Instead of mucking around with a paper project or the new kid on the block, the IAF would be best served by sticking with the reliable and cost effective bird in hand i.e. C-130J. With twelve of them to be operational by 2017, its not worth complicating the logistics by getting yet another platform. Its also worth examining as a refueler.

It can operate from the IAF’s highest airfields and if local production is an essential requirement that can be done too (Tata already builds parts for the C-130J).

10 reasons why IAF’s C-130J Super Hercules landing in Daulat Beg Oldie, Ladakh is important

The problem occurs when you start using the C-130s to fly relatively light loads. The dull but important tasks like sending staff and spare parts to an air base, paratroop training for just 8 men, etc etc.

In these cases a cheap two engined plane is ideal. Why PAF got hold of some CN-235s. India is a big place too, so I imagine quite a bit of time of also saved transporting by air rather then rail or road.

If they had chosen the C-27 they would have got the ideal plane that also shares engines with their C-130s

Heard the Vipers have no AMRAAMs or JDAMS right?

I understand Hallow. i understand.

What I am saying is that perhaps some polite Indians are humbly showing a way out for Dassault that they don’t have to fall down the stairs…

My own 2 cents obiously

This embaresses India much more then Dassult, and is already having a negative effect on procurement. Very few western companies now bothering to respond to RFPs….

I agree to an extent, however it has been stated by numerous Indian politicians and IAF Chiefs that a two front war is a threat and a prime objective for the IAF to overcome. Why India thinks this is not in the realms of this thread I guess and they have their own reasons.

Anyhow, trying to compete with China seems like a loss cause…

Now let me re-qoute my and your statements …

Like many other posters mentioned earlier, capability wise India is much better then before. Rightly IAF is not getting most share of the budget like it was getting in past as there are other more important and pressing issues are at hand.

I dont know if you are deliberately avoiding my point or you do not understand my argument. No one is saying the IAF is losing CAPABILITY, just NUMBERS.

It is drastically losing numbers, and despite an increase in capability, in my opinion, in no way can it meet its obectives of a two front war.

Simply put, an air war with China/Pak on one hand and India on another will end up in disaster for India

Then lets keep this two front war out of this discussion, as it is not only one service which fight a war.

When being able to fight and win a two front war is he IAF’s number one (or very close to number one) objective, how can you have a thread on the IAF and NOT talk about it?

The hysteria over squadron numbers is just that — a tool IAF uses to press its interests. Clearly India needs a large number of aircraft, but it is ludicrous to have an accounting method that counts a MiG-21 and a Su-30MKI the same.

IAF will have as many squadrons as it can afford, and that number will almost certainly place it amongst the world’s most formidable air forces. The actual concerns are to get and keep acquisition, development, and upgrade programs on track.

Nice pic, however this is clearly not a capability India values given its selection of CH-47F over Mi-26T2.

Totally agree, it should not really be a one for one replacement as they are getting far more capable aircraft, however, when it’s advasaries are also repalcing F-7s, J-6s and Mirages with J-10s, SU-30s, F-16s etc and stil maintaining squadron strength, then that is where the problem lies. India has (for its own reasons) chosen a doctrine of fighting a “two front war” and for that reason the numbers simply do not support that strategy. Numbers and capabilities should always revolve around what you want your air force to achieve. As you said, IAF will still be a formidable force, but at it’s current size, it cannot fufil the war aims the government has set.