zeroI doubt these will come cheap. The potential buyer will need reasonably deep pockets.
Probably French would want to buy them, refurbish and sell at higher cost.
zeroAllegations link killing of French engineers to defence deal
French magistrates investigating an attack in Pakistan blamed on Islamist militants that killed 11 French nationals in 2002 are looking into allegations it was linked to corrupt deals, lawyers for the victims’ families said.
A coach carrying French naval engineers and technicians was bombed as it left a hotel in Karachi in May 2002. The attack killed 14 people in total.
Pakistani authorities at first blamed Islamist militants and two men were sentenced to death for taking part in the attacks, but their convictions were overturned on appeal in 2003.
French magistrates Marc Trevidic and Yves Jannier told the victims’ families they were now investigating allegations the attack was orchestrated by unnamed Pakistani officials angry with France over the non-payment of bribes tied to a defence deal.
“The investigating magistrates told us that they believed this scenario was extremely credible,” one of the relatives’ lawyers, Olivier Morice, told reporters.
According to these allegations, some kickbacks ended up in the campaign funds of then Prime Minister Edouard Balladur, a rival of Jacques Chirac in the 1995 presidential election, a judicial source familiar with the matter told Reuters.
President Nicolas Sarkozy was Balladur’s campaign manager in the ballot and was also budget minister when the lucrative sales contract for the French Agosta submarines was signed.
He rejected on Friday the magistrates’ suspicions.
“Listen, this is ridiculous,” Sarkozy told reporters at a news conference after an EU summit in Brussels.
“This is grotesque … We have to respect the grief of the families. Who would ever believe such a tale?” he added.
Balladur also denied any knowledge of wrongdoing.
Asked about the allegation by French state television, Balladur said: “As far as I am aware, everything was completely above board. I have nothing more to say. If anyone has any proof, let them speak up.”
Lawyer Morice said the investigating magistrates had obtained a top secret internal memo in October 2008 from the state-owned shipbuilder which contained the allegations.
The memo, copies of which were shown on French media on Friday, says French and Pakistani officials connived to take bribes as part of the sale of the submarines to Pakistan.
It says France stopped paying the bribes after the 1995 election, won by Chirac, and that Pakistani officials kept asking for them for several years.
The allegation is that they eventually lost patience and organised in retaliation the attack on the bus full of French engineers, who were working on the Agosta submarine project.
Trevidic and Jannier cannot speak publicly about their investigation because the rules of their position forbid it.
zeroIRST can help. Hopefully a clear night sky.
zeroGiven the IAF largest threat, the PLAAF, the major operations for the IAF will require long range strike mission and air defence profiles, having a light fighter won’t really help here.
What about the minor operations? And what do you mean by air defence profiles? What is the range you are implying?
zeroNo, I’m not really claiming to know better than the IAF, I just don’t think they really require a light fighter in the class of the LCA. However, if that is what they want, who am I to argue, which is why I was discussing its relative merits and disadvantages, which you kindly pasted the link for in your post.
Fine, please let me know why IAF does not require a light fighter.
zeroYou are constantly hitting a glass window like a fly…IMHO the IAF doesn’t need a light fighter requirement.
Now I will quote you something you claimed the other day here
I’m sorry this is complete garbage. Who is in a better position to determine the air force requirements than the IAF itself? DRDO can claim all it likes, but if it can’t produce the goods according to what the IAF needs, then the IAF is left with little choice but to seek other sources.
so, now you claim that you know better than the IAF.
How about arguing within the limits on IAF requirements? And not typing blunders like “MiG-35 can fit the light aircraft role?”
zeroThe structure of your sentances are making less sense, even by your standards.
Let me make it clear, drop the LCA, induct the MiG-35MKI.
How does it fullfill IAF’s light fighter requirement. You are consistently dodging the question on how Mig-35 can replace LCA as a light fighter?
zeroWhile “other” aircraft have evolved into more potent paltforms, the Indians are left developing a MiG-21 replacement with 20 years catching up to do.
What it got to do with Light class LCA? How come your claim that Mig-35 can fill up LCA role? Or your claim m2K can fill up LCA role?
zeroThis proved my point.
How does that prove your point?
zeroYou really are in a mixup, I wasn’t referring to the mirage 2000 (M2K), but the LCA MK2 (MK2).
You have actually proved my point. Why waste money and recources on re-desiging the wheel, when “current” aircraft which have been improved can actually do a better job? Wasn’t the SU-30MKI a semi paper plane once? The same thing can be done with the MiG-29/35 at reduced cost and give an altogether better capability.
You got it wrong again. You should read this again “LCA was not supposed to be a direct copy of Mig-21. LCA was to mimic certain characteristics of Mig-21 while at the same time being a current generation plane.”
The first par is “LCA was not supposed to be a direct copy of Mig-21.”
The second part is ” LCA was to mimic certain characteristics of Mig-21″
The third part is ” while at the same time being a current generation plane.”
So, how come I have proved your point?
zeroMiG-35 is a semi paper plane? And the LCA and MK2 are not? If the LCA was intended to replace the MiG-21, why has it taken this long? Why is it still undergoing development?
M2k is a semi paper plane?
I haven’t made any claim on LCA induction, I am merely responding to your opinion that a semi paper plane MiG-35 can replace the need for a lighter plane.
LCA was not supposed to be a direct copy of Mig-21. LCA was to mimic certain characteristics of Mig-21 while at the same time being a current generation plane. While “other” current generation planes have evolved, LCA is still in the making stage. There is a huge difference. A catching up of 15-20 years technology generation.
zeroNo, but then I’m not claiming it has. I’m just saying these types of comparison are pointless unless you have reliable data. Perhaps you would be happier by reading the BR forums…
So, you are saying that your comment (given below) has no truth in it.
You could argue that the PAF has a higher attrition rate per 10,000 flying hours, but then the PAF has to work harder considering its lower number of aircraft. The IAF has numerical superiority, so is going to log more flying hours anyway.
zeroYou miunderstood my previous posts. I am in favour of dropping the LCA all together and a “light” fighter. Instead, the IAF should operate 2 major types, the SU-30MKI and the MiG-35, completely manufactured in India with customised avionics in line with the MKI. Considering the IAF experience with the MiG-29, the MiG-35 would be the most effective solution for a MMRCA.
Regarding the M2K, if this was sourced in the first place, there wouldn’t have been a need to develop the LCA, and in particular, to have its development drawn out to fulfill the ever demanding requirements of the IAF, not to mention the need to have a MMRCA contest
Thats not what IAf says. IAF says it wants light , medium and heavy fighters. Even if there is talk of commonality of systems, there is another section in IAF which wants diversity. MiG-29 is not a solution as IAF preferred M2K. While MiG-35 is a semi paper plane.
M2K sourcing had nothing to do with LCA development. M2K and LCA were purchased and developed independent of each others existence. LCA was needed to replace Mig-21 kind and not M2k/MiG-29 kind.
There is some degree of commanality that will go into LCA, MMRCA and MKI.
zeroHa Ha, you guys are such jokers. Why are you always so touchy when it comes to these rediculous comparisons. I didn’t deny anything, all I’m saying is that this comparison uses so many assumptions from an unrealiable source as the BR forums, that it becomes meaningless, no matter what kind of spin you put on it.
You could argue that the PAF has a higher attrition rate per 10,000 flying hours, but then the PAF has to work harder considering its lower number of aircraft. The IAF has numerical superiority, so is going to log more flying hours anyway.
Can you show us that PAF has higher flying hours than IAF?
zeroWell just a cursory comparison will tell you the M2K and LCA are 2 completly different fighters, you even solved it in your question, the LCA is a light fighter while the M2K is more a medium multi role aircraft, in the same league as the MiG-29, F-16 etc.
The LCA can carry 4000 kg external stores on 7 hardpoints compared to the 6500 kg on 9 hardpoints of the M2K.
How is it consistent with your earlier post?
Sounds like it was India’s mistake rather than Dassult’s, all the IAF requirements could have been met by the Mirage 2000 and there wouldn’t have been any need for the LCA fiasco. Instead, India is now having to fork out for not only the LCA, which is less capable than the Mirage 2K in the first place, but also an additional platform to make up for the LCAs shortcomings. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
If you compare your replies, you initially said that IAF should have gone with M2K and not bothered about LCA. Now you tell us that M2K and LCA are different class. I am little bit confused on your contrary statements.
Also your statement that MiG-35 can fill LCA weight class. You still have not replied to that.
Sign In
