MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[randomradio]

That's why the train example was bad. And not just because of short term reasons or emergencies, but because diesel is more efficient for low-speed, high-load setups. Diesel locomotives will eventually make way for hydrogen trains. The IAF needs full electric, not a mix.

And there is no shifting of goal-posts, merely the reader's understanding of the system. ACT by itself on a 4.5th gen airframe is not sufficient, that's why low level flight was always mentioned alongside it. But any 4th or 4.5th gen airframe without ACT is gong to be useless against 5th gen and higher regardless of other features. So it is still central to survivability.

 

[randomradio]

We need more Rafales and Su-57M, both. This MRFA vs FGFA thing has brought us down from our high-state to current doldrums. More Rafales and Su-57s are mandatory to maintain our force-projections. Even if both are delivered post 2030, yet would be good enough to defend our airspace from PLAAF attack. AMCA MK2, would only come online post-2035. We can't wait that long for our first stealth fighter. And talking about stealth. Well.......

The way things are even 5th gen jets aren't now good enough to penetrate modern IADS. So, even with AMCA, don't think we could attack mainland China and their key tactical/strategic locations. Hence we need to think beyond AMCA and seriously about our own 6th gen tailess all-aspect VLO jet. Only such a jet could hope to enter hostile Chinese territory and survive using its all-aspect VLO stealth and Mach 2.0+ supercruise to dash in and out of danger zone. IAF & GOI need to have sagacity along with 'far-sightedness' FFS.

To attack mainland China, we need a stealth bomber like B-21. We can't do anything with a tactical fighter. Only the Americans can do this today, not the Chinese or Russians either.

Our goal is to use tactical fighters to breach air defenses, and then use gaps to get into depth areas, it's all about supporting the army. So broad-spectrum stealth isn't necessary for that.

Anyway, instead of Su-57M, I'd switch my sights to the Su-60, we need twin-seater to manage drones. And it will be ready at the same time as NGAD and F/A-XX. So that will be interesting.

 

[Hydra]

That's actually the plan being implemented as we speak.

Worst plan. Rocket force turned out to be ineffective to win war for Russians.

 

[randomradio]

Worst plan. Rocket force turned out to be ineffective to win war for Russians.

It's IADS and rocket force. And rocket force did very well in Ukraine against the type of targets even we want to attack.

As for why Russia's struggled, almost all rocket force targets are fixed targets, and using missiles forces the enemy to use up SAMs that protect such targets, which makes SEAD/DEAD easier 'cause aircraft face lesser numbers. But Russia did not have the aircraft tech for offensive operations against new gen mobile SAMs. All they could do was launch easily defeatable ARMs without getting close enough to do actual damage to SAMs with bombs. Then you follow up with new waves of missile attacks to take out hardened targets. Ukraine's mobile SAMs were able to survive and continue to intercept these new missiles.

In our case, the expectation is we can perform SEAD/DEAD sufficiently enough to get missiles through to our targets in enough numbers 'cause, unlike the Russians, we have modernized quite a bit faster with Western assistance.

 

[_Anonymous_]

I bring up 100% electrification of IR as an analogy on MoD / GoI decision making process & RST gets into nitpicking on a topic he hasn't understood yet doesn't prevent him from commenting on .

This is the reason I suggested matrimony as a solution to expend excess energy which otherwise gets dissipated here in idle non productive arguments after a few swigs of 8 PM . You can bet the more the argument progresses or regresses depending on your PoV, the more the swigs intensify.

Let's get to first principles.

Why did the plan for 100% electrification come about?

Answer - Oil

Back in the day when Laloowa was busy chest thumping for getting IR into a rare budgetary surplus on the back of legalising chronic overloading of goods trains instead of moving ahead on the decision making front with such decisions , he decided to rest on his backside on those laurels as did his successors.

Result when crude oil prices shot up > 100 USD / barrel we were dipping into our ForEx reserves. So all those puerile arguments about diesel being good for low speed high load consignments get thrown in the bin.

I don't think RST understands analogies. I used the analogy to suggest the decision making process. Not to gauge the soundness of the decision.

Anyway, had we initiated a 20 year program then like we did to go away with petrol & diesel subsidies we'd have achieved our goal now . Modi's haste probably stems from his suspicion that his policy decisions won't find continuance if the BJP is replaced at the center. Another logical conclusion could be our tendency to execute projects in IST. Still another conclusion could be he wants to get all infrastructure related projects concluded ASAP to prepare grounds for making India an attractive destination for the China + 1 model.

Be that as it may we've now accomplished near 100% electrification. Is it a good decision? Apparently podcasts of ex senior IR officials including those who served in the Railway Board were of the opinion we would be better served with a 75-80 : 25-20 ratio between Electric & Diesel Locomotives for the simple reason that low levels of traffic in the NE, the new lines inaugurated / to be inaugurated in / within Kashmir & certain parts in mainland India doesn't warrant such investments.

This is precisely why I noted multiple times RST has no knowledge of how top management thinks or functions coz he's never worked in such set ups.

As regards low level flight of the Rafales, I believe all our arguments around this topic were centred around how will we fare against China & NOT Paxtan. In order to get to Tibet we'd have to cross ridge lines > 7000 mtrs likely more given some peaks there go beyond 7000 mtrs flying in the ascendant as we will taking off from the plains.

From there on flying within Tibet - a barren featureless plateau , with Chinese ISR including a network of satellites with the meagre numbers we possess is hardly a walk in the park, ACT or no ACT. To think just a week ago RST was vociferously defending the Rafales against the J-20s suggesting the former was a peer to now whatever bilge it is he's come up with.

However this feature comes in handy if we lurk between those ridges in valleys on our side of the LAC in tandem with the LCA like sniper teams pinning down an entire company, taking advantage of the radar shadow area with the heavily armed MKIs in the rear much like during Op Swift Retort . How this manoeuvre works out in the real world along with our IADS given our paucity of both the Rafales & LCA as well as the need to avoid blue on blue situation like we saw in Op Swift Retort, as of the present remains to be seen!