IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
- Status
For once Im happy with the delays by Indian bureaucracy
India Goes Ahead with $2Bln Purchase of US Predator Drones Sans Weapons
With last-minute approval, India set to snap up world’s last available C-17 Globemaster
@Aashish urgent deals with US incase f-16 deal falters.
With last-minute approval, India set to snap up world’s last available C-17 Globemaster
@Aashish urgent deals with US incase f-16 deal falters.
i'm just so upset they didn't order more c-17s and keep the production line open.
it would be a win win for both sides and now india will face ANOTHER shortage of heavy transports in 10 years.
it would be a win win for both sides and now india will face ANOTHER shortage of heavy transports in 10 years.
Sir.
Typical answer of "morons" for every deal which is political. What is astounding is that your quip is misdirected.
C-17s were purchased for IAF as a political price for NSG et al under Manmohan Singh. IAF was adamant over singularity of platform with A-330 being finalized for both Transport and Refueller roles under IAF and AWACS platform for next tranche of Phalcons, which, incidentally, remain stuck over pricing as India wants to pay the price at approximately the same levels as original deal!
Neither did C-17s fit in IAF's requirement, nor did IAF want them, mainly to reduce the logistics footprint.
Morons indeed.
What is your strategic gang? What is on offer there? Is it strategic slavery? What sense does it make?
None gives nuclear technology. Russia is the only country to give a SSN to India and that too by subverting an international agreement by "leasing". France will not give anything nuclear related ToT.
The key is in source code of fire control system. That is what makes the system good or bad. Missile can be reverse engineered and the seekers too can be replaced. But, the source code which guides the missile via feedback is what the most crucial. That algorithm will determine the success rate.
Spending 15 billion dollars on foreign imports will result in completely cutting down of funds for Indian gadgets. One has to consider the long term interests of developing Indian planes. Importing things we don't need is madness. Will you buy grass from USA too stating that USA is pressuring India to buy it? We buy only what we need within the means we possess. Wars are won by quantity, not just quality. This has been proven in all previous major wars
Tell me you didn't just compare a C-17 to an A-330??
While it's true that the C-17 were bought under the FMS as a financial remuneration for US' support in helping us enter the international groups, saying that the IAF preferred A-330 over C-17 or any proper transport aircraft is just plain idiotic.
Ex-IAF chief NAK Browne - "He said it will be a game changer as it will change the way the IAF operates its transport aircraft. "
C-17 Globemaster III: IAF's biggest transport aircraft - IAF's biggest transport aircraft
Last edited:
The strategic 'gang' is the US-led alliance that is taking shape in the Asia-Pacific region to contain the influence of China. THere are several advantages to joining this 'gang':
- Security related
As the US expect us to form a bulwark against the Chinese on their Western border, we expect the US and the other allies to keep China contained in SCS and not to spread into the Indian Ocean. We cannot take a lone stance against Chinese aggression as we'll always be on the defensive. With the help of the rest in the quad, we can make China feel the pinch too.
Case-in-point, as China increase their co-operation with Pakistan, we increase the supply of military hardware to Vietnam, Taiwan etc even conducting exercises with the ASEANs in SCS with US.
- Economy related
With the BRI and CPEC investments flowing into countries into our neighborhood, the only way to arrest their over-dependance on Chinese economic package is to give them an alternative. Talks are going ahead with Japan to increase the connectivity between South/South-East Asian countries, which we cannot do without Japanese and US participation as well. Improving connectivity will improve our economy as well.
- Political related
The only way our country can reach the top echelons is to have the support of other countries, especially those that can make a difference. And that means commitment. We need to show that we're not just regional power that minds its own business, but a global power that takes a stand in global issues. For that we need to get more involved with other countries, especially our neighbors in the Asian continent. But with a growing economy we don't have enough punch to take on Chinese influence alone. Hence we need the US support.
Two answer your second question, before 1987, no country in the world had given us a nuclear submarine. There'll always be a first , as will a second. Indo-French cooperation is moving in the right direction. You just need to have faith.
Tell me you didn't just compare a C-17 to an A-330??
While it's true that the C-17 were bought under the FMS as a financial remuneration for US' support in helping us enter the international groups, saying that the IAF preferred A-330 over C-17 or any proper transport aircraft is just plain idiotic.
Ex-IAF chief NAK Browne - "He said it will be a game changer as it will change the way the IAF operates its transport aircraft. "
C-17 Globemaster III: IAF's biggest transport aircraft - IAF's biggest transport aircraft
Sir.
I am very sure that your information outmatches the Senior Transport pilots hierarchy who shared the insight in a presentation conducted over Operational Air Mobilisation Plan while in discussion with the Army (that being, the Indian Army). But of course, a Chief's (who looks forward to a political appointment post retirement) words carry higher weight as we have yet to find a Chief who has the guts to lay bare the facts without him being hounded out. (Ex-Admiral Bhagwat and Gen VK Singh being of rare species who were confused)
Does not make sense, to have singularity of spares, right?
I yield the stage to you.
Because, in war, logistics are exactly like posting on forums here, throw anything anywhere, right?
Hint: Why is IL-76 being uprated? And why did the follow on clause of 02 x C-17s fail to materialise in time?
Security related: What kind of security is worth 15 billion dollars? I want concrete action plan, not just lipservice. And for how long will this security bulwark last? How much will it cost India if India will have to provide itself same level of security for say, 15 years? If USA is really interested in security of India, why don't they do it by giving ToT? India is willing to pay heavily for ToT.
Improving connectivity is not related to buying F16. If you are assuming that if we buy F16, USA will automatically sanction dozens of billions of dollars to build connectivity network, you are day dreaming. Why would USA, which is desperate for Indian 15 billion dollars spend billions for building connectivity for India?
Political related assistance regarding what? Simply saying that we need assistance makes no sense. What assistance is needed and why? Give examples. Also, explain to me, are you expecting USA to wage military war on China or economic sanctions in favour of India? Is the price for USA doing it is 15 billion dollars?
About Russia leasing India, India had been in alliance with USSR and hence they leased the submarine. Why would France give ToT? At what cost and for what reason?
Sir.
I am very sure that your information outmatches the Senior Transport pilots hierarchy who shared the insight in a presentation conducted over Operational Air Mobilisation Plan while in discussion with the Army (that being, the Indian Army). But of course, a Chief's (who looks forward to a political appointment post retirement) words carry higher weight as we have yet to find a Chief who has the guts to lay bare the facts without him being hounded out. (Ex-Admiral Bhagwat and Gen VK Singh being of rare species who were confused)
Does not make sense, to have singularity of spares, right?
I yield the stage to you.
Because, in war, logistics are exactly like posting on forums here, throw anything anywhere, right?
Hint: Why is IL-76 being uprated? And why did the follow on clause of 02 x C-17s fail to materialise in time?
Oh! So then for the sake singularity of spares, lets just buy one single type of fighter jets from now on. I mean, logistics do win wars don't they?
Either your so called 'Senior Pilot' is an incompetent fool or you're just taking his comments out of context to support your narrative. They fact that the A-330s were highlighted during an Air Mobility presentation with the Indian Army points to the fact that both IAF and IA consider them as excellent troop transports.
With the same platform capable of being converted into a tanker, transport and AWACS its only prudent to look at that option. Meanwhile specialized transports like C-17s, C-130s and Il-76s are configured for cargo, with the capability to transport troops as well. But using them just for mobilizing troop is a waste of resources hence other options are being looked at.
To your question as to why the Il-76 upgrades are being looked at, the answer is plain simple. The airframes have a lot of life left, and the aircraft is going for its next life extension program. Also, due to the fact that IAF did not get their required number of Heavy lift Strategic transports because of the red-tape marred bureaucracy in our country.
So the $15 billion were spent on peanuts was it? We received the best systems that money can buy and they contribute directly to our National Security. What concrete action do you want? You want the US to nuke China just because they keep poking us behind our head each time we look away? Please, do tell me your master plan!!!
Also please enlighten me on how you envisaged the security of our nation without purchasing a single weapon system form abroard for the next 15 years? Being optimistic is good, but never overreach the capabilities of oneself. Kingdoms and empires have fallen because they blindly thought they could handle something which evidently they couldn't.
You think any country gives ToT for free? As you were advocating the Soviets case, can you tell me one piece of ToT of a strategically important system that they transferred to India before their break-up? I'll wait while you search.
Any country is willing to transfer upto 90% of their technology provided you're willing to pay for it. But the rest 10% will never be transferred even to their best of friends, for the sake of retaining the edge.
Every country needs to show some kind of gesture to build up trust with another country. Buying F-16s is a way of showing our commitment to the US, that we're willing to buy their combat systems and willing to partner up. They, meanwhile, have promised us their assistance with the major international control groups, joining UNSC and pressurizing Pak on terrorism. These are all the political gains that we hope to get out of US. Also, we are relying on US too for any Vetos that we may require in the UNSC, as Russia seems to be moving closer to China and may not take a position in a dispute with them.
As far as economic and connectivity issue is considered, Japan is highly interested in investing in the SE region and we're interested in improving our connectivity as well. Its a mutually benefiting solution. US is interested in stymieing China's influence and not primarily in improving our economy, but that works for us regardless. Also the SE countries need to see that the options we're putting in front of them is a viable alternative and not just become a pawn in the games played by global powers. The only way to earn their trust in to show them that the alliance is strong and long lasting while being genuinely committed to the project. And to do that, cooperation should increase between India, Japan and US, both economically and in terms of military.
For your question regarding France, they're a country that has always stood by us just like the Soviets throughout the decades. But they didn't do more because of US pressure and because of the fact that we were economically weak to benefit them in any way other than some military sales.
Now, that's not the case. France was one of the first major countries that recognized India's growth potential and their ability to influence global politics. They have realized that for the next 100 years, the engine that drives the world will be in Asia.
Hence they have decided to act on it before the others and reap the maximum benefits for themselves. That includes increased cooperation in the field of economic development, investments, research, trade, defence, and global politics. France had already started sharing technologies a decade earlier, in the form of ex-Maitri SRSAM.
Presently, MBDA is cooperating with DRDO in developing propulsion systems for missiles.
Last edited:
Yeah, so sabotage our indigenous projects by transferring the fund to USA for 100 planes? 100 planes contribute to national security? Which war was won by 100 planes? Indigenous manufacturing is needed to win wars, not imports. Why should India be at the mercy of USA for supplying spare parts of maintenance? Why should not India make its own aircrafts by using the same money?
The same 15 billion dollars invested in Indian industry can help in making tens of thousands of Tejas MK2 with full spare part supply as and when needed without delays. Your 100 F16 is nothing compared to the benefits of investment in Indian technology. Also, MIC development will boost GDP of India. You must understand the concept of Investment. The manufacturing of Indian equipment in wartime can be for free by means of volunteers and conscripts. So you think USSR paid trillions of dollars for lakhs of tanks, planes made in WW2? Do you think Germans paid trillions of dollars for the equipment they made? The money based economy works only in peacetime. Why should India waste precious peace time money for buying USA weapons, whereby scuttling Indian industry needed for war?
When India is already flying Tejas Mk1 and so many subsystems are in advanced stages of development, why should India import any more planes? Being pessimistic is extremely stupid. Why should you expect India to not be able to make Tejas MK2 and mass produce by 2025? Give me absolute reasons as to why USA can make planes while India can't if political support is given? Since India is already making planes with some MK1 already rolled out, you need to explain why is imported plane even needed?
I don't expect ToT from anyone. But, I also won't give away money for buying imported goods. If they can develop technology, so can India. Invest the same money used for imports in domestic industry and research. Either buy goods with technology or make it oneself. War is all about quality and quantity of production, not just quality without quantity.
It is like a girl asking a boy to chop his hand to prove his love for her. We are willing to buy US systems but only if it is worth the price and is needed. F16 is too expensive and also need regular spare parts which cost a lot. India also doesn't have a reason to trust the USA just like that and risk its entire defence industry over the trust. As I said above, it is not worth to chop your hand to prove your love to the girl.
UNSC veto or not has little value to us. It is not that UNSC can do whatever it wants. UN is only namesake. India is a big country and need not care about UNSC. The pressure on Pakistan again is superficial lip service. Since, money being paid is concrete, the return should also be concrete. If India is only to "HOPE" for USA assistance, then even USA should "HOPE" for Indian money.
Yes, why bring an activity which is mutually beneficial under F16 deal? How is F16 going to increase or decrease the profitability of SE connectivity? Genuinely committed to the project by being a vassal state of USA? It is like selling your wife into prostitution to your boss for a promotion. The whole point of freedom and independence is something you don't seem to understand. Also, you have stated that French budged on US pressure. This also makes USA untrustworthy. Why should India trust USA? What leverage does India have to ensure USA won't backstab?
I am happy if France gives ToT of Barracuda. But don't invent your theory of growth in Asia etc. The whole point of economy is to help in "Living rightly". So, living rightly is more important than merely living easily. If one only lives to die, there is no point in living at all. So, when it comes to alliance, it is never about money but about culture, reasonable behaviour etc. That is also the reason why USA supported Israel but doesn't fully support Arabs but limit it to strategic partnerships rather than alliance despite them selling oil in dollars.
Who's sabotaging anything? There's enough scope to buy a foreign SEF while buying more Tejas variants as well. If so, will the total number of LCA purchased be lower? Definitely. Can Tejas be produced in enough numbers to meet the 42 sqn level requirement of IAF before 2035? Definitely not! Ergo, you need two parallel lines producing LCA-class jets to meet the number.
Are you going to fight a war with just those 100 foreign jets? No. Does it add to the overall force levels? Definitely. So your question is moot.
No one wants India to be at the mercy of a foreign nation w.r.t the weapons they use. But the critical question is, do we have the capacity to produce each and every type of weapon system, in both quality and quantity that our armed forces need? No!
We have indeed started moving in the right direction. Can more support be given to increase indigenous R&D and production capacities? Yes.
But it's foolish to think that everything is going to proceed smoothly from this point on. It will take atleast a couple of decades for us to be entirely self-sufficient. Till then, we'll have to rely on imported stuff, albeit in a reduced capacity with every passing year.
Your concept of investment is flawed. We don't have the luxury of time to re-invent the wheel and waste billions of dollars to develop tech that are already available in the world today. We must absorb the already existing technologies and build on them, thereby catching up to the leading nations much quicker. Take the example of China. Yes they did copy almost all legacy systems rather than developing everything from scratch. But look at them now. They learned whatever they could from the old technology and started their own research. They've even surpassed the Russians in many fields and is slowly but surely catching up to the US.
The Russian, Germans, British, US and everyone else had to spend those money on research because their survival depended on it. There was nowhere else to turn to for weapons other than themselves.
Because the Mk-1 does not meet the ASQR. ADA overreached and failed to deliver. Mk-2 also wont meet the original ASQR and the IAF will have to dilute the requirements to accept the jets. So how will we make up for this capability shortfall? Surely we could go for more twin-engined aircraft (TEF), but they'll be costlier to operate. So the only option is to buy another SEF that has higher capability than LCA but cheaper to operate than a TEF.
I'm a realist. I see facts for what it is. I don't let my patriotism blind me from seeing the truth. I know the capabilities and capacities of our MIC and how much they can achieve in the present scenario. US can make fighters at a much higher rate because they've been building aircrafts for almost a century. They've created an ecosystem where their armed forces, industries and research institutes work with each other. They have a robust supplier chain that has experience worth hundreds of years combined. Can you say the same for India? Political support is not the only factor in building an aircraft. You've to understand that first. We need to pour billion of dollars into R&D to build up technologies, mature them, and test them with the help of industries and need them to take over the production and they need to acquire the capability to produce high quality sub-systems in large quantities. We need to create a competitive ecosystem where we can achieve the highest efficiency and the shortest time between prototyping and serial production. All this takes time and money, and India has already began its journey in this direction, but not quite there yet.
Check my post out where I've explained how inducting just the LCA variants won't meet IAF timeline. IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi
If we had better options, I'd take it as well. But the reality is we don't if we need to build our force levels quickly. Will F-16s be more expensive than LCA? Definitely. Will it be more expensive than let's say MKI or Rafale? Definitely not. Infact, the LCA maintenance will cost more than the F-16's during the initial years. Spares wont be a problem as a lot of them can be MII and also they'll have to sign the PBL than means stocking adequate inventory to achieve high availability rates. No one's asking India to trust US blindly. Buying a hundred F-16 won't mean we're selling ourselves to them. And how are we risking our entire defence industry? Don't be melodramatic.
UNSC is only namesake? Why do you think India is desperately trying to get into the superpower club then? Why is China blocking UNSC reforms? Who said there hasn't been any returns from the US w.r.t Pakistan? They have openly called them a terrorist state, added multiple pak based terrorist organisations to the sanctions lists while pressuring them to give up on Hafiz Saeed and also openly endorsing Indian military assistance to the Afghans.
Nothing is being brought under the F-16 deal. But they deal in itself would prove that India is willing to commit to a larger strategic partnership with the US. It is not to bring any economic benefits to India. You're just being overemotional, talking about being a 'vassal' for US and the likes. How will your freedom and independence be affected? We had a much deeper relationship with Soviets. Did our freedom and independence get affected then? So why now? We negotiate on our terms or none at all. As long as our politicians and policymakers are upto the job.
Yes, the French were pressure because we were under sanctions. Did you know, before the 70's, US was one of the major donors of economic aid to India? All that stopped when we became too close to Soviets and it was the height of cold war.
By no means am i saying that the US is completely trustworthy. But global events have compelled India and US to cooperate and our policies have converged on several issues. Why not make use of the opportunity while we can?!
Oh don't believe me! I can give you plenty of other sources including the IMF
Global economic power projected to shift to Asia and emerging economies by 2050
Global Power Shift
The global economic balance of power is shifting
Shift in global economic power
"So, when it comes to alliance, it is never about money but about culture, reasonable behaviour etc."
You're so naive. I guess you're still finding your way about how the world really works.The US support Israel because of the Jewish lobby in America and due to historical ties. They need the arabs for their oil, and uses Israel to keep them in check. Why do you think the ME is so f*cked up right now? The US is slowly disengaging for the Arab states and there is a power vacuum to fill now. All this mess is being caused by the Saudi, Iranians and the Israelis vying for the pole position.
Last edited:
those were some gems from the above post. great writing mate!
I would like to add a few points:
the US has a history of making countries dependent on it and forcefully toe its line. Look at Pakistan at the end of its relationship with USA. we need to be careful not to gain its wrath as well as not toe its line - this will be tricky.
The USA currently needs us as well to counter China - this will be a long term game. as of now USA is still at the top with China a distant second. as soon as the gap begins to close, the US might do one of two things:
1) offer more and more lucrative alliance deals to get India into anti china alliance
2) figure out a way to reduce tensions with China and find some other enemy (very improbable, but possible with any sudden decline in US' strength).
being cautious as to not get too involved with US but at the same time - be at the right distance so as to safeguard ourselves from China + Pak combo is going to be the key.
I would like to think that just as Nepal,SL,BD are playing China against India when they please and get plum deals from one or the other, India should be playing USA , Russia, EU (France) and maybe even China herself to make a position for its own self.
despite the numerous reports that "NAM" is dead with India moving to USA's orbit, buying 100 fighter jets does now move us into any orbit. But we need to constantly keep reminding ourselves that we need to have our own gravity - instead of falling into some other country's orbit.
In my view, India is truly playing to the spirit of non-aligned movement. being in close ties with Russia, USA, Israel, Iran, KSA takes a lot of skill and I am proud of this aspect of India's foreign policy.
Thanks. I can expand a bit more on that subject.
If you look at all the countries that have made alliances with the US, you'll see a pattern. Almost all of them depended on US for security.
France, UK, and the other NATO countries against the Soviets, Germany and Japan were forced to give up arms and join the western alliance and depend on them for security (Germany later emerged as a lead player in NATO because of their economic might), China during the cold war after they went to war with the Soviets, Pakistan during the soviet invasion etc. The middle east countries were a slight exception when US started helping them tap their oil reserves but had to rope them into an alliance in-order to protect their investments, and used Israel to play carrot and sticks with them.
In our case, we do not need them to be our security provider, which means we have the upper hand in negotiations. We don't really need the US, as they along the Japan and Australia will go ahead and keep the Chinese occupied over the Pacific and SCS. But they need us to keep China's western frontier hot as well, so that China's attention is divided. So, we're not as vulnerable to US' pressure tactics as everyone thinks.
As you said, the US has those two options. But option two means willingly accepting that they've lost supremacy in the Pacific and IOR which they'll never do. They're playing hardball with us on option number one. If we play it correctly, for example invite France to play a more active role in the strategic sectors, US will be forced to be more lenient lest they lose ground and opportunities to the French.
Indian still is the prime example of a non-aligned country, no matter what anyone says. What changed was that the definition of 'NAM', which became more evolved and pluralistic. Our foreign policy is still not influence by any one country. And that is a remarkable achievement in this age and time.
Yeah, the future of economic growth is in Asia, as well as Africa and South America. There's a simple, obvious reason for that: you can go very, very fast when catching up because the road is open and you know where to go. Opening up that road, however, is a much slower prospect. So developed countries (mostly North America and Western Europe) have growth rates under 5%; while developing countries have double-digit growth rates.
Of course, once you finished catching up, then expect growth rate to fall considerably to reach very low values like in the developed countries. China is already suffering from this, as its growth rate is falling and some investments assumed it could keep its previous high values forever.
Also there's the question about whether developing countries can actually hope to reach the level of development of the North-West. The Earth has finite resources and we consume them faster than they can renew themselves, furthermore we're also damaging the environment's capability to renew these resources in the first place. Of course, there is an incredible economic potential in the development of a sustainable economy; but at the same time the old system with unsustainable practice and rapid consumption of non-renewable resources has tremendous political power since the people on the top are always personally interested in keeping the status quo. After all, something that got them to the top is something they want to keep, even when it's morally wrong and will provoke a worldwide disaster.
True, that's why i gave a timeframe to that sentence -- the next hundred years!
The last century was dominated by the Europeans and US, along with the Soviets.
The one previous was dominated by the British and the Germans to a smaller extent.
Life goes on.
The fact that you mentioned sustainable economy with renewable resources is highly relevant for the coming century. It means that the current world order is inconsequential,. The amount of resources in your territory doesn't matter as much as it matters now.
What matters will be how you utilize those resources. Which mean, everyone starts from square one. Granted the current technology leaders will have an upperhand, but the gap between the developed/non-developed countries will be much smaller than now.
- Status