[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by ads11

Coming back to the Lancer, have they offered it to any other allies?

Looks like USA is making space in their hangars for the new B-21 Raider bomber.

Personally while a strategic bomber is a nice-to-have capability for the IAF, it's not exactly something that's needed in terms of the primarily defensive posture.

India's conventional deterrence is weak vis-à-vis China. IAF does not yet have a low cost way to strike important military targets or industrial areas of China, which are all 1500 to 3000 kms away. Tibet and Xingiang regions are just empty spaces (desert/mountains).



Based on frequent news reports on acquisition of a long range bomber for IAF, it looks like there is a need for an airborne missile carrier. Or perhaps a platform that can carry a huge weapons load but also stay in the air for a long time (to threaten the long 1500+ km supply lines of China)

[ValarMorghulis]

A tweet that’s making rounds currently.
Can anyone with more knowledge throw some more light?

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

A tweet that’s making rounds currently.
Can anyone with more knowledge throw some more light?

Not entirely accurate. Unfortunately, Indian judgment of the end-use policy of American weapons systems is based solely on the experience of Pakistan. However, what we fail to understand is that Pakistan is an anomaly as their F16s were acquired using American aid, not their own resources. So, it's obvious that the Americans wouldn't want equipment purchased using their own money to be used against another ally like India.

If this tweet were accurate, Turkey wouldn't bomb the Kurds who are American allies using American F16s. Moreover, the Saudis wouldn't bomb Yemeni civilians using F15s despite pushback from both sides of the aisle in the US Congress. Let's not even talk about Israel's activities. There's nothing the Americans can do here since these countries bought the weapons fair and square using their own money.

We really should stop viewing Indo-US relations through the lens of the erstwhile US-Pak relations. India is much stronger, more mature, more important and as much as a lot of us hate to admit, a more natural partner than Pakistan has ever been. The kind of concessions that the US is giving India seems more inline with US relations with Israel than Pakistan - I mean they wouldn't even sell systems like the MQ-9 Reaper drones to countries other than very close allies but are now ready to assemble these in India!

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

A tweet that’s making rounds currently.
Can anyone with more knowledge throw some more light?

I believe that refers to two different aspects. One is more or less political, one is technical.

When you purchase these aircraft the contract will stipulate various restrictions on its use. That could be regional, or specific countries. So at least, contractually you are limited in what you can do with them.

Technically, the US tends to downgrade its export fighter performance slightly. So, you never get the exact same performance as the US would get out of these. I don’t know how much this performance degrade would be, not much I guess, but apperently it is there.

Jeroen

[ads11]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Looks like USA is making space in their hangars for the new B-21 Raider bomber.

Ah yeah, dunno how I forgot that they're hoping to induct a whole host of those. I know the venerable B-52 is still part of their plans for the years to come, but less sure how many B-1B's will be retained and I guess there's no point to retiring the few B-2's they have.

India's conventional deterrence is weak vis-à-vis China. IAF does not yet have a low cost way to strike important military targets or industrial areas of China, which are all 1500 to 3000 kms away. Tibet and Xingiang regions are just empty spaces (desert/mountains).

I see what you mean. It's a consideration for sure. My thinking only stems from the fact that there's non negotiable requirements that are yet to be met first. I guess to use the long way round route I postulated for the Tu-160 (Combat Aircraft of the Indian Air Force), and it would still require refuelling.

Based on frequent news reports on acquisition of a long range bomber for IAF, it looks like there is a need for an airborne missile carrier. Or perhaps a platform that can carry a huge weapons load but also stay in the air for a long time (to threaten the long 1500+ km supply lines of China)

Just a thought, but could perhaps the conventional strike capability come from a cruise missile armed nuclear submarine, an SSGN. Let's say the Arihant class was adapted to have VLS cells with Brahmos for arguments sake (correct me if this is already in motion). Given that the bulk of the development is already done to an extent, and the platform is entirely in Indian hands more or less, you'd get more orders for the yard and satisfy the conventional strike capability requirement for targets on the Chinese coast. Albeit just one of these boats is probably looking at an order of magnitude more cost than a small squadron of strategic swing wing bombers, so there's that.

Six of one and half dozen of the other really.

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

A tweet that’s making rounds currently.
Can anyone with more knowledge throw some more light?

India had bought the INS Jalashwa from the USA in 2005, along with some Sea King choppers. The US had imposed a condition that this landing craft/amphibious landing dock should not be used in any invasions by India and we agreed to it when procuring it.

It does get weird; what would a landing craft/amphibious landing dock be used for, if not in invasions?

So yes, if they sell us F 35s, they will impose some random conditions - guaranteed.

Even Pakistan were contractually bound not to use their F16s against us, when they struck back in retaliation for Balakot. But, once they came and scooted back, I'm not sure that the US was able to penalize Pakistan in any way. They can only refuse to sell spares or further weaponry - which probably doesn't matter to Pakistan as they embrace China ever more deeply with passing time.

[directinjection]

Came across this interesting news in today's The Tribune newspaper:

India plans to make 470 jets, first to roll out in Feb next year

From the report:

HAL estimates that the gap between manufacturing of Tejas Mark-1A and Tejas Mark-2 will be bridged by an additional order of the former. The numbers of additional Tejas Mark-1A jets could be about 50, said sources.

This is the first time I'm hearing about a possible follow-on order for an additional 50 Tejas Mark 1A fighter planes, post the current one for 83 planes that's already signed. Although the statement has been made by HAL rather than the IAF, it will be really good if the purchase materializes, given the state of affairs of IAF's inventory, with one squadron getting number-plated after another!

At 126, the numbers for AMCA look modest. It's strange that such an important national project hasn't even been approved by the Cabinet Committe for Security yet!

Here's the complete report:

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/na...xt-year-479803

[Gansan]

How many Tejas aircraft are actually in IAF service as on date? The Wikipedia page keeps giving conflicting information. The numbers keep changing between 16 and 31.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Gansan

How many Tejas aircraft are actually in IAF service as on date? The Wikipedia page keeps giving conflicting information. The numbers keep changing between 16 and 31.

The total no of Tejas Mk.1s in service with the IAF in IOC & FOC configuration is 31 ( Tail nos. LA-5001 to LA-5031) in two sqdns - No. 45 "Flying Daggers"(first Tejas. Sqdn) & No. 18 "Flying Bullets".

[PGA]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

A tweet that’s making rounds currently.
Can anyone with more knowledge throw some more light?

https://theprint.in/defence/the-3-fo...growth/531795/

The mentioned quote is more to titillate than to offer any substantive info. Please read the above mentioned article as to why and how we were able to operate or unable to get/operate US equipment. French and Russians do not demand such detailed framework from us or maybe their strategic interests do not clash in our region.

[ads11]

Just noticed something curious.

What's up with the symmetry with the number 470?

You have Air India ink deals for a total of 470 civil airliners and at the same time you've got rumblings that the armed forces will in some way or the other acquire 470 domestically made military aircraft as well.

Wonder if there's some symbolism here at play. If Air India were still a govt controlled entity I'd understand somewhat the alignment in civil and military orders but I can't help but think this is a rumour that comes from a stat getting lost along the journalistic chain, a game of Chinese whispers if you will. Otherwise it's quite a coincidence.

[dragracer567]

Indian army has issued the requirement for 48 of these jet packs for emergency procurement to be used along sensitive areas along the Chinese border. To that end, the army received a demo from a British company Gravity Industries with the founder Richard Browning giving the demo in Agra.

This is really fascinating though its efficacy in real combat is yet to be seen.

Wasn't sure which defense-related thread to post this in, so posting it here. However, if this technology does indeed succeed, Narayan sir will probably start a new T-BHP thread on jet packs in the military 10 years down the line!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvd1sIlnD-g

[/url]

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Looks like USA is making space in their hangars for the new B-21 Raider bomber.



India's conventional deterrence is weak vis-à-vis China. IAF does not yet have a low cost way to strike important military targets or industrial areas of China, which are all 1500 to 3000 kms away. Tibet and Xingiang regions are just empty spaces (desert/mountains).

Attachment 2418990

Based on frequent news reports on acquisition of a long range bomber for IAF, it looks like there is a need for an airborne missile carrier. Or perhaps a platform that can carry a huge weapons load but also stay in the air for a long time (to threaten the long 1500+ km supply lines of China)

I am sure the Tibet/Xinjiang region is bristling with radars and missile defense systems all over especially closer to India. Therefore I am not sure about the feasibility of a long range bomber that will have to cross over into Chinese airspace to achieve its targets. It will be quite a ways from the safety of the Indian airspace. Even the US will not attempt to use long range bombers deep inside of Chinese airspace until/unless they achieve total air superiority in the region first.

[Gansan]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Indian army has issued the requirement for 48 of these jet packs for emergency procurement to be used along sensitive areas along the Chinese border. To that end, the army received a demo from a British company Gravity Industries with the founder Richard Browning giving the demo in Agra.

This is really fascinating though its efficacy in real combat is yet to be seen.

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=Rvd1sIlnD-g[/url]

Does any army really use these suits? From what I have read about them, there are several types and they have been in existence for many decades. Mostly experimental. And it seems the longest they can remain airborne is about ten minutes.

[BoneCollector]

Originally Posted by condor

New C-295's to replace the Avro's. 16 will be manufactured by Airbus, and the rest 40 by a consortium of Airbus and TASL (Tata)

And the first C295 had its engine testing.

Link

Great to see that things are moving at a fast pace.

As seen at Seville, Spain.

Link