IAF Seeks "Jaguar Model" for MRFA Fighter Jet Tender, Prioritizing Autonomy in Upgrades and Weapon Integration

In a move that could redefine India's defence acquisition strategy, the new Chief of the Indian Air Force (IAF), Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh, has indicated a preference for the "Jaguar model" in the upcoming Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) tender. This signifies a major shift towards self-reliance and could have significant implications for global aircraft manufacturers.

The MRFA tender, seeking to procure 114 advanced fighter jets, is crucial for modernizing the IAF's combat fleet. The "Jaguar model," as highlighted by the IAF Chief, emphasizes autonomy in upgrading and modifying the chosen aircraft. This draws inspiration from the IAF's successful experience with its SEPECAT Jaguar fleet, which has undergone multiple indigenous upgrades over decades, significantly enhancing its capabilities and extending its service life.

The IAF, particularly through the Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE), has been able to integrate advanced technologies into the Jaguar without relying on the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). This includes major upgrades like the Darin-I and Darin-II, culminating in the groundbreaking Darin-III upgrade which saw the integration of an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar – a first for a legacy fighter aircraft. The Darin-III also incorporated indigenously developed mission computers and weapon systems like the ASRAAM and Rampage missiles.

By invoking the "Jaguar model," the IAF is seeking a partner willing to provide full access to the aircraft's source codes and integration capabilities for radars, mission systems, and weaponry. This would empower India to conduct future upgrades locally, ensuring technological edge and aligning with the nation's "Aatmanirbhar Bharat" (Self-Reliant India) initiative. This approach would reduce dependence on foreign OEMs and mitigate potential supply chain vulnerabilities arising from geopolitical factors.

However, this demand for autonomy could pose a challenge for aircraft manufacturers who traditionally rely on long-term service contracts and upgrade programs for sustained revenue. By internalizing the upgrade process, the IAF could significantly reduce the OEM's role in the lucrative post-sale support and modernization phases, potentially disrupting the established business model in the aerospace industry.

This shift in approach underscores the IAF's determination to control the lifecycle management of its fighter fleet. OEMs vying for the MRFA contract must be prepared to accommodate India's demand for technological independence, which includes handing over source codes and facilitating the integration of Indian-made systems. While this may narrow the field of contenders, it represents a significant step towards India achieving complete self-reliance in managing and modernizing its air power.

The MRFA competition has attracted interest from major global aircraft manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin (F-21), Boeing (F/A-18 Super Hornet), Dassault Aviation (Rafale), Saab (Gripen), and the Eurofighter consortium (Typhoon). It remains to be seen how these OEMs will respond to the IAF's emphasis on the "Jaguar model" and its implications for their long-term engagement with India.

 

[Raj]

SAAB, lakheed Martin, even korean kf 21 may allow such kind of requirement.

 

[R. Singh]

F-15 Ex-II can fulfill IAF requirements and its upgrade in form of F-XX and Indian FGFA since Boeing is also party in development of F-22 fighters! ADA+HAL can gain from Boeing's experience !

 

[linus52]

Like USA &;others must allow private companies to design, develope, assemble in India with engines. Remove HAL, DRDO and others who take too long and money

 

[sanket]

Good this will bring Dassault down to the earth who are Flying high and charging more for Integrating Indian developed AESA Radar for Rafale Marine at present , in this wai it will b Indigenous Fighter jet as there was recent news /couple of days ago about operating Indigenous Fighter jet by 2047. Thats what i was Commenting from Last year that make a clause in MRFA not only starting production Line But with complete Eco-system & Autonomy to upgrade Just Like Super Sukhoi & MIG-29 Upgrade a great Example , earlier it lack in Mirage-2000 upgrade were it burnt the finger in the name of Upgrade & French Milk the Money & upgrade was not at par Lackin AESA Radar & Latest weapon package .

I always said Selling the fighter jet is One Time profit, But Real profit comes From Frequent upgrade , Integrating upgraded weapons ,Avionics, Radar whether it is Indigenous or Third party etc etc ............. OEM take aadvantage by charging hefty amount or simply decline to upgrade , In Mirage-2000 upgrade Engine was not happen , AESA Radar,Latest & Third party weapon were not happen & not it is fallen back compared to F-16 & MIG-29 UPGRADE All 3 jets were of same Era But Mirage is Not having even BVR withh Range over 70 kM , Infact it has Fly under Escort of MIG-29 & Su-30 MKI. waste of upgrade package of Mirage-2000 . Many Times i have repeated

 

[sanket]

SAAB, lakheed Martin, even korean kf 21 may allow such kind of requirement.

KF-21 is not even Inducted by korean , F-21 prototype havent yet Build & Tested ,question is will they allow Brahmos-NG , SaaB can allow But they are not in Race .Mark My word Dassault will offer Best Deal for Rafale Under MRFA . Plan A- Rafale & Plan B-Su-35 . If Dassault fail to allow Rafale, Su-35 is Clear winner .

 

[Akhil]

I can get behind this. This put a condition on foreign manufacturers also. We have seen Dassault not fulfill their offset promises and overcharge us at no visible problem for them. No flexibility offered, ToT or anything.

Overall when all things are considered, Su-35 would have been better for us than Rafale. Russian-Indian partnerships offer more flexibility, ToT and they meet their offset targets unlike Dassault for lower cost. The downside though is higher service requirement. But Su-30 have been very dependable for us. So I don't know if it's true or just western propaganda. But at lower cost, more flexibility some compromise is expected.

 

[Anant]

I can get behind this. This put a condition on foreign manufacturers also. We have seen Dassault not fulfill their offset promises and overcharge us at no visible problem for them. No flexibility offered, ToT or anything.

Overall when all things are considered, Su-35 would have been better for us than Rafale. Russian-Indian partnerships offer more flexibility, ToT and they meet their offset targets unlike Dassault for lower cost. The downside though is higher service requirement. But Su-30 have been very dependable for us. So I don't know if it's true or just western propaganda. But at lower cost, more flexibility some compromise is expected.

Russian ToT to India has been both excellent and horrible. Essentially, if you look at license production of Russian equipment in India, one thing that sticks out is that Russia (and the USSR before it) never provided enough ToT or expertise to completely manufacture any complex weapons (not talking about small rifles and the like) in India. They tried that with China, quickly saw the Chinese steal stuff, and decided to not do the same with India. Essentially, they've always wanted to keep India connected to them for defence equipment manufacturing and refits.

The Su-30MKI has been a pretty good type in service, though there have been a number of hiccups.

One of the most prominent examples (of us being short-changed by Russia / the USSR) that comes to mind is for the Navy. In the mid-1970s, the Navy retired the last of the WW2-era destroyers that we had got second-hand from the Brits in the 1940s and 1950s. With the Nilgiri-class frigate program well underway, the Navy projected a need for six destroyers. The original idea for these was to get three Kashin-class destroyers and three newer Sovremenny-class destroyers from the USSR, with the idea being that the USSR would supply three destroyers in complete condition, heavily assist in building the next two in India, and the last destroyer would be completely built in India to a slightly modified design certified by the Soviets.

In principle, the Soviets agreed, and consequently delivered the three Kashins to India between 1980 and 1983 (these would become INS Rajput, INS Rana, and INS Ranvir). Therefore, it was decided to move for the three Sovremennys next. However, the Russians, at this point, absolutely refused to consider letting India have any role in the construction of the Sovremennys, and quickly hiked the prices. The Navy then requested for three more Kashins instead, with the possibility of them being built in India. The Russians refused yet again. As a result, and given India's poor finances at that point, in 1983, we ordered two more Kashins, which were delivered in 1986 and 1988 (becoming INS Ranvir and INS Ranvijay respectively).

The downward pressure this put on Indo-Soviet ties led to the Soviets agreeing instead to let India build a bunch of Tarantul-class corvettes instead. The only positive thing to come out of all this was that we were essentially able to push them into offering us gas turbines and the like, which then meant we were able to transform the third batch of the Godavari-class frigates (after the three Godavari-class and the three modified variants in form of the Brahmaputra-class) into proper destroyers, which would eventually become the Delhi-class.

 

[NSR]

Honorable ACM Singh Ji,

The real problem is that France/Dassault/Safran/Thales are not open to manufacturing Rafale in India by any Indian company with required TOTs.
France/Dassault is even trying to butt into Indian overhauled, upgraded and flight tested 48 Mirage-2000Is MRO business too by dislodging HAL by establishing its own MRO company in Noida.
Agree about Dassault doing MRO for Rafale but doing MRO for Mirage-2000Is is a daylight robbery and egregious behavior by any means.
Didn't Dassault teach how to upgrade and maintain Mirage-2000s?

So your choice is not available at all. Sad situation indeed.

 

[Akshat]

SAAB, lakheed Martin, even korean kf 21 may allow such kind of requirement.

Saab doesn’t have the tech on its own. Only about 40% of the tech on Gripen is theirs. And the plane failed the trials so it doesn’t suit our requirements.

LM might do it. But again, F21 doesn’t exist and will be developed and tested only and only if we pay for it after its selection. And finally, even F16 failed the trials.

South Korea didn’t respond to the RFI.

 

[Ashutosh]

The below is for people who think Tejas mk2 2 can't replace MRFA. GripenE is taken in context - Tejas mk2 is larger than it.

The tender documents released for the engine was for the original LCA mk2.
The one which just had extended fuselage and wingspan nothing more. No canard no IRST etc.
The major redesign made it a MWF.
Basically u r asking to compare F16 and GripenE since GripenE is just 1000kg lighter than LCA mk2.point to be noted-
LCA mk2 is heavier.

GripenE Length: 15.2 m (49 ft 10 in) JAS 39E
15.9 m (52 ft) JAS 39F
Vs
Length: (15.06 m)F16

GripenE stats
Wingspan: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in)
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 31 m2 (330 sq ft) [504]
Empty weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 16,500 kg (36,376 lb)
Fuel capacity:
Internal: 4,360 L (1,150 US gal) (3400 kg)
External: 4535 L (3537 kg) via 3 drop tanks: 2× 1700L (450 US gal) + 1× 1135L (300 US gal)[504]

F16 stats
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.9 m)
Wing area: 300 sq ft (28 m2)
Airfoil: NACA 64A204[301]
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,573 kg)
Gross weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,187 kg)
Fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg) internal[67]

GripenE can supercruise while F16 can't.
HP
GripenE 10
F16 11.
Point to be noted both are seen carrying dual rack pylons .
A2A - GripenE - 7X Meteor
F16- 6 X AMRAAM.

Just minor differences, now think about LCA mk2 which would be a larger plane.

 

[Akshat]

I can get behind this. This put a condition on foreign manufacturers also. We have seen Dassault not fulfill their offset promises and overcharge us at no visible problem for them. No flexibility offered, ToT or anything.

Overall when all things are considered, Su-35 would have been better for us than Rafale. Russian-Indian partnerships offer more flexibility, ToT and they meet their offset targets unlike Dassault for lower cost. The downside though is higher service requirement. But Su-30 have been very dependable for us. So I don't know if it's true or just western propaganda. But at lower cost, more flexibility some compromise is expected.

Ummm…not true. There have been no penalties on Safran at all regarding ToT or offsets. There was one small penalty on MBDA, that too was just for not meeting their annual targets which were met later, and that default also amounted to just 0.5% of the overall offset target. So their record in ToT and offsets are as rather amazing. In fact, we are still earning from those offsets. And they have already signed MoUs allowing integration of our own weapons on Rafale.

As for Su35, it wasn’t even offered at the time. Its tech is far inferior. And Russia won’t give you any ToT. They didn’t even give us ToT for Su30 despite an order of 270+. Remember, their ToT for engines stopped at 47%? And as soon as war starts with China, they will stop sending anything.

Of and yeah, the cost. Their planes actually cost more than even Rafale did. The barebones cost of Su30 now is about 120 million usd (made in India, of course), as opposed to about 92 million usd of Rafale.

 

[sanket]

I can get behind this. This put a condition on foreign manufacturers also. We have seen Dassault not fulfill their offset promises and overcharge us at no visible problem for them. No flexibility offered, ToT or anything.

Overall when all things are considered, Su-35 would have been better for us than Rafale. Russian-Indian partnerships offer more flexibility, ToT and they meet their offset targets unlike Dassault for lower cost. The downside though is higher service requirement. But Su-30 have been very dependable for us. So I don't know if it's true or just western propaganda. But at lower cost, more flexibility some compromise is expected.

Plan A Rafale Pla n -b Su-35 If Dassault Fail to meet condition of MRAF with ToT, complete Eco-system, Local Assembly Production Facility with Indian Pvt Player & Autonomy of Future Upgrade with permission of OEM .A great example of upgradation on its own Bharat is Doing with Su-30 MKI to Super Sukhoi From Engine components modifications according to feedback from IAF , to Integration Astra Family Rudram Family Nirbhay, SAAW, Brahmos was the First weapon to b integrated without help of Russia who wanted to charged more & Now Transforming Su-30 MKI into Super Sukhoi with Indian developed systems & Tech.

 

[kurtwallis wallis]

Dassault will NEVER EVER allow self upgrades by HAL-IAF BRD... ONLY LM F21 jv Tatas-HAL will be viable then....

 

[Raj]

KF-21 is not even Inducted by korean , F-21 prototype havent yet Build & Tested ,question is will they allow Brahmos-NG , SaaB can allow But they are not in Race .Mark My word Dassault will offer Best Deal for Rafale Under MRFA . Plan A- Rafale & Plan B-Su-35 . If Dassault fail to allow Rafale, Su-35 is Clear winner .

Koreans already ordered 20 block 1 jets, F-21 nothing but Taiwanese f16. France may not offer this kind of requirements, I guess.

 

[Akshat]

Koreans already ordered 20 block 1 jets, F-21 nothing but Taiwanese f16. France may not offer this kind of requirements, I guess.

Only France can meet these requirements. For F21 we will have to pay the entire cost for R&D and take the risk and wait for it. F16 itself failed the trials last time, btw. As for Korea, they didn’t participate in the RFI. So no comments.

 

[Sandeep]

It’s obvious that India won’t go ahead with the MRFA at all. There’s been no progress made and no country will meet the requirements that we want in transferring technology, local manufacturing and indigenous content.

The focus should be on manufacturing the Tejas MK1A jets and quickly finish manufacturing the prototypes for Tejas MK2 and AMCA. These two jets will be the backbone of our air force for the next 50 years so it’s important that we focus on our indigenous jets.

 

[Aloutte]

Russian ToT to India has been both excellent and horrible. Essentially, if you look at license production of Russian equipment in India, one thing that sticks out is that Russia (and the USSR before it) never provided enough ToT or expertise to completely manufacture any complex weapons (not talking about small rifles and the like) in India.

Look at the MIG-21, SU-30 MKI model, not a single OEM in earth can offer this much TOT or flexibility to upgrade, it could very well be SU-57.

 

[Anant]

Look at the MIG-21, SU-30 MKI model, not a single OEM in earth can offer this much TOT or flexibility to upgrade, it could very well be SU-57.

Um, the MiG-21 upgrades were available literally everywhere thanks to the sheer numbers of the aircraft produced. Russia couldn't control that even if they tried. Heck, Israel was running MiG-21 upgrade programs for export at one point.

As for the Su-30MKI, Russia was getting a guaranteed sale of over 200 aircraft, so the requested changes were perfectly acceptable. Heck, give out a serious tender for 200 fighters today with customised requirements and see the OEMs line up.

Now, coming to Russian ToT: Look up the saga of the Ka-226. Look up the saga of the Rajput-class destroyers and the Navy's plan to build destroyers way back in the 1980s (and how that got pushed back by a decade and a half). Look up our requests to build the Kilo-class submarine. Look up the fact that Russia promised expertise in submarine refits, and that they failed to provide those. Look up the claims they made about the Su-57 when we were in the program, and how that ended.

 

[kurtwallis wallis]

Then Dassault will exit MRFA tender soon, as they asked for 100% Dassault owned MRO facility in UP.....