'Make in India' Single engined fighter

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 14 Aug 2017 00:19

Rakesh wrote:
Rakesh wrote:No proposal to buy F-16 fighters for IAF: Minister
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 915418.cms

No proposal to buy F-16 fighter jets for Indian Air Force: MoS Defence
http://www.firstpost.com/india/no-propo ... 94143.html

Lockheed denies report on F-16 tech transfer to India
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... di-440209/

How can people be so lame ? How can there be a "proposal to buy f-16 " if requests for proposals have not been released.?

Now Lockheed and Saab have responded to RFI only. And the requirements have not been formulated properly. IAF is still in a dilemma since it wants more Rafale but due to budget constraints and US-India friendship Gov wants F-16.

I hate those people who spread negativity about Russian or American weapons purchase. SOMETIMES these two sections oppose each other. We have to understand that we need to have good relations with both these powers.

However in case of an actual war with China we will be left to ourselves to defend us since neither Russia nor America will help us until we enter into alliance agreement with either.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Aug 2017 05:11

negi wrote:All these theories about economy of scale make me laugh ; look around fighter aircraft are not commodities which everyone makes talk about economy of scale may be relevant to actual production cost of LM coming down but that does not anywhere imply that they will pass it to consumer this is not some cloud app segment where companies compete on price.

It is more plausible to factor in economies of scale for those fighters that have existing large scale orders than for those from manufacturers who hope to sell you fighters to achieve those economies based on your order.

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Aug 2017 09:19

^ Fighters are not commodity specially not when USA sells them ; they have specific needs in mind they sell the same f-16 to Israel and the SA at different costs even the terms of use are different . Then before your get down to talking unit fly away price in India's case you have to include the amount of buffer/margin OEM vendor will add for middlemen and then finally preparing a ToT statement of work which may be a hogwash to us but on paper for both the OEM and MoD is a long winded process. That is why I laugh at terms like economy of scale they only apply strictly to OEM's efficiency in reducing the cost of production it has nothing to do with sale unless they are selling it to the USAF/USN or their own forces .

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Aug 2017 09:51

negi wrote:^ Fighters are not commodity specially not when USA sells them ; they have specific needs in mind they sell the same f-16 to Israel and the SA at different costs even the terms of use are different . Then before your get down to talking unit fly away price in India's case you have to include the amount of buffer/margin OEM vendor will add for middlemen and then finally preparing a ToT statement of work which may be a hogwash to us but on paper for both the OEM and MoD is a long winded process. That is why I laugh at terms like economy of scale they only apply strictly to OEM's efficiency in reducing the cost of production it has nothing to do with sale unless they are selling it to the USAF/USN or their own forces .

- Costs for Israel and SA differ because the former generally buys them from the US govt while the latter tends to deal directly with the OEM. Moreover, Middle Eastern states need more OEM operations support for obvious reasons and that runs up the cost.

- The buffer/margin for the middle-man (USG/DoD) in the case of FMS sales is in 4-5% range. (NC charges i.e. R&D reimbursement, are usually waived off, for competitive acquisitions.)

- Prices for an export customer are not arbitrary, they are a function of the cost of production. The cost of production, in turn, is a function of the 'OEM's efficiency'.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Aug 2017 20:05

@VIvS ^^^. Exactly. Also, unit costs (by definition) are impacted by the economic order quantity. Buy one widget vs 1k and unit costs will be affected.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Aug 2017 06:20

SAAB's new fighter: Inside Look
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/busine ... 60741.html

For CNBC-TV18’s special series ‘Make In India: A New Deal For Defence’, Shereen Bhan travelled on the invitation of SAAB to Linkoping, its headquarters in Sweden to get a first-hand look at what goes into the production of a state-of-the-art fighter jet and also what it felt like to be on board one.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Aug 2017 07:00

^^ I apologise for posting the above link. The video in the above link never loads. I tried searching for it on youtube...no luck.

X-Post from the UAVs, Drones, Remote Surveillance Tech thread...

Dynamatic sets sights on becoming “private sector HAL”
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/08/d ... oming.html

Eventually, the company – which already builds one-sixth of the fuselage of the Sukhoi-30MKI, and one-fifth of the Tejas fighter’s fuselage for Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) -- aims to become a full-scale systems integrator of sophisticated combat aircraft.

Towards this end, DTL has proceeded systematically. From manufacturing precision-engineered hydraulic pumps in the 1980s, to aerospace grade components in the 1990s, to aerospace assemblies later that decade, to major aerospace assemblies today, DTL believes the next logical step towards building sophisticated aerospace systems is to be a systems integrator for UAVs – flying platforms, but less complex than manned combat aircraft.

“We believe this is the logical moment to transition up the value chain to become a systems integrator. En route to building complete fighter jets or bigger aerospace systems, we believe that UAV development and integration is realistic and achievable for Dynamatic”, says the company’s chief executive, Udayant Malhoutra.

“In my mind, we are working to become the private-sector HAL of tomorrow”, he emphasizes.

Why do we need phoren SE fighters again? Oh yes, I forgot...we have squadron shortage

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Aug 2017 07:03

Rakesh wrote:^^ I apologise for posting the above link. The video in the above link never loads. I tried searching for it on youtube...no luck.

Found it on her Facebook page. I bow to Google's search prowess

https://www.facebook.com/bhan.shereen/v ... 691289657/

And found an edited version on youtube as well....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKXA9bOsPOY

nash · Post by **nash** » 21 Aug 2017 13:40

Just speculation:

http://thehitavada.com/Encyc/2017/8/14/ ... dkari.aspx
Tata coming with a mega project in Nagpur, reveals Nitin Gadkari

Will it be Tata's new defense facility?

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Aug 2017 13:52

nash wrote:Just speculation:

http://thehitavada.com/Encyc/2017/8/14/ ... dkari.aspx
Tata coming with a mega project in Nagpur, reveals Nitin Gadkari

Will it be Tata's new defense facility?

Mark my words, Modi is setting off a revolution in Indian defense manufacturing by pulling in the private sector. This is the dawn of a new age.

The PSUs are like dinosaurs right before meteor hit, doomed reptiles to be overrun by the Age of Mammals.

nash · Post by **nash** » 21 Aug 2017 13:57

They already have 30-50 acre TAL facility in MIHAN, it is only non-US facility to supply ACFBs - Advanced Composite Floor Beam to Boeing.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Aug 2017 01:22

Cross Posting from the Su-30MKI: News & Discussion thread...

As Sukhoi-30MKI production nears end, HAL worries about future orders
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/08/a ... s-end.html

Consequently, HAL is staking a claim to manufacture a “single-engine fighter”, for which the IAF has sent out “requests for information” (RFIs) to global vendors. It is proposed that the selected fighter be built in India by a private Indian firm that the defence ministry nominates as a “strategic partner” for fighter aircraft. Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block 70 and Saab’s Gripen E are considered frontrunners in this contest. HAL’s Raju says: “It is hard to understand the logic of giving the ‘single engine fighter’ contract to a private sector ‘strategic partner’, when so much of HAL’s capacity will soon be lying idle.” Raju points out that the new policy on Strategic Partners (SP) requires the defence ministry to satisfy itself that the capacities of defence public sector undertakings are being adequately utilised before allocating production to a private sector strategic partner.

Both Lockheed Martin and Saab have tied up with private Indian firms to build their fighters in India, if it is chosen by the IAF. In June, Lockheed Martin and Tata Advanced Systems Ltd (TASL) announced a partnership to build the F-16 in India; while Saab has an unannounced agreement with the Adani Group to build the Gripen E. Yet, sources confirm that both foreign vendors would much rather work with HAL, which has decades of experience in building combat aircraft. In contrast the Adani Group has no experience in building even an aerospace grade component. TASL has recent experience in building aerospace assemblies under licence, but has never assembled an aircraft or designed a significant component or assembly.

there is no emoticon for tragic laughter

I told you so ---> From where is Tata or Adani going to find people to assemble these fighters?

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 22 Aug 2017 01:40

Of course the sarkari agencies will be much preferred by the videshi companies as their lax, chalta hai attitude would be in stark contrast to the SLA and other agreements related to TOT being monitored with a magnifying glass by the Tata's and Adani's.

The work force of HAL can be raided into by the Private Sector companies and overnight you will see the same babu ass working and delivering on time every time.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Aug 2017 01:43

Why don't they just build 200 more Su-30MKIs? Better than idling the workforce and the expensive tooling, hain?

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 22 Aug 2017 01:48

The time pass gang at HAL need not worry. There is 'significant work' related to upgrading of all SU30 MKI coming up. The HAL employees are assured of another 20 years of guaranteed service by upgrading 8-12 MKI's every year. Each of those year there will also be a press conference and a nice photo-op where the HAL Chairman /Managing Director would announce how they have exceeded the production target for that year

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 22 Aug 2017 02:02

Vips wrote: The work force of HAL can be raided into by the Private Sector companies and overnight you will see the same babu ass working and delivering on time every time.

So the strategy to build expertise in house by private players is to build off by robbing HAL experience? Then why disband HAL at all. HAL may need a culture change to improve outcomes, but that is the story of any shop. Lots of private players screw up things, lets not think that going private eliminates things. Yes, outcomes can change fast in a private company, but only if the board and top management are geared to make that change.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Aug 2017 02:03

UB: it is all about SE fighters now. It is the flavour of the season

Vips: Obviously HAL wants the SE contract. They will not get it, but that is a different topic. But HAL raises a good point. What experience does Adani or Tata have in assembling fighters? They will have to poach from HAL. Which HAL employee wants to leave his cushy PSU job to go work for a private firm? If they are not going to poach HAL employees, they will have to train people. And that learning curve takes time.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Aug 2017 02:37

Rakesh wrote:... What experience does Adani or Tata have in assembling fighters? .... If they are not going to poach HAL employees, they will have to train people. And that learning curve takes time.

As a wise old Turk (I'm cribbing from Zorba here) told me: "experience only matters if the employees have transferable skills.". If the experience they have is screw driver assembly, it is specific to the project and of very limited use in a completely different setup. Experience in assembling SU30s <> experience in assembling F16s/F35s/Gripens.

Tata's for example will want to hire and train new workers whose work ethic they can influence and build.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Aug 2017 10:14

UlanBatori wrote:Why don't they just build 200 more Su-30MKIs? Better than idling the workforce and the expensive tooling, hain?

nothing to truly fret over. hal will get another order for 40 odd mki - theyy are on the cards. Follow this with another 126-200 pakfa mki aka fgfa. hal is in cush posish, shri raju is simply making sure it stays that way.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Aug 2017 12:16

Yaaas. This is a ploy to get more work,seal deals which are in the negotiating stage.Upgrading at least 200+ MKIs to SS std. will take HAL at least a decade,since it would be easier to accomplish,not a new-build aircraft at the easily attainable rate of 20/yr.Add to this at least 12 FGFAs /yr ,HAL's Nasik division will have its hands abso full.HAL BLR will be full of orders of lCAs,Jag upgrades and frankly will have no time of day for any additional SE fighter too,since a second line at BLR for the LCA was mooted/approved some time ago,even though it is still only on paper. The NLCA has suddenly like the Undertaker risen from the grave and even if only a handful are built,will keep "as per usual" our doughty aero-boffins exceptionally busy.Then there's the LCA MK-1A/2....Frankly,it is a profitable co. which could be even more profitable.A good co. to have shares of. Must talk to my stockbroker what?!

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Aug 2017 17:58

HAL can do what they do best: emulate the Great Naranath Bhranthan, who was put outside the temple doors in the forest with some rice and a jar of water, and survived the night by eating one rice grain at a time. Apparently the tigers in that part of the world are very sporstmanlike, they don't attack creatures that are eating.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Aug 2017 04:02

India line will build 3 - 4 F-16s every month, claims Lockheed Martin
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 366_1.html

“We want to create the capacity to build three or more aircraft per month; we could do four. It depends upon how many aircraft India needs and when it will buy those”, said Randy Howard, who markets the F-16 globally for Lockheed Martin.

Requires paid subscription to read the whole article, but will come up on the Broadsword blog fairly soon....

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Aug 2017 04:04

Saab offers to set up aircraft production line
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/busine ... 65879.html

samirdiw · Post by **samirdiw** » 23 Aug 2017 05:15

Rakesh wrote:UB: it is all about SE fighters now. It is the flavour of the season

Vips: Obviously HAL wants the SE contract. They will not get it, but that is a different topic. But HAL raises a good point. What experience does Adani or Tata have in assembling fighters? They will have to poach from HAL. Which HAL employee wants to leave his cushy PSU job to go work for a private firm? If they are not going to poach HAL employees, they will have to train people. And that learning curve takes time.

GoI could spin off the Fixed Wing portion of HAL into a couple of firms, maintain as a 20-30% shareholder and go IPO for the remaining. Some of the private players may pick up an initial stake for a later takeover or majority holding. This way there won't be any need for poaching or immediate training. New folks will come in and pick up the skills, some of the earlier folks will adapt and the remaining will be shipped out by the demands and be forced to join some other private firms where they get another opportunity.

Should do the same divestment with Rotary aircraft and Engine development.

arvin · Post by **arvin** » 23 Aug 2017 08:30

UlanBatori wrote:HAL can do what they do best: emulate the Great Naranath Bhranthan, who was put outside the temple doors in the forest with some rice and a jar of water, and survived the night by eating one rice grain at a time. Apparently the tigers in that part of the world are very sporstmanlike, they don't attack creatures that are eating.

I was about to give example of battle of Sinhagad, where shelar mama cut off ropes aka stop escapism after Tanaji malusare was killed. But this is epic.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2017 12:25

A little titbit from a mag.IN 2015 on the sidelines with the BLR air show,we signed sev. agreements with Ru entities for developing 3-D TVC nozzles,stealth tech,AESA radar tech,etc. with the relevant Ru labs/OEMs.This appears to be a move aimed at the future dev. of the AMCA reqd. by 2030 to replace all the med.-sized role players in service like M2Ks,28UGs,Jags,etc. However,for this to happen,our SE programe must show faster results,and I don't mean firang fighters,just our very own SE fighter,the LCA.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Aug 2017 18:44

Rakesh wrote:Requires paid subscription to read the whole article, but will come up on the Broadsword blog fairly soon....

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/

Full article has come up at Broadsword....

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/08/i ... least.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Aug 2017 12:07

This Gripen win (Bulgaria),albeit for a first buy of only 8 aircraft is v.interesting becos of the alleged pricing of the aircraft. It is becoming more doubtful that the IAF would want the F-16 as many nations,Israel included have started retiring their F-16s.Who'd want a second-hand fighter,unless one is already operating the type (Pak)? In fact there are going to be huge bargains of used F-16s available which Pak would certainly look at snapping up,just as we're looking for extra lightly used MIG-29s to upgrade and induct! The retiring 15 Bulgarian MIG-29s,plus the 9+ Malaysian ones could give us another sqd.But back to the Gripen. If we do go in for another SE fighter to complement the LCA,the Gripen would be the best choice,esp. if the deal is also made financially attractive .There could be a huge win here for Gripen.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htair ... 70504.aspx

Warplanes: Gripen Wins Another One
May 4, 2017: Recently Bulgaria announced that the Swedish Gripen won the 2016 competition for eight combat aircraft issued last year. The Bulgarian air force currently depends on 15 MiG-29 fighters but only about half are flyable. The reason behind this is Russian anger at Bulgaria for rejecting Russian guidance. Most annoying was Bulgaria joining NATO. Russia shows its displeasure by making it more difficult to get spare parts and tech support in maintaining MiG-29s. These aircraft are already notorious for being very expensive to maintain. Gripen will actually be cheaper and the Swede’s have an excellent reputation when it comes to support. Another reason for buying Gripen is to show other NATO members that Bulgaria is activity reorganizing their armed forces to NATO standards. MiG-29s don’t work for that.

The Gripen deal is estimated to be worth about $832 million but now a few rumors point that initial Swedish offer was around 560 million dollars. The final contract will include 8 Gripen C/D aircrafts, spare parts, weapons and training. Moreover the Swedes promised to deliver the first Gripen aircrafts within 18 months after signing contact and also offered a deferred payment scheme which will be a very good thing for tight Bulgaria’s defense budget.

The 2016 competition put Gripen up against used F-16s that would have cost about $835 million dollars. The third competitor was used early model Eurofighters from Italy that apparently would cost more than the Portuguese F-16s.

The JAS-39 Gripen entered active service in 1997. It is a14 ton jet roughly comparable to the latest versions of the F-16. The Gripen is small but can carry up to 3.6 tons of weapons. With the increasing use of smart bombs, this is adequate. Often regarded as an also-ran in the current crop of "modern jet fighters", the Gripen is proving to be more competition than the major players (the F-16, F-18, F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, MiG-29, and Su-27) expected. Put simply, Gripen does a lot of little (but important) things right and costs about half as much (at about $35 million each) as its major competitors. More importantly, Gripen also costs about half as much, per flight hour, to operate (compared to bigger twin engine aircraft). In effect, Gripen provides the ruggedness and low cost of Russian aircraft with the high quality and reliability of Western aircraft. For many nations this is an appealing combination. The Gripen is easy to use (both for pilots and ground crews) and capable of doing all jet fighter jobs (air defense, ground support, and reconnaissance) well enough.

The choice of preferred offer is only the beginning because now there will be held negotiations which producer and government-to-government purchase agreement have to be signed later. However it looks like Bulgaria prefers the new aircraft over used ones and what is important actual Bulgarian president Rumen Radev (ex Air Force Commander) heavily criticized the idea to buy used aircrafts. -- Przemysław Juraszek

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 25 Aug 2017 02:19

Rakesh wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Requires paid subscription to read the whole article, but will come up on the Broadsword blog fairly soon....

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/
Full article has come up at Broadsword....

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/08/i ... least.html

At what cost will Lockheed be able to build 3 aircraft a month?

How much cost will it require for setting those lines?

What unit cost will the F-16s be billed at?

From the date of signing, when will the first plane be built?

'Will Lockheed continue to invest in R&D to keep these builds relevant for next 40 years? If not, what will be the cost to us be to pay for R&D for upgrades?

Can we perform customization based on our operational experience? How much will that cost if done in house vs an American company that is used to charging and making huge profits at American costs.

What is the LCC cost for each item?

Is F-16 relevant for future use-cases?

If you added all the above and compared it with LCA what would it cost us to add another line that will allow us to produce 36 units s year?

Are we just focussing on Mig-21 replacement (mitigate loss) vs adapt for future battlefield? Will that win battle for us?

If we are to make same for LCA, what is the cost to us for comparison?

Is purchasing 70-110 million dollar 3rd gen unit a good idea when we could look at adding F-35A/B at similar costs for IAF and IN that bring capabilities that we do not posses at the moment.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 25 Aug 2017 04:13

Cybaru wrote:...
Is purchasing 70-110 million dollar 3rd gen unit a good idea when we could look at adding F-35A/B at similar costs for IAF and IN that bring capabilities that we do not posses at the moment.

Good observation. This was the same problem with the Rafale (and with the MKIs). Domestic production of a foreign fighter will aways cost more. The Rafale would cost ~150% more when screwdrivered by HAL and ~MKIs cost ~130% more than being imported from Irkutsk.

It all boils down to cost of capability. On that score, the F-35 is a no brainer. If you want MII with local employment, F-16 is your path (very costly one) to your aerospace industry. F-16 is just as lethal as a F-16 but less survivable and less of a force multiplier.

The larger problem is that there is no strategic doctrine underpinning acquisition.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 25 Aug 2017 04:34

Cosmo_R wrote: If you want MII with local employment, F-16 is your path (very costly one) to your aerospace industry. F-16 is just as lethal as a F-16 but less survivable and less of a force multiplier.

Agreed. It will be a very expensive MII option. It brings no new capabilities and no new knowledge either. Two of the most important pillars for doing an expensive/painful TOT structure.

The FACO line option for F-35 will still add some value and parts of the wing/tail building expertise if any different than LCA can benefit AMCA. The LRUs for F-35 could be used for AMCA as well if we get the right permits.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Aug 2017 05:29

I have written at gov.in to Modi ji to manufacture 630 Tejas Mk1 aircrafts, and offer Trump that usa can make 270 under 'make in usa' program and rest 360 with a strategic partner under "make in Bharat".

I pointed out to him that with 630 + 123 Tejas, we will have no problem handling 3 front war.

Please more posters send him requests on these lines.

Who knows, miracles happen!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Aug 2017 06:10

Cosmo_R wrote:Good observation. This was the same problem with the Rafale (and with the MKIs). Domestic production of a foreign fighter will aways cost more. The Rafale would cost ~150% more when screwdrivered by HAL and ~MKIs cost ~130% more than being imported from Irkutsk.

It all boils down to cost of capability. On that score, the F-35 is a no brainer. If you want MII with local employment, F-16 is your path (very costly one) to your aerospace industry. F-16 is just as lethal as a F-16 but less survivable and less of a force multiplier.

The larger problem is that there is no strategic doctrine underpinning acquisition.

Your second para...just want to confirm...is this what you actually mean?

***It all boils down to cost of capability. On that score, the F-35 is a no brainer. If you want MII with local employment, F-35 is your path (very costly one) to your aerospace industry. F-16 is just as lethal as a F-35 but less survivable and less of a force multiplier.****

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Aug 2017 06:17

Philip wrote:This Gripen win (Bulgaria),albeit for a first buy of only 8 aircraft is v.interesting becos of the alleged pricing of the aircraft. It is becoming more doubtful that the IAF would want the F-16 as many nations,Israel included have started retiring their F-16s.Who'd want a second-hand fighter,unless one is already operating the type (Pak)? In fact there are going to be huge bargains of used F-16s available which Pak would certainly look at snapping up,just as we're looking for extra lightly used MIG-29s to upgrade and induct! The retiring 15 Bulgarian MIG-29s,plus the 9+ Malaysian ones could give us another sqd.But back to the Gripen. If we do go in for another SE fighter to complement the LCA,the Gripen would be the best choice,esp. if the deal is also made financially attractive .There could be a huge win here for Gripen.

Philip, please do not wish the above. Despite all the negatives with F-Solah, the Gripen is even worse. The variant on offer has a FOC of 2025/2026! This whole SE tamasha is a monumental waste of time and money. And we are just as sanctionable with the Gripen as with the F-16. No more fourth generation foreign fighters.

We have to focus on ramping up Tejas production, increasing pilot-plane ratio, dramatically improving serviceability of present aircraft and upgrading present aircraft to meet the challenges for the next decade or so. Do that first, before buying any more foreign fighters. That is why the free offer of French air force Jaguars (31) to be used as Christmas trees is a huge bonus. Finish the Darin III upgrades for the Jaguars and get those damn Honeywell engines! Complete the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 upgrades. Get the Super Sukhoi upgrade going.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2017 13:21

I agree that the best option is ramping up Tejas and adding more of the same types in service (MKIs,MIG-29/35s,Jags) to meet the numbers + capability demand.Even another sqd. of Rafales is preferable to a new line which would cost hugely,plus will have zilch,ZERO prospects for exports as all US al;lies are dumping the bird buying JSFs or alternatives!.However,the LCA programme appears to be stuck on sev. fronts.Aaprt from developing the more capable variants,production numbers are abysmally low. How HAL will rectify these major hurdles is anyone's guess.They've had 3+ decades and have failed to deliver.We've only had promises and promises ad nauseum.

In such a case,if the GOI feels that they cannot do the biz in the time frame expected,and that we need another light fighter,there are only two choices.Gripen or MIG-35. The F-16 is being dumped by more and more nations as we speak,Israel also,and the aircraft is hardly going to be a relevant fighter post 2025,esp. when stealth birds from China,Russia and the JSF start arriving in significant numbers.It is the worst choice to select the same aircraft that was dumped in the MMRCA contest 5-7 years later(!),which has been used by the Pakis for decades.Surely Mr.Modi and the NDA-2 govt. are not that stupid to make such an appalling mistake?

LCA MK-2.This should be upgraded to an LCA stealth fighter.Whatever extra stealth is poss. working from the basic design. If need be we could work with a firang bureau like MIG for instance,who've been toying from time to time ,wanting to build an SE stealth bird. WE could reverse the trend,exporting the LCA-S to Russia?MIG for exports,where that variant could use a Russian TVC engine.An LCA-S would have v.good export prospects provided we can build at least 24-30/yr. With a firang partner like MIG,with an offshore plant ,exports could be even larger. This could offset the costs of acquiring the FGFA/SU-57 too.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Aug 2017 15:02

srael also,and the aircraft is hardly going to be a relevant fighter post 2025

This is incorrect. Israel is planing and/or implementing upgrades to their F-16 I. It is the older models that will be replaced by the F-35s with the Is serving on for quite a while given that they are relatively young, having been delivered starting the mid 2000s. The SUFAs are amongst the most capable F-16 variants ever produced and there are a number of upgrades the IDF can do to keep them relevant through the 20s and into the 30s.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2017 16:51

Rakesh wrote:
Philip wrote:This Gripen win (Bulgaria),albeit for a first buy of only 8 aircraft is v.interesting becos of the alleged pricing of the aircraft. It is becoming more doubtful that the IAF would want the F-16 as many nations,Israel included have started retiring their F-16s.Who'd want a second-hand fighter,unless one is already operating the type (Pak)? In fact there are going to be huge bargains of used F-16s available which Pak would certainly look at snapping up,just as we're looking for extra lightly used MIG-29s to upgrade and induct! The retiring 15 Bulgarian MIG-29s,plus the 9+ Malaysian ones could give us another sqd.But back to the Gripen. If we do go in for another SE fighter to complement the LCA,the Gripen would be the best choice,esp. if the deal is also made financially attractive .There could be a huge win here for Gripen.
Philip, please do not wish the above. Despite all the negatives with F-Solah, the Gripen is even worse. The variant on offer has a FOC of 2025/2026! This whole SE tamasha is a monumental waste of time and money. And we are just as sanctionable with the Gripen as with the F-16. No more fourth generation foreign fighters.

We have to focus on ramping up Tejas production, increasing pilot-plane ratio, dramatically improving serviceability of present aircraft and upgrading present aircraft to meet the challenges for the next decade or so. Do that first, before buying any more foreign fighters. That is why the free offer of French air force Jaguars (31) to be used as Christmas trees is a huge bonus. Finish the Darin III upgrades for the Jaguars and get those damn Honeywell engines! Complete the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 upgrades. Get the Super Sukhoi upgrade going.

+ 1

We need to think about ramping up Tejas production and building Kaveri with new French core as first step and build indigenous core next these two program would do far more to Indian mic than any gripen or f16 could ever do in life time of operation in iaf

Cancel single engine program and focus on Tejas

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 25 Aug 2017 18:49

Rakesh wrote:....
Your second para...just want to confirm...is this what you actually mean?

***It all boils down to cost of capability. On that score, the F-35 is a no brainer. If you want MII with local employment, F-35 is your path (very costly one) to your aerospace industry. F-16 is just as lethal as a F-35 but less survivable and less of a force multiplier.****

No. What I am saying is that if you (GoI) decide to make local employment (and by implication an aerospace ecosystem) a major factor in selecting the SEF, the F-16 by virtue of LM's willingness to transfer its F-16 line, is the way to go. But it's a costly choice if you consider only the cost of combat capability because not only will the unit costs be higher (it will be built twice during the first five years—first in the US, knocked down, shipped and reassembled in India) but you will also be getting a less survivable fighter vis a vis the F-35. The latter because we are only talking FACO (at most) will cost less than a F16 'produced' in India while being a force multiplier. However, the F35 will do little for an Indian 'ecosystem'.

I am not pretending to have any great insights into how the details pan out. All I am saying is if you want the most combat capability (SEF) at a good price, choose the F35. If you want to use the SEF project to jump start the local supply chain, then the F16 is your best bet but we should be prepared for significantly higher units costs.

What is not on the table IMHO, is a F35 line in India. The US won't do it for anyone and we go into paroxysms about how that's going to make us dependent etc. but it's not on.

FWIW, my wet dream is that we assemble a 'Manhattan Project' type of team in India to take the tech and know how we've cobbled together over these many years, plunk down $1 bn and instruct them to build and deliver a twin-engined LCA in 3-4 years using as many COTS as possible. This would be our M4K project. The LCA and AMCA would be unaffected and remain separate efforts.

I 've mentioned this before. I am just amazed at how the Singaporeans took a Douglas A4 Skyhawk and stuffed a GE-404 and COTS to make a 'Super Skyhawk'.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Aug 2017 19:23

Cosmo_R wrote:No. What I am saying is that if you (GoI) decide to make local employment (and by implication an aerospace ecosystem) a major factor in selecting the SEF, the F-16 by virtue of LM's willingness to transfer its F-16 line, is the way to go. But it's a costly choice if you consider only the cost of combat capability because not only will the unit costs be higher (it will be built twice during the first five years—first in the US, knocked down, shipped and reassembled in India) but you will also be getting a less survivable fighter vis a vis the F-35. The latter because we are only talking FACO (at most) will cost less than a F16 'produced' in India while being a force multiplier. However, the F35 will do little for an Indian 'ecosystem'.

For the most part, kit assembly is all we'll do on the F-16 as well. Progressively moving towards building the airframe towards the end. Technologically, there's nothing about building the F-16 airframe that really adds to net domestic capabilities i.e. the core competencies already achieved through the Tejas & Su-30 programs.

WRT to the F-35, there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

One, there will be a load of maintenance work available to the local partner running FACO line over the next 50 years through overseas contracts. Two, the aircraft itself will remain current for the next two decades and that means the line can be left running until the AMCA crests the horizon. Also, as the 'cutting-edge' novelty wears off and the US moves to 6th gen and what not, the domestic content will continue to rise. Three, the requirement for a naval fighter (for the LHDs & IAC-2) can be serviced domestically instead of relying on a full import. Four, there will perhaps be production & design inputs from the F-35 program, that can feed into the AMCA project as well as enable a second non-HAL production line.

FWIW, my wet dream is that we assemble a 'Manhattan Project' type of team in India to take the tech and know how we've cobbled together over these many years, plunk down $1 bn and instruct them to build and deliver a twin-engined LCA in 3-4 years using as many COTS as possible. This would be our M4K project. The LCA and AMCA would be unaffected and remain separate efforts.

Its not doable. You can re-engine an older gen fighter and upgrade the avionics - something the Israelis did with the Mirage V to produce the Kfir, but what you're proposing (enlarged, twin engined) basically amounts to a new aircraft. That's a 15 year project minimum.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2017 19:31

Can't understand some reports,not posted.One says that Russia is helping us perfect the Kaveri engine,expected soon,while another says that we are asking the French for help!

Anyway,with "Mad Dog" Mattis expected here in a month';s time,there will be a huge push for us to swallow either the F-16 or F-18 as the report indicates. The prospect of Ospreys is interesting though.They could even be used aboard our carriers despite the fact that they can't be stored below deck in the hangars due to lift size and support facilities below.But they could be v. useful in the COBOD role for ops in the IOR. This has been performed in the USN by Greyhound aircraft.Same platform as the Hawkeyes.

http://www.defencenews.in/article/US-de ... -25-283870

US defence secy James Mattis’ India visit likely from Sept 25
Friday, August 25, 2017

US defence secretary James Mattis is expected to begin his two-day visit to India on September 25, with focus on Afghanistan, counter-terrorism and greater sharing of defence equipment and technology, government sources said on Thursday.

Mattis be followed by secretary of state Rex Tillerson, as two countries look to strengthen bilateral ties and step up engagement.

Tillerson, who wouldn’t accompany Mattis due to scheduling problems, will be in New Delhi for the first two-plus-two India-US dialogue involving external affairs and defence ministers of the two countries, sources said.

The proposal for the new format, which replaces the India-US Strategic and Commercial Dialogue, is still to be received from the state department.

President Donald Trump had on August 21 called for a closer engagement with India on Afghanistan as he laid out US’ strategy for the war-ravaged country.

In his address to the nation from Fort Myer military base in Virginia, Trump asked New Delhi to contribute more towards economic and development assistance to Kabul. He singled out Pakistan-based terrorist groups for creating instability in Kabul and South Asia at large, something that India has been saying all along.

Trump’s address was followed by a phone conversation between Tillerson and his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj, diplomatic sources in New Delhi and Washington said.

US national security adviser HR McMaster and his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval, too, discussed Afghanistan in a detailed phone conversation.

Though New Delhi is tight-lipped, sources said the two sides discussed ways in which India could contribute towards a stable Afghanistan without putting boots on the ground.

While Afghanistan is going to be central to Mattis’s meetings with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, defence minister Arun Jaitley and Doval, the revival of the defence technology and trade initiative (DTTI) would also feature widely.

At present, the DTTI has joint working groups on aircraft carrier, hot engine aircraft technology and future vertical lift helicopters, with small unmanned aerial vehicles and roll-on-roll-off C-130J modules off the table.

India is looking at six V-22 tilt rotor Osprey aircraft for rapid deployment on its western and northern borders. The US also wants to sell F-16 and F-18 multi-role fighters to India through the government-to-government route.

Secretary (defence production) Ashok Kumar Gupta was likely to visit Pentagon early September to review the DTTI projects and also look at new India-specific technologies, sources said.

India is looking to speed up setting up of tri-services command in Andaman and Nicobar Islands as China rapidly militarises the South China Sea. New Delhi is also stepping up engagement with the US Pacific Command based in Hawaii.