What's new

Why has India struggled to buy fighter aircraft?

ashok321

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
17,942
Reaction score
4
Country
Canada
Location
Malaysia
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...d-to-buy-fighter-aircraft/article20915834.ece

TH25TEJAS



Why is the IAF looking for new jets?

The Indian Air Force, one of the largest in the world, operates a diverse mix of legacy and modern fighter jets, including MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Su-30MKI and Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas. India sees the possibility of a two-front war — with Pakistan in the west and China in the north — and to be able to tackle it, the IAF has a projected requirement of 44 fighter squadrons. However, it now has 33 squadrons, much lower than the sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons. With the IAF set to phase out 11 squadrons of the ageing MiG-21s and MiG-27s, the number may dip to 25 squadrons, according to a report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence released early this year.

Have we tried in-house?

The LCA programme was launched in the early 1980s to indigenously build a single-engine lightweight fighter jet to replace MiG-21s. But delays in development, coupled with sanctions, meant time and cost overruns. After a long development cycle, the Tejas is now in the process of being inducted. The IAF has placed orders for 40 of them in the basic configuration and constituted its first squadron last year with three aircraft. It is scheduled to place orders for 83 aircraft in the Mk-1A configuration with specific improvements. So, by 2024, the service is likely to have 123 Tejas aircraft, making up six squadrons.


Is there need to import jets?

The delay in the development of Tejas and its induction meant looking for the alternatives from abroad. The idea to buy new fighters to replace the single-engine MiG-21s came up in 2000. After several iterations, the search for a single- engine fighter metamorphosed into the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contest for which both single- and twin-engine aircraft were evaluated. The request for proposal (RFP) for 126 MMRCA was issued in 2007, and after extensive evaluation, the twin-engine Rafale, built by Dassault Aviation of France, was selected as the lowest bidder in 2012 and contract negotiations began. The aircraft was supposed to be built in India under technology transfer, but after several years of negotiations there was a gridlock.


What is the deal for Rafale?

In 2015, visiting Paris, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a surprise announcement to buy 36 Rafale jets in a fly-away condition through an inter-governmental agreement, citing “critical operational necessity” of the IAF. After some tough negotiations in September 2016 the two countries concluded a €7.87-billion deal for 36 aircraft, spares, weapons and a five-year maintenance guarantee. This was the first fighter aircraft deal India had signed since the purchase of Sukhoi from Russia in the late 1990s. Deliveries are scheduled between 2019 and 2022. However, 36 is too small a number to meet the requirements or even make operational viability for maintenance and support. Over the last few weeks, a controversy has been raging over the Rafale deal for 36 jets. The Congress has raised questions about the high cost per aircraft, about ₹1,640 crore, without any technology transfer, the relatively small number, and also alleged that procedures were circumvented in the announcement.


What is the way forward?
In the next couple of months, the IAF is scheduled to issue the tender under the strategic partnership model of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) for selecting a single-engine fighter over a 100 of which will be built in India by a private sector player with technology transfer by the foreign original equipment manufacturer. However, given the convoluted procurement process and the inexperience of the private sector in defence manufacturing, it has to be seen how soon the deal is concluded.

In addition, India and Russia have been negotiating the joint development of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft. But talks have protracted over high cost and the work share. Given the current trend, the travails of the IAF to make up the fighter strength are likely to continue.
 
The basic contradiction is that the IAF want to buy a lot of the best, and that does not include the Tejas, which, according to them, is not proven; the ministry wants to spend the least. So:
  1. The IAF doesn't get to buy the numbers it wants;
  2. The ministry has to buy so few that it cannot ask for a transfer of technology;
  3. We land up having to buy more anyway.
Pathetic.

Neither side in this internal fight realises that building up a log-jam has an effect on replacements of old equipment; the numbers needed to be replaced mean trouble. Either one spends gazillions trying to buy all the numbers at the market prices or even at negotiated prices, or one leaves gaps in inventory, dangerous gaps, for decades at a time.

The real culprits are the Congress-led UPA2, as it totally failed to procure artillery for Army, tanks, anti-tank guided missiles, attack helicopters, infantry fighting vehicles, or at least, armoured personnel carrier; or submarines, corvettes and smaller vessels, amphibious and personnel carrying craft, helicopter carriers, regular aircraft carriers, and, of course, the fighter aircraft for the Air Force, or the unglamourous but critically necessary AWACS.....
 
Indian think they are smart to have a lot of choices and think they are play against each other. But end up , it is Indian get played around with all seller stick firm to their prices and stance.

End up its IAF getting smaller and smaller as more fighter jet retired and high maintenance plus fuel thirsty MKI cannot take on some role.
 
Indian think they are smart to have a lot of choices and think they are play against each other. But end up , it is Indian get played around with all seller stick firm to their prices and stance.

End up its IAF getting smaller and smaller as more fighter jet retired and high maintenance plus fuel thirsty MKI cannot take on some role.

Which role can the MKI not take on?
 
It just like asking why LCA needs to be developed if MKI can fill all roles?

Please don't give silly answers. The LCA is needed to fill out the numbers, and for no other reason. Cost is the factor, not task capability.

I just wanted to check that was the reason and sadly, you did confirm it.
 
Which role can the MKI not take on?

SU-30s played the role of Air Superiority fighters earlier but they can no longer play that role since China has inducted J-20s while Pakistan is in the process of doing the same.
 
SU-30s played the role of Air Superiority fighters earlier but they can no longer play that role since China has inducted J-20s while Pakistan is in the process of doing the same.

What difference will the J-20 make? Don't sling around names without understanding what you are saying.
 
Indian think they are smart to have a lot of choices and think they are play against each other. But end up , it is Indian get played around with all seller stick firm to their prices and stance.

End up its IAF getting smaller and smaller as more fighter jet retired and high maintenance plus fuel thirsty MKI cannot take on some role.

India is a weak state with loud blabbering mouths who are not only arrogant but foolish too.

What difference will the J-20 make? Don't sling around names without understanding what you are saying.

J-20s will rule the skies in the next war not Indian SU-30s.
 
India is a weak state with loud blabbering mouths who are not only arrogant but foolish too.

Why don't you change your false flag? Your alignment and identification is so blatant that every post you make becomes more and more embarrassing for your readers, as they see through your assumed identity so clearly. Whom are you fooling, and why?

J-20s will rule the skies in the next war not Indian SU-30s.

And that's it? You are, of course, referring to the war that will be fought under a bright green sun with purple and yellow skies. No harm adding my vision of the future to the mixture, along with yours.

Incidentally, one of your tell-tale sillinesses and the way you keep exposing yourself is the use of 'Indian' Su 30, rather than 'Russian'.

What insecurity drives people to conceal their identity even on an anonymous forum?
 
Why don't you change your false flag? Your alignment and identification is so blatant that every post you make becomes more and more embarrassing for your readers, as they see through your assumed identity so clearly. Whom are you fooling, and why?

Why should I? The administrators of this forum have given me that privilege. If you do not like, you may petition. NOT my problem.
 
You seem to have a problem with everyone else except yourself. It time for you to see the mirror.

I do, from time to time; not excessively, that would be narcissistic. Nice looking chap, am I not?

And I don't have a problem with everyone, only those elements that form the sludge within this engine. PDF needs a drain plug.

The basic contradiction is that the IAF want to buy a lot of the best, and that does not include the Tejas, which, according to them, is not proven; the ministry wants to spend the least. So:
  1. The IAF doesn't get to buy the numbers it wants;
  2. The ministry has to buy so few that it cannot ask for a transfer of technology;
  3. We land up having to buy more anyway.
Pathetic.

Neither side in this internal fight realises that building up a log-jam has an effect on replacements of old equipment; the numbers needed to be replaced mean trouble. Either one spends gazillions trying to buy all the numbers at the market prices or even at negotiated prices, or one leaves gaps in inventory, dangerous gaps, for decades at a time.

The real culprits are the Congress-led UPA2, as it totally failed to procure artillery for Army, tanks, anti-tank guided missiles, attack helicopters, infantry fighting vehicles, or at least, armoured personnel carrier; or submarines, corvettes and smaller vessels.<more>
 
Back
Top Bottom