I have had a personal conversation with the Air Commodore who was directly responsible for the M2K sale as defence secretary to Benazir. This matter had nothing to do with personality clash but with trying to stop a sleeze bag from sccoping off 10 million per plane.This was why when the price was not revised Benazir threw the file out of the window on to the street/whatever and told the gent to not return till he had made the changes. The gent was relieved of his post the same afternoon. Interestingly the same deal was presented to the french duly signed 90 days later after the Benazir Government dismissal but was refused on grounds that the time period for signing the deal had elapsed!! So was Sarkozy involved as well?//
The number of 190 also needs to be qualified. If you look at the numbers about 30-40 planes have already been retired if not more. I dont think we will ever be able to retire all 2190 and replace them . I suspect the number will hover around 140-150. However the capability boost would still be tremendous.
Your assumption of the french only wanting money will only hold true if you disregard the Indo Rafale deal and the possible failure if the French paly ball with PAF. Therefore they have a cogent reason for sticking to their guns. This remains the main hurdle along with the cost of maintianing the M2ks.
F16s are not barred to us just the fact that the current Congress does not want us to utilize the US funds for it. They have not said they will not allow us to have EDAs. To me it seems the most tangible and economical reason for going down the route.
A
Sir,
When you are in procurement---it is good to be honest---but you need to be a shyster as well---you have to have larceny in you as well.
The air commodore never looked at the over all scenario---what would 10 mil a pop do---so instead of 40 aircraft---there were 30 aircraft available.
We are now begging for 8 here---9 there---14 there----10 somewhere else---.
A similar thing happened with the submarine deal in the 90's---navy was going for the british subs---Benazir came and cancelled the deal and bought the french subs---she made money---we later found out that the british subs would hardly sail for 10 years and the french subs gave us almost twice as long a service---.
Honesty is for innocent people---when you are in position to buy weapons---honesty is not the only thing that you have to look at.
You have to be HONEST TO THE DEAL---meaning what you are buying is going to do what it was promised that it would do with out a compromise.
@araz ---it is next to impossible for you to understand that concept---because that is what I have been repeating for the last 10 years---and you have still been repeating your story for the similar time---.
It is about time that you started ' learning ' my man---. Maybe you need to find and older Yehudi / Jew and ask---what exorbitant prices the israelis paid for their weapons after the second world war---and who did they pay the bribes nd bakhshish to----.
Very well said. People in India also complain about price of jets, but IAF shows them the finger and buys them anyway.
Look at the Americans bickering over the price of the F-22. A lot of people criticized the price and are now regretting it after realizing 187 was not enough. They may have to pay a lot more just to start production again or get stuck with a less than optimum fleet. Otoh, the estimated price of the FGFA and AMCA is well over $200M and the IAF will show the finger to naysayers and buy them anyway. All the criticism on Rafale's price has fallen on deaf ears as well. You can't put a price on national security.
Hi,
And my pakistani brethren---still come out with the HONESTY approach---or the 10 million bribe a piece---thoughtless little children.
What does honesty or outrageous price count in a POTENT weapons deal---nothing ---- zilch --- nada.
What price would Qaddaffi had paid for 10 pakistani nucs----10 bil---20 bil---50 bil.
