LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,885
- Likes
- 48,597
India's buys from Boeing exceed 7 billion dollars for P8-I,C-17's and Harpoons. Boeing already made 75% of the MRCA budget.
India selects EF, Rafale for MMRCA shortlist
- Thread starter Pandora
- Start date
- Status
sayareakd
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 17,734
- Likes
- 18,952
yeah wise decision, because Uncle's fighters don't fulfill our requirement.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2010
- Messages
- 744
- Likes
- 176
See what I said, India will definitely go for the Eurofighter. This semi final is just to showcase that this deal is not finalized with partiality to a particular company.
I know typhoons are costly but hello, we are getting the best 4.5 generation aircraft present on this planet, in return.
I know typhoons are costly but hello, we are getting the best 4.5 generation aircraft present on this planet, in return.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,885
- Likes
- 48,597
Rafele victory means one country more or less benefits-France. France already has defence ties and nuclear trade with India. Eurofighter wins 4 countries benefit Germany,spain,UK,Italy would benefit. How would these 4 countries reciprocate to India??? A possible India -EU free trade agreement terms may also be in the package?? EU is a strong contender and cannot be written off easily.
sayareakd
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 17,734
- Likes
- 18,952
guys, things which stand as of today is two of the 6 quality, as per requirement put up by IAF, now PMO after getting approval from CCS, will made the final choice based on various parameters like from whom to get best support for foreign policy, engine tech for LCA-II etc, including complete TOT engine included, if i was EF i would be very happy as things stand today and if i was Rafale i would be thinking what additional, i would offer to win the tender.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2010
- Messages
- 744
- Likes
- 176
And also with the display of its naval variant for IN at aero india, it(EU) might be able to bend this deal in its favor.
SHASH2K2
New Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 5,711
- Likes
- 730
Problem I see with EFT is involvement of 4 countries and it will always cause delays and complications. EFT is not a developed product and many critical components specially AESA radar is under development. If we go for EFT we should be prepared for delays delivery will not be speedy.
on advantages EFT consortium is willing to offer partnerships in many future developments like AESA. we will get technology but will have to bear the development cost as well. while on other hand Rafale is a fully developed product and delivery should be speedy . Also Rafale is cheaper that EFT .
on advantages EFT consortium is willing to offer partnerships in many future developments like AESA. we will get technology but will have to bear the development cost as well. while on other hand Rafale is a fully developed product and delivery should be speedy . Also Rafale is cheaper that EFT .
Rahul Singh
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 3,652
- Likes
- 5,790
These are not going to satisfy Boeing, at 126, stakes are much much higher. M-MRCA is(and i intentionally say 'is') gateway to multi billion Indian market and i guess for Boeing (which is already losing fighter market everywhere) it could be second largest after USAF and USN. Unfortunately for Boeing even F-18s and F-15s are being phased out by rival jets and by time they are completely phased out, Boeing will be left with next to no market share in fighter jet world. No wonder Boeing is so frantically marketing F-15/18 International and i am expecting it to fight back 126 like KC-X. Though it is other thing that i always wanted american jets to stay away from IAF and i am happy more than any that they are finally out of race.
Last edited:
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,885
- Likes
- 48,597
If US govt can spare 35 billion+ to Pak for doing nothing in WOT then losing 11 billion is nothing to cry over.
Anshu Attri
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,218
- Likes
- 679
Rahul Singh
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 3,652
- Likes
- 5,790
Ok, LF i got that but i am speaking more on strategical importance than just economical.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,885
- Likes
- 48,597
Were we ready to compromise national security for trade?? Has US-India relations reached that point in the Obama administration?? Most of the relations built under Bush have been wiped out by Obama. This decision is not a suprise.
exactly for this reason, I don't thing rafale has a very good chance. we have space cooperation with france, we their mirages, nuclear reactors etc. I think EF has a very good chance. also EU consortium is the most desperate one to sell, and one good thing is EU consortium includes Italy and Spain, these two countries spear head the coffee club in the UN. once EF gets the deal the resistance from Spain and Italy will be less for india's permanent seat. I think EF tycoon will give us a lot of benefit because they are the most desperate party. I was really shocked that F-18 didn't make to the final list. this is the watershed moment in india's history of foreign policy, it reflects india's truly independent foreign policy credentials, and that is what is needed to become a permanent member of UN. once india gets sound support from UNGA, UNSC P5 members would not be able to deny permanent seat to india for too long. I think India has done the right thing. if france wants to win this order, it would literally have to give full TOT to inda. EF will go to any extent to satisfy india. we have a lot of hi-tech trade with france , so I'm not sure if rafale will be the most obvious choice. my choice will be EF.
Last edited:
Rahul Singh
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 3,652
- Likes
- 5,790
*Strategical importance for US.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,885
- Likes
- 48,597
when US allowed the Pak-China nuclear deal to go thru, I think that was the last straw?? US proved their influence has diminished or they do not view India in any "strategic" sense??
adyonfire4
Regular Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2011
- Messages
- 50
- Likes
- 4
Well Said Sir Its A Great News to begin with but Now whats Imp would be to Maintain this Decision surely the USA would try to sell the f-16 or f-18 But clearly the Rafale can Win this Competition.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 20,311
- Likes
- 8,403
I was going to give my thoughts but this blogpost eased my burden and puts forth arguments with a level of insight and eloquence which I wouldn't have been able to.
India's decision to reject US fighter planes is strategic stupidity
New Delhi, it is reported, has shortlisted two European vendors for its long-drawn procurement of fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force. Now, military analysts can have endless debates and even objective opinions on which among the American, European and Russian aircraft is technically superior and better suits the stated requirements of the IAF. Financial analysts can have similar debates and objective opinions on which is the cheapest or the best value for money. These opinions may or may not converge. But when you are buying 126 planes worth more than $11 billion dollars, you are essentially making a geostrategic decision, not a narrow technical/financial one.
The UPA government's decision to reject both American proposals, of the F-16 and F/A-18, demonstrates either a poor appreciation of the geostrategic aspect or worse, indicative of a lingering anti-American mindset. While the US ambassador has resigned, whether or not it will prove to be a setback for India-US relations remains to be seen. Damaging the careers of pro-India American officials is a silly thing to do.
This move will most certainly reduce India's geopolitical leverage with the US military-industrial complex, at a time when India needs it most. From the unfolding dynamics in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, to the changing balance of power in East Asia, to UN Security Council reform, to a number of geoeconomic issues, the United States can take positions that can have long-lasting consequences for India's interests. Is the United States more likely to be sympathetic to India's interests after a $11 billion contract—which means much needed jobs for the US economy —is awarded to someone else? Long used to complaining that the United States doesn't care for India's interests, will awarding the contract to some European firms help change the situation?
The argument that the European bids were 'technically' superior are not entirely credible either, for two reasons. First, at sufficiently high levels of technology, the difference between the planes on offer is marginal. To suggest that the European models are vastly superior defies logic, because some of the world's most powerful air forces are flying F-16s, leave along F/A-18s. Second, the notion that combat requirements can be perfectly defined at the time of procurement is false. It is the combination of man and machine that wins battles. The focus on machines ignores the reality that much swings on the man flying it. Moreover, given the nuclear deterrence relationships obtaining in the subcontinent and across the Himalayas, those planes might never see an aircraft-to-aircraft dogfight in their lifetimes. For other tasks like air support for ground operations, the specifications are even lower.
What about those alphabet soup agreements and fine-print contracts that the US insists that India sign, that might prevent the planes from being used when needed? Those who make these arguments do not understand what war means. War means all bets are off, and India will do whatever necessary to protect its interests. While the existence of those agreements was a usual bargaining chip for India, to get a discount, to believe that such arguments will hamstring India's military options is naivete. The government might not need to spell this out in public, but it should know it.
It has been this blog's argument that in the contemporary geopolitical environment, India's interests are best served by being a swing power, holding the balance between the United States and China. It must enjoy better relations with each of them than they have with each other. It must also have the credible capacity to give pleasure and inflict pain. In this context, buying fighter planes from the United States would have been an excellent move.
And who has New Delhi shortlisted instead? European companies. The European Union is a bit player in the international system, zealously safeguarding its own legacy position at the United Nations Security Council, the G-20, the World Bank, IMF and other places, against India. Italy is engaged in process of blocking India's UNSC candidature. An order placed with Eurofighter or Rafael isn't going to change its plans. EU busybodies can be found everywhere from inviting Kashmiri separatists to speak, to attending court hearings of Binayak Sen. Some small EU states almost wrecked the India-specific waiver that the United States was obtaining at the Nuclear Supplier's Group. When it's crunch time in Afghanistan, does anyone in New Delhi think that the EU will or can make any move that'll safeguard India's interests? Why is India being gratuitously generous to Europe when there is much to gain from giving the contract to the United States?
Yes, France, Britain and Germany are countries that India must engage. There are ways to allow them to benefit from India's growth process—from power projects to manufacturing to services. The fighter aircraft contract need not be awarded to European firms, because it has higher strategic opportunity costs.
The downshot is that the UPA government has squandered a unique opportunity to gain leverage in Washington at a crucial time when closer ties are in India's interests. It first took way too long to decide, dragging the procurement process even China built its own new fighter plane. It now decided to pick two vendors who might well sell a technically superior and cheaper product, but do no more than that. To put it mildly, this is strategic stupidity.
http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2011/04/28/how-to-lose-friends-and-alienate-people-3/
How to lose friends and alienate people
India's decision to reject US fighter planes is strategic stupidity
New Delhi, it is reported, has shortlisted two European vendors for its long-drawn procurement of fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force. Now, military analysts can have endless debates and even objective opinions on which among the American, European and Russian aircraft is technically superior and better suits the stated requirements of the IAF. Financial analysts can have similar debates and objective opinions on which is the cheapest or the best value for money. These opinions may or may not converge. But when you are buying 126 planes worth more than $11 billion dollars, you are essentially making a geostrategic decision, not a narrow technical/financial one.
The UPA government's decision to reject both American proposals, of the F-16 and F/A-18, demonstrates either a poor appreciation of the geostrategic aspect or worse, indicative of a lingering anti-American mindset. While the US ambassador has resigned, whether or not it will prove to be a setback for India-US relations remains to be seen. Damaging the careers of pro-India American officials is a silly thing to do.
This move will most certainly reduce India's geopolitical leverage with the US military-industrial complex, at a time when India needs it most. From the unfolding dynamics in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, to the changing balance of power in East Asia, to UN Security Council reform, to a number of geoeconomic issues, the United States can take positions that can have long-lasting consequences for India's interests. Is the United States more likely to be sympathetic to India's interests after a $11 billion contract—which means much needed jobs for the US economy —is awarded to someone else? Long used to complaining that the United States doesn't care for India's interests, will awarding the contract to some European firms help change the situation?
The argument that the European bids were 'technically' superior are not entirely credible either, for two reasons. First, at sufficiently high levels of technology, the difference between the planes on offer is marginal. To suggest that the European models are vastly superior defies logic, because some of the world's most powerful air forces are flying F-16s, leave along F/A-18s. Second, the notion that combat requirements can be perfectly defined at the time of procurement is false. It is the combination of man and machine that wins battles. The focus on machines ignores the reality that much swings on the man flying it. Moreover, given the nuclear deterrence relationships obtaining in the subcontinent and across the Himalayas, those planes might never see an aircraft-to-aircraft dogfight in their lifetimes. For other tasks like air support for ground operations, the specifications are even lower.
What about those alphabet soup agreements and fine-print contracts that the US insists that India sign, that might prevent the planes from being used when needed? Those who make these arguments do not understand what war means. War means all bets are off, and India will do whatever necessary to protect its interests. While the existence of those agreements was a usual bargaining chip for India, to get a discount, to believe that such arguments will hamstring India's military options is naivete. The government might not need to spell this out in public, but it should know it.
It has been this blog's argument that in the contemporary geopolitical environment, India's interests are best served by being a swing power, holding the balance between the United States and China. It must enjoy better relations with each of them than they have with each other. It must also have the credible capacity to give pleasure and inflict pain. In this context, buying fighter planes from the United States would have been an excellent move.
And who has New Delhi shortlisted instead? European companies. The European Union is a bit player in the international system, zealously safeguarding its own legacy position at the United Nations Security Council, the G-20, the World Bank, IMF and other places, against India. Italy is engaged in process of blocking India's UNSC candidature. An order placed with Eurofighter or Rafael isn't going to change its plans. EU busybodies can be found everywhere from inviting Kashmiri separatists to speak, to attending court hearings of Binayak Sen. Some small EU states almost wrecked the India-specific waiver that the United States was obtaining at the Nuclear Supplier's Group. When it's crunch time in Afghanistan, does anyone in New Delhi think that the EU will or can make any move that'll safeguard India's interests? Why is India being gratuitously generous to Europe when there is much to gain from giving the contract to the United States?
Yes, France, Britain and Germany are countries that India must engage. There are ways to allow them to benefit from India's growth process—from power projects to manufacturing to services. The fighter aircraft contract need not be awarded to European firms, because it has higher strategic opportunity costs.
The downshot is that the UPA government has squandered a unique opportunity to gain leverage in Washington at a crucial time when closer ties are in India's interests. It first took way too long to decide, dragging the procurement process even China built its own new fighter plane. It now decided to pick two vendors who might well sell a technically superior and cheaper product, but do no more than that. To put it mildly, this is strategic stupidity.
http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2011/04/28/how-to-lose-friends-and-alienate-people-3/
adyonfire4
Regular Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2011
- Messages
- 50
- Likes
- 4
Although technologically the rafale may emerge as winner but politically EF Typhoon may get the deal but the EF Typhoon is not bad at all even if selected on technological grounds and not political.Yeepee!! IAF rocks we would see that photo of SU-30 MKI and EF Typhoon together in the sky.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
Bang on Singh. Exactly my thoughts. It just didn't make sense this decision. From day one I thought it was always going to be decided on geo political lines more than anything else as most fighters on offer are good in their own right. But what mattered was what else it got to the table. In an effort to not look pro US or an ally even, the govt has probably made the wrong choice. India sure has lost a great op at the wrong time when we need to get the US firmly on our side while China rises.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 20,311
- Likes
- 8,403
It was IAF's duty to select the best craft but it was GOI's duty to select the most "strategically beneficial" craft.
- Status
