Electronic signature Form for Procurement Fast

airSlate SignNow provides an electronic fast solution that streamlines the process of sending and signing documents online. This powerful tool allows businesses to electronically sign documents quickly and efficiently, saving time and reducing manual errors.

airSlate SignNow offers flexible pricing plans that cater to businesses of all sizes. Each plan is designed to deliver the electronic fast capabilities needed to improve document workflows, with options for subscription-based models that adjust based on user needs.

Key features of airSlate SignNow include templates, bulk sending, and real-time tracking. These functionalities ensure that users can sign documents electronically fast, enhancing efficiency in document management processes.

Yes, airSlate SignNow seamlessly integrates with a variety of applications like Google Drive, Salesforce, and more. These integrations enable users to leverage the electronic fast signing capabilities alongside their existing workflows and tools.

The electronic fast signing process in airSlate SignNow is highly secure, utilizing advanced encryption and authentication measures. This ensures that all documents remain confidential and tamper-proof during the signing process.

Businesses can expect numerous benefits from airSlate SignNow, including reduced turnaround times for document approvals and enhanced customer satisfaction. The electronic fast solution allows for quicker transaction processes, which improves overall operational efficiency.

Yes, airSlate SignNow features a mobile app that allows users to access electronic fast signing capabilities on the go. This convenience means that users can manage and sign documents anytime, anywhere, making it perfect for today’s fast-paced business environment.

Any industry involving a large amount of paperwork make use electronic signatures. In other words, all industries make use of electronic signatures because all of them have piles of paperwork to handle. Some examples of such industries include financial, life science, healthcare and pharmaceutical industries.Industries such as the pharmaceutical industry, have a number of licenses and other paperwork that they have to handle and keep track of. It can be a tedious task to perform such cumbersome paper processes. Therefore, e-signatures can facilitate an organisation in keeping a track of all this paperwork, by signing electronically.Healthcare industries usually involve time-sensitive documents, which need to be urgently completed. But, it can take days in case of the traditional wet ink paper signatures for the documents to signNow the signer and back, if the parties are geographically scattered. But with electronic signatures, that is not the case. Geographical barriers do not play a role. Documents which earlier needed days to be completed, can now be signed and sent back within minutes, in the click of a button. Furthermore, it takes a long time to bring assets under management. The time taken by the signing process, if wet ink paper signatures are used, may even further delay the process. But by using electronic signatures, the whole process can speed up.Apart from these, there are many paper prone industries which require huge amount of paperwork and with the use of electronic signatures they can make their everyday processes smoother and more efficient.

There are many advantages of e-procurement and few of, according to me, highlighted below.1. it saves time for both buyer and bidder as e-procurement can be access from anywhere and so, physical movement is not required.2. it is also convenient to both buyer and bidder as it is again accessible from everywhere since it is available in the electronic form.3. it keeps transparency which benefited both buyers to get best rates and vendor to get fair opportunity to work.4. A buyer gets good competitions as on electronic procurement any vendor can participate in the tender.5. A vendor can also get many opportunities related to their business as they can search and find appropriate opportunity related to their business.6. it also gives automated prepared report generated from a system which no one can challenge, and so everyone believes it.7. It is very secure as some e-procurement system uses the encryption-decryption system for their commercial proposal of a bid by using digital signature certificate (DSC) which near to break it or hack it. So it is very secure.8. Buyer (Govt. dept.) can work fast, and so helps to society as most of govt. work can be done by a tender process which is moving on the electronic form.so there are many advantages but above are a key one for me.

I will give a step-wise explanation on why IAF still uses Jaguar and Mig-21 till date even though they were retired long ago by some of the operators around the world.Mig-21 : It was in early 1980s , when Indian Air Force realised that it needed to replace its Mig-21 since they will be signNowing the end of their service life by 1990s which will be a critical fall for Indian Air Force in terms of numbers. Hence the Tejas programme was started which had its own share of problems and was dragged on for many years. Hence what IAF needed was an interim solution. The solution came when it was decided that IAF Mig-21 will be upgraded and its Total Technical Life (TTL) will be extended. The upgrade involved better avionics , armaments , EW suite and more. This helped the Mig-21 to stay for much longer in Indian Air Force. The sole reason why Mig-21 has persisted in IAF till date was due to the fact that Tejas programme faced initial hiccups and thus failed in its objective to replace the older Mig-21 in IAF service.Recently IAF has retired its Mig-21 Type 96 Aircrafts as Tejas programme has started to bore results with Tejas now being actively inducted in Flying Daggers Squadron of IAF. At present IAF uses only Mig-21 Bison/bis aircrafts which will be retired from service by next decade.SEPECAT Jaguar : Jaguars in IAF service are termed as “Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft” ( DPSA ) meant as a Fighter-Bomber to strike deep in the enemy territory. Indian Air Force has serially upgraded its Jaguars with DARIN programmes the latest being DARIN III which adds an AESA radar to the Jaguar. Future replacement for Jaguar can be AMCA which is an Indian 5th Generation Fighter Aircraft currently under development. The extended life which has been breathed in Indian Jaguars through MLUs can well keep Indian Jaguars in air up till next decade.India has been notoriously known for running the aircrafts in its inventory for a much longer time than warranted by its TTL through MLUs like in case of Mig-21 and Jaguars and even Mig-27 and others. Retiring almost 200+ Mig-21 will bring in a critical void which IAF doesn’t want due to its falling numbers. Also Jaguar is India’s lone DPSA so as long as upgrades are available and quick replacements are unavailable it is better to keep them running as these aircrafts serve quite well in their roles.Many nations still use Mig-21 like Romania with some of the famous Mig-21 knockoffs like F-7 used many nations around the world like Bangladesh , Pakistan and Egypt.

It is a much heated up question as when India placed an order of 36 Rafales many started complaining that Rafale is too expensive and India can buy more ‘capable’ Su-30 MKIs to beef up its fire power. Here is a rough comparison between Su-30 MKI and Rafale from RBTH Website :-The Sukhoi Su-30MKI is a multirole combat fighter aircraft jointly developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force (IAF). Based on the Su-30 fighter aircraft, Su-30MKI is equipped with thrust vectoring control and canards.While Dassault Rafale is an omnirole aircraft by design able to execute many missions like :Air-defense / air-superiority,Anti-Access/Area Denial,Reconnaissance,Close air support,Dynamic Targeting,Air-to-ground precision strike / interdiction,Anti-ship attacks,Nuclear deterrence,Buddy-buddy refueling.Rafale also has exhibited a remarkable survivability rate during the latest French Air Force and Navy operations, thanks to an optimized airframe and to a wide range of smart and discrete sensors.Comparison :——————————Radar :-Su-30 MKI is fitted withNIIP NO11M Bars (Panther) which is a powerful integrated PESAradar. The N011M is a digital multi-mode dual frequency band radar. The N011M can function in air-to-air and air-to-land/sea mode simultaneously while being tied into a high-precision laser-inertial or GPS navigation system. It is equipped with a modern digital weapons control system as well as anti-jamming features. N011M has a 400 km search range and a maximum 200 km tracking range, and 60 km in the rear hemisphere. The radar can track 15 air targets and engage 4 simultaneously including cruise missiles and motionless helicopters. The Su-30MKI can function as a mini-AWACS as a director or command post for other aircraft. The target co-ordinates can be transferred automatically to at least four other aircraft. The radar can detect ground targets such as tanks at 40–50 km.Dassault Rafale is fitted with a RBE2-AA radar system which is an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system derived from the Rafale’s RBE2 radar. It replaces the mechanically steered array antenna by electronically steering exerted by up to several thousand of transmit-receive modules which enable maximum performance and versatility as well as enhanced reliability. The radar is using about 1000 GaAs T/R modules and is reported to deliver a greater detection range of 200 km, improved reliability and reduced maintenance demands over the preceding radar. Active electronic scanning makes it possible to switch radar modes quickly, thereby enabling operational functions to run simultaneously.Su-30 MKI PESA Radar is far less powerful than Rafale AESA Radar. Su-30MKI will receive an AESA Radar only after Super Sukhoi Upgrade where it will be fitted with Zhuk AESA Radar.2. Electronic Warfare Suite :Su-30MKI has electronic counter-measure systems. The RWR system is of Indian design, developed by India's DRDO, called Tarang, (Wave in English). It has direction finding capability and is known to have a programmable threat library. Elta EL/M-8222 a self-protection jammer developed by Israel Aircraft Industries is the MKI's standard EW pod, which the Israeli Air Force uses on its F-15s. The ELTA El/M-8222 Self Protection Pod is a power-managed jammer, air-cooled system with an ESM receiver integrated into the pod. The pod contains an antenna on the forward and aft ends, which receive the hostile RF signal and after processing deliver the appropriate response.While Rafale has ground breaking EW Suite in form of SPECTRA system which carries out reliable long-range detection, identification and localization of threats, allowing the pilot to instantly select the most effective defensive measures based on combinations of radar jamming, infrared or radar decoying and evasive maneuvers. The angular localization performance of the SPECTRA sensors makes it possible to accurately locate ground threats in order to avoid them, or to target them for destruction with precision guided munitions. Additionally, SPECTRA fulfils new functions in a combat aircraft, while signNowly participating in the determination of the aircraft's tactical situation, and providing the crew with operational advantage by performing accurate threat location. By virtue of its fully passive situational awareness capability, SPECTRA are a major contributor to the low observability concept of Rafale. SPECTRA gives Rafale firing solution with 1* precision at 200 km.The outstanding capability of SPECTRA regarding airborne threat localization is one of the keys of the RAFALE’s superior situational awareness. Also instrumental in SPECTRA’s performance is a threat library that can be easily defined, integrated and updated on short notice by users in their own country, and in full autonomy. SPECTRA now include a new generation missile warning system that offers increased detection performance against the latest threats.In this aspect also Rafale edges out Su-30 MKI. This EW Suite helps Rafale with an excellent survivability in hostile airspace which Su-30 MKI can’t offer.3. Dogfighting Skills :Su-30 MKI remains one of the most maneuverable fighter till now with 3D Thrust Vectors and Canards which provides it extra lift and more maneuverability. Rafale has also its own distinctive advantage in dogfights as it is a delta wing fighter can take sharp turns. According to Rafale vs SU-30MKI the dogfighting rating for Rafale and Su-30 MKI are 9.3/10 and 9.7/10 respectively. Though MKI margins a Rafale in this factor , the wing loading and thrust/weight ratios for Su-30 MKI are 401 kg/sq m and 1.00:1 at 56% fuel, respectively. For the Rafale, the figures are 306 kg/sq m and around 1.23:1. In fact, at a full fuel and weapon load, the Rafale still has a 0.988:1 thrust/weight ratio – almost the same ratio as the one achieved by the Su-30MKI at a 56% weapons load. This means that a fully-loaded Rafale is as maneuverable as a half-fully-loaded Su-30MKI, while a half-fully-loaded Rafale can run circles around a Flanker.In this aspect I will give an edge to Su-30 MKI though Rafale can run circles around a Flanker better enough.4. Stealth :The minimal Radar Cross Section of Rafale, according to Dassault engineer (1/10~1/20 of Mirage-2000's frontal RCS), should be 0.05 to 0.1 m2 class.Rafale makes extensive use of radar-absorbent material (RAM) in the form of paints and other materials. RAM forms a saw-toothed pattern on the wing and canard trailing edges, for instance. The aircraft is designed to, so that its untreated radar signature is concentrated in a few strong "spikes," which are then suppressed by the selective use of RAM.​75% of Rafale surface structure and 30% of its mass are made of composites. Besides, the high amount of composites and RAM materials, ducted air intakes, Rafale also has a sawtooth design feature all over the airframe and even in the air intakes. These sawtooth are made of RAM materials and meant to scatter and absorb radar waves. IRST surface of rafale is covered in gold shield which reflects very less radar energy and thus has stealth. The internals of the cockpit are RCS shaped as well as the canopy containing gold and RAM coat on the mounts which reflects very less radar reflection.Su-30 MKI due to its larger size lets out a huge RCS of 10 meter square ( unarmed ) and 20 meter square ( armed ). Su-30 MKI also does not make use of RAM or RCS Reduction measures as Rafale.So in a BVR Combat a Rafale will have an advantage of first look-first shot as it will detect a Su-30 MKI first before a Su-30 MKI will detect it.5. Propulsion :The Rafale is fitted with two Snecma M88 engines, each capable of providing up to 50 kN (11,250 lbf) of dry thrust and 75 kN (16,900 lbf) with afterburners. The engines feature several advances, including a non-polluting combustion chamber, single-crystal turbine blades, powder metallurgy disks, and technology to reduce radar and IR signatures. The M88 enables the Rafale to supercruise while carrying four missiles and one drop tank.M88 Engines———————The Su-30MKI is powered by two Lyulka-Saturn AL-31FP turbofans, each rated at 12,500 kgf (27,550 lbf) of full after-burning thrust, which enable speeds of up to Mach 2 in horizontal flight and a rate of climb of 230 m/s. The mean time between overhaul is reportedly 1,000 hours with a full-life span of 3,000 hours; the titanium nozzle has a mean time between overhaul of 500 hours. In early 2015, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar stated before Parliament that the AL-31FP had suffered numerous failures, between the end of 2012 and early 2015, a total of 69 Su-30MKI engine-related failures had occurred; commons causes were bearing failures due to metal fatigue and low oil pressure, in response several engine modifications were made to improve lubrication, as well as the use of higher quality oil and adjustments to the fitting of bearings.AL-31FP Engines——————-AL-31FP engines provide a greater thrust than Rafale which is not a sign of inferiority but because Su-30 MKI is a Heavy Combat Aircraft rather than Rafale which is a medium combat aircraft. The Su-30MKI’s rate of climb (300 m/s) is inferior to that of the Rafale (305 m/sec) which gives Rafale an edge over Su-30.6. Technology and Avionics :In terms of technology and avionics Rafale is marked 8.5/10 and 8.4/10 respectively while Su-30 MKI is marked 8.2/10 in both which is a pretty edge for Rafale as compared to Sukhoi Su-30 MKI as per ratings by Rafale vs SU-30MKI7. Beyond Visual Range Combat :The primary BVRAAM employed by Rafale is MBDA Meteor, presently the most advanced BVRAAM at present. Meteor is the next generation of Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) system designed to revolutionize air-to-air combat in the 21st Century. Guided by an advanced active radar seeker, Meteor provides all weather capability to engage a wide variety of targets from agile fast jets to small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and cruise missiles. It is designed to meet the most stringent of requirements and is capable of operating in the most severe of clutter and countermeasure environments.The weapon is also equipped with data link communication. Aimed at meeting the needs of a network centric environment, Meteor can be operated using third party data, enabling the Meteor user – the pilot – to have the most flexible weapon system. Using the data link means that target information updates while the missile is already streaking towards its quarry. Re-targeting data can even come from a third party—i.e., from a platform other than the launch aircraft. The datalink is capable of transmitting information such as kinematic status. It also notifies target acquisition by the seeker.The Meteor is installed with an active radar target seeker, offering high reliability in detection, tracking and classification of targets. The missile also integrates inertial measurement system (IMS). It uses AD4A (Active Anti-Air Seeker) family of seekers.Meteor’s stunning performance is achieved through its unique ramjet propulsion system – solid fuel, variable flow, ducted rocket. This ‘ramjet’ motor provides the missile with thrust all the way to target intercept, providing the largest No-Escape Zone of any air-to-air missile.The weapon’s electronics and propulsion control unit (ECPU) calculates the appropriate cruise speed depending on the launch condition and the target’s altitude, and adjusts the ramjet’s air intake and duct covers accordingly. The distance that the Meteor has to fly is unknown as yet–the target may be maneuvering, for instance. The ECPU monitors that distance and the missile’s remaining fuel. When the range to go indicates that the missile won’t run out of fuel if it accelerates, the throttle is fully opened to maximize the intercept speed. If the target is at maximum range, there will be little if any acceleration.The missile has a range in excess of 100km. Meteor is estimated to have a range of 250-300 km with ballistic flight path. It is designed for a speed greater than Mach 4. The missile has a large no escape zone (almost 60 Km). The missile trajectory is controlled aerodynamically using four rear-mounted fins. Meteor's control principles are intended to allow high turn rates while maintaining intake and propulsion performance.The missile, being designed as a complete unit, requires no assembly and maintenance immediately before loading. This arrangement reduces its overall life logistic support cost.​Meteor can be launched as a stealth missile. It is equipped with enhanced kinematics features. It is capable of striking different types of targets simultaneously in almost any weather. To ensure total target destruction, the missile is equipped with both impact and proximity fuses and a fragmentation warhead that detonates on impact or at the optimum point of intercept to maximize lethality.Su-30 MKI is equipped with Vympel NPO R-77 BVRAAM which is a Russian medium range, active radar homing air-to-air missile system. The R-77 has the ability to engage multiple airborne threats simultaneously thanks to its fire and forget capability. There are other versions fitted with infrared and passive radar seekers instead of active radar homing. Future plans call for increasing the missile range well beyond 150 kilometers. Currently it has 80Km range. It has speed of 4 mach and can operate at altitudes as 25000 m high.The R-77 has been designed with innovative control surfaces which are one of the keys of its impressive performance. Once launched, the R-77 depends on an inertial navigation system with optional in-flight target position updates from the aircraft sensors. When the R-77 missile is at a distance of about 20 km its radar homing head activates leading the missile to its target. The R-77's multi-purpose target engagement capabilities and resistance against countermeasures are among the best in the world. It is launched from AKU-170E launch unit aboard the aircraft.The R-77 carries a 22.5kg multi-shaped charge rod type warhead. An inertial/radio-corrected navigation system guides the missile during the initial flight phase, while a multi-function doppler-monopulse active radar seeker is employed in the terminal phase.​R77 uses large strakes for lift enhancement, and unique lattice tail controls. The R-77P uses the 9B-1032 X-band anti-radiation seeker. A rocket-ramjet variant of the missile has been in development since the 1990s, as a counter to the EU Meteor. Designated the RVV-AE-PD, and often labeled the R-77M.R-77 BVRAAM—————Su-30 MKI will aslo be fitted with Astra BVRAAM which is designed to be capable of engaging targets at varying range and altitudes allowing for engagement of both short-range targets (up to 20 km) and long-range targets (up to 80 km).It uses smokeless propulsion system to evade enemy radars and has the capacity to engage in multi-target scenario. Astra can signNow up to 110 km when fired from an altitude of 15 km, 44 km when launched from an altitude of 8 km and 21 km when fired from sea level. A smokelessThe highly agile, accurate and reliable missile features high single-shot kill probability (SSKP) and is capable of operating under all weather conditions. It also has the capacity to engage in multi-target scenario. The ECCM (electronic counter-counter measure) features of the missile make it able to overcome almost any kind of jamming.Su-30 MKI launching an Astra BVRAAM—————Su-30 MKI also has a 200 km ranged- K-100 Novator Missile which is used to target AWACS aircraft and oil tankers ( not fighter jets ).In BVR Combat aspect due to Meteor we can assume that Rafale can edge out Su-30 MKI although Su-30 MKI has more diverse BVRAAM in form of R-77 and Astra as well as K-100. According to Rafale vs SU-30MKI Rafale has 85% rating in BVR Tech. while Su-30 MKI has 87% rating.8. Within Visual Range Combat :In WVR Combat Rafale has MBDA MICA and Magic II AAM while Su-30 MKI has AA-11 Archer and AA-8 Aphid. Rafale vs SU-30MKI gives Rafale a dogfighting rating of 76 % while Su-30 MKI has an edge with 94 %. Rafale has the biggest gun on the market (ex aequo with Sukhoi aircraft): a hefty 30mm GIAT gun firing incendiary rounds.Based on all these analysis I will comment that Rafale is actually ‘better’ than Su-30 MKI. Su-30 MKI has 12 hardpoints (2 × wing-tip AAM launch rails, 6 × pylons under-wing, 2 × pylon under-engine nacelles, and 2 × pylons in tandem in the "arch" between the engines. It can be increased to 14 using multiple ejector racks.) with a capacity of up to 8,130 kg . Rafale on the other hand has 14 hard points (13 on the RAFALE M). Five of them are capable of drop tanks and heavy ordnance. Total external load capacity is more than nine tonnes (20,000 lbs.).To prevail in air combat, one must:Be capable of defending one’s own airspace anytime, on call, at a moment’s notice if need be;Be harder to detect than the enemy and detect him faster so that he’ll be shot down unaware of his attacker (as 80% of all fighters shot down throughout aviation history were);If possible, be more numerous than the enemy;Provide one’s own pilots with more flight hours than the enemy to practice flying skills;Be more maneuverable than the enemy;Be more capable of transitioning from one maneuver to another than the enemy.Some of the objectives are filled by Rafale while some others are filled by Su-30 MKI.Rafale's awesome speciality is it's faster 5th gen system core processor which integrates data & information at much faster rate than it's Russian-Indian competitor.Su-30 MKI can employ many varieties of anti-ship missiles like3 × Kh-59MK4 × Kh-356 × Kh-31AWhile Rafale on other hand has only MBDA AM 39-Exocet anti-ship missile. Su-30 MKI also employs varieties of Anti-Radiation Missiles like KH-31P and DRDO Anti-Radiation Missile.If you look from Indian case Russia has agreed to fit KH-31P with Indian Rafales.Rafales also have "Hammer" which is a Precision-Guided Munitions developed by Sagem Défense Sécurité. AASM comprises a frontal guidance kit and a rear-mounted range extension kit matched to a dumb bomb. The weapon is modular because it can integrate different types of guidance units and different types of bombs. The basic version features a 250-kilogram (550 lb) bomb plus hybrid inertial navigation system (INS) / Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance. Other variants add infrared homing or laser guidance to increase accuracy; there are also versions with 125-kilogram (276 lb), 500-kilogram (1,100 lb) or 1,000-kilogram (2,200 lb) bomb bodies. It has range capability of more than 32nm from high altitude, or 8nm from low level. Launches can also be made from an off-axis angle of up to 90°, while up to six weapons can be fired against individual targets in a single pass and with just one trigger press."Meanwhile the russian KAB 500 /1000/ have inferior CEP (7m) & Range compare to Hammer.Rafale also has MBDA Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG Cruise Missile which is is based on the earlier MBDA Apache anti-runway missile, and differs in that it carries a warhead, rather than submunitions. Range 300+nm (560+km) Lo-Lo profile Speed 1,000 km/h Mach 0.8 Guidance Inertial, GPS and TERPROM. Terminal guidance using imaging infrared DSMAC.Su-30 MKI and Rafale both will use BrahMos-NG in IAF Service.Rafale with a twin BrahMos-NG ConfigurationSu-30 MKI OLS-30 laser-optical Infra-red search and track includes a day and night FLIR capability and is used in conjunction with the helmet mounted sighting system. The OLS-30 is a combined IRST/LR device using a cooled, broad waveband sensor. Detection range is up to 90 km, while the laser ranger is effective to 3.5 km. While Rafale’s FSO provides better range than OLS-30 at 100 kilometers.Combat-Proven :From 2006 to 2011, French Air Force and Navy Rafale fighters were engaged in countless combat missions in Afghanistan where they demonstrated a very high proficiency and a tangible military value. The AASM/HAMMER precision-guided modular air-to-surface armament, Paveway laser-guided bombs, and the 30 mm cannon were employed on many occasions, scoring direct hits with remarkable precision. In 2011, French Air Force and French Navy RAFALE fighters were successfully engaged in coalition operations over Libya. They were the first fighters to operate over Benghazi and Tripoli, and they carried out the whole spectrum of missions the Rafale was designed for: air-superiority, precision strikes with Hammers and laser-guided bombs, deep strike with SCALP cruise missiles, Intelligence, Surveillance, Tactical Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) and Strike Coordination And Reconnaissance (SCAR). During the Libyan conflict, hundreds of targets – tanks, armored vehicles, artillery emplacements, storage dumps, command centres and air-defense systems (SA-3 Goa and SA-8 Gecko fixed and mobile SAM launchers) – were hit with devastating accuracy by Rafale aircrews.French Air Force Rafales have taken a leading role in Mali, helping destroy enemy infrastructure and support friendly troops in contact. Four RAFALES undertook the longest raid in French Air Force history, taking off from Saint-Dizier, in eastern France, and landing in N’Djamena, in Chad, after hitting 21 targets and spending no less than 9 h 35 min airborne. The French Air Force quickly set up a forward operating base in Chad, and the RAFALE detachment later grew to eight aircraft. This represented the first time the RAFALE had operated from a FOB in Africa.While on other hand Su-30 MKI has never seen real combat and is not combat-proven. Well this is not a criteria to judge an aircraft =)So in my view Rafale is better than Su-30 MKI whereas Su-30 MKI edges Rafale in some factors like dogfighting and WVR Combat. Also Su-30 MKI is cheaper than Rafales. Seeing the excellent record of Mirage 2000 in IAF Service I can assume that Rafale coupled with Su-30 MKIs and India’s own Tejas can put up IAF Supremacy for upto 2045 till 5th generation fighters come into scene.Fact is I love both the planes =)Hope my answer serves the purpose =)References :Sukhoi Su-30MKI - WikipediaDassault Rafale - WikipediaRafale vs SU-30MKIGoogle Images

India is planning to decommission its entire fleet of MiG 21s and MiG 27s by the year 2020~2023. Now, the MiG 21 is an Interceptor while the MiG 27 is a Ground attack aircraft.The MMRCA program was initiated to replace both these specialized aircraft with a Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft.This is the reason IAF floated a global tender for a suitable aircraft.Now, Why Rafale, Why not Su-35??Ground Role:The Su-35 is predominantly an Air Interdiction/ Air Superiority Fighter. Although it can also undertake ground missions, it will be a very over performing asset for a ground missions. It will be very effective to shoot invading aircraft out of the sky. But for ground attack missions, its cost of operating per flight hour will be expensive compared to that of the Rafale. Also, India already operates 197 Su-30MKI (Flanker-H) which is similar in performance capabilities to the Su-35. The Rafale is easier to maintain, it has a lower RCS compared to the Su-35 which means it can undertake Hi-Lo-Hi missions. The comparable aircraft in Ground attack capabilities to that of the Rafale would be the Su-34 Fullback.  India already operates the High End Sukhois and is also going to induct the Light Spectrum LCAs. It needs to fill in the intermediate role for a combat aircraft which has both Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground capabilities. The Rafale is the best aircraft in this unique category and it beats all of its competitors by a comfortable margin. Air Role: Rafale:Rafale’s placement of canards, which are close coupled to the wing, means that outboard canard vortices energize the wing tips regardless of the angle of attack. This results in excellent roll onset rate at all flight conditions, allowing aircraft to be flown with rapid reversals of flight directions instead of rolling pulls. Canards also create an area of low pressure on forward part of the wing, which results in a signNow pitch-up tendency and consequently in rapid pitch onset rate. The climb rate of the Rafale is 305 m/s, indicating very good acceleration. The wing loading of 275 kg/m2 at combat weight gives it instantaneous turn rate, unmatched among Western fighters, especially when combined with close-coupled canard’s favorable effects on wing lift at high angles of attack. The Thrust-to-weight ratio is 1.2 at combat weight, and allows it to have a good sustained turn rate, especially when combined with its very high lift to drag ratio.Su-35Su-35's climb rate is 280 m/s, indicating inferior acceleration when compared to the Su-30 as well as Rafale, Typhoon, J-11 and J-10. Wing loading at combat weight is 377 kg/m2, indicating comparably low but still borderline adequate instantaneous turn rate. Thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.24 indicates an adequate sustained turn rate.However, it has large visual and Infrared Signatures which reduce its ability to surprise the enemy, while its own ability to detect surprise bounces is limited due to inadequate rearward visibility.Comparative analysis:The Rafale has low-wing loading capability when compared with the Su-35 and even with Typhoon, this results in good turn performance; as low wing loading results in high gust sensitivity and is thus undesireable for strike aircraft. Very low wing loading makes them obvious to be optimized for air superiority.Su-35's large size and high weight results in inferior maneuverability in air combat when compared to the Rafale. Although Su-35 is equipped with TVC, it will not make it more maneuverable than Rafale. Su-35 has better aerodynamics than F-15 or F-16, yes it maybe the best in its class, still inferior to the Rafale.Why Shouldn't India scrap the MMRCA deal?Technological Perspectives:The Dassault Rafale is equipped with the RBE2 AA Active Electronically Scanned Array. With the signing of the Rafale Deal, this compact radar technology would be transferred to India. India has earmarked the usage of this radar or one of its derivatives for the LCA MkII and AMCA. The cancellation of the Rafale deal would mean that the critical technologies for our other fighter programs may be left in the lurch. This will adversely affect the induction timelines and capabilities of our future weapon platforms.Rafale uses several futuristic technologies such as Data Fusion (a central computer intelligently selects and prioritises information to display to pilots for simpler command and control) and Direct Voice Input (a style of human–machine interaction "HMI" in which the user makes voice commands to issue instructions to the machine). With the signing of the deal, some of these technologies could be received from France by using India's clout. This will be a massive boost to India's Indigenous fighters such as LCA MkII and AMCA whose Air Staff Requirements speak of incorporating such technologies.Geopolitical and Strategic perspectives.Negotiations are not just a piece of verbal agreement. They involve several complex procedures between government and participating industries. When program was officially sanctioned, several rules were set for the tender process. The deal has to proceed along these guidelines. So, if the deal is now cancelled, it means that the Indian Policy planners have to go all the way back to the drawing board, scrap the entire process and rework new procurement mechanisms considering the current market scenario, air staff requirements and geopolitical situation. This will effectively push the selection, testing and induction of a suitable aircraft all the way till 2025... Mind you, the MMRCA deal was proposed way back in 2003 and it had taken the program to signNow L-1 bidder stage in 2012 ( 9 years)... If that happens again, the IAF will not be inducting an aircraft for another 12~14 years.. This will adversely affect the force levels of the country which already faces double threat from both the borders and new forms of threat from the Indian ocean. So, the ideal approach would to go on and complete the deal and induct the aircraft asap. If there's one lesson Indian policy planners should learn, it is to give importance to developing capacity building in Defence Technology both in R&D and Production Management. India should fast track not just the LCA project, but half a dozen other projects such as LCA Mk-II, N-LCA, AMCA, IJT, LCH and FGFA.      What is the current status of the India-France Rafale deal?I hope this satisfies your query.

Rafale vs Typhoon: The facts!Thrust to weight ratio:Maximum:Rafale = 1.50Typhoon = 1.76Nominal:Rafale = 1.03Typhoon = 1.21Minimum:Rafale = 0.62Typhoon = 0.82RafaleEmpty weight = 10220 kgFuel capacity (internal) = 4680 kgMinimum weight = 10220 kgNominal weight (without external loads) = 14900 kgMaximum weight = 24500 kgMaximum Thrust = 2*75 kNMaximum Thrust-to-weight = 2*75/(9.81*10.220) = 1.50Nominal Thrust-to-weight = 2*75/(9.81*14.900) = 1.03Minimum Thrust-to-weight = 2*75/(9.81*24.500) = 0.62TyphoonMinimum weight = 11000 kgFuel capacity (internal) = 4.996 kgNominal weight = 15996 kgMaximum weight = 23500 kgMaximum Thrust = 2*95 kN (war setting)Maximum Thrust-to-weight = 2*95/(9.81*11.000) = 1.76Nominal Thrust-to-weight = 2*95/(9.81*15.996) = 1.21Minimum Thrust-to-weight = 2*95/(9.81*23.500) = 0.82Wing loading:Minimum:Rafale = 224 kg/m²Typhoon = 215 kg/m²Nominal:Rafale = 326 kg/m²Typhoon = 312 kg/m²Maximum:Rafale = 536 kg/m²Typhoon = 459 kg/m²RafaleWing area = 45,70 m²Nominal weight = 14900 kgMinimum wing loading = 10220/45.70 kg/m² = 224 kg/m²Nominal wing loading = 14900/45.70 kg/m² = 326 kg/m²Maximum wing loading = 24500/45.70 kg/m² = 536 kg/m²Typhoonwing area = 51.2 m² (with extended leading edges)Minimum wing loading = 11000/51.2 kg/m² = 215 kg/m²Nominal wing loading = 15996/51.2 kg/m² = 312.5 kg/m²Maximum wing loading = 23500/51.2 kg/m² = 459 kg/m²Service Ceiling:Rafale = 15.240 kmTyphoon = 16.765 kmRate of Climb:Rafale = 250 m/sTyphoon = 315 m/sFerry Range:Rafale = 3750 kmTyphoon = 3790 kmMaximum payload:Rafale = 9600 kgTyphoon = 7500 kgMinimum Speed: Rafale = 148 km/hTyphoon = 203 km/hMaximum Speed:Rafale = Mach 1.97Typhoon = Mach 2.35The Rafale has two advantages over the typhoon. It has a lower minimum speed, which makes it more suitable for landings on aircraft carriers. It can carrier a higher weapons load, which makes it more suitable for ground attack missions. The respective range of both aircraft is approximately equal. In all of the parameters relevant for aerial combat, i.e. thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, climb rate, service ceiling and top speed, the typhoon is superior to the Rafale.Both Rafale and Typhoon were built to be aerodynamically instable along the longitudinal axis, which results in the natural tendency to lift the nose of the aircraft, i.e. to pitch. The canards are used in order to balance this tendency such that the aircraft can be redirected from a looping into a straight flight path. The Rafale's canards are positioned right in front of the wings, whereas the typhoons canards are positioned further away from the wings right below the cockpit. This means that the typhoon's canards are further away from the axis of rotation. The longer lever means that the typhoon's canards can apply a greater leverage force (torque) in order to redirect the nose of the aircraft. Consequently, the instantaneous as well as the continuous pitch rates of the typhoon should be considerably better than the Rafale.PerformanceTyphoon is the faster aircraft and has a signNowly superior thrust-to-weight ratio which gives it better acceleration at all altitudes. This also allows Typhoon to retain and regain energy faster than Rafale in a horizontal dogfight situation. It also has a signNowly higher service ceiling of over 60,000ft which allows it to operate uniquely well alongside the US F-22 Raptors ‘high and fast’ in the air superiority role which is exactly where it was designed to excel. Rafale has a signNowly superior load-carrying capability and its manoeuvrability at low speeds and altitudes is also better than Typhoon’s although the margin is slim except where both aircraft are very heavily loaded. In terms of horizontal manoeuvrability, Rafale has the better instantaneous turn rate allowing it to reverse its turns more quickly but Typhoon can sustain higher g’s for longer without bleeding speed. High alpha performance is similar, with both aircraft limited by their air intake placement and lack of thust vectoring although Typhoon’s intakes can at least ‘gape’ slightly to increase airflow at high Alpha and low speeds. Range is almost identical at around 2000nmi with three drop-tanks in ‘ferry’ configuration but in terms of strike missions, Rafale’s greater payload capacity allows it to carry greater under-wing fuel loads for a given strike payload. The high availability of aerial refuelling in both air force’s standard operating scenarios means the small differences are almost unimportant for overall combat effectiveness.the french rafalethe eurofighter typhoonsource:Typhoon versus Rafale: The final word

We have close to 300 Su 30 MKIs. However they are plagued by maintenance issues . Poor spare availability has further worsened availability of the top line fighter , resulting in only 60% of the fighters beeing available for active duties . This figure is up from 47% when the Rafale deal was announced.While it has been debated that this is due to high peace time operational tempo of the IAF training missions , High ratio of Maintenance hours to Flying hours is an issue with heavy Air-Superiority Fighters , these Dukes of the sky also cost good money in maintenance.IAF wanted lighter Multirole , High endurance and High Availability , Easy to Maintain fighters to replace Mig 27s & 23s . Rafale deal was also meant to bring lot of new technologies and help build LCA MK 2 and AMCA . This is the reason for Rafeal deal.From what we have last heard in the news , Rafale deal will bring in the following technologies & projects to Indian defence agencies as part offset commitments of the current 36 fighter deal :1. Kaveri engine project: Snecma has proposed to invest $1billion to iron out the issues in Kaveri Jet Engine and bring it to production standard in time to be fit on to the LCA MK1A. If this turns true, this alone is worth the whole deal. This will enable India for the first time with a capable Jet Engine with massive applications.2. Thrust Vectoring Nozzles for Missiles : MBDA will work with DRDO to transfer Thrust Vectoring technologies that can be applied to Astra and other missiles to bring them on par with Meteor in terminal phase maneuverability , giving the missiles higher kill probability. A clever application of this will be to apply TVC to Kaveri Jet Engine. However another project with Kilmov of Russia , that is currently underway , will also be able to give TVC capability to Kaveri engine.3. Stealth Coatings and Paints :The final stealth coating of the 36 jets might be done in India and this will be done as part of Make in India component of the deal. Also as part of the deal the special spray paint and coating technology will be transferred. This also has immense potential for application to other projects like LCA , AMCA , SU 30 MKI upgrade , FGFA , AURA etc..4. AESA RADAR :The radar technology on Rafale can easily be adapted to other aircrafts in IAF . As part of the deal the multimode AESA radar technology will be transferred to DRDO for application on UTTAM AESA radar.Conclusion :If these technologies are quickly observed and put to good use then the deal is definitely worth it. 36 Rafale will help build 360 LCA (All versions) if we can effectively leverage this deal.This will cover up for the low number of fighter aircraft that IAF has for joint operations against Pakistan and China.

This is a long answer.I may be violating copyright law. But I think it is necessary.This question has been blown out of proportion. I am directly quoting the relevant sections- without any editing-from former election commissioner book.Read both Technical security aspects and administrative security aspects. Those who say that give me EVM and I will hack it ignore the administrative security aspects is like saying give me a gun and remove the security of Prime Minister and I can Kill him.Link of the book:English:Buy An Undocumented Wonder: The Great Indian Election Book Online at Low Prices in IndiaHindi:Buy Loktantra Ke Utsav Ki Unkahi Kahani (A Undocumented Wonder) (Hindi) Book Online at Low Prices in IndiaBelow are the sections from the book:Electronic Voting MachinesHistory and BackgroundNo presentation on the use of technology in Indian elections can be complete without a reference to EVMs. The voting system in India has undergone several changes over the decades. During the first two general elections to the Lok Sabha in 1952 and 1957, each candidate was allotted a separate coloured ballot box. The candidate’s name and symbol were not printed on ballot papers. Voters would drop an unmarked ballot paper in the ballot box of the candidate of their choice. The system, though very simple, evoked fears of tampering in the minds of stakeholders. Therefore, a marking system on the ballot paper was introduced during the mid-term elections to the Legislative Assemblies in Kerala and Odisha in 1960–61. That system remained in vogue until the 1999 Lok Sabha elections.Meanwhile, in 1977 the Commission introduced some form of electronic machines for recording votes in an error-free manner and removing the possibilities of invalid votes. S.L. Shakdhar, the then Chief Election Commissioner, while on tour in Hyderabad in December1977 requested M/s Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) to study the feasibility of using an electronic gadget for conducting elections. M/s Bharat Electronics Limited, Bengaluru (BEL) had already developed microcomputer based voting equipment, which they had used for the elections for the various unions of the company. They approached the Commission in January 1981 for manufacturing EVMs. On 29 July 1981 the Commission held a meeting with representatives from BEL, ECIL, the Ministry of Law and some CEOs regarding the use of EVMs in elections. It was decided to introduce EVMs in fifty polling stations in the 70-Parur assembly constituency in the assembly elections to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala held on 19 May 1982 as an experimental measure (the machines used had eight candidate buttons in the ballot unit (BU) instead of the sixteen candidate buttons as in existing EVMs. However, seven such BUs could be connected in series to provide for a maximum of fifty-six candidates).Since the central government could not take steps to introduce legislation as proposed by the Commission for amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 to facilitate the use of EVMs, the Commission issued directives under Article 324 of the Constitution of India for the use of EVMs and conducted elections at fifty polling stations using the machines. The use of EVMs was challenged in court and the Supreme Court of India* held that EVMs cannot be used in an election unless a specific provision is made in law providing for their use. The law was amended by Parliament in December 1988 and a new Section 61A was added in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, empowering the Commission to use voting machines. The amended provision came into force on 15 March 1989.In January 1990 the Government of India appointed the Electoral Reforms Committee (Dinesh Goswami Committee) consisting of representatives from several recognized national and state parties. The Electoral Reforms Committee felt that the machines should be examined by technical experts with a view to removing any doubts or misapprehensions in the minds of the public with regard to the credibility of the working of the machines. To do so it constituted an expert committee under the chairmanship of S. Sampath, Chairman, TAC, Defence Research & Development Organization, Ministry of Defence, and comprising reputed scientist P.V. Indiresan of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, and Rao C. Kasarbada, Director, ER&DC, Trivandrum. The committee, after meeting with the manufacturers, election administrators and technical experts and conducting detailed laboratory tests, came to the conclusion that the EVM was a secure system. In April 1990, therefore, the expert committee unanimously recommended the use of EVMs without further loss of time.On 24 March 1992 necessary amendments to the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 were notified by the government with regard to the use of EVMs. EVMs have been used in all bye-elections to parliamentary constituencies and Legislative Assembly constituencies since November 1998. The general elections to the Lok Sabha in 2004 and 2009 were conducted exclusively on EVMs. Several technological changes were made in EVMs in 2001 and again in 2006 to upgrade them. To address the concern that the fast changing technology may have overtaken older members, the Technical Experts Committee was expanded and it now has P.V. Indiresan as its Chairman, and D.T. Shahaniand, A.K. Aggarwala of IIT, Delhi, D.K. Sharma of IIT, Mumbai and Rajat Moona from IIT, Kanpur (now DG, CDAC) as its members. The Commission does not take any technical decision without their recommendation or approval.Types of Electronic VotingAcross the world, electronic voting is essentially of two types. First and most commonly used is polling place e-voting. The second is remote e-voting online which has been used only experimentally in some countries like Switzerland, Canada, Estonia and Spain. Moreover, EVMs used in polling place e-voting are of two types, Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machines (DR-EVM) and those using optical scanners. When a voter presses a button on the DR-EVM his vote is recorded electronically in the machine’s memory. EVMs used in India, Venezuela and Brazil fall in this category. In the other type a voter marks his choice on a paper ballot which is then optically scanned and the counting is done electronically. Some states in the US use this type of machine. Direct recording voting machines can either have electro-mechanical buttons or a touch-screen to record votes. These can either be stand-alone or networked. Networked machines can transmit results to a central server to compile results quickly and display them at a central website. Indian EVMs are direct recording voting machines with electro-mechanical buttons for voters and are non-networked. Counting is done separately by each machine and the result from all machines is compiled manually.Security Features in Indian EVMsTechnical Security—ECI-EVMs are manufactured by the Electronics Corporation of India Limited (Department of Atomic Energy) and Bharat Electronics Limited (Ministry of Defence), both central public sector undertakings which are entrusted with developing high security defence equipment. The machines are both mechanically and electronically protected to prevent any tampering. The software used in these machines is burnt into a one-time programmable/masked chip so that it cannot be altered or tampered with. These machines are not networked either by wire or by wireless with any other machine or system.Therefore, there is no possibility of data corruption by hacking. The software for this chip is developed in-house by BEL and ECIL independently. The software development team is separate from the production team and reports directly to the CMD.Operationally, the Indian EVM is a set of two units—the ballot unit and the control unit. A vote can be recorded only after the presiding officer enables the ballot unit through the control unit. However, even the presiding officer cannot enable the ballot for twelve seconds after every ballot is cast. Thus, a maximum of five votes can be cast in one minute. Samples of EVMs from production batches are regularly checked for functionality by the quality assurance group which is an independent group within BEL and ECIL. Certain additional security features were introduced in 2006. These include dynamic coding between the ballot unit and the control unit, installing a real-time clock, installing a full display system, and date and time stamping of every key press.Administration Security Measures for EVMsThe Commission has put in place elaborate procedural checks and balances aimed at preventing any possible misuse or lapses.EVMs are kept in a secure room with only one double-locked door. The room is guarded twenty-four hours by armed police. The lock on the EVM warehouse is opened only after giving notice to political parties to be present at the time of unlocking.First level checking (FLC) of each EVM is done before elections by BEL and ECIL. FLC is done transparently in the presence of representatives of political parties. A mock poll by casting at least a thousand votes in at least 10 per cent (now reduced to 5 per cent after political parties found 10 per cent too cumbersome) of EVMs randomly selected by political parties is done at the time of FLC. After the mock poll, a sequential printout of the result is taken and shown to the political parties for comparing the record of the mock poll kept by them. The entire FLC process is videographed. After the FLC every EVM is sealed using a pink paper seal manufactured by the Security Printing Press, Nasik, using security paper and security printing technology. Every pink paper seal has a unique number. Representatives of political parties put their signatures on the pink paper seal. After it has been sealed thus, the plastic cover of the machine cannot be opened during the election without breaking it. Any machine with a broken or damaged seal will not be used.EVMs are randomized by the District Election Officer before being distributed in the assembly constituencies in the presence of representatives of recognized political parties, to guard against the possibility of anyone manipulating the software.Preparing EVMs for candidates’ setting is done in the presence of the candidates or their agents or authorized representatives, and in the presence of the Commission’s observer. At this stage, once again, a mock poll is conducted.Multi-level thread sealing of various compartments and sections is done at the time of candidates’ setting as:Thread seal for the ‘candidate set’ and power pack (battery) section of the control unit after setting the number of contesting candidates and installing the battery respectively.Thread seal for ballot paper screen of the ballot unit after fixing the ballot paper.Two thread seals for ballot paper cover of the balloting unit.After this, the returning officers do the second randomization of the Control Units (CUs) and Balloting Units (BUs) to allot a CU and BU to specific polling stations.These CUs/BUs are then stored in a strongroom in the presence of the candidates/their agents and the Commission’s observer. The candidates/their agents are allowed to put their seals on the lock to the strongroom.The strongroom is opened in the presence of candidates/ their agents and the observer on the day when polling parties are dispatched to their respective polling stations.Before the actual poll, a mock poll of at least 100 votes is done by the presiding officer in the presence of candidates or their authorized agents to demonstrate that the EVM is working properly.Sealing of the result section/bottom compartment of the control units is done by the presiding officer after the mock poll in the presence of polling agents with the following seals:Green paper seal for result sectionThread seal for inner door of result sectionThread seal for the bottom compartmentThread seal for connector box for the cascading balloting unit, if any (when there are more than sixteen candidates)After the poll, the EVMs are sealed with paper seals and packed in plastic boxes, which are also sealed. These EVMs are taken straight to the strongroom from the polling stations. The strongroom is closed and sealed in the presence of the candidates/their agents and the Commission’s observer. They are permitted to affix their own seals on the locks of the strongroom and are allowed to guard it till the counting begins. They are provided facilities for this purpose. In addition, an armed police guard keeps round the clock vigil. Arrangements are also made for video coverage and CCTV coverage of the strongroom round the clock.The storage hall so sealed is opened in the presence of the candidates/their agents and the Commission’s observer on the day of counting.Controversies about EVMsEarly ControversiesBefore the elections in Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa Jayaram, General Secretary of the AIADMK, had written a letter to the Commission to discard EVMs and use paper ballots in the state assembly elections in 2001 on the grounds that electronic devices had failed miserably even in scientifically and technologically advanced countries like the US and Japan. She also filed a W.P. No. 3346 of 2001 in the High Court of Chennai. The case finally went to the Supreme Court where it was decided in favour of EVMs.Captain Amrinder Singh, President, Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee, raised objections in a petition before the Punjab High Court prior to assembly elections in 2002. He sent a team of experts to the Election Commission, as directed by the High Court, to examine the machines. The experts could not come up with any concrete objection even after detailed examination of the EVMs.Satinath Choudhary, a computer scientist in the USA and the President of Better Democracy Forum, could not demonstrate any tamperability of EVMs in a demonstration session on alleged tamperability of ECI–EVMs on 8 August 2009 in the premises of the Election Commission of India.A demonstration session on alleged tamperability of ECI–EVMs by one Haneefa (who, incidentally, wanted to promote his own machine) was held on 12 October 2007 in Bangalore. He could not demonstrate any malfunction or tamperability and was fined by the court.Recent ControversiesThe Commission also received petitions from individuals raising doubts about the non-tamperability of EVMs. These include Kirit Somaiya of the Bharatiya Janata Party, G.K. Mani, President, Pattali Makkal Katchi, Omesh Saigal, retired Chief Secretary of Delhi, Subramaniyam Swami, President Janata Party and Satinath Chowdhery.Rashtriya Janata Dal, All Indian Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Telugu Desam Party, All India Forward Bloc, Asom Gana Parishad, Communist Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Indian National Lok Dal, Janata Dal United, Janata Dal (Secular), Rashtriya Lok Dal, Revolutionary Socialist Party and Samajwadi Party wrote a letter to the Commission requesting an all-party meeting on EVMs. The BJP also made the same request in a separate letter. The Commission held an all-party meeting on 4 October 2010 in which EVMs were discussed along with three other issues—monitoring expenditure, paid news and criminalization of politics. Most of the political parties expressed satisfaction with EVMs. Some political parties requested the Commission that the Expert Committee may be asked to examine the feasibility of introducing a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) with the EVMs.A programme on a Telugu TV Channel TV-9 by V.V. Rao and Hariprasad made a demonstration of alleged tamperability of EVMs on an EVM allegedly stolen from the office of the DEO, Mumbai. An FIR for theft of public property was registered. The trial in the case is ongoing.The main points raised by people alleging tamperability and the reasons why these are not acceptable include:It has been alleged that there is a possibility of the presence of a Trojan horse in an EVM. However, there is no such possibility because the software code is secret and not readable by anybody. The software programmers are of very high integrity. EVMs are manufactured by reputed public sector organizations and have proved very reliable. Every EVM is subjected to rigorous checks before deployment in the presence of political party representatives.It has been alleged that there is lack of voter verifiability in EVMs. The fact is that the voter verifies his or her ballot by a beep and by a LED getting lit next to the candidate’s button on the BU once the button is pressed.Some people say that there is a lack of a possibility of recount. The fact is that a recount is possible any number of times. There will not be any variance in the result displayed as there are no human errors in machine counting.Possibility of change of components (hardware hacking) has been mentioned. The fact is that after FLC an EVM is sealed and its inside cannot be accessed, making hardware hacking impossible.It was shown on television that the display on an EVM can be controlled from another Bluetooth device by passing the data in the EVM. This is not possible in a real election because in a real election nobody has access to EVMs and it is not possible to introduce a Bluetooth device in an EVM because of administrative safeguards and security.It was shown in the same television programme that using a chip on the memory, he could access and change the data in the memory of the EVM. This cannot be done in a real election because nobody can access the memory in an EVM without breaking open all its seals. A broken seal can be easily identified. If a seal is found broken or damaged, the machine is not used.Voter Verifiable Paper Audit TrailThe demand for a voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) in the EVMs has been around for some years. VVPAT allows voters to verify that their vote was cast correctly, and to provide a means to audit the stored electronic results. It includes a direct recording electronic voting machine (DRE) and a printer to print the ballot recorded in the electronic memory. It was first demonstrated in New York City in March 2001 and first used in Sacramento, California in 2002. In a VVPAT system the voter can review a physical ballot to confirm that the electronic voting system accurately recorded his or her vote. In addition, the election officials may manually recount ballots in the event of a dispute.The demand was referred to the Technical Experts Committee by the Commission, as suggested in the all-party meeting held by the Election Commission. The committee anticipated several technical problems in a VVPAT system, including:Possibility of the printer getting jammedRequirement of a large battery to operate the printer, which is difficult to maintain and chargeRequirement of special technical training for all polling personnelLonger time required per voterHigher costsIlliteracy in large sections of the population making it difficult for them to read the printoutPossibility of fading of the printout in a thermal paper printerThe Technical Expert Committee held consultations with political parties, civil society organizations and manufacturers of EVMs, and also saw a demonstration of the prototype VVPAT system developed by EVM manufacturers. The Technical Expert Committee recommended that a field trial of the system should be held in extreme environmental conditions.A field trial was accordingly conducted in Thiruvananthapuram (coastal area in Kerala), Delhi (capital of India), Jaisalmer (hot, desert region in Rajasthan), Cherapunji (in Meghalaya, receives highest rainfall in the world) and Leh (snowbound region in Jammu & Kashmir) in July 2011 in the presence of all stakeholders including political parties, civil society organizations and the media. The Commission issued a press note for wide participation of voters. It was found that certain improvements were required in the VVPAT system before it could be considered for use in an election. The Commission asked EVM manufacturers to carry out the design changes required.Thereafter, the manufacturers made several important changes in the design and produced an improved prototype. The Technical Experts Committee recommended that it should be tested in the field once again at the same places where the first field trial was held. Accordingly, the second field trial was held in July–August 2012, again in the presence of all stakeholders.The Technical Expert Committee approved the final design of the VVPAT units in a meeting held on 19 February 2013. The system was demonstrated in another all-party meeting held on 10 May 2013. All political parties recommended that VVPAT should be used in elections as soon as possible. The Commission decided to use the system initially in a bye-election. Accordingly, the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, was amended and notified on 14 August, 2013, allowing for the use of VVPAT along with EVMs in elections, and it was first used on 4 September 2013 in a bye-election for 51-Noksen (ST) assembly constituency in Nagaland.Subsequently, it has been used successfully in ten assembly constituencies in Mizoram on 25 November 2013 and one constituency of Delhi on 4 December 2013 during general elections to Delhi assembly constituency. The Commission has now decided to gradually expand its use and has placed orders for procurement of 20,000 units of VVPAT.