One squadron is enough to declare IOC – F-35A IOC was declared with 15 jets. May to October seems like plenty of time for that.

You think a squadron can be set up with a full trained quota of deployment-ready ground and air crew within four months? Despite the fact that this squadron received its first B-model Blk 10 only in Nov.

Is that more likely than the other explanation i.e. IOC was declared with Blk 1/Blk 5 equipped squadrons (of which there were some 300 units in service)?

Thank you for this utterly irrelevant point for the discussion.

Are we to pretend you aren’t the author of this statement then?

Block 1 never reached IOC.. Not even Block 5.. Block 1 was produced in 94 airframes, Block 5 was built in 197 examples throughout 1978-79.. The IOC was not cleared until 1980, by the end of a large run of 312 Block 10 aircraft..

So 300 Blk 1 & 5s delivered and only a handful of Blk 10s that the airmen were still learning on, but for some reason IOC applies only to the latter.

actually, you’re confirming what MSphere said:

the F-16 wasn’t declared IOC before the fixes made it sufficiently able to do what was asked from it.. The F-35 did the exact opposite.. declare IOC while still needing fundamental fixes to be implemented to be really operational

Replacement of the vertical stabilizer doesn’t count as a ‘fundamental fix’….

The initial blocks did all that was asked of it but still needed retrofits…

Retrofits for the F-35 meanwhile is ‘exact opposite’…

Thats entirely true, albeit i do have a (very) slight advantage, i do read and write (hideously) in English, i imagine that most of the Indian defence media also uses English, am i correct?

I’m sure its more than just a slight advantage. 🙂 And yes most of the Indian media does use English but there’s a copious amount of it, particularly in the politico-strategic segments.

And while i might disagree with you on this MMRCA 2/single engine/whatever competition, i certainly respect your views and accept that what you write might be entirely correct.
To be honest i am entirely bafled by it, wouldnt it be better in every aspect to order another batch of 36 Rafales and ramp the LCA production?

Oh I’m hardly justifying the decision. I think its a mistake. Ramping up the Tejas production, ordering additional Su-30s and exercising the options clause on the Rafale would absolutely be the way to go.

All I’m arguing is that the govt isn’t resurrecting the MMRCA. The MoD knows exactly which aircraft is ‘forecast to win’ and it intends to seal it up through the FMS route (though that mechanism is better suited for items under active production contracts with the US DoD).

Another fighter? With an entirely new logistical chain?!
If it was your favorite, good old “Dave”, well, that i could (more or less) understand, but Vipers or Gripens? Plus the LCA, the Rafale, the Flanker and the T-50?!
Its quite a slap on HAL´s face…

That’s the one big thing the plan has going for it.

It allows the govt to finally break HAL’s monopoly on aircraft production via TASL. The same thing is being done for other state owned enterprises in the defence sector as well. Artillery. Shipbuilding. Ammunition. And so on (I’d post more but the hyperlinking’s getting a bit tedious for me).

Would it have been wiser to pursue a F-35 FACO line & bid for participation via the JPO instead? Probably. (Maybe I’m wrong and they’ll actually go for that… can’t discount the possibility altogether, lets see.)

“Widely reported” rumor still makes it just a rumor.

I think Sintra is probably much closer to the situation in Brazil than you, and has a much better understanding of what is really going on.

This same logic might also apply to our debate vis a vis the Indian MoD’s motivations and the F-16/Gripen.

This report is more in line with what Sintra is saying:

https://smokeandstir.org/2013/12/18/gripens-to-brazil-what-role-did-snowden-play/

I don’t think it qualifies as a ‘report’ – “An opinionated blog covering international politics and US foreign policy, among other things. By Taylor Marvin”.

I said “related to this particular choice”

Do you have any verified information or proof as of “why Dassault partnered with reliance?” if yes, please share, we’ll all gladly read it, if no and all you have is indirect data which everybody can know (Dassault included) then you have nothing solid to set your judgement about the motivations for this deal as such… only speculations.

Reliance’s capabilities aren’t independent of ‘this particular choice’. And the lack thereof is very much verified information.

hmmm.

Could one say this about the Brazilian competition:

“As much as one admires it as the scrappy underdog, the SH isn’t going to get a fair shake in this fight. They just don’t have enough political muscle to swing this one. ” 🙂

One did say that about the Brazilian competition and one was right. Boeing had that one in the bag until the NSA spying scandal soured matters.

Insight: How U.S. spying cost Boeing multibillion-dollar jet contract

After Biden’s reassurances that the United States would not block crucial transfers of technological know-how to Brazil if it bought the jets, she was closer than ever to selecting Chicago-based Boeing to supply its fighter, the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

“She’s ready to sign on the dotted line,” one of her senior aides told Reuters at the time. “This is going to happen soon.”

And then along came Edward Snowden.

Documents leaked by the former National Security Agency contractor, released in the weeks after Biden’s visit, ended up enraging Rousseff and completely changing her plans, several Brazilian officials told Reuters.

Joking apart: Sure the US is bigger and heavier than Brazil and Sweden combined, however just like the US lost in Brazil, and also lost the MMRCA (and the “replacement” quick-fix) in India, all I am saying is that it is not a guarantee they will win this one. The US has lost in the past in India and they may do it again. But then again, they may win (with a plane developed in the early seventies, no less!)

This isn’t about mere political influence as was the case in Brazil, its about a genuine strategic alliance which the US is building with India. Very different cases.

Here the political aspect isn’t just a tick in the box on the pros/cons list, its the very driving force for the whole deal. Its the ‘competition’ part that’s window dressing.

I predicted several years ago that a twin-engined fighter like Rafale would be too expensive for India and suggested they may need to combine with a cheaper, single-engine fighter.

It turns out they are doing exactly what I predicted all those years ago.

Now I am saying this is an open race, either may win. We shall see who is right… 🙂

How? I mean sure if the Gripen wins you were right and the MoD was all about fair-play. But if the F-16 wins, you could argue it was chosen because it was the ‘right’ aircraft. Right? 😉

I know they won’t make it because the didn’t 🙂 Seriously, if India could afford to buy 200 Rafale they would have done so already! Typhoon is in the same price category.

Could they? Would they? Is it? Well.. that’s what the selection process exists to determine. In this case, they’ve chosen to exclude the type.

I do not know why they skipped the Mig-35, but I doubt it is because they already have decided on the F-16.

The MiG-35 would be at the very last of the preferred options for a variety of reasons, technical & political. Behind the Eurofighter in fact. But its still cheap, esp. given the Ruble rate and you cannot include it in a competition without it threatening your preferred choice.

Actually many people (including me) were asking questions around the wisdom of running complete eval of 6 contenders being so different in terms of price and capacity. It would have made more sense to include all 6 in the first round, and then do a short-list, depending on the needs and costs. Well now they have actually short-listed two, and they are Gripen and F-16.

I think it is still open which one they will choose. They claim it will depend on ToT and costs whereas you claim it will be a political decision. I think it will be a bit of both. No doubt they want to strengthen the ties to the US on the other hand, perhaps they also consider strengthening the ties to Brazil, which is after all a BRICS country. Sweden and Brazil is probably willing to share more Tech than the US ever will.

True, they cannot share tech on the engine but that is irrelevant since the US will never share engine tech with India even if F-16 is chosen.

The BRICS is a garden party. A group of actors getting together to exchange a bunch of meaningless pleasantries. As FBW said, only the Russians take it seriously. And, of late, even they’ve cottoned on to the limitations of an organisation that clubs China & India together as ‘strategic’ partners.

As far as tech transfer is concerned, the US will probably share almost as much as Sweden can. EW systems are the only salient difference. Maybe. The difference of course is that the infrastructure for the Gripen will need to be built up from scratch while that for the F-16 already exists, is long amortised and just needs to be dismantled, shipped and re-assembled.

If it is a political decision favoring the US, why did they not go for the SH instead of the Rafale? Since MMRCA was cancelled they could in theory have done that. It would also have been a cheaper solution.

Could have. Should have. It was a mostly political decision as well. The govt was cancelling a major deal, that had been in the works for a decade. Wanted something to show for it to the public and to appease the French. And for Modi to show as the result of his summit with Hollande.

The MoD wasn’t involved in making that decision. And its been spearheading the move to strengthen ties with the US. And the US seems equally invested in it though it remains to be seen what impact the new Trump admin will have on the project.

Just as an example, this is from five days ago –

US offers big-ticket military tie-ups with India

The US has now proposed joint development and production of futuristic military helicopters as well as infantry combat vehicles in the first such big-ticket programmes under the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) with India.

Top government sources said the two projects would be discussed threadbare in the ensuing DTTI meeting (probably February) after the Donald Trump administration takes over in the US on January 20. India has already shown interest in the US offer for participation in its “future vertical-lift (FVL) aircraft” programme, which includes development of five different helicopters or “capability sets” over the next 15 years at a cost of around $8 billion, said the sources.

The US has also suggested that the future infantry combat vehicle (FICV) project can be a trilateral venture with the inclusion of Israel. India is in a wait-and-watch mode about this proposal since it’s trying to finalise its own Rs 60,000-crore FICV project, with two private sector players and the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) in the reckoning for prototype development, as was earlier reported by TOI.

The earlier projects offered by the US under the DTTI were quite modest in nature despite India looking for “unique and transformative military technologies” to give its armed forces a decisive edge over its rivals. With the US now officially designating India as a “major defence partner” at par with its closest allies to facilitate the transfer of advanced technology, the two new projects are quite ambitious in scope.

^ This was five days after this –

Obama signs into law bill declaring India a ‘major defence partner’

President Barack Obama on Friday signed a legislation that approves $619 billion budget for US military in 2017 and codifies India as a “Major Defence Partner”, a distinctly unique definition the US doesn’t use for any other country.

The India section of the voluminous Act, the details of which have been widely reported as it travelled around the legislature getting procedural approvals, essentially institutionalises and commits future government to that definition, unless recalled.

The Obama administration declared India a “major defence partner” — borrowing it from a legislation moved by Congressman George Holding, a co-chair of the House India caucus — during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s June visit.
.
.
.
The India section, which is titled Enhancing Defence and Security Cooperation with India, and directs the administration to appoint an official to directly oversee the relationship, identify impediments and resolve them.

Specially, those issues that are impeding “United States-India defence trade, security cooperation, and co-production and co-development opportunities”.

The first report under this law will come in around June from the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, who has said, at an election rally in November, India and the US will be “best friends” on his watch.

And two weeks before that, Ashton Carter made his final visit to India, his seventh in two years, despite having just a month left in office.

US vows to expand ties with ‘major defence partner’ India as Ashton Carter meets Manohar Parrikar

NEW DELHI: India and the United States on Thursday vowed to expand the bilateral defence cooperation as outgoing American defence secretary Ashton Carter met his counterpart Manohar Parrikar here for the record breaking seventh time and termed New Delhi as a “major defence partner”.

“Thank you my friend,” Carter told Parrikar as both met at the South Block here.

Carter said that this is the seventh meeting that he was having meeting with Parrikar. “He is the defence minister with whom I have met for the maximum number of times,” he said emphasising the importance that US puts on its ties with India.

As much as one admires it as the scrappy underdog, the Gripen isn’t going to get a fair shake in this fight. They just don’t have enough political muscle to swing this one.