MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[randomradio]

I think this is the relevant part:

View attachment 39039

Remains to be seen what they will suggest (and whether IAF/MoD decide to follow their suggestions). Either way, one thing is for sure - MRFA isn't happening anytime soon, which I would say was to be expected.

I think at some level, the aspects I talked about previously on the forum several times, namely:

• Evolution of Tejas Mk2 design from a light fighter to a medium one comparable to MRFA contenders like F-21/Gripen E, which reduces the number of roles we need a new MRFA for.
• Advent of Loyal Wingmen & IUSAV programs which can reduce number of manned platforms needed to pursue a given air campaign.
• Advent of Integrated Rocket Forces concept which can reduce the number of sorties (and by extension, number of airframes) needed to place X amount of ordnance on a given target. There is evidence that CDS has already adopted this view:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859294431494668688

• Whether spending $30+ Bn on a foreign non-stealth platform makes sense in this day & age.
• Last but not least: whether there are better ways to spend that money in order to achieve similar or even better effects given all the new techs that emerged & matured since requirement of 100+ MRCA was drafted for the first time over 23 years ago.

...are indeed being studied.

In the end, I won't be surprised if we end up just buying 36 more Rafales off the shelf, cancelling the rest of the requirement and going all in with Tejas Mk2, AMCA, CATS & Super MKI.

A stop-gap purchase of a foreign 5th gen might become a consideration at some point in the next few years once PAF inducts J-35, but after spending a good 18-24 months corresponding with available vendors (Su-57/F-35A) we'd likely reach the conclusion that procuring a small batch of 5th gen jets is extremely expensive if we don't plan on going all in with that platform.

But it's gonna have to be expense that we need to bear if we don't want to cede the look-first/shoot-first advantage to PAF for a full decade-plus until AMCA arrives.

So it might be wise to keep the budget saved by not pursuing MRFA in a Fixed Deposit somewhere till the time comes to make a knee-jerk purchase some time late this decade, because we know all too well that day would definitely come.

No matter how much people wish it's true, the LCA Mk2 cannot perform the Rafale's mission. And it's all because it does not have 2 engines. That's all there is to it. To perform deep strike missions, you need 2 engines because you can't send pilots on a suicide mission with just one engine. That's why even M2000 is not used for deep strike, regardless of its significant superiority over the Jaguar. And without a new twin-engine aircraft, that's denying the air force the most crucial reason for their existence and of huge benefit to the enemy. We can't win any wars without deep strike capabilities. That's where Rafale fits in. The alternative to the Rafale is not drones or LCA, it's AMCA, and that's on a different timeline. Another option is a light stealth bomber with 2 engines in sufficiently large numbers, and that's gonna be way more expensive. Ghatak is also not an alternative, it won't be advanced enough and its decision-making abilities are practically none. So Rafale/MRFA it is.

Due to India's geography, 6 squadrons are necessary. We already have 2, so we can make do with 4. But we can't build in India with just 4, hence we need 6 at the minimum for industry to absorb the tech. The IAF too needs significant control over these 6 squadrons and that requires ToT. And we can't just willy-nilly buy 6 from a store shelf without a competitive advantage in our favor, hence the tender.

Basically, MRFA has no plan B. LCA can't replace it, Ghatak is too stupid and AMCA is too far away. So no matter how much certain elements want to dissuade the IAF to move away from MRFA, it won't happen 'cause there is absolutely no alternative.

 

[Parthu]

No matter how much people wish it's true, the LCA Mk2 cannot perform the Rafale's mission. And it's all because it does not have 2 engines.

Hence, the additional Rafales off the shelf.

Due to India's geography, 6 squadrons are necessary. We already have 2, so we can make do with 4.

That is the assessment which is in need of review.

Our requirement of 6 squadrons was not completely aimed at procuring deep-strike capabilities alone. It was to do so much more. But a lot of that other stuff can now be done by other means which did not exist before.

Which is why we need to review how many DPSAs we actually need. My guess, we'll need 2 squadrons more (over the 2 we already have), not 4 more. This is because Tejas Mk2 is capable of addressing the strike role on the Western front due to limited strategic depth enjoyed by the adversary there, so not much range needed. That's why M2Ks could go in for Balakot. In the future, Tejas Mk2 can take care of this front.

Which allows us to divert the Rafales we would otherwise had to commit to this theatre (if Tejas Mk2 had stayed an LCA instead of becoming an MWF), over to the LAC.

But we can't build in India with just 4, hence we need 6 at the minimum for industry to absorb the tech. The IAF too needs significant control over these 6 squadrons and that requires ToT. And we can't just willy-nilly buy 6 from a store shelf without a competitive advantage in our favor, hence the tender.

That was the plan. Unfortunately, it didn't work and is still showing no signs of working. Probably because it's not financially viable, or the technology being offered is not something that would remain viable well into the future, justifying the finance. We've already spent money on infrastructure for 2 more Rafale squadrons which gives Dassault a competitive edge in pricing that other vendors simply cannot match, which gives Dassault a lot of leverage & room to negotiate.

We need to shake this up. Hence the review.

We need to seriously look at delivering capability in hand, never mind the ToT absorption, that was the plan formulated 20 years ago.

Given what ADA/HAL have already developed & are working on by this point, there's not much we can learn by screwdriving a foreign 4.5 Gen at this point.

AESA FCRs, Sensor Fusion, MAWS, DAS, Composite airframes, IRST, we've already developed or developing most of the stuff by ourselves. There's very little new stuff something like Rafale F4 ToT can help us learn from scratch at this point. There is some - but is it worth the enormous price being asked? That's the question that requires answers.

 

[randomradio]

Hence, the additional Rafales off the shelf.

I have addressed that. Any purchase we make is a 50-year commitment, and this requires ToT. And to get ToT we need jets bought in enough numbers and then made in India.

If we don't get ToT, the jets will have to be retired far too early, which is a lesson the IAF learned after purchasing the Mig-23. So you can be doubly sure they have no plans on repeating that. The IN were limited by the exact same thing, but they had no choice back then. That's why they are the most vocal about indigization and local production.

So an off-the-shelf purchase is out of the question. It's nothing more than a stopgap solution.

That is the assessment which is in need of review.

Our requirement of 6 squadrons was not completely aimed at procuring deep-strike capabilities alone. It was to do so much more. But a lot of that other stuff can now be done by other means which did not exist before.

Which is why we need to review how many DPSAs we actually need. My guess, we'll need 2 squadrons more (over the 2 we already have), not 4 more. This is because Tejas Mk2 is capable of addressing the strike role on the Western front due to limited strategic depth enjoyed by the adversary there, so not much range needed. That's why M2Ks could go in for Balakot. In the future, Tejas Mk2 can take care of this front.

Which allows us to divert the Rafales we would otherwise had to commit to this theatre (if Tejas Mk2 had stayed an LCA instead of becoming an MWF), over to the LAC.

Our 6 squadron requirement is an absolute minimum. We need 2 each in the north, southwest and northeast. And we can't makedo with just 1 squadron per sector either, both logistics and operations will go for a toss. Optimum requirement is 8-9 squadrons and best numbers are 11-12.

And when it comes to complex missions like deep strike, you need mostly the same type of jet for the mission due to technological limitations. Rafales can talk to each other via a patrol link far easier than they can with other jets. The F-22 and F-35 are facing the same issue, so not even the same manufacturer can easily achieve this. So we need Rafales carrying packages and protecting and covering other Rafales, wtih all of them watching the same picture. That's one of the reasons why M2000s escorted, covered and bombed Balakot. It wasn't a mix of different jets.

That was the plan. Unfortunately, it didn't work and is still showing no signs of working. Probably because it's not financially viable, or the technology being offered is not something that would remain viable well into the future, justifying the finance. We've already spent money on infrastructure for 2 more Rafale squadrons which gives Dassault a competitive edge in pricing that other vendors simply cannot match, which gives Dassault a lot of leverage & room to negotiate.

We need to shake this up. Hence the review.

Dassault has to compete on a set standard common to all participants. The addition of bases et al will come into the equation only when contract is negotiated. If we do not provide a level playing field, the others will leave.

If the IAF wants 3 bases, Dassault will have to bid with the price for 3 bases. When we negotiate the contract, it can be whittled down to one, and that has no impact on the competition itself.

We need to seriously look at delivering capability in hand, never mind the ToT absorption, that was the plan formulated 20 years ago.

No matter when it was formulated, it's still a reality today. ToT is still critical and necessary.

Given what ADA/HAL have already developed & are working on by this point, there's not much we can learn by screwdriving a foreign 4.5 Gen at this point.

That's irrelevant. Neither ADA nor HAL can deliver a Rafale-equivalent with the same set of proven processes and advancements within the same timeframe as the French.

The Rafale provides guarantee of success, which none of ADA or HAL's products provide. A Rafale equivalent today would be a twin-engine jet that's seen service in large numbers for 10+ years and has seen combat. When will Indian products achieve that level of maturity?

AESA FCRs, Sensor Fusion, MAWS, DAS, Composite airframes, IRST, we've already developed or developing most of the stuff by ourselves. There's very little new stuff something like Rafale F4 ToT can help us learn from scratch at this point. There is some - but is it worth the enormous price being asked? That's the question that requires answers.

That again has absolutely nothing to do with the tender. You are looking from an industry perspective, not from the IAF's. The IAF don't simply want "AESA FCRs, Sensor Fusion, MAWS, DAS, Composite airframes, IRST fresh out of a factory," they want "AESA FCRs, Sensor Fusion, MAWS, DAS, Composite airframes, IRST" that's operationally proven and has seen some kind of warfighting service or has at least gone through complex exercises over many years.

Considering all this, LCA Mk1A is 5 years away, MKI MLU and Mk2 are about 13 years away, TEDBF and AMCA are about 20 years away. Whereas Rafale is ready today.

 

[Parthu]

I have addressed that. Any purchase we make is a 50-year commitment, and this requires ToT. And to get ToT we need jets bought in enough numbers and then made in India.

If we don't get ToT, the jets will have to be retired far too early, which is a lesson the IAF learned after purchasing the Mig-23. So you can be doubly sure they have no plans on repeating that. The IN were limited by the exact same thing, but they had no choice back then. That's why they are the most vocal about indigization and local production.

So an off-the-shelf purchase is out of the question. It's nothing more than a stopgap solution.

That is addressed through PBL contracts and indigenization of supply chain through offset clauses. That is sufficient to avoid a MiG-like logistics disaster. Only thing is, is doesn't allow us to function fully independently of the OEM in case of any major repair or UPG program.

The question now is whether that autonomy is worth the price being asked for it - especially if it deals with a platform that is no longer the cutting-edge.

Our 6 squadron requirement is an absolute minimum. We need 2 each in the north, southwest and northeast. And we can't makedo with just 1 squadron per sector either, both logistics and operations will go for a toss. Optimum requirement is 8-9 squadrons and best numbers are 11-12.

And when it comes to complex missions like deep strike, you need mostly the same type of jet for the mission due to technological limitations. Rafales can talk to each other via a patrol link far easier than they can with other jets. The F-22 and F-35 are facing the same issue, so not even the same manufacturer can easily achieve this. So we need Rafales carrying packages and protecting and covering other Rafales, wtih all of them watching the same picture. That's one of the reasons why M2000s escorted, covered and bombed Balakot. It wasn't a mix of different jets.

The whole of IAF's fighter squadron requirement is in need of review. Just like the SSK requirement of the Navy.

Our procurement is functioning on assessements made decades ago that no longer suit the realities of today. IAF has to do what Navy did when they swapped 6 of their 24 required SSKs for SSNs.

Both the tactical battlespace as well as the domestic industrial capabilities have undergone massive change. Ploughing through with a procurement without taking all this into account is ill-advised.

Dassault has to compete on a set standard common to all participants. The addition of bases et al will come into the equation only when contract is negotiated. If we do not provide a level playing field, the others will leave.

Oh, all that hungama is guaranteed to happen, rest assured. Only reason we aren't seeing it is because we haven't gotten anywhere near the commercial bidding stage yet.

No matter when it was formulated, it's still a reality today. ToT is still critical and necessary.

If we're serious about operating 150 Rafales (36+114) then yes, but not if we only go for 72 (36+36).

Because that would mean we only expect Rafales to hold the fort until AMCA is fully operational, because Rafale will not remain a survivable DPSA for as long as AMCA will into the future.

That's irrelevant. Neither ADA nor HAL can deliver a Rafale-equivalent with the same set of proven processes and advancements within the same timeframe as the French.

The Rafale provides guarantee of success, which none of ADA or HAL's products provide. A Rafale equivalent today would be a twin-engine jet that's seen service in large numbers for 10+ years and has seen combat. When will Indian products achieve that level of maturity?

That again has absolutely nothing to do with the tender. You are looking from an industry perspective, not from the IAF's. The IAF don't simply want "AESA FCRs, Sensor Fusion, MAWS, DAS, Composite airframes, IRST fresh out of a factory," they want "AESA FCRs, Sensor Fusion, MAWS, DAS, Composite airframes, IRST" that's operationally proven and has seen some kind of warfighting service or has at least gone through complex exercises over many years.

Considering all this, LCA Mk1A is 5 years away, MKI MLU and Mk2 are about 13 years away, TEDBF and AMCA are about 20 years away. Whereas Rafale is ready today.

By that measure, we will never induct any indigenous platform.

Why build Tejas when F16 is available and has a long combat record? Why build AMCA when F35 might be available and is already racking up a combat record?

Without question, our long-term commitment (both financial & logistical) needs to be toward indigenous platforms. Not toward ToT.

ToT was a fine strategy to adopt in 2000s-2010s when we had no real domestic R&D industry to speak of, not now. That ship has sailed. Right now ToT doesn't offer much technology-wise, it's just a logistical thing. But you can't justify sending billions to a foreign OEM just so we can keep their jets flying.

If that's the way it has to be, then we need to focus on getting rid of foreign platforms as soon as indigenous alternatives become viable.

If we were talking about ToT for a platform at the level of GCAP/FCAS or even F-35, it would be something to consider. But for likes of Rafale & Typhoon? No way. Not in this day & age.

 

[randomradio]

That is addressed through PBL contracts and indigenization of supply chain through offset clauses. That is sufficient to avoid a MiG-like logistics disaster. Only thing is, is doesn't allow us to function fully independently of the OEM in case of any major repair or UPG program.

The question now is whether that autonomy is worth the price being asked for it - especially if it deals with a platform that is no longer the cutting-edge.

PBL is just a spares and maintenance contract, that's not ToT.

What we need is actual ToT, so we can make changes to the airframe and avionics when necessary. For example, a PBL contract wouldn't have allowed the integration of Brahmos on MKI.

And asking the OEM to make those changes is far more expensive than just paying for ToT in the first place. Which is why we funded Brahmos integration ourselves.

The whole of IAF's fighter squadron requirement is in need of review. Just like the SSK requirement of the Navy.

Our procurement is functioning on assessements made decades ago that no longer suit the realities of today. IAF has to do what Navy did when they swapped 6 of their 24 required SSKs for SSNs.

Both the tactical battlespace as well as the domestic industrial capabilities have undergone massive change. Ploughing through with a procurement without taking all this into account is ill-advised.

Our procurement plans made decades ago are still relevant today, the platforms and technologies required have changed with time and have been catered to.

As long as the enemy is present in depth areas, and aircraft like F-35 and Su-57 are necessary, MRFA will remain relevant. It's going to have another 40+ years.

Oh, all that hungama is guaranteed to happen, rest assured. Only reason we aren't seeing it is because we haven't gotten anywhere near the commercial bidding stage yet.

There won't be any drama, the losers will quietly bow out as they did last time. And even Dassault can lose. You never know who can spring a surprise.

If we're serious about operating 150 Rafales (36+114) then yes, but not if we only go for 72 (36+36).

That's not minimum. And that plan was junked for ToT + minimum numbers.

Because that would mean we only expect Rafales to hold the fort until AMCA is fully operational, because Rafale will not remain a survivable DPSA for as long as AMCA will into the future.

Rafale will manage until the 2050s. Beyond that it will become optionally manned or fully unmanned.

By that measure, we will never induct any indigenous platform.

Why build Tejas when F16 is available and has a long combat record? Why build AMCA when F35 might be available and is already racking up a combat record?

Because we can makedo with indigenization in less capable areas, like LCA.

We have different tiers. Rafale fits into the top most one, AMCA will meet that requirement 20 years later. LCA fits into a different category for different mission sets.

Without question, our long-term commitment (both financial & logistical) needs to be toward indigenous platforms. Not toward ToT.

Capability is more important. Indigenization is the byproduct of a good plan, but it can take a backseat if capability is affected.

ToT was a fine strategy to adopt in 2000s-2010s when we had no real domestic R&D industry to speak of, not now. That ship has sailed. Right now ToT doesn't offer much technology-wise, it's just a logistical thing. But you can't justify sending billions to a foreign OEM just so we can keep their jets flying.

Domestic R&D is irrelevant to ToT. It neither benefits it nor impedes it.

It does help in creating high quality human capital, which in turn means more competition and better options for the IAF. But the main beneficiary is the IAF and their mission. Everything is about the IAF, not the industry.

If that's the way it has to be, then we need to focus on getting rid of foreign platforms as soon as indigenous alternatives become viable.

Sure. But that's something like in the 2080s or 2090s, as long as we keep up with the rest of the world.

If we fail at that, then we are gonna keep importing until we get it right. 'Cause capability is more important.

If we were talking about ToT for a platform at the level of GCAP/FCAS or even F-35, it would be something to consider. But for likes of Rafale & Typhoon? No way. Not in this day & age.

Even GCAP, FCAS or F-35 ToT won't help domestic R&D. Our scientists won't even touch these jets with a barge pole. As a matter of policy, DRDO only develops original designs that do not infringe IPR. And this is the reason why FOEMs are willing to hand over ToT.

But ToT is necessary. Not just for local modifications, but in case relations sour, we can steal foreign IPR under our national security laws. PBL cannot stop sanctions or supply blockades. The ones who use this ToT to reverse engineer parts will be the lead integrator, like Reliance, spares suppliers and IAF BRDs. None of this will go into DRDO or HAL's programs.

DRDO will only involve itself in future programs for joint development, integration of DRDO-designed weapons and avionics etc. And HAL can choose to be a subcontractor and find some benefits for themselves there, like M88 production, but you can imagine how it can't help LCA, TEDBF or AMCA directly.

 

[Sathya]

I don't think we ll spend 30+ billion$ worth 5-7 years later to induct platforms 7-15 years later time frame.

If we consider Rafale as interim solution, it perfectly capable of flying more missions..

If TEDBF or AMCA gets ready, then we can retire Rafale early, so can do with flying more missions with Rafale in the interim.

Even buying off the shelf stealth fighters, I am confident we ll drag so long, Amca - ghatak will be ready by then.

If we are set to import Su 57 , we should leverage that in Su 30 upgrade program..
Decision have to made now for that to happen.

Engine deals ( GE 414 & future JV 110 kn)are dragging longer , that's where our indigenous solution based on.

36 Rafale F3R for IAF
26 Rafale F4.2 for IN
36 Rafale F5 for IAF to counter J35
Is likely the more possible scenario..

I hope the plan is to burn out Rafales to buy time for AMCA & TEDBF.

 

[_Anonymous_]

I don't think we ll spend 30+ billion$ worth 5-7 years later to induct platforms 7-15 years later time frame.

If we consider Rafale as interim solution, it perfectly capable of flying more missions..

If TEDBF or AMCA gets ready, then we can retire Rafale early, so can do with flying more missions with Rafale in the interim.

Even buying off the shelf stealth fighters, I am confident we ll drag so long, Amca - ghatak will be ready by then.

If we are set to import Su 57 , we should leverage that in Su 30 upgrade program..
Decision have to made now for that to happen.

Engine deals ( GE 414 & future JV 110 kn)are dragging longer , that's where our indigenous solution based on.

36 Rafale F3R for IAF
26 Rafale F4.2 for IN
36 Rafale F5 for IAF to counter J35
Is likely the more possible scenario..

I hope the plan is to burn out Rafales to buy time for AMCA & TEDBF.

Small correction -


26 Rafale F4.2 for IN
36 -54 Rafale F4 for IAF to counter J-20 with the option to go in for another 36 nos F5 post 2030 if we want to expedite deliveries of at least 36 Rafale F4 before 2030 thru MII.

OR

36 nos F4 imports + 36-54 nos Su-57
Is likely the more possible scenario..

 

[Parthu]

PBL is just a spares and maintenance contract, that's not ToT.

What we need is actual ToT, so we can make changes to the airframe and avionics when necessary. For example, a PBL contract wouldn't have allowed the integration of Brahmos on MKI.

And asking the OEM to make those changes is far more expensive than just paying for ToT in the first place. Which is why we funded Brahmos integration ourselves.

Like I said, that would've made sense 20 years ago, but not now. The MKI ToT made sense because we had no plan to make our own heavy MRCA down the line that would do those roles better than MKI can.

But for medium MRCAs, we do - AMCA.

That's why MMRCA can now be looked at as a stop-gap solution and not a definitive one, because it doesn't offer capabilities that IAF has determined that we need into the future, like a stealthy airframe. That's why we need to review the procurement. It doesn't make sense to spend $30+ Bn on ToT for a stop-gap solution.

We can procure 2 more squadrons of a platform that we already operate (Rafale) from a vendor that represents a relatively low/no risk of sanctions historically like France. All we need is an extension of the PBL contracts already signed for the first 36 and we're good.

By the time we'd consider modifying the planes to carry new-gen weapons, Rafale would no longer be our cutting edge, it would be AMCA.

Our procurement plans made decades ago are still relevant today, the platforms and technologies required have changed with time and have been catered to.

As long as the enemy is present in depth areas, and aircraft like F-35 and Su-57 are necessary, MRFA will remain relevant. It's going to have another 40+ years.

Then why are we reviewing?

There won't be any drama, the losers will quietly bow out as they did last time. And even Dassault can lose. You never know who can spring a surprise.

Last time was different - the complication of already having one of the contenders in inventory + additional infrastructure, ISEs, weapon integration etc. already being paid for was not a factor.

Rafale will manage until the 2050s. Beyond that it will become optionally manned or fully unmanned.

Now that we've procured it, we'll certainly ride it out to the end of its service life and even beyond. But that doesn't mean it will remain a survivable, frontline fighter by 2050.

Only AMCA will. As well as any 5th gen stop-gap we procure in the meantime (if we do).

Because we can makedo with indigenization in less capable areas, like LCA.

We have different tiers. Rafale fits into the top most one, AMCA will meet that requirement 20 years later. LCA fits into a different category for different mission sets.

Capability is more important. Indigenization is the byproduct of a good plan, but it can take a backseat if capability is affected.

It's not about less or more capable areas - it's about what your industry is able to deliver.

Capability is indeed what's in question - a Rafale that we induct in 2029 (assuming we sign deal in '26) is going to be overshadowed in capability terms within a decade by AMCA Mk-1.

So it doesn't make sense to spend huge amounts on indigenizing a less-capable plane just so it can remain our best platform for only 7-8 years or so before being unseated by a ground-up indigenous platform.

Domestic R&D is irrelevant to ToT. It neither benefits it nor impedes it.

It does help in creating high quality human capital, which in turn means more competition and better options for the IAF. But the main beneficiary is the IAF and their mission. Everything is about the IAF, not the industry.

It means we no longer need to get ToT to indigenize a foreign platform, when a comparable or better platform can be pursued domestically.

Spending money to procure a stop-gap solution from abroad that can hold the fort till indigenous solutions are ready is fine. But investing tens of billions to buy ToT and indigenize a foreign platform isn't fine anymore. Our industry has developed to the level where it can absorb that investment itself and deliver exactly what we need.

Sure. But that's something like in the 2080s or 2090s, as long as we keep up with the rest of the world.

If we fail at that, then we are gonna keep importing until we get it right. 'Cause capability is more important.

No, because by then we'd be developing an indigenous 8th gen jet but you will say a foreign 7th gen has seen more combat so we should buy that instead and spend all our money in indigenizing it.

This cycle will never end if we go by that logic.

Even GCAP, FCAS or F-35 ToT won't help domestic R&D. Our scientists won't even touch these jets with a barge pole. As a matter of policy, DRDO only develops original designs that do not infringe IPR. And this is the reason why FOEMs are willing to hand over ToT.

But ToT is necessary. Not just for local modifications, but in case relations sour, we can steal foreign IPR under our national security laws. PBL cannot stop sanctions or supply blockades. The ones who use this ToT to reverse engineer parts will be the lead integrator, like Reliance, spares suppliers and IAF BRDs. None of this will go into DRDO or HAL's programs.

DRDO will only involve itself in future programs for joint development, integration of DRDO-designed weapons and avionics etc. And HAL can choose to be a subcontractor and find some benefits for themselves there, like M88 production, but you can imagine how it can't help LCA, TEDBF or AMCA directly.

What's the need to steal a Rafale IPR when we'd be making AMCA domestically?

 

[randomradio]

Like I said, that would've made sense 20 years ago, but not now. The MKI ToT made sense because we had no plan to make our own heavy MRCA down the line that would do those roles better than MKI can.

But for medium MRCAs, we do - AMCA.

That's why MMRCA can now be looked at as a stop-gap solution and not a definitive one, because it doesn't offer capabilities that IAF has determined that we need into the future, like a stealthy airframe. That's why we need to review the procurement. It doesn't make sense to spend $30+ Bn on ToT for a stop-gap solution.

We can procure 2 more squadrons of a platform that we already operate (Rafale) from a vendor that represents a relatively low/no risk of sanctions historically like France. All we need is an extension of the PBL contracts already signed for the first 36 and we're good.

By the time we'd consider modifying the planes to carry new-gen weapons, Rafale would no longer be our cutting edge, it would be AMCA.

There is no "heavy MRCA" down the line for IAF in the next 20 years. AMCA will be the peak domestic program for this half of the century.

And MRFA is not a stopgap. And it's not $30B for Rafale either; much, much lesser. Just the flyaway cost at $130M would be about $15B. Another $2B for 2 more bases. And even if it did cost $30B, this argument would be irrelevant, it will have to be paid. It's payment for things the LCA cannot do.

Then why are we reviewing?

Expert review for all projects, not just MRFA. This even includes helicopters, SAMs, satellites etc.

Last time was different - the complication of already having one of the contenders in inventory + additional infrastructure, ISEs, weapon integration etc. already being paid for was not a factor.

If they don't trust the process, then they do not have to participate. No one's forcing them.

Now that we've procured it, we'll certainly ride it out to the end of its service life and even beyond. But that doesn't mean it will remain a survivable, frontline fighter by 2050.

Only AMCA will. As well as any 5th gen stop-gap we procure in the meantime (if we do).

The same as Rafale, AMCA will just work for 10 more years than Rafale, so 2060s. Just having a stealth airframe isn't enough.

A fighter remains relevant only for 20-25 years, pending which it falls down from advanced to acceptable. In another 10-20 years it will become outdated and then obsolete.

MKI is currently in the acceptable category. The MLU will stretch its acceptable standard by 15 years or so.

It's not about less or more capable areas - it's about what your industry is able to deliver.

Capability is indeed what's in question - a Rafale that we induct in 2029 (assuming we sign deal in '26) is going to be overshadowed in capability terms within a decade by AMCA Mk-1.

So it doesn't make sense to spend huge amounts on indigenizing a less-capable plane just so it can remain our best platform for only 7-8 years or so before being unseated by a ground-up indigenous platform.

AMCA Mk1 won't overshadow Rafale, not without a new engine. And it will take AMCA about 15 years just to get up to the standards of the Rafale in 2030, with technology reflecting the times. That's 2045.

And the IAF's plan is to have a very short "advanced" replacement cycle anyway. 2030s for the Rafale, 2040s for AMCA and 2050s for MKI-replacement; then 2060s for LCA Mk1/A replacement, 2070 for LCA Mk2 replacement and so on.

It means we no longer need to get ToT to indigenize a foreign platform, when a comparable or better platform can be pursued domestically.

We don't do that anyway. You seem to have this strange impression that we have been using MKI and Jaguar ToT in LCA and AMCA.

If DRDO wants to copy something or use something as a template, they buy it directly from the OEM, like they did for radars, they don't sidejack into the IAF's programs.

Spending money to procure a stop-gap solution from abroad that can hold the fort till indigenous solutions are ready is fine. But investing tens of billions to buy ToT and indigenize a foreign platform isn't fine anymore. Our industry has developed to the level where it can absorb that investment itself and deliver exactly what we need.

MRFA is not a stopgap, it's primary capability.

No, because by then we'd be developing an indigenous 8th gen jet but you will say a foreign 7th gen has seen more combat so we should buy that instead and spend all our money in indigenizing it.

This cycle will never end if we go by that logic.

Yes. That's how it works. Industry has to deliver based on the IAF's requirements. If they cannot, the IAF will import until the industry gets it right. And in this case, the industry has barely even begun the process.

That's why the IA has the TGS tender.

What's the need to steal a Rafale IPR when we'd be making AMCA domestically?

I don't understand why this is so hard to get. There's no relevance between the two. It doesn't matter if AMCA is hugely successful or crashes and burns in its first flight, MRFA's 6 squadron requirement and ToT is an entirely separate matter.

The numbers are necessary 'cause that's our geography. And the ToT is necessary to manufacture and maintain the jet in India without foreign assistance or interference. That's all there is to it. This provides industry with new processes and technologies, the IAF gets to keep an eye on the tech they are using and follow its progress and the govt gets to save on forex and gain a political advantage over other rivals, both foreign govts and corporations, even the FOEM (Brahmos example). It absolutely plays no part in AMCA.

And you haven't even considered the possibility of AMCA facing considerable delays or even failing. We are already at the end of 2024 and haven't seen any progress on the new engine. Once it's selected and a contract signed, it's going to take a minimum 10 years more to see it flying on AMCA before it's finally produced and delivered, that's easily 2040+. And this is as long as AMCA is ready on time. And with dependency on foreign sources, we do not even know what sort of hurdles AMCA will face after having seen the Mk1A engine debacle. Which means, the IAF will have to fall back on MRFA to compensate.

Furthermore, both the govt and IAF do not want a HAL monopoly, hence the need for a direct competitor via MRFA.

 

[Hydra]

There is no "heavy MRCA" down the line for IAF in the next 20 years. AMCA will be the peak domestic program for this half of the century.

And MRFA is not a stopgap. And it's not $30B for Rafale either; much, much lesser. Just the flyaway cost at $130M would be about $15B. Another $2B for 2 more bases. And even if it did cost $30B, this argument would be irrelevant, it will have to be paid. It's payment for things the LCA cannot do.



Expert review for all projects, not just MRFA. This even includes helicopters, SAMs, satellites etc.



If they don't trust the process, then they do not have to participate. No one's forcing them.



The same as Rafale, AMCA will just work for 10 more years than Rafale, so 2060s. Just having a stealth airframe isn't enough.

A fighter remains relevant only for 20-25 years, pending which it falls down from advanced to acceptable. In another 10-20 years it will become outdated and then obsolete.

MKI is currently in the acceptable category. The MLU will stretch its acceptable standard by 15 years or so.



AMCA Mk1 won't overshadow Rafale, not without a new engine. And it will take AMCA about 15 years just to get up to the standards of the Rafale in 2030, with technology reflecting the times. That's 2045.

And the IAF's plan is to have a very short "advanced" replacement cycle anyway. 2030s for the Rafale, 2040s for AMCA and 2050s for MKI-replacement; then 2060s for LCA Mk1/A replacement, 2070 for LCA Mk2 replacement and so on.



We don't do that anyway. You seem to have this strange impression that we have been using MKI and Jaguar ToT in LCA and AMCA.

If DRDO wants to copy something or use something as a template, they buy it directly from the OEM, like they did for radars, they don't sidejack into the IAF's programs.



MRFA is not a stopgap, it's primary capability.



Yes. That's how it works. Industry has to deliver based on the IAF's requirements. If they cannot, the IAF will import until the industry gets it right. And in this case, the industry has barely even begun the process.

That's why the IA has the TGS tender.



I don't understand why this is so hard to get. There's no relevance between the two. It doesn't matter if AMCA is hugely successful or crashes and burns in its first flight, MRFA's 6 squadron requirement and ToT is an entirely separate matter.

The numbers are necessary 'cause that's our geography. And the ToT is necessary to manufacture and maintain the jet in India without foreign assistance or interference. That's all there is to it. This provides industry with new processes and technologies, the IAF gets to keep an eye on the tech they are using and follow its progress and the govt gets to save on forex and gain a political advantage over other rivals, both foreign govts and corporations, even the FOEM (Brahmos example). It absolutely plays no part in AMCA.

And you haven't even considered the possibility of AMCA facing considerable delays or even failing. We are already at the end of 2024 and haven't seen any progress on the new engine. Once it's selected and a contract signed, it's going to take a minimum 10 years more to see it flying on AMCA before it's finally produced and delivered, that's easily 2040+. And this is as long as AMCA is ready on time. And with dependency on foreign sources, we do not even know what sort of hurdles AMCA will face after having seen the Mk1A engine debacle. Which means, the IAF will have to fall back on MRFA to compensate.

Furthermore, both the govt and IAF do not want a HAL monopoly, hence the need for a direct competitor via MRFA.

You cannot logical and convince things to mod & indian poloticians. Or else we would have stop flying inside mig 21 ages ago. Reality is you are seeing lca mk1a is being online and its induction will be started before any MRFA fighter induction start date. So mod will cancell mrfa infavour of mk1a.
They don't understand the difference between pendulum & pen!s, for them both swings & dont care about the purpose of both.
Secondly people like indranil, harsh vardhan, the handles like alphadefense, mortal enemy of ashwin are so vocal about mk1a and are critcs of MRFA. These snakes are cooking the public opinion against MRFA & pushing for mk1a, 2,the fictional orca etc.
So highly likely that mtfa will be cancelled & we end up like some soviet era middle eastern countries, ie military without airforce.

For those who don't know, China just did the flight test of their sixth gen fighter. FYI, mmrca initiated by NDA government in 2003, UPA government stat on fot 10 years & subsequently NDA government lead by Modi ji is sitting on it since last 11 years and counting.

@Rajput Lion @randomradio @vstoljockey

 

[Parthu]

There is no "heavy MRCA" down the line for IAF in the next 20 years. AMCA will be the peak domestic program for this half of the century.

Who said there was? There isn't a domestic heavy MRCA coming, that's why MKI ToT made sense. But there is a medium MRCA coming which meets or exceeds Rafale capabilities (AMCA).

And MRFA is not a stopgap. And it's not $30B for Rafale either; much, much lesser. Just the flyaway cost at $130M would be about $15B. Another $2B for 2 more bases.

Off-the-shelf buy of 36 planes itself costed nearly $10B total. 114 jets in flyaway along with spares, infra & weapons would place it above $25B easily even if you discount ISEs & integration that's already been paid for.

And cost of ToT? Of setting up local line? That's gonna be another big chunk. $30B is a realistic total.

And even if it did cost $30B, this argument would be irrelevant, it will have to be paid. It's payment for things the LCA cannot do.

But AMCA can do all those things and even more.

In the meantime, we can make do with Mk2, CATS, IRF, and of course 36 more Rafales. We might have to cut a cheque for a couple squadrons of F-35/Su-57 as well once IAF sees J-35 in PAF colours.

If they don't trust the process, then they do not have to participate. No one's forcing them.

We're in very early stages of the tender, wait & see.

The same as Rafale, AMCA will just work for 10 more years than Rafale, so 2060s. Just having a stealth airframe isn't enough.

Nah, AMCA as a platform has a far longer future with relevance because it'll be getting an engine upgrade - and an airframe that can stay relevant for much longer as well, even if the engine doesn't come.

Airframe stealth is like crossing a rubicon. Even if we induct a 5th/6th gen air superiority jet to replace MKI (like GCAP/FCAS), AMCA will not lose it's relevance in the roles it does. Just like how inducting Rafale did not make MKI obsolete.

A fighter remains relevant only for 20-25 years, pending which it falls down from advanced to acceptable.

Yep - but in the case of Rafale/any other MRFA, they'll be losing their relevance in just <10 years as AMCA is in the same category and can do everything better than they can.

In case something like F21 or Gripen wins MRFA, they'll be losing their relevance much earlier.

The only advantage either of them will retain for a longer period (over AMCA in case of Rafale & over even Tejas Mk2 in case of Gripen/F21) would be because they're just more mature, not because they're better as a platform. It's hard to justify billions of investment in indigenizing a foreign platform just because it's more mature, and not because it's a better platform.

AMCA Mk1 won't overshadow Rafale, not without a new engine.

Any kind of avionic system that can work with the electrical output of 2 x M88s can work with 2 x F414s as well. As far as the electronic platform goes, AMCA will be just as capable as Rafale. Of course it'll take us time to develop those avionics & refine them, but that's why I'm all for buying 2 more Rafale squadrons in the meantime. I'm just saying there's no need to spend massive amounts on ToT & platform indigenization. Cuz the platform would already have been superseded by a domestic one - the money should be spent in developing & refining our platform instead. We'd already have operated ISE-equipped Rafales for over a decade by that point, so we'll know what are the targets to be met & exceeded.

On top of that, AMCA will have airframe stealth - which Rafale as a platform cannot surmount, ever.

We've been over this before. Including the active stealth discussion.

We don't do that anyway. You seem to have this strange impression that we have been using MKI and Jaguar ToT in LCA and AMCA.

I never said that - however, the ToT of MKI certainly helped us figure out how a supply chain and factory operations of a 4th gen jet are supposed to work.

What I meant was that at least GCAP/FCAS or F-35 would remain relevant as platforms for much longer, and they'd be vastly more capable than anything we are even developing. So spending money on ToT for indigenizing them at least makes sense. But for a platform that would be superseded by domestic technologies within a decade? That's hard to justify that kind of investment.

Yes. That's how it works. Industry has to deliver based on the IAF's requirements. If they cannot, the IAF will import until the industry gets it right. And in this case, the industry has barely even begun the process.

That's why the IA has the TGS tender.

Never said I'm opposed to imports as stop-gap solutions till the indigenous alternatives are ironed out. Have said repeatedly that I'm all for buying additional Rafales off the shelf.

What I don't like is billions going to indigenize a foreign platform as though no domestic solution that delivers similar or better capabilities is on the table which can absorb those billions instead.

You'd only want to indigenize a foreign jet if it's the only platform that can perform a given role (like MKI carrying the full-size BrahMos which no other jet can) but there's literally no contender among MRFA that can do something that AMCA as a platform physically cannot.

Imagine you develop a Scramjet-based HCM for delivering nuclear payloads in the 2030s/2040s. Why would you want to modify Rafale to carry that instead of the far more survivable AMCA? You see why long-term investment for indigenizing Rafale makes no sense?

I don't understand why this is so hard to get. There's no relevance between the two. It doesn't matter if AMCA is hugely successful or crashes and burns in its first flight, MRFA's 6 squadron requirement and ToT is an entirely separate matter.

The numbers are necessary 'cause that's our geography.

Well, that's for MoD/IAF to decide after the review.

Nobody can really deny that CATS & IRF will have an effect on number of sorties that airpower needs to conduct in a given theatre. But until the requirements are holistically reviewed like the CDS said, we won't even know as the capabilities they deliver won't be acknowledged, especially as some of it is going to be cross-service.

Current procurement procedures are horribly mismanaged, to the point where IAF & IA are creating duplicate infrastructure to service & support the same platform (AH-64) in the same theatres instead of synergizing.

Those are still relatively small deals worth a $1B or so. But pushing a $30B deal without a holistic review simply isn't happening.

And the ToT is necessary to manufacture and maintain the jet in India without foreign assistance or interference. That's all there is to it.

That's what I'm saying - there's no need to spend so much on indigenizing a platform that won't be cutting edge in that role in less than a decade after induction, and with no hope of upgrades surmounting those challenges because the airframe is the issue. All we need to spend on is PBL so that we don't face logistical issues in operating the platform to the end of its service life.

And you haven't even considered the possibility of AMCA facing considerable delays or even failing. We are already at the end of 2024 and haven't seen any progress on the new engine. Once it's selected and a contract signed, it's going to take a minimum 10 years more to see it flying on AMCA before it's finally produced and delivered, that's easily 2040+. And this is as long as AMCA is ready on time. And with dependency on foreign sources, we do not even know what sort of hurdles AMCA will face after having seen the Mk1A engine debacle. Which means, the IAF will have to fall back on MRFA to compensate.

We've already de-risked the AMCA platform due to those same reasons. Even the Mk-1 with proven engines (F414) would be equivalent to Rafale in some respects, while exceeding it in others as far as platform is concerned.

Supply chain issues are plaguing all manufacturers. French included.

That's why I keep saying our investment (not purchase amount, but investment amount like what we spend on ToT) needs to be toward development & refining of indigenous platforms, techs & supply chains. As far as engines are concerned, the primary spend needs to be toward the F414 local manufacturing effort - because that engine would service 2 to 3 platforms which would together amount for ~450 airframes in the future. One of which would be a cutting-edge platform (AMCA).

Not in indigenizing M88 that would only serve ~175 airframes maximum (that is IF the MRFA goes through, otherwise just ~100).

Of course, we would do both if we could. But money doesn't grow on trees.

 

[randomradio]

You cannot logical and convince things to mod & indian poloticians. Or else we would have stop flying inside mig 21 ages ago. Reality is you are seeing lca mk1a is being online and its induction will be started before any MRFA fighter induction start date. So mod will cancell mrfa infavour of mk1a.
They don't understand the difference between pendulum & pen!s, for them both swings & dont care about the purpose of both.
Secondly people like indranil, harsh vardhan, the handles like alphadefense, mortal enemy of ashwin are so vocal about mk1a and are critcs of MRFA. These snakes are cooking the public opinion against MRFA & pushing for mk1a, 2,the fictional orca etc.
So highly likely that mtfa will be cancelled & we end up like some soviet era middle eastern countries, ie military without airforce.

Civilians can debate all they want on the Internet, people making decisions will not consider our opinions.

Retired officers, HVT et al are either biased/compromised or do not have up-to-date information or both. The forces do not give importance to the opinions of retirees.

 

[randomradio]

Who said there was? There isn't a domestic heavy MRCA coming, that's why MKI ToT made sense. But there is a medium MRCA coming which meets or exceeds Rafale capabilities (AMCA).

No relevance.

Off-the-shelf buy of 36 planes itself costed nearly $10B total. 114 jets in flyaway along with spares, infra & weapons would place it above $25B easily even if you discount ISEs & integration that's already been paid for.

And cost of ToT? Of setting up local line? That's gonna be another big chunk. $30B is a realistic total.

It's not that expensive. The first 36 came with 2 bases and 50% offsets. There's no offsets in MRFA.

But AMCA can do all those things and even more.

In 2033? With 10 years of service before being employed in the IAF?

In the meantime, we can make do with Mk2, CATS, IRF, and of course 36 more Rafales.

There is no "in the meantime." Our date with China is for 2035+. AMCA is for 2045+. China's 2025-35 date is with the US.

We might have to cut a cheque for a couple squadrons of F-35/Su-57 as well once IAF sees J-35 in PAF colours.

That can serve as a stopgap, complementing the primary MRFA order.

Nah, AMCA as a platform has a far longer future with relevance because it'll be getting an engine upgrade - and an airframe that can stay relevant for much longer as well, even if the engine doesn't come.

Airframe stealth is like crossing a rubicon. Even if we induct a 5th/6th gen air superiority jet to replace MKI (like GCAP/FCAS), AMCA will not lose it's relevance in the roles it does. Just like how inducting Rafale did not make MKI obsolete.

Unfortunately, that's about the limit. That's why smaller air forces upgrade their jets in the 20th year and replace them in the next 10-15 years. While the IAF is willing to operate an outdated jet, given the sheer number of types, smaller air forces don't.

Take Taiwan's M2000s, they bought the more advanced Mk2s from 1997 onwards, but are already outdated today. They are willing to get rid of the entire fleet in 10 years or so. But for the IAF, that's an opportunity for an upgrade if those jets were ours.

Yep - but in the case of Rafale/any other MRFA, they'll be losing their relevance in just <10 years as AMCA is in the same category and can do everything better than they can.

Not how it works. The manpower experience gained between 2020 and 2040 on the Rafales will be far more valuable. In 2045, AMCA crew will only have achieved some level of competence, with pilots averaging at 200 hours or so vs Rafale pilots at 2000+ hours. Hell, in 2045, many AMCA pilots will be flying the jet for the first time. Post 2045, it will take AMCA crews another 5-10 years to get to the level of the Rafale crews. So initial pilots from 2035 will be retiring from the first AMCA squadrons and the youngest ones from 2045 will have about 1000 hours in 2050, a few more years away from getting to the 1500 hours expertise level.
So there's about 20-25 years between Rafale F5 and AMCA for AMCA actually being able to take over completely.

Then it cycles. Rafale gets an upgrade in its 25-35th year and becomes more relevant while AMCA becomes outdated and then it also gets an upgrade 10 years later and maintains relevancy while Rafale sees replacement.

In case something like F21 or Gripen wins MRFA, they'll be losing their relevance much earlier.

Won't even get shortlisted.

Any kind of avionic system that can work with the electrical output of 2 x M88s can work with 2 x F414s as well. As far as the electronic platform goes, AMCA will be just as capable as Rafale. Of course it'll take us time to develop those avionics & refine them, but that's why I'm all for buying 2 more Rafale squadrons in the meantime. I'm just saying there's no need to spend massive amounts on ToT & platform indigenization. Cuz the platform would already have been superseded by a domestic one - the money should be spent in developing & refining our platform instead. We'd already have operated ISE-equipped Rafales for over a decade by that point, so we'll know what are the targets to be met & exceeded.

AMCA with F414 will be underpowered.

On top of that, AMCA will have airframe stealth - which Rafale as a platform cannot surmount, ever.

Shouldn't matter by then. Stealth will be more important on drones.

I never said that - however, the ToT of MKI certainly helped us figure out how a supply chain and factory operations of a 4th gen jet are supposed to work.

It's an old process, no longer relevant.

What I meant was that at least GCAP/FCAS or F-35 would remain relevant as platforms for much longer, and they'd be vastly more capable than anything we are even developing. So spending money on ToT for indigenizing them at least makes sense. But for a platform that would be superseded by domestic technologies within a decade? That's hard to justify that kind of investment.

The F-35 won't meet the IAF's requirements for air superiority and GCAP/FCAS will practically arrive later than AMCA. All three jets have no relevance to the IAF in terms of ToT. The latter 2 can act as stopgap for whatever comes after AMCA.

Never said I'm opposed to imports as stop-gap solutions till the indigenous alternatives are ironed out. Have said repeatedly that I'm all for buying additional Rafales off the shelf.

IAF prefers to buy thos with ToT instead.

What I don't like is billions going to indigenize a foreign platform as though no domestic solution that delivers similar or better capabilities is on the table which can absorb those billions instead.

Domestic solution in 2033? With 10 years of service before being employed in the IAF?

You'd only want to indigenize a foreign jet if it's the only platform that can perform a given role (like MKI carrying the full-size BrahMos which no other jet can) but there's literally no contender among MRFA that can do something that AMCA as a platform physically cannot.

By 2033? With 10 years of service elsewhere before service entry in the IAF?

Imagine you develop a Scramjet-based HCM for delivering nuclear payloads in the 2030s/2040s. Why would you want to modify Rafale to carry that instead of the far more survivable AMCA? You see why long-term investment for indigenizing Rafale makes no sense?

From the IAF's perspective, they will put that weapon on both jets.

And the Rafale will get first preference 'cause it will be available in 2033 with 10+ years of service elsewhere.

Well, that's for MoD/IAF to decide after the review.

Nobody can really deny that CATS & IRF will have an effect on number of sorties that airpower needs to conduct in a given theatre. But until the requirements are holistically reviewed like the CDS said, we won't even know as the capabilities they deliver won't be acknowledged, especially as some of it is going to be cross-service.

Current procurement procedures are horribly mismanaged, to the point where IAF & IA are creating duplicate infrastructure to service & support the same platform (AH-64) in the same theatres instead of synergizing.

Those are still relatively small deals worth a $1B or so. But pushing a $30B deal without a holistic review simply isn't happening.

We are setting up theater commands for synergy. Everything will be under the control of the theater commander, not IAF or IA.

We've already de-risked the AMCA platform due to those same reasons. Even the Mk-1 with proven engines (F414) would be equivalent to Rafale in some respects, while exceeding it in others as far as platform is concerned.

Supply chain issues are plaguing all manufacturers. French included.

That's why I keep saying our investment (not purchase amount, but investment amount like what we spend on ToT) needs to be toward development & refining of indigenous platforms, techs & supply chains. As far as engines are concerned, the primary spend needs to be toward the F414 local manufacturing effort - because that engine would service 2 to 3 platforms which would together amount for ~450 airframes in the future. One of which would be a cutting-edge platform (AMCA).

Not in indigenizing M88 that would only serve ~175 airframes maximum (that is IF the MRFA goes through, otherwise just ~100).

Of course, we would do both if we could. But money doesn't grow on trees.

The IAF needs capability first and foremost. The industry cannot hold them hostage. So there is a need to spend money on both imports and domestic projects.

The equivalent of a Rafale in 2033 is an AMCA that was inducted in 2023, not 2043. AMCA has to go through a 20-25 year cycle before it's actually considered a proper Rafale replacement. And the level of risk to be surmounted by the industry during this period is quite unimaginable.

 

[Lolwa]

No matter how much people wish it's true, the LCA Mk2 cannot perform the Rafale's mission. And it's all because it does not have 2 engines. That's all there is to it. To perform deep strike missions, you need 2 engines because you can't send pilots on a suicide mission with just one engine. That's why even M2000 is not used for deep strike, regardless of its significant superiority over the Jaguar. And without a new twin-engine aircraft, that's denying the air force the most crucial reason for their existence and of huge benefit to the enemy. We can't win any wars without deep strike capabilities. That's where Rafale fits in. The alternative to the Rafale is not drones or LCA, it's AMCA, and that's on a different timeline. Another option is a light stealth bomber with 2 engines in sufficiently large numbers, and that's gonna be way more expensive. Ghatak is also not an alternative, it won't be advanced enough and its decision-making abilities are practically none. So Rafale/MRFA it is.

Due to India's geography, 6 squadrons are necessary. We already have 2, so we can make do with 4. But we can't build in India with just 4, hence we need 6 at the minimum for industry to absorb the tech. The IAF too needs significant control over these 6 squadrons and that requires ToT. And we can't just willy-nilly buy 6 from a store shelf without a competitive advantage in our favor, hence the tender.

Basically, MRFA has no plan B. LCA can't replace it, Ghatak is too stupid and AMCA is too far away. So no matter how much certain elements want to dissuade the IAF to move away from MRFA, it won't happen 'cause there is absolutely no alternative.

What we need is rapid expansion of the air force. We need more than 6 squadrons of rafale. We need tejas in far larger numbers and we need a replacement for the jaguar.

 

[randomradio]

What we need is rapid expansion of the air force. We need more than 6 squadrons of rafale. We need tejas in far larger numbers and we need a replacement for the jaguar.

I have no clue on the numbers front. To have 6 squadrons each of LCA Mk2 and MRFA and 7 of AMCA, we will need to increase our squadron strength to 45 or retire 3 MKI squadrons before 2045. If we want more than 6, 6 or 7, we will need a significant increase in squadron strength to 50 and beyond. The decision is at least 15+ years away.

LCA Mk2 and MRFA will replace the Jag, M2000, and Mig-29.

 

[Hydra]

Civilians can debate all they want on the Internet, people making decisions will not consider our opinions.

Retired officers, HVT et al are either biased/compromised or do not have up-to-date information or both. The forces do not give importance to the opinions of retirees.

See this, this fella wants to scrap mrfa

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872762199992934602

 

[Hydra]

Retired officers, HVT et al are either biased/compromised or do not have up-to-date information or both. The forces do not give importance to the opinions of retirees.

Force may or maynot give importance, but goi may. After all babus decide and politicians approve. If they can influence babugiri then MMRCA will face death for the second time.

 

[Rajput Lion]

MFFA or not, more Rafales are absolutely imperative. It would be a disaster if we just acquire 36 of 'em.

 

[Parthu]

No relevance.

Of course there is. One is a definitive capability (MKI) and will remain so till the point it's replaced, probably by a 6th gen.

The other was meant to be a definitive capability (MMRCA), but it's coming 20 years late so it'll become a second-line fighter within 10 years of induction (assuming induction takes place in 2029. AMCA Mk-1 will be inducted ~2035 and achieve full FOC by 2040).

It's not that expensive. The first 36 came with 2 bases and 50% offsets. There's no offsets in MRFA.

We're talking about ToT & local line in MRFA - which is more expensive than offsets.

In 2033? With 10 years of service before being employed in the IAF?

Like I said above, AMCA Mk-1 FOC will be obtained around 2040.

Assuming MRFA is signed in 2026 (not gonna happen, but let's say for argument's sake) we can expect induction by 2029-30. Which means that at best case scenario, Rafale will remain a frontline fighter for medium MRCA/deep strike duties for 10 years before a superior platform achieves FOC.

That's too short to justify long-term investment for indigenization & ToT. Especially as Rafale's survivability will drop off a cliff unlike AMCA's because it lacks a stealthy airframe - something which cannot be subsequently upgraded.

Even today, Rafale is at a significant disadvantage against likes of J-20. In next 2-3 years, it'll be disadvantaged against J-35 as well, which will enter service with PAF.

Long-term investment in a platform which is already obsolete in the look-first/shoot-first department makes zero sense.

There is no "in the meantime." Our date with China is for 2035+. AMCA is for 2045+. China's 2025-35 date is with the US.

Yep, which is why I'm all for additional Rafales off the shelf as stop-gap.

Ideally, we should be going for F-35 as that's the only plane that can reliably survive against J-20/HQ-9B. But there's too many complications in procuring it due to geopolitics, so Rafale is the best shot we have on hand atm.

But once PAF obtains LF/SF superiority over us (will happen by 2026-27), we run the risk of losing too many valuable frontline assets very quickly in a conflict with them, which would leave very little in hand to subsequently deter China. This would more than likely force IAF/GOI to forego a lot of inhibitions we currently have and procure a foreign 5th gen as stop-gap till AMCA is fully operational.

However, if we commit to long-term investment in Rafale (ToT+local line), it would make any subsequent stop-gap purchase very expensive, but we won't have a choice which means the net loser in all this would be AMCA - it's production would suffer a fund drought just like Tejas Mk2 did. Which in turn makes us further dependent on the foreign 5th gen. So we end up buying more.

We've seen this cycle play out a dozen times so far. I don't know why you want to see a re-run of this show.

Between MRFA local production, 5th gen stop-gap & AMCA's timely full scale production, we have to drop at least one thing. If we don't drop one of the first two, our dependence on foreign aircraft would continue well past 2050. If we drop the second one, it would leave us outmatched by PAF in A2A combat for over a decade (let alone PLAAF).

The best thing to drop is MRFA. Because the airframes offered in that competition are outdated already.

We could instead decide to pursue all three - but it would take so much money out of the Govt's welfare schemes that it would certainly cost BJP an electoral loss. It carries too much political risk for the country.

We've spent 20 years dilly-dallying with stop-gaps. Now, hard choices must be made, or our conventional deterrence will be lost. Which would drag us into needless wars, which will eliminate our economic growth. Our demographic dividend will be lost, which cannot be recouped in next 100 years no matter what we do.

We can't afford to play these games anymore.

Unfortunately, that's about the limit. That's why smaller air forces upgrade their jets in the 20th year and replace them in the next 10-15 years. While the IAF is willing to operate an outdated jet, given the sheer number of types, smaller air forces don't.

It's mostly cuz our procurement strategies are royally screwed. And domestic R&D receives pittances in terms of funding. So this fate is to be suffered.

Not how it works. The manpower experience gained between 2020 and 2040 on the Rafales will be far more valuable. In 2045, AMCA crew will only have achieved some level of competence, with pilots averaging at 200 hours or so vs Rafale pilots at 2000+ hours. Hell, in 2045, many AMCA pilots will be flying the jet for the first time. Post 2045, it will take AMCA crews another 5-10 years to get to the level of the Rafale crews. So initial pilots from 2035 will be retiring from the first AMCA squadrons and the youngest ones from 2045 will have about 1000 hours in 2050, a few more years away from getting to the 1500 hours expertise level.
So there's about 20-25 years between Rafale F5 and AMCA for AMCA actually being able to take over completely.

Then it cycles. Rafale gets an upgrade in its 25-35th year and becomes more relevant while AMCA becomes outdated and then it also gets an upgrade 10 years later and maintains relevancy while Rafale sees replacement.

The experience of crews won't matter if the plane never returns from its sortie because it's not survivable.

AMCA with F414 will be underpowered.

Sufficient for the equipment Mk-1 config carries.

Shouldn't matter by then.

Oh please, not this again.

Literally no one other than the few misinformed individuals on this forum thinks of Active Cancellation as an alternative for airframe stealth - not even the French Air Force as they are pursuing FCAS/SCAF with internal weapon bays & stealthy airframe just like everyone else.

We've been over this a dozen times by now.

The F-35 won't meet the IAF's requirements for air superiority and GCAP/FCAS will practically arrive later than AMCA. All three jets have no relevance to the IAF in terms of ToT. The latter 2 can act as stopgap for whatever comes after AMCA.

At least they would be survivable as platforms. So a lot can be done using them - including acting as control nodes/motherships for CCAs.

I'm not saying we should pursue F-35 ToT (won't be offered, but that's a different story). Our long-term investment should be in Tejas Mk2 for low end and AMCA for high end. Anything & everything else should be a stop-gap (with the exception of joint collaboration on GCAP/FCAS as we have no domestic 6th gen in pipeline).

I'm just saying at least F-35 ToT won't be as anachronistic a concept for today's IAF as Rafale ToT.

IAF prefers to buy thos with ToT instead.

If IAF brass are gonna pay for everything out of their own pockets & pension funds, they are free to procure whatever they want.

From the IAF's perspective, they will put that weapon on both jets.

And the Rafale will get first preference 'cause it will be available in 2033 with 10+ years of service elsewhere.

You put your nukes on your most survivable platform. That's why USAF has N-certified the F-35 even before the platform has reached full capability.

In our case, we have very few nukes. We can't afford to put them on planes that have no hope of staying hidden.

The IAF needs capability first and foremost. The industry cannot hold them hostage.

If any conflict were to drag on for more than a month, it's only the industry that can determine whether your military wins or loses.

So there is a need to spend money on both imports and domestic projects.

Yeah - with a priority toward domestic projects, especially now that an indigenous R&D base has been built up.

Spending our procurement amounts on buying stop-gap 5th gens & our investment amounts on indigenizing an outdated 4.5 gen would mean both our domestic 4.5 gen & domestic 5th gens will receive diddly squat.

Every problem encountered in engineering requires two things to solve - money & time. If you increase funds, less time will be needed. If less funds, then more time.

This is why companies like Turkey's Baykar have left ADE & DRDO in the dust when it comes to drones. They receive blank cheques to source talent & equipment from wherever necessary (a lot of the engineers working on those programs are Turks who returned from US aerospace companies due to hefty pay promises) while we receive pittances in funding, which means the only talent we can afford to hire are the bottom-feeders who no other company wanted to hire.

So if all the big slices of the funds go to foreign ToT or foreign purchases, only the crumbs are left for domestic projects. So they just keep dragging on for decades. Which forces us to spend more money on ToT & purchases.

Break the cycle now, or suffer this fate forever.

If you have to procure a stop-gap, procure one that can at least restore balance to the conventional deterrence posture - not one which has already been superseded by our adversaries in the critical LF/SF department. And forget ToT. It's not worth it to spend so much on indigenizing an already outdated airframe.

 

[randomradio]

See this, this fella wants to scrap mrfa

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872762199992934602

He's more emotional than practical.

Force may or maynot give importance, but goi may. After all babus decide and politicians approve. If they can influence babugiri then MMRCA will face death for the second time.

Not that simple. Babudom does not decide, politicians do. And the IAF have greater say to the choice of their options.

If IAF insists on MRFA being indispensible, then the govt will lean towards that.

Anyway, there are rumors that DRDO's veto on imports will be removed. So I suppose even the govt is getting sick of babudom antics.