The naval Scalp is a hell of a missile , I don ‘t understand why nobody is buying it in small numbers but France …

Here! Here! Sarko has included it in the proposed FREMM arsenal, our Navy wants it, the only minor detail is that we lack the money. 😀

that’s pakistan, not India.

Oh sorry. I don’t know why but i was under the impression you were getting Erieye too. OK, you have the Phalcons, right? The bottom line stays the same.

I think your deitification of the flanker platform is a bit too far. Now you say that the RCS of the Flanker was reduced from 15msq to 1msq in SU 35 without any radical redisgn (no intake redsign no canted tails), can you even site offical sukhoi sources saying this no, its basically just fanboy speculation.

If there are RCS measures done on an airframe its quite visible, like in the case of the Rafale or Super Hornet, there is no Magic Paint to just reduce the RCS of a Flanker 5 fold without redesigning parts of the airframe.

You talk about AWACS while ignoring that may be available on this side of the equation as well, as well as the fact the the Gripen possess a superior datalink to anything Chinese can field anytime soon.

And the Size and Power is not everything. Flanker uses the Brute Force approach when dealing with things. The Eurocanards like the Rafale and Gripen NG (if all the advertised systems go into it) relies on more advanced technology to counter it, a smaller DRFM jammer carried by the Eurocanards will probably do a better job than larger systems carried by any Chinese fighter. Also the Ibris-E being a PESA is more succeptable to jamming than the Raven.

The Gripen NGs radar is a generation higher than the APG 80 class and it has a missile with longer range than any AMRAAM/AMRAAMski.

If the size of the plane was all the mattered an Uber F 15 would be acing the Eurocanards in A2A even now but thats not the case.

I think you bring good points. I also can’t understand something else. Why is there always the the assumption that the Gripen/SH/F16 (which are worse than the Typhoon/Rafale) will go in A-A alone against the best the chinese can field?

What will the Indian Sus and PAK-Fas be doing? If the main concern is A-A, then it’s a no brainer. Save your money for more PAK-FA. Also, the Indians get Erieye. I presume, that they will make the Swedes link them with everything (including russian aircrafts), which means, that maybe linking between russian and western aircrafts is also possible. What’s stopping the IAF from taking advantage of links of the Erieye or of better aircrafts in the same formation and feeding info on the “less performing” Gripen/F16/SH?

I also can’t see in such a war, with a relatively narrow front given the size of the coutries, too narrow if Nepal chooses neutrality, how one can expect any aircraft to want to go inside China (or India for what matters) for A-G and be able to prevail in A-A at the same time. This won’t be Iraqui airforce. Dropping your A-G stores in order to “win” in A-A only means you cancelled your mission. And a heavy loaded for A-G aircraft, no matter if it’s the Typhoon, will start in disadvantage against enemy CAP in A-A. Without proper dedicated A-A escort aircrafts, the A-G mission will fail. This isn’t going to be USA vs Serbia.
IMHO IAF should put down the types and numbers and decide how many aircrafts want in what role. A-A is spectacular, but also someone will have to support ground troops in CAS, someone must strike enemy C&C, airfield denial and SAM suppression, infrastructure.

By reading the thread, it seems that every time 2 countries go to war, the respective airforces do nothing else other than spending all their resources into shooting down in air combat the other. If this was true, after a war, there would be no airforces left. Of course, this is not the case, be it because at the end a war is finished on the ground by occupying territory or because even pilots don’t aspire into dying to the last man. Actually, a successful raid on an enemy airfield where you destroy enemy aircrafts on the ground may be more fruitful than several days of CAP (the Israelis know something about that).

The 2 top eurocanards are better aircrafts. But IMHO, the other 3 can do a job in A-G just as well, much cheaper and their lack as platforms is balanced by the availability of modern technology and long range ammunition, which in case of the US made, are also sold at affordable prices. In the long run, you save money to buy more PAK-FA and you don’t have to worry about A-A. You put the PAK-FAs and Sus ahead of the strike package to open the road, then you use long range ammunition and back home. And they can do CAS or near border missions just fine with more “dubm” weapons and if they get shot down at least you don’t have to cry for losing an ultraexpensive aircraft that would have been valuable in A-A.

If the Indians had in mind an airforce with only a few aircraft types, i ‘d say “buy the best types you can, because they will be forced to do everything”. But, now, with all the existing and coming types, i think it’s obvious to prioritise each type for primary and secondary role, or otherwise you waste $. If your primary role isn’t A-A, then you don’t need to excel there. Let the specialist take care of that.

Exactly why I find MMRCA to be pointless at this point. Get more SU-30MKIs, or order more Tejas.

Exactly. Or in the worst case, get the Migs, which the Russians should give cheap and at least you stick with russian tech and weaponry for which you have already trainned engineers, bases and support.

Actually there won’t be so many types of fighter anymore, IAF plans with 4 (with AMCA 5) types and we will get more Flankers, but don’t want to be dependent on Russian fighters and weapons alone. Diversity is one aim of MMRCA!
Mirage 2000-5 would have been enough for PAF, but the aim of Indian forces is no longer Pakistan, but China and therefor Mirage and Mig 29s are not good enough anymore (most MMRCAs will be fielded on north eastern borders, while all Mirage and Mig 29s will aim to the west mainly). So countering PLAAF in defensive and adding strike capability in the offense should be the prime operational aims of the competition. Besides that of course ToT, offsets, strategic, or politic advantages too.

Yes, i understand diversity and it’s rather obvious, otherwise why not go with the russian once more…

I see. So you plan in a sort of splitting the aircraft types along the 2 fronts. This has some advantages but also some disadvantages. For example if you get Rafale, having the Mirage far away from the Rafale, is just adding more $ to the costs.

Anyway, your planning and airforce structure is very complicated. I almost got a headache.

aspis, I think the point for gripen NG doesn’t really make sense in the case of India. The case for a cheapish light fighter would be better served by buying more Su30 and quite a few more Tejas, then you’re saving money by rationalising your airforce. Integrate brahmos on the Su30 fleet for penetration mission and purchase storm shadows for the Mirage fleet just in case.

Nic

Oh i think the more rational solution would be to simply get more russian too. But they don’t seem to want to (politically). The Tejas looks good, but it’s also their first attempt in the aircraft of that class. Of course it’s their money, if they want something more expensive, they can surely find it! 😀 But when even USAF doesn’t want to use everything “expensive” , why would the Indians have trouble with having also cheaper solutions? It seems that every new aircraft in Indian airforce has to “beat” the best chinese on the future in A-A, but not the opposite…

I see and understand where you’re coming from, and I guess you’re quite right in many ways.

But don’t you think it’ll be that much more comforting knowing that all your aircraft, say in this case; PAK FA,’s Typhoon’s and Sukhoi’s has very good A/A capabilities rather than say, two of the three? (Of course India has more types of aircraft I know).

Don’t forget, the Typhoon was/is, from the start, designed as a multi-role platform, they just concentrated on it’s A/A capabilities first, I believe because some of the major players of Europe lacked an all out right A/A platform, so it was a priority, IIRC anyway. At some point the Typhoon will be cleared to carry the Storm Shadow cruise missile as will the Rafale, although under a different name I believe. So theres your answear if you don’t want your aircraft to perform deep penetration missions, and make no mistake about it, these two aircraft will boast excellent A/G capabilities in the future, especially at stand-off.

I understand what you say and in an ideal scenario, i would say “yes, get Typhoon or Rafale!” They are OBVIOUSLY the 2 better aircrafts and yes they are the ones with more A-A capabilities and development future ahead of them, etc.

If the only concern was Pakistan, i would say “sure, why not”. But, one must take this into account:

China’s 2009 official defence budget of $70.37 billion is 2.2 times that of India’s 2010 budget.

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/BudgetingforIndiasDefence2010-11_lkbehera_030310

Which means, that the Indians, must try to optimize everything to compete. IMHO, just like China’s aircrafts aren’t all of them “cream of the crop”, there is no need for the indian ones to be either. The US won’t go for all F22 either and as matter of fact, the navy will keep going with Super Hornet. In an ideal world, USAF should also get more F22s and all the rest F35s. But it’s not an ideal world.

A tendency to specialization isn’t bad. I think for India it is almost imperative. Because they don’t have a couple of aircrafts which like or not will have to do everything. They have (too) many aircraft types. It’s not just the cost increase in logistics, there is also yet another problem in supporting. They already have russian and french aircrafts. Different technology. Can any base service both? Perhaps some. Will they be able to service 3 different tech aircrafts? I say this, because in Greece we do have such issues.

I don’t see why every Indian aircraft must be able to “beat” the various Flanker variants that the chinese will field in future. Do the Chinese build their aircrafts so that all of them can beat PAK-FA? No… Will India expect to send unescorted aircrafts inside China? I hope not. An aircrafts when loaded for A-G is hardly expected to perform miracles in A-A anyway. Even if it is the Typhoon. Because the Chinese CAP will be lighly loaded for A-A. Of course the Typhoon can drop A-G stores, but then simply the mission has failed.

IMHO: India must use the PAK-FA and Sus as main A-A. If PAK-FA wasn’t chosen, then i ‘d say Typhoon. I consider a waste of resources using the Typhoon for A-G, to do a job that less costly aircrafts can do. The upgraded Mirage for starters, will be able to launch SCALP.

The rest of the indian aircrafts should concentrate on A-G and auxiliary role in A-A when possible.

Then, buy the appropriate numbers to fill the needs. If India sends in the future F16s alone against the latest chinese flanker variant, then it will simply be a tactical blunder. The PAK-FA and the Sus should be doing most of the work in that, with the F16/SH trailing and giving a hand if necessary or going after the older chinese aircrafts.

If nonetheless a more expensive solution is required, to minimize the chaos, i ‘d get Rafale, simply because it will require less hassle to integrate it to the “french support line” that India already has, share weapons with the Mirage, etc.

And all this, because India must get the best cost-effective solution for the role. Because, what holds true about the airforce, will hold true about the army and navy too. If the expenses of the airforce rise, the army or navy will have to be pressed.

What everyone says won’t stop anyway I believe. Political influence might be ok for some, India, US etc, persuading India to buy US types just because; ‘hey, we’re best mates us are’, isn’t, IMO always a good thing. What if a major country, say China for example, has a pop at India and it all gets ugly, the US or any other of her allies might not want to get involved because of whatever reasons for their own sake, and India is left with this with a bunch of US type aircraft that are, lets face it, way more mature than they were in the competition. Especially if India couldn’t up-date them because the US said so. And it gets even more interesting etc etc etc…

Of course, thats just an example, theres countless other of possibilities that could happen, devil knows what might happen. So the way I see it; get the best offer that is available and what it offers you in the future. Which is why I’d go for the Typhoon 1st and the Rafale as my 2nd choice. Having one of these two working along side the PAK FA’s and Sukhoi’s…Well, you’ve got one heck of an air force.

Just my two pennies worth.

You ‘re right, but when you buy from abroads there is always the risk of diplomatic clash at some point. Behind Obama’s good words for India, there is something of more substantial interest i am sure, it’s just that i don’t follow closely that region of the world to know what exactly. If Indians decide to get american, it won’t be for the kind words, but for something involving $ or geopolitical gains.

I don’t doubt that you have a better airforce having Typhoons or Rafales in there. What i doubt, is whether the best cost-effective solution about India, considering the Chinese outspend them 2.2:1 and having 3 “high end” types in 1 airforce, which are all excelling in the same thing, isn’t the best way. It’s more like spreading thin your resources (IMHO).

And to me, the Typhoon is the least indicated. Not because it’s bad aircraft, but exactly for the increased cost that it will mean in supporting them and in operational availability. In how many bases will they be able to have full support for russian, french, eu aircrafts and missiles? How many engineers will be able to work on all 3? Either they will have to specialize bases or triplicate their personnell. As i said, we ‘ve already seen this in Greece, with just 2 aircraft types. Mirage for example can’t expect to be serviced in an F16 base at high level, if they need to land there. The support is limited. And the opposite for american aircrafts. But in a war, especially your first class fighters, you need to be able to service them in the greater number of bases you can. To make an analogy,if you can’t service adeguately the A-7 in a forward base it’s not the end of the world, but if you can’t do so with the F16 then you have an issue. Having 3 “top” aircrafts to service, is feasible, but it’s waste of resources and headache. You must spread all around spare parts, engineers, missiles. All this is $.

P.S: The Storm Shadow costs a lot. Better save their money to buy as many as they can. And the Typhoon is a waste to send it to launch Storm Shadows, when a Mirage can do it. After 15-20 years that the Mirage -5 will have to be retired, the bought missiles will probably have reached their life expectancy anyway and some new missile with even more range will be available.

Both are on offer to India. There was a coverstory on the FORCE magazine by some MBDA guy about how they would suit us. It did not mention limiting range and actually highlighted on the range. May be no more MTCR ?

These items include complete rocket systems (including ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles and sounding rockets) and unmanned air vehicle systems (including cruise missiles systems, target and reconnaissance drones) with capabilities exceeding a 300km/500kg range/payload threshold.
http://www.mtcr.info/english/guidelines.html

The SCALP has been designed and advertised in a devious manner:

Range “in excess of 250 km” (a very vague description, so it officially falls short of 300km, although i wouldn’t bet about that) and the warhead is 450 kg.

And here’s how one can actually bypass the rules above too (it’s hard times for weapons dealers nowdays, companies need to make money).

“Particular restraint will be exercised in the consideration of Category I transfers regardless of their purpose, and there will be a strong presumption to deny such transfers. Particular restraint will also be exercised in the consideration of transfers of any items in the Annex, or of any missiles (whether or not in the Annex), if the Government judges, on the basis of all available, persuasive information, evaluated according to factors including those in paragraph 3, that they are intended to be used for the delivery of weapons of mass destruction, and there will be a strong presumption to deny such transfers. Until further notice, the transfer of Category I production facilities will not be authorised. The transfer of other Category I items will be authorised only on rare occasions and where the Government (A) obtains binding government-to-government undertakings embodying the assurances from the recipient government called for in paragraph 5 of these Guidelines and (B) assumes responsibility for taking all steps necessary to ensure that the item is put only to its stated end-use.”

http://www.mtcr.info/english/guidetext.htm

Buyer: “I swear i will only use your missile for its intended use”.
Seller: “Good! I trust you, please don’t disappoint me and don’t copy the missile missile technology for your WMD program”.
Buyer: “I won’t, honest”.
Seller: “Good. Now where’s the cash?”.