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.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2348
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2017 06:07

Gurus, Not to derail the point here but the f16 and lca internal fuel weight difference is not merely 200kg. It is a whopping 700kg, 2450 vs 3200 kg. Don't know what difference this makes to range, time on station etc. though considering how fat the viper has become.

Do consider the f-16 A/B blk 1 - 10 though - simply stunning performance. Ferry range on this beast was 2100 nautical miles :eek:
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-16A_ ... Block_1-10)_SAC_-_March_1984.pdf

I think Vivek Ahuja's analysis on range comparison between the two is quite telling - and he is being generous to the LCA by considering the empty weight of the F-16A @ 8500kg (it was about 1000kg less). For the F-16C too, the range will still be in favor of the solah quite distinctly.

Range of LCA @ 3000kg payload - 600km
Range of F-16 @ 3000kg payload - 1200-1500km.

http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.com/ ... art-i.html

So, it is unlikely that the Tejas Mk1 can come close to the Solah in this context. The Mk1A, IF they can reduce the weight by 800kg as claimed (a tall order) and increase internal fuel by another 400-500kg might be a different story though.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 13 Feb 2017 06:30, edited 2 times in total.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2784
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2017 06:08

nirav wrote:You however are plain trolling by comparing opex and Capex of Solah with p38.

Which generation of plane do you know of that turned out to be cheaper than the generation it succeeded?

With increased capability comes increased cost. You cannot state that the F-35 costs more to fly than a F-Solah and thus the F-Solah is cheaper to operate. That is Saab's argument for the Gripen vis-a-vis the F-Solah and it is a nonsensical argument.

Because the F-Solah is way more capable than Paper NG.

nirav wrote:@ the Saraswat mijjiles, err, pls quote me where I've pitched Gripen for navy.

You do realize that the IAF Mk2 variant is also powered by the same GE414 engine right? V K Saraswat is stating exactly what we are stating on this forum. You DO NOT need the Gripen (and I will add F-Solah) to meet this requirement for 100 fighters.

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 06:10

Viv Saar,

Thank you for your post and restoring some sanity on this thread.

My intent of the post was to try and ascertain what could be the reasoning for IAF not considering something so simple, if F35 comes at a marginal cost hike wrt Solah, why NOT?

There's got to be opex is what came first to mind..
Secondly from the interviews I've read of air chiefs till date, it does seem that the IAF too is keen about ToT.

Maybe that could be a factor in selection of Solah vs F35.. @ the levels of ToT offered..

F34 vs Solah aside,

I'd like to remind posters of a very important fact that has happened but hasn't been discussed much.

36 raffles got Safran stating Kaveri on LCA in 18 months.

Who knows what MoD will extract from Lockheed for 100 Solah ?
Last edited by nirav on 13 Feb 2017 06:13, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2784
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2017 06:11

Viv S wrote:
nirav wrote:And that its initial acquisition itself would be significantly higher than the Solah..

Debatable. The F-35's cost is dropping every year - will hit $85 mil flyaway by 2019. Possibly lower, if the three year block buy goes through.

Just in case you need a link to prove your point. Just a word of caution though. Facts do not concern him.

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

The goal of these programs is to drive the cost of an F-35A to less than $85 million in 2019, where it will be equivalent to, or less, than any 4th-generation fighter.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2017 06:15

Cain Marko wrote:Gurus, Not to derail the point here but the f16 and lca internal fuel weight difference is not merely 200kg. It is a whopping 700kg, 2450 vs 3200 kg.

Don't know what difference this makes to range, time on station etc. Though considering how fat the viper had become.


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... tions.html

Internal fuel 5,920 lb /
2,685.2 kg

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2348
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2017 06:28

^Thanks Cyji, I was aware of this discrepancy (two seat vs. single?) - perhaps Brar or Viv can explain. But look at the numbers here:

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Di ... alcon.aspx
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-16A_ ... Block_1-10)_SAC_-_March_1984.pdf

It is no wonder that they could get a single engined bird to fatten so much that it can carry 8 tons of payload, and still maintain a TWR of 1.0, and have competitive (albeit not stunning) range compared to any single engined bird in the world. Damn, I have new found respect for the solah.

I'll still take the older M2ks and a few JSFs over a new line of Solahs though :)
Last edited by Cain Marko on 13 Feb 2017 06:33, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2017 06:32

Cain Marko wrote:^Thanks Cyji, I was aware of this discrepancy (two seat vs. single?) - perhaps Brar or Viv can explain. But look at the numbers here:

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Di ... alcon.aspx
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-16A_ ... Block_1-10)_SAC_-_March_1984.pdf


Hmmm, on second thoughts, you could be right, but the data is coming from the LM website so lets go with it for now.
It is also possible that the older versions carried more internal fuel and that has been reduced in the newer versions for various reasons.
Last edited by Cybaru on 13 Feb 2017 06:37, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 06:36

From what I recall of the JSF program there were partnership levels based on how much a country paid upfront.
Britain was the biggest Munna.

The costs that are being talked about are for Jsf member nations which coughed up upfront money back then and got onto LM bandwagon.

We might not be able to just waltz into the program and demand the same pricing as those member nations.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2348
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2017 06:39

Cybaru wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^Thanks Cyji, I was aware of this discrepancy (two seat vs. single?) - perhaps Brar or Viv can explain. But look at the numbers here:

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Di ... alcon.aspx
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-16A_ ... Block_1-10)_SAC_-_March_1984.pdf


I don't think its single seat vs double seater. That data is coming from the LM website, I trust that more.

It is also possible that the older versions carried more internal fuel and that has been reduced in the newer versions for various reasons.


Sir, but that would give the f-16 almost the same fuel weight as the Tejas (roughly 2500kg) but it would be a 1000kg heavier in its lightest configuration (A/B)! There is NO WAY that a fighter of that fuel fraction can have better range (2000km) vs the Mirage 2000 (7500kg and 3200kg internal fuel, range ~ 1800km). And then do consider that the Tejas is supposed to have a range of about 1800km too! With almost the same fuel weight but despite being 1 ton lighter.

Thing is the F-16 did have better range and endurance than the mirage, despite having a higher thrust engine albeit the M-53 on the M2k was a horrible guzzler with ABs The MiG-29A/B came in a distant 3rd in these beasts of the 80s with a range of 1600km on internal fuel.

Do note - all numbers are based on max internal fuel.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 13 Feb 2017 06:45, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2348
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2017 06:42

I always fantasized about the M2k with a PW or GE 110 or even the AL 31 - damn that would be something else!

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2017 06:49

Cain Marko wrote:
Sir, but that would give the f-16 almost the same fuel weight as the Tejas (roughly 2500kg) but it would be a 1000kg heavier in its lightest configuration (A/B)! There is NO WAY that a fighter of that fuel fraction can have better range (2000km) vs the Mirage 2000 (7500kg and 3200kg internal fuel, range ~ 1800km). And then do consider that the Tejas is supposed to have a range of about 1800km too! With almost the same fuel weight but despite being 1 ton lighter.

Thing is the F-16 did have better range and endurance than the mirage, despite having a higher thrust engine albeit the M-53 on the M2k was a horrible guzzler with ABs The MiG-29A/B came in a distant 3rd in these beasts of the 80s with a range of 1600km on internal fuel.

Do note - all numbers are based on max internal fuel.


2000 kms vs 1800 kms is pretty close.
Cost of LCA 35-40 million
Cost of F-16 70-80 million?

That's two Tejas for every one f-16
65% uptime for twice the number of LCA's will mean a whole lot of extra birds in air when they are needed.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7382
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby rohitvats » 13 Feb 2017 06:52

One simple question to everyone - when does LCA Mk2 become available for induction? Similarly, when does NLCA MK2 with GE 414 become available?

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 06:54

Rakesh wrote:
nirav wrote:You however are plain trolling by comparing opex and Capex of Solah with p38.

Which generation of plane do you know of that turned out to be cheaper than the generation it succeeded?

With increased capability comes increased cost. You cannot state that the F-35 costs more to fly than a F-Solah and thus the F-Solah is cheaper to operate. That is Saab's argument for the Gripen vis-a-vis the F-Solah and it is a nonsensical argument.

Because the F-Solah is way more capable than Paper NG.

nirav wrote:@ the Saraswat mijjiles, err, pls quote me where I've pitched Gripen for navy.

You do realize that the IAF Mk2 variant is also powered by the same GE414 engine right? V K Saraswat is stating exactly what we are stating on this forum. You DO NOT need the Gripen (and I will add F-Solah) to meet this requirement for 100 fighters.


You sir need to make up your mind.

One one hand you say Solah not needed, its overkill for pakis, LCA and used upgraded mirages enough.. need to save billions.

You also say we can't afford Solah and LCA together. Blowing billions on Solah will kill LCA.

Then you argue that instead of Solah and it's big billions, instead go in for F35 with bigger billions. You seem to have forgotten how that will not only kill the LCA but AMCA too..

What sense does it make?
And what exactly is your argument?

@ LCA Mk2.
They haven't even finalised Mk1A SoP. Nor its prototype..

I doubt if MK2 will ever see make it to the flight line.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2017 06:55

rohitvats wrote:One simple question to everyone - when does LCA Mk2 become available for induction? Similarly, when does NLCA MK2 with GE 414 become available?


Ask Cmde Balagi if you are going to AI2017. Or perhaps some can and keep us in loop.

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 06:58

rohitvats wrote:One simple question to everyone - when does LCA Mk2 become available for induction? Similarly, when does NLCA MK2 with GE 414 become available?


Going by the consensus in here, it will be available when it will be available. Don't ask actual dates.
IAF will be asked to defer a war, tell the pakis and Chinese, come back in 2030, we haven't got FOC yet.
In the meantime Mk1A is answer to all.
And yes, used mirages duly upgraded ofcourse..

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2017 07:04

nirav wrote:Going by the consensus in here, it will be available when it will be available. Don't ask actual dates.
IAF will be asked to defer a war, tell the pakis and Chinese, come back in 2030, we haven't got FOC yet.
In the meantime Mk1A is answer to all.
And yes, used mirages duly upgraded ofcourse..


Right, we need mk2 for everything.
Mk1 and Mk1a is a three legged cheetahs! It's going to sit on tarmac with a hand fan and enjoy the breeze.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2348
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2017 07:20

@ CYbaru

Yes, I see your point - hence I support more Tejas and M2ks.

But in the interest of technical details, once you start piling external stores on each of the birds, the range/payload difference becomes more pronounced with a distinct edge to the F-16 as per Vivek Ahuja's analysis. And like I said, even then the analysis might not entirely accurate because his empty weight for the viper is a good 1000kg more.

IOWs, within the envelope of the Tejas, there is a similarity. But once the payload increases, the solah is in its own league for the foll reasons:
1) Solah can carry 2X the payload on 4 additional hps
2) Solah offers a lot more range with CFTs and EFTs vs. the LCA
Last edited by Cain Marko on 13 Feb 2017 07:41, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2017 07:28

rohitvats wrote:One simple question to everyone - when does LCA Mk2 become available for induction? Similarly, when does NLCA MK2 with GE 414 become available?


Excellent question, especially from the point of view of "time" - an important component that is normally neglected in any meaningful discussion.

I did find a source that the contract to supply the engines (GE F414 INS6) wes signed on Jan 13, 2013. I do not think any has been delivered as yet, although the deliveries were supposed to start within the last few years IIRC. That should provide some indication as to what is teh status of that project. IF we can get more news on it, it may help resolve teh question you pose.


But: http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/01/ ... plans.html

Minister Parrikar reaffirmed that the Indian Navy would not operate the LCA Navy, but would continue to support its development as a tech demonstrator to validate technologies that will be applied to India’s twin engine naval fighter, presumably an intended carrier version of the AMCA. This makes it official that the Indian Navy will float a separate competition for its own future fighter. However, in what comes as the first bit of hope in months for the LCA Mk.2 programme, the Minister said it would be considered in the next decade. The Minister also indicated that full rate production of the LCA Mk.1 (and subsequently the Mk.1A) would be ramped up to 16 a year.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2348
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2017 07:32

rohitvats wrote:One simple question to everyone - when does LCA Mk2 become available for induction? Similarly, when does NLCA MK2 with GE 414 become available?


Why do you ask? The way I see it, the mk2 is not happening. Why should it? Their priority is to get the Mk1 productionized and the Mk1A configured and ready by 2021-22. Then there is the need for a 5Gen AMCA circa 2035. Where does the Mk2 fit in? And what does it truly provide vs. the Mk1A? The Mk2 will never truly be a medium type bird (and will struggle at the bottom vs. most of the MRCA birds other than the Gripen, which too imho is a non starter.) Time to let go of some things and move on imvho. The IAF and IN have realized this and are moving on to bigger things.

This is not to say that a single engined LCA Mk1A has no place - I think the IAF would do well to let that line run till 2027-28 and grab about 200-300 Mk1A. If needed, it can start replacing Jags as well. A run of about 200-300 is very necessary to keep the force from getting too top heavy.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2017 07:38

Nirav,

I think the point you have been making: LCA-MK1A vs. the F-16 :: light vs. medium is answered here. And you are right.

3 fighters in race for IAF order

Jan 3, 2017.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar today practically announced a multi-billion dollar competition to select a new fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force.

While the competition was anticipated, Parrikar specified that for now the IAF would be equipped with a single-engine fighter in the medium-weight category. This boils the race down to three aircraft: the Swedish Saab Gripen 39D, US manufacturer Lockheed Martin's F-16 Fighting Falcon and India's own homemade Tejas in a Mark II version that is on the design board.


Based on this it should be the F-16.

It goes on to say:

Parrikar said the IAF had contracted public sector Hindustan Aeronautics for 40 LCA Tejas planes in its initial operational configuration. A further 183 would be ordered in the Tejas "Mark 1A" version.


Seems to place the 1/1A in teh light cat and the 2 in the medium.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2017 07:46

On the topic of the F-35 falling below $100 mil, etc, falling within the range of a F-16, that should have been known to MoD. There is nothing new in that news item. Not saying one is better than the other, just that that calculus should have been worked out by now.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1012
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 » 13 Feb 2017 09:48

rohitvats wrote:One simple question to everyone - when does LCA Mk2 become available for induction? Similarly, when does NLCA MK2 with GE 414 become available?

Question to ask is: Why is Mark 2 important?
Currently, no plans unless MoD approves the next step forward. Orders are placed only for 83 Tejas (all upgradeable to Mk1A).
Going by the radar RFI (not RFP) dates and the usual timeline for MoD approval, 4 more years until we have a unit available after testing. That means MK2 SOP even if ready will not be approved until 2022-2023. Flight testing will be another 3 years (which we need to confirm at AI17).

Rohit, since you have been waiting for the question: Why is the Solah important?

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1012
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 » 13 Feb 2017 09:58

NRao wrote:Nirav,
I think the point you have been making: LCA-MK1A vs. the F-16 :: light vs. medium is answered here. And you are right.
3 fighters in race for IAF order
Jan 3, 2017.
Defence minister Manohar Parrikar today practically announced a multi-billion dollar competition to select a new fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force.
While the competition was anticipated, Parrikar specified that for now the IAF would be equipped with a single-engine fighter in the medium-weight category. This boils the race down to three aircraft: the Swedish Saab Gripen 39D, US manufacturer Lockheed Martin's F-16 Fighting Falcon and India's own homemade Tejas in a Mark II version that is on the design board.

Based on this it should be the F-16.
It goes on to say:
Parrikar said the IAF had contracted public sector Hindustan Aeronautics for 40 LCA Tejas planes in its initial operational configuration. A further 183 would be ordered in the Tejas "Mark 1A" version.

Seems to place the 1/1A in teh light cat and the 2 in the medium.

1. Why should it be the F-16? Based on Dr Ahuja's analysis? What other factors have you incorporated?
2. 183 Tejas Mk1A is not the right number. 83 is. No source says the 100 extra orders have been indicated to HAL until now.
3. What stops ADA from taking Mk2 from the drawing board to fruition? If the IAF wanted an F-16 originally, would the LCA have been the current size?

Knowing that IAF capital budget will remain about the same (~Rs 30,000cr) for the foreseeable future, how does one reconcile 200 new fighters along with MRO and new setup (cost =?) PLUS the cost of Raffys (8.8bn over 5 years). Where does the burgeoning cost of air defense fit in?

Assuming that for the next five years, we have Rs 150,000cr on hand for ALL capital expense - how does MoD apportion this sum?
Last edited by Marten on 13 Feb 2017 10:33, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 13 Feb 2017 10:31

NRao wrote::lol:

LM will be TRULY happy if India order (at least) 200 F-16, exports another 50 and THEN order the F-35.



I have to say this is the most realistic point in last 4-5 pages I have seen. Even if it was made on a lighter note. Like it or not there is no jumping directly to F35. US doesn't want it. They want to push down F16 and FA-18 down our throats first. F35 will automatically come, they know. Its fairly obvious and makes all the business/strategic sense.

As they say beggars are no choosers. I see both F16 and F/A-18 coming under MII charade.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15847
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 13 Feb 2017 10:42

If cost is a factor and the F-16 is $70M+,then the obvious choice is either the LCA instead-first option ,if single-engine bird is a "must",or buy 2 MIG-29UGs for the same price! They're barely $35< apiece and far superior to the F-16.

The DRDO chief was whingeing about the IN dumping the NLCA with some rude remarks as if the IN is technically incapable of evaluating the aircraft,saying that the Mk-2 and Gripen both use the same 414 engine.This is an insult to the IN which has been operating carrier strike aircraft for over 50 years! Poor man (Saraswat),he is only displaying his ignorance and lack of aircraft design knowledge. A fighter is much more than just a mere engine and weight was just one problem that the IN found.The overall performance was far below what was required of a carrier fighter .In fact,barring the numbers at low cost aspect,A twin-engined bird is far preferable for survivability,range,endurance and payload.The JSF too has a huge problem,the massive heat signature of its engine ,sending its stealth kaput, making it a duck shoot when detected from the rear.

The problem with "no.3",the MK-2 LCA,is that we've been sold so many times down the Kaveri (pun intended!) about the LCA MK-1 itself.Still under-developed,in a pathetic production rate,therefore what guarantee is there that MK-2,which has yet to fly will ever do the business? It's taken over a decade of testing,etc. of the LCA to get a handful of LSP aircraft in the air.That rate of progress will be fatal for the IAF.

The Tanqui lobby is going all out to sell us another turkey past its sell-by date. Trump may be doing us a favour by not wanting US jobs to be lost and manufacturing to return to the US,hence the cold water being thrown on the shifting production facilities lock,stock and barrel.Eventually,only the Swedes and Russkies may be the ones who will offer the Gripen and MIG-35 prod. lines to us.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3923
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Neshant » 13 Feb 2017 10:48

The nucleus for creating a domestic aerospace industry alone makes the LCA worth doing.

That is the biggest and most important nation security objective yet it does not figure in any defense plan.

There are so many local industries that can arise with India having ownership of its planes core design.

Damn near nothing is learnt or developed paying big bucks to foreign plane manufacturers to screw together their planes.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1012
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 » 13 Feb 2017 11:05

Philip wrote:If cost is a factor and the F-16 is $70M+,then the obvious choice is either the LCA instead-first option ,if single-engine bird is a "must",or buy 2 MIG-29UGs for the same price! They're barely $35< apiece and far superior to the F-16.

The DRDO chief was whingeing about the IN dumping the NLCA with some rude remarks as if the IN is technically incapable of evaluating the aircraft,saying that the Mk-2 and Gripen both use the same 414 engine.This is an insult to the IN which has been operating carrier strike aircraft for over 50 years! Poor man (Saraswat),he is only displaying his ignorance and lack of aircraft design knowledge. A fighter is much more than just a mere engine and weight was just one problem that the IN found.The overall performance was far below what was required of a carrier fighter .In fact,barring the numbers at low cost aspect,A twin-engined bird is far preferable for survivability,range,endurance and payload.The JSF too has a huge problem,the massive heat signature of its engine ,sending its stealth kaput, making it a duck shoot when detected from the rear.

The problem with "no.3",the MK-2 LCA,is that we've been sold so many times down the Kaveri (pun intended!) about the LCA MK-1 itself.Still under-developed,in a pathetic production rate,therefore what guarantee is there that MK-2,which has yet to fly will ever do the business? It's taken over a decade of testing,etc. of the LCA to get a handful of LSP aircraft in the air.That rate of progress will be fatal for the IAF.

The Tanqui lobby is going all out to sell us another turkey past its sell-by date. Trump may be doing us a favour by not wanting US jobs to be lost and manufacturing to return to the US,hence the cold water being thrown on the shifting production facilities lock,stock and barrel.Eventually,only the Swedes and Russkies may be the ones who will offer the Gripen and MIG-35 prod. lines to us
.

:rotfl:
Carry on man, no harm no foul. Do you stop to take a breath and look at your posts? Not even paid agents of Russia would be as forgiving.
The same IN said the Mig29s are *****. Why do you think they are looking for an alternative? It should be the Rafael that gets the IN order if not the F-35B, along with 2 more squadrons for the IAF. Let them figure out how to share depots and improve the order management system.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2978
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 13 Feb 2017 13:10

Rest assured folks, if MRCA-I was any indication it will take India some 18 years before any "foreign" plane joins the air force :wink: ... RFI/RFP, Evaluation/Down select, "Make in India" Negotiation, Contract signing and then first batch deliveries. Quite a few governments would have changed hands over that timeframe. Similar to Mirage-2000, an old plane like F-16s would be long out of production by then.

It's really up to the IAF, GoI, ADA, HAL and Tier-1/2/3 suppliers/manufactures to accept/deliver on the LCA Mk.1/1A (and other upgraded variants). More orders will follow in a few years, IMO.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3923
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Neshant » 13 Feb 2017 13:27

If they put half as much money into accelerating domestic projects, they might actually get somewhere.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7382
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby rohitvats » 13 Feb 2017 19:14

Marten wrote: Question to ask is: Why is Mark 2 important?<SNIP>


Because that is the aircraft which will fill the gap when time-lag arises as IAF undergoes another major squadron make-over from 2028 onward. The way AMCA is progressing, I'd be happy if it ready for production even by 2030.

But my second question remains unanswered - when was N-LCA about to be made available?

Rohit, since you have been waiting for the question: Why is the Solah important?


I'm not in favor of F-16 or Gripen. But neither I'm in favor of LCA Mk1A being used to fill the gap which F-16 or Gripen is expected to fill. I'm all for more Mk1A but not at the expense of genuine medium weight category. And mark my words, more Tejas Mk1A will come but those orders are for HAL to loose. Having a great product amounts of nothing if not delivered on time and backed with good product support. That was the real reason for demise of Marut.

In my scheme of things, the IAF needs to have force structure of Su-30MKI + Rafale + Tejas Mk1A/Mk2. AMCA to replace everything else starting from 2028 time-frame. Somewhere in between, FGFA will also fit.

I know people talk about money in context of Rafale but do remember we spend piddly sums on defense when compared to other nations. If we really want to be prepared for IAF to take on PLAAF or other Services to be able to defend their realm, we need to start taking about 3% of GDP on defense. But we digress.

With Rafale curtailed to 2 squadrons (so far), IAF needs at least five more squadrons to make up the quantity and quality short-fall. In timely manner. Plus, it needs 3 more squadrons beyond that to reach 42 squadron strength.

If it is not Rafale, I would like to see an equally competent medium category fighter to make those six squadrons. And I don't consider Tejas Mk1A at same level as latest version of F-16. F-16 is a mature platform which comes with plethora of weapon systems and suites.

IAF equipped with F-16 gives a proper Heavy+Medium+Light Mix. Here are some scenarios for you:

Scenario 1:
Heavy (Su-30MKI-14 squadrons) = 36%
Medium (M2K+Mig-29+Jaguar+F-16 [assuming 5 1/2 squadrons] +Rafale = 19.5 squadrons) = 49%
Light (Tejas IOC+FOC+Mk1A = 6 squadrons) = 13%

Scenario 2:
Heavy (Su-30MKI-14 squadrons) = 36%
Medium (M2K+Mig-29+Jaguar+Rafale = 19.5 squadrons) = 36%
Light (Tejas IOC+FOC+Mk1A =11 squadrons) = 28%

My choice is Scenario 1.

BTW - the above total is 39.5 squadrons. That is 2 more than existing baseline strength of 37.5 squadrons. This is where we would've been if planned number of Rafale had materialized.

The above number (39 squadron) also holds one more clue - w/o much fuss, the strength of IAF is all set to increase. If GOI says that we're looking at about 200 medium category fighters, my guess is that planned 42 squadron strength will be reached with planned medium category fighter - Or, 3 x more Rafale. This could also be the reason GOI is playing hardball on FGFA because it already has plans for taking IAF strength to required number beyond the current numbers.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1012
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 » 13 Feb 2017 20:52

Great post, Rohit. I disagree slightly with the numbers of Medium and think heavy will increase to 18. Also, if you reckon M2K as light, the mix/allocated proportion will change. If we consider the operational costs per hour, perhaps the decision for an additional fighter type in the medium category makes sense. (Although, I just don't see how the budget can be stretched for the initial setup and MRO.)

Do you see no space for JSF in this line-up? If fly-away costs are not too high, it brings much higher capabilities than a Solah/Gripen. I guess the radar tender will help bring clarity on how our partners will go in sharing technology. That will shape acquisition.

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 20:53

^I did post a link to your thread in here to try and get a discussion going on what kind of mix IAF is looking for and talk actual squadron numbers that will be needed to be re equipped.

But consensus is, since USAF and the world operates Heavy/light we should do the same, IAF doesn't need a Medium category jet.

LCA + used mirages,duly upgraded along with the Sukhois are enough.

What's left to discuss?

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1012
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 » 13 Feb 2017 20:55

PS: Rohit, don't recollect seeing a public time line for the six Naval LCA prototypes. But that might be my ignorance or laziness. Didn't ignore the question - - just didn't know.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4759
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2017 21:09

But consensus is, since USAF and the world operates Heavy/light we should do the same, IAF doesn't need a Medium category jet


Consensus where? Besides the Homeland Defense mission the USAF hasn't used the F-16 as a light fighter in decades. It is very much used as a medium class strike fighter. Same with the Next Generation force of F-22 and F-35s. The smaller of the two has a 70,000 pound class MTOW (nearly twice that of their F-16C's). How you size your fast jet fleet is not a function of what others are doing but your own threat and the resources allotted to you to prepare for it.

https://s31.postimg.org/6u6yzw723/14110 ... 95_173.jpg

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 22:16

Brar_w Saar,

Looks like you've not been going through the past few pages ?

The consensus is here on this thread amongst posters who call the blk70 light, and since LCA is light too, IAF shouldn't get blk70 but go for moar LCA.

LCA and second hand mirages are "enough".

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4759
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2017 22:22

It is not about whether it is light but whether it can be used in medium to heavy configurations. Permanent CFT's take away the need for EFT's which frees up stations for heavier loads. While the basic aircraft when everything is stripped away is probably light-medium even with the weight increase it hasn't been used in that way for a while now.

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3149
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby deejay » 13 Feb 2017 22:38

Marten wrote:...
Question to ask is: Why is Mark 2 important?
...


Marten Sir,

LCA Mk2 is very important for IAF, for India and definitely for continued development of Indian MIC. However, LCA Mk2 is critical for the very survival of the LCA platform. Evolution and many more Mk's is how we as enthusiasts and well wisher of the LCA programme should think.

While it is not apple to apple, the evolution of ALH now to Mk IV is a good way to see the benefits of progress in design evolution.

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 22:43

brar_w wrote:It is not about whether it is light but whether it can be used in medium to heavy configurations. Permanent CFT's take away the need for EFT's which frees up stations for heavier loads. While the basic aircraft when everything is stripped away is probably light-medium even with the weight increase it hasn't been used in that way for a while now.


I kind of got tired of trying to make that point, but some in here bring up the LCA and believe BLK 70 == LCA..

Solah in IAF will be tasked with filling the medium requirement, which was initially planned to be filled by the Rafale.
Guys here want nothing to do with Solah and want to fulfill *that* medium requirement to be filled by the LCA.

Jingoist fanboyism at its best.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2017 22:49

Rohit,

I have not come across a date for the NLCA, but there have been some for the LCA MK2.

However, CNS did state that the time-lines were slipping, as one of reasons for looking elsewhere in the near term.

"NLCA" has two phases: the first with the MK1 and the second with the MK2. The Mk1 has made good progress.

Also, the dates regarding the LCA MK2 are all over the place. Some article, even as late as last year, stated 2017. Some 2018-19, with production in 2022. And yet others with production in 2025. Again this is for the LCA MK2, NO mention of the NLCA MK2.

Since India has adopted the low or no risk path, time lines are bound to be broken, that is a given. No surprises there. But that does mean that the services will either have to accept platforms that are way behind the tech curves or opt out of them for a period of time. Combine that with what Dr. Saraswat had to say about converting knowledge to products and the future does not look too good. And, this seems to be a systemic problem - no one to blame.

The other aspect of all this is the sequential process. 1 -> 1A -> 2 -> AMCA. And they are having some issues with 1A (forget FOC of 1), then by the time 2 comes, it just may be too late. Neither the threat perception nor other leaders are going to wait. India needs to do things in parallel. They need to start, however slow, 1A, 2 and AMCA all at the same time.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1012
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 » 13 Feb 2017 22:55

deejay wrote:
Marten wrote:...
Question to ask is: Why is Mark 2 important?
...


Marten Sir,

LCA Mk2 is very important for IAF, for India and definitely for continued development of Indian MIC. However, LCA Mk2 is critical for the very survival of the LCA platform. Evolution and many more Mk's is how we as enthusiasts and well wisher of the LCA programme should think.

While it is not apple to apple, the evolution of ALH now to Mk IV is a good way to see the benefits of progress in design evolution.

No Sir for me, especially from you boss.

I had a long answer that the phone chomped up. Basically if not for the Mk2, we will be witnessing Marut Mk2. If not for the Mk2, we will be suppliant state forever dependent on the opium of ready to fly foreign birds. If not for the Mk2, we won't be seeing an AMCA.
Last edited by Marten on 13 Feb 2017 22:58, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media and 26 guests