MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 44 16.4%

  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 205 76.5%

  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 5 1.9%

  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 5 1.9%

  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • F-18 SH

    Votes: 10 3.7%

  • F-15EX

    Votes: 11 4.1%

  • Mig-35

    Votes: 2 0.7%
  • Total voters
    268
  • Poll closed .
Sathya said:
Are we going to sign 2 deals for fighter jets and 2 deals for submarines?

I don't believe it.
Click to expand...
It may look like the 1980s all over again but we've pretty much run out of options. We need to have fall-back options, imo.

The US is already asking EU to sanction us for trading with Russia. If those sanctions are extended to military equipment (read Type 214), French/Russian platforms may be the only option left. France is a safer bet because they have continued to support Pak Agosta subs even after an Indian veto on new arms sales. Ditto with our own M2000s post Pokhran-2.

Russia is desperate to sell Su-57/35 to shore up defence revenues. India may just be willing to oblige.
 
Sathya said:
Are we going to sign 2 deals for fighter jets and 2 deals for submarines?

I don't believe it.
Click to expand...
Looks like it. Hopefully it doesn't derail or delay indigenous projects for while our GDP nominal has grown to 4 trillion USD & will keep growing , the mentality of our dhotis & suits are still in 500 billion USD GDP nominal mode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RationalGuy and Sathya
_Anonymous_ said:
Looks like it. Hopefully it doesn't derail or delay indigenous projects for while our GDP nominal has grown to 4 trillion USD & will keep growing , the mentality of our dhotis & suits are still in 500 billion USD GDP nominal mode.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, highly unlikely that all these will get signed in parallel. 114 Rafales seems unlikely as well. I think Rajput Lion and a few others had weighed in earlier. The no. quoted by the IAF can be revised down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
Shan said:
Unfortunately, highly unlikely that all these will get signed in parallel. 114 Rafales seems unlikely as well. I think Rajput Lion and a few others had weighed in earlier. The no. quoted by the IAF can be revised down.
Click to expand...
Possibly. But a total of 114 units is a given including the 36 we have & if production lines are shifted here the possibility of additional nos is always high.

Then there's the IN looking at an additional 30 units at least or at least that's how they're gaming their procurement of 4.5 th Gen FA.

Besides there's a good chance we'd go in for the Su-57. Not sure if this would be restricted to imports only or we'd go in the whole hog with initial imports & local assembly. But even if we were to import the initial lot we're looking at anywhere between 2-3 squadrons at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya and Shan
Shan said:
Unfortunately, highly unlikely that all these will get signed in parallel. 114 Rafales seems unlikely as well. I think Rajput Lion and a few others had weighed in earlier. The no. quoted by the IAF can be revised down.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this, the original requirement under MMRCA was for 126 aircraft.
IAF has already acquired 36 Rafales, why not procure another 90 Rafales and call it a day?
 
Aniruddha said:
I don't understand this, the original requirement under MMRCA was for 126 aircraft.
IAF has already acquired 36 Rafales, why not procure another 90 Rafales and call it a day?
Click to expand...
There are many who argue along similar lines. A few defence analysts have stated that 4 sqd. are more likely to approved by CCS and MoD. Considering the budget for the military, it would be easier to pass this and will not take away focus from domestic projects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aniruddha
screambowl said:
126 4.5 Gen aircrafts was a talk of the yesterday now the requirement is of over 300
Click to expand...
You already have 180 Tejas Mk1A on order and plan for atleast 120 Tejas Mk2 which are both 4.5 gen platforms.

Given Dassault's order backlog and the time it takes to setup a local assembly line, I doubt those 114 Rafales are going to come any quicker.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
Possibly. But a total of 114 units is a given including the 36 we have & if production lines are shifted here the possibility of additional nos is always high.

Then there's the IN looking at an additional 30 units at least or at least that's how they're gaming their procurement of 4.5 th Gen FA.

Besides there's a good chance we'd go in for the Su-57. Not sure if this would be restricted to imports only or we'd go in the whole hog with initial imports & local assembly. But even if we were to import the initial lot we're looking at anywhere between 2-3 squadrons at least.
Click to expand...
If you include the previous purchases, Rafale will be the dominant 4++ fighter in the near future. The nos. would easily cross 114. However, considering the politics and geopolitics at play, MoD is unlikely to approve a singular batch purchase of 100+ Rafales. IN has no other option to be honest, a repeat order makes sense for them. Therefore, DA will manufacture parts here and will setup a line for India even if the 114 singular order size is downsized.

SU-57 purchase will be complex considering that IAF had already rejected it once. Although the plane has since undergone revisions, the IAF itself does not seem keen on operating a large no. of them. Would the UAC setup a local assembly line for say 50 odd aircrafts? It looks like a pure import scenario to me. Also, dealing with the Russians right now is....complicated. So, till something comes out of IAF itself or the MoD, I would say this takes a secondary seat. Quite the quagmire we have on our hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya and _Anonymous_
Shan said:
If you include the previous purchases, Rafale will be the dominant 4++ fighter in the near future. The nos. would easily cross 114.
Click to expand...
Including the IN purchases & what the IAF has , yes it will , assuming the IAF goes in for another 90 nos instead of the 114 nos .
Shan said:
However, considering the politics and geopolitics at play, MoD is unlikely to approve a singular batch purchase of 100+ Rafales.
Click to expand...

It looks like the MoD will go in for a substantial procurement of the Rafales be it 90 nos or 114 nos . That's the price we've to pay for the SAFRAN JV & if we want to set up a production line here .
Shan said:
IN has no other option to be honest, a repeat order makes sense for them.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't & I sincerely hope the MoD won't entertain the IN for another couple of squadrons of the Rafale M. They should focus on the TEDBF & then move on to the 5th Gen FA program.
Shan said:
Therefore, DA will manufacture parts here and will setup a line for India even if the 114 singular order size is downsized.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the idea.
Shan said:
SU-57 purchase will be complex considering that IAF had already rejected it once. Although the plane has since undergone revisions, the IAF itself does not seem keen on operating a large no. of them. Would the UAC setup a local assembly line for say 50 odd aircrafts? It looks like a pure import scenario to me. Also, dealing with the Russians right now is....complicated. So, till something comes out of IAF itself or the MoD, I would say this takes a secondary seat. Quite the quagmire we have on our hands.
Click to expand...
I think we'd go in for initial imports of 2 squadrons & leave the option open for more either thru imports which would be restricted to another 2 squadrons at the most & possible local mfg for a later date.

A lot of this depends on the geo political scenario , our ability to fund this program apart from our other commitments , the performance of these Su-57 , how delayed the AMCA project is , etc .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aniruddha and Shan
For the poll to choose the favourite aircraft, the total percentage is 105.8% because there were 278 voters and the formula only takes 263 voters into account. There is a bug!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ashwin
https://twitter.com/x/status/1970595485951119632

Now, this is entering a realm of unconventional. The argument now compares two very different FAs that adhere to different philosophies and role status.


AspectSAAB Gripen E/FDassault Rafale F4Notes/Comparison
Payload CapacityUp to 7,200 kg (external stores, including weapons and fuel tanks). Up to 9,500 kg (external stores, including weapons and fuel tanks). Rafale has a higher payload, making it better for heavy strike missions; Gripen is more agile for lighter loads.
Maximum SpeedMach 2+ (approximately 2,205 km/h at altitude). Mach 1.8+ (approximately 2,225 km/h at altitude). Gripen edges out in top speed, but Rafale has a superior climb rate (305 m/s vs. 254 m/s).
Combat RangeApproximately 3,200 km (with external tanks; ferry range). Approximately 3,700 km (with external tanks; ferry range). Rafale offers greater range for long-endurance missions; Gripen is optimized for shorter, high-intensity operations.
Radar SystemSelex ES Raven ES-05 AESA radar (active electronically scanned array) with advanced electronic warfare integration. Thales RBE2 AESA radar (with upgrades in F4 for better detection and jamming resistance). Both use modern AESA radars; Rafale's is considered superior for multi-role tracking.
EngineSingle Volvo RM12 (upgraded GE F414) turbofan, producing ~98 kN thrust with afterburner. Twin Snecma M88-4E turbofans, producing ~150 kN combined thrust with afterburner. Rafale's twin-engine setup provides redundancy and power; Gripen's single engine emphasizes efficiency and lower maintenance.
Armament Options10 hardpoints; supports Meteor, AMRAAM, IRIS-T missiles, precision bombs, and anti-ship weapons. 14 hardpoints; supports Meteor, MICA, SCALP, Exocet missiles, and a wider array of precision munitions. Rafale has more hardpoints for versatility; both integrate similar NATO-compatible weapons.
Unit Cost
(depending on configuration and contracts). 		(depending on configuration and contracts). Gripen is generally more cost-effective for acquisition and operation, ideal for budget-conscious forces.
Stealth FeaturesLow radar cross-section design with some composite materials, but not full stealth (no internal bays). Reduced radar signature via design and materials, but not full stealth; F4 upgrades improve electronic countermeasures. Neither is a true stealth fighter like the F-35; Rafale has slight edge in electronic stealth tech.
Avionics SuiteAdvanced digital cockpit with helmet-mounted display, AI-assisted systems, and network-centric warfare capabilities. SPECTRA electronic warfare suite, advanced data links, and F4 upgrades for AI integration and sensor fusion. Rafale's avionics are highly regarded for integration; Gripen focuses on agility and cost-effective tech.
Operational CeilingApproximately 15,240 meters. Approximately 15,835 meters. Rafale can operate at slightly higher altitudes, beneficial for certain reconnaissance roles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoungWolf
I propose to you a video I made few weeks ago. Maybe something you doesn't know about Rafale.
The video has been made in French, And I discovered that Youtube is now translating in live in English. It is not bad at all.
A friend of mine told me to publish directly in english, but it will require to double the time I spent to make video. However, I would like to know if the automatic translation is good for you to follow the video ? Or if it is impossible or annoying to see ? You'll tell me.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin, FalconSlayers, Aniruddha and 2 others
bubzy said:
I propose to you a video I made few weeks ago. Maybe something you doesn't know about Rafale.
The video has been made in French, And I discovered that Youtube is now translating in live in English. It is not bad at all.
A friend of mine told me to publish directly in english, but it will require to double the time I spent to make video. However, I would like to know if the automatic translation is good for you to follow the video ? Or if it is impossible or annoying to see ? You'll tell me.


Click to expand...
The translation is okay. You can make do with it and it did not appear to be a major inconvenience. I think Youtube has been working to make it better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bubzy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom