IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Sep 2015 22:23

As per the original requirements the first aircraft is/was to arrive 2 years from contract signing. Ramp rate increase has a lead time and Dassault is busy delivering jets to two foreign customers that themselves are eating into french deliveries. The first batch (3-5) would most likely arrive within 24 months and all deliveries should be concluded by around 2021-2022. An increase in production and the rate of increase (going from X to a multiple of X) is dependent upon how long you can sustain it..It is uneconomical to have short, unsustainable surges in production rates.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 Sep 2015 03:52

The Make in India part of the Rafale will kick in. It could be that a couple of Rafales from the French Air Force be delivered.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Sep 2015 03:52

Make in India does not involve producing any of the 36 Rafale's in India. The french are already offloading their deliveries to customers, and they'll do so as well for the IAF order as they build more capacity.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Sep 2015 04:54

ldev wrote:Done deal and all.

But one question I have for Dassault and France is," It's one thing to say the Rafale performed brilliantly doing strikes in places like Mali, Libya and Iraq where there was virtually no opposition. What about China? Will France feel as confident fielding the Rafale standalone without any US support against China (because that is the war that India will be fighting, all alone without any "coalition support") and hundreds of J-10s and J-11s (for now), maybe the J-20 and J-31 in the future, armed with PL-12 missiles and its extensive ground based defence system including the S-400 and the China/Pakistan combination?". What will be Rafale survivability in such a scenario?"

I sincerely hope the IAF/MOD has thought all this through. For $250 million a pop it better survive in the China scenario, otherwise its money down the drain.

This question is more the job for IAF planners; my guess is that they feel Rafale is the best solution in the context of their threat matrix...this is despite whatever misgivings of forumites may have. if the rafale is not survivable vs. Newer s300+ types, hardly an issue for dassault...france is hardly the tip of the spear for nato , it will mop up what's leftover...but the rafale is not a door breaker by any means...still IAF has to know its risks..

My guess is that the iaf hours tho get more numbers of raffle, and are using it more as as hedge against Russian inconsistency. The tip of the spear will be the pakfa, and I'm time, the amcA...

they needed a non Russian bird, and the Mrca was born, tax payer will rue the day goi opened this up as multi vendor competition..

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 03 Sep 2015 05:07

What a sad day for India. Namo continues as others. Fake in India remains a priority to mortgage our future and wealth.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 03 Sep 2015 05:54

If it ends up as being an off the shelf purchase with no TOT, then the GOI might as well have purchased the SH under the FMS route. Would have been half the cost and faster deliveries

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 06:17

Cain Marko wrote:
ldev wrote:Done deal and all.

But one question I have for Dassault and France is," It's one thing to say the Rafale performed brilliantly doing strikes in places like Mali, Libya and Iraq where there was virtually no opposition. What about China? Will France feel as confident fielding the Rafale standalone without any US support against China (because that is the war that India will be fighting, all alone without any "coalition support") and hundreds of J-10s and J-11s (for now), maybe the J-20 and J-31 in the future, armed with PL-12 missiles and its extensive ground based defence system including the S-400 and the China/Pakistan combination?". What will be Rafale survivability in such a scenario?"

I sincerely hope the IAF/MOD has thought all this through. For $250 million a pop it better survive in the China scenario, otherwise its money down the drain.
This question is more the job for IAF planners; my guess is that they feel Rafale is the best solution in the context of their threat matrix...this is despite whatever misgivings of forumites may have.

I think the acronym "MRCA" should give an idea of what the IAF is looking for a modern (avionics/engine management/range) multirole combat aircraft. Multirole means the ability to change role from attack to air defence with just a few software uploads and appropriate munitions. Technically a Rafale squadron should be able to send out a "strike package" of 2 Rafales configured for attack with an escort of 2 Rafales configured for air combat/air defence.

Contrast that with:
1. 1965 when Mystere and Hunters were sent with Gnat escort - each aircraft having coming from a different base and rendezvousing somewhere en route.

2. 1999 when Mirage 2000s equipped with dumb bombs and PGMS had MiG 29 escort. With MiG 29s endurance being different each Mirage sortie required coordination with two separate sets of MiG 29s - one set for the first half of the mission and another for the second half

In 1971 when an aircraft like the Hunter had to be sent out on an attack mission with rockets they had to decide beforehand whether they would need high explosive rockets or armour piercing ones. If they had HE but faced armour it was no good. Sometimes a compromise mix was carried. With a modern MRCA appropriate weapons can be carried for a wide variety of roles including a couple of AAMs for self defence.

The Rafale is a completely different ball game from what the IAF has operated so far. The LCA will go some way in achieving similar objectives but with smaller loads and ranges.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Sep 2015 06:29

France's Rafale fighter proves its 'omnirole' skills

Dassault describes its Rafale as being an "omnirole" fighter, a tag that it says denotes the type's ability to perform multiple mission types simultaneously.

Nice feature set.

But not worth the price.

This question is more the job for IAF planners; my guess is that they feel Rafale is the best solution in the context of their threat matrix...this is despite whatever misgivings of forumites may have.

Well two points:
* wonder if the IAF takes cost into account, if so what is the weight
* forums are meant for discussions and attract a variety of participants and therefore views. It is normal and to be expected. Healthy too

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 03 Sep 2015 07:04

Cain Marko wrote:
This question is more the job for IAF planners; my guess is that they feel Rafale is the best solution in the context of their threat matrix...this is despite whatever misgivings of forumites may have. if the rafale is not survivable vs. Newer s300+ types, hardly an issue for dassault...france is hardly the tip of the spear for nato , it will mop up what's leftover...but the rafale is not a door breaker by any means...still IAF has to know its risks..

My guess is that the iaf hours tho get more numbers of raffle, and are using it more as as hedge against Russian inconsistency. The tip of the spear will be the pakfa, and I'm time, the amcA...

they needed a non Russian bird, and the Mrca was born, tax payer will rue the day goi opened this up as multi vendor competition..

As of now the PLAAF has roughly 350 SU-30K equivalent aircraft in the form of J-11s and SU-30MKK. They also have approximately 250 J-10s with more modern variants coming on line. Their economy is much larger than India and although they have to have aircraft facing east and south towards the Taiwan Straits and the South China sea, India has to plan for a numerically larger Chinese air force which it will encounter in the future. As such the IAF has to have a technology lead vis a vis the Chinese at all times, a lead big enough to ensure that any aerial engagement is short, sharp and results in a decisive victory for India such that China is discouraged from enlarging the scope of the conflict. This needs a "door kicker" aircraft which will provide India that quick decisive victory. India will commit a huge mistake into getting into a war of attrition with China something the larger Chinese economy with higher rates of domestic aircraft production and larger airforce with an almost 100% local AAM/AGM combo is better suited for. I just don't see the Rafale being that spear for the IAF. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 07:17

ldev wrote:This needs a "door kicker" aircraft which will provide India that quick decisive victory

ldev the expression door kicker hides more than it conveys

In terms of war with China in the North, what would constitute a "door kicker" role? What targets? What aim? This might be the subject of a different thread but it is easier to use the term "door kicker" than to define what is meant by it by speaking of real available targets to us vis a vis China which are within range of air interdiction.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 03 Sep 2015 07:26

shiv sir , what a rafale can do that a mki can't do with same efficiency, in the above scenario ??

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 08:11

Shaun wrote:shiv sir , what a rafale can do that a mki can't do with same efficiency, in the above scenario ??

I don't know the answer to that. But there are some things that I can guess and I will, for the sake of this thread simply list what i see as Rafale advantages rather than disadvantages so my post will seem biased. It is not meant to be that way.

First off fuel costs will be lower per hour of Rafale flying.

The Rafale comes bundled with FADEC and this is something that we never talk about on BRF perhaps because we are obsessed with fighting and weapons as opposed to what we believe is the humdrum job of flying. Engine and fuel management and the impact of that on engine MTBF on the Rafale will be in a different league compared to the MKI

The Rafale much more than the MKI comes with LRUs that enable quick turnarounds and failure free missions

None of this means that the Rafale will win wars where the MKI won't win wars, but you asked what the Rafale might have that the MKI does not and this is what i think.

You also asked something about "In the above scenario". What scenario are you talking about?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 03 Sep 2015 08:16

^Is the above worth the price tag?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 Sep 2015 08:18

brar_w wrote:Make in India does not involve producing any of the 36 Rafale's in India. The french are already offloading their deliveries to customers, and they'll do so as well for the IAF order as they build more capacity.

Are you sure? Dassault's capability prior to Rafale orders from Egypt and Qatar was 14 jets/year. Dassault can ramp up to about 19 jets/year and may do so after the India order. Some of Egypt and Qatar orders were to come from existing French Air Force orders already in production. 2021 is way to long to wait. The IAF loses a squadron every 3 years due to accidents and by the time the Rafale comes in full strength 2 squadrons will have been wiped out.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 08:20

Arun Menon wrote:^Is the above worth the price tag?

I do not think i have enough information to be able to comment on this.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 03 Sep 2015 08:28

shiv wrote: ldev the expression door kicker hides more than it conveys

In terms of war with China in the North, what would constitute a "door kicker" role? What targets? What aim? This might be the subject of a different thread but it is easier to use the term "door kicker" than to define what is meant by it by speaking of real available targets to us vis a vis China which are within range of air interdiction.

In a nutshell to neutralize all conventional Chinese offensive options against India, if not all, as many as possible e.g. the Lanzhou and Chengdu military regions of China have numerous PLAAF bases. They also have intermediate range ballistic missiles such as the DF-16 capable of hitting all of Eastern and Northern India. Doorkicker with this objective would be firstly to neutralize air defences i.e. strong SEAD capabilities and then precision strike of missile sites as well as PLAAF air bases which are within range of launching Indian strikes. The Rafale is probably quite capable of doing precision strike once enemy air defences are neutralized, as shown in Mali, Libya and Iraq but that is something that the SU-30MKI can also do. So why go in for the Rafale and especially for the $8-9 billion price tag.

Any aircraft bought has to fit into a strategy. I don't know where the Rafale fits into the IAF's strategy especially against China. The IAF has never articulated what are the unique features the Rafale brings to the table that any of the other fighters in the MRCA competition did not at a much much lower price point. I maintain that for this price, with no TOT as part of the deal, get a genuine door kicker like the F-35.

And if there are misgivings about US policies, well, Mr. Modi and his foreign policy team have to do their work to ensure that the US remains onside.

Or alternatively, if there is a well thought out case that the PAK-FA will really be available in the next 2-4 years, it may be another option

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 08:35

ldev wrote: In a nutshell to neutralize all conventional Chinese offensive options against India, if not all, as many as possible e.g. the Lanzhou and Chengdu military regions of China have numerous PLAAF bases.

Very few (none?) of those bases are within reach of any IAF aircraft (aside from the ones in Tibet). That is as much of a problem for the PLAAF as the IAF. Hitting targets in those regions means overflying 1000s of km over Chinese territory in 6 hour missions with refueling - which will not happen.

Even a Chinese offensive is likely to be a massive "door kicking" ground offensive to occupy large areas of Indian territory. Such a ground offensive would require local air superiority for us and the ability to stop that offensive. This is well within the capability of the IAF currently and I cannot see the Rafale as being any less appropriate here.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 03 Sep 2015 08:38

>>This is well within the capability of the IAF currently

Then why get the Rafale especially for the price that is being paid.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 08:39

From Carlo Kopp

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 08:42

ldev wrote:>>This is well within the capability of the IAF currently

Then why get the Rafale especially for the price that is being paid.

You asked about China. Maybe its not about China alone. Up against F-16s and Jf-17s in numbers, and maybe J-10s in the future, the Rafale should be able to hold its own in both attack and defence.

I am not talking about price because I do not have the information that I think is relevant. Others who think they have all the information that they need will have their views.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 Sep 2015 08:50

shiv wrote:
ldev wrote: In a nutshell to neutralize all conventional Chinese offensive options against India, if not all, as many as possible e.g. the Lanzhou and Chengdu military regions of China have numerous PLAAF bases.
Very few (none?) of those bases are within reach of any IAF aircraft (aside from the ones in Tibet). That is as much of a problem for the PLAAF as the IAF. Hitting targets in those regions means overflying 1000s of km over Chinese territory in 6 hour missions with refueling - which will not happen.

Even a Chinese offensive is likely to be a massive "door kicking" ground offensive to occupy large areas of Indian territory. Such a ground offensive would require local air superiority for us and the ability to stop that offensive. This is well within the capability of the IAF currently and I cannot see the Rafale as being any less appropriate here.

The door kicker for the IAF will be the long range AWACS and mid-air refueling capability. The PLAAF has both, but are behind in capability. On the AWACS, they have a long way to go in terms of capability.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 03 Sep 2015 08:55

The above map does not take into account airfields in Tibet:

China's Tibet build up - by Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran

The PLAAF which has five airfields for full-fledged fighter operations in the TAR, added a sixth one earlier this year. These are primarily civilian airports that are now being enhanced to take on military operations.

For over a decade, PLAAF has been on a drive to replace its obsolete 1950s Soviet design aircraft. It has downsized its numbers from 5,300 aircraft to about 2000 aircraft. Of these, the proportion of 4.5-generation fighter aircraft such as the J-10, Su-27/ Su-30MKK, and the J-11 is increasing rapidly, approaching 50 per cent of the fleet strength. The high altitudes of the TAR airfields impose severe limitations on flying fighter aircraft there. But this began to change with the induction of Su-27s and J-10s, accompanied by combat force multipliers such as air-to-air refuelling, Airborne Warning ACS, precision weapons, sensors, air-to-air missiles and advanced air defence systems centred around S-300s and S-400s.

Till 2010, PLAAF operations from TAR airfields did not exceed anything more than four or six aircraft detachments during good weather conditions and for not over two weeks. These were hardly noticeable.

However, this began to change from 2011 onwards. Detachment sizes began to increase to a minimum of six to eight aircraft and simultaneously in two airfields. The period of operations increased to three months which indicates a planned acclimatisation of its aircrew and airmen for high altitude operations.

From 2012, PLAAF operations have increased in frequency which culminates in winter operations during 2014 and a jump of over 300 per cent to about 1400 sorties. In 2012, PLAAF carried out weapon firing trials at high altitude ranges in the TAR for the first time in an integrated exercise. Today, two regiments of 24 aircraft, J-10s and J-11s, operate virtually on a permanent basis from the TAR airfields.

India has advantages in terms of better airbase infrastructure, quality of aircraft with its highly trained aircrew and manpower, well integrated force multipliers, and the advantage of a favourable geography. However, its air bases remain vulnerable to the Second Artillery. The Chinese have explicitly articulated their operational doctrine where their first line of attack in any conflict would be the use of conventional missiles of the Second Artillery and the PLAAF’s Land Attack Cruise Missiles. The objective is to neutralise enemy airpower right at the start.

And this is what the Chinese think:

India has 'partial advantage' over China's Chengdu military region

India enjoys "partial advantages" over the Chengdu Military Region of China, in the event that a conflict were to break out in the two nations' border areas, Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television reported Friday.

The People's Liberation Army's Chengdu Military Region has recently staged a series of military drills, with India as its proposed target.

According to post-drill reviews conducted by officers in the Chengdu Military Region, which is tasked with guarding China against Vietnam and India, the China-India border area, located mainly in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, has two geographic characteristics–high altitude and cold weather–both of which are equally unfavorable to India and China.

The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau has an average altitude of 4,500 meters above sea-level.

However, India enjoys "partial advantages" in battle preparedness, especially in the transportation and supply of military personnel and materials in high-altitude mountainous areas, the report said.

Besides, India has largely enhanced its skills in electronic warfare in the surveillance, interference and paralysis of its enemy as a result of military cooperation with the United States, Russia and Israel.

But, the PLA said, its greatest advantage against India is its deployment of the high-accuracy mid-range Dongfeng-16 missiles in Yunnan and Guizhou provinces.

The Chinese have a strategy (well thought out or not) of neutralizing the IAF via their DF-16 missiles. Beyond purely defensive actions such as equipping North Eastern air bases with the Akash missile, what strategy is in place to take the battle to the Chinese and neutralize their missile sites? Or their air bases, at least the ones they rotate out off in Tibet? And what will the Rafale do that the existing IAF aircraft or Brahmos missile regiments do not?

I have not ever mentioned Pakistan here because I think the IAF as currently equipped is more than capable of handling the PAF.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 08:58

I think that technically the IAF would have "managed" even if it had got EF or the Shornet. They would have used the aircraft they got for their strengths and done what is possible to compensate for weaknesses. Like my aunt who has no dik and remains my aunt and not my uncle as a result of that quirk of fate, it so happened that the Rafale won in the fly-off. If the terms of the original fly off were now to be changed then I am sure some other fighter could be fixed to win.

The issue always was and remains depletion of IAF strength and maintenance of operational readiness while MiG are retired and the LCA is moving ahead only in fits and starts.

The "cost of Rafale" is slave to the following issues
1. The damn Rafale won
2. LCA not coming fast enough
3. UPA had more money when they called for flyoff than when the results were dectaled and negotiations started.
4. India could theoretically scrap Rafale but that will not speed up the LCA. So numbers will have to be made up somehow - possible by a quick off the shelf purchase of something. Whatever we purchase will have to come from either USA, France, EU, Russia or China (barring LCA) No matter what we purchase as an emergency we will still face pricing or spares issues at a time of the seller's choosing.

Cheap today - sale concluded - no spares tomorrow (Russia)
Cheap today - sale concluded - spares exorbitant (France/EU)
Cheap today - sale concluded - sanctions tomorrow (USA)

Rafale: Costly today - but is the future supply of spares and immunity from sanctions built into the cost? I don't have the data to answer this question

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 09:00

Mort Walker wrote: The door kicker for the IAF will be the long range AWACS and mid-air refueling capability. The PLAAF has both, but are behind in capability. On the AWACS, they have a long way to go in terms of capability.

Mort - how will this help if a sortie must fly 1500 km up and back over the Chinese mainland?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2015 09:08

ldev wrote:The above map does not take into account airfields in Tibet:
<snip>

I have not ever mentioned Pakistan here because I think the IAF as currently equipped is more than capable of handling the PAF.

Yes. I did mention Tibet in my post. I have done an article that maps the airfields that are closest to Aksai chin. I started but never completed my "East survey" of the India China border. I believe India can handle the current air bases in Tibet but I do believe that even there the Rafale will be an asset if we choose to use it. We really will need to knock out China's ability to resupply their frontline troops and knock out any refuellers they may have in the air over Tibet.

Of our two main adversaries, China and Pakistan, if we simply ignore or eliminate one then the terms of debate will change and I am not going to do that.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 03 Sep 2015 09:19

>>We really will need to knock out China's ability to resupply their frontline troops and knock out any refuellers they may have in the air over Tibet.

Absolutely, for starters.

But war is as much physical as it is psychological, remember the Scud missile attacks in the First Gulf War. And the Chinese will be fighting a physical and psychological war i.e. IAF air bases being knocked out of commission, conventional missile strikes against some northern/eastern Indian towns. Therefore it is important to be able to target those missile sites, even if they are 500 kms inland in China. What this discussion shows is how modern war is integrated and that brings me back full circle in that in this menu of Akash SAMs, and AWACs and refuellers, and AADs and PADs (to guard Indian cities against the DF-16s), what role will be $250 MM Rafale play that something substantially cheaper cannot? That it will be a help in precision strike is clear, the question is one of price.....

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 03 Sep 2015 09:39

Shiv,

For completing your project of Chinese air bases:

PLAAF versus India

The five main airports in the TAR are Lhasa Gonggar, Ngari Gunsa, Nyingchi Mainling, Qamdo Bamda and Shigatse, with a sixth, Nagqu Dagring, set to open this year as the highest airport in the world. These are generally dual-use airbases and the PLA is often integral in their construction. The PLA constructed the

5,500m-long runway at Qamdo Bamda, for example.

Regular rotational deployments to Tibet are an important part of PLA Air Force (PLAAF) training. Most likely the units come from the 44th Fighter Division in Yunnan and 33rd Fighter Division in Sichuan. However, it is possible other fighter units also rotate through Tibet as part of their training scheme.

China has two Military Regions (MR) bordering India - Lanzhou MR and Chengdu MR. Chengdu MR has two fighter divisions (with J-7H, J-7II, J-10A, Su-27SK and J-11 fighters) and a transport division, whereas Lanzhou MR has two fighter divisions (J-7H, J-7II, J-8F, J-8H, JH-7A, J-11 and J-1 1B) and a bomber division (H-6).

There are 14 airbases in the military districts encompassing the TAR from which the PLAAF could conduct air operations against India. It is very difficult to sustain air operations from within the TAR because of the unpredictable weather, so external bases are crucial.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 03 Sep 2015 09:42

^Refusing to discuss price is kind of pointless, as that is really the only thing that people find contentious. Even those of us who gun for the LCA like cult members understand that the timescales favors the Rafale (if it comes from a current assembly line). So, the only thing to really discuss is the price IMHO.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 03 Sep 2015 10:22

I think to counter PlAAF cruise and Ballistic attacks, we need hordes of Nirbhay Bramhos, Interior airbases, repair infrastructure as well as Akash, SRaams in numbers. Plus Rail guns near airbases.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 03 Sep 2015 12:15

shiv wrote:Rafale: Costly today - but is the future supply of spares and immunity from sanctions built into the cost? I don't have the data to answer this question

Let us be honest, sanctions would only matter if they happened during a war with China, and if there's one country that would be willing to bend over backwards to support you in a conflict with China, it's the US.

France has a long history of sanctions against many countries including Argentina, Israel and Russia, but many here like to pretend that they're 'sanction proof' just because they haven't happened to hit India yet, but that's only because France and India's interests haven't conflicted yet.

But that is not guaranteed to remain true. France has been very eager to jump in bed with China. In a future conflict, Chinese pressure could very easily encourage them to 'remain neutral' and 'not ship arms into a war zone'.

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Sep 2015 12:15

so india will be in a defensive mode vs china ..but what if their deeper than oceans friend starts another front on the west ? can we get off from the nuke no first use pedestal ?

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Sep 2015 12:18

Arun Menon wrote:^Refusing to discuss price is kind of pointless, as that is really the only thing that people find contentious. Even those of us who gun for the LCA like cult members understand that the timescales favors the Rafale (if it comes from a current assembly line). So, the only thing to really discuss is the price IMHO.

so true ..china should not feel it has some "window of opportunity"

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Sep 2015 12:23

i think there are ways to hedge against future sanctions ..after all one has to prepare for a worst case scenario .. have the french invest in india much like pakistan does with china.. it will develop an interest in favor of india ..how to do this ?;;; the offsets are just one .. why the french are not playing up is indeed interesting ..they also would very well game out the entire scenario and find that india will buy no matter what ..and probably try to eat the cake as well

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 03 Sep 2015 12:43

Lets face it, europe is not what it used to be and neither is france. They are increasingly becoming more and more poodlelefied by the US. So, frankly if there is any real pressure from the US, i don't really buy the contention that france (or for that matter Israel) will stand by our side. What happened with the mistrals are ample evidence for that.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 03 Sep 2015 13:12

Well I do not see any sanctions against India from the US, they have too much business opportunities and sanctions would threaten any future possibilities of business. I think we should go ahead and do an underground test of one of our megaton thermonukes just to test the waters, apart from some condemnation, no one would seriously care and there would be some serious undie browning in Pak. The world would understand we have enough reasons with Pak expanding its nuke arsenal and both Chi-Pak playa hating.

As far as the Rafale and TAR or Pak is concerned, there is no doubt it would be quite useful. It is however important to improve its weapons set, to make use of its true ground pounding abilities, we need to integrate the CBU-105 SFW,home made bombs like HSLD, Sudarshan LGBs, Desi Glide bombs, Brahmos Mini, Desi ARM, Indo/Israeli DEW etc. I hope a part of the massive cost of around 250 million per bird we seem to be paying goes into new desi weapons integration.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Sep 2015 15:50

Vishnu Som ( NDTV ) has posted the following on Keypubs found it interesting to cross post

Hi ... Vivek asked me an important question before the thread was cleaned up ... on why the IAF never considered the F-35 since cost-wise, the IAF may be paying more for the Rafale ..

A key statement which has not been reported enough .. is that the IAF is acquiring the Rafale for strategic purposes ... I think this is as clear an indicator as any that India now wants the Rafale to fulfill a nuclear strike role replacing other types.

I doubt whether the US would every allow the F-35 to be rigged for nuclear release.

I can also tell you that the F-35 had not even flown when the MMRCA process was well underway. In fact, I believe I am one of the first journalists to be allowed access to see the first prototype of the F-35 when I was doing a documentary based on my experiences of flying on the the F-16 in Utah ... What an incredible sight. Looked straight out of Star Trek.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Sep 2015 16:34

I mentioned something similar here a while ago about the F-35 not being a solution from a geopolitical aspect. While that aircraft is being made nuclear capable for a customer but the bilateral ties aren't strong enough at the moment where each side trusts one another to seek or deliver that sort of capability. Outside of Russia, India has that equation with France that it has dealt with for years. In a strategic procurement one cannot discount bilateral comfort levels. Indi-French strategic relaitionship in the military aspect has existed for a while while it is in its infancy with the US.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Sep 2015 17:00

I think Vishnu might be guessing there. The primary vector for nuclear weapons delivery for most states will continue to be a missile.

The French employ the supersonic ASMP-A launched from a Rafale. Given that the ASMP isn't available for export, our analogue would likely be a N-BrahMos launched from a Su-30MKI.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Sep 2015 17:24

Dive Toss bombing is still an effective method of nuclear delivery if you need man in loop till the last second

But Rafale has the advantage that the french would allow it to be hardwired for N delivery and the fact that french them self use Rafale for N Delivery wont be lost on Indian Strategic forces

These things would happen quietly like WOP books says without much fan fare

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 03 Sep 2015 17:26

shiv wrote:
Mort Walker wrote: The door kicker for the IAF will be the long range AWACS and mid-air refueling capability. The PLAAF has both, but are behind in capability. On the AWACS, they have a long way to go in terms of capability.
Mort - how will this help if a sortie must fly 1500 km up and back over the Chinese mainland?

shourya and nirbhay will be used to target that far.