MRCA News and Discussion

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 20 Jul 2009 21:14

Philip wrote:The stream of info about the ongoing Indo-US dialogue and the desperation to reach an agreement on defence sales,has brought out a concealed fact about the Indo-US N-deal,that it WAS linked to India buying US arms! This explains the indecent haste to buy 126+ new aircraft ostensibly to arrst falling numbers in the IAF,not by buying a 4+ gen or 5th-gen aircraft and its technology,to serve us well for another 25+ years,but to instead buy a '70s vintage design that resembles an aging lady with too much of make up!
No Sharon Stone,Julia Roberts or Angelina Jolie on offer ,instead we're being dumped with Jane Fonda and Liz Taylor!

Analysis appreciated!
We had so many chances,money,resources,options for getting mirage2k at any point of time we wished (even today uae is selling them), but this whole competition is looking like a babu-crap in the procedure of getting necessary arms,.

Neither the saudis,uae,aussies,brazillians are taking so many options and time to jerk out what they want,. On the other hand uae,just went through talks,price negotiations and is now close to get rafales,they knew they are getting a mean machine from the same supplier who provided another mean machine(mirage2000-9) ,and who are themselves relying heavily on homegrown rafales,.

What's so fuss about selecting a mature platform,which is formidable, precisioned and is at par with mirage 2000 and includes it's qualities as well?

The 5000+ pages technical report on each aircraft was enough to decide which 3 out of 6 aircraft to call for field trials, select t he best and do price negotiations,,.!

here is the mrca timeline
1)delay in acquiring mirage2k causes dassault to close production lines, therefore,mrca further delayed.

2)After much hue and cry,m issue of rfp ,which itself was delayed 2yrs,.contains some regulations which delays the rfp submission by respective companies,.

3) calling 'six' contenders as competitors, delaying further, while the winner's name would be awaiting the italian's approval ?

4) unkil's cos had already make it clear that they wont be toting full, then what's the point of evaluating their old platforms,which they are also planning to sell or cannibalize to sell, so as to get more raptors !

If this is not about bias towards usa's arms producers,delaying technology development in India , then what it is?

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 20 Jul 2009 21:22

India, US agree defence pact, approve nuclear sites

At a joint press conference with Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, Clinton said the two sides had agreed an "end-use monitoring" accord that would provide safeguards for the sale of highly sophisticated US weaponry to India.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 20 Jul 2009 21:36

narayana wrote:India, US agree defence pact, approve nuclear sites

At a joint press conference with Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, Clinton said the two sides had agreed an "end-use monitoring" accord that would provide safeguards for the sale of highly sophisticated US weaponry to India.

That means US weaponry (superbugs) have an edge over others from now on,!
specially US can provide as much sophisticated and bulk quantities of any weapon that India wants, string is that they could be fired only after unkil's permission,.
Commonsense says that from now on, all drdo,hal products and programs are facing dangers of extinction in between their research ,.
It's a curse that who so ever calls itself a US-ally has to willingly-non willingly buy US-weapons on usa's terms and conditions, what a shameful and threatening day for India's defence labs,.

They are signing EULA without any modifications favouring India

Alert! Congress on a selling path

The agreement "will pave the way for greater defence cooperation" Clinton said, adding that India had also approved two sites for the construction of US nuclear reactors.

Now it proves that the sharam city India-baki talks was indeed a sell out favouring congress for a lucrative deal with americans,.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 20 Jul 2009 22:11

narayana wrote:India, US agree defence pact, approve nuclear sites
At a joint press conference with Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, Clinton said the two sides had agreed an "end-use monitoring" accord that would provide safeguards for the sale of highly sophisticated US weaponry to India.

Samay wrote: ...
Commonsense says that from now on, all drdo,hal products and programs are facing dangers of extinction in between their research ,.
...
They are signing EULA without any modifications favouring India
...

Where is the proof that EULA has not been customised for India? How did you infer the impact on DRDO and HAL from the first press release?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2009 22:20

Where is the proof that EULA has not been customised for India? How did you infer the impact on DRDO and HAL from the first press release?

I think I agree. This is too important a point to dismiss it so easily. At last report (outside of this one) India did have a few modifications made to it - IIRC, they had suggested that the US have one generic EULA and have an addendum of sorts for each purchase. It appeared that this addendum would be negotiated for each product.

BUT, what bothers me is the application of the EULA to nuclear components purchased from the US.

And, I can have a bet that the US will pull another fast one and force the Russians and French to come up with a EUA too.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 21 Jul 2009 00:07

[deleted]

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 21 Jul 2009 00:42

Samay wrote:
PratikDas wrote: Where is the proof that EULA has not been customised for India? How did you infer the impact on DRDO and HAL from the first press release?

Where is the proof that EULA is customized for India, ?
Desi dork are very quick to catch such small things which can be used as a self praise of the country orit is a sensation ,even when there is a bigger loss

If I am supposed to be an amirkhan agent,some secretary,etc,.
To benefit my companies indefinitely and to capitulate a country's defences ,and if I have a tool called advanced technology in weapons,

first step I will take, is to ensure that the labs aren't able to copy my patents and I will not give them technology as well,.neither let them develop any significant tech using babu-politician spiral.

Second ,I will ensure that only my cos. products are purchased to increase dependence, this achieved via corruption , and then I will sell them those products at a much cheaper rate than any competitor ,so that local and international competitors are removed, then I will increase dependence and hence the price,.

Third,to let them have it at lower price and latest tech., I will tell them to sign a defence cooperation agreement that bounds them to help my country in any of its expansive misadventures,.

somewhat relative things happened to India, when ussr was its primary supplier, now when russian industry is weak,usa is trying to fill the gap, and will bound us to do things against national interest,like pakistan is bound to do,.

This is called the EULA magic

,

BTW we will never know , what was in that agreement, if it is not satisfactory for India, then anti-national,desi dork media will try to bury anything about it, as we will see in few days,.

If there was anything good for India in that agreement ,it should have been said in the joint press conference of chillary clinton ,.what's not said is what common people not supposed to know, .

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 Jul 2009 01:01

Lets keep upgrading and adding to SUs, Mirages and Migs and keep MRCA deal in Chai Biscoot Mode (CBM) for indefinite time. Uncle can have EU selling lubricants etc. Obama has gone back on the spirit of MMS, BUSH understanding , actively indulging in antagonisting behaviour.Indians will be foolling themselves if they expect Obama not to use Chicago Rule , he aint the product of Sanskiritic upbringing.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 21 Jul 2009 02:04

PratikDas wrote:Where is the proof that EULA has not been customised for India? How did you infer the impact on DRDO and HAL from the first press release?

coz if it had, it will require Congressional Approval just like the nuclear deal... which would mean that we'd have heard rumblings by now. That we haven't means that the EULA has been accepted by UPA in toto.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 21 Jul 2009 02:45

It took several years to negotiate it but good that "End user agreement" with US has finally been signed. Now we can get down to doing business and reaping dividends of real competition. Gone or the days of Russians and Europeans selling us under-cooked/over-priced curry (Russian and EU respectively).

Philip,

MRCA is on cards for last 8 years and we haven't even begun the evaluation process and you call it "indecent haste" and level allegation of favoritism before the process has even begun?

And for LCAwallah's - let HAL and ADA make 8 LSPs first than we would talk about 126 MRCA/MCA. It's great to be pro Indian MIC but expectations should be based on ground reality. Hoping that Indian DRDO/ADA et al can deliver everything if lotsa money is thrown their way is wishful thinking.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Jul 2009 03:09

Katare wrote:It took several years to negotiate it but good that "End user agreement" with US has finally been signed. Now we can get down to doing business and reaping dividends of real competition. Gone or the days of Russians and Europeans selling us under-cooked/over-priced curry (Russian and EU respectively).

and US sells us correctly-cooked and correctly-priced curries

ofcourse with the condition that we cant eat them

Philip,

MRCA is on cards for last 8 years and we haven't even begun the evaluation process and you call it "indecent haste" and level allegation of favoritism before the process has even begun?

The indecent haste is not for buying MRCA, but for signing EUMA. We have signed no intrusive contracts with others, but somehow favor only the US with them.

Ofcourse US fanboys will say, but US works only like that and so we have to do as they tell us - like slaves to massa. To hell with US then, they should work according to how we work.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 21 Jul 2009 03:22

I would like to suggest a new word...bashboy
the opposite of a fanboy
suggested usage: This thread seems to be full of US bashboys

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Jul 2009 03:42

Raveen,
talking to me? Possibly, you are lucky you have not read my views of Russia on gorshkov or the French role during Falklands. I would have got Russia-bashboy, French-bashboy along with your new title US-bashboy.

how about Indian interests first, and not care for others? Ofcourse this wont go into some people, whose see India only through tinted glasses.

Regarding MRCA, I dont want India to sign EUMA, period. If it means that I have to be with Russia or French or germans, so be it. I dont have anything against F-18 (please no f-16, Pakistan has it), but NO EUMA.

If F-18 comes with the same amount of strings as Mig-35 or Rafale, it is a good buy. But with the EUMA, it becomes something which has to be trashed. Ofcourse, I havent even talked of sanctions, yet.

Ofcourse, talking about these issues with the fanboys makes one to become a bash-boy.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 21 Jul 2009 04:06

ravi_ku wrote:
Katare wrote:It took several years to negotiate it but good that "End user agreement" with US has finally been signed. Now we can get down to doing business and reaping dividends of real competition. Gone or the days of Russians and Europeans selling us under-cooked/over-priced curry (Russian and EU respectively).
and US sells us correctly-cooked and correctly-priced curries
ofcourse with the condition that we cant eat them

Philip,

MRCA is on cards for last 8 years and we haven't even begun the evaluation process and you call it "indecent haste" and level allegation of favoritism before the process has even begun?
The indecent haste is not for buying MRCA, but for signing EUMA. We have signed no intrusive contracts with others, but somehow favor only the US with them.

Ofcourse US fanboys will say, but US works only like that and so we have to do as they tell us - like slaves to massa. To hell with US then, they should work according to how we work.

Don't put words in my mouth about US selling rightly priced and fully cooked curry.

Why you can't eat your own curry? Where does it say that you can't?Show me a source or.....

Philip thinks we are showing undue haste in MRCA by taking 8 years to receive RFP and you think we are showing undue haste by signing EUA after several years negotiations. And than people bitcH about delays

bala · Post by **bala** » 21 Jul 2009 04:49

In this version of the news on
India, US reach End-User pact

The two sides reached a significant agreement on End-User Monitoring, providing for verification of military equipment and technology acquired by India from the US. It is aimed at preventing transfer to third countries.

The agreement that will pave the way for Indian procurement of US Defence technology and equipment was, however, not signed.

Another pact, which was finalised but not signed, was Technical Safeguards Agreement which will permit the launch of civil or non-commercial satellites containing US components on Indian space launch vehicles.

On Iran, Ms. Clinton said India and the US have "exactly the same position" as neither wants it to acquire nuclear weapon.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Jul 2009 08:47

US `gets' right to inspect defence equipment, tech sold to India

After several drafts were exchanged by the two sides, officials said the final text incorporates acceptable legal language factoring in concerns of both sides.

If there is only one version, i.e. the American tried and true EUMA, then you wouldn't have multiple drafts and you wouldn't be factoring in anything.

The EUMA text agreed to by the two nations apparently upholds the right of US to physically inspect defence equipment and technology sold to India. India, in turn, got the concession that the time and place of such verification would be decided by New Delhi, as also that the standardised text cannot be altered without joint consultations if there is any change in US laws in the future.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 21 Jul 2009 09:04

EUMA or no EUMA, US can always go back on a signed agreement anytime it wants.

Does anyone seriously think they will stick to a modified EUMA? If there is a war with pak, US maal is useless maal.

koti · Post by **koti** » 21 Jul 2009 09:16

ravi_ku wrote:Raveen,
I dont have anything against F-18 (please no f-16, Pakistan has it), but NO EUMA.

If F-18 comes with the same amount of strings as Mig-35 or Rafale, it is a good buy. But with the EUMA, it becomes something which has to be trashed.

I don't support this argument that we should avoid F-16 as it is fielded by PAF. We bought Su-30 long after PLAAF fielded Su-27. And it may have Su-34,35's in its arsenal too. It didn't bother us much here remember.

If F-16IN fits our requirements better then the others, we shouldn't count this down with this argument.

And regarding Pak's experience with this A/C, we don't have to use an F-16 against another F-16. We have quiet a few for that job.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 21 Jul 2009 09:24

We bought Su-30 long after PLAAF fielded Su-27. And it maybe having Su-34,35's in its arsenal too. It didn't bother us much here remember.

The Chinese do not possess the su-34 or su-35. They have the Su-30MKK and J-11's (their version of the Su-27)

If F-16IN fits our requirements better then the others, we shouldn't count this down with this argument.

The F-16IN does not fit the requirements better than the other, The Rafale and Super Hornet perform better in most of the roles. Also they are both carrier capable which is something the F-16 lacks. Hopefully the Rafale, SH and Typhoon

are short listed after the trials. The three best aircraft deserve to duke it out in the end

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Jul 2009 09:26

Kailash wrote:EUMA or no EUMA, US can always go back on a signed agreement anytime it wants.

Does anyone serious think they will stick to a modified EUMA? If there is a war with pak, US maal is useless maal.

You've actually made two different claims. First, that the EUMA amounts to no commitment from the US. It is precisely so that parties don't renege on commitments that people bother having signed agreements. To say that a signed inter-government document carries no weight is just wrong. You don't see the US signing on to a US-India security pact guaranteeing military protection against China, do you? According to you, they could just as well sign such a document and then smoke cigars later. Why haven't they?

Your second claim is that in a war with Pakistan US weapons are useless. I agree and because of this: Bush names Pakistan 'major ally'

"I hereby designate the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as major non-Nato ally of the United States for the purposes of the Arms Export Control Act," President Bush's statement said.

But China is not an ally of US. I don't see it ever being a formal ally of US the way Pakistan is. 126 MRCA will be needed in full complement in a major conflict against China alone. The IAF will have other aircraft too! Su-30s and LCA should work well in combination against Pakistan?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 21 Jul 2009 09:43

PratikDas wrote: To say that a signed inter-government document carries no weight is just wrong. You don't see the US signing on to a US-India security pact guaranteeing military protection against China, do you? According to you, they could just as well sign such a document and then smoke cigars later. Why haven't they?

US Congress can undo any kind of agreement overnight. But strategically chances of that happening is slim. My point was we are entering into an agreement we have no strategic leverage. Our standing/falling entirely depends the US.

This deal is too big to consider a reversal from US. Remember that US sells arms to pakis too. To sell more to us, they will gift more to Pakis. India can not let US decide where to deploy her assets.

PratikDas wrote:126 MRCA will be needed in full complement in a major conflict against China alone. The IAF will have other aircraft too! Su-30s and LCA should work well in combination against Pakistan?

I dont agree with the china-specific argument. I(ndia) would like to have the authority to decide where to use my hardware. If my kill ratio wud be better against the Pakis, I would obviously use them there.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Jul 2009 10:02

Kailash wrote:
PratikDas wrote: To say that a signed inter-government document carries no weight is just wrong. You don't see the US signing on to a US-India security pact guaranteeing military protection against China, do you? According to you, they could just as well sign such a document and then smoke cigars later. Why haven't they?
US Congress can undo any kind of agreement overnight. But strategically chances of that happening is slim. My point was we are entering into an agreement we have no strategic leverage. Our standing/falling entirely depends the US.

This deal is too big to consider a reversal from US. Remember that US sells arms to pakis too. To sell more to us, they will gift more to Pakis. India can not let US decide where to deploy her assets.

PratikDas wrote:126 MRCA will be needed in full complement in a major conflict against China alone. The IAF will have other aircraft too! Su-30s and LCA should work well in combination against Pakistan?
I dont agree with the china-specific argument. I(ndia) would like to have the authority to decide where to use my hardware. If my kill ratio wud be better against the Pakis, I would obviously use them there.

1. The US was able to pressure the European Union to cancel an amendment that would allow the sale of arms to China.

2. The European Union wanted to make GALILEO an independent global positioning system. The US threatened that if GALILEO data is ever used in a conflict against the US and her allies then GALILEO satellites will be shot down. Since the US can't be sure that the inner workings of the enemy's weapons are dependent on GALILEO, they'd just have to shoot them down pre-emptively. Fast forward 3 years and you have the result: EU And US To Make GPS And Galileo Compatible

My point is that if India chooses to buy the Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen because those don't require EUMAs then judging by the leverage already demonstrated by the US over the EU (above), there is no guarantee of continued European support through any Indo-Pak or Indo-China conflict either. So as far as western countries go, they all fall into the same bucket in this regard.

The only country left is Russia with the Mig 35. If after everything that's happened with the Gorshkov and the fiasco over the lease of 2 or 1 or 2 or 1 (... are we sure yet?) nuclear submarines you still think Russia is the way to go, then the discussion ends here.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 21 Jul 2009 10:20

My point is that if India chooses to buy the Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen because those don't require EUMAs then judging by the leverage already demonstrated by the US over the EU

if one can influence/scare away other suitors why would they want to play the jilted lover?

that said, what is in the Israel+Swedish combo that got the US meddling?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 10:28

Your second claim is that in a war with Pakistan US weapons are useless. I agree and because of this: Bush names Pakistan 'major ally'
Quote:
"I hereby designate the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as major non-Nato ally of the United States for the purposes of the Arms Export Control Act," President Bush's statement said.
But China is not an ally of US. I don't see it ever being a formal ally of US the way Pakistan is. 126 MRCA will be needed in full complement in a major conflict against China alone. The IAF will have other aircraft too! Su-30s and LCA should work well in combination against Pakistan?

Are you actually saying that india buy a/c that can be used only against a threat determined by the U.S?

So a nation like india, which could use every last paisa, should spend $ 10 billion to buy hardware that can be used in artificially imposed specific conditions? Dayyum, poodle nations did that with h/w that was given for free during the coldwar years, India has to be a nitwit to pay boceau bucks to do this. If the MRCA is china specific (a hedge against china by the USA), it better come for deep discount prices (free) don't you think?

If after everything that's happened with the Gorshkov and the fiasco over the lease of 2 or 1 or 2 or 1 (... are we sure yet?) nuclear submarines you still think Russia is the way to go, then the discussion ends here.

So what exactly has happened with the Gorshkov? What exactly were IN experts doing for months in sevmash that they couldn't realize that it was a "lemon" from the v.beginning? Why did they toe the line till 2007-08 and keep telling the press that all is well? What exactly is the agreed upon price for the gorky with the fulcrums? what is included in the refit, weapons, sensors and so on? Answer these and only then will we be in a position to call it a "fiasco".

As far as the akulas go, whether two or one, remember with anyone else it is NONE. And you call this a fiasco? No other country is even remotely willing to play such games in the face of international law, and this is a fiasco?

CM.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Jul 2009 10:44

You're right Cain Marko. The F-16 and/or F-18s should come for free because they are China specific. And the Chinese threat is artificially imposed - if it were not for the US the Chinese would be our best friend. The Gorshkov issues are all India's fault.

I don't think you realise how many technologies in diverse fields are denied outright to India because the EUMA is not agreed upon. This is much much bigger than the MRCA. You think the EUMA affects us the 10% of time we're in conflict or thinking of reacting to one. The lack of a EUMA is already affecting us 100% of the time when it comes to scientific endeavours, which affects every Indian. Just ask any Indian scientist who is working at the cutting edge of his or her field.

Please don't brandish the words poodle and paisa for sake of exaggeration. I really don't think you're the kind of person who has been in a position at any time in life to truly understand the value of "every last paisa".

Please understand that you cannot pay another country (for hardware) in the hope of autonomy.

You might disagree but I think the Russians have made it amply clear how dependent India is over Russia.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 10:51

PratikDas wrote:You're right Cain Marko. The Gorshkov issues are all India's fault.

[Sarcasm mode off] Think in terms of the questions I posed instead of replying with one liners. I am obviously not too keen to blame anyone in the Gorshkov issue, least of all india. Point is, in indo-russian defence ties, there seems to be a LOT that does not meet the eye [/]

CM.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 21 Jul 2009 11:15

PratikDas wrote:
Kailash wrote:EUMA or no EUMA, US can always go back on a signed agreement anytime it wants.

Does anyone serious think they will stick to a modified EUMA? If there is a war with pak, US maal is useless maal.
You've actually made two different claims. First, that the EUMA amounts to no commitment from the US. It is precisely so that parties don't renege on commitments that people bother having signed agreements. To say that a signed inter-government document carries no weight is just wrong. You don't see the US signing on to a US-India security pact guaranteeing military protection against China, do you? According to you, they could just as well sign such a document and then smoke cigars later. Why haven't they?

Your second claim is that in a war with Pakistan US weapons are useless. I agree and because of this: Bush names Pakistan 'major ally'
"I hereby designate the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as major non-Nato ally of the United States for the purposes of the Arms Export Control Act," President Bush's statement said.
But China is not an ally of US. I don't see it ever being a formal ally of US the way Pakistan is. 126 MRCA will be needed in full complement in a major conflict against China alone. The IAF will have other aircraft too! Su-30s and LCA should work well in combination against Pakistan?

EUMA works during peacetime... No one will be crazy enough to ask for or accept an inspection in the middle of a war. In peacetime, US won't dare to renege unless it is sanctions time like '98.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Jul 2009 11:17

Cain Marko wrote:
PratikDas wrote:You're right Cain Marko. The Gorshkov issues are all India's fault.
[Sarcasm mode off] Think in terms of the questions I posed instead of replying with one liners.

Sorry, I submitted that post too early. Please read again if you care.

Do you really think the IAF went through the elaborate RFP process for the MRCA only to buy the Mig 35? Do you really think they're going to evaluate aircraft from 5 countries to just haggle with Russia to lower the price of Mig 35?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 11:55

You're right Cain Marko. The F-16 and/or F-18s should come for free because they are China specific.

IOW, india should spend $ 10 billion to buy h/w that it can use only as and when the u.s. deems it proper

Sounds like a kiss ass sell out but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

And the Chinese threat is artificially imposed - if it were not for the US the Chinese would be our best friend.

I see you clearly misunderstood my post. The artificial rules mentioned previously refer to the specific restrictions of a political nature, for using a given hardware only towards a certain threat. It is simply not natural that a weapon can be used only towards one enemy and not towards another unless such a restriction is imposed by strategic/tactical/operational requirements. Otherwise, where no such conditions exist (as in the case of fighter a/c), that choice is clearly the prerogative of the user, not the seller. It has nothing whatever to do with china being/not being a threat.

The Gorshkov issues are all India's fault.

No need to put words in my mouth. Can't answer straight questions so decide to switch a bit eh? nice try.

I don't think you realise how many technologies in diverse fields are denied outright to India because the EUMA is not agreed upon. This is much much bigger than the MRCA.

Then why discuss it here, which is clearly an MRCA thread?. If it were to be discussed mainly as related to the MRCA then the EUVA is relevant here otherwise take it to the strategy area.

You think the EUMA affects us the 10% of time we're in conflict or thinking of reacting to one. The lack of a EUMA is already affecting us 100% of the time when it comes to scientific endeavours, which affects every Indian. Just ask any Indian scientist who is working at the cutting edge of his or her field.

So now you can even read my mind eh? Are you a scientist or a mystic or simply an awkward forum poster? Considering that this is the MRCA thread, my post was restricted to how the EUVA might affect this area alone. So please stuff the lecture about the lives/needs of scientists or poor indians.

Please don't brandish the words poodle and paisa for sake of exaggeration.

No exaggeration, in the context of the coldwar (and even today) poodles do exist, just ask the guys to the northwest, they'll tell you a thing or two. And as far as paisa goes, you think it is an exaggeration to say that the monies for this exhorbitant deal comes through the aam janta's nose? And this is the same guy who says:

I really don't think you're the kind of person who has been in a position at any time in life to truly understand the value of "every last paisa".

You are absolutely in no position to determine what kind of person I am or what experiences I've had, so please chuck the sanctimonious chip.

Please understand that you cannot pay another country (for hardware) in the hope of autonomy. You might disagree but I think the Russians have made it amply clear how dependent India is over Russia.

Man, are you for real? You make certain statements, get called on them and then throw out copious amounts of bilge. Stick to the topic please and stop going off tangentially.

You answered the first point I raised quite well - its ok according to you to invest billions of $$$s for a weapons system that can only be used under limited conditions. These conditions are not operational restrictions but purely political.

Now lets start on point two - Gorshkov issue and Akula issue. You called them fiascos, I ask for some relevant basis for such a claim. Can you do that?

CM.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Jul 2009 12:11

Cain Marko wrote:Man, are you for real? You make certain statements, get called on them and then throw out copious amounts of bilge. Stick to the topic please and stop going off tangentially.

You answered the first point I raised quite well - its ok according to you to invest billions of $$$s for a weapons system that can only be used under limited conditions. These conditions are not operational restrictions but purely political.

Now lets start on point two - Gorshkov issue and Akula issue. You called them fiascos, I ask for some relevant basis for such a claim. Can you do that?

CM.

In your opinion Indo-Russian defence ties are proper and since I am entirely reliant on what I read in the public press and here on BR I am in no position to call a problem what is commonly seen in both as a lingering problem. I really don't think we should need so many meetings between India and Russia to decide how much is outstanding in the Gorshkov deal, only to be advised that more funds are required. What would be the point in me quoting press articles as evidence?

I apologise if my attempts to reason with you comes forth as bilge. I wasn't trying to piss you off at all.

Every review of MRCA aircraft I've read on BR and livefist has the Rafale scoring very admirably. I am trying to say that just because aircraft like Rafale don't come with an explicit EUMA doesn't mean they don't come with strings attached. France is keen to sell weapons to China too. Just like we discredit the F-16 because Pakistan already has them, a time might come when we discredit the Rafale because China might get them too. If the French guarantee they won't sell anything like the Rafale or better to China in the next 50 years then of course we have a bargain at hand, but that's not going to happen.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 12:20

PratikDas wrote:In your opinion Indo-Russian defence ties are proper and since I am entirely reliant on what I read in the public press and here on BR I am in no position to call a problem what is commonly seen in both as a lingering problem.

I really don't think we should need so many meetings between India and Russia to decide how much is outstanding in the Gorshkov deal, only to be advised that more funds are required. What would be the point in me quoting press articles as evidence.

I apologise if my attempts to reason with you comes forth as bilge.

Fair enough, but what is the price that has been decided? What all is included in this? Without such critical information, how can you claim deteriorating indo/russki ties? And importantly, why is the Akula deal a fiasco?

Btw, I don't have a problem with an attempt to reason, however, I certainly do have a problem when insults are thrown in an attempt to subvert the main issue.

CM

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Jul 2009 12:35

Cain Marko wrote:And importantly, why is the Akula deal a fiasco?

Are we getting one or two? Why is there any confusion in the public media and why has the number been debated on BR? I've already asked this question a few posts earlier. You read it too. Your argument was that we should be happy we are getting anything at all because nobody else gives us anything in the face of international law. And yet we have people stating that there is nothing in international law forbidding a lease of a nuclear sub anyway. And you say I am happy with India being a "poodle". Very Well.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 21 Jul 2009 12:42

PratikDas wrote:Are we getting one or two? Why is there any confusion in the public media and why has the number been debated on BR? I've already asked this question a few posts earlier. You read it too. Your argument was that we should be happy we are getting anything at all because nobody else gives us anything in the face of international law. And yet we have people stating that there is nothing in international law forbidding a lease of a nuclear sub anyway. And you say I am happy with India being a "poodle". Very Well.

Prateek now you are just trying to make a point for the sake of making one. Who else will give(and they are really not giving to us, we paid $650 mil for it) us a nuclear submerine. Even if the law doesnt forbid transfer of nuclear sub, no one else is gonna lease or sell one to us and thats a fact. You are calling it a fiasco cuz we dont know how many we are getting. Comeon, this is just juvenile, have you stopped for a second and thought about this, maybe all this misinformation is to keep our friendly neighbors guessing.
Other than the sub issue i really dont care bout the Russia bad, usa good or russia good, usa bad argument here.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 12:45

PratikDas wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:And importantly, why is the Akula deal a fiasco?
Are we getting one or two? Why is there any confusion in the public media and why has the number been debated on BR? I've already asked this question a few posts earlier. You read it too. Your argument was that we should be happy we are getting anything at all because nobody else gives us anything in the face of international law. And yet we have people stating that there is nothing in international law forbidding a lease of a nuclear sub anyway. And you say I am happy with India being a "poodle". Very Well.

ONe or two or ten? Why in the world would india make everything public? Such things are often deliberately obfuscated - every nation has secrets. Hardly a fiasco.

It is indeed heartening that india can make such a deal because this acquisition surely offers a tremendous capability. If it was that easy to make such deals (since they are not forbidden, expressly anyways), why doesn't india get the same from france or uk or usa? IOWs, the russkis are (and traditionally have been) the only ones with the cajones to cut such a deal with india. It would be ridiculous to think that a transaction of this nature is purely commercial.

CM

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 21 Jul 2009 12:56

May be I am not an expert as most of you, but IMO any nation's defense is not only tied up to its weapons, but to the geopolitical clout also. Many here are skeptical about US planes for MRCA, no doubt past US actions are also responsible. But in geopolitical scenario there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, the equations are always dynamic.

Till 1962 China war, though Nehru gloated NAM, he is maintained equal distance between USSR and US-UK combine and derived industrialization benefits optimally to his best. During 1962 war, China is not at bad terms with USSR and when asked for help said "its a war between friend (India) and a bother (China)" and effectively turned back. Till that time US's best friend/watch dog in the region is not Pakistan, but Iran.

Even JLN during 1962 war requested US equipment and help to thwart Chinese invasion. The 1962 event and USSR-PRC border dispute turned equations for India' point of view very significantly, tilting USSR towards India and then onwards India's armaments were mainly of USSR origin.

After USSR collapse, the New Russia's income (selling energy and raw materials) is coming from Europe and China, so in future India-China conflicts do not expect faithful support from Russia, because its priorities have changed a lot after collapse of USSR. It is not no more old USSR.

We have plenty of air-dominance fighters in our fleet in the form of Mig-29 and SU-30 MKI, but we still do not have good A2G platforms, weapons for EW against China.

I cannot see a significant positive tilt going toward French goodies. Whatever electronics or avionics that Rafael can offer can be obtained separately and can be integrated in SU-MKI, LCA and future MCA, but US will wont sell individual electronics or avionics to any fighter.

Definitely considering the low RCS, EW package, payload and weapons, F-18 SH is unbeatable. If Sweden can develop networking gear for Gripen, definitely US also will have a same or better thing in its sleeve to offer.

Considering the geopolitical and defense synergies, my wishlist:

1. For France - offer to buy Mirage 2009 from UAE if France swaps UAE Mirages with Rafaels.
2. For Russia - buy 2-3 squadrons of SU-32/34 and get covert at least 1 squadron to F-18 Growler standard with help of Israel and France.
3. For USA - award MRCAcontact to F-18 SH with full TOT and manufacturing rights of GE-414 engine so that it can be used in LCA and MCA. Transfer of TOT and manufacturing rights of A2G weapons.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 21 Jul 2009 13:13

Good to see a lot of us have now finally realized that the best of tech when comes with strings attached to it is junk

Time to renew and refresh our relations with time tested friends (Russia / French)

I am sure the only place we will deploy f 16 / 18 is with Surya Kirans....

-Nitin

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 13:17

nrshah wrote:I am sure the only place we will deploy f 16 / 18 is with Surya Kirans....
-Nitin

Thats funny

BTW, the blue angels are pretty good.

CM

Edit: but but, have you checked the latest EUVA - no airshows allowed, only to be shown in static displays - still, they look good on the ground too!

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 21 Jul 2009 13:39

My point is that if India chooses to buy the Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen because those don't require EUMAs then judging by the leverage already demonstrated by the US over the EU (above), there is no guarantee of continued European support through any Indo-Pak or Indo-China conflict either. So as far as western countries go, they all fall into the same bucket in this regard.

France was always against US hegemony in Europe,its not like Great Britain which was ever ready to toe US line,France outrightly opposed the Iraq war,they even walked out of NATO.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 21 Jul 2009 13:51

PratikDas wrote:You're right Cain Marko. The F-16 and/or F-18s should come for free because they are China specific. And the Chinese threat is artificially imposed - if it were not for the US the Chinese would be our best friend. The Gorshkov issues are all India's fault.

--- There is Gorshkov with US too.. If price hike after contract is issue, so is blocking delivery of F 16 to Pak after contract entered into---

PratikDas wrote:I don't think you realise how many technologies in diverse fields are denied outright to India because the EUMA is not agreed upon. This is much much bigger than the MRCA. You think the EUMA affects us the 10% of time we're in conflict or thinking of reacting to one. The lack of a EUMA is already affecting us 100% of the time when it comes to scientific endeavours, which affects every Indian. Just ask any Indian scientist who is working at the cutting edge of his or her field.

---MMRCA is to defend country. It is not to make ourselves technically superior. We have already achieved a lot without American favor in last 50 years. I hope we don't to want tobecome Japan / UK. Do we?---

PratikDas wrote: You might disagree but I think the Russians have made it amply clear how dependent India is over Russia.

---Yes, a lot of dependent. It has made us so dependent that inspite of 70% of hardware of russian origin, we are open to issue RPF to 6 countries, purchase maritime patrol from Americans and refullers from EU--

PratikDas wrote:Are we getting one or two?

---We are getting one for sure. How about unkil giving us even 1Kg steel of their nuclear powered submarine?---

PratikDas wrote:The European Union wanted to make GALILEO an independent global positioning system. The US threatened that if GALILEO data is ever used in a conflict against the US and her allies then GALILEO satellites will be shot down. Since the US can't be sure that the inner workings of the enemy's weapons are dependent on GALILEO, they'd just have to shoot them down pre-emptively. Fast forward 3 years and you have the result: EU And US To Make GPS And Galileo Compatible

---So America don't even respect their long term Ally also. I don't know what they will do to us. --

--Nitin

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 21 Jul 2009 20:19

You're right Cain Marko. The F-16 and/or F-18s should come for free because they are China specific. And the Chinese threat is artificially imposed - if it were not for the US the Chinese would be our best friend. The Gorshkov issues are all India's fault.

Really? Do you honestly believe that the US will supply you with 126 + free aircraft? Also most of the Gorshkov issues are Russias fault (loosing the plans to the gorshkov, dodgy work on the ship, etc) inida was dumb enough to believe that it would get a ship like that for $1 billion and now they have to pay for their mistakes.

Considering the geopolitical and defense synergies, my wishlist:
1. For France - offer to buy Mirage 2009 from UAE if France swaps UAE Mirages with Rafaels.
2. For Russia - buy 2-3 squadrons of SU-32/34 and get covert at least 1 squadron to F-18 Growler standard with help of Israel and France.
3. For USA - award MRCAcontact to F-18 SH with full TOT and manufacturing rights of GE-414 engine so that it can be used in LCA and MCA. Transfer of TOT and manufacturing rights of A2G weapons.

Response: 1. That will only occur after 2013 ish when all 60 of the Rafales are delivered to the UAE. They are also not going to come cheap, might as well buy the Rafale from France instead. Its a better aircraft anyway.
2. Converting them to the Growler Standard is not going to be cheap, its going to take some time (US is the only country to my knowledge that operates dedicated EW units). Dedicated EW planes are expensive the Growler is much more expensive than the SH
3. MRCA contract might go to the F-18, I hope not hoping that the Typhoon will pull through. For some reason ppl on this board are convinced that sinces the EUMA that the F-18 is the clear winner. The EUMA needed to be signed so the P-8I and C-130J could be delivered. India needs the P-8I badly. I don't know about the TOT and manufacturing rights of A2G weapons, that would cost a lot of money and I don't know if India plans on buying enough for this idea to be feasible.