'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Locked
Avtar Singh
BRFite
Posts: 196
Joined: 22 Jan 2017 02:07

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Avtar Singh »

Philip,
T May has just removed the whip from an mp using the phraseology in point 5. Further reducung her majority!!
Just saying.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Yagnasri »

For once I agree with Philips sir except for the problem with spare parts and service. From all reports, IAF was having a very bad experience with Russia and that is the reason for looking for West.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Cross posting from Tejas Thread :
Kakarat wrote:Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 12:11 PM - 11 Jul 2017
@DRDO_India's ADA isn't really working on the LCA Mk-2 anymore. The project is essentially at an end.

The Tejas LCA programme is a fully HAL programme now. While ADA has kept a brave face on LCA Navy, that programme too is in jeopardy.

ADA as such doesn't have much to do in the moment despite what you hear. It is expecting serious movement on the AMCA & Ghatak UCAV fronts.
so LCA Mk2 has gone the HF-73 way
Instead of LCA Mk2 we would rather fund swedish grippen E.

Or give bonus money to LM for their dying f16 line.

AFF : Any Foreign Fighter

While China sticks to its own j20 & j31 , learns production by pain, we choose easy path of screwdrivergiri.
Dileep wrote:Folks.. sorry to bring bad news again. Apparently, this MII eff-up solah has poisoned the waters terribly. MK2 injins are here, but people don't know what to do with them. Nothing is sanctioned. Nothing is moving. The only good thing that happened is, several scientists got promoted to Sc-H!!

Meanwhile, question to all the Scientist-CH here. ("Scientist - Chair" is the grade at DRDO/ADA equal to the rank of "Chair Marshal" in IAF). What would be the challenges in integrating the IFR probe?

The only good thing I have personally is, some little "science project" that I proposed is getting some traction.
ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by ragupta »

Manish_Sharma wrote:Cross posting from Tejas Thread :
Kakarat wrote:Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618 12:11 PM - 11 Jul 2017



so LCA Mk2 has gone the HF-73 way
Instead of LCA Mk2 we would rather fund swedish grippen E.

Or give bonus money to LM for their dying f16 line.

AFF : Any Foreign Fighter

While China sticks to its own j20 & j31 , learns production by pain, we choose easy path of screwdrivergiri.
I too had fits when I first heard about it. But it makes sense now. If India has decided for second single engine type assembly line with import, either Grippen-E/F-16, then it does not make sense to spend effort in creating a Mk LCA2. From the beginning we argued that LCA MK1 was good for IAF, so they have it, even better with LCA-MK1A. LCA Mk1/A provides the platform to continue single engine research, production and induction.

LCA Mk2 was requirement for Navy, now Navy says it does not meet it need, they want to focus on twin engine, makes sense, as China is using much bigger platform Su-33 for naval aircraft, with high endurance and range and Navy needs something like it. So single engine does not meet its need anymore, so for 50 to 60 aircraft, spending so much effort is not vise. Whatever Navy wants to learn can learn from NAVAL AMCA.

So the focus and priority must shift on war footing to AMCA. use the resources available for AMCA technology development.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Rafale was deemed too expensive, but won't grippen E also be expensive?

Brazilian got 36 grippen NG for 4.68 billion dollars, while we are going for more advanced E model and 100 of them.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Manish_Sharma »

ragupta wrote: LCA Mk2 was requirement for Navy, now Navy says it does not meet it need, they want to focus on twin engine, makes sense, as China is using much bigger platform Su-33 for naval aircraft, with high endurance and range and Navy needs something like it.
Su 33 is a huge failure. It's a huge Rock tied to their yellow neck. Current Tejas can obliterate a whole squadron of 33 using guns and missiles.
ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by ragupta »

Manish_Sharma wrote:Rafale was deemed too expensive, but won't grippen E also be expensive?

Brazilian got 36 grippen NG for 4.68 billion dollars, while we are going for more advanced E model and 100 of them.
You do not know what all components are included in those deals, weapon package, infrastructure setup, training, logistics, spare parts, etc. some of these costs are amortized over large numbers. If Gripen E is costly then acquire F-16 if cheaper. The problem with Gripen-E is it also depends on lot of imported parts.
ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by ragupta »

Manish_Sharma wrote:
ragupta wrote: LCA Mk2 was requirement for Navy, now Navy says it does not meet it need, they want to focus on twin engine, makes sense, as China is using much bigger platform Su-33 for naval aircraft, with high endurance and range and Navy needs something like it.
Su 33 is a huge failure. It's a huge Rock tied to their yellow neck. Current Tejas can obliterate a whole squadron of 33 using guns and missiles.
Could be, but you cannot assume it and take big risks. it has the capacity for longer range missiles before it comes in the range of guns. Looks like the game is turning towards fielding big is better :-)
ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by ragupta »

Manish_Sharma wrote:Rafale was deemed too expensive, but won't grippen E also be expensive?

Brazilian got 36 grippen NG for 4.68 billion dollars, while we are going for more advanced E model and 100 of them.
With Rafale in large numbers the iAF would have been top heavy, do we really need so many twin engine long range fighters. when single engine fighter can meet most of the objectives.

Twin engine is costly, uses more fuel, higher maintenance, more spares, over all more expensive.
How many long range fighters you need.
for most part single engine LCA and MRCA class type single engine should suffice for 8o percent of task, so why maintain such a large heavy type, 272 + 36 rafale for heavy duty is enough. rest should be single engine and cheaper fighters. I am assuming 400 single engine requirement. Split equally between LCA and other single type.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Why split? Tejas is enough!
nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by nirav »

The conduct of the Airforce wrt procurement tells us a lot about its intent.
One needs to be objective however while looking at the decision making process and figuring out what that means.

For those calling the IAF,import pasand and AFF : Please answer why is it that the IAF, inspite of having successfully operated a LARGE flanker fleet refusing to place orders with Sukhoi for the PAKFA/FGFA in its current form ?

for an underdevelopment aircraft, from an established player, we have demanded '43 improvements' and higher ToT including source codes. It is also cognisant of the fact that since the MKI ToT didnt do much for Local programs, it is demanding higher levels of ToT which should trickle down to the AMCA.

Contrast this with being supportive/Not supportive.

the orders for LCA have been placed for 123 after giving waivers to 50 odd items of 1985 ASR ! Out of these 20 are permanent !

The single engined competition too is a major markdown in capability compared to what was earlier going to be inducted.
126 Rafales !
The total cost could have been in the range of 25-30 Billion Dollars.

The MoD broke it up by
1.36 Rafale - 8.78 Billion
2.100 MII - ~12 Billion

It still saves upto 5-10 billion of MMRCA expense.
IAF/MoD promptly put in an order for 83 MK1A costing 50,000 crores, roughly 7.5 Billion.

while 126 Rafales would have really broken our back financially, this approach makes the most sense fiscally.

Personally, i do not believe for a second that the Gripen has a chance.We are engaging the US in a strategic manner. The competition is only to get better terms and possibly better ToT.

HAL, in all the interviews ive read does not talk about a production rate of more than 16-20/yr even in the most optimistic of scenarios.

It is here that the single engined fighter becomes absolutely crucial. Our squadron numbers are in the low 30s.
the plan is build a robust re equipment of the IAF using operational/reliable foreign fighter jets AND our own LCA.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Manish_Sharma »

ragupta wrote:
Could be, but you cannot assume it and take big risks. it has the capacity for longer range missiles before it comes in the range of guns. Looks like the game is turning towards fielding big is better :-)
Hee hee

Ragupta ji, on one hand you are saying bigger Rafale aren't needed tiny grippens will do. (You see this argument helps inducting swedish/american platforms in IAF.

Secondly you say Navy is correct to reject Tejas Mk2 in favour of bigger Rafale as "bigger is better"

Two opposing arguments from same source resulting in rejection of Tejas in both the cases.
:)
ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by ragupta »

Manish_Sharma wrote:
ragupta wrote:
Could be, but you cannot assume it and take big risks. it has the capacity for longer range missiles before it comes in the range of guns. Looks like the game is turning towards fielding big is better :-)
Hee hee

Ragupta ji, on one hand you are saying bigger Rafale aren't needed tiny grippens will do. (You see this argument helps inducting swedish/american platforms in IAF.

Secondly you say Navy is correct to reject Tejas Mk2 in favour of bigger Rafale as "bigger is better"

Two opposing arguments from same source resulting in rejection of Tejas in both the cases.
:)
IN requirement is different than IAF, IN is moving towards blue water navy with frequent international trips and may be required to operate way beyond the shores, this is not the case with IAF. That is why this opinion.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by srai »

ragupta wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:Rafale was deemed too expensive, but won't grippen E also be expensive?

Brazilian got 36 grippen NG for 4.68 billion dollars, while we are going for more advanced E model and 100 of them.
You do not know what all components are included in those deals, weapon package, infrastructure setup, training, logistics, spare parts, etc. some of these costs are amortized over large numbers. If Gripen E is costly then acquire F-16 if cheaper. The problem with Gripen-E is it also depends on lot of imported parts.
The deal is not going to be cheap. The talk is for 100-200 fighters plus some amount of ToT (related to license production). Plus, infrastructure setup, training, lifecycle support and weapons. Expect the negotiations to be long. Funds are limited. If you ask me, the current government won't be around to sign the deal ;)
ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by ragupta »

srai wrote:
ragupta wrote:
You do not know ....
... the current government won't be around to sign the deal ;)
I doubt it, it will take that long, it will be done by 2018 or as early end of this year.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by srai »

^^^
Let's visit back in a few months time and see where this deal is :)
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Manish_Sharma »

ragupta wrote: With Rafale in large numbers the iAF would have been top heavy, do we really need so many twin engine long range fighters. when single engine fighter can meet most of the objectives.
Rafale max weight 24,500 kilo

F16C-50 max weight 19,500 kilo (I don't know how heavier f16-70 will be and how much more powerful engine it'd need to lug it around resulting in more fuel guzzling)

Tejas max weight: 13,500 kilo

See f16 may not be that much lighter from Rafale. It's engine is also old technology. While both Tejas and Rafale engines are fuel sippers.

So f16 won't be cheaper in long run.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Manish_Sharma »

srai wrote:^^^
Let's visit back in a few months time and see where this deal is :)
Usually deals with usa are happening at lightening speed like c130, c17, wlr, p-8s.

French - Russians or other powers can't manage that but Khan does.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Cybaru »

nirav wrote: the orders for LCA have been placed for 123 after giving waivers to 50 odd items of 1985 ASR ! Out of these 20 are permanent !
The waivers for the MKI fleet were way way more than 50 when it signed the deal. It took 4 phases before the final version made it into IAFs fleet. Even the 4th phase MKI had issues with what was requested and gotten. Waivers are norm for all Airforces and all development aircrafts. Nothing new really.

If the ASR was over reaching and not really required by the Airforce, giving it pass does not mean the plane is any less capable, its just rethinking of what are the important use cases for the platform given its size and fuel/weapon loading. What kind of tasking will this size/weapon loading be given 85% of the time.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Cybaru wrote: The waivers for the MKI fleet were way way more than 50 when it signed the deal. It took 4 phases before the final version made it into IAFs fleet. Even the 4th phase MKI had issues with what was requested and gotten. Waivers are norm for all Airforces and all development aircrafts. Nothing new really.
All the mmrca contenders failed to fulfill all the 643 parameters. Even rafale & ef2k .

Still they were declared winners.

Now how many parameters grippen and f16 failed we don't know. I make a wild guess 200.

Now maybe they improve 30 parameters still they'd need 170 waivers.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Cybaru »

Brar,

Can you list the F16 waivers when it was accepted and the current list of F-35 waivers. I can't find the list. I googled, but perhaps I am not using the right keywords.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by brar_w »

I haven't come across the list of F-16 waivers in terms of something that was required but not provided or deferred.There was a whole lot capability added to the block 30 but that was added because the USAF wanted it all along (and even more then them the Europeans wanted it since none ordered the F-15). There were plenty of issues on the initial F-16s but those were primarily due to the fixation of the fighter mafia on a cheap light weight fighter. It took the USAF 2 additional blocks to turn the F-16 into a configuration it wanted and needed to the delight of the Europeans that did not buy the F-15. If they had stuck with what the mafia called for you wouldn't have had more than 1000 F-16s produced. It wasn't till the F-16C around the mid 1980s that a true multi-role, tactically usable F-16 was created. On the F-35, the sustained G requirement was relaxed in the interest of program cost and schedule. Keep in mind that the program management in both these cases is in the hands of the US services which own the program.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by UlanBatori »

Experts, how do these Block 70s compare with TSPAF's F-16s? IIRC they are Block 60? What's the difference except for the special U-turn /Max AB feature built into all TSPAF planes?
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Ulan ji porkies have block 52 I think.

While Saudis​have block 60 with some supetpowerful engine -132.

Interestingly LM is not offering that engine on 16V / 70 model. But the same old one as block 52 that porkis have
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Cain Marko »

ragupta wrote:
I doubt it, it will take that long, it will be done by 2018 or as early end of this year.
srai wrote:^^^
Let's visit back in a few months time and see where this deal is :)
Now this I want to see..... :D
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by brar_w »

I think the F110-GE-132's have a royalty component to UAE because of their funding for it but that wouldn't be a problem for LMA to offer if the RFP calls for the higher performance or if they feel they need to bid with it to be competitive. I don't think even an RFP has been issued for this. An advantage of more thrust is obviously better performance, but a drawback is the impact on combat radius.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Cain Marko »

UlanBatori wrote:Experts, how do these Block 70s compare with TSPAF's F-16s? IIRC they are Block 60? What's the difference except for the special U-turn /Max AB feature built into all TSPAF planes?
No expert but iirc

First class...blk 70...2nd gen aesa, cfts, newest sensors and mmi, unknown engine, irst

Second class...blk 60...1st Gen aesa, big ass engine plus cfts, irst

Third class...tsp blk50...cft, mech radar, no irst, basic ew suite
Last edited by Cain Marko on 12 Jul 2017 06:15, edited 1 time in total.
Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 263
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Chinmay »

UlanBatori wrote:Experts, how do these Block 70s compare with TSPAF's F-16s? IIRC they are Block 60? What's the difference except for the special U-turn /Max AB feature built into all TSPAF planes?
The F-16Vs have much better radar and mission computers, with ability to carry CFTs and have a new ground collision avoidance system. The Paki F-16s are mostly Block 15s, with a handful being Block-52s (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article14.html)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by brar_w »

Cain Marko wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:Experts, how do these Block 70s compare with TSPAF's F-16s? IIRC they are Block 60? What's the difference except for the special U-turn /Max AB feature built into all TSPAF planes?
No expert but here is the lowdown iirc

First class...blk 70...2nd gen aesa, cfts, newest sensors and mmi, unknown engine, irst

Second class...blk 60...1st Gen aesa, big ass engine plus cfts, irst

Third class...tsp blk50...cft, mech radar, no irst, basic ew suite
They haven't shown the F-16 with an IRST pod but one would assume that they can mount either the Legion pod or the Open pod on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fYcDcS7z-g
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Cain Marko »

↑I thought the blk 60 had the usual irst ball on the nose
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by brar_w »

IFTS is a FLIR sensor mainly used for navigation and could be used for some a2a and a2g work. It is not a dedicated IRST or an A2G targeting pod. The Lockheed Martin IRST-21 an upgraded derivative of the IRST developed for the F-14 and F-15 (later dropped by the USAF and pursued for the F-14 and ultimately upgraded for the current generation) comes in two sizes but even the smaller diameter version cannot fit on the F-16 nose without serious modification and testing. IRST-21 pod is integrated on the F-16, USAF Aggressors have been carrying it for a number of years now.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by UlanBatori »

What we need is a button to activate the Al Haj Ejection Seat on the TSPAF16s remotely.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18275
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Rakesh »

We already have one (soon to be two) called Rambha and Katrina :mrgreen:
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by nash »

ragupta wrote:
srai wrote: ... the current government won't be around to sign the deal ;)
I doubt it, it will take that long, it will be done by 2018 or as early end of this year.
By end of this year not at all possible but there is a definite possibility by end of next year.

Government is yet to issue EOI for SP and RFI-EOI for OEM selection, it will be a simultaneous process, they will have 2 months to respond to EOI

After the OEM-SP selection, there will be the contract between two, if it is LM and TATA then it is already done.

Then RFP will be issued and technical Field trails will happen, which IAF already said will be shorter as they have evaluated both F-16 and Gripen previously.

Opening and evaluation of commercial offers, it will be combined techno-commercial offer, contract negotiation and signing.

http://mod.nic.in/sites/default/files/Chapterdppn.pdf

My GUESS would be by this year end they will select OEM-SP and in second half of next year contract shall be signed
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by UlanBatori »

Someone asked me to prepare a 1 ti 2-pager for someone else. On generally this topic. Here are several points I would like to make: pls feel free to throw stones, I need to know what the stones are.

1. Fighter planes are primarily intended to assure air superiority and protect the nation's territory and its armed forces outside that territory, from aerial attack.
2. The secondary purpose of fighter plane development is that it challenges the best of precision manufacturing, and thus advances the technology base.

3. Purpose 1 in India's case is primarily to counter China. If that need is addressed, countering their proxies is much easier.
4. To seriously deter China, India needs thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of aerial fighters.
5. Such numbers cannot be bought, they must come from indigenous production.

Now for Item 2:
6. Engines, and miniaturized electronics, are areas where India does not have 21st century manufacturing capabilities. Without these, Item 1 cannot be satisfied. Hence it is the greater priority.
7. Engines cannot be developed to 21st century standards without a massive program of test-to-failure and pushing the boundaries. This requires a close partnership under a very focused program, between govt, academic research, national labs, DRDO, the Armed Forces - and - the automobile mass manufacturing sector.

8. The primary obstacle to progress in these areas in India is lack of Fire In The Belly in the relevant organizations. Example: Admiral Hyman Rickover's leadership of the US Nuclear Navy.

9. I hope that India takes this problem seriously before another massive defeat at the hands of China forces a national introspection.

10 Time is a-wasting.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18275
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Rakesh »

Point 11 - All the above requires serious infusion of cash. Increase the % of GDP in relation in defence and R&D in defence. Till then, the above is just vaporware...with the exception of Point 10 of which we have done PLENTY!

We are the masters of kanjoos - want the best, at the cheapest price, at the lowest investment possible. We want to wear Ralph Lauren chaddi, but will onlee invest in langoti. You get what you pay for.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Singha »

A downrated jsf engine could be fitted on the f16?
The block60 engine is from that same family iirc

A block 40 airframe with block 70 avionics and jsf enginewould be a mini f22
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by brar_w »

No such thing is going to happen or is needed. At some point more thrust needs to be compensated by more fuel or you will end up extremely short combat radius. A higher rated engine is integrated on the F-16 if someone wants to pay extra and go for it. I don't think one is going to need anything beyond what the F110-GE-132 has to offer unless one gets to a new engine that gets you higher dry thrust but even that is not happening. But non one is going to pay for a major developmental program on the F-16..If there is someone out there then one is better looking at other aspects of the design like what the F-16 XL and F-16 U efforts did. But if there is money to throw at a science project, may as well invest in the Rafales. It already solves many of the shortcomings of the Block 50/52 F-16.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by Singha »

Khan is the world leader in fuel sipping massive dry thrust fighter engines, thats why I asked :mrgreen:

you never know what science projects are packed away in the basement

wet thrust is like a opinion, everyone has them, but only the king loin brings fuel sippy dry thrust to the fight
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Post by UlanBatori »

I heard a 400% reliable rumor: That HAL etc flat-out declined to accept an offer from a major Oiropean manufacturer (named above), to ship the entire line of production to India. Because India simply could not handle the technology, or train enough ppl to take the tech.

I assume that this is because the production is so highly automated, maybe like single-piece composite casting and intricate robotic welding? Also miniaturized electronics? It begins to make sense. Wonder how the F16 line transfer will work. Of course the problem will only get worse as manufacturing advances are delayed in India.

They REALLY need to bring in the automobile production experts into HAL/ADA etc.
Locked