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

LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

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.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 20 Dec 2016 20:17

Neshant wrote:This requires the co-operation of the third party country which created the BVR missile (e.g. Russia) - which may not be forthcoming. Russia may not wish to help with the integration of its air-to-air missile with a foreign vendor's AESA radar or even provide any information on how to do so.

They have little interest in integrating the R-77, which has faced extensive reliability issues in IAF service resulting in substantial R-27 orders from Ukraine.

As far as the Tejas is concerned, only the Astra & I-Derby-ER are relevant (and perhaps the Meteor). Neither MBDA nor Rafael has any problems with integration to a third party radar. Well.. maybe if its Russian, but the Russians aren't a serious contender for the contract so its a moot point.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 20 Dec 2016 20:35

Sid wrote:American's will not agree to the part regarding IPR's nor with the reuse or sales clause. So I guess they won't even bother.

A re-export rights clause would have been an issue. Shouldn't have any problem with sale to "Indian defence customers" (IAF & IN). IPR too shouldn't be an issue; they'd simply offer 'India' variant for exclusive use while continuing to manufacture the base variant for the home market and export.

In fact, its surprising that export/re-export rights weren't included.

Image

Brits are also very snotty about their radar, given what they were willing to share earlier with us. Prototype clause seems to be there to accommodate Russians.

Only serious bids will come from Israel and French. Given Indian comfort with Israel and previous projects they will be the front runner.

The Brits (BAE/Selex) haven't been invited to participate. An RBE-2AA is a definite possibility. The omission of Northrop Grumman (& Mitsubishi perhaps) suggests a somewhat lackadaisical attitude, which might mean the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

That said, I'd be wary to assuming the Israelis have it in the bag. There's no reason why HAL couldn't have directly awarded them the contract as was done for the MMR/2032, HMDS, Python 5. Could have officially justified it on basis of commonality with the existing 2032.

Its more likely that Elta was either asking too much for the radars and needed to be cut down to size, or their product wasn't nearly as good as what was available on the open market (in technical terms).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45444
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 20 Dec 2016 22:51

Folks stop building dungeons in the castles in the air.

HAL is trying to see if there is better offer than the current one.

If it comes so be it. If not they have tried.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 21 Dec 2016 00:22

Viv S wrote:Not necessarily. Their looking for ToT for Mfg which is basically 'assembly' + some LRU production (worth 40% of the contract); deep mfg isn't economical for just 48 units. The clause does seem to favour the Israelis though who have less hangups about ToT and are far more dependent on export orders.

Image

Image


I don't think that the US has ever had its AESA radar built, under ToT, by any other nation. This is a big requirement, that requires assembly from raw materials. It has no precedent for the US, AFAIK. With a new GOTUS coming in place, the necessary clearances will not come in time and consequently I seriously doubt that Raytheon will be able to respond in time while stating that it will be able to meet the requirement. They may stall or request more time for clarity and that will go against the rules of the tender that emphasize the urgency of the requirement.

Plus this requirement

The vendor shall not sell the Radar system being developed through this RFQ to any other customers or transfer the IPR of the system to any third party without prior written consent by HAL.


Of course, they could just call the RACR variant they will offer an India specific radar due to its integration with India specific IFF and weapons, something like a RACR-IN. And then go on to offer the regular RACR to other customers without HAL having a say in it, but I doubt that an American firm would like such clauses. OTOH, RACR has no customers so far, since NG will be supplying to Taiwan and South Korea after the USAF selected it for the CAPES program. So Raytheon will look at this as a huge opportunity. Anyway, we'll find out soon enough since the timelines for response are very tight.

NG had the APG-80 specifically built for UAE, on their dime, maybe this is somewhat similar to what happened there, but my

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2793
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rakesh » 21 Dec 2016 00:31

but my.....what? Spit it out my good Sir! :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4800
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 21 Dec 2016 00:39

Of course, they could just call the RACR variant they will offer an India specific radar due to its integration with India specific IFF and weapons, something like a RACR-IN. And then go on to offer the regular RACR to other customers without HAL having a say in it, but I doubt that an American firm would like such clauses. OTOH, RACR has no customers so far, since NG will be supplying to Taiwan and South Korea after the USAF selected it for the CAPES program.


Some points -

* TOT can mean a whole lot of things. Will it involve TOT for all components, critical components etc etc. I'm sure this point will be clarified. The US OEM's have not had to export such radars for such roles given the aircraft sales since there was only one program that could have made use of an AESA for a non US aircraft (F/A-50) and that program has not yet decided on one iirc. The case for the South Kroean denial was different because South Korea wanted transfer of technology that it could use on its own internal project as opposed to something that supported assembly or sustainment of the radar they were buying.

* No OEM will agree to not sell the hardware w/o prior authorization of HAL without such a clause referring to an Indian specific variant with software and other hardware developed through GOI funding. This is common practice and why Northrop Grumman had the SABR in the first place despite having AN/APG-80 in the field operational. It strips UAE funded components, both hardware and software and replaces that with NG or USAF funded ones. Elta which only has such programs to fall back on since they aren't integrated with an israeli fighter (in sufficient quantity) relies on such projects to sell its radars and they obviously won't lock themselves in with HAL even though for them, this along with possible F-16I ugprade market in the long term represents the best chance to sell a decent amount of hardware.

* Raytheon has a very good product in the RACR particularly since these radars share a lot of hardware and/or software commonality with their highly regarded AN/APG-63(V)4, AN/APG-82, AN/APG-79 and AN/APG-79(V)X families. They are going to be at a disadvantage in some US cases because the US delegates the responsibility of choosing an upgraded sensor to the prime and there was no way Lockheed would have picked Raytheon that has not really worked on the F-16 program and with whom they don't have as extensive a relationship when it comes to sensors. It's about price and Lockheed and Northrop are going to be transacting for something like 100 AESA radars a year fairly soon between the AN/APG-81 SABR and Boeing's SABR-GS procurement which adds economies of scale that benefits multiple Lockheed programs.

Similarly, Boeing chose Raytheon to upgrade the radars on the Eagle, Strike Eagle, and Hornet/Super Hornet families and here Northrop Grumman didn't have a shot. These are markets where each OEM is strong in and a product that they have been supporting for decades. Raytheon is however going to have capacity issues. Having cut back on the AN/APG-79 production they are in the process of moving their foundries to greater GaN component production given their shrinking GaAs portfolio. They'll still be delivering as many as 50 or more GaAs fighter AESA radars a year through next decade but with the TPY-2 moving to GaN they are creating a lot more capacity to serve that end of their business since they need economies of scale in X-Band GaN production given two very important contracts on the horizon.

In the end this will boil down to TOT and the granular details of what is being sought. Product familiarity (integrating weapons) should give ELTA a significant advantage.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 403
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 21 Dec 2016 11:00

I was wondering, should not the ToT for AESA radar for LCA be done either to BEL or atleast to a JV of both BEL & HAL? Presently as I understand the capability to manufacture AESA radars in India is only with BEL in Govt Sector, so should not BEL be involved?

ashishvikas
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 92
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ashishvikas » 21 Dec 2016 15:44

As per Tejas - LCA Facebook Admin:

SP3 has joined Flying Daggers Family.

SP4 is expected by mid Jan'17.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 21 Dec 2016 15:54

Kartik wrote:I don't think that the US has ever had its AESA radar built, under ToT, by any other nation. This is a big requirement, that requires assembly from raw materials.

It says assembly from raw materials, but unless they set up a GaAs foundry that's not going to happen. Its simply not economical for the kind of volumes in play (48 units). And HAL lacks core competencies in electronics mfg in any case.

Even the Israelis source their 'raw materials' for their AESAs from Taiwan, carry out final assembly at Astra in Hyderabad, 'generously' mark-up the local value-addition and register as it with the MoD as offsets (had a long chat with an executive from Astra about it).

In this case, mfg as per tender is based on 'combination of kits' with 'balance' items supplied/mfg by HAL. Which basically means HAL will be building the frame/chassis for the radar and then carrying out final assembly. If it were anything deeper the project would be led by BEL/LRDE, would take time for the OEMs to formulate and be followed by a lengthy evaluation over the course of several months rather the few weeks specified by tender.

It has no precedent for the US, AFAIK. With a new GOTUS coming in place, the necessary clearances will not come in time and consequently I seriously doubt that Raytheon will be able to respond in time while stating that it will be able to meet the requirement. They may stall or request more time for clarity and that will go against the rules of the tender that emphasize the urgency of the requirement.

Assuming Raytheon does make a serious bid for the contract, the administrative/bureaucratic component will be taken care by the outgoing administration. Thereafter, its an issue of getting Congressional approval. Again that could be deferred to after the bid. Its not a major obstacle, not for level of ToT actually involved. Especially in wake of the MDP thing recently signed into law.

Plus this requirement

The vendor shall not sell the Radar system being developed through this RFQ to any other customers or transfer the IPR of the system to any third party without prior written consent by HAL.

Of course, they could just call the RACR variant they will offer an India specific radar due to its integration with India specific IFF and weapons, something like a RACR-IN.

Exactly. Even the Israelis aren't going to stop marketing the 2052 after scoring a win in India. The clause isn't intended to block the OEM from marketing its wares elsewhere.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 403
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 21 Dec 2016 16:24

Raytheon - Will not get permission anytime soon and if they get permission, integration with Derby and Astra will be No No or cost prohibitive

Thales - integration with Derby and Astra will be cost prohibitive

SAAB & Russians will most probably fail on technical evaluation but will help in keeping Israeli Price in Control

Israelis- will be considered rank morons if they loose this.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1856
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JTull » 21 Dec 2016 16:30

This RFP came out of the blue when there was no need to, esp, with Israeli input in Jag upgrade and LCA mk-1. I don't think it would have happened without US/Raytheon wink/interest.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 21 Dec 2016 17:11

JTull wrote:This RFP came out of the blue when there was no need to, esp, with Israeli input in Jag upgrade and LCA mk-1. I don't think it would have happened without US/Raytheon wink/interest.

And came with a tight deadline that's just about enough to get clearances from the outgoing administration.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 21 Dec 2016 17:41

Gyan wrote:Raytheon - Will not get permission anytime soon and if they get permission, integration with Derby and Astra will be No No or cost prohibitive

Thales - integration with Derby and Astra will be cost prohibitive

SAAB & Russians will most probably fail on technical evaluation but will help in keeping Israeli Price in Control

Israelis- will be considered rank morons if they loose this.

Raytheon already has permission to export to India (via SH). It might be somewhat more expensive but in pure technical terms they are ahead of the pack. And another $1-2 mil for a $35 mil aircraft isn't a high price to pay for something that critical.

The French meanwhile are very well positioned with the RBE-2AA as an option.

Thales is already integrating the Astra & local IFF as part of the Rafale contract. (The Derby is just a stop-gap solution to the Astra Mk2 which will be the 'standard' BVR weapon for the Tejas Mk1A.) Could also share LRUs & SRUs with the IAF's Rafales while also offering the Meteor as an option.

Neither SAAB nor Zhuk/NIIP have a fighter AESA in service (the ES-05 on the Gripen E is a Selex product), so they're unlikely to be a serious option.

Elta was the obvious winner and could have been awarded a single-vendor contract without issue. There's probably some reason why HAL issued an open tender instead.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 21 Dec 2016 18:00

Kartik wrote:Regarding the number of T/R modules on the 2052, I've seen info that states that the array size can be tailored to the aircraft, based on multiple factors, like radome diameter, cooling and power available and so on. I've not seen any reports on a low T/R count being a drawback for the 2052. Maybe you have some other link that shows this being an issue?

I was wrong about the T/R count. Just took a look at the 2052 variant for the F-16 (on offer to Colombia at the moment).

Image

A fairly well populated array. ~1100 modules.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1767
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby abhik » 21 Dec 2016 18:14

"raw material" phase by HAL's standard is only 40% of radar by value i.e. screwdrivergiri.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 22 Dec 2016 00:47

Viv S wrote:
JTull wrote:This RFP came out of the blue when there was no need to, esp, with Israeli input in Jag upgrade and LCA mk-1. I don't think it would have happened without US/Raytheon wink/interest.

And came with a tight deadline that's just about enough to get clearances from the outgoing administration.


IMO, they won't have time to get the necessary clearances. the new POTUS takes office soon and with the re-shuffling and bringing in of new personnel into the GOTUS, my guess is that Raytheon will will not be able to get it done in time. I guess we'll soon find out what happens in this regard.

Seems like the Elta 2052 is the front-runner looking at the tender requirements and being the incumbent radar supplier to the Tejas Mk1, they know the inner workings of both the system as well as the Tejas platform. Not to mention the existing integration of the entire weapons suite with the Elta 2032 which will make it a lot easier for the Israelis than for any other radar supplier.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5098
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 22 Dec 2016 02:10

It is definitely for Elta to lose.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cybaru » 22 Dec 2016 02:10

Yeah, lets hope the Israeli's offer a good price and give some TOT that we need and close this out soon.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Dec 2016 02:18

Kartik wrote:IMO, they won't have time to get the necessary clearances. the new POTUS takes office soon and with the re-shuffling and bringing in of new personnel into the GOTUS, my guess is that Raytheon will will not be able to get it done in time. I guess we'll soon find out what happens in this regard.

The tender was released on Dec 14. Submissions are to be made on Feb 14. The govt will change over at the half way point (Jan 20). Ashton Carter could comfortably push the bureaucratic bit through before remitting office, enabling them to participate. Congressional approval can come through at its own pace (its not bound by the executive) after the tender award.

Seems like the Elta 2052 is the front-runner looking at the tender requirements and being the incumbent radar supplier to the Tejas Mk1, they know the inner workings of both the system as well as the Tejas platform. Not to mention the existing integration of the entire weapons suite with the Elta 2032 which will make it a lot easier for the Israelis than for any other radar supplier.

Elta's definitely got the inside line on the contract. No doubt about it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45444
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 22 Dec 2016 02:24

VIvS, Can you get a timeline between Ashton Carter visit to Delhi and the tender being issued?
Reason is there was rumor Carter came with a letter from Trump even though Carter is Democrat nominee.
Maybe some form of defence cooperation thing.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Dec 2016 02:34

ramana wrote:VIvS, Can you get a timeline between Ashton Carter visit to Delhi and the tender being issued?
Reason is there was rumor Carter came with a letter from Trump even though Carter is Democrat nominee.
Maybe some form of defence cooperation thing.

Dec 2: US Congress passes MDP act.
Dec 8: Carter makes final visit to India.
Dec 14: HAL issues tender with a 60 day window.
--------------------
Jan 20: Trump to be sworn in.
Feb 14: Bid submission.
Feb 15: Bid opening.


I don't know whether to read much into it though. Fact is, its not a very big deal in terms of value (~$200-300 mil). Not really enough to merit personal attention from the US SecDef. All the same, if Raytheon is selected, it will have a significant symbolic/political effect so who knows...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15249
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 22 Dec 2016 04:25

Ashton Carter could comfortably push the bureaucratic bit through before remitting office, enabling them to participate.


Don't they have an "India desk" at the Pentagon?

Such projects could be a good test for the process - from both sides.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Nick_S » 22 Dec 2016 15:43

A nice pic from LCA FB page -

Image

https://www.facebook.com/tejas.lca/

tushar_m
BRFite
Posts: 647
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 21:07

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tushar_m » 22 Dec 2016 16:49

One is "Made In India" & other is product of "Make in India"

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7403
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rohitvats » 22 Dec 2016 17:38

There are actually three fighters in that pic!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Dec 2016 18:58

Is that the TopSight-I on the MKI?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Dec 2016 19:00

NRao wrote:Don't they have an "India desk" at the Pentagon?

"India Rapid Reaction Cell"

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Dec 2016 01:53

rohitvats wrote:There are actually three fighters in that pic!


Damn! hawkeye.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Dec 2016 01:56

Viv S wrote:Is that the TopSight-I on the MKI?


No, I think it is the Sura-K:

Image

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1782
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby PratikDas » 23 Dec 2016 08:10

^^^^ That is an awesome photo. Calm and confident.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31310
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby shiv » 23 Dec 2016 08:15

rohitvats wrote:There are actually three fighters in that pic!

I am reminded of a quote I saw in a medical paper about how discoveries are made
Serendipity is the act of noticing a single hair behind a leaf on a bush and discovering a furry animal hiding in the bush

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 776
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Khalsa » 23 Dec 2016 16:58

SP3 Joined Squadron
Mark it as Data Point
and
Tu Chalta Jai
Tu Badta Jai

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 845
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby RKumar » 23 Dec 2016 17:11

Khalsa wrote:SP3 Joined Squadron
Mark it as Data Point
and
Tu Chalta Jai
Tu Badta Jai


Eagerly waiting for SP4, it will mark final milestone for LCA MK1 IOC2+. It will be product and line stabilisation :D before we move to LCA MK1 FOC :)

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 776
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Khalsa » 24 Dec 2016 16:03

Indeed sir. RKumar sir.
Looking fwd to it.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3932
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 25 Dec 2016 07:58

Viv S wrote:They have little interest in integrating the R-77, which has faced extensive reliability issues in IAF


They will have to.

Israel will stop any supplies of Derby/Python to India when it is most needed (i.e. war) if Uncle Sam tells them to.
Ditto for the govt of Ukraine.

Only Russia remains a truly independent supplier - the quality of their wares notwithstanding.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 25 Dec 2016 08:25

Neshant wrote:They will have to.

Israel will stop any supplies of Derby/Python to India when it is most needed (i.e. war) if Uncle Sam tells them to.
Ditto for the govt of Ukraine.

Only Russia remains a truly independent supplier - the quality of their wares notwithstanding.

That is your opinion of what ought to be, not what is. As things stands, R-77 integration is not planned for any variant of the Tejas.

And whether Russia will support us in war with China, is a very debatable issue.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3932
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 25 Dec 2016 08:39

Yes it is my opinion.

They should at least examine how much work/cost would be required to integrate R-77.

Complete reliance on 1 supplier can be hazardous for the health.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 25 Dec 2016 08:55

Neshant wrote:Yes it is my opinion.

They should at least examine how much work/cost would be required to integrate R-77.

Complete reliance on 1 supplier can be hazardous for the health.

The IAF has six different BVR weapons in service or on order - R-77, R-27, MICA, Derby, Astra, Meteor. [To which you can add, three different varieties of WVR weapons - R-73, Python 5, ASRAAM (+ R-60).]

Complete reliance on 1 supplier isn't an issue. The real problem is quite the contrary.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3932
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 25 Dec 2016 16:20

I'm talking about A2A weapons cleared for use on Tejas.

France will not allow Meteor to be used on Tejas, only on its Rafael. Not sure if they will let Mica be used on anything other than their Mirage.

If Israel stops its supply at any time of Python & Derby, the only weapons Tejas will have are Astra (assuming it works) for medium to long range AR engagements assuming Russia does not stop the supply of its seeker.

Getting short range IR missiles from suppliers is not a problem. But longer range AR missiles is as only a few countries supply them.

Its not a priority but if the Tejas is deployed in large numbers, the R-77 (or its successor the K-77) should be integrated. The latter will be used on the PAK-FA as its main medium range air-to-air missile.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Dec 2016 01:38

^ in a worst case scenario there are stocks of R27 sarh bvr missiles that iaf has massive inventory of that could be brought into play. These were sourced from Ukraine recently
Last edited by Cain Marko on 26 Dec 2016 03:18, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balaji, jjambunathan, kvraghav, ramki, sgopal and 31 guests