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 .
Agree with your sentiment that India should build more missile capacity quickly, in fact that's the best thing India can do to counter the falling AF squadron strength. But things are not quite as hopeless. The goal is to deter misadventures, not annihilate the Chinese.
Without adequate deterrence how're you going to stave off a war or even give them good ?
Brahmos/PinakaER are well within range of all their SW theater military infrastructure, critical logistical roads and airfields:
View attachment 47247
View attachment 47248
View attachment 47249
Yes that's what I wrote in my previous post . You're only elaborating on it.
And that doesn't even take into account the terrain advantage that India has, and the nightmare they have to deal with for their high altitude airfields in Tibet as well as forced to be out in the open generally.
Most of their flights targeting us will come from Xinjiang , Sichuan & Yunnan wherein case of the latter they'd fly over Myanmar & BD to target our rear. Why do you think the GoI approved of the IN's purchase of Rafale M with such alacrity.

Yunnan will be used to target the LAC from the rear as well as neutralize the A&NC thereby preventing our choking of the Malacca Straits. They've been wargaming these scenarios for almost a decade now.
The PLA/PLAAF/PLAN will remain reasonably pinned but certainly their formidable PLARF needs to be contended with (assuming they haven't filled all their ordnances with water as was recently discovered).
Hope for the best while preparing for the worst. I for one don't believe that cock n bull story of water in missiles. That's not even possible with the in breds to our west leave alone China.
The sooner Brahmos800 and Nirbhay can be inducted, the quicker we can target airfields in Xinjiang, and even put their population centers in Chengdu at risk without resorting to SBMs:

View attachment 47250View attachment 47251
You can discount Nirbhay & other sub sonic CMs causing great damage. Observe the situation in Ukraine where sub sonic CMs are being literally swatted out of the sky .

They have their utility but against an opponent like China with well networked systems & IADS they'd be sub optimal.
And that doesn't even begin to take into account the unprecedented rate at which their generals have been sacked -- not even one showed up to their grand parade!
That's their only Achilles heel that has been identified as of now . However I won't take much solace out of it as an Indian for it only reinforces what I've previously highlighted that if the war on the LAC doesn't go their way , they'd be sorely tempted to escalate it & as of now neither do we have adequate defences against it nor the offensive firepower in the form of a well equipped Rocket Force.

I suspect our security management thinks if push comes to shove they'd resort to posturing with N weapons forgetting that deterrence works only if the other side blinks else the Chinese will treat our threat the way we've been treating Paxtani N blackmail.

Or the fact their weapons proved worthless in Op Sindoor.
Once again I urge you not to underestimate the Chinese. Better be safe than sorry.
The Chinese are a formidable opponent and India shouldn't repeat the humiliation of 1962 (thanks to poor leadership), but let's also not make them out to be invincible. India is more than capable of handling them today.
They aren't invincible . They've much more fault lines than ours . However in order for us to prevail over them we must be in a position to exploit those fault lines . As of now neither do we have that capability nor are we seriously developing them .

Look I'd love to be proven wrong on this but if we're ever going to prevail or even fight them to a stalemate it'd take the equivalent of several Stalingrads across the LAC.
 
Reading the above posts.. it seems there one missing link to deter Chinese tho. A public will. Language wars, certain pro-pak elements, sabotagers, oppurtunists and most of important of all... The leftists gang.. they have barely left the space to put a potent front against the Chinese in assymetric warfare.. that is, exploiting fault lines of Chinese.

Say one line of Tibet and ecosystem will activate criticising the govt.
 
...
Once again I urge you not to underestimate the Chinese. Better be safe than sorry.

They aren't invincible . They've much more fault lines than ours . However in order for us to prevail over them we must be in a position to exploit those fault lines . As of now neither do we have that capability nor are we seriously developing them .

Look I'd love to be proven wrong on this but if we're ever going to prevail or even fight them to a stalemate it'd take the equivalent of several Stalingrads across the LAC.
I am 100% agreed -- China should not be underestimated, and any war with them will be brutal. All I'm pointing out is one shouldn't underestimate India's own capability, or overestimate China's capability. Here for example is a list of all the countries looking to return/replace defective Chinese military equipment (generated by AI):
  • Algeria: Multiple accidents and crashes involving CH-4 UCAV drones, including a CH-4B crash near Bir Rogaa airbase.
  • Bangladesh: Defects in 053H3 frigates (e.g., BNS Umar Farooq and BNS Abu Ubaidah) including non-functioning navigation radars, gun systems, and propulsion issues; F-7 fighter jets and K-8W trainer aircraft with radar accuracy failures, ammunition firing problems, and technical malfunctions; MBT-2000 tanks with spare parts shortages and exploding ammunition in the breech; obsolete Ming-class submarines (BNS Nobojatra and BNS Joyjatra) sold at high prices; Y-12e and MA-60 aircraft grounded or idle; corvettes, patrol crafts, onshore patrol vehicles, C704 systems, and short-range air defense systems with manufacturing defects and faulty parts.
  • Cambodia: Issues with Type-56 rifles during combat operations against Thailand, including unreliability.
  • Egypt: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Iran: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Iraq: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Jordan: Poor performance of six CH-4B drones, leading to attempts to resell them shortly after purchase.
  • Kenya: VN-4 armored personnel carriers with inadequate armor protection against RPGs, IEDs, and landmines, resulting in over 250 soldier deaths and more than 30 vehicles deemed useless.
  • Morocco: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Myanmar: Structural cracks, radar malfunctions, and targeting system issues in JF-17 fighter jets, leading to grounding of 11 aircraft; general problems with small arms, vehicles, and other equipment, often described locally as "Chinese machine, broken in a day."
  • Nepal: Multiple passenger aircraft grounded shortly after use due to maintenance and repair issues.
  • Nigeria: Technical problems and crashes with F-7 fighter jets, resulting in 80% grounded and seven of nine remaining sent back to China for repairs.
  • Pakistan: Engine degradation, faulty sensors, radars (e.g., SR-60, SR-47 BG), sonar (ASO-94), gyro (HP5), guns (NG16, 76mm), and missile systems (FM-90 with defective IR17 sensors) in F-22P frigates; VT-4 tanks with poor build quality and halted deliveries; Wing Loong-2 drones malfunctioning and damaged due to low-quality materials; JF-17 jets with crashes, poor serviceability, radar, and missile issues; HQ-16 SAM problems.
  • Sri Lanka: YLC-18 radars with irreparable components; multiple aircraft including PT-6 grounded due to lack of repair support from Chinese manufacturers.
  • Turkmenistan: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Uzbekistan: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Venezuela: Crashes of K-8W combat training aircraft, with three lost out of 27 purchased due to defects and errors in technical manuals.

And then there are various other issues aside from the quality of the military equipment:

Demographics are not on their side. For every bodybag sent back to China, two parents and four grandparents will be up in arms with the CCP -- their entire family line now extinguished.

War fighting experience is not on their side. The CCP hasn't been in a real war -- even WW2 was fought by the Taiwanese Kuomintang. And they were forced to withdraw in the only other war they were in -- with Vietnam.

Their new socioeconomic status is not on their side. Unlike 1962 when Mao was screwing their country over, the China today is prosperous and has much to lose if they partake in any misadventures.
And that is doubly true for the CCP. Their system is designed such that they cannot be seen as weak. If they do not have a guaranteed win, will the CCP will risk jeopardizing the rule over some inhospitable land at the Indian border?

Nevertheless, India shouldn't get complacent about the Chinese. It's in their nature to come at India sideways. India should remain vigilant at the border and not withdraw (no "quick harvest" crap). India needs to fund it's rocket force and build capacities. And I couldn't have said it better -- "in order for us to prevail over them we must be in a position to exploit those fault lines."
 
De centralised & spread out plus air gapped also hampers our operational responses. So it cuts both ways .


I was giving you an analogy of what they might try. In any case like I've mentioned before the element of surprise was lost in 2020.

Moreover as I've also pointed out before our upcoming war against the Chinese would broadly have two components - the land war across the LAC & the other domains.

While we can give them a tough fight in the first one , we're lacking in the second domain across multiple fronts & in some cases severely.

That has the potential to undermine whatever gains we make in the first component.
Well most militaries in the world have systems which are air gapped and decentralized including the Chinese and Americans else stopping cyber attacks would be much more difficult. Snowden had to physically go to an NSA site, insert an SD card and collect all the information. If the system was not airgapped it could have been hacked perhaps even by Snowden.

Our Akash teer is an example of an airgapped system not connected to the outside world but performed well, so our Cyber Systems in a similar way have to be internally networked to a great degree but completely cutoff from the rest of the world, and centralized only to specific roles. The only threat is cracking via military members either bribed or honey trapped by MSS or ISI operatives. Thus, consistent and massive surveillance of those working on critical systems is needed, as well as further protections of detecting the insertion of malware via advanced anti virus anti malware protection suites.

Meanwhile this is all just defence meaning "blue", where India has been focusing most of its resources on. The Indian red or offensive capabilities are at a very very nascent stage and nowhere near the level of UK or Israel let alone China, Russia. Infact I would say we are barely above or even at the level of say North Korea or Iran in terms of red capabilities. The US is the undisputed master of both red and blue domains. The US can not only defend against cyber attacks on any system even civilian from China or Russia but can also stage devastating cyber attacks due to the likely massive stockpile of zero days the NSA CIA have in their arsenal.

The US was aided to have this capability by the myriad of their private companies like Dell, Booz Allen, etc (Snowden himself was a contractor from Dell working on an NSA project). Meanwhile in our country our companies would rather continue to do glorified digital coolie work, although they are increasingly focusing on this domain as well.
 
Last edited:
I am 100% agreed -- China should not be underestimated, and any war with them will be brutal. All I'm pointing out is one shouldn't underestimate India's own capability, or overestimate China's capability. Here for example is a list of all the countries looking to return/replace defective Chinese military equipment (generated by AI):
  • Algeria: Multiple accidents and crashes involving CH-4 UCAV drones, including a CH-4B crash near Bir Rogaa airbase.
  • Bangladesh: Defects in 053H3 frigates (e.g., BNS Umar Farooq and BNS Abu Ubaidah) including non-functioning navigation radars, gun systems, and propulsion issues; F-7 fighter jets and K-8W trainer aircraft with radar accuracy failures, ammunition firing problems, and technical malfunctions; MBT-2000 tanks with spare parts shortages and exploding ammunition in the breech; obsolete Ming-class submarines (BNS Nobojatra and BNS Joyjatra) sold at high prices; Y-12e and MA-60 aircraft grounded or idle; corvettes, patrol crafts, onshore patrol vehicles, C704 systems, and short-range air defense systems with manufacturing defects and faulty parts.
  • Cambodia: Issues with Type-56 rifles during combat operations against Thailand, including unreliability.
  • Egypt: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Iran: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Iraq: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Jordan: Poor performance of six CH-4B drones, leading to attempts to resell them shortly after purchase.
  • Kenya: VN-4 armored personnel carriers with inadequate armor protection against RPGs, IEDs, and landmines, resulting in over 250 soldier deaths and more than 30 vehicles deemed useless.
  • Morocco: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Myanmar: Structural cracks, radar malfunctions, and targeting system issues in JF-17 fighter jets, leading to grounding of 11 aircraft; general problems with small arms, vehicles, and other equipment, often described locally as "Chinese machine, broken in a day."
  • Nepal: Multiple passenger aircraft grounded shortly after use due to maintenance and repair issues.
  • Nigeria: Technical problems and crashes with F-7 fighter jets, resulting in 80% grounded and seven of nine remaining sent back to China for repairs.
  • Pakistan: Engine degradation, faulty sensors, radars (e.g., SR-60, SR-47 BG), sonar (ASO-94), gyro (HP5), guns (NG16, 76mm), and missile systems (FM-90 with defective IR17 sensors) in F-22P frigates; VT-4 tanks with poor build quality and halted deliveries; Wing Loong-2 drones malfunctioning and damaged due to low-quality materials; JF-17 jets with crashes, poor serviceability, radar, and missile issues; HQ-16 SAM problems.
  • Sri Lanka: YLC-18 radars with irreparable components; multiple aircraft including PT-6 grounded due to lack of repair support from Chinese manufacturers.
  • Turkmenistan: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Uzbekistan: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Venezuela: Crashes of K-8W combat training aircraft, with three lost out of 27 purchased due to defects and errors in technical manuals.

And then there are various other issues aside from the quality of the military equipment:

Demographics are not on their side. For every bodybag sent back to China, two parents and four grandparents will be up in arms with the CCP -- their entire family line now extinguished.

War fighting experience is not on their side. The CCP hasn't been in a real war -- even WW2 was fought by the Taiwanese Kuomintang. And they were forced to withdraw in the only other war they were in -- with Vietnam.

Their new socioeconomic status is not on their side. Unlike 1962 when Mao was screwing their country over, the China today is prosperous and has much to lose if they partake in any misadventures.
And that is doubly true for the CCP. Their system is designed such that they cannot be seen as weak. If they do not have a guaranteed win, will the CCP will risk jeopardizing the rule over some inhospitable land at the Indian border?

Nevertheless, India shouldn't get complacent about the Chinese. It's in their nature to come at India sideways. India should remain vigilant at the border and not withdraw (no "quick harvest" crap). India needs to fund it's rocket force and build capacities. And I couldn't have said it better -- "in order for us to prevail over them we must be in a position to exploit those fault lines."
Out of all of those countries you listed the most powerful and professional is Pakistan which should tell you something about the ability of these countries to maintain complex weapon systems. Hence, we should not underestimate Chinese weapon systems. Remember we lost a Rafale very likely due to a Chinese system. The Chinese always keep the best to themselves and send the leftovers abroad, they didnt even induct JF-17.
 
Can't say whether the current impasse on the scorpene deal is part of our negotiation tactics or there's a genuine rethink coz of Project 75 I or the way Project 76 is shaping up , some or all of these.

Let's not forget the IN has no love lost for Naval Group. If they weren't in such a desperate situation , they wouldn't have bothered with exercising the option for an additional 3 nos .


However if MoD / IN is confident of signing an agreement with TKMS within a year give or take then I don't see the need for additional Scorpenes.

MRFA is different though. In addition to the 36 nos pending an order for which we've already erected facilities & paid for it , DA & the government of France will expect substantial orders for the Rafale. That's the reason they were forthcoming with the JV with GTRE . There has to be a quid pro quo & a substantial one at that.

I personally don't think the additional requirement of Scorpenes need be conflated with the MRFA requirement.
The MoD's rationale is that Scorpene is outdated compared to Type 216 (still a paper design btw for which cost negotiations are underway). This despite the fact that the latest LiB variant has been racking up intl sales in the Netherlands, Indonesia, etc.

Heck, MDL may soon be building Scorpenes for the Philippines if recent reports are to be believed. If the Filipinos were to place an order, MDL would pull out all stops to fulfill it (as it should), given that it has spare capacity to build 11 subs simultaneously.

Seen in parallel with the Kalvari prog, the Rafale does not currently fill the high-end tactical counter-air/strike role to the extent the IAF originally envisaged.

Even if you attribute the non-availability of Meteor to supply chain issues, the failure of Spectra ew suite's much-hyped geolocation capability (which ultimately may have resulted in the loss of a Rafale during Op Sindoor) and delays in ISE integration make the Rafale less of a frontline asset for the IAF. So both progs are more or less on par. They each have their issues.

The French have a no strings attached policy when it comes to arms exports unlike the Germans who have a history of restricting//delays arms export licenses. Curtailing the Kalvari line would be putting ourselves at their mercy at a time when the SSK fleet is in the doldrums.

I thought we're implementing the MKI in house. Where did Russia come into the picture ?
The IAF will not approve a UPG prog unless certified by the OEM Sukhoi. There were reports that Russian companies will be involved in modifying the FBW and other systems (iirc one of the MKI onboard mission computers is of Russian origin), even though the majority of avionics and sensors will come from indigenous sources.
 
More Rafales will come for India but the numbers would depend on how much Indian content Dassault is willing to put along with how much source-code of Rafale they're willing to share with us.
source code..... Are you really expecting Dassault and Thales giving so sensible datas?
No.
You will have access to some limited black boxes so as to integrate your own weapons, and upgrade some databases, but never to the core of the system. These datas are crown jewels.
 
As per the reports that came out, the govt. wants a minimum of 50 percent of the content sourced from India. No surprise, delays will follow. The GaN radar aspect seems to catching steam as well. Let's see how the babus end up playing this one out.
About the radar : UTTAM integration is not specially a problem, say Dassault. It may just increase the delay and price because you have to integrate it with the rest of the jet (Spectra, missiles).
But now that the next gen RBE2 GaN ardar is on the horizon, is it interesting to integrate UTTAM? What is the real level of UTTAM? Where is the industrial phase?
 
It seems the French are aware India will not buy 114 Rafales

A worrying technological gap in a high-intensity environment​


The RBE2-AESA GaN radar, intended for the F4.2 and F5 evolutions of the Rafale, offers significant advantages over the current GaAs version. Using gallium nitride transistors, it doubles the power emitted in equal dimensions, while increasing the density of pulses per surface. This improvement results in an estimated gain of effective range of 20-30%, an increased ability to treat several simultaneous tracks, and better immunity to blurging and active decoys.


By comparison, the Chinese J-20 would now be equipped, according to several Western sources, with an AESA radar based on the Type 1475 radar in GaN, with a range greater than 300 kilometers, capable of tracking about twenty targets simultaneously. At this stage, the Indian Rafale can effectively engage an aircraft such as the J-20 in an optimized environment (acler cooperation, pre-identification, etc.). In BVR (Beyond Visual Range) fought, the advantage is clearly in Beijing’s favor.


The J-20 also features advanced on-board electronic warfare systems, offset jamming pods, and optimised frontal stealth. The superiority of the Rafale, hitherto ensured by manoeuvrability, the Meteor missiles and the SPECTRA suite, became partial without a radar capable of fully exploiting the long-range environment.


Testing of the RBE2-GaN, however, started as early as 2014. But Thales, faced with industrial limits, prioritized the modernization of French appliances, and did not deliver a GaN module operational to export until 2024. This choice, dictated by production rates, certification requirements, and budgetary constraints, has penalised India despite its initial investment in the Rafale programme to the tune of EUR 7.8 billion.


An industrial dependence that undermines India’s air sovereignty​


This delay illustrates the limitations of a turnkey purchasing model, where critical systems remain under the control of home suppliers. India, which was demanding further technology transfer, failed to obtain the rights to manufacture or integrate the GaN radar. The contract signed in 2016 provides for the delivery of Rafale in an F3R version, without binding commitment to future modernizations.


This generates a strategic dependence on French industrial calendars. The Indian Rafale programme does not have a local retrofit line, and upgrades are to pass through Mérignac and Limours, where Thales assembles radar modules. This logistics pattern slows down maintenance cycles and prevents rapid upturn, as required by tensions with China or Pakistan.


The local alternative via Bharat Electronics Ltd. or DRDO is not yet mature in the AESA-GaN segment. India has invested in the Uttam AESA radar for the Tejas Mk2, but it does not yet reach the performance thresholds for Rafale-class fighter aircraft. The French delay therefore has a full impact on India’s airspace control strategy.


Faced with this situation, voices are being raised in the IAF command to redirect certain future commands to platforms with native GaN radars. The Su-57, proposed by Russia with a N036 Byelka radar, or the American F-15EX, are mentioned as alternatives to complement, although no agreement has been formalized at this stage.

Crisis management that is difficult for French industrialists​


On the French side, the situation is followed with caution. Dassault Aviation, which pilots the Rafale platform, remains dependent on Thales for radar equipment. The latter, engaged in the Rafale F5 programme, has already delivered the first GaN modules for French aircraft, but the export extension remains marginal. By 2025, only 4 to 6 GaN radars would have been delivered outside France, all intended for test programmes or pilot units.


The problem is therefore both industrial and political. The production capacity of GaN transistors in Europe remains limited. The only certified manufacturing line for the military aeronautical field is located in Limoges. It can only produce a few dozen modules per year, far short of the global backfit needs of the Rafale fleet.


India’s pressure highlights a strategic friction point: the gap between modernization announcements and the ability to deliver them. For New Delhi, this delay is more than a technical incident. It calls into question the confidence in the technological promise of the Rafale as a fighter aircraft of regional superiority.


The French Ministry of the Armed Forces has not officially commented on the situation, but discussions would take place behind the scenes to propose an acceleration plan. This would include the provision of GaN radars from the end of 2026, with first operational integrations in 2027. This is a delay that is considered too late by part of the Indian General Staff, which anticipates a peak in Sino-Indian tension in the next two to three years.
??? This french site is not specially well considered....

GaN : first time I read GaN to be integrated on french F4.2 ! For me GaN was installed on Spectra first, and the leap to GaN radar made with RBE2 XG (Rafale F5).
Thales to be late ? The Rafale radar was the first european AESA radar, ahead of nearly 10 years on other europeans...
GaN AESA on Su-57 ? since then all their "electronic" radars were PESA. Suddenly they made such a progress to go GaN ? unprobable.

I think it is mainly bull shit news.
 
Last edited:
I am 100% agreed -- China should not be underestimated, and any war with them will be brutal. All I'm pointing out is one shouldn't underestimate India's own capability, or overestimate China's capability. Here for example is a list of all the countries looking to return/replace defective Chinese military equipment (generated by AI):
  • Algeria: Multiple accidents and crashes involving CH-4 UCAV drones, including a CH-4B crash near Bir Rogaa airbase.
  • Bangladesh: Defects in 053H3 frigates (e.g., BNS Umar Farooq and BNS Abu Ubaidah) including non-functioning navigation radars, gun systems, and propulsion issues; F-7 fighter jets and K-8W trainer aircraft with radar accuracy failures, ammunition firing problems, and technical malfunctions; MBT-2000 tanks with spare parts shortages and exploding ammunition in the breech; obsolete Ming-class submarines (BNS Nobojatra and BNS Joyjatra) sold at high prices; Y-12e and MA-60 aircraft grounded or idle; corvettes, patrol crafts, onshore patrol vehicles, C704 systems, and short-range air defense systems with manufacturing defects and faulty parts.
  • Cambodia: Issues with Type-56 rifles during combat operations against Thailand, including unreliability.
  • Egypt: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Iran: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Iraq: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Jordan: Poor performance of six CH-4B drones, leading to attempts to resell them shortly after purchase.
  • Kenya: VN-4 armored personnel carriers with inadequate armor protection against RPGs, IEDs, and landmines, resulting in over 250 soldier deaths and more than 30 vehicles deemed useless.
  • Morocco: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Myanmar: Structural cracks, radar malfunctions, and targeting system issues in JF-17 fighter jets, leading to grounding of 11 aircraft; general problems with small arms, vehicles, and other equipment, often described locally as "Chinese machine, broken in a day."
  • Nepal: Multiple passenger aircraft grounded shortly after use due to maintenance and repair issues.
  • Nigeria: Technical problems and crashes with F-7 fighter jets, resulting in 80% grounded and seven of nine remaining sent back to China for repairs.
  • Pakistan: Engine degradation, faulty sensors, radars (e.g., SR-60, SR-47 BG), sonar (ASO-94), gyro (HP5), guns (NG16, 76mm), and missile systems (FM-90 with defective IR17 sensors) in F-22P frigates; VT-4 tanks with poor build quality and halted deliveries; Wing Loong-2 drones malfunctioning and damaged due to low-quality materials; JF-17 jets with crashes, poor serviceability, radar, and missile issues; HQ-16 SAM problems.
  • Sri Lanka: YLC-18 radars with irreparable components; multiple aircraft including PT-6 grounded due to lack of repair support from Chinese manufacturers.
  • Turkmenistan: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Uzbekistan: Reported as receiving substandard air defense systems with implied performance failures, though specific defects are not detailed in available reports.
  • Venezuela: Crashes of K-8W combat training aircraft, with three lost out of 27 purchased due to defects and errors in technical manuals.
Right . You've forgotten the fact that the Paxtanis are hesitant about accepting the WS-13 TF to power their JF-17 preferring to go in for the RD-33 or its derivatives the RD-93 / RD-93 / 93 MA instead though they haven't confirmed the order for the latter with Russia as of the present.

Those examples you've cited are monkey models. We've faced more or less the same issues with Russia on plenty of their products yet we've patronised them until fairly recently . We still do import from them viz the S 400 ADS , etc though not as much as before.

Consider the Su-7 or the MiG-23 & MiG-27 - all of which we retired inside of 3 decades or less incase of the Su-7 or the sub optimal MiG-29K in-service with the IN.

What I'm trying to highlight is the fact that though you can draw some sort of a conclusion from the performance of their products they've exported , let us not conclude they mfg junk.

Besides consider the sheer numbers they're mfg & deploying their products in . Irrespective their cut copy paste / theft of western designs , most of their design philosophy is an evolution of the old USSR / Russian designs.

And the characteristic of that design philosophy was first articulated by Stalin which is quantity is a quality of its own . That's how the Soviets were able to defeat the Wehrmacht .

Since then the Soviets / Russians especially the Chinese have worked around various variations of the same philosophy. Consider the Chinese products they'd themselves use as at par / slightly inferior/ superior to their Russian counterparts.

The way I look at it , if we go by this assessment we'd prepare adequately. We underestimate them & probably pay a heavy price on the battlefield . OTOH if we've over estimated them , having made adequate preparations , we can have the last laugh.
And then there are various other issues aside from the quality of the military equipment:

Demographics are not on their side. For every bodybag sent back to China, two parents and four grandparents will be up in arms with the CCP -- their entire family line now extinguished.
Their total armed forces including the para militaries & support staff won't exceed 10 million. Not all of them are going to be casualties. Do the maths for those affected & tell me what does it amount to in a nation of 1.3 or 1.4 billion.
War fighting experience is not on their side. The CCP hasn't been in a real war -- even WW2 was fought by the Taiwanese Kuomintang. And they were forced to withdraw in the only other war they were in -- with Vietnam.
How many proper wars have we fought since 1971 ? 1987-90 in SL was more of a CI / LIC situation & 1999 in Kargil was a limited engagement.

Since the 1980s the IA has functioned mostly as a CI force. There's been fair amount of criticism on the long term impact of this phenomenon on the entire operational philosophy of the IA from various quarters.

The fact of the matter is none of the major powers except Russia in Ukraine has had the opportunity to go up against a peer in a long time & Ukraine isn't even a peer of Russia yet the latter has totally bungled up a war they should've won a long time ago.
Their new socioeconomic status is not on their side. Unlike 1962 when Mao was screwing their country over, the China today is prosperous and has much to lose if they partake in any misadventures.
Prosperity in China isn't distributed equitably. You're basing your assessment on the urban elite here . There's a vast rural underclass who're underprivileged. They'd make up the bulk of the fighting men .
And that is doubly true for the CCP. Their system is designed such that they cannot be seen as weak. If they do not have a guaranteed win, will the CCP will risk jeopardizing the rule over some inhospitable land at the Indian border?
That's where theirs & our dilemma begins. My position is they'd not get into a war with us willingly . It'd be mostly a consequence of one of those power struggles which rocks the CCP to its core forcing external adventurism .

They get more than they bargained for & then the brinkmanship begins. Beyond that what happens can be war gamed endlessly but suffice to say it's going to be extremely brutal.

After all 1962 ALSO happened coz Mao was facing unprecedented dissidence at home on account of his disastrous Great Leap Forward policy which caused the deaths of anywhere between 30-50 million Chinese depending on whom you ask. Plenty of other reasons as well.
Nevertheless, India shouldn't get complacent about the Chinese. It's in their nature to come at India sideways. India should remain vigilant at the border and not withdraw (no "quick harvest" crap). India needs to fund it's rocket force and build capacities.

I don't think we'd withdraw or lower our vigil. However that by itself isn't guarantee they'd not attempt anything adventurous.

And I couldn't have said it better -- "in order for us to prevail over them we must be in a position to exploit those fault lines."
We aren't & going by our previous track record don't be surprised if you see statements by whoever is heading the IA & IAF then to the effect - we'd fight them with what we have.

No clue how old are you but I had passed my SSC when Kargil happened & the then CoAS uttered these now infamous lines when asked how would the IA respond.

Nearly 26 years later the Indian security establishment has ensured his statement is as true today as it was when he first uttered those words.
 
Well most militaries in the world have systems which are air gapped and decentralized including the Chinese and Americans else stopping cyber attacks would be much more difficult. Snowden had to physically go to an NSA site, insert an SD card and collect all the information. If the system was not airgapped it could have been hacked perhaps even by Snowden.

Our Akash teer is an example of an airgapped system not connected to the outside world but performed well, so our Cyber Systems in a similar way have to be internally networked to a great degree but completely cutoff from the rest of the world, and centralized only to specific roles. The only threat is cracking via military members either bribed or honey trapped by MSS or ISI operatives. Thus, consistent and massive surveillance of those working on critical systems is needed, as well as further protections of detecting the insertion of malware via advanced anti virus anti malware protection suites.

Meanwhile this is all just defence meaning "blue", where India has been focusing most of its resources on. The Indian red or offensive capabilities are at a very very nascent stage and nowhere near the level of UK or Israel let alone China, Russia. Infact I would say we are barely above or even at the level of say North Korea or Iran in terms of red capabilities. The US is the undisputed master of both red and blue domains. The US can not only defend against cyber attacks on any system even civilian from China or Russia but can also stage devastating cyber attacks due to the likely massive stockpile of zero days the NSA CIA have in their arsenal.

The US was aided to have this capability by the myriad of their private companies like Dell, Booz Allen, etc (Snowden himself was a contractor from Dell working on an NSA project). Meanwhile in our country our companies would rather continue to do glorified digital coolie work, although they are increasingly focusing on this domain as well.
Since both of us lack any preliminary information about the status of our cyber security systems & offensive capabilities in this domain except the word of someone who's no direct access to these systems but is better informed than us let's just conclude we've a long way to go in these domains as compared to the Chinese & leave it at that.

That's precisely what I've been highlighting since long that we're prepared to face off with the Chinese only in one dimension as of now which is boots on the ground.

Here too how well prepared are we is subjective as we're still inducting rocket artillery like Pinaka MBRLs in various iterations at our own sweet time.

TGS , MGS etc are Work in Progress (WiP) & by the looks of it will be inducted in full strength ONLY in the 2030s.

In all the rest of the dimensions we've a long way to go.
 
Last edited:
About the radar : UTTAM integration is not specially a problem, say Dassault. It may just increase the delay and price because you have to integrate it with the rest of the jet (Spectra, missiles).
But now that the next gen RBE2 GaN ardar is on the horizon, is it interesting to integrate UTTAM? What is the real level of UTTAM? Where is the industrial phase?
It is not about UTTAM, Bon Plan. Indeed, DA has said they would work with DRDO & BEL if necessary to have it integrated with Rafale. I can only quote the technical specifications of UTTAM as it stands today. I do not know the real performance feedback of the radar post integration (in service) as it is unavailable.

What are the cost projections that are being estimated for RBE2 GaN radar? The production capacity is supposed to be in the dozen(s) from what I have read so far. So, what are the timelines that are being estimated for the Rafales with the IAF? Thales, the maker does not seem to be in a hurry to open a new production line (they are working to expand production capacity and I could not find a source that stated if they were doing so for the GaN RBE2 as well). However, things here are heating up. As you are well aware, we live in a volatile environment and do not have article 5 to rely upon. I would expect that the MoD would only okay the new lot if they came with the GaN radar from Thales.

"Integrating Uttam would require Dassault’s cooperation, extensive flight testing, and software revalidation (4–6 years for full validation delay)" : Defence Decode. Uttam is naturally out of the running. In case anyone was curious to know about this aspect.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bon Plan
"Integrating Uttam would require Dassault’s cooperation, extensive flight testing, and software revalidation (4–6 years for full validation delay)" : Defence Decode. Uttam is naturally out of the running. In case anyone was curious to know about this aspect.

Uttam is out of running ❌ Rafale is out of running 🤌✅
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Sathya and Shan
Uttam is out of running ❌ Rafale is out of running 🤌✅
As much as I understand where you are coming from, a difficult ask. Sqdr nos. are already at an all time low and we are out of options when it comes to a 4.5 gen twin engine aircraft. It is self inflicted. Let's leave it at that. The tally of the IAF & IN fleet has already reached 62 and it would pointless to go hunting for a new FA again. 12 MKIs are already on order. Let's see how things shape up.
 
As much as I understand where you are coming from, a difficult ask. Sqdr nos. are already at an all time low and we are out of options when it comes to a 4.5 gen twin engine aircraft. It is self inflicted. Let's leave it at that. The tally of the IAF & IN fleet has already reached 62 and it would pointless to go hunting for a new FA again. 12 MKIs are already on order. Let's see how things shape up.

It was just a quip for my french friends here! 😂

Not an assesment or anything
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shan
It is not about UTTAM, Bon Plan. Indeed, DA has said they would work with DRDO & BEL if necessary to have it integrated with Rafale. I can only quote the technical specifications of UTTAM as it stands today. I do not know the real performance feedback of the radar post integration (in service) as it is unavailable.

What are the cost projections that are being estimated for RBE2 GaN radar? The production capacity is supposed to be in the dozen(s) from what I have read so far. So, what are the timelines that are being estimated for the Rafales with the IAF? Thales, the maker does not seem to be in a hurry to open a new production line (they are working to expand production capacity and I could not find a source that stated if they were doing so for the GaN RBE2 as well). However, things here are heating up. As you are well aware, we live in a volatile environment and do not have article 5 to rely upon. I would expect that the MoD would only okay the new lot if they came with the GaN radar from Thales.

"Integrating Uttam would require Dassault’s cooperation, extensive flight testing, and software revalidation (4–6 years for full validation delay)" : Defence Decode. Uttam is naturally out of the running. In case anyone was curious to know about this aspect.
No cost projection, but RBE XG will cost more than previous model, for sure.
Time line : 2030 ( Rafale standard F5 : premières commandes notifiées aux industriels )
I remember UAE, in 2010 or 2011, wanted amore potent radar on the Rafale (then a PESA, but a EASA prototyp with US modules was shown and they wanted some more range, implying new cooling systems....) They have ordered 80 units, with the legacy RBE AESA AsGa radar... UAE is a very demanding customer. If they are comfortable with this radar that means it is very potent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: babablacksheep
No cost projection, but RBE XG will cost more than previous model, for sure.
Time line : 2030 ( Rafale standard F5 : premières commandes notifiées aux industriels )
I remember UAE, in 2010 or 2011, wanted amore potent radar on the Rafale (then a PESA, but a EASA prototyp with US modules was shown and they wanted some more range, implying new cooling systems....) They have ordered 80 units, with the legacy RBE AESA AsGa radar... UAE is a very demanding customer. If they are comfortable with this radar that means it is very potent.
I am sure the GCC states have their own guidelines and principles when selecting FAs. However, Bon Plan, please have a look at the aerial threats that IAF faces and then you'll find that certain aspects require bespoke solutions. The threat environment of the Indian military forces is vastly different in comparison to the MENA region. I am not saying that Thales makes incompetent products. I am saying that the update cycles/requirements of the IAF may outpace those of its other non-EU customers.