Indian Military Aviation

[Austin]

No F-35 for India

Pradeep Kumar, who is the top civil servant in the Ministry of Defense told reporters on Wednesday that, while the agreement for design and development of the PAK FA is expected to come through with Russia, after the Indian Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approves the details, “You can’t have two types (of fifth generation fighters).

Pointing out that the US was, even now, working on the development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Kumar categorically repeated, “There is no question of having two fighters.”

Makes sense that you cant pursue two 5th Gen programs without significant investment and overlap in capabilities.

That makes me wonder if we will pursue the AMCA program which is another 5th gen program , if what defence sec says is true then it puts some question on the viability of AMCA program.

[Karan M]

Have some context please.
The secretary's remarks as interpreted by the media apart, industry officials and others, including media asked this same question of IAF, HAL & ADA in 2008, when the MCA came up for firm discussion thanks to the progress on the LCA. The answer was clear, the MCA would be the logical follow on to the MMRCA (medium weight category) whereas the Sukhoi PAKFA/FGFA would be the equivalent of todays Su-30 MKI in service (heavy weight). So the plan has been well thought out, and ADA has been given clearance.

There is a reason for this, the rate at which the IAF is retiring planes (because an entire decade, no bulk orders were placed to replace earlier planes thanks to budget problems), if there is no MCA, the IAF will end up having to order double the number of MMRCA. Per current estimates, the MCA will be required for at least 150 planes but again, numbers may increase to more than that, given additional requirements and retirals.

To give you an idea, we are acquiring 140 LCA, 126 MMRCA and 270 Sukhois - thats 27 Squadrons, and 15 short of the 42 limit. Lets assume all these fifteen squadrons are FGFA -300 aircraft at 20 each.

But we will also be losing all our 5 MiG-27 squadrons, six Bison squadrons, five Jaguar squadrons, 3 MiG-29 squadrons, 3 Mirage 2000 squadrons.

That's a shortfall of 22 squadrons or 396-440 aircraft. That leaves 22 squadrons still required.

There's ample scope and requirement for the MCA, even if MMRCA numbers are doubled, and 4 more LCA MK2 squadrons are ordered. That leaves 11 squadrons

11 Squadrons of the MCA are 220 planes. And this is looking at the 42 squadron limit. If the IAF gets cabinet clearance to increase squadron numbers and fleet strength thanks to the PRC and Pak two front issue, as several analysts are suggesting, then even more MCA will be required.

[Austin]

I would be very surprised if India managed to fund two 5th Gen program considering ~$30 billion is slated to fund the FGFA , the IAF may find it cheaper to double or triple the order for MMRCA due to economics of scale or even increase the FGFA order with different mark variant then to fund the a new 5th gen program.

I would keep my fingers crossed till the GOI officially sanctions the AMCA project.

[Karan M]

Frankly, your economics theory is not a decider, money is not going to be a stumbling block as the India of today can fund a 270 Sukhoi 30 MKI order while ordering 120 MMRCA and pursuing a LCA. Furthermore, the MMRCA order is not going to be that much cheaper and its capabilities will not be as effective versus NG aircraft and systems introduced a decade from now, and the industrial benefits of the FGFA and MMRCA are limited at best to offsets. To be in the Aerospace game, India has to go ahead with the MCA, and this is known to the GOI and MOD.

Which is why, the GOI already gave ADA the go ahead to do preliminary work on the MCA a couple of years back, substantial progress has been made on defining the baseline capabilities and the ADA are waiting for a refined list of parameters from the IAF due next year (2011). If you want more details, PV Naik himself, has now gone on record, mentioning the MCA in his recent interaction with the media on the occasion of AF Day.

[Austin]

^^^ Ok lets see what turn AMCA takes , in the end it depends if GOI sanctions it.

I know that ADA is lobbing for it so it may just be done .

If there is so much money then there are so many desperate needs for IA and IN that I would happy to see get funded.

[Karan M]

^^^ Ok lets see what turn AMCA takes , in the end it depends if GOI sanctions it.

I know that ADA is lobbing for it so it may just be done .

If there is so much money then there are so many desperate needs for IA and IN that I would happy to see get funded.

1. How do you know only ADA is lobbying for it? The evidence has been provided to you about the need for the LCA. Over 400 aircraft are required over the next couple of decades, even after ordering the maximal 300 FGFA. Its to India's benefit that the money goes inhouse rather than outside for CKD/SKD/TOT assembly work, only partially redeemed by offsets which cannot necessarily be at the same level of complexity and value addition. The highest end systems are not given for offsets either, and offsets + TOT mean the OEM usually hikes the price of the product!

So, no - it is not ADA alone which is "lobbying for it" and there are many people who realize the dynamics of what is required.

2. What exactly is "so much money"? You are ok with a FGFA project for $ 30Billion (@100 Million per aircraft, not counting the investment in all sorts of other items, infrastructure that will be required starting with an investment of $300 Million) but wonder about an investment of a mere fraction of that to develop an Indian system? And keep repeating "if GOI sanctions it" despite the evidence that clearly shows the ADA has been already cleared to work on it, the IAF is behind the project so much so that the Air Chief & the VCAS have both mentioned the program in recent days.

-Furthermore, the money argument holds for the MCA, as the usual thumb-rule so far for any product developed locally is that its order value is many many times that spent in development. Look at the Akash or any of the orders.

-Nor are there costs associated with TOT, and private and public industry are direct contributors and not "build to print" manufacturers as is usually the case in offsets.

-Furthermore, the ratio between capital cost and logistics to sustain the aircraft is in the proportion of 1:2. That alone, makes it worthwhile.

Last, your claim that "then there are so many desperate needs for IA and IN that I would happy to see get funded" is wrong. Every year, India returns huge amounts of money to the Finance Ministry, because the relevant service could not spend it in time. In other words, it is not the lack of money that is a problem but the lack of ability to take a timely procurement decision.

In FY09, the Revised Defence Expenditure Estimate figures were lower than the Budgeted Estimates by no less than Rs 7000 Crore (i.e. $1.56 Billion), this is Rs 7000 Crores a year, in contrast the LCA MK2 has been budgeted Rs 5302 Crores over the entire plan till 2018.

The MCA is being budgeted for a similar amount of Rs 5000 Crores for 5-6 Prototypes. (Business Standard, 25th April 2009).

As can be clearly seen, the MCA cost will be insignificant compared to the amounts India spends on procuring rebuilt items/junk (Gorshkov- Rs 11,650 Crores), Cost escalations (+2838 Rs Crore in the Scorpene) or even returns unspent year after year. The money goes directly to Indian industry and benefits the Indian economy.

[Karan M]

Which is why, the GOI already gave ADA the go ahead to do preliminary work on the MCA a couple of years back, substantial progress has been made on defining the baseline capabilities and the ADA are waiting for a refined list of parameters from the IAF due next year (2011). If you want more details, PV Naik himself, has now gone on record, mentioning the MCA in his recent interaction with the media on the occasion of AF Day.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101024/main4.htm

DRDO to roll out own fifth-generation fighter
Vijay Mohan/TNS

Chandigarh, October 23
While the indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas, is expected to receive operational clearance in the next two months and its induction into the IAF is scheduled for next year, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has embarked upon a project to develop its own fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

The proposed DRDO aircraft would be in the medium-weight (20-tonne) category and different from the joint Indo-Russian fifth-generation fighter that is on the cards, which is in the heavier 30-tonne category like the Su-30.

“The seed project for the new aircraft has started and is expected to be complete in about 18 months,” P.S. Subramanyam, Director, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), and head of the Tejas project, told The Tribune here today. The seed project would define the technical and operational requirements and lay out the broad concepts for developing the aircraft.

“Our proposed fighter would be a twin-engined aircraft in the category of the MiG-29,” Subramanyam said.

On the status of the Tejas project, Subramanyam said the aircraft trials for launching R-73 short-range anti-aircraft missiles and 1000 lbs bombs have been successful. “The 10 prototypes and pre-production variants have undertaken 1,450 sorties, which include about 200 with weapons,” he said.

The IAF has projected a total requirement for about 120 Tejas and 16 two-seater trainer variants for equipping seven squadrons, while the Navy wants 57 aircraft of this type.

The ADA is also looking at integrating the Israeli Python air-to-air missile with the Tejas to meet the IAF requirements, while the Navy wants it to examine the possibility of the Israeli Derby missiles that it already uses on the Sea Harrier. The Tejas’ avionics system, Subramanyam said, was open-ended so that weapon systems could be changed over seamlessly.

Of the 200-odd Tejas to be produced, each of which would cost Rs 200 crore, about 100 would be powered by the American General Electric 414 engine. (my comment: the IAF MK2 version) Subramanyam said that a new project had been taken up for the development of the Kaveri engine in collaboration with French firm SNECMA that would meet the revised weight and flight parameters of the Tejas.

[Juggi G]

Say What !!!





Shorty Refueling B.I.G Biggie

KC-135 doing C-5 Galaxy

[Austin]

Karan M , I have read all those interviews on AMCA and I remember DRDO pushing for the then MCA way back in 1999 when it was first proposed as a logical development post LCA , so yes ADA/DRDO/IAF must be lobbying for it.
it has been a decade now that there are plans to develop the MCA

I have seen those proposal and some information provided by ADA on the now AMCA which clearly looks like a 5th Gen fighter with all the qualities that a 5th gen should have.

It will certainly be an expensive project both as prototype and for production and I am wondering how GOI can sanction two parallel 5th Gen programs when it has intention to commit such a huge money on FGFA.

May be they can just cut the FGFA to 150 aircraft and put that money in AMCA.

The GOI has yet to take an official view on that and has to sanction the project , lets see in what form it comes up.

[Juggi G]

Disintegration of Pak Could Affect India : Deputy Air Chief
UNI

Disintegration of Pak Could Affect India : Deputy Air Chief
Bareilly, Oct 22

Deputy Chief of Indian Air Force (IAF) Air Marshal P K Barbora today said though the Indian air space is totally secured but if Pakistan gets disintegrated then it could be a problem for the country.


Mr Barbora, who was here to attend a programme to honour the martyrs told UNI that it could be a problem for India if Pakistan gets disintregrated as then the country have to face ''many Pakistans.'' '' It would be better for India that Pakistan remains united and any disintregration could have an adverse effect on us,'' he commented.

Expressing confidence that there is no threat from China and they would not even think of repeating the 1962 like invasion nowdays, he said India was capable to deal with any situation and have a capability to strike in a big way with sophisticated fighter aircafts and missiles.

He said the IAF was in the process to procure the fifth generation aircrafts and equipments including C-17 and C-130, which will replace the old AN-32 and IL-76.

--UNI

[Pratyush]

As far as the AMCA is concerned unless the IAF is involved from the get go. It will not be enthusiastic about the project. We don't really know what is the position of the IAF to a domestic project. I seem to recall reading about a comment by the current ACM that deliver a first rate 4th gen jet. Before you get on the task of 5th gen.

So what gives that the DRDO is going ahead seemingly without the commitment from the IAF the end user.

[nrshah]

I seem to recall reading about a comment by the current ACM that deliver a first rate 4th gen jet. Before you get on the task of 5th gen.

I think the statement (quoted in Live fist) is not interpreted correctly...The statement in the report was
"Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane. That is the job before you," he said.

However, you need to read the same in the context of other content in the paragraph... The whole paragraph reads as below
In August 2008, right about the time the Indian Air Force had decided to officially kickstart procedures to get the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) off the realm of theory, then Chief of Air Staff Fali Major happened to bump into DRDO chief M Natarajan and then HAL chairman Ashok Baweja at an industry suppliers function in Bangalore. The Chief was mildly irritated that both Baweja and Natarajan had provided media sound-bytes and interviews suggesting that the MCA would have "fifth generation technologies". He impressed upon both gentlemen, over tea, that if the MCA went the LCA way, it would be not just unacceptable to the air force, but an act of criminal disregard for the country's security. "Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane. That is the job before you," he said.

Now if you read the entire thing, I interpret it in a way that give first rate 4th Gen Aircraft (LCA) before starting giving all the statements on MCA.... That is job before you

Once the same is done, DRDO can go on going public with AMCA.... This is at least my interpretation about the scenario... Feel free to disagree...

Now with LCA only couple of months away from its IOC, the job is mostly done atleast for the designing team...

With respect to Mk2, we all understand that efforts will be far less than what was required for MK1... Remember LCA delayed because of lot of precedent activities getting delayed which also put subsequent activities on hold... For eg, radar integration issues delayed LSP3 first flight... the same wont be issue for LCA Mk 2 as all such activities have been taken off in Mk1 itself... Even here, designer's part would be finish early compared to others...

Our AMCA will also not start before 18 months (min)... Seed of the project will take 18 months... I dont feel the timing is coincidental... It is well thought of as i feel

With respect to IAF involved in AMCA, off late there is a sea change in the attitude of IAF with respect to DRDO and indigenous efforts...Look at the support, LCA is getting now from IAF... I feel the MMRCA drama came as eye opener to IAF and other running RPF (running continuously) for decades have only added cement to the thought...

Added later...The same link of livefist report also states...A proposal in 2008 suggested that the MCA be used as a technology feeder platform to the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), but after hectic representations by DRDO and HAL, with support from the IAF, it was finally decided that the MCA would continue as a fully separate aircraft programme.

[Austin]

I think the idea of developing MCA as a technology feeder program to support the FGFA was a good one with low risk and deliverables in mind.

I think the next approach post Tejas for DRDO and Industry should be an evolutionary one and not a revolutionary one as they seem to have now with AMCA . which is to say develop a 4 plus gen twin engine fighter which can match up with Typhoon/Rafale class and within a defined time frame.

A time frame of 12-15 years from project sanction and a challenge to develop a affordable mass produce Typhoon class medium fighter is quite good and achievable at that and key technologies like Engine , Avionics , AI ,Materials some of which can feed the 5th Gen program , within our threat environment of China and Pakistan this class of fighter would still be an effective one for its task.

Even for US and Russia the path to 5th gen was not an easy one and couple of prototypes YF-22/YF-23/Mig-1.44/Su-47 went to feed their 5th gen program and it took them more them more than a decade to come with something competent.

I am aware that some one will come up and beat me in a forum debate why we should go for a 5th gen fighter and how a eurofighter like approach will be obsolete in the next 10 years and how we can become a world leader with AMCA program etc etc but looking at past experience and how not to commit the same mistake twice a evolutionary and practically achievable approach towards AMCA is better then a revolutionary and high risk approach.

[koti]

I am aware that someone will come up and beat me in a forum debate why we should go for a 5th gen fighter and how a Eurofighter like approach will be obsolete in the next 10 years and how we can become a world leader with AMCA program etc but looking at past experience and how not to commit the same mistake twice a evolutionary and practically achievable approach towards AMCA is better than a revolutionary and high risk approach.

Actually sir, Except for the airframe, a lot of EF's critical components can find its way into decent enough 5th Gen plane.
I don't see any big revolutionary decisions taken on the AMCA's development.
Yes, the components developed for AMCA will not only help augment FGFA's capabilities but can help us have an advantage by the time FGFA in into the air force and when we will start our next quest for a 5th gen MMRCA.

FGFA is going to be the forefront of India's air arm but again, it is still a big twin engine heavy beast. We would be in need of other medium/lighter aircraft for point defense or less critical missions.
Also there is talk on making UCAV's, possibly out of AMCA's.


As the development of AMCA will be modularized, the internal components can be still be feeding the FGFA and a few design aspects incorporated into FGFA could be absorbed into AMCA.

Hence, limiting AMCA as a feeder for FGFA IMO would prevent us from gaining the said future benefits.

[Pratyush]

Austin,

That was the approach about 10 years ago. But today it seems to be a full fledged FGFA design. Also it seems to be consistant with Indian actions in the aerospace front.

If I see the HF 24, the LCA , FGFA/AMCA.

All the preceeding designs were a great leap when it came to the domestice capabilities in India. No reason to believe that the current design will be any thing but.

Also many of the technologies which will be developed for the PAK FA may also be ported to the FGFA. In that regard the bugetery allocation may not be an issue. At least when it come to the FGFA.

JMT

[Austin]

With respect to FGFA it is still comfortable 10 years away , the first prototype is expected to fly in 2018.
It remains to be seen how much of TOT FGFA will provide , the time to absorb this and how soon it will be relevant to AMCA , from past reports it was declared 30 % of TOT and Indian contribution.

If the AMCA is suppose to start in the next 18 months then I do not see how FGFA designers from HAL will contribute to AMCA , AMCA looks like an Indian effort to develop 5th gen fighter and with ADA brochure puts it having Stealth , Supercruise and Internal weapons bays as key feature , none of which we have and needs to be developed.

All of the above technology needs to be developed in a full flight qualified fighter to be of use to IAF , from what we have in Tejas its a generational leap or an revolutionary fighter.

If i look at time stamp of US and Russia then it takes about 15 -18 years from development to initial deployment of first batch for eg PAK-FA design started in early 2000 was freezed in later 2004 , FSED started in 2005 and first prototype flew in Jan 2010 with initial roll out expected in 2016 , a nice 16 years with lots of experience to be gathered from X-prototype like Mig-1.44 and Su-47 that went into its development.

Which makes me say take the next evolutionary step from tejas and develop a twin engine eurofighter like fighter that can be developed in a fix time , can be affordable to be mass developed and what is within our reach.

[Juggi G]

Maoist Whirr in Chopper Race
The Telegraph - Calcutta

[Pratyush]

SNIP......
Which makes me say take the next evolutionary step from tejas and develop a twin engine eurofighter like fighter that can be developed in a fix time , can be affordable to be mass developed and what is within our reach.

What you are saying is sensible. But a part of me disagrees with you. For the following reason. If we are going for the MMRCA and have an imported solution to maintain the numbers. Then it makes no sense to work for a project which is equal to a forigen solution and will take up to 5/6 years to complete. If approved today.

The right time to start this project was in 2003 /4 when there was sufficient confidence in the tejas design. At present, it would be better to bypass a project which at best will produce an aircraft which is equal to an existing design 10 years from now.


JMT

[nrshah]

Austin,
I will put the following perspective with reference to your evolution/revolution theory...

While have to agree to you on we should be evolving LCA into formidable EF/Rafale kind of plane, we also need to consider other side...

We are already having a look on them and we might get something of their class very soon... Also, we will be getting PAkFA/FGFA... With Mig 29 and M2K getting upgraded they will stay till 2025 after which they are planned to be retired...

Now consider the force level in 2025

Pak Fa /FGFA 100 Units (We will be getting 50 Single seat - PAK FA)
MKI 270
LCA MK2 100
LCA MK1 40
MMRCA 125
Total 635 Units

This is without including 100 odd Mig 29 and M2K, expected to retire by then.. However, i feel they will continue till 2030..

Now consider what threat they will face.

TSP - around 250 JF 17, 100 Odd F 16 (None of them will be any match to any of our planes except LCA MK1) and 50 J10

PRC --- it will be in form of J10, Su 30 and its clowns and handful of 5th gen aircraft... of course they will have numerical advantage over us but this is something we cannot do anything unless we have a political will of having over 60 squadrons..

All in all, IAF will be competent enough to face every threat thrown at it by next 2 decades

Now consider, AMCA is also delayed...it is not available till say 2030(fair enough?)... Still we have a competent force of over 600 4++ gen planes... with an option of another 60 odd planes (MMRCA). Not to mention the inventory will be very new with only 100 mirages and mig 29 at the end of life...

Thus the situation that we faced in while developing LCA (Dwindling nos and ageing fleet) will not be applicable... Th e problem with LCA was it was decided when the bulk of existing fleet was on verge of retiring... think if LCA was started in early 70's... When we have a force of 700 new planes (all 4++ generation), we might be able to take impact of delay of say half a decade in AMCA

I feel when we have such comfort available, it is always better to take stretched goals... This will also ensure we dont always have to play a catching game... LCA has brought us very close the rest of world and now AMCA will ensure we are at par with them... We dont want another scenario where we sanction 5g when US and others have already inducted 6g...

Added - Not to mention, we have option to make more LCA MK2 if required... I personally feel, we eventually will have over 150 LCA MK2

[Pratyush]

NRS,

Just one quible, PAK FA shoiuld be single seat and not single engine.

[Austin]

Now consider, AMCA is also delayed...it is not available till say 2030(fair enough?)... Still we have a competent force of over 600 4++ gen planes... with an option of another 60 odd planes (MMRCA). Not to mention the inventory will be very new with only 100 mirages and mig 29 at the end of life..

.

nrshah , that is what my point is it is not fair to the IAF , We should do something within our reach , on schedule and has risk taken care of at the design stage.

It would be unfair to the IAF to promise Stealth , Supercruise all fifth gen attribute when we have not done any research in that area via prototypes to get the ground work done like the US did with YF-22/23 , some classified programs and previous generation fighter like F-117 to reach to F-22 , similarly Russia has done such works via Mig-1.44 and Su-37 program to arrive at PAK-FA. ( remember both have experience in internal weapons bay and developing capable engine that goes into 5th gen program )

What this means that any AMCA that promises all fifth gen attribute has a big risk involved with it which also mean big returns if you succeed , which means more money and more time to complete even if you suceed.

DRDO can develop a Typhoon class fighter with the current Tejas base in a specific time frame ( ~ 10- 12 years ) with lower risk and can stick to schedule . If AMCA can develop into an affordable twin engine fighter , which can reduce the number of MMRCA needed to just 126 as is being envisaged ,can replace Mirage , Mig,Jags in IAF fleet then IMO its a job well done.

We already have taken care of 5th gen program by opting for co-development on risk/money sharing basis with Russia which was a smart and practical decision.

[Pratyush]

Austin,

When the IAF is going for an imported solution to meet its needs then in makes no sence for the DRDO to spend resources developing an aircraft with similar capabilities. They will be better served by the DRDO spending resources on a true 5th gen design. The risk is a factor yes.

But at the moment it is no greater then what it was for the US / Russians with the F 22 and PAK FA at the inception of the respective programmes.

[nrshah]

NRS,

Just one quible, PAK FA shoiuld be single seat and not single engine.

Thanks for pointing out.. I actually meant single seat...Typo error... will correct the same

Now consider, AMCA is also delayed...it is not available till say 2030(fair enough?)... Still we have a competent force of over 600 4++ gen planes... with an option of another 60 odd planes (MMRCA). Not to mention the inventory will be very new with only 100 mirages and mig 29 at the end of life..

.

nrshah , that is what my point is it is not fair to the IAF , We should do something within our reach , on schedule and has risk taken care of at the design stage.

It would be unfair to the IAF to promise Stealth , Supercruise all fifth gen attribute when we have not done any research in that area via prototypes to get the ground work done like the US did with YF-22/23 , some classified programs and previous generation fighter like F-117 to reach to F-22 , similarly Russia has done such works via Mig-1.44 and Su-37 program to arrive at PAK-FA. ( remember both have experience in internal weapons bay and developing capable engine that goes into 5th gen program )

What this means that any AMCA that promises all fifth gen attribute has a big risk involved with it which also mean big returns if you succeed , which means more money and more time to complete even if you suceed.

DRDO can develop a Typhoon class fighter with the current Tejas base in a specific time frame ( ~ 10- 12 years ) with lower risk and can stick to schedule . If AMCA can develop into an affordable twin engine fighter , which can reduce the number of MMRCA needed to just 126 as is being envisaged ,can replace Mirage , Mig,Jags in IAF fleet then IMO its a job well done.

We already have taken care of 5th gen program by opting for co-development on risk/money sharing basis with Russia which was a smart and practical decision.

Austin, If IAF feels 5 years delay is unfair, than there is no point of any discussion...All the programmes invariably lead to delay... We saw that with Gorky, Scorpenes, JSF, even MMRCA, Artillery and what not... And if IAF feels it is unfair and hence DRDO should be punished (by not sanctioning the program itself), what punishment should be given to IAF for not modernizing itself (50% of our capabilities are obsolete, sorry Obsolescent), where a lot of things are to be imported directly without involving our domestic R&D... Let us not go into reasons for the same as even the delay in LCA/AMCA can be justified by reasons

Any new development will invariably carry some risk, What needs to be looked into is what will be the back up if the program gets delayed...Just like the case of USN, they have ordered additional SH to compensate the delay of JSF...

The point IAF needs to consider is:
----- Whether the delay will result into diminished capabilities (the answer is no - We will be having around 700+ 4++ fighters including over 150 5th gen fighter and considering the threat scenario we foresee it will be more than sufficient... The problem with LCA was that this breathing factor was not available where over 50% fleet was due to retire and could not be retired because of delay)

---- What level of importance they attach to indigenous development? Do we always want to play a catching game... Just ponder when we started LCA, the world already has multiple 4th gen fighters already inducted... and were developing 5th Gen aircrafts... Now when we talk of AMCA, there will be only difference of say 5-10 years when JSF / PAK FA would have been inducted...So actually we have shortened the gap...Do we want to widen the same again...

---- Do we have back up plans in case of delay? Yes multiple options available... 1) Increase MMRCA (additional option of 64 can be increased to say 100/125), 2) Increase no of Pak fa/FGFA 3) Increase no of LCA MK2

---- What are the numbers of Rafale/EF type planes, that we will develop (As per evolution theory), we will induct... Going by the developments and when 5th gen will be available, I dont think they will be inducted in huge numbers...Is the cost of developing such aircraft and induction feasible considering we can always order much of such aircraft just by order for which we already would have assembly lines ready... The project itself will be termed as failure going by its numbers in IAF unless we are able to export them in huge numbers.

---- What incremental quality does Rafale/EF will have over LCA MK2 equipped with AESA, IRST, advanced EW and high thrust engines? Can't we upgrade them to those levels after 2025? Anyways, the first of LCA MK2 will be due for upgrade by 2025/2030...

---- Can LCA MK2 (even the first version without upgrading as above) capable of tackling the threat from one side of the border? Can we increase its numbers to say over 200 whereby our rest of the forces will be available to fight the mightier enemy on the other side?

I am not arguing my point is correct and best point of action.. What I am implying is that it is very serious decision affecting our hard earned capabilities and closed gap (As per ADA Chief, we have to jump 2 generation), and as such a lot of thinking, discussion, debate, simulation of various scenarios in case of delays, risks, mitigation etc has to done before we take any decision on the same...

[koti]

^^Adding to that, even though we manage to develop an EF class platform in say 7 years down the line, what orders will that get?
We already would have inducted MMRCA and at this point and if the need arises, we could just extend the production line for the required number of aircraft.

Apart from filling the role of technology demonstrator, another 4++ gen aircraft can add little to the national interest.

[P Chitkara]

I tend to disagree. It will add vital technologies to our library and will at some point in time enable us to be independent; if not in this generation, the next generation perhaps.

If we ever want to become the power that we aspire to be, we will have to become reasonably independent in aviation, ship building and major land systems - there is no other way to go about it.

It may sound like a tall order but then there are no short cuts to it.

[nrshah]

^^^ I even argue what technology will it fill that LCA Mk2 cannot?

[nrshah]

P Chitkara,

I assume you are talking of radars, engines and like...But why do we want to make our development of 5th gen planes hostage to all this? This is was the problem we have/had with LCA... Had we delinked Radar and Engines program with LCA in 2005, it would have been flying in combat role today with IAF and in considerable numbers... We are talking of repeating the same mistake...

We are caught in a syndrome where we want every thing fully indigenous or we wont take the program

We can always acquire this technology from others as we develop them parallel...

[P Chitkara]

I am not advocating 100% indigenization; it is simply not economically viable and represents a moving target if linked to a program.

In the context of a combat a/c for example, I have firmly believed in the concept of block upgrades. Get the first block in air within a reasonable time and with imported radars/engines etc. Keep the development of complex systems - radars, engines time boxed but, independent of the first block. That way, when it is time for the next block, we should have those systems ready.

In the neighborhood we live, we do not really need 100% systems that are super duper from day one. Capabilities are always built gradually and take time - an entire generation as I mentioned in an earlier post.

[shiv]

I worry that there may actually be some bullshitting going on about MCA, AMCA, FGFA and other fancy acronyms. I worry that these too will go the same way as LUH, LAH, CAT and ATT or be interminably extended like MTA and MRTA. The only acronyms that survived to fruition are DPSA, ALH and LCA

The words 'Medium Combat Aircraft" is too non specific a name.

"Fifth generation" is about technologies.

What can Indian industry give the Air Force in 5 years with technology that we have right now which is completely sanction proof?

In fact the so called "CAT" - the Combat Attack Trainer was one such aircraft. But "poof" it died soon after it was conceived.

If we are going to chase windmills in terms of technology can someone please point out the size and shape of an actual fighting plane that India can make with in-house tech in 5 years? Does anyone want to hazard a guess? We are all enthusiasts and form a body of people with some knowledge of tech that india has "in hand". Why not design a virtual, imaginary fighter plane - no matter how low or high tech or mixed low and high tech and say "This is what we can do. Now." Right here on this thread? And let it not be Tejas - which we already have.

What would be the shape of the plane? Conventional with wings and tailplane? One engine? Two engines? We are good at composites. Do we make aviation grade Aluminium alloy? What radar? What sensors? It will certainly be FBW. Can we use an existing engine that we are making now? A Russian one? A western one?

[munna]

^^Great idea to explore and maybe qualitatively define our technological frontiers in fighter aircraft technologies.

[Kersi D]

Why not design a virtual, imaginary fighter plane - no matter how low or high tech or mixed low and high tech and say "This is what we can do. Now." Right here on this thread? And let it not be Tejas - which we already have.

What would be the shape of the plane? Conventional with wings and tailplane? One engine? Two engines? We are good at composites. Do we make aviation grade Aluminium alloy? What radar? What sensors? It will certainly be FBW. Can we use an existing engine that we are making now? A Russian one? A western one?

Fantastic idea to get our adrenailne going.

But please start a new thred to avoid the avoidable and unavoidable confusion.

K

[nrshah]

What can Indian industry give the Air Force in 5 years with technology that we have right now which is completely sanction proof?

Perhaps nothing...But should that be a hurdle to develop what we can... Our weakness in engines should also stop our R & D in say composites or avionics or stealth airframe?? How many nations in the world can do that? Perhaps only US and Russians... But did it deterred EADs and others from developing their fighters... At least 3 of the 6 MMRCA contenders have multi national efforts

As I said earlier, our desire to go for everything inhouse is affecting our R &D program

[P Chitkara]

We certainly can use a western engine (GE - we are familiar with it and will start manufacturing it soon). Radar can come from Russia (Ibris?). We basically need to go the MKI route - to start with and get a frame flying soon enough.

Substitution with our own systems will be the next stage.

[shiv]

Why not design a virtual, imaginary fighter plane - no matter how low or high tech or mixed low and high tech and say "This is what we can do. Now." Right here on this thread? And let it not be Tejas - which we already have.

What would be the shape of the plane? Conventional with wings and tailplane? One engine? Two engines? We are good at composites. Do we make aviation grade Aluminium alloy? What radar? What sensors? It will certainly be FBW. Can we use an existing engine that we are making now? A Russian one? A western one?

Fantastic idea to get our adrenailne going.

But please start a new thred to avoid the avoidable and unavoidable confusion.

K

hmm - maybe I'll do that..

[ramana]

KaranM, Austin and nrshah, Can you three work together and put the IAF fighter picture on one lside showing the retiring sqds, the acquisitions and the gap in the next three decades please?

And in notes compare the new acquisitions and their technology capability vis a vis the retiring aircraft?

Thanks, ramana

[Kersi D]

quote="Kersi D"]

Fantastic idea to get our adrenailne going.

But please start a new thred to avoid the avoidable and unavoidable confusion.

K

hmm - maybe I'll do that..[/quote]


You are THE RIGHT PERSON for this assignment

K

[shiv]

^^ maybe tomorrow kersi. Too late tonight. Can't think straight.

[Bala Vignesh]

We certainly can use a western engine (GE - we are familiar with it and will start manufacturing it soon). Radar can come from Russia (Ibris?). We basically need to go the MKI route - to start with and get a frame flying soon enough.

Substitution with our own systems will be the next stage.

We were and are currently manufacturing russian engines... what's wrong with using them??? I mean we already have a very good engine in the form of AL-31FP, why not build the hypothetical fighter around this engine???

[putnanja]

Fifth-Gen fighters to plug into satellite network

...
With Moscow willing to grant India unprecedented access to military signals from Russia’s constellation of GLONASS (GLObal NAvigation Satellite System) satellites, the FGFA could access real-time details of its own and enemy positions, terrain information, and have the ability to communicate with Indian forces anywhere on the globe.

A senior Russian diplomat, speaking anonymously to Business Standard, reveals that after extended negotiations with India, Moscow has okayed the provision of military data from GLONASS, in the form of digitised signals. So far, Russia had only agreed to provide India with civilian-grade navigation signals, which permitted an accuracy of 25-30 metres. Now, the military grade signals will allow a far higher accuracy, crucial for military operations.
...
...
Says the Russian diplomat, “It is next-generation features like real-time satellite navigation that will take the FGFA technologically far beyond Sukhoi’s T-50 prototype fighter, which made its first flight in January.”

...
...
ussia is racing against time to hand over during this period an Akula-class nuclear attack submarine to the Indian Navy. INS Chakra, as the Indian Navy will call this submarine, has been provided by Russia on a 10-year lease for an estimated $900 million (Rs 400 crore).

“All this shows the depth of the Russia-India strategic relationship,” points out the Russian diplomat. “There are other countries that might be having better technology than Russia, though I cannot say for sure. But they are not willing to part with it.”

[shukla]

US to hand over first C-130J plane to India in December
IBNlive

The US will hand over the first of the six C-130Js ordered by India to its Air Force in December and it is expected to reach its base near here by February next year. The C-130J made for India by American aerospace major Lockheed Martin at its Marietta facility had recently carried out its first flight successfully after it was painted in IAF colours.

"The first of the six C-130Js ordered by India will be handed over in December this year in Georgia and it will reach its Indian base by February next year," American government officials told reporters here ahead of their President Barack Obama's visit here beginning November six. India had bought the C-130Js from the US through an agreement signed in 2007 for USD 950 million.

The officials said the US company had executed the deal "on time and on budget". On the USD 2.1-billion deal for eight P-8I maritime patrol aircraft deal, the officials said it was interesting that both India and US navies would get the platform at the same time sometime next year, providing "an opportunity" to learn together." "It is a brand new platform for both US and India," they added.