Bharat Rakshak

Cain...the key word here is *might*

Everything in India takes forever to complete. The only thing that came on time and under budget in recent memory was the C-130 delivery. The other being the VVIP transports that were purchased for the IAF. It is amazing how are politicians and babus can move files with rapid ease when it involves their own transport. They can certainly be efficient when they want to. Anyway I digress...back on topic.

The Mk.1 variant is scheduled only for FOC by mid-2014. That is nearly 2.5 years away. See below;

Tejas induction only by mid-2014
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/205807/tejas-induction-only-mid-2014.html



Now imagine how long Mk.2 will take to get the FOC, with the first test flight scheduled for Dec 2013.



Unfortunately for the HAL Tejas, the IAF no longer looks at the aircraft as being MiG-21 replacements...they want state-of-the-art. They are grudgingly accepting the Mk.1 variant, because the MoD is forcing them to.

By the way...if we sign the MMRCA deal in 2012 and if the Rafale is chosen...we will getting a full specced version in 2015, with the AESA radar. The first AESA-equipped Rafales will be joining the French Air Force in 2012.



Boss...it has yet to pass the revised IOC-2 stage and that is scheduled only for mid-2012. You say snags and you very well may be correct, but the IAF looks at those "snags" and refers to them as deficiencies.



In this age of shrinking budgets, can we really afford to induct an aircraft that is suitable only in one role? If the MMRCA (read Rafale) can do deep strike/A2A missions with aplomb...then that is a capability we need.



I would love for anyone on this forum to point out what capabilities the J20 will have...which will make it stand toe-to-toe against the Rafale/Typhoon. Why stop at Pakfa...perhaps we should buy F-22s, because they might be the only thing that will defeat the J-20.

we should buy F-22s, because they might be the only thing that will defeat the J-20.

Right now usa have problem to have f 22 because too expensive.First they won't sale it.
I don't understand why we do discuss something like f 22 when we know that we can't have it intil we become dogi poo for them.
We have to wait until Indo/Russian fighter comes out.

We are overlooking an important fact here, Tiffy/Rafa have a more immediate role of dealing with swarms of PLAAF MKk and other derivatives.
LCA in its current form and Pak-Fa that will come only in the future can not offer us this.

Pak-Fa will be able to match or out perform the J20 when they come.

Rakesh Garu, I am not convinced. Here are my reasons:

1) Let us assume that the Tejas-mk1 is ready only by 2015, it would still be v.close to MRCA induction times. Again, it is imho a more suitable replacement of the 21s/27s than the Rafale/Tiffy, which are overkill. And if you need such uber birds to vanquish Cheeni/TSP threats, an even better alternative, the Pakfa is just about expected at the time. Hell, even upgraded MKIs will more than do the trick. The MRCA iows, is being inducted 10 years too late - at a time when it coincides with both the Tejas and the Pakfa not to mention Super MKIs.
2) And this is assuming that they sign off on the MRCA quickly, and induction happens without any delays (unlikely imho).
3) As said before, there are other more cost and time effective alternatives, that can be got as an interim measure. Even if they start inducting the LCA mk1 only after 2015, an extra sqd of MKI (with upgrade) should pretty much provide everything (and more) than 1 sqd of Rafale/Tiffy will. Qatari M2ks too could be renegotiated.
5) As far as the J20 is concerned, I think it is tangential to the current discussion. But then again, if it is that unworthy, then why exactly is a RAfale or Tiffy needed to swat it, can't existing MKI or upgraded version do the same?

So the question remains - why is the MRCA so necessary? Neither the Rafale nor the Tiffy provide anything more than an MKI (esp. upgraded versions), they may provide more than the LCA mk1, but are decidedly lower on the rung vis a vis the Pakfa. The MRCA will fulfil a very limited role in the IAF, and that too for a v.short while as the Pakfa, and LCA II will coincide with its induction.

And such a temporary outcome hardly deserves such a massive bill imvho.

Yes, but the MKI surely can Koti saar. In what great numbers will the MRCA be available when the Pakfa is being inducted or the Tejas II? 1 or 2 sqds at best, which means that if "swarms" of PLAAF flankers have to be dealt with, numerically, the Rafale/Tiffy, will still be quite inadequate. So instead of getting those 1 or 2 MRCA sqds, I'd rather see funds devoted to an extra MKI + Mirage 2000-5 + SMT. They'll do the job just fine I think.

Add to this a deep upgrade for the MKI, more AWACS, and $$s pumped in setting up a production line of Tejas that can churn out 20+ airframes from the get go, and imho, you have the numbers/quality necessary to deal with said threats.

$ 13-20 billion for the MRCA at this stage seems like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Too late. I daresay even the good colonel made a point when he brought up the JSF. If only it came without strings.

MKI can sure do that. But IAF wanted for something that has a single pilot and is lighter(Mirage). That was the initial requirement ain't it.
And regarding the compensation instead of MMRCA(Tara/Tiffy), I would have preferred Mig-35(MMRCA) rather then more MKI and Mirage 2000-5. Cheap, no need for absorption time.

But looking at it from the current POV canceling a done deal and is not so wise. This opens up window for unkhil to fool around and the ToT we were to get will be sealed out.

I see a lot of this ToT going into AMCA, along with prospective partnerships.
And I need not say about the Political benefits here.

Ironic.
I feel the same too. But I will forgive my government overspending rather then doing another Arty or AJT saga with MMRCA.

^ I feel your pain brother! And then, that Rafale would look rather nice in IAF colors I suppose.

Do we know enough to say that? It might be comparing apples to oranges for all we know.

Even if they are roughly comparable or even if there is an edge going to the PAKFA what matters is that we will be importing the fighter while Chinas' is a domestic production with attendant cost impacts. And to say nothing of the fact that Chinese defense budget is four times our.

While a FGFA might match the J-20, how will we match the PLAAF fleet with IAF fleet?

we will be license producing some birds like mrca and pakfa, while domestically producing the tejas and using older existing a/c.

the plaaf might be let us assume 100% domestically procures all its new platforms. they would continue to use the su27 & su30 imports for another 20 yrs.

can it be proven that PLAAF production cost will be cheaper than ours?
can it be proven that we will or will not face hurdles in obtaining the latest tech (assuming we cannot develop it locally like engines or aesa radar) and prc will not face hurdle in matching the latest spec kit?
would the euro/us arms embargo be removed soon - giving them access to latest components?

Singha, we will be paying "license fees" through the nose, as well paying cash upfront for importing a large fraction (cost wise) of critical tech that will not be ToT'ed. So in general, yes PLAAF purchases will make lower economic impact than IAF's will.

It is also quite reasonable to assume that PLAAF production cost will be cheaper than ours. One, China buys in larger volumes. Two, the eco-system in which PRC aviation industry exists it much richer technologically, well diversified and at a higher technological grade than the Indian industry. Third, PRC end users are willing to support local development by acquiring low capability initial marks and then funding gradual sustained improvements. This is in contrast to the the Sky or nothing approach in India. This will again have a non-trivial impact on costs.

PRC will likely face hurdles, but it is simply better equipped than India is a number of key parameters (economic muscle, focused leadership, bigger talent base both management and technical, more mature heavy and high-tech industry, refined conventional and non-conventional technology acquisition programs, key investment in medium term applied research etc etc).

Going forward China will be like Russia of yore, i.e. less dependent upon access to key western technology and largely autonomous military-industrially. It will be able to hold its own with the rest of the world in military technology by and large despite some deficiencies in some areas. We will still be stuck JV'ing and ToT'ing for the foreseeable future.

Why not more EF?
Seems th UK has to go alone with development of N-Typhoon.
So much for the joint venture.

From the same link -

"The Admiral's comments were wrongly attributed and in certain cases not even raised during the course of his speech or at the event itself as the article alleges," said Ward.

"Had the journalist sought to contact ADS, we could have verified whether these comments were made, but their lack of contact suggests they have accepted at face value the second hand reporting of what has turned out to be an unreliable source. In doing so they have potentially damaged the reputation of a senior member of our armed forces - certainly they have thrown into question their own personal credibility and ultimately the paper for which they write."

I read that Viv saab.



It does not however deny the allegation. Quite possible the Admiral blew the whistle in advance or expressing his frustration.

Anyway I will refrain from further annoying anyone unless I get a second and more reliable source. (Maybe times itself)

PAK-FA will be ready by 2025, not 2015.

http://www.readability.com/read?url=htt ... 04394.html

As for Super MKI, would love to see a comparison of its specs/timeline/costs vs. the Rafale and Typhoon.

The IAF is not very happy with the capabilities of the Tejas Mk 1, which is why the Tejas Mk 2 is necessary / being developed and funded. Even so, 40 Tejas Mk 1 have been ordered, and when those are ready, inshallah Mk 2 will be in production.

And all this while I thought upgrading capabilities of combat aircrafts is a natural progression all over the world....not yet come across any combat aircraft that is still flying with the original configuration after some years of induction....

Ajatshatru,

The Tejas Mk 1 is underpowered. Which is why the Tejas Mk 2 with major structural changes is required to be developed. The lack of power issue with the Mk 1 cannot be solved with time alone, a new airframe capable of housing a bigger engine is required.

That article about the Pakfa is seriously of the Russian DDM variety - and has confused the Pakfa with the Pakda - the strategic bomber being planned to replace the Tu-22/160.. Most sources point out that Russia aims to get the Pakfa in around 2015, which explains why it is ordering such limited numbers of Su-35.

INdia targets induction of the same around 2017, some (2 sqds?) of them will be single seater Pakfas and the rest shall be FGFA.



Yes, it sounds rather optimistic but the target dates are certainly no where close to 2025. So, as a matter of being fair if we stick to the targeted induction date of MRCA in the next couple of years, it is only fair to stick to official timelines for the Tejas and Pakfa, optimistic as they seem. The MRCA coincides directly with the Tejas, and the Pakfa is just a couple of years down the road after the MRCA.

As far as the idea that the Tejas mk1 is underpowered goes, the IAF seems to have no such issues with the MiG-21 for which the Tejas is the best replacement, which has an even worse TWR or even the Mirage-2000 (with a comparable TWR to the LCA), which it has happily chosen to upgrade for an astounding $ 5 billion!

i remember, quite some time back, it was taboo to say that mk1 was underpowered. A very valid counter posed was that data be presented to back up the claim. So where do stand on this now?

No taboo, just a fact. Which is why Mk 2 with the larger 414 engine is being developed.

In October 2011, Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne stated that India is first approving the finalists' industrial offset offers, and allowing each time to make a final bid. A total cost based on life-cycle cost, purchase cost, and technology transfer value for each competitor will be calculated.

I am eagerly waiting for this announcement like many others.......

There is no engine, major avionic systems are under development, and a huge amount of testing and integration that has to be done. Going by the normal timeline of fighter aircraft development, the earliest this reaches IAF squadron service (if it satisfies IAF ASRs) is 2020s.



MRCA contenders are proven platforms with limited additional development requirements. No one takes 2017 seriously for FGFA.



IAF flies MiG-21 in 2012 out of necessity, not out of choice. It would have liked a replacement 10 years ago, if not earlier.

IAF is looking to upgrade its Mirage 2000, to face the challenges of the future. MRCA is also required to face the challenges of the future.

It is not at all clear which challenge the Tejas Mk 1 will be able to face. To say it is better than a Bison is to damn it with faint praise.

My dad had a Maruti 800 and my uncle bought an accent and we all felt the 800 was terribly under-powered and later when i bought a punto 1.4 i felt the accent was nowhere near the punto be it the Blue & me or the other gizmos. The accent uncle later bought a cruze and my dad now feels the punto is a brick on wheels and is nothing when compared to the cruze, though it is a generation ahead of the accent and two generations ahead of the 800.
Now where is the problem?

^the problem is none tried bmw.

raghuk, nice story. In wartime, the life expectancy of a pilot in an underpowered aircraft is somewhat compromised. I would rather have 1 aircraft that will beat the enemy than 3 that are known to be worse than the enemy's fighter.

Oh sure, so do i, but you must definitely have information which proves beyond doubt that the LCA is less capable(or worse as you put it) as compared to any of the potential adversary's A/C. Thanks in advance!

Be Indian, buy Indian. Indica is best!

But seriously, It is clearly an issue of role and affordability.

The envisaged roles are different and neither the MKI or LCA, in greater numbers will help. The accent is on roles and not numbers. Affordability is correlated to risk perception and to mitigate that risk and the ToT is to jumpstart our fledgling aviation design, build and test capabilities. This is not to take away any credit for the fabulous job our guys are doing on the LCA.

Guys remember that the AF has spent years on the MMRCA and by now they know the role they want it for.

And there is not much in the public domain about "active stealth". Its not only about A2A or A2G. It is also their perception of each contenders survivability and quick turn around maintenance, which translates to "sneak, peek, destroy and return to fight another day". They don't need an aircraft in their hands to strategise. They know enough about the capabilities. They need the aircraft in their hands to devise the tactics to deliver its strategic role.

And my gut tells me that they want the Raffy!

raghuk,

PLAAF has several hundred Su-30 class a/c, whereas PAF has several dozen F-16 Block 50 class a/c. The only way Tejas Mk 1 can play in the same ground as these bad boys is if mummy, daddy and daada-ji are around. Mummy (AWACS) will see the bad boys coming, and tell little Tejas Mk 1 to go and hide, while daddy (Su 30 MKI) and daada-ji (Rafale/Typhoon) go and beat the bad boys. Some may say its best not to let little Tejas play in such bad neighbourhood.

^^^^ Sure. And an unknown, unwanted aircraft called the Gnat was beating the cr@p out of that generations best: The F-86

To be precise china has

100 Su-30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKK
210 J-10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10 (Which can't be Su-30 class, J-10B can be in the daddy league)
120 J-11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11 (Which again is not Su-30 class)

So where we see several hundred Su-30 class planes ..... less we say about pak is the better ... during kargil they could not even keep the plane in air ... it is just hot air.

LCA will counter J-11, J-10A and FC-20 any given day .... machine is as good as pilots .... we know that our pilots are better and superior to both mentioned countries.

Kahey ka underpowered? The mk1 has a TWR that is better than anything in the IAF fleet barring the MiG-29 and Su-30MKI. Here are the facts:

Tejas mk1:
Empty weight ~ 6500kg (should be less for production variants), Max Power: 8500kg/f (Ada site actually shows 90).
TWR w. 4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM + 1/2 int fuel (~2000kg) = 8500:8500 OR ~ 1.00

Mirage 2000:
Empty weight ~ 7600kg, Max power: 10000kgf
TWR w. 4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM + 1/2 int fuel (~2750kg) = 10000:10350 OR 0.96

Gripen C:
Empty weight 6500kg, Mak power: 8000kg/f
TWR w. 4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM + 1/2int fuel (~2000kg) = 8000/8500 OR 0.94

Let us not even bring into the picture birds like the MiG-21, 27 or Jaguar.

This whole underpowered Tejas thing is a red herring imho. What the AF is doing is not too different from what the IA has done to the Arjun it seems. They want the bird to come in just perfect, which they very well know is impractical - no AF does this. Sure, the Tejas has certain issues such as a lower G limit or AoA, but as the flight envelope is expanded, these will get resolved.

And chalo, supposing that the mk1 is not good enough to meet certain exotic A2A IAF conditions, surely it is more than capable in the A2G scenario? What is the problem here? Start replacing the floggers, which seem to be crashing left and right. It makes a far better self escorting a/c than both the Jag and the MiG-27, and even the current specced Mirage 2000.

Sorry for my skepticism, but after ACM Major, who I thought was exceptional in his support for the LCA, IAF's interest in the bird has been somewhat lacklustre imvho. The idea it seems is to give the bird token orders/support, while running after latest and greatest imports Mark my words, when the s**t really hits the fan, it'll be the LCA and existing inventory that will make a difference and NOT fancy toys people are hankering after.

But Rajan if you think about it - until only 5 years ago the role envisaged by the IAF was clearly met by a Mirage 2000. What have they learnt in 5 years that suddenly makes a Rafale/Tiffy so critical? As said before, the only thing that has changed is the GOI and its policy to include US h/w as a gesture during the Nuke deal. But what that has achieved is a complete mix up of fighter roles. As a result we had everything from light (gripen) to medium (f-16/Rafale?) to heavy (Shornet) in one race.

And if we objectively assess the situation, it becomes rather clear that the immediate role that the IAF needs to fulfill is that of a lightish-medium bird - a replacement for those a/c that are going to be numberplated, namely, the MiG-21 and 27. And the LCA mk.1 should do this quite well. So where is the need for exotica?



But if the Tiffy is chosen, what happens to the need for active cancellation? I think in terms of turnaround maintenance, the Tejas should have an edge as its supply chain is mostly homegrown.


Yeah, well if the HAVE to do it, then I'd want a Rafale too.

This whole idea of comparing birds 1vs.1 is irksome. It is not as though a) the whole PLAAF is going to come south - its premier assets are any way geared towards it major population centers/threat perceptions - USN, Taiwan, Japan, Soko. b) The LCA mk1 will obviously not be required to take on elite Plaaf fighters without adequate support since such fights are likely closer to home and in a defensive setup.

For deep strikes/a2a battles in Chinese airspace, the MKI is more than adequate. What niche then, is the MRCA needed for? And even if such a niche exists, why can't Mirage 2000s, and MiG-29s fulfill it? And if it is to be said that these are too few, just hold on a bit, and you'll have more Tejas 2.0s come in. Difference in induction times would be approx. 3 years, can't we figure out a way to close this gap?

What is happening here is not cutting the cloth as per needs but setting up needs as per the cloth - iows, messed up.

The delays in getting LSP7/8 which are meant for IAF to flog and form opinions, doctrines etc. is not helping the matter either.

I think in 2010 IAF enthusiasm was getting higher by the day but 2011 seems to have dampened that.

Lets hope for a better 2012.

Dassault magazine 148 - Rafale Mission Nucléaire

From Rafale News :

Rajanb, It was the IAF pilots' tactics that did the job and not just the plane.
Again the man behind the machine.

However should India always handicap its fighting forces due to politicians inclinations?

Speculation alert!

There could be one very fair reason the IAF might be wary of the Tejas (apart from the long time being taken) - the IAF's strong need for strategic independence. It does not want to be dependent on any nation in any form that could compromise its operations - neither Russia nor the US. The ADA's proclivity towards US hardware/expertise, be it in raising the flight envelope, the fbw affair, or the powerplant chosen, might have resulted in the IAF's token interest. It is interesting to note that all MRCA candidates that fielded a solid US made component never made the final cut - F-16, F-18 and even the Gripen. Perhaps the IAF simply finds it too risky to have a large part of its fighter fleet fall victim to US sanctions or Russian shenanigans?

It'd be interesting to see if the selection of the GE F414 over the EJ-200 had in any way dismayed the IAF. In such a case, all I can say is , Viva la Rafale!

CM, the LCA's suitability as an alternative to the MRCA notwithstanding, don't you think that after spending so much time and effort in the tender and evaluations process it would be criminal to cancel the deal now? (not that it won't happen).

If that was true, the IAF should have made it clear to the ADA that an american engine was unacceptable right at the start right?

I am not sure Nachiket, IF the bird's role can be performed by more price, labor, and operationally effective substitutes, it might be criminal NOT to cancel the deal. That is actually what I'm trying to say - the MRCA is not convincing - no point making a blunder just because so many have been made till now.

However, IF the need is critical and cannot be resolved via other options (LCA, extra MKI, M2k, SMT et al), then might as well bite the bullet and buy the Rafale.

Apart from my speculation above, I do think that the MRCA serves as a hedge against failure/inordinate delays in the LCA or Pakfa. Sort of a fallback - rather slim chance and expensive too.


Indeed, and may be they did but were shot down? It is evident from the Rajkumar book that the AF felt rather dismayed by the support given to technocrat "lightest/greatest" type ideas (re. the FBW for ex), but there was little they could do about it. Marietta was chosen, sanctions were imposed, program was delayed; GE was chosen, sanctions were imposed, program was delayed. Kind of iterative and eminently discouraging to an AF that is trying to meet its operational requirements.

And despite the above loop, in the 2000s post sanctions, we see that again a GE engine was chosen, LM was given preference in consultancy, and then to top it all, a GE engine is chosen for the future variant as well. Same cycle being repeated? IAF might be wary and decide that might as well not hope to satisfy op. requirements with a techie's favorite toy.

Like I said, just speculation, take it fwiw. But somewhere it might play on minds that being sanctioned twice, and rejected once in such a critical program by one country, it might not be wise to put more eggs in the same basket?