[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

We usually get RFI's before RFPs.

Either way, a AoN is something different.

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

Coming to civilians flying, in Russia there was (may be still is) program where normal people could fly in Sukhoi or MIG. Remember reading a blog from Greg Ritchie (UNIX developer) on his trip to do the same or something similar. Not sure if it was on public internet or inside Bell Labs I had read this some time ago.

Forgot to mention, they do all acrobatics too !

Several of those programs or opportunities exist in the USA, parts of Europe,South Africa and various other countries.

It is not rare, just expensive!

https://www.flyjetify.com/fighter-je...0from%20Moscow.

https://www.goldenmoments.co.uk/gift...ghter-jet.html

https://migflug.com/

https://migflug.com/flights-prices/f...-29-in-russia/

Jeroen

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by am1m

Surprising how the Japanese have allowed it to rest and increased their economic and diplomatic engagement with the US post that.

(Any links to research that states that case would be very welcome, would like to learn more.)

That's complicated. The American bombings were atrocious, however, the Americans basically rebuilt Japan from the ground up in what was basically the Asian version of the Marshall plan, which was one of the main reasons why Japan became an economic superpower so quickly - this, along with Japanese culture that demands discipline & an existing industrial base with an educated population, none of which India had during independence thanks to the British (just working 70 hours a week wouldn't have helped). The same is the case with West Germany as well - which don't forget was also heavily bombed by the allies. On the flip side, the Japanese themselves were terrible occupiers, which is why the Chinese & Koreans still hold a grudge - hence they probably expected the same treatment when they got occupied. Basically, the allies learned all the right lessons from WW1 and were careful not to commit the same mistakes as in the treaty of Versailles. While Germany & Japan lost the war, they weren't humiliated as Germany was in WW1 (which in itself was to remedy the humiliation that the French faced at the hands of the Germans i.e Prussians at the aftermath of the 1870 Franco-Prussian war - creating a vicious deadly cycle) - this national humiliation has a more lasting impact than the death toll (upto an extend). Also, becoming an economic superpower takes away the incentive for politicians to blame foregone invaders for their current problems.

Not to say the Japanese just gloss over history, the nuclear bombings made them staunchly anti-nuclear which is why they were among the first countries to sanction India after the Pokran nuclear tests, despite being friendly to India for most of its independent history. It also made once heavily militarised Japanese society hyper-pacifist, so much so that the public opinion in Japan is against arming up even as tensions in the neighbourhood rise (video below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg3z...nel=PolyMatter

Apologies, this got way off-topic.

[PGA]

I am not sure this is the appropriate place for this but kind of quite certain that this is the right place for it.

I bumped into a YouTube channel named Paper Skies. It's just amazing, great story telling about war, history/military aviation. More than simple narrative of true events, actual working of military comes to fore that many here are familiar with, the raw courage of people in the field, chaos of an operation, decisions, fate, luck, chance that make or mar an operation and how operations in reality are closer to the kind narrated in Catch 22 than what we other wise read or hear in over glorified hindsight accounts.

Here is one, had a good laugh watching it.

https://youtu.be/_aA-k5g8JJs?si=HmkVLFLhxRCvO1Db

The dilemma, to go by the book or evolve as per the sit,

https://youtu.be/VehjTmZDUHA?si=NDNJHbsXrGvZrOec

There are approx 25 of them, I leave the rest for you to scan.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by PGA

I am not sure this is the appropriate place for this but kind of quite certain that this is the right place for it.


Here is one, had a good laugh watching it.

My God!!! What a big comedy of errors Thanks for sharing, I did not know about the incident.

In 1982, the Iran-Iraq War was being fought ferociously and the IRIAF was at it highest state of alert. No wonder the IRIAF Phantoms responded so quickly. It was wise of the Soviet General to ask the Soviet MiG-23s to stand down as it would not have ended well for them. Not that the F-4 was much superior to the MiG-23, but Any harm to the F-4s would have led to the IRIAF F-14s to start picking off the MiG-23s one by one at long ranges (As they did to Iraqi fighters during the course of the war).

There were quite a few clashes between Iranian and Soviet aircraft prior to the Iranian revolution in 1979. In 1978, a Soviet MiG-23 shot down two Iranian Army CH-47s killing all on board. Prior to the Iranian acquisition of the F-14, Soviet MiG-25Rs made regular reconnaissance overflights over Iran. Iranian F-4s and F-5s were powerless to stop them, which led the Shah of Iran to acquire the F-14. The F-14 with its AWG-9+AIM-54 combo managed to scare the SOviets to stop the overfights.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

In 1982, the Iran-Iraq War was being fought ferociously and the IRIAF was at it highest state of alert. No wonder the IRIAF Phantoms responded so quickly. It was wise of the Soviet General to ask the Soviet MiG-23s to stand down as it would not have ended well for them. Not that the F-4 was much superior to the MiG-23, but Any harm to the F-4s would have led to the IRIAF F-14s to start picking off the MiG-23s one by one at long ranges (As they did to Iraqi fighters during the course of the war).

Going way off topic but:

The Mig-23s flown by the Soviet Air Force(Mig-23MF, Mig-23ML, Mig-23MLD) and the Iraqi ones (Mig-23MS) which fell to IRIAF F-14s in the early 1980s were very different. As far as I know they lacked modern Radar Warning Receivers so were unaware when missiles were fired at them. If they had warning they could easily outmaneuver the AIM-54 Phoenix missile which was designed to engage large non-maneuvering bomber aircraft and not fighters.

When Iraq received more modern Mig-23s with Radar warning Receivers and better avionics:
On September 9, 1999, a US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north. US F-14s fired a total of 3 AIM-54s in the Gulf war and none hit.

The Iraqi Mig-23MS had the weapon systems of the Mig-21 of the 1960s-70s:

MiG-23MS
("Flogger-E") Another export variant, the MiG-23MS was a downgrade version of the MiG-23M designed for Third World customers who couldn't be trusted with the advanced technology of the MiG-23MF. While utilizing the same airframe and engine as the MiG-23M, the MiG-23MS was equipped with the same weapons and equipment as the MiG-21S/SM. A downgraded export version of the RP-22SM radar gave the MiG-23MS its distinctively short nose radome, while the undernose IRST was removed. The only missiles it was capable of firing were up to four R-3S and R-3R air-to-air missiles, though the improved R-13M was added later.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23

A still further downgraded variant, the "MiG-23MS", was supplied to Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It featured the RP-22SM radar from the MiG-21S and lacked the IRST. The RP-22SM radar was accommodated in a visibly shorter radome. The MiG-23MS couldn't fire the latest AAMs, being limited to the R-3S / R-13M "Atoll" and R-3R "Advanced Atoll". The type was assigned the distinct NATO reporting name of "Flogger-F".

Source:https://www.airvectors.net/avmig23_1.html

The performance of F-14s in the Iran-Iraq war depends widely on which sources you use. I find it amazing that so many western sources believe Iranian claims of the US made F-14s shooting down 100+ Iraqi aircraft without any proof but when Iranian made weapons (like drones supplied to Russia in Ukrainian war or to Houthi rebels to attack Saudi Arabia defeat US supplied air defense systems) perform well they come up with articles like this:



Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/11/iran...n-ukraine.html

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

G
MiG-23MS
("Flogger-E") Another export variant, the MiG-23MS was a downgrade version of the MiG-23M designed for Third World customers who couldn't be trusted with the advanced technology of the MiG-23MF. While utilizing the same airframe and engine as the MiG-23M, the MiG-23MS was equipped with the same weapons and equipment as the MiG-21S/SM. A downgraded export version of the RP-22SM radar gave the MiG-23MS its distinctively short nose radome, while the undernose IRST was removed. The only missiles it was capable of firing were up to four R-3S and R-3R air-to-air missiles, though the improved R-13M was added later.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23

A still further downgraded variant, the "MiG-23MS", was supplied to Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It featured the RP-22SM radar from the MiG-21S and lacked the IRST. The RP-22SM radar was accommodated in a visibly shorter radome. The MiG-23MS couldn't fire the latest AAMs, being limited to the R-3S / R-13M "Atoll" and R-3R "Advanced Atoll". The type was assigned the distinct NATO reporting name of "Flogger-F".

Out of curiosity, which is the Mig-23 version that we got?

I believe this is something that the Americans used to do as well (still do?) - especially to their third-world clients. Not sure about the Europeans though.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Out of curiosity, which is the Mig-23 version that we got?

I believe this is something that the Americans used to do as well (still do?) - especially to their third-world clients. Not sure about the Europeans though.

Foxbat and skanchan96 can add more. We had the MF version for stand-off or early BVR interception capability. This was the only slightly pared down version of the definitive Soviet variant the M. Which version of the Safir radar we had and what were its ECCM capabilities is not known to me. These could carry the medium range R-23 first generation BVR, the short range R-60 and maybe the IR guided K-13 {NATO: Advanced Atoll}. What we got was very similar to the variant exported to other Warsaw Pact countries.

We also obtained in sizeable numbers the MiG-23BN ground attack version. Of course as most of us know we license assembled the MiG-27 tactical attack aircraft. I assume the IAF was more impressed with the ground attack variants of the family than the interceptor variants and it shows in the numbers procured. Our purchase of 2 squadrons of the MiG-23MF was a knee jerk reaction to the F-16s that Pakistan got from USA. Those were early days of BVR and both the East and the West had issues with the systems not performing as advertised.

Unlike most Soviet aircraft the MiG-23 was not a master of manouevre though it was very strong on speed and acceleration and unlike the MiG-21 on range. During the cold war in the USSR the MiG-27 set records for maintainability and MTBO.

Originally Posted by Foxbat

The performance of F-14s in the Iran-Iraq war depends widely on which sources you use. I find it amazing that so many western sources believe Iranian claims of the US made F-14s shooting down 100+ Iraqi aircraft without any proof but when Iranian made weapons (like drones supplied to Russia in Ukrainian war or to Houthi rebels to attack Saudi Arabia defeat US supplied air defense systems) perform well they come up with articles like this:

Thank you for the valuable nuggets of information you have provided. Where discerning facts in the fog of war goes the game {intentional and otherwise} of misinformation or plain mis assessment of losses inflicted happens on both sides. The Americans are no saints and IMHO neither are the Iranians or Iraqis. In war many lie.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Going way off topic but:

The Mig-23s flown by the Soviet Air Force(Mig-23MF, Mig-23ML, Mig-23MLD) and the Iraqi ones (Mig-23MS) which fell to IRIAF F-14s in the early 1980s were very different. As far as I know they lacked modern Radar Warning Receivers so were unaware when missiles were fired at them. If they had warning they could easily outmaneuver the AIM-54 Phoenix missile which was designed to engage large non-maneuvering bomber aircraft and not fighters.

The Iraqis had initially received the MiG-23MS variant which could carry R-13 IRMs only. The downgraded radar and avionics made it no better than a MiG-21. It was limited to carrying only R-13 missiles, so it couldn't operate BVR. The MS were soon replaced with the advanced MF & ML version.
Iraqi MS examples were used in the first half of the Iran-Iraq war. 8 were lost with the A few were shot down by Iranian Tomcats and MIM-23BN Hawk SAMs. They shot down 6 Iranian F-4D/Es, one F-5E and one AH-1, all in 1980.

The MiG-23MS however, proved no match for IRIAF interceptors and were quickly relegated to secondary ground attack and local CAP missions by the Iraqi Air Force. Bear in mind, the Soviets had advertised the MiG-23 as the single seat equivalent of the F-14 to the Iraqis and the Iraqis were understandably disappointed when these started getting shot down without a fight against IRIAF F-14s.


The Israelis evaluated a MiG-23MLD handed to them by a Syrian defector, and concluded it had better acceleration than an F-16A. The Flogger was best characterized as a speeder rather than a dogfighter: in a NATO-Warsaw Pact war—the war that Soviet equipment was designed to fight—mass formations of MiG-23s were to use their superb acceleration to zoom in, launch their air-to-air missiles and zoom away. MiG-23 fans also say that the aircraft exported to Soviet clients like Syria were “monkey models” lacking many capabilities that Soviet air force enjoyed, such as better radar and radar warning receivers.

Later the Iraqis did get more "capable" versions like MiG-23MF and MiG-23MLs but these too did not fare better against the IRIAF apart from the odd successes in air combat. The ML was a better dogfighter than the earlier MS & MF variants aerodynamically as the dorsal fin extension removed on the ML variant. The R-23 BVR missile was proved to be junk and was at best equal to early models of the AIM-7 Sparrow missile that had a poor record in the Vietnam War. The IRIAF had more capable variants of the AIM-7 for their F-4 and F-14 fleet(the E-4 variant being dedicatedly supplied for the Iranian F-14 fleet). Atleast half of the entire Iraqi MiG-23 fleet was lost in the Iran-Iraq War, and most of the survivors were knocked out during the 1991 Gulf War.


It was only after the arrival of the Mirage F1s that the Iraqi AF was able to not only put up a fight against IRIAF F-14s but took them down as well in well planned sneak attacks.

The advanced capability of the AWG-9/AIM-54 combo has never been fully revealed. Eventhough the F-14s delivered to Iran had slightly downgraded capability, the US Navy was scared of the F-14 in IRIAF hands and the Soviets getting their hands on it, so much so that they changed or upgraded their AWG-9s and led to the development of more advanced AIM-54C missiles for the US Navy F-14 fleet. The tragic shootdown of an Iran Airbus A300 by USS Vincennes was its crew mistaking the A300 for an F-14 on their radar.

One of the big strengths of the AWG-9 was its resistance to jamming. The US Navy trained to fight against F-14s as adversary aircraft at US Navy Fighter Weapons school(USNFWS/Top Gun) and NFWS F-14s were painted in a Iranian camo to mimic Iranian Tomcats - the topic of my next post in our Scale Model Aircrafts thread

In 1982 during the Peace for Galilee operation, more capable MiG-23MFs and MLs of the Syrian Air Force were getting downed by Israeli interceptors with only confirmed loss being an F-4E that fell to a Syrian MiG-23MS in an air combat melee. Israeli F-16s at that point in time, did not even have Sparrow capability and carried Sidewinders only. It is now known by Syrian accounts that the Syrians were literally flying blind in heavy jamming environment during the conflict. Their radars would literally go blind before even getting close to IAF jets, after being guided by Syrian GCI on the intercept course, while the Israeli interceptors were guided by an Israeli E-2 Daya(Kite) AWACS.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Out of curiosity, which is the Mig-23 version that we got?

I believe this is something that the Americans used to do as well (still do?) - especially to their third-world clients. Not sure about the Europeans though.

As mentioned by Narayan sir, the MiG-23MF( air defence version of the MiG-23 and called Rakshak in IAF service) was acquired by the IAF as a knee jerk reaction to acquisition to the PAF acquisition of F-16s.


It was a slightly downgraded version of the MiG-23M that the Soviet Air Force flew (main difference being a slightly less capable radar lacking ECM resistance and lacking GCI data link system). While the induction of the 30-odd MiG-23MFs in two newly raised IAF squadrons - No. 223 "Tridents"( initially called "Swing Wing Interceptors") & No. 224 "Warlords", gave the IAF BVR capability with the R-23R/T Missile, the IAF really wasn't happy with its performance or with the advertised capabilities of the MiG-23. It's cockpit visibility was poor, avionics and maintenance was nothing to write home about. One of the Sabre killers of the 1971 Battle of Boyra fame- then Wing Commander Roy Andrew Massey while commanding 224 Sqdn, was lost in a MiG-23MF crash.

223 squadron, which was the first IAF MiG-23MF squadron, converted to the MiG-29B only after 6-7 years on the type to become the third IAF MiG-29 squadron(No. 28 & 47 squadrons were already operational on the MiG-29). 223 squadron was re-named "Tridents" after the conversion and they continue to fly the MiG-29 to this day. While 224 Sqdn carried on with the MiG-23MF in secondary air defence/ground attack and target towing role, they were numberplated in the mid-2000s before being resurrected on the Jaguar IS/IT in 2009.

True and meaningful BVR capability came to the IAF only after induction of the Mirage 2000s with the Super 530D missile and later MiG-29s with R-27 missiles.

One of the ground attack version of the MiG-23 - the MiG-23BN( called Vijay in IAF service) were imported to serve in four IAF squadrons - No. 10 "Daggers", No. 31 "Lions", No. 220"Desert Tigers" & No. 221 "Valiants" (the first three squadrons were Marut squadrons previously and the last - 221 sqdn, a Su-7 squadron before converting to the MiG-23BN).


Later MiG-27Ms(called Bahadur in IAF service) were license manufactured by HAL and served with 7 IAF squadrons - No. 2 "Winged Arrows", No. 9 'Wolfpack", No. 10 "Daggers( converted from MiG-23BN), No. 18 "Flying Bullets", No. 22 "Swifts", No. 29 "Scorpios" & No. 222 "Tigersharks") .

[DiMaGo]

In this thread, I have read numerous very interesting and in-depth analysis on IAFs fighting machines. Really grateful to all the posts which helped me gain some perspective on these fighters.

The one question bothering me for quite sometime w.r.t 'Aatmanirbharta' is, 'Are we rushing to induct many 'Made in India' machines for all our defence forces, Viz., Army [Indradhanush], IAF [Tejas, Prachand, etc.] and Navy [INS Vikrant?] etc.?'
I am not undermining Indian designers to design such complex machines, but our manufacturing capability to churn out machines with such accuracy in batches/lots, etc.

These machines should perform at its optimal Best, even in Challenging environment/s and conditions. If not, our estmeed forces will be at the receiving end at a very wrong time [i.e. in times of actual combat] which [God Forbid] will be a moment of 'Life or Death'.

Can the members in this group shed some light here, please?

[dust-n-bones]

Originally Posted by DiMaGo

The one question bothering me for quite sometime w.r.t 'Aatmanirbharta' is, 'Are we rushing to induct many 'Made in India' machines for all our defence forces, Viz., Army [Indradhanush], IAF [Tejas, Prachand, etc.] and Navy [INS Vikrant?] etc.?'
I am not undermining Indian designers to design such complex machines, but our manufacturing capability to churn out machines with such accuracy in batches/lots, etc.

To my mind, Indian war-fighting machinery will be predominantly 'foreign sourced' for the foreseeable future. Indian equipment may be used only in a pinch till then - think of the challenge Indian suppliers will face in servicing and scaling their wares in a real war.

Aatmanirbharta is another push for domestic manufacturing capability, no doubt helped by the ever fatter cheque books that Indian armed forces go shopping with.

Yes, that strategy has not yielded much all these years. But the hope should be with the private sector jumping in, and longer term contracts with fewer suppliers, we may finally crack the code.

Out of your list, lets pick Vikrant. It looks more of a technology demonstrator platform for now, unlikely to see any real action. I guess the hope is that a future generation of the class may ultimately be a real weapon, hopefully timed to a future India in need of a blue water navy.

As a comparison, look at how the Chinese started with very modest boats, their evolution and where they are now.
Disclaimer: I have no experience working in these domains.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by DiMaGo

The one question bothering me for quite sometime w.r.t 'Aatmanirbharta' is, 'Are we rushing to induct many 'Made in India' machines for all our defence forces, Viz., Army [Indradhanush], IAF [Tejas, Prachand, etc.] and Navy [INS Vikrant?] etc.?' Can the members in this group shed some light here, please?

One of the reasons why Indian made defence equipment has long gestation period is because Indian Army/Navy/Air Force does extensive testing - which usually results in DRDO/HAL etc going back to the drawing board to fix the issues raised. Example:

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/a...icle-105724756

Another factor is that none of these are 100% locally made. Just like how your car has imported parts from China/Mexico/Germany, most of Indian made defence equipment has 10% to 70% imported components. Now that is not a negative as such - defence equipment made in USA/Western Europe/South Korea etc too have components imported from all over the world. However Russia/China generally go for 100% local content.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by DiMaGo

The one question bothering me for quite sometime w.r.t 'Aatmanirbharta' is, 'Are we rushing to induct many 'Made in India' machines for all our defence forces, Viz., Army [Indradhanush], IAF [Tejas, Prachand, etc.] and Navy [INS Vikrant?] etc.?'
I am not undermining Indian designers to design such complex machines, but our manufacturing capability to churn out machines with such accuracy in batches/lots, etc.

These machines should perform at its optimal Best, even in Challenging environment/s and conditions. If not, our estmeed forces will be at the receiving end at a very wrong time [i.e. in times of actual combat] which [God Forbid] will be a moment of 'Life or Death'.

There is a fine balance we have to maintain when it comes to foreign equipment vs domestic equipment. You see, foreign equipment is a double-edged sword, you get fully developed world-class product that's ready for the battle (most of the time) but have two major drawbacks:

1) Your stocks cannot be replenished quickly in the event of a war. For example, meteor missiles for the Rafale might be extremely capable, but we would have to use our stocks judiciously given that replenishment would require placing an order and hoping the manufacturer of the meteor - MBDA would prioritize deliveries to us rather than say some other European customer. This is a real problem that the Saudis facedwhen they ran out of AMRAAMs which were used by their F15s as well as Patriot missiles to shoot down much cheaper drones and missiles fired by the Houthis.

2) You are completely at the will (dare I say, mercy) of the supplier country & their foreign policy obligations in the event of a war. The US is frequently called unreliable in this regard (and rightly so) but even the Russians - if we have a shooting war with the Chinese, can we bet on the Russians continuing the flow of supplies? There is historical precedents in our subcontinent for all this:

a) During the 1962 Sino-India war, the Soviets delayed delivery of the Mig-21 aircraft to India to ensure support from China during the Cuban missile crisis.

b) During the 1965 war, the Americans placed an embargo on both the Pakistanis and the Indians.

What the Americans did during the 1971 war is known to everyone.

India is a country that values its strategic autonomy, which also means we have no treaty allies. So, it is crucial that this autonomy is not held hostage by the whims & needs of foreign powers. This is also why India loves French & Israeli arms - being smaller powers, they don't have the kind of overarching interests that the superpowers do, allowing them to be more transactional.

Again, these factors have to be balanced with the concerns you've pointed out, so we have to make smart choices - Prachands supplemented by smaller numbers of Apaches, Tejas supplemented by smaller numbers of Rafales etc. Also, as Smartcat pointed out, the indigenous systems use tried & tested imported components, so we don't have to reinvent the wheels like the Chinese do. As for the Navy, no one would sell us a Carrier the size of Vikrant except perhaps the British but pretty sure it's better than anything we could have possibly purchased. Also, the Vikrant has a lot of foreign components - Russian-designed aviation complex, American-origin engines, Russian-origin CIWS, Italian-origin cannons, joint Indo-Israeli designed SAMs, Israeli AESA radar, flight deck with Russian fighters (to be joined by French fighters), Russian helicopters (to be joined by American ones). Offcourse, a lot of the high-end components like the gearbox, combat management system, torpedoes, EW etc. are Indian. Moreoever, getting foreign components is one thing but bringing them together into one cohesive functioning unit is where the skill of our designers lie - same as cars!

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

Out of your list, lets pick Vikrant. It looks more of a technology demonstrator platform for now, unlikely to see any real action. I guess the hope is that a future generation of the class may ultimately be a real weapon, hopefully timed to a future India in need of a blue water navy.

The PLAN's first domestic carrier, the refurbed Liaoning is very much a demonstrator ship. It's a show pony when it comes to Taiwan Strait passages but it's most useful purpose was just as a live training platform to get the PLAN up to speed on the vagaries of carrier ops. When it comes to small batch capital platforms, there's always going to be an element of the lead vessel in a class being somewhat of a technology demonstrator in which it's a case of beta testing various new sub systems and procedures. Look at the HMS QE, or the USS Gerald R Ford, both lead ships in their class and both beset with the kind of issues you'd expect in a prototype. Ultimately that's precisely what they are, prototypes, as well as having to fulfil the role of the finished product too.

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Another factor is that none of these are 100% locally made. Just like how your car has imported parts from China/Mexico/Germany, most of Indian made defence equipment has 10% to 70% imported components. Now that is not a negative as such - defence equipment made in USA/Western Europe/South Korea etc too have components imported from all over the world.

Very true. It's impossible to escape in the globalised manufacturing world of our era, though modern state directives be it in the West or China or Russia is very much to redress this.

However Russia/China generally go for 100% local content.

I think the impact of sanctions is a large reason for this, beyond the usual self sufficiency spiel. Either would probably happily use foreign sourced components (not all of course) if they could (and they pretty much did), until sanctions hit in each of those component departments.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

India is a country that values its strategic autonomy, which also means we have no treaty allies. So, it is crucial that this autonomy is not held hostage by the whims & needs of foreign powers. This is also why India loves French & Israeli arms - being smaller powers, they don't have the kind of overarching interests that the superpowers do, allowing them to be more transactional.

Moreoever, getting foreign components is one thing but bringing them together into one cohesive functioning unit is where the skill of our designers lie - same as cars!

One could almost say that Indians would make for great systems integrators if we look at the various levels and kinds of disparity in the country that somehow seems to operate in a chaotic steady state.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by DiMaGo

In this thread, I have read numerous very interesting and in-depth analysis on IAFs fighting machines. Really grateful to all the posts which helped me gain some perspective on these fighters.
The one question bothering me for quite sometime w.r.t 'Aatmanirbharta' is, 'Are we rushing to induct many 'Made in India' machines for all our defence forces, Viz., Army [Indradhanush], IAF [Tejas, Prachand, etc.] and Navy [INS Vikrant?] etc.?'
I am not undermining Indian designers to design such complex machines, but our manufacturing capability to churn out machines with such accuracy in batches/lots, etc.
These machines should perform at its optimal Best, even in Challenging environment/s and conditions. If not, our estmeed forces will be at the receiving end at a very wrong time [i.e. in times of actual combat] which [God Forbid] will be a moment of 'Life or Death'.
Can the members in this group shed some light here, please?

There is a comprehensive answer given up here by @dragracer567 and some very pertinent points made by @SmartCat and @ads11. Adding to the points already made---we cannot afford to be the 5th largest economy on our way to 3rd largest and not be at least substantially self-sufficient in defence assets manufacture and R&D. The two go together hand in hand. Even Japan, a pacifist nation, is very self-sufficient in its defense design & production capabilities.

Where Prachand, Dhruv, Tejas go they are more than adequately good enough for us to address China and Pakistan. They are not as advanced and matured designs as the AH-68 Apache, Blackhawk or F-16 but then we need to fight China not USA. Also, these aircraft sit well in a hi-lo mix that gives us a balance of quality and quantity. I don't doubt the fundamental quality of these machines. In my past life my direct experience was only with the Dhruv and I am all praise for the machine. The weak point is HAL for whom I have never had a kind word but who knows this Govt could turn them around. The will to reform is certainly there.

With regards to INS Vikrant it will get fully operational in a year or so and hopefully embark its own air wing of Rafale's in 2 years. Unlike what @dust-and-bones writes I do not see it as a prototype more as a first of class where the second of class will be built with significant improvements.

I could be wrong but I do not believe these weapons are being rushed into service at the expense of reliability and completing their development cycle.

For the first time since the 1960s* we are actually pursuing a comprehensive defence industry build up policy for which this Govt gets the credit. We have I believe just embarked on a 25-year journey of defence industry build up. With China and Pakistan God knows we need it.

*Gnat, Marut, MiG-21, Vijayanta tank, Leander frigates.

[dragracer567]

Pakistan to purchase J-31 fifth-gen fighter jets from China

Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmed Babar has stated that “The foundation for acquiring the J-31 stealth fighter aircraft has already been laid which is all set to become part of the PAF’s fleet in the near future". This is a significant development as it would make Pakistan, the first country to operate 5th gen fighters with claimed stealth capabilities in the Indian subcontinent. Pakistan is also a partner in the Turkish KAAN project.

While this probably won't send the Indian defense establishment into a frenzy given that the J-31 is still technically under development and exactly how capable these Chinese 5th-gen fighters are is still an open debate.

Nevertheless, it's safe to say that the J-31 would almost certainly be more capable than every fighter jet in the Indian arsenal due to newer generation sensor suites - perhaps matched in some ways only by the Rafale.

India is currently focused on indigenous platforms such as the Tejas MK-2, TEDBF and AMCA where the former two would only be as capable as the current Rafale or the Chinese J10 (the latter on paper) while we don't even have a full-size prototype for any of these three.

This means, the Indian defense establishment really should get their act together and atleast procure a small fleet of 5th-generation fighters from abroad for the time being. This is easier said than done as there are only two 5th gen fighters we could potentially have access to:

1) The F35 - the export of which is controlled with even the UAE struggling to get access to the aircraft. While the Americans are selling more high-end tech to India, whether they will sell the F35 is an open question though there were indications that they would. Don't think the S400 is a problem though, it was just an excuse to stop the sale to Turkey IMHO because F35s frequently fly in S400-controlled airspace in Syria! And of course, some seem to think that there is a diplomatic spat between the US and India going on right now though all official announcements and comments indicate otherwise.

2) Su-57 - this one is tricky given India's history with this project because it is a jet that isn't actually fully mission ready yet with the new engine still under development and I'm not mistaken, doesn't even have an AESA radar. This is evident from the fact that the Su-57 has barely been used for combat in Syria or Ukraine (if ever). These are things that India can indigenize but I highly doubt if India will ever go for a Russian jet again due to the baggage of sanctions when we need and can get more high-end material from the West.

If not, we will atleast have to purchase more Rafales by getting the MRFA rolling, the MK-1As & upgraded Su-30s alone probably won't cut it.