MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
We only need to deal with the Brits and maybe the italians/spanish. The amount of job creation the typhoon can bring for the British economy will be too big for them to miss. The only issue with the typhoon is the high life cycle cost. The typhoon may not be as good as a strike fighter like the rafale but it is pretty much the best aircraft when it comes to air defence and air superiority among all nato fighters especially with captor mk2. Considering we will be facing j-10,j-16 and j-20 which have huge radar ranges, typhoon is the only one that genuinely fits the bill. Plus all kinds of nato munitions can be integrated like the Gripen. The only thing it might not have is the mica ng but we get the amraams in our arsenal.
Which makes it all the better cause we could use the typhoon deal to atleast join gcap as observer or something. We will be desperately needing a 6th gen fighter considering how fast china and turkey have developed their fifth gens.
Manageable tbf. With ej 200 we can also re-engine the tejas mk1 without Americans screwing it up for us.
Range is not that big of an issue considering our targets will be close to the border. When Israel can use f-16's to bomb targets all the way in Iraq and Syria, typhoons are more than enough. Also they will be very useful against possible Chinese aerial interventions because of it's bvr missile variety. Also integrating american, Israeli and to an extent indian munitions will be far easier. And typhoon has access to the same weapons as the f-35. Also we get hands on the captor mk2 tech it will help us deeply in developing the amca and tejas mk2.
Also the typhoon has a variety of stand off munitions that can be fired from indian airspace.
Spear ew
JSM
Kepd 350
Scalp EG
Brimstones
Indranil's not living in reality, he's in the India Stronk!!! category. Too premature for that this decade.
At least I agree with him on the dates, but that's acceptable because the second round of phase outs happening during the time will be the main one. After all only 2.5-3 squadrons are being phased out before 2035, leaving 9 for 2035-45. LCA will give us 15 new squadrons in the meantime.
The second order of 5 LCA Mk1As make up for the "quick way to fill up numbers" bit.
If we go by the IAF's Mk2 start date, we will see 41 squadrons by 2035, before the fourth Jaguar squadron is phased out, without counting MRFA. But, without MRFA, we will be in a conundrum again as 9 squadrons are withdrawn. Then we go back to 32 squadrons by 2040-42, without AMCA.
People forget that the MRFA partner is expected to be involved in AMCA, which means MRFA bridges the gap between LCA Mk2 and AMCA. So once we get to 32 squadrons; MKI (13), LCA (17), Rafale(2); 6 MRFA and 7 AMCA will fill the rest.
Hopefully the IAF gets rid of older MKIs without upgrades and gets some more MRFA and AMCA. SLEP is expensive business.
As long as we get 6 Mk2s and 6 MRFA before 2040, allowing for a proper 1 to 1 replacement, we will be good. Those 5 new LCAs have put the IAF in a comfortable position. Too bad they were not Mk2s right off the bat, as per the initial plan.
At least I agree with him on the dates, but that's acceptable because the second round of phase outs happening during the time will be the main one. After all only 2.5-3 squadrons are being phased out before 2035, leaving 9 for 2035-45. LCA will give us 15 new squadrons in the meantime.
The second order of 5 LCA Mk1As make up for the "quick way to fill up numbers" bit.
If we go by the IAF's Mk2 start date, we will see 41 squadrons by 2035, before the fourth Jaguar squadron is phased out, without counting MRFA. But, without MRFA, we will be in a conundrum again as 9 squadrons are withdrawn. Then we go back to 32 squadrons by 2040-42, without AMCA.
People forget that the MRFA partner is expected to be involved in AMCA, which means MRFA bridges the gap between LCA Mk2 and AMCA. So once we get to 32 squadrons; MKI (13), LCA (17), Rafale(2); 6 MRFA and 7 AMCA will fill the rest.
Hopefully the IAF gets rid of older MKIs without upgrades and gets some more MRFA and AMCA. SLEP is expensive business.
As long as we get 6 Mk2s and 6 MRFA before 2040, allowing for a proper 1 to 1 replacement, we will be good. Those 5 new LCAs have put the IAF in a comfortable position. Too bad they were not Mk2s right off the bat, as per the initial plan.
Frankly, only the oil-rich ME nations and perhaps Indonesia (whose mil purchases are all over the place) have signed for more than one 4.5 gen twin engine multi-role jet till date. I don't see the GoI agreeing to buying another high OPEX figher.
We have/are getting 36+26 Rafales in two variants with base infra and munitions today. Typhoon would only provide incremental advantages over a Rafale F5.
BAe has pitched the idea of GCAP participation to India in the past. But like PAK-FA, I believe the program is far too advanced for India to have a say in design decisions. Industrial packages/workshare and ToT would be the key factors in any deal.
Last edited:
Waste of time and money for India.
GCAP's being made to plug the gap the F-35 has created for all the partner nations. Similarly the Koreans chose KF-21 and the Turks are working on KAAN. We are not in the same boat 'cause of AMCA.
We have to aim higher.
For someone who's yet to get one analysis or prediction right it's a bit rich seeing him criticise Indranil who's been following this program CONSTANTLY & CONSISTENTLY since the very early 2000s when he was a student in IIT & RST here was in his diapers.
Granted Indranil & his BRF gang are staunch nationalists with a more than strong bent towards indigenous stuff but fate has conspired in such a manner so as to bring us today to where we are which is to say that for the first time our capacities are within touching distance of what foreign OEMs will come up with next decade.
A bit more humility would be in order. As far the rest of his blah goes , I've recently viewed a program hosted by Adi Achint on Def Talks where he interviewed the ex Dy CAS of the IAF & asked him how did the concept of a 42 squadron IAF come about.
He confessed the initial thought first materialised in the form of an internal paper to the MoD who asked the IAF for one after due internal discussions within the IAF in the immediate aftermath of the 1962 debacle & since then this has been a constant feature with the IAF.
Our force strength is both a reflection of our doctrines & resources as much as they are a reflection of the capacities of our adversaries which in turn is also dictated by the threat perception. Ideally all-this forms the basis of our National Security Strategy but here we are debating the strength of our AF minus the NSS when the single biggest threat to it is widely expected to materialize before we get the first FA thru the damned MRFA tender.
Granted Indranil & his BRF gang are staunch nationalists with a more than strong bent towards indigenous stuff but fate has conspired in such a manner so as to bring us today to where we are which is to say that for the first time our capacities are within touching distance of what foreign OEMs will come up with next decade.
A bit more humility would be in order. As far the rest of his blah goes , I've recently viewed a program hosted by Adi Achint on Def Talks where he interviewed the ex Dy CAS of the IAF & asked him how did the concept of a 42 squadron IAF come about.
He confessed the initial thought first materialised in the form of an internal paper to the MoD who asked the IAF for one after due internal discussions within the IAF in the immediate aftermath of the 1962 debacle & since then this has been a constant feature with the IAF.
Our force strength is both a reflection of our doctrines & resources as much as they are a reflection of the capacities of our adversaries which in turn is also dictated by the threat perception. Ideally all-this forms the basis of our National Security Strategy but here we are debating the strength of our AF minus the NSS when the single biggest threat to it is widely expected to materialize before we get the first FA thru the damned MRFA tender.
The threat in 1962 was much lower than it is now, but that was 62 years ago, and during that period China experienced explosive growth for a time, which India will experience later. From my point of view, if in 1962 you needed 42 squadrons, today you need 80. The minimum would be to redo the evaluation exercise to be sure that 42 is enough.
I've calculated that you'd need to fly around 10,000 hours a month, which would be reasonable with 480 Rafale. But do you have any idea of what your air force is doing to compare, because not everything needs to be done by Rafale, of course.
Last edited:
Wrong is wrong, why does Internet credentials have a place here?
Unlike some people, I attack other people's opinions, not their credentials. In this case, Indranil's opinions are encased in copious amounts of India Stronk drink.
Unlike some people, I attack other people's opinions, not their credentials. In this case, Indranil's opinions are encased in copious amounts of India Stronk drink.
We don't have official numbers, but we can speculate.
We have over 600 jets and our fighter pilot to cockpit ratio is 1.5:1. So with 900 pilots doing even a minimum 140 hours a year, we get a little above 10000 hours a month. If they are managing up to 200 hours, we get up to 15000 hours a month.
Once we get to 900 jets, it should be comfortably achieved.
The air threat in 1962 was non existent. The PLAAF then was quite primitive.
My larger point was there was no definitive or comprehensive assessment done then nor was any national strategy formulated. What was the basis on which the IAF drew their conclusions then is unknown !
Has the situation changed today ? I can't answer that one with any confidence.
Well the calculations have been done by another member & saved me time .
My larger point here too was we don't have a national strategic paper in the public domain though the IAF did release one a year ago which dealt in abstractions & was vague on other issues though they must definitely have one for internal usage .
However that strategy does not find favour with the MoD where defence planning & procurement are done in a cavalier manner .
I've been trying to get my PoV across to a few Indian members here who're either too thick to reason with or perhaps I've not articulated my PoV well enough.
My humble submissions , apart from the ones listed above with respect to the Rafales are -
* If we initiate the formalities to issue an RFP today we may easily take 5-6 years to sign an agreement , given MoDs track record & I'm being optimistic here .
* Do remember the entire process to arrive at a final bidder vide the MMRCA tender took ~11 years from acceptance of necessity to drafting a tender to declaring Dassault as the winner.
* Assuming we sign an agreement in 2030 , we get the first Rafales initially via imports & the rest through Make in India from 2033 onwards.
* At around the same time we'd be getting our Mk-2 & a few years later the AMCA Mk-1 .
"However sophisticated the Rafales are I don't see the other two Fighter Aircrafts coming out of our stables as being inferior to the Rafales in which case what sense does it make to procure the Rafales paying nearly twice as we do for making it here as opposed to imports.
* Then there's the squadron strength to be considered but this is a function of threat perception which is a sub set of our national strategic plans of which we know nothing about .
*Practically every informed commentator or expert expects hostilities to break out with China by the end of this decade or early next decade. Of what use would the Rafales be arriving as it does mid next decade ?
* We ought to have proceeded with the MRFA tender in 2017 itself or at the very least in 2020. However politics , supine decision making by the MoD , obstinacy by the IAF on the mode of procurement & other factors of which we know little to nothing about prevented this .
*Subsequently Dassault found its order book full & now they've supply chain constraints which means even if we theoretically place such orders today we can't expect them before 2030 .
*To paraphrase , thanks to a series of circumstances , by design or by default , the entire process has resulted in being an academic exercise & frankly in my opinion has now become redundant having outlived its utility.
I always did suspect RST's MO & now it's out in the open . It's because he picks up opinions randomly from the net if they happen to align with his own irrespective the credentials of the person making it that he's justifying it here as the logical thing to do .
Hence in his worldview experience in a particular field count for nought only agreeable opinions do.
I sincerely think RST would make a wonderful entrepreneur setting up a start up . He'd do a reverse unicorn. What's a reverse unicorn you ask ? Good question .
Well if an unicorn is a start up with a billion USD in valuations , a reverse unicorn is one where a billion USD is sunk with precious little to show for.
I note that you take full account of Indian time for the formalities that depend on the MOD, but that you neglect to take this into account for the arrival of the Mk-2 and AMCA Mk-1.
Gcap is above the class of the j-20 and is fb-22 tier. Considering japan,Britain and the Swedes are involved it's going to have pretty much the best ew capability. We have no higher aim. The amca is closer the kf-21 and su-75 in performance. Even kaan will be a superior design when it enters production because of it's higher thrust engine and eots which amca won't have. FCAS is too far in the future. Gcap is pretty much aligns with amca timeline. We haven't even developed a prototype while Turks are planning to build a proper fifth gen with eots.
Shows level of knowledge. Its T/W that matters and not thrust alone. Compare MTOWs and then Speak.
AMCA has EOTS. Don't spew bullshit if you don't know
What is this "Planning" thing. They already flew some empty shell for show case purpose. Our prototype is getting built, they cut the blockhead, all sub-systems are realized and its progressing.
I note that you take full account of Indian time for the formalities that depend on the MOD, but that you neglect to take this into account for the arrival of the Mk-2 and AMCA Mk-1.
That's where people end up tripping.
One: People believe ADA will stick to their own schedule. Mk2 is somewhat achieveable. ADA thinks 2029 production, 2031 service entry, I think the latter will be closer to 2033. AMCA, they think 2035. At the current rate, I think 2040+.
Two: Absolutely nobody cares about things like maintenance and logistics, and this is where we can tell the difference between ignoramuses and professionals. And this is even after witnessing the F-35 program firsthand.
We don't need it. While GCAP will obviously be better than J-20 and F-22, it's also not going to be ready anytime before 2040, and the IAF can show interest only after it's proven, so well after 2040, perhaps 2045.
If you're assuming we can get the jet in 2035, then future versions of Su-57 will be a far more stable and mature option.
AMCA significantly exceeds KF-21 and Su-75 in pretty much any category. The Koreans are actually planning to start an AMCA-equivalent program called KF-21EX.
Given the Koreans have pretty much the same environment as us, their KF-21 + F-35 combo is quite inferior to our Rafale/MRFA + AMCA combo.
I'm truly surprised someone of your stature & experience can't see any difference whatsoever between setting up the entire ecosystem for aerospace development engineering & manufacturing & iterative development.I note that you take full account of Indian time for the formalities that depend on the MOD, but that you neglect to take this into account for the arrival of the Mk-2 and AMCA Mk-1.
What we were attempting with the LCA Mk-1 was the former , what we'd be attempting with the Mk-1a , Mk-2 , the AMCA series , TEDBF , IUCAV , etc are iterations.
Whatever delays you saw with the former were birthing pangs . Yes there could've been more co ordination between the various agencies , less politicking , the government could've been more liberal with funds , we could've seen better project management etc but all this is a thing of the past.
The Mk-2 is scheduled to be ready by same time next year . If not then then by same time 2026. Post that it's taxi trials & first flight .
The AMCA Mk-1 has already received CCS approval . I'm not sure if the requisite funds have been allocated but if they aren't , they will be . Estimated time for rollout is 3-4 years from today. In the worst case scenario you could add a year or two to it . That's still 2030 for taxi trials.
Where is the confusion here ? The only confusion lies with the planning & decision making process in MoD & the IAF which has been the case since I've been following news pertaining to these entities & before. I've no clue when will they clear up their act , if at all .
As far as RST & his new found pet theories go , they need to be consigned to its rightful place which is the trash can . If after all these developments when we're on the verge of coming as close to state of the art as possible in a few areas , if he thinks we'd still go in for imports , he's wasting everything from whatever knowledge he's gained courtesy such fora , to his breath , to his intellect to whatever intoxication 8 pm offers & on & on.
We saw a similar argument on the issue of imports vs LUH for the IN some years back on this very forum. The results are there for everyone to see.
I believe that once drones come into the picture over the coming decade, people will all change their minds.
We will know the path for sure in December.