Why is Indian navy even interested in Rafale or SH? They already have Mig-29K, and if Imnot wrong there is option for further. From what I understand navy always seemed more interested in LCA than AF, and that naval LCA is only around the corner. So why a third type? How many carriers is IN aiming for (lets say) over the next 10 years, and how many naval forces around the world deploy three different types from their carrier. On another note, Mig-29K would stay there for at least 2-3 decades. Don’t tell me its going be between LCA and another fighter now?

The Indian Navy will evaluate all possible peers to see what each has. Why look a gift horse, ie the chance of evaluation in the mouth. While they were initially interested in the Rafale, it was too expensive and the MiG-29K offered similar capabilities at lower cost, so they went there. The SH was more of a theoretical exercise since the joint planning staff wanted to know whether if IAF purchased the SH, it could fly off Navy carriers. There is ONE third type the IN has been interested in – and thats the JSF. Even there, a naval PAK FA/FGFA might meet that need.

So its too early to tell whether the above article is right..my take is that the 45 MiG-29 K are enough for the Gorshkov and some land based for naval air squadrons, another 2 squadron of the NLCA are probable, plus similar numbers of medium fighters would be required again for carrier 2 and more for carrier 3 (which was to be bigger than 2). But Antony reportedly recently said 2 would be much larger than IAC1…that could mean more aircraft.

Still beats me though, why they should go for a third type.

I guess its not just capability but technology – as you said the AIM-9X is newer, its actually the best the US has right now, so they might be wary of exporting it to Pak (PRC factor).

In contrast, while they are sending across the AIM-120 C5 to Pak, they have the C7 for themselves, and in the next few years to be followed by the AMRAAM D, which is substantially more advanced than the C7.

Come on people. Lets get back to the topic.

In that vein, do you have anything on whether the PAF is looking beyond the SPADA for its AD needs, specifically to any longer range SAM?

I am kind of surprised they havent picked up on either the KS-1A or the HQ-9, since both seem to be readily available. And the former surely does not have any Russian tech in it either.

There is no Meteor & AMRAAM.
Meteor has 3-6 times more kinematic performance then AMRAAM. Just because they’re both NATO missiles, that doesn’t mean they’re the same.
PL-21, according to released data is very close to Meteor in performance. AMRAAM is nowhere in the picture.

I think we are having some communication issue here… We are talking of the Meteor and the AMRAAM D which has 50% more performance than the AMRAAM C7, per reports.

So it may be good enough for Indian needs even if it is not superior or even inferior to the Meteor, it still holds merit versus a PL-21 which has only “internet specs” at this point of time.

(Though I am not sure whether AMRAAMD is even part of the US offer)

True, but for USAF/N needs, not IAF’s and that’s my point.
The thing is US’ weapons are made for US forces with US standards, etc, etc,…Same goes for EU and Russians too, so the question is which AF can IAF match the best? If IAF has a fleet of high powered jammers f.e. (and I mean B737 size jammers), which is ready to backup striker’s interdiction, then IAF can go with weapons of lower complexity/price, like HARM.
If not…

Dont disagree, but I wonder whether as far as ARMs go, there is a Euro equivalent or whether ALARM is in production.

The point is ARMINGER works. Meteor’s IOC may be under question too, for that matter.

But, how can Armiger work – the wiki link says development was stopped. In contrast, Meteor is being funded for induction by 2012-2015, its a live project.

I see your point. However, we’re talking about new systems with way more than 70% against HARM f.e., capability.
Funny thing about HARM is that in Balkans in ’99, US fired close to 100 HARMs and wasn’t able to do anything. Then the RAF Tornados came with ALARMs and got the job done in one or two sorties.
It isn’t all in rough figures.

My point is HARM is ready. And when a development team comes to the IAF saying “take this entire kit” at “x” price, its battle proven, and we have incorporated the following improvements to take care of the Balkan issue such as GPS fix etc – then it becomes a very hard offer to resist.

Read ALARM’s attack profile by comparison and you’ll immediately realize why it’s more expensive.
In this context, I think higher price is well justified.

Dont disagree with you at all, but what I wonder is whether ALARM is still in production. MBDA website mentions it, but does not show a link:
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/EN_List-of-products_229.html

The other issue is that it costs money to integrate new weapons, and is a challenge because radar guy and aircraft guy both work with weapons guy and blame is passed around if something does not work. So usually, an AF would prefer to get a complete integrated package which is certified to work from day1. This is where Americans have the edge, they usually offer a huge set of weapons which are already integrated on their aircraft to begin with, plus offer the chance to “jump on” to a well defined upgrade path which the USAF/USN would have funded the R&D component of.

Obsolete is a strong term, the 9M is still an excellent missile with strong countermeasure resistance.

Obsolete would be the right term in this case.

If it was not outmatched by its peers, why would the US rush towards the AIM-9X.

Its basically an older gen airframe and without a modern seeker, unable to exploit the capabilities of a HMD to the full extent.

Its resistance to countermeasures is also suspect vis a vis something like the AIM-9X which would require DIRCM.

Good news for the LCA and a testimony to the basic soundness of the design & the hardwork of the developers (ADA), manufacturers (HAL) & test crew (IAF) in maturing the design.

Only hope that the village dunce does not sidetrack the discussion saying that India should cancel the MRCA and buy only the LCA, never mind the MK2 is slated to come a full 3-4 years after the first MRCA begin delivery & both aircraft have their different places in the force structure.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/iaf-orders-more-tejas-lcas-to-replace-mig-21s/377296/

IAF orders more Tejas LCAs to replace MiG-21s
Ajai Shukla / Bangalore November 23, 2009, 0:45 IST

The Indian Air Force is taking a crucial step towards accepting the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) as a replacement for its ageing MiG-21 fighters. Senior air force officers told Business Standard that IAF was ordering a second Tejas squadron (20 aircraft), in addition to the 20 fighters already on order.

Ashok Nayak, chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which will manufacture the Tejas, has confirmed this development. “The Ministry of Defence (MoD) tender for 20 additional Tejas fighters is on track,” he told Business Standard. “After it is issued, we will sit down with MoD and negotiate a price.”

The order for a second squadron is a vital expression of IAF’s confidence in the future of the long-running Tejas programme. So far, IAF had insisted on evaluating the performance of the first squadron before ordering a second, by 2015-2016. That would allow the Tejas to be upgraded to the Tejas Mark II, which would have a new, more powerful engine. But now, with its fighter fleet dwindling, as the old MiG-21s are retired, IAF is taking the Tejas as it is.

WHY LAF URGENTLY NEEDS A SECOND SQUADRON
* Against a sanctioned requirement of 39.5 squadrons, IAF is down to just 32
* By 2015, another 6 squadrons of MiG-21s and two squadrons of MiG-27s would have finished their service lives
* HAL is manufacturing Sukhoi-30MKIs, but the current production is just 14 per year. By 2015, IAF will have just 29 squadrons of fighters
* The shortfall becomes more worrisome with the new requirement of five IAF squadrons for the North-East

“The Tejas, even with its current GE-404 engine, is a better fighter than the MiG-21,” explained a senior IAF officer who is familiar with equipment policy. “By 2015, the first Tejas squadron will be ready for IAF. HAL’s assembly line will be free; while the Tejas Mark II finishes testing, HAL can build a second squadron with the GE-404 engine,” he added.

So far, the plan was to produce 12 twin-seater Tejas trainers after the first squadron was built. The new order will be for 18 single-seater and 2 twin-seater Tejas: exactly what equips a fighter squadron.

Here’s why IAF urgently needs that second squadron: Against a sanctioned requirement of 39.5 squadrons (each squadron has 21 fighters), IAF is now down to just 32 squadrons. By 2015, another six squadrons of MiG-21s and two squadrons of MiG-27s would have finished their service lives. Meanwhile, HAL is manufacturing Sukhoi-30MKIs, but the current production is just 14 per year. The mathematics is clear: By 2015, IAF will have just 29 squadrons of fighters.

Making this shortfall even more worrisome is the new requirement of five IAF squadrons for north-east India, as a result of an increased threat assessment from China. Senior IAF officers have recently declared that India actually needs 45 squadrons.

In this context, IAF cannot wait to induct the Tejas as the next light fighter, a role that the MiG-21 has long performed. Medium fighters are as urgently needed, and IAF is currently evaluating six aircraft for this role. But the new Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA), even if the contract is placed expeditiously, is unlikely to enter service before 2015-16. Only in the heavy fighter segment is IAF well placed, with the superlative Sukhoi-30MKI steadily joining the fleet.

The Tejas is currently undergoing weapon trials to obtain its Initial Operational Clearance, most likely by early 2011. Then starts the two-year process for obtaining Final Operational Clearance, after which it can enter service in early 2013. Then, if HAL can deliver 10 Tejas fighters per year, the first squadron will be ready by the end of 2014. And, if all of that goes smoothly, the second Tejas squadron will join IAF by the end of 2016.

IAF has decided that No 45 Squadron, which operated MiG-21M fighters until they were recently retired, will be the first Tejas squadron. It will be based in Sulur, near Coimbatore. It is still not clear where the second Tejas squadron will be based.

The number of TRM of antenna isnt linear to range…an erieye generation 2 got 450km+ on 192 hipower TRMs. Antenna size in the scan direction, total output, and recicever sensitivity, pulse compresssion, frequency is also in play.
probably other factors also…

so 1400TRM can be the same as 1000, depending on the other factors as well.

My take is that since European radar houses such as Selex/EADS, Thales etc all collaborated on joint programs and then went their own way, their X-band fighter modules are likely to be the same class, power ratings and size, and hence going by TRMs makes sense. OTOH, the same approach wont work when looking at US vs Euro or either vs Russia.

2xAIM9+2xAMRAAM

Good catch.

If it’s too expensive, you don’t have to buy it. Important thing is that you have that option open (Gripen is fully integrated with Meteor) and once China fields PL-21, I think you’ll soon find out AMRAAM D outclassed.

Every nation seeks to get a capability for as less as possible. Problem is if Meteor costs escalate and the US offers AMRAAM D, it becomes a winning proposition. PL-21 is not comparable IMO compared to Meteor & AMRAAM.

That’s a misconception based on superficial observation.
For example, SEAD F16 can launch HARM from 80+km when it has super strong ECM dedicated platform(s) to back it up. Does India have those??
Diehl BGT haven’t developed ARMIGER with double range, one Mach faster and at almost half weight then HARM, just because they had some spare money and free time on their hands.

Its the reality and hardly superficial.

US munitions benefit from huge production volumes which few OEMs worldwide can match.

Furthermore, you need to read your own links which supports this point, eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM_Armiger

Its development has been stopped, mainly on the cost basis.

The Wiki link you posted said that Armiger development has stopped, whereas HARM is still available, and if India buys HARM it will buy the support infrastructure along with it.

It’s another ramjet engined missile and if the EU trend continues in this direction, we may have a completely new generation of weapons within a decade, against which classic rocket engined missiles would become obsolete.

“If” being the operative word. What you need to understand is that any procurement official, from any AF has to submit proposals to the Finance guys.

And they will do their utmost to scuttle any program which has high costs associated with weapons in development. If the IAF goes and says “we want this, but its weapon is in development and we need to invest this”, that means more delay and more debate.

The offer of a HARM, ready, cheaper and available, even if only 70% as capable as a future weapon becomes a critical factor.

MTCR is established mainly due the necessity to limit nuclear payload delivery range, not conventional warheads.

It proscribes conventional weaponry as well, such as Brahmos.