Russia ready to negotiate with India on MiG-35 fighters

[tvsram1992]

Not a bad aircraft at all, but doesn't make any sense replacing it with Rafale. A separate acquisition? Maybe.

But makes perfect sense to replace Mig21s atleast .

 

[jha]

Haha.. still carrying it , jha.

Between ur suggestion is better than the MiGs. But u were a Hornet fan last yeaR.

I just hate Rafale. Anything else is fine for me

He was always for the outsiders, Gripen, Grob 120TP, Anders light tank.

Hahahaha... Its funny to see how people react when I support outsiders...

Haha.. still carrying it , jha.

Between ur suggestion is better than the MiGs. But u were a Hornet fan last yeaR.

I just hate Rafale. Anything else is fine for me

He was always for the outsiders, Gripen, Grob 120TP, Anders light tank.

Hahahaha... Its funny to see how people react when I support outsiders...

 

[MST]

Looks like we have a lot of faltu money to throw at people

On a serious note why are even discussing this. The reality is that neither India wants nor India can afford nor India should buy another fighter (after MMRCA). The MIG will off course keep trying since this is about their survival.

 

[sancho]

I just hate Rafale. Anything else is fine for me

Hahahaha... Its funny to see how people react when I support outsiders...

I like it and somebody has to defend them right? I only hope that you don't get too disappointed when your favourits won't be selected.
You hate Rafale???

Looks like we have a lot of faltu money to throw at people

On a serious note why are even discussing this. The reality is that neither India wants nor India can afford nor India should buy another fighter (after MMRCA). The MIG will off course keep trying since this is about their survival.

It's just funny to see how desperate Mikoyan, or the EF consortium are, that they keep hoping for the deal. The US manufacturers surprisingly took it in a way better way.
The fact though is, that the MMRCA was probably one of the few competitions that decided mainly on technical terms and those who wasn't shortlisted wasn't good enough.

 

[janon]

It's just funny to see how desperate Mikoyan, or the EF consortium are, that they keep hoping for the deal. The US manufacturers surprisingly took it in a way better way.
The fact though is, that the MMRCA was probably one of the few competitions that decided mainly on technical terms and those who wasn't shortlisted wasn't good enough.

That's because Boeing and Lockheed-martin have very secure futures, unlike Mikoyan. If mig-35 is not purchased in large numbers, we may never see another mig fighter again. So their desperation is understandable.

Frankly though, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of going for the Rafale, given the time and cost. From the looks of it, 126 or 189 MRCAs may not be enough for IAF over the next few years. The IAF chief said that there are 264 (!) mig-21s in service currently, which will all have to be replaced by 2018-2019. Add 80 mig 27s and a few older jags to that, and look at the number of aircrafts that will have to be inducted! We are talking about 400+ fighters that need to be replaced, simply to maintain the current level of 33 squadrons. And we are looking to achieve 39 squadrons, which is the sanctioned strength.

A hundred more MKIs would be added by then, and a hundred Rafales (to be VERY generous in assuming production rates.) Maybe 40 LCA Mk1s, if all goes well on that front. We would still be 160+ fighters short of what we have today. To get to the sanctioned 39 squadron level, we would need another 260 fighters at that stage.

And here is the issue. We really cannot afford to go for a large volume buy of Rafales and have a huge fleet of that. Going by the prices, they cost north of 100 million per jet, without taking the other costs into account (weapons and facilities). And the weapons are very expensive too. Since our first need is NUMBERS, maybe we should have gone for a cheaper aircraft in larger numbers. Rafales may be the best 4th gen fighter overall. But a gripen or super hornet is more than enough to take on our enemies. Why do we go for the "best" instead of the "good enough"?

Maybe we should have gone for 400 gripens, half of them produced in India and the other half in Sweden. The weapons package would have been a lot cheaper, and the same engine would be used on the LCA mk2, resulting in further cost savings. It is the shortage in numbers that is going to cost us, not the shortage in quality. Or thee super hornet, without getting transfer of technology for the sensitive stuff. Somehow I don't have any faith that if they transfer a few documents and blueprints to us, our aviation industry would take off. We would be better off learning slowly, by our own research, and by licence manufacture.

As it stands, we are looking to spend 18 billion dollars on the Rafales, and yet have a shortfall of 260 aircrafts in the next 5 or 6 years. Why spend so much money and buy the most expensive (non 5th gen) aircraft in the world, instead of spending the same amount on a larger number of cheaper aircrafts? After all, there will be nothing in our neighbours' arsenal to match the SH or Gripen-NG either.

I never realized how serious the IAF's number game is, until the chief revealed that there are still 264 mig-21s flying. It would give us a lot more bang for the buck to go for a SH or even a mig-35, and get 300 or 400 of them, instead of 126 or 189 Rafales.

 

[MST]

That's because Boeing and Lockheed-martin have very secure futures, unlike Mikoyan. If mig-35 is not purchased in large numbers, we may never see another mig fighter again. So their desperation is understandable.

Frankly though, I'm beginning to wonder about the wisdom of going for the Rafale, given the time and cost. From the looks of it, 126 or 189 MRCAs may not be enough for IAF over the next few years. The IAF chief said that there are 264 (!) mig-21s in service currently, which will all have to be replaced by 2018-2019. Add 80 mig 27s and a few older jags to that, and look at the number of aircrafts that will have to be inducted! We are talking about 400+ fighters that need to be replaced, simply to maintain the current level of 33 squadrons. And we are looking to achieve 39 squadrons, which is the sanctioned strength.

A hundred more MKIs would be added by then, and a hundred Rafales (to be VERY generous in assuming production rates.) Maybe 40 LCA Mk1s, if all goes well on that front. We would still be 160+ fighters short of what we have today. To get to the sanctioned 39 squadron level, we would need another 260 fighters at that stage.

And here is the issue. We really cannot afford to go for a large volume buy of Rafales and have a huge fleet of that. Going by the prices, they cost north of 100 million per jet, without taking the other costs into account (weapons and facilities). And the weapons are very expensive too. Since our first need is NUMBERS, maybe we should have gone for a cheaper aircraft in larger numbers. Rafales may be the best 4th gen fighter overall. But a gripen or super hornet is more than enough to take on our enemies. Why do we go for the "best" instead of the "good enough"?

Maybe we should have gone for 400 gripens, half of them produced in India and the other half in Sweden. The weapons package would have been a lot cheaper, and the same engine would be used on the LCA mk2, resulting in further cost savings. It is the shortage in numbers that is going to cost us, not the shortage in quality. Or thee super hornet, without getting transfer of technology for the sensitive stuff. Somehow I don't have any faith that if they transfer a few documents and blueprints to us, our aviation industry would take off. We would be better off learning slowly, by our own research, and by licence manufacture.

As it stands, we are looking to spend 18 billion dollars on the Rafales, and yet have a shortfall of 260 aircrafts in the next 5 or 6 years. Why spend so much money and buy the most expensive (non 5th gen) aircraft in the world, instead of spending the same amount on a larger number of cheaper aircrafts? After all, there will be nothing in our neighbours' arsenal to match the SH or Gripen-NG either.

I never realized how serious the IAF's number game is, until the chief revealed that there are still 264 mig-21s flying. It would give us a lot more bang for the buck to go for a SH or even a mig-35, and get 300 or 400 of them, instead of 126 or 189 Rafales.

LCA (and now MK2) was the one that was always meant to be the fillers. Both Rafale and MKI were supposed to be the main punch but not the main workhorse. We should all pray that LCA MK2 comes on time. Other wise what you say about getting a foreign aircraft (mig 35, gripen, sh) for filler may just turn out to be true.

 

[janon]

LCA (and now MK2) was the one that was always meant to be the fillers. Both Rafale and MKI were supposed to be the main punch but not the main workhorse. We should all pray that LCA MK2 comes on time. Other wise what you say about getting a foreign aircraft (mig 35, gripen, sh) for filler may just turn out to be true.

It's not just about filling gaps, we are talking about the imminent retirement of 400+ combat aircrafts. In the past, a mig-21 like aircraft could be used in such big numbers, because they were dirt cheap, and very fast to produce. LCAs have a much higher level of complexity, and getting 400 LCAs in time would be impossible. They cannot be produced as fast or in as big numbers as mig-21s.

No matter how optimistic we are, LCA mk2 will not start getting produced (at slow initial rates) until 2018 at the earliest. By then we will have to retire close to 400 aircrafts, and I just don't see how that is going to happen, with these uber expensive Rafales.

In the past, both our light (mig 21, mig 27) and medium (mig 29) fleet were relatively cheap. Only the mirages were expensive. Now our medium fighter is going to be the most expensive in our air force, and one of the most expensive in the world. That goes against the tenet of having light, medium and heavy aircraft categories.

 

[jha]

I like it and somebody has to defend them right? I only hope that you don't get too disappointed when your favourits won't be selected.
You hate Rafale???

I always know that my favourites wont be selected.

and I hate anything coming out of France not just Rafale... I would take J-20 over Rafale anyday..

 

[Dash]

I dont know from where we get these reports...Mig 35 ..duh!!...

 

[RazorMC]

What's wrong with the Russians ??

What I gathered from members here was that Russia has a poor maintenance record. Then why would MiGs stand any chance against the Rafale?
Or perhaps they are suggesting India to go for MIGs as separate from the MRCA.

That's because Boeing and Lockheed-martin have very secure futures, unlike Mikoyan. If mig-35 is not purchased in large numbers, we may never see another mig fighter again. So their desperation is understandable.
...
Maybe we should have gone for 400 gripens, half of them produced in India and the other half in Sweden. The weapons package would have been a lot cheaper, and the same engine would be used on the LCA mk2, resulting in further cost savings. It is the shortage in numbers that is going to cost us, not the shortage in quality. Or thee super hornet, without getting transfer of technology for the sensitive stuff. Somehow I don't have any faith that if they transfer a few documents and blueprints to us, our aviation industry would take off. We would be better off learning slowly, by our own research, and by licence manufacture.
...

Agree with the first part.

The problem with Gripens is the US engine. Afaik, India was opposed to having any American tech in the aircraft to prevent an American leverage in a critical project like the MRCA. Plus the Rafale has a better tech advancements that IAF can benefit from.
And the Hornets are completely American just like the F-35 and the Falcons, so they were a no-no as well. Licensing American tech is almost impossible and comes with serious demands.

 

[janon]

Agree with the first part.

The problem with Gripens is the US engine. Afaik, India was opposed to having any American tech in the aircraft to prevent an American leverage in a critical project like the MRCA. Plus the Rafale has a better tech advancements that IAF can benefit from.
And the Hornets are completely American just like the F-35 and the Falcons, so they were a no-no as well. Licensing American tech is almost impossible and comes with serious demands.

I don't know if US engines was really a no-go for the IAF. Half the contenders in the M-MRCA competition had US engines. Some people also say that the reason for going for a competition was that the IAF did not want to put all its eggs in the Russian basket, and wanted to diversify suppliers. These two points put together would mean that the IAF was actually only looking at Eurofighter and Rafale from the very beginning. In that case, they should not have gone for a 5 year evaluation process and wasted time and money.

The stated reason for the Gripen being rejected was that the IAF was not convinced that the NG version would be ready before 2016. That may be true, since they only evaluated a prototype, and only Indian money could have brought it into existence.

The RFP for the contenders clearly stated what India expects from the purchase - that only 18 would be bought from the home country, and that the rest of it will be built under licence at HAL, with a significant ToT. If the Americans responded to that RFI, it means that they were prepared to abide by it. It could be that they would go back on their word after getting selected, but if so, the deal would have been cancelled at negotiations stage. I don't think they would be that averse to transferring technology for the super hornet, because it is not cutting edge stuff for them. They are already a generation ahead.

 

[tvsram1992]

We should see if Russia can supply Migs at faster rate .

 

[Storm Force]

i can see a token order for MIG35 or more likely 2nd hand mirage2000 prehaps 3 sdqs of 50 fighters to keep IAF at 33 sqds

by 2018

ie

15 sqds of su30m ki
6 sqds mirage2000 (assuming 36 more acquired)
3 mig29
2 LCA TEJAS MK1
4 jaguar darin
2 MIG27 upg
1 brand new RAFALE SQN by 2018

thos additionasl mirages may cost india $2 billion but thats NOT BEYOND INDIA,S POCKETS

 

[Koovie]

i can see a token order for MIG35 or more likely 2nd hand mirage2000 prehaps 3 sdqs of 50 fighters to keep IAF at 33 sqds

by 2018

ie

15 sqds of su30m ki
6 sqds mirage2000 (assuming 36 more acquired)
3 mig29
2 LCA TEJAS MK1
4 jaguar darin
2 MIG27 upg
1 brand new RAFALE SQN by 2018

thos additionasl mirages may cost india $2 billion but thats NOT BEYOND INDIA,S POCKETS

I think it would make more sense to buy more Su 30 MKIs to keep the minumum sqdr. strength

 

[sancho]

...A hundred more MKIs would be added by then, and a hundred Rafales (to be VERY generous in assuming production rates.) Maybe 40 LCA Mk1s, if all goes well on that front. We would still be 160+ fighters short of what we have today. To get to the sanctioned 39 squadron level, we would need another 260 fighters at that stage.

You are missing some points here, once that the Jags will currently replaced by MKI squads and with the around 100 MKIs that are still to come. Jags will be replaced only beyond 2020, so don't fit in this calculation either and that leaves just the Mig 21s, with will be replaced by LCA and Rafale in numbers, which currently would have orders for 246 fighters.
Also the squadron strenght is only a paper figure, but doesn't include the differences of capabilities of older single role and modern multi role fighters. You basically need half the number of fighters to do the same roles and missions, that we did in the past. That means even with half the squadrons, IAF would still be capable to do have credible defence capability and they are still above half with currently only MKI coming in. As soon as LCA and Rafale delivery starts, things get even better and by around 2020 the paper figures will look fine as well.

And here is the issue. We really cannot afford to go for a large volume buy of Rafales and have a huge fleet of that.

If that would be true, we would go for around 200 x FGFA and still considering around 200 x more AMCA (at least MoD/IAF were ready to consider them, if LCA development would look better now), which are far more expensive to procure and operate. This fact alone shows that money isn't the issue, but I don't see us going for more than 200 Rafales either, depending on how good LCA MK2 or FGFA will be, maybe IAF might not even go for the optional once and simply order more of the earlier.

Why do we go for the "best" instead of the "good enough"?

Because the requirements were made by IAF and MoD, not by you or me right? So they must say what is good enough and what is not. Imo, they took the right way in the competition of selecting on technical and industial basis and not with political points in mind. That gained a lot of respect and in the vendor countries, because fighter competitions are often based on political reasons.

Btw, both of your choices would have been bad once, the Gripen because we now know that the it was right that it was only available on paper and might force delays. Even Switzerland will get their first Gripen E/Fs only by 2018, the same time we are meant to get LCA MK2 and 3 years later then the MMRCA RFP demanded!
The F18SH was a no go on flight performance, lacked a useful deep strike missile and didn't offered any critical techs in return!
Wrt the weapon package, Gripen E/F, the Eurofighter and the Rafale were offered with European WVR, BVR, anti ship and cruise missiles, they all use US LGBs, so there is no big difference in the weapon package costs, since they offer only minor differences (SDB for Gripen, AASM for Rafale, Brimstone most likely for EF).

After all, there will be nothing in our neighbours' arsenal to match the SH or Gripen-NG either.

Says who? J11Bs or J10Bs with AESA radar (?), modernised avionics and weapons will be though opponents in future, especially since they can be bought in high numbers. The Gripen E/F might still offer some advantages in air defence, the F18SH that was offered is questionable though. But don't forget that MMRCAs were also meant for offensive strikes, a field where the Gripen lacks behind again and where even the F18SH, don't offer the capabilities that Rafale offered for us.