My mistake for trying to drill some sense into Abhimanyu. I won’t waste any more time on this guy’s posts. Total and utter waste of time and effort.

I am not convinced this sounds like hogwash and pressure by certain organisations to push India into signing a deal that basically could hand over sovereignty.

India is not getting the best P-8I because the document isnt signed? Rubbish! if they are not getting the best tech is because they cant afford to pay for it or cant find it any where else in the world.

If after contract signing the US decided to downgrade Avionics on the P-8I and was still asking for the same amount then the person who signed and wrote the contract should be up for review and or removed from position.

Did the IN review the P-8I with the downgraded capability, if yes and it was good enough for the IN and better than anything else on the table then why sign the document? If it wasnt good enough and they needed the higher technology why did they buy the P-8I?

Its not rubbish. thats how US laws work and US companies have to follow them. I know for a fact that they are sticklers to the law as the firm I work for has had several issues with a US client due to these ITAR laws..if the company doesn’t sign all sorts of export control agreements then you are simply not going to be able to deal with US firms, at least not in aviation or defence. When dealing with European clients these never turn up at all simply because they are not forced to comply with something like an ITAR law. You won’t even believe it but even WW-2 equipment like a B-25 bomber is STILL covered by ITAR laws..that is how archaic some of these laws are and the US seriously needs to re-draft some of these laws.

I think the biggest issue is that US companies offer top-notch equipment but there are conditions that are imposed on their transfer, not by these companies, but by the US govt and its ITAR laws. We’ve seen that with the F-18, where Raytheon offered the APG-79, but ToT ? They are not so sure about that since it all depends on what the US Govt. agrees to..and we know exactly what that means..LM and Boeing bid to help ADA, but couldn’t get US Govt. licences and ended up delaying the consultancy itself till finally EADS stepped in..Its clear that the red tape and ancient laws on the US side are hindering business but we cannot hope that it will all go away and so just continue to purchase US equipment..Obama needs to look at these laws but he’s got more pressing concerns at hand so this will just need to be looked at later (God knows when)..

the Indian Armed services either were not made aware of the fact that some equipment wouldn’t be transferred unless certain agreements were signed (which is unlikely since US firms need US Govt. permission before offering sensitive equipment) or they were made to think (by the GoI) that such agreements would be in place by the time that they were to recieve the equipment. Considering how pro-US the Manmohan Singh govt. is, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had promised that in the past..So they went ahead and purchased these..

As it turns out, with the cooling down of relations after Obama came into power, these agreements are political hot potatoes that the UPA Govt. now doesn’t want to deal with and the ones to suffer will be the IN. Earlier with the 123 Agreement and the NSG waivers, there was enough momentum for the UPA to push these agreements through, but now they’d run in serious opposition..Anyway, with things being so dicey with agreements and so on, the most prudent decision on the part of the IAF would be to go with a European solution for the MRCA and one that has the LEAST bit of US content that requires US permission for ToT. When there are no other options available it may be ok to go with American weapons but if this situation arises and they’ve chosen an F-18 or F-16IN then they are only to be blamed.

This needs to also be considered in context with the recent letter by the Indian Army Chief to the Defence Ministry cautioning them about FMS deals citing the lack of spares and serviceability for the 12 Battlefield Surveillance Radars that they ordered from Raytheon.

With this news about down-graded equipment being supplied I think that the C-17 deal should be re-looked at very hard. If required, cancel the deal just to show the US that there is no way that India should pay top-notch prices for down-graded equipment. that will raise the heat in the US also to start amending ITAR laws because it’ll pull the C-17 assembly line closure date nearer by 1 year at least.

why just the Fennec and Ka-226t? there’s a plethora of light utility helicopters out there.. Polish PZL-4, EC 120 Colibri, etc

They either weren’t invited for the bids or else they failed at the initial stage..my guess is that the former is true.

any english-language articles that may back up such claims ?

To my knowledge, Gripen C was never a MRCA contender, but understanding of Gripen NG capabilities could be had through extrapolation, imagine thrust +10%,
range +30% or whatever.

It was one of the earliest contenders along with the Mirage-2000-5 Mk2, F-16 Block 50 and MiG-29M2. They brought it to a couple of Aero India shows as well alongwith simulators. This was in the early 2000s.

None of those contenders remain as is. As the program has been delayed, new procedures for offsets and life-cycle cost calculations included, new IAF ASRs laid down as well..the original MRCA radar requirements would’ve been satisfied by a non-AESA fighter but now it may become a handicap not to have one. The inclusion of the Boeing Super Hornet and the EADS Typhoon really tilted the balance. Other manufacturers realized that they would be out if they didn’t up their offers as well. Dassault withdrew the Mirage-2000-5 and offered the Rafale instead since the line had no orders and couldn’t be kept open economically any longer.. MiG withdrew the MiG-29M2 and offered the MiG-35 based more on the MiG-29K that was in development for the Indian Navy, and LM changed from the Block 50 to what they called a Block 70 (although basically an upgraded Block 60) and later in 2008, Saab offered the Gripen IN version of the Gripen NG instead of the C/D.

The above has already been discussed earlier (and surely you missed it like always) and is based on the book, “The Tejas Story”, by AM P. Rajkumar. I had posted excerpts of a speech by Dr. Abdul Kalam, in which he had said that in 1992, the ADA team had simultaneously approached 4 companies for FBW consultancy. Among them were the Dassault (digital-analog hybrid), LM (full quad digi FBW), and two others (I think BAe was also one of them). They chose LM because they wanted a full-digi FBW and also because it was proven on the F-16 — whereas Rafale was still testing in 1992.

Don’t make remarks like “surely you missed it like always”. Its not for nothing that people’s opinion of you is so abysmal on this forum as well as BRF from where you were kicked out.

Anyway, on the topic, the choice for an all-digital FBW was NOT made by the IAF as you claim. it was made by the ADA team. stop spreading lies about the IAF being responsible for the digital FBW on the Tejas and hence delaying the project. It is exactly the opposite ! they wanted the Dassault offer to be accepted and not the US Martin Marietta one which was eventually accepted.

Now, AM Rajkumar is of the opinion that had the Dassault option been chosen, it would have been faster and easier to develop. But Dr. Kalam has hinted nothing of the sort. He clearly states that both companies were approached simultaneously in 1992, and starting from that year, he didn’t suggest that a hybrid FBW would have resulted in a faster development time than a full-quad FBW. * *

of course it would’ve have resulted in a faster development ! Dassault pretty much pulled out of the Tejas project after it realised that it would have no control over the FBW system on the Tejas. Till then, they were involved in the PDP phase with a dozen or so Dassault engineers working from Bangalore itself. When Dassault pulled out, ADA had to look for consultancy from BAe and Martin Marietta and this was nowhere near the scale of participation that Dassault had. AM Rajkumar clearly states that Dassault was VERY interested in being a part of this fighter program but due to these differences pulled out and we lost out on a very capable and experienced design house supporting us throughout the program.

Later on Martin Marietta was bought by Lockheed Martin and LM WENT VERY SLOW ON CONSULTANCY. Go read the book again. He clearly mentions that after Martin Marietta was bought by LM, their consultancy was slowed down and ADA was not at all happy. If they’d stuck with Dassault instead of going to the US, the entire process of building, testing and integrating the FBW would’ve been over faster than the drip-feed consultancy that LM provided later on.

The delays happened more because of the nuke sanctions of 1998, because of which our team was asked to leave LM’s facilities, and less because of a conjecture that a hybrid FBW is somewhat easier to implement than a digital FBW. Again, Dr. Kalam came to the rescue, and under his leadership, we finished the remaining testing, validation and integration of the FBW on Tejas. It was this that really delayed Tejas by around 2.5 years.

Again, you are not sure about what you’re talking. I took offence to your laying the blame on the IAF’s door step for having asked for a digital FBW (which is a lie ! the IAF didn’t ask for that, the ADA decided on it despite the IAF supporting a European solution). Nuke sanctions caused delays, but it was precisely this kind of sanction-happy behaviour of hte US that the IAF was very wary about and which is why they asked ADA to go with Dassault and not Martin Marietta.

France didn’t impose any technology sanctions on India after the nuclear tests. Had Dassault been ADA’s partner, the 3 years that were lost due to the seizing of computers, data and testing equipment and the throwing out of Indian scientists and engineers in the US would’ve been avoided. AM Rajkumar clearly implies that going with the US instead of France cost us heavily in terms of delays to the project.

And yes, Dr. Kalam does mention that the requirement (presumably IAF’s ASR) was for an unstable jet, which implied a digital FBW. Now, it is here that ADA chose a full-digi FBW instead of a hybrid one, whereas AM Rajkumar seems to suggest that ADA went along for a digital FBW on it’s own discretion.

More rubbish. The requirement was for an unstable jet, which could’ve easily been even an analog FBW if that was all that ADA could come up with. Turns out, the IAF was perfectly happy with Dassault’s offer of a digi-analog hybrid FBW.

And stop this insinuation that someone as distinguised as Air Marshal Rajkumar “seems to suggest” as if he’s lying. His word will any day carry far more weight than some internet poster whose sole aim is to malign the IAF by spreading lies. He spells it out clearly- that the choice for the digital FBW was that of the scientific community, not that of the IAF. YOU SAID IT WAS THE IAF THAT FORCED THEM TO DO SO CAUSING DELAYS ! that is a patent falsedhood.

True, these were ADA mandated, but please don’t suggest that they’ve resulted in “delays”. Autolay is used by Airbus since few years, and most avionics were loaned from Su-30 MKI, Jags etc.

bacche, I know guys that worked on Autolay at ADA including some of the top guys..My company is directly involved in its sale or distribution in India. Anyway, no need to preach to the choir. I know what all the benefits of the Tejas program were and what spin-offs there have been. the all-digital FBW itself wasn’t that bad a decision- it was the fact that they put all their eggs in the US basket and went ahead with the development that pretty much screwed the schedule.

That’s because of Dassault’s consultancy. But since beginning Tejas has and always been a replacement for the MiG-21, which were already 2 decades old in the 1980s, whereas Mirages were just fresh at that time.

Arey, what is even more unfortunate is that as recently as Standing Parliamentary Committee report on defence, 2007, it is clearly highlighted that Tejas is a “..light jet, meant to replace MiG-21s…” Why go 2 decades back, when IAF still thinks of Tejas as a MiG-21 as recently as 2007 ?

you seriously need a break from thinking too hard because your thoughts are getting all fuddled up..do you have some comprehension problems ? One para you state that the Tejas has always been meant to be a MiG-21 replacement- then the next para you complain that the IAF thinks of the Tejas as a MiG-21 replacement..

Get this- the Tejas WAS and IS meant to replace the MiG-21 fleet. It was conceived as a direct replacement. What is wrong if hte IAF calls it a light jet meant to replace MiG-21s ? Media all over says that the MRCA was meant to replace MiG-21s..is that taken as an insult to the MRCA candidates ? Romania replaces MiG-21 Lancers with either F-16, Typhoon or Gripen then should these manufacturers be ashamed of themselves ? What on earth is your point at all if the IAF calls the Tejas as a MiG-21 replacement ??????

Then please tell us why Gripen C/D was entertained as a serious MRCA contender (forget that Gripen-Demo had to repeat the tests later).

Simply because the GOI decided that the competition was to be opened up to every major global manufacturer who had a product that was selling at that time. They didn’t want any allegations of corruption or favouritism to be raised later. The time when the Gripen C/D was included, the list included Mirage-2000-5 Mk2, F-16 Block 50 and the MiG-29M2 (the one that had MRCA written on its tail). None of these were heavy-hitters like the SHornet or Typhoon. All were medium sized and the MiG-29M2 fell in the heavier category and the Gripen in the lightest. The reason they included them was because they were flying at that time and all were relatively new. the Tejas had just about began its test flight program and more than a 1000 hours of flight testing was still required so another 6-7 years or more would be required before it would finally enter service. the IAF wanted a quick induction of a MRCA at that time.

Later on, Boeing entered the fray, so did EADS and Dassault switched to the Rafale. The Gripen C/D as it stood, had no chance of winning against the likes of the Typhoon, Rafale, SHornet, MiG-35 or the F-16IN even..its smaller, lighter, carries less fuel, smaller weapon load and some of these (F-16IN and SHornet most notably, as well as the Rafale) had AESA operational or in the works. So Saab went in for the Gripen NG program to bring it on par with these and as it stands, they’ve been able to demonstrate that it (the Gripen Demo or NG) meets whatever requirements it is that the IAF has laid down.

If the LCA Mk2 was included, could it have flown during trials by this May 2010 ?

I think that lays to rest the point about the LCA Mk2 being a MRCA contender that you keep crowing about. It has its own place as a MiG-21 replacement, and there are more than 200 MiG-21s including Bisons still serving in the IAF, so there are still many airframes that the LCA Mk1 and Mk2 have to replace. Its cost-effective and a generational jump over the MiG-21s, its test pilots love it, but it has not yet reached IOC. the IAF has enough space for the MKI, LCA Mk1/Mk2 and MRCA and in the future, a PAK-FA and an AMCA.

Youtube video link

interview with Wing Cmdr (retd.) Unni Pillai..

what I found so funny was Vishal Thapar, who has in the past made several unflattering comments on indigenous weapons showing his knowledge of a gunship by talking about Rambo ! made me realise just how well-versed these DDM journos are about issues they discuss at times..

anyway, more youtube videos.

link

most important is the support that the IAF has shown and also the fact that this gunship will be able to operate at altitudes where no other gunship may be able to..

I think IAF needs to learn, NOT to change goalposts. In 1986, Tejas was meant to be no more than a local MiG-21. It was supposed to be inducted by 1997. But as time went by, IAF kept asking for more things (most notably digital FBW). ADA realized that slowly Tejas was starting to look more like an advanced Mirage-2000, instead of just a MiG-21. That’s why the 1997 timeline had to be extended. Add to that, near-zero prior experience and tech-denials after nuke tests.

dude, the IAF did not ask for all-digital FBW. They were more inclined towards the Dassault offer of an analog-digital hybrid FBW. It was the technologists at DRDO who were more interested in the more modern all-digital FBW that Martin Marietta was offering. ADA from the very beginning of the project underlined that 3 main technologies were key to the LCA-
1- FBW
2- composites
3- glass cockpit and modern avionics

From the very beginning of the PDP phase itself, the aim was to build a fighter akin to the Mirage-2000 in capabilities, not a MiG-21.

Its a different matter that several things happened that delayed the project but please don’t spread falsehoods.

Today, the Tejas is similar in specs to a Gripen C/D and Mirage-2000-V. It has far outgrown the MiG-21 box it was designed to fit into originally. But, for some strange reason the IAF still views it with prism of a MiG-21.

I don’t think that you’re right here. Phil Camp, one of the posters on this forum said that way back in 1996, one of the LCA’s test pilot’s told him that the LCA was a “poor-man’s Mirage-2000”. the IAF knows what the LCA’s capability level is.