A reckoner on the English language would help you.

I said, ultimately. Which implies the future.

And what I said about the IAF fleet re the MKI & LCAMK2 is backed up by senior procurement officials of the Indian Air Force, including but not limited to incumbent CAS AM PV Naik, AVM Barbora, CAS rtd FH Major.

And lets not talk about when & how it will happen, Insig. The details would probably worry you more.

So now that we are settled that one of the reasons why the IAF can manage a far greater inventory is labor cost, the question begs to be asked –

why the emphasis on life time ownership costs on the MRCA? Even if the western a/c are a tad better than say a fulcrum or flanker, will the massive difference in upfront costs (which are all in $$$ amounts) ever be offset by marginal differences in ownership costs (which are in Rs)?

How will the western birds ever stand a chance? The Gripen perhaps. The way I see it, the MRCA race is all about the IAF wanting a western bird, period. All other factors (commonality, ownership costs etc) are just eyewash.

The IAF always wanted the M2k or any other “western” bird; little russia can do to win this one.

USS.

I have said this before and I will say this again. Some in the IAF thread believed one could just put a bunch of gizmos into any aircraft and it will work fine. Thats nonsense.

What the western aircraft have over the Russian ones is an integrated avionics package that is either developed and operational to a level that is not there in the MiG-35 or funded for with a clear development path. For instance I posted about the F-16s mission planning and attack system – stuff like that is the work of decades and is proven and operational.

The entire stuff of its cheap so lets add stuff to it, only works if you have ample time and patience – we have gone that path with the MKI and we dont have that with the MRCA now. We are constantly adding stuff to the MKI – we dont want to do that to the MRCA. Thats not our job, thats the OEMs to give us everything we need and not ours to sit and make it what we want. The entire aim of the MRCA is to provide a huge boost to the IAF with a ready from the word go, fighter which can dominate the battlespace.

Ultimately, we’ll have a mix of mature MRCAs, mature MKIs with new technology insertions and a fleet of new LCA MK2s. This is sensible and will give a decent profile. If we rely on WIP aircraft across the board, readiness rates will be affected and so will be warfighting.

Afghan conflict is thousands of miles away from UK, and every dead soldier means another hard question for the government. This sort of warfare cannot be compared with the ones India has been involved in.

If you read what I’ve said in entirety and not just one cherry picked statement, I’ve more or less said the same thing, about the difference between the developing world & the developed & the reason why each does things differently. Doing things differently does not always imply one is more effective than the other though, which was my point & the context of my statement.

bofors and denel isnt the only “independent” defence companys. Dassault and Saab, MDBA, Deihl…. and the list goes on…

The Indian MOD has redefined the word stupid, and the current Def Min is apparently more bothered about his image than defence preparedness.

The S-400 is a product based out of Russia’s needs & not India’s.

We wont go down that path of having a hybrid ATBM/SAM system.

As far as the ABM component goes, we’ll have the Program Air Defence.

The SAM component, well its not that hard if you put all the pieces together.

Japan toes the US line closely in these matters.
India has tried in the past to raise cooperation with Japan but the reaction was tepid.

In my view, India is better off working with “independent” non politically contentious nations with well developed arms industries, like Sweden, South Africa, Poland & a few others. Sweden could be a good partner for the MCA, whereas South Africa is good for artillery & air to air missiles.

IIRC the nuclear subs couldn’t be bought from the USA because the USA is barred by international agreements & its own laws from selling them to us.

Surprising!

Eg given the depth of the US involvement in the UK Nuke program

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2139/britains-independent-deterrent

My guess is that modified US designs were probably “ok” from the US POV but not the UKs which wanted (with some justification) to remain a “builders navy”..

Aye, awrite lad. So it’s good that I qualified something as an opinion but you didn’t… because you have a cast iron grip on the real reality? Why do I not believe that.

A grip on reality in this certain case for sure…because I know details about the respective aircraft which make me reasonably aware about the pros & cons of each. As they say, the more one knows, the more one is aware of the values of tactics & training, sadly, statements reveling in absolutes indicate the usual internet one-upmanship and in this case I’d avoid them..

Nothing I’ve read, heard or otherwise divined makes me think the SU-30 is in the same league as the Tiffy. If the EF wins the MMRCA, so much the better for India.

Frankly, you need to read, hear & divine more – because – in certain key operational areas the MKI of today has capabilities the “Tiffie” is yet to even aim to induct and it already has upgrades being funded for that take it further ahead. And nor do I deny that the Tiffie has its own advantages too -all I say is the pros and cons pile up on either side.
In fact, this is one of the big stumbling blocks regarding the Typhoon in the MMRCA – what does it bring to the table _FOR its cost_ that the MKI already doesnt have or already has on its charter of kit to get..its all about marginal utility…+1/-1 here there for either platform doesnt tip the balance.

The Tiffies chances regards the MMRCA – I really dont know. In fact, I was a big supporter of the EF till recent – but the way development has gone, or rather been stuck/slowed down, its peers such as the Viper Block 60 & SuperBug have a significant edge on it, in terms of available operational kit.

As for the PAK-FA, we are talking aobut an aircraft that hasn’t even bloody flown. For all you know, it’s a Russian rip off of the wright brothers plane, given that it’s fabric and wood skeleton would make it oh so bloody stealthy! In short, that 180 production PAK-FAs are years away, if not a decade or more.

Given the antecedents of the Russian aerospace industry, to dismiss it as Wright Brothers fantasy isnt really worth merit. The Indian side evaluated the program, then indicated its firm support for the program & the GOI has already signed on most bits of the dotted line to kick things off. Dismissing the PAK FA is all well and good, but by the same standards, not a single operational JSF has flown either & by the looks of public (UK) reports, the numbers are being reduced by a pretty penny since the program faces substantial cost challenges.

It has a newer type of radar, granted. However, in terms of people on board to analyse and route data, as well as concurrent hardware/software upgrades, I still think the E-3 is on par if not better. It’s mechanical radar might not be the newest toy in town but it’s still pretty damn close to the tech curve.

Its not just a newer type of radar but it has a complete integrated surveillance package on it, developed from the Israelis deep experience of the EW/ESM game & it also comes along with additional ground stations which back up the capabilities of the Phalcon. In short, it is a complete battle management station & thats what the Israelis gave for the $ or the shekel or rather the Rupee. The Sentry’s – for all their upgrades – are yesterdays aircraft. The airframe wont last forever , and the MSAs are not the latest either & upgrades hit a block unless the entire architecture has been revamped to the latest available. Its far easier to keep a Phalcon viable than a Sentry, and a Phalcon is far more capable in initiating a track and revisiting it than a MSA.

Yeh, this is what I’m getting at, numbers vs quality, it’s a fine line. As it stands The Challenger (all 300 odd) has the most advanced armour package on the planet, without compromising it’s mobility.

Any tank crew would state that more armour always compromises mobility -and its all about how much can be afforded. For all the advanced armour package on the planet, when the Challenger 2s were deployed to Iraq for GW2, ERA had to be fitted out – again – there were vulnerabilities. This is true of any tank. Second, about advanced armour package and the like – fact is the Challenger is a bigger tank & needs more armour to protect it, compare and contrast to the T-90 which skimps on volume because it saves weight on armouring.

over 10-1 advantrage in numbers is too steep. However, even if we bought more of a cheaper tank, it still woudn’t get close to denting those numbers so what’s the point in trying?

The point is that with a production run of just 300 economics goes out of the window. Wasnt there talk of putting a German gun in because keeping the RO 120mm up to date was just too much money? Similarly, cost/unit rises, spares cost rise – its a very pyrrhic proposition to build a gold plated elephant which costs too much to run, and ultimately national tank production is given up as too expensive whereas the entire program was launched to safeguard it.

Albeit there is simply no way the T-72 would compete, the design is obsolete regardless.

The design is obsolete granted – but the Ukrainians & even the Russians did mitigate some – not all- of the dangers of the ammunition stowage issue with their bustle autoloader designs in the Yatagan (iirc) and the Black Eagle.

But the bigger point is – why look towards Russia? I still find it surprising that France, Germany and the UK all have their own “national tanks” where one common design or at least one modular enough could have met most of the needs, and kept costs down? Granted that was the Cold War and that era’s politics, but what about today..

It doesn’t exist though does it?

Can you say this for certain viz the T-95 prototype? Besides with 1600 tanks of the T-90 class, India can afford to take its sweet time for the definitive T-95 gen or beyond.

fair enough, but you’ll hit a point eventually where military spending will be over ridden by domestic expenditure on infrastructure, breads and circuses eventually trump defence.

Oh we are already suffering from that since independence – and we also have monkeys in our circus, we elect them, what does that make us. :rolleyes: :p