supposedly that’s actually one of the problems with the MKI.. it took a long time for Russia and India to get all those foreign stuff working on the MKI.. and there’s still integration issues with the radar.

source please . don’t just state something that has no basis. what are these “integration issues” that you’re referring to?

In all honesty the only way they would improve the future Su-30MKI builds would be to swap out better made parts from the western countries. You would shave a lot of maintenance off the engines by going western, but that means keeping the aircraft sheltered more often and keeping the runways cleaner. You could vastly improve the radar and weapons systems by swapping in western systems. It would only take a couple of decades for the Indians to come up with an efficient bureaucratic solution to begin the bidding process for such a scheme. PAKFA/FGFA should be ready by then.

The best short term solution for their Sukhoi fleet might be to end production once Rafale begins delivery in substantial numbers. Commit to the Rafale until the FGFA begins delivery in substantial numbers. Something tells me that FGFA may not be their best option by the time it bears fruit.

India is suffering bureaucratic overload. What they really need is someone to take charge and make decisions. And after those decisions are made they need to be supported, good or bad. Quite frankly they are being eaten by worms from within their own political system. The bureaucracy path they have chosen is simply paralyzing their progress.

You’re assuming (and its a big assumption) that Richard Aboulafia is saying the right thing about Su-30MKI not being reliable. I’ve never read a report from the IAF, the actual customer (and not some analyst with some western consultancy) that says that MKI is not reliable. the IAF wouldn’t be inducting 270 of them if they didn’t think very highly of the MKI. In my opinion, Richard Aboulafia is speaking out of his nether regions without any justification.

As for bureaucractic overload, I’d suggest you stick to the US and its bungled arms programs and acquisitions programs. Reliability or nor reliability of the Su-30MKI has nothing to do with “bureaucratic overload”. Otherwise, the Rafale will be just as reliable as the MKI, since the bureaucracy isn’t going anywhere in the time that the Rafale enters service.

With Lots of vintage fighters falling down from the skies, IAF needs to revisit their war-fighting capabilities.
M2K ~ roughly 28 years
MiG 21 ~ roughly 45 Years!!
Jaguar ~ roughly 32 Years
MiG 27 ~ roughly 35 years

Get your facts right. the IAF isn’t flying 45 year old MiG-21s. the last MiG-21Bis to roll off an HAL assembly line was sometime in mid-1980s. the IAF is not going to fly fighters that have crossed their service lives.

Besides, the Mirages are fine- they will go through an upgrade that will add to their service life and so their age alone is not the issue. Jaguars have been upgraded and are going to go through another upgrade as well not to mention that 37 of them were inducted only around 10 years ago. 40 MiG-27s have also been upgraded and are anyway slated for retirement by 2020 or so. Till then, they have useful life left which the IAF will exploit fully.

This age-alone is important logic would mean that most of the USAF is obsolete since the bulk of their F-15 and F-16 fleet is as old as that if not older. Our neighbour to the west is saddled with a very large fleet of obsolete MiG-clones and Mirages that aren’t young either and their F-16s are as old as our Mirages. Perhaps the same thoughts must be passing through the PAF chief’s mind as well. :rolleyes:

Another M2k went down and seems like again it was an engine issue. 🙁

http://frontierindia.net/indiandefence/another-iaf-mirage-2000-crashed-in-rajasthan-pilot-safe/

Maybe they will have to ground the fleet till the problem is identified.

—–

Seems like the fleet is indeed grounded for now as per Livefist tweet. Engine flamed out at 16k feet.

https://twitter.com/#!/livefist

While the Mirages have had a good safety record, the single engine does leave no margin for safety if the engine has any issues. One of the reasons why the IAF wanted a twin engine MRCA..

Why do you always post articles that are outdated ??

the IN is pissed off with NH Industries for having raised objections about Sikorsky’s proposal of the S70B for the Navy’s Multi-Role Helicopter RFP

A big controversy has hit the acquisition of 16 Multi-Role Helicopters for the Indian Navy, a deal estimated to be worth around $1 billion, with the Indian Navy accusing European vendor NH Industries (NHI) of trying to “mislead” the defence ministry, “twist” the Naval Staff Qualitative Requirements (NSQRs), “falsify” the Request for Proposal (RFP) and cause delays with “unreasonable queries/concerns”.

Documents accessed by this newspaper show the Navy criticised the European firm after it raised doubts about the helicopter of its American rival Sikorsky. This new US-European battle for an Indian defence deal is leading to a lot of acrimony.
NHI earlier alleged Sikorsky does not meet the NSQRs for the deal, and complained to the defence ministry. The Navy has now made it clear that both NHI and Sikorsky have met the NSQRs, making them both eligible. The Navy earlier submitted its Field Evaluation Trials (FETs) report to the MoD on acquiring the anti-surface and anti-submarine MRHs. NHI, based in France and with French, German and Italian participation, pitched its NH90 helicopter against Sikorsky’s S70B.
NHI earlier raised doubts about the Sikorsky helicopter on various aspects, including dual redundancy, fitment of fuel tanks, full authority automatic flight control system, fuel reserves at the end of mission, sensor functions and usage monitoring system. The Navy has, however, given the Sikorsky helicopter a clean chit.
In its final recommendations and in response to NHI’s allegations, the Navy said: “It emerges that NHI is attempting to mislead the higher authorities and cause delays… with unreasonable queries/concerns. The Indian Navy has evaluated the (NHI) NH90 and (Sikorsky) S70B helicopters, and considers both platforms meet the NSQRs specified in… the RFP.”
On NHI’s queries on the Sikorsky helicopter’s “sensor functions” and “fitment of both external and internal fuel tanks”, the Navy said: “It is clearly evident that NHI have twisted the NSQR, thereby falsifying the Request for Proposal on the MRH with an aim to misleading the higher authorities MoD”.
NHI had raised doubts on several other features. It said: “(The NSQR) requires no failure of single system should lead to a catastrophic failure. NHI would like to understand how this is demonstrated since the S70B does not have dual redundancy built in to all aircraft flight control systems.”

Asian Age report

And meanwhile, the IN has rejected the US offer of the MH-60R helicopter for the MRH competition through the FMS route. So only the S-70B and NH-90 remain in the fray.

Navy rejects FMS route for MH-60R

NEW DELHI: India has turned down an American offer to supply 16 multirole helicopters (MRH) through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route for its Navy and decided to go for open competitive bidding for the multi-billion dollar deal.

The US Navy had offered the MH-60 ‘Romeo’ to meet Navy’s requirement for 16 MRH through an inter-governmental agreement but the proposal was rejected, Defence Ministry sources told PTI on Thursday.
….

The RFP for the 16 MRH was initially issued in early 2006, but the tenders were cancelled two years later and reissued in September 2008.

As per the tender, the winning bidder would be required to supply the first MRH within 46 months in three phases.

The Navy will also have the option of placing orders for another 44 helicopters, once the present contract is completed.

The contract also mandates fulfillment of the offset obligations by the winning bidder, which requires it to reinvest 30 percent of the contract amount back into the Indian defence industry.

IAF’s new Mi-17V5 at its induction ceremony

Youtube link for Mi-17V5 in IAF. Video by Torque Aviation

Induction ceremony on Youtube

The video also shows the ramp door arrangement for these Mi-17V5s as compared to the clam-shell type rear door. Cockpit looks amazing too.

Far stretch you cant say the IAF have faith in the LCA because they did not buy the Gripen! Also I do not think the IAF needs faith in the LCA they need faith in the Team doing the work on the LCA MK2! Its the same team so…

you cant compare the MK2 to the Gripen NG, again the Gripen NG will be somewhat ahead of the LCA MK2!

that’s your opinion. as things stand, the fact remains that the IAF has 40 Tejas Mk1 on order and is going to induct them into sqdn service in 2 years’ time. Not the Gripen C/D, the Tejas Mk1.

Tejas Mk2 is too close to the Gripen NG for the IAF to want the NG to be the MRCA. That was most likely the reason why the NG was ejected from the competition although it didn’t meet the IAF’s requirements on 53 counts and was considered risky.