India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 16:41

you Will not think like that .. this is not based on baboodom, but entirely based on IAF selection and you know very well they had some 600 odd criteria on which they measured it.

If Ef qualifies, and if Ef ready to compromise on the price with some heavy discount on the basis of profit sharing, then why not consider on that business angle rather relating to some con angrez conspiracy theory. This is very easy in our media, hence we should have a peaceful price negotiation to begin now, without such conspiracies.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 10 May 2011 18:38

Some emissions from the रक्षा मंत्रालय suggest a marginal tilt in favour of the EF for its better performance at Ladakhi Air space. With a similar deal for नौसेना underway, the boys in white had already given their unofficial preference for the Naval version of the Rafale

IMHO Selecting the EF for the AF and Rafale for the navy would seriously dilute the "commonality of Platform" advantage we would get by selecting the same plane for both the deals. It would be interesting if we can actually include both the deal negotiations together to drive a harder bargain. Ofcourse this does come in with a risk of all eggs in one basket but with the 250+ MKI and the LCA also arriving to the party, should balance things out in that domain.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 18:47

Kailash wrote:FWIW, F35 is not as stealthy as the Raptor

But its stealth is cheaper and easier to maintain, making it more practical and useful in the field. More importantly it IS stealth and Rafale/EF are NOT.

Kailash wrote:carries only as much arms as upgraded F-18

It carries more than the SH, not that there is anything wrong with the amount of stuff the SH carries.

Kailash wrote:enough has been written about its lack of legs and maneuverability

None of which is true.

Kailash wrote:Not enough justification for the exhorbidantly high price.

It costs no more than the EF or Rafale.

Kailash wrote:No stealthy enemies to fight.

Stealth is only useful against stealth enemies?

Stealth is useful against EVERYTHING. It's an absolute, dominant mismatch against conventional fighters which will never see it until they're already dead. It's highly important to penetrating defended airspace. And what about the J-20?

If you don't have stealth, you're already obsolete.

Kailash wrote:And the way partner nations are cancelling or downsizing orders, clear that this wont be worth it is price.

Those same countries are downsizing EVERYTHING military related, it's not particular to the F-35.

But here's the takeaway point: even with all the downsizing and cutting, the F-35 still has more orders than the Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and SH COMBINED.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 May 2011 18:49

Very interesting articles from the West on MMRCA selection.

Why India chose to disappoint the US
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME11Df04.html

A must read! A quote from the above article;

But the biggest opportunity could be in encouraging India to buy Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II, a fifth-generation fighter that would be a capability leap beyond any of the aircraft under consideration this time around. Such a deal would be fraught with difficulties - not least how to involve Indian industry (as offset rules demand) in the construction of an aircraft that is far beyond its current technical capability - but the US has perhaps a decade to figure out how to get around them. India will certainly require a fifth-generation fighter as China makes progress towards acquiring one, and its prospects of successfully developing a fifth-generation fighter with Russia are mixed at best. The US certainly has a big incentive to learn the lessons of its recent setback.

America’s Indian Rebuff
http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blo ... an-rebuff/

Written by the same author, but not as exhaustive as the first link. I must however quote a line from the second article;

For its part, New Delhi has made a clear statement that it can be a US ally, but never a client.

They have now got it. A bit late, but nevertheless...they got it. We ain’t pushovers. They will not make the same mistake again, if they offer the F-35.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 May 2011 18:50

George Welch: Good to see you back.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 10 May 2011 19:05

GeorgeWelch wrote:
It carries more than the SH, not that there is anything wrong with the amount of stuff the SH carries.

True. But with the caveat that if it indeed carries as much as SH, it has be on external pylons and not internal bay. Basically, the burqa has to come off and F-35 has to become Lara Croft (losing all stealth/anonymity and attracting quite a bit of attention). Of course after it has shed that external load burqa returns.

Question is what is stealth to be employed for -- before delivery or when returning home?

siddharthas · Post by **siddharthas** » 10 May 2011 19:08

IMHO EF is not that good a deal, dealing with the french is always better. As far as F/35 goes it will be the best technology you could possibly get by the time it's released and depending on Indo-US relations, we can play a big part in that program. Better to go for that than something which is still on drawing board.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 10 May 2011 19:21

EF: They are clearly aware of India's concern about the "consortium" and resulting increase in sanctions likelihood. Consequently, they are offering partnership in the consortium as a strong signal of assurance that sanctions will not hinder the EF related items. I do not know how that could be so. If governments impose sanctions, all commercial entities (government/private owned) have to live up to the sanctions. I am quite unimpressed and believe items to be under high sanctions risk. For many who think of sanctions coming only under nuclear scenario, or war scenario, I would like to point out that sanctions can be imposed because someone decides India needs to more on human rights, animal rights, turtles, etc. Not that those should not be important, but because it is a matter of outside interference. Historically, none of the partners in EF have had the b@11$ to stand up to the US and supply equipment/spares to India. Mostly, I am concerned about UK and Germany.

French: Yes, they may be money mongering, but aside from Russia, they are the only ones who have been there. Even more than Russians, we have modified their hardware to carry weapons IAF wanted to. M2K carries range of Russian origin missiles as well as the modification for nuclear delivery. Such is not going to happen with EF.

Think -- SU-30MKI + MRCA strike package. Which MRCA would be most compatible in operational and technical manner. If M2K has been modified to carry the weaponry of Russian origin, certainly the probability is higher for doing same with Rafale.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 May 2011 19:24

if jobs in UK and Germany depend on Indian money, then sanctions will magically be deleted from the lexicon

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 19:30

Any video of Kat's dual tandem cockpit? btw, how many of tandem seats are we planning?

If sanctions are worries, then we could have that written down on the agreement that under no circumstances, spares, parts, technical know how or anything related to MRCA business can be sanctioned either by the supplying nation or driven its allies and other treaties it has signed, that has no effect on this contract. And keep about $1b per month as liquidated damages and operational loss for such actions.

I would not rule out EF2K on sanctions, rather right now only on price it may be dearer.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 19:41

Avid wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote: It carries more than the SH, not that there is anything wrong with the amount of stuff the SH carries.
True. But with the caveat that if it indeed carries as much as SH, it has be on external pylons and not internal bay.

Obviously, but it carries more whatever the situation.

If stealth is not required, it carries more.

If stealth is required, the others carry exactly nothing to the fight

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 19:48

Rakesh wrote:
For its part, New Delhi has made a clear statement that it can be a US ally, but never a client.
They have now got it. A bit late, but nevertheless...they got it. We ain’t pushovers. They will not make the same mistake again, if they offer the F-35.

That's a nice bit of chest-thumping there Rakesh, but, eh, what 'mistake' are you talking about?

India claims the SH and F-16I lost purely on technical grounds. If that's true, then there was nothing else the US could do because those were the only options available as the F-35 wasn't quite ready.

Unless you're claiming that India is lying about its reasons?

It will be interesting to see what Boeing's reaction to the debrief will be . . .

manum · Post by **manum** » 10 May 2011 20:01

George I really dont think you really need a response...Last time you were arguing for F18 case, now you are arguing for, if you don't see it, how can you fight with it...Agreed F35 is indeed invincible and we don't think we deserve the great American F35...So stop making case for it.
stop trolling...

^^ Troll alert, Its American WEN...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 20:04

I think Boeing and LM did not lose on technical grounds from the capability angle, but they lost on the technical grounds from the availability options for India. Yeah, they have got the best beast options, but mostly would not be available for India AFAIK, unless there is whole chain of legal documents that India would have to sign overruling all strategies, doctrines, politics and policies.

manum · Post by **manum** » 10 May 2011 20:12

they lost on multiple grounds, as well on technical ground...but I don't like the tone

It will be interesting to see what Boeing's reaction to the debrief will be . . .

This is reason you didn't win...Leave rest of reasons aside.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 10 May 2011 20:18

Suppose the winner is chosen + contract signed by 1st Nov 2011.

The company delivers 18 Jets within 48 months which would be Nov 2015.

The plant gets setup by 1st Jan 2015 and starts assembling 12 Jets per year initially. That would give IAF 30 Jets by Jan 2016.

Doesn't this give Eurofighter enough time to deliver functioning AESA + add Air to Ground capabilities?

The capability increases from Jan 2016 from 12 Jets to 15 Jets per year, means we have additional 60 Jets by 2020.Taking total number of jets to 90 by 2020.

From 2015 to 2018 the IAF pilots train and develop tactics to exploit the full capabilities of the chosen one.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 10 May 2011 20:19

Sirs,

What is the scope of development in F16 or 18. Next to none. Where as in Raf and EF we have more advance design, materials and scope for future developments. From the reports those we selected can defeat Uncles betas hands down. So what is the issue here?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 May 2011 20:43

GeorgeWelch wrote:That's a nice bit of chest-thumping there Rakesh, but, eh,

what 'mistake' are you talking about?

India claims the SH and F-16I lost purely on technical grounds. If that's true,

then there was nothing else the US could do because those were the only options

available as the F-35 wasn't quite ready.

Unless you're claiming that India is lying about its reasons?

It will be interesting to see what Boeing's reaction to the debrief will be . . .

George, I am not gloating because it is a waste of time. But just as America's interests is a reality for you, so are the interests of my own country. Now if you find that a bitter pill to swallow - because we are not pushovers or yes men like Pakistan - then you will be bitter for quite a while.

I have no problem believing that the F-18 and the F-16 lost on technical grounds, because the Indian Air Force has said so and I would believe them in that respect over all the opinions & facts you can and will likely provide. The mistake IMHO - and it was a big one - the American Govt made was with CISMOA, EUMA, LSA and a litany of other nonsensical agreements which would have bound India and that is not something we can afford to do with a strategic purchase as this. If lessons are learnt, then with the F-35 - if offered - the same mistake will not be repeated. If you want to sell us strategic military hardware, it will have to be on our terms because we are the end user and not the United States. Now that is a reality you are just going to have to come to terms with. We can be your ally, but we will certainly not be your chela...you can thank colonialism for that. You know that feeling quite well! Boston Tea Party ring a bell?

We have the option to purchase military hardware from other countries as well....regardless of how they perform (for better or for worse) against American hardware. Now if you invade France and the EU and take over, then we have a problem. But I really don't forsee that happening any time soon.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin took the competition seriously and professionally, but if the American Govt makes them compete with one hand tied behind their back - due to CISMOA, EUMA, LSA, etc - then Boeing & Lockheed Martin will lose. In the words of Admiral Sureesh Mehta (Retd) - the ex Chief of Naval Staff - "Once we buy the aircraft, what we do with it, is up to us." Now obviously the American Govt does not buy that point of view, because it has to protect its state-of-the-art (but downgraded for India) technology and ensure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. And I have no problem with that view, because if the roles were reversed, India would do the same.

My worry (in retrospect, unfounded) lay with the fact that the GOI would sign these agreements not realising the strategic blunder they would be undertaking if they went ahead in signing them.

Fear has never been a tool in which India has operated, so we will deal with Boeing's reaction to the debrief without any takleef. We came out with shining colours despite your 1998 sanctions against us and we will do the same again. In the words of Air Chief Marshal P V Naik, "Whether anyone is happy or unhappy, we have done whatever we were asked to do by the Government...If you select one aircraft, it always happens that other side would be dissatisfied. There is nothing wrong with our process. It is a human feeling."

So don't worry George, it is a human feeling

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 21:16

Perhaps Boeing and LM should not have sent their proposals since they know we did not sign those documents? why did they waste their time, when we have already indicated India will not sign those type of agreements?

There is no point in talking about something that is a non-starter.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:24

manum wrote:they lost on multiple grounds, as well on technical ground

My understanding is that the official explanation is technical only.

manum wrote:...but I don't like the tone
It will be interesting to see what Boeing's reaction to the debrief will be . . .
This is reason you didn't win...Leave rest of reasons aside.

If the reason they didn't win was technical, don't be surprised to see Boeing make a technical argument, they are very good at picking apart legalese.

That's all I'm saying.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:25

SaiK wrote:Perhaps Boeing and LM should not have sent their proposals since they know we did not sign those documents?

Again that wasn't the problem (or so India claims).

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:28

Rakesh wrote:I have no problem believing that the F-18 and the F-16 lost on technical grounds

. . .

The mistake IMHO - and it was a big one - the American Govt made was with CISMOA, EUMA, LSA and a litany of other nonsensical agreements

You contradict yourself.

If the issue was technical, then those other issues had nothing to do with it and thus weren't a 'mistake' (at least at this point).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 21:30

It (CISMOA etc..) is the numero uno problem. It stands there right on top like an axiom.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:31

Narayana Rao wrote:What is the scope of development in F16 or 18. Next to none.

Absolutely false. The SH has a far brighter future than either the Rafale or EF.

The EF especially looks like it will struggle to receive any updates as the partner nations aren't willing to invest any more in it.

Narayana Rao wrote:From the reports those we selected can defeat Uncles betas hands down.

No, the reports are that they met India's technical requirements and the others didn't. Very different meaning.

Narayana Rao wrote:So what is the issue here?

The issue is that some people are taking the opportunity of a technical disqualification to make all sorts of political statements that have no basis in reality.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:33

Rakesh wrote:My worry (in retrospect, unfounded) lay with the fact that the GOI would sign these agreements not realising the strategic blunder they would be undertaking if they went ahead in signing them.

There is no evidence that those agreements had anything to do with the disqualification.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 May 2011 21:38

GeorgeWelch wrote:If the reason they didn't win was technical, don't be surprised to see Boeing make a technical argument, they are very good at picking apart legalese. That's all I'm saying.

They can pick apart things legalese all they want. The down select has occurred, really what is the point of it? Apart from giving the lawyers and techies @ Boeing overtime pay, it will serve no purpose unless the down select is expanded.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Again that wasn't the problem (or so India claims).

Yes that is what we are claiming...technical problems it was. You will will have access to those documents quite soon

GeorgeWelch wrote:You contradict yourself. If the issue was technical, then those other issues had nothing to do with it and thus weren't a 'mistake' (at least at this point).

Oh anything but. I am saying it was CISMOA, EUMA, LSA...but I don't run the air force. So my opinion does not count. But the air force's opinion is a matter of fact. As per the IAF evaluators, the Super Hornet and Super Viper failed on technical grounds. Period.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Absolutely false. The SH has a far brighter future than either the Rafale or EF.

Absolutely TRUE. But we are SDREs...we will have to deal with the dimmer future of the Rafale and the EF. And if you sell Super Hornets or Super Vipers to Pakistan tomorrow, many of our Rafale or Eurofighters will fall from the sky. But we will live. Don't worry.

GeorgeWelch wrote:No, the reports are that they met India's technical requirements and the others didn't. Very different meaning.

Yes because our technical requirements are very stringent and the aircraft that did not make the cut failed in those requirements.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:41

Rakesh wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:If the reason they didn't win was technical, don't be surprised to see Boeing make a technical argument, they are very good at picking apart legalese. That's all I'm saying.
They can pick apart things legalese all they want. The down select has occurred, really what is the point of it? Apart from giving the lawyers and techies @ Boeing overtime pay, it will serve no purpose unless the down select is expanded.

Answered your own question

KC-30 won KC-X, the award had already occurred, what was the point of Boeing protesting?

Oh wait . . .

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 May 2011 21:42

GeorgeWelch wrote:Answered your own question
KC-30 won KC-X, the award had already occurred, what was the point of Boeing protesting?
Oh wait . . .

LOL! Good Luck with that. The political backlash of that in India will be tremendous and the entire deal will likely be scrapped.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 21:44

It is very important to note what India wants, and not what the sellers want to sell.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 May 2011 21:45

SaiK wrote:It is very important to note what India wants, and not what the sellers want to sell.

George has a hard time understanding that concept.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:46

SaiK wrote:It is very important to note what India wants, and not what the sellers want to sell.

It is also important to note that India claims to have an open competition with well defined requirements and grading system.

If the competition has been run according to the rules, all well and good, they lost fair and square.

However, if Boeing does find 'discrepancies', why shouldn't they protest?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:47

Rakesh wrote:
SaiK wrote:It is very important to note what India wants, and not what the sellers want to sell.
George has a hard time understanding that concept.

You have a hard time understanding that I just want the competition run according to the established rules.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 May 2011 21:48

vendors have previously gamed the system at a political level
i hope boeing sticks to the technical evaluation assessment only
previously most commentators said that the process was exhaustive and fair

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 May 2011 21:51

GeorgeWelch wrote:It is also important to note that India claims to have an open competition with well defined requirements and grading system.

If the competition has been run according to the rules, all well and good, they lost fair and square.

However, if Boeing does find 'discrepancies', why shouldn't they protest?

It is laughable when you win a competition, the process is fair. But when you lose, you state that India claimed it was an open process. It was Defence Secretary Robert Gates who suggested scrapping the MMRCA competition and going in for a direct FMS route of 126 F-16 aircraft. Find all the discrepancies you want, the chances of the downselect expanding are going no where.

GeorgeWelch wrote:You have a hard time understanding that I just want the competition run according to the established rules.

The competition was run fair and as per established rules. Now that you lost, you want to go through it with a fine tooth comb. So go through it...don't let me stop you. Why am I suddenly reminded of a school yard bully?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 May 2011 21:51

I am not saying Boeing should not protest. On what basis boeing is going to protest is something you may want to say here?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:55

Rakesh wrote:It was Defence Secretary Robert Gates who suggested scrapping the MMRCA competition and going in for a direct FMS route of 126 F-16 aircraft.

So? If you want to do a direct buy with no competition, that is certainly your prerogative.

However if you do hold a competition, you should obviously follow your own rules for the competition, right?

Rakesh wrote: Find all the discrepancies you want, the chances of the downselect expanding are going no where.

Theoretically speaking, if the SH was disqualified because it didn't meet some technical requirement and Boeing can show that the IAF had a misunderstanding and it does indeed meet that requirement, why shouldn't it be put back in the competition?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 May 2011 21:56

SaiK wrote:I am not saying Boeing should not protest. On what basis boeing is going to protest is something you may want to say here?

There is no basis. They will have to invent something.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 May 2011 21:57

Rakesh wrote:
SaiK wrote:It is very important to note what India wants, and not what the sellers want to sell.
George has a hard time understanding that concept.

GeorgeWelch wrote:You have a hard time understanding that I just want the competition run according to the established rules.

Surely , there is one rule: that is what buyers want

I am not conversant with technical abilities for a fighter plane but one thing is sure that it does make political sense to shortlist two European planes. But the selection is only on merit as assessed during trials.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 May 2011 21:58

SaiK wrote:On what basis boeing is going to protest is something you may want to say here?

How should I know? I don't have access to the RFP, Boeing's bid or the IAF's debrief.

They may find that everything is correct and that the disqualification was perfectly legitimate.

However such massive competitions are inherently complex and it's very easy for a mistake to be made somewhere.

Maybe they'll find something, maybe they won't, we'll just have to wait and see.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 May 2011 22:00

GeorgeWelch wrote: So? If you want to do a direct buy with no competition, that is certainly your prerogative.

However if you do hold a competition, you should obviously follow your own rules for the competition, right?

Now if you believe that we did not follow your rules...you have a choice, you can either not take part in further competitions or just accept the reality that you lost fair & square and try again. Because after all 126 aircraft should not change our relationship, should it?

Rakesh wrote:Theoretically speaking, if the SH was disqualified because it didn't meet some technical requirement and Boeing can show that the IAF had a misunderstanding and it does indeed meet that requirement, why shouldn't it be put back in the competition?

Then go find it. Be my guest. But may I humbly state the following, you guys may be Masters at legalese...but we are Maharajas at being chanakya. Good Luck!