Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

'Make in India' Single engined fighter

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 16 Feb 2017 20:11

More Rafales will be ordered. For the first 36 order, India secured help for Kaveri from Snecma-Safran, and according to reports Kaveri will be flying on an LCA in 2-3 years. If the French deliver on its promises, then another 36 would likely be ordered. It makes sense from a huge infrastructure investment the IAF is making as well.

Other development is that LCA Mk.2 looks more and more to be a Mirage-2000 class fighter. "Medium" category would be fulfilled by it post 2025. In the meantime, more cheap LCA Mk.1A would need to be ordered to make up for retiring MiGs. HAL has mentioned that they will be able to produce 25 LCA/year once outsourcing of all the major components (wings, tail, fuselage, etc) is complete.

Production of Su-30MKI is coming to an end in the next 2.5 years. More should be ordered to take advantage of a local production line that can build a MKI from raw-materials.

Then, there is always an option to buy second-hand Mirage-2000s and upgrade them to the Indian standard. Qatar, UAE, Greece, Brazil and France will have quite a few retiring airframes over the next 5-7 years. One or two squadrons plus top-up of existing squadrons would be recommended. Armaments and some components would be common with the Rafale.

IMO, the above approach would give better "bang-for-buck". The overall cost of inducting yet-another-foreign fighter is huge and needless to say time consuming process. Doubt that a new foreign plane would be inducted within the next 10-years given the Indian bureaucracy. If foreign-fighter is desired, then a better bet at this point would on F-35--latest generation and not some legacy planes.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4732
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Feb 2017 20:44


This is the best thing that can happen to India. We will learn to be dependent on our own and no one else, hopefully. Go Trump!!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 17 Feb 2017 00:57

ShauryaT wrote:

This is the best thing that can happen to India. We will learn to be dependent on our own and no one else, hopefully. Go Trump!!


FYI the following article.

US, Indian governments talking on making F-16 in India: Lockheed

"There are a number of internal discussions going on here in India on strategic partners. Discussions between the two governments at this point. We will wait to hear from the two governments and Lockheed Martin is fully supportive of those decisions," he said.


I do not think the F-16 dents Trump's vision. Need to wait a wee bit. BR is too narrow minded and tends not to look at the bigger picture.

Neither is SP dead, nor is MII, nor is the F-16 offer. The F-16, as we know it, could die, but I do not expect it to as MII.

I do expect the two engines version of the MII to die, unless the Rafale-M plays out, which I do not se happening for a variety of reasons.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2017 01:47

What has happened under Carter would need to be pursued and the new administration and particularly the SD and the Pentagon need to pursue it with the same level of importance. Given them till the summer..until then we won't know what priority this gets with them

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 17 Feb 2017 01:56

Cybaru wrote:
nirav wrote:Range doesn't necessarily mean from point a to point b.
Crucial metric would be time on station.

@BVR or even WVR, with the jet on either full military thrust or on burners, which jet has more petrol,thereby a higher time on station gives it an ability to engage/disengage and re engage.. the lower ranged jet would have to RTB as bingo fuel approaches rapidly..


Please do answer the question. You seem shifty like the IAF requirements! :lol:

Given the same payload, what is the difference between ranges of F-16 and LCA? Mind you the difference in fuel is only 200 kgs and thats offset by higher weight of the platform.

or

Please enlighten us about the other "Crucial metric would be time on station"

and how come range doesn't mean from point a to point b especially if they are similarly loaded? You have a new way of comparing things? Please do share.


x post from LCA dhagaa. Thank you tsarkarji for quoting the relevant bit.
Link - http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02/ ... -back.html

Cmd Balaji wrote: ‘We believe the change will free up space for up to 700 kg additional fuel, providing about 22 minutes of additional time on task,’ Balaji tells Livefist. That’s huge for the tactical envelope the LCA platform was developed for.


Quoted the post specifically for you Cybaru ji.
The concept is quite basic actually but since youd asked me to reply to you on your "calling me out" on 'time on station' here it is.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 17 Feb 2017 02:10

Here is another data point:

17, 2017 :: India and U.S. in talks on F-16 jet factory - Lockheed

Lockheed is pushing ahead with its proposal to transfer the F-16 production line to India to supply the Indian air force, but it understands that U.S. President Donald Trump's administration may want to take a fresh look at such plans.


"We have had very strong support up to this point from the U.S. government. We are deferring any concerns over to the two governments as discussions have progressed to the point where requirements need to be more fully articulated," Howard said, adding that Lockheed Martin is fully supportive of those discussions.

Trump's criticism of U.S. auto and drug companies moving manufacturing overseas and then selling goods back to the United States has raised concern over Lockheed's plans, though in this case the factory would supply the Indian military rather than export to the United States.


Which US Gov?

The last part is not entirely true, but .........


Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2807
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 17 Feb 2017 06:12

svinayak wrote:This is clear that India has to make the engines in India

There has to be atleast 4 types by 2030. The challenge is to get that tech and the mfg capability in India by that time.

My earlier estimation was 2000 units but the Indian economy will need atleast 5000 or more in another 25 years

svinayak: Firstly, making the engines in India is NOT the same as developing the engines in India. Granted the F-Solah or Paper NG do not need an engine developed (as they both have proven engines) the issue lies in what exactly will India be making of the engine? Or are we just going to assemble the engine? Which as per BRF parlance is screwdrivergiri. What will India learn from this?

Secondly, this export marketing scheme that both companies are pushing on India is a farce. Allow me to explain. Apparently, there is an acute shortage of fighter squadrons in the IAF. What is it now? 30+ squadrons against a sanctioned strenght of 42? We are roughly 12 squadrons short which equates to 216 aircraft (using the calculation of 18 per squadron). Of that, let's say we are going to license produce only 100 phoren fighters. Are we going to focus on filling the numbers first or focusing on exports? If it is the former, when we finish producing 100 fighters...who will want a F-16V or a Gripen E when the American F-35, the South Koren KF-X, the Turkish TfX or similar platforms will be available? If we are going to do export orders at the same time, what does that say about the IAF's squadron shortage? Are we going to have two lines now for phoren fighters? Or are we going to focus on exports first and then fill the IAF's squadron shortage?

Thirdly, since the Babus at the MoD are still focusing on completing one chapter of the Strategic Partners (SP) policy, when exactly are they expected to be done? Why do deadlines only exist for HAL, ADA, DRDO but no deadlines for Babus? When His Highness Chief Babu finally puts his stamp on the SP policy are the Swedes and the Americans just expected to fall in line for India's SP policy? Will they review the policy and ask for changes and amendments to suit their own country's laws? How long will this back and forth take? With President Trump at the helm, you can be sure there is going to be push back for what India wants and what he percieves India should get. Will those interests ever converge?

It makes better sense for President Trump (helps him politically as well and saves face) to keep key components of engine tech in the US, have India do license production of the GE F414 engine for the Tejas and AMCA, have India invest in a FACO line and do screwdrivergiri of the F-35.

JMVHO.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2807
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 17 Feb 2017 06:30

The other option is to standardize on the Rafale (order another 36 for the Air Force and the 57 for the Navy). That brings it to 129, kinda close to the 126 MMRCA deal. Weird or what eh?

But in order for this to fly, Snecma-Safran team has to deliver a working Kaveri engine. That is the carrot that France has to dangle. The recent announcement that Tejas will fly @ AI 2019 with the Kaveri engine gives me hope.

If the Kaveri works, it makes the single engine fighter purchase even more un-necessary.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Feb 2017 06:45

@Rakesh ^^^ Think parts. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole. With ~4K installed base globally, a good parts manufacturing and delivery system via Fedex :) is more profitable and easily sold (online ordering ). It not only offsets some of the 100-200 units that the IAF might buy (the minimum order lot according to LM is 100 a/c) but it also creates the local ecosystem who manufacture the sprockets/widgets/fluids/lubricants/fasteners etc. etc.)

Boeing makes more money (margin) off the parts than they do off the planes. What LM is saying is that it is in a unique (I agree) position to make MII happen for India.

Be that as it may. If we don't want to take the US offer, we can go with SAAB's offer of the 'complete' transfer/parallel lines for the Gripen E (due in the early 2020s). We can then work to build a global installed base of Gripens by exporting whole a/c whose supply chain we can dominate by 2050 after we've satisfied the IAF requirement for 200-250 Gripens.

Of course, we will still import the GE-F414 engine subject to US laws/pissed off attitude and various bits that the Swedes don't make.

But we'll always be able to count on the full Swedish Bikini ski team to help us against the Chinese. :)

Just kidding. But wish it were not so. India has almost no strategic space today given the self inflicted wounds over the last 50 years.

We need the US over the next 10 years to buy us respite from PRC. And we need 200 4G + fighters double quick. LM even more so than Boeing is probably the only one that can help fill a gap that should never have been allowed to open.

JMT. And just hoping for a sane and timely outcome.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1740
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 17 Feb 2017 07:14

Cosmo_R wrote:Be that as it may. If we don't want to take the US offer, we can go with SAAB's offer of the 'complete' transfer/parallel lines for the Gripen E (due in the early 2020s). We can then work to build a global installed base of Gripens by exporting whole a/c whose supply chain we can dominate by 2050 after we've satisfied the IAF requirement for 200-250 Gripens.


Gripen E Timelines:
First flight 2015, now possibly in second half of 2017! (estimated) - delay 2 years

"First flight of the lead test aircraft is scheduled for the second half of 2015, with the single-seat asset to be used primarily for airframe and flight control system testing." - https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-reveals-full-gripen-e-design-cost-savings-396977/

IOC - 2023 Estimated.
FOC - 2026 Estimated.
Swedish Air Force E's are scheduled to reach initial operating capability in 2023 with full capability set for three years later. - https://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/18/gripen-e-debuts-saab-reports-continued-interest-c-variants/84537568/

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1740
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 17 Feb 2017 07:21

Rakesh wrote:It makes better sense for President Trump (helps him politically as well and saves face) to keep key components of engine tech in the US, have India do license production of the GE F414 engine for the Tejas and AMCA, have India invest in a FACO line and do screwdrivergiri of the F-35.

JMVHO.


If Vishal has catapult, then it's possible that IN could operate both F35C and F35B (vik + ADS). IAF can order 90-100 F35A and this would be a huge order for LM for all three types.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2807
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 17 Feb 2017 07:28

Cosmo_R wrote:@Rakesh ^^^ Think parts. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole. With ~4K installed base globally, a good parts manufacturing and delivery system via Fedex :) is more profitable and easily sold (online ordering ). It not only offsets some of the 100-200 units that the IAF might buy (the minimum order lot according to LM is 100 a/c) but it also creates the local ecosystem who manufacture the sprockets/widgets/fluids/lubricants/fasteners etc. etc.)

Would this same not hold true for the F-35? And based on what cybaru said above, if 100 F-35As + 57 F-35B/Cs are purchased, would that not be equally profitable (if not more) for LM? To quote President Trump, "I want LM to make money, but not THAT much money." :)

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1740
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 17 Feb 2017 07:31

They might need a compliment of 50-60 f35C for Vishal alone, putting the whole thing close to 200+. It would end up making us the largest operator outside USN.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Feb 2017 07:51

The only reason LM is putting a low initial purchase number by the IAF for the F16 line to be moved to India is because it is fully depreciated and they would otherwise close it down. If you want LM to start a new line for the F35 in India, you'd be talking some multiple of what a F16 assembled/built in India would cost and the IAF would have to order a much higher number of F35s well above the 100 minimum for the F16. Plus of course, the parts orders (the high margin stuff) would be filled out of the US line.

In 2005-6, when the original MMRCA contract was about to be floated, LM suggested India order 180 F16s and then trade them in for F35s.

IMHO, the best solution at the moment is moving the F16 line to India with an order of ~100 F16s (LMs' figure) and parts exports to offset the purchase of ~100 F35s of whatever configuration for the IAF/IN and negotiate an Israeli MII for certain avionics that the Israelis cannot stuff into their F35s because the US is paying for the a/c.

It makes so much economic sense that it will never be considered and someone will again bring up used Qatari M2Ks as an alternative, or worse, paying Dassault reopen the M2K line :)

When it comes to fighters for the IAF, it's always groundhog day 2005.

Added later: it should not be about LM's/Dassault's/SAAB's profits rather about our cost. We should choose whatever is the least cost for value. You can define the value however you want: narrowly in unit/TCO or all-in including strategic. But do it knowingly and quickly when you have the upper hand.
Last edited by Cosmo_R on 17 Feb 2017 07:58, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1740
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 17 Feb 2017 07:52

Yeah, the qatari/uae still make financial sense, anyways, its all circular and I don't see value in purchasing 100f16 and then replacing them with 100f35. Thats (10 billion + 10/11 billion) order? Mind you can you get the f35 now for the 10/11 billion now. (Prices from the order of 90 f35s this year)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 17 Feb 2017 08:00

With ~4K installed base globally


In theory, that would violate Trump's edict. As long as the MII F-16 is for Indian use, it should work out.

Anything beyond does get into the grey area. And anything for the US forces certainly violates.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Feb 2017 08:08

Cybaru wrote:Yeah, the qatari/uae still make financial sense, anyways, its all circular and I don't see value in purchasing 100f16 and then replacing them with 100f35. Thats (10 billion + 10/11 billion) order? Mind you can you get the f35 now for the 10/11 billion now. (Prices from the order of 90 f35s this year)


I don't want to get into repeating this. We can certainly order 250 F35s or whatever number you want but it won't be a full line in India like the F16 unless we want to duplicate with a NEW line in which case you're starting the LRIP unit pricing cycle that brar_w has explained in excruciating detail. My rough guess for a MII F35 (lets say the first 100 units?) ~about 2.5X the 2108 flyway cost of ~85MM.

Please ask brar_w about this scenario if it's even possible

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 17 Feb 2017 08:43

No new foreign fighter is going to be inducted anytime soon. It's at least a decade away. If India wants a foreign fighter, it needs to think from that viewpoint--10+ years from now what would provide the best value for money. In the meantime, other opportunities should be pursued in parallel to fill in gaps and not repeat the mistakes of all-or-nothing approach taken in MRCA-1.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 17 Feb 2017 21:02

Cosmo_R wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Yeah, the qatari/uae still make financial sense, anyways, its all circular and I don't see value in purchasing 100f16 and then replacing them with 100f35. Thats (10 billion + 10/11 billion) order? Mind you can you get the f35 now for the 10/11 billion now. (Prices from the order of 90 f35s this year)


I don't want to get into repeating this. We can certainly order 250 F35s or whatever number you want but it won't be a full line in India like the F16 unless we want to duplicate with a NEW line in which case you're starting the LRIP unit pricing cycle that brar_w has explained in excruciating detail. My rough guess for a MII F35 (lets say the first 100 units?) ~about 2.5X the 2108 flyway cost of ~85MM.

Please ask brar_w about this scenario if it's even possible

You're quoting $200mn as flyaway cost or does that include the costs of spares, training and support for say five years? Else it is on par with the Raffy deal, which would be again quite expensive.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2017 21:13

Marten wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:
I don't want to get into repeating this. We can certainly order 250 F35s or whatever number you want but it won't be a full line in India like the F16 unless we want to duplicate with a NEW line in which case you're starting the LRIP unit pricing cycle that brar_w has explained in excruciating detail. My rough guess for a MII F35 (lets say the first 100 units?) ~about 2.5X the 2108 flyway cost of ~85MM.

Please ask brar_w about this scenario if it's even possible

You're quoting $200mn as flyaway cost or does that include the costs of spares, training and support for say five years? Else it is on par with the Raffy deal, which would be again quite expensive.


Flyaway costs aren't the weapons system acquisition cost for a new customer since the deal includes logistics beyond the initial bed down of spares that are factored in the former. You are buying more services, engineering support, engineering changes, training and training support, simulators, fielding infrastructure to establish an organic O&S capability and of course weapons and some sort of PBL on beyond initial use spares and supplies. Take the $80-85 Million URF and increase it to around 2-2.5 times as was suggested to get an average unit acquisition cost so $200 Million a pop. Yes in line with the Rafale if one were to acquire the aircraft on purely similar terms i.e. off the shelf purchase from the US with a fixed price PBL with Lockheed.

As a reference, South Korea's FMS announcement puts this at $180 Million minus weapons (it includes an initial PBL package). That is likely a conservative estimate since they used 2013 costing data which predicted a higher 2018/19 price per unit so I'd shave 5-6% off that. Let's assume that the FMS cost data supplied to DAPA holds (it will be slightly below that but let's ignore that) and add their weapons package cost on top of it. This gets them to roughly a rafale equivalent deal in terms of offsets, weapons system acquisition including spares and a PBL etc. This comes to $193 Million per Unit for 60 Units. Below is a list of the aircraft and support announcement and weapons the ROKAF purchased for their 60 aircraft -

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.

The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.


The Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested a possible sale of F-35 aircraft weapons. These aircraft weapons include the following:
274 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
6 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM Guidance Sections
530 Joint Directed Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits, BLU-109/KMU-557C/B (GBU-31) w/SAASM/AJ
4 JDAM BLU-109 Load Build Trainers
6 MK-82 Filled Inert Bombs
4 BLU-109 Inert Bombs
1312 FMU-152A/B Fuzes (FZU-63 Initiator)
542 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs
530 BLU-109 2000LB Penetrators
780 GBU-12 Bomb
4 GBU-12 Dummy Trainers
154 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) Tactical Missiles w/DSU-41
33 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM)
7 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) CATM Guidance Units
14 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) Tactical Guidance Units
Also included are containers, missile support and test equipment, provisioning, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and technical support, and other related elements of program support. The estimated cost will be $793 million.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 17 Feb 2017 22:58

If they offer AIM-120 D AMRAAMs, would make it an awesome deal! Point being that we can probably look at 60 units rather than trying to get 120 upfront. Folks who talk of replacement of existing assets are not accounting for the fact that our neighbours are not really upgrading ALL of their offensive capabilities at the same rate. Therefore, while the LCA Mk1A will be more than sufficient for the next 15 years against the PAF, the Raffys and MKIs will be adequate to meet the Flanker clones and Solas in numerical terms.

What we need is that offensive stealth capability for SEAD. The JDAM looks like a neat package deal too.
Is there a better alternative for this mission?
PS: Not looking at DEAD, for which MKI or Raffys would be ideal.
Last edited by Marten on 17 Feb 2017 23:14, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2017 23:14

The current Single Engine Fighter tender involves MII components and it is quite likely that a majority of these will be assembled in India with a fair amount of component level production accompanying the winning bid. It is not an off the shelf purchase like the Rafale deal. If there were money for such a large JSF deal, what held the MOD back from increasing the Rafale purchase to the original 126?

Aim-120D has now been cleared for export so yeah it could be offered if requested. That however works for the F-16 as well.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 17 Feb 2017 23:17

True, one would expect a follow up order for the Raffys of the same number. The differentiator being single engine, presumably due to operational costs plus the ability to carry more ordnance or provide something that the LCA does not (not sure -- range? radar?).

Else, what would be the point of spending about the same or thereabouts on another platform and getting lower capabilities than the Raffy.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2017 23:22

Else, what would be the point of spending about the same or thereabouts on another platform and getting lower capabilities than the Raffy.


They aren't planning on spending the same money as the Rafale. The Original Rafale MMRCA deal would have come with a very very high price tag. The F-16 and Gripen are lighter, single engine platforms. The Block 70 F-16 is your 80% solution and will be cheaper to build than a Rafale.

The F-35 isn't a light single engine fighter. It is a Medium-Heavy with a 70,000+ pounds MTOW (higher than the Rafale) with more thrust than the Rafale.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 17 Feb 2017 23:59

What would be your learned estimate on the price difference between an F-16 MII and JSF off the shelf order? Let's say 100 units for ease of calculation.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4961
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 18 Feb 2017 00:05

Marten wrote:What would be your learned estimate on the price difference between an F-16 MII and JSF off the shelf order? Let's say 100 units for ease of calculation.


Depends upon a whole set of factors. The Fly-Away cost difference is unlikely to be significant but when one gets into the weapon system acquisition cost factoring in a PBL you are pobably going to see the F-35 put some distance given the lower cost structure of the F-16 on account of a smaller system and the fact that it is less capable. An FMS weapons system cost per unit for the F-35A is probably going to be between $160-190 Million all things considered (an apples to apples deal to the Rafale)..
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Feb 2017 10:59, edited 1 time in total.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3990
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Neshant » 18 Feb 2017 10:27

Is it just me or is the push to import foreign single engine planes at great expense getting stronger & stronger the closer the LCA gets to being mass produced.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12503
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 18 Feb 2017 15:07

^ That is how it is ; I mean I can pull out articles from few years ago when reports were saying IAF find operating MKI expensive because of two engines large logistical footprint yada yada ; sure compared to M2K it is true but F-35 ? Anyone who says that operational costs of F-35 are going to be lower than say now much stabilized MKI line doesn't know $hit. F-16 may be in long run could be a good bet but now is a bad time it will come with it's own weapons and entire logistical chain which will take time and money to setup . We are anyways going to spread ourselves thin when Rafale arrives .

The way I see it our jokers had a great opportunity to replace a very diverse fleet of Mig-21, 23,27, Jaguars , 29, M2K with probably just 2-3 types say MKI (we could have done things with such a large platform), Tejas and Rafale . F-16/F-35 are just going to bloat up our expenditure and increase dependence on Americans.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4758
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 18 Feb 2017 15:42

negi wrote:^ That is how it is ; I mean I can pull out articles from few years ago when reports were saying IAF find operating MKI expensive because of two engines large logistical footprint yada yada ; sure compared to M2K it is true but F-35 ? Anyone who says that operational costs of F-35 are going to be lower than say now much stabilized MKI line doesn't know $hit. F-16 may be in long run could be a good bet but now is a bad time it will come with it's own weapons and entire logistical chain which will take time and money to setup . We are anyways going to spread ourselves thin when Rafale arrives .

The F-35 isn't cheaper than the MKI to operate. Probably costs a good bit more to operate. Acquisition costs would be similar to the Rafale. Perhaps somewhat higher now that the Rafale has already been ordered.

The salient point here is that a four-ship F-35 flight is capable of performing tasks that a full squadron of Su-30s can't. In fact, pit the two formations against each other and the smart money will be on the former. Every time.

The F-16 is a different case. Isn't very cheap but still considerably less capable than the Rafale, to say nothing of the F-35. And impinges on the Tejas Mk2 plan.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3990
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Neshant » 18 Feb 2017 20:04

A great article by Bharat Karnad about how vested interests go about destroying projects.

Hardly a fraction of the shitload of money spent on foreign plane purchases is used to promote domestic aerospace R&D initiatives.

The objective of hurriedly importing hundreds of foreign single engined planes is largely meant to side line the LCA and with it the rise of any domestic aerospace R&D base.

Read it all.

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

The Tragedy of Tejas
by Bharat Karnad

The Government doesn’t see that the commercial bonanza for foreign countries is choking off funds for home-grown aircraft


http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... y-of-tejas

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Feb 2017 21:08

negi wrote:... F-16/F-35 are just going to bloat up our expenditure and increase dependence on Americans.


The Gripen E (paper plane right now) will have a GE F414 engine (American) and lots of other US tech which is not obvious until it is sanctioned. Even if the Gripen suppliers are not American, I'd bet that they use American IP under license and sell to the American MIC.

We can certainly avoid dependence on America—by increasing it on Russia. Also, we can forget about all the tech that we want under DTTI.

IMHO, the one plausible scenario for US sanctions is we do a PIII. The India-Pakistan war is no longer a sanctionable scenario as in the past. For one, it's not going to be a 1965/1971 type of conflict. It will likely be some sort of strike by India across the LOC against camps and local paki retaliation. If we get into a scrap with the PRC, I don't for one minute believe the US will side with the Chinese.

So that brings us to PIII. Again, we're not going to do this out of the blue like in 1998. We'll wait for the pressure to build like it did in 1996 for the P-5 to verify arsenals and do it at the same time. BTW, I still harbor a suspicion that the 'strategic relationship' with France has to do with this

http://www-lmj.cea.fr/en/simulation-program/index.htm

The Rafale was a quid pro quo.

In larger sense, we are very dependent on the US. We need them to counter PRC in the IOR and SCS. The Russians, Swedes and French are not going to be of any use.

Decisions made and not made 30 years ago are coming home to roost.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12503
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 18 Feb 2017 22:13

All this is BS ; there is not going to be a war at least not the kind which planes will fight . The actual war in this century is gonna be fought via trade . America built and bought American 50 years ago time when Russians and Germans were making better tanks . Wait that F35 people seem to be drooling over is essentially a Yak-141 xerox copy turbojets have been replaced by a giant fan the rear swivelling nozzle design remains the same hell LM even bailed out Yakolev by paying them 400 million USD ; they did the same for RD series of engines for their latest rockets . Security is a nice topic even in ITVTY you sell security SW citing laws, loss in event of attack and raising such alarms question is where do you draw the line between coming up with your own stuff versus buying it ? We are probably world's largest buyer today , in next 5 years we will displace Chipanda (China is mostly buying components to build stuff anyways not complete platforms) . When Gandhi forced the fauj to use Maruti Jypsy for decades no one raised an alarm about safety (that thing cannot even survive a crash against a Maruti 800) what worse would happen say if we don't buy anything for next 10 years ? Make a one time tactical investment on Tejas line and do whatever it takes to roll out a Mk2 in 3 years and have lines setup to churn 25 a year. It has always been about how you control spend ; today I have a EMI so I cannot buy a fast car if I had more money I would have surely been able to justify to myself and family the need for a larger and faster car it is the same with forces once the budgetary outlay is increased to a point where they know they can buy the latest gadget out there why won't they ask for it ? Justifying something is not too difficult when it comes to national security . I mean for an argument's sake are TSP or China going to fight a war with us based on whether we have Tejas or F-35 ? We are a nuclear power with competent delivery platforms where F-35 and F-22 are irrelevant why should we still think about buying a fighter the way we used to back in 50s or 60s ?

We laugh at TSP's "we will eat grass but will make a bomb" I mean for a fck's sake they got it how it does not matter but they have a legit nuke capability and whether we have a F-35 or a tigermoth it won't change a thing when it comes to how we deal with them and the same applies to how Chipanda and TSP view us i.e. it is our BMD and IGDMP which is a factor not the Mig-21 or F-35.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2807
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 18 Feb 2017 22:30

Cosmo_R wrote:The only reason LM is putting a low initial purchase number by the IAF for the F16 line to be moved to India is because it is fully depreciated and they would otherwise close it down. If you want LM to start a new line for the F35 in India, you'd be talking some multiple of what a F16 assembled/built in India would cost and the IAF would have to order a much higher number of F35s well above the 100 minimum for the F16. Plus of course, the parts orders (the high margin stuff) would be filled out of the US line.

Hold on a second. If cost is the issue, would 100 F-16Vs be cheaper to operate & purchase than 100 F-35As? I know the answer to that question. And since it is the former, would it not make better sense for the USAF to buy & operate the same? I mean the common enemy that both these countries have is the same no? As you said they are closing down the depreciated line to open a new one. In fact, rather than Italy and Japan have F-16V production lines...they also have opened a F-35 assembly line. Correct? Again, the common enemy that India, Japan and the US have is the same correct? Would it not make better sense for all these three nations to operate one common type of aircraft to fight against the perceived Chinese threat?

Secondly, you mentioned "parts". Since the liine will be moved to India, will we be in charge of upgrading the F-Solahs out there to the Block 70 standard? I mean for the countries that want to upgrade them that is. If so, will that happen at the same time we license produce the Viper or after we finish producing 100 of these fighters? So the same questions remain;

- Are we going to focus on filling the numbers first or focusing on exports (i.e. upgarding them with parts)?

- If it is the former, when we finish producing 100 fighters...who will want a F-16V or a Gripen E when the American F-35, the South Koren KF-X, the Turkish TfX or Chinese platforms like the Chengdu J-20 and the Shenyang J-31 will be available?

- OR are we going to have two lines for phoren fighters - one to fill up the IAF squadron shortage and another to upgrade F-16s of foreign nations?

Cosmo_R wrote:The Gripen E (paper plane right now) will have a GE F414 engine (American) and lots of other US tech which is not obvious until it is sanctioned. Even if the Gripen suppliers are not American, I'd bet that they use American IP under license and sell to the American MIC.

Why would it be sanctioned? I would love to know, so please explain. Would we be sanctioned if we do not toe Unkil's line? If so, how much sanction-proof is the Block 70 then?

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1740
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 18 Feb 2017 22:32

negi wrote:All this is BS ; there is not going to be a war at least not the kind which planes will fight . The actual war in this century is gonna be fought via trade . America built and bought American 50 years ago time when Russians and Germans were making better tanks . Wait that F35 people seem to be drooling over is essentially a Yak-141 xerox copy turbojets have been replaced by a giant fan the rear swivelling nozzle design remains the same hell LM even bailed out Yakolev by paying them 400 million USD ; they did the same for RD series of engines for their latest rockets . Security is a nice topic even in ITVTY you sell security SW citing laws, loss in event of attack and raising such alarms question is where do you draw the line between coming up with your own stuff versus buying it ? We are probably world's largest buyer today , in next 5 years we will displace Chipanda (China is mostly buying components to build stuff anyways not complete platforms) . When Gandhi forced the fauj to use Maruti Jypsy for decades no one raised an alarm about safety (that thing cannot even survive a crash against a Maruti 800) what worse would happen say if we don't buy anything for next 10 years ? Make a one time tactical investment on Tejas line and do whatever it takes to roll out a Mk2 in 3 years and have lines setup to churn 25 a year. It has always been about how you control spend ; today I have a EMI so I cannot buy a fast car if I had more money I would have surely been able to justify to myself and family the need for a larger and faster car it is the same with forces once the budgetary outlay is increased to a point where they know they can buy the latest gadget out there why won't they ask for it ? Justifying something is not too difficult when it comes to national security . I mean for an argument's sake are TSP or China going to fight a war with us based on whether we have Tejas or F-35 ? We are a nuclear power with competent delivery platforms where F-35 and F-22 are irrelevant why should we still think about buying a fighter the way we used to back in 50s or 60s ?

We laugh at TSP's "we will eat grass but will make a bomb" I mean for a fck's sake they got it how it does not matter but they have a legit nuke capability and whether we have a F-35 or a tigermoth it won't change a thing when it comes to how we deal with them and the same applies to how Chipanda and TSP view us i.e. it is our BMD and IGDMP which is a factor not the Mig-21 or F-35.


+1

snahata
BRFite
Posts: 489
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby snahata » 18 Feb 2017 22:57

Cosmo_R wrote:Decisions made and not made 30 years ago are coming home to roost.

That is unfortunately the case.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2807
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 18 Feb 2017 23:01

snahata wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Decisions made and not made 30 years ago are coming home to roost.

That is unfortunately the case.

Absolutely. You reap what you sow.

But making an equally dumb decision now, will also come home to roost in due time no?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 18 Feb 2017 23:09

negi wrote:All this is BS ; there is not going to be a war at least not the kind which planes will fight . The actual war in this century is gonna be fought via trade . America built and bought American 50 years ago time when Russians and Germans were making better tanks .......................

We laugh at TSP's "we will eat grass but will make a bomb" I mean for a fck's sake they got it how it does not matter but they have a legit nuke capability and whether we have a F-35 or a tigermoth it won't change a thing when it comes to how we deal with them and the same applies to how Chipanda and TSP view us i.e. it is our BMD and IGDMP which is a factor not the Mig-21 or F-35.


* I think you are right about not going to war for some time (if not not at all), but, that is why they say "Ministry of Defence" or "Department of Defense" or "Defense Services". They are supposed to prevent war. And - at least in theory - there is an optimal level at which the enemy is deterred. I do not know what that level is for the IAF


* On the topic of Trade being used to wage war - that too I agree. Here is is a very potent article for your consideration. It has already started - against India, by China. This is perhaps one reason no one will invest within India - even with the 100% FDI

* Trying to dig into this "colony" stuff, I stumbled across something that surprised me. The container port in SL, built with the "help" of China looks like has two components that has snared both SL and India. And, I mean I just do not see either of these two nations benefiting from that - BUT are locked into it by China.

First, China provided SL with loans that had rather high pay back. SL could not pay them back and China made a deal (like she does with every nation), that China would forgive SL (as some African nations) if SL allowed China certain facilities: like that container port. This is where SL is locked - cannot get out without paying for the loan for whaich she has no money to pay back

Second - and this was what threw me off my chair - 70% of the throughput for that container port is from India!!!!!! A few years back I had read that China had sent sales people into India to promote this container port and then the topic went off my radar. Now I know why - China is actually subsidizing Indians to route the products via SL!!!! ALL this to compel SL to allow Chinese subs to park .......................... and whatever - WHICH is undesirable for India. But, who cares?

* Meanwhile Modi had his own game that started last year - BUT AFTER 25 years of discussions.

Point being that the Indian "defence" forces are being painted into a corner and being told to do things they are finding it difficult to do. IF Indians go about the way they have been going, there is certainly a good chance that the Indian forces will lag behind sufficiently to be ineffective in the 20-30 year run.

This can already be seen in the IN forging a fairly deep relationship with the USN. IF India is to be independent, then the MIC has to deliver within a time frame. Else the funds will flow abroad. IF the MIC needs to deliver, then they need funds. And, I do not mean stop spending abroad and spend here - I mean spend at both places until the Indian MIC can deliver. Politicians have to come together, so does teh press and finally the universities, etc.

More later.
Last edited by NRao on 18 Feb 2017 23:28, edited 1 time in total.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Feb 2017 23:24

@Rakesh ^^^"
"Why would it be sanctioned? I would love to know, so please explain. Would we be sanctioned if we do not toe Unkil's line? If so, how much sanction-proof is the Block 70 then?"

You misread the statement. What I am saying is that it is no less sanctionable than a F16/18/F35 because if the US wanted to sanction us for whatever reason, the Gripen won't be untouched.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Feb 2017 23:28

Rakesh wrote:
snahata wrote:That is unfortunately the case.

Absolutely. You reap what you sow.

But making an equally dumb decision now, will also come home to roost in due time no?


Yes. The problem lies in dumb people making what they think are 'smart decisions'. And that equation stands the test of time.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google Feedfetcher, JayS and 20 guests