Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Between the Def Min who has ruled out the L2 (EFT) bidder getting back into the race and has

Karan Thapar: Does it mean therefor that the Eurofighter is ruled out?
Manohar Parrikar: I am not commenting on that. How can you consider another plane when L1 has been determined?
Except there is no precedent for looking at the L2 once the L1 bidder has been determined. The rules are quite clear on this sir, if the L1 deal collapses the entire deal has to be scrapped or re-tendered, the CAG would rip the GoI apart for going ahead with the L2 bid. "next best option after L1" doesn't even come into the picture sir, the rules with govt tenders are very stringent -to a fault.Which he never did!
If he had ruled it out, he would had simply answered the question with, YES and not diverted to the L1 situation, which calls for exclusive negotiations with the L1 only!
But he knows exactly, that if the L1 is not able to meet the tender requirements, the MoD have to reject it and move to the L2, to at least evaluate their offer (see NLCA consultancy tender). And with the current situation of Dassault even openly rejecting the demands of the MoD / IAF, the chances of rejection of L1 and talks to L2 are rising, which is why he can't rule out the EF.
The recent statements of Air Chief Raha even supports the fact, that IAF would talk to the L2, if the Rafale deal fails, since they want an MMRCA and not more heavy class fighters.
That doesn't mean that we will go for the EF for sure, it's cost will be the main issue, but it remains to be the next best option after Rafale and only when both offers fails or the MoD rejects MMRCA as a whole, other MKIs, LCAs or Pak Fa's will come into play.
Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions [Thread 2] | Page 27
Except there is no precedent for looking at the L2 once the L1 bidder has been determined.
sir, I was talking to a defence industry friend of mine about the ACM's vague comments about "we need a MMRCA, not necessarily the Rafale" comments and he had an interesting take on this. He thinks the DM has told the ACM and IAF as a whole to stop being so partisan and biased in a deal that is still the negotiation process. So one can't really read a lot into those comments. Looking at what the IAF have been saying for 3 years now they 100% are behind the Rafale.
I'm pretty sure the IAF has been quite open for the past 3 years (once L1 was declared)with successive ACMs that they want the Rafale badly.That doesn't make much sense though, first of all because the Air Chief and the IAF were silent on that matter till now and never stated any favourism of any fighter. So the DM forcing the Chief to a statement would then only had one direction in mind, supporting the DM not countering him, because that would had put more pressure to Dassault and helped the DM in the negotiations!
I'm pretty sure the IAF has been quite open for the past 3 years (once L1 was declared)with successive ACMs that they want the Rafale badly.
Exactly the ACM's comments at Aero India help the MoD/CnC/DM in talks with Dassualt by implying there are alternatives to the Rafale the AIF are interested in.
On the contrary, they didn't helped at all! The Air Chief publically countered the DM and his strategy, to put the MKI as a viable alternative and ruled that out completelly. So he made the DM's position worse, not better!
Of course, since it was selected as L1, but they never showed any preference for any fighter in the tender, nor showed any alternative to the MMRCAs besided the tender.
Well someone had to tell it as it is, who knows how much friction that blunder by the DM caused between him and the IAF? If I were the ACM I'd have been deeply unimpressed by a man with little exposure to defence matters, who has only just taken the DM post and is already talking nonsense and undermining a deal they have been waiting for for 7 years now.
I'm not saying this is the ACM challenging the DM's authority in anyway shape or form- that would be a serious offence. All I am saying is the ACM is stating his, more informed technically speaking, position which happens to entirely refute the silly statement the DM has made.To be honest, this is now fast approaching silly territory. Parrikar is DM and as powerful a DM as India has had for a very long time. To imagine that the IAF chief or any other would directly take on the DM on an issue like this is beyond silly, there is simply no equivalence of power. You just have to see this as simply the IAF chief stating a position, DM will not be swayed by these statements if he has made a decision one way or the other. This DM is hardly a man to be treated lightly.
Well someone had to tell it as it is, who knows how much friction that blunder by the DM caused between him and the IAF?
The ICG DIG's comments were an entirely isolated incident and not really indicative of anything IMHO sir, he seems to have been glory hunting, nothing more.Sure, but you don't embarrass your boss in public do you? He could had said it to the DM, had said if the Rafale negotiations failed, but not at Aero India at an official press meet. This was done on purpose at this forum and with a clear idea in mind, at least from IAF's point of view.
I just said it to Sandy, that it's interesting to see how many officials currently contradict the DM publically, be it the statement of the Air Chief, the ICG official (although his aims were different), or even HAL officials now. Parrikar doesn't seem to have a good lobby within the forces as well as the industry at the moment.
I'm not saying this is the ACM challenging the DM's authority in anyway shape or form- that would be a serious offence. All I am saying is the ACM is stating his, more informed technically speaking, position which happens to entirely refute the silly statement the DM has made.
Of course, since it was selected as L1, but they never showed any preference for any fighter in the tender, nor showed any alternative to the MMRCAs besided the tender. That's why it's also surprising, that they deviate from this habit and publically state, that it doesn't have to be Rafale, but an MMRCA, because that's a credible change.
On the contrary, they didn't helped at all! The Air Chief publically countered the DM and his strategy, to put the MKI as a viable alternative and ruled that out completelly. So he made the DM's position worse, not better!
Stupid question to ask in the first place. Neither of the two are mutually inclusive or competitors in terms of capabilities. The FGFA is a low observable air dominance/secondary strike fighter designed to win the airspace for India from day 1. The Rafale is a multi-mission general purpose puncher designed to provide strike capability for its offensive campaign.
Each is a different niche for a combat capability with only a certain overlap in combat capabilities. The only possible debate there is depends on whether the MMRCA would still be relevant by the time it comes in full force or should the IAF persist a little longer and push the MoD for the AMCA.
So, you still end up being ridiculed for this idea. I would not think the IAF would be this stupid as to debate this in terms of capabilities but rather available budget vis-a-vis payoff. So far, the FGFA still has the better payoff than the already late MMRCA program.
Basel
My Guess the IAF due to budget issues mentioned above will do the opposite.
They will forfill a MMRCA role by upgrading Mirage2000-5 mig29smt & Jaguars
And go early induction of PAK FA in 2020 with a desire to move to FGFA multi role in 2024.
I think the workshare debate is just india.s way of pulling out of deal
