IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Apr 2016 04:14

GeorgeWelch wrote:
vishvak wrote:What is it that Rafale or F/A-18 do have each and PAK-FA/FGFA does not have?
Immediate availability and independence of Russia.

The use of the word "independence" is a joke really, especially when going for another dependence on someone else

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 07 Apr 2016 04:58

srai wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:
Immediate availability and independence of Russia.
The use of the word "independence" is a joke really, especially when going for another dependence on someone else

Obviously, but still best to not keep all your eggs in one basket, especially a basket that is getting increasingly cozy with China.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Apr 2016 06:50

Why go for eggs instead go for the chickens that lays the golden eggs.

AMCA!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Apr 2016 06:59

SaiK wrote:Why go for eggs instead go for the chickens that lays the golden eggs.

AMCA!

Because the AMCA needs a golden egg, so it can lay a golden egg. Plain genetics.

Whichever US planes comes (IF it/they come), it/they and ALL Indian planes will have GE engines. Engines, along with supply chain techs and perhaps AESA (????) would help to go a long way.

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 07 Apr 2016 07:04

NRao wrote: However, I expect the F-16 or the F-18 to be FAR superior to any other 4th Gen plane out there - neither France nor Russia can match it..

F18 was probably the last in MMRCA competition.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Apr 2016 07:21

ranjan.rao wrote:
NRao wrote: However, I expect the F-16 or the F-18 to be FAR superior to any other 4th Gen plane out there - neither France nor Russia can match it..
F18 was probably the last in MMRCA competition.

What MMRCA? It does not exist.

I have more questions.

Just BTW, the F-16IN has since evolved.

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 07 Apr 2016 09:04

NRao Sirji,
MMRCA may not exist "now" but the results of IAF evaluatlion still exist on wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_competition, please see the table).
Agree with your F16 statement, but saying that F16 and F18 are the best 4 G planes is kind of question IAF plane selection if not outrightly wrong.

This topic has been hotly debated on this and other forums on BRF earlier and now doesn't add to forum content constructively, so I will not pursue one-upmanship.

Lastly, I think we both will be happy with IAF getting any plane and reaching the required sqd strength.

Cheers!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Apr 2016 09:19

I did not say they are the best. I said "I expect" "to be FAR superior to any other 4th Gen plane out there".

And, if you agree with the -16 "evolved", then what is the problem with the -18?

My reasoning is very simple. US, both at a gov and industry level, is the *only* nation that invests heavily in R&D. That *will* reflect down the line on products such as the -16/-18, you just cannot escape it.

Is any other nation doing that? I very much doubt it.

I am not sure what has been discussed, with due respect, but the Rafale would have died, the Grip perhaps after the next iteration, EuroFighter is pretty much dead and the -35 is coming out of a comma. So, where are the improvements going to come from for all these planes? It is not a brain issue - all those nations have a good deal of brains (so does India). It is a matter of investments. I just do not see it anywhere. Do you? May be I missed something.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Apr 2016 09:37

^^^ Yeah right every fighter is pretty much dead or in comma except the teens , Very Original I must say

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Apr 2016 09:43

Austin wrote:^^^ Yeah right every fighter is pretty much dead or in comma except the teens , Very Original I must say

I concur. IAF booted out F-16 *AND* F-18 from not just the top spot but the top 2 spots. But brochure wala says F-16IN and perhaps F-18 have "evolved". Therefore, F-16 and/or the F-18 are/is now far superior to all 4th gen aircraft.

I would lose my job with this kind of rationalization in Amrika.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Apr 2016 09:45

^^^^

Again, I said "I expect". It is not a claim, but an expectation (as in future). If you can prove otherwise, so be it.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Apr 2016 09:49

Fortunately, the IAF believes a bird in hand, as evaluated objectively, is worth two in a bush that is yet to grow, even if the gardener is a hard worker.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Apr 2016 09:50

PratikDas wrote:
Austin wrote:^^^ Yeah right every fighter is pretty much dead or in comma except the teens , Very Original I must say
I concur. IAF booted out F-16 *AND* F-18 from not just the top spot but the top 2 spots. But brochure wala says F-16IN and perhaps F-18 have "evolved". Therefore, F-16 and/or the F-18 are/is now far superior to all 4th gen aircraft.

I would lose my job with this kind of rationalization in Amrika.

Those kind of talks and brouchre bazi was always there during MMRCA trials from all the vendors not an unknown commodity , All vendor promised significant TOT and local production and every one showed their own upgrade path, IAF is pretty much aware of those

There is a reason why Rafale was selected by IAF as MMRCA winning among the many in the race. These things have been discussed over and over again and it still keeps coming up

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Apr 2016 10:01

OK, here is what I have found ...................... so far:

Apr 02, 2016 :: F16 V could have a production line in India

So, it is not longer the F-16IN.

And, please, if there is any info out there on any of the other planes, post. I am only betting (I have not looked at the others) that the others will nto come close for reasons have posted earlier.

Also:

Apr 6, 2016 :: India asks US to stand guarantee for transfer of tech

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 07 Apr 2016 10:36

GeorgeWelch wrote:
srai wrote: Immediate availability and independence of Russia.
Obviously, but still best to not keep all your eggs in one basket, especially a basket that is getting increasingly cozy with China.

It is still not a country that supplies F-16s and Vipers ostensibly to fight Shalwar-clad Terrorbunnies, along with a THOUSAND Hellfires. Guess the Al Keedas and Terrorbunnies (incidentally propped by Pakistan itself) are raising at least 500 tanks to fight the Pakistani army. Warped logic all over.

If anything, India would be well advised to plan to source EJ200s while pumping in 10x the monies into Kaveri derivatives. No point looking at the failed Teens whether or not a shill or two believe they have evolved.

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 07 Apr 2016 10:50

NRao SirG,

While I agree to many of your points, the parameters where F18 inferior are no less important
1. Thrust to weight (As per wiki of 0.93 the lowest in MMRCA category)
2. Climb Rate
3. Max Speed
From it's configurations to me it seems more of a bomb truck and less of an A2A fighter. There are other links like https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... -fighters/
which tell enough about the teens.

1. Being a heavy twin engine plane I doubt it's fuel consumption will be so less that we will recover the cost of acquiring a new fighter, setting up production lines and maintenance costs anytime soon (in the light of recent suppressed oil prices too).
2. Regarding availability rate argument that is thrown: Shouldn't we apply ourselves to sort that out rather than creating for future air museums of aviation history.
3. Now regarding the reliance on Russia, I would place my bets on a country that has supported us in past, still supports it's allies as compared to finding a new date esp the one who has a history of one night stands. US has history of ditching it's allies whenever it suits them or the congress bans the funding.
Just my one old paisa

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Apr 2016 11:06

RR,I agree with you totally,esp oin the EJ engine acquisition which I've plumped for for ages for the LCA for alternative prototypes..However,there is a strong US lobby that wants to cut Russia out of India ,in order to (apart from making filthy lucre) gain control of our strat. arsenal and neuter us ithroug signing on various agreements ,constrain our military from being independent in in global affairs,but merely being part of the US mil bandwagon-cannon fodder for America's future wars. It is also the vain hope that the Pakis will accept this strategy of the effective castrating of India, for going easy on their nuke proliferation.

The US during the Clinton years abdicated and accepted the fact that China is top dog in Asia. Alarmed at China's aggro now,esp. its aggression in the Indo-China Sea,desperately want India to be militarily integrated into the anti-China mil machine as it cannot face China alone. Thus the integration of as many Indian mil assets ,weapon systems,needs to be achieved,to mesh the mil assets of its partners into an integrated fighting machine.

As for providing TOT,The US isn't providing us with N-subs,N-reactor tech,BMos-type missiles,etc. as Russia is doing. Nevertheless,if we do want to have the best (tech) of both worlds,nothing wrong with that desire,and will pay for it too, then the Typhoon,Gripen are Rafale alternatives. Sqd. numbers can always be kept healthy with more MIG-29/35 and MKI buys as the IAF inches towards its 45 sqd. goal through these cost-effective acquisitions.
Buying the US "teen" cast-offs ,F-16 operated by Pak,and both firmly rejected earlier by the IAF in the MMRCA evaluation, would demand an inquiry into the entire farcial policy and about turn of of the MOD and IAF.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Apr 2016 14:32

ranjan.rao wrote:NRao SirG,

While I agree to many of your points, the parameters where F18 inferior are no less important
1. Thrust to weight (As per wiki of 0.93 the lowest in MMRCA category)
2. Climb Rate
3. Max Speed
From it's configurations to me it seems more of a bomb truck and less of an A2A fighter. There are other links like https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... -fighters/
which tell enough about the teens.

1. Being a heavy twin engine plane I doubt it's fuel consumption will be so less that we will recover the cost of acquiring a new fighter, setting up production lines and maintenance costs anytime soon (in the light of recent suppressed oil prices too).
2. Regarding availability rate argument that is thrown: Shouldn't we apply ourselves to sort that out rather than creating for future air museums of aviation history.
3. Now regarding the reliance on Russia, I would place my bets on a country that has supported us in past, still supports it's allies as compared to finding a new date esp the one who has a history of one night stands. US has history of ditching it's allies whenever it suits them or the congress bans the funding.
Just my one old paisa

The F-18E/F as an offer was no doubt technically inferior to the Rafale and Typhoon as evaluated however there are plenty of low-risk ways to cover that. The EPE engine improves the Thrust to Weight Ratio and with it performance (20% improvement in thrust). It was as a part of the bid back in the MMRCA, but obviously wasn't evaluated, and it will be in play for all future Boeing offers internationally since its a question of WHEN and not IF with that engine program, and I suspect it would be a USN line item next year. EPE/EDE changes are all retrofittable onto existing GEF414's and in fact GE has over the last 3 or so years managed to demonstrate even further improvements that are outside the EDE/EPE because those would require new engines as opposed to component replacement as in the case of EPE/EDE. The Next block of the AN/APG-79 radar, adds EA/EW and other capabilities (now that the current block completely overhauls radar processors to support future mission system upgrades) currently found in the F-22 and F-35, and currently lacking in the Rafale for example (and planned for the Typhoon in the 2020's) and the radar is larger than the Rafale's.

There are now 2 EW suits available, with a third, totally brand new one being developed, technology from which could be leveraged into the program if a customer so wishes (Same vendor). The IRST as offered for international customers is now fully integrated into the airframe, while in the case of the Rafale it is non-existent at least as it has been delivered to current customers (France and Egypt). Both the AIm-120C7 and the C5 have received ECCM upgrades (Updates that the Delta variant only gets in a couple of years for the inventory), and the Aim-9X Block II (available now) and Block II+ will be available at the time of future delivery to any customer. ASRAAM is also available. If you want to convert it into a longer range strike fighter, you can add CFT's (already flown), a weapons pod etc to it and it has dramatically improved mission radius. It also comes with the most cost effective and comprehensive PGM suite compared to the other competing western fighters.

It obviously did not do as well ( as evaluated ) compared to the two Euro birds, but if there is even the slightest chance for it to get a look it will be because the Rafale as a procurement would be unaffordable in the numbers the IAF demands, particularly negotiating for domestic production under MII. Otherwise, I agree as far as the evaluations and MMRCA goes the Rafale and Typhoon were the winners but that means little if you can't acquire as many to fulfill the force structure needs of the IAF and you want a hedge against Russian dependency given more MKI's will likely be acquired, and so would the FGFA.

Both the F-18 and F-16 have little chance, the F-16 has pretty much ZERO chance but the longer the Rafale deal is delayed, and the ultimate price paid may just force the MOD to look at other choices on offer if they want a western fighter as part of the Make in India policy. Between the Typhoon, Gripen and the Shornet, I'd go with the latter any day if the political issues can be hammered out (and these are likely to be very tough, hence my skepticism when it comes to India operating US fighters) since the Typhoon isn't likely to be any cheaper than the Rafale, and the Gripen is essentially an MK2-LCA with western sub-systems and a US engine and given that it in 'E/NG' variant is still very much a developmental program - will be expensive.

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 07 Apr 2016 14:56

^^^ brar sir,
nice reply (as always) ...thanks.

Another option we must consider is to set up additional production line of LCA instead of the Make in India.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Apr 2016 14:59

Another option we must consider is to set up additional production line of LCA instead of the Make in India.

Absolutely, that is definitely a legitimate option and must be part of the AOA. Thats why I said that the only real chance for any of these fighters under MII is if the MOD, and the DefMin feel that there is room for a western fighter line under MII. Thats what all are really talking about, so if it is determined that by boosting production through higher investments over the medium term with the LCA they can successfully meet the strength and successfully hedge against dependency on any one foreign supplier, than thats obviously the best course of action.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 07 Apr 2016 15:04

If we can not get Rafale ( a scenario which is going to become a reality with each passing day), I think we need to have a serious look at Mig 35 with an MKI version developed to it. Maybe a far cheaper option and an interim solution while moving to 5th Gen ACs.

LCA M1a and M2, of course, is the best option.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Apr 2016 17:38

Jhujar wrote:About few years back i flew to Delhi and found out the flight out of FRA In Firstaaa class filled with Lockheed and Boeing Team assigned for MMRCA trials. They were freely talking to each other hoping one of them will get the order. There was no hint of rivalry between 2, more like matter of nationalism and opening the new market . I just pretended to not know what they were talking about. After few hard drinks, pounds of caviar and German Dessert wine all got quiet except snoring.

Of course it isn't a visceral rivalry, unlike what they have with the Russians or the EF Gmbh people have with Dassault. After all, both companies jointly produced the F-22, jointly bid for the LRS-B contract, and have a JV running in space business (United Launch Alliance & United Space Alliance).

That said, they still are rivals. They're both competing for a contract worth billions of dollars with hundreds of jobs at stake. If the MoD is serious about this acquisition, only one of the two production lines is going to make it past 2020 with the other closing forever. So while they'll refrain from outright trash talk (sadly), there's bound to be some elbowing going on.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Apr 2016 17:45

Boeing is great at maintaining relationships with their various prime competitors since they can leverage that to secure business when they loose competitions which happens quite a lot for them in the fighter business.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Apr 2016 17:51

vishvak wrote:What is it that Rafale or F/A-18 do have each and PAK-FA/FGFA does not have?

It'll be at least decade before a mature FGFA with its bugs ironed out and a stable support chain is available (see Su-30MKI). More for a locally built aircraft.

A more pertinent question is, "what do they have that an upgraded Su-30MKI with improved serviceability doesn't"? Better reliability, lower observability and a superior EW suite for sure, but weighed against the Sukhoi's far lower cost, its a less than convincing argument. One explanation is to foster a private sector competitor to HAL (i.e. TASL) but an equally probably cause is undisclosed issues with the Russians (technical and/or political).

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Apr 2016 18:10

so lets assume the F16 line is set up in India. How long will it be in operation? how much capital will it soak up? what else could have been done with that kind of capacity?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Apr 2016 18:22

Lalmohan wrote:so lets assume the F16 line is set up in India. How long will it be in operation? how much capital will it soak up? what else could have been done with that kind of capacity?

My guess - 90 ordered, delivered between 2020 and 2026, costing $10-12 bn.

What else could have been done with that capital? It could have financed an Elta-DRDO led Su-30 upgrade, additional orders of 100+ Tejas Mk1As, and a second production line at TASL, with exclusive export rights given to Tata (Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Nigeria for beginners). JV with Boeing to export the fighter-trainer to Europe.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Apr 2016 18:23

US manufacturers re-enter the Indian fighter fray

Rival US fighter manufacturers Boeing and Lockheed Martin outlined their individual proposals to India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) in New Delhi on 5 April to locally licence-build F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-16IN Super Viper fighters respectively for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

In their presentations to senior MoD officials, Boeing and Lockheed Martin executives offered to transfer - via an inter-governmental agreement (IGA) - the entire production lines of their respective combat platforms under the 'Make in India' initiative to manufacture a minimum of 200 platforms.

The prospect of exporting either one of the two fighters also featured in these discussions, which from the US side were presided over by Keith Webster, director of the International Co-operation Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Webster also heads the India Rapid Reaction Cell (IRRC), formed in February 2015 to fast-track bilateral defence ties and military commerce and to accelerate the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI) aimed at locally developing and manufacturing various US materiel.

Both the F-16 and the F/A-18 competed for the IAF's 2007 tender for 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), in which the IAF shortlisted Dassault's Rafale in early 2012. The MMRCA tender, however, was scrapped in April 2015 after India opted that month to acquire 36 Rafales off the shelf, negotiations for which remain stalled following significant differences over price and offsets.

"Enduring problems with the Rafale deal have opened up new possibilities for other fighter manufacturers to once more pitch their platforms to the IAF under the 'Make in India' rubric," said military analyst Air Marshal Vinod Bhatia (retd).

The IAF, he added, desperately needs to make up fighter numbers and could well consider one of these two options. However, Bhatia did not rule out the possibility of the MoD 'leveraging' these alternative fighter offers in order to secure a favourable price for the Rafales.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin's proposals followed Indian defence minister Manohar Parrikar's statement earlier this year that India planned to establish production lines for "one or two" foreign fighters. He said the MoD would identify them by the year-end, but has declined to elaborate.

The dual US offers also come ahead of US defence secretary Ashton Carter's two-day Delhi visit from 10 April, during which an assortment of bilateral strategic and military issues, including the indigenous manufacture of either F-16s or F/A-18s, are likely to feature.

Senior IAF officers said the F-16 and F/A-18 offers were "unsolicited, but timely" as the service faces a depletion of its fighter assets, which have fallen to 33 combat squadrons: nine less than the sanctioned 42. According to India's parliamentary defence committee, this number will drop further to 25 by 2022 as squadrons of legacy MiG-21s and MiG-27s will begin retiring later this year.

IAF sources said that of the two proposals, the air force favoured the twin-engine F/A-18 over the single-engine F-16, the original design, development, and entry into service of which dates back to the mid-1970s and the production lines of which will become idle over the next few years. F-16s are also the principal combat aircraft in the inventory of the rival Pakistan Air Force (PAF), which operates approximately 85 of the type; the recent US decision to sell Islamabad eight more had triggered strong criticism from India.

Boeing executives, on the other hand, have stressed the 'commonality factor' of the General Electric F414 engine powering the F/A-18 and it is also being planned for India's under-development Light Combat Aircraft (Navy).

Boeing has also offered the F/A-18 to the Indian Navy (IN) and proposed collaboration with India's Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) on its fifth-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme, which is still at a conceptual stage.

Alongside Boeing and Lockheed Martin's offers to locally licence-build F/A-18s and F-16 fighter, Sweden's Saab has also proposed a similar arrangement with regard to its Gripen E/F, which also competed for the MMRCA tender.

In June 2015 during a visit to Delhi, Swedish defence minister Peter Hultqvist offered to transfer the Gripen's manufacturing and assembly lines to India, in keeping with the government's 'Make in India' policy, to produce the fighter for the IAF and for export.

Additionally, Saab offered technical assistance to the ADA, which was struggling with its under-development LCA (Navy), which will ultimately use the more powerful General Electric F414 engine that also powers the Gripen E/F.

In April 2015, Parrikar had indicated what IAF officials interpreted as a preference for the Gripen by stating that the IAF needed a "light, single-engine fighter with greater firepower and extended strike range to replace the retiring MiG-21s, but one with more operational capability than Tejas". At the time, neither Boeing nor Lockheed Martin had made their offers.

"It will be interesting to see how the MoD balances its options, considering the numerous fighter technologies it has on offer," said Ernst & Young defence analyst Ankur Gupta.

Diverse strategic, political, and diplomatic considerations will also come into play before the MoD can make up its mind, which may take time, he cautioned.

shravanp · Post by **shravanp** » 07 Apr 2016 18:26

Haven't we learned anything from post Pokhran sanctions? I wouldn't touch massa's jet fighters with a barge pole. Top it off, our gov is asking assurance on sanctions. We recently looked like idiots by inviting Pak's JIT and now they flatly refused any Indian investigation team to come to Pakistan.

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 07 Apr 2016 18:53

Viv S wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:so lets assume the F16 line is set up in India. How long will it be in operation? how much capital will it soak up? what else could have been done with that kind of capacity?
My guess - 90 ordered, delivered between 2020 and 2026, costing $10-12 bn.

What else could have been done with that capital? It could have financed an Elta-DRDO led Su-30 upgrade, additional orders of 100+ Tejas Mk1As, and a second production line at TASL, with exclusive export rights given to Tata (Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Nigeria for beginners). JV with Boeing to export the fighter-trainer to Europe.

Even if we are able to accomplish the first three, that will truly take Indian aviation to skies.

I am curious about why we are limiting the Tejas production lines to only 2 ( in the best case). Can't the Indian govt take risks of a third production line with say Tata or Reliance and see how that works. We will be able to churn out ~20 aircrafts an year in five years we'll have reasonable force size with significant inputs from IAF to continue on MK 1 A, B C or MK2.

After reasonable accretion some of it can also be diverted for exports.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 07 Apr 2016 19:34

One of the condition we should insist/leverage on for giving the order is for the seller to give us immediately 3-4 squadrons of existing aircrafts to join the IAF and then replace/return them as the new ones become available. This will ease the pressure on IAF and avoid number plating of more squadrons.

We should avoid F16 and go for the Super Hornet.

^^^^What would be the likely price of a Mig-35 (with all the bells and whistles that go in 4.5 Gen version) if it were to be considered?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 07 Apr 2016 21:58

ShravanP wrote:Haven't we learned anything from post Pokhran sanctions?

Yes, and the lesson is "Don't put all your eggs in one basket"

What happened in the past is past, what happens in the future is uncertain.

What remains constant is that total dependence on one country is foolhardy

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Apr 2016 22:13

Saved by Janes, on the teens!!!!!

Anyways, on MiG-35 and comma, here is why (sorry if I ruffled a few feathers)

In 2015 the RuAF sent the MiG-35 back to the drawing board, with a promise that if all went well they would start buying 30 of them starting in 2018.

So, in 2016 here is where the MiG-35 is: MiG-35 pre-production batch to start flight tests soon

The first pre-production batch of Mikoyan MiG-35 (Fulcrum-F) multipurpose fighter aircraft will start undergoing flight tests this year, Sergei Korotkov, the CEO of the MiG Aircraft-Manufacturing Corporation (RSK MiG), said on 17 March.

The RSK MiG CEO did not specify how many MiG-35 fighter jets the pre-production batch would comprise. According to Korotkov, this work is being funded under a research and development contract from Russia's Ministry of Defence.

"We have fulfilled the first stage of this work today. The Russian Defence Ministry has examined and accepted the design. Thus, we are carrying out the work in accordance with the schedule specified by the contract," Korotkov said in an official RSK MiG press release.

"The aircraft that is staying here is currently undergoing all the assembly stages. This year, it will be assembled and delivered to the customer for flight tests," he added.

According to Korotkov, the MiG-35 will be able to use the whole range of air-launched weapons in service with Russia's Armed Forces. The plane can lock on ten targets simultaneously and hit four-six most dangerous objectives, he said.

According to the CEO, the MiG-35 will have a speed of Mach 2.23, and will have an operational range 1.5 times longer than the MiG-29.

The revised MiG-35 is not even assembled yet. The tests are expected to be completed in 2017. And, if all goes as planned, they will start production in 2018.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Apr 2016 22:33

NRao, all pure genetics of firang eggs or golden egg laying chickens leads to massan entities surrounded by jackal & hyde claws. As of now, the core issue to materialize that is the engine as a platform made in India. Rest is ~~mastercard~~magic!

Will Mr Carter say anything new on INS Vik for a new DTTI initiative?.. lets wait!

G(TR)E 110kN is on the crossed fingers for me

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Apr 2016 22:49

I agree. And that goes for a lot of posts.

But, there is a lot more to this topic than just planes - geo-politics has a much larger say. Modi has to worry more about 18 mil/year Indian graduates getting a job, along with getting the IAF planes. So, as much as ratios and turning radius are important, there are other factors that count. Then of course people are really not up to speed.

But WRT engines things just cannot materialize. It needs decades of R&D. Even GE help will only help take a few steps. India has a very small window when Indians can make things happen, else others will slowly pull away and India will only become more dependent. Silly to think *anyone* will help India, other than Indians.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Apr 2016 23:02

While the F-18s are a very "safe" bet, geo-politics left aside. I don't think that the Mig-35s are that bad! If we can get the availability of Su-30s upto to 70% through local production of spares, can't see why we can't get the serviceability of the Migs higher as well. If an order of 128 planes arises. That will change rapidly too. In terms of capability, they are quite similar. One has the edge in some areas, and the other in others. The only reason the Mig-35 is moving slowly is because of lack of funds.

Also, I don't buy the eggs-same-basket theory. US-India relations are better than before. But, whoever is telling you that you are safer with the US-ware than with Russian-ware is frankly selling you a lie. US is as good or as bad as Russia. We will be all-weather safe when we can build our own planes: engines, radars, missiles, ammunition et. al. It is as simple as that. Till then IAF is a zoo of planes, and it will continue to be so for at least 20-30 more years.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 08 Apr 2016 03:47

Indranil,

without sparking of another debate may I ask - in what ways are the two aircraft better or worse than each other ? What are their costs. Apologies if this has been discussed recently. Completely agree that we will be all weather safe when we can build our own planes fully.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 08 Apr 2016 04:13

We can be all weather safe with imported maal as well. Only there'll be a constraint on how long and will cost more. Iran kept flying its F14s well after the Iranian revolution. Ultimately, the efforts at armament should be dovetailed with our strategic aims. Worst case seems to be - thrash Pakistan in a short war and deter China at the same time. It is not going to be an all out war running over years. American maal is likely to provide most bang for buck in achieving that strategic objective.

No one, not even the US has 0 constraints on them. Unless India develops the largest and most consumptive economy, markets for financial intermediation, she won't end up with least constraints and most leverage. A travel advisory put and end to our saber rattling. IMHO whether we make engines or not is less important.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Apr 2016 04:24

indranilroy wrote:...But, whoever is telling you that you are safer with the US-ware than with Russian-ware is frankly selling you a lie. US is as good or as bad as Russia. We will be all-weather safe when we can build our own planes: engines, radars, missiles, ammunition et. al. It is as simple as that. Till then IAF is a zoo of planes, and it will continue to be so for at least 20-30 more years.

Net/net: US planes are sanctionable. Russian planes are hangar queens. What's the difference from a user perspective?

We can only be 'all weather safe' when we roll our own. So it boils down to make in India and supply chain. We've already built MiG21s, Jaguars, SU-30s all under 'deep ToT' and do we have a SME driven MIC? or any MIC that can go the next level?

FWIW, the supposed F-16/18 'make in India' (unsolicited) offers on the table will redress that.

I beg to differ. We must not fall into this trap. My view is (FWIW) buy the damn F/A 18 a/c at flyaway cost and insist on making the consumables, munitions and ENGINES (GE414s) in India. Don't pay for a 'line' that can only make F/A 18s, pay for the a/c itself and get the 'consumables' ToT' for free that can be used for the AMCA.

We can get this deal: in the short run, it keeps US lines open in St Louis but the quid pro quo is real ToT at throwaway prices that is not important to US Lawmakers (heart and brain donors) in 50 states who'll back this in a heartbeat.

Old auto company slogan: you sell cars 'wholesale', you sell parts retail.

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Apr 2016 05:09

^^^

Ah but will the manufacturers agree to such deal? They want long term business supplying for many decades. They won't let that go ... which means long protracted negotiations.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2016 05:23

I beg to differ. We must not fall into this trap. My view is (FWIW) buy the damn F/A 18 a/c at flyaway cost and insist on making the consumables, munitions and ENGINES (GE414s) in India. Don't pay for a 'line' that can only make F/A 18s, pay for the a/c itself and get the 'consumables' ToT' for free that can be used for the AMCA.

We can get this deal: in the short run, it keeps US lines open in St Louis but the quid pro quo is real ToT at throwaway prices that is not important to US Lawmakers (heart and brain donors) in 50 states who'll back this in a heartbeat.

I think this is an oversimplification of the degree of difficulty to get such a deal to be approved but besides that, the crown jewels on the engine would not be passed along by GE, and/or the Congress. Its not always about the St. Louis line since there are other ways to add to that line. There are a few dozen unfunded Growlers, with a war-game and experimentation proof of benefit that will be part of recommendations coming out over the summer as they get deeper into to the next PB work. Then there is the study that is also not out that could recommend a few extra units of Super Hornet production. Then there are the various international competition and the waited Kuwaiti deal that apparently the White House is dragging its feet on.

They won't trade away full TOT on the engine, and definitely won't do it for free (pay for the a/c itself and get the 'consumables' ToT' for free that can be used for the AMCA). Getting the ability to get technology on some components with full production of the engine and aircraft is possible but beyond that there wouldn't really be complete component level TOT, and if the negotiations go towards that track then it all be MMRCA-2.0 and we'll be in a death spiral as far as the deal is concerned. The best outcome that is negotiable (and I'm referring to what I think is manageable and realistic as opposed to what is ideal) is production rights with co-development in propulsion that can even go beyond EPE enhancements (CMC etc that GE has demo'd over the years but not included in EPE/EDE package kits) but to expect the opening up of the entire TOT to the entire component level supply chain is unrealistic and wouldnt have happened in the best case with the rafale either unless astronomical price was offered (which itself would be rather waste). There is a chance that there could be GOTUS sovereign guarantees of some kind to put fears of sanctions to rest on US companies supplying the systems or assisting a JV if that is agreed upon but beyond that there is unlikely to be much more. Boeing is in a fairly good position since the USN loves both the Rhino and the Growler, and they are the favored ones on the T-X that they can roll into as a program to keep the fighter production line going until future fighter requirements are established. They aren't a dassault..