MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[randomradio]

With combined 57 + 26 = 83,
Rafale previous order 36 , 83+36 = 119 .
Doesn't it qualify for completion of MMRCA?

Hellfire in twitter thinks in terms of F18 for both IN & IAF. Purchase + lease.

Originally a second order of 36 Rafales followed by the extra squadron of Mig-29s would have given us 5 squadrons, along with MRCBF. But that's not how the IAF is really counting it.

Kind of a disaster. Can India really get a production line for 57 aircrtaft?

My question too. I suppose full ToT will come in only if a second order is placed, so the current order may limit ToT. So the companies should be able to safeguard their tech that way.

 

[Parthu]

A local production line for mere 57 planes is never going to work. Any talk of potential future orders is moot because without assured orders upfront no one will set up production. The new tender is dead before its even born.

I'd much prefer a Govt-to-Govt deal for 57 more Rafales (F4) and call it a day.

 

[Hydra]

A local production line for mere 57 planes is never going to work. Any talk of potential future orders is moot because without assured orders upfront no one will set up production. The new tender is dead before its even born.

I'd much prefer a Govt-to-Govt deal for 57 more Rafales (F4) and call it a day.

Original requirement is 126-189 mmrca. Even with 57 additional Rafale, the cumulative number will be less than 50% of what was originally envisioned.

 

[randomradio]

Do you have any authentic source of info or just a wild guess?

There is a reason behind it. A production line for 57 is too less for the low potential ToT comensurate with the size of the investment. So a second contract will be necessary to maintain the line. MoD will want to protect jobs and the capability to build such jets until our own begin flying. That's about early to mid 2035. It can result in more AMCA purchases, which could climb up to a 10-squadron program, basically swallowing up MRFA options. The Rafale line will need to be maintained until then to hedge our bets against any failure in TEDBF and AMCA.

57 Rafales will take 8 years for delivery. Assuming a contract in 2026, we will get all the jets in 2034. If we assume production remains unbroken, then a second contract of 57 could take 4 years, taking us to 2038 or even 2039, just in time for AMCA Mk2's serial production. By this time we will know how successful we could be.

 

[randomradio]

A local production line for mere 57 planes is never going to work. Any talk of potential future orders is moot because without assured orders upfront no one will set up production. The new tender is dead before its even born.

I'd much prefer a Govt-to-Govt deal for 57 more Rafales (F4) and call it a day.

57 F4 + 57 F5... Something that I've wanted since 2014. Basically the most advanced version available until delivery and a second batch of the next version.

 

[Lolwa]

It seems to be NATO style, where new models can be introduced with each batch. So 57 F4 followed by 57 more F5s and so on.

I hope that's the case. This seems to be a similar deal to the k9 thunder deal.

 

[randomradio]

I hope that's the case. This seems to be a similar deal to the k9 thunder deal.

Possibly.

Before the MKI, production used to be large scale, so 150-250 jets used to be manufactured and delivered in a very short time, like what China is doing today. So we used to buy a new version with each batch. This time, we will have to do what the Europeans do, ie, buy new versions in small batches.

114 right off the bat would mean the same F4.2 version being inducted even in 2035, when the French would be delivering the F5 standard. We can't afford repeating the mistakes made in the MKI program.

 

[TARGET]

57 F4 + 57 F5... Something that I've wanted since 2014. Basically the most advanced version available until delivery and a second batch of the next version.

I like this approach of 57... it's more practical compared to the previous acquisition plan where a big amount of money would have been blocked for single acquisition plan of 114.

 

[Parthu]

Original requirement is 126-189 mmrca. Even with 57 additional Rafale, the cumulative number will be less than 50% of what was originally envisioned.

The bulk of that requirement will now apparently be met by Tejas Mk-2.

 

[Hydra]

I hope that's the case. This seems to be a similar deal to the k9 thunder deal.

K9 follow on order ( that yet to be placed any way ) is actually at the expense of 180 mounted guns. In reality we didn't increase the capabilities, its like kids wants 2 packet each of kurkure & lays,but mommy brought 3 packets of kurkure and telling him "look, dont cry i brought you 3 packets of kurkure instead of 2" but conveniently hide the facts about 2 lays.

I like this approach of 57... it's more practical compared to the previous acquisition plan where a big amount of money would have been blocked for single acquisition plan of 114.

All the Money will not be spend or payed to the oem the ver next day after signing the contract, it will be spread for the entire project period. If you purchase 57 initially & 57 later or 114 together, the financial burden per year will be same.

 

[Hydra]

The bulk of that requirement will now apparently be met by Tejas Mk-2.

Yeas, that what i am telling for the last few months, HAL is sabotaging mrfa and pushing for the MK2. We all paying the price for selecting illiterate to center ( i am not talking exclusively for this government, its pretty much same from 1947 onwards), they cant differentiate what is good & whst is bad.

Sadly our sky will be protected by short legged, mediocre & outdated MK2.

 

[TARGET]

All the Money will not be spend or payed to the oem the ver next day after signing the contract, it will be spread for the entire project period. If you purchase 57 initially & 57 later or 114 together, the financial burden per year will be same.

Despite the sequential payment structure we may have to block a certain amount every year as per the projection to avoid risk.it may be a bad decision if we will go for another 57 Rafales after completion of this acquisition but who knows what will happen in the future... after 7 to 8 years from now we will have more clarity on our indigenous fighter plane projects which are in pipeline, I think this will help our indigenous projects in long-term.

 

[Lolwa]

K9 follow on order ( that yet to be placed any way ) is actually at the expense of 180 mounted guns. In reality we didn't increase the capabilities, its like kids wants 2 packet each of kurkure & lays,but mommy brought 3 packets of kurkure and telling him "look, dont cry i brought you 3 packets of kurkure instead of 2" but conveniently hide the facts about 2 lays.

All the Money will not be spend or payed to the oem the ver next day after signing the contract, it will be spread for the entire project period. If you purchase 57 initially & 57 later or 114 together, the financial burden per year will be same.

Actually the demand was for around 1700 truck mounted artillery which got lost somewhere. Realistically to counter both Chinese and the Pakiterrorists we need around 500-700 sph and around 2000+ truck mounted artillery of different calibers. I hope the abbots and the gozdvika are modernised and upgraded too. They can be very useful in airborne assualts or higher terrain the Himalayas...

 

[randomradio]

The bulk of that requirement will now apparently be met by Tejas Mk-2.

Mk2 can't replace twin engine jets. The IAF won't accept such a downgrade either.

 

[randomradio]

Despite the sequential payment structure we may have to block a certain amount every year as per the projection to avoid risk.it may be a bad decision if we will go for another 57 Rafales after completion of this acquisition but who knows what will happen in the future... after 7 to 8 years from now we will have more clarity on our indigenous fighter plane projects which are in pipeline, I think this will help our indigenous projects in long-term.

The money freed up during the delivery of the last of the 57 will go into the next batch of 57. There won't be any need to block more funds.

 

[Parthu]

Mk2 can't replace twin engine jets. The IAF won't accept such a downgrade either.

There is no special preference for twin engine - there was actually a preference for single engine 4.5 gens (what SEF was about) because you need large numbers of 4.5G SEFs in order to keep up sortie rates & availability in peacetime & early on in the war while still maintaining combat edge i.e. true replacement for MiG-21s.

What's needed from the current tender is a 4.5G jet that can lift a considerably higher payload than Tejas Mk-1, and has AESA + IRST. Which is why F-21 and Gripen E are still competing.

Whatever requirement for twin-engine 4.5G jets still remains unfulfilled (for DPSAs) can be met by 36-57 more Rafales.

Not to mention the hard fact that a fleet of 126-189 foreign IP twin-engine 4.5G jets of Western standards are simply beyond our financial means even for an off-the-shelf buy, let alone local production which is even more expensive. They always were beyond means - which is why the original tender only resulted in a buy of 36 jets, and why the new one got slashed to 57 (and might yet end up being a buy of only 36 again).

Yeas, that what i am telling for the last few months, HAL is sabotaging mrfa and pushing for the MK2. We all paying the price for selecting illiterate to center ( i am not talking exclusively for this government, its pretty much same from 1947 onwards), they cant differentiate what is good & whst is bad.

Sadly our sky will be protected by short legged, mediocre & outdated MK2.

As I said to Randomradio above, a fleet of 126-189 foreign jets was never an affordable proposition for us - these tenders are mere passtime.

Tejas Mk2 is actually a pretty capable design - as long as they manage to deliver it.

 

[randomradio]

There is no special preference for twin engine - there was actually a preference for single engine 4.5 gens (what SEF was about) because you need large numbers of 4.5G SEFs in order to keep up sortie rates & availability in peacetime & early on in the war while still maintaining combat edge i.e. true replacement for MiG-21s.

There is a need for both, but the TE preference is real.

Raha:

IAF in requirement of 200 plus aircrafts over next 10 years Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha

spsmai.com

He stated his personal preference for twin engine to cover the varied geographies of our county.

Dhanoa:

IAF to start process to acquire single engine jets this month

"The RFI for the single engine fighter is likely to be issued very soon," Dhanoa said addressing a press conference.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

The IAF chief, however, said the force has requirement of twin engine jets as well.

Basically, if it's not Rafale, it has to be something else, whatever comes out of MRFA. And if the IAF is to prevent adding more animals to the zoo, this tender can only serve to buy time for AMCA. ORCA's a pie in the sky.

What's needed from the current tender is a 4.5G jet that can lift a considerably higher payload than Tejas Mk-1, and has AESA + IRST. Which is why F-21 and Gripen E are still competing.

Actually, if you've read the second article I posted, they responded to the initial single engine tender. It's only after GoI interference that the tender switched back to twin engine again, they didn't want a single vendor situation with only 2 competitors. And as was the case with MMRCA, it would be rude to kick the two jets out in the new tender. Currently, both F-21 and Gripen E are pointless existences to the IAF. This requirement has already been replaced by the LCA Mk2.

Whatever requirement for twin-engine 4.5G jets still remains unfulfilled (for DPSAs) can be met by 36-57 more Rafales.

The TE requirement is 200-250. And one of the core criterias within requirements is geography. The only real option is to replace the MRFA with something else that has two engines. We need 36-57 in each sector, and we have 3 such sectors, N, SW and NE. Hence the need for 6 squadrons at the minimum or up to 9 optimum. You can bet that this new tender will come at least with 2 bases.

You can picture it in your mind too. Say, 2 squadrons in the N, 2 in the NE and 2 somewhere in the center or the SW. One base is almost always away from where the fighting is happening. So the IAF is at least preparing for 7-8 squadrons in total. The remaining requirement can be fulfilled by AMCA as and when it becomes available. You can even buy 50 squadrons of LCA, but you still need these 2-3 squadrons of TE jets in every sector.

Not to mention the hard fact that a fleet of 126-189 foreign IP twin-engine 4.5G jets of Western standards are simply beyond our financial means even for an off-the-shelf buy, let alone local production which is even more expensive. They always were beyond means - which is why the original tender only resulted in a buy of 36 jets, and why the new one got slashed to 57 (and might yet end up being a buy of only 36 again).

The old tender died due to a multitude of reasons, it was set up for a country managing 8-9% growth in GDP. But the new tender has less to do with affordability and more to do with bean counting. The govt has simply decided it doesn't want to spend so much money all at once. 114 jets will lock up capex funds, but splitting the numbers into two different deals would mean the other half can be spent today, while the first 57 deliver. The IAF is bound to get all 6 squadrons this way. And if this happens, it's an overall superior deal compared to buying all at once. We get to save half our money at first and we also get to bring in new versions later on.

You also have to remember that the IAF will not have any other option until AMCA Mk2 is ready, that's easily around 2037 or beyond, which is a very sketchy schedule at best, but still a 15-year hole to plug at the minimum. 20 if we actually consider the delivery of the first 5 AMCA squadrons too.

 

[Hydra]

There is no special preference for twin engine - there was actually a preference for single engine 4.5 gens (what SEF was about) because you need large numbers of 4.5G SEFs in order to keep up sortie rates & availability in peacetime & early on in the war while still maintaining combat edge i.e. true replacement for MiG-21s.

What's needed from the current tender is a 4.5G jet that can lift a considerably higher payload than Tejas Mk-1, and has AESA + IRST. Which is why F-21 and Gripen E are still competing.

Whatever requirement for twin-engine 4.5G jets still remains unfulfilled (for DPSAs) can be met by 36-57 more Rafales.

Not to mention the hard fact that a fleet of 126-189 foreign IP twin-engine 4.5G jets of Western standards are simply beyond our financial means even for an off-the-shelf buy, let alone local production which is even more expensive. They always were beyond means - which is why the original tender only resulted in a buy of 36 jets, and why the new one got slashed to 57 (and might yet end up being a buy of only 36 again).



As I said to Randomradio above, a fleet of 126-189 foreign jets was never an affordable proposition for us - these tenders are mere passtime.

Tejas Mk2 is actually a pretty capable design - as long as they manage to deliver it.

World's fifth largest economy, and we are not even spending 1.5% of your GDP for defense. If Scandinavian countries with technically no threat can spend 2%+ of their GDP, then we too can do the same.

 

[suryakiran]

The bulk of that requirement will now apparently be met by Tejas Mk-2.

HAL to MoD

 

[Parthu]

There is a need for both, but the TE preference is real.

Raha:

IAF in requirement of 200 plus aircrafts over next 10 years Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha

spsmai.com

He stated his personal preference for twin engine to cover the varied geographies of our county.

Dhanoa:

IAF to start process to acquire single engine jets this month

"The RFI for the single engine fighter is likely to be issued very soon," Dhanoa said addressing a press conference.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

The IAF chief, however, said the force has requirement of twin engine jets as well.

Basically, if it's not Rafale, it has to be something else, whatever comes out of MRFA. And if the IAF is to prevent adding more animals to the zoo, this tender can only serve to buy time for AMCA. ORCA's a pie in the sky.



Actually, if you've read the second article I posted, they responded to the initial single engine tender. It's only after GoI interference that the tender switched back to twin engine again, they didn't want a single vendor situation with only 2 competitors. And as was the case with MMRCA, it would be rude to kick the two jets out in the new tender. Currently, both F-21 and Gripen E are pointless existences to the IAF. This requirement has already been replaced by the LCA Mk2.

I'm not saying TE requirement isn't there - but that fulfilling TE requirements (in context of this tender) with foreign jets is unfeasible so won't be done. And anyway, the only real outstanding requirement for TE fighters comes from need of DPSAs, which is what the Air Chiefs are concerned about filling.

The TE requirement is 200-250. And one of the core criterias within requirements is geography. The only real option is to replace the MRFA with something else that has two engines. We need 36-57 in each sector, and we have 3 such sectors, N, SW and NE. Hence the need for 6 squadrons at the minimum or up to 9 optimum. You can bet that this new tender will come at least with 2 bases.

You can picture it in your mind too. Say, 2 squadrons in the N, 2 in the NE and 2 somewhere in the center or the SW. One base is almost always away from where the fighting is happening. So the IAF is at least preparing for 7-8 squadrons in total. The remaining requirement can be fulfilled by AMCA as and when it becomes available. You can even buy 50 squadrons of LCA, but you still need these 2-3 squadrons of TE jets in every sector.

93 Rafales (36+57) already give you 5 squadrons. IAF has been operating with a squadron deficit for as long as we can remember, I don't see why that won't continue into the future given the meagre increases (stagnation actually) in CAPEX allocation.

Only way we can obtain ~250 TE fighters is with 150 AMCA thrown into the mix - which is perfectly feasible given domestic companies like HAL are always forced to run with huge payment backlogs. But either way, fulfilling this whole requirement with foreign fighters is beyond our means.

The old tender died due to a multitude of reasons, it was set up for a country managing 8-9% growth in GDP. But the new tender has less to do with affordability and more to do with bean counting. The govt has simply decided it doesn't want to spend so much money all at once. 114 jets will lock up capex funds, but splitting the numbers into two different deals would mean the other half can be spent today, while the first 57 deliver. The IAF is bound to get all 6 squadrons this way. And if this happens, it's an overall superior deal compared to buying all at once. We get to save half our money at first and we also get to bring in new versions later on.

You also have to remember that the IAF will not have any other option until AMCA Mk2 is ready, that's easily around 2037 or beyond, which is a very sketchy schedule at best, but still a 15-year hole to plug at the minimum. 20 if we actually consider the delivery of the first 5 AMCA squadrons too.

World's fifth largest economy, and we are not even spending 1.5% of your GDP for defense. If Scandinavian countries with technically no threat can spend 2%+ of their GDP, then we too can do the same.

Don't just look at size of the economy, look at size of the annual budget which is what your spending is derived from, not your GDP - your budget is roughly equal to that of Canada. Countries with a similarly sized GDP as you like UK have a budget almost twice as more. And when you account for the huge cost of building infrastructure & developmental programs (which industrialized countries don't have to worry about) it becomes equivalent to that of Australia or South Korea.

The fact that we manage to build & maintain an independent nuclear deterrence program with this is nothing short of a miracle.