'Make in India' Single engined fighter

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

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

Postby vina » 11 Oct 2016 18:35

shiv wrote:In my opinion fiddling with HAL to magically increase its production are ideas that are bound to fail because it is like having enough bricks to build one house but trying to rearrange and redistribute those bricks to build two houses. Everyone, HAL and IAF included are saying this openly and clearly.

We need a new line. A new private line in a country where the private industry has never done it can only mean a 100% (or 90%) foreign owned entity that assembles in India, employs Indians, supplies to India and others.
.


This is not about a new line. If we wanted a 2nd line for the LCA, why there are consultants dime a dozen out there who could help a private guy setup a line and produce the LCA. I am talking top tier guys like Eurofighter, BAE, Northrop Grumman and a host of 2nd rung guys like Embrear to guys from Korea and Japan who have fighter lines , assembly and ecosystem experience. There really is no need to import another plane if that was the reason.

Why, HAL itself could roll out 25 planes a year if they de-bottleneck it and outsource some of the work to private guys (as the HAL CEO himself says and roll out 250 airframes upwards in 10 years).

There are specialised consultants out there exactly to help out with this kind of thing as well. So, lack of experience can be filled in without too much trouble subject to political clearance from Unkil and India.

That however, is not the intent of this entire thing. It is about quid pro quo, strategic alignment, and of course try to get major vendors in to help out with tech gaps where they exist today (which are in engine materials, design and testing and also in sensors --materials and manufacturing) . Also, serves a political purpose of Make In India, creates jobs, and also makes headlines if Indian made fighters are exported outside (think auto industry .. Ford, Nissan, Hyundai etc.).

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 11 Oct 2016 18:50

Viv S wrote:Because unlike the Samsung, the F-16/Gripen don't actually cost 1/3rd of the F-35. Because even the Rafale is more expensive today. Because even when its functioning at less than 'full exploitation', it'll dominate every 4.5 gen fighter out there (including the Rafale, EF & Su-35) and wipe the floor with older 4th gen types. And because its the only fighter in production today that can operate against the latest gen of jam-resistant AESA based area denial weapon systems fielded by the Chinese (particularly AWACS & triple digit SAMs).


I am sure IAF has a plane even without F35. We are buying FGFA as well right??

I don't buy this sweeping argument that F35 will dominate everything 4/4.5th gen. In its eco-system on home turf, perhaps, but not as lone wolf or in a half integrated environment. Even USAF banks on F22 for initial SEAD/DEAD missions and for Aerial dominance.

The most sensible assessment of F35 vs other fighters I have seen so far is this: F35 will in all probability avoid contact with super manoeuvrable fighters (assuming it can positive id it from long range) and call in F22 and let it engage the enemy.

I
Except that Israel isn't making any compromises. Its jets will be every bit as capable as the US ones and a good deal more capable than any Eurocanard. As for the question of 'what cost'... try same or similar cost ($450 mil). May even be lower since we might be able piggy-back off much of the Israeli customization (seeing as our ODL & SDRs are of Israeli-origin). We'll be paying just as much (if not more) to customize the F-16 or Gripen too.


Point was quantity needed for India is much more. $450mil per plane and we can barely afford 2-4 Sq. Also I am not talking about only linking comms. F35 stores its mission data on cloud. There must be a large scale sensor fused data received from multiple F35s and other systems such as AWACS, ground based RADARs etc giving a broad level picture of the theatre which can be accessed by all the forces and allies, everything being updated in real time and synchronised. I am talking of this kind of integration. If a F35 has a target in sigh and out of missile, it could easily command missile from another completely different plane say F16 or even from a SAM. I am not sure if it can already do that, but I am sure thats where they are heading.
Last edited by JayS on 11 Oct 2016 19:00, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 11 Oct 2016 18:54

vina wrote:
shiv wrote:In my opinion fiddling with HAL to magically increase its production are ideas that are bound to fail because it is like having enough bricks to build one house but trying to rearrange and redistribute those bricks to build two houses. Everyone, HAL and IAF included are saying this openly and clearly.

We need a new line. A new private line in a country where the private industry has never done it can only mean a 100% (or 90%) foreign owned entity that assembles in India, employs Indians, supplies to India and others.
.



That however, is not the intent of this entire thing. It is about quid pro quo, strategic alignment, and of course try to get major vendors in to help out with tech gaps where they exist today (which are in engine materials, design and testing and also in sensors --materials and manufacturing) . Also, serves a political purpose of Make In India, creates jobs, and also makes headlines if Indian made fighters are exported outside (think auto industry .. Ford, Nissan, Hyundai etc.).


I agree with Vina here. Its not about building MIC, or numbers in IAF. That could have been done with LCA itself. Its about MII. I have a reason to agree with Vina. I have heard pretty much the same from some one else.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Oct 2016 19:29

vina wrote:That however, is not the intent of this entire thing. It is about quid pro quo, strategic alignment, and of course try to get major vendors in to help out with tech gaps where they exist today (which are in engine materials, design and testing and also in sensors --materials and manufacturing) . Also, serves a political purpose of Make In India, creates jobs, and also makes headlines if Indian made fighters are exported outside (think auto industry .. Ford, Nissan, Hyundai etc.).

When I think auto industry I am reminded of something I saw in the last day or two. India is heading towards becoming world's third largest automobile manufacturer (or some such ranking) - up about 1000% in 20 years. Our country is big and we have a huge internal market that we must satisfy by employing Indians in at least part of the manufacturing chain

Make in India is IMO only partly a political purpose - insofar as Modi promoted it. But it is essential. We need to employ a huge mass of Indians in factories and as service personnel for factory employees and their families - from chowkidars to bus drivers to canteen boys to shopkeepers, linesmen, plumbers gardeners, school teachers, tuition class runners, banks. Even prostitutes I guess. That is what an ecosystem consists of, but for that we need a "seed". If that seed comes in the form of "make in India" so be it.

This is not "defence" directly but is a strategic move. Hopefully it will be to the benefit of the Air Force and let PSUs work on what they have set themselves out to do and let others do other stuff

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66602
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 11 Oct 2016 19:49

Seems like Solah is it. Opens way for tejas or any other proj to integrate more massa building blocks.

Hope it comes with a 99 year signed permit of panchsheel and non alignment by massa as we set about dismantling tsp permanently.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 11 Oct 2016 20:04

I don't buy this sweeping argument that F35 will dominate everything 4/4.5th gen. In its eco-system on home turf, perhaps, but not as lone wolf or in a half integrated environment. Even USAF banks on F22 for initial SEAD/DEAD missions and for Aerial dominance.

The most sensible assessment of F35 vs other fighters I have seen so far is this: F35 will in all probability avoid contact with super manoeuvrable fighters (assuming it can positive id it from long range) and call in F22 and let it engage the enemy.


No fighter fights alone (except in discussions/arguments etc) or is evaluated without taking other things into considerations. The F-22 and F-35 are analogous to the F-15 and F-16 but with the current and emerging threats in mind. The F-35 is more than capable of handling the air-air threats within this construct, just as the emergence of the Su-27, 30 etc didn't hinder the modernization and procurement of the F-16/M2K either in the US, Asia or Europe. However compared to the F-16 (vis a vis the F-15) the F-35 sheds the former's LWF legacy and provides plenty of SWaP for mission systems and mission system growth.

In that case, the Rafale and the F/A-18 E/F are in a similar boat vis-a-vis their primary operators. They too, much like the F-16 and the F-35 are multi-role aircraft designed to perform (and rather well) multiple missions with wide ranging scope. The rafale is the sole aircraft developed, and acquired by its primary operator and it too, much like the F-35 replaces all outgoing fighter types in France's inventory.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Oct 2016 20:11, edited 10 times in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 11 Oct 2016 20:05

I am not so sure that the F16 is a given. I still think it is a toss up at this stage between the F16 and the Gripen. From the standpoint of MII and building an ecosystem I think the F16 is superior, because LM'S resources to deliver and financial capability is greater. Also from a financial standpoint, the cost of building the F16 ecosystem less the revenues to be earned from it by LM making India the sole sourcing point for F16s going forward means IMO that the net cost to India will be competitive. But as pointed out by somebody, the IAF appears to want the Gripen. The ACM went on this very public visit to Sweden and flew it. Also the IAF somehow believes that because Pakistan flies a variant (admittedly older) of the F16 that the IAF can therefore never fly it. Wonder why that does not apply to the SU-30MKI? So I think GOI will want to go for the F16, the question is will they listen to the IAF viewpoint for the Gripen or will the F16 be thrust down the IAF's throat?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 11 Oct 2016 20:09

This picture cannot be painted with old paint. Not even possible.

There are - at least - two components to this picture:
* the IAF (who needs air crafts - desperately) and
*the MIC (as it relates to air crafts)
The current decisions need to be seen from both these views at the very same time.

Internet, so it will not come across well, but here goes:
I do not believe that the importing of any single engine air craft will "kill the LCA". The reason, IMHO, being that the "LCA" has reached its natural end. The "LCA" (there are 3 models IMHO, below) has come in late for the IAF to take it seriously and for the MIC it is a bite too big to chew. Par for the course, it had to happen this way to establish a proper, robust, mature MIC. There is really no other way.

The "LCA", currently, has 3 models (with my comments)

* LCA - a tech demo, learning platform for the MIC and a plane that the IAF does nto want, but bought to keep the line moving (which is commendable)
* LCA-1A - a better tech demo and a plane that kept the LCA from being shelved for the MIC, a compromise, acceptable craft for the IAF
* LCA-II - the real deal for both the MIC and the IAF. A thought through, efficient, relatively complete product

LCA-II >>>> LCA-1 > LCA

So, I do not see the LCA-II as part of the IAF - too late and the MIC has better things to do than to re-brand a product that will not bring too much to the table. And, therefore I do not know why one would ask for more LCA/LCA-1As - these are not products that either the MIC nor the IAF would consider to be complete in any way.


I think the MIC + IAF will now focus on the AMCA - and rightly so (IMHO). Nothing is getting "killed".

IF at all, India should start a companion ALCA (advanced) and a naval AMCA efforts - patterned after the AMCA.





I see the "imports" in a diff light and do not see them as a threat to the home efforts. If done properly they should help the Indian MIC.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66602
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 11 Oct 2016 20:13

Embraer of brazil has deep integration into american amd eu ecosystem. Pretty much all the high tech pieces of embraer planes are either imports or made in brazil by the oem or licensee.

They even take after hal in having flower pots in their factory

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

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

Postby vina » 11 Oct 2016 20:35

Singha wrote:Embraer of brazil has deep integration into american amd eu ecosystem. Pretty much all the high tech pieces of embraer planes are either imports or made in brazil by the oem or licensee.

They even take after hal in having flower pots in their factory


In fact, if the politics is straightened out, it is not a bad thing at all.

Let me repost something I posted long ago viewtopic.php?p=1031012#p1030630

Gurneesh wrote:
LCA already uses r-73, so i guess ruskies would not have too much problem with R-77 either (specially when MMR radar is already fixed and it is either sell BVR missiles to LCA or nothing).

If I am not wrong then, R77 is much better than Derby (even performance wise). Gurus clarify...


vina wrote:I was watching the webcast of the AI seminar by two IAF folks on upgrading legacy Eastern fighters. They talked specifically about the Mig 27 upgrade.

Seems like that most soviet fighters don't have a data bus and a specific protocol.

In fact, the Russians were highly secretive about sharing the R-73 interface with the ADA and wanted some massive amount of money and said that they would do it for us! I think the ADA managed to fix it and integrate it, not sure, how much of the total functionality is available if done without the interface knowledge from the OEM /weapon makers.

Atleast with a heat seeking fire and forget missile, it is easier. With an active /passive radar guided missile like the R-77/R-73, the task is much harder becuase there needs to be lot of data sharing and communication between the radar and missile and unless you know the full interface, very difficiult to do.

That is why it is always better to go with a defined standard like the MIL 1533 (data bus) and the pylons and stores interface protocols per NATO/ IEEE whatever. That way, you can integrate an off the shelf missile that the OEM confirms and guarantees that it conforms to the standard with atleast the published and well known functionality of that particular standard.

Sure, if you go to the OEM and ask them for an R-77 with a MIL std interface, you will get one today. But I doubt the R77 in the IAF inventory would actually have that kind of thing as of today. Integrating that with any IT/Vity controlled weapons bus is a separate project in itself!

No need to run around chasing our own tail. There are very good and competitive BVR missiles out there (even the Meteor is an option) that will integrate and work off the box with reference to the standard interface. Far better to go with one of those (MICA, AMRAAM, Meteor etc) than a long in the tooth and doddering R-77 whose interface the Russians dont want to share!


vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

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

Postby vina » 11 Oct 2016 20:54

Also check what I wrote to El-Enqyoob-Ud-Din-Al-Gas-Turbine many moons ago here. viewtopic.php?p=721263#p721679

Quoting from a part of what I wrote

Ok. This is where I get serious. You are right in that there are structural problems as the orgs are right now.
The bad blood between GTRE and HAL are rooted in history and goes back to decades. HAL has been the dog in the manger all along and since they control a large budget via the manufacturing, they have absolutely no interest in any fundamental research either.

See, in the Soviet model we copied, the design org (Mikoyan, Sukhoi )etc are SEPARATE from the building orgs (Irkuts, KNAAPO, RSK) etc. The latter just assemble do some small modificiations while the fundamental design and R&D are with the design orgs. The traditional western model is each individual company (McDonne, General Dyn, Lockheed, Grumman , Hawker, BAE , Dassault etc) being more market led the manufacturing was LINKED and integral to the design.

Now in India, we adopted the worst of both worlds. In Soviet land, the DESIGN orgs had the power, prestiged budget. In India, we got it ass backwards. HAL got the money and power (because they handled large manufacturing, workforce and infra and could be used to dole out pelf and patronage and were prestige show cases) and being a assembly /manufacturing shop after Marut was killed , it basically killed all R&D as well.

The LCA program has basically resurrected design expertise in India, sort of like a Pheonix from the ashes. What has been achieved is basically very very creditable. If GTRE has a working engine which is 5 years short of reaching latest F414 /EJ200/M88 performance levels (which can be done if we tap into the global material base since we are Nuke Kosher and are also near Munna/Allie), that is a great achievement.

Going forward we need to do the following.

1)Break up HAL into three companies Aircraft Company , Avionics Company and Engine Company.
2) Merge the Engine Company with GTRE
3) Grant entry for the private sector and other competent PSUs and create a credible competitor for each of the Aircraft, Avionics and Engine Companies
4) Use the MRCA project to do this. The MRCA should ABSOLUTELY NOT go to the Russians PRECISELY for that reason. We will have CLONE of the Sovietized HAL , even if the contract goes to the private sector. Get a western plane in and get the airframe made by someone like Tata/L&T , the Avionics by a host of IT/Vity guys and the Engine by say even BHEL /L&T/Someone Else who is willing to invest

5) No 4 will be a swift kick to the nuts of HAL and wake them up .
6) With that base we will have a truly COMPETITVE ecosystem for aerospace (both civil and military) in India and that is when we will see something different and better results than in the past.


What we will REALLY end up doing.
1) HAL will be the "designated" agency for the MRCA offsets and will continue to be the hide bound uncompetitive monolith with terrible performance as it continues (think LCA radar), with it getting work even if it has no competency in any area.

2) Mantris/ Babus will be loath to let go of all the cash flow and controlt that comes with having a gignatic ops with little competition. They will fight tooth and nail against letting in either private competition or other competent PSU competition.

3) We will fix the LCA with foreign help, maybe get the Arjun in service etc. But the system will be fundamentally flawed and structurally bad and we will muddle along as always.


Hmm.. Looks like parts of what I wrote are coming about. Looks like a private guy will get entry via the MMRCA/detritus of that and we did manage to fix the LCA with the Isreali help in radar.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3536
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Paul » 11 Oct 2016 21:09

In defense of Manohar Parrikar who appears to have thought this out as early as the day the 126 Rafale negotiations were scrapped, he asked the private sector to come forward and take up the task of setting up an assembly line to manufacture the LCA promising an order of no less than 200 LCA aircraft, but no company not even the Tatas would take up the challenge of taking on the MOD bureaucracies and the HAL/NAL mafias.

One more reason why the Americans will win this most likely is that only they have the heft to give the private sector the muscle to take on the mafias and the babus. With this project taking off, we will most likely have a second option for the country to turn to other than HAL. They may take AMCA production responsibilities also.

The French and the Russians have been taking us for a ride for too long, particularly the Russians to whom we pay hard cash and bring credibility to their weapon systems.

The biggest losers in this will be the French who at most have won a consolation prize in the 36 Rafales. Now they have to fight the Americans who are back in the race.

Also, last but not the least. Putin will be furious. Be prepared to see SU 35s in PAF colors!!!

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

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

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Oct 2016 21:20

ldev wrote:I am not so sure that the F16 is a given. I still think it is a toss up at this stage between the F16 and the Gripen. From the standpoint of MII and building an ecosystem I think the F16 is superior, because LM'S resources to deliver and financial capability is greater. Also from a financial standpoint, the cost of building the F16 ecosystem less the revenues to be earned from it by LM making India the sole sourcing point for F16s going forward means IMO that the net cost to India will be competitive. But as pointed out by somebody, the IAF appears to want the Gripen. The ACM went on this very public visit to Sweden and flew it. Also the IAF somehow believes :evil: that because Pakistan flies a variant (admittedly older) of the F16 that the IAF can therefore never fly it. Wonder why that does not apply to the SU-30MKI? So I think GOI will want to go for the F16, the question is will they listen to the IAF viewpoint for the Gripen or will the F16 be thrust down the IAF's throat?


Ldev, has the AF actually indicated this directly, straight from the horse's mouth as such? Iirc previous ACMs might have flown vipers too.

If they can procure the solah as a low-end, stop gap type, it holds up well. Not as an mmrca type mind you and it will falter vis a vis mrca requirements against the likes of the phoon or raffles, but as smrca, it will be top of the line, bordering medium levels just as the raffles holds up somewhat against a heavy like the mki.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

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

Postby LokeshC » 11 Oct 2016 21:43

Ecosystem wise, from my limited experience, a more developed ecosystem will be difficult to "Make in India", since the local ecosystem will have to compete with the already mature external one. Unless there is a strong political will that sees to it that the local ecosystem catches up with the external one, there is little hope of the local ecosystem scaling up and meeting the challenge.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 11 Oct 2016 22:14

I don't think anyone in the IAF has stated that the IAF will not use F-16s because Pakistan has them. In the 60s we had Canberras and the Pakis had the US variant - the B-57. Both air forces use the Mi 17. Both use the Alouette II. Both use the C-130. Both use variants of the MiG 21

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3536
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Paul » 11 Oct 2016 22:17

or the F-7 the Chinese variant of the MIG 21.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3858
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 11 Oct 2016 22:31

F 16< F 35 < Tejas MK A because we can make them (mostly) without Umreekan help. 200 Tejas not flying because of over production is better than 100 F 35 not flying because of link failure from very trustworthy Umreeka under global Statesman/ Stateswoman that will rule Umreeka.

If IAF crash 01 F 35 then the amount of dollar lost will be equivalent to Rupees spent on 04 Tejas. India should make a boneyard of Tejas if IAF is hesitating. Make 04 lines of Tejas assembly - one in each corner of India. Make more if that is what is needed

This is my most considered opinion.

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

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

Postby Bhaskar_T » 11 Oct 2016 22:48

So in case of India-Pakistan war, what's the deal? US gives spares and weapons to both India and Pakistan or to none. Do you folks expect that something on these lines will be in contract?

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 11 Oct 2016 22:48

Cain Marko wrote:Ldev, has the AF actually indicated this directly, straight from the horse's mouth as such? Iirc previous ACMs might have flown vipers too.


Articles here and there...e.g.

Why IAF chief wants gripen over american f-16 and f-18

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, India’s Air Force chief, has fired the first salvo in the ongoing process of selecting second fighter jet to be manufactured in India just when India and France concluded a deal for purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jet for the Indian Air force . Raha when asked by Media which fighter aircraft, Air force could prefer to be made in India with Transfer of Technology , he admitted his first choice will always be Dassault Rafale fighter jets and preferred Swedish Gripen E fighter over American legacy F-16 and F-18 fighter jets which too are competing for a deal for 90 aircraft. Raha earlier this year on a five-day tour of Sweden held discussions on cooperation in aerospace and defence between the two countries and also flew Gripen D at the Saab’s facility at Linkoping in Sweden and visibly seemed impressed by SAAB’s proposal offer to set up manufacturing units for combat aircraft in India. Raha termed Gripen fighter of later generation than F-16 and F-18 and hinted aircraft has better growth prospect than American offer of F-16 and F-18 which are now getting overtaken by 5th Generation F-35 fighter jet both in USAF and US Navy and are considered as legacy aircraft’s since they were the first block of fighter class which were categorised 4th Generation when they were introduced way back in mid 70’s . While Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar might still like to say that final decision is still wide open but India’s recent tilt towards the USA had opened opportunity for India to operate first American made Fighter jets in its Combat History but Raha doesn’t seem that interested in American legacy fighter offerings and clearly has spoken his mind, on his choice of aircraft but class and technology similarity in comparison to indigenously developed LCA-Tejas might have deterred him from openly endorsing Gripen ,since at the end he did say that India will take final call on selection after considering all aspects like Transfer of Technology and aircraft capabilities,leaving enough breathing space for his political bosses.


Shukla has written something similar. Now I cannot figure out whether Shukla is pushing the Gripen for personal reasons or whether the ACM/IAF is using Shukla to push their preference for the Gripen!!.

IAF kicks of contest to make single engine fighter


Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter.


So let us see if the IAF's Gripen preference will be given consideration or whether LM will prevail.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4833
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

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

Postby Karthik S » 11 Oct 2016 22:51

shiv wrote:I don't think anyone in the IAF has stated that the IAF will not use F-16s because Pakistan has them. In the 60s we had Canberras and the Pakis had the US variant - the B-57. Both air forces use the Mi 17. Both use the Alouette II. Both use the C-130. Both use variants of the MiG 21


Primary reservation to F-16s IIRC, was at that time US was giving them to the pakis free of cost and we didn't want to sponsor that donation through our purchase of the very same planes. Nevertheless, we went on to buy other planes from the US.

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

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

Postby Bhaskar_T » 11 Oct 2016 22:52

May be ACM did the Sweden trip only to push Dassault lower the price of Rafales plus also to push F-16/F-18 quotes lower. In past, it has appeared many times that Parrikar ji has used bit of this psyche.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 11 Oct 2016 23:25

How has F-16 fared against Gripen in joint exercises , DACT etc ...they have have done many exercises together

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 11 Oct 2016 23:26

My tea leaves indicate that if a foreign single engines fighter comes, it will be the Gripen.

Anyways, I just wanted to clarify a few confusions that some posters have expressed.

SP001 to SP010ish : IOC standard, but not all components are interchangeable.
SP010ish to SP020 : IOC standard, production stabilized, components interchangeable.
SP020 to SP040 : FOC standard, BVR missiles integrated and refueling probe added.
SP040 to SP120 : Mk1A standard, optimized layout, lower empty weight, AESA radar, external EW pod.

SP001 to SP040 can all be retrofitted to near-Mk1A standard, i.e. the refueling probe, radar, weaponry and EW pod can be added, but the structural changes for easy maintenance and lighter empty weight cannot.

1. Mk1A will be a very contemporary aircraft. They can more than hold their own against the JF-17s/J-10s/F-16s that our enemies will throw against us.
2. Stop wasting cycles and money to get foreign technology when the same is available inhouse. Spend them instead to get the desi tech out of desi-monopolies. For this money has to be spent to replicate the infrastructure within DPSUs/DRDO outside. GoI should subsidize these. They have to favour private companies over DPSUs for the moment. The have to break the nexus of DPSUs/MoD/forces babus who write the tenders with modalities that effectively don't allow private companies to compete.
3. No imported plan gives you as much strategic advantage as your domestic plane. Stop fitting the curve.

The above three points is what I seek from my beloved Modi Sarkaar and DM Parrikar. You have showed balls of steel elsewhere. Now show it here.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1173
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 11 Oct 2016 23:50

It is possible that GoI is of the opinion that LCA production is so messed up that they need a back up ready. Deciding on another fighter will take a couple of years and by that time if LCA does not pick up steam then it will be ordered. Or another possibility is that USA is being asked to throw F-35 in the ring.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 12 Oct 2016 00:22

Gripen will get us nothing that we can't develop ourselves if we put in a few years and little money.

Ask LM if instead of the F-16, if they would like to produce KFX-E proposal (which is based on the F-16) in India. If yes, instead of the uncertainty in S. Korea, here is a certain order for 126 aircraft. Negotiate the price.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 12 Oct 2016 00:49

deejay wrote:F 16< F 35 < Tejas MK A because we can make them (mostly) without Umreekan help. 200 Tejas not flying because of over production is better than 100 F 35 not flying because of link failure from very trustworthy Umreeka under global Statesman/ Stateswoman that will rule Umreeka.

If IAF crash 01 F 35 then the amount of dollar lost will be equivalent to Rupees spent on 04 Tejas. India should make a boneyard of Tejas if IAF is hesitating. Make 04 lines of Tejas assembly - one in each corner of India. Make more if that is what is needed

This is my most considered opinion.


+250+

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5225
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Oct 2016 01:34

indranilroy wrote:1. Mk1A will be a very contemporary aircraft. They can more than hold their own against the JF-17s/J-10s/F-16s that our enemies will throw against us.
2. Stop wasting cycles and money to get foreign technology when the same is available inhouse. Spend them instead to get the desi tech out of desi-monopolies. For this money has to be spent to replicate the infrastructure within DPSUs/DRDO outside. GoI should subsidize these. They have to favour private companies over DPSUs for the moment. The have to break the nexus of DPSUs/MoD/forces babus who write the tenders with modalities that effectively don't allow private companies to compete.
3. No imported plan gives you as much strategic advantage as your domestic plane. Stop fitting the curve.

The above three points is what I seek from my beloved Modi Sarkaar and DM Parrikar. You have showed balls of steel elsewhere. Now show it here.
+1. Also, if numbers have to filled in interim, while we sort things out, acquire some Mig 29K/35 - they are good enough for any immediate threats, have the needed range, low capital costs, higher operational costs BUT WILL DO THE JOB OF FILLING INTERIM NUMBERS. Dump them, once you have alternatives but do not allow a single engined western plane into the mix!!

Vamsi_V
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 26 Sep 2016 09:20

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

Postby Vamsi_V » 12 Oct 2016 03:13

Why add another fighter type into IAF we already have too many types of fighters. At least in the future we should standardize on a few fighters right?
I think we should build more Tejas instead of wasting our money on another completely new fighter.

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 » 12 Oct 2016 03:28

indranilroy wrote:Gripen will get us nothing that we can't develop ourselves if we put in a few years and little money.

Ask LM if instead of the F-16, if they would like to produce KFX-E proposal (which is based on the F-16) in India. If yes, instead of the uncertainty in S. Korea, here is a certain order for 126 aircraft. Negotiate the price.


If asked, LM will gladly say yes. The debate is quite heated in SOKO:

"Heated debates from KIDA, KAI, and the Korea Defense and Security Forum over the higher costs of developing a twin-engine fighter, the potential difficulty in selling it abroad, and that higher costs would block creation of indigenous avionics and force the adoption of foreign systems were countered by Air Force and ADD arguments that Indonesian support will lower costs during mass production, most technologies were already created independently, and that a larger aircraft has more room for upgrades. The initial design is to be a 4.5 generation fighter with a 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)+ payload, with the KF-X Block 2 having an internal weapons bay, and the Block 3 having stealth features comparable to the F-35 Lightning II or B-2 Spirit. Initial operating capability (IOC) is scheduled for 2025, two years later than previously expected."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_KF-X

IMHO, LM would love to have India in and I doubt SOKO would object and, would certainly spread the costs of R&D but I'd bet the KFX-E/ADD would still come in higher (and later) on unit basis than the F-35 given production runs. The IAF would have to wait until 2025 (realistically 2027-30 for Block 3) or for 3-7 years after it retires some 400 fighters. And, then it would get the features and capabilities that the F-35 has today. Given our penchant for wanting things that will exist tomorrow, who knows? SOKO is not as dysfunctional as we are so they are also ordering F-35s.

I think the real question to ask LM is whether they would establish a second F-35 line India. I'd bet they'd say "Sure! but it will be more than the ~$75-80MM unit cost ex-DFW because we will incur full (undepreciated) capital costs for the second line. So the more your order upfront, the lower the unit cost and we're no longer talking 100 a/c as the threshold..."

Modi & co are more interested in creating high value manufacturing jobs in India and less in doing R&D. Defense spending can drive that because it won't face the same opposition that steel mills, car plants and other manufacturing does because politicians want farmers' votes.

Somewhere in their f-16 proposal LM will talk about 'naturally transitioning' to the F-35. They said it in 2005 at the very start of the MMRCA process. Reading my tea leaves I'd say LM will get the order for F-16s and SAAB will be offered majority FDI in a LCA plant they run with a firm order for 200+ LCAs.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 12 Oct 2016 03:55

The negotiations for acquiring the F-35 will take a decade.Of course by that time the aircraft's future would be well known.We will,as usual,like the Hawk trainer,be the last nation on earth to acquireF-16s (as some "back to the future" wallahs want).I don't think anyone else either will buy the Rafale.Too damned expensive.
M2Ks were the last modern western fighter which we bought.

The only contemp top of the order birds we've ever got have been from Russia.Mig21/25/27/29s,MKIs and now the FGFA, hopefully a deal which will be sealed shortly.There is little chance of Pak getting SU-35s,China likely,but not the FGFA/T-50.Pak simply does not have the clout that India has in every sphere.Economic,military,diplomatic.Putin is not a fool to dump a relationship with India that has lasted for 60 years to a loser like Pak,which needs regular doses of mil steroids and eco-aid transfusions to survive.In time to come Pak will be a millstone round the Chinese neck.They are probably seeing the light now,why they're desperately trying to stop India joining Uncle Sam's anti-China posse.

ACM Raha's statement about the Gripen clearly shows the IAF's thinking.Since we went along with it for the Rafale,the GOI would have to listen to it.Moreover,it also demonstrates a widh to diversify even between western entities,competition giving us a better deal.
The US is already a key provider of engines for the LCA and the Gripen too.The French kept happy with the Rafales with certainly another 40 or so later on.Russia happy with MKI upgrades for 200+aircraft to Super Sukhoi std.Huge BMos ASM orders.FGFAs too for the future.The ones getting shafted..."as per usual" are we Injuns with LCAs dribbling out of HAL like a geriatric with an acute prostrate problem!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4276
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 12 Oct 2016 04:22

IMHO, the reason for this tender lies herein-

The IAF wants a sizeable force of medium weight fighters (between 15-25 tons MTOW) to sit between the heavy weight Su-30MKI and future FGFA that it will acquire. Post upgradation to Super-30s, there will be a phase when the IAF will have over 400+ Super 30s and FGFA fighters (if that acquisition goes well). Operating and maintenance costs will be huge.

The medium weight fighter choice lay between the Rafale, Typhoon, the MiG-35 and the F-16 really. The Gripen E just about fits into that 15-25 tons medium weight category at 16.5 tons MTOW and the F/A-18 E/F is simply too heavy. The Typhoon no longer finds any favor in the IAF, and the Eurofighter consortium basically gave up a while ago. The MiG-35 has gone into an actual development phase but its future still seems uncertain and given the teething issues with the IN’s MiG-29K fleet, the IAF won’t even consider the MiG-35.

So that basically leaves us with the Rafale, F-16 IN – Block 70 and the Gripen E and the Tejas Mk2.

The Tejas Mk2 weight specs that were seen seemed a tad bit too ambitious, especially when we saw what happened with the Gripen E, where the manufacturer targeted a 7200 kg empty weight and ended up at 8000 kgs. I’ve seen a brochure that gave a target empty weight as 6560 kgs (same as the Tejas Mk1) – either it was plain wrong and just copied over from the Mk1 or someone was being way too ambitious and setting themselves up for failure.

The main issue is that all the engineering work required to add a 0.5 m plug, develop and test all the aerodynamic refinements, the new fuel tanks, development of a retractable IFR probe and associated re-distribution of other equipment that was in its place (they couldn’t find any space in the Mk1 for a retractable probe, as per Cobham), plus the engine change, new cockpit displays, unified EW suite and AESA radar and all of the re-qualifications and flight testing and what not meant essentially an all new airplane. And that development work was going to take time and rather than giving wildly optimistic timelines, ADA and the IAF figured out that this was going to take way more than 3-4 years. The IAF didn’t want more than 40 Tejas Mk1s and unless a bridge variant was developed, there would be a lull in the Tejas production while the Mk2 underwent testing.

And so the Mk1A was agreed upon. The IAF gets a unified EW suite, an AESA radar and better maintenance features and all that can be done in a way that it slots into production after the first 40 Mk1s are built- which is around 2021 going by the piddly 8 per year production rate that HAL has settled on. Even then there may be a slight lull in the production line and the IAF would be better off ordering another squadron of Tejas Mk1s to fill that gap. The whole lot of Mk1s can be upgraded to Mk1A around the time they reach MLU time. I firmly believe that when development of the Tejas Mk1A is complete, work will carry over to develop the Mk2, which will involve much more structural re-working and aerodynamic finetuning.

Now if the Mk1A will be rolled out in 2021 to start flight testing, there was no way that the Mk2 could’ve been rolled out before 2024, considering how much more work it required. By the time it would finish flight testing (which would consume at least 3 years going by the Mk1 experience), it would only enter production around 2027-28 !

In the meanwhile, with a token force of 36 Rafales, the IAF’s plans of having at least 6-7 squadrons of medium weight fighters would not have been met either since, in the 2021-28 phase, it would not have been able to get any Tejas Mk2s. And so, it is left with the option of assembling Rafales, which are turning out to be extremely expensive or examining other fighters, which may be more affordable and it serves another purpose for the GoI- that of standing up a private aerospace sector. And that is how this Gripen NG/ F-16 Block 70 contest seems to have started.

The most prudent choice would have been that the private sector could first collaborate with ADA/HAL in fast-tracking the development of the Mk2 and in the process build up some real experience and competence and then build a new assembly line for the Tejas Mk2, so that India could have two parallel assembly lines..or the private sector company could take over all manufacturing while HAL focused on the AMCA and FGFA.

But seeing that this isn’t happening, and the IAF wants a force of medium weight fighters with more range and payload capability, there is no option but to take another look at the MRCA contenders.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4276
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 12 Oct 2016 04:43

What also worries me is what is actually going to happen to the Naval LCA program. First off, with the Navy needing the F-414 engine for its N-LCA Mk2, it requires significant resources for its definitive fighter variant. With resources committed to the Mk1A program, and the assortment of other programs, I really wonder how much effort is going on related to the engineering changes for N-LCA Mk2. As it is, the N-LCA Mk2 actually differed from the N-LCA prototypes flying currently even more than the IAF Mk2 differed from the Mk1 in production.

Secondly, the extremely slow ramp up of production at HAL means that just fulfilling IAF orders for 126 is going to take over a decade. And where do they slot in production for a very different naval variant? Wonder how much more supportive the IN will be when it doesn't get any N-LCA Mk2 fighters in any normal timeframe at all.

Unless the ADA/HAL combine then force the IN to go with a N-LCA Mk1A type variant instead of a dedicated Mk2 variant. Would be a shame, since it really was the IN that needed a more powerful engine for its fighter variant.

Those blaming the IAF for going and looking at another MRCA fighter need to look at the HAL led ecosystem that is struggling to even scale up to 8 Tejas Mk1s per year. This really was an opportunity for HAL to quickly ramp up from 8 to 12 to 16 fighters per year to seize IAF orders. Something really just isn't working for them..they claim engineers are working weekends to get SP fighters ready, but are showing no great interest in scaling up the assembly line to more than 8 per year. Where is the bottleneck in ramping up production?

Screw the lack of true transfer of design knowhow, without a for-profit private sector company getting into this fighter airplane assembly business, we cannot even do screw-driver giri fast enough to meet our requirements. TASL would have been ideal along with L&T to set up the parallel assembly line and to take over much of the engineering requirements from DRDO labs, to speed up time to prototyping and production. Just using them to build jigs and some assemblies isn't enough when the human resource crunch is also limiting HAL and ADA and other DRDO labs.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 12 Oct 2016 04:53

Bhayion aur Behno
This single / twin engine multibillion phyter contract is being delibrately created.

GoI and IAF know that the LCA is very good.

Note the Umreekan phyters.
This will be a contract that Billy aunty or Trump uncle will have to win, they will have to come to India, play nice nice with GoI walas, and there will be pro-quid-quo.

All else is maya onlee...

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 12 Oct 2016 04:55

I think the defense budget will touch 3% next year...

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1531
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 12 Oct 2016 05:06

So it comes down to this ,
Buy F-Solah and get magic phorMula to Engine making
Buy Greepen and get magic phorMula to Radar Inside Know How

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21044
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 12 Oct 2016 06:03

War is not far away and inevitable . So As many weapons Devi, Devtas, Avatars. Rishis and Gurus have wielded that many variety of Astaras, Shastras are to be with IAf and other forces.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 12 Oct 2016 06:05

This is a geopolitical buy, not a pure military buy...

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7348
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 12 Oct 2016 06:24

Apologies if this has been posted before.

Choosing India’s Make in India fighter
http://www.stratpost.com/choosing-indias-make-india-fighter?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Saab has already stolen a march on it’s competitors by offering its ‘ITAR-free’ Galium Nitride AESA radar technology, something which even the U.S. hasn’t perfected yet. This is also technology that India would be eager to possess. It is doubtful if the U.S. would be willing to share it’s existing AESA radar technology.

One area where the U.S. could match up to the Swedes would be aircraft engine technology. This is also something India is interested in and there have been discussions on cooperation on development of aircraft engine technology under the bilateral Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI).


Saab adds GaN AESA co-dev to Make in India Gripen pitch
http://www.stratpost.com/saab-adds-gan-aesa-co-dev-to-make-india-gripen-pitch

Tossman announced, “AESA Gallium Nitride ITAR-free (International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which are U.S. rules for controlling the export of defense technologies). That means we own our own technology. We decide what to do with it. So we are not dependent on any others’ approval if we can or cannot share that technology – it’s our decision,” adding, “We are now having the prototype and soon going to fly with the AESA GaN. That’s where we are and this is ITAR-free.”

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 704
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

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

Postby Suresh S » 12 Oct 2016 07:22

Khalsa I would take the Engine any day or night . But I do not think they are going to give it to us.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7348
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 12 Oct 2016 07:31

Khalsa: If Snecma decides to be generous (seems unlikely) and passes on her secrets to get the Kaveri up & running, we may be going in (as you say) for the magic phorMula to Radar Inside Know How.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest