Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

[Viv S]

The SU-34 is one aircraft that the IAF should seriously look at.In fact,the absence of a genuine strategic bomber in the IAF's wish list is bewildering.How can it hope to become a global "aero-space power" if it cannot field aircraft capable of bombing Beijing and returning? The SU-34 dedicated bomber variant of the Flanker would be easiest to acquire and operate given that 272 Flankers are in service/on order.The SU-35 single-seater is another option instead of the Rafale.On pilot less,plus some 5h-gen tech thrown in.

Fly 2500 km to Beijing, bomb it and return?

[member_28041]

The SU-34 is one aircraft that the IAF should seriously look at.In fact,the absence of a genuine strategic bomber in the IAF's wish list is bewildering.How can it hope to become a global "aero-space power" if it cannot field aircraft capable of bombing Beijing and returning? The SU-34 dedicated bomber variant of the Flanker would be easiest to acquire and operate given that 272 Flankers are in service/on order.The SU-35 single-seater is another option instead of the Rafale.On pilot less,plus some 5h-gen tech thrown in.

However ,one would wish that we possessed at least a couple of sqds. of Backfires of which the Russians have dozens mothballed but need considerable upgrading.Equipped with LR stand-off cruise missiles like Nirbhay and the future hyper version of BMos,these aircraft could even serve with the In if the IAF isn't interested.

The Rafale deal may have to be downsized in view of the eco crisis. There are cheaper alternatives with the MIG-29/35 and Gripen waiting in the wings.The LCA achieving IOC has also turned the spotlight on it,and if the same tempo continues for the next few years,resulting in the definitive MK-2 succeeding,the Rafale deal even if sealed may not go beyond the 120 number.

Heavy bombers which are non-stealth are becoming lesser relevant every year. Even Georgia was able to shoot down a Russian Tu-33M3.
So the Chinese with their huge inventory of S-300 clones might get lucky if we sent a heavy bomber of Backfire type till Beijing .
By the way there are many ways for india to become global "aero-space power" other than buying a heavy bomber which may not suite its needs. Let uncle and the bear build them, buy them and let them play with them.

Not able to understand the statement : The SU-34 dedicated bomber variant of the Flanker would be easiest to acquire and operate given that 272 Flankers are in service/on order.

Just curious whats common in Su-30 MKI and Su-34 other than the 'Su', the '-' and the '3'

[vivek_ahuja]

The Rafale deal is being pursued for strategic reasons. During the 1998 tests, the French were the most supportive of India's position. Enough said.

Sadly, no. Enough has not been said. While I appreciate their support and all, the fact is that the MRCA is not supposed to be a rewards voucher for the French. So if the numbers do not show that's it profitable to acquire the Rafales at the prices they are quoting, or if they are unable to provide the requisite TOT, then their support during the 1998 tests is not sufficient to make the deal stand by itself.

Also, one of the primary purposes of the MMRCA deal is to diversify the suppliers of India's fighter jets. Russia supplies the MKI and FGFA. The U.S. (through its engines) supplies the Tejas and the Jaguar. For understandable reasons, the IAF wants a third supplier.

While I can certainly agree that diversifcation is on the minds of senior strategic planners, I don't see why more diversification is needed beyond having both Russia and US on board! If the day comes when they both have to hold off on equipment, then there is something wrong, isn't there? That said, it certainly points to the sad state of affairs when diversification at exorbitant prices during a weak economy is sought as the remedy to our dependence on foreign equipment rather than investing the same to make us independent.

[Yogi_G]

In old BR tradition, now that SU-34 has come up in discussion I expect the topic of a bunker bed and toilet in it to come up.

[member_28041]

The Rafale deal is being pursued for strategic reasons. During the 1998 tests, the French were the most supportive of India's position. Enough said.

Sadly, no. Enough has not been said. While I appreciate their support and all, the fact is that the MRCA is not supposed to be a rewards voucher for the French. So if the numbers do not show that's it profitable to acquire the Rafales at the prices they are quoting, or if they are unable to provide the requisite TOT, then their support during the 1998 tests is not sufficient to make the deal stand by itself.

Adding to this :

The french got the Scorpene submarine deal . The french reactor order is also going to be worth 10$ billion at least.
Also we are always giving french the opportunity to launch our INSAT's .

[srin]

The SU-34 is one aircraft that the IAF should seriously look at.In fact,the absence of a genuine strategic bomber in the IAF's wish list is bewildering.How can it hope to become a global "aero-space power" if it cannot field aircraft capable of bombing Beijing and returning? The SU-34 dedicated bomber variant of the Flanker would be easiest to acquire and operate given that 272 Flankers are in service/on order.The SU-35 single-seater is another option instead of the Rafale.On pilot less,plus some 5h-gen tech thrown in.

However ,one would wish that we possessed at least a couple of sqds. of Backfires of which the Russians have dozens mothballed but need considerable upgrading.Equipped with LR stand-off cruise missiles like Nirbhay and the future hyper version of BMos,these aircraft could even serve with the In if the IAF isn't interested.

The Rafale deal may have to be downsized in view of the eco crisis. There are cheaper alternatives with the MIG-29/35 and Gripen waiting in the wings.The LCA achieving IOC has also turned the spotlight on it,and if the same tempo continues for the next few years,resulting in the definitive MK-2 succeeding,the Rafale deal even if sealed may not go beyond the 120 number.

Su-34 is a dedicated fighter bomber. Specs-wise, it looks like there is nothing it can do that our Su-30MKI's can't. Why Su-35 indeed ?

I thought that the goal was standardization instead of looking at Russian export catalog. Otherwise, how indeed did you miss Mig-31 ?

[Viv S]

So the Chinese with their huge inventory of S-300 clones might get lucky if we sent a heavy bomber of Backfire type till Beijing .

I'd say its the bomber that will be lucky if it can reach just a third of the way to Beijing without being shot down.

[Philip]

I'm surprised that veteran members can't spot the differences.The SU-35 is a single seater,dispenses with one pilot (makes it cheaper to operate) and is going to have 5th-gen tech aboard.Our upgrades of our MKIs to somewhat 35 std. will still require two pilots.There is a lot of debate about having two or one pilot,but as has been seen with the decision for the FGA,a single-seat bird has been chosen.Tech developments are slowly weaning away the desire for two seaters.The MKIs/SU-35s are multi-role aircraft.

The SU-34 is a dedicated LR bomber.It is intended for high-precision strikes, including strikes with nuclear weapons, on land and sea targets at any time of day.It has a payload of 12t,4t more than the SU-30 variants.

WIK:
The Su-34's most distinctive feature is the unusually large flight deck. Much of the design work went into crew comfort. The two crew members sit side by side in a large cabin, with the pilot-commander to the left and navigator/operator of weapons to the right in NPP Zvezda K-36dm ejection seats. An advantage of the side by side cockpit is that duplicate instruments are not required for each pilot. Since long missions require comfort, the pressurization system allows operation up to 10,000 metres (32,800 ft) without oxygen masks, which are available for emergencies and combat situations.[29] The crew members have room to stand and move about the cabin during long missions.[30][31] The space between the seats allows them to lie down in the corridor, if necessary.[29] A toilet and a galley are located behind the crew seats.[29][30]
The Su-34's long range was shown in a July 2010 exercise when Su-34s and Su-24Ms were moved from Russian bases in Europe to one on the Pacific coast, 6,000 kilometres away, which requires in-flight refuelling. The Su-24Ms were refuelled three times, while the Su-34 was refuelled twice.[32]

The IAF were offered the MIG-31 years ago as replacements for the MIG25s that we were retiring.It didn't feel that it was required. At that time the Pakis hadn't received their AWACS aircraft.The MIG-31 with a LR 400km AAM is intended to be an AWACS killer as well as intruding aircraft. In the sub-continental context we may not require it if our Super Sukhois (MKI upgrades) and FGFAs can carry the same LR missile.

These options are being suggested in the event of the Rafale deal going kaput.However the need for a strategic bomber remains.The Backfire shot down during the Georgia spat was an old one,without any modern upgrades.In the event of us acquiring any of them,they would all require extensive internal refits .The cost factor is unknown.Backfires in the maritime sphere,equipped with Nirbhay,BMos,etc,will be able to prosecute enemy targets within a short time ,far faster than either our P-8Is or even the TU-142 Bears. Unfortunately,from available info,our classified UCAV progamme appears to be too small,carrying only two missiles in its weapon bays, to be capable of filling the strategic role.

[Karan M]

We should just import the Russian AF and make it the IAF, nvm IAF trials, requirements and similar frivolities.

Su-34 is superior to the Su-30 MKI, as it has the number 4 in it and Su-34= Su-30+4

It is of course better than the Rafale which of course is more expensive than the cheap MiG-29/35 and Su-34.

Similarly, Su-35 is even better, since its Su-30+5.

Veteran members should know all this.

[nachiket]

In old BR tradition, now that SU-34 has come up in discussion I expect the topic of a bunker bed and toilet in it to come up.

It also has a home-theater room and fully stocked library.

[Karan M]

It comes with a full stocked mini bar as well with the best quality vodka.

[member_28041]

In old BR tradition, now that SU-34 has come up in discussion I expect the topic of a bunker bed and toilet in it to come up.

It also has a home-theater room and fully stocked library.

Please stop guys...cant take it any more

Shouldn't the MIG35 be better than Su30 since 35>30 and MIG is a 3 letter word but SU is just 2 letters

[rajanb]

We should just import the Russian AF and make it the IAF, nvm IAF trials, requirements and similar frivolities.

Su-34 is superior to the Su-30 MKI, as it has the number 4 in it and Su-34= Su-30+4

It is of course better than the Rafale which of course is more expensive than the cheap MiG-29/35 and Su-34.

Similarly, Su-35 is even better, since its Su-30+5.

Veteran members should know all this.

Damn! This math is hurting me. Just a quickie. Does it have internet connectivity and p0rn?

[member_28041]

We should just import the Russian AF and make it the IAF, nvm IAF trials, requirements and similar frivolities.

Su-34 is superior to the Su-30 MKI, as it has the number 4 in it and Su-34= Su-30+4

It is of course better than the Rafale which of course is more expensive than the cheap MiG-29/35 and Su-34.

Similarly, Su-35 is even better, since its Su-30+5.

Veteran members should know all this.

Damn! This math is hurting me. Just a quickie. Does it have internet connectivity and p0rn?

Does it have DTH or cable? I guess in long trips the pilots could rest in the bunker and watch tv. I would like a 40 inch LCD by the way. Nothing less....

[Karan M]

They can put USB keys into the large displays and watch cricket highlights. IAF was so silly they didnt even understand that Su-34 and Su-35 existed, so they evaluated the Rafale. Overdependence on one one source, Super Su-30 upgrade, all these are just timepass. We should just buy Su-34.

[NRao]

In old BR tradition, now that SU-34 has come up in discussion I expect the topic of a bunker bed and toilet in it to come up.

Sorry those creature comforts were discontinued after the Su-33. Actually it was galley and toilet. The pilot's seat converted into a bunker bed - perhaps it still does.

[vivek_ahuja]

Guys, come on. I think you managed to get the point across, eh?

Su-34 bad. Su-30MKI good.

Now, let's return to the original objective of this thread:

Rafale good. Rafale better. Rafale best.

Stop whining and pliss to leave blank check at the French embassy courtesy of the national exchequer.

[Karan M]

Vivek, I dont think the question is whether Su-30MKI is best, Su-34 is bad. The point is the reverse has hardly been proven.

Su-30 MKI is basically an air superiority type which has been quite successfully transformed into a MR type, and can do most of what the Su-34 can, apart from Wikied up stuff about some super convenient cockpit etc.

The Rafale is the IAFs choice, chosen after a grueling trial, and said trial quite deliberately excluded aircraft like the Su-35 and the Su-34, ergo claiming the Su-34 and Su-35 fit India better (as one gent above, who is 24/7 trying to foist Rodina is da best gear on India, did) is moot.

[vivek_ahuja]

Vivek, I dont think the question is whether Su-30MKI is best, Su-34 is bad. The point is the reverse has hardly been proven.

Su-30 MKI is basically an air superiority type which has been quite successfully transformed into a MR type, and can do most of what the Su-34 can, apart from Wikied up stuff about some super convenient cockpit etc.

The Rafale is the IAFs choice, chosen after a grueling trial, and said trial quite deliberately excluded aircraft like the Su-35 and the Su-34, ergo claiming the Su-34 and Su-35 fit India better (as one gent above, who is 24/7 trying to foist Rodina is da best gear on India, did) is moot.

Karan,

I wasn't debating the merits of the Su-30MKI versus the Su-34, and I understand their individual requirements from their parent nation. Given the choice of adding yet another aircraft type to the IAF to do a specialist job, I would very happily sign off on additional Su-30s that can also do that job and more.

In fact, I take this further:

My issue is that over the last 12-13 years, the Rafale program has become a white elephant that no Indian government wants to sign off on. During this time the Su-30MKI has matured and so has the LCA. Now I understand that there is this sweet spot in the middle which the Rafale is supposed to fill. But it hasn't so far and it probably won't for another several years as each government shirks off that stinging price and lack of TOT issues that keep coming up. So my point is that if the higher operating cost of additional Su-30MKIs plus relatively lower acquisition costs (now that the production line has matured in India) offsets the high acquisition and low-operating costs of the Rafale, why do we continue to persist on it?

As someone posted earlier to this exact statement of mine, supposedly this is some sort of rewards voucher for the French for having supported us for the Nuclear tests.

I strongly disagree that we are rich enough to be passing such expensive vouchers to foreign nations.

So why are we continuing to insist on the Rafale only? Perhaps its time to scrap the MRCA business and move with cheaper options available? Perhaps use that money to ramp up LCA and Su-30MKI production lines?

Also, just because we have agreed to pay the Rafale cost does not mean that it is cheap. There is a reason why nobody else has bought the Rafale in the world. So am I to understand that the French are offering such uber-tech with the Rafale so as to make it worth this price?

Now some folks will argue that the high cost comes because we are procuring more than just the air-frames. That we are procuring the entire weapon system and production line TOT etc. This BTW, will further divert from HAL's LCA focus. Surely that money is better spent on ramping up the Su-30MKI and LCA production lines with singular focus?

[Karan M]

Vivek, I would want the existing Su-30 numbers to be capped off at 270. My reasons for doing so are the following:

1. We are too reliant on Russia. At the end of the day, we will not be making everything inhouse & will still be dependent on Russia for stuff like raw materials, to some systems. While Russia is overall a reliable partner, they are adept at price gouging & from the viewpoint of risk mitigation, it always helps to have another source of critical equipment. Keeping a separate MMRCA from that viewpoint is essential. In the past (90's) when SU collapsed, our MiG-29 and MiG-23 fleets suffered from shortages of available parts. The situation resolved itself, but we had the Mirage 2000& Jaguar to fall back on. Point is diversification in this field helps. Plus it keeps Russia aware we have other options as well even as we indigenize the Su-30.

2. Technology & production access. The Su-30 MKI simply does not come with the kind of offsets the MMRCA deal does. Even if not all of the offsets materialize, at $6 Bn of a $12Bn overall value, thats still a lot of work to go around Indian industry, especially private ones. Technology wise, some of the stuff we will get exposure to, via the Rafale is not likely to come India's way until the FGFA. Though we will ultimately have to make our own stuff to be really self reliant, having experience with advanced manufacturing methods & systems will be helpful. In the past, we leveraged technology between the Jaguar & Do228 lines. No reason we cannot do so with the Rafale as well.

3. A Su-30 MKI + LCA fleet itself may sound good in practise but it will take a fair bit of time to get to the level of ability a Rafale fleet combined with the above two will provide. The Rafale is at this point of time a reliable airframe with most of its issues worked out. To keep the fleet current,, we also intend to commit to the Super-30 Upgrade, that will again mean aircraft off the flightline as we upgrade them. Rafale inductions can provide a good counterbalance. We need quickly operational aircraft quick to replace the retiring MiG-27s as well and the older Jags. Again, getting a mix of LCA & Su-30 to meet that gap will mean more time to have them add capabilities the Rafale will come with.

4. My present WAG is that LCA numbers will ultimately approach 6 squadrons in the MK2 variant (125), plus the original 40 MK1, similar to the Rafale numbers. This is purely based on the crying need for a cost effective light fighter in the IAF force structure. Thanks to the Flanker/medium heavy PLAAF & light/medium PAF, the IAF doubled down on its own Flankers & hopes that Rafales added to the above will be effective. But in the process, the numbers game still needs to be kept in account, as one aircraft can only be in one place. To get to 39.5 squadrons and beyond, and maintain that with its retirals, and not break its bank, the IAF will have to spend on LCAs. The amount of money spent on flight hours will otherwise be unsustainable, as the IAF is still flight hour centric and not simulator centric and intend (per accounts) to remain focused on actual flight hours (with a portion on sims). These twin engined fighters take heavy MMH/FH and are also expensive (spares, double engined).

5.Ultimately, by choosing GE Engines for the LCA, we accelerated MK2 - the EJ200 would need to be developed further perhaps judging by its thrust rating. But we have also opened up dependence on the US now, for both the Jaguar & LCA fleets apparently. By putting the Rafale into the mix, we do send a clear message out that any delays/sanctions with regards to either platform still wont prevent the IAF from being combat capable as we will have a core of Su-30s and Rafales able to deal punishing damage to Pak.

[Karan M]

Now what are the Rafale capabilities that I think will add value to the IAF?

1. Its payload range combinations - these are useful for the IAF because IAF is currently critically short of force multipliers like Tankers:

Source: Rafale forum (pretty reliable for the most part)

Est. Radius:

A. 1,100 km with three tanks (4,300 L), four MICA AAMs, and twelve 1,000 Ib bombs.
B. 1,480 km with three tanks (6,000 L), four MICA AAMs, and four 500 Ib GBU-12 LGBs
C. 1,830 km with two CFTs (2,300 L), three tanks (5,700 L), two SCALP-EG and two MICA AAMs.

We can perhaps look at CFTs as a MLU.

2. Its low level flight capabilities combined with an excellent sensor suite:
http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noti ... fference-/
These are probably the only way we can combat the PLAAFs advanced IADS - they have over a dozen batteries of the S-300 and these can be employed against us. Low level flights across gaps and then attacks with long range munitions are one way to attack these targets.
High level attacks with Brahmos equipped Flankers - well, we have limited numbers of those (even if a couple of hundred).

Note - Rafale can employ controlled flight at 20m AGL - thats pretty solid

Peace of Mind at 900km/h, 20 meters from the ground and surrounded by bad guys

While the typical attack will be preceded by some serious planning, what I like about the Rafale is that its combination of sensor fusion and integral sensors means that if push come to shove, the aircraft can undertake such deep strike missions even into areas where the complete situation is not known.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... le-334383/

3. Its a sneaky platform & complements the Su-30.
Our Su-30 is a brawler. Its big, loud & can take on anything in the sky - Rafale included, but it announces itself. A large platform, it boasts a phenomenal 1mtr dia antenna for long range detection, employs jamming to prevent itself from being targeted in turn & boasts a combination of long range & high power engines for the BVR battle, and crazy ITR (with TVC) and HMS for the close range fight. But while the Su-30s can & will fight in packs, the Rafale added to the mix will make it far more potent. For one, the Rafale is the only aircraft out there with a IR BVR missile - the Mica-IR. With (say) long range Phalcons at L Band detecting PLAAF LO aircraft at decent range, handing them off to Super-30s for continued tracking & higher resolution FC data, the Rafales can complete the kill chain with Mica-IRs. Again, this is a very crude approximation but it does give us more options.

4. State of the art sensors. The Rafale's one disadvantage - its limited nose aperture is balanced out by the fact that it has a high power AESA packed in there. But when combined with Spectra, OSF, MAWS etc - this is an aircraft which can be taken to the fight asap and kept at the edge without constant upgrades. We can (hopefully) wait for a full decade and a half before having to seriously look into hardware upgrades. By investing in more AEWACS (Project India envisages some really advanced stuff), we can hopefully wait out till Thales etc mature GaN radar arrays for the RBE-2 as well.

IMHO, its a very versatile platform that will add maximum punch to the IAF.

Unfortunately, due to dysfunctional procurement at the MOD level, we have ended up in a situation wherein we have less airframes versus the PLAAF/PAF combo if the former is taken at max. level. But with Rafale, the numbers & tech should allows us to counter the build up the former is engaging in. For the PAF TBH, the Rafale is overkill, though the IAF would argue, whats wrong with that.

IMHO, the Rafale "balances" out the AF in that we finally have a proper MR platform which has been developed as such. Otherwise, we took air superiority platforms and kept adding items and upgrades to make them truly MR.

[nachiket]

Unfortunately, due to dysfunctional procurement at the MOD level, we have ended up in a situation wherein we have less airframes versus the PLAAF/PAF combo if the former is taken at max. level.

Aren't we at a numerical disadvantage even if we consider the PLAAF alone? Their heavy-medium multi-role fighters - J-10 + all Flanker variants including the 27, 30 and J-11 - would go well over 500. Only good thing is none of these have any serious technical advantage over the MKI and they may not be able to field all of their strength against us.

[Karan M]

Aren't we at a numerical disadvantage even if we consider the PLAAF alone? Their heavy-medium multi-role fighters - J-10 + all Flanker variants including the 27, 30 and J-11 - would go well over 500. Only good thing is none of these have any serious technical advantage over the MKI and they may not be able to field all of their strength against us.

Yes indeed, which is where we seem to have no other option but to depend on the tech edge and add up on force multipliers & more advanced munitions.

AMR (2012) puts all Flanker variants at 362, and J-10s at 190. 50% of that vs IAF is 280 platforms.

On our side though, we intend to have 270 Flankers, 50 Mirage 2000s and 60 odd MiG-29s. Half of those vs PLAAF is 190 platforms.

190 remaining plus 100 odd Jaguars, 80 MiG-27s and 120 MiG-21 Bisons vs the PLAAF is sufficient to dominate the PAF. So we could conceivably spare a few more Flankers vs the PLAAF, but the PLAAF has a larger pool of Flankers and J-10s to draw on.

So my conclusion when I ran the numbers earlier in the other thread, that we can wage a defensive war against the PLAAF and hammer the PAF, but it will be tough, especially against the PLAAF.

Those 126 (+63) Rafales are hence essential for the IAF.

Hence we can see why the IAF is asking for all the bells and whistles from LCA MK1 itself and for the Rafale asap. Incidentally backs up that anon quote in the Transport thread from an IAF guy saying transports are good, but we need fighters asap!

In fact, it suits the French that the contract is delayed, and no wonder they are playing hardball. Every bit of delay means that IAF needs fighters faster, which means more purchased as fly away and SKD/CKD. Given the numbers game, we will very likely buy 189 Rafales and some 60 odd airframes (IMHO) will come as fly away and mix of SKD/CKD. Indigenization will take place gradually over the remaining 120 odd airframes. We saw a similar case with the Su-30 MKI, with numbers of airframes in Phase 1 and 2 rising to speed up induction and Phase 3 taking a hit (though with 140 odd planes to be locally made, there was some leeway to do so).

[Karan M]

A good thing - I did highlight that in the other thread is NAK Browne mentioned a) lot of emphasis on EW b ) all deals are now coming as packages with emphasis on PGMs ..instead of buy the plane and ad hoc procurements later. These two things are pretty positive.

[vivek_ahuja]

1. We are too reliant on Russia. At the end of the day, we will not be making everything inhouse & will still be dependent on Russia for stuff like raw materials, to some systems. While Russia is overall a reliable partner, they are adept at price gouging & from the viewpoint of risk mitigation, it always helps to have another source of critical equipment. Keeping a separate MMRCA from that viewpoint is essential. In the past (90's) when SU collapsed, our MiG-29 and MiG-23 fleets suffered from shortages of available parts. The situation resolved itself, but we had the Mirage 2000& Jaguar to fall back on. Point is diversification in this field helps. Plus it keeps Russia aware we have other options as well even as we indigenize the Su-30.

Conceptually, I agree with this. Three airframe air-force (SU-30MKI, Rafale and LCA) is maintainable and provides enough diversity. Fiscally too it makes sense. However, what we have is in addition to these: Mig-29s being upgraded, Mirage-2000s being upgrades, Jaguars being upgraded, Mig-27s being upgraded, FGFA being procured, AMCA being designed. This circus is what makes the Rafale acquisition suspect. No air force maintains so many different frontline aircraft and for good reason: its not economical to do so. If the Rafale money was coming from the retirement of the Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s (where we are continuing to spend billions), it would make sense fiscally and improve diversity while improving capability. But we are not doing this. 30+ of one aircraft here, 40+ of another aircraft there, all costing billions for upgrades, is a joke IMVHO. Doesn't seem like the Rafale is really replacing anything. Of course, it could be because of the delays in the MRCA to come through.

2. Technology & production access. The Su-30 MKI simply does not come with the kind of offsets the MMRCA deal does. Even if not all of the offsets materialize, at $6 Bn of a $12Bn overall value, thats still a lot of work to go around Indian industry, especially private ones. Technology wise, some of the stuff we will get exposure to, via the Rafale is not likely to come India's way until the FGFA. Though we will ultimately have to make our own stuff to be really self reliant, having experience with advanced manufacturing methods & systems will be helpful. In the past, we leveraged technology between the Jaguar & Do228 lines. No reason we cannot do so with the Rafale as well.

I would imagine the LCA program (and now the AMCA, AEW and UAV programs) could have spurred R&D if we were spending the money on massive increase in production of these in-house aircraft. I am still skeptical of how much the Frenchies will actually share, given their past records.

3. A Su-30 MKI + LCA fleet itself may sound good in practise but it will take a fair bit of time to get to the level of ability a Rafale fleet combined with the above two will provide. The Rafale is at this point of time a reliable airframe with most of its issues worked out. To keep the fleet current,, we also intend to commit to the Super-30 Upgrade, that will again mean aircraft off the flightline as we upgrade them. Rafale inductions can provide a good counterbalance. We need quickly operational aircraft quick to replace the retiring MiG-27s as well and the older Jags. Again, getting a mix of LCA & Su-30 to meet that gap will mean more time to have them add capabilities the Rafale will come with.

Fair enough point. However, I want to make a couple points:

a) The Rafale is indeed a matured airframe and weapon-system today. For the French. By the time it becomes the same in India, we could as well have spent the years expanding the MKI+LCA fleets. Of course, this is speculative on my part.
b) Expanding the production lines for the LCA, for example, will allow us to substantially reduce the amount of time taken to fill squadron strengths. As it stands, building a dozen or so every year is not going to cut it. If that is all that HAL can manage, I agree that the Rafale acquisition makes sense.

To get to 39.5 squadrons and beyond, and maintain that with its retirals, and not break its bank, the IAF will have to spend on LCAs. The amount of money spent on flight hours will otherwise be unsustainable, as the IAF is still flight hour centric and not simulator centric and intend (per accounts) to remain focused on actual flight hours (with a portion on sims). These twin engined fighters take heavy MMH/FH and are also expensive (spares, double engined).

That has always been an issue for the heavy twin-engine fighters like the MKI. But that was my original argument: which is higher? Operating the Su-30 on the long term or a heavy investment on Rafales with overall savings in the long term? I haven't been able to convince myself on this because I lack some numbers, so if you have some data to back this up, that would be great.

5.Ultimately, by choosing GE Engines for the LCA, we accelerated MK2 - the EJ200 would need to be developed further perhaps judging by its thrust rating. But we have also opened up dependence on the US now, for both the Jaguar & LCA fleets apparently. By putting the Rafale into the mix, we do send a clear message out that any delays/sanctions with regards to either platform still wont prevent the IAF from being combat capable as we will have a core of Su-30s and Rafales able to deal punishing damage to Pak.

Agreed. Of course, I would still like the removal of all of the other penny-packet fighter types we have in the fleet: Mig-29s, Mig-27s etc. in exchange for the Rafale. Keeping everything all at once is a borderline joke.

[Viv S]

2. Its low level flight capabilities combined with an excellent sensor suite:
http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noti ... fference-/
These are probably the only way we can combat the PLAAFs advanced IADS - they have over a dozen batteries of the S-300 and these can be employed against us. Low level flights across gaps and then attacks with long range munitions are one way to attack these targets.

Ingress at low level has limitations when the adversary can saturate its air-space with AEW&C and 'mini-AWACS' type heavy fighters. And if those batteries are to be engaged with long range standoff weapons (air-launched Nirbhay/BrahMos-3 perhaps), then the Tejas ought to be able to serve as a platform for the same as well.

While the typical attack will be preceded by some serious planning, what I like about the Rafale is that its combination of sensor fusion and integral sensors means that if push come to shove, the aircraft can undertake such deep strike missions even into areas where the complete situation is not known.

Deep strike will require equipping it with external heavy stores. Even operating radar-silent, it'll need to be very lucky to pull it off in the midst of all the hostile ground and airborne sensors. And if all goes well, it'll still likely be a one-off with the Chinese wising up and plugging their holes in double time.

For one, the Rafale is the only aircraft out there with a IR BVR missile - the Mica-IR. With (say) long range Phalcons at L Band detecting PLAAF LO aircraft at decent range, handing them off to Super-30s for continued tracking & higher resolution FC data, the Rafales can complete the kill chain with Mica-IRs. Again, this is a very crude approximation but it does give us more options.

The missile's seeker comes into play only in the terminal stage. At that range the missile will likely have registered on the target's IRST and/or MAWS.

BTW a similar application for proposed for the AMRAAM with a Raytheon program to integrate the Aim-9X seeker to it (with LM proposing a competing air-launched PAC-3). The program was intended to cheaply kill ballistic missiles. Its ability to engage silently didn't attract much interest though.

4. State of the art sensors. The Rafale's one disadvantage - its limited nose aperture is balanced out by the fact that it has a high power AESA packed in there. But when combined with Spectra, OSF, MAWS etc - this is an aircraft which can be taken to the fight asap and kept at the edge without constant upgrades.

The Tejas Mk1 already fields a fairly decent EW fit. For the Mk2, the equipment and sensor fusion even if not qualitatively at par, wouldn't be all that far behind the Rafale either. And down the line say post-2025, it might still achieve near parity after upgrades.

So my conclusion when I ran the numbers earlier in the other thread, that we can wage a defensive war against the PLAAF and hammer the PAF, but it will be tough, especially against the PLAAF.

Those 126 (+63) Rafales are hence essential for the IAF.

One (admittedly unsophisticated) way of looking at it is, how many Tejas could you buy for the price of one Rafale? About three or more would be my estimate. The Rafale's force-multiplier effect is hardly sufficient to overcome that metric. Particularly, given the the number of brawny Su-30MKIs already in service.

And since only 18 Rafales will be delivered off-the-shelf, the bulk of fleet will still not be available till 2025. In which case, its more productive still to invest that capital in scaling up the Tejas' manufacture.

[Karan M]

Conceptually, I agree with this. Three airframe air-force (SU-30MKI, Rafale and LCA) is maintainable and provides enough diversity. Fiscally too it makes sense. However, what we have is in addition to these: Mig-29s being upgraded, Mirage-2000s being upgrades, Jaguars being upgraded, Mig-27s being upgraded, FGFA being procured, AMCA being designed. This circus is what makes the Rafale acquisition suspect. No air force maintains so many different frontline aircraft and for good reason: its not economical to do so. If the Rafale money was coming from the retirement of the Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s (where we are continuing to spend billions), it would make sense fiscally and improve diversity while improving capability. But we are not doing this. 30+ of one aircraft here, 40+ of another aircraft there, all costing billions for upgrades, is a joke IMVHO. Doesn't seem like the Rafale is really replacing anything. Of course, it could be because of the delays in the MRCA to come through.

The delays in Rafale induction, the need to face higher numbers of opponent airframes with existing platforms, the need to periodically take portions of the existing fleet offline for upgrades, checks - well thats the reason we are upgrading all these airframes.
If Rafale was in induction already, you'd see IAF retiring many more birds . But its going to take time, and these aircraft have to hold the line.

If you see my PLAAF vs PAF vs IAF compares, what these upgrades do is that even with only (say) a third of the Flanker fleet available to the PAF sector, the upgraded airframes can still tear the heart out of the PAF. 120 Bisons, 80 odd MiG-27S, 100 odd Jaguars, pls 50 Mirage and 60 Mig-29s and 90 Su-30MKIs.

Today we are around 6 squadrons down already from 39.5.
So 2LCA Mk1+ 4Rafale can make that up

So as retirals happen, you will see the 4 MiG-27 and a portion of the Jaguar fleet 2 sq go
Thats another 5 for Rafale to meet its 9 sq aim (183) and 1 spare. Lets put that as LCA MK2.
125 Bisons need to go. Those are six squadrons. So six for LCA MK2. Total seven considering the above.

Still leaves 4 Jaguar sq, 3 Mirage 2000, 3 MiG-29 - total of 190.
These are for AMCA.

So at this point we have caught up numbers wise with 39.5 sq.

Su-30 MKI -270. 144 FGFA are ordered. ergo plan is to Super 30 upgrade the fleet and retain those with longest life to complent the FGFA.

Ultimately, LCA Mk2 9 sq (might replace Mk1 as well), 7 sq Super30 Sukhoi, 7 Sq FGFA, 10 sq AMCA, - 4 types for 39.5 squadrons, 4.5 MORE are now supposedly authorized. I would put those in the FGFA bracket.

I would imagine the LCA program (and now the AMCA, AEW and UAV programs) could have spurred R&D if we were spending the money on massive increase in production of these in-house aircraft. I am still skeptical of how much the Frenchies will actually share, given their past records.

Fair point, we should be doing both, unfortunately in our rob peter to pay paul system, the IAFs needs would otherwise need to be staggered which is impossible given current situation, so they take priority and our long term objectives get pushed back.

Fair enough point. However, I want to make a couple points:

a) The Rafale is indeed a matured airframe and weapon-system today. For the French. By the time it becomes the same in India, we could as well have spent the years expanding the MKI+LCA fleets. Of course, this is speculative on my part.

I think work we will be doing on it is basically adding more bang and seeing stuff.. nothing too crazy..whereas for the other two.. we are already trying to add so much to fighters we are making them bombers..

b) Expanding the production lines for the LCA, for example, will allow us to substantially reduce the amount of time taken to fill squadron strengths. As it stands, building a dozen or so every year is not going to cut it. If that is all that HAL can manage, I agree that the Rafale acquisition makes sense.

LCA also has much less punch than Rafale in MK1 variant considering payload to range

That has always been an issue for the heavy twin-engine fighters like the MKI. But that was my original argument: which is higher? Operating the Su-30 on the long term or a heavy investment on Rafales with overall savings in the long term? I haven't been able to convince myself on this because I lack some numbers, so if you have some data to back this up, that would be great.

I'd take any numbers right now as not worth the paper they are printed on, once the IAF starts asking for more gizmos to be integrated locally and all that adds to program cost

Agreed. Of course, I would still like the removal of all of the other penny-packet fighter types we have in the fleet: Mig-29s, Mig-27s etc. in exchange for the Rafale. Keeping everything all at once is a borderline joke.

Thats going to happen. We are keeping them purely out of necessity .Once rafales start coming..LCAs...retirals will accelerate.

[nachiket]

Conceptually, I agree with this. Three airframe air-force (SU-30MKI, Rafale and LCA) is maintainable and provides enough diversity. Fiscally too it makes sense. However, what we have is in addition to these: Mig-29s being upgraded, Mirage-2000s being upgrades, Jaguars being upgraded, Mig-27s being upgraded, FGFA being procured, AMCA being designed. This circus is what makes the Rafale acquisition suspect. No air force maintains so many different frontline aircraft and for good reason: its not economical to do so. If the Rafale money was coming from the retirement of the Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s (where we are continuing to spend billions), it would make sense fiscally and improve diversity while improving capability. But we are not doing this. 30+ of one aircraft here, 40+ of another aircraft there, all costing billions for upgrades, is a joke IMVHO. Doesn't seem like the Rafale is really replacing anything. Of course, it could be because of the delays in the MRCA to come through.

....

Agreed. Of course, I would still like the removal of all of the other penny-packet fighter types we have in the fleet: Mig-29s, Mig-27s etc. in exchange for the Rafale. Keeping everything all at once is a borderline joke.

I would venture that the original plan of the IAF was always to procure the 60 odd options (and perhaps more) as soon as the first 126 airframes came in. That would have enabled them to replace all Mig-27s, most of the older Jaguars and either the Mig-29 or M2k and reduce the number of types. An MKI + LCA + Rafale + 1 more type (M2k/Mig-29) force could be sustainable. Now, if our economy had continued to grow 8% yoy throughout the last 10 years (as it promised to), we would have now been in a position to easily afford 200 or more Rafales. And you could have achieved your dream of getting rid of the plethora of old airframes in the IAF and replaced them with a single highly versatile type. Unfortunately, that didn't happen and we now find it difficult to even afford the initial 126 nos. So our old birds will have to soldier on with avionics upgrades.

[Karan M]

Ingress at low level has limitations when the adversary can saturate its air-space with AEW&C and 'mini-AWACS' type heavy fighters. And if those batteries are to be engaged with long range standoff weapons (air-launched Nirbhay/BrahMos-3 perhaps), then the Tejas ought to be able to serve as a platform for the same as well.

This saturation stuff wont happen, we/they are going to be finding it hard to maintain enough eyes on the air on specific zones, never mind entire geographical areas. In between there will be terrain features, sortie rate issues etc. Basically, a 24/7 low level lock is next to impossible against a target flying at 20m AGL and that one which can detect various threats on its ESM and waypoint around them.
Point is once you get there behind the target, you can do a pop up launch with a medium range munition and then again run off. Tejas is not designed for this sort of deep strike payload/munition combos.

Deep strike will require equipping it with external heavy stores. Even operating radar-silent, it'll need to be very lucky to pull it off in the midst of all the hostile ground and airborne sensors. And if all goes well, it'll still likely be a one-off with the Chinese wising up and plugging their holes in double time.

A Rafale deep strike package will have the ability to fight its way through opposition with a versatile weapons package. Point is the aircraft has the capability to do so in realtime since its sensors are picking up stuff and its coming on the screen. As versus many other aircraft with more limited avionics suites that need to be preconfigured for the strike, and lack real time sensor fused data that can be used by the crew.

The missile's seeker comes into play only in the terminal stage. At that range the missile will likely have registered on the target's IRST and/or MAWS.

Let it be at terminal, it is able to detect the target too and depending on how its launched, makes it very hard to counter. Point though is that it can at least detect and hence kill a RF LO optimized platform.

BTW a similar application for proposed for the AMRAAM with a Raytheon program to integrate the Aim-9X seeker to it (with LM proposing a competing air-launched PAC-3). The program was intended to cheaply kill ballistic missiles. Its ability to engage silently didn't attract much interest though.

Times change.. now multispectral seekers are all the rage

The Tejas Mk1 already fields a fairly decent EW fit. For the Mk2, the equipment and sensor fusion even if not qualitatively at par, wouldn't be all that far behind the Rafale either. And down the line say post-2025, it might still achieve near parity after upgrades.

But with all this, will still not match the entire package the larger Rafale is. Its a larger bird which pulls a phenomenal 9 odd T of payload.

One (admittedly unsophisticated) way of looking at it is, how many Tejas could you buy for the price of one Rafale? About three or more would be my estimate. The Rafale's force-multiplier effect is hardly sufficient to overcome that metric. Particularly, given the the number of brawny Su-30MKIs already in service.

And since only 18 Rafales will be delivered off-the-shelf, the bulk of fleet will still not be available till 2025. In which case, its more productive still to invest that capital in scaling up the Tejas' manufacture.

Thing is can you do all the things with the Su30 and Rafale with the Tejas? If not, then we have an issue. Because that is what the IAF requires. Because the Rafale metaphorically speaking, is nothing more than a compact version of the Flanker class with several of its capabilities.

[Philip]

..and the IAF say they have no Plan B.

Tejas is not designed for this sort of deep strike payload/munition combos.

They why do some tout it as a replacement for the Rafale,wanting the deal cancelled because of the cost? Secondly,only the MK-2 will be the definitive version which will meet IAF specs and not for some years,4-5 at least. The only other aircraft in the IAF's inventory in large number that could replace the Tejas in the strike role (barring the SUs) are the Jags,but even their upgrading of 100+ after announcement some time ago by Raytheon was supposed to have started last year.

The Indian Air Force plans to upgrade up to 125 Jaguars starting in 2013 by upgrading the avionics (including multi mode radar, auto-pilot and other changes) as part of the DARIN III program and additionally is considering fitting more powerful engines, Honeywell F125IN to improve performance, particularly at medium altitudes.[4

The M-2000 and MIG-29 UGs will still be insufficient .

There is one silver lining though.The IN is acquiring 45 MIG-29Ks,plus has planned for 50 NLCAs. It is going to possess a 300 strong Fleet Air Arm,including a large number of multi-role helos and LRMPs,a number that is larger than some air forces. Though the NLCAs will come only after the K-2 is in production,this could ease pressure upon some of the IAF's sqds. tasked for maritime duties.At the moment mIG-29Ks are at INS Dega at Vizag even though there is no carrier yet operating on the East Coast.IAC-2 will only arrive around 10 years from now and IAC-1 sometime after 2017 poss in 2018.One wonders why the IN did not also explore the poss. of the Jag M,the naval variant which flew in prototype from for the French for the In's carriers.It would be an inexpensive option.

[Lalmohan]

jag-m is now not worth the investment required to make it relevant

[Philip]

Lal, one was wondering why there was no thought some time ago as it would've been a low risk option with our Jag line open and availability of the naval variant already developedand a maritime strike sqd. already operational with the IAF for some time .NLCA has to wait until MK-2 production is in force,where priority will be for the IAF.It won't arrive before 2020.

[Lalmohan]

given the jag's high wing loading, not sure that its carrier performance (other than on very large USN style ones) would have been particularly good, and i dont think that the french navy ponied up the cash to make it operationally viable - and we certainly couldnt have afforded it
things moved on
now its better to invest in mig29K for a multi-role naval fighter than persist with jag
the bus has departed on that one

[Philip]

The reason why one put up the query is that 50 NLCAs are planned apart from the 45 MIG-29Ks.The late arrival of these birds is going to create a gap around 2020.In retrospect had the Jag-M been looked at around 2000,the aircraft could've been operational by now.The IN appears to want a light aircraft as well as the Migs,but I doubt after operating the more capable MIG-29K that they will show much enthusiasm for an aircraft that has less range,payload,etc.,especially by the next decade when we will see more Chinese carriers in the water with their larger carrier aircraft .The obvious reason is that being a desi bird,the NLCA will be cheaper to acquire/operate.If the Raffy deal goes through,its naval variant is another option.

[Viv S]

This saturation stuff wont happen, we/they are going to be finding it hard to maintain enough eyes on the air on specific zones, never mind entire geographical areas. In between there will be terrain features, sortie rate issues etc. Basically, a 24/7 low level lock is next to impossible against a target flying at 20m AGL and that one which can detect various threats on its ESM and waypoint around them.

Its not just AWACS. You'll have short and medium range surveillance radars on ground. Plus aerostats. You'll have enemy fighters running CAPs. Even if it makes its way through, eventually it'll need to popup or risk running into VSHORAD and/or AAA in the vicinity, exposing it to airborne/long range surveillance.

To add to which, is the old, low-tech but still effective and invisible observer-on-the-ground, who can simply radio in his position and have patrols directed to that particular sector. Not to mention, the aircraft can be engaged by MANPADS as well.

Point is once you get there behind the target, you can do a pop up launch with a medium range munition and then again run off. Tejas is not designed for this sort of deep strike payload/munition combos.

Terrain following radar has been around since the 60s. The Su-30MKI should be able to fly the same profile just as well, particularly after its gone through the 'Super Sukhoi' upgrade. The Rafale's got a lower RCS clean but given the fuel consumption in low level flight, it will be forced to carry a heavy amount of fuel externally which should level the playing field even further.

Let it be at terminal, it is able to detect the target too and depending on how its launched, makes it very hard to counter. Point though is that it can at least detect and hence kill a RF LO optimized platform.

At the terminal stage any missile is hard to counter. Or not depending primarily on its energy state. The biggest issue with the IR seeker vis a vis active seekers is the same as it is for the IRST vs radars; the base range is very low for the former, which is why its adoption has been limited to say the least.

BTW a similar application for proposed for the AMRAAM with a Raytheon program to integrate the Aim-9X seeker to it (with LM proposing a competing air-launched PAC-3). The program was intended to cheaply kill ballistic missiles. Its ability to engage silently didn't attract much interest though.

Times change.. now multispectral seekers are all the rage

Actually this was just two years back.

But with all this, will still not match the entire package the larger Rafale is. Its a larger bird which pulls a phenomenal 9 odd T of payload.

With 9T of payload, its RCS will take a huge hit and the MKI emerges as an viable alternative. In addition, given the cost disparity you could use multiple Tejas' for the same; between them they can carry over 10 tonnes of payload.

Thing is can you do all the things with the Su30 and Rafale with the Tejas? If not, then we have an issue. Because that is what the IAF requires. Because the Rafale metaphorically speaking, is nothing more than a compact version of the Flanker class with several of its capabilities.

You also need to factor in the PAK FA which will enter service before the end of the decade, though license production will take a little more time. Even the AMCA may enter service before the Rafale deliveries come to an end. At best, only the first one or two squadrons might provide the IAF newer capability (that too isn't a given), but after that its just contributing numbers as the newer platforms enter service. At $150 mil+ that's an expensive proposition.

[Viv S]

The reason why one put up the query is that 50 NLCAs are planned apart from the 45 MIG-29Ks.The late arrival of these birds is going to create a gap around 2020.

What gap? 45 MiG-29Ks is enough to equip both the Vikramaditya and Vikrant. In fact, only the former will be in service in 2020, so if anything we'll have surplus MiGs with the balance operating from land. The NLCA is the only aircraft that the Navy can request without the MoD junking the proposal outright.

[SaiK]

analyzing like a russkie would do, wouldn't 2 or perhaps 3 nLCA Mk-2 variant equal one Rafale, in price, performance and payload? perhaps range too with either mid-air refuel or return to carrier base.

[member_28305]

Lal, one was wondering why there was no thought some time ago as it would've been a low risk option with our Jag line open and availability of the naval variant already developedand a maritime strike sqd. already operational with the IAF for some time .NLCA has to wait until MK-2 production is in force,where priority will be for the IAF.It won't arrive before 2020.

Sir, But I Read some time back here in BRF that the LCA AirForce and LCA Naval are separate develpoment program with separate team, with information/technology sharing between them. how come NLCA is dependent on LCA-Mk2 for IAF?

[Lalmohan]

phillip - jag-m =/= jag-IM - maybe some nomenclature difference?
jag-m/n? was a navalised jag trialled by french navy based on early jag-a model
jag-im is indian af jag with radar configured for maritime strike (non navalised)

[shukla]

India May Close Interim MMRCA Deal Soon

However, the MMRCA pact might cover only the supply of 18 Dassault Rafale aircraft from the French production line, leaving further negotiations for the remaining 108 required to be concluded by the new government.

A government code of conduct prevents any contracts being awarded within 45 days of an election.

“If the contract is signed soon, it will be nothing but a paper deal that ensures commitment of the government. We can expect delays after the first 18 aircraft, since the remaining fighters will be built under license with transfer of technology. The government wants to ensure the contract is penned so that the [basic choice] cannot be questioned by subsequent governments,” said an official associated with the project. An official at the MoD noted that signature of the MMRCA contract would restore the confidence of international OEMs, which has been shaken by the recent scandal over the AW101 procurement.

Following lengthy discussions, HAL is thought to have now agreed with Dassault on the question of Tier 1 suppliers, including aerostructures.