MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[Ankit Kumar]

Interesting because according to what I read they were buying the mig 35 but the Egyptian media were calling it mig 29 for some reason . Must be Russian propaganda in any case the Russian aesa is atleast working or maybe that's also Russian propaganda. Mig 29 is Still a cheap option if we want to maintain squadron strength. We could go for f21 but too expensive for what's its worth..

Mig29 is just cheap to procure upfront. It's costs increase as you start seeing that you need serious works on engine every 400-500 hours , less than 25% of any western engine. High tempo operations will further require amassing of large number of spares before hand. It's costly and complex. It's good, but it's not worth that much effort.

No one , especially me is never going to suggest any American fighter any day.

The French hold the capacity of rolling out 22 Rafales a year. That's really good.

We need to invest in MK1A quickly and accelerated batch buys for Rafales.

 

[Lolwa]

Mig29 is just cheap to procure upfront. It's costs increase as you start seeing that you need serious works on engine every 400-500 hours , less than 25% of any western engine. High tempo operations will further require amassing of large number of spares before hand. It's costly and complex. It's good, but it's not worth that much effort.

No one , especially me is never going to suggest any American fighter any day.

The French hold the capacity of rolling out 22 Rafales a year. That's really good.

We need to invest in MK1A quickly and accelerated batch buys for Rafales.

Well we have been maintaining su 30 and mig 29 and they have even less efficient engines and maintainence friendly compared to the mig 35 so I don't think it would be much of a problem. But even investing a lot of money tejas we can't really have huge numbers of inductions until we don't involve private industry and the production speed becomes higher than the pathetic 16 a year rate of hal. Also if we want tejas to be successful we will have to order around 600 of them to really make any difference. Yes it sounds stupid. But if we don't bring economies of scale into tejas and MWF things aren't going to improve anytime soon. Just look at the f35 the thing is still in IOC and already U.S has 300+ of them. There is no pressure by the government on the IAF to procure more and there is no seriousness among the IAF upper echelon. The Feb 27 became an embarrassment not because of abhinandan but because the IAF couldn't fight the info war properly. They never coordinated with the army. There is no set of priorities or objectives apart from being arrogant jocks who can fly planes. The IAF wants to fly the newest and the best fighters but they can't invest enough on refuellers,elint, awacs,ew or even transport for that matter. There is literally no urgency for the mmrca otherwise the trials would have begun at around 2017 but no the RFI has only been floated and no RFP. IAF is mediocre having high expectations is the last thing you want...

 

[randomradio]

The only way forward is to heavily invest in mk1a and MWF. That is the only way to increase our numbers reliably. And if we want a cheap counterpart we have the mig 35 a seperate g2g deal without the mmrca can increase the numbers. The only reason Russian systems make sense is because they are cheap we have the infrastructure and training on them wouldn't take as much time as the rafale did. The rafale deal happened in 2016 I suppose and it took atleast 4 years for the aircraft to come with the trained pilots. We could buy American systems but we don't have much experience on them either. The f21 isn't a bad deal though I would love to have the f15 ex but that's just a fools dream. They would be much faster at producing and delivering the aircrafts to us.
Buying a 100 mig 35 would cost us around 8 billion $ including additional costs. And it would give us enough breathing room for the much more expensive MMRCAs to come in and setup. AMCA and su 57 will come in around the 2030-2035. By that time these deliveries would be over. Most modern af will start there transition to fifth gen completely. So we still have time...

Russian jets do not provide the quality or the life necessary for long term use. The Russians design their jets in such a way that you are forced to go back to them much more than necessary just to keep the jets functioning.

But with the Rafale specifically, a lot of things that are part of regular maintenance are eliminated.

For example, MKI needs 2 overhauls and 1 MLU. Each of these overhauls cost at least $15M or more if done in Russia. So you are effectively adding $30-40M to the cost of the MKI. All other jets also face this problem. However the Rafale requires no overhauls, only 1 MLU. So you are easily eliminating some serious costs and downtime of your Rafale squadrons. And this is going to be extremely important during wartime, since you can't have your jets in maintenance when you are fighting a war. So the MKI and Mig-35 will need to go down for a long time after 1000-1500 hours of flight time, whereas Rafale can keep chugging on for well over 4500 hours before it needs to go down. What this means is, the MKI can fly for 166 days at 9 hours a day before it goes down for an overhaul while the Rafale can keep going for 500 days. So you can see the result in case of a long war. And these are just considering peacetime figures, the actual wartime figures will be much, much lower.

The availability of the jets matter as well. With Russian jets, we are struggling to get to 65-70% availability. However with Rafale, the minimum is 75% and Dassault plans to achieve 90%, and can increase even more during war. What this means is even at 80% availability, 1 MKI squadron of 20 jets or 1 Mig-35 squadron of 21 is equal to 1 Rafale squadron of 16. So you can lose as many as 2 Rafales per squadron during war and still be as effective as 1 full MKI or Mig-35 squadron due to its higher availability.

Finally airframe life. The MKI's total life is 6000 hours before it needs a service life extension or see retirement. The Mig-29 currently is 4000 hours. Both jets will need significant rebuilds for even a 2000-hour extension. But the Rafale will has a goal of 9000 hours and should easily be extended by another 7000+ hours. For example, the current M2000 has a 6000 hour life and is being extended by 5500 hours.

So you are paying about $60M for each MKI, and then overhauling them for at least $30M and you only get 4500 hours of life for all that. You need to pay for another overhaul to get the jet to 6000 hours, which happens during MLU. And then you pay another $20M or so to extend the life of the jet by another 3000 hours after the 6000 hours are up, and that requires another overhaul as well. So your total cost is now upfront cost + cost of 5 overhauls + 1 expensive rebuild. So that's $170M to buy and then push the jet up to 9000 hours. And this doesn't cover the cost of the upgrade needed to bring the jet up to current Rafale specs. PS: This also requires a total supply of 2+4 engines for each MKI. Each engine costs $5M, so the 4 extra engines necessary increases the cost to $20M, and even these engines have their own expensive overhaul cycles.

So you are paying $200M per jet for an old unupgraded MKI, and you get all that without any downtime for just $110M with the Rafale. So is the MKI cheaper than Rafale now?

As for American teens, they suffer from the same problem as the Russians when it comes to availability and overhauls, but they have as much service life as the Rafale.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Russian jets do not provide the quality or the life necessary for long term use. The Russians design their jets in such a way that you are forced to go back to them much more than necessary just to keep the jets functioning.

But with the Rafale specifically, a lot of things that are part of regular maintenance are eliminated.

For example, MKI needs 2 overhauls and 1 MLU. Each of these overhauls cost at least $15M or more if done in Russia. So you are effectively adding $30-40M to the cost of the MKI. All other jets also face this problem. However the Rafale requires no overhauls, only 1 MLU. So you are easily eliminating some serious costs and downtime of your Rafale squadrons. And this is going to be extremely important during wartime, since you can't have your jets in maintenance when you are fighting a war. So the MKI and Mig-35 will need to go down for a long time after 1000-1500 hours of flight time, whereas Rafale can keep chugging on for well over 4500 hours before it needs to go down. What this means is, the MKI can fly for 166 days at 9 hours a day before it goes down for an overhaul while the Rafale can keep going for 500 days. So you can see the result in case of a long war. And these are just considering peacetime figures, the actual wartime figures will be much, much lower.

The availability of the jets matter as well. With Russian jets, we are struggling to get to 65-70% availability. However with Rafale, the minimum is 75% and Dassault plans to achieve 90%, and can increase even more during war. What this means is even at 80% availability, 1 MKI squadron of 20 jets or 1 Mig-35 squadron of 21 is equal to 1 Rafale squadron of 16. So you can lose as many as 2 Rafales per squadron during war and still be as effective as 1 full MKI or Mig-35 squadron due to its higher availability.

Finally airframe life. The MKI's total life is 6000 hours before it needs a service life extension or see retirement. The Mig-29 currently is 4000 hours. Both jets will need significant rebuilds for even a 2000-hour extension. But the Rafale will has a goal of 9000 hours and should easily be extended by another 7000+ hours. For example, the current M2000 has a 6000 hour life and is being extended by 5500 hours.

So you are paying about $60M for each MKI, and then overhauling them for at least $30M and you only get 4500 hours of life for all that. You need to pay for another overhaul to get the jet to 6000 hours, which happens during MLU. And then you pay another $20M or so to extend the life of the jet by another 3000 hours after the 6000 hours are up, and that requires another overhaul as well. So your total cost is now upfront cost + cost of 5 overhauls + 1 expensive rebuild. So that's $170M to buy and then push the jet up to 9000 hours. And this doesn't cover the cost of the upgrade needed to bring the jet up to current Rafale specs. PS: This also requires a total supply of 2+4 engines for each MKI. Each engine costs $5M, so the 4 extra engines necessary increases the cost to $20M, and even these engines have their own expensive overhaul cycles.

So you are paying $200M per jet for an old unupgraded MKI, and you get all that without any downtime for just $110M with the Rafale. So is the MKI cheaper than Rafale now?

As for American teens, they suffer from the same problem as the Russians when it comes to availability and overhauls, but they have as much service life as the Rafale.

You know, sometimes when you want to, you can actually come up with really good analytical posts which are extremely grounded in reality.

 

[randomradio]

Mirage 2000s from Qatar stocks, or UAE stocks which UAE was willing to sell to Egypt are already upgraded. They will not need the same level of investment. 20-30 million on Mirage2000 is any day better than Mig29s

The configuration is 20 years old. They need upgrades to our latest standards. Basically they all need a full MLU cycle since even the most advanced versions they have were procured between 1998 and 2005. Both Qatar and UAE, even Taiwan, will have to upgrade the jets in the next few years in order to keep using them, if they plan to.

Our best bet is Taiwanese jets. Due to American pressure, Taiwan is replacing their M2000s with F-16 B70, so they won't be upgrading the jets or using them in the future. They were complaining about not having the money for it. I think 56 are available now, 1 crashed last year.

Also, we need the Mig-29s for as long as the PAF plans to operate their F-16 fleet. So the Mig-29s are important. They have developed all the tactics and technology necessary to defeat the F-16s convincingly, and by extension the JF-17 as well. It's obviously foolish to give up such an advantage before its time. The 21 new Mig-29s can have their life extended and can be made available for 10 years more than the rest of the fleet, which will be a good match for those 18 F-16 Block 52s the PAF operates.

 

[randomradio]

You know, sometimes when you want to, you can actually come up with really good analytical posts which are extremely grounded in reality.

You merely do not appreciate some of my other posts. I do make some speculations, but those are grounded in reality. You won't believe them until they happen, so just give it time instead.

 

[Sathya]

Russian jets do not provide the quality or the life necessary for long term use. The Russians design their jets in such a way that you are forced to go back to them much more than necessary just to keep the jets functioning.

But with the Rafale specifically, a lot of things that are part of regular maintenance are eliminated.

For example, MKI needs 2 overhauls and 1 MLU. Each of these overhauls cost at least $15M or more if done in Russia. So you are effectively adding $30-40M to the cost of the MKI. All other jets also face this problem. However the Rafale requires no overhauls, only 1 MLU. So you are easily eliminating some serious costs and downtime of your Rafale squadrons. And this is going to be extremely important during wartime, since you can't have your jets in maintenance when you are fighting a war. So the MKI and Mig-35 will need to go down for a long time after 1000-1500 hours of flight time, whereas Rafale can keep chugging on for well over 4500 hours before it needs to go down. What this means is, the MKI can fly for 166 days at 9 hours a day before it goes down for an overhaul while the Rafale can keep going for 500 days. So you can see the result in case of a long war. And these are just considering peacetime figures, the actual wartime figures will be much, much lower.

The availability of the jets matter as well. With Russian jets, we are struggling to get to 65-70% availability. However with Rafale, the minimum is 75% and Dassault plans to achieve 90%, and can increase even more during war. What this means is even at 80% availability, 1 MKI squadron of 20 jets or 1 Mig-35 squadron of 21 is equal to 1 Rafale squadron of 16. So you can lose as many as 2 Rafales per squadron during war and still be as effective as 1 full MKI or Mig-35 squadron due to its higher availability.

Finally airframe life. The MKI's total life is 6000 hours before it needs a service life extension or see retirement. The Mig-29 currently is 4000 hours. Both jets will need significant rebuilds for even a 2000-hour extension. But the Rafale will has a goal of 9000 hours and should easily be extended by another 7000+ hours. For example, the current M2000 has a 6000 hour life and is being extended by 5500 hours.

So you are paying about $60M for each MKI, and then overhauling them for at least $30M and you only get 4500 hours of life for all that. You need to pay for another overhaul to get the jet to 6000 hours, which happens during MLU. And then you pay another $20M or so to extend the life of the jet by another 3000 hours after the 6000 hours are up, and that requires another overhaul as well. So your total cost is now upfront cost + cost of 5 overhauls + 1 expensive rebuild. So that's $170M to buy and then push the jet up to 9000 hours. And this doesn't cover the cost of the upgrade needed to bring the jet up to current Rafale specs. PS: This also requires a total supply of 2+4 engines for each MKI. Each engine costs $5M, so the 4 extra engines necessary increases the cost to $20M, and even these engines have their own expensive overhaul cycles.

So you are paying $200M per jet for an old unupgraded MKI, and you get all that without any downtime for just $110M with the Rafale. So is the MKI cheaper than Rafale now?

As for American teens, they suffer from the same problem as the Russians when it comes to availability and overhauls, but they have as much service life as the Rafale.

However because of our past, Russian fighters needed for quick increase in number and operational capabilities.

But aren't buying new type of Russian fighters..

12 Su 30 for replacement s.
66 mig 29 upgrade

Only 21 mig 29 we are buying for 1 billion $.

Once we fill our inventory with Tejas Rafale/ Mk1A / MK2 , We can even retire old Russian jets early.

I agree with Ankit if we get Mirages at a reasonable price..
It should be first choice..
Since all the reasons for buying Mig 29 exist s with mirage too..

 

[Hydra]

Mirage 2000s from Qatar stocks, or UAE stocks which UAE was willing to sell to Egypt are already upgraded. They will not need the same level of investment. 20-30 million on Mirage2000 is any day better than Mig29s

You want world's fifth/fourth largest economy to go abroad for second hand outdated aircraft to brought back to india, then upgrade. And you want to fight two front war with two nuclear powered nation, one is world second largest economy with third largest airforce.
Good joke.... cant india soend a little bit more on defense? If IAF agrees for second hand fighters, our baboos will demand them togo for second hand on other items, some insane finance baboos may even ask for second hand uniform too.
I am not exaggerating thing, i know how government body works when comes to procurement. I have experiences with finance guys while dealing with procurement.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

You want world's fifth/fourth largest economy to go abroad for second hand outdated aircraft to brought back to india, then upgrade. And you want to fight two front war with two nuclear powered nation, one is world second largest economy with third largest airforce.
Good joke.... cant india soend a little bit more on defense? If IAF agrees for second hand fighters, our baboos will demand them togo for second hand on other items, some insane finance baboos may even ask for second hand uniform too.
I am not exaggerating thing, i know how government body works when comes to procurement. I have experiences with finance guys while dealing with procurement.

Our finances going into Armed forces are good enough. But what we definitely need is removal of all kinds of duplication in capabilities, cutting of non essential numbers and re organization.

 

[Hydra]

Our finances going into Armed forces are good enough. But what we definitely need is removal of all kinds of duplication in capabilities, cutting of non essential numbers and re organization.

Do you think that going for second hand mirage 2k is better option than rafales?

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Do you think that going for second hand mirage 2k is better option than rafales?

No. In my opinion as previously stated, giving full impetus to MK1A orders, followed by ensuring batch buys of Rafales and upgrade of Su30MKI fleet is the way forward.

And we should give up Tejas MK2 and TEDBF and focus only on AMCA and it's deck based variant.

 

[randomradio]

However because of our past, Russian fighters needed for quick increase in number and operational capabilities.

But aren't buying new type of Russian fighters..

12 Su 30 for replacement s.
66 mig 29 upgrade

Only 21 mig 29 we are buying for 1 billion $.

Once we fill our inventory with Tejas Rafale/ Mk1A / MK2 , We can even retire old Russian jets early.

Nothing will be retired early. We will use the jets to their max lives. It's because we are unlikely to get up to 42 squadrons anytime before 2030.

And there's still some focus on the Su-57. We don't need to license produce it, but we definitely need some numbers in, like we did with the Mig-29s. It may become the last Russian jet we will induct.

I agree with Ankit if we get Mirages at a reasonable price..
It should be first choice..
Since all the reasons for buying Mig 29 exist s with mirage too..

All available second-hand M2000s have to be upgraded, there's no choice.

 

[randomradio]

And we should give up Tejas MK2 and TEDBF and focus only on AMCA and it's deck based variant.

That's impossible. If we give up on Tejas Mk2, then we will buy Gripen. LCA Mk1A won't meet requirements. The LCA's requirements are more suitable for the period between the 90s and 2010s. The only reason IAF is going for it is because LCA Mk2 is not ready and the Bisons are exceeded their time, nothing else. If LCA wasn't our own jet, we would have started the F-16/Gripen tender a long time ago to replace the Mig-21s.

TEDBF is necessary because AMCA cannot be turned into a deck based variant, as confirmed by ADA. AMCA cannot be modified for the navy, so the IN has settled on a 4th gen design instead. If TEDBF doesn't happen, then IN will be buying Rafales for MII instead.

In both cases, if we give up on LCA Mk2 or TEDBF, the alternatives are imports, not LCA or AMCA.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Rafale jets dodge all radars, air defence systems; bombs Turkish facilities in Libya

The Dassault Rafale is a French multirole fighter aircraft designed and built by Dassault Aviation. Rafale is intended to perform air supremacy, aerial reconnaissance, ground support, in-depth strike, anti-ship strike and nuclear deterrence missions.

Recently, the al-Watiya airbase in Libya was reportedly bombed by Rafale jets, which either belonged to France or Egypt, the two nations within the range of the base that possesses these (Rafale) aircraft, writes the Arab Weekly.

The report quoting its sources called the attack by Rafale jets as a response to Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar’s visit to Libya.

The Turkish presence in Libya is highly undesirable to both Egypt and France and the former has even warned to intervene militarily in Libya if the Turkish-backed militias tried to head towards Sirte. France has also called the Turkish moves as “unacceptable,” emphasising that it would not permit this to continue.

But this recent airstrike on al-Watiya airbase reportedly by 4++ generation Rafale jets displayed that the boundaries in airspace differ from the boundaries on land drawn by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Indeed, basing fighter jets and drones in al-Watiya pose a direct threat to any military deployed in the region.

Before the strike

After the Strike

​

Sisi has discussed the possibility of directly intervening in Libya, pointing out that Egypt “will not allow the conflict in Libya to cross the Sirte line.” He also emphasised that “with regard to Egypt’s security, al-Jufra is a red line that we will not allow any force to cross.”

The Tripoli government accused “a foreign air force” of bombing al-Watiya base, without furnishing any information on the identity of the aircraft or the targets attacked. Even though Turkish and Qatari media rejected any casualties, the Libyan source, however, claimed that many Turkish soldiers were injured or dead in the airstrikes by Rafale jets.

A retired Libyan army officer revealed to Arab Weekly that a squadron of fighter planes launched a series of airstrikes on al-Watiya base, where Turkey had deployed F-16 aircraft, Bayraktar TB2 and Anka-S drones, backed by a MIM-23 Hawk air defence system with its radars.

He further said that the air raids targeted the al-Nadab quarters at al-Watiya base, which the Turkish forces on the base had used as their headquarters since last May. Also targeted were Sungur air defence systems, fixed and mobile radar installations and Koral signal jamming system, which the Ankara had deployed at al-Watiya base.

Libyan parliament member Ibrahim al-Darsi later acknowledged and “the airstrikes were launched by forces all too well-known to us,” and added that the targets of these attacks were “a clear message and constituted a strong and painful slap in the face of Turkish President Erdogan and his proxies in Libya, especially the militia government headed by Fayez al-Sarraj.”

 

[randomradio]

Rafale jets dodge all radars, air defence systems; bombs Turkish facilities in Libya

The Dassault Rafale is a French multirole fighter aircraft designed and built by Dassault Aviation. Rafale is intended to perform air supremacy, aerial reconnaissance, ground support, in-depth strike, anti-ship strike and nuclear deterrence missions.

Recently, the al-Watiya airbase in Libya was reportedly bombed by Rafale jets, which either belonged to France or Egypt, the two nations within the range of the base that possesses these (Rafale) aircraft, writes the Arab Weekly.

The report quoting its sources called the attack by Rafale jets as a response to Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar’s visit to Libya.

The Turkish presence in Libya is highly undesirable to both Egypt and France and the former has even warned to intervene militarily in Libya if the Turkish-backed militias tried to head towards Sirte. France has also called the Turkish moves as “unacceptable,” emphasising that it would not permit this to continue.

But this recent airstrike on al-Watiya airbase reportedly by 4++ generation Rafale jets displayed that the boundaries in airspace differ from the boundaries on land drawn by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Indeed, basing fighter jets and drones in al-Watiya pose a direct threat to any military deployed in the region.

Before the strike

After the Strike

​

Sisi has discussed the possibility of directly intervening in Libya, pointing out that Egypt “will not allow the conflict in Libya to cross the Sirte line.” He also emphasised that “with regard to Egypt’s security, al-Jufra is a red line that we will not allow any force to cross.”

The Tripoli government accused “a foreign air force” of bombing al-Watiya base, without furnishing any information on the identity of the aircraft or the targets attacked. Even though Turkish and Qatari media rejected any casualties, the Libyan source, however, claimed that many Turkish soldiers were injured or dead in the airstrikes by Rafale jets.

A retired Libyan army officer revealed to Arab Weekly that a squadron of fighter planes launched a series of airstrikes on al-Watiya base, where Turkey had deployed F-16 aircraft, Bayraktar TB2 and Anka-S drones, backed by a MIM-23 Hawk air defence system with its radars.

He further said that the air raids targeted the al-Nadab quarters at al-Watiya base, which the Turkish forces on the base had used as their headquarters since last May. Also targeted were Sungur air defence systems, fixed and mobile radar installations and Koral signal jamming system, which the Ankara had deployed at al-Watiya base.

Libyan parliament member Ibrahim al-Darsi later acknowledged and “the airstrikes were launched by forces all too well-known to us,” and added that the targets of these attacks were “a clear message and constituted a strong and painful slap in the face of Turkish President Erdogan and his proxies in Libya, especially the militia government headed by Fayez al-Sarraj.”

It's more of a political statement than capability demonstration. The Hawk isn't advanced enough to challenge an advanced 4th gen aircraft, let alone something better.

 

[Shaktimaan]

Rafale jets dodge all radars, air defence systems; bombs Turkish facilities in Libya

The Dassault Rafale is a French multirole fighter aircraft designed and built by Dassault Aviation. Rafale is intended to perform air supremacy, aerial reconnaissance, ground support, in-depth strike, anti-ship strike and nuclear deterrence missions.

Recently, the al-Watiya airbase in Libya was reportedly bombed by Rafale jets, which either belonged to France or Egypt, the two nations within the range of the base that possesses these (Rafale) aircraft, writes the Arab Weekly.

The report quoting its sources called the attack by Rafale jets as a response to Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar’s visit to Libya.

The Turkish presence in Libya is highly undesirable to both Egypt and France and the former has even warned to intervene militarily in Libya if the Turkish-backed militias tried to head towards Sirte. France has also called the Turkish moves as “unacceptable,” emphasising that it would not permit this to continue.

But this recent airstrike on al-Watiya airbase reportedly by 4++ generation Rafale jets displayed that the boundaries in airspace differ from the boundaries on land drawn by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Indeed, basing fighter jets and drones in al-Watiya pose a direct threat to any military deployed in the region.

Before the strike

After the Strike

​

Sisi has discussed the possibility of directly intervening in Libya, pointing out that Egypt “will not allow the conflict in Libya to cross the Sirte line.” He also emphasised that “with regard to Egypt’s security, al-Jufra is a red line that we will not allow any force to cross.”

The Tripoli government accused “a foreign air force” of bombing al-Watiya base, without furnishing any information on the identity of the aircraft or the targets attacked. Even though Turkish and Qatari media rejected any casualties, the Libyan source, however, claimed that many Turkish soldiers were injured or dead in the airstrikes by Rafale jets.

A retired Libyan army officer revealed to Arab Weekly that a squadron of fighter planes launched a series of airstrikes on al-Watiya base, where Turkey had deployed F-16 aircraft, Bayraktar TB2 and Anka-S drones, backed by a MIM-23 Hawk air defence system with its radars.

He further said that the air raids targeted the al-Nadab quarters at al-Watiya base, which the Turkish forces on the base had used as their headquarters since last May. Also targeted were Sungur air defence systems, fixed and mobile radar installations and Koral signal jamming system, which the Ankara had deployed at al-Watiya base.

Libyan parliament member Ibrahim al-Darsi later acknowledged and “the airstrikes were launched by forces all too well-known to us,” and added that the targets of these attacks were “a clear message and constituted a strong and painful slap in the face of Turkish President Erdogan and his proxies in Libya, especially the militia government headed by Fayez al-Sarraj.”

From same site

JF-17 vs Rafale: Why Pakistani JF-17 Thunder Poses A Serious Threat To Indian Rafale Fighter Jets?

JF-17 Thunder vs Rafale Fighter Jets is a comparison that every defence expert is analysing. Indian Air Force (IAF) chief recently warned about the shortcomings of the Rafale fighter jets in a probable comparison to JF-17 Thunder. This statement came exactly a year later since Pakistan outgunned...

eurasiantimes.com

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

It's more of a political statement than capability demonstration. The Hawk isn't advanced enough to challenge an advanced 4th gen aircraft, let alone something better.

What is interesting is my pictures which show that the system was deployed before the strike, while some newspapers were saying that the system may not have had time to be deployed, and the precision of the strike.

 

[Lolwa]

Russian jets do not provide the quality or the life necessary for long term use. The Russians design their jets in such a way that you are forced to go back to them much more than necessary just to keep the jets functioning.

But with the Rafale specifically, a lot of things that are part of regular maintenance are eliminated.

For example, MKI needs 2 overhauls and 1 MLU. Each of these overhauls cost at least $15M or more if done in Russia. So you are effectively adding $30-40M to the cost of the MKI. All other jets also face this problem. However the Rafale requires no overhauls, only 1 MLU. So you are easily eliminating some serious costs and downtime of your Rafale squadrons. And this is going to be extremely important during wartime, since you can't have your jets in maintenance when you are fighting a war. So the MKI and Mig-35 will need to go down for a long time after 1000-1500 hours of flight time, whereas Rafale can keep chugging on for well over 4500 hours before it needs to go down. What this means is, the MKI can fly for 166 days at 9 hours a day before it goes down for an overhaul while the Rafale can keep going for 500 days. So you can see the result in case of a long war. And these are just considering peacetime figures, the actual wartime figures will be much, much lower.

The availability of the jets matter as well. With Russian jets, we are struggling to get to 65-70% availability. However with Rafale, the minimum is 75% and Dassault plans to achieve 90%, and can increase even more during war. What this means is even at 80% availability, 1 MKI squadron of 20 jets or 1 Mig-35 squadron of 21 is equal to 1 Rafale squadron of 16. So you can lose as many as 2 Rafales per squadron during war and still be as effective as 1 full MKI or Mig-35 squadron due to its higher availability.

Finally airframe life. The MKI's total life is 6000 hours before it needs a service life extension or see retirement. The Mig-29 currently is 4000 hours. Both jets will need significant rebuilds for even a 2000-hour extension. But the Rafale will has a goal of 9000 hours and should easily be extended by another 7000+ hours. For example, the current M2000 has a 6000 hour life and is being extended by 5500 hours.

So you are paying about $60M for each MKI, and then overhauling them for at least $30M and you only get 4500 hours of life for all that. You need to pay for another overhaul to get the jet to 6000 hours, which happens during MLU. And then you pay another $20M or so to extend the life of the jet by another 3000 hours after the 6000 hours are up, and that requires another overhaul as well. So your total cost is now upfront cost + cost of 5 overhauls + 1 expensive rebuild. So that's $170M to buy and then push the jet up to 9000 hours. And this doesn't cover the cost of the upgrade needed to bring the jet up to current Rafale specs. PS: This also requires a total supply of 2+4 engines for each MKI. Each engine costs $5M, so the 4 extra engines necessary increases the cost to $20M, and even these engines have their own expensive overhaul cycles.

So you are paying $200M per jet for an old unupgraded MKI, and you get all that without any downtime for just $110M with the Rafale. So is the MKI cheaper than Rafale now?

As for American teens, they suffer from the same problem as the Russians when it comes to availability and overhauls, but they have as much service life as the Rafale.

The only reason I am recommending to buy migs is because of the time constraint. The last thing we need is more Russian junk. But our falling squadron strength can't be covered up by MMRCAs and tejas alone. We still need a lot of aircrafts to cover up. That's why the mig 35 seems like a decent option. Russian planes are maintenance nightmares but we have been able to maintain the sukhois for the most part. We might be one of the few countries to have extremely high fleet availability for Russian jets. And there's is no way the migs will be more costly than rafales. Sukhois are a different matter because they are of a different class. And I'm not saying we need to buy the sukhois because too costly for us. Migs are a different matter. Nowhere do I recommend buying more sukhois. We clearly know how big of maintenance nightmares the sukhois are migs are lesser comparitively. Also the Russian do claim 6000 flight hours for the mig 35. And buying the migs will still help us hold some edge over the pakistani f 16 and Chinese j10's...

 

[randomradio]

What is interesting is my pictures which show that the system was deployed before the strike, while some newspapers were saying that the system may not have had time to be deployed, and the precision of the strike.

What's impressive to me is the possibility of the Egyptians having conducted the strike. If it is the French who attacked, then no big deal, but if it was the Egyptians, then the distance between the base and the Egyptian border is 1250Km as the crow flies.

It means they have to fly across the entire breadth of Libya just to attack those targets. Even if they used SCALP, that's impressive.

 

[randomradio]

The only reason I am recommending to buy migs is because of the time constraint. The last thing we need is more Russian junk. But our falling squadron strength can't be covered up by MMRCAs and tejas alone. We still need a lot of aircrafts to cover up. That's why the mig 35 seems like a decent option. Russian planes are maintenance nightmares but we have been able to maintain the sukhois for the most part. We might be one of the few countries to have extremely high fleet availability for Russian jets. And there's is no way the migs will be more costly than rafales. Sukhois are a different matter because they are of a different class. And I'm not saying we need to buy the sukhois because too costly for us. Migs are a different matter. Nowhere do I recommend buying more sukhois. We clearly know how big of maintenance nightmares the sukhois are migs are lesser comparitively. Also the Russian do claim 6000 flight hours for the mig 35. And buying the migs will still help us hold some edge over the pakistani f 16 and Chinese j10's...

You are completely wrong there. Among all the jets in the competition, the Rafale will be the fastest to induct and Mig-35 will be the slowest to induct. The reason is simple, even today the Mig-35 doesn't exist and has no official orders whereas there is a fully functioning Rafale production line in France, and India will also have a Rafale line become available very quickly if necessary due to the investment DRAL has already made.

If you are worried about the "slow" production line of the Rafale, then you shouldn't be. They have the ability to deliver 40+ jets a year as long as you place enough orders for it, not counting the Indian line adding even more to the production rate.

Migs are also expensive. It's only slightly cheaper than the MKI, but comes with all the same expenses I talked about. It's cheap in terms of operating costs compared to the MKI by about 30% or so, that's about it.

Mig-35, F-15, SH, Typhoon, all these jets are much more expensive than Rafale because all these jets have to undergo expensive overhauls frequently. Rafale only seems expensive because of its higher sticker price, but that is mainly because of its advanced avionics. If you bring all the other jets up to Rafale specs, even their sticker price will increase. And no, none of these jets are specced to the same standards as the Rafale, especially with the ISE configuration on our Rafales. We have to pay a lot of money to MKIze the other jets, including the Mig-35. Not to mention, we have to continue to pay for customising the Rafale and then pay for the same capability for the Mig-35 as well, and that's just dumb.

First, we have to wait for the Russians to order the Mig-35 and then start operating them in some numbers. Let them fix all the problems with it, and then offer it. Until that happens, the Mig is just a participant.