The stickies here are pretty restrained compared to some forums I’ve seen. Nonetheless, I share the sentiment.
C-130J would’ve been a good option five years ago, not so sure about now. KC-390 is another alternative.
So, what is the rational behind such kind of vessels now?
Looking at the Kamorta-class corvettes, it appears that India is concentrating its indigenisation efforts on smaller vessels. Perhaps this new corvette project is intended in the same vein, as a low-cost means of keeping indigenous development projects ticking over.
How does an Il-96 tanker compare to a prospective Il-76-90A in the same role? They share the same powerplant after all. Is it just that the Il-96 airframes are already available?
AMCA
Many buzzwords, few details.
So we have an aircraft that entered service a decade ago, an aircraft of uncertain configuration and development status, and an aircraft that exists as drawings alone. Even by ‘vs.’ standards this is rather questionable.
Some interesting snippets on Aero India from a pretty clued in defence journalist – Saurav Jha on Twitter
MTA Program with Russia
The Medium Transport Aircraft project with Russia is however stuck on the choice of engine issue.
Is this a question of PS-90 vs. PD-14, or does India seek a western engine option?
AWACS India model based on Airbus A330. The platform is yet to be confirmed though, with a choice between Boeing 767, Il-76 and A330.
And yet A330 is both the logical choice given the tanker order, and the most aesthetically pleasing, so good choice for the model. 😉
Can’t spend PPP dollars.
Here is the MER table. Ignore that it (also) says PPP, that is a printing error:

So by MERs PwC projects India in 2050 to be somewhat stronger relative to the United States than China is today. And when we consider that India is (and has long been) a more militarised nation than China (spending ~3% of GDP on its military vs. ~2% for China) India’s actual military equivalence vs. the United States in 2050 could be more comparable to China of early 2020s.
Really?
You forgot to quote this bit from my post: “offering your own products or bettering your terms in response to competition is not ‘undue influence’.”
As for money, India will manage. You ought to worry about your own perilious state of finances and how you’ll continue to try to stay on par with India.
PwC has just released their latest (Feb 2015) long-term projections for global GDP. They’re very conservative on China, projecting only 3.5% average annual growth over the 2021-2030 period, but still:

So PwC projects that by 2050 India’s PPP-adjusted GDP will surpass the United States’, i.e. the same position China is in today.
Nearer to hand, if we look at military budgets in the context of likely economic growth, India’s military spending (in USD) is overtaking that of Germany and Japan right now, and will overtake that of France and the UK by early 2020s. Even before India surpasses Japan as the world’s third-largest economy by 2030, it will have settled in as a member of the “big four” military spenders, alongside USA, China, and Russia.
Not sure what you’re going on about Rii, but the Rafale deal is not an American arms purchase.
Obviously. But the idea that difficulties in bringing the MMRCA contract to fruition can be attributed to Russian interference could only come from a perspective that misreads Indian history and politico-strategic culture, and regards the strength of the Indo-Russian relationship with distaste. In other words, it is the quintessentially American perspective that on the one hand expects India to forget about the past and the lessons she has learned as recently as 1998, and on the other hand expects India to become a pliant ally serving American commercial and strategic interests around the globe, and which therefore regards the Indo-Russian relationship as an anomaly to be corrected in due course.
Beyond the “Occam’s Razor” principle that there are much more plausible explanations for the difficulties in bringing MMRCA to fruition, the best argument against the idea that Russia has sought to unduly influence* MMRCA negotiations and Indo-French relations is simply that India would not stand for it. This would cross a line in the relationship and only reinforce the strategic impetus for India to seek alternative sources of aircraft and technology. The Indo-Russian relationship has endured precisely because each partner is respectful of the other’s sovereignty and diverse interests. In this, Russia makes a welcome change for India from western nations forever trying to remake the world (including India) in their image.
* Note: offering your own products or bettering your terms in response to competition is not “undue influence”.
And getting religion into the mix?
This was my fault. I chose the word ‘crusade’ deliberately, but in doing distracted from the core of my argument. To use more neutral phraseology that focuses us on the subject at hand:
What is true is that India has pointedly declined to join western attempts to isolate Russia, just as it has declined to engage in similar efforts aimed at isolating Iran. In each case, India is driven by a keen sense of her own national interest, which only sometimes aligns with the interests of the United States and other western nations.
Funny how France and Russia were getting along and the Rafale deal started. But as soon as France and Russia no longer were getting along the Rafale deal became a mess [….] India is Russia’s cabana boy and it’s showing. Funny, India should be calling the shots in their relationship, but it’s not mature enough to see through its mental fog.
The MKI is not a good short or long term investment for India in 2015. Are they really going to buy more fighters from the 80’s??
Where to begin with this? Su-30MKI has been one of the most successful programs in IAF history. As well as being a formidable platform in its own right, it is comparable to anything fielded by either China or Pakistan, and will remain so until J-20 (which is of course to be matched by FGFA, and in any case is unlikely to mark the end of Chinese Flanker production).
As for this conspiracy theory about Russian interference in the Indo-French relationship, this is just desperate grasping at straws. What is true is that India has pointedly declined to join the western crusade against Russia, just as it has declined to join the crusade against Iran. In each case, India is driven by a keen sense of her own national interest, which only sometimes aligns with that of the western crusader states. The Indo-Russian relationship is grounded in a rich past, but maintained in the present by mutual interests. Who else was going to loan India a nuclear submarine and assist the nation in designing her own? Of course, India’s interests also drove the attempt to acquire a modern western aircraft and stream of technology transfer, both to hedge against dependence upon Russia and to force the latter to better terms at the bargaining table. If this attempt has failed, then responsibility could be assigned in many places (or to structural incompatibility) — but certainly not to Russia. India will never be America’s bitch, nor anyone else’s for that matter. To think otherwise is to grossly misread Indian history and politico-strategic culture. Western attempts to divorce India from Russia, or to force her to “choose a side” are not only doomed to fail, but are likely to backfire, just as they did in the past.
Cross-posting from BRF..Prashant Bhadoria is the Project Head for the HTT-40 basic turboprop trainer that HAL is building. The talk was given at the Aero India 2015 seminar series…
A much-needed perspective on things I think. We are forever hearing from IAF perspective and other commentators most of whom for one reason or another adopt a similar perspective: that HAL is at fault. It is good to hear the other side of the story.
If India ever wishes to attain self-reliance with contemporary standards of technology, the armed forces will have to learn to accept less than ideal solutions in the interim, just as China had to with J-8, JH-7, etc.
I don’t know about a “Typhoon beater”, but it’s certainly a comparable platform, albeit somewhat smaller.