MMRCA Tamasha was Political: Ex IAF Official

[[Bregs]]

Although the french have bagged the deal but they have in my opinion fumbled in choosing reliance as there domestic partner, with reliance on the horizon things are always going to be dicey n suspect even if they are genuine

 

[sancho]

yes 2 seat is not req,at least not for pakfa and it will never materialize.
times have changed but rafale is not a 5 th gen but a 4.5 gen so 2 pilots maybe good for it

That has nothing to do with the generation of a fighter, but with costs for changes for a twin seater version, or limitations it brings. In fact many F35 customers wanted a twin seater, since having a WSO offers advantages in strike roles and for FGFA it would be even more useful, since we use them for very long endurance patrol flights and with it's detection and data link capabilities, a twin seater would be perfect in the mini AWACS role, or to control and provide data to a bunch of UCAVs (future of modern warfare!). But we might have opted for the faster to develop and cost-effective varient at first, with twin seaters to come later too.

 

[he-man]

russians have publicly stated that adding another seat will compromise stealth.
next thing is yes 5 th matters in case of 1 pilot as degree of automation is very high so amount of thinking req is very less.
yes ur patrol part loks correct but we can always do that wih mki.

lastly twin seat is def dead

 

[Xracer]

state of the art f-16??
go and check the specs of ur f-16's
some are block 52 and the rest are being upgraded to block 40 standards and total 63 are there,lol
rafale and pakfa will come with aesa and su-30mki is also being upgraded to super sukhoi standard.
for ur f-16 upgraded mirage 2000 and new mig-29k and kub are probably an overkill.
don't boast about ur tiny airforce here

dont mean to offend you but Post this message when you receive your first pakfa or rafale and as for your upgraded mirage 2000 and new mig-29k f16 s and Jf 17 Thunders are enough
you havn,t inducted Tajas properly still It is to reach the second of three levels of operational clearance in November 2013 and you are talking about recently made Pakfaif you wanna see how jets are made and inducted in airforce well learn from your Neighbor

 

[sancho]

He told me most political and expat prefer twin pilot due to fatigue issue but with computerised control you would prefer single decider . Most pilot want more training and exercises.
Even fgfa a advance gen fighter with only 20 % manual factor u want 2 pilots. Not required.

Even the RAF EF pilots have learned how important it is to have a WSO during LGB strikes in Libya and that fighter is technically far ahead of a Jag. Also the technical capability of computers doesn't get you anything, when the pilot is tired during a 8 to 10h patrol mission.

 

[HunterKiller]

Bargaining power and stubbornness of french will decrease by the time and they must be aware that India has contingency plans in place if deal fell through and the net looser will be french

I think we should have gone with the "Euro Fighter" ....
If after negotiating for another few months, the deal fails, it will be a total waste of time for us...

 

[he-man]

wow
what an enlightened post
learn the art of introspection and pls see my other posts too.i critisize our policies most of the time but when a pakistani tries to preach india whats right and wrong it gets laughable
i will refrain to comment on jf-17 just for the fear of getting banned but let me ask u a question.
can u tell me the range of klj-7??with source??

nope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it has practically zero air to ground mode and it has got no aesa!!
it still uses captor e pesa radar

 

[sancho]

russians have publicly stated that adding another seat will compromise stealth.
next thing is yes 5 th matters in case of 1 pilot as degree of automation is very high so amount of thinking req is very less.
yes ur patrol part loks correct but we can always do that wih mki.

lastly twin seat is def dead

First you should get an idea what 5th gen means, since it has nothing to do with automisation. Then you should take a look at F18SH, F15 Strike Eagles, F16 Sufas, Su 34 or Su 30 or Rafale and ask yourself why most of these fighters with strike capabilities in mind are aimed on twin seat configs mainly?
More computers helps to reduce work load, but advanced fighters also have advanced systems and more roles to cover, which makes a 2nd pilot helpful in a lot of missions. As I said, an FGFA has excelent detection capabilities and providing them to other fighters, or guiding them in a tactical scenario like we already do it with the MKIs would be perfect, but a single pilot will have difficulties to fly it's own fighter and provide others with these infos. Similarly, he won't be able to take control of UCAVs or using them to increase the tactical capabilities. Something that we already see with F18SH twin seaters or Apache Block 3 helicopters getting the capabilities to control UAVs.

 

[he-man]

but then why did russia and usa both go this way??
it must be something to do with stealth,,,,,,,,
and yes 5 th gen have a single mdpu unlike multiple smaller mission computers and data fusion which other 4 th gen lack or are just not at that level.
i am not denying the importance of 2 nd pilot but mere stating that maybe cons outweigh the pro's!!??

 

[sancho]

I think we should have gone with the "Euro Fighter" ....
If after negotiating for another few months, the deal fails, it will be a total waste of time for us...

Actually, we would need even more time to get the EF inducted, not only that we have to negotiate with 4 partners, but the techs that it needs to fullfil IAFs requirements are not available. They are clearling the way now to first flight the Captor E AESA radar by next year, weapon integrations CFT developments..., all things that requires more time and money, not to mention that it's more costly to operate and per unit as well, so all in all a very bad 2nd choice. If we had included the F18SH under the shortlisted fighters, it would have pressured the French more than the EF does, since they know Rafale is the better package for India.

 

[Storm Force]

Pakistanis wil be telling us f16 is state of the art 30 years from now...they think nothing else happened after the f16 came.imo we should cancel the mmrca now

 

[Dash]

That major told his side of story, but didnt explain why it was political....Kudos to IDRW

 

[Taygibay]

Wholly agreed with Dash above!
This bulls..t about undisclosed source and anonymous expert officials is useless, whatever the context, nation or subject.
Besides, anyone in their right mind remembering the offer by Dassault to ship the whole production line for Mirage 2000 to India shows the political slant, the only other possible excuse being not to thwart TEJAS development.

Which brings me to specify a few things necessary for this topic.
As Sancho pointed out, it would be time for posters and most of all Indian ones to learn the name of the MMRCA winner and the corps that make it. Not because of national sensitivity on my part, mind you but for clarity.
RAFALE is a French jet fighter. <b>Rafael</b> is an Israeli defence company!
Rafale International is the name of the selling consortium for the plane.
Dassault is the maker of the plane but it does not equate with the whole thing and should not be used so often to mean GovFr. As a matter of fact, although I seriously doubt the assumptions in this IDRW piece, if there are problems over ToT, they likely stem from my govt or misalignment between the partners. For the former, remember how they muddle the Moroccan deal to defeat.
For the latter however, if you remind yourself that the Rafale's ejection seat is made by Martin-Baker, maybe it is that firm which refuses ToT and is sabotaging the Deal? Them darn Brits!

The above was a trolling bit of an example of course but what I mean is that ToT NEVER includes handing over all your technological secrets.
Instead, 100% ToT means that the receiver will be able to use the product in full, including servicing it by himself and thus potentially learning how to make it himself ( i.e. Chinese copy pasting but with permission? ).
As such, many comments on the Net are void of meaningful sense.
As for Reliance, I think ( but here, I'd welcome informed Indian opinions please ) that He-Man's assessment was correct. They showed in the past their ability to jump in a field new to them and perform at superb level in no time flat! And while yes, I understand the doubts of desi minds that think it could allow some ToT slippage although that should actually be taken care of in the contracts, my honest PoV is that the conundrum has more to do with HAL's status.
State owned corps are never that great save for utilities IMHoO.

At some point, India will want to play the bigger world market. Mittal, Tata are already doing so amongst others. To do so, it will need to let go of the old state owned scheme which may stem from too much proximity with the Russians but does reek of old-school socialist-commie ways à la China?
I'd have thought India wouldn't want to copy that last example?

Other than that, there is no reason to believe the deal will fail. Except maybe indeed for the French authorities to add their own sluggishness to the incredible slowness exhibited by the GoI in the whole M-MRCA saga to make it go in overtime ( after the elections ) and risk it all?

My poor fellows, what can I say, politicians, you know? On that Pakistanis, Indians and French can at least agree, right? The scourge of the Earth as I have often expressed on my blog. I'd rather trust a nice cholera or plague epidemic than those, sigh*

Sadly yours, Tay.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

...if there are problems over ToT, they likely stem from my govt or misalignment between the partners. For the former, remember how they muddle the Moroccan deal to defeat.
For the latter however, if you remind yourself that the Rafale's ejection seat is made by Martin-Baker, maybe it is that firm which refuses ToT and is sabotaging the Deal? Them darn Brits!

Not our problem.

The above was a trolling bit of an example of course but what I mean is that ToT NEVER includes handing over all your technological secrets.
Instead, 100% ToT means that the receiver will be able to use the product in full, including servicing it by himself and thus potentially learning how to make it himself ( i.e. Chinese copy pasting but with permission? ).

ToT means whatever it says on the RFP and on the submitted contract that made it L1. And that meant offsetting 50% of the technology to India and remaining 50% of the work so that the Aircraft can be completely built in India.

Since the MMRCA required 50% offset, Rafale better figure out what those 50% is, if they want to sign the contract. And that too at the price promised in the proposal. Without Escalation.

As such, many comments on the Net are void of meaningful sense.
As for Reliance, I think ( but here, I'd welcome informed Indian opinions please ) that He-Man's assessment was correct. They showed in the past their ability to jump in a field new to them and perform at superb level in no time flat! And while yes, I understand the doubts of desi minds that think it could allow some ToT slippage although that should actually be taken care of in the contracts, my honest PoV is that the conundrum has more to do with HAL's status.
State owned corps are never that great save for utilities IMHoO.

Be that it may, Rafale does not get to make that choice or even pass judgement on HAL. The Buyer gets to call that shot. In this case the GoI has clearly marked HAL as the manufacturer. So deal with it.

At some point, India will want to play the bigger world market. Mittal, Tata are already doing so amongst others. To do so, it will need to let go of the old state owned scheme which may stem from too much proximity with the Russians but does reek of old-school socialist-commie ways à la China?
I'd have thought India wouldn't want to copy that last example?

India will figure out what to do. One way is to make HAL a public limited company where Indians can then Buy shares of HAL. How does that sound to you ? Either way you get to have NO say in it.

Other than that, there is no reason to believe the deal will fail. Except maybe indeed for the French authorities to add their own sluggishness to the incredible slowness exhibited by the GoI in the whole M-MRCA saga to make it go in overtime ( after the elections ) and risk it all?

Considering the reported price escalation and aparant reluctance to transfer technology, there is every reason to believe that the deal might fail and IAF and GoI needs to make urgent contingency plan to deal with this situation. LCA + Super 30 MKI combination is a good bet.

If India can give 3 Billion $ to Russia to develop their R&D and 26-30 Billion $ to france for furthering their R&D, they bloody well give 10$ to Indians for our own R&D.

My poor fellows, what can I say, politicians, you know? On that Pakistanis, Indians and French can at least agree, right? The scourge of the Earth as I have often expressed on my blog. I'd rather trust a nice cholera or plague epidemic than those, sigh*

Sadly yours, Tay.

Thank you for sharing your opinions on politicians and your condescending advice. Now get back to delivering on your promise.

 

[sancho]

ToT means whatever it says on the RFP and on the submitted contract that made it L1. And that meant offsetting 50% of the technology to India and remaining 50% of the work so that the Aircraft can be completely built in India.

Since the MMRCA required 50% offset, Rafale better figure out what those 50% is, if they want to sign the contract. And that too at the price promised in the proposal. Without Escalation.

The 50% is just a figure, but doesn't tell us of what techs or parts of the fighter. The US fighters offered 50% ToT as well, but of not important airframe parts, while core techs like radar, or EW were not on offer.