Indian Airforce MMRCA + LWF Alternate Discussion

[MilSpec]

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

Interesting take on the LSA, many many moons back I was having a very similar conversation for a Stealth LCA variant with @sancho and @SpArK and this is what he drew... All credits to him.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Posting the views of @randomradio

++++
Heavy aircraft:
Su-30MKI - We will have 267(touch wood) of these by 2019. No more.

Medium aircraft:
Rafale - 36+120

Light aircraft:
LCA Mk1/A - 120
Gripen - 120

That's about it. IAF is not buying the F-16 or the SH. IAF is not buying the LCA Mk2 either.

We will have 440 old jets, MKI, Mig-29, M2K and Jag, comprising 22 squadrons.

The remaining 20 squadrons will see 8 squadrons of Rafale, 6 squadrons of LCA and 6 squadrons of Gripen.

This will be the fleet by 2027, not counting attrition.

As I had pointed out earlier, we will be getting 400 new jets over the next decade.

The govt had already decided what they were going to do way back in Jan-Feb 2016 for both twin engine and single engine fighter lines. The govt shoved the LCA into IAF's throats, and in exchange canceled the Mk2 for IAF and selected the Rafale and Gripen for MII. So all parties are happy.

Both Rafale and Gripen will start with 90 jets each and will have those expanded to 120 each as production progresses.

https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.351407/page-314#post-8674246

+++
About FGFA

FGFA is coming for sure. It will most likely be signed in December. Actually I believe the FGFA and AMCA development contracts will be signed this financial year itself.

F-35 depends on the navy, IAF is not buying it. The problem with the F-35 is the Americans have made a rule saying they will give the most classified briefing to customers only after they have committed to the program, so that creates problems. We can't buy without knowing what we are actually paying for. Plus, we haven't signed CISMOA/COMCASA. Without that, we cannot buy the F-35. So IN will be forced to buy the Rafale-M, which is equally good.

Anyway, even with the most optimistic dates, we will start receiving the FGFA only in 2024, and they will come in very slowly, like 2 a year and then 4 and then 8, finally 16 by 2030. But it's not related to the Rafale, LCA and Gripen MII. By the time FGFA's full rate production starts, the production for the other three would have ended.

https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.351407/page-314#post-8674305

 

[MilSpec]

isn't MKI confirmed to 314?

Posting the views of @randomradio

++++
Heavy aircraft:
Su-30MKI - We will have 267(touch wood) of these by 2019. No more.

Medium aircraft:
Rafale - 36+120

Light aircraft:
LCA Mk1/A - 120
Gripen - 120

That's about it. IAF is not buying the F-16 or the SH. IAF is not buying the LCA Mk2 either.

We will have 440 old jets, MKI, Mig-29, M2K and Jag, comprising 22 squadrons.

The remaining 20 squadrons will see 8 squadrons of Rafale, 6 squadrons of LCA and 6 squadrons of Gripen.

This will be the fleet by 2027, not counting attrition.

As I had pointed out earlier, we will be getting 400 new jets over the next decade.

The govt had already decided what they were going to do way back in Jan-Feb 2016 for both twin engine and single engine fighter lines. The govt shoved the LCA into IAF's throats, and in exchange canceled the Mk2 for IAF and selected the Rafale and Gripen for MII. So all parties are happy.

Both Rafale and Gripen will start with 90 jets each and will have those expanded to 120 each as production progresses.

https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.351407/page-314#post-8674246

+++
About FGFA

FGFA is coming for sure. It will most likely be signed in December. Actually I believe the FGFA and AMCA development contracts will be signed this financial year itself.

F-35 depends on the navy, IAF is not buying it. The problem with the F-35 is the Americans have made a rule saying they will give the most classified briefing to customers only after they have committed to the program, so that creates problems. We can't buy without knowing what we are actually paying for. Plus, we haven't signed CISMOA/COMCASA. Without that, we cannot buy the F-35. So IN will be forced to buy the Rafale-M, which is equally good.

Anyway, even with the most optimistic dates, we will start receiving the FGFA only in 2024, and they will come in very slowly, like 2 a year and then 4 and then 8, finally 16 by 2030. But it's not related to the Rafale, LCA and Gripen MII. By the time FGFA's full rate production starts, the production for the other three would have ended.

https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.351407/page-314#post-8674305

 

[PARIKRAMA]

isn't MKI confirmed to 314?

@randomradio revert

267 bcz 5 has crashed and replacement ordered is not confirmed.

Russia is pressuring the IAF and MoD to purchase 40 more MKIs. The IAF is not interested at all, they believe they already have 40 too many. But there is a chance the MoD may be forced to purchase the 40 more. There is no official report from the Indian side for the 40 extras, only news reports which are saying the Russian side of the story. So until it comes from Indian sources, it is just lobbyists talking.

The 36 Rafale GTG has reduced the need for more MKIs anyway.

However India will be signing the FGFA development contract and potentially order 60 PAK FA off the shelf. This has IAF backing.

++++
@jha
In here and your query

Suppose we do sign COMCASA, don't you think some off the shelf F-35s will serve us good. Will not one LM built F-35 in 2025 be yards if not miles, ahead of anything Russia can sell us or, China can field against us ?

Edit: just to confirm that I am not pimping for F-35. Just being curious. If our strategic interests are better protected with off the shelf purchase of 3-4 squads of F-35 for IAF, should we at least not look at this option ?

• In very simple terms the usage of PAKFA and F35 will be very different from operational perspective.
• PAKFA is an air superiority bird so in the first hour of the air conflict, PAKFA roles will be neutralize all enemy aircrafts and ensure none of the other missions are compromised.
• F35 for stealthy first-day-of-war missions in the air-to-ground arena particularly or SEAD DEAD deep ingress for ensuring AD cover is taken out.
• On top its secondary role will be to take out the aircrafts which it can afford to take out primarily using stealth aspect while returning from the major A2G offensive.
• This implies F35 is touted more as a replacement of Rafales/Jaguars/Mirages and all DPSA or reducing the need of Rafales as much as possible.
• The major challenge in F35 comes from the fact that existing orders have pretty much tied it up upto early 2020s so our order may come by say 2024+ timeline.
• In our case there is a discussion going on for a PAKFA stage 1 off the shelf purchase between 2021-27
• i said that here
• 
• https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.351407/page-263#post-8416070
  
• This section is still being discussed with LM and we wont know about it any sooner.
• In terms of actual performance , it needs to be seen if F35 can pass the criterion of technical assessment set by IAF for DPSAs. Bcz its jack of all trades and master of none, and due to maintaining stealth aspect its perhaps very difficult as per IAF doctrine
• another angle is operational cost take for example CPFH
• 
  
  
• https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...readiness-data-improves-in-2015-as-fl-421499/
  
• This figure is expected to now touch around $35-37K yet there is no confirmation from any reputed source to say in open sources.
• So again you can see such a cost which is approx 4 times of $9737 CPFH
• 
  
  
• https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.351407/page-124#post-8155947

This makes me feel we atm are not ready for a 5th gen fleet of substantial number as we will incur huge operational expenses and if we chose a wrong platform say an example F35, it will only increase the problems plaguing IAF squadron make up even more.

 

[Hellfire]

• 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

Thanks as always for the exhaustive and informative write-up. Please, when I say you write a thesis, it is out of sheer admiration and respect for your knowledge and efforts to provide a complete picture in one major post. Yeah, you should now have a prefix of Dr in front of your pseudonym! I suspect @Abingdonboy too needs some prefix .... just as irritatingly well informed and excellent posts

Anyways, coming back.

1. India was offered F-35 back in 2011. We had refused it, so the rationale of F-16 and F-35 is slightly unpalatable for me as of today until and unless there has been a fundamental shift in the thinking of IAF. Also, the fact that PAF operates F-16 effectively puts IAF in a dilemma of fielding an aircraft that is already fielded by a potential adversary (then the flanker series also is a dilemma). So, insofar as F-16 is concerned, I shall stick to a wait and watch here.

2. 60 is a strength that will be inclusive of the UCAVs being inducted. The figure of 42 is more relevant. I still have doubts on a figure of 60 for ACs alone. That is, a wishful thinking. 45 is the required strength for a holding pattern in north and offensive pattern in west. However, if you want simultaneous offensive capability on both fronts then 60+ squadrons at approx 20 each makes sense.

Until and unless you are taking into account the half baked proposal of enhancement of Army Aviation to include fixed wings for dedicated close air support the number of platforms you and @MilSpec have quoted, do not have any real significance insofar as much as I can infer. We simply don't have the necessary budgetary support as more than 90% of current budget is being catered towards revenue expenditure. Where is the additional allocation coming from? Finance Ministry will cry foul.

3. Gripen is a highly unlikely platform given the power plant is US. What is there to gain, if the engine is held ransom to US' whims? Which again gets me back to F-18. F-18 I keep coming back to for only the reason of commonality of platform for IN. That is a key thrust right now as far as I aware.

So maybe a Gripen E with F-18?

Rafale - I don't know, buying only 36 didn't make sense. So either we will buy 36 and get them under MII or we are going to ditch the entire platform. If Rafale is under MII, then yes, we may see F-16 come in and Gripen out.

In short what you have written .. am back to that only!

 

[MilSpec]

Just an exercise, to jog the grey cells. Force projections are just an alternate discussion on the back of given rate of growth of defence budgets, these are a few alternatives that might not have been perceived by us. The entire objective was to see if there are any other avenues to explore, as where we stand today is going to be the make or break roadmap for the IAF.

My admiration for the F16Blk60+ and disdain for possibility of American platform as a front-line system is well known on the forum to guys who know my viewpoint. My objective was to see if there if there is anything I am missing in the mix where a F16In would bring to the table which might make or break the strategic road map for the IAF.

This was basically a follow up to a brilliant thread on IN platforms and procurement by @PARIKRAMA that we had discussed, to explore options for the IAF if any that are being discussed in the media as of now.

Thanks as always for the exhaustive and informative write-up. Please, when I say you write a thesis, it is out of sheer admiration and respect for your knowledge and efforts to provide a complete picture in one major post. Yeah, you should now have a prefix of Dr in front of your pseudonym! I suspect @Abingdonboy too needs some prefix .... just as irritatingly well informed and excellent posts

Anyways, coming back.

1. India was offered F-35 back in 2011. We had refused it, so the rationale of F-16 and F-35 is slightly unpalatable for me as of today until and unless there has been a fundamental shift in the thinking of IAF. Also, the fact that PAF operates F-16 effectively puts IAF in a dilemma of fielding an aircraft that is already fielded by a potential adversary (then the flanker series also is a dilemma). So, insofar as F-16 is concerned, I shall stick to a wait and watch here.

2. 60 is a strength that will be inclusive of the UCAVs being inducted. The figure of 42 is more relevant. I still have doubts on a figure of 60 for ACs alone. That is, a wishful thinking. 45 is the required strength for a holding pattern in north and offensive pattern in west. However, if you want simultaneous offensive capability on both fronts then 60+ squadrons at approx 20 each makes sense.

Until and unless you are taking into account the half baked proposal of enhancement of Army Aviation to include fixed wings for dedicated close air support the number of platforms you and @MilSpec have quoted, do not have any real significance insofar as much as I can infer. We simply don't have the necessary budgetary support as more than 90% of current budget is being catered towards revenue expenditure. Where is the additional allocation coming from? Finance Ministry will cry foul.

3. Gripen is a highly unlikely platform given the power plant is US. What is there to gain, if the engine is held ransom to US' whims? Which again gets me back to F-18. F-18 I keep coming back to for only the reason of commonality of platform for IN. That is a key thrust right now as far as I aware.

So maybe a Gripen E with F-18?

Rafale - I don't know, buying only 36 didn't make sense. So either we will buy 36 and get them under MII or we are going to ditch the entire platform. If Rafale is under MII, then yes, we may see F-16 come in and Gripen out.

In short what you have written .. am back to that only!

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

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.

Funny, so far the Swedish Air Force has not lost a single Gripen due to engine failures.

3. Gripen is a highly unlikely platform given the power plant is US. What is there to gain, if the engine is held ransom to US' whims? Which again gets me back to F-18. F-18 I keep coming back to for only the reason of commonality of platform for IN. That is a key thrust right now as far as I aware.

Gripen E with F414 unlikely, but F-18, also with F414 is good ???

 

[Hellfire]

Funny, so far the Swedish Air Force has not lost a single Gripen due to engine failures.



Gripen E with F414 unlikely, but F-18, also with F414 is good ???

You missed the next sentence summing it up ..... a Gripen E with F-18 combination is possible.

I re-post the statement for your reference

3. Gripen is a highly unlikely platform given the power plant is US. What is there to gain, if the engine is held ransom to US' whims? Which again gets me back to F-18. F-18 I keep coming back to for only the reason of commonality of platform for IN. That is a key thrust right now as far as I aware.

So maybe a Gripen E with F-18?

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/indian-a...ernate-discussion.448646/page-3#ixzz4JvCMdC5S

My contention towards this is Gripen E for Mig-21 replacement and F-18 to cater for commonality of platform for IAF and IN as the fate of Rafale is still unknown, and if we are buying 36, then we will go for it under MII, otherwise the whole deal is junk.

Gripen E, on its own, is never going to happen as the Engine is the issue for us. With US tying up a platform with the engine for India, instead of F-16, F-18 looks more lucrative to keep the diversity of logistic chain to a minima.

Just an exercise, to jog the grey cells. Force projections are just an alternate discussion on the back of given rate of growth of defence budgets, these are a few alternatives that might not have been perceived by us. The entire objective was to see if there are any other avenues to explore, as where we stand today is going to be the make or break roadmap for the IAF.

You have a very strong locus here for an exercise at determining the likely number of platforms, and mix thereof, to be inducted into the current modernisation plans for IAF. Pertinent to note, the mandate of IN has been increased from IOR and littoral to include Western Pacific. The frequent forays of IN into the Western Pacific are indicative of the same.

The same is strengthened seeing the Indian position on SCS. Very pertinent here is the fact that the Chinese have only in one incident objected to IN ships passing through SCS and that too they were ignored by the 04 ship flotilla passing through. The message has been conveyed by these continuous forays beyond SCS and into West Pacific that IN will be enforcing the freedom of navigation and be the net security provider in the longer run for the region too. Although a doctrine to the effect is yet to be enunciated publicly, the only logical inference from heightened IN actions remains as above.

Since this 'shift' and enhancement in the mandate to IN, the next logical step is the upgradation of top cover for the IN flotillas in the region. Which brings me to your and @PARIKRAMA 's figures. Is the long pending proposal to set up a naval base in Vietnam being taken up? If so, the air component will be upgraded in the country and there the figures you have quoted come into play. Right now I am ignoring the Afghan aspect. There is no doubt in my mind that India may upgrade combat support to air support if required in conjunction with US to stabilise the Afghan Government and ANA. The investment that India has made and the strategic value of maintaining a democratic set up in Afghanistan can not be emphasised more.

My admiration for the F16Blk60+ and disdain for possibility of American platform as a front-line system is well known on the forum to guys who know my viewpoint. My objective was to see if there if there is anything I am missing in the mix where a F16In would bring to the table which might make or break the strategic road map for the IAF..

If my perception of the direction being taken by India, and again IF the present government is not voted out or replaced by Congress/Congress led coalition government (something that the stupid people of India can bring about easily) is correct, then what we are seeing is a revisit to the so called 'Indira Doctrine'. The present trends indicate major revamp in AF with enhanced stand off capability. Here I agree with @Spectre, deep strikes will not be carried out by air crafts but instead by stand off weapons and cruise missile.

So, if by what you all have posted about the likelihood of Rafael under MII, F-16s will be incorporated into IAF's plans purely as a trade off.

 

[anant_s]

AMCA might look pretty close to that wing layout.

+++
I there any chance of Indian co-operation with Russia to get a new Jet Engine in context of ongoing agreement on FGFA/PAK FA.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Funny, so far the Swedish Air Force has not lost a single Gripen due to engine failures.

That is very true.

There are a few reasons:

1)This is because Swedish Air Force has limited numbers

2) The maintenance to keep these aircraft is a priority.

3) The F414 is a very reliable engine.

The dilemma of the Mig-21 in the Indian Air Force is procurement of spares from Russia due to various reasons. These issues would continue with what ever Indian Air Force acquires in the foreseeable future.

This is what was stated in Lok Sabha (Indian Parliament).

What Russians have to say:

“It is wrong as all those spare parts are fake. For MiG and other planes, you need authentic parts, And then you are surprised why your planes fall because spare parts are bought from unauthorised sources,” Russian Ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin said.

What the Air chief Marshal has to say:

Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne raised many eyebrows when he said that young pilots were behind the recent MiG crashes in the country.
Recent data compiled by the IAF and shared with Air Headquarters too shows that pilot error is not the predominant cause of crashes. Analyzing the causes behind 1,000 fighter crashes over the past several decades, the data attributes pilot error to 39 per cent of all crashes, saying technical faults are behind a slightly bigger number (39.5 per cent). Other crashes were attributed to bird hits (9 per cent), human error on ground (1.5 per cent) and faults in production by HAL (0.6 per cent).

After debate they did not just name Mig-21's but all MIG's in the Indian Air Force as FLYING COFFINS.
The Indian press is also a problem because they say more then they have to without knowing the actual cause of the crash. Here is an example.
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...ist-of-previous-mig-aircraft-crashes-2850234/

Gripen E with F414 unlikely, but F-18, also with F414 is good ???

F-18 has two engines, if one fails the other is there to take you to a suitable alternate.

You missed the next sentence summing it up ..... a Gripen E with F-18 combination is possible.

I re-post the statement for your reference

3. Gripen is a highly unlikely platform given the power plant is US. What is there to gain, if the engine is held ransom to US' whims? Which again gets me back to F-18. F-18 I keep coming back to for only the reason of commonality of platform for IN. That is a key thrust right now as far as I aware.

So maybe a Gripen E with F-18?

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/indian-a...ernate-discussion.448646/page-3#ixzz4JvCMdC5S

My contention towards this is Gripen E for Mig-21 replacement and F-18 to cater for commonality of platform for IAF and IN as the fate of Rafale is still unknown, and if we are buying 36, then we will go for it under MII, otherwise the whole deal is junk.

Gripen E, on its own, is never going to happen as the Engine is the issue for us. With US tying up a platform with the engine for India, instead of F-16, F-18 looks more lucrative to keep the diversity of logistic chain to a minima.

Over the years have been advocating to have Gripen E with LCA and F-18's but unfortunately this is not going to happen. The reason is this would make the Indian Armed Forces too dependent on USA.

Having the F-414 engine would also end the Indian Engine programs.

 

[Hellfire]

T
Over the years have been advocating to have Gripen E with LCA and F-18's but unfortunately this is not going to happen. The reason is this would make the Indian Armed Forces too dependent on USA.

Having the F-414 engine would also end the Indian Engine programs.

Let's see. The suggestion is valid seeing the present state of affairs. If we are getting an engine, then a US platform is not a bad option. Seeing the convergence of views on China, it may fructify.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Taking cues from above posts by @hellfire, i tried looking back in time for last couple of years to find out what was probably thought for the squadron make up would be for a strength of 42 squadrons.

Following is the picture taken from a article

This is dated Sept 2013
Source lInk : http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories3035_IAF_requirement_PGM_next_decade.htm

Beautifully depicted are the roles which enables us to look and understand the mix (@Spectre )

Now using this as a case study and purely from academic perspective, i am assuming following combination possibilities

• Now first the MKI - 270 (2 crashed) to eventual plan of 360 that leaves 48 more requirement (272+40 suppose its contracted). This 48 becomes FGFAs automatically.
• Recall minimum FGFA requirement is 65 so there must exist some other fighter which might be broken into two pieces to make up the minimum number requirement
• LCA order clearly combining 40+ Mig21 80 = 120
• Rafales - clearly its 126-200
• Mirage+Jags = 180 = automatic replacement by AMCA . They have minimum 15-20 years of life and will be retired may be 20-25 years from now. Enough for AMCA replacement process to start
• Mig 29 being divided into two parts - 1 part of 17 going into FGFA and other 43 going into LWF
• Mig 27 owing to short range but strike features contributing to other LWF.
• So LWF becomes 123
• And smartly its 7.7 years of production @ 16 per year

Further using this table below

Source: Trouble, They come in Battalions - Ashley Tellis.

For Mig 27

• Empty weight: 11,908 kg
• Max. takeoff weight: 20,670 kg
• Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-27

So,

• Looking at basic such numbers it portrays that LWF contenders has to be between F16 and Gripen E or LSA.
• F-18 unless it shares from Rafale seems overweight for this category as the replacement jets are in between 10990-11900 kgs and F18 is at 14552 kg MTOW of F18 is massive 29937 kgs.
• This implies the MTOW for 123 Jets must be around 20,185 kgs average of both Mig27 and Mig29s
• This puts F16In in advantage position but Gripen E with lower MTOW and much modern technology once again gives stiff competition
• Interestingly its a mix of Short/Medium strike mission and Air Defence. This implies a combat radii of less than 1000 km and superior armaments. This will put F16 again in advantageous position.
• F16 can also use the Derby and Python mix and will not require additional certification and this will share common weapons with LCA MK1A.
• Gripen E otoh will share more common aspects with Rafale and due to much more modern features will enable it to comply with strike missions in potentially far more hostile AD environment.
• IF future MIC advanatge is to be seen then its Gripen E, if geo political advantage comes into play its F16IN

A point to note

• Under such a plan the LWF unless its not one of the F16IN/Gripen E/LSA it will be just LCA MK2.
• The possibility of LCA MK2 and LWF together is very limited due to such number constraints.
• Unless the squadron numbers gets expanded or medium category gets curtailed, the LCA MK2 under the above illustration is a non starter due to absence of any gap availability.

@Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Vergennes @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @MilSpec @Koovie @Echo_419 @Dash @hellfire @ito @SR-91 @AMCA @DesiGuy1403 @ranjeet @hellfire @fsayed @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair @TejasMk3@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @egodoc222 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @Spectre@litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina@SvenSvensonov @-xXx- @Perpendicular @proud_indian @Mustang06 @Param @Local_Legend @Ali Zadi @hellfire @egodoc222 @CorporateAffairs @Major Shaitan Singh @jha @SmilingBuddha @#hydra# @danish_vij @[Bregs] @Skillrex @Hephaestus @SR-91 @Techy @litefire @R!CK @zebra7 @dev_moh @DesiGuy1403 @itachii @nik141993 @Marxist @Glorino @noksss @jbgt90 @Skull and Bones @Kraitcorp @Crixus @waz @WAJsal @Oscar @AugenBlick @Star Wars @GuardianRED @arp2041 @Aero @Armani @salarsikander @others

 

[Taygibay]

Hum! PariK my friend, for once, I must differ despite your great work above.

In the graphic, you lean left towards types.

​

I'd rather lean to the right, also for once, and point to use.

MKI is apart, not for air dominance which is a Lock-Mart sales buzz word
that India copied ( it used to and should still be air interdiction ), on account
of it being alone tasked with LONG Range Strike. End of discussion really!
One understands ( unless one is daft ) it's a mainstay and numbers can only go up.

LCA is tasked exactly the same as MiG 21s & 29 and thus should go to the
same numbers so 8 squadrons at minima and 10 to 12 if Mk2 is successful.

Raffys can complement and in fine replace M2000s so 200 is the right number.

Jags are a particular problem but once understood, not a particularly big one.
They only stand apart because they are dedicated to a single type of mission.
The more modern multi/omni-role fighters now being inducted can thus replace
them easily but no quite 1 for 1. I'll come to why that is in my second comment.
It leaves the MiG 27s as the odd man out and that too points to the following :


Replacing jets is not an ISO proposition in either types or number of tails. Why?

Because the new breed does more!
​

An MKI or a rafale is more than their forebears in capacities, tactics and payload.
A Raffy carries almost twice as much as an M2000 for example. Of course, that
does not allow one to half the fleet as they are not ubiquitous. 75% is reasonable.
Add things like network-centricity ( Link 16 etc ) and power is like 4-fold what it was.
That added value has a cost too so ISO aircrafts ( say MiG21 to Gripen ) would bankrupt you.

That is why I also have to differ on your MTOW based classification. Again taking
the next IAF bird as the case study, a Rafale is lower than a SH in MTOW but above
it by a ton in mission payload. MTOW means little at best and close to nothing at worst.

Thus, based on the different viewpoints above, I see no problem with your present state.
LCA is entirely dependent on the success of the Mk2. If that variant comes in solid, its
total numbers can rival those of MKI i.e. 14 + sqdns. Rafale can take the smaller central
part of the IAF spectre. From that point, AMCA's development becomes the main dish.
If it is ready sooner, no bug. If it is late, the present situation will repeat in a short decade.

It is all in Indian hands to resolve this . . . well almost to be honest.
The biggest question mark not in Indian hands is the FGFA and it
can't be predicted as of now and thus a fix can't be planned.

In the meanwhile, that elusive & potential LWF would cover 4 to 8 sqdns with no specialty.
I find it easier to adjust the numbers ( say 15 sqdns each MKI Raffy Tejas ) and wait to see.

All the best to you and yours, Tay.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

That is very true.

There are a few reasons:

1)This is because Swedish Air Force has limited numbers

2) The maintenance to keep these aircraft is a priority.

3) The F414 is a very reliable engine.

The dilemma of the Mig-21 in the Indian Air Force is procurement of spares from Russia due to various reasons. These issues would continue with what ever Indian Air Force acquires in the foreseeable future.

This is what was stated in Lok Sabha (Indian Parliament).

What Russians have to say:

“It is wrong as all those spare parts are fake. For MiG and other planes, you need authentic parts, And then you are surprised why your planes fall because spare parts are bought from unauthorised sources,” Russian Ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin said.

What the Air chief Marshal has to say:

Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne raised many eyebrows when he said that young pilots were behind the recent MiG crashes in the country.
Recent data compiled by the IAF and shared with Air Headquarters too shows that pilot error is not the predominant cause of crashes. Analyzing the causes behind 1,000 fighter crashes over the past several decades, the data attributes pilot error to 39 per cent of all crashes, saying technical faults are behind a slightly bigger number (39.5 per cent). Other crashes were attributed to bird hits (9 per cent), human error on ground (1.5 per cent) and faults in production by HAL (0.6 per cent).

After debate they did not just name Mig-21's but all MIG's in the Indian Air Force as FLYING COFFINS.
The Indian press is also a problem because they say more then they have to without knowing the actual cause of the crash. Here is an example.
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...ist-of-previous-mig-aircraft-crashes-2850234/


F-18 has two engines, if one fails the other is there to take you to a suitable alternate.


Over the years have been advocating to have Gripen E with LCA and F-18's but unfortunately this is not going to happen. The reason is this would make the Indian Armed Forces too dependent on USA.

Having the F-414 engine would also end the Indian Engine programs.

Gripen is flying with the F404 at the moment.
South Africa had similar problems until they signed a service agreement with SAAB.

The discussion on the SH was regarding the possibility of the US blocking access to engines.
If they do, that will affect Gripen, F-16, F-18 and LCA. Neither will have an advantage.
Only possible choice for MII is then Rafale.
Since the only reason for MII is that Rafale purchases seems to be very limited, what then...?