Shiv Aroor has posted an article on the current state of play regarding the possibility of additional Flankers (Su-30/35) as substitute for Rafale, collating recent statements from senior Indian figures esp. Defence Minister Parrikar.

If the rumoured increase in Tejas Mk. I full-rate production from 8 to 16 units per year is confirmed, this will result in an additional 40-50 airframes over the likely production run of the type. Hence, an additional 70-80 Flankers would be required to completely replace the MMRCA order of 126 aircraft.

I think there would a psychological element missing.

Reading between the lines, it could be that existing arrangements for sustainment of the AL-31s expired before the Indian facility was ready to take up the slack.

The Hornet was in an Indian RFI in 2001. The USS Trenton was bought a few short years later. The P-8 purchase a few years later still. The sanctions argument does not bear scrutiny if you look at real world actions that followed. A real procurement process takes into account issues such as that and this is very clearly displayed by India with regard to the US.

The Trenton? A Vietnam-era glorified tin can as evidence of the strength of Indo-US relations? :rolleyes:

If anything, I would use that same item as an indication of just how limited the possibility space was at the time. Baby steps…

The sanctions argument does not bear scrutiny if you look at real world actions that followed.

Relationships are forever evolving, and the Indo-US relationship certainly was over the period in question. Working backwards from the present to determine what was possible in the past is folly.

Even if one were to grant the arguments laid out by Jonesy, et al. in their entirety, they refer to decisions taken in the past, not the present or future. Recall the origins of this discussion in the apparently nightmarish prospect of India operating three types of combat aircraft across three unique aircraft carriers. That the obvious solution to such a “problem” would be to cancel IAC-2 or render it a carbon-copy of Vikrant and its air wing illustrates how limited this criticism actually is. While India is struggling with her “inefficient” carriers, the French (for example) will be able to reassure themselves that all their carriers and air wings are 100% compatible with one another. The exercise in determining which is the rising, dynamic power experiencing teething and growing pains, and which the stagnant and declining power slowly settling into retirement and the picturesque semblance of death is left as an exercise for the reader.

If India had chosen to go for a cat & trap carrier 15 years ago (or 11 years ago, when Gorshkov was bought), it would have had no difficulty buying aircraft for it from the USA if it wanted to. The nuclear programme related obstacles were all removed before they’d have been problems.

You are very comfortable having India hang its fortunes on an unproven and historically problematic relationship. Unsurprisingly, those actually tasked with the relevant responsibilities tend to be rather more cautious.

Article by Admiral Arun Prakash on Indian Navy’s quest for carriers in the 1990s

Great read, thanks for this link. :eagerness:

That is a bit of a non statement. Almost every countries circumstances are unique. I would argue certainly the Royal Navy and US Navy have many more challenges are probably operate in more varied envoironment and threat levels then India.

India has to pursue indigenisation from a modest base to the sky’s limit, whilst maintaining and modernising standing forces in the present against the challenge posed by an emerging superpower, whilst taking advantage of the opportunities availed by the nation’s diverse foreign relations, and amidst highly variable national economic performance. Even the most diligent and forward-thinking of planners would have difficulty navigating this matrix with any semblance of efficiency.

I guess my point is that if you needed an aircraft of the capability of the Rafale M (which incidentally can do everything a NLCA or MIG-29K can), then long term you would have not put so much effort and resource into the other planes and carriers.

Naval LCA is a national development project, an essential learning experience for subsequent development of future carrier-based combat aircraft, UCAVs, etc. MiG-29K is part of the Vikramaditya saga. Certainly the latter acquisition is open to criticism, but it would have been a brave man indeed to turn down the Russian proposal in the context of the recent retirement of INS Vikrant (R11), the obsolescence and impending retirement of INS Viraat, and the immaturity of the nation’s own carrier development program.

Going forward, it is clear that India will pursue a third carrier and that this carrier will represent an advance over Vikramaditya and Vikrant, certainly in terms of technology and likely in size as well. Accordingly, India will need aircraft to operate from this carrier and these too should be an advance over existing solutions. Exactly what the configuration of this future carrier or the structure of its airwing turns out to be is as yet unclear, but it would be folly to limit either so as to increase training or sustainment efficiency or maintain cross-deck compatibility with older vessels.

Personally, I question whether Rafale is enough of a step forward given the post-2025 likely commissioning timeframe for IAC-2, but given the IAF acquisition and the domestic production/sustainment facilities that will then be in place, it should certainly be considered alongside the other candidates of F-35B/C, naval AMCA, and whatever Russia brings to the table (naval T-50 or LMFS).

Fact remains it will be possibly the sole operater of the NLCA, and the Rafale M and MIG-29K outside of the countries that build it.

As opposed to the long list of international clients for other naval aircraft like F-35C, Super Hornet, F-14, A-6, Su-33, J-15, etc. :rolleyes:

I’m not convinced that Rafale M would be a good investment for IN, nor am I terribly enthusiastic about the ill-defined IAC-2 project in general, but you come up with the most ridiculous criticisms sometimes. I guess that is to be expected when your single-minded objective is to bash India, with observable reality as merely a tool to that end, to be interpreted, distorted, and dismissed at will.

I just hope T-50-5 isn’t the last we see of that paint scheme.