'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 04 Mar 2017 11:21

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Viv S wrote:The F-16 & SH are both dead-end platforms that have been rendered pointless with the advent of the F-35.


Same for the Rafale. The difference is that the SH is actually affordable.


So buy dead platforms because they are affordable? Bargain bin shopping at thrifty discount store?? :rotfl:

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GeorgeWelch » 04 Mar 2017 11:23

Viv S wrote:Its just plain silly to suggest that India go from serial manufacture of one metal airframed (Su-30) to serial manufacture of another metal airframe (F-16), to gain the experience require to scale up production on a more modern composite airframe (Tejas).


Not at all. Manufacturing processes are broadly applicable no matter what it is you're actually manufacturing.

Viv S wrote:Nevermind the fact that the two will be built at different facilities by different companies.


For now . . .

If LM's partner demonstrates sufficient skill and efficiency, it's not out of the realm of possibility that future LCA production could be shifted.

And again, it's not just LCA, it's also AMCA and any other future project.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GeorgeWelch » 04 Mar 2017 11:27

Cybaru wrote:So buy dead platforms because they are affordable? Bargain bin shopping at thrifty discount store?? :rotfl:


More like 'If you're going to be buying a dead platform anyways, might as well get the affordable one'

MRCA was already locked into those 6 aircraft. No other options were possible at that point. Given that one of them had to win, the SH was the best choice.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 04 Mar 2017 11:38

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Cybaru wrote:So buy dead platforms because they are affordable? Bargain bin shopping at thrifty discount store?? :rotfl:


More like 'If you're going to be buying a dead platform anyways, might as well get the affordable one'

MRCA was already locked into those 6 aircraft. No other options were possible at that point. Given that one of them had to win, the SH was the best choice.


How about now? Do we have more options? Do we have to make the same mistakes of the past?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7358
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 04 Mar 2017 19:06

Cybaru: he is trolling and talking nonsense. He gets his high from playing these games. Since the Rafale is a dead platform, the IAF is dumb to buy it. They are equally dumb to consider the F-16 and F-18 as well, because it is not about the aircraft but rather about learning how to manufacture. Going by that logic, we could import a chaddi line instead - way cheaper - because manufacturing processes are broadly applicable no matter what we are manufacturing. The irony is he is doing the dirty work of others who don't want to get dirty.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4122
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 04 Mar 2017 19:12

Look if LCA production needs to improve, India could hire high-paid experienced consultants to identify areas that could be optimized further. It needs to be a targeted approach. Much cheaper and more effective than trying to import entire line of legacy product from another country.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 04 Mar 2017 19:17

Boeing is growing fast in India. They seem to be committing more resources for future growth. In both civil and MIL domains. What other platform could Boeing offer?

Srai, spot on, Sir.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7358
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 04 Mar 2017 19:31

+108 to both of you. This thread is about to get very interesting. Get ready for lots of bow bow today :)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7358
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 04 Mar 2017 22:17

Viv S wrote:Its just a stupid idea to buy an F-16 for $65 mil or a SH for $75 mil when the F-35A is available for $85 mil and wiping the floor with the other two. Although being a stupid idea there's a good chance the MoD will go that way (not unlike the US DoD that might still order more SHs despite the F-35C being available).

F-35A Price Should Fall Below $85 Million, Bogdan Says
http://aviationweek.com/avalon-airshow/ ... ogdan-says

“I am here to tell you today that that’s not enough,” he says. “We need the airplane to be lower in price in 2019 and 2020 than $85 million. And I think we can get there. “We ought to be looking at about an $80 million airplane by that time frame and then continuing to decrease the price of the airplane lot over lot over lot,” Bogdan says. In part, that would be done by working with industry and maintaining steady production.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 05 Mar 2017 00:09

Srai, dead on! the companies that supply stuff to manufacture the planes is different than lm/Boeing etc. Buy stuff directly and hire process consultants to streamline operations and tempo. Don't need expensive plane designs. We are doing good, by breaking it down in tenders for items like for eg radar/ew separately for Tejas. Get missing components for our own fighter and invest in a good line which can be used again tomorrow for other things.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 05 Mar 2017 01:21

NRao wrote:I too would be concerned if that or other topics were alien. Just the nature of the work I do that exposes me every dept at majors.


I don;t understand? What is your area of expertise? What is majors? That will help a lot of us understand and put things in perspective.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Neshant » 05 Mar 2017 02:29

Here's an idea. Pursue the AMCA with Boeing on the basis of the X-32 being a starting point.
This is the plane that lost to the F-35.

That is assuming so called 5th gen aircraft advantages over 4+ gen aircraft can even be solidly defined - which to date it has not.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7358
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 05 Mar 2017 02:38

Airframe design is just one aspect of a fifth generation fighter. Sensors are equally important, if not more. The Boeing X-32 lost out at the prototype stage only. What can really be learnt from the Boeing design? Not much that the AMCA designers already do not know. The real juice lies in the sensors. Same with the engine. Those are the meat and potatoes and not the peas.

brar could explain this way better than me. If he reads this, he might reply.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 05 Mar 2017 02:53

The X-32 was simply an aircraft designed by Boeing with help from those on its team exclusively or as a program partner (GE and P&W). The airframe and propulsion concept was one aspect of what they submitted as a plan. As you rightly mention the rest was the architectures and capabilities/attributes submitted by others in the Boeing lead team.

Lockheed put together Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems both that had extensive expereince on the ATF program. In fact by the time the JSF fly off occurred Northrop had managed to essentially push out the ex Hughes designed components from the F-22 sensors taking significant control of the design (sensors originally designed by Westinghouse and Hughes). There is no upside to looking at the X-32. It was a pre 2000 DARPA X-plane program that no one has pursued over the last 16 years therefore there exits virtually nothing of tangible value that came out of it since had it been selected there would have been a decade +, multi-billion EMD phase to develop what was proposed at the time.

Boeing in the meantime has moved on, more tightly integrated Ex McD Phantom Works and has kept at least one advanced fighter team funded for both the FA-XX and F-X/PCA. Similarly, with the multi Billion dollar Pre EMD award, Boeing would have moved the needle significantly forward with the LRS-B competition which further diminishes the value of where they were with the X-32. And as we know post JSF fly-off, Boeing proposed a different wing than what they flew. This again limits a lot of the lessons learned from the limited flight testing of the X-planes since the version they wished to offer had a completely different wing from the one they designed. This out of the stuff that was physically built on the x-planes. An overwhelming majority of systems, sub-systems, materials (things such as Carbon Composites, CNT, RAM/RAS etc) weren't even produced on the aircraft...they may have been produced elsewhere and demonstrated but we do not know since that is not in the public.

That is assuming so called 5th gen aircraft advantages over 4+ gen aircraft can even be solidly defined - which to date it has not.


Who requires this definition, and who judges whether it has been defined or not?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 05 Mar 2017 06:25

That, to me, is conformal sensors.

Probably The Most Significant Take-Away From Aero India 2017

Image

While we’ve reported extensively on the AMCA’s serpentine intake architecture tests, the slide you see here is, in Livefist’s view, the most significant and revealing set of details on the deep research being done in perhaps the most challenging part of the AMCA’s design: active phased array technology, which comprises the spread of sensor elements embedded across the AMCA’s airframe in a way that consolidates overall stealth and lowers all aspects of signature, while making use of spread to provide a heightened degree of sensor coverage and domain awareness to the pilot.

Getting it right is non-negotiable. The 16 element linear and 32 element planar array will either segue smoothly into the functionality of stealth or stick out sorely and make the AMCA significantly more visible across spectra. While the AMCA is still in a design stage and awaiting sanction as a full-blown project, the slide you see here is affirmation that the most significant elements that will potentially make the AMCA a true fifth generation machine are deep in the works.



The AMCA is far more mature than people here think. I am sure with newer tech there is scope creep, but, still, it will turn out to be a better product.

Some of these tech, like the above, could be folded into the LCA too.


They ought to mount this stuff in a Hawk. The combat version perhaps.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5100
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby jamwal » 05 Mar 2017 13:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfk5lfh9Z0c


The Amazing Fighter Jet Race | Documentary On India's Single Engine Fighter Jet Procurement Program
Bharat Karnad is one of speakers.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Mar 2017 13:31

I SERIOUSLY dont get where folks are coming up with numbers like 300-400 aircraft needed by the IAF. From what I can remember sanctioned strength has been 39.5 sqds for the longest time. Presently the IAF is at:

12 sqd MKI
3 sqd M2K
3 sqd Baaz
6 sqd Jag
2 sqd Mig-27
6 sqd Mig-21 Bison
TOTAL = 32 sqds

The LCA will replace the BIson by 2024. So, there is no loss/gain there. There will be 2 additional sqds of MKI, so number will go up to 34. Add 2 sqd of Rafale, and you have 36 sqd. Retire the MiG-27s and you are back to 34. So, I see a shortage of 5-6 sqds by 2024 (if not replenished adequately). That is, at the most 8 sqds if we are to consider 42 sqd strength. This equals a maximum of 160 fighters.

Where is the 300-400 number coming from in the next decade?? :shock: :-? It is a bloody straightforward situation - order a few more MKI/used M2k and Tejas - thats it. They can actually have their 42 sqd strength in 10 years.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 05 Mar 2017 14:10

Plus add FGFA from 2025 onwards.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19326
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chetak » 05 Mar 2017 14:22

Cybaru wrote:Plus add FGFA from 2025 onwards.



Govt to set up panel to assess viability of building stealth fighter with Russia


Govt to set up panel to assess viability of building stealth fighter with Russia


Feb 11, 2017
Rahul Singh

The IAF does not have sufficient number of warplanes to tackle a combined threat from China and Pakistan. The count of IAF’s fighter squadrons has shrunk to 34 compared to a desirable strength of 42, a capability gap the air force is struggling to fill.(HT file )
A multi-billion dollar Indian programme to co-develop a stealth fighter with Russia faces an uncertain fate with the government deciding to set up a committee to examine what the country gains from the project.

A top government source said the panel, to be headed by a three-star officer, would look into different aspects of the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) project and the technology it brings into the country to meet the air force’s future requirements.

The two countries have been discussing the project for several years but are yet to sign a $4-billion research and development (R&D) contract for the FGFA. India has already spent Rs 1,500 crore on the preliminary design stage (PDS) of the FGFA project. The PDS was completed in June 2013 on the basis of a contract inked with Russia in December 2010.

“Several things have been resolved but it is critical to assess how we benefit from the programme before making the next move. Design issues also have to be looked into,” the source said. The Indian Air Force wants the stealth fighter to have a more powerful engine as the existing one doesn’t give it super cruise capability.

A prototype called the T-50, built under the PAK-FA (Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation) project is undergoing tests in Russia. The first prototype flew its maiden sortie in January 2010.

India has a requirement for 120-130 such swing-role planes with stealth features for increased survivability, advanced avionics, smart weapons, top-end mission computers and 360-degree situational awareness.

The ability to super cruise or sustain supersonic speeds in combat configuration without kicking in fuel-guzzling afterburners is a key Indian requirement.

Former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha told HT that affordability is a key issue and “we have to take a call if we want the FGFA.”

The IAF does not have sufficient number of warplanes to tackle a combined threat from China and Pakistan. The count of IAF’s fighter squadrons has shrunk to 34 compared to a desirable strength of 42, a capability gap the air force is struggling to fill.

The existing fleet consists of 14 squadrons of ageing MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters that will be retired in phases by 2024. Each fighter squadron consists of about 18 planes.

The IAF hopes to add more muscle with the induction of French-built Rafales, the indigenous light combat aircraft, more Sukhoi-30s, the FGFA and a medium-weight warplane to be built in India in collaboration with a foreign player.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4122
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 05 Mar 2017 21:17

Cain Marko wrote:I SERIOUSLY dont get where folks are coming up with numbers like 300-400 aircraft needed by the IAF. From what I can remember sanctioned strength has been 39.5 sqds for the longest time. Presently the IAF is at:

12 sqd MKI
3 sqd M2K
3 sqd Baaz
6 sqd Jag
2 sqd Mig-27
6 sqd Mig-21 Bison
TOTAL = 32 sqds

The LCA will replace the BIson by 2024. So, there is no loss/gain there. There will be 2 additional sqds of MKI, so number will go up to 34. Add 2 sqd of Rafale, and you have 36 sqd. Retire the MiG-27s and you are back to 34. So, I see a shortage of 5-6 sqds by 2024 (if not replenished adequately). That is, at the most 8 sqds if we are to consider 42 sqd strength. This equals a maximum of 160 fighters.

Where is the 300-400 number coming from in the next decade?? :shock: :-? It is a bloody straightforward situation - order a few more MKI/used M2k and Tejas - thats it. They can actually have their 42 sqd strength in 10 years.


Good points!

To add, every new plane (i.e. LCA, Rafale, MKI) that's replacing retiring aircraft (i.e. MiG-21/27) are a huge capability jump from its predecessor. Plus, upgrades are underway for other legacy jets--MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Jaguar. Together these, even with fewer squadrons, add up to way more capability than what the IAF had with its 39.5 squadrons.

The way forward is to continue production of the LCA beyond 123 on order along with additional smaller purchases of Su-30MKI, Rafale, Mirage-2000 and MiG-29. New aircrafts under design like the LCA MK.2, FGFA, AMCA, and UCAV will replace legacy jets post 2030.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Surya » 06 Mar 2017 00:14

srai wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I SERIOUSLY dont get where folks are coming up with numbers like 300-400 aircraft needed by the IAF. From what I can remember sanctioned strength has been 39.5 sqds for the longest time. Presently the IAF is at:



Where is the 300-400 number coming from in the next decade?? :shock: :-? It is a bloody straightforward situation - order a few more MKI/used M2k and Tejas - thats it. They can actually have their 42 sqd strength in 10 years.


Good points!

To add, every new plane (i.e. LCA, Rafale, MKI) that's replacing retiring aircraft (i.e. MiG-21/27) are a huge capability jump from its predecessor. Plus, upgrades are underway for other legacy jets--MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Jaguar. Together these, even with fewer squadrons, add up to way more capability than what the IAF had with its 39.5 squadrons.
.


not to count Drone strength will go up, add more AARs and AWACS and EW will multiply capability too

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Surya » 06 Mar 2017 00:31

might make more sense to have higher pilot ratio, turnaround time and serviceability to pure numbers

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 06 Mar 2017 00:37

srai wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I SERIOUSLY dont get where folks are coming up with numbers like 300-400 aircraft needed by the IAF. From what I can remember sanctioned strength has been 39.5 sqds for the longest time. Presently the IAF is at:

12 sqd MKI
3 sqd M2K
3 sqd Baaz
6 sqd Jag
2 sqd Mig-27
6 sqd Mig-21 Bison
TOTAL = 32 sqds

The LCA will replace the BIson by 2024. So, there is no loss/gain there. There will be 2 additional sqds of MKI, so number will go up to 34. Add 2 sqd of Rafale, and you have 36 sqd. Retire the MiG-27s and you are back to 34. So, I see a shortage of 5-6 sqds by 2024 (if not replenished adequately). That is, at the most 8 sqds if we are to consider 42 sqd strength. This equals a maximum of 160 fighters.

Where is the 300-400 number coming from in the next decade?? :shock: :-? It is a bloody straightforward situation - order a few more MKI/used M2k and Tejas - thats it. They can actually have their 42 sqd strength in 10 years.


Good points!

To add, every new plane (i.e. LCA, Rafale, MKI) that's replacing retiring aircraft (i.e. MiG-21/27) are a huge capability jump from its predecessor. Plus, upgrades are underway for other legacy jets--MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Jaguar. Together these, even with fewer squadrons, add up to way more capability than what the IAF had with its 39.5 squadrons.

The way forward is to continue production of the LCA beyond 123 on order along with additional smaller purchases of Su-30MKI, Rafale, Mirage-2000 and MiG-29. New aircrafts under design like the LCA MK.2, FGFA, AMCA, and UCAV will replace legacy jets post 2030.


CM, you need to put a date to all that.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units ... Fleet.html has about 40 squads today? Are those numbers right? So,

12 10 sqd MKI
3 sqd M2K (36 crafts)
3 sqd Baaz (48 crafts)
6 sqd Jag (90 crafts)
2 5 sqd Mig-27 (80 crafts)
6 sqd Mig-21 Bison (96 crafts)
6 sqd MiG-21 non-bison (96 crafts)
TOTAL = 32 39 sqds

So, what gives?

Per http://indianexpress.com/article/explai ... l-2819289/, retires 6 MiG-21 (Non-Bison) + 8 MiG-27 in 2018. And, in 2022 another 6 squads of MiG-21 Bison. 14 squads less by 2022.

Based on the BR numbers, by 2022, 7 more squads of MKIs, let us say all Rafales arrive - 3 of Rafale and 3 of LCAs. So +13. So, by 2023 IAF should have gained everything it lost ----- in terms of squadron strength.

The kicker:

In 2030, all the MiG-29, Jags and Mirage 2000s are gone. That is about 12 squadrons. So, down to .......... 40-12 = 28 squadrons. + whatever LCA squadrons.

If anyone has any issues please let me know.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Mar 2017 01:29

NRao wrote:CM, you need to put a date to all that.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units ... Fleet.html has about 40 squads today? Are those numbers right? So,

12 10 sqd MKI
3 sqd M2K (36 crafts)
3 sqd Baaz (48 crafts)
6 sqd Jag (90 crafts)
2 5 sqd Mig-27 (80 crafts)
6 sqd Mig-21 Bison (96 crafts)
6 sqd MiG-21 non-bison (96 crafts)
TOTAL = 32 39 sqds

So, what gives?


The non bison 21s and older 27s were never in the picture for a reason. There have been multiple reports stating that IAF strength is at lowest ever around 32 sqds; if we include the above older 27s and 21s, this obviously would not be the case. So, by not bringing them into the picture, we start off at the lowest strength level possible ~ 32 sqds, and move forward from there. By 2024, IAF loses another 8 sqds (bisons and 27UPGs). BUT it also has assured orders of 2 MKI + 2 Rafale + 6-7 LCA i.e. by 2024, it will have no less than 34 sqds based on CURRENT orders.

Based on the BR numbers, by 2022, 7 more squads of MKIs, let us say all Rafales arrive - 3 of Rafale and 3 of LCAs. So +13. So, by 2023 IAF should have gained everything it lost ----- in terms of squadron strength.


While BR numbers might be dated, it matters not because your conclusion is the same as mine. By around 2022-24, all that is lost over that period will be gained for a total of about 34 sqds.

The kicker:

In 2030, all the MiG-29, Jags and Mirage 2000s are gone. That is about 12 squadrons. So, down to .......... 40-12 = 28 squadrons. + whatever LCA squadrons.

If anyone has any issues please let me know.


The above is not the kicker, in fact it is not even an issue. Let me explain: 1) The 29s and esp, the 2000s won't be retiring that soon nor the Jags since these are all in various stages of upgrade atm. These upgrades will be complete around 2021. 2) Even if they do start retiring the 29s and Jags, they should have incoming LCA mk1A/2, AMCA, Pakfa/FGFA starting 2030s. Where in God's world is there space here for 300-400 4th Gen aircraft? 3) The sanctioned strength is for 39.5 sqds, the shortage around 2024 will be only of 6-8 sqds even if we consider 42 sqds. IOWs, no matter how we slice/dice this - the shortage is no more than 120-160 birds for the next decade.

If the planners are actually thinking of replacing upgraded Mirages and Fulcrums with other uber expensive imported 4th Gen fighters like the teens or gripen instead of 5th Gen Pakfas/JSF/AMCA in the 2030s, they are a bunch of morons, and God save us all. If they absolutely must replace all or some of these with 4Gen fighters, the LCA mk2/mk1A should be pursued and made available by then, hell, even the Mk1A will more than adequately replace the M2ks, 29s and Jags, esp. the m2ks and jags!

In the decade of the 2030s, Jags, M2ks and 29s will need replacements - but these can be replaced by a mix of LCA mk1A (for Jags) and Gen 5 birds for the others.

In any case, it remains that the required number to replace is 126-160 in the next decade (and not 300-400 as is being glibly bandied about). unless they plan to have a 50 sqd IAF.

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 245
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Amoghvarsha » 06 Mar 2017 01:39

Cain Marko wrote:I SERIOUSLY dont get where folks are coming up with numbers like 300-400 aircraft needed by the IAF. From what I can remember sanctioned strength has been 39.5 sqds for the longest time. Presently the IAF is at:

12 sqd MKI
3 sqd M2K
3 sqd Baaz
6 sqd Jag
2 sqd Mig-27
6 sqd Mig-21 Bison
TOTAL = 32 sqds

The LCA will replace the BIson by 2024. So, there is no loss/gain there. There will be 2 additional sqds of MKI, so number will go up to 34. Add 2 sqd of Rafale, and you have 36 sqd. Retire the MiG-27s and you are back to 34. So, I see a shortage of 5-6 sqds by 2024 (if not replenished adequately). That is, at the most 8 sqds if we are to consider 42 sqd strength. This equals a maximum of 160 fighters.

Where is the 300-400 number coming from in the next decade?? :shock: :-? It is a bloody straightforward situation - order a few more MKI/used M2k and Tejas - thats it. They can actually have their 42 sqd strength in 10 years.


What if the plan is to expand the IAF.Enough to beat the Bakis and hold the PLAAF to a stalemate simultaneously.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17952
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Karan M » 06 Mar 2017 01:56

32 SQUADRONS on paper. Add 60% serviceable airframes for sustained ops, and you have 19 squadrons.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Mar 2017 02:06

Amoghvarsha wrote:What if the plan is to expand the IAF.Enough to beat the Bakis and hold the PLAAF to a stalemate simultaneously.


That is what the LCA is for - expansion. Expansion based on any brand new import is simply untenable. They do have room for 120-150 imported birds but more than that and you are pushing the boundaries of economic feasibility. This can give them a force of about 42-44 sqds by 2030:

2 sqd Rafale
8 sqd MII fighter
14 sqd MKI
6 sqd LCA
6 sqd Jag
6 sqd M2k + m29
---------------------
Total= 42 sqds

As the Jags retire, replace them concurrently with LCA. As the M29s and M2ks retire, replace them concurrently with Pakfa/JSF/FGFA. As the Su-30 starts to retire in the 40s, replace them with AMCA and FGFA.

Thing is, out of the 8 sqds projected for MII 2021-2030, these could easily be replaced through a few used M2ks, additional Rafale/MKI and LCA. But perhaps the MII fighter will offer strategic diversity and also a hedge against any delays with LCA. Not to mention a hand to local private aero industry in terms of screwdrivergiri competence.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 06 Mar 2017 02:15

GeorgeWelch wrote:Not at all. Manufacturing processes are broadly applicable no matter what it is you're actually manufacturing.

Specifically what does assembly/mfg of the F-16 provide that is not already known/learnt throught the Tejas & Su-30MKI production or otherwise available through consultancy?

For now . . .

If LM's partner demonstrates sufficient skill and efficiency, it's not out of the realm of possibility that future LCA production could be shifted.

That's an exceedingly ridiculous idea. HAL & ADA have spent time, effort and money on learning how to productionalize a new design. And they have an existing (and achievable) target; to spool up Tejas deliveries to 16/yr by 2020 so as to deliver 120 aircraft by 2025-26. They aren't going to stop in the middle, disassemble the production line, mail it to TASL, spend a few years training TASL staff & reassembling the line, and then start production on an aircraft to be delivered two years later.

The ONLY way a pvt sector Tejas line gets set up is if additional orders are placed. And that doesn't happen if F-16s are ordered. And while the Tejas may still have a future delivering low-cost fighters or even trainers to smaller AFs, the F-16 story will end with the IAF.

Same for the Rafale. The difference is that the SH is actually affordable.

That's a deflection. We weren't discussing the Rafale, which for the record, having already been ordered, is more affordable than the SH. The customization is paid for, it'll utilize a common training pipeline, the ground infrastructure for two airbases can accommodate another 2-4 squadrons, and the type can be serviced at an already existing local MRO.

The notion of ordering the F-16 or SH instead of the F-35, still remains asinine. For any country, not just India.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7358
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 06 Mar 2017 03:10

Cain Marko wrote:The above is not the kicker, in fact it is not even an issue.

:D :rotfl: :lol:

Anyways, moving on....

Surya wrote:
srai wrote:Good points!

To add, every new plane (i.e. LCA, Rafale, MKI) that's replacing retiring aircraft (i.e. MiG-21/27) are a huge capability jump from its predecessor. Plus, upgrades are underway for other legacy jets--MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Jaguar. Together these, even with fewer squadrons, add up to way more capability than what the IAF had with its 39.5 squadrons.

not to count Drone strength will go up, add more AARs and AWACS and EW will multiply capability too

Surya wrote:might make more sense to have higher pilot ratio, turnaround time and serviceability to pure numbers

Well said surya and srai. +100 to you both!

I am not even going to talk about Paper NG, because it is pointless. This is onlee about F-Solah.

This 'sanctioned' squadron strength - 42, 39.5 or whatever - is erroneous. Vested interests put those numbers out there to justify importing. I am not against imports per se, but I am against imports that have no viablilty. More on that later. This theory - put forward by the import team - that LM is going to replicate the success at Forth Worth, Texas in India has been debunked on BRF on a number of occassions. But just to summarize --> we are in the RFI stage, there is the RFP stage which has to be evaluated, then there are trials (neither prototype exists), negotiations and finally contract signature. LM themselves have said that it usually takes three years from contract signature to before the first plane is delivered to the customer.

Assuming all the above are completed in two years ( :roll: ) from now, that would mean a contract signature date of ~ March 2019. From that date, the line has to be transferred from Fort Worth, Texas to somewhere in India and production to begin. So now the first plane arrives in March 2022. How low is the IAF's squadron strength going to be at that point? :P

Now on to some minor, but important, details.

1) On the issue of budgets. Setting aside issues of technology transfer (because that is not happening), how much is the GoI willing to invest each year in procuring large numbers of fighters? Assuming that the Indian line (and that is a BIG IF...will explain in the next point) manages to replicate LM's success of 30 aircraft per month, is the GOI willing to pay the entire contract value in less than four months? The most recent Rafale purchase from Sept 2016 has resulted in only just the first payment to Dassault. But each and everyone of those 36 Rafales have to be paid for, before they can be delivered. This is not Russia of the 60s and 70s, where we had the luxury of a protracted payment schedule. As a side note, 30 aircraft per month x 3.5 months = 105 aircraft. The IAF can get 105 aircraft in 3.5 months guys! :wink: No more squadron shortage!

2) On to the issue of the Indian line itself. Assuming the global supplier chain keeps flying in the parts from all over to India, where are you going to find the people - who are competent and knowledgeable - to build these 100 planes? The only people who have any experience in building combat aircraft in India is HAL. So much for the "yarns" on long term employment...because they will be out of a job in 3.5 months! :) Remember, no training on F-Solah assembly can occur until contract signature - which as illustrated above - occurs. So from March 2019 till the line gets transferred to India and is up & running, can training on F-Solah assembly actually occur. When exactly is that supposed to happen?

3) On to the issue of pilots. In addition to a squadron shortage, the IAF has a pilot shortage as well.

The Indian Air Force's Big Problem: Not Enough Pilots!
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/the-indi ... gh-pilots/

The committee takes serious view of the fact that our squadron strength is already short of what has been authorised by the Government and moreover, insufficiency in number of available pilots in the Air Force further deteriorates our operational capabilities.

From where in heaven's name are you going to find qualified pilots to fly these 100 odd phoren planes, when they arrive in 3.5 months, without moving them from current squadrons and hamper the operational capabilities of those squadrons?

4) On to the issue of viability. Assuming 100 F-Solahs are in service by 2022. How long is the IAF planning to use these platforms for? 20 years? 30 years? 40 years? The M2Ks the IAF is upgrading is expected to remain in service for another 15 years or so. That puts a retirement date in the early 2030s. Remember, they were inducted in 1985. That is ~ 47 years of service for the M2K. How viable are these 100 F-Solahs going to be in 2062...just 40 years from 2022? What is their survivability against the Chinese stealth platforms of that time?

5) On to the issue of squadron shortage. What surya said above makes far better sense. Focus on increasing the pilot ratio, turnaround time and serviceability. Secondly, as surya stated again, induction of drones, adding more AARs and AWACS and EW platforms will multiply capability. Also as srai rightfully said, every new plane that's replacing retiring aircraft are a huge capability jump from its predecessor. Even with fewer squadrons, they add up to way more capability than what the IAF had with its 39.5 squadrons.

Hammering on this "42 squadron strength" theory reminds me of the third 2012 US Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. In it, President Obama responded to Mitt Romney's statement of the US Navy having fewer ships in 2012 vs 1917. In response to that, President Obama said, "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1917. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. So the question is not a game of battleship where we're counting ships. It is what are our capabilities?"

What President Obama said about capabilites ties in so beautifully with what srai said about capabilites. At the end of the day, having 42 squadrons is no use if they are impotent.

The above - what srai and surya advocated - are far better strategies to focus on, than importing 100 F-Solahs which the IAF will have to reinvent the wheel again.

saptarishi
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 05 May 2007 01:20
Location: ghaziabad
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby saptarishi » 06 Mar 2017 03:35

Image F-16 BLOCK 70 COCKPIT

Image GRIPEN E COCKPIT

both have advanced cockpit, radar and ew .

Image F-16's APG-83 AESA

Image GRIPEN E's ES-05 Raven AESA

Image F-16 BLOCK 70'S IRST 21 on LEGION POD

Image

Image F-16 BLOCK 70'S HMD JHMCS II

ImageGRIPEN E'S HMD TARGO

Image F-16 BLOCK 70

Image GRIPEN E

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7358
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 06 Mar 2017 03:58

saptarishi: thanks for the glossy brochures, but can you not post links to the pics?

It looks like an advertisement for fighters in here :)

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 06 Mar 2017 05:02

Much rather go for F-18 SH and drive towards a common answer for IAF and IN.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 06 Mar 2017 05:38

Karan M wrote:32 SQUADRONS on paper. Add 60% serviceable airframes for sustained ops, and you have 19 squadrons.


Right but what is that availability number now? Especially for some Mig-21/23/27 squadrons?

GhalibKabir
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 12 Jan 2017 09:13

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GhalibKabir » 06 Mar 2017 06:45

The scenario that @rohitvats has lined out seems the most plausible one to me. most likely we will have an arrangement resembling but not same as the one we have for the MiGs and the Su-30 MKI. We will do what could admittedly be F-16 assembly giri of CKDs initially moving to SKDs later. (not nice but it is a question of needs I assume to field a competent 'medium' fighter in decent numbers)

With Trump, (IMHO at least), 40-50 F-16s off the shelf from Forth Worth parallelly matched by construction of an assembly line in India to make CKDs and later SKDs with more India made components (as the supplier ecosystem grows) totalling 150 F-16s is possible. else there is no way we can replace all those MiG 21s and 27s retiring in 2025. (my hunch is the F-16s separately could lead to a F-35 deal later for IAC-2 with LM of course)

ideal would have been LCA Mk1A/2 lines getting set up simultaneously and jets added to IAF fleet in Block 1/2/ etc ala the Gripen. The Gripen's development saga is sometimes not given due weightage in our media who bash domestic efforts all the time.. 200-300 LCA Mk2s with 150 Mk1As would be a very potent CAP fighters (enough for the JF-17s and J-10s with their 2052 AESAs, Derby ER and Python-Vs). @rohitvats, my sense is that at the end of the day SAAB could not have delivered on the engine front and (also on the radar front to a lesser extent), considering help with engine tech was a key aim in the MMRCA deal, no wonder SAAB's promises ring hollow on that front. The rest of the stuff like a Gripen UCAV and Sea Gripen is frankly a non-starter against the F-16 and F-35 (with all the downsides of dealing with unkil sam included).

The MRO angle is something we don't see much in media, but that is both a money spinner and a critical asset in helping improve the domestic manufacturing base with beneficial spillovers to other manufacturing as well.

The truth is we are going to have struggle internally/do industrial espionage or a combo of both to master engine technology. If Russia and France have not helped, there is no chance LM or Boeing will

PS: I for one don't know how targeting consulting advice by Safran etc could have helped, what ever money paid, I assume somethings are just not going to be shared.
Last edited by GhalibKabir on 06 Mar 2017 07:33, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4122
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 06 Mar 2017 06:57

Cybaru wrote:
Karan M wrote:32 SQUADRONS on paper. Add 60% serviceable airframes for sustained ops, and you have 19 squadrons.


Right but what is that availability number now? Especially for some Mig-21/23/27 squadrons?


I don't think serviceability is going to improve by adding yet another type to the mix ;)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 06 Mar 2017 07:08

Cain Marko wrote:The non bison 21s and older 27s were never in the picture for a reason.


I am assuming, based on the rest of the para in that post, you do not have an idea, so to anyone else, what is the reason?

Cain Marko wrote:While BR numbers might be dated, it matters not because your conclusion is the same as mine. By around 2022-24, all that is lost over that period will be gained for a total of about 34 sqds.


As a FYI, that URL was updated Feb 17, 2017. Do not know if that changes any of your thinking/logic.

Cain Marko wrote:The above is not the kicker, in fact it is not even an issue.


OK, your explanation sounds good. I can live with that.

However, here is mine.

All the upgrades were from the Saint's era. However, I think they (MoD + IAF + IN) have determined that these planes will not live up to the threats of the future. So, similar to your justification of the non-Bison MiG-21 and old MiG-27s, so too they will perhaps retain these machines, but will not count them.

There are multiple reports that Modi has offered to buy 200 "single engine" air crafts. In fact the same reports claim that the numbers could go up to 300!!!!

Now if the story that GoI has sanctioned a 3rd line is true, then the game changes WRT the "single engine" air craft. I would assume the F-16 is not coming and they do not want the Gripen (which I think is just a bargaining chip).

So, come 2030, my projection is:

Heavy
MKI: 17 squads

Medium:
Rafale: 3
"single engine": 15 (this assumes only the F-16 is in contention)

Light:
LCA: 8

IF the F-16 does not come, then the LCA will be increased to about 20 squads. (As I have posted many a time, the F-16 IMHO is tied to the GE engine with 110 kN thrust, for the AMCA. The last time I checked GE claimed they are instructing their B'luru division (of 700 engineers) to start working with ADA). I expect an announcement around Oct of this year - yes or no.

I do not expect either the MK2 nor the FGFA to come.

IF the F-16 comes, then I expect them to stop the LCA acquisition at the current numbers and fund the AMCA to the hilt - I expect this as early as July, 2017. :wink:

I was expecting the F-18 SH via MII, but I have no clue what happens now - since it will not be sold to the US, it is still a possibility, IMHO. IF that happens, then Boeing will be roped in for the AMCA and GE for the engine. A naval version will soon follow.

I am betting that the MoD + IAF + IN want to bury the Anthony era.

On the AMCA: an absolute bare bone prototype by 2020, 3-4 progressive tech demos by 2025. Closely followed by production models - which may not have all the features at the start. The first three models will use the GE F414 INS6 engines. So, I expect the enhanced engine (IF it comes) around 2022ish.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4122
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 06 Mar 2017 07:16

Rakesh, Surya,

Good points.

  • Quality vs Quantity
  • Capability gap vs Numbers gap
  • Future vs Past
  • Standardization vs "Zoo" of aircraft types and munitions
  • Force Multipliers vs Platform-centric shooters
  • Holistic Life-cycle costs management vs "Ad hoc" inventory management
  • Manpower-to-platform ratio
  • Indigenous vs Import
  • Public vs Private
  • Plan A vs Plan B/C/D
  • Strategic independence vs Dependence
  • Knowledge/Technological leader vs "hand-me-down" legacy end-user
Last edited by srai on 06 Mar 2017 10:47, edited 2 times in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4122
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 06 Mar 2017 07:28

NRao wrote:...

IF the F-16 comes, then I expect them to stop the LCA acquisition at the current numbers and fund the AMCA to the hilt - I expect this as early as July, 2017. :wink:

...


Why would AMCA would get funding? Why won't they just "progress" to the JSF instead? That's the best way to re-live the "Marut" experience.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby manjgu » 06 Mar 2017 07:47

Rakesh..about your argument that new a/c have greater capability than the old ones...u forget that even the enemys capability/quality of a/c is increasing. so numbers are important.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7358
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 06 Mar 2017 07:48

srai: your comment on Plan A vs Plan B/C/D just reminded me of something.

Do you remember the IAF always said there never was a Plan B :lol:

Well what happened now! Plan B/C/D are all there. What a joke this is.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests