'Make in India' Single engined fighter

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ArjunPandit » 24 Jan 2018 10:03

Rakesh wrote:That is the beauty of this thread. Same discussion, over & over & over & over....

Apart from Tejas, ATAGS, GSLV, missiles time seems to have not moved on BRF for last so many years. :rotfl: :rotfl:

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Trikaal » 24 Jan 2018 11:19

http://idrw.org/indian-air-force-mulls-f-35-order/

US won't sell a single F35 without LEMOA. Signing LEMOA means no more Russian stuff and huge costs as we are forced to create two separate forces. What are these guys thinking?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 24 Jan 2018 12:27

Rakesh wrote:Will the U.S. & India finally talk about the F-35?
https://www.stratpost.com/will-u-s-indi ... talk-f-35/

So why haven’t the two countries discussed this? Ask U.S government officials and they say, “India hasn’t asked for it.”

Indian officials say, “It hasn’t been offered to us for consideration.”

The possibility continues to remain imponderable.

What a joke :mrgreen:

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Trikaal » 24 Jan 2018 19:08

The bottomline is, LM isn't hurting to sell F35. They already have 100+ planes on order books. The fact is, they do not need Indian order at this time. So they aren't working on selling it at all. On the other hand, F16 orderbooks are virtually empty and the future of that aircraft depends solely on an indian order. So they want india to buy that, they need india to buy that and hence, all the efforts are there. They won't be averse to selling us F35 but it's not a priority.
Indian bureaucracy is the last place to search for initiative. Unless there isn't a RFP, RFI, RIP and some more on their table, they won't approve anything. Expecting them to proactively ask for F35 bid is pointless.
IAF cannot explicitly ask for F35 at this stage. Some people may not like me saying this, but IAF do like foreign planes over indian/russian and would rather have F35(whether it is a good thing or not is a separate discussion). But right now, after dissing on Tejas as insufficient and promising to support AMCA, they cannot ask for F35 before giving AMCA enough time to develop. There is also the small case of Pak-Fa that the MoD is probably backing strongly. So IAF cannot ask for the plane either, which leads us to the present condition.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6997
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2018 19:22

Hurting to sell one aircraft plays only a minor role in any OEMs decision. That the F-16 is winding down hasn't stopped Lockheed from offering the F-35 instead in other competitions where they are going head to head against advanced 4th generation aircraft. You tailor your proposals to the request you receive based on what you feel has the strongest possible chance of meeting requirements within specified cost and schedule. Like I said earlier, if they felt that a more capable, more costly and politically more time consuming offer made sense then they would have built their proposal around the F-35 just as they have done in FMS campaigns around the world be it in Japan, Denmark, South Korea, Belgium and will be doing elsewhere (Canada, Finland, Spain etc). Doing so would have meant that they would have to engage the USDOD and the DOS to put together a more comprehensive offer but this would have been done by them as they do for other deals.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Trikaal » 24 Jan 2018 20:20

brar_w wrote:Hurting to sell one aircraft plays only a minor role in any OEMs decision. That the F-16 is winding down hasn't stopped Lockheed from offering the F-35 instead in other competitions where they are going head to head against advanced 4th generation aircraft. You tailor your proposals to the request you receive based on what you feel has the strongest possible chance of meeting requirements within specified cost and schedule. Like I said earlier, if they felt that a more capable, more costly and politically more time consuming offer made sense then they would have built their proposal around the F-35 just as they have done in FMS campaigns around the world be it in Japan, Denmark, South Korea, Belgium and will be doing elsewhere (Canada, Finland, Spain etc). Doing so would have meant that they would have to engage the USDOD and the DOS to put together a more comprehensive offer but this would have been done by them as they do for other deals.


Denmark, SoKo, Belgium all already have F16. How will they sell them more F16 instead of F35? F16 did not have a snowball's chance in all these countries because they had already purchased as many F16 as they could. So no, LM hasn't offered F35 instead of F16 in these countries, the only option here was F35.
But i agree with your wider point, if there was scope to sell F35 to india, they probably would. My point is that unlike other OEMs, LM isn't even trying to create a scope for F35, since making a F35 sale to india isn't as much a priority as a F16 sale. Case in point, Russia. Even when the new RFP is for single engine fighter, Russia has made concerted efforts to try and sell Mig35 to india through it's officials and media management.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6997
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2018 20:42

Denmark, SoKo, Belgium all already have F16. How will they sell them more F16 instead of F35?


These countries demanded higher capability and were willing to pay for it. Go through the RFP that Belgium floated to the governments of interested parties. There are upgraded variants of the F-16 that are far more capable than those currently fielded by Soko, Denmark or Belgium and indeed one of the bidders in the SoKo competition (Boeing) offered a more capable variant of an existing fighter which had just recently (at the time) been inducted by them. Again, the trade space clearly allowed for advanced fourth generation aircraft to compete but the customer valued higher capability and was willing to pay the extra dollar amount for that by ordering less aircraft (quality over quantity) initially and then rounding up their need in a subsequent order (which they are now looking to begin negotiating). If Lockheed felt that these contracts and the terms made the F-16 block 70 (or even a custom variant) more competitive they would have offered it instead..

Any OEM that is motivated by profit will have an entire team solely focus on the customer's need both defined and perceived and will put together an offer that it feels is its best possible deal given these dynamics. Like I said an F-16 like MII deal for the F-35 will be more expensive given the technology and the margins involved, and will involve much more time consuming political negotiations before the ball comes back to LMAs court. If Lockheed felt that this was their best path given the nature of the request made for the SEF then they would have taken that road.

So no, LM hasn't offered F35 instead of F16 in these countries, the only option here was F35.


Nope, there was no specific 5th generation requirement there. Advanced versions of fourth generation aircraft, even those already operational with the them were allowed to compete in the case of South Korea. Boeing offered the F-15 Silent Eagle and even invested their own internal money in prototyping and flight testing things like the conformal weapons bay among other things. In case of Belgium and Denmark both advanced 4th generation and 5th generation aircraft are allowed to compete and are in fact competing. Clearly based on the nature of the request, and the prevailing competition Lockheed felt that the F-35 would meet Belgium's requirements better and this can be seen by going through their RFP which is a public document. In case of the SEF under MII it is also clear (as bad and pointless the entire SEF is) that compared to a Gripen-E, lockheed is betting on a lower cost and lower risk proposition under MII instead of more capability at a higher cost and longer schedule which would be the case if they were to offer the F-35.

Now this may be a lousy offer, and indeed the entire SEF program is a lousy and redundant effort but given the state of current and past acquisition programs (PAKFA deal not signed yet and the MMRCA curtailed because of the cost) one can see why Lockheed is choosing to respond with what is likely to be its lowest cost offer given its portfolio instead of the most expensive route.

The SEF MII program was born because the MMRCA (a 120 aircraft, licence production + TOT deal) was terminated on account of cost. an F-35 MII deal even without technology transfer will likely be at or around the same cost point the MMRCA was before it was terminated. If the MOD couldn't afford the former why would Lockheed offer something which is at best equally expensive?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 24 Jan 2018 21:41

^^^
Original budget estimated when the MMRCA RFI floated out was $8-10 billion. And India wanted ToT and all that too. The user shortlisted two of the most expensive ones in the competition. Pretty unrealistic. Some fifteen years later $8 billion got India just 36 Rafales without license production and all that ToT.

SEF will suffer the same fate. The budget required will be $20 billion+ but the estimated is probably half of that.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby KrishnaK » 26 Jan 2018 13:20

Rakesh wrote: All fine and dandy. But I ask again, how is the SEF going to meet the deadlines that the IAF needs?
It only needs to meet deadlines better than the LCA MK2.


The IAF likes certainty, but neither of the aircraft in the SEF competition offer that. The Gripen E is vaporware and the F-16 - while a proven platform - comes from a nation whose foreign policy changes from one administration to the next. There is no stability with the United States of America. LM's own executive has said that they can only honour the contract, as long as the US Govt allows them to. Where is the certainty in that?

I don't hear Dassault executives saying that about the Rafale. I don't hear Sukhoi executives saying that about the Su-30MKI.
..
What use is the F-16 or Gripen's capacity, if it is always under the danger of Unkil's All Seeing Eye? That is like saying, I have a Ferrari parked in my garage...but my Daddy will not let me drive it, because he is the real owner. Daddy tells me what to do.


I'd like to see a quote for the Lockheed quote - Lockheed has to honour a contracts and they can be enforced even internationally, but particularly in India. For example, the contract with Finmeccania had a non-corruption clause and India encashed bank guarantees in Italian banks Chopper scam: India recovers Rs 1,818 crore from AgustaWestland. I searched but could not find where Boeing and Dassault's PBL contracts are enforceable. Could someone help ?

Quotes like daddy's the real owner is oversimplifying a complex topic. Iran operated its F14s for decades after the revolution. With enough stockpiles of spares, one can continue to operate, it certainly becomes more expensive. However, my guess is the GoI thinks its not going to run into such problems anymore. Funnily enough, a travel warning stopped Atal Bihari Vajpaye's aar-par ki ladai with Russian weapons. There's a political/financial cost to going to war, and India won't do it unless its thresholds are breached. And India has far more constraints than weapon systems - war reserves, forex reserves, oil reserves. My very uninformed guess is India can only afford to fight for a few weeks at best. American weapons *might* well serve the purpose, if they can be delivered efficiently and without corruption and treated as a stop-gap measure and to add diversity.

The issue does not lie with LM. It lies with setting up a factory, training the personnel and churning out the planes to meet the timelines required by the IAF. The fact of the matter is, the SEF will not meet those timelines. RFP was supposed to be issued by the end of 2017. Where is it?
The issue does like with LM. It's lM along with its local partner, that's going to be setting up the factory and doing the training. It's done it in Korea, Turkey AND Japan (joint project - F2).

- Going by that yardstick, the Tejas should be equally competitive to the Gripen E. On a simple cost per flight hour basis, the Tejas will easily win over the F-16. So then operating costs (CPFH) is a strong point to make the case for inducting even more Tejas aircraft :)

- To spend upwards of $20 billion to save on flight operating costs of the Rafale vis-a-viv the F-16 or Gripen E, is not a wise comparison at all. If that was the case, the then F-16IN or the Gripen NG should have won the initial MMRCA contest. All the twin engine planes should have lost, no?

One of the reason the IAF has light/medium/heavy fighters and not all heavy is operating cost.

To really discuss this issue, I think we need to come up with some estimate of cost of buying and then running it for their life - a rough estimate and put some number on capacity - range, payload, readiness, avionics etc.

Paging brar_w & other forum experts - I know this question is super complicated, but can be it dumbed down ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6997
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 26 Jan 2018 16:30

I don't think this is very complicated. The bare bone non labor costs to operate the US aircraft are published once every few years (it is the manpower cost that adds up and is variable but this is not relevant to India) . However this is all besides the point. The SEF is redundant and does not add anything different qualitatively especially when the cost is taken into account. The ship for this has sailed. Had this been the original MMRCA bid a decade ago and included only the lowest cost (life cycle) offers out of the lot, then it would have made some sense but in 2018 you aren't going to derive a whole lot of value producing these aircraft when you have the LCA MK1A and MK2 on the horizon which can be delivered in roughly equivalent timelines with reasonable risk. I mean you can buy MK1As and retire them after a decade and replace them with MK2s and still save money compared to buying the same number of F-16's or Gripens.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 26 Jan 2018 18:42

+1

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19765
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 26 Jan 2018 22:07

The Gripe is being touted at between $50-70M a pop far more affordable than the Raffy.The Brazilian order is being re-examined by the Vikings supposedly in case Boeing and EMB make a deal together.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4105
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Kartik » 27 Jan 2018 00:41

Saab has denied those reports about it re-examining any of its work with Embraer in the event of a Boeing-Embraer deal.

From AW&ST

LONDON—Swedish defense firm Saab is vehemently denying reports that it would split from a deal with Embraer to build Gripens fighters for Brazil if a tie-up between the Brazilian airframer and Boeing goes ahead.

Several Brazilian media outlets reported on Jan. 23 that Saab bosses had requested meetings with Brazilian ministers over concerns that intellectual property rights could be put at risk if Embraer was purchased by Boeing.

The story was repeated by several Swedish media outlets.

However, in a statement, Saab told Aerospace DAILY that it had no intention of canceling cooperation with Brazil and that the Gripen E/F program in conjunction with Embraer was “progressing very well” in Brazil.

“Since we have extensive business in Brazil, we regularly conduct meetings with officials and partners and other stakeholders. However, we do not comment on specific meetings—when, where or with whom,” the company stated.

“Saab has very good cooperation with both Embraer and Boeing across different programs,” the company said. “However, we do not have any insight into their negotiations.”

Reports of a potential tie-up between Boeing and Embraer emerged in December. The deal would require the approval of the Brazilian government as Brasilia holds a golden share in the airframer.

Saab and Embraer have been closely cooperating on the development of the new-generation Gripen for the Brazilian military. The $4.68 billion program sees Brazilian engineers working in Sweden with Saab on the program and Embraer will support the development the two-seat version of the aircraft.

The initial Gripen deal covers the development and purchase of 36 fighters.

Around 15 of the initial 36 Gripens will be wholly assembled in Brazil, including all of the two-seat JAS 39F version that will be developed as part of the contract. The rest will be built in Sweden by both Swedish and Brazilian engineers, with deliveries to run from 2019 to 2024.

Meanwhile, Saab also has a close working relationship with Boeing, working together on the T-X jet trainer designed to meet the requirements of the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation training needs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6997
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 27 Jan 2018 00:46

Philip wrote:The Gripe is being touted at between $50-70M a pop far more affordable than the Raffy


Touted by who? Any acquisition program or official budget document that justifies that? There is a big difference between the Gripen-C and the Gripen-E. Unless you produce at a large scale for a sustained period of time you aren't going to be building the Gripen-E at a 50 million URF.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 804
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nash » 27 Jan 2018 00:54

From above post of Kartik

Around 15 of the initial 36 Gripens will be wholly assembled in Brazil, including all of the two-seat JAS 39F version that will be developed as part of the contract. The rest will be built in Sweden by both Swedish and Brazilian engineers, with deliveries to run from 2019 to 2024.


is it means 21 jets in 5 years?. if it is then I would say HAL is far better in case of Tejas than SAAB.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6658
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Jan 2018 01:42

KrishnaK wrote:It only needs to meet deadlines better than the LCA MK2.

That is not the goal of SEF. The goal of SEF acquisition is to shore up the numbers. Nice try.

So I ask yet again, how is the SEF going to meet the deadlines that the IAF needs?

KrishnaK wrote:I'd like to see a quote for the Lockheed quote

You want the quote? I will do one better. Here is the youtube video of him actually saying it. See from 40:05 in the video.



KrishnaK wrote:Lockheed has to honour a contracts and they can be enforced even internationally, but particularly in India.

LOL :lol: Wrong again.

BTW, you ever heard of the Pressler Amendment? They are not entitled to honour squat. You call the shots when you are the sole superpower. What is your legal recourse? You gonna sue LM and expect to win? Good Luck!

KrishnaK wrote:Quotes like daddy's the real owner is oversimplifying a complex topic. Iran operated its F14s for decades after the revolution. With enough stockpiles of spares, one can continue to operate, it certainly becomes more expensive. However, my guess is the GoI thinks its not going to run into such problems anymore. Funnily enough, a travel warning stopped Atal Bihari Vajpaye's aar-par ki ladai with Russian weapons. There's a political/financial cost to going to war, and India won't do it unless its thresholds are breached. And India has far more constraints than weapon systems - war reserves, forex reserves, oil reserves. My very uninformed guess is India can only afford to fight for a few weeks at best. American weapons *might* well serve the purpose, if they can be delivered efficiently and without corruption and treated as a stop-gap measure and to add diversity.

As I said before...you are entitled to your opinion, but not the facts. The facts of the matter are;

- At 100+ combat aircraft, the SEF represents a significant chunk of air power. And no point in having those aircraft grounded or even expensive to operate during and after conflict.

Since you brought up the topic of Iranian F-14s, please answer the following;

Q. What is the serviceability rate right now of the Iranian F-14s in service?
Q. How effective are Iranian F-14s against a 4th++ generation fighter like the F-16 Block 70, Gripen E, EF Typhoon, Rafale?

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-fighter-je ... 13838.html

Beyond the F-14s, Iran has been developing its own combat fighters, based on designs of U.S. aircraft already in its inventory, according to Jane's Defence Weekly. These included the Azarakhsh (Lightning), Saeghe (Thunderbolt), and Simorgh (Phoenix). But Jane's said the Qaher (Conqueror/Omnipotent) F-313 "stealth fighter" proved to be fundamentally flawed and hardly fit for flight, let alone combat.

So much for that theory that F-16 production is going to germinate a whole new aerospace industry in India :lol:

KrishnaK wrote:The issue does lie with LM. It's LM along with its local partner, that's going to be setting up the factory and doing the training. It's done it in Korea, Turkey AND Japan (joint project - F2).

LM has done it in Korea, Turkey and Japan. Fine. But again, you still have not answered the fundamental question. When and how are these 100 F-16s going to be inducted in a timeframe that the IAF needs this by?

KrishnaK wrote:To really discuss this issue, I think we need to come up with some estimate of cost of buying and then running it for their life - a rough estimate and put some number on capacity - range, payload, readiness, avionics etc.

Paging brar_w & other forum experts - I know this question is super complicated, but can be it dumbed down?

I think brar dumbed it down for you fairly well. Good job brar!

But just in case you missed it, here it is...

brar_w wrote:I don't think this is very complicated. The bare bone non labor costs to operate the US aircraft are published once every few years (it is the manpower cost that adds up and is variable but this is not relevant to India). However this is all besides the point. The SEF is redundant and does not add anything different qualitatively especially when the cost is taken into account. The ship for this has sailed. Had this been the original MMRCA bid a decade ago and included only the lowest cost (life cycle) offers out of the lot, then it would have made some sense but in 2018 you aren't going to derive a whole lot of value producing these aircraft when you have the LCA MK1A and MK2 on the horizon which can be delivered in roughly equivalent timelines with reasonable risk. I mean you can buy MK1As and retire them after a decade and replace them with MK2s and still save money compared to buying the same number of F-16's or Gripens.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6658
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Jan 2018 02:17

Philip wrote:The Gripe is being touted at between $50-70M a pop far more affordable than the Raffy.The Brazilian order is being re-examined by the Vikings supposedly in case Boeing and EMB make a deal together.

Saar, you made a typo. Instead of $50 million, it will be more like $150+ million a pop :lol:

On the cost issue, the F-16 is the clear winner.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby KrishnaK » 27 Jan 2018 03:06

This has already gone on for too long, so my last argument here. That said

Rakesh wrote:
KrishnaK wrote:It only needs to meet deadlines better than the LCA MK2.

That is not the goal of SEF. The goal of SEF acquisition is to shore up the numbers. Nice try.
So I ask yet again, how is the SEF going to meet the deadlines that the IAF needs?

The goal of the SEF acquisition is indeed to shore up the numbers. It is ONE option amongst - purchase MK1As today instead, or add some more Rafales and wait for the MK2 to offer numbers & capacity. The MK2 has the cost that it's still on the design board. If like brar says the IAF buys MK1As to replace them entirely with the MK2 and it takes well over 10 years (or whatever the timeline is for the SEF program) to get online, the IAF is stuck with MK1As AND a chinese & pakistani fleet that has progressed that much further in terms of capacity.

So to answer your question very clearly, the SEF is an option to the MK2 to solve the problem - replace all those aging fighters. The more the risk involved in getting MK2 in numbers on time, the more attractive of an option it is. It has only got to be a viable option to the MK2 in terms of timelines. If somehow the numbers can be split between the SEF and the MK2, the IAFs risk of a worst case scenario reduces drastically. The IAF seems less interested in investing forex inside the country than in putting a solid plan in place.

You want the quote? I will do one better. Here is the youtube video of him actually saying it. See from 40:05 in the video.


Good point, the G2G deal is definitely more dangerous - at that point the government of the US will have to be taken for arbitration and that's impossible.

KrishnaK wrote:Lockheed has to honour a contracts and they can be enforced even internationally, but particularly in India.

LOL :lol: Wrong again.

BTW, you ever heard of the Pressler Amendment? They are not entitled to honour squat. You call the shots when you are the sole superpower. What is your legal recourse? You gonna sue LM and expect to win? Good Luck!

As a sole superpower the US has more leverage, but even the GoI has offered sovereign guarantees for commercial contracts and later reneged -
Dahbol Power Corporation. Lockheed is not a sovereign power and can be held to account the same way Finmeccania was, ask for bank guarantees in India or a neutral country. Which is why I asked - how are the PBLs with Boeing and Dassault structured.

export.gov: Qatar - Selling to the Government

Bid and performance bonds are required in the form of unconditional bank guarantees with a local bank or certified local bank checks. The standard bid bond is 5% and performance bond is 10 % of the contract. However, the above rate can be larger for certain projects. Foreign architectural, contracting and engineering firms are not required to have a local presence for the bid process. However, by the time a contract is ready to be signed, participating foreign firms may need to have satisfied local establishment requirements. It is important to note that the Ministry requesting the bid has the right, during the contract period to, increase or decrease the required services, materials, or deliverables, after the committee’s approval.
...
Government contracts may include arbitration clauses. Unless stated otherwise in the contract, disputes emanating from government contracts will be subject to arbitration in Qatar. U.S. firms are advised, whenever possible, to reserve the right to appeal local arbitration decisions abroad.



As I said before...you are entitled to your opinion, but not the facts. The facts of the matter are;

- At 100+ combat aircraft, the SEF represents a significant chunk of air power. And no point in having those aircraft grounded or even expensive to operate during and after conflict.
There's well over a 100 in that condition TODAY, since you keep talking about facts.

Since you brought up the topic of Iranian F-14s, please answer the following;

Q. What is the serviceability rate right now of the Iranian F-14s in service?
Q. How effective are Iranian F-14s against a 4th++ generation fighter like the F-16 Block 70, Gripen E, EF Typhoon, Rafale?

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-fighter-je ... 13838.html

Beyond the F-14s, Iran has been developing its own combat fighters, based on designs of U.S. aircraft already in its inventory, according to Jane's Defence Weekly. These included the Azarakhsh (Lightning), Saeghe (Thunderbolt), and Simorgh (Phoenix). But Jane's said the Qaher (Conqueror/Omnipotent) F-313 "stealth fighter" proved to be fundamentally flawed and hardly fit for flight, let alone combat.

So much for that theory that F-16 production is going to germinate a whole new aerospace industry in India :lol:
India isn't going to be an international pariah like Iran and it expects the US to either be reliable enough or the only viable option that most of its ASW fleet is going to be of American origin. A far more dire situation compared to the IAF which will still have SU30s, Rafales AND LCAs. Most of the Indian navy's aviation strike power might well end up being of American origin. Here we're talking about 100 out of 700.

BTW I just do not see how Iran attempting to make its own fighters got to do with Lockheed's offer germinating a whole new aerospace industry in India. TAI and KAI seem to have done well. Bharat forge's capacity has been created by supplying to foreign auto manufacturers. TASL supplies components to systems that are still in production and sold globally.

LM has done it in Korea, Turkey and Japan. Fine. But again, you still have not answered the fundamental question. When and how are these 100 F-16s going to be inducted in a timeframe that the IAF needs this by?
Answered in the first para.

brar_w wrote:I don't think this is very complicated. The bare bone non labor costs to operate the US aircraft are published once every few years (it is the manpower cost that adds up and is variable but this is not relevant to India). However this is all besides the point. The SEF is redundant and does not add anything different qualitatively especially when the cost is taken into account. The ship for this has sailed. Had this been the original MMRCA bid a decade ago and included only the lowest cost (life cycle) offers out of the lot, then it would have made some sense but in 2018
Agree totally, this should've been the MMRCA. I almost typed that it looks like they're trying to do the MMRCA right this time around.

you aren't going to derive a whole lot of value producing these aircraft when you have the LCA MK1A and MK2 on the horizon which can be delivered in roughly equivalent timelines with reasonable risk. I mean you can buy MK1As and retire them after a decade and replace them with MK2s and still save money compared to buying the same number of F-16's or Gripens.
The crux of what I've been arguing repeatedly - who gets to decide how much that risk is ?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19765
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 27 Jan 2018 04:06

SAAB surely can build faster, it's probably the speed that the Brazilians want.MK 1A OK, but MK-2 which has not flown and requires much redesign to accommodate the new engine, adding weight, etc. will have a Q mark over it until trials are completed. At our rate of LCA progress, can't see that happening until the middle of the next decade.The initial speed of replacing old MIG retirees with LCAs will be the factor that determines the number and type of aircraft that will join the ranks of the IAF inventory in the next decade in particular.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby VKumar » 27 Jan 2018 04:44

Philip wrote:SAAB surely can build faster, it's probably the speed that the Brazilians want.MK 1A OK, but MK-2 which has not flown and requires much redesign to accommodate the new engine, adding weight, etc. will have a Q mark over it until trials are completed. At our rate of LCA progress, can't see that happening until the middle of the next decade.The initial speed of replacing old MIG retirees with LCAs will be the factor that determines the number and type of aircraft that will join the ranks of the IAF inventory in the next decade in particular.


Some questions we must consider:
1. How much time will it take to select the SEF
2. How much time will it take to set up factory and roll out the first SEF
3. How many SEF will we produce p.a. with what configuration and cost per plane?
4. What will be the cost of induction, crew training, infrastructure, cost of maintaining yet another type of plane, added complexities of spares, trained personnel, getting expertise in US standards,
And so on.

These are practical problems.

Whether in the same time and cost we can add 100 planes from a combination of Rafale, SU30MKI, TEJAS ?

I would think 16 TEJAS p.a. , plus another 2 squadrons each of the Rafale and SUMKI in addition to the 2 of each already ordered / awaited will see us with nearly 200 new aircraft by 2025 and would be in common with existing aircraft, no need to set up absolutely new maintenance facilities, train another set of people, etc.

Starting 2019, we could be adding 2 squadrons per year to replace the MIGs with the above approach.

Additional SEF is not required if our aim/need is only to replace 100 aircraft by 2025 or earlier. IMHO.

Hopefully in 10 years we should start inducting LCA MK2, AMCA.
Last edited by VKumar on 27 Jan 2018 04:57, edited 2 times in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6658
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Jan 2018 04:45

KrishnaK wrote:This has already gone on for too long, so my last argument here.

Krishna, come on! This was only warm up.

KrishnaK wrote:The goal of the SEF acquisition is indeed to shore up the numbers. It is ONE option amongst - purchase MK1As today instead, or add some more Rafales and wait for the MK2 to offer numbers & capacity. The MK2 has the cost that it's still on the design board. If like brar says the IAF buys MK1As to replace them entirely with the MK2 and it takes well over 10 years (or whatever the timeline is for the SEF program) to get online, the IAF is stuck with MK1As AND a chinese & pakistani fleet that has progressed that much further in terms of capacity.

So to answer your question very clearly, the SEF is an option to the MK2 to solve the problem - replace all those aging fighters. The more the risk involved in getting MK2 in numbers on time, the more attractive of an option it is. It has only got to be a viable option to the MK2 in terms of timelines. If somehow the numbers can be split between the SEF and the MK2, the IAFs risk of a worst case scenario reduces drastically. The IAF seems less interested in investing forex inside the country than in putting a solid plan in place.

See, your reasons for the SEF purchase is all wrong. For this, one must go back to the early 80s.

- The PAF acquired 40 F-16s in the late 70s (first deliveries came in the early 80s).
- The IAF countered that with an emergency buy of the MiG-23MF. But the plane turned out to be anything but the desired counter that the IAF hoped for.
- Then came in the Mirage 2000 (first inducted in 1986) with a plan to license produce 150 more in India.
- Then Defence Minister Ramaswamy Venkataraman (later President) goes to Russia in the mid 80s and the Russians offer the MiG-29 for cheaper than the Mirage 2000.
- License production of the Mirage 2000 was shelved (Mistake #1) and MiG-29s were acquired in 1987.
- Only around 60+ MiG-29s were inducted (Mistake #2) in the IAF.
- MiG-21bis production ends in 1986/87 with Tejas supposed to be replacing the MiG-21 in the 1990s.
- Tejas development really got underway in the 80s and the 90s was when the initial induction was supposed to take place. As we know, that never happened. The usual delays and cost overruns occurred, as with all military programs.
- But planes cannot be operated beyond a certain design life and despite all the magic that the IAF technical crew did to keep the MiG-21 flying, the aircraft began showing her age in the 1990s. Especially the FL, M and MF variants. All retired now.
- I will not make the mistake of calling the MiG-21 a flying coffin, because it is anything but. However, she needs an experienced hand which rookie pilots are not.
- Su-30 was acquired in 1996, which Air Chief Marshal Srinivasapuram Kitcha Krishnaswamy (the chief prior to Air Chief Marshal Shashindra Pal Bundle Tyagi of the VVIP chopper case...I feel bad using that term, but unfortunately he will live with the legacy...but that is a different topic) was among the chief planners/architect of the MKI variant.
- The first Su-30K was inducted in 1997 and the first Su-30MKI squadron - No 20 Lightnings - was raised on 27 Sept 2002 with Air Commodore NAK Browne (later Air Chief Marshal) as the base commander at Lohegaon AFS.
- 40 Su-30Ks were acquired and 140 Su-30MKIs were planned. That number eventually has risen to 314 (which includes the 40 announced by Air Chief Marshal B S Dhanoa on 08 Oct 2017).
- After the Su-30 was acquired in 1996, a plan was put into action at Air HQs in 2001 for acquiring 126 Mirage 2000-5s from Dassault Aviation. This was urgent, because the early models MiG-21s desperately needed replacement. Late model MiG-21s - the bis variant - were upgraded into the Bison variant. Bison got her name from Son of Bis, so thus Bison. The first CO of that squadron was then Wing Cdr (now Air Marshal and C-in-C, Western Air Command) Ravi Dhir.
- Then Defence Minister George Fernandes - still reeling from the Tehelka scandal - got cold feet on a single vendor situation.
- The MoD Babus then proposed - which was adopted - a multi-vendor competition soon after (Mistake #3). Biggest Mistake.
- Dassault knew the Mirage 2000-5 could not stand a chance against the EF Typhoon, the F-16IN and the F-18 Super Hornet. Thus Dassault pulled the Mirage 2000 out of the equation and replaced it with the Rafale instead.
- The competition was formally launched in 2007 I believe. Now six years have passed since Air HQ first proposed inducting 126 Mirage 2000s. This is an important point, because in those six years, further wear and tear have occurred on the early MiG-21 variants.
- Anyhow, the first down select occurred on 27 April 2011 leaving only the EF Tyhoon and the Rafale as contenders. This was the technical down select.
- The second down select occurred on 31 January 2012, leaving Rafale as the winner. This was L1 downselect.
- Negotiations began soon after and carried over from the Manmonhan Singh Govt to the Modi Govt.
- But the negotiations were getting no where and in April 2015, Prime Minister Modi visits France and along with his counterpart - then French President Francois Hollande - asks for a G2G deal for the Rafale, but at a truncated order of just 36 aircraft.
- New negotiations begin and finally on 23 Sept 2016, a deal is signed between Dassault and MoD for that number. There exists an option for 36 more, if I am not mistaken...in the contract.

Now here is the key point and this is why I have said - and Ramana-ji has said the same thing - that this is a numbers game. All this talk about - mainly from one poster on BRF - strategic alignment, engine technology, etc, etc, etc, is all fluff. That poster just makes up stuff as he goes along. Spinning yarns and talking nonsense. Unfortunately, a few have believed his rhetoric. But I digress.

Remember, 126 were needed from the original contract.

- 36 Rafales are already confirmed.
- 40 Su-30MKIs are also already confirmed.

That is 76 aircraft. You are now left with a 50 aircraft gap. The MoD has basically doubled that number and asked for 108 aircraft (18 directly from OEM and 90 as MII). The Mk2 variant - of the Tejas - features no where in this equation Krishna. That is a straw man argument. It is only recently - as IR announced in the Tejas thread - that AMCA and Mk2 have been sanctioned for development.

But with Mk2 sanctioned for development, it now makes the SEF a pointless acquisition as Brar has so beautifully pointed out in his post.

As further Tejas aircraft - the Mk1 variant - gets inducted, the confidence level that the IAF will have...will only increase. See the summary that IR has provided on Anatha's Tejas video in the LCA thread. That confidence gives the developer and manufacturer (ADA and HAL) further incentive to improve upon the platform, via the Mk1A and Mk2 variants.

Is there risk? Absolutely there is risk Krishna. There is great risk. I will never deny that. From a pure proven platform perspective, the F-16 hands down is a better path. You don't even need the Tejas then.

However, from every other angle - geopolitically, independence, military aviation industry, growth - the Tejas gives India a necessary path towards self reliance. There are a multitude of other military programs to appease the loss of the SEF acquisition. But that is a different topic.

A decade or two back...someone once said...the Armoured Corps cannot run three different programs simultaneously --> T-72 upgradation, T-90 acquisition and Arjun development. One or two of the programs will suffer. We are now seeing the proof of that.

It is the same with the Tejas. You cannot have AMCA development, Rafale acquisition, SEF acquisition, Tejas development, PAK-FA development. You cannot do it all. One or more will suffer Krishna. It is a basic law of finance. Funds are very limited, especially from a bureaucracy who has a proven disdain for the armed forces.

KrishnaK wrote:Good point, the G2G deal is definitely more dangerous - at that point the government of the US will have to be taken for arbitration and that's impossible.

Krishna, but that is the point. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, etc, etc, etc. These are great companies who create some mind-boggling amazing platforms. America represents the cutting edge of technology. I would never deny that. And neither should these companies offer ToT of their products. If you or I were their CEO, we would do the same.

The point is America's foreign policy. When you are Top Dog, you set the ground rules. You make the playground and tell folks how to play. However that does not bode well for countries like India who need to grow. But SEF does not give India that growth. SEF does not give India the planes needed in a quick timeframe. SEF does nothing for India. It only regresses India. It keeps India back.

So if tomorrow the US Govt turns around and tells LM to not honour the agreement, what do you think LM will do? Obviously, they have to comply. They don't have a choice Krishna. And with a wishy-washy and unstable foreign policy like America, that is a GREAT risk. Far greater than going down the Tejas path. Far, Far, Far greater.

KrishnaK wrote:As a sole superpower the US has more leverage, but even the GoI has offered sovereign guarantees for commercial contracts and later reneged -
Dahbol Power Corporation. Lockheed is not a sovereign power and can be held to account the same way Finmeccania was, ask for bank guarantees in India or a neutral country. Which is why I asked - how are the PBLs with Boeing and Dassault structured.

Answered above, but again I reiterate...the issue is not with LM. The issue is with the US Govt. The issue is with their foreign policy. LM's own executive just said that in the youtube video.

There is also the issue of a timeline delivery, but that again is not LM's issue. That is the archaic babudom at work. SEF cannot deliver planes to the IAF in the timeline required. It cannot Krishna.

KrishnaK wrote:There's well over a 100 in that condition TODAY, since you keep talking about facts.

Show me which airbases in India, that are housing 100 F-16 Block 70s in that condition TODAY. Please highlight that fact.

KrishnaK wrote:India isn't going to be an international pariah like Iran and it expects the US to either be reliable enough or the only viable option that most of its ASW fleet is going to be of American origin. A far more dire situation compared to the IAF which will still have SU30s, Rafales AND LCAs. Most of the Indian navy's aviation strike power might well end up being of American origin. Here we're talking about 100 out of 700.

BTW I just do not see how Iran attempting to make its own fighters got to do with Lockheed's offer germinating a whole new aerospace industry in India. TAI and KAI seem to have done well. Bharat forge's capacity has been created by supplying to foreign auto manufacturers. TASL supplies components to systems that are still in production and sold globally.

We expect a lot of things in life Krishna. How many expectations turn out to be true?

You are gonna rest a significant chunk of IAF airpower, on an expectation? Really? :shock:

ASW fleet? Are you referring to the P-8I from Boeing? Or a vessel based ASW fleet?

100 out of 700 is still a big number Krishna. If you had $700,000 USD in the bank and I took out $100,000 from it. You would honestly say, "Well it is only 100K out of 700K?" :)

Which engine has TAI developed in house for the TFX fighter?

Which engine has KAI developed in house for the KF-X fighter?

What TAI and KAI have done, ADA has done for Tejas and will do for Mk2 and AMCA.

TASL has been making components for the C-130 Hercules. Can TASL develop a C-130 type aircraft?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2225
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 27 Jan 2018 06:06

NRao wrote:(He was born in Indonesia, so not sure he is a "NRI". But, not Germain to this thread. Just an observation.)


Not Germain - You are correct! Does that change anything, where he was born? Superior? :rotfl: or is it just the usual dose of contempt?

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Trikaal » 27 Jan 2018 07:23

So far, I haven't seen a single argument that can justify buying SEF, not here and not in mainstream media. At some point, common sense has to prevail and this entire farce has to be shelved. It's all well and good to gleefully think that Indian Bureaucracy will give SEF a slow death but we have to remember that Indian credibility takes a hit too if this contract keeps lingering on forever. The best course of action is to shelve it quickly and be done with it.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6658
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Jan 2018 08:17

Lesson to learn. Different weapon system, same theory.

https://twitter.com/majorgauravarya/sta ... 9493169152 —> S-400 is a great AD system but we will continue to spend valuable foreign exchange on weapons imports, unless we get Indian private players involved on a massive scale. The biggest hurdle in our path is not lack of technology. It’s bureaucracy & red tape.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby KrishnaK » 27 Jan 2018 08:22

Rakesh wrote:
KrishnaK wrote:This has already gone on for too long, so my last argument here.

Krishna, come on! This was only warm up.
Image
I'll try to restrict myself though

See, your reasons for the SEF purchase is all wrong. For this, one must go back to the early 80s.

- The PAF acquired 40 F-16s in the late 70s (first deliveries came in the early 80s).
...
- New negotiations begin and finally on 23 Sept 2016, a deal is signed between Dassault and MoD for that number. There exists an option for 36 more, if I am not mistaken...in the contract.

...
Remember, 126 were needed from the original contract.

- 36 Rafales are already confirmed.
- 40 Su-30MKIs are also already confirmed.

That is 76 aircraft. You are now left with a 50 aircraft gap. The MoD has basically doubled that number and asked for 108 aircraft (18 directly from OEM and 90 as MII). The Mk2 variant - of the Tejas - features no where in this equation Krishna. That is a straw man argument. It is only recently - as IR announced in the Tejas thread - that AMCA and Mk2 have been sanctioned for development.
Admiral, your and brar_w's quotes down below
Is there risk? Absolutely there is risk Krishna. There is great risk. I will never deny that. From a pure proven platform perspective, the F-16 hands down is a better path. You don't even need the Tejas then.

However, from every other angle - geopolitically, independence, military aviation industry, growth - the Tejas gives India a necessary path towards self reliance.
...
But with Mk2 sanctioned for development, it now makes the SEF a pointless acquisition as Brar has so beautifully pointed out in his post.


brar_w wrote:but in 2018 you aren't going to derive a whole lot of value producing these aircraft when you have the LCA MK1A and MK2 on the horizon which can be delivered in roughly equivalent timelines with reasonable risk.


Both of you are clearly talking about the SEFs as compared to LCA MK2. How does it not figure in the equation ? When you say the SEF is going to imperil MK2 it's *you* that is comparing them with each other. If today the MK2 were in roughly the same state the MK1 is, would the SEF be talked about at all ? In the equation, one comes with less time risk but more political strings, the other with more time and less political. SEF delivery only has to be a lot surer than MK2 for it to be viable. To stress my point again, the option is not bakwaas while certainly less than optimal. The IAF can hardly ignore that great risk you allude to and ways to mitigate that. It is not their job to worry about independence & self reliance, growth, jobs etc.

Is there risk? Absolutely there is risk Krishna. There is great risk. I will never deny that. From a pure proven platform perspective, the F-16 hands down is a better path. You don't even need the Tejas then.

However, from every other angle - geopolitically, independence, military aviation industry, growth - the Tejas gives India a necessary path towards self reliance. There are a multitude of other military programs to appease the loss of the SEF acquisition. But that is a different topic.
A decade or two back...someone once said...the Armoured Corps cannot run three different programs simultaneously --> T-72 upgradation, T-90 acquisition and Arjun development. One or two of the programs will suffer. We are now seeing the proof of that.

It is the same with the Tejas. You cannot have AMCA development, Rafale acquisition, SEF acquisition, Tejas development, PAK-FA development. You cannot do it all. One or more will suffer Krishna. It is a basic law of finance. Funds are very limited, especially from a bureaucracy who has a proven disdain for the armed forces.
Finally ! If there is risk, then options ought to be considered, at the very least.


Krishna, but that is the point. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, etc, etc, etc. These are great companies who create some mind-boggling amazing platforms. America represents the cutting edge of technology. I would never deny that. And neither should these companies offer ToT of their products. If you or I were their CEO, we would do the same.

The point is America's foreign policy. When you are Top Dog, you set the ground rules. You make the playground and tell folks how to play. However that does not bode well for countries like India who need to grow. But SEF does not give India that growth. SEF does not give India the planes needed in a quick timeframe. SEF does nothing for India. It only regresses India. It keeps India back.

So if tomorrow the US Govt turns around and tells LM to not honour the agreement, what do you think LM will do? Obviously, they have to comply. They don't have a choice Krishna. And with a wishy-washy and unstable foreign policy like America, that is a GREAT risk. Far greater than going down the Tejas path. Far, Far, Far greater.

KrishnaK wrote:As a sole superpower the US has more leverage, but even the GoI has offered sovereign guarantees for commercial contracts and later reneged -
Dahbol Power Corporation. Lockheed is not a sovereign power and can be held to account the same way Finmeccania was, ask for bank guarantees in India or a neutral country. Which is why I asked - how are the PBLs with Boeing and Dassault structured.

Answered above, but again I reiterate...the issue is not with LM. The issue is with the US Govt. The issue is with their foreign policy. LM's own executive just said that in the youtube video.
Admiral saab, LM like any other commercial company can be held to account under Indian law - US sanctions can't stop India from encashing bank guarantees in India. A better option is getting Lockheed to invest in a physical plant in India and attach punitive measures to that. Question is how viable are these as options.

Incidentally, US foreign policy is not wishy-washy, it's broad direction is about as clear as it gets. It is the only power that has the political will and the capacity to run a humungous MIC and stitch together and run an alliance against China. India's increasing need for a qualitative edge is going to force it to buy increasing amount of US arms, whether the SEF even gets off the ground or not. The only 5th gen figher flying today is the F35 and India might well end up buying it, at least for the navy - Phillip's talking about the F35s as an option :rotfl: . If you're going to end up in bed with the US, why not now ?

You are gonna rest a significant chunk of IAF airpower, on an expectation? Really? :shock:

ASW fleet? Are you referring to the P-8I from Boeing? Or a vessel based ASW fleet?

100 out of 700 is still a big number Krishna. If you had $700,000 USD in the bank and I took out $100,000 from it. You would honestly say, "Well it is only 100K out of 700K?" :)
I was talking about the P8-I. Any serious carrier capability is going to be American with EMALS, E2Ds and most likely the F18s and possibly even the F35s. The sanctions constraint is emotionally overblown.

* In a full fledged hot war, the INR will take a beating by the minute. How long do you think the GoI will sustain it ?
* The last time a travel warning was enough for a country armed entirely with strategically independent fighters - BTW i was on this forum when Parakram happend and Ravi Rikhye asked the question in the previous point - we know how that went.
* If the war stretches on for too long, the rest of the world will force it to cool down - oil sanctions to being with - how much more of a constraint is that compared to not being able to operate 100 fighters for more than 2-3 weeks ?

If the war's only to be a few weeks, will sanctions prone weapons do given enough stocks, especially when there are other sanctions prone weapons elsewhere ?

In the very same video of Lockheed's VP, another lady says "it's hard to imagine a scenario in which US sanctions arms sales to India". The issues which will cause the US so trigger sanctions are pretty clear and my understanding is that this has also been communicated pretty clearly. India is in a different league now and will only continue to get better.

Which engine has TAI developed in house for the TFX fighter?

Which engine has KAI developed in house for the KF-X fighter?

What TAI and KAI have done, ADA has done for Tejas and will do for Mk2 and AMCA.

TASL has been making components for the C-130 Hercules. Can TASL develop a C-130 type aircraft?
Am not denying what the LCA will do for the Indian industry. Embraer - Early Growth India can grow an aerospace industry without making the MK2 too as well. Fixing the Indian economy, labour laws will have more effect on Indian manufacturing than making the MK2. All without asking the IAF to assume any risk. However this is clearly a very emotional issue here. I really do give up this argument. I hope the MK2 does become a great success.
Last edited by KrishnaK on 27 Jan 2018 14:05, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2225
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 27 Jan 2018 08:24

brar_w wrote: I mean you can buy MK1As and retire them after a decade and replace them with MK2s and still save money compared to buying the same number of F-16's or Gripens.

+108

And gain a hell lot of manufacturing, designing and operating experience for the next iteration.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 14:04

While the F-16 is a dead-end (the Rafale is a better option in the same 10 ton range), the IAF may finally be cottoning onto what will be the global standard for the next 30-40 years.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is to be the IAF's next SEF -

IAF mulls F-35 order
Early stage deliberations set to begin
by Saurabh Joshi • January 24, 2018

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is considering the possibility of an order for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, according to sources in the Ministry of Defence.

With deliberations at an early stage, it is understood the IAF will be writing to ask for more information on the fifth generation fighter.

India has been involved with the development of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) – a version of the Russian PAK-FA/Sukhoi-57 fighter, but the IAF has lately been concerned about the uncertain prospects of the program.

The IAF has also been contemplating a new contest for a single engine fighter between the Saab Gripen and the Lockheed Martin F-16 under the provisions for strategic partnerships incorporated in Chapter 07 of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP). However, no Request For Information (RFI) has been forthcoming so far. StratPost also understands there is new thinking on this, with the possibility that the Government of India might forego a tender process in favour of a direct, government-to-government order for an aircraft.

Although the F-16 and the Gripen have been the favourites for the IAF, not least because of their Make in India proposal to set up assembly lines for the aircraft in India, it remains undecided if this new move is intended to replace or supplement plans for either a Make in India fighter aircraft assembly line in India or the FGFA program.

At any rate, there will be several issues to resolve before a conversation can take place on an Indian F-35 order.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 100
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Arun.prabhu » 27 Jan 2018 14:34

Cybaru wrote:
brar_w wrote: I mean you can buy MK1As and retire them after a decade and replace them with MK2s and still save money compared to buying the same number of F-16's or Gripens.

+108

And gain a hell lot of manufacturing, designing and operating experience for the next iteration.


Not to mention store the retired aircraft in nitrogen filled enclosures and pull them out to replace war losses. Or use them as spare parts for the active fleet. Or build then into UAVs... the options are galore.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3091
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 27 Jan 2018 14:57

Incidentally, US foreign policy is not wishy-washy, it's broad direction is about as clear as it gets. It is the only power that has the political will and the capacity to run a humungous MIC and stitch together and run an alliance against China. India's increasing need for a qualitative edge is going to force it to buy increasing amount of US arms, whether the SEF even gets off the ground or not. The only 5th gen figher flying today is the F35 and India might well end up buying it, at least for the navy - Phillip's talking about the F35s as an option :rotfl: . If you're going to end up in bed with the US, why not now ?


I was talking about the P8-I. Any serious carrier capability is going to be American with EMALS, E2Ds and most likely the F18s and possibly even the F35s. The sanctions constraint is emotionally overblown.


There are many obvious truths to KrishnaK’s post. The only problem is we do not like to hear about them.

Eventually we will be in bed with Unkil because our geo-strategic position and situation demands it. And it will NOT be a bad thing to be allied to the most powerful democracy in the world with the best technical base and largest MIC to match.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19765
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 27 Jan 2018 19:06

Once the costs are found out, enormous operating costs too, with the bird conservatively priced at at least $135M, still not fully fit to fight, it will "crash "over here.My take is pressure upon both Dassault and the Russians to bring down their offers for more birds and the FGFA to something that we can afford.
The negotiations alone for the JSFwill consume a few years and kill off the AMCA as it is closer in size and capability to that project than the FGFA which is Raptor class.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16065
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 27 Jan 2018 19:43

Eventually we will be in bed with Unkil because our geo-strategic position and situation demands it. And it will NOT be a bad thing to be allied to the most powerful democracy in the world with the best technical base and largest MIC to match.


Not eventually, it is in progress and gathering speed. The April new "quad" meet, between the two FMs and DMs at the same time, should provide a better picture. DTTI is supposed to be the #1 on the agenda.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 249
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rishi_Tri » 27 Jan 2018 21:09

One of the best sales techniques is scare-mongering by the buyer within the buyer org (India / IAF). An able sales person (Foreign firms) shall make this scare seem even larger and arguments are typically 'Because of this, this shall happen and it shall be a disaster etc'. Decision makers decide (SEF or F35) based on the 'scares'.

For IAF, the two scare weapons are 'squadron strength' and 'tech obsolescence' that have been used aptly for convenient imports. Whereas the western world has used the scares to develop their own capabilities, we have justified the scares to increase our dependence on them. They have faced WWI, WWII akin to ours '62, '65, '71, '98. But the results are very different.

Raksha Mantri has to bring his / her head to table and tell that it is not IAF's war or IA's war or IN's war but a nation's response. There are 100s of tools that are part of the response. Raksha Mantri has to see through the scare mongering.

Above post by 'Rakesh' is fantastic. Was looking for actual chronology of our acquisitions over last 40 years or so. It along with other posts makes it amply clear that SEF shall merely extend our dependence. It is like the Opium that held Chinese from progressing and once they were free of it, well everyone knows where they are.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 27 Jan 2018 21:21

Philip wrote:Once the costs are found out, enormous operating costs too, with the bird conservatively priced at at least $135M, still not fully fit to fight, it will "crash "over here.My take is pressure upon both Dassault and the Russians to bring down their offers for more birds and the FGFA to something that we can afford. The negotiations alone for the JSFwill consume a few years and kill off the AMCA as it is closer in size and capability to that project than the FGFA which is Raptor class.

The aircraft is about $95 mil flyaway (<$85 mil by 2020) with the acquisition cost probably around $180 mil/unit. Operating cost is still in flux but will fall to about 20% over that of the F-16C/D.

True that its not fully fit to fight as yet, and won't be for a couple of months yet. Still.. the situation could be worse. Could, for example, have been like the Su-57 which is yet to clear the pre-production phase, with the definitive re-engined second-stage aircraft being 10 years away.

Meanwhile - China’s Fifth-Gen J-20 Completes First Air Combat Exercise

The AMCA, projected to arrive after 2035, is not a variable insofar as the SEF in concerned.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19765
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 27 Jan 2018 22:44

Pl ck US approval for 34 JSFs for Belgium at $6.53B.Recently announced.You can work out the cost/aircraft yourself! Nowhere close
to your hugely optimistic figures.The low figs put out by LH are nothing but bait for customers and the extra
costs to fix the current glitches haven't even been estimated.Nobody knows how much a fighting fit JSF will ultimately cost and ALIS supposed to be
a revolution in maintenance has thus far been plagued with software problems.The bird is still a work in progress.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6997
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 27 Jan 2018 23:07

Pl ck US approval for 34 JSFs for Belgium at $6.53B.Recently announced.You can work out the cost/aircraft yourself! Nowhere close


Have you bothered looking at the RFP? This deal involves a PBL to support 70% availability and a minimum number of flight hours at two operational bases for a period of 7 years. This also includes upgrades to all their aircraft to bring them to FOC standard by 2030 and likely also involves a little extra cost to support their nuclear mission

If you want to look at a more straightforward procurement deal that is shaping up which does not involve a complicated long term PBL and G2G support deals then look at what Denmark is budgeting for their deal - approximately $115 million per CTOL variant including the cost to bring block 3F jets to block 4 standard via a tech refresh.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKCN0Y30VC

Belgium did not want to just buy fighters, it wanted a G2G deal from NATO partners which would involve peacetime and even joint operations support to meet their sustainment needs. Again, read their RFP - A very comprehensive document specifying their exact needs. For a small airforce that is deeply integrated into NATO and are looking to buy aircraft ,long term sustainment , training and readiness as well as support from supplier government during peacetime and during surge needs. It was this latter commitment that led SAAB to withrau as Sweden could not offer this sort of support.

. LONDON—Belgium’s short list for its future fighter has shrunk to three after the Swedish government withdrew Saab’s new-generation Gripen from the tender.
Swedish defense materiel organization FMV, which would facilitate any Gripen sale, said in a July 10 statement that while the aircraft meets all the operational requirements in Belgium’s request for proposals, Sweden itself could not meet Brussel’s need for “extensive operational support.”

“This would require a Swedish foreign policy and political mandate that does not exist today,” the FMV said.
The agency added that it would not submit answers to the Belgian request for proposals.


http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/gripe ... er-contest
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Jan 2018 23:57, edited 1 time in total.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Neshant » 27 Jan 2018 23:56

Philip wrote:Pl ck US approval for 34 JSFs for Belgium at $6.53B.Recently announced.You can work out the cost/aircraft yourself! Nowhere close
to your hugely optimistic figures.The low figs put out by LH are nothing but bait for customers and the extra
costs to fix the current glitches haven't even been estimated.Nobody knows how much a fighting fit JSF will ultimately cost and ALIS supposed to be
a revolution in maintenance has thus far been plagued with software problems.The bird is still a work in progress.


Best not to buy any new plane but rather wait for it to be tested out on various guinea pigs who initially purchased it.

5 to 7 years is the minimum waiting time as cost of maintenance, reliability and effectiveness becomes known.

First edition of anything complex is plagued with all kinds of design flaws and issues.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19765
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 28 Jan 2018 03:57

Simplest solution is build/buy more Tejas even setting up a 3rd line if need be.24 aircraft/yr initially, graduating to 36+ a year and within 5 yrs we could have around 160+ fighters in the air.By then MK-2 could ready after trials for serial prod. and by 2030 around 300-360 aircraft delivered with enough even for exports.Firang OEMs wouldn't want that to happen would they not? Replacement of all MIG-21 /27 types even Bisons accomplished.360 LCAs 300 MKIs and around 260 med aircraft plus Jags gives over 900 birds.AMCAs replacing them from 2030.
Last edited by Philip on 28 Jan 2018 07:20, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2740
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby kit » 28 Jan 2018 05:12

One would be inclined to say " Build the Tejas in more numbers " but it does seem to be a rather simple notion to a " bigger problem" .. Now is that a solution or a problem ? ..why does the IAF want another single engine fighter when the " Tejas can be made in much greater numbers" .Lets agree for argument sake the Tejas indeed can be made in bigger numbers in the time frame , say 200 in about 8 years. Would this rate of production negate the need for another SEF ? Does the IAF want an SEF solely " for filling up numbers ? " Is there a geopolitical angle to all this hullabaloo ? hard to say ., its also likely that the SEF will go the way of the MMRCA !!!

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2740
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby kit » 28 Jan 2018 05:15

Also it is indeed weird for an aspiring geopolitical power to hitch the combat future of its airforce to another country by way of the F35 :-?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6658
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 28 Jan 2018 06:57

KrishnaK wrote:https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

:D :lol: :rotfl:

KrishnaK wrote:Both of you are clearly talking about the SEFs as compared to LCA MK2. How does it not figure in the equation ? When you say the SEF is going to imperil MK2 it's *you* that is comparing them with each other. If today the MK2 were in roughly the same state the MK1 is, would the SEF be talked about at all ? In the equation, one comes with less time risk but more political strings, the other with more time and less political. SEF delivery only has to be a lot surer than MK2 for it to be viable. To stress my point again, the option is not bakwaas while certainly less than optimal.

You wanted it dumbed down for you. When that was done for you, still you have not grasped it :)

Why is the USAF not inducting any further *new-build* F-16s? As brar has pointed out in the past, the USAF is now committed to the F-35 program. They are upgrading a number of present F-16s to the Block 70 standard, but they are not inducting any more new-build F-16s. It makes no sense for them to do so. The more money spent on new-build F-16s, means less money for F-35s and other vital projects in the USAF.

The same conundrum exists for the SEF and Tejas. No Govt cannot fund multiple military acquisition and development programs with a piddly 2% - 2.5% of GDP on defence. PAK-FA is coming, Rafale down payments have to be made, AMCA development is there. Then there are investment on IAF ground support and platforms - radars, missiles, MAFI, etc. Then there is the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Para Military and their funding requirements. And that is *JUST* the armed forces. Then there is a whole host of other ministries in the GOI that all have their projects that require funding. You cannot ignore budgets. There is only so much money to go around. I do not expect the 2018 Indian Budget - to be presented next week (on Feb 01) - to be any different from the previous years. There will be a marginal increase to account for inflation, pension and salary increases and a few vital acquisitions, but nothing more. Moral of the Story ---> The more money you waste on SEF, the less money there is available to invest in the Tejas.

KrishnaK wrote:The IAF can hardly ignore that great risk you allude to and ways to mitigate that. It is not their job to worry about independence & self reliance, growth, jobs etc.

The IAF is living in the risk *RIGHT* now.

Apart from the Su-30MKI, the only viable platforms the IAF has are the 2.5 Mirage 2000 squadrons (whose upgrade is moving at a glacial pace because of a MoD-HAL tussle) and the 3 MiG-29 squadrons (whose upgrade I believe is now over...which should make Philip happy). The six Jaguar squadrons badly need new engines, the two remaining MiG-27UPG squadrons are teetering and the MiG-21 Bison squadrons need experienced pilots - which the IAF does not have many of right now, because of an acute pilot shortage - to operate.

If and when the IAF acquires the SEF and then builds up the numbers to six squadrons (108 aircraft), it will be in the early 2030s - as Air Chief Marshal B S Dhanoa himself has said. The quicker path would be to continue with Mk1 production, finish Mk1A and commence development of Mk2. Don't waste $20 billion on this SEF, but rather;

1) Sign the contract with Honeywell for the F-125 re-engine program for the Jaguar and upgrade them to Darin III.
2) Remove the bureaucratic hurdles between HAL and MoD on the Mirage 2000 upgrade and complete the upgrade.
3) Invest the $200 million each, in additional lines for the Tejas Mk1.
4) Retire the MiG-27UPGs and MiG-21 Bisons as soon as a large number of Mk1 variants come on board.

There are some other things that can be added to that list, but this is a good start. And the best part i.e. the real clincher....all cheaper (even with all four points above combined) than $20 billion.

KrishnaK wrote:Finally ! If there is risk, then options ought to be considered, at the very least.

Nice Try, but no game. You cannot "pen knife" one statement to make a point. Especially when the options that exist are a waste of money.

Admiral saab, LM like any other commercial company can be held to account under Indian law - US sanctions can't stop India from encashing bank guarantees in India. A better option is getting Lockheed to invest in a physical plant in India and attach punitive measures to that. Question is how viable are these as options.

You are talking about bank guarentees? So tomorrow if the US tells LM to not honour the contract, what is the IAF going to fight with against the PLAAF? With the encashed bank guarentees? :lol:

The better option is to get the GOI to invest in additional Tejas lines for $200 million each and build up the numbers. That is not just the better option, it is the best option.

KrishnaK wrote:Incidentally, US foreign policy is not wishy-washy, it's broad direction is about as clear as it gets.

That is anything but true. But you are entitled to your fairy tale opinion.

KrishnaK wrote:It is the only power that has the political will and the capacity to run a humungous MIC and stitch together and run an alliance against China.

America is also the only nation that is $20+ trillion in debt. This quad alliance is needed because America is broke and needs an alliance to tackle the dragon. America cannot tackle the dragon by herself, because China controls a large portion of America's debt. The Emperor is Broke...but still wants to play Emperor.

KrishnaK wrote:India's increasing need for a qualitative edge is going to force it to buy increasing amount of US arms, whether the SEF even gets off the ground or not.

https://twitter.com/majorgauravarya/sta ... 9493169152 —> S-400 is a great AD system but we will continue to spend valuable foreign exchange on weapons imports, unless we get Indian private players involved on a massive scale. The biggest hurdle in our path is not lack of technology. It’s bureaucracy & red tape.

We have been led to believe that SEF is the door that opens the key. No SEF = No Key.

KrishnaK wrote:I was talking about the P8-I. Any serious carrier capability is going to be American with EMALS, E2Ds and most likely the F18s and possibly even the F35s. The sanctions constraint is emotionally overblown.

Well your "serious" carrier capability just got "seriously" eroded by a MoD Babu who cancelled the nuclear powered design and told the Navy to opt for a conventionally powered carrier instead. And thankfully so.

You also forgot the American carrier capability comes with a ridiculous amount of firepower and logistical support (from other surface and sub-surface vessels, not to mention satellites, rotary aircraft, robust intel, etc). Do you have any idea on the state of our ASW helo fleet? Do you have any clue that a good chunk of our surface fleet is missing offensive capability like the Active Towed Array Sonar (ACTAS) system? Our SSN fleet has not even sailed off the the drawing board. Our SSK fleet is in the dumps.

Waste billions on a nuclear powered, aircraft carrier and acquisitions of other vital naval platforms (submarines, more sub-hunters, ASW helicopters, etc) comes to a full stop. Thank goodness for the MoD Babu who put a full stop to that madness of a nuclear powered, aircraft carrier. What a colossal waste of money that would have been. And that too, just to influence Alaska :)

Nice idea BTW ---> send a conventionally powered, aircraft carrier out to battle against the PLAN without any of the support behind it. Because the PLAN is going to dhoti shiver when they see EMALS, E-2Ds, F-18s and F-35s.

KrishnaK wrote:* In a full fledged hot war, the INR will take a beating by the minute. How long do you think the GoI will sustain it ?

I am shocked. I thought America was going to save the day for India via EMALS, E-2Ds, F-18s and F-35s no? If the not the Amreekis, then who? I am so scared! :roll:

KrishnaK wrote:* The last time a travel warning was enough for a country armed entirely with strategically independent fighters - BTW i was on this forum when Parakram happend and Ravi Rikhye asked the question in the previous point - we know how that went.

Then you should know what happened to the late Lt Gen Kapil Vij, GOC of 2 Corps. A Strike Corps. Since you were on BRF during Operation Parakram, please do enlighten us.

KrishnaK wrote:* If the war stretches on for too long, the rest of the world will force it to cool down - oil sanctions to being with - how much more of a constraint is that compared to not being able to operate 100 fighters for more than 2-3 weeks ?

If the war's only to be a few weeks, will sanctions prone weapons do given enough stocks, especially when there are other sanctions prone weapons elsewhere?

:lol:
Since you brought up Iran earlier, I ask again (because you did not answer it).

Q. What is the serviceability rate right now of the Iranian F-14s in service?
Q. How effective are Iranian F-14s against a 4th++ generation fighter like a F-16 Block 70, a Gripen E, a EF Typhoon, a Rafale?

KrishnaK wrote:In the very same video of Lockheed's VP, another lady says "it's hard to imagine a scenario in which US sanctions arms sales to India". The issues which will cause the US so trigger sanctions are pretty clear and my understanding is that this has also been communicated pretty clearly. India is in a different league now and will only continue to get better.

Why is this even a topic of discussion with American weapons? Why does that question even have to come up? Because that has been America's track record in the past.

First you wanted the quote. I gave you the youtube video. Now to cover up that statement, another LM executive says, "it's hard to imagine a scenario in which US sanctions arms sales to India."

But why should such a scenario even exist? Are we getting the planes for free? We are buying it, no? So the planes then belong to India, no? It is our national asset, right?

Since you brought up the point, about the issues that will cause the US to issue sanctions, why don't you tell us what those issues are? So even you admit, there are issues that will cause the US to issue sanctions. :lol: Thank you for admitting that.

KrishnaK wrote:Am not denying what the LCA will do for the Indian industry. Embraer - Early Growth India can grow an aerospace industry without making the MK2 too as well. Fixing the Indian economy, labour laws will have more effect on Indian manufacturing than making the MK2. All without asking the IAF to assume any risk. However this is clearly a very emotional issue here. I really do give up this argument. I hope the MK2 does become a great success.

In the same vein, fixing the Indian economy, labout laws will have more effect on Indian manufacturing than buying SEF. All without asking the IAF to assume any risk. Nice, I like that one. I could not agree more. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests