'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Viv S » 22 Oct 2016 08:17

shiv wrote:Yes you are. And so am I - because rhetoric is the button that switches you on most effectively and gets you going. But it bores me - although I enjoy doing it and waiting for a response from people who use it regularly. I am out of this discussion. I just played you and you bit. My apologies. I have stated my opinion about the F-35 and have no wish to get into any discussion with you on the issue.

No rhetoric on my part. When I say it'll mesh with the IAF's C4I system just as well as the Rafale & F-16, I mean it. And that's a conclusion at after examining the IAF's upgrade path (ODL) and the modifications performed on the F-35I by LM & IAI.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 22 Oct 2016 09:43

Viv S wrote:No rhetoric on my part. When I say it'll mesh with the IAF's C4I system just as well as the Rafale & F-16, I mean it. And that's a conclusion at after examining the IAF's upgrade path (ODL) and the modifications performed on the F-35I by LM & IAI.

Sure sure. You must be right - I'm sure you have examined all the aspects when they were laid out by the US, Israel and IAF for you to do that. . Anyone who believes that will also buy the Taj Mahal from me so it's an advantage for me to agree with you.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Viv S » 22 Oct 2016 09:54

shiv wrote:Sure sure. You must be right - I'm sure you have examined all the aspects when they were laid out by the US, Israel and IAF for you to do that. . Anyone who believes that will also buy the Taj Mahal from me so it's an advantage for me to agree with you.

I thought empty rhetoric 'bored' you. Anyway... use Google, it'll help you too examine the aspects. It isn't as top secret as one might think.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Viv S » 22 Oct 2016 10:16

IAF's plan to replace ailing MiG with 'Make in India' combat aircraft heading for trouble

By Manu Pubby

NEW DELHI: An Indian Air Force plan to replace its MiG fighter fleet with a 'Made in India' combat aircraft is heading for trouble. As of now the choice is between two aircraft from Sweden and the US, both of which failed a comprehensive technical evaluation process in 2010. Plus, there are grumbles that other countries which have fighter jets were not called at all.

ET spoke to senior officials for this report. They did not want to be identified. An IAF spokesperson told ET he could not comment on the issue.

IAF's communication to the US and Sweden earlier this month said the force was looking for a modern, proven single-engine fighter aircraft in operational service. IAF didn’t offer any details of minimum performance levels, asking only for a "4th generation fighter" — a broad qualification that also fits India’s long-under-development light combat aircraft (LCA).

Industry experts, who spoke off record, said IAF's approach so far can get the force into a single vendor situation and, therefore, a recipe for slowdown in decision-making.

A single vendor situation often leads to questions over fairness in the selection process. The aim is to make a choice from a multiple vendor situation.

People familiar with the situation said since IAF's communication asked for fighters in operational service, there was little logic in restricting it to Sweden (which has Saab-manufactured Gripen) and the US (which offers Lockheed Martin's F-16).

This, said experts, is even more surprising given that Gripen and F-16 didn't make the cut after IAF held an evaluation exercise in 2010. France's Mirage 2000, no longer in production but in service, could have also met IAF’s broad criteria.

Plus, before a 'Make in India' plan for fighter aircraft can start, the defence ministry will have to move ahead on its Strategic Partnership (SP) model, which will provide guidelines for private sector companies participating in major military manufacturing programmes.

Among other questions the SP model is yet to address are the issues on long-term agreements with private sector companies and the role of public sector defence units.

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby rohiths » 22 Oct 2016 11:12

^^
Atleast the scam has come out in the newspapers.
In summary
1. No performance specifications for the tender.
2. Both the models have failed prior qualifications
3. Gamed to favour a single vendor
4. Main objective to kill LCA

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 12:21

NRao wrote:
Bing, Bing, Bing ...... Which is I have said ALL along India is not ready for the F-35.


You have also been saying the IN should buy F-35 instead of Rafale.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 12:24

NRao wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
Agreed.


Absolutely disagree.

For one the assumption is that India gets engine techs IF India decides take over the F-16 line.

:rotfl:
While just two posts above you wrote :

NRao wrote:Let me state one more thing. India is not ready fottr an engine too. Forget a 5th gen engine. Just a plain simple Kaveri that can perform up to specs. Nyet.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Chinmay » 22 Oct 2016 12:32

Nowhere, in all these articles, has the MoD/IAF officially given a statement. Everywhere is 'sources' and 'People familiar with the situation'. This whole drama started with Ajai Shukla claiming that something 'like an RFI' was given by the ambassadors to various aircraft manufacturing countries. No official RFI of any sort is available AFAIK. I dont think that the IAF is that stupid as to so obviously game a tender for a single vendor, even if it really wants the F-16 (which I dont think it does!).

This new government is in favour of transparency, so either it would directly go for a G2G deal, publicly or have an open tender. Either way, it would make an open announcement of this fact.

I just think these articles are being posted to create a buzz on SM and online fora, to skew the opinions one way or the other.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 12:33

NRao wrote:Secondly, there are related technologies that can benefit India - IF India takes advantage of them, which I think it should be possible, including sales. After all the F-16 line is India will be the only line anywhere. Potential is there. Is there a drive to make things out-of-the-box happen? Beyond "BPO-giri"?



Let me point it out here for the THIRD TIME :

You were objecting to production of Rafale here saying "....by 2036 Rafale will be outdated... IAF should just lease them for 20 years.... "

Now this Super-duper advanced F-16 is not going to be outdated by 2036?

Forget 2036, what about 2056?

As the last F-16 will be hopefully inducted in IAF by 2026 - 28 and seeing their life will be atleast 28 to 30 years.

Great the advantage to be LAST NATION PRODUCTING 70s F-16 in the world.

Waah waah what double standards, clapping.

First everytime anybody objected to lemoa you were bringing in DTTI and engine tech Bharat getting in return. Now US got lemoa and ONLY AFTER THAT STATE DEPT CONTROLLED MEDIA REPORTS THAT ENGINE CAN ONLY BE HAD IF WE BUY 100 US JETS.

Kya baat hai apki, maan gaye !!!

satya
BRFite
Posts: 718
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby satya » 22 Oct 2016 14:07

Reason behind IAF's original tender for 126 single engine fighter jets still valid today. Current GoI is trying to undo the mistakes made by UPA with selection of Rafale . Tejas won't be killed . Expect deal to conclude in 2017 not later. Its on fast track . There won't be a repeat of field trials . Rafale deal had to be done to save many skins across party lines.
Now we have access to both US & Russian tech ( russians are not going anywhere , they know we know ) so no further need for french alternative. Besides french grew too greedy and pushed this horrible horrible very horrible Rafale deal's terms . If possible do watch the body language of NaMoji and Hollande sitting in delhi metro . Lot of rona -dhona persuaded him to allow 'face -saving' 36 rafale deal . Engine tec denied , engine production denied , ammo production denied that's how bad it got . Still had to be salvaged . French knew its their last big item sale to India. Bye bye France.

Late Misraji packaged both submarine & mirage deal together ( timing had to differ for reasons ) , where we would have got complete mirage factory nut & bolt ( sort of tata's original Indica ) transported to India . But then Mahadev favored french and came UPA-1 and french got to keep submarine contract and overnight we had the MMRCA 'tamasha' with mirage deal becoming rafale deal . Narrative was easy to create with right incentive . Besides UPA always had a soft heart for mainland europe wonder why !
So let's pray again to Mahadev that this time GoI get this nut & bolt factory transfer deal done within its current tenure . Fingers crossed .Already seeing lifafa articles coming out ruing over no field trials . Someone should tell these lifafa dalaals that we had the field trials during MMRCA saga .

soumik
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby soumik » 22 Oct 2016 17:13

We'll need approximately 500 aircraft to replace older jets in the next ten years , here's what I believe we should do.
1) start a 2nd line for the LCA Mk1 & start building 12/annum with 120 assured orders.
2) Start an international competition to develop & market the LCA as a semi stealth platform with LM , SAAB or DASSAULT. Have them develop concepts & select the best one. Create a JV with 300 assured orders from the IAF.
3) The firm whose design meets our goals gets to supply the balance 80 jets as CBU units from their parent organizations .

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1553
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Gyan » 22 Oct 2016 19:11

I find it odd that IAF is not satisfied with Rafale and want USD 1.7 Billion worth of additional changes, Similarly it is not satisfied with FGFA and wants to spend US$ 4 Billion for additional changes but at the same time it has no problem in "regressing" to third generation aircraft like F-16. While we are at it why not South Korean T-50??

As per wiki

F-16C Block 50 has Empty weight of 8,570 kg and internal fuel of 3200kg. The engine has dry thurst of 76.3kn and wet thrust of 127kn.

while LCA has Empty weight of 6550 kg and internal fuel of 2450 kg. The engine has dry thurst of 53 kn and wet thrust of 89 kn. The Engine is a generation ahead of F-16 engines.

How in hell will F-16 have more range?????

What's wrong in producing more Su-30MKIs, LCA Mark-2 or giving such much needed funds to AMCA, UCAV etc??

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 247
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Amoghvarsha » 22 Oct 2016 19:27

LM is peddling F 16 block 70 as most advance F 16.What is the super duper advancement?

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 357
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby ragupta » 22 Oct 2016 19:40

There is a need to change the thimking here, look beyond single aircraft acquisition.
How one can become aerospace hub and part of global supply chain. Not by restricting and narrow focus.

Which country is more suitable for aerospace hub, not american who use their own, not russian who use their own, not french who use theoir own, other EU countries you do not have the capacity, China not many interested.

In the current scenario, only India offers a platform, resources and market. it uses products from most major players. So who is suitable?

I say bring them all, let them compete, grow the economy, there is a large need, is india up for this challenge, I think yes.

stop looking acquisitions from one single prism, which one is best and I got the best and this is the best mentality. This was in the past, and some cases this will be focus.

There is market and hunger for products in india, cannot be a global market and player by restricting yourself.
My post is more for economic forum, but it is application to this scenario.

So let everyone come and work with private Industry that will build capability for long term, the problem will happpen if only public sector is involved.
so I say come Russian, french, US, Israel, EU, Ukraine, Brazil and anyone else you wants to setup shop and use india as a base, provide them with order to set up shop and create local economy. Kind of like how China became Manufacturing hub.

my 2 cent.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby deejay » 22 Oct 2016 19:59

Gyan wrote:I find it odd that IAF is not satisfied with Rafale and want USD 1.7 Billion worth of additional changes, Similarly it is not satisfied with FGFA and wants to spend US$ 4 Billion for additional changes but at the same time it has no problem in "regressing" to third generation aircraft like F-16. While we are at it why not South Korean T-50??

As per wiki

F-16C Block 50 has Empty weight of 8,570 kg and internal fuel of 3200kg. The engine has dry thurst of 76.3kn and wet thrust of 127kn.

while LCA has Empty weight of 6550 kg and internal fuel of 2450 kg. The engine has dry thurst of 53 kn and wet thrust of 89 kn. The Engine is a generation ahead of F-16 engines.

How in hell will F-16 have more range?????

What's wrong in producing more Su-30MKIs, LCA Mark-2 or giving such much needed funds to AMCA, UCAV etc??


I would like to read IAF documents stating they are OK with F16. I am still waiting to see anything authentic. Are you assuming assume on IAF's satisfaction/ dis satisfaction?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 20:04

What make me sad about IAF is that they ask improvement after improvement in LCA even after IOC1 - ioc2 and foc to further improve into Mark 1A. But even after f-16 failed miserably in MMRCA they're ready to accept it without any improvement. Such is there hunger for a western aircraft. What about those 642 parameters?

As Gyan points out in PAK FA too they want so many improvements (42? or 44?), but as far as western grippen is concerened OR even-more-western F-16 is concerned they are ready to take them without any objections.

They can take Mark 1 Tejas and start inducting them with even less capable desi+israeli hybrid radar making the induction smooth, smoothening any wrinkles in the product and integrate then later accept 2052 radar, like they were ready to accept typhoon trial without aesa.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby deejay » 22 Oct 2016 20:12

Manish_Sharma wrote:What make me sad about IAF is that they ask improvement after improvement in LCA even after IOC1 - ioc2 and foc to further improve into Mark 1A. But even after f-16 failed miserably in MMRCA they're ready to accept it without any improvement. Such is there hunger for a western aircraft. What about those 642 parameters?

...


Where is the Official IAF document to support this statement?

I am seriously getting miffed with accusations flying left and right without any support. I think if these things keep flying on the forum as a policy without restraint, it is better to announce upfront. At least I will know for sure.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 20:27

deejay wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:What make me sad about IAF is that they ask improvement after improvement in LCA even after IOC1 - ioc2 and foc to further improve into Mark 1A. But even after f-16 failed miserably in MMRCA they're ready to accept it without any improvement. Such is there hunger for a western aircraft. What about those 642 parameters?

...


Where is the Official IAF document to support this statement?

I am seriously getting miffed with accusations flying left and right without any support. I think if these things keep flying on the forum as a policy without restraint, it is better to announce upfront. At least I will know for sure.


I can't produce any IAF document here Deejay ji, but here :

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/rafale-jets-exceptional-iaf-will-like-to-have-more-of-it-says-iafs-air-chief-marshal-arup-raha-3065206/

He also spoke about “unsolicited offers” that India has received from Boeing, Saab and Locheed Martin to manufacture fighter aircraft in India and said the company which offers the best deal will be selected.


Full Article :

Rafale jets ‘exceptional’, IAF will like to have more of it, says IAF’s Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha
IAF chief Arup Raha also spoke about the "unsolicited offers" that India has received from Boeing, Saab and Locheed Martin to manufacture fighters in India and said the best deal will be selected.

By: PTI | New Delhi | Published:October 4, 2016 6:01 pm

Describing the Rafale fighter jets as “exceptional”, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha on Tuesday said the force would like to have more of the aircraft and insisted that the recently signed contract for 36 fighters was better than other such deals.

He also spoke about “unsolicited offers” that India has received from Boeing, Saab and Locheed Martin to manufacture fighter aircraft in India and said the company which offers the best deal will be selected.

He said Saab’s Gripen is a “good fighter” as compared to others like F-16 of Lockheed Martin but the decision will depend on many factors.

“Any air force will be proud to have aircraft of the Rafale class which is in mid-weight category. In terms of its weapons capability, air-to-air missiles, beyond visual range, air-to-ground, its avionics, instrumentation and warfare suite, it is exceptional and one of the leading aircraft of the current generation,” Raha said.

Asked if 18 more aircraft would be procured, he said, “Well, we would like to have more. But it is a decision that will be taken in the near future.”

The 7.878 billion Euros (Rs 59,000 crore) deal for 36 Rafale fighter jets was signed on September 23. The new planes will give a big boost to IAF’s defence and strike power.

The most important aspect of the deal, apart from the fact that the Rafale is a 4.5 generation fighter jet, is the firepower that India is getting in the form of long-range and Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles.

Rafale jets will come equipped with state-of-the-art missiles such as Meteor and Scalp. Meteor is a BVR air-to-air missile with a range in excess of 150km.

“It is better in terms of price, performance-based logistics, missiles among others,” he said on the Rafale deal in comparison to the MMRCA tender and deals signed by France with other countries in world.

On the induction of light combat aircraft Tejas, he said it would be done in six squadrons, including the upgraded version.

He said the next version called Tejas ‘Mark-A’ would come with better radar, weapons, avionics, and its production will start in 2021.

Raha also said IAF would also be upgrading the Sukhoi 30 MKI fighter jets besides the Jaguar.

On the integration of BrahMos missiles with the Sukhoi 30 MKI, Raha said, “We hope to fire a live missile in three months.”

The IAF chief, who heads the Chiefs of Staff Committee (CoSC), a body of the three service chiefs, said he hoped the government would resolve the issues of the 7th Pay Commission and that the forces have decided to implement it based on the government’s assurances.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby deejay » 22 Oct 2016 20:44

Manish_Sharma wrote:What make me sad about IAF is that they ask improvement after improvement in LCA even after IOC1 - ioc2 and foc to further improve into Mark 1A. But even after f-16 failed miserably in MMRCA they're ready to accept it without any improvement. Such is there hunger for a western aircraft. What about those 642 parameters?



^^^ So where has the IAF or its Chief said F16 is good "as is"? What he said and it is not in quotes but paraphrased in the article
He said Saab’s Gripen is a “good fighter” as compared to others like F-16 of Lockheed Martin but the decision will depend on many factors.


We are discussing requirements issued in an RFI. Let us discuss the RFI, or articles citing the RFI. We may also discuss the need to buy any foreign 4 Gen Single Engine aircraft.

But what you are doing is bashing IAF for what has not been done. Why?

You are making things up? Are you deliberately feeding IAF hatred. What are you trying here?

Scenario where assumptions are valid grounds to make accusations and express opinions based on assumptions can also lead to this from my side:

You accuse any of the services, do it with supporting links, else don't. Your assumptions are not required because I counter assume you are deliberately here from a country I don't like, to belittle our IAF.

I am being upfront. Hope you understand.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 20:57

How can you call it IAF hatred?

Yes I have criticized IAF in case they go for F-16 or Grippen.

There is a continous stream of reports of LM about to get orders. Ok, fair that IAF isn't bound to deny every report that appears, and they haven't denied about F-16 or Grippen.

But in case these reports come true then people have right to criticize. Why you call it "hatred" ?

If reports are wrong then of course the "criticism" will also be proven wrong.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby deejay » 22 Oct 2016 21:04

Manish_Sharma wrote:How can you call it IAF hatred?

Yes I have criticized IAF in case they go for F-16 or Grippen.

There is a continous stream of reports of LM about to get orders. Ok, fair that IAF isn't bound to deny every report that appears, and they haven't denied about F-16 or Grippen.

But in case these reports come true then people have right to criticize. Why you call it "hatred" ?

If reports are wrong then of course the "criticism" will also be proven wrong.


Your said it makes you "sad" that IAF will accept F 16 without any improvements though it asked LCA to have those.

Are you :
Q 1) assuming that IAF will accept F 16 without asking for improvements?
Q 2) I said you are deliberately feeding IAF "hatred" if you are making unsupported claims. Are you saying things about IAF without substantiating things?
Q 3) There is a likely deal of a foreign fighter line. That has been reported. Where is the report on what you have said?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 21:11

By labeling somebody with "hatred" for "criticism" you are trying to crush the person wrongly.

Somethings can be inferred from these reports :

a.) There is no report of LM claiming that engine or other improvements in the F-16 are done.

b.) That these 100 western jets are going to be inducted fast to fill in the numbers, so where will be time for LM to work on the engine and aircraft improvement?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby deejay » 22 Oct 2016 21:23

Manish_Sharma wrote:By labeling somebody with "hatred" for "criticism" you are trying to crush the person wrongly.

Somethings can be inferred from these reports :

a.) There is no report of LM claiming that engine or other improvements in the F-16 are done.

b.) That these 100 western jets are going to be inducted fast to fill in the numbers, so where will be time for LM to work on the engine and aircraft improvement?


Is there a report saying IAF has not asked for improvements - are you dense?

You label the entire IAF but your individual identity being labeled hurts you - good. Feel the pain.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 21:27

Deejay ji, it is written like that.

If you will go to old debates on Arjun tank, the blame was many times laid on IA not just DGMO. So when one says IA, IAF, IN it doesn't mean that every Soldier, Sailor or Airman is being criticised. It simply means that certain decision makers in that organisation are being criticized.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby deejay » 22 Oct 2016 21:30

Manish_Sharma wrote:Deejay ji, it is written like that.

If you will go to old debates on Arjun tank, the blame was many times laid on IA not just DGMO. So when one says IA, IAF, IN it doesn't mean that every Soldier, Sailor or Airman is being criticised. It simply means that certain decision makers in that organisation are being criticized.


Where has the Chief or IAF or anyone with IAF or MOD or Def Minister said they will accept F 16 without changes?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 21:36

They will have to, there is no time for delay, its a quick fast induction. LM can't start working on improving the engine now and transfer the line here producing those jets fast. They'll have to come as they are.

You know better then me that experienced and great LM maybe, but even they can't just improve the engine and jet so fast as to bring its performance to pass leh tests.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby deejay » 22 Oct 2016 21:43

Manish_Sharma wrote:They will have to, there is no time for delay, its a quick fast induction. LM can't start working on improving the engine now and transfer the line here producing those jets fast. They'll have to come as they are.

You know better then me that experienced and great LM maybe, but even they can't just improve the engine and jet so fast as to bring its performance to pass leh tests.


Maan gaye prabhu. You have no backing, all assumptions and you have also decided for them. Super. What an insight. Aap antaryaami hain.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby sudeepj » 22 Oct 2016 21:46

Isnt LCA more draggy compared to the F16? The wing area o the LCA is nearly 30% bigger than that of the F16. Then there is the aspect ratio. I am not an aeronautical engineer, but this should mean more drag, albeit much higher instantaneous maneuverability. It should also mean great hot-high performance, but an impact on range.

Bottom line is, in my view, India does not have the time (20-30 years) to make a completely domestic defense industry. It will be better if we are integrated into a global supply chain of defense equipment, rather than having a buyer-seller relationship or an 'island' on which we alone develop/sell.

If we are to integrate in this global supply-chain, what can we do? Russians dont even buy Brahmos from us. Name one component that we have made locally for the Sus or the Migs that the Russians buy from us. Next, the Russians have started selling to the Chinese, and thats where their strategic interests lie! The US is at least buying some stuff (Hercules components, some Boeing components, some Honeywell stuff) from us. As long as we respect intellectual property rules, they will be fine with greater level of manufacturing. Further, the US is so far ahead of the rest as far as technology goes, its not even funny! And the gap is increasing, not going down!

The Frogs do transfer technology, we can make scorpenes etc. but they are corrupt as sin and charge an arm and a leg!! Further, the Frogs exist on an defense industry Island themselves! The only other global supply chain is the EU.. EU is in a pathetic state, they dont know what has hit them with the influx of refugees and the Euro problems. In the near future, it will undergo major upheavals and some countries will be out of the EU. They cant be strategic partners, period.

Bottomline is, India is looking for a strategic partnership and to tie in to a global defense industry. Investing in the LCA cant do it. In fact, the LCA project is in need of technology infusion. Hence the need for this fighter line.

Lets hope messers Modi and Parrikar can get an F35 line and cement the relationship rather than the F16. If its F16, LM knows that they better throw in some extra especial goodies to make it worth our while.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Oct 2016 22:12

sudeepj wrote:
Bottomline is, India is looking for a strategic partnership and to tie in to a global defense industry. Investing in the LCA cant do it. In fact, the LCA project is in need of technology infusion. Hence the need for this fighter line.


Investing in Tejas is the only way, even with faulty original "flying coffin" F-104 the US didn't turn to allies in europe and imported their safer jets. They continued to work and operate on their own jets.

Even with their 50 hour life engines the soviets continued with their own jets, and today have reached Al-41 levels.

A separate line of 120 Tejas with Kaveri engine even with 300 hour life and indigenous radar should be inducted and continued to be improved.

While order of Tejas Mk 1 with GE 404 replacing all the 450 Mig 21 & 27s should be placed.

The lure of EJ 220 for AMCAs can bring the might of German MIC to help in production big numbers of LCA with partnership of TASL, L & T and Kalyani.

Americans can be told to not bother with transferring their 100 jets from 70s to us. It will be anyway a "pressler" type time bomb ready to explode anytime.

What tech this new fighter line is bringing that LCA doesn't have?

Radar? Engine? composites? alloys?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 22 Oct 2016 22:31

sudeepj - I agree with you

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby sudeepj » 23 Oct 2016 00:08

Manish_Sharma wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
Bottomline is, India is looking for a strategic partnership and to tie in to a global defense industry. Investing in the LCA cant do it. In fact, the LCA project is in need of technology infusion. Hence the need for this fighter line.


Investing in Tejas is the only way, even with faulty original "flying coffin" F-104 the US didn't turn to allies in europe and imported their safer jets. They continued to work and operate on their own jets.

Even with their 50 hour life engines the soviets continued with their own jets, and today have reached Al-41 levels.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but at the moment, the 120 units order for Tejas is among the largest orders for a single air force in the entire world, barring perhaps the US and China. Further, this is only one tranche, and its likely, there may be more.

A separate line of 120 Tejas with Kaveri engine even with 300 hour life and indigenous radar should be inducted and continued to be improved.


What will that gain us? It'll give you a Kaveri engine with a 300 hour life. Sort of like the PLAAF in the early days when they were flying thousands of Mig19s and claiming to be the largest AF in the entire world. Eventually, even the Chinese had to turn to the West (in the J10-Lavi pathway) and the Russians.

There is no certainty, given our educational, social and technological infrastructure that 15-20 yeas hence, that 300 hr Kaveri will magically transform itself into a GE EPE. What is more likely is a 1000 hr Kaveri while the GEs of the world are producing something even better than an EPE. I personally dont have any interest in a 1000 hr Kaveri. Itll be much better if there is a GE factory in India that is manufacturing the EPE or something cutting edge like that.

Having a self sustaining defense industry 'island' is a nice to have but only a means to an end. Those that are attempting it, such as the Russians/Soviets/Chinese/Sweden have niche products or are far far behind the tech. curve. Realistically, even the US does not have a defense industry island, their complex is maintained by massive orders from allies and client states. If this werent there, the cost equations are such that the industry would simply collapse under its own weight.

The coming decades are going to be exceedingly dangerous for India. We could end up with Chinese bases right next door and a powerful ideological subversion campaign hiding behind nukes!

While order of Tejas Mk 1 with GE 404 replacing all the 450 Mig 21 & 27s should be placed. The lure of EJ 220 for AMCAs can bring the might of German MIC to help in production big numbers of LCA with partnership of TASL, L & T and Kalyani.

Americans can be told to not bother with transferring their 100 jets from 70s to us. It will be anyway a "pressler" type time bomb ready to explode anytime.


American policy is governed by self interest, same as Indian policy. American interests have changed and in many ways, align remarkably well with ours. Rapprochement with Iran, bellicosity towards the Chinese, Russian alignment with the Chinese, inclusion of Vietnam into the American sphere with the TPP.. These are all tectonic shifts. We will do well to recognize it.

FWIW, Pressler Amendment was a way for the US to circumvent its own laws (AECA and Symington amendment). Much as Pakis want to badmouth it, it enabled the US to support its ally for a few more years and with a few more Billions of dollars in addition to support in the UN etc. It gave both states time to reach some mutual accommodation. Pakis, being Pakis, refused any accommodation or understanding the concerns of the US, at which time, the US simply decided to not continue their aid. This is tom-tommed as some great betrayal by the Pakis, as if the world owes them aid, simply because they are momeens. What is worse is, Indians buy this nonsense! :-D

What tech this new fighter line is bringing that LCA doesn't have? Radar? Engine? composites? alloys?


It is integrating India into a global military industrial complex. At a very high level, Indian problems lie in manufacturing, as much as technology. This will go some way towards solving the manufacturing problem, just as maruti-suzuki kicked the Indian car sector into some shape. The new line will open up Indian defense manufacturing to a similar type of competition.

Now, flip the question. What will manufacturing 240 LCAs vs 120 get India? Not strategic independence, because the prime mover, the prime sensor and part of the prime weapon system are imported. Neither any new technological know-how in these domains. Its simply a system integration effort, which has its own benefits, but lets not make it more than it is. Capability wise, its a wash at best. F16 or Gripen is a far more mature platform than the LCA. From an economy point of view, its a wash again, because the other fighter will also be manufactured in India! From a manufacturing point of view, will a further manufacture of 100 odd fighters after the initial 120 be a production exercise or a learning exercise too? I feel, itll simply be a production exercise.

Lastly, Sharma ji and Gyan ji, you are bombarding the forum with post after post trying to convince other members about your point of view. I speak for myself, but its getting repetitious. You have made your point, and others have made theirs, but you alleging corruption etc. without a shred of evidence is, I feel, in bad taste. Your efforts may have better rewards if you write to the GoI.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby ramana » 23 Oct 2016 04:21

Manish, Please read and back off.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cosmo_R » 23 Oct 2016 05:30

Manish_Sharma wrote:

You know better then me that experienced and great LM maybe, but even they can't just improve the engine and jet so fast as to bring its performance to pass leh tests.


They cannot. Only GE who makes the engine can. That's assuming the F-16s in the MMRCA contest had the GE F110-132. Else we have to blame P&W.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2016 06:50

The MMRCA contest had a large number of data points checked by the IAF - so the IAF has actually test flown every single contender and has assessed each against the other 5 in more detail than any other air force on earth. The Rafale won only on some promise of price and tech transfer. We have no information that the others failed on tested parameters. We do not have any information on why Gripen and F-16 did not make it.

At that time the IAF, which people say wants imports, and the UPA whom people say wanted to kill Tejas showed a sudden and simultaneous attack of patriotic stupidity. They could have killed Tejas and got their imports by selecting F-16 or Gripen way back then. In fact the much vaunted AESA was already flying in the F-16 and even Vishnu Som got a taste of that in his flight. I always got the impression that the Gripen and F-16 failed on the count of being single engined. Although I have no data I cannot imagine that the Rafale offer would have appeared cheaper than F-16/Gripen back then. In fact if I recall right it was a final toss up between Eurofighter and Rafale, with the F/A-18 and MiG 29 having both been eliminated on what I think were technical grounds.

After a long saga we are going to get Rafale starting 2019. But we are still going to be short on numbers. The IAF already has an assessment of all the other contenders and with that assessment the IAF will know exactly what it will be getting no matter which of the other 5 contenders is chosen. It is now actually in the hands of the GoI to strike a deal. The idea that this "will kill Tejas" is something that is emotionally attractive - but there were so many chances to kill Tejas that I can only think that the GoI and IAF are far more stupid that I give them credit for. They should have grabbed every opportunity to kill Tejas and failed and now suddenly we are back to discussing "Kill Tejas, get bribe, Modi wants Ambani to benefit"

Let me just go back to another discussion we had on BRF - among millions of posts of ahead of curve wisdom we show here. There was a BRFite who does not post here any more - who actually had a chance to visit HAL. He had mentioned that the Aluminium used for the Tejas is a special aviation grade material that is imported from France. And since there are very few companies making that grade of Aluminium the companies that do have their order books full. You cannot walk in and pick up what you want like going into BigBazaar and picking up Ponds talcum powder. You order beforehand and wait for your turn. We have no idea how many more Tejas components are hamstrung by such bottlenecks. So when I hear people say "start a new line start a new line start a new line" for Tejas it seems to me that this is a mantra being chanted without actually learning the Veda.

If the HAL MD says we cannot go beyond 16 a year it means we cannot go beyond 16 a year. It does not mean "We want to kill Tejas. IAF wants bribe" We cannot start a new line. We cannot use Hindalium to make Tejas and palm it off to the IAF without full testing.

I think it would be far easier to think with clarity if we simply discussed on the basis of data we have rather than speculation

The data we have is
1. Tejas production is not going to go beyond 16 a year.
2. Everyone agrees that IAF numbers are falling and will fall further
3. The IAF chief has stated in interviews that "The government will make a decision on and alternate fighter line based on the make in India initiative". 4. Parikkar has said exactly the same thing

Of course, by asking for people to stick to known facts - I am aiming to kill off BRF and promote DFI which I secretly favour. But that is a separate issue.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cosmo_R » 23 Oct 2016 06:53

Gyan wrote:I...
F-16C Block 50 has Empty weight of 8,570 kg and internal fuel of 3200kg. The engine has dry thurst of 76.3kn and wet thrust of 127kn.

while LCA has Empty weight of 6550 kg and internal fuel of 2450 kg. The engine has dry thurst of 53 kn and wet thrust of 89 kn. The Engine is a generation ahead of F-16 engines.

How in hell will F-16 have more range?????

What's wrong in producing more Su-30MKIs, LCA Mark-2 or giving such much needed funds to AMCA, UCAV etc??


LCA Range : 3,000 km (1,620 nmi, 1,864 mi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas ... as_Mk.1.29
LCA empty weight 14,300 pounds
LCA with GE 404 17,700 pounds of thrust
LCA payload
3,700KG
LCA MTOW
29,100 pounds

F-16 Block 60 Range 1740 nm or ~2000 miles
F-16 empty weight 20,300 pounds
F-16 IN payload ~18,000 pounds
F-16 block 60/70 with GE F-110-132 32,000 pounds of thrust
Max TOW 52,000 pounds
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /f-16i.htm
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... tions.html

That said, I think we ought to leverage a F-16 order into a transition into F-35 which LM indicated in 2005, it is OK with.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cosmo_R » 23 Oct 2016 07:19

@Shiv ^^^ I think we are saying the same thing. There are numbers that have to addressed—maintaining squadron strength. There are make in India issues which will drive development of an ecosystem (employment of people, manufacturing and skills).

The LCA cannot drive an ecosystem. It's a chicken and egg situation and there is little confidence within GoI re HAL/ADA being able to deliver no matter the level of funding given the setup.

As we face 200-300 fighters being retired you have to place your bets on who can deliver quantity at a determined level of quality and capability by 2020-21.

Ain't HAL

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby sudeepj » 23 Oct 2016 07:24

Before we diss the eventual single engine fighter choice, lets look at the opposition force. Chinese production of the J10, (now with DSI!) and J16s is likely going to continue for at least another 10 to 15 years, which is how long they should take to master their new stealth fighters. Many of these 4/4.5gen fighters will eventually appear in the Paki green roundels. We need the numbers in addition to the technological over match that AMCA/Rafale provide.

Can the LCA provide the numbers and can it take on the J10/J16? I think (based on my considerable air combat experience sitting over the loo), over own skies, LCA will prove to be a match for the J10, but probably not the J16 (their heavy Su30 clone). While a modern F16, based on the AESA, AAMRAAM, sensor integration, great engine can likely take on the J10/J16 anywhere, anytime.

When its time for the next gen AMCA, hopefully, the new western fighter production line can be leveraged and ADA can have a choice of either HAL or the new line.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2016 08:14

Cosmo_R wrote:
The LCA cannot drive an ecosystem. It's a chicken and egg situation and there is little confidence within GoI re HAL/ADA being able to deliver no matter the level of funding given the setup.

The only quibble I have is the wording of your statement "there is little confidence within..." etc.

Wrong choice of words because there is total realism on the part of HAL and GoI and complete confidence that Tejas numbers cannot be ramped up in time to check the plummeting strength of the IAF. No one has ever said anything different.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby ldev » 23 Oct 2016 09:09

This thread has all the promise of being a repeat of the numerous MMRCA threads followed by the Rafale threads...time to bring out the popcorn :D
May there be many repeats of this thread!!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4623
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Oct 2016 09:49

Some thoughts and questions about F-16 as a possible addition to the IAF ....

Since the IAF is looking for a light fighter replacement, will it go for a blk 50 base airframe (or something even lighter) or the blk 60, which seems a lot heavier. Note that the F-16 has gotten progressively heavier thanks mainly to increased payload requirements. THus, the early blocks (A/B - 15/20) all weighed around 16200lbs or 7350kg, the blk 50/52 weighs around 18000lbs or 8200kg, the blk 60, which the UAE use, is the most advanced in service Viper till date and weighs a rather solid 10000kg empty. The blk60 can actually carry external payload worth 8000kg, which is incredible for a single engined bird.

Nevertheless, despite the increase in empty weight, the bird has not had much (if any) corresponding increase in internal fuel, which makes one wonder about how badly its range and performance has been affected . In each blk, the performance pitfalls have been compensated by more powerful engines - from 10500kgf AB thrust early versions to 15000kgf GE F110s on the blk60. The path to circumvent range issues has been through the use of CFTs, which free up hard points but cannot be discarded ala EFTs.

Question is - what would be the best block combo for the IAF? If it is looking for a lightish-medium type fighter that can do duty in hot and high conditions and serve as a first class A2A fighter, my bet would be on a combination of the blk-50 airframe with blk-60 engines and the latest possible sensor/avionics package (including AESA, IRST etc) + CFTs (as needed). A fighter based on the blk-60 might be disadvantaged in a dog fight vs. nimble foes such as flanker or early block vipers, but the blk 50 with an 8200kg empty weight and blk-60 class engines would be a beast.

I'm not so concerned about the Gripen NG/E - it is already too fat and would kill any possibility of further LCA orders. This is of course, jmvho - Gurus might have better ideas.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest