IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Sep 2015 13:33

Austin wrote:In one of NATO exercise , Rafale and its EW was the only one able to defeat Slovakia S-300 , may be that is in IAF mind too

That's an early 90s-era S-300 that was participating in the exercise. Most fighters capable of DRFM jamming including the EF T3, EA-18G and Gripen E will be able to handle it fairly well. A modern AESA-equipped HQ-9 with no shortage of processing power is an entirely different prospect. You need a SPECTRA-level (or better) EW system to go up against it, but you also need a VLO airframe to survive the experience. The Rafale as an option will always remain a compromise, one which most professional air forces are unwilling to make.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2015 13:59

Here is MOD confirming IAF has no role in decision making

The Air Force (has) no role in decision making”

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 06 Sep 2015 14:44

^Not one good word for magazines like these to say about anything indigenous that has some foreign competition gunning for it. Apart from the interview, it is quite difficult to take anything written as objective.

soumik · Post by **soumik** » 06 Sep 2015 15:40

One Thought!
Just like the Billing for the Russian Tech Transfer used in the Arihant and the Money for the Akula Lease was hidden under the Guise of Vikramaditya payments.There is a possibility that under the Guise of Rafale payments we are getting the tech for the conversion of the Scorpene class into a SSN aka the Brazilaian SSN program?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 06 Sep 2015 15:44

^Rather than the SSN technology, the rumor is that the tech is for power reactors like the Areva that is coming up in Jaitapur.

No real proof for such rumors, but it is only thing that makes sense.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2015 23:16

Nice video of Rafale on what looks like simulated nuclear mission , take off , high altitude flight , tanking , dropping 100 m , simulated combat etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3aceunJMsQ

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Sep 2015 02:34

Hitesh, totally agreee. All these poor apologies for what we "May" be hiding in paying a king's ransom for Rafael s is nothing but intellectual masturbation.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 07 Sep 2015 06:34

Arun Menon wrote:^Rather than the SSN technology, the rumor is that the tech is for power reactors like the Areva that is coming up in Jaitapur.

No real proof for such rumors, but it is only thing that makes sense.

After the 123 and 456 agreements signed with just about everybody, there is no need no hide any purchase of civilian nuclear technology. It is allowed so long as it is under IAEA safeguards. So there cannot be any money being paid for Areva tech under the Rafale contract.

The fact of the matter is that French technology is expensive and the French knew that they had India by the short and curly when the "no plan B comment was made".

If MOD wants to reduce the overwhelming dependency on the Russians and at the same time they are uncomfortable with buying US fighters, well, be prepared to pay through your nose for European aircraft and don't squeal at the price.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 07 Sep 2015 11:51

Austin wrote:Here is MOD confirming IAF has no role in decision making

The Air Force (has) no role in decision making”

And the "Good Professor " strikes again , literally i could not understand what he have written.

"The so-called fourth generation fighter aircraft introduced the following technologies :
 Composite structures
 Fly-by-wire flight control
 Glass cockpit
 BVR capability
I must emphasise that the first three technologies were spurred by the availability of technology that was essentially developed for civil airliners. In fact it would be impossible today to design an economically competitive civil transport aircraft without using these technologies. For combat aircraft, that imperative is doubtful. These technologies are useful if you can have them ‘off the shelf’, but are not essential to give the opposing ‘baddies’ a fright in a fight. The fourth generation is no more than a convenient index of the equipment sophistication level of the aircraft and it would be unwise to believe that a fourth generation aircraft will naturally beat a third generation opponent. The best example is perhaps the initial production series of the MiG-29 which had none of the first three (if one overlooks a 8% use of composites for the engine nacelles, that too later converted to metal because of problems) but was nevertheless THE bullyon-the block as far as air-to-air combat was concerned. On a frivolous vein, if Airbus were to equip the A350 with BVR missiles, it could technically be considered a fourth generation combat aircraft! "

Austin Saab can you please upload the whole article of this "beautiful mind".

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Sep 2015 11:53

Shaun , its already done on AMCA Dhaga

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1897109

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Sep 2015 18:38

The IAF could follow the example of Egypt,reportedly buying only 24 Rafales,but 46+ MIG-29s (for just $2B) and another 24+ MIG-35s. Perhaps the Egyptians have been BRF lurkers,reading our posts!

member_28700 · Post by **member_28700** » 08 Sep 2015 19:15

The IAF could follow the example of Egypt,reportedly buying only 24 Rafales,but 46+ MIG-29s (for just $2B) and another 24+ MIG-35s. Perhaps the Egyptians have been BRF lurkers,reading our posts!

The IAF would have no option apart from doing this. Max they can have another squadron to it but dwindling fighter numbers will finally have to be compensated with bread and butter (read LCA, Mig-29, Su-30). You cannot have Paneer and Pizza with little money in the pocket

. Economics will finally come to bite them where it hurts them the most i.e. Operational readiness.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 08 Sep 2015 22:23

err.... but there is no plan B.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 09 Sep 2015 10:52

There is a Plan B and that is called the LCA. Just get behind the damn thing and crank out the machines and make improvement with each batch to get to the configuration that you want.

As far as I am concerned, the only value that Rafales have are the avionics. I think such advantage could be duplicated in a jugaad way by loading up MiG-27s or Jaguars or any existing plane with heavy electronics and data sharing equipment and put those along with LCA fighters that can carry the requisite weapons and unleash them at the discretion of the modified planes. We are not fighting against Khan with its uber air defense network or its allies but against Pakistan or China whose air defense network is no way close to US, European or Russia air defense systems.

I was for the deal when I thought we were getting at least 126 and could get some more because that mean it would become one of IAF's mainstay planes. But now with only 36 planes, if you count the downtime and training, only less than 10 could be spared at any given time for combat operations. That is minuscule and does not offer any sustained combat power but only frugal and rare air strikes which means only very high value targets. If we cannot get at least 150 planes of one type, it is not worth the cost of going for that kind of plane. IAF needs to stop being an air force of too many different types of planes and few of them and get back to a force with few types of planes but many of them to gain the advantages of scale and simplified logistics.

If I were the IAF, I would phase out the MiG-27s, 21s, jaguars, and the M2ks in favor of the LCA and go full speed on LCA despite its shortcomings. We need to burn the ships just as Cortez did when he landed in South America and do not look back just as Cortez told his men. Nothing rallies men when they know that they have no other option and they have to make it work.

IAF force structure should be made of Su-30s (upgraded) and LCAs and phase out the MiG-29s and M2ks in favor of AMCA.

PAK-FA is a non starter for IAF since we are not getting anything useful to justify the level of investment in that program. The Russians want us to fund the development of PAK-FA without getting anything back in return. Well that ain't gonna cut it. Work on getting the LCA back on track and then go full speed on AMCA. I firmly believe that given the threat scenario allows India and IAF the luxury of waiting out the PAK-FA and work on the AMCA. If we need a 5th generation plane, we can always go to the F-35. Despite its lack of aerodynamics prowess over PAF-FA, F-35 still offer an hard to match package that can be tailored to India's needs and it is much cheaper than a PAK-FA.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Sep 2015 13:28

If pigs could fly...! The whole problem with a JSF desire is simply its cost factor. It is just too much apart from its developmental teething problems,still not perfected as yet. I suggest members read Sweetman's MAKS report/podcast on the T-50,the differing concepts behind the F-22,JSF,T-50,etc.

The underlying truth is this:
The IAF needs at least 45 sqds to meet the Sino-Pak JV which is accelerating day by day,while we downsize instead. The numbers of the hundreds of legacy MIGs,etc. to be replaced can only be met by a cheap cost-effective fighter.This is what the LCA was supposed to do but the ADA and HAL have failed to deliver on time and as per expected performance specs,leave aside the production rate of 8 which is only on paper as of now.MK-2 is supposed to correct the performance shortcomings,but the Mk-2 hasn't flown ,isn't expected in prototype form for at least two years and from current estimates will arrive in combat capability post 2020. Even the paltry 36 Rafales will not all arrive before 2020.A great window of opportunity is opening wider by the day for the Sino-Pak JV to launch a quick short war with India,where they will attempt to bloody our nose,slice off some valuable territory and hope to send India another "message" as to who is top dog of Asia.This can be expected within the next 2-4 years ,during Mr.Modi's term,to also bring him down a few pegs.

If the IAF are to possess the capability to ward off this challenge,interim measures,"Plan B","C" whatever have to be taken now. The 40 LCAs will make not much difference to our combat capability being too few in number.The only rational cost-effective solutions are more MKIs,MIG-29s as we are manufacturing/upgrading both at home and with local materials.To bridge any gap due to production constraints,extras could be acquired from the OEMs,who could send them in knockdown form. Another 120 MKI/SU-35s (35s with single pilots could help reduce the pilot shortfall too) and 60-120 MIG-29s .Along with whatever LCAs are produced will give us around 200-240+ aircraft which can replace the hundreds of MIGs and legacy aircraft being retired. If the FGFA also arrives before 2020,great for a cutting edge option,better than any RafaleThis is something that we can afford,not beggar ourselves in a purchase of an ultra-expensive 4++ gen bird which will be in not too distant future,be replaced by stealth fighters,UCAVs and other aircraft options. The AMCA will arrive only post 2030 and there is also a debate as to how effective it is going to be with a limited internal weapons payload.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Sep 2015 14:13

Philip wrote:The IAF could follow the example of Egypt,reportedly buying only 24 Rafales,but 46+ MIG-29s (for just $2B) and another 24+ MIG-35s. Perhaps the Egyptians have been BRF lurkers,reading our posts!

You mean 'reading YOUR posts'. BRFites as a whole would much rather see the Tejas ordered in lieu of new MiG-29s.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 09 Sep 2015 14:20

^Also, some people are happy talking about delays and deficiencies in Indian programs (to the point that he NEVER fails to mention it every time that particular program/product comes up), but are loath to mention the same when it comes to the bear. Such blinding objectivity is bound to be picked up by "Eyptian BRF lurkers."

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Sep 2015 14:26

Philip wrote:If pigs could fly...! The whole problem with a JSF desire is simply its cost factor. It is just too much apart from its developmental teething problems,still not perfected as yet. I suggest members read Sweetman's MAKS report/podcast on the T-50,the differing concepts behind the F-22,JSF,T-50,etc.

What 'cost factor'? Its $95M flyaway today which will fall to $85M by 2018. It not perfect yet, but so what? An F-35A ordered in 2016, will be delivered in 2019 in the Blk 3F configuration, as a fully combat capable machine with all niggles ironed out. Against the MiG-29, I'd bet on the F-35 clocking a loss exchange ratio well exceeding 4-1.

Whatever the philosophy behind the PAK FA, fact remains it wouldn't be available to us for a long time yet. Whether even the RuAF can take delivery of the interim variant before 2020, remains to be seen.

If the IAF are to possess the capability to ward off this challenge,interim measures,"Plan B","C" whatever have to be taken now. The 40 LCAs will make not much difference to our combat capability being too few in number.The only rational cost-effective solutions are more MKIs,MIG-29s as we are manufacturing/upgrading both at home and with local materials.

Instead of diverting funds from it citing a lack of production capacity, the MoD would be well advised to invest in a rapid scaling up of the Tejas' program with a second production line along with an expansion of the existing one, instead of pursuing the IAF's analogue to the T-90.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 09 Sep 2015 14:33

I.A.F. and MOD seems to think there is huge amount available them to spend as they wish. We are now developing LCA 1 and 2, AMCA, AURA, and at the same time financing Russians for their AC and buying it in good numbers plus purchasing expensive Rafale. Further we need huge numbers for replacing the retiring ACs. All at almost at the same time. It does not make any sense unless we have money for it.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 09 Sep 2015 14:36

Very noob question but i have to ask it (for the second time)

Why 45 squadrons?

Why has this number not changed for the past many years (2-3 decades?)...despite a qualitative and quantitative change (not necessarily increase or improvement) in both the PAF and the PLAAF numbers

Are we (MOD and/or IAF) trying to fit the number of aircraft to meet this target number of squadrons?

(OK guys we have a target of 45 squadrons. So let's see how many 'r' Rafales or 's' Su30s we need to get to this number)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Sep 2015 15:22

Manish_P wrote:Very noob question but i have to ask it (for the second time)

Why 45 squadrons?

Why has this number not changed for the past many years (2-3 decades?)...despite a qualitative and quantitative change (not necessarily increase or improvement) in both the PAF and the PLAAF numbers

45 squadrons. 50 squadrons. 55 squadrons. Its quite arbitrary. It'll never be 'enough' because ultimately we're a $2 trillion economy gearing up to face an $11 trillion economy. The deterrent needs to be maximized. It cannot be 'completed'.

Unfortunately that's not how the system operates. Until a need for X no. of battalions, squadrons, batteries has been spelled out, the finance section can't go about appropriating the funding. Logically, the Finance Ministry should specify the maximum amount of funds it can spare for defence and the Defence Ministry (advised by the Service HQs) should go about maximizing the value that can be extracted from a fixed sum with appropriate long term planning.

Instead of planning/designing capabilities to suit available funding, we 'plan' funding schemes around arbitrarily specified capabilities. Which is one of the primary causes of our being stuck in the current morass.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2015 15:42

meantime HAL has gone to the karnataka govt to try and obtain a waiver of the 25 cr cost of shifting 3 high tension lines from the land allocated to it in Tumkur for a new helicopter factory. HAL says it cannot pay the electric co this amt. the govt says it cannot waive the amt and expects some payment though some charges could be waived.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 09 Sep 2015 18:55

Logically, the Finance Ministry should specify the maximum amount of funds it can spare for defence

There is a risk here in that the assumption is that the Finance Ministry will be more aware than the defence forces about the requirements, be more aware than the defence ministry of the costs involved and thus correctly make provision for funds allocation.

I would respectfully like to suggest that a much closer two-way relationship/partnership between the Finance and Defence ministries to identify current and future threats, prioritize requirements, decide budget allocations, timelines etc would go a longer way to address the needs of the forces.

But this is all OT for this thread.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2015 20:01

Manish_P wrote: I would respectfully like to suggest that a much closer two-way relationship/partnership between the Finance and Defence ministries to identify current and future threats, prioritize requirements, decide budget allocations, timelines etc would go a longer way to address the needs of the forces.

But this is all OT for this thread.

Not at all OT. A perfectly valid point except that Finance and MoD should also coordinate with Air Headquarters.

It hurts me to see people pick up one sentence from the media and repeat it ad nauseam. With reference to "No plan B" most of us patriots do not realize that when the Air HQ (Air Force) is left out of the process while the MoD and finance take 8 years to reach no decision, the IAF has to compensate in some way. What they will do is typically to save on airframe life. If a MiG airframe has say 300 hours left, they will cut out non essential flying. Some training will be cut out etc. That will be the "Plan C" that no one talks about. It will drop our defences a bit -and in war some pilots will die, but our finance people are happy. God bless them Jai Hind

I tried to make this same point a few months ago - but in general we have people who are able to advise the IAF without knowing anything about the IAF. But hey that is exactly what the finance people do. We seem to have some of them on BRF as well.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Sep 2015 02:50

Manish_P wrote:There is a risk here in that the assumption is that the Finance Ministry will be more aware than the defence forces about the requirements, be more aware than the defence ministry of the costs involved and thus correctly make provision for funds allocation.

That's again because the Finance Ministry makes allocations on a case-by-case basis. So it can theoretically kill off any defence program. And since the Defence Ministry gets approval on a case-by-case basis, its dealing with budgets that are theoretically limitless. The underlying problem as always is that our needs far outstrip our resources.

If instead the MoF allocated a fixed lumpsum to the MoD, say.. 12% of the Union Budget, revised quadrennially, the MoD could focus its expertise (such as its is) on maximizing the yield per rupee.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Sep 2015 10:38

The principal stakeholders,services,GOI/MOD,Parliament,should agree upon a comprehensive strategy for the country's defence first, and the minimum standards/capabilities and inventory of each service and their critical shortcomings which must be met with acquisitions from anywhere on a war footing. Since our % of the GNP is barely 2.5%,a meagre sum when compared with China's,the money IS there for contingencies.

Now if 45 sqds is the "holy grail" of the IAF,and we trust and believe that that figure is needed to deal with the Sino-Pak JV,then the most cost-effective way in which we can augment the inventory with a balance of heavy,med and light aircraft must be formulated.If for instance delays in any segment (H.M.L)is having a serious detrimental effect on the combat capability ,then the gap must be made up by extra acquisitions from aircraft already in service/being acquired.That is the only sensible and logical decision to take. As for the JSF,from all available open info,a lot of money,time and agreement on key issues has been achieved with the FGFA.The sticking point is whether we wish/can afford to build it at home in sufficient numbers to recover the investment and acquire the tech or simply buy it off the shelf as is being proposed for the Rafale. If you read Sweetman in AWST and other articles many of which have been posted on BRF,the T-50/FGFA will have a better strike capability than the JSF ,apart from A-2-A combat. Commonality of weapons/payload with our MKIs,etc.,is an added advantage. There are huge hurdles in any US weapon system involving its latest tech and the negotiations will take aeons.

One option also exists,adding/ordering another 120+ MKIs/35s/34s-Flanker variants for taking the heavy and demanding load of combat ops,so that we possess approx. 400 of the type (20 sqds) and ramp up LCA production as much as poss (at least a total of 120 in 5-6 years time),with extra MIG-29/35s if need be just as Egypt is doing. With upgraded Jags,M2Ks,29UGs,etc.,and whatever Rafales/FGFAs join the bandwagon,this should give us around 800-900 aircraft .With the accelerated numbers being added to the PAF inventory and PLAAF expanding its Flanker inventory,plus its own stealth birds in the works,we have no choice but to add to both inventory and capability.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Sep 2015 11:09

Philip wrote:The principal stakeholders,services,GOI/MOD,Parliament,should agree upon a comprehensive strategy for the country's defence first, and the minimum standards/capabilities and inventory of each service and their critical shortcomings which must be met with acquisitions from anywhere on a war footing. Since our % of the GNP is barely 2.5%,a meager sum when compared with China's,the money IS there for contingencies.

Specifying 'minimum standards' is like specifying a poverty line. Its an aspirational concept. Meant to loosen the purse strings. And like the poverty line, it'll inevitably be revised upwards, as they start to approach the target.

The idea is workable (notwithstanding issues) in the MHRD, but has played havoc with the MoD's procurement system. Its gone from the equivalent of determined bargaining with the greengrocer to splurging with at the supermarket with a credit card, all within the span of just a decade.

Now if 45 sqds is the "holy grail" of the IAF,and we trust and believe that that figure is needed to deal with the Sino-Pak JV,then the most cost-effective way in which we can augment the inventory with a balance of heavy,med and light aircraft must be formulated.If for instance delays in any segment (H.M.L)is having a serious detrimental effect on the combat capability ,then the gap must be made up by extra acquisitions from aircraft already in service/being acquired.

That is the only sensible and logical decision to take. As for the JSF,from all available open info,a lot of money,time and agreement on key issues has been achieved with the FGFA.The sticking point is whether we wish/can afford to build it at home in sufficient numbers to recover the investment,acquire the etch or simply buy it as is being proposed for the Rafale. If you read Sweetman in AWST and other articles many of which have been posted on BRF,the T-50/FGFA will have a better strike capability than the JSF ,apart from A-2-A combat. Commonality of weapons/payload with our MKIs,etc.,is an added advantage.

We have an opportunity today in the 'light-medium' segment - to boost a domestic program, deliver an affordable aircraft to the IAF, increase the level of indigenisation in a domestic program and reduce the forex loss due to imports (perhaps even strive for exports). That doesn't happen if we kneecap ourselves with your prescription for a T-90 redux.

The FGFA has already proven to be a complete sham of a joint program. As far as the PAK FA is concerned, there are a total of only four prototypes flying today. When the final variant with the 'Izdeliye 30' engines and mature software/sub-systems, is available for delivery, a decade from now, we can take the decision to acquire it. Till then, there remains only one VLO strike fighter available to us and that's the F-35.

One option also exists,adding another 120+ MKIs/35s/34s-Flanker variants for taking the heavy and demanding load of combat ops,so that we possess approx. 400 of the type (20 sqds) and ramp up LCA production asa much as poss (at least a total of 120 in 5-6 years time),with extra MIG-29/35s if need be just as Egypt is doing. With upgraded Jags,M2Ks,29UGs,etc.,and whatever Rafales/FGFAs join the bandwagon,this should give us around 800-900 aircraft .With the accelerated numbers being added to the PAF inventory and PLAAF expanding its Flanker inventory,plus its own stealth birds in the works,we have no choice but to add to both inventory and capability.

Egypt doesn't have a Tejas to invest in. We do. The ~~FGFA~~ PAK FA is still a long way off. And despite its many strengths the Su-30MKI cannot replace a true stealth fighter in a first-day/door-kicker role, and in terms of ISTAR functionality.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 10 Sep 2015 11:19

A perfectly valid point except that Finance and MoD should also coordinate with Air Headquarters.

Shiv ji

Totally agree. I assumed that was a given since the Defence ministry, being the representative of the armed forces, is expected to have a detailed understanding of the capabilities and needs. I didn't write it as i felt it would make a rambling post even longer

If instead the MoF allocated a fixed lumpsum to the MoD

Viv S

I agree with you but with a small and, IMVHO, significant rider.

The fixed lumpsum (perhaps as a percentage), with periodic revisions, would be perfectly ok in peace time or even during guarded times.

However, in times of war (hot, cold, lukewarm, whatever), with your neighboring enemies actively engaging in hostile actions (with regular, non-state, proxies, whatever) causing our defence forces to use higher than normal quantity of personnel and equipment, then it is the defence ministry which should push the finance ministry, if it is not pro-active, to be more flexible in understanding even the short term requirements of the forces and make the best possible budgetary adjustments accordingly.

There could always be differences in opinion between the two ministries. If that occurs then this is where the boss (PMO, Cabinet?) should step in and move the issue towards conclusion.

I would like to give a personal example here. It is not very analogous but i hope it will serve to elaborate on my thoughts/concerns. It is a bit of a rambling post, but i hope that you will indulge me.

I work in a private organisation which was the undisputed leader in it's area for the past 1.5 decades. The budgetary allocation for all departments is done by the central finance team. As long as we were the top dogs there was not much issues. About 5 years back a competitor with a huge financial backing suddenly ventured in this domain and began aggressive advertising, undercutting margins with suppliers etc. Our sales guys (being on the frontline) reported on this immediately to the sales management. The sales management brought it to the notice in the periodical core management meeting, but the usual system of the finance management prevailed. Effect - our lead vanished rapidly in 2 years and we almost got pushed out of the market in the 3rd year. Now alarmed the Chairmans office stepped in to investigate in detail, found the ground realities were changing rapidly. They then forced a change in the way the budget was allocated with larger provision for flexibility and changes based on market conditions and emerging threats. Happily we have regained lost ground (and i am still gainfully employed

)

Anyway i do feel this is OT for this thread. Request the mods to pls. move this post to the appropriate place or delete it.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Sep 2015 11:44

Manish_P wrote:Viv S

I agree with you but with a small and, IMVHO, significant rider.

The fixed lumpsum (perhaps as a percentage), with periodic revisions, would be perfectly ok in peace time or even during guarded times.

The budget is obviously not set in stone. 12% is roughly what we've always allocated to defence (not including pensions), so its a good working benchmark. If the security situation warrants it, the Cabinet has the authority to direct the MoF to sanction any amount of supplemental funding for the MoD.

The important part is to move from ad hoc capability-based planning to a more frugal & efficient budget-based planning system.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Sep 2015 16:34

Sorry to disagree Viv,but the JSF is nowhere from reports ,a ready combat capable aircraft and available to India. Given our experience with selectng the Rafale,imagine the time it will take to negotiate a JSF deal Moreover,it is also an expensive option and the IAF has in the past rejected it when hints were dropped that it was available.For the moment as far as a stealth bird is concerned,the FGFA is on the table with money put down. If it arrives around 2020 it should suffice ,but even it (or JSF for the sake of argument) will be in limited number. What will be the backbone of the IAF and in enough numbers to fight a two-front war? The immediate problem is what happens in the next 4.5 years with two hundred+ MIGs being pensioned off and the LCA nowhere on the horizon in healthy series production even for the below par Mk-1.With the MK-2 prototype to fly from reports around 2017/18 at the earliest and 3-4 years of flight testing,it is well into the 2020s before we get decent deliveries. Pak's thundering bird is rolling off production lines steadily helping it to increase its inventory.

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 10 Sep 2015 20:13

A Top american Aircraft Designer :A Mig 21 Of 1950 Can Kill F 35 in Dog Fight.
Reason : large Cross Section and small wings.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqjjHDGWm4Q[/youtube]

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 10 Sep 2015 20:28

f 35

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw[/youtube]

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Sep 2015 20:59

Manish_P wrote:
Logically, the Finance Ministry should specify the maximum amount of funds it can spare for defence
There is a risk here in that the assumption is that the Finance Ministry will be more aware than the defence forces about the requirements, be more aware than the defence ministry of the costs involved and thus correctly make provision for funds allocation.

I would respectfully like to suggest that a much closer two-way relationship/partnership between the Finance and Defence ministries to identify current and future threats, prioritize requirements, decide budget allocations, timelines etc would go a longer way to address the needs of the forces.

But this is all OT for this thread.

Is that not what the 15 year LTIPP and the 5 year DAC plans all about. It is a very elaborate exercise. The problem - the politicians and finance guys scuttle the plan easily as defense does not have a lobby to protect and fight for its due share. Another reason, I would want the DPSU's, OFB's and DRDO(largely) privatized. At least then we will have a healthy MIC, willing to lobby for its own interests.

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 10 Sep 2015 22:01

Is that not what the 15 year LTIPP and the 5 year DAC plans all about. It is a very elaborate exercise. The problem - the politicians and finance guys scuttle the plan easily as defense does not have a lobby to protect and fight for its due share. Another reason, I would want the DPSU's, OFB's and DRDO(largely) privatized. At least then we will have a healthy MIC, willing to lobby for its own interests.

a private firm works for profit not for sake of national interest. yes there have been issues with drdo But DRDO has done exceptionally well in few projects. like missiles, tanks , air defence etc . there is required management and more accounted people within drdo. privatisation is not a magical idea that it will change every thing. See the JV these days Indian Pvt Cos just Get the name and maximum profit goes to forigen vendors in a JV . its very important that we learn first then just privatise everything.
Plus defence technologies are sensitive and secret if it stays within the govt its better. we people just underline our DRDO achivements and criticize it. yes better management participation and colabration will overcome the issue just you need the intention.

DRDO is meeting Most Needs Of Armed Forces With a Small budget and thin timeline ."please provide them their due respect"

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 10 Sep 2015 22:30

Singha wrote:meantime HAL has gone to the karnataka govt to try and obtain a waiver of the 25 cr cost of shifting 3 high tension lines from the land allocated to it in Tumkur for a new helicopter factory. HAL says it cannot pay the electric co this amt. the govt says it cannot waive the amt and expects some payment though some charges could be waived.

So HAL finds excuse to delay a project worth thousands of crores as it squabbles over petty issues.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Sep 2015 04:10

Philip wrote:Sorry to disagree Viv,but the JSF is nowhere from reports ,a ready combat capable aircraft and available to India. Given our experience with selectng the Rafale,imagine the time it will take to negotiate a JSF deal Moreover,it is also an expensive option and the IAF has in the past rejected it when hints were dropped that it was available.

I don't know if you heard but it IOCed in July. And the residual development effort will be concluding in 2017. Which means if ordered next year, at the delivery stage would be fully combat capable with all teething issues sorted out.

As far as time taken to negotiate a deal is concerned, for the record the Rafale deal has only been under negotiations for four months. And as for what can be done - the UPA managed to negotiate and sign an FMS deal for the P-8I in 16 months (including the time taken for the down-select). If it acts with celerity, the current govt. could potentially get an FMS deal wrapped up in less than 12 months i.e. in 2016 itself or latest by 2017. The other advantage, is that the F-35 is being built at 150 jets per year, and no other OEM can match its delivery rate.

For the moment as far as a stealth bird is concerned,the FGFA is on the table with money put down. If it arrives around 2020 it should suffice ,but even it (or JSF for the sake of argument) will be in limited number. What will be the backbone of the IAF and in enough numbers to fight a two-front war? The immediate problem is what happens in the next 4.5 years with two hundred+ MIGs being pensioned off and the LCA nowhere on the horizon in healthy series production even for the below par Mk-1.With the MK-2 prototype to fly from reports around 2017/18 at the earliest and 3-4 years of flight testing,it is well into the 2020s before we get decent deliveries. Pak's thundering bird is rolling off production lines steadily helping it to increase its inventory.

You think the FGFA can go from four prototypes today, to a mature delivery-ready fighter jet in 2020? That sounds like some desperately wishful thinking. Whether even the RuAF will take deliveries of the 12 aircraft they've ordered in that time-frame remains to be seen. Especially in light of the cash-crunch the Russian industry is facing today.

'LCA nowhere on the horizon'? Did you miss the news about the Tejas' IOC as well? Invest in expanded production facilities (like Pakistan did) and you'll get a improved delivery rate.

With regard to the MiG-29, let me simply add your two arguments to the mix - the IAF has never showed any interest in purchasing additional units and it'll take time and effort to negotiate a deal. Time and effort that can be more productively invested in bolstering the Tejas' production. You can also add chronic reliability issues to the equation (case-in-point: MiG-29K) as well as production quality that prompted Algeria to refuse to delivery of a single MiG-29SMT.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Sep 2015 04:17

Kumar Vinod wrote:A Top american Aircraft Designer :A Mig 21 Of 1950 Can Kill F 35 in Dog Fight.
Reason : large Cross Section and small wings.

“The Su-30MK is simply another modification of the Su-27, a not-very-high-performing Russian imitation of our F-15 that had its prototype flight in 1977. The new version is significantly heavier and has poorer dogfight acceleration and turn than the original, mainly because of all the weighty and draggy gadgetry (e.g., canards, vectored thrust nozzles) added to allow these spectacular maneuvers.

The more of these turkeys the Russkies sell, the longer the now-ancient F-16 (designed in 1972) will reign supreme as the world’s best fighter. And the less reason we will have to buy F-22s at $355 million each.”

The same 'top American aircraft designer' (who sells stereo equipment today) said it, so it must be right.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Sep 2015 12:38

The Algerian deal (substandard aircraft offered) is history.The Egyptian deal is the latest.The crucial point being made is what in the next five years will replace 200 MIGs being retired? Certainly not Rafales-we can't afford them,just 36 for which byzantine bargaining is still going on! JSFs and FGFAs are still in varying stages of development and cost heaps,if ordered will be in small batches and arrive post 2020+. LCAs are plagued with delayed development and poor production rates.If we're lucky,we'll get the first 40 or so only by 2020.So what will fill the yawning gap of 160+ aircraft for which we've small change in the pocket? MKIs arrive at approx $70M ,but MIG-29s come in at between $30-40M. The fall in the Rouble rate actually helps us as the Rupee has also fallen by at leas 10% over the last month. These are are two options available to us. I forsee "more of the same" in the future.As for views from the fringe about the Flanker,the recent exercises in the UK where RAF Typhoons "got pasted" from authoritative sources should silence the critics.BMos carrying Super Sukhois even more.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 Sep 2015 13:16

Philip wrote:So what will fill the yawning gap of 160+ aircraft for which we've small change in the pocket?

SH of course.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Sep 2015 14:48

Philip wrote:The Algerian deal (substandard aircraft offered) is history.The Egyptian deal is the latest.The crucial point being made is what in the next five years will replace 200 MIGs being retired?Certainly not Rafales-we can't afford them,just 36 for which byzantine bargaining is still going on! JSFs and FGFAs are still in varying stages of development and cost heaps,if ordered will be in small batches and arrive post 2020+. LCAs are plagued with delayed development and poor production rates. If we're lucky,we'll get the first 40 or so only by 2020.

1. The only feasible replacement is the Tejas Mk1. If a higher production rate is required, the obvious step is to place a larger order enabling higher investment in capacity.

2. Between the time taken for negotiating a deal with RAC MiG and the backlog created by Egyptian orders, we'd be lucky to get 10 MiG-29s by 2020. The reliability issues come later.

Only three programs have both the scale and surplus capacity to ensure quick bulk deliveries to the IAF - SH, EF & F-35. Also, your hyphenation of the F-35 & PAK FA doesn't change the fact that the former program is ahead by 5-10 years.