You’re taking my comments too personally my friend. 🙂

India’s procurement process is what it is. Dassault has been selling to India for over 5 decades and it knows exactly what it will face in price negotiations. The time it takes is just one aspect.

We’ll soon find out if India thinks its worth Dasault’s price, or Dassault thinks its worth India’s custom. Maybe they’ll compromise, that’s what negotiations are for after all. We’ll know soon enough.

There is however one thing for certain, the GoI DOES NOT think this is a necessary purchase, therefore the very prolonged price negotiations.

putting foreign precision weapons on a modern fighter without source code is something you simply can not do… if India was able to adapt Israeli and Russian weapons on mirages on short notice, it is quite obvious that the French allowed it (meaning did what had to be done so that the weapons could be integrated into weapons systems of the aircraft)

Indeed, and this is acknowledged by everyone.

what’s more, citing falklands conflict as a “proof” that french aren’t reliable works both ways.. UK are a very close ally of the French, so one may argue that they do actively support their allies in need…

So what? India is not a close ally of France. In French eyes the Indian alliance is on level terms as an Argentine alliance. Same level probably means the same results in terms of supply reliability.

The main reason for the high serviceability of the Mirage-2000 fleet, I am told, is the near instant availability of spares and technical support from the French Dassault and the Thales team

There is no proof to show this 15 years after the fact. May be it happened, maybe it didn’t. No certainty about it, and that is my point – there is no certainty at all!

But we were talking of the weapon systems, which got all this reliability discussion going. Rafale’s weapons are EU and US sourced, and developed with the cooperation of EU and US suppliers. Those co-developers also have a say in sales. Which means France cannot guarantee how their partners may embargo a weapon system. Again there is no certainty, as neither the EU nor the US have been reliable suppliers of weapons in the Indian experience so far.

As for our friend saying that India can’t count on support from western nations in case of war, you should look into Kargil conflct and the support India received from Dassault… From what I’ve read, it was simply top notch, exactly the opposite of what you said, mate… 😉

umm… not really… the only real confirmation of French “help” is allowing India to modify the M2K to deploy Israeli and Russian weapons. Rather a case of making virtue out of vice. There was no guarantee that India would have not gone ahead and done it anyway, even if the French had refused permission. It was a case of might as well say yes to something that was going to happen, with or without their permission, and gather any goodwill that may accrue from this. More realpolitik than perceived reality.

Other than this “permission”, there is nothing to show the French actually supplied spare parts or equipment to help India during the period the there were active hostilities in that war. AFAI recall the French were officially following the EU decision to not supply war materiel to both parties.

Going further back in time, the French have also embargoed exocet’s to Argentina when the Argentinians needed it. Hardly the actions of a reliable supplier I think! Historically the French have always shown a major bias and strong conformity towards EU PoV’s.

The M2K being well liked by the IAF is a completely separate matter from the supply reliability of EU and US suppliers. Their reliability is still suspect and and it is not proved that they are reliable till date.

PAK-FA and rafale are very different birds.

PAK-FA is built with a strong focus on air superiority but with limited multirole potential (considering its size, payload layout under wings (bombs/missiles + external fuel), volume of internal bays).

I think that really makes little difference considering the evolution possible on the PAK-FA and the Rafale. The Su27 was designed for, and focused on air superiority, but now we have an evolved Su30 MKx series of airframes with both air superiority and vastly more capable multi-role capabilities. There is no saying where the Rafale could go in the future either, just like the Mirage 2000 series.

It would all depend on end user requirements at the end of the day.

Back to the original question – I would think if it is an “either/or” choice – the IAF should go for the PAK-FA and practice a lot of patience.

The IAF has got a good bird with the Su30 MKI despite all its developmental problems and delays. It was developed specifically for India with IAF inputs and reqs. The IAF got exactly what it wanted, albeit with a lot of delays and heartburn along the way. This is ‘almost’ as good as having an indigenous manufacturer cater to your every need. The PAK-FA would probably be open for similar bespoke modifications very specific to IAF requirements.

With the Rafale I’m not sure how much modifications could, or indeed would be done at IAF request.

No carrier group will ever have to face 300 to 400 “supersonic AShMs” launched from FAC´s unless its comander has gone nuts.
On a South China scenario, no carrier group will be sitting 250 km´s from the coast and if sudendly dozens and dozens of FAC´s emerged from the ports and went straight to a carrier fleet, they would be detected immediately.

And thats my point – everyone is thinking Iran and no one wants to discuss PLAN.

PLAN’s current inventory addresses exactly this scenario and this has pushed back USN Carriers MORE than 300-400 kms from the Chinese coast, which degrades USN effectiveness. So we do have an example in real life – given enough time and money Carriers can be effectively neutralized when facing ‘swarms’.

Nice thread… Good discussion…

Here is something that came to mind when reading through it. It seems to me most posters are assuming FACs with 80 – 100 km ranged missiles. What if the FAC is similar to the PLAN Type 22 with lets say 4 C803 each.

That immediately pushes the OPFleet back 250+ km from the coast. Dozens and Dozens of FACs could leave harbour and the OPFleet distance would prevent immediate retaliation with helos or a/c.

200+ km takes time to traverse – time enough for the HOMEFleet to disperse.

What if after dispersal those 100 Type 22s launched 400 C803 at the OPFLeet? The OPFLeet may be able to launch its aircraft to destroy some/most of FACs, but would those helos and a/c have anything to return back to?

Other add-ons to the above

1. You could add an AWACS type a/c a 100 km behind the HOMEFleet FACs – this would give you SA as well as attack coordinates.

2. You could provide fighter escorts to your AWACS and at the same time defend the HOMEFleet against airborne threats.

So many other options are available if you have the money and the time to build the resources.

In my opinion if you are looking at swarm tactics as a Big Navy (USN/RN) vs Small Navy (Iran) thing – it really would not matter.

In a Big Navy vs Medium Navy (PLAN) scenarios, swarm tactics would have a very good chance of succeeding because (lets say) the PLAN could bring to bear comparable / only slightly inferior additional equipment such as AWACS / fighters and submarines.

IMVHO – I think thats what the PLAN Type 22s acquisition sets out to achieve. They already have, what 80-90+, of these FACs supported by comparable infrastructure such as AWACS, fighters and submarines.

No Carrier group is going to survive 300-400 supersonic AShMs – no matter what their level of technology.

Tankers can be also be used to allow max weapon load and low fuel take-offs. Then top up the tanks with the tankers to extend aircraft range.

PAF tankers along with PAF AWACS are likely the the first targets for the IAF if it comes to war. Those range extenders put too much of peninsular India at risk of airstrikes.