Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

thunderchief

Senior Member
Elimination of highly praised Brahmos?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Main purpose of S-400 is not defense against cruise missiles, they have other SAMs for that. System was designed to tackle new and emerging threats at long range, i.e. 5th gen fighter-bombers, stealthy UCAVs and to limited degree ballistic missiles. If and when China purchase S-400, I would expect it to be deployed mainly on east coast , not against India .
 

HMS Astute

Junior Member
I would expect it to be deployed mainly on east coast , not against India .

"Even though China's air defense capability has gradually advanced over the last 15 years, Vedomosti said that the PLA Navy still needs assistance from Russia to defend critical cities in the southern parts of the nation and disputed islands."
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
"Even though China's air defense capability has gradually advanced over the last 15 years, Vedomosti said that the PLA Navy still needs assistance from Russia to defend critical cities in the southern parts of the nation and disputed islands."

Even if it is true, it has nothing to do with India . China and India have some disputes in Himalayan region, not at sea. Nautically, China and India are far from each other .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

aksha

Captain
Final Political Push For #MMRCA Arrives Sunday, Five Key Developments
4Or0xIo.jpg

An exhausted French government is probably seeing it as fortuitous that new Indian defence minister Manohar Parrikar's first foreign guest will be French defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who arrives tomorrow in Delhi on a two-day visit. He meets Parrikar on Monday late in the morning. This will be Le Drian's third visit as his country's defence minister to India.

In January, the Indian MoD and Dassault Aviation will mark three years since the Rafale won the final downselect in 2012. A contract for 126 Rafale fighters remains in final negotiations, heaving and jerking across over 24 months. As the French minister arrives for what Paris hopes will be the last political push required to see the deal through, here's a quick round-up of six key developments that set out the state of play:

On November 28 in Parliament, defence minister Parrikar made his most direct comment on the MMRCA negotiations, on which he is reported to have said, "Where defence acquisitions have almost come to end stage, we will stick to RFP (request for proposal)." In other words, while the new government focus would be on procurement routes that were reserved for Indian-made equipment or foreign equipment license-built in India, deals like the MMRCA would not be tinkered with. The MMRCA
IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha has met defence minister Parrikar three times since the latter took office (the first was a courtesy call, and they didn't talk shop). At both of the other two meetings, the IAF chief stressed the 'No Plan-B' message initiated by his predecessor.
While negotiations are largely complete, the issue of OEM liability for the 108 aircraft that HAL will build in Bangalore hasn't been ironed out just yet. Reports on this issue have only touched the surface. It's a far greater sticking point than its being reported to be (my next goes into specifics). This could take a while to fix. The French defence minister's team will almost definitely have something to add on this. We'll know Monday.
As negotiations plod through the so-called final stretch, the political establishment is looking for a way to peg the Rafale deal as a shining package for Prime Minister Modi's 'Make in India' campaign (he wants to do this with the navy's P75I too). Apart from certain voices on the inside, the deal isn't politically contentious given that negotiations took place largely under the previous government. In that light, I hear the present administration may be looking to own the deal better if it needs to.
It's been nine months since then defence minister A.K. Antony threw his hands up in Feb this year and said the Rafale deal had to be pushed back because of a funds crunch. His successor Arun Jaitley, who doubled usefully as Finance Minister for the six months he spent at the MoD, didn't quite clarify on budgetary flexibility except to say that funds for all priority acquisitions would be made available. That's saying a lot without saying anything at all. Like most things in the MMRCA so far.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

EXCLUSIVE: Specifically Why India's Rafale Deal Is Held Up
So, as I mentioned in my earlier post, sticking points in negotiations between Dassault Aviation and HAL remain the chief reason why a draft contract hasn't reached finality. There have been a few reports that point to general difficulties in negotiations between HAL and Dassault on liability for the 108 aircraft that the former will license build in Bangalore. What you probably haven't heard about are the specific stumbling blocks. There are basically three:

Responsibility for the 108 aircraft in terms of liability, damages and attendant clauses on access, inspection and post-manufacture testing. Dassault's concern is that HAL hasn't built up any of the fixed assets which the company feels would be the minimum requirement to begin discussing the modalities of the kind of liability HAL wants Dassault to take on for the jets built in India. With the last 60 aircraft to be as much as 90% 'Made in India',
The ball is apparently in HAL's court, with Dassault telling the Cost Negotiation Committee (CNC) that it still awaits figures from HAL on the financial specifics of the liability it is seeking to transfer to Dassault. Dassault has asked HAL to clarify the specifics of any similar liability parameters in comparable deals like HAL's Su-30 MKI production line on license from Russia.
Modalities of licensee/licensor and the manner in which the final agreement sets down their roles. Things are actually more contentious than most believe/report. Dassault has even flagged up issues with access to HAL's facilities.
Done and dusted clauses of the exhaustive contract cover pretty much all other aspects. The company's aversion for HAL manifested itself two years ago when it was revealed that Dassault wanted to built some of its aircraft with Reliance Industries' new defence business. With an irritated HAL putting its foot down and asserting itself as the principal production partner, the relationship between the two has been, well, uncertain at best. Both sides will be looking to new leadership at the MoD to get things moving.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Tahiadidou

New Member
Registered Member
Final Political Push For #MMRCA Arrives Sunday, Five Key Developments


EXCLUSIVE: Specifically Why India's Rafale Deal Is Held Up

Hello Aksha,

Overall, given that HAL built 150 MKI or so, and that (officially) only 5 crashed for a variety of reasons (per Wikipedia), is there any doubt that the deal between HAL and Sukhoi did not benefit India's aviation industry? I read that the level of local integration is pretty significant, like 60-70%.
I am just trying to understand the rationale behind Dassault Aviation's reluctance with regards so-called liability Ts & Cs.
India is often perceived as a very demanding customer and I see it (lived it) in other domains than just military.
Further i am assuming the Rafale contract is about the F3R and any future upgrades, correct?

Would be great if you or anyone else had an insight on the above. Thanks in advance.
 

aksha

Captain
1)the problem is that Dassault worked with HAL on the Tejas ,and i think that they feel HAL is not competent enough,
India's private industries on the other hand have a good reputation,( tata aerospace already makes parts for Sirkosky and Boeing.)
2)Dassault also has to give a guarantee for the planes made in india
HAL says it won't allow French observers during manufacturing of the Rafales.
the private industry on the other hand short of experience and without the arrogance of HAL will allow observers.
having observers will allow Dassault to control the quality of the products .
(actually IAF wanted to penalize HAL if they deliver products late,HAL pushed it on Dassault,and this lead to further delaying the deal ,though the IAF supports Dassault here).
3)Dassault has asked HAL to show them a required minimum of inrastructure ,but HAL hasn't done so.

these are just some of the problems delaying the deal.
 

Tahiadidou

New Member
Registered Member
Those i got, but it leads me back to the MKI contract. If known, were there such demands by HAL?
I noted in the article you posted that Dassault was curious about the same
Dassault has asked HAL to clarify the specifics of any similar liability parameters in comparable deals like HAL's Su-30 MKI production line on license from Russia [end quote].
 

aksha

Captain
Those i got, but it leads me back to the MKI contract. If known, were there such demands by HAL?
I noted in the article you posted that Dassault was curious about the same
Dassault has asked HAL to clarify the specifics of any similar liability parameters in comparable deals like HAL's Su-30 MKI production line on license from Russia [end quote].

well the IAF does not penalize HAL for making lesser number of su30 mki's per year(i suppose they didn't think of it at that time,but time and experience has taught them to be more careful) (HAL does not make the reqd. number of mkis per year,).

but IAF wants to penalize late delivery of rafales unlike the MKI's ,but HAL wants to put the late delivery fines on Dassault's head.
 

Brumby

Major
1)the problem is that Dassault worked with HAL on the Tejas ,and i think that they feel HAL is not competent enough,
India's private industries on the other hand have a good reputation,( tata aerospace already makes parts for Sirkosky and Boeing.)
2)Dassault also has to give a guarantee for the planes made in india
HAL says it won't allow French observers during manufacturing of the Rafales.
the private industry on the other hand short of experience and without the arrogance of HAL will allow observers.
having observers will allow Dassault to control the quality of the products .
(actually IAF wanted to penalize HAL if they deliver products late,HAL pushed it on Dassault,and this lead to further delaying the deal ,though the IAF supports Dassault here).
3)Dassault has asked HAL to show them a required minimum of inrastructure ,but HAL hasn't done so.

these are just some of the problems delaying the deal.

The issues as described is much more than just mere competency. Essentially, the expectation is that Dassault will assume the contingent liabilities without the oversight and responsibility over production and quality management. No prudently managed commercial organisation will ever sign off on such terms. They are effectively deal stoppers.
 
Top