LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

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.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SaiK » 24 Nov 2017 07:31

There are a lot of political browbeating and counter claims of saving some 13k odd crores from Rafale deal. I ask politicians why not invest that saving towards Tejas Mk2 program and triple up production facilities. Solid sound candid backing gives much needed impetus and forces are reminded AMCA is the best TEF and LCA the best SEF they can get.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 24 Nov 2017 07:41

SaiK wrote:There are a lot of political browbeating and counter claims of saving some 13k odd crores from Rafale deal. I ask politicians why not invest that saving towards Tejas Mk2 program and triple up production facilities. Solid sound candid backing gives much needed impetus and forces are reminded AMCA is the best TEF and LCA the best SEF they can get.

I am no economist but let me state this

I have 100 Rupees and my son comes and tells me that he needs a book that costs Rs 130. I don't have Rs 130, so I negotiate with the seller and knock the book price down to Rs 100 and do the deal. I have "saved" Rs 30. But that Rs 30 is not actually there for me to spend on anything else.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 24 Nov 2017 07:45

Dileep wrote:
shiv wrote:In fact we don't even know if there was "formal information transfer' from IAF to the MoD."


Yes, we do. I heard corroborating information from a very reliable source. The basic premises of the report are correct onlee.

I will try and say this nicely.

If someone asks me "Did the IAF transfer false and biased information to the MoD" I will have to tell him "Someone that I know informed me on an internet forum that someone he knows found out that someone else did actually transfer that information". Mind you I would be telling the truth as I know it. 100%.

This is not the kind of information that I trust - that is just not me. Chaiwala information on an internet forum does not amount to usable information as far as I am concerned. Especially when it is anonymous third or fourth hand. "He said that someone else said.."

But what you say is "useful information" in the sense that there is obviously some whisper whisper going around with people saying "Someone said something to someone". The problem I have is that it is possible to create rumours from that. For example I can name and identify that "Test Pilot" who said the Tejas is not good enough - because I know that he did not think the Tejas was good 16 years ago. I can add the necessary masala to the story.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 24 Nov 2017 08:47

^^^
I think at this point we all have made up our minds with the information at hand. Beyond that, the arguments become circular in nature. One can always make a claim unreliability (or deny) what has been reported in media since the information given was by an unnamed official/source. That is what is an advantage for these officials (and possibly their organizations at large). They are the winners while rest of us are arguing over-and-over again on validity of such statements published in major Indian media. Instead, the focus should be on how to counter such DDM hit jobs that are being used time-and-time again to great effect.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1963
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Manish_P » 24 Nov 2017 09:05

+1

Shiv ji has done it in his way, with an excellent matter-of-fact video

The rest need to contribute in ways they deem fit.

At a very minimum, help spread the video.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 24 Nov 2017 10:13

srai wrote:^^^
I think at this point we all have made up our minds with the information at hand. Beyond that, the arguments become circular in nature. One can always make a claim unreliability (or deny) what has been reported in media since the information given was by an unnamed official/source. That is what is an advantage for these officials (and possibly their organizations at large). They are the winners while rest of us are arguing over-and-over again on validity of such statements published in major Indian media. Instead, the focus should be on how to counter such DDM hit jobs that are being used time-and-time again to great effect.


Please pardon me. I agree with you 100%.

But there is an advantage in getting our facts right. Once a news item is put out everyone believes it and does not look deeper. Looking deeper allows me (if not others) to come up with certain conclusions. I will post them because I feel that way and I am allowed to post my thoughts on an internet forum. People are welcome to simply stop reading at this point.

1. A news medium has claimed that "The air force" has said some lousy things about the Tejas and greatly praised the F-16/Gripen in comparison. The air force does not speak. Only a spokes person can speak for the air force. So the news is either total bluff or someone claiming to speak for the air force.

Now who would want to praise F-16 AND Gripen while dissing Tejas?

    Could it be Lockheed Martin or SAAB? Unlikely
    Could it be a Nira Radia type wheeler dealer who represents arms import firms who has "deep contacts" in MoD? Quite possiby
    Could it be a person who has some in-depth knowledge about aircraft? Yes
    Must such a person be from Air Force only? Not necessarily - I have enough knowledge to bluff if need be. Most BRFites do too. But we do not have the motivation to bluff.
    Could a representative of HAL have done it? Unlikely
    Could it be a foreign agent who seeks killing of the Tejas? Possibly

If I spen some more time I could think of a few other possibilities. But if we narrow the guilty party down to "Air force telling MoD in PPT" just because a lying media report said it, I would say we are being naive and reacting exactly the way we are intended to react in a clear psy-ops report

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7364
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 24 Nov 2017 10:52

To put things in perspective, Froggies planted that americans visited chakra news through a Russian news piece.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 24 Nov 2017 10:55

Shiv, I am on the phone.
The first India Today article that started this farcas had a single sentence that govt was not interested in SEF import and wanted the Tejas Mk2.

Once I get home will.post the article unless some one does it.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 932
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Venkarl » 24 Nov 2017 12:04

Dated: 21st Nov '17. Posting it here for records. Sorry if already posted.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/def- ... 94567.html

The government is likely to soon start the process for procurement of a fleet of single engine fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force.
It is also in the process of signing a contract with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for supply of 83 Tejas light combat aircraft to the Indian Air Force.


P.S. : This is unedited, unformatted feed from the Press Trust of India wire.


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 24 Nov 2017 12:46

It started with this:

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/640 ... p-iaf.html

The top brass of the Indian Air Force has reportedly been pulled up by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman for inappropriate responses on its depleting squadron strength before a parliamentary panel.

At a meeting of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Defence on October 27, IAF officials, including Vice Chief Air Marshal S B Deo, were reportedly criticised by the minister, as they only talked about the problems related to depleting squadron strength, but did not offer any solution.

As the meeting discussed the IAF's depleting strength, Deo explained the problems to the lawmakers but stopped short of suggesting a solution to the crisis. This angered the minister, who wanted IAF and defence ministry officials to also tell the MPs about the possible solution.

The officials later told the minister that in the next meeting of the panel, they would come prepared with possible solutions on the vexed issue.


This is the particular committee:

http://mpa.gov.in/mpa/ccms_rpt.aspx

There was a meeting as mentioned in the news item. Can be seen here:
http://mpa.gov.in/mpa/meet.aspx
Friday, the 27 October 2017 at 3:30PM >> DEFENCE >> INDIAN AIR FORCE >> COMMITTEE ROOM "D", PARLIAMENT HOUSE ANNEXE, NEW DELHI >> MEETING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED


However from the status comment its not clear if the meeting never happened and was rescheduled or it was rescheduled to discuss the matter when IAF would be more prepared on the solution as the news mentions. Draw your own conclusions.

I cannot find if they have the MoM of these panel meetings in public domain. If someone can find, please post here.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 24 Nov 2017 12:48

ramana wrote:https://theprint.in/2017/11/24/single-engine-fighter-jet-procurement-hits-air-pocket-faces-questions/


Sources have told ThePrint that the defence ministry is not yet convinced with the air force argument for breaking up its requirements into two parts – a new single engine jet line and a different double engine jet programme


What the f*#$... :shock:

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 249
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby arvin » 24 Nov 2017 13:47

ramana wrote:https://theprint.in/2017/11/24/single-engine-fighter-jet-procurement-hits-air-pocket-faces-questions/


Tone of article suggests no decision will be taken before 2019 :D

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2430
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cybaru » 24 Nov 2017 14:04

How many LCAs by then? 25-30?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 24 Nov 2017 14:59

JayS wrote:
ramana wrote:https://theprint.in/2017/11/24/single-engine-fighter-jet-procurement-hits-air-pocket-faces-questions/


Sources have told ThePrint that the defence ministry is not yet convinced with the air force argument for breaking up its requirements into two parts – a new single engine jet line and a different double engine jet programme


What the f*#$... :shock:


So IAF has its own Twin Engine Fighter requirement, in addition to this Single Engine Requirement. Who might have thought after MMRCA tamasha that India might as well end up buying perhaps 4 of the contenders. F16 or gripen + Rafale + F18 and/or EF and/or MiG35 (IN also wants Twin jet so we might get two Twin jets in worse case in addition to Rafale). Time to resurrect MMRCA thread I say. :lol: :lol:

This will keep a lot of online forums ticking for 2 decades at least. :rotfl: :rotfl:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5228
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ShauryaT » 24 Nov 2017 18:20

If I was an incurable optimist, I would say this GoI is gerrymandering to make the selection of Tejas as a fait accompli, driven by budget motivations? MP in his short legacy showed us what can be possible if the ministry is willing to think through the issues and get parties to agree. NS needs to do a step better.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2581
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby nam » 24 Nov 2017 18:32

Sounds like IAF cannot forget M2K and Rafale. They want Rafale.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 24 Nov 2017 19:46

nam wrote:Sounds like IAF cannot forget M2K and Rafale. They want Rafale.

Could be that the news provider has the qualification BS, MS and PhD - Bullshit, More of Same and Piled Higher and deeper

What makes us believe "news" the minute we read it?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 24 Nov 2017 20:14

shiv wrote:
nam wrote:Sounds like IAF cannot forget M2K and Rafale. They want Rafale.

Could be that the news provider has the qualification BS, MS and PhD - Bullshit, More of Same and Piled Higher and deeper

What makes us believe "news" the minute we read it?



:rotfl: :rotfl:

No need to believe any news. One can be agnostic while enjoying the tamasha at the same time. All due to lack of any official info or transparency from GOI. Add to that shitty procurement process, and we have a fertile environment for all sort of misinformation and hypotheses. (In fact one can even argue authenticity of even an official press release, if one does not trust the office really :wink: .) Even some good hints can easily get lost in the noise. And clueless jingos are ready to cling on to any bit of info coming their way that suits their opinions (conformational biases), out of sheer frustration of lack of any credible info. Some simply want something to chew on so it doesn't really matter if its true or not until its good for some "passionate" discussions or to drive related points home. :wink:

That apart, I always thought when MP used to say we will have one SE and one TE fighters under MII, I always thought he meant by Naval requirement of TE fighter. That may not be correct assumption. It is "possible" that he was referring to IAF all the while. This is really the first time I have seen anyone mentioning TE fighter for IAF (Or I have seen it some time ago and do not remember it at all).

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 244
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 24 Nov 2017 20:21

The USAF, with their unimaginable - to our military planners - budget cannot afford a fleet composed entirely or two engine warplanes. But IAF brass see no use for single engine, cheap to own, operate and fight aircraft. The best and brightest of the rest of the world's military planners have nothing to teach our brass, but everything to teach our engineers and military complex.

JayS wrote:
JayS wrote:


What the f*#$... :shock:


So IAF has its own Twin Engine Fighter requirement, in addition to this Single Engine Requirement. Who might have thought after MMRCA tamasha that India might as well end up buying perhaps 4 of the contenders. F16 or gripen + Rafale + F18 and/or EF and/or MiG35 (IN also wants Twin jet so we might get two Twin jets in worse case in addition to Rafale). Time to resurrect MMRCA thread I say. :lol: :lol:

This will keep a lot of online forums ticking for 2 decades at least. :rotfl: :rotfl:

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 24 Nov 2017 20:27

Arun.prabhu wrote:The USAF, with their unimaginable - to our military planners - budget cannot afford a fleet composed entirely or two engine warplanes. But IAF brass see no use for single engine, cheap to own, operate and fight aircraft. The best and brightest of the rest of the world's military planners have nothing to teach our brass, but everything to teach our engineers and military complex.

JayS wrote:
So IAF has its own Twin Engine Fighter requirement, in addition to this Single Engine Requirement. Who might have thought after MMRCA tamasha that India might as well end up buying perhaps 4 of the contenders. F16 or gripen + Rafale + F18 and/or EF and/or MiG35 (IN also wants Twin jet so we might get two Twin jets in worse case in addition to Rafale). Time to resurrect MMRCA thread I say. :lol: :lol:

This will keep a lot of online forums ticking for 2 decades at least. :rotfl: :rotfl:


But Russians have entire or almost entire TE fleet no..? Anyways, who said IAF doesn't appreciate SEF..? We have 100+ page thread to vouch for IAF's preference for SEF. :P And Add LCA to that. Until recently IAF was majorly filled with single engine jets. So how can you say IAF doesn't understand this simple logic that you can understand..?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18513
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karan M » 24 Nov 2017 20:34

So the IAF wants a parallel twin and single engine program? Where do they think the funds will come from?

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5155
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Karthik S » 24 Nov 2017 20:41

JayS wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:The USAF, with their unimaginable - to our military planners - budget cannot afford a fleet composed entirely or two engine warplanes. But IAF brass see no use for single engine, cheap to own, operate and fight aircraft. The best and brightest of the rest of the world's military planners have nothing to teach our brass, but everything to teach our engineers and military complex.



But Russians have entire or almost entire TE fleet no..? Anyways, who said IAF doesn't appreciate SEF..? We have 100+ page thread to vouch for IAF's preference for SEF. :P And Add LCA to that. Until recently IAF was majorly filled with single engine jets. So how can you say IAF doesn't understand this simple logic that you can understand..?


All versions from Su-27 to Su-35S total ~ 450 jets, which is roughly the size of F-15 and F-15E fleet of khan. Ofcourse, prior to that if you spend 20% of your GDP on military you can afford such numbers of twin engine jets, where that led USSR to BTW. Am sure no country will spend that much on military alone.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7848
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 24 Nov 2017 20:49

Karan M wrote:So the IAF wants a parallel twin and single engine program? Where do they think the funds will come from?

They are not Karan. IAF military planners are like a spoilt child. When you talk about budgets, they talk about meeting country's aspirations. Unfortunately the country and the IAF do not see eye to eye on what those aspirations are. When you talk about platforms, they come up with grand schemes of single engine, dual engine, triple engine. And then the OEMs spew nonsense like global supply chain, make components for other countries' F-16s, guaranteed global orders (despite LM refusing to certify Indian made F-16s, forget phoren orders), year 7 Indian origin F-16, etc, etc, etc. And then folks on BRF drink it, like as if it is Gospel truth.

A Fool & His Money Are Soon Parted. We are fools.

The IAF's sister service - the Navy - has proven otherwise. When your back is against the wall and you are forced to induct a local platform (because of budgetary constraints, phoren countries refusing to provide their wares or whatever other reason) one can see the improvements from one platform to the next.

Leander ---> Godavari --> Brahmaputra
------------------------------> Delhi ----> Kolkata ----> Visakhapatnam

Each and every one of the above has foreign components....but the vessels are Designed in India and Made in India for the Indian Navy. Local platforms, the Indian Navy can do whatever they want with it. As I said earlier, license produce key components NOT entire platforms.

Stop stupidly inducting phoren platforms and see how the IAF innovates.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 244
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 24 Nov 2017 20:52

And if our fleet were composed entirely of Cheap Russian maal that we used like the Russian planners intended them to - rarely in peacetime and intensely in wartime - I would have no problem with the IAF brass' procurement dreams. But we follow the western doctrine of flying a large number of hours every year in peacetime to train our pilots to a fine degree. WE CANNOT AFFORD a fleet of western two engine planes and operate them in peacetime like our pilots currently do.

JayS wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:The USAF, with their unimaginable - to our military planners - budget cannot afford a fleet composed entirely or two engine warplanes. But IAF brass see no use for single engine, cheap to own, operate and fight aircraft. The best and brightest of the rest of the world's military planners have nothing to teach our brass, but everything to teach our engineers and military complex.



But Russians have entire or almost entire TE fleet no..? Anyways, who said IAF doesn't appreciate SEF..? We have 100+ page thread to vouch for IAF's preference for SEF. :P And Add LCA to that. Until recently IAF was majorly filled with single engine jets. So how can you say IAF doesn't understand this simple logic that you can understand..?

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 244
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 24 Nov 2017 20:56

Response to your last question: Is that why we want to go from a airforce whose primary workhorse was the single engined, cheap to operate but excellent within its own limitations MIG-21, expensive multirole twin engine war planes that try to be the jack of all trades and end up being costly while elephants?

JayS wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:The USAF, with their unimaginable - to our military planners - budget cannot afford a fleet composed entirely or two engine warplanes. But IAF brass see no use for single engine, cheap to own, operate and fight aircraft. The best and brightest of the rest of the world's military planners have nothing to teach our brass, but everything to teach our engineers and military complex.



But Russians have entire or almost entire TE fleet no..? Anyways, who said IAF doesn't appreciate SEF..? We have 100+ page thread to vouch for IAF's preference for SEF. :P And Add LCA to that. Until recently IAF was majorly filled with single engine jets. So how can you say IAF doesn't understand this simple logic that you can understand..?

samirdiw
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby samirdiw » 24 Nov 2017 20:57

SiddharthS wrote:
samirdiw wrote:

It should have been done like this :

2001-2010  - production of 60 aircraft in the 2001 sop with addition of few plugs after each batch.
                  - whatever that came out after research-development-testing in 2010 call it a Block 1.   

2010-2015 - production of 100 Block 1 Tejas.
                 - whatever that came out after research-development-testing in 2015 call it a Block 2                                                                                              
2015-2020 - production of 100 block 2 Tejas.
                 - whatever that comes out after research-development-testing in 2020 call it a Block 3
.
.
.


Can't say I agree with this method of development though. It could lead to the product developer just creating some junk and the forces being forced to buy them.

Instead, let DRDO/ADA/HAL layout whatever features each block will have, get preapproved orders, and as long as those criteria are met then they have the pre-approval to manufacture without much red tape. This way DRDO is on the hook to meet their own roadmap while at the same time IAF cannot hold them back guessing how many orders they are to get. Thus efficiency from both sides.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 24 Nov 2017 21:02

Karan M wrote:So the IAF wants a parallel twin and single engine program? Where do they think the funds will come from?


Who said this apart from Mannu PBUH! Sir, in the article he said IAF has moved SE deal to SP. AFAIK, IAF can't do that. Above their paycheck. This is GOI policy. IAF can recommend - someone else did it.

IAF went through a decade long multi vendor MMRCA only for the GOI to truncate the order. The SE, MII is a GOI initiative.

My tea leaf reading is that IAF and MoD are fighting it out and someone from MoD is surely getting things out to media. There was a similar news on AMCA plus the news on Southern Command CinC flying Tejas from a MoD press release.

If Mannu PBUH! is right, i wish Dhanoa Sir, says - balls to you and balle, balle to some lassi. It is not IAFs concern alone to keep the fighter numbers up. If MoD and GOI are ready to let it slip, then why should the Flying Overalls care two hoots. Those serving are assured pension anyways.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 24 Nov 2017 21:05

Arun.prabhu wrote:Response to your last question: Is that why we want to go from a airforce whose primary workhorse was the single engined, cheap to operate but excellent within its own limitations MIG-21, expensive multirole twin engine war planes that try to be the jack of all trades and end up being costly while elephants?

...


The primary reason you need an Air Force is because you have threats. Have an Air Force which can handle your threats and deliver on your political objectives.

Air Forces do not exist primarily to support MIC. They should support MIC while existing but I still think the first priority is threat detterence.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 244
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 24 Nov 2017 21:25

Are you responding to me? And our threats cannot be handled with an IAF whose primary workhorse is the LCA or another single engined, cheap warplane? Why not? Without the military industrial complex, the Air Force cannot defend the country in the long run. I know, I know, in the long run, we're all dead anyways, but that doesn't mean thinking short term is the way to go. Technological advances have always upturned and destroyed established power structures and civilisations. Unless we want to be a subservient client tied to the foreign policy of some foreign nation and the whims and fancies of their ruling class forever, it behooves us to develop our own MIC. buying foreign maal does not help us towards that worthy goal.



deejay wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:Response to your last question: Is that why we want to go from a airforce whose primary workhorse was the single engined, cheap to operate but excellent within its own limitations MIG-21, expensive multirole twin engine war planes that try to be the jack of all trades and end up being costly while elephants?

...


The primary reason you need an Air Force is because you have threats. Have an Air Force which can handle your threats and deliver on your political objectives.

Air Forces do not exist primarily to support MIC. They should support MIC while existing but I still think the first priority is threat detterence.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Singha » 24 Nov 2017 21:28

Threat deterrence vs china needs a domestic mic much more than imported f16 . Thats the harsh reality. China wont be deterred by assembled slightly neutered jets anymore.

Unless we develop robust donestic mic the gaps will continue to widen

Now not being shoes or phones which anyone can buy the only client able to support domestic mic are the forces

Either they can bury head in sand and gloat about scaring tsp or plan for the big lizard

So far our armed forces have been divorced of what it takes to build composite national power and operate tactically in own cocoon and cantonment

Red army and pla own/owned the country so part of highest levels from day1

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Singha » 24 Nov 2017 21:33

Hardly any general comes across as a major league strategic thinker in the mould of alfred thayer mahan or tukachevsky

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 244
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Arun.prabhu » 24 Nov 2017 21:43

LOL Arjun is too heavy. LCA is too light. <sarc> SLR is too fat. </sarc> Strategic thought amongst our command staff and our political class is like Goldilocks of fairytale fame. This Indian stuff is too this, too that, but that foreign maal is JUST RIGHT.

Too bad we don't have the Pakistanis as our primary threat now. Goldilocks or even her pet dog/cat would do well against Pakistan's Inshallah Corps. Against a determined adversary that has shown the ability to think long term, we'll be barely an appetizer. It's our strategic depth that is our only savior. Certainly not the armed forces. They don't have enough to fight a high intensity conflict for even two weeks.

Edit: Buy LCA. Buy hundreds and hundreds. If it's not the best, it is still ours. We can do what we want and we can build as many as we want and we can use it as we want as we indigenise more and more of it.

Singha wrote:Hardly any general comes across as a major league strategic thinker in the mould of alfred thayer mahan or tukachevsky

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 24 Nov 2017 21:48

This thread is becoming a bin of frustration. Arun ji, think through.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2581
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby nam » 24 Nov 2017 22:34

shiv wrote:
nam wrote:Sounds like IAF cannot forget M2K and Rafale. They want Rafale.

Could be that the news provider has the qualification BS, MS and PhD - Bullshit, More of Same and Piled Higher and deeper

What makes us believe "news" the minute we read it?


Very well could be. Just an opinion.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 24 Nov 2017 22:48

Jays, I am looking for the India Today article that had. All those presentation details. If you find please post.

Thanks. R

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 24 Nov 2017 22:52

ramana wrote:Jays, I am looking for the India Today article that had. All those presentation details. If you find please post.

Thanks. R

This one? This is the one I used for my video data and for an article I am doing
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/teja ... 86425.html

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 24 Nov 2017 23:25

shiv wrote:
ramana wrote:Jays, I am looking for the India Today article that had. All those presentation details. If you find please post.

Thanks. R

This one? This is the one I used for my video data and for an article I am doing
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/teja ... 86425.html


Yes, that one.

This is the leaked PPT by SAAB, supposedly for Dutch AF:
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Dutc ... n_2009.pdf

Check the claimed numbers for Gripen NG in it. Though note that after that the Gripen NG has turned out to be a ton overweight. So do factor in that while considering their claims from pre-2016/17 era.

Range:
JSF (this with EFT I suppose) = 1456 nautical miles
JSF with LO = 1370 NM
G-NG = 2200 NM

Supercruise (M1.1) to CAP 250NM (2 BVR + 2CCM)
G-NG = 26min to Station, 50 min on station
EF2000 = 25min to station, 30min on station
JSF = Cant Supercruise, no data given (lame reason for not giving endurance data)

2BVR, 2CCM, 4 GBU-49, EFT = 200NM Combat radius, 1.5hr on station

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 24 Nov 2017 23:44

Shiv Thanks.


The response came after the South Block asked the IAF to scrap its plans of acquiring single-engine fighters from global, top sources told India Today.



This is what triggered the response that LCA is not SEF which is a MMRCA residual after limited Rafale purchase.

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby viveks » 25 Nov 2017 00:06

Cant believe the IAF said that about the LCA. "Mig-21 better than LCA". What? And the aircraft testers compare and claim it to be better than the Mirage 2000. That must have made the faces of the aircraft makers red! :D :D


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 32 guests