Know Your 'Rafale'

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[sukhish]

it seems rafale is 22% to 25% cheaper than the typhoon. typhoon cost would have exceed by atleast 25000( $5 billion ) crore . looks like all the previous reports of typhoon being very cost competitive were just outright bogus. wonder who wrote those colums. also the deal is going strictly as per the contract. it seems each item of the ToT would be negotiated hard.

IAF fighter deal: Rafale much cheaper than Typhoon; govt rules out review - The Times of India

 

[Armand2REP]

GoI rules out review, that ends any hopes of retard Cameron.

 

[arundo]

GoI rules out review, that ends any hopes of retard Cameron.

That's no surprise. Why should they reconsider their decision? Both contenders were perfectly informed about the factors that would finally be decisive. Right from the start it was no secret, that the final decision would be based on costs.

Rafale was shortlisted for its performance after having passed one of the hardest technical evaluations ever, last year. India therefore considers that Rafale meets the technical and operational requirements and we should assume that India has carefully considered and thus knows best what it needs. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to claim better (proven or not proven) performance, since this is not the question at that stage of the selection procedure.

Brits should stop their patronizing attitude and stop explaining to India, what it needs. It seems that they are still considering India as their backyard and zone of influence.

 

[pmaitra]

Funny: Frenchman MCDuguesclin debating British TheBoggart till a third person, buzzard10, comes to end the impasse:

MCDuguesclin: they had 5 years to make their calculs, the discussions will concern the intendance

TheBoggart: "they had 5 years to make their calculs, the discussions will concern the intendance "

Spend a little more time learning English before you come here to spread your anti-British bile.

MCDuguesclin: who cares !

TheBoggart: You, apparently.

MCDuguesclin: silly

buzzard10: Stop it, both of you.

@ The Telegraph, UK

 

[pmaitra]

Some sensible comments from The Telegraph, UK:

b1313536
1 week ago

There are all sorts of stupid arguments being presented here: aid, bribe, a few million dollars of cost difference, etc. Unfortunately none of that is true - not in this case.

There are 4 main reasons favoring Dassault:

1. Technology transfer: that the Eurofighter consortium would have never agreed to. Any technology given to India would invariably go to Russia because they are co-developing another 5th generation fighter jet Sukhoi-FGFA. Considering Eurofighter had some orders from US, this was always a no starter.

2. Expertise: Indian air-force already uses french build Mirage aircraft and so this would reduce training cost.

3. No supply to competitors: Dassault deal would come with a class that no such supply would be made to China or Pakistan. Eurofighter on the other hand was supplied to Saudi Arabia whose air force regularly trains with Pakistani air-force.

4. Political reasons: India's interests have recently not always aligned with EU's interests. And buying Eurofighter would have required negotiation with 4 different European nations. On that other hand, Dassault was clearly struggling financially, and so is Sarkozy politically. This gives India better negotiation hand.

Btw, Indian parliamentarians may be corrupt to the core, but the defense minister Antony is kind of known for his integrity (surprising since he belongs to Congress, the most corrupt party in India). I am not sure if they could have afforded to allow bribes considering the amount of fire the Indian govt. has come from recently because of so many corruption case exposures.

remindmelater
1 week ago

You overlooked a few things.
1. Germany made the first offerings to India with the Typhoon.
2. India wanted the Naval variant of Typhoon.
3. Rafale is a Naval variant whereas Typhoon is not although only for lack of funding.
4. Rafale is cheaper including the "tail-hook" variety.

emilyrose
1 week ago

Why are people surprised? India has it's own taxpayers and voters to worry about.

From their point of view, the British bid cost £8.6bn, offset by £250million in aid. But the French bid is just £7bn, offset by France's £18million in aid. So the French bid is better for their taxpayers.

Remember in NET terms the money is flowing from from India to Europe - it's not flowing from Europe to India.

If they'd ignored their bidding rules and awarded a contract that was not in their taxpayers interests, you can bet that their voters would be jumping up and down asking why a poor country like theirs was subsidizing the Land of Half-Witted Etonians.

Of course we're not the Land of Half-Witted Etonians - we just give that impression thanks to our Unelected Govt of Fools who genuinely think that "aid" is a euphemism for "bribe" and that all you have to do to get lucrative contracts is grease the palms of a few fakirs and they'll happily give you all their money, and no taxpayers or voters would be the wiser.

But that's not how it works in the 21st century.

If the aid was given just to win a contract, the minister responsible should resign. Either give because of genuine reasons, or don't give at all.

In this case we'd have been better off not giving at all, especially as anyone looking at the figures should have guessed that the contract would not be coming our way, and we can't afford foolish gestures like this.

 

[Yusuf]

NEW DELHI: It was the "substantially higher cost" of acquiring and operating the Eurofighter Typhoon that led to its ejection from the almost $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to supply 126 fighters to IAF.

"The French Rafale jet, the eventual winner, beat the Typhoon hollow both in terms of life cycle costs and direct acquisition costs. The entire MMRCA project cost would have gone up by around Rs 25,000 crore if Typhoon had been selected over Rafale," a top defence ministry source said on Thursday.

Given all this, MoD has ruled out the possibility of "any comeback" by Typhoon despite carping by the four nations (UK, Germany, Spain and Italy) backing it, and will begin "exclusive and extensive negotiations" with Rafale-manufacturer Dassault Aviation next week. "The actual contract for the complex project should be ready for inking by September-October," said a source.

British PM David Cameron may have vowed to "encourage" India to reconsider its decision to go in for Rafale, instead of the EADS-manufactured Typhoon, in the largest "open-tender" military aviation deal going around the globe. But that is highly unlikely to happen.

"The fact is that the cost deferential between Typhoon and Rafale was very high... it would cost India around 22% to 25% more if the former had been selected. No government can agree to so much extra," the source said.

Both Rafale and Typhoon had been found "compliant" on all the 643-660 technical parameters laid down to meet specific operational requirements of India, after gruelling field trials by IAF test pilots spread over two years.

The other four jets -- the American F/A-18 'Super Hornet' and F-16 'Super Viper', the Russian MiG-35 and Swedish Gripen - were weeded out from the hotly-contested race last year since they did not meet all the "test points".

"We went by the book, first in the extensive technical evaluation and now in the meticulous commercial evaluation, without any external factors coming into play," said the source.

For one, the "life cycle cost" of operating the Typhoon over a 40-year period, with 6,000 hours of flying, was found to be "higher" than Rafale after extensive calculations of flight costs, spares, maintenance and the like. "The life cycle costs were actually the tool to determine who was L-1 (lowest bidder)," he said.

For another, the difference in the 'direct acquisition cost', which will actually be used to ink the contract, was even bigger. "The Typhoon's commercial bid was way too high. Rafale was the clear L-1 in both life cycle as well as direct acquisition costs," he added.

Dassault will now have to submit a detailed project report on the transfer of technology (ToT) to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). While the first 18 jets will come in "fly-away condition'' from France from mid-2015 onwards, the rest 108 fighters will subsequently be manufactured under licence by HAL over six years.

"We will negotiate each and every element in the complex project with the French. Payments, as also the 50% offsets specified in the contract, will be spread over 11 to 13 years," he said.

The first jet built in HAL is expected to roll out by 2017-2018. Thereafter, HAL will deliver six jets per year, which will go up to 20 per year later. "HAL will achieve 85% technology absorption by the end. Incidentally, Typhoon's cost of ToT was also very high," he said.

This "mother" of all defence deals will later become the "granny", as reported by TOI earlier, since India will in all probability go in for another 63 fighters after the first 126 jets.

IAF is looking at these 126 new jets, apart from the ongoing progressive induction of 272 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for around $12 billion, to stem its fast-eroding combat edge against Pakistan and China. IAF has already identified Ambala and Jodhpur airbases in the western sector, followed by Hashimara in the eastern sector, to house the first MMRCA squadrons.

India is now finalizing details of the stealth Indo-Russian FGFA (fifth-generation fighter aircraft) to be built in the coming decades. IAF hopes to begin inducting the first lot of the 250 to 300 FGFA from 2020 onwards, which rough calculations show will eventually cost India around $35 billion.

The Times of India on Mobile

 

[JAISWAL]

chances for Typhoon dimminished more as Source:- IAF fighter deal: Rafale much cheaper than Typhoon; govt rules out review - The Times of India
++
IAF fighter deal: Rafale much cheaper than Typhoon; govt rules out review
NEW DELHI: It was the "substantially higher cost"
of acquiring and operating the Eurofighter
Typhoon that led to its ejection from the almost
$20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat
aircraft) project to supply 126 fighters to IAF.
"The French Rafale jet, the eventual winner, beat
the Typhoon hollow both in terms of life cycle
costs and direct acquisition costs. The entire
MMRCA project cost would have gone up by
around Rs 25,000 crore if Typhoon had been
selected over Rafale," a top defence ministry
source said on Thursday.
Given all this, MoD has ruled out the possibility of
"any comeback" by Typhoon despite carping by
the four nations (UK, Germany, Spain and Italy)
backing it, and will begin "exclusive and extensive
negotiations" with Rafale-manufacturer Dassault
Aviation next week. "The actual contract for the
complex project should be ready for inking by
September-October," said a source.
British PM David Cameron may have vowed to
"encourage" India to reconsider its decision to go
in for Rafale, instead of the EADS-manufactured
Typhoon, in the largest "open-tender" military
aviation deal going around the globe. But that is
highly unlikely to happen.
"The fact is that the cost deferential between
Typhoon and Rafale was very high... it would
cost India around 22% to 25% more if the former
had been selected. No government can agree to
so much extra," the source said.
Both Rafale and Typhoon had been found
"compliant" on all the 643-660 technical
parameters laid down to meet specific operational
requirements of India, after gruelling field trials by
IAF test pilots spread over two years.
The other four jets -- the American F/A-18 'Super
Hornet' and F-16 'Super Viper', the Russian
MiG-35 and Swedish Gripen - were weeded out
from the hotly-contested race last year since they
did not meet all the "test points".
"We went by the book, first in the extensive
technical evaluation and now in the meticulous
commercial evaluation, without any external
factors coming into play," said the source.
For one, the "life cycle cost" of operating the
Typhoon over a 40-year period, with 6,000
hours of flying, was found to be "higher" than
Rafale after extensive calculations of flight costs,
spares, maintenance and the like. "The life cycle
costs were actually the tool to determine who
was L-1 (lowest bidder)," he said.
For another, the difference in the 'direct
acquisition cost', which will actually be used to ink
the contract, was even bigger. "The Typhoon's
commercial bid was way too high. Rafale was the
clear L-1 in both life cycle as well as direct
acquisition costs," he added.
Dassault will now have to submit a detailed
project report on the transfer of technology (ToT)
to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). While the
first 18 jets will come in "fly-away condition''
from France from mid-2015 onwards, the rest
108 fighters will subsequently be manufactured
under licence by HAL over six years.
"We will negotiate each and every element in the
complex project with the French. Payments, as
also the 50% offsets specified in the contract, will
be spread over 11 to 13 years," he said.
The first jet built in HAL is expected to roll out by
2017-2018. Thereafter, HAL will deliver six jets per
year, which will go up to 20 per year later. "HAL
will achieve 85% technology absorption by the
end. Incidentally, Typhoon's cost of ToT was also
very high," he said.
This "mother" of all defence deals will later
become the "granny", as reported by TOI earlier,
since India will in all probability go in for another
63 fighters after the first 126 jets.
IAF is looking at these 126 new jets, apart from
the ongoing progressive induction of 272
Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for
around $12 billion, to stem its fast-eroding
combat edge against Pakistan and China. IAF has
already identified Ambala and Jodhpur airbases in
the western sector, followed by Hashimara in the
eastern sector, to house the first MMRCA
squadrons.
India is now finalizing details of the stealth Indo-
Russian FGFA (fifth-generation fighter aircraft) to
be built in the coming decades. IAF hopes to
begin inducting the first lot of the 250 to 300
FGFA from 2020 onwards, which rough
calculations show will eventually cost India
around $35 billion

 

[JAISWAL]

Flying into rough weather - The Times of India
++
Flying into rough weather
.
India's long and convoluted search for a new
fighter plane - a medium multi-role combat
aircraft (MMRCA) - has entered its final stage. New
Delhi has just announced that the Rafale, built by
Dassault Aviation of France, has been chosen to
meet the Indian Air Force's (IAF) requirement.
Only price negotiation now remains.
The Rafale had been shortlisted along with the
Eurofighter Typhoon from a field that originally
included four more jets: the US-built F-16 and
F-18, the Russian MiG-35 and the Swedish JAS 39
Gripen. But though the fight over the selection is
over, questions about the wisdom of New Delhi's
choice are unlikely to end any time soon.
Commenting on the MMRCA decision, a former
IAF officer proudly stated that this was probably
the first decision that was made purely on
technical grounds. If accurate, this reveals serious
strategic shortsightedness. While the government
should have received inputs from the IAF, such a
decision should not have been taken on purely
technical grounds. For India's decision-makers,
limiting themselves to technical specifications was
a risk-free option, but that reveals more about the
state of strategic decision-making in Delhi than the
wisdom of the choice they made.
Ideally, the Indian decision should have been
guided by a strategy that balances reducing
danger and broadening opportunity. Accordingly,
the question for New Delhi should have been
how to use this lucrative deal to beef up India's
strategic options. Thus, it is probably a strategic
blunder to narrowly focus on technical
specifications and capabilities alone, as many
proponents of the IAF's choice have done.
A decision of this magnitude should have been
filtered through three key parameters: strategic,
operational and tactical. A pragmatic strategy
would have been to analyse the risk and
opportunity through these three parameters and
then make the final decision about which of the
fighter plane choices would have best advanced
Indian security. In strategic and geopolitical
terms, France can provide little help to India in
either Asia or in the global theatre. While France
has always been a well-wisher, it has never had
much capacity to help India. For example, though
France wanted to sell India nuclear reactors, it
could do little to change the nuclear non-
proliferation rules that prevented it from doing so.
It took Washington to change these rules to
India's benefit.
Additionally, numbers (of aircraft India could
acquire) and cost should have been factored in.
Buying fewer but more expensive aircraft might
make some fighter jocks happy, but having
greater numbers might be more relevant to a
country like India which faces a two-front threat
from China and Pakistan. It was often argued in
the MMRCA debate that maintaining air superiority
required technological superiority, range and
payload but an equally important consideration is
that of numbers.
Numerical superiority in India's regional context is
of particular significance given that the current
strength of India's fighter jets is only around 600,
and unless replenished, it will reach critically low
numbers soon. Meanwhile, both Beijing and
Islamabad have been augmenting their fighter
fleets. India could have procured far greater
numbers of fighters with the US or Russian
option.
Though the probability of a two-front war is low,
no pragmatic Indian strategic decision-maker
should rule it out. Indeed, it is precisely for this
reason that the Indian army is raising new forces
to deploy on the China border. It is unclear if the
technological superiority of the Rafale is so great
as to compensate for the smaller numbers that
India will have to settle for.
Cost should have also had an important role in
the MMRCA decision. India's decision to go for
Rafale is going to cost New Delhi around $20
billion, if not more. Opting for a Russian or US jet
would have been far cheaper. The Russian option
would have been the least expensive whereas the
American fighters would have been somewhere
in the middle with the European jets being the
most expensive. In overall terms, the American
F-18s would have been the best given that they
(as well as the F-16s) came with the second-
generation AESA radars.
Lastly, the most important consideration should
have been the strategic benefits that accrue to
India through this deal. Indian decision-makers
should have been mindful of the fact that this deal
was as much about making strategic investments
in a relationship as simply buying fighters. India
does not enjoy a benign neighbourhood, and
these security needs are important. But India also
needs to balance these with its requirements as a
rising power, which means having capable
friends. The MMRCA deal was a great opportunity
to consolidate its strategic ties with either Russia
or the US, or even with both. Instead, New Delhi
has ended up antagonising both of them.
The standard response that India has signed
many other defence contracts with both Russia
and the US does not wash because this was a
very different and high-profile deal which was
closely watched around the world. Signing
smaller deals, even if they add up to significant
amounts, does not have the same weight as the
MMRCA deal. New Delhi needs to be more careful
in both understanding strategic moments and
being able to exploit them if it wants to sit at the
global high table.

 

[JAISWAL]

.This quote from this article http://m.timesofindia.com/india/IAF...ovt-rules-out-review/articleshow/11830845.cms is very intresting.
.
"The fact is that the cost deferential between Typhoon and Rafale was very high... it would cost India around 22% to 25% more if the former had
been selected. No government can agree to so much extra," the source said...
.
...For one, the "life cycle cost" of operating the Typhoon over a 40-year period , with 6,000 hours of flying, was found to be "higher" than Rafale after extensive
calculations of flight costs, spares, maintenance and
the like. "The life cycle costs were actually the tool to determine who was L-1 (lowest bidder)," he said.
For another, the difference in the 'direct acquisition cost', which will actually be used to ink the contract, was even bigger. "The Typhoon's commercial bid was way too high. Rafale was the clear L-1 in both life cycle as well as direct acquisition costs,[/colour] " he
added...

-- this is the article
written by Peter Collins former RAF Wing Co.

 

[JAISWAL]

Landing Gear differences in the Rafale C (air force variant) and the Rafale M (naval variant)

++
Rafale C landing gear

++
Rafale M landing gear

++
Rafale B with Rafale M stationed together

 

[Yusuf]

Flying into rough weather - The Times of India
++
Flying into rough weather
.
India's long and convoluted search for a new
fighter plane - a medium multi-role combat
aircraft (MMRCA) - has entered its final stage. New
Delhi has just announced that the Rafale, built by
Dassault Aviation of France, has been chosen to
meet the Indian Air Force's (IAF) requirement.
Only price negotiation now remains.
The Rafale had been shortlisted along with the
Eurofighter Typhoon from a field that originally
included four more jets: the US-built F-16 and
F-18, the Russian MiG-35 and the Swedish JAS 39
Gripen. But though the fight over the selection is
over, questions about the wisdom of New Delhi's
choice are unlikely to end any time soon.
Commenting on the MMRCA decision, a former
IAF officer proudly stated that this was probably
the first decision that was made purely on
technical grounds. If accurate, this reveals serious
strategic shortsightedness. While the government
should have received inputs from the IAF, such a
decision should not have been taken on purely
technical grounds. For India's decision-makers,
limiting themselves to technical specifications was
a risk-free option, but that reveals more about the
state of strategic decision-making in Delhi than the
wisdom of the choice they made.
Ideally, the Indian decision should have been
guided by a strategy that balances reducing
danger and broadening opportunity. Accordingly,
the question for New Delhi should have been
how to use this lucrative deal to beef up India's
strategic options. Thus, it is probably a strategic
blunder to narrowly focus on technical
specifications and capabilities alone, as many
proponents of the IAF's choice have done.
A decision of this magnitude should have been
filtered through three key parameters: strategic,
operational and tactical. A pragmatic strategy
would have been to analyse the risk and
opportunity through these three parameters and
then make the final decision about which of the
fighter plane choices would have best advanced
Indian security. In strategic and geopolitical
terms, France can provide little help to India in
either Asia or in the global theatre. While France
has always been a well-wisher, it has never had
much capacity to help India. For example, though
France wanted to sell India nuclear reactors, it
could do little to change the nuclear non-
proliferation rules that prevented it from doing so.
It took Washington to change these rules to
India's benefit.
Additionally, numbers (of aircraft India could
acquire) and cost should have been factored in.
Buying fewer but more expensive aircraft might
make some fighter jocks happy, but having
greater numbers might be more relevant to a
country like India which faces a two-front threat
from China and Pakistan. It was often argued in
the MMRCA debate that maintaining air superiority
required technological superiority, range and
payload but an equally important consideration is
that of numbers.
Numerical superiority in India's regional context is
of particular significance given that the current
strength of India's fighter jets is only around 600,
and unless replenished, it will reach critically low
numbers soon. Meanwhile, both Beijing and
Islamabad have been augmenting their fighter
fleets. India could have procured far greater
numbers of fighters with the US or Russian
option.
Though the probability of a two-front war is low,
no pragmatic Indian strategic decision-maker
should rule it out. Indeed, it is precisely for this
reason that the Indian army is raising new forces
to deploy on the China border. It is unclear if the
technological superiority of the Rafale is so great
as to compensate for the smaller numbers that
India will have to settle for.
Cost should have also had an important role in
the MMRCA decision. India's decision to go for
Rafale is going to cost New Delhi around $20
billion, if not more. Opting for a Russian or US jet
would have been far cheaper. The Russian option
would have been the least expensive whereas the
American fighters would have been somewhere
in the middle with the European jets being the
most expensive. In overall terms, the American
F-18s would have been the best given that they
(as well as the F-16s) came with the second-
generation AESA radars.
Lastly, the most important consideration should
have been the strategic benefits that accrue to
India through this deal. Indian decision-makers
should have been mindful of the fact that this deal
was as much about making strategic investments
in a relationship as simply buying fighters. India
does not enjoy a benign neighbourhood, and
these security needs are important. But India also
needs to balance these with its requirements as a
rising power, which means having capable
friends. The MMRCA deal was a great opportunity
to consolidate its strategic ties with either Russia
or the US, or even with both. Instead, New Delhi
has ended up antagonising both of them.
The standard response that India has signed
many other defence contracts with both Russia
and the US does not wash because this was a
very different and high-profile deal which was
closely watched around the world. Signing
smaller deals, even if they add up to significant
amounts, does not have the same weight as the
MMRCA deal. New Delhi needs to be more careful
in both understanding strategic moments and
being able to exploit them if it wants to sit at the
global high table.

Exactly my thoughts from day one of the tender. Even while the flight testing and evaluation was going on, I thought somehow they would go for the F18 by FMS. For me the deal remains a strategic blunder (provided France and India ink the deal)

 

[SPIEZ]

Exactly my thoughts from day one of the tender. Even while the flight testing and evaluation was going on, I thought somehow they would go for the F18 by FMS. For me the deal remains a strategic blunder (provided France and India ink the deal)

I thought it was agreed that

• USA couldn't be a reliable supplier
• Signing of various end user monitoring contracts would throw spanners into the work
• ToT from USA would have been a burden
• AFAIK UK would follow along the lines of US foreign policy

 

[pmaitra]

Exactly my thoughts from day one of the tender. Even while the flight testing and evaluation was going on, I thought somehow they would go for the F18 by FMS. For me the deal remains a strategic blunder (provided France and India ink the deal)

But you are forgetting the sanction happy US. If there is war and we need spares and US refuses to supply the spares, those F-18s will be really expensive paperweights.

 

[Yusuf]

But you are forgetting the sanction happy US. If there is war and we need spares and US refuses to supply the spares, those F-18s will be really expensive paperweights.

This deal would have cemented Indo US relations and the past would not have repeated. I that is the reason, we should not have bought the Hercules, Poseidon and the C17.

 

[KS]

This deal would have cemented Indo US relations and the past would not have repeated.

You can never be sure of that with the US.

$20 billion and 174 fighters are too high a price to gamble your luck.

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Did you ever think that the US-Pak relationship (a relationship that made the US send its nuke powered aircraft carrier against us in wartime) would have come to this state today ?

India-US honeymoon will be over once we are in a position that threatens US hegemony...So while buying the top of the line,hitech maritime reco and transport aircraft makes sense, hedging our bets on their fighters is not wise.

 

[Yusuf]

You can never be sure of that with the US.

$20 billion and 174 fighters are too high a price to gamble your luck.

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Did you ever think that the US-Pak relationship (a relationship that made the US send its nuke powered aircraft carrier against us in wartime) would have come to this state today ?

India-US honeymoon will be over once we are in a position that threatens US hegemony...So while buying the top of the line,hitech maritime reco and transport aircraft makes sense, hedging our bets on their fighters is not wise.

Though keeping history in mind is a good idea, being stuck up with it is not. Comparing India with Pakistan is a great insult to India. India is not on the same strategic level for the US as Pakistan which is but a tissue paper. Remember it was a victory for Indian diplomacy and stature in the world when we got the nuke deal. We are not a banana republic.

 

[mayfair]

Flying into rough weather - The Times of India

This article perfectly demonstrates what is wrong with the Indian media. With the cream of talent being absorbed into IITs, Engineering and Medical Colleges, or moving into finance (MBA) or scientific research, many dregs like this author foray into journalism.

Talk about having a pea sized brain coupled with an narcissistic tendency to churn out verbose rubbish. Nowadays every wet behind the ears journo thinks him/herself to be the next Chanakya and believes scattering a few references to "strategic interests" is akin to composing arthashaastra

- No mention of PAK-FA and the nuclear submarine lease, Vikramaditya, increased orders for MKIs, Mig-29Ks, Mi-17s, frigates for IN
- No mention of nearly $10 billion worth of purchases of military systems (C-130J, C-17, P8i, possibly 22 Apaches) etc. from the US

These not strategic enough for the author? Since when are strategic interests solely defined by purchasing combat aircraft?

I could go on and on, but then that would be akin to bhains ke aage been bajaana

 

[The Messiah]

You can never be sure of that with the US.

$20 billion and 174 fighters are too high a price to gamble your luck.

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Did you ever think that the US-Pak relationship (a relationship that made the US send its nuke powered aircraft carrier against us in wartime) would have come to this state today ?

India-US honeymoon will be over once we are in a position that threatens US hegemony...So while buying the top of the line,hitech maritime reco and transport aircraft makes sense, hedging our bets on their fighters is not wise.

You know i had to read your post twice before hitting the like button to make sure what i was reading was not my imagination.

 

[Yusuf]

Mayfair, regardless of the other deals with the US, this deal was something which mattered a lot. See the European reaction.