MMRCA 2.0: News & Discussions

[johnj]

You are misinformed wrt Mig-29k.
The IN was forced to go with the MiG-29K as part of the Admiral Gorshkov (INS Vikramadatya) deal.
In 2010, it was reported that India and Russia were close to signing a deal for 29 MiG-29K fighters to operate from IAC-1 but it was never offical and no such deal was signed. From 2012 Rafale started to be considered for IAC-1 and slowly Mig-29k was dropped.

"Forced" yes, both IN & Russian Navy choosed mig 29k becz there is no other options available, wait there is one - F35B, may be US consider selling F22 to IAF in MRFA.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

Americans are seriously not pitching us F-35

i think in its impossible in Biden era

I believe American strategy is to sell us F-15 or F-16 and during mid-life upgrade push F-35.
Also their current F-35 production line is complete jam-packed.
ToT and cost will also be an issue for F-35.
Looks like US is playing safe.

 

[johnj]

Americans are seriously not pitching us F-35

i think in its impossible in Biden era

Becz they are not serious, just trying luck.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

"Forced" yes, both IN & Russian Navy choosed mig 29k becz there is no other options available, wait there is one - F35B, may be US consider selling F22 to IAF in MRFA.

With Admiral Gorshkov (INS Vikramadatya) deal we were forced to buy Russian jet. That was a clause for the deal and one of the reason why they initially charged us less for the ship.

Neither Russia nor US will allow F-35B on INS Vikramadatya.

USAF itself is not getting more F-22s.

 

[WARREN SS]

I believe American strategy is to sell us F-15 or F-16 and during mid-life upgrade push F-35.
Also their current F-35 production line is completely jam-packed.
ToT and cost will also be an issue for F-35.
Looks like US is playing safe.

We are already buying F-18
that Will include the training cost
And simulators

Why Will we buy f-16 when we have F4 tranche on offer

for me even Spending 20 billion+ $ on 114 rafales is foolish

Unless F-35 is not on the table i really not in favor of any big GTG deal

as F-35 gives a clear edge over PLAAF for next 20 years

 

[johnj]

With Admiral Gorshkov (INS Vikramadatya) deal we were forced to buy Russian jet. That was a clause for the deal and one of the reason why they initially charged us less for the ship.

Neither Russia nor US will allow F-35B on INS Vikramadatya.

USAF itself is not getting more F-22s.

Admiral Gorshkov is free, only need to pay for modifications & upgrades[300mil], IN liked su33, but its too heavy for Admiral Gorshkov, and found a solution mig 29k, and IN took the deal, becz IN needed a new AC & aircrafts, with some Russian help in IAC, but not worked as planned, its IN choice, not forced.
My question is, why discussing about INS Viki & mig29k in MMRCA thread ?
F22 & F35, F22 export banned, F 35 not offered to India, and last time I read, boeing need special permission to sell SH to India[agp 79] and also F18G not offered to India.

 

[Immanuel]

Yet IN wants to buy SH and Rafale over Mig-29k.
That says a lot about Mig-29k.

From where did you get 70% availability figure.

Read the first link I posted previously Straight from Admiral Landa who confirms it's at 70% already in 2018, the low availability was in 2016 since. IN wants SH or Rafale as they bring more advanced technologies to the table, better range, better payload flexibility etc.

Military Watch Magazine

militarywatchmagazine.com

Admiral Lanba noted regarding the MiG-29K, when addressing the press on the eve of Navy Day: “there is no issue on supplies of spare parts from Russia at the moment… The MiG-29K fleet has been performing well now.” According to a 2016 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, serviceability of MiG-29K fighters in Indian service was unsatisfactory - at just 37.63%. Recent efforts made by the two countries however have improved serviceability to around 70%.

 

[shade]

Americans are seriously not pitching us F-35

i think in its impossible in Biden era

They are trying to offload their F-16 rebrand onto us as a precondition, and even with that, it's a maybe, because we have S400 and other Russian HW.
Besides, F35 only offered to US vassals.

Turki booted from F35 because they dared to go against uncle sam and imported S400.

 

[Flying Dagger]

F/A-18 and Rafale M are far better than the MiG-29K in terms of technical Capabilities and Technology, also they have better maintenance as compared to the MiG-29K so no MiG-29K sorry.

But Mig29k are far cheaper and we will need only a few more as stop gap. And we may get Tedbf too in a decade plus time from now on.

In short under half a billion can provide us 10+ Mig 29 to keep the availability rate high. While Rafale etc will cost billions of dollars .

And all of it rest on realistic Tedbf timeframe and assesment by navy.

Both these jets aren't designed for what we got... So we need tedbf to take care of it anyway.

Sukhoi upgrade and Rafale for airforce can anyway provide us good strike capability in the whole region. We can use the money to upgrade and build airfield in Andaman etc and develop them.

Later Tedbf could be use as strike fighter under navy in these airfields

 

[Dark Sorrow]

Read the first link I posted previously Straight from Admiral Landa who confirms it's at 70% already in 2018, the low availability was in 2016 since. IN wants SH or Rafale as they bring more advanced technologies to the table, better range, better payload flexibility etc.

Military Watch Magazine

militarywatchmagazine.com

Admiral Lanba noted regarding the MiG-29K, when addressing the press on the eve of Navy Day: “there is no issue on supplies of spare parts from Russia at the moment… The MiG-29K fleet has been performing well now.” According to a 2016 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, serviceability of MiG-29K fighters in Indian service was unsatisfactory - at just 37.63%. Recent efforts made by the two countries however have improved serviceability to around 70%.

Yet IN doesn't want Mig-29k.

70% serviceability was temporary, serviceability soon took a dip. With Russian-Ukrainian war serviceability will even reduce more.

3 Mig-29k crashes have happened from 2019.

IN has made it clear it doesn't wants additional Mig-29k for IAC-1.

 

[MirageBlue]

For Indian Airforce's MMRCA Tender, Dassault Rafale (F4 standards) is the best option and on the other hand, for Indian Navy's Carrier Borne Aircraft requirement, F/A-18 is the best.

The problem for the IN has to do with the small size of the MRCBF fleet. Just 26 fighters means the IN had better go with a common fleet with the IAF, so they can maximize commonality on spares, training and weapons.

And will the IAF go for Super Hornets? Very very unlikely. In fact, Super Hornet will most likely NOT be offered by Boeing to the IAF, since the IAF has a somewhat low opinion of it's kinematics. It is always going to be handicapped by the fact that it is a naval fighter by design, which means it lugs around at least 1500 kgs extra that an Air Force Super Hornet variant wouldn't have needed, such as the super strong landing gear and arrestor hook plus the heavy structural reinforcements. Plus the 7.86G limit due to the wing fold. All these just don't appeal to the IAF versus the Rafale or Typhoon that are way more nimble 9G fighters.

Boeing will offer the F-15EX which is a 9G capable fighter that is loaded with superb avionics. But the price will be so eye-wateringly high that building 36 in India (which will add at least 30-40% more to the unit price) will be simply impossible to be L1.

Rafale Ms have been in service for well over a decade and have been upgraded to the F3 standard as well. Avionics fit is similar to the F3 and can be upgraded to the IAF's F3R standard with ISE changes incorporated. Weapons/avionics/training/MRO commonality with the IAF which will mean a lot of saved effort and money. Plus it sweetens the pot for the OEM that will have to build the 36 MRFA fighters in India. 54-58 fighters to be built in India is better than 36.

 

[Shuturmurg]

Nuke delivery is no longer an important criteria.
Our Ballistic Missile (Strategic and Tactical) and cruise missile have become reliable enough and our strategic force command has gained confidence on them.
Nuke delivery by aircraft was important till early 2000s when our armed forces didn't have confidence in our Ballistic Missile but now we have come long way.

India favoured Rafale also because of its 'nuclear advantage'

India picked the Rafale because France didn't have a problem with the aircraft being nuclear-capable, according to former Indian envoy Rakesh Sood.

theprint.in

 

[Dark Sorrow]

India favoured Rafale also because of its 'nuclear advantage'

India picked the Rafale because France didn't have a problem with the aircraft being nuclear-capable, according to former Indian envoy Rakesh Sood.

theprint.in

If you read the article it states

“One reason for the political decision in favour of France’s Rafale was because the French had no problem with the Rafale being modified to carry a nuclear payload,” Sood said.

“On the other hand, Delhi was not so certain about the Eurofighter, as it would involve clearing it with multiple countries including Germany,” he said.

The keyword was political decision and not technical decision.
Using air-craft for nuclear strike role is the last resort and SFC doesn't have have dedicated assets for the same.

 

[Immanuel]

Yet IN doesn't want Mig-29k.

70% serviceability was temporary, serviceability soon took a dip. With Russian-Ukrainian war serviceability will even reduce more.

3 Mig-29k crashes have happened from 2019.

IN has made it clear it doesn't wants additional Mig-29k for IAC-1.

I never said IN wanted more Mig-29K, I am just shitting on your claim that it was ordered blindly without any thought or pretext. Upgraded Mig-29s both of IAF and K variant of IN are formidable fighters and are more than capable of taking on any threats in the our region.

1 crash happened because of bird strike (shit happens), one due to engines failure (technical failure) and 1 veered off run way (shit happens).

Currently the availability is around 70% unless you have source that claims other wise, hush.

The fact is IN pushes those birds to the limits on average getting over between 200-250 hrs a year and hence there's more wear and tea. Similar issue with MKI, we consume' more of the aircraft's life per annum than the MTBF for various parts hence a lot of MKI and Mig-29s have to be overhauled or have extensive servicing done more often.

India Deploys Russian Mig-29K, US' P-8I Poseidon, Israeli Drones Near China Border (eurasiantimes.com)

Also since 2020, the INs Mig-29K often flies in the North Easter Regions and Ladhak. This subjects the airframe to even more harsh conditions and not just from marine and salty environments they usually fly in.

 

[Immanuel]

If you read the article it states

The keyword was political decision and not technical decision.
Using air-craft for nuclear strike role is the last resort and SFC doesn't have have dedicated assets for the same.

WTF are you even saying. N-armed Brahmos is already deployed on the MKI and till recently IAF maintained a good set of nuke gravity bombs to be dropped from Jags. By no means has this leg of the Triad been given up and SFC does have such assets.

Using nukes in general are last resort.

 

[johnj]

The problem for the IN has to do with the small size of the MRCBF fleet. Just 26 fighters means the IN had better go with a common fleet with the IAF, so they can maximize commonality on spares, training and weapons.

And will the IAF go for Super Hornets? Very very unlikely. In fact, Super Hornet will most likely NOT be offered by Boeing to the IAF, since the IAF has a somewhat low opinion of it's kinematics. It is always going to be handicapped by the fact that it is a naval fighter by design, which means it lugs around at least 1500 kgs extra that an Air Force Super Hornet variant wouldn't have needed, such as the super strong landing gear and arrestor hook plus the heavy structural reinforcements. Plus the 7.86G limit due to the wing fold. All these just don't appeal to the IAF versus the Rafale or Typhoon that are way more nimble 9G fighters.

Boeing will offer the F-15EX which is a 9G capable fighter that is loaded with superb avionics. But the price will be so eye-wateringly high that building 36 in India (which will add at least 30-40% more to the unit price) will be simply impossible to be L1.

Rafale Ms have been in service for well over a decade and have been upgraded to the F3 standard as well. Avionics fit is similar to the F3 and can be upgraded to the IAF's F3R standard with ISE changes incorporated. Weapons/avionics/training/MRO commonality with the IAF which will mean a lot of saved effort and money. Plus it sweetens the pot for the OEM that will have to build the 36 MRFA fighters in India. 54-58 fighters to be built in India is better than 36.

Naval fighter/bomber deal is different from IAF deal, combining both only increase issues.
Iaf ISE not suitable for IN, a drawback, Made/make in india take a lot of time to deliver jets to IN, again another drawback. IN need new logistics, infa, human resources for their jets, no money saving. IN use jets in/on ships. IN don't use AFNet for now, means IN need new ISE. In the case of MMRCA2/MRFA, make in india only happen if nos is 100+ or goi choose rafale. IN consider low cost aircraft. maybe SH, becz overall cost, initial buy, navy ise, parts, service, weapons, maintenance less compared to rafale, iac2 uses usa tech, tedbf uses common engine with SH.

 

[Super Flanker]

Factually incorrect information.

No. What @Shuturmurg has written is absolutely correct AFAIK. F/A-18 SH has less range as compared to Rafale-M.

 

[Wisemarko]

No. What @Shuturmurg has written is absolutely correct AFAIK. F/A-18 SH has less range as compared to Rafale-M.

He said "rafale also has longer range than all the competitors." A list that included F-15EX which has significantly longer range than Rafale or anyone else on that list.

 

[Super Flanker]

He said "rafale also has longer range than all the competitors." A list that included F-15EX which has significantly longer range than Rafale or anyone else on that list.

Oh my bad! I had compared the range of both Rafale-M and F/A-18 SH because I was under the impression that we were discussing about IN's carrier aircraft tender, didn't realise that we were talking about MMRCA 2.0 and that this thread is about MMRCA.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Yet IN doesn't want Mig-29k.

70% serviceability was temporary, serviceability soon took a dip. With Russian-Ukrainian war serviceability will even reduce more.

3 Mig-29k crashes have happened from 2019.

IN has made it clear it doesn't wants additional Mig-29k for IAC-1.

Not serviceability but availability rate which is 70-80 but....

The service life of fighter jet isn't comparable to western jets like Hornet , Rafale also provide better airframe life in naval configuration.

Though the cost was just 29 million to acquire it in comparison to 100 million plus it will cost to get any Western jet.

The range payload etc is also low apart from weaponary in comparison to other aircrafts.


Having said that maintaining Rafale won't be cheaper either SH does have low maintenance cost but won't be cheap for us .