Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Feb 2012 20:01

there is nothing in the gripen or any other fighter for that matter that can be used to speed up LCA, that's not how it works. the idea of selecting another type is asinine beyond comparison.

if IAF does order a 2nd lot of MRCA, 95% chance it will be the same as the one selected for MRCA, 5% it could be the F-35.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 Feb 2012 20:42

abhishek_sharma wrote:Mayday, mayday! S. Krishnaswamy (Former Chief of IAF)

Good, we need more bombs like these, once a week will be good, to clean up the mess of Agean stables proportions. But the rot is not within the DRDO/HAL alone, it is the whole state apparatus that is infested with termites. Kolaveri di!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Feb 2012 05:30

India & the market of war

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Feb 2012 06:13

Rahul M wrote:there is nothing in the gripen or any other fighter for that matter that can be used to speed up LCA, that's not how it works. the idea of selecting another type is asinine beyond comparison.

if IAF does order a 2nd lot of MRCA, 95% chance it will be the same as the one selected for MRCA, 5% it could be the F-35.

Talks have taken place and something will be announced if all goes to plan. Let see...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Feb 2012 10:35

^ v.interesting - did your source get the MMRCA right? When do they plan to get those 80 birds? I think they would have to either make the LCA II and Gripen NG v.v.close to each other in terms of avionics, engine and system components so as to keep logistics manageable OR pretty much abandon the Tejas - can't (don't want to) imagine this possibility.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Feb 2012 12:26

I dont think we will buy the Gripen , the MMRCA deal is for 126 Aircraft plus with the option to buy 64 more .......most likely these 64 more will be more Rafale lic built at HAL then any new fighter ....its similar to what we did with MKI.

And really how Gripen deal with help LCA is something beats me .....a Gripen deal would just mean one thing last nail on LCA coffin and i dont see that happening with IAF firm commitment for LCA Mk2 and Mk1

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 05 Feb 2012 12:42

Austin wrote:And really how Gripen deal with help LCA is something beats me

SAAB consultancy on the AMCA maybe? (I actually am in full agreement with you though, just playing devils advocate to make sense of the 'buy Gripen' suggestions)

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 05 Feb 2012 14:13

shukla wrote:
Austin wrote:And really how Gripen deal with help LCA is something beats me
SAAB consultancy on the AMCA maybe? (I actually am in full agreement with you though, just playing devils advocate to make sense of the 'buy Gripen' suggestions)

Gripen : Per hour average operating cost about 5k. Includes fuel, spares, maintenance and crew. And capability wise it is no slouch either.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Feb 2012 22:24

Cain Marko wrote:^ v.interesting - did your source get the MMRCA right? When do they plan to get those 80 birds? I think they would have to either make the LCA II and Gripen NG v.v.close to each other in terms of avionics, engine and system components so as to keep logistics manageable OR pretty much abandon the Tejas - can't (don't want to) imagine this possibility.

I dont have any further details other than what I have posted - any questions on why will probably be answered when/if results of talks are positive and when the time is right to release the news.

As for MRCA - Rafale having the lead was actually released by those in the know back pre November FYI. IAF top brass MOD all clear Rafale was going to be in the top 2 at least - that too the way it was announced, was also rushed to prevent politicians to succumb to Unkil's pressure. There is a lot of politics in all this.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Feb 2012 22:31

Austin wrote:I dont think we will buy the Gripen , the MMRCA deal is for 126 Aircraft plus with the option to buy 64 more .......most likely these 64 more will be more Rafale lic built at HAL then any new fighter ....its similar to what we did with MKI.

And really how Gripen deal with help LCA is something beats me .....a Gripen deal would just mean one thing last nail on LCA coffin and i dont see that happening with IAF firm commitment for LCA Mk2 and Mk1

IAF I think submitted a proposal for 140 Mk1's to MoD for approval last year Mk2 is very much part of the plans. I too really dont understand what the Gripen is going to offer technologically - but lets see, DRDO has been part of the negotiations I am told, so I guess they are more than aware of our capabilities and plans for Mk2.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Feb 2012 22:40

shyamd wrote: IAF I think submitted a proposal for 140 Mk1's to MoD for approval last year Mk2 is very much part of the plans. I too really dont understand what the Gripen is going to offer technologically - but lets see, DRDO is running these negotiations I am told, so I guess they are more than aware of our capabilities and plans for Mk2.

That is a brilliant piece of information - hope it bears some fruit in reality! I can see a lot of commonality bet Gripen NG and LCA 2.0. May be even do a consultancy and JV with Saab for both Mk2 and Sea Gripen ? But the initial 140, that is important.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Feb 2012 22:53

From memory, the key question is - how can we speed up development of Mk2? As it stands, LCA Mk2 wont be ready until 2022 (after IOC etc), we need it on the PRC front ASAP - keeping in mind force structures/retirments.

Its probably worth experts analysing how Gripen can benefit LCA Mk2 program, if they are serious.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Feb 2012 23:03

Who is the originator of this Gripen requirement?IAF or the MOD/GOI? I absolutely do not want IAF or GOI to go for Gripen NG or anything else...rest assured, it will sound the death knell of LCA MK.02. The only way I see this happening is that DRDO+IAF understand that LCA Mk.02 itself is simply not happening in the timeframe sought....IAF goes for 140 LCA MK.01 to take care of low end with Gripen NG+Rafale+SU-30MKI takes care of everything else. Not a good situation.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 06 Feb 2012 00:43

Why do you think Krishnaswamy's article on 'LCA sucks' ended with this: "Krishnaswamy is former Chief of Air Staff. He was awarded the Agni Award for Self Reliance in 1999 for promoting indigenous development in the Indian armed services.

Who better to fertilize the public opinion that LCA is a goner. This is in conjunction with Verma giving up on the nLCA as well.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Feb 2012 00:59

A few bullet points:

1)

Talks have taken place. Looks like India may buy lets say 60 or 70 or so Gripens with Full ToT (dont know how they will get it considering US tech involved). Then use the ToT products etc for speed up of LCA Mk2 development. LCA Mk2 wont be deployed until 2022. I think they want a more capable 'low' a/c that is desi.

Possible. Both technically and procedurally.

2) The word "speed-up" indicates that the LCA is NOT dead even IF the Gripen is a reality in IAF colors.

3) Even if the "LCA" is killed (in Mk2 form) it will live in the AMCA.

IF looked at in isolation the picture does not look too good. However, if looked at it from a broader perspective then it could still make sense.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Feb 2012 02:36

LCA Mk2 is by no means dead. Look at our force structure - there is plenty of space for it. The aim of the Gripen purchase is to repackage it as LCA Mk2.

Expect more Phalcons and UAVs

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Feb 2012 02:51

shyamd wrote:LCA Mk2 is by no means dead. Look at our force structure - there is plenty of space for it. The aim of the Gripen purchase is to repackage it as LCA Mk2.

Expect more Phalcons and UAVs

I am lost.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Feb 2012 03:03

They are saying that Gripen purchase is to speed up development of Mk2 and Mk2 will contain ToT parts that go into Gripen. I dont know any more than this.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 06 Feb 2012 03:14

A source of mine presently in the US says he thinks the add on to the 126 may be a rebid if the french dont go above and beyond in the current negotiations. While the gripen taking part is a possibility, the ball is in rafales court especially wrt engine technology and other sensitive goodies. If the French deliver a winning formula the add on bringing the mmrca to 189 will go to them. Then again indo french relations aren't his field of expertise either but he did sound confident. He also mentioned that India, UAE and Brazil are all coordinating with one another to arm twist the French behind the scenes and that India would inevitably play a lead role in maintaining and developing technologies for the fighter with prospective rafale users. Then again who really knows!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Feb 2012 03:19

shyamd,

As you said we will have to wait for any such news.

However, if it does go through, then 80 Gripens would be around $8 billionish. I am not too sure what to think of that in terms of the LCA. Someone seems to think that the ROI is worth that type of a cost.

Thx.

RoyG,

Rafale cartel, eh? Nice.

Speculative, but inetresting:

that India would inevitably play a lead role in maintaining and developing technologies for the fighter with prospective rafale users

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 06 Feb 2012 03:28

**Almost forgot to mention, he thinks additional mirages maybe coming to india from ME especially with ToT from upgrade deal. However, this was just his opinion.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 06 Feb 2012 09:21

shyamd wrote:LCA Mk2 is by no means dead. Look at our force structure - there is plenty of space for it. The aim of the Gripen purchase is to repackage it as LCA Mk2.

Expect more Phalcons and UAVs

I think it might turn out that the LCA will remain a tech demonstrator. I have little confidence in ADA/DRDO/HAL/NAL sticking to timelines and I feel that IAF may have to look elsewhere for its needs. IJT/Basic Trainer/Saral/LCA does not exactly inspire any confidence in the aviation scene in India. Not sticking to even multiple extended timelines leads me to believe that LCA development should be scrapped and not persisted with.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 06 Feb 2012 09:23

Have the russians ever stuck to a timeline ? so why do we keep buying from them

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2012 09:33

there's a never ending space for animals on our zoo. the gripen should fit in just fine with the rest of cats from the grasslands.

we should even buy the J-10 and JF-17 to keep abreast of sino-pak technology....run them as DACT units

with no word yet on airframe construction and wind tunnels starting for Mk02 , the prospect of getting a FOC'ed Mk02 before 2020 is rather dim...given its a airframe longer, inlet and engine change...essentially a new ac based on old like F-18e/f and all tests will need redone.

I think its better we improve the Mk01 equipment to extent possible and run with 150 of these, replace the Mig21 totally..which it should be able to handily beat except in top speed. atleast mk01 is here, is working and just needs the weapon and some corner case flight tests to be completed. its our best bet, our only bet. produce 15 a year for next 10 years and retire the Mig21 in 1 squadron per annum.

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Feb 2012 10:23

abhishek_sharma wrote:Mayday, mayday! S. Krishnaswamy (Former Chief of IAF)

May day indeed. What about the contributions of the IAF towards this mess ? They couldn't even keep the ADA in the loop about the expected weapons load and lead to redesign of wings.

Basically it was a massive clash of egos, turf wars, rank idiocy and other petty mindedness that prevented them from going into the program full tilt. And even when the did, in many cases, it must have been to use Arundhati Roy's words from the God of Small Things, as "Omletteers". It was criminal how the IAF allowed capabilities to rot away and decay in the 30 years after HF-24. You cant have an aerospace industry blossom back to life right away! It is coming back to bite them in the bottom. If they had any "strategic sense" beyond shopping for tactical weapons, they would put all their efforts into actually creating a domestic industry. Why the head of LCA program was a place where they even kicked up a Air Vice Marshal with a clear exit sign posted.

Sorry to say, but the record of the Army and the Air Force with the Arjun and LCA programs have been shameful to say the least. The Arjun has seen the light of the day and it has dawned on everyone that it is the future and is going to see MK2, Mk3 etc. The same with the LCA, Groucho Marxes and other "Omletteers" not withstanding.

As for the Gripen NG, that is largely still a paper plane. It is a "promissory note" and got kicked out of the MRCA competition precisely for that. The Swedes don't want it and are not going to pay for it to get into squadron service.

Yeah, if at all anything, the Gripen NG team should be allowed to sell the subsystems they might have developed (read AESA radar and other stuff like Man Machine Interface kind of things) to the Tejas MK-2 program and help in the "systems integration" to make it a finished product. No point in reinventing the wheel, now that the import option at subsystem level is fully available and the "100% Indigenous " fetish can be laid to rest finally.

Between the MK-1 to Mk-2 effort, it will be like Gripen ABCD to NG effort, not insignificant, but not a total and massive effort involving painstaking testing at subsystem level and full level testing I suppose.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2012 10:56

plus their exp in taking a existing plane and changing its undercarriage to accomodate more fuel load , adding extra hardpoints etc could be useful too....and details on what test points can be optimzied. the selex vixen1000 radar should be a nice fit on the tejas now that EL2052 is denied and our desi fighter aesa is not on the horizon. addl bonus will be meteor on the Tejas mk02...

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 06 Feb 2012 10:59

What did ACM Krishnaswamy do during his tenure to support the LCA program? IIRC it was ACM Major who really got behind the program. So why is ACM Krish complaining now?

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 06 Feb 2012 11:04

It would be nice to persist with the LCA as Singha suggests - admit that LCA is after all a low cost, low capability option today unlike when it started off and accept it for what it is. There certainly is space for them within the IAF force structure even after a 100 Gripens are inducted. Tejas could be used as a cheap air defense fighters to back up the heavily modernized surveillance and SAM network as well as for CAS duties. The IAF has to bend backward to accommodate a local product for its own long term health, even if it is at the expense of some operational capabilities today.

I have no inside source, but my feeling is that if Gripen is ordered it will be a separate induction apart from and beyond the 126+80 MMRCA deal. I won't be surprised if Gripen-IN is again JV'ed ala Brahmos/Barak - the new buzzword for justifying financing of foreign development. Gripen's significant catch is the "ITAR Inside" sticker. The US has already tried to sabotage the Gripen once via Israel. With LCA also being 404'ed - we could lose the whole light fleet at a frown from the Khan.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Feb 2012 11:09

ACM krishnaswamy was the person on whose recommendation the tech demo and fighter development stages of the LCA were separated, easily adding 3-4 years to the development time. if I am not much mistaken it was also during his tenure that IAF failed to notify ADA of the change in CCM choice (R-60 to R-73) requiring a cumbersome wing design change midway into the flight test schedule.

>> So why is ACM Krish complaining now?

really doesn't have much grounds to complain, going by their record.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 06 Feb 2012 11:14

Singha, Dassault/BAe et al are probably more technically accomplished at design, development and refinement. What Saab brings in is the ability to do the most with the least. Very desirable is their single minded focus on limiting costs without significant compromise in quality. You wont get that from the big boys.

kakkaji, I don't understand. Why can't Krish comment?

Rahul, something is very wrong if a wing design has to change to accommodate a switch from one WVR missile to another. I understand the R-73 is twice the weight of the R-60, but come on!

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 06 Feb 2012 11:17

Thank you Rahul M Dada

If we remove all the A2G paraphanelia, can't the LCA-1 be a good and ready replacement for the Mig-21 now?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 06 Feb 2012 11:24

Badar wrote: Rahul, something is very wrong if a wing design has to change to accommodate a switch from one WVR missile to another. I understand the R-73 is twice the weight of the R-60, but come on!

Exactly! Did the Bison wings need a redesign to accommodate the R-77 - that missile is likely to be even heavier than the R-73. Sure as hell R-77 didn't exist when the Bison was designed.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 06 Feb 2012 11:40

merlin wrote:Exactly! Did the Bison wings need a redesign to accommodate the R-77 - that missile is likely to be even heavier than the R-73. Sure as hell R-77 didn't exist when the Bison was designed.

To be fair R-77 will be carried closer to the centerline hence easier to accommodate without over-stressing the wings. Stations near the wing tip are very sensitive to weight as they put a bigger strain on the whole wing, specially during hi-g maneuvers.

Still R-60 to R-73 requiring wing strengthening is preposterous. There should be margin of growth built in to accommodate that much.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Feb 2012 11:44

err not really. comparing the full composite LCA wing to that of the mig-21's small stubby all metal wing is a bit naive IMHO. not to forget that it carries *nothing* on the wingtips. or that the mig-21 was designed to carry rockets which weighed as much if not more than R-77.
secondly, ADA, being an inexperienced aircraft developer would go by IAF's requirements, especially when anything over that would be derided by all as 'science' research. given that the wingtips would have to sustain stresses at 9G ADA didn't really have any incentive to unilaterally double the tolerance levels, unless IAF asked for it.

edit : ADA seems to have learnt its lesson from IAF's lapse. the wingtip stations are now rated for 200 kg IIRC, although the R-73 weighs 105 kg.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 06 Feb 2012 11:49

Once LSP7/NP1 flies and we are closer to SP1 some retired ADA scientist should take a swipe at ACM Krishnasami for his acts of omission w.r.t LCA program

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 06 Feb 2012 11:53

Badar wrote: To be fair R-77 will be carried closer to the centerline hence easier to accommodate without over-stressing the wings. Stations near the wing tip are very sensitive to weight as they put a bigger strain on the whole wing, specially during hi-g maneuvers.

Still R-60 to R-73 requiring wing strengthening is preposterous. There should be margin of growth built in to accommodate that much.

Bison with R73 on outer pylon.

Maybe since the outermost pylon on LCA is farther away from the wing root than that of Mig21, the effect of a heavier missile is amplified.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 06 Feb 2012 11:55

Rahul M wrote:ACM krishnaswamy was the person on whose recommendation the tech demo and fighter development stages of the LCA were separated, easily adding 3-4 years to the development time. if I am not much mistaken it was also during his tenure that IAF failed to notify ADA of the change in CCM choice (R-60 to R-73) requiring a cumbersome wing design change midway into the flight test schedule.

>> So why is ACM Krish complaining now?

really doesn't have much grounds to complain, going by their record.

I'm not sure that we can blame him for the first thing you mentioned. You're right that he was the person responsible for Air HQ recommending that a Tech Demo phase be attempted first and then follow it with a FSED phase.

Even in the book the Tejas Story by AM P Rajkumar, he mentions how back in 1988, the PDP report was submitted to Kitcha and he was one of the few at Air HQ who understood the intricacies of technology choices being an experienced fighter pilot and a qualified TP from the Empire Test Pilots School. He was skeptical about ADA's ability to design a digital FBW, the composite technologies, the glass cockpit and micro-processor controlled general systems. But, can you blame them for that? While I agree that the IAF has a significant share of blame thanks to their pathetic foresight and support for the HF-24, his job at Air HQ was to make a call on whether or not ADA could develop those challenging technologies within the timelines that the PDP claimed they would be developed in..we know that they did underestimate the effort and difficulty in developing these technologies.

Do you guys believe that had a Tech Demo phase not been there, we'd have seen the Tejas in service earlier?

As for the second issue, that of the R-60 missile being changed to R-73, can we blame the ACM for the Air HQ changing its requirements for the CCM? Isn't that a post way too high for a guy to be looking at ASRs and so on or their changes? After all, he wasn't the IAF officer deputed to the ADA before he became ACM, so I'm not sure we can blame him for this.

Even for a staunch supporter of the LCA like me, this never ending slippage in timelines is quite frustrating. Playing their advocate, I can imagine how it must feel like for a senior IAF officer who is in charge of the IAF's force structure and whose job it is to make sure that the IAF's squadron levels don't drop beyond what they are today. They cannot keep sitting by while ADA/HAL miss each and every deadline.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2012 12:07

even the eurofighter had a TD phase (in collab with nasa dryden r&d center) and so did the F22. when pushing to the edge of known and expected capabilities (like we were) I think TD phase is a given, whether we label it TD or not.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Feb 2012 12:09

We have discussed this R-60 to R-73 related change in ASR in the past.

Actually it is a small part of what appears to me a much bigger fundamental problem i.e. project management. Question is how many personnel IAF had/has assigned on a full time basis for working on the LCA project, sending individuals on temporary deputation to an ADA/DRDO facility simply does not cut it , how do you establish accountability in such a setup ? Scope creep is a common issue in all big projects where the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Feb 2012 12:14

Yes TD phase is quite essential to validate new technologies specially for green horn in this field and LCA technologies was set quite high by any standards ...even PAK-FA has TD phase with first 2 aircraft serving just that.