JimmyJFurther proof was Kargil – where despite Pakistan’s clear provocation (although no different to Indias incursion into Siachin earlier) – India was at great pains to stress that it would under no circumstances go over the border into Pak territory.
Though this is not a strategic dicussion forum, this one incident was a big game changer in the South Asia politics as far as the World was considered.
Till Kargil, India and Pakistan was a zero sum game for the entire world. Even in the case of the nuclear explosions.
The fact is India played the best [sorry, but it is a reality] politics by proving to the world that it is not attacking any country and all its actions are to flush out any insurgents/foriegn (ofcourse it immediately means Pakistan troops) forces who have occupied her territories (Kargil). In effect it created a picture that Pakistan was the aggresor and the reason for the current instability in Pakistan. Unfortunately the Pakistan Army/ Mushraff played into the hands of the Indians.
And after this incident it was no longer a zero sum game for the world in south asia and thats what the trophy India won while at great pains to stress that it would under no circumstances go over the border into Pak territory. Let me add to it also that the economic rise also added to eliminating the zero sum game but well everything coincided as if like a well orchestrated music.
JimmyJI do not think India is the peaceloving nation in the neighbourhood. Every neighbour has some “situations” with it. The problem is that th eIndian politicians need the “superpower” title and if that means instability then they take that for granted. The main problem between India and Pakistan is that Kashmir issue is not solved. It was part of Pakistan but India did not agree with it. Now India is not willing to settle the dispute so the whole arms race will go on till it is settled. About restraint of the Indian government. 🙂 I do have to smile. They were already talking about Pakistan and taking punitive actions. They even sended heavily armed MKI to show muscles. I do not think that it shows restraint. It is like shooting down unarmed trainer plane cause it “crossed” accroding them in a swamp area. I think it shows cowboy mentallity. It was unreal to see how Indians were stealing pars to show them ito the press. Inhumane and certainly disrespectful to the many aviators that were killed.
Your feelings are quite right, I think many Indians would feel the same, but about China, that it is showing a super power mentality and the Cubans would have felt the same about Americans……Basically speaking human psychology 🙂
JimmyJPut simply – Pakistan’s stated doctrine is ‘minimum credible detterence’ so it should have no offensive designs (and with good reason) — India war etc.
CAT1, would Minimum Credible Deterrence (MCD) against a nuclear attack or a conventional attack. There were a few articles which stated that the nuclear posture of Pakistan is an active one, meaning Pakistan would go ahead and use a Nuke first ie a first use policy which I doubt can be called as an MCD in its usual term.
JimmyJFireBug 😎
JimmyJThis topic has been discussed over and over again on the whole Defence forums but still popups up again, but very unfortunately from the scratch. If there are any further contribution to the already mentioned points through these years and years it should really be welcomed. But otherwise for people visting this forum on a regular basis this is back to zero situation.
Googling and researching are not a very bad idea, be it on any topic. And it is a good habit to do on either side of the debate.
But then it can only be requested and I am not a moderator.;)
For people who crticize IAF for requirement changes
—In no part of the world nor in my house will requirement keep constant for a long period of time, especially 10 years.
For DRDO bashers
—-Come on, they started from virtual zero and reached till here. If IAF can support them, be a little patient to see better results coming out in the near future.
For people who thinks nationalist jingos are here
—-Ever seen what happens when a nation starts believing in itself. The previous previous generation in the west have witnessed this during the space era. Unfortunately I don’t know how many of you might have witnessed/felt it.
JimmyJRimmer, the support extended to LCA by IAF and Arjun by IA are beyond comparison. I will find out more but for now this.
Check out this link
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/File-Minister-hints-at-sabotage-in-Arjun-tank-trials/articleshow/2980896.cms
Got one more
JimmyJI think “successful” will probably be defined as induction into teh air force in signifcant numbers. The IAF has 800+ combat aircraft and ordered 40 LCA so far. I am sure we can agree we still need to wait to see if this is a “success”…
Even if it doesn’t comes to say 400+ or even 200+ it can still be a success, for laying a base from which new fighters can be designed. There are many research and development projects conducted across the world though not products produced in mass has been termed as the pillar for future.
Wouldn’t that too a success? Or should all the credit go to the reserach teams down the line & time while the current one takes all the criticism?
JMT
JimmyJThere are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. —- Donald Rumsfeld
Yep, thats all I can quote right now on this comparison on Gripen and LCA. Mass production and usage will bring out all the good and bad of any product.
Let the first batch of LCA come out and when Mk2 is realized, it would be in a better position to compete with other fighters of its class.
IN have send an RFI as per the current trend in the Indian Defece deals and may have nothing to do with LCA at all. Look at the MMRCA, would anyone be able to say that it is because of lack of confidence in LCA that MMRCA was inducted by IAF, if a twin engined fighter gets selected. It would inturn prove that IAF is very much confident about LCA. IOC comes in December and the selection process trials for MMRCA ends some where next year, is that a pure coincidence, definitely not.
JimmyJIs there any chance of a split order ? Especially with respect to the view that the Mirage 2000 may be replaced by the MRCA as well.
IAF has stated in more than one occasion that there is not going to be any split deal. Economic and logistics sense would be against it. The more you produce/procure the same product the price of the product comes down as there is a development cost & infrastructure setup cost [almost a constant] involved which will get split across the total airframes. IAF already have a wide range of aircraft in its stable and adding two more lines would be the last decision it want at this time. Managing the supply chains is always a nightmare.
JimmyJOne of the key things the IAF will expect from the MRCA is to add/upgrade items on it of its own volition. This is something they are very serious about, and one of the reasons why the additional Mission computers were added to the MKI.
Spares – most of the ones (mandatory spares) which account for day to day ops – are expected to be built in India. Thats the most basic reason behind the TOT clause, which 99% of the articles ignore, being focused on things like magic technology etc.
Coming back to upgrades, what the IAF is doing with the MKI points to what it expects from the MRCA as well. It has added the Litening2, EL/OP Radar pod, other new munitions types, and the MKI is also acting as the trials testbed & initial user of the in development Astra BVRAAM. There are several other systems also noted to have been evaluated for the MKI.
The same approach will be taken for whichever MRCA is chosen.
Teer, but it also is a fact that its the Russian circumstances at the time of MKI purchase, the low cost of the Su30 and the favorable attitude of the Russians which enabled the creation of MKI.
I do not think the French would have done it. Nor the Americans. The development cost they would ask over the base configuration would itself have made it unviable, which I believe is the case even right now.
I think you made me add Mig-35 as it would allow a highly customizable option as reason to include along with EF and Gripen NG to make it to the finals.
But I am still unconvinced with the Teens, Boeing/Lockheed need to come up with a good future plan which can give IAF a good comfort level w.r.t upgrades. The future upgrade cost of Rafale takes it out of my list. Thanks to Dassault.
JimmyJIndia is upgrading its Jaguars and Mig 27s locally. It is very much possible that in 30-40 years time (long before it in fact) India will have the ability to upgrade the MRCA birds locally. It is very probably that the production lines of all the aircraft in the MRCA competition will have ended in that time frame. Yes some of the newer designs will be in service with their home countries, but that may amount for nothing in terms of upgrade costs as we are seeing with the Mirage 2000 upgrade deal.
Rather than the cost, its the upgrade itself that need to be looked at first and then the cost.
If i am not wrong, US did not allow Israel to use Israel radar on the Teens. which is what bothers.
Yes I totally accept the fact that 40 years is a real long time and it may happen that IAF may get more funds that the MMRCA may be replaced by then superior aircrafts. It may also go the reverse.
The Mirage 2000 issue too is valid in the scenario. Which makes me wonder if EF2000/Gripen NG will end up as the ideal choice. EF consortium seems to want a lower upgrade cost (Just my understanding). Atleast there won’t be a single country/vendor monopoly in deciding the furture upgrade options. And if India agrees to join the consortium, it gets a say in it too.
Gripen NG is operated by smaller countries and I do not think they will act the way Dassault did for Mirage 2000 as the cost need to be kept low for further upgrades/purchases for these operators.
The way I wrote it makes me feel that its gonna be a EF vs Gripen unless Lockheed/Boeing comes up with a proper upgrade plan, including option for India to develop the subsystems.
JimmyJPlease help me understand this.
IAF says that MMRCA is to last for 30 to 40 years. That may be true considering the fact that IAF extracts even the last drop of life out of an aircraft considering the Mig 21 saga.
So how come F-16, F-18, Mig-35 are running high in this contest?
Russsians may continue to support the Mig just like the Mig 21 upgrades. Gripen NG, EF, Rafale may well be there for another 30 years in its developers stable
But what about the Teens. Is US going to fund further upgrades of F-16 and F-18, say 15 years down the time? We are talking about 40 years, with the last upgrade around 35 years from now.
JimmyJSome time back I had read some reports which stated that unit cost for early batches of F35 will be much higher, but once the production stabilizes the unit cost will decrease a lot. If that is true, Britain is just playing the waiting game…
Also this would probably be a gimmick, showing the public that the government is spending less in recession time and caring more for the economic situation. There is a perception difference between a single deal/purchase of 20 billion dollar and two/four purchases of 10/5 billion separated by 3 to 5 years. [OT: :p If this is a real sincere effort would the government offer the carrier to India at the production cost…Couldn’t help the thought :diablo:]
And incase of any emergency situation, the US STOVL F35s may operate of this new carrier decks
JimmyJHello Rajan,
Are those figures of RCS for aircraft with payload/weapons on their pylons or clean configuration?
Ante, thanks a lot for the link, without you I would never have found the info on it 🙂
Thank you,
Jimmy
JimmyJWell IN is thinking about getting catapults(EMALS rather) for future carriers now. That may change things.
Hi Ante,
Is there any article on this? I tried googling, but could not find any.
Thanks
Jimmy
Sign In
