(Photo: courtesy Ajai Shukla)
A computer generated design image of HAL's Light Combat Helicopter
By Ajai Shukla
HAL, Bangalore
Business Standard, 14th Sept 09
A jinx seems to hover above the armed forces’ urgent need for modern attack helicopters to replace the obsolescent Russian Mi-35s, which have been around for three decades. In March, the Defence Ministry had to cancel a global tender for 22 attack helicopters after international vendors signalled little interest. Meanwhile, the indigenous Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), being developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), has run into a serious weight problem.
Business Standard discovered, during a visit to Bangalore, that the LCH --- which should weight about 2.5 tonnes --- is overweight by some 580 kilograms. For operations in the plains, or in the foothills, this would not be a disaster. But at Himalayan altitudes, near the LCH’s ceiling of 6000 metres (19,685 feet), this would dramatically reduce the helicopter’s payload of rockets and missiles.
This weight problem means the LCH’s first flight will only take place at the end of this year. Despite the delay, that first Technology Demonstrator, named TD-1, will still be 400 kg heavier than planned.
The Managing Director of HAL’s brand new Helicopter Complex, Mr R Srinivasan, told Business Standard that the LCH’s weight would be progressively reduced over the first three prototypes. “We will find ways of cutting down TD-1 by 180-200 kg; TD-2, which will fly in mid-2010, will be another 100 kg lighter; and TD-3, which will be ready by end-2010, will shave off another 65-75 kg.”
That still adds up to only 375 kg, which means that the LCH could enter production 200 kg heavier than planned. HAL bosses say the IAF has accepted the extra weight.
Attack helicopters are amongst the most difficult combat platforms to successfully engineer. Even a helicopter maker like Sikorsky, which can boast of having designed the legendary Black Hawk helicopter, lost prestige and over $6.9 billion in a failed attempt to develop the Comanche attack helicopter.
But HAL remains confident it can navigate these treacherous waters. Many of the key technologies --- e.g. the Shakti engine, the rotors and the main gearbox --- that will go into the LCH are being concurrently proven in the Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH), 159 of which are being built for the army and the air force.
Meanwhile, the weapons and sensor packages that give the LCH its fighting edge are being tested on a weaponised version of the Dhruv. HAL and the IAF have zeroed in on a Nexter 20 mm turret mounted cannon, an MBDA air-to-air missile, and an EW suite from SAAB, South Africa. India’s Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) has begun work on a HELINA missile, which is the successful Nag missile with an extended range of 7 kilometres.
HAL’s focus on the LCH is evident. The newly created Helicopter Complex has set up a Mission and Combat Systems R&D Centre, or MCSRDC, which is focusing on developing indigenous glass cockpits for the range of helicopters that HAL intends to churn out, starting with the LCH.
[A glass cockpit refers to the tidy digital multi-function display that replaces the earlier clutter of dials and instruments that made flying so difficult.]
So far, HAL has imported the glass cockpit displays from Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Sagem, of France. But with a range of helicopters in the making --- including 179 LCHs; 187 Light Utility Helicopters (LUH); and 400 or so Medium Lift Helicopters (MLH) --- there is a need, HAL believes, to develop its own glass cockpits.
My question is:
ReplyDeleteIf HAL knows how much they're gonna reduce with each TD, why don't it right away?
hahahahaha.........lol
ReplyDeleteIt would be a wonder if HAL comes up with the LCH as per the specs.
I did already expected some thing like this.And Ajai shukla`s covering the HAL ineptness with Comanche???? great.
First one has to accept that HAL`s project management sucks.secondly they are still a long way to become a successful Aricraft assembling company.
And they screwed up both the IA and IAF plans of acquiring the attack helis from outside.And if the war with china is on line, then this lack of attack helis will be one of the reason for loosing the war along with the politicians not having balls and being corrupted.
It means HAL is going to be responsible for the death of Indian soldiers and for Cause of India loosing a war.Jush shame on HAL.I was wondering all these years when IAF and IN blaming HAL for quality control.Right now its not only quality control of assembling aircrafts or heli`s, but also Quality of people working with HAL.
What is the best Attack Helicopter in the world?
ReplyDeleteRegarding LCH, which part of it is overweight? (excuse me if my question is foolish). I mean, can't HAL use composite materials to reduce the weight of LCH?
Do PLA and Pak Def have similar attack helicopters?
To BROADSWORD: The 2.5-tonne weight you're referring to is presumably the empty weight, since the max takeoff weight of the LCH is listed as 5.5 tonnes.
ReplyDeleteSince IAF only choice is LCH and they are almost sure to buy LCH, I think they should do an IN.
ReplyDelete>IAF can give HAL some up front funds, so HAL can improve and speed up LCH.
>IAF can also offer some other incentive if HAL sensibly brings down LCH weight to specification by a specific date.
IAF usually sets un-realistic specs. I think it is impossible for all the global companies to make a combat helicopter with such weight and ceiling. Thats why some companies dont want to participate i IAF tender for 22 combat choppers.
ReplyDeleteAjaiji any prototype photo??
Prasun, the extra weight has to be seen in the context of the empty weight... the empty helicopter was supposed to weigh 2.5 tonnes... and the empty helicopter weighs 600 kg extra.
ReplyDeleteAs of today, the max takeoff weight is still 5.5 tonnes. The problem is: 600 kg of payload has been replaced by 600 kg of structure weight!!
Anonymous 09:12, if they try to reduce the entire amount in the very first TD, it will take another year to fly. Taking off weight is a time-consuming design process.
Pritam, the IAF is not setting "unrealistic" specs for the LCH. Setting the specs has been a consultative process between the IAF and HAL and they are working together to overcome the problem of weight.
Nice that the IAF is adopting the IN policy of getting the stuff for trials without meeting all the specs. This will speed up the process rather than delayed for 10 long years as usual with the Indian Army. The next version onwards it is improved. Similarly in this case after the first lot is under production, the 200 kg weight reduced LCH's can be developed and mass produced.
ReplyDeleteComanche was not a failed project. Its just that with the end of the Cold War, the need for a stealth attack helicopter was no longer needed with the lack of Russian tanks pouring through the Fulda gap.
ReplyDeleteGet your facts right. Are you a journalist (reality) or a janitor (rubbish)?
America never fails, so there.
Hi Ajaiji,
ReplyDeleteAs the Managing Director of HAL’s brand new Helicopter Complex, Mr R Srinivasan, said that the LCH’s weight would be progressively reduced over the first three prototypes (Technology Demonstrator) step by step. Do they also consider upgrading the shakti engines side by side or is it possible to modify the engine to generate more thrust to counter balance the extra weight.
Re Ajai
ReplyDeleteAnother good article. I wonder whether IAF will accept heavier LCH for plains then as the Helo becomes lighter & engines become more powerful, the next batch can be deployed in Mountains.
Vincent,
ReplyDeleteGet your facts right. Comanche failed due to poor project management. They were skipping too many testing points for the machine.
Ultimately they couldn't meet the deadlines with all those tests within given budget.
Also, its price was astronomically high even for a country like US. i.e. its was F-22 in making.
Earlier reports said that 70 LCH was the requirement of IAF while you mention 179 LCH. Is it a typing error or the order book has really increased or it includes 159 ALH order. A very good article on LCH.
ReplyDeleteHi Ajaiji,
ReplyDeleteIs the cockpit of LCH being designed to protect the crew in NBC conditions?
@ Vincent,
ReplyDeletePeople like you just drag their lazy fat arse around & puke their rubbish everywhere.
FYI, the Comanche WAS a failure. It ran into serious cost overruns. According to you stealth is no longer needed now? So would you care to explain why every military aircraft manufacturer in the world is going 5th gen way? The American Marine corps wouldn't want an invisible attack helicopter in Iraq right now? hunh?? So they decided to invest $6.9 bn & then just abandoned the project 'cause of no russian tanks to challenge them?
As for the America never fails thing...shows how much you actually know about American R&D. Americans can afford trials & errors simply cuz they have plenty of money for that. In case a project fails; they don't brand it a failure, it's tagged a tech demonstrator/R&D test-bed etc.
yeah, stealth = invisible, you idiot. Never heard of insurgents carrying around a S-300 in their pocket.
ReplyDeleteajai plz see http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R40796.pdf
ReplyDeleteit say India buys 6 C130J
cargo aircraft for $962 million while Iraq buys 6
C130J cargo aircraft for $534 million.where did nearly 400 million went?this can be breaking news for u.
hello china hater ,you stinking moron! when HAL made ALH, it had truck load of problems and some of them may even still remain unsolved,but with all that its still a beauty. Same thing is applied to LCH also. let HAL make TD1 first and immprovements will follow suit. Using armour is a first time experience for HAl and all other systems might have been derived from ALH. you moron! ppl like you are a pest!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 14 September 2009 09:12 said...
ReplyDeleteMy question is:
If HAL knows how much they're gonna reduce with each TD, why don't it right away?
==============
because that's how industrial design progresses !
you push the design limits in increments so as not to cross the safety margins in a hurry and lose a pilot !
sheesh ! the ignorance here is truly galling !
Dear IDIOT CHINAHATER,
ReplyDeleteit's the IAF that screwed up plans to get attack helos, so they have only themselves to blame.
now go and kill yourself.
Do HAL employees get revised pay scales, just wondering as it is defence PSU.
ReplyDeleteIf they can succeeed with the Dhruv they can surely succeed with the LCH.
ReplyDelete@Vincent
ReplyDeletegrow up a bit will you? I said Marine corps idiot do you even know what they do?? Take your head out of your arse and read about them and their roles at the start of a conflict. Seriously??! how old are you ten?
To BROADSWORD: Ajay, even if 600kg of payload has been replaced by 600kg of structural weight, it should not pose any performance penalties since the LCH's specified offensive payload (THL-20 cannon, twin 2.65-inch rocket pods and up to four Mistral ATAM AAMs), plus the mission sensors and avionics all will not be amounting to 600kg per se. Therefore, the extra structural weight of 600kg need not necessarily result in a reduction of the weapons/sensors payloads' weight by 600kg. The only way I foresee HAL reducing the LCH's all-up weight is by either reducing the LCH's on-board fuel capacity, or adopting a lighter landing gear.
ReplyDeleteBy the way the planned/targetted weapons/sensors payload concerns the LCH, i.e. for combat only. Thus far, HAL has not displayed any poster or illustration or scale-model of the LCH being converted into a Light Attack Helicopter (LAH) capable of carrying the much heavier Helina ATGMs. Even the LCH's latest scale-model displayed at the MAKS 2009 expo last month did not show it carrying any kind of ATGMs. That said, the only designated carrier of Helina ATGMs remains the armed Dhruv ALH, a prototype of which was giving daily flying displays at Aero India 2009.
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteAjai lives in India and has actual contacts at HAL. Unlike you.
"So far, HAL has imported the glass cockpit displays from Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Sagem, of France."
ReplyDelete-------------------------------
Why does HAL intend to duplicate avoidable industrial activity? THALES-SAMTEL is already producing multifunction AMLCDs for the Su-30MKI and the Tejas LCA programme. Wouldn't it be prudent for HAL to outsource such AMLCDs for both the Dhruv ALH and LCH from the same India-based OEM?
To Anon@21:45: Precisely the reasons why I'm asking Ajay's informed and enlightened response, not your's.
ReplyDeleteGreetings Broadsword,
ReplyDeleteWhile your article was a good read, I'd like to point out, that while the Comanche program was cancelled, your implications are erroneous. The Comanche program was cancelled by the Pentagon because the funds were to be diverted to upgrading the Army's regular fleet, and not because of any deficiencies or inordinate delays in development.
The advent of large scale use of UAVs and the need for technological superiority diminished by the collapse of the USSR, the Comanche program was a waste of funds. About $700 million or so was paid to the Boeing-Sikorsky consortium in contract termination fees.
Prasun, 500-600 kg is the LCH payload for the no-extra weight version at the very edge of its altitude limit @ 20,000 feet and above.
ReplyDeleteif that weight is eaten up by structures its efficacy as a high altitude combat helicopter will suffer.
reading some of the comments made here makes it so obvious that they have no practical industrial, or design or aerospace experience whatsoever and still want to comment..
ReplyDeletewhile it it clear that HAL hasn't done a good job of weight management from the start (600 kgs extra on a 2500 kgs empty weight design goal is too much), this isn't something totally new. NH90 for all its orders and European experience, is still overweight. because of the very high G load requirements from the crash resistant landing gear, the weight of that alone will be very high. add to that the armour (has to be composite armour, like the Kanchan on the Arjun), equipment, avionics, the engines, the gearbox, IR deflectors, etc. and you'll see how quickly it can all add up to 2.5 tonnes or more of weight.
but its a very wise move by IAF as well, to allow the TD-1 to fly and then have weight reduction carried out on the TD-2 and TD-3. that will validate key systems, and while weight reduction activities are carried out in parallel, flight tests can proceed. A small performance penalty will be acceptable, as the LCH will offer better high altitude capability than anything else in its inventory currently and better than most of the competitors for the IAF's 22 Attack helicopter competition, because of its ALH pedigree.
To fighterclass: Precisely. But if you were to add up the weight of all the weapon systems that are shown on the LCH's scale model, it wopuld not even touch the 300kg mark. As for the LCH's service ceiling it is listed by HAL as being 6,500 metres, or 21,325 feet. At that altitude any conventional twin-engined helicopter, even if fully weight-compliant, will not be able to engage in any kind of tactical manoeuvre of consequence. Therefore, expecting the LCH to engage in warfare right up to its service ceiling is fallacious. Instead, the ASQR prepared by the IAF for the LCH states that the helicopter's HOGE ought to be 3,500 metres, or 11,482.939 feet when it has an all-up weight of 5 tonnes. In fact, of the seven missions listed out by the IAF's ASQR, there is no mention in writing at all about the LCH being optimised for high-altitude warfare--a term which is being mentioned only by the press/mass media in India, when in reality the ASQR only describes the LCH's seven mission-flight profiles as being capable of being carried out over the plains as well as over mountainous terrain (HAL's information posters stae the same as well). But nowhere does the ASQR spell out the max altitude of the mountainous terrain which the LCH is supposed to overfly. Therefore, it is small wonder that the IAF has accepted the LCH's existing weight penalties as a fact of live that it can comfortably live with. In case there ever arises an operational reqmt for a high-altitude combat/attack helicopter, then one ought to give serious thought to next-generation platforms like Sikorsky's X-2LTH, since only such platforms--and not the LCH--will be able to achieve high-altitude service ceilings without compromising on either offensive payload or manoeuvrability.
ReplyDeleteGood post, Kartik. A monir nitpick though - the fuselage was designed by Plexion Technologies, not HAL. And they are the ones working on reducing the weight too.
ReplyDeletePrasun, in Feb 2009, when the LCH was said to 250kg overweight, HAL's N Seshadri had this to say: “At altitudes of 6000 metres (almost 20,000 feet), which the LCH must operate at, the air is so thin that it can only carry a weapons payload of about 350-500 kg. If the helicopter ends up 250 kg heavier than planned, its high altitude firepower will be dramatically reduced.”
To Kartik: You're absolutely right, as even the IAF has realised that and decided nevertheless to proceed with its LCH procurement plans. To me the overweight problem is not the principal engineering design challenge to be overcome, but ensuring the stability of the optronic mission sensors by greatly mitigating the airframe vibration under hot-and-high operating conditions is the principal challenge.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon@01:08: Regretfully, N Seshadri does not state what will be the nature of the LCH's flight operations at around 20,000 feet. Nor does he state the total payload weight of the LCH (which comprises the 20mm THL-20 cannon and related turret, twin 2.75-inch FZ rocket pods and four MBDA-built Mistral ATAM missiles). These two issues are crucial because at such altitudes such as those in J & K, there's no terrain masking available and any helicopter attempting to stage fire-assaults with 2.75-inch rockets against targets located at hilltops will be targetted far in advance by shoulder-launched MANPADS (up to six at a time against each helicopter to totally overwhelm the helicopter's defensive aids suite). This is exactly what happened during OP Vijay in 1999, leading to the loss of the two M-17s. I'm therefore pretty sure that the IAF will never make such mistakes again and stick to lower operating altitudes for ensuring adequate airframe survivability and tactical manoeuvrability for self-defence. And like I stated earlier, neither in HAL's LCH information posters nor in the IAF's ASQR on LCH are the words 'high altitude' either stated or defined.
ReplyDeleteLCH forsure has to trim down the weight.It would be great if more than 600kg can be trimmed .
ReplyDeleteHELINA reserved its spot already on the weapon pylons of LCH.
More weight reduction = More payload capability= more HELINA`s it can carry on an Anti-Tank role.
And more rocket pods it can carry on a China-Paki bunkers and infra busting role.
And more ammo for its gattling gun means ,more chino-paks it can kill.
Thats it.Lets put it in a more organised and detailed fashion that,the weight being trimmed can be utilised to kill many more pigs and pandas.
True Indian: Contrary to your dire wish for slaughtering pigs and pandas (hello, this is an endangered species already!!!), nothing of the kind you wish for will happen in the foreseeable future. Why? Because your beloved PM declared in 2005 that the India-Pakistan peace process is irreversible (meaning a de facto no-war treaty is already in place). On top of that at Sharm el Sheikh this July the very same PM agreed with his Pakistani counterpart that no matter how many times Pakistan-origin terrorists create havoc inside India the composite dialogues and high-level summit meetings will continue as if nothing has changed, and most importantly, to sustain such dialogues/meetings India will never carry out any cross-bortder punitive military strikes. And against China, the PM-to-PM hotline will ensure that India does not give any chance to China to open another front for the already strained PLA, which is already too busy quelling internal unrests. In conclusion: India's pro-active strategy designed to carry the war deep inside the enemy's territory has now been changed to: all defence, no offense. While India remains busy equipping itself to fight the third-generation wars, the Pakistan Army, by merging thousands of Jihadis into its ORBAT, has already acquired the distinction of being the world's first professional fighting army to use the Jihadis as its first line of attack, thereby revealing its ability to wage fourth-generation warfare. But how do you sell this new 'warfighting doctrine' to the well-meaning and unsuspecting Indian armed forces? You do it by not creating the post of Chief of Defence Staff, by maintaining a trunciated HQ Integrated Defence Staff, by limiting the Indian armed forces' top brass to only operational-level planning (and keeping them out-of-the-loop when it comes to strategic decision-making), by reducing the armed forces' force modernisation efforts to a sheer mockery, and by limiting the Union Ministry of Home Affairs's mandate to only border management, instead of border dominance. Now, how many LCHs does one require to combat all this?
ReplyDeletePrasun,
ReplyDeleteYou are day dreaming.The same PM remain as PM for the rest of Countries life.
If people like you might forget the past, but the wounds are still remained.There will be a day when the revenge takes its own decision.For every single head we lost, both these countries has pay back in hundreds and thousands.A freaken hotline between China-India wont stop a war if China is desperate .
Similarly with the Paki front.
Whether you take it for granted or not, the future of India wont have leaders like this mouthballed PM`s and RM`s.
The Future of India is already written.India is the future.India will rule the whole world.
People like you who embrace yanks will never understand how much India suffered in the past and many lives were lost.
Every one who were part of it deserves a different fate.Including the so called brits.No one can easily escape their own fate.And its your fate which decides whether you want to be on the victorious side or on the loosers side.
They started the war and we will finish it for good.
Prasun,
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand your as well as the rest of India's frustration with Pakistan sponsored violence in India, the Indian PM knows what he's doing.
Any military action against Pakistan would be purely punitive in nature. And when it escalates(which it assuredly will), the military will be fighting a war with no clearly defined objectives. 1965: clear all intruders out of the Rann of Kutch and thwart the enemy offensive at Akhnur, 1971: liberate Bangladesh and conduct a holding operation on the western front, 1999: evict all intruders from India's side of the LoC. 2008:? And that's without going into the nuclear dimension. The US paid the price of inadequate and faulty long term planning in Iraq in terms of thousands of casualties and trillions of dollars.
And before fighting any war, the political and economic costs must be factored in. While jingoists will have their nationalist warmongering take on events, the people responsible for the lives of millions have to be much more circumspect.
And lastly, while it rarely is published in Indian media, Indian intelligence agencies have been doing their part to make sure Pakistan knows this is game two can play. And lets leave that at that.
Regards
Hmmmmmm.I love wars.And especially killing pigs.Its lot of fun doing that.And I would like to kill some pandas as well.
ReplyDelete"“We will find ways of cutting down TD-1 by 180-200 kg; TD-2, which will fly in mid-2010, will be another 100 kg lighter; and TD-3, which will be ready by end-2010, will shave off another 65-75 kg.”"
ReplyDeleteAnybody else think that this schedule is a 'bit' optimistic?
...and we somehow know about TD2, TD3 schedules and weight reduction program before TD1 even makes first flight?
ReplyDeleteThis is pure HAL porn. I hope IAF has its zipper in lock position.
Have you guys red about the diamond reinforced plastic technology? HAL can possibly use this in LCH.
ReplyDeleteBTW, revenge and hate are a slippery slope towards destroying the world. It also clouds your judgment. Our text says that we should let our intelligence be our guide, not our emotions.
If you would like to see what hate and revenge can do to you then checkout: Hitler, Bin Laden, Muslim terrorist, Richard Nixon.
To Anonymous at 1:08:
ReplyDeleteHAL is the prime contractor here- Plexion Technologies contracts to have the CAD and analysisi done by its engineers, however the design is that of HAL. while Plexion technologies may be responsible as well for over-designing some parts (and this happens because of tight schedules mostly, where optimisation is a luxury and can be done only when you have time and don't have a sword over your head to release drawings to manufacturing), HAL's Lead engineers should've been aware of how much weight they were adding upto, and whether they've been excessively conservative in their margins of safety. In part, I say this because the ALH has built up thousands of hours of service experience, and those parts that are common, should have a service history. Based on service history, some conservatism in the design and analysis of parts can be reduced.
Prasun, you said and I quote "To me the overweight problem is not the principal engineering design challenge to be overcome, but ensuring the stability of the optronic mission sensors by greatly mitigating the airframe vibration under hot-and-high operating conditions is the principal challenge."
ReplyDeleteMuch of this has been done on the Weaponised Dhruv, so vibration issues shouldn't be a big thing to tackle. the weapons are almost similar on the two platforms, but only some of the sensors are different.
Another point- the Mistral ATAM is only for the missions where the LCH will provide escort to special heliborne ops (SHBO), Airborne defense against slow moving targets and in some cases, for support/escort of Search and Rescue operations. In its Anti-tank role and offensive employment in Urban warfare, counter surface force ops, it will use its ATGMs, rocket pods and cannon as primary armament.
ReplyDeleteThese can be seen on the link given below.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/aero/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=4234&g2_serialNumber=3
Part I
ReplyDeleteOne thing is clear from HAL's approach to LCH.
"Optimizing the design to high altitude"
This results in least weight, highest power, highest lift configuration.
On other terrain, the design can only perform better.
Of only LCH uses the skin itself as a monocoque, they might reduce the weight as well as achieve the required signatures.
Part II
To Prasun Sengupta's post @ 15 September 2009 01:06
Sikorsky's X-2LTH is specifically designed for higher speeds than higher altitudes. For it to have a decent payload, it has to take off from lower altitude and sustain high speed flight in higher altitudes, in which case, its purpose of being a helicopter is lost. It acts more like a COIN aircraft than a helicopter in high altitudes.
Agree with you Vivek. Our intelligence agencies are doing their bit and good one at that to the porkis & chinks & their efforts to destabilise us are suitably rewarded.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as people like Prasun & others are concerned, who are mostly ppl who post brochures & not blogs & with a skewed sense of defence matters, they better be left ignored.
It is always easy to speak in negative terms about our polity & scientists but be one of them & u'll know how difficult it is to run a country or develop military tech.
If there was no war after 26/11 it was not because we lacked in neway vis a vis porkis or we were afraid of a nuclear aftermath, it was coz we din wanted to play in the hands of dirty porkis. 26/11 was done specifically to intimidate India to attack Pakistan so that the porkis can save there asses from the taliban.
As far as the LCH is concerned it does need to operate at high altitudes with all its weapons coz tht is one highly likely scenario when fighting in the Himalayas. Prasun seems to have forgotten Kargil - but tht is expected coz american brochures wont carry details abt Kargil.
Lessons from Kargil
ReplyDelete1. Don't fly Russian planes.
2. Use proper 155 mm artillery.
3. Try precision guided munitions.
4. Half of Indian officers were overweight and unfit to serve.
5. Greasy corruption had slowed the deployment of troops and equipment.
6. India has ever only won against Pakistan.
7. China would be a whole different matter, and the gap has not closed with your hotch podge buying methods (want best but cheap, want advanced but want to mod, want huge tender but expects last minute changes)
8. Indian lives were sacrificed on a wintry mountain because India was complacent and is still complacent.
9. American equipment are by far the best in the world in most fields.
10. Did you not hear the bit about Russian planes?
@Vincent
ReplyDelete"6. India has ever only won against Pakistan."
You moron, do you see a country called Bangladesh on the world map?
"want best but cheap"
Why not join purchase department of any company and learn basics?
"want advanced but want to mod"
Wear my pants buddy, they are pants after all
"9. American equipment are by far the best in the world in most fields."
Have you ever fought anyone your equal to prove it???
At Anonymous Coward
ReplyDelete"You moron, do you see a country called Bangladesh on the world map?"
Silly me, I thought it was called West Pakistan then, and you fought against Pakistani soldiers on behalf of the Bangladeshis. Anyway boasting you won a war against Bangladeshis, some of the most gentle thambis I know, is like boasting you can outpunch children. Not cool.
"Why not join purchase department of any company and learn basics?"
Would you buy a BMW and ask for Hyundai prices?
"Wear my pants buddy, they are pants after all"
The fact that you link advanced military hardware to your trousers betrays your mentality. And the obsessive Indian need to tinker and deobjectify and customize in the face of anonymity among a billion population. Would you buy a BMW and ask to paint flames on the side?
"Have you ever fought anyone your equal to prove it??"
Actually quite an idiotic comeback, since my claim ultimately nullifies your criticism. If we have by far the best, we naturally have no equal. What we can say is that our equipment work at least on the baseline of thrashing the fourth largest army in the world or medium sized countries with ease (invasion phase). And I doubt if India wants to make something of it, we would work up a sweat sinking your entire navy in 24 hours (or anybody else's).
But you beat Bangladeshis, woooooooooooh.
"Anyway boasting you won a war against Bangladeshis, some of the most gentle thambis I know, is like boasting you can outpunch children. Not cool."
ReplyDelete>>> We won the war against the west pakistan army stationed in Bangladesh(then East Pakistan) and not the gentle thambis. And the war was open on both east and west fronts.
"Would you buy a BMW and ask for Hyundai prices?"
>>> We wanted a car and you make only the BMWs.
Anyways just because you approach prospective Hyundai buyers would they raise their budget???
And if you call that slow elephant f18 equipped with latest radar a BMW then I pity you.
"The fact that you link advanced military hardware to your trousers betrays your mentality. And the obsessive Indian need to tinker and deobjectify and customize in the face of anonymity among a billion population. Would you buy a BMW and ask to paint flames on the side?"
>> After preaching the world: "Give the customer what he wants" this is what you have to tell us. ROFL.
Every country has unique defence requirements. And they don't change because the supplier has inertia.
Why should I put up with a unique inconvenience so that you don't have to change? If I have to deal with ants why should I try your cockroach spray?
A best fit is ALWAYS customized. But you always come crying: "Why doesn't the whole world eat burgers because that's what I make"??
As for you finding our wallets small, the value of money for each person is based on how hard it takes them to earn it. The sheikhs pump the dollars out of ground and You even easily print them in a press, so you can spend it that way.
We have our terms, you don't like them, feel free to leave.
@Vincent
ReplyDelete"9. American equipment are by far the best in the world in most fields."
If the best was always necessary, you would be riding BMW cabs in your city.
well i have see 2 lch going in sky... many times i think there is already flight test r on on ...
ReplyDeletedont wait for any formal announcement of start of that ....
just believe me
tell u THAT looks so slim and dangerous in the sky
just cheers YO!! LCH
YO!!! india YO!!! peace
>> We won the war against the west pakistan army stationed in Bangladesh(then East Pakistan) and not the gentle thambis. And the war was open on both east and west fronts.
ReplyDeleteergo, you only won against pakis, you idiot.
"Would you buy a BMW and ask for Hyundai prices?"
>>> Anyways just because you approach prospective Hyundai buyers would they raise their budget???
no idea what the hell you're wibbling about, you third world educated creature.
>>And if you call that slow elephant f18 equipped with latest radar a BMW then I pity you.
Slow? Snigger. You know nothing about aerial combat. F-18 also has one of the best nose turning ability of any aircraft out there, even without canards or TVC, and has excellent transonic acceleration. Go back to making chai clay cups.
>> After preaching the world: "Give the customer what he wants" this is what you have to tell us. ROFL.
That is for consumer products you idiot. When was the last time you saw someone customize to illogicalness a CAT scan or prototyping machine? And a combat aircraft is even more integrated and complex than that.
>>Every country has unique defence requirements. And they don't change because the supplier has inertia.
Yeah, American integrated military equipment is suitable for 100 over countries in the world but not India. Is it inertia on the part of them or more likely inertia on the part of beauracratic India babus who have an obsessive need to tinker and screw things up? This is a residual problem with mothers of the subcontinent always telling their sons how special they are when obviously they're not. Arrogant prick blaming others when the problem has always been you. I don't see many other countries with procurement problems like yours?
>>Why should I put up with a unique inconvenience so that you don't have to change? If I have to deal with ants why should I try your cockroach spray?
As usual, stick to tailoring men's trousers and killing cockroaches. Leave discussion to the third world white collared.
>>>A best fit is ALWAYS customized. But you always come crying: "Why doesn't the whole world eat burgers because that's what I make"??
Wrong! The equipment is far in excess of your needs but you do not realize it. The bloodymindedness to be arrogant and not learn from other people's experience has cost India dear such as putting two fully experienced and costly pilots in one SU-30 when other countries do not, for example, or having so many types of machines even Vatican City is laughing at you. Wake up, you are not special and you are totally incompetent and amateurish.
>>>As for you finding our wallets small, the value of money for each person is based on how hard it takes them to earn it. The sheikhs pump the dollars out of ground and You even easily print them in a press, so you can spend it that way.
Who cares? You are poor as hell and should learn some humility esp when it comes to defence.
>>>We have our terms, you don't like them, feel free to leave.
When the next war starts, with this attitude you are going to eat your words when no other country in the world will help India no matter how much they loathe your enemy.
How is socialism treating you btw?
@Vincent,
ReplyDelete"Slow? F-18 also has one of the best nose turning ability of any aircraft out there, even without canards or TVC"
>> Just take a look at how that gas guzzler flies. Why not get f18 to do a close somersault like planes with a tvc to prove deceptive turning ability? Your best test pilots sweat out to make that lazy elephant "look" as agile & nimble.
"When was the last time you saw someone customize to illogicalness a CAT scan or prototyping machine? And a combat aircraft is even more integrated and complex than that."
>> A CATscan supplier's and a hospital's interests are aligned. A defence supplier & buyer's interests are NOT. The supplier wants to keep buyer a political & military vassal. Only your aircraft seems to be complex otherwise why do other countries agree and you don't? Others sell, you lease. Others do business, you search for vassals.
"Yeah, American integrated military equipment is suitable for 100 over countries in the world but not India."
>>They are too small to be self-reliant or have been armtwisted
"Arrogant prick blaming others when the problem has always been you."
>> Because people are indirect decision makers, India exposes real face of every nation to its public. We are more than critical of our drawbacks as well. If you can't stand the muck then keep away.
"I don't see many other countries with procurement problems like yours?"
>> Either they have fat wallets or are stooges or both. Likewise, I don't see other countries with supplying problems like yours.
"As usual, stick to tailoring men's trousers and killing cockroaches. Leave discussion to the third world white collared."
>> An example from daily life is worth a thousand words especially when explaining to a redneck thickskull.
"Wrong! The equipment is far in excess of your needs but you do not realize it. "
>> What do you know our needs? My need is to incorporate my first baby-steps at making some equipment into the flying machine to enhance my learning curve. My needs are maintain secrecy of radar plan and have the flying machine solely in my control. Do your "factory-sealed equipment" satisfy these needs? Give me older stuff if you must but something that works at MY will.
"or having so many types of machines even Vatican City is laughing at you."
>> Diversification that enables independence comes at a price.
"Who cares? You are poor as hell and should learn some humility esp when it comes to defence."
>> Actually who is poor? A poor living within means or a mansion resident indebted beyond worth of his assets? You had to beg for waging Iraq war. Do you EVER feel "humble" before asking even a "poor India" to buy your T-bills??
Here's how "rich" you are:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
"When the next war starts, with this attitude you are going to eat your words when no other country in the world will help India no matter how much they loathe your enemy."
>> As if you were about to do ANY help. The only "help" you did was sending 7th fleet against us in 1971, shouting in your media about human rights of our separatists, arming terrorists like pakistan, creating NGOs that fuel dissension in the name of democracy. If this has been your "help" so far, I would be better off not expecting any.
How is socialism treating you btw?
>> Last I heard you were becoming Socialist publicly funded health insurance. Show 1 country in west that is not socialist other than US. The french & Scandinavians are socialists, UK has socialist NHS & unions, Germans have east german socialists& socialist health & education structure. Who is not socialist then, other than you?
FEELING LONELY, eh???
@Vincent,
ReplyDelete"This is a residual problem with mothers of the subcontinent always telling their sons how special they are when obviously they're not."
>> If your highness's superiority complex cannot take rebuttals from people with self-esteem then don't invent funny theories or recommend inferiority-complex to them euphemistically worded as "humility".
Of course you will talk about human EQUALITY on sunday mornings or media. Your use of the word "subcontinent" shows how even pakis don't suck-up to you.
Are you finished? Well, allow me to retort.
ReplyDelete>> Just take a look at how that gas guzzler flies. Why not get f18 to do a close somersault like planes with a tvc to prove deceptive turning ability?
Oh you were born from unnatural union. You do know that Americans invented the TVC right? Here is a 1980s video of the F-18 HARV performing way in excess of your Flanker mod. The reason the Americans didn't use TVC in the end is because it reduces engine life, creates even more drag and has limited dogfighting application. The F-22 only has 2D TVC for better control at altitudes of 50K thin air, the air show crap is only for fun. See, don't believe what the stupid Russians tell you and learn proper air combat from the professionals. The Pakis learnt from us and had no problems fighting your more advanced and more numerous air force to a standstill several times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fspStedQCg
>> A CATscan supplier's and a hospital's interests are aligned. A defence supplier & buyer's interests are NOT. The supplier wants to keep buyer a political & military vassal.
Er your analogy is WRONG. Why should a country that is seeking to supply arms not ensure that the best fit be offered to maximise the chances of selling that weapon? Furthermore, every hospital has different needs, and they do choose different size CAT scan machines, but they don't say, "hey, can I swap this American out for Israeli part because my balls are itchy and I need to justify my job's existence". _The reason you used Israeli parts in your Flanker is BECAUSE RUSSIAN AVIONICS WERE NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
>>They are too small to be self-reliant or have been armtwisted
Sounds more like Nepal and Bangladesh and Sri Lankah buying Indian equipment to me. How ridiculous, accusing others, first world countries with transparent tender and a vociferous watchdog authorities, of buying American weapons due to vassalation. F-15 (114 kills to 0 loss), F-16 (76 kills to 0 loss) - are you saying enemy fighter pilots were vassal too?
>>> We are more than critical of our drawbacks as well. If you can't stand the muck then keep away.
This is wrong. You are more tolerant of bullshit from your politicians than any other free people I have seen, because (a) most of your people are uneducated (b) rigid caste system.
>> Either they have fat wallets or are stooges or both. Likewise, I don't see other countries with supplying problems like yours.
Er, the French had malicious code implanted in several of their machines. All countries have technology-transfer restrictions, just that the americans choose to enforce it with periodic inspections. They do things to the dot, just see their MNCs.
>> What do you know our needs? My need is to incorporate my first baby-steps at making some equipment into the flying machine to enhance my learning curve.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong. Russian equipment are NOT on the glide path of technology up to Western equipment. They are made to a completely different PHILOSOPHY. Just because you can assemble Russian planes and make their parts doesn't mean you can transition to an American style system properly. If you can, why did the Chinese buy plans from the Western-inspired fighter for their J-10, and steal a container load of manuals for the F-16? _ Look at the difference between a Russian engine and a Western one. Different cores, different MTBOs, FADEC versus none, the Russian one like the Kaveri is veined with outdated tubes like a tumescent cock.
You won't ever be modern by incorporating Russian technology and innovating from it. The Russans acknowledged this by starting to buy French, Dutch and German ships and submarines. The Chinese acknowledged this by making mock ups of Western designs in destroyers, APCs etc to study them.
>>>My needs are maintain secrecy of radar plan and have the flying machine solely in my control.
Why would this benefit you, when you haven't even cracked the Russian designs by having them at length. I could give a monkey a cell phone and he'll just put it up his butt.
>>>Do your "factory-sealed equipment" satisfy these needs? Give me older stuff if you must but something that works at MY will.
Why? You feel that the technology gap between you and the West is not wide enough? Are the lives of Indian jawans so cheap that you can practice Russian and Korean war tactics of primitive technology backed by overwhelming numbers of junk equipment?
>> Diversification that enables independence comes at a price.
Having F-15 for air superiority, F-15E for deep strike interdiction and F-16 for general fighter is diversification. Having Jaguar, Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-27, Mig-29, Harrier, Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, often with overlapping and contradictory roles, with LCA, MCA, PAK-FA, MRCA to come is sign of a mental disease.
>> Actually who is poor? A poor living within means or a mansion resident indebted beyond worth of his assets? You had to beg for waging Iraq war. Do you EVER feel "humble" before asking even a "poor India" to buy your T-bills??
ReplyDeleteSo says the country with 1.2 billion more people than Turkey but with the same 1 trillion GDP. Pathetic. And you are a democratic country too. "I vote to be PENNILESS!" People will buy our dollars because we are the largest economy and Arabs only accept US dollars because we are their protector and we made it easy for them to invest in America. This is called geopolitics, my little Indian friend.
>> As if you were about to do ANY help. The only "help" you did was sending 7th fleet against us in 1971, shouting in your media about human rights of our separatists, arming terrorists like pakistan, creating NGOs that fuel dissension in the name of democracy. If this has been your "help" so far, I would be better off not expecting any.
Why shouldn't we help Pakistan then? you were lying stretched out in Russia's bed, much to our incredulity, and enjoying that fresh air of povery-freedom only Indians love. Pakistan was our ally before they turned into the worst country on earth. Today we are trying to stop them imploding because millions of Punjabi jihadists will then swamp CAR and Afghanistan. A stitch in time saves nine. You should try it with your slums.
>> Last I heard you were becoming Socialist publicly funded health insurance. Show 1 country in west that is not socialist other than US. The french & Scandinavians are socialists, UK has socialist NHS & unions, Germans have east german socialists& socialist health & education structure. Who is not socialist then, other than you?
FEELING LONELY, eh???
Well, at least these countries had the Renaissance 400 years ago, and had become rich before they became socialist. India got the order wrong as usual. I hail Mamohan Singh, the greatest Indian leader since Mother Bharat became democratic.
Hey moron Vincent. If you have so much probs with us Indians y r u trying 2 lure us to buy yer shit F-16s & 18s? Y do u spring up on all Indian blogs to advertise yer yankee stuff? u've been selling stuff to d porkis & arabs which consider u "mai-baap", not us. India is no pakistan that it'll accept yer bugged machines with an EULA that stops us to use the machine exactly 4 the very purpose we bought it for. & btw F-16s to the UAE & Israel were modded too by u.
ReplyDelete& dick head yahkee buying military hardware is not same as buying a car. Every country wants superiority with the enemy & wen using stuff like yer planes we run into danger of their secrets already out with the porkis as they use them directly or indirectly (via UAE). So to have superiority with our enemy we need to mod the equipment to our liking & requirement.
wiki on Su30 - many countries have it but the Indian modded one - the MKI - is by far the best, which even the yankees dread. u've must hv seen d awe on their faces during the joint ex.
Americans r the most dumb species on the planet (they even publish books on how to pee.lol) but their superiority complex tells them otherwise. Simple reason y they r hated the most the world over - even by the begging porkis who eat yankee shit.
@Vincent,
ReplyDelete“You do know that Americans invented the TVC right? Here is a 1980s video of the F-18 HARV performing way in excess of your Flanker mod. “
>> F-18 HARV is not the one on offer. So why do we care about its manoueverability? Never claimed russkies were first to invent TVC, so don’t know why you are explaining that. Am not a TVC only type of buff, its just manoueverability and I continue to believe on manoueverability aspect ALL contenders even f16 are better off.
“Er your analogy is WRONG. Why should a country that is seeking to supply arms not ensure that the best fit be offered to maximise the chances of selling that weapon? Furthermore, every hospital has different needs, and they do choose different size CAT scan machines, but they don't say, "hey, can I swap this American out for Israeli part because my balls are itchy and I need to justify my job's existence". _The reason you used Israeli parts in your Flanker is BECAUSE RUSSIAN AVIONICS WERE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. “
>> Do you wonder why Israelis wanted their avionics and not yours on F16 Sufa? When did I claim russian avionics were better than western? You conveniently switch between western and american to talk about superiority. If we want something western it need not be yours..
“How ridiculous, accusing others, first world countries with transparent tender and a vociferous watchdog authorities, of buying American weapons due to vassalation.”
>> Ever heard about UAE wanting to buy Su30 being armtwisted into buying F16?
“F-15 (114 kills to 0 loss), F-16 (76 kills to 0 loss) - are you saying enemy fighter pilots were vassal too?”
>> And you think your F15,16 are equipped with same stuff that export versions are? You fought against Iraq that never took out its air force and these kills are what you achieved without fighting them “in air” or night time fights against those who didn’t have night fighting equipment on their planes. Some of these kill numbers you produce from simulation fights. Ever heard of GIGO(Garbage In, Garbage Out)? What happened in Vietnam BTW? They weren’t even close to your might. If you fight russia/china/someone with european equipment and produce these numbers then it would be interesting.
“This is wrong. You are more tolerant of bullshit from your politicians than any other free people I have seen”
>>That’s rich coming from those who elected Bush for second term. Tolerance? Come to India, we will show you how to protest. Not like you meek goody goody citizens holding placards for protest.
“, because (a) most of your people are uneducated (b) rigid caste system.“
>> Stop this Southern Baptist Church propaganda on caste system. It doesn’t matter much today with some exceptions in rural areas. Centuries old practice takes time to vanish. What began as a division of labour turned into hierarchy based on whose vocations were looked up to and a education system that allowed anybody to chose any vocation and vocations became hereditary. If today due to some reason say higher tuition fee & no scholarship only white collar’s son gets to become white collared then you have two castes: WHITE COLLAR CASTE and BLUE COLLAR CASTE. Are Ivy leagues not a caste by the way, most of the students who attend them have Ivy alumni parents??? Keep your proselytization BS out of this.
@Vincent continued...
ReplyDelete“Er, the French had malicious code implanted in several of their machines. All countries have technology-transfer restrictions, just that the americans choose to enforce it with periodic inspections.”
>> Why should you inspect? Not your property once sold. Fitting new bugs because battery of old ones expires in a year??? All countries have tech-transfer restrictions which they value against money in the deal. If they find it lucrative they agree to forego. If you have a handicap don’t blame us for that.
“If you can, why did the Chinese buy plans from the Western-inspired fighter for their J-10, and steal a container load of manuals for the F-16?”
>> After that they also copied a ruskie design of Su-27 to make a J-11b. Besides that western-inspired J-10 too flies on russkie engine. Everyone realizes that blending of russkie parts with western strengths gives best performance for least cost. Purely russkie jet is low on avionics sophistication and Purely western fighter is overpriced and infested with malicious codes and is sophisticated until the day of war when it ditches you.
“ Look at the difference between a Russian engine and a Western one. Different cores, different MTBOs, FADEC versus none, the Russian one like the Kaveri is veined with outdated tubes like a tumescent cock.”
>> whenever the argument starts make it a russian vs western obvious stuff talk. Ever heard of Mirage2000 and its engines? Or EJ200? There are enough non-american options which are as good. And about those russian engines, we make them here so their lower life span is somewhat compensated.
“You won't ever be modern by incorporating Russian technology and innovating from it. The Russans acknowledged this by starting to buy French, Dutch and German ships and submarines. The Chinese acknowledged this by making mock ups of Western designs in destroyers, APCs etc to study them.”
>> FYI, we too have had german HDW and now french Scorpene. Our ships too have french design inputs. What makes you think ours is a pure russkie inventory? There are Europeans too on the scene and they are your competitors. Talk for yourself. We know western systems have an edge and know how to buy in proportions to optimize performance and cost.
@Vincent continued....
ReplyDeleteWhy would this benefit you, when you haven't even cracked the Russian designs by having them at length. I could give a monkey a cell phone and he'll just put it up his butt.
>> Defence IP is basically protected barring some exceptions. Ownership for length does not therefore lead to “cracking”. Regardless of how old the russkie machines were we had control over the machines.
Why? You feel that the technology gap between you and the West is not wide enough? Are the lives of Indian jawans so cheap that you can practice Russian and Korean war tactics of primitive technology backed by overwhelming numbers of junk equipment?
>> Didn’t mean that old either. Your AESA is believed to be way more advanced than European AESA which is more like entry-level tech. You could offer your entry level AESA not the latest but keep it open source. That way we reach an intermediate solution. I was coming from this context.
Having F-15 for air superiority, F-15E for deep strike interdiction and F-16 for general fighter is diversification. Having Jaguar, Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-27, Mig-29, Harrier, Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, often with overlapping and contradictory roles, with LCA, MCA, PAK-FA, MRCA to come is sign of a mental disease.
>> Two plane diversity is good for country that completely builds them on its own and years of aviation experience to put its faith on two. For a country that’s dependent it cannot risk its security to battletime tantrums thrown by single supplier. And who wants to lose ability to test nukes to fly some overpriced obsolete fighters without fear of sanctions? You want to throw your sanctions tantrums, take your fly out of competition. Agreed that there are too many but that’s because Migs are extended beyond life due to procurement woes and once MRCA comes some of the variety will be reduced anyway. Indigenous efforts can’t stop either. Make a list of how many planes the chinese themselves have.
“So says the country with 1.2 billion more people than Turkey but with the same 1 trillion GDP. Pathetic. And you are a democratic country too. "I vote to be PENNILESS!"
>> Poverty is neither a choice nor vanishes by suddenly turning capitalist. BTW we have private enterprises too and they run the show mostly. The world’s most indebted country calling us penniless!
“People will buy our dollars because we are the largest economy and Arabs only accept US dollars because we are their protector and we made it easy for them to invest in America.”
>>With deficits going into trillion and debts going up, up and up let’s see how long the worthless green paper flies. You think the world has infinite patience?
@Vincent continued... Final
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't we help Pakistan then? you were lying stretched out in Russia's bed, much to our incredulity, and enjoying that fresh air of povery-freedom only Indians love.
>> We were not communists nor COMECON. We were non-aligned. Our collaboration with them went ahead because they transferred technology and were ready to teach us all heavy engineering, refineries, steel plants, space sciences. But how does that hurt you anyways? If you agreed we would have been doing those collaborations with you. We bought their weapons not because they were russian but because they were only affordable option. Whereas you gave pakistan free weaponry which they directed against us.
“Pakistan was our ally before they turned into the worst country on earth. Today we are trying to stop them imploding because millions of Punjabi jihadists will then swamp CAR and Afghanistan. A stitch in time saves nine. You should try it with your slums.”
>> You must be a good bedtime storyteller for your kids. Who has ever reduced terrorists by giving them more money?? Next you will tell us the newest F-16 were given to fight the terrorists.
Slum does not mean poverty. It just means you can’t afford real estate in the city and area of your choice but still you have been allowed to have makeshift settlement on an illegally occupied land on humanitarian grounds. If you allowed them, even you would have them instead of people sleeping in subway stations or public places. And a lot would want to park their trailors right in NY if allowed.
“Well, at least these countries had the Renaissance 400 years ago, and had become rich before they became socialist. India got the order wrong as usual.”
>> Whether a country goes socialist way or capitalist way depends on numerical superiority of poor vs middle class and rich. The demographics at independence and few years later only favoured socialism. If you artificially enforce a system, you only get a revolution. Let’s see how long before socialism creeps into your society. Your big capitalists will then pack their bags and money and fly to Swiss alps very soon.
“I hail Mamohan Singh, the greatest Indian leader since Mother Bharat became democratic.”
>> Oh please. India has had better leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri and PV Narsimha Rao. Your stooge has given us nothing but more inflation other than the hyped and flawed 123 deal. Remember the mexican president Salinas you yanks used to praise?
Ok Anon, at least you are willing to discuss things logically, and I give you credit for that. But I will not refrain from underlining your mistakes, vast and many.
ReplyDelete>> F-18 HARV is not the one on offer. So why do we care about its manoueverability...
What it shows is that TVC is neither a Russian super-feature as many here seem to think, and if the real pioneers the Americans refuse to put it on their aircraft, it should give you pause to think about the implications about the SU-30MKI. Furthermore, it should give pause to those who have the brains to realize that air show performances are very different to war time doctrine. On the matter of F-18, you are wrong. It has better instantaneous turn rate than the F-16, the supreme dogfighter, and lesser wing-loading. It also has a bigger nose radar and can operate off a carrier. Carrier aircraft suffer weight penalties due to structural reinforcement of the aircraft and stronger landing gear. Generally, American aircraft are near the top of the maneuvarability stakes (the best is the Mig-29) but unlike the Russians who only have maneuvarability, the Americans don't boast about it. We have a more holistic, experienced concept of war that has repeatedly proven our worth. If we fight a tiny airforce and country like Georgia we won't lose 8 aircraft like the Russians for sure.
>> Do you wonder why Israelis wanted their avionics and not yours on F16 Sufa? When did I claim russian avionics were better than western? You conveniently switch between western and american to talk about superiority. If we want something western it need not be yours..
The Israelis have a much stronger technological base in avionics than you. They also used to have parity in some areas with the USA in the 80s when the Sufas were bought but investment volume always tells. We are far ahead of them today. Examples (1) F-35 will be 100% American (2) Israelis had to use American help, jamming and secret systems to glide over Turkey on the way to attack the Syrian nuclear plant last year. The fact is that even the revealed avionics on the F-35, superb as they are, are nothing in comparison as what has been researched in secret facilities in the US. But you are ignorant of all this of course, since India is an insular country of over-pampered grown ups.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3837.html
>> Ever heard about UAE wanting to buy Su30 being armtwisted into buying F16?
Pure speculation and rumor by self fellating Russians. Arabs are well pissed off with Russian general equipment and buying Western like crazy. Did you not see the reference where Iraq will buy 96 F-16s and the Saudis 72 F-15s? If its good enough for them, its good enough for India.
>> And you think your F15,16 are equipped with same stuff that export versions are? You fought against Iraq that never took out its air force and these kills are what you achieved without fighting them “in air” or night time fights against those who didn’t have night fighting equipment on their planes. Some of these kill numbers you produce from simulation fights.
Er, now you're getting rude and unreasonable. A large chunk of the kills were Israeli (search ACIG, the only dependable database) and various countries using these two planes killed a lot of aircraft, including the Pakistanis. When even the Pakis can do well with the jet, you know its something special.
Furthermore, please don't insult other countries by saying something stupid like planes killed on ground are considered aerial kills or kills in simulated dogfights are counted as well (search ACIG again I say).
It must rock your world isn't it, to realize that American planes have such spectacular victories. Here's another thing to rock your world - the Mig-29 has been shot down 10+ times for only 1 victory, and the only 2 planes the SU-27 has ever shot down are Mig-29s.
The Russians have been lying to you through their teeth, and only India bought it hook and sinker. Dummies.
>>That’s rich coming from those who elected Bush for second term. Tolerance? Come to India, we will show you how to protest.
ReplyDeleteBush presided over the 6 most growth years of the 21st century, and he also saw the way to victory in Iraq despite ferocious criticism. The banking problem started in Clinton's time, and the Democrats consistently blocked his efforts at reforming it. Learn proper history, not demogrogery.
The rest of the thing you say here are just gibberish and Internet hardmen stuff. Upper, middle and lower classes are not caste. We don't force leather workers to live by themselves for example and socially freeze them out. Bharat zinabad?
>> Why should you inspect? Not your property once sold. Fitting new bugs because battery of old ones expires in a year??? All countries have tech-transfer restrictions which they value against money in the deal. If they find it lucrative they agree to forego. If you have a handicap don’t blame us for that.
Why shouldn't we inspect? To research the F-35 cost 60 billion dollars, are you willing to pay us half of that to use the plane as you wish? Furthermore, we sold China Blackhawk helicopters in the 80s before they rolled tanks over their citizens in Tiananmen, and we inspect their Blackhawks too. Tough nuts. The country with the leverage always is in advantage. There is no handicap. The Rafale has never guided a precision bomb on its own onto a target for example, always required another plane to laze it. European planes suffer from severe lack of funding. If you want aircraft that is 2 generation, soon 3 generations behind American planes, you can go ahead. You would be on par with global military heavyweights like Brazil, what glory.
>> After that they also copied a ruskie design of Su-27 to make a J-11b.
The J-11 is also indigenous in every part. They learnt how to build it from the ground up by stealing Russian and Ukranian scientists to live in their country. China is ahead of the curve than India. To catch up you need a strong and sustained infusion of American technology, or else you will lose in both numbers and tech and I tell you, you will cop a beating and lose more land.
>>Besides that western-inspired J-10 too flies on russkie engine.
The J-15, or Chinese version of SU-33, the carrier sukhoi, first flew on August 30 2009 with Chinese engines. They are getting closer.
About the J-10, their first self designed fighter, is copied from Western design, not Russian. See the similarity?
Lavi
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Ente/lavi.jpg
J-10
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/j-10-Image12.jpg
>> Everyone realizes that blending of russkie parts with western strengths gives best performance for least cost. Purely russkie jet is low on avionics sophistication and Purely western fighter is overpriced and infested with malicious codes and is sophisticated until the day of war when it ditches
you.
Pure nonsense. The Pakis shot down Russian planes during the Afghan war. Lots of countries have used Western planes to good effect. You forget that the West has had 100 years of combat aviation history.
The reason why the Chinese are using Russian engines is because their own is not ready and they can't buy any Western due to embargo. They offered to buy 200 Rafales from France to replace Russian planes if the French, the criminal traitors, persuade NATO to lift the embargo.
>> whenever the argument starts make it a russian vs western obvious stuff talk. Ever heard of Mirage2000 and its engines? Or EJ200? There are enough non-american options which are as good. And about those russian engines, we make them here so their lower life span is somewhat compensated.
ReplyDeleteExcept that the Russian engines had always had very low operating life. In the Mig-21s they were already throwing engines away after 100 hours. In fact, your build quality could be as good as theirs for the lower range.
The EJ200 is (a) 50% more expensive than F-414, (b) under thrusted by 8 K-newtons (c) only used on the Eurofighter, that late, overly expensive clown shoes which doesn't even have a usable gun. The British pundits are up in arms over the severly flawed procurement of the EF, come to think of it, that's par for the course for India, no wonder you're attracted to it.
>> FYI, we too have had german HDW and now french Scorpene. Our ships too have french design inputs. What makes you think ours is a pure russkie inventory? There are Europeans too on the scene and they are your competitors.
We have 60 Arleigh Burkes. Check. Every one cheaper than modern European destroyer designs and more capable. Mate.
Soon the price will be coming down a lot too.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/09/205_48819.html
When you buy Western arms, you not only work with America, you tap into a global system of first countries, including Japan and Korea, who innovate on their own and share the technology over dozens of advanced countries for future waves of innovations. Heard of the KDX-III, the most powerful AEGIS destroyer in the world, with 116 VLS ? Its Korean, they innovated it using Western designs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Sejong_the_Great_class_destroyer
When you buy Russian arms, you choose the least ugly piece of rust bucket in their northern shipyards, pay through the nose and pick your nose waiting for it after 6 years. Innovation is painting the ship with Indian colors. Also you innovate with countries like Algeria, Iran and bumfuk countries.
Western naval designs do not 'have an edge' over Russian designs. They are comprehensively better and lead the way in weapon philosophy (passive arrayed radar, VLS, helicopter support, RAM, etc), which the Russians are copying now.
So, instead of copying a copy of an original design, which is like masturbating to a black and white photocopy of a camera picture of a gorgeous girl, why not call the girl instead.
But you got a lot of time of course and a lot of land to lose, so take your time as usual, and hedge the number of designs to dozens and craziness as only India does.
I'm tired now, will reply to the rest of your ignorant posts and mistakes another day. Every one of your arguments is wrong, WELL DONE.
Ajai please block this jerk named "Vin-Suck"
ReplyDeleteIf you can't then ask the Google to do so......no one wants a mindless retard rattling on every post.....who as nothing to say seriously except spitting........spit your own face u mindless freak.
Who don't know what he is arguing about.......The Topic is about LCH and this @ss hole is keep flagging his "Made in USA" stinkin underwear everywhere.
Get lost u Retard!
Have u seen anyone else taking senseless like u do in all the topics.......
Actually Vincent has more than one point.
ReplyDeleteWhy the hell we are taking 20 years to buy MMRCA? Don't we know what are the capabilities of these machines now? TOT is all bull shit. We are lazy and corrupt and all the babus move the file when somebody put dollars in their pocket.
Why are we not buying off the shelf howizters for gods sake? How many fucking year we are trying to buy?
Clearly we don't give shit about our jawans.
Also why the hell we are not investing in drones in instead of combat helicopter?
Just to nitpick... can't they make the wheels retractible? So ugly, to have the wheels stick out like that.
ReplyDelete@Vincent
ReplyDelete“if the real pioneers the Americans refuse to put it on their aircraft, it should give you pause to think about the implications about the SU-30MKI.”
>>The “pioneers” did find it fit to use on F-22. Anyways I did not claim to be TVC obsessed buff.
“Israelis had to use American help, jamming and secret systems to glide over Turkey on the way to attack the Syrian nuclear plant last year”
>> After all whose equipment does Turkey use?
“The fact is that even the revealed avionics on the F-35, superb as they are, are nothing in comparison as what has been researched in secret facilities in the US. But you are ignorant of all this of course, since India is an insular country of over-pampered grown ups.”
>>And do what? Drool over your equipment and consume anti-depressant pills for not having such an equipment capable of functioning fully under our control and against enemy of our choice?
“ Did you not see the reference where Iraq will buy 96 F-16s and the Saudis 72 F-15s?”
>> Iraq is practically your colony. What do you expect them to order? Gripen? And Saudi royal family holds on to its power with your assistance. Besides given their level of dependance and current inventory, more dependance caused by the purchase wouldn’t hurt strategically.
Do you ever cite news such as Malaysia which already had F18 later buying Su30MKM? Ever read Dr Mahathir’s post purchase criticism of f18 over lack of control on Radar?
“If its good enough for them(Arabs), its good enough for India.”
>>We don’t have same threat scenario nor are the relations of our enemies/surroundings with US the same as in gulf region. So stop making a fool of yourself.
.
“(search ACIG again I say). It must rock your world isn't it, to realize that American planes have such spectacular victories. Here's another thing to rock your world - the Mig-29 has been shot down 10+ times for only 1 victory, and the only 2 planes the SU-27 has ever shot down are Mig-29s.”
>> Not at all. All the data about kills that you keep pointing out refers to purely russian planes being shot down by purely western planes. None of the data is about russian planes with western avionics and missiles. So unless some flawed aerodynamics of russian airframes or shorter life-time of engines was the cause of their getting killed there isn’t much concern.
And none of the data is about American planes vs European planes either. You conveniently revert to western vs russian rhetoric because of lack of data of kills AMONG the westerns. Interesting how western vs russian arguments end with therefore buy american.
“Bush presided over the 6 most growth years of the 21st century,
>> Growth of what? Consumption component of GDP mostly? Why are you happy if consumption of mostly made-in-china stuff increased over those years? Any growth that is simultaneous with large increase of debt NONE of which went into Infrastructure/Capacity expansion/Education is basically a joke and points to Flawed economic indicators.
“and he also saw the way to victory in Iraq despite ferocious criticism.”
>> ANY president would have brought victory in Iraq to keep the oil trade in dollars always.
“ The banking problem started in Clinton's time, and the Democrats consistently blocked his efforts at reforming it. Learn proper history, not demogrogery.”
>>The problem started long ago in 1970s with Nixon removing dollar peg to gold that started an era of fiscal irresponsibility that threatens global trade today.
@Vincent continued..
ReplyDelete“The rest of the thing you say here are just gibberish and Internet hardmen stuff. Upper, middle and lower classes are not caste. We don't force leather workers to live by themselves for example and socially freeze them out. Bharat zinabad?”
>> Classes become castes when vocations become hereditary. Education and Enterprise are two things that allow people to jump classes. But in the event of education getting out of reach for certain classes and classes becoming risk-averse due to uncertainity & unavailability of loans in such cases ANY society can see classes turn into castes. You too could have farmer castes, police & soldier castes, Ivy league brahmins etc. Check any country that has had a revolution and you will see that classes became hereditary accompanied with looking down on certain vocations.
“Why shouldn't we inspect? To research the F-35 cost 60 billion dollars, are you willing to pay us half of that to use the plane as you wish?”
>> On the offer are F18/16 which are basically refurbished old workhorses on which you broke-even long ago. We will not pay premiums on f18 to SUBSIDIZE your development cost on f-35. When interested in F-35, we will keep appropriate expectations.
“The country with the leverage always is in advantage. There is no handicap.”
>> So far we hear you coming on indian defence websites and wailing about our smaller wallets and not us Indians going to your websites and crying and longing for US systems being out-of-reach.
Like the supplier power, there is something called Buyer power too.
“European planes suffer from severe lack of funding. If you want aircraft that is 2 generation, soon 3 generations behind American planes, you can go ahead.”
>> Talk about exaggeration. Take any candidate in MMRCA and tell me other than AESA, whether there exists even 1 generation difference between offered american and european planes forget 2 or 3. The technology gap is mostly evident in F35 and european planes but why talk about planes outside MMRCA competition?? Even with AESA, the european AESA though lagging behind are open-source whereas american one is total black box whose performance features on the day of war remain questionable.
You would be on par with global military heavyweights like Brazil, what glory.
>> If solely buying expensive toys from USA could make a country heavyweight then Arabs would have been the strongest. A critically dependent nation cannot be a military heavyweight anyways.
“ To catch up you need a strong and sustained infusion of American technology, or else you will lose in both numbers and tech and I tell you, you will cop a beating and lose more land.”
>>
a) Western(Europeans & Israeli) technology infusion has already happened and is on.
b) Technology infusion can always happen at component level( e.g. GE turbine in INS Shivalik) or technology sales level depending on agreement of both sides. A “factory-sealed” equipment is not the only way for technology infusion. Such systems even if monetarily affordable are a strategic suicide.
“About the J-10, their first self designed fighter, is copied from Western design, not Russian. See the similarity?”
>> Oh no. Again western vs russian! Who’s disagreeing on this one, anyway. That way even our Kaveri attempt was based on F-404 western engine and not a russkie one.
“Pure nonsense. The Pakis shot down Russian planes during the Afghan war.”
>> Obviously you wanted russians to lose, so your planes worked to their full potential. How your weapons perform for your client depends on your relations with client’s enemy. If Arabs were fighting Persians, your planes would show their full teeth but Arabs and Israelis were fighting, that would an interesting game. The arabs would be standing naked then. Hezbollah couldn’t fire their stingers on Israeli planes because they emitted friendly beacon. I don’t have issues with Israelis btw and was just giving an example.
@Vincent, continued....
ReplyDelete“Except that the Russian engines had always had very low operating life. In the Mig-21s they were already throwing engines away after 100 hours. In fact, your build quality could be as good as theirs for the lower range.”
>> Inspite of that look at the impact of sanctions. The pakistani fleet of f16s and their flying hours were severely impacted because engines could not be changed. Their fleet was virtually grounded. Whereas we made our engines here in India. So despite lower life, at least we could fly our planes. Why don’t you offer to make the F-414 engines at a locally in India as a collaborative joint venture and see your volumes of business soar?
“The EJ200 is (a) 50% more expensive than F-414, (b) under thrusted by 8 K-newtons (c) only used on the Eurofighter,”
>> It’s lighter too.And more importantly it’s built by less interfering and less sanctions-savvy nations.
“When you buy Western arms, you not only work with America, you tap into a global system of first countries, including Japan and Korea, who innovate on their own and share the technology over dozens of advanced countries for future waves of innovations. Heard of the KDX-III, the most powerful AEGIS destroyer in the world, with 116 VLS ? Its Korean, they innovated it using Western designs.”
>> See, even Japanese and Koreans are “crazy” innovate and customize and not take 100% american package. And you were lecturing us how anything fully american is just good enough. Besides Koreans are already dependent on you. There is no further loss of independence from their current position if they incorporate critical systems of your origin. Actually why are you telling us all this when even our ships have western design inputs and design verification.
“When you buy Russian arms, you choose the least ugly piece of rust bucket in their northern shipyards, pay through the nose and pick your nose waiting for it after 6 years. Innovation is painting the ship with Indian colors. Also you innovate with countries like Algeria, Iran and bumfuk countries.”
>> “ugly” and “rustbucket” doesn’t matter. It is the specs of the systems therein and their competition vis-Ã -vis enemy capabilities that matters. That’s why we customize. We make the ships(except the aircraft carrier) mostly ourselves now so that part about “painting the ships in Indian colours” does not apply.
@Vincent, continued.. final
ReplyDelete“Western naval designs do not 'have an edge' over Russian designs. They are comprehensively better… “
>> Does your sales pitch consider European competition as western in this endless western vs russian rhetoric? There are brits, french, germans, scandinavians besides you who classify as westerners. So 1) talk for yourself 2) why (with facts) american is better than european AMONG THE SPECIFIC PRODUCTS IN A COMPETITION 3) why it is cost effective 4) why is it sanctions-proof or will be least affected.
“So, instead of copying a copy of an original design, which is like masturbating to a black and white photocopy of a camera picture of a gorgeous girl, why not call the girl instead.”
>> Though less satisfying, atleast a Playboy doesn’t give AIDS
“But you got a lot of time of course and a lot of land to lose“
>> There is enough mutually guaranteed destruction to happen before any land-loss.
In conclusion,
1) Your “facts” about superiority of your products cite examples of purely american/western vs purely russian systems. Most of our modern defence platforms are “composite” systems, basically, russian platforms with western teeth or indian platforms with indian, russian and western gear. So your data from “reliable” sites does not apply to our systems.
2) You switch between american and western in your sales pitch but superiority of american over european are mostly assertions rather than facts. Moreover the american product superior to european is usually the latest american platform NOT under serious consideration by India such as F-35 etc.
3) Not enough assurance exists as to whether the crucial electronics/software components of US made systems would function normally in the event US is not favorably disposed to client’s conflict
4) While every defence system needs to evaluated and an impression about it formed on an individual case-by-case basis, you project a blanket “halo” on anything american. Smart people pay for specifications, Dumb people pay brand premiums.
As a first world citizen, who has received a high quality education and even eaten better food from young, I will be creative and now answer your madly wrong posts *from the bottom*.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion,
>>>1) Your “facts” about superiority of your products cite examples of purely american/western vs purely russian systems. Most of our modern defence platforms are “composite” systems, basically, russian platforms with western teeth or indian platforms with indian, russian and western gear. So your data from “reliable” sites does not apply to our systems.
If you don't know what ACIG is, you should stop talking about planes and go back to guiding your oxen over the furrows.
Composite systems are not necessarily better, in fact they are usually worse and more suitable to low technology like tuk tuk and the Indian mind. Seeing that you know nothing about engineering or computer science, you would not know what integrated systems are, how much work is put into streamlining and enhancing performance in integration, or how they work more seamlessly, with less errors, and require less downtime than Frankenstein planes with a hundred different systems built to different standards and needs jammed together by foreign sellers who want to sell subsystems. You must like mongrel dogs too.
Being able to graft Israeli avionics into the Russian plane is actually a mark of how primitive the Russian fighter jet is and how low its technological footprint is. The Israeli Sufa for example uses special avionics systems only in specific parts of the F-16, those more relevant to the Middle East scenario, such as an expanded threat library of nominal Arab NAtO planes as well as locally cuedradar warning systems, but ensures that its systems talk to standard US systems inside the plane to perfection in test after test. Israel enhances, India reanimates corpses.
Furthermore, with your patchy documented systems built out of spare parts scrounged from all over the world, some made to country specs and some not (built in your own country), how are you ever going to ensure that you possess full upgrading control over the plane without having to wait for numerous contractors and that your planes can talk to planes of other countries beyond limited applications like voice? This is a 4th gen fighter jet, not ordering vegetables, potatoes for your thali.
The Americans have had operating SU-27s for a long time as well as knowledge of Russian radar systems for decades. Hence, their fascination with the MKI is about how such a genetic freak maintained by third world engineers also clunks around together. Its like Wizard of Oz in brown.
Btw, I'm shocked that your Air Force did not declare a national holiday when the US Air Force complimented them, which they usually do to other air forces. Small time mentality.
>>>2) You switch between american and western in your sales pitch but superiority of american over european are mostly assertions rather than facts. Moreover the american product superior to european is usually the latest american platform NOT under serious consideration by India such as F-35 etc.
ReplyDeleteName me 1 fifth generation fighter jet from Europe. Or a European UCAV that is in use. Or a European modern jet that is proven in combat. Or why Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Poland and numerous other countries use American jets. Next better player.
>>>3) Not enough assurance exists as to whether the crucial electronics/software components of US made systems would function normally in the event US is not favorably disposed to client’s conflict
Paranoia is now treatable with a daily small pill. Call your local pharmacy today.
>>4) While every defence system needs to evaluated and an impression about it formed on an individual case-by-case basis, you project a blanket “halo” on anything american. Smart people pay for specifications, Dumb people pay brand premiums.
Brand is a form of heuristics for busy successful people in the first world. You see, when you buy something, you have to consider, argue, discuss and generally waste time (or why your Navy admiral went stirring in the Russian bargain bin for a carrier), while we in the first world use brand as a quick rule of thumb for quality. This is the reason why intangible assets in the form of goodwill often outgross other assets in the top companies in the world. And your ignorance explains why there are no top Indian brands.
Quality is quality. You can hype MKI for all you want, but give a European a choice of operating this half-breed or a proper US 4th gen fighter, even with declared less performance, almost 100% of european countries will choose American.
@Vincent,
ReplyDelete“As a first world citizen, who has received a high quality education ,……. I will be creative and now answer your madly wrong posts *from the bottom*”.
>> Did your “first world” education not teach you that mere assertions from a marketing man cannot substitute for hard facts? Paragraphs upon paragraphs of personal opinion and personal attacks on why 100% factory-sealed american equipment is better than a composite system but no figures or data on kills because obviously there simply isn’t ANY, say about Gripen vs F16.
“and even eaten better food from young”
>> burger munching kids of lazy chefs should not even talk about food because they know not what real food is.
“Composite systems are not necessarily better, in fact they are usually worse and more suitable to low technology like tuk tuk and the Indian mind.”
>> Just one post ago you were bragging about KDX-III. What a turnaround now? RSS Endeavour, Gripen NG everything that is deemed practical and smart is basically a composite system. And they are made by your long term allies not even India. You think they would not have thought about 100% american option being good enough ! Must be causing a heartburn right to see so many countries thinking they are “special”?
There are integration issues and that’s why engineers need to make a comprehensive plan. And don’t talk about 100 different suppliers. There are just a handful of them. Giving extreme examples is an old method now.
“Israel enhances, India reanimates corpses.”
>> Like they reanimated the corpse of F-16 by adding conformal fuel tanks? And whose avionics do we have by the way? If theirs is an enhancement then what is ours?
“This is a 4th gen fighter jet, not ordering vegetables, potatoes for your thali.”
>> Ever heard of number of suppliers for Boeing 787 Dreamliner? And wondered why someone making 100% american opted to order from such disparate sources? There are integrations issues which once settled pays the dividend for patience. A solution incorporating innovative features has to have room for innovations not made in-house(foreign IP) and that can mean integration challenges.
“The Americans have had operating SU-27s for a long time as well as knowledge of Russian radar systems for decades. Hence, their fascination with the MKI is about how such a genetic freak maintained by third world engineers also clunks around together. Its like Wizard of Oz in brown.”
>> Typical self-important BS with no supporting evidence. Besides its mockery is again for an unmodded purely russkie platform.
@Vincent, continued...
ReplyDelete“Name me 1 fifth generation fighter jet from Europe. Or a European UCAV that is in use. Or a European modern jet that is proven in combat. Or why Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Poland and numerous other countries use American jets. Next better player.”
>> Again digression. Talk about what’s on the platter? Have you put your f35 in MRCA competition that you are reverting to it time and again. And what makes you think if Europeans ordered f35 they are going to kill their own aerospace industry’s future altogether? On the offer are refurbished old workhorses and not F-35. If you maintain extortionary rates of defence procurement OR pseudo-imperialism through weapons control then people will find alternatives and solutions even if they are not as good. If the best was always necessary, you would be riding BMW cabs in your city.
“Paranoia is now treatable with a daily small pill. Call your local pharmacy today.”
>> Only the paranoid survive.
“Brand is a form of heuristics for busy successful people in the first world. You see, when you buy something, you have to consider, argue, discuss and generally waste time (or why your Navy admiral went stirring in the Russian bargain bin for a carrier), while we in the first world use brand as a quick rule of thumb for quality.”
>> Oh yeah, that’s why WALMART must be so successful in first world ! Brand, my foot. You are the only JOKERS in this world who would die or buy big brand pharma pills but not buy generic medications that are equally effective. As if big brand pharmaceuticals are made in 5-star facilities and generics are made in pig-sty or something. Even your northern neighbour buys generics. Blind brand belief is for pseudo-intellectuals or vain-glorious. And nobody is “busy” to overlook details and cut time by buying brands for MULTI-BILLION dollar defence deals. So no place for defence brands.
“This is the reason why intangible assets in the form of goodwill often outgross other assets in the top companies in the world. And your ignorance explains why there are no top Indian brands.
>> Paying premiums beyond worth for Coke is one thing and on engineering systems valued for specifications and quality is another. A lot of that goodwill is acknowledgement of monopoly(duopoly to be precise) that laws overlook even in selling trivia like carbonated sugared water.
Brand building is for those whose technical competitive advantages have smaller lead but capital at hand to throw away on image building through media is much bigger than rivals. Developing world companies with fewer cash-resources invest more on hard physical assets and HR capabilities than on goodwill. Lack of brands is not an evidence of lack of quality. Why not check who supplies jeans to all your big brands? Smart people delve deeper than skin depth and pay for merit. Vanity knows enough fools to fool around with.
“Quality is quality. You can hype MKI for all you want, but give a European a choice of operating this half-breed or a proper US 4th gen fighter, even with declared less performance, almost 100% of european countries will choose American.”
>> Oh yeah, that’s why they created their own customised Gripen instead of american.
In conclusion,
1) There is NO data of kills against composite system by purely US platforms.
2) There is NO data of kills against European systems by purely US systems.
3) There are examples of new composite defence systems being made by long term US allies themselves as opposed to buying off-the-shelf purely US systems
4) Evidence of superiority of latest, out-of-purchase-list items is being used to claim superiority of US over European systems INSTEAD of case-by-case analysis of contenders. Evidence of superiority of out-of-reach/out-of-budget/out-of-priority systems is being cited for purchase of older platforms. What is relevance of superiority of F35 in MRCA?
Dear Mr. Shukla ,
ReplyDeleteMay I know , what prevents India from making an interim order of 25 to 30 Mi28N / Roovalik/or Managustas to keep up the strength until the LCH appears. Simply go / order and get them here.
The Air Force does not know its own mind and seems to have a chalta hai attitude. There is no use blaming the politicians.