I'm guessing the IAF will push for 2 bases, since officially, the Rafale deal has nothing to do with MRFA. So, theoretically, if another jet wins, it's gonna need 2 bases anyway.
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
I'm guessing the IAF will push for 2 bases, since officially, the Rafale deal has nothing to do with MRFA. So, theoretically, if another jet wins, it's gonna need 2 bases anyway.
Dassault chose Mukesh Ambani and Mukesh handed his defence plans over to Anil in exchange for setting up Jio. So Dassault inherited Anil. All of this happened long before Modi.
Now Dassault simply intends to find ways not to hand over Rafale and Falcon tech to an Indian company. But I don't think it will work out.
Yeah, 6 bases for up to 12 squadrons of Rafale. Minimum is 1 base in each sector with 2 squadrons each.
Either way, a large fleet of reasonably advanced SE fighters is always the backbone of any large air force that protects the airspace & prepares the conditions for Air Superiority & DPS aircraft to exploit. For us it was the MiG-21 at one point, going forward it will be the Mk1A & Mk2 Tejas.
No, just like Israelis & Japanese.
Sweden & Taiwan don't have a Rafale or Su-30MKI equivalent. Neither do they have large Rocket Forces.
Our doctrine remains one capable of defending, and subsequentially waging an offensive war. Rocket Forces are not a defensive form of warfare - by design they are offensive.
Air Superiority is not Air Defence/CAP. Air Superiority is about imposing Air Dominance on hostile airspace.
There's a reason why the intended future backbone of USAF (F-35) was designed to be single engine, and less expensive than the F-22. Even the Americans cannot afford to use F-22s for routine air defence or performing regular CAPs and/or interceptions.
That's the reason we can't afford to just replace MiG-21s with more MKIs.
Well like I said, Mk2 is not an LCA anymore - its a medium fighter in the league of F-21...in our context, we can ask the Mk2 to perform the roles which we now ask of the Mirage-2000...which includes Deep Strike given the right circumstances i.e. unless the technological equation between Pakistan & India changes greatly, the Tejas Mk2 is very well capable of carrying out the next Balakot.
It will be equipped with the ability to perform interleaved air/ground scans via AESA (including terrain-following mode), a payload capacity that exceeds that of the M2K, and equipped with MAWS as well as an internal EW suite including SPJ...its a perfectly survivable platform.
It's only issue is likely to be range...which still allows it to acquit itself very well in the DPS role against Pakistan, just not so much against the Chinese chiefly due to the distances involved.
Like I said, the MWF iteration of Mk2 is designed to do a lot more than the original LCA Mk2 was intended for - and this is as per IAF's own wishes. Remember that the MWF iteration only took shape after IAF already realized the issues with acquiring as many foreign MMRCAs as they thought they could.
Yes but by how much? With the Chinese deploying AESA radars for acquisition as well as fire control (in future, even active-seeker SAMs will have AESAs on board, not to mention infusion of GaN into mix) the tables aren't as tipped in favour of a DPSA as was the case previously. After all, the Rafale is not a VLO aircraft - and even those countries with access to F-35 like Australia are moving heavily toward investment in Loyal Wingmen like MQ-28A to penetrate airspace defended by modern IADS.
Future USAF platforms like NGAD & F/A-XX on the other hand are being built from the ground-up to work with Loyal Wingmen for both air superiority & strike missions.
It's just not going to be a safe bet (by extension, not affordable) to risk a manned platform in DPS against peer opponents like China. For a non-VLO platform like the ones we're acquiring, even more so. Diversification of Strike options is necessary not only from a cost standpoint but also a tactical standpoint.
The current Russian campaign is f*cked on so many levels. I doubt how much we can learn from that - considering we know full well that the Russians aren't even making full use of the assets we know they have - like Su-24s, Su-34s not to mention bombers like Tu-160, Tu-22M3 or Tu-95. Though I very much doubt how many are even serviceable, or how long RuAF can afford to keep them flying once they get into a high intensity air campaign.
There is a complete breakdown in C&C from the top - it just doesn't seem like a competent fighting force to begin with, and that's assuming they have bungled up their objectives since the beginning i.e. going easy with the Ukrainians, expecting to be greeted as liberators instead of invaders.
Regardless, as we're seeing with Mariupol now - its devolved into an Artillery War, and this is how the Russians hope to win now.
Sure - as it plain to see. The only question I've had from the beginning is - how is it going to effect the force mix?
Surely, an increase in capabilities & numbers on one end of that mix can offset a decrease in the same on the other end?
That assumes you don't lose your jet during a sortie. Assumes your air bases, aircraft shelters & runways don't get bombed, rendering all the jets useless, or at the very least greatly reduce your sortie rates. In a peer conflict, you WILL take losses to both material & infrastructure. And once you lose a jet, you lose all the potential contribution it was to make over the course of the war.
You cannot afford to put all your eggs in one basket (the basket being the AFS), that way your losses do not compound your reduction in fighting capabilities as the war progresses, as well as preparedness after the war against another opponent - Much easier to replace a battalion of missile launchers than a squadron of fighters.
There's a reason why countries that are/were comparatively poor but still have great need for offensive firepower (Soviets, then Chinese) place so much importance on investing in Rocket Forces - its because these countries could not shoulder the burden of acquiring or developing large numbers of highly survivable aircraft AND because they figured that their ORBAT cannot recover from the loss of such aircraft when it inevitably happens.
We're finding ourselves in the same boat. A distributed network of ballistic & cruise missiles will prove an important part of ensuring that we retain an offensive deep-strike capability even in the event of our own airbases being saturated with PLARF attacks.
Again, you're coming to it as though I proposed to replace all DPSAs with RFs. I didn't.
You mustn't forget that IA always planned to have several regiments of BrahMos GLCMs. Even when we fully expected to receive 189 MMRCAs. The Army wasn't interested in pursuing Prithvi-II's replacement and seemed happy to bank on the BrahMos regiments alone. But since then a lot has changed, the Rocket Forces as a separate unit has been floated, the development of Pralay SRBM which was in cold storage for a long while has picked up steam (i.e. received investment) and had 2 back-to-back tests. (BMs are cheaper than CMs).
You have to connect the dots & realize that the Army is well on its way to prepare an alternative that allows us to retain offensive strike capabilities that extend up to 500kms or beyond into enemy territory. This change in thinking did not happen for no reason - the notion that the IAF will be receiving fewer DPSAs than it originally planned for isn't a figment of my imagination, its a real situation and we're already facing it.
Iran has been under sanctions for 40 years. Their F-14s, Chinooks & Cobras are still flying.
Regardless, I'm not saying no to ToT - but that any meaningful levels of ToT may not be possible with the numbers we're proposing to buy.
The SFC is - otherwise we don't have a nuclear triad anymore.
And SFC doesn't have its own Air Wing, never has. Their jets will have to come from the IAF.
...which just go to show that such 'internal' plans don't amount to anything really, when you don't have an elected Govt having accountability over such plans and the spending they require.
Last edited:
It doesn't apply to India though. We are a high-end heavy air force.
Not at the scale we need. Remember, it's the IAF who decided they want 200-250. Those are the numbers needed to behave like a high end force. You, as a civilian, can't bring down the number to less than half and then tell the professionals to perform to the level of a high end force. Which is why I said if we bring down the Rafales to just 5 instead of 11, then something at the same level will have to be brought in to make up for it, whether it's Typhoon, SH, F-35 etc. It just can't be the LCA.
India is not in the same boat. By 2042, we are expected to have 30+ squadrons of high end jets versus 12+ squadrons of low end, the opposite of the USAF.
The IAF is more like the USN, where the primary requirement is high end. They simply have no space for low end.
The LCA, we will buy some, but it's not meant to replace the Rafale in most capacities. The Mk2 has been designed to be as effective or slightly more effective than the M2000 in terms of performance, and the Rafale can fly circles around this aircraft. So it's unlikely for the LCA to be successful in this role against our bigger adversary in the north, even if successful against our weaker adversary in the West.
There's nothing really special about the LCA. It's just a numbers filler for a cheaper air force and forms a decent bulwark against Pakistan, until even they modernise and make the LCA outdated.
For the next 20-30 years, the Rafale will be able to perform DPS in the Himalayas. The terrain is a great equaliser against stealth.
Rafale is what will make aircraft like LCA Mk2 outdated, and NGAD and F/A-XX class aircraft are what will make Rafale outdated.
No, it doesn't change anything when it comes to air force requirements. It would actually increase since we are signalling the start of an arms race with China.
Missiles can also be destroyed during transport or when being deployed and so on. Missiles also experience high failure rates, missed targets, are spoofed, intercepted and so on.
The opposite. If 1 Rafale equals 120 missiles, then a squadron of 19 would be 2280 missiles. And we can make 19 Rafales a year, we can't make 2280 missiles a year. And that many missiles is about $9B.
Can you imagine how many personnel are required to man that many missiles compared to a squadron? We basically need a whole new army just to create the IRF. It's not cheap.
The largest air force was still the Soviet though. In fact, they had two air forces.
Yes, I've mentioned this already. The army is working on IRF because the IAF has failed to modernise fast enough. And any fix requires a 15-20 year effort, the IA cannot wait. We were supposed to have finished inducting the 126 Rafales and 123 LCAs by now. And we should have begun the process of inducting some 100+ FGFAs by now.
Not a heartwarming story.
How Iran Has Kept Its Aging American-Made F-14 Tomcats Flying
Key point: The F-14 is still one of the best planes Iran has and it has done everything in its power to keep them working. On April 9, 1972, Iraq and the Soviet Union signed an historic agreement. The USSR committed to arming the Arab republic with the latest weaponry. In return for sending...
nationalinterest.org
We don't want to be in this position.
SFC doesn't need the Rafales yet. It can become an option after 10 years or so of service. The IAF doesn't use unproven jets (in their hands) for nuclear strike.
It's just superpower requirements with Third World pockets. Even China's main modernisation began after they became a $10T economy. They were nowhere at $3T.
Hey, you two. Pls dont post such numerous reply in a single post.It doesn't apply to India though. We are a high-end heavy air force.
Not at the scale we need. Remember, it's the IAF who decided they want 200-250. Those are the numbers needed to behave like a high end force. You, as a civilian, can't bring down the number to less than half and then tell the professionals to perform to the level of a high end force. Which is why I said if we bring down the Rafales to just 5 instead of 11, then something at the same level will have to be brought in to make up for it, whether it's Typhoon, SH, F-35 etc. It just can't be the LCA.
India is not in the same boat. By 2042, we are expected to have 30+ squadrons of high end jets versus 12+ squadrons of low end, the opposite of the USAF.
The IAF is more like the USN, where the primary requirement is high end. They simply have no space for low end.
The LCA, we will buy some, but it's not meant to replace the Rafale in most capacities. The Mk2 has been designed to be as effective or slightly more effective than the M2000 in terms of performance, and the Rafale can fly circles around this aircraft. So it's unlikely for the LCA to be successful in this role against our bigger adversary in the north, even if successful against our weaker adversary in the West.
There's nothing really special about the LCA. It's just a numbers filler for a cheaper air force and forms a decent bulwark against Pakistan, until even they modernise and make the LCA outdated.
For the next 20-30 years, the Rafale will be able to perform DPS in the Himalayas. The terrain is a great equaliser against stealth.
Rafale is what will make aircraft like LCA Mk2 outdated, and NGAD and F/A-XX class aircraft are what will make Rafale outdated.
No, it doesn't change anything when it comes to air force requirements. It would actually increase since we are signalling the start of an arms race with China.
Missiles can also be destroyed during transport or when being deployed and so on. Missiles also experience high failure rates, missed targets, are spoofed, intercepted and so on.
The opposite. If 1 Rafale equals 120 missiles, then a squadron of 19 would be 2280 missiles. And we can make 19 Rafales a year, we can't make 2280 missiles a year. And that many missiles is about $9B.
Can you imagine how many personnel are required to man that many missiles compared to a squadron? We basically need a whole new army just to create the IRF. It's not cheap.
The largest air force was still the Soviet though. In fact, they had two air forces.
Yes, I've mentioned this already. The army is working on IRF because the IAF has failed to modernise fast enough. And any fix requires a 15-20 year effort, the IA cannot wait. We were supposed to have finished inducting the 126 Rafales and 123 LCAs by now. And we should have begun the process of inducting some 100+ FGFAs by now.
Not a heartwarming story.
How Iran Has Kept Its Aging American-Made F-14 Tomcats Flying
Key point: The F-14 is still one of the best planes Iran has and it has done everything in its power to keep them working. On April 9, 1972, Iraq and the Soviet Union signed an historic agreement. The USSR committed to arming the Arab republic with the latest weaponry. In return for sending...
We don't want to be in this position.
SFC doesn't need the Rafales yet. It can become an option after 10 years or so of service. The IAF doesn't use unproven jets (in their hands) for nuclear strike.
It's just superpower requirements with Third World pockets. Even China's main modernisation began after they became a $10T economy. They were nowhere at $3T.
With 123 Mk1/Mk1A and ~150 Mk2, the SE Tejas will be the most numerous of any single aircraft type/family in IAF by 2040.
And those numbers are assuming the Mk2 doesn't step in for some of the roles left vacant by purchase of fewer TE fighters than planned. Otherwise Mk2 numbers will easily shoot above 200.
Remember, its the IAF that's slashing requirements by half, not me as a civilian who's doing so.
It's IAF who made the LCA no longer an LCA.
By 2040s, the definitions of high & low end will change considerably. An old airframe like MKI with no composites, an RCS approaching ~20sqm with no supercruise ability & which will struggle to put up even 3 sorties/day can no longer be justifiably considered high-end as its survivability will drop off a cliff, so no longer able to perform air superiority against platforms like J-20. It'll be a liability wherever its deployed.
That's the reason why USAF thought it better to buy new-build F-15EX than continue upgrading F-15Cs - you could only push them so far into the future. And the MKI upgrade program isn't getting anywhere as is.
As per current acquisition plans, the only platforms that can justify the high-end tag by 2040s will be the Rafale & AMCA. Rest all would be low-end.
We cannot be and this explains the failure of the earlier plans of acquisition - we were trying to run before we learn to crawl. The USN does not have ~4,000 kms of hostile borders to guard against 24x7x365 - they come into the theatre when needed (via carriers) and leave the theatre whenever they want. They can make do without a hi-lo force mix. We can't leave - this is our homeland, not an expeditionary campaign.
The correct analogue is still USAF - inclusive of the Air National Guard chiefly composed of F-16s (which they're now planning to upgrade to F-16V Block-70 standard and keep much longer than planned).
608 U.S. Air Force F-16s Are Getting The Type's Largest Combined Upgrade Package Ever
The project will add a new advanced radar, communications suite, and electronic warfare system to the best of the Air Force's fleet of aging Vipers.
www.thedrive.com
But it already proves the point.
Imagine with the earlier Mk2 LCA you required 8 squadrons of Rafale for example, 4 for each neighbour as the LCA couldn't effectively do the M2K's job into the future. But with Mk2 MWF, you can. So now you can afford to send 2 or even 4 of your western Rafale squadrons over to the eastern sector - enabling you the option of buying fewer squadrons to begin with.
At some point you have to understand that it was on IAF insistence that ADA did this:
Look at the increases in internal fuel, payload & MTOW - its simply no longer the same jet. You cannot consider Mk2 same as Mk1. Plus with equipment like AESA, MAWS, IRST, internal SPJ & a low RCS composite airframe, Mk2 is a far more survivable platform than M2K-5, F-16C Blk-52+ or J-10CE even, and working in conjunction with CATS it can offset AD advances made by Pakistan well into the future.
Most major targets like Rawalpindi, Sialkot, Islamabad, Bahawalpur all lie within 100 kms of the Indian airspace. A beefed up, survivable Mk2 in conjunction with drones can manage most of these targets.
Terrain only helps on the approach - and that's assuming the Chinese won't deploy AESA gapfiller radars with SHORADS along such approaches (which they will) - the targets themselves (air bases, PLARF launch bases) are all on the plateaus.
The USAF had to fall back on VLO platforms to face air defences half as advanced as what the Chinese have. Throwing non-VLO planes at them is going to severely degrade our fighting capabilities with every sortie we send.
Let's just say the IAF didn't think up the CATS Warrior to face the Pakistanis. It's the best & most survivable aircraft that can enter an IADS that's already peppered & degraded by IRF, and enter said airspace without being smashed (VLO airframe, low IR signature)...even if it falls on the way back, no big deal, its relatively cheap (compared to losing a Rafale), plus we don't lose pilots that we spent a decade & millions of dollars training.
With CATS you can afford to send fewer manned DPSAs in a given strike package, exponentially increasing your strike capabilities across the whole theater (or in our context, allow you to retain more or less the same capability even with fewer manned platforms on hand) while also increasing the chances that each DPSA makes it back alive.
If we get into an arms race with China, we will go the way of the USSR.
Except you stand to lose a squadron if the enemy attacks a single air base, or even managing to put a few big holes in the runway is enough to ensure the squadron is no longer able to contribute to the warfighting.
To make us lose 2,000 missiles they'd have to accurately hit several distributed locations, and expend a whole lot more of their own offensive firepower to do so (missile launching does not require as huge a footprint as a runway, which means more enemy ordnance is needed to destroy the specific point targets (the launchers themselves).
Ultimately, Rocket Forces are the poor man's friend - which is why its the Soviets that deployed them, not the West. If we combine IRF with a smaller-than-planned, but still sizeable force of advanced DPSAs + VLO drones, we stand to make a lot of gains.
Sure a much larger fleet of DPSAs which would allow us to blow through losses would be a better option - but we're in no position to realize that plan.
Quantity, not quality. If the Soviets decided to go the Western way of high-quality jets (including DPSAs) in large numbers, they needn't have waited till 1991 to bankrupt themselves.
At the same time, it was the Soviet nuclear & missile arsenal that dissuaded NATO from invading. Not their crappy jets or tanks.
Precisely...IA is preparing for the IAF having fewer DPSAs on hand than they thought they could or would.
Rafale being in active use by the French nuclear forces has to count for something. Yes it won't be right away, but that's part of the goal regardless. Willing to bet some of the classified ISEs (we know by now that they didn't mention all) includes making them fully nuclear-capable with hardened electronics.
Which explains why our plans for 200 Rafales is difficult to realize. We're reaching beyond our means here, and we have to find a cheaper way.
Last edited:
We should be looking at 10-11 squadrons of MK2 anyways because IAF itself is now talking about mk2 being replacment for 29, 2000 and Darins. So 200 number (atleast 180) will be reached, irrespective of what happens to MMRCA.
Very likely - when the IAF turned Mk2 into a medium fighter, by definition they increased its scope of operations, the requirements that it could fulfill & the jets it could replace.
Not exactly, it's the 2006-7 period when they were breaching the 3.5 trillion mark when they had completed J11A assembly and moved on to localised J11B. They had started testfllying H6K around the same time.
Improved strike aircrafts JH7A started entering the service and J10 was made operational. KJ200 went into production and KJ500 into testing. First KJ2000 was inducted.
Compare that to us at 3 trillion? They were surely ahead.
We are already looking at those numbers. But you are recommending adding 6 more squadrons to the list to compensate for the loss of TE inventory.
Actually, the IAF didn't do either. They don't decide the numbers, the MoD does. Even with the initial GTG, the IAF originally wanted 80 instead of 36.
The transition of LCA Mk1 to both Mk1A and Mk2 is the industry's credit.
The MKIs were supposed to be replaced with FGFA from 2030 onwards.
It's not the USAF's idea to buy the F-15EX. Another example of politicians getting in the way of professional work, just like the A-10.
The MKI would still retain its high end status due to its large fuel reserves, payload and bigger sensor capabilities. Although it cannot supercruise, it still has the ability to remain supersonic for long periods of time with min AB. It just won't be suitable enough to square off with the J-20. But this is also why the IAF needs 10+ Rafale squadrons.
But it already proves the point.
Imagine with the earlier Mk2 LCA you required 8 squadrons of Rafale for example, 4 for each neighbour as the LCA couldn't effectively do the M2K's job into the future. But with Mk2 MWF, you can. So now you can afford to send 2 or even 4 of your western Rafale squadrons over to the eastern sector - enabling you the option of buying fewer squadrons to begin with.
At some point you have to understand that it was on IAF insistence that ADA did this:
Look at the increases in internal fuel, payload & MTOW - its simply no longer the same jet. You cannot consider Mk2 same as Mk1. Plus with equipment like AESA, MAWS, IRST, internal SPJ & a low RCS composite airframe, Mk2 is a far more survivable platform than M2K-5, F-16C Blk-52+ or J-10CE even, and working in conjunction with CATS it can offset AD advances made by Pakistan well into the future.
Most major targets like Rawalpindi, Sialkot, Islamabad, Bahawalpur all lie within 100 kms of the Indian airspace. A beefed up, survivable Mk2 in conjunction with drones can manage most of these targets.
All those changes brought it up to the F-16/Gripen/M2K standards. It's still not a replacement for Rafale for the same reason the F-16 B70 and Gripen E are not competitive with the Rafale.
There's only a limit, beyond which stealth doesn't help. Plus nothing beats terrain anyway. The terrain from the American side sucks for aircraft, so they need more technology to compensate.
Tibet is so vast that it's impossible to cover all of the terrain. And the Rafale should easily be able to beat the handful of radars potentially looking at it during ingress.
There's nothing special about CATS, it's not been designed for DPS, SEAD/DEAD, AS etc, it's just a mule for the LCA. The primary penetration drones will be IUSAV and FUFA for those roles. That's like 2035+ before it develops into a proven concept.
We don't need to match them across the board, only what they can put in the WTC. Plus the USSR had very bad economic fundamentals, we are not in the same boat.
Squadrons are dispersed and placed under hardened or underground shelters. They are very hard to kill.
The opposite. The RF is a more expensive option to an air force. You build it to compensate for technological weaknesses in the air force.
That's something else entirely.
Yeah, so it's a band-aid solution, not a real plan. It's to buy time for the IAF to catch up with the MRFA.
They have SOMs for the purpose, we only plan to use gravity nukes, so we need to go in much closer to the enemy.
At best we will use air-dropped nukes against China against their field HQs and such, so I don't believe the IAF will give up even a small number of Rafales for this role when the M2K can do it for the next 20 years. The purpose of the Rafale for now is purely tactical. They may make a decision to use it for nukes only after enough numbers come in to compensate for the tactical role. Plus IRF can take over this role from aircraft, even if aircraft have a greater probability of success.
The opposite. All we gotta do is buy 57 and then keep it going. As I said, if affordability was an issue, then we wouldn't be able to afford even these 57.
We are going for 57 because we have money for 57. And after these 57 are done, we will still have money for the next 57, the budget will simply get rolled over to the next tranche. Even if we bought 114 at once, after the initial higher disbursement, the money outflow will still be the same as the one for 57. So it's not an affordability issue.
Everything depends on how Good and Capable the AMCA turns out to be
57 plus 36 means IAF will have 90 Rafales
IAF and MOD are placing their complete trust in DRDO regarding MK 1A and MK 2
So you're saying 3T today is the same as 3T in 2006? Based on the inflation index, China was at least 2x bigger in 2006 than India is today. Basically we need to be $6T today to match their 3T from 2006. But today we are where China was in the early 2000s, like 2002-03.
In any case, their defence budget was always bigger than India's, so they look like they did better than us, because they have always had more money. But their main superpower level modernisation began only after they were well across the 10T mark. Like, they started receiving the bulk of their J-10s only after 2009. And only from 2016 they started receiving large number of J-10s, J-16s and J-20s simultaneously. The same with their navy. Our economy is yet to reach the point they were at when they began their modernisation.
Its interesting to see how the mind of optimists/'s works. Till to a few years back, it was 200+ rafales then it went done to 150. Now as IAF cutting the total number to 90. He/They made it 57 F3 now and 57 F4 versions later. Ask how this conclusion? By imagination.
Regardless of how good AMCA is, I'm very sure of the IAF buying at least 6 squadrons of MRFA.
Mk1a is delayed
m2 is ridiculously delayed
And the greedy ADA/HAL needs to start work on TEDBF too. Only god knows when will be AMCA will role out. I am expecting at the time of AMCA role out it will be as irrelevant as MK1a is today, and only low tier tasks will be assigned to it.