not really. they were bed buddies for most of history until the 60s or so.

‘Most of history’ before the 60s lasted for slightly over one decade.

The PRC came into existence after the end of the civil war in 1949 while India became a republic in 1950. By 1962, they were at war. There were some cultural ties in ancient times between the two, but in the modern period, pre-independence, the only real connection was through the British Empire and the opium trade.

There’s many Chinese who deeply regret that China decided to back the wrong side (Pakistan) instead of India since India has more economic opportunities.
but its probably best for the world India and China don’t work together.

Probably best for the the world if all nations work together.

But this is the world we live, not the one we’d like to live in. And as things stand, China is the biggest driver of the Indian military modernization effort.

First pic of the Astra in IAF livery, if I’m not mistaken.

To temper,given indigenisation would probably have been not authorized, under same condition if at all.

No ‘indigenization’ has been ‘authorized’ in Rafale’s case either.

Its being customized for India, much like the F-35 is being customized for Israel.

Actually, come to think of it, the F-35I involves a greater degree of customization than the Rafale-I.

IAF kicks off contest to make single-engine fighters in India

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 9th Oct 16

A global contest has restarted for supplying India a medium, multi-role fighter, with the Indian Air Force (IAF) inviting top international fighter jet manufacturers to set up a production facility in India.

Business Standard has learned that Indian embassies in Washington, Moscow and Stockholm wrote on Friday to fighter jet manufacturers in these countries to confirm whether they would partner an Indian company in building a medium, single-engine fighter, with significant transfer of technology to the Indian entity.

The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI), which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposal” (also known as a tender). However, it serves the same purpose, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.

By specifying that the IAF requires a single-engine fighter, the latest letter differs from an earlier tender, issued in 2007, for 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). The MMRCA tender, which had no such stipulation, saw six vendors fielding four twin-engine and two single-engine fighters. The twin-engine offerings included Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH’s Typhoon, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and RAC MiG’s MiG-35. The single-engine fighters offered were Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN Super Viper and Saab’s Gripen D.

The much-hyped MMRCA tender eventually collapsed, with the IAF last month buying a token 36 Rafale fighters. Now, the IAF has kicked off a more focused contest that will feature only single-engine fighters.

Numerous airpower experts have pointed out that the IAF needs single-engine fighters to replace the single-engine MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters that must be retired in the near future. The Rafale, a medium-heavy, twin-engine fighter, is too expensive for operational tasks that a single-engine fighter can easily manage.

While Boeing, Eurofighter, RAC MiG, Sukhoi and Dassault would technically be able to respond to the latest RFI, none of them can offer a state-of-the-art, medium, single-engine fighter. Therefore, it seems likely that New Delhi would have to choose between Saab’s Gripen E, and Lockheed Martin’s latest F-16 Block 70.

As Business Standard reported earlier, both Saab and Lockheed Martin have kicked off high-stakes, high-voltage campaigns to meet the IAF’s needs. Both have already submitted what the IAF chief described on Thursday as “unsolicited bids” for building their fighters in India.

Saab has linked its offer with assistance to the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) development programme, which is being spearheaded by Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a unit of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

Saab has offered to help ADA in quickly developing the Tejas Mark IA, which the IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, said required four improvements — better combat radar, more lethal weapons, dedicated electronic warfare capability and better maintainability. He said the upgraded Tejas should fly within three-four years.

Saab has also offered to help ADA develop the planned next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is pushing an offer, made through the Indo-US Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), to shift its F-16 production line from Fort Worth, Texas to India. A new, more advanced version of the F-16, designated the Block 70, has been offered to entice India.

Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter.

The IAF is keeping an open mind. On Thursday, Raha stated: “I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet.”

That this the same air arm that has been screaming blue murder about simply not having enough aircraft — as MiG-21s and other elderly platforms continue to fall out of the sky taking pilots lives with them — is simply the icing on the cake.

Spot on. An air arm that will operate the MiG-27 to 2020, MiG-21 to 2025 and Jaguar to 2030 voicing these highfalutin ideas about minimum barriers to entry, is just absurdly comical.

The Tejas can deliver PGMs with the Litening 4, engage BVR targets with the Derby and hold its own in WVR with the DASH-Python 5. That’s 50% of the equation right there (and more than the MiG-27 & Jaguar anyway). Cost is reasonable.. another 25%. The last part i.e. serviceability is an unknown thus far, but with the Su-30 tootling around at 60%, I think the Tejas can be afforded a warm up period even if faces hurdles to start with.

you saying the f-35A on internal fuel can match the range of the much larger su-30 on internal fuel

that’s some deep pizza sauce right thar

No idea what the pizza sauce thing means but its entirely plausible that the F-35A outranges the Su-30MKI. Fuel fraction is a good rule-of-thumb measure since we don’t know their fuel efficiency in cruise conditions.

The larger Su-30MKI (empty weight: 18.5 tons) carries 10 ton of internal fuel while the smaller F-35A (empty weight: 13 tons) packs 8.5 tons of fuel at full capacity.

Nice try, but you’re twisting things.. we’re speaking of MMRCA where Dassault proposed their product at a price and proposed to build it with Reliance, not about the today’s offsets for the 36 aircraft deal. “Had India said ok, do it!” what would Dassault do? they’d have to deliver fighters.. and the seriousness in the way to do it would play for or against them in other contracts they’re after

Nice try but the MMRCA’s conditions were spelled out in the RFP. Dassault’s ‘proposal’ to build it with Reliance was always a nonsensical non-starter.

You speak about corruption… give me one single company who did not do it. Today, there’s nothing one can point out as illegal in Dassault’s behavior in India

Well.. Dassault’s the only one out there that’s led by a felon; usually CEOs resign in disgrace once convicted. In India, Boeing, LM, Saab, Airbus et al have all partnered with ‘normal’ engineering companies (Tata, Mahindra, L&T etc). That Dassault chose to partner with Reliance instead speaks volumes.

You’re right insofar as legality goes – Dassault’s hasn’t been indicted for any illegal business in India (investigation into the Dassault/DCNS-linked arms dealer is still ongoing). But then nobody’s asking for it to be prosecuted. What we’re actually doing is discussing the local production deal and how it may be used to spur the domestic industry.

Both Lockheed Martin and Saab have partnered with TASL (Tata), which will be able to use it to emerge as a true private sector alternative to HAL. Dassault meanwhile has signed a JV with Reliance, which will no doubt do an excellent job of rubber-stamping offset agreements and greasing the political wheels.