A just casual question.. Taking an air target is tough or moving ground targets?... i guess air target is more tough... So attaining Air superiority is the most vital part... For ground attacks we have bigger bombs and nuclear payloads ... so ground attacks is of easy as per my understanding...
IC, now I get it, but that depends on the situation I would say as well on the capabilities of the fighter. For example, we already have a good ammount of air superiority over PAF, because of more capable fighters in higher numbers, but can we do a preemptive strikes? No, because our ground attack fighters proved even to be less usfull in such a limited conflict like Kargil. They also have very limited self defense capabilities and always needs escorts, while real multi role fighters can defend themself, even during a strike mission.
In this case the only option would be, like you pointed out, trying to get air superiority first, but even against PAF with increasing capabilities and AWACS support that won't be easy anymore and MMRCAs are meant against PLAAF. We can defend ourselfs against them, but it's doubtful that we would achieve air superiority to safely do strike missions as well and that's the point in MMRCA, when we talk about the operational capabilities.
MKI will remain the main air superiority fighter and MMRCA needs to serve alongside of it in air defense roles, but more important will be the strike component of them, because that is the field where IAF has the main problems now and needs new capabilities.
dont you think NG make sense here for MMRCA.... If NG comes with conformal tanks and a good AESA (if Israel where there
) forget it that would have been IAF choice .. that is why US pressurized Israel
First of all, it won't get CFTs, because they purposly went with a redesign of the airframe to increase the internal fuel instead of adding CFTs.
Secondly no it's not a good choice for India, if strikes, ToT, offsets and strategic/political advantages are the keys in MMRCA, because in all these fiellds the Gripen/Saab/Sweden can't offer us what we want.
Gripen is a good fighter and cheap, but that's exactly why we have LCA for, so no need for another similar fighter. Regarding single engine, I often stated that we made a mistake by going for a light single engine fighter like LCA, instead of going for an light to medium single engine fighter like F16/J10. However, that's the reality now and the only comparable single engine fighter in MMRCA is the F16IN and that is obviously not a good choice anymore.
does these amarican/western ever appreciated russian systems...never...
...i am not a fan of mig-35 , but all i like is to see/read a fair camparision without baised ..
That's why I told you not to take the analysis of the fighters itself as reliable, the more interesting part are the possible operational requirements and you just need to look at the following part to see that the Mig is not a good choice anymore.
The operational context in Southern Asia elaborated above suggests that the MMRCA candidate selected by the IAF will have to be an utterly versatile platform that earns the title of multi-role precisely because that attribute will be at a premium in future subcontinental conflicts. It must be able to flexibly shift from air combat to ground attack operations during the day, night, or adverse weather because such dexterity will be essential for success in the counterair mission alone. In this context, the ideal aircraft would be one that possesses a low radar cross-section, deploys advanced sensors and self-protection suites, carries a heavy weapons load consisting of both long-range AAMs and diverse precision anti-surface weaponry, and possesses superior agility, endurance, and combat effectiveness. Since the air-to-ground role thus becomes virtually conjoint with the air-to-air requirement where the MMRCA is concerned, the six contenders should be evaluated according to their effectiveness in both missions
The Mig is a designed for A2A and has just some added A2G capabilities, just look at the difference between Mig 29SMT and Mig 35 and you will see that with AESA radar, TVC, more thrust they again added mainly A2A features. They did increased the numbers of weapon station, payload and range too, but in these fields the Mig remains to be one of the least capable in the competition (besides several other issues). That's how the Russians like it (Su 35 and Su 34), but we want multi role fighters in between (MKI, FGFA, MMRCA) and that's why the Mig is not a good choice for IAF anymore.
