MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

[Kartik]

Kartikji, given that the canard has already been floated (as always to justify more imports) wrt PAF pilots training with PLA on J-31/FC-31, some sort of knee-jerk (and obviously obscenely costly) stealth-fighter procurement is now inevitable - not different from the MiG-29 procurement of the late-80s/early-90s.

This is in the very DNA of IAF/MoD, it won't go away, period.

Question is what is this platform?

1) Either F-22/F-35, which are not available for sale, but leasing option (of in-use/used platforms) is still there.
Of course, there'll be 0 operational autonomy wrt them, but then who cares - as long as it is a shiny imported toy, these small things like operational autonomy etc can (and will be) be passed-over.
Betw justification of surrendering ops autonomy etc, via the leasing mode, is already there (the deployed S-400 bogie) - so maybe 36 (2 Sqns) is that magic number, and the Opex of these will bleed IAF white - but then again, who cares.

OR

2) Su-57 will be the only other alternative - 2-seater FGFA will have to given a pass-by, in that case (and so would the logic of multiplicity of platforms etc).
Plus, maybe as a deal sweetener, mother Russia will throw us the Lic mfg of Izdeliya-30/AL-51 bone (in lines of AL-31F of late 90s deal).
Question is what vol would mollify mother Russia to do that, nothing less than a 50-odd would suffice, I think (similar to the 1996 deal, with all 50 would be Su-57, similar to the initial batches of Su-30K).

Let's see ...

Maityaji, if the IAF considered the Su-57E to be worth it, do you think they'd have pulled the plug on FGFA? That itself tells everything about the IAF's opinion of that type. They were willing to walk away from that jet and a possible license production run of 120 odd jets in India, and look at the Rafale/MRFA instead.

Just look at the Su-57's track record..a conflict is ongoing in Russia for 2.5 years and to date there hasn't been a single reported shoot down by a Su-57. RuAF, which needs all the airframes it can get, is inducting Su-35s while the anemic Su-57 production line produces 6-8 or so.

Russians are masters of the PR game, as good as many Western companies. IF it was any good, you'd have been reading or hearing about it for sure. The fact that it's barely made a mark in an ongoing conflict where Ukraine acquiring used F-16 MLUs is made such a big deal of, says a lot.

Plus India will risk heavy sanctions if a big ticket defence deal goes through with Russia. All that fake media "news" about a Su-57 deal when PM Modiji was in Russia and what came out of it. Not even a mention of it, nor any other deal.

The difference between how fast Rafale integrated into the IAF's combat element versus how long and labourious our Su-30MKI experience was is something that the IAF is not going to leave aside.

Our best bet is the Rafale F4 for now. With our other eggs in the US basket with hundreds of F-404 and F-414s to be procured, I don't think anyone will look at risking everything for a few Su-57Es.

If at all the PAF goes in for J-31s, expect the F-35 to take centrestage. Not the Su-57E.

[Rakesh]

If at all the PAF goes in for J-31s, expect the F-35 to take centrestage. Not the Su-57E.

Kartik, I don't see how the F-35 will enter service with the IAF, with the S-400 in operation. Unless Lockheed Martin has a work around for the F-35 to operate alongside the S-400, I don't see a pathway for the F-35 in the IAF. There will have to be significant geopolitical / technical compromises that India will have to make for the F-35 and it is unlikely that India will bend to those requests. Example --> Will Air HQ acquiesce to a demand for deactivation of the S-400 system, in lieu of a F-35 purchase?

Risking heavy sanctions is something India will have to navigate through politically. The US will have to learn (they already are!) to work in an increasingly multipolar world. Sanctioning India would be severely counterproductive to its own goals. The US Congress will make the usual noise - just as in the S-400 purchase - but wiser minds will prevail.

The FGFA never moved beyond the drawing stage AFAIK. The Su-57 is not perfect, but AIr HQ's penchant for knee jerk acquisitions is legendary. In the 1980s, to counter the F-16 from the PAF, the IAF acquired three different fighters ---> the MiG-23MF, the Mirage 2000H/TH and the MiG-29B/UB. Both the Russian aircraft (especially the Flogger) were subpar in terms of performance (i.e. sensors) and serviceability.

A repeat of that boondoggle is highly likely. Maitya-ji is on point.

The Rafale F4 is the "safe" bet, but the order book for Dassault is bursting at the seams. I don't see how any Rafales will arrive on time i.e. industry standard of three years for delivery of the first batch.

Rafale Deliveries Pending
* Egypt - 30 aircraft
* Indonesia - 42 aircraft
* UAE - 80 aircraft
* Indian Navy - 26 aircraft

I believe there are some small deliveries left for Croatia and Greece as well. And then there is a laundry list of other countries in which the Rafale is participating in fighter contests. If Dassault wins any of them - which is likely - it is game over for the line at Merignac. They will have to open a second line and have all their Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers increase their output as well. Dassault would prefer an international customer to pay for that second line, rather invest their own money in that line.

Dassault says Rafale jet production ramp-up hit by supply chain snags
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ain-snags/
24 July 2024

Lifting the Rafale production pace to three a month at the final assembly plant in Mérignac in southwest France “is more difficult right now,” and reaching that rate is more a question of next year than this year, CEO Éric Trappier said at a press conference Tuesday night in Saint-Cloud outside Paris.

With the F-414 engine assembly deal expected to be signed in December of this year, expect the KF-21SA (the export variant announced in June 2024) to enter the fray as well. As you already know, she operates a variant of the F-414 turbofan.

South Korea wants new versions of the KF-21 fighter, including stealth variant
https://www.aeroflap.com.br/en/South-Ko ... h-variant/
24 June 2024

Finally, the KF-21SA will be a version dedicated to the export market. The SA will have a basic configuration similar to that found on the South Korean Air Force's (ROKAF) KF-21s, but open to modifications and customizations by potential customers. Negotiations with buyers such as Indonesia are ongoing, but the final configurations of export models remain undetermined.

[Kartik]

If at all the PAF goes in for J-31s, expect the F-35 to take centrestage. Not the Su-57E.

Kartik, I don't see how the F-35 will enter service with the IAF, with the S-400 in operation. Unless Lockheed Martin has a work around for the F-35 to operate alongside the S-400, I don't see a pathway for the F-35 in the IAF. There will have to be significant geopolitical / technical compromises that India will have to make for the F-35 and it is unlikely that India will bend to those requests. Example --> Will Air HQ acquiesce to a demand for deactivation of the S-400 system, in lieu of a F-35 purchase?

Turkey was penalized for a different reason - it was not a country that relied heavily on Russian weapons in the past, yet Erdogan chose to finger NATO and buy the S-400. He was warned BEFORE the S-400 was chosen that doing so would end Turkey's involvement in the F-35 and he chose to ignore those warnings. That is what led to Turkey's removal from the F-35 program.

For India, there is a way- and it has to do with being able to sign the necessary agreements with the US Govt to not allow the F-35's RCS and electronic signatures to be shared with Russians who access the S-400 in India under any circumstances.

Risking heavy sanctions is something India will have to navigate through politically. The US will have to learn (they already are!) to work in an increasingly multipolar world. Sanctioning India would be severely counterproductive to its own goals. The US Congress will make the usual noise - just as in the S-400 purchase - but wiser minds will prevail.

Those sanctions could put a full stop on the Tejas Mk1A, Tejas Mk2 and TEDBF as well as AMCA Mk1. The repercussions could quite literally ground the IAF's modernisation plan. of course, it will cause irreparable damage to US India relations as well, but frankly speaking, we will also suffer when it comes to the Indian economy, the kinds of industries being set up in India (for e.g. semi conductor), etc. Basically, the breadth of US India relations are on a totally different scale than those between Russia and India.

The FGFA never moved beyond the drawing stage AFAIK. The Su-57 is not perfect, but AIr HQ's penchant for knee jerk acquisitions is legendary. In the 1980s, to counter the F-16 from the PAF, the IAF acquired three different fighters ---> the MiG-23MF, the Mirage 2000H/TH and the MiG-29B/UB. Both the Russian aircraft (especially the Flogger) were subpar in terms of performance (i.e. sensors) and serviceability.

FGFA was to be based on the single seat Su-57, customized to IAF specifications and another 2 seat variant was to be developed for India. But the fact that the IAF let it go, tells me that it wasn't suitably impressed with the specifications of the Su-57. Apart from the fact that the Russians did not involve India deeply and were not willing to give deep ToT as was originally intended, if the platform itself was top notch, the IAF would've made do with lower levels of ToT.

It is almost as if the IAF itself was not happy and took the exit option in conjunction with HAL. I mean why would the IAF care about levels of ToT when they were getting a 5th gen fighter? It had to be the levels of RCS and IR signatures were not up to the levels they expected from what would then have to be their only 5th gen fighter. The IAF realised that they were not going to be able to influence the design or requirements, and had to take the design as is.

Since AMCA was barely surviving on breadcrumbs as funds at that time, it would've been killed if FGFA came through, and the IAF would then have no fall back for a 5th gen program where it could put far more stringent requirements. The IAF wisely chose to pull out and let go of the USD 250 million sunk into that program.

Nothing suggests that it was a bad decision. Just look at the absolutely nil contribution of the Su-57 towards Russia's air effort against Ukraine. Almost all of the combat missions are being carried out by Su-24, Su-30SM, Su-35 and Su-34. It's a massive beast, designed for Russia's vast airspace, and RCS and IR signatures are not as low as they need to be for a true blue 5th gen design. Recall all the long discussions on the compressor face being visible on the Su-57?



The IAF would NEVER accept an AMCA with this design for an air intake. No blockers (which are anyway not ideal), even RAM coatings will only reduce it by so much. Is there any other 5th gen design that doesn't have buried, serpentine air intakes, instead of Su-27/MiG-29 like underslung engine pods? It is what Sukhoi knew very well and they just decided to go ahead with it, RCS hit or not.

[VinodTK]

The S400 issue is a bogey put up by USA in my opinion, to prevent India from getting S400, and go for US systems.

India can get the F-35 from the US as long as India does not go for S500 and agrees to some (unknown) restrictions.

Reason USA might go with this approach; because imagine the pressure on PLAF if F-35's are at their door steps from Arunachal to J&K and Indian Ocean. The pressure on PLAF will help US and its allies.

It would be great if India did not have to depend on any country for fighter jets; ground reality points to a sad and diffrent story

[YashG]

Importing F35 will mean India will never be able to use them. Everytime India will not agree to US geopolitically, US will hold up spareparts of something else. Other then making them in India, there is no other option.

[Rakesh]

...

I moved the discussion to this thread. I do not want to derail the Tejas Mk1A thread.

Will reply to your post.

[SRajesh]

^^ Given the quest for plowing an independent path(i.e., keeping both bear and the eagle equidistant) i wonder if any of the above even matter or fructify (even IAF consider in there 20 year programme).
Engine hold up is a gentle reminder to MAD about the consequences of independent path (regardless of the supply chain issues).
Engine (be it for aircraft or tank or ship) independence will broaden the options
Until then Malaai express will keep chugging!!

[Rakesh]

Turkey was penalized for a different reason - it was not a country that relied heavily on Russian weapons in the past, yet Erdogan chose to finger NATO and buy the S-400. He was warned BEFORE the S-400 was chosen that doing so would end Turkey's involvement in the F-35 and he chose to ignore those warnings. That is what led to Turkey's removal from the F-35 program.

For India, there is a way- and it has to do with being able to sign the necessary agreements with the US Govt to not allow the F-35's RCS and electronic signatures to be shared with Russians who access the S-400 in India under any circumstances.

Such an agreement - if ever signed by the Indian Govt - will require US military personnel on Indian soil to enforce that agreement. In India, that is easier said than done. Flight plans, mission profiles will all have to be shared with the US. Remote enforcing will be risky, to avert any accidental reveals. If such an incident ever occurs, the F-35 is compromised not just for the US but for all the partner nations that operate her. So US boots on the ground will become a non-negotiable requirement. In addition, military exercises featuring the S-400 will also have to be curtailed to ensure the S-400 and the F-35 do not operate alongside each other. At that point, the F-35 will become a one trick pony in the IAF. In light of this, I don't see how Air HQ will agree to such a setup, considering that China also operates the S-400. And in a future conflict, how does one expect the F-35 and the S-400 to not operate together?

Below is the Royal Navy's experience with the F-35B aboard the HMS Queen Elizabeth. The kicker is the British do not even operate the S-400 and they are a Level 1 partner nation in the F-35 program. One can only imagine the restrictions the US would place on India that operates the S-400 platform. Air HQ will never agree to the below and neither will the Govt of India.

The only way is Tempest
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/the-on ... s-tempest/
09 Jan 2024

If F-35 was where it is at, there would be absolutely no point in this expense. But this is the point: F-35 is not where it’s at. Indeed, it is looking like a financial and operational liability for those operators who have had it longest. To take ‘freedom of action’ first, I won’t even attempt to go into the ‘kill switch’ debate – that several Middle East nations say that there is such is enough to leave it with. However, the wording of the UK’s recent accident investigation report on the crash of the F-35B off the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth in November 2021 is worth noting:

“The F-35 Special Access Programme (SAP) prevented unauthorised and uncontrolled access to all elements of the F-35 system. The GSSO team’s task was to supervise SAP facilities…They were responsible for the Ship’s SAP compartments, as well as F-35B dedicated hardware and software installed on QNLZ.

“On rare occasions, if flying activity was not being conducted, the deck was opened for recreation to other personnel. Such events added another dimension to the requirement to ensure aircraft were physically protected, and ensure security was maintained. On one of these recreation days a DASOR was raised due to recreational activities infringing aircraft security.”

So, despite the Royal Navy talking about the carriers as being ‘eight acres of sovereign territory’, the truth is that the use of its prime strike asset is firmly under US control, and access of RN sailors to the hangar and flight deck is dictated by US regulations. Very sovereign! ‘Freedom of modification’ is vital to GCAP as there is absolutely no such facility in the F-35 programme whatsoever. You might – just might – be able to buy, at significant cost, a derogation to adapt F-35, but to do this, a country will have to hand over all its software for, say, a new missile, to Lockheed Martin/Joint Program Office to do the integration. Crown Jewels? Handed over… This is before one even considers the fact that industrially, a US F-35 company, let alone the Pentagon, might not want a weapon/electronic system on F-35 that is a competing option for an export customer, and so smothers it – this happens all too frequently on other US platforms.

In the UK, there was a detectable sense of disenchantment about F-35, mostly within the RAF, after the 2012 reversal of the decision to acquire the F-35C. Specific concerns, other than the B’s short legs include the ‘black box’ nature of the sensor-fusion system which, despite its legally important role in determining whether or not a target is legitimate under prevailing rules of engagement, the ability to record, offload and exploit sensor data and share it with other assets is restricted. The US also has tight control over mission data files (MDFs), including electronic order-of-battle data. MDFs for the UK, Italy, Japan and other F-35 operators are exclusively generated by the USAF’s 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing at Eglin AFB, Florida.

This is the Comptroller & Auditor General report on MMRCA 1.0 and is dated 11 February 2019. This is as official a document that one can get from the Govt of India. On Page 112* of the report, is this line:

*Type 126 in the link above, to go to the page in question. The highlighted line - which I am reproducing below - is towards the bottom of the first paragraph.

IAF also argued that though F-16/F-18 of M/s Lockheed Martin/Boeing USA were in similar class as the Mirage 2000 MK II, it could face difficulties in case sanctions were imposed by USA.

This was the view of Air HQ - about the US, over the F-16 and F-18. And since then, the US has only doubled down on India politically via CAATSA, the Pannu affair, etc. Air HQ does not comment on geopolitical events, as it is not their responsibility. But they are not blind to geopolitical events either. If the F-35 comes, it will require full approval of the Indian Air Force. How such an acquisition can pass the smell test at Air HQ - in the current geopolitical environment and with the autonomy-killing technical restrictions of the F-35 - is challenging.

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... 32609?s=20 ---> A wise MoD bureaucrat in South Block over a decade ago: “We will never buy American fighter jets… helicopters, transport planes...YES, but fighters...NEVER.” Why not? “Because they will never let you fight the wars you want to.”

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... 96641?s=20 ---> This was post the sugar rush of the Indo-US nuclear deal and the $10+ billion deals for Globemasters, Hercs, Poseidons. Yet to see this ‘no fighter jets’ tenet being challenged.

Those sanctions could put a full stop on the Tejas Mk1A, Tejas Mk2 and TEDBF as well as AMCA Mk1. The repercussions could quite literally ground the IAF's modernisation plan. of course, it will cause irreparable damage to US India relations as well, but frankly speaking, we will also suffer when it comes to the Indian economy, the kinds of industries being set up in India (for e.g. semi conductor), etc. Basically, the breadth of US India relations are on a totally different scale than those between Russia and India.

Is that anything new with the Tejas program? The '98 sanctions set the program back by a few years. So indeed, India will suffer. However, it would be comically ironic for the US Govt to deny turbofans to India - under a sanctions umbrella - from a US company that is suffering from a supply chain issue.

But in the long run, are sanctions really worth it for the US Govt to impose upon India, which is one of her key partners in the bulwark against China? Is America really prepared to miss the woods for the trees over a "possible" future military deal between Russia and India? The breadth of US-India relations - which are on a different scale than those between Russia and India - will suffer a severe & irreparable regression and then the reverse situation will occur. After the efforts five successive US Administrations (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden) undertook in building a relationship with India, sanctioning India will drive her right back to Russia. Is that what America really wants? Every future deal will also die i.e. Stryker AFVs, MQ-9B drones, additional P-8Is, etc.

What America needs to learn and understand is that a multipolar world is here to stay and she will have to make geopolitical compromises in order to avoid ending up becoming increasingly irrelevant.

FGFA was to be based on the single seat Su-57, customized to IAF specifications and another 2 seat variant was to be developed for India. But the fact that the IAF let it go, tells me that it wasn't suitably impressed with the specifications of the Su-57. Apart from the fact that the Russians did not involve India deeply and were not willing to give deep ToT as was originally intended, if the platform itself was top notch, the IAF would've made do with lower levels of ToT.

It is almost as if the IAF itself was not happy and took the exit option in conjunction with HAL. I mean why would the IAF care about levels of ToT when they were getting a 5th gen fighter? It had to be the levels of RCS and IR signatures were not up to the levels they expected from what would then have to be their only 5th gen fighter. The IAF realised that they were not going to be able to influence the design or requirements, and had to take the design as is.

Since AMCA was barely surviving on breadcrumbs as funds at that time, it would've been killed if FGFA came through, and the IAF would then have no fall back for a 5th gen program where it could put far more stringent requirements. The IAF wisely chose to pull out and let go of the USD 250 million sunk into that program.

Nothing suggests that it was a bad decision. Just look at the absolutely nil contribution of the Su-57 towards Russia's air effort against Ukraine. Almost all of the combat missions are being carried out by Su-24, Su-30SM, Su-35 and Su-34. It's a massive beast, designed for Russia's vast airspace, and RCS and IR signatures are not as low as they need to be for a true blue 5th gen design. Recall all the long discussions on the compressor face being visible on the Su-57?

Any "possible" Su-57 purchase will be an emergency acquisition. So two squadrons at minimum. In light of this, much of the usual requirements (ToT, license production, etc) will be waived and IAF will adopt the platform as is. This has happened before with the MiG-23MF, the Mirage 2000H/TH, the MiG-29B/UB and even the Rafale F3R(I). It will not be ideal, it will more than likely be subpar and it will have serviceability issues. But the IAF will have to live with it, till the AMCA arrives. Any emergency acquisition would depend on the threat perception that the IAF faces with J-20s in the east and with J-31s in the west. The argument that Air HQ can put forth is ---> Having a VLO platform - despite issues - would be better, than having no VLO platform at all.

The IAF would NEVER accept an AMCA with this design for an air intake. No blockers (which are anyway not ideal), even RAM coatings will only reduce it by so much. Is there any other 5th gen design that doesn't have buried, serpentine air intakes, instead of Su-27/MiG-29 like underslung engine pods? It is what Sukhoi knew very well and they just decided to go ahead with it, RCS hit or not.

The amount of exceptions that are made for phoren maal is eye opening. There are multiplie documented instances of Air HQ inducting aircraft with underpowered turbofans, under performing avionics and/or sensors, subpar A2A weaponry, etc. So the picture you posted is a valid point, but will likely be overlooked because it will come under the umbrella of emergency acquisition, with no uncomfortable strings attached. Since we are on the topic of the air intake on the Su-57 and you mentioned the RAM coatings and the radar blocker, here is an article highlighting those very developments.

Russia’s Su-57 Jet is ‘More Stealthy’ with New Air Intake Grille
https://www.defensemirror.com/news/2848 ... ake_Grille
07 Dec 2020

To counter the above article, below is another one which discusses how really effective these new measures are on the Su-57.

Let’s Talk About The Su-57 And The Radar Blockers Allegedly Sighted For The First Time Inside The Felon’s Air Intake
https://theaviationist.com/2020/12/13/l ... ir-intake/
13 Dec 2020

[Cain Marko]

Maityaji, if the IAF considered the Su-57E to be worth it, do you think they'd have pulled the plug on FGFA? That itself tells everything about the IAF's opinion of that type. They were willing to walk away from that jet and a possible license production run of 120 odd jets in India, and look at the Rafale/MRFA instead.

Just look at the Su-57's track record..a conflict is ongoing in Russia for 2.5 years and to date there hasn't been a single reported shoot down by a Su-57. RuAF, which needs all the airframes it can get, is inducting Su-35s while the anemic Su-57 production line produces 6-8 or so.

If at all the PAF goes in for J-31s, expect the F-35 to take centrestage. Not the Su-57E.

The IAF didn't want the FGFA for a number of reasons...
1. Too much Russian inventory
2. Complete paper product
3. Penchant for French goodies

Under the current rather extenuating circumstances, a vanilla 57 might be a sight for sore eyes. When things get desperate IAF goes Russian. I remember that adhoc MKI order under ACM Tyagi. Not to mention the Fulcrums. Damn French are always too expensive.

But yeah, I'd be okay with an F35, even if it comes with some operational restrictions. Mainly to be used vs China. It's of no use vs TSP in any case.
So long as the US streets that deal with a boatload of goodies and friendship prices. Frankly I think think there's some movement going on in the US to reverse India from such restrictions. an "all weather" Ally like Israel. .. Rubio was behind it.

[Cain Marko]

It truly boggles the mind how desh finds itself in the same quagmire ad nauseam.

[pravula]

It truly boggles the mind how desh finds itself in the same quagmire ad nauseam.

I am surprised that you are surprised. This was gonna happen, as we keep repeating the same story over and over again…why would our results be any different? We all remember Marut and its engine saga and yet we chose to defund engine development

[Rakesh]

Still waiting for Ache Din - via F-16 production - to come to India!

https://x.com/sidhant/status/1834175257982501111 ---> Just In: We want to give India F-16, it's up to the Indian Air Force, says Top US Air Official at Tarang Shakti exercises.

https://x.com/livefist/status/1834205833179099550 ---> The F-16 has been on offer to India since 2008 — that’s 16 years ago.

[sanman]

[chetak]

X-Post from the Indian Naval Aviation thread...

+108!

This semi eyetaalian expert did India a great service by raking up the Rafale issue and that too all the way up to the SC.

The gyan we were being given on BRF!

Rakesh ji,

the opposition to the IAF rafale was primarily orchestrated by the amriki deep state, using dimwit as the pawn to slander Modi ji and also imply corruption in the deal. The britshits were also very eager for the expected retendering, after all, the goras had used a very similar modus operandi to kill the IA artillery deal for so many years

for the marine version, there will be act 1, scene 2 that is bound to follow, and with the same dramatis personae too, all ready in the green room, and awaiting the curtain call

the amrikis were positioning themselves as the fancied contenders for both versions (IAF/IN) when Modiji sprung the govt to govt deal surprise with the french.

even the britshits, who more than fancied themselves as leading contenders with the typhoon (leveraging their commonwealth connections) were gobsmacked when the french rafale sailed through on merits, pipping them to the finish line and the yank and bank efforts of a certain IN (retired) rear admiral test pilot sporting amriki colors came to naught.

The Modi govt has played a rather dextrous hand, while successfully navigating dangerous waters

The amriki MIC, agro tech and pharma are as unrelenting as they are unforgivingly vengeful

[maitya]

^^^^^^^ IMVVHO, except for the F-35 (or F-22, if some baboon gets stuck with "double-engine/single-engine requirement" nonsense), no other platform will come even close to dislodging Rafale as a contender for the MRFA (or whatever it is called nowadays) program - if the amriki deep state or even the britshits haven't got this basic fact till now, then, well, it raises a lot of question on their intellectual capability itself.

Since neither F-35 nor F-22 will ever be made available to us, the kallurams, (and no, all the S-400 etc reasoning are pure red herring - there was never any will to share these, in the first place), except for the unit-price, there's nothing stopping Rafale.
It's their game to loose, and only way they would do so, is quote an obscene pricing - and that's exactly what they have done again (for Rafale-M). Last time India-specific-Enhancement was the excuse for such high unit-price, not sure what it would be for the Rafale-M.

But having painted ourselves in a corner, by creating, essentially an single-vendor situation, we are in no position to negotiate much on the price itself - all we can do is par down the numbers (to say 57 + 26) to limit capital expenditure allocation issues etc.

And since such large deals always have a ultra-strong geo-strategic angle to it, all that is left to do is, to split the MRFA to 57 (+26) Rafale (with a Lic Mfg component) and 57* F35/F22 (straight buy).
For all it's worth, GoI can always badge the F35/F22 purchase, for the strategic command etc** - and may as well fund it separately (outside MoD budget).
And then sit back and enjoy, the spectacle of true-colors of so-called strategic-partnerships and all such nonsenses, unravel slowly and once-and-for-all (remember the Nukelar deal about a decade or so back).

==============================================================
*As a deal sweetener, GoI can always ask for a 5-year lease of 1 sqn worth of in-use platforms, to be returned once the 2nd sqn is inducted.

** Oh, what a sight would that be, the absolute tamasha of the uber import-pasand-force shills having a meltdown - at the mere mention of an imported toy going to some other "boy".

[Rakesh]

F-22 cannot be exported to any other country, as mandated by US Govt law. F-22 is also not in production any longer. All US investment on 5th Gen platforms is geared towards the F-35 and the F-22’s successor —> the NGAD program.

The F-35 cannot be sold to India, because of the S-400 system in service with the IAF. Unless LM works out a solution to have both platforms operate alongside each other (without compromising the technological secrets of the F-35) this aircraft cannot be operated by India.

There is also this major issue with the F-35 —> viewtopic.php?p=2626635#p2626635

Any US fighter - if ever sold to India and operated by the IAF - will have to be the F-21 or the F-15EX or the F-18SH.

[maitya]

F-22 cannot be exported to any other country, as mandated by US Govt law.
...
The F-35 cannot be sold to India, because of the S-400 system in service with the IAF.
...

He He ... Laws and some perceived constraints is it?
Well, as far as these Laws are concerned, so was the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ... similarly wrt perceived constraints wrt S-400, so was NSG related cartelization (against us and only us).
The 123 agreement put paid to all that, isn't it?

But that's not the point ...
All we need to do is to merely ask-for/offer-to-award-contract for F35/F22 etc - and then sit back and enjoy the subsequent meltdown. Also, will put paid to any talk of F15/F21/F18 etc etc - that's the bonus!!
Much like all those unkil nukelar-reactors that were supposed to have been operational by now, as a direct consequence of the 123-agreement ... don't see any of them, though!!

[A Deshmukh]

F-35 has very high operating cost.

[Rakesh]

He He ... Laws and some perceived constraints is it?
Well, as far as these Laws are concerned, so was the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ... similarly wrt perceived constraints wrt S-400, so was NSG related cartelization (against us and only us).
The 123 agreement put paid to all that, isn't it?

But that's not the point ...

These laws can always be bent, as long as India remains their peon. When that does not happen, these laws will be enforced.

Israel and UK are America's closest military partners, but even they do not operate the F-22. They however do operate the F-35. The former has leeway with the F-35, while the latter (who is a loyal poodle) has zero room with the F-35. Expect far worse treatment (than the UK) if we ever operate the F-35.

All we need to do is to merely ask-for/offer-to-award-contract for F35/F22 etc - and then sit back and enjoy the subsequent meltdown. Also, will put paid to any talk of F15/F21/F18 etc etc - that's the bonus!!
Much like all those unkil nukelar-reactors that were supposed to have been operational by now, as a direct consequence of the 123-agreement ... don't see any of them, though!!

Not that my opinion matters to anyone, but I would prefer to *NOT* see an American-built fighter aircraft in IAF colours...even if it is the F-35 or the mythical unicorn aka the F-22. Too many restrictions and no platform sovereignty. The IAF will already operate 400+ American fighters in the future. It is called Tejas. The last thing would be to get more of the same and that too, 100% American in origin.

And this issue is even more pronounced now, with the on-going Pannu affair. BRF has been proven time and time again, to be right, in highlighting the danger of operating US-built fighter aircraft. Shame on all the American apologists on BRF that advocated for a US-built fighter.

[williams]

We will have to hood wink these fellas until our MIC gets to become independent. Until then we'll act as humble farmers who needs help. However, we will have to be ruthless about our own traitors who are lurking around to sabotage progress we are making in building our own systems. This is the time to identify, isolate and demolish these mercenary thugs.

[maitya]

All we need to do is to merely ask-for/offer-to-award-contract for F35/F22 etc - and then sit back and enjoy the subsequent meltdown. Also, will put paid to any talk of F15/F21/F18 etc etc - that's the bonus!!
Much like all those unkil nukelar-reactors that were supposed to have been operational by now, as a direct consequence of the 123-agreement ... don't see any of them, though!!

Not that my opinion matters to anyone, but I would prefer to *NOT* see an American-built fighter aircraft in IAF colours...even if it is the F-35 or the mythical unicorn aka the F-22. Too many restrictions and no platform sovereignty.
...

Rakeshji, ofcourse neither does my opinion etc as well ... and, frankly, as you are already well too-aware, me (like most here in BRF) would echo your above-sentiment wrt American-built fighter aircraft in IAF colors.

But what gets forgotten in all these, is what exactly is the solution in the first place.

Let's first consider the facts:
1) There's 0 chance of any AMCA getting productionised before 2035 - and even after that, it will take atleast 5 more years (so minm 2040) to get first 2 sqns operational

2) China by then would have a gazillion sqns of J-20 and J-31s, many deployed against us - there are already adequate Sqns deployed in Tibet against us, and surely there'll be more in immediate future.

3) Pak would be loaned 3-4sqns, and will get deployed starting from 2026-27 onwards.

4) All this hoopla about Rafale (and other 4/4.5 Gen aircrafts) being able to counter 5th Gen platforms etc, is just that - building castles in the air, so that MRFA etc continues to get funded.
And no need of getting fooled by various RCS figures (of these 4/4.5 Gen platforms) quoted all around, quite liberally - those are, mostly
a) against radars emitting from a particular quadrant etc, carefully selected by choosing those that have the least exposure - a classic brochurities trick.
b) in clean config - which doesn't have any practical value.
A 4th Gen platform without internal weapons bay, will mandatorily have a much larger RCS, for most operational deployment state (as obviously, it'll be carrying external stores). Easy pickings for a 5th Gen adversary, howsoever pichchde wrt 5th Gen tech they may be of.

5) The only non-US alternative 5th Gen, is the Su-57 - the production rate is so miniscule currently, that there's no chance of us getting any at all, in next 5-6 years. A very few can trickle in after that, which will be inadequate all along.
And any attempt towards "joining back" any FGFA type program now, would entail platforms being available not before 2035 etc (defeats the purpose anyway).

So where does that leave us wrt, say a "limited", 5th Gen counter-deployment, from now until 2035 - a good decade+ timeframe, long-enough to be not simply-wished away.

One more point, that never gets discussed in details - deploying a 5th Gen platform is not about, it taking-on another 5th Gen platform in AA combat etc - it'll not have enough onboard radar/EO capability to track a 5th Gen platform, until it's too late.
So any anti-5th Gen capability is, currently, all about high-end ground based assets, if any.
However, a deployed 5th Gen platform does bring about very good deterrence capability - something like sending a MAD-like signal to an adversary, also deploying 5th Gen platforms.
So, in our context, if there are deployed 5th Gen assets, in howsoever limited numbers (compared to what Chinese can and will field), a Chinese commander can then never be sure of what the repercussions (on it's own forward infra) would be, of sending out it's J-20/J-31s for any mission into our airspace.

So the question remains, what deployable 5th Gen options do we have, for the next 10years (2025-2035) timeframe etc?

If you think dispassionately, there are none, except for F35/F22 option - and to me, if that is what we are going to exercise, it needs to be a leasing-solution (maybe in parallel to buying a limited numbers).

Now wrt your other point about operational independence/platform sovereignty etc, given the type of restrictions that Unkil is almost mandatorily going to put in - this is more or less given.
I don't think there's any illusion with anybody that these will be anything less than extremely intrusive in nature.

But then again, 2 points to consider:
1) Any leasing type of deal will have such an arrangement of the platforms being tightly "governed/monitored" by OEM personnel - e.g our *currently* leased MQ-9s have an OEM contingent attached to it, in the operational theater.
We are working around that constraint, and thus will have to devise ways and means to work around such scenarios (for F-35/F-22 on-lease platforms), in future as well.

2) By effectively closing down the MALE/Tapas-BH program, in favor of a fleet of shiny-imported MQ-9Bs, the Indian Armed forces seems to have put a lot of faith on an Unkil platform. Surely, if Unkil can deny/halt access to the F-35/F-22 platforms during a war-like situation, as per it's whims and fancies, so can it do for the MQ-9Bs.
Which would effectively mean, 0 long-range theater-level 24x7 surveillance capability - now if the Indian armed forces are willing to take such a risk now, why not the same for these 5th Gen platforms.
If we are going to be royally shafted on theater-level-24x7-surveillance capability, then might as well be on the limited-deployed-5th Gen capability as well - ek ke saath ek free - suited very well, for a true-blue import-pasand force!!

Furthermore, these licensed 5th Gen assets, will anyway be a miniscule % (in numbers) of IAF deployed offensive platforms.

Flip side ofcourse is, there's some chance, howsoever miniscule % may it be, wrt actually deploying these 5th Gen platforms and bringing-in some semblance of capability parity (and thus the resultant deterrence).
After all, there's always a price to be paid for dithering (wrt AMCA funding approval etc, in particular) and over encompassing visceral-hatred-towards-indigenous-weapon programs, in general.

Ofcourse, all these above, are fully illusionary* in nature - there's less than 0% chance of Unkil agreeing to any such requests from us - ever!!
But then again, is there any other practical solution that you (or anybody) can think of?

=======================================================================
* Refraining from using the actual term, BRF now being a Phamily Phorum etc.

[chetak]

F-35 has very high operating cost.

Deshmukh ji,

The unit cost is about $135.8 million, give or take, depending on the version and the required SOP specified by the customer.

[Rakesh]

The cost differs from variant. Lockheed Martin had aimed for (and I believe have achieved) US $80+ million for the AF variant. The B and C variants are higher in the triple digits. But the real shocker is in the OPEX which is horrendous.

The F-15EX shares the same fate. Unit cost is not cost prohibitive, but ridiculously expensive to maintain and operate.

[Rakesh]

2) China by then would have a gazillion sqns of J-20 and J-31s, many deployed against us - there are already adequate Sqns deployed in Tibet against us, and surely there'll be more in immediate future.

Lets assume the IAF acquires 114 F-35s (as part of the MRFA program). What chance do 114 F-35s stand against a gazillion sqns of J-20 and J-31s?

By the next decade, the PLAAF is expected to have over a 1,000 J-20s in active service. The J-31 will be another astronomically high number. Then there is the J-10, the J-11, the J-16, etc of which are in triple digits. How many thousands of AMRAAMs must we acquire to shoot down all these PLAAF aircraft? And while all the PLAAF aircraft will not be flying at the same time, the PLAAF has the luxury of consistently bringing in platforms to replace the ones that were shot down. The IAF does not have that luxury. In the attrition war, the PLAAF will always have the upper hand. And good luck with the Americans agreeing to integrate Astra variants onto the F-35.

Same story with 114 F-15EXs or 114 F-21s or 114 F-22s and will be no different with the Rafale either in an attrition war.

If you think dispassionately, there are none, except for F35/F22 option - and to me, if that is what we are going to exercise, it needs to be a leasing-solution (maybe in parallel to buying a limited numbers).

If 114 F-35s are not going to be enough, then what will a limited number do?

Now wrt your other point about operational independence/platform sovereignty etc, given the type of restrictions that Unkil is almost mandatorily going to put in - this is more or less given.
I don't think there's any illusion with anybody that these will be anything less than extremely intrusive in nature.

But then again, 2 points to consider:
1) Any leasing type of deal will have such an arrangement of the platforms being tightly "governed/monitored" by OEM personnel - e.g our *currently* leased MQ-9s have an OEM contingent attached to it, in the operational theater.
We are working around that constraint, and thus will have to devise ways and means to work around such scenarios (for F-35/F-22 on-lease platforms), in future as well.

Let us assume that Air HQ agrees to such an intrusive agreement (although Air Marshal Anil Khosla's recent YT interview states otherwise), there is the issue of the S-400. The Americans will not allow the F-35 to operate alongside the S-400. The latter has already been integrated into the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) network, just as all other platforms in IAF service.

Introduce the F-35 and Air HQ will have to shut down the S-400. This is what Ashley Tellis advocated for. But who in Air HQ will agree to this? Tomorrow when Project Kusha (desi version of S-400) enters service, but if the Americans say no - because it will compromise the F-35 - then what should be done? At that stage, we might as lower the Tiranga and fly the Stars & Stripes.

The F-35 is not just a financial boondoggle, it is also an absolute nightmare for India in the realm of sovereignty. Every local program could suffer because the Americans will raise an issue. At that stage, we will be forced to go to the US and spend exorbitant sums of money to get a similar capability. No other US platform in Indian service - even the incoming MQ-9B - will be this intrusive and constrained. Stay AWAY! It is a wonderful system from the US point of view though. The technological wizardry aboard the F-35 gives the US Govt the perfect excuse to station its troops on foreign soil, to protect the F-35's secrets. Pax Americana stays alive and well

Air HQ will not agree to operate the F-35 in isolation either. That will just not work. With meagre budgets, one trick ponies will find no takers at Air HQ. The F-35 is not the solution and I am happy that Air HQ sees that.

But then again, is there any other practical solution that you (or anybody) can think of?

There is no solution that will be an effective deterrent in the short term. However investments made today will pay off in the long term. But we do not want to make those investments and will rather purchase shiny, phoren platforms in limited numbers.

[chetak]

The cost differs from variant. Lockheed Martin had aimed for (and I believe have achieved) US $80+ million for the AF variant. The B and C variants are higher in the triple digits. But the real shocker is in the OPEX which is horrendous.

The F-15EX shares the same fate. Unit cost is not cost prohibitive, but ridiculously expensive to maintain and operate.

Rakesh saar,

You are right about the horrendous OPEX.

The objective may well be to somehow trap, sell, juice us by gouging profits and ultimately render India hors de combat with a largish number of hanger queens

By the time the IAF finishes the India specific customizing, the costs will escalate and probably settle in the mid range 3 figures estimating $125 to $135 million per unit cost, plus expensive ground equipment and first, second servicing facilities.

The behind the scenes éminence grises will, as usual, be pushing their veena vadan agenda for "full" engine TOT

Thank god that MRF has started to make a number of military aircraft tyres in India

SAAB has also pitched in with an expression of interest but their power plants will have amriki DNA and paternity

OTOH, back in the day, SAAB did manage to successfully modify an amriki civil aero engine by designing a MIL standard after burner upgrade and used that on one of their fighters

IMHO, It would be for the best to avoid doing business with the fickle and unreliable amrikis for expensive, NATSEC critical and strategically vital assets that may last 35 - 45 years

[Rakesh]

Chetak Saar, you are correct. I forgot to mention (oops!) that $80 million for the AF variant is for the home customer i.e. the USAF.

A foreign customer will pay a higher price as you have indicated above, but that price is for the base infrastructure, US military personnel stationed on site, spares, tools and other OPEX.

[Manish_P]

......
By the next decade, the PLAAF is expected to have over a 1,000 J-20s in active service. The J-31 will be another astronomically high number. Then there is the J-10, the J-11, the J-16, etc of which are in triple digits......

A lot of folk laugh or scoff at the Chinese 'The art of fighting without fighting' dialogue

With the above expected numbers what the Chinese will do is simply force us to do a lot of scrambles with our much less number of aircraft thereby bringing down the life of the engines and other components and decrease their availability BEFORE the actual shooting war even begins.

This will be compounded by their unmanned fighter-mimicking loyal wingman type UCAVs

So the IAF will probably have an even lesser number of aircraft when the shooting war actually starts.

The Chinese have done it with the Japanese. And they will do it with us in the future.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/28/asia ... index.html

We need lot and lots of Tejas variants. In the thousands. A relatively simpler but rugged, potent fighter with very high availability times.

[A Deshmukh]

After the antics on GE 404 engines, buying Amrican planes will be foolish. we cannot become hostage.

To have numbers, we need a Make In India plane.

For the AirForce, Tejas Mk2 is the way forward.
Mk2 is designed for GE414 but can accommodate different engines.
Since Kaveri is not ready, we are hedging with multiple engine lines in parallel - GE, Safran, AL41. Now even RollsRoyce is trying to get in.
we need to build parallel lines with different engines, so that we are not dependent on any one single supplier.

Kaveri future is in Ghatak (1000s of them).

For Naval aviation - we need a training squadron of Naval Tejas and need multiple squadrons of TEDBF.
Hopefully both the projects IAC2 and TEDBF will be sanctioned soon.

[Rakesh]

We need lot and lots of Tejas variants. In the thousands. A relatively simpler but rugged, potent fighter with very high availability times.

Lots and lots of Tejas variants will require our own turbofan. We are however content with assembling someone else's turbofan.

[Rakesh]

Kaveri future is in Ghatak (1000s of them).

Bingo! This is the solution.This is the gamechanger. +108 to you Saar!

Strike the airfields in Tibet from where the PLAAF will operate from.

We are starting on this with Swift, but will eventually move on to Ghatak.

https://x.com/Tej_Intel/status/1849077466377105681 ---> Under the SWiFT program, DRDO is planning hundreds (the number is massive) of scaled down versions of the Ghatak.

https://x.com/wartrophy_414/status/1849078775213949149 ---> Hundreds? For what? Manned-unmanned teaming? I do see the use for this, load it up with sensors & it may work out fine for us & probably is a lot cheaper than Ghatak but then again the range & endurance might be an issue.

[Manish_P]

....
To have numbers, we need a Make In India plane.
...

you mean Made in India right

I always thought 'Make' means assembled, and 'Made' means created

[Manish_P]

...
Lots and lots of Tejas variants will require our own turbofan. ...

Yes we do need our own turbofan. In the last 10 years that has remained the top item in my wishlist

...We are however content with assembling someone else's turbofan.

The GoI and us jingos who have been around for some time know that no one is going to give us the tech right. That is understood. Until we somehow manage to build our own let's at least let's get a turbofan from a reliable supplier and not from Unkil.
(yes i know it will be either France or Russia)

It will involve a lot of re-design which i know is extremely extremely tough and not like removing and ford engine and putting a renault engine in a car (which is not very easy either). But it might be a considerably less hard and take less time than building our own turbofan (to the requisite specs).

It's not like we have not placed the orders for the 100 plus tejas yet right. I mean the moulds etc are not just lying around waiting for the engines to go in.

[Manish_P]

Kaveri future is in Ghatak (1000s of them).

Bingo! This is the solution.This is the gamechanger. +108 to you Saar!

Strike the airfields in Tibet from where the PLAAF will operate from.

We are starting on this with Swift, but will eventually move on to Ghatak.
...

Yes. Kaveri in Ghatak is the solution - but that's for for the strike role

We still need hundreds of fighters (manned and/or unmanned) to counter the hundreds of J-10, J-11, J-20, J-16, J-31s fighters, complemented by multiples of loyal wingman type UCAVs the chinese will be able to bring to bear against us.

And of course since it's not a knight-vs-knight joust like ye olde times, we need lots of highly capable ground based AAD systems.

Like the IN (Subs or ACs), the IAF faces a very tough choice.

[A Deshmukh]

To have numbers, we need a Make In India plane.

you mean Made in India right
I always thought 'Make' means assembled, and 'Made' means created

For numbers, I was thinking Made in India (Tejas) in large numbers, plus another line of Make In India (Rafale/Su-57).

Rafale was cutting edge when ordered.
But with our own radars advancing to GaN, the cost-benefits of Make In India line need to be analyzed.
It needs to bring in what we do not have.

[Manish_P]

...
For numbers, I was thinking Made in India (Tejas) in large numbers, plus another line of Make In India (Rafale/Su-57).
..

Ok. Understood.

I concur

[ernest]

wasn't it just being discussed a couple of months ago? And we kinda agreed that a ton of missiles will be good enough, as we cannot match China Jet-2-jet

We cannot afford so many foreign fighters, when the basic force multipliers like AEW&C, tankers, transport, etc are waiting for orders forever. Buying western makes more sense in these categories, where we do not have capacity even in near future (not counting radars / electronics). Trying to match China will make a USSR of us, doubly fast when importing.

We will play to our strengths and bulk up on those ballistic missiles (from Prahaar, Pralay to Agni-5), Cruise missiles, SAMs, and so on. On the flying front, we can go for Ghataks, CATS systems to augment our 4th gen airframes. All available locally. We do not need to get the best fighter out there to counter China. Heck Iran has been able to exist as a local power and kinda expand influence with old F-14s.

Also, we are forgetting that we are a nuclear power. No nuclear power will tolerate a loss of territory. We should make clear our redlines, and China will limit their adventures to that extent. We will likely not get into full blown war, where the entire capacity of current and in-production airframes come into play. Keep building up our industry under the nuclear deterrent. If we don't build our industrial capacity, we'd be dhoti shivering even in the 2050s.

[S_Madhukar]

We really should go full speed 6th gen with Ghatak using the expertise of Tejas FBW. Our 6th gen not as defined by West but by our needs and capabilities. Build them like swarms and overwhelm any J20s thrown at us. At least we will learn instead of incremental 5 year plans. All the UAVs used now are actually teaching us how to use 6 th gen for a2a, cap, a2g etc

[Manish_P]

...
We will play to our strengths and bulk up on those ballistic missiles (from Prahaar, Pralay to Agni-5), Cruise missiles, SAMs, and so on.
...

+1

[Manish_P]

.... Our 6th gen not as defined by West but by our needs and capabilities....

+1

[maitya]

2) China by then would have a gazillion sqns of J-20 and J-31s, many deployed against us - there are already adequate Sqns deployed in Tibet against us, and surely there'll be more in immediate future.

Lets assume the IAF acquires 114 F-35s (as part of the MRFA program). What chance do 114 F-35s stand against a gazillion sqns of J-20 and J-31s?

By the next decade, the PLAAF is expected to have over a 1,000 J-20s in active service. The J-31 will be another astronomically high number. Then there is the J-10, the J-11, the J-16, etc of which are in triple digits. How many thousands of AMRAAMs must we acquire to shoot down all these PLAAF aircraft? And while all the PLAAF aircraft will not be flying at the same time, the PLAAF has the luxury of consistently bringing in platforms to replace the ones that were shot down. The IAF does not have that luxury. In the attrition war, the PLAAF will always have the upper hand. And good luck with the Americans agreeing to integrate Astra variants onto the F-35.

Same story with 114 F-15EXs or 114 F-21s or 114 F-22s and will be no different with the Rafale either in an attrition war.

If you think dispassionately, there are none, except for F35/F22 option - and to me, if that is what we are going to exercise, it needs to be a leasing-solution (maybe in parallel to buying a limited numbers).

If 114 F-35s are not going to be enough, then what will a limited number do?

That's the point isn't it ... there's no way we can play the numbers game with the Chinese (MIC), so all these talk about war-of-attrition etc is meaningless.

But then that's the beauty of asymmetricity that a true-blue 5th Gen platform brings about ... and that's because, and as I've said before, a 5th Gen platform deployed-capability is not about taking on another adversarial 5th Gen platform on AA warfare - the currently available onboard radar/EO/EW suites are not capable enough to do so.

So there needs to be a capability match wrt 5th Gen platform vs all other anti/counter 5th Gen deployments (so that deterrence sets in) - and is not about pure numbers.
In fact, ironically, better capable 5th Gen platforms, higher is the asymmetry, and thus higher is the deterrence value.

Wrt this, a crude analogy would be, the Nukelar arms stockpiles - going by this same numbers logic, there's no hope for us (against the Chinese), isn't it? But, both you and I (and lot of us here) knows that's not the case. Why? Because, deterrence is not about numbers alone.

So no, 114-odd F35s etc is not the point - 2-3 sqns, is enough to have presence in East ad West Ladakh theaters/front, and those of *leased* F35/F22 should do the trick - though, I'm not an military strategist etc to talk about numbers, but conceptually it's about "capability presence" that matters.

Today (or in next 10 years), a Chinese commander is rest assured that 5th Gen ingress on DEAD/SEAD missions against our positions, will have very limited counter missions - as, in absence of countering 5th Gen platforms, these will have to be limited to 4-4.5 Gen platforms (for which there are adequate counters available on both sides). This thought process, goes for a toss, in mere presence of 5th Gen platforms on our side, howsoever limited those deployed numbers are.

Will this be enough - certainly not. But that's what minimum credible deterrence (term invented by us) is all about, isn't it?


Of course, one can argue, the day the 5th Gen platforms will be about countering other 5th Gen platforms in Air combat etc, then deployed numbers would become a more prominent factor (but then also, number match-ups will never be the whole-sole deciding factor).
And for those days/years/decades, post 2035, we will have our own AMCA - with which we'll be able to play some degree of this numbers-game.

And, as mentioned many times over, this 5th Gen capability presence can be obtained by any fielding any 5th Gen platform (of admittedly, varying true-blue stealth capability) - but is there any such option currently, barring F35/F22 from US?

[Added Later] Those advocating SWIFT etc, pls could you enlighten us, what is the realistic timeframe of these being inducted. The full-scale prototype dev hasn't yet happened, and we are talking of combat-deploying them, within next 10 years or so, is it?