Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jul 2014 23:29

if costs cant be brought down we have to look at down sized squadrons and look at LCA Mk2s.. but then, we FUBRed on every venture, effort and purchases for the past decade.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Jul 2014 01:22

deejay wrote:Viv S,

Firstly appreciate your sane reply to my stupid post.

Not stupid in the least. Its a controversial topic, some warming of tempers is inevitable.

Next I have a few questions based on what your post said:

The Tejas' payload and load capacity is known. Multiple by it by five.
a) In the above do you mean to say that 01 x Rafale mission will be handled by 05 x LCA Mk I's?
b) 126 MMRCA to be replaced by 126 LCA MK I's or 126 x 5 LCA MK I's?
c) Will the LCA MK I's in (b) above be over and above the planned / rumored induction of 200 (approx) LCA Mk I's & LCA Mk II's?
d) The SU 30 MKI as an IFR will refuel how many LCA MK I on a single mission of say twice the range of LCA MK I ?

a) That is what I had in mind. However, the IAF with five Tejas in hand might employ just three for the mission and use two elsewhere. How its employed is less important, what I'm trying to stress is that the net addition of capability for the IAF is greater with the Tejas.

b) You could do 126 x 5 ≈ 500. Alternatively, you could buy 400 Tejas, 12 ERJ-145Is and invest the balance $5 billion in other projects (like the AMCA, Kaveri or in larger stocks of PGMs and LRCMs). Or some other combination thereof.

c) The planned induction is 40 x Mk1s + 80 x Mk2s = 120 aircraft.

Tejas Mk1 production will end by the end of the decade and the lines can switch to the Mk2. A high Mk1 capacity will allow the latter's production to be ramped up fast. So instead of 40 Mk1 we ought be examining a build size of 60 to 80 units. Followed by say.. 300 Mk2s @ 35-40 units/year upto 2030, when the focus can shift to AMCA production.

d) Depends on the mission. CAP would require more endurance less range, a strike or OCA mission might require more range.

With regard to your question, off-the-cuff, two Tejas would be my estimate.

Internal fuel load: Tejas - 2400 kg, Su-30MKI - 9600 kg. Assuming the Sukhoi retains 50% fuel for the mission, it can top the Tejas off twice (i.e transfer 4800 kg).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Jul 2014 02:22

rohitvats wrote:Well, it seems we're back to building castles in the air with arguments like 4 Tejas for 1 Rafale! Sure, 4 Tejas a/c will do a relay to deliver the payload across the Himalayan ridge line if need is required.

Across the Himalayan ridge? As in.. into the PLAAF's guts? Yes, the Tejas can't be tasked with that. Unfortunately, neither can the Rafale. You want to operate in hostile airspace, you need a fifth gen aircraft.

I've expressed doubts with the PAK FA's capability to carry out missions requiring some degree of loiter (as opposed to hit-and-run attacks). No doubts about the Rafale's capability in the same role. With a dirty payload, it'll be a magnet for every Chinese ground and air based radar in the vicinity (and there'll be plenty of those). [This is an air defence system gearing up to take on F-22/B-2 packages staging out of SK, Japan, (possibly the Philippines) and masses of Tomahawks from Ohio/Virginia class boats.]

- The way force is structured today and the projected squadron strength, there is a certain number of squadrons which will be filled by Tejas Mk1 and Mk2. Between 9-10 squadrons.

If the focus is on squadron strength the Tejas can be employed to achieve the 45 squadron requirement, faster and cheaper.

- It is a convenient statement to make that decline in numbers can be arrested by purchase of Mig-29 variants or second hand mirages from Gulf nation(s) w/o getting into long term ramification of this decision. Whatever fighter gets inducted over next couple of years will need to serve the IAF for next 25 years at the minimum. Which of these 'interim' purchases have the capability to evolve over next 25 years and stay relevant?

And the induction of this 'interim' measure of 7 odd squadrons would have an impact on generational rollover of fighters in coming years and force structure - So, while older generation Su-30 MKI may get replaced by FGFA towards latter half of coming decade, M2K/Mig-29 will become the new Mig-21 of IAF. And while I don't use the word obsolete for weapons that easily, they'd still be at evolutionary dead end before they even started out.

Hell, its very much the other way round. You want to minimize the variety of aircraft types in operation rather an adopt a logistical headache for the next 25 years. The Mirages and MiGs in question can be retired along with the same types currently in service. Same for EF T1 option, get them cheap, flog them hard and retire them in a decade. Same also applies to a Gripen lease - can be replaced with the Tejas Mk2 and returned to Sweden in a decade without any expenditure on MLUs.

Also, the first Su-30MKI was inducted in 2002. Its isn't going to be retiring before 2030, by which time the fleet should have been rationalized around 3 types. If anything, it can be replaced by the AMCA.

Long story short - whatever gets inducted into IAF now under MMRCA category, has to stay relevant for next 2 decades minimum (with upgrades, of course) + help in arresting the number decline + provide the per unit technological advantage to fight the dragon and two front war - if required.

Staying relevant is not sufficient. Especially not when most other air forces are inducting 5G aircraft for the same cost as your 4.5G fighter, and your primary adversary is getting it cheaper still. Bottom-line is the Rafale offers you mid-tier capabilities at a high-end cost. That's a bad deal.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jul 2014 03:31

All the MKIs are supposedly being upgraded to "Super" std.,the ability to carry BMos.That is going to be a huge capability +.The stand-off strike capability of the SSs,both in range and payload will be above what the Rafale can deliver.As I've said earlier,another sqd. or two of dedicated SU-34s for the strategic bombing role (China factor) would do no harm.The MOD/FM should tell the IAF how much they can spend and get the service to work out their options.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2014 04:04

Whatever fighter gets inducted over next couple of years will need to serve the IAF for next 25 years at the minimum. Which of these 'interim' purchases have the capability to evolve over next 25 years and stay relevant?

Is a brand new Rafale - latest and greatest today - expected to remain relevant in 25-30 years?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Jul 2014 04:31

Viv S wrote:126 x 5 ≈ 500. Alternatively, you could buy 400 Tejas, 12 ERJ-145Is and invest the balance $5 billion in other projects (like the AMCA, Kaveri or in larger stocks of PGMs and LRCMs). Or some other combination thereof.

On the one hand you say that Rafale can't deal with PLA/PLAAF air defences, and then you say, lets buy 500 LCAs. Is that a sick joke or what?

That's 500 dead IAF pilots (not that it matters a fig to the lobbies trying to scuttle the MMRCA process) if ever sent up against even Su-30 equivalent PLAAF fighters and current air defences, let alone what's coming in the future.

The AESA + Spectra + Meteor combination of Rafale puts it a generation+ ahead of the LCA and the current generation of Chinese fighters.

As for the Chinese so called "stealth" fighters, your propaganda is as good as anyone else's, as, in reality, no one has a clue what they are (in)capable of. What we do know for certain is that PLAAF are desperate to acquire Su-35s, which are less capable than the Rafale.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Jul 2014 04:33

It's finally dawned on me that 'stealth' is not merely a function of low RCS but ALSO the ability to get close enough to 'blind' enemy ADS on day one of the war to destroy them so the bomb trucks can get through to do their work.

Blinding in the current parlance is for example introducing stuxnet into enemy ADS like the Israelis did with Syria's s300 systems.

At the end of the day, we don't need a whole lot to punish Pakistan. WRT to PRC, they are not going to invade us to get AP as they might Taiwan.

Nor are we likely to get involved a war of attrition.

Pakistan has kept us at bay with missiles w/nukes supplied by the PRC. Drawing red lines.

10-20 Agni Vs plus sub launched A4s can keep PRC at bay.

We need Rafales to beat the crap out of Pakistan?

If I were a PRC strategist, I'd be laughing my egg foo young off if India spent $20 billion on 4G aircraft when it could have 8 Arihants Mk2 each with 12 A-4s MIRVD with 5 warheads.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Jul 2014 04:39

^^^^
Is the induction of the Arihant being held up by a lack of financial resources? Please do post links, etc.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Jul 2014 04:50

eklavya wrote:^^^^
Is the induction of the Arihant being held up by a lack of financial resources? Please do post links, etc.

Look up budget deficit. The links are everywhere.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2014 04:53

Bing, bing, bing, ................. we have a winner.

It's finally dawned on me that 'stealth' is not merely a function of low RCS but ALSO the ability to get close enough to 'blind' enemy ADS on day one of the war to destroy them so the bomb trucks can get through to do their work.

And, there is a lot more to it.

Look up budget deficit. The links are everywhere

A recent article claimed this gov had asked for a revision of the price.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2014 04:54

Is the induction of the Arihant being held up by a lack of financial resources?

Arihant is a strategic platform. And, cannot be replaced.

No budget will hold it back and rightly so.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2014 05:17

Just performed a quick google search. Rafale started with FAF in 2004. Mid-life is expected in 2025 - 20ish years. So, Indian Rafales can expect a MLU around 2040. Q: Is it worth it? By then the 'hood should be crawling with so called "5th Gen" planes - a dime a dozen planes.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Jul 2014 05:17

NRao wrote:

Arihant is a strategic platform. And, cannot be replaced.

No budget will hold it back and rightly so.

As long as there is money. Money is fungible. Money is not infinite.

If a program is 'strategic', something else gives and that in this case is $20 billion for the MMRCA.

Which gives the bigger bang for the buck in the possible threat scenarios? MMRCA or Arihants Mk2s WRT to PRC ? What would deter them?

Moi, I am plumping for SSGNs/SSBNs underwater that are intrinsically stealthy against an emerging superpower that does not want to be prematurely wounded as it confronts its primary enemy a declining (but still very potent) superpower called the US.

Supplemented by a 75% availability rate for the estimated 272 SU30s, assorted legacy a/c plus 300 LCA Mk1s as point defense against Pakistan.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2014 05:35

For strategic platforms they will make money - they have to. Eat grass, but get that platform, there are no options.

BTW, on my fav topic of Rafale MLU, found this article ................... seems to be from early this year:

By Air Marshal (Retd) B.K. Pande :: Fighters: Repercussions of Delay

Cost of Technological Obsolescence

The life of a combat fleet is normally in the region of 40 to 50 years. With technology galloping at a frenetic pace, even a modern fleet of combat aircraft is likely to be overtaken by obsolescence in around 20 years and would require mid-life upgrade, especially in respect of avionics and weapon systems. Having become operational in 2001, the Rafale would definitely need mid-life upgrade by 2021. Going by the most optimistic estimates, the Rafale can be inducted by the beginning of 2018 at the earliest. This implies that the Rafale fleet of the IAF will require mid-life upgrade within four to five years of induction entailing sizeable investment. Further delay in the finalisation of the contract will, therefore, significantly enhance the capital cost of the project and place overwhelming demands on the already overburdened exchequer.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Jul 2014 05:52

One can have the Rafale or have the the SSGN/SSBNs. To try and have both is to be eaten by the Han.

They have the money. We will have to find grass.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2014 06:08

And, since "Doctrine" came up, I went looking for it. People had me worried that it is a static stuff - to a great extent at least. Found:

Basic Doctrine of Indian Air Force 2012

It had:

LEVELS OF DOCTRINE
Apex doctrines relating to national security and military power,over precepts for the development and employment of power at the strategic, operational and tactical levels. Accordingly, doctrines have distinct levels that broadly correspond with the levels of war fighting, viz. strategic, operational and tactical.

Strategic Level:
This doctrine enunciates the fundamental and enduring principles which guide the use of air forces during war and crises. It establishes the framework for the effective use of air power. For example, the tenet that: ‘control of air becomes a per-requisite for effectiveness of all military activities’ is an enduring principle.

Operational Level:
This translates the principles of the basic doctrine into military action by prescribing the proper use of the air forces on the basis of: distinct objectives, force capabilities, broad mission areas and operational environments. An example of an operational doctrine in consonance with strategic doctrine could be: ‘AOC-in-C employing his air force in counter air operations by orchestrating a variety of roles to achieve control of the air’.

Tactical Level:
This converts basic and operational doctrine by delineating the proper use of specific weapon systems to accomplish detailed objectives. tactical doctrine prescribes how roles and tasks are to be carried out and is usually published in manuals such as those brought out by the tactics and Air Combat Development Establishment(TACDE). For example i Mirage-2000 aircraft are flying escort to an airfield attack package, then tactical doctrine would indicate how the Mirage 2000s would be integrated and co-ordinates within the force package

THE DOCTRINAL LOOP
A doctrine is formulated on the basis of inputs. Te output would then provide the framework within which viable military capability can be developed. These capabilities would require validation through peace-time exercises or war experiences so that the feedback could be employed to refne the doctrine further. Te doctrinal loop is pictorially depicted below.

DOCTRINE AND TECHNOLOGY
Doctrine is derived from the past and developed in the present for application in the future. Its true benefit is not what it tells us about the past, but what it suggests about the future. The doctrinal process therefore should analyse and influence the course of new and developing technologies. In the Indian context, it may not always be possible for doctrine to drive technology due to resource and technological constraints. Instead, doctrine may be limited to playing an interactive role with technology. As such, our doctrine must be receptive to the potential advantages that new technologies have to offer. India has taken many strides in exploiting the new technologies for defence applications. An example of technology driving doctrine is the evolution on net centric warfare. Doctrine evolves post the absorption of such technological developments.

I say, based on this "doctrine" document, pass on the Rafale. Newer technologies at cheaper prices.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2014 06:11

One can have the Rafale or have the the SSGN/SSBNs.

India can both, if rafale comes in around $12 billion (and the economy improves to 8+%).

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 05 Jul 2014 06:43

We are missing the bigger picture over here. Russia's dependence on PRC is going to increase further, not decrease. We can expect a practical alliance between them in the next few years. Given this scenario we should be very wary of getting migs for MMRCA.

Secondly the problem with LCA remains the fundamental. They simply lack the range to be effective over the Tibetian plateau, the East Turkestan desert and southern PRC. LCA may be able to carry more load than Rafael, it may be less expensive as compared to Rafale, but will it be able to perform missions against the air defences of PLA?

Not everything can be solved by sukhios and LCA combined.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2014 12:48

Not everything can be solved by sukhios and LCA combined.

The MKI and LCA are in the picture or discussion *only* in the context of the exorbitant present cost of the Rafale.

Make the cost bearable and these two planes would be out of the discussion.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 05 Jul 2014 13:34

Viv S wrote:
a) That is what I had in mind. However, the IAF with five Tejas in hand might employ just three for the mission and use two elsewhere. How its employed is less important, what I'm trying to stress is that the net addition of capability for the IAF is greater with the Tejas.

b) You could do 126 x 5 ≈ 500. Alternatively, you could buy 400 Tejas, 12 ERJ-145Is and invest the balance $5 billion in other projects (like the AMCA, Kaveri or in larger stocks of PGMs and LRCMs). Or some other combination thereof.

c) The planned induction is 40 x Mk1s + 80 x Mk2s = 120 aircraft.

Tejas Mk1 production will end by the end of the decade and the lines can switch to the Mk2. A high Mk1 capacity will allow the latter's production to be ramped up fast. So instead of 40 Mk1 we ought be examining a build size of 60 to 80 units. Followed by say.. 300 Mk2s @ 35-40 units/year upto 2030, when the focus can shift to AMCA production.

d) Depends on the mission. CAP would require more endurance less range, a strike or OCA mission might require more range.

With regard to your question, off-the-cuff, two Tejas would be my estimate.

Internal fuel load: Tejas - 2400 kg, Su-30MKI - 9600 kg. Assuming the Sukhoi retains 50% fuel for the mission, it can top the Tejas off twice (i.e transfer 4800 kg).

So if I understand correctly , 05 Tejas = 01 Rafale (Payload) / (IAF may modify usage).
We will have 400 LCA's = 20 Sqns of LCAs
01 Su 30 MKI will refuel 02 LCAs in a mission which is twice the range of an LCA.

Based on the above: for a 'given' mission of 04 aircraft strike package consisting of Rafale on an airfield (at twice the range of LCA for such a mission) could you please state the package size in terms of LCAs (replacing the Rafales) and support aircraft. Please humour me and plan for in flight refuelling using SU-30 MKIs and forget the ERJ-145 AEW&C assuming it to be same for both cases.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Jul 2014 14:15

NRao wrote:
Not everything can be solved by sukhios and LCA combined.
The MKI and LCA are in the picture or discussion *only* in the context of the exorbitant present cost of the Rafale.

Make the cost bearable and these two planes would be out of the discussion.

The cost is bearable: its 1% of GDP stretched out over 10 years i.e. 0.1% p.a. of 2014 GDP, which itself is growing at a decent clip, and is expected to grow faster (check out any reputable forecast) over the next 2-3 years (beyond that forecasts are not worth much).

The delays are due to contract negotiations, not cost.

The LCA is so far behind the Rafale in capability, that it doesn't even come into the frame.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2014 17:29

Jul 4, 2014 :: French FM offers India 1 bn to fund projects, as Rafale talks stall

Another angle:

The 1 billion euro credit line will be distributed through the French development agency over a three-year period, said Laurent Fabius on Tuesday.

India, which has said it needs $1 trillion of investment by 2017 to upgrade its infrastructure, is keen to attract foreign development agencies and companies to help finance new roads, railways and cities.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who took office in May, wants to reinforce India's status as a regional power, and has whetted the appetite of Western powers, who are all scrambling for a piece of its economic pie.

Fabius said he was confident that French aviation company Dassault would be able to supply New Delhi with 126 Rafale fighter jets worth 20 billion dollars. But on Tuesday he sounded less upbeat after a meeting with Modi.

"The next step is for Dassault and the (Indian) government to discuss the details which have not yet been discussed and hopefully to reach a conclusion," he told news agency reporters. "For us, the earlier the better ... but it's a normal negotiation and the way it must be."

The contract has been under negotiation for two years. And rival countries like Britain see this as a potential opportunity to sideline the French and push forward their own Eurofighter jets.

However, extending a credit line to the Indians, could allow France to boost it ties with the South Asian nation, and gain an early link to the country's future infrastructure schemes, if it it fails to conquer its aviation industry.

Modi has a priority and seems like the rafale does not make it too high on it.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 05 Jul 2014 17:45

Either the order will shrink or it will fall through especially given the state of the economy and the fiscal deficit. Have a feeling LCA along with more sukhois will be ordered. Modi could also be intentionally pouring cold water over the project to get some last minute concessions on ToT. Just get this sh*t over with.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Jul 2014 23:06

NRao wrote: Modi has a priority and seems like the rafale does not make it too high on it.

The article only says more negotiations are required (a point which a dozen other stories have also made) before any contract can be inked: negotiating something of this size and complexity takes time. Where does it say anything about Modi's priorities?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jul 2014 23:14

Eklavya, point about LCAs was they are enough to handle bulk of what PAF has along with existing upgraded assets and Sukhois. Whereas upgraded Sukhois/FGFA can handle what PLAAF throws at us in the future as well. GDP is anywYs a notional figure about the state of ones economy. While useful to judge or monitor progress, At the end of the day revenue and expenditure are what matter, if our finances are precarious as they are, a theoretically robust economy cannot balance the books in the short term.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Jul 2014 23:14

RoyG wrote:Either the order will shrink or it will fall through especially given the state of the economy and the fiscal deficit. Have a feeling LCA along with more sukhois will be ordered. Modi could also be intentionally pouring cold water over the project to get some last minute concessions on ToT. Just get this sh*t over with.

LCA Mk 2 is being designed because Mk 1 has a lot of limitations.

The PM has not said a word about MMRCA, so the soothsayers should take it easy.

If speculation is a must, then listen to people who speak to the PM, of whom none are speaking against the MMRCA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jul 2014 23:17

Mk1 with limitations is still better than a lot of what our competitors and the IAF itself flies, if we do an objective comparison and see what IAF pilots like Wingco Nayani have noted. A couple of extra squadrons would actually help the IAF then wait for the Mk2 as it comes about. This iterative approach has been pushed for by even other IAF folks who are no fans of ADA etc.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Jul 2014 23:23

Karan M wrote:Eklavya, point about LCAs was they are enough to handle bulk of what PAF has along with existing upgraded assets and Sukhois. Whereas upgraded Sukhois/FGFA can handle what PLAAF throws at us in the future as well. GDP is anywYs a notional figure about the state of ones economy. While useful to judge or monitor progress, At the end of the day revenue and expenditure are what matter, if our finances are precarious as they are, a theoretically robust economy cannot balance the books in the short term.

Karan, LCA Mk 1 is not safe in an F-16 + AWACS + AMRAAM environment. Simply not worth the risk to the pilot's life, when we can send in Su-30s, upgraded MiG-29s, upgraded Mirage 2000s, etc.

If the budget can't afford MMRCA and FGFA (for example), give the choice to the IAF. Their choice will tell you everything you need to know.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jul 2014 23:32

Actually Eklavya that is not true. If a Bison or MIg27 or Jaguar can be used in the above environment, then the LCA most certainly can. The IAF will have around 110 upgraded MiG29s and Mirage 2000s which avionics/weapons wise are comparable to the MK1- it's the Su which pulls away in raw power and endurance.

Air Commodore (Retd) Harish Nayani :
is a former LCA test pilot who has flown the MiG-21 Bison aircraft extensively and commanded a Bison squadron.

"There is absolutely no doubt that the Mk 1, even if limited to 20 alpha would be many magnitudes better than the venerable Bison on all fronts. Notably, handling, safety, pilot comfort, and performance in the subsonic and trans-sonic regimes."

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jul 2014 23:36

Mind you this when asked about the worst case scenario of Tejas remaining at preIOC levels. LSP8 in Apr13 was at 20 Alpha. In terms of systems, the Mk1 is pretty potent. It has the Elbit HMS and will have the Python5 for WVR. Even our upgraded MiGs have Sura and R73E which are behind. Su backs up above with TVC which puts it in a different class altogether.

Note the PAF will have around 80 F16s their elite assets carefully husbanded. The bulk of their fleet will be the Mirage3/5, F7 and the slowly increasing number of JF17s.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Jul 2014 23:41

Karan, why would we send Bison's into enemy environment? Its just not sensible. The escort duties will be performed by Su 30 / MiG 29, not Bison. Inside India, with AD support, yes, it could be a real pain for invading fighters. But can't see it being deployed over enemy territory.

Jags and MiG-27 can only enter enemy airspace with a full compliment of escorts. We can't build an offensive doctrine based on escorting LCA Mk 1 over enemy territory. That was never the point of the LCA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jul 2014 00:10

Eklavya Ji we do plan to send Bisons into enemy territory, which is why they are equipped with KAB500 for strike f.e. We also requested for and got a ground mapping mode in the Kopyo.

They escort other MiGs, Jaguars etc in the escort role. That is why it is equipped with not just a CCM but also a BVR missile the RVVAE same as on the Su, Mig29 Upg. It also carries the Elta jammer which is on the Su and the LCA.

In Cope India a famous trick pulled on USAF pilots was to embed Bisons in Flogger packages. It's low RCS enabled them to be counted as part of the Floggers and attacking F15s got a brace of active RHs up their nose, so to speak.

The Bison Btw is not to be underestimated. It has a low RCS, can carry a jammer and is also BVR capable. It is very versatile limited by its payload and range characteristics. The Mk1 can do everything the Bison can, but without the payload/ range limitations. It carries fuel equivalent to the Gripen and the Jaguar, internally and has 8 pylons versus the Bisons 5. It has an avionics suite superior to any other aircraft right now in the AF bar the Sukhois and handful of Upg MiG29s. It is also EW capable.

So it should be clear that based on existing doctrine, the LCA can self escort and a single LCA squadron can do both escort and strike. It's effectively a self contained unit as versus MiG27 and Jaguar ones which need additional resources for escort. Vast majority of opposition it will face are of the JF17, mirage3 and F7 kind.

The Mk2 will improve on Mk1 no doubt, but the Mk1 by itself has shaped upto be a very credible system given our neighbourhood. The AF is asking for more for the Mk2 given Mk1 can be improved and also because when buying it's better to standardise on one variant than multiple. However based on declining numbers it makes sense for the GOI to bear the logistics cost of two types and get this plane in service quick. Take a look at the Jag cockpit or MiG27 one and the LCA, former are literally antiquated and even DARIn3 is struggling to implement capabilities LCA demonstrated recently at IOC. This is a plane we should be exploiting to the hilt as it can get the job done, even if it's not as gold plated as it's next variant. And it's cheap, and local support is a given.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jul 2014 00:20

eklavya wrote:On the one hand you say that Rafale can't deal with PLA/PLAAF air defences, and then you say, lets buy 500 LCAs. Is that a sick joke or what?

Is that a joke? Do you think there'll be used in a kamikaze strike on Chengdu or someplace? Does the IAF's AoR begin at the FEBA and extend 800 km behind it? Is air defence, interdiction, CAS, escort, some other service's responsibility?

That's 500 dead IAF pilots (not that it matters a fig to the lobbies trying to scuttle the MMRCA process) if ever sent up against even Su-30 equivalent PLAAF fighters and current air defences, let alone what's coming in the future.

Not when supported by force multipliers like the ERJ-145I AEW&C, which costs less than the Rafale. Or far that matter, it can be paired with AESA equipped Su-30MKIs or a 5th gen aircraft.

The AESA + Spectra + Meteor combination of Rafale puts it a generation+ ahead of the LCA and the current generation of Chinese fighters.

FCR's employing AESAs have been around for nearly twenty years now. The Meteor can be integrated on any fighter. And the Spectra is primarily a defensive system. Its utility against a tattered AD like Libya's is one thing, and the PLAAF's comprehensive IADS quite another.

The AESA + Spectra + Meteor combination isn't worth the price its coming at, and incapable of doing what similar priced aircraft will do elsewhere.

As for the Chinese so called "stealth" fighters, your propaganda is as good as anyone else's, as, in reality, no one has a clue what they are (in)capable of.

Their performance against competing aircraft of the same generation is suspect. In contrast, no amount of upgrades will give the Rafale, LO capability. Not to mention the adversary fleet will have the numerical edge as well.

What we do know for certain is that PLAAF are desperate to acquire Su-35s, which are less capable than the Rafale.

Wrong. What they want to get their hands on is the 117S supplement, which'll open it up for further imports.

Are you suggesting that GoI should not have acquired the Mirage 2000, and that the expenditure of 0.4% of GDP spread out over 4 years (1982-86) caused the 1991 financial crisis?

Are you suggesting that 0.4% of the GDP over 4 years is an ideal benchmark for an acquisition today?

For the record, the Mirage was a generation ahead of anything else in the IAF's inventory (and acquired in response to the PAF's F-16 purchase). The Rafale isn't. Its an incremental improvement over existing aircraft and certain critical counts inferior (read: Su-30 radar & combat range).

If you're spending that much money, it ought to be an aircraft that introduces a new set of capabilities, and that's something that'll come only with a fifth generation platform.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jul 2014 01:33

BTW all IAF fighters will operate over enemy territory. The IAF doctrine is around offensive action.

http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2015/stori ... 410100.htm
Interview with the Chief of Air Staff

Is not the IAF's operational ethos more defence-oriented?

That's not true. The IAF is more strike-oriented. Look at our inventory: MiG-23s, MiG-27s, Jaguars, all strike aircraft. Mirage 2000 is a multi-role aircraft. So is the Su-30MKI, which can carry 8 tonnes of weapons load. MiG-21 (Bison) is again multi-role; it can drop PGM (precision-guided munition) and has precision attack capabilities. MiG-21(Bis), although we are using it for air defence, is a short-role, multi-role aircraft. Even during the Kargil operations we performed a role that was more strike than air defence. The IAF has pure air defence aircraft like MiG-29s, pure strike aircraft and ones with multi-role.

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 06 Jul 2014 02:19

@Viv S, spectra is far from a simple defensive aid subsystem. It is capable to for example propose rerouting vs popping up missions, jamming a S-300 (as shown during MACE XII), a Captor-M and its data are fused with radar (or other sensors like recce pod, damocles) ones for target designation...

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 06 Jul 2014 02:20

Lessons to be learnt from the F 16 sale to Europe in 1979

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Jul 2014 04:28

Karan M wrote:BTW all IAF fighters will operate over enemy territory. The IAF doctrine is around offensive action.

Aircraft providing limited offensive capability and/or with with a lower probability of survival will not operate over enemy territory; at least not until enemy air defences have been sufficiently degraded. In a 2-front war, and in the current scenario, we may not unfortunately have a choice, with significant numbers of Su-30s/MiG-29/Mirage 2000 getting diverted to the east, which is why the capability that the Rafale/Typhoon/SH class a/c bring is so important to maintain a credible deterrent into the future.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Jul 2014 04:47

Viv S wrote: Are you suggesting that 0.4% of the GDP over 4 years is an ideal benchmark for an acquisition today?

If you're spending that much money, it ought to be an aircraft that introduces a new set of capabilities, and that's something that'll come only with a fifth generation platform.

The benchmark for affordability is something the government decides based on the long-term prospects of the economy and the security needs of the nation. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that either consideration was disregarded in the planning and the ongoing execution of the MMRCA process.

Please make up you mind whether we need Tejas or the F-35. At the moment, your position may be characterised by an innocent bystander as "anything but rafale"

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 06 Jul 2014 04:57

NRao wrote:
Whatever fighter gets inducted over next couple of years will need to serve the IAF for next 25 years at the minimum. Which of these 'interim' purchases have the capability to evolve over next 25 years and stay relevant?
Is a brand new Rafale - latest and greatest today - expected to remain relevant in 25-30 years?

Rafale is already irrelevant

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jul 2014 05:46

More interesting news (data points to me).

France offers friendship and funds

Title aside ....................... multiple topics of interest:

On economy and whose interest *this* deal is in .......................

Fabius today indicated that France was interested in sharing defence technology with India and said “to be honest and candid, you have a diminution of the defence budget in Europe ... and therefore (the deal is in) our interest.

No brownie points on what it means.

Now I am even more convinced that India should engage France in the "next" generation plane - whatever that means. For one I am fairly to very confident that the Russians cannot deliver on what IAF wants and if India is going to spend $20 billion on the Rafale + $35 billion on the FGFA, might as well get into the ground floor with France on the "next" generation - with about $40 billion in the bank. This will not only fund it fully, it will also allow to get into a project of this type from the very start (something that was not done with the FGFA - for whatever reason).

I would *think* that a Indo-French effort, starting in 2015, could produce a decent "next" gen platform by 2025, on which either nation could then build on, if they so decide to opt out.

Heck, IF they need our money, why splurge it on an old model? And India can migrate the "FGFA" thought process from the Russians to the French.

Then, something I said a long time ago (unrelated to the MMRCA), but WRT the Rafale ............

The deal to buy 126 Rafale fighter jets has drawn flak from experts. Analysts have said that Dassault, which makes the Rafael jets, do not have too many bookings and without the Indian order may well have shut down the line

I had said then that some of the French Gov research investments were for exports purposes - that the GoFr really did not need them.

On the same lines my concern is about MLU. Articles have claimed that the French planes are up for MLU in 2025 - and - there are no plans, as of now, as to what the MLU may have in it. I am betting that the French Gov is waiting for a deal like from India so that they can extract funds from other nations to fund their own research. Much like what Russia is doing. This is not a complain - a wise business move IMHO, but one that will cost India a whole bunch.

My feel is that the Rafale, when all said and done, will cost India nothing less than $50 billion. Easy.

Then the inevitable ..............................

France today offered India a 1-billion-euro credit line to fund projects on sustainable infrastructure and urban development, a move many see as a sweetener for the $10-billion Rafael fighter jet deal.

I fully expect the Rafale to be in IAF colors, but right now it does not look good for the project as envisioned. I think it is great aircraft, but I do not think it is worth it for the future of the IAF.