MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 36 14.6%
  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 192 78.0%
  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 4 1.6%
  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 6 2.4%
  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • F-18 SH

    Votes: 10 4.1%
  • F-15EX

    Votes: 9 3.7%
  • Mig-35

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • Total voters
    246
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.
If it happened, then thatnis the best thing happening to defense sector. Hope it won't be like the rumours lurking on IT slab revision since 2014
If IAF insists on MRFA being indispensible, then the govt will lean towards that.
No, or else we won't be seeing them flying LCA.
 
MFFA or not, more Rafales are absolutely imperative. It would be a disaster if we just acquire 36 of 'em.

Let's leave the responsibility of Chinese air force & their gift to PAF to AMCA .
Rafale won't be suffice.
We should invest in platforms that ll deliver and act as deterrent.. In our scenario Missiles.

Having said that Rafale IAF + IN (36+26 = 62 ) will be the stop gap. I am not against more Rafale but against spending in few dozen aircraft that's already overshadowed by Chinese fighter development.

Hydra shared Indranil excellent analysis.. U prove the Kaveri, foreign OEM will give u the engines. True that. We have seen many times now.
 
Let's leave the responsibility of Chinese air force & their gift to PAF to AMCA .
Rafale won't be suffice.
We should invest in platforms that ll deliver and act as deterrent.. In our scenario Missiles.

Having said that Rafale IAF + IN (36+26 = 62 ) will be the stop gap. I am not against more Rafale but against spending in few dozen aircraft that's already overshadowed by Chinese fighter development.

Hydra shared Indranil excellent analysis.. U prove the Kaveri, foreign OEM will give u the engines. True that. We have seen many times now.

As has been mentioned earlier in another thread, we need to look at asymmetric/complementary options where we have some strengths:

1) strategic EW systems that can distupt enemy comms and sensors (G2A and A2A) and shield our own.
2) recon and tracking sats (radar, EO, IR,/Elint) capable of tracking hypersonic missiles and next-gen ac and cueing other sensors.
3) LRSAM and BMD
4) GW-class DEW and laser weapons ( DRDO apparently working on our own airborne laser like the USAF YAL-1)
5) Ghatak UCAV and follow-ons. (Reaper, Global Hawk class drones are increasingly vulnerable. Our efforts should be directed at stealth flying wing designs. Thankfully, SWIFT has proven tailess flight control though we're years away from a full-scale demonstrator)
6) Multi-sensor AWACS ( with EO/IR sensors in a nose fairing/under-belly pod capable of long-range missile/fighter detection and trackling. The Chinese are already testing such a platform)
7) IRF
8) Integration of tri-service radars and sensors into a common C4I architecture. (Already underway)

Saurav Jha mentioned some of these points on the latest IAH episode. Be sure to check it out.
 
Let's leave the responsibility of Chinese air force & their gift to PAF to AMCA .
Rafale won't be suffice.
We should invest in platforms that ll deliver and act as deterrent.. In our scenario Missiles.

Having said that Rafale IAF + IN (36+26 = 62 ) will be the stop gap. I am not against more Rafale but against spending in few dozen aircraft that's already overshadowed by Chinese fighter development.

Hydra shared Indranil excellent analysis.. U prove the Kaveri, foreign OEM will give u the engines. True that. We have seen many times now.
Indranil has a point but none of the 5th gen options that are even available to us are mature enough to make a difference this decade and ours is going to mature only in late 2030s/early 2040s. So how do we win the war with Pak/China in this decade?

The answer is Rafale. It's an absolutely game-changing bird because of its uncanny ability to penetrate any advance and dense IADS. Current number of 36 is too little for us. We at least need 2-3 squadrons more to make a difference.

Su-57 in this decade is more for feel-good factor than thrasing PAF J-35 or PLAAF J-20 with it. Rafale would be that bird for IAF that does the real damage to our foes.
 
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).

Between 2025 and 2045, there's 20 years. That gap has to be bridged. MKI is not good enough for that. Neither is LCA Mk2.

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

No, it's not. It's far, far cheaper. In fact, Dassault would like to use the Indian line to export, 'cause it's so much cheaper. HAL had estimated that the unit cost of the locally produced jet will drop by half when the last of the 126 are delivered.

And you think exports cannot compensate for the difference even more? It will pay for our own jets and more.

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.

Rafale's more than competitive with any jet that's operational or will be operational within its envelope.

Dassault insists on canceling FCAS for a larger modernized Rafale instead.

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.



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.



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



Sufficient for the equipment Mk-1 config carries.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

You are thinking in terms of benefit to the industry, not the IAF.

The point of ToT is primarily to benefit the IAF. It gives them access to executive supervision and local upgrades, both hardware and software. All other benefits, like saving forex, creating jobs and experience, businesses making money, finding a comeptitor to HAL etc are just byproducts.

So first let's get the numbers in order. The IAF wants 114 jets; not 36, not 54 >> 114. And what you are suggesting is instead of buying the tech and building it in India, you want to either compromise on India's defenses for at least 2 decades with very low numbers, which has already been compromised for 10 right now, or just hand over $30B to the French for absolutely no benefit to India. So no direct control or no jobs.

As for AMCA, my date is a 2037-38 FOC. I estimate that we will get the engine deal going in 2025, finish development and certification in 2035 and certify it on the AMCA by 2037-38, and inductions by 2040. So, in our procurement process, we get FOC first, and then release the build orders, which will then take at the minimum 2 years to deliver, followed by a squadron a year. And at the end of 2045, we will have all 5 squadrons, and at the minimum 2.5 years later, we will have all AMCA pilots at 500 hours or beyond. That's at least 2047-48 before the entire fleet becomes fully operational. FOC + 10 years.

So when you claim AMCA will achieve FOC in 2040, your timeline is even worse than mine. We have to push it to 2042-43 to 2050-51 instead.

If we go by Western definitions of FOC of some air forces, like Australia, their FOC means all their ordered jets have been fully inducted (72 in Australia's case). Australia announced the F-35's FOC only last week or so.

If you still insist on just 36 jets, the better option is to simply not buy anymore 'cause it doesn't make sense. Just that the IAF will not be able to fight China at all between 2033 and 2045+. And no, MKI MLU and LCA Mk2 won't cut it. Neither jet is superior to the main MRFA offerings; Rafale and Typhoon. It's estimated that PLAAF will buy another 1000 J-20s by 2035, which means at least 300 J-20s will be deployed against India, up from the current 64. To counter that we need 150 Rafales inducted between 2030 and 2035, and then hold the line for 15-20 years before AMCA in adequate numbers can properly take over.

Our initial 36 F3Rs were fine as a stopgap because it's so much more superior to the F-16, J-10C and J-16, even the initial J-20s with their old engines and unproven avionics. But for the new timeframe, Rafales are necessary in large numbers 'cause it's going to be a contemporary jet. Any advantage it had in terms of capabilities has been negated by the new J-20B. So now we need half of what they can realistically deploy against us.

Btw, Rafale F5 will be competitive with the J-20. Only using shaping-based stealth is almost outdated. You can actually assume that the Rafale's RCS will be competitive with the J-20 and F-35 within the decade.

Anyway, I believe the IAF will buy at least 150-200 Rafales, not just 114.

This is our timeline. So now you tell me how your 36 new Rafales are gonna cover the entire landmass of India while fighting off 300 J-20s.
 
I doubt he is an agent from enemy.

No. He is a civvie, like pretty much everybody else in the forum, so he is not privy to actual operational details. So he is just a victim of the domestic lobby in India. And the domestic lobby is much more interested in business than national security and is far more powerful than the international lobby. A lot of our journalists are also victims of the same. And this is all because the forces are not allowed to communicate with civvies. All communications have to go through babudom.

His opinions are led by emotion. It hurts his fragile ego to see the IAF import, that's all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra
As has been mentioned earlier in another thread, we need to look at asymmetric/complementary options where we have some strengths:

1) strategic EW systems that can distupt enemy comms and sensors (G2A and A2A) and shield our own.
2) recon and tracking sats (radar, EO, IR,/Elint) capable of tracking hypersonic missiles and next-gen ac and cueing other sensors.
3) LRSAM and BMD
4) GW-class DEW and laser weapons ( DRDO apparently working on our own airborne laser like the USAF YAL-1)
5) Ghatak UCAV and follow-ons. (Reaper, Global Hawk class drones are increasingly vulnerable. Our efforts should be directed at stealth flying wing designs. Thankfully, SWIFT has proven tailess flight control though we're years away from a full-scale demonstrator)
6) Multi-sensor AWACS ( with EO/IR sensors in a nose fairing/under-belly pod capable of long-range missile/fighter detection and trackling. The Chinese are already testing such a platform)
7) IRF
8) Integration of tri-service radars and sensors into a common C4I architecture. (Already underway)

Saurav Jha mentioned some of these points on the latest IAH episode. Be sure to check it out.

All of our primary capabilities are still imported. We have only recently started sowing the seeds of indigenization in large scale, any result will only be seen 10-15 years later.
 
Between 2025 and 2045, there's 20 years. That gap has to be bridged. MKI is not good enough for that. Neither is LCA Mk2.

That's why I want the 72 Rafales.

No, it's not. It's far, far cheaper. In fact, Dassault would like to use the Indian line to export, 'cause it's so much cheaper. HAL had estimated that the unit cost of the locally produced jet will drop by half when the last of the 126 are delivered.

Flyaway cost of the jets made at home will be cheaper - but only if you disregard the capex needed to set up the line in the first place. And we'll be paying royalties in Euros on every single plane that rolls out.

Any jet would get cheaper the more you produce. Producing AMCA for example will be cheaper than Rafale.

And you think exports cannot compensate for the difference even more? It will pay for our own jets and more.

Like how we exported loads of MKIs from our line?

Exports ain't gonna happen, let's be realistic. Rafale is too important an export for France to hand off considering their new venture (FCAS) will be a sensitive product who's exports will be heavily restricted.

Rafale's more than competitive with any jet that's operational or will be operational within its envelope.

Dassault insists on canceling FCAS for a larger modernized Rafale instead.

Been over this before. Nobody in the French Air Force thinks Rafale will be survivable against 5th (let alone 6th) gen fighters. That's why FCAS with internal bays & stealthy airframe is being pursued.

Otherwise, they'd just develop a next-gen engine and jam it in the Rafale.

Dassault will say whatever it wants cuz it has to sell you Rafales. Watch what they do, not what they say.

The point of ToT is primarily to benefit the IAF. It gives them access to executive supervision and local upgrades, both hardware and software. All other benefits, like saving forex, creating jobs and experience, businesses making money, finding a comeptitor to HAL etc are just byproducts.

I know. I'm just saying it's not worth it cuz the platform will be obsolete soon.

So first let's get the numbers in order. The IAF wants 114 jets; not 36, not 54 >> 114.

Firstly, I deeply doubt we can afford 114 MRFA. Secondly, I doubt IAF/MoD is even interested anymore.

AFAIK, we haven't even taken out an AoN for the requirement 8 years after buying the first 36 Rafales, so quite evidently we're treating this as a time-pass. You can easily say we can afford it no problem, but I need to see evidence, proof of intent to even say we want to pursue this anymore.

I don't know if the hold-up is purely financial, a result of internal re-assessment of requirements, or due to political reasons (the scam allegations). Either way, I don't think the fact that there is a hold-up can be denied anymore. Now they want to review the whole thing.

You can't go by IAF statements. They have standing orders to speak a certain way and until new orders come they'll maintain their line. Even if the whole MRFA charade was going to be cancelled tomorrow, till 11:59PM tonight they'll continue to say the tender is still on.

When they started talking about buying 201 Tejas Mk2 instead of 106, I think that's the moment things fell into place.

And what you are suggesting is instead of buying the tech and building it in India,

I'm saying you don't need to buy tech you already know how to build at home.

If you want to buy the full platform off the shelf because your domestic solution will take more time to mature, that's fine. Go buy a couple squadrons more to hold the fort. But investing billions on buying & transferring foreign 4.5 gen tech when we've spent a significant amount of time & money developing our own would be foolishness.

If you want to keep the 72 Rafales flying without a hitch, all you need is a PBL contract. The ToT & local line are unneccessary at this point. They don't bring anything new to the table.

you want to either compromise on India's defenses for at least 2 decades with very low numbers, which has already been compromised for 10 right now,

I want to do the opposite. I want us to pursue a truly large number (~400) of single-engine AESA-equipped aircraft (met through 180 Mk1A and 200 Mk2) functioning as air defence fighters, over half of which (the 201 Mk2s) would be capable of multi/swingrole duties including CAS & Strike (as long as you're talking about the Western front).

I want them backed by hundreds if not thousands of Loyal Wingmen/CCAs which exponentially increase the abilities by acting as force multipliers with multirole capability (A2A+A2G) of their own. Not to mention the IRF which can place ordnance on targets from standoff ranges.

These assets would immensely free up more capable platforms like Rafale or MKI to only pursue specialized duties like Deep Strike or Air Superiority. This was NOT the case back when we formulated the original 100-150 MRCA requirement in early 2000s. Back then we only expected to induct around 200 Tejas (all variants combined) which was to be a replacement of the MiG-21 as a point-defence fighter and nothing else.

Back then the word 'drone' was used to describe a trash can with wings like the Searcher Mk1 that has a EOIR camera & nothing else.

Back then BrahMos was in its infancy and was purely meant for the Navy. Nobody had faith in DRDO's ability to develop tactical missiles.

Today, things are very different and you don't even want to take any of that into account.

Now that the scope of Tejas Mk2 has increased tremendously, all of a sudden you're acting as though the entire 100-150 MRCA requirement was meant to address DPSA duties. IT WAS NOT. Deep Strike was but a subset of the various roles to be performed by those jets. In fact I doubt if the actual requirement of DPSAs would have been more than 72 from from among those ~150 total.

Remember that the aircraft that originally competed were designed to replace multiple older ones in their respective countries, because they made such a leap in terms of operational availability & serviceability compared to older types like Jaguar, which reduced the number of airframes needed to put up the same number of sorties/flight hours per year.

In the current MRFA we're just blindly following requirements laid out 20 years ago. Perhaps that's why neither IAF nor MoD is showing any serious intent in pursuing the deal even after all these years.

or just hand over $30B to the French for absolutely no benefit to India. So no direct control or no jobs.

Eh? An off the shelf buy of a further 36 would cost around $5-6B or so, no more. ISEs, weapon integration, air base infrastructure for 2 more squadrons, it's all been paid for. But the price starts to increase rapidly if you go beyond 2 more squadrons, even if ToT not included.

Not to mention, we'll need to keep around $10B aside for stop-gap 5th gen purchase later this decade.

As for AMCA, my date is a 2037-38 FOC. I estimate that we will get the engine deal going in 2025, finish development and certification in 2035 and certify it on the AMCA by 2037-38, and inductions by 2040. So, in our procurement process, we get FOC first, and then release the build orders, which will then take at the minimum 2 years to deliver, followed by a squadron a year. And at the end of 2045, we will have all 5 squadrons, and at the minimum 2.5 years later, we will have all AMCA pilots at 500 hours or beyond. That's at least 2047-48 before the entire fleet becomes fully operational. FOC + 10 years.

So when you claim AMCA will achieve FOC in 2040, your timeline is even worse than mine. We have to push it to 2042-43 to 2050-51 instead.

Forget the engine deal, if it happens it happens. Getting the AMCA airframe in hand is what's important first & foremost. F414 is sufficient from a sustainability/servicability perspective (and actually an improvement over the M88). The engine, radar, IRST & most of the avionics of AMCA Mk-1 would already be proven on the Tejas Mk2.

Before 2040, the AMCA as a platform will be fully capable, and completely superior to the Rafale in terms of survivability. Yes, Rafale crews would be more experienced, but like I said the platform isn't survivable so it won't matter. They can't enter airspace controlled by J-20Bs and come back alive. AMCA can.

Yes, AMCA with F414 will not have the performance to take on & defeat J-20Bs reliably. But Rafale would be way worse so there's not really a choice. And building MRFA under license won't solve that problem because that's a platform deficiency, not a logistical one. The only thing that would change if you bring a lot more Rafales into theatre would be we would lose a lot more pilots. The platform cannot turn the tide.

But that's where a foreign 5th gen stop-gap could come in. If we get around to buying it in time, that is.

If you still insist on just 36 jets,

I insist on all 72 Rafales and at least 200 upgraded MKIs to be alloted to the LAC (something which can only happen if at least 200 Tejas Mk2s are procured to take care of the Western front btw).

And, assuming we buy at least 3 squadrons (54) of 5th gens, I want 2 of those squadrons (36) on the LAC. Once AMCA achieves FOC, the other squadron can pivot to LAC as well.

All that your approach has us doing is that we bring 40 more Rafales to the LAC (because you insist that we need Rafales equally on both fronts, so only half of the additional 80 would be on LAC). But, pursuing MRFA in its current form would more than likely prevent Tejas Mk2, AMCA & the 5th gen buy from being pursued in sufficient numbers in the same timeframe, which will indeed force us to split the entirety of our 150-strong Rafale fleet evenly on the two fronts, or at least on a 60-40 basis.

So out of 150 Rafales, we still only end up with 75-100 on the LAC. As opposed to 72 in my view of things. So the numbers are actually fine in both our versions - the only difference is due to our view of how the OTHER things are shaping up. You're of the opinion that everything else that we're doing (which we didn't plan on doing back in the 2000s) has no effect on required MRFA numbers, I'm not. That's all.

In the long run, you want to procure additional Rafales to the detriment of everything else if need be. I think that would actually be worse.

Just that the IAF will not be able to fight China at all between 2033 and 2045+.

I fail to see how 2 additional squadrons of Rafales on LAC (which is really all that you are advocating if we adopt your PoV) would make the difference between being capable of stalemating China and a total defeat.

And no, MKI MLU and LCA Mk2 won't cut it. Neither jet is superior to the main MRFA offerings; Rafale and Typhoon.

MKI MLU with a 2000+ TRM AESA and Astra Mk-3 is actually far more capable (and cheaper) than Rafale with a <900 TRM AESA & Meteor in A2A combat. It would be a true-blue Air Superiority fighter that would be able to shoot the same target from farther away than Rafale can, and be able to egress quickly if need be.

Unfortunately, neither MKI MLU nor Rafale can realistically win an A2A engagement against J-20B cuz they'll be shot dead before either of them can see the Chinese jet.

Before 2040, only F-35 can even potentially win that engagement (after that, AMCA can as well). If that's not available, Su-57E is gonna have to do.

It's estimated that PLAAF will buy another 1000 J-20s by 2035, which means at least 300 J-20s will be deployed against India, up from the current 64. To counter that we need 150 Rafales inducted between 2030 and 2035, and then hold the line for 15-20 years before AMCA in adequate numbers can properly take over.

Except you can't counter J-20B with Rafale. That's the problem.

Our initial 36 F3Rs were fine as a stopgap because it's so much more superior to the F-16, J-10C and J-16, even the initial J-20s with their old engines and unproven avionics. But for the new timeframe, Rafales are necessary in large numbers 'cause it's going to be a contemporary jet. Any advantage it had in terms of capabilities has been negated by the new J-20B. So now we need half of what they can realistically deploy against us.

You cannot win A2A engagements by deploying more Rafales. It's not a sortie generation problem, it's a physics problem. Rafale gets seen first, Rafale gets shot first, every single time.

Only AMCA can realistically hold its own against another stealth aircraft. But until it's ready, we need a stop-gap 5th gen platform.

Btw, Rafale F5 will be competitive with the J-20.

Sigh.

Only using shaping-based stealth is almost outdated.

Except there isn't a single new fighter program in development anywhere in the world (including France) that doesn't have a stealth-shaped airframe. Because everyone knows you cannot survive the future battlefield without it.

Upgrading of non-stealth 4.5gen platforms is to keep them relevant as second-line fighters, not because they can negate what stealth platforms can do because of those upgrades.

I've been over the Active Stealth discussion with you in depth at least twice before. To summarize, the fact that IAF wants to pursue a stealth-shaped AMCA clearly spells out at least one of two things as true:

1) Active Stealth is only a form of ECM/ESM, and doesn't work the way you think it does. Have shown you in detail how it doesn't. The long & short of it is that Rafale simply won't have sufficient radiating elements to fool a single 400-TRM main beam from a 1000-TRM FCR, never mind a whole battlespace filled with dozens if not hundreds of such radars which would add up to tens of thousands of TRMs scanning from different angles, which even F5 with tile radars won't have the number of TR elements needed to counter.

All that active cancellation can do reliably is to fool the seekers on incoming AAMs/SAMs, momentarily making them lose their track so they can be evaded. It's not a magic stealth generator. All that F5 does on top of that is that it can spoof missiles coming from a lot more angles compared to F3/F4 which have a very limited FoV for the jammers.

But it's far more survivable to not be seen & get locked on in the first place which is what a stealthy airframe can achieve.

2) Hypothetically, assuming active stealth does work to cloak the fighter throughout the sortie, the French have refused to share the tech with us, which forced us to go down the path of passive stealth with AMCA. Otherwise we'd have dumped AMCA the moment we bought Rafale and just focused on indigenizing it 100% and just developed a NG engine for it (and not for AMCA). But that's not what we're doing.

Either of those two options mean the same thing as far as IAF is concerned: we cannot obtain stealth through Rafale. Means we cannot obtain look-first/shoot-first through Rafale.

You can actually assume that the Rafale's RCS will be competitive with the J-20 and F-35 within the decade.

Sigh.

Anyway, I believe the IAF will buy at least 150-200 Rafales, not just 114.

Wake me up when they at least issue an AoN for the 114, never mind 200.

This is our timeline. So now you tell me how your 36 new Rafales are gonna cover the entire landmass of India while fighting off 300 J-20s.

Told you above.

Now you tell me how I'm wrong and how 150 Rafales can fight off 300 J-20s which they can't even see.
 
That's why I want the 72 Rafales.

That makes it even worse. You want us to spend $20B without any localization at all.

Flyaway cost of the jets made at home will be cheaper - but only if you disregard the capex needed to set up the line in the first place. And we'll be paying royalties in Euros on every single plane that rolls out.

Any jet would get cheaper the more you produce. Producing AMCA for example will be cheaper than Rafale.

Rafale will be cheaper 'cause its industry has already been established.

Like how we exported loads of MKIs from our line?

Exports ain't gonna happen, let's be realistic. Rafale is too important an export for France to hand off considering their new venture (FCAS) will be a sensitive product who's exports will be heavily restricted.

MRFA has an export component.

Been over this before. Nobody in the French Air Force thinks Rafale will be survivable against 5th (let alone 6th) gen fighters. That's why FCAS with internal bays & stealthy airframe is being pursued.

The French do.

Otherwise, they'd just develop a next-gen engine and jam it in the Rafale.

That's the plan.

Dassault will say whatever it wants cuz it has to sell you Rafales. Watch what they do, not what they say.

We will be testing their claims in the real world.

Firstly, I deeply doubt we can afford 114 MRFA. Secondly, I doubt IAF/MoD is even interested anymore.

Your plan of buying 72 off the shelf is more expensive than making 114 at home.

I don't know if the hold-up is purely financial, a result of internal re-assessment of requirements, or due to political reasons (the scam allegations). Either way, I don't think the fact that there is a hold-up can be denied anymore. Now they want to review the whole thing.

It's a force-wide review. There is no hold-up, the requirements were all created only in 2022.

I'm saying you don't need to buy tech you already know how to build at home.

We don't. We have to first develop AMCA, that's 10+ years away. First, we need to get the engine program going.

If you want to keep the 72 Rafales flying without a hitch, all you need is a PBL contract. The ToT & local line are unneccessary at this point. They don't bring anything new to the table.

That's pointless.

I want to do the opposite. I want us to pursue a truly large number (~400) of single-engine AESA-equipped aircraft (met through 180 Mk1A and 200 Mk2) functioning as air defence fighters, over half of which (the 201 Mk2s) would be capable of multi/swingrole duties including CAS & Strike (as long as you're talking about the Western front).

I want them backed by hundreds if not thousands of Loyal Wingmen/CCAs which exponentially increase the abilities by acting as force multipliers with multirole capability (A2A+A2G) of their own. Not to mention the IRF which can place ordnance on targets from standoff ranges.

Single-engine jets do not have the same capabilities due to half the electrical power generated versus twin-engine jets.

These assets would immensely free up more capable platforms like Rafale or MKI to only pursue specialized duties like Deep Strike or Air Superiority. This was NOT the case back when we formulated the original 100-150 MRCA requirement in early 2000s. Back then we only expected to induct around 200 Tejas (all variants combined) which was to be a replacement of the MiG-21 as a point-defence fighter and nothing else.

The plan back then was 123 LCA, 150-200 Gripen/F-16 and 150-200 Rafale/Typhoon. Add 150 AMCA and the existing 270 MKIs, we get 843 to 943 jets.

Gripen/F-16 became LCA Mk2 and MRFA continues from where MMRCA left off. So nothing's changed.

Now that the scope of Tejas Mk2 has increased tremendously, all of a sudden you're acting as though the entire 100-150 MRCA requirement was meant to address DPSA duties. IT WAS NOT. Deep Strike was but a subset of the various roles to be performed by those jets. In fact I doubt if the actual requirement of DPSAs would have been more than 72 from from among those ~150 total.

Deep strike is for twin-engine.

Remember that the aircraft that originally competed were designed to replace multiple older ones in their respective countries, because they made such a leap in terms of operational availability & serviceability compared to older types like Jaguar, which reduced the number of airframes needed to put up the same number of sorties/flight hours per year.

In the current MRFA we're just blindly following requirements laid out 20 years ago. Perhaps that's why neither IAF nor MoD is showing any serious intent in pursuing the deal even after all these years.

Those requirements are still going to be relevant in 2060.

Eh? An off the shelf buy of a further 36 would cost around $5-6B or so, no more. ISEs, weapon integration, air base infrastructure for 2 more squadrons, it's all been paid for. But the price starts to increase rapidly if you go beyond 2 more squadrons, even if ToT not included.

Not to mention, we'll need to keep around $10B aside for stop-gap 5th gen purchase later this decade.

By that argument, 114 Rafales will be even cheaper. We only need 2 more bases. And we get 70% of the jet's technologies. And exports.

All 114 will cost about $15B for the jets and $2-2.5B for the 2 bases. Your figure is $166M per jet, my figure is $153M per jet. Plus ToT, plus exports, plus executive control, plus the IAF gets its actual number and real world capabilities far exceeding the LCA Mk2. So many benefits.

Forget the engine deal, if it happens it happens. Getting the AMCA airframe in hand is what's important first & foremost. F414 is sufficient from a sustainability/servicability perspective (and actually an improvement over the M88). The engine, radar, IRST & most of the avionics of AMCA Mk-1 would already be proven on the Tejas Mk2.

F414 can't power AMCA. It's an interim engine.

Before 2040, the AMCA as a platform will be fully capable, and completely superior to the Rafale in terms of survivability. Yes, Rafale crews would be more experienced, but like I said the platform isn't survivable so it won't matter. They can't enter airspace controlled by J-20Bs and come back alive. AMCA can.

Yes, AMCA with F414 will not have the performance to take on & defeat J-20Bs reliably. But Rafale would be way worse so there's not really a choice. And building MRFA under license won't solve that problem because that's a platform deficiency, not a logistical one. The only thing that would change if you bring a lot more Rafales into theatre would be we would lose a lot more pilots. The platform cannot turn the tide.

But that's where a foreign 5th gen stop-gap could come in. If we get around to buying it in time, that is.



I insist on all 72 Rafales and at least 200 upgraded MKIs to be alloted to the LAC (something which can only happen if at least 200 Tejas Mk2s are procured to take care of the Western front btw).

And, assuming we buy at least 3 squadrons (54) of 5th gens, I want 2 of those squadrons (36) on the LAC. Once AMCA achieves FOC, the other squadron can pivot to LAC as well.

All that your approach has us doing is that we bring 40 more Rafales to the LAC (because you insist that we need Rafales equally on both fronts, so only half of the additional 80 would be on LAC). But, pursuing MRFA in its current form would more than likely prevent Tejas Mk2, AMCA & the 5th gen buy from being pursued in sufficient numbers in the same timeframe, which will indeed force us to split the entirety of our 150-strong Rafale fleet evenly on the two fronts, or at least on a 60-40 basis.

So out of 150 Rafales, we still only end up with 75-100 on the LAC. As opposed to 72 in my view of things. So the numbers are actually fine in both our versions - the only difference is due to our view of how the OTHER things are shaping up. You're of the opinion that everything else that we're doing (which we didn't plan on doing back in the 2000s) has no effect on required MRFA numbers, I'm not. That's all.

In the long run, you want to procure additional Rafales to the detriment of everything else if need be. I think that would actually be worse.



I fail to see how 2 additional squadrons of Rafales on LAC (which is really all that you are advocating if we adopt your PoV) would make the difference between being capable of stalemating China and a total defeat.



MKI MLU with a 2000+ TRM AESA and Astra Mk-3 is actually far more capable (and cheaper) than Rafale with a <900 TRM AESA & Meteor in A2A combat. It would be a true-blue Air Superiority fighter that would be able to shoot the same target from farther away than Rafale can, and be able to egress quickly if need be.

Unfortunately, neither MKI MLU nor Rafale can realistically win an A2A engagement against J-20B cuz they'll be shot dead before either of them can see the Chinese jet.

Before 2040, only F-35 can even potentially win that engagement (after that, AMCA can as well). If that's not available, Su-57E is gonna have to do.



Except you can't counter J-20B with Rafale. That's the problem.



You cannot win A2A engagements by deploying more Rafales. It's not a sortie generation problem, it's a physics problem. Rafale gets seen first, Rafale gets shot first, every single time.

Only AMCA can realistically hold its own against another stealth aircraft. But until it's ready, we need a stop-gap 5th gen platform.



Sigh.



Except there isn't a single new fighter program in development anywhere in the world (including France) that doesn't have a stealth-shaped airframe. Because everyone knows you cannot survive the future battlefield without it.

Upgrading of non-stealth 4.5gen platforms is to keep them relevant as second-line fighters, not because they can negate what stealth platforms can do because of those upgrades.

I've been over the Active Stealth discussion with you in depth at least twice before. To summarize, the fact that IAF wants to pursue a stealth-shaped AMCA clearly spells out at least one of two things as true:

1) Active Stealth is only a form of ECM/ESM, and doesn't work the way you think it does. Have shown you in detail how it doesn't. The long & short of it is that Rafale simply won't have sufficient radiating elements to fool a single 400-TRM main beam from a 1000-TRM FCR, never mind a whole battlespace filled with dozens if not hundreds of such radars which would add up to tens of thousands of TRMs scanning from different angles, which even F5 with tile radars won't have the number of TR elements needed to counter.

All that active cancellation can do reliably is to fool the seekers on incoming AAMs/SAMs, momentarily making them lose their track so they can be evaded. It's not a magic stealth generator. All that F5 does on top of that is that it can spoof missiles coming from a lot more angles compared to F3/F4 which have a very limited FoV for the jammers.

But it's far more survivable to not be seen & get locked on in the first place which is what a stealthy airframe can achieve.

2) Hypothetically, assuming active stealth does work to cloak the fighter throughout the sortie, the French have refused to share the tech with us, which forced us to go down the path of passive stealth with AMCA. Otherwise we'd have dumped AMCA the moment we bought Rafale and just focused on indigenizing it 100% and just developed a NG engine for it (and not for AMCA). But that's not what we're doing.

Either of those two options mean the same thing as far as IAF is concerned: we cannot obtain stealth through Rafale. Means we cannot obtain look-first/shoot-first through Rafale.



Sigh.



Wake me up when they at least issue an AoN for the 114, never mind 200.



Told you above.

Now you tell me how I'm wrong and how 150 Rafales can fight off 300 J-20s which they can't even see.

Most of your assumptions here are about Rafale being significantly inferior to a standard 5th gen jet, but the current crop of stealth jets are no longer stealth. Passive-only stealth is currently in the process of being defeated via new radars and new radar techniques, already has been. Active stealth measures will continue to retain the primary survivability standard via absorption or negation. The F-22, F-35 and J-20 use the former and some elements of the latter, but the Rafale uses mainly the latter with some elements of the former. Active cancelation is not EW. That's why its RCS is the same size as a sparrow's (0.0001m2 class).

A Rafale F3R has an RCS the size of a sparrow when clean, with external weapons it drops down by a magnitude (0.001-0.01m2). But you can expect improvements have been made on F4 and even more on F5. Unlike passive-only jets, the Rafale's RCS keeps improving over time. This is something the IAF will naturally verify for themselves in MRFA, given they already have experience with it.

Furthermore, the French have set standards for EW that are significantly ahead of the rest of the world.

And Rafale won't be alone, it will be combined with drones too. 2033, they say.

So can the Rafale compete with the J-20B? Yeah, it can. And there are many more features that are equally important on the Rafale that do not exist on the J-20.

Furthermore, your entire plan, which is already broken from the start, hinges entirely on the successful completion of AMCA. You can bet the IAF has no plan on taking such a risk. So MRFA starting in 2025 is a no-brainer. And it's even more easy now with the Chinese having released their new jets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil
That makes it even worse. You want us to spend $20B without any localization at all.

How is it worse?

We need to buy another 2 squadrons else the excess expenditure we did in the first deal (designed to support 4 squadrons instead of the 2 we bought) would go to waste. Not to mention expenditure on ISEs.

And it wouldn't cost $20B. $10B is already spent so no point crying about it now. It only takes a further ~$5B for flyaway + weapons. Everything else is already paid for.

And the only reason I want to go with 36 more Rafales is because we've already financially & infrastructurally committed to the +36 whether we like it or not, due to the way the 2016 deal was structured.

Otherwise I'd have said forget Rafale and procure whichever 5th gen is available straight away.

Rafale will be cheaper 'cause its industry has already been established.

Established in France, not in India. To establish the whole supply chain in India would be a long & expensive process. And each step requires royalties to be paid in Euros. And all to procure something which would be technologically redundant. Why pay royalties to make RBE2 under license when Uttam is ready for production?

At least we're getting to upgrade MKI with indigenous radar which saves money on integration costs down the line, but the French aren't even allowing that (we wanted Uttam on Navy's Rafale-Ms). Rafale licensed production would bring nothing new to the table technologically, and its expenditure would cripple local R&D. And they want you to pay them for the privilege.

Whereas most of the equipment that goes into AMCA Mk-1 would already be made for Tejas Mk2 and the same vendors will be carried over, with everything paid in Rupees and the entire expenditure staying within India save for 20% of the engine.

Rafale cannot beat or even match that in terms of affordability.

MRFA has an export component.

Pies in the sky.

Until AoN is issued, we cannot even consider MRFA as an official necessity.

The French do.

That's the plan.

So why aren't they doing it?

And why did we just clear nearly $2B on developing AMCA with a stealthy airframe instead of pursuing active stealth which Rafale supposedly brings?

We will be testing their claims in the real world.

We've been flying the Rafale for nearly 4 years now. And we just cleared $2B for AMCA with a stealthy airframe. I think that tell us all we need to know.

Your plan of buying 72 off the shelf is more expensive than making 114 at home.

Now who's arguing for industry at the expense of IAF's capability?

Only way to make MRFA production less expensive overall is we'd have to operate the planes so far into the future, well past their relevance just like MiG-21s.

It's a force-wide review. There is no hold-up, the requirements were all created only in 2022.

The basic MRCA requirement as envisioned in early 2000s remains unfulfilled. MRFA is just the latest iteration of that.

We don't. We have to first develop AMCA, that's 10+ years away. First, we need to get the engine program going.

You're the one who wants us to pay for RBE2 while Uttam is ready.

That's pointless.

Only if you think dangling a huge 100+ jet order in front of foreign OEMs & Govts to entice them to share 4.5 gen production-engineering technologies with us was the point.

That's no longer the point.

Single-engine jets do not have the same capabilities due to half the electrical power generated versus twin-engine jets.

Never said they did. But you need those single-engine jets to form your air defence backbone in order to free up the high performance jets to carry out offensive sorties to either deep strike into hostile airspace, or bring hostile airspace itself under control.

Otherwise you'd be wasting precious flight hours of high-perf jets on performing mundane roles like CAP/CAS within friendly airspace, which in turn limits the number of offensive, high-risk sorties you can put up. That ends up costing you the war.

Back in the 2000s when the MRCA requirement was created, we did not have a way to reliably do the AD role (against even the best frontline fighters of the enemy) with Tejas alone as the platform back then was not envisioned to have an AESA or an engine upgrade. So MRCA had to carry out a lot of these roles itself.

Today that's no longer the case.

The plan back then was 123 LCA, 150-200 Gripen/F-16 and 150-200 Rafale/Typhoon. Add 150 AMCA and the existing 270 MKIs, we get 843 to 943 jets.

Gripen/F-16 became LCA Mk2 and MRFA continues from where MMRCA left off. So nothing's changed.

There was no separate requirement for F16 & Rafale-class fighters back then. They were all competing for the same MRCA tender for 126 with +74 option (total 200) aircraft. IAF actually wanted M2K-5, it was Dassault that insisted on Rafale instead. The only twin-jet in the original RFI was MiG-29OVT.

Yes, we'd have preferred to have fighters in both those classes, but that would've been too expensive if both were foreign. So we had to find a way to make whichever fighter wins the tender do both jobs without breaking the bank. That wasn't easy.

No wonder those tenders never got anywhere - we were asking for the moon.

The requirement for a foreign SEF was only tabled after Rafale was already bought in 2016. It was designed as a backup in case Tejas Mk2 fails (though many believe it was formulated to kill the Mk2 program), but after a point, enough confidence was obtained in the Mk2 design that SEF was dropped. Thanks in no small part to pressure from GOI to indigenize.

And AMCA was an afterthought back then - we were serious about FGFA instead, which is now no longer coming.

Deep strike is for twin-engine.

The primary strike fighter of USAF going forward is the single-engine F35.

It's not about single or twin engine for redundancy, we aren't in WW2- it's about having enough fuel onboard (preferably internally as drop tanks destroy stealth) to make it to the target & back. But having a lot of fuel makes you very heavy, which then necessitates a 2nd engine as a single 4th gen powerplant wouldn't push all that weight.

But that changed when a single engine became powerful enough (both thrust & electrical output-wise) with the F135.

F414 can't power AMCA. It's an interim engine.

Been over this before as well.

F414 is the intended FOC configuration for AMCA Mk-1.

Yes, it won't be able to do next-gen performance with 414, but everything Rafale can do, it can as well - except it'll be far more stealthy & survivable while doing it.

Most of your assumptions here are about Rafale being significantly inferior to a standard 5th gen jet, but the current crop of stealth jets are no longer stealth. Passive-only stealth is currently in the process of being defeated via new radars and new radar techniques, already has been. Active stealth measures will continue to retain the primary survivability standard via absorption or negation.

Sigh.

Active cancelation is not EW. That's why its RCS is the same size as a sparrow's (0.0001m2 class).

You cannot use square meters to measure RCS when talking of active stealth. Because that is not a physical property you are describing but an electronic one.

You need to use SNR and dBSM exclusively in this case. What that also means is that things are highly relative unlike in the case of passive stealth.

Because in active stealth, it all depends not on the target but on the enemy transmitter. If the enemy has an old doppler radar with a singular radiating element, Rafale's active jammers (in the wing roots & tailfin cone) can spoof him well enough. You can achieve a 0.000Xm2 RCS (if we use the sqm measure) that way. But if the enemy is scanning with a 1000-TRM radar, the dozen or so radiating elements in each of Rafale's jammers can no longer sufficiently return every signal and active stealth fails.

In fact, your signal becomes even bigger than before.

Even if a way is found to use the main radar array to perform AC, it would take up your main beam to cancel out the enemy's main beam, so your radar effectively becomes useless to do anything else. And you can only spoof one radar at a time, and each Rafale has to spoof its own signature, which means the minute a second enemy FCR is introduced into the mix, the whole thing falls apart.

It's not a practical or workable strategy to use for stealth in today's battlefield (never mind the future). That's why every single new program in development has internal weapon bays & stealth shaping. Passive stealth is far more reliable.

A Rafale F3R has an RCS the size of a sparrow when clean, with external weapons it drops down by a magnitude (0.001-0.01m2). But you can expect improvements have been made on F4 and even more on F5. Unlike passive-only jets, the Rafale's RCS keeps improving over time. This is something the IAF will naturally verify for themselves in MRFA, given they already have experience with it.

Sigh.

Furthermore, the French have set standards for EW that are significantly ahead of the rest of the world.

The best airborne EW performed by a tactical platform (not counting dedicated EW planes like EA-18G) is done by the F-35.

No other aircraft even has the electrical output to come close to the F-35's 400kva capacity.

IMG_20241106_130153_773.jpg

Furthermore, your entire plan, which is already broken from the start, hinges entirely on the successful completion of AMCA.

Yours hinges entirely on the existence of a magic stealth generator which nobody outside this forum considers as an alternative solution to airframe stealth & internal weapons. Not even the French military themselves.

1560964783973.png

You can bet the IAF has no plan on taking such a risk. So MRFA starting in 2025 is a no-brainer. And it's even more easy now with the Chinese having released their new jets.

Only you can suggest a 4.5 gen non-stealth fighter as a better solution than a stealth one for taking on the enemy's 5.5/6th gen stealth birds.

All because you read some forum posts.

Btw, this is what the B-2 had 30 years ago:

There is considerable speculation that the AN/APR-50 utilises an ECM technique known as ’active cancellation’ - this stealth technique employs an array of antennas to transmit a signal which is out of phase with incoming radar emissions, thus effectively reducing the intensity of the reflected returns through interference. If the emitted interference signal, travelling in the same direction, is exactly matched in terms of amplitude, period and phase, to the reflected radar signal, then the threat radar would not be able to detect any return signal, thus failing to ’see’ the aircraft. This is called destructive interference. In terms of applying such ECM techniques to an airborne platform, incoming signals will have many different characteristics of amplitude, period and phase, which, combined with the many different directions of reflection, resulting in phase/amplitude shift, will make true ’cancellation’ extremely difficult to achieve in the real world. It is more likely that the characteristics of the strongest incident signal would be selected by the system processor for destructive interference.

- Jane's Avionics

And guess what - it doesn't negate the requirement for passive stealth as the B-2, F-22 & F-35 show. The opposite is in fact true - if you don't have airframe shaping doing the heavy lifting of hiding 90% of your signature, electronic stealth would be very quickly overwhelmed and fail spectacularly, in fact it ends up becoming counter-productive, making your signature even bigger than before.

At best it can help attenuate particularly difficult zones of the plane that have very high radar return that cannot be completely deflected through shaping or absorbed through RAM alone. Nothing more. That too, only if the enemy radar is not advanced enough (like the Soviet-made ones used by Russia in the 90s which B-2 was designed to counter).

Trying to hide a non-stealth plane carrying external weapons & pylons with active stealth is an exercise in futility against modern radars. That's why IAF wants internal weapons on AMCA and AdlA wants internal weapons on NGF/FCAS.

Active stealth becomes LESS effective over time, not more.
 
AMCA with 'Active Stealth' would be far more effective than Rafale F5 'cause it'll already have very less spikes due to its stealthy airframe. Rafale won't be stealth as along as it'll carry its weapons outside. It's that simple.

However, Rafale's approach of low and fast penetration(especially at nights) along with its novel EW makes it extremely deadly for our enemies. We should definitely procure more.
 
No other aircraft even has the electrical output to come close to the F-35's 400kva capacity.
On an aircraft, the equipment cooling system must have roughly the same power as the electrical generation system, and the F-35's cooling system, which is causing problems, is nowhere near the order of magnitude of your graph:

Fifteen years ago, however, Lockheed discovered that the cooling system was insufficient, according to a report in May by the Government Accountability Office. Instead of requiring 14 kW of cooling capacity, the Block 3F F-35 demanded up to 32 kW. To close this gap, Lockheed, Pratt and Honeywell adapted the PTMS to siphon twice the amount of air out of the engine as intended, but that has reduced the propulsion system’s longevity and increased repair costs.

The cooling shortfall is widening as the Block 4 upgrade program adds more powerful electronics and sensors. The improvements have increased the requirement for the cooling system to handle up to 47 kW of waste heat. Furthermore, classified upgrades envisioned for the 2030s could drive the requirement up to at least 62 kW—and perhaps as high as 80 kW.

What's more, the US is considering upgrading the PTMS and the electrical generation system at the same time, which shows that both are inadequate.
 
Last edited:
On an aircraft, the equipment cooling system must have roughly the same power as the electrical generation system, and the F-35's cooling system, which is causing problems, is nowhere near the order of magnitude of your graph:



What's more, the US is considering upgrading the PTMS and the electrical generation system at the same time, which shows that both are inadequate.

The new EPACS with 80kW cooling capacity is already in flight testing.

 
400 kva does not necessarily equal 400 kw.

Some of that energy is used by the cooling system itself. And there are several electronic components that don't require active cooling all the time.
80kw is very far from 400kva and the specifications was only 14kw! 80 kw need to change electic generator for post Block4 weapon system.
 
How is it worse?

We need to buy another 2 squadrons else the excess expenditure we did in the first deal (designed to support 4 squadrons instead of the 2 we bought) would go to waste. Not to mention expenditure on ISEs.

And it wouldn't cost $20B. $10B is already spent so no point crying about it now. It only takes a further ~$5B for flyaway + weapons. Everything else is already paid for.

And the only reason I want to go with 36 more Rafales is because we've already financially & infrastructurally committed to the +36 whether we like it or not, due to the way the 2016 deal was structured.

Otherwise I'd have said forget Rafale and procure whichever 5th gen is available straight away.

If you are suggesting just 36 more, then it goes back to the same arguement, it's pointless. It's better to buy 6 squadrons of something else than 36 Rafales only.

We can't choose our geography.

Established in France, not in India. To establish the whole supply chain in India would be a long & expensive process. And each step requires royalties to be paid in Euros. And all to procure something which would be technologically redundant. Why pay royalties to make RBE2 under license when Uttam is ready for production?

At least we're getting to upgrade MKI with indigenous radar which saves money on integration costs down the line, but the French aren't even allowing that (we wanted Uttam on Navy's Rafale-Ms). Rafale licensed production would bring nothing new to the table technologically, and its expenditure would cripple local R&D. And they want you to pay them for the privilege.

Whereas most of the equipment that goes into AMCA Mk-1 would already be made for Tejas Mk2 and the same vendors will be carried over, with everything paid in Rupees and the entire expenditure staying within India save for 20% of the engine.

Rafale cannot beat or even match that in terms of affordability.

Dassault is already setting up a production line for Falcons in India. That line will also build Rafales.

Pies in the sky.

Until AoN is issued, we cannot even consider MRFA as an official necessity.

So you prefer babudom over professional advice?

So why aren't they doing it?

And why did we just clear nearly $2B on developing AMCA with a stealthy airframe instead of pursuing active stealth which Rafale supposedly brings?

Rafale's techniques on AMCA's design will be a stepup. As I said, no relevance between the two.

We've been flying the Rafale for nearly 4 years now. And we just cleared $2B for AMCA with a stealthy airframe. I think that tell us all we need to know.

Um... Okay. Still no relevance. Different programs, different eras.

Now who's arguing for industry at the expense of IAF's capability?

Only way to make MRFA production less expensive overall is we'd have to operate the planes so far into the future, well past their relevance just like MiG-21s.

No. Mig-21s were operated well beyond that. 50 years is standard for Rafale. The Rafale airframe provides 8000 hours. At 160 hours, that's 50 years without any life extension. If we extend life once, we can actually use it for at least 90-100 years at the same rate.

If we fly it for 200 hours, then 1 life extension will give us at least 75 years or 40 years without one.

M2000 came with a life of 6000 hours and it has been extended by 5500 hours. Compare that to 4000 + 1500 hours for the Mig-29UPG. Western jets provide insane numbers.

We can basically use the jet to an insane number of decades. But doing so requires ToT.

The basic MRCA requirement as envisioned in early 2000s remains unfulfilled. MRFA is just the latest iteration of that.

The basic MRFA requirement is LCA Mk2. MRFA is MMRCA 2.0, a different requirement.

You're the one who wants us to pay for RBE2 while Uttam is ready.

No. RBE2-XG. It's a whole new architecture that combines radar with other effectors and is installed 360 deg around the aircraft. Uttam is just a standalone radar. We currently do not have an equivalent program. This is the same type of system the IAF wanted for the FGFA, but the Russians wanted additional funds equivalent to the development of FGFA itself.

Only if you think dangling a huge 100+ jet order in front of foreign OEMs & Govts to entice them to share 4.5 gen production-engineering technologies with us was the point.

That's no longer the point.

Dassault and SAFRAN are willing to transfer 100% of the airframe and engine. That's what we want.

Never said they did. But you need those single-engine jets to form your air defence backbone in order to free up the high performance jets to carry out offensive sorties to either deep strike into hostile airspace, or bring hostile airspace itself under control.

Otherwise you'd be wasting precious flight hours of high-perf jets on performing mundane roles like CAP/CAS within friendly airspace, which in turn limits the number of offensive, high-risk sorties you can put up. That ends up costing you the war.

Back in the 2000s when the MRCA requirement was created, we did not have a way to reliably do the AD role (against even the best frontline fighters of the enemy) with Tejas alone as the platform back then was not envisioned to have an AESA or an engine upgrade. So MRCA had to carry out a lot of these roles itself.

Today that's no longer the case.

MRCA (LCA Mk2), MMRCA/MRFA (Rafale) and AMCA are entirely different requirements and eras.

There was no separate requirement for F16 & Rafale-class fighters back then.

There was.

India’s next fighter production line will be of a single-engine foreign type, confirmed defence minister Manohar Parrikar today, clearing up speculation that this was still in doubt (this was a scenario first reported by Livefist here). This, in essence, narrows the next contest to a possible two-horse race between the Gripen and the F-16. Livefist has detailed both campaigns and pitches earlier. Significantly, the Minister said the process of contract would be initiated this calendar year.

This was canceled in favor of LCA Mk2 development in 2018; ADA's brainchild in the form of MWF, which the IAF accepted. And MMRCA once again took centerstage in the form of MRFA by 2019.

The Minister however also confirmed that India would consider taking up the manufacture of a twin-engine fighter ‘later’.
This is now MRFA.

Yes, we'd have preferred to have fighters in both those classes, but that would've been too expensive if both were foreign. So we had to find a way to make whichever fighter wins the tender do both jobs without breaking the bank. That wasn't easy.

Even Parrikar had agreed.

No wonder those tenders never got anywhere - we were asking for the moon.

The requirement for a foreign SEF was only tabled after Rafale was already bought in 2016. It was designed as a backup in case Tejas Mk2 fails (though many believe it was formulated to kill the Mk2 program), but after a point, enough confidence was obtained in the Mk2 design that SEF was dropped. Thanks in no small part to pressure from GOI to indigenize.

And AMCA was an afterthought back then - we were serious about FGFA instead, which is now no longer coming.

Dude, you are revising history to fit your own narrative. LCA Mk2 did not exist in 1999.

Real history: The SEF competition was originally betwen Gripen, F-16 and Mirage 2000 since the time of MKI's deal. It was called MRCA in 2001. The govt pushed that behind and put forward a second requirement for TEF in 2004, which became MMRCA and RFP was released in 2007.

After Rafale GTG was initiated and MMRCA failed, the IAF asked for SEF tender again. Then ADA offered a modernized LCA Mk2 called MWF and that killed SEF tender. Now we are back to the TEF tender called MRFA, and unlike LCA, there's no indigenous replacement.

The primary strike fighter of USAF going forward is the single-engine F35.

It's not about single or twin engine for redundancy, we aren't in WW2- it's about having enough fuel onboard (preferably internally as drop tanks destroy stealth) to make it to the target & back. But having a lot of fuel makes you very heavy, which then necessitates a 2nd engine as a single 4th gen powerplant wouldn't push all that weight.

But that changed when a single engine became powerful enough (both thrust & electrical output-wise) with the F135.

We don't have the same requirements as the USAF. They operate low/high, but all our jets need to be high-end.

USAF operates 30% high and 70% low. IAF would prefer 100% high, but stuck with 80-20 ratio due to ground realities.

Been over this before as well.

F414 is the intended FOC configuration for AMCA Mk-1.

Yes, it won't be able to do next-gen performance with 414, but everything Rafale can do, it can as well - except it'll be far more stealthy & survivable while doing it.

The FOC only qualifies the airframe. Serial production is aimed for the new engine.

You cannot use square meters to measure RCS when talking of active stealth. Because that is not a physical property you are describing but an electronic one.

You need to use SNR and dBSM exclusively in this case. What that also means is that things are highly relative unlike in the case of passive stealth.

Because in active stealth, it all depends not on the target but on the enemy transmitter. If the enemy has an old doppler radar with a singular radiating element, Rafale's active jammers (in the wing roots & tailfin cone) can spoof him well enough. You can achieve a 0.000Xm2 RCS (if we use the sqm measure) that way. But if the enemy is scanning with a 1000-TRM radar, the dozen or so radiating elements in each of Rafale's jammers can no longer sufficiently return every signal and active stealth fails.

In fact, your signal becomes even bigger than before.

Even if a way is found to use the main radar array to perform AC, it would take up your main beam to cancel out the enemy's main beam, so your radar effectively becomes useless to do anything else. And you can only spoof one radar at a time, and each Rafale has to spoof its own signature, which means the minute a second enemy FCR is introduced into the mix, the whole thing falls apart.

It's not a practical or workable strategy to use for stealth in today's battlefield (never mind the future). That's why every single new program in development has internal weapon bays & stealth shaping. Passive stealth is far more reliable.

Your argument of saying we need to use dBsm instead of sqm indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. You are basically saying why don't you use miles instead of kilometers while trying to sound sophisticated. SNR is something else entirely. You are like BNS, stop throwing around buzzwords trying to sound refined when you don't know what those terms mean.

The best airborne EW performed by a tactical platform (not counting dedicated EW planes like EA-18G) is done by the F-35.

No other aircraft even has the electrical output to come close to the F-35's 400kva capacity.

View attachment 39253

The F-35 doesn't have EA capabilities. It can jam using the radar in X band, but that's about it.

The failure to address full spectrum EA on both F-22 and F-35 is why the Israelis stuck their own pod and internal EA antennas on their version, while the USAF plans to "fix this fault on the NGAD."

Rafale's getting a new engine too. And two of them.

Yours hinges entirely on the existence of a magic stealth generator which nobody outside this forum considers as an alternative solution to airframe stealth & internal weapons. Not even the French military themselves.

View attachment 39250

Dassault wants this program canceled. Plus this program is for 2050+. To them Rafale is sufficient against Su-57 and J-20.

Only you can suggest a 4.5 gen non-stealth fighter as a better solution than a stealth one for taking on the enemy's 5.5/6th gen stealth birds.

All because you read some forum posts.

Btw, this is what the B-2 had 30 years ago:

Funny how you are arguing aginst tech the B-2 used. And obviously works. And been significantly improved with new techniques.

And guess what - it doesn't negate the requirement for passive stealth as the B-2, F-22 & F-35 show. The opposite is in fact true - if you don't have airframe shaping doing the heavy lifting of hiding 90% of your signature, electronic stealth would be very quickly overwhelmed and fail spectacularly, in fact it ends up becoming counter-productive, making your signature even bigger than before.

At best it can help attenuate particularly difficult zones of the plane that have very high radar return that cannot be completely deflected through shaping or absorbed through RAM alone. Nothing more. That too, only if the enemy radar is not advanced enough (like the Soviet-made ones used by Russia in the 90s which B-2 was designed to counter).

Trying to hide a non-stealth plane carrying external weapons & pylons with active stealth is an exercise in futility against modern radars. That's why IAF wants internal weapons on AMCA and AdlA wants internal weapons on NGF/FCAS.

Active stealth becomes LESS effective over time, not more.

Sure. A stealth airframe is good. But you can see that ACT works very well with it. Rafale has been designed for low RCS and technology has caught up since the time of the B-2 to allow the same tech on an agile fighter. The end result is the Rafale is also a stealth bird. AMCA and SCAF with the same tech would be even more stealthy, hence their 2045-50 timelines. And it's not just internal weapons, but both AMCA and SCAF will provide more range, more speed, larger sensors, more avionics, better system design, better features, better safety, better maintenance etc. So they are actual upgrades, but for 2045-50+.

So Rafale F5 is for 2030+, AMCA and SCAF are for 2050+. Hence why we need both. And since we need Rafale, we will need those in numbers and sufficient ToT. That's all there is to it.

Imagine replacing MRFA with SCAF in all your posts, only then do your posts begin to make sense.

For a stopgap to be effective, it needs to have capabilities that absolutely do not exist in the inventory. So Rafale came with new gen avionics, weapons, stealth and supercruise, all missing on MKI. Hence the induction of 36 jets made sense. But now the IAF needs mass, and it will arrive with both MRFA and AMCA.

Anyway, just like Indranil, you are also a victim of the domestic lobby. You have been fed all sorts of wrong information by them through the media for the sole purpose of preventing new competition from coming into India. They want a monopoly and will do anything they can to achieve it, even at the cost of India's national security. It's so ridiculous that people would rather believe the media than their own forces. Look at our trainer situation, both of them held hostage by a single PSU, and members here have completely lapped up their lies to the point where there's absolutely no trust in the forces.

The forces are always right. There are plenty of checks and balances to keep them in line. So if they are publicly arguing for something, it needs to be looked into very, very seriously, otherwise they never actually speak out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil
Real history: The SEF competition was originally betwen Gripen, F-16 and Mirage 2000 since the time of MKI's deal. It was called MRCA in 2001. The govt pushed that behind and put forward a second requirement for TEF in 2004, which became MMRCA and RFP was released in 2007.
To the best of my knowledge, the IAF originally just wanted 126 M-2000. In fact, they'd wanted a local assembly line for M2000 since the mid-1980s. The govt decided to go the tender route to avoid single-vendor situations. It was only later that the IAF rolled out the MMRCA RfI and allowed both single and twin-engine jets to participate- a monumental mistake imo.
 
Abandon Mk1 development after procuring all those 83 units

Give full focus on Tejas Mk2 with development of dedicated smart engine for 4.5 and 5+ gen aircraft, put this project under PMO along with AMCA Mark 2.

No point in persuading Mark 1 AMCA. In two years the AI logic and new computational models will change the whole concept.

Buy 30 Rafales more and invest on anti stealth radar system heavily and UCAV Ghataks, prepare Ghatak for AMCA mark1 role.

MoD and IAF have already botched a lot of things. Put these projects under PMO.