Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

mody · Post by **mody** » 22 Mar 2015 13:18

I have said this before and I will say it again. The degree of success of LCA currently lies entirely in the hands of HAL. It has to bite the bullet and start producing LCA MK-1, at as fast a pace as it can. By December 2016, IAF should have between 12-16 LCA MK-1 in its hands and the production should increase to 12 aircrafts per year for 2017 and 16 per year from 2018 onwards.

If HAL sits around asking for more confirmed orders to be placed, before it starts working on how to increase the production, the ship will sail.
Only if IAF gets more planes in its hands, then it can give its feedback about the effectiveness of the platform and if the planes are coming in numbers, then it can start replacing the older MiG-21s with LCA.
If HAL can deliver as per above, IAF can start replacing MiG-21s with LCA from 2018 onwards. It would need all of 2016 and 2017 to make LCA fully operational in the airforce.
Thereafter, it can replace 1 squadron of Migs with LCA per year and total number of LCA, Mk-1 and MK-2 combined in the IAF can reach the 250 figure mark.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 22 Mar 2015 13:38

The ship sailed because MOD and IAF are unwilling to arrive at an understanding of how many and whether we can really afford it.
It is quite funny to see people say we should spend $20bn when we're unable to commit even the $500 mn required to expand the line. Remember only a quarter of that is asked for from the IAF! The ship has sailed only in the minds of our armchair activists. The ONLY plane that can replace the 7 odd squadrons will be the LCA - we simply cannot afford any others.

BRF analysts are funnier even - HAL which will integrate Rafales is capable on that front, but not on the LCA front. What will we be facing on the Western front? A bunch of Thunder-bundars, but no, we have to dhoti shiver and send up the Rafales.

The ship should have sailed for the Rafale, but no, it is easier to pretend to be an intellectual analyst (despite multiple threads raised and analysed). Even the AMs who're now working as consultants for various marketing agencies don't have this outright bias that some of our posters and Mods have.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Mar 2015 14:31

There is no option left but to seek vrs for such jernails who do not buy into the c in c's vision.

Enough already.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 22 Mar 2015 15:34

DexterM wrote:BRF analysts are funnier even

Yes Sir, agree!! BTW should your analysis also be considered as part of BRF analysis or outside of it

DexterM wrote:The ONLY plane that can replace the 7 odd squadrons will be the LCA

So you think final LCA numbers will be ONLY 120-140 ?
Will be more than that

DexterM wrote:The ship should have sailed for the Rafale

Please clarify, Rafale is in or out, how is it hurting LCA FOC, MK.2 and production at HAL end.
Why it is assumed favoring Rafale implies anti Tejas.
Only problem is if HAL a PSU who has only excelled in manufacturing fighters using IMPORTED assembly lines behaves likes Dassault / LM / Boeing and wants a committed order before it prepares for higher production rate. In that case what is wrong if IAF pilots say we want an F 22 before we go for a war. There may be challenges in terms of supply chain etc, but why not be prepared for in worst case for some loss (and that too in worst case if Tejas fails to deliver on performance , quality , availability etc, which i very much doubt). It seems HAL doubts Tejas capabilty more than anyone else.

mody wrote:I have said this before and I will say it again. The degree of success of LCA currently lies entirely in the hands of HAL.

In full agreement with your analysis Sir

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Mar 2015 15:42

mody wrote:If HAL sits around asking for more confirmed orders to be placed, before it starts working on how to increase the production, the ship will sail.
Only if IAF gets more planes in its hands, then it can give its feedback about the effectiveness of the platform and if the planes are coming in numbers, then it can start replacing the older MiG-21s with LCA.

Tell that to the MBT Arjun line workers at HVF, Avadi who've been twiddling their thumbs since 2009. That's five years of dormant production. And counting.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Mar 2015 15:55

rohitvats wrote:My apologies, pipe dream is a wrong word to use. My comment was with respect to timeline for FOC. Which is given TODAY as 2022.

But from IAF's perspectives, it still has to ensure that it has resources to cater to any delays + the initial time period required for the platform to stabilize. And that is where MMRCA is a must.

If the MMRCA contract is signed this year, the first off-the-shelf squadron will be delivered only by 2019. So the Rafale will also FOC only around 2022, which is about when the first HAL-assembled squadron should be coming online.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 22 Mar 2015 15:59

Viv S wrote:Tell that to the MBT Arjun line workers at HVF, Avadi who've been twiddling their thumbs since 2009. That's five years of dormant production. And counting.

On the positive side can we look at the HAL ALH production line ?

quote from 2007 article

HAL's chairman, Ashok Bajewa, states that 'the ALH today is different from when it was introduced in 2002', because HAL acted on feedback from the services to an unprecedented degree (by historical Indian public-sector standards).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Mar 2015 16:16

dhiraj wrote:On the positive side can we look at the HAL ALH production line ?

quote from 2007 article
HAL's chairman, Ashok Bajewa, states that 'the ALH today is different from when it was introduced in 2002', because HAL acted on feedback from the services to an unprecedented degree (by historical Indian public-sector standards).

And I'm sure the ADA & HAL would be quite happy to incorporate IAF feedback into an improved Mk1 product. What is not viable is investment in production in the absence of confirmed orders. For the record, HAL delivered some 80 Dhruv helicopters before the definitive Mk3 variant with the Shakti engine was available. Those early orders played a major factor in HAL being able to scale up production for the Mk3 & Rudra.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 22 Mar 2015 16:24

Viv S wrote:What is not viable is investment in production in the absence of confirmed orders.

OK so a government run PSU has viability issues . Fine.
I believe it has a production capacity of 8 per year for Tejas by now right.
Bring all 8 in 2015.
HAL has committed orders from IAF and also production line. Bring it on.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 22 Mar 2015 16:26

Whatever happened to Saras? Is it dead and buried?

mody · Post by **mody** » 22 Mar 2015 16:38

Viv S wrote:
dhiraj wrote:On the positive side can we look at the HAL ALH production line ?

And I'm sure the ADA & HAL would be quite happy to incorporate IAF feedback into an improved Mk1 product. What is not viable is investment in production in the absence of confirmed orders.

Confirmed orders for MK-II exist. Investing in increasing the production capacity from 8 per year to 16 per year, should not be such a risky decision for HAL to take. Out of the approx 500 Million, it is ready to put in half anyways. IAF is holding out simply in the hope of getting the Rafael's. Saying that investing in increasing the production rate to 16 per year is not viable, for a program like the LCA, should not be an option. Besides, the same production line, in future can be converted to other type aircrafts, like the AMCA. We converted the Jaguar production line, to producing the Hawks.

mody · Post by **mody** » 22 Mar 2015 16:41

dhiraj wrote:
Viv S wrote:What is not viable is investment in production in the absence of confirmed orders.
OK so a government run PSU has viability issues . Fine.
I believe it has a production capacity of 8 per year for Tejas by now right.
Bring all 8 in 2015.
HAL has committed orders from IAF and also production line. Bring it on.

Thats exactly what I have said. Produce and hand over to IAF minimum 12 to 16 LCA Mk-1, by December 2016. The second one was to be delivered by March end. Deliver another 4-6, by end of 2015 and another 8 in 2016.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2015 17:19

Arun Menon wrote:^Even if a Rafale assembly line is set up by HAL, but the time they are producing in numbers, we will have the Mk2 production line ready for numbers as well. Coupled with a cut-throat prices charged by the French (which all Rafale fanboys conveniently forget), it will make sure that we only have a handful of the gold-plated Sub-5th-gen toys and that it will NEVER be available in the numbers required (2-front war) and that firing each missile is a financial hit in itself (crazy expensive weapons, which will happen even if the original/cheaper deal is somehow accomplished).

What you've missed in the post above is that it matters not what the MMRCA is: it could be Su-30 MKI for all I care. The bottom line is having a fighter aircraft which will be available in the required timeline. And Mk2 will NOT becoming available before 2022 as per the estimate given by those developing the aircraft. It will start entering squadron service post 2022 period. So, between 2019 and 2022, you expect the MMRCA/Take your pick to start entering production.

As for price of Rafale and all that - that is a call for GOI to take. They can very well decide not to buy an expensive a/c because we cannot afford it. And that will be the end of it. But I've not heard anything on the line.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2015 17:24

mody wrote:<SNIP>By December 2016, IAF should have between 12-16 LCA MK-1 in its hands and the production should increase to 12 aircrafts per year for 2017 and 16 per year from 2018 on wards.

Well, the reality is that IAF will the first IOC-2 Tejas numbers by 2018. With 6 expected to be handed over in 2015-16.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2015 18:02

DexterM wrote:The ship sailed because MOD and IAF are unwilling to arrive at an understanding of how many and whether we can really afford it.

The ship sailed because we decided to develop the 'latest' weapon system in all aspects w/o bothering to pay attention to operational requirement of the IAF. Today, we have reached a stage where the category which Tejas Mk-1 represents has itself shrunk in IAF's overall scheme of things. People talk about MMRCA and Tejas induction in same breath as if MMRCA is eating into Tejas pie - when the fact of the matter is that Su-30 MKI ended up replacing the bulk of Mig-21 and Mig-23BN in IAF inventory. And will do so for Mig-27ML as well. That is a huge 14.5 squadrons worth of aircraft in final run.

May be, just may be, if Tejas had arrived earlier, the replacement of Mig-21s in IAF inventory would've already happened between Tejas Mk-1 and Su-30 MKI.

This is a hard reality which people refuse to see.

It is quite funny to see people say we should spend $20bn when we're unable to commit even the $500 mn required to expand the line. Remember only a quarter of that is asked for from the IAF!

Actually, funny thing is people breast-beating about IAF commitment to funds (for production expansion) basis an unsigned editorial. When the fact of the matter IAF and IN are on-board for expanded production. And this is basis a recent interview of HAL director which was linked here on BRF.

BTW - this is the latest on Tejas production: (source: http://idrw.org/archives/60224)

IAF wants early deliveries of Tejas MK-I, HAL says ‘No can do.’

Indian Air Force which recently took delivery of first LCA SP-1 aircraft has asked to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) which is Production agency for LCA-Tejas fighter jet to up production rate of Tejas MK-1 and start early delivery of aircrafts from the original schedule.

IAF had asked HAL to up-rate and hit the Production rate of 16 aircrafts from 2016 on wards then agreed 2017 timeline so that first Tejas Mk 1 squadrons of 20 aircrafts are ready by end of 2016 and Second Tejas Mk 1 squadrons is ready by mid-2018 .

According to original delivery schedule, HAL was supposed to deliver six LCAs by 2016 and hit construction rate of 16 aircrafts a year their after. While the Production line is geared up to produce 16 aircrafts a year, HAL is facing shortage of trained manpower and finds it will be difficult to bring contracted spares schedule ahead, to increase production rate ahead of the schedule.

IAF feels adequate time was given to HAL to develop new production line and recruit new manpower to work on LCA-Tejas production, which according to sources was delayed by two years due to HAL’s inability to start work on Production line even after funds were cleared by Government . HAL wants IAF to place further orders of Tejas MK-1 so that it can absorb additional Investment which it will require investing to increase production rate of LCA-Tejas.

If the above news is correct, the ball is in HAL's court. And it seems to be acting like a typical manufacturer. But the question that is worth asking is this: If Tejas is viewed as a program of national importance with all the implication(s) for aeronautical sector, why is the heavy lifting to be done only by the IAF? What about HAL? How come it is not showing the same level alacrity as HTT-40?

The ship has sailed only in the minds of our armchair activists. The ONLY plane that can replace the 7 odd squadrons will be the LCA - we simply cannot afford any others.

That is something which the GOI will take a call on. And by all means, replacement of Rafale will not be Tejas Mk1 but more Sukhois. And what an irony that will be - Mig-21/23/27 being replaced by a heavy weight fighter!

BRF analysts are funnier even - HAL which will integrate Rafales is capable on that front, but not on the LCA front. What will we be facing on the Western front? A bunch of Thunder-bundars, but no, we have to dhoti shiver and send up the Rafale.

Actually, wait for another five years and the bulk that will fight the war on western front will be done by heavies and medium weight fighters! From Su-30 MKI to Jaguars, Mirages and Mig-29. And few Tejas Mk1. That is reality which does not change whether you accept it or not.

The ship should have sailed for the Rafale, but no, it is easier to pretend to be an intellectual analyst (despite multiple threads raised and analysed). Even the AMs who're now working as consultants for various marketing agencies don't have this outright bias that some of our posters and Mods have.

What you call as bias is a hard-core reality - which many on this forum have difficulty in understanding. But that is nothing new. As for pretending to be an intellectual - at least I've made an attempt to do a logical analysis of the situation. And see where we stand basis the same.

Why don't you put money where your mouth is and pen-down some logical arguments rather than breast-beating about bias and associated BS? I've put up some numbers and derived an analysis basis that - and I can be absolutely wrong in my analysis. And may be, there is other way to look at the situation. So, do everyone a favor and put down the alternate hypothesis.

It is pretty easy to make sweeping statements or ask self-serving questions - but its pretty darn difficult to present an answer basis some detailed analysis. But it takes time and patience. Unlike making sweeping statements.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2015 18:07

Viv S wrote: If the MMRCA contract is signed this year, the first off-the-shelf squadron will be delivered only by 2019. So the Rafale will also FOC only around 2022, which is about when the first HAL-assembled squadron should be coming online.

Errr...what exactly do you understand by FOC? For me, Tejas Mk2 FOC means Full-Operational Clearance. And once it reaches FOC by 2022, the production can start. So, we're looking at first full squadron of Tejas Mk2 by 2023-24

But that is NOT the case with Rafale - the local production will start by 2019-20 time-frame. I think the first HAL produced Squadron should be up by 2021-22.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2015 18:15

Viv S wrote: And I'm sure the ADA & HAL would be quite happy to incorporate IAF feedback into an improved Mk1 product. What is not viable is investment in production in the absence of confirmed orders. For the record, HAL delivered some 80 Dhruv helicopters before the definitive Mk3 variant with the Shakti engine was available. Those early orders played a major factor in HAL being able to scale up production for the Mk3 & Rudra.

IIRC, HAL production rate for Dhruv has been pretty abysmal. And it took a pretty long time to increase the production rate. And this when there were confirmed orders for Dhruv from IA and IAF. There is a CAG Report which documents this.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2015 20:49

Here is a table which gives my understanding of IAF re-equipment plans.

Bottom part of the table which has been high-lighted shows the number of number-plated squadrons. These two can form a candidate for additional Tejas Mk1/Mk1.5 order.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2015 20:59

rohitvats wrote:
Viv S wrote: If the MMRCA contract is signed this year, the first off-the-shelf squadron will be delivered only by 2019. So the Rafale will also FOC only around 2022, which is about when the first HAL-assembled squadron should be coming online.
Errr...what exactly do you understand by FOC? For me, Tejas Mk2 FOC means Full-Operational Clearance. And once it reaches FOC by 2022, the production can start. So, we're looking at first full squadron of Tejas Mk2 by 2023-24

But that is NOT the case with Rafale - the local production will start by 2019-20 time-frame. I think the first HAL produced Squadron should be up by 2021-22.

RV,

IAF's insistence of FOC before production orders only applied to Tejas. It did not apply to Su-30, Jaguar, etc. And definition of FOC for LCA is mind-boggling! Nobody goes about it this way. For example what is the production rate of JSF? When were these orders placed. Forget FOC, did it achieve IOC yet? God, only knows what IAF is waiting for while facing such impending acute shortage of aircraft, and a cheap alternative staring right into the face! Anyways, that discussion is for another day.

However, it is not completely IAF's fault. Indian developers and manufacturers were learning with Tejas Mk1. The airplane was being tweaked passed IOC. In fact the production standard was achieved only after LSP7 (i.e. halfway between IOC and FOC). Therefore they could not set up a stable assembly line till then (2012-2013). This is not the case with Mk2. There are no more excuses for IAF or for HAL. If IAF can't produce the orders, HAL can't produce (it will be IAF's fault). If IAF places the orders and HAL can't produce, then it will be HAL's fault. It is as simple as that.

Also, the ship for 250 LCAs has sailed no where. It is a necessity today, even more than ever. Earlier with a lame-duck DM, IAF had its way. With the current DM, this is no longer the case. I am a little busy these days. Will reply at length later.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 22 Mar 2015 21:23

Rohit - what would it cost to re-equip IAF with imported aircraft? How would investing that same number in domestic aerospace industry prove in the long run. HAL needs competition and another entity should be supported. ADA should be handed over to the new entity. HAL should invest in its own design facilities (some of which it already should have).

The LCA and limited TOT over the years have created a knowledgebase that needs to be built upon for India's national security interests. We cannot squander that away. It would be a wasted effort to let the IAF do an Arjun with the LCA (limited orders and then ask for Mk2).

250 Mk1s MUST be built if India wants a domestic aerospace industry.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Mar 2015 21:41

rohitvats wrote:Errr...what exactly do you understand by FOC? For me, Tejas Mk2 FOC means Full-Operational Clearance. And once it reaches FOC by 2022, the production can start. So, we're looking at first full squadron of Tejas Mk2 by 2023-24

FOC is usually when the first squadron is combat ready with a full quota of aircraft, trained aircrew and ground staff with the aircraft having been doctrinally absorbed into the service (the definitions have been somewhat 'flexible' for the Tejas). Full rate production on the other will start at IOC, which for the Tejas Mk2 will be in 2022 (sorry should have clarified that in the last post). FOC should be around 2025.

But that is NOT the case with Rafale - the local production will start by 2019-20 time-frame. I think the first HAL produced Squadron should be up by 2021-22.

The delivery of the first Merignac assembled units will begin FY 2018-19 and end FY 2019-20, if the contract is signed this year. There's no way deliveries from HAL can begin in the same time-frame. Even assuming the initial aircraft consist of kit assembly, it'll still take at least an additional two years (and I'm being optimistic) to create the production line at Bangalore and train the local staff.

If we're fortunate, the first HAL assembled Rafale will be delivered in 2021-22. And if they follow the same crawl-walk-run principle seen with the Su-30, Hawk and Tejas, the production ramp up involved could take the first squadron to 2023-24. Six Rafale squadrons by 2025 is therefore extremely unlikely. Same for the four Tejas Mk2 squadrons, unless HAL can capitalize on a hugely scaled up Mk1 production line.

rohitvats wrote:IIRC, HAL production rate for Dhruv has been pretty abysmal. And it took a pretty long time to increase the production rate. And this when there were confirmed orders for Dhruv from IA and IAF. There is a CAG Report which documents this.

It might have been abysmal considering the healthy order book that HAL was working with. Otherwise the absolute figures of 16 units/yr by 2007, 24 units/yr by 2010 and 36 units/yr by 2013 are pretty decent by global standards.

The question is, what would the production rate today have been had the MoD/IAF/IA capped the Dhruv orders at 24 units in 2002, with further deliveries to only constitute of the (then still-on-paper) Shakti-powered Mk3, with early variants deemed to have not met service requirements?

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 22 Mar 2015 21:41

rohitvats wrote:Here is a table which gives my understanding of IAF re-equipment plans.

Bottom part of the table which has been high-lighted shows the number of number-plated squadrons. These two can form a candidate for additional Tejas Mk1/Mk1.5 order.

No love for FGFA/PAK-FA even in 2025 time-frame ???

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2015 21:44

indranilroy wrote:
RV,

IAF's insistence of FOC before production orders only applied to Tejas. It did not apply to Su-30, Jaguar, etc. And definition of FOC for LCA is mind-boggling! Nobody goes about it this way. For example what is the production rate of JSF? When were these orders placed. Forget FOC, did it achieve IOC yet? God, only knows what IAF is waiting for while facing such impending acute shortage of aircraft, and a cheap alternative staring right into the face! Anyways, that discussion is for another day.

What I absolutely fail to understand is the basis of comparison with other systems. Including those under-development by other countries and those inducted by IAF in past.

How is Jaguar and Su-30 examples relevant here especially with respect to FOC? If anything, by ordering 20 x IOC-2 Tejas Mk1, IAF seems to be following the same path as Su-30 MKI.

Also, these are the list of activities which are supposed to be completed under FOC regime. Pray, do tell me, which one of these are 'excessive' requirements by IAF of an indigenous system and were let go when a foreign product was inducted.

Source: http://www.oneindia.com/india/tejas-foc ... 57277.html

Activities completed towards FOC:
• Integration of centre-line drop tank
• Gun integration & ground firing
• Integration of conventional & low drag bombs
• Integration of advanced LGB
• Hot & cold weather trials
• All weather certification
• Envelop expansion to higher angles of attack and load factor (g). (Source: ADA)

Parameters to be completed during FOC phase
• Air-to-air refueling
• Gun flight trials
• High speed low drag bomb with retarded tail unit
• Integration of supersonic drop tank
• Integration of BVR missile and Advanced Close Combat Missile
• Envelop expansion to higher angles of attack and load factor (g) (Source ADA)

However, it is not completely IAF's fault. Indian developers and manufacturers were learning with Tejas Mk1. The airplane was being tweaked passed IOC. In fact the production standard was achieved only after LSP7 (i.e. halfway between IOC and FOC). Therefore they could not set up a stable assembly line till then (2012-2013). This is not the case with Mk2. There are no more excuses for IAF or for HAL. If IAF can't produce the orders, HAL can't produce (it will be IAF's fault). If IAF places the orders and HAL can't produce, then it will be HAL's fault. It is as simple as that.

Elephant in the room is development timeline. The orders for Mk2 exist as we speak. As per one ADA source, the number is 83.

Also, the ship for 250 LCAs has sailed no where. It is a necessity today, even more than ever. Earlier with a lame-duck DM, IAF had its way. With the current DM, this is no longer the case. I am a little busy these days. Will reply at length later

Even a head-strong DM cannot fit 250 Tejas into the force structure we have at present and intend to have in future. That is a cold reality which you cannot wish away. I'll be more than happy if the DM gives permission to expand the IAF with the condition that additional squadrons will only be Tejas Mk1 and Tejas Mk2. I don't think any IAF Chief will say no to this provision.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2015 21:57

Vivek K wrote:Rohit - what would it cost to re-equip IAF with imported aircraft? How would investing that same number in domestic aerospace industry prove in the long run. HAL needs competition and another entity should be supported. ADA should be handed over to the new entity. HAL should invest in its own design facilities (some of which it already should have).

The LCA and limited TOT over the years have created a knowledge base that needs to be built upon for India's national security interests. We cannot squander that away. It would be a wasted effort to let the IAF do an Arjun with the LCA (limited orders and then ask for Mk2).

250 Mk1s MUST be built if India wants a domestic aerospace industry.

My dear good Sir, you've just made a point which everyone tends to make w/o looking at the complete picture.

Your point is absolutely correct and there can be no argument against it - except for the fact that it misses one very vital aspect. That is the OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT of IAF. Which by extension is the operational status of INDIA when it comes to air-warfare.

Development of domestic capability and OPERATIONAL READINESS of IAF are a parallel activity. And while in countries like USA the latter follows from the former, till we reach such a stage, those $12/$15/$20 Bn for Rafale or Su-30MKI are the cost of doing this business.

Now, the nation can refuse to invest this money on imports and say we'll fight with twice the number of Tejas Mk1 instead of Rafale. And invest the balance money in R&D. So be it. I have no qualms or issues with such approach.

However, this approach needs to come from the political leadership. It is for the IAF to give the professional advise and for political leadership to take a call. But tomorrow, if yellow matter hits the fan, then one would expect the political leadership to bear the brunt. And not pass the buck to IAF.

The funny thing with 250 number is that even the developer and manufacturer are not asking for 250 numbers.

However, I strongly feel there is scope for 2 more Tejas Mk1/Mk1.5 squadrons in the IAF's inventory.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2015 21:59

tushar_m wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Here is a table which gives my understanding of IAF re-equipment plans. Bottom part of the table which has been high-lighted shows the number of number-plated squadrons. These two can form a candidate for additional Tejas Mk1/Mk1.5 order.
No love for FGFA/PAK-FA even in 2025 time-frame ???

Well, I expect them to come no sooner than 2025-2027 time frame.

Good thing with Tejas Mk2 is that along with MMRCA (if it is Rafale), there will be fall back options in case of delay in AMCA.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Mar 2015 00:42

That is the OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT of IAF. Which by extension is the operational status of INDIA when it comes to air-warfare.

Disagree a bit

the is the intended Operational requirement but in essence never quite reaches the level because an imported air force will never have the freedom to get there.

the actual operational status will depend on the generosity and mood of the foreign providers (assuming we even have money)

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 Mar 2015 04:29

Agree Surya. To execute an independent foreign policy, independence of foreign suppliers and their moods and domestic compulsions is a prerequisite. The posters on this forum that are in favor of one camp or the other are either forgetting this or have biases that they are not disclosing.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Mar 2015 05:47

^Funny how operational requirements include everything but OPERATING INDIAN AIRCRAFT. This nauseating fig leaf has been the crutch on which an Imported Air Force has been justified. Such "operational requirements" need a date with the shredding machine.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Mar 2015 08:08

rohitvats wrote: Now, the nation can refuse to invest this money on imports and say we'll fight with twice the number of Tejas Mk1 instead of Rafale. And invest the balance money in R&D. So be it. I have no qualms or issues with such approach.

This is EXACTLY what needs to be done. It has to be done today or India will forever be a debtor nation. By investing in an expanded military industrial complex, similar to the US, there will be growth in technology companies and research universities. It is critical to India's national security objective and fits with "Make in India" policy.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Mar 2015 08:55

Trust Rohit, to come up strongly in defense of the ORs of the armed forces. When every one else is going hammer & tongs at the forces for having such requirements.

PS:- I have failed to see the rational for the MMRCA contest for nearly all of its existence, but it is an OR. So it must be bought.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Mar 2015 09:02

Surya wrote:
That is the OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT of IAF. Which by extension is the operational status of INDIA when it comes to air-warfare.
Disagree a bit

the is the intended Operational requirement but in essence never quite reaches the level because an imported air force will never have the freedom to get there.

the actual operational status will depend on the generosity and mood of the foreign providers (assuming we even have money)

Surya - your point is valid and that is how things should be.

As I said earlier, the R&D and production capability feed into the operational readiness; however, till the time you've the required knowledge base to field products meeting all your requirements. We'll reach that stage eventually with AMCA being the next step in the ladder.

But till the time we can produce all that we require, this is albatross will hang around our neck.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Mar 2015 09:10

Vivek K wrote:Agree Surya. To execute an independent foreign policy, independence of foreign suppliers and their moods and domestic compulsions is a prerequisite. The posters on this forum that are in favor of one camp or the other are either forgetting this or have biases that they are not disclosing.

How about putting together some rational thought and going beyond the cliche of biases and camps?

Is there a Su-30 MKI equivalent which India produces and IAF is not inducting? The question with respect to LCA is again of numbers and not induction.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Mar 2015 09:13

^Just like the question with regard to Marut was numbers and not induction. It got inducted all right.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2015 09:21

Pratyush wrote:Trust Rohit, to come up strongly in defense of the ORs of the armed forces. When every one else is going hammer & tongs at the forces for having such requirements.

PS:- I have failed to see the rational for the MMRCA contest for nearly all of its existence, but it is an OR. So it must be bought.

Actually Rohit is right - no point going hammer and tongs at him.

Let me state what the IAF will have to do in a hot war: They will have to fight with whatever they have and in the first week they will likely lose some percentage of what they have - and in the next week they will fight with less. And in the week after that they will fight with even less.

The only long term solution is to have a defence industrial complex that can ramp up production to the levels we need in war. We have never had that and are unlikely to achieve that soon.

So what happens in the interim period? in the interim period the IAF wil have to fight with what it has. If the "interim period" stretches out so long that MiG 21s and 27s are retired - the IAF will then be starting a war with less than 50% of the strength that war plans are made for. That means perhaps 50% of the targets that are to be hit in the first days of the war will not be hit. We could well lose wars unless operational readiness is maintained.

BRFites blindness to the concept of operational readiness makes all discussions look like a poor joke on a forum pretending to be well informed where everyone is patting himself on his own back to say how much he knows. In this "well informed forum" it appears to me that a significant number of people think that inducting a combat aircraft makes it ready for war as quickly as we are ready to travel the minute we get the keys to a new car.

Someone please tell me that this is not what people think - but if someone tells me that, I am going to demand that he also tell me what types of preparation are required to induct a new combat aircraft, who needs to be prepared and how long it takes to make a new aircraft part of the war doctrine of the IAF. So please don't answer the question lightly.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Mar 2015 09:33

^The only way to make up the numbers is to adopt the LCA Mk1/Mk2 in real numbers and without numbers, all this talk about "operational readiness" is pointless. Rafale is super expensive and so are the weapons used by it. It is sure to soak up whatever funds are available and make a mockery of the whatever "operational readiness" was meant to be achieved. It won't even make it in time for "operational readiness" to be maintained/achieved. LCA Mk2 will be ready around that time as well, with a better assembly line to boot, given HAL's experience with making LCA Mk1, which in the end will ensure that more of them are churned out than Rafales and in lesser time.

All in all, there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for wasting so much money on a gold plated toy, besides the obsession for foreign arms. It is not even a 5th gen fighter, but it sure costs as much as one. In fact, given the economics of scale F-35 would achieve, it would end up cheaper than the Rafale.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2015 09:34

What will happen if one LCA crashes?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2015 09:34

Arun Menon wrote:all this talk about "operational readiness" is pointless.

Not talking about it is ignorance or denial

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Mar 2015 09:46

shiv wrote:What will happen if one LCA crashes?

Shiv, I have the greatest respect for you and I am not being petulant, but doesn't this apply to an HAL made Rafale too. After all, we can see the IAF grounding the Su-30MKI fleet every time there is a problem.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Mar 2015 09:51

Shiv,

The point is simple and straight forward. When you have a domestic solution in place, there is no point in going after an imported solution.

The Mig 21 and 27 + Jag all need replacement, between now and by 2025, the M2k and Mig 29 will need to be replaced by 2030. Plus additional numbers are required in case 45 Sq force is to be built.

In that situation, the MMRCA, if it is bought will only cover about 15 % of the required 45 Sq fleet strength. The remainder will have to be FGFA along with Su 30 and the LCA. The numbers that are required leave space for at least 250 LCAs. More if the MMRCA is scrapped.

The other point is that the OR is never set in stone. Is is a live document and it needs to adapt it self as per changing situations.

Having said so, will the current OR still remain valid in the face of the PLAAf that is armed with a FGFA, and a large inventory of 4th gen platforms. Or will the IAf need to redraw its ORs.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Mar 2015 09:55

shiv wrote:What will happen if one LCA crashes?

The same thing that happens when one of the current gen aircraft crashes in the IAF's inventory. A court of equerry will be constituted to evaluate the cause of crash and lessons learnt from it.