Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

[Adioz]

I believe Tejas MK-2 will achieve only IOC by 2025 considering it starts flying before the end of 2020 which is a very optimistic timeline.

Do you mean Tejas Mk-1A?

By my estimates, MK-2 will fly anytime around 2021-22 and achieve IOC by 2027(this is when induction will begin) and FOC by 2029.

Modified timeline assuming Tejas Mk-2 IOC is achieved in 2027.

BTW, if SE MMRCA is to be bought, what is the most likely timeline? @Sancho , anyone? I'll include that in timeline as well.

 

[Sancho]

BTW, if SE MMRCA is to be bought, what is the most likely timeline? @Sancho , anyone? I'll include that in timeline as well.

The same 3 years after contract signature as in MMRCA will be required for sure .

 

[Adioz]

The same 3 years after contract signature as in MMRCA will be required for sure .

So 3 years for production to begin in India after the contract is signed? Ok.
Please provide a probable rate of production. My estimate is 16-18 per year.
Also how long do you think it will take to sign the contract? Please provide an optimistic and a pessimistic forecast.

 

[Sancho]

So 3 years for production to begin in India after the contract is signed?

No 3 years to deliver the first fighters, which will be produced abroad. 18 x flyway + 96 produced in India is the plan.

And no forcast possible until the government starts the tender.

 

[Adioz]

No 3 years to deliver the first fighters, which will be produced abroad. 18 x flyway + 96 produced in India is the plan.

And no forcast possible until the government starts the tender.

Let us assume GoI concludes negotiations by 2019. First squadron would come in 2022. Further let us assume that This is the most optimistic scenario for SE MMRCA. This would take the number of squadrons in IAF to the sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons by 2027. This is illustrated in the figure below:-

However, by the most pessimistic estimate, Tejas Mk 2 is set to begin production in 2027. This means that the squadrons of IAF that were to be filled with Tejas Mk 2 would now be filled with SE MMRCA. The SE MMRCA program would, therefore, succeed in ensuring that IAF have their 42 squadrons by 2027. As a result, there would be no further need for Tejas Mk2, unless the IAF plans to raise the sanctioned strength beyond the current 42.

On the other hand, if SE MMRCA is scrapped and Tejas Mk2 is focused upon, the IAF will only reach its sanctioned strength by 2034.

• Assuming Tejas Mk2 starts production in 2025 (optimistic estimate):-

• Assuming Tejas Mk2 starts production in 2027 (pessimistic estimate):-

 

[Adioz]

Let us assume GoI concludes negotiations by 2019. First squadron would come in 2022. Further let us assume that This is the most optimistic scenario for SE MMRCA. This would take the number of squadrons in IAF to the sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons by 2027. This is illustrated in the figure below:-

View attachment 23277

However, by the most pessimistic estimate, Tejas Mk 2 is set to begin production in 2027. This means that the squadrons of IAF that were to be filled with Tejas Mk 2 would now be filled with SE MMRCA. The SE MMRCA program would, therefore, succeed in ensuring that IAF have their 42 squadrons by 2027. As a result, there would be no further need for Tejas Mk2, unless the IAF plans to raise the sanctioned strength beyond the current 42.

On the other hand, if SE MMRCA is scrapped and Tejas Mk2 is focused upon, the IAF will only reach its sanctioned strength by 2034.

• Assuming Tejas Mk2 starts production in 2025 (optimistic estimate):-

View attachment 23275​

• Assuming Tejas Mk2 starts production in 2027 (pessimistic estimate):-

View attachment 23276​

It should be clear from the above post that:

• The retiring MiG-27 will be replaced by Rafale.
  
• The retiring MiG-21 Bison will be replaced with either SE MMRCA or with Tejas Mk2.
  • If we go with SE MMRCA option and GoI makes the order in 2019, IAF will reach sanctioned strength in 2027.
  • If we go with Tejas Mk-2 option, IAF will reach sanctioned strength in 2034.
  • If GoI wants to make a decision on SE MMRCA, it needs to do so by 2019. Any more delays would make the entire thing pointless.
• Another dimension of complexity is added by the fact that Su-57 MKI has an uncertain future.
  • By most recent news, Su-57 MKI has been cleared by a committee stating that Su-57 MKI will not conflict with AMCA.
  • The price tag of $3 billion USD just for prototypes is the main cause for delay.
  • The other option can be to go the Su-30 MKI route. Not sure if the Russians will entertain this.
  • In any event, if GoI signs the contract within this decade, we can hope for production to start by 2025-26.
  • On the other hand, if the GoI decides to dump Su-57 for good, we need to start thinking about the options for which fighters will equip the squadrons that were meant to get Su-57 MKI. Options can be the following (individually or in combination with each other):-
    • Continue production line of Su-30 MKI.
    • Plan for a much higher per annum production rate of AMCA.
    • Sign off SE MMRCA quickly and fill in the squadrons with them.
  • Whatever the case, the GoI needs to take a decision within the next two years.
• AMCA can not fail no matter what. AMCA delays can make IAF vulnerable to PLAAF (more so if GoI does not sign the Su-57 MKI deal).
• IAF needs to rationalize its air campaign strategy, which cannot happen until theater commands are established. Once these commands are established, a joint war fighting strategy needs to be quickly formulated, practiced, tweaked and drilled. When we plan our weaknesses in, we significantly reduce our vulnerability. Its clear that the sanctioned strength of "42" is a number that needs close scrutiny and rationalization.

 

[Sancho]

This means that the squadrons of IAF that were to be filled with Tejas Mk 2 would now be filled with SE MMRCA.

You still missing the main point, Medium class! It's not enough to add fighters on paper, otherwise we could simply produce more Jags and LCA IOCs too, to fill the numbers to 42 squads. But that doesn't help IAF to protect the country, since the fighters doesn't have the capability to counter modern enemy fighters, or to attack modern air defences.
The squadron no only tells you how many fighters IAF needs to cover all areas of the country, but it doesn't tell you what capability is needed, that's where the light, medium and heavy difference comes in.

 

[ezsasa]

Hi @dna, the tragic crash was of a Virus SW80 microlight aircraft. That’s a picture of the IAF’s heaviest jet, the Su-30 MKI.

Atleast once a year, I am amazed at the gigantic size of our su-30.

 

[aditya10r]

Its clear that the sanctioned strength of "42" is a number that needs close scrutiny and rationalization.

What do you mean by this????

Do you ask to scrutinize this number wether this number is enough to counter Chinese and Pakistanis by 2032/35???

TBH,I think by 2032/35 we should aim for 50-55 squadrons (simply because Chinese will easily have some 400-500 5th gen jets and pakistan will have some 50-60, obviously donated by pakistan).Chinese will have 1600 fighter jets and pakistan will have some 500 jets(mainly j-10,I have a strong feeling for this because Pakistan will need to replace all of their f-16 by 2035,jf-17 thunder and small number of j-31).That's 2100 jets to counter.

Lets assume Chinese throw a third of their airpower-thats 500 jets you have right there and Pakistan will throw it all.Some 1000 jets to deal with 800 or so jets mainly 4th gen jets.

We need proper numbers of AWACS and MARS systems.

We cannot dominate without proper numbers and proper number of force multipliers.

 

[Adioz]

Following are the squadrons that are either causing the shortfall currently, or will contribute to the shortfall (if not replaced) upto 2027. After 2027, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and Jaguars will begin retiring and will be replaced shortly with AMCA or Su-57 MKI or both.

• Currently, IAF has 6 MiG-21 Bison squadrons:-
  • 3 Sqdrn "Cobras": Ambala
  • 4 Sqdrn "Oorials": Uttarlai
  • 21 Sqdrn "Ankush": Sirsa
  • 23 Sqdrn "Panthers": Suratgarh
  • 32 Sqdrn "Thuderbirds": Jodhpur
    
  • 51 Sqdrn "Sword Arms": Srinagar
• Earlier MiG-21 squadrons that retired without replacement are:-
  • 15 Sqdrn "Flying Lances": Bhuj
    
  • 17 Sqdrn "Golden Arrows": Bhatinda
    
  • 26 Sqdrn "Warriors": Tezpur
    
  • 35 Sqdrn "Rapiers": Lucknow
    
  • 37 Sqdrn "Black Panthers": Bhuj
    
  • 108 Sqdrn "Hawkeyes": Bikaner
• Currently, IAF has 2 MiG-27 UPG squadrons:-
  • 10 Sqdrn "Winged Daggers": Jodhpur
    
  • 29 Sqdrn "Scorpions": Jodhpur
• Earlier MiG-27 squadrons that retired:-
  • 18 Sqdrn "Flying Bullets": Kalaikunda (Maritime Strike Role, these were replaced by a Su-30 MKI sqdrn in role and the 18 sqdrn will now be equipped with Tejas Mk1 after the 45 Sqdrn Flying Daggers)
  • 22 Sqdrn "Swifts": Hasimara (To be equipped with Rafale)

Out of all the squadrons above, those that face China are:-

1. 26 Sqdrn from Tezpur (which I believe can be re-equipped with the third Rafale squadron that is ordered after Kaveri begins flying)
2. 22 Sqdrn from Hasimara that is to be equipped with Rafale.

All the remaining squadrons are for OAS (Offensive Air Support which includes Battlefield Air Interdiction-BAI and Battlefield Air Support-BAS. BAS is commonly called CAS) along the Pakistani front. I am convinced that Tejas is more than enough for taking on the Jf-17 Thuder (that Pakistan has inducted and more are planned for induction). This is more so because Tejas is only replacing squadrons that were tasked with bombing enemy ground targets and not tasked for undertaking air superiority missions alone. Replacing all these aircraft with Tejas actually enhances the capability of these squadrons as they can now conduct air superiority missions over Pakistan without pairing up with Su-30 MKI, since their only contender is another light fighter: Jf-17.

For anyone trying to understand my point of view, I would request you to please read this article:-
Aircraft Induction: IAF’s Predicament
^The article has been written by a Group Captain. I know that people think of me as an armchair general (that is what I am), and hence when I question the IAF, people are bound to question me first. Which is why I feel it better if you read the words of a professional who shares my views.

You still missing the main point, Medium class! It's not enough to add fighters on paper, otherwise we could simply produce more Jags and LCA IOCs too, to fill the numbers to 42 squads. But that doesn't help IAF to protect the country, since the fighters doesn't have the capability to counter modern enemy fighters, or to attack modern air defences.
The squadron no only tells you how many fighters IAF needs to cover all areas of the country, but it doesn't tell you what capability is needed, that's where the light, medium and heavy difference comes in.

Before you start with "it does not matter which plane replaces which" BS again, read this:-
Aircraft Induction: IAF’s Predicament
I am tired of writing long replies to you when you do not even have the basic sense to try and reply appropriately. All you do is pick one or two choicest lines from my posts and write some BS. You have not tried to answer a single one of the points I have pointed towards. And I am fed up.

What do you mean by this????

Do you ask to scrutinize this number wether this number is enough to counter Chinese and Pakistanis by 2032/35???

TBH,I think by 2032/35 we should aim for 50-55 squadrons (simply because Chinese will easily have some 400-500 5th gen jets and pakistan will have some 50-60, obviously donated by pakistan).Chinese will have 1600 fighter jets and pakistan will have some 500 jets(mainly j-10,I have a strong feeling for this because Pakistan will need to replace all of their f-16 by 2035,jf-17 thunder and small number of j-31).That's 2100 jets to counter.

Lets assume Chinese throw a third of their airpower-thats 500 jets you have right there and Pakistan will throw it all.Some 1000 jets to deal with 800 or so jets mainly 4th gen jets.

We need proper numbers of AWACS and MARS systems.

We cannot dominate without proper numbers and proper number of force multipliers.

I see what you mean. But I believe we can plan for combat without matching the number of fighters of Pakistan and China that attack us.
Briefly, I mean that we need to plan combat with a lower number of squadrons, at least along the Pakistani border, for the next decade.
Let me make a detailed timeline-cum-analysis of what China and Pakistan will be able to throw at us in the next decade and I'll post it here. Give me some time.

 

[Chinmoy]

Following are the squadrons that are either causing the shortfall currently, or will contribute to the shortfall (if not replaced) upto 2027. After 2027, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and Jaguars will begin retiring and will be replaced shortly with AMCA or Su-57 MKI or both.

• Currently, IAF has 6 MiG-21 Bison squadrons:-
  • 3 Sqdrn "Cobras": Ambala
  • 4 Sqdrn "Oorials": Uttarlai
  • 21 Sqdrn "Ankush": Sirsa
  • 23 Sqdrn "Panthers": Suratgarh
  • 32 Sqdrn "Thuderbirds": Jodhpur
    
  • 51 Sqdrn "Sword Arms": Srinagar
• Earlier MiG-21 squadrons that retired without replacement are:-
  • 15 Sqdrn "Flying Lances": Bhuj
    
  • 17 Sqdrn "Golden Arrows": Bhatinda
    
  • 26 Sqdrn "Warriors": Tezpur
    
  • 35 Sqdrn "Rapiers": Lucknow
    
  • 37 Sqdrn "Black Panthers": Bhuj
    
  • 108 Sqdrn "Hawkeyes": Bikaner
• Currently, IAF has 2 MiG-27 UPG squadrons:-
  • 10 Sqdrn "Winged Daggers": Jodhpur
    
  • 29 Sqdrn "Scorpions": Jodhpur
• Earlier MiG-27 squadrons that retired:-
  • 18 Sqdrn "Flying Bullets": Kalaikunda (Maritime Strike Role, these were replaced by a Su-30 MKI sqdrn in role and the 18 sqdrn will now be equipped with Tejas Mk1 after the 45 Sqdrn Flying Daggers)
  • 22 Sqdrn "Swifts": Hasimara (To be equipped with Rafale)

Out of all the squadrons above, those that face China are:-

1. 26 Sqdrn from Tezpur (which I believe can be re-equipped with the third Rafale squadron that is ordered after Kaveri begins flying)
2. 22 Sqdrn from Hasimara that is to be equipped with Rafale.

All the remaining squadrons are for OAS (Offensive Air Support which includes Battlefield Air Interdiction-BAI and Battlefield Air Support-BAS. BAS is commonly called CAS) along the Pakistani front. I am convinced that Tejas is more than enough for taking on the Jf-17 Thuder (that Pakistan has inducted and more are planned for induction). This is more so because Tejas is only replacing squadrons that were tasked with bombing enemy ground targets and not tasked for undertaking air superiority missions alone. Replacing all these aircraft with Tejas actually enhances the capability of these squadrons as they can now conduct air superiority missions over Pakistan without pairing up with Su-30 MKI, since their only contender is another light fighter: Jf-17.

For anyone trying to understand my point of view, I would request you to please read this article:-
Aircraft Induction: IAF’s Predicament
^The article has been written by a Group Captain. I know that people think of me as an armchair general (that is what I am), and hence when I question the IAF, people are bound to question me first. Which is why I feel it better if you read the words of a professional who shares my views.



Before you start with "it does not matter which plane replaces which" BS again, read this:-
Aircraft Induction: IAF’s Predicament
I am tired of writing long replies to you when you do not even have the basic sense to try and reply appropriately. All you do is pick one or two choicest lines from my posts and write some BS. You have not tried to answer a single one of the points I have pointed towards. And I am fed up.




I see what you mean. But I believe we can plan for combat without matching the number of fighters of Pakistan and China that attack us.
Briefly, I mean that we need to plan combat with a lower number of squadrons, at least along the Pakistani border, for the next decade.
Let me make a detailed timeline-cum-analysis of what China and Pakistan will be able to throw at us in the next decade and I'll post it here. Give me some time.

A little bit of change from my side.

26 Sqd Mig-21 being replaced by No 2 Sqd Sukhoi----------- Full fledged.

 

[Filtercoffee]

MIG - 29 OVT would be a better option for the 'Single engine fighter requirement'; Past logging hours. Also over seas transfers and 'who knows if i get this to fly tommorow' might not be as often. So we might end up with Fulcrums and Super hornets (NAVY) which isn't too bad. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Arihant Roy]

Following are the squadrons that are either causing the shortfall currently, or will contribute to the shortfall (if not replaced) upto 2027. After 2027, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and Jaguars will begin retiring and will be replaced shortly with AMCA or Su-57 MKI or both.

• Currently, IAF has 6 MiG-21 Bison squadrons:-
  • 3 Sqdrn "Cobras": Ambala
  • 4 Sqdrn "Oorials": Uttarlai
  • 21 Sqdrn "Ankush": Sirsa
  • 23 Sqdrn "Panthers": Suratgarh
  • 32 Sqdrn "Thuderbirds": Jodhpur
    
  • 51 Sqdrn "Sword Arms": Srinagar
• Earlier MiG-21 squadrons that retired without replacement are:-
  • 15 Sqdrn "Flying Lances": Bhuj
    
  • 17 Sqdrn "Golden Arrows": Bhatinda
    
  • 26 Sqdrn "Warriors": Tezpur
    
  • 35 Sqdrn "Rapiers": Lucknow
    
  • 37 Sqdrn "Black Panthers": Bhuj
    
  • 108 Sqdrn "Hawkeyes": Bikaner
• Currently, IAF has 2 MiG-27 UPG squadrons:-
  • 10 Sqdrn "Winged Daggers": Jodhpur
    
  • 29 Sqdrn "Scorpions": Jodhpur
• Earlier MiG-27 squadrons that retired:-
  • 18 Sqdrn "Flying Bullets": Kalaikunda (Maritime Strike Role, these were replaced by a Su-30 MKI sqdrn in role and the 18 sqdrn will now be equipped with Tejas Mk1 after the 45 Sqdrn Flying Daggers)
  • 22 Sqdrn "Swifts": Hasimara (To be equipped with Rafale)

Out of all the squadrons above, those that face China are:-

1. 26 Sqdrn from Tezpur (which I believe can be re-equipped with the third Rafale squadron that is ordered after Kaveri begins flying)
2. 22 Sqdrn from Hasimara that is to be equipped with Rafale.

All the remaining squadrons are for OAS (Offensive Air Support which includes Battlefield Air Interdiction-BAI and Battlefield Air Support-BAS. BAS is commonly called CAS) along the Pakistani front. I am convinced that Tejas is more than enough for taking on the Jf-17 Thuder (that Pakistan has inducted and more are planned for induction). This is more so because Tejas is only replacing squadrons that were tasked with bombing enemy ground targets and not tasked for undertaking air superiority missions alone. Replacing all these aircraft with Tejas actually enhances the capability of these squadrons as they can now conduct air superiority missions over Pakistan without pairing up with Su-30 MKI, since their only contender is another light fighter: Jf-17.

For anyone trying to understand my point of view, I would request you to please read this article:-
Aircraft Induction: IAF’s Predicament
^The article has been written by a Group Captain. I know that people think of me as an armchair general (that is what I am), and hence when I question the IAF, people are bound to question me first. Which is why I feel it better if you read the words of a professional who shares my views.



Before you start with "it does not matter which plane replaces which" BS again, read this:-
Aircraft Induction: IAF’s Predicament
I am tired of writing long replies to you when you do not even have the basic sense to try and reply appropriately. All you do is pick one or two choicest lines from my posts and write some BS. You have not tried to answer a single one of the points I have pointed towards. And I am fed up.




I see what you mean. But I believe we can plan for combat without matching the number of fighters of Pakistan and China that attack us.
Briefly, I mean that we need to plan combat with a lower number of squadrons, at least along the Pakistani border, for the next decade.
Let me make a detailed timeline-cum-analysis of what China and Pakistan will be able to throw at us in the next decade and I'll post it here. Give me some time.

No 15 Flying Lancers have converted to Su-30MKI. Sukhoi Su-30MKI from this squadron took part in Red Flag 16-1 at Eielson AFB ,Alaska.

No 26 squadron Warriors is operational at Pathankot. Its the only unit operating MiG-21 Bis.

 

[binayak95]

MIG - 29 OVT would be a better option for the 'Single engine fighter requirement'; Past logging hours. Also over seas transfers and 'who knows if i get this to fly tommorow' might not be as often. So we might end up with Fulcrums and Super hornets (NAVY) which isn't too bad. Please correct me if I am wrong.

No, the only way the IAF is getting more Fulcrums is if the IN transfers its squadrons whole sale to the IAF, while opting for Rafale Ms/F-18ASHs.

Otherwise, both the services are quite fed up with Russian after sales service and intractable approach to negotiations. They have been quite liberally using as a cash cow.

 

[aditya10r]

No, the only way the IAF is getting more Fulcrums is if the IN transfers its squadrons whole sale to the IAF, while opting for Rafale Ms/F-18ASHs.

Otherwise, both the services are quite fed up with Russian after sales service and intractable approach to negotiations. They have been quite liberally using as a cash cow.

Russians have a very ugly habit of sending many important manuals and part related documents in untranslatable unknown crylic dialect.That makes the job 100x more difficult.

 

[Sancho]

I am tired of writing long replies to you when you do not even have the basic sense to try and reply appropriately.

:biggrin2: Did I requested you to write long replies? The problem is that you don't try to understand the basic fact of the matter, but only search for excuses to say the SE MMRCA is not needed.
Either you say LCA is enough to replace Mig 21s, which as explained is the wrong benchmark, or you create theories how SAMs can replace fighters and now you run a number's game, which again as explained doesn't fit the requirements either.

So when you stop the denial and see that you already admitted, that LCA is not an MMRCA, you would understand what IAF is saying, that they need both, LCAs and MMRCAs for the future, because the threat potential as well as the operational numbers of IAF squads are increasing. So since we are 90+ MMRCAs short, we need another MMRCA, while LCA has it's own requirement, that is only limited by it's own development delays and performance shortfalls. There is no reason to not produce a single engine MMRCA and a single engine LCA MK2 at the same time if necessary, because both serve different operational requirements with different capabilities. But the longer FOC ia delayed => the more MK1A gets delayed => which in turn delays MK2. That is the real threat for Tejas.

So if you just repeat your points, I just quote the explanations that I already gave, because there is no point in discussing the same again and again.

 

[Sancho]

MIG - 29 OVT would be a better option for the 'Single engine fighter requirement'; Past logging hours. Also over seas transfers and 'who knows if i get this to fly tommorow' might not be as often. So we might end up with Fulcrums and Super hornets (NAVY) which isn't too bad. Please correct me if I am wrong.

OVT is outdated, Mig 35 is the current standard:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/mig-29-35-fulcrums.71293/page-12

But for us it's a no go, unless we divert the IN Migs to IAF as a stop gap. New Migs have hardly any advantage for us.

- outdated design
- no new weapons that can make a difference
- higher operational costs than single engine fighters and less reliability than western counterparts
- risk of over dependence on Russia
- no industrial benefits, to improve our own capabilities, since we already get the best Russia has through MKI and hopefully FGFA

Bottom line, it was certainly right to go for western MMRCAs, we just bought far too less in a bad deal and now we have to find the another western alternative .

 

[Filtercoffee]

OVT is outdated, Mig 35 is the current standard:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/mig-29-35-fulcrums.71293/page-12

But for us it's a no go, unless we divert the IN Migs to IAF as a stop gap. New Migs have hardly any advantage for us.

- outdated design
- no new weapons that can make a difference
- higher operational costs than single engine fighters and less reliability than western counterparts
- risk of over dependence on Russia
- no industrial benefits, to improve our own capabilities, since we already get the best Russia has through MKI and hopefully FGFA

Bottom line, it was certainly right to go for western MMRCAs, we just bought far too less in a bad deal and now we have to find the another western alternative .

Could you specify what the cost difference is between the type against SEFs as I could not find any specific differencial amounts, reliability comes when boredom sets in, l felt it was a nice move to transition from two engine fighters, mid and heavy to the 5th generation. Hardly any diffrence though in dependance as we have our hands full with the FGFA... It also is with TACDE, so no problem with pilot doctrine, as training process will be quicker then frames on offer which can be flown else where. We have modified a lot of the fighters so getting every weapon system required won't be an issue at the start of the procedure. There is also a very small western fighter category - F 22A, the rest are being flown by some which can be called a 'friend'. Any other difference can only come when stated.

 

[Adioz]

:biggrin2: Did I requested you to write long replies? The problem is that you don't try to understand the basic fact of the matter, but only search for excuses to say the SE MMRCA is not needed.
Either you say LCA is enough to replace Mig 21s, which as explained is the wrong benchmark, or you create theories how SAMs can replace fighters and now you run a number's game, which again as explained doesn't fit the requirements either.

So when you stop the denial and see that you already admitted, that LCA is not an MMRCA, you would understand what IAF is saying, that they need both, LCAs and MMRCAs for the future, because the threat potential as well as the operational numbers of IAF squads are increasing. So since we are 90+ MMRCAs short, we need another MMRCA, while LCA has it's own requirement, that is only limited by it's own development delays and performance shortfalls. There is no reason to not produce a single engine MMRCA and a single engine LCA MK2 at the same time if necessary, because both serve different operational requirements with different capabilities. But the longer FOC ia delayed => the more MK1A gets delayed => which in turn delays MK2. That is the real threat for Tejas.

So if you just repeat your points, I just quote the explanations that I already gave, because there is no point in discussing the same again and again.

Why am I not surprised with your answer. Tell me this: Did you even open the link I gave you? This link: Aircraft Induction: IAF’s Predicament ?
I am sure you did not even open it.

The ONLY ARGUMENT YOU HAVE EVER GIVEN is: "THE AIR FORCE ASKED FOR 90+ MMRCA, SO NO MATTER WHAT, WE NEED THEM."

^^^That is all that you have ever said in your replies. This is all you said in this thread: Imported Single-Engine Fighter Jet as well. You have what a normal person would call a "mental block". You refuse to even consider a contrarian point of view. No matter the merit in that point of view. Worse than that is when you automatically assume what the other person is saying without even reading his replies.

I never said that FOC for Tejas is not important for Mk1A and Mk2. Why did you write something that was not even a point I made, while completely disregarding all the other points I made?
I am not completely against the SE MMRCA. If FGFA fails to take off, we will need SE MMRCA to fill some squadrons. So don't assume that my logic starts from "we don't need SE MMRCA ever". My logic starts from "IAF should try to rationalize what it actually needs and what it does not absolutely need based on a full spectrum revision of its air war strategy"

Whatever man, I am sick of you not even trying to consider contrarian points of view. And to top it all of, the only reasons you give for your own point of view are vague reasons like:-

• "SE MMRCA > Tejas" (Which I agree with, but you never fail to repeat it in your replies insinuating that I am saying otherwise)
• "IAF asked for 'X' number of fighters of a certain type" (As if the IAF are gods and we must accept their every word as the absolute truth. Even when a contrarian view point is presented by a Group Captain of the Air Force, you refuse to acknowledge. You prefer to stick your head in the mud.)
• "PLAAF and PAF are growing and have only 4th and 4.5th generation aircraft in their inventories" (And anyone else who says otherwise is obviously someone who is "misinformed", right?)

And that is it. That is all the argument you have ever mustered.
I am done replying to you. Just F*** O** dude. Don't ever quote me again.

 

[Sancho]

Could you specify what the cost difference is between the type against SEFs as I could not find any specific differencial amounts

More engines require more fuel and maintenance, also Russian engines have a lower service life compared to western counterparts , therfore need more replacements. Add that to the know spare supply and maintainability issues of the Migs/Russian fighters and you know why Malaysia for example want to replace their Mig 29s way before the end of their service life, to not be burdened with the issues.

Single engine MMRCAs have overall operational costs between 6 to 9000 US per flight hour, twin engine once between 10 and 30000 USD (depending on the calculation method of the force/country).

Here are some costs for US fighters:

F16C - 8278 USD
F18F - 10507 USD

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2016/08/20160815_Fighters.jpg

Also from the Brazilian MMRCA competition we know, that FAB has calculated thefollowing costs during the trials and evaluations:

Translated

...The French fighter, besides being more expensive than the others, has hour-flight value of US $ 20 thousand. Twice the American jet ($ 10,000) and three times the Swedish jet ($ 7,000). To justify the preference for American fighters, the report brings another piece of information never mentioned in previous FX-2 discussions: The armament used in the Super Hornet is more economical and has greater diversity than that of its competitors...

http://istoe.com.br/259643_A+ESCOLHA+DA+FAB/

Wrt the procurement cost difference, Air Chief Dhanoa also stated last year:

...Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa said that twin engine aircraft were important, and that IAF would maintain a ratio of 60:40 between them and the single engine aircraft.

At the moment, both Dassault (for Rafale) and Boeing (for Advanced Super Hornet) have offered their twin engine jets for manufacture in India if the order is sizeable to justify investment in their industrial infrastructure and related ecosystem.

IAF has to go in for single engine jets, as the cheaper. A single engine power pack is 10 percent of an aircraft’s cost, while the twin engine power pack is 30 percent of the cost...

http://www.indiastrategic.in/2017/1...e-engine-combat-aircraft-within-october-2017/

Keep in mind, that the MMRCA tenders had a focus on lifecycle costs already, which was a change from older procurement policies, that only focused on low procurement costs. Now that we couldn't got enough Rafales and with a government that limits defence spending, even more focus is put on procure and operational costs.

It also is with TACDE, so no problem with pilot doctrine, as training process will be quicker then frames on offer which can be flown else where.

True and that's why I would like to see the Mig 29Ks diverted to IAF. They are already in India and can be directly integrated into IAFs operations. However for the same benefit IAF prefered the Mirage 2000 initially and in any later tender, the disadvantages of the Mig outweighed the faster induction point.

We have modified a lot of the fighters so getting every weapon system required won't be an issue at the start of the procedure.

That's not correct, we can only modify what Russia allows us to modify and except for Indian or Israeli (bombs), no foreign weapon is used on the Russian fighters. Not to mention that the Mig old airframe design sets limitations as well. It was designed for A2A combats and carrying AAMs, not heavy A2G weapons, or a targeting pod (although that issue might be fixed now, judging by the recent pics of Egyptian Mig 29s), that's why Russia initially offered an Mig 35 in MMRCA with 5 x hardpoints at each wing, but that was never developed and the Mig 35 now, remains with 4 like the 29K.