Tehere’s never been any impasse except in yellow indian press.

Its been over three years now since Dassault entered exclusive negotiations with the Indian MoD. For all the complexity of the deal, it shouldn’t have taken half as long after the effort invested at earlier stages, so there’s good reason to believe the ‘yellow Indian press’. Except that the main point of contention is likely to be the deal’s total cost rather the word of the contract.

When was the last fixed wing combat aircraft that India purchased from the US?

World War 2 era?

Apart from a few recent purchases of US transports/patrol/helicopters, India has typically steered well clear of US types.

I don’t think the sanctions placed before on India will be so easily forgotten.

It’s official: US overtakes all to become India’s largest defence supplier (ahead of Russia, Israel, France, UK)

India becomes biggest foreign buyer of US weapons (ahead of Saudi Arabia, South Korea, UK, Turkey)

Naturally, I might be wrong, but from Indias point of view, placing a large important order with such a history would not be the smartest move, considering the potential tensions in the region.

China.

Perhaps, but so far this is only based on hear says. Besides the additional context of full TOT that explode the budget is not an IAF demand.

– No hearsay involved. Its just plain logic. The only practical difference between a medium fighter and a heavy fighter is operating cost (and perhaps RCS). The advantage of lower cost vis a vis the Su-30MKI is already all but lost.
– ToT may not have been an IAF priority but it can’t be omitted from the contract at this point. So for better or worse, the current price is what it is.

I was referring to selection of another plane without any tender nor IAF involvement, which would be even worse than the Swiss saga and possibly not allowed under current law.

– Additional Sukhois can be ordered off-the-shelf from Rosoboronexport without any particular hassle.
– The Su-30MKI production at HAL can be extended beyond 2018 without any problems.
– An early order of off-the-shelf PAK FAs can be placed without a competitive tender.
– Even the F-35 could be ordered in an FMS sale and justified by the MoD as a single vendor purchase justified by operational necessity.

(It is however true that EF & SH don’t have much of a chance.)

Yes, the new government is certainly in a difficult position, now that the true amount of industrial investments required to meet full TOT have been valued. It would not be surprising they were massively underestimated by prior government to pass the motion. I do not think they have any latitude in relaxing any demands to cut price as they would be sued by the competitors, So only option is to let the negotiations go through and ultimately acknowledge it is too expensive or preferably that the L1 contractor failed to comply on either guarantee or Life Cycle.

Agreed. 🙂

Not totally accurate, MMRCA is about procuring a medium plane to meet certain needs which the Su 30,hardly medium , did not fulfill to the point of not even bothering to enter that competition. The missed opportunity for license build mirage, led to the governmental rigid and strict MMRCA competition with the consequences of further delaying the needed planes to see service. So as stated by the IAF air marshal, substituting MMRCA with Su-30 now won’t do. Not to mention how poorly it would reflect that the mindef choose another plane out of the blue after the painful and time consuming selection process imposed by the government on the IAF.

– The only reason an operator would specifically call for a ‘medium’ aircraft instead of inviting all and sundry to the competition, was that the aircraft class would be cheaper to operate than the ‘heavy’ class of existing fighters (otherwise why exclude the F-15E). Unfortunately as things stand, the Rafale’s life cycle cost is far in excess of the Su-30MKIs, thus eroding the rationale behind the ‘medium’ requirement. Going by recent reports the Su-30MKI is pretty cost effective even vis a vis the Mirage 2000.

– Opting for an alternative wouldn’t be out-of-the-blue. Behind the scenes I’d imagine both the IAF and Dassault are aware of the true state of play (whatever it might be) and would be prepared to act accordingly.

So, yes mindef and government can cut budget. IAF appear to be acutely aware of the risk, given a top officer felt compelled to express concerns that contradict his mindef.Not something you see everyday.

Its not so much ‘cut’ the budget as it is refuse to pay (far) more than was originally budgeted for the contract.

Anyway, my personal opinion, is current government ,given the nature of their communication is working on finding most gracious way out of the deal. Hope to be wrong, and that they are only in a hard bargaining stance with Dassault. But that IAF officer making such statement, is no good sign, rather it indicates concern on ever getting the elusive budget for the planes they need.

I have a similar reading. The IAF’s public statements on the matter are practically speaking, a mode of lobbying, which it would have preferred to avoid if it were confident about the deal going through. All the same, the result could still surprise both of us.

Sure, they may order more SU-30s, but these are being manufactured very slowly it seems.

16 per year. Can also be supplemented with off-the-shelf deliveries from Russia.

No, IAF will still be flying MIG 21S/27s post 2020, almost definately if Rafale deal not signed and they decide to wait for LCA MK II, that or they will be reduced in size to around the same size as the PAF. Lets also remember the Jaguars are getting very old too.

15 squadrons of Su-30MKIs on order. 12 squadrons of Mirages, MiG-29s and Jaguars (link). 2 squadrons of Tejas Mk1s.

That’s 29 squadrons without counting additional orders for MMRCA or alternatives. Hardly the same size as the PAF (which is 15 squadrons as per your post).

The last Jaguar was delivered around 2006 I think. With the new upgrades and armaments sanctioned for it(link).
, its always been intended to serve past 2025.

I would not rely in Wiki and just adding up numbers to get an idea of strength. Air Forces do not work like that.

Many Mirages were cannabalised for spares, many F-7s are in overhaul so rest are used to make up front line numbers, attrition has also taken its toll, and some are kept in storage.

The number of aircraft operational is a good measure of an air force’s strength. If as you say some aircraft are grounded, non-operational, then the source itself is incorrect and should be amended. You should probably amend the Wiki entry yourself.

Russia and China used the Regiment system, which is very similar to squadrons in everything but name.

25 to 30 aircraft per regiment I believe. On the other hand, NATO naval squadrons are usually 12 aircraft strong. Point being, aircraft numbers are often a better measure of comparison than squadron numbers (though given differing combat potentials of various types, that too is insufficient by itself).

Apologies, meant MIG-27, not MIG-23.

According to news reports all MiG-27s are to be retired by 2017.

Well they recently retired a CCS F-7 squadron replaced by JF-17s just a month back, considering more JF-17s will be rolling of the production line you can easily see all F-7s being replaced very soon. Interesting point about the PGs. Talk of keeping them for lead in fighter training and aggressor training.

Irrespective, IAF will still be flying ANCIENT helicopters and planes in terms of airframe age. The accident rate this year alone is probably a good indication of things to come.

The PAF has almost 350 F-7s and Mirages. At the JF-17s current production (16 units/yr), it will take about 20 years to replace the fleet, taking the last F-7 retirement to 2035.

LOL
Comparing apples and oranges will not make you very clever, you know… Tejas are likely to cost $10 million more per copy (that’s still cheap), whereas the Mirage 2000 upgrade also include training, tools, ground support stuff, ammunitions, etc.

The Mirage upgrade includes tooling & training. It does NOT include ammunition. That was a separate and very pricey contract (450 MICAs for $1.23bn).

‘Apples to oranges’ would have been a appropriate remark if a cheap Tejas upgrade was being compared with an expensive off-the-shelf Mirage purchase. Not the other way round. The fact that even adding $10 million to the Tejas’ flyaway cost leaves it cheaper than a Mirage upgrade, suggests a huge disparity in the costs of the two aircraft. And following from that, one of them offers far better value than the other (though to be fair cost effectiveness has never been the Mirage’s USP).

Egypt’s ‘full stocks’ of combat aircraft include a large number which are overdue for retirement, none which have an active radar missile integrated, & of those which aren’t over-age, only a handful which they can put anything other than short-range PGMs & SARH AAMs on – & I think even that handful would need modernisation to use modern weapons.

The explanation given by the Egyptians for the rush was rising instability in Libya. Well there’s no real air threat from that quarter and air defences are predominantly (entirely?) short range. For the air-to-air role they’d have had the option of MiG-29s as well as JF-17s (in addition to second hand Mirages). It does seem like a prestige buy. Not the most prudent of investments at this time but if they can rustle up the cash, that’s that.