The IAF must be a bunch of fools who can't tell apart a** from elbow. You should educate them.
The IAF isn't a monolithic entity & neither is MoD. There are various interests & PoVs at play at all times.
The old Mk2 came with IRST, IFR, and internal jammer.
You can promise anything before you do the detailed design.
The back-end electronics for an internal SPJ for example, could only be contained in the enlarged dorsal spine behind the cockpit - which wasn't there in the early PDRs and only became possible after lengthening the airframe.
So where were they planning to stick them before then? In the pilot's lap?
That doesn't even come close to answering my question. It's a Mig-21++. You say it was a mistake. Then why did the IAF go for 220 Mig-21++? Even though the ASR was set up in 1985, why is the IAF willing to make this mistake in 2025?
With Mk1 design as it exists: 220 airframes before going for retesting on a new aircraft.
If Mk2 design was pursued from start: 400+ airframes of continuous production.
Can't make it simpler than that.
It's got nothing to do with the domestic industry. All nations have enough weapons only for a few weeks of war. It's been that way since 1991.
The IAF is designed to fight for a few weeks, maybe a few months, lose enough to still maintain numbers for a second war.
The IA's been designed to fight the PA only for 10+ days, by which time they need to win. That's why Gaganshakti saw the IAF fighting for a week along Pakistan and switching to the Chinese front in 48 hours to fight another week against China. That's with 30+ squadrons. To do both simultaneously, they need 40+. And if war takes out 10 squadrons, they will still have 30 for a second war if it's fought within a matter of a few years.
We can only train with what we have.
But a conflict with China cannot be resolved in a few weeks unless one side completely capitulates. If we don't want to be that one, we need the ability to completely overwhelm the Chinese through sheer tactical superiority in both technology & numbers. Like US crushing Iraq.
We don't expect to have that. The power equation between us is never going to tilt that greatly in our favour, at least not in our lifetimes.
So if a full-scale war with China does happen, we can either capitulate to end it quickly, or fight on for as long as we can in the hope of stalemating them. Which do you think we'll choose?
And what kind of platform (Western or Russian-standard) is going to be of greater utility to us in such a conflict where we may need to put up a consistently high sortie rate for months if not years on end against a peer threat?
We get numbers and buy production tech from the Russians.
Cuz they're the only ones we could afford to buy/build in very large numbers. In many cases, they were the only ones willing to sell.
But only in times past though, going ahead all our mass will come from either Western or indigenous solutions built to Western-spec.
We buy R&D tech from the West. That's how we function.
Cuz that's the tech we want - and what we want to develop our tech to be like.
Russians don't have the tech we want.
We calculate 21 to a squadron. An exception was made for Rafale, 16+1+1, But the normal number is 18+2+1. That's 18 single-seaters, 2 single-seat reserves, and 1 twin-seat reserve. This is to ensure 16 jets are always available. The MKI is 16/18 + 2, depending on the squadron. MRFA will be 16+2+1, continuing the exception made for Rafale due to its higher availability.
Mk2 will be 19, but we are not sure if Mk1 trainers will be added to the squadrons 'cause Mk2 will be single-seat only. So it could stay at 19 single-seats or 19+2.
And what, did you forget IOC and FOC jets are 20 each for both LCA Mk1 and AMCA?
A standard squadron in the USAF is 24. So number of jets per squadron can be increased anytime if necessary if a higher reserve is required. At 24, it's 1000+.
The highest we can go at 21 is 882. The lowest is still 800+. And then we will keep buying more numbers due to attrition.
The numbers are different for each squadron. I've said as much.
But the notional average is 18 and it has been so for a long time.
That's just revisionism. Of course we can't make it seem like we succumbed to political pressure.
Informed people know otherwise.
It was same for SSKs. Navy wanted more Type-209s which we had the license to build, but political considerations brought in the Kilo.
What's DPS requiring 2 engines got to do with a tender?
Those requirements are only mentioned in tenders like MMRCA/MRFA in order to acquire information.
The tender never fructifies.
All DPS fighters are twin-engine. That was the reason given by the IAF when Jaguar was chosen. That's why even HF-24 was twin-engine. MKI is not suitable for DPS. So our next jet after Jaguar is Rafale.
Those are 2nd & 3rd gen aircraft with terrible engines (by modern standards). There's a nice joke about the Jag - that it only takes off because of the curvature of the Earth. So yeah a single engine was unthinkable in those days.
Sending a SEF deep into enemy territory is only done if a pilot volunteers for a suicide mission. Or they stay within 50-100 km of friendly forces so they can be rescued by helicopters in 15 min or less, the time it would take the enemy to close in on a downed pilot. There is no rescue for DPS pilots.
DPS aircraft are exposed to enemy fire during ingress much more than SEFs. Unlike SEFs, they can't keep turning back just 'cause they were challenged. So TE helps increase survival rate when they take damage from fragmentation shells and warheads.
DPS is necessary because these jets attack the enemy's centers of gravity, like communications, HQs, assembly areas, bases, logistics in depth, civilian support infrastructure, maintenance and production lines etc. SEFs mainly target frontline troops and last mile logistics, like artillery. So what you are suggesting is giving up the former war-winning strategy to just do the pointless latter bit that even artillery and small drones can do.
That's why Mk2 doesn't meet all the requirements of the IAF no matter how many you buy.
So pilots of most NATO countries are kamikazes. Thanks for letting me know.
