LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby rohitvats » 23 Jan 2015 19:55

Thakur_B wrote:<SNIP>The production line is ready, the augmentation is for increasing the capacity of production line which would require more orders from IAF. Given the dire state of squadron numbers, IAF will most probably relent. There is already talks of more trainer aircraft that might be ordered.


If the production line is ready for the first lot of 40 aircraft, who funded the said line? And asking for augmenting production facility w/o user having placed an order is placing cart before the horse!

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Sagar G » 23 Jan 2015 19:59

The Tarmak article regarding LCA production line (which some don't even know the meaning of)

Bangalore: Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has set up a state-of-the-art facility with some of the best aerospace manufacturing technologies to take up the Tejas series production. With the built-up area of 28,000 sq meters, the Light Combat Aircraft (Production Group) has already started the series production of Tejas with the mandate of delivering the first aircraft (SP-1) to the Indian Air Force (IAF) by March 2014.

The new facility has LCA structural assembly hangar, two flights hangars and machine shops to augment the Tejas production. Backed with a workforce of over 700 personnel, with 80 per cent being in the average age group of 30 years, the set-up has come up with a sanction of approximately Rs 400 crore. Each Tejas platform should cost the IAF around Rs 200 crore. The equipment fitting on SP-1 began this year and 75 per cent of the aircraft structure is already ready. First 20 aircraft will be rolled out in the initial operational clearance configuration, while the next 20 will be in the final operational clearance format.

HAL plans to take the production rate to 16 aircraft per year from 2017 onwards. The facility will be upgraded to a major manufacturing complex consisting of sheet metal shop, process shop and heat treatment shop. Additional hangars are also coming up for support and maintenance, with further augmentation in the pipeline to accommodate the Tejas trainers and naval variant.

All hangars are equipped with forced draft systems to maintain dust, humidity and temperature control. HAL has given the mandate to head the new facility to V Sridharan, who has worked extensively on Jaguar and Hawk programmes. “We have embedded the Tejas production with best lean practices in manufacturing. Maintaining highest quality standards have been the driving philosophy behind while setting up this unit,” HAL chairman R K Tyagi told Express from Delhi. Batting for the private industry, HAL says that a total of 9362 fabricated parts will be manufactured by its external supply chain. “This step is critical in propelling HAL as a lead integrator in the national aerospace eco system,” Tygai said.

A gen-next 5-axis CNC machine installed at the facility is capable of robotically undertaking the wing skin drilling, thereby reducing the turnaround time by 80 per cent. The manufacturing jigs have been calibrated with computer-aided laser tracker to 80 micron tolerance. The manufacturing shop has been equipped with appropriate CAD software for working with digital mockup features.

To aid IAF’s Tejas squadron formation and associated flight operations, HAL has built a brand new 5000 sq meter tarmac right next to the manufacturing hangar. The flightline group from the new Tejas facility has supported six detachments (outstation trials) in this year. The Tejas variants have also logged the highest ever number of flights (485) this year.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby srai » 23 Jan 2015 20:11

rohitvats wrote:...

BTW - before people on BRF shout blue murder on this, this is something which is happening with Su-30 MKI as well. But guess who is ordering these a/c from Russia? Horror of horrors, it's HAL to meet the production delays in delivery!!!

...

The CAG report on MKI production states that due to the compressed timelines desired by the IAF HAL was forced to order from Russia to meet those revised timelines.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby rohitvats » 23 Jan 2015 20:18

srai wrote:
rohitvats wrote:...

BTW - before people on BRF shout blue murder on this, this is something which is happening with Su-30 MKI as well. But guess who is ordering these a/c from Russia? Horror of horrors, it's HAL to meet the production delays in delivery!!!

...

The CAG report on MKI production states that due to the compressed timelines desired by the IAF HAL was forced to order from Russia to meet those revised timelines.


That was only one of the reasons, along with documentation issue. But even in compressed timeline, the numbers allotted under HAL head were met by imports. The production table documents these instances as well. IIRC, 20 of 81 a/c till March 2013.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby nirav » 23 Jan 2015 20:30

rohitvats wrote:Which part of Tejas/Tejas Mk-2 development stuck up because of shortage of funds? And why is HAL asking MOD for funds for Tejas production? Why can’t it fund the same through accruals? Last I checked, for FY 2012-13, it had PBT of ~INR 3,500 Crore. Where does this money go? Thing is, HAL behaves as a commercial entity which seeks to balance its cash-flows and returns while claiming to do everything from ‘national’ perspective.



What do you want HAL to do ?
Use up all of its PBT to churn out 16 per year of mk1 when the user has done an arjun tank on it w.r.t order size ?

Might as well ask HAL to give the lcas for free for a "national perspective".

@ 30 million per LCA and this 1200 cr expense for ramping up production to 16/year IAF can stand up almost 5 squadrons in the next 5 years at a cost of 2.6 billion. And 8 squadrons in 8 years for 3.8 billion.

But they will instead spend 20+ billion for 7 squadrons of rafale to arrest " rapidly declining" squadron levels.

So the situation is rafale and mkis filling up mig 21 squadrons no's when the actual mig 21 replacement is already available.

HALs PBT when becomes PAT sends money to govt. Which funds IAF which funds Dassault and sukhoi for Mig 21 replacements.

Happens only in India.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 23 Jan 2015 21:07

LRDE has invited Expression of Interest for development of radomes for nose cones on fighter aircrafts. No more information provided.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 23 Jan 2015 21:11

Rohit,

SP-1 and SP-2 did not probably come off the assembly line. Because the assembly line and the SPs were coming up together. However, setting up the assembly line was taken up as a priority item about 2 years back and I would expect it to be ready by now. Probably, that is why IAF wanted to accept LCAs from SP-3 onwards.

Having said that IAF's attitude towards LCA has been nothing short of step-motherly. I have no second thoughts about. I am yet to come across another airforce which is so antagonistic to a domestic fighter. NOBODY demands a state-of-the-art system with all systems ready from day-1. NO ONE! Actually when IAF and ADA both studied what LCA should be during the project definition days. IAF pundits thought ADA was being over ambitious and LCA should be an iterative development (and there was merit to that). But once the decision was made that Tejas will be a completely new design and an effort would be made to make it as indigenous as possible, IAF believed that it was not feasible and has never come around that thought. I am really happy that MoD is arm twisting them to fall in line with this national project.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3543
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby fanne » 23 Jan 2015 21:45

I believe Rafeal has to do with slow induction/acceptance of LCA. An airforce having SQ number similar to PAF with majority of it to be retired would be forced to buy Raf (or so IAF thinks). What stops us from buying extra 100-200 odd SU 30MKI to arrest the numbers? Ya IAF will be top heavy, but beats IAF that is not heavy at all. The SU30MKI is about same capability wise as MMCRA (if not more) and costs less than that. If we get LCA also, there maybe a less case of MMCRA. If we do not buy MMCRA in 1-2 years, it may miss the bus for good. FGFA maybe coming online, (albeit a Russian one, but they will export us in a heartbeat, costing same as MMCRA, but at least a generation ahead), and LCA Mk1 would have matured by then.

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby akimalik » 23 Jan 2015 22:00

rohitvats wrote:To me, here IAF simply seems to be hedging its bets about ability of HAL to meet the delivery timeline.

If IAF is hedging bets by relying on MMRCA (which would eventually be built by HAL) how does IAF expect HAL to perform better at churning out Rafales any more reliably?

rohitvats wrote:And asking for augmenting production facility w/o user having placed an order is placing cart before the horse!

Sounds eerily similar to the Arjun saga.

Long time ago when I was a young kid walking around in the NAVAC, I used to read this phrase written on the hill side "The more we sweat in peace, the less we bleed in war". By sweating it out with HAL, ADA, DRDO (whomsoever IAF wants to rope in) we have a chance to redeem ourselves. But they need to do it "together" and not in an adversarial relationship.

<rant> Leadership is not just about giving orders, it is also about having the patience to help people follow. </rant>

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby ramana » 23 Jan 2015 22:48

RV and SagarG, Knock it off. Not needed in here.


Thanks,

ramana

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 23 Jan 2015 23:21

Tarmak007 reports

NLCA ‪#NP2‬ LSTT successful barring minor hydraulics snag. Now, FRRB, another HSTT and first flight may be in 1st week of Feb.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby rohitvats » 23 Jan 2015 23:21

Sagar G wrote:
rohitvats wrote:And the spectacle of your useless posts continues.... :P


Following you sire :wink:


Sagar G - I had a re-look at my original comment and it actually appears as if I'm asking why HAL is asking MOD for funds instead of IAF+IN to put up the 25% each.

My apologies. I stand corrected. I will be deleting my posts which were exchanged with you.

Regards,

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby SaiK » 23 Jan 2015 23:34

can't get the original link.. here is a cached one:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us
After eight options for in-flight retractable refuelling probes proposed by Cobham, U.K., weren't found feasible, a ninth option has been chosen, with detailed studies in progress to finalise the configuration.
which one is that?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby rohitvats » 23 Jan 2015 23:35

ramana wrote:The logic appears to be nothing is better than LCA. And motivated editorials without author names!!!


The Editorial seems to be taking liberty with interpretation of facts.

Here is the real story from December 2013 about planned induction of initial Tejas aircraft:

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Tejas-Induction-into-Air-Force-to-Take-More-Time/2013/12/20/article1955269.ece

Posting in full so that people can step back and not jump into making conspiracy theories.

The Indian Air Force’s wait to induct the Tejas might get bit longer till the four series production (SP) aircraft roll out from the brand new hangars of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

While Friday’s second initial operational clearance (IOC-2) will signal the end of a grueling wait for the IAF to officially undertake flight evaluation trials, the formation of no 45 Squadron (Flying Daggers) earmarked for Tejas might take another two more years. The same squadron last flew the MiG 21 Bison aircraft operating from Naliya (Gujarat), an airfield closer to Karachi. The Tejas squadron will eventually be operating from the Sulur Air Force base, near Coimbatore.

Sources monitoring the Tejas programme said that, HAL’s promise of delivering the first production variant of Tejas (SP-1) by March 2014 might be little far-fetched. “We hope to have the first aircraft by end by mid of 2014. The first two aircraft (SP-1, SP-2) might not meet our standards for squadron formation as the metal cutting and hardware were done before we froze the IOC-2 test points. We will raise the first Tejas squadron with four aircraft starting from SP-3 to SP-6,” a top source said. The IAF will use SP-1 and SP-2 for evaluation flight to be undertaken by the test pilots of Aircraft System and Testing Establishment (ASTE). The limited series production variants LSP-7 and LSP-8 too will be used for evaluation flights by the IAF.

The IAF has already identified the first Commanding Officer for Tejas Squadron, now part of the ASTE team, but he’s yet to fly the Tejas. More officers are expected to join the squadron soon, with only few technicians currently being trained to handle the aircraft. For IAF, the maintainability of Tejas is the most primary concern. “The hardware-related issues need to be fixed first. The software can be upgraded without much delay. The critical factor for any aircraft is its maintainability. Truly speaking, before the IOC event, all hardware must be finalised, which might not still be the case with Tejas,” the source said.A programme management team from the IAF sits at the Aeronautical Development Agency to ensure that the Tejas comes out as a ‘usable aircraft’ befitting the squadron standards. The HAL will deliver first 20 aircraft in IOC configuration and another 20 more in the final operational clearance format.


So, all this talk of IAF being twisted into accepting LCA into squadron service and all that is pure BS. IAF is simply adhering to its SOP which but we have people interpreting the same as some sort of delay tactic on part of IAF.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_26622 » 23 Jan 2015 23:47

Repeat of 'Divide And Rule' approach.

Divide Indian defense establishment in to HAL vs IAF vs. DRDO slugfest so that no one wants to work with another and prefer neutral 'Imports'.

Just like we prefer 'neutral' English over any Indian Language.

member_28788
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28788 » 24 Jan 2015 00:08

Kailash wrote:Strategic independence should be given due weightage on new purchases and tenders. Americans and Russians could armtwist any other country into not selling to us during time of war. Defense ministry has to drive the point hard that IAF should nurture local industry or suffer the consequence. One way is to put a percentage limit on their budget, of how much must be spent within the country.



Strategic independence is good but I'm not sure if Russia is capable of armtwisting someone to not sell to India. Not disagreeing with the overall direction of your post though.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby vishvak » 24 Jan 2015 00:31

Defense ministry has to first fund all essential developments that are crucial for defense such as engines and radars till results are obtained, even if that means spending successive generations of development. If drilling oil is important for national security then fund drilling tech too, and all such tangential projects. How are we chickening out on all this and then demanding strategic independence. And what is the point of less independence from Russia only to buy more from America - when question of Russia or America comes up. Makes little sense. Even independent countries (France, Japan, Germany, UK) could depend on these powers indirectly in part components in specialized tech areas. On the other hand, on paper IAF can also order what will be available in future as it is available right now at the minimum.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby ramana » 24 Jan 2015 00:34

SagarG, Clean up your posts like RV did.

thanks,

ramana

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Sagar G » 24 Jan 2015 00:47

^^^ Done saar :mrgreen:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 24 Jan 2015 01:19

looks like i missed some fireworks.

OT
sagar g, i was wondering what your comments on the deleted ones were. let me guess? that indian news report about f35 raptors over ombabas convoy?? :mrgreen: hence the deliberate wrong aircrfat descriptors etc?

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Viv S » 24 Jan 2015 01:23

rohitvats wrote:There is a reason I had put up the IAF re-equipment plan thread – so that people could see what IAF was up against in terms of current re-equipment requirement and what will be the scenario in post 2025 period. And ensure they make their recommendations on what IAF should do basis more realistic assessment and not some fancy thoughts.

This is what you’ve done above with-out bothering to take your recommendation(s) to their logical conclusion. It’s not a video game AF you’re trying to populate here!

Second hand Mirages were sought by the IAF but the price issue stalled the deal. So, you can remove that from your angst list. And Su-30MKI production is running behind schedule; if the HAL would’ve met the agreed timeline, IAF would be under lesser pressure. But this is not exactly a major source of concern.

And what good would’ve purchasing EF T1 done considering it would happen on time which is highly unlikely given the fact that it faces all the hurdles as Rafale deal.

Coming to second hand Mig-29s part and ordering some newer ones from UAC (what would LM deliver off-the shelf?) would have meant allocating funds on programs which have relatively shorter life span as compared to long term planning and solution.

For example, your second hand Mig-29 (and even off-the-shelf MiG-29SMT) would’ve become part of the upgrade package to keep them relevant along with our original purchase. So, the cost is not in terms of original purchase but requirement for technological upgrades as well which needs to be factored. Not to mention the maintenance part – which is the reason that while IAF was OK to look at second hand Mirage-2000-5 but doesn’t want to touch Mig-29 with barge pole.


- The price issue stalling the deal can hardly be justification for junking it altogether. For nearly new aircraft in the Dash 5 Mk2 configuration the Qataris had an asking price of around $60M each IIRC. Revise that downwards for depreciation and a decade later we could have gotten them for under $40M (compare that with what we're paying for our Mirage upgrade). UAE didn't start considering a replacement of its Mirage fleet until much later (they were trying to get the French to buy them back in lieu of Rafale orders). Upside is, the aircraft are likely still available if we make a serious play for them.

- Also worth looking into are ex-AdlA Mirages. As per the 2013 French MoD White Paper, the entire fleet numbers (AdlA + MN) are to be cut down by 75 units or so (225 down from 300), which will comprise entirely of Mirages (all again upgraded to Dash 5 standards).

- Given that there would be no significant ToT hassles or relatively low pricing, there shouldn't have been any significant delays with the EF T1s. And the aircraft itself is more than adequate for air superiority, interception and basic strike roles. The option could have been pursued, albeit only as a fallback (would have granted additional leverage in negotiations with Dassault).

- Additional MiGs would have required additional funds yes. And IAF's aversion to MiGs might have been more palatable if not for the fact that it operates them by the hundreds and is preparing to extend Bison operations to 2021, while HAL is creating an MRO facility for the MiG-29 and preparing to manufacture RD-33s under license.

- Vis a vis UAC & LM, I meant a fifth gen aircraft (omitted - typo). With the FGFA deliveries scheduled for 2024-25, an interim buy (assuming the MMRCA is scrapped) would have taken care of the deep strike & ISTAR requirement, something that was the Rafale's USP a few years ago, but is increasingly looking like a hard call against a rapidly modernizing PLA/PLAAF.

Question – where would’ve funds come for these purchases and whatever makes you believe that decision would’ve been taken on time?

Absolutely. Its all a question of funding. Which raises the question, where is the funding for the Rafale to come from? $22 billion (plus). A fraction of that would be enough to finance some combination of alternatives on the list.

The problem lies with decision making process and not in planning. IAF had asked for a more reasonable solution of Mirage-2000-5 as MMRCA and had these come on time, we’ve been in a comfortable situation with respect to numbers and technology. No requirement for second hand stuff.

If second hand stuff was to be ordered, it should've been done when MMRCA first came up and had to be instead of MMRCA and not a back-up; even that decision for Mirage-2000-5 was stuck for donkey years and we landed into new MMRCA soup.

The Mirage option is still available. In fact, there are more aircraft available today than were five years ago. UAE is still looking to divest itself of Mirages and the French downsizing has only recently been announced.

Problem is the IAF still continues to insist that there can be no Plan B, all while an abundance of workable alternatives continue to exist.

What China can do is their strength and opportunity – what matters is how we intend to deal with the situation. When a time comes where we can field a fighter in J-10 class, we’ll also purchase it in-house and not go shopping outside. Hopefully, with coming of AMCA in 2028-2030 timeframe, this part will be addressed as well.

We can't divorce ourselves from the economic aspect of defence against China. They spend at least three times as much as we do, a fact we can't change. But the fault for not getting a better return on investment than they do, lies entirely with us.

The J-10B is very much in the Rafale class. Not as capable certainly, but at a third of the cost it delivers better combat value per dollar. Given our equation vis a vis China, what sense does it make to, if I may use an oft repeated phrase, buy a 4.5 gen aircraft at 5th gen prices. Ultimately, what I fear is that the issue of cost never enters into the IAF's calculation matrix, and if so that's a sorry state of affairs we're in.

Also, worth considering is the PAF's example. They are outgunned and outnumbered against the IAF but are doing a deft job, all things considered, sweeping up second and third hand F-16s wherever they can, while backing the JF-17 to the hilt (a fairly decent fighter for its cost).

Which part of Tejas/Tejas Mk-2 development stuck up because of shortage of funds? And why is HAL asking MOD for funds for Tejas production? Why can’t it fund the same through accruals? Last I checked, for FY 2012-13, it had PBT of ~INR 3,500 Crore. Where does this money go? Thing is, HAL behaves as a commercial entity which seeks to balance its cash-flows and returns while claiming to do everything from ‘national’ perspective.

HAL's profits go back to its primary shareholder i.e. MoD. It sounds absurd but its a sound principle. A steady profit margin allows the it to function as a 'normal' company resulting in a good valuation. As and when the MoD divests its shareholding in HAL, a long record of profit (however pointless) will enable a higher share value and thus greater capital accumulation for the government.

More important than the production rate is a build order large enough to make the investment economically viable. While it hasn't said anything publicly, reading between the lines its the IAF rather than the MoD that appear to be responsible for keeping the Mk1 order limited to 40 units.

On cost as a whole, fact is, investment matters. The Tejas did most of its testing with just three or four aircraft available at any period. In contrast, the Eurofighter program employed 14 aircraft altogether for R&D (not including the prototypes). The F-35 program has 15 aircraft at Edwards ITF for flight sciences and operational testing. The Gripen program didn't have nearly as many prototypes, but they had the luxury of building 120 of an early variant, and then retiring two thirds of them barely 15 years later. Lockheed Martin & Boeing had enough aircraft on hand to run all sorts of experiments with the F-15 & F-16; canards, thrust vectoring nozzles and so on, even without a DoD contract.

ADA in contrast has worked without anything remotely resembling a luxury, with every rupee spent closely watched. If they, for example, need to avail of consultancy, they have to send a request to the MoD that will consider the matter and decide whether or not to sanction the allocation, and if proper procedure was followed. All while we're forced to shell out billions on imports.

I’ve seen you make this statement about ‘variety’ of a/c operated before as well.

Have you ever stepped back to see what was the economic + geo-political situation and what India could afford and who would sell to India? Not to mention the typical decision making process and treatment of higher defense management in India?

Do a simple exercise for each a/c operated by India and you’ll get your answer.

Yes I've made the statement before, and I've never heard a satisfactory rebuttal to it.

- Between 1980 and 1990, a ten year period, the IAF inducted the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, Mig-27, MiG-29, Jaguar and Mirage 2000 (the 21, 27 and Jag being HAL built). And by 1993, we were negotiating for the Su-30. Its absurd to the point where it just becomes funny. The geopolitical situation doesn't change the fact that somewhere something went dreadfully wrong.

Air forces which accepted Rafale and EF in their nascent avatar did not have to bother with enemies and conflicts in post 1991 scenario. And they always had big brother in USA to help them out with almost everything.

Its quite the other way round. The RAF and AdlA inducted the nascent EF & Rafale despite facing no imminent threats. They could have chosen to delay (perhaps a little less so in the MN's case as it needed a Crusader replacement ASAP), they opted not to.

The situation is diametrically opposed in India's case, wherein actual squadron strength is a third below sanctioned strength and over half the fleet consists of types that in the West & Russia are considered all but obsolete.

The French eventually upgraded their F1s to full multi-role F3 standards. The RAF modified its T1s with a Litening pod and achieved basic multi-role capability. The US is already operating four F-35 squadrons (plus three test & eval/conversions squadrons) before IOC, all of which will be combat capable when IOC is declared but with a full pool of trained air and ground crew. Even the PAF accepted two JF-17 squadrons before it was equipped with BVRAAMs or LDPs. Those squadrons are up and running, and the aircraft will be (or have been) upgraded to fire SD-10As.

Even if we have to write off a portion of the Tejas fleet in 15 years as the Swedes did, at $26 million, how is it not worth it, in light of what we're ready to spend on imports. And if we accept that, there's no justification for the IAF's insistence on crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i'.

Coming to your assertion about Mig-21 and Mig-27, they’re operational and fighting platforms. Tejas was not before IOC-2. So, the comparison is mute. Even if Mig-21 and Mig-27 have limited capability, they’re platforms which will go to war and do their job within acceptable limits. Not to mention that they’re part of an established chain from platform to weapons to spare parts to manpower.

We're still operating older MiG-21Bis; no radar. And how many years did we operate the MiG-27 before it was upgraded with an EW system and precision strike capability? The Tejas doesn't have to be at full capability to be inducted and doesn't need a mature supply chain to be operational. Both aspects can be addressed concurrently.

Its possible that the Tejas would have a lower mission availability in the initial stages, but so what? Zero LCAs can hardly be better for the IAF's strength than a few squadrons with evolving combat capability.
Last edited by Viv S on 24 Jan 2015 12:55, edited 2 times in total.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby eklavya » 24 Jan 2015 05:29

Viv S wrote:What I fear is that the cost never enters into the IAF's calculations, and if so that's a sorry state of affairs we're in.


Rafale was L1, the alternatives you were supporting either didn't make the downselect (F-18) as they were technically inferior, were more expensive than the Rafale (EF), or not proposed/evaluated and therefore ineligible (F-35).

The alternative to the Rafale are more/upgraded Su-30MKI. The Defence Minister has said so.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4616
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Jan 2015 06:52

Viv, are you sure the UAE M2Ks are still available? Along with the Qatari birds, that would be a great interim solution ....reduces dependence on Russia, induction and supply chain issues should be far easier than rrafales, and the price won't break the bank.

In that time LCA MK2 should be available along with the PAKFA followed by AMCA.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby ramana » 24 Jan 2015 06:57

VivS There is a bribery thing wrt Qatari Mirages. So no go zone.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4616
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Jan 2015 07:03

^ Even without Qatari airframes (only 12 numbers iirc), the UAE have a bunch (60-70 odd frames) out of which some were in pretty good condition. If they can be had at a low price (pun intended), should be fine for the next 15+ years. They are already at dash 5.9 standard the very best for the Mirage and can fire pretty much everything that a Rafale can including LACMs like the Scalp (black shaheen?) iirc.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Vipul » 24 Jan 2015 08:40

Can we buy the Qatari and/or UAE Mirages without a French NOC? If no then the French are not going to shoot themselves in the foot.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Thakur_B » 24 Jan 2015 08:53

Colombians are looking to replace their Kfirs. Time to pitch Tejas to them with Israeli weapons integrated to match their existing ammo stocks.

member_28840
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28840 » 24 Jan 2015 09:03

With the fairly good record that the PAF has with its Mirage IIIs and Vs, you can bet they will be eying those UAE mirages. Just a matter of time before their begging bowl gets full enough for them to try and make a grab for those. I hope someone on our side wakes up and gets those birds before it falls into the wrong hands.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4616
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Jan 2015 09:50

Vipul wrote:Can we buy the Qatari and/or UAE Mirages without a French NOC? If no then the French are not going to shoot themselves in the foot.


Well, French NOC is quite likely because the gulf kingdoms are fairly guaranteed buyers of Rafale. I think the UAE will move to Rafale, which it already has an interest in, and an Indian offer to buy their mirages will only encourage this...the Qatari M2ks - they just wanted to be rid of them as they are pretty much under US protection - see no point in keeping the M2ks and French couldn't care less if India were to buy them.

Regarding PAF getting their hands on UAE M2ks - not happening any time soon - and when in due course of time, it does happen, they won't be much of a bother to the IAF. TSP simply doesn't have enough $s to fork over for those birds. Their best chances at BVR 4 gen birds are upgraded Solahs from old USAF, Oirope and ME stock and the J-series from China.

JMTP of course.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Indranil » 24 Jan 2015 09:57

Boys, Mirage V discussion in LCA thread is off topic.

member_28840
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28840 » 24 Jan 2015 10:25

^^ my bad. apologies.

Let me try to get this thread back on topic.

Any news about the integration of the new radome and IFR probe?

member_28932
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_28932 » 24 Jan 2015 16:14

eklavya wrote:
Viv S wrote:What I fear is that the cost never enters into the IAF's calculations, and if so that's a sorry state of affairs we're in.


Rafale was L1, the alternatives you were supporting either didn't make the downselect (F-18) as they were technically inferior, were more expensive than the Rafale (EF), or not proposed/evaluated and therefore ineligible (F-35).

The alternative to the Rafale are more/upgraded Su-30MKI. The Defence Minister has said so.



Exactly, religion is used to grab power, money and women. It is an attempt to bring religion and state power in one hand to become most powerful so that nobody else can dare to oppose.

I can see broadly 3 advantages in Rafael compare to MKIs.

1) Their EW suite spectra is in class of its own and much better than anything available to us.
2) Rafael has significantly low RCS than MKIs.
3) They have low operating cost compare to MKI.

Now,

1) We have a very good development in EW area in partnership with Israel. We can come out with some good EW system in near future (recenly some good ew system deployed in Tejas PV 1)
2) With coming of Super MKI, RCS of MKI will reduce significantly.
3) Rafael have some significantly low operating cost against high capital cost. A
Decision has to be made whether that huge amount of price is justified for those additional advantages. If answer is no, We may go ahead with buying/purchasing some more MKIs.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3626
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Kashi » 24 Jan 2015 16:59

Can we not explore the possibility of a few second-hand M2K-5s from the French themselves?

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Viv S » 24 Jan 2015 18:02

Cain Marko wrote:Viv, are you sure the UAE M2Ks are still available?

Should be. According to Alan Warnes of AF Monthly the Emiratis were in talks with Pakistan and Egypt. We can probably make a far better offer than either (esp. considering the Egyptian economic crisis.

ramana wrote:VivS There is a bribery thing wrt Qatari Mirages. So no go zone.

First time I'm hearing about it. Seems a little odd. Bribery directed which way? Qatar to India or India to Qatar.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Viv S » 24 Jan 2015 18:07

eklavya wrote:Rafale was L1, the alternatives you were supporting either didn't make the downselect (F-18) as they were technically inferior, were more expensive than the Rafale (EF), or not proposed/evaluated and therefore ineligible (F-35).

The alternative to the Rafale are more/upgraded Su-30MKI. The Defence Minister has said so.


That was from a list of alternatives to the MMRCA (ref post: 'assuming the MMRCA is scrapped'), a combination of which can opted for (incl. the MKI), the Tejas being the cornerstone. As things stand the Rafale is twice as expensive as what was budgeted for MMRCA contract, and all its export campaigns elsewhere appear to have fizzled out, with India its the last hope.

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby member_24684 » 24 Jan 2015 19:06

.

Back in the 08's I heard that UAE offered it's M2K to India which is the Most advance version of Mirage outside France, UAE Plans to induct Rafales by Selling those M2K to India.

For India we too have chance IAF can't afford for Two Plans. Take anyone Buy the M2K From UAE otherwise Upgrade the Current Mirage Fleet,

as of now Those Mirages are Offered to The Iraqi's


sorry Being off topic

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby eklavya » 24 Jan 2015 19:45

Viv S wrote:
eklavya wrote:Rafale was L1, the alternatives you were supporting either didn't make the downselect (F-18) as they were technically inferior, were more expensive than the Rafale (EF), or not proposed/evaluated and therefore ineligible (F-35).

The alternative to the Rafale are more/upgraded Su-30MKI. The Defence Minister has said so.


That was from a list of alternatives to the MMRCA (ref post: 'assuming the MMRCA is scrapped'), a combination of which can opted for (incl. the MKI), the Tejas being the cornerstone. As things stand the Rafale is twice as expensive as what was budgeted for MMRCA contract, and all its export campaigns elsewhere appear to have fizzled out, with India its the last hope.


It is good that the other export prospects of the Rafale have fizzled out; it strengthens the hand of the Indian negotiators. The identification by the Government of the upgraded Su-30MKI as the alternative also strengthens the hand of the Indian negotiators and provides a credible backstop. The Tejas is complementary to the Rafale/Su-30MKI, not an alternative; but you should know that already.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Karan M » 24 Jan 2015 20:11

Wheres the LCA in the above discussions?

Sheesh..Rafale and the same stuff in every thread.. guys you have the MMRCA thread for that..

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby Viv S » 24 Jan 2015 21:13

eklavya wrote:It is good that the other export prospects of the Rafale have fizzled out; it strengthens the hand of the Indian negotiators. The identification by the Government of the upgraded Su-30MKI as the alternative also strengthens the hand of the Indian negotiators and provides a credible backstop.

There are some who're interpreting the DM's recent statements as a negotiating tactic (long overdue if that's the case). Lets see if they can actually negotiate down the cost.

The Tejas is complementary to the Rafale/Su-30MKI, not an alternative; but you should know that already.

Current plans call for just 120 units of the Tejas. 40 Mk1 plus 80 Mk2. Investing a significant portion of the capital earmarked for the Rafale in the Tejas production line (get it up to a minimum of 30 aircraft annually) will contribute to at least one leg of a 'Plan B'. Operationally yes it'll be a complement to the Su-30MKIs.
Last edited by Viv S on 24 Jan 2015 21:16, edited 1 time in total.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Postby eklavya » 24 Jan 2015 21:16

When the LCA Mk 2 is ready, it will be procured in any number that can be produced. Its obvious.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests