Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Herciv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
I think that India already purchased a lot of US weapons : P8I, Apache, drones.
I also think that India know very well that a french fighter has a more freedom use than an american one.
Add to that a logistic nightmare (already the case...) with another fighter in the arsenal.
So once Rafale already in the force, and appreciated by users, the near future will be bright for Rafale in India. So no US fighter.
CAATSA cannot be leveraged against India. If they want to, they can try. They already did try and fail anyway.
I have no clue why you brought SoKo into the discussion.
India is not Switzerland.... Your economy is far more independant of the dollar and of the US market... Fortunately for you.
What kind of offsets? The GtoG Rafale deal ones?
Rafale does the job and fixes our nuclear delivery problem.. Don't know why they are taking so much time to the start the trail stages. Maybe they are waiting for Rafale f4 to get mature..
Well Soko example was false equivalence now that I think about it..
It's difficult to replace American jets with non-American jets anyway. Which is the case for both Swiss and Fin.
Why? They are all NATO friendly, as Rafale is. Using the same main range of weapons.
America is much more politically and militarily aligned with many countries than France. And their influence and finances are greater. Training is of a wider scope and at a higher frequency. They have a global presence. Their spares and supply capabilities are greater. Many of these countries are not like India, capable of taking independent decisions, hence the need to depend on more powerful countries and America is on top of the list.
For France to match that, EU needs to begin the common defence process.
We just miss the opportunity to have world class sam system along with Uncle sam's support.
Which SAM? The one that failed to intercept Iranian missiles or the one which we already have a duplicate of?
PAC 3 performing exceptionally well in hands of KSA army, a military which don't even have a proper operational experience like us is using PAC 3 effectively. Yes, like any other system it failed occasionally. But s400, & its grandpa s300 failed multiple times in syria. USA managed to penetrate sysrian airspace when its being gurded by Russian military, Israelis did the same against sysrians on daily basis.
Does our BMD is as effective as THAAD, may br yes may be not.
The S-400 has never been used, nor has it been challenged. Pretty much all the news you've heard about it are rumours. It's only used to protect Russian assets in Syria and no outside power has attacked them from the air yet. Pentrating an airspace is easy when it's not contested. The Syrian airspace is pretty much a shared space for all sides. If you haven't noticed, the Americans haven't shot down Russian or Syrian helicopters and jets. The S-400 stays silent with the Israelis attack the Syrians and Iranians.
The S-300 PMU-2 beat PAC-3 in evaluations in India in the early 2000s, although it was only paper evaulations. Even the Americans admitted that the PAC-3 doesn't match up to the S-400 after they offered it a few years ago. It's a multi-tiered system after all, plus the S-400's PAC-3 equivalent missile performs to pretty much the same level as the PAC-3.
Anyway, if PAC-3 failed to meet the IAF's expectations in the early 2000s, then it's not going to meet it now. Our MRSAM is much better. Even the Americans are now buying Israeli systems after PAC-3 failed, in order to protect their Gulf bases from Iranian attacks.
If you want a defence relationship with the US, then it's going to have to be based on systems that are next gen. NGAD, FVL, stealth drones etc, not all the crap they actually want to sell to us that we are not going to buy anyway.
Anyway, we buy what we want after extensive tests. Since the IAF decided to go for the S-400, it means it meets expectations. However the Pantsir failed, so we ejected it out of a different tender. In Syria as well, the Pantsir has failed, and the Russians have made a new system now. So you can bet the IAF knows what it's doing.
BMD Phase I and THAAD are similar in capability in terms of the types of threats it can stop. Our BMD uses much more suitable radars for its role, plus it's a two-tier system.
And we can't afford THAAD. For the same cost as a battery of THAAD, we can have multiple batteries of our own BMD. Just 1 THAAD battery costs as much as 8-12 batteries of the S-400.
Yes. Safran has yet to commit anything substantial.
They have no leverage on us. You can count the days till we get an exception from caatsa.
What are you, smoking kid. West is writing daily on how PAC failed.
UAE eyes French alternative to US as Abu Dhabi crown prince holds talks in Paris
Abu Dhabi is said to be interested in the purchase of Rafale fighter planes as part of broader Emirati vision towards diversifying sources of armament.
France to work with India to promote ‘truly multilateral’ order
Foreign ministers of two countries agree to deepen strategic partnership as they discuss developments in the Indo-Pacific and Afghanistan.France has pushed for several years for a European strategy for boosting economic, political and defence ties in the region stretching from India and China to Japan and New Zealand [File: AFP]
France’s foreign affairs minister has agreed with his Indian counterpart to work on a programme to promote “a truly multilateral international order”, the French foreign ministry said.
Jean-Yves Le Drian and Subrahmanyam Jaishankar also agreed during a call to deepen their strategic partnership, “based on a relationship of political trust between two great sovereign nations of the Indo-Pacific”, the ministry said in a statement on Saturday.
The two ministers agreed to meet in New York next week, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, to work “on a common programme of concrete actions to defend together a truly multilateral international order”, it added.
For his part, Jaishankar said in a Twitter post they discussed “developments in the Indo-Pacific and Afghanistan”.
France has pushed for several years for a European strategy for boosting economic, political and defence ties in the region stretching from India and China to Japan and New Zealand. The European Union unveiled this week its plan for the Indo-Pacific.
The phone call came a day after the French government recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia after Canberra ditched a multibillion-dollar order for French submarines in favour of a partnership with Washington and London in the Indo-Pacific region.
Calling the cancellation “unacceptable behaviour”, Le Drian said in a statement on Friday the decision to recall the envoys, on request from President Emmanuel Macron, “is justified by the exceptional seriousness of the announcements” made by Australia and the United States.
A White House official said on Friday that the US regrets France’s decision and will continue to be engaged in the coming days to resolve differences between the two countries.
Australia said on Saturday it also regrets France’s decision, adding that it values its relationship with France and will keep engaging with Paris on many other issues.
IT seems to me that it's mainly diplomatic language
I dunno. Just one day after the AUKAS agreement was announced it was reported upwards of 15 US Congressmen and women had travelled to Finland in an attempt to secure the F-35 as the victor. They made their trip prior to the AUKUS announcement on the 15th, but the message still hasn't changed out of the US Congress. The US congress would have known about the AUKUS agreement in advance as well.
Congress to White House: Finn-ish the sale
www.politico.com
The US isn't going to sacrifice a major tender and American jobs and cash for the sake of France's feelings. The disintegration of the Attack class contract shows that succinctly.
Last edited:
The Finns are not going to favour the Rafale just 'cause something happened in some other part of the globe unrelated to them. Nor is the US going to make concessions to the French just 'cause the Aussies changed their minds. Whatever the case, this is between France and Australia. The US is in it to win it.
