MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • JSF F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 28 12.7%
  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 171 77.7%
  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 3 1.4%
  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 6 2.7%
  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • SH F-18

    Votes: 11 5.0%
  • F-15EX

    Votes: 6 2.7%

  • Total voters
    220

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,307
India

The IAF today is at an all-time low of 30 fighter squadrons.​


The assets we have right now and have been contracted are more than enough for a one-front war at a time. Pakistan is not being considered a serious threat due to their failure to modernise. It's also why the IAF is making a far more caliberated decision based on how the PLAAF modernises. The Chinese have the financial advantage, so they can recaliberate faster than we can if mistakes are made.

If we end up buying stuff that's useless against China, then it's gonna pose problems in the future even if we have 42 squadrons. For example, the MRFA is being split into two phases so the IAF can cancel the 2nd phase if it turns out the type is technologically lacking. The first phase could be cheaper as well, since ToT requirements are lower for the first 57 jets, only the next 60 are expected to large scale local production.

30 fighter squadrons are enough to deal with one threat at a time, this was proven by Gaganshakti. The IAF basically needs 30 jets in the north and west and 10 squadrons in the northeast to deal with both Pak and China at the same time. With 30 squadrons, it's gonna be 20+10, and then divert 10 squadrons towards China after the PAF is decimated, or so goes the plan. So the IAF will concentrate on air defence against China until the reorientation happens.

All our other air assets, like AWACS and helicopters are enough to deal with either Pak or China. I'm not overly worried in this regard because I'm sure that in case of war with China, some types of air assets like attack helicopters, transports etc and force multipliers like refuellers will be transferred from the US and France as necessary.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,307
India
To add to my previous post, this will explain why 30 squadrons are actually quite a lot.

“It’s like a bill that comes to your house … for 60 multirole fighter squadrons,” Kelly told reporters in a roundtable later that day. “I’m trying to pay that bill with 48 fighter squadrons and nine attack squadrons [consisting of A-10 Thunderbolt II planes].”

The USAF has 48 operational multirole squadrons and they want to get to 60. But here's the real deal:
He said the Air Force needs 28 squadrons to project airpower in the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, and the Middle East, and another eight squadrons to respond to unfolding crises.

Of the 60 squadrons, 36 are necessary for combat across the entire world, apart from 16 and 8 for protecting US airspace and training resply. So considerably lesser than 36 squadrons are necessary to deal with the China threat. I'd actually say it's 15-20 squadrons at best.

While there is naturally a qualitative difference between the USAF and IAF, but in just a few months, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the most advanced and capable jets fully operational in the world, even if for a short time, are the 2 squadrons of Rafale Is.

We don't need to get to 42-45 squadrons right away. This explains why the IAF wants a competitive tender which will allow foreign OEMs to put their best foot forward. The IAF would rather weigh their options carefully than get shortchanged via one-sided political GTGs.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,821
4,433
74
France
To add to my previous post, this will explain why 30 squadrons are actually quite a lot.

“It’s like a bill that comes to your house … for 60 multirole fighter squadrons,” Kelly told reporters in a roundtable later that day. “I’m trying to pay that bill with 48 fighter squadrons and nine attack squadrons [consisting of A-10 Thunderbolt II planes].”

The USAF has 48 operational multirole squadrons and they want to get to 60. But here's the real deal:
He said the Air Force needs 28 squadrons to project airpower in the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, and the Middle East, and another eight squadrons to respond to unfolding crises.

Of the 60 squadrons, 36 are necessary for combat across the entire world, apart from 16 and 8 for protecting US airspace and training resply. So considerably lesser than 36 squadrons are necessary to deal with the China threat. I'd actually say it's 15-20 squadrons at best.

While there is naturally a qualitative difference between the USAF and IAF, but in just a few months, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the most advanced and capable jets fully operational in the world, even if for a short time, are the 2 squadrons of Rafale Is.

We don't need to get to 42-45 squadrons right away. This explains why the IAF wants a competitive tender which will allow foreign OEMs to put their best foot forward. The IAF would rather weigh their options carefully than get shortchanged via one-sided political GTGs.
But the 28 squadrons are to project USAF air power in peacetime.
In wartime either it happens in America and those squadrons come home, and that will be enough, or it happens overseas and the US will add to that strength the very large US Navy.
Plus you have to deal with China and probably Pakistan at the same time. And you will have to defend your territory, whereas the US territory is far away and therefore less exposed.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,876
4,684
Bangalore
The squadron numbers talk, as I have already explained earlier, when the Mig21 squadron retired some time back, our squadron numbers deployed near Pakistan, fell below the PAF squadrons strength.

The minimum requirement is 25 squadrons for Pakistan and 15 for China.

Anyone else doesn't know or hasn't studied any post WW2 era war.
The idiotic leadership when talks about shooting down drones with attack helicopters to justify it holding Apache and LCH, its just pathetic.

The IAF modernisation will begin the day IAF transfers all of its Apache, Chinook and Mi17 fleets to Army Aviation.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,307
India
But the 28 squadrons are to project USAF air power in peacetime.
In wartime either it happens in America and those squadrons come home, and that will be enough, or it happens overseas and the US will add to that strength the very large US Navy.

The 28 squadrons are if they manage to climb up from 48 to 60 squadrons. 28+8+16+8 = 60. Assuming the last three values stay the same, the USAF have only 16 squadrons to use against China, ME and Russia today.

USN's strength is not enough, the question is if their capability will even be usable if they are forced to operate from longer ranges.

Plus you have to deal with China and probably Pakistan at the same time. And you will have to defend your territory, whereas the US territory is far away and therefore less exposed.

We need 42 squadrons for an all-out war on two fronts. But we are unlikely to see that within this decade due to Pakistan's poor financials and their inability to protect their SLOCs, so no supplies by sea.

Plus we are army-focused, unlike the Americans. So victory or defeat is not entirely dependent on the IAF's performance. At worst the IAF can concentrate on air defence and a few important missions while acting as a support arm of the army. In the mid term, attrition replacements are also possible from France and the US.
 

Rajput Lion

Member
Sep 23, 2022
218
93
India
And no SAM is a compliment to Air Superiority, not a supplement.

There's a difference between the two.
They are a huge deterrent though to both the Chinese and Pakistanis. IAF is further going to modernise its AFNET to better use air defence assests.

In a 2 front war, IAF along with our growing IADS may hold the Chinese in a defensive manner and go all out against Pakistanis in an offensive way.

Our current fighters are also much more capable than old Mig 21s and Mig 23s. One Su-30MKI or Rafale may be equal to 4 Mig 21s in both OCA and DCA.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,876
4,684
Bangalore
They are a huge deterrent though to both the Chinese and Pakistanis. IAF is further going to modernise its AFNET to better use air defence assests.

In a 2 front war, IAF along with our growing IADS may hold the Chinese in a defensive manner and go all out against Pakistanis in an offensive way.

Our current fighters are also much more capable than old Mig 21s and Mig 23s. One Su-30MKI or Rafale may be equal to 4 Mig 21s in both OCA and DCA.
Its not that India has something which Pakistan cannot match or counter. Nothing. Not a single thing.
 

Rajput Lion

Member
Sep 23, 2022
218
93
India
Its not that India has something which Pakistan cannot match or counter. Nothing. Not a single thing.
Rafales with Meteor, S-400, MRSAM, Su-30MKI with i-Derby ER and ASRAAM?? It's going to be a bloodbath for PAF in the next war.

IAF has fully awaken after Feb 2019 and they are ready to crush PAF in a full fledged war. And there is nothing PAF can do about it.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,876
4,684
Bangalore
Rafales with Meteor, S-400, MRSAM, Su-30MKI with i-Derby ER and ASRAAM?? It's going to be a bloodbath for PAF in the next war.

IAF has fully awaken after Feb 2019 and they are ready to crush PAF in a full fledged war. And there is nothing PAF can do about it.
What band does our AWACS operate in, ever wondered?

The moment Indian Army employs EW against Pakistani assets, our own assets go blind too.

ASRAAM and I Derby ? We took out a F16 Block 52 with R73 and Sura HMDS combo.

Missiles were never a problem. And it's idiotic to think on your part that missiles were the cause of issues in 2019. Whatever missile inventory changes happened post 2019, happened becoz missiles bought in 2004 needed replacing. Nothing else.

And meteor ? No IAF pilot flying in a Rafale will fire a BVR at a fighter jet target if it's more than 50 kilometres away. No one. It will just be a waste of that round.

There's a reason why Americans are not going crazy for a 200km BVR missile. If it was that important, they will have something ready in 2 weeks. But if they haven't, it means you are over playing the range thing in your head.

And as for S400, they have more than enough, actually they out number us in capabilities to conduct SEAD/DEAD missions.

Wake up everyone, and actually read how major wars have been fought post WW2. Read about Israeli advance against Egypt. Read about American advance in Iraq.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,876
4,684
Bangalore
We may make fun of them here. But they are no idiots. Its the other way round.

That 2nd hand Seaking purchase from Qatar, that means Pakistan Naval Aviation had 16 Seakings each with 2 Anti ship missiles , either Harpoon or Exocets.

Guess how many Anti ship missiles can Indian Naval Aviation helicopters can put up against Pakistan within hours ?

Hint : Its half.
That's just one example.
 

A Person

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
1,319
1,279
A Place
To add to my previous post, this will explain why 30 squadrons are actually quite a lot.

“It’s like a bill that comes to your house … for 60 multirole fighter squadrons,” Kelly told reporters iIn a roundtable later that day. “I’m trying to pay that bill with 48 fighter squadrons and nine attack squadrons [consisting of A-10 Thunderbolt II planes].”

The USAF has 48 operational multirole squadrons and they want to get to 60. But here's the real deal:
He said the Air Force needs 28 squadrons to project airpower in the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, and the Middle East, and another eight squadrons to respond to unfolding crises.

Of the 60 squadrons, 36 are necessary for combat across the entire world, apart from 16 and 8 for protecting US airspace and training resply. So considerably lesser than 36 squadrons are necessary to deal with the China threat. I'd actually say it's 15-20 squadrons at best.

While there is naturally a qualitative difference between the USAF and IAF, but in just a few months, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the most advanced and capable jets fully operational in the world, even if for a short time, are the 2 squadrons of Rafale Is.

We don't need to get to 42-45 squadrons right away. This explains why the IAF wants a competitive tender which will allow foreign OEMs to put their best foot forward. The IAF would rather weigh their options carefully than get shortchanged via one-sided political GTGs.
It's difficult to compare directly the needs of America to the needs of India.

First, the USAF is not all that the USA have. The USN is the second largest combat aviation of the world, and the USMC, while quite a bit smaller, is still in the Top Ten.

Secondly, the USA have treaty allies. There's NATO, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. If even just half of the USA's allies provide even just one squadron each, that's still +17 squadrons right there. And that could go a lot higher...
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,307
India
And no SAM is a compliment to Air Superiority, not a supplement.

There's a difference between the two.

Would have been the case in the past. But now SAMs are being integrated with fighter jets, so missiles can be cued using fighter radars.

SAMs today are as good as MR missiles fired from non-ASFs in self-defence, like the F-35, F-16, SH etc. And upcoming SAMs, like the one based on Astra Mk2, can pretty much act as BVR missiles fired from non-supercruising ASFs.

Combine such capabilities with a fighter's radar and it's no different from having more jets in the air.

The IAF needs more Apaches and LCHs. It's not just for dealing with drone threats or supporting ground forces, they are a crucial part of any SEAD/DEAD campaign. They are necessary for supporting the Garuds as well.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,307
India
There's a reason why Americans are not going crazy for a 200km BVR missile.

Exceeding the enemy missile's range is pretty much the number one goal for the Americans.

He added that outmatching the new Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missile is an “exceedingly high priority.”

“The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick that missile,” he said.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,307
India
It's difficult to compare directly the needs of America to the needs of India.

First, the USAF is not all that the USA have. The USN is the second largest combat aviation of the world, and the USMC, while quite a bit smaller, is still in the Top Ten.

Secondly, the USA have treaty allies. There's NATO, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. If even just half of the USA's allies provide even just one squadron each, that's still +17 squadrons right there. And that could go a lot higher...

They are all irrelevant. If the USAF and their 16 squadrons fail, then their treaty allies are just gonna twiddle thumbs as they get their backsides beaten by an enemy that defeated the USAF's high-end F-22s.

I have pointed this out before, if the primary ASF fails to do its job, then it's over for said air force and allies.

As per a USAF general, probably Kelly himself, allies are there only to provide mass, not capability. So if the USAF doesn't do its job of actually penetrating the enemy's air space, then having mass won't matter.

It's pretty much why the Russians only have a small fleet of high end jets. If the small numbers don't survive, then there's no point in having a larger fleet. But if they survive, then the numbers will be adequate enough to take out the remaining 3000+ NATO jets. Same story for the IAF, if 100 Rafales take out 500+ J-20s, then the remaining 2000 jets are just turkey shoot.
 

Rajput Lion

Member
Sep 23, 2022
218
93
India
What band does our AWACS operate in, ever wondered?

The moment Indian Army employs EW against Pakistani assets, our own assets go blind too.

ASRAAM and I Derby ? We took out a F16 Block 52 with R73 and Sura HMDS combo.

Missiles were never a problem. And it's idiotic to think on your part that missiles were the cause of issues in 2019. Whatever missile inventory changes happened post 2019, happened becoz missiles bought in 2004 needed replacing. Nothing else.

And meteor ? No IAF pilot flying in a Rafale will fire a BVR at a fighter jet target if it's more than 50 kilometres away. No one. It will just be a waste of that round.

There's a reason why Americans are not going crazy for a 200km BVR missile. If it was that important, they will have something ready in 2 weeks. But if they haven't, it means you are over playing the range thing in your head.

And as for S400, they have more than enough, actually they out number us in capabilities to conduct SEAD/DEAD missions.

Wake up everyone, and actually read how major wars have been fought post WW2. Read about Israeli advance against Egypt. Read about American advance in Iraq.
If our EW jamms everything emitting RF waves including ours then it's going to be even bad for the Pakistanis.

Rafale with OSF and Mica-IR is specifically designed for dense jamming environment. Indian Rafale-I also has in-built IRST. Rafale would know about PAF F16, J10 & JF17 presence before them. ID then using the TV channel of OSF and then boom....


Also don't count out Su-30MKI. It can also use OLS-30 to make passive shots using R27ET, ASRAAM and R73M. Once we mount the new IRST in few years, it's going to become even more dangerous. A total silent killer.


And Meteor and Derby ER aren't only about 200km range. But what's important is NEZ. Meteor has 60km NEZ whilst Derby ER has 40kms. Within that range our enemies are going to be toast.

But yes, we shouldn't underestimate PAF or any enemy. I concur.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,876
4,684
Bangalore
Would have been the case in the past. But now SAMs are being integrated with fighter jets, so missiles can be cued using fighter radars.

SAMs today are as good as MR missiles fired from non-ASFs in self-defence, like the F-35, F-16, SH etc. And upcoming SAMs, like the one based on Astra Mk2, can pretty much act as BVR missiles fired from non-supercruising ASFs.

Combine such capabilities with a fighter's radar and it's no different from having more jets in the air.

The IAF needs more Apaches and LCHs. It's not just for dealing with drone threats or supporting ground forces, they are a crucial part of any SEAD/DEAD campaign. They are necessary for supporting the Garuds as well.
No country outside India has its Army and it's Airforce both operating Attack Helicopters seperately.

That's just an idiotic rant.
Exceeding the enemy missile's range is pretty much the number one goal for the Americans.

He added that outmatching the new Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missile is an “exceedingly high priority.”

“The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick that missile,” he said.
Is there an operational 200km BVR in USAF? If not, then they aren't serious.

They have the motors, the battery and seekers with them. But they ain't building it. It means it's not a must have requirement for them.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,876
4,684
Bangalore
If our EW jamms everything emitting RF waves including ours then it's going to be even bad for the Pakistanis.

Rafale with OSF and Mica-IR is specifically designed for dense jamming environment. Indian Rafale-I also has in-built IRST. Rafale would know about PAF F16, J10 & JF17 presence before them. ID then using the TV channel of OSF and then boom....


Also don't count out Su-30MKI. It can also use OLS-30 to make passive shots using R27ET, ASRAAM and R73M. Once we mount the new IRST in few years, it's going to become even more dangerous. A total silent killer.


And Meteor and Derby ER aren't only about 200km range. But what's important is NEZ. Meteor has 60km NEZ whilst Derby ER has 40kms. Within that range our enemies are going to be toast.

But yes, we shouldn't underestimate PAF or any enemy. I concur.
Do read how many Su30, Mirage 2000 , Mig29UPG , Darins and Tejas squadrons we have.

Where they are placed.

And how many operational squadrons PAF has.

And how many regiments China has in the region.

Ofcourse a F22 is better than all and can kill maybe 8 Su35 simultaneously. But can it kill 8 Su35 in 8 different places?

That is my problem.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,307
India
No country outside India has its Army and it's Airforce both operating Attack Helicopters seperately.

That's just an idiotic rant.

The IA simply started late with helicopters, so we can't lose the capability and experience the IAF has just like that.

Another problem is the establishment of the threatre commands is a bit different from other countries. The IAF will get its own nation-wide Air Defence Command, so it makes sense to give them some assets under this command so they can use it how they please instead of having to ask the theatre commander every single time, who may not give it. So I hope to see another Apache squadron alongside the 3 LCH squadrons handed over to the IAF under this command.

It's a solution unique to India. We are expected to have 3 commands under the army, 1 under the navy and 1 under the air force. It's natural to expect some assets to be retained under the air force.

Is there an operational 200km BVR in USAF? If not, then they aren't serious.

They have the motors, the battery and seekers with them. But they ain't building it. It means it's not a must have requirement for them.

The AIM-260 JTAM is expected to far exceed 200Km. It's under flight testing.


My guess is it's an AMRAAM with a dual pulse motor and more modern electronics and will give it a range up to 300Km, the same as the PL-15.