Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Rafale deal signed

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by PARIKRAMA, Sep 23, 2016.

  1. Lion of Rajputana

    Lion of Rajputana Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    1,918
    Country Flag:
    United States

    I'm really glad he's back. I was very disappointed when I found out he had left (I only found out well after he slipped away) and was hoping he'd return some day. Same as your case, glad both of you are back, the forumn is a much better place for it.
     
    R!CK and Hellfire like this.
  2. R!CK

    R!CK 2nd Lieutant REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    1,097
    Country Flag:
    India
    Oops! just been a silent reader all this while. Thank you both for your kind words. :)

    Good Day!
     
  3. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate THINKER

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    4,904
    Country Flag:
    India
    Aw, don't stop posting! Look forward to informative posts by members like yourself. I am the one on silent mode on this thread - you all are awesome!
     
    PARIKRAMA, Lion of Rajputana and R!CK like this.
  4. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,312
    They are manufacturing IOC standard fighters right now. That's fine. They will be upgraded to FOC standard a few years later.

    All jets start production from IOC onwards, with the exception of F-35 which is still in LSP.
     
    Hellfire and Bregs like this.
  5. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,312
    You mean to say even the Mk1A won't be manufactured?
     
    Hellfire likes this.
  6. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate THINKER

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    4,904
    Country Flag:
    India

    Let's see
     
    randomradio likes this.
  7. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    The fact alone that the Gripen has more internal space for avionics and more hardpoints for weapons, changes the game completely compared to LCA. One of the common load pics of the Gripen is one with 2 x 1000 KG LGBs on the centerline. LCA MK1A even with increased payload doesn't have the hardpoints to carry more than 1 x such LGB, which makes Gripen twice as useful. If you add the capability advantage of it's AESA, IRST, the advanced EF, the performance difference gets even more visible.
    I don't see Gripens being used for nuclear delivery though, just as IAF wouldn't use Jags anymore. That specific role will fall to M2K UPG, Rafale and MKIs. The Indian specific customisations certainly included that, which is why the high costs of the Rafale or the M2K upgrade were not too surprising.

    That's not correct, Mig 21 were also able to use rocket pods and dumb bombs for basic CAS roles. LCA will cover the same, just in a modern version of course, with LGBs,m and better EW.

    I never said that they will have a generation gap, but a capability gap! The Mirage was able to do heavier strikes than the Mig, just as the Gripen E can over LCA, as shown in the example above. That's the difference between light and medium class.

    Mig 21Bison / LCA - air defence and basic CAS

    Mirage 2000 UPG & Mig 29 UPG / MMRCA - multi role capable in various A2A and A2G roles

    MKI - multi role capable, with priority in air superiority and deep strikes.
     
    Hellfire likes this.
  8. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate THINKER

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    4,904
    Country Flag:
    India
    Let me throw in a new one:

    Saab shifts Gripen M focus from Brazil to India
    Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
    15 March 2017

    [​IMG]

    A concept impression of the Gripen M fitted for CATOBAR operations. Saab is now focusing its efforts on securing a sale to the Indian Navy, now that Brazil has said it is to scrap its only aircraft carrier. Source: Saab

    Saab is to continue development of the maritime variant of its Gripen E combat aircraft, with attention now being focused on a sale to India following Brazil's recent decision to axe its Sao Paulo aircraft carrier.

    Speaking on 15 March during the company's annual Gripen seminar in Stockholm, Jerker Ahlqvist, head of the Gripen business unit, said that Saab will respond to an Indian Navy request for information (RFI) with the Gripen M (Maritime) that is it has been developing with UK and Brazilian engineers.

    "There is an RFI from India for a carrier aircraft, and we are responding with the Gripen [M]. We see potential for the Gripen [M] and hopefully it will become a full development programme," Ahlqvist said.

    The Gripen M (also known as the Sea Gripen) is still in its concept stage and is not yet a full development programme. "We are still in the phase of concept studies at the moment, and we are evaluating the market needs. We have used UK engineers with Harrier experience in the past, and now we have Brazilian engineers working on the project," Ahlqvist added.

    First revealed by Saab in 2010, the Gripen M concept features a number of navalised enhancements to the baseline Gripen E fighter to make it suitable for carrier operations. These include a strengthened undercarriage, bigger brakes, and a beefed-up tail hook. The standard Gripen already has a large number of the attributes for carrier operations, such as a high precision landing capability, a high pitch and roll rate authority and precision glide slope control, a reinforced airframe, and enhanced anti-corrosion protection. Its undercarriage and airframe is already capable of a sink rate of 15 ft/s, although this would need to be increased to about 25 ft/s for carrier operations. "The Gripen is designed for narrow roads, and so would be perfect for carrier operations," Ahlqvist said.


    http://www.janes.com/article/68734/saab-shifts-gripen-m-focus-from-brazil-to-india



    Now, with this angle coming in ..... :) @randomradio

    Apologies if already posted. Will look for that.

    Now how does your matrix work out?
     
  9. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    It's not out of date, since it's technical capability is held by IAF to the current standard (although some people don't understand that and blame IAF for that). The Mk1 offers proper 4th gen capabilities, with puls doppler MMR, BVR and guided strike capabilities, which puts it in the same gen as the upgraded M2K or Mig 29.

    LCA Mk1A will technically be in the same gen as MMRCAs or or even MKI, with it's AESA radar, integrated EW capabilities and possibly even some modern stand off weapons.

    But being in the same generation on techs, doesn't mean it can carry the same weapons, has the same technical performance (the small AESA of LCA MK1A won't have the same performance of an AESA in a bigger MKI for example), it might even not have all the techs of this generation, simply out of lack of space. But all this adds to less capabilities in IAF operations.

    For cost effective missions like air policing and basic CAS as said, it can be a very good addition. But for the priority work against such capable enemies, we simply need better fighters too. That's why IAF wants the light / medium / heavy mix.
     
    Hellfire likes this.
  10. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    No fighter without stealth design and internal weapon / fuel carriage has anything to do with 5th gen. There is also no close to 5th gen, either you are or you are not.
     
    Hellfire likes this.
  11. shaktimaan

    shaktimaan Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2016
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    529
    Country Flag:
    India
    Ya, im not saying this, randomradio is saying this...Quote him too :p :p
     
    Sancho and Hellfire like this.
  12. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate THINKER

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    4,904
    Country Flag:
    India
    That I have agreed to long back. Hence, my statement that if Gripen comes in as SE, LCA is done. And my position on Rafale is also the same now. The only variable which crept in was the possible single vendor situation.


    You are simply posting points for my own case. Why should I buy LCA when I am getting better capability in same fund corpus? Please?

    Sigh! Where did you get this 'gem' from?

    Mig-29 UPG? Or are you referring to Mirage 2000I?

    So can a Sopwith Camel. This is a redundant point that Mig 21 were able to use. We were specifically talking of dedicated roles as designated within IAF.

    In a conventional war scenario, Mig-21s were and are, purely interdictory. Their role in CAS will be after an Air superiority. Please recall how quickly they were withdrawn in Kargil.


    Your analogy of Mig-21 and Mirage 2000 will lead to a logical conclusion as derived i.e. a generational gap.


    CAS for LCA is only as per you. IAF is not thinking in terms of dedicated ACs for CAS!!!

    That is what I have been trying to make clear. There is not going to be a platform that is dedicated exclusively for CAS. So my query comes back, if both platforms are same in terms of unit price (or negligible difference), why go for both?

    @randomradio

    As per @Sancho there is no generational gap. Your comments?
     
    zebra7 likes this.
  13. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate THINKER

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    4,904
    Country Flag:
    India
    'It can be' ..... there is the first time you did get an operative phase in. This is where I want to draw your attention to what I have been saying ... if Gripen does come in, IAF may not be going in for LCA.

    Gripen will be inducted in 200+ numbers in that case. Rafale also may/may not max out at 100, if at all, although 36 is more likely.

    Instead, your TE will come based on the AMCA or whatever is being envisaged, at a latter date for Kaveri Engine efforts.

    Also, keeping in view the size issues of the IAC, you might find Gripen M making a debut.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
  14. DrSomnath999

    DrSomnath999 Major RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country Flag:
    France
    dont curse me guys!!.

    but i cant understand what is the requirement of single engine MMRCA in iaf, in which contenders are planes in which one is a american plane which is so old that i wonder Mig 21 himself would laugh at us for inducting that plane after it's decommision from IAF :sarcastic: & one other plane is a plane whose capabilty is yet to be operationalized plus tested even if it offers quite a lot futuristic tech .

    I personally beleive why not save money to buy another squadron of rafale which is pre-tested , ready to roll and rather lets invest in 5th gen fighters/UCAVs . what extra thing would a single engine fighter would do which a rafale /super su30mki cant do .

    Just to increase squadron number we gonna have to induct 100 foreign made single engine jet , IMO our adversaries are getting 5th gen jet plus long range sams with AESA radars i doubt seriously any difference those 100 single engine MMRCA fighters would make until and unless they are armed with super duper EW suites & long range weapon systems .

    ok gripen E gives everyone a rosy picture of super advanced EW , IRST ,expendable decoys , 2 way datalinked meteor missile, plus expanded central fuselarge to carry A-G cruise missiles but
    gripen E is not going to be very cheap if they offer ToT / offsets .

    so what's the point !!!

    CHEERS
     
  15. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    I know, but if I quote you it ends here, otherwise a pointless discussion goes on. :wink:

    To have a low end fighter for cost effective missions as explained.
    You don't need an F35 with more than 30k dollar cost per hour to do air policing in peace times, when an air liner lost comunications. Neither do you need an expensive fighter for basic CAS missions (that's why Tornados and M2K lifes were extended, rather than using expensive fighters now).
    Even a Gripen E that might be one of the cheapest and cost-effective fighter in the MMRCA, simply is more costly than an LCA.
    Not to mention that the most important reason was, the build up of indigenous aviation industry.

    Common sense to start with, since the self defence capabilities of the Jags are poor and far from modern standards, but also from IAFs exercises with French air force, with specific training for MKIs escorting M2Ks. The importance the M2K weapon and EW upgrade got compared to the Jags...
    Jags are outdated single role fighters that just keep the squadron number on paper high, but doesn't really serve a purpose anymore.
    The Mirage

    No we weren't talking about specific roles, but about capability differences of light and medium class fighters and Kargil was not a basic CAS mission, because of the difficulty conditions, where even IAFs prime strike fighters were not effective. But fighter generation's and capabilities evolve, the guided bomb strike that was so special back then, is a usual 4th gen capability now, which is why even LCA MK1 can do it, while MMRCAs can do it even better.

    No, because I specifically talked about the difference of capability (hardpoints) and refererd to both in different weight classes, not generations.
    What??? :blink: Guided strike capabilities were integrated into LCA before A2A capabilities were. LDP, various LGBs, hopefully some PGMs.
    IAF even insist on operating LCA in strike missions at Leh if necessary, because it was designed and developed for the various conditions in India. We even know that the payload increase is meant to add more bombs on the centerline station. Please don't take away the one thing that worked out fine at LCA so far, strike capability!
     
    Hellfire likes this.

Share This Page