Indian Airforce MMRCA + LWF Alternate Discussion

[Spectre]

I will divide my post in two halves.

First half will be a bit about the roles and second half will be about timelines.

About the Roles

• What i understand is inspite of modern fighter jets having multirole capabilities, the doctrine of IAF still follows the path of assigning roles based on classification between light, medium and heavy and utilises the aircrafts best performance in that particular domain.
• In terms of aircrafts forming the categories, the below figure is the most authentic realisation as well as pin pointing to what IAF is planning

View attachment 333182
​

• Without a doubt the Medium Weight replacement envisioned for a 4.75 Gen Rafale is a 5th gen AMCA and 4.5 Gen MKI (super upgrade) is expected to be 5th gen FGFA
• The basic differential roles can be defined for the sake of understanding is
• View attachment 333186
  
• This basically defines what is expected in very brief
• French side does not differentiate so heavily like us and are happy taking on all the roles , same like Russia using Flankers for everything

About the timelines

• FGFA - The stage 2 PAKFA should be available with 3 prototypes by 2023 with HAL. This with changes and with re-certification should make FGFA available for production by 2025-26 timeline.
• Now 5th Gen jets production wont be too high due to complexity involved in operations, maintenance and most importantly production angle as MIC has to reach a maturity level for that kind of work.
• AMCA basically is a further step ahead. The following pic is a very good illustration of what project AMCA is really
• View attachment 333187
  
• Thus here the word is matured LCA technologies (read 4/4.5th Gen)+ Insert the tech advantage from Make In India Medium category fighter + 5th gen tech flowing from FGFA.
• This practically will push AMCA beyond 2030 if we want a proper plane for Induction.
• IF you have a look at ADA paper on AMCA, the choice of technologies in the AMCA atm is unavailable for us and we are in process of developing some of it.
• But most of the technology which ADA matches with F35 and F22 cannot overnight be developed due to limited budget and resource allocation.
• On top, AMCA technology wont be available off the shelf unless the country is given a fighter jet program in India to enable some technology being localised and transferred.-

I wrote about this in a separate thread. Let me paste it here for a quick point some quotes form the same


View attachment 333188

and

View attachment 333190
This is the link for the full post
https://defence.pk/threads/using-te...d-to-make-it-happe.421961/page-2#post-8155216

So i dont see an overlapping case scenario for Rafales and AMCA as both will be spaced at least 15-20 years apart and will be basically AMCA replacing Rafales.


++++
@Abingdonboy - I would request you to reply to opening post by MilSpec.

Again the same two issues

1. Roles - As you have clearly stated one platform can effectively serve an Airforce then wouldn't it serve IAF to adapt with modern times and bring in the efficiencies, cost savings, training benefits and synergy for having a single platform. We see every Airforce including US moving towards this. Why can't India have LCA and Rafales/AMCA/FGFA. Two platforms should be able to sufficiently cover all roles.

Or is their merit in having three/four platforms

2. Time-lines - OK even if we have 15 year gap b/w AMCA and Rafale instead of my overtly optimistic 5-10 years even then there is another 15 years when AMCA and Rafales will be flying together assuming full 30 years service life at least for both the platforms. This is a direct result of betting on four platforms LCA/AMCA/FGFA/RAFALES

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @hellfire

 

[AugenBlick]

Again the same two issues

1. Roles - As you have clearly stated one platform can effectively serve an Airforce then wouldn't it serve IAF to adapt with modern times and bring in the efficiencies, cost savings, training benefits and synergy for having a single platform. We see every Airforce including US moving towards this. Why can't India have LCA and Rafales/AMCA/FGFA. Two platforms should be able to sufficiently cover all roles.

Or is their merit in having three/four platforms

2. Time-lines - OK even if we have 15 year gap b/w AMCA and Rafale instead of my overtly optimistic 5-10 years even then there is another 15 years when AMCA and Rafales will be flying together assuming full 30 years service life at least for both the platforms. This is a direct result of betting on four platforms LCA/AMCA/FGFA/RAFALES

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @hellfire

1. Yes and the key merit was in flying cost per hour. The Rafale was half of MKI @$9000 vs $20000 and LCA will be even less.

2. Time lines: It will take time to shift away from Rafale to AMCA ... change of doctrine, pilot training etc. so overlapping might not be that big an issue.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Again the same two issues

1. Roles - As you have clearly stated one platform can effectively serve an Airforce then wouldn't it serve IAF to adapt with modern times and bring in the efficiencies, cost savings, training benefits and synergy for having a single platform. We see every Airforce including US moving towards this. Why can't India have LCA and Rafales/AMCA/FGFA. Two platforms should be able to sufficiently cover all roles.

Or is their merit in having three/four platforms

2. Time-lines - OK even if we have 15 year gap b/w AMCA and Rafale instead of my overtly optimistic 5-10 years even then there is another 15 years when AMCA and Rafales will be flying together assuming full 30 years service life at least for both the platforms. This is a direct result of betting on four platforms LCA/AMCA/FGFA/RAFALES

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @hellfire

• We got into trouble bcz the MKI and FGFA most probably wont be optimised for low altitude deep ingress missions like DPSA ones of Rafale/Mirages type.
• If suppose we have MKI now and Rafales and later replace both with say AMCA we might end up building a lo-med combo of LCA Mk XX variant and AMCA but this opens up a capability limitation condition.
• Please consider the following map
• 
  
  
• As you know mission payload will decide the flight time coupled with hostile environment of hostile bogies, AD environment all contributing to finally the range.
• If suppose we go for a combination of just lo-med, the limitation is clearly seen from this map where you can see from border areas the radius will be how much for a AMCA without considering the limitation as i just said above.
• Now consider suppose the medium AMCA has to come from deeper inside the country, it has to actually use the AAR available, fill itself up and proceed for the mission roles and then again while returning might need another round of refueling.
• Or it has to carry more Fuel Tanks decreasing its weapons payload and limiting the strike abilities and also reducing its combat potential in front of bogies which are light and very mobile.
• Of course plus side is a simple maintenance plan and much reduction in cost thereby increasing efficiency levels

Consider now only say LCA and FGFA (lo-hi)

• The range limitation gets solved a bit due to internal higher fuel load and also external refuelling available same as above case.
• Of course, the weapons load will also be higher than medium category
• What needs to be seen if they can do low ingress or low altitude missions, SEAD , DEAD and effectively do the role of DPSA.
• Supposing its able to do everything, the biggest factor it will come is the cost of maintenance, CPFH and fleet availability cost.
• Also the time between sorties might be a potential issue.

Thus, it puts a precarious position for IAF where medium becomes a necessity and it survives with Heavy to take on a complementary role .

We cant help much but if IAF plans and finally settles down to say LCA, AMCA and FGFA by 2050 after retiring all other jets or may be at best have just 1-2 more like Rafale NG then its in right direction.

Now question is can we walk on this path or not. bcz @MilSpec showed in opening post the combination available like F16IN or Gripen E coupled with Rafale. This of course increases the complexities clearly.

 

[Spectre]

• We got into trouble bcz the MKI and FGFA most probably wont be optimised for low altitude deep ingress missions like DPSA ones of Rafale/Mirages type.
• If suppose we have MKI now and Rafales and later replace both with say AMCA we might end up building a lo-med combo of LCA Mk XX variant and AMCA but this opens up a capability limitation condition.
• Please consider the following map
• View attachment 333193
  
• As you know mission payload will decide the flight time coupled with hostile environment of hostile bogies, AD environment all contributing to finally the range.
• If suppose we go for a combination of just lo-med, the limitation is clearly seen from this map where you can see from border areas the radius will be how much for a AMCA without considering the limitation as i just said above.
• Now consider suppose the medium AMCA has to come from deeper inside the country, it has to actually use the AAR available, fill itself up and proceed for the mission roles and then again while returning might need another round of refueling.
• Or it has to carry more Fuel Tanks decreasing its weapons payload and limiting the strike abilities and also reducing its combat potential in front of bogies which are light and very mobile.
• Of course plus side is a simple maintenance plan and much reduction in cost thereby increasing efficiency levels

Consider now only say LCA and FGFA (lo-hi)

• The range limitation gets solved a bit due to internal higher fuel load and also external refuelling available same as above case.
• Of course, the weapons load will also be higher than medium category
• What needs to be seen if they can do low ingress or low altitude missions, SEAD , DEAD and effectively do the role of DPSA.
• Supposing its able to do everything, the biggest factor it will come is the cost of maintenance, CPFH and fleet availability cost.
• Also the time between sorties might be a potential issue.

Thus, it puts a precarious position for IAF where medium becomes a necessity and it survives with Heavy to take on a complementary role .

We cant help much but if IAF plans and finally settles down to say LCA, AMCA and FGFA by 2050 after retiring all other jets or may be at best have just 1-2 more like Rafale NG then its in right direction.

Now question is can we walk on this path or not. bcz @MilSpec showed in opening post the combination available like F16IN or Gripen E coupled with Rafale. This of course increases the complexities clearly.

All right.

But there are two things I would like to note

1. Deep strikes are now covered by cruise missiles which are much cheaper and not aircrafts. Aircrafts are super expensive and even if we send in FGFA it has to face lighter, highly maneuverable bogies with much lower RCS in addition to highly concentrated air defence installations. It will be a one way trip for sure.

This is why either you have US like capablity where they land carriers on your shores and send in big enough strike package to knock the enemy out. Lacking this - no one sends aircrafts 2k kms deep within enemy territory these days.

If IAF hasn't thought about this then I am sorry but god help us all.

2. I am not against Rafales infact more I think about it, more I am convinced about it's utility and despite the timeline point i raised - I think it should FGFA which should go out and not Rafales.

While Rafales as you said will provide us with the building blocks of AMCA, FGFA if bought specially for the deep strike loadout then it has no place in modern air warfare.

@Oscar what do you think

 

[Abingdonboy]

I strongly believe its is LCA. You cannot replace hundreds of '21s with Rafael

The LCA will be replacing most MIG-21 SQNs BUT the Rafale will also replace a few, just as some MiG-21 SQNs have converted to the MKI.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Starting a thread to discuss a few other angles of MMRCA (the original contenders) and what I categorize as the LWF (LCAMK2, F16IN, Gripen NG) just as a discussion exercise. This does not reflect any internal information on things that are in store and purely is for just exploring alternatives.

MMRCA

Though it was aimed to replace the aging Mig21's, it also had an other project i.e. assistance in regards to LCA.
We know how much time it took to identify the suitable aircraft as the replacement went making it really difficult in-regards to both financial and timely.

Light Weight Fighter (LWF)

There is a very thin line regarding what constitute light - medium. F-16's were designed as LWF however over time these have evolved to become MWF. One should not forget that M2K is also in the same category and M2K-9 is very similar performance wise to F-16 E/F.

Core Issue

Over the years a lot has been said regarding Rafales however it is not clear if the deal would ever materialize as there are more options available.

The Mig-21's have been upgraded, M2K's and JAG's are in the process of upgrade which plays a decisive role in regards to the entire MMRCA. This is the reason the project was officially closed.

The French offer to upgrade the HAL facility and provide expertise in regards to engine manufacturing did go through. This is the best that India could have achieved from a project that could not have been materialized.

The real problem is over the years crashes of Mig-21's have take a very sad conclusion i.e Single Engine aircraft is Dangerous.

This is one major factor that is destroying even the LCA TEJAS. IAF is not happy with the aircraft. Gripen, F-16 and M2K being single engine aircraft will not be selected.

F-18 could be selected but that does not give IAF all the capabilities they would like.

 

[salarsikander]

The LCA will be replacing most MIG-21 SQNs BUT the Rafale will also replace a few, just as some MiG-21 SQNs have converted to the MKI.

Converting and replacing are two different things sire

 

[MilSpec]

Thanks for the brilliant reply, and in Tay's words time for some chess.

I wanted to focus on the 60 sqd projection
Indian Air force squadron strength have been around 16-18 combat aircrafts per squadron, but this number has never been defined to be followed to the T, now one aspect I wanted to throw at you is assume Heavy - 16-18, Medium - 18- 20, Light - 20-22 units/squadron.
looking at the upper end of the limit
That could bring the numbers of
Heavy> MKI+FGGA/T50 = 18*18 = 324 >MKI makes up about 314 out of that, I am not sure if they will retire as soon as we think they will.
Medium > Amca +MMRCA = 21*20 = 420 (126 Rafales + leaves about 294 proposed AMCA and lets come back to that number)
Light > (LCA1p+LCAmk2) = 21* 22 = 462 (80 LC1p + say another 200 LCA Mk2 + 182 LWF platform)

There is 294 Units of Medium and 182 LWF units to work with, Which can be say augumented by 150 Pakfa/Fgfa and 150 Amca, (or a 100 :200 mix)
And for the LWF there are options to choose 182 units F16IN, or Cut that number into 80 LCAmk2 , 40Pakfa +60 AMCA.

A good topic. A long post. So please bear with me.

First my opening remark

Present IAF fleet planning is very simple. Divide the total number of aircraft as 20% light category 40% medium and 40% heavy far from ideally 40% light and 30% medium and 30% heavy.
View attachment 333074

This actually puts us to basic understanding of few number sets

​

The first target is to reach the basic squadron strength thats bare minimum needed and the second one (tgt 60) is the one level at bare minimum that IAF desires to feel comfortable for a 2 front war scenario.

This basically opens up the possible avenues to understand potential how much scope is available for the contenders here in LWF program.
Whichever is the final selected one among the alls or two in another possible scenario, the financial feasibility of such a project would need a 10 year period with first 3 years of setting up and 7 years of production. Even if its conservative at 16 jets a year the numbers have to be minimum 112 and above or say 7 squadrons and above. Add to it is the availability factor, downtime in upgrades, repairs, and attrition over time and you might end up with closer to 10 squads for a safety.

• Assuming its F16IN, the proper designation of F16IN within the categories above is in between light and medium categories..
• In a hindsight, the planners may feel it can serve the need of numbers desired as well operational roles which are atm restricted based on category and type of fighters.
• The LM team will greatly impress that the strike package of F16IN with CFT can undertake the roles designed for the medium category with ease.
• On top the feasibility number as i stated above means it undercuts both categories. If light fighter desired level is 9 squads so then only 3 sqds are available (4 Mk1A, 1 IOC, 1 FOC both IOC,FOC upgraded to Mk1A later) and will also eat up Rafale bare minimum works (2 squads ordered and 6 sqds bare minimum planned under tranche 1)
• This means F16IN will easily become 9 squadron strength due to undercutting and brilliant positioning in between the two categories.
• But doctrine wise and ability wise, we will face some challenges as applicability of a single engined fighter in a combat radii of 1000-1500km zone (to be agreed and proved by IAF team with the CFT aspect) will need a massive change in terms of tactics, strategies and perhaps requisite training in order to have enough confidence to implement this plan.
• In short ideally if F16IN comes in LWF program, there wont be any substantial need in numbers of Rafale and LCA MK2 and future AMCA program can also be postponed as well.
• Unfortunately a major disadvantage will come when we talk about replacing the F16IN over time as
  • LWF- LCA
  • MWF- AMCA planned
• Since F16IN is in between category the replacement program in works AMCA will be desired to help and meet both categories demand and Light category beyond MK1 is no further refined or evolved
• This will put us in a undesirable position unless a new domestic LWF program is started to go back to the original plan of having categories and meeting the needs domestically.
• Another angle is the missile/weapon package it will come with. The all aspects of this fleet will be predominantly US MIC weapons. The integration of home grown and no presence of major WVR/BVR missiles of US origin will imply a lot more training and re-orientation for this fleet.
• Thus F16IN will take a lot longer time before it can reach a level where IAF can feel really comfortable of protecting our skies.
• An important point is F16IN virtually kills the IAF IN commonality aspect as IN will have to desire a fresh medium category jet for its future ACC ops (CATOBAR ones or hybrid carrier ones - Shtrom Class)
• No chance of usage of any strategic payloads is a big downside which is desired from medium I category

I have been a big proponent of no US platforms a frontline fighters, but on the the other hand a platform that undercuts both the LCA Mk2 and the rafale has quite a bit of utility.One of the big issues is interoperability with the legacy MKI, and Mig29Upg Squadrons, which I think is solvable, but will add another mode of failure to the system and I am not sure if US would like proximity of the Russians to their AESA systems.

• The Gripen E/F case is similar to F16IN in terms of financial feasibility of the project angle.
• There is a strong possibility that Gripen E/F wont be second parallel platform but rather it will be the second platform as LCA MK2 as per what Saab is positioning the aircraft in IAF inventory.
• Gripen E/F will have many new frontier technologies and will be comparable to the most modern fighters like rafale and EF and in some aspects even better them untill their MLU programs again provide them vis a vis some capability leap.
• But Gripen E/F will attain FOC surely after 2021 and mostly closer to 2023. So our actual numbers wont come immediate and will take at least 5-7 years from decision making say from March 2017 onwards.
• The numbers due to second production line will quickly increase and the new frontier technologies like GaN and other upgraded avionics , low RCS and sensor fusion tech will help a lot.
• In case Gripen E/F becomes LCA Mk2, it will complement Rafale in medium category handsomely.
• Some of the weapons being common - Meteor and Derby/Python combo going into LCA Mk1A (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen-e-multirole-fighter-aircraft/) as well as A2G munitions like Brimstone
• This aspect helps in maintaining the commonality of the fleet support and weapons.
• What is a downside is Gripen E power plant is Ge 414 so there could be some restriction in terms of access and we cant desire TOT angle or aspect. Gripen E/F with a new home engine will require complete re evaluation , testing and certification as well.
• In terms of future evolution, Gripen has split avionics architecture that separates flight control system and tactical systems. This implies improvements can be undertaken in tactical avionics without interfering with flight characteristics
• The major gain can be implementing a highly robust customization based approach for Gripen E LCA Mk2 with certain tech going from Rafale and FGFA program as well as incorporating French and Israeli avionics into the tactical systems. Again this increases the commonality aspect as well as this edition IPR will be mostly with us.
• Downside will be end of LCA indigenous program but upside will be after 30 years plus when next replacement program comes out , it will have the better capability and technology available
• Saab also have clearly taken the Su30 MKI route in production and so far on paper their proposal is much clearer even though technical aspects of so called TOT is still an unsolved riddle.
• More infor here on the plan of Gripen https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.351407/page-270#post-8447719 . Kept as link as its outside the scope of this thread.
• One very big advantage can be that Saab can use HAL as a JV partner for Gripen E thereby using its expertise to first guide LCA Mk1A present production and also use HAL for Gripen E/F LCA MK2 production as well. This will ease some of the worries of HAL surely.

One thing I differ in is the MK2 is going to be a strategic project, and MoD ridden with HF24 guilt I highly doubt that Gripen or F16 will come at the complete cost of LCA mk2 and at best would be a upper end LWF as a parallel platform. I keep using the parallel LWF is becuase more I look into it, i am starting to feel there might be room for another fighter that fits between the LCA mk2 and the Rafale. Thus this exercise.

• The rejection of both F16In and Gripen E/F is an ideal aspect IMHO.
• In such a case how soon present kaveri with Safran money infusion can be available as per desired numbers? 2020 as per reports. If timeline is adhered even with a slack of 1 more year its a wonderful addition
• I would always support this engine variant to power ouur LCA MK2 fleet and utilise the expertise of Dassault to help us redesign and downstream lot of Rafale tech into LCA MK2 and make it a mini rafale.
• The first biggest help will be the experience of Dassault in designing jets for a long time and now with no Mirage LCA Mk2 is not their competitor.
• Secondly sharing technological aspects common makes the LCA Mk2 have a similar sensor fusion, a potent EW attacking ad defensive suite like Spectra, Active cancellation tech, the further stealth aspect being increased, the RAM coatings etc. Along with this complementary sub systems will flow from Israel and FGFA program.
• Biggest benefit -
  • common weapons
  • common engine tech - service, spares, training
  • commonality of supply chain based out of MIC
  • Export orders can be jointly marketed by France and India government
  • MLU and upgrade package again gets jointly funded in common Rafale and LCA Mk2 program
• The advantages are way too many for such a magnificent, practical and IMHO the very best option which India can smartly use.
• If indian planners dont goof up this is the best solution as then AMCA can also become a joint project and can become Rafale NG program easily or borrow from the same.
• In practical situation this is the best option under the grandfathering or the "wizard" (in the words of @Picdelamirand-oil ) who can help our entire aerospace industry and MIC.

What we need is an engine, I don't care where it comes from , but our own engine will solve LCA mk2 and AMCA both issues. With a confirmed engine we can do al kinds of blocks to the both the LCA platform and the AMCA. I did want the LCA to be mated to the downselect of the MMRCA, so I was banking on M88 and the Ej200, with FG404/ Fg414 being selected, I was disappointed as it pointed to F/A18 somehow making a comback to me. But the engine was unrelated to logistics and purely reliability and an performance threshold. (Which too is surprising given the leaky nature of the FG404, but that is a different topic for another day)

• This aspect is already there as discussed in Rafale Sticky.
• Going back to point 1, its clear that the F16In will undercut both Rafales as well as LCA programs
• But F16IN will never be able to meet IN requirement.
• This will prompt IN to procure F35s and to maintain a common supply chain it will be from same LM plant in India.
• Owing to no 5th gen Fighters in medium category in IAF stable, IAF will end up ordering a limited 2-3 squadron as well as you will see AMCA project being delayed (of course you will understand the reason - vested interests) and a combined 100+ F35s will be eaitsily sold to India.
• LM will showcase the fact that since LM Indian line is there, India will not need Rafale MII and hence will be very comfortable with F35 program which will meet both IAF and IN needs from the very same infrastructure and with no extra investments.
• They may even forecast and prove that with limited FGFA fleet well complemented by F35s and F16s can actually take care of the whole IAF doctrine thereby using more USA assets.
• Thrown in together will be capability multipliers like AARs, AWACS, Surveillance Radars, etc etc as support package to aid and increase teh capability of this option.
• So in short no Rafale, no LCA Mk2 and No AMCA under this option
• But we will not have strategic packages usage in USA jets and this will cripple our one part of our triad deterrence as we will depend only on Russian jets only, completely

+++
In my honest assessment and what i have learned from my own sources whom i had discussed and deeply provided my own opinion , Option 3 - LCA Mk2 based on Mini Rafale program is the best bet. I have given this opinion in the last year end just before the finalization of Prez Hollande visit in Jan and again during March this year when i was talking with people who can convey what i was trying to convey to DM MP and MOD. By March Option 2 was on table itself with Gripen E/F as LCA Mk2. This is inspite of Option 3, which gives benefit of using Kaveri-Snecma variant and much more commonality aspects benefits. For me, the industrial side is immense under Option 3 and will leapfrog the India France relationship as we share a common vision, desire and term each other as strategic partners.

I know and I just wanted to throw out the discussion out there to see if there are any takers of the F16/F35 combo. Imo there can still be a 150 unit which can either be covered by planned platforms or by new ones. Not to forget it brings the option of f35's for IN which can be quite useful in IAC1 and Viky if needed.

First of all Thanks to @MilSpec for providing this rather refreshing angle to the debate on India's fighter procurement. I hope we discuss and get insight into what is going to be watershed years for Indian Air Force in terms of acquiring new technology and answering questions to new threats that would develop in region.
Indian Aerospace industry too will undergo a significant change as it gets hands on assembling, manufacturing and servicing some of the most cutting edge defence products. Entry of private capital and participation in government programs will hopefully allow Air Force and government, a unique flexibility to run concurrent programs of introducing 2 or 3 platforms.
Political will and budgetary constraint notwithstanding, i think we are looking at exciting times ahead.

LCA (Mark 1, Mark 1A and Mark 2)

LCA development program ran for a long time (for reasons under and beyond control) but now the program has started to borne fruit and introduction of series production machines has already begun. A definitive roadmap for next variants (1A and 2) is already in place and with Navy in fray, technically the program looks promising.
So, first thing, irrespective of whatever platform or technology we procure as import, LCA program should not be abandoned. Rather any new decision should be with an angle on how to support this program, strengthen it, nurture it.
View attachment 333110

And I second it and so does the MoD to an extent, especially this one.

Case I »​

Rafale does much more than F-16 so the two are not mutually exclusive.
It does bring to light that an F-16 would take on both Rafale and Tejas from
bottom and top respectively edging against the production numbers of both.

That's reason one why I don't believe in an F-16 line. India would essentially
be creating competition within the fast jets part of its MIC before it even exists.​

I did not suggest that they are mutually exclusive buddy, and you are spot on that it will undercut into both, but what if there was space of say another 150 units available in the LWF category, then is there a case to look at it or absorb that additional numbers into the LCA/Rafale/AMCA mix.

​

Case II »»

You must have meant :
"What if Gripen NG is selected as the Primary Parallel Platform to LCA Mk2..."
Oh! Look, it spells PPP ^​

​

No I did not, I did mean a parallel platform to the LCA mk2

Case III »»»

Adding an M-88 9T would surely helps the Tejas but it wouldn't make it a mini_Rafale.
The engine selected should be the proper fit for the LCA Mk2, period.

I would strongly advise not to re-design the LCA past correctives so the proper one here
means whichever of the two is already closest in metrics to sustain the type's career.
Forget politics for once and do it the IAF way - pick the best.​

I think the roadmap was always to have GTRX Kaveri to be the powerplant but the dismal development rate and failures brought in the FG414 supposedly purely on it's performance. If it was me I would have been hell bent on ground up modularity to accept comparable powerplants keeping the door open for the Kaveri, M88 and even the rd33mk in the future but that's just me. M88 powerplant doesn't make the Mk2 into a mini rafale, but, sensor fusion, and adopting spectra like protection suite along with commonality with munitions package will go a long way to make the MK2 like a mini rafale, if DB can augment/optimize some of design characteristics for some give and take on numbers of Rafale, then it's a win win for both.

​

Case IV »»»»

OK so a spin on a spin it is. This is a chess move computation.
How very Indian of you! And part of the procurement problem
that plagues you guys! You can't plan for everything and each
new level of supposition draws you further away from reality.
Except that the opponent plays hockey not chess and that you
find yourself slammed in the boards face first while you think it
out, with a broken wrist, cheek bone and a severe concussion.

Let's ask the question correctly :
Does India want in on the F-35?

Won't it conflict with AMCA?
Won't it come at a cost ( or 2 )?
Won't it mean infeudation to US?

If yes, welcome F-16 and if not bye bye!
It's really that simple.​

Dude, i have a pretty bad cold since last night, that calls for some fun engagement on a clean PDF thread and some Black keys playin in the back ground, and Chess is indeed a good weekend exercise, even if you have to play hockey all week, you know it too!

Now coming to crux of question,
Does India want in on the F-35?
The answer may not be as simple, IAF imho NO, IN a maybe, MOD quite possible yes. It brings about political re-orientation with the US, especially for the Navy and possible bigger role in international arena. So the question is out to all contributors on the thread to evaluate the advantages and dis-advantages of wanting the the F35 > Thus a case in the discussion.

Won't it conflict with AMCA?
Yes it would under cut AMCA, but would it supplement it, not imo,

Won't it mean infeudation to US?
India's foriegn policies are unique, with almost 90% of fleet of Soviet/Russian fleet, India maintained it's nuanced approach towards it's balancing act, we have done it for ever and have gotten only better at it, and if anything a f35/f16 would actually be a step towards the same


​

Thanks for the prompts MilSpec mate but I'll stick to simple plans,
a 3 tiered IAF MKI_Raffy_LCA Mk1-2 with commonalities with the IN
and FGFA & AMCA as future programs.
I know its not a common Indian spice but I like clarity myself and tend
to dash & sprinkle it very liberally on food for thoughts!

Stay safe and happy, Tay.

Yupp, I am onboard the plan, but it always good analyse options, if not anything brings a big change from troll infested threads day in and day out.

BUT

Everything depends on the timeline doesn't it even if it is the Indian Standard Time.

The funny thing about time is it hits everything and everyone equally be it Indian or American or French Time.

Now F-35 will conflict with FGFA and AMCA - Check

BUT

Even Rafales in their MII avatar will conflict with AMCA and FGFA there being a slight lag b/w induction of Rafales and F-35 but then what are 5-6 years when you are talking in Indian time.

I raised the same point about conflicts presented by Rafales to AMCA project other day.

Consider First Rafales under MII turns out in 2022 (optimistically) First FGFA (2025) First First AMCA (2027) Each of these planes have service life of 30+ years threby making it clear one of them has to go. Wonder who will it be - Rafales, AMCA or FGFA

@MilSpec

You know one unique situation we are facing is, due to years of inaction the requirements and projections might have changed creating opportunities 10 years from now which were un-accounted for in the future. run some numbers and tell me if you see if there are possibilities for a couple of other platforms in the mix.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Thanks for the brilliant reply, and in Tay's words time for some chess.

I wanted to focus on the 60 sqd projection
Indian Air force squadron strength have been around 16-18 combat aircrafts per squadron, but this number has never been defined to be followed to the T, now one aspect I wanted to throw at you is assume Heavy - 16-18, Medium - 18- 20, Light - 22-26 units/squadron.
looking at the upper end of the limit
That could bring the numbers of
Heavy> MKI+FGGA/T50 = 18*18 = 324 >MKI makes up about 314 out of that, I am not sure if they will retire as soon as we think they will.
Medium > Amca +MMRCA = 21*20 = 420 (126 Rafales + leaves about 252 proposed AMCA and lets come back to that number)
Light > (LCA1p+LCAmk2) = 21* 22 = 462 (80 LC1p + say another 200 LCA Mk2 + 182 LWF platform)

There is 252 Units of Medium and 182 LWF units to work with, Which can be say augumented by 100 Pakfa/Fgfa and
150 Amca,
And for the LWF there are options to choose 182 units F16IN, or Cut that number into 80 LCAmk2 , 40Pakfa +60 AMCA.

Again a brilliant chess game..

Let me also put some more points then.

First let me expand my 60 squadron projection with a little more realistic combination

• The reason being the jump for present plan to ideal plan seems a bit too much to begin with.
• Second the gap for FGFA is not there at all at ideal plan
• Lets recall minimum requirement for FGFA by IAF stands at 65.
• Using this analogy its clear that IAF does not want radical change in its mix but will be content with small but significant 5% change between Heavy and Light mix.
• Doing that i arrive at the second piece of the plan

• Now first this gap in heavy is corresponding to minimum 65 numbers as per above.
• The gaps are emphatically clear at 210 Jets in LWF, 354 medium and 66 in heavy.
• The probable plan to achieve that can be

• This plan actually divides the whole requirement nice and easy.
• Yes it figures the second LWF easily at 110 jets or roughly 5 squads and in case LCA MK2 is either merged or curtailed a further 0-110 jets (which is earmarked for LCA MK2)
• i have included the following choices
  • F16 IN
  • Gripen E/F
  • LSA - i can confirm the file is with MOD. I have the confirmation about 1.5 months back (@randomradio )
  • LSA or Light Stealth Aircraft if selected will become LCA MK2 and will consider the whole 220 jets under one line as it uses the technology derived from Rafale and Kaveri Snecma Engine.
  • I have invited Vstol Jockey, an Ex IN harrier pilot here in case he comes this idea will be explored in Indian Def section and in case its selected it can be a good project for Indian MIC
• The medium category at present ahs some other fighters whom i have neglected and i have assumed that all will be replaced by a mix of Rafale and AMCA only
• Heavy FGFA needs 4 squadrons only under such a plan

So how things will look finally

• Light, Medium and Heavy category gaps vs achievements.

The biggest assumption

• Humongous focus on Rafales
• We equal 286 of French side commitments (@Vergennes @Picdelamirand-oil @Taygibay @BON PLAN )
• Light category folks need LWF second line outside LCA and one without strings.
• The project feasibility states 7 years of 112 jets implying 110 jets is as good as you get at minimum feasibility level
• The need will be the one which augment our fleet and capability to our MIC without much hassles.

 

[MilSpec]

Again the same two issues

1. Roles - As you have clearly stated one platform can effectively serve an Airforce then wouldn't it serve IAF to adapt with modern times and bring in the efficiencies, cost savings, training benefits and synergy for having a single platform. We see every Airforce including US moving towards this. Why can't India have LCA and Rafales/AMCA/FGFA. Two platforms should be able to sufficiently cover all roles.

Or is their merit in having three/four platforms

2. Time-lines - OK even if we have 15 year gap b/w AMCA and Rafale instead of my overtly optimistic 5-10 years even then there is another 15 years when AMCA and Rafales will be flying together assuming full 30 years service life at least for both the platforms. This is a direct result of betting on four platforms LCA/AMCA/FGFA/RAFALES

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @hellfire

you know I have heard this consolidation of platforms narrative, and I do understand the benefit it brings, but I have never been a fan of the do it all swiss knives. One of criticism of the F35 emanates from the same intent, in the quest to do everything, it apparently struggles to convincingly do any of it.

I still doubt that F35 will convincingly replace all the teens and by the time it does it will be augemented by another 2-3 UCAV's adding the same amount of complexity.

Now with the labor costs in India I do think that we can invest in multi platform solution strategy instead of consolidation, with say commonalities built into it. Yes it will be complex but it is again a CE matrix that will determine the efficacy of such solution.

@MilSpec @PARIKRAMA

Case V: NDA plans to make a decision just before elections, looses them and gets voted out of power (remember Vajpayee was not expected to loose, even as per CIA assessment? We just need the middle class to sleep and we have the present government going out next time!). Congress comes, scraps all deals. IAF down to 15 squadron at the least.

Case V, in my opinion, seriously needs to be projected also, as more likely and pertinent in Indian political and MIC setup (OFB & other Defence PSU's QA is proven suspect).

Let us be intellectually honest. 2 threads on MMRCA with 300+ pages. And we have a new thread related!

We have Artillery modernisation program to refer as a text book case



.... meanwhile I am preparing a squadron to paper aircrafts for our air force!!

Congress is dead, forget about it.

comback to the discussion.

View attachment 333273

• Light, Medium and Heavy category gaps vs achievements.

Now lets focus on your 286 Rafales + 110 F16IN.

what made you choose higher numbers of Rafales and capping the LWF at 110? also point me to LSA.. @PARIKRAMA

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Now lets focus on your 286 Rafales + 110 F16IN.
what made you choose higher numbers of Rafales and capping the LWF at 110? also point me to LSA...

Higher Rafales for

• First priority is MIC skill development and technology absorption over the entire multiple tranches.
• F16IN will not provide us the most important technical upgradation which we require to prepare our MIC for AMCA project like the
  • Active cancellation,
  • Kaveri Snecma Engine and its uprated version upgrade
  • The attack and defensive EW suite Spectra
  • RAM coating
  • etc
• Benefit of large fleet based operations, spares, infra, localisation and weapons pool
• The existing medium fleet has Jags and Mirages. Roughly that fleets main priority is DPSA needs SEAD,DEAD and proficient in A2G roles.
• The biggest factor is need of a stealth LO/VLO fighter for strategic payload perspective which we cannot use in F16 IN surely under any circumstances.
• The ability to cross fund the upgrade projects for entire Rafale upgrades jointly and use the technology down streaming into AMCA and LCA as well.
• Besides Rafale becomes a choice automatically for IN providing a bigger commonality and we cross the 286 marks comprehensively becoming the largest operator till French government matches us as well.
• This strategic decision helps us get access to other tech transfer which we have talked before as per of Air Sea Land cooperation and black projects.
• We will get access to Neuron tech as well flowing into our Aura UCAV
• The financial viability for a F16IN MII project at 3 years setup, 7 years production at 16 per year so 112 jets, implying program capped at 110 without much damage.
• In return USA gives us
  • Support for NSG
  • Support for P5+ expansion
  • Support vs China-Pakistan front
  • Support for Surveillance Drones
  • Access to funding and investments from Japan and US Allies
  • Shifting of hi technology and manufacturing industry into India
  • Surveillance and sensory packages for drones, undersea SOSUS network and military satellites
  • Geo Political leverage at multiple avenues.

Thus the limitations of F16 and the potential upside of other relationship benefits makes the number high for Rafales.

LSA
here is the link
http://indian defence . com/threads/light-stealth-aircraft.55805/

• Initially i felt this a non starter project but over a period of time bcz only limited information is there in this thread owing to file under consideration with MOD.
• But seems its a serious considerations.
• The project is conceptualized and planned by Vstol Jockey himself
• The nay believers includes many people who had cross questioned him and also tried to understand the feasibility including @Picdelamirand-oil @BON PLAN @randomradio @Agent_47 and others
• Since it uses the tech from Rafale and can utilize EJ230/Kaveri Snecma Engine, it essentially uses what exists with us as sub systems

 

[Spectre]

Thanks for the brilliant reply, and in Tay's words time for some chess.

I wanted to focus on the 60 sqd projection
Indian Air force squadron strength have been around 16-18 combat aircrafts per squadron, but this number has never been defined to be followed to the T, now one aspect I wanted to throw at you is assume Heavy - 16-18, Medium - 18- 20, Light - 20-22 units/squadron.
looking at the upper end of the limit
That could bring the numbers of
Heavy> MKI+FGGA/T50 = 18*18 = 324 >MKI makes up about 314 out of that, I am not sure if they will retire as soon as we think they will.
Medium > Amca +MMRCA = 21*20 = 420 (126 Rafales + leaves about 294 proposed AMCA and lets come back to that number)
Light > (LCA1p+LCAmk2) = 21* 22 = 462 (80 LC1p + say another 200 LCA Mk2 + 182 LWF platform)

There is 294 Units of Medium and 182 LWF units to work with, Which can be say augumented by 150 Pakfa/Fgfa and 150 Amca, (or a 100 :200 mix)
And for the LWF there are options to choose 182 units F16IN, or Cut that number into 80 LCAmk2 , 40Pakfa +60 AMCA.



I have been a big proponent of no US platforms a frontline fighters, but on the the other hand a platform that undercuts both the LCA Mk2 and the rafale has quite a bit of utility.One of the big issues is interoperability with the legacy MKI, and Mig29Upg Squadrons, which I think is solvable, but will add another mode of failure to the system and I am not sure if US would like proximity of the Russians to their AESA systems.







One thing I differ in is the MK2 is going to be a strategic project, and MoD ridden with HF24 guilt I highly doubt that Gripen or F16 will come at the complete cost of LCA mk2 and at best would be a upper end LWF as a parallel platform. I keep using the parallel LWF is becuase more I look into it, i am starting to feel there might be room for another fighter that fits between the LCA mk2 and the Rafale. Thus this exercise.





What we need is an engine, I don't care where it comes from , but our own engine will solve LCA mk2 and AMCA both issues. With a confirmed engine we can do al kinds of blocks to the both the LCA platform and the AMCA. I did want the LCA to be mated to the downselect of the MMRCA, so I was banking on M88 and the Ej200, with FG404/ Fg414 being selected, I was disappointed as it pointed to F/A18 somehow making a comback to me. But the engine was unrelated to logistics and purely reliability and an performance threshold. (Which too is surprising given the leaky nature of the FG404, but that is a different topic for another day)


I know and I just wanted to throw out the discussion out there to see if there are any takers of the F16/F35 combo. Imo there can still be a 150 unit which can either be covered by planned platforms or by new ones. Not to forget it brings the option of f35's for IN which can be quite useful in IAC1 and Viky if needed.



And I second it and so does the MoD to an extent, especially this one.

I did not suggest that they are mutually exclusive buddy, and you are spot on that it will undercut into both, but what if there was space of say another 150 units available in the LWF category, then is there a case to look at it or absorb that additional numbers into the LCA/Rafale/AMCA mix.

​

​

No I did not, I did mean a parallel platform to the LCA mk2

I think the roadmap was always to have GTRX Kaveri to be the powerplant but the dismal development rate and failures brought in the FG414 supposedly purely on it's performance. If it was me I would have been hell bent on ground up modularity to accept comparable powerplants keeping the door open for the Kaveri, M88 and even the rd33mk in the future but that's just me. M88 powerplant doesn't make the Mk2 into a mini rafale, but, sensor fusion, and adopting spectra like protection suite along with commonality with munitions package will go a long way to make the MK2 like a mini rafale, if DB can augment/optimize some of design characteristics for some give and take on numbers of Rafale, then it's a win win for both.

​

Dude, i have a pretty bad cold since last night, that calls for some fun engagement on a clean PDF thread and some Black keys playin in the back ground, and Chess is indeed a good weekend exercise, even if you have to play hockey all week, you know it too!

Now coming to crux of question,
Does India want in on the F-35?
The answer may not be as simple, IAF imho NO, IN a maybe, MOD quite possible yes. It brings about political re-orientation with the US, especially for the Navy and possible bigger role in international arena. So the question is out to all contributors on the thread to evaluate the advantages and dis-advantages of wanting the the F35 > Thus a case in the discussion.

Won't it conflict with AMCA?
Yes it would under cut AMCA, but would it supplement it, not imo,

Won't it mean infeudation to US?
India's foriegn policies are unique, with almost 90% of fleet of Soviet/Russian fleet, India maintained it's nuanced approach towards it's balancing act, we have done it for ever and have gotten only better at it, and if anything a f35/f16 would actually be a step towards the same


​

Yupp, I am onboard the plan, but it always good analyse options, if not anything brings a big change from troll infested threads day in and day out.




You know one unique situation we are facing is, due to years of inaction the requirements and projections might have changed creating opportunities 10 years from now which were un-accounted for in the future. run some numbers and tell me if you see if there are possibilities for a couple of other platforms in the mix.

Well it is clear to me that 15 - 20 years from now at minimum we are looking at
1. LCA
2. SU-30 MKIs upg
3. LCA Mk2/Gripen/F-16
4. Rafales
5. PAKFA/FGFA
6. AMCA
7. Naval Fighter: LCA Naval/Rafale M/Mig Variant/F-35

So many platforms don't make sense to me. It makes no sense if you consider maintenance chains, basing requirements and training synergies.

Now where can we cut:

We can cut PAKFA/FGFA project as i said it is criminal for aircrafts to be required to ply deep strike mission in presence of concentrated air defense and capable interceptors. Pakistan can be adequetly covered by AMCA/Rafales. If we are looking to hit Shanghai/Beijing then drones/cruise missiles should do the jobs.

For our naval wing Rafale M would suffice

For our airforce

We should convert LCA to trainers after due time with LCA Mk2/Gripen Ng forming our LWF. Adequate numbers should be around 15-20 sqd.

10-15 squadrons of Rafales for Medium category with fully chalked out plan for MLUs

We will have another 10 -15 squadrons of SU-30 MKI upg which should be replaced on proportional basis with AMCA which should be right about starting production in 2030 timeframe.

Naval Wing should have commonality with our medium weight aircrafts which could be Rafale M in case it is picked.

So ball park figure 20 sqd - LCA Mk2, 15 sq Rafales, 15 sqd MLU'd SU-30 MKI (being replaced by AMCA)

Forward to 2045-2050 timeframe

LWF should be replaced by drones who i expect would be bordering on 6th gen concept tech.

AMCA would be nearing their MLU and should be upgraded with 6th gen avionics etc.

Rafales replaced by improved AMCA
@PARIKRAMA

 

[Hellfire]

@MilSpec @PARIKRAMA

An odd query or two, am actually confused with the volume of data and not at all the brightest today

1. Where is the confirmation of local production of Rafale as per your post #1?

2. Has the Rafale deal been finalised?

3. Why only F-16? The likelihood of F-18 negated?

4. 60 squadrons? More like 42 is a figure. Where is 60 coming from? Or are you taking 60 and leaving the UCAV/UAV squadrons out?

Sorry for real dunderhead Qs, but will be grateful if you could just give me heads up this?

 

[Skull and Bones]

1. Yes and the key merit was in flying cost per hour. The Rafale was half of MKI @$9000 vs $20000 and LCA will be even less.

2. Time lines: It will take time to shift away from Rafale to AMCA ... change of doctrine, pilot training etc. so overlapping might not be that big an issue.

That cost estimate is 2005-6 data, cost has escalated to more than 2 times in few cases.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

1. Where is the confirmation of local production of Rafale as per your post #1?

• Not yet out in public domain so yes you are correct if you point as per open source information availability.
• But among the MII candidates, the pole position is taken by Rafale
• The fact of the matter is also supported by repeated assertion by Eric Trappier.
• If we consider ope sources then probably Flightglobal is considered to be of very high repute and i quote
• 
  
  
• Dated June 23 2016
• https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/indian-deal-for-36-rafales-moves-forward-426617/

2. Has the Rafale deal been finalised?

• In agenda item of next CCS
• Should happen next week as oral invitation given by PM NaMo to Prez Hollande
• Open source says File with CCS and decision is expected as early as next CCS
• Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ay-get-go-ahead-soon/articleshow/54158710.cms

3. Why only F-16? The likelihood of F-18 negated?

• The gap is more prominent in LWF and competition is more intense as well
• F-A/ 18 is still not liked by IAF under any condition and no remark has been made about any other twin engined jet except Rafale.
• Secondly the overtures in Single engine arena is with LM F16 and Saab Gripen.
• Saab plant visit and test flight by ACM Raha and Visit of DM MP planned next month suggests a basic level of information gathering.
• LM is also in POTUS Export council which does not have Boeing as a member now with Dennis Muilenberg retired. In simple word, the official mechanism backs LM
• Also LM being behind F35 means US Gov wishes to push F16 to India to facilitate F35 transition smoothly.
• Additionally sales of F35 are also explored and pitched making it far more lucrative for US MIC
• OTOH Boeing does not provide such an incentive inspite of its meetings.

4. 60 squadrons? More like 42 is a figure. Where is 60 coming from? Or are you taking 60 and leaving the UCAV/UAV squadrons out?

• The 60 is an expansion based on 2 front war scenario comfort zone
• 45 is a more realistic figure as of now planned
• the drone assets are atm not counted. Officially its still clubbed under support functions and is not part of attack/strike doctrine
• Its expected that when we plan 60, its manned 60 squads and over and above will be UCAV/UAV scenario in order to either complement or augment strike missions or provide cue for tactical updates

Sorry for real dunderhead Qs, but will be grateful if you could just give me heads up this?

• You are far intelligent. You know that. Its just that you were banging your head in another thread and again its a topic of deep interest there for you.
• Unfortunately IMHO your on site experience versus hawkish overtures getting firm support among masses who have not been there or who are fed up with present situation, will lead to missing the rational discourse aspect. Thats why @Joe Shearer is needed back here.
• Expect the ante to go up as you already have pointed in earlier many threads. So there would be more headaches surely.

An odd query or two, am actually confused with the volume of data and not at all the brightest today

• Apologies for that.. Break failed
• Its thanks to @MilSpec who chose this topic in weekend time which helped me put quick thots into words.
• I need to write a thesis and submit for a doctorate. I might sound better with a prefix Dr in my name.
• But i do hope whatever i wrote was not boring, fiction and irrelevant. If its that still dont say it out loudly