India's MRCA Update
- Thread starter walter
- Start date
Siddharth said:Why not go for MKI instead. production line is already in place, cheaper then any MRCA contestant. Just have to fit in AESA.
Since original demand for Mirage 2000-5 canot be fulfilled then india can continue with MKI program.
That's what I was thinking. Why go for the SuperHornet in the first place? The MKI is going to get AESA capability in several years anyway. And if India is having some trouble with the MKI production line, India's problems can be compounded even more with an American aircraft production line.
Indianfighter
Junior Member
There have been no problems with the operations of the Su-30 MKIs. A production-line exists in India for their manufacture.PakTopGun said:
Boeing has offered to reduce the cost of their contract by including a manufacturing unit of the F-18 in India, that shall also include joint manufacture of spare-parts and their export to other nations.
Thus, the problem of maintenance and logistics procurement shall not arise.
Most of the avionics of the Mirage-2000, MiG-21 Bison, MiG-23 and MiG-27 are indigenous and often similar in configuration, and thus do not pose problems in logistics.
The same arguments made by you may also be made in case of the PAF that operates Mirage III and Mirage 5, A-5Cs, F-7s, F-16 and shall operate JF-17 and J-10 jets int the future. That is greater than the number of current aircraft in the IAF, and only one less upon induction of the MRCA and LCA in the future.
The attrition rates of only the MiG-21 aircraft is poor in the IAF. The attrition rates for all other aircraft is low, on par with other nations such as Pakistan or western nations.
There shall not be any other version of the Su-30 in the IAF other than the Su-30 MKI. IAF is exchanging old Su-30 MK with Russia to procure Su-30 MKIs.crazyinsane105 said:
Anyway there is little difference in the logistics of the Su-30 MK and Su-30 MKI and thus cannot be considered as separate aircraft.
Last edited:
maglomanic
Junior Member
IndianFighter,
you still didnt answer crazyinsane's question. Why would IAF go for super hornet when MKI's will get AESA and have everything in place with a decade of experience behind it?
you still didnt answer crazyinsane's question. Why would IAF go for super hornet when MKI's will get AESA and have everything in place with a decade of experience behind it?
maglomanic said:
Its like this, if USN has F-14 which can carry more payload and is more powerfull F-18, then why build F-18? Why not build new F-14 with AESA and modernized avionics? In my openion its all money game.
MKI is a heavy weight long range fighter/bomber, and IAF requirement was for a medium range fighter to compliment it. sort of they were asking for Mirage 2000-5. but things didnt go that well and politics and money came in.
maglomanic
Junior Member
F-18 was developed way after F-14 (begining of evolutionary life of one airframe where the other was ending).Still alot many people consider it to be a wrong decision which involved politics. F-14 drivers hate F-18s guts to this day(some to the point that they would rather Iranian tomcat kick USN hornet ..ofcourse not seriously though)..lol.Siddharth said:Its like this, if USN has F-14 which can carry more payload and is more powerfull F-18, then why build F-18? Why not build new F-14 with AESA and modernized avionics? In my openion its all money game.
MKI is a heavy weight long range fighter/bomber, and IAF requirement was for a medium range fighter to compliment it. sort of they were asking for Mirage 2000-5. but things didnt go that well and politics and money came in.
But to be honest if india goes for F-18 then it will be total political decision (not even the one involving money on Indian side). Acquiring Migs for naval use then going for a similar fighter and then having another capable fighter in the same class which all belong to same era is bad decision IMO. It might come back to bite IAF. MIG-29 OVT sounds like the best solution for IAF.
Indianfighter said:
The mirages III, mirage V , the A-5's and F-6 /F-7 are being gradually phased out. nocking out 5 planes from their service.. I dont see any comparison.. in the end you'll find the PAF only flying the F-16, F-17 and F-10 in the immediate near future... :coffee:
Indianfighter
Junior Member
Its unlikely that the PAF shall decommission the F-7 aircraft after only 13-18 years in service. The Mirage aircraft of the PAF have undergone or are undergoing upgrades. These upgraded jets were also acquired in the early 1990s upto 1996 and are thus unlikely to be decommissioned soon.PakTopGun said:
The MiG-25 was decommissioned from the IAF on 1st of this month. The MiG-23 shall be decommissioned by next year, and older MiG-21s are also being decommissioned.
By 2012, IAF shall be composed of the following jets:
125 MiG-21 Bison
MiG-27
67+29 MiG-29 (sent to upgradation to Russia for $888 million)
Mirage-2000 (being upgraded to Mirage-2005 standard)
126 MRCA contract winner
28 LCA
190 Su-30 MKI (2012 is the schedule set by Russia last week,instead of 2014)
Jaguars (being upgraded)
Sea-Harriers
If the 126 MRCA is either MiG-35 or Rafale, then the number of distinct aircraft in the IAF shall be 8 (France has assured India that the maintenance of Rafale is similar to the existing facilities of the Mirage-2000 in India).
The original tender proposed for the 126 aircraft was for MRCA or Medium Range Combat Aircraft.
Thus, initially F-16, MiG-35, Mirage-2005 were considered. But I never comprehended why Gripen was considered, because that would be an injustice to the LCA project. The Gripen--like the LCA-- is an interceptor or an area-defence jet and not a medium range aircraft.
Now aircraft such as F/A-18 E/F and Eurofighter typhoon are being offered that are Deep penetration strike aircraft, which the Su-30 MKI already is.
Thus, the question is not "Why does the IAF require F/A-18 when the Su-30 MKI shall get AESA radar", but rather "Why does the IAF need foreign DRCA jets like F/A-18 E/F and EF-2000 Typhoon when it already operates the Su-30 MKI ?"
Why? becouse in the end it's all down to politics and buisness...
Why did finland buy F/A-18 hornets even if the intial requirement called for small modern single-engine interceptor?
Real world isen't some strategic computergame where a single "general" makes all the calls and selects the best possiple and most suitable equipment based on the exact operational requirements. If India feels that it's a good way of improving their relations to USA by buing the Super Hornets, then they will select it regardless if some other plane would be more suitable in the bigger picture. Requirements are not written in stone, if the situation changes or something new comes in hand it can be changed.
Ofcourse the requirements are not completely just frames, very often the ultimate decision is made quite closely following the orginal plans. Also in general, altough there can be several manufactures from different countryes to offer their products, a past expereinces and political commitments often narrows the choises to only few. But in Indian case, the long experience of operating equipments from several operational philosofyfield exclude it from this generalization. I wouldn't be suprized at all if they select the American plane in fafour of the russian ones...
PS. Cut the Pakistan discussion from this thread, next one continuing it gets a warnig!
maglomanic
Junior Member
oops. Golly i didn't mention PAF once in my post