Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

[Viv S]

A continuing cold war between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has stalled India's plans for a two-front war if necessary with Pakistan and China despite the government's recent announcements of progress.

The result of the rivalry is that personal squabbling and ego trips have taken primacy over issues of national interest. India's military capability has declined, adversely affecting combat readiness despite a government projection that defense needs have increased markedly in the past 18 months or so since the November 2008 Mumbai terror strikes. Unprecedented air incursions by the Chinese in 2009 and Beijing's blunt warning to India on the issues of Arunachal Pradesh and the Dalai Lama have added to the threat perception.

An interesting perspective the political angle on defense expenditure.....

Lot of bollocks if you ask me. The article is neither a news report nor an opinion piece, and contains a lot of BS 'insider' info.

Its AK Antony's ministry that handles defence acquisition. Why would some hypothetical friction between Pranab Mukherjee and Manmohan Singh, cause the MoF to spitefully disrupt proposals from the MoD? Also it questions the FMS route taken for American purchases, while ignoring the fact is almost all of India's defence acquisitions have happened without tender-evaluation-bidding process. The FMS route just allows the GoI to streamline the purchases that would have happened anyway, by bypassing the 'approvals' rigmarole.

And as it happens there's nothing happening on the China front that is unprecedented and the IA has been taking pains to point that out. Most of the violations are due to a difference in perception of the LAC and not intended to be provocative per se.

[Karan M]

That article has a definite ring of truth to it.

The most recent case where the MOF threw a huge spanner into the works of the MOD was the case of the Airbus tanker. It is worth noting that Chidambaram, who was a far sterner critic of cost escalations and defence acquisitions did not prevent the eventual acquisition of the Scorpene submarine line, and several other programs.

The FMS route critique is also well justified, as the CAG had thrown a substantial brake on the single vendor scenario. Approvals are not rigmarole, they allow India to get better equipment by seeing what is available on the world market.

"And as it happens there's nothing happening on the China front that is unprecedented and the IA has been taking pains to point that out. Most of the violations are due to a difference in perception of the LAC and not intended to be provocative per se."

Everything is fine, ergo has a precedent and is nothing to be worried about until the sh*t hits the fan. The same argument was made for the Kargil incursion in that it was common practise for the Pakistanis and Indians to retire to winter positions and not infiltrate, till they did.

Dont read too much into official claims of "all is well". Its the job of the brass to reassure the nation in public while raising a stink in private.

[Karan M]

Yakhont is indigenous? AFAIK only onboard computer on it is indigenous,they haven't got the full TOT of brahmos from russia due to some copyright issue.
mixing technologies from different countries is what he is calling development ?

The Brahmos is not Yakhont. Go to the Brahmos website, and you will see the amount of Indian contribution in the program given by company.

[Viv S]

That article has a definite ring of truth to it.

The most recent case where the MOF threw a huge spanner into the works of the MOD was the case of the Airbus tanker. It is worth noting that Chidambaram, who was a far sterner critic of cost escalations and defence acquisitions did not prevent the eventual acquisition of the Scorpene submarine line, and several other programs.

How is the PMO responsible for that, either way?

The FMS route critique is also well justified, as the CAG had thrown a substantial brake on the single vendor scenario. Approvals are not rigmarole, they allow India to get better equipment by seeing what is available on the world market.

We've still ordered plenty of stuff directly from vendors without competition. Tavors for example. I was referring to the American approvals system not ours.

Everything is fine, ergo has a precedent and is nothing to be worried about until the sh*t hits the fan.

I should have used a different word than precedent I suppose. These incidents happen regularly every year. And the Chinese treat consider Indian patrols, intrusions into their territory as well.

The same argument was made for the Kargil incursion in that it was common practise for the Pakistanis and Indians to retire to winter positions and not infiltrate, till they did.

Dont read too much into official claims of "all is well". Its the job of the brass to reassure the nation in public while raising a stink in private.

The IA does do everything required to maintain status quo on the LAC, and if that means raising two new mountain division, that does get sanctioned. But the cited incursions are not in fact a change in the situation and does not indicate that a stand-off with China is under way. Rather than increased military activity on the Chinese side, you have increased media activity on the Indian side.

[Karan M]

How is the PMO responsible for that, either way?

What is with this love for the PMO? Focus on what the article says about the MOF and MOD being at loggerheads!Then address salient critique namely:

Throughout 2009, just two procurement-specific meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) were held, 26 procurement proposals were examined by the Ministry of Defense and 11 proposals. Of these, not a single procurement deal was completed.

Some foreign manufacturers reportedly have threatened to either completely withdraw from India, or equally worse, sell the same negotiated wares to Indian rivals.

We've still ordered plenty of stuff directly from vendors without competition. Tavors for example.

Have we? What makes you so sure that before the Tavors were procured, India did not scout around for other similar guns, reject them and then proceed?
Furthermore, kindly understand, that it was the ad hoc nature of procurement that the CAG objected to, and which has opened up the

I was referring to the American approvals system not ours.

So? The author is implying there is favoritism or incompetence, namely:

The cancellation of the US$1.5 billion mid-air refueller deal with European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) for six A-330 Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft is a classic case of defense diplomacy gone awry. The United Progressive Alliance canceled the deal, ostensibly because of the high price factor but actually to accommodate late entrant Boeing Company of the US. Four European ambassadors in New Delhi have registered their protests. Germany, where the A-330s are built, has protested angrily. German ambassador Thomas Matussek remarked that the cancellation of the deal came as a "nasty surprise."

I should have used a different word than precedent I suppose. These incidents happen regularly every year. And the Chinese treat consider Indian patrols, intrusions into their territory as well.

Every year till the Kargil incident, both Indian and Pakistani patrols used to retire back to their formation posts during winter. Then the Pakistanis didnt. What does that tell you?

The IA does do everything required to maintain status quo on the LAC, and if that means raising two new mountain division, that does get sanctioned. But the cited incursions are not in fact a change in the situation and does not indicate that a stand-off with China is under way. Rather than increased military activity on the Chinese side, you have increased media activity on the Indian side.

So, why did the IA raise two mountain divisions because all was well! Why is the IAF now stationing Flankers in the NE , and airfields are being reactivated!
How do you know there is no increased activity on the Chinese side - are you in India, stationed in the NE?
Second, the media follows a story. They have been fed the story, clearly from elements who know whats been going on, given past precedent, and are being leaked news repeatedly to keep the pressure on the politicians to speed up things.

[Prem]

Political Rivalries in India Stunt Defense Spending

A continuing cold war between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has stalled India's plans for a two-front war if necessary with Pakistan and China despite the government's recent announcements of progress.
.....

There goes Mirage 2009 deal deep down in Gulf . Finnancial man need one of his own to run militry acuisition programme.

[Viv S]

What is with this love for the PMO?

Because the article grossly misrepresents facts. Its blames delays in defence acquisitions on an ego-clash between Manmohan Singh and Pranab Mukherjee.

Focus on what the article says about the MOF and MOD being at loggerheads!Then address salient critique namely:

Throughout 2009, just two procurement-specific meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) were held, 26 procurement proposals were examined by the Ministry of Defense and 11 proposals. Of these, not a single procurement deal was completed.

Some foreign manufacturers reportedly have threatened to either completely withdraw from India, or equally worse, sell the same negotiated wares to Indian rivals.

I haven't commented on that part because I have no idea what those figures imply. I don't know how many CCS meetings should ideally be held in an year. I don't know how whether the content of these meetings was adequate. I don't know what decisions can be taken only by the CCS and what decisions the MoD can take without consulting it. I do not know if the proposals were fresh or they if the committee was looking into ongoing acquisitions. I haven't heard of any deal that's been held up because the cabinet approval hadn't come through.

^^^If you have, do tell.

Wrt to the last line, I don't know of any news about a foreign manufacturer threatening to leave India. Quite the opposite.

Have we? What makes you so sure that before the Tavors were procured, India did not scout around for other similar guns, reject them and then proceed?
Furthermore, kindly understand, that it was the ad hoc nature of procurement that the CAG objected to, and which has opened up the

I'm not saying that at all. The IN ordered the P-8I though the FMS, but before doing so it did evaluate the P-3C, Falcon 900, Il-38, A319 system, Nimrod, etc. The intentions attributed the FMS route by the article, are erroneous to say the least.

So? The author is implying there is favoritism or incompetence, namely:

The cancellation of the US$1.5 billion mid-air refueller deal with European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) for six A-330 Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft is a classic case of defense diplomacy gone awry. The United Progressive Alliance canceled the deal, ostensibly because of the high price factor but actually to accommodate late entrant Boeing Company of the US. Four European ambassadors in New Delhi have registered their protests. Germany, where the A-330s are built, has protested angrily. German ambassador Thomas Matussek remarked that the cancellation of the deal came as a "nasty surprise."

The sentence 'to actually accomodate late entrant Boeing' is the author's personal opinion which he states as fact. Also, how does the cancellation of one order, mean there exists infighting at the highest levels in the government?

Every year till the Kargil incident, both Indian and Pakistani patrols used to retire back to their formation posts during winter. Then the Pakistanis didnt. What does that tell you?

So, why did the IA raise two mountain divisions because all was well! Why is the IAF now stationing Flankers in the NE , and airfields are being reactivated!
How do you know there is no increased activity on the Chinese side - are you in India, stationed in the NE?

I think you're missing the point here. The Chinese are building there capabilities in Tibet, as they are everywhere else. And the IA and IAF keep themselves updated and take whatever steps they deem necessary to maintain the status quo.

The border incursions are a different matter. The impression the media has given is that the Chinese are rapidly nosing their way into Indian areas, and this article suggests quick gearing up for an imminent conflict is necessary, which is incorrect.

Second, the media follows a story. They have been fed the story, clearly from elements who know whats been going on, given past precedent, and are being leaked news repeatedly to keep the pressure on the politicians to speed up things.

I'm not saying the media is lying. What I am saying is, the media hasn't presented any incident, that would indicate a change in the existing situation on the ground from previous years.

[Katare]

That article is childish and factually incirrect on so many counts. Making a person President means finishing his political career, Mukharji flatly refused to entertain any such idea. Infact MMS has used Mukharji as sword arm to troubleshoot almost every crisis that govt/india has faced under UPA.

Defence purcases are in trouble but reason for that are well known....OMCC (opposition politician, Media, CBI and CVC).

[Karan M]

Because the article grossly misrepresents facts. Its blames delays in defence acquisitions on an ego-clash between Manmohan Singh and Pranab Mukherjee.

How do you know that? The article mentions deliberate instances of the MOF shooting down the MODs work. Do you have any evidence to cite the opposite?

I haven't commented on that part because I have no idea what those figures imply. I don't know how many CCS meetings should ideally be held in an year. I don't know how whether the content of these meetings was adequate. I don't know what decisions can be taken only by the CCS and what decisions the MoD can take without consulting it. I do not know if the proposals were fresh or they if the committee was looking into ongoing acquisitions. I haven't heard of any deal that's been held up because the cabinet approval hadn't come through.

In which case how can you term the report as a load of b0llocks? If you want to prove it as such find out all the above details and prove it is so. Merely saying that it is wrong because it criticizes the PMO, which offends you, is not grounds for dismissing the report.

^^^If you have, do tell.

I didnt make the assertion that the Tavors were a single vendor deal. You did.

Wrt to the last line, I don't know of any news about a foreign manufacturer threatening to leave India. Quite the opposite.

Global OEMs routinely complain to journalists off the record.

I'm not saying that at all. The IN ordered the P-8I though the FMS, but before doing so it did evaluate the P-3C, Falcon 900, Il-38, A319 system, Nimrod, etc. The intentions attributed the FMS route by the article, are erroneous to say the least.

What the article is clearly saying is that while FMS acquisitions sail through unimpeded, other contests are held up on flimsy excuses which end up favouring FMS acquisitions. Thats a valid accusation, note the European objections.

The sentence 'to actually accomodate late entrant Boeing' is the author's personal opinion which he states as fact. Also, how does the cancellation of one order, mean there exists infighting at the highest levels in the government?

It may or may not be the authors opinion, but the facts bear it out. That Boeing now has a crack at the tender which it did not have before.

The cancellation was clearly reflective of infighting that a deal went to the CCS to be rejected, wherein the MOF is a member of the CCS and the MOD stuck to its guns for operational reasons, yet the MOF did not budge. Whereas prior MOF admins did.

I think you're missing the point here. The Chinese are building there capabilities in Tibet, as they are everywhere else. And the IA and IAF keep themselves updated and take whatever steps they deem necessary to maintain the status quo.

Am I missing the point here or are you? Why are the Chinese building their capabilities in Tibet? Are you privy to their thinking to give them a certificate of good conduct, as you have? And if things are so hunky dory with the IAF and IA updating their capabilities, why the urgency in acquisitions, new RFI/RFP, new raisings and movements? Sorry, but your claims are not convincing.

The border incursions are a different matter. The impression the media has given is that the Chinese are rapidly nosing their way into Indian areas, and this article suggests quick gearing up for an imminent conflict is necessary, which is incorrect.

Why are the border incursions a different matter? Because you say so? Were the border incursions a different matter in 1962 or 1967 or even the 1980's? How do you know there is no imminent gearing up for an imminent conflict, are you privy to everything the media is and know for surety about whats going on in the NE? Are you even based out of India?

Do kindly inform.

I'm not saying the media is lying. What I am saying is, the media hasn't presented any incident, that would indicate a change in the existing situation on the ground from previous years.

What one incident would satisfy your belief in there being a change from previous years, pray?

Do you even realise how illogical your line of argumentation sounds - "well things were bad before, they are bad today, nothing has changed, all is well".

Or even worse - things arent bad, there is a difference in perception, about where the borders are.

Well, guess what this same difference in perception, with some minor incidents, led to India getting attacked in 1962.

As far back as 2007, the Army was ringing alarm bells in private (so as to not disturb CBM) about Chinese transgressions.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1071213/a ... 663893.asp

If you were serious, you would look at the trending, not at individual snapshots and say "all is well". The trending clearly shows that the Indian defence establishment is rattled and is ramping up its preparations so as to deter the PRC from any untoward action, thinking the Indian side to be weak. So much so, that a clued in spokesperson of the mil establishment goes on to say:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS ... 769593.cms

What about this gentleman?
http://www.zeenews.com/news370057.html

I guess he too is part of the vast media conspiracy to hype up the peaceful activities by the PRC?

[Karan M]

That article is childish and factually incirrect on so many counts. Making a person President means finishing his political career, Mukharji flatly refused to entertain any such idea. Infact MMS has used Mukharji as sword arm to troubleshoot almost every crisis that govt/india has faced under UPA.

Defence purcases are in trouble but reason for that are well known....OMCC (opposition politician, Media, CBI and CVC).

At least you raise some valid objections, namely the troubleshooter aspect.

However, would disagree with you above re: reasons for purchases ..what the article adds is yet another aspect, namely the political angle. This part in particular is of concern.

"Throughout 2009, just two procurement-specific meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) were held, 26 procurement proposals were examined by the Ministry of Defense and 11 proposals. Of these, not a single procurement deal was completed."

Which when considered with the tanker deal, is worrisome.

[Viv S]

How do you know that? The article mentions deliberate instances of the MOF shooting down the MODs work. Do you have any evidence to cite the opposite?

How does that implicate the PMO? Where does the Pranab Mukherjee and Manmohan Singh 'clash' come into the picture? If you'd said the friction was between AK Antony and Pranab Mukherjee, it would've been unsubstantiated but admissible. In this case, it doesn't make sense.

In which case how can you term the report as a load of b0llocks? If you want to prove it as such find out all the above details and prove it is so. Merely saying that it is wrong because it criticizes the PMO, which offends you, is not grounds for dismissing the report.

I termed the report bollocks for rest of its content not this in particular.

I didnt make the assertion that the Tavors were a single vendor deal. You did.

You referred me to that part of the article and told me to draw conclusions from it. I can't, which is why I'm asking you to inform me of what I'm missing.

Global OEMs routinely complain to journalists off the record.

Not much of a threat if they're complaining to journalists off the record.

What the article is clearly saying is that while FMS acquisitions sail through unimpeded, other contests are held up on flimsy excuses which end up favouring FMS acquisitions. Thats a valid accusation, note the European objections.

How can you say only the FMS acquisitions sailed through? Most direct acquisitions sail through. Most Israeli purchases sail through. Russian purchases sail through as well(though they often come back to bite).

It may or may not be the authors opinion, but the facts bear it out. That Boeing now has a crack at the tender which it did not have before.

The cancellation was clearly reflective of infighting that a deal went to the CCS to be rejected, wherein the MOF is a member of the CCS and the MOD stuck to its guns for operational reasons, yet the MOF did not budge. Whereas prior MOF admins did.

So was it rejected because of infighting in the cabinet or as a favour to the Americans?

Am I missing the point here or are you? Why are the Chinese building their capabilities in Tibet? Are you privy to their thinking to give them a certificate of good conduct, as you have? And if things are so hunky dory with the IAF and IA updating their capabilities, why the urgency in acquisitions, new RFI/RFP, new raisings and movements? Sorry, but your claims are not convincing.

The Pakistanis could ask the same thing of us. We're rapidly modernizing but there's no blueprint to invade Pakistan in the works. The Chinese are developing their capabilities everywhere, not just Tibet. And while both sides are modernizing, neither side's doing it at a war footing.

Why are the border incursions a different matter? Because you say so? Were the border incursions a different matter in 1962 or 1967 or even the 1980's? How do you know there is no imminent gearing up for an imminent conflict, are you privy to everything the media is and know for surety about whats going on in the NE? Are you even based out of India?

Do kindly inform.

I'm not talking about the legality or implications of the border incursions. I'm talking about their frequency. There's been no ramping up of border violations in recent years contrary to what the media claims.

My personal knowledge on the other hand comes from my interactions with a battalion commander, during a visit to Ladakh.

What one incident would satisfy your belief in there being a change from previous years, pray?

Do you even realise how illogical your line of argumentation sounds - "well things were bad before, they are bad today, nothing has changed, all is well".

Or even worse - things arent bad, there is a difference in perception, about where the borders are.

Well, guess what this same difference in perception, with some minor incidents, led to India getting attacked in 1962.

If you were serious, you would look at the trending, not at individual snapshots and say "all is well". The trending clearly shows that the Indian defence establishment is rattled and is ramping up its preparations so as to deter the PRC from any untoward action, thinking the Indian side to be weak.

Incidents far more serious than what the media has been highlighting have occurred earlier without the status quo or ceasefire breaking down. But that's irrelevant(I'll go into them if you like), since its the trend we're referring to -

Gen. Deepak Kapoor on the LAC

[shukla]

Lot of bollocks if you ask me. The article is neither a news report nor an opinion piece, and contains a lot of BS 'insider' info.

I thought it was an interesting take on relevant issues which I wished to share.. I agree with a few of his points and others I take with a pinch of salt.. Everyones entitled to an opinion & absolutely its 'ok' to have a point of view.. but its amazing how you express your extreme emotions, which usually tend to cloud your judgement, to make your point. You've got to remember, your choice of words to express your extreme emotions and passion won't make your point any more right.. Next time just tone it down a bit mate.

[Viv S]

Lot of bollocks if you ask me. The article is neither a news report nor an opinion piece, and contains a lot of BS 'insider' info.

I thought it was an interesting take on relevant issues which I wished to share.. I agree with a few of his points and others I take with a pinch of salt.. Everyones entitled to an opinion & absolutely its 'ok' to have a point of view.. but its amazing how you express your extreme emotions, which usually tend to cloud your judgement, to make your point. You've got to remember, your choice of words to express your extreme emotions and passion won't make your point any more right.. Next time just tone it down a bit mate.

I suppose I should have been a little more circumspect in my wording, but I assure you all the vitriol was aimed at the author of the article. I know you were just sharing the article and I agree it is interesting, as in it gives out a particular viewpoint.

Cheers.

[Sanku]

Actually the article is VERY insightful. It is right on the money on how India works.

Those who are hyperventilating on the fact that the article is bollocks have ZERO understanding of India and her systems.

Not to mention that they have no factual objections to bring across any points other than "I dont think so"

--------

As for the Tanker deal, Airbus was shot down as it was too expensive and we had Il 76/78 already which were much better suited (according to FinMin) and thats why we get the ultra cheap, ultra compatible, ultra reliable supplier boing (correct spelling) in addition to Airbus.

And we have a helicopter trial canceled to make sure US birds also had a chance to take part.

Now C 17s

Seriously tell me another one.

[sum]

Guys, need a quick answer for a friend of mine:

Which are the major GoI orgs( not educational institutions like IITs etc) doing quality work on Computer Sciences?

[Sanku]

Guys, need a quick answer for a friend of mine:

Which are the major GoI orgs( not educational institutions like IITs etc) doing quality work on Computer Sciences?

CDAC, CAIR, LRDE in general DRDO labs dealing with guidance and radar algorithms.

[sunny y]

Guys, need a quick answer for a friend of mine:

Which are the major GoI orgs( not educational institutions like IITs etc) doing quality work on Computer Sciences?

Check out this link...It was written in 1995 but it gives an overview of the work that is being done in our Labs...You can then check the websites of these orgs for details....

A Detailed Report on R&D at Indian Computer-Science Establishments - A report by Prof. Krithi Ramamritham

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/agency/krithi1.html


Thanks

[shukla]

X-post..

Going great guns

International defence biggies are interested in India more than ever

[Viv S]

Actually the article is VERY insightful. It is right on the money on how India works.

Those who are hyperventilating on the fact that the article is bollocks have ZERO understanding of India and her systems.

Not to mention that they have no factual objections to bring across any points other than "I dont think so"

And pray, how does a tussle between the PM and FM, lead to delayed defence acquisitions?

[Sanku]

Actually the article is VERY insightful. It is right on the money on how India works.

Those who are hyperventilating on the fact that the article is bollocks have ZERO understanding of India and her systems.

Not to mention that they have no factual objections to bring across any points other than "I dont think so"

And pray, how does a tussle between the PM and FM, lead to delayed defence acquisitions?

A good example is mentioned in the article itself. If you were remotely serious you would have tried to understand why the article says what it says.

As it stands I am under no illusions on your approach is this matter. After posting for about a 1001 times, I have not been able to get you to read the basics of MoD on its website such as Acquisition committee and its role. It would be highly idiotic of me to expect you to understand the role of cabinet committee on security, the primacy of PMO, the office of NSA and such like.

Please carry on, dont let these trivial details get in the way.

[Viv S]

And pray, how does a tussle between the PM and FM, lead to delayed defence acquisitions?

A good example is mentioned in the article itself. If you were remotely serious you would have tried to understand why the article says what it says.

As it stands I am under no illusions on your approach is this matter. After posting for about a 1001 times, I have not been able to get you to read the basics of MoD on its website such as Acquisition committee and its role. It would be highly idiotic of me to expect you to understand the role of cabinet committee on security, the primacy of PMO, the office of NSA and such like.

Please carry on, dont let these trivial details get in the way.

^^^ Half part substance, six parts of rhetoric. I suggest you expound on the former and cut down on the latter.

It would have been more productive to specifically quote the relevant parts of the example, rather than talk philosophy.

[sum]

Guys, need a quick answer for a friend of mine:

Which are the major GoI orgs( not educational institutions like IITs etc) doing quality work on Computer Sciences?

Check out this link...It was written in 1995 but it gives an overview of the work that is being done in our Labs...You can then check the websites of these orgs for details....

A Detailed Report on R&D at Indian Computer-Science Establishments - A report by Prof. Krithi Ramamritham

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/agency/krithi1.html


Thanks

Thanks a ton, sunnyboyee...

Amazing about how much detailed knowledge the Americans have of our top achievers and institutions( the amazing report linked above is for the US Naval office)!!!

[sunny y]

Thanks a ton, sunnyboyee...

Amazing about how much detailed knowledge the Americans have of our top achievers and institutions( the amazing report linked above is for the US Naval office)!!!

Your Welcome Sumji
Well, they are Americans....We should have expected that
I believe we are doing the same to Americans
But I think many of these details are already in public domain.... What they have done is compile them in a single page.
And the Indian author Prof. Krithi Ramamritham is at the University of Massachusetts....I personally think that he might have some contacts in our establishments. That's how he might have got all these details.

Thanks

[Katare]

Actually the article is VERY insightful. It is right on the money on how India works.

Those who are hyperventilating on the fact that the article is bollocks have ZERO understanding of India and her systems.

Not to mention that they have no factual objections to bring across any points other than "I dont think so"

--------

As for the Tanker deal, Airbus was shot down as it was too expensive and we had Il 76/78 already which were much better suited (according to FinMin) and thats why we get the ultra cheap, ultra compatible, ultra reliable supplier boing (correct spelling) in addition to Airbus.

And we have a helicopter trial canceled to make sure US birds also had a chance to take part.

Now C 17s

Seriously tell me another one.

Sanku, why are you so abrasive in your response?

IIRC boeing has refused to participate in the tanker tender as per news posted here.

[Kartik]

As for the Tanker deal, Airbus was shot down as it was too expensive and we had Il 76/78 already which were much better suited (according to FinMin) and thats why we get the ultra cheap, ultra compatible, ultra reliable supplier boing (correct spelling) in addition to Airbus.

And we have a helicopter trial canceled to make sure US birds also had a chance to take part.

the whole part about the Fin Min telling the MoD that the deal was too expensive and that the Il-76/78 did the job at a cheaper price was hogwash and there is little doubt that it was politically motivated. If the Fin Min babus know so much about aircraft and can evaluate them on their own without even having seen one in real and over-rule the IAF and MoD on what suits them the best, then what the hell are they doing just handling Finance ? They might as well take over their duties as well.
BTW, where was the Fin Min when Air India (a PSU) went and splurged billions of $ on 63 Boeing aircraft ? Why didn't they ask them to include Tupolevs in the evaluation and deal as well and ask them to look at the prices alone as the discriminating factor ?
BTW, Boeing has indicated that they may not be ready for the re-tendered tanker deal. If they don't bid, what the hell will happen with this deal ? What options are left with the IAF ? Should they even evaluate the A-330 or simply go for more Il-78s knowing that the all-knowing Fin Min will tell them that the A-330s are too expensive for them ?
And if the IAF again select the A-330 MRTT and this time the deal will be more expensive since it'll be at least 2 years from the time the last bids were made, then what will the Fin Min do ? cancel the deal again and ask for another re-tendering ? Airbus won't even bother to submit that time. Whichever haraami in the Fin Min made this into a turf battle ought to be shot for this.

[ramana]

sum The office of naval research used to have researcher David Kahaner who used to issue regular reports on Indian advances in Computer Science in the mid 90s. They were called Kahaner Reports.

Try this site for new version:

http://www.atip.org/

[shukla]

Food for Thought: Optimising Defence Spending

India is set to purchase a whole host of ammunition, guns, assault rifles, Night Vision Devices (NVD), bullet-proof jackets, and many other low-tech defence equipment in addition to big ticket items such as aircraft, ships, submarines, tanks and artillery guns. While such reports are not necessarily wholly authentic, the Indian Army’s equipment shortfall includes some 200,000 close-quarter battle carbines to replace the outdated 9 mm carbines currently in use, 15,000 general-purpose machine guns, 1,100 lightweight anti-material rifles, 225 mine-protected vehicles, and 64 snow scooters for use at high altitudes. There is also reportedly a paucity of around 390,000 ballistic helmets, more than 30,000 third-generation Night Vision devices, 180,000 light-weight bullet-proof jackets, new-generation grenades and around 50,000 rounds of 84 mm rocket launcher ammunition.7 It is indeed surprising that even these relatively low tech defence items have to be purchased from abroad.

As an example of its continued prowess in defence it is noteworthy that China’s AVIC Helicopter Co (Avicopter) is breaking away from Eurocopter, its partner, in the joint EC175/Z-15 medium helicopter programme, following a decision to re-engine the Chinese Z-15 variant with an indigenous power plant.8 The contrast with India is stark. The Indian Air Force does not have a basic trainer and has been forced to rely on the very few old Kiran Mk 1 jet trainers to train its pilot trainees with no signs of any improvement in the near future. The new AJT Hawk fleet is plagued with slow delivery and spares problems. HAL is reportedly suing BAE, its manufacturer, for these delays. In light of these developments, it is perhaps time India reviewed its major acquisition plans to bring them in line with the current economic realities.

[Singha]

looking at ramaritham's report and the descriptions of work by some professors whose classes I attended, its merely a appending of stuff already put up in the home pages of the professors in the instt website. every professor generally lists his current interests, past work, publication and thesis guided by him.

mostly likely the good prof caught a few of PIGs and made them sit up all night cut pasteing text from such webpages, added in some filler material from his own visits and stumped this report out.

very chankian onlee.

[arun]

X Posted.

Two Indian Coast Guard RFI’s for a total of 30 Helicopters.

First an RFI for 16 Ship Borne Light Helicopters. The Ship Borne helicopters are for Maritime Surveillance, Interdiction and SAR with a MTOW not exceeding 6,500 Kgs and capable of operations off OPVs and AOPVs. Details here:

RFI Ship Borne Light Helicopter

Then a second Coast Guard RFI for an additional 14 Twin Engine Shore based Helicopters. Helicopters again for Maritime Surveillance, Interdiction and SAR but this time with a MTOW not exceeding 12,000 Kg capable of stage through operations off OPVs and AOPVs with an MTOW reduced to 10,000 Kgs. More details here:

RFI Shore Based Helicopter

[shukla]

Antony Calls For Transparent, Timely Defense Procurement

Antony said: “Defense expenditure and procurement issues are complex and time-consuming and have a direct bearing on our national security. “We have tried to infuse more transparency and efficiency into our procedures and systems. It is my firm belief that expenditure of public money must have an appropriate system of checks and balances.”

He said the Defense Accounts Department had facilitated procurement of essential items for the defense forces and the capital expenditure utilized last year had been an all-time record. “But, there has to be a transparent, timely and judicious use of funds for defense expenditure. The Government has tried to infuse more transparency in the huge defense outlay, which is over Rs 15,200 for the current financial year,” he added.

All he cares for is Transparency... timely is a mere secondary.

[Sanku]

As for the Tanker deal, Airbus was shot down as it was too expensive and we had Il 76/78 already which were much better suited (according to FinMin) and thats why we get the ultra cheap, ultra compatible, ultra reliable supplier boing (correct spelling) in addition to Airbus.

And we have a helicopter trial canceled to make sure US birds also had a chance to take part.

the whole part about the Fin Min telling the MoD that the deal was too expensive and that the Il-76/78 did the job at a cheaper price was hogwash and there is little doubt that it was politically motivated.

Kartik I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. I am not saying anything different from what you said.

[Sanku]

Sanku, why are you so abrasive in your response?

Well looking at Kartik's response, it appears I was less abrasive. But jokes apart, the abrasion was not directed at you but at GoI's methods.

IIRC boeing has refused to participate in the tanker tender as per news posted here.

No that for the LOH tender IIRC, unless you can share the link.

[shukla]

X-post

India to gear up for 'star wars'

Defence ministry's spanking new "Technology Perspective and Capability Roadmap" seems to recognize this overriding necessity, outlining as it does a wide array of high-tech offensive and defensive capabilities Indian armed forces will need over the next 15 years.

[khukri]

India To Open Competition for New Aerostats

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=AIR

[Gaurav_S]

India, Russia set up a USD 600 million aircraft Joint Venture

India and Russia are to invest USD 600 million to set up a joint venture (JV) to produce a medium lift transport aircraft for their armed forces.

While Bangalore based state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will fork out USD 300 million, Russia's United Aircraft Cooperation (UAC) will invest a similar amount for the joint venture which will start rolling out the aircraft by 2017.

The Voice of Russia radio said that the joint venture coming up with fifty-fifty equity would develop the aircraft at Aviastar-SP plant based in Ulyanovsk city on Volga. The Indian Air Force is expected to order at least 35 and Russian Air Force as many as 100 medium lift transport aircraft.

In its basic configuration the new transport aircraft will have a payload capacity of 18.5 tons of cargo and can fly up to a a distance of 2500 km in any climatic conditions.

The aircraft is being designed to also operate from high altitude mountain airstrips, according to information posted on UAC website. India hopes that the new medium lift transport aircraft will replace its ageing fleet of 104 AN-32 aircraft.

Though India has signed a contract worth USD 398 million for the upgradation of these aircrafts between this year to 2017, the new plane will replace it.

[krishnan]

India, Russia set up a USD 600 million aircraft Joint Venture

Though India has signed a contract worth USD 398 million for the upgradation of these aircrafts between this year to 2017, the new plane will replace it.

[Dmurphy]

India To Open Competition for New Aerostats

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=AIR

The article says, all 3 radars are in Punjab. Is that a right strategy?

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

The Indian Air Force is expected to order at least 35 and Russian Air Force as many as 100 medium lift transport aircraft.

In its basic configuration the new transport aircraft will have a payload capacity of 18.5 tons of cargo and can fly up to a a distance of 2500 km in any climatic conditions.

<SNIP>

Excellent. Vindicates my opinion that IAF needs a 20 tons category transporter. I have a feeling that C-17 are going to be the heavy lift component (with at least 10 more ordered) and we might not have IL-76 replacement in at least medium term.

PS: What ever happened to earlier MTA agreement with Russia? Or is this the same one?

[Rahul M]

how do we know it is a wrong strategy ? what do we know about our RADAR coverage, gaps and possible ingress routes ? nothing ? all I can say is we are in no position to judge.

rohit, one and the same. btw, don;t you think 35 is far too low ?

[rohitvats]

how do we know it is a wrong strategy ? what do we know about our RADAR coverage, gaps and possible ingress routes ? nothing ? all I can say is we are in no position to judge.

Thank you stating this.

There is a difference in trying to understand something by questioning it. For example: Why would IAF deploy assets like Aerostats in Punjab? And may be, someone with knowledge about radars can give a plausible explanations. Something like -providing coverage to vital installation, ingress and exit routes to areas in hinterland (NCR for example), keepng track of air-traffic on other side etc. BTW, this can be done only if one knows the location. Using the location and using google earth one can even give idea of arc of covergae (with range of aerostats being known). A discussion on these lines may well add to the overall understanding of the subject.

But to question the strategy or trying to second-guess the IAF when we know nothing is pure speculation and does not do any good - to the forum or the knowledge level of mango-BRFites. We see this happening in cases when CI strategy of IA gets questioned. I mean, how are we qualified, even if I read extensively on the subject on net or otherwise, to comment on the same? Another example is the 26/11 Ops by NSG.

rohit, one and the same. btw, don;t you think 35 is far too low ?

Thanks for clarifying. So, may be now we've ironed out the nitty-gritties.

Yes, they seem low. But sir, again we have no way of knowing the exact airlift requirement of the IAF+IA.

Another thing we need to understand that airlift requirement in our case is a dynamic parameter. And let me explain why.

On the one had you've the RTR (Route Transport Role) and STR (Supply Transport Role) of the IAF. While former is of the Assam Courier type, the other is the Air Maintenance role across North and North-East. These RTR and STR requirements should be pretty much fixed and we'd have already build in margins to support any spike - say a Tsunami or earthquake. Since IAF has been doing this for decades now, they would know the exact requirement and might want to rationalize the aircraft type and numbers dedicated for this support role. For example, we've been using IL-76 on Ladakh Route. Question is - Does every IL-76 sortie require 40 tonnes category aircraft or can we do with smaller 20 tons category?

The dynamic aspect stems from defining the airlift for formations like 50(I) Para Brigade. OK. Since a formation of this kind exists and we know the lift requirement for it, we need a minimum number and type of aircraft. But what about airlift required for say, an Airmobile Brigade or even a Division? Sometime back, I had posted that IA had drawn conceptual plans in early 2000 for two air-mobile divisions. But the same was dropped as their is no airlift capability.

We already have a Amphibious Brigade. Now this is part of 54 ID. May be, the along with this brigade, one more brigade in the Division can be earmarked, equipped and trained for Rapid Air Mobile operations for out of area contigencies. Like support Para Brigade once it has secured the airport and perimeter.

But we don't know how far thoughts have progresses on these lines. But one thing we need to understand that by the time these MTA come in, IAF will have AN-32/MTA/IL-76/C-17. Basically, all bases covered. I'm of strong opinion that the numbers in MTA and IL-76/40 tons category are going to grow in future.