IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi

Status
Not open for further replies.
You mean to say J 20 would be just Similar to Gripen E

In that case where would you rate J 10 and J 11
I never said that J20 is equal to Gripen E. In fact, Gripen E is inferior in stealth due to high RCS. I am only asking technology wise, what is so great about J20? Please be specific and exclude range, payload or stealth which depends on size, aerodynamics and composite usage rather than technology.

Yup, LCA can annihilate J-20 with its main gun.
Hohoho. When you can't answer questions, crack jokes.
 
RuAF sees some qualities in their planes and IAF in their own wisdom depend or prefer some other avionics etc,
Russians prefer single seat, but am very sure that IAF would want twin seater specially that becomes good for long range missions.
Russians can try and convince IAF but then IAF might argue that during mission its better the wisdom of two better than one.,
So IAF wants its plane as per its doctrine of use and RuAF wants the plane as per its use. Unfortunately Syu-57 was designed keeping Russian requirement in mind, the indian requirements were minor in that, thus for Indian requirements to be accepted, they have to modify it for Indian specific requirements to fit as per indian doctrines

Su-57 is a russian plane designed for their doctrine and industrial ecosystem. IAF want to make it perfect for our use. These 43 are mostly customisations with parts which are not available with the Russians or were not part in the Phase 1 program.

PAKFA is a very capable aircraft even today with its unparallel sensor suit. Phase 2 will only make it unavoidable to the IAFs liking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angel Eyes
In my view J-20 would be stealthy version of the role that T-22M performs for Russia.
It surely does not look like a dogfighter, not its design, but it does look something that can carry heavy load internally and can do it for a long range. With this I feel that China might want to enforce its Maritime border (which it claims till malaysia and indonesia) from mainland china using land based planes like J-20


I hope and wish all this is true

All the media reports have been very negative

The only thing that we have been hearing is that

IAF is not pleased and wants 43 Improvements
 
So seems its more MiG-29K or F/A-18 Super hornets

Quote from an interview

Jayant Baranwal: Is the deck-based fighter, you are looking for, required for IAC-1?

CNS: Yes. IAC-1 is designed to operate the MiG-29K and Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). So, (indeed) we need deck-based fighter for IAC-1 (as the LCA is not combat-ready).

Jayant Baranwal: So, does this mean that twin-engine fighter programme is meant for IAC-1?
CNS: Yes.


SP's MAI magazine for December 2017

View attachment 1168


@vstol Jockey @Picdelamirand-oil
CNS Lanba Sir confirmed it that MRCBF planned for IAC-1
This implies what we had been discussing for long. Change of Landing mechanism and whole lift portions+weapon bays.

The IAC-1 will need more time for sure and it might be a challenge for the planned induction timeline.


@randomradio @Abingdonboy @Ashwin @Hellfire @Nick @Ankit Kumar @all others
 
Credit to @Ashwin

NAVY DOGFIGHT BEGINS: India Opens Talks With Boeing & Dassault

The Indian Navy has officially opened vendor discussions with Boeing Defense and Dassault Aviation under its most ambitious current aviation thrust, a quest for 57 multirole fighters to operate off its future aircraft carriers. Livefist can confirm that while the navy did receive four responses in response to its call for information last year, only two are being regarded as ‘serious contenders’.

A top Indian Navy aviation and procurement officer confirmed proceedings on the Multirole Carrier Borne Fighter (MRCBF) project to Livefist. He said, “We are treating only two of the responses as being from serious and ready contenders. This is in the interests of our current requirements and timelines.”

As projected here on Livefist before, the contest is progressing as a direct face-off between Boeing’s F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet and a modified version of Dassault’s Rafale M F3R standard. Livefist can confirm that the Indian Navy isn’t regarding by the same measure of seriousness the two other responses it has received — from Russia for the MiG-29K and from Sweden’s Saab for the concept Gripen Maritime. It is all but official, therefore, that these last two contenders don’t have a place in the potential race.

A request for proposal (RfP) process for the 57 naval fighters, to be executed under the Strategic Partnership (SP) model, could begin later this year. The navy is in the process of finetuning operational staff requirements before freezing naval air staff requirements (NASR).

While the navy hasn’t stipulated engine numbers and launch configuration in its RFI sent out last year, Livefist gathers that planners are steeply inclined towards catapult launch (CATOBAR) operations, all but confirming that India’s future aircraft carriers (IAC-2 onwards) will be flat-top vessels, rather than the ski-jump fitted aircraft carriers it has operated thus far (barring the original INS Vikrant in its early configuration). India’s first indigenous aircraft carrier, the new Vikrant-class, will be a ski-jump fitted ship like the INS Vikramaditya and INS Viraat before it.

Both Boeing and Dassault have invested energies in attempting to persuade the Indian Navy that the F/A-18 and Rafale, respectively, are capable of operations of a ski-jump fitted carrier, even if they’re design-built for launches off a catapult system. It is understood that the Indian Navy has officially requested data on simulations conducted by both companies in this regard.

Progress on what is arguably the Indian Navy’s most significant current procurement push comes at a time replete with pressures and uncertainties that could almost certainly complicate, delay — perhaps even derail — momentum towards the next step. For instance, a vituperative opposition party-led political spotlight on the Indian government’s 2016 Rafale deal has made the readily touchy act of arms contracting in India even more sensitive. With India’s next national election less than 18 months away, all processes with even the slightest capacity to trigger political noise go slow. And this is not to even mention the enormous complexities and uncertainties buffeting the Strategic Partnership model itself and how India can even execute under it.

As Livefist reported last year, there are inevitable linkages between the Indian Navy’s requirements and what could come next for the Indian Air Force — a seemingly insatiable quest for squadrons to meet sanctioned strength numbers. The Indian Air Force’s quest for 100 single engine fighters under the Strategic Partnership model, a direct face-off betweenSaab’s Gripen E and the F-16 Block 70, is also reported to have run into trouble over fears of a single-vendor situation. Concerns that apply to the IAF’s quest will definitely apply to the navy’s own. Neither service will be holding its breath.

A poignant confirmation that Livefist was able to obtain as part recent interactions with naval planners was that the indigenous LCA Navy Mk.2, seen earlier as the last hope for the home-grown fighter for carrier operations, is officially off the table. Documents viewed by your correspondent show that on October 18, 2016, at a meeting between then Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, an Indian Navy team and representatives of the DRDO, it was officially decided that the file on the LCA Mk.1 and Mk.2 would be closed from a procurement perspective, though funding would continue. Noting that the proposed Mk.2 also did not meet requirements and would be available too late, Parrikar signed off on a decision to de-link the LCA program from the navy’s quest for further fighters. The file notes, ‘ADA to continue development of LCA Navy Mk.2 as an intermediate step with an aim to develop an indigenous deck based fighter that will meet naval requirements’. Minutes of a meeting that took subsequently took place on November 21, 2016 show that the navy was then cleared to ‘initiate a case for deck based fighters independent of the LCA Mk.2 project’.

The Indian Navy is therefore planning to formalise financial support to the fifth generation AMCA program is the potential first indigenous deck-based fighter.

Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighter For The Indian Navy - Updates & Discussions

Told you folks.. !!!
 
Both of these will be rejected. Just wait and watch and remember my words. let these aircraft come down for STOBAR trials first.
OK.... But then what's the alternative. More migs or n-lca ( which was deemed unsuitable) or LSA (which is a paper plane as of now)

IMHO..... If India wants to throw a sweeter to Uncle Sam I would much rather we get the super hornet rather than the viper. At least it's a very potent naval platform.

Although I strongly feel that the Rafale will win this one too if they have a solution for the wings
 
Vivek Lall joining Lockheed Martin is a hint of things to come. F16 is coming to India. Trump changing his tone against pakistan is other pointer to the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aashish
Vivek Lall joining Lockheed Martin is a hint of things to come. F16 is coming to India. Trump changing his tone against pakistan is other pointer to the same.
Vivek Lall or anyone else, the relationship can't be one sided. It is not a personality cult. If Vivek Lall is so close, why not give any ToT?

Trump changing tone has little effect as Pakistan gets its funds from Arabs. Trump must give what India needs - Technology. India nevrneeded any planes. They are as good as scrap metal. What is needed is technology.If India has technology, India can make 10 thousand planes instead of 100 planes.

Moreover, the budget of defence capital expenditure for all 3 forces combined is 80k crore or 12 billion dollars. Rafale +F16 of 25-30 billion dollars appear to be extraordinary expense which may not fit in the budget.

Let us wait and watch. @dadeechi if this turns out false, you will never be taken seriously again
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.