IAF fighter strength to dip further

[trident2010]

We need to ramp up the induction of Tejas MK 2, they are more than worthy replacement for Migs and Jaguars.

 

[Malik Alashter]

I don't think India will face any shortages!. for one reason is that they are inducting more of MKI-30 to be 272 peice that is not little at all.

Now we are sure they are going to induct the FGFA in decent numbers till the due date which is 2032 that will add another teeth to the IAF.

those to planes if they reach 350 that will be more that addequate to defend their sky.

Now the rest of the planes like Mirge 2k jags and the lca they can serve as bomber till 2050 since they going to be upgraded with better avionics.

all the Indian need the FGFA and MKI-30 for air superiority while the others for bombing don't forget the M2k by itself can carry 6+ tons add the jags add the lca they all combined reach 250 plane for bombardment that too big of air force.

I have something to add here?.

India should induct the MIG-35 but with the request of making its spare parts localy even if the Russian jack up the price for no problem since you will be able to make the parts localy this way you want wait for the Russian to supply you with parts.

Add to that the abilty of the MIG-35 to carry 7 ton of amunition that's so good for a multy rule fighter.

If you pay 60-70 mil per unit with spare parts production localy that will be a big asset to india.

the MIG-35 not bad plus you can even dump the old mig-29 once you have enough mig-35.

that's just my thoughts.

 

[Mike_Brando]

I don't think India will face any shortages!. for one reason is that they are inducting more of MKI-30 to be 272 peice that is not little at all.

Now we are sure they are going to induct the FGFA in decent numbers till the due date which is 2032 that will add another teeth to the IAF.

those to planes if they reach 350 that will be more that addequate to defend their sky.

Now the rest of the planes like Mirge 2k jags and the lca they can serve as bomber till 2050 since they going to be upgraded with better avionics.

all the Indian need the FGFA and MKI-30 for air superiority while the others for bombing don't forget the M2k by itself can carry 6+ tons add the jags add the lca they all combined reach 250 plane for bombardment that too big of air force.

I have something to add here?.

India should induct the MIG-35 but with the request of making its spare parts localy even if the Russian jack up the price for no problem since you will be able to make the parts localy this way you want wait for the Russian to supply you with parts.

Add to that the abilty of the MIG-35 to carry 7 ton of amunition that's so good for a multy rule fighter.

If you pay 60-70 mil per unit with spare parts production localy that will be a big asset to india.

the MIG-35 not bad plus you can even dump the old mig-29 once you have enough mig-35.

that's just my thoughts.

Buddy believe me you're not the only one to think like that in this forum.There are many of us who want the Indian Air Force to go ahead and buy the Mig-35 aircraft in addition to the Rafales that we are certainly going to buy.These Mig-35s will then replace all those Mig-21 bis/bison models which are really getting old plus due to their commonality with the Mig-29 aircraft which I.A.F. has been operating for the past 3 decades the infrastructure and the maintainance isn't going to be a problem.
Recently i have read in some other forums that the I.A.F. may actually go ahead and buy a hundred or so Mig-35s to maintain the squadron strength if the LCA MK-2 development gets further delayed.Another important fact is that the Mig-35 is the cheapest 4.5 generation multirole aircraft available at present in the international market and hence buying them won't lmake holes in our pocket as far as their price is concerned!!

 

[Malik Alashter]

Buddy believe me you're not the only one to think like that in this forum.There are many of us who want the Indian Air Force to go ahead and buy the Mig-35 aircraft in addition to the Rafales that we are certainly going to buy.These Mig-35s will then replace all those Mig-21 bis/bison models which are really getting old plus due to their commonality with the Mig-29 aircraft which I.A.F. has been operating for the past 3 decades the infrastructure and the maintainance isn't going to be a problem.
Recently i have read in some other forums that the I.A.F. may actually go ahead and buy a hundred or so Mig-35s to maintain the squadron strength if the LCA MK-2 development gets further delayed.Another important fact is that the Mig-35 is the cheapest 4.5 generation multirole aircraft available at present in the international market and hence buying them won't lmake holes in our pocket as far as their price is concerned!!

I wish our government think the way I think Iraq would be the strongest country in the rigion but alas they are not and my country heading the same way Lebanon is now.

If it was up to me I would induct at least 360 russian and chines multi rule fighters like su-35, mig 35 and j-10b plus good number of the rafale plus the the already bought f-16.

peace achieved through power not weaknessess.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Not to forget that we are not talking about 1 on 1 replacements here, since we mainly replace single role fighters, with multi role fighters. Which means that an IAF with the same ammount of fighters, will be twice as capable as in the past.

Sir, you think it is just twice as much? It's got to be far higher than that, an MKI/Rafale are easily more capable than 4-5 MiG-21/27s. When you have MKIs replacing MiG-21 Squadrons (it's happening as we speak), all this talk of Squadron numbers is utterly meaningless, no one seems to be interested in having a discussion on capabilities.

But maybe this ignorance is a good thing- the capability vs numbers debate has been used to cut AFs across the Western world and the IAF needs both quality and quantity (which it is getting) so it's actually very good the IAF is constantly targeting a large AF (right now 42 but set to be 50 by 2035) because it will also be enormously capable (Rafales, MKIs and FGFAs are the top end of the spectrum available for any air force).

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Looks like it is the not the BEST but the ULTIMATE BEST BEST BEST case scenario....!

I can assure you buddy, if our fleet is coming down, yours is probably coming down even faster. Hum sab ek hi biradri mein rahte hain.

 

[Hareeshu IA MBT]

It's really alarming . We need to end this by buying Su 35 and EF ASAP. So we will get good time to developing our own fighter jets .

 

[sancho]

Sir, you think it is just twice as much? It's got to be far higher than that,, all this talk of Squadron numbers is utterly meaningless, no one seems to be interested in having a discussion on capabilities.

It is more, but people need to start understand that this number game is pure nonsense, when you replace single role fighters. Simple example, one of the first M-MRCA squads is meant to replace a Mig 27 squad at the Hashimara base in the north east, which doesn't have any other squads. So by stationing M-MRCAs there, you don't just replace strike fighters, but automatically add A2A fighters / capability too, without the need of increasing the squadron numbers. Same goes for other air bases too. So a single squad of these fighters will only replace a single squad of Migs on paper, but adds the capability of more!

But maybe this ignorance is a good thing- the capability vs numbers debate has been used to cut AFs across the Western world and the IAF needs both quality and quantity (which it is getting) so it's actually very good the IAF is constantly targeting a large AF (right now 42 but set to be 50 by 2035) because it will also be enormously capable (Rafales, MKIs and FGFAs are the top end of the spectrum available for any air force).

I don't think we will head to 50 squads or so, I even guess that many of the roles Mig 27s or Jags did, will be diverted to drones soon and with 4 types of fighters that will remain in service for decades and 3 production lines running for LCA, M-MRCA and FGFA, IAF will be well covered. It's INs airwing that gives more to worry.

 

[Abingdonboy]

It's INs airwing that gives more to worry.

Indeed, the question of the carrier fighter for the IAC-2 and beyond looms large. It has to be a fifth generation fighter, no two ways about that but what options are available? We've talked about this before- the IN is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and I honestly don't know what they can do because there is no one fighter that meets their specific requirements- ability to launch from catapults, 5th gen and (I'm assuming) non-American.

 

[Hareeshu IA MBT]

It is more, but people need to start understand that this number game is pure nonsense, when you replace single role fighters. Simple example, one of the first M-MRCA squads is meant to replace a Mig 27 squad at the Hashimara base in the north east, which doesn't have any other squads. So by stationing M-MRCAs there, you don't just replace strike fighters, but automatically add A2A fighters / capability too, without the need of increasing the squadron numbers. Same goes for other air bases too. So a single squad of these fighters will only replace a single squad of Migs on paper, but adds the capability of more!



I don't think we will head to 50 squads or so, I even guess that many of the roles Mig 27s or Jags did, will be diverted to drones soon and with 4 types of fighters that will remain in service for decades and 3 production lines running for LCA, M-MRCA and FGFA, IAF will be well covered. It's INs airwing that gives more to worry.

I might b ignorant towards the facts you made . So I could go ahead and say that we need to change our mentally on number game . We always think that if we have best 10 fighters we can take down 30 lil low configuration jets . It's not gonna be this way . We need to match up with numbers for many different reasons. We should give a chance for our enemy to think that we are weak in numbers so they can gamble . IAF must be looking forward to multiple it's platform and have a huge number of fighter jets newly built or upgraded. As we have be more capable than ever before ... when the times are right for us pop our head in to the international arena we will get lots of troubles.... We must match our strength with china and Pakistan combined . Both in numbers and quality .

 

[sancho]

Indeed, the question of the carrier fighter for the IAC-2 and beyond looms large. It has to be a fifth generation fighter, no two ways about that but what options are available? We've talked about this before- the IN is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and I honestly don't know what they can do because there is no one fighter that meets their specific requirements- ability to launch from catapults, 5th gen and (I'm assuming) non-American.

They have more than enough options for fighters, the problem however is that they can't fix the layout of the carrier yet! If the US approves catapults we can either go for an off the shelf option, or develop AMCA in that direction. If they reject it again, we can navalise FGFA, or develop AMCA in that direction. So more than the possible fighter, it's the decision on the carrier we need.

 

[sancho]

We must match our strength with china and Pakistan combined . Both in numbers and quality .

No we don't! We have to look at what's important and necessary for the defence of the country and not what others do. We will never be able to match Chinas fighter numbers, let alone a 2 front war situation. That's why our focus must be on capability rather than numbers. Getting offensive capabilities to take out their air bases for example, gives us the capability to destroy or at least block numbers of their fighters, without the need for 1 on 1 engagements. So our aim must be to take out a dozen air bases, rather than 100s of fighters.
Similarly, we must be able to detect and counter offensive actions from China, that's where increased ground radar, AWACS and air defence capabilities are the key, not 100s of fighters. The earlier we can detect them, the easier it will be to counter them even with lower numbers (WW2 UK with radar vs numerical superior Luftwaffe).
And most importantly, the number game often ignores the costs to procure and operate these fighters. So we can't simply add more and more squads only to make it look better on paper, but have to use the budget and the squadrons we can afford as effective as possible.

 

[Trawllu]

Place an order for 2 more squadrons of LCA mk1

Have 2 production lines ( HAL and private ) to churn out mk 2 in short time possible.

the problem wont be only of aircraft production

even if we can produce 40 aircraft a year can we train equal no of pilots ?
either fresh or type conversion training ?