MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[randomradio]

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.

ORCA and AMCA are both 15 years away. Do you think 3 squadrons are enough to plug a 15-year gap?

The air chiefs wanted the Rafale 10 years ago, and are still waiting. And DPSA is really crucial because it's a war winning role. CAS and air defence are not. Without DPSA, the army's offensive can be halted because no one is hitting the enemy's most important targets.

93 Rafales (36+57) already give you 5 squadrons.

Okay, then what about the remaining 120? How would you split this number?

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.

The squadron deficit is only 10 years old. It began because the hundreds of Migs we operated came up for replacement and only the MKI was available. The MKI program was supposed to end in 2012 with 190 jets, 230 at worst. Then MMRCA and LCA were supposed to deliver 126+123 jets over a 12-year period. Both failed, hence the drawdown.

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.

Yes, but it's 15 years away. And then at least another 5-7 years to deliver the 5 squadrons ordered. Or we make a zoo by splitting the purchase between Rafale and ORCA, at the cost of increasing our dependency on the Americans, based on a new unproven jet that may or may not perform up to the mark, with the same risk or even higher risk with AMCA.

And at the same time, by settling for just 3 squadrons, we sacrifice a huge amount of capex by not getting enough ToT, which is the point of a production program, since the IAF wants significant control over the aircraft over its life, to the point where even OEM parts can be replaced if necessary, like we are doing on the MKI, something not possible without ToT.

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.

I am looking at the capital budget in particular. The IAF's capital budget is $7B. The USAF's is $22B. That's a 300% difference. But our capex has the potential to double by 2030, while the USAF's budget could at best increase to $30B. So we will still be half the USAF's capex.

It's not a miracle, India's just low cost. But out defence budget is quite big.

Even if we didn't have money, the MRFA is still priority number one for the IAF, they will make sure whatever money they have will go into it. This program is that important. For all we know, the IAF plans to simply buy all 9 squadron in 3 batches. Because at 12 Rafales a year, it will take us until 2044 to get all 9 squadrons, including the last 3 in parallel with the 5 AMCA squadrons.

 

[Parthu]

ORCA and AMCA are both 15 years away. Do you think 3 squadrons are enough to plug a 15-year gap?

The air chiefs wanted the Rafale 10 years ago, and are still waiting. And DPSA is really crucial because it's a war winning role. CAS and air defence are not. Without DPSA, the army's offensive can be halted because no one is hitting the enemy's most important targets.

93 off the shelf Rafales are sufficient for fulfilling the DPSA role. We have a very layered structure to tactical airpower.

126-189 was the total number of 4.5 gen fighters needed, not just DPSAs.

Even if they're not enough - they're gonna have to make do. You'll see this is why there has been a renewed push for setting up our own Rocket Forces with thousands of tactical missiles (cruise & ballistic) - we don't have the resources for an airpower-centric approach to Deep Strike, its gonna have to be a joint effort with the Army shouldering some of the burden in order to achieve desired results within our means.

Okay, then what about the remaining 120? How would you split this number?

Like I said - Tejas Mk2.

The MWF we know today is leaps & bounds ahead in terms of designed capability compared to the original Mk2 envisaged at first. MWF is in the league of Gripen E/F-21 and can substitute for several roles which were originally required by the 189 MMRCAs.

Remember that the process of design evolution of MWF was done in close consultation with IAF - they had already anticipated this situation.

The squadron deficit is only 10 years old.

That's as far as I can remember

Yes, but it's 15 years away. And then at least another 5-7 years to deliver the 5 squadrons ordered. Or we make a zoo by splitting the purchase between Rafale and ORCA, at the cost of increasing our dependency on the Americans, based on a new unproven jet that may or may not perform up to the mark, with the same risk or even higher risk with AMCA.

And at the same time, by settling for just 3 squadrons, we sacrifice a huge amount of capex by not getting enough ToT, which is the point of a production program, since the IAF wants significant control over the aircraft over its life, to the point where even OEM parts can be replaced if necessary, like we are doing on the MKI, something not possible without ToT.

Well that's the reality we have to deal with. 15+ years of fruitless haggling to purchase a foreign jet with ToT has to be a hint for where things are going. Try as we might, I'm willing to bet that the new Buy Global & Make Indian method is also likely to result in nothing but disappointment. Even if we had the money to realize a local production, the defence procurement procedures simply do not work.

The number of non-G2G, non-FMS, non-'Fast Track' deals, big & small, concluded by the MoD in the last 20 years can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Sure I'd love for us to order 189 Rafales with local production (as would the French love to provide ToT to do so) but the reality is we cannot show the money to make such a large deal happen, which forces us to go for smaller numbers like 36 or 57, which then fail to make it worthwhile for the foreign vendor to facilitate ToT.

Like it or not, off-the-shelf buys of 36-57 more Rafales, followed by ~150 orders for Tejas Mk-2 is the only practical way left for us to go - keeping both timelines, squadron requirements & financial limitations in mind.

 

[randomradio]

93 off the shelf Rafales are sufficient for fulfilling the DPSA role. We have a very layered structure to tactical airpower.

126-189 was the total number of 4.5 gen fighters needed, not just DPSAs.

The total requirement is 400 jets, with half of those being Rafale class.

270 MKIs + 400 SE and TE jets (all the LCAs and MRFAs) + 150 AMCA, gives us 800+ jets. And that's still short by 50-100 jets. So you can actually increase the SE/TE jets a lot more.

In fact there's no limit to the numbers for DPSA, the USAF is working on 175 strategic bombers for the same role. 93 Rafales is peanuts in comparison. And we need the Rafales for air superiority too, not just DPSA.

Even if they're not enough - they're gonna have to make do. You'll see this is why there has been a renewed push for setting up our own Rocket Forces with thousands of tactical missiles (cruise & ballistic) - we don't have the resources for an airpower-centric approach to Deep Strike, its gonna have to be a joint effort with the Army shouldering some of the burden in order to achieve desired results within our means.

The army needs the rocket force for its own use, not to assist the IAF. In any case, the army is unlikely to have all the missiles they need.

Like I said - Tejas Mk2.

The MWF we know today is leaps & bounds ahead in terms of designed capability compared to the original Mk2 envisaged at first. MWF is in the league of Gripen E/F-21 and can substitute for several roles which were originally required by the 189 MMRCAs.

Remember that the process of design evolution of MWF was done in close consultation with IAF - they had already anticipated this situation.

As I've pointed out before, it's impossible for the LCA to meet the Rafale's requirements. Substituting some roles is not enough simply because it's taking up the space meant for a better aircraft meant to perform a role the LCA cannot.

Quite literally, it's like comparing SF with regular infantry. You're literally claiming we should get ourselves a battalion of regular infantry over a battalion of Para SF. Well, the infantry can be kitted out the same as SF, so wouldn't you argue the SF is not necessary then?

That's as far as I can remember

We had a freakish number of Mig-21s, 23 and 27s before that. The Mig-21s alone numbered around 400. Mig-23 phased out in 2009, the Mig-25 in 2006. After 2010, it went downhill as the older Mig-21s and 27s left service. The 27s left in 2019 and there are way less than 80 21s left.

Well that's the reality we have to deal with. 15+ years of fruitless haggling to purchase a foreign jet with ToT has to be a hint for where things are going. Try as we might, I'm willing to bet that the new Buy Global & Make Indian method is also likely to result in nothing but disappointment. Even if we had the money to realize a local production, the defence procurement procedures simply do not work.

The number of non-G2G, non-FMS, non-'Fast Track' deals, big & small, concluded by the MoD in the last 20 years can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Sure I'd love for us to order 189 Rafales with local production (as would the French love to provide ToT to do so) but the reality is we cannot show the money to make such a large deal happen, which forces us to go for smaller numbers like 36 or 57, which then fail to make it worthwhile for the foreign vendor to facilitate ToT.

ToT doesn't require as much money as you think. Because such deals are long term and spent over many years.

It's just a case of how spending 10k 5 times at different times in a month is easier than spending 50k all at once.

Like it or not, off-the-shelf buys of 36-57 more Rafales, followed by ~150 orders for Tejas Mk-2 is the only practical way left for us to go - keeping both timelines, squadron requirements & financial limitations in mind.

That's not practical at all, that's a total failure in creating new capabilities. Simply because 1, the Rafale numbers are obviously way below what the IAF themselves need. And 2, because we already plan to buy 150-200 LCA Mk2s. What you are suggesting is we should buy 300+ Mk2s.

Remember, the total requirement for these two types is 400 jets. That's at least 20 squadrons. 12 MKI, 10 SE (or 9), 10 TE (or 11), 7 AMCA, 6 LCA Mk1/A gives us 45 squadrons.

 

[A Person]

Sure I'd love for us to order 189 Rafales with local production (as would the French love to provide ToT to do so) but the reality is we cannot show the money to make such a large deal happen

I don't think money would be such a problem if it were an American plane or a Russian one. There's considerably less political opposition and media scrutiny on those.

 

[Parthu]

I don't think money would be such a problem if it were an American plane or a Russian one.

In this case I'd say its the same for an American offer like F-15EX or F/A-18. Both are very expensive in these numbers, especially when combined with the costs of setting up local production.

The Russian jets are cheaper upfront, but the capabilities they deliver are sub-par and we incur expense via other means i.e. more frequent maintenance.

There's considerably less political opposition and media scrutiny on those.

This part, unfortunately is true.

 

[Parthu]

In fact there's no limit to the numbers for DPSA, the USAF is working on 175 strategic bombers for the same role. 93 Rafales is peanuts in comparison. And we need the Rafales for air superiority too, not just DPSA.

We cannot draw a parallel between the USAF's need for a global response force and our needs for knocking down the next door.

Like I said, there are roles where the Tejas Mk2 can prove an effective substitute. It will have the capacity to mount a similarly sized if not bigger radar than the Rafale, and used in conjunction with RAMJET Astra Mk-3 & Loyal Wingmen which can penetrate protected airspace, it can prove a formidable A2A and Swingrole platform.

The army needs the rocket force for its own use, not to assist the IAF. In any case, the army is unlikely to have all the missiles they need.

If we don't learn jointmanship I'm afraid we won't be able to overcome the threats we face. Not only does it increase the effectiveness of a given fighting force, but it can do so at a fraction of the cost of the way how we used to conduct warfighting, with each service stuck in its own silo and fighting its own war.

So I'm afraid such a thing as the Army's "own use" may not exist. The Army's equation vis-a-vis PLA or PA in technological or quantitative terms did not undergo any drastic change in recent times, so one can assume that the reinvention of the Rocket Forces doctrine is but a way to offset the IAF's problems.

You'll see even the reason the PLA maintains a large Rocket Force is chiefly derived from their lack of a survivable DPSA of good quality.

As I've pointed out before, it's impossible for the LCA to meet the Rafale's requirements. Substituting some roles is not enough simply because it's taking up the space meant for a better aircraft meant to perform a role the LCA cannot.

It's no longer the LCA - Tejas Mk2 is now a medium-weight fighter with its PDR & CDR carefully formulated with IAF at every step. It's no longer the same platform that was envisioned back when we expected to receive 189 foreign MMRCAs.

Quite literally, it's like comparing SF with regular infantry. You're literally claiming we should get ourselves a battalion of regular infantry over a battalion of Para SF. Well, the infantry can be kitted out the same as SF, so wouldn't you argue the SF is not necessary then?

I'm not saying they're not necessary - I'm saying we can't afford them in the quantities we thought we could. So we must now draw up a different plan.

We had a freakish number of Mig-21s, 23 and 27s before that. The Mig-21s alone numbered around 400. Mig-23 phased out in 2009, the Mig-25 in 2006. After 2010, it went downhill as the older Mig-21s and 27s left service. The 27s left in 2019 and there are way less than 80 21s left.

It's the same story with PLAAF - they too had freakishly large fleets of J-7s which are now being replaced by a comparatively smaller number of J-10s. And the Tejas Mk2 as it came out of the Critical Design Review is a superior platform to even the J-10C in pretty much all respects.

ToT doesn't require as much money as you think. Because such deals are long term and spent over many years.

It's just a case of how spending 10k 5 times at different times in a month is easier than spending 50k all at once.

Regardless, its evidently beyond our means as demonstrated over the last 15 years.

The total requirement is 400 jets, with half of those being Rafale class.

270 MKIs + 400 SE and TE jets (all the LCAs and MRFAs) + 150 AMCA, gives us 800+ jets. And that's still short by 50-100 jets. So you can actually increase the SE/TE jets a lot more.

That's not practical at all, that's a total failure in creating new capabilities. Simply because 1, the Rafale numbers are obviously way below what the IAF themselves need. And 2, because we already plan to buy 150-200 LCA Mk2s.


Remember, the total requirement for these two types is 400 jets. That's at least 20 squadrons. 12 MKI, 10 SE (or 9), 10 TE (or 11), 7 AMCA, 6 LCA Mk1/A gives us 45 squadrons.

The 45 squadron goal is clearly no longer achievable. The Navy has had to cut its plan for 200 major warships down to 175 and is looking at further downsizing of the planned force levels, the IAF will have to undergo a similar 'rightsizing' of its plans. We don't have an option.

One can even make the argument that the 45 squadron goal is no longer necessary - it was a plan drawn up before joint warfighting began to be seriously studied as a concept, before the advent of the Rocket Forces plan, before the advent of using Loyal Wingmen & drone swarms like the CATS program being made part of the mix. We have to look toward these solutions for winning future wars, not only because the technology has evolved but because we clearly can't afford to put together 45 tactical fighter squadrons anytime before 2050.

What you are suggesting is we should buy 300+ Mk2s.

We can build & buy as many Mk2s as we want. The bulk of the price of this platform will be paid by one arm of the Govt to another, in Rupees. The only major import will be the F414 engine. Even in the baddest of days, this is financially a workable solution.

 

[Hydra]

ORCA and AMCA are both 15 years away. Do you think 3 squadrons are enough to plug a 15-year gap?

The air chiefs wanted the Rafale 10 years ago, and are still waiting. And DPSA is really crucial because it's a war winning role. CAS and air defence are not. Without DPSA, the army's offensive can be halted because no one is hitting the enemy's most important targets.



Okay, then what about the remaining 120? How would you split this number?



The squadron deficit is only 10 years old. It began because the hundreds of Migs we operated came up for replacement and only the MKI was available. The MKI program was supposed to end in 2012 with 190 jets, 230 at worst. Then MMRCA and LCA were supposed to deliver 126+123 jets over a 12-year period. Both failed, hence the drawdown.



Yes, but it's 15 years away. And then at least another 5-7 years to deliver the 5 squadrons ordered. Or we make a zoo by splitting the purchase between Rafale and ORCA, at the cost of increasing our dependency on the Americans, based on a new unproven jet that may or may not perform up to the mark, with the same risk or even higher risk with AMCA.

And at the same time, by settling for just 3 squadrons, we sacrifice a huge amount of capex by not getting enough ToT, which is the point of a production program, since the IAF wants significant control over the aircraft over its life, to the point where even OEM parts can be replaced if necessary, like we are doing on the MKI, something not possible without ToT.



I am looking at the capital budget in particular. The IAF's capital budget is $7B. The USAF's is $22B. That's a 300% difference. But our capex has the potential to double by 2030, while the USAF's budget could at best increase to $30B. So we will still be half the USAF's capex.

It's not a miracle, India's just low cost. But out defence budget is quite big.

Even if we didn't have money, the MRFA is still priority number one for the IAF, they will make sure whatever money they have will go into it. This program is that important. For all we know, the IAF plans to simply buy all 9 squadron in 3 batches. Because at 12 Rafales a year, it will take us until 2044 to get all 9 squadrons, including the last 3 in parallel with the 5 AMCA squadrons.

The latevCDS has shaped our offensive operations in a really bad way, it is his idea to made IAF a supportive arm for Army & IN a defensive force pivoted around sub. GOI just reduced Rafale numbers so that they can induct more MK2 to do supportive role for IA.

 

[Hydra]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531719535820099584

Participant of desi weapon lobby

 

[Lolwa]

Just activate the follow-on for 36 Rafale's of the previous order and buy 57 with TOT. For faster delivery tbh. Present fleet is inadequate to handle the PLAAF especially with the j-10C's and j-20. Also mass production of UCAV's has to take place. Iran and turkey both are supplementing their air force crunch with drones and have had great results. The rustam 2 should atleast be mass produced and improved. Same for rustam 1.

 

[randomradio]

I don't think money would be such a problem if it were an American plane or a Russian one. There's considerably less political opposition and media scrutiny on those.

It's due to the way their procurement process works. France also needs to bring the DGA into export sales, like you did with the Rafale deal.

 

[suryakiran]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531719535820099584

Participant of desi weapon lobby

Could you point out where he is wrong?

 

[randomradio]

We cannot draw a parallel between the USAF's need for a global response force and our needs for knocking down the next door.

The requirements are pretty much the same, and against the same threats. The only difference is the numbers and the general capabilities of their MIC.

Like I said, there are roles where the Tejas Mk2 can prove an effective substitute. It will have the capacity to mount a similarly sized if not bigger radar than the Rafale, and used in conjunction with RAMJET Astra Mk-3 & Loyal Wingmen which can penetrate protected airspace, it can prove a formidable A2A and Swingrole platform.

No, the Tejas doesn't substitute, it cannot do some roles at all. Even if lesser capable, you need to be able to perform all the roles necessary to be called a substitute.

Yeah, LCA can perform air defence, but it's not just the avionics differences, there are airframe and engine differences too. Our currently planned drones aren't exactly very suitable for the DPS role either. What the LCA can do is escort the Rafale, if necessary. But it's definitely not a substitute.

If we don't learn jointmanship I'm afraid we won't be able to overcome the threats we face. Not only does it increase the effectiveness of a given fighting force, but it can do so at a fraction of the cost of the way how we used to conduct warfighting, with each service stuck in its own silo and fighting its own war.

Yeah, both capabilities are required, but you've decided to sacrifice one capability to favour another.

So I'm afraid such a thing as the Army's "own use" may not exist. The Army's equation vis-a-vis PLA or PA in technological or quantitative terms did not undergo any drastic change in recent times, so one can assume that the reinvention of the Rocket Forces doctrine is but a way to offset the IAF's problems.

You'll see even the reason the PLA maintains a large Rocket Force is chiefly derived from their lack of a survivable DPSA of good quality.

It's not a substitute for DPSA though. If rocket forces were enough, nobody would have bothered with DPSA.

The B-21 is expected to cost $200B, that's enough for 50000 Brahmos. But $200B worth of B-21s can do way, way more damage than 50000 Brahmos.

In fact DPSA are required to attack enemy rocket forces.

It's no longer the LCA - Tejas Mk2 is now a medium-weight fighter with its PDR & CDR carefully formulated with IAF at every step. It's no longer the same platform that was envisioned back when we expected to receive 189 foreign MMRCAs.

Yes, it has turned into something that's enough to replace the F-16/Gripen E, but it's still not designed for the DPS role. Neither are the F-16 and Gripen. And the LCA Mk2 is still not a proven airframe. It needs to begin that process by coming into existence first.

Have you ever considered that the IAF has divided the medium fighter role into SE and TE because we cannot afford all TE?

I'm not saying they're not necessary - I'm saying we can't afford them in the quantities we thought we could. So we must now draw up a different plan.

But we can. Because there's nothing else happening for this class of aircraft until after 2035. MKI production ended in 2020. AMCA Mk2's deliveries may only begin in 2038 or 2039. But you've decided that, assuming a 10-year capex of $70B (not counting growth), that's not enough money to buy an extra 3 squadrons to plug the gap. Where is all that money going then?

It's the same story with PLAAF - they too had freakishly large fleets of J-7s which are now being replaced by a comparatively smaller number of J-10s. And the Tejas Mk2 as it came out of the Critical Design Review is a superior platform to even the J-10C in pretty much all respects.

That's fine, that's how it works. After 2050, our manned numbers could drop drastically in favour of heavy and light drones.

But even the J-10C is in the same boat, it can't perform the Rafale's roles. They have the J-16 for that.

The 45 squadron goal is clearly no longer achievable. The Navy has had to cut its plan for 200 major warships down to 175 and is looking at further downsizing of the planned force levels, the IAF will have to undergo a similar 'rightsizing' of its plans. We don't have an option.

The IN's reduction is just a temporary change in priority. Their ambition for SSNs, IAC-2 and MRCBF, P-75I and helicopters too, has slowed down other projects, like the NGD, NGMV and NGC. They are choosing to invest in capability over numbers.

One can even make the argument that the 45 squadron goal is no longer necessary - it was a plan drawn up before joint warfighting began to be seriously studied as a concept, before the advent of the Rocket Forces plan, before the advent of using Loyal Wingmen & drone swarms like the CATS program being made part of the mix. We have to look toward these solutions for winning future wars, not only because the technology has evolved but because we clearly can't afford to put together 45 tactical fighter squadrons anytime before 2050.

All that's theoretical. It all depends on what the Chinese bring to the table, or the plateau, and we will have to match that.

If the Chinese bring 5000 missiles and 500 fighters, we will have to match that. Recall the old Cold War era military sizes? We are going back to that world again. This is Cold War 2.0. We are on the cusp of a new industrial revolution so things are going to change drastically over the next 10 years.

We can build & buy as many Mk2s as we want. The bulk of the price of this platform will be paid by one arm of the Govt to another, in Rupees. The only major import will be the F414 engine. Even in the baddest of days, this is financially a workable solution.

Investing only in the Tejas will change the mindset of the IAF. Becuase you can't train for a capability you don't have. What you are espousing is the Soviet doctrine, whereas I'm espousing NATO doctrine, when it comes to air combat. Basically the Soviet doctrine only wants the AF to support the army, and the army wins the war. But NATO doctrine does the former and still maintains capability for strategic effects as well, like attacking enemy rocket forces, C&C etc.

If we go only for Tejas, we will become like Taiwan or Sweden, where the hope is if the army does not win, someone else will come to help. Otoh, we need to be like the Israelis, where even their air force can contribute towards achieving victory. So the entire mindset will change, everything we have worked for in the last 7 decades will be destroyed in a single decade. That's the difference the Rafale creates.

Once we get into a defensive mindset, it will be incredibly hard to get out of it, even if the opportunity arises again in 2040 with AMCA. The USN suffers from the same problem and are further withdrawing into their shell in the next upgrade cycle.

Drones are also not an answer because by the time we get them and exercise with them and gain confidence in them, it's gonna be 2035-40. It's still an unproven concept today.

In any case, from the original 6+3, I firmly believe this deal will go 3+3+3, and it's the last set of 3 that "may" change hands with AMCA.

 

[randomradio]

The latevCDS has shaped our offensive operations in a really bad way, it is his idea to made IAF a supportive arm for Army & IN a defensive force pivoted around sub. GOI just reduced Rafale numbers so that they can induct more MK2 to do supportive role for IA.

GoI isn't interfering in the requirements, they are only interfering in the priority. Or MRFA wouldn't happen.

GoI is delaying large contracts in order to spend money elsewhere. In any case, all of the capex is being spent anyway. And large contracts are being signed as capex is freed up, like the LCA Mk1A and C-295.

Just activate the follow-on for 36 Rafale's of the previous order and buy 57 with TOT. For faster delivery tbh. Present fleet is inadequate to handle the PLAAF especially with the j-10C's and j-20. Also mass production of UCAV's has to take place. Iran and turkey both are supplementing their air force crunch with drones and have had great results. The rustam 2 should atleast be mass produced and improved. Same for rustam 1.

There was no follow-on option.

Those Turkish drones are useless in a real fight.

 

[Parthu]

The requirements are pretty much the same, and against the same threats. The only difference is the numbers and the general capabilities of their MIC.

And most importantly - money.

No, the Tejas doesn't substitute, it cannot do some roles at all. Even if lesser capable, you need to be able to perform all the roles necessary to be called a substitute.

Yeah, LCA can perform air defence, but it's not just the avionics differences, there are airframe and engine differences too. Our currently planned drones aren't exactly very suitable for the DPS role either. What the LCA can do is escort the Rafale, if necessary. But it's definitely not a substitute.

I'm not saying use Mk2 for DPS role - that will be performed by a combination of Rafale & precision strikes by Rocket Forces.

What I'm saying is that the original 189 requirement for foreign MMRCAs wasn't purely for DPSAs - it also included such roles as being a launch platform for advanced EBVRAAMs like Meteor, bringing interleaved operations capability of AESA FCRs to the table, and serving as a node in the emerging networked battlespace - these are the roles which Tejas Mk2 can manage just fine.

While Rafale can perform air defence/CAP in a pinch, it would be very expensive & a terrible waste of its airframe life to use it in that role.

What I'm saying is that the new MWF iteration of Mk2 is capable of substituting some of the roles originally meant for foreign MMRCAs, not all & certainly not the DPSA role.

Yeah, both capabilities are required, but you've decided to sacrifice one capability to favour another.

Not me - but the IAF & MoD have, I'm trying to analyze the situation is all, and trying to understand their thought process.

It's not a substitute for DPSA though. If rocket forces were enough, nobody would have bothered with DPSA.

The B-21 is expected to cost $200B, that's enough for 50000 Brahmos. But $200B worth of B-21s can do way, way more damage than 50000 Brahmos.

In fact DPSA are required to attack enemy rocket forces.

Never said Rocket Forces were 'enough' - but that modern, precision-guided missile forces can serve as a cost-effective alternative (especially over the ranges where we face our enemies) that can help you meet your offensive firepower needs while making do with a smaller number of DPSAs than previously thought.

Have you ever considered that the IAF has divided the medium fighter role into SE and TE because we cannot afford all TE?

That is precisely my point.

But we can. Because there's nothing else happening for this class of aircraft until after 2035. MKI production ended in 2020. AMCA Mk2's deliveries may only begin in 2038 or 2039.

Well, the fact that we're slashing our planned purchase by half does not indicate this to be the case.

But you've decided that, assuming a 10-year capex of $70B (not counting growth), that's not enough money to buy an extra 3 squadrons to plug the gap. Where is all that money going then?

I'm not saying that - as long as we keep with off-the-shelf purchases in small batches, we can move ahead with more squadrons as & when finances permit. But tying up the requirement to a contract for a large number of airframes + ToT will make the whole thing unaffordable.

Even at present with the 57 airframe contract, its made unworkable due to the ToT clause.

Obviously after dealing with all these vendors for 15 years both IAF & MoD are well aware of what's a viable proposition and what isn't - now you decide if this is actually done with the intent to purchase or is a passtime till the next batch order for 36 or so Rafales becomes a reality?

And if it is a passtime - you decide if it is so because IAF & MoD are fond of wasting time OR because of a far simpler explanation: we can't afford them.

That's fine, that's how it works. After 2050, our manned numbers could drop drastically in favour of heavy and light drones.

But even the J-10C is in the same boat, it can't perform the Rafale's roles. They have the J-16 for that.

Tbh, Rafale is considerably ahead of any Flanker-derived platform when it comes to DPS. Flankers cannot match the Rafale's low-flying characteristics and I would rate French/Western avionics & ECMs superior to Chinese counterparts.

The IN's reduction is just a temporary change in priority. Their ambition for SSNs, IAC-2 and MRCBF, P-75I and helicopters too, has slowed down other projects, like the NGD, NGMV and NGC. They are choosing to invest in capability over numbers.

...an adjustment brought about by, besides other reasons, an appreciation of the financial situation currently & in the foreseeable future.

All that's theoretical. It all depends on what the Chinese bring to the table, or the plateau, and we will have to match that.

If the Chinese bring 5000 missiles and 500 fighters, we will have to match that. Recall the old Cold War era military sizes? We are going back to that world again. This is Cold War 2.0. We are on the cusp of a new industrial revolution so things are going to change drastically over the next 10 years.

Obviously we will have to - but the fact is we are not an industrialized country like China, so we must take into account not only what our requirements are, but what is the most cost-effective way of achieving them.

Besides - take a look at our defence spending as a percentage of GDP, the general lethargy surrounding military reforms...does any of this resemble that of a country facing the threat of a two-front war?

Investing only in the Tejas will change the mindset of the IAF. Becuase you can't train for a capability you don't have. What you are espousing is the Soviet doctrine, whereas I'm espousing NATO doctrine, when it comes to air combat. Basically the Soviet doctrine only wants the AF to support the army, and the army wins the war. But NATO doctrine does the former and still maintains capability for strategic effects as well, like attacking enemy rocket forces, C&C etc.

But you must also appreciate the fact that the NATO & Soviet doctrines were a direct result of the industrial, technological & financial capabilities of each side.

If we go only for Tejas, we will become like Taiwan or Sweden, where the hope is if the army does not win, someone else will come to help. Otoh, we need to be like the Israelis, where even their air force can contribute towards achieving victory. So the entire mindset will change, everything we have worked for in the last 7 decades will be destroyed in a single decade. That's the difference the Rafale creates.

Once we get into a defensive mindset, it will be incredibly hard to get out of it, even if the opportunity arises again in 2040 with AMCA. The USN suffers from the same problem and are further withdrawing into their shell in the next upgrade cycle.

Drones are also not an answer because by the time we get them and exercise with them and gain confidence in them, it's gonna be 2035-40. It's still an unproven concept today.

In any case, from the original 6+3, I firmly believe this deal will go 3+3+3, and it's the last set of 3 that "may" change hands with AMCA.

Agree - I have no reservations about saying that we should obtain close to 200 Rafales. But what I'm saying is that this is financially unfeasible for us - espoused not by me but by the actions of our own Govt & IAF. I didn't ask them to cancel the procurement of 126-189 MMRCAs and go for 36, they did. I didn't ask them to slash 114 MRFAs to 57, they did. And god only knows if we even will buy 57 in an eventual G-to-G contract or if won't be just another 36.

What I'm doing is trying to analyze why these downsizings are coming about - and how best to achieve a reduced but comparable offensive capability set while keeping the new realities in mind.

 

[Hydra]

Could you point out where he is wrong?

Ys, he is.

 

[randomradio]

Could you point out where he is wrong?

He is saying the right things in support of the Indian industry, but he's saying the wrong things based on the context of MRFA.

First, 1.3 doesn't apply to MRFA, the requirement is the 'unobtanium' mentioned in 1.4. The requirement is for a proven jet, not a first-timer jet, like the M2000, Su-30MKI or Mig-29, which were all brand new when we got them.

Second, ToT is not meant to assist in R&D or create a pool of know-how experts, it's only meant to support a large fleet for 4-5 decades, nothing more, nothing less. They have a job to do. And to do that job, they need a supply chain they can control, and a manpower trained to the point where they can make small modifications to assist in the war effort. The manpower doesn't need to know how to design an engine to achieve this.

Frankly this debate between indigenous and import is ludicrous. It's like saying I won't use any electronic device like smartphones, computers etc, unless it's designed, tested and built in India by an Indian company using Indian brains. Do you see how ludicrous that is? If this is your mindset, then how much work do you think you can get done in your own line of work? Can you put yourself in those shoes and even try to comprehend the repercussions it can have in your own daily life? Then why push that line of thinking onto the IAF?

The IAF need a certain kind of technology, and if an Indian company isn't providing it at the quality they want, then they look for it outside, never mind a technology that doesn't even exist in India. We civilians are no different.

 

[randomradio]

I'm not saying use Mk2 for DPS role - that will be performed by a combination of Rafale & precision strikes by Rocket Forces.

What I'm saying is that the original 189 requirement for foreign MMRCAs wasn't purely for DPSAs - it also included such roles as being a launch platform for advanced EBVRAAMs like Meteor, bringing interleaved operations capability of AESA FCRs to the table, and serving as a node in the emerging networked battlespace - these are the roles which Tejas Mk2 can manage just fine.

Just having the avionics and weapons is the first step. LCA can't match the airframe and engine superiority of the Rafale.

While Rafale can perform air defence/CAP in a pinch, it would be very expensive & a terrible waste of its airframe life to use it in that role.

The opposite. Its ability to supercruise gives it a much faster reaction time than any other jet. The more capable the jet, the better the chances of victory. Hence the existence of the F-22.

What I'm saying is that the new MWF iteration of Mk2 is capable of substituting some of the roles originally meant for foreign MMRCAs, not all & certainly not the DPSA role.

Granted, it can perform simpler roles like CAS and interdiction, but the number you have decided on for MRFA is far too less.

Not me - but the IAF & MoD have, I'm trying to analyze the situation is all, and trying to understand their thought process.

Okay. I just think it's a deal that's been spread out across multiple tranches. I guess news reports come off as a one-time contract instead.

Never said Rocket Forces were 'enough' - but that modern, precision-guided missile forces can serve as a cost-effective alternative (especially over the ranges where we face our enemies) that can help you meet your offensive firepower needs while making do with a smaller number of DPSAs than previously thought.

The idea behind rocket forces is to interdict at a strategic level, meaning to hit the enemy in rear areas. It requires less planning and resources and the attack can happen very quickly, so you can achieve surprise. But if the enemy is prepared and has enough air defences, like China, rocket forces become less useful, especially when air defence missiles are cheaper than CMs and BMs and can perform the job necessary. It's a one-trick pony.

The US relies on air-launched CMs to create the same effect, 'cause of INF.

Air Force, Lockheed Martin finalize $818 million JASSM-ER contract | InsideDefense.com

The Air Force has awarded Lockheed Martin an $818 million contract to produce 790 extended-range variants of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER), according to a notice the Defense Department released today.

insidedefense.com

The Air Force revealed in the fall the program is looking to scale up production to a maximum of 10,000 JASSMs and wants to eventually reach a rate of 500 missiles per lot.

One of the reasons why the IA wants a rocket force is because the IAF has not been able to equip itself with Rafales. Isn't that ironic? Fixing the IAF now will take 15 years, but making missiles to compensate for the lack of Rafales is quicker, even if more expensive in the long run. Even we can scale up to 500 Brahmos or LR-LACM a year and buy 10000 of them. Could cost us the same as the 57 Rafales.

I'm not saying that - as long as we keep with off-the-shelf purchases in small batches, we can move ahead with more squadrons as & when finances permit. But tying up the requirement to a contract for a large number of airframes + ToT will make the whole thing unaffordable.

The opposite. Local production and ToT means cheaper operations costs. We can't buy Western systems and keep paying Western rates forever. The CPFH of the MKI is just $12000 in India. If we sourced all of its spares from Europe or the US, we would be paying upwards of $30000. It will get worse for the Rafale as production ends in France.

The rules are different for supplies from Russia and the West. And we need to multi-source weapons due to politics.

Even at present with the 57 airframe contract, its made unworkable due to the ToT clause.

Depends on the amount of ToT. We may see a squadron flyaway, a squadron with full assembly, and a squadron with some fuselage sections and wings made in India. ToT will expand as more orders come in, which would bring in full airframe and engine production for the Rafale. So the first 57 shouldn't face any real technical issues at the very least.

Obviously after dealing with all these vendors for 15 years both IAF & MoD are well aware of what's a viable proposition and what isn't - now you decide if this is actually done with the intent to purchase or is a passtime till the next batch order for 36 or so Rafales becomes a reality?

And if it is a passtime - you decide if it is so because IAF & MoD are fond of wasting time OR because of a far simpler explanation: we can't afford them.

They are bean counting, it's not simply an affordablity issue. Or we wouldn't buy it in the first place.

...an adjustment brought about by, besides other reasons, an appreciation of the financial situation currently & in the foreseeable future.

What the IN is doing is more expensive than their initial plan, even if it results in less number of ships.

When we say "financial situation", we don't have the money needed to play at the superpower level. The problem is the forces are pushing a narrative that makes it seem like we are not spending anything on the military. It's not their fault for asking more, but we did spend $18B last year and plan to spend $20B this year. Next year it could be $23B. And Rafale would need $2B or so at most per year out of that.

Obviously we will have to - but the fact is we are not an industrialized country like China, so we must take into account not only what our requirements are, but what is the most cost-effective way of achieving them.

Besides - take a look at our defence spending as a percentage of GDP, the general lethargy surrounding military reforms...does any of this resemble that of a country facing the threat of a two-front war?

Until we spend at superpower level, you will always hear this narrative. At the very least, we need to double our capital budget over the next 5 years, beyond which the size and momentum of our economy will take care of future spending.

But you must also appreciate the fact that the NATO & Soviet doctrines were a direct result of the industrial, technological & financial capabilities of each side.

Yes. But we can opt for the superior NATO doctrine with a $2B spend a year for the next 12 years. Or we can spend the same $2B getting 500 Brahmos a year for our rocket forces. We have both options. And we may end up picking both.

I didn't ask them to slash 114 MRFAs to 57, they did.

It's just bean counting. As per our laws 10% of the contract value needs to be transferred to the OEM within a month of signature. 10% of 57 is lesser than 10% of 114. The following year more money goes out, followed by more the very next year, all percentages of the total contract. So the govt is just being smart about how they spend with their 50% savings plan, while also allowing enough room to withdraw from the contract if necessary. And as I'd stated before, the next tranche could be negotiated for the F5. With 57 jets, we are locking ourselves up for 8 years instead of 13.

What I'm doing is trying to analyze why these downsizings are coming about - and how best to achieve a reduced but comparable offensive capability set while keeping the new realities in mind.

Let's do the math. 36 Rafales with GTG contract cost us $6.2B. That's effectively $2B a year. So, if we want 114 Rafales, it's a nearly 10 year delivery run, so that's $2B*10 = $20B.

From late 2016 to late 2022, we will have spent about $15B in buying 36 Rafales and 5 S-400s alone. That's a total spending of $2.5B a year. So do you really believe we won't have $2B a year from say 2028 to 2038? It's not a stretch to say the capital budget could double by the end of the decade at the very least.

This was never a problem about affordability. Because of the Rafale and S-400, the IAF's capital budget was simply locked up. It was always expected to be freed up this year, allowing the start of new programs, including MRFA, LCH, LUH, force multipliers etc.

And as the IAF's capex grows, more simultaneous programs can be launched, like superpowers do. Although we are not there yet, we are very rapidly approaching that level of spending.

 

[Parthu]

Just having the avionics and weapons is the first step. LCA can't match the airframe and engine superiority of the Rafale.

And the J-10 can't match the airframe & engine superiority of the Mk2. No aircraft equipped with Russian/Chinese engines can match the availability or sortie rate that can be managed by a F414-equipped fighter.

A large number of Mk2s are very well capable of putting us in a dominant position in most 'sustainability' factors that secure & maintain the environment in which other friendly forces can conduct their operations comfortably. Not to mention they're the perfect platform for fast air CAS against tactical ground targets because of their high availability & affordability.

With a large number of Mk2s in hand, the only real roles left for other fighters to perform are 1) Air Superiority with the aim of furthering the zone of air dominance and 2) Survivable planes that can perform Deep penetration strikes into unsecured airspace to address high-value enemy ground targets & infrastructure.

The opposite. Its ability to supercruise gives it a much faster reaction time than any other jet. The more capable the jet, the better the chances of victory. Hence the existence of the F-22.

Doesn't matter for us in an Air Defence role because in most cases the hostile airspace lies barely 100km away from most major AFS in North/Eastern sector. Against Pakistan its usually much closer.

It's moot because if we start using Rafales for regular CAPs & interception, we'll be bankrupted much before the war starts.

There's a reason SE fighters exist in such large numbers even with the USAF & PLAAF (F-16 & J-10). Same reason why we cannot replace MiG-21s with Su-30MKIs. SE fighters are built for this purpose and are the only way to do this job cost-effectively. With AESA FCRs and Ramjet/Dual-pulse AAMs in play, they are perfectly capable of the same.

The idea behind rocket forces is to interdict at a strategic level, meaning to hit the enemy in rear areas. It requires less planning and resources and the attack can happen very quickly, so you can achieve surprise. But if the enemy is prepared and has enough air defences, like China, rocket forces become less useful, especially when air defence missiles are cheaper than CMs and BMs and can perform the job necessary. It's a one-trick pony.

The same air defences also work against your aircraft - so would you rather lose a missile to a SAM or a manned fighter?

Not to mention, if you're forcing the enemy to use up their air defences against your cheap missiles & drones - that just makes the job easier for your DPSAs later on. Allowing you to even make do with a smaller number.

The US relies on air-launched CMs to create the same effect, 'cause of INF.

Air Force, Lockheed Martin finalize $818 million JASSM-ER contract | InsideDefense.com

The Air Force has awarded Lockheed Martin an $818 million contract to produce 790 extended-range variants of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER), according to a notice the Defense Department released today.

insidedefense.com

The Air Force revealed in the fall the program is looking to scale up production to a maximum of 10,000 JASSMs and wants to eventually reach a rate of 500 missiles per lot.

They've withdrawn from INF now.

Look at USMC's Force Design 2030 - the Missile Marines are a thing now. PrSM is going to be an extremely important piece of the future US pacific theatre doctine against China. You have to start taking the hints when even the airpower-centric US starts considering precision guided missiles as an important part of winning future wars without bankrupting oneself.

Precision Strike Missile (PrSM)

The PrSM is our next-generation, long-range precision-strike missile designed for the U.S. Army’s PrSM program, delivering unparalleled long-range capabilities.

www.lockheedmartin.com

One of the reasons why the IA wants a rocket force is because the IAF has not been able to equip itself with Rafales. Isn't that ironic? Fixing the IAF now will take 15 years, but making missiles to compensate for the lack of Rafales is quicker, even if more expensive in the long run. Even we can scale up to 500 Brahmos or LR-LACM a year and buy 10000 of them. Could cost us the same as the 57 Rafales.

I don't see how a missile is more expensive than a fighter in the long run. Missiles don't have to be serviced like aircraft (periodic inspections of canisterized containers notwithstanding), you don't have to keep using them all the time, and the upfront cost is considerably less.

The opposite. Local production and ToT means cheaper operations costs. We can't buy Western systems and keep paying Western rates forever.
CPFH of the MKI is just $12000 in India. If we sourced all of its spares from Europe or the US, we would be paying upwards of $30000. It will get worse for the Rafale as production ends in France.

The rules are different for supplies from Russia and the West. And we need to multi-source weapons due to politics.

Localization of spares & consumables is not the same thing as producing the airframe & performing the systems integration here. Localization of support can happen over a decade, even after the planes arrived.

We're in the process of setting up complete MRO facilities for P-8 here, doesn't mean we have to produce the birds here.

...yes the Russian jets are cheaper, but they return a similar deficit in performance as well. There's a reason why even during 1998 sanctions we didn't budge from F404 as the engine choice for Tejas. Ultimately, you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Ultimately, we have to move toward indigenous solutions built along Western standards if we want high performance that is cost-effective.

Depends on the amount of ToT. We may see a squadron flyaway, a squadron with full assembly, and a squadron with some fuselage sections and wings made in India. ToT will expand as more orders come in, which would bring in full airframe and engine production for the Rafale. So the first 57 shouldn't face any real technical issues at the very least.

Very much doubt anyone will agree for ToT (of any level) for a squadron's worth of planes. Unless we consider screwdrivergiri as ToT of course...because in that case we've already received "ToT" for C-130J, CH-47, AH-64 and even F/A-18.

That sort of thing is better pursued via offsets clauses rather than making the specific procedures part of the deal which unnecessarily complicate things.

They are bean counting, it's not simply an affordablity issue. Or we wouldn't buy it in the first place.

We needed a modern, survivable platform that can perform the nuclear delivery role when needed.

What the IN is doing is more expensive than their initial plan, even if it results in less number of ships.

When we say "financial situation", we don't have the money needed to play at the superpower level. The problem is the forces are pushing a narrative that makes it seem like we are not spending anything on the military. It's not their fault for asking more, but we did spend $18B last year and plan to spend $20B this year. Next year it could be $23B. And Rafale would need $2B or so at most per year out of that.



Until we spend at superpower level, you will always hear this narrative. At the very least, we need to double our capital budget over the next 5 years, beyond which the size and momentum of our economy will take care of future spending.



Yes. But we can opt for the superior NATO doctrine with a $2B spend a year for the next 12 years. Or we can spend the same $2B getting 500 Brahmos a year for our rocket forces. We have both options. And we may end up picking both.

Hey, if we can afford 200 Rafales, let's go and buy 200 Rafales. Let's give it to Dassault & the French Govt in writing that we will under sovereign guarantee, place assured future orders for Rafales beyond the 36-57 we plan to buy initially, and for them to treat the ToT obligations as though they were receiving a 189 jet order.

Can we do that? Without a Defence White Paper or any real National Security Strategy document can we even plan that far ahead?

Or are we simply groping in the dark?

It's just bean counting. As per our laws 10% of the contract value needs to be transferred to the OEM within a month of signature. 10% of 57 is lesser than 10% of 114. The following year more money goes out, followed by more the very next year, all percentages of the total contract. So the govt is just being smart about how they spend with their 50% savings plan, while also allowing enough room to withdraw from the contract if necessary. And as I'd stated before, the next tranche could be negotiated for the F5. With 57 jets, we are locking ourselves up for 8 years instead of 13.

None of these rules have resulted in a single big ticket contract being concluded as per regular DPP procedure (outside of FMS). So I'm not hopeful.

Let's do the math. 36 Rafales with GTG contract cost us $6.2B. That's effectively $2B a year. So, if we want 114 Rafales, it's a nearly 10 year delivery run, so that's $2B*10 = $20B.

From late 2016 to late 2022, we will have spent about $15B in buying 36 Rafales and 5 S-400s alone. That's a total spending of $2.5B a year. So do you really believe we won't have $2B a year from say 2028 to 2038? It's not a stretch to say the capital budget could double by the end of the decade at the very least.

This was never a problem about affordability. Because of the Rafale and S-400, the IAF's capital budget was simply locked up. It was always expected to be freed up this year, allowing the start of new programs, including MRFA, LCH, LUH, force multipliers etc.

And as the IAF's capex grows, more simultaneous programs can be launched, like superpowers do. Although we are not there yet, we are very rapidly approaching that level of spending.

Like I said above, without a proper NSS and a DWP derived from that, any such long-term planning is simply impossible. The forces will be left haggling for funds, all the while addressing emergency procurements & knee-jerk orders. And that's not even considering the utterly foolish procurement decisions which result in platform obsolescence much earlier than anticipated, requiring a further unplanned CAPEX infusion - the MRCBF requirement brought about by the failure of the MiG-29K platform is a prime example of poor planning.

 

[suryakiran]

He is saying the right things in support of the Indian industry, but he's saying the wrong things based on the context of MRFA.

First, 1.3 doesn't apply to MRFA, the requirement is the 'unobtanium' mentioned in 1.4. The requirement is for a proven jet, not a first-timer jet, like the M2000, Su-30MKI or Mig-29, which were all brand new when we got them.

Second, ToT is not meant to assist in R&D or create a pool of know-how experts, it's only meant to support a large fleet for 4-5 decades, nothing more, nothing less. They have a job to do. And to do that job, they need a supply chain they can control, and a manpower trained to the point where they can make small modifications to assist in the war effort. The manpower doesn't need to know how to design an engine to achieve this.

Frankly this debate between indigenous and import is ludicrous. It's like saying I won't use any electronic device like smartphones, computers etc, unless it's designed, tested and built in India by an Indian company using Indian brains. Do you see how ludicrous that is? If this is your mindset, then how much work do you think you can get done in your own line of work? Can you put yourself in those shoes and even try to comprehend the repercussions it can have in your own daily life? Then why push that line of thinking onto the IAF?

The IAF need a certain kind of technology, and if an Indian company isn't providing it at the quality they want, then they look for it outside, never mind a technology that doesn't even exist in India. We civilians are no different.

Which is where he says, get the Rafale 57 in a deal even if tech transfer is not happening. Which is the right way to do it. We are unable to get something, buy it. Simultaneously build capabilities at home, without listening to nonsense like we will not buy unless ready.

The question was specifically at our own Ajai Shukla, who straight went on to state that he is a desi lobby without bothering to read the thread.

 

[Sathya]

Even though far fetched, I would like to ask @Picdelamirand-oil , how long will it take to develop F5 after F4.2 .

What ll be the development milestone s of DRAL assuming 57 order goes to Rafale.

& another 57 / 36 F5 in future deals.