What's a standard procedure that they follow for a prototype to roll out?
Jigs
Wings(have been loaded)
..
If anyone can shed some light that would be great
What's a standard procedure that they follow for a prototype to roll out?
It doesnt have to be the tender.
There is no way the air force will place large orders in 2-3 years. All prototypes have to be flying before that can even be considered, which is at least 4 years away.
Considering how long these tenders are hung up, I'm willing to bet we'll see firm Mk2 orders before we see MRFA orders. They're still aiming for a first flight next year, we could see orders for Mk2 by around 2026-27.
I don't see us coughing up the capex for 114 MRFA before then. We'll be cash tight again after the upcoming 97 Mk-1A and 26 Rafale-M orders.
Most we'll be able to squeeze in would be another 36 Rafales.
Would love to see 200 Rafales in IAF.
It's the question of affordability though. There's a reason these tenders aren't getting anywhere.
So, if we start with the first flight of the first prototype in the middle of next year, then we will follow up with one every six months. By the end of 2027, all of them will be flying, hopefully. If there are no mishaps, then realistically by 2029-30, we can be hopeful of a commitment by the IAF.
MRFA and LCA Mk2 timelines do not intersect, MRFA will finish long before LCA. The 97 Mk1As are being bought to make up for the delay.
So, we are quite likely to see a MRFA start this year, and a completion by 2027 or so, with a contract before the next election cycle. But LCA Mk2 will still be under flight testing at the time, with an expected completion only around 2030-31.
And capex is unlikely to be an issue because it's very likely to grow at double digits from here on. We saw a 20% boost this year already, and it will be revised again after elections.
And only MRFA is delayed, all other tenders are primarily domestic and are progressing relatively smoothly. P-75I was delayed from the vendor side, but it's back on track and has already progressed a lot.
That would be hugely optimistic you know , even the OEMs themselves said the MRFA is way less mature as a project than the 26 odd MMRCA one. Plus with the Rafale orderbook, it is hard to see the process starting from next year and completing by 2030. Stranger things have happened of course, but my hunch is until the first/LSP mk2 or amca orders are placed, we will just get emergency procurement as import. Other than Rus option, I have major doubt that local production will happen for EU or USA based fighters ie a possible early deal with workshare.So, we are quite likely to see a MRFA start this year, and a completion by 2027 or so, with a contract before the next election cycle. But LCA Mk2 will still be under flight testing at the time, with an expected completion only around 2030-31.
Proof of the pudding is in the eating. There's no reason to assume MRFA will happen until & unless it does. The track record weighs against it. The follow-on for MMRCA was supposed to happen after 2019 elections. Here we are 5 years later and still nothing.
It's quite evident that we are treating this as a time-pass.
Timelines are definitely going to intersect between Mk2 and MRFA. There isn't going to be any large scale MRFA order in the next two FYs minimum - the Mk-1A follow on + MRCBF will take care of that.
After that it's likely the need for +36 Rafales will be pressed, which means MRFA will get pushed further. After that Mk2 will come up for its initial orders.
Capex for MRFA will be highly disruptive to all other procurement programs - as such, its viability & necessity will be constantly assessed. And we aren't in 2010s anymore...a foreign 4.5G jet is no longer the only option for a cutting-edge capability set. Local R&D capabilities have developed tremendously and that will be taken into account, which makes the case harder for spending large amounts on MRFA production as opposed to just ordering another batch of Rafales & spending that money on Mk2 instead.
Once you take out the DPSA role (which can be pretty sufficiently fulfilled by 72 Rafales + CATS anyway), spending on MRFA becomes a difficult proposition when weighed against Tejas Mk2. And that equation will keep slipping further in Mk2's favour with each passing year.
I don't know technical parts much actually. Maybe someone else can explain better.What's a standard procedure that they follow for a prototype to roll out?
Jigs
Wings(have been loaded)
..
If anyone can shed some light that would be great
That would be hugely optimistic you know , even the OEMs themselves said the MRFA is way less mature as a project than the 26 odd MMRCA one. Plus with the Rafale orderbook, it is hard to see the process starting from next year and completing by 2030. Stranger things have happened of course, but my hunch is until the first/LSP mk2 or amca orders are placed, we will just get emergency procurement as import. Other than Rus option, I have major doubt that local production will happen for EU or USA based fighters ie a possible early deal with workshare.
The IAF finialized MRFA requirements only in 2022, they used their Rafale experience to chart their course. That's also why LCA Mk2 and AMCA requirements were also finalized around the same time. The delays since then are from the govt side. I guess primarily to do with engine finalization delays for LCA and AMCA. It's basically just 1-1.5 years.
Also 'cause you are expecting a quick LCA Mk2 delivery cycle, but it's been delayed. LCA Mk2 is now gonna match the AMCA Mk1 timelines.
And no, Rafale is not that expensive. It was expensive back in 2015, when the economy was down in the gutters. We were quite close to economic collapse back then, especially with triple digit oil price and drought. That's not the case now. Parrikar was simply being misquoted and taken quite a bit out of context 'cause he was only referring to the 2015 and 2016 financial years when he said there was no money for an MMRCA signature. This was when FGFA and AMCA were also active programs and Parrikar was digging up the exchequer for the Nilgiri frigate program while Modi was also chasing after the S-400.
Capex for MRFA will do nothing, because, quite literally, there's no program clashing with it. MKI MLU and Mk1A have already been funded. Mk1B will also go through, as a successor for Mk1A. All other upgrade programs are nearing completion. So there's a pretty big slot that's empty until the middle of the next decade. In fact, the IAF can very easily go for a GTG deal right away.
72 Rafales aren't enough for all our requirements.
We could have gone in for additional 36 Rafales at any point in the last 7 years. We already paid for developing infrastructure for 4 squadrons in the original deal. Plus ISEs were already paid for & economies of scale would come into play.
But we didn't.
There's something very weird going on with the Medium-class procurement effort. And then in that same timeframe (2017-2019), ADA on the instructions of IAF had turned Tejas Mk2 into a medium fighter in the same class as F-21/Gripen E, which was not the intention before. And then the theaterization conversation started and the Army brought Rocket Forces onto the table from out of nowhere.
It's obvious that MRFA & its numbers aren't set in stone. The IAF has made their case for it...but it's silently preparing for alternatives.
Ought to be enough for just the DPSA requirement though, especially when combined with CATS + Rocket Forces shouldering some of the burden which wasn't part of the equation before.
Remember that we'll eventually be able to pivot all Rafales onto the LAC. The Tejas Mk2 will have sufficient range & survivability to tackle the Deep Strike requirement on the Pakistan front. We only need the Rafale's reach for Tibet/Xinjiang.
Back when MMRCA numbers (126-189) were formulated, we were looking to procure all of those capabilities via foreign ToT only...but a lot has changed since then thanks to progress in indigenous R&D efforts. Besides, all of that number were never intended to be DPSAs anyway.
That means there's space for f-16's or gripens. The Rafales are a mig-29 mirage replacement. The Tejas is more of mig-21,23 and 27 replacement. We need gripen E or the f-16 in that space. And compared to the Chinese we are not top heavy enough neither we have enough single engined fighters. We neither have fifth gen fighters which we require now. F-35/su-57 will slowly become a real requirement. And we will have to choose either the fcas or tempest coz the fact is amca will be at similar capability level to the kf-21 not even the Turkish KA'AN.LCA Mk2 is still far away. We are talking 2037+ before its inducted in sufficient numbers and becomes useful. AMCA is 2040+ easy
That means there's space for f-16's or gripens. The Rafales are a mig-29 mirage replacement. The Tejas is more of mig-21,23 and 27 replacement. We need gripen E or the f-16 in that space. And compared to the Chinese we are not top heavy enough neither we have enough single engined fighters. We neither have fifth gen fighters which we require now. F-35/su-57 will slowly become a real requirement. And we will have to choose either the fcas or tempest coz the fact is amca will be at similar capability level to the kf-21 not even the Turkish KA'AN.
More Rafales are coming post elections. Your number 200 may become a reality tooUnlikely. The IAF has decided Mk1A will fill that gap. They probably believe that Mk1A combined with the IUSAV will meet any capability gaps in the SE category until Mk2.
As far as I'm concerned, both Mk2 and AMCA will be further delayed, and the IAF will buy 200 Rafales. I won't be surprised if that will climb further due to the need to meet the 42.5 squadron target by 2042. Even with 12 Rafale squadrons, without Mk2 and AMCA, we will only be at 36.5 squadrons, the rest being 6 squadrons of Jags, Migs and M2000s.
As for 5th gen, let's see what happens once GoI makes a decision concerning MRFA.
People need to begin accepting the fact that our jet plane industry will be the slowest to indigenize.
There was always a Gripen E/F-16 requirement. This was there ever since the first MRCA started in 2001, has existed since the 80s. That switched over to twin engine requirement in 2004. And once MMRCA got killed, the IAF pushed for MRCA once again, to act as a buffer before MMRCA 2.0 could begin, once the 36 jets were delivered. ADA/HAL stepped in to offer LCA Mk2 and that ended MRCA. So we are back again with MMRCA 2.0 that we now call MRFA.
The IAF had finalized interim requirements for MRFA back in 2019 and I believe they went back to the drawing board once they started operating the Rafale. Then came the "final" finalization in 2022, alongside finalizations for IUSAV, MKI MLU, LCA Mk2 and AMCA.
Normally, MRFA should have started in 2023, but the govt has deliberately delayed it.
The IAF is a top-heavy air force, 500-700 TE jets and 300-400 SE jets. If it wasn't for the short turnaround and scramble time requirement, the IAF would actually be 100% TE. MKI, Rafale and AMCA basically fulfill pretty much the same requirements. In the distant future, all three will just become one type as our industry becomes self-reliant.
CATS Warrior can't be combined with Rafale, it's not an IAF project, just a HAL hobby project that they want to link up with LCA. We don't even know if CATS Warrior will ultimately be chosen, although the other elements of CATS seem more interesting.
The IUSAV will be the main IAF drone, although we are not sure of its integration with the Rafale yet. Let's see what happens once MRFA begins.
In any case neither CATS nor IRF can fulfill the true DPS requirements of the Rafale. Plus CATS isn't being designed for DPS, it's only going to support close air operations.
Hell, the current design's total payload is just 600 kg.
72 Rafales can only meet requirements for one theater, not two theaters, especially not at once. And we can't afford attrition with just 4 squadrons either, barely 5 or 10%. Even 6 is just the minimum. We need 8-9 to afford attrition up to 30%.
LCA Mk2 is still far away. We are talking 2037+ before its inducted in sufficient numbers and becomes useful. AMCA is 2040+ easy.
DPS is more than just range. It's a role reserved for twin engine jets due to the need for survivability that SE jets lack. And even the PAF is now developing an IADS.
Nothing's changed. There's a decade-plus gap and only MRFA can bridge that gap. For enough numbers, LCA Mk2 is 15 years away, AMCA is 20 years away and MRFA is just 4-6 years away from a good decision, 10 in case of a tender.
Think about it this way. If we go to war with China between 2030-35, our choice is between MKI MLU + LCA Mk1A combined with 36 Rafales or 70-100 Rafales. There is no LCA Mk2 in the picture during this time.
With an expected 2027-28 first flight, and production beginning in 2031-32, we could see the first handful of Mk2s delivered only in 2034-35. Even if we take the tender route, all 6 Rafale squadrons will be delivered by the time the first Mk2 squadron is raised.
As per some rumours MRFA will come with a clause that OEMs should bear the cost of integrating Indian weapons and systems by themselves. IAF doesn't want to do it by themselves and increase their expenditure. Which means Rafale-C F4.2/3 with integrated Astra series, RudraM series and even MUM-T. Does it now make MRFA look viable to you?It's not just about scramble time & turn-around, it's about cost of sustained operations. To fight a 1-year long war you may have to operate a peacetime Air Force doing its routine CAPs for 15 years prior to that, without bankrupting yourself in the meantime.
There's a reason even Air Forces much richer than us don't get rid of F-16s or J-10s. You just can't sustainably operate without them - not for a country with as huge a frontage as India. We aren't some small European NATO state that can build their entire airpower around a single jet type.
We'll be going for some Loyal Wingman or the other - we have to. There's no major air force out there that expects to be operating without loyal wingmen into the 2030s.
If Rafale cannot be combined with a force multiplier like a Loyal Wingman, then no more Rafales will be bought. Being unable to work with loyal wingmen in the 2030s will be like being unable to data-link with AEWs in 2020s.
It would be a deal-killer.
They're two very different kind of drones. One is an autonomous wingman expected to go wherever the fighters go, the other is a standalone stealth strike platform mostly controlled via encrypted SATCOM much like Predator today.
IUSAV is a flying wing, it cannot keep up with the fighters. It'll be doing its own thing.
CATS is meant to be a multi/swingrole platform that supports the fighter in whatever it does. There's a reason they were displayed with both AAMs & SAAWs. Half of Rafale's DPS role will be aimed at targeting enemy air bases deep inside Tibet/Xinjiang. Having a pair of Warriors at your side that can go where you cannot (thanks to their LO airframe + being unmanned) and deploy SAAWs from their internal bays only helps to increase the survivability rate of your manned fighter in each sortie AND requiring fewer manned aircraft to deploy the same amount of ordnance on target.
It makes no sense not to use them when the tech becomes available.
That's just for the subscale variant with PTAE-7 engines meant for proving the teaming software.
The actual Warrior with twin HTFE-25s (or imported equivalent) will be having a payload over twice that (~1.5 tons).
That's why we're going toward Loyal Wingmen + IRF.
The attrition we'll suffer if all our deep strike eggs are in a single basket (Rafale) is unaffordable. Heck, even the US can't afford the attrition for an airpower-only approach against the likes of China. We aren't talking about overwhelming Pakistan here.
Our deep strike options will become extremely diversified.
We'll be having MKIs carrying out standoff SEAD/DEAD strikes via likes of Rudram-I/II/III to take out airspace surveillance radars, Rafales taking advantage of the gaps created by deep striking into Tibet Xinjiang + standoff SCALP launches as per need, Loyal Wingmen doing a lot of the truly risky flying to get closer to targets to deploy the 100-200km range PGMs to take out runways & parked aircraft - which will also help increase survivability of each manned fighter being pressed into the theatre + deploy more ordnance per sortie.
In the meantime, IRF will be constantly precision-striking with Pralay SSMs & BrahMos GLCMs to pepper the targets, deplete air defences & taking out targets too risky for a manned mission. Supported by other CATS elements like swarming drones.
View attachment 32995
The days where we needed Rafale to shoulder the entire burden of Strike are long gone. Our doctrine has evolved a lot.
That's why we're pursuing assets that'll help alleviate some of the burden on Rafale in the meantime. Like IRF & Loyal wingmen.
These weren't part of the equation back in the 2010s, but they are now. You gotta understand why.
Survivability isn't just determined by having twin engines. It's a combination of being able to evade detection & being able to evade attack even when detected.
The USAF's main Strike Fighter going forward is the single-engine F35.
A strike package comprising Rafales & Loyal Wingmen in a MUMT config is far more survivable than just having Rafales - plus it'll also be much more likely to actually place their payloads on target because the Loyal Wingmen will be much harder to detect & track.
Why do you think we keep increasing the number of Mk-1As we buy? We'll be inducting a total of ~210 airframes of the F404 config, which wasn't the plan back when we wanted to buy 126-189 MMRCAs.
We're doing everything we possibly can to free up every last Rafale for the DPS role.
Because we need to - and it doesn't look like we can afford to do anything else. At this point, after a decade & a half of waiting for the large MRCA order to go through, it's going to take more than saying "we have a requirement" to convince me that we're serious about these inductions.
If we want to increase numbers of DPSAs, the most feasible way seems to be to just keep ordering Rafales off the shelf in batches of 36.
At this point, I don't see the wisdom in spending $20+ billion to set up a glorified screwdrivergiri centre. That kind of infrastructure spending is better invested in building additional Mk-1A/Mk-2 production lines.
Make all additional Rafale purchases off the shelf - it'll save money + enable concurrent induction (Indian lines building Mk-1A/Mk-2s & French lines building Rafales, with IAF inducting all of them at same time).
It's not just about scramble time & turn-around, it's about cost of sustained operations. To fight a 1-year long war you may have to operate a peacetime Air Force doing its routine CAPs for 15 years prior to that, without bankrupting yourself in the meantime.
There's a reason even Air Forces much richer than us don't get rid of F-16s or J-10s. You just can't sustainably operate without them - not for a country with as huge a frontage as India. We aren't some small European NATO state that can build their entire airpower around a single jet type.
We'll be going for some Loyal Wingman or the other - we have to. There's no major air force out there that expects to be operating without loyal wingmen into the 2030s.
If Rafale cannot be combined with a force multiplier like a Loyal Wingman, then no more Rafales will be bought. Being unable to work with loyal wingmen in the 2030s will be like being unable to data-link with AEWs in 2020s.
It would be a deal-killer.
They're two very different kind of drones. One is an autonomous wingman expected to go wherever the fighters go, the other is a standalone stealth strike platform mostly controlled via encrypted SATCOM much like Predator today.
IUSAV is a flying wing, it cannot keep up with the fighters. It'll be doing its own thing.
CATS is meant to be a multi/swingrole platform that supports the fighter in whatever it does. There's a reason they were displayed with both AAMs & SAAWs. Half of Rafale's DPS role will be aimed at targeting enemy air bases deep inside Tibet/Xinjiang. Having a pair of Warriors at your side that can go where you cannot (thanks to their LO airframe + being unmanned) and deploy SAAWs from their internal bays only helps to increase the survivability rate of your manned fighter in each sortie AND requiring fewer manned aircraft to deploy the same amount of ordnance on target.
It makes no sense not to use them when the tech becomes available.
The actual Warrior with twin HTFE-25s (or imported equivalent) will be having a payload over twice that (~1.5 tons).
That's why we're going toward Loyal Wingmen + IRF.
The attrition we'll suffer if all our deep strike eggs are in a single basket (Rafale) is unaffordable. Heck, even the US can't afford the attrition for an airpower-only approach against the likes of China. We aren't talking about overwhelming Pakistan here.
Our deep strike options will become extremely diversified.
We'll be having MKIs carrying out standoff SEAD/DEAD strikes via likes of Rudram-I/II/III to take out airspace surveillance radars, Rafales taking advantage of the gaps created by deep striking into Tibet Xinjiang + standoff SCALP launches as per need, Loyal Wingmen doing a lot of the truly risky flying to get closer to targets to deploy the 100-200km range PGMs to take out runways & parked aircraft - which will also help increase survivability of each manned fighter being pressed into the theatre + deploy more ordnance per sortie.
In the meantime, IRF will be constantly precision-striking with Pralay SSMs & BrahMos GLCMs to pepper the targets, deplete air defences & taking out targets too risky for a manned mission. Supported by other CATS elements like swarming drones.
View attachment 32995
The days where we needed Rafale to shoulder the entire burden of Strike are long gone. Our doctrine has evolved a lot.
That's why we're pursuing assets that'll help alleviate some of the burden on Rafale in the meantime. Like IRF & Loyal wingmen.
These weren't part of the equation back in the 2010s, but they are now. You gotta understand why.
Survivability isn't just determined by having twin engines. It's a combination of being able to evade detection & being able to evade attack even when detected.
The USAF's main Strike Fighter going forward is the single-engine F35.
A strike package comprising Rafales & Loyal Wingmen in a MUMT config is far more survivable than just having Rafales - plus it'll also be much more likely to actually place their payloads on target because the Loyal Wingmen will be much harder to detect & track.
Why do you think we keep increasing the number of Mk-1As we buy? We'll be inducting a total of ~210 airframes of the F404 config, which wasn't the plan back when we wanted to buy 126-189 MMRCAs.
We're doing everything we possibly can to free up every last Rafale for the DPS role.
Because we need to - and it doesn't look like we can afford to do anything else. At this point, after a decade & a half of waiting for the large MRCA order to go through, it's going to take more than saying "we have a requirement" to convince me that we're serious about these inductions.
If we want to increase numbers of DPSAs, the most feasible way seems to be to just keep ordering Rafales off the shelf in batches of 36.
At this point, I don't see the wisdom in spending $20+ billion to set up a glorified screwdrivergiri centre. That kind of infrastructure spending is better invested in building additional Mk-1A/Mk-2 production lines.
Make all additional Rafale purchases off the shelf - it'll save money + enable concurrent induction (Indian lines building Mk-1A/Mk-2s & French lines building Rafales, with IAF inducting all of them at same time).
More Rafales are coming post elections. Your number 200 may become a reality too
As per some rumours MRFA will come with a clause that OEMs should bear the cost of integrating Indian weapons and systems by themselves. IAF doesn't want to do it by themselves and increase their expenditure. Which means Rafale-C F4.2/3 with integrated Astra series, RudraM series and even MUM-T. Does it now make MRFA look viable to you?
PS: RuAF has only 2 engine jets and they've beem sustaining high tempo operations in Ukraine for the last 2+ years. So @randomradio does have a point, IMO.