Thank you kovy and toocool. As ever I cannot but be impressed by how much this tiny bird can lug around.

sincerely yours in oogling the dimpled one,
USS

Does it involves some kind of financial backing like with Egypt ?

Also @USS Novice: where is that nuclear deal with Areva? Do you have a link. Thx in advance.

I believe I read somewhere that L&T will tie up with Areva. Here is one article (although not the one I had read):

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pm-narendra-modis-france-visit-sees-arevas-nuclear-plant-agreement-with-npcil-lt/articleshow/46883874.cms

Xposting from Rafale thread:

Incredible downturn for the MRCA saga – good news for India and France, I don’t expect the larger order of Rafales to materialize, not with Modi gunning for make in India and with Areva getting the deal for the largest nuclear reactor on the cards ($ 18 billion) and of course not forgetting the alacrity shown by the negotiators. The 36 odd Rafale to be bought post-haste will somewhat buy them time and arrest the falling numbers while they double up on LCA and Pakfa. Expect a massive order for LCA Tejas around FOC, my guess would be around 80 more LCA mk1s to be delivered by 2021-22. Possibly more to keep the lines humming till the Mk2 comes on board. After the Su-30MKI production ends @ HAL around 2019 – expect Pakfa/FGFA to start around 2021-22 as well. A quick order of 40 odd pakfa is next on the cards.

India needs to replace some 200 fighters in the next 5-8 years, mainly the Mig-21s and the 27s. With 36 Rafale + 50MKI + 40Pakfa + 120LCA will come in at the same time – 2022. This will bring the Su-30MKI force to 270, LCA @ 120, Mirage 2000 @ 50, MiG-29 @ 60, Rafale @ 36, Jaguars @ 120 ~ 700 a/c or 39 odd sqds.

Post 2022, Pakfa + LCA mk2 deliveries will take over with the Rafale as a backup. Around 2030, the fulcrums and jags will start to retire followed by the M2k – enough time for the AMCA to kick in.

Reduced serviceability isn’t the same as being ‘grounded’. In the Tejas/Gripen’s case only the engine is American (with a lifetime equaling that of the airframe) and its being license built by HAL.
.

What if India purchased two GE engines per Tejas fighter? The price would go up per bird by a couple of million perhaps. But this should not be such an issue considering the TEjas is pretty cheap to begin with, also provides safeguard against sanctions. Just a crazy thought..

Jang,

What you are not understanding is that light fighters are not enough for the IAF anymore. That ship has sailed.

Cost effectiveness is all very well in peacetime. In war, it costs lives.

The PLAAF fields a force almost exclusively made up of heavy and medium fighters, as far as the IAF threat perception is concerned. Its J-7s dont count for much in an Indian scenario because they lack the range/payload to effectively loiter or enter Indian airspace for deep strikes. The PLAAFs 200+ Flanker platforms and similar numbers of J-10s are the real problem. Similarly, Pakistan will have around a 100+ medium fighters (mix of F-16s and J-10s) plus a large force of light fighters.

In a two front scenario, the IAF has to effectively counter BOTH forces. This means the IAF fighter fleet, which has to be flexible enough to be dual tasked to either zone of operations, should be capable of taking on any and every plane either AF flies. The era of carefully husbanded “assets”, deployed to make a decisive breakthrough (e.g. Mirage 2000’s and their LGBs at Kargil) will not work in an intense conflict with both sides, and with the PLAAF bringing both numbers and technology into play.

The Sukhoi class heavy platform simply brings a superior range/payload capability to the table versus a light fighter like the LCA. The unrefueled range of the former is 3000 km with a light payload (4 AAMs). The latter’s would be around half of that or lesser in a similar comparison (w/o tanks). The Sukhoi has a radar with an aperture of 1 mtr class dia. The LCA’s is around 0.65mtr dia. The overall payload of a Flanker class platform is around 8 tons, the LCA’s is 3T.. the reason these numbers matter is because they add upto a synergistic effect. A Sukhoi squadron can carry out long range (150 km) missile strikes on A2G targets, do CAS, do Air Superiority missions, escort, EW and a host of roles, with minimal support from assets like tankers etc against most targets.

The point is that the LCA/light class platform has a basic need which it fulfills in the Indian context, which is quick availability for missions like point defense, CAS etc. Thanks to its small size and design features, it will also have lowered logistics footprint, quick availability, widespread dispersal across the plethora of MiG-21 tactical bases, and is meant for multirole missions in the TBA.

Its actually bringing in some medium class capabilities (e.g. its radar aperture is firmly MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 sized) with other requirements in the ASR’s (acceleration/agility, maneuverability etc) also written with the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 in mind (this is why they are so demanding, the earlier variants in IAF service were basically the lighter versions with excellent kinematic performance). But it remains in the overall footprint of the MiG-21.

Hence, unrefueled range and MTOW can only go up so much.

Now, in the case of Pakistan, since its geographically next door and lacks depth, the LCA can pretty much do a lot of missions. But against China, it will have limitations in terms of deep strike and payload carrying ability, beyond the Tactical Battle Area and attacking forward air bases.

Light fighters if they need to take on the role of “heavies”, well their support assets increase exponentially. A strike package of LCAs, if it wanted to do the same as a strike package of Flankers in terms of range/payload, will require tankers & other support. This sort of complexity is a pain for wartime commanders.

Which is why the IAF is really strengthening its heavy force, while balancing out the rest with Rafales and LCAs. The Rafale will basically bring Flanker class capabilities at a lower logistics footprint (which includes manpower for both maintenance and flying). Even so, it will have some limitations – basically its radar aperture is not as large.

But with an AESA, its performance is substantially improved (40% over baseline) and fairly competitive against all current PAF/PLAAF assets – only J-20 is a problem, and which will be addressed by IAF by the Super30 upgrade. Plus, for complete airspace monitoring, they’ll have other non X band AEW&C/aerostats as well.

Thank you for the informative post Teer. However, I am not entirely convinced, and feel that Jang does have a point. The fleet seems rather top heavy, and will cost a fortune to maintain and keep up during war as well.

I strongly feel that the IAF tendency towards heavier birds is not a deliberate decision out of some sudden necessity to deal with PLAAF flankers/J10; it stems more from a desperation that the GOI’s procurement policy has forced upon the AF. With delays in the LCA and MRCA (again the original requirement was for single engined M2Ks, which I find hard to believe has suddenly changed to twin engined heavies due to strategic reasons. This change is itself reflective of the pathetic decision making/unnecessary interference of the GOI as evident by its opening up of the MRCA race). They have effectively screwed the IAF imvho.

IIRC, this desperation was clearly seen when ACM Tyagi wrote a personal letter to the higher ups explaining the floundering situation and hence “begged” for additional MKIs circa 2007.

Had it been otherwise, the IAF would not have been clamoring for single engined M2ks throughout the 90s and well into the 2000s. The PLAAF had made its commitment to flanker types and J10s in the early 90s, and AFAIK, the IAF didn’t at the time start looking for heavies, they stuck to their demand for the M2k. The MKI was a result of M2ks simply being far too expensive.

Of course, the MKI procurement worked out for the IAF in more ways that one by not only stemming the tide in terms of numbers but also providing an offensive capability that no single engined fighter could match. However, a sudden shift in IAF posture, which has always seemed q somewhat defensive/holding out pattern vis a vis the Chinese+Pak combine, into an “offence is the best defence” type of strategy seems unrealistic. War time constraints, esp. if it is a long drawn two front war (their worst nightmare) will inevitably force the IAF into a defensive posture, and lighter birds would be of great value at such times.

This tendency towards heavies needs to be seen in the light of certain other requirements too:

1) What about QRA and point defence? The 21 played this role perfectly, will it be completely given to a fleet of MRCA/LCA in the future along with a more robust SAM network?
2) It seems extra ordinary that the mighty USAF and even the VVS in its prime, chose to have a much higher proportion of light figthers than heavies such as the F-15, and surely they were far better prepared to support their fleets than India presently is.

The leaning towards heavy fighters seems a result of working with rather limited choices/constraints available rather than some need to match some strategic security situation. No doubt the IAF is doing the best it can under the circumstances, but it seems like a grasp for a lifeline from a starved foce (no doubt as professionally done as possible, doubt anyone could do it better) rather than a confident step towards the future by a well catered for service.

PS: I hate the look of humpback fulcrums. Always have, always will.

Bah thats cause you are not, never were, and never will be a real fulcrum fan. Die hard fans like ’em hump, bumps, warts and all!

Now go and salivate over your skinny, non siliconed, leggy beauties! 😀

I also forgot to speak about the pylons emplacement and their interaction on the overall RCS .
Look at this :

Do I need to say more ? (not talking about the range : no fuel tank since the laser pod uses the center pylon :D)

Cheers .

What is this pic meant to show in terms of RCS? How would a Rafale have greater advantage?

One thing is for certain the close coupled canards would hide the inner most paveways (if seen from that angle that is).

Geez, people still wanting to play down Rafale’s clear victory(ies)? I think the Indian MRCA race puts the nail in the coffin…. this bird is the best that has come out of European stables in recent times

There were plenty of indications before such as the ATLC exercises, the Singapore, Brazil and Korea competitions.

As such, logic dictates that unless an AF wants a lightweight fighter the Gripen does not stand a chance vs. the twin engined E’canards. And between these two, even discounting the many sources that put the Rafale ahead A2A, the strike role is without argument, played better by the French bird.

Lets move on….

Any news regarding the UAE deal? I’d like to think that their Mirages would be transferred to the IAF since the latter has spent an extraordinary amount in upgrading it’s mirages and buying infrastructure/tech for their upkeep.