IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 07 Jun 2015 15:59

Philip wrote:
Babudom has placed itself as a buffer zome,like a DMZ,between the political bosses and the military,keping the services and their chiefs at a safe arms length from the decision/policy makers.How many babus understand the sophistication and technology of defence weapon systems,doctrine,history of warfare,etc.The DRDO,DPSU and co.,ally themselves with babudom so that they can keep their fiefdoms intact,with apparent unlimited funds and unlimited time and limited accountability to develop "technology demonstrators",which masquerade as fighting eqpt. Tsarkar in the IN td. has nicely listed the various perceptions of such stepping stones and "successes" in development of desi weapon systems,which quipped with modern,reliable cost-effective fighting machines.delude the public into believing that great strides have been made and the forces are well equipped with desi wares which can replace firang weapon systems.

The IN is the only service with its own in-house design team,why it has achieved the greatest success of the 3 services. The DM should study this tremendous achievement carefully ,where the IN design virtually all the warships,even N-subs.The IAF and IA should similarly set up their own teams for the same purpose.

The baboo(n)s are nurtured by the PSUs in terms of hospitality, facilities, jobs for the guys and access to ghoos via the subcontractors. Phoren trips, expenses paid for shopping, hotels, nightclubs and I am already hearing horror stories of baboo(n) demands for the up coming paris air show .

Incidentally, the IN fights tooth and nail to keep other non productive "agencies" from horning in on their projects in the form of unwanted consultancy etc. The demands are made form very high levels sometimes to "just include them in the project", they will not interfere".

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jun 2015 20:06

ramana wrote:Philip, IAF lost chance for aircraft evolution when the did not support the HF-24 and its follow on.

Anyway who wrote article you linked above?

Article is from TKS Tales, blog by former AF officer.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jun 2015 20:37

CM
thanks. Figured from Philip's cryptic post.

Now read the Wiki on LCA and lets discuss there.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 07 Jun 2015 20:59

chetak wrote:
The baboo(n)s are nurtured by the PSUs in terms of hospitality, facilities, jobs for the guys and access to ghoos via the subcontractors. Phoren trips, expenses paid for shopping, hotels, nightclubs and I am already hearing horror stories of baboo(n) demands for the up coming paris air show .

Incidentally, the IN fights tooth and nail to keep other non productive "agencies" from horning in on their projects in the form of unwanted consultancy etc. The demands are made form very high levels sometimes to "just include them in the project", they will not interfere".

Here is one such image of perks being enjoyed by baboon. UA.

http://images.indiatvnews.com/mainnatio ... CANDAL.jpg

srin · Post by **srin** » 08 Jun 2015 14:15

I finally fully watched the Thappad programme. I kept waiting to hear one word to be said and it just wasn't said in the entire programme. And that is ... Sukhois. I don't expect it from KT (he doesn't care as long as he has something to beat Modi with), but I was disappointed with the ACMs.

See - the MMRCA started off as Mirage extension deal, but one thing (French closing Mirage production) led to another and it became the beast it later did. But important to remember that it started off as light fighter procurement.

A Sukhoi is quite capable of flying long distances, carrying 8T of payload and more than holding its own in combat. Yet, the gripe of the ACMs was about needing something which is of a different class than LCA. It begs the question: why did they forget the Sukhois ?

So, it looks more and more like Rafale is Sukhoi-replacement program than anything else. And that is extremely puzzling. Has IAF turned away from all things Russian ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jun 2015 17:12

Srin,the Rafale was a new Western made toy the IAF wanted to follow on from the M2K. Understandably the IAF didn't want to depend entirely upon Russia as it faced many supply problems with Russian eqpt. after the USSR collapsed. 5 years ago,the support situ of Russian/Soviet eqpt. was in worse shape than it is now with the local content of MKIs built now 70%+. It is steadily improving but diversifying one's eqpt. while desi wares like the LCA are still in the nascent stage of replacement ,is not a bad idea.

The bulk of the IAF has been and understandably will be mainly Russian for some more time simply because of the cost-cum-performance factor ,which is easier to acquire and budget than a more western product . If you watch the TV prog. every weekend,"Laititude",by Maroof Raza,on defence and security affairs,where former diplomats,service brass,etc. are panelists, it is acknowledged that it is far easier to acquire cutting edge mil-tech from Russia than the West. The US for instance will not sell us N-subs,N-reactors for subs,BMos ,FGFAs,etc., and are in the minds of the experts more interested in the various agreements of a strat. partnership infrastructure interoperability,logistic basing,etc.,etc.,than parting with their very best milware. They would like to have,as they do in Pak,air bases,etc. exclusively for their military forces,something that even India under Mrs. G. never gave the Soviets during the height of Indo-Soviet friendship post '71.

The LCAs were meant to replace the MIG-21s. Frankly,the IAF could as you've pointed out do with just the MKIs and the LCAs/various other med. sized aircraft in service,but lack the numbers for retiring MIG-21s/27s. Super-Sukhois could even carry 3 BMos missiles which the Rafale can't do at all! How many air forces worldwide have this many combat types in service? If the LCA MK-2 std. was available one doubts whether even the 36 Rafales would've been considered. No idea when even this deal is going to get signed if the price of this hits the stratosphere. In the back of the minds of the DM,etc.,is the hard fact that one can get 2 MKIs for the price of just one Rafale. Had Mr.Modi dumped the Rafale instead,he would've been lauded in identical manner by those who are now hailing the deal as a "masterstroke".
However,having just one pilot,the various MMRCA contenders would also help in smaller crews,as we do have a pilot shortage as well as aircraft.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jun 2015 19:19

Philip. Can we map out which party and ACM was in power when all those multiple types of aircraft were purchased for IAF?
Thanks, ramana

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jun 2015 19:48

srin wrote:I finally fully watched the Thappad programme. I kept waiting to hear one word to be said and it just wasn't said in the entire programme. And that is ... Sukhois. I don't expect it from KT (he doesn't care as long as he has something to beat Modi with), but I was disappointed with the ACMs.

See - the MMRCA started off as Mirage extension deal, but one thing (French closing Mirage production) led to another and it became the beast it later did. But important to remember that it started off as light fighter procurement.

A Sukhoi is quite capable of flying long distances, carrying 8T of payload and more than holding its own in combat. Yet, the gripe of the ACMs was about needing something which is of a different class than LCA. It begs the question: why did they forget the Sukhois ?

So, it looks more and more like Rafale is Sukhoi-replacement program than anything else. And that is extremely puzzling. Has IAF turned away from all things Russian ?

It has been stated, rather often, that the IAF has this light, medium, heavy classes and that deviating from that would upset some sort of a balance they have built.

Other than that, the MKI has been there all along. IF it was a viable alternative, why even the M2K as a MMRCA (used to MRCA)? They could have said use the MKI for anything and everything.

The picture I get is that the IAF does plan, but lacks vision. In that they use current factors to plan and do not see far enough to get a feel for what may be better in the future. ?????????

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Jun 2015 19:58

IAF plan is to be demanding customer. And ask for planes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jun 2015 21:58

will not sell us N-subs,N-reactors for subs,BMos ,FGFAs,etc., and are in the minds of the experts more interested in the various agreements of a strat

Another point of view:

Russia and India: A 21st Century Decline

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jun 2015 06:49

srin wrote:I finally fully watched the Thappad programme. I kept waiting to hear one word to be said and it just wasn't said in the entire programme. And that is ... Sukhois. I don't expect it from KT (he doesn't care as long as he has something to beat Modi with), but I was disappointed with the ACMs.

See - the MMRCA started off as Mirage extension deal, but one thing (French closing Mirage production) led to another and it became the beast it later did. But important to remember that it started off as light fighter procurement.

A Sukhoi is quite capable of flying long distances, carrying 8T of payload and more than holding its own in combat. Yet, the gripe of the ACMs was about needing something which is of a different class than LCA. It begs the question: why did they forget the Sukhois ?

So, it looks more and more like Rafale is Sukhoi-replacement program than anything else. And that is extremely puzzling. Has IAF turned away from all things Russian ?

Srin Let me guess and I don't want to make a guess that blindly hits out at IAF ignorance. It is important to have more than one fighter type because of some advantages that offers, including a "light fighter"

First off - fuel costs during peacetime training and alertness. An LCA class aircraft will probably use 50% less fuel than a Sukhoi. Wartime CAPs over own bases will be less expensive and the lighter aircraft will also be less prominently visible on radar. Maintenance of two engines is probably much more demanding than maintaining one. I cannot comment on F404/414 vs Al 31

Secondly a large-small mix can be used intelligently as was done against the Americans in that wotzitcalled Kalaikunda exercise.

Third - having a variety of fighters is insurance against a catastrophic sanctions regime or previously undetected failure that can ground an entire fleet.

I do not agree with the idea that "If we had developed stealth aircraft all problems of weight size etc would have been solved". Super Stealth aircraft are, as far as I know, fundamentally aerodynamically inefficient - and their oddball shapes require fly by wire to keep them flyable apart from compromises like internal weapons only. Small/light aircraft bring about some stealth advantages at low cost.

srin · Post by **srin** » 09 Jun 2015 08:23

shiv wrote: Srin Let me guess and I don't want to make a guess that blindly hits out at IAF ignorance. It is important to have more than one fighter type because of some advantages that offers, including a "light fighter"

First off - fuel costs during peacetime training and alertness. An LCA class aircraft will probably use 50% less fuel than a Sukhoi. Wartime CAPs over own bases will be less expensive and the lighter aircraft will also be less prominently visible on radar. Maintenance of two engines is probably much more demanding than maintaining one. I cannot comment on F404/414 vs Al 31

Secondly a large-small mix can be used intelligently as was done against the Americans in that wotzitcalled Kalaikunda exercise.

Third - having a variety of fighters is insurance against a catastrophic sanctions regime or previously undetected failure that can ground an entire fleet.

I do not agree with the idea that "If we had developed stealth aircraft all problems of weight size etc would have been solved". Super Stealth aircraft are, as far as I know, fundamentally aerodynamically inefficient - and their oddball shapes require fly by wire to keep them flyable apart from compromises like internal weapons only. Small/light aircraft bring about some stealth advantages at low cost.

Shiv-saar, thank you for your analysis. To clarify - I'm not advocating a single class of aircraft at all. Historically, large/small have been done - F15/F16 for USAF, F14/F18 for USN, Su-27/Mig-29 by Soviets, F22/F35 (in future).
I get the large/small mix, I get the multirole. But what I don't get is the "medium" class.

So we already have the heavy hitters - poised to go up to 272 (15 squadrons ?) of them. Does the opex of Sukhoi so large to offset the really large capex of Rafale ? I'm sure it would have been really worth it if Rafale cost as much as a Sukhoi, but it doesn't.
And that leaves the lighter class, and we already have a candidate there. Where does Raffy fit in then ?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Jun 2015 09:28

chaanakya wrote:
Here is one such image of perks being enjoyed by baboon. UA.

http://images.indiatvnews.com/mainnatio ... CANDAL.jpg

OT for this thread.

Sorry, but the post is factually incorrect. The male in question is the officer who was responsible for the Gorshkov refit. He was removed from command and court marshaled.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 09 Jun 2015 09:43

Karan M wrote:IAF plan is to be demanding customer. And ask for planes.

and there's something wrong with that??

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jun 2015 10:00

Chetak: Ask for "phoren" planes while trash the "desi" one. So they are demanding. And until recently, gullible defence ministers and babus would give in...as long as they met the RFP requirements. An old gem...former PM Deve Gowda arguing for the T-72 over the Indian Army's choice of the T-90 in the late 1990s. Deve Gowda is definitely no tank expert.

http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiato ... fence.html

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Jun 2015 10:22

^^^

In that article, this is what is written about Arjun MBT:

...
If in all this no one seems to be talking about India's own MBT, the Arjun, it is not surprising. The sad fact is that stuck with the '70s technology the tank, which is yet to be perfected, has already become obsolete. It's vulnerable to missile-firing tanks, its Kanchan armour is dated and its grooved gun cannot fire a missile, even if one were available. The army is going through the motions of acquiring a limited number for squadron trials, but the tank is as good as finished.
...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Jun 2015 10:26

srai: my fault....I should not have used the tank example.

We will both get our hands slapped for derailing this thread. Back to Katrina. Sorry Admins!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 09 Jun 2015 10:29

Rakesh wrote:Chetak: Ask for "phoren" planes while trash the "desi" one. So they are demanding. And until recently, gullible defence ministers and babus would give in...as long as they met the RFP requirements.

Sirji, I get that. There are other issues.

BTW, let's look at the fantastic saras design as an example. Would any decent (in terms of having done nothing so complicated, earlier) design house have gotten into such a mess??.

Why the pusher ?? There are only a couple of these designs flying world wide, what was the attraction or even compulsion?? This design is not viable in commercial terms. Why not start off slow and conventional, ramp up as the capabilities mature?? You probably need to look at how many doctorates this project has "generated" to somewhat understand why this particular design was "preferred".

They all need to be audited in terms of social good and national contribution. The days of working in isolation are long gone. Project management and agreed timelines, process measurements and ruthless reviews are the way to go.

Indian R&D is totally out of control, no coordination and no national vision, no road map or even milestones. No praja, only raja and cowboy "scientists", demanding "understanding". Isn't over six decades of "understanding" enough??. At least, two whole scientist generations have gone by and we still have nothing to show for it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jun 2015 11:55

Indo-Russia "decline".The experts on various panels acknowledge the growing relationship between India and the US,but maintain that Russia will still be the principal mil partner because it will give us its most advanced milware,superior to what China gets,as Russia and the US are wary of Chinese ambitions even though they do v.large business with them .The US will not part with the type of eqpt. that Russia is willing to give us.EMALS,carrier tech does not come with the N-reactor tech ! On the contrary,Russia has given us the N-reactor design for the ATVs and is continuing to assist us in N-sub design and construction.

Economicaly,Indo-Russian trade is nowhere as it was during the Cold War. here there has been a definite decline.The Russian % of global GDP is only between 3-4%,acknowledged by a Russian minister on the Beeb this morning. Indo-Russian economic growth,other than military deals has to expand.This is a task for the eco experts,there is plenty of scope esp. with Western sanction where we can seize the opportunity presented. The Russo-Iran barter deals just hinted at is one way of increasing Indo-Russian trade.

But India can and should balance good relations with Russia and the US primarily to counter China. The US however has to compromise upon its "now and forever, Pakistan" attitude,as Pak continues to wage war through terrorism against india and the US looks aside.The US also looks aside at Chinese N-proliferation with Pak! India has to increase its N-arsenal planning for a much larger N-arsenal and a simultaneous "dual-strike" second-strike capability against China and Pak,plus the imminent threat from the Saudis too. In the ultimate analysis,we should depend upon no nation to come to our aid if we face a Sino-Pak JV. We have to prepare on war footing a dramatic increase in defence spending to plug the gaps in as intelligent a cost-effective manner as possible.

The Rafale deal still has its the "i's" to be dotted and "t's" to be crossed."Many a slip 'tween the cup and the lip".

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 10 Jun 2015 18:10

Philip wrote:Indo-Russia "decline".The experts on various panels acknowledge the growing relationship between India and the US,but maintain that Russia will still be the principal mil partner because it will give us its most advanced milware,superior to what China gets,as Russia and the US are wary of Chinese ambitions even though they do v.large business with them .The US will not part with the type of eqpt. that Russia is willing to give us.EMALS,carrier tech does not come with the N-reactor tech ! On the contrary,Russia has given us the N-reactor design for the ATVs and is continuing to assist us in N-sub design and construction.

Economicaly,Indo-Russian trade is nowhere as it was during the Cold War. here there has been a definite decline.The Russian % of global GDP is only between 3-4%,acknowledged by a Russian minister on the Beeb this morning. Indo-Russian economic growth,other than military deals has to expand.This is a task for the eco experts,there is plenty of scope esp. with Western sanction where we can seize the opportunity presented. The Russo-Iran barter deals just hinted at is one way of increasing Indo-Russian trade.

But India can and should balance good relations with Russia and the US primarily to counter China. The US however has to compromise upon its "now and forever, Pakistan" attitude,as Pak continues to wage war through terrorism against india and the US looks aside.The US also looks aside at Chinese N-proliferation with Pak! India has to increase its N-arsenal planning for a much larger N-arsenal and a simultaneous "dual-strike" second-strike capability against China and Pak,plus the imminent threat from the Saudis too. In the ultimate analysis,we should depend upon no nation to come to our aid if we face a Sino-Pak JV. We have to prepare on war footing a dramatic increase in defence spending to plug the gaps in as intelligent a cost-effective manner as possible.

The Rafale deal still has its the "i's" to be dotted and "t's" to be crossed."Many a slip 'tween the cup and the lip".

I think your opinion about Natasha is a little outdated. They are selling CHina S-400 which they have not sold to anyone else and doing join venture on a heavy lift helicopters not to mention the offering of SU-35 to PLAAF. Who knows what else they giving to Chicom behind close doors.

An article from Moscow Times
4 Signs That Russia's Defense Industry is Pivoting Toward China

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/ ... 19975.html

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jun 2015 18:37

MANNY K wrote:I think your opinion about Natasha is a little outdated. They are selling CHina S-400 which they have not sold to anyone else and doing join venture on a heavy lift helicopters not to mention the offering of SU-35 to PLAAF.

And a heavy lift military transport. Also a wide-body civilian design based on the Russian MS-21, which will likely be the platform of choice for all future PLAAF tankers, AWACS and maritime patrol aircraft.

Who knows what else they giving to Chicom behind close doors.

Can't say about closed doors, but here's some publicly known information:

China builds uranium enrichment centrifuge

25 February 2013

The first domestically-produced centrifuge has been successfully installed at a uranium enrichment plant at the Lanzhou Nuclear Fuel Complex, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) announced. China has previously relied on Russian enrichment technology.

Workers in the main control room of the Lanzhou enrichment plant (Image: CNNC)

CNNC said that, "after a long period of painstaking research" at Lanzhou in central Gansu province, it has successfully developed uranium enrichment centrifuges for commercial use.

The company said that the installation of the centrifuge marks a strategic accomplishment in terms of safeguarding the sustainable development of China's nuclear power industry. It noted that it "indicates that China has the independent chemical capacity to produce nuclear fuel and that it has fully grasped uranium enrichment centrifuge technology." The enrichment process increases the concentration of the fissionable uranium isotope (uranium-235) in order to produce nuclear reactor fuel.

In 2010, China needed 3600 tonnes of uranium and 2.5 million SWU of enrichment. By 2020, it expects to need 10,000 tonnes of uranium and 7 million SWU. The country has largely depended on Russian-supplied enrichment technology to meet its needs, with the remaining enriched uranium being imported.

The Lanzhou enrichment plant started in 1964 for military use and operated commercially between 1980 and 1997 using Soviet-era diffusion technology. A Russian centrifuge plant of 500,000 SWU* per year started operation there in 2001.

An enrichment plant using Russian centrifuges was also set up at Hanzhun in Shaanxi province under agreements between Russia and China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation (CNEIC). The first two modules at Hanzhun came into operation in 1997 and 2000, adding capacity for 500,000 SWU per year. Further capacity of 500,000 SWU per year at Hanzhun was commissioned in mid 2011.

* SWU, or Separative Work Unit, is the unit used to measure the energy required to separate uranium-235 from uranium-238.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jun 2015 19:40

Watch out! s something "in the air" (pun intended) with this visit? Should the LCA beware?

http://www.brahmand.com/news/Swedish-De ... html[quote]
Swedish Defence Minister coming with fighter plane offer

Article Posted on : - Jun 09, 2015
The Gripen multi-role fighter.

NEW DELHI (PTI): Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist is arriving in New Delhi on Tuesday on a four-day visit during which he is expected to offer the Gripen NG fighter aircraft or a possible joint collaboration in manufacturing the single engine light combat planes.

Hultqvist, who will arrive on Thursday night, will also visit the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) units in Bengaluru.

He is scheduled to hold talks with Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on June 10.

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had in April said his government was in talks with the Swedish defence company Saab Group to set up a production unit in his state.

During his trip to that country, Fadnavis had tweeted a photo of himself in the cockpit of a Gripen and said "it was great to be at the aerospace and defence company Saab at Linkoping, Sweden. Promised a defence manufacturing policy in Maharashtra soon."

Saab had offered JAS 39 Gripen E light fighter to India when the tender for Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) was announced. The bid was finally won by French firm Dassault Aviation.

Gripen is a far better version of India's indigenous light combat aircraft Tejas which has been in the making for nearly 30 years.

Parrikar has said that Tejas would be the replacement for the aging fleet of MiG-21s in the IAF.

DRDO had a few years back sought Saab's help in developing the Mark II version of Tejas.

Saab is likely to insist on a government-to-government (G2G) deal if they step in to assist India in developing and manufacturing a light fighter.

India and Sweden had on June 1 signed several agreements to boost ties and decided to restart the bilateral strategic dialogue besides finding ways for investment by the Nordic country in India's defence sector under the ambitious 'Make-in-India' initiative.

With changed FDI rules and the 'Make-in-India' campaign, it is expected that Swedish government would look at India as a manufacturing base.
[/quote]

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 10 Jun 2015 20:43

I do not mind if sweden provides their expertise to set up another LCA line.
Many parts are common between the 2, so if it helps to produce LCA MK1 and Mk2 quickly, it would be nice move.

Possibly they can profit from LCA sales to many countries that are interested in buying LCA.
HAL/ADA/DRDO can have overall control on LCA technology.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 10 Jun 2015 21:34

some feeling!!! V K Saraswat in Niti Ayog now and probably wanted Saab involvement for Tejas MK.2 when he was DRDO chief,
Current govt. can involve Saab in some way or the other to speed up things. Feasible

srin · Post by **srin** » 10 Jun 2015 22:25

Wasn't the Brazilian Gripen deal (incl local manufacture) costing something like $150 mil per plane ? It makes Rafale seem worthwhile, and it makes our LCA price look like pocket change.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Jun 2015 23:50

Philip wrote:Watch out! s something "in the air" (pun intended) with this visit? Should the LCA beware?

http://www.brahmand.com/news/Swedish-De ... html[quote]
Swedish Defence Minister coming with fighter plane offer

Article Posted on : - Jun 09, 2015
The Gripen multi-role fighter.

NEW DELHI (PTI): Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist is arriving in New Delhi on Tuesday on a four-day visit during which he is expected to offer the Gripen NG fighter aircraft or a possible joint collaboration in manufacturing the single engine light combat planes.

Hultqvist, who will arrive on Thursday night, will also visit the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) units in Bengaluru.

He is scheduled to hold talks with Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on June 10.

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had in April said his government was in talks with the Swedish defence company Saab Group to set up a production unit in his state.

During his trip to that country, Fadnavis had tweeted a photo of himself in the cockpit of a Gripen and said "it was great to be at the aerospace and defence company Saab at Linkoping, Sweden. Promised a defence manufacturing policy in Maharashtra soon."

Saab had offered JAS 39 Gripen E light fighter to India when the tender for Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) was announced. The bid was finally won by French firm Dassault Aviation.

Gripen is a far better version of India's indigenous light combat aircraft Tejas which has been in the making for nearly 30 years.

Parrikar has said that Tejas would be the replacement for the aging fleet of MiG-21s in the IAF.

DRDO had a few years back sought Saab's help in developing the Mark II version of Tejas.

Saab is likely to insist on a government-to-government (G2G) deal if they step in to assist India in developing and manufacturing a light fighter.

India and Sweden had on June 1 signed several agreements to boost ties and decided to restart the bilateral strategic dialogue besides finding ways for investment by the Nordic country in India's defence sector under the ambitious 'Make-in-India' initiative.

With changed FDI rules and the 'Make-in-India' campaign, it is expected that Swedish government would look at India as a manufacturing base.

[/quote]

Saab is a good company.

They had, a long time ago, taken the Boeing 707 engine, -Pratt & Whitney JT8D I think, converted this to adapt to a fighter, Viggen, by adding reheat. Not so easy to convert and adapt a commercial engine to a military engine with reheat.

Such a solution may have been tried for the first time ever.

They may be able to help with the kaveri.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jun 2015 05:21

chetak wrote: Saab is a good company.

They had, a long time ago, taken the Boeing 707 engine, -Pratt & Whitney JT8D I think, converted this to adapt to a fighter, Viggen, by adding reheat. Not so easy to convert and adapt a commercial engine to a military engine with reheat.

Such a solution may have been tried for the first time ever.

They may be able to help with the kaveri.

I have not heard of Saab maaking aero engines. The Viggen was eliminated from DPSA (and Jaguar selected) because of American engines - made in Sweden under licence I think - IIRC they used to be called "Volvo Flygmotor" or some such thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen#Propulsion

The Viggen was powered by a single Volvo RM8 turbofan. This was essentially a licence-built variant of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine that powered commercial airliners of the 1960s, with an afterburner added for the Viggen

I honestly feel that no one can help us with Kaveri except ourselves. Every company has a working "core engine" that they have made after thousands of hours of testing and they use that to develop new engine applications. Handing them Kaveri design and asking them to make it work will probably elicit the response "Here is an engine recipe that we had earlier left in the oven and let us simply use that"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jun 2015 05:30

From wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri

looks like Kaveri project has been wound up.
However variants are in work not for LCA.

The Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) decided to wind up the Kaveri engine (GTX-35VS ) programme on November 2014 due to its shortcomings(Decision will be finalized by DAC) . GTRE is now running two separate successor engine programmes, the K9+ programme and the K10 programme.The Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) decided to wind up the Kaveri engine (GTX-35VS ) programme on November 2014 due to its shortcomings(Decision will be finalized by DAC) . GTRE is now running two separate successor engine programmes, the K9+ programme and the K10 programme.

Looks like cost so far was $640M.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jun 2015 20:17

chetak wrote:
Karan M wrote:IAF plan is to be demanding customer. And ask for planes.
and there's something wrong with that??

Nothing wrong with it, apart from the fact they will remain far behind other AFs which have moved ahead of them in terms of being far more integrated with their design & development teams - like the USAF, French AF, RAF and horror of horrors, even the PLAAF and PAF. And in the process, will be beholden to imports and the executive (one day or the other) will step in and start dictating. If its always somebody else's problem, then it will be somebody else's answer as well.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jun 2015 21:14

chetak wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Chetak: Ask for "phoren" planes while trash the "desi" one. So they are demanding. And until recently, gullible defence ministers and babus would give in...as long as they met the RFP requirements.
Sirji, I get that. There are other issues.

BTW, let's look at the fantastic saras design as an example. Would any decent (in terms of having done nothing so complicated, earlier) design house have gotten into such a mess??.

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/pVx43H ... Saras.html

It was MDB that first built and flew the small turboprop aircraft in the 1990s. It had to wind up the project as it couldn’t raise funds to sustain it. MDB later tied up with NAL to build Saras, but walked out of the project in 1998 in the midst of a financial crisis—leaving it in Indian hands.

Why the pusher ?? There are only a couple of these designs flying world wide, what was the attraction or even compulsion?? This design is not viable in commercial terms. Why not start off slow and conventional, ramp up as the capabilities mature?? You probably need to look at how many doctorates this project has "generated" to somewhat understand why this particular design was "preferred".

Yeah sure. It has to do with doctorates, and nothing to do with MDBs preference for a pusher to reduce cabin noise to the minimum.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bJl ... se&f=false

Rest of the subjective stuff not really worth a response.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2015 21:56

This is the Raffy gd,but following a post about Saras for the record.

Karan,wasn't the original Saras design copied from a Myasishchev bird? What it has proven is that NAL need to take a nap.If one remembers correctly,the engine was underpowered and the weight was above the design specs. There was a 2009 report about the IAF about to place an order for 15 "cranes".

This transport aircraft has suffered delays for a decade due to design flaws, an under-powered engine, excess take-off weight and non-availability of components following the 1998 sanctions imposed by the US.
However, when contacted, NAL Director A R Upadhya said that the new aircraft will have better engines that pack more power and engineers have also succeeded in reducing the total weight of the aircraft by 500 kg.

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/pVx43H ... te]Russian experts to help make design changes in Saras

K. Raghu & Tarun Shukla
First Published: Tue, May 25 2010.

Taking wing: A team from Russian government-run civil aircraft maker Myasishchev Design Bureau is in India to assist local designers under the Indo-Russian integrated long term programme of cooperation

Bangalore/New Delhi: Russian experts will help make key design changes to India’s first home-made civil aircraft, Saras, the development of which was suspended after a fatal crash last year.

A team from Russian government-run civil aircraft maker Myasishchev Design Bureau (MDB) is at the campus of the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) to assist Indian designers on the project.

It was MDB that first built and flew the small turboprop aircraft in the 1990s. It had to wind up the project as it couldn’t raise funds to sustain it. MDB later tied up with NAL to build Saras, but walked out of the project in 1998 in the midst of a financial crisis—leaving it in Indian hands.

“It has come full circle,” said A.K. Saxena, managing director of Navv Avia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. “If the joint venture was a success, we would have hundreds of aircraft flying by now.”

Saxena was part of the team that began the project as an executive of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

NAL built two prototypes of Saras, a 14-seat multi-purpose aircraft to connect feeder routes. One of them crashed in March 2009, killing three and forcing the lab to suspend its development.

Aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which investigated the crash, found fault with the management of the project and design issues such as unstable flight control laws. It recommended that NAL consult other aircraft makers for flight trials.
Since the crash, NAL has sought an additional Rs40 crore to build a new aircraft.

It also set up a panel headed by V.K. Aatre, professor emeritus at the Indian Institute of Science and a former head of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, to study the DGCA report and help implement it.

India’s Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, under which NAL operates, began talking to MDB last year under the Indo-Russian integrated long term programme of cooperation in science and technology.

A Russian team visited India in January, but a pact was signed this month after DGCA submitted its report on the crash.

“Russia has better expertise than NAL. This (Saras) was basically taken from the Russian design,” said a DGCA official, who didn’t want to be named.

NAL director A.R. Upadhya said Russian experts will help speed up flight development and certification. “They will advise us on our flight testing, help in niggling design issues like flight controls.”

“We have done wind tunnel tests and found some solutions. It will be reviewed by them and they may make some suggestions,” he said.

India’s aerospace industry is still nascent, despite airlines buying hundreds of passenger planes to cater to the rising demand for air travel. The country’s military aerospace industry has built a helicopter, a trainer and fighter jet on its own.

The Russian help comes at a time when NAL is also working on a larger 70-seat plane called the regional transport aircraft, or RTA-70.

A panel headed by G. Madhavan Nair, chairman of the research council of NAL, and other top designers will meet in Bangalore on 27 May to draw a strategy for the project.

The aircraft, which India aims will help bridge the gap in civil aerospace technologies with China and Brazil, will be built as a public-private partnership.[/quote]

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Jun 2015 14:40

chetak wrote:...

Indian R&D is totally out of control, no coordination and no national vision, no road map or even milestones. No praja, only raja and cowboy "scientists", demanding "understanding". Isn't over six decades of "understanding" enough??. At least, two whole scientist generations have gone by and we still have nothing to show for it.

There are lots of stuff to show for it. I don't know who you been talking to but if you do some research there have been lots of gains in aircraft, combat vehicles, naval vessels, engines, radar, sensors, EW, missile, software, communications, guns, life sciences, etc. All this for a fraction of the costs of what leading nations are spending on their R&D.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 12 Jun 2015 15:24

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 010_1.html

Dassault chief speaks on Rafale sale to IndiaTrappier made it clear it would take at least three years to deliver 36 Rafales to the Indian Air Force
Ajai Shukla | New Delhi June 12, 2015 Last Updated at 00:37 IST

After several contradictory statements from Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar about India's proposed purchase of 36 fully built Rafale fighters, there are now clarifications from Eric Trappier, chief executive of Dassault Aviation, the French company that builds the Rafale.

In an interview to the respected trade journal, Defense News, Trappier said the Indian Air Force (IAF) could buy more than just 36 Rafales, a question that Parrikar has vacillated on. The defence minister has stated that India would buy just 36 Rafales instead of the originally planned 126; and the money saved would be spent on Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA).

Trappier made it clear it would take at least three years to deliver 36 Rafales to the IAF, given that Egypt and Qatar are ahead of India in the line to receive the fighter. Parrikar had stated on April 11 in Goa that the IAF would be delivered its fighters within two years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2015 18:02

So Rafale is reneging on commitment made by Hollande to deliver in two years.

Looks like Trappier is thinking he can still string along India.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Jun 2015 20:08

Francois Hollande is the President of France. He has the luxury of making statements about Dassault's production capability, even though he does not have a faint clue about how Dassault`s production line operates and her future capacity. Eric Trappier is the CEO of Dassault. He is fully aware of what Dassault can realistically produce.

On what basis is Parrikar claiming that Dassault can deliver these fighters within two years, when Egypt and Qatar have signed, confirmed deals with Dassault. India is still negotiating with Dassault to sign a deal. Obviously, Dassault will start building fighter jets for clients with whom they have a confirmed order. We only have an intent, nothing concrete.

The only ones who are stringing India is the IAF and vested interests / lobbies which vehemently reject the Tejas Mk1 even though it is infinitely better that the MiG-21 it is designed to replace. The real irony here is the IAF has the gall to claim that the Mk.1 variant does not meet the mark in a number of respects, but even the Rafale and the Typhoon did not meet all their own MMRCA requirements. If this is not a double standard, then I do not know what is. Dassault is here to make a profit and they will squeeze where ever they can. They are not running a Mother Theresa Hospice.

Interview: Dassault's Eric Trappier
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /28735769/

Q. The Indian defense minister has said the Rafale is "way too expensive," and ruled out buying more than the announced 36. What is your reply?

A. It is under negotiation. The Indian Air Force needs many more than 36 planes. There is an immediate need for 36. The negotiations for 126 are rather slow. They have an urgent operational requirement which does not allow time needed to set up the license, so they asked for 36 quickly. When I say quickly, that is production time — three years. That is quicker than building under license and completing the negotiations. The problem is not the three years. Buying 36 built in France will be faster than setting up complex production under license, which we are still negotiating — who does what, who's responsible for what.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 12 Jun 2015 22:04

-----Delete-------

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jun 2015 22:10

On what basis is Parrikar claiming that Dassault can deliver these fighters within two years

What is the alternative (singular)?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 12 Jun 2015 22:13

In perfect hindsight, Modi & co, should have negotiated a different deal with the French:

According to Wiki, ADA has 124 M2K of which 37 have been upgraded to 2000-5 standard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_ ... d_variants.

We should have leased ~120 M2K from the the ADA with the latter replenishing its fleet from increased Rafale production by Dassault and financed by Indian lease payments on the M2Ks. This would have increased economies of scale for the Rafale while India avoided the infrastructure investment of the Rafale.

The lease maturities could have been structured to coincide with LCA MK2 deliveries (with incentives to the latter to get it delivered quickly).

Convoluted? yes but by necessity. If we had gotten the 108-126 M2Ks in 2001 as the IAF wanted, all of the drama could have been avoided.

All would have gained from the lease.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Jun 2015 22:17

That would have still meant that the induction of the M2K would have had to follow closely with the production of the Rafale. The french aren't going to limit the size of their air force to just the rafale. It would have also involve the french to agree to procuring 120 Rafale's at a very fast pace something that they don't have the money for given that they want the export customers to pick up their rafale production slots. For the french, the M2K is a no-cost proposition since its already purchased, swapping that for more rafales would require significantly higher capital expenditure which they cant afford at the moment as is reflected in the small rafale fleet coupled with an extremely slow production rate of just an aircraft a month.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Jun 2015 23:09

Cosmo_R wrote:If we had gotten the 108-126 M2Ks in 2001 as the IAF wanted, all of the drama could have been avoided.

Amen! Curse the fool who changed this to the MMRCA tamasha. We would be finishing the 126 order right about now.

NRao wrote:What is the alternative (singular)?

Don't do a 'Hollande' and make statements that you are unqualified to answer. That is what Parrikar should have done.