Hey
@smestarz finally got the time to reply to your post. let's get on with it.
Now many of the chair marshalls talk of different weight, We are not entering our planes in Olympics are we? Recently IAF has sent its planes for Red Flag 2016, we have sent our Su-30 MKI, what planes you think are against these planes? Only American F-15 because that is of the weight class and type as of Su-30 MKI or will it have different planes to face? In war, when facing a plane, no one looks at the weight class of the plane, For example If the PAF F-16 Block 52 are enroute to attack India, what would we answer them with, send the capable plane which is near and and intercept these planes (like LCA or Su-30 MKI ) or do we wait and then send say Mirage 2000 or MiG-29 because they are in the same class or type as F-15 Block 52.. Apples vs apples? Give it a thought. The weight class you mention is important if its a carrier based plane, because space on carrier is premium and hence heavier or bigger plane will mean less planes to carry.
weight defines range, payload, endurance etc. so depending upon the budget and operational requirements the force has to decide what optimum mixture to field isn't it? of course it's not the Olympics. it's always a hi-lo mix not only due to budget constraints but also to maintain an element of surprise. what if we fielded an entire fleet of Su-30MKIs; only to discover too late that the enemy has discovered a fatal flaw in the jet or our tactics and it's too late to change? and that's why we have dissimilar air combat training, duh?
conventionally medium weight should refer to single engine fighters such as F-16/ Mirage 2000/ Gripen/ Chengdu J-10/ JF-17 in the purest sense but with twin engine jets like F-18/ MiG-29/ Rafale/ Eurofighter the definition gets blurred. twin engine jets regardless of their weight class are inherently more expensive & comparatively difficult to operate and maintain. hence the need for a lightweight fighter vis-a-vis Tejas that fulfills the specified roles without burning a hole in the pocket.
And just for your argument about weight class, we already have MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 which belong to the "middle weight" that you insist on, so technically we have nice "HIMACHAL APPLES" so whats the point to add another apple say "FUJI APPLE" in the mix? So if you talk of the role, we already have MiG-29 and Su-30 MKI which fulfill the role for which Rafale is being sought, and for the weight class and role, we also have Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 UPG handling those roles, and since we already use these planes, we already have set their spare managements. So it makes better sense to order MiG-29 because its in same weight class and role as Rafale and also, we use about 100 of these planes already. What say? Now you can insist on rafale saying that well it has Mid wing, and so its more capable, or that it is designed to fly low and conduct deep penetration strikes. For these role you already have Jaguars and which are being upgraded.
I had floated a proposal on another thread regarding this issue some time back. my proposal is a bit more radical. there are 500 MiG-29 in storage around the world. 300 in Russia alone. besides India possesses extensive MiG-29 exclusive repair & overhaul (RoH) facilities not mention that we possess the licence too for producing the Klimov RD-33 series 3 engines domestically.
so why not procure these 2nd hand MiG-29 fighters on the cheap and upgrade them by ourselves? it would be an inexpensive solution in the shortest possible time frame to plug the gaps.
before the Su-30MKI, the MiG-29 was IAF's frontline fighter to counter the PAF F-16. after the collapse of the Soviet Union the IAF managed to keep it's MiG-29 fleet's readiness rate at 77-79% by itself inspite of a massive shortage of spares and maintenance personnel which had severely hampered our MiG-21 fleet and look what it turned them into- flying coffins!
here's a link to my post where i've explained in quite some detail-
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-medium-combat-jets.69156/page-4#post-1081252
The whim for Rafale in a way is like a LED TV set, you already have a nice latest 60 inch TV and you are happy with it, but then you want to buy another LED TV set which is way expensive simply because its made by SONY. I does not offer you a significant advantage over what you already have, just a different colour of Frame, but then the price of this TV is 5 times more. So IAF insists that it has to have that TV because it might lend a nice contrast to the room..
LoL! Very well put and it is this statement of yours that convinced me to drop the idea of dreaming about the Rafale besides the possible corruption angle. Earlier it was 50-50. this made it 55-45.
It is true, Rafale was designed to be MRCA from start, where as Su-30 MKI was developed as an air dominance plane, The reason was simple, that once you have air dominance, Any of your strike planes can conduct missions freely that is one school of thought. The other school of thought believes that Air dominance would not be achieved and hence it would be contested air space. Both schools of thought are true, Pakistan and China respectively. Russia realised it long time ago, and since they were undergoing defence cuts too (after dissolution of USSR) they felt that rather than redesigning the plane, it makes more sense to upgrade it with a good A2G pod and having A2G weapons certified on it and making it MRCA. Once the A2G weapons are dropped, the Su-30 MKI is the best air dominance and Dog fighter in South Asia. Even with A2G weapons still on the pylons, it is still one of the top A2A plane and can take care of itself.
If you see Russia, it is an evolution, earlier it relied more on many combat squadrons spread all over Russia, and then with cost cutting etc, they now use less squadrons but use more longer ranged planes, Thus one squadron of Si-30 SM does in a way replace 4 Squadrons of MiG-21 in the air space covered simply because Su-30 has a bigger combat Radius. Russia does not see itself as an air force that will wait for the enemy to attack and then send its planes to just intercept. Rather it sees itself that it will absorb the first attack and then go on offensive themselves. Indian doctrine is more defensive, where we hope to face the enemy on our grounds or contested grounds thus we want the enemy to throw punches and we shall face them and absorb them, we are not really having a doctrine which plans to have combat missions OVER ENEMY AIR SPACE only and hence limiting the action only over enemy space, Thus we have an aircraft which is developed for Air dominance (Su-30 MKI) but we do not really have an air dominance doctrine.
Rafale is designed as per requirement of European countries which are geographically small, (France might be similar in size to Rajasthan) and for them it makes sense to have small or medium range plane Having a long range plane does not really help them rather it would be adding to the cost.
Su-30 MKI is much more capable than Rafale in A2A and in an air combat, Su-30 MKI should shoot down Rafale 9 out of 10 times, and this has happened in Indo French exercise in recent past and when the Rafale fanboys are faced with this scenario they come up with the argument that its in different weight class. True that Su-30 MKI is heavy, but then does this weight hamper its ability to carry out ANY MISSION? This is the point to ask. Also any bird in IAF inventory can strike targets deep in pakistan but that is not the case with China, If India has to strike Chinese targets, it will need a plane that can carry heavy fuel and heavy load. IF Rafale is to strike say Guangzhou, (and lets say the chinese are caught unawares) then its possible with say 5 loaded external fuel tanks, what sort of war load will it be able to carry with 5 fuel tanks? Are we just planning to hit Guangzhou with A2A missiles? But on other hand, Su-30 MKI can carry out that mission with a very decent war load.
My view is that, if I am having a loaded Assault rifle, and enemy is just having a knife, it makes sense to shoot him or get him to surrender, it is stupidity to tell him "Well you can come with your assault rifle, I shall wait for you" this sounds good only in movies.
i agree that if we were to go up against China Su-30s would be the only platform to give us an offensive edge. Rafale would be a defensive weapon at best with precision strike capability at medium ranges. in BVR Su-30 smashes the Rafale. In WVR it's more of a 50/50 scenario. coz it ultimately boils down to pilot skill and tactics. Su-30 is a pure kinetic fighter and exceptional at close-in turn battles too. Rafale is in itself a nimble dogfighter and much better than its predecessor Mirage 2000 at it. so i'll call it a draw in WVR.
however your understanding of Russia's air combat philosophy and the reasons behind the development of the Su-30 are somewhat misplaced.
the Su-30 was an export variant of the Su-27 trainer version derived from the base Su-27 fighter which was itself a reactionary counter to the American F-15 & F-14 programs. Funny thing is the F-15 was itself a reactionary development to the MiG-25 which was later replaced by the MiG-31.
i would not discuss Russian air combat philosophy now as it doesn't seem relevant.
you've raised a very valid point of strike vs air superiority. my take is very similar to yours. you can turn a dogfighter into a strike aircraft but the reverse is impossible. hence my immense dislike for the F-35.
What Su-30 MKI gives india is an unfair advantage in terms of ability and that is very important in conflict, One should prefer not to go to war if you do not have an unfair ability. When two forces are balanced, the war will stretch on and it will hamper our development and also resources. But if you have an unfair advantage then you are in position to dominate the situation even wthout going to war.
Very well put. you have now increased the ratio to 60-40 in Su-30MKI's favour.
Su-30 MKI was not a reactionary purchase, Rather it was well planned purchase to ensure that the threats from our neighbours are nullified, But during that time, the concept and importance of MRCA was lost to IAF and to most of the world, which were stressing more on Air superiority/Air dominance as most important role, and once that is achieve, even mediocre A2G planes can carry out strikes with impunity. Thus its only after the cost cutting became very important in most air forces the goverments saw the importance of moving away from specialised planes to MRCA that can fulfill many roles even during same mission,
please check your facts dear almighty armchair general before making such a bold statement and embarking on another flawed history lesson.
do you seriously think that our country which prides itself on its non-violent principles and was the founder of the non-aligned movement would ever have the guts to escalate matters with its neighbors by inducting weapons of leading edge tech? well history proves that our divine leaders never had the balls to do so. since independence our defense doctrine has always been a sorry, confused mixture of defensive offensive posturing. and that reflects in our weapons procurement policy. the IAF and the Army have always lagged behind Pakistan technologically till the 1990s and behind China from 1990s onwards. It's only in the late 90's that we started exercising our increasing financial muscle post the 1991 economic liberalisation.
Examples-
1) PAF inducted the F-104 Starfighter in 1961. IAF got it's equivalent the MiG-21 in 1964.
2) USA agreed to export
F-16s to Pakistan in 1980 with
deliveries commencing in
1982 till 1987.
India which was baffled by the introduction of such an advanced aircraft in the sub-continent
responded by procuring not one but 3 fighters- MiG-23MF in 1981-82, Mirage 2000 in 1985-86 and MiG-29 from 1987-90. so if that's not reactionary then it's definitely not pioneering.
3)
China negotiated the acquisition of Su-27SK in 1991 with deliveries starting from 1992 and continuing till 1997. In 1995 it negotiated an agreement for the licensed production of 200+ fighters. Production of the clone Shenyang J-11 commenced in 1997 and has continued ever since.
Moreover the deal for Su-30MKK was negotiated from 1996-98 with deliveries commencing in 2000.
meanwhile our divine leaders woke up to the challenge possessed by the new look PLAAF only in 1994 with the deal for 50 Su-30MK (base variant) signed in 1996 and deliveries commencing in 1998. the final configuration for the Su-30MKI was locked in only by late Dec 2000 with deliveries commencing from 2004.
if you are paying close attention to the timeline
by the time IAF received its first Su-30MKI in 2004 the PLAAF already had in its inventory some 200+ odd mixture of Su-27, Su-30MKK & J-11s.
So how could you possibly even say that the Su-30MKI was not a reactionary purchase? definitely well planned & thought out but certainly not the first one to do so.
4) and here's the simplest and most obvious of them all-
China became a nuclear power in 1964 and India in 1974. and that too because of the humiliating ass kicking that the Chinese gave us in 1962 which was still fresh in our memories back then.
I think I have illustrated enough as to why the Indian leadership has a reactionary mentality and not the visionary/pioneering one.
i would like to take up the Rafale cost benefit analysis in another post as this one's getting too lengthy.
Cheers
@smestarz
