Mirage 2000H, MiG-29UPG, Jaguar DARIN III - Medium Multirole Aircraft of IAF

The Mirage 2000 cannot perform SEAD missions. It does not have dedicated anti-radiation missiles or dedicated ground jamming pods. It only has an electronic reconnaissance pod.
I don't see any superior electronic equipment of the Indian Mirage 2000 over the Su-30. The electronic equipment level of both aircraft is maintained at around 2000, and the Su-30 has a larger power generation capacity and can carry a higher-power jamming pod. And it can also use the Russian Kh 31. Although the performance of this missile is relatively backward, it is still much better than the weapons that the Mirage 2000 can use.
View attachment 36549

Mirage 2000 is considered one of the best Western SEAD/DEAD aircraft to exist. Plus it carries the ARMAT anti-radiation missile, which was developed from the Martel.

Anyway, even if the MKI has more electrical power, external pods like jammers typically carry their own power supply independent from the aircraft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Pakistan's Mirage III has a different role from India's. In India, the Jaguar attack aircraft performs close ground support missions.
Its functions are similar to those of Pakistan's Mirage III

Jaguar is also for SEAD/DEAD + deep penetration + nuclear missions, not just ground support. It is from the same era as the Mirage III, but has other advantages.

The IAF does not have a dedicated ground support aircraft, which is a secondary mission for all fighters we have. That's why the IAF is a multirole force like France. While all others use specialized jets, we use a common jet for all missions.

So MKI, Mirage 2000, Rafale, Mig-29 and LCA are expected to do both air superioity and strike. And MKI and LCA are expected to be able to use any weapon of any jet from any air base. Right now, Mirage and Rafale numbers are small so they don't have that requirement. But once MRFA delivers more Rafales, it will also get the same treatment.
 
Rafale fighter has some equipment that Su-30 does not have, but does Mirage 2000 have it? Can you really name any function that Mirage 2000 has that Su-30 does not have?

Mirage 2000-5 was the first jet to have sensor fusion based on integrated modular avionics, introduced in the mid-90s. It integrates radar, EW suite and the MICA IR's seeker, plus a lot of pods.

It uses a MIL-STD-1760 data bus too, so it's nuclear ready. And compared to the MKI, it has a full-fledged internal EW suite, including an internal jammer; SERVAL RWR/SABRE jammer. There's also a Chameleon jammer.

The IAF uses a significantly improved digital ICMS Mk3 EW suite. Although we have no confirmation, it's possible that there's an IR-based MAWS installed too, ICMS Mk2 (combination of SERVAL EW and Chameleon jammer) had the SAMIR DDM. In terms of software, French EW is a generation ahead of American EW, so they have a lot of capabilities that are a secret.

Pretty much all of this is missing in the MKI or is slowly being introduced. Only sensor fusion was introduced half a decade ago.

Moreover, unlike what you might think, Mirage 2000, although small, adopts tailless delta wing layout, which is more suitable for high-altitude supersonic flight. When flying at low altitude and low speed, its performance is far worse than that of Flanker fighter.

It's subjective. While the Mirage cannot compete with MKI in a dog fight, it still has far more capabilities relative to adversary aircraft like the F-16, J-10, J-11 etc.

This is also the reason why many countries gave up the Mirage 2000. Its aerodynamic layout is far behind the times.
Your understanding of aircraft is still limited to movies.

Mirage was very expensive during its time. A Mig-29 was half its price for example. And at the height of the Cold War, only the most serious air forces without blanket American support chose the Mirage 2000, like Greece, UAE and Taiwan, similar to how it is with Rafale. It came at premium cost, but it also came with capabilities the Americans did not want to offer.
 
Signature by 2031 for F5 ?!? What next I wonder ?! Signature by 2041 for F6 ! Sometimes I can't tell what's worse ! RST opioids on offer here or the tango between the MoD & the IAF instead of a jugalbandi , which instead of addressing the rapid alarming & distressing fall in squadron numbers seems to be further complicating matters.

The entire raison d'être of the MRFA tender or whatever you choose to call it is the proposed lack of a TE FA. Let's cut thru the technical jargon here shall we & admit that the IAF having chosen the Rafale now wants it in numbers , hence the MRFA tender. They've in their wisdom deemed it capable of taking on the PLAAF J-16 & J-20 which is the creme de la creme of the Chinese AF.

Without getting into the merits of the IAF's position on their choice of Rafales for the task, we should instead examine the procurement in the light of whatever evidence we've at our disposal weighing it against the chances of a conflict with China & the timing of it . The answer to both these propositions are - there is a good chance we'd fight a war with China & a good chance of it happening in or before 2031.

What're we to do with procuring the Rafales in the 2030s or later given we've two programs maturing in the same time period - the LCA Mk-2 & the AMCA Mk-1 with the latter being a TE semi stealth FA too & what's more it's our own . Why would we need the Rafales then for an AMCA Mk-1 covers pretty much the same ground as the Rafales ?!

If the Rafales are to come we've to get them this decade not the next or later & that too in numbers . If they don't come within the stipulated time period we've no need for them which is where we seem headed.

Probably the GoI may throw a bone at the IAF & procure a couple of squadrons of Rafales off the shelf or maybe 3 but that seems to be it .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Signature by 2031 for F5 ?!? What next I wonder ?! Signature by 2041 for F6 ! Sometimes I can't tell what's worse ! RST opioids on offer here or the tango between the MoD & the IAF instead of a jugalbandi , which instead of addressing the rapid alarming & distressing fall in squadron numbers seems to be further complicating matters.

The entire raison d'être of the MRFA tender or whatever you choose to call it is the proposed lack of a TE FA. Let's cut thru the technical jargon here shall we & admit that the IAF having chosen the Rafale now wants it in numbers , hence the MRFA tender. They've in their wisdom deemed it capable of taking on the PLAAF J-16 & J-20 which is the creme de la creme of the Chinese AF.

Without getting into the merits of the IAF's position on their choice of Rafales for the task, we should instead examine the procurement in the light of whatever evidence we've at our disposal weighing it against the chances of a conflict with China & the timing of it . The answer to both these propositions are - there is a good chance we'd fight a war with China & a good chance of it happening in or before 2031.

What're we to do with procuring the Rafales in the 2030s or later given we've two programs maturing in the same time period - the LCA Mk-2 & the AMCA Mk-1 with the latter being a TE semi stealth FA too & what's more it's our own . Why would we need the Rafales then for an AMCA Mk-1 covers pretty much the same ground as the Rafales ?!

If the Rafales are to come we've to get them this decade not the next or later & that too in numbers . If they don't come within the stipulated time period we've no need for them which is where we seem headed.

Probably the GoI may throw a bone at the IAF & procure a couple of squadrons of Rafales off the shelf or maybe 3 but that seems to be it .
American f414 engine - Predator drones and Strike r.
French joint venture 110 KN engine - Rafale.

Many deals are lined up for this December 2024. Let's wait and watch whatever get signed.

Predator price revision is supposed happen next month. ?? Are we going to sign it or will it become next Honeywell engine saga.

Edit : on second thought, US election in November, we may sign it with next government..
 
Last edited:
MKI is designed as air superiority fighter with secondary ground role. IAF is using it reverse?

In your opinion, with assuming LCA MK2 is on schedule, India will still buy used M2000s?

No, just that not a lot of jets are necessary for air superiority. Plus there's Mig-29 and LCA too.

I don't know about the used M2000s. There are no good options available that can come in cheap, we have to upgrade every option there is, Greek, Qatar, Taiwan or UAE. So not just money, but time too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
What's wrong with Ignorants? Been so long on defense boards, followed the LCA program, and still asks stupid questions. It's all about timelines.

Rafale is ready today, but we need F5 via MRFA, which is realistic only by 2035. MRFA will easily take away 4-5 years followed by 3-4 years for delivery. So any tender in 2025 will culminate in a fighter jet only 8-9 years later. AMCA, even if it becomes ready by 2035-40, will still take 5-7 years to become fully operational. That's a lot closer to 2045. It's not just about certification, you need numbers, trained personnel, nationwide infrastructure etc. This is not even considering ADA actually meets their rather unrealistic timeframe for delivery. Hell, we haven't even chosen an engine for it yet.

So we need a new TE jet, but unless there's a direct purchase deal for F4 made within the next 2 years, it's gonna have to be for the F5 signed by 2031. Rafale is a 10-year fighter, but AMCA is a 20-year fighter in terms of operability. The only difference is AMCA will be far more relevant in the 2050-60s than the Rafale F5.

All our main next gen capabilities are expected to enter service only in the early/mid 2030s. MKI MLU is expected to deliver by 2031-32 alongside LCA Mk2 a year or two later. MRFA should make it by 2034-35, around the same time as AMCA Mk1. Add a few extra years for numbers until 2040. There was potential for a stopgap between now and 2032, either 2 more squadrons of Rafales or Su-57/F-35, but they are not necessary anymore 'cause of the additional Mk1A orders, which became the stopgap, alongside the life extension of the Mig-29s, effectively 150+ additional aircraft that we failed to anticipate fully.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rajput Lion
What's wrong is the right way to put it by RST ! The only thing wrong with me is I'm not into 8 pm analysis by which logic all those indulging in 8 pm analysis will definitely find what I'm writing wrong .

Presumably we'd ask PLAAF to postpone their plans against us to after 2035 when we're better prepared equipped as we shall be with the Rafales F5 version.

As I recall when the MMRCA tender was first conceived the Rafale was not even the first choice . The tender came about simply because George Fernandes the then DM refused to consider a single vendor situation for the Mirage 2000 which was what the IAF was aiming for then .

By 2005-06 , as the Rafale matured it was on the advice of Dassault that the Mirages were replaced by the Rafales in the MMRCA tender for the simple reason that both Dassault & the IAF anticipated that by the time the tender fructified into a firm order the Mirages would be obsolete. Events proved both right. It's all about Timelines indeed. Why's this little history important ?

It goes to show that procurements are always subject to change given the dynamics of time finance foreign policy imperatives etc. True for all AFs especially true about the IAF where things are never what they seem , constantly in a state of flux & since we're transiting between being an import driven armed forces to a domestic one there will inevitably be change of plans .

We're now in 2024 a good 22-23 years after the IAF began its exercise to get a TE FA. Every procurement must serve a purpose . The MMRCA was ALSO about seeking replacements to the Jaguars , the MiG-29 & the Mirage 2000. The very fact that we've the LCA Mk-2 means we take care of one half of the problem.

The fact that the IAF has chosen to exercise the option for further procurement of the LCA Mk-1a ( 97 nos ) means they're catering to exigencies i.e the Mk-2 materialising later than scheduled & by default addressing the issue of replacements of our existing fleet as well to an extent .

With both the Mk-2 & the AMCA Mk-1 which is straightaway a more advanced version of the Rafale ( I'm quoting various posts to this effect by RST himself ) materialising in the 2030s in addition to the further procurement of the Mk-1a's where's the budget to go in for the MRFA ? This is apart from the other points I've raised in my previous post on why the Rafales in a 2035 scenario not only makes zero sense , it's an impossibility.

I'd love to see more Rafales in the IAF too but the window for it's procurement is now rapidly closing. It should have been initiated immediately after we signed the deal for 36 nos Rafales & cancelled the MMRCA tender. If we didn't issue a tender ( MRFA) or procured the other 36 nos Rafales off the shelf for which we've already paid for in terms of ISE & preparation of 2 bases in the immediate aftermath of Galwan or even later when we're about to conclude a deal for 26 nos Rafale M , it's safe to conclude either the GoI or IAF are not on the same page or if they are they don't see the Rafales as making a difference in a conflict against China.

Looking at the overall preparations by the IA & the IAF in other spheres too it seems as if it's BAU - business as usual with absolutely no urgency whatsoever in either new procurements or supplementation or modernisation as is evident from the leisurely T/Ls of the MKI upgrades.

As regards the timing of all our major programs fructifying in the 2030s , what can I say ? It's a decade too late . Whatever will be happening in 2034 should've happened now . That's how far behind our development agencies are coz the balloon will go up by the end of this decade the absence of all these platforms including the Rafales in numbers will be felt most keenly . Keeping them company are our dhotis who'd definitely not account fir the lost decade between 2004-14 & whimsicality later on . The performance of our armed forces is in between these two poles.

Hence we can either be realistic in our assessments & consequently our expectations or we can consume hopium / hopioids / 8 pm analysis dealt by the one & only ....
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Rafale fighter has some equipment that Su-30 does not have, but does Mirage 2000 have it? Can you really name any function that Mirage 2000 has that Su-30 does not have?
M-2000 upgrade has lots of secret stuff in it which is more advance than MKI like its integrated EW(which as per some reports is as good as SPECTRA). However, MKI still has the brute power of radar and powerful jammers along with integrated IRST. But my point was about playing hide and seek using smart electronics and smaller size using terrain masking. While MKI may also use this technique, M-2000 is far better in this role due to its smaller size.
Moreover, unlike what you might think, Mirage 2000, although small, adopts tailless delta wing layout, which is more suitable for high-altitude supersonic flight. When flying at low altitude and low speed, its performance is far worse than that of Flanker fighter.
This is also the reason why many countries gave up the Mirage 2000. Its aerodynamic layout is far behind the times.
Your understanding of aircraft is still limited to movies.
M-2000 aerodynamics if far from bad. It has small strakes just below the cockpit on intake sides. It allows M-2000 to have very good controllability at low altitude/high-alpha.

Honestly, IAF used M-2000 in 2019 to strike Balakot using the same ground hugging technique which I mentioned, while MKI's provided air-cover. If what you're saying were true then IAF would have just reversed the role of the two jets which they didn't. That in itself makes your point fully moot.
 
  • Love
Reactions: HariPrasad
M-2000 upgrade has lots of secret stuff in it which is more advance than MKI like its integrated EW(which as per some reports is as good as SPECTRA). However, MKI still has the brute power of radar and powerful jammers along with integrated IRST. But my point was about playing hide and seek using smart electronics and smaller size using terrain masking. While MKI may also use this technique, M-2000 is far better in this role due to its smaller size.

M-2000 aerodynamics if far from bad. It has small strakes just below the cockpit on intake sides. It allows M-2000 to have very good controllability at low altitude/high-alpha.

Honestly, IAF used M-2000 in 2019 to strike Balakot using the same ground hugging technique which I mentioned, while MKI's provided air-cover. If what you're saying were true then IAF would have just reversed the role of the two jets which they didn't. That in itself makes your point fully moot.

I don't remember whom I had discussion with in past, but that informed member said Mirage2005 had terrain following / Collison avoidance capability . Rest of the fighters didn't have.. Including Su30mki & tejas Mk1.

However Aesa equipped fighters will have it.
Not sure about ELTA 2052 though.. But Uttam will have it. Hence need for Mirages are not much.. Rafale would be first choice followed by Super sukhoi & Tejas MK2.
 
I don't remember whom I had discussion with in past, but that informed member said Mirage2005 had terrain following / Collison avoidance capability . Rest of the fighters didn't have.. Including Su30mki & tejas Mk1.

However Aesa equipped fighters will have it.
Not sure about ELTA 2052 though.. But Uttam will have it. Hence need for Mirages are not much.. Rafale would be first choice followed by Super sukhoi & Tejas MK2.
BARS also has terrain following mode plus MKI too has radio altimeter for exactly that. But French system is that much more advance than the Russian one(though we have likely upgraded MKI's altimeter too).
 
Why is Ignorants trying so hard to prove his name with every post? He's won already.

Let's briefly go back into history. In the 80s, the IAF had 2 requirements, SE and TE. SE was supposed to be fulfilled by 2 jets, LCA Mk1 and Mirage 2000. TE was supposed to be fulfilled by 2 jets, Soviet (Mig-29) and Western (Typhoon/Rafale).

Why did we split two requirements into 4 jets? Military hardware diplomacy, as per Hellfire, this is how we balance things out between the Soviet and the West.

LCA delayed, but delivering now. Mirage 2000 was pushed forward by 2 decades before initiating a tender in 2001. Its main competitor was Gripen C/D. Once the Americans realized they had politically won in India in the 90s, they offered the F-16 (and the nuclear deal and such). In the meantime, SU had fallen, the Russians offer the Flanker and we took care of one part of the TE component.

With LCA and MKI taken care of, the only deals left were both the Western components of SE and TE jets. The powers that be decided that since the M2000 was quite old and running out of steam, they can switch their sights to TE first while giving future SE jets time to develop and mature, ie, today's Gripen E and F-16 B70. So in come SH, Rafale, Typhoon and Mig-35. The other two were just placeholders driven by our need to fulfill our atithi devo bhava credentials. So they participated with the same gusto as most of our Olympians, maybe worse not knowing their fate.

That's how MRCA became MMRCA and that culminated into 36 Rafales. The IAF wanted 4 squadrons instead of 2, but it was decided that anything new will come through a tender instead. When that happened, the IAF announced that they will restart the 2001 tender for SE jets, Gripen and F-16, but ADA pulled through with their Mk2 and killed the tender. The import lobby put their best foot forward back then and failed, quite miserably I might add.

And now that a few years have passed, with 3 out of 4 decided, MMRCA is back in the reckoning in the form of MRFA. This time the requirement is for "real" next gen capabilities.

In so far as capability is concerned, both the Chinese and Pakistanis have shot themselves in their feet, both have become economic miracles in their own right, so that has given us enough leeway to introduce "real" next gen capabilities relevant to the 2030s and 40s that's not determined by just 1 or 2 qualifying factors like shaping or supercruise of the yesteryears. The expectation is the IAF's current inventory is enough to hold the fort until the mid-30s, notwithstanding the fact that IAF's busy creating a kinda global ISR capability in space. So, yeah, the J-20 and J-31 seem impressive, but are becoming less and less relevant with time due to their current lack of "real" next gen capabilities.

Here's something interesting. The USAF seems to be going slow with the NGAD 'cause they believe "real" next gen capabilities may surpass it within the decade.


Basically, all that we are supposedly operating today, especially those with a man in it, are gonna become useless in a very short time 'cause of drones. So the IAF's goal is to build stuff that's reliable while leaving the drones to do all the heavylifting, just in time to meet "real" next gen capabilities introduced by our adversaries around the mid-30s. This maintains Rafale/MRFA's relevancy until the mid-50s.

This is the reason why merely buying the Rafale F4 is not enough for the IAF, especially when it could get surpassed very quickly by the LCA Mk2/MKI MLU + Ghatak/FUFA combo. Then we gotta pay endless amounts of money to upgrade it to the F5 standard.
 
American f414 engine - Predator drones and Strike r.
French joint venture 110 KN engine - Rafale.

Many deals are lined up for this December 2024. Let's wait and watch whatever get signed.

Predator price revision is supposed happen next month. ?? Are we going to sign it or will it become next Honeywell engine saga.

Edit : on second thought, US election in November, we may sign it with next government..

Next admin will come to office only in Jan. So we can get things done under Biden before that. Anyway, the presidency doesn't matter. Our military relationship with the Americans is via the deep state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
What's wrong is the right way to put it by RST ! The only thing wrong with me is I'm not into 8 pm analysis by which logic all those indulging in 8 pm analysis will definitely find what I'm writing wrong .

Presumably we'd ask PLAAF to postpone their plans against us to after 2035 when we're better prepared equipped as we shall be with the Rafales F5 version.

As I recall when the MMRCA tender was first conceived the Rafale was not even the first choice . The tender came about simply because George Fernandes the then DM refused to consider a single vendor situation for the Mirage 2000 which was what the IAF was aiming for then .

By 2005-06 , as the Rafale matured it was on the advice of Dassault that the Mirages were replaced by the Rafales in the MMRCA tender for the simple reason that both Dassault & the IAF anticipated that by the time the tender fructified into a firm order the Mirages would be obsolete. Events proved both right. It's all about Timelines indeed. Why's this little history important ?

It goes to show that procurements are always subject to change given the dynamics of time finance foreign policy imperatives etc. True for all AFs especially true about the IAF where things are never what they seem , constantly in a state of flux & since we're transiting between being an import driven armed forces to a domestic one there will inevitably be change of plans .

We're now in 2024 a good 22-23 years after the IAF began its exercise to get a TE FA. Every procurement must serve a purpose . The MMRCA was ALSO about seeking replacements to the Jaguars , the MiG-29 & the Mirage 2000. The very fact that we've the LCA Mk-2 means we take care of one half of the problem.

The fact that the IAF has chosen to exercise the option for further procurement of the LCA Mk-1a ( 97 nos ) means they're catering to exigencies i.e the Mk-2 materialising later than scheduled & by default addressing the issue of replacements of our existing fleet as well to an extent .

With both the Mk-2 & the AMCA Mk-1 which is straightaway a more advanced version of the Rafale ( I'm quoting various posts to this effect by RST himself ) materialising in the 2030s in addition to the further procurement of the Mk-1a's where's the budget to go in for the MRFA ? This is apart from the other points I've raised in my previous post on why the Rafales in a 2035 scenario not only makes zero sense , it's an impossibility.

I'd love to see more Rafales in the IAF too but the window for it's procurement is now rapidly closing. It should have been initiated immediately after we signed the deal for 36 nos Rafales & cancelled the MMRCA tender. If we didn't issue a tender ( MRFA) or procured the other 36 nos Rafales off the shelf for which we've already paid for in terms of ISE & preparation of 2 bases in the immediate aftermath of Galwan or even later when we're about to conclude a deal for 26 nos Rafale M , it's safe to conclude either the GoI or IAF are not on the same page or if they are they don't see the Rafales as making a difference in a conflict against China.

Looking at the overall preparations by the IA & the IAF in other spheres too it seems as if it's BAU - business as usual with absolutely no urgency whatsoever in either new procurements or supplementation or modernisation as is evident from the leisurely T/Ls of the MKI upgrades.

As regards the timing of all our major programs fructifying in the 2030s , what can I say ? It's a decade too late . Whatever will be happening in 2034 should've happened now . That's how far behind our development agencies are coz the balloon will go up by the end of this decade the absence of all these platforms including the Rafales in numbers will be felt most keenly . Keeping them company are our dhotis who'd definitely not account fir the lost decade between 2004-14 & whimsicality later on . The performance of our armed forces is in between these two poles.

Hence we can either be realistic in our assessments & consequently our expectations or we can consume hopium / hopioids / 8 pm analysis dealt by the one & only ....

I find both your and Random radio view valid..

What's the use of Rafale when Amca & tedbf are flying..?

However fastest MRFA can happen is post 2030... With IST it can extend to any number of years.

We are even delaying Rafale M orders..

Like Hell fire says got to give pound of flesh if we need engine tech. I think we are delaying everything for the sake of engines. (I hope so)


Next admin will come to office only in Jan. So we can get things done under Biden before that. Anyway, the presidency doesn't matter. Our military relationship with the Americans is via the deep state.

I think we similarly delayed something before elections and signed it up next Potus. .. Like P8I deal or something.. .

It's ll be win win when we sign with next Potus.. Not so much before elections..

It's better to shake hands with the winner.. To be in good books for the next term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Ah ! As if on cue , 8 pm analysis is back. Seems to me there's some deep connection between 8 pm & Gen Z . I've been bombarded with Amazon notifications about "unmissable deals at 8 pm" since the beginning of this week. Either that or they're lurking out here.
Yes let's go down memory lane should be the accurate term used here & not history for the former is subjective , the latter is fact . That's been the problem with RST throughout . He seems to think his down memory lane trips are actually history as we know & understand it.

There was no such distinction ever. The IAF started this canard - pun unintended of TE FA to justify its selection of Eurocanards & it was first used when the case came up before the SC if I'm not mistaken. If the original tender when it was being framed itself wanted the Mirages where's is the question of TE being their original choice ?

Furthermore the MiG -29 were what the then SU shoved down our throats . Let me explain although I've described this situation many a times before.

Starting 1980 , IG was determined to strike an independent path in terms of foreign policy as the SU started charging extortionate amounts for their arms . To make matters worse neither was their currency pegged to the USD . The only relief we had was they extended credit & sometimes traded in barter.

This break first came about when IG finalized the deal for the Anglo French Jaguar which was signed during Morarji Desai's tenure as PM. As soon as IG resumed power she had to deal with the SU's invasion of Afghanistan. Though we had deep reservations about it we didn't directly oppose the SU in public.

However diversification of our arms procurement & indigenization was in full flow. The original plan was to procure the Mirage 2000 & then as with the Jaguars get a deal for ToT to mfg it here. This was followed by IG's historic visit to Washington where she sought US assistance to build the LCA.

The procurement of GE F -404 for the prototypes while Kaveri was being constructed goes back to this visit as does US assistance thru CALSPAN to us in developing FCL & eventually the FCS .

The SU saw these developments & panicked . They came up with a huge aid package including supply of the MiG -29 at favourable terms , supply of MiG -27 with ToT , offer to send an Indian into space which culminated in Rakesh Sharma becoming the first Indian cosmonaut , offer to assist India with our N submarine program including assistance in construction of the N reactor , design & consultancy for the ATV & finally leasing an SSN for Indian scientists & Naval personnel to get acquainted with these systems among many other goodies.

With the result we had two FA for the same role namely taking on the Paxtani F-16s . The Mirage project which the IAF would attempt to revive in the early 2000s was first torpedoed here.Trust RST to spin his yarns offering them as "history." It's history alright provided you're an 8 pm er.

We were shopping for an air superiority fighter & the Russians being in a vulnerable position was our best bet of getting a favourable deal.
It had nothing to do with a SE or TE fighter . The Russian offered the Su-27 initially .

It was when the IAF suggested plenty of improvements / enhancements did the Sukhoi personnel unveil the concept of the Su-30 something which was initiated by them in yhe early to mid 80s but was languishing for want of funds.The initiatives of the IAF with HAL & DRDO saw the birth of a new FA - the Su-30 . It's safe to say had there been no India there'd probably be no Su-30.

I see RST is back to his old self of spinning yarns so complex that he eventually gets caught in a trap of his own making. If the tender was for a TE FA what was the Gripen doing in it or even the F-16 assuming we were humouring both the Russians by getting the MiG-35 to participate in the MMRCA tender as well as the F/A-18 E/F.

The Rafales weren't even the front runners here . It was the Eurofighter by far which was the favourite with the Gripen being another strong contender. The Rafales were what we call the dark horse.

The MRFA has been on since 2016 . The participants are known too . Except we've yet to see the blessed thing materialise a full 8 years after the MMRCA was scrapped & 36 nos Rafales ordered.

If the J-20s are becoming less relevant by the day & the IAF's ISR capacities & capabilities are growing courtesy our space exploration why exactly are we wasting time with the MRFA. We ought to be focusing on our indigenous programs like the Mk-2 & the AMCA & keep building those much vaunted ISR capacities in space.

Mark this as another of RST being too clever by half & tripping himself on traps he's himself set. I've always maintained both RST & Paddy should team up to write sit coms. They've the inherent talent to do so which is being thoroughly wasted out here by posts full of unintentional comedy .

If everything manned we're operating today is going to be obsolete in a decade or so , all the more reason not to proceed with the MRFA by focusing on (L)AURA , FUFA , BUA , TAU etc .

In other words had the original MMRCA tender gone thru & had we got the Rafales F3 version they'd be obsolete for going by RST's logic the IAF wouldn't be upgrading them ever as both the F4 and further iterations would be too expensive. That's his logic for going in for F5 in 2031.

God forbid if the French delay the program by 4-5 years ( it's already been delayed from 2029 when it was originally to commence ) then as per RST logic we'd be signing the contract post 2035.

Keep tuning in for more gems as I did by returning to Stat Front. It's free entertainment after a hectic day's work.
 
I find both your and Random radio view valid..

What's the use of Rafale when Amca & tedbf are flying..?

However fastest MRFA can happen is post 2030... With IST it can extend to any number of years.

All these procurements are for specific threat assessments . The MKI & Rafales were to cater to both the Chinese & Paxtani threats with Rafales specifically for the Chinese.

Our security establishment was fast asleep since the early to mid 90s on the Chinese threat especially since we'd signed a slew of agreements with them to manage the border & allowed for imports literally wrecking our domestic industries like the ones mfg API .

Sometimes I wonder if the foreign policy establishment actually saw thru the Chinese game of buying time or did the Chinese take them for a ride once again.

It's only since 2020 have they finally woken up or so they claim or we think . Apparently the thinking is they can contain the Chinese at the border for what they're expecting is another border war a la 1962 with appropriate adjustments made to reckon for future enhancements in war fighting abilities equipment tactics etc but their summation is still - it's going to be a border war. Period.

We can stretch our MRFA tender to 2040 as well now that we're sure the AMCA Mk-2 won't be coming by then & qualify NGAD , GCAP , FCAS / SCAF & whatever the Russians have to offer discarding the present selection totally or retaining them with the IAF calling it a "level playing field " for all generation FAs from 4th - 6th or 7th Gen with RST dutifully reporting it here as such & then tying himself in knots explaining it , only for some random ( pun intended )visitor or newbie to thrash him black and blue once more. It's SOP now .


We are even delaying Rafale M orders..

Like Hell fire says got to give pound of flesh if we need engine tech. I think we are delaying everything for the sake of engines. (I hope so)

Who says we're delaying Rafale M orders ? It'd be signed before the end of this financial year . And if we're to practice arms procurement diplomacy there are plenty of other items we can play around with. A good example are the Strykers or the Javelins which are back in contention while the Moroccan government has just concluded a deal with Tata Motors for WhAP.

I think we similarly delayed something before elections and signed it up next Potus. .. Like P8I deal or something.. .

It's ll be win win when we sign with next Potus.. Not so much before elections..

It's better to shake hands with the winner.. To be in good books for the next term.
 
Ah, Ignorants being his usual self, misunderstanding MoD/IAF's intentions, their plans and being unable to relate to all that's happening.

The IAF had always planned to manufacture both M2000 and Mig-29 in large numbers, it wasn't one or the other. The Mig-29 simply changed into MKI 'cause the SU had no intention of offering the Flanker for export. It was just our bad luck that we were far too broke to choose the M2000 as well.

And when the opportunity came in 2001, it was just happenstance that M2000's development ceased and it lost its potential value in the eyes of the IAF thereby leading them to switch their sights to MMRCA.

Our TE requirement changed only in the 90s, meaning it's not just MKI, but we also wanted MMRCA and MCA. 150-200 each, that's 500-600 jets. Apart from 300+ SE jets. And the only reason we split the requirement was, as per the architect of MMRCA, we could not fully trust the Russians with an order for 400+ MKIs and become entirely dependent on them.

I have posted this a thousand times, I don't know why it doesn't stick.

“What surprises me – since you’re the author of that RFP (MMRCA) – is that what is the significance of the term medium? Is it weight, is it performance, is it range, is it endurance? A. And B – how did you end up with a bunch of aircraft from single-engined to twin-engined, from 17 tons to 30 tons – I mean why did you stand for it? Make up your mind what you want. Whether it is performance, whether it is weight. So I think this mess, in which we are today has been self-inflicted.” – Admiral (retd.) Arun Prakash

“It’s about operational requirements – you know, meeting a certain spectrum of operational utility. You had to have a mix of both – I’m defending that. And I’m defending it very strongly. We had to actually bring in this Medium Multi Role Combat – because it was originally MRCA – primarily because you had to – although I’d said that weight consideration is no more a relevant issue – to categorize aircraft by weight limitations – we had to keep the Su-30 out because otherwise the Su-30 would have come into the competition, as well. And the question would have been raised, ‘Why can’t you buy more of the Su-30s’. Now you can’t put all your eggs in one basket – strategically, it’s unwise. That’s one of the primary reasons. And therefore you created this Medium Multi role Combat Aircraft (competition) which is 30 tons and below. Okay, so the Su-30 is 34 tons and above – 34 tons category. So the heaviest aircraft in this entire category was the F/A-18, which is 29 tons. The costliest aircraft was the Eurofighter, as per our estimation at that point of time. The cheapest aircraft was – and the lightest aircraft was the Gripen. The F-16 would have been the cheapest. But the point is, you had the original contenders who were there in the fray – you couldn’t have removed them because that process had started off. But you had the new technologies – 4 and half generation aircraft and you also had a spectrum of cost differentials from one end -I would say, averaging about 40 million dollars to almost 100 million dollars – or 85 million dollars.” – Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran


First bold sentence: We can't completely rely on the Russians.
Second bold sentence: "Atithi devo bhava." F-16 and Gripen had no chance of winning, participating Olympians, but it was rude to kick them out.

Simply put, if the Russians were 100% trustworthy, we could have skipped out on MMRCA entirely and simply bought more MKIs. Like the SMs, or the Su-35S, or a combination of the two combined with some European/Israeli tech, like and AESA radar. Another reason was technological, MKI was simply old tech by then 'cause the Eurocanards were truly next gen. When it came to both MKI and T-90, we asked for the best they had. It in fact took the Russians quite a bit of convincing to prove to the Indian team that they did not have a better tank than the T-90 at the time. So, if instead of MKI, the Berkut was operational, we would have very likely gone for that instead and built 400 of them, notwithstanding the affordability aspect.

Funny how people forget we were seriously going after FGFA too, not just MRFA and AMCA. MMRCA may have taught the IAF some important lessons, which they hope will be repeated with MRFA because the definition of generation is changing again.

As for why we are "wasting time with MRFA," we are not. As explained already, indigenous tech doesn't exist. If I place a Rafale order today, I'm guaranteed delivery in 2027. But if I place an AMCA order today, even 10 years is questionable. Hell, even 15 years is wild. This is the reason MRFA exists. The IAF is chasing after guaranteed capability, not vaporware. Rafale will be available in 2035 with a large complement of crew and infrastructure already developed, courtesy of the F3R and IN's F4. AMCA needs all the way until 2045 to get to that point. Although the MKI was introduced in 2002, the IAF declared it was operational only after 2007. Rafale went through the same process, it was IOC-ready in 2001, but the F3 became available only in 2006. And F3+ took all the way until 2012 before it became a serious contender for export.

Fighter jets have a long gestation period. First flight, IOC, FOC and then achieving an operationally viable standard. For example, the F-35 flew in 2006, achieved IOC standards presumably in 2019, but even in 2024 it's not operationally viable, it will achieve that sometime after 2026, more likely closer to 2030. PAF's JF-17 too was "introduced" in 2007, but it became operationally viable only after 2017 or so, when the SD-10 was fully cleared for use. Until then it was no better than the Jaguar, never mind the fact that only B3 is somewhat viable against the IAF. AMCA will have to go through the same process, so IOC by 2035, FOC by 2040, operationally viable by 2045, by which time the IAF will have sufficiently trained crew and infrastructure, with the jet having achieved a lot of its original technological objectives.

Only when your jet becomes operationally viable can you reliably take it into combat. For example, the MKI was not survivable until 2007. Then we saw how quickly the jet's numbers climbed between 2009 and 2015.

As for the manned-unmanned debate, as tech catches up, manned jets will become unmanned. They call that optionally manned. The goal behind it is to be risk-averse. If something goes wrong, there needs to be a cockpit for a human pilot to take over. But if things go well, most of the important missions will be conducted by unmanned fighters, ie, the cockpit will be empty, or will perhaps carry some other equipment. They can even remove the canopy and seal the cockpit while retaining aerodynamics.

So now the Americans are debating whether NGAD should be a more expensive optionally manned jet or a cheaper fully unmanned jet. Our industry is obviously not at the same level, so we cannot make AMCA unmanned right off the bat, but it will come with optionally manned features in the post-FOC standard; ie, the last 5 squadrons, 2040+. Naturally, the Rafale F5 could also come with such a feature.

It's possible that around the 2050s almost all of IAF's manned jets could become unmanned, or at least 70-80% or so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
However fastest MRFA can happen is post 2030... With IST it can extend to any number of years.

This argument works against your point because AMCA is more dependent on IST than MRFA.

I think we similarly delayed something before elections and signed it up next Potus. .. Like P8I deal or something.. .

It's ll be win win when we sign with next Potus.. Not so much before elections..

It's better to shake hands with the winner.. To be in good books for the next term.

Trump is unpredictable. He could use the engine deal for furthering his own agenda, not worth the risk. All other direct import plans are fine.

He can still sign big fat deals like Apache, Chinook, C-130J and Stryker with us. And more P-8I. There's M777 too. Lots of options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya