So who would Army Chief blame?

Around this time last year, my mailbox was flooded by a rush of unsolicited articles penned by former officers of the Armed Forces, retired bureaucrats and ‘strategists’ associated with a Delhi-based think-tank. Each of the articles dealt with the impending short-listing of medium multi-role combat aircraft to be purchased for the Indian Air Force.

In the race for the whopping $20 billion, 126 aircraft deal were the American firms Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the French company Dassault and a European consortium led by Britain. Boeing was eager to sell us F/A-18 jets; Lockheed Martin was pitching for its F-16 aircraft; Dassault was offering the state-of-the-art Rafale fighter and the European consortium was pushing its Eurofighter Typhoon.

I am wary of unsolicited articles from unknown writers, especially those who have served the Government or any of its institutions and agencies, having learned early in my career as a journalist that such submissions are motivated by reasons that are unwholesome. A quick look through the articles cramming my mailbox served to confirm my view that they shouldn’t be touched with a bargepole.

The best choice, one ‘expert’ emphatically declared, would be the F/A-18; no, countered another, it would be the F-16. The American planes are junk and we should buy the Eurofighter Typhoon, insisted an ‘analyst’; India should buy the Rafale fighters and forget the rest, opined a ‘strategist’. There were not-so-subtle insinuations and innuendos.

I am sure others in media also received these articles, as they did glossy brochures listing the many virtues of the contenders. I am told special ‘background briefings’ were organised by the American Embassy, the French Embassy and the British High Commission to which ‘select’ editors and columnists were invited. What transpired at those briefings can be gauged from what appeared in print or made to prime time news on television till end-April 2011 when both Boeing and Lockheed Martin got knocked off the list.

Between end-April 2011 and end-January 2012, when the Ministry of Defence zeroed in on Rafale as its choice, much attempt was made to plant stories on how the American aircraft were excluded for reasons other than technical. After Rafale was selected, brown paper envelopes containing unsigned sheets of paper listing scurrilous allegations landed on various desks in media houses.

In this age when media believes its primary responsibility is to titillate the lowest common denominator and not inform the masses, such brown paper envelopes have a certain relevance. Their contents cannot be reproduced in fear of defamation suits, but they help in the spinning of conspiracy theories.

A scrutiny of media reports since end-January will show how a sustained and sly campaign has been launched by defence and strategic ‘experts’, without drawing too much attention, against Dassault. The purpose is to force a rethink — in the Government, no decision is ever final and there is many a slip between the proverbial cup and the lip. Hence, it’s not too late to scuttle the Rafale deal.

But it’s not media alone which participates in such crafty vilification at the prodding of those who have lost out on a big ticket contract. Our politicians are equally responsible. On February 27, MV Mysura Reddy, TDP MP in Rajya Sabha and a member of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence, wrote a letter to Defence Minister AK Antony, alleging “irregularities” in the evaluation process that led to the selection of Rafale and demanded an inquiry. He has quoted unspecified “news reports” to substantiate the “irregularities”. That explains the importance of the motivated though muted campaign against Rafale in media.

Given the UPA’s record of scams and scandals, no Minister conscious of his image and integrity would want to court controversy, least of all a Minister like AK Antony who is so fastidious that he is known as ‘St Antony’. So how does Antony respond to Reddy’s demand that “The Ministry ¦ must ensure ¦ there has been no manipulation in the evaluation process”? He sends a reply on February 29: “I have asked the Ministry to examine all the points raised by you.”

Antony then marks Reddy’s letter to Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma, asking him to “get the matter examined”. Which Secretary will tread where his Minister fears to tread? Reddy’s letter is promptly forwarded to Ranjan Kumar Ghosh, joint secretary (air), acquisitions manager and chairman of the contract negotiating committee. Ghosh, an officer of impeccable integrity, has done a thorough job of assessing the features of Rafale and negotiating a fair deal. It’s more than likely he is a worried man today: such letters have the potential of tarring individuals and marring careers.

Reddy’s letter also has the potential of further delaying the acquisition of the much delayed and urgently needed multi-role combat aircraft whose absence weakens our defensive and offensive capabilities, and thus imperils our national security. What does Reddy have to say? “It was my patriotic responsibility.”

— The writer is a journalist, political analyst and activist

.

To conclude, Typhoon’s MMI is better than Rafale’s. All the pilots I’ve spoken to (frontline and test pilots) who have flown both types say so. Unanimously. There aren’t many areas where I’d make such a black and white claim, but Typhoon’s superior MMI is one of them, along with its better supersonic performance, while Rafale’s greater programme maturity and wider weapons integrations, and Rafale’s superior Elint/Sigint capabilities would be others.

So first you tell us EFT has been flying with mock-up equipments, then that EFT has been flying in “pre-production” standard for 8 years, but you still conclude from your extensive and unanimous experience that EFT’s MMI is better than Rafale’s.
Since we’re all here in good faith, are the pilots you interviewed French, German, British, Italian ? Or are they just British ? Because I’m sure you place a British pilot in a French cockpit and a French pilot in a English cockpit and the result is going to be surprising (or rather not).
I may be mistaken but last I checked there were no RAF pilots qualified to fly on Rafale, and no AdA pilots qualified to fly on EFT. As a result how can they know for sure which MMI is better ? We’re not talking about some Gameboy that you pick up and 1/2 hour later you decide whether you prefer the colour version or the black and white version. We’re talking about a very complex mission system that can only be truly evaluated by pilots who have flown real or simulated missions in both aircraft. How many do you know exactly ? Would they like to come forward ?

To me it looks like you’re again taking a subject nobody can for now independently verify and you’re just saying whatever you like. I’m sure we’ll know for sure in a few years what’s the truth… Oh and BTW the reason you find the evolution from F2 to F3 so small is because you should better compare P1E to the evolution from F1 to F2…

The launch of an SLBM isn’t very quiet or stealthy. The moment one is in the air, every nation will know something is coming and they retaliation will be in the air within minutes. That’s why there are so many talks surrounding any SLBM tests. You need to make sure your ally don’t mistake your intention very clearly. Even civil satellites or anyone close enough will see the missile go, and because it’s such a big deal new defences like airborne lasers, or high atmospheric interceptor defence systems will have at least 20m to track your missile and know where it’s going to explode.

With the ASMP-A you can be far more discreet and strike very important target with very little warning time. The time the enemy realise you’re not just sending a conventional cruise missile will likely be when it explode. Every time a country sees a carrier aircraft near its littoral they know there is a chance to see an ASMP-A coming their way should they chose to play dirty.

So it allows you a flexible “first strike” option with political and military room to manoeuvre afterwards (unless it’s on a nuclear country with credible second strike capabilities).

When reading Wiki, you need to read the claim, see whether or not there is a source, compare the source and decide whether the source is credible or not. To say that because it’s wiki or that because anyone can write in it then it’s not good, isn’t very thorough. Anyone can write anything anywhere, from wiki to papers etc. It’s the sources that makes the piece.

You are free to believe what you want and I have no problems with opinions per se, but if they are based on ignorance it’s yet another matter. You obliviously failed to grasp the scope and significance of the P1E and what it brings to the table. Opinions should be ideally based on factual knowledge and not on its absence.

When I see how you can extrapolate a simple article of intention to the extend of serious roadmap… I too have my doubt. One of my teacher used to say, to admit that we’re all ignorant is the first step toward knowledge and wisdom…
My understanding is that P1E allow EFT to do a bit more than just patrolling the sky an evolution very similar to that of the Rafale F1 of the MN when they were first operational over Afghanistan into the F2. I would be glad for you to prove me wrong.

Now from what some of you are saying, EFT have been flying with mock up for about 8 years… Well that’s certainly an achievement…

The Swiss flight trials were conducted in November 2008. The IAF flight trials began in late February 2010 and the in country trials (Germany/UK) were conducted around April 2010. That’s about a 1 1/2 years difference. Quite some time to get software issues sorted and improve the performance and reliability of individual sub-systems.

The Swiss trials finished in 2009 and the IAF trials finished in 2010. There is a difference. During all that time both the IAF and Swiss air force were in contact with the different suppliers in order to have update about current developments (at least from what the Swiss said…).

…

Lol

Yeah, try loading eurocanards external pylons with a couple of 2000 pounders under the wing and they wouldn’t even puh past M 1. On the other hand the F-35 with two 2000ib bombs will do M1.6. There is no comparison.

You wanna bet ?:diablo:

That said, hardware wise the combo of DASS and PIRATE as demonstrated in Switzerland, lashed together on an IPA, was immature, inadequately developed, and with inevitable limitations when it came to fusion and performance.

The Indians saw something different, and reached different conclusions to the Swiss.

In any case, PIRATE, in particular, is only now really starting to show what it can do, and though you see it on frontline jets, and though they are using it, it isn’t formally in service yet.

But as of today, and especially when it is properly in service, I’d say that PIRATE means that Typhoon with DASS and PIRATE might well do passive detection more effectively than Rafale with SPECTRA and OSF (for those Rafales that have the full-up dual channel version).

The Swiss and IAF evaluations happened during approximately the same period of time. To try and argue that in one circumstance it was not ready yet, but somehow in the other it met godmother who gave it crystal shoes is doubtful.
The Swiss eval never said EFT was “bad” or “crappy”. It simply said it wasn’t mature yet. Which is what almost every evals have said to date.
Based on that and the European experience with complex, highly innovative programs like A400M, Tiger etc. I’ve simply stated that to date, due to program mismanagement, the EFT isn’t the fairy tale you want it to be.

They’ve made a lot of effort and commitment because of India, because a lot of money is involve, so now let’s just take a seat and watch what is going to happen in the months to come.

Now I’m just politely asking questions such as how hard is it for the strongest economy in Europe (i.e Germany), the strongest military in Europe (i.e UK), Italy and Spain to find a few millions to fund some capabilities for export while other countries (i.e France and Sweden) seem able to develop and integrate capabilities much faster and with far less of a mess ?

Why does it seem so unpatriotic to ask our own govts what they do with our money ?

So now let me ask you very specificly since you seem now aware that Pirate is only just reaching full capabilities (which is a scoop as far as I know), and DASS has just been sorted out, on what ground do you reach the conclusion that they “might” do a better job than any other system ? Have you tested them recently ? Are you aware of the result of an evaluation I’m not ? The UAE perhaps ?

Right that’s it! I’m rescinding your invitation to the Typhoon thread because you have come over here to talk about Rafale again Mildave!

Typhoon thread- Typhoon discussion
Rafale Thread- Rafale discussion

Dog wagging tail thread- for the barking mad!

Be careful when you go back there, it looked like you were on pretty thin ice last time i checked…..

oh ho.:o

Please show me where I’ve once talked about Rafale… I’ve only discussed EFT both on the development path as well as some bits about the EW that started on the Rafale thread. And I even said that according to some info I read about Libya, EFT defence suit is said to have performed respectably.