MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 28 12.3%
  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 180 78.9%
  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 3 1.3%
  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 6 2.6%
  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • F-18 SH

    Votes: 10 4.4%
  • F-15EX

    Votes: 7 3.1%
  • Mig-35

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    228
As
FEATURED
No More Rafales! Why Indian Air Force Could Reject Second Batch Of Dassault Rafale Jets?

Published
2 hours ago
on
September 20, 2020
By
EurAsian Times Desk
As the Indian Air Force (IAF) looks to further bolster its aerial fleet after the successful acquisition of French Dassault Rafales, its proposed Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) 2.0 contract for the procurement of 114 additional fighters will look for suitors from the best fighters on the face of the planet.

With the newly procured Rafales providing a solid foundation for the IAF to look out for an equal or an even better fighter jet, two options loom around for India to bank on, which include additional Rafale jets from France or the new F-15EX.
Despite the addition of the 4.5 generation Rafales, IAF’s current strength stands at 31 squadrons against the sanctioned one of 42 squadrons and with the threats of neighbors – China and Pakistan lurking around each of its borders, here are a few reasons that IAF experts believe why India could opt for F-15EX over additional Rafale jets.
SIZE, FRAME, SPEED AND RANGE
The most advanced version of the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle twin-engine, all-weather tactical fighter jet, the F-15EX uses the frame of the classic F-15 and bears a resemblance to the Su-30 MKI in terms of its size.
Due to its size, the F-15EX fulfills a variety of roles like air superiority, interceptor, deep penetration strikes against enemy infrastructure, strategic bombing, and ground attack.
F-15EX has a combat range of 1,100 miles as compared to the 670 miles range offered by the F-35s. Moreover, the F-15EX has a speed of Mach 2.5 as compared to F-35s speed of Mach 1.6 and can accommodate heavy radars.
The F-35 however, due to its smaller stature, cannot accommodate heavy radars and fuel as compared to F-15EX.
A BETTER DOGFIGHTER
The F-35s are heavily loaded with stealth features and air-to-ground missions, which make it a less capable dogfighter than the F-15 EX in close quarters.
With Emerging threats from China and Pakistan, there is a need for an aircraft that can fly for longer hours, is heavily equipped with weapons systems, and is big enough to carry substantial fuel tanks, so that they do not have to return to the airbase for refueling.
F-15EX is just the fighter, with its predecessors already battle-tested in the middle-east and with their ability to strike deep into enemy terrority with the capability of carrying nuclear weapons makes them invincible. Even the US Air Force is looking to supplement their stealth F-35s jets with F-15EX for deep strike capabilities.
MORE WEAPONS
The F-15EX can carry twenty-two air-to-air missiles and other heavy weapons, including ASAT, JASSM-ER, GBU-28 Bunker Buster laser-guided bomb, hypersonic cruise missiles, and AGM-84H SLAM ER, which are far more than an F-35’s payload capacity.
The F-15EX’s massive weapon loadout makes it a beast in any “Beyond Visual Range” (BVR) fight and not only that, it carries more firepower than any other fighter jet currently deployed under the US Air Force.
A MULTIROLE FIGHTER
F-15EX-india

While an F-35 fighter is a proven valuable combat aircraft and serves as their most advanced jet in their inventory, the F-15EX serves a different role under the US Air Force. It can be used for enforcing no-fly zones, homeland defense, or delivering stand-off munitions in fights with no or limited air defenses.
F-15EX, being a heavy fighter is deployed for strategic effect due to their potent deterrent capability, as compared to their smaller cousin F-35, which has a much-restricted role. Therefore, it becomes easier for enemy aircraft or defense systems to engage against the smaller F-35s than be deployed against the more potent F-15EX.
Moreover, the F-35s’ combat role is further restricted due to its inability to carry more than eight missiles, while also not being able to carry heavy bombs to destroy strategic targets and enemy infrastructure.
The F-35 is an aircraft used for tactical operations and due to its limited role has less air supremacy than the F-15EX, which is an airspace dominance fighter. This means that the F-15EX can perform a variety of roles including cross border strikes, engaging in proximity fights with enemy fighter aircraft, destroying enemy ships while keeping the aircraft carriers at a safe distance.
SUITABILITY IN LADAKH REGION
With reports of the IAF deploying Su-30s, MKI, Jaguar, Mirage 2000 fighters and potentially the Rafales in the Ladakh region against the Chinese, the addition of the F-15EX could be a game-changer due to the fighter’s heavy engine capacities making it better suited to operability in high altitude regions.
It is predicted that there may come a time, when stealth drones carrying out the roles and functions of an F-35 fighter may end up replacing the jet. However, the possibility of that applying to a heavyweight fighter like the F-15EX is highly unlikely.
OPEN MISSION SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE (OMS)
Developed by American aerospace juggernauts Boeing, the two-seat fighter overshadows its predecessor F-15s because of its Open Mission Systems (OMS) architecture.
According to Boeing, “The most significant difference between the F-15EX and legacy F-15s lies in its Open Mission Systems (OMS) architecture. The OMS architecture will enable the rapid insertion of the latest aircraft technologies.”
WHAT DO THE EXPERTS SAY?
Dr. Will Roper, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, while praising the digital capabilities of the latest addition to the F-15 fighter family, says,
“The F-15EX’s digital backbone, open mission systems, and generous payload capacity fit well with our vision for future net-enabled warfare, cotinually upgrading systems, and how they share data across the Joint Force, is critical for defeating advanced threats. F-15EX is designed to evolve from day one.”
According to a serving Group Captain in the Indian Air Force who did not wish to be named, there is a need for India to get its hands on fighters apart from the Rafales and F-15EX falls into it.
“India doesn’t need to go out for Rafales again because we already have three dozens of them, at least by the time all our delivered. We need to look for a different fighter, which offers something extra, something on the lines of an F-35, Su-57 or the new F-15 (F-15EX) jets. The main idea was to have a superior air fleet which was settled with the French deal, now it is about adding extra quality to the ranks while also taking care of the quantity required by our forces.”
A Defence Expert, Rohit Thakur, who also manages an Indian Defence Website has labeled India’s plan as a welcome call to the F-15EX, with the F-15EX reported to have already been running for the earlier Indian Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract.
“IAF had already looked at the latest F-15 as an option for its air fleet and while it will also compete with the F-35s, India at the moment doesn’t need to have stealth jets and rather than paying heavily for one, the focus should be on getting a better 4.5 generation or fourth generation fighter than Rafale, which brings quality as well as builds numbers.”
F-35 fighters still remain the most in-demand fighters on the face of the planet due to their stealth technology, however, even the US Air Force has been extremely impressed with F-15EX jets and recently placed an order with Boeing with the aim of supporting the F-35s.
“The F-15EX is the most advanced version of the F-15 ever built, due in large part to its digital backbone, its unmatched range, price and best-in-class payload capacity make the F-15EX an attractive choice for the U.S. Air Force.” said Lori Schneider, Boeing F-15EX program manager.
The expert concluded by saying that Rafales are excellent fighters, however, it looks unlikely for now that India would acquire more of them. Besides the F-15EX, India would be especially keen to explore the Russian Su-35 or 57 jets unless Washington puts the F-35s on table.
Penned By MANSIJ ASTHANA

As a unofficial salesman of the f15ex I would say this news as planted as the one with the Lockheed Martins..
 
From Finland Proposal:

Mature Aircraft, Combat & Support Proven :
RAFALE is in-service since 2004 in the Navy, since 2006 in the French Air Force. Entry first, international coalitions, joint and allied exercises, small deployment for crisis management… able to fly 350 hours in a month, and up to 1000 flight hours in a year;

Structural Design safe-life target of
9000 hours for the Airframe.

 

So, if necessary, the 36 Rafales can manage over 12000 hours of flying all on their own in just 1 month. That's basically a Rafale flying about 12 hours a day for 30 days straight. That's 5 sorties a day, 2-2.5 hours each.

So a full squadron can perform surge operations of 90 sorties per day for a whole month. Not 3 days or 5 days, a whole friggin' month!!!

That's dope.
 
Su30MKI do around 200 hours a year , so around 250 hours with easier maintenance and lower costs per year will be really good.
250 h a year is around 20 h a month, so your 5 Rafale are able to generate 350 X 5= 1750 h in a month the same as 87 SU 30 MKI. Certainly you must be looking forward to the next 5. ;)
 
Su30MKI do around 200 hours a year , so around 250 hours with easier maintenance and lower costs per year will be really good.

Those are peacetime figures. The MKIs can do 3 sorties a day for many days, just that we do not know how many is many. But definitely not an entire month.

250 h a year is around 20 h a month, so your 5 Rafale are able to generate 350 X 5= 1750 h in a month the same as 87 SU 30 MKI. Certainly you must be looking forward to the next 5. ;)

Peacetime figures. The MKIs can obviously do much more during surge ops.

Then there's also the question of crew fatigue for both aircraft. But I'm sure the Rafale crews will be able to sustain for much longer.

If the number of Rafales go up to 250, and considering 200 are available, then 200x5x30 will give us 30000 sorties in a month. We basically do not need the rest of the air force then. :ROFLMAO:
 
If the number of Rafales go up to 250, and considering 200 are available, then 200x5x30 will give us 30000 sorties in a month. We basically do not need the rest of the air force then. :ROFLMAO:
This is why we have replaced 593 old planes by 152 Rafales, we don't need any more and we can even offer 12 second-hand planes to Greece and 12 others to Croatia! We still have about a hundred Mirage 2000 to replace, which will be possible with the 28 Rafale already ordered from Dassault, and then we will order another 30 to reinforce the air force with more F4.2 compatible versions.
 
This is why we have replaced 593 old planes by 152 Rafales, we don't need any more and we can even offer 12 second-hand planes to Greece and 12 others to Croatia! We still have about a hundred Mirage 2000 to replace, which will be possible with the 28 Rafale already ordered from Dassault, and then we will order another 30 to reinforce the air force with more F4.2 compatible versions.

France has an oversupply of land-based fighter jets already. What you need is more capability in the water, that you can take around the world at any time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil
Those are peacetime figures. The MKIs can do 3 sorties a day for many days, just that we do not know how many is many. But definitely not an entire month.

Peacetime figures. The MKIs can obviously do much more during surge ops.

Then there's also the question of crew fatigue for both aircraft. But I'm sure the Rafale crews will be able to sustain for much longer.

If the number of Rafales go up to 250, and considering 200 are available, then 200x5x30 will give us 30000 sorties in a month. We basically do not need the rest of the air force then. :ROFLMAO:

I'm willing to believe these are peacetime figures, but I had another estimate for this kind of figure from this post:
That leaves HAL Nashik heavily dependent on orders for overhauling the Sukhoi-30 fleet. With each fighter requiring an overhaul after 1,500 hours of flying (or 14 years of service, if that happens first)
The overhaul is after 1,500 hours or 14 years of service if that happens first, so the second criteria is useful only if there is less than 100 hours of fly a year. It seems to me that it was 10 years in the first instance, which was 150 hours of flight time, but that this was changed because the planes were flying less.
But there is another indication:
the IAF’s fleet of 272 Su-30MKIs would, at its peak, require 30 fighters to be overhauled each year.
This means an overhaul every 9 years for each plane that is to say that statistically an SU30-MKI fly 167 hours a year.

For the crew fatigue we have 1.4 pilot by Rafale but during a surge in OPEX we can increase this number to 3, 4 ,5 if needed. The same for maintenance technician.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
France has an oversupply of land-based fighter jets already. What you need is more capability in the water, that you can take around the world at any time.
It's not obvious because we have a lot of territories spread all over the world and we regularly demonstrate our ability to carry out missions at very great distances. So if we have a problem in the seas in a region of the world we will organise a long-distance intervention which will retreat to the nearest territory in order to renew the necessary actions while waiting for our aircraft carrier to arrive on the spot.
And the availability of the Rafale also has consequences for our aircraft carrier: the Charles de Gaulle was in the Red Sea at the same time as an American carrier. The US carrier had 80 Fighters and the CDG had 16 Rafales and 12 Super Etendard. Well, the number of missions that the CDG generated was 80% of those that the US carrier generated.
 
Last edited:
I'm willing to believe these are peacetime figures, but I had another estimate for this kind of figure from this post:

The overhaul is after 1,500 hours or 14 years of service if that happens first, so the second criteria is useful only if there is less than 100 hours of fly a year. It seems to me that it was 10 years in the first instance, which was 150 hours of flight time, but that this was changed because the planes were flying less.
But there is another indication:

This means an overhaul every 9 years for each plane that is to say that statistically an SU30-MKI fly 167 hours a year.

For the crew fatigue we have 1.4 pilot by Rafale but during a surge in OPEX we can increase this number to 3, 4 ,5 if needed. The same for maintenance technician.

The MKIs had lower availability due to spares supply issues. Plus not enough pilots. So with more planes than pilots, the planes would also fly less. So this has less to do with the aircraft itself and more to do with bureaucracy. For example, the Russians used to accept spares contract on a per year basis. So there was no long term supply, like 5 years. And the contract related process was also a year long. So it took 2 years of work to get 1 year's worth or supply. This was a pretty big failure of Russian/Soviet bureaucracy for all these decades. Another example is, we have taken delivery of all the MKIs we ordered, but we are yet to raise all the squadrons, so we don't have enough pilots.

But in case of surge ops, where MKIs are expected to do 3 sorties a day, as long as spares are available, then this is achieveable for significant periods of time. So, while the Rafale can fly 12 hours a day, the MKIs should be able to manage 7.5 hours a day. The only question is if MKI can also manage such a high rate over an entire month or will fizzle out after a week or less.
 
Normally the more planes you have that can fly, the more flying hours you have available and the more pilots you attract. It's when planes don't fly much that pilots lose their skills and eventually leave.

In the previous decade it was an issue with pay and perks. Experienced civilian pilots were making many, many times more than IAF pilots. So pilots would seek early retirement. And there was also an issue with finding cadets to train because private industry would pay more.

.

Now the IAF pays 2 to 2.5x greater than the private industry at the entry level in order to attract cadets to make up for the loss of experienced pilots at the higher level.

Although the IAF has not touched upon it publicly, I believe the MKIs to pilots ratio was more in favour of the aircraft than the manpower. So the pilots get 200-250 hours of flying every year, but if you have more planes, then it's the planes that are flying less.

Take the Mig-21 for example, all pilots get 20 sorties a month, which is basically 10 flying days with 2 sorties per day. That comes up to 240 sorties a year. It is likely the same for all other fighter jets as well. So you can expect the Rafale and MKI pilots also to do enough sorties a year when even the Mig-21 manages that many.
 
Push the Typhoon and Gripen down because of their outdated, detectable-jammable radars. And push the J-20 up 'cause it's being underestimated, especially in its latest J-20B avatar. Push the Su-35S out 'cause its current BVR weapon isn't good enough to even be on the list.
The arrival of Gripen in Brazil: perhaps this is how SAAB sees the Sea Gripen?


:D :D :D
 
  • Haha
Reactions: randomradio
If Brazil had bought the Rafale, their aircraft would have flown their way home. Even if it had meant carrying five drop tanks or following an MRTT.
 
If Brazil had bought the Rafale, their aircraft would have flown their way home. Even if it had meant carrying five drop tanks or following an MRTT.

Can't really expect people to do what's good for themselves all the time, especially when they are unable to identify what they need. The Brazilians only have their weak neighbours to worry about.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bon Plan