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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 16 Mar 2017 22:57

Indranil wrote:How much do those things matter in actual combat is still a big question mark. The F-15s had a problem seeing the Mig-21s. They did the RCS testing of full scale LCA. It is has RCS far below that of Mig-21. So ....


It's the fourth vs fifth generation dilemma..Now take an all aspect RCS of something optimized for LO and then considerably enhance its RF and IR situational awareness and networking and pit it against something that does not have all of that or has bits and pieces which it can't fully utilize due to mismatch. What you observed in a large aircraft (large RCS) vs small aircraft (small RCS) is amplified..F-22 and F-35 pilots have talked about this being the difference..especially those that are experienced on other platforms. I'm sure AMCA and PAKFA pilots will have similar observations as well.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 16 Mar 2017 23:14

"stealth" is not "not seeing", it is "saw it too late".
Last edited by NRao on 17 Mar 2017 02:12, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRFite
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby kit » 17 Mar 2017 00:32

NRao wrote:1) "seeing" in what range of the energy spectrum? There are reports that the F-15 did not even see a F-22, using instruments - across the spectrum
2) What sensors did the craft "seeing" have (as compared to the F-35 let us say)?


And, again, "stealth" is not "not seeing", it is "saw it too late". Even if a "stealth" craft is "seen" a 100/300 miles away, is the "seer" safe? As the radar techs advance - and they have - the one depending on "stealth" is also building better sensors AND munition at greater standoff ranges, spoofing of every kind, etc. Which is why I hate to compare two entities. This is so much of a team effort. Which is why my backbone for these techs is a Network!!! Rest of it are extremely important, but without really good and timely communication, nothing really works well. It may just work, but not well.


And, if stealth is a myth, then why is everyone investing SO much in it? Even those that claim they can detect stealth planes?


The 6th generation stealth includes visual as well .. now how do you fight something you can't see or hear or sense .. I think that's the way stealth is evolving to a large degree

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5234
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 17 Mar 2017 01:21

brar_w wrote:
Indranil wrote:How much do those things matter in actual combat is still a big question mark. The F-15s had a problem seeing the Mig-21s. They did the RCS testing of full scale LCA. It is has RCS far below that of Mig-21. So ....


It's the fourth vs fifth generation dilemma..Now take an all aspect RCS of something optimized for LO and then considerably enhance its RF and IR situational awareness and networking and pit it against something that does not have all of that or has bits and pieces which it can't fully utilize due to mismatch. What you observed in a large aircraft (large RCS) vs small aircraft (small RCS) is amplified..F-22 and F-35 pilots have talked about this being the difference..especially those that are experienced on other platforms. I'm sure AMCA and PAKFA pilots will have similar observations as well.

Of course. I said nothing to the contrary.

Situational awareness and network-ability are important aspects. But, lets say there are two batches of aircrafts: One with very high LO and the other with moderate LO, but with the same level of situational awareness and networking capability. How much will the LO tilt the favour in one side? I say "can't say". The even bigger players: will be tactics, environmental conditions, preparedness, and plain old "chance".

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5234
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 17 Mar 2017 01:22

NRao wrote:1) "seeing" in what range of the energy spectrum? There are reports that the F-15 did not even see a F-22, using instruments - across the spectrum
2) What sensors did the craft "seeing" have (as compared to the F-35 let us say)?


And, again, "stealth" is not "not seeing", it is "saw it too late". Even if a "stealth" craft is "seen" a 100/300 miles away, is the "seer" safe? As the radar techs advance - and they have - the one depending on "stealth" is also building better sensors AND munition at greater standoff ranges, spoofing of every kind, etc. Which is why I hate to compare two entities. This is so much of a team effort. Which is why my backbone for these techs is a Network!!! Rest of it are extremely important, but without really good and timely communication, nothing really works well. It may just work, but not well.


And, if stealth is a myth, then why is everyone investing SO much in it? Even those that claim they can detect stealth planes?

Boss, too much hand-waving!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 17 Mar 2017 01:28

One with very high LO and the other with moderate LO, but with the same level of situational awareness and networking capability. How much will the LO tilt the favour in one side? I say "can't say". The even bigger players: will be tactics, environmental conditions, preparedness, and plain old "chance".


That is why I said, how you deploy it counts. Being hard to find, and hard to target allows you to get into situations and exercise tactics that enhance your fusion, and networking abilities. There is a reason why everyone with any serious national security need or ability is chasing signature suppression and fitting it into their operational construct. It is universal (minus the Euro birds which made a fiscal choice in a post-cold war era) to 5th generation fighter programs and advanced programs of such nature in general.

he even bigger players: will be tactics, environmental conditions, preparedness, and plain old "chance".


Completely agree here. Tactics and preparedness have no substitute.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 17 Mar 2017 04:01

Manohar Parrikar's abrupt departure from the Defence Ministry leaves key tasks unfinished
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 620345.cms

Similarly, Parrikar had been in a fight for the past 18 months with the entire bureaucratic setup in the ministry over the strategic partnership model – a plan to select key private sector companies for major defence manufacturing contracts. The bureaucratic view has been that the model being considered by Parrikar would be against all competitive norms and it would be impossible for a government to ‘guarantee’ orders to the selected company for 25 years.

This tussle over the strategic partnership model has been the reason for the stagnation of the Make in India plans for the defence sector. All major projects that would have come under this – naval utility helicopters, conventional submarines, fighter aircraft, ammunition – have not moved ahead in the past two years as the ministry could not finalise the model.

If Parrikar could not do this, how is Jet Lee going to pull this off? Bye Bye F-Solah. And also Gripen E.

The only way is now for a G-to-G deal. This also proves that the folks with the real power is not the Prime Minister or his minsters, but the Babu himself. So much for Make in India.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 832
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 17 Mar 2017 05:16

Yep real sad day. BJP prioritised Goa over sorting out the Kingdom of Babudom within MoD. There will be tons of drinking parties behind MP's back. We need a dedicated minister not a part time one. MP was meant to reform it inside out and now that momentum is gone.

Wait so this is a good day for the Tejas.
No more Make in India, Single Engined Fighter.
Procurement to get the next fighter will take 47 years.

Meanwhile Tejas line will be humming.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 17 Mar 2017 06:09

Parrikar did good for the LCA in the 2-years as DM.

  • Sorting out issues between MoD, ADA, HAL, IAF
  • Formation of Squadron service
  • Additional 83 Mk1A firm order on top of the original 40 IOC/FOC
  • Funding to expand production capacity to 16/year

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16194
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 17 Mar 2017 12:13

Since all 120+,Jags are to undergo deep upgrades,as said ad nauseum,and spares/support,etc. for these aircraft will be required for another 2 decades+,reopening the line to manufacture 2 sqds or so will not be a problem for HAL.MIG-27s and MIG-21s are being retired,that's the major difference.Where there's a will ,there's away. The MOD/HAL/IAF should take a hard look at this option for acquiring a couple of dedicated GA fighters. Otherwise,if the exercise is too problematic,as said above,the Yak-130 armed adv.. trainer is an obvious option,far better and less vulnerable than slower truboprops,available at just $15M.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ould-13782
Russia's Lethal Yak-130 Fighter: The Tiny Terror NATO Should Fear
Thomas Newdick

In the world of Russian jet fighters, Moscow’s finest — such as the Flanker and the fifth-generation Sukhoi T-50 — tend to grab the most headlines.

But the Yakovlev Yak-130, a comparatively non-glamorous twin-seat jet trainer, is quietly turning heads … because it’s obviously more than just a trainer. The twin-engine jet dubbed “Mitten” by Western intelligence is now showing its credentials as a genuine multi-role fighter.

When an air force wants to maximize its combat potential, a trainer — even a jet-powered one — might not be the most obvious choice of aircraft.

But today’s multi-role combat trainers are a viable and comparatively low-cost alternative to conventional fighters — even one that originates from behind the former Iron Curtain.

Like many post-Soviet military projects, it took a long time before any pilots got their hands on the Yak-130. But now the aircraft is showing up at the Russian air force’s advanced flight training schools.

Further, the Kremlin has begun deliveries to Belarus, a close military ally of Moscow. Previously, the Kremlin delivered Yak-130s to Algeria, another established customer of Russian-made warplanes.

The Yak-130 has three hard-points under each wing. That means it can carry up to three tons of air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, precision-guided bombs, free-fall bombs, rockets, gun pods and external fuel tanks.

Another two stations at the wingtips can carry air-to-air missiles or decoy launchers to spoof enemy heat-seeking missiles. That’s not at all. Under its belly, the plane can carry a hard-hitting 23-millimeter cannon.


Recent photographs reveal the next stage in the Yak-130’s maturation to a combat aircraft. In the photos, a Yak wearing the latest Russian military markings has a characteristic “bump” in front of the cockpit. This could house the LD-130 laser rangefinder and TV camera for identifying targets and improving the accuracy of its weapons.

Another option for a future upgrade is a flight refueling probe, which would expand the jet’s range for offensive missions.

A fully armed and fueled Yak-130 tips the scales at 22,700 pounds. That’s only a little more than half the weight of a fully-loaded F-16 Fighting Falcon, the primary multi-role fighter of the U.S. Air Force and many of its allies.

Hang two 500-pound bombs, a gun pod and a pair of fuel tanks on a Yak-130 and it will have a maximum operational radius of 367 nautical miles. That’s fairly respectable compared to the F-16, which will haul two 2,000-pound bombs, two AIM-9 Sidewinders and a pair of external fuel tanks over a radius of 740 nautical miles.

The subsonic Yak-130 belongs to a class of aircraft known as lead-in fighter trainers — or LIFTs. For a modern-day air force, LIFTs allow student pilots to familiarize themselves with the advanced technology they’ll encounter once strapped into a front-line fighter’s cockpit.

For its part, the U.S. Air Force is currently looking to buy 350 copies of a new LIFT to replace its hopelessly outdated T-38 Talon jet trainers. The Air Force calls the multi-billion-dollar program T-X.

But beyond the LIFT role, jet trainers such as the Yak-130 can fly genuine combat missions, too.

For smaller air forces — such as Belarus — the Yak-130 is a low-cost way of flying missions that would otherwise require an expensive multi-role fighter. After retiring its Su-27 fighters due to cost reasons and disposing of its Su-24 strike aircraft, Belarus badly needed to bolster its air combat fleet.

Small and agile, but able to pack a punch, the Yak-130 is also useful in counter-insurgency and asymmetric warfare.

Since the Vietnam War, jet trainers have found a place in counter-insurgency operations. Algeria is very interested in counter-insurgency operations because the nation has been waging a long-running campaign against Islamic extremists.

The Algerian air force’s Yak-130s complement heavier Sukhoi jets and operate alongside upgraded Mi-24 helicopter gunships.

Russian manufacturer Yakovlev — once the country’s preeminent fighter designer — designed the Yak-130. Irkut Corporation bought out Yakovlev in 2008, and shifted its production to Russia’s far east.

Work on a new trainer for the Russian air force — then the Soviet air force — began in 1990, and by the middle of that decade the Yak-130 competed against the much more conventional Mikoyan MiG-AT. A prototype Yak-130 began flight testing in April 1996, but it wasn’t until 2002 that the Kremlin finally selected the trainer instead of the MiG.

During the first decade of the new century, Russia produced four prototype Yak-130s.

The Russia air force placed its first order in 2005 for 12 aircraft, and began receiving the planes in early 2010. The following year, the air force signed a further order for 55 aircraft.

Manufacturers have since delivered all the jets, which are in service with training units at two airfields. Yakovlev is also delivering another dozen aircraft in a “stripped-down” configuration for an aerial demonstration team.

The next customer could be the Russian navy, which would use the Yak-130 to prepare pilots for its carrier air wing at a newly constructed shore-based training facility. The future of the Yak-130 in Russia looks bright — the defense ministry wants at least another 150 examples up to 2020.

The plane’s AI-222–25 turbofan engine comes from Russia — but is the result of a cooperative technology agreement with the Ukrainian company Progress. Ukraine banned military cooperation with the Kremlin after Russia invaded Crimea in February 2014.

It’s unclear if this will affect the engine’s production.

But Irkut has busily courted foreign customers. The first of these was Algeria. Advanced fighter sales between the two countries went through a turbulent period in the 2000s — because Moscow promised much newer fighters than it actually delivered. But the Yaks proved to be a far more successful purchase.

The first of 16 aircraft arrived in Algeria in late 2011. Like Algeria’s Sukhoi Su-30MKAs, the diminutive Yak-130s have customized Western cockpit instrumentation.

A bid to sell the trainer to Libya fell through after that country erupted into civil war, and another war killed a projected sale to Syria. However, as relations between Moscow and the West continued to deteriorate, the Kremlin stated that the Syrian transfer could resume.

Belarus bought four Yak-130s in late 2012, and deliveries began in April 2015. Irkut is hopeful that Bangladesh will be next to receive the “Mitten,” with deliveries of a planned 16 aircraft expected to commence next year.

Bangladesh has no shortage of jet trainers in its inventory, and the Yak-130 could fulfill a counter-insurgency role — or at least serve in a dual-role purpose.

Most of the other nations that have looked at the Yak-130 have counter-insurgency or other light combat requirements, on top of any training role. These countries include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Uruguay and Vietnam.

The Yak-130 is a proven lead-in fighter-trainer with combat capability that can also serve in the kind of counter-insurgency war that the U.S. Air Force has found itself fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

There’s no way in Hell the U.S. will ever buy Yak-130s for its its T-X requirement. But the Air Force might just get the next best thing.

The Italian-made M-346 Master is a Yak-130 by another name. It looksvery similar to the Russian trainer thanks to a cooperation deal struck between Yakovlev and the Italian Aermacchi firm in the early 1990s.

Aermacchi scaled down the Yak-130 slightly, gave it a new digital fly-by-wire control system and an advanced digital cockpit. By the end of the decade, the Russian and Italian partners split, but the resulting M-346 owes a lot to the Yakovlev product.

Indeed, the Russian company received a a multi-million-dollar payout for blueprints it handed over to Aermacchi. Today, the M-346 is a contender for the U.S. Air Force’s new jet trainer.

It has an outside chance, at best — especially now that former U.S. partner General Dynamics has abandoned Aermacchi’s airframe. But the M-346 — offered to America as the T-100 — found customers in Singapore, Poland and Israel.

What’s perhaps most telling is that Israel chose the Master to train its future F-35 Lightning II pilots. Italy, too, will school its future Lightning II pilots on the M-346. That’s basically the same requirement the U.S. Air Force outlined for its T-X program.

Which is an ironic twist. It’s not inconceivable that Russian and American pilots destined for the “fifth-generation” T-50 and F-35 will both learn how to fly in what is very nearly the same aircraft.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16194
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 17 Mar 2017 17:42

Reinforcing my arguments above for the use of legacy upgraded aircraft for the GA role,is this latest USAF requirement for another "A-10" type replacement for the A-10 whose role was to have been taken over by the JSF as being the ...A-10 again!
Now if the USAF can think on these lines,about an aircraft long out of production, why can't the IAF think about the Jag to replace some of the retiring MIG-27/MIG-21 sqds?

At the same time, there is also consensus that the A-10 provides an extremely unique set of battlefield attributes which need to be preserved for decades.


http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/s ... -cas-plane
Air Force Advances Future Plans for the A-10
KRIS OSBORN
Monday at 8:15 AM
The Air Force A-10 replacement strategy could involve building a new plane, adjusting an existing aircraft or merely upgrading the A-10 itself. :rotfl:

The Air Force is beginning to work on how fast, lethal, durable and capable a new “A-10”-like aircraft would need to be in order to provide U.S. military ground troops with effective close-air support for decades to come.
Senior service officials are now exploring “draft requirements” concepts – and evaluating the kind of avionics, engineering, weapons, armor and technical redundancy the aircraft would need, Air Force officials told Scout Warrior.
Many of the core technical attributes and combat advantages of the A-10 will be preserved and expanded upon with the new effort, officials said.
The performance of the A-10 Warthog in the ongoing bombing campaign against ISIS, coupled with the Air Forces’ subsequent decision to delay the aircraft’s planned retirement – has led the service to begin the process of developing a new, longer-term A-10 type platform.
Following an announcement earlier this year from Pentagon leaders that the A-10 will not begin retiring but rather will serve until at least 2022, Air Force and DoD officials are now hoping to keep a close-air-support aircraft for many years beyond the previously projected timeframe.
Given the emerging global threat environment, it would make sense that the Air Force would seek to preserve an aircraft such as the A-10. While the aircraft has been extremely successful attacking ISIS targets such as fuel convoys and other assets, the A-10 is also the kind of plane that can carry and deliver a wide-ranging arsenal of bombs to include larger laser-guided and precision weapons.

PS:Well over a decade ago I ventured to say that the best replacement for the MIG-21 was the MIG-21 itself! I was laughed at. MIG-21 Bisons proved my point beautifully in the first COPE exercises with the USAF blindsiding F-15s. The role of many of the hundreds of retiring fighters has primarily been GA,in support of the ground war. Tough,sturdy aircraft able to absorb battle damage from AAA fire will be needed, The USAF's decision to retain and upgrade the A-10,apart from the Russians use of the SU-25 Frogfoot in Syria,an aircraft similar to the A-10 is a signal lesson that the IAF cannot ignore.

This kind of firepower, coupled with its 30mm cannon, titantium armor plates and built-in redundancy for close-air-support, makes the A-10 a valuable platform for potential larger-scale mechanized, force-on-force type warfare as well. The A-10 has a unique and valuable niche role to perform in the widest possible range of combat scenarios to include counterinsurgency, supporting troops on the ground in close proximity and bringing firepower, protection and infantry support to a large-scale war.
Air Force officials have told Scout Warrior that the current approach involves a three-pronged effort; the Air Force may consider simply upgrading the existing fleet of A-10s in a substantial way in order to extend its service life, acquire an off-the-shelf existing aircraft or develop a new close air support platform through a developmental effort.
“We are developing that draft requirements document. We are staffing it around the Air Force now. When it's ready, then we will compare that to what we have available, compare it to keeping the A-10, compare it to what it would take to replace it with another airplane, and we will work through that process,” Lt. Gen. James Holmes, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, told reporters last year.
Holmes went on to explain that the service was, broadly speaking, exploring ways to achieve, preserve and sustain “air superiority” in potential long-term, high-end combat engagements. He added that considerations about a close-air-support replacement aircraft figured prominently in the strategic calculus surrounding these issues.
As a result, the Air Force will be looking for the “optimal” type of close-air-support platform by weighing various considerations such as what the differences might be between existing aircraft and future developmental platforms.
Cost and affordability will also be a very large part of the equation when it comes to making determinations about an A-10 replacement, Holmes explained.

“The question is exactly where is the sweet spot as we talked about between what's available now and what the optimum CAS replacement would be. We are working along that continuum to see exactly what the requirement is that we can afford and the numbers that we need to be able to do the mission,” Holmes added.
Several industry platforms, such as Raytheon’s T-X plane and the A-29 Embraer EMB Super Tucano aircraft, are among options being looked at as things which could potentially be configured for a close-air-support plane.
Having the requisite funds to support this would be of great value to the Air Force; Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told lawmakers that, despite the prior plan, the service did not want to retire the A-10.
Prior plans to retire the fleet of A-10s were purely budget driven, senior Air Force leaders have consistently said.
“I don’t want to retire it,” Welsh told a Congressional Committee in early March of last year.
Air Force leaders had previously said that the emerging multi-role F-35 would be able to pick up the close-air-support mission. With its sensor technology, 25mm gun and maneuverability, there is little question about whether the F-35 could succeed with these kinds of missions. At the same time, there is also consensus that the A-10 provides an extremely unique set of battlefield attributes which need to be preserved for decades.


So,his absurdity "SE" fighter quest should be re-examined and a serious look at our existing types,how they could be leveraged to fit the bill taking over some of the roles of the retiring types and aggressively focussing on getting the LCA variants into mass production asap.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 17 Mar 2017 17:58

Reinforcing my arguments above for the use of legacy upgraded aircraft for the GA role,is this latest USAF requirement for another "A-10" type replacement for the A-10 whose role was to have been taken over by the JSF as being the ...A-10 again!
Now if the USAF can think on these lines,about an aircraft long out of production, why can't the IAF think about the Jag to replace some of the retiring MIG-27/MIG-21 sqds?


Please do some basic research on some of the stuff you post about. Had you done so, you would have realized that the aircraft in question have little to nothing in common with the A-10. Contenders include the Textron Scorpion, Super Tucano, Reaper and the Bronco or similar class of aircraft for the COIN and ISR mission - light Strike/CAS and Light non-permissive ISR.

Cost targets are not only significantly less than F-16, or F-35 but also significantly less than the A-10 as well. Myself and others have provided quite a bit of information on this over the last few months. They are looking at a new type of light strike and ISR fighter for benign environments where they don't need the costly capability of fast jets or the over designed (for such a role) A-10 with its CPFH. They wan't COTS or near COTS solutions for this particular niche role.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57236
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 17 Mar 2017 19:03

But cots birds wont have the couple of cheap but meaty 30mm cannons a jaguar packs. With canoe fairing ammo housing rounds could be increased. Plus atleast 8 small bombs for sure.

The scorpion types might find it tough against igla

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 17 Mar 2017 19:38

Singha wrote:
The scorpion types might find it tough against igla


You can now do CAS through weather and clouds plus CAS is a very small portion of the COIN mission with strike still claiming the majority so don't expect even the requirements to call out for high survivability at or below 10,000 feet altitude. They wan't the range and loiter of a CAS platform and wan't the flexibility in configuration so that it can be quickly configured for light strike/CAS or ISR.

They have wanted this since 2008 when such a need was determined. Textron saw this and developed the Scorpion in anticipation of a future unfunded requirement. They put in a configurable bay for this very purpose so that ISR payloads can be swapped out and replaced with weapons if need be. The straight wing provides the loiter required to stay on target. At the end of the day they have to determine whether having a pilot or two justifies the added cost vs simply buying more reapers or avengers. That is what the solicitation expected to be released TODAY will probably focus on.

Ignore the talk of this new study focusing on an A-10 replacement particualrly when it comes to its low altitude "survivability" or its gun. It was never the case outside of the ill informed post above. As it is currently proposed the Scorpion doesn't even have a cannon. The requirement calls for a light, low cost platform to better match the capability with the threat and type of mission in a relatively benign environment. The way the keep costs low is to take out the requirements that drive cost in the first place. On the A-10 it is specifically the requirement to go low and be survivable in an 80s environment.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 17 Mar 2017 20:59

Philip wrote:...
Now if the USAF can think on these lines,about an aircraft long out of production, why can't the IAF think about the Jag to replace some of the retiring MIG-27/MIG-21 sqds?
...

Is that you Philip :P
Image

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 19 Mar 2017 04:50

Rakesh wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Any MII effort in India is simply a way to redirect as much of the spending on defense to create a multiplier effect in other sectors of the economy. It won't make huge dent but even a small one will start the ball rolling.

These are just "some" of the other sectors of the economy that is doing just fine without F-Solahs being made in India. They are not just surviving, they are THRIVING! The Ball does not need to roll, the Ball is already moving full speed ahead!

1. AUTO INDUSTRY
Nissan exported 700,000 'made-in-India' cars
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/auto ... 395494.cms

2. POWER INDUSTRY
ABB to make India export hub for high-end power gear
http://www.livemint.com/Industry/cGBTC9 ... -gear.html

3. AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Honeywell has been helping Make in India for close to half a century
http://www.financialexpress.com/industr ... ni/553165/

4. TELECOM INDUSTRY
Here's How India Is Becoming A Hub For Smartphone Manufacturing In South Asia
https://www.forbes.com/sites/krnkashyap ... 717cfc3be8

5. AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY
To feed UAE, India plans special farms, infrastructure for export
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 484504.cms

6. TRANSPORT INDUSTRY
'Made in India' metro coaches in Australia!
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/ ... 84529.html

7. DEFENCE INDUSTRY :mrgreen:
United Arab Emirate guns to fire with Made in India shells
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 678036.cms

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 19 Mar 2017 04:55

The IAF fleet needs rejuvenating, and needs it now
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... ds-it-now/

Read the second the comment (bottom of the article in the above link)


Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3147
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 22 Mar 2017 22:49

"These are just "some" of the other sectors of the economy that is doing just fine without F-Solahs being made in India. They are not just surviving, they are THRIVING! The Ball does not need to roll, the Ball is already moving full speed ahead!"

Good to know. And to think I believed NaMo when he said MII was important. Bah! I believe everything I read.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7500
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby rohitvats » 22 Mar 2017 23:02

Rakesh wrote:The IAF fleet needs rejuvenating, and needs it now
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... ds-it-now/

Read the second the comment (bottom of the article in the above link)


Do you believe in that comment or think there is some grain of truth in it to specifically point it out?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 06:34



The US could keep this line running using its FMS and assistance policy to countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2017 09:10

Cosmo_R wrote:Good to know. And to think I believed NaMo when he said MII was important. Bah! I believe everything I read.

Well making F-16s in India appears to be not that important to him anymore, now that the two main actors in the play - Ashton Carter and Manohar Parrikar - are no longer in the mix. Like I said earlier, having a vision of MII is nice to talk about, but Babus have the final say. And the Babus knifed MII in the back at every opportunity. From my viewpoint, just this once, I am relieved with how this has turned out as a result of Babu intervention.

It might still happen though, I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future. However with everything going on right now in the US political scene valuable time is being lost. At some point the law of diminishing returns is going to take effect and making F-16s in India is not going to be that attractive for the IAF. In all this bruhaha of F-16 production in India, the Govt forgot the customer - the IAF who does not want the F-16 in the first place. They want the Gripen E, even though it does not exist.

Sitting in South Block with visions of F-16 production, bringing India into world class aircraft manufacturing is all nice to believe and say. But when you are sitting in the cockpit of a F-16, Block 70 facing Chinese stealth platforms in 2030 you will realise you have the shit end of the stick. And the IAF knows that quite well. It matters little - on BRF and elsewhere - for the folks who pushed for this platform in the name of some grand vision. It is not their arse after all.

P.S. One can twist the terms Made in India and Make in India all they want. It is the same thing.

Make is Made onlee without the D :)

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2017 09:56

Human Angles Of Defence Procurement
http://bharatshakti.in/human-angles-of- ... mment-1611

By Lt Gen P R Shankar - a retired Director General of Artillery. He has vast operational experience and has held many important command, staff and instructional appointments in the Army. He is an alumnus of Defence Services Staff College @ Wellington, Army War College @ Mhow, Naval Post Graduate School @ Monterrey, CA and National Defence College @ Delhi.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3201
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 10:35

Rakesh wrote:...

P.S. One can twist the terms Made in India and Make in India all they want. It is the same thing.

Make is Made onlee without the D :)

Waiting for III (Invented in India) policy :evil:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16194
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 23 Mar 2017 11:07

I read the IDR piece,same conclusion about an aircraft for GA,not wanting expensive birds to do the biz,but the "combat Hawk" has been rejected becos of the scandal reg. commissions,which BAE acknowledged to be true,was fined,etc. So where does that leave us? A few more Jags as I said,if the task of restarting production (which should be easy since all 120 are to undergo deep upgrades) of the Yak-130. Turboiprop types are also available,but they would carry less ordnance and be easier to shoot down.

The parallel option,which would not impinge upon IAF costs,would be to hugely increase the IA's attack helo inventory.Heavy hitters,flying tnaks like the KA-50/52,MI-28N,plus dozens of LCHs,should be procured asap. The IAF can keep their ultra-expensive Apaches,as they are loath to transfer ANY attack helo to the IA! Ina ddition,the armed Dhruv's/Rudras and MI-17V gunships will add significantly to the firepower of the IA's helo inventory.

A holistic solution is required to resolve the call for air power from "Johnny Jawan" as the battle on the ground unfolds. IMR hsa v.good historical piece about the '65 war when the IAF sent in its antique Vampires,GA Mysteres and little Gnats to blunt the Paki plan of Op.Gibraltar,mant to sever J&K from the rest of India and allow its "tribals" to have a free hand in liberating the Valley. Though we suffered considerable losses,Vamps being shot down by Sabres,the air attacks against Paki armour was v.successful .They lost 20-25% of their assets and this blunted the attack,which ran out of steam and Op. Gib. ended up as a damp squib!

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 23 Mar 2017 12:13



From the Article:
The F-16 production line in South Carolina will be small, but is still expected to create between 200 and 250 new jobs in Greenville.


Sound too low number. How much is the expected rate of production for this facility..?? 6 jets..??

Let me sound a little dumb and ask this question. How many jobs GOI is expecting to add by bringing in F-16 facility in India..?? Considering that LM exec has said that it will take 7yrs to reach to a 60-70% (by value, by man-hours??) localization of the production and after that there will hardly be anything left to be produced, how many jobs we are talking about even with 70% localization of production, and for how long..?
Last edited by JayS on 23 Mar 2017 14:36, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16194
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 23 Mar 2017 12:38

New jobs required in the mil-aviation sector? Simply as said before open a 3rd LCA line (in the pvt sector),guaranteeing 100 aircraft for that line,and re-open the Jag line for another 40+ aircraft,since all 120+ Jags are being upgraded. All desi jobs,maximisation of desi input and no need for another series of rounds of selecting and bargaining that a firang fighter would bring with it,akin to a 15 round boxing heavweight bout say between Ali and Frazier!

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 832
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 23 Mar 2017 14:58

Goodbye Singled Engined Fighter Factory in India
or for that matter any Amreekan Factory in India.

Think another Stop gap purchase again like Gripen or F-18 if that were to combine with Navy.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 23 Mar 2017 17:32

If we buy Gripen, we should buy majority stake in SAAB itself. How much is SAAB Aerospace biz worth...?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 23 Mar 2017 17:50

JayS wrote:If we buy Gripen, we should buy majority stake in SAAB itself. How much is SAAB Aerospace biz worth...?


Wouldn't matter since it would be a purchase of an asset that is of strategic value to Sweden.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1010
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Zynda » 23 Mar 2017 18:51

China tried to buy a majority stake in Bombardier a couple of years ago when Bombardier desperately needed the cash infusion to stay alive. Canada/Quebec decided that it was too much of a strategic asset to the country and Quebec Govt ended up infusing cash. Similar situation wrt to SAAB as well I would think. Funny thing is, I dunno if Canada would have approved the majority sale if a NATO country was interested instead of China.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3147
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 23 Mar 2017 19:05

Khalsa wrote:Goodbye Singled Engined Fighter Factory in India
or for that matter any Amreekan Factory in India.

Think another Stop gap purchase again like Gripen or F-18 if that were to combine with Navy.


Don't forget the option of reopening the M2K line and those darned Qatari M2K-9s (all nine of them).

At this rate, the IAF recap is going to involve 450 a/c in five years. Guess we can start with a clean sheet.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2017 21:44

You can keep throwing barbs about nine Qatari M2Ks all you want. The fact of the matter is - as it stands today - the F-16 is not a viable option for the IAF. Either the Govt tells the IAF that F-16 it is or nothing else. But then again, the Govt does not know any more about F-16s than they do about Katrina Kaif's measurements.

What do you think the IAF is going to say, when the Babus insist on trials? Oh yes, give me a 40 year old langoti. Amazing plane. Waah Re Waah! The IAF is going to take the best available option and Gripen E it will be.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it will still be a pig. While we discuss this to kingdom come, look at this...

IAF will receive 123 LCA Tejas by 2024-25
http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=251069

Now why do you need to purchase another 4th generation fighter, when a viable 5th generation fighter is already there? I am fully sold on MII, even if it is SII (Screwdrivergiri In India). I WANT Lockheed Martin to win. But LM has to put up the right platform. And don't give me this horse-and-pony story that the IAF has shown no interest in the F-35 or does not want it. As someone once said, "A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."

And yes I am aware that the F-35 is more expensive than the F-16. But invest in a FACO line, do SII of the F-35 (100 for the IAF and 57 for the Navy) and everyone is happy. The only loser in this scenario is China. And as I have said before, the Chinese need a moment of pause. And for that reason alone, the F-35 is worth it. If it deters war, I am all for it.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2017 22:06

Old articles from last year. Does anyone know if anything came out of this?

Lockheed Martin expected to make f-35 offer to Indian Air Force in an upcoming meeting with Indian officials
http://defence-blog.com/news/lockheed-m ... cials.html

Will India be the Next to receive the F-35?
http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/conte ... ceive-f-35

A high-level official delegation and representatives of several US defense companies will arrive in India next week. Lockheed Martin is expected to offer the F-35 for the Indian Air Force.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2017 22:13

Rakesh wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Any MII effort in India is simply a way to redirect as much of the spending on defense to create a multiplier effect in other sectors of the economy. It won't make huge dent but even a small one will start the ball rolling.

These are just "some" of the other sectors of the economy that is doing just fine without F-Solahs being made in India. They are not just surviving, they are THRIVING! The Ball does not need to roll, the Ball is already moving full speed ahead!

1. AUTO INDUSTRY
Nissan exported 700,000 'made-in-India' cars
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/auto ... 395494.cms

2. POWER INDUSTRY
ABB to make India export hub for high-end power gear
http://www.livemint.com/Industry/cGBTC9 ... -gear.html

3. AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Honeywell has been helping Make in India for close to half a century
http://www.financialexpress.com/industr ... ni/553165/

4. TELECOM INDUSTRY
Here's How India Is Becoming A Hub For Smartphone Manufacturing In South Asia
https://www.forbes.com/sites/krnkashyap ... 717cfc3be8

5. AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY
To feed UAE, India plans special farms, infrastructure for export
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 484504.cms

6. TRANSPORT INDUSTRY
'Made in India' metro coaches in Australia!
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/ ... 84529.html

7. DEFENCE INDUSTRY
United Arab Emirate guns to fire with Made in India shells
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 678036.cms

Adding another one to the list...I am loving this list :P

8. METAL INDUSTRY
Steel mills in India reversing import woes with export push
http://www.livemint.com/Industry/tzUBba ... -push.html

Steel exports surged almost 78% in the 11 months to February to 6.6 million tonnes, while imports have plunged 39% to the same figure.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3147
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 23 Mar 2017 22:21

@Rakesh. You misunderstand. I buy your argument that the F16 is passe. If we are still going to import a single engined fighter, it should be the JSF. The unit cost of the two at full production is not that significant to warrant a 4G choice when a 5G one is potentially available. I think brar_w mentioned this somewhere.

The Rajat Pandit article on SU30s/FGFA reminded me how much more we've paid for screwdriver learning at HAL. I think RP mentions something like 100 crores more per SU30 assembled by HAL vs fully imported ones from Russia. Dassault also mentioned a 30% premium for Indian built Rafales.

The F16 argument also goes for the Gripen—whose touted version does not yet exist and forget about the Sea Gripen (sounds like Popeye's 'Sea Hag'). Whatever they build in India will be umpteen years into production before meaningful MII happens and the unit cost will be higher for all the same reasons as the SU30 cost is higher.

My point is that we have to finally give up on all this bits and pieces stuff that only compounds the 'stop gap' mentality we've displayed since 2000. Unless we make a quick decision, we're going to have to recap the IAF from scratch in a few years because some 450 ac are going to be retired. We no longer have the SU30 fallback, Rafales are too expensive and ~120 LCA are already penciled in. Where is the balance (250-300 ac) going to come from? I honestly don't get the math because there is no plane currently out there that can provide quality and quantity at the same time within the window of need.

The gap is too large to be filled by LCAs and the AMCA is a 2035 event if they start now. I invoke the Qatari M2Ks because this has been a meme since 2000 and now reached the same cult status as Philips pleas for Berievs.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2017 22:39

That is why the Govt needs to focus on the following first;

- 1) higher pilot ratio, 2) turnaround time and 3) serviceability

What is the point of inducting 100 F-16s or Gripen Es if the IAF is still lacking in the above? We will still be at square one.

Air Marshal Anil Chopra (Retd) said the same thing...

Multiple Origin Fleet: Complexities for the IAF
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... the-iaf/0/

The IAF is down to 33 combat squadrons vis-a-vis the authorised 42. Low serviceability adds to the already dismal scenario. A critical component of improved serviceability is the improved logistics chain. Even if it means procuring a larger number of spares, it may be worth considering. Also, early addressing of obsolescence would help. For every five per cent improvement in serviceability would mean adding 40 aircraft (over two squadrons).

By merely improving the average serviceability to 75 per cent, the IAF could operationalise around seven to eight squadrons – a much cheaper alternative than new acquisitions. Serviceability is an issue that requires attention on a war footing.

But what are we doing? Having a competition for a new, 4th generation, single engine fighter :roll:

But that is only the first part of this equation. There is a second part and that is getting a new platform. But we should be focusing on 5th gen platforms and NOT 4th gen platforms. By moving F-16 production from Fort Worth, Texas to Greenville, South Carolina....LM is expected to produce 160 F-35s a year! If we invested in a FACO line and achieved only 35% of that production output, 56 F-35s can be produced in a single year. The argument that you are putting forward for F-16 production will be the same for the F-35, no? It is the same company after all.

Also, you are talking about there is no plane currently out there that can provide quality and quantity at the same time within the window of need. I will not discount the quantity argument, but the quality argument I would have to push back on. Chinese platforms - esp the J-20 - are an unknown quantity. Maybe it is an utter piece of shit...who knows? But should we really take that chance and find out?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 832
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 24 Mar 2017 00:26

Cosmo_R wrote:
Khalsa wrote:Goodbye Singled Engined Fighter Factory in India
or for that matter any Amreekan Factory in India.

Think another Stop gap purchase again like Gripen or F-18 if that were to combine with Navy.


Don't forget the option of reopening the M2K line and those darned Qatari M2K-9s (all nine of them).

At this rate, the IAF recap is going to involve 450 a/c in five years. Guess we can start with a clean sheet.


Oh good god.... those damned nine, all nine of them.
Looks like you and Admiral Rakesh keep a track record of all my posts.
:lol: :lol:


or are you being serious ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5234
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 24 Mar 2017 00:54

Moving the existing F-16 line from Texas to S. Carolina is generating a grand total of 300 odd jobs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 24 Mar 2017 01:02

You're probably looking at single digit annual production at their Greenville site.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austin, rvishwakarm, srin, sudhan and 34 guests