I see 8 pm in full flow tonight. Must be a real heady brew or possibly a party where there's no get your own booze policy which means it's on the house & we're left to suffer the consequences. Let's examine the damages.
The IAF had no plans to acquire the MiG-29 leave aside mfg them. It was thrust down their throats but since it was an efficient machine the IAF didn't complain too much. Are we to understand that the IAF consented to mfg the MiG-27 & later the Su-30 but not the MiG-29 ? This is stupid logic or more to the point going bottoms up more than once & then typing. I can already tell the damages tonight will be severe.
Simply changed into the MKI coz the SU had no intention of offering the Flanker when we didn't even want the MiG-29 ?! Asking for sources for this piece of abomination is in itself an offence I guess. Well here's the very anti thesis of 8 pm analysis
The things AI can generate for you these days , it's scary. Much less scary than chatting with chat bots about dark tetrads I imagine .
iafhistory.in
No happenstance at all . The Mirage 2000 was a mature piece of FA as compared to what we received when it was brand new & faced teething issues. It was later on in the framing of the tender phase that IAF agreed with Dassault & replaced the Mirage 2000-5 with the Rafales.
This was a later development & completely blows out of water 8 pm analysis of TE vs SE manure. It's evident RST isn't familiar with post hoc rationalization or post facto explanation although he indulges in all the time.
Here's AI to the rescue again .
why did iaf opt for the Rafales instead of the Mirage 2000 in the mmrca tender - Google Search
Yawn & Fart at the same time. It's that kind of miracle post which activates all your orifices to expul repugnant stuff.
The MMRCA came into being only coz the then DM refused to consider a single vendor situation. Had he agreed we'd not be having this conversation out here.
The rest of the argument is immaterial to the discussion we're having.
I went thru the contents of that interview & felt like slapping myself. I mean were we discussing the SE vs TE choice in the MMRCA or were we discussing why this tender started out with the Mirage 2000 only to be replaced with the Rafales mid course.
Where did this conversation of medium vs heavy come into the picture at all ? Do I put this down to the usual goal post shifting or 8 pm hubris ? Or both ?
And what's this poppycock about the MKI participating in the tender when we signed an agreement with the Russians way back in 2000 for 140 MKI to be licence mfgd by HAL after importing 50 odd Su 30 from Russia in 1996 ? It seems Matheswaran gives out his own opioids which RST consumes wholesale no questions asked & then subjects us to it expecting we'd raise no questions either .
MKI wasn't old tech then , the IAF realised they had goofed up with a top heavy AF where the bulk of the OPEX was going into servicing the MKIs. Which is the reason they subsequently capped the procurement at 272 instead of the original 360 nos.
That's the reason they emphasised the medium in MMRCA. In any case the Russian cabinet was totally bereft of anything they could offer us by the time of the MMRCA tender. It remains so till date with the Su-57M being a notable exception . However the IAF seems to think otherwise or so it seems.
Btw the same Matheswaran who sings paens to the Su 57 is here casting a shadow of doubt on the Russkies when he argues against critical dependancies on the Russians & more than a decade later when asked for a report on the Su 57 opines that we should go in for if . Something RST never noticed when he brought up links quoting Matheswaran in support of the Su 57 , in spite of linking this article here innumerable times apparently. 8 pm once again.
I won't even bring up being totally dependent on the Russians for the bulk of our AF needs coz this was something we realised way back in the 1970s itself , hence the Jaguars , the Mirages , the outreach to the US for assistance in the LCA program & not the SU .
The last point is very important . It debunks what Matheswaran wants to convey with respect to our extreme reluctance to consider Russian equipment in 2004 when the RFIs went out whereas that was a given since the 1970s with RST duly parroting the same line here without any due diligence or application of mind.
To add to it , the Admiral Gorshkov / INS Vikramaditya saga left a very bitter taste in the mouth. That's the larger context.
The definition of generations will keep changing the more we prolong this farce called the MMRCA or MRFA or whatever it'd be called in future. If this persists in 2040 as I mentioned in a previous post to Sathya we'd have the entire menagerie competing from 4.5th Gen to 6th / 7th Geb FAs & RST will still be singing atithi tum kab aaoge here?
If we place an order for a Rafale today we won't see it before 2030. In case Dassault decides to set up a line in India as per reports that's still 3 years before they get it going.
I thought most of what's going into the AMCA Mk-1 is going to be demonstrated in the LCA Mk-2 which is already being fabricated . Besides RST himself was comparing the Mk-2 favourably with the Rafales in innumerable posts before & now this. 8 pm !
The AMCA Mk-1 has already received CCS clearance & funds allocated (?) . It's scheduled to make first flight by 2029. Hopefully by 2034-35 it'd be certified. Add a few more years for full production & maturity. Which is the reason the Rafales make less & less sense in 2035 going by RST's own logic of legacy FAs like the Hornets & the Falcons not being in contention in spite of participation in the MMRCA tender.
What's more preferable ? Our own FA which may not be mature or something foreign ? At least I hope we don't get to see these arguments in the 2030s . I've seen & had enough of them right thru the 2010s till date.
Besides by 2035 we would have 3-4 Fighter Aircrafts - if we include the TEDBF developed indigenously within 4 decades apart from iterations of it . By then we would definitely have acquired a depth of expertise & experience we didn't see in the LCA Mk-1 program for obvious reasons.
We would definitely have achieved near state of the art capabilities in terms of capacity building by 2035 which translates to the time needed for productionizing a FA from the prototype being drastically curtailed . Otherwise what's the point of all that experience ?
I'd sincerely urge RST to pull himself together & stop indulging in futuristic fantasies post 8 pm . MUMT , DEW etc are a very long way from being matured technologies. RN our concern is more geared towards getting the proverbial "mother ship" ready & in shape.
If there's no AMCA or LCA Mk-2 what's the point of a FUFA or anything else ? The pilot may just as well play with his own joystick . Let's not equate development of such technology with its maturation or even mastery of it . It'd follow the same cycle of iterations like iterations & generations of FAs. That's not even top priority with us today.
The IAF had no plans to acquire the MiG-29 leave aside mfg them. It was thrust down their throats but since it was an efficient machine the IAF didn't complain too much. Are we to understand that the IAF consented to mfg the MiG-27 & later the Su-30 but not the MiG-29 ? This is stupid logic or more to the point going bottoms up more than once & then typing. I can already tell the damages tonight will be severe.
Simply changed into the MKI coz the SU had no intention of offering the Flanker when we didn't even want the MiG-29 ?! Asking for sources for this piece of abomination is in itself an offence I guess. Well here's the very anti thesis of 8 pm analysis
The things AI can generate for you these days , it's scary. Much less scary than chatting with chat bots about dark tetrads I imagine .
The introduction of the Mirage 2000 into the IAF’s fleet prompted the Soviet Union to offer the MiG-29, a state-of-the-art fighter that had previously been off-limits. This marked the first time the Soviets had offered India its most up-to-date fighter platform. By the end of 1987, the IAF had incorporated two squadrons of MiG-29s, bolstering its capabilities significantly. By the late 1980s, the IAF stood at the pinnacle of global air power.
However, the early induction of the Mirage 2000 came at a steep cost. The IAF faced significant challenges with immature radar and engine technologies, and the integration of weapons systems with the Mirage 2000 was protracted, creating a gap between its theoretical and operational capabilities.
The broader implications of these acquisitions were even more profound. Made in response to immediate threats, these decisions led the Indian government to retain but postpone the rights to license manufacture these platforms domestically. Under pressure from the Soviets, India opted to manufacture the MiG-27 with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited under the TASA program. This steered India towards more Floggers instead of expanding the Mirage 2000 or MiG-29 fleets. Despite being an early adopter of the Mirage 2000, the subsequent financial crisis hindered India’s ability to benefit fully from its initial investment, as it could not commit to license manufacturing. The MiG-29 faced a similar fate.
Debunking the Myth: India's Mirage 2000 Acquisition
Discover the strategic reasons behind India's Mirage 2000 acquisition and debunk common myths about this key military decision.
iafhistory.in
No happenstance at all . The Mirage 2000 was a mature piece of FA as compared to what we received when it was brand new & faced teething issues. It was later on in the framing of the tender phase that IAF agreed with Dassault & replaced the Mirage 2000-5 with the Rafales.
This was a later development & completely blows out of water 8 pm analysis of TE vs SE manure. It's evident RST isn't familiar with post hoc rationalization or post facto explanation although he indulges in all the time.
Here's AI to the rescue again .
why did iaf opt for the Rafales instead of the Mirage 2000 in the mmrca tender - Google Search
Yawn & Fart at the same time. It's that kind of miracle post which activates all your orifices to expul repugnant stuff.
The MMRCA came into being only coz the then DM refused to consider a single vendor situation. Had he agreed we'd not be having this conversation out here.
The rest of the argument is immaterial to the discussion we're having.
I went thru the contents of that interview & felt like slapping myself. I mean were we discussing the SE vs TE choice in the MMRCA or were we discussing why this tender started out with the Mirage 2000 only to be replaced with the Rafales mid course.
Where did this conversation of medium vs heavy come into the picture at all ? Do I put this down to the usual goal post shifting or 8 pm hubris ? Or both ?
And what's this poppycock about the MKI participating in the tender when we signed an agreement with the Russians way back in 2000 for 140 MKI to be licence mfgd by HAL after importing 50 odd Su 30 from Russia in 1996 ? It seems Matheswaran gives out his own opioids which RST consumes wholesale no questions asked & then subjects us to it expecting we'd raise no questions either .
MKI wasn't old tech then , the IAF realised they had goofed up with a top heavy AF where the bulk of the OPEX was going into servicing the MKIs. Which is the reason they subsequently capped the procurement at 272 instead of the original 360 nos.
That's the reason they emphasised the medium in MMRCA. In any case the Russian cabinet was totally bereft of anything they could offer us by the time of the MMRCA tender. It remains so till date with the Su-57M being a notable exception . However the IAF seems to think otherwise or so it seems.
Btw the same Matheswaran who sings paens to the Su 57 is here casting a shadow of doubt on the Russkies when he argues against critical dependancies on the Russians & more than a decade later when asked for a report on the Su 57 opines that we should go in for if . Something RST never noticed when he brought up links quoting Matheswaran in support of the Su 57 , in spite of linking this article here innumerable times apparently. 8 pm once again.
I won't even bring up being totally dependent on the Russians for the bulk of our AF needs coz this was something we realised way back in the 1970s itself , hence the Jaguars , the Mirages , the outreach to the US for assistance in the LCA program & not the SU .
The last point is very important . It debunks what Matheswaran wants to convey with respect to our extreme reluctance to consider Russian equipment in 2004 when the RFIs went out whereas that was a given since the 1970s with RST duly parroting the same line here without any due diligence or application of mind.
To add to it , the Admiral Gorshkov / INS Vikramaditya saga left a very bitter taste in the mouth. That's the larger context.
The definition of generations will keep changing the more we prolong this farce called the MMRCA or MRFA or whatever it'd be called in future. If this persists in 2040 as I mentioned in a previous post to Sathya we'd have the entire menagerie competing from 4.5th Gen to 6th / 7th Geb FAs & RST will still be singing atithi tum kab aaoge here?
If we place an order for a Rafale today we won't see it before 2030. In case Dassault decides to set up a line in India as per reports that's still 3 years before they get it going.
I thought most of what's going into the AMCA Mk-1 is going to be demonstrated in the LCA Mk-2 which is already being fabricated . Besides RST himself was comparing the Mk-2 favourably with the Rafales in innumerable posts before & now this. 8 pm !
The AMCA Mk-1 has already received CCS clearance & funds allocated (?) . It's scheduled to make first flight by 2029. Hopefully by 2034-35 it'd be certified. Add a few more years for full production & maturity. Which is the reason the Rafales make less & less sense in 2035 going by RST's own logic of legacy FAs like the Hornets & the Falcons not being in contention in spite of participation in the MMRCA tender.
What's more preferable ? Our own FA which may not be mature or something foreign ? At least I hope we don't get to see these arguments in the 2030s . I've seen & had enough of them right thru the 2010s till date.
Besides by 2035 we would have 3-4 Fighter Aircrafts - if we include the TEDBF developed indigenously within 4 decades apart from iterations of it . By then we would definitely have acquired a depth of expertise & experience we didn't see in the LCA Mk-1 program for obvious reasons.
We would definitely have achieved near state of the art capabilities in terms of capacity building by 2035 which translates to the time needed for productionizing a FA from the prototype being drastically curtailed . Otherwise what's the point of all that experience ?
I'd sincerely urge RST to pull himself together & stop indulging in futuristic fantasies post 8 pm . MUMT , DEW etc are a very long way from being matured technologies. RN our concern is more geared towards getting the proverbial "mother ship" ready & in shape.
If there's no AMCA or LCA Mk-2 what's the point of a FUFA or anything else ? The pilot may just as well play with his own joystick . Let's not equate development of such technology with its maturation or even mastery of it . It'd follow the same cycle of iterations like iterations & generations of FAs. That's not even top priority with us today.
Praneeth Franklin
