Indian Military Aviation

[Katare]

So IAF has bought (Capital budget only)equipments woth Rs45K corer or $10billion in last 3 years. Which is more than 10 year's defense budget (capital+revenue) of all 3 branches of Pakistani armed forces. If we out spend them by this much than why our armed forces appear so small in sizes? The numbers just don't add up.

Chinese out spend us by a similar margine and they do have inventory/size which appears much larger as compared to ours.

By looking at data it appears Army is least capital intensive force to have but we have chosen to have a much smaller army as compared to Pak and China when normalized for respective population/budget.

[Gaur]

So IAF has bought (Capital budget only)equipments woth Rs45K corer or $10billion in last 3 years. Which is more than 10 year's defense budget (capital+revenue) of all 3 branches of Pakistani armed forces. If we out spend them by this much than why our armed forces appear so small in sizes? The numbers just don't add up.

Chinese out spend us by a similar margine and they do have inventory/size which appears much larger as compared to ours.

By looking at data it appears Army is least capital intensive force to have but we have chosen to have a much smaller army as compared to Pak and China when normalized for respective population/budget.

You are right. The chinese military equipment inventory appears to be much larger with "appear" being the key word. For instance, I have repeatedly seen regarding how PLAAF has 2000 fighters and what not. Check out how many of them will even be effective in war?

BTW, I am not saying that Chinese are wasting their budget. In fact, they are using it much better than us by developing indegenous capabilities. I am just commenting on the perceived overwhelming numerical superiority that people seem to think China enjoys.

[Singha]

the russian army allegedly still keeps WW2 era artillery and stuff in mothballs for a all-out war. some of these were dusted off and expended in chechnya wars. so they are still counted as a inventory probably. the PLA probably follows this approach listing all its Mig19/Mig21 and A-5 fantans as active duty though they have no bad weather or night capability and hardly any range or sensors to threaten anyone.

we ought to keep an eye on Su27, Su30 and J-10 numbers - these three are good enough for a serious fight.

[Indranil]

Also, before we start bashing IAF/IA up again, we should also look at the other side.
http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/207.aspx

The indigenous route is starting to bear real fruit in only the last 4-5 years. Arjun made the turn around 2005, Tejas picked up speed only in 2005. Same goes for Akash.

We can't blame the men in uniform if they want to go to war with the best armament that they can lay their hands on! I think it is pretty much their right to ask.

[vardhank]

We can't blame the men in uniform if they want to go to war with the best armament that they can lay their hands on! I think it is pretty much their right to ask.

Oh, no question there. I'm not saying, at all, that the IAF should have stopped buying imported stuff and ONLY looked at indigenous stuff. I'm saying we should've bought more Mirages, and I'm very much for the MMRCA, FGFA, etc etc.

What I'm saying is, the IAF should have paid a LOT more attention to indigenous designs, given a lot more support to the DRDO and generally encouraged the process of in-house development, which they have definitely not done. The IAF chief saying, "Give me a 4th gen fighter before you promise me a 5-th gen one" is quite unfair. With nothing to build on and the huge problem of sanctions, the DRDO came up with a plane far better than anyone had expected. The delays are largely because the IAF wanted more and more, so he has no right to complain. If the IAF had been more pro-active here, things would've gone better.

The IA is a different case again - with a clearly superior and cheaper product in the Arjun, they still harp on about the T-90. This, to me, smells. And badly. I'd be asking questions about kickbacks here, if I were MoD.

[vardhank]

My point being, the IAF's being oddly short-sighted. I would think it's in their interests to have fighters that we make ourselves, no? If there are sanctions, if there are delays, or if we fall short of planes during a war, what do they plan on doing? Domestic products would've at least given us the chance to keep the fight going. I honestly don't believe the IAF would be happy to say, "Hey, we've run out of planes. We can't fight. Take two aspirin and call us in the morning." So what's their plan?

[Sanku]

The delays are largely because the IAF wanted more and more, so he has no right to complain. .

Not true. MoD/IAF/DRDO all over committed and under performed as far as this topic is concerned.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

If we look at the last two world wars, Germans did have some of the most cutting edge weapons, rockets, tiger tanks, subs which were the terror of the sea, fokkers which were the scourge of the air, however in both the cases they were on the losing side. I think this was a case of allied doggedness and persistence. Having the best tech is helpful but it cannot supplement persistence and presence on the battlefield, air and sea. Such presence and persistence can only happen if you have certain bare minimum numbers and the capability to pump up and churn out numbers when it matters.

The reason Germans lost was because allies - and that USA in capital letters - could keep the production line open and churn out more equipment than the Germans. The Allies won against the Germans in set-piece battles where the ratios were greatly in favor of Allies. If the Germans had managed to keep their lines open, the story would have been different. So, it is not about doggedness or persistence...it was the bombing out of German Industrial base which was the main cause.

And, if you remove USA out of picture - whose homeland was out of reach of any one - the situation was not rosy at all.

Having a force today is far better than having a cutting edge force tomorrow. IAF & IA in this matter seems to have missed the bus completely. Even now with recent news reports of new policy for defence production emphasing on indigenious things, its again the IN which is going full down the path. Why cant the other to services do the same comitiment.

Can you quote a single example of induction of weapon systems being delayed because IAF or IA have asked for unobtanium? Some examples would be great to support your assertions.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

What I'm saying is, the IAF should have paid a LOT more attention to indigenous designs, given a lot more support to the DRDO and generally encouraged the process of in-house development, which they have definitely not done. The IAF chief saying, "Give me a 4th gen fighter before you promise me a 5-th gen one" is quite unfair. With nothing to build on and the huge problem of sanctions, the DRDO came up with a plane far better than anyone had expected. The delays are largely because the IAF wanted more and more, so he has no right to complain. If the IAF had been more pro-active here, things would've gone better.

Can you please tell me how the evolution and reaching the present stage of LCA has been held up because of IAF apathy? And basically, what you're saying is that IAF Chief should be thankful to the DRDO for doing whatever it did? Why so? And as for asking for 4th Gen before DRDO delivers 5th Gen is common sense....if Mil-Ind complex has difficulty for delivering 4th Gen, on what basis is it claiming to be able to achieve a level higher?

The IA is a different case again - with a clearly superior and cheaper product in the Arjun, they still harp on about the T-90. This, to me, smells. And badly. I'd be asking questions about kickbacks here, if I were MoD.

What has Arjun story got to do with the state of affair of Indian Army and Armored Corps?

[shukla]

Tawang chopper crash: Haryana town mourns demise of a hero

A pall of gloom has descended at Kosli town after the news of the demise of Flight Lieutenant Akash Yadav, who died in yesterday's helicopter crash near Tawang. Yadav, who was among those killed in the Mi-17 chopper crash in Arunachal Pradesh, was a resident of Mohalla Mallupura in Rewari town.

His wife Neha Jaiswal, too, is a flight lieutenant. Yadav's father Satbir Singh Yadav, grandfather Surat Singh Yadav, both of whom are ex-servicemen, and his mother Sunita Devi were in a deep shock after receiving the tragic news. Yadav, who had joined the Indian Air Force in 2003, was commissioned as a flight lieutenant in 200

[vardhank]

Can you please tell me how the evolution and reaching the present stage of LCA has been held up because of IAF apathy?

Constantly changing requirements, maybe? Mission creep that's so severe it goes into a whole new realm? Asking for too much from an organisation that has no practical experience in designing a fighter? Having no realistic assessment of what sort of fighter it needs and simply trying to match the best in the world, whether you need it or not? I think those qualify as problems. Also, shouldn't the customer (the IAF) be a bit more involved in the development of a product specifically tailored for it? What, you tell a contractor to build you a house and don't bother checking on what's being put in until it's ready?

And basically, what you're saying is that IAF Chief should be thankful to the DRDO for doing whatever it did? Why so? And as for asking for 4th Gen before DRDO delivers 5th Gen is common sense....if Mil-Ind complex has difficulty for delivering 4th Gen, on what basis is it claiming to be able to achieve a level higher?

Yes, I do expect him to be grateful. With the handicaps of no practical experience, the post-Pokharan sanctions and more hindrance than help from the IAF, the DRDO has come up with a world-class airplane. At best, the DRDO should've been able, given the capabilities it had at the start of the LCA project, to make a WW2 fighter, and instead it's come up with a cracking 4th gen plane.
And yes, the DRDO HAS come up with a 4th-gen plane, so claiming it hasn't is silly.
The 5-th gen claim is on the basis that they've done the impossible before. Why not again?

And you know what else is wrong with that statement? A basic lack of leadership skills. You don't - EVER - diss your own team in public. You have a problem, deal with it in your office. Look at the US. Even if their equipment isn't fantastic (and especially when it isn't), they convince everyone it's infallible. And here's our own IAF head, telling everyone that the people making planes for him don't know their butt from their elbow. Not particularly encouraging.

What has Arjun story got to do with the state of affair of Indian Army and Armored Corps?

You're kidding, right? The IA selects a problematic, more expensive product with a history of unreliable service from the manufacturer, over a superior, cheaper, domestic product - and you don't see anything wrong with this?
Add to that the same story as the LCA's - over-ambitious target, ever-changing ASRs, no support, no vocal expressions of confidence - and I believe the problems are quite apparent.

Perhaps you're going to raise an objection here: why did the DRDO go along with such ambitious targets? Boss, who has more experience with fighters and tanks, the IAF/IA or the DRDO? Who has to be the more level-headed? The users who should know what they need, or a bunch of engineers who have no experience to tell them how easy or difficult it's going to be to meet such targets? Sometimes it seems the IAF and IA forget that HAL-ADA is still a fledgeling aircraft designer, and treat it like it's a veteran.

I'm not saying the DRDO has performed flawlessly - it hasn't. However, it's come up with the goods, despite very, very great odds, and in the face of completely inexplicable opposition from the people who should have been its primary backers - and now, if the products have to be shoved down the IAF and IA's throats, then so be it.

[Sanku]

^^^^
Thats not a discussion, thats a rant.

There are close anti-DRDO rants on similar lines. (replace IAF with DRDO and turn the phrase)

Both are equally correct.

[rohitvats]

• Constantly changing requirements, maybe?
  Mission creep that's so severe it goes into a whole new realm?
  Asking for too much from an organisation that has no practical experience in designing a fighter?
  Having no realistic assessment of what sort of fighter it needs and simply trying to match the best in the world, whether you need it or not?

I think those qualify as problems. Also, shouldn't the customer (the IAF) be a bit more involved in the development of a product specifically tailored for it? What, you tell a contractor to build you a house and don't bother checking on what's being put in until it's ready?

Can you please put pen to paper and list out what the IAF did in all the cases that you've mentioned above? Let us document the alterations/additions and unobtaniums specified by the IAF which led to the delay in the development of LCA. I'm sure you'd have the data points ready to arrive at such a conclusion.

Yes, I do expect him to be grateful. With the handicaps of no practical experience, the post-Pokharan sanctions and more hindrance than help from the IAF, the DRDO has come up with a world-class airplane. At best, the DRDO should've been able, given the capabilities it had at the start of the LCA project, to make a WW2 fighter, and instead it's come up with a cracking 4th gen plane.

Oh yeah! you're making virtue out of the handicaps of DRDO? Did IAF ask DRDO to make the fighter or did DRDO said 'they' will make it? Why don't you clarify this small bit?

And yes, the DRDO HAS come up with a 4th-gen plane, so claiming it hasn't is silly.
The 5-th gen claim is on the basis that they've done the impossible before. Why not again?

And where is that 4th Gen Plane? In Squadron service and operating in forward airfields on India's borders?

You're kidding, right? The IA selects a problematic, more expensive product with a history of unreliable service from the manufacturer, over a superior, cheaper, domestic product - and you don't see anything wrong with this?

Dude, your original comment was with respect to numbers in service and hence, the question about the state of affairs of Armored Corps and Arjun Tank story. Don't change the argument.

Add to that the same story as the LCA's - over-ambitious target, ever-changing ASRs, no support, no vocal expressions of confidence - and I believe the problems are quite apparent.

Again, can you please state what the 'over ambitious' target was?

Perhaps you're going to raise an objection here: why did the DRDO go along with such ambitious targets? Boss, who has more experience with fighters and tanks, the IAF/IA or the DRDO? Who has to be the more level-headed? The users who should know what they need, or a bunch of engineers who have no experience to tell them how easy or difficult it's going to be to meet such targets? Sometimes it seems the IAF and IA forget that HAL-ADA is still a fledgeling aircraft designer, and treat it like it's a veteran.

Thank you clarifying that you know didly-squat about anything that you've written.

I'm not saying the DRDO has performed flawlessly - it hasn't. However, it's come up with the goods, despite very, very great odds, and in the face of completely inexplicable opposition from the people who should have been its primary backers - and now, if the products have to be shoved down the IAF and IA's throats, then so be it.[/quote]

[rohitvats]

-Constantly changing requirements, maybe?
-Mission creep that's so severe it goes into a whole new realm?
-Asking for too much from an organisation that has no practical experience in designing a fighter?
-Having no realistic assessment of what sort of fighter it needs and simply trying to match the best in the world, whether you need it or not?

I think those qualify as problems. Also, shouldn't the customer (the IAF) be a bit more involved in the development of a product specifically tailored for it? What, you tell a contractor to build you a house and don't bother checking on what's being put in until it's ready?

Can you please put pen to paper and list out what the IAF did in all the cases that you've mentioned above? Let us document the alterations/additions and unobtaniums specified by the IAF which led to the delay in the development of LCA. I'm sure you'd have the data points ready to arrive at such a conclusion.

Yes, I do expect him to be grateful. With the handicaps of no practical experience, the post-Pokharan sanctions and more hindrance than help from the IAF, the DRDO has come up with a world-class airplane. At best, the DRDO should've been able, given the capabilities it had at the start of the LCA project, to make a WW2 fighter, and instead it's come up with a cracking 4th gen plane.

Oh yeah! you're making virtue out of the handicaps of DRDO? Did IAF ask DRDO to make the fighter or did DRDO said 'they' will make it? Why don't you clarify this small bit?

And yes, the DRDO HAS come up with a 4th-gen plane, so claiming it hasn't is silly.
The 5-th gen claim is on the basis that they've done the impossible before. Why not again?

And where is that 4th Gen Plane? In Squadron service and operating in forward airfields on India's borders?

You're kidding, right? The IA selects a problematic, more expensive product with a history of unreliable service from the manufacturer, over a superior, cheaper, domestic product - and you don't see anything wrong with this?

Dude, your original comment was with respect to numbers in service and hence, the question about the state of affairs of Armored Corps and Arjun Tank story. Don't change the argument.

Add to that the same story as the LCA's - over-ambitious target, ever-changing ASRs, no support, no vocal expressions of confidence - and I believe the problems are quite apparent.

Again, can you please state what the 'over ambitious' target was?

Perhaps you're going to raise an objection here: why did the DRDO go along with such ambitious targets? Boss, who has more experience with fighters and tanks, the IAF/IA or the DRDO? Who has to be the more level-headed? The users who should know what they need, or a bunch of engineers who have no experience to tell them how easy or difficult it's going to be to meet such targets? Sometimes it seems the IAF and IA forget that HAL-ADA is still a fledgeling aircraft designer, and treat it like it's a veteran.

[/quote]

Thank you clarifying that you know didly-squat about anything that you've written.

[vardhank]

^^^
I didn't say it was a discussion. It's my POV. Would be good to hear someone else's too. My point here is that we need some accountability, and some stock-taking, so we don't repeat these mistakes. We have enough problems without the heads of our armed forces being difficult. And yes, with the heads of our primary defence-equipment developer promising more than they are able.

[vardhank]

Rohitvats,
I've read some of your stuff on BRF, and generally you make sense, though your tone of voice is deplorable.

So fine, I'll give YOU the chance to defend your view, which seems to be that the IAF is gold-plated.
YOU tell me what you think the IAF has done right in this scenario.

I'm not an engineer, or a technical person, nor do I have the time or the inclination to sift through pages and pages of discussions to list points out for your benefit. You believe you know more than diddly-squat, so let's hear it.

I didn't ask you to respond to my post. As I've said, it's my POV. You don't like it, fine. You want to show the world a different side of things, go ahead.

[rohitvats]

Rohitvats,

I've read some of your stuff on BRF, and generally you make sense, though your tone of voice is deplorable.

So fine, I'll give YOU the chance to defend your view, which seems to be that the IAF is gold-plated.
YOU tell me what you think the IAF has done right in this scenario. <SNIP>

That was pretty fast down-hill skiing.

So, you basically made the comments based on urban legends and internet chatter. But did not bother to find out the truth or substance behind them. That is what I wanted to bring out. There is enough valid criticism of IAF wrt LCA on BRF itself...Kanson/Karam M/Rahul M/Kartik have all documented that in their posts. Please have the courtsey to read up on the topic, if you're so passionate about it - and before you point fingers.

As for me making sense and tone of my language, you're free not to read the same and not accept what I write. Simple onlee.....there is even an ignore button on BRF. Wonderful tool, I tell you.

Cheers!!!!

[vardhank]

OK, this quote business is really annoying. Will try this without.

"Did IAF ask DRDO to make the fighter or did DRDO said 'they' will make it? Why don't you clarify this small bit?"
Er. I believe it was the MoD that asked for an indigenous fighter? And if the IAF believes it can live forever on imports and that things like international relations, supplier problems, sanctions etc don't affect it, I think we have a world-view crisis.

"And where is that 4th Gen Plane? In Squadron service and operating in forward airfields on India's borders?"
I repeat: mission creep. You ask me for a pasta, then you want to change the sauces, the meat and the type of pasta, then, buddy, you'd better be prepared for a long wait. Do you see the EF's A2G capability? Do you see the F-35 operating in squadron strengths around the world?

"Dude, your original comment was with respect to numbers in service and hence, the question about the state of affairs of Armored Corps and Arjun Tank story. Don't change the argument."
Where did I talk about numbers in service??? Go read my post. It's about the IA's lack of support for the Arjun.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put this post in - it's your go.

[vardhank]

Rohitvats,

I've read some of your stuff on BRF, and generally you make sense, though your tone of voice is deplorable.

So fine, I'll give YOU the chance to defend your view, which seems to be that the IAF is gold-plated.
YOU tell me what you think the IAF has done right in this scenario. <SNIP>

That was pretty fast down-hill skiing.

So, you basically made the comments based on urban legends and internet chatter. But did not bother to find out the truth or substance behind them. That is what I wanted to bring out. There is enough valid criticism of IAF wrt LCA on BRF itself...Kanson/Karam M/Rahul M/Kartik have all documented that in their posts. Please have the courtsey to read up on the topic, if you're so passionate about it - and before you point fingers.

As for me making sense and tone of my language, you're free not to read the same and not accept what I write. Simple onlee.....there is even an ignore button on BRF. Wonderful tool, I tell you.

Cheers!!!!

See you at the bottom, soldier. Waiting for your reply.
As I've said, I'm NOT an engineer, and I don't have Kanson, Karan M etc's comments saved or tabulated, so no, I can't put that in my posts, and nor am I inclined to.
As I said, the problem is yours. You believe the IAF and IA did nothing wrong - prove to me that they didn't. I'm happy to defer to the gurus - you want to be one, prove yourself as one. The reason I'm not putting you on ignore is because I'd like to hear what you have to say.

And you know what? Answer the rest of my rant. We're going down one branch of it. My problem, and it's considerably bigger than the technical issues, is the IAF's vision of itself. I think that's where they're very badly messed up.

[vardhank]

If we look at the last two world wars, Germans did have some of the most cutting edge weapons, rockets, tiger tanks, subs which were the terror of the sea, fokkers which were the scourge of the air

In a way actually, this was less true than we think. Look up a book called "Blood, tears and folly" by Len Deighton. He details a few instances where the Germans didn't bother at all with developing/backing some excellent weapons, which hurt them massively. Will look it up and put these up sometime - very instructive.

[Pratyush]

The Issue with the LCA is that it has to be build in Large numbers to keep the fleet numbers. This is not the fault or the problem with the LCA per say. At this moment in time we need to think in terms of how to keep up and build the fleet numbers in view of the potential 2 front situation.

The LCA was intended as a design that will exist in large numbers and replace the older platforms in the IAF service in more or less one to one basis. The chances of that taking place are slim at this moment as the MRCA project will be used to repalce the older 27/ jaguars in the immediate future and the 2k and the 29 in the mid term. That will account for approx 200 air frames by 2025. The LCA by the same time will have to account for at least 300 airframes if the fleet numbers are to reach near about 800 Combat jets.

The break down of numbers is provided below.

MKI 270 Approx
MRCA 200 approx
LCA 300

Total 770.

Which ever way you look at it the IAF needs 500 modern combat air craft in the next 15 to 20 years. But at the same time the world situation would hhave changed in that the 5th gen will be is service in large number with the Khans. Will the IAF accept the fact that it will be inferior to the Khan and allied airforce if it ignores those aircraft.

All indications are the IAF is serious about the 5th gen.

The problem is very serious for the IAF as it looks towards the future. The LCA effort as exists has neared completion. It has to enter service.

Add to that the huge leap in tech about to brought by the 5th gen. Keeping the force structure rational. So that it in not too entrenched in the 4th gen when the 5th gen comes about. What I mean is that it (IAF) should not be forced in a situation where the majority of the fleet had long service life left in it and it has becomes obsolete due to the developments in threat environment.

The gist of the winding post is

1) Keep the numbers up
2) Make sure that force structure is rational in view of the emerging technologies.

JMT

[Pratyush]

vardhank,

Dont wish to comment on the IA. But the IAF in case of the LCA has done no wrong as far as I can see. That GTRE failed with teh kaveri cannot be laid at the door of the IAF.

Also the LCA effort had to be undertaken as a national effort and was taken. The time taken and the delays can be attributed directly to the door of the MID and the GOI and the realative failure of the HF 24 and the non development of the HF 73.

Even now that i think of those projects. I nearly cry, thinking what mught have been. But was not. The former of the two was unsucessful becaues the funds needed to design the engine were not relesed by the GOI. A paltry 10000 pounds thatw as demanded by RR. The HF 73 was not sanctioned. So the IAf looked at the jaguar and the mig 27.

If they ahd been sucess ful then maybe the LCA would not have taken as long as it took. That is food for thought for you. Please look up those projects that I have mentioned.

[vardhank]

^^^ True.

My apologies for harping on, but here is where I think the 3rd-gen LCA and the 150 extra Mirages would've made great sense.

Anyway, moving on. I think the IAF needs to accept that it doesn't NEED to be on par with the USA (which I think has been a major problem so far). What are our threats? What jets do we need to counter those? Those are the only questions that need to be asked, not "What's the most sophisticated tech available in the world today?"

Basically, even though it isn't ideal, we need a fourth major type of aircraft (besides the LCA, MMRCA and MKI, with the Mirage, Mig-29, Mig-27, jaguar and FGFA only playing small roles by the 2020 timeframe). It really is the only way. Gripen or Mig-35? Or something else? Maybe it's worth investing in the Gripen NG programme, though not for the current MMRCA competition.

[vardhank]

vardhank,

Dont wish to comment on the IA. But the IAF in case of the LCA has done no wrong as far as I can see. That GTRE failed with teh kaveri cannot be laid at the door of the IAF.

Also the LCA effort had to be undertaken as a national effort and was taken. The time taken and the delays can be attributed directly to the door of the MID and the GOI and the realative failure of the HF 24 and the non development of the HF 73.

Even now that i think of those projects. I nearly cry, thinking what mught have been. But was not. The former of the two was unsucessful becaues the funds needed to design the engine were not relesed by the GOI. A paltry 10000 pounds thatw as demanded by RR. The HF 73 was not sanctioned. So the IAf looked at the jaguar and the mig 27.

If they ahd been sucess ful then maybe the LCA would not have taken as long as it took. That is food for thought for you. Please look up those projects that I have mentioned.

Understand. And yes, I have been following the Kaveri project and the other subsystems that go into the LCA, though rohitvats seems to think I'm pulling opinions out of my Musharraf. My problem is with the very poor stewardship of the project, which is very definitely the IAF's job. Yes, as you say, the LCA was a "national effort." But I can't understand how the IAF didn't see it as being in their best interests and lead the project properly. Agree that the blame has to be shared by the IAF, DRDO and the MoD, and I haven't said that the blame lies squarely with the IAF, but the lion's share of it? I think so. The IAF's attitude here, it seems, has been, "Why worry about developing our own fighter? We'll import whatever we need, and get good stuff." And that's not excusable, in my mind. If there's a national effort, why's the IAF behaving like it has nothing to do with the nation? So everybody else should huff and puff over this, while the IAF simply decides whether or not it likes the fighter, like it's a choice between fruit at a market?

[Juggi G]

IAF Upgrading Equipment, Defense Minister Says

Nov 22, 2010

India is also set to sign a $2-billion deal with Dassault to upgrade 51 aging Mirage 2000 fighters to the 2000-5 standard (Aerospace Daily, Oct. 20). The agreement is expected to be signed Dec. 6 when French President Nicolas Sarkozy visits India.

New Mirage Capabilities will include Longer-Range Detection and Weapon Firing against Multiple Targets,
as well as an Extended Operating Envelope that allows for Border-Protection Missions using Two Mirages instead of Six.
The Multitrack RDY-3 Radar to be Installed in the Mirage is the same generation that the French air force is using on its M-2000D, with increased range compared to the existing Doppler multifunction system.

The Mirages, which have 20 years of remaining life, will not receive an engine upgrade.
However, improvements in avionics, helmet-mounted displays, electronic warfare equipment, data links and mission computers will make the aircraft a multirole fighter, an official says.
Weapons will include MBDA’s MICA heat-seeking infrared (IR) missiles and MICA RFs.

[Pratyush]

Where has the IAF said that it will not take the LCA.

Also, what could have the IAF done diffrently. They needed a M2k equivelent. The LCA was designed to be an equal of that aircraft. Keeping in view what the future techology would be.

Please bear in mind that technology development is to a large extent an excersize in crystan gazing. You have to predict looking at the echnology trend as to what the state of the art will be at a particular point in the future. The same is aimed at.

IAF looked at what 2000s would be like and framed the ASQR according to that. The threat situation changed. The ASQR was altered to meet it. Cant blame the IAF for a change in the threat situation and the ammendment in the subsequest ASQR.

[narmad]

Vardhank
My problem is with the very poor stewardship of the project, which is very definitely the IAF's job.

I am not comfortable with this statement. The Statement would have been true in the case of LCA project, if the project was initiated by the IAF.

We do not know the inside story, the turf wars, the ego clashes.

There has been a sea change in the IAF Perspective and the recent support which the IAF has given to
Indigenous products is praiseworthy.
Things are moving in the right direction and lets not get stuck in the Past.

I agree 100% with the rest of your POVs Induction of Mirages and 3+ gen fighters

[Rahul M]

vardhank, others, please don't get into an ego-fight on this issue.
if you insist on re-hashing the same arguments we have already gone through more than once, it does nothing good to the discussion.

the way you are putting all the blame on IAF as a whole is not factually correct.
all stakeholders, MOD, DRDO and forces have been responsible in some way or the other and that has been well documented in the current and past LCA threads. kindly do read through those, you will be better for it and we will be on the same page.

[vardhank]

Narmad,
Fair enough. My rant was not really about the delays in the LCA programme - that just happens to be the one point everyone's latched on to. It was more an assessment of what we could've done differently, with lots of other points, and the list would not have been complete without mentioning the delays in the LCA. I agree with the sea-change in the IAF - mostly My annoyance is with the fact that they're supporting indigenous projects only now. The support should've been there from the beginning. But all right, we';; move from this. It was about the past anyway.

Rahul,
My apologies - it shouldn't have gone into the sniping that it did, sorry for my part in it. And no, I did not place the blame squarely on the IAF for the delays in the LCA, but I do believe the conceptualisation of what we needed has not been correct, and that's where the problems stem from. (Elaborated on below.)

Pratyush,
Honestly? I don't believe the IAF NEEDED an M2K equivalent with future tech. What they NEEDED was a JF-17-style plane to replace the ageing MiG-21s. A Mirage equivalent with a high level of tech was what they WANTED. That is the difference, that is the point I've been making here, re the stewardship and everything else. What I'm saying is that the IAF had a skewed view of the fighter it needed, and pushed that view along, which has created a whole bunch of issues.
Do you think there would have been such delays if we'd gone for a simpler plane? Some problems, of course - we needed to create an entire aircraft industry, and there cannot NOT be delays here. I'm saying the IAF should have kept this in mind and been more... how should I say it... measured in framing the requirements and following this through. If they'd done this, I think things would have been much clearer from the beginning. We might not have needed to develop composites, we might have been able to work on a simpler radar and a simpler engine.
And sure the IAF will take the LCA-2... it'll get the M2K-equivalent it wanted. Which is great, except that it doesn't solve our immediate problems.

[Lalmohan]

there is another problem which i think is not well understood.
I am sure that the high end design, i.e. the theoretical answer on LCA and other weapons was quickly arrived at. We are after all good at maths and algorithmic design, etc.
however, there was a huge swathe of production engineering technology and associated disciplines which we have had to learn. this is what allows the fancy theoretical design to be translated into a low production cost, high reliability manufactured machine unit.

manufacturing technologies, quality control, supply chain management, production economics, production line processes, controls, operations...

engineering and production are the ice beneath the surface (of the iceberg)

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

Pratyush,

Honestly? I don't believe the IAF NEEDED an M2K equivalent with future tech. What they NEEDED was a JF-17-style plane to replace the ageing MiG-21s. A Mirage equivalent with a high level of tech was what they WANTED. That is the difference, that is the point I've been making here, re the stewardship and everything else. What I'm saying is that the IAF had a skewed view of the fighter it needed, and pushed that view along, which has created a whole bunch of issues.

<SNIP>

You know what, you've actually ended up supporting the very IAF you think is the main guilty party. And again, the reason is because you've not bothered to read up on the topic and formed an opinion on hearsay.

There is one authentic account of Tejas Story written by AVM Philip Rajkumar(retd.). I hope you know who he was. Let me quote some sections from his book - "The Tejas Story". I quote:

The LCA story actually began in late 1970s. ACM IH Latif was the CAS from 1978 to 1981. He was unhappy with the in-servoce performance of the HAL upgraded Gnat, the Ajeet fighter. The aircraft has severe limitations of payload, range, serviceability and did not fit into the planned re-equipment of the IAF fighter fleet. He was also aware of the need to phase out some of the earlier versions of the Mig-21 in the mid-90s. He therefore asked the HAL to design a relatively low-cost replacement for the AJeet and the Mig-21.

When some of the leading aeronautical personalities approached PM IG in the early 1980s with a request to be given a chance to prove their design capabilities, she took the bold step of asking them to design a state of the art fighter for the IAF.

The planners at the AirHQ got to work and issued Air Staff Requirement (AST) for a cost effective replacement for the Ajeet and MiG-21. The aeronautical scientists and engineers did not agree with that approach, and wanted to utilize the opportunity to bridge the technology gap that had opened up between India and the advanced countries of the world since the Marut(HF-24) programme of the 1960.

They wanted the aircraft to have four critical new technologies which were the FBW FCS, a glass cockpit, composite materials in the airframe and micro-processor controlled general systems. They also decided to develop the jet engine to power the LCA as well as a MMR which would be primary sensor on board the aircraft.

Now, I hope you have grace and humility to reconsider your POV.

[vic]

Frankly I donot think IAF is to blame in LCA saga. There are some missings facts from our post. In 1980s it was understood that India will license manufacture Mirage 2000 and some modern 3rd gen Soviet aircraft. This would have given a bridge to LCA and also tells us why DRDO wanted to aim for 4th Gen. The problem is two fold. Failure to have 2 programmes, one low tech, say modern Mig-21/Ajeet and another high tech like LCA. The biggest problem is ridiculously small amount assigned by Babus to LCA.

I still feel that IAF is supportive but ADA may be hiding the extent of the problem. If LCA is 6500kg empty then IAF can be stated to be dragging its feet on ordering LCA in numbers but as per the new Comments of Subra posted now LCA is 7000-7500kg empty which means IAF is naturally reluctant. It also means that airframe is almost 50-100% over weight from estimates.

I think that LCA Mark-2 seems well funded and will be a success

[Kanson]

IAF went for Ajeet (upgraded Gnat) due to reliability and serviceability issues with Gnat, more range, more hard points etc. This was produced by HAL in mid 70s. Now IAF felt that Ajeet doesn't fit in their scheme of planned re-equipment of fleet. So they devised a new ASR. HAL dropped the plan to produce new fighter as they stuck again with engine problem as they faced with Marut. So when ADA came it has to take care of the "history" of development into account in this programme. As the engine found so elusive in previous projects(Marut failed becoz of the non availability of suitable engine), they started their own engine development. Though terms like replacement for Ajeet was used, the replacement asked was more similar to Mig-21(air superiority) and Mirage-2000(multi role). IAF preferred ADA to have partnership with Dassault. Though we hear about the low cost replacement of Ajeet and the IAF was contemplating LCA from late 70s, no explanation so far i have seen why IAF took so long to issue ASR after ADA was tasked with the development of LCA. I'm willing to learn if anyone want to share how that happened. As happened with Gnat and Ajeet, IAF stressed more on reliability and serviceability aspect. The expertise what we had at that time was only that much that was exhibited in Ajeet. So ADA has to think about all these things plus the then current trends. Resurgent India of that wants to establish its presence in every field. So LCA project was also seen as a way of regaining lost aerospace industry.

Every coin has two sides.

Regarding Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar's biography of the Tejas programme ("The Tejas Story"), and his assertion that ego clashes between the IAF and DRDO had caused the programme delays, Natarajan said, "Beyond 2000, this book has no relevance. Dr SR Valluri was there, then there was a designer from UK called Mendiratta. Dr Valluri had written to me when I took over. I said there was no reason to go back into the past. As of now there are no conflicts between the IAF and DRDO. DRDO took the initiative when Air Chief Marshal Tyagi was Chief of Air Staff and we asked them to position IAF officers at the LCA facility in Bangalore. As of now there are 25 IAF personnel with Air Marshal Nanjappa leading this LCA induction team.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/10/un ... ecade.html

[vic]

I think that "now" in effect we are pursuing 2 programmes. Upgrade of LCA called Mark-2 and AMCA. Only thing is that again AMCA is underfunded

[Karan M]

I still feel that IAF is supportive but ADA may be hiding the extent of the problem. If LCA is 6500kg empty then IAF can be stated to be dragging its feet on ordering LCA in numbers but as per the new Comments of Subra posted now LCA is 7000-7500kg empty which means IAF is naturally reluctant. It also means that airframe is almost 50-100% over weight from estimates.

Those comments of Subramanyam are not new but date from February 2009 & can be interpreted any number of ways, including his point "technically we are 500 kg overweight" & then the 1.5T figure, which could even mean the LCA weight could be brought down to 5T from 6.5T, if conservative design practises are dropped. Aggressive weight reduction has risks as well and can cause problems so shaving some 300-500 Kg in MK2 (see below quote) and using a higher thrust engine is preferable.

JSF weight reduction for example,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

This ADA video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT_R1FRo_Rw) from the same time period (uploaded on April 2009) instead explicitly shows the following weight figures:

Empty: 6500 Kg (+1T over initial estimates)
Take Off Clean weight: 9500 Kg

Further, P Subramanyam's latest comments, from October 2010, are clear about the weight being in the 6.5T class - not 7-7.5T range.

What is being done to address concerns that the LCA is overweight?
When you consider the amount of features and functionality given in the Tejas, we feel the weight is reasonable. We had planned initially for a fighter in the 5.5 tonne category but currently it has grown to about 6.5 tonne. The penalty of the weight increase is visible in one or two performance parameters. Some parameters like the sustained turn rate and the severity of other performance requirements earlier are not there now because of change in weapon systems. Particularly guided missiles, which today are all aspect missiles slaved to Helmet Mounted Display Systems (HMDS), advanced electronics and radar. Due to the weight growth, there have been certain deviations in the performance parameters. The IAF has validated these deviations to be compensated by advanced weapon systems which were not available in 1985. We will not incorporate any changes in the Mk-1 version as it is ready for production. In the Mk-2 version of Tejas, we expect to see weight savings of around 300 to 500Kg which will come from weight optimisation in the aircraft structures alone.

As PSubramanyam says, newer systems compensate for any marginal drop in parameters due to weight. Especially with helmet sights and advanced missiles making marginal changes (plus, minus) in turn rates not worth that much consideration.

We also have the Test Pilots view ( Group Captain N Tiwari) at 4:40, of the NFTC (which is not ADA, so his views are independent). He notes: "This aircraft handles like any other conventional aircraft. It is extremely agile, very maneuverable and it is a dream for all the pilots who are flying it, because we are all from different backgrounds, but we can vouch that this aircraft handles very beautifully in the entire flight envelope."

So this shows basic aircraft performance remains credible.

Where the weight really impacts, IMO, is payload to original specifications. The 1T extra weight means you carry 1T payload less, of the order of 3T unless you carry less fuel. Again with current smart weapons (air to ground) even a 2T-3T payload is good enough and with 3T, full complement of Air to Air weapons are easily feasible, but then again, why buy two blocks of aircraft of differing standards.

This is why basically, the IAF is not ordering it in numbers, one is they can wait for it - they have 126 MMRCA coming in, another hundred and seventy Sukhois, and the second is standardization, why would they induct two batches of LCA's one of which is inferior to the other. Rather standardize as much as possible on the improved aircraft, with the same engine and systems.

I somewhat disagree with their decision though I understand their reasoning. The point is they are counting a lot on the MMRCA & Flanker inductions plus upgrades, to handle declining numbers and waiting for the definitive "best" as they always tend to do, but the manner in which China is building up its strength, plus any more delays in the MMRCA, and their plans could be thrown off balance.

Recently we had the PAF Air Chief reportedly evaluating new SAM systems from China as well. Pak., is all but China-lite in terms of equipment.

The IAF should actually petition the GOI to raise the squadron limit by 2-3 squadrons and acquire a few more LCA MK1 squadrons. These will be any day better than the MiG-27s and what not, which too are on their way out.

[Sanku]

There has been NO systematic issue from LCA from 2000 that is correct and everyone agrees.

It is only a matter of actually implementing the needed plans/design in time.

Period.

[Cain Marko]

Re. the "Shrinking IAF" article by P. Chopra,

What the IAF needs is a real shot in the arm with some v.quick purchases - fighters that can come in strength in the next 2-3 years. The MRCA or Tejas unfortunately don't fit this bill. The Tejas could have but the path chosen over the last 2 years means that it will not. As things stand, there are only 2 options left, and out of these only one really makes sense.

Option 1: More MKIs (40-60) delivered direct from Russia till 2013. Too expensive imho upfront and lifecycle wise.

Option 2: Combination Qatari M2k-5s (12) + 40-60 odd MiG-29SMTs (finding these from excessive VVS stock should not be very difficult, give them the Baaz upgrade with another 2000 hours, and they can last out till 2025-30).

IMVHO, it is the second option that works best - the birds are available (perhaps they can add a few Jags if needed), they should not cost India more than $ 2.5 billion, and India has the necessary experience/infrastructure to induct them smoothly/quickly. The MKI option is good but expensive, upfront and lifecycle wise. It would make the inventory rather top heavy - IAF would wind up having well over 60% of the inventory in heavy fighters. Even the USAF never had more 15s than 16s.

The next 2-4 years are rather disconcerting with the PAF ramping up JF-17/F-16s and the Chinese increasingly looking southward. And the only real response from India so far has been with a meager 13 birds per year via the MKI. Other than that the criminal "timepass" in procuring much needed a/c continues, whether it is the MRCA circus or the lacklustre way in which the Tejas is being procured. Thank God the IAF went for those Akash SAMs.

Ideally, the UAE M2ks would become available, however, in view of the fact that there are way too many factors involved in this situation (the rafales seem likely to get waylaid by the shornets!), and India has not the luxury of just waiting/watching, option 2 should be exercised.

JMTP of course.

CM

[rohitvats]

Excerpts from interview of AM Rajkumar in latest F Mag (not verbatim):

- The main shortcomings (due to lack of engine power) would be in maneuvering flight and ability to take off with required load from runways in hot and high conditions.
- There will be increase in time to climb to height and it would not accelerate as fast
- Sustained turn rate is lower than specified (as per point mentioned by IAF).
- Now, thrust is proportional to fuel consumption and increased thrust will lead to increased fuel consumption. Having more powerful ingine does not automatically increase performance (in context of GE-F-414)
- LCA Mk-2 will be different from LCA Mk-1 by 25%.
- Design changes underway at ADA (inference mine).
- Optimistic timeline for MK-2 - 2015. Operational capability by 2018. Squadron service-2020. Says if we can achieve that, it will be very commendable.
- Flight testing timeline - 2 to 2.5years
- Does not see Snecma-Kaveri powering LCA Mk-1 or Mk-2.
- Time line for Snecma-Kaveri becoming completely operatioal - 2015 to 2018 (his estimate)
- Says MCA will be designed around this engine - LCA will be used as test bed.
- Says if we can manage the engine thing properly, we can expect the MCA to be flying by 2020-2022.
-

[Cain Marko]

Excerpts from interview of AM Rajkumar in latest F Mag (not verbatim):

- Now, thrust is proportional to fuel consumption and increased thrust will lead to increased fuel consumption. Having more powerful ingine does not automatically increase performance (in context of GE-F-414)
-

Now this statement makes me wonder - aren't the newer engines, whether the 414s or the EJ-200s supposed to have even better SFC than the older 404 variants? IOWs, despite higher power, they are advertised as more economical - at mil power and in full AB. This is being disputed by AM Rajkumar (and others in the past iirc) it seems. Or am I missing something?

CM.

[Karan M]

Excerpts from interview of AM Rajkumar in latest F Mag (not verbatim):

- The main shortcomings (due to lack of engine power) would be in maneuvering flight and ability to take off with required load from runways in hot and high conditions.
- There will be increase in time to climb to height and it would not accelerate as fast
- Sustained turn rate is lower than specified (as per point mentioned by IAF).

The first point would affect operations in places like J&K & Leh, but may not necessarily impact operations elsewhere.

Points 2 and 3 are valid but need to be kept in context vis a vis capabilities introduced in recent years which were not available circa 1985. Eg, in 1985, a few degrees of difference in STR would have made a critical difference in a turning fight with guns or even limited aspect missiles (AIM-9L). Now, with HMS & missiles like IRIS-T/Python, this is not critical.

Now, thrust is proportional to fuel consumption and increased thrust will lead to increased fuel consumption. Having more powerful ingine does not automatically increase performance (in context of GE-F-414)

Fourth, true but the key point here is the difference in SFC. The LCA MK2 can carry increased fuel to offset the increased weight but even so, it should have an appreciable difference in performance from MK1, given the relative difference in thrust class (GE404 IN20 to GE404-400).

- LCA Mk-2 will be different from LCA Mk-1 by 25%.

I'd just point out above percentage comes if the suggestions made by Rajkumar are actually incorporated. He constantly uses the word "may". In other words, he suggests changes & their possible impact, but does not commit to them. I'd wait for an official statement from ADA/interview with the actual program directors to have the definitive series of changes between LCA MK-1 and MK-2.