Indian Weapons asking for Reservation

[p2prada]

My post is vague just like urs....

Looks like you have comprehension issues too. What I meant was I divide all of your posts into small paragraphs and then counter each point you make. What you do is quote the entire post and then say "I don't agree." So, when I asked you to explain what you don't agree with you are expected to tell me the point you find a fault in.

I get the vibe that everything I have typed is going over your head.

You don't like the truth, then there's no point being on a defense forum. You could as well make a Facebook community and type what you want. The quality of the forum increases based on the amount of correct information people find.

Govt has never disclosed the conditions of TOT how do you know that?Are you in govt?

Everything was disclosed. The idea behind Rafale ToT is everything related to manufacturing and construction of the aircraft in India along with maintenance. That's everything we need to keep the aircraft sanction free.

If the West sanctions us, Rafale will continue flying with significantly little problems while LCA will get locked up in a hangar in a few years.

as money was no issue why you ignored Sukhoi+Sukhoi condition?

Because it is stupid to buy more Sukhois when FGFA is being developed. And we need aircraft in the medium class, of the 20 tonnes category, not another 30 tonne aircraft. There are differences in the way the two jets are used. That's why even the Americans have F-22 and F-35, the same reason why China also has J-11 and J-10. Only small air forces can have one type.

About LCA its one of the best in its class....

Being better than JF-17 or F/A-50 is pointless. What LCA will have to face are better jets outside of its class. No, Gripen is no longer in LCA's class.

People have to understand what class means. Just because your bicycle is the best in its class doesn't mean you will take it to a car race.

yes Engine will be foreign thats a drawback but we the issue will not come till war...

The issue will come from day one. PAF F-16s have never seen war, and the sanctions they had hit them really hard. The Americans kept their money and didn't give them any jets apart from withdrawing all support.

and sanction have been imposed on us even in past but that didnt stop us from buying foreign weapons why should it bother us in this case....

We used to rely on Russian weapons which were never sanctioned. That's why we escaped sanctions. Buying Russian and French weapons doesn't mean American weapons in our inventory will work. Arjun has a German engine and LCA has an American engine, both countries were the first to sanction us. The French and Russians haven't sanctioned us.

Arjun and LCA were both sanctioned, if you didn't know. Projects were halted and delayed because of that. The Americans kicked out Indian engineers in the US, and the British refused all further support for LCA. Arjun continued again after sanctions were lifted in 2003. That's why it took so long to properly test both. If either are sanctioned again, then both projects are dead.

 

[Pulkit]

Sorry I quote your all text in one go

Looks like you have comprehension issues too. What I meant was I divide all of your posts into small paragraphs and then counter each point you make. What you do is quote the entire post and then say "I don't agree." So, when I asked you to explain what you don't agree with you are expected to tell me the point you find a fault in.

I get the vibe that everything I have typed is going over your head.
.

yes true everythin is going over my head ....way above... because my judgement and my thinking differs from you...
My take is not on similar lines with you..
I dont expect it to be even...



.

You don't like the truth, then there's no point being on a defense forum. You could as well make a Facebook community and type what you want. The quality of the forum increases based on the amount of correct information people find.

.

Nice idea I hope after 10000 you are planning to do that or you have already done that?
which one....
No sendme request will visit fro sure.....
.

Everything was disclosed. The idea behind Rafale ToT is everything related to manufacturing and construction of the aircraft in India along with maintenance. That's everything we need to keep the aircraft sanction free.

If the West sanctions us, Rafale will continue flying with significantly little problems while LCA will get locked up in a hangar in a few years.

.

I say no no i state again how do you know that?????
.

Because it is stupid to buy more Sukhois when FGFA is being developed. And we need aircraft in the medium class, of the 20 tonnes category, not another 30 tonne aircraft. There are differences in the way the two jets are used. That's why even the Americans have F-22 and F-35, the same reason why China also has J-11 and J-10. Only small air forces can have one type.

.

Why when we can afford it why should we even go for 20 tonne....
like you said we can afford it all.... why settle for medium then..
FGFA will pair up with Sukhoi till sukhoi is there in the fleet......

American had troubles with cost of F22 thats why tehy went for F35 ... acc to them F22 is still far better than F35....

Small forces can have one type but we are planning AMCA arent we we have money we can speed it up and induct it along with FGFA....

.

Being better than JF-17 or F/A-50 is pointless. What LCA will have to face are better jets outside of its class. No, Gripen is no longer in LCA's class.

People have to understand what class means. Just because your bicycle is the best in its class doesn't mean you will take it to a car race.
.

Being better is a point and that too better than enemies is sufficient....
Gripen is no longer LCA then what will be MK2 be ... between LCA and MCA... new class.....

.

The issue will come from day one. PAF F-16s have never seen war, and the sanctions they had hit them really hard. The Americans kept their money and didn't give them any jets apart from withdrawing all support.



We used to rely on Russian weapons which were never sanctioned. That's why we escaped sanctions. Buying Russian and French weapons doesn't mean American weapons in our inventory will work. Arjun has a German engine and LCA has an American engine, both countries were the first to sanction us. The French and Russians haven't sanctioned us.

Arjun and LCA were both sanctioned, if you didn't know. Projects were halted and delayed because of that. The Americans kicked out Indian engineers in the US, and the British refused all further support for LCA. Arjun continued again after sanctions were lifted in 2003. That's why it took so long to properly test both. If either are sanctioned again, then both projects are dead..

Sanction Russia never did germany engine hmm the engine was available but due to lesser number cost inc henece they went with german engine(memory looking for reference)...
all those sanctions helped us learn all on our own what if we failed in few fields there is alot to take away from it....
.

 

[p2prada]

How come my argument is Strawman and urs is not... funny...

Google strawman. It means you are arguing with stuff that doesn't matter just to prove a point.

Rafale costs about 120000 crore in whole and I know we are not gonna pay it in one go..

Why 120000 crores? Let's say 240000 crores. That's 6000 crores per year over 40 years. Yeah, we can afford it. Or 3000 Crores according to your figures.

Can we afford 3000 Crores or 6000 Crores per year? You tell me. And a large chunk of the funds will be spent in the first 10 years, so IAF will have a temporary surge in the budget in the beginning.

This year we had 94000 crore.... for all three IA IAF And IN...
so Its not correct but lets say one third to IAF that is 30000 crores.... so how many years do you wanna plan to pay?
Budget will increase but New requirements will also come at same rate...

How about "actual" realism?

By 2020, our GDP should be 16 LC at a growth rate of 5%. By 2026, the end of Rafale's production cycle and with the same GDP growth we will have a GDP of 24 LC.

Even with a modest 2%, our defense budget will be Rs 4 LC. Today's capital budget to defense budget percentage is
40%. If we assume 40% of 4 LC will be used as capital budget, it will be 1.6 LC. So, budget has doubled in 12 years. Rafale numbers have stayed the same, even if inflation is at 5%. So, we will still be spending roughly the same amount that we can afford today.

We can easily afford Rafale even with our current growth rate. But do you think India will stay at 5% GDP growth until then? Let's not even begin to talk about exchange rate fluctuations as the economy becomes richer.

In 2007, the amount allocated for MRCA was 42000 C. The capital budget in 2007 was 41922 C. Today, the capital budget is 94000 crores and Rafale will also be procured for a similar cost, if not lesser. So, even with the Indian economy performing very badly, the country has maintained the same capital budget to tender cost.

Rafale's procurement cost should actually be in the region of Rs 88000 Crores or $15-16 Billion for 126, or $23 Billion for all 189.

How's this for realistic? You have assumed that India will have the same 30,000 Crores for the next 100 years.

If the country starts growing at 10% every year, then we have can buy 126 Rafales every 5 years.

I am a Strawman but realistic shed some light please.....

Typical clueless poster. Jumping to conclusions before checking for facts.

 

[p2prada]

Sorry I quote your all text in one go

Fix your post. You have quoted your own post.

 

[Pulkit]

I have said that we have all the money....
then why buy Rafale why not Sukhoi....?

Google strawman. It means you are arguing with stuff that doesn't matter just to prove a point.



Why 120000 crores? Let's say 240000 crores. That's 6000 crores per year over 40 years. Yeah, we can afford it. Or 3000 Crores according to your figures.

Can we afford 3000 Crores or 6000 Crores per year? You tell me. And a large chunk of the funds will be spent in the first 10 years, so IAF will have a temporary surge in the budget in the beginning.



How about "actual" realism?

By 2020, our GDP should be 16 LC at a growth rate of 5%. By 2026, the end of Rafale's production cycle and with the same GDP growth we will have a GDP of 24 LC.

Even with a modest 2%, our defense budget will be Rs 4 LC. Today's capital budget to defense budget percentage is
40%. If we assume 40% of 4 LC will be used as capital budget, it will be 1.6 LC. So, budget has doubled in 12 years. Rafale numbers have stayed the same, even if inflation is at 5%. So, we will still be spending roughly the same amount that we can afford today.

We can easily afford Rafale even with our current growth rate. But do you think India will stay at 5% GDP growth until then? Let's not even begin to talk about exchange rate fluctuations as the economy becomes richer.

In 2007, the amount allocated for MRCA was 42000 C. The capital budget in 2007 was 41922 C. Today, the capital budget is 94000 crores and Rafale will also be procured for a similar cost, if not lesser. So, even with the Indian economy performing very badly, the country has maintained the same capital budget to tender cost.

Rafale's procurement cost should actually be in the region of Rs 88000 Crores or $15-16 Billion for 126, or $23 Billion for all 189.

How's this for realistic? You have assumed that India will have the same 30,000 Crores for the next 100 years.

If the country starts growing at 10% every year, then we have can buy 126 Rafales every 5 years.



Typical clueless poster. Jumping to conclusions before checking for facts.

 

[Sea Eagle]

I have said that we have all the money....
then why buy Rafale why not Sukhoi....?

He has already answered that question. You have been asking the same questions again and again all over this thread.
Please refrain since its irritating for the reader as well as other posters

 

[Kunal Biswas]

As a MOD here, I see more twisted form of answering where facts are fact-less according to one ..

Anyways, I am enjoying the debate as long as it remain civil ..

He has already answered that question.

 

[p2prada]

I have said that we have all the money....
then why buy Rafale why not Sukhoi....?

Already explained it.

 

[Pulkit]

great I can rephrase the same question in a way or two...
When its about Tejas its waste of money as it is not superior...
When its about rafale we have enuf of funds....(Actually we dont have that much liberty at all)
when i ask when we have funds we even go for better than rafale....
then it becomes illogical


How???

the person i was and i am having this discussion with is a very learned man ....
so when he has said something which is very useful to proove my point I am gonna stick to it...

he says Sukhoi is better than Rafale,,,,, and we are buying Rafale because it is better than Tejas ....actually in his terms way better...

so when there is no shortage of money then Lets get Sukhoi not Rafale..


We want a air superiority Airforce so we should go for the Dominant one.... Thats Su in this case not rafale...
@p2prada I hope I am not misquoting you in any way...Forgot to mention earlier just like you said stupid to buy more sukhoi when we ar developing fgfa similarly foolish to buy Rafale when we are gonna have our own AMCA
@Sea Eagle this is a discussion forum many people here are experts and give there expert opinion so before taking that opinion into account I have the righ to judge....
When you tell me Tejas is not a fighter Aircraft i will have issue ...but i have given up that argument i am just sticking to what my learned friend had told me nothing more or less than that...
If you are not being understanding you will receive the same treatment....
@Kunal Biswas If you feel that what ever i am discussing is irrelevant plz let me know....

He has already answered that question. You have been asking the same questions again and again all over this thread.
Please refrain since its irritating for the reader as well as other posters

 

[p2prada]

great I can rephrase the same question in a way or two...
When its about Tejas its waste of money as it is not superior...
When its about rafale we have enuf of funds....(Actually we dont have that much liberty at all)
when i ask when we have funds we even go for better than rafale....
then it becomes illogical


How???

There are two major components during SEAD/DEAD missions where you are opening up the enemy for further attack. This happens during the first day of war. It's when our forces will attack enemy SAM sites and other defensive installations. The first component is air superiority. If you want to do anything on enemy territory you will first need to secure the airspace. The second component is ground strike. This is the most important mission where we will drop bombs to destroy SAM sites. Apart from that there are mission enablers like electronic attack, radar surveillance from AEW&Cs, satellite recce, escort aircraft etc.

During the first day of war, you will need aircraft that will "kick the doors down." That's where both MKI and Rafale come in. The MKI maintains air superiority while Rafale takes out the SAM sites.

So, both aircraft are performing different missions and Rafale is better at strike than MKI. So when you said, "when i ask when we have funds we even go for better than rafale...." you are wrong because Rafale is better than the MKI here.

And because MKI is older it is not made for the high tempo operations that Rafale can handle today. MKI can at best be pushed to do a second sortie, but it will most likely only perform one sortie a day. Rafale OTOH can perform 2 sorties a day normally, and can even do 3 or 4 sorties when pushed. They proved that in Libya.

We want a air superiority Airforce so we should go for the Dominant one.... Thats Su in this case not rafale...

The reason why IAF wants only air superiority aircraft is because they want aircraft that can protect itself while performing ground strike missions. Technology has matured enough for this to happen. It is called swing role, where Rafales will be firing air to air and air to ground weapons simultaneously. LCA cannot do this. LCA can't even carry air to air and air to ground weapons together. It has to pick one over the other for missions.

Once 5th gen aircraft come in, the entire way we conduct air warfare will completely change and LCA will become even more irrelevant then. Even Rafale and MKI will become less relevant with the exception of their advanced avionics suites and range, payload etc and end up in secondary roles by 2030. That's why MKI won't survive for long after that while Rafale may simply scrape through due to its longer life.

Depending on how the future threat perception is, and based on how well our economy's grown, there is a high chance the LCA may be discarded even before MLUs or just relegated to training duties along with Mk1s.

 

[Apollyon]

LCA Mk-1 may cost $26 million now but there's a limit to which it can be kept updated to manage the threat perception of the future. It's a Light Combat Aircraft for ---- sake. It will only be reduced to peacetime escort duties in next 15-20 years. Tejas is 10 years too late.

 

[Pulkit]

you have somehow contradicted your own statement ... from MKI superior than Rafale to rafale superior than MKI ...
Thats a major shift I hope tomorrow you dint say JF17 Thunder is better than MKI too....
Yes sorties can be lesser in the case of mki but with the payload it can carry and the inc in number of SU (By scrapping Rafale) we will have even more fire power....
by 2030 when even rafale is gonna be sidelined then what is the fun of buying so many today just for the sake of 15 years,,,,
we have upgraded A/c which will last till 2025 and few tejas mk1 mk2 we can delay again migs aswell...

you hve left alot on future but rafale is not our future fgfa amca mk3 are .... if we get rafale at this price then how benefial it will be cant say but the harm is for sure......

There are two major components during SEAD/DEAD missions where you are opening up the enemy for further attack. This happens during the first day of war. It's when our forces will attack enemy SAM sites and other defensive installations. The first component is air superiority. If you want to do anything on enemy territory you will first need to secure the airspace. The second component is ground strike. This is the most important mission where we will drop bombs to destroy SAM sites. Apart from that there are mission enablers like electronic attack, radar surveillance from AEW&Cs, satellite recce, escort aircraft etc.

During the first day of war, you will need aircraft that will "kick the doors down." That's where both MKI and Rafale come in. The MKI maintains air superiority while Rafale takes out the SAM sites.

So, both aircraft are performing different missions and Rafale is better at strike than MKI. So when you said, "when i ask when we have funds we even go for better than rafale...." you are wrong because Rafale is better than the MKI here.

And because MKI is older it is not made for the high tempo operations that Rafale can handle today. MKI can at best be pushed to do a second sortie, but it will most likely only perform one sortie a day. Rafale OTOH can perform 2 sorties a day normally, and can even do 3 or 4 sorties when pushed. They proved that in Libya.



The reason why IAF wants only air superiority aircraft is because they want aircraft that can protect itself while performing ground strike missions. Technology has matured enough for this to happen. It is called swing role, where Rafales will be firing air to air and air to ground weapons simultaneously. LCA cannot do this. LCA can't even carry air to air and air to ground weapons together. It has to pick one over the other for missions.

Once 5th gen aircraft come in, the entire way we conduct air warfare will completely change and LCA will become even more irrelevant then. Even Rafale and MKI will become less relevant with the exception of their advanced avionics suites and range, payload etc and end up in secondary roles by 2030. That's why MKI won't survive for long after that while Rafale may simply scrape through due to its longer life.

Depending on how the future threat perception is, and based on how well our economy's grown, there is a high chance the LCA may be discarded even before MLUs or just relegated to training duties along with Mk1s.

 

[Pulkit]

LCA Mk-1 may cost $26 million now but there's a limit to which it can be kept updated to manage the threat perception of the future. It's a Light Combat Aircraft for ---- sake. It will only be reduced to peacetime escort duties in next 15-20 years. Tejas is 10 years too late.

yes true it is a decade late.... but there is a specific role of interceptor it was designed developed to play... it was never aimed for air superiority...
at 26Mil mk1 and around 45mil mk2 if inducted will be lethal against pakis.... mk1 can b limited but the design on paper mk2 appears to be a wat better aircraft...
with range and payload of close to a mrca ie mca... it is not a lca but something between mca and lca,,,,


with fgfa and amca at door step.... we can avoid rafale,,,,,

i m not replacing rafale with tejas but with mix of fgfa amca and su....

 

[p2prada]

you have somehow contradicted your own statement ... from MKI superior than Rafale to rafale superior than MKI ...
Thats a major shift I hope tomorrow you dint say JF17 Thunder is better than MKI too....

Go back and check previous posts. I was very specific when I said MKI is better as an air superiority platform. And I have repeatedly mentioned that Rafale won't be used like how the MKIs are used.

Yes sorties can be lesser in the case of mki but with the payload it can carry and the inc in number of SU (By scrapping Rafale) we will have even more fire power....

That's not how it works. We can keep both MKI and Rafale flying for hours in an air superiority role. MKIs are known to stay in the air for over 10 hours while Rafale can stay in the air for over 16 hours.

The point of a high sortie rate is Rafales can quickly land, rearm and then take off again and repeat this at least three times a day. MKI cannot do this. LCA Mk1 cannot while LCA Mk2 will be able to, but it's pointless because it can't reach the targets like Rafale can.

by 2030 when even rafale is gonna be sidelined then what is the fun of buying so many today just for the sake of 15 years,,,,

The FGFA sidelining the MKI, Rafale and LCA is my opinion by looking at how the F-22 has sidelined every aircraft in the inventory. This is not an IAF opinion. What the IAF need today is an aircraft that can be used on the first day of war, that's Rafale. They also need an aircraft that's proven itself, FGFA, AMCA and LCA are not proven aircraft.

we have upgraded A/c which will last till 2025 and few tejas mk1 mk2 we can delay again migs aswell...

Delaying Migs phaseout has the highest possibility. It is possible 1/3rd of the fleet could be pushed to 2025, until 6 Rafale and 6 LCA squadrons are inducted.

you hve left alot on future but rafale is not our future fgfa amca mk3 are .... if we get rafale at this price then how benefial it will be cant say but the harm is for sure......

What do you mean by Rafale is not our future? Are you looking at fighting in 2060 or preparing for war in the next few years?

There are zero disadvantages to inducting Rafale. The IAF knows this, MoD knows this, HAL knows this and even ADA knows this. ADA knows very clearly that Rafale is something that LCA cannot compete with. There are only advantages for Rafale, and MKI was no different. There are actually as many advantages for Rafale's induction as there was for MKI. And MKI, back in the late '90s, was under a lot of criticism. The IAF Chief had to make public announcements that going for the MKI is not a bad decision. OTOH, Rafale is like a gift. The only ones complaining are the ones who are completely clueless about what's happening.

And what's AMCA Mk3?

 

[p2prada]

yes true it is a decade late.... but there is a specific role of interceptor it was designed developed to play... it was never aimed for air superiority...

Again bullshit without knowing facts. LCA was an interceptor until a few years ago. IAF accorded the LCA with the air superiority tag with the Mk2 ASR changes after 2007.

with range and payload of close to a mrca ie mca... it is not a lca but something between mca and lca,,,,

Man, you sure don't know what you are talking about.

What's between a LCA and MCA is a LCA. The range and payload of LCA is considerably less than Rafale. Even Gripen E has a range of 4000 Km. A Rafale with 2 CFTs and 5 drop tanks should easily be well over 5000 Km range. LCA Mk2 won't even come close, both in range or payload.

There is a reason why LCA Mk2 is also called LCA. The world's smallest fighter.

 

[ghost]

yes true it is a decade late.... but there is a specific role of interceptor it was designed developed to play... it was never aimed for air superiority...
at 26Mil mk1 and around 45mil mk2 if inducted will be lethal against pakis.... mk1 can b limited but the design on paper mk2 appears to be a wat better aircraft...
with range and payload of close to a mrca ie mca... it is not a lca but something between mca and lca,,,,


with fgfa and amca at door step.... we can avoid rafale,,,,,

i m not replacing rafale with tejas but with mix of fgfa amca and su....

I understand what you are trying to say ,in the same way i get what @p2prada is trying to convey.I agree with @p2prada and would try to explain to you in simple term what he implies.

Now for eg the police dept in ur town is fielding motorbikes of three category 100cc,250cc,and 500cc.Then you might say our police dept has lot of money, then what's the need of 100cc and 250 cc bike field all the bike in 500 cc as they are most powerful.But you would need to understand that it cannot be done ,as logic behind fielding 3 different cc bike is that, 100cc bike would be used to patrol city and narrow lanes of the city where it would be not possible for 500cc bike to operate and where 250cc bike will be too expensive to operate daily and waste since it does not require much power to patrol narrow lanes and road of the city.You will deploy 250 cc bike as quick reaction bike in the city ,which would respond to call for help,as 100cc bike would not be so fast and 500cc bike will be overpowered for city road ,so 250cc with its power to weight ratio would be ideal for city quick reaction.Now in the end you will deploy 500cc bike at the highway ,where 100cc bike would be under powered and 250cc bike will not be quick enough as 500cc on open highway.

So my friend ,what i implied is that we need different planes for different roles.A good air force have the right mixture of light,medium and heavy fighter jet.The role carried out by lighter jet can be performed by medium as well as heavy jet,but it would not be practical ,nor feasible to employ these jet for role that can be carried by lighter jet.(for argument sake we can employ heavy jet for this role ,but then it is not as we are going to war today more than the cost of jet ,operational cost matter, in which it would be foolish to waste money on something which can be achieved at much less cost.

Now medium fighter can perform role of both light fighter(interceptor) and heavy fighter(air dominance) ,but then it is best suited for (ground attack) where it being heavier that the lightest and being lighter than the heavy give it some advantage over the other two(ideal for carrying out more sorties)etc,so we have to exploit these advantages .At last the role of heavy fighter can be done by medium fighter, but than it is not as good as heavy fighter (in air dominance) so this role is assigned to heavy fighter.So in real world, best and most practical approach is taken by air force for defending the country.In using lighter aircraft as interceptor,medium aircraft for ground attack ,and the heavy one for air dominance.(optimum utilization of resources).

Now if we go by you and adopt heavy aircraft for all the roles.Then we will be burdened by heavy day to day operational cost,since these type are more complex to maintain so again heavy toll to maintain entire fleet.Heavy fighter have certain disadvantage in comparison to medium and lighter weight aircraft,which we will have to suffer as we would have none in our inventory.Each plane has it unique set of strength and weakness ,since you would have one type of plane it would be easier for enemy to exploit ur weakness .

In short each category of plain have different roles to play which suit them best in a war ,hence a good air force need to form a combination of different planes to meet its different requirement ,in a more practical,feasible,and cost effective manner.Though different roles can be performed by a single fighter ,it is best to use the fighter for the particular role it suit best.Hope this help @p2prada can provide more details about various advantages and disadvantage of light,medium and heavy fighter jet and hence why we need to have a healthy balance of different category of aircraft, not relying on a single type.


Fgfa and amca are far if one has to go by past record and experience ,further rafale would bring in advance European technology,as well as experience and knowledge.Which will help us in the development and production of fgfa and amca.

 

[Pulkit]

@ghost i think you had written this for @p2prada and not for me...
Go through all what I have wrote till now...
My issue is Rafale damm expensive and neglection of Tejas by IAF,,,,,,
And people thinking we have all the money in the world....

I understand what you are trying to say ,in the same way i get what @p2prada is trying to convey.I agree with @p2prada and would try to explain to you in simple term what he implies.

Now for eg the police dept in ur town is fielding motorbikes of three category 100cc,250cc,and 500cc.Then you might say our police dept has lot of money, then what's the need of 100cc and 250 cc bike field all the bike in 500 cc as they are most powerful.But you would need to understand that it cannot be done ,as logic behind fielding 3 different cc bike is that, 100cc bike would be used to patrol city and narrow lanes of the city where it would be not possible for 500cc bike to operate and where 250cc bike will be too expensive to operate daily and waste since it does not require much power to patrol narrow lanes and road of the city.You will deploy 250 cc bike as quick reaction bike in the city ,which would respond to call for help,as 100cc bike would not be so fast and 500cc bike will be overpowered for city road ,so 250cc with its power to weight ratio would be ideal for city quick reaction.Now in the end you will deploy 500cc bike at the highway ,where 100cc bike would be under powered and 250cc bike will not be quick enough as 500cc on open highway.

So my friend ,what i implied is that we need different planes for different roles.A good air force have the right mixture of light,medium and heavy fighter jet.The role carried out by lighter jet can be performed by medium as well as heavy jet,but it would not be practical ,nor feasible to employ these jet for role that can be carried by lighter jet.(for argument sake we can employ heavy jet for this role ,but then it is not as we are going to war today more than the cost of jet ,operational cost matter, in which it would be foolish to waste money on something which can be achieved at much less cost.

Now medium fighter can perform role of both light fighter(interceptor) and heavy fighter(air dominance) ,but then it is best suited for (ground attack) where it being heavier that the lightest and being lighter than the heavy give it some advantage over the other two(ideal for carrying out more sorties)etc,so we have to exploit these advantages .At last the role of heavy fighter can be done by medium fighter, but than it is not as good as heavy fighter (in air dominance) so this role is assigned to heavy fighter.So in real world, best and most practical approach is taken by air force for defending the country.In using lighter aircraft as interceptor,medium aircraft for ground attack ,and the heavy one for air dominance.(optimum utilization of resources).

Now if we go by you and adopt heavy aircraft for all the roles.Then we will be burdened by heavy day to day operational cost,since these type are more complex to maintain so again heavy toll to maintain entire fleet.Heavy fighter have certain disadvantage in comparison to medium and lighter weight aircraft,which we will have to suffer as we would have none in our inventory.Each plane has it unique set of strength and weakness ,since you would have one type of plane it would be easier for enemy to exploit ur weakness .

In short each category of plain have different roles to play which suit them best in a war ,hence a good air force need to form a combination of different planes to meet its different requirement ,in a more practical,feasible,and cost effective manner.Though different roles can be performed by a single fighter ,it is best to use the fighter for the particular role it suit best.Hope this help @p2prada can provide more details about various advantages and disadvantage of light,medium and heavy fighter jet and hence why we need to have a healthy balance of different category of aircraft, not relying on a single type.


Fgfa and amca are far if one has to go by past record and experience ,further rafale would bring in advance European technology,as well as experience and knowledge.Which will help us in the development and production of fgfa and amca.

 

[Pulkit]

You said Tejas is not a fighter A/C so I said atleast you will agree it can be a good interceptor ... now you are telling me IAF has allocated it Air superiority even going against what you think that its not even a fighter ...
hOW CAN THEY DO SUCH A THING?HOW?
you decide and let me know...
MK2 will have a decent payload and range .... what do you think its payload and range would be ...
I would love to share many links that will give there own numbers but you will jump in and say thats not official or trusted and give your own expert opinion so asking upfront...

and compare with the onboard fuselage capacity of rafale and give your expert opinion....

Again bullshit without knowing facts. LCA was an interceptor until a few years ago. IAF accorded the LCA with the air superiority tag with the Mk2 ASR changes after 2007.



Man, you sure don't know what you are talking about.

What's between a LCA and MCA is a LCA. The range and payload of LCA is considerably less than Rafale. Even Gripen E has a range of 4000 Km. A Rafale with 2 CFTs and 5 drop tanks should easily be well over 5000 Km range. LCA Mk2 won't even come close, both in range or payload.

There is a reason why LCA Mk2 is also called LCA. The world's smallest fighter.

 

[Pulkit]

Take a pick which one is better ... Rafale or SU?
i said rafale is not future because future is fifth gen and 6th gen....+ i dont want see it in our IAF fleet... personally but i might be okay with reduced numbers... to my bad my will doesnot matter.....
if thats not IAF opinion then what you claim is not people opinion and thus nor govt opinion... you see most of us are not experts but we do have basic knowledge ...
sometimes knowing extra is also as dangerous than knowing too little....


Advanced medium combat aircraft....amca ...... and if it becomes reality Tejas MK3

Go back and check previous posts. I was very specific when I said MKI is better as an air superiority platform. And I have repeatedly mentioned that Rafale won't be used like how the MKIs are used.



That's not how it works. We can keep both MKI and Rafale flying for hours in an air superiority role. MKIs are known to stay in the air for over 10 hours while Rafale can stay in the air for over 16 hours.

The point of a high sortie rate is Rafales can quickly land, rearm and then take off again and repeat this at least three times a day. MKI cannot do this. LCA Mk1 cannot while LCA Mk2 will be able to, but it's pointless because it can't reach the targets like Rafale can.



The FGFA sidelining the MKI, Rafale and LCA is my opinion by looking at how the F-22 has sidelined every aircraft in the inventory. This is not an IAF opinion. What the IAF need today is an aircraft that can be used on the first day of war, that's Rafale. They also need an aircraft that's proven itself, FGFA, AMCA and LCA are not proven aircraft.



Delaying Migs phaseout has the highest possibility. It is possible 1/3rd of the fleet could be pushed to 2025, until 6 Rafale and 6 LCA squadrons are inducted.



What do you mean by Rafale is not our future? Are you looking at fighting in 2060 or preparing for war in the next few years?

There are zero disadvantages to inducting Rafale. The IAF knows this, MoD knows this, HAL knows this and even ADA knows this. ADA knows very clearly that Rafale is something that LCA cannot compete with. There are only advantages for Rafale, and MKI was no different. There are actually as many advantages for Rafale's induction as there was for MKI. And MKI, back in the late '90s, was under a lot of criticism. The IAF Chief had to make public announcements that going for the MKI is not a bad decision. OTOH, Rafale is like a gift. The only ones complaining are the ones who are completely clueless about what's happening.

And what's AMCA Mk3?

 

[ersakthivel]

recently with two droptanks and no weapons a few rafales flew non stop to reunion islands for 10000 kms. They needed 5 refuellings for their flight path to cross 10000 Km.

So it gives us 2000 Km ferry range with two droptanks and no weapons in practical conditions. Guys who are saying rafale can fly 4000 Km should some light on this.

If we add weapons their weight and drag will reduce this further. So the addition of centerline fuel tanks wont certainly double it to 5000 Km.

LCA (now tejas) was designed right from the beginning to be a multi role platform(swing or omni or anything one fancies) with litening pods, ground terrain mapping MMR radar,(in fact the air to ground mode development of tejas radar was the toughest part leading to delay),with a naval version also.

LCA can carry both air to ground and air to air weapon simultaneously.shown in livefist exercise. And we can use three tejas for one rafale with far better weapon load within its range. ANd for higher ranges we can use MKI. So the three tier airforce arguments is BS peddled , which has no justification.

French have only mirages and rafales. british in future wil have only typhoons and F-35. Swedes Gripen only air forces.Why are these nations adopting three tier airforces?

Russians will have Su-35 and PAKFA. Americans will replace most of their fighter types with F-35.

Both tejas mk-2 and gripen NG will also weigh the same.

So gripen too only a smallest lightest interceptor only fighter?



And the supposed to be "world's smallest lightest and interceptor only" LCA has the same weight of gripen in corresponding models if we compare gripen C with lca mk-1

Gripen E is going to weigh the same as lca with the same powered engine and almost the same internal fuel fractions. SO how come it can have a considerably higher range than tejas?

All figs for tejas are given in hot and humid indian conditions where engine thrust suffers 10 percent and lift reduces 12 percent for all fighters. So most of the brochure ranges of foreign fighters are not applicable in indian conditions n which tejas range is given.

With meager resources if we spend 20 billion dollar on a 4.5th gen fighter ,
when the whole world is inducting F-35s, J-20s and PAKFAs in the next decade,
that too at prices more are less the same, as our frontline fighters ,
how does that make the country secure?

Does any one expect GOI to allocate 40 billion dollars simultaneously for both FGFA and rafale in roughly the same time frame?

There is a remote chance even pak will get J-31 at a lesser cost than rfale in five or ten years down the line.

So how can IAF justify the cost of rafale to indian tax payers?The only problem rafale is facing throughout the world is justifying its 5th gen price for the 4.5th gen tech it has. Gripen Ng and tejas wont face this issue as they are priced economically.

Why cant they divert this money to to faster and higher number induction of PAKFA before the arrival of FGFA?