VnomadWhat, you mean aircraft that will actually see Indian service over prospects that only exist in Scooter‘s fevered imagination?
First off, the Rafale’s induction is far from assured – the longer the contract is delayed, the less attractive the purchase becomes, with other aircraft approaching maturity. Secondly, the IN will purchase only more type of aircraft – that will have to shoulder air defence duties all the way upto 2050. While facing off against the Su-33 and J-15 is one thing, its an optimistic person who’d rely on the Rafale-M let alone the MiG-29K to prevail against a mature J-20 or J-35.
VLO is not a transformative feature in this role, and certainly not when it comes at the cost of performance as with F-35.
Assuming the opposition is relying on radars for target acquisition (a not unfair assumption), the F-35 brings a significant edge in addition to the likely advantage it holds in terms of avionics.
VnomadCapability is relative to your ambitions. Having a stealth aircraft operate from your carriers does give you an advantage, especially when you do not have the sort of force multipliers that can operate from carrier decks. It would need a trade off study indeed, and one must know what the F-35B/C is going to cost the IN in the 2025 time frame. India probably does have amitions to build up a credible air defense for its CBG, but it is something that will take time and would cost a lot.
The time-frame is important indeed. We’re talking about an aircraft that has to operate past 2050. And a country that notwithstanding its current economic slowdown, will inevitably become the third largest economy in world (in nominal terms) by 2040 (some projections even predict second largest by 2050). 50-75 F-35s is expensive but not unaffordable especially for a contract signed post-2020. After all, at one point the Netherlands was expecting to buy 85 units of the type.
Vnomad@madrat, vnomad. Onceagain it is assuming that (i) plane generations exist (ii) that F35 will be vastly more capable then Rafale.This true in someaspects, not in others. And F35is not nuke compliant.
In its primary role i.e. air defence/interception, there’s little doubt that the F-35 is superior and by quite a way – aside from the VLO properties, its a veritable sensor farm. While not as cost-effective as originally envisaged, its still well in the reasonable range, will be even more so as production picks up. And with the USAF, USN and USMC committed to the project for better or worse, cost-effective upgrades are relatively assured (case in point: Mirage 2000) while France is substantially reducing its commitment to the Rafale program (driving up unit costs for support).
Not nuclear-compliant – yes. But that’s hardly a overriding concern given that missiles whether cruise or ballistic are inherently better suited to such a task. Seeing as the ASMP-A is not for export, the Rafale will be forced to resort to free-fall bombs in Indian service; not a particularly attractive prospect. Between the Brahmos I/II, Nirbhay not to mention the existing stable of aircraft, the Indian military already has options aplenty.
VnomadI’m surprised there are so many takers for the MiG-29K and Rafale-M for the IAC-2/IAC-3.
Whichever aircraft the Indian Navy chooses has to serve at least for the next 30 years. Opting for a fifth generation aircraft ought to be an obvious choice.
The USN (and often enough RN and MN) has flown high profile strike missions so regularly over the last couple of decades that folks have apparently starting overlooking other equally important aspects. Force projection is all well and good but the carrier’s primary responsibility is FLEET DEFENCE. Once air cover for the battle group is assured, the strike options, whether over land or sea, can be availed of.
The USN, RN and MN can afford to be somewhat flexible with their requirements; the former because its gargantuan size and the latter two because of NATO support and the absence of significant military threats. The IN doesn’t have that luxury. If the air defences prove inadequate its fleet is liable to get wiped out (minus the undersea component). Its instructive to note that the original designation for the IAC (Indigenous Aircraft Carrier) was the ADS – AIR DEFENCE SHIP.
Given that future threats to the IN include the J-20 and J-31, belonging not just to the PLANAF but potentially the PAF as well, which option is best suited to defend an IN CBG? The F-35B/C and T-50N are obvious choices. The latter’s cost of navalisation, size (esp. wrt to the smaller carriers) and the possibility of design constraints (similar to those facing a naval EF), still require clarification.
Also, someone brought up the cost of acquisition of a newer gen aircraft vis-a-vis the ‘tried-and-tested’ MiG and Rafale. In such a case its also necessary to factor in the cost of the aircraft carrier, escorts and assorted auxiliaries, because that’s what’s at stake here. Unlike the IAF, the IN doesn’t have a large number of air assets distributed over equally large geographical area. It has limited number aircraft that can neither depend on support from land-based aircraft nor on reinforcements to cope with attrition.
VnomadYes it is so difficult for people to get out of this line of thinking that a proportion of the aircraft will be given to the RAF and the rest to the FAA. That is not how F-35B will be operated, all the aircraft will be held in a common pool based at Marham with airframes being allocated to any task on a rotating basis. This has the advantage of balancing maintenance, airframe hours and FI. An F-35B might be flown on a Monday by an 617 squadron pilot and on Tuesday by an 800 NAS pilot. The markings on that F-35B might be those of 17 Squadron.
How is the composition of the air and ground crews being decided? It was relatively simpler in the case of the Joint Force Harrier where existing units were simply pooled together. On the other hand the RN will not have any standing fighter squadrons the Joint Force is around the corner. So…?
VnomadI happened to run across this jpg on the net; is there any technical validity to the proposal (12 AAMs) and if so, is it being pursued? Or is it mere wishful thinking; I don’t suppose a load of 250kg on the bay door is viable in practice?
VnomadSome are thinking Rafale dev is leaned towards A/G due to historical reasons.
Some think Typhoon is heavily biased to A2A
I have my personal opinion here, but i wont give it
I think you just did. 😀
VnomadDo the provisions of the MMRCA process allow for another qualifying aircraft to be selected if contract terms cannot be agreed with the selected manufacturer?
Only the Eurofighter has a legitimate shot. The Indian Ministry of Defence has not yet formally told them to pack their bags; they’re still being retained as a fallback option.
VnomadOooh you’re right!
You got autority, a natural autority i might say, you’re perfectly right: rules are made to be enforced and if everybody was doing as he wanted it’d be the mess. Fortunately there are people like you who have a global vision and who make rules we can understand only later how wise they are.(Sometime it’s better have the know-how to speak like this to burocrats in half comunist countries** than the know-how to design and build the best current operational fighter/bomber in the world)
Oh please! This isn’t about selectively interpreting the contract its about rewriting the whole damn thing. Assembly at HAL is a basic tenet of the RFP issued by MoD. Reliance is a firm that has zero involvement in the aviation sector and were they to replace HAL, for all practical purposes it would be little different from shipping in CBUs from France.
Had Dassault requested that the risk be monetized and HAL/MoD share a fair load or for a greater albeit supervisory role at HAL, it would have been a different thing. But this attempt to replace HAL with Reliance is absurd bordering on the outrageous.
VnomadThe point has been stated before but its merits a repeat – the model of production, assembly and delivery was spelled out in the RFP issued by the Indian MoD.
If Dassault had a problem with the RFP it shouldn’t have bothered bidding for the contract. But having bid for it and won, it is demonstrating bad faith by attempting renegotiate the terms of the agreement, whatever its motivations may be.
I hope the MoD doesn’t knuckle under and enters a back-channel dialogue with Eurofighter as a fall back in the event that Rafale deal is scrubbed.
VnomadI was under the impression that the F-35’s VSI developed HMDS would feature ‘X-ray’ vision similar to the new BAE Striker helmets. If the pilot can look ‘through’ the floor he ought to be able to look over his shoulder as well, regardless of the airframe design.
VnomadWhat’s wrong with it?
The Indian Navy adopted the Barak as a standard fit over the Trishul back in 2003. Thereafter the Trishul was run as a technology demonstrator program and then closed down in 2008, so its development is being referred to as complete… sort of. Its been succeeded by the Maitri program, combining elements from the Trishul with those from MBDA’s VL-MICA.
Vnomad• Naval variant: Dhanush, 350km- Navy – in service
Really? On what platform?
VnomadBut completely inferior to the USA which is the cornerstone of all Western orientated defence capability.
Well I suggest you talk about the US then rather than the ‘West’.
These countries are US aligned. South Korean and Turkey are especially reliant on US defence ties.
Turkey seems to be turning east.
You said and I quote – “The funny thing about those high end threats is that the only countries able to field high end threats are Western ones.”
South Korea, Turkey and Japan are not Western countries.
As for Brazil, their air force/military is still predominantly focused on internal defense.
We’re talking about how its likely to shape up in the future. It is likely to become a major military power within the next decade or two.
Russia is a has been and I doubt they will improve their military performance given some major structural and cultural issues that permeate the Red Army (yes I called it that).
I’ve heard the UK, France and Germany called the same (i.e. ‘has beens’).
They also lack the ability to project conventional power past their own former satelites. And they always will. They have 1 small carrier and virtually no air-to-air refuelliers and as stated are far behind in development of military electronics.
For now. They have a massive rearmament program in the works. While they’ll never be a match for the Soviet Union let alone the US, Russia is far from a walkover either.
As for the Chinese again I’m not sold. This is a force whose last combat experience was the bloody attempted invasion of Vietnam in 1979.
No military has seen real combat in decades. Every conflict has involved overwhelming odds including total air dominance by one side.
Again it’s power projection is limited and it is hemmed in by SE Asia, Japan and the Koreas, all of which happily accept the USA as the counterweight to China.
Doesn’t change the fact that China is, to borrow your phrase, a ‘high end threat’. That’s why at least the US and Pacific countries need to be focussed on countering it. Which means the F-35 is a necessity.
Iraq 1991!
The Iraqis never had a ghost of a chance.
Also West needs to focus on attainable goals and not pie-in-the-sky overcomplicated options with forever changing goal posts.
Global challenges are still evolving and military planners need to remain flexible. Ten years back very few could have foreseen how drawn out and bloody counter-insurgency campaign waged by ISAF forces in Afghanistan would be. Similarly predictions about conventional warfare being a thing of the past will simply be ignored.
The US already has F-22 for air dominance.
They’re intended for air dominance. Whether they achieve it is a different matter – strike aircraft need the capability to operate autonomously and effectively even within a hot zone. You can’t schedule SEAD/DEAD missions to be performed only after air dominance has been achieved. Plus the F-22 doesn’t have a naval variant and navalising it (given it relatively delicate stealth coatings) is likely to be a far bigger challenge than any it has faced so far.
As for how revolutiuonary new Russian/Chinese jets are, only time will tell.
Time will tell indeed, but you hope for the best, plan for the worst. Which in this case means the aircraft are all that they were advertised to be.
I’m not a big fan of service propaganda releases – I work for government and often see truths completely twisted to show a favourable outcome.
Well it certainly doesn’t have a bad record so far and provides a unique capability. Its far too premature to claim that it was a bad investment.
VnomadOne thing that does amaze me is the Western focus on countering high end threats. The funny thing about those high end threats is that the only countries able to field high end threats are Western ones.
China, India, Russia; each arguably fielding an air force superior to any European one. Also, while Japan, South Korea, Turkey (and soon Brazil) are pro-West they aren’t ‘Western’.
I suspect that one day when the uber expensive F-35 is the mainstay fighter bomber of Western airforces in the 2020s it’s main targets will continue to be low tech insurgents wielding 70+ year old AKs (yes some of the AKs found in Taliban hands are 1951 vintage), RPKs and RPGs as well as the universally beloved IED.
In light of the proliferation of drones and cheap smart munitions, its doesn’t appear that the challenge of unconventional warfare is being ignored altogether.
Whatever conventional opponents NATO is willing to take on will probably be equipped with the same old SA-2/-3/-6/-7 SAMs and hangar queen MiG-21/F-7s plus the odd monkey model MiG-29 (and if it’s Iran it’ll add 1970s vintage F-4/-5/-14) that of course get blasted on the ground whilst waiting for overhauls, fuel and parts that never come.
Those are the foes that it is willing to engage without too much hesitation. Then again, the NATO was a counterpart to the Warsaw Pact; as 40 years of the Cold War prove, a fair fight has rarely been an incentive to engage in violence.
The other potential enemies (China, Russia) are still decades behind in electronics design as well as training (look at poor Russian performance in Georgia) and doctrine.
China significantly lags only in the development of jet engines and Russia is still transitioning from a larger conscription driven military to a smaller professional one. Neither can be taken lightly going into the future.
And in any case the West does not fight semi-capable opponents anymore – it’s only low lying fruit ala Libya.
When did the ‘West’ ever fight semi-capable opponents?
The funny thing is that Western Air Forces will be numerically smaller than today due to high cost of F-35 and thus be unable to project as much power as before.
Developing multiple designs to replace all current aircraft would have been more expensive still. Persisting with existing designs would have led to a capability gap against Russian and Chinese aircraft currently in development.
The only viable improvement would have been to de-link the required Harrier replacement from the aircraft required by the AF and Navy.
I think evolutionary designs might have been a better choice than revolutionary designs ala F-35. That way the West could’ve maintained numerical superiority as well as a technical edge.
Maybe if you could get Russia and China to shelf their revolutionary designs as well.
A great example was the V-22 Osprey. Whilst it offered great potential, constant delays meant Marines were still using ancient CH-46s and still do to at least 2014.
The Osprey is to serve till 2050 and if the USMC is to be believed, is the safest aircraft in their fleet. The results of the program will only be revealed with time. Not too long back, there were many calling for scrapping the Harrier, then in development.
Sign In
