What's new

MMRCA Tamasha was Political: Ex IAF Official

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.

The RFP calls for 50% by cost on the BOM. It also spells out certain core technologies area that needed to be covered under the ToT.

It is not all that gray as they make it out to be.
 
.
The RFP calls for 50% by cost on the BOM. It also spells out certain core technologies area that needed to be covered under the ToT.

It is not all that gray as they make it out to be.

ToT is not by cost, I guess you are confusing it with the ammount of offset that was required and you can't demand certain techs to be transfered, otherwise the US fighters must had been rejected even after their first proposal. You can have prefered areas, but the manufacturers and moreover their governments decides on what is possible and what not. So if we want AESA ToT for example, we can state that, but it's still a matter of what the vendors will provide in competition to the others and at this stage of the final negotiations.
 
.
ToT is not by cost, I guess you are confusing it with the ammount of offset that was required and you can't demand certain techs to be transfered, otherwise the US fighters must had been rejected even after their first proposal. You can have prefered areas, but the manufacturers and moreover their governments decides on what is possible and what not. So if we want AESA ToT for example, we can state that, but it's still a matter of what the vendors will provide in competition to the others and at this stage of the final negotiations.

Listen dude I know what offset is. I have worked on it so I know what I am talking about. Offset is calculated by cost and that is how it is audited too.

The RFP had mentioned certain areas for ToT and the OEM has mentioned the ToT details in their proposal. L1 calculations took that into account. Certain areas is left to vendor discretion and certain parts are negotiated. In any case the vendor has promised certain things in their proposal. If they are not fulfilling that promise the entire L1 becomes defunct and will have to be recalculated.
 
.
Listen dude I know what offset is. I have worked on it so I know what I am talking about. Offset is calculated by cost and that is how it is audited too.

The RFP had mentioned certain areas for ToT and the OEM has mentioned the ToT details in their proposal. L1 calculations took that into account. Certain areas is left to vendor discretion and certain parts are negotiated. In any case the vendor has promised certain things in their proposal. If they are not fulfilling that promise the entire L1 becomes defunct and will have to be recalculated.

So you are telling us if Dassult doesnt meet the guidelines then someone eelse will take over? and what of the same problem is there with everybody that Dassult has? what will happen then...

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.

I will tell you a story about France, we got a bomb from them with ToT, organized a demo in a testing range. Fighters took off and pilot said "Fire!", and the bomb didnt eject...everybody wondered why and ministers left home dissapointed. we went back to the French and got the plug in software to eject that bomb from the fighter and finally everyone was clapping...yay!!..ToT...:coffee:
 
Last edited:
.
lets not fight here.
the problem seems to be cost too,at least to me
but we must decide soon otherwise we will have to fly mig 21 till 2025(lol)
 
.
@Manvantaratruti
I am sorry to answer you while you are suspended but then again, it was none of my doing and likely some of yours so ...
You end your reply to my post thus :
"Thank you for sharing your opinions on politicians and your condescending advice. Now get back to delivering on your promise."
This will almost be enough to show how vindictive, nationalist and unnecessarily childish you rant was.
I did share an opinion, yes, but in noway was condescending? I meant that for most politicians from all lands? You obviously think your nation above others as many calls in that reply showed? I don't! I think all countries have their right to existence as long as they give the same respect to all others!
It is in that view that i look at the mechanics of how these nations manage their relations. As I pointed in that last post, it includes recognizing at times the faults of my own?
This said, when an erroneous statement is made, I can correct or comment it as you can for Pakistan defence is an open fair forum?


Such as your opening answer to my remark about the Martin-Baker ejection seat : "Not our problem!"
Do you realize how childish that is? Nagging and stomping your foot for a right which will never be yours ( To get/own foreign tech not for sale ), while disregarding that you will get the best product on the market ( MartinBaker seat ) even if not covered by ToT?
And if that last sounds condescending, now it may be right but you have earned it!

I hope you can understand it nonetheless and come back in better spirit later.

@Dash,
I do trust that story to be true, sadly! Then again, remember the poor Brits? Fully committed to the Lightning II only to learn that major partner and closest ally or not, the source codes to make it work was not to be theirs? Every darn country/maker plays that commercial imperative card.
I mean the whole PAK-FA FGFA imbroglio with the Russians for you guys is rapidly looking less & less fair play too, isn't it? More money but less say?
What can I say, mate, enough money ( & power ) corrupts even the purest?
I congratulate heartily any nation that gets its money's worth enough in such deals to move on to autonomous production and design. For instance, I don't think all that much of the TEJAS but it is only a first try. Let it absorb the growing pains and move on to the next level later? Who's to say the next one won't be a marvel.
Similarly, if Pakistan's engineers have learned enough from the Thunder co-production, maybe the next development could come in-house. I'm old enough to know you have to learn properly before doing properly or just keep doing a half-azzed job?
France for instance was building planes in the 19th century so no great wonder we got the hang of it by now? ;)

The contrary would be darn sad, huh? Heck, mister Dassault the original had begun doing so before his stint in the Nazi death camps? The Mirage family was not his first attempt straight out of school?

Anyhow, enough off-topic, good day all, Tay.
 
.
Listen dude I know what offset is. I have worked on it so I know what I am talking about. Offset is calculated by cost and that is how it is audited too.

The RFP had mentioned certain areas for ToT and the OEM has mentioned the ToT details in their proposal.

:rolleyes: That's exactly what I told you.

I mean the whole PAK-FA FGFA imbroglio with the Russians for you guys is rapidly looking less & less fair play too, isn't it? More money but less say?

Not exactly, since the development of our version hasn't really started with full speed, that is only about to start when the first prototype will be diverted. So far they are mainly developing their version, with some joint developments of our version in the background and our government only tries to keep the pressure high on the Russians to not delay the development of our version.
 
.
So you are telling us if Dassult doesnt meet the guidelines then someone else will take over? and what of the same problem is there with everybody that Dassult has? what will happen then...

No, What was said is that if Dassult does not deliver what they promised then it is time to give others a chance. But at the same time, its time to realize that others are also wolves waiting to exploit our weakness.

Our disappointing experience with PAK-FA after committing 3 Billion $ should be enough to wake up anybody. But no one seems to be interested in waking up. Not do expect France to treat us any better than Russia.

The only short cut to gaining technology is either corporate espionage or hiring foreign technical experts to work on Indian programs.

We do neither, instead spend our hard earned money to stratify the greed of IAF and Dassult.

I will tell you a story about France, we got a bomb from them with ToT, organized a demo in a testing range. Fighters took off and pilot said "Fire!", and the bomb didnt eject...everybody wondered why and ministers left home dissapointed. we went back to the French and got the plug in software to eject that bomb from the fighter and finally everyone was clapping...yay!!..ToT...:coffee:

That pretty much sums it up.

"Thank you for sharing your opinions on politicians and your condescending advice. Now get back to delivering on your promise."
This will almost be enough to show how vindictive, nationalist and unnecessarily childish you rant was.

It was replied in the same patronizing tone you used to preach to Indians. Mirrors can be uncomfortable for some.

I did share an opinion, yes, but in noway was condescending? I meant that for most politicians from all lands? You obviously think your nation above others as many calls in that reply showed? I don't! I think all countries have their right to existence as long as they give the same respect to all others!

Good for you. Now lets get back to the topic.

It is in that view that i look at the mechanics of how these nations manage their relations. As I pointed in that last post, it includes recognizing at times the faults of my own?
This said, when an erroneous statement is made, I can correct or comment it as you can for Pakistan defence is an open fair forum?

...and round and round we go ....

Such as your opening answer to my remark about the Martin-Baker ejection seat : "Not our problem!"
Do you realize how childish that is? Nagging and stomping your foot for a right which will never be yours ( To get/own foreign tech not for sale ), while disregarding that you will get the best product on the market ( MartinBaker seat ) even if not covered by ToT?
And if that last sounds condescending, now it may be right but you have earned it!

No it is not childish to demand a tech that was promised. A breach of promise is a breach of trust and I expect to be compensated for such a breach of promise.

If it was Not promised, where is the problem ? its a non issue. Why even bother to bring it up except to serve as a Red Herring ?

You were condescending long before you pretended that I earned it :lol: ... let us not pretend otherwise.

I hope you can understand it nonetheless and come back in better spirit later.

Nothing has changed. Feel free to continue in the same spirit and expect replies in the same spirit.
 
Last edited:
.
How interesting!
The above Poster answers my remarks to someone else acknowledging the substance to be aimed at himself :
"You were condescending long before you pretended that I earned it :lol: ... let us not pretend otherwise."

That sounds suspiciously like dual/double log-ins? If that is the case, answering you any further wis useless. I do not deal with unscrupulous trolling kids, sorry!
If it was a wrong mark-up on your part anjaneayshruti then even more sorry for the above call.

Supposing then you are a different person than Manvan... and another before him with the same tone, I will state this one last time : I consider all nations worth their while and opinion and rights.
I will still not for that position be drawn into fallacies to show unnecessary respect that would than be knavery induced flattery. Palau does not have a space program as good as the USA, for example.
If stating truths and not groveling to assuage the inferiority complex of some is being condescending then so be it!

But since you close by Nothing has changed. I will trust that you are the same person. Thus, keep it up by yourself; discussion closed!

Good day to the rest of the gang, Tay.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom