IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

[Rakesh]

^^^ Admiral

Since no one else calls me Admiral here anyone, thank you

, with due respect this kabadiwala (scavanger) approach hits on india-genious products first. Supporting it does not kill the RayfailBan super polarised sunglasses, just the corner chashma dukaan. Even a second hand toyota imported from gulf will be considered better than domestic ambassador.

The IAF is the one ringing the alarm about falling squadron strength. But yet at the same time, they refuse the Tejas in her Mk.1 avatar. Amazing no? For a quick stop gap, what is the harm if used Mirage 2000s can be bought. We are not going to be doing power projections with them, but we do need to stop the bleeding of squadrons. And if we can acquire a sufficient number, we can avoid the Rafale and make do with the former, till the Mk.2 arrives that the IAF is requesting.

There is no benefit to upgrading the mirages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6aka_xQVsI

I cannot explain it any better than the above.

There is only one reason NOW for buying second hand -- corruption.

The IAF has purchased second hand fighters before. But can you please explain how purchasing second hand fighters brings about corruption?

[Kakkaji]

When the PM was in Paris, the announcement was made that 36 Rafales will be bought off-the-shelf to care of immediate needs. IIRC, there was no talk of offsets then. 10 days later, Parrikar said the deal will include offsets. Of course the price with offsets will be higher than without them.

I think time has come to stop this farce. A poor country like India just cannot afford a super-expensive fighter aircraft like the Rafale. The IAF argument about falling numbers is fallacious in that you don't build numbers with an ultra-expensive aircraft.

I think the GOI needs to tell the IAF that they are just not getting the Rafale, period. They have to manage with the MKIs and the LCAs, and work with the DRDO on making them more capable and available.

Those in the IAF who do not want to fly any aircraft other than the Rafale, should join the French Air Force.

[Rakesh]

The IAF argument about falling numbers is fallacious in that you don't build numbers with an ultra-expensive aircraft.

You just hit the nail on the head. It is fallacious. We really do not need the Rafale. Nothing more than a 14 year tamasha. The GoI should walk away from this deal.

[Kakkaji]

The IAF has purchased second hand fighters before. But can you please explain how purchasing second hand fighters brings about corruption?

It is like buying a used car. What is the benchmark price of a second hand aircraft? What is its true condition? Where is the manufacturer's warranty? It all depends on what you can negotiate as the price for the aircraft and its upgrades, and hence the scope for corruption.

[Kakkaji]

The only reason that would justify the purchase of the Rafale is for 'strategic' reasons, where it can do some super-critical 'strategic' task that no other aircraft in IAF inventory can. And for that 'strategic' reason, a couple of squadrons off-the-shelf should be sufficient.

[Cain Marko]

IAF has had and continues to bave options..e.v. Qatari m2ks, and possibly greek and emirati as well. Old stocks of.Hungarian mig 29s are another possibility, even the mig 29M is a pretty easily inductable, cheap option...but the fixation on the Rafale.is astonishing. Having said this, I am not sure if this is the air force's fault or the ministry's....iirc the Qatari M2K fell through cause the ministry insisted upon a real low ball offer..

In any case these options should be explored, I don't think additional flankers are such as great fit for this role

[Kakkaji]

All this 'kabaad' and 'jugaad' will take too long. Might as well order the Super Hornet from the US under the FMS route. The Americans can easily supply a squadron per year of new-built aircraft with the entire weapons kit, and it will still be much cheaper than the Rafale.

[Cain Marko]

What jugaad, nothing would be logistically easier to induct than fighters that the IAF has rich experience with. The Shornet is neither cheap nor easily inducted causing an altogether new fighter type from a whimsical vendor.

[RamaY]

With their stubbornness the IAF top brass is hurting national interests. IAF is ok with cannibalizing their fighters but not willing to absorb Indian made fighters. This is nothing but rebellion against civilian govt.

The top 2-3 levels of IAF should simply resign if they don't like to serve the nation and new leadership will take over.

The armed forces must accept the decision of civilian Govt's. Rhetorically speaking If the nation can afford only sticks and stones, that's what the armed forces must fight the enemy with, no questions asked.

[Rakesh]

What jugaad, nothing would be logistically easier to induct than fighters that the IAF has rich experience with. The Shornet is neither cheap nor easily inducted causing an altogether new fighter type from a whimsical vendor.

Thank you for that. We can't see the wood for the trees sometimes. This is a win-win situation for the IAF and the Govt. But the IAF is stubborn and refuses to see good reason. Also definitely against any aircraft that comes from uncle. No way.

It is like buying a used car. What is the benchmark price of a second hand aircraft? What is its true condition? Where is the manufacturer's warranty? It all depends on what you can negotiate as the price for the aircraft and its upgrades, and hence the scope for corruption.

You can assess the aircraft's true condition before you buy them. Even the article I posted about the Qatari Mirage 2000s had a life span of 85% in the mid 2000s when the IAF assessed them. Will definitely be lower now, but still fine for the IAF's immediate needs. Secondly, the Qatari Mirage 2000s are Dash 5s...not as advanced as the Dash 9s, but still way better than the legacy Mirage 2000s currently in service with the IAF. There will be differences in communication gear and the like, but not insurmountable issues. The IAF can work around them.

Determining the benchmark price of a second hand aircraft, the absence of warranty and negotiating the price of the aircraft does not relate to an immediate charge of corruption. The IAF has purchased used MiG-21 trainers in the past from east European countries.

[Shreeman]

^^^ Admiral

Since no one else calls me Admiral here anyone, thank you

, with due respect this kabadiwala (scavanger) approach hits on india-genious products first. Supporting it does not kill the RayfailBan super polarised sunglasses, just the corner chashma dukaan. Even a second hand toyota imported from gulf will be considered better than domestic ambassador.

The IAF is the one ringing the alarm about falling squadron strength. But yet at the same time, they refuse the Tejas in her Mk.1 avatar. Amazing no? For a quick stop gap, what is the harm if used Mirage 2000s can be bought. We are not going to be doing power projections with them, but we do need to stop the bleeding of squadrons. And if we can acquire a sufficient number, we can avoid the Rafale and make do with the former, till the Mk.2 arrives that the IAF is requesting.

There is no benefit to upgrading the mirages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6aka_xQVsI

I cannot explain it any better than the above.

There is only one reason NOW for buying second hand -- corruption.

The IAF has purchased second hand fighters before. But can you please explain how purchasing second hand fighters brings about corruption?

Admiral,

Firstly, the IAF noise is not loud enough. Or coherent.

If there were 4 squads of LCAs operating at IOC with 10% availability, the clamoring for rayfail may make some sense. But we will neve see that day. Right now, to someone sitting afar, the IAF message is not coming through as coherent. Just as greedy for foreign toys. All this, we want 80 jets now is nonsense. Why not 800 LCAs? Why 20 now and 20 more by 2030?

Obviously, it is not about the technical improvements to a M2000 or 29 or jaguar by an upgrade. It is the piece of the pie a foreign platform eats for two more decades. It is weapons and apares that cost over and over. And then remain untested, expire and get dumped in the bay de bengal.

In the before time, long long ago, IAF was poor and destitute. And the procurement process corrupt. And ignorant. And run by a dynasty interested in only perpetuating its rule. And clouds of wars, real wars, gathered more often than once a decade. You cant carry that mindset forever. Not poor now, technologically or financially. Nor a only one service arm war again on the horizon. Even Kargil is history.

The old times killed HF24. Can you support that mindset? No. Upgrades of foreign platforms or new foreign platforms are not the answer.

Your ship. The flagship. It spent pretty much 8 months of the year out of karwar. People still complain about what is wrong with her. And its nothing that is wrong now. And never a word about what is right.

The same mentality pushes foreign toys here (via less than half a dozen accounts who act as tag teams and could theoretically be one person). Dont join them.

The only solution is an order of magnitude greater number of domestic systems. And then their frequent upgrades.

No more toys. Only eating the kheer (only kind of pudding officially recognized) will change something. Not pretending to cook it forever.

[Rakesh]

Firstly, the IAF noise is not loud enough. Or coherent.

If there were 4 squads of LCAs operating at IOC with 10% availability, the clamoring for rayfail may make some sense. But we will neve see that day. Right now, to someone sitting afar, the IAF message is not coming through as coherent. Just as greedy for foreign toys. All this, we want 80 jets now is nonsense. Why not 800 LCAs? Why 20 now and 20 more by 2030?

Obviously, it is not about the technical improvements to a M2000 or 29 or jaguar by an upgrade. It is the piece of the pie a foreign platform eats for two more decades. It is weapons and spares that cost over and over. And then remain untested, expire and get dumped in the bay de bengal.

In the before time, long long ago, IAF was poor and destitute. And the procurement process corrupt. And ignorant. And run by a dynasty interested in only perpetuating its rule. And clouds of wars, real wars, gathered more often than once a decade. You cant carry that mindset forever. Not poor now, technologically or financially. Nor a only one service arm war again on the horizon. Even Kargil is history.

The old times killed HF24. Can you support that mindset? No. Upgrades of foreign platforms or new foreign platforms are not the answer.

Your ship. The flagship. It spent pretty much 8 months of the year out of karwar. People still complain about what is wrong with her. And its nothing that is wrong now. And never a word about what is right.

The same mentality pushes foreign toys here (via less than half a dozen accounts who act as tag teams and could theoretically be one person). Don't join them.

The only solution is an order of magnitude greater number of domestic systems. And then their frequent upgrades.

No more toys. Only eating the kheer (only kind of pudding officially recognized) will change something. Not pretending to cook it forever.

Not a single thing you have said above is true. The IAF is very coherent in their opposition to the Tejas. They are very coherent in the fact that they want the shiny new phoren toy i.e. Rafale. They have made both very amply clear. Secondly, none of the services were ever poor and destitute, it is the subsequent governments in power that have made them look that way. Weapons and spares will cost for the Su-30MKI, MiG-29, Jaguar, the present crop of IAF Mirage 2000s and all the other phoren fighters in the IAF stables. But what do you want to do? Retire them all and induct 800 LCAs? Is that really a workable solution? You mentioned the Vik earlier and again...but I fail to see how that has any relation to what we are discussing here. You do realise the Mirage 2000-5 and the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 are both war tested platforms that have been successfully used in combat? The same is true for her weaponry as well. I cannot see how you are coming to the conclusion that they are untested platforms. Your solution of greater number of domestic systems (and their frequent upgrades) is not what the IAF wants or what even HAL presently has. We have the Tejas and we have a scale model of the AMCA. What great number of domestic systems are you referring to? You can bring a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink. Unless you whip its backside and force it to. The only way to do that is is to remove the opposition. But who is willing to bell the cat?

[Shreeman]

^^^Rakesh,

The vik. example was relevent in how a platform is treated/respected when it is not "new/shiny". A perfectly functional device being hauled over the coals, daily.

For the rest, short of a war how does a weapon get respected? By its adoption and demonstration. In this, the IAF is horrible. Domestic platforms (untested as you say) bring unlimited demonstration to the table. As with platforms, it is with the astra and similar homemade droppings that I relate here. They ought to be produced without any foreign currency cost. They cost only paper money. Or at least they should if they arent screwdrivered/painted copies.

So flogging two dozen *platforms* (yes, at first only with nothing, then R60s, and so on) for doctrine development has been possible for the last ten years. The IAF hasnt done that. No point in blaming another agency. If IAF said we want 12 copies of this exact thing every year, there is no reason they would not get it. Or if there is, then that is still an IAF problem above and before demanding foreign toys. Bread before cake.

But IAF has been sending test pilots. It has been nominally ordering 20 nos of Mk1, 20 of Mk1.5 and so on. It has been demonstrating the LCA in air shakti this and that. That is not a uniform rejection voice. This is the confusion. Not a "we wont touch it with a hundred foot stick" and not a "give us 126 rayfails pretty please".

Re. upgrades, there is an intended use and expected lifetime of every thing. I argue the IAF retire the M2000 when its life expires. The same with M21, 27, 29. And yes even the 30. This "we can get an extra 20 years" attitude needs to be an exception and not the rule. 21 -> bison. 29->upg. 27->upg. so on. This keeps a lot of dumps and trash collectors in business, hoarding old parts for ransom.

After 20-30 years, its time to let go. Move on to a new platform. Upgrades cant be the norm. These platforms were intended to fill the gap until domestic solutions arrived. Not to double their costs every 20 years.

This isnt a catch 22 situation. The LCA isnt in squad. service because "we are ok with its state of affairs". And AMCA stands where it is, because it is a similar negotiation device. To claim a plan B to foreign vendors.

As for the untested aspect, it referred to the very upgraded example being used in a war. Most IAF M2000, 29s, whatever, havent been used in any war. Kargil is the best/only example against this. And only shortcomings of the design/upgrades were made evident by that event.

Replacing an item after its design life is not a sin. The jugaad attitude only provides a minor bump in capability. And it keeps from development of doctrine that a new more capable platform would bring. A new design cycle brings generational leaps. Upgrades fix problems.

The "LCA is not there yet" is a fallacy. Starting with that there would never be an alternative to foreign import. I agree that if all parties -- air force included -- were forced to take what the domestic industry produced then there would be domestic production. And only then would there be domestic production.
This is belling the cat. But to do this, "cheap alternatives" have to be nipped in the bud.

Used craft, upgrades, whatever. All serve the purpose of a distraction from core limitation -- lack of domestic production. Of platforms. Of the associated weapons. A build rate of 48 craft a year is nothing that would shatter any paradigms of manufacturing. Why not? You would be able to upgrade them as often as you like.

The who, is the PM. Can he? Or will he just slice the pie differently and send the kickbacks to private industry instead of current middlemen?

[Rakesh]

For the rest, short of a war how does a weapon get respected? By its adoption and demonstration. In this, the IAF is horrible. Domestic platforms (untested as you say) bring unlimited demonstration to the table. As with platforms, it is with the astra and similar homemade droppings that I relate here. They ought to be produced without any foreign currency cost. They cost only paper money. Or at least they should if they arent screwdrivered/painted copies. So flogging two dozen *platforms* (yes, at first only with nothing, then R60s, and so on) for doctrine development has been possible for the last ten years. The IAF hasnt done that. No point in blaming another agency. If IAF said we want 12 copies of this exact thing every year, there is no reason they would not get it. Or if there is, then that is still an IAF problem above and before demanding foreign toys. Bread before cake.

The Astra is undergoing testing. When it is ready it will be inducted. But before that occurs, can you kindly advise what is the IAF supposed to fight with? You want to retire the R60s, R-73s, R-77s, Magic-IIs and wait for the Astra. But what exactly are you suggesting in the interim? You mentioned Astra, but that is primarily a BVR missile. The IAF would ensure that they have a close combat missile as well. From where is this missile going to come from, since as per public domain, none are in existence in India that are being developed. When phoren fighters are purchased, phoren missiles are required as well. They usually come from the same country where the fighter comes from. Right now we have cake and we need the ingredients to ensure that cake stays fresh. The bread is still being baked.

But IAF has been sending test pilots. It has been nominally ordering 20 nos of Mk1, 20 of Mk1.5 and so on. It has been demonstrating the LCA in air shakti this and that. That is not a uniform rejection voice. This is the confusion. Not a "we wont touch it with a hundred foot stick" and not a "give us 126 rayfails pretty please".

You do realise IAF test pilots do not run the air force? They are test pilots. They test aircraft. They are not involved in any decision making ability of how many aircraft should be purchased. Their job is to test the aircraft given to them and they have then provided their verdict. Your claim that is not a uniform rejection voice is complete bogus. The fact that they are ordering Tejas in piece meal - 20 Mk.1 and 20 Mk1.5s - is rejection indeed, when the test pilots who have flown the Mk.1 have already stated that it is better than MiG-21 Bison and even early model F-16s.

Re. upgrades, there is an intended use and expected lifetime of every thing. I argue the IAF retire the M2000 when its life expires. The same with M21, 27, 29. And yes even the 30. This "we can get an extra 20 years" attitude needs to be an exception and not the rule. 21 -> bison. 29->upg. 27->upg. so on. This keeps a lot of dumps and trash collectors in business, hoarding old parts for ransom. After 20-30 years, its time to let go. Move on to a new platform. Upgrades cant be the norm. These platforms were intended to fill the gap until domestic solutions arrived. Not to double their costs every 20 years.

Again, you are dead wrong. Upgrades are the norm. Every air force does it. You do not waste perfectly good aircraft if you can upgrade them and get a greater capability from them. Navies do it for their vessels. Armies do it for their tanks, armoured personnel carriers, etc.

You are equally wrong about the MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29 and the Su-30. Especially the last one, which I will get to in a minute. Development of the Tejas started in the 80s and not in the 60s when the first variants of the MiG-21 was inducted and ended in the 80s with the Bis variant. By the time the Tejas had her first flight on 04 Jan 2001, MiG-21 production at HAL had ended for a long time. The MiG-27 and the MiG-29 were inducted in the 80s, when Tejas development had just begun. And as for Rambha, she is in a league of her own. The Tejas is not designed to replace her. Your statement that these platforms were intended to fill the gap until domestic solutions arrived is complete hogwash.

The MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 have all completed close to 30 years of service with the IAF. So according to you, we should let go? What are you expecting to replace it with?

As for the untested aspect, it referred to the very upgraded example being used in a war. Most IAF M2000, 29s, whatever, haven't been used in any war. Kargil is the best/only example against this. And only shortcomings of the design/upgrades were made evident by that event.

This keeps getting better. You are seriously smoking something. Kargil is the best example because that is when both the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 were used quite successfully by the IAF. The devastating attacks by the Mirage 2000 turned the war for India in Kargil. MiG-29s provided effective cover for attacking IAF aircraft. The Flt Lt Gaurav Chibber episode is a classic example.

Replacing an item after its design life is not a sin. The jugaad attitude only provides a minor bump in capability. And it keeps from development of doctrine that a new more capable platform would bring. A new design cycle brings generational leaps. Upgrades fix problems. The "LCA is not there yet" is a fallacy. Starting with that there would never be an alternative to foreign import. I agree that if all parties -- air force included -- were forced to take what the domestic industry produced then there would be domestic production. And only then would there be domestic production. This is belling the cat. But to do this, "cheap alternatives" have to be nipped in the bud. Used craft, upgrades, whatever. All serve the purpose of a distraction from core limitation -- lack of domestic production. Of platforms. Of the associated weapons. A build rate of 48 craft a year is nothing that would shatter any paradigms of manufacturing. Why not? You would be able to upgrade them as often as you like.

I am now convinced you do not have a faint clue of what you are saying. To claim that a Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 provides a minor bump in capability (when compared to the legacy Mirage 2000H) and it hampers the IAF from developing doctrine is facetious at best. Upgrades do fix problems, like from Tejas Mk1 to Mk1.5 to Mk.2, but let us abandon that and go for a new design cycle which will bring operational leaps Build rate of 48 aircraft a year? HAL can barely commit to 16 aircraft a year. That is laughable.

The who, is the PM. Can he? Or will he just slice the pie differently and send the kickbacks to private industry instead of current middlemen?

The Prime Minister cannot, neither can the Raksha Mantri or any other elected official/civilian (who has a decision making ability) in determining what capabilities the IAF needs to have. The Prime Minister has been elected - from a national security perspective - to ensure that India's citizens are safe. He in turn ensures that mandate is fulfilled by the armed forces of which a Defence Minister is appointed to ensure that the armed forces have the capabilities to fulfill that mandate. PM Modi and RM Parrikar could care less if the Rafale comes with AESA radar or not, whether it can fire Mica missiles or not or whatever else. They do not even have a faint clue of what these aircraft are capable of. They are aware it can fly and it can drop bombs or fire missiles, but it ends right there. They are not idiots because of their lack of knowledge, but that is just not what they are elected to do and that is not their primary concern.

PM Modi has sliced the pie quite well actually, with regards to the Rafale. From 126 to 36. Cost is the purview of the govt. Capabilities of platforms are not.

Not one single babu or any elected official was involved in the MMRCA testing phase. Not one.

[Philip]

I've been maintaining for aeons that ultimately the cost factor will bite and bite hard.The cost of acquiring ,operating and maintaining even 36 Rafales will require a "Grecian" solution! The DM made his own views clear some time ago that one Rafale's cost was twice that of an MKI. I've given before this simple equation. 1 X Rafale= 2 X SU-30 MKI=4 X MIG-29K/UG. If LCAs were readily available it would be =5/6 X LCA,but then they're not the equiv. of the Rafale capability wise and are fundamentally meant to replace MIG-21.27s.

So the GOI has to bite the bullet.Either cough up the shekels that the French want,capitulate to them,or order more MKIs or MIG-29s,a more realistic and cost-effective solution,while cracking the whip harder to get the LCA issue sorted out for both Mk-1 and 2. had M-2000s been in production,one could've ordered more of them.Unfortunately,second-hand M-2000s even if available will be v.expensive to upgrade,remember that the upgrade costs for just 40 of ours is costing us $2.4B,while upgrades for the 60+ MIG-29s was just under $1B!

[fanne]

Boss, Govt should force IAF to go for additional 100 SU30MKI. This is pure brinkmanship. IAF wants Rafeal, and it looks like it wouldn't mind if India is defeated in the next war and half the country lost, unless it gets it Rafeal. SU30MKI is also a successful platform, in many ways superior to Raf and even if it weren't, if it were half as good, it cost half or less than Raf. We already have support infrastructure, pilot pool, training etc for them, get 100 more and let the Raf negotiation go on (along with LCA never ending testing and improvement). Parrikar Sir, this should not be a very hard decision to make in this fog of indecisiveness, brinkmanship, narrow mindedness, impractical planning and dare say blackmail. 100-200 more MKI is a ticket to it. A force of 450 MKIs (22 SQ), will be a force to recon, TSP and PLAAF will think twice

[Cain Marko]

Actually, the Mki is the least suitable.replacement as an mrca, a force of more Mkis is too top heavy, couple this with more pakfas and.it is AF with 60-70 percent heavy fighters. Doubt.even the US or the Russkis had such a preponderance of heavy fighters n their heyday, india can hardly afford the gas bill.

Philip, the greek, emirati and qatari m2ks are already upgraded to dash 5 standard, so there is no question of upgrade costs. This is very viable option, and so is that of extra mig 29smts or Ms.

[Cain Marko]

Nor is it clear that the blame for present situation is entirely IAFs. I would put it 70:15:15 between MOD/GOI, ADA, IAF. Absolute lack of leadership by goi, snooty and unsupportive approach of iaf, and lack of pragmatism and poor management by ada. If any one of these would be better, things might have been different, but ultimately, the leadership really makes all the difference

[fanne]

Will the gas billll difference between mki and Rafael be $1000 million over the the life of each sircraft? (The price diff between them).
Ideally, a medium plane is needed, but what to do, each one costs a billion, the iaf will not have a plan b, the iaf strength is going down and enemy numbers going up. I hope iaf has plan b for everything else, like fighting war, if their plan a does not work, theycan Quickly adopt to b (as they did in kargil) .

[Cain Marko]

Rafale. vs. Mki in terms of fuel consumption ...that is a good question. But would not be surprised if difference was dramatic - mki weighs 2X and has far more powerful engines although AL31 has remarkably low sfc figures, maintenancwise too russki fighters are known for being manpower hogs. Of course this has to be weighed against raffles mad procurement cost.

But my pitch was for additional used fighters such as fulcrums or mirages to bide us by...the 450 flanker number seemed a bit much. Perhaps couple of sqds...in the interim

But tbh, I feel a small mki purchase has always been the backup plan b, iaf has naturally played it down in their desire for the mrca. Even so, I think an attempt at used mirage and/or some fulcrums would not be remiss..

[brar_w]

No one knows what the IAF will pay for each in terms of the overall O&S cost given the one is a fully made in india product (including the spare pipeline) while the other is an import..Overall a medium weight multi-role fighter will cost the end user around 12-17,000 in operational cost depending upon the pattern of operation and the fighter characteristics. In this category you can add Fuel, Maintenance, support, and aircraft like say the F-16, Gripen, F-18, Rafale and Typhoon. On the other hand something like the F-15E can cost a user close to $32,000 once everything is said and done.

If one is to assume parity in O&S (an unrealistic scenario that will affect both fighters and the cost analysis) and go by fuel cost alone one can use the US comptroller information on aircraft rates per hour that to the best of my knowledge are the closest published stats you are going to get on fuel consumption alone as they do not include the general operational outlay.

In that scenario an F-16C costs just shy of $9000 per hour to operate, while the F-15C costs around $20,000. Rounding off the Rafale to $11000 per hour, we get a difference to the F-15C of around $9000 which comes to $72 Million over 8000 hours (difference between F-16C and F-15C cost that includes mostly fuel). Now, the Rafale is an 8000 hour airframe that can easily go beyond 10,000 just like the F-16. The Su-30 to the best of my knowledge is a 6,000 hour airframe that can go up to 8-9000 hours through a SLEP so you will need to introduce a multiplier to the MKI cost to arrive to a relative airframe-life cost comparison to the Rafale. This is of course both acheive parity in mission-availability rates. A more modern fighter will generally achieve a higher mission availability rate at a lower cost..Basically you could use these as a comparison but keep in mind the problem comes form he fact that a lot of the MKI support cost is in INR while that of the Rafale appears to be (at least given what is currently known) in $ or Euros...If india can work out something like a long term Indian OEM run O&S center for the rafale and also start making some of the spares the cost equation can be similar, but until then the spares and most of the critical components will be coming from a french line.

US Comptroller figures are not 100% fuel cost, but also do include some logistics, but unlike fleet operational cost per hour that involves taking the entire operational cost of the fleet and dividing by the number of fleet hours flown - the comptroller figures are essentially what it would cost a private OEM if it wanted to rent an F-15 or F-16 from the USAF for whatever reason..Most of this cost is just fuel and some simple logistics cost sharing essentially a bare bone cost to operate per hour to go out and test things like sensors etc.

[Shreeman]

Rakesh,

The quotations would run into pages. So I am including only the important aspects of the conversation and we can start quoting again.

The crux appears to be this -- HAL will not do certain things (like commiting to more than 16 a year) and IAF will not do certain things (like involving itself beyond sending test pilots). The key words are "will not". We admit they are capable, they just "will not". We accept this state of affairs and then try to squeeze out efficiencies and opportunities elsewhere like SDREs we are. Apart from questioning/hand wringing over management we see no escape forever. This is indeed a "we are like this onlee" debate. Development of anything will take X years, where X is always today + positive N years. Why isnt this the bread and butter problem?

Yes, my remedies may seem laughable. But as a counterpoint, how laughable is ISRO for hoping to launch things to the moon and Mars? When did it stop becoming laughable? Why did it become matter of fact and not laughable.

I am proposing what was applied to strategic rockets in the absence of alternatives. Things are not too bleak there. That is also from the same "we are like this onlee" DRDO. Why? Why should there be alternatives in rockets below 24 inches dia but not above?

Given long shelf lives of existing stocks, this is much gentler sanction than was applied to civil launchers or ballistics. Why is this radical? On year ~5+day 1, there will not be any imports, upgrades for units in double digits. This is relaxed compared to the stated aim in all large rockets. But it becomes laughable on diwali sized projectiles. why?

Now to the specific aspects. An upgrade will not make an M2000 supercruise, it will not make it stealthier, it will not give it a 50 year life. Nothing that is generationally different. The argument against upgrades arises from not where there is a healthy mix of domestic and foreign platforms but rather a very toxic and unsustainable situation that wants to be permanent (ie next 50 years) via rayfail, fgfa and their upgrades.

Worse, any upgrades (no increase in quantity) are easily matched by the 3.5 fourfathers via donations. If it doesnt give you any decisive edge over a blk 152 lawn dart, then do you bother? And if so, why?

The next aspect is new armament. Lets say, give or take, a projectile has a shelf life of 10 years. The argument for maintaining them beyond 10 years (via new stocks, repairs, upgrades) is that even in the next 10 years the domestic self propelled projectiles and guidance will remain immature. This is the same argument applied to platforms -- they too will remain immature for the life extension from the upgrade? Why?

You are arguing for imported strategic "quantity". I argue, only rare almost next to none and then only "quality". It doesnt matter that the grass is greener on the other side. It doesnt matter the capabilities an upgrade brings if there are only 50 of them (or 126 or 36 for that matter), and 2% attrition at every mistake/failure. What sort of doctrine can you develop with say 70% availability, ~5% attrition and a total number of 50?

Unrelated -- Those arging for/against "tyel costs" should consider fleet maintenance costs (mandatory reserves of spares that are increasingly difficult to find, human costs due to platform fatigue/decay, separate training and people, real money in keeping white horses flying) too. A simple mix of 3 types would have far more trained individuals looking after them and far greater uptime. I dont see even the heavy twin costing in fuel anywhere close to the inefficiencies that 10 types introduce.

[Viv S]

Basically you could use these as a comparison but keep in mind the problem comes form he fact that a lot of the MKI support cost is in INR while that of the Rafale appears to be (at least given what is currently known) in $ or Euros...If india can work out something like a long term Indian OEM run O&S center for the rafale and also start making some of the spares the cost equation can be similar, but until then the spares and most of the critical components will be coming from a french line.

That'll still be tilted in the Sukhoi's favour since the existing infrastructure to service 270 aircraft already exists or is being set up. That for the Rafale, in contrast, will have to be created from scratch. And if the order size remains small, doing so may actually end up increasing the life-cycle costs.

[Shreeman]

I've been maintaining for aeons that ultimately the cost factor will bite and bite hard.The cost of acquiring ,operating and maintaining even 36 Rafales will require a "Grecian" solution! The DM made his own views clear some time ago that one Rafale's cost was twice that of an MKI. I've given before this simple equation. 1 X Rafale= 2 X SU-30 MKI=4 X MIG-29K/UG. If LCAs were readily available it would be =5/6 X LCA,but then they're not the equiv. of the Rafale capability wise and are fundamentally meant to replace MIG-21.27s.

So the GOI has to bite the bullet.Either cough up the shekels that the French want,capitulate to them,or order more MKIs or MIG-29s,a more realistic and cost-effective solution,while cracking the whip harder to get the LCA issue sorted out for both Mk-1 and 2. had M-2000s been in production,one could've ordered more of them.Unfortunately,second-hand M-2000s even if available will be v.expensive to upgrade,remember that the upgrade costs for just 40 of ours is costing us $2.4B,while upgrades for the 60+ MIG-29s was just under $1B!

Phillip,

Here is my question regarding the multipliers. If you were flying super-duper plane X and saw 4 inferior SDRE planes coming at you with guns blazing, would you just ignore them and go about your business? Will you be able to?

This X:Y math is unreliable, but it contains the basic truth about quantity being a meaningful thing.

And like all things meaningful quantity is an inflationary value. How are the numbers ever going to increase to where meaningful quantity is not an issue?

[fanne]

36 MKI can be had faster than 36 Raf (Irkut can make them) and can be operationalized faster. Raf is stuck in negotiations can may not come in the next 20 years (maybe it is prized too high, maybe French are blackmailing us thinking we do not have an option, or make your own reason).
The point is not all this. IAF is CURRENTLY short of 25 sq, 500 fighters (please look at few pages, IAF own assessment on how big the IAF should be to fight 1.5 to 2 front war, 55-58 SQ, currently it is at 32, with many planes to be retired this and next year). IAF in its infinite wisdom, would not buy anything else unless it gets is Raf (minimum is now 80). This is pure brinkmanship. We have a decisive PM and an IIT Def minister (which should give him the wisdom to think through all this mess). This should not be hard to think through and force IAF hands. The GOI runs the country and the govt, including IAF. They should overrule IAF, and buy more of existing planes -Mig29/Mirage200/MKI and later LCA. Even when some of these planes are bought Raf can still be bought (when budget and good deal support us). But to hold whole IAF and country security on this buying is ......... IAF does not have plan B, whoever is responsible for having it should be asked to leave.
In the past GOI overruled IAF and bought Mig21, and that has been a great decision.

[johneeG]

Rakesh saar,
I mean to say that strategies, tactics, and logistics are the domain of armed forces. But, geo-politicis and geo-economics are the domain of govt. Technology is the domain of R&D wings.

The weapon systems to be inducted are based on all these factors. But, geo-politics and geo-economics triumphs all other considerations especially during peace time. Maybe during war time, logistics and war strategies gain precedence over long-term geo-politics and geo-economics.

So, the weapons systems to be inducted will ultimately have to be decided by the govt based on geo-politics and geo-economics. Strategies, tactics and logistics has to adjust to the larger geo-political and economical realities.

Geo-politics is not the domain of the armed forces. Its supposed to be the domain Ministry of defence and Govt in general.

Now, given the size of armed forces of Bhaarath, its simply not economical to depend on imports even if Bhaarath was a very rich country. Further, dependence on imports actually is counter productive to security of Bhaarath because the imports can be withheld on the whims and fancies of other countries.

This decision has to be taken by Ministry of defence. The imports have to be an exception where the need is urgent.

India remains world's largest arms importer

I don't see any mistake of IAF or IA in the Tejas and Arjun saga. Take Rafale thing. IAF wants to find a nice a/c which will perform the best in our conditions to replace their aging a/cs. They zero in on Rafale after testing various a/cs. Fine. It is the MOD's responsibility to clearly say whether they can afford to import Rafale or not. And whether they want to import or not. Its good that Parrikar has clearly said that 126 Rafale deal was unaffordable and unnecessary. This should have been done much earlier by previous govts.

Its like a young boy testing various mobile phones on their relative features and deciding that he wants to buy one of the shiny new ones. Its the boy's dad who has to decide if he can afford such an expensive mobile or not. Its also the dad's call if such a mobile is necessary for his son or not. If he can't afford that, then its dad's responsibility to show an economical option.

Similarly, it must be the MODs decision that Tejas and Arjun are the most economical option fitting the role even if they are not perfect in terms of strategies, tactics and logistics.

I think what has happened is that in the last 30 years, there has not been a strong govt at the center with full majority. So, the power and responsibility of the govt has been ceded to various institutes or orgs. This govt is the full majority govt after 30 yrs. It needs to take back the power and responsibility of the elected govt. Judicial collegium system is also a symptom of the same problem. The civilian govt needs to make the decisions which are supposed to be made by the civilian govt. Why hide behind armed forces? Why blame the armed forces? Its civilian govt's responsibility to decide whether the country would depend on imports or not. If the country is going to depend on imports, negotiating those imports will involve a lot of geo-politics and geo-economics. It has nothing to do with any war strategies, tactics or logistics. Anyway, the war strategies, tactics and logistics have to be subservient to the larger geo-political realities.

[GeorgeWelch]

The Shornet is neither cheap nor easily inducted causing an altogether new fighter type from a whimsical vendor.

It's half the price of the Rafale

'Ease of induction' is a red herring. When was the last time you heard of a modern airforce being unable to use a new plane because they couldn't figure out how to operate it? Never, that's when.

Yes it's a new fighter type, but that also has advantages, bringing new capabilities and ensuring a diverse ecosystem that's less vulnerable to the enemy exploiting a single critical flaw.

Also it's catapult rated, which is something none of your current planes are.

[NRao]

Since no one else calls me Admiral here anyone, thank you

I sure missed that one.

[Rakesh]

NRao: Am I to assume that sarcasm is lost on you?

Shreeman: Will reply to your post soon.

johneeG: Indeed geo-politicis and geo-economics are the domain of govt. That was clearly evident in PM Modi reducing the Rafale order from 126 to 36 aircraft. Unless the Govt wants to hire "armchair" generals, air marshals and admirals, who are well versed in military platforms, you will have the predicament that the IAF is currently facing. A service that refuses to fly nothing less than a shiny phoren toy, while disparaging the desi one (despite IAF test pilots stating otherwise)...all the while knowing that the Govt has no clue other than what the IAF is spoon feeding them.

Secondly, my issue is not with what the fact that the IAF zeroed in on the Rafale, after testing a variety of aircraft. My issue is that they have no Plan B which they themselves keep on embarrassingly stating. It is the son's responsibility - because owning a cell phone is a big responsibility - to ensure that if one phone cannot be bought, what is the other option? If he does not have a Plan B, I would question his decision making ability and ponder over the fact whether even providing him a cell phone is a right option. He obviously has placed no monetary value on the cell phone and thus he does not care. It is not HIS money.

Majority govts or minority govts do not care about anything else other than vote bank politics. The average man does not care what the armed forces have in their kitty. Roti, Kapda, Makaan....is all they care and rightfully so. The IAF does not want to entertain a Plan B, despite the fact there is. It does not have to be the plan that I am endorsing here, but have a Plan B.

[RamaY]

Upon further thinking (a rare thing)...

The bottom line of military acquisitions is what should be the fundamental criteria?

If a technology or platform is available within Make-In-India then it should get preferential treatment. Please note that I said "Make" in India so it applies to foreign manufacturers who have their Mfg setup in India.

Question/risk is:Is this enough to ensure that India will not move forward to next Ambassador (and premier Padmini) era, where there will be no product innovation or efficiency for decades?

Another question is can IAF be allowed to define the requirements in such a way that all Make In India products are disqualified to bid due to these strange requirements?

For example, can IAF set a requirement of say 45mile range for a missile in order to force a foreign acquisition when as all make in India missiles have say 40mile range?

Then the law should also force IAF to give the Make India Contender a reasonable period (in the missile's case 2-3Yrs) to meet the required criteria while supplying the existing missiles for first 2-3Yrs with stringent & hefty financial penalty clauses (so there is no false promising) if the Indian manufacturer fails to deliver the extended range missile in stipulated period.

[Rakesh]

In the past GOI overruled IAF and bought Mig21, and that has been a great decision.

AFAIK, that is incorrect. But If you have a source to prove the above, I will stand corrected.

Either cough up the shekels that the French want,capitulate to them,or order more MKIs or MIG-29s,a more realistic and cost-effective solution,while cracking the whip harder to get the LCA issue sorted out for both Mk-1 and 2. had M-2000s been in production,one could've ordered more of them.Unfortunately,second-hand M-2000s even if available will be v.expensive to upgrade,remember that the upgrade costs for just 40 of ours is costing us $2.4B,while upgrades for the 60+ MIG-29s was just under $1B!

Can you please enlighten us as to how the MKI or the MiG-29 will be more cost-effective than the Rafale, when the IAF themselves are stating that only 50% of the fleet is available at any given time. Thus out of 200 Rambhas, only 100 are able to take to the sky. Also please provide data on how you came to the conclusion that second-hand Mirage 2000s will be very expensive to upgrade. Both the Qatari and Hellenic Mirage 2000s are Dash 5 or Dash 9s. They require no major upgrade.

Here is my question regarding the multipliers. If you were flying super-duper plane X and saw 4 inferior SDRE planes coming at you with guns blazing, would you just ignore them and go about your business? Will you be able to? This X:Y math is unreliable, but it contains the basic truth about quantity being a meaningful thing. And like all things meaningful quantity is an inflationary value. How are the numbers ever going to increase to where meaningful quantity is not an issue?

For the purposes of answering your question, I will replace super-duper plane X with the F-22 Raptor and 4 inferior SDRE planes as Tejas Mk 1.5s.

Question: If you were flying F-22 Raptor and saw 4 Tejas Mk1.5s coming at you with guns blazing, would you just ignore them and go about your business? Will you be able to?
Answer: Before the four Tejas Mk 1.5s even realize that there is a F-22 Raptor flying, the APG-77 radar of the latter will already detect them. At this point, the pilot will lock on, fire his missiles and get out of there before the Tejas pilots even know what just happened. Four Tejas will then be shot down. There will be no chance for the Tejas pilots to press the trigger to get their guns blazing. Or the Raptor pilot has a choice to go about his business quietly and not even let the Tejas pilots know that he is sharing the airspace with them. So yes, I will be able to. 100%. Each and Every Time.

See First, Shoot First, Kill First. This is a mantra that I first heard from Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, but has been with the IAF much earlier. No combat pilot will want to get into a dogfight, if he can avoid one. There is an episode of Star Trek where the Borg capture Captain Jeac Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise and turn him into a cyborg. You know what he says to the crew of the USS Enterprise? Resistance is futile. Your life, as it has been is over. That is what I would say to any enemy pilot, if I am sitting in a super-duper plane like the F-22 Raptor.

Rakesh,

I would like to point out that you are only providing utopian theories and even that is half-baked, devoid of any substance. You have also avoided any of the questions that I asked you. So I will ask again.

1) You want to retire the R60s, R-73s, R-77s, Magic-IIs and wait for the Astra. You mentioned Astra, but that is primarily a BVR missile. The IAF would ensure that they have a close combat missile as well. From where is this missile going to come from, since as per public domain, none are in existence in India that are being developed. So what exactly are you suggesting in the interim?

2) You stated that once a platform reaches 20 - 30 years, it is time to let go and move on to a new platform. The MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 have all completed 30 years of service with the IAF. That is 66 MiG-29s, ~245 MiG-21s and 85 MiG-27s. That is close to 400 fighters that you are suggesting be phased out. How do you plan to replace 400 fighters? With your own estimate of 48 aircraft per year, that will take over 8 years to make up the gap. So what exactly are you suggesting in the interim?

Worse, any upgrades (no increase in quantity) are easily matched by the 3.5 fourfathers via donations. If it doesnt give you any decisive edge over a blk 152 lawn dart, then do you bother? And if so, why?

It is amazing how you can pass horse sh!t as gospel truth. Please provide specific examples how a legacy IAF Mirage 2000H is expected to have a decisive edge over a PAF Block 52 F-16 in air combat. Please do.

The next aspect is new armament. Lets say, give or take, a projectile has a shelf life of 10 years. The argument for maintaining them beyond 10 years (via new stocks, repairs, upgrades) is that even in the next 10 years the domestic self propelled projectiles and guidance will remain immature. This is the same argument applied to platforms -- they too will remain immature for the life extension from the upgrade? Why?

Even more nonsense. Development of the 'domestic' Astra is continuing and when the missile has completed her required tests and trials, she will be inducted. In the interim, missiles are required for the fighters to arm themselves with in air combat unless you believe that toothpicks can serve the same purpose. It was a R-60 fired from a MiG-21 that shot down the PN Atlantique in 1999, not a domestic projectile fired from a domestic platform.

[Shreeman]

Rakesh,

I recommend retirement in due course. Throwing good money after bad forever isnt a justifiable course. For all the recommendations of imports, just when are these domestic replacements suppose to arrive. Is there a WVR project even anywhere on the horizon? Why not? Why was it an R60 and not a domestic projectile? R60 did X is not an excuse to forever import R60. It is not even a good example -- against a large lumbering smoky old propeller driven glorified transport. Will the R60 actually do any honors against something that knows how to fly? Are those 73s just an accident?

Why do we omit the strategic rockets from the debate. Why are tactical rockets not where strategic ones are? Both are igmdp products. Both are produced by same sarkari naukars.

A 2000H will not hold fort against blk152. But blk152 donations (yes 152 in 2030) will continue. The 2000H wont stand up to blk50 today. The argument was the upgrades are matched by donations. You havent denied this. Whats the point of this rat race?

And 4 2000-5 will fare the same as the 4 Mk1.5 in your scenario. If you are planning on chasing ghosts with Mk1.5, you should throw 1000 Mk1.5 at them and one might do a serbian 111 style maneuver. The upgrade doesnt do much here. At 4 a go, thats 7 engagements at 70% availability. Why is it relevant to rayfail (will meet the same fate as the mk1.5) or the upgrades. What protects the new imports/upgrades against said ghost?

The Bison seemed to do something different against another superior F-XX. Are we sure Mk1.5 cant do anything against a different F-XX? How will we find out? This one didnt want to fly across the pacific at one time.

"The development of astra..." == "The development of LCA..." == "Landing gear stuck down. Oh, dont mind the landing gear, there are bigger concerns". This "interim" is taking and will continue to take forever. One word == Arjun.

There is no sustainable plan in your approach. Just band aids. Band aids forever. The adversary becoming more and more sophisticated all the time. You choose to ignore the key == problem. You choose to suppress the problems that small numbers bring in development of any doctrine. The issues of maintenance of platforms out of production. The ransom that is supply chain and possibility of sanctions. Its not just russian used items that have rotting wires. They are all used cars.

The argument for upgrade is simply based on brochure specs. Never a quantity or effectiveness of that quantity or new doctrine or supporting evidence adversaries cant match one on one. No one has 100% availability. At 70%, we are talking about 35 upgraded platforms. Or even 25 magic raybans. Over a 10000s miles boundary, where will these numbers make a difference? An R60 is fine, if all you need is shoot down atlantiques.

My problem is that I have seen domestic products being treated as negotiation devices before. As a retired sarkari naukar. I choose to believe development cycles, funding levels, tests and evaluations, and requirements are all opportunities for keeping them just negotiation devices.

[Singha]

Dassault Aviation delivers first Rafales to the Arab Republic of Egypt

St-Cloud, France, 20 July 2015 – The official ceremony marking the acceptance by the Arab Republic of Egypt of its first three Rafales was held today at the Dassault Aviation flight test center in Istres, under the patronage of His Excellency Mr. Ehab Badawy, Egyptian Ambassador to France, and in the presence of Dassault Aviation Chairman & CEO Eric Trappier.

This first delivery comes just five months after the Egyptian decision to acquire 24 Rafales (16 two-seaters and 8 single-seaters) in order to equip its Air Force with a latest-generation multirole fighter capable of meeting the country’s operational requirements and enabling Egypt, with full sovereignty, to secure its geostrategic position in the region.

At the same time, an initial group of Egyptian users has been trained in France. Egyptian pilots, trained by the French Air Force, will fly the first three Rafales to Cairo on the day after the ceremony.

[ramana]

Rakesh IAF wanted English Electric Lightning. It was well known then. Mig 21 was forced on IAF as FSU was willing to set up mfg in India.

[Cosmo_R]

Rakesh IAF wanted English Electric Lightning. It was well known then. Mig 21 was forced on IAF as FSU was willing to set up mfg in India.

You're partially right, the IAF wanted the EEL after it had been denied the F-104.

Don't know which was better. Both were lawn darts.

[fanne]

Admiral ramna hi and cosmos ji both are right. Google up eg
https://books.google.com/books?id=BnAD5 ... 04&f=false

[Rakesh]

Fanne: Regardless, the MiG-21 was the second choice. I never knew that. I stand corrected. Thanks Ramana and Cosmo_R.

[member_22539]

^It doesn't speak much for IAF's longterm wisdom. What they were forced to accept turned out to be the better choice in the long run. How typical.

[shiv]

In the book by AM Rajkumar "50 years of the MiG 21" the choice of Lightning is mentioned but Krishnamenon is given credit for pushing for the MiG 21 because of low cost and transfer of technology for "make in India".

The early MiG 21s were useless darts - but the IAF's huge orders and experience made it one the great classics among fighters.

[Rakesh]

Shreeman: Since you have ignored to answer either question on what you plan to do in the interim on how you plan to make up the gap by the time the Astra enters service and replaces all the foreign stock of missiles in the IAF's kitty and the same for the aircraft (~400 domestic fighters to replace all the foreign fighters that have reached 30 years of service), I will assume that you are wrong on both counts. Unless you have a plan that you would like to share with us.

I recommend retirement in due course. Throwing good money after bad forever isnt a justifiable course. For all the recommendations of imports, just when are these domestic replacements suppose to arrive. Is there a WVR project even anywhere on the horizon? Why not? Why was it an R60 and not a domestic projectile? R60 did X is not an excuse to forever import R60. It is not even a good example -- against a large lumbering smoky old propeller driven glorified transport. Will the R60 actually do any honors against something that knows how to fly? Are those 73s just an accident?

You are the one pushing for domestic replacements and now you have the audacity to claim that when they are supposed to arrive? Secondly, nobody here is stating that since R60 did X, that justifies importing it forever. That is your flawed, skewed thinking that has led you to this misinformed conclusion. Thirdly, I provided the example of the R-60 because there was no Astra (or any other domestic missile) fitted on the MiG-21 on that day. Thus in the absence of such a domestic missile, could you please explain what the IAF was supposed to do in that incident? Shoot roses at it?

A 2000H will not hold fort against blk152. But blk152 donations (yes 152 in 2030) will continue. The 2000H wont stand up to blk50 today. The argument was the upgrades are matched by donations. You haven't denied this. Whats the point of this rat race?

So then if a Mirage 2000H cannot stand up to a Block 50 today, then the upgrade is necessary, if a war occurs today. Enough said.

And 4 2000-5 will fare the same as the 4 Mk1.5 in your scenario. If you are planning on chasing ghosts with Mk1.5, you should throw 1000 Mk1.5 at them and one might do a serbian 111 style maneuver. The upgrade doesnt do much here. At 4 a go, thats 7 engagements at 70% availability. Why is it relevant to rayfail (will meet the same fate as the mk1.5) or the upgrades. What protects the new imports/upgrades against said ghost?

Because "said" ghost does not fly with the PAF or the Chinese Air Force - our enemies. Unless you believe that the USAF is now going to mount an aerial invasion of India. Also, no air force will send a 1000 aircraft against one ghost, especially when you cannot find the ghost.

The Bison seemed to do something different against another superior F-XX. Are we sure Mk1.5 cant do anything against a different F-XX? How will we find out? This one didnt want to fly across the pacific at one time.

If you honestly believe that what happened in the Cope India exercises is what is going to occur in reality, then no one can help you. The khan network goes beyond just the combat aircraft (F-15 or F-16), but is backed by an entire network of AWACS, satellites, intel...the list goes on. If you're gonna ride in the Kentucky Derby, you don't leave your prize stallions in the stable.

"The development of astra..." == "The development of LCA..." == "Landing gear stuck down. Oh, dont mind the landing gear, there are bigger concerns". This "interim" is taking and will continue to take forever. One word == Arjun.

That is your opinion and not fact.

There is no sustainable plan in your approach. Just band aids. Band aids forever. The adversary becoming more and more sophisticated all the time. You choose to ignore the key == problem. You choose to suppress the problems that small numbers bring in development of any doctrine. The issues of maintenance of platforms out of production. The ransom that is supply chain and possibility of sanctions. Its not just russian used items that have rotting wires. They are all used cars.

I guess the IAF had no doctrine with the eight MiG-25s that served with the IAF. Neither does the IAF have any doctrine with the 12 maritime strike Jaguars or the 10 C-17 Globemasters or the 12 C-130s (since only 5 are in service now, there must be no doctrine at all!) or the 3 A-50 Phalcons or the 8 P-8I Poseidons that serve with the Indian Naval Air Arm. These are all under your magic number of 800 aircraft, so they are devoid of any doctrine Even the USAF with its paltry 21 B-2s are just useless hangar queens or the USN with its small fleet of 18 Ohio Class SSBN/SSGNs. It is not the number of aircraft or submarines that you have, but what you plan to do with those platforms is what ultimately counts. And the Mirage 2000 has the highest serviceability among all the fighter types in the IAF fleet, despite being out of production for 8+ years.

The argument for upgrade is simply based on brochure specs. Never a quantity or effectiveness of that quantity or new doctrine or supporting evidence adversaries cant match one on one. No one has 100% availability. At 70%, we are talking about 35 upgraded platforms. Or even 25 magic raybans. Over a 10000s miles boundary, where will these numbers make a difference? An R60 is fine, if all you need is shoot down atlantiques.

The Mirage 2000-5 has been proven in combat, so it fulfilled all its brochure specs.