[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I wonder when a formal announcement & contract signing will follow.

The contract has been signed today, this makes India the second and only foreign operator of the naval Rafale M variant.

Some interesting points:

1) Astra Mk-1 AAM will be integrated with the Rafale.
2) Dassault will produce the Rafale fuselage in India - similar to how Boeing makes the Apache fuselages in India in collaboration with Boeing. But unlike Boeing, I assume Dassault is setting up this facility on their own.
3) MRO facility in India (though I thought this was part of the Air Force deal).

Without a larger order, the best Dassault can do is produce the fuselage in India. I'd reckon integrating Astra won't be cheap either and all this won't make sense unless the Air Force goes in for a large order for the MRFA. This would also secure the platform for decades like the Jaguar, allowing us upgrade inhouse and install indigenous equipment.

I wonder if these Rafales can still take off and land on carriers with catapults like the French or American carriers.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

The contract has been signed today, this makes India the second and only foreign operator of the naval Rafale M variant.

A milestone in the journey of Indian Naval aviation. This is only the 3rd time that a new jet fighter has been procured for the naval air arm:-

Hawker Seahawk c.1960-1961

BAe Sea Harrier c. 1982-1983

Dassault Rafale c. 2025-2028

Interestingly in the first two the aircraft and the carrier were inextricably tied together. We had to buy the Seahawk from the British as without buying the aircraft the carrier {the old INS Vikrant} would not have come. In the early 1980s we went for the Harrier as it was a modern aircraft and the only one available that could fly off the 20,000 tonne Vikrant and it did lay the possibility that one day the HMS Hermes {later INS Viraat} might come our way, which it indeed did. Now finally we have designed and built our own carrier. Maybe the next step is in 15 years to be also building our own indigenous naval fighter.

It is possible we may see the French Aero Navale loan us a few Rafale's from their inventory so we break the aircraft and crew in on the new 45,000 tonne INS Vikrant long before the freshly made aircraft arrive in a few years.

It is certain now that the 110 aircraft Rafale deal with license assembly/quasi-production will get through.

Jai Hind.


Lieutenant RH Tahiliani executing the very first landing by an Indian pilot on an Indian carrier, 1961. Aircraft: Hawker Seahawk | Carrier: 20,000 tonne INS Vikrant R11



c.1989. Aircraft: BAE Sea Harrier. Carrier: INS Viraat 28,000 tonnes R22.



Dassault Rafale {picture of an IAF machine}

[fhdowntheline]

@ V Narayan sir- not nitpicking , you mentioned the Seahawk, Sea Harrier and the Rafale M - but what about the Mig 29Ks that are currently serving the Navy? Aren’t they modified for Naval ops like the Rafale? Or am I missing something here.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

@ V Narayan sir- not nitpicking , you mentioned the Seahawk, Sea Harrier and the Rafale M - but what about the Mig 29Ks that are currently serving the Navy? Aren’t they modified for Naval ops like the Rafale? Or am I missing something here.

My bad. Old greying brain cells. You are on the money

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

My bad. Old greying brain cells. You are on the money

No problem sir- we will all eventually reach there. But getting back to the point- I just wish our defense planners and the powers-that-be, show a bit more foresight and work these things out half-a-gen ahead of time.
Something tells me that having sufficiently powerful military hardware at a tactical level also helps as a strong deterrence within our neighbourhood.

[dust-n-bones]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

No problem sir- we will all eventually reach there. But getting back to the point- I just wish our defense planners and the powers-that-be, show a bit more foresight and work these things out half-a-gen ahead of time.
Something tells me that having sufficiently powerful military hardware at a tactical level also helps as a strong deterrence within our neighbourhood.

Very nicely (or delicately) put. We are always in the top 3 importers list for our military since donkeys years, but our military is always found twiddling its thumbs when it matters, and ends up saying famously, 'we will fight with what we have'.

Those two facts put together don't add up. Our poor buying strategy gets us 'mile wide, inch deep' capabilities - diluting the spend under too many heads, and not getting effective at anything. It may be the bureaucracy's way of keeping the role of suppliers and the military in check, or this is a personality driven system that flatters whatever catches the fancy of the boss who can't look beyond his fiefdom, but it needs to be reworked.

We need to prioritize what is important in the next decade plus, and build 'inch wide, mile deep' capabilities to address it. If that means Rafales, it should be an order for 300 of them, not 30. Mile deep capabilities should necessarily translate to overwhelming deterrence and long term partnerships with countries and their suppliers.

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

Very nicely (or delicately) put. We are always in the top 3 importers list for our military since donkeys years, but our military is always found twiddling its thumbs when it matters, and ends up saying famously, 'we will fight with what we have'.

Those two facts put together don't add up. Our poor buying strategy gets us 'mile wide, inch deep' capabilities - diluting the spend under too many heads, and not getting effective at anything. It may be the bureaucracy's way of keeping the role of suppliers and the military in check, or this is a personality driven system that flatters whatever catches the fancy of the boss who can't look beyond his fiefdom, but it needs to be reworked.

I wish we had built a few thousand km less highways, defocused from vanity projects like bullet trains and focused on objectives like achieving at least 42 squadrons of combat aircraft strength. Its shocking that we cannot wage a 2 front war inspite of clear and present danger for decades.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

We need to prioritize what is important in the next decade plus, and build 'inch wide, mile deep' capabilities to address it. If that means Rafales, it should be an order for 300 of them, not 30. Mile deep capabilities should necessarily translate to overwhelming deterrence and long term partnerships with countries and their suppliers.

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

I wish we had built a few thousand km less highways, defocused from vanity projects like bullet trains and focused on objectives like achieving at least 42 squadrons of combat aircraft strength. Its shocking that we cannot wage a 2 front war inspite of clear and present danger for decades.

We first heard this "sanctioned 42 squadrons strength" and "42 squadrons needed to fight two front war" almost 2 decades back. Since then, lots have changed. IAF has basically two responsibilities:

- Air defense against enemy aircraft & cruise missiles
- Ground strikes deep inside enemy territory and also air-support to ground troops.

However, missions that were once assigned to fighter aircraft, can now be done well by other systems. While nothing much has been done on acquisition of aircraft, Indian Army & Air Force is now equipped with equivalent alternate systems over the last 2 decades.

- Massive boost in anti-aircraft/cruise missile air defense system (S-400, Barak-8, Akash, SPYDER)
- Modification of air superiority aircraft (Su30MKI, Mig29) into multi-role aircraft (now equipped with Brahmos, anti-radiation missiles, LGBs etc). So while previously, we had 1 aircraft for air defense and 1 aircraft for ground missions, now a single aircraft can do two jobs.
- Acquisition of Apache/Rudra/Prachand helicopters for IAF/Army for close air support.
- Much wider arsenal of rocket and shell artillery systems, ballistic and cruise missiles and finally drones for both short range and long range ground attack missions.

The fact that Iran has not bothered to upgrade their Air Force also tells us something. When faced with a superior enemy (Israel/USA), it is far cost-effective to develop asymmetric capabilities. So Iran invested in missiles, drones and air defense systems. And because of this Iran is considered a formidable adversary by both Israel and USA, and any military action is handled very very carefully.

Ditto with India's geopolitical situation. China has become way too powerful. In the past 2 decades, we have built asymmetic defense/offense capabilities against China, putting fighter aircraft acquisition on the backburner.

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

We first heard this "sanctioned 42 squadrons strength" and "42 squadrons needed to fight two front war" almost 2 decades back. Since then, lots have changed. IAF has basically two responsibilities:

- Air defense against enemy aircraft & cruise missiles
- Ground strikes deep inside enemy territory and also air-support to ground troops.

However, missions that were once assigned to fighter aircraft, can now be done well by other systems. While nothing much has been done on acquisition of aircraft, Indian Army & Air Force is now equipped with equivalent alternate systems over the last 2 decades.

- Massive boost in anti-aircraft/cruise missile air defense system (S-400, Barak-8, Akash, SPYDER)
- Modification of air superiority aircraft (Su30MKI, Mig29) into multi-role aircraft (now equipped with Brahmos, anti-radiation missiles, LGBs etc). So while previously, we had 1 aircraft for air defense and 1 aircraft for ground missions, now a single aircraft can do two jobs.
- Acquisition of Apache/Rudra/Prachand helicopters for IAF/Army for close air support.
- Much wider arsenal of rocket and shell artillery systems, ballistic and cruise missiles and finally drones for both short range and long range ground attack missions.

The fact that Iran has not bothered to upgrade their Air Force also tells us something. When faced with a superior enemy (Israel/USA), it is far cost-effective to develop asymmetric capabilities. So Iran invested in missiles, drones and air defense systems. And because of this Iran is considered a formidable adversary by both Israel and USA, and any military action is handled very very carefully.

Ditto with India's geopolitical situation. China has become way too powerful. In the past 2 decades, we have built asymmetic defense/offense capabilities against China, putting fighter aircraft acquisition on the backburner.

All valid points- however we do not seem to have the offensive capability to overwhelm the adversaries at any time. Whether this capability is worth it or not is best left to "experts", but the real world experience is that we find ourselves just "adequate" or even short of the mark (Kargil) . Now, if we had the capability to launch "multiple" packages of airborne platforms then any conflict could be taken care of over a much shorter duration.
Also, a somewhat arbitrary parameter, but still worth the mention- the amount of India's geographical territory to be defended ( both real and claimed) divided by the number of active combat aircraft is higher than that of Pakistan or China.

[dust-n-bones]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

However, missions that were once assigned to fighter aircraft, can now be done well by other systems. While nothing much has been done on acquisition of aircraft, Indian Army & Air Force is now equipped with equivalent alternate systems over the last 2 decades.

While what you are saying may be true (in terms of where military technology is going), as also that we keep purchasing on a blank slate, the sad fact is that we get no outcomes - no deterrence is established as a result.

If there was an established war-plan with the new age (or any age) weapons that would cause unacceptable damage to Pakistan in case of a provocation, that provocation would not arise.
In 2019 (Balakot), PAF could retaliate because of this lack of deterrence by IAF. They knew the gaps in our AWACS platforms, had numerical and technological superiority in their aircraft and missiles, and jammed the MIGs communication with the command center. This, when we knew fully well that a Pakistani response was on its way - so we definitely were not caught off guard. We rubbed salt in our own wounds, and downed our own aircraft because the friend or foe system integration was unsatisfactory! Lots of references to this, here's a good start.


Do you think much would have changed now? The reality is that our military spends like a king, and lives like a pauper. For what is possible, observe at the difference in Indian cricket teams from 1980s and now. The difference is brought about by professional, strategic thinking. That same change should happen in the defence sector too.

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Ditto with India's geopolitical situation. China has become way too powerful. In the past 2 decades, we have built asymmetic defense/offense capabilities against China, putting fighter aircraft acquisition on the backburner.

This is getting too much ahead of ourselves. Don't you think we should get good at the flyweight category before applying in the heavy weight class?

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

This is getting too much ahead of ourselves. Don't you think we should get good at the flyweight category before applying in the heavy weight class?

We don't "apply" for heavy weight class. We look to actively avoid confrontation with the heavy weight (China). And if confrontation cannot be avoided, the focus will be mostly on defense (not offense) it looks like.

Meanwhile, not everything is well with PAF's storytelling. One pilot involved in Operation Swift Retort is in Jail while another pilot has been dismissed from service.
https://idrw.org/swift-retort-fallou...d-controversy/

Convicted under Official Secrets Act no less.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1905816

[dust-n-bones]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

We don't "apply" for heavy weight class. We look to actively avoid confrontation with the heavy weight (China). And if confrontation cannot be avoided, the focus will be mostly on defense (not offense) it looks like.

The essential question is, if we cannot guard against and deter Pakistan, how do we find the muscle to keep China at bay, which is some 50 times that weight category?

Back to Rafales. Buying 26 or 30 new jets is more of the same piecemeal approach that hasn't worked - we keep doing what is familiar but build no credible deterrence as a consequence.

India's department of defence runs its shop like a badly managed PSU, and the country and its soldiers pay the price in the battlefield. We throw an awful lot of money at the problem to deserve this outcome.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

The essential question is, if we cannot guard against and deter Pakistan, how do we find the muscle to keep China at bay, which is some 50 times that weight category?

- The fact that 2019 Balakot and 2020 Galwan did not escalate into a wider conflict implies deterrence worked, despite likely large casualties on their end.

- Just because Pak said a crow died and China said four died, it doesn't become the truth. Not declaring casualties is a classic commie strategy (Russia/Ukraine/China) that Pakistan has adopted. You can read more about this strategy by Googling "information warfare" or "perception management" or "strategic deception" or "warfare propaganda"

- The fact that PAF intentionally missed the Indian Army camp during Operation Swift Retort implies deterrence worked. The fact that Pak agreed to release Abhinandan immediately, when threatened with missile strike, implies deterrence worked.

Deterrence or escalation is not just binary 0 and 1 but a spectrum/ladder with large range/multiple levels. Even if IAF had 120 Rafales, the above events would've probably happened anyway. Because decision making by China/Pak does not depend on what toys India has. Deterrence depends on what China/Pak thinks we are most likely to do after a provocation. For example, there is no bigger weapon than a nuclear missile. But it is not a deterrent if China thinks we will not go nuclear, if they sit on a few sq km of our territory. Similarly, 120 Rafales is not a deterrent if Pakistan thinks we won't use them in case of terrorist attack OR we won't escalate into a full-scale war, if they strike an empty area next to an Army camp.

So, if you want even higher deterrence levels, the solution lies in unpredictable or escalatory or aggressive response to provocations. But that of course comes with its own risks.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

In 2019 (Balakot), PAF could retaliate because of this lack of deterrence by IAF. They knew the gaps in our AWACS platforms, had numerical and technological superiority in their aircraft and missiles, and jammed the MIGs communication with the command center.

This has been discussed extensively online and even on Team-Bhp but I would like to think that overall the IAF has numerical and technological superiority over the PAF in 2019 and even now.

However the attacker chooses the place and time of a battle and very smartly the PAF chose an area where the IAF was the weakest at the most vulnerable time. This resulted in the oldest and least potent air to air fighter of the IAF (Mig-21) going against the strongest fighter in the PAF (modernized F-16s). That too in a 3-4x numerical disadvantage.

Interestingly the PAF was able to jam the communications of the ancient Mig-21s but not of the modern Su-30MKIs.

In that area and moment of battle the PAF did have had numerical and technological superiority over the IAF. When IAF sent the strike package of Mirage 2000s into Pakistan it was the other way around.

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

This, when we knew fully well that a Pakistani response was on its way - so we definitely were not caught off guard. We rubbed salt in our own wounds, and downed our own aircraft because the friend or foe system integration was unsatisfactory!

This is unfortunately true, the IAF should have been better prepared and should have not been caught off guard with ancient Mig-21s facing the most potent aircraft in the PAF's arsenal. The downed Mi-8 was a huge embarrassment.

[Fuldagap]

The Balakot strikes and the pak retaliation is not the whole of what India has to offer or its capabilities. While a 2 front war is most unlikely in the next decade or two, given no political intervention there are tricks up its sleeves that can only be seen in a real and long duration war. Be it the airforce, army or the navy.

Abhinandan's MIG 21 Bison was able to down an F16. Many years prior to this real world incident, MIG 21s had been downing superior aircrafts in mutual exercises with the USA and others. Here is a basic table citing the data. There are many more exercises that prove how formidable a Mach 2, low radar signature MIG could be, given the superior tactics deployed by our pilots. Also the downing of that F16 will forever remain a mystery unless somebody writes about that in the future in some book. There were heavy speculations of it being of Jordanian origin.