MRCA News and Discussion

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 06 Dec 2009 15:36

nachiket wrote:Well the Su-30 order books seem to be full currently. There is a limit to how fast we can manufacture them.

Order book is full for HAL. But Russia will be done supplying additional 50 Su 30 by 2011. They can provide 50 Su 30 before 2015 which will anyway be the likely date for completion of upgrade.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Dec 2009 18:09

But Russia will be done supplying additional 50 Su 30 by 2011

where did you get that from ?
russia is supposed to supply a total of 140 of which only about 60-70 have been delivered so far.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 06 Dec 2009 19:34

Rahul M wrote:
But Russia will be done supplying additional 50 Su 30 by 2011
where did you get that from ?
russia is supposed to supply a total of 140 of which only about 60-70 have been delivered so far.

He must mean those 50 MKIs as a part of those original 140. But it seems like too fast a production rate to be realistic.

Added later: But isn't it the HAL who is to build 140 Sukhois?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Dec 2009 20:16

weapons integration is exactly what DRDO may want to master and excel. that should be the crux of the MRCA deal [ToT].

and product integration is exactly what HAL needs to chase after, after outsourcing most LRUs to public-private partnerships or other regulated firms [offset].

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Dec 2009 22:28

Cain Marko wrote:
My guess is that its actually the weapons that make the upgrade so darned expensive. Unlike the MiG-29 upg, the M2k-5/9 simply does not have decent weapons within the IAF inventory that it can use. I mean whats the point of upgrading the Mirage with an RDY 2 if it is going to use magics and super 530s A2A, and barely any stand off munitions, A2G?

CM
E

Makes sense. When India bought the R-73s and R-77s the M2ks were kinda left out to dry with the result that currently even the Bison is a better BVR platform than the M2ks in IAF inventory.
This experience will be definitely be on the back of the mind of IAF planners when they select the MRCA. In the future the bulk of the fleet will still be Russian and if they really want to avoid this kind of situation, it might tilt the scales a lot in favor of the Mig-35 or to some extent the Rafale(if we buy lots of French weapons for the m2ks now).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Dec 2009 23:02

options include retire the m2ks gradually, and up the mrca/lca numbers.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Dec 2009 23:08

Dmurphy wrote:
Rahul M wrote: where did you get that from ?
russia is supposed to supply a total of 140 of which only about 60-70 have been delivered so far.
He must mean those 50 MKIs as a part of those original 140. But it seems like too fast a production rate to be realistic.

Added later: But isn't it the HAL who is to build 140 Sukhois?

HAL -140
Russia - 50+40+50 = 140

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Dec 2009 23:11

Rahul M wrote: HAL -140
Russia - 50+40+50 = 140

Are those last 50 confirmed?? We just had a couple of media reports IIRC. There hasn't been any confirmation from the MoD has there?

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 07 Dec 2009 05:51

Israel to India: Buy F-16s, not Swedish Gripen fighter jets
Posting in Full.

Over the past year, Israel has advised India to purchase American F-16 fighter jets rather than Swedish-made Gripen warplanes.

The F-16 has been in direct competition with the JAS 39 Gripen fighter aircraft and India has been mulling over which plane to purchase for
the Indian Air Force (IAI).

Israel defense officials advised their Indian counterparts to purchase the F16s, telling them that the US warplane performed better and was
better priced.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

Do Israelis have any experience with the Gripen?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Dec 2009 06:26

sourab_c wrote:Israel to India: Buy F-16s, not Swedish Gripen fighter jets
Posting in Full.

Over the past year, Israel has advised India to purchase American F-16 fighter jets rather than Swedish-made Gripen warplanes.

The F-16 has been in direct competition with the JAS 39 Gripen fighter aircraft and India has been mulling over which plane to purchase for
the Indian Air Force (IAI).

Israel defense officials advised their Indian counterparts to purchase the F16s, telling them that the US warplane performed better and was
better priced.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

Do Israelis have any experience with the Gripen?

I would take that news report with more than a pinch of salt. Its not much more than a couple of paragraphs without a single source cited.
Besides the IAF is doing extensive flight trials of both aircraft, why would it need the advice of the Israelis.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Dec 2009 08:52

nachiket wrote:
sourab_c wrote:Israel to India: Buy F-16s, not Swedish Gripen fighter jets

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

Do Israelis have any experience with the Gripen?
I would take that news report with more than a pinch of salt. Its not much more than a couple of paragraphs without a single source cited.
Besides the IAF is doing extensive flight trials of both aircraft, why would it need the advice of the Israelis.

For a number of (speculative) reasons.

For one, if the report is to be believed, they have been "advising" for a year (granted a source has not been cited). I hate to say this, BUT a F-16 purchase (specially with them conformal tanks) would make it difficult for anyone to differentiate as to who is flying that "F-16". And that inability to tell could mean a ton of things for the region. The Israeli request to IG must be still ringing in the 'hood.

IIRC IAF approached the other IAF first to get a ride on these F-16s. Besides, this IAF could lean of Israelis to spruce up them up even further ............... who knows. Lastly, the IAFs have a fairly close relationship.

On experience with Gripen - cannot tell with certainity, but the SA experience could have come into play.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Dec 2009 09:44

if IAF (israeli one) is planning to move to JSF, then our IAF can just consume their 101 sufas, perhaps customized at say at not more than $20M per piece, including the weapons. Good project for our drdo as well.

now, they can happily proceed with acquiring JSFs.. and now we can concentrate on MMRCA rather M2K upgrades or F16s.

We have equations to satisfy every one, except ourselves

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2009 10:23

since the israelis have decades of exp on the F16 and have done some upg, they have far more knowledge than IAF can gain by a few days of flight trials esp real combat use and things that appear over time. on F16 they are credible.

on Gripen, we only have a vested party the Swedish AF who have operated it for a decade.

the way I see it - F16/F18 is coming in whether one has reservations or not. US weapons are cheaper than
EU/french weapons who are generally a decade behind and playing catch up. limited changes like integration
of python5 and astra should be signed off on on day1. US is again a decade ahead in AESA radar techs.
they have the most stable spare parts chain and there is no chance of baksheesh allegations in govt-to-govt
FMS deals.

we will be a Munna, but have the teeth to deal with the J-xx

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Dec 2009 10:45

which cost type are you talking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Askar ... unit_costs

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 07 Dec 2009 11:07

nachiket wrote:

Rahul M wrote:
HAL -140
Russia - 50+40+50 = 140
Are those last 50 confirmed?? We just had a couple of media reports IIRC. There hasn't been any confirmation from the MoD has there?

From Russia 50+40=90 are confirmed.
While HAL will make 140 till 2015 @16/year at peak rate.
This takes to a total of 230 Su30MKI.
A top IAF official in a recent interview has said about 50 more to be manufactured by HAL after 2015 as under consideration.
This takes the likely order to 280nos. ie 14 squadrons.
Further there are reports of 40 more as options which I think will be directly ordered from Russia if MRCA is delayed or say Mirage 2000 upgrade dosent take place.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 07 Dec 2009 11:27

Singha wrote:since the israelis have decades of exp on the F16 and have done some upg, they have far more knowledge than IAF can gain by a few days of flight trials esp real combat use and things that appear over time. on F16 they are credible.

on Gripen, we only have a vested party the Swedish AF who have operated it for a decade.

Till a few months back, Rafael (Israel) had vested interests in Gripen as well, before the Americans arm twisted them out of it.

So where's the guarantee that this statement isn't coming out as a result of more arm twisting by the Americans.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 07 Dec 2009 11:36

nachiket wrote:Are those last 50 confirmed?? We just had a couple of media reports IIRC. There hasn't been any confirmation from the MoD has there?

IIRC, AK Anthony has already announced those plans in the parliament. So its more or less confirmed.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Dec 2009 13:03

How about offering the Mirages to IsraeF at 15 Million each, which they can upgrade for themselves at 10million each.

Now with Mirage money + some money for the upgrade, take 16 of Navy's Mig 29ks which anyway is not much use for them untill 2013 Gorshy arrival. And for the next batch instead of ordering 29 aircraft order 29 for Navy + 34(minus hook, accesories for the carrier etc.) for IAF. This way IAF get its replacement for Mirage. Commonality with other Mig 29s.

This will also send a clear message to other vendors in future not to blackmail us ever.

Such a nice weather here for kite flying, sorry couldn't resist!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Dec 2009 13:54

The F-16 would be the worst buy we could make.For one,the aircraft is no longer in full production,its basic design and technology belongs to the 1970's and if India does not choose it production will end,it is in service with Pak,getting upgrades and related tech from the US and Turkey-so why should we buy the same aircraft what our enemy uses! Moreover,it is single engined and is inferior in terms of payload,range and endurance than its twin-engined rivals.The F-16 has reached its last avatar and is being replaced with the JSF and F-22 in US service and that of its allies.The far greater air space of the sub-continent and its huge landmass determines that we obtain a larger aircraft than the F-16 and Mirage-2000 for the MMRCA role.Israel has a far smaller landmass and airspace to deal with as almost all of its principal antagonists are within easy reach.The comparison is perhaps relevant only as far as the two aircraft are concerned and the Israelis,our friends,indicating to us which of the two was better if we wanted a cheaper single-engined fighter.In any case,as has been well pointed out,the performance of the two in trials in India in comparison with the rest will show the IAF its best options.

wesley · Post by **wesley** » 07 Dec 2009 18:45

Philip wrote:Israel has a far smaller landmass and airspace to deal with as almost all of its principal antagonists are within easy reach.

The Israelis were staging air strikes on targets as far away as Tunisia back in the 1980s, and are today gearing up for a possible confrontation with Iran. They understand the requirements for long range fighter operations far better than the Swedes, who have never fought in an actual war. The F-15I and F-16I were selected specifically for their long range strike potential.

Philip wrote:The F-16 would be the worst buy we could make.For one,the aircraft is no longer in full production,its basic design and technology belongs to the 1970's and if India does not choose it production will end,it is in service with Pak,getting upgrades and related tech from the US and Turkey-so why should we buy the same aircraft what our enemy uses! Moreover,it is single engined and is inferior in terms of payload,range and endurance than its twin-engined rivals.

The F-16 is still in production, with ongoing deliveries to Poland and Morrocco. When equipped with conformal fuel tanks, its strike range far surpasses that of most of its twin engine counterparts - including the F-18E/F (not to mention the Typhoon or MiG-35 - whose strike capabilities are laughable in comparison).

Should India buy the F-16? There are a lot of reasons for and against. But suggesting that the Block 52+ or other recent versions of the F-16 don't have the strike capabilities of the other contendors is just plain wrong.

If money were no obstacle, the Rafale is the airframe with the greatest strike potential among the current MMRCA contendors. Unfortunately it's incredibly expensive, and the French still haven't got the whole AESA thing figured out yet. This contest is really going to come down to the two American alternatives - both for political reasons, and because they are the only contendors with proven AESA capabilities.

So which will it be? The F-18E/F, or the F-16? A bigger radar, or a cheaper price tag? I honestly don't know which contendor will come out on top. But I do know that when it comes to strike capabilities, the Israelis know what they are talking about. They had the opportunity to buy the F-18 on more than one occassion, and chose not to. Only time will tell if India's air force will reach the same conclusion.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Dec 2009 19:15

Israel to Tunisia or Iran is not more than 1K mile odd.. where as MRCA requirements are much more than paki centric.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 07 Dec 2009 20:05

wesley wrote: The F-16 is still in production, with ongoing deliveries to Poland and Morrocco.

ok...my friend...just...we are India...not Poland and Morrocco....I think that your do understand need and regional conditions.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Dec 2009 21:06

wesley,

Very good post.

Would like to add a few points to it:

1) I recently posted an article where MMS wants to leverage the MRCA deal to potentially gain P-6 status. The same article also mentions that MMS is confident that near future economic status will be used to bargain for more things. Point being the MRCA deal - which once was considered to be a huge deal - is no longer being considered as huge and actually is being tossed around as a bargaining chip for bigger goals. This is totally lost on most of us. (Also consider that India is planning on spending some $100 Billion on nuclear reactors and another $95 Billion just on transportation infrastructure ............... and suddenly one realizes that this $11 billion MRCA project is really rather meaningfully puny.)
2) LM has mentioned on more than one occasion that they will integrate some F-35 technologies in the F-16 offer to India. Just such an integration should make the Indian F-16 (IF selected that is - I am not suggesting that) FAR better than any other F-16 out there. Unless, of course, the RFP requests that similar techs be provided - at Indian expense - to the Pakis
3) I am not sure what technologies are on offer (from the US in large), but people are not aware of the advancements made in "networks" by the US. I can assure you that every other nation is about 10-20 years behind in this area. No two ways about it. And with proper sensors the combo is really unbeatable. Even IF we were to consider the frame tech to be from the 70s ......... so what?
4) F-16 not in production (within the US) really has no meaning. People do not understand (do not need to agree) what it means to be in or out of production today. In fact I would venture that this is better for India - ToT would have a lot more meaning - IF the US does not manufacture it, where will India get parts for after the first 18 planes? Answer: India?
5) The only concern I (still?) have is that of the US Congress or State department. For sure the MRCA choice will be for BOTH defense and offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________

All concerns are welcome and need to be there. But, please, recycled concerns should be tested against current events.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Dec 2009 22:02

the problem is not block 70, the problem is who contributes, shares and have a nice weapons integration role in the block 70. what part of LM's marketing says these:

1. Tech transfer
2. Offsets
3. Weapons integration
4. Source code and documents
5. Core technology or screw driver?

and finally, candid descriptions of negating mr. hyde in US congress?

I am asking this, cause block 70 is still non-existent (paper)... but coming from LM means, they have already established and ahead in tech. so, there is a little chance for Indian industry to learn other than to hold a few tool sets.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2009 22:05

a 1600km combat radius matches that of the su30mki (which has no drop tanks but 9t of internal fuel at MTOW). ofcourse the payload of the Sufa would be smaller but thats to be expected.

some pages even claim 2100km - on par with F15I.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 07 Dec 2009 22:19

Dmurphy wrote:Till a few months back, Rafael (Israel) had vested interests in Gripen as well, before the Americans arm twisted them out of it.

That story was shown to be false. Gripen never selected the Israeli radar.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Dec 2009 00:13

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Dmurphy wrote:Till a few months back, Rafael (Israel) had vested interests in Gripen as well, before the Americans arm twisted them out of it.
That story was shown to be false. Gripen never selected the Israeli radar.

mm.. on the contrary Gripen would have gained an upper hand with Israeli radar!.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 08 Dec 2009 01:24

Dmurphy wrote:
nachiket wrote:Are those last 50 confirmed?? We just had a couple of media reports IIRC. There hasn't been any confirmation from the MoD has there?
IIRC, AK Anthony has already announced those plans in the parliament. So its more or less confirmed.

I don't think we have heard a single word from any govt official. It came from PSG of Force and got confirmed by one more media source.....

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Dec 2009 02:03

sumshyam wrote:
wesley wrote: The F-16 is still in production, with ongoing deliveries to Poland and Morrocco.
ok...my friend...just...we are India...not Poland and Morrocco....I think that your do understand need and regional conditions.

he was simply pointing out that the F-16 is IN production, to counter a claim by Philip that its not in production anymore..he actually missed out on Pakistan. their F-16 Block 50s are also in the future schedule as is a pending Egyptian top-up of 24 Block 50s. in addition, LM expects to sell at least another 50-60 F-16s in the middle-east to as yet undisclosed customers, but likely to be Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain.

and what does the statement that we're India and not Poland or Morocco mean ? that they're just token air forces compared to India ? our threat may be several levels higher, but there is no need to disparage them.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Dec 2009 02:16

Katare wrote:
nachiket wrote:Are those last 50 confirmed?? We just had a couple of media reports IIRC. There hasn't been any confirmation from the MoD has there?
I don't think we have heard a single word from any govt official. It came from PSG of Force and got confirmed by one more media source.....

I think ACM PV Naik is a govt official.

actually, I heard something before the force article came out and had posted on BR. so force is not the original source.

as long as negotiations aren't started after MoD/MoF go-ahead, I don't think we will have it in as many words. there is still some time before that happens.

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 08 Dec 2009 05:17

So, my friends, it has started - Boeing IDS has awarded work to ECI, HAL and BEL for the P-8I. I guess this is as good a template as any to build towards establishing the MRCA TOT lines in India.

Hope this has not been already posted:
http://in.biz.yahoo.com/091207/137/baupq8.html

On the MRCA deal, Vivek Lall says:

The Indian content will eventually entail over 30,000 parts and over 4,000 assembly tools in the final phase of production," Lall said. "We believe there are great opportunities in partnering with Indian private companies, surging into the defence market, offering defence products and services

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Dec 2009 05:26

Devesh Rawal wrote: Hope this has not been already posted:

Since it is for the P-8I, the news item is in the Indian Naval thread.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Dec 2009 05:39

SaiK wrote:mm.. on the contrary Gripen would have gained an upper hand with Israeli radar!.

why ? there is nothing that indicates that the IAF has a preference for Israeli radars. just because the Tejas is getting the Elta 2032 backend or the Jaguar DARIN III upgrade is getting the Elta 2032 doesn't mean that the IAF wants an (as yet unproven) Elta 2052 radar for its MRCA.

on the other hand, the Gripen NG's Selex Galileo Raven-05A swashplate concept is easily the most interesting of all the AESA types that the IAF will evaluate in this competition thanks to the reported benefits of F-pole maximising (keeping target illuminated even as the fighter that fired the missile is turning away to relative safety), which automatically improves BVR performance. reportedly, even the Eurofighter consortium are looking favourably at this solution (based on ARTS study) and may well choose a Selex product for the Typhoon as well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Dec 2009 07:32

Thanks for that post Kartik.

I did dig an old report on the raven radar.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-ne ... ear-end-1/

that says, thales RBE-2 AESA was tested with Gripen and found to be unsatisfactory for Gripen (ground trials!).

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Dec 2009 08:10

SaiK wrote:Thanks for that post Kartik.

I did dig an old report on the raven radar.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-ne ... ear-end-1/

that says, thales RBE-2 AESA was tested with Gripen and found to be unsatisfactory for Gripen (ground trials!).

I would take that "unsatisfactory" claim with a pinch of salt..Saab goes to great lengths to say that a Thales AESA was never intended to be the Gripen NG radar, and that they were simply testing its integration and performance, but there have been reports that it was Dassault, which owns a big share in Thales, that didn't want them to use the RBE-2 AESA or its technology with the Ericsson PS-05A rearend.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Dec 2009 21:53

http://www.india-defence.com/reports/4481 "We are ready to develop a new advanced radar jointly with India," said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, head of the Phazotron-NIIR Corporation.

Dated 20/9/2009

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 09 Dec 2009 23:47

Kartik wrote:
SaiK wrote:Thanks for that post Kartik.

I did dig an old report on the raven radar.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-ne ... ear-end-1/

that says, thales RBE-2 AESA was tested with Gripen and found to be unsatisfactory for Gripen (ground trials!).
I would take that "unsatisfactory" claim with a pinch of salt..Saab goes to great lengths to say that a Thales AESA was never intended to be the Gripen NG radar, and that they were simply testing its integration and performance,
but there have been reports that it was Dassault, which owns a big share in Thales, that didn't want them to use the RBE-2 AESA or its technology with the Ericsson PS-05A rearend.

Don't mix it up like that.

The Thales array was indeed planned for the Gripen Demonstrator which is a testbed.

That Thaley array was never intended for use on Gripen NG. Saab said this already in April 2008 when they announced the use of the Thales for the Demonstrator. A array is just a array Saab had already flown (out of C-130) a custom built Raytheon array with PS-05A. This has been posted a number of times here.

So Saab got rid of the Thales for whatever reasons and continue flying with Raytheon and Selex arrays in different PS-05A configurations. They also had more broad agreements with Selex on AESA development well before they took in Thales for the demonstrator. The Thales move was from what I has been told a political decision as the Swedish government put up the money for the demonstrator flights and they were looking to cooperate with France. Dassault-Sarkozy broke this cooperation by going with a more nationalistic and protectionist attitude.

I think the Israeli stories are mostly paid nonsense by some competitor... we have seen this already and will see yet more as the tender heats up.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2009 18:45

EADS pointedly say that they are offering an aircraft,Typhoon,"20 years" ahead in technology than the F-16,etc.! As mentioned earlier,in the Indian context,a twin engined aircraft is absoluely neccessary because of bird strikes,engine trouble over water/sea,etc.and for the extra payload and combat radius and endurance.

Even if the IAF decide for whatever reason on a single -engined fighter (if the LCA project stalls further and the need for a light aircraft in large numbers is neccessary,with extra SU-30MKIs making up the "heavy" component as the Swedes have been suggesting)tradar that can tilt,overcoming shortcomings with non-movable AESA radars,could provide some superior technology as the Gripen is a true 4th-gen aircraft in comparison with the F-16.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Dec 2009 19:47

how difficult is to convert fixed AESA panels to be tilting? perhaps some lost space and reduced T/Rs., that could be easily contributed by distributing the fixed panels to side lobs, there by getting that 360* Gripen is griping about.

Mr Gripe is still a single engined one compared with the 16. For a few thousand dollars more, if we are to get better tech, long term, nice tot, nothing stopping us acquiring the Rafale or EADS crafts.

Unless we know exactly the real life cycle cost, we have no clue to exactly how these would fair to our forces.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 11 Dec 2009 07:32

Little choice for IAF

IN the Medium-range Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) sweepstakes, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is confronted with many choices, all of them bad....

......Is the IAF in the market for an aircraft to carry a heavy weapon load over a long distance in extended regional operations, or for a warplane to augment its existing strength in localised air defence, strike, and similar short-legged, Pakistan-centric, missions?.......

....The irony is that India’s desire for a new fighter plane is in the context of even the cutting edge manned aircraft obsolescing so fast as to become expensive museum pieces before they serve out their 30-year life span with the IAF. Had the IAF been visionary in its approach, it would have foreseen the end of the “man in the loop.” As a habitual laggard, however, the IAF seems satisfied with equipping itself fully for yesterday’s war.......

...because the Indian Armed Services have a record of choosing equipment from a supplier country the government prefers, the suspicion that the MMRCA decision will be driven by considerations of international politics, gains credence......

.....The souring of the Russian attitude towards India, moreover, may have other consequences as well, such as a cutback in the Russian involvement in many high value military technology collaboration projects, raising of the acquisition cost of other items, and delays in the contracted delivery of, say, the nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine Akula on lease, and the aircraft carrier Gorshkov.

Additionally, depending on how seriously Moscow takes this “affront,” there is the possibility of Russia making common cause with China in denying India a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, a seat India craves......

Bharat Karnad has probably inadvertently omitted a sentence here, possibly referring to the MiG-35

Worse, unlike the Indian Navy with its warship directorate, the IAF has no in-house expertise in designing aircraft and never acquired a stake in indigenous manufacture.(_______????______) Dispassionate analyses suggest that it matches or surpasses either of the American aircraft in the race and, in its more advanced configuration, can outperform even the Joint Strike Fighter F-35, a plane Lockheed Martin have promised to replace the F-16 with on a “one for one” basis were India to buy the latter aircraft.