IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Apr 2016 08:03

Hmm, Thanks for that input Brar.

So, at the expected levels of co-op I terms of engine tech, how far will that assist indigenous efforts on engine development. My guess is...it would help in production setup for sure, and that is no small thing. But materials rnd will have to be local.

The best case scenario would be to achieve some sort of political safety net whereby the hardware becomes sanction proof. If this is possible, and I think it increasingly is, the advanced hornet would have a very good chance.

The navy and ada leaning towards the f414 for the mk2, nlca, and amca will make the shornet very attractive, especially if it can undercut rafale pricewise.

This is a manifestation of the geopolitical realignment

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Apr 2016 08:51

Need to wait till Carter completes his visit. However, Ajai Shukla mentions the GE-DRDO effort is a "co-development" of uprating (?) a 414. Carter clearly mentioned in Dec that the US had changed something, the speculation was about high temperatures alloys.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2016 10:38

US has a history of sanctioning India , so if cookies crumble tomorrow we have ourself to be blamed , Not just US procured systems but also components procured for 3rd party systems remember the Sea King fleet was virtually grounded when US sanctioned India during 1999 and we have to use spares from grounded aircraft to just keep few sea kings flying.

Or the AJT deal where NDA went to great extent to make sure Hawk US components where replaced by British ones.

Unless US can give Sovereign Guarantee that their wont sanction India in future for Defence Products purchased , thats the Sword that will keep hanging for as long as we use US products or components procured from US companies.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Apr 2016 11:02

Amen to that! Compare the track record of the US and Soviets.plus,in our time,despite pak's repeated terror strikes,the US continues to supply F-16s,attack helos,night vision devices...the list is emerging bit by bit and no guesses as to who will be on the receiving end of this weaponry...India.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 Apr 2016 12:21

Meanwhile Russia is selling fighters and subs and SAMs to China, who is decidedly the greater military threat

kit · Post by **kit** » 08 Apr 2016 13:52

GeorgeWelch wrote:Meanwhile Russia is selling fighters and subs and SAMs to China, who is decidedly the greater military threat

maybe India needs a pakistan to check mate china ..preferably nuclear armed ! ..cheaper in the long run

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2016 14:42

I'm thinking of inviting NoKo Kim Jong for the RD parade! Hey it is scratchback politics. If my back is burning, I need a rub too.

There is nothing wrong in slaming the 80kN Kaveri into one of the TDs. Unless the program is effed up, there is none stopping that

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2016 15:57

Austin wrote: Unless US can give Sovereign Guarantee that their wont sanction India in future for Defence Products purchased , thats the Sword that will keep hanging for as long as we use US products or components procured from US companies.

It is in this area, that I believe a solution can be worked upon that is satisfactory to both sides. There may even be executive ways to get around that. But it may not even come to that, at least not on fighters but could be useful in co-development projects elsewhere (propulsion for example, and carrier tech etc).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2016 16:25

data is more important than the device

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2016 16:34

As it applies to giving access to the the software to add weapons etc through the mission system software, that is also unlikely to be a highly contentious issues.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2016 16:50

^^ That was one of the contentious point during MMRCA , US was willing to give access to module to add weapons but not the entire Software Code ,India wanted access to entire SW code , the other vendors in the game were also willing to give access to entire SW code

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2016 16:54

brar_w wrote:
Austin wrote: Unless US can give Sovereign Guarantee that their wont sanction India in future for Defence Products purchased , thats the Sword that will keep hanging for as long as we use US products or components procured from US companies.
It is in this area, that I believe a solution can be worked upon that is satisfactory to both sides. There may even be executive ways to get around that. But it may not even come to that, at least not on fighters but could be useful in co-development projects elsewhere (propulsion for example, and carrier tech etc).

I dont know what can be worked out or not at best we can get the LSA working conditions apply ( i.e no access to karwar and indian nuclear bases ) is what Saurav and Ramana was hinting at.

Sovereign Gurantee is something even India is asking from France for Rafale deal

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2016 17:04

Austin wrote:^^ That was one of the contentious point during MMRCA , US was willing to give access to module to add weapons but not the entire Software Code ,India wanted access to entire SW code , the other vendors in the game were also willing to give access to entire SW code

Positions are negotiable, but at the right price point or the right type of contract (150-200 units for example) I believe this is where they can be convinced especially if the route taken is through a JV with safeguards in place even if the GE's and Boeing's of the world are minority stakeholders. Greater software control to complete software control is now an increasingly common demand, internationally, so its not something that the vendors and the DOD can't work around or would be absolutely rigid about. There is a strategic framework now in place that didn't really exist back in the MMRCA deal, and there is also greater urgency on the US OEM's and the SECDEF to negotiate a workable solution. Given how things turn out in the elections, it would either be Carter again, or Mackenzie (top 3 at least in an HRC WH) if the Dems take the WH (which is likely at this point) and I see both willing to make bold moves when it comes to working through the established framework, Carter being, essentially the biggest proponent of Indo-US defense ties in the current GOTUS and Mack being largely supportive through the opportunities she has had to comment on them.

Sovereign Gurantee is something even India is asking from France for Rafale deal

I believe those were guarantee's on the delivery and transfer of technology which in this case if it ever materializes would be through a hybrid framework since TOT, local-production and JV activities are commercial ventures where the GOTUS only has a power to approve or reject and not in any shape or form manipulate but there would definitly be opportunities to seek and grant sovereign guarantees that are acceptable, and that can secure India's interests and continuity with mission systems under various scenarios that the GOI may deem as hostile under established rules of transaction. Essentially some sort of movement to make sure that the US Corporation's activities in support of the JV are not meddled with.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Apr 2016 17:08

^^^re ToT on engines. I wasn't clear. I was suggesting ToT and license production on consumables and license manufacture of the GE 414s with 'show how' vs 'know how'—meaning gradual backward linkages that create a local SME supply chain. This approach could be very attractive to both Boeing and its suppliers who otherwise have to start shutting down the F/A 18 related P&E (this is public stuff, Boeing is throwing them a temporary lifeline pending further orders). A supply chain of consumables with Boeing's SME's investing in India on the basis of fully depreciated R&D/P&E is within reach.

The reason I'm hung up on consumables is that even assembling a full F/A 18 from scratch in India will less efficient than buying the major assemblies (airframe) from St. Louis. This is exactly what everyone found out on the Rafale: it would take HAL (according to Dassault) roughly 2.7x the time to roll out a Rafale than it does in France. Reason? Learning curve for Indian workers and at nearly 3x the labor units plus the scarcity of Indian workers, would make it impossible to close the gap up with 'cheaper salaries'. Which why after much debate Modi went for Rafales off the shelf.

Consumables are not just gaskets and screws: they can include the weapons pod, the conformal fuel tanks and even SDBs. Don't waste time on source codes for the AESA etc. Get the object codes (UAE) and integrate ASTRA and other future Indian missiles.

Strategically, we are looking at doing two things: 1. fill the MMRCA 'gap' (a 2001 purchase of M2Ks would have prevented this) AND 2. building a MIC to deliver the AMCA. For a variety of reasons (and a fast closing window), the F/A 18 deal offers an opportunity to do both.

We need to avoid focusing on the 'indigenization' of the SH and focus on creating aircraft industry that will deliver the AMCAs and NGFA

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2016 17:27

brar_w wrote:Positions are negotiable, but at the right price point or the right type of contract (150-200 units for example) I believe this is where they can be convinced especially if the route taken is through a JV with safeguards in place even if the GE's and Boeing's of the world are minority stakeholders. Greater software control to complete software control is now an increasingly common demand, internationally, so its not something that the vendors and the DOD can't work around or would be absolutely rigid about. There is a strategic framework now in place that didn't really exist back in the MMRCA deal, and there is also greater urgency on the US OEM's and the SECDEF to negotiate a workable solution. Given how things turn out in the elections, it would either be Carter again, or Mackenzie (top 3 at least in an HRC WH) if the Dems take the WH (which is likely at this point) and I see both willing to make bold moves when it comes to working through the established framework, Carter being, essentially the biggest proponent of Indo-US defense ties in the current GOTUS and Mack being largely supportive through the opportunities she has had to comment on them.

The Right Price is itself a matter of 2-3 Negotiation for the Rafale Deal , What is right price for French or US may not be the right one for India specially under the current administration.

Let us see what comes from the Strategic Frame Work Agreement , Traditionally Rep has been better for India eg 123 deal for GWB Jr having said that we are yet too see any thing breakthrough in Def Agreement , Much like the post Nuclear deal period nothing substantial has come up due to disagreement between both on liabilities etc.

We have a Carter-Parrikar meeting soon lets see if any thing substantive come from it.

I believe those were guarantee's on the delivery and transfer of technology which in this case if it ever materializes would be through a hybrid framework since TOT, local-production and JV activities are commercial ventures where the GOTUS only has a power to approve or reject and not in any shape or form manipulate but there would definitly be opportunities to seek and grant sovereign guarantees that are acceptable, and that can secure India's interests and continuity with mission systems under various scenarios that the GOI may deem as hostile under established rules of transaction. Essentially some sort of movement to make sure that the US Corporation's activities in support of the JV are not meddled with.

Lets seee right now every thing is int the air even for Rafale much less for other contender who are not even offically being called for any bidding.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2016 17:33

The Right Price is itself a matter of 2-3 Negotiation for the Rafale Deal , What is right price for French or US may not be the right one for India specially under the current administration

Absolutely, hence there is always a threat of a deal going sour on price if the demand is 'complete control' and I believe that is what happened to the MMRCA. Even though Dassault and co. agreed for licensed, TOT, transfer of SW etc, the price speculation sky-rocketed when it came time to sit down and hammer out arrangements for the same. Expect all OEM's and their supporting MIC's to put a price on all this, that they see appropriate given the stuff they have to part with. Therefore, I had mentioned that it will be a part of the negotiation, the deeper you go into the layers of TOT and transfer of control the more price will be demanded.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2016 17:37

^^ Price is one part but US has denied any complete TOT on SW codes even during MMRCA tender when others agreed to it , so it is more of a policy issue on part of US to share complete SW code just the piece that allow weapons integration.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2016 17:41

Not sure, for what purpose our lab boys wants the complete software code. I think APIs are good enough, and/or partial exposure software code for certain APIs is good enough with good documentation. It is their IPRs. Will India give it away LCA's CLAW to others on ransom? IT is not fair to ask in the first place even for big sums.

India must do all these from first principles. We will look fools to challenge a legal system that is outside our constitution, when the very act is against certain laws. We have problems, that needs to be exposed and corrected. The more we do this, the more we will get hyphenated.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2016 17:45

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^re ToT on engines. I wasn't clear. I was suggesting ToT and license production on consumables and license manufacture of the GE 414s with 'show how' vs 'know how'—meaning gradual backward linkages that create a local SME supply chain. This approach could be very attractive to both Boeing and its suppliers who otherwise have to start shutting down the F/A 18 related P&E (this is public stuff, Boeing is throwing them a temporary lifeline pending further orders). A supply chain of consumables with Boeing's SME's investing in India on the basis of fully depreciated R&D/P&E is within reach.

The reason I'm hung up on consumables is that even assembling a full F/A 18 from scratch in India will less efficient than buying the major assemblies (airframe) from St. Louis. This is exactly what everyone found out on the Rafale: it would take HAL (according to Dassault) roughly 2.7x the time to roll out a Rafale than it does in France. Reason? Learning curve for Indian workers and at nearly 3x the labor units plus the scarcity of Indian workers, would make it impossible to close the gap up with 'cheaper salaries'. Which why after much debate Modi went for Rafales off the shelf.

Consumables are not just gaskets and screws: they can include the weapons pod, the conformal fuel tanks and even SDBs. Don't waste time on source codes for the AESA etc. Get the object codes (UAE) and integrate ASTRA and other future Indian missiles.

Strategically, we are looking at doing two things: 1. fill the MMRCA 'gap' (a 2001 purchase of M2Ks would have prevented this) AND 2. building a MIC to deliver the AMCA. For a variety of reasons (and a fast closing window), the F/A 18 deal offers an opportunity to do both.

We need to avoid focusing on the 'indigenization' of the SH and focus on creating aircraft industry that will deliver the AMCAs and NGFA

Moment we have a war with TSP against unkils wishes, what will happen?

For the Russian hanger queens, you can fill hangers with spares and make sure they are available at 90%+ rates for a short shooting war. Post that, they will be back to the usual 60-70% level. For the above, we all know the issues.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2016 17:46

Austin wrote:^^ Price is one part but US has denied any complete TOT on SW codes even during MMRCA tender when others agreed to it , so it is more of a policy issue on part of US to share complete SW code just the piece that allow weapons integration.

Yes I am aware, and as I had mentioned there is a different environment now given some of the other frame-works currently in the works. Look, it may not happen but there is definitely more going on now under which they could in principle agree to allow for such a transaction of SW and other components. High, or even total control over mission systems is a demand that is a legitimate negotiating position unlike say, sell us the entire TOT on the GE F414 which in my view is a total non-starter.

Secondly, price is definitely a factor in all this. Dassault and co. agreed to part with absolutely everything and once they were down selected they jacked up the price to such an extent that the entire program had to be scrapped in favor of a more watered down G2G arrangement. Poor contracting and program-requirements are partly to blame for this (imho), for there should have been detailed and concurrent analysis to see both Cost v Capability trades using overall cost of system+technology since clearly it wasn't included in the numbers that were being thrown around at the time the final vendor's bid was judged to be the lowest amongst the two.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2016 17:47

SaiK wrote:Not sure, for what purpose our lab boys wants the complete software code. I think APIs are good enough, and/or partial exposure software code for certain APIs is good enough with good documentation. It is their IPRs. Will India give it away LCA's CLAW to others on ransom? IT is not fair to ask in the first place even for big sums.

India must do all these from first principles

Look what we do is our problem but the other folks are more than happy to part with it , more than weapons integration it gives a good ideas how things work , probably even the control law and if there is nothing thats beyond our control from SW pov as in what is inside and what goes inside it.

Its not that we can use those things beyond the mentioned aircraft but just that we have complete control over it and we dont have to run to OEM for small bit of issues , Without having access to such complete control over SW our folks wont have managed to integrate 2.5T brahmos on MKI without having to forced to pay to OEM to do that for a FBW aircraft.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2016 17:51

brar_w wrote:Yes I am aware, and as I had mentioned there is a different environment now given some of the other frame-works currently in the works. Look, it may not happen but there is definitely more going on now under which they could in principle agree to allow for such a transaction of SW and other components. High, or even total control over mission systems is a demand that is a legitimate negotiating position unlike say, sell us the entire TOT on the GE F414 which in my view is a total non-starter.

i can agree to the GE414 thing , May be having a AL-31FP type arrangement would be good enough if US can allow that and we can bargain from a position of strength with the US looking at what others can provide.

Lets see how the other frame works shape out , I have seen since a decade of many similar framework agreed earlier either not working or getting stuck when it comes to finer details but lets see how the new one can help.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2016 17:59

Yeah it looks extremely unlikely but I think the lessons learnt from the MMRCA is that going all out with "TOT on everything" is a fairly costly proposition and is both unaffordable if acquired, and leads to a death spiral in the negotiations phase. I suspect that a more bespoke arrangement would be the path forward going forward (not just for fighters but other high tech def. procurement) with 'control' sought over critical areas and simple licensed production in others. Some things will obviously hang in the middle, to be negotiated. You have to acquire the system, support the domestic industry, and acquire technology and system-control at a price that allows for all this so I think going forward Parrrikar would be more calculative and measured in the way requirements or negotiations are structured and conducted. The lesson learnt from the MMRCA, one of them anyways, is that you can't have it all and still be even semi-affordable and although OEM's and sovereign governments may agree in principle to part ways with a ton of technology and control, they have other tools up their sleeve to make such arrangements impractical to implement in a way pulling back control and technology after they have gone through the process and won the competition promising to do just that.

I just feel it was gross incompetence of the previous government and the way they set up the deal (to fail). Its been known for ages that a pure FMS deal gets you the best price, as for procurement you pay the exact same price as the primary operator/government since it negotiates the products on your behalf. A purely commercial deal opens you up to the most access to licensed production, technology acquisition, collaboration and offsets but also piles on the cost since each one of these things comes with a price tag. I have advocated for the last few years that if you do not strike a balance between system acquisition, control and transfer of technology you will end up with an inferior overall capability at a negotiated cost. Here, if you account for total TOT and total control, you are essentially sending a message (through your fiscal actions) that system acquisition is of less important and the resultant price, has a higher TOT cost component than system acquisition component hence why the MMRCA went from a 10-12 Billion project to over 20-25 Billion before it was canned. If TOT at the component level is so darn important, then detach it from the systems acquisition and make targeted investments to acquire technology in areas where its most needed. That to me is a far better track to take as it ensures an inflow of technology to support the domestic R&D sector while also providing the warfighter with an affordable and most importantly timely access to hardware. I don't see the current Modi government making the same mistakes whether thats on the Rafale G2G deal, Russian - FGFA deal, or a potential 'production line for western fighters'.

Let us see what comes from the Strategic Frame Work Agreement , Traditionally Rep has been better for India eg 123 deal for GWB Jr having said that we are yet too see any thing breakthrough in Def Agreement , Much like the post Nuclear deal period nothing substantial has come up due to disagreement between both on liabilities etc.

Modern/Current DEM NatSec community is essentially comprised of folks that could easily identify with moderate republicans. This is a reason why Obama's position on strategic NatSec issues differs so much from when he ran as a candidate both as a senator and as a president. Heck, Bob Work and Ash Carter could easily have found into the upper level of McCain's NatSec advisory group.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2016 18:43

why would we think npo saturn/odk/izdeliye 30- a joint venture to satisfy all three LCA and AMCA, PAKFA. single design, multiple stages to more thrusts (120kNs and 165kNs). are they denying us still on close cooperation with pakfa?

we can play on the digital controls and concurrent engineering while russkies power us with combustion science.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Apr 2016 18:54

SaiK wrote:why would we think npo saturn/odk/izdeliye 30- a joint venture to satisfy all three LCA and AMCA, PAKFA. single design, multiple stages to more thrusts (110kNs and 165kNs). are they denying us still on close cooperation with pakfa?

The LCA & AMCA can't accommodate a AL-41/Iz.30 class engine.

The Russian analogue to the GE F404 is the RD-33. Klimov is also developing a 90 kN+ variant designated RD-93MA meant for future blocks of the JF-17 (and possibly the J-31). That would be their analogue to the F414.

Thus far they've got no counterpart to the 120 kN evolution of the F414 proposed by GE (with the AL-31 being a considerably larger heavier engine).

RD-33: output on the rise

Finally, the RD-93, a RD-33 derivative with the low-mounted accessory gearbox, is exported to China to fit FC-1 (JF-17) light single-engine fighters. The deal for 100 RD-93s with an option for 400 more was clinched in April 2005. The first 15 engines were assembled by Klimov, and Chernyshev has handled the rest of the deliveries since 2006. The contract is half-complete, and the deliveries shall resume as soon as the customer submits its request.

At the same time with the full-rate production in Moscow, Klimov JSC in St. Petersburg continues to refine the RD-33MK and RD-93. According to Klimov, the company’s jet engine priorities are the development of the modified RD-93MA with the thrust enhanced to 9,300 kgf for a foreign customer and the development of the upgraded RD-33MKM with a thrust of 9,500 kgf for the MiG corporation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2016 19:18

No.. I am not talking about slamming engines.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2016 19:56

Engines are built around cores and a specific thrust class with room to grow. An engine designed around providing a heavy fighter with upwards of 32,000 lb of thrust isnt suitable for a single engined light or a medium sized twin. This is the reason why the Rhino uprated the F404, as opposed to start g with a higher powered, heavier and higher thrust options.

A LARGER, higher thrust engine consumes more fuel that a heavy has to supply it, and if you run it at a lower thrust as scaling it down since it is still limited by the core and initial design it will still carry excess weight. Design choices dictate thrust class, weight and requirements.. An F417epe will not weigh significantly different than the standard 414...yet it will be smaller and lighter than a larger engine designed to grow from say 25k lb of thrust all the way to the low to. Mid 30s.

You can't scale down the al41 or the future pakfa engine and still be in the size, and weight class as the 414. Also, engines take a long time to develop, test, improve, operationalize and eliminate niggles. Case in point thr nagging issues with the MKIs and the F135 which despite being an evolution of the atf engine will not have all its quality and niggles sorted out till perhaps the 2018.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Apr 2016 20:03

for example, EJ200s that courts a 30% growth profile. so if my base core is designed for 115kN wet, we should technically make it to 150kN that can be used for PakFa. so, perhaps adding a spool set of turbine blades, counter rotate or advances in the blades and precision engineering should get us there.

It is not one core, but one design/model within the range profile of growth that fits both LCA v1(, AMCA twin v1x2), and high end pakfa v2

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2016 20:08

SaiK wrote:for example, EJ200s that courts a 30% growth profile. so if my base core is designed for 115kN wet, we should technically make it to 150kN that can be used for PakFa. so, perhaps adding a spool set of turbine blades, counter rotate or advances in the blades and precision engineering should get us there.

It is not one core, but one design/model

There are always limit to where you can grow. Moreover the Pakfa engine is already in advanced development and they ideally want massive room for thrust growth since it's likely to be in operation for 40-50 years. Change the engine requirements now, start a new engine development program and you are looking at 15 years if everything goes smoothly. Engines are extremely tough to do hence why so many aircraft projects look to make use of a variant of an existin, mature design that the designers understand and have confidence in designing an aircraft around.

If you start off with a 25k lb thrust class engine and tweek it for a 34000lb class requirement you'll need another engine whe you see weight growth that follows a program over its entire life. Just imagine if the ATF had taken that approach, they would have been stuck designing a new engine given the 40+k thrust required for the jsf and it's future thrust growth needs.

Designing one engine to support thrust requirements between 24000 lb and 44000lb is an extremely, bad idea.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Apr 2016 20:13

SaiK wrote:for example, EJ200s that courts a 30% growth profile. so if my base core is designed for 115kN wet, we should technically make it to 150kN that can be used for PakFa. so, perhaps adding a spool set of turbine blades, counter rotate or advances in the blades and precision engineering should get us there.

You can scale upwards (upto a limit) but not downwards (without messing up efficiency or designing a new core). Which is why an alternative to the F414 can only come via the RD-33 program (not from an AL-31 derivative). From a baseline of 80 kN, they're developing a growth variant with 90 kN thrust, and may in the future offer a 100 kN variant, but they'd be hard pressed to exceed that without very heavy outside investment (with the RuAF having little use for it).

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 08 Apr 2016 21:11

Apropos the fear of sanctions:

1. The US sanctioned India when it was in the interests of the United States. Every nation state protects its interests in any way it can. Foreign policy is amoral, not even immoral, because there is no room for morals in foreign policy.
2. The interests of the United States have changed over the past few years. How?
2.1 Discovery of Shale Oil and proliferation of electric drive trains. In the coming decade, the energy security of the United States will not lie in the Gulf. There is also no need to 'oblige' the Saudis for holding down oil prices to hobble Russians/Venezuela. The US can do so itself, by exporting cheap oil and technology (Solar, batteries, electric drive trains etc.). Within a few years, the Israelis and the Arabs can kill each other, and it wont make a whit of difference to the United States.
2.2 The threats to the United States are from China in the Pacific and Islamic supremacist radicals domestically and across the world.

3. Given these changed interests, how does India fit in the new security calculus?
3.1 We arent allies of the Russians. We have very little interest in how the Russians treat the rest of the Europeans. Really, what is it to us?
3.2 We are competitors of the Chinese.
3.3 We share a common enemy in the Islamists.

4. What does India bring to the table?
4.1 An army that is 1.x million strong, paramilitary that is almost as large.
4.2 Educated, forward looking, english speaking and western friendly workforce.
4.3 Common enemies with whom we have structural disputes. As long as the Chinese communist party and the Islamist are who they are, and as long as we are who we are, we will be on opposing sides.
4.4 Soft power in keeping South Asian muslims away from Jihad. (Nearly 500 million muslims are already in the Indian orbit, within India and Bangladesh)
4.5 A huge market that is not intent on shutting out the Americans from competing. China is stopping the new economy companies from functioning within China. Europe cant compete and cant ban, but places huge fines and erects non trade barriers.

5. What does US bring to the table?
5.1 It is the United States.

Over the past few years, the strategic calculus of the world has been turned on its head by technological advances, political changes and the rise of China accompanied by the fall of Russia and the confusion in EU. After a long period of sixty years, the strategic interests of the US and India align, nearly perfectly. A change of this sort comes about when one conflict is ending and another beginning. It happened in Europe before WW I when England and France that had been strategic competitors became allies to face the Germans. They even allied with the Czarist Russians who were diametrically opposite to everything the French republic stood for!! This alliance lasted 40 years till the end of conflict in Western Europe and the start of the cold war.

The fear of sanctions never stopped us from buying Soviet weapons. The Soviets could have denied us the technology, stopped supply of spare parts etc. as they did to the Chinese! We evaluated that our strategic interests coincided, signed a 'treaty of friendship' and did what needed to be done! Today, we are faced with a similar choice. If we want to do 'what needs to be done' we need a source of high technology and powerful friends. A Russia that has a dying economy that is already smaller than us and has structural conflicts with the Europeans that will draw it closer to China and Pak axis can not be that source.

We need to realize that conflict and war is the nature of international politics and it will always go on changing form and shape, splitting former alliances and turning former enemies into new allies. Instead of harping on past conflicts we need to see the coming conflicts and play our role in shaping them to our advantage. Sitting out conflicts will leave us weak, isolated and unable to influence events even within our own country.

**IMHO** American sanctions on weapon systems are illogical given the parameters of the coming conflict and a Russian betrayal leaking technological secrets to our enemies is far more likely. I personally am looking forward to advanced Super Hornet in India colors.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Apr 2016 21:39

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Indranil,

without sparking of another debate may I ask - in what ways are the two aircraft better or worse than each other ? What are their costs. Apologies if this has been discussed recently. Completely agree that we will be all weather safe when we can build our own planes fully.

As you rightly said, it is an endless debate. But, most impartial observers will say that, aerodynamically, the Mig-35 is a better "fighter" than the F-18. They were designed with different perspectives. The Mig-29 was designed as a air dominance fighter and F-18 for carrier operations. Their later versions became more multi-role. In earlier DACT exercise, one of the biggest shortcoming of the Mig-29 was found to be its short endurance. Between and F-16 (block-30) and a Mig-29, the job of the F-16 pilot was to outlast a Mig-29. Things have changed since then. Mig-29/35 now have much better engines and higher fuel capacity. I have a photographic memory of AI'07. I was standing right next to an F-18 pilot with over 2000 flight hours in the plane. While the Mig-29OVT did its dance in the air, we exchanged glances a few times. There was no mistaking. We both knew that we had witnessed something special.

However, the Americans stole a march during 1990-2010s. While the aerodynamics remained the same, F-18s continued their incremental growth in radar, avionics, EW, engines etc. making them more mature, and arguably more serviceable. Mikoyan, on the other hand, second in the pecking order after Sukhoi was in survival mode. However, one thing which is not clear to me is that if I am ready to spend a ~100-150M on each Mig-35 (as much as a F-18 will cost), will it be equally serviceable? I tend to believe it will. Because, I don't believe in magic bullets.

There are two things which are very clear in my mind.
1. We need medium weight fighters. I don't believe LCA+Su-30s can do the job. LCAs have too short legs, and the Su-30s are too expensive to maintain in such high numbers.
2. AMCA is a not a research project, it is our necessity. We should do everything to bring its production date forward. So technology and LRU infusions from this medium-weight fighter to the AMCA is a must. This is why, I am strongly against this direct 36-Rafale purchase. Some people call it Modi's masterstroke. I call it short sighted glory-seeking (I love Modi, but not on this one). A 36 fighter purchase gets us NOTHING but a gold plated liability.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Apr 2016 22:07

sudeepj wrote: **IMHO** American sanctions on weapon systems are illogical given the parameters of the coming conflict and a Russian betrayal leaking technological secrets to our enemies is far more likely. I personally am looking forward to advanced Super Hornet in India colors.

The change of interest that you speak of was affected in the last 15 years. The Super Hornets, if bought, will serve for 30 years. What is the guarantee that it will not swing again, or get bounded by other liabilities.

Your "no fear of sanctions" is only as valid as the "fear of the sanctions" that others are portraying.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 08 Apr 2016 22:29

indranilroy wrote:
sudeepj wrote: **IMHO** American sanctions on weapon systems are illogical given the parameters of the coming conflict and a Russian betrayal leaking technological secrets to our enemies is far more likely. I personally am looking forward to advanced Super Hornet in India colors.
The change of interest that you speak of was affected in the last 15 years. The Super Hornets, if bought, will serve for 30 years. What is the guarantee that it will not swing again, or get bounded by other liabilities.

There is no guarantee, whether you buy from Russians or French or whomever. You can only make reasonably educated predictions. If you look at the duration of the earlier conflicts, each lasted nearly 50 years. British/French/Russian vs German conflict lasted roughly from 1900s to 1945. The Cold war Brits/French/Germans/Chinese vs U.S.S.R lasted from 1946-1990. We could look at earlier conflicts, the Turks and the Russians, or ... The new conflict starting around today should last at least a few decades given the relative GDP levels and technological sophistication.

Sitting in the United States, it becomes clear fairly quickly how American companies are being hounded in China. Google, Twitter, Facebook - are all banned from operating in China. Companies selling 'hard goods' are regularly cheated and IP is brazenly stolen. There is a reason why Intel does not have any cutting edge or even remotely technologically relevant foundry in China while such foundries, though not as advanced as Intel, have proliferated in South Korea and Taiwan.

For the first time in decades, American and Chinese interests are diverging in political AND economic arenas.

In contrast, India is an open market. There are niggling issues with drugs but that is the only irritant.

indranilroy wrote:Your "no fear of sanctions" is only as valid as the "fear of the sanctions" that others are portraying.

In the end, these are all opinions and at that level, equal. But there are opinions based on prejudice and inertia and there are opinions based on analysis.

Its fairly apparent that Indian and US interests coincide to a greater degree than they ever have in the past. I think, it should be incumbent upon those who want to sell rafales or Migs based on an Indian fear of sanctions to show, exactly why would the US place sanctions on India? What are the US interests that such sanctions would serve? What could be some scenarios under which it would be beneficial for the US to stop the rise of India as a competitor to China?

Sure, when the Sino-American conflict ends a new one would emerge from that, and possibly India and the US could be opposed in that conflict, but before the Sino-American conflict ends, what is the scenario in which the US benefits by keeping India a technological stunted state?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Apr 2016 22:31

sudeepj wrote:Apropos the fear of sanctions:
.
.
.
**IMHO** American sanctions on weapon systems are illogical given the parameters of the coming conflict and a Russian betrayal leaking technological secrets to our enemies is far more likely. I personally am looking forward to advanced Super Hornet in India colors.

+1 for a cold unsentimental evaluation of the geopolitical realities.

I don't think the SH is the right decision, but that's mostly on technical grounds; IMO it doesn't provide enough of leg up vs the existing MKI-Tejas combination (in contrast to the F-35), and expenditure on ToT is much more productive when invested directly into domestic R&D (supplemented where required with consultancy on contract).

(Politics aside the MiG-35 fails on the same count.)

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 08 Apr 2016 22:54

Thats why the advanced super hornet with conformal fuel tanks and additional electronics, not the base super hornet as it exists today. MMRCA was supposed to be an interim buy anyway.. around a hundred air frames. It can be followed by a JSF or a tech infused AMCA.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 08 Apr 2016 22:56

Thank you Indranil. Very useful. I hadn't realized that a Mig 35 was 100 -150 million. I was under the impression from Philip's posts that we are talking @ 50 million.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 08 Apr 2016 22:59

If MIG-35 were really available for $50 Million, then buying would be a no-brainer.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 08 Apr 2016 23:09

Its not just the plane, its also the weapons it can deploy. R77 just does not work. From an Electronic War point of vew, the plane is likely unable to defend itself. Lastly, if a Russia (2.x trillion dollar economy) is engaged in a European war ranged against powers that are several times its size which are placing sanctions on it, it needs economic and strategic partners. India just does not have the heft needed to shore up Russia against the powers ranged against it. It follows that Russians must align with China. Pak comes in dahej in a marriage with China. That is why you see the Paks flying RD33s, Mi35s, Mi17s and so on. If China has a carrier today it is because of Russia. If they have a modern SSK, it is because of Russia.

When push comes to the shove, the technological secrets in Russian weapons will leak to the China-Pak axis. Migs are a nonstarter at whatever price and the Sukhois need an Indian spear ASAP.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 08 Apr 2016 23:21

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Thank you Indranil. Very useful. I hadn't realized that a Mig 35 was 100 -150 million. I was under the impression from Philip's posts that we are talking @ 50 million.

They are available for $50 Million via special order through Philip only because of long love of Rodina. Sorry Philip, this one was far too good to pass up!! But you know that I love macho Putin vs wimpy Obama