MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[randomradio]

Ehh the NGAD/F/A-XX program isn't going to outright replace the SH, at least not immediately. The USN is still acquiring new SH platforms, the latest of which have conformal fuel tanks and an enclosed weapons pod. They have also funded refit and acquisitions of the SH through the mid 2030s. I suspect the platform won't be abandoned til a lower cost option becomes available (maybe a carrier based UCAV). It will be supported for another 2 decades at the very least (by which point India should have competing local designs and even indigenous 5/6th generation platforms).

The NGAD will start replacing the SH from day 1. Production of the navy's last SH is set to end next year. Naturally the completion of the replacement itself will take more than a decade, until 2050. So even the last SH inducted in 2021 will see service until 2050.

I agree the SH isn't suitable for high altitude warfare. The strengthened undercarriage is an unnecessary weight penalty for the air force. I do still think that if the IN is going to import a carrier based fighter, they should go with the SH. It meets their capability requirements, has a well developed supply chain, fits on the elevators and shares engine commonality with all the proposed indigenous fighters. It also helps the IN integrate with western forces, namely Australia and the USN, who also operate SH and who will be the primary strategic partners against an ever expanding PLAN.

It can't fight the PLAN though.

Although, all of this is a moot point if the IN is serious about the TEDBF. Why bother with a 4th gen import (however advanced) if you plan on adopting a local version in the near future? If the IN really does want to tie in with the IAF, then they must be doubtful on its performance or the delivery timeline. Or they have massive irreconcilable issues with the Mig-29k and want to replace it asap.

The problem is the carriers itself. Due to the limitation of the carriers, the IN is forced to make an aircraft that's actually suitable for the carriers. The main reason for MRCBF is the third carrier. They need a CATOBAR jet operational alongside the production of the third carrier. They planned to operate some of the MRCBF jets on the first two carriers as a complement to the Mig-29, whereas TEDBF is meant to completely replace the Mig-29. So both meet two different requirements. Especially considering TEDBF is expected to be STOBAR capable.

As for why they want 4th gen for both, it's proven and the navy has to rebuild its CATOBAR experience from scratch, which is going to be very difficult with an immature 5th gen design.

The biggest issue is that naval Rafale is a different variant from the standard model, whereas the SH has no other variants and will gain cost benefits from more streamlined production. I do agree with the logic of just sticking to one platform. The SH should have been chosen when the initial mother of all deals competition happened. Now that the IAF has acquired from Rafales, they should just stick to it for their medium weight demands instead of complicating their logistics with other imported platforms. Currently India has chosen to flounder and not acquire any platform in significant numbers until their adversaries catch up and surpass them though. A bold strategy, will be interesting to see how it works out.

The SH was fine back in the early 2000s, but the minute 2010 came in, it became outdated, and today it's almost obsolete for some roles. The only thing relevant on it is the AESA radar, but now pretty much all new jets the IAF will induct from here on will have AESA, starting with the Jaguar, so the SH has now become a contemporary jet to the IAF, not even an advanced jet. The Advanced SH had some chance of being relevant, but the Block III is merely old wine in a new bottle. Regardless even the Advanced SH would be pointless since it has reached the end of its development cycle and has no MLU program planned.

Rafale today is like how the SH was back in the early 2000s and still has a good 20-30 years before it becomes obsolete, which is around the time the French will start replacing the Rafale as well.

 

[randomradio]

Yes? Structural modifications usually differentiate variants of an aircraft. All I was saying is the SH has no variants, its production would be more streamline. The Rafale has variants, so its standard versions are much more effective versus the SH which was designed for carrier ops.

The IAF SH was going to see structural changes to make it suitable for land operations. Especially a new wing that will allow 9G performance. But that's quite unrealistic, plus IAF has to pay for it.

 

[Ginvincible]

The NGAD will start replacing the SH from day 1. Production of the navy's last SH is set to end next year. Naturally the completion of the replacement itself will take more than a decade, until 2050. So even the last SH inducted in 2021 will see service until 2050.

The SH was fine back in the early 2000s, but the minute 2010 came in, it became outdated, and today it's almost obsolete for some roles. The only thing relevant on it is the AESA radar, but now pretty much all new jets the IAF will induct from here on will have AESA, starting with the Jaguar, so the SH has now become a contemporary jet to the IAF, not even an advanced jet. The Advanced SH had some chance of being relevant, but the Block III is merely old wine in a new bottle. Regardless even the Advanced SH would be pointless since it has reached the end of its development cycle and has no MLU program planned.

Rafale today is like how the SH was back in the early 2000s and still has a good 20-30 years before it becomes obsolete, which is around the time the French will start replacing the Rafale as well.

Even taking this at face value, I still don't see the downside of the SH for a carrier based force. I understand the downsides for induction into the IAF, but I feel it is still okay for the IN. I would also expect the Block III to get re-engined with the newer F414-EPE eventually and upgrades for its electronic warfare suite (to take advantage of the new irst). The SH will likely be the first fighter to be integrated with an unmanned wingman as well. Whatever foreign fighter is chosen is meant as a stopgap/supplemental fighter to the eventual indigenous planes anyways.

It can't fight the PLAN though.

Why? With proper AWACS support and paired with Growlers, it should provide a steep challenge to any other carrier based force. It may not be stealthy, but neither is any other available option. I also don't expect the IN to go on an expedition against China, rather I would expect it to play defense against a Sino-Pakistani task force and so would rely more on support from the IAF.

The problem is the carriers itself. Due to the limitation of the carriers, the IN is forced to make an aircraft that's actually suitable for the carriers. The main reason for MRCBF is the third carrier. They need a CATOBAR jet operational alongside the production of the third carrier. They planned to operate some of the MRCBF jets on the first two carriers as a complement to the Mig-29, whereas TEDBF is meant to completely replace the Mig-29. So both meet two different requirements. Especially considering TEDBF is expected to be STOBAR capable.

As for why they want 4th gen for both, it's proven and the navy has to rebuild its CATOBAR experience from scratch, which is going to be very difficult with an immature 5th gen design.

Off topic but...personally, I think the IN really has no need for any more fighters at the moment. They should abandon dreams of a 3rd carrier until the economic/industrial situation is sorted out. Continue developing the carrier concept and the TEDBF to replace Mig29k, but focus more on acquiring submarines, minesweepers, missile boats, helicopters, modernizing/expanding their ports and incorporating standoff weapons (concepts like SMART are brilliant and they should keep at it). Expand the fleet before getting more carriers. If they really need flattops, then make due with a couple LHDs which will also address amphibious needs of the IN.

The IAF SH was going to see structural changes to make it suitable for land operations. Especially a new wing that will allow 9G performance. But that's quite unrealistic, plus IAF has to pay for it.

It reinforces the notion that the IAF would have to be insane to tie in with the IN at this point. They both have very different needs and the IN is schizophrenic on what it wants. The IAF should just select the Rafale and slowly fill in the numbers they need over time. At this point I don't think any of us are under any illusions of a large deal materializing. The selected aircraft will be ordered piecemeal in G2G deals. The IAF should also work on their AWACS deficiencies as well as acquire transport craft and a variety of drones to supplement other areas. I would also love to see OTH radars along the borders, coastlines and islands.

 

[randomradio]

Even taking this at face value, I still don't see the downside of the SH for a carrier based force. I understand the downsides for induction into the IAF, but I feel it is still okay for the IN. I would also expect the Block III to get re-engined with the newer F414-EPE eventually and upgrades for its electronic warfare suite (to take advantage of the new irst). The SH will likely be the first fighter to be integrated with an unmanned wingman as well. Whatever foreign fighter is chosen is meant as a stopgap/supplemental fighter to the eventual indigenous planes anyways.

The Block III already comes with Enhanced Engine. The problem for the navy is not performance or capability. It needs the proven capability of being operable from both our carriers. Compared to the Mig-29K, it's definitely way better.

Why? With proper AWACS support and paired with Growlers, it should provide a steep challenge to any other carrier based force. It may not be stealthy, but neither is any other available option. I also don't expect the IN to go on an expedition against China, rather I would expect it to play defense against a Sino-Pakistani task force and so would rely more on support from the IAF.

Can't operate AWACS from our carriers. And the places where the IN needs to operate, the IAF cannot provide support. Not to mention, the IAF doesn't have enough assets to provide support anyway, considering they will have their hands full dealing with the PLAAF in the Himalayas. The IN has to operate on its own.

Off topic but...personally, I think the IN really has no need for any more fighters at the moment. They should abandon dreams of a 3rd carrier until the economic/industrial situation is sorted out. Continue developing the carrier concept and the TEDBF to replace Mig29k, but focus more on acquiring submarines, minesweepers, missile boats, helicopters, modernizing/expanding their ports and incorporating standoff weapons (concepts like SMART are brilliant and they should keep at it). Expand the fleet before getting more carriers. If they really need flattops, then make due with a couple LHDs which will also address amphibious needs of the IN.

LHDs with fighter jets are fine for peacetime force projection and supporting ground troops. It's completely useless in a war with China.

And it's much cheaper to modify the Rafale/SH for carrier operation than chasing after LHDs with F-35Bs. Can't operate anything except F-35Bs. I've also pushed for F-35Bs with LHDs, but that's for a post-2035 environment.

Also, the third carrier is a critical requirement. Just that it's not going to be ready within any relevant time period regardless of what the IN does today. They need an extremely aggressive plan if they want a third carrier anytime soon, like getting the shipyard to work 24/7 in 3 shifts, and freezing the design after construction begins, IN has a bad habit of changing design midway. Which also means the shipyard needs to build more than 1 carrier to make it feasible.

The current situation today, neither Rafale nor SH can operate from our current carriers without significant modifications to either the aircraft or the carriers. SH can't fight the Chinese next gen fighter jets. The Mig-29s cannot either. And the IN's plan for a third carrier is so long term that by the time it's operational the PLAN would have 12 supercarriers operational alongside a massive fleet of destroyers and SSNs.

There are only two solutions I can think of that can allow a significant air presence over Sunda Strait after 2025. IN will need 2 squadrons of Su-57s, 2 A330 refuellers and 3 AWACS-India. This will allow a 24/7 presence of 4-8 jets any time over the strait. The Su-57 with new engines will have an insane range and can stay over the strait for 2 hours on its own, no other fighter jet can do this. Another alternative is to lease Britain's PoW carrier for 10-15 years along with their F-35Bs. Both options can be exercised between 2023 and 2030. The first option is obviously cheaper than the second. The second option is extremely hard to implement and even more difficult to surrender after the lease period is over. Currently we are dependent on the USN or Australia for air presence when our Mig-29s are not around, and even with the third carrier going ahead in 2025, this situation will remain the same until 2035-40. If the third carrier doesn't go ahead, then the IN is screwed.

A third option is to get permanent basing rights in Indonesia. But that means involving Indonesia in a war with China, so they will reject it outright unless we agree to protect Indonesia from foreign aggression via an alliance, which also means protecting them from Australia and the US.

A fourth option is to build Vikrant's sister ship, which was the initial plan, but with CATOBAR. So you get a conventional CdG.

Let's just assume that come 2030, we are screwed in the SCS.

It reinforces the notion that the IAF would have to be insane to tie in with the IN at this point. They both have very different needs and the IN is schizophrenic on what it wants. The IAF should just select the Rafale and slowly fill in the numbers they need over time. At this point I don't think any of us are under any illusions of a large deal materializing. The selected aircraft will be ordered piecemeal in G2G deals. The IAF should also work on their AWACS deficiencies as well as acquire transport craft and a variety of drones to supplement other areas. I would also love to see OTH radars along the borders, coastlines and islands.

The MRFA tender for 114 will definitely go ahead. It's part of the SPM and a flagship project for the govt's MII plan.

 

[Ginvincible]

The Block III already comes with Enhanced Engine. The problem for the navy is not performance or capability. It needs the proven capability of being operable from both our carriers. Compared to the Mig-29K, it's definitely way better.



Can't operate AWACS from our carriers. And the places where the IN needs to operate, the IAF cannot provide support. Not to mention, the IAF doesn't have enough assets to provide support anyway, considering they will have their hands full dealing with the PLAAF in the Himalayas. The IN has to operate on its own.



LHDs with fighter jets are fine for peacetime force projection and supporting ground troops. It's completely useless in a war with China.

And it's much cheaper to modify the Rafale/SH for carrier operation than chasing after LHDs with F-35Bs. Can't operate anything except F-35Bs. I've also pushed for F-35Bs with LHDs, but that's for a post-2035 environment.

Also, the third carrier is a critical requirement. Just that it's not going to be ready within any relevant time period regardless of what the IN does today. They need an extremely aggressive plan if they want a third carrier anytime soon, like getting the shipyard to work 24/7 in 3 shifts, and freezing the design after construction begins, IN has a bad habit of changing design midway. Which also means the shipyard needs to build more than 1 carrier to make it feasible.

The current situation today, neither Rafale nor SH can operate from our current carriers without significant modifications to either the aircraft or the carriers. SH can't fight the Chinese next gen fighter jets. The Mig-29s cannot either. And the IN's plan for a third carrier is so long term that by the time it's operational the PLAN would have 12 supercarriers operational alongside a massive fleet of destroyers and SSNs.

There are only two solutions I can think of that can allow a significant air presence over Sunda Strait after 2025. IN will need 2 squadrons of Su-57s, 2 A330 refuellers and 3 AWACS-India. This will allow a 24/7 presence of 4-8 jets any time over the strait. The Su-57 with new engines will have an insane range and can stay over the strait for 2 hours on its own, no other fighter jet can do this. Another alternative is to lease Britain's PoW carrier for 10-15 years along with their F-35Bs. Both options can be exercised between 2023 and 2030. The first option is obviously cheaper than the second. The second option is extremely hard to implement and even more difficult to surrender after the lease period is over. Currently we are dependent on the USN or Australia for air presence when our Mig-29s are not around, and even with the third carrier going ahead in 2025, this situation will remain the same until 2035-40. If the third carrier doesn't go ahead, then the IN is screwed.

A third option is to get permanent basing rights in Indonesia. But that means involving Indonesia in a war with China, so they will reject it outright unless we agree to protect Indonesia from foreign aggression via an alliance, which also means protecting them from Australia and the US.

A fourth option is to build Vikrant's sister ship, which was the initial plan, but with CATOBAR. So you get a conventional CdG.

Let's just assume that come 2030, we are screwed in the SCS.



The MRFA tender for 114 will definitely go ahead. It's part of the SPM and a flagship project for the govt's MII plan.

I was just referring to Mistrals or whatevs with helicopters. I don't think India will get the F-35 anytime soon. F-35B LHDs are amazing (Juan Carlos Class has so much potential), but probably a pipe dream for an India acquiring S-400s paired with an incoming Biden administration.

The inevitable cost overruns and construction delays are while I'm cold to the idea of a 3rd aircraft carrier right away. Pouring resources into other force multipliers will benefit the IN and overall strategic posturing better.

The IAF can operate in the domain of the Sunda Straight. Negotiating basing access with Indonesia is one option, but Australia also has the Christmas & Cocos Islands nearby as well. The Aussies already operate the P-8 from airfields on those islands, the potential is there. Deepening defense integration with the Quad as well as getting the IAF the fighters, awacs, and other support craft necessary can make it a reality. In addition to the MRFA tender, I hope they opt for additional Rafales and finally upgrade the MKIs.

 

[randomradio]

I was just referring to Mistrals or whatevs with helicopters. I don't think India will get the F-35 anytime soon. F-35B LHDs are amazing (Juan Carlos Class has so much potential), but probably a pipe dream for an India acquiring S-400s paired with an incoming Biden administration.

That's something else entirely though. The third carrier is needed to ensure air superiority over our ships and submarines deeper in the IOR, where coast-based fighter jets can't operate. LHDs with helicopters are needed for assault missions anyway, this is separate from the carrier requirement.

The inevitable cost overruns and construction delays are while I'm cold to the idea of a 3rd aircraft carrier right away. Pouring resources into other force multipliers will benefit the IN and overall strategic posturing better.

That's going to be the reality of the third carrier. Which is why we need a long term plan based on a family of carriers. The IN actually needs 6 carriers over the next 2 or 3 decades. With one operating in the IOR and one in the Pacific at any one time. We need even more beyond that. But we are nowhere near making such plans. Even the Chinese started off after they breached the $10T GDP mark.

The IAF can operate in the domain of the Sunda Straight. Negotiating basing access with Indonesia is one option, but Australia also has the Christmas & Cocos Islands nearby as well. The Aussies already operate the P-8 from airfields on those islands, the potential is there. Deepening defense integration with the Quad as well as getting the IAF the fighters, awacs, and other support craft necessary can make it a reality. In addition to the MRFA tender, I hope they opt for additional Rafales and finally upgrade the MKIs.

IAF can't operate over the Sunda, it's 2000Km away. It's possible only with Su-57 Mk2. Then there are other straits as well, going all the way to the South Pacific islands.

As for basing rights, it can only be done through an alliance. Using Australian islands would mean an alliance with the US, which we have no interest in doing. Anyway, Cocos is also very far and Christmas doesn't have enough terrain to act as a base.

We definitely need more carriers.

 

[Ginvincible]

That's something else entirely though. The third carrier is needed to ensure air superiority over our ships and submarines deeper in the IOR, where coast-based fighter jets can't operate. LHDs with helicopters are needed for assault missions anyway, this is separate from the carrier requirement.

Of course, I was just saying I don't expect VTOL jet fighters unless India somehow revives its Sea Harriers or scrounges decrepit Harrier IIs from Spain or the US. My main point is that a 3rd carrier isn't necessary right away since the PLAN will massively out compete India in naval aviation for the foreseeable future anyways and the limited funds can be used to bolster the overall capability by investing in submarines, minesweepers, standoff weapons, AEW, etc.

That's going to be the reality of the third carrier. Which is why we need a long term plan based on a family of carriers. The IN actually needs 6 carriers over the next 2 or 3 decades. With one operating in the IOR and one in the Pacific at any one time. We need even more beyond that. But we are nowhere near making such plans. Even the Chinese started off after they breached the $10T GDP mark.

Yes, you are right. China waited til their economy was large and their industries developed, and see the results. In the time it took India to construct 1 aircraft carrier they will have commissioned 3, that too with no experience with aircraft carriers and all 3 more capable than IAC-1. This is basically my point. India can pursue carriers after another decade or so, when their industrial abilities and economic strength can support timely induction & platforms with minimal compromises.

IAF can't operate over the Sunda, it's 2000Km away. It's possible only with Su-57 Mk2. Then there are other straits as well, going all the way to the South Pacific islands.

As for basing rights, it can only be done through an alliance. Using Australian islands would mean an alliance with the US, which we have no interest in doing. Anyway, Cocos is also very far and Christmas doesn't have enough terrain to act as a base.

We definitely need more carriers.

The IN reaching the South Pacific islands is outside the scope of immediate defense. Being able to reliably deny access to the Sunda and Malacca straights are good enough for the near future. If the PLAN has to sail all the way around Australia to safely pass into the IOR, their capabilities will be severely limited.

In the current strategic environment India doesn't have the luxury of trying to play the non-aligned game anymore. It's time to smell the coffee and understand that, at the current rate, India will get a hard kick in the rear without major Western backing in any conflict with China. Airfields on Australian islands can absolutely be expanded and used by the IAF and western partners.

Alliances aren't forever, interests do change over time (see Turkey). If kowtowing to the US for a while ensures strategic goals are met and economic growth is strong, I think its acceptable. Russia is a shell of its former self and won't come to India's aid in any meaningful way when push comes to shove.

 

[Hydra]

I was just referring to Mistrals or whatevs with helicopters. I don't think India will get the F-35 anytime soon. F-35B LHDs are amazing (Juan Carlos Class has so much potential), but probably a pipe dream for an India acquiring S-400s paired with an incoming Biden administration.

The inevitable cost overruns and construction delays are while I'm cold to the idea of a 3rd aircraft carrier right away. Pouring resources into other force multipliers will benefit the IN and overall strategic posturing better.

The IAF can operate in the domain of the Sunda Straight. Negotiating basing access with Indonesia is one option, but Australia also has the Christmas & Cocos Islands nearby as well. The Aussies already operate the P-8 from airfields on those islands, the potential is there. Deepening defense integration with the Quad as well as getting the IAF the fighters, awacs, and other support craft necessary can make it a reality. In addition to the MRFA tender, I hope they opt for additional Rafales and finally upgrade the MKIs.

IN wants 3rd carrier with a catapult launch system, reason is they want an AC based aews. aews cannot operate from LHD.

 

[Lolwa]

I've got a feeling that we are wasting our time on the tedbf. What would be better is to develop a N-AMCA. Since the j-31 will most likely get inducted in 2024-2026 timeline or maybe even earlier. The navy needs advanced capability on the go. Since f 35 isn't coming any time soon and tedbf will be like rafale but inferior it's better that we invest in a naval fifth gen. This would actually help us cut cost and complexity. Since the mrcbf seems dead to me. And our mig 29's are the only one capable of running on our carriers..

 

[Bon Plan]

Yes? Structural modifications usually differentiate variants of an aircraft. All I was saying is the SH has no variants, its production would be more streamline. The Rafale has variants, so its standard versions are much more effective versus the SH which was designed for carrier ops.

The SH has 3 variants : Single seater, dual seater, Growler.
Rafale has 3 variant : C, B, M.

 

[Ginvincible]

IN wants 3rd carrier with a catapult launch system, reason is they want an AC based aews. aews cannot operate from LHD.

Of course. I was saying (with partnerships) land based AWACS could be used to supplement whatever aircraft are on station. I am basically against a 3rd aircraft carrier in lieu of other naval vessels, helicopters, standoff weapons and an expanded IAF with more rafales, upgraded MKIs, tankers, AEW, transports, etc. The money can be used to greater effect in other areas.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Of course. I was saying (with partnerships) land based AWACS could be used to supplement whatever aircraft are on station. I am basically against a 3rd aircraft carrier in lieu of other naval vessels, helicopters, standoff weapons and an expanded IAF with more rafales, upgraded MKIs, tankers, AEW, transports, etc. The money can be used to greater effect in other areas.

It seems amply clear that IN only has a Plan A with no back up plan. It's sea dominance at all costs from the Sunda straits to the far corners of the Indian Ocean with no scope for sea denial in case the former doesn't work out for obvious reasons. They're still defiantly holding on to their guns on the 3rd AC.

 

[randomradio]

Of course, I was just saying I don't expect VTOL jet fighters unless India somehow revives its Sea Harriers or scrounges decrepit Harrier IIs from Spain or the US. My main point is that a 3rd carrier isn't necessary right away since the PLAN will massively out compete India in naval aviation for the foreseeable future anyways and the limited funds can be used to bolster the overall capability by investing in submarines, minesweepers, standoff weapons, AEW, etc.

Countering PLAN in any way possible is important. It's not just about capability, it's also about optics.

Yes, you are right. China waited til their economy was large and their industries developed, and see the results. In the time it took India to construct 1 aircraft carrier they will have commissioned 3, that too with no experience with aircraft carriers and all 3 more capable than IAC-1. This is basically my point. India can pursue carriers after another decade or so, when their industrial abilities and economic strength can support timely induction & platforms with minimal compromises.

It's like we need a third carrier operational today, but we can't afford one until 10 years later.

The IN reaching the South Pacific islands is outside the scope of immediate defense. Being able to reliably deny access to the Sunda and Malacca straights are good enough for the near future. If the PLAN has to sail all the way around Australia to safely pass into the IOR, their capabilities will be severely limited.

In the current strategic environment India doesn't have the luxury of trying to play the non-aligned game anymore. It's time to smell the coffee and understand that, at the current rate, India will get a hard kick in the rear without major Western backing in any conflict with China. Airfields on Australian islands can absolutely be expanded and used by the IAF and western partners.

Look, I don't get this fixation on alliances. Lot of people do not understand what alliances are about. Have you ever considered alliances do not work? They have almost never worked. Alliances work only if an enemy is an existential threat to someone else, and even that doesn't work for a long time. Why do you think Sweden and Finland are not part of NATO? You think the SU wasn't capable of giving them a hard kick in the rear? Why wasn't France part of NATO either during the Cold War?

I don't understand why people think the West wants to protect India based on a paper agreement.

No one here has been able to explain what is this alliance with the US we can have? Why will the US come to protect us? Can you explain what this alliance's objectives are?

Alliances aren't forever, interests do change over time (see Turkey). If kowtowing to the US for a while ensures strategic goals are met and economic growth is strong, I think its acceptable. Russia is a shell of its former self and won't come to India's aid in any meaningful way when push comes to shove.

Turkey isn't an example. It's a weak country pretending to be powerful. A temporary blip in relations does not change the fact that the Turks are still under the American thumb. Right now it's just one angry man lashing out, he will eventually go away and things will go back to normal.

Countries like Turkey will never amount of anything more than what they currently are, whereas countries like India and China are peer adversaries to the West and are potentially a future existential threat. So the treatment is not going to be the same. There is no country you can compare India with. Only a combined EU comes close. So Turkey and Japan are not examples. Even Russia. It doesn't mater how close we get to the West, we will always be viewed with suspicion. Give it two more decades, you will see the West building up assets for targeting India as well.

We didn't even have an alliance with the Soviets when the Americans threatened us with war at every opportunity, at a time when we had no way of fighting back, whereas the China of even ten years from now will only be a third-rate superpower. So what is this alliance with the US we can have?

 

[randomradio]

I've got a feeling that we are wasting our time on the tedbf. What would be better is to develop a N-AMCA. Since the j-31 will most likely get inducted in 2024-2026 timeline or maybe even earlier. The navy needs advanced capability on the go. Since f 35 isn't coming any time soon and tedbf will be like rafale but inferior it's better that we invest in a naval fifth gen. This would actually help us cut cost and complexity. Since the mrcbf seems dead to me. And our mig 29's are the only one capable of running on our carriers..

The IN isn't interested in technologies that will take a long time to develop. A naval AMCA will be ready only after 2040 while the requirement is 10 years sooner than that, hell, 15 years sooner than that.

The F-35 isn't suitable because the wing needs modification, the same as the SH and Rafale. All three aircraft will require recertification, which can take over a billion bucks or more and quite a few years to finish.

 

[randomradio]

Of course. I was saying (with partnerships) land based AWACS could be used to supplement whatever aircraft are on station. I am basically against a 3rd aircraft carrier in lieu of other naval vessels, helicopters, standoff weapons and an expanded IAF with more rafales, upgraded MKIs, tankers, AEW, transports, etc. The money can be used to greater effect in other areas.

I'm pretty sure spending towards alternate capabilities will be useless without the third carrier. There is no greater effect than the third carrier. Basically if the carrier doesn't come in, then all our naval assets will have to be moved back to the peninsula and islands under IAF air cover during war and give the IOR up to the Chinese and Americans. You can't fight a war without air cover after all.

The IAF and IA also can't afford to defend the peninsula from a PLAN attack in such a situation when their focus should be on the border.

You will then also lose the trust of IOR countries in becoming the net security provider and they will fall under the influence of Americans and Chinese instead.

Simply put, without the third carrier, we are at a very significant disadvantage.

 

[raghu1974]

The best chance for Navy to partner with IAF is to let the government know that they will transfer the Mig-29K's to IAF once they are replaced by either Rafale or F/A-18. F/A-18 may not be suitable for Indian Navy but it is still a workhorse for the US Navy. There are no 5th generation fighter jets other than the F-35. So whichever jet Indian Navy chooses, it should do it by transferring the Mig-29K's to the IAF and they can be upgraded to the UPG standard, if the need be. TEDBF will be ready to serve the 3rd carrier. Navy will need 57 jets to support the immediate needs of 2 carriers.

 

[Ginvincible]

Countries like Turkey will never amount of anything more than what they currently are, whereas countries like India and China are peer adversaries to the West and are potentially a future existential threat. So the treatment is not going to be the same. There is no country you can compare India with. Only a combined EU comes close. So Turkey and Japan are not examples. Even Russia. It doesn't mater how close we get to the West, we will always be viewed with suspicion. Give it two more decades, you will see the West building up assets for targeting India as well.

We didn't even have an alliance with the Soviets when the Americans threatened us with war at every opportunity, at a time when we had no way of fighting back, whereas the China of even ten years from now will only be a third-rate superpower. So what is this alliance with the US we can have?

Look, I don't get this fixation on alliances. Lot of people do not understand what alliances are about. Have you ever considered alliances do not work? They have almost never worked. Alliances work only if an enemy is an existential threat to someone else, and even that doesn't work for a long time. Why do you think Sweden and Finland are not part of NATO? You think the SU wasn't capable of giving them a hard kick in the rear? Why wasn't France part of NATO either during the Cold War?

I don't understand why people think the West wants to protect India based on a paper agreement.

No one here has been able to explain what is this alliance with the US we can have? Why will the US come to protect us? Can you explain what this alliance's objectives are?

Sweden and Finland never will be and never were major competitors to the USSR or modern day Russia. Findlandization was the Finnish approach of just appeasing the Russians enough to not get conquered. Censoring your own public to suit Russian narratives, purposefully keeping their military weak, giving up on any territorial conflicts... it is 1 step above suzerainty. It is not an approach anybody in India will accept wrt China (I hope). France under Gaullist foreign policy was the death throws of colonialism and bitterness over the handling of the Suez Crisis. An approach of a nation unable to accept being a lieutenant to the US. France never left NATO either, just it's military command. They still payed their dues and upheld the collective defense commitment. France's approach was not one of neutrality, just of more independence.

You're right that India is a much larger nation with larger ambitions than Turkey, Russia or Japan (we'll agree to disagree on the path Turkey is walking down though). You are also right that such an alliance will fray when India is able to become its own pole in the international order. It doesn't change the fact that the short term interests (20-30 years) of India and the US are well aligned. The US and its allies in the regions can fill in the air, naval, & intelligence gaps that plague India, while the Indians can provide strategic infrastructure/positioning, a large open market and manpower in the worst case of a major war. Whoever is in charge of the US also gets a boost to the polls with a 'win' by bringing in a large Asian nation into its sphere, and will appear more competent against China. Emboldening India will also serve US interests as India will naturally compete with China and eat away at its gains around Asia, alleviating US efforts to contain China. Additionally, India will enjoy easier flow of investment & technology, as well as weakening the advantages Pakistan has in terms of US alliance. It would also slow the declining view many in the West have of India (thanks to modern Leftism that portrays India as a fascist state).

The main point is that without an effective deterrence salami slicing and probing attacks to capture bits of undefended territory in the Himalayas, a renewed flow of insurgents into India because of the draw down of the Afghan war, and more small nations around the IOR aligning with China will become the norm. India lives in an increasingly hostile neighborhood. India and China's geopolitical goals are diametric, and India will never find common ground with Pakistan. While India develops to the point it can match China on its own, it should search for allies who can support it or at the very least, give pause to its opponents before making any moves.

India's history of neutrality has done nothing for it in the modern age of regional alliances and has arguably harmed its economic development. Just like socialism won't develop an economy, isolation won't secure geopolitical aims.

I'm pretty sure spending towards alternate capabilities will be useless without the third carrier. There is no greater effect than the third carrier. Basically if the carrier doesn't come in, then all our naval assets will have to be moved back to the peninsula and islands under IAF air cover during war and give the IOR up to the Chinese and Americans. You can't fight a war without air cover after all.

I don't know how you can reach that conclusion. By your own admission, IAC-2 will inevitably be delayed and over budget. It probably won't be commissioned until after 2035 and perhaps even closer to 2040. Pouring resources into an asset you won't have for another 15-20 years can't be better than fast tracking other capabilities that you also need and can realistically attain within the decade.

The IAF and IA also can't afford to defend the peninsula from a PLAN attack in such a situation when their focus should be on the border.

This will be their reality regardless. IN cannot hope to match the PLAN on its own, it needs support either from a strengthened IAF or through alliances. The expansion and capabilities of the PLAN far outstrip anything the IN has planned.

You will then also lose the trust of IOR countries in becoming the net security provider and they will fall under the influence of Americans and Chinese instead.

This is already happening. 1 aircraft carrier won't change the equation, economic aid and trade agreements will.

Simply put, without the third carrier, we are at a very significant disadvantage.

Even with a third aircraft carrier, India will be at a disadvantage. China will have 3-4x the number of carriers, most of them will be larger and more capable. Whatever technological advantage India's carrier might have will be dwarfed by the sheer quantity of naval aviation the PLAN will be able to field.

 

[randomradio]

Sweden and Finland never will be and never were major competitors to the USSR or modern day Russia. Findlandization was the Finnish approach of just appeasing the Russians enough to not get conquered. Censoring your own public to suit Russian narratives, purposefully keeping their military weak, giving up on any territorial conflicts... it is 1 step above suzerainty. It is not an approach anybody in India will accept wrt China (I hope). France under Gaullist foreign policy was the death throws of colonialism and bitterness over the handling of the Suez Crisis. An approach of a nation unable to accept being a lieutenant to the US. France never left NATO either, just it's military command. They still payed their dues and upheld the collective defense commitment. France's approach was not one of neutrality, just of more independence.

You're right that India is a much larger nation with larger ambitions than Turkey, Russia or Japan (we'll agree to disagree on the path Turkey is walking down though). You are also right that such an alliance will fray when India is able to become its own pole in the international order. It doesn't change the fact that the short term interests (20-30 years) of India and the US are well aligned. The US and its allies in the regions can fill in the air, naval, & intelligence gaps that plague India, while the Indians can provide strategic infrastructure/positioning, a large open market and manpower in the worst case of a major war. Whoever is in charge of the US also gets a boost to the polls with a 'win' by bringing in a large Asian nation into its sphere, and will appear more competent against China. Emboldening India will also serve US interests as India will naturally compete with China and eat away at its gains around Asia, alleviating US efforts to contain China. Additionally, India will enjoy easier flow of investment & technology, as well as weakening the advantages Pakistan has in terms of US alliance. It would also slow the declining view many in the West have of India (thanks to modern Leftism that portrays India as a fascist state).

The main point is that without an effective deterrence salami slicing and probing attacks to capture bits of undefended territory in the Himalayas, a renewed flow of insurgents into India because of the draw down of the Afghan war, and more small nations around the IOR aligning with China will become the norm. India lives in an increasingly hostile neighborhood. India and China's geopolitical goals are diametric, and India will never find common ground with Pakistan. While India develops to the point it can match China on its own, it should search for allies who can support it or at the very least, give pause to its opponents before making any moves.

India's history of neutrality has done nothing for it in the modern age of regional alliances and has arguably harmed its economic development. Just like socialism won't develop an economy, isolation won't secure geopolitical aims.

I don't know how you can reach that conclusion. By your own admission, IAC-2 will inevitably be delayed and over budget. It probably won't be commissioned until after 2035 and perhaps even closer to 2040. Pouring resources into an asset you won't have for another 15-20 years can't be better than fast tracking other capabilities that you also need and can realistically attain within the decade.

This will be their reality regardless. IN cannot hope to match the PLAN on its own, it needs support either from a strengthened IAF or through alliances. The expansion and capabilities of the PLAN far outstrip anything the IN has planned.

This is already happening. 1 aircraft carrier won't change the equation, economic aid and trade agreements will.

Even with a third aircraft carrier, India will be at a disadvantage. China will have 3-4x the number of carriers, most of them will be larger and more capable. Whatever technological advantage India's carrier might have will be dwarfed by the sheer quantity of naval aviation the PLAN will be able to field.

See, you have correctly identified all of the issues concerning the other three countries (France leaving the integrated military command was effectively a withdrawal from NATO, but that's a topic for another day), so all these countries gave up something for something else. Finland gave up on its own military in exchange for security. Sweden decided their defence lay in Western Europe. So what is it that we are giving up in exchange for this alliance with the US? What is it that we can give the US that will force them to spend trillions of dollars and give up the lives of many of their children for the sake of Indians?

Lot of people speak of an alliance with the US, but not one has explained what this alliance really means to us.

I don't know how you can reach that conclusion. By your own admission, IAC-2 will inevitably be delayed and over budget. It probably won't be commissioned until after 2035 and perhaps even closer to 2040. Pouring resources into an asset you won't have for another 15-20 years can't be better than fast tracking other capabilities that you also need and can realistically attain within the decade.

You misunderstood. We need to initiate construction of the third carrier so that we can have it at least by 2035 or 2040. The more we delay, the more it gets pushed back. Aaaannnd we need to spend on all the alternate capabilities you were talking about in the meantime as well. Even having a third carrier in a construction bay creates deterrence because it shows intent. So it's not an either/or situation.

Even with a third aircraft carrier, India will be at a disadvantage. China will have 3-4x the number of carriers, most of them will be larger and more capable. Whatever technological advantage India's carrier might have will be dwarfed by the sheer quantity of naval aviation the PLAN will be able to field.

Not at all. As long as our navy has a minimum number of assets in play, the absolute numbers of the enemy won't matter because of the limited size of the battlespace. The film 300 applies a lot to the navy. As long as the battlespace with a larger enemy is contested, they can't use their numbers effectively, especially when the contested area is a chokepoint; a strait, a bridge, a valley, an isthmus etc. Navies need a lot of space to do battle.

As long as we keep the Chinese on their side, the navy battle is not going to be a very significant event. It's very difficult for each other to meet hence the losses will be controlled. Otoh, if we lose control of the chokepoints, the Chinese will come into the IOR and we will be forced back to our coasts in order to cut down on our losses, thereby losing control of the IOR. This is the only way for them to dwarf us using their size. But that will also mean inviting attacks on our cities in the south.

With the third carrier, we can plan deployments in such a way that 2 carriers are always available during wartime. It's more than enough to keep the Chinese at bay.

 

[lcafanboy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1338071366134722560

 

[vvabhiram]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1338071366134722560

Most of the experts here compared F-18 to shit when compared with Rafale, even in MMRCA competition it lost to Rafale and Typhoon. Then why it suddenly became a darling for Top military leadership ?