IAF seeks Government sanction for more fighter aircraft squadrons

[sandeepdg]

We need 75 Squadrons of Pure Fighter Aircrafts to have a fighting chance with a combined Pakistan-china attack.

No we don't. Read my above post, it show that the IAF stated that they can handle multiple threats if the squadron strength touches 60-62 comfortably. A modern war is not fought with numbers, its better fought with efficient and optimum use of available resources, and technological superiority.

 

[Tshering22]

No we don't. Read my above post, it show that the IAF stated that they can handle multiple threats if the squadron strength touches 60-62 comfortably. A modern war is not fought with numbers, its better fought with efficient and optimum use of available resources, and technological superiority.

You see Sandeep... 60-62 squadrons. And this is a BIG if. 75 I know is too much to ask and spend but 60 is the double of what we have right now. We are down to almost 30 Squadrons. Which means we need to add an equal amount of swanky, hi-tech, latest fighter jets.

If we take 1 squad= 20 jets, then we need 20 x 60= 1,200 fighter jets. WE are half of that. And as for not fighting in NUMBERS, you are partly wrong. Why? because if you think that PLAAF will not use their reserve MiG-21 and 19 copies you are dreaming. They will use these reserve fighters as a mass attack against us rather than use too much of their latest jets of J-10 & J-11/Su-30 fame which will maybe have 2-3 squadrons dedicated against us while the rest of it will be pointed to US,ROK, Japan and Taiwan.

This means, it will be a war of attrition. Massive numbers of (around 600-800) Mig copies will come flying to overwhelm our defenses. I know this because Chinese don't consider us as a potent enough threat that needs their finest technology to defeat. And honestly speaking, right now only around 150 MKIs are defending entire Indian borders from left to right. MiG-29s are still being upgraded, Mirages will right now start being upgraded, MiG-21 Bisons are the only remaining fighters and MiG-27s & Jaguars are useless in fighting air to air.

This leaves us on our highest and lowest platforms: the MKIs and the Bisons.

The MRCA is nowhere close, the Tejas production rate will be a pathetic 12-15 per year (this is also a big IF), the FGFA is still a decade away and AMCA is at least 12-15 years away from first induction.

And if you know, Chinese border air defenses are HUGE. HUGE with hundreds of SAM copies made and blanketed. All while our side is barren with a few pockets of air defenses. The only defense is some soldiers with INSAS and AKs. That's all. No howitzers, no light tanks yet, no extensive Akash blankets, no Pinaka MBRL blankets.... NOTHING. And this is 2011.


I may not be directly in the military, but assurances are not enough to guarantee a safety especially when my state is facing the PLA right inside their territory. Army soldiers barely have any cutting edge weapons that I mentioned above to project large-scale firepower against an invading force. Chinese have more than 27 roads coming towards Arunachal, Sikkim, Bhutan and around a few roads just dropping off near East Ladakh (Aksai Chin), Uttarakhand and Himachal. It is so easily visible in GOOGLE Earth. Try panning well and you can see the grey-ish white lines representing fine military grade roads and even railways just dropping off at our border.

We have 2 options before us to seriously deter a PLA(AF) inavsion:

- Scrap NO FIRST USE policy and make it STRIKE-ON-LAND-OCCUPATION option, while testing a megaton category nuke on supercomputers all while pressing AS HARD as possible for a missile that can strike anywhere between 5,000-10,000 Km range. To Hell with what "world" community says. In short, we need to issue something like the SAMSON Option of Israel.

- On the basis of first point, use the time and delay to set up lightning fast manufacturing and assembling. For this, get the DRDO/HAL-ADA combination directly under the PMO and CCS like ISRO rather than the useless MOD. Or thin out the MOD officials with just direct orders from AK Anthony.

Unless we take radical steps, expect states vanishing into PRC and Pakistan. Especially with this sham government.

 

[chex3009]

^^^ Can't agree more with you Tshering..!!!

 

[Rage]

+1 Tshering.


I would disagree, however, with your assessment that Chinese air-defense forces are 'blanketed' in the region.

This is what we know of Chinese air defences in the region, in the public domain:

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/01/chinese-sam-network.html

Edit: Just realised, it was removed pending PDF conversion.


The region is very difficult to deploy. And I doubt there is any more than an average concentration there, in contrast to a massed-concentration. I don't doubt, however, that they are able to move forces there quickly, and at short notice. Which is what we should be concentrating on, building infrastructure for long-term preparedness and defense plans.


I would say that an even bigger threat is this:

China deploys CCS-5 missiles on India border

[COLOR=" slategray"]August 17, 2010 [/COLOR]

PTI | Washington

China has moved new advanced longer range CSS-5 missiles close to the borders with India and developed contingency plans to shift airborne forces at short notice to the
region, according to Pentagon.

Despite increased political and economic relationship between India and China, the Pentagon in a report to the US Congress said, tensions remain along the Sino-India borders with rising instances of border violation and aggressive border patrolling by Chinese soldiers.

However, a senior Defense Department official told reporters that the US has not observed any anomalous increase in military capabilities along the Sino-India border.

Noting that China continues to maintain its position on what its territorial claim is, the official said, the two capitals – Beijing and New Delhi - have been able to manage this dispute, in a way, using confidence-building measures and diplomatic mechanisms to be able to maintain relative stability in that border area.

"But it's something that China continues to watch; but I wouldn't say that there's anything in this report that demonstrates a spike or an anomalous increase in military capabilities along the border.

"It's something that China's paying very careful attention to. It's obviously something that India is paying careful attention to as well," the Senior Defense Department official said.

In its annual report, the US Defence department said, to improve regional deterrence, the PLA has replaced older liquid-fueled, nuclear capable CCS-3 intermediate range missiles with more advanced and survivable fueled CSS-5 MRBMs.

"China is currently engaged in massive road and rail infrastructure development along the Sino-India border primarily to facilitate economic development in western China: improved roads also support PLA operations," the Pentagon said.

The report presented to the Congress said despite increased political and economic relations over the years between China and India, tensions remain along their shared 4,057 km border, most notably over Arunachal Pradesh, which China asserts as part of Tibet and therefore of China, and over the Aksai Chin region at the western
end of the Tibetan Plateau.

"Both countries, in 2009, stepped up efforts to assert their claims. China tried to block a USD 2.9 billion loan to India from the Asian Development Bank, claiming part of the loan would have been used for water projects in Arunachal Pradesh. This represented
the first time China sought to influence this dispute through a multilateral institution," the Pentagon said.

The report said: "The then governor of Arunachal Pradesh announced that India would deploy more troops and fighter jets to the area. An Indian academic also noted that, in 2008, the Indian Army had recorded 270 border violations and nearly 2,300 cases of 'aggressive border patrolling' by Chinese soldiers".

China refers to its intervention in the Korean War (1950-1953) as the "War to Resist the United States and Aid Korea." Similarly, authoritative texts refer to border conflicts against India (1962), the Soviet Union (1969), and Vietnam (1979) as "Self-Defense Counter Attacks," the Pentagon report said.

The Pentagon said Beijing remains concerned with persistent disputes along China's shared border with India and the strategic ramifications of India's rising economic, political, and military power

China wary of India's rise: Pentagon

IANS | Washington : China remains concerned about strategic ramifications of India's rising economic, political, and military power even as it quickly modernises its own military, according to a new US defence department report.

With sights set on extending its influence deep into the Pacific and Indian oceans, the People's Liberation Army is advancing across the board commensurate with China's burgeoning economic power, said Pentagon's annual report to Congress on China's military Monday.

"To improve regional deterrence, the PLA has replaced older liquid-fuelled, nuclear capable CSS-3 intermediate-range ballistic missiles with more advanced and survivable solid-fuelled CSS-5 MRBMs and may be developing contingency plans to move airborne troops into the region," the report said.

"China is currently investing in road development along the Sino-Indian border primarily to facilitate economic development in western China," it said noting "improved roads would also support PLA border defence operations.

The 83-page report, "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China" noted "China has deepened its ties with India through increased trade, high-level dialogues, and an improved military-to-military relationship."

"China and India agreed to boost trade from $11.4 billion in 2007 to $40 billion in 2010, and they have held several rounds of dialogue over disputed territorial claims.

"Sino-Indian Defence ties were institutionalised in 2007 with the establishment of an Annual Defence Dialogue and by conducting three bilateral Defence exercises since 2007."

"Nonetheless, Beijing remains concerned with persistent disputes along China's shared border with India and the strategic ramifications of India's rising economic, political, and military power," the Pentagon said.

"Despite increased political and economic relations over the years between China and India, tensions remain along their shared 4,057 km border, most notably over Arunachal Pradesh, which China asserts is part of Tibet and therefore of China, and over the Askai Chin region at the western end of the Tibetan Plateau," the report said.

Suggesting both countries in 2009 stepped up efforts to assert their claims, the report recalled "China tried to block a $2.9 billion loan to India from the Asian Development Bank, claiming part of the loan would have been used for water projects in Arunachal Pradesh (India's northeastern state bordering China)."

"This represented the first time China sought to influence this dispute (China lays claims to Arunachal Pradesh) through a multilateral institution," it said.

Turning to China's cyberwarfare capabilities, the report noted "In March 2009, Canadian researchers uncovered an electronic spy network, apparently based mainly in China, which had reportedly infiltrated Indian and other nations' government offices around the world. More than 1,300 computers in 103 countries were identified."

Listing numerous areas in which China's military is on the march, the report said China is developing and fielding large numbers of advanced medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles and deploying a new class of nuclear-powered submarines equipped with intercontinental ballistic missiles.

It is also pouring money into "increasingly capable long-range air Defence systems, electronic warfare and computer network attack capabilities, advanced fighter aircraft, and counter-space systems."

China has "the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile programme in the world," the report said. Beijing "now possesses one of the largest" forces of surface-to-air missiles in the world, it added. And it has the "largest force of principal combatants, submarines, and amphibious warfare ships in Asia."

Assessment details worrying military ambitions of China

PTI | Washington : China is pursuing a major military build up in a "secretive manner" developing survivable nuclear delivery system, a 1,500 km range anti-ship missile to hit aircraft carriers and has the most active land based ballistic and cruise missile programme in the world, Pentagon has said.

Beijing is acquiring 'capabilities' to strike from a distance, warned the US Defence department, saying these moves, "increases the potential of misunderstanding" and military conflict with other nations.

In worrying new assessment, Pentagon said Beijing had developed missiles capable of striking targets in space and is also expanding its fleet of conventional and nuclear submarines to give it forces global reach.

The annual Congressional-mandated report by the Pentagon expressed concern about the lack of transparency from China into the force projection and anti-access, area denial capabilities it is acquiring.

In 2009 alone, the Pentagon said China's military-related spending was USD 150 billion. While some of the increasing Chinese capabilities have been put to positive use, like humanitarian and anti-piracy efforts, the report says, China's continued effort to be able to sustain military operations far from its shore was a cause of concern
to the US military.

But, it said China had still limited ability to sustain military power at a distance. "They are fast catching up", the report said, by developing an anti-ship ballistic missile that has a range in excess of 1,500 kilometres, which is intended to provide the PLA
with the capability to attack ships, including aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific.

According to the report, "China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is developing and testing several new classes of offensive missiles, qualitatively upgrading certain missile systems and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses," a Pentagon official told reporters.

China's active ballistic and cruise missile development programme also extends over into the area of its nuclear force modernisation, where China appears to be focusing on developing more survivable delivery systems, he said.

"Turning to the maritime realm, the PLA navy has the largest force of principal combatant submarines and amphibious warfare ships in Asia. China continues to invest heavily in undersea warfare with a mixture of nuclear-powered submarines and conventionally-powered diesel electric boats.

This is complemented by investment in new surface combatants designed to improve the PLA navy' capability and capacity for anti-surface and anti-air warfare," the official said.

"In the South China Sea, China's primary interests are related to securing its extensive sovereignty claims and exploiting natural resources. A stronger military presence in the region would also position it for force projection, blockade and surveillance operations
to influence critical sea lanes," the official said.

"China's investment in advanced electronic warfare systems, counterspace weapons and computer network operations reflect the emphasis and priority China's leaders place on building capability in these areas," the senior Defense official said.

"China still has much work to do to translate its aspirations into operational capabilities, but we note that China is in fact working to translate those aspirations into operational capabilities," the official said.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/276667/China-deploys-CCS-5-missiles-on-India-border.html


---


I would also disagree, with your assertion that the Indian border there is 'barren':

 

[Tshering22]

I would disagree, however, with your assessment that Chinese air-defense forces are 'blanketed' in the region.

One needs to understand the term blanketing entirely. Sorry for not explaining it right. This doesn't mean that SAM batteries form a "fence" around the border and stand shoulder to shoulder. As you observed in your following article, Chinese have the concept of relying on strategic assets maximum to deter enemies. The moving of new ballistic missile system, the launch of new ASBMs against carriers and the the placement of thousands of rockets near its eastern flanks is a fine example.

IAF has more number of bases "on the map" compared to China. And by that quoting I mean to say that everything Chinese foreign policy and ministry of defense does is based on the gold principle of deception. It is not wrong; but rather very clever. The 2 or 3 bases that are shown on the map simply exhibit the fact that a more sinister and sharp-minded plan is being made.

Rather than hold active forward bases (not for PLAAF alone but PLA as well), 2 or 3 are shown with limited equipment while simultaneously, roads, railways, and supply routes are build exactly till the dropping point of Arunachal and Sikkim. This is a new released 2 years ago that I am telling you. This means that whatever strategic assets that PLA plans to move into its southwest flank, is not organized as a definitive base but a mix in such a way that it would not interest military watchdogs scanning the globe with satellites. You would also be careful to note that that this is not very difficult to achieve in Tibet-- the region has most scarce population especially in the bordering regions. Massive swathes of land are covered with jagged and cold mountains and the terrain is either plateau-ed or mountainous. So making organized "military forward bases" is something a deceptive force need not focus on when an alternate is there.

There are so many roads these days to our border (I have seen a different picture of Google earth when I checked showing more white lines) that it will be difficult to take them all out. Also, do pan into Arunachal Pradesh for a minute and carefully see the terrain markings. No strategic roads to supply forward bases or even border outposts.

Now tell me, how can we mass supply our troops in such a situation? What different is it than 62? This is partly due to the faulty mentality that by keeping the state under-developed, foresty and mountainous it will make PLA's job impossible to enter AP. This is just like saying, since you are looking at my girlfriend with dirty intentions I wrap her up in curtain cloth rather than coming and pummeling you.

The region is very difficult to deploy. And I doubt there is any more than an average concentration there, in contrast to a massed-concentration. I don't doubt, however, that they are able to move forces there quickly, and at short notice. Which is what we should be concentrating on, building infrastructure for long-term preparedness and defense plans.

My dear friend, that is exactly what they want you to think; hence the setup of showing that their concentration is "not on us but on US and Japan". It is wrong. US is not going to attack they know. Japan until recently has been very passive and won't attack (even though they have a mental scar of WW2). South Korea can barely handle Kim & Co. Russia is not interesting in attacking either since they already are too huge for their population and well.. they are not someone who go looking for needless trouble.

Who's left? Us. With 1 state in contentious claim, 1 state in disputing identity (Sikkim.. yes you heard me right; till now), 1 state in de-recognition for ally mode, this is something more than serious.

What we claim as "difficult and impossible" they have already conquered it. And the CCS-5 is road and rail-mobile. Compared to their battle readiness, we are logistically still asleep.

 

[ace009]

I agree with Tsering on both Chinese readiness and India's apparent lack of combat aircraft. However, I do not think that a nuclear "STRIKE-ON-LAND-OCCUPATION option" will be a deterrent to the Chinese. According to your assessment, PLAAF is ready to throw their lowest tier fighters (older Mig copies) against India in a massed attack so that Indian expensive fighters are overwhelmed by numbers.It will be a turkey shoot for some time before the IAF planes exhaust their ammo and are then cut down while trying to get back to base - right? This means that PLAAF full well that a majority of the Mig copy fighters will be lost - which includes lost pilots. Which means that China cares little for it's manpower (even valuable ones like PLAAF pilots!). What do you think they care about for a few lowly trained soldiers being lost to Indian tactical nukes? Again in a massed attack (since PLA is 2 times the IA and has far greater logistics to move manpower and weapons), a few thousand (maybe even a couple of ten thousands) will be lost before the PLA overwhelms the IA lines and once that happens, India cannot fire tactical nukes against its own soldiers - right?
On the other hand, if it is strategic nukes you are talking about, that is a big deal - the first nation to use a strategic nuke will also stand alone forever - no one will come to their defense and the opponents (in this case China, who have 5 times more nukes than India) can wipe out most of the big Indian cities in retaliation with their strategic nukes on longer range ICBMs. So, it will be a lose lose for India.
On the other hand, I completely agree with you regarding India increasing it's defense production - both in quantity (at least a 3-4 fold increase) and in Quality (go for Automation, heavy equipments and more factories). That would be the best way to build our forces and develop a true response to Chinese power.

 

[badguy2000]

I agree with Tsering on both Chinese readiness and India's apparent lack of combat aircraft. However, I do not think that a nuclear "STRIKE-ON-LAND-OCCUPATION option" will be a deterrent to the Chinese. According to your assessment, PLAAF is ready to throw their lowest tier fighters (older Mig copies) against India in a massed attack so that Indian expensive fighters are overwhelmed by numbers.It will be a turkey shoot for some time before the IAF planes exhaust their ammo and are then cut down while trying to get back to base - right? This means that PLAAF full well that a majority of the Mig copy fighters will be lost - which includes lost pilots. Which means that China cares little for it's manpower (even valuable ones like PLAAF pilots!). What do you think they care about for a few lowly trained soldiers being lost to Indian tactical nukes? Again in a massed attack (since PLA is 2 times the IA and has far greater logistics to move manpower and weapons), a few thousand (maybe even a couple of ten thousands) will be lost before the PLA overwhelms the IA lines and once that happens, India cannot fire tactical nukes against its own soldiers - right?
On the other hand, if it is strategic nukes you are talking about, that is a big deal - the first nation to use a strategic nuke will also stand alone forever - no one will come to their defense and the opponents (in this case China, who have 5 times more nukes than India) can wipe out most of the big Indian cities in retaliation with their strategic nukes on longer range ICBMs. So, it will be a lose lose for India.
On the other hand, I completely agree with you regarding India increasing it's defense production - both in quantity (at least a 3-4 fold increase) and in Quality (go for Automation, heavy equipments and more factories). That would be the best way to build our forces and develop a true response to Chinese power.

the modernizaiton of India defence is on a wrong way now. the longer Indian defence get along with it, the farther India defence is away from its goal--make India defence strong enough .

the problem of India defence is not only the lack of advanced platforms,but also the failure to transition from "mechanical force" to "informationized force".

 

[civfanatic]

We need to seriously start thinking beyond Pakistan and China. Has it occurred to anyone that the "China threat" syndrome was created as a means to deny India strategic flexibility?

India's future lies in control of the Indian Ocean, and expanding influence in both Central Asia and Southeast Asia. Geographically, India is in the most ideal position to project power in this domain. To do so we probably need 65-70 squadrons, which hopefully we wil be close to getting by mid-century.

 

[civfanatic]

the modernizaiton of India defence is on a wrong way now. the longer Indian defence get along with it, the farther India defence is away from its goal--make India defence strong enough .

the problem of India defence is not only the lack of advanced platforms,but also the failure to transition from "mechanical force" to "informationized force".

What are you talking about....

 

[sandeepdg]

If we take 1 squad= 20 jets, then we need 20 x 60= 1,200 fighter jets. WE are half of that. And as for not fighting in NUMBERS, you are partly wrong. Why? because if you think that PLAAF will not use their reserve MiG-21 and 19 copies you are dreaming. They will use these reserve fighters as a mass attack against us rather than use too much of their latest jets of J-10 & J-11/Su-30 fame which will maybe have 2-3 squadrons dedicated against us while the rest of it will be pointed to US,ROK, Japan and Taiwan.

Well, I couldn't agree more with you either, but everyone knows that is a possibility anyway. That is what numbers have their effectiveness for. But on that point, I would like to say that if we take it as game of numbers, then forget about matching them, ever. Other than ramping up our production capability tremendously, we need to have a technological edge in all spheres of defense and intel hardware. We should have the capability to take out their mass airpower even before it takes off, for that we need a whole lot of high-tech stuff and in numbers which clearly we don't have. So, if a war breaks tomorrow, we all can forget North East was a part of this country. Period !

 

[ace009]

To Tsering, it is rarely in the interest of an aggressor to throw their weapons in a mass attack and waste large amounts of manpower for small gains. If China decides to lose all it's legacy fighters in a mass attack against India, they will also suffer from a loss of fighter pilots, loss of morale (and loss of face) if it comes out that the combat loss ratio has been 8:1 or 10:1, which may very well be the case if you pit Mig-19 and Mig-21s against BVRAAM armed Su-30 MKIs.

To Sandeep, wars are fought for political and economic gain. The geographical gains might also be limited considering other world powers (USA, EU, Russia, Japan etc) will step in to resolve the conflict ASAP. So, yes, it will be a war of attrition, but for a limited period of time and both India and China will lose out a lot.

However, I think it is high time that we develop a serious manufacturing base, to produce about 50+ LCA fighters a year and about 100+ of other types (under license productions). The current rate of ~15-20 fighters are too slow. We also need to have a mass production for SAMs, ATGMs and SRBMs. We should also develop multiple-head missiles.

 

[sandeepdg]

To Sandeep, wars are fought for political and economic gain. The geographical gains might also be limited considering other world powers (USA, EU, Russia, Japan etc) will step in to resolve the conflict ASAP. So, yes, it will be a war of attrition, but for a limited period of time and both India and China will lose out a lot.

That's a different take on it. In their right mind, neither the Indians or the Chinese would want war at any cost. But, we are discussing here as to what can happen if an short war does break out. China hardly gives a shit about world powers, other than the USA no one has the guts to confront China even in a diplomatic manner. If these world powers had any clout, then China wouldn't have find the courage to bully its neighbors for so long. And also, India will loose out much more than China if it does happen, cause I also believe they are hardly bothered about sacrificing manpower.

We should also develop multiple-head missiles.

That's precisely why we are working on the Agni-5.

 

[ace009]

I think the best way to stop china is to arm our Northeast and the HP area with well located SAM installations, Fighter bases, Underground bunkers and fortifications, Light tanks and Light artillary. Make things so hard for the Chinese that any incursion will cost them 10:1 in terms of planes, armor or even manpower. Remember, an aggressor needs atleast 3:1 advantage to conquer and hold a foreign territory (with technological pariity). With even limited technological superiority on the Indian side (by importing and patnering with western countries, Israel and Russia) we can make it as hard as 10:1.
Defence production and procurement would be the key in such cases too.
I would like to see ~5-6 squadrons of LCA Tejas, 1-2 FGFA and 3-4 Su-30 MKI and 20-25 SAM installations in the NE area.
What say you Tsering?

 

[sandeepdg]

I think the best way to stop china is to arm our Northeast and the HP area with well located SAM installations, Fighter bases, Underground bunkers and fortifications, Light tanks and Light artillary. Make things so hard for the Chinese that any incursion will cost them 10:1 in terms of planes, armor or even manpower. Remember, an aggressor needs atleast 3:1 advantage to conquer and hold a foreign territory (with technological pariity). With even limited technological superiority on the Indian side (by importing and patnering with western countries, Israel and Russia) we can make it as hard as 10:1.
Defence production and procurement would be the key in such cases too.
I would like to see ~5-6 squadrons of LCA Tejas, 1-2 FGFA and 3-4 Su-30 MKI and 20-25 SAM installations in the NE area.
What say you Tsering?

That's all good again, but "1-2 FGFA", that's not happening before 2018 at the least. If Tejas are to be deployed, they should be the Mark-2 ones in NE. And again that's not happening for another 5-7 years, I suppose. So, the best thing to do is to increase the presence of SAM sites in NE which include all types, i.e., the LR-SAMs and the MR-SAMs especially, as well as maybe deploy an AWACS in eastern sector.

 

[Crusader53]

India may have to consider ordering a number of F-35's to supplement its FGFA's and MMRCA's. Especially, if China produces a great number of J-20's and J-10's. (plus other types)

 

[Atul]

India may have to consider ordering a number of F-35's to supplement its FGFA's and MMRCA's. Especially, if China produces a great number of J-20's and J-10's. (plus other types)

Indian is already rejected the F-35 Program, FGFA, MMRCA, TEJAS & the SU-30MKI will be responsible on the Arial Defense of India for the Next 25-30 years..

Su-30MKI is already stationed in the North East Sector. hope Tejas will join in Soon..

 

[Tshering22]

Dude - 300 MKI vs 272 - that's a ~10% increase - how does that make it "impossible to maintain"? If we want to increase our squadron strength from 39.5 to 48, a 10% increase in MKI is the least we can do. Anyway I read somewhere that the IAF was asking MoD about ~300 MKI if they increase total squadron numbers to 45..

Bhai, this is because each MKI has a terrible cost escalation and costs now around 3 times the original value we had with Russians. 30 more MKIs will make it redundant to operate as well as expensive. Consider the figures that IAF is undertaking to maintain 150 jets and think that if we place an additional order of 30 more, it will take at least 1 year time in which cost might escalate.

Our focus is to move beyond the MKI into FGFA. Every paisa that can be removed here can be put there.

I agree that the Eurofighter is more expensive. But I dislike the Rafael because it was built as a strike aircraft and has serious limitations in a air-to-air combat. Which is why it has not won a single foreign contract, even with pro-France countries. Also, the Eurofighter brings with it the supercruise technology and some other ToT goodies. Also, the EADS is willing to start a second production line in India - that would be great for us in case a war breaks out.

Rafale was NEVER built as a strike jet. Who told this to you? It has always been said as an Omnirole fighter aka multirole capabilities for both A2A and A2G. The simple reason why Rafale is not winning contract so far is either due to US arm-twisting of pro-western nations or the budget limitations of these countries. It is in a way the same reasons why Gripen lost last 3 contracts. The main criteria for entering MRCA contract is to be multirole. Rafale won't be here if it was intended as a strike jet only.

Typhoon brings supercruise but so does the new and heavily improved Gripen NG/IN at a much much lower cost per unit in both operating and maintaining. As for its multinational part, Typhoon is no different since its made by 4 different countries. EFT will be good add but its just too expensive and is not justified. Tranche 3 promises excellent A2G, but its cost exceeds its benefits that Gripen IN gives in single engine mode. Remember all these guesses of 1 engine "unreliability" is all bogus guesswork of reporters since any air force has to balance 2 and 1 engine jets to manage its operating costs. IAF clearly said if 1 engine can "do the job" they will take it. My bet is Gripen IN OR Rafale.

EFT is good; but a ripoff.

On the other hand, the SFC needs and wants a true strike fighter with low detectability and the Rafael is ideal for that. If the SFC wants to maintain a separate "mini airforce", then there is no point trying to get the same fighter for the MMRCA as for the SFC. The "need to minimize costs" is a poor poor excuse to get birds not suited for the tasks.

Pure strike fighter will be a weird choice since it will be vulnerable to attacks both AAA and enemy jets and will need escorts. If indeed SFC wants to keep a balance, then it should either go for SU-35BM which is similar to MKI in many aspects and at the same time can be a A2G jet as well as A2A.

I like the Gripen a lot, but it is clearly a lightweight for our "medium" MRCA needs. Also, the technologies it brings are not as significant as the Eurofighter or the Rafael.

NG entered this contest because it meets weight criteria. In ANY RFI, the rules are strict and very professional no matter what. Gripen IN is heavier than the Gripen C that Swedes, Thais and South Africans use and can carry far more payload. What technology does Typhoon bring that NG doesn't? Both are agile multirole fighters, both have supercruise capabillities, both will use European AESA (Since IAI is armed twisted on not teaming with Swedes), both are having next generation cockpits and the NG infact has a much more chance if overall probability is seen. Only demerit is that it has no political advantage.

I agree that 4 squadrons of AMCA is VERY optimistic. But if the ADA/HAL and DRDO people want to demonstrate (which they should) that they have indeed learnt a lot from the LCA development and can handle fast development and manufacturing needs of the Indian armed forces, then they better make this happen. The AMCA prototypes should start flying by 2018, should get IOC by 2021 and should enter production by 2022 and have a production rate of 1.5-2 squadrons a year. Wet dream? Well, if we want to reach adulthood in our defense production by 2025, better have puberty-like wet dreams in 2011 - what say you buddy?

We are talking about sarkari dodos who promised not more than 12 Tejas jets production units per year and that too when its assembly lines are only churning out only MKIs right now. Now imagine this: they will be assembling MRCAs and FGFAs AND Tejas Mk2s at that time... you seriously think that they will be able to make 1.5-2 squadrons a year with all that? Knowing HAL..nope. Not unless they get taken over by some hard-nosed private bigwig who applies automobile assembling rules to it and speeds the production at least thrice its current capability.

About the "dancing in Gangtok in your innerwear" :-D part, I hope you have warm thermal inners - I have been to gangtok in December - it is colder than our "cold start" policy.

That's the whole reason why I put up the condition; I know that HAL won't be able to do it no matter how optimistic we get. They simply don't have the work structure or the will to make one.

If we want to use the LCA as a point defense fighter and expect to fight a war in two fronts, we should definitely have 15-16 squadrons. Otherwise, what is the f***ing point in spending Billions in developing a LCA anyway? And, 160 mk2 and 40 mk1 makes a total of 10 squadrons - that is peanuts for a point defense fighter in a country the size of India with two serious opponents in two sides. Even 15-16 squadrons seem like a bare minimum.

I agree but the point is even if I do, what IAF says will matter. Now How many Tejas MK2/3/4s they intend to stuff into IAF is subjected to the amount of fighters IAF plans to have in its fleet. If we take my said numbers then we will have the final numbers as

- 200 Tejas
- 200 MRCA
- 300 FGFA
- 200 AMCA (as I said total final numbers)
- 272 MKIs

That already takes the number to around 1,072 spanking new fighters. You seriously cannot think of more than this since PLAAF has ~800 old MiG-19s and MiG-21 copies that are in storage and will use numbers to overwhelm us coupled with a few squadrons of J-10s, J-11s and J-20 (not more than 300 of these combined). Their best tech will ALWAYS be kept pointed towards:

-USA
-Japan/ROK
-Taiwan

So forget getting huge numbers. India has been always "Army focused" and won't put so much emphasis on air power as to get 62 squadrons at least till 2030. After that, no one can tell. Our government ain't Israeli government to put so much concern in Aerial warfare.

Actually, the Mig 29Ks are nowhere as good as the F/A-18 in terms of carrier capabilities. The F/A 18 SH are the best carrier aircraft at present and will only be bettered by a 5th gen fighter. The Mig-29K on the other hand is a souped up offering of the bucket of bolts called Mig 29 we have been flying for the last 30(?) years. The Mig 29Ks were bought only because we were buying the Gorshkov, and they are going to fly from the Gorshkov alone.

That's because Yanks keep hyping it up like that. F/A-18s only advantage is its powerful radar. Apart from that, it is useless in a head-on fight with new MiG-29Ks. How come you think that SH is better than the Ks? Because Yanks said it? Come on! The new Ks share the same fuselage as MiG-29 while the SH shares same fuselage with Hornet (Except the dimension and intakes).

-both have completely digital FBW
-both will have similar payloads
-both will have a completely digital cockpit (forget the large iPad screen on the latest SH showed in AERO India '11)

Other than its radar, SH has no advantage in an Indian environment. K's radars can be further upgraded later or replaced. Doesn't merit getting a politically tied fighter for no reason. SH has been a hit fighting Iraq and Libya. That's the only proven capability it has.

The IAC-2 was planned to have a catapault launcher (which is now being pushed back to the IAC-3 since we could not develop the Cat-launch technology). If we buy the naval F/A-18 SH, we can negotiate with the supplier to get the Cat launch technology transferred to IAC-2 (or IAC-3).
When I made my naval "wet dream", this is what I had in mind ... (remember, this is for 2025), India is operating 4 aircraft carriers.

By 2025, 5G birds will be in Navy's radar mate. SH will be old to induct by then. Simply no need for a 4++ gen fighter to be freshly inducted in IN by then.

 

[ace009]

Bhai, this is because each MKI has a terrible cost escalation and costs now around 3 times the original value we had with Russians. 30 more MKIs will make it redundant to operate as well as expensive. Consider the figures that IAF is undertaking to maintain 150 jets and think that if we place an additional order of 30 more, it will take at least 1 year time in which cost might escalate.

Our focus is to move beyond the MKI into FGFA. Every paisa that can be removed here can be put there.

Well, you think Su-30 MKI is expensive to maintain - and FGFA will be cheaper? The F-22 Raptor is the most difficult and expensive fighter to maintain. It needs 30 hrs of maintenance compared to 6 hrs for the SH. Mostly due to RAM paints and other LO features need to be tweaked to keep the "stealth" alive.
Similarly, the FGFA will also require longer and costlier maintenance. Your figures of 300 FGFA make no sense. I think it would be much better to actually flip the figures and have 200 FGFA and 300 Su-30 MKI. Also, have only about 100 AMCA in addition to the 200 MMRCA. The number of LCA Tejas should be really higher - some 500 or so. They should form the backbone as interceptors/ point defense fighters and provide cover to support aircraft (read AWACS, tankers etc).

Rafale was NEVER built as a strike jet. Who told this to you? It has always been said as an Omnirole fighter aka multirole capabilities for both A2A and A2G. The simple reason why Rafale is not winning contract so far is either due to US arm-twisting of pro-western nations or the budget limitations of these countries. It is in a way the same reasons why Gripen lost last 3 contracts. The main criteria for entering MRCA contract is to be multirole. Rafale won't be here if it was intended as a strike jet only.

Typhoon brings supercruise but so does the new and heavily improved Gripen NG/IN at a much much lower cost per unit in both operating and maintaining. As for its multinational part, Typhoon is no different since its made by 4 different countries. EFT will be good add but its just too expensive and is not justified. Tranche 3 promises excellent A2G, but its cost exceeds its benefits that Gripen IN gives in single engine mode. Remember all these guesses of 1 engine "unreliability" is all bogus guesswork of reporters since any air force has to balance 2 and 1 engine jets to manage its operating costs. IAF clearly said if 1 engine can "do the job" they will take it. My bet is Gripen IN OR Rafale.

EFT is good; but a ripoff.



Pure strike fighter will be a weird choice since it will be vulnerable to attacks both AAA and enemy jets and will need escorts. If indeed SFC wants to keep a balance, then it should either go for SU-35BM which is similar to MKI in many aspects and at the same time can be a A2G jet as well as A2A.



NG entered this contest because it meets weight criteria. In ANY RFI, the rules are strict and very professional no matter what. Gripen IN is heavier than the Gripen C that Swedes, Thais and South Africans use and can carry far more payload. What technology does Typhoon bring that NG doesn't? Both are agile multirole fighters, both have supercruise capabillities, both will use European AESA (Since IAI is armed twisted on not teaming with Swedes), both are having next generation cockpits and the NG infact has a much more chance if overall probability is seen. Only demerit is that it has no political advantage.




We are talking about sarkari dodos who promised not more than 12 Tejas jets production units per year and that too when its assembly lines are only churning out only MKIs right now. Now imagine this: they will be assembling MRCAs and FGFAs AND Tejas Mk2s at that time... you seriously think that they will be able to make 1.5-2 squadrons a year with all that? Knowing HAL..nope. Not unless they get taken over by some hard-nosed private bigwig who applies automobile assembling rules to it and speeds the production at least thrice its current capability.



That's the whole reason why I put up the condition; I know that HAL won't be able to do it no matter how optimistic we get. They simply don't have the work structure or the will to make one.




I agree but the point is even if I do, what IAF says will matter. Now How many Tejas MK2/3/4s they intend to stuff into IAF is subjected to the amount of fighters IAF plans to have in its fleet. If we take my said numbers then we will have the final numbers as

- 200 Tejas
- 200 MRCA
- 300 FGFA
- 200 AMCA (as I said total final numbers)
- 272 MKIs

That already takes the number to around 1,072 spanking new fighters. You seriously cannot think of more than this since PLAAF has ~800 old MiG-19s and MiG-21 copies that are in storage and will use numbers to overwhelm us coupled with a few squadrons of J-10s, J-11s and J-20 (not more than 300 of these combined). Their best tech will ALWAYS be kept pointed towards:

-USA
-Japan/ROK
-Taiwan

So forget getting huge numbers. India has been always "Army focused" and won't put so much emphasis on air power as to get 62 squadrons at least till 2030. After that, no one can tell. Our government ain't Israeli government to put so much concern in Aerial warfare.



That's because Yanks keep hyping it up like that. F/A-18s only advantage is its powerful radar. Apart from that, it is useless in a head-on fight with new MiG-29Ks. How come you think that SH is better than the Ks? Because Yanks said it? Come on! The new Ks share the same fuselage as MiG-29 while the SH shares same fuselage with Hornet (Except the dimension and intakes).

-both have completely digital FBW
-both will have similar payloads
-both will have a completely digital cockpit (forget the large iPad screen on the latest SH showed in AERO India '11)

Other than its radar, SH has no advantage in an Indian environment. K's radars can be further upgraded later or replaced. Doesn't merit getting a politically tied fighter for no reason. SH has been a hit fighting Iraq and Libya. That's the only proven capability it has.



By 2025, 5G birds will be in Navy's radar mate. SH will be old to induct by then. Simply no need for a 4++ gen fighter to be freshly inducted in IN by then.

Presently, the best technologies are developed by the west, USA, Europe and Israel. I would trust birds that have seen action (F/A-18 SH) by a Navy than an untested plane as our frontline Naval fighter. Sure we bought the Mig-29K for Gorshy, but we should get the F/A-18 SH for our future A/C to have a battle proven, long range, high powered proven bird. And we should get it sooner than 2020 (say by 2016). We can supplement these two with the Naval LCA mk2 as it comes out. As for the Mig-29K sharing the same features as the SH, isn't that a dead giveaway? The SH was designed and built years before the Mig-29K. So, you would think that the much later Mig-29K should have better systems - right? If they just match up, then clearly, the proven fighter (SH) is a better deal.

As for the Rafael, it was discussed in a dfi forum how the french built the Rafael with primary A2G capability, although a multirole fighter. The Mirage 2000-5 was supposed to be their primary A2A capability fighter, whereas the Rafael will complement it with superior A2G capabilities. As a result, it was designed to be weaker as a A2A fighter.

I agree that the EF2000 is twice as costly as the Gripen, but it is also a better fighter, a better tech platform, has more political and strategic leverage and brings more technologies with it.

 

[arya]

govt where is govt

is any govt in india who care for nation security

 

[Tshering22]

Well, you think Su-30 MKI is expensive to maintain - and FGFA will be cheaper? The F-22 Raptor is the most difficult and expensive fighter to maintain. It needs 30 hrs of maintenance compared to 6 hrs for the SH. Mostly due to RAM paints and other LO features need to be tweaked to keep the "stealth" alive.

Similarly, the FGFA will also require longer and costlier maintenance. Your figures of 300 FGFA make no sense. I think it would be much better to actually flip the figures and have 200 FGFA and 300 Su-30 MKI. Also, have only about 100 AMCA in addition to the 200 MMRCA. The number of LCA Tejas should be really higher - some 500 or so. They should form the backbone as interceptors/ point defense fighters and provide cover to support aircraft (read AWACS, tankers etc).

Man how are you comparing a 4.5G to a 5G bird? Of course FGFA will be costly. But it is being planned for future warfare and air superiority in South Asia. Wonder how you are comparing them in first place. MKI has lived its life as a swanky trendy fighter of this decade and the last. From the next decade and 2--30 years on it will be FGFA's era. So there's no point in acquiring a lot more MKIs which are simply redundant. FGFAs will be needed in that many numbers because we have a Dragon with humungous economy, a colossal military and a government with expansionist interests. MKI is a good fighter but it in no way outpaces FGFAs to justify fresh acquisitions of the same as per 2011 onwards in a fresh new tender.

Presently, the best technologies are developed by the west, USA, Europe and Israel. I would trust birds that have seen action (F/A-18 SH) by a Navy than an untested plane as our frontline Naval fighter. Sure we bought the Mig-29K for Gorshy, but we should get the F/A-18 SH for our future A/C to have a battle proven, long range, high powered proven bird. And we should get it sooner than 2020 (say by 2016). We can supplement these two with the Naval LCA mk2 as it comes out. As for the Mig-29K sharing the same features as the SH, isn't that a dead giveaway? The SH was designed and built years before the Mig-29K. So, you would think that the much later Mig-29K should have better systems - right? If they just match up, then clearly, the proven fighter (SH) is a better deal.

Apart from a "tested" battle plane, there is something called inventory management. You know how difficult it will be to maintain too many different types of fighters for the Navy's shoestring budget? SH is just a fantasy man. It will never be considered if Boeing cannot give guarantees for uninterrupted supplies-- something impossible from US. While it is tried and tested and all that (against small weak and ill-trained nations), considering the countries that SH faced, (Iraq, Kosovo etc) even older MiG-29 pilots could mop those countries up when trained like in IAF. The K is a rather overkill. SH might be all shiny because of Boeing's marketing skills but sorry; there are many more things to be thought of than a fine radar when considering a purchase.

As for the Rafael, it was discussed in a dfi forum how the french built the Rafael with primary A2G capability, although a multirole fighter. The Mirage 2000-5 was supposed to be their primary A2A capability fighter, whereas the Rafael will complement it with superior A2G capabilities. As a result, it was designed to be weaker as a A2A fighter.

It changed with time when Mirage 2000 assembly lines closed and Rafale was considered as the de factor successor of entire Mirage series. You seriously think that French air force would consider a one-sided fighter to succeed their entire future inventory? Rafale might have been thought as something when it was being planned in early years (2 decades back) but today its an omnirole fighter.

I agree that the EF2000 is twice as costly as the Gripen, but it is also a better fighter, a better tech platform, has more political and strategic leverage and brings more technologies with it.

Any proof of the bolded parts? Both are made by a consortium of companies (Gripen NG is Swedish but has all European parts like EFT), both have similar classification of technologies to classify MRCA tender requirements and both are almost the same (range might be an issue for NG compared to EFT, but that's a trade off for cost).