Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

[Raja Bose]

arthuro, VivS - no more name calling or baiting. arthuro, you have received a warning. Viv S, you have narrowly squeaked by without getting a warning this time but if I see any more baiting, you will get one too.

[Philip]

Karan,this piece and thinking by the USN's CNO,Adm,Greenert is relevant to the "bang for the buck" debate.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... new-course
Payloads over platforms:Charting a new course.

Xcpts:

Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, U.S. Navy
We need to move from ‘luxury-car’ platforms—with their built-in capabilities—toward dependable ‘trucks’ that can handle a changing payload selection.

The Precision-Weapons Revolution

The predominant trend compelling us to consider a new approach for capability development is the exponential growth of information-processing power. Over the past 40 years, that growth helped fuel innovation in almost every civilian and military technology, and brought about a revolution in the precision and accuracy of sensors and weapons. In 1965, Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, predicted that the number of transistors per processor chip would double about every two years, thereby increasing overall computing speed and power. His prediction—now commonly referred to as “Moore’s Law”—held true. Today’s commercially available chips are almost 40,000 times faster than those available in 1971. 1 Moreover, the average price of a megabyte of computer memory has gone from more than $700,000 dollars in 1970 to around 2 cents today. 2

The precision weapons enabled by this computing power fundamentally changed modern warfare. Advances in targeting and guidance systems allow us to achieve much greater accuracy and lethality with far fewer weapons. Today, about 70–80 percent of guided munitions fall within ten yards of their targets. During World War II only 18 percent of U.S. bombs fell within 1,000 feet of their targets. 3

Our commanders exploit this precision by using the smallest number and size of weapons possible. In addition to improving efficiency, this minimizes collateral damage—which can have a significant strategic impact in modern counterinsurgency operations. From World War II to the Gulf War, the number of bombs used to hit a fixed target decreased by a factor of 300, the number of aircraft assigned decreased by a factor of almost 400, and bombing accuracy improved by a factor of 17. 4 Instead of sorties per aimpoint, we now commonly speak in terms of aimpoints per sortie.

The ability of a few very-precise standoff weapons to be more efficient and effective than a larger number of less-precise weapons leads to a surprising result. In modern warfare, precision standoff weapons such as Tomahawk or the joint standoff weapon are now more cost-effective in many situations than short-range gravity bombs such as the joint direct attack munition (JDAM). A Tomahawk missile, for example, costs about $1.2 million, while a JDAM is about $30,000. To strike a single target, however, the total training, maintenance, and operations cost to get a manned aircraft close enough to deliver the JDAM is several times higher than the cost of launching a Tomahawk at the same target from a destroyer, submarine or aircraft operating several hundred miles away. That is one of the trends leading us to focus more effort on improving and evolving our standoff sensor and munition payloads.

Affordably Keeping Our Warfighting Edge

Decoupling the development of payloads from the development of platforms is an imperative for us to take advantage of the fundamental trends shaping our operating environment. Technology, especially information-processing, will continue to evolve more quickly and become more widely available, while new ship and aircraft classes likely will continue to require more than a decade to join the Fleet. We appear to be reaching the limits of how much a platform’s inherent stealth can affordably get it close enough to survey or attack adversaries. And our fiscal situation will continue to require difficult trade-offs, requiring us to look for new ways to control costs while remaining relevant.

[Manish_Sharma]

@ Euro 80 million for the gold plated option which I guess is what we are opting for
you get 4.17 Tejas for a Katrina

Since 1 Brahmos costs 1 million dollar = 6 crore rupees

We can have 4 Tejas + 1 (instead of .17 Tejas) Brahmos with its 300 kg warhead.

[member_20292]

--------

Tell you what, stick to program costs and stuff and pure Rafale stuff, you follow that program and hence you are better off there then talking up tech comparisons with programs you barely understand or even follow.

I'll give arthuro this, though. There might be a quality improvement when you compare the Rafale tronics to the Su35 and the proposed future LCA sensor fusion.

But to say that this slight improvement in quality is worth THAT MUCH price difference is crazy.

To be honest that's one of the reasons why the manufacturing economy in Europe is going down the tubes; can't produce at the cost that will be supported and actually bought outside the EU. Germany, with the BMWs , Mercs etc. are doing okay in manufacturing, but a lot of other countries are not. And it is exemplarily shown by the Rafale costs here.

I guess all the unionbaazi and socialism heavy industry affects the Euros as much as it does India...and China and the US, laugh all the way to the bank .

[member_20292]

I support the Rafale purchase, but the prices have to be reasonable for it to continue to make sense. If the differential is so much that many force multipliers could be purchased a much larger inventory of weapons built up, more programs supported... then it becomes a tough call.

As you have pointed out; 80 million+ price difference....this is more than the cost of the recently launched mission to Mars.

[vic]

IIRC from Brazil, the cost of Rafale + 30 year maintenance cost was estimated to be around USD 300 million. My personal estimate is that Rafale will be offered at USD 150 million which would include 100 million USD as aircraft flyaway cost and 50 million for misc equipment, TOT etc but no weapons. Hence for 126 Rafale we should be ready to shell out around USD 20 Billion as Capital costs.

[Karan M]

I'll give arthuro this, though. There might be a quality improvement when you compare the Rafale tronics to the Su35 and the proposed future LCA sensor fusion.

Thing is that quality improvement even if it exists may end up being matched or even surpassed over time if it exists. The Rafale is a mature product fine, but the Su-35 & LCA programs are seeing constant improvement as well. For instance, take the Su-35 Irbis.

LCA Mission computing f.e. - MC-486 in TD era, moved to OAC for LCA MK1, now moving to IMA for MK2. Those are 3 huge jumps, with minimal fanfare. Mind you, any such moves for Eurocanards mean tons of press in glossies/trade journals as every claim counts for the export push.

Another example, technically, the Rafale AESA is superior technology to the PESA on Su-35. But with a whopping 350-400 km range (albeit under slower/lesser volume scan) the radar outperforms the AESA handily in a crucial parameter. Similarly, in aero terms, the Su-35 brings back clean Su-27 performance (and easily competitive against the Eurocanards) but with TVC & incredible nose pointing ability (first look, first shoot). Basically, best of both worlds in WVR combat. In software itself, the Rafale PESA was still to demo mode interleaving relatively recently. (AA and A2G both). Bars on our MKIs had it first. The Su-30 MKI has a range of ARM options and others, but you dont see that being played up as heavily as a case of Russian superiority.

What Europe & US have had a lead over Russia in, is compact electronic packaging. They have leveraged far more COTs and commercial foundries. And invested in their own specialized foundries for hard to commercially get, radar MMICs (more density).

The Russians compensate by making bigger, more powerful airframes. Now with FGFA/T-50, some of these lead/s may get reduced or even wiped out. Plus with the larger more powerful airframe, better performance can be obtained (radar performance is directly proportional to antenna size).

But to say that this slight improvement in quality is worth THAT MUCH price difference is crazy.

To be honest that's one of the reasons why the manufacturing economy in Europe is going down the tubes; can't produce at the cost that will be supported and actually bought outside the EU. Germany, with the BMWs , Mercs etc. are doing okay in manufacturing, but a lot of other countries are not. And it is exemplarily shown by the Rafale costs here.

I guess all the unionbaazi and socialism heavy industry affects the Euros as much as it does India...and China and the US, laugh all the way to the bank .

Yup, TBH the US has kept its manufacturing competitive by moving a lot outside its borders. What remains within the US is mostly mil manufacturing, but there their heavy and constant investment gives them an advantage.

[sattili]

I support the Rafale purchase, but the prices have to be reasonable for it to continue to make sense. If the differential is so much that many force multipliers could be purchased a much larger inventory of weapons built up, more programs supported... then it becomes a tough call.

++1

[sohels]

I don't get why IAF would be willing to undermine the FGFA arrangement in favor of the Rafale for what appear to be less than convincing reasons. Is the numbers situation really that dire? Thoughts?

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 059_1.html

[Philip]

There is a of of pressure from Uncle Sam to derail both the Rafale and FGFA.How is it that low priority deals like extra Hercules get signed off in a jiffy whereas the Rafale deal languishes and the army is still waiting 26 yrs. on for new arty?

[sohels]

^Doesn't make sense. Per the Ajai Shukla article, MoD seems to be in favor of FGFA, IAF is not. Or do you mean the US is arm-twisting the IAF? I just don't see that happening, given lack of leverage.

[NRao]

^Doesn't make sense. Per the Ajai Shukla article, MoD seems to be in favor of FGFA, IAF is not. Or do you mean the US is arm-twisting the IAF? I just don't see that happening, given lack of leverage.

What is interesting is the price for the Rafale: $18 billion. Below $20 billion? IF that is true, then there is a break through for that pup. I would like it at $15 billion, but will accept the $18 billion too.

On the FGFA front, I do not see much of a change in the IAF stance. This article provides more details. The IAF always had a beef of some sorts with the FGFA - started with work share and cost.

[Viv S]

What is interesting is the price for the Rafale: $18 billion. Below $20 billion? IF that is true, then there is a break through for that pup. I would like it at $15 billion, but will accept the $18 billion too.

That's about $140 million/unit. Including spares, support, training, warranty, licensing, local production infra, ToT & profit margin, while starting from a baseline of around $90 million flyaway? I seriously doubt it.

[member_20453]

What is interesting is the price for the Rafale: $18 billion. Below $20 billion? IF that is true, then there is a break through for that pup. I would like it at $15 billion, but will accept the $18 billion too.

That's about $140 million/unit. Including spares, support, training, warranty, licensing, local production infra, ToT & profit margin, while starting from a baseline of around $90 million flyaway? I seriously doubt it.

Also we forget the eventual MLU will be a whopping expense, better we drop this bird right away a go for a FMS of F-35 with some TOT and local assembly for Asia/middle east region, we can certainly cash in with the F-35 wave that will the Asia and Middle East markets on the long run. I am sure we can get roughly 200 F-35 for about 20 billion including local manu.

[Akshay Kapoor]

^Doesn't make sense. Per the Ajai Shukla article, MoD seems to be in favor of FGFA, IAF is not. Or do you mean the US is arm-twisting the IAF? I just don't see that happening, given lack of leverage.

US is not arm twisting IAF , they are arm twisting the govt. IAF has very little say in these issues. A friend of mine at Air HQ told me that there is a lot surprise and some despair at the Hercules order going through now. As per him he heard that IAF told MOD that this should not be a priority last year. But for reasons only known to the govt they are buying NON LETHAL platforms from the US when we have a crying need of fighters. Not to mention arty etc. From the few data points I have, I have to say that there is good likelihood that US is arm twisting govt. But what I cant for the life of me understand is why are we getting arm twisted (if this is happening). The US does not have any leverage!

Another example of of how our relationship with the US is rather one sided at the moment.

Thats' why I also support the Rafale deal (but an outright purchase of 3 sqds provided the price is right.

[vic]

I am revising my post, so here it is now:-


The last deal between India and Russia for Su-30MKI was for USD 40 million per unit + say 1/3rd for support equipment. Let us assume average annual costs of 200 hours USD 10 million per aircraft for fuel, manpower, maintenance.

The cost of Rafale is estimated at around USD 100 million per aircraft + say 1/3rd for support equipment. If per annum costs are estimated at 7.5 million even then cost of ownership of Rafale is much higher is we take cost of capital to India at 7.5%% per annum. Rafale would have longer life but Mirage upgrade shows that after around 30 years, the value of airframe is only 13%.

So assuming cost of capital at 7.5% for India on Capital Cost for Su-30MKI is USD 45+15=60 million, linear depreciation of 90% airframe in 20 years at 54/20 million, annual costs at 10 million we get:-

Per Annum average Sukhoi cost is USD 4.5 + USD 2.7 + USD 10 million= 17.2 million

Similarly for Rafale cost of capital at 7.5% for India on USD 100+33 =133 million USD, linear depreciation of 90% airframe in 30 years at 135/30, annual costs at 7.5 million, we get:-

Per annum costs of Rafale to be USD 10 million + 4 + 7.5= 22.5 million per annum as cost of ownership.


Now let's try LCA with Capital cost of 26 Million dollars +1/3rd for Support equipment, linear depreciation of 90% airframe in 20 years at 31/20 million, annual costs at 1 million we get:-

USD 2.6+1.5+1= 5.1 USD million per annum for LCA.

So what is better 200 Rafale or 800 LCA ? Which can energize indigenous aero sector and we can go for deeeeep indigenization

Or even 100 Sukhoi + 400 LCA for cost of 200 Rafale.


Remember Darin III upgrade is around 4 million USD per Jaguar while Mirage upgrade is USD 40 million per aircraft.

Certain assumptions:-

Rafale has 50% more airframe life


Rafale may require less spare parts & fuel but the spare parts will be more costly while with LCA & Sukhoi we will have higher indigenization. Inspite thereof annual cost of Sukhoi will be 33% higher

Rafale will have higher availability but with higher indigenization of LCV & Sukhoi, we will be able to maintain them better, hence equal equal availability in war time.

Therefore, even after giving various preferences to Rafale they turn out to be more costly.

[Viv S]

A friend of mine at Air HQ told me that there is a lot surprise and some despair at the Hercules order going through now. As per him he heard that IAF told MOD that this should not be a priority last year.

The IAF doesn't need the C-130J anymore than it needs the AH-64D. While operated by the Air Force, they're both entering service primarily to support the Army.

As for why the aircraft were ordered right now, they're a follow-on option to the IAF's first order. And such clauses are usually accompanied with an expiry date, after which a new RFP has to be issued with the vendor free to revise the price. With this new order being placed just before the end of the financial year, there's a good chance the optional on the previous contract (signed March 2008) was close to hitting a six year expiry date.

But for reasons only known to the govt they are buying NON LETHAL platforms from the US when we have a crying need of fighters. Not to mention arty etc. From the few data points I have, I have to say that there is good likelihood that US is arm twisting govt. But what I cant for the life of me understand is why are we getting arm twisted (if this is happening). The US does not have any leverage!

The C-130J follow-on order was all but certain to be issued. If the US could arm-twist India, I doubt they'd waste such valuable political capital merely expediting a deal worth just $1 billion.

Thats' why I also support the Rafale deal (but an outright purchase of 3 sqds provided the price is right.

The fact that it hasn't progressed beyond the CNC stage so far would suggest that the price is not in fact right.

[member_20292]

I'll give arthuro this, though. There might be a quality improvement when you compare the Rafale tronics to the Su35 and the proposed future LCA sensor fusion.

Thing is that quality improvement even if it exists may end up being matched or even surpassed over time if it exists. The Rafale is a mature product fine, but the Su-35 & LCA programs are seeing constant improvement as well.

Hope you are taking into consideration testing and QA processes and their qualitative superiority in one case over the other.

Both Apple iphone and Micromax whatsisname are made in China- but the standards, QA, processes followed in both the cases are very different, the iPhones resulting in a superior product, unmatched in the UX by any other Android phone, even though it is outclassed, almost always in the raw hardware specs.

There are some things money can't buy and for everything else, its the poor Indian taxpayer.

[koti]

I am revising my post, so here it is now:-


Now let's try LCA with Capital cost of 26 Million dollars +1/3rd for Support equipment, linear depreciation of 90% airframe in 20 years at 31/20 million, annual costs at 1 million we get:-

USD 2.6+1.5+1= 5.1 USD million per annum for LCA.

How about the final avatar of the LCA? LCA in its final avatar should have the new engine, which is marginally expensive, but the cost of modification??
And the new AESA that is supposed to be developed. It will also jack up the cost.
And the integration of the retractable fuel probe too, and the cost and time in developing the CFTs.

After all these not yet visible cost's the cost of Tejas will still be much lesser then the Rafa but I think it belongs to a different category and should not influence the requirement of a Rafale.
And there are a good variety of modern European weapon systems that are of interest to IAF, we may not have access to them anymore.

[Viv S]

How about the final avatar of the LCA? LCA in its final avatar should have the new engine, which is marginally expensive, but the cost of modification??
And the new AESA that is supposed to be developed. It will also jack up the cost.
And the integration of the retractable fuel probe too, and the cost and time in developing the CFTs.

The Mk2 development cost is a sunk non-recurring investment. We'll be spending that regardless of the MMRCA decision. The AESA will cost more but since its a domestic design, we wouldn't be paying anything to Elta.

After all these not yet visible cost's the cost of Tejas will still be much lesser then the Rafa but I think it belongs to a different category and should not influence the requirement of a Rafale.

The Tejas Mk2 will cost more than the Mk1, but not by much. Along with the naval Tejas also based on the F414, it'll have a much higher production run, so will most probably be able to cater to the additional production cost through economies of scale.

And there are a good variety of modern European weapon systems that are of interest to IAF, we may not have access to them anymore.

European weapon systems are typically overpriced compared to their American equivalents. That said, if we still want to purchase European munitions, no supplier will reject new business.

[srai]

^^^

You should also factor in the weapon costs since Rafale won't be able to use Russian (and Indian stuff until much later). Expensive EU/French weapons would need to be purchased separately for it.

[NRao]

The way I view the MMRCA - as we post - is as a filler. The IAF needs to bolster the number of squadrons for the near future.

So, I would suggest that the MoD buy off-the-shelf machines that will be used for the next 20-25 years and then tossed out - no MLU, etc. Let the country of origin make it - thus no ToT.

And, 60-80 should do.

So, as an example, France should be able to provide at the rate of 20 per year, say 80 Rafales in 4-5 years. Support, spares, etc, etc, etc.

The MiG-29K (yikes) would have been great as a filler, but since the IAF wants diversity, I think the F-18I would be good. Good cost, 20 year and done, etc.

Finito.

[Viv S]

^^^

You should also factor in the weapon costs since Rafale won't be able to use Russian (and Indian stuff until much later). Expensive EU/French weapons would need to be purchased separately for it.

True. Plus as has been mentioned before, the MLU is going to be one really painful experience.

[Viv S]

The way I view the MMRCA - as we post - is as a filler. The IAF needs to bolster the number of squadrons for the near future.

The MiG-29K (yikes) would have been great as a filler, but since the IAF wants diversity, I think the F-18I would be good. Good cost, 20 year and done, etc.

Would be worth considering Gripens with a 10 year lease. They'll probably have some degree of commonality with the Tejas too (F414, Litening). Possibly integrate other stores/equipment on the Tejas to retain commonality (Cobra HMDS, SDB, Iris-T.. etc).

Another option would be putting in an offer for the RAF's 55 Eurofighter T1s, which are being retired early in 2016. The airframes still have a few years of life remaining, and we could likely get them for a song. Use them for a decade or so and retire them with the IAF's Mirages, MiGs and Jaguars, consolidating the fleet around three or four aircraft types.

The cheapest option though will still be to set up a second Tejas production line and induct two squadrons annually instead of one.

[Karan M]

Gripens will be used to stall the LCA program. There were several attempts made already for that. A lot of the critiques re: MK2 also propped up when it became clear MK2 and NG were in the same class, making the NG weaker than its heavier peers re: the MMRCA advantages.

[Manish_Sharma]

What is interesting is the price for the Rafale: $18 billion. Below $20 billion? IF that is true, then there is a break through for that pup. I would like it at $15 billion, but will accept the $18 billion too.

Maybe for this distant one not for current rafale:

[NRao]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm......

I have a very hard time viewing the Grip as a "Medium" entity. Dunno. Love the plane and love all the args. Same with the LCA - Light is what I am comfortable with *and* would like to keep it out of this fray.

Leftover EFs? Oh, why not. Should tide the number of squadron through and they are a neat beast to have anyways.

There were several attempts made already for that

Which segment of the Indian military diaspora are we talking of? MoD/IAF/GoI/Madams/Son-in-Laws? Certainly not the Labs.

Even if the Grip is selected it would be a huge travesty to meddle with an Indian effort at this point in time. I think there is a critical mass within the Indian "Labs" and for that reason alone I am not as scared now as I would have been 5-10 years ago. Yet, this *thinking* has to be eliminated. To say the least it is unhealthy.

[NRao]

Maybe for this distant one not for current rafale

You will not believe this, but my very FIRST MMRCA (then called MRCA) option was, ta da:



(And if you have time or not catching sleep:)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread185696/pg1

Anyways, back to teh thread. Sorry.

After this:

http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/1799/pics/21_o_1.jpg

[Viv S]

Maybe for this distant one not for current rafale:

A Rafale with CFTs first flew in 2001 barely months after entering service. Not a new development.

The latest Rafale tranche i.e. F3R only introduces incremental improvements in existing sub-systems. The only significant change is the integration of a new targeting pod (PDL-NG) to replace the decidedly mediocre Damocles.

[vasu raya]

Thanks Dhananjay, thats what CFTs on a delta wing might look like

[Viv S]

Leftover EFs? Oh, why not. Should tide the number of squadron through and they are a neat beast to have anyways.

Irony is, even they'll be cheaper per unit than the Mirage 2000 upgrade.

[Austin]

Dassault Gains New Rafale Upgrade Contract

Dassault Aviation received a development contract from the French Ministry of Defense for a further upgrade of the Rafale combat aircraft. Designated “F3 R,” the upgrade consists mainly of integration of the MBDA Meteor BVRAAM; the laser-homing version of the Sagem AASM air-ground weapon; and the new Thales PDL-NG laser designator pod. There will also be some improvements to the Rafale’s avionics and defensive systems.

The contract is reported to be worth about €1 billion ($1.35 billion), including $68 million to MBDA for the Meteor integration and $160 million to Thales for the PDL-NG development. A prototype of this new all-weather, day/night pod is scheduled to fly in 2016. The F3 R development work will be completed in 2018.

Dassault said that the launch of the F 3R standard “guarantees that French forces will continue to have a high-performance aircraft adapted to their requirements, and reinforces the strong points of the Rafale in export competitions.” The latest French defense procurement plan reduces the number of Rafales to be bought annually from 2016, as a cost-saving measure, in the hope that exports will restore the total to the minimum economic number—which appears to be 11 per year. Dassault chairman and ceo Eric Trappier told Les Echos newspaper that this plan would be revisited in 2015, if no exports were forthcoming by then. A hundred Rafales were yet to be delivered to the French air force and navy, he noted.

Sales campaigns for the Rafale continue in Malaysia and the Gulf, but Brazil recently rejected the aircraft in favor of the lower-cost Saab Gripen. That leaves India, where negotiations to conclude the MMRCA deal have dragged on for two years. Trappier told French financial newspaper Les Echos that they were complex, especially concerning “the licensed production of virtually all components of the aircraft.” If the outgoing Indian government does not sign the contract soon, the deal would likely not be concluded until late this year, Trappier added. The Eurofighter consortium has suggested in briefings that India might reopen the contest, but Trappier downplayed that possibility, noting how much effort the Indians had already expended on the procurement.

[Austin]

Lic production of virtually all the component for Rafale ....thats implies MOD wants to build the Rafale in its most entirety in India and from Indian sourced components ..... it would be costly for sure but considering Rafale would be backbone of IAF for the next 40 plus years its worth the money.

[Philip]

120+ Rafales the "backbone" of the IAF? The numbers are too small and at those prices unaffordable.The 270+ MKIs are the real backbone,while if it all ends well,the 200+ LCAs will be the little buggers,pun intended! If numbers are the issue,then just buy MIG-29s.At just $32M a 29K,one can get 2 MIGs for the price of just one Rafale ($70-100M) and have a whole lot of engines,spares thrown in as well.

[Austin]

^^ More likely the number will touch 200 or may be more in its entire production life cycle .......specially when we make more and more components in India ..the unit cost of rafale will go down so will be the cost of spares and that would have domino effect on other parameters.

Looking back in 2000's when Su-30 deal was signed no one expected the numbers would cross 281 plus strong fleet.

[kmc_chacko]

I think IAF should buy MRCA in equal numbers of Su-30s i.e., 250+ as IAF think role of Tejas makes it a light fighter and can be brought between 200-250
It is better for IAF if they go for 270 nos each of Su-30, MRCA, Tejas replacing Mig-21s, Mirage and Mig-27s making total 45 sq (810 fighters) in addition Mig-29's 62 nos (59+3) will be replaced by PAKFA with 4 sq (72 nos) Jaguars 148 nos will be replaced by FGFA with 8 sq (144 nos) and if AMCA go ready by that time it can be slowly inducted in place of older Su30 and Tejas will be replaced by newer blocks (Mk.2, Mk.3, Mk.4) there by IAF can attain at least 50+ squadrons in next decade.

[NRao]

No plan to buy pak-fa

[member_28334]

I think IAF should buy MRCA in equal numbers of Su-30s i.e., 250+ as IAF think role of Tejas makes it a light fighter and can be brought between 200-250
It is better for IAF if they go for 270 nos each of Su-30, MRCA, Tejas replacing Mig-21s, Mirage and Mig-27s making total 45 sq (810 fighters) in addition Mig-29's 62 nos (59+3) will be replaced by PAKFA with 4 sq (72 nos) Jaguars 148 nos will be replaced by FGFA with 8 sq (144 nos) and if AMCA go ready by that time it can be slowly inducted in place of older Su30 and Tejas will be replaced by newer blocks (Mk.2, Mk.3, Mk.4) there by IAF can attain at least 50+ squadrons in next decade.

Such fancy numbers only look good on paper. 250+ Rafale alone will cost a bomb, let alone the FGFA and PAK-FA. Moreover inducting huge numbers of Rafale is logically not a good option. The rest of the world is shifting its focus towards 5th gen fighters and reiterating the fact that stealth is very prudent, inducting 250 rafales, 250 tejas is not the need of the hour.
Though i agree that there is an acute shortage of fighters, developmental issues of the FGFA, AMCA should be taken care of on a regular basis and their development fast tracked.

Also i often wonder, why is the mig 29 SMT or mig 35 underestimated by many?? India has been pretty comfortable with the russian fighters for many years. The Mig has matured over the years incorporating all the developments in the field of military aviation. If anything that the IAF wants and is not present in the mig, then i dont think its development would be an issue. I feel Mig 29 k is one of the finest fighters in the modern era with a huge scope in the future too. I am not saying that india should have chosen mig 35 over rafale. I am pretty sure the IAF knows exactly what is wants. But if in future the development of AMCA or the FGFA is delayed which i am pretty sure is bound to happen, I think adding Migs to the existing fleet of the mig 29 ups(being upgraded) is not a bad option.

[Christopher Sidor]

Well to be precise the world is moving to UAV/UCAV. These planes may or may not have AI, i.e. they may or may not be remotely piloted. That would be a game changer as it gives these planes to stay at station practically indefinitely, the only restriction would their having to come down to the ground to get serviced and rearmed, otherwise they can remain airborne, supplied by air-refuelling-tankers till kingdom come.

Imagine the year is 2018, PLA/PLAAF decide to launch a strike somewhere along the LAC. If India has these planes then these planes can be our first response, carrying out A2G strikes to take out PLA supplies. Then IA and ITBP can mop up the remaining forces. The same can be applied to Indian Ocean where we can monitor all the submarines of PRC in Indian Oceans in real time and eliminate them if need arises. We should not forget initially when planes were introduced in warfare they were predominantly surveillance platforms. Guns and bombs were put later on.

[Viv S]

Imagine the year is 2018, PLA/PLAAF decide to launch a strike somewhere along the LAC. If India has these planes then these planes can be our first response, carrying out A2G strikes to take out PLA supplies.

They'll be no UCAS in the world operational before 2025.