Forward AFB are subject to attack from opponents especially from TBMs, CMs which are hard to detect/counter. Aim would be to use these forward AFB only for staging/recovery as required and organize from deeper within Indian mainland which is a plus of longer ranged aircraft like the Sukhoi.Viv S wrote:Good endurance (with external tanks), but then our adversaries are right on the doorstep and we have plenty of forward air bases.
Disagree. NIIP, Russkaya Avionika, KNIRRTII & associated firms capabilities are fairly advanced and very credible. Their capabilities were never in doubt, funding was an issue post FSU breakup. Judging by what we got for the MKI, and what is on the Su-35 they will deliver world class performance with the FGFA given time & iterative improvement. And no, I don't buy the comments in the AS article about judging the final product by what's on the test bed.VivS wrote:The PAK FA's capability in the deep penetration and ISR role is... unconvincing. It appears to rely more on power than sophistication. Frankly, I think HAL/DRDO have the capability of developing something similar. A scaled up AMCA could deliver the same. Anyway, this is a debate for another thread.
Spectra has AESA don't you know.Cain Marko wrote:Are you sure? I thought it was the invincible and invisible Spectra - when push comes to shove, it seems it is always the Spectra that makes the Rafale better than the best.Karan M wrote:The AESA is held up as the superiority of the Rafale (by team Rafale) over the Su-30, the EF, the Su-35 - in fact everything.
Actually I meant airbases near borders, rather than spartan airstrips in forward areas as in '71. But coming to think of it, FABs do have potential. Our major airbases are also vulnerable to BM and CM strikes. A possible strategy here could be to create a surplus of FABs and saturate them with decoys. Plus fighters based there can function as first responders against CM barrages. Admittedly not a very polished idea but anyway.Karan M wrote:Forward AFB are subject to attack from opponents especially from TBMs, CMs which are hard to detect/counter. Aim would be to use these forward AFB only for staging/recovery as required and organize from deeper within Indian mainland which is a plus of longer ranged aircraft like the Sukhoi.Viv S wrote:Good endurance (with external tanks), but then our adversaries are right on the doorstep and we have plenty of forward air bases.
Forward AFB are a legacy of the 200km ranged MiG-21 era.
Yes and who is the biggest proponents of this tech in India. Why in the last 40 years they never understood that such screwdriver tech should be exploited for the betterment of the aviation industry. OK it was the government fault right.Its called screwdriver tech for a reason.
Sorry this is about convinience of selective media report quote. But for now we leave it .They knew it was a challenging job. They wanted the IAF to pay for it. The IAF wanted HAL to pay for it. Hence the fracas. Dont go by the media reports.
HAL is not a private company where it has to answer the shareholders. So this argument that it needs an order of 100000 crore for LCA just like the Rafale before it starts manufacturing LCA for India , does not holdHAL's LCA production line is in the pathetic state that it is because it has no incentive to do so in the first place. Till date only 20 LCAs worth about 3k crores have been ordered with no guarantees on future orders.
Even though Khan and Russi might be operating 2 types but they also have many specialised aircraft for different roles and multiple supporting aircraft.Singha wrote:no other AF in the world has a 3 tier architecture. most can afford onlee 1. and khan / russia has 2.
we can also afford only 2 and the 3 tier is just a window dressing to induct token nos of Tejas and kill it under the guise of further integration of rafale being logical and easy using the infra and monies spent on the first 126. the old T72 vs Arjun argument
I dare say buying a shitload of smart munitions , refuelers and funding more AWACS is more of a force multiplier than 50 rafale...we will be kangal and would not be afford any cannon ammo also after the rafale bill is paid.
* Is it cheaper to change the doctrine or would it be cheaper to continue with this expensive option? There is a cost for continueing with it and a cost for dropping itTo abandon MMRCA at this stage would be to do away with IAF Doctrine of having Light/Medium/Heavy fleet , something they had proposed in MMRCA first avtar which was to purchase 126 M2K after Kargil on urgent basis.
NRao wrote:* Is it cheaper to change the doctrine or would it be cheaper to continue with this expensive option? There is a cost for continueing with it and a cost for dropping it
So?Austin wrote:NRao wrote:* Is it cheaper to change the doctrine or would it be cheaper to continue with this expensive option? There is a cost for continueing with it and a cost for dropping it
Doctrine are formulated after careful planning of threat perception and it takes many years to plan and fine tune it , If IAF think they need a 3 tier force then there would have been lot of thought process involved from IAF/MOD.
Understandably, on the part of the IAF, there would be reluctance to change. But that is the nature of this business - change is inherent to it. It will not be easy and risks will increase.Austin wrote: The IAF actually did not allow the Su-35 to participate because it considered it as heavy fighter along the lines of MKI so any talks of more MKI or Su-35 is a non-starter.
That is a very cavalier way of addressing a fairly complex and serious question. But that is not surprising considering the general level of debate here. But anyways, we digress.NRao wrote: So?
No matter what is done, not done, etc, they all have *cost* associated with it. That years of careful planning is turning out to be too expensive. Re-plan (if that is a less expensive option - not saying it is).
Yes and its crux of the matter , Timely Purchase would have avoided many Operational Short Coming and equally important cost.rohitvats wrote:All this goes to show the need to take timely action when need(s) are projected.
If IAF had the required 7-8 x Squadrons of M2K, IAF would have been sitting pretty with aircraft roll-over taken care of in timely manner. And this would have meant lesser pressure on Tejas. The next series to enter service would have been AMCA/FGFA combination. But alas! MOD and timely decision making don't go together...
The Soviets recommended its own Mig 29 and that time the argument was that Mig 29 is priced 5 crore and Mirage 2000 at 10 crore. Further Mig 29 will be much better like in present times it is mentioned about FGFA.There is also the unquestionable fact that the technology transfer being offered by the French for the Mirage production will offer HAL unrestricted access to state-of-the-art aircraft technology which could be later used for India's own future projects like the proposed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme.
It would, for instance, give HAL engineers a firsthand knowledge of third generation aircraft technology like chemical etching and milling and, more important, the manufacture of components made from composite materials which are being billed as the future wonder material for aircraft production in the '90s because of its lighter weight and strength. The Mirage uses components built of carbon and boron fibre and this is one area where the Soviets are still far behind the West.
Other access would be to the advanced avionics and the fly-by-wire electrical flight control systems. But the main point the French are trying to hammer home is the industrial investment it represents for HAL and the Indian aeronautical industry.
Hmmmm...rohitvats wrote:That is a very cavalier way of addressing a fairly complex and serious question. But that is not surprising considering the general level of debate here.NRao wrote: So?
No matter what is done, not done, etc, they all have *cost* associated with it. That years of careful planning is turning out to be too expensive. Re-plan (if that is a less expensive option - not saying it is).
I am sure the IAF/MoD/GoI have a great picture.The threat matrix is there in front of us - it is up to us how we deal with it. Given our resources. And political direction and will.
Seem to have forgotten to add "cost" to that list. Absolutely no one (speaking from experience here) makes such decisions in a financial vacuum.The years of planning and fore-cast would have told the IAF what it will face in future and what is *BEST* required to address this threat adequately given the political directive. And resources. It presented that assessment along with a certain solution - Number of aircraft required, squadrons required and type of aircraft required. Not to forget that this projection would also have to cater for generational transition of air force and cater to replacement of aircrafts in service.
What-ifs are great (and I mean it), *but*, what about the future?At a certain point in time, Mirage-2000-5 would have addressed the requirement. Both in terms of technology and numbers required to add muscle as well as allow for replacement of aircraft.
I gave a rough calculation in one of my previous post about force structure - Now consider this: If M2K had been approved after 1999, the whole lot would have been in IAF service. And ONLY Tejas would have been required to address the issue of numbers/squadron strength and transition to new a/c.
However, instead of one, now you've two variables - Tejas and MMRCA.
And hence, there is no Plan B for MMRCA - whether it is Rafale or Martian flying saucer or whatever else. Because situation has reached a dead end - if MMRCA is not bought, the nation needs to be ready for a possible 30 or 29 squadron air-force. Technology is separate matter in all together. The more pressing matter is about numbers.
The IAF has projected the threat perception as well as what they think is required to address the challenges - from both technology as well as numbers perspective. It is up to the political executive to take the call.
If GOI of the day feels India can only afford Tejas in whatever version, then so be it. IAF will make do with that and fight with that. I don't think there should be any doubt about it. It has happened in past, will happen in the future. If the country gets a whacking in a conflict in return, then be ready for that as well.
Or if we feel we can make do only with a cheaper candidate for MMRCA like Mig-29K or Mig-35 or lesser number of Rafale, than this is how it is. But there is a cost associated with everything. And we need to be ready to bear that cost.
It is actually simpler than that. 60K view:The point is pretty simple - IAF makes recommendation with respect to the type and number of a/c required, GOI takes decision with respect to what can be afforded given the purse.
Not expected to.the IAF does not control the purse strings
I don't think they've 'stood-up' to anyone in the government.NRao wrote:Not expected to. But, they are expected to (especially in the Indian situation) to "stand down" (if you will) if the cost escalates beyond a certain price point. Which is what the Modi government seems to be claiming too. and rightly so. These mechanisms - as I have stated earlier - have been there in India for eons. Studied them decades ago.the IAF does not control the purse strings
Perhaps a bad choice of a word. But, the idea is that the IAF should have expected to select a Plan B after the cost escalated beyond an agreed to number. This is normal procedure/s.rohitvats wrote: I don't think they've 'stood-up' to anyone in the government.
* Sad, but true. Very, very, very sad that India - a nation that gave the rest of the democratic world "planning" - is today facing this predicamentThey've simply laid down their case to GOI and elaborated on the cons of not signing the deal in ASAP. It is for the GOI to bite the bullet and come up with a plan. Because finally, the security of the nation rests with PM acting through his council of ministers.
The process itself is flawed in my opinion. It assumes that after the technical trials, the cheapest proposal among whoever is left can be afforded by the exchequer. This may not always be the case. Furthermore, since the financial bids aren't opened till the technical trials are over, there is no way to know beforehand if we can afford any of the bids which are left. The technical trials/disqualification process cannot happen in a vacuum without looking at the financial aspect from the beginning. The GoI had no clue whatsoever whether the funds they had allocated for the project would be enough for it, since the financial bids were kept sealed till the last stage. This can work for smaller deals where we can easily afford any of the competitors' products. For larger deals, this process is bound to fail sooner or later, as it seems to have for the MMRCA.rohitvats wrote: ...
IAF is pining for Rafale because it was selected after a due process authorized by GOI. GOI could have instructed IAF from Day 1 that it should not go for Eurofighter or Rafale because they're deemed too expensive. But it did nothing. IAF is asking for MMRCA to fill its requirement - let GOI take the call on what they can afford. Both in terms of numbers and type.
