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.
deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3301
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby deejay » 24 Jul 2017 09:07

Seedha funda - UB sir. Operations will always see more uptimes. Aircraft which will be un-serviceable for peace time duties due flight safety considerations but will be considered fit for Ops duties given need.

2nd nature of Ops - All air ops in Syria are under complete air dominance and the threat is low level - 02 generation back manpads etc. Meaning - Avionics and radars may go kaput and you still get a sortie.

3rd - Distance of Theater - Bombing runs are over before pilots can say "Bingo!". Low stress and air time contribute to higher serviceability. A negative correlation is the number of missions / frequency of use in long range bombers. Its expensive both cost wise and there will be more break downs. The big bears rarely attack despite their heavy stores. At least IMO, they should have been used more often.

4th- The main aircraft is the Su 25 for Ground Attack. That has done the heavy lifting. It is rugged and reliable. Next is the Su 34. The Mig 29s I am not sure. Not much is known of their record in Syria. Escort duties with not much intensity. The Naval Mig 29Ks of RuN did not do too well from what I recollect.

5th- Better OEM support and great Sqn rotation. Sqn rotation is possible because of limited deployment. In case they go all alert across all sqns, their nos will fall below 80%. It can happen to any Air Force - even US.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59340
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 24 Jul 2017 09:23

the Su34 and Su24 are doing the long range bombing in syria.

the Su25 was used a lot in early days when fighting was close in at latakia,idlib,aleppo then mostly moved out, with hinds and kamovs doing the job in the desert front. now reports say some are back and moved to T4 base at palmyra for desert CAS.

on the expeditionary ops front, they really put up a strong show using An124 and IL76 to fly in men and materials constantly (and S300 and S400 batteries also), all sorts of stuff needed to house and occupy 1000s of people incl bakeries and steam rooms , and keeping a heavy supply line going both for assad and themselves to tartous from sevastopol using a fleet of ugly but functional supply ships.
you can see pics and movements through bosporus here https://turkishnavy.net/
even the initial units of fighters and AAR arrived ready for combat within days soon as their ground crew and munitions were flown in to bootstrap.

so a lot of thought and planning was already done, it was not ad-hoc.

its nearing 2 yrs now and they are well honed in the expeditionary thing. IAF might find it useful to send over a delegation to take notes in Hymenim. our biggest foreign deployment has probably been in the sri lankan and korean war. later ones in Ayni and Sierra leone were helicopters.

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3301
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby deejay » 24 Jul 2017 09:35

Singha wrote:the Su34 and Su24 are doing the long range bombing in syria.

the Su25 was used a lot in early days when fighting was close in at latakia,idlib,aleppo then mostly moved out, with hinds and kamovs doing the job in the desert front. now reports say some are back and moved to T4 base at palmyra for desert CAS.

on the expeditionary ops front, they really put up a strong show using An124 and IL76 to fly in men and materials constantly (and S300 and S400 batteries also), all sorts of stuff needed to house and occupy 1000s of people incl bakeries and steam rooms , and keeping a heavy supply line going both for assad and themselves to tartous from sevastopol using a fleet of ugly but functional supply ships.
you can see pics and movements through bosporus here https://turkishnavy.net/

its nearing 2 yrs now and they are well honed in the expeditionary thing. IAF might find it useful to send over a delegation to take notes in Hymenim. our biggest foreign deployment has probably been in the sri lankan and korean war. later ones in Ayni and Sierra leone were helicopters.


Singha Ji, Longest range in Syria would be Daraa town near Jordan border to Cizre town NE of Al Hasakah. Thats around 1000 kms land distance. By air would be around 800 kms or lesser. Not really long range but definitely medium. None of the Su's have done this distance but closer from various bases.

Ass per expeditionary deployments, I agree there is a lot to learn here. We really have little or no understanding. The supply line from the Bosporus have been very effectively used, more than aerial supplies.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59340
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 24 Jul 2017 09:36

>>3rd - Distance of Theater

tartous to deir azzor is 500km and then loitering around if no immediate targets - not a short ride. even the targets near palmyra are 250km which is the typical max of a jaguar strike mission i believe. the days of close in battles are over until the Idlib Olympics restart.

the long legs of the fencer and platypus make it possible with lighter payload and no aar required.

su24 has been upgraded and has been pulling a lot of weight - radius will be 800km maybe in hi-hi-lo typical of syria
Combat radius: 615 km in a low-flying (lo-lo-lo) attack mission with 3,000 kg (6,615 lb) of ordnance and external tanks

periodically the GMTI and ELINT an22 coot is seen flitting around locating targets ... and then the Platypuses go in and flatten them.

RuAF generally keeps out of south syrian airspace over damascus daraa in 'deconflict' with israel. occasionally they make forays to bomb specific targets or send a message like when hornets warned them off al-tanf, but they returned soon as the hornets ran out of fuel and bombed the target :oops:

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3301
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby deejay » 24 Jul 2017 09:42

'Sir, egress and ingress routes are direct lines. Jags won't have that luxury, hence 250 kms. Add hostile airspace and radar avoidance, the 250 kms will expand to around that figure. Loiter times are catered for.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59340
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Singha » 24 Jul 2017 09:47

not blaming the jag or mig27 they were from outset never built for the range of the fencer which was a premier product ... i think euros used the jag for tactical strike and tornado did the fencers job.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 24 Jul 2017 09:48

negi wrote:I think we have to look inwards that is what UB is saying getting defensive and trying to argue based on the premise that suppliers are making a chootiy@ out of us is pointless for that is a given for all those who import such stuff . The point being raised is not about why we cannot make a fourth or fifth generation fighter the question is why we cannot even maintain those for which we actually signed a deal for local manufacture .


Because even for the stuff we are making in India, the contract prescribes that we buy raw material from the Vodka-land only. Basically we have never contracted for strategic independence from Russia in terms of production and maintenance to start with. Only now ToT deals for spare parts is being worked out properly. The matter of Su-30MKI is discussed on its own thread in details. There are multiple factors contributing to the dismal availability which only when MP became RM were looked into and were tried to solve properly.

- No proper bargain and water-tight contracts from our side.
- No proper ToT from Russians to HAL. Many times they give mountain size of un-translated docs, older or inconsistent versions of drawing sets an so on. (I hear its quite a job to just translate the docs in English and its difficult to find people who are well versed in Russian as well and engineering lingo for proper translation).
- Too much dependence on Russian suppliers giving them complete freedom to play hardball. They sell same raw material at 3x-4x price to HAL than what they charge Sukhoi for. I guess even recycling is an issue since for a lot of components the buy-to-fly ratio is very high. All this jacks up prices for components made in India.
- No stockpile of spare parts. IAF and HAL were busy doing "tu tu main main" and MoD simply ignored the matter or didn't try to solve it (ultimately its MoD money whether it goes from IAF's pocket or HAL's).
- No ordering in time. Some spare parts have long lead items, in years sometimes.
- No ToT from Ruski suppliers to Indian suppliers. We cannot supplant the spare parts easily always.
- Piecemeal order-book for even small and simple parts like washers, gaskets, electric circuit boards et all. Have a look at the doc HAL published for parts. They want small small parts to be made at the rate of few 10s per year for 40yrs. Which supplier will do that..?
- No allowance/freedom of use of the tech we got from Su-30 elsewhere.
- I suspect some difficulty is there from Sukhoi as OEM, where they say doing this or that will void warrantee and stuff like that. They wouldn't certify replaced components or enhanced life for components or would charge a bomb for that.

As its been discussed many times, the availability rate is subjective to the money allocated for it and it can be maintained very high for any system given enough money. Russians have started with a philosophy of "Replace rather than Repair" in their products and rely on cheap and large scale mass production of less complicated, robust but less reliable (in some sense) and less enduring products (Now the Russians are aligning with the western design philosophy slowly). And of coarse commonality in components from various systems in Russian systems is legendary. In such scenario one needs a constant supply of large scale and cheap spare parts to maintain high serviceability. Russians can do it in their own system as a particular part is not only used in a certain aircraft but maybe 10 other systems. Thus they can employ the mass production principles to keep cost down. When we try to do it for single aircraft, due to small batches and lot of costly import components involved in terms of raw material, it obviously becomes costly. There is a reason why Russians aircrafts are cheap upfront, but Life cycle costs are large. We can loosely compare Russian aircrafts with the printers where the printers themselves are given away almost for free but the cartridge that you have to order every-time is very costly and costs almost as much as new printer.

The recent improvement in availability of Su-30MKI proves that its not that difficult to maintain serviceability at around 70-75% given the logistics of spare parts is maintained properly. But to match the ~90% availability of M2K consistently, it would be too expensive. The difference in design philosophy really shows up here. The problem associated with MiG-29, unlike Su30, I suspect, are at the design level and not necessarily related to spare part logistics.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 24 Jul 2017 10:00

^^ When this M2K show 90 % Availability ? Is there any CAG report to back that claim ?

The best availability so far will be for Rafale with claimed 75 % uptime paying huge steep price to get that for a small fleet of just 36

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 24 Jul 2017 11:29

Austin wrote:^^ When this M2K show 90 % Availability ? Is there any CAG report to back that claim ?

The best availability so far will be for Rafale with claimed 75 % uptime paying huge steep price to get that for a small fleet of just 36


I have seen it being mentioned so many times at so many places by so many folks. I don't know of any CAG report specifying it though. But its easy to find many articles talking about 80-90% availability for M2K in IAF. There is a very small probability, IMO, that this is a mere urban legend.

A quick search throws this link from BRF itself:
http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today/Con ... ntury.html
The aircraft has consistently maintained the highest serviceability of any type in IAF service (>90%) and has a superb safety record.


In the Vayu Round table conference, one reference came for Rafale's for French AF suggesting that the availability rate was only 40%. While recent article by Shiv Aroor I think, reports 97% availability for Rafale-M. But it doesn't matter what availability any aircraft has outside IAF anyway. And there are a number of factors behind any of these numbers so direct comparison is not possible.

Its not too far a stretch of imagination that IAF put in required efforts to maintain very high availability for M2K fleet, given that our Nuclear deterrence is dependant on it and its a small fleet as well. While it might be really costly, I have not seen any numbers on this front so far. Similar curtsey would be extended for Rafales since they are again a small fleet of silver bullet for us.

BTW it seems the IAF Mig29 shows quite a good availability of 70-75%. I see multiple mentions of this from Google.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 24 Jul 2017 11:51

I too have seen those reports of IAF Mig-29 and M2K showing high availability at IAF but those are the article not backed by any official document to back it up like CAG report or MOD report to Parliament , so I don't take that seriously.

The highest report of availability for any aircraft mentioned so far officially by mod is 66-67% for mki fleet

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12741
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 24 Jul 2017 11:58

M2K cannot be compared to any twin engines jet that is apples and oranges ; also Rafale numbers are just PR and Marketing we will talk when we see those numbers in our service.

Anyways coming to central point I laugh whenever people quote a contract about having to source raw material from OEM country only ; you think Chinese sign a different contract ? The difference is we use contract as an excuse for not doing what it takes to build what we need , China otoh has gradually but consistently moved up the food chain when it comes to building spares and now even complete modules .

Dhanush's example is another classic case we are importing the bearings for the gun mount while gun itself is being made here mind you COTs items being imported is one thing but such key components are an Achilles heel bearings of all the things are like heart of any machinery we even import the same for all our turbines powering the IN ships.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 24 Jul 2017 12:02

Austin wrote:I too have seen those reports of IAF Mig-29 and M2K showing high availability at IAF but those are the article not backed by any official document to back it up like CAG report or MOD report to Parliament , so I don't take that seriously.

The highest report of availability for any aircraft mentioned so far officially by mod is 66-67% for mki fleet


From what I have seen, CAG takes up only non-functional things for discussions in their reports. If its functioning properly it may not be seen in CAG reports. :wink: Another thing is, M2K might be outside the audit purview for being strategic assets. Or if the audit is conducted it may be kept classified. But what gives credibility to the talk surrounding M2K is the admiration shown by IAF folks for it and very less attrition (touchwood!!).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 24 Jul 2017 12:14

Leaving aside the usual seller hype,the MIG-35 is available at very attractive costs,around $35-40M.In other words,you would get 5 for every Rafale,and around two for any western bird. If you factor that in,then even at a 10% lower availability,it still is a better deal,more aircraft in the air ,carrying more missiles BVR/WVR,to shoot down enemy targets.Plus,the 29UG and 35s are in the future going to carry BMos-L too.

According to sev. reports,MIG is pushing hard for some for the IAF and the IAF appears to be interested at what this avatar of the Fulcrum brings to the skies.With moolah scarce,watch this space.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 336395.ece
Russia keen on selling MiG-35 jet to India
PTI ZHUKOVSKY (RUSSIA) , JULY 23, 2017
UPDATED: JULY 23, 2017
The new Russian jet MIG 35.
Asked if India has expressed any interest in the MiG-35, Mr. Tarasenko said, “Of course they have.”

Russia is keen on selling its new fighter jet MiG-35 to India with the MiG corporation’s chief saying the country has evinced interest in the aircraft and talks were on to understand its requirements.

Director General of Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG Ilya Tarasenko said the MiG-35 was “the best” and definitely better than Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation combat aircraft F-35. He claimed that the MiG-35 would beat the American jet in air to air combat.

Mr. Tarasenko, while talking to reporters on the sidelines of the MAKS 2017 air show in Zhukovsky, said after having presented MiG- 35 in January, the MiG corporation began to actively promote the aircraft in India and in other parts of the world.

“We are proposing supply of the aircraft for tenders in India and we actively work with its Air Force in order to win the tender,” he said.

The MiG-35 is Russia’s most advanced 4++ generation multipurpose fighter jet developed on the basis of the serial-produced MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 combat aircraft.

Asked if India has expressed any interest in the MiG-35, Mr. Tarasenko said, “Of course they have.”

MiG aircraft have been used by India for almost 50 years and MiG corporation proposes its new products to India among the first countries and intends to continue supplying India with its most modern aircraft, the MiG chief said.

Asked about the current status of the proposal of the aircraft to India, he said, “We are in the negotiation stage where talks on technical and technological specifications that MiG can present to India and the requirements that India has for this aircraft were taking place.”

“Since this is a very new plane, it will still take some time to negotiate on exactly what India needs and adjust the product to it,” he added.

Talking about the cost of the plane, Tarasenko said it was economical due to the after-sales services being offered along with the aircraft.
“We propose not just the aircraft, but also training for its use, as well as after-sales servicing where we take upon the responsibility to service it for 40 years,” he added.
:wink:

He stressed that in comparison to its competitors, the prices offered by MiG were 20-25 per cent cheaper, making it an attractive option for those who wish to purchase this aircraft.

Highlighting the main features of the MiG-35, Tarasenko said its technical specifications were close to a fifth generation aircraft, namely its flight capabilities, its new weapon range and defence systems, including stealth.

“I would like to note the demand for this aircraft for our own air force, as well as our foreign partners. The plane is light, multi-functional and has high manoeuvrability,” Tarasenko said, adding that the MiG was also offering special commercial terms to its partners.

He also stressed that the plane was fully Russian-made with Rostec companies like United Engine Corporation (UEC), KRET and Technodinamika participating in the project.

At MAKS 2017, the MiG-35 grabbed all the limelight as it took to the skies and enthralled the audience with breathtaking manoeuvres like the tail slide, barrel roll and the nesterov loop.

Meanwhile, Director of Russia’s Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation Dmitry Shugayev also said that Russia is ready to take part in India’s tender for the supply of light fighter jets with its MiG-35 plane.

“Principally, Russia is ready to participate in future aviation tenders in India. However, as of now, we do not have information on the opening of a tender and, correspondingly, on the plane’s technical requirements set by the Indian side,” he was quoted as saying by Russia’s TASS news agency.

Mikhail Belyaev, the Lead Test Pilot of MiG-35, told reporters that the main feature of this aircraft was the new on board equipment and the new quality of weapons — air-to- air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea.

“Compared with the basic version of the MiG-29, it is a new aircraft, new airframe, fly—by—wire, glass cockpit, adapted for night vision goggles...new engines, more power, more fuel, new on board equipment and new weapons,” said Belyaev, who was earlier this year presented the star of the ’Hero of Russia’ by President Vladimir Putin for bravery in piloting and testing of aviation equipment.

Asked if it was easier to fly MiG-35, Belyaev said new tasks were required for such an aircraft so one needs to learn these.

“On the basic level it is not that difficult to switch from MIG 29 to 35 as the plane remains the same. It is still a light simple plane. The combat tasks that can be achieved from this plane are much more serious and much more complex,” he said.

“More combat tasks can be achieved from this plane than with the MiG-29. So it will take time to learn new tasks and to adapt,” he added.

An overhauled MiG-35 multi-role fighter completed a successful demonstration flight at the MAKS 2017 air show, with Russian officials saying the first combat-ready plane will be delivered to the Air Force next year.

While speaking to reporters at MAKS, Tarasenko also noted that around 30 countries are using various modifications of MiG-35’s predecessor, the MiG-29, and that “talks are already ongoing with potential buyers.”

The fighter jet features improved flight and technical characteristics, the most advanced on board radio-electronic equipment and a wide arsenal of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles.

The flight tests of MiG-35 fighter aircraft began on January 26 and the plane’s international presentation was held in the Moscow Region on the following day.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 24 Jul 2017 12:40

negi wrote:M2K cannot be compared to any twin engines jet that is apples and oranges ; also Rafale numbers are just PR and Marketing we will talk when we see those numbers in our service.

Anyways coming to central point I laugh whenever people quote a contract about having to source raw material from OEM country only ; you think Chinese sign a different contract ? The difference is we use contract as an excuse for not doing what it takes to build what we need , China otoh has gradually but consistently moved up the food chain when it comes to building spares and now even complete modules .

Dhanush's example is another classic case we are importing the bearings for the gun mount while gun itself is being made here mind you COTs items being imported is one thing but such key components are an Achilles heel bearings of all the things are like heart of any machinery we even import the same for all our turbines powering the IN ships.


There is essentially nothing stopping from comparing two fighter systems when considered as systems and discounted for variations as and where required, when we are talking at very high level for the systems as whole. If one has to be really pedantic then every two-aircraft comparison would be apples vs oranges since any two jets will still have large number of variations and finding common ground would be a rather arduous task. If anything a single engine would have more restricted operational limits and thus would show less serviceability as compared to a twin engine jet under same conditions, since it does not have a back up for engine failure (and tailfin in almost all cases too) and even a small concern in engine would force the jet to be grounded, while a twin jet might still fly with such issue. So theoretically, a twin jet should be able to exhibit better numbers than a single engine jet under similar conditions.

While I agree to the fact that we don't do whatever it takes, the argument about contracts is not completely invalid. We source stuff from all over the place with relative ease. I am pretty sure if we start breaking contract terms it would not be so easy to get stuff. Starting to break contracts will need a relative independence in at least strategic systems. Try f*&*ing around with Russians in Su-30, and they can easily crush our balls somewhere else and give us some real pain. We are not there yet. China has a totalitarian regime with iron grip on everything and they can easily dictate things to the entire industry they have. Plus China has good leverage with other countries, that we don't e.g. Russia, that helps them get away with a lot of stuff. Even in the given setup we could do much better if the contracts were written with hard bargain and watertight clauses. We should be having much better Rafale and FGFA contracts now. And yes, you are right there, we haven't done much even within the given contractual freedoms from those lopesided contracts. Dhanush for example took 20yrs to materialise from full TOT. As I said somewhere else, we do not show aspiration as a Nation to excel in the field Aerospace and Defense, and thus there is never an attempt to do what it takes to achieve something. Chinese hunger for copying everything comes from their desire to rule the world. We OTOH are not even caring about taking back our own land back from enemies or even to defend the remaining part from internal and external enemies. The lackadaisical approach we have towards defense shows up right from the topmost echelons of GOI to the bottommost Aam Abdul in our country. But that's a deep structural problem in our thinking, it will take a while to change, if at all it changes.

Regarding the COTS, well we need to empower MSME for such components. I would like to write a long post whining about just this one. But I'll skip that.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 24 Jul 2017 13:41

JayS wrote:From what I have seen, CAG takes up only non-functional things for discussions in their reports. If its functioning properly it may not be seen in CAG reports. :wink: Another thing is, M2K might be outside the audit purview for being strategic assets. Or if the audit is conducted it may be kept classified. But what gives credibility to the talk surrounding M2K is the admiration shown by IAF folks for it and very less attrition (touchwood!!).


Nothing of that sort , else we have to take Mig-21 and 27 having the highest uptime because CAG does not mention it.

It is possible M2K like Rafale would have the highest fleet availability because of its strategic role as Tactical Nuclear Bomber.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12741
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby negi » 24 Jul 2017 13:58

I see a case of people sticking to a stand instead of understanding the context otherwise one can always claim Mig-21 is world's most reliable Mach2+ fighter jet as it makes more sorties even today than the M2K , however that is not the point which UB was trying to make quoting RUAF's sorties in Syria.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3660
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 25 Jul 2017 04:00

Even in Afghanistan during Soviet era Su 25, seems to have performed miraculously:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_ ... m&hl=en-IN
[Its main task was to conduct air strikes against mountain military positions and structures controlled by the Afghan rebels.[17] Another Soviet Su-25 unit was the 368th Attack Aviation Regiment, which was formed on 12 July 1984, at Zjovtnevoye in Ukraine.[18] It was soon also moved east to conduct operations over Afghanistan.
Over the course of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Su-25s launched a total of 139 guided missiles of all types against Mujahideen positions. On average, each aircraft performed 360 sorties a year, a total considerably higher than that of any other combat aircraft in Afghanistan. By the end of the war, nearly 50 Su-25s were deployed at Afghan airbases, carrying out a total of 60,000 sorties.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Jul 2017 06:46

Northrop Grumman has a plan to keep the F-16 Fighting Falcon 'Fighting' for years to come
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... lcon-21680

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 27 Jul 2017 06:53

Sorry, Russia. Indian Air Force is unlikely to go in for the MiG-35 fighter jet; here’s why
http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... ca/780055/

Air Vice Marshal (Retd) Manmohan Bahadur and a Distinguished Fellow, CAPS is of the view that India has already made its choice clear by deciding on the Rafale. “The Indian Air Force has made its choice of a twin engine fighter aircraft – the Rafale. Whenever we add more fighter jets, they should be Rafales, not the MiG-35s,” Manmohan Bahadur tells FE Online. “When the MMRCA deal for IAF was in process, the MiG-35 did not make the final cut,” he says. “Also, getting a completely new aircraft would involve an entirely new set of maintenance and logistics support. There is no point investing in that,” he adds.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 27 Jul 2017 11:21

V.Good .The good AM can thus pay for more Rafales out of his own pocket ! He seems to have forgotten that despite the Rafale finishing first,all that Mr.Modi allowed was a purchase of just 36 ,at around $200M a pop too. In the current context of the face-off with China,the demands from the IA and IN too will be huge.Plus,with Jet Li,also FM at the helm of affairs defence,catch him generously doling out billions to the IAF for more Rafales at the same price!

Secondly,the MIG-35 is not entirely a new aircraft unlike the M2K and Rafale.It's the latest,heavily modified version of the MIG-29. It won't take much time for our 29 pilots to get to grips with the 35,and there must be some % of commonality in components,etc. Secondly,if the Gripen and F-16 which also "lost" in the MMRCA race can be considered for the SE req.,why not the MIG-35 to augment the IAF's dwindling numbers at very affordable cost too?
This blinkered thinking on the part of the IAF in general ,spanning decades,is why the IAF is in the crisis mostly of its own making. It also cannot think beyond tactical air warfare,completely ignoring strat. bombing ,which at this current crisis,we feel the absence of acutely. ACM PC Lal rejected the offer of the backfire way back in '71.300 were available when the USSR collapsed. Even some time ago,there was a view to acquire a few ,at least for the IN in a maritime strike role. This absence in the IAFG's order of battle is just one of the reasons why the PRC is so cock-sure about their mil superiority,wanting to teach India another "lesson".

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 682
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Manish_P » 27 Jul 2017 16:43

Philip wrote:This absence in the IAFG's order of battle is just one of the reasons why the PRC is so cock-sure about their mil superiority,wanting to teach India another "lesson".


The PRC are not sure about anything wrt Indian military. They just think that they know about our military since the source of the equipment is the same to a large extent. The only thing they are sure about is that it will not be like 1962. Hence all the bluster.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5407
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 27 Jul 2017 19:56

Philip wrote:[b]V.Good .The good AM can thus pay for more Rafales out of his own pocket !

Completely useless statement. Philip sir, this is a soft warning. I won't be lenient next time.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 933
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 28 Jul 2017 01:07

Yuhoo 100 Pages.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 28 Jul 2017 15:20

200 more pages will be wasted before we see any thing concrete on this stupid procurement attempt. We can seat with our fat a$$ on our hands for years to even make a decision to procure something, but we cannot invest same time and money in improving home grown solutions. Delays in procurements are fine but delays in development are sins. You could perhaps make even a blind see one day, but you can't help the one who has blind-folded himself.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 28 Jul 2017 15:33

JayS wrote:200 more pages will be wasted before we see any thing concrete on this stupid procurement attempt. We can seat with our fat a$$ on our hands for years to even make a decision to procure something, but we cannot invest same time and money in improving home grown solutions. Delays in procurements are fine but delays in development are sins. You could perhaps make even a blind see one day, but you can't help the one who has blind-folded himself.

For those who waited years and years and wasted innumerable hours on the MMRCA thread only to have a decision to limit to 36, a few more years mean nothing.

For IAF battle readiness, for DRDO design augmentation capabilities, for Vendor capabilities, for local manufacturing itself, this might mean much more. We do need indigenous capabilities, but are looking for some benefactor to helicopter in the skills. Not sure if it will, work that way. However, with any technical venture in India, luck and timing or need itself are secondary to political expediency.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 28 Jul 2017 17:26

Marten wrote:
JayS wrote:200 more pages will be wasted before we see any thing concrete on this stupid procurement attempt. We can seat with our fat a$$ on our hands for years to even make a decision to procure something, but we cannot invest same time and money in improving home grown solutions. Delays in procurements are fine but delays in development are sins. You could perhaps make even a blind see one day, but you can't help the one who has blind-folded himself.

For those who waited years and years and wasted innumerable hours on the MMRCA thread only to have a decision to limit to 36, a few more years mean nothing.

For IAF battle readiness, for DRDO design augmentation capabilities, for Vendor capabilities, for local manufacturing itself, this might mean much more. We do need indigenous capabilities, but are looking for some benefactor to helicopter in the skills. Not sure if it will, work that way. However, with any technical venture in India, luck and timing or need itself are secondary to political expediency.


May be it will help here and there. But what about time...? We neither do it on our own nor bring in something from outside in time. That's why for every new iteration we are back to square one. Let take an example of FGFA. We were suppose to learn stuff from FGFA and put it in AMCA. The way things are going we neither learned those things from FGFA in last 10 yrs nor we made much of an attempt to learn ourselves. In next 10 yrs we will end up having neither FGFA nor AMCA.

Initially the argument was IAF needed aircrafts yesterday. But then the way things are going, I doesn't really look like the acquisition is really for that reason. Then the question of supply chain, vendor dev, manufacturing capability et all. The learnings will be so slow that by the time those who are suppose to learn and apply it for say AMCA manufacturing will still be figuring out what the hell they did with F16 itself, let alone extending it to 5th Gen fighter, and we will be looking for TOT for F35 then. We basically expect our RnD fellas to develop something in the exact same time which some other Indians take to buy the same thing when its readymade available outside. We Indians are really great.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 28 Jul 2017 18:03

Indranil,what's the problem? Pl read the rest of the text.The good AM has conveniently forgotten about the price factor."IAF has chosen the Rafale...".We all know that,but what has the govt. done? Just bought 36 which it could scarcely afford! Where does the good AM think that the money to buy more Rafales is going to come from" The very thought of an SE light fighter is to purchase/build a much cheaper fighter in large numbers to meet the fleet shortage,because the GOI CANNOT afford the Rafale!

I am a taxpayer and have every right to question statements coming from individuals ,who're conveniently ignoring reality ,perhaps who think that money grows on trees.

This attitude from some in the IAF,that "there is no other alternative..." was shot down by the GOI even after a former ACM said that "there was NO plan B".He's had to eat his words. The SE search is precisely that,Plan B",because "Plan A" is simply unaffordable.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3217
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 28 Jul 2017 20:30

^^^"Then the question of supply chain, vendor dev, manufacturing capability et all. The learnings will be so slow that by the time those who are suppose to learn and apply it for say AMCA manufacturing will still be figuring out what the hell they did with F16 itself, let alone extending it to 5th Gen fighter, and we will be looking for TOT for F35 then. "

As far as I can figure out, the F-16 line is supposed to achieve the following objectives (from a GoI/PMO not IAF/MoD perspective):

1. Break the HAL stranglehold on a/c assembly/production without divesting HAL like AI
2. Train a local workforce in the world class assembly methods
3. Get supply chain rolling so we make stuff even small stuff to rope in startups
4. Use defense monies to fund non-farm jobs (50% of Indians are engaged in agriculture which contributes~15% to GDP)
5. Provide a safety net in case the LCA effort does not go as fast as hoped.

This I think is the Modi/PMO perspective

IMHO, the F-16 line has little to do with AMCA which should really be treated as a long term strategic product. At best, it's not going to arrive until early 2030s but it has to be done and given how tech changes, it may turn out to be more like a UCAV than a 6G fighter.

Again IMHO, what is likely to happen is that we get the F-16 in numbers and with Israeli involvement/co-venturing, to build an ecosystem that supports a lethal (but vulnerable) platform that is more than adequate to take on the J-10s while the MKIs handle the J11s.

The LCA will soldier on but if GoI shows a little imagination, I don't see why it could not morph/evolve into a 1-1/2 scale MK3 or even a M4K twin engine version to bridge the gap until the AMCA. After all just look at what Singapore did with the A4 Skyhawk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ST_Aerosp ... er_Skyhawk

If we really need a 5G a/c , get the F35 on a FACO basis like the Turks and the Japanese. They might actually be cheaper on unit flyaway cost basis.

brar will explain what the differences are (black box vs 'open') F-35/F-16

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 28 Jul 2017 20:45

Again IMHO, what is likely to happen is that we get the F-16 in numbers and with Israeli involvement/co-venturing, to build an ecosystem that supports a lethal (but vulnerable) platform that is more than adequate to take on the J-10s while the MKIs handle the J11s.



Exactly Cosmo. More important than the F-Solah itself is the ecosystem.

And we should be in no rush. If we're not going to fight after all the bellyaching by the PRC over Doka La, we're not going to fight Cheen for the forseeable future.

Just get our infrastructure in order so we can build in numbers. No more " Omg! We need firang shit right now to handle Cheen and Pak."

A decade ago, the LCA was supposed to be our counter to the J-10. Today, it is outnumbered in service 90 to 4 by the fvcking Blunder nevermind the J-10A/B/C or whatever the hell edition they are on now.

Get our infrastructure in place first and foremost and if that takes a private firm partnering with GD on the F-16 so be it.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5407
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 28 Jul 2017 21:02

So the ecosystem is going to come thanks to assembling 100-odd F-16. SLOW CAP. TAKE A BOW.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 28 Jul 2017 21:32

Indranil wrote:So the ecosystem is going to come thanks to assembling 100-odd F-16. SLOW CAP. TAKE A BOW.


Indira, my dear! What is the definition of crazy?

Oh yes, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to be different.

F-16 and Tata would at least be new to the Russki-HAL screwdrivergiri par per course. Let's give it a try!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5407
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 28 Jul 2017 21:43

Philip wrote:Indranil,what's the problem? Pl read the rest of the text.The good AM has conveniently forgotten about the price factor."IAF has chosen the Rafale...".We all know that,but what has the govt. done? Just bought 36 which it could scarcely afford! Where does the good AM think that the money to buy more Rafales is going to come from" The very thought of an SE light fighter is to purchase/build a much cheaper fighter in large numbers to meet the fleet shortage,because the GOI CANNOT afford the Rafale!

I am a taxpayer and have every right to question statements coming from individuals ,who're conveniently ignoring reality ,perhaps who think that money grows on trees.

This attitude from some in the IAF,that "there is no other alternative..." was shot down by the GOI even after a former ACM said that "there was NO plan B".He's had to eat his words. The SE search is precisely that,Plan B",because "Plan A" is simply unaffordable.

Philip sir,
1. If you have problem as a taxpayer, please take up your grievances through the right channel, not BR.
2. If you do want to post your opinion on BR do it in a respectful manner. What is wrong with saying something like, "Where is the money?" instead taunting the marshal. I stand by my previous moderation comment.

Now to a general rebuttal of your cost analysis. You make a very valid point that if the Mig-35 is off the table by virtue of elimination from the MMRCA, so was Gripen and F-16. So, I disagree with the good marshal too. But, you keep saying that the Rafale cost $200M a pop and Mig-35 $35 million a pop. Both of these numbers are factually incorrect. For the plane itself, Rafale cost $115 M (roughly). And in the recently concluding MAKS, the head of Mig said that Mig-35s cost about 20% lesser than its compatriots, by which I think he meant the Rafales/F-18s/EFs. So don't take my word. Take the word of the Mikoyan chief.

Frankly, it has taken us 50 years to get disenchanted with Russian ware. Now, we have swung towards the west. It will take us a few decades to get disenchanted from the western ware. Till then people here will think we are going to get an ecosystem by assembling 100-odd planes, or develop design capability t tap into other ecosystems and what not. Sad, but true.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5407
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 28 Jul 2017 21:45

chola wrote:
Indranil wrote:So the ecosystem is going to come thanks to assembling 100-odd F-16. SLOW CAP. TAKE A BOW.


Indira, my dear! What is the definition of crazy?

Oh yes, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to be different.

F-16 and Tata would at least be new to the Russki-HAL screwdrivergiri par per course. Let's give it a try!

First settle down and in a few sentences try to summarize what will Tata learn from this experience?
1. Design expertise?
2. How to develop an ecosystem?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 28 Jul 2017 21:45

chola: I re-posting what Kartik said in this VERY thread, a few pages back. Screwdrivergiri with Tata (for F-16) or with Adani (for Gripen E) will do nothing. The MII program for SE fighters is a farce. We will not be making anything in India. We onlee being doing screwdrivergiri...which is why the F-35 is a the better bet. But as brar pointed out, too expensive. Heaven & Earth will have to move for that.

Kartik wrote:AW&ST article. Posting the relevant snippets.

The whole aim of the Make In India Single Engined fighter program is to kick-start a private sector aerospace firm that gets involved in much more than just final assembly or manufacturing know-how. So, if the F-16 proposal is to only shift final assembly to India and continue with the bulk of the manufacture in the US, then it beats the fundamental purpose of this program itself.

Makes the whole F-16 proposal look unappealing. My feeling is that Saab will be more amenable to transferring significantly more than just a FACO to India, since they know that an Indian order could completely transform the Gripen E's future. But, going with the Adani Group for a partnership just doesn't make sense to me, unless they're banking on the possible influence that the Adani Group has on the BJP govt, just as Dassault partnered with Reliance for their ability to grease the wheel of Indian bureaucracy and politics.

Lockheed hopes the deal with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd., the defense arm of India’s Tata Group, will help tip the scales in the F-16’s favor. If India chooses Lockheed’s Fighting Falcon over Saab’s Gripen for the new fleet, Tata will be Lockheed’s primary partner for final assembly of the aircraft in India, says John Rood, senior vice president of Lockheed Martin International.

The agreement is a clear nod to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” campaign to boost local manufacturing. If New Delhi elects to buy at least 100 F-16s, Lockheed is looking to permanently shift final assembly of all new Fighting Falcons to India.

In that case, Lockheed and Tata will set up and operate an in-country facility where the new fighters will be assembled, Rood says. Lockheed will still build most components in the U.S., but the two companies are in talks to potentially build certain parts in India.


If the deal materializes, Lockheed and Tata would jointly build a new Indian fleet of F-16Vs, also known as “Block 70s.” The V configuration sees the addition of Northrop Grumman’s APG-83 scalable, agile-beam active, electronically scanned array radar; a center pedestal display; a new advanced mission computer; a joint helmet-mounted cueing system; and the auto-ground collision-avoidance system. Lockheed is already under contract with Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan to upgrade a total of more than 300 F-16s to the V configuration.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 28 Jul 2017 21:51

Indranil wrote:
chola wrote:
Indira, my dear! What is the definition of crazy?

Oh yes, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to be different.

F-16 and Tata would at least be new to the Russki-HAL screwdrivergiri par per course. Let's give it a try!

First settle down and in a few sentences try to summarize what will Tata learn from this experience?
1. Design expertise?
2. How to develop an ecosystem?

Also chola, please explain how Tata (a private company) is going to help HAL (a public-sector undertaking) in developing an ecosystem or with design expertise? Because after all, 100 F-Solah or Gripen E are supposed to help us SDREs learn how to do production/assembly. Why would Tata help HAL in improving Tejas production, unless Tata opens it own Tejas line. Is there such an agreement? Why would a private company help another - public or private for that matter? If you were Tata's CEO....would you agree to this?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15643
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 28 Jul 2017 21:59

More important than the F-Solah itself is the ecosystem.


* First of all the "F-16" will benefit (if one can agree on that point, which I doubt we will) the IAF. The "ecosystem" will primarily benefit the MIC (mature). Both are actually interdependent, yet can be individually tracked.

* Second, the benefits of an "ecosystem" degraded remarkably with Trump's offer (as opposed to the one proposed under Obama). I would guesstimate that it has degraded between 50-70%.

It was so bad, IMHO, it was THE reason that India declined Trump's offer to mention it as a major MII effort. India , I think, is still pushing for the offer that was made under the previous admin and they are not getting thw same deal.



I think the F-16 (and F-18) will come. But Modi will need to do more horse trading. The offer by trump is unacceptable.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5407
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 28 Jul 2017 22:09

I do want to take the "F-16/Gripen E is the panacea to India's MIC woes" on. But I don't have too much time to be nice. So I will be curt. Please excuse it. I will also appreciate to-the-point replies. If you can't state your point in 1-2 sentences, you probably don't have a point.

Kicking it off:

NRao wrote:* First of all the "F-16" will benefit (if one can agree on that point, which I doubt we will) the IAF. The "ecosystem" will primarily benefit the MIC (mature). Both are actually interdependent, yet can be individually tracked.

How? And vis-a-vis what other option? Is this another "no plan B" situation?

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby chola » 28 Jul 2017 22:56

Indranil wrote:
chola wrote:
Indira, my dear! What is the definition of crazy?

Oh yes, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to be different.

F-16 and Tata would at least be new to the Russki-HAL screwdrivergiri par per course. Let's give it a try!

First settle down and in a few sentences try to summarize what will Tata learn from this experience?
1. Design expertise?
2. How to develop an ecosystem?


First, Tata will learn how to put together an aircraft. And second, Tata will learn how an American production line is sourced.

From there I would hope Tata can develop its own network of suppliers which in turn it can call upon once it begin designing and producing its own planes.

They are stepping stones to Tata getting into aviation.

@Rakesh, I don't expect Tata to help HAL at all. You must have miscontrued whatever I said.

I expect Tata and its private brethren to compete with and take away HAL's business and in fact killing it over time if it doesn't evolve.

The F-16 won't save the LCA but it can save the AMCA and all subsequent projects by providing us with an ecosystem that HAL and the Russian projects weren't able to.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 28 Jul 2017 23:55

^^^ Hope? that is your plan? your goal? Your entire vision rests on hope? We all have many hopes....but hopes do not translate into reality.

Second - and I have said this before a thousand times - but I will repeat it again. You need a skilled workforce on how to learn how to put together a 4+ generation fighter. The only people that have any clue on how to do assembly (screwdrivergiri) of any generation fighter is HAL. In the absence of such a workforce - because you cannot take a labourer off the road and tell him to do assembly - how is Tata going to learn to put together an aircraft?

Third - you need to read Kartik's post again. The F-Solah is a FACO line. That stands for Final Assembly & Check Out. At that stage, apart from assembly (screwdrivergiri), you are not sourcing anything. The only thing you are doing is learn how to turn the screwdriver and send it down the production line. All the parts are already available in the factory. They are shipped from suppliers all over the US and sent to one central location - the Indian production factory. Sourcing will be done in the US, assembly (screwdrivergiri) will be done in India. That is why LM is keen to shift the production line to India - because labour will be invariably cheaper versus assembling at Fort Worth, Texas. Tata will NOT learn on how these parts are sourced.

Fourth - Tata will NOT be designing its own planes. A design house - like ADA does that job - and TATA, HAL and whoever else will be assembling (screwdrivergiri) them.

Fifth, the AMCA is still in the design stages and is an ADA design. Just a FYI...it is a division of the Ministry of Defense. The F-16 and AMCA have no correlation whatsoever.

Sixth, Russian projects (and HAL's screwdrivergiri of them) were never meant to provide an ecosystem. They were assembly lines, just like the MII program for 100 SE fighters will be. We assembled MiG-21s, MiG-27s and Su-30MKIs and we will assemble F-Solah or Vaporware and still learn nothing.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby abhik » 29 Jul 2017 00:07

An entire generation of BRFites cut their teeth in the MRCA threads, a new generation of munnas will graduate after this fresh farce is over.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: essay, saumitra_j, suryag and 36 guests