IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
- Status
No, I mean, because I don't have an account anymore I can't read the attachments in the link. All I see are thumbnails.
Giving a defence technology like Rafale for complete manufacturing in India is like making an alliance. Is there any reason for it?
Wait and watch
Realistically, watch for Jan Feb 2020. Irrespective of which party is in power.
We know about this. I am talking about Vikramaditya. That's the Russian carrier, Admiral Gorshkov.
Can fit in V's well deck lift.
V's is Vikrant and Vikramaditya and all other carriers, all name begining by V.
The aircraft can be put on Vikramaditya's front lift but the aircraft cant be brought on it from the hanger or put back inside the hanger due to lift vertical beams.
No, there are no reason to not do an alliance. I was just curious about the reason behind alliance. Is it a response to Islamic Military Alliance?
I am telling you the truth bro. Its not just about putting the aircraft on lift, it is about moving it inside the hanger with certain amount of safety space available on each side. rafale does not meet that requirement for Vikky. Even the safety margins for IAC-1 are below what is required.
I'm not alone to say that:
IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi
Rafale deal led to big loss for national interest: AK Antony
By CL Manoj, ET Bureau | Feb 27, 2018, 06.56 AM IST
AK Antony initiated talks for the purchase of Rafale fighter aircraft as defence minister in the United Progressive Alliance government (2004-14).
Speaking in detail for the first time after the Rafale controversy erupted, Antony told CL Manoj in an interview about the process of selection and negotiation. Following the National Democratic Alliance government’s subsequent decision to buy 36 of the Rafale jets from France, he queried the administration’s “national security” argument for not revealing the per-aircraft purchase price. He also defended his actions during the Rafale talks in the wake of comments by current defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman. Edited excerpts:
You have been guarded on the broader aspects of the Rafale fighter jet deal, especially on the current government’s decision to purchase 36 planes from France. What are your views?
As a former defence minister, I usually avoid commenting on defence issues concerning the government. However, given the controversy about the NDA government’s decision to purchase 36 Rafale aircraft from France and, since the present government has made a habit of commenting on many decisions of the previous government, I am now compelled to speak. More so since, as the defence minister of the UPA cabinet, I had initiated the negotiations on the Rafale matter. In my opinion, the terms of the NDA government purchasing 36 Rafale aircraft have led to a big loss for our national interest and a big profit for Dassault (which makes the Rafale).
Why do you think that?
The UPA government had made four conditions while issuing the request for proposal (RFP) for the purchase of 126 Rafale fighter jets: One, India will purchase 18 aircraft from France and then Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will be licensed to manufacture the remaining 108 jets. Two, there will be complete transfer of technology to India. Three, there will be 50%, instead of the usual 30%, offset obligations; and four, the agreement will have the lifecycle cost clause.
However, the present government, while deciding to purchase 36 Rafale aircraft from France, has completely given up on the first two conditions. It is avery costly omission, and as a result, our national interest has suffered a big loss because India has squandered away a golden opportunity to acquire top-class global fighter jet manufacturing technology. So, the NDA government’s decision has also weakened our self-reliance in defence preparedness.
Besides, HAL has lost the opportunity to get the licence to manufacture the Rafale, something that would have provided our PSU (public sector unit) with not only the capacity to build these fighter jets for India, but also for exporting them in future. With this, ironically, this government has also abandoned what could have been a boost for the ‘Make in India’ theme.
Are you also alleging financial loss for India?
It is for the government to spell out the financial details of its Rafale deal. Sincethis government has abandoned the two key conditions — technology transfer to India and licence for HAL for production of 108 Rafale jets — the purchasing price per Rafale should have been much cheaper. Instead, we hear the purchase deal is on a much higher price per aircraft. This also leads to another very important question.
What is that?
The government must clarify whether the pending Defence Acquisition Council agreement with four conditions was scrapped before the prime minister visited France and finalised the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets. If not, it amounts to a gross violation of defence procurement procedures (DPP). The government must clarify on this.
Why do you think the government has settled for purchasing just 36 Rafale fighter jets instead of the originally planned 126?
While it is for the government to explain that, I am sure a mere 36 fighter jets will not meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force (IAF), especially in view of India’s two-front security threat. Let me explain. When the IAF approached the earlier government with the request for acquiring more fighter jets because of its then sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons (average 18 aircraft per squadron), most of them belonged to the MiG series, which were very old and were in for a gradual phase-out. When the UPA-I government (2004-09) assumed office, the IAF had also cited the likely fall in its squadron strength to 33 in 2017 and the delay in the Tejas project as additional urgency for speeding up the purchase of fighter jets. So, in 2007, we issued the RFP for purchase of 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) wwith the four conditions (cited above).
How did you zero in on the Rafale?
There were six bidders — two American companies (General Dynamics and Boeing), the Russian MiG, the Swedish Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale of Dassault. The American and Russian companies failed to qualify for the technical requirements of the IAF and, of the remaining three, Rafale emerged as L1(lowest bid).
Defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman recently said the UPA government had not finalised the Rafale deal and that you, as the then defence minister, “took back the files” when negotiations for the Rafale during the last three years of the UPA government led to a 300% upward revision of the price quoted. Your response?
It was unethical on part of the defence minister to merely say I “took back the files” and then choose not to state the full facts, including what I had noted on the files. Since the defence minister has spoken selectively, let me state the full facts.
After our negotiations with Rafale and before moving the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), I had — as per the norm — approached the finance ministry for financial approval. The finance ministry said the lifecycle cost clause in the agreement was a new concept and thus not acceptable to them. Simultaneously, I also received representations from many others, including some responsible then-Opposition (BJP) leaders, objecting to the lifecycle cost clause. All this (happened) while IAF was intensifying its push for early acquisition of the fighter jets.
As our government’s term was coming to an end, and as I could not have moved directly to the CCS without finance ministry clearance — had I, it would have led to a major controversy —and, as IAF was pressing for early purchase, I decided to call the files and made a clear noting to the effect that the final proposal must be sent to the CCS only after the dispute over the lifecycle cost clause is settled. So, it was not a case of “taking back the files” but making clear notings on the file on future directions.
Why were you insisting on the lifecycle cost clause?
Because IAF was insisting on that clause. Let me ask, did the present government scrap the lifecycle cost clause while agreeing to purchase 36 Rafale planes?
There is also a controversy about an Indian private firm reportedly getting the offset contract for the Rafale deal?
The government must state who has got the offset contract in its Rafale deal and whether that company fulfils the criteria, set by the defence procurement procedures, to have a credible track record in defence production — in this case, in fighter jet production.
The government insists that revealing the purchase price per Rafale jet would compromise India’s national security. As a former defence minister, do you agree with this argument?
For long, all defence purchases in India were done behind the iron curtain. The tendency of many governments in the past was to stonewall questions on defence deals by citing national security. We too followed that trend during UPA-I. But the fact is by the time the UPA-II government (2009-14) assumed office, the transparency norms in governance had set in thanks to our landmark Right to Information (RTI) Act.
That is why during the UPA-II regime, as then defence minister, I had disclosed in Parliament the pricing details of many defence purchases, including that of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, upgrade cost of Mirage fighters and that of the Sukhoi deal. Let me remind this government that transparency is the mantra in India now and secrecy walls are fast crumbling. Even the ministry of defence is now under RTI ambit. Therefore, in the larger interests of transparency, the government must clear the air by placing before the people all the details, including the per-aircraft price of the 36 Rafale jets purchased from France. Let the people judge who was right and who was wrong.
Rafale deal led to big loss for national interest: AK Antony
By CL Manoj, ET Bureau | Feb 27, 2018, 06.56 AM IST
AK Antony initiated talks for the purchase of Rafale fighter aircraft as defence minister in the United Progressive Alliance government (2004-14).
Speaking in detail for the first time after the Rafale controversy erupted, Antony told CL Manoj in an interview about the process of selection and negotiation. Following the National Democratic Alliance government’s subsequent decision to buy 36 of the Rafale jets from France, he queried the administration’s “national security” argument for not revealing the per-aircraft purchase price. He also defended his actions during the Rafale talks in the wake of comments by current defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman. Edited excerpts:
You have been guarded on the broader aspects of the Rafale fighter jet deal, especially on the current government’s decision to purchase 36 planes from France. What are your views?
As a former defence minister, I usually avoid commenting on defence issues concerning the government. However, given the controversy about the NDA government’s decision to purchase 36 Rafale aircraft from France and, since the present government has made a habit of commenting on many decisions of the previous government, I am now compelled to speak. More so since, as the defence minister of the UPA cabinet, I had initiated the negotiations on the Rafale matter. In my opinion, the terms of the NDA government purchasing 36 Rafale aircraft have led to a big loss for our national interest and a big profit for Dassault (which makes the Rafale).
Why do you think that?
The UPA government had made four conditions while issuing the request for proposal (RFP) for the purchase of 126 Rafale fighter jets: One, India will purchase 18 aircraft from France and then Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will be licensed to manufacture the remaining 108 jets. Two, there will be complete transfer of technology to India. Three, there will be 50%, instead of the usual 30%, offset obligations; and four, the agreement will have the lifecycle cost clause.
However, the present government, while deciding to purchase 36 Rafale aircraft from France, has completely given up on the first two conditions. It is avery costly omission, and as a result, our national interest has suffered a big loss because India has squandered away a golden opportunity to acquire top-class global fighter jet manufacturing technology. So, the NDA government’s decision has also weakened our self-reliance in defence preparedness.
Besides, HAL has lost the opportunity to get the licence to manufacture the Rafale, something that would have provided our PSU (public sector unit) with not only the capacity to build these fighter jets for India, but also for exporting them in future. With this, ironically, this government has also abandoned what could have been a boost for the ‘Make in India’ theme.
Are you also alleging financial loss for India?
It is for the government to spell out the financial details of its Rafale deal. Sincethis government has abandoned the two key conditions — technology transfer to India and licence for HAL for production of 108 Rafale jets — the purchasing price per Rafale should have been much cheaper. Instead, we hear the purchase deal is on a much higher price per aircraft. This also leads to another very important question.
What is that?
The government must clarify whether the pending Defence Acquisition Council agreement with four conditions was scrapped before the prime minister visited France and finalised the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets. If not, it amounts to a gross violation of defence procurement procedures (DPP). The government must clarify on this.
Why do you think the government has settled for purchasing just 36 Rafale fighter jets instead of the originally planned 126?
While it is for the government to explain that, I am sure a mere 36 fighter jets will not meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force (IAF), especially in view of India’s two-front security threat. Let me explain. When the IAF approached the earlier government with the request for acquiring more fighter jets because of its then sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons (average 18 aircraft per squadron), most of them belonged to the MiG series, which were very old and were in for a gradual phase-out. When the UPA-I government (2004-09) assumed office, the IAF had also cited the likely fall in its squadron strength to 33 in 2017 and the delay in the Tejas project as additional urgency for speeding up the purchase of fighter jets. So, in 2007, we issued the RFP for purchase of 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) wwith the four conditions (cited above).
How did you zero in on the Rafale?
There were six bidders — two American companies (General Dynamics and Boeing), the Russian MiG, the Swedish Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale of Dassault. The American and Russian companies failed to qualify for the technical requirements of the IAF and, of the remaining three, Rafale emerged as L1(lowest bid).
Defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman recently said the UPA government had not finalised the Rafale deal and that you, as the then defence minister, “took back the files” when negotiations for the Rafale during the last three years of the UPA government led to a 300% upward revision of the price quoted. Your response?
It was unethical on part of the defence minister to merely say I “took back the files” and then choose not to state the full facts, including what I had noted on the files. Since the defence minister has spoken selectively, let me state the full facts.
After our negotiations with Rafale and before moving the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), I had — as per the norm — approached the finance ministry for financial approval. The finance ministry said the lifecycle cost clause in the agreement was a new concept and thus not acceptable to them. Simultaneously, I also received representations from many others, including some responsible then-Opposition (BJP) leaders, objecting to the lifecycle cost clause. All this (happened) while IAF was intensifying its push for early acquisition of the fighter jets.
As our government’s term was coming to an end, and as I could not have moved directly to the CCS without finance ministry clearance — had I, it would have led to a major controversy —and, as IAF was pressing for early purchase, I decided to call the files and made a clear noting to the effect that the final proposal must be sent to the CCS only after the dispute over the lifecycle cost clause is settled. So, it was not a case of “taking back the files” but making clear notings on the file on future directions.
Why were you insisting on the lifecycle cost clause?
Because IAF was insisting on that clause. Let me ask, did the present government scrap the lifecycle cost clause while agreeing to purchase 36 Rafale planes?
There is also a controversy about an Indian private firm reportedly getting the offset contract for the Rafale deal?
The government must state who has got the offset contract in its Rafale deal and whether that company fulfils the criteria, set by the defence procurement procedures, to have a credible track record in defence production — in this case, in fighter jet production.
The government insists that revealing the purchase price per Rafale jet would compromise India’s national security. As a former defence minister, do you agree with this argument?
For long, all defence purchases in India were done behind the iron curtain. The tendency of many governments in the past was to stonewall questions on defence deals by citing national security. We too followed that trend during UPA-I. But the fact is by the time the UPA-II government (2009-14) assumed office, the transparency norms in governance had set in thanks to our landmark Right to Information (RTI) Act.
That is why during the UPA-II regime, as then defence minister, I had disclosed in Parliament the pricing details of many defence purchases, including that of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, upgrade cost of Mirage fighters and that of the Sukhoi deal. Let me remind this government that transparency is the mantra in India now and secrecy walls are fast crumbling. Even the ministry of defence is now under RTI ambit. Therefore, in the larger interests of transparency, the government must clear the air by placing before the people all the details, including the per-aircraft price of the 36 Rafale jets purchased from France. Let the people judge who was right and who was wrong.
Rafale deal led to big loss for national interest: AK Antony
IN wants minimum one feet safety margin on each side. this means the lift width is reduced to 9.4m. rafale has a wing span of 10.8m. DA needs to find a way to reduce the span to 9.4m. And they have no solution.
I am now putting the team together. I have reached the stage where I need a proper team in place to take it forward.
Source Based
@vstol Jockey
Mig35 with Safranised Kaveri is explored along with few more things..
.
- The concept of SE tender is not scrapped as reported in the media
- its changed to all system , sub system, minor and major parts direct production in an Indian ecosystem along with substantial passage of industrial know how and metallurgical process to Indian entities.
- A part of the process will also get shared with Indian research entities.
- All that will flow into basically the Indian Aircraft program with program development of LCA MKxx series.
- The engine is freezed at Kaveri Family which will now have adequate power to take upto 30 ton MTOW in TE config and in future will be apply to take more MTOW (
) - We are slowly reaching a position where if there is no major redesign needed a lot of Indian ecosystem produced engines in our fleet may see usage over next decade in both AF and Navy.
- Rafale deal as I had been saying is done and dusted and with Safran engine deal the whole equation changed.
- For F-35 a small update - we still have not acquired a no strings attached status.
- It's the same for F18 (no Nuclear strike role for US crafts).
- Second USA gov and LM again said access to F35 under priority status but the defined status includes a "global remote monitoring system" for "ensuring the usage is as defined by US laws and Senate directives" (wonder why Indian journos still want F35 like this )
- One more thing that is defined clearly is number of parts, systems and planes to order in order to access more advanced technology. Meaning order legacy to access advanced.. (@halloweene - IN MRCBF limitation point no 9, 10 and 11))
- This is why French side access is unprecendented and their whole ecosystem creation will make US cry more. So Anti Rafale and anti French issues will be created as I have said time and again.
@vstol Jockey
Mig35 with Safranised Kaveri is explored along with few more things..
.
Last edited:
- Status