MRCA News and Discussion

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 09 Jan 2010 05:26

^ I think he meant 100% of the items earmarked for indigenous production in the SU-30 MKI are being produced locally.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jan 2010 05:33

Well, I didn't read that way too. Even the LCA is not 100% yet.

With regards 100% of the earmarked, had also issues in terms of adhering to schedule.. as some % were got done from sukhoi@Russia. [per some long time ddm reports/google knows it better]

Also, per reports we lost the sole rights for MKI, and gave back to Russians the right to produce to bump up the numbers quick.

We have to be careful in projecting our product capability against production capability

pardon, I didn't mean to undermine any jingoistic feelings.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Jan 2010 05:34

Marut

nope because he ties it in with the explanation of problem of spare parts being solved.

and that will never happen except in la la land.

And if he did not mean it he can always correct himself -

A_Shankar · Post by **A_Shankar** » 09 Jan 2010 06:17

I am not a defense hardware expert by any means, but as far as the politics of business goes here is my 2 cents:

being dependent on a supplier is not good business under any situation. you lend yourself to arm twisting and price inflation.

Over the years, Russians have been a reliable supplier no doubt. But there is also no question that they have been less than ideal partners since USSR became history. Russians have been taking India for a ride on new purchases, the biggest in your face example being the Gorshkov deal. Then theres the question of spares supply. It might be something they are not doing deliberately or maybe fixing it is beyond their control but that doesn't help India's position as a customer.

a live example of single supplier being - Pakistan which had a grounded fleet of f16s for a while and even with additional US supplies in the guise of WoT, faces uncertainty at best over supplies in the future. They learnt the lesson the hard way but are doing the smart thing by hedging with the Chinese.

Meanwhile, obviously given the size of the deal, the Russians are posturing aggressively and citing history but in my mind thats just talk. India is the biggest buyer and despite this particular deal is still invested heavily with the Russian manufacturers both for supplies and other r&d (e.g. FGFA).

IMHO, buying Russian for the Nth time would be moronous, doesn't matter how cheap and awesome Mig35s are or not..

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jan 2010 06:20

well peacemaker, there is politics of business here. it's purely defence requirements and babudom.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 09 Jan 2010 06:22

Surya, point taken and agree with you. Let's see what explanation is offered.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 09 Jan 2010 07:38

ragupta wrote:check the following news item
---

French company offers upgraded fighter jet
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/21jet.htm

About Dassault offering to mount Kaveri engine
==
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archiv ... 54095.html

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/
--
Excerpt:
---

In a related move, French engine maker Snecma, which is also bidding for DRDO’s joint collaboration project on the Tejas LCA’s Kaveri engines, has reportedly offered to mount Indian-made Kaveri engines in Rafale fighters. ..

===

The first two are dated 2006! and probably irrelevant now.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 09 Jan 2010 08:17

Saik, Surya and Marut, Thanks for pointing it out. My comment was inspired from :-

"Next year HAL will achieve 100 per cent indigenisation of the Sukhoi aircraft - from the production of raw materials to the final plane assembly. We're currently testing the locally produced engine for Su-30MKI and are planning to launch its production in 2010," Balakrishnan said.

Source:-http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... a/71226/on

I completely understand that it could well be a case of DDM because in one of his interviews that was published in Forceindia, Dr Balakrishnan did point out that the raw material for manufacturing the MKIs come from Russia. However in the same interview he also stated that indigenous raw material will be used for making spares. Infact let me quote his exact words:

Present contract for the Su-30MKI aircraft mentions raw material to be delivered by Russia and we will stick to the license agreement terms. Indigenous material will be used for making spares.

Now if India can have an arrangement for indigenous manufacturing of the spare parts of MKIs, then they can definitely have something similar for the MIGs too. Particularly when our assumption that no country other than India would buy MIG 35 and Russia would close its production lines, turns out to be true.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Jan 2010 09:16

Thanks Asit

My guess is someone got carried away by the moment.

I don't think we produced 100 percent of Mig 21, some components will always have to come from abroad.

But since you have a reference - we will leave it at that FWIW

and pray for a miracle

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 09 Jan 2010 17:37

Can the US guarantee that the same fighters will not be given for free to TSP in the future in the guise of WoT? Can they guarantee that they will keep the spare supply running if India tests again?

US should not even be allowed to participate in our defense tenders for what they have been doing with us over the years. A country that gives for free, F-16s and Anti-Ship missiles to Pakistan to fight off the Taliban (!) wants a part of the Indian defense market.

It should be between the European birds, the Eurofighter & the Rafale, brings us new technology & have considerable political weight behind them as well. The fear of sanctions is low too, EU never sanctioned us for Pokhran 98. Mig-35 should be the last option, if no other aircraft satisfies IAF's requirements.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 09 Jan 2010 17:45

Ture , neither am I for US jets to make thier way into the indian inventory , this would give them even more leaverage over us then what they already have.

Maritime Recon and Strategic airlift aircrafts and artilery are different league , we have back up for those and should the US use sanctions , then we would not be crippled.

No matter how good those old hogs F-18 and F-16 are percieved to be , we should keep them out as we would rather depend on proven suppliers.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 09 Jan 2010 20:42

Nihat wrote:No matter how good those old hogs F-18 and F-16 are percieved to be

And also to be noted is that with all such SO CALLED HIGH TECH PLANES with PAF (COURTESY US) , PAF never was able to dominate the sky against IAF which operated SO CALLED INFERIOR USSR/Russian Planes.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 09 Jan 2010 20:52

Not new but still interesting Russian article about MMRCA tender (in English)

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 09 Jan 2010 21:43

I see a very important signal in we going for C-17 transport planes via FMS route worth $2.2 billion.
It is something like this - We buy stuff from US to keep them on the right side and for MRCA, go for the right stuff without "strings" attached.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 09 Jan 2010 23:10

prabir wrote:I see a very important signal in we going for C-17 transport planes via FMS route worth $2.2 billion.
It is something like this - We buy stuff from US to keep them on the right side and for MRCA, go for the right stuff without "strings" attached.

Another advantage of the FMS route is that there is no money being paid as kickbacks due to a direct Govt-to-Govt request.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jan 2010 23:15

Is it not that we didn't have to cismoa for c17, and other defensive support systems. For a fighter a/c, especially with the kind of ToT we are asking, the khans wants pretty much everything under their control in terms of agreements and documents, so that they don't have any legal issues in terms of those strategic implants that may come in along with those machines.

Plus, they are also thinking of scaling down the transfer technology features so that it does not conflict direct with USAF and SD restrictions.

But.. the feeling of despair is from EADS team.. they lost the air-refueling one and its a pain staking one since IAF liked it a lot.

So, imho, advantage EADS.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Jan 2010 01:44

rajeshks wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: The US stockpiles MASSIVE amounts of spares for its fighters. If you get the SH, you can piggyback off its logistics support and guarantee availability of parts for decades to come.
... only if India agrees with everything US does and do everything US want India to do.

We still supply F-16 spares to Venezuela, and I can assure you they don't do everything the US wants them to do

In any case, you will be no worse off than if you selected MiG-35 where the spares simply won't be available period.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Jan 2010 01:50

Asit P wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:Fighters have to be continually upgraded if they are not to become obsolescent. Who will be funding all these upgrade programs?
Russia and India ofcourse.

No, think carefully.

Russia has purchased how many MiG-35s? Why would they pay ANYTHING for MiG-35 upgrades?

Russia will fund squat. Rather you will pay Russia through the nose to develop upgrades.

Asit P wrote:Both the countries are already working on FGFA and there is no law that states technologies developed for FGFA cannot be incorporated in MIG 35.

The basic technology is never the problem, it's the integration and testing that is so costly. That's where it pays to have another party willing to foot the bill to do all the integration work.

Asit P wrote:
The US stockpiles MASSIVE amounts of spares for its fighters. If you get the SH, you can piggyback off its logistics support and guarantee availability of parts for decades to come.
The US also stockpiles massive amounts of sanctions which can be imposed at any point of time. Since you have already assumed the worst in case of MiG 35 (and you were very right in assuming so), let me now assume the worst for SH. What if some time in the future, USA imposes a sanction on India owing to changed international scenarios (as it has done in the past)? What will India do then?

The same thing they'll be forced to do if they select the MiG-35.

As I said, even in worst case scenario you will not be worse off than MiG-35 and the best case you will be significantly better off.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 10 Jan 2010 02:48

I've posted this before and I'd like to get people's opinion on this.

The JAS Gripen / Gripen NG is a high tech aircraft with several ground breaking techs in the networking and data sharing field. The plane is one of the most cheapest priced of the MRCA contenders.

IMHO, India needs to ensure that this tech is NOT available for the Pakistani-Chinese combo to learn and duplicate. I believe that the other aircraft are too expensive for the pakistani-china combo to procure for the fizzaiya. But the Gripen can come into the fizzaiya, bankrolled by taller than oceans friend.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 10 Jan 2010 03:29

Gagan wrote:I've posted this before and I'd like to get people's opinion on this.

The JAS Gripen / Gripen NG is a high tech aircraft with several ground breaking techs in the networking and data sharing field. The plane is one of the most cheapest priced of the MRCA contenders.

IMHO, India needs to ensure that this tech is NOT available for the Pakistani-Chinese combo to learn and duplicate. I believe that the other aircraft are too expensive for the pakistani-china combo to procure for the fizzaiya. But the Gripen can come into the fizzaiya, bankrolled by taller than oceans friend.

Even if we do end up buying the Gripen because of these ground-breaking techs that you have mentioned, there is no guarantee that the Swedes will not sell to TSP in the future. They have done it before and in all likelihood will do it again. A $10.5 billion deal and an embargo are 2 different species!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Jan 2010 04:00

Igorr wrote:Not new but still interesting Russian article about MMRCA tender (in English)

the article is interesting to read but factually inaccurate- India's first gold in Olympics did not come in 1980 at the Moscow Olympics. India won 6 consecutive gold medals in field hockey from 1928 to 1956 and in all has won 8 Olympic field hockey gold medals.

and the F-16 IN isn't called the Super Viper because Indians have a "special attitude" to poisonous snakes !

the F-16 is known as the Viper more than as the Falcon. and its ultimate avatar is called Super Viper. it would've been called that whether it was offered to India or to any other nation..

going by that logic, why on earth did Bell pull out the Super Cobra AH-1Z from the attack helicopter competition ?? they'd have won hands down considering that the cobra is worshipped in parts of India !

also the MTA is not supposed to replace "obsolete" C-130s of the IAF !

they haven't even entered service as yet, and will be very much in the prime of their service life when the MTA enters service..the MTA is meant to replace the An-32s that are now going through an upgrade. IAF doesn't operate An-12s anymore either..the guy got so many facts wrong in his article however, it was interesting to read an article written from a Russian's perspective.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 10 Jan 2010 04:06

GeorgeWelch wrote: We still supply F-16 spares to Venezuela, and I can assure you they don't do everything the US wants them to do

Venezuela bought F16 from US 25 years back. And the current state of VAF F16 is
1. Only 14 out of 21 operational.
2. Due to the overwhelming support from US they had to go to Belgian SABCA plant to overhaul its fleet of F-16s.
3. They had to threaten to transfer the F16s to Iran to get spares supplied from US.
Difference between Venezuela and US are more political than military, still this is the case.

George, To be frank the Venezuela story reinforce the distrust against US.

GeorgeWelch wrote: In any case, you will be no worse off than if you selected MiG-35 where the spares simply won't be available period.

With maximum ToT possible from russia this may not be the case. Evenif this is the worst case situation, think about the possibility or probability of the worst case scenario happening. Russia:US may be 1:1000. An additional diplomat to Iran or firing across LOC in kashmir or a vote against US in UN may be enough for US to stop spares. Thats what i said India and US have different political views and different histories.

I am not against Indo-US relation. I have the opinion that where ever possible both countries should work together to achieve common goals. But as of now due to difference in 'ethics' what we need is confidence building measures from the side of US, till then the distrust will be there.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Jan 2010 04:40

rajeshks wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: We still supply F-16 spares to Venezuela, and I can assure you they don't do everything the US wants them to do
Venezuela bought F16 from US 25 years back.

Well that is the sort of timeframe we were talking about. What will the availability of spares be like a couple decades from now

rajeshks wrote: And the current state of VAF F16 is
1. Only 14 out of 21 operational.

That's due to their own issues, nothing to do with the US

rajeshks wrote: 2. Due to the overwhelming support from US they had to go to Belgian SABCA plant to overhaul its fleet of F-16s.

It wasn't for overhaul (maintenance), it was upgrade (new stuff which US has no obligation to sell them)

rajeshks wrote: 3. They had to threaten to transfer the F16s to Iran to get spares supplied from US.

Categorically false. The threat was because the US wouldn't sell them any NEW weapons. It had nothing to do with the spares for the F-16

rajeshks wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: In any case, you will be no worse off than if you selected MiG-35 where the spares simply won't be available period.
With maximum ToT possible from russia this may not be the case.

1. all contestants come with ToT
2. even with complete ToT, you cannot suddenly start manufacturing thousands of little parts in small batches with any measure of fiscal efficiency

Far, far more efficient to buy massive amounts upfront than have to try to crank up manufacturing lines decades later for a 20 count run

Of course India COULD buy massive amounts of spares upfront too, but we know they won't, so . . .

rajeshks wrote: Evenif this is the worst case situation, think about the possibility or probability of the worst case scenario happening. Russia:US may be 1:1000. An additional diplomat to Iran or firing across LOC in kashmir or a vote against US in UN may be enough for US to stop spares.

Don't be silly, the US has far too much at stake in India now to threaten sanctions for anything piddly, or possibly anything at all

But like I said, you won't be getting spares from Russia for the MiG-35 decades from now anyways

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 10 Jan 2010 05:00

George, the question is whether the machines are flying or not. it doesn't matter whether its sanction or delay tactics or some excuses to stop spares.

i wont blame russia much, after all mig 21s and mig 27s are still flying with IAF even after it stopped flying almost every where else, and it does matter. so why should we suspect that mig35 wont be flying after 30 years bcoz of spares.

everyone is offering ToT but the question is to what extend? no US company can match whats offered by russia. no one here is saying that we are going to start manufacturing spares from day 1. it may happen towards the end of production but thats possible only if relevant technologies are transfered otherwise there will be a dependency on the OEM. i agree its pure business tactics to create dependency but not desirable in defense deals.

if US can match russia then we are happy to go for US equipements. after all not many here are communists. but can you? most probably no and even if you say yes, history says otherwise.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Jan 2010 05:27

rajeshks wrote:George, the question is whether the machines are flying or not. it doesn't matter whether its sanction or delay tactics or some excuses to stop spares.

It isn't whether they can be kept flying. Any of them can be kept flying.

The question was about lifecycle costs, and the fact that MiG-35 spares are going to get very, very expensive later on.

You may even have to hand-manufacture some of the low-count high-precision parts. Very expensive stuff

rajeshks wrote:everyone is offering ToT but the question is to what extend? no US company can match whats offered by russia.

You're already getting Russia's best technology with FGFA/PAK-FA/whatever

What additional benefit could you possibly squeeze out of them from the lowly MiG-35 program?

rajeshks wrote: no one here is saying that we are going to start manufacturing spares from day 1. it may happen towards the end of production but thats possible only if relevant technologies are transfered otherwise there will be a dependency on the OEM.

It is simply not possible to manufacture every single part for a fighter. The world is global, parts come from all over. If some russian chip is no longer available, are you seriously suggesting you're going to crank up a fab for a run of maybe 100 chips? It comes with an Elettronica (Italian) jammer. Can Russia even offer full ToT on the jammer? What happens when Elettronica decides to no longer support it?

You know why the Rafale no longer comes with OSF? The electronic parts it uses were obsolete and discontinued. France didn't have the foresight to buy more when they had the opportunity. There's a lesson in that.

The MiG-35 uses lots of off-the-shelf components and will run into the exact same problem because neither Russia nor India will stock a sufficient amount of spares.

The USN will stock a sufficient amount of spares to keep its SH fleet running for decades and then some. That is the difference you get.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Jan 2010 08:29

Why bring the Venezuela example when India itself has experienced sanctions on Seaking helicopter spares etc from US?

That was the main reason that Hawk contract stipulated replacement of all US items with non-US ones.

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Jan 2010 10:21

The FMS route for the C17s and Super Hercules,P8s are all good, considering the kick back angle but they all are sanction prone ! Would you want a entire squadrons grounded when a senator catches a cold during a India China conflict ? Quite possible that a legion of senators would , considering China s economic strangle hold in the american economy ! Expect the best outcome but prepare for the worst ! American planes are a definite no no for the MRCA unless of course you do have a suicidal mentality which i dont think Indians have !

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 10 Jan 2010 11:52

GeorgeWelch wrote:It wasn't for overhaul (maintenance), it was upgrade (new stuff which US has no obligation to sell them)

But like I said, you won't be getting spares from Russia for the MiG-35 decades from now anyways

If you look at the Indian fighter inventory, upgrades are a principal part during the operational life of the aircrafts and this one statement would serve as the last nail into the coffin.

20 years from now, how would you feel about MMRCA without any upgrades just because US and India relation became at odds. Just check about when the Mig 21 entered the service in India and haven't they bene kept alive and given a tough time to fighters from US in bilateral excecises.

US relations still can't be trusted as they choose when they want to have a 'startegic alliance' while with Russia it never was the case.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 10 Jan 2010 18:32

Russia to produce T-95 tanks, Mig-35 fighter jets

Posting in full:-

Moscow: Russia will begin the serial production of its new state-of-the-art weapons which include a new Main Battle Tank T-95 and a multi-role fighter jet Mig-35, as the country braces to compete for a share in the global arms market, with India being a potential buyer.

"The specifications of new main battle tank T-95, to be serially produced from 2010, are being tightly kept under the warps of secrecy," defence expert Igor Korotchenko told state-run Vesti FM radio.

"However, judging from the reports it would provide better survivability for the tank crew in the battle field, which will sit in an armoured capsule inside the T-95 MBT," Korotchenko said.

Russia's RAC MiG - part of the United Aircraft Corporation is also beginning the serial production of four-plus generation MiG-35 MMRCA, which is also bidding for the Indian Air Force's global tender for the acquisition of 126 fighters, according to Vesti FM radio.

In January-February Russia is also beginning flight tests of the prototype of new fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) T-50 developed by Sukhoi Corporation under the secret PAK-FA project, in which India is also a partner.

In December at the KNAAPO aircraft plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in the far eastern part of Russia the taxiing trials of the prototype were successfully carried out. "A satellite cluster of American CIA and Google, which is also a cover for CIA is constantly monitoring the airfield of KNAAPO, to get the glimpse of T-50, developed to counter US F-22 Raptor," a defence analyst Ruslan Pukhov told Vesti FM radio.

He also said in 2010 Russia's global satellite navigational system (GLONASS) would be fully operational.

Under an agreement signed in 2005, Russia has agreed to provide India with the access to military segment of GLONASS.

IAF's Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter fleet is equipped with dual band GPS/GLONASS receivers to avoid a Balkan like situation, when Pentagon had switched off GPS before striking at Serbia.

Despite repeated failures in 2010 Russia will continue the development of multiple warhead submarine launched (SLBM-MIRV) 'Bulava' nuclear missiles, which would be able to pierce present and future American missile shields, the Vesti FM radio said.

PTI

Seems like Mig-35 now has got upper hand.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 10 Jan 2010 19:55

The Glonass kit can be integrated to any aircraft not just the MIG 35. I do not see any advantage in the MIG except for the price.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 10 Jan 2010 20:11

If buying 60 units of MiG 35 gives us benefits in improving our design and build capability in other projects, I would consider 60 units of MiG 35 as "sunk" costs, if we go by the hypothesis, that going for MiG 35 is the worst course of action.
Benefits of maintaining business deals with Russia are far too many. They are not hypocrites like EU and US. They do not meddle in the name of "human rights" while recent events since Serbian War has proved otherwise.

Especially US is to be kept at a distance for all critical weapons systems, because, they do not deserve to be trusted. However, to force them on the right side, we have to engage them in business of non-lethal and non-strategic stuff.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2010 20:12

Mig35s do not carry SC blades nor have established (production model) AESA radar. Besides, its RCS is same as Mig29, a vital indicator for selection process if BVR feature is in the top list of IAF's RFP (since AESA is a must -reports).

We have not heard about Meteor fired from EADS yet. Furthermore, AESA tech is still development stage (perhaps more deploy-able/ needs more testing). The TVN is also on the paper only aspect. But, going by EADS history, they have the capability and perhaps a haggle point for us to bring the cost down since it is not yet proven.

The same would go with Rafale. AESA is a nice price haggling point for IAF.. except if we choose SH, which has proven itself on this tech.

Banking too much and taking higher risk on all fronts would be choosing Gripen.

Per wiki the combat radius for Gripen is not really given clear.

EF2K performance:

* Maximum speed:
o At altitude: Mach 2+ (2,495 km/h, 1,550 mph)[174][175]
o At sea level: Mach 1.2[176] (1470 km/h / 913.2 mph) [177]
o Supercruise: Mach 1.1[172]-1.5[178]
* Range: 2,900 km (1,840 mi)
* Combat radius:
o Ground attack, lo-lo-lo: 601 km (373 nmi)
o Ground attack, hi-lo-hi: 1,389 km (863 nmi)
o Air defence with 3-hr CAP: 185 km (115 nmi)
o Air defence with 10-min loiter: 1,389 km (863 mi) [179]
* Ferry range: 3,790 km (2,300 mi)
* Service ceiling: 19,810 m (65,000 ft)
* Rate of climb: >315 m/s[180][181] (62,000 ft/min[182])
* Wing loading: 307 kg/m²[176] (63 lb/ft²)

Gripen:

* Maximum speed:
o At altitude: Mach 2 (2,470 km/h, 1,372 mph)
* Combat radius: 800 km (500 mi, 432 nmi)
* Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi) with drop tanks
* Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
* Wing loading: 336 kg/m² (68.8 lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.97

Sounds like Gripen lacks data for the omni/multi role they claim., so kind of still only in paper for many things.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 10 Jan 2010 20:56

SaiK;
Why do you post data about the Gripen C/D? That´s not the version offered to India...

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Jan 2010 23:08

RaviBg wrote:Why bring the Venezuela example when India itself has experienced sanctions on Seaking helicopter spares etc from US? That was the main reason that Hawk contract stipulated replacement of all US items with non-US ones.

Because some people seem to think that the US will cut off spares for any little petty offense, which is clearly not the case

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 10 Jan 2010 23:46

GeorgeWelch wrote: Because some people seem to think that the US will cut off spares for any little petty offense, which is clearly not the case

any little petty offense??
What do you mean by offense??? Even the 'biggest offense' for US, nuclear test by india, is not an offense in the eyes of anyone here. So do you mean to say that pursuing one national interest is an offense? pursuing independent political views is an offense? This attitude of US is what we all hate and thats the reason why people here dont want to go for US planes.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 11 Jan 2010 00:01

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Because some people seem to think that the US will cut off spares for any little petty offense, which is clearly not the case

George, please check the thread regarding Pokran nuclear test of 1998 on this very forum. The petty offence that India would probably do is a 200 KT nuclear bum explosion, you would get the reasons in that thread. If MMRCA is a US fighter, once we commit this petty offense, we will have a 126 paper weights with option buy extra paper weights.

1998 explosion made LCA almost Late Coming.....India has almost managed to pull it off from there to make it a Light Combat Aircraft. I am not sure whether anybody has any more appetite to test an American dish as an offensive platform. Non-offensive platforms, no problem we can manage American reactions towards the petty offenses committed by India.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 Jan 2010 00:57

rajeshks wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: Because some people seem to think that the US will cut off spares for any little petty offense, which is clearly not the case
any little petty offense??
What do you mean by offense??? Even the 'biggest offense' for US, nuclear test by india, is not an offense in the eyes of anyone here.

Different meaning of the word offense. Not offense as in crime, but to offend someone

People were saying 'if we vote the wrong way in the UN, the US will cut off our spares' which is just silly talk

Both nations have too much at stake to allow minor disagreements to come between their mutual economic interests

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 11 Jan 2010 01:05

All things considered, I don't understand where this MRCA thing is heading towards because when the IAF first came up with the requirements it was a decade ago. The way things are going, looks like the first aircraft will probably land in India in about ten years. That is two decade after the IAF first made their request.

While I am not gonna be pointing fingers about this magnificent efficiency in procurement, I want to highlight this serious lack of 126 fighter-bombers was all too stark in the aftermath of 26/11. Imagine the potential to strike fear and actual military punishment if the extra 126 planes were already in the inventory right now (which is 10 years after the IAF made the request). This gap of 126 plane is a big hole in India's defense and huge opportunity for the Satanist next door to cause shennanigans. Until this gap is closed, the IAF's effort for punitive riposte will be seriously handicapped.
Avram

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 Jan 2010 01:11

edit: LOL, wow, not sure why I had my mind so far off on what happened, nevermind, carry on

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 11 Jan 2010 02:13

GeorgeWelch wrote: Of course once Pakistant detonated, everyone realized India had no choice but to follow suit.

Who tested first ? India or Pakistan ?

GeorgeWelch wrote: The intent was to prevent Pakistan from getting nukes by sending a very strong and unambiguous statement that very costly sanctions would be levied if they proceeded. Admittedly it was a longshot, but it was a gamble worth taking.

So between 11 May 1998 (when India tested) and 28 May 1998 (when Pak tested), in a matter of 17 days, Pakistan set up a nuclear program and built nukes, and american threat of sanctions were unsuccessful in preventing this program ? I am a bit confused. If that is not the case and if Pakistan already had nukes, then what were the sanctions targeting ? Just to prevent Pakistan from testing their nukes that they already had ? Would that make any difference to India, US or anyone in the world that american sanctions successfully prevented the Pakistanis from testing any of their 40-60 weapons (which are built on tested Chinese design anyway ?)

GeorgeWelch wrote: but imagine if the embargo threat had actually worked? If Pakistan had frozen their program? While the odds are slim, the payoff is so huge you have to try.

So pardon my ignorance, if the payoff is so huge, why is the embargo withdrawn ? US doesnt want Pak to freeze their program anymore ? If your response is going to be "oh but they already have it now", how different is it from the situation in 98 ? They already had it then ? If your response is "oh but they already tested", then why is NoKo still being sanctioned ? they have tested too.

Sorry for being harsh, but this narrative that US somehow tried to prevent Pakis getting nukes is a red herring. This is a sackful of lies, which when repeated over and over again has the potential to be considered to be a truth in public consciousness. US never prevented the Pakis from getting nukes. In fact they encouraged it and looked the other way for DECADES*.

So, please offer some other argument about the sanctions.

And by the way, you might like my book reviews.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 73#p647273
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 49#p640049
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 29#p641529

*And that is precisely the point here and makes me very leery to assume that US is concerned about Indian interests. American behavior is driven by American foreign policy needs, which changes quickly. In mid 80's it was Anti-Soviet A'stan. In early 2001 it was china and spy plane incident. In 2001 it was A'stan. 2003 it was Iraq. 2009 it is A'stan again. Who knows what it will be in 2013 ? Iran ? If so, what would be US attitude towards India which has friendly relationship with Iran ? Will american public pour sambar into the toilet ? Will our planes still fly if we vote against war in Iran ? What if US has another economic crisis and China bankrolls the US and attacks India ? Will our planes fly then ?