This argument is ill-informed – like the Telegraph article.

The aid which is referred to is not given to “India”, or the government of India, but (usually via NGOs) to help people in India. Its beneficiaries welcome it. Indian politicians dislike it because it embarrasses them. They think that their embarrassment is more important than the welfare of those of India’s citizens who are helped by the aid.

Swerve, One can’t fix the destructive legacy of colonialism, by limited aid from time to time, or at the same time offer aid and then hold those who receive it in contempt. That’s what the UKs informed media & elite do. They suggest hey, look we gave this, bloody Indians aren’t grateful. Or, look at them taking our aid, OUR money and then buying Rafales?

The Indian politicians are not “embarrassed by aid”. They are tired of listening to the wishy washy stuff British leaders engage in on Indian topics followed by the manner in which the furore, the UK media generates about the limited aid provided vis a vis the far greater economic cooperation & activity that India engages in. It brings in coercion and dislike into what should be productive ties.

Hence a lot of Indians dislike the aid. Not merely the politicians.

India launches a satellite? Your media is full of reports about UK aid.
India launches an ICBM? Ditto.
India does anything? Ditto.

Politicians BTW are elected by the Indian public, many of whom (the ones interested in these issues anyhow) are increasingly fed up of statements by Brit leaders or those associated with the UK Govt which can’t seem to make up its mind which side of the fence it is on on most topics regarding India (Milliband’s comments in particular when he was around) & ballyhooed “thought leaders” who constantly engage in diatribes against India & Indians (The Economist for instance). Or even many British authors and “expats” who suddenly become experts on India, and loftily provide advice to India and Indians on everything from faith, to whom to vote for.

Its not merely the right wing, but the left is equally vapid judging by the amount of breath taking rubbish that one reads in the Guardian for instance. Clearly, social justice warriors in the left yell bigotry at everyone but are blind to their own. This is an acerbic view on the matter but nails it. http://www.dailyo.in/politics/uk-guardian-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-zac-goldsmith-david-cameron-racial-profiling-islamophobia-nri-left/story/1/9770.html

The aid was perhaps a brilliant masterstroke in terms of retaining ties to India, making reparations for colonialism (however limited) and keeping India interested in the CW. However, the sheer bloody mindedness shown by a lot of British commentators on the topic and the sense of superiority they employ when discussing it, has made it more and more of a PR disaster.

Thing is more and more Indians are coming up from the so called hinterland without ties to the established power structure which was hitherto somewhat aligned to what the UK said/did. JLNs education in the UK for instance. MMSingh likewise.. that group is more and more reducing.

So from the viewpoint of an Indian leader. Visiting the UK/UK folks come to visit. We need to discuss trade, defence, energy security yada yada…
Instead, 9/10 Brit media articles focusing on exploitation porn, gleefully talking of aid, this that..

Any common sense dispensation would have long ago pulled the plug on it or asked for it to be increased to meaningful levels.

British charities will continue helping people in India.

Or themselves rather. Which is what the vast majority of NGOs have devolved into, and have become a lucrative profession by themselves. I rather suspect the ordinary middle class Brit who comes for tourism to India does far more for the local economy (and the people) than these NGOs.

BTW, the average UK interest rate from 1857 to 1947 was 3.58%, nowhere near 7.85%. Peaked at 10%, but spent a very long time at 2%.

Calculate that at 3.58% interest rate then and make reparations and stop the aid.

Easier still, let all those from the colonies come in, no questions asked, earn a living, repatratiate. Simple, problem solved.

If that can’t be done, and state that the politicians would like to, but the public wouldn’t agree to do it because it is impractical, then you just ran into the issue which is representative democracy.

Even so, the bigger issue has been making Indian democracy work & at the end of the day that has to work. Otherwise, aid or no aid, reparations or none, its not going to result in effective increase in standard of living. I rather suspect the oil boom the middle east enjoyed is of a similar nature. All it takes is for one energy solution to work. One day if that happens what happens to the folks used to merely relying on that resource.

That is called tailoring of tenders.

There are only specific parameters that matters in a comparision for requirements which are based on like on all plattforms, deployebility, logistics, speed and tactical movement, combat performance, survivability, ranges and limitations and so on. By all accounts it is one sided against the Apache.

The customer gets to choose what he wants. If he prioritizes sensors and fire and forget munitions etc over armor protection etc. That’s their choice. Lets face it, IAF badly needs precision munitions capability and the AH-64 offers that. The Su-30 program has not succeeded in that respect with several of its munitions not performing as required.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11654852/British-aid-billions-subsidising-third-world-defence-budgets.html

Do you even read what you yourself post?

India received £292million in 2012 – yet it spent $45billion on defence in 2014. Pakistan also received £189million, yet spent $6.3billion in 2014. The Government is ending direct bilateral aid to India.

So 292 million sterling was what percentage of $45 Bn again? And where did that 292 million go? To India, or to British firms engaged in altruism.
PS: For all of the bellyaching – http://www.kahany.com/stores/writing/0997britishdebt.html

PPS: For imbeciles who don’t get it, try asking the Belgians to go to the Congo & crib about how they spent a few million euros to Oxfam or whatever is its Belgian equivalent.

Even with Baraks IN will not be risking their principal assets atleast 300-400km from Pakistani coast.

LOL, as if. With Shtil, Barak-1, Barak-2, MiG-29Ks & Ka-31, the IN is well placed to handle the AShM “threat” if there is even one, from the Pakistani AF.

Its always been submarines which have been a greater challenge & even there with ALTAS procurement and focus on MPVs, progress is being made.

You were moaning about lack of fire and forget missiles on Russian helicopters vs Apache, hence why Apache won the Indian tender (probably bribed tender). And I explained why Russian helicopters are using such weapons. Fight NATO? Use guided ff missiles like Kab and Kh. A hellfire won’t protect us choppers from being shot down, and we have plenty of evidence to support that. The range of such missiles aren’t preventing the helicopters from flying outside of various shorad ranges.

Err no.. the Mi-28 lost the Indian tender fair and square and the reason is exactly what the other poster alluded to. The AH-64 has the Longbow radar and the fire and forget Hellfire. A very potent combination which the Russians couldn’t match.

If the Government of India selects the Boeing-US Army proposal, the Government of India will request a possible sale of 50 T700-GE-701D engines, 12 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars, 12 AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometers, 812 AGM-114L-3 Hellfire missiles, 542 AGM-114R-3 Hellfire II missiles, 245 Stinger Block I-92H missiles and 23 Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensors.

Better night gear, better weapons, better sensors. Important to the IAF even for SEAD.

Indian Air Force has ordered 7 more Akash squadrons to add to the first 8 it has in service.

During the year, DAC approvals has been
accorded for additional
7 squadrons (14 firing units) of indigenous
Akash Missile System for IAF

Looking forward to the day OSA-AKM is replaced by an Astra based solution. India does have the remaining building blocks in place.

Quite right. The RDY-3 used to be marketed as the RC400, & was pushed under that name for Mirage F.1 upgrades (successfully, to Morocco). The F.1 has a smaller nose than the M2K & can’t take an RDY-3. Then the name was changed – but the pictures & description in the fact sheet available online weren’t. I made a side-by-side comparison of old & new versions some years ago.

I presume the upgraded IAF M2Ks will get the latest version of the RDY-2.

Thing is the RDY-3 can be put in for an upgrade as well and is, as you say, none other than the RC-400. As I recall you were the one who ferreted that out.

The RC-400 has lesser channels than the RDY-2 and a lower power TWT so lesser performance. Thales claimed (clearly with some creative license) that it is 80% of the RDY-2 at 50% of the price etc. The system was originally marketed for the JF-17 with the Mica plus a french avionics package including ECM and datalink (which would have made it very lethal IMO)but India signed the Mirage 2000 upg deal (and reports noted it was in a way a quid pro quo to stop the JF-17 one). The Mirage 2000 antenna is approx the same size as that on the JF-17/LCA – 600 mm class. So the radar can be fit for that size of nose.
Now, question is whether, for the huge price India did pay, it got the RDY-2. I hope it did.
I have not seen any IAF source on it but this article does state RDY-2.

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/the-mirage-2000-upgrade-what-makes-indias-fighter-jet-better-749715

The ‘new’ Mirage 2000, redesignated the Mirage 2000 I, is almost incomparable with the original jet courtesy a host of new systems onboard. At the heart of the upgrade is a new Thales RDY 2 radar, which allows for very long-range engagement of targets in the air, automatic tracking of targets, mapping of targets on the ground using Doppler beam-sharpening techniques, and the ability to track and engage targets which are moving on the ground.

The pilot, now equipped with a display inside their helmet, is able to see superimposed radar data without having to reference any of the displays inside the cockpit. In operational terms, this means that in the case of air combat, the pilot, who is looking through their helmet, can direct weapons by merely pointing their head in the direction of what needs to be hit as opposed to having to manoeuvre the entire jet in the direction of the target – see target, lock on to target, launch weapons.