Rafale RB of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
1,991
876
France
The MMRCA 2 is in limbo. I hope we get the f4's fast and start producing them better yet we join hands with the French and do further joint development of the Rafale for the f5 and f6 but in its present situation and our useless bureaucracy I'm not seeing the MMRCA coming true. Also the American angle is also there and the caatsa thing which might result in us giving the super hornet/f15 the deal if the Americans coerce us. Or it can be scrapped entirely and g2g be done for 36-54 more rafales.
I think that India already purchased a lot of US weapons : P8I, Apache, drones.
I also think that India know very well that a french fighter has a more freedom use than an american one.
Add to that a logistic nightmare (already the case...) with another fighter in the arsenal.
So once Rafale already in the force, and appreciated by users, the near future will be bright for Rafale in India. So no US fighter.
 

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
1,033
748
Delhi
I think that India already purchased a lot of US weapons : P8I, Apache, drones.
I also think that India know very well that a french fighter has a more freedom use than an american one.
Add to that a logistic nightmare (already the case...) with another fighter in the arsenal.
So once Rafale already in the force, and appreciated by users, the near future will be bright for Rafale in India. So no US fighter.
Rafale does the job and fixes our nuclear delivery problem.. Don't know why they are taking so much time to the start the trail stages. Maybe they are waiting for Rafale f4 to get mature..
CAATSA cannot be leveraged against India. If they want to, they can try. They already did try and fail anyway.

I have no clue why you brought SoKo into the discussion.
Well Soko example was false equivalence now that I think about it..
 
  • Love
Reactions: Sathya

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,230
8,472
India
Why? They are all NATO friendly, as Rafale is. Using the same main range of weapons.

America is much more politically and militarily aligned with many countries than France. And their influence and finances are greater. Training is of a wider scope and at a higher frequency. They have a global presence. Their spares and supply capabilities are greater. Many of these countries are not like India, capable of taking independent decisions, hence the need to depend on more powerful countries and America is on top of the list.

For France to match that, EU needs to begin the common defence process.
 

Hydra

Well-Known member
May 19, 2020
1,805
820
Mumbai
Which SAM? The one that failed to intercept Iranian missiles or the one which we already have a duplicate of?
PAC 3 performing exceptionally well in hands of KSA army, a military which don't even have a proper operational experience like us is using PAC 3 effectively. Yes, like any other system it failed occasionally. But s400, & its grandpa s300 failed multiple times in syria. USA managed to penetrate sysrian airspace when its being gurded by Russian military, Israelis did the same against sysrians on daily basis.

Does our BMD is as effective as THAAD, may br yes may be not.
 

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
2,216
1,222
India
We won't buy USA fighters.
Spares , Maintenance, avionics, armament s will all be entirely new and could not be mixed up with other fighters...

Only thing that could entice india will be engine technology.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,230
8,472
India
PAC 3 performing exceptionally well in hands of KSA army, a military which don't even have a proper operational experience like us is using PAC 3 effectively. Yes, like any other system it failed occasionally. But s400, & its grandpa s300 failed multiple times in syria. USA managed to penetrate sysrian airspace when its being gurded by Russian military, Israelis did the same against sysrians on daily basis.

The S-400 has never been used, nor has it been challenged. Pretty much all the news you've heard about it are rumours. It's only used to protect Russian assets in Syria and no outside power has attacked them from the air yet. Pentrating an airspace is easy when it's not contested. The Syrian airspace is pretty much a shared space for all sides. If you haven't noticed, the Americans haven't shot down Russian or Syrian helicopters and jets. The S-400 stays silent with the Israelis attack the Syrians and Iranians.

The S-300 PMU-2 beat PAC-3 in evaluations in India in the early 2000s, although it was only paper evaulations. Even the Americans admitted that the PAC-3 doesn't match up to the S-400 after they offered it a few years ago. It's a multi-tiered system after all, plus the S-400's PAC-3 equivalent missile performs to pretty much the same level as the PAC-3.

Anyway, if PAC-3 failed to meet the IAF's expectations in the early 2000s, then it's not going to meet it now. Our MRSAM is much better. Even the Americans are now buying Israeli systems after PAC-3 failed, in order to protect their Gulf bases from Iranian attacks.

If you want a defence relationship with the US, then it's going to have to be based on systems that are next gen. NGAD, FVL, stealth drones etc, not all the crap they actually want to sell to us that we are not going to buy anyway.

Anyway, we buy what we want after extensive tests. Since the IAF decided to go for the S-400, it means it meets expectations. However the Pantsir failed, so we ejected it out of a different tender. In Syria as well, the Pantsir has failed, and the Russians have made a new system now. So you can bet the IAF knows what it's doing.

Does our BMD is as effective as THAAD, may br yes may be not.

BMD Phase I and THAAD are similar in capability in terms of the types of threats it can stop. Our BMD uses much more suitable radars for its role, plus it's a two-tier system.

And we can't afford THAAD. For the same cost as a battery of THAAD, we can have multiple batteries of our own BMD. Just 1 THAAD battery costs as much as 8-12 batteries of the S-400.