the M2K platforms that are with the French Air Force do not have this missile. Thus Thales turned that request down. With the Tejas Mk1A, Thales' concern was exposing the Meteor to the Elta 2052 AESA radar from Israel. When Astra Mk2, Mk3 and SFDR come on line, watch how Thales agrees to integration of the Meteor on the Tejas Mk1A aircraft that are fitted with the Uttam radar. In fact, the reverse is in the works ---> viewtopic.php?p=2567609#p2567609

But my larger concern/question is this ---> Why do we need to waste money on more Meteor BVRAAMs, when we can get our own AAMs on to the Tejas Mk1A and other aircraft? What is with this fascination with the Meteor? Keep that missile with the Rafale fleet and let them stew on it!! Let us focus on developing our own AAMs and equally important, increasing the stocks of these local AAMs. Is this not the goal here?

But, that's plain and simple, an OEM securing it's future business prospects - something that's quite normal actually.

Bingo! That is all what this is about. OEMs will *ALWAYS & ONLY* look out for their own interests.

We need to stop this weird obsession over what the OEM did not do for us. They are not entitled to do anything for you and neither do they have your interests at heart. And this is not something that affects the French alone, but with OEMs the world over.

Focus on what is important i.e. flying test beds; Kaveri turbofan; increase stocks of local weaponry, etc.

But that's very different from what a 5th Gen platform will be offering - we have 0 5th Gen/Stealth capability, atleast until 2035, that 2 OEMs (from Unkil and mother Russia) can bring to the table.
So, unlike Rafale, expecting them to share technologies via a Lic Mfg setup (whatever little that gets shared by that) etc, is naive.

And that is precisely why India does not need the F-35. Thank You!

Naivete is what has led us into this mess!

Oh, one more point, since you brought this topic up - I think, it's fairly well-known what my views are wrt impending 414 ToAsT deal. However, I'll still say this (in the current context)
This so-called 80% ToAsT has atleast been offered by Unkil, what is the equivalent counter-offer wrt M88 variants from Safran/French, so far - Zilch/Nada/Nothing.
And it's not that they didn't get any chance to make such offers - in fact, they got more chances then any other engine OEMs, actually.

ToAsT deals are not going to do anything for you. You are way more knowledgeable in this field, than I am. Come on Saar!

Where was the opportunity for the counter offer to be made? When the competition for selecting a turbofan for the Tejas Mk2 was underway, only Rolls Royce and GE participated, because only those two had a turbofan, that had a wet thrust output that we were looking for. The M88 does not have the 98+ kN output that the EJ200 and the GE F414 have. The core of the M88 turbofan does have a higher output (but as per design). You know this for a fact. It is awkward to bring this up, because I am the mango abdul here and you are the guru. And you are equally aware that to achieve that higher design output requires investment, which Safran does not want to do, as Dassault is satisfied with the current output. The latest variant (M88-4E) has more to do with increased durability and life cycle costs. The 75kN wet thrust is meeting the desired performance parameters that Dassault wants.

How do you make a counter offer, when you do not have a product to offer in the first place? Or is Safran expected to invest its own money, develop a higher output variant of the M88 and put that turbofan into a contest in which there is no guarantee of success? Which OEM will do this? Safran is not running a home for the aged and downtrodden. They are a for-profit company - like any other OEM - with responsibility to their shareholders.

Where was the takleef about the JETJWG, in which GE only wanted to know how far along GTRE was with the Kaveri turbofan. They however had zero incentive / desire to share any turbofan technology with GTRE. And since GE controls the 20% (which is where the real magic is), how is this a long term viable option? Or is this going to be a redux of the Ardiden 1H turboshaft from Safran, which HAL makes in India and calls it indigenous (Shakti)?

Our issue should not be with Safran, GE, Rolls Royce or whoever else. Our concern should be is that we are perfectly content with doing this kind of screwdrivergiri for eternity and have *ZERO* desire to change.

Focus on what *WE* can improve and what is within *OUR* control. Stop doing rona-dhona over what we *CANNOT* control i.e. a foreign OEM.

So, I have advocated splitting up the 114 MRFA competition into 2 distinct contracts:
a) 4/4.5gen 25T class acquisition (with mandatory deep Lic Mfg, and daresay, incl the engines as well) - which I personally believe should go to Rafale (without belaboring why so, any more).
And I'm not discounting Eurofighter as well, but I doubt they will be able to match what Rafale can and will bring to the table, so that's more of a pedantic discussion.

The problem with the Typhoon is that it is a Euro consortium in which the partner nations very rarely agreed on anything wrt to the program.

The major spoil sport in the Euro consortium are the British. Waffle on every decision. And being Unkil's poodle is as dangerous as Unkil himself.

b) Limited vol/numbers of 5th Gen/Stealth direct acquisition (non-mandatory Lic Mfg etc) - which should be a toss up between F35/F22 and Su-57.
If the French are able to pitch for an equivalent platform, then they are welcome to do so for (b) as well.

There is no equivalent French program. FCAS is a sixth generation program and will be spectacularly late. All energies are being invested into the Rafale for the foreseeable future. There is no other option for the French. But that will work out well for all the international Rafale customers, as the aircraft will see regular upgrades (as long as the customer is willing to invest into the platform). In India's case, that will be likely with the AMCA being very delayed.

But there's shouldn't be any illusion that all will simply land-up with Rafale/French - for which to happen, the pricing needs to be way lower then they can ever offer.
And I doubt, given their orderbooks, French would be that desperate anymore for this contract, as they were in the MMRCA days.

It will not be about unit price alone OR even overall contract price. There will be other factors at play. Geopolitics will play a huge role here.

The French will grab every contract that they can get their hands on. They need the money to develop their future programs i.e. FCAS. Tried, true and proven tactic with the French.

Lastly, I find all this talk about us and GUBO etc as frankly strawman type arguments. Just because the Royal Poodle or Turkiya or other poodles are willing due to their own national desperation about F35/F22, why does that have to be linearly transportable to us as well.

Saar, who do you think we are? God's gift to humanity? What is so special about India that Lockheed Martin will bend over backwards to accommodate us operating the F-35 right alongside the S-400?

But I will bite. So please import F-35 and we will revisit this discussion when it has been shown that it can be successfully navigated.

Lets Go! Game On Saar! Your Move.

All that is needed, is to have the national resolve to do so, and I somehow feel, we have adequate wherewithal to do so.

The only resolve we have successfully managed to display - as a nation - for the past 77+ years is that we are masters at assembling someone's platform and calling it indigenous. Prove me wrong otherwise. I will wait.

We are not a serious nation. We like to do comedy like screwdrivergiri, but want to be a regional/global superpower.

Jaguar, Hawk, MiG-21, MiG-27, Su-30MKI. What have we learned? Aur Karo Aise Nautanki!

[Rakesh]

Battle Cry: Centre Signals Global Competition For Provision Of 114 Fighter Jets In A Mega Deal

[Tanaji]

^^ Is this episode 4 or we are still on 3?

[Rakesh]

^^ Is this episode 4 or we are still on 3?

MMRCA 1.0 - from 2007 to 2012

SE Fighter - from 2016 to 2018

MMRCA 3.0 - from 2018 to date

[Manish_P]

Battle Cry: Centre Signals Global Competition For Provision Of 114 Fighter Jets In A Mega Deal

IIRC the earlier competition was dubbed the mother of all deals

Shouldn't this one be the daughter of all deals? Or at least the Step mother of all deals

[Cain Marko]

Saar, who do you think we are? God's gift to humanity? What is so special about India that Lockheed Martin will bend over backwards to accommodate us operating the F-35 right alongside the S-400?

But I will bite. So please import F-35 and we will revisit this discussion when it has been shown that it can be successfully navigated.

Lets Go! Game On Saar! Your Move.

Admiral saar, I've been thinking on the same lines like Maitya for a long time as well. One way or the other I think f35 or su57 comes in. If they really wanted to go with raffle they had all the opportunity and backing that they needed for the past 10 years now.

The IAF gave the green light thru one of the most professional and transparent competitions ever. But it has resulted in only 36 birds so far. Increasingly the rafale will look less survivable vs Chinese gbad and stealth fighters which will proliferate to tsp soon enough. The rafale won't do and a stealth platform will be needed. The services know this just as well.

Moreover India has realised that this deal can be used to geo political advantage. The f35 has the advantage vs su57 IMHO. Even if this means restricted use vs China. A few squads. Maybe the navy gets f35 and IAF gets the next 24+ rafale. Some circuitous route. Doesn't really matter.

Either that or India gets 3 sqds su57. But this could truly mean a reset in India US equation UNLESS the Ukraine fiasco ends with US bargaining with Russia to stay out of it's way vs eyeran and the ME. The latter is a very distinct possibility of I'm reading the tea leaves right. Ukraine will be left holding the bag as the US and assorted allies including sunni Arab sheikhdoms via Israel clean up the Persians.

[Rakesh]

Admiral saar, I've been thinking on the same lines like Maitya for a long time as well. One way or the other I think f35 or su57 comes in. If they really wanted to go with raffle they had all the opportunity and backing that they needed for the past 10 years now.

The IAF gave the green light thru one of the most professional and transparent competitions ever. But it has resulted in only 36 birds so far. Increasingly the rafale will look less survivable vs Chinese gbad and stealth fighters which will proliferate to tsp soon enough. The rafale won't do and a stealth platform will be needed. The services know this just as well.

Moreover India has realised that this deal can be used to geo political advantage. The f35 has the advantage vs su57 IMHO. Even if this means restricted use vs China. A few squads. Maybe the navy gets f35 and IAF gets the next 24+ rafale. Some circuitous route. Doesn't really matter.

Either that or India gets 3 sqds su57. But this could truly mean a reset in India US equation UNLESS the Ukraine fiasco ends with US bargaining with Russia to stay out of it's way vs eyeran and the ME. The latter is a very distinct possibility of I'm reading the tea leaves right. Ukraine will be left holding the bag as the US and assorted allies including sunni Arab sheikhdoms via Israel clean up the Persians.

Cain-ji, acquisition of the F-35 or Su-57 will be a knee jerk reaction. Let us first address the elephant in the room i.e. the F-35.

If you believe the GOI or Air HQ is going to agree to the below, then I have an island to sell you. And the UK is America's *CLOSEST* ally.

The only way is Tempest
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/the-on ... s-tempest/
09 Jan 2024

If F-35 was where it is at, there would be absolutely no point in this expense. But this is the point: F-35 is not where it’s at. Indeed, it is looking like a financial and operational liability for those operators who have had it longest. To take ‘freedom of action’ first, I won’t even attempt to go into the ‘kill switch’ debate – that several Middle East nations say that there is such is enough to leave it with. However, the wording of the UK’s recent accident investigation report on the crash of the F-35B off the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth in November 2021 is worth noting:

“The F-35 Special Access Programme (SAP) prevented unauthorised and uncontrolled access to all elements of the F-35 system. The GSSO team’s task was to supervise SAP facilities…They were responsible for the Ship’s SAP compartments, as well as F-35B dedicated hardware and software installed on QNLZ.

“On rare occasions, if flying activity was not being conducted, the deck was opened for recreation to other personnel. Such events added another dimension to the requirement to ensure aircraft were physically protected, and ensure security was maintained. On one of these recreation days a DASOR was raised due to recreational activities infringing aircraft security.”

So, despite the Royal Navy talking about the carriers as being ‘eight acres of sovereign territory’, the truth is that the use of its prime strike asset is firmly under US control, and access of RN sailors to the hangar and flight deck is dictated by US regulations. Very sovereign! ‘Freedom of modification’ is vital to GCAP as there is absolutely no such facility in the F-35 programme whatsoever. You might – just might – be able to buy, at significant cost, a derogation to adapt F-35, but to do this, a country will have to hand over all its software for, say, a new missile, to Lockheed Martin/Joint Program Office to do the integration. Crown Jewels? Handed over… This is before one even considers the fact that industrially, a US F-35 company, let alone the Pentagon, might not want a weapon/electronic system on F-35 that is a competing option for an export customer, and so smothers it – this happens all too frequently on other US platforms.

In the UK, there was a detectable sense of disenchantment about F-35, mostly within the RAF, after the 2012 reversal of the decision to acquire the F-35C. Specific concerns, other than the B’s short legs include the ‘black box’ nature of the sensor-fusion system which, despite its legally important role in determining whether or not a target is legitimate under prevailing rules of engagement, the ability to record, offload and exploit sensor data and share it with other assets is restricted. The US also has tight control over mission data files (MDFs), including electronic order-of-battle data. MDFs for the UK, Italy, Japan and other F-35 operators are exclusively generated by the USAF’s 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing at Eglin AFB, Florida.

India will not get a unique exemption, just because Trump has now won the US Presidency. Trump does not have control over the F-35 program at this granular level. He can certainly offer the F-35 and if India acquires it, we will have to agree to the above. There is no negotiating room here. But if you believe there is, illustrate the specifics. You mentioned restricted use. Please define what that will entail.

The only country that has an exception on the F-35 is Israel and that is solely because of the Judeo-Christian bond that exists between the religious right in the United States and with the Jewish people. Their history is intertwined. India has no such religious connection to the religious right in the US. Israel's unique geopolitical situation also requires that the Israeli F-35s can be fine tuned / modified / customized within Israel.

Also look at this from Air HQ's perspective ---> Trump will be there for 4 years. But any fighter purchase will see the IAF operating it for the next 4+ decades. What will happen when a future US administration is inimical to India's interests? This is what the Biden administration currently is. Trump has won the Presidency and the Republicans now have control of the Senate. The House, the last time i checked, is still being decided. Regardless, what will in 2027 when mid-term elections occur? Imagine if Democrats control the Senate again in 2027. Good luck with get authorization for F-35 to be sold to India with the Democrats in control of the Senate.

Acquiring the F-35 will require the S-400 to be shut down. Let us argue that India agrees to this. Then when Project Kusha comes online, will India shut this down as well because that could also endanger the F-35? And the IAF is doubling down on this acquisition, by buying more than what was earlier planned. But for the sake of argument, let us state that India will shut that down as well. Where does this stop?

There are greater odds of the Su-57 coming in (as a knee jerk acquisition) than the F-35. The status quo will not change for the IAF with a Su-57 acquisition. Not that acquiring the Su-57 is an ideal scenario for the IAF either. But seeing how we have a penchant for screwing things up, this is the least harmful option for the IAF. And since we are talking about the Su-57, please check this out ---> viewtopic.php?p=2633361#p2633361

[Rakesh]

Makes great points with regards to the Rafale. Quoting the most important point below. But I don't agree with his Gripen argument.

Is 114 fighter jet tender necessary for IAF? First ask what price India is willing to pay
https://theprint.in/opinion/is-114-figh ... y/2343898/
06 November 2024

If India were to choose a different fighter, it would imply the Rafale selection and acquisition was flawed, undermining both the credibility of the nation’s defence evaluation and the decision-making process. It will also reopen the controversy over the decision to buy it.

[ernest]

Stealth fifth gen fighter are not giving a clear edge of the kind that acquiring a couple of squadrons of F-35/Su-57 will make us safe against PLA. A well managed and well armed SAM network and ballistic missile arsenal can restore balance for the most part. Iran-Israel standoff clearly shows that stealth aircraft are not a decisive factor alone. Iran doesn't even have a 4.5 gen fighter yet. We should focus on increasing our missile strength(SAM+SSM), while AMCA comes online in about a decade. Enough to keep PLA from trying something too adventurous.

[Rakesh]

Thank you Ernest.

[maitya]

Stealth fifth gen fighter are not giving a clear edge of the kind that acquiring a couple of squadrons of F-35/Su-57 will make us safe against PLA. A well managed and well armed SAM network and ballistic missile arsenal can restore balance for the most part. Iran-Israel standoff clearly shows that stealth aircraft are not a decisive factor alone. Iran doesn't even have a 4.5 gen fighter yet. We should focus on increasing our missile strength(SAM+SSM), while AMCA comes online in about a decade. Enough to keep PLA from trying something too adventurous.

Ummmm, not exactly ernestji ... it's not about numbers ... it's about deterrence, you can call it, something like, "minm credible deterrence"!!
Pls refer to this from one of my earlier post:

...
But then that's the beauty of asymmetricity that a true-blue 5th Gen platform brings about ... and that's because, and as I've said before, a 5th Gen platform deployed-capability is not about taking on another adversarial 5th Gen platform on AA warfare - the currently available onboard radar/EO/EW suites are not capable enough to do so.

So there needs to be a capability match wrt 5th Gen platform vs all other anti/counter 5th Gen deployments (so that deterrence sets in) - and is not about pure numbers.
In fact, ironically, better capable 5th Gen platforms, higher is the asymmetry, and thus higher is the deterrence value.

Wrt this, a crude analogy would be, the Nukelar arms stockpiles - going by this same numbers logic, there's no hope for us (against the Chinese), isn't it? But, both you and I (and lot of us here) knows that's not the case. Why? Because, deterrence is not about numbers alone.

So no, 114-odd F35s etc is not the point - 2-3 sqns, is enough to have presence in East ad West Ladakh theaters/front, and those of *leased* F35/F22 should do the trick - though, I'm not an military strategist etc to talk about numbers, but conceptually it's about "capability presence" that matters.

Today (or in next 10 years), a Chinese commander is rest assured that 5th Gen ingress on DEAD/SEAD missions against our positions, will have very limited counter missions - as, in absence of countering 5th Gen platforms, these will have to be limited to 4-4.5 Gen platforms (for which there are adequate counters available on both sides). This thought process, goes for a toss, in mere presence of 5th Gen platforms on our side, howsoever limited those deployed numbers are.

Will this be enough - certainly not. But that's what minimum credible deterrence (term invented by us) is all about, isn't it?
...

So the messaging is:
You deploy 5th Gen platforms on SEAD/DEAD type missions against us, we deploy our 5th Gen assets on mirror missions against you - both of us know there's no effective counter to such missions. So mutually assured destruction of the forward deployed infra!!
Instead as long as you stick to your 4/4.5 gen platforms for such (and other) missions, our counter will also be std lines ...

Anyway, coming back to your other point - yes, SAM+SSM network is absolutely vital, no doubt ... but it's a deployed 5th Gen capability, that is the deterrence against operational deployment of 5th Gen platforms for SEAD/DEAD etc type of missions.

But ironically, what's getting lost in this cacophony, is the need for volume* deployment of capable 4/4.5gen platforms (in our case, it's Rafale which plays the tip-of-the-spear - supported by Mk1A, Mk2, Su-30 etc) alongside - as only they can counter any aggressive posturing by the Chinese 4/4.5gen platforms (when they decide to up the ante, without going up the deterrence ladder).

Also, by the time AMCA comes online, I'm speculating the onboard sensor tech would be advanced enough, to allow 5th Gen Stealth platforms taking on other 5th Gen Stealth platforms. So, by then, the volume game will gain some relevance - but vol games can only be played by desi platforms (and AMCA will be there to allow us to do exactly that)!!

======================================================================================
* The overused cliche of 1000s of Chinese adversarial platforms, is an overly simplistic logic (sometime deliberately used to scare-monger as well). Having certain number of platforms, doesn't automatically mean deploying every single of them against on small (relatively) fraction of their deployment-spread geography or against one single adversary.
These numbers have to be be spread across a vast geographical frontier and number of adversaries, some of them maybe supahpwah as well.

That said, China does possess a huge numerical advantage against us, and there's no denying it - ironically, purely based on their indigenous MIC capability, whilst we are busy decade-long merry-go-round type exotic-foreign-fighter contests and piecemeal emergency-purchases.
(example, just today saw 307-odd ATAGS given indigenous production green-light - while the demand is in 1000s!! For the balance another foreign-based-solution is being tendered for)

[Rakesh]

Ummmm, not exactly ernestji ... it's not about numbers ... it's about deterrence, you can call it, something like, "minm credible deterrence"!!
Pls refer to this from one of my earlier post:

Minimum credible deterrence will not work against the Chinese. Here is my reply to that very post of yours ---> viewtopic.php?p=2632669#p2632669

* The overused cliche of 1000s of Chinese adversarial platforms, is an overly simplistic logic (sometime deliberately used to scare-monger as well). Having certain number of platforms, doesn't automatically mean deploying every single of them against on small (relatively) fraction of their deployment-spread geography or against one single adversary.
These numbers have to be be spread across a vast geographical frontier and number of adversaries, some of them maybe supahpwah as well.

Air Chief Marshal Bhaduria highlighted that very point. Reposting the below again....

'In Post Galwan Face Off With China, Rafale Fighter Was...': Former Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/chin ... -110254508
20 May 2024

He mentioned that when the Rafale arrived and the first one was deployed, the Chinese responded by deploying four J-20 stealth fighters.

Furthermore, he noted that when the Indian Air Force (IAF) had four Rafales in place, the Chinese had 20 J-20s, indicating that "the Chinese knew what we could do."

When we run out of Meteors to shoot down all the fighters that the PLAAF can bring to bear, I guess we will shoot them down via telepathy.

No one is stating that all fighters will be deployed at the same time. That is a strawman argument that you are putting up to justify the acquisition of the true-blue F-35. Even the PLAAF is fully aware that is not possible. But in a war of attrition, the PLAAF will always prevail. They can and will always bring in additional assets. We cannot, because we do not have them in the first place.

P.S. Instead of F-35, perhaps we can go in for NGAD. We just have to lower the Tricolour over Red Fort and raise the Stars & Stripes.

[ernest]

Thank you Ernest.

Thank you for putting in detail the reasoning, which I agree with as well

Ummmm, not exactly ernestji ... it's not about numbers ... it's about deterrence, you can call it, something like, "minm credible deterrence"!!
Pls refer to this from one of my earlier post:

Thanks for the detailed reply, Maityaji.
We agree on most points. My only disagreement is that you single out deterrence from 5th gen fighter platforms. The deterrence from employing 5th gen SEAD/DEAD that you mention will not play out in reality, in my limited understanding. Also, I prefer to look at deterrence at a broader level, where the mix and volume of your platforms comes into play.

If you look at Israel's recent strikes in Iran, F-35s chose to launch missiles from way outside Iran's borders. At that point, there is not much difference b/w those strikes and surface launched CMs/BMs in terms of what they can achieve.

The kind of true blue deterrence we want, will be hard to get through imported F-35s/Su-57s, and I think you agree with that. And we will be spending tens of billions for filling the gap of <5 year between when the imported fifth gen becomes available and when AMCA is available. So, I do not see any scenario where it makes sense for us to purchase.

Even the scenario, where we put it to competition, and don't choose any but let US feel that they were given a chance is not going to age well. It will delay AMCA funding for sure.

[Rakesh]

Great post Ernest.

Equally concerning is their land-based, mobile missile arsenal. It is reportedly the largest in the world. Barring an ABM capability, when those start raining down on our military installations, nothing (even true blue F-35) will be able to stop them. When they destroy our airfields, what value will true-blue F-35 bring? Start with F-35, then jump (regressively) to F-15EX and then jump right back to F-35 again. Round and Round the Merry Go Round!

Project Kusha is being designed to counter the PLARF. But lets waste precious CAPEX on 2 - 3 squadrons of true-blue F-35s which will provide "deterrence" against the PLAAF!

Is India Interested In Buying The F-35 Fighter Jets From The US - Air Marshal Anil Khosla (retd)

[Rakesh]

Khareedo F-35!

https://x.com/johnkonrad/status/1713375294805999952 ---> After watching the Lockheed CEO say last week we don’t have to build more weapons if we make out current weapons “smarter” and those should be sold on a subscription plan… I’m against defense contractors running defense companies.

https://x.com/extradeadjcb/status/1713535572235432132 ---> They already do this, it's called "sustainment". F-35 international sales are the symbol of US vassalage because they're essentially Air Superiority As A Service and can be bricked remotely at a moment's notice.

https://x.com/extradeadjcb/status/1713546603661856993 ---> F-35 depends on constant access to US ground & space assets just like any Cloud Integrated Internet-of-Shit product does. It's not a secret kill switch, it's explicitly sold as a feature: the product is an airplane in the same sense that Alexa is a speaker.

[Rakesh]

The US' General Accounting Office (GAO) highlights concerns in the availability and maintenance of the F-35.

https://x.com/RonPaul/status/1769827768718463083 ---> A disturbing report from the Government Accountability Office shows that 70 percent - and maybe more - of the outrageously expensive, over-budget F-35 fighter jets are not capable of conducting combat.

F-35 Aircraft: DOD and the Military Services Need to Reassess the Future Sustainment Strategy
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105341
21 Sept 2023

F-­35 AIRCRAFT: DOD and the Military Services Need to Reassess the Future Sustainment Strategy
https://www.gao.gov/assets/870/861566.pdf

[Kakkaji]

Question for the Gurus:

If India decides to buy the SU-57, how will it pay the Russians for it? The US will not allow payment in dollars, and I don't think the Russians will accept Indian Rupees for such a large amount.

[Rakesh]

Another GAO report on the true-blue F-35 and even the F-22. This one is from last month!

Spent more money that requested and still could not meet its mission capable goals. WOW!

Tactical Aircraft: Operation and Maintenance Spending Varies by System, and Availability Generally Does Not Meet Service Goals
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107870.pdf
21 Oct 2024

Page 18 of the above report ---> O&M executed funding for the F-22A increased between fiscal years 2018 and 2023. During that same time, the Air Force executed about 106% of its requested funds for F-22A O&M (meaning it executed more than initially requested). The F-22A did not meet its mission capable goals in any of the years we reviewed.

Page 23 of the above report ---> O&M executed funding for the F-35A increased between fiscal years 2018 and 2023. During that same time, the Air Force executed about 107% of its requested funds for F-35A O&M (meaning it executed more than initially requested). The F-35A did not meet its mission capable goals in any of the years we reviewed.

Page 24 of the above report ---> O&M executed funding for F-35B/C aircraft increased between fiscal years 2018 and 2023. During that same time, the Navy and Marine Corps executed about 100% and 95% of their allocated funds respectively for F-35B/C O&M. The F-35B/C did not meet its mission capable goals in any of the years we reviewed.

[Rakesh]

Question for the Gurus:

If India decides to buy the SU-57, how will it pay the Russians for it? The US will not allow payment in dollars, and I don't think the Russians will accept Indian Rupees for such a large amount.

Let us cross that bridge if and when it comes. Hopefully it never comes.

Whatever payment method used, will be similar to all future acquisitions from Mother Russia i.e. the next Akula SSN which is coming in 2028.

[Rakesh]

I can only imagine the meltdown that would occur on BRF, if this happened to the Rafale. A must watch video below...

VIDEO: https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1780669890656956708 ---> U.S. Air Force Secretary admits that less than a third of F-35s built by Lockheed Martin are operationally capable! The defense contractors are milking the American taxpayers without even fulfilling their purpose.

https://x.com/attackerman/status/1364676374112403462 ---> People are calling the F-35 a failure. Stop! It very successfully transfers hundreds of billions of dollars of your money to defense contractors.

https://x.com/HornitoDog/status/1364960205474258951 ---> Note, mostly to Lockheed, who have always scarfed the most defense dollars from our nation. We must get these defense contractors under control, and a complete revamp of purchasing rationale is needed in the DoD Military wish lists/budgets have kept this nation from greatness.

[Manish_P]

....
Air Chief Marshal Bhaduria highlighted that very point. Reposting the below again....

'In Post Galwan Face Off With China, Rafale Fighter Was...': Former Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/chin ... -110254508
20 May 2024

He mentioned that when the Rafale arrived and the first one was deployed, the Chinese responded by deploying four J-20 stealth fighters.

Furthermore, he noted that when the Indian Air Force (IAF) had four Rafales in place, the Chinese had 20 J-20s, indicating that "the Chinese knew what we could do."

....

Admiral sir, the very statement of the former ACM can be thrown back by the import Bahadurs as - "If the Chinese had to send 4 J-20s to counter our one Rafale then they will have to send at least 10 J-20s to counter one F-35"

[Rakesh]

Admiral sir, the very statement of the former ACM can be thrown back by the import Bahadurs as - "If the Chinese had to send 4 J-20s to counter our one Rafale then they will have to send at least 10 J-20s to counter one F-35"

After the GAO reports on the F-35, does the IAF need this boondoggle?

From 5th Gen nood to 5th Gen headache.

[Manish_P]

Admiral sir, the very statement of the former ACM can be thrown back by the import Bahadurs as - "If the Chinese had to send 4 J-20s to counter our one Rafale then they will have to send at least 10 J-20s to counter one F-35"

After the GAO reports on the F-35, does the IAF need this boondoggle?

From 5th Gen nood to 5th Gen headache.

Do we have the GAO or MAO reports for the Chinese J-20s., Sir?