[ads11]

Originally Posted by aim120

MANPADS cannot lock on to drones with electric propulsion. Only drones with a engine are getting shot down by MANPADS or by thermal system of a mobile AA.

MALE reconnaissance drones have mostly been shot down by radar guided missiles from a mobile AA, since these are spotted easily on radars.

Aren't most UAVs in the size and weight category of the ones in question (both operating over Ukraine and in the India deal) powered by conventional powerplants? That ties in with the assertion being made about the numbers in Ukraine being skewed by the environmental circumstances there.

At sea there is no mountain cover. Iran even shot down a HALE.

I'm not sure what you mean here?

Also by the Iran shoot down I'm assuming this is referring to the Sentinel that was shot down?

China will mostly use heavy EW to jam these drones. So against a peer opponent only a drone navigated by INS and AI will work.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. Like I said, in any serious peer-to-peer conflict, they'll have a not insignificant attrition rate. But like dragracer alluded to earlier, that's the point. Most of these drones are expendable. Certainly much more so than a manned platform and moreover, they'll likely be there to increase Indian coverage. I don't think anyone is seriously expecting these as anything more than high endurance eyes in the sky for the Indian armed forces.

I think what's frustrating is that a lot of spurious snap judgements are being made on the back of the fighting in Ukraine. Particularly egregious is this current chorus ready to paint all Western armour as fallible in the aftermath of the Ukrainian offensive. Anyone serious would know that no platform is invincible, that's just bar room bluster from casuals. And this isn't just Russian aligned propaganda, you've got Western commenters clutching their pearls right now, when any armour commander worth their salt will readily admit in the scale of mechanised conflict we're seeing in Ukraine, absolutely the sort of pictures of blown Leopards and Bradleys are totally expected in any battle plan. 20 years of US and coalition forces dunking on irregular forces and fighting insurgency battles have distorted lay people views on acceptable casualties (in an ideal world sure, no one wants to see folks die). Sorry for the rant aim120, it's not directed at you! Just having a general gripe.

[ads11]

Bit of a change of pace, I had a random question. Why is it that all carriers seem to have their islands on the starboard side? I don't think I can think of any carriers that have a port sided island.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

I don't think anyone is disputing this. Like I said, in any serious peer-to-peer conflict, they'll have a not insignificant attrition rate. But like dragracer alluded to earlier, that's the point. Most of these drones are expendable. Certainly much more so than a manned platform and moreover, they'll likely be there to increase Indian coverage. I don't think anyone is seriously expecting these as anything more than high endurance eyes in the sky for the Indian armed forces.

I think what's frustrating is that a lot of spurious snap judgements are being made on the back of the fighting in Ukraine. Particularly egregious is this current chorus ready to paint all Western armour as fallible in the aftermath of the Ukrainian offensive. Anyone serious would know that no platform is invincible, that's just bar room bluster from casuals. And this isn't just Russian aligned propaganda, you've got Western commenters clutching their pearls right now, when any armour commander worth their salt will readily admit in the scale of mechanised conflict we're seeing in Ukraine, absolutely the sort of pictures of blown Leopards and Bradleys are totally expected in any battle plan. 20 years of US and coalition forces dunking on irregular forces and fighting insurgency battles have distorted lay people views on acceptable casualties (in an ideal world sure, no one wants to see folks die). Sorry for the rant aim120, it's not directed at you! Just having a general gripe.

Like Narayan sir mentioned in a post (can't remember which), we've seem to have forgotten that attrition is a part and parcel of warfare.

Another key aspect is the fact that the chances of an actual conflict with China is still quite small though increasing day-by-day. It's probably much easier for the Chinese to pick on Taiwan or perhaps even Vietnam or the Philippines than pick on a nuclear-armed India, especially in the Indian Ocean which I'd argue is suicidal when India is on the defensive. I'd argue that these systems are basically even more useful as cold war weapons that would allow the Indian Navy to dominate the Indian Ocean and parts of the Greater Indo-Pacific by keeping constant track of PLA movements on and sub-surface hence compensating for our reduced numbers of ships and planes.

Now, when the shooting starts if they ever do, these systems would seldom operate on their own during the initial phases, they would be used for very specific missions, likely in conjunction with EW of our own from Navy ships and enemy defenses saturated using stand-off weapons from fighter jets. In the latter phases, well, I doubt enough Chinese ships would make it past the Malacca Strait to challenge air supremacy in the IOR though PLAN Submarines would be a menace. In the Himalayas, well, it's anybody's guess.

Originally Posted by ads11

Remind me what the deal is with the ISTAR?

Surprised that there hasn't been more movement on the P8 front.

Well, India was planning to buy five ISTAR planes from the US which will be based on Bombardier’s Global Express business jet aircraft. This was confirmed by Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal VR Chaudhari as recently as last October. Similar planes are already ordered by Australia and South Korea, I believe.

On the P8, I guess there are bigger budgetary priorities.

[aim120]

Originally Posted by ads11

Aren't most UAVs in the size and weight category of the ones in question (both operating over Ukraine and in the India deal) powered by conventional powerplants? That ties in with the assertion being made about the numbers in Ukraine being skewed by the environmental circumstances there.

Yes, publicly known MALE, HALE drones are piston or turbo prop or turbofan.

Originally Posted by ads11

I'm not sure what you mean here?

If you have mountains the radar coverage is less. Just like how the Pakistani failed to see the Mig21 climbing to intercept the F16. You can use terrain to mask your presence.

Originally Posted by ads11

Also by the Iran shoot down I'm assuming this is referring to the Sentinel that was shot down?

While the RQ170 being detected and taken down is still something of a mystery. Mostly with help of Russians jamming.

I am talking about the Global Hawk that was shot down.

Originally Posted by ads11

Most of these drones are expendable. Certainly much more so than a manned platform and moreover, they'll likely be there to increase Indian coverage. I don't think anyone is seriously expecting these as anything more than high endurance eyes in the sky for the Indian armed forces.

We know that VLO platforms survive, Pakistan didnt know about the RQ170 flying above and beaming live images to the whitehouse. But a predator or Iran equivalent size drones flying in ukraine have been shot down. Russia did use a Iraninan MALE drone and it was shot down on its very first appearance and has not been used again. Only the smaller Russian reconnaissance/kamikaze drones are flying undetected, literally over a british stormer anti drone systems.

Originally Posted by ads11

20 years of US and coalition forces dunking on irregular forces and fighting insurgency battles have distorted lay people views on acceptable casualties (in an ideal world sure, no one wants to see folks die). Sorry for the rant aim120, it's not directed at you! Just having a general gripe.

Thats the thing we don't use drones like how the USA uses them. Our use is going to be over heavily defended air space againt two hostile neighbours.

Unfortunately china has small drones and VLO drones and capable jamming systems. Chinese platoons can use DJI drones while we can't due to it being compromised.

My rant below.
The price of US drone that we are buying is $100 million a piece. That's more expensive then a F35 jet. I honestly think India should have made our own equivalent drone, If iran with sanctions and zero space communication sattelite can do it, nothing stopping us from doing it.

This drone purchase is purely a bone to the americans for our PM visit. I seriously hope the rumor of we licence building the Stryker infantry vehicle remains a rumor. It will be slap in the face for homegrown companies that are building our own vehicles ground up.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by aim120

The price of US drone that we are buying is $100 million a piece. That's more expensive then a F35 jet. I honestly think India should have made our own equivalent drone, If iran with sanctions and zero space communication sattelite can do it, nothing stopping us from doing it.

This drone purchase is purely a bone to the americans for our PM visit. I seriously hope the rumor of we licence building the Stryker infantry vehicle remains a rumor. It will be slap in the face for homegrown companies that are building our own vehicles ground up.

Agree that the price is a bit steep but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. As far as I've read, the cost includes the mission control station and other bits while overall, the lifecycle costs for a drone is much lower than a fighter jet. An F35 will cost a lot to operate while not being able to stay on-station for nearly as long. So, for a recon mission, you'd need 3-4 F35s to cover the same area as a Predator B drone would. Anyway, these are aircraft with different missions - it's like saying that you could buy multiple fighter jets for the cost of a C17 or P8. Moreover, the Predator B can also conduct many of the missions of the P8 while being on air for a much longer period with a much lower crew requirement.

I don't think this purchase was made to please the Americans either, this purchase was actually pushed by the Navy who have been operating two leased SeaGuardians that were procured using emergency powers, so they know how useful this platform is. So, if they are pushing this ahead of even other badly needed platforms like the P8, it really must be that useful. Also, I doubt if Iran makes a drone of similar capabilities, it's hard to visualize since drones are new to warfare but it's like comparing a BaE Hawk to a Eurofighter Typhoon.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

The defense ministry has finally approved the purchase of 30 Predator B drones from the US as part of a $3 billion deal. So, seems like there would be no down-sizing after all.

Another correction here, it's 31 drones now for the same price, seems like Indian negotiators squeezed an extra unit for the same price

[ads11]

Originally Posted by aim120

Thats the thing we don't use drones like how the USA uses them. Our use is going to be over heavily defended air space againt two hostile neighbours.

Unfortunately china has small drones and VLO drones and capable jamming systems. Chinese platoons can use DJI drones while we can't due to it being compromised.

Again I feel we're going in circles here a bit. India won't be using those UAVs for anything but ISR really if you think about it. Sure, some of that allotment will be allocated along heavily monitored airspace along our land frontiers (the IAF and IA units). But again, the bulk of this order is clearly being driven by the IN and the airspace picture for the operational domain then becomes one where it's a case of tyranny of distance rather than anti air systems. And if we're really going to narrow in on the survivability of these drones in hostile airspace, let's be real, they'll be operating on the Indian side of the airspace border 90% of the time (that's usually more than close enough to be able to get a wide swathe into opposing territory in terms of an information picture). I think this is a case of missing the forest for the trees a bit.

My rant below.
The price of US drone that we are buying is $100 million a piece. That's more expensive then a F35 jet. I honestly think India should have made our own equivalent drone, If iran with sanctions and zero space communication sattelite can do it, nothing stopping us from doing it.

This drone purchase is purely a bone to the americans for our PM visit. I seriously hope the rumor of we licence building the Stryker infantry vehicle remains a rumor. It will be slap in the face for homegrown companies that are building our own vehicles ground up.

Sure, these are expensive when you think of the cost but again, you have to remember that it's not just the unit cost in this contract, it'll be the entire lifetime cost that factored in (pretty sure those F35 numbers look very different if you cost it the same way to include all the paraphernalia required for a new operator). Think how many times Indian defence purchases have gotten screwed down the line when baited by an alluring sticker price (cough..INS Vikramaditya..cough).

I think it's a bit facetious to compare Iran's drones to what's being offered here. The Iranians have relatively simple drones that at best have been proven to be effective at kamikaze attacks in Ukraine. I don't think anyone seriously thinks their UAVs offer anywhere near the situational awareness data that the ones being offered here would provide. Like dragracer says, it's hardly an apt comparison. I think sometimes in the constant pursuit of indigenisation you have to stop and consider that there will be some occasions where there's no point reinventing the wheel. It'd be great to have everything in house but there's not only so much money to go around, but a finite amount of development bandwidth. We've seen too often what happens when say HAL bites off more than it can chew.

What I will agree on is this, I don't think there's a particular need for license manufacturing of the Stryker platform unless some of the homegrown solutions are really underpar. Though again, I don't think there are any equivalent operational home grown alternatives that you can directly compare to judge if they're worthwhile or not (I could be wrong).

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Another correction here, it's 31 drones now for the same price, seems like Indian negotiators squeezed an extra unit for the same price

Don't often see that, usually see these adjusted down.

[dragracer567]

Some more juice on the drones:

1) This one is big - the drones will actually be assembled in India by the Kalyani Group. This is a big win for Make-in-India after the C295.

2) Navy will get 15 units while the Army and Air Force get 8 each.

3) The Indian Defense Ministry and the US Government (in the joint statement) call it a HALE drone, not a MALE.

4) All drones will initially be unarmed.

5) The Navy which already operates 2 leased Sea Guardians wanted the drones the most, they pushed for the acquisition. The Army requires these drones to keep an eye on the border areas while the Indian Air Force was reluctant and questioned the need for the drones (like a lot of defense pundits do as well).

6) The IAF version will get some sort of long-range missile - I'm assuming with stand-off capability which is still under development - crucial since the IAF was concerned about using such expensive assets in contested air space.

[narmad]

Originally Posted by ads11

Sure, these are expensive when you think of the cost but again, you have to remember that it's not just the unit cost in this contract, it'll be the entire lifetime cost that factored in (pretty sure those F35 numbers look very different if you cost it the same way to include all the paraphernalia required for a new operator). Think how many times Indian defence purchases have gotten screwed down the line when baited by an alluring sticker price (cough..INS Vikramaditya..cough).

Infrastructure Setup, Spares and Training costs over lifetime are lot.

All Russian purchases which look relatively cheap per unit but end up costing a bomb in the long run.
Goshkov deal was supposed to be cost of Mig 29K, with minimal cost of refurbishing the Missile carrier with a proper flight deck. Aircraft Carrier part was supposed to be essentially free. Russia, however, stunned India by first asking for an additional $1.2 billion (over the initial $974 million) in 2007 and further hiked it to $2 billion in 2008.

Similar case with T-90, where it was bought as a Bare Bones Base Model to keep the unit cost low. Nobody knows about additional costs for subsystems like APU, Thermal sights etc.

I feel we still need more Neptunes for the navy, but the MQ-9 is an substantial force multiplier.

[V.Narayan]

Is the Indian Navy closing in on the naval Rafale; Is a naval jet fighter deal likely during PM's France visit


https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India...dc9805d0&ei=51

PRIME Minister Narendra Modi’s upcoming trip to France to attend the Bastille Day parade as its chief guest is widely expected to result in the announcement of some critical deals for the Indian Navy. There is widespread speculation in domestic and overseas military and security circles that PM Modi was invited for the celebratory July 14 event in Paris in anticipation of the two sides proclaiming government-to-government (G2G) defence contracts that have long been under negotiation.

These included the procurement of 26 Dassault Rafale-Maritime (M) fighters. The IAF’s Rafale buy had included Dassault establishing a maintenance and flight training facility at Ambala for the fighters which, the Navy rationally reasoned, would support its prospective Rafale-M purchase by not only reducing procurement costs but hastening platform induction.

Some say the French are offering to lease 4 of their Rafale M's as an interim stop-gap measure for training & familiarization. sounds very similar to the Sepecat Jaguar deal in 1978.

Our long cherished dream of two fully equipped carriers may at last be coming to fruition. I am so glad we are leaning towards France, a nation which has always, but always supported us in geo-politics and at the U.N. We have come a long long way since the years when in the period c.mid-1970s to mid-1980s we managed with a naval fighter strength in single digits - first the aged Hawker Sea hawks and later the BAe Sea Harrier {not including the ASW Alize's in the count}. Several nations, along with us in the 1950s and 1960s pursued the effort of maintaining at least one carrier in service but gave up due to effort and cost or changing aims - Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Argentia, Brazil. Of that lot only India clung on tenaciously in face of cold war limitations and show string budgets. Those days we had the men & the ability but not the money. Now we have all three. :-)

Jai Hind.

File photos below of French Navy Rafale M carrier borne Naval fighter

[V.Narayan]

^^^^^^

The deal is on.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India...f146ac09&ei=30

Two and Six twenty six and it’s a full house!!! The news is out. Indian Navy to procure 26 Rafale M carrier borne fighters to make up the air wing of INS Vikrant. Prime Minister Modi and President Macron to sign deal for 3 more follow on Scorpene submarines. Phew! Both very sensible decisions. I only wish we license build a couple of hundred Rafale’s now instead of dwiddling and dwaddling while our IAF flies grossly under strength.

[himanshugoswami]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

^^^^^^

The deal is on.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India...f146ac09&ei=30

Two and Six twenty six and it’s a full house!!! The news is out. Indian Navy to procure 26 Rafale M carrier borne fighters to make up the air wing of INS Vikrant. Prime Minister Modi and President Macron to sign deal for 3 more follow on Scorpene submarines. Phew! Both very sensible decisions. I only wish we license build a couple of hundred Rafale’s now instead of dwiddling and dwaddling while our IAF flies grossly under strength.

This is awesome news. I Was hoping for follow on tranche of 36 more for IAF via G2G.

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I only wish we license build a couple of hundred Rafale’s now instead of dwiddling and dwaddling while our IAF flies grossly under strength.

Couple of hundred Rafales! I wonder if even the French have that kind of money! They refused to buy Mirage 4000 because they found it too expensive to procure and operate!

I'd say we are past the moment when buying a big fleet of Rafale made sense. The original tender for 126 MRCAs had an option clause whereby India could buy another 50% (i.e. 63) planes. Upping the order size to 189 at one go would have given us some bargaining leverage which, for reasons that are beyond my comprehension, we failed to exercise! 36 is a grossly suboptimal fleet size for the Rafale or for that matter any other combat aircraft. In my humble opinion, as a matter of policy to keep logistics simpler and more manageable, we shouldn't be procuring less than 10 squadrons of any combat aircraft type. In France itself, the Rafale has replaced 4 aircraft types - Mirage F1, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard and the Jaguar.

In my view, at this stage, it is more prudent to focus all our resources on the AMCA and order more Tejas as an interim measure to deal with aircraft shortage. We can buy another 2 squadrons of Rafale for fleet size optimality. In fact, after PM Modi surprised everyone in 2015 by ordering 36 Rafales through outright purchase, the IAF had responded by saying that it could manage with a fleet size of 80, which meant ordering 44 more planes.

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, July 3, 2015

Facing a crisis of a dwindling fleet of fighter jets, the Indian Air Force (IAF), has formally told the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that it needs at least 80 Rafale-type multi-role combat fighter jets to be battle-ready in the next few years.

This is the first time the IAF has put a minimum number to its needs since the government, in April this year, announced a decision to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from France in a “fly-away” condition. Initially, the IAF had projected the need for 126 such fighter jets and a global tender was floated, which is now in cold storage after the decision to buy Rafale was announced.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/ar...ded-iaf-102069

Curiously, although the process for obtaining Cabinet Committee on Security’s (CCS) approval for design and prototype development of AMCA was initiated over a year ago, it is yet to be completed. My view is that unless the man at the top takes personal interest in the project (like Jawaharlal Nehru took in the Marut), the project will continue to lag, resulting in ad hoc purchases from abroad; our helpless dependence on international armament manufacturers will remain the order of the day!

GOVERNMENT PLANS ON AMCA
Process for obtaining Cabinet Committee on Security’s (CCS) approval for design and prototype development of Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) has been initiated.
5th Generation fighter aircraft, due to very special features, are costlier than 4th Generation fighter aircraft. Since AMCA is an indigenous 5th Generation aircraft, it is less costlier than similar aircraft available outside.
This information was given by Raksha Rajya Mantri Shri Ajay Bhatt in a written reply to Smt Shanta Chhetri in Rajya Sabha on March 14, 2022.

https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1805742

The above report is from 2022.

And apparently, we haven't made any progress since then because the following report from April 2023 also says the same thing!

The Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) has approached the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for approval of twin-engine advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA) after the design of the fifth-generation stealth fighter has been frozen by the Aeronautical Development Authority. The first prototype of GE-414 powered AMCA is expected to roll out by 2026.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india...755536904.html

I'm given to understand that the CCS insisted that approval will not be given unless GE agreed to make the engines locally. I'm not sure if GE had objected to local manufacture of their engine in India and if withholding the approval was a good decision, considering that we have lost valuable time in this bureaucratic process.

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

^^^^^^

The deal is on.

..... I only wish we license build a couple of hundred Rafale’s now instead of dwiddling and dwaddling while our IAF flies grossly under strength.

I'd rather they source additional Rafales from France as soon as possible, rather than get stuck in the bureaucracy/delays of local assembly. In the meanwhile focus on speeding up the ongoing domestic projects including manufacturing of Tejas Mk1A and development of Tejas Mark 2, AMCA and TEDBF aircrafts.

The projected timelines of proposed domestic manufacturing of the MRCA winner runs almost parallel to the indigenous in-house projects.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

These included the procurement of 26 Dassault Rafale-Maritime (M) fighters. The IAF’s Rafale buy had included Dassault establishing a maintenance and flight training facility at Ambala for the fighters which, the Navy rationally reasoned, would support its prospective Rafale-M purchase by not only reducing procurement costs but hastening platform induction.

Our long cherished dream of two fully equipped carriers may at last be coming to fruition.

So glad that this is finally confirmed, this whole selection process and announcement was pretty quick by Indian Defense Standards. Hope the pricing negotiations don't drag on as with the Air Force's Rafale contract (even after the 36 aircraft deal was announced).

I guess even after the Rafales are bought, the Vikrant would still be a mix of Rafales + Mig-29ks? Since the Vikrant can hold exactly 26 fixed wing aircrafts IIRC but we can't assume that 100% of the Rafales would be available for service, right?

The Rafale is a truly formidable aircraft and an INS Vikrant loaded with 2 dozen of these at the Malacca Strait or off the coast of Vietnam/Philippines with allied ships in case of potential hostilities would be a powerful deterrence for the dragon (though operationally vulnerable to PLAN's submarines in case of actual hostilities). As this CNN article states, India is the only country apart from the US that has demonstrated dual carrier operations in recent times (even if it was for optics) - neither the Brits (though I believe they can if needed) nor the Chinese have demonstrated this.

While I'm not a fan of the current government, have to admit that our current foreign policy has really turned the tide in the IOR and in some ways even in ASEAN - these were areas that were once considered lost to Chinese area of influence. India is also doing a good job coordinating with allies such as Japan (in economic terms), US (strategic terms) & most crucially, militarily with Australia where the partnership includes frequently flying off eachother's territories - something unheard of in India's context (and something makes Australia a more digestible Western ally to India - like a mini-France).

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

As this CNN article states[/url], India is the only country apart from the US that has demonstrated dual carrier operations in recent times (even if it was for optics) - neither the Brits (though I believe they can if needed) nor the Chinese have demonstrated this.

The Brits are having a challenging time keeping the solitary carrier afloat.