'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[NRao]

...

IF the F-16 comes, then I expect them to stop the LCA acquisition at the current numbers and fund the AMCA to the hilt - I expect this as early as July, 2017.

...

Why would AMCA would get funding? Why won't they just "progress" to the JSF instead? That's the best way to re-live the "Marut" experience.

They may. Self full filling prophesies have existed at least since Shakespeare. Say it often enough, include a few emoticons, etc, etc, etc and it just may happen.

[Rakesh]

Rakesh..about your argument that new a/c have greater capability than the old ones...u forget that even the enemy's capability/quality of a/c is increasing. so numbers are important.

You are correct manjgu!

Capability/Quality are important and that is why I asked, what viability does the F-Solah have in 2062 when they will still be around in the IAF? If the IAF is still flying her MiG-29s and M2Ks from 1985 (thirty two years as of now and they will be retired only by the early 2030s), why would the IAF not keep the F-Solah in, for that same time period? Retiring a 4th generaton platform in the early 2030s is way different than flying them till the early 2060s.

Numbers are important, but you need a viable platform.

[Philip]

The problem is that the Solah's are at the end of their dev. stage and too overweight and loaded with extra eqpt. that we do not require in our geostrat.theatre (according to Prof. Das) .Secondly,the Pakis have been using the aircraft for decades.What's the point in fighting them with a similar aircraft? The Yanquis will be laughing all the way to the bank,selling the same aging bird to 2 mortal enemies.Why reward them? The LCAs MK-1/1A will suffice for our MIG-21 replacement needs initially,until the MK-2 arrives,which also carries a risk as its engine will weigh more and redesigning will add weight.

If we are going to acquire a new fighter apart from the Rafale,then we should ensure that it will have a longer life history than the Yanqui birds,both long in the tooth.

I've said before,build as many LCAs as possible,add to that extra "armoured" upgraded Jags for the GA/close support mission,along with armed trainer types ,Hawks or even Yak-130s,and we will have 200-300 + light aircraft to replace the MIG-21s. 3 more MIG-29/35 sqds,two more Rafale sqds and if we need even more,extra MKIs should be sufficient.If we are able to get Gripens on the cheap then we can consider them,half the price of a Rafale.

PS:The unit cost (Wik) of a Jag in 2008 was just...$8M! Even at thrice the cost today,it still works out to around $25M for a PROVEN strike fighter built entirely in India,engines too! This is one of the cheapest ways to induct more numbers in the smoothest fashion possible,equipped with Honeywell engines if need be as planned for the upgrades.

[Yagnasri]

My Mango view is that we need to look for something based on our capability requirements and conditions. Not on the basis of if a fighter is a single or double engine, or light/medium/heavy weight, etc. From what I could make out, we need serious numbers; we need good capabilities which can counter large numbers of China ACs, we need something which can serve us next 30-40 years and do not cost us a tonne of $s buy and maintain.

[Marten]

Philip, the Jaguar line is what was converted to Hawk manufacture. I don't think the IAF wants any more than it has on its hands after the engine upgrade.

[Cosmo_R]

srai: your comment on Plan A vs Plan B/C/D just reminded me of something.

Do you remember the IAF always said there never was a Plan B

Well what happened now! Plan B/C/D are all there. What a joke this is.

Actually if plan A doesn't work and you have no plan B, muddling through iterates you through the remaining 24 in any order you want.

It's another way saying when you don't know where you want to go, any road will get you there.

[Philip]

Marten,
Maybe,but look at the infinitesimal cost of acquiring the required numbers for GA/close support,where most wartime sorties end up in! More than 60% of all wartime losses were due to AAA fire and not a single Gnat lost to such fire.Just one was hit bu bullets and got back to base. The US is making a colossal mistake by committing ultra-expensive JSFs which can easily be brought down bu AAA fire,or heat-seeking SAMs,homing onto the massive IR sig. that its huge single engine produces. A $110M bird brought down by bullets costing less than a few dollars!

The Paki air force is going to field almost 200+ of their modest JF-17s,why? Because they can be fielded in large numbers in support of the ground war.We lost over 60 aircraft in the first week alone the last time,most due to ground fire as stated.The IAF want fancy birds for sky-dancing.Supporting "Johnny Jawan" isn't exciting enough.Duelling in the air with another enemy bird is to most pilots more exciting than strafing trains.blitzing AVs,etc. Letting loose PGMs to hit targets hundreds of KMs away,isn't much fu either.You don't see the result. But shooting down in combat an enemy aircraft is every pilot's dream,let's face it.Even we armchair air marshals sometimes dream of it. Nevertheless,the house "chores" have to be done,and we need large numbers of workhorses,"bomb trucks" as Adm. Greenert,former CNS of the USN said ,instead of "sports cars". At least 4 sqds. of 'armoured Jags,which cost a relative pittance is necessary to augment numbers ,replacing our MIG-27s which were tasked for the same GA duty,will give us more money to spend on other "luxury " items such as a couple more sqds. of Rafales for instance.

[brar_w]

The US is making a colossal mistake by committing ultra-expensive JSFs which can easily be brought down bu AAA fire,or heat-seeking SAMs,homing onto the massive IR sig. that its huge single engine produces. A $110M bird brought down by bullets costing less than a few dollars!

You wouldn't happen to know how it's IR signature differs from say an F-15, and how AAA impacts it when it cruises at its altitude of 25-35,000 feet would you?

eplacing our MIG-27s which were tasked for the same GA duty,will give us more money to spend on other "luxury " items such as a couple more sqds. of Rafales for instance.

How is the *Rafale* any more immune to AAA, or has a lower IR signature?

* Replace * with MiG-35, Su-35, PAK-FA/FGFA, Eurofigther Typhoon etc etc.

[Philip]

The JSF is supposed to conduct close support ops replacing the A-10.fact. Let's see how effectively it will do that cruising at 25K ft.+ So too the Rafale,and I'm not advocating the Rafale used for that role either! We'd be better off using far cheaoer Jags and LCAs which we can field in the hundreds.

Here's a JSF pilot on the issue:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/major- ... 1696947416

Major Obvious: F-35 Pilot Says A-10 Will Always Be Better At Air Support
Tyler Rogoway

F-35 pilot Major John Wilson said the obvious in an interview with Danish aviation reporters; the F-35 will never be as good as the A-10 at close air support. This 100 percent factual, non-news statement set off a string stupid news stories. Tomorrow’s headline: a dump truck will never be as good of a sports car as a Ferrari.

At What Point Does The USAF's War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage?

The USAF's leadership wants the A-10 Warthog retired seemingly at all costs. Now it appears…
Read more
"An A-10 is always going to be better at CAS than an F-35. That's because the A-10 was designed specifically for that mission. But any other mission on the planet besides CAS, the F-35 wins, period... Once we can carry weapons and we some of the restrictions are removed the F-35 will be just as capable as an F-16 at CAS."
How is this statement a surprise to anyone?

You can watch the whole interview with Major John Wilson here, and for the most part it is a very honest and factual exchange, worth breaking down here on Foxtrot Alpha, but there is no major news. Yet the A-10 funding debate remains so controversial, and somehow so misunderstood, that his statement that a multi-role stealth fighter will never be as good at close air support as purpose built, heavily armored, huge cannon toting, slow and low flying, straight-winged attack aircraft, the A-10 Warthog, somehow seemed like a damning revelation to some. Frustrating.

Pierre Sprey's Anti-F-35 Diatribe Is Half Brilliant And Half Bullshit

To be fair to the F-35, like the F-16 before it, it was never meant to do the A-10's exact job, so the fact that it can't do the A-10's exact job should not be a mark against the design at all. Instead, the fact that the USAF wants to get rid of the A-10, while hoping the public and Congress are too stupid to understand its unique capabilities, under the auspices that they need the tiny amount of money saved by retiring it to fund and provide manpower for the F-35, is what drew the A-10 and the F-35 into a common controversy. In reality, if the F-35 and the A-10 were left to coexist together, they would compliment one another very well on the modern battlefield.

The F-16 Gun Pod That Tried To Shoot Down The A-10 Warthog
The USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 for as long as the Warthog has been in service. Part of…

Now, Wilson's statement that a $100M+ dollar super-fighter that was designed decades after the F-16 will only be as good as the F-16 in the close air support role "once we can carry weapons and when some of the restrictions are removed" is a whole other story entirely.

The pilot also states that the F-35 will never be as good as an air-to-air fighter as the F-22, and that the F-35 is needed because it costs too much to develop and sustain multiple platforms instead of just one. This is where his logic, although common among many flight suit wearing USAF personnel, breaks down as it totally throws out the high-low capability mix option, along with its proven flexibility and economics. As for his statement that different platforms cost more to develop and sustain than one extremely complicated one, there are highly respected studies that clearly state otherwise.

Arthur C Clarke Warned Us About The F-35 And Its Damning Costs

Maybe for international customers, the jack of all trades, master of none F-35 is a good deal, but for the USAF, who already has a 5th generation fighter that was built to kick down the enemy's air defenses, building another has been an expensive jobs program, a handout to industry and an unneeded luxury.

If you have enough F-22s to achieve air supremacy, and further develop that fighter with tech similar to what the F-35 benefits from, along with a new generation of munitions, why do you need an F-35 at all? Instead, upgraded F-16s and A-10s that cost a fraction of the price to acquire (we already own them and new F-16s can be bought for about a third of an F-35), operate and sustain, should be able go about their business once the F-22, standoff weaponry, unmanned systems and stealth bombers, of which the USAF is soon ordering about 100, have largely done their job.

Another point Major Wilson discusses is that many types of aircraft have provided CAS over the battlefield for the last couple of decades, not just the A-10, and that lives on the ground have been saved by a multitude of CAS providers. He is totally right. But this is partially due to the USAF's 'equal opportunity CAS employer' mindset that has focused more on giving every aircraft community with an attack capability a piece of the fight, rather than on which platforms are the most capable at the mission.

You could as easily argue that the USAF should have rapidly invested more heavily in the A-10, including building up its pilot cadre as a long and protracted counter-insurgency fight was clearly eminent in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This would have given their most capable force for the mission at hand a more persistent presence in the fight. Even procuring cheaper and better suited platforms for the counter insurgency fight than burning through precious fast-jet airframe hours and using heavy bombers for CAS that cost close to $100k an hour to operate would have been a more cost and tactically effective solution than throwing almost the entire USAF tactical fleet at the problem.

Major Wilson also states that the lack of rearward visibility in the F-35 is something he can deal with as a trade for the jet's ability to penetrate contested airspace. This is a poor and unnecessary trade-off and it is not clear if the jet's much touted Distributed Aperture System can overcome such a deficiency.

If anything can be learned from Vietnam and much more recent air combat drills with crafty foreign forces, things don't always go as planned, technology fails, the bad guys add cheap asymmetric capabilities, and a true modern peer state enemy is probably more capable than most anything our forces are being trained against today.

As a result, not being able to 'check your six' while zooming around deep in enemy territory is a high price to pay without realizing any gain in return. Such a design trade-off is simply another symptom of the Joint Strike Fighter's broken concept to begin with, resulting in a compromised design which can be traced back to the inclusion of the USMC's short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) requirement in the original Joint Strike Fighter tender.

I hope I am wrong on this and the F-35's rearward visibility flaw will never be exploited in actual combat, but it sure is a known weakness of many fighters that the US has successfully trained against for many decades.

As far as Major Wison's closing statements, comparing the F-35 and F-16 and stating how good the jet will be in comparison when it comes to getting into contested areas, he is correct. Yet that assumes that there is no alternative to break down the enemy's air defenses than the F-35, which there are, as we discussed above. More so, whether you like it or not, the task of taking on the enemy deep in denied airspace is a mission set that will be best assumed by unmanned combat air vehicles in the coming decades.

[brar_w]

The JSF is supposed to conduct close support ops replacing the A-10.fact

All USAF fighter aircraft provide Close Air Support. fact. Similarly, the F-35A is numreically replacing the A-10 and not replacing the mission in the sense that it will perform the same mission the same way, much the same way the F-16, F-18, Harrier, or Hornet/Super Hornet do not perform CAS the same way as the A-10. The reason why the F-35A is replacing the A-10 units starting mid to late 2020's is because the USAF and Congress chose not to fund an A-X and not because they believe that the F-35A will continue to preform CAS the same way the A-10 did a decade ago, or does now, BUT because they are consolidating mission types in a post cold war environment i.e. prioritizing investments.

If there were no F-35, they would have replaced the mission with an upgraded F-16, Similarly, you field full spectrum capability and for the USAF this means their RPA fleet, a large portion of which can do strike. This dynamic did not exist in the 60's/70s..in fact this entire enterprise did not exist (beyond a few ISR programs) when the A-10 was conceived.

Let's see how effectively it will do that cruising at 25K ft.+ So too the Rafale,and I'm not advocating the Rafale used for that role either! We'd be better off using far cheaoer Jags and LCAs which we can field in the hundreds.

Point is that all users of multi-role fighters use those fighters for CAS and do so factoring in the advantages and limitations of their platform. The French do CAS with the Rafale. The British will do so with their Typhoons and F-35B's once the Tornado is retired. The Italians will do with their F-35's once the AMX sunsets. They won't do it exactly like the A-10 does it now..nor would the A-10 approach it in a way these aircrafts do it.

Similarly, Vast majority of USAF's CAS is done by their fast jet, Unmanned or bomber fleet and the A-10 performs only a small fraction of it. How does the A-10 get below the deck in a double digit SAM, and MANPAD environment? Will the Titanium bathtub protect it from ever improving and ever proliferating multi spectral MANPADS, or SHORAAD to VSHORAAD systems? If you wan't to debate this, get real and go into a 2030 environment and tell me how the A-10 survives at deck against stuff that is out there today, let alone that which will be fielded a decade from now. If in such an environment it is relegated to doing altitude strike working hand in hand with a JTAC through a network, the only REAL advantage it has over an F-35, ro F-15 is a lower operational cost because it does not carry the multi-role burden to the extent of these fighters. If that is the case the Textron Scroprion or the Super Tucano can do the same mission at a fraction of the A-10's cost. The Reaper and Averger, likewise.

Scrubbing actual strike and CAS sorties in a benign environment where the A-10 has existed for the last 16-17 years even the USAF and private AOA's have found that you do not need these features going forward for they are expensive, likely to be inadequate against the threat, and not conforming to the CONOPS emerging. Even in a benign environment the kill chain for CAS involves a JTAC and some sort of a PGM bomb or rocket. You can do that from a relatively safe distance and altitude hence even the current low end entrants in the USAF's CAS study remove those features from their aircraft. Textron's Scorpion, Super Tucano, Bronco or the Reaper all are designed by either the warfigther or private companies with a look into the future and how to do light strike and CAS in a benign to lightly defended environment. All universally shed the A-10's design approach because there are limits to that. You can't keep on increasing impact protection indefinitely while your opponent continues to make advances in precision targetting (SAMs), seekers, warheads and shoulder launched weapons.

The A-10, much respected and proven that it is, was designed for a time frame and a given and projected threat. That threat evolves..What you based your design and CONOPS in the 1960's/70s considering a 1980s/90s environment may not apply indefinitely when considering how to build your forces for a 2030's environment. This is true for other missions as well. The F-16 was a daytime light weight dogfighter. That mold was broken as the requirements and threat picture evolved, first with the F-16C and later with the F-18 evolving to the F-18E/F. Fast forward, the JSF which numerically replaces the F-16 is a medium-heavy weight fighter with more range on internal fuel than an F-16 maxed out with EFTs. Air Forces evolve, not every weapons system that replaces a legacy system must mirror the capabilities or hold true to the trades that were exercised decades earlier.

So too the Rafale,and I'm not advocating the Rafale used for that role either! We'd be better off using far cheaoer Jags and LCAs which we can field in the hundreds.

So essentially, your argument is not that the LCA and Jags are like an A-10 (or are executing a Next Generation version of the A-10 concept) in terms of low altitude survivability in a contested environment, but that they are cheaper and therefore somehow attritable ?

How does a low-cost, simple more "attritable" manned platforms mission evolve in the presence of this? -

https://s8.postimg.org/f66hyflid/NK_pre ... nger_A.jpg

If you look at CAS as a mission and not just one aircraft doing the mission in one way and NOTHING else then you are likely to be better informed at making decisions on what is needed. You look at the mission in a multi-domain, multi-service and yes Multi Platform way i.e. you look at where your sensors are NOW (and where they are likely to be a decade out) vs 1960s, where your munitions are compared to the 60s, where your networks are, what capability the other assets like fast jets, bombers, even transport aircraft modified for the mission (AC-130), Long range artillery, Long range land attack, Army fixed and rotary winged assets etc bring to the table. You look at that through the prism of what these things look like NOW and where they are evolving to for the future. You don't look at all these things as they existed in the 60s or 70s which the A-10 folks did when they came up with their solution. Then you look at NEED as in what CAS or light strike need are you going to run into and how much of it do you expect. Then you look at the threat..Is the Air Defense (which is now more integrated than ever) threat now and that expected in the future the same as was expected in the 1960s and 70s? The answer to that is obviously NO so then you look at whether those CONOPS and trades still apply.

You do not for example say " The A-10 went low and slow, therefore son of A-10 must also go low and slow". Rather you ask " Why did the A-10 need to go low and slow" and question whether that is still needed to the same extent so as to warrant heavy trades for just that. Can you do CAS through weather and clouds? Can you network so that you significantly reduce fratricide from altitude? Can you deliver precision effects without compromising accuracy and w/o delay? The answer in many instances is already a resounding YES...and just not theoretically YES, but practically combat proven. A B-1 with a SNIPER XR is capable of networking with a JTAC and delivering a PGM with the same accuracy as an A-10 delivers its PGM's..it has done so in actual combat.

The modern approach has very much shifted from "Let's build a future A-10" to figuring out how you can get more CAS available in appropriate quantities at the right time as required. The solution is to enable a larger fleet in terms of the capability required to provide support from the air. This has led to investments in networks, targeting, munitions and training. The end goal here is to make sure anything that is up in the air can either contribute to the ISR picture or support the forces on the ground. Some will do so better than others but collectively if more assets pitch in you will have something out there most of the time.

No one solution is perfect or perfectly suited for a very wide set of mission CAS, light strike and Light Strike/Light ISR covers. The A-10 is cheaper than an F-35 to operate..The Scorpion is cheaper than an A-10. The A-10 has a powerful gun with a ton of rounds that the F-35 lacks -- The F-35 can fight its way through which the A-10 cannot. The A-10 can loiter for longer than an F-35.....The Reaper can loiter far longer than both the F-35 and A-10..The F-35 can get to target faster than an A-10..The F-22A can get there even faster and lob an SDB..The B-1 can deliver more ordinance and hang around for longer than an A-10, F-35 or F-22..The AC-130 brings its own set of advantages...

So which out of these is the best suited for CAS or rather the generalized CAS+Strike+ISR mission? Perhaps all of them? So what you need is an aircraft that has the speed of the F-22, the flexibility in payload of a B-1, the persistence of a Reaper, and the networking of the F-35. That’s so easy to write up but impossible to design without breaking the bank. So instead it is smart to enable a wide range of aircraft, both manned and unmanned to provide CAS and train their piltos for the mission. You enhance the capability even though a physical A-10 like plane now turns up in the form of different looking platforms (Scorpion for example) and a digital network, integrated systems and training that enables non-traditional assets to contribute.

[Marten]

Philip, the limited point one was making is that there is no way or line to manufacture the Jaguar.

The IAF did not order any more. I don't think suppliers will be able to support demand for a new aircraft. They must have stockpiled enough parts for war time while any non off the shelf requests will be handled by our khadi gram udyog.

[Khalsa]

Holy Moly Brar_w.
You do know how to compile and deliver don't you.

Well done sir well done.

[Rakesh]

Rakesh..about your argument that new a/c have greater capability than the old ones...u forget that even the enemy's capability/quality of a/c is increasing. so numbers are important.

You are correct manjgu!

Capability/Quality are important and that is why I asked, what viability does the F-Solah have in 2062 when they will still be around in the IAF? If the IAF is still flying her MiG-29s and M2Ks from 1985 (thirty two years as of now and they will be retired only by the early 2030s), why would the IAF not keep the F-Solah in, for that same time period? Retiring a 4th generaton platform in the early 2030s is way different than flying them till the early 2060s.

Numbers are important, but you need a viable platform.

The F-16 Fighter Could Still be Flying in 2050
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... g-in-2050/

....the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) would enable existing F-16s to fly another 20 years past their upgrade date, enabling the late 20th Century jet to serve through the middle of the 21st Century.

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-16 and the F-35, has come up with a kit of replacement parts for to up to 300 single-seat and 43 twin-seat fighters. The upgrade still needs to be funded but the upgrade program would run through 2028, making the last planes capable of serving as late as 2048.

Brar, with CAPES (Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite) cancelled in the FY 2015 budget, is the USAF falling on the SLEP upgrade to update 343 F-Solahs?

To all, if the USAF does not plan to keep these planes beyond 2048, why should the IAF keep them for longer?

[brar_w]

CAPES is on hold until money is available for it. Forced with an either/or decision the USAF chose (for now) to fully fund the 400+ F-15C and E modernization program. F-16 structural upgrade will probably come but it may be scaled back to structural+avionics for the ANG aircraft in the homeland defense mission plus structural upgrades (no avionics) for some others. Given the trade offs the F-15's particularly the E's have a far more life left in them that jsutifies spending the money to significantly increase the capability.

As for why the IAF goes with the F-16 while the US does not intend on keeping its..I have no good reason. The USAF has identified the F-35A as its top three acquisition priority and in an ideal budget environment would like to recapitalize its entire F-16 fleet with it which would mean an acquisition of 60 aircraft a year starting the early 2020s. Any shortfall in hitting that number would mean they would have to extend the F-16's or live with a smaller fighter force. The IAF has for some reason that is beyond my comprehension has identified an urgent need to procure single engine advanced 4 generation aircraft. My only guess is that they need fleet recapitalization too and the path to get there using the Rafale is not affordable.

[ragupta]

.... The IAF has for some reason that is beyond my comprehension has identified an urgent need to procure single engine advanced 4 generation aircraft. My only guess is that they need fleet recapitalization too and the path to get there using the Rafale is not affordable.

I would guess it was govt driven to primarily become part of supply chain for the widest used fighter in the world, second Involve private sector to build local capability, third it was good enough to fill the numbers.

Well with the current administration, the project may be shelved, and it may be all LCA.

[NRao]

...

IF the F-16 comes, then I expect them to stop the LCA acquisition at the current numbers and fund the AMCA to the hilt - I expect this as early as July, 2017.

...

Why would AMCA would get funding? Why won't they just "progress" to the JSF instead? That's the best way to re-live the "Marut" experience.

Is this an answer?

Cross posting from AMCA thread.

I was expecting a July start date, but ...............not complaining:

AWST, subscription article.

India’s AMCA Fighter To Enter Preliminary Design

Preliminary design of India’s proposed Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will begin in March, with a target of flying the aircraft in 2024 and making it ready for service as early as 2030. As the defense ministry’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) awaits approval for full-scale development, an upgraded version of the General Electric F414 powerplant has become the likely choice for the twin-engine indigenous fighter. “We have completed the configurations and the ...

Nice!!!


Looks like they have come to some agreement on the "engine" for the AMCA. It should be made by the GE unit in Bangaluru - so India gets its "engine" via DTTI, no GTRE in the picture is perhaps the compromise. And, the chances of a F-16 coming are enhanced. Better than 50% I would think.




Next shoe should be the strategic partnership story. By end of this month.

[Philip]

The IAF has for some reason that is beyond my comprehension has identified an urgent need to procure single engine advanced 4 generation aircraft. My only guess is that they need fleet recapitalization too and the path to get there using the Rafale is not affordable.

Brar has hit the nail on the head.But even he questions the choice as the US is replacing the F-16 with the far more modern JSF. Now if the need is large numbers at low cost,then we should first look at the cheapest alternatives available as these new aircraft are fundamentally replacements for old MIGs,not even upto MIG-21 BIson std. and the MIG-27s doing close support duties! There is a v.strong pro-US lobby in India that wants any-which-way some US aircraft for the IAF.It is purely a political decision riding upon the genuine need of the (profligate) IAF,which from time to time wants only firang birds unlike the realistic IN. The IA generally makes do with whatever crumbs is given to it and is now on a desperate hunt for new assault rifles after the Pakis have gone in for H&K ones.

So if low cost is the criteria and the mission less multi-role ones than those tasked for the Rafales,29UGs and M2K UGs,we should take a hard look at the options,some types which are already in service like the MIG-29,or as I propose new Jags to replace MIG-27s and ramping up LCA production.Pak anyway is acquiring 200+ modest JF-17s. being used mainly as "bomb trucks".It hopes to acquire SU-35s too as its top line fighter. When we already have 270+ MKIs in service/planned,plus the 140+ Rafales,29 UGs and M2Ks,it is abundantly clear that to equip the 45 sqds. planned,we need hundreds of low cost aircraft with finite missions.Good dogfighters for point defence and capable of carrying a useful bomb load for CS/GA missions.Our experience with the little Gnat during wartime must be remembered. The Jag with its overwing AAMs,carries a load of 4500kg+,pretty useful. So too does the LCA which our chiefs have said is better than a MIG-21 which it is supposed to replace. This is the easiest way in which the IAF can augment its numbers the cheapest way,saving more money for more expensive toys,as it would love another sqd. or two of Rafales.

Marten,all IAF Jags are to undergo deep upgrades:new engines (Honeywell),avionics,etc.This will ensure that the 120+ aircraft soldier on for at least 2 more decades.Where will this work be done? Building a few more extra sqds. to the new upgrade status won't be problem at all as for another 2+ decades these 120+ aircraft will have to be supported with spares,components,engines,etc.,etc. I don't see the problem at all in reopening production.Similarly,all M2Ks and MIG-29s (completed) have also been upgraded.Had we been manufacturing either of the two of the aforementioned,we would not be in the soup that we are now. This way there would be no need for another new line at all.One can imagine the huge cost savings.At around $25M for Jags and LCAs,we could acquire 300+ aircraft for just $7.5B,what we seem to be paying for just 36 Rafales!

[Manish_P]

But Philip Saar are the Jags not in the same 'old hags' category as the US teens, though cheaper ?

Really the made-in-india LCA Tejas seems to be the best bet for us for a low cost, single engine, modern multi-role aircraft

[JayS]

I mean seriously, Jags..?? At this rate, soon we will be talking about resurrecting MiG27 screwdrivergiri line, all Made in India. I mean HAL couldn't manufacture 25 or 30 LCA per yr but would be able to resurrect long dead assembly lines and start producing those old relics like sausages..? What have we watched yesterday night, The Mummy Returns..??

[Cosmo_R]

I mean seriously, Jags..?? At this rate, soon we will be talking about resurrecting MiG27 screwdrivergiri line, all Made in India. I mean HAL couldn't manufacture 25 or 30 LCA per yr but would be able to resurrect long dead assembly lines and start producing those old relics like sausages..? What have we watched yesterday night, The Mummy Returns..??

And don't forget those darn Qatari M2Ks that we can clone...

[JayS]

I mean seriously, Jags..?? At this rate, soon we will be talking about resurrecting MiG27 screwdrivergiri line, all Made in India. I mean HAL couldn't manufacture 25 or 30 LCA per yr but would be able to resurrect long dead assembly lines and start producing those old relics like sausages..? What have we watched yesterday night, The Mummy Returns..??

And don't forget those darn Qatari M2Ks that we can clone...

At least buying available M2K and upgrading them as an interim solution makes sense on paper. But resurrection of any old line be it M2K, Jag or anything else, is plain joke.

[Rakesh]

+1 to you Saar!

Resurrection of any old (let me add 'depreciated') line is a joke indeed!

[Rakesh]

might make more sense to have higher pilot ratio, turnaround time and serviceability to pure numbers

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

06 March 2017

By Air Marshal Anil Chopra who commanded a Mirage 2000 Squadron, two operational air bases and the IAF’s Flight Test Centre ASTE

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.

[Rakesh]

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!

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

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

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

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

Few More....I am going to maintain a running list to expose the propaganda

So much bakwaas on room for improvement...

India's unemployment rate sees sharp decline in February: Report
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 291_1.html

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

TRANSPORT INDUSTRY
For all those who mocked PM's Make in India dream
https://twitter.com/Kavita_M57/status/8 ... 7741051904

I googled and came across this link (to add to the twitter link from right above)...

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

With an aim to turn the country into a global manufacturing destination, a total of 450 metro coaches are to be made in India to be exported to Australia over a period of two-and-a-half year.

India will also be exporting 521 bogie frames to Brazil for Sao Paulo monorail.

[abhik]

MII will let private sector also wet their beaks, which is probably one of the biggest drivers here.

[srai]

MII will let private sector also wet their beaks, which is probably one of the biggest drivers here.

Private companies are already involved with the production of LCAs.

Tejas SP-4 at striking distance from first flight

...
Major parts outsourced now
...
Among the main parts outsourced are: wing to L&T (Coimbatore), central fuselage VEM Technologies (Hyderabad) and rear fuselage Alpha Tocol (Bengaluru). The precision mechanical assemblies are being done by Alpa Tocol and BrahMos Aerospace (Thiruvananthapuram).

“Currently the level of outsourcing is around 39 per cent. When all the new initiatives taken recently to step up the production rate come to play, then the level of outsourcing will increase to 61 per cent as far as standard man hours are concerned,” says Sridharan.
...

Private players are being encouraged to set up 3rd LCA assembly line.

Private sector must play a larger role in defence manufacturing: Hindustan Aeronautics’ T. Suvarna Raju

...

Do you have plans to work with private entities in India?

Yes, we want a third (assembly) line to be run by the private sector. In fact we want the private players to come in now and produce LCA or light combat helicopter (LCH) as we don’t want to make more investments into this space. As of now, our LCA project is doing well and the government has already placed orders for 100 LCA. We have also started a series of productions.

What role do you see for Indian manufacturers and suppliers in defence production, in the light of Make in India initiative?

We want to increase our production to 16 LCA a year. In the past, HAL would have added a third (assembly) line to create a capacity of 24 planes a year. But we don’t want to do it now; we want the industry people out there to come up with it. As for the ‘Make in India’ initiative, it is an opportunity for the Indian industry and they can make components and supply to us.
...

Isn't this MII in a true sense ... Or does it have to be a foreign license screwdrivergiri to be MII?

[KrishnaK]

MALADJUSTED, PART II: HOW THE U.S. AIR FORCE WENT FROM EAGLE TO CHICKEN. Not sure if this has been posted before, but some of this article might be relevant here.

Several years ago I argued for renewed purchase of a high-low fighter mix (including light attack) in an article that resulted in no small amount of ass chewing. The points made still stand – the value of a high-low mix has been conclusively demonstrated, and we cannot rely entirely on aircraft that are costly to buy and maintain. There is certainly a place for less costly and less capable aircraft with a design philosophy focused on the wars we are actually fighting – and have been.

[Philip]

All 120+ Jags are being extensively upgraded with new engines,avionics,etc.They cost just $8M in 2008! Even if they will now cost the same as an LCA,around $25M or so,probably a little less,they could replace the 3 MIG-27 sqds. performing the ground attack role.Yes,the LCA will be a better bet for point defence,etc.,but the Jags are already getting ASRAAM,etc.which will also feature on the Rafales. The fact is that we need a few hundreds of bomb trucks to support the ground war and from data of our previous conflicts,the majority of sorties,losses,etc were due to this factor. For manufacturing around 60+ new Jags we do not need to pay a few billions to a firang OEM at all! If on the other hand,LCA production can be ramped up even more,then even better,but this is the stumbling block in our replenishment plans of the IAF,LCA delayed dev. and slow prod. rate.

The PAF realised this some time ago,studying how the IAF defeated it in '65 and '71 and have learnt from us! They'e producing in large qty. the modest JF-17 for the ground war,saving their better aircraft,F-16s,etc.,for the air battle.In this manner they're increasing the number of aircraft in the PAF's inventory,reducing our numerical advantage. When you add the number of PLAAF forces also ranged against us too,the "quality of quantity" becomes obvious.

Now a new report states that BDesh has almost finalised upon the MIG-35 for its air force.Only 8 aircraft to begin with ,but since they're already operating MIG-29s,the obvious way to go.IF concluded,the price of that deal will be significant ,as if at a v.reasonable price/unit, it could undercut the single-engine birdies on offer.

PS:True,the Jag may also be an "old hag",but its OUR "old hag" not a firang one which we will have to acquire at horrendous cost,not to mention years of byzantine bargaining to seal the deal.Easiest way for the "make in India" mantra too!

[JayS]

MII will let private sector also wet their beaks, which is probably one of the biggest drivers here.

The big pvt cos aren't just looking for wet beak but they want full ganga-snan where they can print hefty profit from screwdrivergiri.

Don't forget that GOI offered this 200 jets' manufacturing to private sector about 2yrs ago, most probably with LCA MK2. But it seems none of the big biz houses had guts to take the offer. It was given a silent burial. You see if it any one of them had an intent we would have seen some serious investment from their side. All that they have done so far is take up offset deals which are basically freebies. If a small company in BLR can dare to build a small jet engine investing 20Cr from own pocket, what stopped Tatas or Ambanis to invest 2000Cr in making a proper jet engine, even if it a Turboshaft.?? We have a huge market potential in next 10-20yrs. HAL has invested mere 500 Cr on HTFE =25 program. That's peanuts for Mota bhai or Chhota bhai. Heck even Ratan Tata could invest that much out of change from his pocket. Why don't we see any one of them stepping up to the challenge. Even for LCA, where position for Tier-1 level module assembly was on offering. How many of those who are bee-lining for MII screwdrivergiri came forth for that one..??

This "F16 *manufacturing* line will uplift our manufacturing sector and make our pvt players part of global supply chain" is a big sham. Believe in it at you own risk. I wouldn't put a single paisa on this idea from my pocket. I hope better sense prevail in GOI's mind.

[Zynda]

Don't forget that GOI offered this 200 jets' manufacturing to private sector about 2yrs ago, most probably with LCA MK2. But it seems none of the big biz houses had guts to take the offer. It was given a silent burial. You see if it any one of them had an intent we would have seen some serious investment from their side. All that they have done so far is take up offset deals which are basically freebies. If a small company in BLR can dare to build a small jet engine investing 20Cr from own pocket, what stopped Tatas or Ambanis to invest 2000Cr in making a proper jet engine, even if it a Turboshaft.?? We have a huge market potential in next 10-20yrs. HAL has invested mere 500 Cr on HTFE =25 program. That's peanuts for Mota bhai or Chhota bhai. Heck even Ratan Tata could invest that much out of change from his pocket. Why don't we see any one of them stepping up to the challenge. Even for LCA, where position for Tier-1 level module assembly was on offering. How many of those who are bee-lining for MII screwdrivergiri came forth for that one..??

^^ +108. I am really surprised, impressed and pleased by the recent efforts by some of these smaller companies. They have shown that they have the cojones to go about the right way. The biggies want hefty rewards with minimal risk.

[shiv]

But what Mota and Chota will have to do is poach the best engineers from abroad (desis if need be) and give them insane salaries.

[ranjan.rao]

otherwise invest in these startups rather than the ecomn companies

[JayS]

But what Mota and Chota will have to do is poach the best engineers from abroad (desis if need be) and give them insane salaries.

They will simply wait long enough for someone to do the hard work and then simply buy them out. Just as Chhota bhai grabs Pipavav. We will see lot of M&A as our Aerospace industry booms.

[NRao]

Isn't this MII in a true sense ... Or does it have to be a foreign license screwdrivergiri to be MII?

That is Made in India. An Indian company manufacturing in India.

Make in India is a totally diff category, that encourages companies to manufacture in India a product that would naturally be manufactured outside India.

The goal is to increase the contribution of manufacturing to the GDP - from 17% to 25%. India needs foreign investment to achieve this goal. Cannot do it alone within the time allocated - 2022.

[srai]

^^^

Again, this is in context to this thread only. Not speaking of the wider MII that encompasses all industries. Those would also need to be looked at case-by-case to see if something makes sense or not. If viable product is already there in India, like the LCA, then continue to expand it and outsource more work to MSE, both private and public entities. Setup competitive lines between public-private or private-private etc. Increase orders.

[NRao]

JayS/Shiva,

Engines at that level needs about 20-25 years of intense R&D investments. The small engines work fine with the metals known within India. The ones that the LCA/AMCA need is a totally diff ball game. Add to that fuel efficiency, life cycle numbers, etc and you are now competing with the R&D investments made by the likes of GE. Huge salaries will take you only so far. Stealing IP will also take you only a little further - which is why neither the Snecma nor the GE tie ups will transfer knowledge about engines to India. Both will be engines built on R&D based at a particular moment in time.

[NRao]

^^^

Again, this is in context to this thread only. Not speaking of the wider MII that encompasses all industries.

HTT-40 is Made in India.

The Swiss plane is Make in India.

Arjuns is Made in India.

The T-90 is Make in India.

The "Single Engine" is Make in India. All the farmed out stuff for the LCA is Made II.

[srai]

^^^

Semantics only

In some cases, there is more harm than good importing same capability (or inferior) product against indigenous one. How is T-90S doing a superior Arjun MBT any good, or the prospect of capability to R&D a FMBT in India? MII focus should be more on products that are not available in India or on products that have a huge domestic demand among the masses. That would add a lot more value.

[NRao]

A broader topic:

Indigenisation a Key to Building Indian Air Force, says Air Chief Dhanoa

[Cybaru]

^^^

Semantics only

In some cases, there is more harm than good importing same capability (or inferior) product against indigenous one. How is T-90S doing a superior Arjun MBT any good, or the prospect of capability to R&D a FMBT in India? MII focus should be more on products that are not available in India or on products that have a huge domestic demand among the masses. That would add a lot more value.

I don't think the benefits of value chain are understood by some or possibly they look at thier own bottom line.