IAF seeks Government sanction for more fighter aircraft squadrons

[ace009]

Let's do a simple comparison - from Wikipedia -

Have a look at the Bolded parts ...

JAS 39 GRIPEN C/D

Specifications

General characteristics
Crew: 1 (2 for JAS 39D)
Payload: 5,300 kg ()
Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 30.0 m² (323 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,800 kg [107] (12,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf)
Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in)
Length (two-seater): 14.8 m (48 ft 5 in)

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,204 km/h, 1,372 mph) at altitude
Combat radius: 800 km (500 mi, 432 nmi)
Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Wing loading: 336 kg/m² (68.8 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.97

Armament
Hardpoints: _ and provisions to carry combinations of:
Rockets: 4× rocket pods 13.5 cm rockets
Missiles:
6× Rb.74 (AIM-9) or Rb 98 (IRIS-T)
4× Rb.99 (AIM-120) or MICA
4× Rb.71 (Skyflash) or Meteor
4× Rb.75
2× KEPD.350
2× Rbs.15F anti-ship missile
Bombs:
4× GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
2× Bk.90 cluster bomb
8× Mark 82 bombs

Avionics
PS-05/A pulse-doppler X-band radar, developed by Ericsson and GEC-Marconi,

- total 6 Hardpoints on the Gripen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON

Specifications

General characteristics
Crew: 1 (operational aircraft) or 2 (training aircraft)
Length: 15.96 m (52 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 10.95 m (35 ft 11 in)
Height: 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 51.2 m2[199] (551 ft2)
Empty weight: 11,150 kg (24,560 lb)
Loaded weight: 16,000 kg[199][200] (35,300 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 23,500 kg (51,800 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,500 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 89 kN ref RR (20,000 lbf) each
Fuel capacity: 4,500 kg (9,920 lb) internal[199]
Performance
Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2 (2,495 km/h, 1,550 mph)[201][202][203]
At sea level: Mach 1.2[198] (1,470 km/h / 913.2 mph)[204]
Supercruise: Mach 1.1–1.5[196][205]
Range: 2,900 km (1,802 mi)
Combat radius:
Ground attack, lo-lo-lo: 601 km (325 nmi)
Ground attack, hi-lo-hi: 1,389 km (750 nmi)
Air defence with 3-hr CAP: 185 km (100 nmi)
Air defence with 10-min loiter: 1,389 km (750 nmi) [199][206]
Ferry range: 3,790 km (2,300 mi)
Service ceiling: 19,810 m[207] (65,000 ft)
Rate of climb: >315 m/s[208][209] (62,000 ft/min[210])
Wing loading: 312 kg/m2[199] (64.0 lb/ft2)
Thrust/weight: 1.15
g-Limits: +9/-3 g[211]


Armament
Guns: 1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 Revolver cannon with 150 rounds
Hardpoints: Total of 13: 8 × under-wing plus 5 × under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 7,500 kg (16,500 lb) of payload[199][212]
Missiles:
Air-to-air missiles:
AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-120 AMRAAM, IRIS-T, and, in the future, MBDA Meteor
Air-to-surface missiles:
AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, Storm Shadow (AKA Scalp EG), Brimstone, Taurus KEPD 350, Penguin and in the future AGM Armiger
Bombs: Paveway II/III/Enhanced Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs (LGBs), Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), HOPE/HOSBO
Others:
Flares/infrared decoys dispenser pod and chaff pod and
Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pods
LITENING III laser targeting pod
Up to 3 drop tanks for ferry flight or extended range/loitering time.
Avionics
Euroradar CAPTOR Radar
Passive Infra-Red Airborne Tracking Equipment (PIRATE)

 

[ace009]

So, let's put it this way -

Better Radar,
better range and service ceiling
Faster speed near ground level
A proven supercruise capability (unlike Gripen)
Better T/W ratio (better maneuvarability)
More armament
More variety of weapons
Greater loiter time

- Anything else you need?

 

[p2prada]

By 2025, the MKIs will near obsolescence. More FGFA are always better but with the timeline in mind 250 FGFA is more than enough considering even a single squadron will have a quantum leap over today's PAF by a long margin.

Also the Navy could do with a good 4++ gen aircraft like SH or Rafale-M on IAC 2/3 until N-AMCA or N-FGFA hits the counter on heavier super carriers post 2030.

 

[Crusader53]

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..

Sorry, India has hardly rejected the F-35 and its still in the running for the New Naval Fighter. (i.e. RFI) Further, with only 250 (maybe 300) FGFA's. India will be extremely lacking in 5th Generation Fighters. Which, will put India at a severe disavantage against a PAF/PLAAF.

 

[Crusader53]

By 2025, the MKIs will near obsolescence. More FGFA are always better but with the timeline in mind 250 FGFA is more than enough considering even a single squadron will have a quantum leap over today's PAF by a long margin.

That's a dangerous assumption. As the PAF may very well get the J-20 and could even get the PAK-FA. Especially, as more and more 5th Generation Fighter are equipped to Pro-Western Countries.


If, that is the case the IAF would have to face 5th Generation Fighters from both West (Pakistan) and East (China). That's a lot to cover with just 250-300 FGFA's.......



So, the F-35 could become a very attractive option to India as time goes on.

Also the Navy could do with a good 4++ gen aircraft like SH or Rafale-M on IAC 2/3 until N-AMCA or N-FGFA hits the counter on heavier super carriers post 2030.

Again that is a dangerous assumption. The Indian Navy will have to face the same 5th Generation Threats as the IAF and with "far" fewer numbers.


I would add that the Naval PAK-FA is a couple decades off and any possible N-MCA even further. With the former being way to large for the IAC's in any practical numbers regardless.

 

[p2prada]

That's a dangerous assumption. As the PAF may very well get the J-20 and could even get the PAK-FA. Especially, as more and more 5th Generation Fighter are equipped to Pro-Western Countries.

If, that is the case the IAF would have to face 5th Generation Fighters from both West (Pakistan) and East (China). That's a lot to cover with just 250-300 FGFA's.......

So, the F-35 could become a very attractive option to India as time goes on.

PAF will not be getting the J-20 until at least 2025 maybe 2030, even if they are allowed to. We will have a 10 to 15 years head start over the PAF even if they do get it.

IAF is not going for F-35 either ways, so F-35 for IAF is moot and has been officially rejected. Future orders for FGFA is a much higher possibility.

Again that is a dangerous assumption. The Indian Navy will have to face the same 5th Generation Threats as the IAF and with "far" fewer numbers.

I would add that the Naval PAK-FA is a couple decades off and any possible N-MCA even further. With the former being way to large for the IAC's in any practical numbers regardless.

N-PAKFA isn't "decades" off. It could be delivered in a year or 2 after PAKFA or FGFA is delivered. The fact is PAKFA has a runway requirement that is half that of the Flanker. Also Sukhoi corp already has experience on Su-33. But we will not have the right carriers ready by then. We will have only 2 indigenous carriers and both will not have enough density or size to carry a big aircraft. The Navy's plan is still not clear with the IAC-2. They may go in for more Mig-29ks or go for a 4th gen equivalent. Perhaps F-35, but that will make the project a lot more expensive.

N-FGFA is meant in the 2025 period anyways, for IN, but a little sooner for Russia.

 

[ace009]

Well, Indian indigenous naval aircraft is still years away - N-LCA mk2 probably 6-7 years and N-AMCA at leasst 12-14 years away. Then there is the question of what kind of career to build.
I think India should focus on a medium-term solution for the Naval strike fighter. I personally do not like the Mig-29K. The Mig-29 is notorious for being a maintenance-hog and for the navy, that will be a big problem, since they have a smaller budget for their aircrafts and only 2-3 careers at best to cover the HUGE Indian coast line. Any downtime is a potential weakness.
The SH on the other hand is one of the easiest to maintain. Apart from these two, India has the options of using a naval version of Gripen, Eurofighter or a Rafael. I personally will like to see the Gripen naval version if the SH is not chosen.
For the fifth generation naval fighters, I think the N-FGFA might indeed be too big for the IACs. Since the N-AMCA will not be ready before 2025, I agree with Crusader, we should opt for the F-35 with a timeline of 2020. We can always ask for a second production line to be set up in India if we buy into the F-35 program.

 

[ace009]

From this source - Mig-29 records ...

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2b.htm

The Indian Air Force (InAF) MiG-29 Experience:

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India published on 31March1993 the results of an in depth study on the operational performance and reliability of the MiG-29 aircraft. This study was first reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology during 25July1994 (pg.49), and has been obtained by author from Mr. Pushpindar Singh, of the Society of Aerospace Studies, New Delhi.

65 x MiG-29 single-seat and 5 x dual-seat trainers with 48 x spare engines (sparing factor of 0.7/aircraft) were delivered between 1986 and 1990 at a total program cost of approximately $600 million that included initial spares and support. These aircraft were the first MiG-29's to ever leave the Soviet Union and were not up to the weapons system standard of those that went later to the Warsaw Pact allies. The aircraft were sent disassembled by sea, and re-assembled, and test flown in India. By 1990 three squadrons were operational. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units were included to help pilots debrief their utilization of flight controls and systems. Expectations were that single-seat aircraft would fly 15 hours per month (180 hrs/yr) and dual-seat aircraft 20 hours per month (240 hrs/yr).

There were extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend.

Engineering reports mainly attribute RD-33 failures to design/material deficiencies causing discolored engine oil (8), cracks in the nozzle guide vanes (31), and surprisingly, foreign object damage (FOD). The eight material deficient engines (discolored oil) were repaired by the contractor under warrantee provisions, but the engines had to be recycled to the manufacturer. The thirty-one engines with cracks in their nozzle guide vanes were fixed in the field by contractor teams and adjustments were made to the entire engine fleet. But even though the incidents reduced the occurrences of the cracks, they continued. But the FOD situation is the most interesting, especially after the inlet FOD doors received world press coverage, but there were other concerns about production quality control that led to problems.

Since the Indian Air Force received early model Fulcrum A's, some just after the 200th production article, there were quality control deficiencies that resulted in numerous pieces of FOD (foreign object damage) and tools being left behind after final construction inside of the aircraft. Remember that the Fulcrum skeleton is made first and then the skin is riveted over top, in the way aircraft were made in the fifties and sixties in the West. Nuts, bolts, tools, etc. all made their way to the engine bays and inlet ducts and when they were loosened up after accelerations they damaged engines and equipment.

On top of all this, it was discovered that the unique FOD doors on the MiG-29's inlets were not stopping material from getting into the engine ducts. Since the doors retracted "up" into the inlet, debris that was kicked up by the nose wheel lodged on or at the bottom of the door seal and then was ingested into the engine when the door opened during the nose gear lifted off the ground during takeoff.

This problem was known from the earliest days. After the first four MiG-29 prototypes were evaluated, the nose gear was moved further back, but nose wheel "mud-flaps" or guards were still required to protect the engine from flying debris. It took until 1988 before all delivered aircraft were so equipped, therefore the initial batch of InAF aircraft had to be locally retro-fitted with mud guards and that activity was not completed until June 1992. All costs were supposed to be re-imbursed by the contractor but Mikoyan reneged and left the InAF with $300,000 in liabilities. In subsequent MiG-29K/M models the FOD doors were replaced by screens that closed "down", forcing any debris out of the louvers repositioned to the lower side of the inlet duct..

The Indian Air Force procurement contract was concluded in September 1986, and the first engine was expected to go into overhaul in 1989. However, four engines prematurely came up for overhaul and no repair facility had been prepared. As time went on, 115 of the 122 engines (94%) prematurely failed and had to be re-cycled through engine depots in Russia at great cost. Backlogs were created and only 79 (65%) engines returned on schedule. Even when a regional Indian repair facility was completed in August 1994, the high failure rates continued and the majority of broken engines had to be sent back to Russian depots. Self-sufficiency was achieved in 1994, only after the operations tempo was significantly reduced on a permanent basis. In the process of refurbishing failed engines, the total technical life of most of the engine fleet was effectively reduced from 800 hours / 8 years to 400 hours / 4 years, at a minimum.

Non-availability of radar and weapon system components also resulted in the grounding of seven aircraft for a period of six to twenty months. Two may have been damaged for life due to cannibalization. Besides this, a large number of subsystems and computers experienced unpredicted failures in the last four years which adversely effected the operational readiness of the squadrons. Some of the computers were field-repaired by specialists from the manufacturers, others were replaced. These repair costs were all in excess to the initial contract costs. It was noted that the 10 additional computers, which were imported, cost the InAF around $806,000. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units quickly became unserviceable during their warranty period and have been lying un-utilized and un-repaired for over two years.

The InAF Headquarters also noted in March 1991 report that a severe shortage of product support equipment had resulted in the decline of fleet availability by 15-20%, which in turn, took negative effect on operational readiness and mission requirements.

So in general, lessons learned from this first out-of-country operation of a Russian front line fighter were:

1. The MiG-29 had intensive problems in operation and maintenance since its induction due to premature failure of engines, components, and systems. 74% of the engines failed within five years, were out of supply pipeline for three years, and reduced aircraft availability by 15, to 20%. This led to a decision to restrict flying efforts and therefore compromised operational and training commitments.

2. There were significant shortfalls in the performance of the MiG-29 fleet resulting in operational and training inadequacies. The shortfall ranged from 20 to 65% in respect to combat aircraft availability and 58 to 84% in trainers between 1987 - 1991.

3. There was a mismatch between induction of the aircraft (1987) and the establishment of its repair facilities (end of 1994). Until that time engines had to be continually sent to manufacturers abroad at great monetary cost, reduction of one-half total life, and a significant stretch of schedule.

4. Non-availability of critical radar components and spares resulted in the grounding of significant numbers of aircraft. Five aircraft were out of action for over six months while two were in the hanger for over two years. Unserviceability of computers and the inability to fix them cost excessive amounts of money to rectify.

5. The pilot debrief Ground Data Processing Unit, imported at high cost, was left lying around unserviceable and unused since its reception in August 1990.

6. The lack of nose wheel mud guards had to be solved by importing upgrade kits and expensive local re-design after material deficiencies could not be overcome.

With a regional support capability in place (regardless of how tenuous it was) and having one of the few respectable MiG-29 operating legacies, the Indian aerospace companies, especially Hindistan Aeronautical Ltd. (HAL), and the InAF became natural partners for MAPO in consummating the sale of MiG-29's to Malaysia. They were offered the opportunity to get involved with providing training and logistics support for the new Malaysian MiG-29 program. India, of course, gives greater credibility to MAPO in convincing customers that the MiG-29 is a viable fighter candidate for Pacific Rim nations. It remains to be seen, however, what solutions the new joint venture brings to the Indian Air Force problems.

 

[sam919]

Please identify the source for "PAF will not be getting the J-20 until at least 2025 maybe 2030" or advise what's your estimate based on. Thank you.

 

[p2prada]

Gorshkov with a displacement of 45000 tons will have 16 Mig-29k(12+4 trainer) with 10 Helis bringing the number to 26 aircraft.

IAC-1 or INS Vikrant will have 29 Mig-29K and N-LCA Mk2 with 10 Helis bringing the air complement to 39. It will have a displacement of 40000 tons. 1 Carrier of it's class will be built. I am expecting a major Mig-29k complement with a half squadron of 6 to 8 N-LCAs.

IAC-2 or INS Vishal will be our first carrier with CATOBAR and a displacement exceeding 65000 tons. It may have an air complement of over 60 aircraft. This is the aircraft which will carry the winner of the Naval MRCA contest. There will be no Mig-29k or NLCA on this ship. Now, if F-35 will make the shortlist of this carrier it is unknown. Also we don't know how many of this class will be built beyond the initially projected 2 carriers. So, you could see a demand for at least a 72(min) to 100 N-MRCA aircraft initially. RFI's have been sent for Rafale, Super Hornet, F-35C, EF-2000 and Sea Gripen. F-35C is the least expected to win the N-MRCA deal simply because INS Vishal is set to be comissioned in 2017 and I hardly believe the US will be able to deliver 36 F-35s by then as compared to the other competitors. ToT will play a role too.

IN was not initially interested in Gripen. I guess it has a lot to do with being a single engine aircraft. So, F-35 has the same problem, 5th gen or not.

Incase Rafale wins IAF MRCA then Rafale FTW as a Naval fighter, the same with Super Hornet, EF-2000 and Gripen.

IAC-3 is only possible after 2020. But will carry the same air complement as the IAC-2.

 

[p2prada]

Please identify the source for "PAF will not be getting the J-20 until at least 2025 maybe 2030" or advise what's your estimate based on. Thank you.

Reasons:
Twin engine aircraft. Will be a first for PAF which has never operated a twin engine fighter.
5th Gen aircraft which means highly increased maintenance which PAF cannot afford.
All of this considering China is willing to sell their prized posession to an American controlled country so quickly.

For all you know there could be a single engine 5th gen fighter being developed in China for export. That could be a possible buy for PAF in the long run.

Politics apart, as of 2015 PAF is considering buying 36 FC-20, maybe more while simultaneously inducting 150+100 JF-17 and some 70 odd F-16. With 2 aircraft projects in the anvil and upgrading a third, PAF will find it hard to finance a 5th gen project in the 2015-25 period. So, realistically their 5th gen goals would be well beyond 2025, maybe 2030.

Lastly, the J-20 should be a viable project as a counter to the FGFA. If it isn't then PAF will not go for expensive aircraft that easily.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Gorshkov with a displacement of 45000 tons will have 16 Mig-29k(12+4 trainer) with 10 Helis bringing the number to 26 aircraft.

IAC-1 or INS Vikrant will have 29 Mig-29K and N-LCA Mk2 with 10 Helis bringing the air complement to 39. It will have a displacement of 40000 tons. 1 Carrier of it's class will be built. I am expecting a major Mig-29k complement with a half squadron of 6 to 8 N-LCAs.

IAC-2 or INS Vishal will be our first carrier with CATOBAR and a displacement exceeding 65000 tons. It may have an air complement of over 60 aircraft. This is the aircraft which will carry the winner of the Naval MRCA contest. There will be no Mig-29k or NLCA on this ship. Now, if F-35 will make the shortlist of this carrier it is unknown. Also we don't know how many of this class will be built beyond the initially projected 2 carriers. So, you could see a demand for at least a 72(min) to 100 N-MRCA aircraft initially. RFI's have been sent for Rafale, Super Hornet, F-35C, EF-2000 and Sea Gripen. F-35C is the least expected to win the N-MRCA deal simply because INS Vishal is set to be comissioned in 2017 and I hardly believe the US will be able to deliver 36 F-35s by then as compared to the other competitors. ToT will play a role too.

IN was not initially interested in Gripen. I guess it has a lot to do with being a single engine aircraft. So, F-35 has the same problem, 5th gen or not.

Incase Rafale wins IAF MRCA then Rafale FTW as a Naval fighter, the same with Super Hornet, EF-2000 and Gripen.

IAC-3 is only possible after 2020. But will carry the same air complement as the IAC-2.

three different fighters for IN? then it will be only Navy in the world to operate three different fighters.

and why are we assuming that IN will choose the same fighter IAF choose in MMRCA? say if IAF chooses F-16, Is IN going to ask LM to design NF-16 for CATOBAR?
i would love see the details of this IAC-2 65000 CATOBAR. Has Indian Navy already finalized the design?

and why Mig-29K or NLCA can't be modified to operate from CATOBAR?

 

[ace009]

I guess the whole point in building a CATOBAR IAC-2 is to operate heavier fighters (like the SH or the EF2000). In my opinion, IN should have the Gripen for IAC-1 and the SH for IAC-2. The Mig-29K should be for the Gorschy only ... it is still the same old shitty airframe, undependable technology and bad maintenance problem.

 

[ace009]

By 2025, the MKIs will near obsolescence. More FGFA are always better but with the timeline in mind 250 FGFA is more than enough considering even a single squadron will have a quantum leap over today's PAF by a long margin.

Also the Navy could do with a good 4++ gen aircraft like SH or Rafale-M on IAC 2/3 until N-AMCA or N-FGFA hits the counter on heavier super carriers post 2030.

I hope that the MKI is not near obsolescence by 2025! that would be early! They were inducted around 2000, are having avionics upgrades between 2010-2015. They better be useful for another 20-25 years or so (2035/ 2040).
I would love to see the FGFA replace the MKI. But the lifetime costs of Russian made fighters are generally very high (see Mig-21, Mig-27, Mig-29 and MKI). So, FGFA would be costly to maintain and upgrade too. Since they are primarily Air Superiority fighters, I would like to see them in limited numbers (like the F-22 Raptor) and the majority of the workload going to less expensive fighters (like the AMCA?, LCA mk2, mk3?).
By the time the MKI, MMRCA etc are retired, IAF should be having only three types of 5th gen fighters ~300 FGFA for air superiority/ air dominance ~400 AMCA for strike/ CAS/ CAP and ~500 LCA mk3(?) for point defence/ interdiction/ patrol.

 

[ajay_ijn]

I guess the whole point in building a CATOBAR IAC-2 is to operate heavier fighters (like the SH or the EF2000). In my opinion, IN should have the Gripen for IAC-1 and the SH for IAC-2. The Mig-29K should be for the Gorschy only ... it is still the same old shitty airframe, undependable technology and bad maintenance problem.

if Mig-29 is shitty old airframe then both IAF and Indian Navy should dump Mig-29K and Mig-29 fleet altogether. Cancel all the deals.
Putting a shitty old airframe on 2 billion dollar Aircraft Carrier would be a bad idea. Similarly there is no use of IAF putting so much money into upgrading shitty old airframe, better to cancel that too. We really wouldn't want to see Gorshy getting sunk in war because a shitty old airframe was operating out of it.

otherwise we can may be limit Mig-29 to Gorshy, LCA to IAC,, Eurofighter Typhoon to IAC-2, F-35 or NFGFA for IAC-3 (coz Typhoon will become shitty by that time anyway).
what about rafale, we cannot ignore the beautiful french aircraft? let us buy some of those also
5 different fighters. what more? why do injustice to Super Hornet. order them too. oh i forgot, SH too is a made out of shitty old airframe.

 

[ace009]

Hmmm - I guess you do not see the point right? Do you have any idea how many combat aircraft USAF or RuAF operates? Or, for that matter even IAF operates even now? Let's count ...

Mig 21 Bis,
Mig 27,
Jaguars,
Mirage 2000,
Mig 29,
Su-30 MKI
and now the LCA mk1.

As for IN, if they can maintain 45 Mig 29K, then they can maintain the Sea Gripen and/or F/A18 E/F SH too. Both of these require 6 hr maintenance for every hour of flight. Whereas the Mig29 requires 9.5 hrs of maintenance for every hours of flight.
As for the naval LCA mk2, by the time those are inducted, we may have to retire Gorshy and the Mig 29K because of high costs of maintenance. If you are still not convinced, instead of believing the B.S. from Mig corpn, read the CAG reports I have mentioned.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Hmmm - I guess you do not see the point right? Do you have any idea how many combat aircraft USAF or RuAF operates? Or, for that matter even IAF operates even now? Let's count ...

Mig 21 Bis,
Mig 27,
Jaguars,
Mirage 2000,
Mig 29,
Su-30 MKI
and now the LCA mk1.

As for IN, if they can maintain 45 Mig 29K, then they can maintain the Sea Gripen and/or F/A18 E/F SH too. Both of these require 6 hr maintenance for every hour of flight. Whereas the Mig29 requires 9.5 hrs of maintenance for every hours of flight.
As for the naval LCA mk2, by the time those are inducted, we may have to retire Gorshy and the Mig 29K because of high costs of maintenance. If you are still not convinced, instead of believing the B.S. from Mig corpn, read the CAG reports I have mentioned.

if we have to retire Gorshy even in less than a decade after is induction. It will be a huge waste of 2 billion+whatever amount paid for Mig-29K.
Better to cancel everything and operate without Aircraft Carrier untill IAC instead of watching Gorshy sink like that.

Hmmm - I guess you do not see the point right? Do you have any idea how many combat aircraft USAF or RuAF operates? Or, for that matter even IAF operates even now? Let's count ...

Mig 21 Bis,
Mig 27,
Jaguars,
Mirage 2000,
Mig 29,
Su-30 MKI
and now the LCA mk1.

Thats Airforce, its primarily meant for fighting in air, it need not sail ships or submarines.

US Navy during the peak cold war used to operate Hornet as multirole, F-14 for air defence, A-6 for deep strike n other roles.
still USN had Super Carriers, each of them carrying 80 aircraft. Now they ultimately intend to operate only one aircraft F-35.

 

[ace009]

Well, IN must then choose what it's operational goals are going to be. They have different carriers - Gorshy is built as an old Soviet STOL carrier, suits the Mig 29K. But both Gorshy and the Migs are maintenance hogs. Then there is IAC1 - another STOL carrier, albeit more advanced - which will be ready by 2012 - carrying Mig 29K again? Then around 2018 the IAC2 will arrive, along with NLCA mk2, which is supposed to replace Mig 29K. But IAC2 is a CATOBAR carrier, but neither NLCA nor Mig 29K have Cat assist takeoff capability.
To me all this seems to point to an operational doctrine of using multiple aircrafts.

 

[sorcerer]

Russia May Sell To India An Additional Batch Of Su-30MKI In Place Of Rafale

One of the world's largest Air Shows – the Aero India-2015 opens on Wednesday in Bangalore. Traditionally, a huge Russian delegation participates in it.

This is largely due to the fact that today, India is perhaps the largest Russian partner in the sphere of military-technical cooperation.

On the eve of the exhibition, Sergey Goreslavsky, head of the delegation of "Rosoboronexport" at the Aero India-2015, answered questions put forward by journalists from RIA Novosti on cooperation in the sphere of military-technical cooperation with India.

Can India procure, in place of the French Rafale fighters, the Su-30MKI's from Russia, which are being successfully deployed by the Indian Air Force? Is the contract for the supply of Su-30 MKI, signed in 2012, being successfully implemented?

- This question needs to be addressed to the Ministry of Defence of India. If additional Su-30MKI fighters are needed, we are ready to elaborate on such an agreement. This requires for a request to be sent by the Indian side. With regards to execution of the current contract for the supply of equipment for licensed assembly of aircrafts, all is in strict accordance with the agreed time schedules. To date, the Corporation HAL has assembled and handed over to the Indian Air Force 14 aircrafts and in the year 2015, the armed forces will have 4 more units.

What is the share of the Russian Federation in the project of production of India's first indigenously manufactured aircraft carrier "Vikrant"? Do you plan to sign a contract for the sale of helicopters Ka-31 to be based on the "Vikrant"?

— In 2006, we signed a contract to develop the technical designs to accommodate aircraft maintenance facilities on the ship, which was completed in 2009.
After receiving a request from the Indian side in 2011, a general contract was signed to provide technical assistance to equip the ship with aviation-related technical equipment. It includes the supply of necessary equipment and its installation on the ship, conduction of trials and so on. Work on this contract is being conducted and this year we plan to sign an additional agreement for supply of equipment.
As regards to the possible supply of Russian helicopters for "Vikrant", this issue is not being discussed as yet. We are ready to offer the Ka-31 with improved characteristics. Their early modifications are being successfully operated by the Indian Navy; hence the purchase of new helicopters would be a logical step.

At what stage is the work, which is being carried out on creation of the joint Russian-Indian fifth-generation fighter – the design and experimental stage or research and development (R&D) stage? When will the creation of the first prototype be possible?

— Work on creation of the joint Russian-Indian fifth-generation fighter is being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the intergovernmental agreement. We have completed the first stage of development (conceptual and technical) of the project. And now, are in the process of finishing negotiations for a contract for the subsequent stages, including the development of design documentation, construction of prototypes, trials and certification. All technical issues have been basically worked out and we are presently formulating commercial terms of the contract.

At what stage is the work on creation of the joint multi-role transport aircraft (MTA)? When do you plan to sign a contract for completion of the design and experimental documentations?

— The general contract signed between JSC "UAC-TA" and HAL, on the one hand, and the joint venture "JV MTA Ltd.", on the other hand, provides for a two-stage project. The first stage includes preliminary designing, in which the capabilities to perform as per the tactical and technical specifications and identification of the key requirements for systems are confirmed by both the sides. The second stage is the development work. The first stage has been executed, now the sides are planning to move on to the second stage and to conclude an agreement to perform the design and development documentations.






Read more: http://hindi.sputniknews.com/south_asia/20150217/1013472899.html#ixzz3S1j6awui

 

[sgarg]

45 squadrons are possible ONLY if IAF procures 15 squadrons of LCA Tejas. Otherwise it is impossible.
The compositions will look like this - 15 Su-30, 15 Tejas, 2 Mirage-2000, 3 Mig-29, 6 Jaguar, 4 PAK-FA/FGFA by 2025.
If 6 sq. of some MMRCA are bought, then LCA numbers can be adjusted lower. However MMRCA project remains iffy.