Indian Military Aviation

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 14:00

indranilroy wrote: Our opponent has LO objects, we have some kind of fighters which are not stealth but have some capability to counter the stealth. What could it be?

Why one must counter fighters with fighters. To my mind the easiest way to start thinking about how to approach this question is to imagine that the US is attacking India and then asking what we might be able to do. I am not going to go through what I thought about this the last time I spoke of it. The last time was shortly after Iraq when the US pretty much devastated any available targets with cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are stealthy UCAVs (Low Observable Objects) on a Kamikaze mission. If you can counter Cruise missiles you are one step closer to solving one part of the problem.

The first step is to just look at defence. Forget about offensive capability. Just to avoid overloading one's mind with possibilities.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 01 May 2010 15:40

shiv wrote: Assume that what India can make with Indian capability is "current gen" and what india can develop using our own resources is next gen - without comparing with the US for validation. This is what China did.

What China did is exactly the opposite, they aped not one but two super duper leaders the US and Soviet Union.

It was the Soviets who lead the space race in the beginning with the launch of Sputnik, so should the Amrikis have said that since it is the Soviets who first reached there, we won;t follow them and we will not launch a satellite. But the didn't they first removed the gap and then went on to lead. Wasn't the researches that took place in Soviet and US sometimes the very same? even the two giants were pursuing the same line, they were competing each other to lead. but note on the same line.

shiv wrote: When the LCA was planned, it was planned to include technologies that were far beyond Indian capability. That was a mistake for which the nation and the designers paid for dearly. We have now paid the price, and the tech is almost within our grasp, 25 years after the US deployed it. The LCA was a gamble that could have failed.

Now we are once again looking at the future. Should we base our future plans on the capability we already have despite that capability being behind the US (like the IGMDP) or should we base our future plans on capability we no not have and hope to acquire, and take another gamble like the LCA gamble? IGMDP has worked, the LCA is still "getting there".

Shiv at least we are the nation India, if Somalia tomorrow wakes realizing that they are not leading the technology race, and just feel that they need to lead, would they ever be even able to achieve the feet after 30 years from now of building technologies like LCA? [or in any aspect where they could lead the world other than hunger and infighting, do say to me piracy please....]

Many a members here do not appreciate the fact that there is an establishment which was and is built in India, how slow or corrupt it may be, that enabled au to achieve what we are today. I would really like to see some of you as the President of Somalia or Haiti and see how these nations would then be?

Tanveer · Post by **Tanveer** » 01 May 2010 16:10

This is my first post... So dont mind
To me MRCA means Majbooran Replaced Combat Aircraft. We are forced to go for it as LCA got a little late.
AMCA, well it is Advanced Manpower Cultivation Aid. Well AMCA is a tool to keep our fighter aircraft designer occupied and prevent the knowledge from fading.

Sorry could not get better words to define these 2 hot words.

Tanveer

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 May 2010 16:29

Pilot production of airborne BrahMos begins

The first few missiles for factory tests have been manufactured at the Strela production association in the Orenburg Region, the Regnum news agency reported quoting regional government head Sergei Grachyov. Once the ground tests were completed, the plant would launch series production of the airborne missile, he said. The 2.55-tonne BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missile has been modified, shedding 500 kg and getting a new ignition engine to fire the missile at high altitudes.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 01 May 2010 16:56

Carl_T wrote: The question is not whether we should develop our capabilities or not, it is about whether we should go for the big ambitious projects which may be of questionable value when they are completed, as opposed to developing capability in basic technologies that can be done in a realistic timeframe. Shouldn't we first build an SDRE engine and radar before we start thinking about stealth fighters? Just IMO.

Me thinks BOTH..

We should have projects which we can complete within a realistic timeframe. I would put sat Tejas (Nowadays I hate the word LCA), LCH, Akash, Rajendra (and other radars), Arjun in this category.

But we have to spend some resources on the technology of tomorrow (by Indian yard stick) like stealth and LO, say laser weapons, ABM systems etc.

K

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 May 2010 16:58

Tanveer wrote:This is my first post... So dont mind
To me MRCA means Majbooran Replaced Combat Aircraft. We are forced to go for it as LCA got a little late.
Tanveer

Welcome Tanveer, one thing I keep wondering is:
With LSP3 ready and flying with almost everything which it is supposed to have. Hopefully it will clear IOC by March 2011 and tentatively FOC by 2013 Jan. Now if ---- if Everything runs smoothly for Majbooran Replaced Combat Aircraft paperwork they are also supposed to start coming by 2013.

so what's stopping us from cancelling MRCA and placing an order of Tejas Mk I as 40 + 126 planes. In fact if we start now making the Airframes we will have a sizeable inventory at the clearence of FOC for Tejas.

But the cofusing statements have been created in press by the perpetrators of MRCA fraud by making different statements:
1. MRCA is 'cause Tejas is late
2. MRCA is the need of IAF to have a Medium weight fighter between Su 30 and Tejas [How SH and Gripen fit in I don't know].
3. MRCA is to replace Mig21
4. MRCA is to make quick number in IAF

So if somebody objects on the point of Tejas being Ready by 2013 one of the other points then No.1 will be mentioned to justify our "Majbooran Replaced Combat Aircraft"

Tanveer · Post by **Tanveer** » 01 May 2010 18:10

hey Manish,
Here is my take:- MRCA was born in the year of 2001 time when IAF realized that LCA Late. At the same time Mig 21's were falling from sky every now ant then. Mig 23 was crying to get decommissioned. heard they saying we need 39 odd squadron. Thanks to SU 30 MKI else IAF would have been in real bad shape. We are still adding them and learning them. Time of hour was "QUICK" induction of some newer jet.
Then came some wise-man they thought - any one is willing to sell us coz we have the money why dont we have best bargain (he must be a baniya for sure)... now we see MRCA becomming MR'L'CA.
Why dont we cancel MRCA and go for all LCA????
Tareekh pe tareekh... Tareekh pe tareekh... Akhir LCA ne hume diya kya hai???
Joke apart going for MRCA is like adopting a 5-7 year old son (in some case 35 odd years old) and going for LCA is like planning a baby then 9 months of pregnancy and then you dont know if it is going to be a boy or a girl?

Tanveer

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 18:39

Tanveer wrote:hey Manish,
Here is my take:- MRCA was born in the year of 2001 time when IAF realized that LCA Late. At the same time Mig 21's were falling from sky every now ant then. Mig 23 was crying to get decommissioned. heard they saying we need 39 odd squadron. Thanks to SU 30 MKI else IAF would have been in real bad shape. We are still adding them and learning them. Time of hour was "QUICK" induction of some newer jet.
Then came some wise-man they thought - any one is willing to sell us coz we have the money why dont we have best bargain (he must be a baniya for sure)... now we see MRCA becomming MR'L'CA.
Why dont we cancel MRCA and go for all LCA????
Tareekh pe tareekh... Tareekh pe tareekh... Akhir LCA ne hume diya kya hai???
Joke apart going for MRCA is like adopting a 5-7 year old son (in some case 35 odd years old) and going for LCA is like planning a baby then 9 months of pregnancy and then you dont know if it is going to be a boy or a girl?

Tanveer

Good post Tanveer. The MRCA requirement is to "maintain operational readiness" with a proven platform that should serve us for some decades.

Fine, I will agree with that and not argue. But we cannot throw away the LCA. the LCA must be inducted and used. if we are going to induct LCA and develop it and we are also investing in PAKFA/FGFA - I think MCA or AMCA is a bogey.

We are stuck in a rut the minute we insist on
1) Stealth
2) Supercruise
3) +/- thrust vectoring

We will need an entirely new design aircraft for those requirements - which have been, as far as I can tell, been pulled out of America's musharraf because Indian musharraf can never produce that cocktail.

If these requirements are Indian future requirements then we need MCA/PAKFA. Since we will never succeed in flying MCA in less than 15 years (probably more, and where is the engine?) we will go for PAKFA. We have already pulled out our wallet.

But who says we need supercruise and thrust vectoring? What will be the IAF's requirement 25 years time? Is it supercruise and thrust vectoring? Stealth is OK to a greater or lesser degree - but are we trying to reach American levels of stealth as in F 22/F 35?

How much influence are F 22 and F 35 having on our jingo minds or on the minds of our Americanitis suffering defence advisers. What does the IAF say? I am certain the IAF has no illusions. Are supercurise and thrust vectoring an IAF requirement? Someone please point me to a vision document. What the hell is this AMCA/MCA? Does anyone have any idea of what is being offered behind the cryptic name "MCA" and what can realistically be done by India?

As far as i can tell the IAF is asking for reliabaility, maintainability, numbers, PGMs, standoff PGMs, space based assets for monitoring , comm and navigation, better sensors, better networking. They are not saying "Give us supercruise. Give us thrust vectoring".

What the hell is happening with AVATAR, and I am not talking about the movie. The IAF is begging for space based assets for the future. Are people offering them MCA and supercruise instead?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 18:54

shiv wrote:No such claim has been made sir. You are entering the realm of creating strawmen to knock down.

If so, what is the point of the below quote then and this comparison with the US? And stating that the MCA designers were pulling the wool over our eyes?All I am saying is that your rhetoric was misplaced.

Mrinal wrote:How can India develop counter stealth technologies if it has no stealth of its own?

There are two ways of doing this
1) As you suggest, build a stealth fighter first and then try to shoot it down
2) Understand that "stealth" (among other characteristics) means bringing down (for example) the cross section of a radar reflecting a/c from say 20 sq meters to 2 square meters. All you need to do is try and detect (and hit) 2 square meter targets from clutter.[/quote]

Again some confusion here.

Your first and two points are so highly correlated, that I am surprised you dont find the correlation. How for example do you know what the practical limits of RCS are, without extensively researching 1.

And furthermore, why do we need counter stealth technologies to begin with, when our likely opponents dont have stealth technologies and it is to our advantage to gain them to nullify their advantage in long range systems that can detect conventional aircraft.

Pursuing the MCA has nothing to do with aping the US - it has everything to do with going into the fight with the best possible chance of survival. That the US has come out with a good solution is a positive, as it allows us to observe their approach and pick up bits and pieces of what we require for our approach (in terms of approach to the problem).

The second assumption, related to the second point is that India is doing nothing about "bringing down the cross section of a radar reflecting aircraft" - India has done this. It is also pursuing programs to detect and intercept VLO RF radiating aircraft. These are again tied to our operational threats.

So I find the line of arguement that a) India does not need the MCA and b) a MCA is akin to aping the west - to be incorrect.

Again two ways of doing this
1) Make the assumption that everything the US does is "next gen" and try and ape that as we do now
2) Assume that what India can make with Indian capability is "current gen" and what india can develop using our own resources is next gen - without comparing with the US for validation. This is what China did.

Why would one think that what India is doing is 1) and not 2). Did the Indians call the MCA "advanced strike fighter" or MCA (as in an advanced follow on from the LCA". Clearly, they are following 2. There is no evidence yet to suggest that India is doing whatever US does. If it did that, then there would be no 3 fighter class strategy or LCA/MCA business.

We would just do what Taiwan did - assume that the US has the best technology, and license their engineers and R&D to make us a fighter, well in time, with some decent but nothing too advanced in terms of capability and call it some local name like they did with the Ching Kuo.

I would choose one route. The route you suggest is clear and in keeping with India's national ethos. That is what i have been trying to say.

Actually, the route you now suggest is being followed by Indian developers. Furthermore, India is developing a BMD system, CMs, strategic missiles - all of which have been done by the US before, following your reasoning so far, we would have to dump each and every one of these programs. But the point is they all have some unique features and capabilities that are tied to Indian needs.

To be honest - its not that what you are saying is wrong per se, its just that the examples you have chosen to support your point being right as they are "wrong" are flawed. If you look at it, the entire world is scrambling for stealth - its not because they ape the US, but because the US spend gazillions of money on coming up with the solution to radar directed weaponry and now that the secret is out of the box, everyone can try for it.

Furthermore, you call for UCAVs - is that not aping the US? So we ditch our manned aircraft development process and run after the next great thing...

Your point is more valid with respect to the specifications and procurement process than the development process. Because the manner in which the specifications and requirements are framed, relying on brochures and foreign OEM claims, that they end up reflecting a mish mash of systems developed abroad for doctrines framed abroad.

The only way we can get out of this trap is continuing the LCA-MCA etc model whatver we call it. Because if we dont, we will end up aping the west, because Indian developers will lack the basic understanding to innovate.

The word innovation is also highly abused - in a field such as aerospace, where the slightest mistake can lead to disaster, risk taking has to be subject to rigourous audit and verification. By the time a designer gets on that path in a meaningful manner, he has to have at least a decades worth of solid meaningful work behind him. How he will do that, if every attempt to create a systematic product development path gets waylaid by the next great thing...

Thats all I am saying..not attacking you per se but the logic behind the claims that we need to develop d, l, f or whatever without first doing a, b, c

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 01 May 2010 19:02

shiv wrote:We are stuck in a rut the minute we insist on
1) Stealth
2) Supercruise
3) +/- thrust vectoring

We will need an entirely new design aircraft for those requirements - which have been, as far as I can tell, been pulled out of America's musharraf because Indian musharraf can never produce that cocktail.

Agree with this. But one of the things to remember with this is, even with its experience in military aircraft and seemingly endless funds, the US did not ask for all these in one aircraft initially. Consider the following:

1. Stealth: F117 and B2 - Neither could supercruise or be anywhere close to manuverable.
2. Supercruise: They hit upon it accidentally while trying to make a vectored thrust F-16. But it wasnt a criteria so it did not see service till the F 22.
3. Thrust Vector: They tried it with the F-16 mentioned above. Again did not see service till the F-22 and that too not all aspect.

So they actually developed this technology over 30 years or more on different aircaft. Then they tried to make the F-22 incorporating all this in one aircraft which cost more than the earth and finally was curtailed at less that 200 units. We have just about got the LCA going and are already trying to put all this in an aircraft due in 15 years. Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt from others mistakes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 19:02

OK I have been ranting all this time about what India cannot give the IAF. Let me spend a few minutes saying what i believe India can give the IAF from indigenous development

1) We can develop good air defence missiles (done)
2) we can provide radar cover all over India (not yet done)
3) We can launch satellites for surveillance, navigation and communication (done very very partially onlee)
4) make the avionics for seamelss and secure networking of all IAF assets and enable networking with Army and Navy (not yet done)
5) develop PGMs (partially done, long way to go)
6) develop standoff PGMs (Brahmos plus)
7) Develop antisatellite weapons (not done - only tongue wagging has been done)
8) Develop classes of bunker busting PGMs (not done)
9) develop radars for our aircraft (being attempted)
10) Make flying safe by developing better than world class standard of quality control, safety and maintenance.
11) make a reliable aircraft with good range, all the avionics and PGM capability with decent performance, workable stealth - and not worry about supercruise, internal weapons and thrust vectoring as aims

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 19:07

Mrinal I believe you are trying to enter into a discussion with me without reading my admittedly copious posts on the matter. Sine you have clearly not read what I have posted earlier I will not bother repeating my posst for you except to state that since you really have not bothered to read what I have already written. I am quite happy for you to continue to be in disagreement with what I say.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 19:11

Shameek wrote:
So they actually developed this technology over 30 years or more on different aircaft. Then they tried to make the F-22 incorporating all this in one aircraft which cost more than the earth and finally was curtailed at less that 200 units. We have just about got the LCA going and are already trying to put all this in an aircraft due in 15 years. Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt from others mistakes.

Absolutely! Wise words. We can learn from our own mistakes and others mistakes. IMO stop talking supercruise, and thrust vectoring as "absolute requirements" for the future. There is a whole lot of stuff we can achieve in realistic timescales.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 19:11

shiv wrote:Good post Tanveer. The MRCA requirement is to "maintain operational readiness" with a proven platform that should serve us for some decades.

Fine, I will agree with that and not argue. But we cannot throw away the LCA. the LCA must be inducted and used. if we are going to induct LCA and develop it and we are also investing in PAKFA/FGFA - I think MCA or AMCA is a bogey.

The problem is that the IAF will not use the LCA MK2 to meet requirements after the MRCA production run ends. What do we do then? Hand Russia another x Billion $ to make a single engine PAKFA which we then take TOT for and pat ourselves on the back for 20-30% contribution, and say "well done".

We are stuck in a rut the minute we insist on
1) Stealth
2) Supercruise
3) +/- thrust vectoring

The point is that the IAF insists on these specifications. I have AM Majors interview last year - he says the specifications required of a fifth generation platform include stealth and supercruise!
So how will you convince them to buy an aircraft without these attributes.

We will need an entirely new design aircraft for those requirements - which have been, as far as I can tell, been pulled out of America's musharraf because Indian musharraf can never produce that cocktail.

AFAIK - the AMCA is being designed in India. The Russian PAKFA - which has all the above attributes was designed in Russia again without US involvement. The EF has supercruise, designed in Europe, and now claims to offer TV..

If these requirements are Indian future requirements then we need MCA/PAKFA. Since we will never succeed in flying MCA in less than 15 years (probably more, and where is the engine?) we will go for PAKFA. We have already pulled out our wallet.

The PAK-FA as has been pointed out, refers to the heavy weight category. Ajai Shukla's article posted prior clearly shows that the AMCA is targeted towards replacement of legacy medium weight IAF fighters.

But who says we need supercruise and thrust vectoring?

The IAF.

What will be the IAF's requirement 25 years time? Is it supercruise and thrust vectoring? Stealth is OK to a greater or lesser degree - but are we trying to reach American levels of stealth as in F 22/F 35?

The IAF will decide these based on their forecasting and coupled with whatever local guys provide as their input. The hope should be that brochuritis does not intervene.
American levels of stealth are unlikely since the cost to achieve a performance like that of the JSF will break the bank.

How much influence are F 22 and F 35 having on our jingo minds or on the minds of our Americanitis suffering defence advisers. What does the IAF say? I am certain the IAF has no illusions. Are supercurise and thrust vectoring an IAF requirement? Someone please point me to a vision document. What the hell is this AMCA/MCA? Does anyone have any idea of what is being offered behind the cryptic name "MCA" and what can realistically be done by India?

As far as i can tell the IAF is asking for reliabaility, maintainability, numbers, PGMs, standoff PGMs, space based assets for monitoring , comm and navigation, better sensors, better networking. They are not saying "Give us supercruise. Give us thrust vectoring".

What the hell is happening with AVATAR, and I am not talking about the movie. The IAF is begging for space based assets for the future. Are people offering them MCA and supercruise instead?

The IAF is clearly aware of what fifth generation, as it defines it, constitutes and what it should and should not include. Incidentally it happens to include TVC, Stealth and Supercruise.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories178.htm

Kindly look at what Mr Naik notes:

IAF aiming for Diverse Capabilities, says Vice Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal P V Naik in his Keynote Address on Fighter Technology and Advance Systems, Sep 26, 2008

The current or fifth generation cutting edge of fighter design combines previous emphasis on versatility with new developments such as thrust vectoring, short takeoff/ landing (STOL), composite materials, super cruise, stealth technology, advanced radar s and integrated avionics designed to reduce the pilot’s workload while vastly improving situational awareness. With this as the background, let us see the requirements of a fighter aircraft of the future.

Future Requirements of the combat fleet

India has seen rapid technological growth in the recent past; however we are aware of some areas that require infusion of technology. We have identified niche technologies that will be in tune with our requirements of the future and are commencing the process of acquiring these. Some of the technologies that we are considering, include :

1. Platforms that combine stealth, and situational awareness as a result of interacting with, a broad array of networked systems.
2. All weather strike capability.
3. Standoff attack capability with very high degree of accuracy.
4. Passive radar technology.
5. Fire and forget BVRAAMs.
6. Sensor technologies for long range BVRAAMs and sensor fused weapons.
7. Enhancing EW capability by extension of electromagnetic spectrum to millimetric and optical wavelengths and warning of illumination by IR, Laser and Radar.

Technological advancements in the recent years have had a profound impact on the battlefield and the milieu is going to be more and more sophisticated in the years ahead. As seen in recent conflicts, network centric warfare capability, along with cutting edge technologies in the fields of surveillance, targeting, avionics, weapon lethality are going to be the areas of focus.

As to what the MCA will and will not include, thats going to emerge only once the IAF specifies its requirements and gets a buy in from local industry. There will be mapping done of what is available locally and what will require cooperation/consultancy as well.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 19:19

Shiv writes:Mrinal I believe you are trying to enter into a discussion with me without reading my admittedly copious posts on the matter. Sine you have clearly not read what I have posted earlier I will not bother repeating my posst for you except to state that since you really have not bothered to read what I have already written. I am quite happy for you to continue to be in disagreement with what I say."

Apologies if I appeared confrontational but I have read your copious posts, and unfortunately I disagree with specific points because in my opinion those points are wrong. You may consider this nitpicking, and that I understand, but it is important to have all the facts on the table when discussing these topics.

For instance, in your above post, reference the last paragraph, we have the argument that is this forum and "defence advisors" are aping the west in talking of supercruise, stealth and TVC and what not. However, if one spends (admittedly, it may be more than some) time in tracking what our Chiefs of Air Staff have been saying, they all mention supercruise, TVC and stealth as points of interest.

The AMCA or MCA or whatever CA will have to take the IAF's view into account. Let us think about this for a second, why would ADA or HAL not like your belief in a simplified LCA variant being ordered in numbers - it makes sense for them, big bang for little buck/effort. But clearly, the IAF does not feel that this "limited approach" is sufficient for their needs.

Furthermore, if the IAF believed in this sort of approach, we would not even have this LCA MK2 or MK3 or whatever, we'd just take the first tranche of planes and series manufacture them.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 19:23

Mrinal wrote:
But who says we need supercruise and thrust vectoring?
The IAF.

Sorry. Your word won't do. I have been doing regular reading. Provide a source other than yourself.

If Fali Major wants Supercruise and TV from India he ain't gonna get it. But that is the point I have been making, We are looking at foreign dependence for 50 more years at least. But hey - you don't want to read what I have actually said as opposed to what you think I might mean.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 19:28

We have Naik above on record talking of stealth and other attributes.

Here is Major:

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... ukhoi.html

"IAF chief, air chief marshal, Fali Homi Major expects the first developmental flight of the stealth fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), a project which it is supposed to co-develop with Russia, to take place in the period 2015-2016.

''The FGFA should fly for the first time by 2015 or so. If it manages to do so earlier, then it will be a big achievement. Negotiations with Russia are making good progress, with the details being worked out,'' the IAF chief informed the media on Thursday.

''It is very complex to design and develop an FGFA. The FGFA we want will be an entirely new platform, with many additional features, stealth being an important one,'' he added.
..........

As envisaged by the IAF, the FGFA will fulfill futuristic requirements of the IAF, and will come equipped with a lethal mix of super-manoeuvrability and super-cruise ability, long-range strike and high-endurance air defence capabilities. Apart from offering a ''minimal'' radar cross section the FGFA will also have ''a very high degree of network centricity'', as also multi-spectral reconnaissance and surveillance systems, such as optical, infra-red, laser and radar sensors.

So here again, the IAF expects its Russian FGFA to have stealth, TVC (supermanoueverability) and supercruise.

Thing is that a) we have limited contribution to PAK-FA (so we will be tied to Russia's apron strings) and b) it will be too heavy (read expensive) to be procured in bulk.

Rahulm or Nachiket (I forget whom, sorry) calculated the number of aircraft being retired and that need to be replaced despite the PAKFA etc. We have two options, run at that point for the JSF or some other "western/eastern" aircraft, or have our own solution in place.

The choice is ours.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 19:31

Shiv writes:

"Sorry. Your word won't do. I have been doing regular reading. Provide a source other than yourself."

Both Naik and Major are on record above.

If Fali Major wants Supercruise and TV from India he ain't gonna get it. But that is the point I have been making, We are looking at foreign dependence for 50 more years at least. But hey - you don't want to read what I have actually said as opposed to what you think I might mean.

How do you know that Major wont get supercruise and TV from India or that we'd be dependent on the west for another fifty years? What it takes is prudent planning and funding to ensure that we achieve the technologies that we need in time for the MCA. Supercruise is no unobtainium either. Personally, I dont care if the supercruise or TV is achieved by some sort of JV engines whether they be from Russia or Europe because if funding needs to be split between 100% Indian engines or continuing our missile program or other requirements (and year on year, India's requirements keep increasing), then we have to make a choice.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 19:51

Requirements planning is usually done with a few scenarios in mind, based around best case, likely and worst case. If the whole world attacks us, our goose is cooked (and armageddon scenarios come into mind as well).

So we have to look at what is likely. I admittedly have limited knowledge but have been doing some reading for the past couple of months on China and Pakistan to get a feel of things. Both nations -especially the former are investing heavily on SAM systems and EWRs (Early Warning Radars). A manned AF will have to depend on stealth and speed (supercruise is one aspect) and manoueverability (TVC is one aspect here) and support aids (EW etc) to escape heavy attrition. I remember a book about attrition statistics which stated anything above a mid single digit attirtion percentage (calculated on sortie basis) is not acceptable and will lead to loss. Also, the smaller you are (to radar), the faster you fly and the more manouverable you are, the less power the supporting assets need to apply to protect you. It is these factors which have led to the rapid proliferation of stealth technology. Of course, once a technology matures, everyone has it, people will have countermeasures as well. That is the name of the game. But surely, we should not deny ourselves the advantage of procuring a technology because the west lead the way in identifying this advantage and gaining it.

We in fact, need it more than they do, because we lack the numbers and supporting assets that the west usually relies on. Problem is also about morale. Once you start suffering heavy attrition versus the enemy thanks to inferior equipment, how can you motivate your soldier to go out and fight? This is an issue which statistical number versus exchange ratios dont model.

There is an article someplace which says that by the third day, the Iraqi soldiers stopped fighting because if they fought, their equipment would not lead to results and they would die. So they took off their uniforms and ran or just surrendered (1st Gulf War). We dont want to be in the same situation.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 19:51

Mrinal wrote: How do you know that Major wont get supercruise and TV from India or that we'd be dependent on the west for another fifty years? All it takes is prudent planning and funding to ensure that we achieve the technologies that we need in time for the MCA. Supercruise is no unobtainium either.

Fine. I would be the happiest person on earth if we could do that. I just don't believe it. Please take time out to read what I have actually said - We do not have the capability to produce either TV or supercruise NOW. The US already has those capabilities. By the time we get it - it is likely to be 20 years or more from now, with no guarantees. For this reason, and air force that demands this technology will not get it from India. we will import it. And the minute we import - we are then dependent on a foreign supplier for another 4 decades.

Some of my views on this are summed up in these posts, in case you have not seen them
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 05#p861805
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 44#p863044

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 19:53

Fali Major on the future (towards the end of the interview) from 2007

http://www.youtube.com/user/cybersurg#p ... cSiMi2m08Q

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 20:00

Mrinal wrote: Both Naik and Major are on record above.

Sorry sir. They are not. Read again, from your link

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... ukhoi.html

Fali Major is quoted as saying

''The FGFA should fly for the first time by 2015 or so. If it manages to do so earlier, then it will be a big achievement. Negotiations with Russia are making good progress, with the details being worked out,'' the IAF chief informed the media on Thursday.

''It is very complex to design and develop an FGFA. The FGFA we want will be an entirely new platform, with many additional features, stealth being an important one,'' he added.

The news item goes on to say the following without attributing it to Fali Major - which would be a white lie.

As envisaged by the IAF, the FGFA will fulfill futuristic requirements of the IAF, and will come equipped with a lethal mix of super-manoeuvrability and super-cruise ability, long-range strike and high-endurance air defence capabilities. Apart from offering a ''minimal'' radar cross section the FGFA will also have ''a very high degree of network centricity'', as also multi-spectral reconnaissance and surveillance systems, such as optical, infra-red, laser and radar sensors.

I have never read an IAF requirement for Supercruise and TV. The report is a Russian media report that is selling snake oil and not a quote from Fali Major as Mrinal believes.

Sorry sir. Well played anyway. Good try.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 20:05

shiv wrote:
Mrinal wrote: How do you know that Major wont get supercruise and TV from India or that we'd be dependent on the west for another fifty years? All it takes is prudent planning and funding to ensure that we achieve the technologies that we need in time for the MCA. Supercruise is no unobtainium either.
Fine. I would be the happiest person on earth if we could do that. I just don't believe it. Please take time out to read what I have actually said - We do not have the capability to produce either TV or supercruise NOW. The US already has those capabilities. By the time we get it - it is likely to be 20 years or more from now, with no guarantees. For this reason, and air force that demands this technology will not get it from India. we will import it. And the minute we import - we are then dependent on a foreign supplier for another 4 decades.

Some of my views on this are summed up in these posts, in case you have not seen them
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 05#p861805
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 44#p863044

I will read those posts and you have the right to your opinion (goes without saying). However, what I would point out is that the US is not the only nation which has those capabilities. For engines that support supercruise - which is actually a function of aircraft design (drag) and high thrust to weight engines, looking at the engines alone

1. European Union, France and Russia - apart from the US

For engines that support TVC

1. European Union (based on EJ200 program) and Russia - apart from the US

We dont need to import this technology, we can codevelop - and we will learn over time. Point is that this will require consistent effort. Pardon me for saying so but alternative approaches to this technology are likely to be as expensive and more risky. Hence selling alternative approaches to the IAF wont work - that apart, you would be aware of the likely reaction of the IAF if such an approach would be proposed.

However, if we fund (and thats a big if!) a military complex that consistently researches such technologies, the people inside will gain the confidence and ability to find their own path and develop their own alternatives. But we are surely looking at the long haul here, but it will happen.

It has happened in missiles. I recall a comment by Saraswat mentioning to a journalist who asked about comparisons that India didnt need the Patriot or Russian S-300 as our system would be superior to those. We need to be in the same place vis a vis our other programs.

I am a guest on another board where discussions on Indian science and technology would invariably elicit remarks on "cows on wheels" and "what happened to those guys sh!tting in the streets" and similar comments. Many of these were by people who have good scientific/engineering background.

However, in the past few years, with the work done on anti ballistic missiles, ISROs Chandrayan, the Tata Nano etc - the snide comments have toned down measurably. In my opinion, that speaks of changing times.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 01 May 2010 20:08

Shiv I like your recent posts and I agree with you 100 %. Good to know someone from the medical field on this board I was kind of getting a bit lonely

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 20:10

Mrinal wrote:
Rahulm or Nachiket (I forget whom, sorry) calculated the number of aircraft being retired and that need to be replaced despite the PAKFA etc. We have two options, run at that point for the JSF or some other "western/eastern" aircraft, or have our own solution in place.

The choice is ours.

Sir you say

We have two options, run at that point for the JSF or some other "western/eastern" aircraft, or have our own solution in place.

Sir You have provided three options, not two. Sorry to nitpick. You are absolutely correct about those 3 options. We could go for JSF. Yes. I m sure a lot of people would like that. JSF in Indian markings! Gee whiz.

And yes, "western/eastern" is brilliant thinking!

But our own solution? By "our own" are you referring to India? What solution can India have to match the JSF that is flying now. we have only reached LCA level.

Is India really "ours". I must be wrong - I cannot come up with three solutions in the garb of two as you have done, but I just wonder can India buy JSF and still be "ours"? Who is the "we'" in ours?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 20:12

shiv wrote:http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... ukhoi.html

Fali Major is quoted as saying

''The FGFA should fly for the first time by 2015 or so. If it manages to do so earlier, then it will be a big achievement. Negotiations with Russia are making good progress, with the details being worked out,'' the IAF chief informed the media on Thursday.

''It is very complex to design and develop an FGFA. The FGFA we want will be an entirely new platform, with many additional features, stealth being an important one,'' he added.

So we have Fali Major here speaking of stealth being an important attritbute - required of the FGFA. Is Major aping the west, then?

The news item goes on to say the following without attributing it to Fali Major - which would be a white lie.

As envisaged by the IAF, the FGFA will fulfill futuristic requirements of the IAF, and will come equipped with a lethal mix of super-manoeuvrability and super-cruise ability, long-range strike and high-endurance air defence capabilities. Apart from offering a ''minimal'' radar cross section the FGFA will also have ''a very high degree of network centricity'', as also multi-spectral reconnaissance and surveillance systems, such as optical, infra-red, laser and radar sensors.

Domain B is an Indian news site! It should have been clear to anyone who read it - as I quoted that openly, that this credible Indian site was pointing to the IAF requiring super cruise ability and manouverability as essential attributes.

I have never read an IAF requirement for Supercruise and TV. The report is a Russian media report that is selling snake oil and not a quote from Fali Major as Mrinal believes.

This is amusing.

The above quote is from an Indian news site, and since it contradicts your claim that the IAF does not want supercruise or TV, you deny it and attribute it to Russia.

Can you deny the MKI in service then as well!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 20:13

snahata wrote:Shiv I like your recent posts and I agree with you 100 %. Good to know someone from the medical field on this board I was kind of getting a bit lonely

Thanks. I have been called "Dr" only for 33 years, I have been following Indian military aviation for 48 years. Will definitely throw a BR party for the 50th year to coincide with Aero India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 20:15

Mrinal wrote:
So we have Fali Major here speaking of stealth being an important attritbute - required of the LCA. Is Major aping the

Never said that about stealth. As usual you post without actually reading. I have been ranting about supercruise and thrust vectoring. Sir.

Mrinal wrote:Can you deny the MKI in service then as well!

Indian development? Indian funding for development? 100 % Indian input? Ok at least 70% Indian input?

How many aircraft engines has India designed and produced sir? I really think I need to ignore you. I believe you are way way behind on your general reading. And clearly you won't read what i have said apart from general ignorance.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 01 May 2010 20:15

I believe we need to make a clear distinction between 'Must Have' and 'Good to have' when it comes to the AMCA.

It has come up earlier that the EF has supercruise and is talking about TV. But the crucial point is, they accepted the EF without these and are actually using them in squadron service. Heck, it doesn't even have an AESA or a great A-G ability. On the same lines there is not much use comparing with the PAK-FA. Like it or not, we are not close to the Russians when it comes to building aircraft. Not saying we cant be, just that it needs to be in small steps, not a giant leap. See the number of stillborn aircraft the US and the Russians have made so far. They have learnt by failing multiple times. Can we really afford to do that?

Imagine reading this news 20 years later. 'AMCA delayed due to issues with Supercruise. HAL looking for new powerful engine'. Or 'AMCA too expensive to build and maintain'. The moment we make any criteria a 'must have', it becomes one more checkbox that needs to be checked before anyone is willing to buy the product. But getting that checkbox checked might easily mean a few years worth of delays and anguish. It's easy to want the moon from a new product, but we need to ask some questions before that. Are we capable of doing all that in the given timeframe and resources? Do we have anything that has similar capabilities? To ask for everything after having built one fighter which has none of this is not the best thing to do. Look at what we did with the MKI. Took a 15 year old Su-27 and made it into something amazing. But for that the original had to be proven out first. Given time, the AMCA can have all that. But to expect it from the get-go might be a bit too much.

To be honest, I don't know much about the projected role of the AMCA amidst the MRCA, PAK-FA and the MKIs. If someone can enlighten me on the role, maybe we can discuss how many of these features are absolutely critical in order to fulfill that role. Or do we just need a 'jack of all trades' type of aircraft?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 20:18

shiv wrote: We have two options, run at that point for the JSF or some other "western/eastern" aircraft, or have our own solution in place.

Sir You have provided three options, not two.

If you would care to read, then that would be three options
- Go for the JSF
- Go for some other western aircraft
- Go for a Russian option

Hope thats clear now?

Sorry to nitpick. You are absolutely correct about those 3 options. We could go for JSF. Yes. I m sure a lot of people would like that. JSF in Indian markings! Gee whiz.

Yes, they surely would given some of the comments on the MRCA thread. It would make the manufacturer of the JSF and their European partners also very happy.

And yes, "western/eastern" is brilliant thinking!

I claim no credit. In case you are confused, east refers to Russia- take a look at where the PAKFA factory is located.

But our own solution? By "our own" are you referring to India? What solution can India have to match the JSF that is flying now. we have only reached LCA level.

Why, we would have no solution at all. After all, your solution proposes stopping at the LCA level and going to advanced UCAVs etc. That should work.

Is India really "ours". I must be wrong - I cannot come up with three solutions in the garb of two as you have done, but I just wonder can India buy JSF and still be "ours"? Who is the "we'" in ours?

[/quote]

Talk about twisting words in order to elicit outrage.
The point being made, even as you attempt to twist it entirely - was that if there is no MCA, India will end up running towards the JSF or whatever F, and then its moot to talk of control or "we" or "ours" or whatever.

The beautiful PAK-FA which you so support, ends up with us (aka we) being controlled by Russia.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 May 2010 20:20

May I ask why the MCA is necessary? What is it going to do that the PakFa/MKI/MMRCA/LCA cannot?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 May 2010 20:20

shiv wrote:Remember that when IGMDP was started the US and USSR already had deployed ICBMs. Nevertheless the aims of IGMDP
were modest and designed to match Indian capability. This was a well conceived plan, that did not look at anyone else for inspiration, destined to succeed despite criticism.

or may be they did look at russia for inspiration ? at least that much may be opined from a reading of the wings of fire.

When the LCA was planned, it was planned to include technologies that were far beyond Indian capability. That was a mistake for which the nation and the designers paid for dearly. was that the mistake ? or was the fact that we let whatever aircraft designing skills we had to atrophy post marut the actual mistake ? by the time LCA program was sanctioned, making a crude older gen fighter had no relevance, we already did that with the marut. it may not have been obvious then, but it is amply clear now. had we chosen to make a souped up mig-21 as many well-meaning people suggest, the LCA program would have been wound up by the late 90's when it would have been clear that such a fighter was obsolete.
the LCA program has already delivered on much of its promises, it has succeeded in creating a modern aircraft designing ecosystem in India and the spin-offs have found its way into programs like the su-30mki etc. We have now paid the price, and the tech is almost within our grasp, 25 years after the US deployed it.probably because we started 25 years after they did ? after all the powers that be had decided in all their wisdom that there was no need to continue the marut experience. there was no option but to play catch up due to the time lost.The LCA was a gamble that could have failed. yet it did not, so I don't quite see the point of this. given the situation, we could have either
a) take the completely 100% risk-free decision of sitting on our hands and doing nothing, foregoing *any* chance to develop a modern fighter ever and depending on imports in perpetuity.
OR
b) take the gamble and risk to create a fighter in India, to IAF requirements. personally, I'm mighty glad that they took this risky gamble in stead of low risk judicious options. it has taken us to where we are now, which is literally worlds away from where we were in the mid 80's.

Now we are once again looking at the future. Should we base our future plans on the capability we already have despite that capability being behind the US (like the IGMDP) pardon me but aspects of the IGMDP were as or even more ambitious than the LCA, nag and the agni for example are by no means simple projects that were entirely within our technical capability at that point. or should we base our future plans on capability we no not have and hope to acquire, and take another gamble like the LCA gamble? AMCA, if it is sanctioned will be FAR lesser of a gamble than LCA was. IGMDP has worked, the LCA is still "getting there". the point being ? missile development and aircraft development timelines are not exactly comparable. if there is to be a comparison it has to be apples with apples, other aircraft development programs in India, since there are none, similar projects from abroad. and here we find that the LCA takes as much time as any other but certainly not more in any significant way. for a project that started with a big zero in infrastructure, had to encounter significant sanctions related delays during the course, was subject to enlightened mismanagement from GOI bureaucracy, all along sustained on drip funding, that is very very creditable indeed. it gives me the confidence that AMCA will be significantly smoother when many of those problems have either been solved or at worst, managed..

shiv wrote:What is AMCA? (Not the acronym, the concept)
As per official documentation by the IAF, it wants the MCA to be a twin-pilot configured multirole stealth aircraft capable of "close air support, all weather interception, air defence suppression, long-range strike, electronic attack, limited command & control and reconnaisance"
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/01/in ... craft.html
What is the technology that the AMCA needs?
let's see,
#1 RCS reduced airframe without paying a massive penalty on aerodynamic performance.
#2 a FCS that can handle this airframe.
#3 radar absorbent materials that won't be a PITA to maintain.
#4 internal bays and the tech to launch weapons from those when the aircraft's attitude can vary inside a large envelope. larger the envelope, better for the aircraft
Sensors
#1 AESA radar
#2 modern IRST
#3 A variety of RWR, MAWS etc (internally) and the ability to carry external pods if needed.
#4 a system that incorporates all of the above to give the pilot the best and most comprehensive SA possible.
other avionics
#1 a robust EW system.
#2 decent cockpit instruments for the pilots
#3 secure high volume datalinks
#4 on board computers that can handle all of the above
propulsion
#1 engines that can provide
a) respectable TWR to the aircraft in operational configurations
b) enough excess power to run the gizmos listed above
#2 some kind of IR suppression measure
#3 some level of RCS reduction measure
weapons
#1 a BVR AAM
#2 a reliable and inexpensive LGB kit
#3 ability to integrate virtually any weapon system IAF manages to get its hands upon.
What technology do we need to build?
with respect to the above list :

#1 eminently doable with whatever expertise we have on CFD and other aspects of aircraft design.
#2 a modification of the LCA FBW SW would do fine, the same is most probably true for the HW end. that's the advantage of starting with an advanced requirement for the LCA itself, instead of running behind yesterday's tech, it cuts down on the lead time for MCA.
#3 arguably a more difficult ask in this list. however we already have some measure of success in the RAM applied on jaguars, so we will not be starting from scratch either.
#4 one of the most difficult parts of the project IMO, a system that performs as advertised and is yet robust enough to survive the stresses of high g environment won't be easy to make, especially if we have to make every little bit ourselves. however, the PAKFA experience should help immensely in this regard.
sensors
#1 program started. even if it doesn't deliver by time, we will have several fallback options, the EL/M-2052, or the radars of the MRCA bird which we eventually buy(unless it's american)
#2 arguably our weakest point, along with engines. quite possibly there is a domestic project in progress, failing which the PAKFA's IRST is a distinct possibility.
#3 developed already for the LCA program, in the process of being updated for LCA Mk2, in which form it will not be drastically different from what goes into the AMCA/NGFA.
#4 being developed for LCA Mk2
other avionics
#1 some already developed and used in a variety of IAF fighters, the next variant is being developed for the LCA Mk2, which would be similar to what the AMCA gets.
#2 should be same or similar to LCA Mk2
#3 work in progress for the IAF as a whole, not just for the AMCA, not directly related to the AMCA project per se.
#4 updated versions of LCA Mk2's versions should do the trick.
propulsion
#1 our weakest point, being developed. as of now the requirements don't seem daunting.
#2 and #3 would be much more difficult but not important enough to break the project, more like good to have features. if needed, these could be developed later in the program.
weapons
#1 astra AAM is in testing
#2 desi LGB is in testing
#3 already done in LCA.
Who already has that technology ?
as is clear from the above list, we do, for the most part.
If someone already has that tech, how old will the tech be by the time we get it?
this is a rhetorical question ! how does that matter in any way, unless it is for puffing up H&D. we still study mathematics and geometry that are more than a couple of thousand of years old by any reckoning. why ? because it is still useful.
same reason.
Is is not possible for us to define a future aircraft based on technolgy we have (like IGMDP) rather than on technology we do not have?
I think they are doing just that. btw, IGMDP was NOT completely based on what technology we had at that point of time, a lot of tech was developed in the course of the IGMDP project.

moreover, DRDO's current approach should be apparent from this article,
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... first.html

The DRDO revolution: Technology first, weapons later
.........
Steering away from ambitious targets, the DRDO has decided to announce new programmes only after completing the development of all the technologies that underpin them.
.........
“Today, there is a shift from purely building systems, to equally focusing on creating the technologies of the future”, explains Dr VK Saraswat, the DRDO’s Chief Controller of Missiles and Strategic Systems
.........
“When there is a limited focus on a particular programme, generic technology development takes a back seat. But no organisation can sustain future growth unless you have built technologies for the future systems which are going to emerge.”
.........
Dr Banerjee explains, “We need to mature the technologies (for the UCAV) first. Only then can we go to the Indian Air Force with a proposal. We don’t want the entire project to become hostage to one technology that gets held up.”

Has anyone ever spelt out or discussed these things?
of course ! surely you didn't think this was the first time ?

_________________________________________________

to put it in a nutshell, the assertion that HAL/ADA/IAF is blindly aping whatever the US is doing or that they are not leveraging existing tech available in the country is an out and out strawman that has no legs to stand upon.
arguing for the sake of it with not a care for the real world does nothing for the quality of discussions.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 01 May 2010 20:21

shiv wrote:
snahata wrote:Shiv..... I .... . ....Will definitely throw a BR party for the 50th year to coincide with Aero India.

Count Me In

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 20:23

Mrinal wrote: The point being made, even as you attempt to twist it entirely - was that if there is no MCA, India will end up running towards the JSF or whatever F, and then its moot to talk of control or "we" or "ours" or whatever.

The beautiful PAK-FA which you so support, ends up with us (aka we) being in control of Russia.

I would throw PAKFA out of the window, but looks like we are already paying for it, or are talking of paying for it. But I would reject JSF along with it. Kindly do not attribute motives to me. You are just displaying ignorance. Of aviation, and of me and my posts/views. I am just worried that Indians in general share your ignorance and actually run for the JSF as you suggest and ensure Indian ghulami forever. But why repeat what I have written before?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 20:24

Carl_T wrote:May I ask why the MCA is necessary? What is it going to do that the PakFa/MKI/MMRCA/LCA cannot?

I second that question!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 20:28

Rahul M wrote: to put it in a nutshell, the assertion that HAL/ADA/IAF is blindly aping whatever the US is doing or that they are not leveraging existing tech available in the country is an out and out strawman that has no legs to stand upon.
arguing for the sake of it with not a care for the real world does nothing for the quality of discussions. [/b]

Thank you Rahul

Could you please point me to Supercruise and thurst vectoring either in your post or in the link and if those words are absent could you categorically state that Supercruise and thrust vectoring ARE NOT requirements of the MCA project so that I can stop accusing indian planners of aping the US?

MCA is doable within a realistic time frame (20 years IMO) ONLY if we do not demand thrust vectoring or supercruise as essential features. So please say the magic words... ((I, for my part will ignore the fact that we have no engine yet. it will come)

It also follows that the next gen fighter aircraft to be developed in India as envisaged by Indians does not include TV or supercruise. That is an American requirement that should not be thought to be an Indian requirement as well. No?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 20:35

Never said that about stealth. As usual you post without actually reading. I have been ranting about supercruise and thrust vectoring. Sir.

So does the MKI not have thrust vectoring as well?
And yes, you have been ranting and seem to be very upset that your comments are being replied to.
Then what did Mr Naik say?

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories178.htm

The current or fifth generation cutting edge of fighter design combines previous emphasis on versatility with new developments such as thrust vectoring, short takeoff/ landing (STOL), composite materials, super cruise, stealth technology, advanced radar s and integrated avionics designed to reduce the pilot’s workload while vastly improving situational awareness.

Indian development? Indian funding for development? 100 % Indian input? Ok at least 70% Indian input?

Yes, but werent you questioning that the IAF has need for such an aircraft? Clearly they do, otherwise why would we purchase the MKI with such capabilities.

Indian funding - yes, I dont think the TVC on the MKI would have gone into series production otherwise.

How many aircraft engines has India designed and produced sir?

None - which is why I said codevelopment. I dont think 100% is possible, given current Indian funding and attitude.

I really think I need to ignore you. I believe you are way way behind on your general reading.

Ah more personal attacks..great, what else..

I would throw PAKFA out of the window, but looks like we are already paying for it, or are talking of paying for it. But I would reject JSF along with it. Kindly do not attribute motives to me. You are just displaying ignorance. Of aviation, and of me and my posts/views. I am just worried that Indians in general share your ignorance and actually run for the JSF as you suggest and ensure Indian ghulami forever. But why repeat what I have written before?

Unfortunately, none of your claims about the MCA being akin to aping the west etc have had a factual basis. When I pointed this out, you responded with sarcastic comments. Did I insult you in turn? No.

Then you said the PAKFA should be chosen and claim that we should not have foreign dependence. When I pointed this out - that it means being tied to Russias apron strings, now you come back with more attacks "you are just displaying ignorance" etc, "Indians share your ignorance" etc.

Yes - we are paying for it, but is it optimal?

Finally, you state that I am attributing motives to you. Can you point out ONE post where I have attributed ANY motive to you. Go ahead, show it.

Last - it is your contention that "Indians share my ignorance" (poor they) and will run after complex technology and India will end up being dependent for systems from abroad forever. Fine.

The problem is "Indians dont share this ignorance" or "defence advisors" ...it is shared by the IAF. For better or worse, the IAF has decided it:

- wants TVC (case in point the MKI, FGFA)
- wants supercruise (case in point the FGFA)
- Wants stealth (routinely mentioned)

Now, given how requirements are written, all these may end up being in the AMCA as well. Or MCA or whatever. My point has all been about making sure the MCA or whatever succeeds and not about ditching it for some UCAV etc which is going to be as hard as the MCA etc to achieve if super duper specs are written (AI, TVC, Stealth etc) when we wont even have MCA technology to draw on and relegate us to another Tier 2 aviation industry eg Israel (after Lavi was cancelled and all they can do are UAVs and business jets).

Thanks for reading my post.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 May 2010 20:43

Shameek wrote:I believe we need to make a clear distinction between 'Must Have' and 'Good to have' when it comes to the AMCA.

It has come up earlier that the EF has supercruise and is talking about TV. But the crucial point is, they accepted the EF without these and are actually using them in squadron service. Heck, it doesn't even have an AESA or a great A-G ability. On the same lines there is not much use comparing with the PAK-FA. Like it or not, we are not close to the Russians when it comes to building aircraft. Not saying we cant be, just that it needs to be in small steps, not a giant leap. See the number of stillborn aircraft the US and the Russians have made so far. They have learnt by failing multiple times. Can we really afford to do that?

Imagine reading this news 20 years later. 'AMCA delayed due to issues with Supercruise. HAL looking for new powerful engine'. Or 'AMCA too expensive to build and maintain'. The moment we make any criteria a 'must have', it becomes one more checkbox that needs to be checked before anyone is willing to buy the product. But getting that checkbox checked might easily mean a few years worth of delays and anguish. It's easy to want the moon from a new product, but we need to ask some questions before that. Are we capable of doing all that in the given timeframe and resources? Do we have anything that has similar capabilities? To ask for everything after having built one fighter which has none of this is not the best thing to do. Look at what we did with the MKI. Took a 15 year old Su-27 and made it into something amazing. But for that the original had to be proven out first. Given time, the AMCA can have all that. But to expect it from the get-go might be a bit too much.

To be honest, I don't know much about the projected role of the AMCA amidst the MRCA, PAK-FA and the MKIs. If someone can enlighten me on the role, maybe we can discuss how many of these features are absolutely critical in order to fulfill that role. Or do we just need a 'jack of all trades' type of aircraft?

Nobody would disagree with what you say, but the issue is with requirements.

In recent years, thanks to our economy having opened up and our defence budget growing proportionately, everyone has offered us the kitchen sink.

Given that, the IAF tends to ask for the best. The local developers also look abroad for collaboration and say ok. They are insecure that if they dont say ok, they will be asked to make screwdrivers for putting together foreign PAK-FAs.

The situation has become complex and even more so, given the squadron limit of 39.5 combat squadrons (every article I have read points to the issue of getting maximum bang for buck).

So one can relax this squadron cap and get large numbers of simpler LCA, LCA2, LCA3 etc
Or you'll end up getting advanced requirements for smaller numbers of aircraft.

China does the former approach. Perhaps we should do too.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 01 May 2010 20:45

All the major ( er. American, goras etc) are talking about any new combat aircraft to have
Stealth
TVC (for super maneuverability)
AESA

as a MUST for any new aircraft

Are these requirements not contradictory ?

If you have a super stealth and a super AESA radar, why the f$#k do you need TVC (for super maneuverability) ? You should be able to shoot you enemy out of the sky several tens of kms away. You need not worry about close in dog fighting.

Shiv
Do you remember our AE 2001 BR Meet at Bangalore where a lot of IAF brass were present ? The Tejas had just flown a few weeks ago and everbody at AE was simply ga-ga over it. At our BR Meet I distinctly noticed that the IAF brass were almost non chalant about it. I was a bit perplexed and then asked one of them about the Tejas. He simply said that it should be a good aircraft but it is NOT stealthy.

I could no longer keep my big mouth shut and asked him "Which are the current (2001) aircraft have stealth ? "

This IAF gentleman mumbled something and walked away.

I think our IAF still is rather carried away by brochure salesmanship. We simply go for what the gora does without thinking whether we really need that characteristic. In think IN is an exception.

An off the topic example is the software that we use, MS Excel. Do you know the functions offered by MS Excel ? Unbelievable !! But who uses them ?
I am sure most people must have used less than 5% of MS Excel's capabilities.

The MiG 27 has a laser range finder / designator in the nose. I believe that it is HARDLY used, reasons not know to me. Why ?

My final question is
If American stuff is that good as what appear in the brochures, the press and TV programs
why is America getting screwed in Iraq and Afghanistan ????

K

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 May 2010 20:47

Mrinal wrote: Finally, you state that I am attributing motives to you. Can you point out ONE post where I have attributed ANY motive to you. Go ahead, show it.

Here you go sir

Mrinal wrote:The beautiful PAK-FA which you so support

You stated that the IAF air chiefs wanted supercruise and thrust vectoring and tried to bluff your way through with a link that did not say that.

Now we have another forum member saying that supercruise and thrust vectoring are not features of the MCA.

That means that the IAF is not going to get what you and your sources claim that they want - unless they buy PAKFA (as per your source) or JSF (as you suggest).

If the IAF buys PAKFA or JSF we are going to be dependent on a foreign supplier for the life cycle of the aircraft which is in the region of at least 40 years maybe more. I don't like that. If you don't like it you haven't said so. But clearly Indians are not going to be able to meet the IAF's requirements if those requirements include supercruise and thrust vectoring. What is so difficult about admitting that?

I am personally doggedly against Indians who slobber after JSF or PAKFA just for supercruise or Thrust vectoring (which you claim, without proof the IAF wants) If that is being personal there you are. I hate the idea. We are not going to get either from an Indian source an are going to sell ourselves out to a foreign supplier.