VnomadRegarding the Tejas:
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/08/lca-mk2-operational-clearance-not.html
If we look at history, we should not be surprised if the Tejas mk2 launch date slips further.
IAF would want more a/c today, not in 2025… (or rather, they want more a/c both today and in 2025)
Hence the interim Mk1P variant upgraded with the Elta AESA.
Vnomadno, dont buy more Su-30, just buy spares for them and then evaluate if availability is up to snuff.
after that, evaluate if Tejas is up to snuff,
and only after that’s been done, induct a new type that fit an annual budget, that works.
There are buying spares for the Su-30 and availability is back on the way up. (The real bottleneck was the lack of an MRO facility, now addressed.) Probably won’t cross 75% but that’s fine for peacetime. As for the Tejas, it costs less than $30 mil for heaven’s sake. As long as its got a decent working radar and a full set of armaments, its ‘up to snuff’.
VnomadHow can you claim a radar A better than radar B when the radar A (almost) does not even exist yet? The AESA Captor prototype has hardly flown few flights mounted on IPA but you guys already know how much better it is than anything else.. Come on..
For the same reason that the Su-30 will always field a better radar than the MiG-29. They come from the same technological base but there is a big disparity in their physical size.
That is not up to me to decide, it’s up to IAF. They have set requirements few years ago and these are far beyond what the T1 can offer..
I am getting lost in your argumentation a bit. You’re talking the prices of T1 and then capabilities of AESA T3s in the next sentence. You’re talking rapid numbers completely ignoring the requirements set for that. It seems to me that you don’t give fvck about what IAF needs/wants/can afford, you simply want to force them Typhoons at all cost.
What’s so complex about it? Put simply – buying 36 EF T3s (instead of the 36 Rafale F3Rs) provides a valuable option of 73 cheap T1s. Full stop.
The IAF gets everything it ‘needs’ while also getting an affordable means of bumping up its numbers.
Scenarios:
#1 Individual capabilities of the aircraft play a major role, as well as their origin (read non-Russian)
In that case IAF should pick the aircraft which has won the competition and go for it. That is Rafale F3R. Why would IAF opt for an aircraft that has lost the competition and certainly is neither cheaper, nor more mature or more capable (read T3)? That just doesn’t make any sense.
Then you’re misremembering the result of the technical evaluation because the EF & Rafale were both deemed to have cleared it. That the Rafale is ‘more capable’ is your opinion, not the IAF’s. And that its ‘cheaper’ was determined through a process that was later found to be deeply flawed.
#2 Numbers are more important than capabilities, but the aircraft has to be a non-Russian one
In that case, the F3R is a bridge too far, let’s scrap the deal as whole and look for options.. the T1 is certainly sufficient.. but why not simply set the bar lower and allow Gripen to win the MRCA? Or set it as low as to allow the LCA to take over the numbers?#3 Numbers are more important than capabilities or even origin
Cut the crap, cancel the MRCA and get more Su-30MKIsIn either case, I can’t see a room for a single Typhoon there… My 0.02
I’m absolutely with you. Like I said before, the EF is only the lesser of two bad options. Doesn’t make it good option.
Buy more Su-30MKIs, increase the Tejas production (Gripen not required) and snap up all the used-Mirage 2000s you can get your hands on. And if there remains a capability gap in a deep strike role (as the IAF will undoubtedly argue), buy a limited number of a type that excels at a deep strike role (i.e F-35A).
VnomadCourage under fire.. err.. under foam.
Vnomadavailability of Su-30 is around 60%, meaning almost half of them arent used, due to lack of spares,
why does IAF count inventory instead of available fighters ready to use ?or is it that Su-30 has such a rate of malfunction that the type simply isn’t up to standard ?
That’s 60%, up from 50% last year and on course to hit 70% (by end of next year) according to the Indian DefMin. The spares management system is being overhauled and the MRO facility has probably spooled up by now, though it will take some time to work through the logjam. The article on it should still be on this thread.
VnomadThe Indians seem to disagree, since it seems they are moving forward with the 36 Rafale (at least according to Dassault — on verra).
Its hardly the first loony decision they’ve made. Its unlikely to be the last.
It is not clear why they have decided to do so, however I recall they used the word “strategic” to describe the decision to go for a small number of Rafale in G2G purchase. Perhaps they want to integrate nukes? That could explain why they are so interested in Rafale. Would the Eurofighter partners (in particular Germany) allow them to integrate nukes on the Typhoon?
Come now, everything nowadays is preceded with ‘strategic’. Unless the ASMP-A is being sold with the Rafale, the nuclear angle doesn’t make sense. Toss bombing is an archaic mode of delivery, especially given the wide variety of LACM, ALCMs, and SRBMs available.
Also, in any case I doubt the Typhoon would be a “solution”, since, as already stated, the issue they had with the Rafale MMRCA was with costs; I don’t see how the Typhoon could come out as much cheaper than the Rafale, even if you through some (unwanted) T1s into the mix. It’s not just about the cost of purchase, but also operating costs. Another big factor is the tech transfer.
Tech transfer is absent from the Rafale deal. And yes the EF T3 isn’t any better than the Rafale when it comes to cost. You could say, its a ‘lesser of two evils’ given the availability of a cheap T1 supplement to that.
VnomadThere is no AESA-equipped T3 as we speak.. The radar is not complete yet, let alone tested. Claiming that it’s better than RBE2-AA is just blowing hot air..
There’s no Rafale in IAF colours as we speak either. So what? If the IAF orders an AESA-equipped EF, it’ll get it an AESA-equipped EF. The deliveries are hardly expected next year. More like 2019.
IMHO, that pretty much restricts any future upgrades without the need of making a specific T1-related upgrade for IAF only.
Again.. so what? What sort of upgrade would you deem essential for the the T1s as they are?
If IAF needs to boost numbers, I cannot see how adding an entirely new and a very specific type like Typhoon T1 is better than simply add even more MKIs.
Taken in isolation, buying more Su-30MKIs makes more sense. However, we’re discussing this in the context of the Rafale purchase. If the IAF is insistent of buying a Eurocanard (not that its a prudent position to take), opting for EF T3s, with an option on at least 73 T1s, is a lot more sensible than buying 36 Rafales.
VnomadConsidering the total development cost, 4 million is probably just the accumulated cost of coffee.
Or whisky considering the result.
Nic
VnomadThe Indian government has officially withdrawn the comatose MMRCA fighter competition, following an agreement in April to purchase 36 ready-to-fly Rafale fighters from France in a government-to-government deal which sidestepped negotiations with manufacturer Dassault
Only aircraft that makes sense is Rafale,Su-30,MiG-29 or Tejas
Already reported. Links posted two pages back I think.
VnomadBody lift has buck all to do with max AoA.
Weelll… its hard to say without access to the CFD modelling but the body lift may well affect controllability at high AoA. Especially at higher altitudes, where it should offset the aircraft’s high wing-loading.
VnomadLitening III is on more recent Typhoons, not the T1’s which have much lesser capabilities
The RAF’s T1s received an ‘austere upgrade’ with the Litening III and Paveway II.
VnomadMaybe because the requirement for the Rafales calls for F3R standard which is even higher than Typhoon T3?
The difference between a full spec AESA-equipped T3 and the Rafale F3R is marginal. The former has a better radar & kinematics while the latter has a better EW system & payload. The IAF evaluation concluded that both made the cut.
What exactly prevents them from being upgraded to T3+, then?
Not sure. Something about the software architecture I think. Scorpion82 would be able to give a better answer, when he pops around.
VnomadThanks.. I am still struggling to grasp the logic of your argument, though. In one case the Mirage 2000s (now be it the D version or not) are getting replaced by a next-gen design which is the Rafale. So far so good… In the other case the Typhoons Tranche 1 are getting replaced by Typhoons Tranche 3..
Replaced? Never said such a thing. The RAF is simply downsizing. By definition – retiring aircraft without replacement. Depending on how many are ordered, some T1 squadrons might transition to the F-35B. Others will be number-plated.
A simple farmer’s logic would say that it’s easier and cheaper to simply take the T1s and upgrade them to T3 instead of building them anew.. The fact that they are not doing that indicates it is not possible in a straightforward/affordable way. If it’s not possible for the RAF, then it’s likely not possible for anyone else..
Why is the T3 standard the minimum level of performance required, especially for an operator like the IAF (which will operating the Bison at least upto 2022)? The UK MoD has determined that the RAF/RN, geared for expeditionary operations, must consist of a small fleet of very capable fighters. Same doesn’t apply to everyone else. The Germans will continue to operate the T1, with only minor upgrades if need be.
So, the main point is this: either the buyer is entirely comfortable with the fact that he is buying a pure A-A aircraft (just like F-15C) or, in order to get a multirole aircraft, he should get something else.
It is not a pure A-A aircraft. The RAF aircraft have been upgraded with the Litening III for precision strike. There’s nothing to suggest that Mirage 2000D is substantially better at an air-to-ground role.
VnomadI just say that the Mirages are retired as they reach the end of their lifespan as any aircraft and to be replaced by more capable ones. Typhoons T1 are retired because nobody wants (can afford) to spend loads of cash to make it current.
India buying aircraft in 2015 while its limitations are severe in the very role in which they need new aircraft would be completely stupid.
Will you kindly explain to the forum what exactly is so severely wrong with the EF T1? How is it ‘un-current’ versus oh-i-don’t-know lets say.. the Mirage 2000D? Why shouldn’t it be good enough for the IAF to operate to 2030 followed by replacement with a ‘more capable aircraft’ (like the PAK FA)?
Imagine they need aircraft fast, and cheaper than Rafale, they’d be better off taking UAE’s Mirages (fully A2A and A2G capable) and get a type they can easily operate as they already use M2k
Where does it say that it must choose between the two?
Yes, the IAF should buy the ex-UAE Mirages (if they’re available). And ex-AdlA Mirages. And if its foolish enough to pursue a Eurocanard, then should get 36 EF T3s and buy up all available airworthy T1s.
VnomadBy what time?
Given that a new paper is released every five years, it would straining credulity to put the implementation at more than a decade (which is about when the 225th Rafale would be delivered). As a data-point – the current fleet is now already within the numbers specified in the 2008 paper.
Sign In
