MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[randomradio]

Move components of most Indian warships are Russian/Ukrainian.

And both compete to sell more or less the same parts to India, so we are in a slightly comfortable position there.

Navy bribery case: CBI probe shows bitter rivalry between Ukrainian, Russian firms for defence contracts

NEW DELHI: Ukrainian companies are desperately trying to outdo Russian firms to bag contracts of Indian Navy, CBI investigation into an alleged bribery case aga

www.newindianexpress.com

Post 895.

Ukraine - Russia Conflict

Maybe we'll see this guy. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-critic-navalny-calls-daily-anti-war-protests-russia-2022-03-02/ In charge of Russia soon.

www.strategicfront.org

 

[A Person]

Not sure this is so comfortable. Ukraine won't be in any position to sell stuff, and you will be "strongly encouraged" to avoid dealing with Russia.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Not sure this is so comfortable. Ukraine won't be in any position to sell stuff, and you will be "strongly encouraged" to avoid dealing with Russia.

I don't think you understand the depth of Indo Russian defence ties or India's dependancy on Russia . Whether it's a good thing or not is a different matter . If after risking western ire over the recent UN resolutions for lack of Indian support on it , if you're suggesting we cease all dealings with Russia , why did we not vote against them in the UN to begin with ?

 

[randomradio]

Not sure this is so comfortable. Ukraine won't be in any position to sell stuff, and you will be "strongly encouraged" to avoid dealing with Russia.

I doubt that kinda "encouragement" will work on us.

Our relationship with Russia goes beyond our need for defence equipment. We need their support in the UNSC and we need to make sure they stay on our side until the UNSC is relevant. Without veto power, India will never take sides. We can't rely on support only from the West or only from Russia.

Do you recall your own argument, that none of the great powers and superpowers will care much about the UN without the veto and the UNSC? Wouldn't you then say India's future is to be in it as well or play both sides until then or become so economically and militarily powerful that we will simply laugh at the P5's antics in the UNSC?

In return for the UNSC vote, which we buy for a few billions a year in defence trade, we give them some form of legitimacy because of our democratic credentials. So we are both more than happy to scratch each others' backs. The US isn't capable of replacing this relationship. Russia is also the only political buffer between India and China. China will at least listen to them due to their energy dependency on Russia.

Since the end of the Cold War, we have successfully created three power blocs that support us; with Russia, US and France. No one else has done this. We are not gonna ruin that all on our own.

The only real "encouragement" that will work on us is the UNSC seat. Anything short of that will fail.

 

[A Person]

Russia is also the only political buffer between India and China. China will at least listen to them due to their energy dependency on Russia.

However, Russia is going to become more and more dependent on China until it's nothing more than a puppet of Beijing. By choosing to remain an aloof dictatorship instead of pursuing integration with the West, Russia condemned itself to eventually fall into irrelevance. Demographically and economically, it is a dwarf next to China. The power imbalance between Russia and China is actually worse than the power imbalance between France or the UK and the USA.

Putin's strategic mistake, in my opinion, was the same as the Americans'. I've often lamented that America's absolutist demands have pushed countries like Iran right into China's waiting arms. Russia did the same thing with Europe. Instead of trying to engage with the EU and attempt to insert a wedge between Europe and America -- taking advantage of the "Pacific Pivot" to do so -- he decided that Russia would need to be feared again, with the only result being that brain-dead NATO has been jolted back alive.

If I had been in Putin's shoes these last twenty years, I'd have instead pushed for all sorts of agreements between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. The aim would have been to use the EAEU to keep former Soviet countries within "my" system, while using association with the EU to boost the economy and catch up with the West. The ultimate aim would be to encourage convergence between EU and EAEU so that they may eventually merge into a single entity, where Russia would end up being one of the dominant powers -- not a complete hegemon like in the former USSR, but a "soft" hegemon like Germany is in the EU.

 

[randomradio]

However, Russia is going to become more and more dependent on China until it's nothing more than a puppet of Beijing.

Why?

I do not see it to that extent. Yeah, they will become more dependent, but they don't have to become a puppet. Russia will continue selling O&G to Europe and China. As the European market slowly dies out over the decade, other markets will step up as they get richer. And India and China will compete for the Russian market in merchandise trade, including electronics, over the long term.

By choosing to remain an aloof dictatorship instead of pursuing integration with the West, Russia condemned itself to eventually fall into irrelevance. Demographically and economically, it is a dwarf next to China. The power imbalance between Russia and China is actually worse than the power imbalance between France or the UK and the USA.

I don't think the power balance matters as much as leverage. Russia is food, energy and weapons independent. There's not much leverage one can get over Russia when both sides want what the other have. Russia's food, oil and gas for China's electronics and machinery, which India will also eventually be able to provide. It's not all black and white.

Let's see if/how transit trade between China and the EU happens through Russia. If it happens, the Russians actually get some leverage too.

Putin's strategic mistake, in my opinion, was the same as the Americans'. I've often lamented that America's absolutist demands have pushed countries like Iran right into China's waiting arms. Russia did the same thing with Europe. Instead of trying to engage with the EU and attempt to insert a wedge between Europe and America -- taking advantage of the "Pacific Pivot" to do so -- he decided that Russia would need to be feared again, with the only result being that brain-dead NATO has been jolted back alive.

If I had been in Putin's shoes these last twenty years, I'd have instead pushed for all sorts of agreements between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. The aim would have been to use the EAEU to keep former Soviet countries within "my" system, while using association with the EU to boost the economy and catch up with the West. The ultimate aim would be to encourage convergence between EU and EAEU so that they may eventually merge into a single entity, where Russia would end up being one of the dominant powers -- not a complete hegemon like in the former USSR, but a "soft" hegemon like Germany is in the EU.

This was possible if France was in control of Europe, not the US. Would you say Putin was given a chance? If they were, I'd actually say Russia had to meet certain standards that were unacceptable to them.

 

[_Anonymous_]

However, Russia is going to become more and more dependent on China until it's nothing more than a puppet of Beijing. By choosing to remain an aloof dictatorship instead of pursuing integration with the West, Russia condemned itself to eventually fall into irrelevance. Demographically and economically, it is a dwarf next to China. The power imbalance between Russia and China is actually worse than the power imbalance between France or the UK and the USA.

Putin's strategic mistake, in my opinion, was the same as the Americans'. I've often lamented that America's absolutist demands have pushed countries like Iran right into China's waiting arms. Russia did the same thing with Europe. Instead of trying to engage with the EU and attempt to insert a wedge between Europe and America -- taking advantage of the "Pacific Pivot" to do so -- he decided that Russia would need to be feared again, with the only result being that brain-dead NATO has been jolted back alive.

This view seems predicated on the fact that EU would engage with Russia as it is. I don't think that view is correct for one of the primary criteria of the EU seems to have been to encourage ties with democracies which Russia wasn't even then. Assuming this assumption to be unfounded requires one to ignore the role of UK - a Trojan horse in the EU then .

Whatever be the motivations of the other principal players like Germany & France in the EU & their attempts at charting a relatively independent course, the fact remains that EU then & now is merely an economic grouping for nations in a military alliance with the US , following the lead of the US.

If I had been in Putin's shoes these last twenty years, I'd have instead pushed for all sorts of agreements between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. The aim would have been to use the EAEU to keep former Soviet countries within "my" system, while using association with the EU to boost the economy and catch up with the West. The ultimate aim would be to encourage convergence between EU and EAEU so that they may eventually merge into a single entity, where Russia would end up being one of the dominant powers -- not a complete hegemon like in the former USSR, but a "soft" hegemon like Germany is in the EU.

Your understanding of eventual merging of the EAEC & EU calls for greater integration initially between the institutions in both blocs - one a Democratic bloc & the other a grouping of autocratic nations with all the attendant suspicions such a grouping would harbor. This doesn't seem to me a recipe for a successful exchange of trade , ideas, etc.

Maybe in the light of the above information, Putin doesn't share that view & is waiting for the grand finale - US China showdown in which he hopes both of them cancel each other out , not literally but metaphorically speaking .

In the meanwhile Putin has to play the waiting game . The bigger problem with Russia apart from the ones highlighted viz economy, technology , etc - all true , is the succession to Putin . Unlike China which has a CCP like organization , we don't know how strong those political institutions in Russia are & whether they've the wherewithal to continue in Putin's footsteps after he's gone . And Putin isn't getting any younger .

So there may be a silver lining for the rest of Europe there but it's not appearing anytime soon.

 

[A Person]

I don't think the power balance matters as much as leverage. Russia is food, energy and weapons independent. There's not much leverage one can get over Russia when both sides want what the other have.

There are two things that are bad in trade: monopoly (when there's only one seller) and monopsony (when there's only one buyer).

With Russia getting cut off from the rest of the developed world, China will end up in the siuation of being a monopsony for Russian exports and a monopoly for Russian imports. Inversely, China will still have access to the rest of the world economy for its buying and selling needs. It's only Russia that will be out of partners.

Russia's food, oil and gas for China's electronics and machinery, which India will also eventually be able to provide. It's not all black and white.

China will do all it can to make sure India cannot be an alternative to Russia.

 

[A Person]

This view seems predicated on the fact that EU would engage with Russia as it is. I don't think that view is correct for one of the primary criteria of the EU seems to have been to encourage ties with democracies which Russia wasn't even then. Assuming this assumption to be unfounded requires one to ignore the role of UK - a Trojan horse in the EU then .

With Russia as it is now, this is of course impossible.

As it was 20 years ago, however? It wouldn't be any weirder than the idea of getting Serbia or Ukraine into the EU.

Plus I'm not talking about getting into the EU directly. Just set up a friendly trading block for post-soviet economies that have a lot of economic catching up to do. Get some mostly pointless institution where people can talk about removing trade barriers and harmonizing regulations on banana curvature. The UK would have been very happy with that, their vision of the EU was to make it the largest possible free trade area. It would have satisfied the domestic demand for getting closer to the west, while keeping the countries under informal control.

 

[_Anonymous_]

With Russia as it is now, this is of course impossible.

As it was 20 years ago, however? It wouldn't be any weirder than the idea of getting Serbia or Ukraine into the EU.

In the event I wasn't referring to Russia's incorporation into the EU then or now. In fact in a recent interview Putin declared that when he first took power during the final days of Clinton's presidency he broached the subject of Russia joining NATO to which Clinton reportedly hemmed & hawed.

Whether this was a genuine attempt or just a trial balloon being floated one doesn't know & I suspect we'd never know but by this time relations between Yeltsin's Russia & the west especially the US had considerably cooled down.

Plus I'm not talking about getting into the EU directly. Just set up a friendly trading block for post-soviet economies that have a lot of economic catching up to do. Get some mostly pointless institution where people can talk about removing trade barriers and harmonizing regulations on banana curvature.

I didn't refer to getting Russia directly into the EU either. Nor do I think your proposals would've led to anything concrete for by the time Putin took power all the inherent dichotomies in the Russo Western relationship had already surfaced.

Those views being crystallised over a span of 2 decades & being acted upon since 2007-08 were formed during the dying days of Yeltsin's term not during Putin's early years in office where they received traction.

The UK would have been very happy with that, their vision of the EU was to make it the largest possible free trade area.

The opinions in the UK regarding EU itself can be broadly categorised as falling into 3 distinct / different groups viz :

1.) A group which wanted full Integration with the EU & for EU to chart it's own course independent of the US which was more in line with French & perhaps German thinking on it with possibly a road map to a super state with an independent foreign policy , armed forces etc but this I believe was a minority.

2.) A group which believed in economic integration with the EU & nothing more on it's terms but while continuing it's special relationship with the US. Now this would've been a fairly incoherent large grouping whose views could broadly be categorised as thus but which would be nebulous in terms of it's views subject to time place & priorities.

3.) A group which was deeply suspicious of the EU & saw it as undermining the sovereignty of the UK , it's special place in the history of Europe & the world & of it's relationship with the US. I wouldn't be surprised if this grouping consisted mostly of upper class twits & imperialists too . Now this grouping would've gotten larger with time as both the 2nd & 3rd Group had more in common than with the first .

We know eventually who won. In the light of that knowledge I can safely say your assumptions were unfounded.

It would have satisfied the domestic demand for getting closer to the west, while keeping the countries under informal control.

True but the various dichotomies emerging from this relationship would be too difficult to balance or reconcile & eventually those would weigh down the partnership assuming there was one to begin with .

I see the entire idea as a non starter .

 

[randomradio]

There are two things that are bad in trade: monopoly (when there's only one seller) and monopsony (when there's only one buyer).

With Russia getting cut off from the rest of the developed world, China will end up in the siuation of being a monopsony for Russian exports and a monopoly for Russian imports. Inversely, China will still have access to the rest of the world economy for its buying and selling needs. It's only Russia that will be out of partners.

You are considering the equation between NoKo and China, not Russia and China.

You are going by the assumption that Europe will end O&G trade with Russia in a very short time. Whereas I'm assuming it's gonna take a decade at the minimum.

IEA has a plan on paper:
30% in 1 year, 50% in the "near-term" (whatever that means), and 100% "before" 2030.

How Europe can cut natural gas imports from Russia significantly within a year - News - IEA

How Europe can cut natural gas imports from Russia significantly within a year - News from the International Energy Agency

www.iea.org

Which are likely mere words. And through a self-sacrificing route. We can more accurately say 2035, with 50% reduction by 2030.

But 2030 is plenty of time for Russia to produce extremely cheap blue hydrogen and ammonia using all that excess gas, so they will just find a different set of buyers by then.

In the meantime, Europe's being taken for a ride.

China will do all it can to make sure India cannot be an alternative to Russia.

That may not be up to China though.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

It seems that Egypt could have Rafale M aircraft before India

Naval Group : des sous-marins et un porte-avions pour l'Egypte ?​

Naval Group: submarines and an aircraft carrier for Egypt?

Cairo has expressed interest to Paris and Naval Group in acquiring conventionally powered Barracuda submarines as well as an aircraft carrier equipped with marine Rafales.

Will the conventionally powered Barracuda submarine dock in Egypt?

According to corroborating sources, Egypt is interested in conventionally powered Barracuda submarines, which would be manufactured by Naval Group. The concept of these submarines had been sold to the Australians (12 Attack class submarines of 4500 tons) before Canberra slyly then brutally turned to American or British nuclear-powered submarines in the framework of the Aukus alliance (Australia, Great Britain and the United States). These discussions were launched over twelve months ago between France and Egypt and Naval Group. In 2011 and again in 2015, Egypt ordered four U209 submarines from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS), the fourth S44 of which was delivered last July. The other three were delivered between December 2016 and April 2020.

The country led by Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sissi is also studying the purchase of a second-hand aircraft carrier, which would be armed by some twenty Rafale naval aircraft. This desire on the part of Egypt illustrates the global rearmament of most of the world's countries, particularly in the naval field.

Paris, a regular supplier of armaments to Cairo

Very attentive to the new German export policy and subject to the international embargo on Russian arms, Egypt naturally turns to France, which regularly supplies it with high-level weapons systems (Rafale, helicopter carrier, FREMM frigate and Gowind corvettes, satellite...). In the spring, France provided a guarantee to several French banks - BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale and CIC - for financing of 5.4 billion (Rafale, satellite, MRTT aircraft), according to concordant sources.

The observation satellite will be supplied by Airbus Space, as revealed by La Tribune in December 2020, and the two MRTTs by Airbus. Finally, Cairo recently purchased four GM400s, the formidable 3D long-range air defence radars developed and designed by Thales, according to our information.

Michel Cabirol

 

[A Person]

Where exactly are they trying to find a "second-hand aircraft carrier"? That part really doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Where exactly are they trying to find a "second-hand aircraft carrier"? That part really doesn't make sense to me.

Surprised with the price of the old US aircraft carrier​

 

[_Anonymous_]

It seems that Egypt could have Rafale M aircraft before India

Naval Group : des sous-marins et un porte-avions pour l'Egypte ?​

Naval Group: submarines and an aircraft carrier for Egypt?

Cairo has expressed interest to Paris and Naval Group in acquiring conventionally powered Barracuda submarines as well as an aircraft carrier equipped with marine Rafales.

Will the conventionally powered Barracuda submarine dock in Egypt?

According to corroborating sources, Egypt is interested in conventionally powered Barracuda submarines, which would be manufactured by Naval Group. The concept of these submarines had been sold to the Australians (12 Attack class submarines of 4500 tons) before Canberra slyly then brutally turned to American or British nuclear-powered submarines in the framework of the Aukus alliance (Australia, Great Britain and the United States). These discussions were launched over twelve months ago between France and Egypt and Naval Group. In 2011 and again in 2015, Egypt ordered four U209 submarines from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS), the fourth S44 of which was delivered last July. The other three were delivered between December 2016 and April 2020.

The country led by Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sissi is also studying the purchase of a second-hand aircraft carrier, which would be armed by some twenty Rafale naval aircraft. This desire on the part of Egypt illustrates the global rearmament of most of the world's countries, particularly in the naval field.

Paris, a regular supplier of armaments to Cairo

Very attentive to the new German export policy and subject to the international embargo on Russian arms, Egypt naturally turns to France, which regularly supplies it with high-level weapons systems (Rafale, helicopter carrier, FREMM frigate and Gowind corvettes, satellite...). In the spring, France provided a guarantee to several French banks - BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale and CIC - for financing of 5.4 billion (Rafale, satellite, MRTT aircraft), according to concordant sources.

The observation satellite will be supplied by Airbus Space, as revealed by La Tribune in December 2020, and the two MRTTs by Airbus. Finally, Cairo recently purchased four GM400s, the formidable 3D long-range air defence radars developed and designed by Thales, according to our information.

Michel Cabirol

Looks like Sissi is preparing Egypt to compete with Turkey & counter it . It also seems like the Gulf Sheikdoms of UAE & KSA are bankrolling his plans . From our perspective it's good news that they've found an alternative to Pakistan.

 

[jk007]

Looks like Sissi is preparing Egypt to compete with Turkey & counter it . It also seems like the Gulf Sheikdoms of UAE & KSA are bankrolling his plans . From our perspective it's good news that they've found an alternative to Pakistan.

Egypt is taking quick decisions, while India is stuck in the same indecision. Don't you think?

 

[_Anonymous_]

Egypt is taking quick decisions, while India is stuck in the same indecision. Don't you think?

They've got sugar daddies bankrolling their toys. Whom do we have in a similar position unless France is prepared to extend easy interest rates long term credit ?

 

[Bon Plan]

And Rafale's main competitor will be the Typhoon as usual.

EF2000 has now 3 less assets versus Rafale :
-Rafale is already on duty, apparently with good results.
-DRAL is now a reality => It will take less time to built in India a first Rafale than a first EF.
-2 more squad can be ordered without the fixed cost of air base accomodation.

And, as now well known, EF is less versatile, more costly, less ranged, without an operational AESA so far.

 

[jk007]

EF2000 has now 3 less assets versus Rafale :
-Rafale is already on duty, apparently with good results.
-DRAL is now a reality => It will take less time to built in India a first Rafale than a first EF.
-2 more squad can be ordered without the fixed cost of air base accomodation.

And, as now well known, EF is less versatile, more costly, less ranged, without an operational AESA so far.

I come here everyday looking for good news for India (which I won't get and the cycle repeats).....but kudos , to all the French people, who come here and keep answering / participating in discussions about procurement that is goinggggggggggg oooooonnnnnnnnn from year-2006, and may never ever materialize.

Indian leaders, to save some productive from people like me, must announce if they indent to procure or shelve. This hanging in balance is a national waste of time....

End of rant.

 

[randomradio]

Where exactly are they trying to find a "second-hand aircraft carrier"? That part really doesn't make sense to me.

I doubt it will go anywhere. At best an LHD modified to operate 12 jets with a ramp and arrestors. Or dust off the CdG's old blueprints, modify it for conventional propulsion and a ramp.

EF2000 has now 3 less assets versus Rafale :
-Rafale is already on duty, apparently with good results.
-DRAL is now a reality => It will take less time to built in India a first Rafale than a first EF.
-2 more squad can be ordered without the fixed cost of air base accomodation.

And, as now well known, EF is less versatile, more costly, less ranged, without an operational AESA so far.

Yep. Shortlist both, Rafale will win. Simple.