Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Apr 2015 05:13

Singha wrote:...

---
Speaking to CNN-IBN, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar claimed that Rafale fighters cannot replace the ageing MiG-21 which will be phased out in the next 6-10 years.

Parrikar said that India's indigenous Light Combat aircraft Tejas will replace MiG 21 as both are almost of the same category while the Rafale is a much bigger jet with a longer range and more weapons carrying capabilities. "We have not purchased any new aircraft of latest technology in the past 15 years. IAF desperately needs fourth generation aircraft, the fifth generation that we are working on will take 10-15 years," said Parrikar.

so what does that say about Su-30MKIs ... all of which have been inducted over the last 15 years?

Sabyasachi · Post by **Sabyasachi** » 14 Apr 2015 05:45

vina wrote:Sorry, this MMRCA / Rafale/ whatever business is just plain Kakkoose (Toilet).The deal in the first place never made any sense and should have been scrapped outright. There is nothing that the Rafale brings to the table that a SU-30MKI does not in substantial terms. If you need more so-piss-tication, well, go for a SU-30 upgrade with say an active radar and electronic warfare systems.

The Rafale/EF makes sense for operators who DONT have an SU-30 MKI class plane. We already have a huge fleet. If the question was numbers, we could have cranked out two more squadrons in two years beyond what was planned out of our plants in Nashik/wherever the SU-30s are made. Handing out $4/$5/$6 whatever billion as a "pacifier" to anyone makes no sense, in addition to lifecycle costs and spares and a 40 year commitment,for two squadrons? The govt should have simply pulled the plug on this one.

What really was needed was more builds of SU-30 airframes, a crash plan to go for a Su-30 Upg with full updated avionics flowing down from the Tejas and maybe roping in Israelis for an active array radar and electronic warfare system. As far as I can see, that is the only thing the Rafale brings to the table over the MKI. That kind of upg would have cost less than $3b tops and spread over a fleet of 250 odd airframes.

We need only two airframes, the Tejas and the MKI . I never could understand the "medium" business and still don't , on how it fits, where it fits and what is the need for that at all!

Make it difficult for adversary to strategies a counter or defense by diversifying fleet; to start with.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 14 Apr 2015 05:55

vina wrote:There is nothing that the Rafale brings to the table that a SU-30MKI does not in substantial terms.

Let's not be silly, the Rafale provides a lot.

vina wrote:I never could understand the "medium" business and still don't , on how it fits, where it fits and what is the need for that at all!

The MKI is big and heavy and expensive to operate. It takes a lot of fuel, it takes a lot of maintenance, you simply can't afford to have an entire fleet made up of it, you need something that's more economical.

Also, they wanted access to latest Western tech. They are intimately familiar with the MKI and still felt there were areas where it was clearly behind.

Not to mention the whole spares issue with Russia and wanting to diversify their supplier base.

ravip · Post by **ravip** » 14 Apr 2015 06:08

vina wrote:Sorry, this MMRCA / Rafale/ whatever business is just plain Kakkoose (Toilet).The deal in the first place never made any sense and should have been scrapped outright. There is nothing that the Rafale brings to the table that a SU-30MKI does not in substantial terms. If you need more so-piss-tication, well, go for a SU-30 upgrade with say an active radar and electronic warfare systems.

The Rafale/EF makes sense for operators who DONT have an SU-30 MKI class plane. We already have a huge fleet. If the question was numbers, we could have cranked out two more squadrons in two years beyond what was planned out of our plants in Nashik/wherever the SU-30s are made. Handing out $4/$5/$6 whatever billion as a "pacifier" to anyone makes no sense, in addition to lifecycle costs and spares and a 40 year commitment,for two squadrons? The govt should have simply pulled the plug on this one.

What really was needed was more builds of SU-30 airframes, a crash plan to go for a Su-30 Upg with full updated avionics flowing down from the Tejas and maybe roping in Israelis for an active array radar and electronic warfare system. As far as I can see, that is the only thing the Rafale brings to the table over the MKI. That kind of upg would have cost less than $3b tops and spread over a fleet of 250 odd airframes.

We need only two airframes, the Tejas and the MKI . I never could understand the "medium" business and still don't , on how it fits, where it fits and what is the need for that at all!

I am a die hard fan of Su-30MKI, but have 2 small problem,

1. It has got a huge RCS, it's like elephant flying in the sky.

2. The Russi violated agreement with us by providing same technology to chin panda. So now we need to have a superiority fighter other than su-30 series.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 14 Apr 2015 06:57

^^^^^ MMRCA was originally supposed to be Mirage-2000 5s, had this been the case the cost and maintenance would have been low and justified. Babu's delayed to the point where Mirage was not a viable option any more. Strangely , instead of selecting a low cost, low maintenance single engine fighter like Gripen or F-16, IAF chose the 2 most expensive fighters. Clearly we didn't need this when FGFA was in the pipeline. There were no sense of direction with this deal right from the beginning.

Ordering 36 planes is a face saving measure, ideally, none should be ordered. Instead
a) Order more Su30 with better engines, AESA radar and avionics
b) Order more LCA
c) Order Jaguar with honeywell engines
d) Invest wholeheartedly in FGFA. Involve private sector in this regard.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2015 07:27

Cain Marko wrote:^ I'd tend to agree with your assessment, but considering how volatile this has been of late, I am not counting the Rafales yet. For ex. what if the price that Dassault quotes with spares, support, weapons etc., is not to GOI's liking? "twixt the cup and the lip" etc...

I think

1. The Rafale order is Dassault's to lose.

and

2. The LCA order is HAL's to lose.

The Modi-Parrikar combo will give the business to these two companies provided they can step up with the right price/product combination. If they do not, somebody else will get the business. These two gentlemen are all about the results.

France has got far too much invested in the process so they will probably price it correctly especially now that all aircraft to be purchased will be built in France. But until it is signed and sealed, one never knows....

The LCA situation is very interesting, because Parrikar at some point in his interview today said...."we do know the LCA has got some problems....." And then of course he also said that the requirement (to replace the MIG 21) was for a light, single engine aircraft with a smaller range and lower weapons carrying capacity than the Rafale class, which could be the LCA or some other aircraft. I take that to mean that he wants the LCA to qualify for the IAF's requirements, but in the final analysis if national security is at stake and HAL does not perform, then he will get some other light aircraft inducted.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Apr 2015 07:39

ldev. You got it
NaMo is SUMO- Shut up an move on.

He is no BS guy.

Ignorant question: the MMRCA supposed to replace the Mig21s?

Is thatt what this all about?

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 14 Apr 2015 07:48

Here is the full interview, must see. MP has good grasp of things, including DRDO, Make in India, Private sector participation, OROP, CDS etc.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2015 07:49

ramana wrote:
Ignorant question: the MMRCA supposed to replace the Mig21s?

Is thatt what this all about?

LOL!!

I think they forget what they wanted!! They were led up the garden path by many different companies with shiny brochures over the many years the process lasted, that they forgot their original requirement!!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 14 Apr 2015 07:51

^^
IIRC

Mirage 2000 performance was the decisive edge during Kargil. The strike package of Mig-29 escorts and Mirage 2000 precision bombing is what shifted the air war decisively.

IAF wanted 40 Mig 2000s pronto. Which then devolved into decades of babu-giri, negotations, RFPs, trials and picking Rafale.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 14 Apr 2015 07:56

GeorgeWelch wrote:Let's not be silly, the Rafale provides a lot.

As the backbone of the IAF's strike fleet, it would have provided a lot.

But in the form of a piddly two-squadron purchase, I have my doubts as to its utility.

If two squadrons were all that need to be bought, then the F-35 (not that it was on the table, but it should at least have merited consideration) would have made much more sense. It would have brought game changing stealth capabilities to the table, and would have been very useful in the opening stages of a war.

it would have been obscenely expensive, but that expense would have been well worth the huge jump in strike capabilities.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Apr 2015 08:06

it would have been obscenely expensive, but that expense would have been well worth the huge jump in strike capabilities

If the Rafale deal is being pegged at $5 Billion, then the last FMS sale (priced at 2013) for the F-35 is only 25-30 or percent more expensive (actually for the same amount instead of 36 you'll get 28 aircraft with spare engines and logistical costs) but the problem isn't with the cost since it would come down significantly if someone was to order the jet in 2016 (it should be within 10-12% of the rafale cost and depending upon delivery dates may even match the cost). The problem is with deliveries. The JPO is about to forward a proposal for a bulk buy of 477 Aircraft so that effectively kills any sizable FMS sale pre-2020. That is only one reason why its not a valid option, the geopolitical relation is not mature where the IAF trusts the US as a supplier for its combat aircraft. This is widely acknowledged even within the highest levels of the USAF, and even they claim that the relationship will take time to mature.

https://youtu.be/Z4GOK8GjNHY?t=2607

France on the other hand has a higher degree of trust and the IAF has had largely a positive experience with the M2K and the dealings with the french.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Apr 2015 08:07

So how did the requirement go to 126? There must be a story in that.

Thanks.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 14 Apr 2015 08:16

Brar, good point about the JPO's bulk purchase. It may well have eliminated the possibility of an FMS sale to India, but that should not have stopped the GoI from making preliminary enquiries. But for all I know, they may have done just that.

Regarding geopolitics, the lack of trust would surely have prevented procurement of US fighters to form the backbone of the IAF's fighter force. But for a two-squadron purchase, geopolitics would (should?) not have mattered as much. Even if America pulled the plug on support, the bulk of the existing fleet would still be in fighting condition.

PS: Look at me; I'm peddling the F-35 now. Oh, how the mighty have fallen

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Apr 2015 08:20

ldev wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^ I'd tend to agree with your assessment, but considering how volatile this has been of late, I am not counting the Rafales yet. For ex. what if the price that Dassault quotes with spares, support, weapons etc., is not to GOI's liking? "twixt the cup and the lip" etc...
 I think 1. The Rafale order is Dassault's to lose. and 2. The LCA order is HAL's to lose. The Modi-Parrikar combo will give the business to these two companies provided they can step up with the right price/product combination. If they do not, somebody else will get the business. These two gentlemen are all about the results. France has got far too much invested in the process so they will probably price it correctly especially now that all aircraft to be purchased will be built in France. But until it is signed and sealed, one never knows.... The LCA situation is very interesting, because Parrikar at some point in his interview today said...."we do know the LCA has got some problems....." And then of course he also said that the requirement (to replace the MIG 21) was for a light, single engine aircraft with a smaller range and lower weapons carrying capacity than the Rafale class, which could be the LCA or some other aircraft. I take that to mean that he wants the LCA to qualify for the IAF's requirements, but in the final analysis if national security is at stake and HAL does not perform, then he will get some other light aircraft inducted.

Exactly! I think the deal is Dassault and HAL/ADA's to lose, but it is possible (remote as it may be) that it can be lost.

kit · Post by **kit** » 14 Apr 2015 08:33

I feel the more significant message is there could be another option to LCA !....

kit · Post by **kit** » 14 Apr 2015 08:35

MRCA was never to replace the single engined light weight mig 21...LCA is

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Apr 2015 08:42

kit wrote:I feel the more significant message is there could be another option to LCA !....

Well, let us be optimistic....it all depends on what ADA/HAL bring forth this year. Based on the noises from AI 2015, seems like FOC is quite close and they are likely to bring out most of the LCAs in that config, which is very good news.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 14 Apr 2015 09:00

kit wrote:I feel the more significant message is there could be another option to LCA !....

One could say that, but what really is out there in the single-engine configuration?

F-16 is long in the tooth and paki, so out of the question.

Then there is the Gripen, which all said and done, is not nearly as cheap as the LCA. Its cost would be justifiable for use as an MMRCA, but for the role envisioned for Mig-21/LCA, it is exorbitant. Not to mention it does not have the sanction-proof quality of the French fighter.

The only other two are the J-10 and JF-17

So, LCA is realistically the only option out there. But HAL will get whipped if they think they can take it easy. No one in this govt is going to put up with lackadaisical attitudes and the subtle hint is just for that.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2015 09:00

ramana wrote:So how did the requirement go to 126? There must be a story in that.

Thanks.

I think in the 2000-2001 time period when the IAF was looking at fighters to be retired over the next 10 years and also attain the sanctioned 42 squadron strength and if possible to exceed it, it came up with a number of 126 with an option for purchase of a further 74 such that it would replace all the retiring fighter aircraft i.e. MIG 21s, 23s and 27s and maintain that 42 squadron strength.

Although the IAF was impressed with the Mirage 2000 during Kargil ops, by the time the RFP was issued in 2008, Dassault had shut down the Mirage 2000 production line. And so they responded with the Rafale. The other entries are well known. How flawed the process was can be judged from the fact that at no time was a "never exceed" dollar figure given for the process, even the initial purchase, let alone the life cycle cost which was a new concept for everyone in the IAF/MOD. If the objective was to replace all those retiring fighters, then a tight cap should have been exercised on the capital cost. But instead what happened was that the IAF was given a mandate to shortlist and eventually finalize a winner based entirely on technical/performance criteria with no regard to cost/price. By the time they settled on the Rafale, it became apparent that cost escalation made that original replacement goal of 126 + 74 impossible, especially with TOT + HAL thrown into the mix. The rest is history.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Apr 2015 09:13

if the Tejas absolutely fails for some unknown reason, I would suggest we consider 100s of block40 and block50 F-16 that usaf will start retiring once they start the JSF induction process. if we can flog the M2k for 40 yrs surely the F-16 will be no slouch in the durability stake and it has got a big engine from GE. we can get them cheap, although the weapons will have to be purchased.

we could end up as the 2nd largest and finally the largest operator of the F-solah

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2015 09:19

Tejas wont fail for sure , it may be delayed but it would succeed too much time effort blood and money has gone into it for it to even have the thought about failing.

What we need to worry about Tejas is any future sanctions would limit its availability , which means we need to indiginous the engine or lic built it with TOT and other avionics/components that are imported for it i.e radar back end from Israel or moog actuators etc

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2015 09:21

In the full Parrikar interview, he says that the replacement for the Mig 21 will be either the LCA/Tejas or some other light fighter being produced under the Make in India program/scheme at that point in time.

He would not have made such a statement unless some aircraft manufacturer has not expressed some interest in manufacturing a light fighter in India.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2015 09:29

Thats just a generic statement he made there is not much to read into some other light fighter.

Tejas program has crossed its major risk management phase with Mk1 ..Mk2 is much less riskier part for ADA scientist it may get delayed by a year or two due to flight test program getting extended or unforseen issues but Tejas wont fail from now on.

The only other light fighter that comes close to Tejas Mk2 in most parameter is Gripen

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2015 09:37

^^In his entire interview he has been very specific on every subject covered so I don't think it's a generic statement.....but that is in the future...he spoke of a 6-10 year time frame when the Mig 21s
have to go.

But this Government think's out of the box. I would not be surprised if they do both i.e. induct the LCA/Tejas and have another light fighter produced under the Make in India program. And let there be competition between HAL and who ever else is producing the other aircraft to supply the IAF and if possible also export. How else are you going to develop a robust aircraft manufacturing industry if not via some competition. Relying on HAL alone has not been enough.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2015 09:43

The only people who would want to see Tejas fail and get another light fighter in competition is the import lobby , God Forbid !

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Apr 2015 09:47

If Tejas is successful there will be no need to have another fighter in the light category. Why introduce another fighter and everything that goes with it just for competition?

If competition for HAL is of prime importance the Tejas order can be split between it and a private player or the whole order could be handed over to the private sector.

krish.pf · Post by **krish.pf** » 14 Apr 2015 09:50

Wow.. getting 2 squadrons in a govt to govt deal with absolutely no chance of overhaul or deep maintenance capability in the country. What a master of cunning-ness the current govt is. Way to go BJP, good one there. Just goes to show the experience the party has when it comes to dealing with situations. Dumb as a whistle.

The details of this deal was clear from the get go. Dassault knew what it was getting into the moment it agreed to compete. Now after winning the competition they go back on their word.
I don believe the nonsense of not going back to L2, is L1 fails. That's just bullshit. What if L1 suddenly goes rogue and increases the price of several fold? Because of their treachery the entire deal is now moot? No one writes a dumb fine print like that anywhere in the world. There is no pursuance of L2 because no one is interested, neither the govt nor the IAF, plain and simple.

What a sad turn of events. The best would have been scrapping of the deal and going for second hand purchase of Mirage-2000 or getting the mothballed MiG-29S(to SMT) from MiG to quickly shore up numbers. Getting 2 squadrons of such an immensely costly new aircraft with such a low degree of understanding of the type technically, for in-house major emergency repairs and spare replacements, is the worst which could happen. Dumb-asses!!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 14 Apr 2015 09:53

Singha wrote:...
instead of Sulur, they should base their people in Yelehanka or the now empty HAL airport itself and work things closer with HAL. there is plenty of apron in Yelehanka for a squadron of Tejas as AI shows reveal and onlee few Mi17 and An32 are based there which can continue in parallel.

Sulur was the equivalent of a cellular jail type assignment to bury the tejas for good.

Sulur is coming up big time. More than a year ago they moved the Helicopter Unit from Sulur to Yelahanka. So Yelahanka has two same / similar types Helicopter Unit. Sulur still has SARANG.

Yelahanka or Bangalore is definitely not a good choice. Airspace management will be tough. Too much Civil traffic. HAL airport best remains with HAL and ASTE. They need the space. Plus any more traffic and BIAL will go to court or so I have heard. BIAL was definitely not happy with AeroIndia happening next door. There was just too much interfering traffic.

There is some talk of a developing a new base in South India. But so far it is talk.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 14 Apr 2015 09:53

delete - double post

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 14 Apr 2015 09:53

ldev wrote:In the full Parrikar interview, he says that the replacement for the Mig 21 will be either the LCA/Tejas or some other light fighter being produced under the Make in India program/scheme at that point in time.

He would not have made such a statement unless some aircraft manufacturer has not expressed some interest in manufacturing a light fighter in India.

i agree with you as it does 'sow' the seeds of doubt wrt LCA.

however considering there is no aircraft except the Gripen in a similar class (not counting old designs like F-16's etc) which costs a hell lot more, it seems to me that the DM is using the opportunity as a pressure tactic to all stake holders to pull up socks on LCA and make it happen.

this can be better understood when you view this in the context of his other comment - 'only Tejas can replace Mig 21's'

however i could be wrong too.

Jacob · Post by **Jacob** » 14 Apr 2015 10:34

Hello all,
Question for the experts: Now that the MMRCA is effectively scrapped, and all the focus is obviously on LCA, do we have full ToT on GEF404 engines, or will we be importing the same from US all the time, is that a good move?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Apr 2015 10:38

at present I dont think we make any parts for it. but if Tejas and AMCA take off, we might make some parts. maybe GE will let us make some parts of the compressor and afterburner sections while retaining the key hot section for itself.

Jacob · Post by **Jacob** » 14 Apr 2015 10:44

Thanks a lot Singha for the reply and so in short the Khans will be holding the trump card

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Apr 2015 10:46

as always

same thing applies to our c17, c130, p8i spares and engines.... and soon SH70, apache and ch47 ... thats 7 types of american engines.

Jacob · Post by **Jacob** » 14 Apr 2015 10:57

Sorry Singha if I am asking lots of questions. Am just a lawyer who has been following bharatrakshak since my childhood. So please bear with me. Isnt it better for India to enter into a equal partnership to co-produce nEuron kind of platforms, assuming India has enough to finance

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Apr 2015 11:00

HT had a good debate last night with Karan Thapar as anchor.ACM Tipnis,Karnad,et al.barring ACM Tipnis,who could only think and say ,"Rafale,Rafale" like a trained parrot-and never mentioned the LCA at all .The consensus was that it was a "mistake rather than masterstroke",as Dassault benefited more than India. Strangely,the cost factor (in comparison with alternatives) was little mentioned apart from doubt about any benefit in tech with this G-to-G deal where we would be at the mercy of the French forever.

Someone said that this deal was nothing about depleting numbers (!) of the IAF,but acquiring a capability against China. That has been the IAF's lament all along,lack of aircraft.How 36 Rafales is going to solve that is anyone's guess. ACM Tipnis also said that 200 aircraft were to be retired soon and when asked where would the numbers come from said more Rafales! Some even asked why in a G-to-G deal,the EF was not also asked to quote as the IAF had found both technically meetings its requirements. That any G-to-G deal should also not be a single vendor model.

Later on there was the DM himself on another channel were he said that the MMRCA original deal was as dead as the dodo.This leaves us with a heap of unanswered Qs about the future fleet projections of the IAF and where the aircraft to plug the gap of the 200 being pensioned off is going to come from.
In the cacophony of media reports,what has been little mentioned are the alternatives/options and the clear cost benefit by acquiring other aircraft,far cheaper. If $5B is going to give us just 36 Rafales,then we could've obtained 140-150 MIG-29K/UG variants at least (MIG-29K price $32M) or 72+ MKIs (MP's own statement)!
PS:And MKI price includes "making it in India".

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Apr 2015 11:05

afaik the make in india MKIs cost around $90-100 mil these days up from the initial austere $45 mil Su30K we got and algeria will those soon.
so $5b will get us around 50-60 of MKI minus any weapons or spare engines. I think we are going to get another 50 MKIs for sure.

but main issue is do we stick to the original AL31FP engine or go with the FP1 and FP2 iterations that offer some better stuff.....thats around 500 engines in the MLU to consider. do we use OLS50 , a upsized AESA from pakfa , new high power aesa jammer, new spherical MAWS......

nothing is cheap these days incl the gripen or even Tejas. once we fill out the tejas with proper aesa radar, avionics and weapons it wont be cheap anymore...just nature of the game. still it would be around half the rafale cost.

onlee way to contain costs
- make own engine - we are far from it , so people keep gouging us
- make own radars - we are approaching it , perhaps by 2020 anupam of lrde will be there
- make composites and all the metal parts from local materials and suppliers - we are getting there
- make own basic weapons kit - ccip bomb, LBG, gliding kit, A2G missile, ARM - we are getting there by 2020
- make own EW kit
- make own laser pod
- make own cockpit avionics
- even the ejection seat is not cheap

generally components and parts of big systems even if imported have less markup than importing the finished product.
so if we import a sofradir seeker , special electronic chips and metal forgings for a missile, it will still be cheaper than getting a finished product from MBDA.
so India generally starts with importing parts but owning the end system (tejas, arjun, dhanush, astra), and where it makes strategic and/or economic sense we develop local vendors.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 14 Apr 2015 11:10

Cui Bono?
Who is laughing their way to banco de swiss?
French?
GoI?
IAF?
HAL?
Amreekis?
Russians?
Looney Tunes?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Apr 2015 11:13

Ciu Bono?
A;France ,the IAF and the Looney Tunes!

OK,but still at least 50% more MKIs.The latest Russian orders for MIG-29s which would be 29K+ std. are just below $30M/aircraft.

Here's BK's latest interview/viewpoints,ck link for full interview.

http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2015/04/ ... ad-of-cpr/

Q: Why do you call the deal an “unmitigated disaster”?

A: Unmitigated disaster because
- it won’t solve IAF‘s immediate needs, which induction of more Su-30s can do. The first Rafales will come in by 2017 at the earliest, more likely 2018
- it torpedoes the entire TOT (transfer of technology) and “Make In India” angle, and
- while rescuing the French combat aircraft industry, deprives the Indian Tejas Mk2 and the advanced medium combat aircraft projects of much needed funding to get going.

Q: What, in your opinion, should be the requirement of the IAF?

A: IAF needs can be fully met with a mix in the medium-term future – next 15-20 years – of Su-30s for strike and air superiority, MiG-29Ms (latest variety) for long-range air defence, and LCA Tejas Mk-Is and IIs for short-range air defence.

Q: What should the government’s priorities be in defence expenditure? Did the first full budget by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley address those issues?

A: No, Jaitley’s budget did not address the MOD (Ministry of Defence) priorities, but that’s Parrikar’s job. The top priorities should be to beef up capabilities against China, especially three – not one – offensive ops mountain corps, and getting another Akula-II SSN from Russia.

Q: In your view, does the IAF not need a medium multi-role combat aircraft?

A: Not, MMRCA is a dubious need expressly favoured by the IAF to go Western, rather than making fiscal sense or serve the national interest.

Q: But the Tejas was under development for more than 25 years and is still nowhere near the final product.

A: Time delays and cost escalation is par for the course for all new combat aircraft programmes. Consider the US F-35 costing a trillion dollars, over 20 years, nearly 8-10 years overdue and operationally still an absolute disaster. And this is with an established defence industry, mind you.

Q: Can you list India’s top three threats in terms of countries?

A: China, China and China.