IAF looking to acquire 2-3 squadrons of fifth-generation fighter jets from foreign sources

Let's place an order for 36 more Rafale jets in 2026. The 5th generation and MMRCA won't be happening for another 3 to 4 years.


giphy.gif
In The Sky Flight GIF by Safran
The 36+36 clause is still there. And we paid extra just in case we need to get the extra 36.
I would love to know for what reason this veg bania government is saving money.
 
if we know how the Forces do the recommend part under the current Govt, it will leave the decision up to the political leadership/MoD saying they are Ok with either of offered jets (assuming the usa & Rus ones) and it is up to the Govt to initiate the G2G process.
I remember the air force chief was also supporting the FA-18 and growler lite, that didn't get them far
 
E7 + F35 +
More P8I + C17 + C130 +Chinook + Apache
can these be used for negotiation?

can't say same about those Drones like predator , they are very very costly and less survivable.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Shan
E7 + F35 +
More P8I + C17 + C130 +Chinook + Apache
can these be used for negotiation?

can't say same about those Drones like predator , they are very very costly and less survivable.
We could buy them but can you trust the Americans for your frontline requirements at all. That's the real issue.
 
India has informed the US that it’s not keen to buy the F-35 stealth fighter jets, they said. During Modi’s visit to the White House in February, Trump had offered to sell the expensive warplanes to India. However, the Modi government is more interested in a partnership focused on jointly designing and manufacturing defense equipments domestically, the officials said.

 
India has informed the US that it’s not keen to buy the F-35 stealth fighter jets, they said. During Modi’s visit to the White House in February, Trump had offered to sell the expensive warplanes to India. However, the Modi government is more interested in a partnership focused on jointly designing and manufacturing defense equipments domestically, the officials said.

So thats why so much bitterness .... LOL!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
IMO India is going to evaluate the F-35 along with all the missile and communication systems. The relationship between India and the USA isn't just about Trump or Biden, both countries are focused on their own interests. India is already utilizing a variety of American weapons, and that number is set to grow in the future. I'm going to wait until Trump's final year in office to see if any successful deals till then…

Bird Popcorn GIF
 
I think instead of counting birds in the bush, it would better to restore some squadron strength and at least start negotiating with DA for getting x squadrons for the IAF. 29 is absolutely abysmal to be honest. The sheer movement of files and negotiation done by babus will take a long time.

Do not see any movement on the F-35 any time soon.
 
According to the revised DAP 2020, no offsets are applicable on defence deals closed via FMS or IGAs (aka G2G deals) as a matter of policy. Unless DAP 2025 changes that, no 5G fighter acquisition with ToT would be possible anyway. Our preference for big-ticket deals has always been G2G.


That would mean any tech transfers that have taken place as part of Rafale (eg: RBE-2 TRM mfg at BEL, AASM/Hammer local production, etc) would have been purely due to commercial considerations.

Neither DA nor Sukhoi are obligated to transfer tech. Intriguing question: Why would GoI have foreclosed the F-35 option on ToT grounds when it's own DAP states otherwise?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herciv
According to the revised DAP 2020, no offsets are applicable on defence deals closed via FMS or IGAs (aka G2G deals) as a matter of policy. Unless DAP 2025 changes that, no 5G fighter acquisition with ToT would be possible anyway. Our preference for big-ticket deals has always been G2G.


That would mean any tech transfers that have taken place as part of Rafale (eg: RBE-2 TRM mfg at BEL, AASM/Hammer local production, etc) would have been purely due to commercial considerations.

Neither DA nor Sukhoi are obligated to transfer tech. Intriguing question: Why would GoI have foreclosed the F-35 option on ToT grounds when it's own DAP states otherwise?
Offset is different than ToT. Offset means seller is responsible to invest said amount in India, mostly in the domain of the systems in deal. i.e subparts, technical work etc .

ToT is bigger than offset yet not restrictive. It means transfer of knowledge itself to the organisation concerned but not limited. As it involves academia, know why, know how... Basically teaching from scratch.

So, they are both different in nature. And while offset can be good in short term creating some jobs.. it's not like tot which builds the foundation.

This is my take. Correct me if I am wrong. I haven't loked into it just infered from what they represent.
 
Offset is different than ToT. Offset means seller is responsible to invest said amount in India, mostly in the domain of the systems in deal. i.e subparts, technical work etc .

ToT is bigger than offset yet not restrictive. It means transfer of knowledge itself to the organisation concerned but not limited. As it involves academia, know why, know how... Basically teaching from scratch.

So, they are both different in nature. And while offset can be good in short term creating some jobs.. it's not like tot which builds the foundation.

This is my take. Correct me if I am wrong. I haven't loked into it just infered from what they represent.
No global OEM will ever transfer know-why as part of ToT, only production-level know-how. My view is offsets (some can involve commercial tech too) in the military domain are not possible without some level of ToT. So the definition really depends on the contract.

In any case, won't removing the offsets ckause, automatically preclude a more extensive ToT arrangement?

I'd have to look up DAP myself to get a better understanding but this is my general impression of the subject.
 
No global OEM will ever transfer know-why as part of ToT, only production-level know-how. My view is offsets (some can involve commercial tech too) in the military domain are not possible without some level of ToT. So the definition really depends on the contract.
To be honest, "know why" can not be transferred. Its like asking for a university course. Know why is extremely situational because engineering decisions made are to fulfill a spec. Just because you know decision in one set of situation does not mean you will know it in a totally different set of situations. Today you learnt why a certain amount of nickle was added in say blades of an engine or why a certain welding process is used or why a certain forging process is used that does not mean you learn to make an engine for another spec. It may need something totally different and you will be back to the same state.

No one can teach you how to research, how to innovate. Even in PhD, the professor acts like a guide, critiquing on your work and pointing you in direction that is likely correct. You learn by your own doing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FenicromovCW
To be honest, "know why" can not be transferred. Its like asking for a university course. Know why is extremely situational because engineering decisions made are to fulfill a spec. Just because you know decision in one set of situation does not mean you will know it in a totally different set of situations. Today you learnt why a certain amount of nickle was added in say blades of an engine or why a certain welding process is used or why a certain forging process is used that does not mean you learn to make an engine for another spec. It may need something totally different and you will be back to the same state.

No one can teach you how to research, how to innovate. Even in PhD, the professor acts like a guide, critiquing on your work and pointing you in direction that is likely correct. You learn by your own doing.
In the context of offsets vs ToT, know how let's you make an item to the same spec as the OEM. Otoh, know why allows you to apply the same process (forging/machining, etc) to other progs and get the same quality of output, assuming basic engineering/pure science knowledge base already exists. It's the difference between screwdriver-giri vs indigenous IP.

As an example, Chinese hsr/bullet train tech is based on foriegn IP (Germany/Japan) with minimal local value addition but it's still considered Chinese IP vs our deal w/Japan for Shinkansen train sets.
 
Last edited: