Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 Jul 2020 09:39

Few years back IAF chiefs were not interested in more than 40 Mk1s either. Opinions and plans can always change.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Jul 2020 10:00

^^^
Yes, but causes long delays in the Indian setup. Procurement process is really long. Small orders, Industry can’t fully scale up. Long lead times of 24-36 months to first lot deliveries. In the meanwhile, force numbers dwindling.

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 05 Jul 2020 11:41

https://tkstales.wordpress.com/2020/07/ ... mment-5074

My story today is a sad one as it normally is when I talk of aircraft accidents. It is an old tale but the lessons that we can draw from this accident or rather a series of accidents is eternal.

A fatal accident took place in Bhuj. I was then the director flight safety. Air Marshal Latif was the Vice Chief – my direct super-boss. Air Chief Marshal Mulgaonkar was the CAS. I was required to brief the CAS immediately of any serious accident. Chief held the DFS directly responsible for such happenings. Fortunately for me, on that day the CAS was away to Europe for a week. I reported the happening to the VCAS and went back to my office.

There was a second fatal accident in the same Squadron within the week. The nature of both the accidents were similar. In a low-level training mission in level flights the aircraft just rolled over and went into the ground . There was no call on the radio and there was no perceived reason why any pilot would crash in such a way. A high powered Court of Inquiry was ordered for the two accidents clubbed together.

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 05 Jul 2020 12:09

I think IAF's operational doctrines have been changed a lot in last 2 decades...
The way I see it, IAF is planning a fleet of 1/3rd Heavy and 2/3rd Medium Weight (single and twin engine) category jets... This is similar to USAF, with F15/F22 and F16/F35 combo...
Tejas, which was originally envisaged as a replacement of MIG 21, fell short of this requirement mainly in terms of payload and range (not in anything else)... So, due to intervention of Parrikar sir, Mk1A was a compromise which IAF agreed to...
Tejas Mk2, MWF is what the IAF really want... And it is still a decade away before it joins the IAF...
So, I doubt IAF will order more Mk1/Mk1A...
-
Current strength is:-
Heavy Fighters:-
Su30MKI:- 13 squadrons
Medium Weight Fighters:-
Mirage 2000:- 3 squadrons
MIG 29:- 3 squadrons
Jaguars:- 6 squadrons
Light Fighters:-
MIG 21:- 6 squadrons
Tejas Mk1:- 1 squadron

Total:- 32 squadrons
-
Without MMRCA, by 2030:-
Heavy Fighters:-
Su30MKI:- 13 squadrons
Medium Weight Fighters:-
Rafale:- 2 squadrons
Mirage 2000:- 0.5 to 1 squadron <2 squadrons up for retirement>
MIG 29:- 1 squadron <3 squadrons up for retirement>
Jaguars:-3 squadrons <3 squadrons already retired>
Tejas Mk2:- 1 squadron
Light Fighters:-
MIG 21:- <all 6 squadrons retired>
Tejas Mk1:- 2 squadrons
Tejas Mk1A:- 4 squadrons

Total:- 27 squadrons
-
Without MMRCA, there will be shortfall of Fighters in Medium Weight category by 2030...
If MMRCA goes ahead, we will have atleast 4 squadrons by 2030 and the overall squadron Nos. (31) will be maintained... (This is also assuming we won't retire remaining 3 squadrons of Jaguars by 2030 and Tejas Mk2 starts production by then... Otherwise, the numbers will be even lower...)
MMRCA is the plan to maintain squadron numbers in 2030...

Many ppl suggest that we can order 12 squadrons of Tejas Mk1 instead of 6 squadrons of MMRCA, but I really doubt IAF wants to take up that route for reasons best known to them...

Personally, I'd want Govt. to scrap the MMRCA Tender and go for direct G-to-G deal with France for 114 Rafales and be done with it... It will save time...

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jul 2020 12:34

My preference would be , Order 36 more Rafales plus a few more SU 30 MKI's and ramp up orders for the LCA Mk1/IA/MWF- that is the only solution which will work. Once the production ecosystem is up and running , LCA MWF/II will come up much faster including AMCA.

MRCA even if signed in 2021-22 will best get 70 aircraft and makes no sense be building an imported 4-4.5 gen aircraft uptil 2035. A domestic fighter which shares commonality with AMCA can always be produced.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 05 Jul 2020 12:52

There is no way India can afford 114 Rafale order nor any western fighters.

We seem to like Mig29-UPG. We could work on a deal with Russia for Mig-35 with similar changes as UPG plus more to enable astra, and india/israeli AESA. We have already paid for the integration work with Mig29-UPG. We have the su30 line - maybe that can be reused for Mig-35

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 05 Jul 2020 18:23

The issue here is by 2030, we would need 4-6 squadrons of a fighter jets in Medium Weight category to take care of retirements...
Based on public statements, I infer that IAF definitely don't want more nos. of either Light Category Tejas Mk1/1A or Heavy category Su30 MKI...

The only options left are:-
1) MMRCA (may end up costly depending on the jet and also time consuming)
2) Direct G2G deal of any foreign jet (may end up costly depending on the jet, but definitely not time-consuming)
3) Wait for Tejas Mk2 or TEDBF (Is risky)

IAF/Govt./MOD chose option-1 for now...
One more reason they're going for MMRCA is that they want to club 110kN Engine development with this deal, thereby secure AMCA program...

So, MMRCA is here to stay, even though most of us here do not want it...

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Jul 2020 19:12

^^^
All these talk of advanced 4.5Gen MMRCA, but see a comment made by former Deputy Chief of Air Staff.

Rakesh wrote:IAF to get Rafales by July-end
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2020-06-30
30 June 2020

The 10-ton Rafale can carry also a 14-ton payload of fuel and weapons—more than the weight of two MiG-21 fighter jets. “The Rafale numbers might seem small for now, but their presence is itself a deterrent”, says Air Marshal Nirdosh Tyagi, former Deputy Chief of Air Staff. “These are special mission aircraft—they are not the type that will be used for close air support or point defence.”

That would imply another “cheaper/expendable” fighter to do the CAS and point defense. Need for a lot more LCA Mk1/A perhaps?

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 05 Jul 2020 20:07

srai wrote:^^^
All these talk of advanced 4.5Gen MMRCA, but see a comment made by former Deputy Chief of Air Staff.

That would imply another “cheaper/expendable” fighter to do the CAS and point defense. Need for a lot more LCA Mk1/A perhaps?

I guess he is only answering the question, "Why only 36 Rafales when lot more MIG 21s are up for retirement...???"
-
Anyways, from what I read many times in the forum, IAF is not going to do CAS role and Army will take care of it...

Even if we put that aside, the jets that will be up for retirement by 2030 are Mirages, Jaguars and MIG 29s... Both Mirages and Jaguars are used for Strike missions by IAF and not for point defence (for which they have MIG 21 now)...
We need a Multirole fighter with significant payload and range to replace these jets...

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 05 Jul 2020 20:10

Aditya_V wrote:My preference would be , Order 36 more Rafales plus a few more SU 30 MKI's and ramp up orders for the LCA Mk1/IA/MWF- that is the only solution which will work. Once the production ecosystem is up and running , LCA MWF/II will come up much faster including AMCA.

MRCA even if signed in 2021-22 will best get 70 aircraft and makes no sense be building an imported 4-4.5 gen aircraft uptil 2035. A domestic fighter which shares commonality with AMCA can always be produced.

This has been such an incredibly obvious point, I fail to understand why it has not gained more traction.

Even the decision makers in the IAF are steadfast in the need for 114 gold plated western fighters. As a layman, I just fail to understand the obsession behind this highly time consuming and expensive exercise.

m_saini · Post by **m_saini** » 05 Jul 2020 23:40

As a layman too, it does seem shocking why they don't just go all in with Mk1/MWF etc. Order another 36 Rafales and be done with importing forever.

Don't think anyone would handhold us in developing a 110kN engine if we club it with mmrca. Why the lunacy?

Can only think of 3 reasons:
1) MWF won't be good enough (not likely, given the success of Mk1)
2) MWF would be too late (not likey even if it comes around 2035, people are still buying F-16s today a fighter that flew 45 years ago)
3) Every decision maker is a clown

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 06 Jul 2020 00:03

One squadron of Rafale every year till the MCA is available

idan · Post by **idan** » 06 Jul 2020 00:55

Any future Rafale purchase will not encounter delays as the procurement framework is already set. Price estimation inline with y.o.y. inflation and forex adjustments will be required and done quickly. For the IAF, Rafale is always a preferred choice and ‘exceptional’ .... even ACM Raha had said the same thing.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jul 2020 01:18

idan wrote:Any future Rafale purchase will not encounter delays as the procurement framework is already set. Price estimation inline with y.o.y. inflation and forex adjustments will be required and done quickly.

Don't be so sure certain with that. For one, it is quite surprising that there weren't any options baked into the current contract. So extending the contract to cover an additional 8-12, within the specified options clause (adjusted for inflation yada yada) won't be possible. This means that a follow-on order would require the MOD to negotiate a new contract with a configuration and delivery schedule specified and negotiated along with the cost and the associated weapons and support package. Would the Rafale delivered in 2023-2025 be the same variant the MOD ordered a few years ago? Unlikely, so those aspects may change. All in, this won't be as straight forward than just ordering a dozen or few more while exercising an option built into the original contract. That would have been the easiest if it were an option.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Jul 2020 04:05

...

Even if we put that aside, the jets that will be up for retirement by 2030 are Mirages, Jaguars and MIG 29s...

...

Given where things are today, the retirement dates will be pushed back to post 2030s. Slow decade long phase out will be likely. By 2040, all will be retired.

Non-Darin-3 Jaguars will likely be retired by 2030.

Even the MiG-21 Bison would likely be slowly phased out only by 2030 instead of 2025 (as originally planned).

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 06 Jul 2020 04:23

If this is true, I think HAL should seriously think about HTFE-40 (instead it is focused on HTFE-25 - a classic play by HAL, no plane needs this engine, and even if they fail, nothing will be lost and hence no consequence, however HTFE-40 will be needed by IAF, and they will be answerable to someone, so best avoid it and lets make something no one wants and then have it cancelled after 10-15 years, providing employment/fund to many for 10-15 years).

HTFE-40 can perhaps be partnered with private player. It is risky, but unlike kaveri (where we may have to stretch), well within our reach. This will give us some experience in engine devlopment, production, post production handling and at the same time enabling IAF/jags. While in parallel we pursue our new fantasy -110 KN engine.

Rs_singh · Post by **Rs_singh** » 06 Jul 2020 04:31

OT. Corrected. Thank you Fanne ji

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 06 Jul 2020 04:50

RS_singh sir perhaps you have answered in the wrong thread

Rs_singh · Post by **Rs_singh** » 06 Jul 2020 07:38

Jingo dream : if push comes to shove, I’d love to see our Tejas taste blood.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2020 09:13

Illuminating info on the IAF at 87 by AM Masand ( retd.) in a late 2019 Vayu issue . He traces its history and growth with some v.interesting info about lost oportunities. After the fall of the Sov.U, on an official trip to Russia with AM Philip Rajkumar, he saw over a hundred MIG-29s mothballed.They were all offered to us for just $1B, less than $10M a pop! Had we taken up the offer we would not need the 120+ med. fighters MMRCA 2.0 today. The Bison upgrade which using similar specs could've simultaneously been used on our legacy 29s at the same time cost-efffctively standardising upgrades.We are only now upgrading them.Another fascinating offer by Sukhoi of the SU-54 a Russian design for an LCA,diagram shown in the article, a cute twin fin bird, which would've been built at less than $5M a pop. Our LCA was struggling at the time and we could've easily had a parallel programme. Another fact.HAL built SU- 30s were agreed by HAL to cost $1M less than an Ru built one! They now cost almost double. The Q is asked why has it been allowed to happen? Poor contract drafting on this and other procurements have bedevilled the IAF. Even LCA Mk1s cost is around 75% of that of a desi MKI,that too after its original cost was in the MKI zone. As said earlier,poor contracts saw to it that spares,support, MBTF issues- "not looked at closely by the IAF in those days until the MIG-21 Bis upgrade in '93-96." Offers of desi manufacture of M2Ks " within 3 years of delivery" and the option in the MIG-29 contract of local manufacture of "150 aircraft" were never taken up. Had either option been taken up we would be in a healthy position today with local manufacture of an MMRCA plus an ecosystem for spares and support well established.Given the huge cost of aircraft today he offers some sound advice. Raising the combat availability of the existing force level by better support and maintenance and acquiring more force multipliers like AWACS,AEW and tanker aircraft.More AWACS would obviate sending up larger numbers of aircraft on patrol missions,extending the lifespan of aircraft too, and tankers extending their endurance and range of missions. There are heaps of info.,first hand accounts of events ,a must read to understand how we got to where we are with the IAF today.Apologies if some of this was earlier posted.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 06 Jul 2020 11:55

Nihat wrote:Even the decision makers in the IAF are steadfast in the need for 114 gold plated western fighters. As a layman, I just fail to understand the obsession behind this highly time consuming and expensive exercise.

I think the IAF is just playing a truant child who has been deprived of his toys (read MMRCA). So, they aren't satisfied with a mere 36 Rafales. And since 114 Rafales is out of question, they're seeing if they can get the next best import (probably Gripen).

If the Print isn't lying (which they very well might be), the IAF chief contradicted the CDS. The latter wants to kill the MMRCA and fill up the numbers with Tejas variants.

Shri Rajnath Singh should intervene & make it clear to the IAF Chief and media that the MMRCA 114 fighter deal is dead. If the Def Min can't do it, then "Atma Nirbhar Bharat" is just a joke

P.S: I hope there is no quid-pro-quo, whereby the IAF promises to not diss the Tejas & induct squadrons, provided they get their MMRCA

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Jul 2020 13:46

^^^
From GoI perspective, the original MMRCA deal was unworkable due to high costs. It would have easily cost around $30 billion with every thing that was being asked for.

As a compromise, PM Modi got the G2G deal for what the budget could afford, which was for 36 units. The IAF response was thank you very much but we still require 114 MMRCA.

DM Parrikar tried to reason with the IAF to consider Su-30MKI as an alternative. No taker.

From cost perspective, a single engine MMRCA was going to be more affordable than twin-engined one. So a SE-MRCA was talked about. But there were only two fighters that were available in the international market. Got quietly buried.

Around the same time, DM Parrikar had HAL & IAF make a compromise on additional orders of the LCA Mk1A instead of Mk2. Four squadrons came of it. Thank you very much, but still 114 (or 6 squadrons) MMRCA required.

Then the TE-MMRCA was brought forward. However, the GoI knows it can’t afford the imports. Best tactic is to delay the process. Don’t say no directly; keep the files moving ever so slowly.

As was and is, there is no Plan B put forward least the GoI proceed with Plan B instead. Have to keep the pressure on.

And here we are today.

basant · Post by **basant** » 06 Jul 2020 14:45

^^^
Lest not forget that most far-reaching accomplishments of India were during 1991-6 crisis. PV used every crisis to his advantage, to country's advantage. Be it economy, industry (scrapping license raj as Industry Minister), communications (mobile n/w) or foreign affairs (US & Israel). Even Babri Masjid was used to get things done with the help of BJP and the Left, while anyone else would have tanked! This government did agricultural reforms, something no one dared to do, using COVID-19 crisis. It's purely incompetence of DM, and by responsibility PM, not to be able to fix issues. There can be no two opinions about it.

This is the god-send time to fix the problems. Politicians (and Management gurus) of calibre know every crisis presents opportunity. The DM can call a meeting, say we have economic issues and need equipment, these are the only choices we have. If you disagree, ask them to explain their views and present feasible alternatives and let's minute it! Once minuted, everyone knowns others can leak it to pin blame later if something goes wrong in future!

It is high time that Defence Ministry is headed by someone really competent. May be Nitin Gadkari or even someone with proven business background like Narayana Murthy. The reason is, if it were to be headed by armed forces veteran, there would be a lot of baggage to deal with. And if it is held by anyone who neither has stake or focus to understand and address issues (like anyone in the past 1.5 decades excluding MP), nothing good would be done as both babus and military will pull wool over the eyes easily. NS as DM at least brought some efforts to fruition, but that's not enough. Current DM hardly has shown any understanding, worse any interest, in the affairs even when we are fighting at more borders than ever! Damn, VK Memon did lot more good! Seriously, did St. Anthony do any worse than AJ (PBUh) and RS?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 06 Jul 2020 23:02

Good summary srai.

Barring Parikkar, the DMs have been serial disasters. No intellect to understand the issues, no strategic outlook & no decisiveness to take on lobbies. Sadly, this will also come down to Modi. He doesn't have to deal with the minutiae - just has to set a broad guideline that imports are a no-go & there will be a price to pay for playing truant.

He will also have to personally get involved in 1 deal (the MRCA can be a good one) to set an example.

P.S. And putting my conspiracy theory hat on, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Parikkar might have been poisoned with chemicals that are known to induce cancers. The lobbies that he was taking on would have felt too threatened.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Jul 2020 23:38

MeshaVishwas wrote:New fighters for the IAF: Answers and more questions-Angad Singh
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/ ... 69118/?amp

Angad Singh is saying precisely what several people here have been pointing out ever since this second MRCA tender started. It is pointless to try the same thing again when we know it failed previously for cost reasons. IAF's budgetary situation for capital acquisitions is now probably even worse than it was back then. So why couldn't the MoD and the IAF come together and cancel this procurement and make some common sense decisions to fill the numbers gap after a realistic assessment of available finances.

2 more squadrons of Rafales to justify the sunk costs of the 2 squadrons being currently procured along with all the new infra and manpower built up for them, plus additional acquisitions of existing types like the Mig-29, M2k and Su-30 to make up the rest of the numbers is exactly what we have been asking for here. Doing this in parallel to the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A induction should be enough to keep the squadron numbers and overall capability at a decent level without breaking the bank on a new 114 aircraft acquisition of yet another new type.

Bear in mind that the IAF currently operates 7 different types of combat aircraft. Seven! Adding yet another type to this is sheer insanity. Even if we had the money for buying a new type, we should not attempt it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jul 2020 05:34

To come to think about it, in the place of 6 MMRCA squadrons the current GoI instead purchased 2 Rafale and 4 LCA Mk1A squadrons.

Now for the “additional” 6 squadrons desired in MMRCA-3, looks like a MiG-29 squadron is being added. Let’s see how the GoI fills rest of the needs instead.

GoI appointee CDS Rawat has been promoting LCA. But the IAF has come out strongly opposing it. Maybe the GoI thought putting ACM Bahaduria, an LCA test pilot, would go along with it. But he seems to be toeing the same IAF previous line. No taker.

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 07 Jul 2020 05:41

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AliV6XemLg
Insights into the whole Rafale saga and more.
A few salient points..
1) Our Sukhois are a hoch-poch mess.
2) Inadequate piolet training
3) Failings of DPP (defense procurement policy)

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jul 2020 05:44

^^^
One of the tactics being employed is to make Su-30MKI look bad in order to justify the desire for a “superior” Rafale acquisition.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Jul 2020 06:49

Sumair wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AliV6XemLg
Insights into the whole Rafale saga and more.
A few salient points..
1) Our Sukhois are a hoch-poch mess.
2) Inadequate piolet training
3) Failings of DPP (defense procurement policy)

Please don't listen to Abhijit Iyer Mitra regarding the Sukhois. He was the one who came up with the idiotic thermoclines theory a while back. He's not half as smart as he thinks he is.

vimal · Post by **vimal** » 07 Jul 2020 07:47

Ive heard some interviews of Abhijit Iyer and he seems like a Lockheed agent given the way he pushes f-21 .

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jul 2020 07:56

Sumair wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AliV6XemLg
Insights into the whole Rafale saga and more.
A few salient points..
1) Our Sukhois are a hoch-poch mess.
2) Inadequate piolet training
3) Failings of DPP (defense procurement policy)

WHy do you listen to this phool? He has zero knowledge on the subject and is desperately pushing F-solah as a light fighter while all the time claiming that we have old russian junk. He ought to know that the 16 is pretty much as heavy as any rafale out there, possibly more! According to him, f16 is not old because it has been upgraded. As though the 21s, 29s et al., haven't received the same. Guy sounds like an LM shill.

Note that he doesn't push the LCA as a light fighter, no sir. Wonlee f16 will do.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Jul 2020 07:59

LakshmanPST wrote:
I infer that IAF definitely don't want more nos. of either Light Category Tejas Mk1/1A or Heavy category Su30 MKI...

Then why is iaf allowing grippen to take part in mrca?

Why heavy f15XE, Su 35, f-18 are allowed to compete in mrca?

It seems "get us anything foreign grippen/f15/f18 but not Khadi Gramodyog Tejas"

Rs_singh · Post by **Rs_singh** » 07 Jul 2020 08:15

One word on pilot training in the IAF. KRC showed following flaws:

1. IAF fighters were unwilling to engage targets at close range despite being cleared to do so, as attrition was acceptable in war. Not being able to close in the target meant impact error was large and particularly ineffective at higher gradients.
2. Lack of forward air controllers embedded in IA assault units for C&C. Result, you had infantry boys who had little knowledge on how to effectively deploy air power And airmen who being trained to interdict SOCs could not identify targets of opportunity to effect the outcome of a tactical battle.
3. 20 yrs under the bridge and we still neither have dedicated CAS platform, school nor FAC.

We were barely putting in 100hrs per platform per pilot per year. Those were the bad flying coffin days. I hope this has changed since and would expect this number to go up to 180-220 based on platform.

I’ll also state here that, we were in a very bad shape in 99. Our platforms and training were found wanting, both in IA and IAF, not to mention a total lack of synergy. Things have changed and heads have rolled since.

Rs_singh · Post by **Rs_singh** » 07 Jul 2020 08:23

On su30 issues, I remember the f18 was taken to gw1 when the rwr couldn’t distinguish between hostile radar and own emissions. If I find a link to the article I’ll post here later. These are common teething issues expected on any platform.

Russki engines have known problems. I believe the IAF restricted service life to 800hrs from 1000 a while back. I’m not sure what thermocline has to do with GTs but if he was trying to say that the aero efficiency suffers because the ambient temperatures are higher in India than in Russia, then that makes sense. But that would be equally true of any GT not just Russian GT unless he knows a special law of thermodynamics that only applies to saturn GTs

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jul 2020 08:47

Manish_Sharma wrote:
LakshmanPST wrote:
I infer that IAF definitely don't want more nos. of either Light Category Tejas Mk1/1A or Heavy category Su30 MKI...

Then why is iaf allowing grippen to take part in mrca?

Why heavy f15XE, Su 35, f-18 are allowed to compete in mrca?

It seems "get us anything foreign grippen/f15/f18 but not Khadi Gramodyog Tejas"

The whole MMRCA-3 is a farce. Destined to fail. How many years the GoI & IAF want to waste on it is another question altogether.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jul 2020 09:05

Sumair wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AliV6XemLg
Insights into the whole Rafale saga and more.
A few salient points..
1) Our Sukhois are a hoch-poch mess.
2) Inadequate piolet training
3) Failings of DPP (defense procurement policy)

Can you please stop quoting this chap on BRF? Thanks, he literally knows nothing about defense but postures as an analyst.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Jul 2020 09:10

Rs_singh wrote:One word on pilot training in the IAF. KRC showed following flaws:

1. IAF fighters were unwilling to engage targets at close range despite being cleared to do so, as attrition was acceptable in war. Not being able to close in the target meant impact error was large and particularly ineffective at higher gradients.

Whoever said this needs to go back and get his head examined. The IAF was unwilling to engage targets at close range because of the threat of MANPADS. They changed their policies, thank goodness for that.

2. Lack of forward air controllers embedded in IA assault units for C&C. Result, you had infantry boys who had little knowledge on how to effectively deploy air power And airmen who being trained to interdict SOCs could not identify targets of opportunity to effect the outcome of a tactical battle.

The IAF is a small, dedicated organization. Pilots are deputed for such tasks. They are not found easily and hence the "lack" is not a unique failing.

3. 20 yrs under the bridge and we still neither have dedicated CAS platform, school nor FAC.

With the kind of capabilities the IAF today has, why would you need a dedicated CAS platform? Plus how risk prone a dedicated CAS platform is in a high-end IADS environment?

We were barely putting in 100hrs per platform per pilot per year. Those were the bad flying coffin days. I hope this has changed since and would expect this number to go up to 180-220 based on platform.

IAF calculates its training regimen per a syllabus which is allocated over sorties. Flight hours do not represent the whole picture. And no, our flight hours were far above 100/yr in 1999.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 07 Jul 2020 09:39

LakshmanPST wrote:
srai wrote:^^^
...
Anyways, from what I read many times in the forum, IAF is not going to do CAS role and Army will take care of it...

...

Folks please please do not generate such conclusions.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 07 Jul 2020 09:41

srai wrote:
...

Even if we put that aside, the jets that will be up for retirement by 2030 are Mirages, Jaguars and MIG 29s...

...
...

Non-Darin-3 Jaguars will likely be retired by 2030.

All Darin 2s except trainers will retire by 2025

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 07 Jul 2020 09:47

srai wrote:^^^
One of the tactics being employed is to make Su-30MKI look bad in order to justify the desire for a “superior” Rafale acquisition.

Mod Note: srai, I am cautioning you, if you make such claims, substantiate them. Next time will not be a Caution,

Everyone - This is not the MMRCA thread. You post your fantasies on the MMRCA thread. Not here.