Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 May 2016 15:48

Das has a point that is difficult to deny because India has proven 2nd gen capabilities, and has struggled to put a 4th gen in the air. Forget drone - we still don't have any combat drone anywhere in the near future. The other point he makes in that article is "copy". Copy copy copy was one mantra on BRF a few years ago - now forgotten with still born Rafale and impending LCA. Copy an old 2nd gen design, put a better engine and put 4 gen avionics is what the article says.

If Prodyut Das's wishes had come true we would have had a huge indigenous air force by now. Perhaps? Of course there will be opinions about Das's seemingly outrageous ideas - but those out of box ideas are the hallmark of a lateral thinker.We have had such seemingly outrageous suggestions from forum members in the past - but they are not backed by the clout that Das has in the Aero community

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2016 16:00

Das's clout in the aero community is so much that the IAF is now full of 2nd gen Gnats which have 7th generation sensors.

If he had any clout all he has used it for is to betray Indian national interests by running down its primary aerospace program the LCA based on his petty ego, and pie in the sky claims.

Copy copy copy Mantra of Das.
Copy what?
Copy the 4.5th generation Su-30 MKI? No.
Copy the 4th Generation MiG-29? No.
Copy the 4th Generation Mirage 2000? No.

Lets copy the 2nd Generation Gnat. Why? Because that's all what Shri Lateral Thinker Prodyut Das, with huge clout in the aero community, is familiar with.

Such trifles like FBW, BVR, avionics etc - pffffttttt. Irrelevant or can just be added as trifles.

Basic thing is to remake the earth shattering, the unbelievably amazing Gnat. The fighter with the range and payload that is what the IAF needs against PLAAFs J-20s and J-10s.

Wait, its not fighter against fighter. So KJ-2000 vectors J-20s, and Phalcon vectors Gnat v5.0.
IAF says "sorry old boys, come closer, you see our fighters don't have the range to even get close to yours. Plus its rather unsporting of you to shoot missiles at BVR towards us. We can't. Our lateral thinking designer decided we needed a laser ranger or light radar so we really can't detect you or fire back".

If Das's wishes had come through, HAL would be producing fighters which the IAF would never accept and which would further tie us to import apron strings. At least with the LCA we have the first chance to break free.

If Das is reflective of how HAL's earlier designers thought, no wonder ADA was created. The former had no idea or inclination to go beyond copying other peoples work and then forgetting where the rest of the world will be.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 May 2016 16:44

shiv wrote:Das has a point that is difficult to deny because India has proven 2nd gen capabilities, and has struggled to put a 4th gen in the air. Forget drone - we still don't have any combat drone anywhere in the near future. The other point he makes in that article is "copy". Copy copy copy was one mantra on BRF a few years ago - now forgotten with still born Rafale and impending LCA. Copy an old 2nd gen design, put a better engine and put 4 gen avionics is what the article says.

If Prodyut Das's wishes had come true we would have had a huge indigenous air force by now. Perhaps? Of course there will be opinions about Das's seemingly outrageous ideas - but those out of box ideas are the hallmark of a lateral thinker.We have had such seemingly outrageous suggestions from forum members in the past - but they are not backed by the clout that Das has in the Aero community

Das' points:

Price of the Cat
The price of weaponry, as with prices of drugs, has no relation with the actual cost of producing it. In India the true cost of production have been masked by the PSUs operating inefficiencies and weird taxations and customs duties not to mention the earlier Government R&D policies.

So, he wants tax breaks for his pet project/s. He does nto say if he does not get it what would happen. I suspect his project will fold, just like "and has struggled to put a 4th gen in the air". Das can step back in time to pick up an easier technology (to make his life easier), but the attitude of Indians he cannot change, so his Gnat project too will "struggle to put" in the air.

Well more to come:

The customer and the market
The market for this type of aircraft is said to be around 12,000 airframes. Currently this sector is served by watered down versions of 4th generation aircraft and Advanced Trainers. It is tempting to think of the IAF as a launch customer but it may actually be fatal for any Private venture (PV) to even think of it because the “decision cycle” time of the IAF is financially unsustainable for any PV.

He is so convinced that the IAF will not accept his "cat" that he claims "It is tempting to think of the IAF as a launch customer".

So, what to do?

It would be much better to keep the IAF in the loop, give it the full ego massage befitting a prospective customer but the main customer will be the Asian, American and African air Arms making do with over sophisticated equipment or with combat equipment whose spare parts have to be sourced from museums.

Jump across the pond. Does he actually expect to get a warm reception, just because he has convinced a few among his readers in India? They are perhaps more corrupt than the PSUs in India and would chase him out. So much for his PV concept.

Well, what to do?

The concept will be laughed to scorn but astute companies like Textron are investing. Cap in hand and shuffling my feet I would say that Textron got the balance wrong by being too much Cessna based. The Scorpion is a 1st Generation airframe with fourth gen systems but the idea is right and it is awaiting the winners!

Of course, that one company should have consulted with after-the-fact Das.

And, does he really think Textron and he are the only two that have thought of such options? Textron is a for profit organization. It does not take decisions lightly and had expected (via their "Market Research") to make a huge amount of money selling their machine. But, nada. That very "Market Research" had a flaw in it - thus their Scorpion is within a sting and sitting absorbing some nice sun rays, somewhere.

Das may be a high slung engineer, I do not know. But, he has no clue about "Market Research" - that based on his blog. And his plane would fail just like the Textron one has done so far. Textron has too much Cessna, Das' has too much Gnat.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2016 18:51

Jags landing at gander canada enroute alaska

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2016 18:53

steep takeoff and level by sukhois

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2016 18:55

jags afterburner takeoff from portugal

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2016 18:57

the two tankers takeoff from portugal

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 09 May 2016 19:11

I think Redo of Gnat, Mig-21, Mig-27 is toooo late. In fact, if at all we should think about variants of LCA and Su-30MKI. What about LCA AJT, LCA for CAS etc. ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 May 2016 19:38

Das needs to raise funds and prove his points. No use publishing papers. They do nothing.

Go build a prototype. That would be something.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 May 2016 22:15

Actually, I am with Prof Das on this. I don't care about the accuracy of the anecdotes, but the main points. He is not contesting the need for the F-22s/PAKFAs/F-35s of the world. They are required to provide air dominance. But once, that is done using these high performance jets to drop bombs and escape ground fire is not cost efficient. And Prof. Das is not the only guy who is saying this. The chorus for this is growing world wide. And if you think about it, even within India: the IAF loves their Jaguars. What is a Jaguar, but a two-engined version of what Dr. Das is proposing?

Do I support a F-125IN powered GNAT as an Indian AJT/ground attack plane? Hell yeah! Abhibhushan sir will also agree. It is not glamorous, but it will do the job quite well at least in the plains and the low hills. What I would love the good Prof to assess is how the F125 Gnat fares against the combat hawk that HAL is proposing?

Rephrased:
I don't think that we should throw away any idea without serious consideration. HAL is proposing the combat Hawk. I had said this before, I would have liked to see an F-125IN power combat Hawk, so that we can tackle the higher mountains as well. Question is how is a F-125IN based GNAT any different?

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 09 May 2016 22:18

A little late to the party, but here goes nothing!

The dogfight is not dead. Fighter aircraft will be designed to win the air to air. However these constitute only perhaps ten per cent of all sorties (and combat losses) flown.
The main task of combat aircraft is close support and strike duties in VFR conditions. This task also sees the biggest losses- about 60-70% to low cost defences - but scant provisions are paid at the design stage to surviving this task or minimize losses.

How does one conduct air-to-ground operations without attaining air superiority in today's world? Anti-air operations may constitute only 10% of all sorties, but thy're becoming increasingly critical to victory on the ground.

BVRs are not new. In Vietnam they showed a strict impartiality in what they knocked down so much so that soon the SOP was one flight went ahead to “visually identify so that the other flight could launch

And yet, the Sparrow accounted for the maximum number of kills in Vietnam. Throughout the 80s and 90s, BVR missiles killed an increasing proportion of enemy aircraft. They may have their flaws, but many of those have been rectified through the massive proliferation of datalinks, improved IFF, and all that fun stuff. Better materials and high energy fuels have led to a reduction in size and weight too. And on a large aircraft, how much drag do a handful of tiny missiles account for anyway? The effect would be negligible.

Though CCMs are combat proven and definitely useful nobody is making the ‘sixties mistake of deleting the gun.

Deleting the gun was not a mistake.

The USAF added a gun to their F-4s in Vietnam thinking that it's absence was what led to their horrific performance. It didn't help. On the other hand, the USN started a program to better train its pilots to use missiles to their advantage (this became Top Gun) and also put in place improved maintenance practices. Their kill:loss ratio went from 2:1 to 12:1.

superb KPzW V “Panther”

The Panther was a piece of cowdung. A tank that breaks down if you so much as look at it crosswise and catches fire for no reason whatsoever isn't "superb" by any standard.

My ideal Light Fighter would be a twin engine having the F 86 Sabre’s pilot’s visibility with the MiG 17 wing (AR 4!) modified to have the MiG 19’s wing structural stiffness , may be the Su 7s wing section with its rounded L.E. which gave it superb low level manoeuvrability, the Gnat’s forward fuselage married to a twin engine rear fuselage from the MiG 19 and a “flak vierling” gun layout a la HF 24 all somehow blended with something of the Hunter’s grace and immense strength

What will this "ideal" low level fighter with four cannons do when an enemy fighter with a capable look-down-shoot-down radar, flying at high altitude takes potshots at it from 100 km away using BVR missiles? I understand that BVR missiles might not be as accurate at extended ranges, but an RWR going off (assuming that Shri Das deigns to equip his design with one) when locked on by a missile seeker, or an enemy fire control radar, would cause any fighter pilot worth his salt to throw his aircraft into evasive manoeuvres. Once the entire formation does that and loses cohesion, the enemy will take them apart at leisure.

The advantages of the Gnat were...

... relevant in the fifties and sixties. You wouldn't expect to use the Sopwith Camel as a template in 1960; so why would you want to do so in a Gnat in 2020?

It was naturally stealthy very difficult to see

So is the LCA. But the trade-off comes in the form of range and difficulties integrating avionics into a tiny airframe.

HUD, HOTAS, 5xMFD, GPWS *, Lightweight Radar or Laser ranger*, RWR, RAM, Health and usage monitoring system (HUMS)*Radio altimeter, WAC, ADC, HMS, Mission computers*, Radio Compass,Ring laser Gyro*,Digital Map*,IFF, Auto pilot*,Self Protection Jammer.*

He wants all of that in a Gnat-sized airframe?

Does he realise just how tiny the Gnat is? It was dwarfed by the F-86, for heaven's sake, to say nothing of the Hawk and Jaguar that he draws comparisons to!

The Adour Gnat (1987)

Sounds exactly like a DARIN-III Jaguar. If that's what you want, buy more Darin-III Jaguars instead of wasting money on something that replicates its functions but looks like a Gnat.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 May 2016 22:39

But once, that is done using these high performance jets to drop bombs and escape ground fire is not cost efficient.

Well. One side has always said one plane per role. And the other side one plane for all roles. Cost for teh prior has been deemed to be higher.

It really does not matter. Any time a change occurs - let us say we go to what PD is suggesting - the opponents will *always* come up with something to make it useless. That is the nature of the beast.

What is a Jaguar, but a two-engined version of what Dr. Das is proposing?

Can the Jag dog-fight? Which seems to be the key to his "Market Research".

Even the example he gives: Textron's Scorpion, that company did their MR, produced a plane in a very short time and have failed to entice anyone to buy their product so far (last I checked). Point being selling a military product needs to cross multiple barriers.

Unless he starts a company that walks his talk it is useless.

Anyways ....................

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 May 2016 22:43

Please read my post again. I did not ask a Jag to dog fight. And there are instances of a Jaguar in DACT exercises. You might want to read on them too.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 May 2016 22:50

pD is claiming dog-fighting is imp, which if treu negates your statement about the jag and pd's plane

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 May 2016 23:23

You should read his blog entry again (this time without prejudice). He is suggesting a ground attack plane which is nimble enough to take to A2A if required. I am not sure that a GNAT size plane has the space required for all the goodness to be packed in. But if it can, powered by an F125IN, it will be very difficult to take out close to the ground. It is not a matter of what Prof. Das says, it is governed by the rules of aerodynamics.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 May 2016 23:33

HUD, HOTAS, 5xMFD, GPWS *, Lightweight Radar or Laser ranger*, RWR, RAM, Health and usage monitoring system (HUMS)*Radio altimeter, WAC, ADC, HMS, Mission computers*, Radio Compass,Ring laser Gyro*,Digital Map*,IFF, Auto pilot*,Self Protection Jammer.*

Would an IFR requirement be added to this 4.5 Gen GNAT

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2016 23:33

Rules of aerodynamics and nimble planes are all very well, but the fact is that until and unless there are heavy duty avionics put in, plus armor, plus munitions - all of which a Gnat sized airframe ludicrous for the role, that airframe is going to be pure and simple bait.

Fact is even in the recent Georgian conflict dual engined Su-25s had a hard time of it, since they lacked ample PGMs. Came back with heavy damage.

Every AF in the world has moved to PGMs and medium alt for a reason, the Tornado experience in OGW was no breeze at all.

Instead of telling people to not be prejudiced against whimsicality, it would be better to ask him to drop his prejudice against platforms like the LCA which already exist and can do all and more his Gnat can do.

Indranilroy wrote:Please read my post again. I did not ask a Jag to dog fight. And there are instances of a Jaguar in DACT exercises. You might want to read on them too.

One Swallow does not spring bring. Yes, Jaguars have on the rare occasion managed an upset. But even Jaguar pilots admitted they are underpowered for the A2A role & hardly designed for it. In terms of handling at low altitudes, AVM Bhojwani famously noted the Mirage 2000 was much better given its FBW. Given the LCA is earning plaudits there, again, what's the point of having a short ranged, inferior type like a Gnat again?

Ironically, the two things that may make the Jaguar somewhat potent in A2A, the EL/M-2032 radar & the ASRAAM. Things like what Das completely ignores or downvalues obsessed as he is with cobbling together Frankenplanes.

Gnat with the wings of a dragonfly, the soul of a dragon, one pinch of moondust all in the light of the fairymoon.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 May 2016 00:07

Karan,
As I said before, I am not sure whether if it is feasible to fit all the required "goodies" into a GNAT. I will wait for the VAYU article to see how does the extended version having 980 more litres look like, possible breakdown of its weight, and the fuel it can carry. The prof downplays limited endurance. From what I have read elsewhere that is not true. It is a very critical feature.

However, the question is: Should I spend $10,000 per flight hour on every plane in my arsenal? Surely, the plane makers will say yes, but do I? The LCA and Jaguar++ are all wonderful planes. They are cheaper to maintain and fly with respect to their contemporaries. But, is even a 90kN/1.8M/BVR capable aircraft required when the mission load is 2 LGBs and 2 CCM missiles? And mind you, Prof Das is right that these kind of missions constitute the majority of the workload of most airforces. If today's multirole aircraft can constitute one end of the spectrum of airplane that can take care of this mission, what are the airplanes that lie at the other end? Many people say it is a single-engined turboprop. If so, then a combat Hawk/F125IN GNAT lie smack in the middle of that spectrum. It is not far fetched or laughable.

P.S. I do agree with you that the prof has a bone with LCA. I don't agree with him on that. The time of debate on what the LCA should have been is behind us now.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 May 2016 00:20

Someone needs to do an analysis of estimated costs of various proposals under discussions.

Comparison on

R&D costs
Acquisition costs
Life-Cycle costs (operating and maintenance costs)
Role effectiveness (a quantifiable number assigned for A2A-WVR, A2A-BVR, A2G-PGM, A2G-CAS etc)

For these types

Single-engined turboprop
Combat Hawk/F125IN GNAT
LCA Mk.1/A
Rafale
Su-30MKI
Legacy (light) -> GNAT, MiG-21, MiG-27
Legacy (medium) -> Jaguar, Mirage-2000, MiG-29

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 May 2016 02:09

He is suggesting a ground attack plane which is nimble enough to take to A2A if required.

The title of his paper/blog is:

an Indian concept of an universal light fighter.

I did search for "ground", assuming attack would follow the word, but, did not find any ref to that concept (outside of WRT some armaments).

-------------------------------- Next topic

You should read his blog entry again (this time without prejudice)

I have read it a few times and have been avoiding revisiting it (hoping the Vayu article would make a lot more sense). Here is an example why I prefer not to read it:

The techniques of Market Research results in products which meet the customers’ needs to a greater degree. When it comes to combat aircraft the application of MR is conspicuous by its absence.

OK. So, "Market Research", "customers' need", perfect ............................. so far.

With "combat aircraft" and "MR is conspicuous by its absence", he has already veered. As I had posted earlier, that is what an ASR is supposed to be: a customer (the Air Force) conducting Market Research and publishing their "which meet" their "needs" in the form of a ASR.

Followed, in the very next para by:

Sufficient statistical data exists to have a scientific approach to combat aircraft specifications.

Perfect. I would expect a customer to gather all the data they need to publish an ASR.

But, PDji being PDji ..................

The air arms of India and Pakistan flew around 11,000 fighter sorties in the wars of 1965 and 1971. This involved mainly 2nd and 3rd generation Fighters and is extremely valuable a resource base because we own every bit of it. The Israeli Air Force flew about 14,000 fighter sorties in the 1967 and 1973 wars. The Arab Air Forces flew at least as many. If we now add the Sinai Clashes of 1967-1973, the Iran Iraq wars, the Vietnam wars and the various Gulf Wars we are looking at a data base of around 100,000 sorties. Much of the above, except the Syrian AF’s very interesting experience is known and much can be gleaned.

That is NOT a "customers'" "need". A customers' need would be something like: we want a single engined air craft, with HUD, FLIR, ..............

PD of course goes on to build his own plane based on data points he claims are out there, provides no references for them (bad practice in MR) .......................... What the heck? Whatever happened to the "customers' needs"? He is forcing his plane on his customers without even getting them into the picture (something air forces tend to complain about) - BUT, is behaving like a true publicly traded MIC who wants their stock price to rise.

I can go on and on and on.

----------------------------------------------

I have no problem with him suggesting a Gnat or whatever, with this and that. But to say that MR is not used (implying that Pradyut Das is the first one to think about it) is nothing short of a joke. He perhaps is not aware that the armed forces have contributed a TON to various aspects of math and have had very, very robust math teaching and research unit ------ for about 70 years. It was taught to me in the 70s. Which is why asked where is the data - those 100,000 things he claims exist.

Will close with this analogy: PD is like a surgeon that goes into an operation theater and operates on a patients leg, only to find out he operated on the wrong leg and when asked who told him which leg, the surgeon says "The doorman".

That he posted a blog is fine. That it is going to appear in print is not good.

Like I suggested he need to start a company and make this happen. Until then he will publish some worthless papers (WRT MR).

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 May 2016 02:20

As I said before, we can split hairs on what he wants to say. I can show you statements in his blog which say that he is looking at a strike platform with sufficient A2A capability to get out of trouble. But, I would hate to do a Kejriwal on this report. For me, the central point has sufficient meat to consider it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 May 2016 04:04

No splitting hairs at all. I was/am going of off PDs blog.

PDs basic premise is that people are not using tools (MR) to make proper decisions, and that there is ample data that is available (100,000 data points) to make informed decisions. The "meat" you claim is based on the MR methodology and these data points. IF those data points OR the methodology of MR is flawed then where is the "meat"? There can be no "meat".

There is a sequence there and the "meat" is the conclusion or as a result of MR + data points. The "meat" - per his blog - is not a stand alone point.

OR

One could accept the "meat" - as is. But then that blog would have no standing. Redact the entire sections on MR and data points. That is fine (NOT suggesting that the Gnat solution is fine).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 May 2016 04:25

Just wanted to add the following. Apparently the Textron Scorpion effort had its own challenges. Briefly the path they took:

Wiki wrote: In operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Air Force primarily used A-10 Thunderbolt II, F-16 Fighting Falcon, and F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft for patrols and close air support. These were high performance aircraft designed during the Cold War, often to enable high-speed, high-G maneuvers. While they successfully performed these missions, they operated in uncontested airspace and their high performance incurred high operational costs, the F-16 costing $24,899 per flight hour to operate, even during basic armed overwatch and ground attack duties.[5]

In October 2011, AirLand Enterprises approached Textron with the concept of building the "world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft." The two companies created a joint venture called Textron AirLand and development of an aircraft began in January 2012. Neither Textron nor its subsidiaries had much experience designing fixed-wing combat aircraft. Textron saw a market for the type: while military aircraft typically grew more expensive, defense budgets declined.[5][6][7] Named Scorpion, the first concept had a single engine. In early 2012, engineers reviewed over 12 design configurations that would meet their goals and shortlisted four designs; the team eventually settled on the tandem-seat, twin-engine configuration.

The aircraft was kept secret, being identified by the code name SCV12-1, or simply "the project". At its peak, the production team was 200 people, which eventually decreased to 170, including 120 engineers. The outside contours were made in May 2012, and wing production started in August 2012. Unconventionally, wind tunnel tests were performed after wing parts were already being made.[8] In a traditional aircraft development program, the Department of Defense or a military service would issue detailed requirements, potentially hundreds of pages long. { Market Research for you} Instead, Textron AirLand did a market and capability analysis to determine what domestic and foreign forces required but didn't have.

The design team made up of personnel from Textron, Cessna, and Bell Helicopter was assembled in one building with everyone focused on the task, enabling decisions to be made in hours instead of days. To not alert any potential competitors, development was kept secret through non-disclosure agreements, obtaining parts from local suppliers, and the natural close-knit, "small town" nature of Wichita, Kansas. Technology from the Cessna inventory or other existing, readily-available components and hardware were used.[9] In November, Textron spokesman David Sylvestre confirmed that Cessna had been involved in building the prototype Scorpion, but may not build any production models. Sylvestre stated, "depending on demand and manufacturing capacity needs, the final site of Scorpion manufacturing beyond the initial low rate production (2015) is yet to be decided. It may be built 'at' Cessna, but by the joint venture called Textron AirLand."[10]

The Scorpion was unveiled on 16 September 2013.[2][5][6] In 2014, the development-to-flight time was expected to take 4–5 years, the goal of the first flight within at least 24 months was achieved. The phrase "speed is paramount" serves as impetus for the program, with the objective of creating the plane, flying it, and selling it as fast as possible to not miss opportunities.[8] If a customer can be found, production could begin in 2015, and deliveries from 15–18 months after an order is received.[8] The plan is to secure a contract first, then begin low-rate production and transition to full-rate production.[11] Textron AirLand sees a market for up to 2,000 Scorpion jets.[12]

Textron+ did not just wake up one morning and suggest a configuration. They looked a number of potential solutions and then selected one.

And, all PD can say is "good job, but not good enough". LoL.

And, here is a recent comment:

May 6, 2016 wrote: When commercial aircraft product launches are stage-managed with a careful unveiling of billions of dollars worth of orders from a few hand-picked customers, the sight of a new military aircraft propelled into development with no announced buyers can come across as a rarity bordering on reckless.

Selling military aircraft is already a hard business, subject to feckless stewards in the acquisition offices, unreliable support in the political class and shifting requirements from an, often exclusive, primary customer. But at least the development cost is usually paid by the taxpayer, freeing the contractor from the risk of a wholly profitless venture. Remove that development subsidy and the whole business looks unfriendly to all but high-stakes gamblers.

Into this marketing maelstrom in 2013 was thrown the Textron AirLand Scorpion, a twin-engined fighter with three plausible military missions: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; light attack; and advanced jet training.

Three years into the project, the Scorpion demonstrator has yet to find a launch customer. It is not the world’s only self-funded development project. In South Africa, Paramount is developing the turboprop-powered AHRLAC for a similar role, with perhaps even dimmer prospects of a launch order on the way from the cash-strapped government in Pretoria.

Historically, for every visionary gamble – Abe Karem’s unmanned Predator comes to mind – there are many more expensive flops, such as the worthy-yet-unloved Northrop F-20 fighter. In which basket will the Scorpion ultimately fall? A production-conforming prototype, possibly ready in time for the Farnborough air show, will no doubt soon settle the matter.

Textron AirLand’s sales pitch is at least timely and truthful. Where modern fighters carry awesome sensors and weapons at eye-watering prices, the Scorpion offers similar capabilities and even a trainer on a comparatively cheap platform, albeit one that can only operate with minimal risk of attack from ground or air.

Maybe Textron AirLand need not even make a sale to deem the Scorpion a success. Assembling the airframe has given joint venture partner Textron Aviation hands-on experience in all-composite jets, which may one day boost its Cessna and Beechcraft ranges.

But Textron AirLand is a determined champion. At Farnborough and other events later this year, Scorpion will receive a fair hearing – and let the chips in this high-stakes game fall where they may.

Check out the failure rate for self funded projects.

#MarketResearch

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 May 2016 05:22

indranilroy wrote:Actually, I am with Prof Das on this. I don't care about the accuracy of the anecdotes, but the main points. He is not contesting the need for the F-22s/PAKFAs/F-35s of the world. They are required to provide air dominance. But once, that is done using these high performance jets to drop bombs and escape ground fire is not cost efficient. And Prof. Das is not the only guy who is saying this. The chorus for this is growing world wide. And if you think about it, even within India: the IAF loves their Jaguars. What is a Jaguar, but a two-engined version of what Dr. Das is proposing?

Full marks for reading the paper without pre existing bias about the author. My only (personal) point of difference with your interpretation is that I believe that the Jaguar has too high a wing loading and Das is proposing something that can loiter.

He does start by saying this but to many people seem to have failed to read it

the HF 24 can be the basis of an entire Air Force (AJT, LIFT, Strike and interceptor) all in that one basic air frame!
It has to be emphasised that any of the best of 2nd and 3rd generation airframes suitably modified will respond to “re-systeming” with current systems to create a “best” or “most useful” fighter at low cost. The Gnat is being used only as a convenient example of the nature of the effort required and the metrics of the improvements that can be expected.

About his F125 "Gnat" he says:

This would be equipped with MiG 27 style cockpit armour, fuel tank and lines “inerting” , heavy GSh 30 or GSh 30-2 cannon, armoured control and fuel lines which would give it very relevant protection and slash aircraft losses to low cost air defence systems.

And no amount of enthusiastic jingo-giri and namecalling can make one give gems of information like Das gives:

Aden /Gsh 30 recoil which used to crack on full fire out- which incidentally was discovered after 10 years of service. One can never rest tranquil in this business!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 May 2016 06:57

in that why not a new line of Mig27 - it can escape after the strike at high speed due to powerful engine and swing wings, has a beast of a cannon and can drop off any munitions , has some armour protection and can have more ...... even if a 2nd gen airframe ... by using modern machinery and tolerances it can be made as fine and reliable as a new gen a/c.

the Iraqi AF are making good use of the Frogfoots against Daesh.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 May 2016 07:26

IIT Bombay had a Prof, who proposed to modify the MiG-21 (like the Chinese did eventually?), instead of the LCA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 May 2016 07:43

Singha wrote:in that why not a new line of Mig27 - it can escape after the strike at high speed due to powerful engine and swing wings, has a beast of a cannon and can drop off any munitions , has some armour protection and can have more ...... even if a 2nd gen airframe ... by using modern machinery and tolerances it can be made as fine and reliable as a new gen a/c.

the Iraqi AF are making good use of the Frogfoots against Daesh.

My personal objection to the MiG 27 is increased weight and complexity due to the wing angle change mechanism. The MiG 27 was a derivative of the Mig 23 which was conceived as an interceptor. The MiG 23 was simply a tradeoff compromise between high flying supersonic needle like early MiG 21 and F 102 etc and low level slow manoeuvring interception enabled by swing wing. If the high level supersonic flight with swept wings is not required, then why have swing wing in a plane designed mainly for low level strike/CAS

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 10 May 2016 08:23

Shiv saar, I am a newbie (as you well know), so please forgive my question:
In which theater will we expect to safely fly in a light fighter with 2 LGBs and 2CCMs? Will this always be with top cover from a more capable fighter? I understand the 90% of sorties number but do not understand if this is possible in today's network rich environments where the Pacquis are loaded with over 500 AIM-120C5s.
Do we foresee similar scenarios as Assal Uttar due to the current lack of numbers?
What specific missions would require 2 LGBs where a rack of 6 might be more useful?
I cannot wrap my head around which are the scenarios where a lightly armed lightly armoured fighter is better than one slightly better equipped? Please help -- this is a genuine question and not a barb at PD.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 May 2016 08:53

DexterM wrote:Shiv saar, I am a newbie (as you well know), so please forgive my question:
In which theater will we expect to safely fly in a light fighter with 2 LGBs and 2CCMs? Will this always be with top cover from a more capable fighter? I understand the 90% of sorties number but do not understand if this is possible in today's network rich environments where the Pacquis are loaded with over 500 AIM-120C5s.
Do we foresee similar scenarios as Assal Uttar due to the current lack of numbers?
What specific missions would require 2 LGBs where a rack of 6 might be more useful?
I cannot wrap my head around which are the scenarios where a lightly armed lightly armoured fighter is better than one slightly better equipped? Please help -- this is a genuine question and not a barb at PD.

Personally speaking this is an unanswerable question because it is possible for two people to disagree and fill up 100 forum pages in which one scenario is described and a counter to that is posted. (Even this reply to you now will spark off exactly that sort of argument and counter argument) So I will not enter that game - having wasted too much time on that. There are too many variables and any assumption of any scenario has a counter argument for why it might fail (or succeed) I can give you a general non-answer though.

Again, speaking from personal opinion I have become very wary of words like " in today's network rich environments". This constitutes an assumption that an entire war across all fronts 24x7 will be "network rich". The easier method is to see what situations that earlier wars have posed and add to those situations the possibility of there being a "network rich" adversary

Past experience in wars as per accounts have shown some very easy to understand things:
1. In cases where heavy air defences are expected and present, aircraft go in expecting defences and expecting losses and take measures to counter that. In some cases the losses are heavy as predicted. In some cases the losses are light or nil. In either case of the target is eliminated the job is done

2. In other cases air defences are expected to be heavy and luckily turn out to be light and the job gets done with few losses

3. In a third set of attacks, air defences are not expected to be heavy, but they turn out to be heavy, leading to failure of mission or losses or both. The same mission is repeated later knowing that defences will be heavy and then we go back to scenario 1 or 2.

4. If an air force is totally dominant an adversary in terms of information and standoff weapons, that air force will simply knock out an enemy from a distance with no sweat, or little sweat. This is what happened for the US over Iraq and Afghanistan

if the US decides to fight war with Pakistan, it may not be that easy. The level of dominance is lower and the US can expect some resistance and some losses.

India versus Pakistan are relatively equally matched. There will be situations where Pakistan cannot provide the sort of air cover that their forces or target need. In those situations - which might be created by the IAF, we can operate lightly armed aircraft for a strike role only - maybe even Kirans or Hawks

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 10 May 2016 09:25

We have to see whether applied principles of Prof Das would work on LCA and Su-30MKI. Whether a downgraded LCA with limited Kaveri engine, limited Indian MMR can be produced in numbers, say at USD 10 Million dollars each? Would it be useful? Would it improve our security against sanctions and deliver useful ability in war? Or Rafale at USD 500 million each is better?

BharadwajV · Post by **BharadwajV** » 10 May 2016 10:39

Wasn't there several studies conducted by ADA/HAL after the HF-24 Marut and before the Tejas with many wind tunnel models (IIRC, Shiv Saar had posted pictures of them on the Tejas dhaaga). We finalised on the Cranked Delta for the LCA program after a thorough study. For us to even begin working on Zeh "Das" Gnat would mean allocating resources away from existing fighter programmes viz. NLCA, Tejas SoP 2018, AMCA, LCA Mark 2 etc, which hopefully will not happen.
We have a decent roadmap to get our Aero industry up and running... And we have to stick to it.
We need Tejas in numbers to help us get close to the 42 Sqn strength.
If we can get full ToT(:D )from Khan for F404IN20 then we have a winner for decades to come.

Hope Prof. Das does not suggest a Cheetah with Shakti engines, Mi-35 Titanium tub, Apache cannon and avionics, Night Hunter's emergency cargo hold, Alligator's ejection mechanism and Comanche's badassery after the LUH is inducted.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 May 2016 11:37

The former USN's CNO Adm Greenert made the famous statement about not needing "sports cars" when "trucks" could do the same job,meaning dropping ordnance just as Shiv has said. Here,the uber-expensive and delicate JSF is being tasked with A-10 ops! The comments about the Jags are spot on.They're in the circumstances the best aircraft for GA/close support and with their overwing WVR AAMs and cannon can fight back when attacked from the air. How much punishment they can take from groundfire is a moot point,but a Jag upgrade could add some armoured panels to protect the pilot and vital areas and with a new more powerful engine would not lose in performance. The IAF needs a mix of suitable aircraft for its different tasks.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 May 2016 16:08

DexterM wrote:Shiv saar, I am a newbie (as you well know), so please forgive my question:
In which theater will we expect to safely fly in a light fighter with 2 LGBs and 2CCMs? Will this always be with top cover from a more capable fighter? I understand the 90% of sorties number but do not understand if this is possible in today's network rich environments where the Pacquis are loaded with over 500 AIM-120C5s.
Do we foresee similar scenarios as Assal Uttar due to the current lack of numbers?
What specific missions would require 2 LGBs where a rack of 6 might be more useful?
I cannot wrap my head around which are the scenarios where a lightly armed lightly armoured fighter is better than one slightly better equipped? Please help -- this is a genuine question and not a barb at PD.

THAT is market research.

And, THAT is what should drive your future solutions. You have asked the right and relevant question.

But such research is apparently beyond scope, as it would more than likely produce a far more complicated Gnat. Perhaps one with three engines.

Actually the correct approach is to look ahead and then provide a solution. Not base your solutions on the past. Past is a good-feel solution. Difficult to predict.

I cannot wrap my head around which are the scenarios where a lightly armed lightly armoured fighter is better than one slightly better equipped?

There are plenty in the market. The Weaponized Hawk is an option being touted for exports. Russia, Italy, Germany, South Korea, all have a proposal for a cheap, light alternative.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 May 2016 16:49

Building a next-gen combat aircraft is a 25-year process. Even if not a next-gen one but a "simple" one, it would still take around 10-to-15 years when specification, design, development, testing, fixes, weapons integration, squadron induction and volume production are factored in.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 May 2016 19:04

So what is this discussion about? From my understanding, the question is designing & building a fighter with minimum acceptable capabilities.

Rather than putting F-125 (cart) before the Gnat (horse), let us first define the minimum acceptable capabilities, and then develop the fighter.

In my opinion, these minimum acceptable capabilities are –

1. Flight Performance – decent speed, climb rate, turn rate. This is for two reasons

• to enable the aircraft maneuver in challenging terrain to deliver ordinance like Messers Blake & Mathur did at Skardu in 1948

I. http://cyclicstories.blogspot.in/2011/0 ... -1999.html
ii. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/histo ... athur.html
iii. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... Blake.html

• To evade and if possible engage enemy fighters if bounced

2. Range/Endurance – Obviously one would not want to fight the enemy at the gates but to keep the enemy as far away from the gates. Operating from an airfield next to the enemy might result in enemy doing commando raids or mortaring the field.

3. Payload

• Reasonable weights – Two or more 450 kg bombs and rockets & a couple of R-73E
• Weight of External Fuel Tanks

4. Survivability

• Trained & Experienced Pilots are the most valuable resource in war.

I. US & Japan both lost 4 aircraft carriers each in first phase of WW2 Pacific Theater – USS Lexington, USS Yorktown, USS Wasp & USS Hornet while the Japs lost IJN Akagi, IJN Kaga, IJN Soryu & IJN Hiryu in the Battle of Midway. However, the American training program, including training aircraft carriers in the Great Lakes & Atlantic, replenished pilots faster than the Japanese training program.

ii. Ensuring the aircraft can both continue to fight and fly back after a Stinger/MANPADS/Light AA hit

• That requires redundant systems.

5. Cost
• Of building
• Of operating

Now, training aircraft look appealing because they

1. Come close to the speed and maneuverability of a fighter aircraft but not equal. Speed is not supersonic, so transit time will be longer and reaction would be delayed

2. Come close to the range of fighters. Both BAe Hawk & Korean T-50 have close to 2000 km range as per manufacturer’s specs, though I suspect this to be with EFTs, that would further reduce speed and maneuverability. Would like to see the Hawk performing the same routine Tejas did at Goa with centerline fuel tank.

3. Payload is reasonable, however the catch is maneuverability and range of trainers decrease sharply with increase in payload.

4. Survivability is poor. They’re designed for ease of access of major systems to ensure rapid turn around for maximizing flight training hours. So even 12.7 mm fire can hurt them and cause a mission kill. There is no system redundancy since the aircraft are expected to train in benign flying conditions of the Indian Deccan or US hinterland.

5. Cost is low, but only for training. With payload, the cost of operations increases sharply. More wear & tear on the wings, etc. A Tejas airframe + wings is stressed to routinely carry two EFT, two 450 kg bombs, two R-73E and Litening pod.

So I would summarize using training aircraft as combat aircraft as using a half baked solution that might get lucky but not an enduring solution.

The South Vietnam VNAF A-37 and other trainer derived aircraft were either shot down by Strela SA-7 missiles or forced to operate at higher altitudes from where they could not bomb or rocket effectively.

So if designers, engineers and pilots started to build a fighter with Minimum Acceptable Capabilities, what would be the result?

Answer in an ascending order would be F/A-50, JF-17 and Tejas Mk1

1. All have fighter class speed (Mach 1.6) and maneuverability.

2. All have fighter class range of 1800 km

3. Payload of 3000 kg that ensures ordnance & EFT. Infact the Tejas payload of 2 EFT, 2 450 kg bombs, 2 R-73E, Litening Pod & GSh-23 is the minimum acceptable payload for a conventional conflict.

4. Systems are built and wired for reasonable survivability

5. Cost is economical as a payload carrying fighter.

6. Engine is of the same class – F-404 or RD-33

Designing a fighter lesser than F/A-50, JF-17 and Tejas Mk1 would compromise on the minimum acceptable capabilities.

For example, a trainer loaded with two 450 kg bombs and EFTs would be forced to fly at low to medium altitudes at slower speeds in a straight line and be easy prey for weapons like Flycatcher guided L40/70 AA guns or EO guided ZSU-23-2.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 10 May 2016 19:14

Gyan wrote:We have to see whether applied principles of Prof Das would work on LCA and Su-30MKI. Whether a downgraded LCA with limited Kaveri engine, limited Indian MMR can be produced in numbers, say at USD 10 Million dollars each? Would it be useful? Would it improve our security against sanctions and deliver useful ability in war? Or Rafale at USD 500 million each is better?

Don't have to think much about Tejas with Kaveri. Even if Kaveri has shorter shelf life ( which isn't so) then at the most metal components can be melted and recast - just to make a point. Plus having Tejas air frames at need of hour is big plus. So, correct question prolly is will it be not useful in what scenarios. So that is not really a problem at all.

And all further developments on Kaveri can be copied as well, thereby improving economy of scale as it is.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 10 May 2016 22:47

tsarkar wrote:So what is this discussion about? From my understanding, the question is designing & building a fighter with minimum acceptable capabilities.

I had rightly reported the original post and requested it be posted in either the comedy thread or 'make your own fighter' thread.

Its got nothing to do with the Indian air force or Indian military aviation by any stretch of imagination..

I understand mods give latitude for OT discussions here and there, but this is too much !
The article has this to say about IAF.

It is tempting to think of the IAF as a launch customer but it may actually be fatal for any Private venture (PV) to even think of it because the “decision cycle” time of the IAF is financially unsustainable for any PV. It would be much better to keep the IAF in the loop, give it the full ego massage befitting a prospective customer but the main customer will be the Asian, American and African air Arms making do with over sophisticated equipment or with combat equipment whose spare parts have to be sourced from museums.

tsarkar wrote: Designing a fighter lesser than F/A-50, JF-17 and Tejas Mk1 would compromise on the minimum acceptable capabilities.

For example, a trainer loaded with two 450 kg bombs and EFTs would be forced to fly at low to medium altitudes at slower speeds in a straight line and be easy prey for weapons like Flycatcher guided L40/70 AA guns or EO guided ZSU-23-2.

The "professor" rightly says that his wonderjet might not need IR flare dispenser. If Ack Ack can do the job in blasting his creation, why even bother with them stupid flares ?

All hare brained 'cheap light fighter in numbers' ideas automatically go with the assumption that pilots are expendable. They are NOT.

@ cats and pigeons : PD meant A/c manufacturers as pigeons. None are losing sleep, forget a flap thinking about his CATjet.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 10 May 2016 23:23

Mihir wrote:And yet, the Sparrow accounted for the maximum number of kills in Vietnam. Throughout the 80s and 90s, BVR missiles killed an increasing proportion of enemy aircraft. They may have their flaws, but many of those have been rectified through the massive proliferation of datalinks, improved IFF, and all that fun stuff. Better materials and high energy fuels have led to a reduction in size and weight too. And on a large aircraft, how much drag do a handful of tiny missiles account for anyway? The effect would be negligible.

...Deleting the gun was not a mistake.

Agreed. We've been hearing this nonsense for decades. When was the last time a fighter jet scored a gun kill in combat?

People need to stop living in the past. It's 2016 and there hasn't been an air-to-air gun kill since 1965, unless you count that Iraqi copter shot down by an A-10 Warthog back in 1991.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 04:38

Y. Kanan wrote: People need to stop living in the past. It's 2016 and there hasn't been an air-to-air gun kill since 1965,

Really?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2016 04:43

nirav wrote:
All hare brained 'cheap light fighter in numbers' ideas automatically go with the assumption that pilots are expendable. They are NOT.

In fact the truth of the statement above can be extended to all soldiers (not just pilots)and all war. Then we realize that war is bad. Peace must prevail. A profession that requires people to fight is simply unnecessary in this day and age. We must not look at the past, we need to plan the future. Gandhiji was great because he realized this.

That is what I love about rhetorical arguments. The scope becomes unlimited.