Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[Adioz]

1. How does India plan to choose its next fighter? Will this be a full-fledged tendered contest?
2. What bearing will this prospective new IAF contest have on the Indian Navy’s quest for 57 carrier fighters?
3. Will the new contest be guided by the same process principles of Make in India and Strategic Partnership (SP)?
4. Does the government plan to create a real time-frame for the process?

1. Spin the bottle, Yes
2. 10 more years of delay
3. Yes
4. Have they ever?

I don't mean to sound pessimistic, just cracking a joke at our hopelessly dysfunctional acquisition process.

 

[Immanuel]

This whole thing goes away if IN and IAF align on what is needed, there are 3 aircraft that can be imported more Rafale for IN & IAF (obvious choice) yet for some reason the Navy has decided not to hedge on a G2G deal for Rafale. The Super Hornet Block 3 (which is more suited for IN than the Rafale) and finally the F-35 which is the only one that can suit both. I bet eventually, they'll come down to the F-35, the lobby is strong, the aircraft has it's whole life ahead and sensory advantage will continue to widen. The FGFA is IMO on path to no where.

 

[Adioz]

This whole thing goes away if IN and IAF align on what is needed, there are 3 aircraft that can be imported more Rafale for IN & IAF (obvious choice) yet for some reason the Navy has decided not to hedge on a G2G deal for Rafale. The Super Hornet Block 3 (which is more suited for IN than the Rafale) and finally the F-35 which is the only one that can suit both. I bet eventually, they'll come down to the F-35, the lobby is strong, the aircraft has it's whole life ahead and sensory advantage will continue to widen. The FGFA is IMO on path to no where.

• No one is offering the F-35. that too without us buying the F-16
• F-35 is in same category as AMCA i.e. medium. Soits not going to be ordered as readily
• US is not ready to give these to us without us offering something in return. Probably not going to be offered until we sign CISMOA, which the Indian military (and every sane Indian) is clearly against.
• Let us assume US offers the F-35. And let us assume that GoI, Navy, IAF, HAL and DRDO agree. When is the first F-35 going to come to India? And when will the order be completed? Now try thinking about what the original point of MMRCA tender is. It is to shore up medium fighters strength in IAF until AMCA is available.

No matter what way you think, F-35 does not fit the bill.

 

[Immanuel]

• No one is offering the F-35. that too without us buying the F-16
• F-35 is in same category as AMCA i.e. medium. Soits not going to be ordered as readily
• US is not ready to give these to us without us offering something in return. Probably not going to be offered until we sign CISMOA, which the Indian military (and every sane Indian) is clearly against.
• Let us assume US offers the F-35. And let us assume that GoI, Navy, IAF, HAL and DRDO agree. When is the first F-35 going to come to India? And when will the order be completed? Now try thinking about what the original point of MMRCA tender is. It is to shore up medium fighters strength in IAF until AMCA is available.

No matter what way you think, F-35 does not fit the bill.

*There is no evidence for your first point, even if LM says it, LM is only trying to ride the F-16 gravy train as long as possible, it's like a baby on the breast, it's hard to weane because that boob juice is delish. A F-35 like the FGFA would have to be a G2G negotiation and terms can be agreed upon.

*AMCA is twin engine, can't be in the same category, even if Medium

*Try dangling a stick of 114 SEF F-35 A for IAF + 57 F35 B/C for IN and see how quick LM or US Govt. get in line for the most part, sale will be approved in record time, we'll get basic TOT guessing around 20-25% of critical day to day items for safe operations, local final assembly, ability to add our own weapons. CISMOA has not been mandatory for any of the deals so far and there will be more negotiations this year to remove some of the intrusive clauses this year, if some sort of CISMOAish agreement is signed based on our reservations, TOT % could climb.

*IF, negotiations began in Jan 2019, it would take till 2022-23 to sign the deal, first birds can land around 2026/27, keep in mind by 2023 LM peak production would be at 130 birds per year.

* Give me valid reasons as to why F-35 doesn't fit the bill for the IAF & IN? And please don't give outdated or debunked reasoning like it's can't hit moving targets, or dogfight or is limited to 7 G etc. Consider the timeline of when F-35s could land in India if ordered i.e around 2027 and tell me which other aircraft would be nearly as advanced and can full-fill the roles for both IAF & IN perfectly while being as flexible or 5th gen.

 

[Adioz]

*There is no evidence for your first point, even if LM says it, LM is only trying to ride the F-16 gravy train as long as possible, it's like a baby on the breast, it's hard to weane because that boob juice is delish. A F-35 like the FGFA would have to be a G2G negotiation and terms can be agreed upon.

*AMCA is twin engine, can't be in the same category, even if Medium

*Try dangling a stick of 114 SEF F-35 A for IAF + 57 F35 B/C for IN and see how quick LM or US Govt. get in line for the most part, sale will be approved in record time, we'll get basic TOT guessing around 20-25% of critical day to day items for safe operations, local final assembly, ability to add our own weapons. CISMOA has not been mandatory for any of the deals so far and there will be more negotiations this year to remove some of the intrusive clauses this year, if some sort of CISMOAish agreement is signed based on our reservations, TOT % could climb.

*IF, negotiations began in Jan 2019, it would take till 2022-23 to sign the deal, first birds can land around 2026/27, keep in mind by 2023 LM peak production would be at 130 birds per year.

* Give me valid reasons as to why F-35 doesn't fit the bill for the IAF & IN?

• Lets get something straight: IAF only categorizes its fighters as light, medium or heavy. Strictly speaking, F-35 is somewhere between light and heavy, given that it is a little smaller than AMCA and much larger than LCA. So no, F-35 is not something that is not in the same category as AMCA. F-35 is in the same category as AMCA.
• There is no evidence that US government will release F-35 sales to India without asking for something in return. Your good word about how the US government would "pounce" over the opportunity to sell F-35 to India and your claims of us getting 25% ToT notwithstanding, there is no evidence.
• India should be extremely vary of signing something "CISMOA-ish". GoI and Armed Forces are well aware of that, even though a few people at higher levels might try to make a case of this, its never going to work.
• There is no evidence to back up your claim that F-35 deal would be signed in 2022-23. Let alone you claims of US prioritizing delivery of fighters to its other partners and its own self just to deliver this product to a new customer, which is characterized as an unreliable ally. Even if they did, the deliveries would be slow enough to not make a massive difference in combat capability of IAF.

Next time you spin the "there is no evidence" BS, be careful that it could swing around and hit you in your face.

 

[Rahul Singh]

If Indian Navy selects F-18 advanced super hornet then there will be more GE F414 engines coming to India and who knows there will be more technology transfer for GE F414 engines to India.

If I were GOI I would show my serious intentions towards buying F-18 only to put pressure on French to share more of technology wrt M-88. At the end of the day, i would never select F-18 simply because uncle sam is not reliable.

In my opinion, French are more likely to share technology than the USA if at all any.

 

[Hari Sud]

Jumble it is for sure.

Blame it on bureaucrats or politicians or IAF?

Bulk of the blame is with IAF who never could make up their mind on Grippen or F-16. The main problem was US, no matter how friendly it was to India, unable to make up its mind on a major TOT. The problems did not go away with Grippen, because it is 40-50% US made and a bit pricey too. Now by enlarging participation by other countries, India is hoping that bulk of this problem will go away. I do not believe so. Stop dreaming about F35. US Congress is not the same as US president.

IAF is frankly very adamant on not having F-16, even if it is assembled in India. They have made it known thru media.

Do not blame the bureaucrats or politicians. They have lesser role to play in this fiasco.

Now three more years. May be we better of buying more Rafale and asking for greater TOT for local development.

Something good should come out of this fiasco.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Based on what you said above we should not have any issues selecting the appropriate fighter. All the tests have already been carried out during MMRCA trails . The only hurdle I can see is price negotiations . hope it goes smoothly and quick

The reason for the cancellation was lack of clarity on ToT as about Rafales reservations on giving full warranty to HAL manufactured Rafales. In those times ToT requirement was still not as demanding as of todays. So, I can't say it will go smooth. The USA is for certain not transferring necessary technologies, Swedes don't have much to offer. Eurofighter is from a consortium of many nations so ToT negotiations will be naturally cumbersome. Only Rafale is better placed and if French shows necessary flexibility on some fronts than this MRCA can be closed relatively faster.

What worries me is a reaction from USA wrt Tejas engine and Afghanistan. How will GOI manage Indo-US relations in such case and what measures it will take to compensate USA? These questions intrigue me.

 

[Rahul Singh]

[URL='http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2018/02/26/single-engine-fighter-cancellation-provides-an-opening-for-tejas-mk-2/amp/?__twitter_impression=true']Single Engine Fighter Cancellation Provides An Opening For Tejas MK-2

The recent withdrawal of the move to import 114 ‘single-engine fighters’ (SEF) by India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) opens a window of opportunity for the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), controlled by the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO), to rekindle its effort to develop a MK-II variant of the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA). Because, even though reports suggest that MoD is planning to replace the SEF competition with a larger competition that will see both single and twin- engined jet fighters in contention (in a manner reminiscent of the failed multi-role medium range combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender from a decade ago), the most realistic way to augment the Indian Air force’s (IAF’s) combat strength continues to be the building of more Tejas variants, as we have argued before. As such, it is now time for DRDO to use its internal allocations to fund the further development of the Tejas MK-II, with full support from MoD, in order to be future ready given that fighter import tenders take a lot of time in India and may never actually reach fruition, judging by recent experience.
The MK-II design must return

ADA, has long proposed a Tejas MK-II with a more powerful engine than the baseline MK-I, as well as aerodynamic refinements, to address the IAF’s 1995 air staff qualitative requirements (ASQR) with respect to kinematic performance. After all, one of the regrets of the IAF has been the fact that the MK-I design does not meet the ASQR in terms of sustained turn rate (STR), transonic acceleration and climb rate. The developers of the Tejas, i.e. ADA, however believe that the MK-II design, which will also incorporate a pair of canards, will be able to address MK-I’s shortfalls in terms of aerodynamic performance. The 1995 ASQR apparently requires a STR of 18 degrees (same as the F-16’s) and Mk-II will close in on that. The climb rate will also be more or less satisfactorily reached. Transonic acceleration is expected to be realized fully. Moreover the Mk-II airframe will be able to reach a top speed of Mach 1.8 at altitude.

Development work on MK-II had been progressed by ADA over the years as part of the overall allocations for the LCA programme. Currently, ADA’s work on the Tejas is being financed via the LCA Phase-III project which was sanctioned in November 2009 with an allocation of Rs 2431.55 crores and is scheduled to be complete by December 2018. Most of this allocation has gone towards developmental activities related to achieving operational clearances for the MK-I design as well general development work on the Tejas design family (Air force version). However, while funds from this allocation have helped advance the Tejas MK-II design to a level where the ‘inboard’ i.e the complete layout for Mk-II is ready and plenty of wind tunnel work into adding a pair of canards has also been done, it is not enough for ADA to develop a pair of MK-II prototypes. For that, fresh allocations are required.

Now while the SEF proposal was in vogue, there was this general belief in the fighter development community in India that there was perhaps no point in pursuing the Mk-II variant, since it was unlikely to receive orders given that the IAF seemed to be keen on importing a fighter in the same class instead. However, with the SEF proposal going nowhere and its successor unlikely to yield early returns either, the time is ripe for DRDO to fund ADA on its own to develop a pair of MK-II prototypes. The finance wing of India’s MoD must greenlight such an effort along with the total support of the Defence Minister. Development work on the MK-II has progressed sufficiently for ADA to achieve first flight with a prototype within 2-3 years of funds being allocated.

ADA’s confidence with respect to this timeline also stems from the fact that modifications to the 98 kilo newton generating F414-GE-INS6 (F414), in order for it to fit the MK-II design, have already been certified by the Center for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC). What is more, eight of the 99 F414 engines ordered by ADA earlier have already been delivered to it by GE. Clearly, ADA now has some engines waiting for an airframe, i.e MK-II. The F414-GE-INS6 is course more powerful than the F-404-GE-IN20 engine that currently powers MK-I.

.

Moreover, the Mk-I design has some 25-30 percent commonality in parts with MK-I and these parts (i.e not requiring any modification) are already in production. For the MK-I parts that have to be replaced, thousands of new drawings have being worked upon jointly by DRDO- Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) along with the private sector and these are now ready. Clearly, the stage is set for the early creation of two prototypes that will probably cost some Rs 3000-4000 crores and can be funded by DRDO directly. Once the efficacy of this effort is demonstrated to the ‘user’ i.e the IAF, they can fund the rest of the development effort all the way to certification which is expected to take 2 years from first flight. If sanctioned early this year, Tejas MK-II could be easily be in production by the time HAL finishes producing the last of the 83 Tejas MK-1A for which it recently received a request for proposal from the IAF. The IAF is of course fully aware of the nature of Tejas MK-II given that it has positioned 23 officers to support the overall Tejas program and according to sources ADA has had several discussions with the IAF about it.
Not just more agile

While the Mk-II design is expected to achieve a 5 percent improvement in drag characteristics through ‘production improvements’ related to further streamlining (reduced contour variations etc) of the Mk-I airframe, it is actually a step up from the baseline MK-1 and even the improved MK-1A in other ways as well.

With only 25-30 percent parts commonality with Mk-I or Mk-IA, MK-II will have many modernized line replace units (LRUs) which will serve the purpose of both obsolescence management and improved maintainability. MK-II will also have a higher maximum take-off weight reflected in the carriage of more on-board fuel thereby increasing endurance. (endurance will also be helped by its better aerodynamics). MK-II will have a new indigenous flight control computer and will see refinements in the control law for the LCA design as well.The glass cockpit for the Mk-II is going to be new as well. For one it is going to feature bigger 8 x 12 inch displays rather than the 5 x 5 and 6 x 6 inch displays currently featured in the MK-I cockpit. A prototype of the Mk-II cockpit already exists. The MK-II displays are likely to be supplied by India’s Samtel.

While HAL is looking to outfit MK-1A with an imported active electronically scanned array (AESA) and a foreign self-protection jammer, MK-II should fly with the indigenous Uttam AESA being developed by DRDO’s Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) and the ‘unified electronic warfare suite’ (UEWS) created by the Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), another DRDO lab, in partnership with Israel’s Elisra. Uttam, which weighs 120 kg, has been put through extensive ground evaluation by LRDE and is reportedly ready for integration onto a Tejas test vehicle. UEWS is currently undergoing tests on the Tejas PV-6 prototype vehicle.
A modular ‘Make in India’

Not only is MK-II supposed to be a superior product in terms of performance, it will also lend itself to being produced quicker, as is the need of the day. ADA has done of a lot of work together with HCL with the objective of making the Mk-II design ‘modular’. In this modular scheme of things, HAL as the integrator will receive 8-10 Tejas MK-II ‘modules’ as sub-assemblies from domestic private companies such as L&T and will then put them together to build a complete aircraft ready for checkout and flight testing. Each of these module suppliers will therefore be ‘Tier-I’ suppliers to HAL and will receive LRUs from Tier-II suppliers (w.r.t to HAL) for integration into the modules, which will then be dispatched to HAL. According to Dr K.Tamilmani, former Director General Aeronautics, DRDO, ‘The idea is to ‘terminate’ things like electrical looms, hydraulic pipes, fuel line pipes etc. at the module level which can then be connected with other such modules.’

Of course, for the Tejas Mk-II program to be an all-round success in the industrial sense, the time has come for India to get GE to produce the complete F-414 engine on Indian soil in association with a domestic partner. In this light, the setting up of a joint venture between GE and Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) in Adibatla for the manufacture of various components of GE engines looks like a timely development. This JV which will see the setting up of tooling that can produce F-414 parts, can be encouraged by the Indian Government to take on the production of the entire F-414 engine under manufacturing know how transfer from GE.

The F-414 can actually be retro-fitted onto the Mk-I/IA airframes also since the existing intake of these aircraft can can easily handle the additional mass flow from the F-414 as compared to the F-404. Of course, other modifications to the Mk-I/IA airframe will be required for this purpose. In the course of its lifetime any single engined jet fighter needs about 3.5 jet engines. So a hypothetical run of at least 200 Tejas MK-II in addition to the 123 Mk-1/1A (modified to field the F-414) that are on order will mean that the IAF’s future fleet will require north of 1100 F-414 engines in the course of their service life. Clearly, GE should not have any compunctions in transferring know how for even the F-414 core for an order of that size. Perhaps, the India-US ‘joint working group on jet engine technology’ should burn some midnight oil to explore this potential.[/url]

 

[Immanuel]

• Lets get something straight: IAF only categorizes its fighters as light, medium or heavy. Strictly speaking, F-35 is somewhere between light and heavy, given that it is a little smaller than AMCA and much larger than LCA. So no, F-35 is not something that is not in the same category as AMCA. F-35 is in the same category as AMCA.
• There is no evidence that US government will release F-35 sales to India without asking for something in return. Your good word about how the US government would "pounce" over the opportunity to sell F-35 to India and your claims of us getting 25% ToT notwithstanding, there is no evidence.
• India should be extremely vary of signing something "CISMOA-ish". GoI and Armed Forces are well aware of that, even though a few people at higher levels might try to make a case of this, its never going to work.
• There is no evidence to back up your claim that F-35 deal would be signed in 2022-23. Let alone you claims of US prioritizing delivery of fighters to its other partners and its own self just to deliver this product to a new customer, which is characterized as an unreliable ally. Even if they did, the deliveries would be slow enough to not make a massive difference in combat capability of IAF.

Next time you spin the "there is no evidence" BS, be careful that it could swing around and hit you in your face.

IAF did categorize it's fighters as light, medium or heavy but the MMRCA debacle proves beyond doubt the problem with such thinking. Medium doesnt' mean jack shit since while a 'Heavy class' MKI can carry less max payload than the Rafale or is similar to the Super Hornet in overall payload capability. IAF's line of thinking is exactly the evidence as to why it remains the weakest of the 3 services in decision making. Technically a SE Mig-21 should be replaced by a SE LCA mk-1/2, F-35 can replace the 100+ Mig-27s and Mirages while Rafale is a good fit to replace Mig-29s and Jaguars. Mki can be replaced by the AMCA. If the idea is replace all aircraft in inventory without considering SE or TE, then in the end they'll have only 'Medium' aircarft in their inventory since as per MRCA contendership a Gripen too is Medium by that calculation is LCA a Medium category fighter too?

http://www.indiastrategic.in/2018/01/13/indian-navy-looking-at-more-p-8i-submarine-killers/

What did US Gov. ask for in return (apart from money) for 12 C-130Js, 12 P-8Is (with outlook to atleast more than double the order to 30), 15 Chinooks, 22 Apaches with options for 39 more for IA, 11 C-17 or M777. Sure they did ask to sign CISMOA, BECA and others, We signed what we found to be acceptable. CISMOA and BECA weren't signed and still we got the aircraft and all deals more or less met the offsets requirements set at the time. Not signing CISMOA, BECA meant that our platfroms work with home made IFFs, Comms, Datalinks etc. There is no evidence from your part that the US would deny sales of highly capable platforms without such agreements. History of such deals proves your flat out wrong. Even during MRCA Boeing and LM were willing to meet the RFP stated 60% TOT clause.

Pushing for full TOT is a joke, look how far we get with FGFA which is stalled. Instead if IAF and MOD get their heads out of their asses, they can buy something like FGFA for far less time delays or troubles. If a deal for 114+57 F-35s were on the table, I am willing to think a 25% TOT and final assembly in India can be achieved. A purchase of 171 aircraft. Looking at the Belgian offer, the total cost of the F-35 is around 192 million without any weapons. At same figures a 171 F-35 aircraft deal is worth 32-35 Billion + a couple of billion in weapons, a big enough carrot for any negotiation.

CISMOA in it's original form would never be signed and that was clear but a lot of work is being done to make it so that it doesn't infringe on our sovereinty, that process will take time but expect an agreement of some sort to be signed at some point.

If the F-35 was to be negotiated starting today in a G2G manner, it can be negotiated in 5 years. G2G deals take shorter times. A deal in 2023 is plausible. As for deliveries, no one is asking for LM to delay deliveries to other countries. However LM can very easily delay a few deliveries for USAF, USN & USMC for India. Even if they only switch out 8-12 deliveries out in a year with the domestic customers, that is 8-12 delivered to India in one year. They shouldn't have an issue planning in Indian deliveries when you have a 130 aircraft per year line by 2023.

 

[Adioz]

IAF did categorize it's fighters as light, medium or heavy but the MMRCA debacle proves beyond doubt the problem with such thinking. Medium doesnt' mean jack shit since while a 'Heavy class' MKI can carry less max payload than the Rafale or is similar to the Super Hornet in overall payload capability. IAF's line of thinking is exactly the evidence as to why it remains the weakest of the 3 services in decision making. Technically a SE Mig-21 should be replaced by a SE LCA mk-1/2, F-35 can replace the 100+ Mig-27s and Mirages while Rafale is a good fit to replace Mig-29s and Jaguars. Mki can be replaced by the AMCA. If the idea is replace all aircraft in inventory without considering SE or TE, then in the end they'll have only 'Medium' aircarft in their inventory since as per MRCA contendership a Gripen too is Medium by that calculation is LCA a Medium category fighter too?

1. We are trying to reduce the number of different types of aircraft in IAF service.
2. While comparing Su-30 MKI and Rafale, compare their combat radii and the power of their radars and avionics. Another fact to consider, Su-30 MKI is meant to be an Air Superiority aircraft. Rafale is multi-role, so no surprises that Rafale is meant to carry more weapons load. Also don't forget, Rafale is supposed to carry fuel tanks. Ever seen Su-30 MKI do the same? The difference between a heavy and medium platform should be clear to you by now.
3. LCA is a light fighter. For more details on difference between a light fighter and a medium one, contact @Sancho . He is an expert at this stuff (telling a light aircraft apart from a medium aircraft)
4. Su-30 MKI cannot be replaced by AMCA. AMCA is meant to act as a multirole platform with a primarily air to ground role. Su-30 MKI is meant to ac as an air dominance fighter.
5. There is no reason for the IAF to doubt its own classification of fighters (into light, medium and high) that define its doctrine.

What did US Gov. ask for in return (apart from money) for 12 C-130Js, 12 P-8Is (with outlook to atleast more than double the order to 30), 15 Chinooks, 22 Apaches with options for 39 more for IA, 11 C-17 or M777. Sure they did ask to sign CISMOA, BECA and others, We signed what we found to be acceptable. CISMOA and BECA weren't signed and still we got the aircraft and all deals more or less met the offsets requirements set at the time. Not signing CISMOA, BECA meant that our platfroms work with home made IFFs, Comms, Datalinks etc. There is no evidence from your part that the US would deny sales of highly capable platforms without such agreements. History of such deals proves your flat out wrong. Even during MRCA Boeing and LM were willing to meet the RFP stated 60% TOT clause.

We had to sign LEMOA to get these platforms. And none of these are cutting-edge combat platforms which US sells only to its closest allies (apart from perhaps P-8I).

There is no evidence from your part that the US would approve sales of highly capable platforms without such agreements.
^Told you. Unless US congress clears the sale, any "there is no evidence" BS is going to keep turning around and hitting you in the face. So stop slinging it.

At same figures a 171 F-35 aircraft deal is worth 32-35 Billion + a couple of billion in weapons, a big enough carrot for any negotiation.

Why would we buy these for such a high price when we can more Rafale and AMCA for a lesser price?

Pushing for full TOT is a joke, look how far we get with FGFA which is stalled. Instead if IAF and MOD get their heads out of their asses, they can buy something like FGFA for far less time delays or troubles.

Agreed. But we still don't know if the IAF is delaying the decision to see how the Russians develop the platform further. They know that any chances for joint development are gone. Why take prototypes for $3 billion and then develop them on your own when you can simply let the Russians develop the fighter further and then buy it in a Su-30MKI kind of deal. Only time will tell if this deal will burn us or if this delay will pay off.

CISMOA in it's original form would never be signed and that was clear but a lot of work is being done to make it so that it doesn't infringe on our sovereinty, that process will take time but expect an agreement of some sort to be signed at some point.

I dread it. I don't know how linking our communications with a foreign force is a good idea if we do not intend to make them our permanent allies. The GoI also knows that in foreign affairs, nothing is permanent. So not sure what a watered-down CISMOA will look like.

If the F-35 was to be negotiated starting today in a G2G manner, it can be negotiated in 5 years. G2G deals take shorter times. A deal in 2023 is plausible. As for deliveries, no one is asking for LM to delay deliveries to other countries. However LM can very easily delay a few deliveries for USAF, USN & USMC for India. Even if they only switch out 8-12 deliveries out in a year with the domestic customers, that is 8-12 delivered to India in one year. They shouldn't have an issue planning in Indian deliveries when you have a 130 aircraft per year line by 2023.

OK. I believe you here.

Now to make this long story short, I would have considered F-35 a good idea only in any one of the following cases:-

• Case 1: F-35 was a heavy air dominance fighter and Su-57 negotiations fell off and GoI was backed into a corner regarding this decision and GoI wanted to send the Russians a major diplomatic signal.
• Case 2: AMCA was actually "AHCA", a heavy air dominance fighter.
• Case 3: US agreed for ToT of fiber-mat stealth tech.

And none of the above is likely to happen. So aside from your dreams, and a couple of rumours, F-35 has nobody gunning for it.

 

[Vinod DX9]

If AMCA originally was meant to be a Heavy Combat Aircraft why it is now downgraded to Medium category?

 

[Vinod DX9]

Let's make it simple.
We need 42 sqrdn / 756 aircrafts

These 756 aircrafts meant to be serve after retirement of Mig-21/27/29, Jaguars and Mirage-2000

Let's not discuss which aircraft is going to take whose place but which aircraft may be in services.

Still now out of 756, we have

272 Su-30 MKI later Super Sukhoi (hope so)
36 Rafales
123 Tejas series

So we still have to add 325

Originally it could be ....

More 90 Rafales

Rest , FGFA + AMCA + Tejas Mk II

But now, the thing isn't so simple.

Now, if original Rafael procurement process with TOT is scrapped (worst idea ever)....

Remaining 325 , more 115 Rafales may come without TOT ....leaving a place of another 205....agaim to be fulfilled by Tejas MkII + AMCA

It's better to stick with original Rafale deal.... More 90 Rafales with TOT

And for rest 235, we must think of third fleet of multirole fighters. I have no idea if Mig-35 will be really a bad idea or not. But it's cheaper. And afaik the cheapest of all potential competitors.

Procuring 115 of them may not be a bad idea, leaving 120 to be fulfilled or later enlarged by Tejas Mk II and AMCA

F-16 we will not buy
F-35 again problems of US Congress approval + CISMOA LEMOA etc+ costly
Su-35 no more air superiority we need
F/A-18 then IAF must talk with the navy...total 172 for both + potential E/A-18 isn't a bad idea
EFT Typhoon... Then why not Rafales?

Still now sanctioned money per aircraft is 169 million US $...except Mig-35 no other aircraft I think may come at so cheap price. Will more to be sanctioned?

Gripen....? For TOT it is a problem as US will not allow those tech which are developed by Yanks. But G2G fast track without TOT it's not a bad idea.

And what if rather go for customized licensed version of Su-57? If we get in cheap price?

I don't want original Rafales be derailed, make it as it was to be. This new procurement must be for a third fleet .

Now one interesting thing,

Canada wants new fighter jets.... 88!
And they too allocated little more than 170 million per aircraft!
And competetors ....
LM
Boeing
SAAB
Dassault
Airbus !

Same as India (excluding Sukhoi and Mig)

 

[Adioz]

If AMCA originally was meant to be a Heavy Combat Aircraft why it is now downgraded to Medium category?

What!!?? AMCA was a heavy combat aircraft ??? News to me. AFAIK, there was an MCA project that morphed into the AMCA. What is your source for this news??!!

 

[Vinod DX9]

You yourself said in your last but one comment "CASE NO 2" ...hence I asked...if you meant "it was" or "what if it was"

 

[Adioz]

You yourself said in your last but one comment "CASE NO 2" ...hence I asked...if you meant "it was" or "what if it was"

LoL. No. Those cases are what ifs. Those are the only cases in which I would have considered IAF buying F-35

 

[WolfPack86]

F 35 fighter won't come to India unless US agreed to technology transfer.

 

[Immanuel]

1. We are trying to reduce the number of different types of aircraft in IAF service.
2. While comparing Su-30 MKI and Rafale, compare their combat radii and the power of their radars and avionics. Another fact to consider, Su-30 MKI is meant to be an Air Superiority aircraft. Rafale is multi-role, so no surprises that Rafale is meant to carry more weapons load. Also don't forget, Rafale is supposed to carry fuel tanks. Ever seen Su-30 MKI do the same? The difference between a heavy and medium platform should be clear to you by now.
3. LCA is a light fighter. For more details on difference between a light fighter and a medium one, contact @Sancho . He is an expert at this stuff (telling a light aircraft apart from a medium aircraft)
4. Su-30 MKI cannot be replaced by AMCA. AMCA is meant to act as a multirole platform with a primarily air to ground role. Su-30 MKI is meant to ac as an air dominance fighter.
5. There is no reason for the IAF to doubt its own classification of fighters (into light, medium and high) that define its doctrine.

We had to sign LEMOA to get these platforms. And none of these are cutting-edge combat platforms which US sells only to its closest allies (apart from perhaps P-8I).

There is no evidence from your part that the US would approve sales of highly capable platforms without such agreements.
^Told you. Unless US congress clears the sale, any "there is no evidence" BS is going to keep turning around and hitting you in the face. So stop slinging it.


Why would we buy these for such a high price when we can more Rafale and AMCA for a lesser price?


Agreed. But we still don't know if the IAF is delaying the decision to see how the Russians develop the platform further. They know that any chances for joint development are gone. Why take prototypes for $3 billion and then develop them on your own when you can simply let the Russians develop the fighter further and then buy it in a Su-30MKI kind of deal. Only time will tell if this deal will burn us or if this delay will pay off.


I dread it. I don't know how linking our communications with a foreign force is a good idea if we do not intend to make them our permanent allies. The GoI also knows that in foreign affairs, nothing is permanent. So not sure what a watered-down CISMOA will look like.


OK. I believe you here.

Now to make this long story short, I would have considered F-35 a good idea only in any one of the following cases:-

• Case 1: F-35 was a heavy air dominance fighter and Su-57 negotiations fell off and GoI was backed into a corner regarding this decision and GoI wanted to send the Russians a major diplomatic signal.
• Case 2: AMCA was actually "AHCA", a heavy air dominance fighter.
• Case 3: US agreed for ToT of fiber-mat stealth tech.

And none of the above is likely to happen. So aside from your dreams, and a couple of rumours, F-35 has nobody gunning for it.

A F-35 sale only makes sense if Su-57 is cancelled (as for the agreement, negotiations can't go on forever and there are fundamental differences between India and russia on TOT), said it since start. IAF and IN can agree on having a common aircraft which brings in the possibility of Block 3 SH (not sure if IAF will go for this, perhaps retrials with EPE engine), Rafale is a good possibility, however the SH is widely known as the better fit (not sure if IN will go for this, only trials will tell), F-35 could possibly allow them to align, it is clearly the more flexible aircraft and fits better with our timelines, thinking of SEF shortfall around 2027, thinking of IN's 4 new LPDs, INS Vishal etc.

That said, if IAF really is looking for an 'imported' SEF, there isn't a better aircraft to look at than the F-35 and having the F-35 adds tremendous flexbility to the IN as well.

Every deal needs to be negotiated and I never said buying the F-35 will be a easy process. However, if stars align and IN & IAF can agree to look at a combined order of over 180 aircraft (this is roughly the total requirement), negotiating becomes easier since the order book is massive. We need to realize that no country will just hand over 5th gen secrets to us and we shouldn't be expecting more than 25% TOT that Russian also offer for FGFA and local assembly. Now the content of the TOT will depend on the negotiations.
I always said, such a negotiation would be great litmus test for Indo-US relations. It is relaion that grew slowly and it took time and after nearly 20 years, it is time for a new type of discussion. Such a disucssion would also help water down the CISMOA issue to a point where it isn't intrusive. I don't see why CIAMOA would need to be signed for the F-35 since not signing it didn't hamper any of the previous deals.

With a large number of US deals being signed in rather short timelines, hardly any serious issues when it comes to the actual approval of sales, offsets etc. IAF & IN have purchased key strategic assets with confidence and operate them with confidence and more will be ordered so you seem to have a fear that they don't seem to. This doesn't mean we look at every deal blindly but a lot can be done with clear negotiations and having reasonable expectations on both sides.

That aside, unless you have been living under a rock, you will realize India has operated, trained and has exchanges most with the US than any other country by far. Unless you think this is all for show.

 

[Adioz]

A F-35 sale only makes sense if Su-57 is cancelled (as for the agreement, negotiations can't go on forever and there are fundamental differences between India and russia on TOT), said it since start. IAF and IN can agree on having a common aircraft which brings in the possibility of Block 3 SH (not sure if IAF will go for this, perhaps retrials with EPE engine), Rafale is a good possibility, however the SH is widely known as the better fit (not sure if IN will go for this, only trials will tell), F-35 could possibly allow them to align, it is clearly the more flexible aircraft and fits better with our timelines, thinking of SEF shortfall around 2027, thinking of IN's 4 new LPDs, INS Vishal etc.

That said, if IAF really is looking for an 'imported' SEF, there isn't a better aircraft to look at than the F-35 and having the F-35 adds tremendous flexbility to the IN as well.

• There is no SEF shortfall. There is an MMRCA shortfall
• Buying F-35 just because it will mean a common fighter for air force and navy is absurd. It will be cheaper if Navy goes for F-18 and IAF goes for Rafale.
• LPD? Navy will have to order F-35B specially for them. Not sure if it is even required. For the carriers, they require F-35C, which will require to be launched from Vikrant. (57 fighter tender is for Vikrant, not Vishal). For Vishal, AMCA-Naval is a better option.
• IAF is looking for a MMRCA, and would be very happy if it could get more Rafale. IAF is not looking for SE fighters.

That aside, unless you have been living under a rock, you will realize India has operated, trained and has exchanges most with the US than any other country by far.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you will realize that the focus of these exercises is to exchange tactics, experience and for familiarization. The purpose is not to develop joint-warfare capabilities.

Look we are going around in circles here. Lets just agree to disagree.Given that F-35 is just a rumour right now, I don't think we will ever see F-35 in Indian service. Nor do I want to see them here. You want to, 'cause you like fanboying on F-35. Its alright, even I fanboy about Indian products.

Meanwhile, this MMRCA farce will trudge along and prove one, or both, or neither of us wrong.

 

[Sancho]

Based on informed estimates.

That's exactly what I expected. :biggrin2: