MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[Picdelamirand-oil]

We have to wait and see if IN chooses GaN for SPECTRA then.

My view is that they will choose F4.3 pre-wired for F5 + ISE (identical to MMRCA). And F4.3 will be configured with AESA antennas for SPECTRA. An upgrade to this standard for the IAF will be possible. We will deliver F4.2 and retrofit to F4.3 at the end of deliveries.

 

[Speedster1]

There was truth in what was said back then. ADA tried pushing an unfinished product onto the IAF prematurely.

AFs the world over induct new ac- with all their flaws - in batches and gradually bring them up to spec. The RAF, for example, is only now getting the definitive multi-role capable Typhoon replacing (A2A only?) Tranche 1 ac.

The IAF has had a project management team working alongside HAL since 2004. Surely, they could have relied on their own people to make it battle ready a few years after induction. To insist on full spec before induction is only for countries like Austria and Luxemberg who no real air threat and safely cocooned within NATO.

When the IAF first wanted LCA, it was a simple aircraft with hydraulics, with an old analog radar capable of targeting one with the old R-60 WVR missile. DRDO introduced all new stuff without involving the IAF, made it heavy and useless

The IAF got officially involved with the LCA program only in 2004, a full 21 years after the project was approved for development. Up until then, it was only a science project for them.

I agree that the ADA/DRDO bit off more than they could chew, setting ambitious goals and timelines, but that's because they had little to no direction from the user.

In the meantime, the IAF will continue to maintain a defensive posture against China with its new IADS and introduction of new weapons, which was always part of the plan beforehand.

By Plan B, this is exactly what I meant - building complementary, even asymmetric, capabilities along with the other two services to make up shortfalls until new ac arrive. Networking, C4ISR, EW, dispersed ops, hardening infra, cyber, etc.

 

[Speedster1]

see these comments as a plea for help. To prevent many needless deaths in an upcoming conflict by finally prioritizing modernization.

When it comes to force planning and procurement decisions, it's the IAF makes all the decisions and the GOI plays second fiddle to it. Unlike the USA where Congress directly shapes decision making.

Short of management control of DPSUs like HAL, I don't think the IAF lacks anything in terms of program management and control.

I, for one, find it hard to believe that the IAF's own project management team, embedded within LCA Division since 2004 didn't have a clue all this while about the challenges impacting Mk1A deliveries.

In any case, the good ACM should have reserved some of his comments, candid as they were, for a closed-room briefing with the RM or MoD honchos. In public, the morale of his men depends on him, at least, projecting that he has a plan to break the logjam the force finds itself in.

Our Eastern neighbour and their minions to the West were probably relishing every word he said at that press conference.

 

[_Anonymous_]

It can only be said that it is a failure of India, after all, who would have thought today when the Su-30 was mass-produced? In other words, India does not have a rational plan at all, he buys things like a street vendor, he buys everything in sight and does not think about tomorrow.

How many open bids have Chinese fighter aircraft manufacturing companies participated in ? How many countries have actually evaluated your J-10s or your J-16s or J-20s ?

If you point your finger at iron brother Pakistan , let me remind you they don't have a choice except pick up & put up with Chinese junk .

If the Americans were to offer them the Block 72 F-16s today & as a condition ask them to return all the J-10s they've received , they'd happily oblige the Americans. That's how much trust your wares inspire in your closest ally.

In fact till recently the Pakistanis were quite satisfied with the RD-93 Turbo Fans powering the JF-17s in spite of it being a sub standard problematic engine & refused to refit them with the Chinese WS-13 . However given the war in Ukraine it's not known if there's been a change in plans .

Besides a few months or weeks ago didn't you link articles claiming Egypt had selected the J-10s for their Air Force . What happened to that ?

 

[_Anonymous_]

Were the Rafale C F3-R offered under the original MMRCA tender not upgradeable to F5 & F6 standards ? Do you know anything about this ?


@Picdelamirand-oil

 

[Rajput Lion]

It can only be said that it is a failure of India, after all, who would have thought today when the Su-30 was mass-produced? In other words, India does not have a rational plan at all, he buys things like a street vendor, he buys everything in sight and does not think about tomorrow.

India under Modi's leadership is moving in the right direction, i.e., 100% indigenisation. What you said was true of past regimes.

Of course, as I always say, the path of indigenisation is extremely long and painful, but we're now strongly moving towards it.

By next decade, we'll *almost* match your airforce in tech. Beware.......

 

[LX1111]

when the Chinese commented on tejas, we agreed that India needs to re-develop tejas, a lot of design work was outsourced to France and the United States, for India, these are black boxes, you need to re-understand why others are designing this way.
If you really go through all this Mak1 to MAK2 development process, you can really say that you have the development of the fourth generation fighter jet,
There are two obvious problems. First, the size of tejas is too small, the electronic equipment and fuel that can be held are very limited, and the tailleless delta wing is used, and the subtransonic drag ratio is over-stacked, which means that tejas is not a good flight platform.
Second, the world has entered the era of fifth-generation aircraft, and where are India's fifth-generation aircraft?

India under Modi's leadership is moving in the right direction, i.e., 100% indigenisation. What you said was true of past regimes.

Of course, as I always say, the path of indigenisation is extremely long and painful, but we're now strongly moving towards it.

By next decade, we'll *almost* match your airforce in tech. Beware.......

 

[Rajput Lion]

By design. The IA is more threatening than IAF to the Chinese due to the potential for loss of land.



Given what we know today, I don't think those Rafales would have helped a lot. We would have been in a better position, but we needed far more advanced capabilities than that.

FGFA wasn't realistic 'cause the Russians weren't playing ball, but I won't be surprised if we get to know MMRCA was closed due to creeping obsolescence rather than financial issues, although that would have played a part. For example, we were negotiating for F3+, and it could not be upgraded to F5 or F6, and has its own separate MLU process which would have made it less capable in the future.

IAF officers have been known to complain about how we start a tender and then induct old stuff 'cause the tender would take a decade to deliver.

For example, the RBE2 AESA was already older than the American APG-83 SABR and APG-84 RACR by the time MMRCA was complete, and now the APG-79(V)4 GaN radar. This was also the reason given for focusing on indigenization, which resulted in Uttam Mk2 coming up to Western standards around the same time as they did.

As for what Ignorants is ranting about, he's made two mistakes. First, he thinks a funny video by Andrew Tate deserves the same seriousness as a doctoral thesis that's regularly cited. I don't have to explain why, but that limits his own intellect.

Second is he thinks quite a bit of the equation between India and China has changed since before, but it's not so. Our posture against China was always defensive, both air force and army. The IAF merely had a technological edge, but it's the Chinese that have held an offensive posture against India for decades, both in the air and on the ground, primarily on the ground. They have had a 3 million-man strong army for decades alongside 4000 fighters. They planned on using 25-30 divisions against India back then. And we maintained a defensive posture with a few mountain divisions and a few hundred fighter jets, mostly Mig-21s.

Since 1995, they phased out over 3000 fighter jets out of 4000+, and reorganized their ground forces to less than a million men and still maintain an offensive posture against India. Btw, those are 4000 "fighters," not counting another 1000+ fighter-bombers and multirole aircraft like the J-10 and J-11. Their bomber fleet back then was 400+ too.

After 2020, the IA has rapidly switched to an offensive-defense posture with their 2 new MSCs, new border infrastructure and talk of setting up the IRF, whereas IAF has only carried that out their plans on paper. That's why I think when the Chinese started their reorganization under Xi Jinping, the Modi govt killed MMRCA and FGFA in exchange for a new strategy, which evolved into today's MRFA and AMCA.

Had we stayed the course with MMRCA, we would have ended up with a lot of outdated jets by 2025-30, a repeat of MKI. MMRCA was designed to maintain a defensive posture against the Chinese, and the FGFA was an MKI replacement program. Once MKI's lifespan was enhanced to 40-50 years instead of 25-30, and ADA/HAL fixed issues with LCA, new options showed up, so the MoD began plans for Project Ghatak and AMCA, with MRFA enabling the two programs in the form of a technology partner.

These two programs, and MRFA, now provide the IAF the capabilities necessary to switch to an offensive posture. This is the reason why MRFA is necessary and will happen. And the latest comments from the ACM confirm that.

In the meantime, the IAF will continue to maintain a defensive posture against China with its new IADS and introduction of new weapons, which was always part of the plan beforehand.

120 Rafales would have meant much more offensive capability against PLAAF & their A2/AD bubble. And FGFA would have meant(even with initial batches having AL-41F) that we didn't need to fret over J-20 ambushing our MKIs & Rafales.

About tech obsolescence, well that is a real issue but is slightly inflated, IMO. MKI of 2024 isn't the same that was delivered in 2002. We've upgraded its ECM, ESM, radar, software, mission computers and even cockpit(to some degree) multiple times.

The contract for MMRCA should have had also provision like the above. Even the current ACM talked about " Jaguar model" which means IAF's BRD along with DRDO/HAL/Private sector could upgrade the jets at will according to the threat perception.


Rafale's primary requirement was penetrating world's best IADS network, i.e., Soviet IADS and drop nukes on Moscow. Rafale, though an amazing air-to-air fighter was never going to replace our air dominance MKIs or FGFAs(had we procured it) with its puny radar. But I don't think even stealth Su-57/60 could have matched Rafale in taking out highly fortified targets. Both China & Pak, as per reports, are extremely wary of just 36 Rafales. 120 could have increased their headache by several times.

Anyways we could still get more Rafales if French provide honest assistance in AMCA's engine JV and nuke attack submarines. Fingers crossed.......

when the Chinese commented on tejas, we agreed that India needs to re-develop tejas, a lot of design work was outsourced to France and the United States, for India, these are black boxes, you need to re-understand why others are designing this way.
If you really go through all this Mak1 to MAK2 development process, you can really say that you have the development of the fourth generation fighter jet,
There are two obvious problems. First, the size of tejas is too small, the electronic equipment and fuel that can be held are very limited, and the tailleless delta wing is used, and the subtransonic drag ratio is over-stacked, which means that tejas is not a good flight platform.
Second, the world has entered the era of fifth-generation aircraft, and where are India's fifth-generation aircraft?

Wait for next 4-5 years, you'll have all your answers

 

[_Anonymous_]

You are right, but it will not save the great Abhinandan flying the MIG 21 against the F16 and JF-17, when they face AIM120 and SD10A, they will surely recall that night when you screamed: Chinese planes are rubbish, one of our Indian planes can shoot down a hundred Chinese planes.
View attachment 36908

At least we honour our heroes while your CCP hides figures of those martyred in the Galwan clashes by gradually declaring its fatalities like a strip tease artist reveals her body .

If this is how the CCP treats its soldiers the free world as opposed to the jail you belong to will certainly know who's deserving of more respect in spite of its faults , for a nation which can't be honest with its own people about issues of national interest are inherently a dishonest lot who usually don't survive long .

 

[_Anonymous_]

You're right, but before this photo, which Indian government told you that over 40 Indians were captured? ^
View attachment 36913

How old are you ? Probably physically you maybe between 27- 30 but mentally it seems you're still a teenager. Should I put up similar photographs of Chinese soldiers & then you'd come up with more & I'd reciprocate. Is that how you conduct discussions on Weibo . Understand then that Weibo is not the whole world.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Were the Rafale C F3-R offered under the original MMRCA tender not upgradeable to F5 & F6 standards ? Do you know anything about this ?

@Picdelamirand-oil

At the time I thought your Rafales were pre-wired for F4.2 which was the first standard not compatible with the previous ones. Now the first non-compatible standard is F5, which may be a little different from the earlier F4.2, but the pre-wiring should still be suitable, at least I hope so.

 

[vstol Jockey]

You're right, but before this photo, which Indian government told you that over 40 Indians were captured? ^
View attachment 36913

I dont know why our government is not releasing the videos of handing over 26 dead bodies to you and returning over a dozen injured PLA soldiers.

 

[randomradio]

My view is that they will choose F4.3 pre-wired for F5 + ISE (identical to MMRCA). And F4.3 will be configured with AESA antennas for SPECTRA. An upgrade to this standard for the IAF will be possible. We will deliver F4.2 and retrofit to F4.3 at the end of deliveries.

Whatever is part of F4.3 will not be replaced with F5 subsystems. If something's missing, that can be added, but existing subsystems won't be replaced until MLU. Only obsolete equipment can be replaced if necessary, but I don't think Rafale's going to be carrying anything that will be obsolete for many decades.

For example, if RBE2 AESA and XG are very different from each other, then the IN won't replace the older radar with the new one. At best the GaAs TRMs can be exchanged with GaN at the end of their lives, if that's possible. Like your PESA to AESA retrofit. However drone functionality and all of its related hardware missing on F4.3 can be added once F5 is ready.

We can similarly say the IAF's F3R is stuck with its current radar until the 2050s. Or if they choose to MLU faster than that.

Even the GaAs to GaN switch comes with hurdles with respect to the vendor supplying the modules. For example, Jaguar has the 2035 AESA radar even though the MoD had negotiated for 2032 because Elta decided to supply it at the same cost as the 2032, so there was no need for restarting cost negotiations. So the expectation will be the Indian vendor supplying GaAs can switch to supplying GaN without need for cost negotiations, which can be quite doubtful at this time.

It would be helpful if the MoD negotiates a price for the midway GaN switch in the same contract. Then it's possible. But there's a good chance the IN will be happy with what comes with F4.3 itself.

 

[randomradio]

AFs the world over induct new ac- with all their flaws - in batches and gradually bring them up to spec. The RAF, for example, is only now getting the definitive multi-role capable Typhoon replacing (A2A only?) Tranche 1 ac.

The IAF has had a project management team working alongside HAL since 2004. Surely, they could have relied on their own people to make it battle ready a few years after induction. To insist on full spec before induction is only for countries like Austria and Luxemberg who no real air threat and safely cocooned within NATO.

RAF was fine with Tranch 1 because that was the expectation. But what ADA did was tried pushing Tranche 0.5 in the name of all that you said. Hence the three-legged comment.

The LCA was supposed to meet certain thresholds before induction but failed to do so until 2013. But they pretended to have achieved an IOC in 2011 itself. Then they called the 2011 version IOC-1 and the 2013 version IOC-2, and then forced the IAF to accept 2 jets which were of the IOC-1 standard, followed by the remaining 14 at IOC-2. Then the IAF made sure the FOC version was completely up to spec before delivery, hence the longer time frame before it was delivered. Here too, ADA tried pushing pre-FOC aircraft on the IAF.

But this is entirely different from what I said. IAF created ASR for LCA, DRDO tore that and threw it away, and recreated their own ASR and convinced the IAF to accept it. That's actually how the Bison program went ahead, when the IAF realized the LCA timelines had become a joke.

The IAF got officially involved with the LCA program only in 2004, a full 21 years after the project was approved for development. Up until then, it was only a science project for them.

I agree that the ADA/DRDO bit off more than they could chew, setting ambitious goals and timelines, but that's because they had little to no direction from the user.

That's 'cause DRDO prevented IAF involvement even though the IAF consistently insisted for it. The IAF was the one that offered ASTE for LCA development back in 1993.

It was only after DRDO failed with their new ASR that they decided to bring in the IAF. And why did they do that? To push under-spec LCA on to the IAF after they were forced to delink Kaveri by the MoD. So everything had to be redone, this time with F404. There was no way they could convince IAF to make such a big change without their involvement.

Furthermore, when the Bison team went to evaluate the progress of the LCA, they were rudely told to mind their own business. The Bison team still studied the progress of the LCA and presented their finds to the IAF Chief along with a whole bunch of top officers, to show them why the Bison upgrade was a good idea. As the IAF Chief realized ADA will not meet their promised deadline, he angrily walked out. Thus the Bison upgrade was given the go-ahead. And only after this did DRDO bring the IAF into LCA. Until then, the IAF had no clue about the LCA's progress.

By Plan B, this is exactly what I meant - building complementary, even asymmetric, capabilities along with the other two services to make up shortfalls until new ac arrive. Networking, C4ISR, EW, dispersed ops, hardening infra, cyber, etc.

All that's Plan A.

We want superiority against PAF and parity with PLAAF. The IAF's old goal from 2007 was to achieve that by 2030 with the old LCA Mk2 (83+40/60 jets), MKI MLU (2015+), MMRCA (2015+) and FGFA (2019+).

MKI was supposed to get a Russian/Western AESA radar with Meteor/Derby ER, ASRAAM, a digital EW suite, MAWS and sensor fusion after 2015, to maintain parity with Chinese Flankers. Only the sensor fusion bit happened.

But what happened instead? LCA was delayed, you know this story already. MKI lifespan was practically doubled, so instead of MLU on the 20th year, it was pushed to the 30th year. MMRCA was mishandled. And FGFA was too early in the game. Hence the new plan in 2022, which replaced the old plan from 2007.

 

[randomradio]

a lot of design work was outsourced to France and the United States,

Lol, nope.

If you really go through all this Mak1 to MAK2 development process, you can really say that you have the development of the fourth generation fighter jet,
There are two obvious problems. First, the size of tejas is too small, the electronic equipment and fuel that can be held are very limited, and the tailleless delta wing is used, and the subtransonic drag ratio is over-stacked, which means that tejas is not a good flight platform.

The LCA's size is fine for its role. It was designed to fit into the Mig-21's hangars.

As for flight performance, the IAF pilots have claimed it's very good.

The Malaysians rated the LCA Mk1 to be superior to the JF-17 and FA-50. They claimed LCA was cheaper and better than the FA-50, but it had a smaller service record.

Second, the world has entered the era of fifth-generation aircraft, and where are India's fifth-generation aircraft?

We are not in a hurry to field tech that is yet to mature. We have decided to develop stealth drones first.

 

[YoungWolf]

Whatever is part of F4.3 will not be replaced with F5 subsystems. If something's missing, that can be added, but existing subsystems won't be replaced until MLU. Only obsolete equipment can be replaced if necessary, but I don't think Rafale's going to be carrying anything that will be obsolete for many decades.

For example, if RBE2 AESA and XG are very different from each other, then the IN won't replace the older radar with the new one. At best the GaAs TRMs can be exchanged with GaN at the end of their lives, if that's possible. Like your PESA to AESA retrofit. However drone functionality and all of its related hardware missing on F4.3 can be added once F5 is ready.

We can similarly say the IAF's F3R is stuck with its current radar until the 2050s. Or if they choose to MLU faster than that.

Even the GaAs to GaN switch comes with hurdles with respect to the vendor supplying the modules. For example, Jaguar has the 2035 AESA radar even though the MoD had negotiated for 2032 because Elta decided to supply it at the same cost as the 2032, so there was no need for restarting cost negotiations. So the expectation will be the Indian vendor supplying GaAs can switch to supplying GaN without need for cost negotiations, which can be quite doubtful at this time.

It would be helpful if the MoD negotiates a price for the midway GaN switch in the same contract. Then it's possible. But there's a good chance the IN will be happy with what comes with F4.3 itself.

I do believe the Rafales in IAF service will see 2 rounds of comprehensive upgrades, over an operational lifespan of, say, 45-50yrs (a bit like how M2K & MiG-29 will see around 50yrs service life in IAF). The 1st one between 2035-40, when the F5-spec Rafale starts entering the French service. The 2nd one sometime around 2050, which I think will last it till the end of its life. The IN Rafales will follow a similar pattern too.

 

[randomradio]

120 Rafales would have meant much more offensive capability against PLAAF & their A2/AD bubble. And FGFA would have meant(even with initial batches having AL-41F) that we didn't need to fret over J-20 ambushing our MKIs & Rafales.

FGFA was too risky. And I don't think Rafale F3.4s would have been helpful against the 2025 PLAAF.

About tech obsolescence, well that is a real issue but is slightly inflated, IMO. MKI of 2024 isn't the same that was delivered in 2002. We've upgraded its ECM, ESM, radar, software, mission computers and even cockpit(to some degree) multiple times.

Nowhere near the level necessary. It's still inferior to the F3.4 standards.

The contract for MMRCA should have had also provision like the above. Even the current ACM talked about " Jaguar model" which means IAF's BRD along with DRDO/HAL/Private sector could upgrade the jets at will according to the threat perception.

That's quite unrealistic. But the IAF can have their own wishlist.

The Jaguar went the way it did because it became outdated very quickly, and had quite a lot of issues to fix, hence they achieved that with DARIN I. The expectation with MRFA is it won't face such issues for at least 25-30 years.

Instead what we can hope for is combining Indian and French resources to develop the Rafale faster than the French have planned as long as Rafale wins MRFA. If a US jet is picked, let's assume, then they work really fast on their own anyway.

But if we go for Jaguar model, then what it means is French stuff is crap and needs to be replaced faster than hoped. That's really not a good thing for us in the first 20 years because DARIN I took a long time to achieve.

Rafale's primary requirement was penetrating world's best IADS network, i.e., Soviet IADS and drop nukes on Moscow. Rafale, though an amazing air-to-air fighter was never going to replace our air dominance MKIs or FGFAs(had we procured it) with its puny radar. But I don't think even stealth Su-57/60 could have matched Rafale in taking out highly fortified targets. Both China & Pak, as per reports, are extremely wary of just 36 Rafales. 120 could have increased their headache by several times.

The MMRCA Rafales would have ensured superiority over the PAF, but we would have lost parity to the PLAAF by 2025.

It would be a repeat of MKI all over. The MKI had superiority when it was introduced, but by 2015, we had 200+ operational and had become inferior to the Chinese J-10C and J-16. And with the IAF betting on MMRCA, MKI received a stepmotherly treatment. All we saw was the remnants of the earlier MLU, like Meteor/Derby ER integration on Bars instead or attempts to install a MAWS.

Similarly, Rafale F3.4 cannot be upgraded to F5, so it would have received a less-than-adequate upgrade in the 2040s when the French would be busy junking theirs due to elapsed lifespan. This is where the Jaguar model would have come into the picture, with the French busy inducting a 6th gen version of Rafale and IAF making crappy upgrades to keep their outdated Rafale version relevant for the 2050s.

Let's not forget that LCA Mk2 was supposed to have begun induction from this year back in 2018 in its MWF moniker, so it would have taken care of some of the obsolescence issues the IAF faced due to the lack of MMRCA. It increasingly looks like MMRCA was junked for the right reasons.

 

[randomradio]

You're right, but before this photo, which Indian government told you that over 40 Indians were captured? ^
View attachment 36913

How 10 Indian Army men were kept in Chinese custody for 3 days: An inside story from Galwan

Chinese delayed handing over of more than 50 wounded Indian troops after the fierce Galwan clash. The India soldiers returned after over 24 hours. Ten Indian Army men, however, were not released by the Chinese. Here is an exclusive account with inside details of how 10 Army men were held by with...

www.indiatoday.in

Chinese delayed handing over of more than 50 wounded Indian troops after the fierce Galwan clash. The India soldiers returned after over 24 hours. Ten Indian Army men, however, were not released by the Chinese.
New Delhi,UPDATED: Jun 25, 2020 15:53 IST

It's not "over" 40, it's "more than" 50.

You can read the rest of the article.

One more.

76 Soldiers Brutally Injured In Ladakh Face-off Stable And Recovering, Say Army Officials

Ten Indian Army personnel including two Majors were released by the Chinese military on Thursday evening following three days of negotiations. However, there is no official word on the matter.

www.outlookindia.com

A total of 76 personnel of the Indian Army were brutally assaulted by the Chinese army in the recent violent face-off in Glawan Valley in Ladakh, military sources quoted by PTI news agency said. Of the injured, 18 were seriously wounded while 58 of them sustained minor injuries.

Updated on: 19 June 2020 8:02 am

You get lied to a lot by the CCP, mate.

 

[randomradio]

I dont know why our government is not releasing the videos of handing over 26 dead bodies to you and returning over a dozen injured PLA soldiers.

We can use it for leverage when it comes into play during new tensions. Threaten to release footage that could discredit the CCP overnight in the eyes of the Chinese and affect national morale. This could give us significant bargaining advantages.

 

[LX1111]

The LCA's size is fine for its role. It was designed to fit into the Mig-21's hangars.

As for flight performance, the IAF pilots have claimed it's very good.

The Malaysians rated the LCA Mk1 to be superior to the JF-17 and FA-50. They claimed LCA was cheaper and better than the FA-50, but it had a smaller service record.

The LCA's size is fine for its role. It was designed to fit into the Mig-21's hangars.

As for flight performance, the IAF pilots have claimed it's very good.

The Malaysians rated the LCA Mk1 to be superior to the JF-17 and FA-50. They claimed LCA was cheaper and better than the FA-50, but it had a smaller service record

In the Chinese forum, we rarely read these subjective reports, we will calculate the thrust-weight ratio, wing load, lift-drag ratio and other data to evaluate the aircraft, as for the development process of tejas, the relevant information has been a lot, there is no need for you to promote false information here
Did any Malaysian media say they were more interested in Tejas?