Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Sep 2014 06:58

The point being made by many is that instead of budgeting for the key priority,depleting strike aircraft and need for an MMRCA,the IAF bought expensive C-17s instead to stroke Uncle Sam and Boeing's backside. There is now little in the kitty for the Raffy.The IT feature has an extraordinary tale about how AKA,when inaugurating a Defexpo in Delhi told the foreign participants that there was "no money left"!

Secondly,the IL-476 wasn't yet in production when the C-17 deal was finalised in extreme haste,it had no competition.It would be a different story now,esp. when the economy is in low gear.

The JSF was never a player for the MMRCA,offer rejected by the IAF a long time ago.There's no point in raking up a non-event.It's "merits" can be taken to the appropriate td.

The issue today is whether we can afford the Rafale or not and what are the other affordable options,firang and desi.The goalposts have also shifted from just acquiring an MMRCA to the crisis affecting entire force structure of the IAF,with its depleting obsolete assets kept flying with duct tape.

If the SU-34s are no better than the 30/35s,then why are the Russians building them in large number for their air force? There are always dozens of mothballed Backfires (requiring upgrades) and Blackjacks too.In fact the venerable TU-95/142 Bear strat. bomber is still testing western air defences in style.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2014 07:09

The IL-476 ......... Is it in sight?

Besides, Philip, you need to improve y our logic. Are you claiming that the C-17 purchse bankrupted the IAF?

Lol

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2014 07:18

Russia’s move to sell S-400 missiles to China may rile India

China and Russia are expected to cooperate further on developing the IL-476 transport aircraft and IL-78 airborne refuelling tanker, according to state media in both countries.

FGFA or anything else Russia needs funds.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Sep 2014 07:27

NR,the IL-476 is in production.I've posted details in the T'port td. a long time ago.Around 100 are being acquired for Russian mil/civil requirements,the entire aircraft now being built in Russia unlike Il-76s.

The money spent on the C-17s,not a top priority,could've been used instead for acquiring more strike aircraft .the IAF is now $10B poorer which could've been used for the Rafale,LCA,whatever,a far more urgent need,where the bulk of the fleet is being operated by hundreds of vintage birds like MIG-21s,27s,Jags.Even the M-2000s,MIG-29s and Bisons are upgrades to give them an extra decade or two max.Read the IT feature too for the sorry state of defence across the services.

All mil. exporters need money for their industries,both east and west,not just the Russians.Furthermore,These same systems have been offered to us.If we decline who can blame Russia for selling it to someone else? If we buy the S-400,won't China too get p*ssed off? Remember that the FGFA was not offered to China,only to India with a possible offer to Brazil.Similarly with the Akula lease.We operate a far superior N-sub than anything that China possesses and our ATV programme is heavily dependent upon Russian N-sub tech. And I haven't forgotten about BMos,with the JV for hyper-BMos and BMos-M to come in the future.That wasn't on offer to China either!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 18 Sep 2014 07:29

NRao wrote:Russia’s move to sell S-400 missiles to China may rile India

Forget China, the Russians can be expected to arm the pakis too in future. That's a given because India will refuse to tie itself to Russia's apron strings. Watcha gonna do.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2014 08:33

Philip wrote:The point being made by many is that instead of budgeting for the key priority,depleting strike aircraft and need for an MMRCA,the IAF bought expensive C-17s instead to stroke Uncle Sam and Boeing's backside.

For the IAF & MoD, it was a straight choice between Boeing and UAC (yes an 'advanced version' of the Il-76 was considered by the IAF according the ACM Naik). Unlike the MMRCA where there is a wide range of aircraft with overlapping capabilities to choose from, heavy lift transport is a closed segment. There's no question of 'key priorities' unless the IAF was willing to forego its heavy lift capability.

There is now little in the kitty for the Raffy.The IT feature has an extraordinary tale about how AKA,when inaugurating a Defexpo in Delhi told the foreign participants that there was "no money left"!

No money left in that financial year (with something like a month remaining). And that the extra $1bn or so that the C-17 costed (over the Il-476) would not have made the Rafale deal financially viable.

Secondly,the IL-476 wasn't yet in production when the C-17 deal was finalised in extreme haste,it had no competition.It would be a different story now,esp. when the economy is in low gear.

It was an FMS deal; the streamlined process makes it quicker, there was no 'extreme haste'. And the now-in-production Il-476 does NOT deliver any better value than the C-17.

The JSF was never a player for the MMRCA,offer rejected by the IAF a long time ago.There's no point in raking up a non-event.It's "merits" can be taken to the appropriate td.

I'm not taking up its merits. Merely disproving your factually incorrect (yet frequently repeated) statement about there being some sort of 'allies-first' waiting line for the F-35. There isn't.

The issue today is whether we can afford the Rafale or not and what are the other affordable options,firang and desi.The goalposts have also shifted from just acquiring an MMRCA to the crisis affecting entire force structure of the IAF,with its depleting obsolete assets kept flying with duct tape.

No dispute there.

If the SU-34s are no better than the 30/35s,then why are the Russians building them in large number for their air force? There are always dozens of mothballed Backfires (requiring upgrades) and Blackjacks too.In fact the venerable TU-95/142 Bear strat. bomber is still testing western air defences in style.

The implication being that if the Russians are buying it, we should buy it? The Russians are also simultaneously inducting four different Flanker variants (Su-30M2, Su-30SM, Su-34 & Su-35). Should we also be adding four types to the already absurd variety of aircraft we operate?

Fact is, the RuAF's operational requirements have little in common with the IAF's. They have vast areas to patrol, spanning two continents and three oceans, all from a relatively small number of bases. For them range is not only important, its critical. The IAF's foes in contrast are just across the border. And given the size and sophistication of ground and airborne forces we face in the west, deep strike requires something that can penetrate that system and the Su-34 doesn't fit the bill.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2014 08:51

Philip wrote:The money spent on the C-17s,not a top priority,could've been used instead for acquiring more strike aircraft .the IAF is now $10B poorer which could've been used for ...

The C-17s costed $10 billion?

All mil. exporters need money for their industries,both east and west,not just the Russians.Furthermore,These same systems have been offered to us.If we decline who can blame Russia for selling it to someone else?

Would Russia have refrained from selling equipment to China if India had bought the same? Because China has plenty of (Russian origin) equipment that's also operated by India from Kilo subs to Al-31 engines.

Russians sold to China because the Chinese were willing to pay. Indian sensibilities never entered the equation. Which is perfectly fine, as long as folks don't imply that the Russians do us any favour by selling to us, or that we have any obligation to support the Russian arms industry.

If we buy the S-400,won't China too get p*ssed off?

Indeed. When it comes to India & China, we can expect Russia to take strictly non-partisan approach for now. In the coming years it'll lean towards China to offset its growing isolation from the West.

Remember that the FGFA was not offered to China,only to India with a possible offer to Brazil.Similarly with the Akula lease.We operate a far superior N-sub than anything that China possesses and our ATV programme is heavily dependent upon Russian N-sub tech. And I haven't forgotten about BMos,with the JV for hyper-BMos and BMos-M to come in the future.That wasn't on offer to China either!

The Chinese are not interested in any Russian fifth gen aircraft or nuclear submarines. There's only two areas where the Russians still lead over them - propulsion and rocketry. In both segments the Russians are more than willing to fill the gap.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 18 Sep 2014 09:10

GOI is not saying anything about Rafale till now. At least I have not heard any minister saying anything. May be it suggest something. "Make in India" pitch will put many people in an hard spot as they will find it difficult to justify Rafale at huge cost. Ultimately it is money.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 18 Sep 2014 09:12

Victor wrote:
NRao wrote:Russia’s move to sell S-400 missiles to China may rile India
Forget China, the Russians can be expected to arm the pakis too in future. That's a given because India will refuse to tie itself to Russia's apron strings. Watcha gonna do.

Correct. We just wanna tie ourselves to Unkil's apron strings instead.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Sep 2014 09:17

Merlin, exactly. What rubbish these chaps try to peddle. The Chinese BUY stuff from Russia and the TSP are donated stuff by Khan. And its all the same apparently even if we get better stuff from Russia with JVs.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 18 Sep 2014 09:55

Karan M wrote:The Chinese BUY stuff from Russia and the TSP are donated stuff by Khan.

This illogical == would still have been bearable, had it not been used to :

1) offer India tech on areas they do not need while denying stuff that Indians cannot yet make for themselves while allowing the Chinese to 'steel' from a country that sports the only known desire, to track every piece of information out there; and

2) in general to use all manner of koodankulam styled tactics to prevent whatever deals the Indians want to strike. If the IAF+Kongis+Sanghis all are of the same mind on a particular point, then why is it so hard to accept that the decision may have been handled haphazardly but was essentially a consensus view to begin with. Right now NaMo holds the key on the MMRCA. Let him say it is a no go, that he has got no money for it, and only then can we begin to ignore Rafale. NaMo is saying nothing, he is not even suggesting anything from the parts of media that he last used. Merely jinxing the due process so the favourite mantelpiece can be had is...... And who knows if all this hawa-banana is merely to jinx some other indigenous project, from even starting.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 18 Sep 2014 13:45

Philip, IL-476 and An-124 are affected by ukrine conflict and are delayed...
http://www.janes.com/article/35561/il-4 ... ine-crisis

It was a good decision to go with C-17s; else, we would be waiting for the planes 5 years from now.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 18 Sep 2014 14:33

Marten wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Okay! Repeat telecast starts.
Why are warnings not issued to folks who are plain lying about the LCA on this thread or any other? Is there a Hall Pass issued to any of these non-state actors?

Serious question - if making allegations about any Indian politician is considered ban-worthy, why not ban folks who're spreading lies without any compunction about an Indian product? We cannot keep saying Redux, Repeat Telecast, Same Old Arguments if we cannot stem the first set of lies that these folks seem to be getting away with!

+1 to that.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2014 16:50

Philip,

You and China have something in common. Creep.

Lol.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2014 16:52

The Chinese BUY stuff from Russia and the TSP are donated stuff by Khan

Lol

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2014 16:56

We just wanna tie ourselves to Unkil's apron strings instead.

That is all Indians can do, tie to someone's apron.

Must be something in the water in the subcontinent.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 18 Sep 2014 16:58

Great! Another round of "My daddy is best-est than your daddy".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2014 17:49

Sorry.

Collateral damage. AKA OT.

But, this apron stuff is all over, lest we forget. A week ago, the PM of a nation that has one of the largest and oldest railway system in the world (not to mention population) *went* to one of the smallest nations and was proud to get a pledge from them to build some of the fastest systems in India.

Today a Prez from another competing nation has pledged that he would help rebuild Indian railways!!!

ApronS.

(BTW, India just a 100 years ago India exported railway knowledge. India exported civil engineering knowledge - roads, water tanks, city level building, etc. After WWII Indians were sent by the Brits - TO JAPAN - to teach the Japanese mercantile business. Indians were authorities in "planning" in the democratic world. Lol.)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Sep 2014 18:01

If we are talking about chinese help for IR, then it is time for two things:
1. archive this thread and lock it up!
2. move to IR thread, and stop this chinese invasion. it is all stolen technology!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2014 18:22

I agree, if we are talking of C-17, IL-476, gifts to TSP, etc ................... lock this thread.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 18 Sep 2014 19:25

merlin wrote:We just wanna tie ourselves to Unkil's apron strings instead.

Wanna? We already did with the LCA which will be used mainly against the pakis. I honestly think that it will be a geostrategic coup if we did the same with the MMRCA and go SH. Let the Chinese develop our roads and railways while we build Japanese and American warplanes to keep them in check on the border.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 18 Sep 2014 19:49

Philip wrote:Remember that the FGFA was not offered to China,only to India

And we should also remember that about 2,000 Russian engineers, maybe more, live and work in China developing versions of FGFA and Brahmos with full consent of the Russian govt. The difference is, if the Russians ever were to withold cooperation, the Chinese likely wouldn't be affected critically. Is that the case with us?

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 18 Sep 2014 22:43

There won't be any 'official decision' on MMRCA till LCA FOC. Once the later happens, expect that IAF will be asked to order LCAs in decent number with a goodbye to MMRCA.
We will never get any combat aircraft from US period. Experiences of our lovely neighbour are quite visible to anyone from Politicos to IAF folks. C17 and C130 both essentially came without any key electronics, all of which were locally produced.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2014 05:31

Oh oh. More photo ops for Indian MMRCA sake. Get ready for inundation from arthuro(sp?):

France Ready to Launch Air Strikes in Iraq: Hollande

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2014 05:57

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:There won't be any 'official decision' on MMRCA till LCA FOC. Once the later happens, expect that IAF will be asked to order LCAs in decent number with a goodbye to MMRCA.
We will never get any combat aircraft from US period. Experiences of our lovely neighbour are quite visible to anyone from Politicos to IAF folks. C17 and C130 both essentially came without any key electronics, all of which were locally produced.

India entered a zone of her own with the MKI. So, really, India will never get a plane from any nation, the MMRCA is the appendix of an old era. The FGFA, IF the Russians reluctantly allow, will only build on the MKI experience - in more ways than one (we can talk about it when it comes)

Time to drop that old era thinking. It should have brought a pleasant change with the MKI, but habits die hard.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2014 06:02

Victor,pl. show us details of your allegations.From all open source western intel, the Chinese stealth birds will be rather inferior to both US and Russian fighters.

Here are two DID reports indicating a possible course that is being taken.Puts the entire long-running series in perspective.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/
India’s M-MRCA Fighter Competition: Order Cut Coming?
Aug 12, 2014

India’s planned multi-billion dollar, 126+ plane jet fighter buy certainly captured the attention of global fighter manufacturers. Boeing’s Mark Kronenberg, who runs the company’s Asia/Pacific business, put it succinctly: “[India's M-MRCA program is] the biggest fighter aircraft deal since the early 1990s.”

What began as a lightweight fighter competition to replace India’s shrinking MiG-21 interceptor fleet soon bifurcated into 2 categories now, and 2 expense tiers. What changed? In a word, lots. The participants changed, India’s view of its own needs changed, and costs changed dramatically. With the long-delayed release of the official RFP, the competition began at last – and like all Indian decisions, it takes a very long time.

DID offers an in-depth look at the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition’s changes, the RFP, and the competitors. After a decade-long slog, Dassault’s Rafale appears to be closing in on its 1st export order…

The original intent of India’s fighter purchase was to replace hundreds of non-upgraded MiG-21s that India will be forced to retire, with a complementary force of 126 aircraft that would fit between India’s high end Su-30MKIs and its low-end Tejas LCA lightweight fighter. While plans to develop a “fifth generation fighter” in conjunction with Russia have received a lot of press, they are uncertain at best, address a different requirement, and offer no solution to the immediate problem of shrinking squadron numbers as existing aircraft are forced into retirement.

India is a large country, with coverage needs over a wide area (see map of airbases external link) and on several fronts. One of which is Pakistan, whose JF-17 joint fighter program with China has India’s attention. The IAF currently has 30-32 squadrons worth of serviceable aircraft, depending on which report one reads. This is well below their target of 39 1/2. The number of IAF squadrons still flying MiG-21s of one vintage or another has now dropped to 12, and overall squadron strength is projected to plunge to 27 during the 2012-2017 period.

Lightweight multi-role fighters that could make up for declining aircraft numbers with broader and better capabilities would appear to fit that need, and India’s initial shortlist followed that template. The Mirage 2000 external link and MiG-29 external link were already in service with India in this role, and the JAS-39 Gripen offered a 4th generation aircraft whose costs and profile place it firmly in the lightweight fighter category. These aircraft served as a hedge against the potential failure of the Tejas lightweight Combat Aircraft project, and also offered a more immediate solution to plussing up numbers as existing MiG-21s and MiG-23s/MiG-27s were forced into retirement.

Since those early days, sharply improved relations with the USA have introduced a pair of American planes into the competition, and India’s view of its own needs is changing. Official sources told Jane’s external link in February 2006 that RFPs would be issued to France’s Dassault (Mirage 2000-5 and Rafale), BAE/Saab (JAS-39 Gripen), EADS/BAE (Eurofighter Typhoon), The American firms Lockheed (F-16 external link Block 70) and Boeing (F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet), and Russia’s Rosonboronexport (MiG-29OVT external link with thrust vectoring, aka. MiG-35).

That proved to be the case, creating a 2-tiered competition that includes both lightweight and medium fighters. This trend got a sharp boost in March 2006, when the Press Trust of India (PTI) reported a surprise pullout of the Mirage 2000, even though India already flies 40 Mirage 2000Ds, and its senior officials have touted standardization external link as a plus factor. Its place would be taken by the heavier, more advanced, and more expensive Rafale.

India’s changing requirements have also created delays to an already-slow process. For instance, both Jane’s Defence Weekly external link and Defense Industry Daily have covered India’s wish to ‘significantly’ augment their strike capability and range to deal with out-of-area contingencies. That delayed the MRCA RFP, until India’s view of its own needs solidified. Another contributor to these delays has been the need to refine and clarify the new industrial offset rules introduced in 2005, amidst lobbying by American defense firms.

India’s defense procurement process is definitely a game for the patient, and this competition has been no exception. The Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) RFP caps a process that began in 2001, when the IAF sent out its request for information (RFI) for 126 jets. After delays lasting almost 2 years beyond the planned December 2005 issue date, India’s Ministry of Defence finally announced a formal Request for Proposal on Aug 28/07.

The RFP announcement estimated the program at 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), at a cost of Rs. 42,000 crores (about $10.24 billion as of the RFP date, or about $81.3 million per fighter). The 211-page document includes clauses for initial purchase, transfer of technology, licensed production, and life-time maintenance support for the aircraft. Under the terms of purchase, the first 18 aircraft will come in a ‘fly away’ condition, while the remaining 108 will be manufactured under Transfer of Technology. Some reports add an option for an additional 63-64 aircraft on the same terms, bringing the potential total to 190 aircraft.

Selection involves an exhaustive evaluation process as detailed in the Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP) 2006. The vendors had 6 months to submit their proposals. First, submitted proposals will be technically evaluated by a professional team to check for compliance with IAF’s operational requirements and other RFP conditions. Then extensive field trials will evaluate aircraft performance. Finally, the short listed vendors’ commercial proposals are examined and compared. The defence ministry’s Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC) would then hold discussions with the vendors before identifying their preferred manufacturer. Their report goes to the defence minister, who must forward it to the finance minister. After the file returns to the defence ministry, it goes for final approval to the cabinet committee on security (CCS).

This is not a speedy process. The selection process alone is likely to take at least 2 1/2 years, to be followed by lengthy price negotiations, and probably including delays along the way. Most observers believe that delivery of any aircraft is unlikely before 2013.

The vendor who finally wins will be required to undertake 50% offset obligations in India. That’s a boost from the usual 30%, which is required for Indian defense purchases over $70 million. The additional 20% was added because India is looking for a large boost to its aerospace and defense electronics industries, and understands that the size of their purchase gives them additional leverage. The Indian MoD’s RFP release adds that “Foreign vendors would be provided great flexibility in effecting tie up with Indian partners for this purpose.” It also says that:

“The aircraft are likely to be in service for over 40 years. Great care has been taken to ensure that only determinable factors, which do not lend themselves to any subjectivity, are included in the commercial selection model. The selection would be transparent and fair…

It may be recalled that the Defence Minister Shri A K Antony while chairing the Defence Acquisition Council Meeting on June 29, 2007 had outlined three guiding principles for this procurement scheme. First, the operational requirements of IAF should be fully met. Second, the selection process should be competitive, fair and transparent, so that best value for money is realized. Lastly, Indian defence industries should get an opportunity to grow to global scales.”

Once again, process speed is not a key criterion. Part of the reason for that is India’s past history of procedural problems. American competitions are increasingly finding themselves paralyzed by quasi-legal challenges of evaluation methods, and even of their chosen criteria. Witness the hold-ups created for the CSAR-X helicopter competition, Joint Cargo Aircraft, ITES-2 I.T. contract, etc. Indian competitions have featured these sorts of post-contract obstacles even more consistently, with long bureaucratic delays and corruption charges thrown into the mix for good measure.

Time will tell if the objectives of the MoD’s RFP are met, or if a process of waiting almost 6 years for an RFP, and then years more for a winner, is only the beginning of the process.

Even as India’s existing fighter fleet continues to wear out, and China and Pakistan’s fleets continue to grow.
MMRCA: Updates and Developments
2014

Dassault and HAL agree on workshare; Interim buy considered, but all Rafale deals are left for the next government; Reports of 100% cost escalation could make Rafale unaffordable.
Dassault: Power of One

Aug 8/14: Production Schedule. Defence Minister Shri Arun Jaitley confirms the Rafale’s intended production schedule, in a written reply to questions from India’s Lok Sabha upper chamber:

“The 18 direct fly away aircraft are expected to be delivered in three to four years from the signing of the contract. The remaining 108 license manufactured aircraft in India are expected to be delivered during the following seven years.”

Sources: Indian Government PIB, “Procurement of Rafale Fighter JET”

July 4/14: Order cut? French ministers continue to express confidence that 2 years of negotiations will produce a deal at some point, but Fabius notes that “there is a difference between [taking] some time and too long.” There are real obstacles. Government bureaucrats are expressing doubt that a deal can be signed before the current fiscal year end in March 2015, and some media outlets are reporting a potential order cut to 80 planes. Meanwhile, Saab remains in the wings with a proposal to become a major partner in India’s Tejas Mk.II.

The biggest problem with the deal appears to be life-cycle costs, something India hasn’t really dealt with before. A deal of this scale and complexity is a very tough place to start. The 2nd problem is that the Rafale’s absolute buy costs are also rising, in part due to India’s own conditions. That creates the 3rd problem, which is difficulty in making the 15% down payment within a budget that’s only expected to rise by government-calculated inflation figures.

French sources interviewed say they aren’t aware of any move to cut the order, but dna and the Deccan Herald are reporting that this has become an option. Once again: holding a military competition of this size, with no consideration for budget, was a foolish approach. Sources: India’s Business Standard external link, “Rafale contract elusive, Eurofighter and Saab remain hopeful” | Deccan Chronicle external link, “India may curtail Rafale demand” | Defense World external link, “Will Cost Escalation Down-Size Rafale Jet Contract?” | India’s Economic Times external link, “Confident of $12-billion Rafale deal with India, says French foreign minister Laurent Fabius” | Sunday Standard external link, “Stuck in Works, Rafale Deal Fails to Take Off”.

June 2/14: New Man. The BJP’s Shri Arun Jaitley takes over as Defence Minister, while also holding the ministries of finance and corporate affairs. He himself says that MoD will be a temporary assignment, leading many observers to wonder what’s going on. The answer may lie in the Ministry of Finance’s repeated sabotaging of military modernization project approvals. The Times of India writes:

“The finance ministry is often blamed for being a “big obstacle” for military modernisation plans. But with Arun Jaitley straddling both MoF and MoD as of now, there is “hope”…. Jaitley, on being asked by TOI if there was “a conflict of interest” in handling both the ministries, replied, “Well, I see it as supplementing of interest”

That may be necessary. A separate Times of India article offers a snapshot:

“The threat is greater along the country’s northern border with China developing its military capabilities rapidly. In India, the deal for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) is yet to be inked. Even if there is some rapid development, [delivery] won’t be till 2017-18…. India’s indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas is not yet ready. As a result, the IAF is now straddled with obsolete aircraft that can’t match China’s capabilities. The Chinese move to develop more airbases in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is intended to exert more pressure on India,” a senior officer said. Former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, before his retirement, had openly admitted that the country is facing a shortage of fighter aircraft and needs to replenish its fleet. However, there is no immediate respite in sight. The Eastern Air Command (EAC), entrusted with air dominance over the country’s North East is badly affected…. The outdated Mig-21s are the mainstay of the EAC.”

If a unified minister can get the Project 75i submarine RFP out, finalize the Black Shark heavyweight torpedo buy, and make a decision about India’s M-MRCA program, he could do a tremendous amount of good for India’s defenses in a very short time. Sources: Indian Gov’t, “Arun Jaitley takes over as Defence Minister” | India’s Economic times, “BJP men, others fail to find logic in alloting defence to Arun Jaitley” | Times of India, “Modi govt must act fast to save India’s depleting submarine fleet” and “IAF’s fighter fleet needs immediate replenishment”.
.

India Ordering, Modernizing SU-30MKIs
Aug 04, 2014

India’s SU-30MKI fighter-bombers are the pride of its fleet. Below them, India’s local Tejas LCA lightweight fighter program aims to fill its low-end fighter needs, and the $10+ billion M-MRCA competition is negotiating to buy France’s Rafale as an intermediate tier.

India isn’t neglecting its high end SU-30s, though. Initial SU-30MK and MKI aircraft have all been upgraded to the full SU-30MKI Phase 3 standard, and the upgraded “Super 30″ standard aims to keep Sukhoi’s planes on top. Meanwhile, production continues, and India is becoming a regional resource for SU-27/30 Flanker family support.

India’s Flanker Fleet
IAF SU-30MKs, AdlA Mirage 2000s
SU-30MKs & Mirage 2000s
(click to view full)

India originally received standard SU-30MKs, while its government and industry worked with the Russians to develop the more advanced SU-30MKI, complete with innovations like thrust-vectoring engines and canard foreplanes. The Su-30MKI ended up using electronic systems from a variety of countries: a Russian NIIP N-011 radar and long-range IRST sensor, French navigation and heads-up display systems from Thales, Israeli electronic warfare systems and LITENING advanced targeting pods, and Indian computers and ancillary avionics systems.

Earlier-model SU-30MK aircraft and crews performed very well at an American Red Flag exercise in 2008, and the RAF’s evident respect for the SU-30 MKIs in the 2007 Indra Dhanush exercise is equally instructive. The Russians were intrigued enough to turn a version with different electronics into their new export standard (SU-30MKA/MKM), and even the Russian VVS has begin buying “SU-30SM” fighters.

So far, India has ordered 272 SU-30s in 4 stages:

1. 50 SU-30MK and MKIs ordered directly from Russia in 1996. The SU-30MKs were reportedly modernized to a basic SU-30MKI standard.
2. Another 40 SU-30MKIs, ordered direct in 2007. These machines have reportedly been upgraded to the “Phase 3″ standard.
3. A license-build deal with India’s HAL that aims to produce up to 140 more SU-30MKI Phase 3 planes from 2013-2017
4. An improved set of 42 HAL-built SU-30MKI “Super 30s”. A preliminary order was reportedly signed in 2011, but the final deal waited until December 2012.

The Super 30 represents the next evolution for the SU-30MKI. Upgrades are reported to include a new radar (probably AESA, and likely Phazotron’s Zhuk-AE), improved onboard computers, upgraded electronic warfare systems, and the ability to fire the air-launched version of the Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.

India may eventually upgrade its earlier models to this standard. For now, they represent the tail end of HAL’s assembly schedule, as the assembly of standard SU-30MKIs continues. The big challenge for HAL is to keep that expansion going, by meeting India’s production targets.

The overall goal is 13-14 squadrons by 2017. Based on 3rd party sources, IAF SU-30MKI squadrons currently comprise:

2 Wing’s 20 Sqn. “Lightnings” & 30 Sqn. “Rhinos”, at Lohegaon AFS in Pune (W)
11 Wing’s 2 Sqn. “Winged Arrows”, at Tezpur AFS in Assam (NE, near Tibet)
15 Wing’s 8 Sqn. “Eight Pursuits” & 24 Sqn. “Hawks”, at Bareilly AFS in Uttar Pradesh (NC, near W Nepal)
14 Wing’s 102 Sqn. “Trisonics”, at Guwahati/Chabua AFS in Assam (NE, near Tibet)
27 Wing’s 15 Sqn. “Flying Lancers”, at Bhuj AFS in Gurajat (NW)
34 Wing’s 31 Sqn. “Lions” & 220 Sqn. “Desert Tigers”, at Halwara AFS in Punjab (NW)
45 Wing’s 21 Sqn. “Ankush”, at Sirsa AFS in Haryana (NW)

Initial SU-30 MKI squadron deployments had been focused near the Chinese border, but the new deployments are evening things out. There have also been reports of basings in other locations, though the number of active squadrons suggest that these are yet to come:

Bhatinda AFS in Punjab (NW, currently 34 Wing’s 17 Sqn. “Golden Arrows” MiG-21s)
Jodhpur AFS in Rajasthan (NW, currently 32 Wing’s MiG-21 and MiG-27 squadrons)
Thanjavur AFS in Tamil Nadu (SE) needs to finish building out, but is expected to permanently house SU-30MKIs by 2018. Its SU-30MKIs will offer India comfortable strike coverage of Sri Lanka, including the major southern port of Hambantota that’s being built with a great deal of Chinese help.

Contracts & Key Events
2013 – 2014

IAF SU-30MKI

Aug 4/14: Engines. NPO Saturn has proposed a set of modifications designed to reduce mid-flight AL-31FP engine failures (q.v. July 20/14), and the IAF has accepted it. The modified engines will be tested first, then the refit of India’s 200 plane fleet will be carried out in batches over the next 18-24 months at HAL’s Sukhoi engine plant in Orissa. The Russians will reportedly include modified engines in India’s remaining 72 kits. Sources: Tribune News Service, “Engine rejig to cut Su-30 burnouts”.

July 20/14: Engines. Reports indicate that the IAF fleet’s problems aren’t limited to mission computers and displays (q.v. March 15/14). It also has a problem with engine failures in flight. Fortunately, as a 2-engine fighter, it can generally land on 1 engine, and the accident rate is low. The flip side is that this isn’t something you want to happen in a dogfight. Worse, every time this happens, the engine has to be taken out, tested, fixed, and put back. That takes a minimum of 4-5 days, which cuts readiness rates.

“The IAF has so far not arrived at a conclusion of its findings, but as a precautionary step, it has started servicing the engine after 700 hours instead of the mandated 1,000 hours of flying, adding to the non-availability of the aircraft…. The IAF had told Russians after studying each failure in detail that Sukhoi’s engines – AL-31FP produced by NPO Saturn of Russia – had been functioning inconsistently for the past two years (2012 and 2013). The number of single-engine landings by planes in two years is high and not healthy. It lowers the operational ability of the fleet, besides raising questions about war readiness, said sources.”

sources: Tribune News Service, “Su-30MKI engine failures worry IAF; Russia told to fix snag”.

June 16/14: Display fix. HAL chairman R K Tyagi discusses the issue of SU-30MKI display blanking and mission computer failure (q.v. March 15/14):

“The issue has been addressed by upgrading the software by the Russian side and replacing the mission computer and HUD wherever it was found unservicable during service checks [in India].” He further said that following the software upgrade and other service action taken, no problems concerning the Su-30 fighters has been reported from any IAF base.”

Sources: Defense World, “Software Upgrade Solves IAF Su-30MKI’s Display Problem”.

May 5/14: Astra AAM. An SU-30MKI successfully test-fires an Indian Astra BVRAAM (Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile), marking the next stage beyond the avionics integration and seeker tests that went on from November 2013 – February 2014. The firing marks a significant milestone for India.

The SU-30MKI will be the 1st fighter integrated with India’s new missile, giving its pilots an indigenous option alongside Russia’s R77 / AA-12 missiles. It will also be integrated with India’s LCA Tejas light fighter, alongside RAFAEL’s Derby. Sources: The Hindu, “Astra successfully test-fired from Sukhoi-30 MKI”.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2014 06:08

Though this is an old report,it is from the Pioneer,which has its ears close to the ground.This is perhaps a clear indication that the IAF does have a Plan B,even as it publicly says it hasn't,pushing as hard as poss. for the Raffy. Reading this with the earlier post with Flanker procurement/development details,extra Super Sukhois is one clear option,unless the Typhoon team offer substantial discounts.

IAF to opt for Sukhoi-30 if Rafale deal falls flat
Monday, 08 April 2013 | Rahul Datta

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is coming up with a contingency plan to procure fighter jets to maintain its operational preparedness in case the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal worth over $15 billion to procure 126 Rafale jets does not go through.

The backup plan will see the IAF opting for 50 more Sukhoi-30 MKI jets to be bought off the shelf from Russia. The IAF has already inducted 100 SU-30s and will have 200 more jets in the next three to four years excluding the ones forming part of contingency project.

This development has come about as the MMRCA deal often termed as “mother of all deals” is stuttering due to various reasons, and officials are not able to give any timeline for its completion.

The Defence Ministry and French aviation giant Dassault, manufacturer of Rafale jets, are engaged in contract negotiations after Rafale was selected as the lowest bidder early last year.

However, Dassault recently raised doubts about the capability and role of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to manufacture 108 jets in India. As per the request for proposal (RFP) conditions, India will buy 18 jets off the shelf from the vendor and HAL will manufacture the remaining planes.

Dassault reportedly said it will supply the kits to the Indian public sector aircraft manufacturer and will not be responsible for the final

product. Given these reservations, the French company wants to sign a separate contract with HAL for planes to be integrated in India.

India has rejected Dassault’s conditions and maintained that the RFP clearly stipulates that the vendor will be responsible for all the 126 jets and the HAL is the lead integrator.

The Defence Ministry and Dassault are now engaged in talks to sort out this irritant. Besides this issue, the recent AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter scandal has jolted the Government and any allegation of bribes or wrongdoing in the MMRCA contract may prove costly for the Congress in the run up to the general elections, sources said.

In this backdrop, the Defence Ministry is taking all precautions to avoid any slip-ups even as the deal is marred by delays as the RFP was issued way back in 2008. Defence Ministry maintains that given the magnitude of the contract, negotiations are “protracted” and claimed that there are no slippages and the process is on track.

Defence Minister A K Antony recently said even after the contract negotiations are over, the deal will have to go through six to seven stages of vetting before the Cabinet Committee on Security(CCS) headed by the Prime Minister and the Union Cabinet gives its approval.

Sources also said if the deal does not go through, the Government will not negotiate with the second lowest bidder Eurofighter (consortium of Germany, France, Italy and UK). Incidentally, reports indicated that Germany will ask the Indian political leadership to reconsider Eurofighter’s bid when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh holds talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel this week in Berlin.

As regards the IAF preferring SU-30s to meet any contingency, sources said HAL is already manufacturing these jets under transfer of technology pact with Russia and has requisite expertise and facilities for maintenance of the sophisticated planes.

In 1996, India signed a $-1.46 billion contract with Russia to buy 40 SU-30s and a technology transfer agreement for licensed production of 140 fighters at HAL facility in Nasik. Later, the first generation SU-30s were upgraded to SU-30 MKIs with more advanced avionics and weapons systems.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 19 Sep 2014 06:40

is Phillip Russian or on Russian payroll?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2014 06:58

Good and valid question.

But. No.

They - Russians - are not rich enough to afford him.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 19 Sep 2014 08:16

^Why pay for something you get for free?

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 19 Sep 2014 08:55

One thing I can say for Phillip and that is:- he is consistant.
Its his view point. Does not mean he is right or wrong , just that, thats the way he thinks.
And if pertinant to the thread he has every right to do so.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2014 10:20

Nyet! He!He! Moi is anything but Russian.A bit of Armenian in the family history.The Russians can't afford me,moi is not for sale,to anyoner.But gents,who is actually buying so much of Russian wares? It is the Indian govt. and armed forces not moi!!! Are they on the Russian payroll? Perish the thought!

If it was the US who were so liberal with parting with their cutting edge def tech like N-subs,BMos,Flankers,FGFAs,etc. without strings like the Russians,Indians would embrace them.But they don't even give their pet poodle Britonistan stuff from their topmost drawer.We haven't been offered anything really meaningful and the Pakis keep on getting moolah and milware.Let's see what O'Bomber has to offer mr.M when he visits the White House.

I will say one thing though.Pres Who Flung Dung and his PLA cronies are doing their very best to shove India into an anti-PRC global mil. allianceThe PM went out of his way to open his heart genuinely and show his homeland to the visiting Chinese schweinhund.But what has been the response to PM Modi's khadi diplomacy? The Chinese jackboot and bayonet. he is not a man to forget the insult.

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Sep 2014 10:30

Well well ..lets see put India in the place of USA and China in the place of Russia ..who would be the most likely to part with high end technology .. not so democratic nations are easier to deal with after all !

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2014 13:58

When did the democratic US act "democratically" when they conspired to unseat democracies all over the world and arm dictators from globally S.America to Asia? What did they do in the Ukraine? Has it stopped the CIA's covert activities worldwide? Who turned a blind eye towards pak's acquisition of N-weapons tx to China? It's "realpolitik" all the way."All's fair in love and war".

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Sep 2014 17:23

I think there are fundamental problems with drafting requirements. If IAF really required squadrons, they would not have gone into this decade long negotiation spiral cycle.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 19 Sep 2014 18:57

Philip wrote: What did they do in the Ukraine?

Not sending armored troops across the border and shooting down airliners for one.

Philip wrote:It's "realpolitik" all the way.

Which is why if you want to counter China, you want the US on your side.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 19 Sep 2014 20:39

A few USA tech is also stolen by the Chinese "allegedly". Or for that matter USA also holds purse strings to doles of terrorist munna Pakistan but never let Pakistan fall. But all of that is just political reasoning. The best situation would be if the deal for IAF certified Rafale is signed by hook or crook (say by taking cheap loans from Japan, saving a few billion $$ more by switching to import oil from Iran - oops there is limit on that too put up by USA/Europe). For a few billions $$ more, the choice of brand new Rafale fighter jet is a very good one for sure. It would come without political hassles & intrusive inspections by actual USA govt officials, and also a long term solution to replacement of few more types probably. If modified to carry our own weapons, too, that would be better still. Now only if we can manage to counter Chinese threat, we won't need F-16/F-18/----/F-35 et all for this.

The Russian Mig-35 however comes with enough power to use latest AESA radar too.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Sep 2014 21:15

not sure if they are latest AESA. which one?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 19 Sep 2014 21:30

The specification on internet link says "Phazotron Zhuk AE AESA radar (or other members of the Zhuk radar family)" - sources link to 2012 by the way. I read some webpage earlier which said that Mig upgraded specs of Mig-35 - increase in range, modular AESA radar, 7% more efficient RD33 engines and so on and so forth - is all I remember; other than usual optical radar for ground attack etc etc.

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 19 Sep 2014 21:52

GeorgeWelch wrote: Not sending armored troops across the border and shooting down airliners for one.

Which is why if you want to counter China, you want the US on your side.

No you don't. 1998 sanctions and the beating taken by LCA program are not that old. Besides US is economically more dependent on PRC than India.
Is anyone realistically expecting US to give us ToT for their cutting edge weapons and come to our side in case of an actual shooting war with China?
They are not giving ToT to UK
They are not being aggressive while backing Japan
This is for countries who have been their allies for 60 years.

Combat aircraft from US should be a strict no
If MMRCA is cancelled, going for 40 more Su30MKI or maybe getting some 40 Mig29SMT for IAF makes better sense for short term relief.