Worst plan. Rocket force turned out to be ineffective to win war for Russians.
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
It's IADS and rocket force. And rocket force did very well in Ukraine against the type of targets even we want to attack.
As for why Russia's struggled, almost all rocket force targets are fixed targets, and using missiles forces the enemy to use up SAMs that protect such targets, which makes SEAD/DEAD easier 'cause aircraft face lesser numbers. But Russia did not have the aircraft tech for offensive operations against new gen mobile SAMs. All they could do was launch easily defeatable ARMs without getting close enough to do actual damage to SAMs with bombs. Then you follow up with new waves of missile attacks to take out hardened targets. Ukraine's mobile SAMs were able to survive and continue to intercept these new missiles.
In our case, the expectation is we can perform SEAD/DEAD sufficiently enough to get missiles through to our targets in enough numbers 'cause, unlike the Russians, we have modernized quite a bit faster with Western assistance.
We should forget ever aiming to target mainland China. We neither have the capability nor the aircrafts for pulling any such operation. At best air defence and CAP is what we would be able to do at the LAC.
The Russians barely have a rocket force. They have a bunch of iskanders and tochkas and lot of cruise missiles but nothing defined like the PLARF. Only the PLA has a rocket force and to an extent Iran and North Korea. The Russians have a sub-1000km rocket force. While the PLA can target upto 3000km conventionally with better guidance than Russian systems. This is a purely ballistic missile comparison. The Russians are still superior when it comes to cruise missiles and hypersonics. But in an attrition war ballistic missiles do work better. A few thousand pralays, prahaars and another 1000 conventionally armed agni-1's will be good enough for us to have a rocket force. Wasting money on hypersonic tech that will be costly to manufacture is pointless right now.
Depends on the timeframe. Nothing much right now. 10 years down the line we can only attack depth areas with MRFA and drones. Mainland can only be attacked with CMs and BMs.
Although I don't think we are gonna waste money on long range BMs with conventional payloads like the Russians and Chinese can. They have the money for it.
We have to actually make fully autonomous drones that can go that far.
From Sept 2022-24, the Russians had launched 11500 missiles across more than 50 missiles types.
Long war means massive production. Our inventory is suitable for a short war only. And because our inventory is small, we need more advanced capabilities, including hypersonic. That's why all the ramjet and scramjet programs. We are developing the LRHM for conventional role too.
Taiwan's recently introduced a 2000 km hypersonic mach 6 CM.
Let's see what comes out of Modi's visit to France next month. Given the noises the DRDO and IAF chiefs have been making lately, there might well be a surprise announcement for the IAF (+36) beyond the 26 Rafale-M and Kalvari-B2. We're closing in on the end of FY24 and it's the time of year when the ink usually flows freely at MoD. But long-term, I think the GoI has no appetite for big-ticket license mfg of foreign MRFA for cost reasons and political compulsions, both at home and abroad. But we should at least get a sense for what MoD's next course of action is going to be.
Tbh, I don't think the IAF is even contemplating DPSA strikes beyond Tibet as of today. We simply wouldn't have enough aircraft to spare from CAP/DCA sorties in the foreseeable future. Before embarking on building a hi-end 6G fighter, we need to invest in CCA/Loyal Wingman drones, (including expendable air-launched ones) to add some mass. We'd also need to consider developing palletized launchers for Nirbhay/LRLACM missiles for deployment on IAF C-17s like the USAF is doing. The IAF's EAC is already doing dispersed ops and hardening airbase infra which should be supplemented with underground missile complexes for conventional-tipped BM/CM.
I have no issues against hypersonics. But ballistic missiles in general are cheaper to produce and their production can be scaled massively. And integrating gps/ins guidance makes them good enough. Plus they can't be easily intercepted like subsonic CM's. Our economy really doesn't allow us to produce a large number of hypersonics.
Though the design of the AMCA mk1 is frozen, we're probably better off concentrating on a 5.75 gen AMCA mk2 than jumping to a completely new 6G design. Depending on how the Kaveri shapes up in future (VCE?), we might just have to make incremental changes (like smaller tail fins -PAK-FA, larger delta wings like FB-22, etc) in the future mk2 version. It'd shrink dev timelines and be more palatable to the high and mighty MoF compared to a clean-sheet design. In the meantime, the IAF would do well to roll out IDEX challenges on niche tech for start-ups to chew on imo. This should create a critical mass of new tech with applications across multiple programs like FUFA, et all.
Last edited:
We haven't yet produced anything in the hypersonic regime. Still a few years away there. Let's see how Brahmos-2 chugs along.
BMs, yeah, that's a given. Both land and air-launched.
With SWiFT, we've now learned all-control laws of a tailless flying wing. Just like scaling it up to 13 tonnes we're making Ghatak, in-future we could further scale it up to make our own stealth manned/unmanned stealth bomber. It also should be part of our 6th gen fleet.
Offence is the best form of defense. J-36 & J-50 are a proof of that. With our own tailless 6th gen fighter, China will feel the music too.
Lol. That's what our FGFA was. Anyways, I too support Su-60 over Su-57 as our AMCA would be more stealthy than Su-57 and would be a better fighter to penetrate enemy IADS. Su-60 could just fall back and command all CCAs to support AMCA in this mission. Su-57 wouldn't be too effective in such a role.
Theoretically, it may be possible to scale Ghatak/ISUAV into a medium bomber but a working TF engine is our biggest stumbling block as of now. One reason why the Chinese are so far ahead is because they have an industrial scale espionage program targeting major Western companies. They also been honeytrapping/coercing Chinese-origin US citizens to spy for them. We, on the other hand, have been doing everything from scratch with some foreign consultancy.
If we want to quickly catch up with the Chinese, we need a national mission for 6G fighter tech on the lines of the US Apollo moon prog of the 1960s. The key is to map/audit our local industrial/tech capabilities, grade them into Tier-1/2/3 (MoD accreditation system) , identify missing elements and strategically source them from outside. Until we have what we need, we need to play along with the West like the Chinese did and quite successfully too.
Yeah. We need to make one with 2 engines. AMCA's engine with just dry thrust will go a long way.
Both F-35 and Su-57 will be part of the air show next month. Let's see if the govt or IAF say something related to them.
Money is key. What funded their advancements was their massive double-digit multi-decade growth. That enabled high investment into R&D. We are at least half a decade away from matching that scale.
Worth its weight in gold !
[ Wanted to post this on the LCA thread but decided against it for the implications it has on the MRFA tender & the reason the Rafale will be obsolete in our part of the world by the next decade ( not my words but something I agree with if not in full measure then at least substantially) .
Also to bring this to the notice of those who believe the Mk-2 is similar to the Mk-1a therefore to the Mk-1 just like the AMCA is the Mk-2 with 2 TFs & an IWB. ]
I'd urge everyone who's interested in knowing the reason the LCA program was so delayed & in between was almost in danger of being junked, to read this thread.
Also look at the spin offs that one project which built up an entire aero space ecosystem literally from scratch, yielded to other programs of the IAF.
Good comparisons with the Chinese approach & the Israeli AF too though once the US asked Israel to stop development of the Lavi it was essentially game over for with the kind of dependencies Israel has on the US there's no way they can go against the US .
Must read IMHO!
What Firestarter said about LCA's SQR is wrong. He's confused between old M2000 and new M2000.
The IAF wanted old M2000 class avionics by the mid-90s along with hydraulics. DRDO pushed the IAF out of the LCA program and changed the specs to new M2000 avionics and fully digital FBW on their own, and then took 2 decades to deliver post that change. Bison upgrade was more advanced than what the IAF originally wanted on LCA.
The IAF never interfered in the LCA either.
What's that nonsense about an internal pod? The IAF never asked for that. They hoped for one, but they accepted a pod solution, the same as they did for MKI, Jaguar DARIN I/II and Mig-27. After the failure to develop our own EW suite, DRDO signed up with the Israelis under the Mayawi project in the late 2000s along with the radar, after the indigenous attempt failed there too.
LCA getting an AESA radar was the natural progression in order to keep the jet relevant in face of adversary advances when they were deploying GaN-equipped J-10C, J-11BG, and J-16 alongside PL-15. And... get this... HAL offered it after the Israelis offered it. The IAF wants to upgrade Mig-29 with an AESA radar too. I don't see the Russians complaining.
There was no "40 of Mk1A." It's actually the first time I've heard this. The deal was always for 83 jets. HAL wanted 40 follow-ons added to the original 83 so they could justify setting up a third line of 8 jets. I guess he's confused about the latter bit.
GoI never forced IAF into Mk1A. HAL delivered a well-specc'd jet and the IAF accepted it as sufficient enough for Bison replacement. Of course, if the IAF wasn't desperate for numbers, the Mk1A wouldn't be a reality today. So there's definitely that. Their eyes were set on Mk2 in large numbers, which was originally an Mk1-done-right program before it morphed into MWF.
Some nonsense about comparing IAF deals with PAF's target practice jets. Unlike the IAF, the PAF has full control over the JF-17 program, so they are actively involved in the design and manufacturing of the jet, whereas the IAF was kicked out of the LCA program in the 90s.
Btw, thanks to the Tejas delays and the scientists, the IAF has a squadron drawdown problem or else they would have imported. Pretty much everybody in the know is in agreement that the delays Tejas faced is the leading cause of IAF's squadron problems. Second would naturally be the failure of MMRCA.
What's ironic is all of his criticisms of the IAF in the first half of his rant is what led to the Mk1A, which is now apparently "capable of taking on anything in PAF's inventory." That very statement suggests that neither did GoI shove LCA down IAF's throats, nor would IAF have inducted a jet that was less than capable for such a role.
Then he begins comparing the LCA with the LCA ecosystem, which are two different things. The former failed spectacularly for a long time, but the latter was always one of the main goals.
And he seems confused about some of the foreign stuff, like MKI and Lavi. And he doesn't know that the development of Jaguar DARIN I/II and MKI led to the development of a lot of domestic tech that later fed into the LCA program. Mayawi > D-29 > DARIN III came in much later after older programs were deemed insufficient. So under Mayawi we combined an Israeli RWR with an Italian AESA jammer to create the D-29, and that led to an indigenization process later on, similar to our BMD radars. Astra was fed by the BMD program.
A lot of our "indigenous" stuff is just foreign stuff that we have gained control over. While DRDO does not use manufacturing ToT for research, but they do sign ToT deals with foreign companies for R&D. For example, even if we manufacture 100% of the M88 under MRFA, DRDO will sign a separate deal with SAFRAN for next gen engine tech, and it will have nothing to do with the IAF's Rafale production program. Or they could choose GE. So they always do their own thing. Similarly radar development under DRDO started in the 80s after purchasing Czech radars that led to the development of the Akash ecosystem, prior to the entry of the Israelis in the BMD program in the late 90s. So old programs have always fed into new ones.
And when he talks about the Chinese and the Israelis, he doesn't known that the US handed a lot of tech over to the other two countries that directly helped their programs. For example, both Lavi and J-10 received an American FBW developed by the producers of Learjet.
In conclusion, while the creation of the LCA ecosystem was necessary and was quite successful, it still came by holding the IAF hostage.
The IAF wanted old M2000 class avionics by the mid-90s along with hydraulics. DRDO pushed the IAF out of the LCA program and changed the specs to new M2000 avionics and fully digital FBW on their own, and then took 2 decades to deliver post that change. Bison upgrade was more advanced than what the IAF originally wanted on LCA.
The IAF never interfered in the LCA either.
What's that nonsense about an internal pod? The IAF never asked for that. They hoped for one, but they accepted a pod solution, the same as they did for MKI, Jaguar DARIN I/II and Mig-27. After the failure to develop our own EW suite, DRDO signed up with the Israelis under the Mayawi project in the late 2000s along with the radar, after the indigenous attempt failed there too.
LCA getting an AESA radar was the natural progression in order to keep the jet relevant in face of adversary advances when they were deploying GaN-equipped J-10C, J-11BG, and J-16 alongside PL-15. And... get this... HAL offered it after the Israelis offered it. The IAF wants to upgrade Mig-29 with an AESA radar too. I don't see the Russians complaining.
There was no "40 of Mk1A." It's actually the first time I've heard this. The deal was always for 83 jets. HAL wanted 40 follow-ons added to the original 83 so they could justify setting up a third line of 8 jets. I guess he's confused about the latter bit.
GoI never forced IAF into Mk1A. HAL delivered a well-specc'd jet and the IAF accepted it as sufficient enough for Bison replacement. Of course, if the IAF wasn't desperate for numbers, the Mk1A wouldn't be a reality today. So there's definitely that. Their eyes were set on Mk2 in large numbers, which was originally an Mk1-done-right program before it morphed into MWF.
Some nonsense about comparing IAF deals with PAF's target practice jets. Unlike the IAF, the PAF has full control over the JF-17 program, so they are actively involved in the design and manufacturing of the jet, whereas the IAF was kicked out of the LCA program in the 90s.
Btw, thanks to the Tejas delays and the scientists, the IAF has a squadron drawdown problem or else they would have imported. Pretty much everybody in the know is in agreement that the delays Tejas faced is the leading cause of IAF's squadron problems. Second would naturally be the failure of MMRCA.
What's ironic is all of his criticisms of the IAF in the first half of his rant is what led to the Mk1A, which is now apparently "capable of taking on anything in PAF's inventory." That very statement suggests that neither did GoI shove LCA down IAF's throats, nor would IAF have inducted a jet that was less than capable for such a role.
Then he begins comparing the LCA with the LCA ecosystem, which are two different things. The former failed spectacularly for a long time, but the latter was always one of the main goals.
And he seems confused about some of the foreign stuff, like MKI and Lavi. And he doesn't know that the development of Jaguar DARIN I/II and MKI led to the development of a lot of domestic tech that later fed into the LCA program. Mayawi > D-29 > DARIN III came in much later after older programs were deemed insufficient. So under Mayawi we combined an Israeli RWR with an Italian AESA jammer to create the D-29, and that led to an indigenization process later on, similar to our BMD radars. Astra was fed by the BMD program.
A lot of our "indigenous" stuff is just foreign stuff that we have gained control over. While DRDO does not use manufacturing ToT for research, but they do sign ToT deals with foreign companies for R&D. For example, even if we manufacture 100% of the M88 under MRFA, DRDO will sign a separate deal with SAFRAN for next gen engine tech, and it will have nothing to do with the IAF's Rafale production program. Or they could choose GE. So they always do their own thing. Similarly radar development under DRDO started in the 80s after purchasing Czech radars that led to the development of the Akash ecosystem, prior to the entry of the Israelis in the BMD program in the late 90s. So old programs have always fed into new ones.
And when he talks about the Chinese and the Israelis, he doesn't known that the US handed a lot of tech over to the other two countries that directly helped their programs. For example, both Lavi and J-10 received an American FBW developed by the producers of Learjet.
In conclusion, while the creation of the LCA ecosystem was necessary and was quite successful, it still came by holding the IAF hostage.
I seem to have linked the wrong tweet yesterday. This is the thread unroll of Firestarter's thread on Twitter for those interested.
I stopped reading that atrocious post #5756 when I reached - ADA / DRDO "pushed" IAF out of the LCA program & unilaterally decided to implement full digital FBW in the LCA program.
The full digital FBW was conceived as tech to be developed by ADA in the early 1980s itself along with a Pulse Doppler (?) Radar, an indigenous TF & usage of composite materials. These were supposed to new state of the art tech ADA was to develop for the LCA program. In the meanwhile the program was to make do with the GE F-404 TF .
This is the wish list IG took with her to Washington when she met Reagan seeking US assistance in developing these technologies , who cleared the whole set of proposals & offered the F-20 Tiger Shark which the IAF wasn't interested in .
Let me share with you something even more interesting . RST himself shared this information in this very forum itself in the initial days IIRC, asking what was the real highlight of the entire LCA program as in what were THE real breakthrough technologies we achieved & then proceeded to list the FCL as the pinnacle of achievement among all the other tech developed for this program in granular detail.
And now he comes up with what he's just done. In olden days the penalty for going back on ones word used to be castration. I'm a firm believer in bringing back the practice once again .
What a fall!
In retrospect we should have bought the tigershark. It was the perfect mig 21 replacement. Heck it would beat the jf-17 too if it was inducted. An entire aerospace industry could have been built on the backs of the f-20. It filled the exact requirement for a mig 21 replacement. It could go mach 2.0 (which the lca could not) had decent bvr and we would have jumped a generation in radar tech long ago.
Quadruplex-redundant digital FBW wasn't a requirement in the 1985 ASR. Literally nobody had it then. IAF wanted hydraulics. Dassault offered a triplex system with analog redundancy.
And hell, every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the aviation space knows that the IAF was kicked out of the LCA program. They were not even part of the PDP stage in 1987. The IAF was quite literally told to wait until the jet was ready. Even in the late 90s, when the IAF asked for a progress report on LCA before making a decision on Bison, the Bison upgrade team were denied access. This lack of information is what led to Bison. The IAF Chief was pretty pissed about all of it, a huge LCA fan but grudgingly allowed the Bison program to happen.
And sure a quadruplex system was a dream of ADA, like it was for many other companies at the time, but that doesn't mean they had the ability. It ultimately took 2 decades from dream to reality, and 2 decades later, the IAF is still waiting for all the IOC/FOC jets they ordered, never mind Mk1A.
Funny how people emulating Ignorants like to revise history any way they like and then call out actual history as goalpost shifting.
And hell, every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the aviation space knows that the IAF was kicked out of the LCA program. They were not even part of the PDP stage in 1987. The IAF was quite literally told to wait until the jet was ready. Even in the late 90s, when the IAF asked for a progress report on LCA before making a decision on Bison, the Bison upgrade team were denied access. This lack of information is what led to Bison. The IAF Chief was pretty pissed about all of it, a huge LCA fan but grudgingly allowed the Bison program to happen.
And sure a quadruplex system was a dream of ADA, like it was for many other companies at the time, but that doesn't mean they had the ability. It ultimately took 2 decades from dream to reality, and 2 decades later, the IAF is still waiting for all the IOC/FOC jets they ordered, never mind Mk1A.
Funny how people emulating Ignorants like to revise history any way they like and then call out actual history as goalpost shifting.
Thanks to Tejas, we're now dreaming about AMCA and even beyond. What part of @Firestarter's tweet you didn't understand? LCA program may have its highs & lows, but one advantage even its critics ackowledge is its creation of Indian military aviation complex. Its domino effect on MKI program and others has been well pointed out in the tweet. Simply if we would have bought F-20 and cancelled LCA program(what many wanted) we wouldn't still have any indigenous combat aviation capability and we still would have been fully dependent on foreign powers. Not a good situation when our enemy just displayed two 6th-gen prototypes of their own, me thinks.