'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 06 Apr 2017 05:38

Jeez! after the MiG 29K fiasco, the MiG 29 & SU30 engine issues you're still considering anything from those guys?. Russians are more skilled at killing indigenous projects than anyone else.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Apr 2017 06:02

Hope they add the 12 Qatari mirages and 33 from UAE plus order some more MKI and LCAs. This should help quite a bit.

chola · Post by **chola** » 06 Apr 2017 07:59

Cosmo_R wrote:Jeez! after the MiG 29K fiasco, the MiG 29 & SU30 engine issues you're still considering anything from those guys?. Russians are more skilled at killing indigenous projects than anyone else.

Russians are more skilled at killing actual Indians than anyone else.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Apr 2017 09:19

Thats just numbers right but the actual service_ability of the squadron looks even more dire.
If we try and flog old Mig-29 UPG airframes we run the risk of re-running the saga with the old Mig-21s.
Spares/ Price / Quality/ HumanLife Risk

Not necessarily, spares can be stocked up. Also, the fulcrum being twin engined is likely to be much safer than the 21s, not to mention that it has exceptional slow speed qualities unlike the 21. The 29k issue is more a result of sea borne ops Iirc. Land based setup might be a lot easier. Get 50 to100 mothballd frames at 5 million a piece and upgrade them. Use and throw by 2030. The whole thing won't cost more than a couple of billion and IAF will have the numbers they need and in a hurry too. There is truly no point buying f16s and gripens at a time when the Tejas is ready and the threat matrix in the near future is likely to see 5gen birds. Rather get a couple dozen jsf even if it adds to the menagerie

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 06 Apr 2017 14:21

@ Cain Marko.
I agree.

The final end game is to protect Tejas (infant) and AMCA (not yet born) factories
Rest everything is temporary. Our Military Aviation programmes will be permanent.

Even the PAF went scouting and picking up all the old Mirage V airframes they could get their hands on.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Apr 2017 16:27

All 60+ MIG-29s of the IAF have been upgraded extensively,that too for a mere cost of just under $!B.Contrast that with the M2K upgrades,still labouring on,for a whopping $2.4B for just 50+.That makes a mere upgrade for an M2K a staggering $50M a pop,while the same for a MIG-29UG is just $15+M!

Moreover,if you read how we won the Kargil air war,posted before,PAF F-16s fled the scene whenever they were locked on by a (legacy) MIG-29.The MIG-29 has such a fearsome reputation when after the end of the Cold War,Germany kept on its MIG-29s which earlier belonged to E.Germany.In exercises,they found that the MIG-29 was the master of the f-16 in aerial combat.Nothing since then has changed between the two,in fact the gap has widened with the arrival of the latest Fulcrum avatar,the MIG-35 with AESA and TVC. Therefore it is totally mystifyiing as to why the F-16 is even being considered for the IAF when it ran away with its tail between its legs during Kargil! Are deep vested interests at work in the MOD?

New MIG-35s are on the anvil for both Russia and Egypt,with BDesh on the verge of signing on.They would be the most cost-effective solution to making up IAF numbers apart from ramping up LCA production using the whip to good effect.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... [quote]The plane might not be innovative or particularly unique, but it is an example of what Russia’s aviation industry does best — making low-cost, evolutionary improvements to proven designs.

There’s little reason to doubt the MiG-35 is a quality fighter. For one, it retains the MiG-29’s extreme maneuverability — among the best in the world in that category.

Even better, MiG-35 incorporates lighter and modern fly-by-wire avionics, and thrust-vectoring engine nozzles shared with the MiG-29M OVT, Su-30 MKI and the U.S. F-22 Raptor, allowing it to maneuver in ways few fighters can.

The downside is that the MiG-35 sacrifices range and weight for agility. The jet has greater range than its predecessors, but is still at at the low end of the “high/low mix,” an organizing theory in which a larger number of cheap fighters balance a smaller number of expensive and more heavily armed, long-range warplanes.[/quote]

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Apr 2017 18:39

^ not sure what the author is referring to wrt sacrifice in weight and range.... Payload? The 35 has very decent range... Around 2000km on internal fuel as good as the raffle. But there is no point in buying brand new 4gen air frames to be used for another 40 years, let the Tejas do that. Buy the much cheaper smts.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Apr 2017 12:26

Yep,provided HAL/ADA get their act together. A Tejas 3rd line/aircraft must be started in the pvt. sector,plus prototypes with alt. engines,either EJ-200 or SNECMA.THis is so that we are not vulnerable to US sanctions again,which under Trump may become a reality with his impulsiveness,as just shown in Syria.
However,Tejas alone cannot do the biz entirely.We need,as the CoAS said,more med. sized fighters too apart from the MIG-21 replacements.Therein lies the logic in acquiring more Fulcrums on the cheap,type already in service. One more Rafale sqd. should also be acquired,so that we have 100+ French med. fighters and another 120+ Russian Fulcrums.220-240 of these med fighters should be adequate in support of the 314+ MKIs and hopefully 120-200 LCAs and 120 upgraded Jags.

Just saw this on the Ind. Av. td.X-posted here.
Someone in the MOD.AHQ must be reading our posts!

India Keen to Buy MiG-29 from Malaysia
(Source: New Straits Times; published April 5, 2017)
NEW DELHI --- India has stated its keenness to buy the MiG-29 aircraft from Malaysia and upgrade them for use by its air force.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the proposal was among the aspects of military cooperation agreed to by Malaysia and India.

In this matter, he said the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Malaysian Air Force (TUDM) would look at the form of cooperation, including handling the Sukhoi aircraft and spare parts.

"There is a possibility too that they will buy our MiG 29 aircraft for refit. We reciprocate by accepting spare parts for our Sukhoi aircraft programme," he told a media conference at the end of a six-day visit to India which started on March 30 in Chennai.

According to leading military aviation magazine, 'Air Forces Monthly', the Royal Malaysian Air Force in 1995 procured 18 MiG-29N from Russia, and presently has 10 MiG-29N and 2 MiG-29NU (trainers) in its fleet.

Najib also said the visit this time to India was successful in terms of investments between the two countries, whereby 31 memoranda of understanding (B-to-B) had been signed with investments totalling US$35.99 billion (RM159.26 billion).

The cooperation encompassed construction of harbours and roads, development of solar energy, smart city, palm oil and coconut, technology park and higher education.

In addition, Topworth Group and Samarth Group from India had submitted their Letters of Intent to invest US$380 million (RM1.6 billion) in Malaysia, he added.

He said Samarth Group, which is a manufacturer of critical medical products, planned to invest US$80 million (RM352 million) in Iskandar Malaysia, Johor, while Topworth, an aluminium foil manufacturer for packaging medicine, was keen to invest US$300 million (RM1.32 billion) in Bintulu, Sarawak.

Najib also said Malaysia was striving to obtain six highway construction packages totalling 3,000 km in Rajashtan involving an estimated investment of US$1.5 billion (RM6.5 billion).

"My visit to Jaipur showcases Malaysia's keenness on the highway project in Rajashtan and the model to be implemented by Malaysia will be an example to the states neighbouring Rajashtan," he said.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Apr 2017 22:18

^the next NEW fighters from Russia should be a couple sqds of pakfa, their version delivered 2024. HAL should build another 100+ via deep tot license allowing it to replace and modify as and how it deems fit in the future.

The LCA will come and the engine risk can be mitigated via storing extra parts and additional engine purchases. If the snecma kaveri comes through, it will be soney pey suhaga.

From 2025 onwards inductions should only be pakfa, and Tejas in bulk. Maybe a raffle sqd here and there.

From 2035, induction should mainly be amca with kaveri replacing Mirages and fulcrums.

until 2025, numbers should be buffed up via used m2ks and smts along with LCA mk1a.

By 2040, the numbers should be 400 LCA, 270 mki, 126 pakfa, 126 amca, 36 raffle. As mki retires, amca should replace it along with more pakfa.

The purchase of 4 gen fighters at this juncture other than the Tejas makes zero sense that too at exorbitant prices. The same $$ can be used on Sams, awacs, and tankers

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Apr 2017 12:16

MKIs will be 314,not 270.The extra 40+ have reportedly been ordered to make up numbers.Pak-FA/FGFA numbers mentioned are 144. AMCAs will only arrive by 2030 if at all going by the LCA's experience. There have been calls from some quarters to redesign the AMC into a med-sized stealth bomber,so that it can carry a reasonable payload.Right now,its small internal weapons bay make sit more useful as an air-superiority fighter rather than true multi-role.Anything underwing makes it non-stealthy and it loses the plot.

The cheapest options right now for creating large numbers for the IAF,must be exercised as such.Single-engined req, Tejas ,with another 3rd line of prod. in the pvt. sector which will get us greater numbers faster and extra Fulcrums 29/35s for med. twin-engined reqs. All the MKIs will have deep upgrades to Super-Sukhoi std.,carrying BMos and other new AAMs and so will deep upgrades be carried out on all the Jags.These appear to be the most cost-effective solutions,but one cannot rule out another sqd. of Rafales if the French price it well.

ashbhee · Post by **ashbhee** » 10 Apr 2017 19:31

When do you think we will have a final decision on F16 Vs Gripen E? How is not have a full time defence minster affecting this decision process? If this does not happen in 2017 by 2018 we will be in General Election mode which will further delay.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Apr 2017 11:06

Frankly,its anyone's guess.New US admin with a "Keep at home jobs" policy,severe financial constraints in the year of demonitisation,etc. In the foll. report,the inability of Indian majors to absorb firang advanced mil-tech is a definite issue. We've seen in other reports of firang OEMs questioning the ability of our DPSU/pvt. industry to share part of the R&D responsibility (FGFA),for example. Given this situ,the SE fighter may in my opinion necome a non-starter esp.after MP's departure. and the appointment of a fulll-time DM.Jet-Ley is v. capable and held the post in a similar situ earlier,but even for him it will be a doubly taxing workload given the key responsibility of holding the financial reins of the country in his hands. The oly silver lining is that he can quickly approve and apportion the financial packages required for each item,saving considerable time.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... ons-policy

India forced to soften protectionist defense-acquisitions policy
By: Vivek Raghuvanshi, April 10, 2017 (Photo Credit: Sam Panthaky/AFP via Getty Images)
NEW DELHI — Even as the Indian government has given top priority to domestic defense industry to acquire weaponry, estimated around $150 billion in the next ten years, foreign defense companies will remain major players, officials acknowledge.

At present domestic companies are simply not considered mature enough to build large platforms and weapon systems by themselves. However, some select private sector defense companies could "become major defense players in the long run," a senior Ministry of Defense official said.

“Lack of coordination among private players and legal complications could delay the MoD’s forthcoming strategic partners policy, part of the 'Make in India’ initiative, which allows domestic private defense companies to build large [defense] platforms on a nomination basis,” the MoD official added.

But the government cannot wait for the planned policy to hamper defense modernization and new acquisitions, the official said, adding that the defense ministry may permit foreign manufacturers to choose their Indian partners.

"The [Indian] industry may not completely edge out the foreign original equipment manufacturers in the short to medium term as the prime suppliers of defense equipment to the Indian armed forces. Till such time as that happens, foreign companies will continue to play an important, if not a major role, in MoD’s scheme of things," says Amit Cowshish, a former MoD financial adviser.

Under the Make in India initiative, MoD plans to allocate tenders worth over 90 percent of the total purchases only to domestic companies in the next five years. But analysts have been skeptical whether the domestic industry will be able to fully meet the needs of the defense forces on their own.

"India continues to source over 60 percent of its weapons needs from overseas, while the domestic defense industry continues to struggle," said another MoD official. "With an annual export of less than $400 million the domestic sector will be able to meet the needs only partially."

With a turnover of over $10 billion, state defense enterprises contribute nearly 90 percent of the total turnover of the domestic sector, with the rest coming from private companies.

Defense News
Could 'America First' policy upend Lockheed’s F-16 plans in India?

Few private sector defense companies are investing in defense infrastructure, research and development that would enable them to evolve from mere systems integrators to become original equipment manufacturers, claimed an CEO of a leading private defense company who requested anonymity.

At the same time, over a dozen private defense companies are preparing themselves to tap the $250 billion defense market and are investing in the infrastructure. However, "orders are not forthcoming quickly to give a quick start to the economic cycle," the executive added.

While MoD claims that the domestic sector will pick up due to the encouragement from the government, the second MoD official said it would take "lot and lot of time" before the private sector commands the Indian defense industry.

"Request for information worth over $30 billion have been given to domestic companies in the last two years but the response has been very encouraging and an insignificant number of RFIs have not turned into ‘Make in India’ tenders,” the official added.

"There is political will to go in for major import substitution of weaponry, but given the scale of domestic defense industry, quality standards of production and technology advancement, the [Indian] government cannot afford to depend solely on domestic sector," the defense official said.

PS:So back to large scale imports what?

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Apr 2017 20:18

Philip wrote:...

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... ons-policy
India forced to soften protectionist defense-acquisitions policy...
PS:So back to large scale imports what?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 11 Apr 2017 23:30

Low tech products for which orders can given to pvt sector are delayed like BPJ, webbing, Shields, weapon sights, clothing, helmets, etc and high tech like Wheeled AFV are stuck in trials. Pvt sector needs a Single point arms dalal for pushing their interest.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Apr 2017 18:42

DRDO will suck at the job of being a dalal.

RohitAM · Post by **RohitAM** » 13 Apr 2017 20:01

What I fail to understand is as to why at least the bigger players in the local defense space - L&T, TASL, and Reliance - cannot either get into co-development/ToT deals with foreign OEM's for at least the low tech items. Things like bullet-proof helmets, vests, even side-arms and rifles, should ideally be items which are not exactly the "Holy Grail" of defense technology (ala radars and engines), and can be produced within the country with a complete technology infusion - along with hopefully giving the local company's R&D side a chance to analyze the concerned item, and even working with the foreign OEM for enhancements and upgrades. We need each type of such items in the hundreds of thousands, a substantial order book size to kick things off. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, and that too at a much higher technological viewpoint, why not get a simpler wheel, and then get that analyzed, enhanced, and then possibly redesigned for usage in multiple scenarios?

I mean, for example, instead of trying to R&D a 5.56mm rifle (the INSAS), what was stopping ARDE from working with either a Russian, Israeli, or German manufacturer to create a standard rifle fitting the Army's GSQR and then enhancing/upgrading it going forward? The newer Excalibur version or the MCWIS could've already been accepted by the Army and in production by now for standardization across the Army, BSF, CRPF, and other auxillary combat units - that's over a million units worth of a single weapon production potential, worth billions of dollars, all invested within the country from R&D through to production and post-production upgrades/enhancements/replacements. Now multiply that across the entire spectrum of just the low tech items - we haven't even ventured into the world of the larger and high tech systems such as tanks, IFV's, fighters, transports, warships, submarines etc., which are of course much harder to obtain piecemeal from the premier OEM's globally. But I'm just wondering at the sheer amount of money which can/would have potentially remained in the country if the government (primarily the MoD bureaucracy) and the private players were a lot more flexible/forward thinking.

These guys even do regular M&A's abroad. What's stopping them from picking up either fairly well established or even niche defense manufacturers, so that they can immediately give access to their local R&D and production teams to possibly world-class R&D and production practices and processes, as well as all the technological gains which become immediately available. Not every manufacturer can be a strategic asset to a particular country.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Apr 2017 23:18

Regarding the F-16 SLEP for the USAF

USAF extends F-16 service life, cuts costs

FORT WORTH, Texas --- The U.S. Air Force authorized extending the service life of the Lockheed Martin F-16's designed service life to 12,000 Equivalent Flight Hours — far beyond the aircraft's original design service life of 8,000 hours.

Following F-16 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) structural modifications, the U.S. Air Force could safely operate Block 40-52 aircraft to 2048 and beyond. The Air Force and Lockheed Martin also reduced projected service life costs for the Block 40-52 fleet, paving the way for safe, cost-effective F-16 flight operations decades into the future.

"This accomplishment is the result of more than seven years of test, development, design, analysis and partnership between the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin," said Susan Ouzts, vice president of Lockheed Martin's F-16 program. "Combined with F-16 avionics modernization programs like the F-16V, SLEP modifications demonstrate that the Fighting Falcon remains a highly capable and affordable 4th Generation option for the U.S. Air Force and international F-16 customers."

Validation of the extended flight hour limit directly supports the SLEP goal of extending the service life of up to 300 F-16C/D Block 40-52 aircraft. SLEP and related avionics upgrades to the Air Force's F-16C/D fleet can safely and effectively augment the current fighter force structure as U.S. and allied combat air fleets recapitalize with F-35 Lightning IIs.

A second phase, or Part II, of the F-16 SLEP airworthiness process continues with the request for Military Type Certificate (MTC), which will be submitted to the Air Force's Technical Airworthiness Authority in the coming months. Part II seeks to validate further extending the F-16's operational life based on final service life analysis from extended durability testing.
..

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Apr 2017 00:22

RohitAM wrote:What I fail to understand is as to why at least the bigger players in the local defense space - L&T, TASL, and Reliance - cannot either get into co-development/ToT deals with foreign OEM's for at least the low tech items. Things like bullet-proof helmets, vests, even side-arms and rifles, should ideally be items which are not exactly the "Holy Grail" of defense technology (ala radars and engines), and can be produced within the country with a complete technology infusion - along with hopefully giving the local company's R&D side a chance to analyze the concerned item, and even working with the foreign OEM for enhancements and upgrades. We need each type of such items in the hundreds of thousands, a substantial order book size to kick things off. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, and that too at a much higher technological viewpoint, why not get a simpler wheel, and then get that analyzed, enhanced, and then possibly redesigned for usage in multiple scenarios?

Welcome to the illogical world of Defense business. FYI, we already produce world class BPJs, vests, helmets et all, and supply to many countries including European and the US. But apparently they are not good enough for our own soldiers and Policemen.

RohitAM · Post by **RohitAM** » 14 Apr 2017 00:30

JayS wrote:Welcome to the illogical world of Defense business. FYI, we already produce world class BPJs, vests, helmets et all, and supply to many countries including European and the US. But apparently they are not good enough for our own soldiers and Policemen.

Not enough of a cut for the middlemen and the babus, I presume, with no payments in Dollars or Euros, and all transactions in the mango Rupee only??

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Apr 2017 02:37

RohitAM wrote:What I fail to understand is as to why at least the bigger players in the local defense space - L&T, TASL, and Reliance - cannot either get into co-development/ToT deals with foreign OEM's for at least the low tech items. Things like bullet-proof helmets, vests, even side-arms and rifles, should ideally be items which are not exactly the "Holy Grail" of defense technology (ala radars and engines), and can be produced within the country with a complete technology infusion - along with hopefully giving the local company's R&D side a chance to analyze the concerned item, and even working with the foreign OEM for enhancements and upgrades. We need each type of such items in the hundreds of thousands, a substantial order book size to kick things off. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, and that too at a much higher technological viewpoint, why not get a simpler wheel, and then get that analyzed, enhanced, and then possibly redesigned for usage in multiple scenarios?

why would they do this, if they were not sure the GOI was serious of giving them orders or letting even their production lines run for exports?

I mean, for example, instead of trying to R&D a 5.56mm rifle (the INSAS), what was stopping ARDE from working with either a Russian, Israeli, or German manufacturer to create a standard rifle fitting the Army's GSQR and then enhancing/upgrading it going forward? The newer Excalibur version or the MCWIS could've already been accepted by the Army and in production by now for standardization across the Army, BSF, CRPF, and other auxillary combat units - that's over a million units worth of a single weapon production potential, worth billions of dollars, all invested within the country from R&D through to production and post-production upgrades/enhancements/replacements. Now multiply that across the entire spectrum of just the low tech items - we haven't even ventured into the world of the larger and high tech systems such as tanks, IFV's, fighters, transports, warships, submarines etc., which are of course much harder to obtain piecemeal from the premier OEM's globally. But I'm just wondering at the sheer amount of money which can/would have potentially remained in the country if the government (primarily the MoD bureaucracy) and the private players were a lot more flexible/forward thinking.

none of the vendors you mention have any interest in actually working with ARDE and forking over their decades of artisanal experience.

These guys even do regular M&A's abroad. What's stopping them from picking up either fairly well established or even niche defense manufacturers, so that they can immediately give access to their local R&D and production teams to possibly world-class R&D and production practices and processes, as well as all the technological gains which become immediately available. Not every manufacturer can be a strategic asset to a particular country.

the regular M&As are subject to strict laws preventing IP from leaving the shores. defence business has even stricter rules including ITAR.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Apr 2017 02:39

btw ARDE et al would only be too happy (at least some sections), to piggyback on some foreign vendor and push a product into service. the old guard of indigenization can be ignored etc. however, they simply didn't get the right response, waking even the inveterate JV types to the reality. foreign vendors see india as a market. they will all dance to MII, while doing everything possible to stop it from translating into useful long term capability for india.

RohitAM · Post by **RohitAM** » 14 Apr 2017 02:51

Its a chicken-and-egg situation all over again - the private players cannot be given orders because they don't have the requisite capability, and the private players need orders to invest in developing said capability. Someone, somewhere, has to put their foot down and take a stand on what needs to come first - and proceed from there accordingly. Else we will forever remain mired in this murky jungle of defense acquisitions populated by the unmovable MoD Babus, the foreign-aspiring armed forces, the greedy middlemen, and the inefficient DPSU's - and we can all come back to reality and accept the fact that we will forever remain unofficially colonized, party to the whims and fancies of whoever we have brought weapons from, MII or not. Might as well give our aspirations of being self-sufficient in defense a rest, and not bang our heads against the wall over the matter.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 14 Apr 2017 03:37

1000 years of moral and mental servitude is not going to disappear so soon. Perhaps going to take a generation more.

I say - lets call for all defence imports to be stopped. You find capability in India and build whatever you want. But no imports.

All the talk of holes here holes there has been propounded to keep imports alive. What strategic capability does a nation need more than nuclear weapons? Last I knew, we had a good number.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Apr 2017 04:35

RohitAM wrote:Its a chicken-and-egg situation all over again - the private players cannot be given orders because they don't have the requisite capability, and the private players need orders to invest in developing said capability. Someone, somewhere, has to put their foot down and take a stand on what needs to come first - and proceed from there accordingly. Else we will forever remain mired in this murky jungle of defense acquisitions populated by the unmovable MoD Babus, the foreign-aspiring armed forces, the greedy middlemen, and the inefficient DPSU's - and we can all come back to reality and accept the fact that we will forever remain unofficially colonized, party to the whims and fancies of whoever we have brought weapons from, MII or not. Might as well give our aspirations of being self-sufficient in defense a rest, and not bang our heads against the wall over the matter.

things have begun to change now. its not as bleak as it was under UPA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Apr 2017 04:36

what we need to look out for are big ticket programs beyond the import-assemble ones given to the pvt sector.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 14 Apr 2017 10:05

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 16-436186/

F-16 V Block 70 to be in service till 2048 as US Air Force decides to upgrade 300 F-16.
This removes our apprehensions that F-16s will be obsolete and will go out of service by 2025 .
I believe post this F-16's case will be stronger.

If I had my way I would increase the number of Tejas Mk2 but for filling the squadron numbers if the government indeed buys a new single engine jet F-16 ain't a bad choice post this decision of US air force.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Apr 2017 10:27

Rishi_Tri wrote:1000 years of moral and mental servitude is not going to disappear so soon. Perhaps going to take a generation more.

I say - lets call for all defence imports to be stopped. You find capability in India and build whatever you want. But no imports.

All the talk of holes here holes there has been propounded to keep imports alive. What strategic capability does a nation need more than nuclear weapons? Last I knew, we had a good number.

My favorite and simple proposed solution always has been to do fresh 2-3 rounds of Nuclear tests. That would solve a lot of problems for us.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Apr 2017 13:39

saptarishi wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 16-436186/

F-16 V Block 70 to be in service till 2048 as US Air Force decides to upgrade 300 F-16.
This removes our apprehensions that F-16s will be obsolete and will go out of service by 2025 .
I believe post this F-16's case will be stronger.

If I had my way I would increase the number of Tejas Mk2 but for filling the squadron numbers if the government indeed buys a new single engine jet F-16 ain't a bad choice post this decision of US air force.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 14 Apr 2017 13:59

A series of nuclear tests, lots of manpower and mid tech weapons are adequate for our needs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Apr 2017 15:13

saptarishi wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 16-436186/

F-16 V Block 70 to be in service till 2048 as US Air Force decides to upgrade 300 F-16.
This removes our apprehensions that F-16s will be obsolete and will go out of service by 2025 .
I believe post this F-16's case will be stronger.

If I had my way I would increase the number of Tejas Mk2 but for filling the squadron numbers if the government indeed buys a new single engine jet F-16 ain't a bad choice post this decision of US air force.

These two things aren't related. An 8000-12000 hour life airframe in the USAF will be relegated to the Air National Guard and as a lower tier capability with the F-22's, F-35's, F-15E's, bombers etc. Not to mention close to 700 Super Hornets and Growlers that the Navy will end up operating by late this decade. India requires more aircraft to make up front line medium weight category fighters to complement the Rafale which is coming in a fraction of the amount to what was earlier planned. MK2 is a much better investment from that perspective.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Apr 2017 15:27

brar_w wrote:
saptarishi wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 16-436186/

F-16 V Block 70 to be in service till 2048 as US Air Force decides to upgrade 300 F-16.
This removes our apprehensions that F-16s will be obsolete and will go out of service by 2025 .
I believe post this F-16's case will be stronger.

If I had my way I would increase the number of Tejas Mk2 but for filling the squadron numbers if the government indeed buys a new single engine jet F-16 ain't a bad choice post this decision of US air force.
These two things aren't related. An 8000-12000 hour life airframe in the USAF will be relegated to the Air National Guard and as a lower tier capability with the F-22's, F-35's, F-15E's, bombers etc. Not to mention close to 700 Super Hornets and Growlers that the Navy will end up operating by late this decade. India requires more aircraft to make up front line medium weight category fighters to complement the Rafale which is coming in a fraction of the amount to what was earlier planned. MK2 is a much better investment from that perspective.

Well I was just typing a response but you said the exact same things I wanted to say - 1. SLEP doesn't have much, on its own, to do with being relevant in future 2. F16s will soon be the bottomline for US forces while India wants fighters for form frontline both numerically and technologically..

F16- SLEP was expected for uite some time. SLEP is being run on almost all US aircrafts for decades. UASF for example collecting data on structural performance for decades - may be last 40yrs just for F16. Its not only about improving existing aircraft life but also collecting data to improve design methodology for next generations, cut the level of conservatism in the design and make better jets.

Nothing changes for India with this decision. This was always coming anyway.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Apr 2017 12:57

Very true.We don't want legacy birds in their last life extension,that too at at least twice the price of just one LCA,but at least 4++ fighters at reasonable cost which can soldier on for at least 2-3 decades complementing the large numbers of heavy hitters ,the MKIs. Had the Rafale been available at reasonable price,we could've bought more. It's why we're even showing interest in second-hand MIG-29s from Malaysia! BDesh has plans to buy a small qty. of MIG-35s (to be paid for by India) and the IAF also could look at acquiring a couple of sqds of the same too on the cheap.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 May 2017 00:14

From AW&ST

Lockheed Martin is gearing up to shift production of new F-16s to its Greenville, South Carolina, facility, but is still eyeing a longer-term move to India if New Delhi agrees to buy at least 100 new aircraft.

Discussions between Washington and New Delhi about moving the F-16 production line to India are ongoing, says Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin’s director of F-16 business development, dispelling rumors that the move to Greenville means the India deal is a no-go. As of now, New Delhi is choosing between the Fighting Falcon and Saab Gripen to replace its aging MiG fighters, and wants the selected company to build the new aircraft in-country as part of the Make in India campaign.

A deal with the nation—potentially for several hundred aircraft—would mean more than a decade of stable F-16 production, says Howard. The move would create hundreds of jobs both in India and at more than 400 suppliers across the U.S., he stresses.

However, Lockheed is well aware that negotiating arms contracts with India can take years. In the meantime, the company is still finishing the last of the F-16s under a contract with Iraq, at its Fort Worth facility, work that is expected to wrap up later this year. But as Lockheed prepares to ramp up F-35 production, the company soon will need all of its space at Fort Worth for the Joint Strike Fighter, Howard explains.

It was the physical space limitations at Fort Worth that drove the decision to move the F-16 line to Greenville, he says. The move was first reported by the website Defense One. Lockheed will use the facility for final assembly and checkout of the aircraft.

“Our move to Greenville is not related to our discussions with India,” Howard stresses. Locking in any deal with New Delhi “will take time; in the meantime, you have to build aircraft for customers that are at the finish line today.”

One of those customers is Bahrain, which wants to buy up to 20 F-16s. The deal was held up last year because of human rights concerns, but the Trump administration has informally notified Congress that it intends to pursue the sale, CEO Marillyn Hewson told investors April 26.

She is hopeful the order with Bahrain will be finalized this year. “We feel good about it, but it’s really government to government, so we’ll have to [finish] up on the formal congressional notification and get an order underway,” Hewson said.

Bahrain is interested in upgrading its legacy Block 40 F-16s to the V configuration, which would see the addition of Northrop Grumman’s APG-83 scalable, agile-beam active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar; a center pedestal display; a new advanced mission computer; a joint helmet-mounted cueing system; and the auto-ground collision-avoidance system. Bahrain also may buy new-build F-16Vs, known as “Block 70s.”

Lockheed is under contract with South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore to upgrade a total of more than 300 F-16s to the V configuration, Hewson says. The company also is eyeing possible F-16V orders from countries across Asia, Europe and the Middle East, including Greece and Indonesia.

Pakistan was considering buying eight F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, to be delivered in 2019, but the nearly $700 million deal fell apart last year over financing issues and opposition from Congress.

Howard dismissed rumors that the Air Force also will buy new F-16s. “The U.S. Air Force is buying F-35s,” he says, noting that future Block 70 orders are expected to come from overseas. However, the Air Force is upgrading its existing Fighting Falcons. The service recently certified that with some minor modifications, the aircraft could fly beyond 12,000 hr., up from previous estimates of 8,000 hr. Lockheed is building kits that could take the aircraft out to this time frame as part of the existing service-life extension program.

...

Pending new F-16 orders, Lockheed is facing a short-term gap in production later this year. Lockheed will use that empty period between finishing the last of the Iraqi F-16s at Fort Worth and beginning work on the Bahrainian F-16s—assuming the order comes through—to move the line to Greenville, says Howard.

Meanwhile, Lockheed is taking steps to keep the production line warm. In particular, the company is looking to the planned F-35 ramp-up to absorb some of the skilled workers coming off the F-16 line, and anticipates no layoffs or reductions in force.

“We have a robust supply chain that has been able to increase and decrease over the life of the F-16 and deal with changes in quantities, and we’re ready to restart that line,” Hewson adds.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 May 2017 03:50

Good to know that the F-16 will be in service until 2048. By that time GoI will make a decision. To buy 36 F-16 Block 70s upgraded to MMLUs (many many midlife upgrades) ..at a unit cost in today's dollars of $650MM against a hard fought contest with SU-75s the stealth UANFVs (Unmanned Aerial Non Functional Vehicles) which are invisible to both enemy and buyer alike.

The Namo/Jet Li approach to security is no different than Mumble Mumble Singh's. They really don't get it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2017 13:27

What a situ.We still haven't a full time Def. Min.,esp. when the Pakis are playing up so diabolically,is there an acute shortage of BJP politicos who are knowledgeable about defence and security? Why was Gen. VKS then inducted? At least make him Dy. Min of Def. in addition to his foreign policy post (as both foreign affairs and defence are two sides of the same coin).He can advise Jet Li suitably and take some of the stress of his back.

If the current regime "shoehorns" a buy of a US legacy bird like the F-16/18,the Dear Lord save us from the future wars to come. The US apparently want us to sign on as dedicated slaves ( all the sh*tty agreements like CISMOA,etc.) ,turning us into a vassal state of Uncle Sam if we want to get high-tech eqpt. When we haven't signed on anything similar with Russia which has given us a nuclear sub,carrier,subs,MKis,BMos and in the future S-400s,etc.,why do we need a tired old bird from Uncle Sam which the Pakis by the way have been using for decades?

Incidentally,Boeing has dropped out of the USN air-launched naval anti-ship missile,sending Harpoon to Davey Jones' Locker.Terriobly inferior to even the Swedish dart what?

Anyway,Im cross-posting the BK piece/link here. Plenty of food for thought,but is the GOI listening?

https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/04/01/ind ... has-tejas/
India Doesn’t Require F-16s When it Has Tejas
Posted on April 1, 2017 by Bharat Karnad

Russian offer of MiG LMFS, F-16, etc. as India faces a troubled world
Posted on April 22, 2017 by Bharat Karnad
Persons in the know say Russia is offering India the co-development of the MiG 1.44 in the updated LMFS configuration with a conformal bomb bay. Some years back, as noted in this blog, IAF then in the throes of the MMRCA decision had rejected the 1.44. The Russian Air Force is streamlining its inventory to two types of combat aircraft — the “super” Su-30 and the MiG LMFS, Su plus a new generation strategic bomber to replace the Tu-160 Blackjack. The US Air Force is likewise restricting itself to the one type, all-purpose fighter plane — F-35 and its service variants.

If IAF is planning on a similar exercise as it should be doing then, as yet, there’s no hint of it. In any case, for the combat complement one type of aircraft, if anybody has any sense, has to be the indigenous Tejas LCA and its future variants, like the AMCA. It is the other type that will prove to be headache for the country. Just too many aircraft manufacturers are chasing down that slot, and have selected their Indian commercial partners in this venture with an eye firmly on the proximity of these partners to prime minister Modi. Dassault has tied up for its Rafale with Anil Ambani’s Reliance Aerospace and the Sweden’s SAAB for its Gripen E with the other A in the business world — the Adani’s. Neither Ambani nor Adani have done any aircraft production and have no production wherewithal ecen of a rudimentary kind set up by Mahindra. The only industrial engineering firm that has the resources, if not the actual experience, is L&T which, incidentally, dithered when asked in late 2014 to set up a Tejas production line to compete with HAL. This to say the country faces a nearly bare cupboard where the private sector manufacture of complex fighter aircraft is concerned.

The situation is actually a lot worse. With Trump in the White House, Modi’s earlier plan (hatched during the Obama Administration) of siddling up to the United States seems to have been upended. Not only has Washington not given a fig about Delhi’s concerns on the H1B visa issue but has gone ahead and issued an executive order to tighten up the Indian techie entry channel. It was just the prompting that other countries needed to put in place their own systems of minimizing the entry of Indian IT and other qualified personnel. So Australia followed up by amending its 457 programme, notwithstanding Ausi PM Turnbull’s selfie taking with Modi on the Delhi metro, and Singapore clamped down as well. So all the channels are shutting down in Delhi’s face.

And, far from rearing up against China, Trump turned into a pussycat after hosting the Chinese President Xi Jinping at his resort White House in Florida, Mar-e-Lago, purring about how well the two had got along and why every thing is hunky-dory where US relations with Beijing are concerned. Meanwhile, Beijing jumped up and down and renamed certain parts of Arunachal Pradesh as a first step to claiming them outright, even as a confused and inactive Delhi has done little but mumble in its cups, when the right cartographic response should have been, as I have long suggested, for a start showing Tibet in a colour other than the Chinese red in all Indian maps, to denote its questionable status as per the December 21, 1961 UN General Assembly Resolution seeking self-determination for Tibet. (India’s Kashmir will not be any more jeopardized because China, as it is, has by its actions supported Pakistan’s case.) This in the context of the Dalai Lama finally showing grit to declare that he may in fact discover his reincarnation here (perhaps, to preempt Beijing’s announcing its own Dalai Lama as it has threatened to do). Instead, MEA and PMO are most exercised about Cmdr Yadav in Pakistani captivity when Pakistan’s intent is plain — to use him as pawn to trade for ISI’s own Lt Col Mohammad Habib Zair, first lured to Lumbini in Nepal by RAW and then, if Pakistani sources are to be believed, shanghaied into India. In other words, with most of Modi’s foreign policy world collapsing around him, his government, typical of GOI, is preoccupied with the least important issue at hand!

Meanwhile — to return to the subject of aircraft! — Lockheed is marshaling its considerable resources in Washington to pressure Modi when he visits Trump in June, into buying the museum-ready F-16, to add to the M-777 howitzer. If Modi could be cajoled into impulse purchasing the Rafale, there’s no guarantee he won’t succumb to Trump’s hectoring, lose his nerve and forget the leverage India has always had but which Delhi has never exercised — its vast, still quite open, market of a billion+ people, or succumb to the canny US President massaging the PM’s ego by various contrivances while dipping into Modi’s pockets for oodles of money he may be willing to shell out on India’s behalf for little in return.

Minister Nirmala Seetharaman has not so gently hinted that an obstreperous Trump will have to deal with the operations of US companies being hampered in India if the US does not ease up and here, again, she stressed the wrong issue — the H1B visas, when there are other graver concerns that should be agitating the government. But whether Modi will be clear in communicating Seetharaman’s intent and sticking by it once Trump rolls out the big guns, meaning the big Indian business houses that usually push the Washington line on everything, is another matter.

As suggested in a previous post, Arun Jaitley is not, unlike his predecessor Parrikar, the man to show at least some resistance against Modi. He’s there precisely to stand beside the PM with the national purse open and his mouth closed. The Finance minister has little instinctive interest or understanding of defence and national security matters except in the perfunctory sense.
There’s every reason to believe, for instance, that as defence minister he has not so far studied the IAF’s requirements list and the best way to meet it, and understood the techno-economic sense of making Tejas the main combat aircraft for air force and navy, come what may, or considered just how to deal with the Navy’s expenditure plan amounting to Rs 123 Lakh crores in the foreseeable future. Because every rupee expended in extraneous spending such as on F-16 is a rupee denied the armed services to spend more wisely in the nation’s interest.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 May 2017 14:46

Philip wrote:Incidentally,Boeing has dropped out of the USN air-launched naval anti-ship missile,sending Harpoon to Davey Jones' Locker.Terriobly inferior to even the Swedish dart what?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&p=2152381#p2152381

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2017 15:33

Sorry,coreection,the req. was for the LCS.Amazing how that vessel,costing so much has no genuine integral anti-ship capability when it is supposed to operate in the "littorals" where it will be exposed to the max triple threats from the enemy!

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/bo ... quirements

Boeing drops out of LCS missile competition; Lockheed shares 'concern' with requirements
May 04, 2017 | Justin Doubleday Bookmark and Share
Boeing will not bid on the Navy's over-the-horizon missile competition, as the company says the service's requirements are too modest, while Lockheed Martin, another potential offeror, is still weighing whether to compete. Troy Rutherford, Boeing's director of cruise missiles, confirmed Thursday the company will not offer its Harpoon weapon for the over-the-horizon (OTH) missile competition, which will outfit the Navy's Littoral Combat Ships and future frigates with long-range, anti-ship weapons. The company planned to offer a ship-launched version of an...

Though this should strictly be in the Naval td. ,it illustrates the failure of the missile in tests.

Only one LCS has launched cruise missiles. The Coronado conducted a demonstration launch of the Naval Strike Missile in September 2014, when a launch box was placed at the edge of its flight deck. The launcher was removed following the test.
The Coronado was subsequently chosen to be modified to carry Harpoon launch canisters during its current deployment to Singapore. The installation, which was not intended to be fully integrated with the ship’s combat system, was only partially complete last summer when the ship launched a Harpoon during Rim of the Pacific exercises. The missile ran out of fuel and failed to reach its target.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 May 2017 15:42

So what does this have to do with a single engine fighter?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 May 2017 00:58

From AW&ST

LINKÖPING, Sweden—Saab’s beastly-looking anti-ship cruise missile, the RBS15, is to be upgraded and installed on Sweden’s new E-series JAS 39 Gripen and Visby-class corvette.

The newest Robotsystem15 (RBS) Mark III is already operational as a surface-to-surface weapon for ships and coastal defense batteries, but the Swedish Air Force (SwAF) has not adopted a new air-launched model since the RBS15F in 1982.

While today’s C-series Gripen can carry two RBS15Fs per sortie, the Gripen E that will soon make its first flight can carry four. This feat is made possible by a more powerful GE F414-39E engine, additional fuel capacity and reconfigured weapons stations.

The Swedish Defense Material Administration awarded Saab a SEK$3.2 billion ($360 million) contract in March for development of the improved anti-ship weapon, tentatively called the extended-range RBS15F (air-launched), RBS15 Mark 3+ (ship-launched) or RBS16.

Michael Höglund, Saab’s head of missile systems marketing and sales, says the development program will run from 2017-26, with initial deliveries in the mid-2020s.

Meanwhile, the Gripen is about to begin its flight-test campaign with deliveries to the Swedish and Brazilian air forces starting around 2019. Sweden’s first squadron of single-seat E-models will be ready for combat by late 2023, the SwAF says.

Today, the turbojet-powered, GPS/INS-aided active radar RBS15 missile is capable of striking ships and fixed land targets beyond 108 nm (200 km) with a crippling 200-kg (440-lb.) explosive warhead.

In Sweden, the RBS15 is known as the “Guardian of the Baltic Sea,” with missile launchers set up on the island of Gotland. The weapon is increasingly relevant today given Russia’s military posturing.

The Scandinavian nation is technically neutral but maintained close ties with the West throughout the Cold War. Saab and SwAF officials say after decades of relative peace, “an invasion from the East,” meaning by Russia, is once again Sweden’s greatest potential military threat. The military is retooling to meet that challenge.

“We fly more than 200 km, total sea skimming approach all the way,” Höglund says. “Our strong point is electronic warfare, one of the most closely guarded secrets in all missiles.”

The RBS15 first entered service on Swedish warships in 1979 and it since has been adopted by Germany, Croatia, Finland, Poland, Thailand and one other undisclosed nation. Only Swedish and Thai Gripens carry the air-launched RBS15F.

In terms of improvements, Höglund says the basic heavyweight design and benefits of the Mark III version will remain, but the missile is to be modified for greater range, probability of kill, electronic protection, survivability, and all-weather capability. It already has guidance. It will have random terminal phase maneuvering for survivability against air defense weaponry.

Along with greater range, the future weapon’s autonomous flight control software will be updated for greater reliability and target discrimination at longer ranges in cluttered maritime scenarios. It will have improved land-attack capability and provisions for a datalink, even though the Swedish military does not see an immediate need for inflight networking.

Asked about the RBS15’s draggy, fat-looking design, which is uncharacteristic of a Saab product, the manufacturer said there are no plans to change the shape. “This design does the job,” Höglund explains.

Doubling the missile loadout on the Gripen from two to four will greatly increase the strike potential of a combat packet. The Gripen E also will have a “game-changing” loadout of air-to-air missiles, carrying seven ramjet-powered MBDA Meteor missiles instead of four. The missile became operational last year. Maj. Johan Jeppsson, SwAF’s director of Gripen operational test and evaluation, says maximum RBS15 and Meteor loadouts would be perfect for certain major wartime operations.

Höglund sees great export potential for the surface-launched RBS15 Mark 3 and the future air-launched version, although not in the U.S. “We’re [not actively] pursuing the U.S. market,” Höglund said when asked about potential opportunities like the U.S. Navy’s Over-The-Horizon Weapon System program to arm the Littoral Combat Ship.

The RBS15 cannot be carried inside the internal weapons bay of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, but could be carried on its wings. Its main rivals include Norway’s Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile and the smaller, F-35-carried derivative marketed by Raytheon, the Joint Strike Missile. Others sales opponents are the Boeing Harpoon and Roketsan Standoff Missile, but not the Lockheed Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, which enters service over the next two years on the Boeing B-1B and F/A-18 Super Hornet, because it has not been cleared for export.

The RBS15 Mark 3 will undergo continual product improvement while the future derivative goes through development.

Brazil has not yet signaled if it will adopt the RBS15 for its Gripen E.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2017 06:27

Cosmo_R wrote:Good to know that the F-16 will be in service until 2048. By that time GoI will make a decision. To buy 36 F-16 Block 70s upgraded to MMLUs (many many midlife upgrades) ..at a unit cost in today's dollars of $650MM against a hard fought contest with SU-75s the stealth UANFVs (Unmanned Aerial Non Functional Vehicles) which are invisible to both enemy and buyer alike.

The Namo/Jet Li approach to security is no different than Mumble Mumble Singh's. They really don't get it.

right. the GOI should just become an extended US client state and buy some extra dooper special F-16s.
the Namo govt just doesn't get "it" - because clearly they need to be told about what's happening with PRC, Pak & hence all the emergency procurement to build up WWRs, improve serviceability is all for show & bluster.
or perhaps, just perhaps, the current dispensation knows exactly what the current state is of the respective services & how much improvement is possible via restocking, improving serviceability & iterative advancement, while striking the best possible deal with the Indian Govt's cash. as versus handing out gifts for unreliable vendors.