Rebound To Russia: Amid Rafale Impasse, IAF To Buy 40 More Sukhois

[Taygibay]

First of all, sorry for the jumbled quotes but the functionon PDF deos not work for me ATM.
So, here we go :

Same for Mirage 2000, if we get around 2-4 squadrons from UAE/ France/Greece , they would be replacing, the mig27s one on one.
And they would be quick.

Source: Rebound To Russia: Amid Rafale Impasse, IAF To Buy 40 More Sukhois | Page 6

Well France is replacing its Mirages , we can surely get it. UAE trying to sell some to Iraq and Egypt, and given the recent warming in the relations its one option which should be given a try. Greece needs money.... its also surely worth to give a try.

Source: Rebound To Russia: Amid Rafale Impasse, IAF To Buy 40 More Sukhois | Page 7

NO! No way any of that would work! France is upgrading its Mirages, those not being upgraded are
worn out, without much cell hours left. Greece cannot buy now so they can't sell either, logical! As for
the UAE, they have not found a replacement yet, nothing says it won't be in addition to their dash Nines
and if they do give some away to Iraq ( Egypt is not an option anymore, guess why? ) it is to bolster
their political position in the GCC and M-E region at large ... for which purpose a sale to India is null.

The purpose of having different classes of fighter jets is that heavy, expensive ones can be supplemented by lighter, cheaper ones to make up numbers. That is why the USAF has a few hundred F-15s and thousands of F-16s. But if the lighter ones are more expensive than the heavies, there is no point in having both.

ALL modern ACs cost more than their predecessors if only on mission systems! Your view is like
saying that wood is fuel enough; mine is -Sure, man but not good enough to propel a car, jet or rocket.
heating with coal is less expensive

The need for an MRCA was that we have a sizeable force of top notch fighters, and we wanted smaller, lighter aircrafts to make up the mid tier and have numbers. But at the start of the MRCA process, if anybody thought that the MRCA would be more expensive than the MKI, then we would simply have bought more MKI. The ridiculous process of procuring an MRCA led to the very expensive Rafale being chosen, with no cost consideration.

NO! Because the MKI is not a MEDIUM Multi Role Combat Aircraft. You keep forgetting that added M.
How convenient! I wonder why, oh wait ...

If we had 250 Rafales, we would not have purchased MKIs - we would purchase or make cheaper, light fighters to complement them. Since we have MKIs, there is no point purchasing very expensive Rafales. The sensible thing to do is to get cheap, light fighters to beef up numbers. And it just so happens that we have such a thing, home made.

The MKI were procured first! The rest is dreaming upon a star from that point.

There is no shortage of quality in the IAF at the moment. In a few years, both F-35 and PAKFA would be available, and would bring a real leap in capability over all existing non-stealth fighters. If there is a shortage of quality in a few years, then getting 5th gen birds makes sense, not adding another expensive 4th gen one to the mix.

See above remark!


BTW, considering the figures you gave for CPFH, I think once again the MKI turns out cheaper, when considering acquisition cost and life cycle cost. That's how it seems from all available info.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/rebound-to-russia-amid-rafale-impasse-iaf-to-buy-40-more-sukhois.421378/page-7#ixzz3zrMA6OqP


That's because you don't want to use the real numbers, I wonder why although I am
beginning to see a trend.
"Le prix de l’appareil est en baisse et les coûts de développement sont payés."
Assemblée nationale ~ Compte rendu de réunion de la commission de la défense nationale et des forces armées

The price is going down said Dassault's boss to the state commission. Down from what you may ask?
HERE : "Avant prise en compte du projet de LPM 2014-2019, le coût total du programme pour l'État représentait 46,4 milliards d'euros aux conditions économiques de 2014, soit un coût unitaire (hors coût de développement) de 73 millions d'euros pour le Rafale B (pour 110 avions), 68 millions pour le Rafale C (pour 118 avions) et 78 millions pour le Rafale M (pour 58 avions)."
Projet de loi de finances pour 2015 : Défense : équipement des forces

So 200 millions you said from the height of your knowledge? I laugh at your pretense , my poor man!
I think I now know why you repeat untruths and refuse my links from government sources while re-
lying on oh so unbiased Russian rumors :You can't handle the truth!

I cannot stop you but I can stop answering what with repetition is taking the form of lies.
Done!

Good luck IRL and all the best to you and yours, sincerely, Tay.

 

[Hellfire]

Its not the case friends, I had a chance to talk with IAF personal who used to work in SFC (won't disclose the name and location of the base for obvious reasons) and came to know that SU-30MKI was the asset used for nuke delivery. Weapons were stored at de-mated state ready to be operational within a short notice. Delivery plateforms are always on standby with standard config. and in ready to fly state. Its a misconception that MKI can't be used for nuke delivery.

About spare parts, there is some contractual obligation which force us to use Russian parts despite half of them available in India at lot cheaper prices (thus leads to less availability most of the time due to delay in Russian supply) as per my source.

What you have quoted is quite true. The serviceability of the aircraft is good enough, contrary to what has been touted. The availability of spares is there aplenty. In case of war, we have adequate stocks as reserves. The issue is a non-issue. However, the aircrafts are not the main delivery platform for weapons payload for SFC. The base you have in mind has a proximity location to a base in general area wherein the configuration of air delivered nukes are located, but the mainstay remaining missiles and silo based.

 

[Abingdonboy]

That's why I have said again and again. Get more Mirage2000s, and Mig29s.

1) No new Mirage 2000s are available- the IAF has stated it is not interested in second hand jets with limited life spans left (other than 3-4 two seat airframes to replace lost birds).
2) The solution to the IAF does not rest in another twin engined Russian (primarily) air dominace fighter.

PAK FA -- 36

No way, not by 2025.

1) The IAF will receive no PAK-FA but their derivative- the FGFA
2) At most, by 2025 (end), 3-4 FGFA will be in service. It will be 2028 that 2 SQNs worth (36 jets) will be with thr IAF- at best.

 

[phantomrush]

That's Totally Misconception Sir, MKI Has His Plus over Su-35 Even Today
With Dash III HMDS with HOBS (Dogfight Edge) And Israeli EW.Su-35 Has Slight Edge In RCS and better Radar With IBRIS-E PESA.That Will Be Covered In Super Sukhoi Upgrade When It is Mounted with New NIIP AESA and Virgilius AESA EW Suit (Mig-upg)and DRFM and Engine thrust Up to 30 % with FADEC Many Other Avionics Upgraded Included


HAL Trying Its Best Now Its Free Go By MOD the Full Scale Production Starts From Next Year
Full-scale production of Tejas by next year: Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar - The Economic Times
Full-scale production of Light Combat Aircraft Tejas to begin in 2017 - Airforce Technology

Go through My Previous Post HAL is Issued Tender in MII To Absorb TOT and Maintenance Duty to Private Firms To Shift the Load of 30+years on Corporate Giants

9000 kg Su-34 is not the maximum capacity. This combat load. Those. weapons with which the aircraft can perform basic flight profiles without significant restrictions. Su-30cm according to the management of flight operations can realize 10,400 kg of cargo. However, the combat load is considered to be 8000 kg.
The Su-34 has not yet been fully flight tested in the Air Force combat units of the Russian Federation, but now pilots fly with a combat load of 10 000-12 000 kg in the combat radius of 1,100 km. I suspect that the management of flight operations and can be of 15 000 kg at a combat radius of 800 km. However, management of flight operations on the Su-34 has not yet been declassified in the Internet.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

1)
2) The solution to the IAF does not rest in another twin engined Russian (primarily) air dominace fighter.

Situation 1
We are flying 250 mig21/27s , waiting for Rafales. And Tejas mk1A.

Situation 2

We replace a part of 250 mig21/27 by 2-3 squadrons of Mig29s , keep working on Tejas mk1A and also keep trying Rafale.

I think the situation 2 is better.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Situation 1
We are flying 250 mig21/27s , waiting for Rafales. And Tejas mk1A.

Situation 2

We replace a part of 250 mig21/27 by 2-3 squadrons of Mig29s , keep working on Tejas mk1A and also keep trying Rafale.

I think the situation 2 is better.

Short term gains for long term pain. By adopting yet more maintainence-intensive Russian birds into the fleet you are simply shifting the troubles a few years down the line. I don't see what this option solves as these MiG-29s aren't going to be produced and delivered to India overnight, it will take a long time to negotiate the terms of the sale and even longer to deliver the birds so 4-5 years is the earliest I see them entering service. Does it address the availability issues plaguing Russian equipment in the IAF? No. Does it address the operatinal defciency vis a vis a lack of strike aircraft within the IAF? No.

Sorry bro, now is not the time to start looking around for out of the box plan Cs- the window of oppurtunity on that has passed. Now is the time to stay the course and double down on the existing and sound plan- LCAs, MKIs and Rafales.

 

[Abingdonboy]

By you your "general rule of thumb", the MKI turns out to be cheaper than Rafale for LCC:

Cost of Rafale : 150 million
LCC : 3*150 million = 450 million

Cost of MKI : 75 million
LCC : 5*75 million = 375 million

I'm not going to engage in talking about such speculative price assesments as of now. We do not have the unit cost of either bird as it is sold to India. The Rafale's price is open to so much conjecture as to make any analysis worthless and as for the MKI, when the latest batch of 42 MKI ordered a few years ago are costing the IAF close to $100 million/plane I don't see how these 40 MKIs that even be in production before 2019/20 and will be of the latest production standard at that time, will cost the IAF anything like $75 million/plane- no where near it, I'm going to saying >$120 million/plane- at best. If they are customised to be Brahmos trucks then you are looking at even more.

The Kamov wasn't mentioned in your post, and the A-330 can hardly be called exclusively French. It's pan-European, like the EF.

BTW the Fennec wasn't chosen, was it?

The Kamov wasn't mentioned because it was orginally found to be the L2 bidder to the Fennec but a GOVERNMENT decsion reversed this decsion and entered into exclusive govt-govt talks for the Kamov. The RSH competition thus became a farce and the eventual outcome is not representative of the merits of the Kamov vis a vis the Fennec, tather is a geo-poltically motivated move.

And I don't see the utility in spliting hairs on the nationality of the A330 MRTT, when all of the R&D centres, most of the production facilities, lead intergrators, lead promoters etc are all French, if it suits your narrative to call them "pan-European" then fine. But understand, that in this globalised world out-sourcing and colloboration is endemic- if TATA produces sub-assemblies for Boeing/does that make the CH-47F/P-8I "pan-global" or an American product?

The purpose of having different classes of fighter jets is that heavy, expensive ones can be supplemented by lighter, cheaper ones to make up numbers. That is why the USAF has a few hundred F-15s and thousands of F-16s. But if the lighter ones are more expensive than the heavies, there is no point in having both.

The need for an MRCA was that we have a sizeable force of top notch fighters, and we wanted smaller, lighter aircrafts to make up the mid tier and have numbers. But at the start of the MRCA process, if anybody thought that the MRCA would be more expensive than the MKI, then we would simply have bought more MKI. The ridiculous process of procuring an MRCA led to the very expensive Rafale being chosen, with no cost consideration.

This is false equivalancy. The USAF may have their model but the IAF has their own formed as a result of their own compulsions.

What you have been calling the procurement process throughout this body of text? MRCA. This was the orginal name given by the IAF for thier procurement process, before it was modified to the MMRCA, and MRCA perfectly outlines what the IAF were after. Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA). Later "Medium" was added to make MMRCA, but the core requirement remained the same- what Dassualt calls "Omni role" capability.

So let's examine the genesis of the MRCA requirement, it began in very late 99/early 00s as a direct result of the Kargil war where the Mirage 2000 had proven itself as the IAF's most lethal precsion "ground pounder". As a result the IAF were very eager to go for 126-189 more Mirage 2000s to satsify this role- as their strike fighter- they already has the MKI deal in place and the LCA was in the pipeline and this si what they sought to fill as their Mig-27 and Jaguar fleet was phased out. If it had simply been a case that the MKI or LCA could do this job then they would never have intiated the procurement process for the Mirages in the first place.

As time went on the Mirage 2000 production line closed and the envelope was widened to try and fulfill the same role (strike asset) but now with more competitors and a greater focus on industrial benefits. Again, the option existed throughout to simply expand MKI or LCA orders but the IAF was after a product that filled their OPERATIONAL requirements, it simply wasn't about getting X amount of fighters but getting the right type of fighter. This is why your analysis of the USAF vis a vis the IAF's needs falls flat because it is only talking about weight classes and not about the specific capabilties of all involved aircraft. If you honestly beleive the MKI is as capable as the Rafale in a strike role then I would point out that there is empircal evidence to refute this (the fact the MKI's radar has no ground mapping mode and its airframe isn't certified for low-level flight indicative of strike missions) and the actions of the IAF (constantly rejecting the MKI as a substitute for the MMRCA/Rafale) speak volumes.