IAF needs 39 squadrons for 2-front war, has only 34'

[MilSpec]

That's correct, although it's not fully clear if all the Saab 2000s are still operational after the attacks on the airbase. From a clear edge in BVR, PAF has superseded IAF now it some strategic fields, be it AWACS coverage, cruise missile strike, or the simple pace of modernisation at the lower end. With the limited capabilities, they are doing much better then we do it!


On paper yes, in reality, we have only very low numbers but a far greater space to cover. While they have higher numbers and only a single borderline that they really need to cover. So even if our AWACS are more advanced, PAF has the advantage currently on their side!

2 Saab's operational, one is a trainer and can only be interfaced with f16, 3 chinese awacs for Fc1 a/cs.
All Indian platforms have full operational interoperability with A50 Phalcons. Apart from that India's ground radar system and it's redundancies built into it are unparalleled.

I am indeed confused with your BVR comment, especially when IAF operates the most advanced variants of R77 AE, MD, R73's and the most effective operational BVR missile Derby V.

BARS N011M and Zhuk Pesa's resolution combined with all three of the mentioned BVR give IAF a distinct advantage.

In the sense that 3rd gen fighters (MIG-21/27) will be replaced my multi-role highly capable 4.5+ gen fighters?

CAP and area defense will be taken over by a nimble, agile multirole fighter, freeing up dedicated heavy combat, omni role and air superiority platforms to do what they do best.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Can't say I agree with you bud!

Two points.

1. HAL isn't mature enough to absorb the technology of Rafale.

2. Dassault cannot be held responsible for the production, if they aren't allowed to supervise the production line, which HAL won't allow for the obvious reasons.

These two points are enough to stall the deal for the foreseeable future.

 

[indian_foxhound]

Two points.

1. HAL isn't mature enough to absorb the technology of Rafale.

2. Dassault cannot be held responsible for the production, if they aren't allowed to supervise the production line, which HAL won't allow for the obvious reasons.

These two points are enough to stall the deal for the foreseeable future.

Why hal dont want to dassault to supervise?i dont think its a big deal

 

[Abingdonboy]

Two points.

1. HAL isn't mature enough to absorb the technology of Rafale.

2. Dassault cannot be held responsible for the production, if they aren't allowed to supervise the production line, which HAL won't allow for the obvious reasons.

These two points are enough to stall the deal for the foreseeable future.

We shall see. The points you make are valid enough but there is too much pressure on all sides to see this deal signed that I don't see any option other than success.

 

[MilSpec]

As I often say, the falling squadron strenght is basically a paper problem, not an operational one, because it includes different single role squadrons, while all new squad is a multi role one. So basically, 1 x multi role squad = 2 x single role squads, or 1 x MKI squad = 1 x Mig 23 + 1 x Mig 27 squad.
The MKI already has replaced all Mig 23 (except of some trainers) and is replacing the Mig 27 in numbers too. The only fighters beyond 2020 that needs replacements are, Mig 29, Mirage 2000 (both replaced by FGFA in numbers, btw first squadron in IAF is aimed at 2022) and later Jaguars, which either can be replaced by additional LCAs, Rafales, or FGFAs, since all of them will be in production by then, but you obviously choose a fighter with good future potential and therefor, Rafale or FGFA will be much more likely, although the best choice to replace them is still armed Rustom H and AURA UCAVs.

You want to replace 18 sqdns of mig 21 and mig 27 with 6 sqdns of rafales? For a capable LCA mk2 is see a bright future, It will be easy to maintain, operate, pilot friendly , and will be the right response for area defense and CAS.

You are highly mistake mate! The IAF Chief mentioned the importance of drones for IAF and in future in the last Aero India several times, because they are the future in most roles. Be it recon, CAS, deep strike, or even EA will in future be take over by them. Manned fighters then will have mainly air defence left, with some strikes, but the rest can be done by drones, more effectively and in most cases cheaper than a manned fighter could do it.
Even today the numbers of drones used in our forces is increasing dramatically and I hope MoD will push a co-development with Israel for HALE drones and AURA, because they will become cruicial for India in future!

Sure, if our next door neighbors was somalia....
>With layered air defense and ack ack at every post, Rustom H and Aura, dont stand a chance without air superiority.

>For interim air superiority, you need your best strike platforms to take bulk of the missions, i.e. MKI, M2K and Rafale with Mig 29 UPG's Air sup.

> To do so optimally, it would be ideal to have LCA mk2 take on the bulk of area defense, CAP's and CAS roles.

It is and that would be perfect if we would have start inducting LCA 5 years ago, but we are doing it only in 2 or 3 years, MK2 even in 5 years or later, but even today CAS is taken over by drones or fighters, with more endurance and that can take more loads. A Reaper dron can loiter over our ground forces much much longer that a manned fighter and can support them with recon and CAS whenever it is needed. Operated at high altitude makes it less vulnerable against air defences and even at low altitude, it's low speed maneuvering has advantage to jet fighters.

No comment.

In last 5 years West end of our neighborhood hasn't drastically changed, hence the LCA prospect still stands!

 

[Skull and Bones]

Why hal dont want to dassault to supervise?i dont think its a big deal

For us it may not seem as a big deal but for HAL, it is. They want complete monopoly over the process, which will be in threat if Dassault kicks in the process.

 

[sancho]

2 Saab's operational, one is a trainer and can only be interfaced with f16, 3 chinese awacs for Fc1 a/cs.
All Indian platforms have full operational interoperability with A50 Phalcons. Apart from that India's ground radar system and it's redundancies built into it are unparalleled.

I am indeed confused with your BVR comment, especially when IAF operates the most advanced variants of R77 AE, MD, R73's and the most effective operational BVR missile Derby V.

BARS N011M and Zhuk Pesa's resolution combined with all three of the mentioned BVR give IAF a distinct advantage.

All Saabs were delivered, but at least one could have been heavily damaged and what is the use of interoperability of our A50 Phalcon, when we have only 3 of them? You need at least 3 x AWACS imo at the western borders in the air at the same time, to provide a good coverage of the airspace, which is not the case now. That's why the decision to go for AWACS India is silly, instead of going for more EMB 145 DRDO AWACS, to get some more numbers first.
Also, MKIs radar and our missiles might be more advanced, but doesn't matter if the opponent can see you much earlier thanks to better AWACS support. Remember, not the Bisons were so advanced that they could take on US F15s, but the tactics of IAF combining them with radar data of the MKI. So no matter how much more capable an MKI might be compared to a JF 17 in a 1 on 1 comparison, if the latter has AWACS support, the MKI is in trouble too.

 

[Skull and Bones]

We shall see. The points you make are valid enough but there is too much pressure on all sides to see this deal signed that I don't see any option other than success.

HAL doesn't seems to feel any pressure, from what it seems. Or they wouldn't have dared to enter into negotiation before doing any pre-production feasibility check. The whole process seems like a joke to me now.

 

[MilSpec]

Two points.

1. HAL isn't mature enough to absorb the technology of Rafale.

No disrespect buddy, But that is complete BS claim!

2. Dassault cannot be held responsible for the production, if they aren't allowed to supervise the production line, which HAL won't allow for the obvious reasons.

These two points are enough to stall the deal for the foreseeable future.

HAL will be more than happy to if dassault wants to supervise product line, but tech transfer has never been the issue, the issue is DB not wanting to part some of the key transfers to maintain our dependence on them. This is always an issue when it comes to tech transfer.

 

[liontk]

Nice development overall to be frank with the doctrinal squadron limit at 44 , it seem like inde is definitely prepared for the future, however the OP should change the title a single front as waging a two front war properly is very very difficult doctrinally. Heck even yanks can really only fight on 1 front though they claim up to two fronts. So this is a very big challenge no doubt but I still feel inde should focus on economics development to get at least close to 5 trillion mark and have some clout, which will naturally give it the advantage in diplomatic interaction, which the country is famous for. For-example while chinois do not have a huge military presence in north america, yet they bought up our resources and our parliament was help less, which is really pathetic on us and it goes to show that economic clout can take one pretty far eh.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Nice development overall to be frank with the doctrinal squadron limit at 44 , it seem like inde is definitely prepared for the future, however the OP should change the title a single front as waging a two front war properly is very very difficult doctrinally. Heck even yanks can really only fight on 1 front though they claim up to two fronts. So this is a very big challenge no doubt but I still feel inde should focus on economics development to get at least close to 5 trillion mark and have some clout, which will naturally give it the advantage in diplomatic interaction, which the country is famous for. For-example while chinois do not have a huge military presence in north america, yet they bought up our resources and our parliament was help less, which is really pathetic on us and it goes to show that economic clout can take one pretty far eh.

44 is not the "doctrinal SQD limit" at all merely what the IAF is targeting to have by 2027-30. After this period naturally the IAF will continue to grow. Long term forecasts are 60 SQDs by 2037-40.

 

[sancho]

You want to replace 18 sqdns of mig 21 and mig 27 with 6 sqdns of rafales?

Again, the Mig 27s will already be replaced by MKI squadrons today, that leaves only the Mig 21s, which in numbers will be replaced by at least 7 x Rafale and 6 x LCA squadrons, which currently are considered.

Sure, if our next door neighbors was somalia....
>With layered air defense and ack ack at every post, Rustom H and Aura, dont stand a chance without air superiority.

The one has nothing to do with the other, but about operational effectiveness, cost-effectivity and even for SEAD we have bought Israeli suicide drones in numbers today and as soon as FGFA and AURA will be available, they will be the spearhead with deep strikes and sead, with MKI and Rafale providing air defence and multi role strikes, armed Rustom H and LCA beeing at the end for CAS, or point defence roles in the later stages of war.

In last 5 years West end of our neighborhood hasn't drastically changed, hence the LCA prospect still stands!

Not anymore, the technical advantage that LCA had initially is gone, JF 17 B2 will be on a similar level as LCA MK1, but might be inducted earlier and in higher numbers. JF 17 B3 could be in the same 4.5 gen class as LCA MK2, but according to current plans at least 3 years earlier than LCA MK2. We had a good fighter project with excellent potential, but we messed it up, because we did it way too complicated. The Chinese made it simple and steady and now are succeeding with their approach and I am sure sooner or later they will get export orders too.

 

[MilSpec]

The one has nothing to do with the other, but about operational effectiveness, cost-effectivity and even for SEAD we have bought Israeli suicide drones in numbers today and as soon as FGFA and AURA will be available, they will be the spearhead with deep strikes and sead, with MKI and Rafale providing air defence and multi role strikes, armed Rustom H and LCA beeing at the end for CAS, or point defence roles in the later stages of war.

Neither the Ucavs nor the FGFA will see full strength deployment pre 2025, hence makes more sense to induct LCA mk2 if it is fully capable of what it claims to be

Not anymore, the technical advantage that LCA had initially is gone, JF 17 B2 will be on a similar level as LCA MK1, but might be inducted earlier and in higher numbers. JF 17 B3 could be in the same 4.5 gen class as LCA MK2, but according to current plans at least 3 years earlier than LCA MK2. We had a good fighter project with excellent potential, but we messed it up, because we did it way too complicated. The Chinese made it simple and steady and now are succeeding with their approach and I am sure sooner or later they will get export orders too.

Any of this doesn't change the significance of LCA mk2, the idea is to free up all strike platforms to perform strike, sead, air interdcn missions with LCA mk2 taking up all the area defence, CAP and CAS missions.

 

[sancho]

Neither the Ucavs nor the FGFA will see full strength deployment pre 2025, hence makes more sense to induct LCA mk2 if it is fully capable of what it claims to be

As said, the first FGFA squadron is aimed at 2022 and in any war from then on, will not only be the prime A2A fighter, but also the prime deep strike and SEAD fighter.
Behind it MKIs and Rafales will cover nearly all roles in A2A and A2G, which shows why there is not much prospect for LCA in IAF. By the time all 80 x MK2s will be inducted we will even have armed Rustoms Hs and even more of the CAS role will be diverted. LCA simply is the low end of IAF and the longer it needs to be inducted, the less interest IAF will have in higher numbers. One reason I would have prefered a simply MK2 development and earlier induction.

LCA mk2 taking up all the area defence, CAP and CAS missions.

Not really, the max that it will do is point defence and CAS, similar to what Mig 21s, M2Ks, Mig 29 and Jags do. Any role above will be done by fore suitable aircrafts, like MKI, Rafale, or in future drones and 5th aircrafts. LCA will of course be a multi role fighter, but if at all for export customers, that doesn't have the luxury of IAF to have such a capable fleet.

 

[RISING SUN]

There are two things which I would like to add here.
1-It's not IAF which will be able to fight 2 front war alone. It will be collective & coordinated military of India which will be fighting for Indian by Indian & backed by our India's willpower.
2-Regarding no of squadrons, It may be possible that few squadrons have no of aircraft below the standard no in a squadron.
Just my 2 cents.