Yeah right indeed that is how defense deals are done around the world.

In India, defence deals under an open tender, yes that is how they will be done, strictly by the tender rules, not following them can result in legal action by any contender involved in the tender, or a outright cancellation of the tender either by the MoD, even the MoF. (for e.g. the light utility helicopter tender and the tanker tender).

Now there is a big scope in Gov. to Gov. deals for corruption.

If they wanted to fix the tender, then they must have drafted the requirements in such a way that none but the plane they wanted could satisfy them, which does not seem to be the case judging from all the reporting.

The aircrafts need to meet basic technical requirements in order to be short-listed; then there are requirements to ToT and offsets, and finally the “political” considerations.

I suspect that both SH and F-16 will meet the technical requirements in particular if the US decides to increase the performance of what they deliver.

I am sure the US can deliver on offsets if they really want.

Then the ToT remains — if they also are willing to deliver on that they will be in a good position…

OTOH some people say that the Indians remain sceptical to the US.

Erkokite offered an interesting link in the Brazil thread:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dajccsCegkoC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=australia+AN-ALR-45&source=bl&ots=e0XcSUUN7J&sig=UkXNpXRaJiZQtK7SMy8K2g1Qd1s&hl=en&ei=7uVGTaylIYyt8AbVhtm1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ

The point is thought that the US has so much sophisticated relatively affordable technology, and if the US wants to they can offer it for sale.

Some questions that may determine this:

How far is the US willing to go to get the deal? I suspect quite far since a) the US economy badly needs as much sales as it can get; b) China seems to develop faster than what Gates expected, and more allies in the region could become very handy in the future; c) the Pakistan/Afghanistan situation.

The other question that comes to mind; is India willing to “pay the price” to become a closer US ally? There are huge benefits but also a price to pay (and not just in monetary terms).

Yes if they offer the required performance they, especially Boeing can negotiate and run far ahead of every other competitor on offsets…..

Two question: Where would the IAF complete its role of air superiority and over whome?

I would have thought as a Indian Tax payer (or maybe not) you would have special interest in knowing that the IAF not only are able to defend its airspace but does it in the most cost efficient way possible.

Along the two borders, it will be very important should any conflict break out along the border with PRC, Army can do its job better if there are no planes to worry about, and there will be a need to offset some of the infra advantage that exists on the PRC side.

They(InAF and the military forces) are the best judge of what they need, as we have seen with CAG reports. we can only hope the political leadership we choose is able to make best use of money, the defence sector is filled with too many areas we are not allowed access into.

Of course, all I’m expecting from you now is a myriad of excited claims about how Superhornet beats the Su-30MKI on any occassion because of lower RCS, AESA radar, cheaper weapons, towed decoys, electronics superior to that crappy Russian and Israeli stuff etc. etc..

Go on, serve yourself 😀

The offer from Boeing to India for MMRCA includes an Israeli missile/laser warning system.

The AMCA is purely conceptional. Just as the F/A-XX……..

No it has received funding to develop a technology demonstrator and prototypes, quite unlike the F/A-XX.

The Super Hornet already has a reasonable price and the majority made for the IAF. Would of course be constructed with in India.

As for upgardes who would fund them in the case of the other contenders???

There can be no doubt that US manufacturers will not release as much technology as the other competitors, they do not need this contract that bad, and neither does their government.

If the plane is in service, like the Rafale, Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Gripen there is no doubt that it will be upgraded with the latest available technology, not so much for Mig-35 and F-16 unless someone pays for the upgrades.

Agree with the above sentiments, not confident that the IAF has gotten used to playing second fiddle yet and therefor think assymetric. So although we looking in from the outside might think the Gripen is one of the best platforms and survivable platforms for the IAF the IAF might still be stuck in its old mind set.

i.e. its focus is towards the west over which it has dominance and thefore can act like a traditional Airforce with the big bases etc…

Which is not the case vis-a-vis the north. IAF has to take the role of the lesser air service and think of how to survive as apposed to dominate.

I think the focus should be completing its role of providing air superiority over the area and carrying out strikes to damage the enemies capability. Does not matter how they do it.

What would be the objective of PLA-N carriers?

I doubt there is much that can hold PRC providing funds for development of whatever size and type of carriers and escorts that PLA-N needs, if they can justify that need that is, however if the PRC military and political leadership does not see a need for carrier groups meant for providing air power to military operations in distant lands, they will never fund a USN type super aircraft carrier, or for that matter multiple aircraft carriers groups, to become the sort of power USN is required a wealthy nation like USA to extend its influence throughout the world, something that will not happen in the coming decade or two.

I think a great advantage in PRC is that there can be actual long term planning supported through decades, the sort of time required to build a huge navy, and as the future is bright and filled with money they will aim big.

Sortie rate is the single most important criteria for a defender vs superior numbers.
(and vs China, you better have a thousand alternative airfields to avoid a check mate at the first missile volley.)

Or have lots of JAS-39 Gripen, and some good quality roads.

Ability to take off from short runways, good quality road strips and damaged runways as design and development goals, rapid turnaround and minimal support requirements, sustained high sortie rates.

Low logistics footprint=easy deployment to forward bases when required, placed deep inside to protect from surprise attacks.

Perfect for the Indian North Eastern states. (roads from which the gripen can operate would require some amount of funding and work, not that the people will complaint if that happens, also the plane would need pilots to operate 38 hours within 48 hours)

Sounds like something InAF would ask for in their own dream air defence fighter, small and tough airframe, minimal logistics, latest technology, ability to integrate a wide range of munitions, high operational availability.

Damn how do SAAB do this, their last plane Viggen was considered as perfect for its requirements by the InAF.

I think i know who should be the consultant for the AMCA……….:D

I think every air force has a tough routine to practice repairing damaged airfields during wars. Never a permanent blow unless the damage is done by weapons smart enough to target very specific objects.

And Russian planes are quite tough built, can withstand very tough runways (just look at those landing gears).

I think that will depend on the AMCA program, so if anyone has good info on AMCA,
kindly link.

Search though the livefist blog of Shiv Arror http://livefist.blogspot.com/
No journalist is covering AMCA like him.

i would say there are elements of Comanche in the fuselage design if you look at the second image posted by Deino (although obviously the RCS goals were totally different)

could just be a overall evolution of previous generation of helicopters manufactured in the PRC, with modifications to systems and fuselage design optimised for the attack role, perhaps when someone finds information about it more could be said, what role would this attack helicopter fill with the PLA, Is anti armour a priority for PLA?

Rumors which ISRO denied. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/internet/cyber-threat-isro-rules-out-stuxnet-attack-on-insat-4-b/articleshow/6733370.cms

But what they can do is put a bug on the FCS computer and may be activate it using GPS sat to make planes fall out of the sky.

Well the seasonally changing status of US allies is one of the reason why ministry of defence should not purchase major components without the ability to analyse codes for most of the critical systems.
US arms policy is very suffocating, thats for sure, it was justified in the part when they used to sell weapons to very iffy chaps dictators, near commies and very oppressive undemocratic regimes to fight the old cold war, however seriously in this day and age they should be more open to stable nations willing to buy their weapons, at-least their ABC allies.
Nations purchasing weapons despite the weird conditions set on them goes to show their quality and clout.