Great...So let's build our case from here....we both agree that Mig-21 would be used...now how effective they would be will depend on the role and responsibility that would be given to them, the theater on which they need to operate and of-course the fighters they will have to engage with....I think the last point is where you have problems....however don't you think the first two parts will play a big role in the third part??
Unfortunately wars, at least modern wars, are not fought in set-pieces. It is the overall picture that counts. I am not a military officer so I won't pretend such things but my understanding on combat jets is simple - they are used to attack enemy targets and defend native airspace against enemy fighters. Agreed?
Now in 2015 which enemy targets can the Mig-21 attack? Can it launch a raid on Pakistani air bases which will be guarded by modern SAM's. Radars etc? Or can it mount a successful defence of Indian air space against foreign fighters. As a thumb rule air forces send their best pilots and best fighters to strike enemy targets. The reasons are very simple for that, first is to ensure mission success and the second is that there are no second-chances in war, if a mission fails the first time then it is possible they won't ever get a chance again.
Now as you said Mig-21s will be used, they have to be used. But what are the chances they will have against F-16 and J-10?
Yes upgrades are going on but you can only upgrade an aircraft so much. If upgrade was the magic word then IAF would not have had to retire aircraft like Marut, Gnat etc. Mig-21s are being upgraded because they make the bulk of IAF fighting fleet. You cannot retire them over night.
Unlike today where Migs are in news for all the bad reasons..IAF Migs in the past have made us proud...It is an unfair comparison of Migs with modern 4/4.5 generation aircraft and there is high probability that MIGS would be on loosing side...however the way JF-17 won't be pitched one-0-one with Tejas don't you think the similar model will apply here as well?? All our possible adversaries have high end planes and low end planes...and each Air-force will try to save their low end planes from becoming an easy target for high end planes of adversary...and then we all know that a low end plane in familiar territory has an added advantage...
Yes Mig-21s
used to be good aircraft back in their day. I don't know which variant of Mig-21 the Russians sold India but let us assume they were the best Russia had.
Having said that Mig-21s could not play a vital role in 1965 and in 1971 it was the Gnats who turned up the unlikely heroes. Possible flashpoint for India against Pakistan would be Kashmir. How effective would Migs be in that altitude? 1999 was a painful reminder that Migs are very very vulnerable to modern air defences. And in case of China the Migs will have to operate over Himalayas.
Again I say the JF-17 is not a choice but compulsion for PAF. PAF does not have the money to buy 100 F-16s, they will go bankrupt. Like IAF they too have an ageing fleet which needs immediate replacement. Plus they also have too look at numbers. That is the sole reason they went for JF-17. It is not the best choice but one can understand why they made the choice.
Just to put the above scenario in your thought process...JF-17 is a good example of how Air-forces induct fighter jets which perhaps might not be as per their wish list at the moment however with the futuristic vision these forces invest in them...Why should Tejas story be any different??
Because IAF is in a better position than PAF. One thing you will have to admit that Pakistan does not take a decade to come to a decision on which weapon they need to buy. They buy fast unlike India. If MMRCA was floated by Pakistan then by now they would have had all 126 air craft in place. By the grace of God they don't have 10 billion dollars to spare.
Tejas does not fit in the "futuristic" vision of IAF. IAF is investing in PAK-FA and the AMCA which in all likelihood will be stealth. What role will Tejas play in future? Building an aircraft takes over resources, time and money. The same time, resources and money can be better utilized by investing in a moder 4.5/5th gen aircraft.
I am not sure if you are realized it or not however you are sharing the same thoughts as mine....What we both can conclude from above is given India has top notch fighters yet a lesser plane like JF-17 has not only a decent scope but a decent theater to operate...Not sure why are you not giving the same space to Tejas...Anyhow let me move to the below given reasoning...
Trust me, if PAF had the liberty or finance to buy a better aircraft they won't even give a second thought to JF-17. They are forced to buy JF-17 because they cannot afford anything better. Their credit is that at the money they have spend they are getting satisfactory returns. Satisfactory returns however do not suggest that in a war the JF-17 will have a chance against MKI. Just like LCA won't have a chance against F-16 Blk 52.
Look i am not denying the economics angle here however as of now India's GDP is 2 trillion against China's 9 trillion...I am sure you will agree that there is no way we can match them...and thus we need to spend our 30-40 billion budget very judiciously...We are the biggest importer in the world and this is a tag which needs to be shed....Had we been little self-sufficient our 30-40 billion budget would have looked like 50-60 billion...It is not an ego bubble..it is the need of the hour...Anyways i want to understand what is your suggestion here...what should be done with Tejas...should it be scrapped and India's fighter program brought to end....or you have some other suggestion....
Scrap the Tejas, not the experience and knowledge earned by working on it. India has got the confidence by building an aircraft that is reasonably good. That experience and confidence should be used to build a better aircraft and build it within a strict deadline. If India invests scientists, engineers, funds and facilities for working on LCA Mk2 which will be a completely new design then when is India going to start working on AMCA? Which is the priority, LCA or AMCA?
As for IAF, a smaller but more lethal force is better. Go for Rafale, MKI, M2K for primary roles while keeping the Jags for strike and Mig-29 for secondary roles. Rest of the aircraft are anyway nearing the end of their service life. No point in risking life and machine.
That's why i said theater of war and scenario is important...If Pak has send Falcons only formation then it would be fullish for IAF to send Tejas only Formations to take them down...I am no expert in Air War however a couple of MKI's along with a good number of Tejas(out numbering enemy formations given them being cheap) along with home advantage(AWACS, SAMS and related Air-defense). Does this picture look any better to you??
If you have a decent air defence fighter you don't need to hold back squadrons of MKI to defend Indian air space. MKIs would then be free for strike role. In your scenario MKI will have to do everything from strike to air superiority.
Now here you being too critical...2000 fighters of PLAAF also have lot of vintage items....I will repeat once again...Each Air-force is a combination of high end and low end aircrafts...as you need to combine cost prudence and a mightier punch...
Yes, PLAAF has vintage aircraft but you need to know that 2000 number is excluding their vintage Mig-19s and such museum artifacts. PLAAF is going leaner and leaner every year and they are adding up Sukhois faster. Presently PLAAF has more Sukhois then India plus they have other 4th gen aircraft. Not to mention their J-20.
