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

Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 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.
chola
BRFite
Posts: 1743
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 21 Nov 2017 08:44

tsarkar wrote:
VinodTK wrote:Wonder why the Chinese were able to get the required knoladge out of the same process (building Russian aircraft) and start their own aircraft industry and India has not been able to do the same!!


The Chinese are building nothing beyond what they've licensed or commissioned.


That is EXACTLY the point. They were able to negotiate the licensed building of endless goddam variants from a single factory line of something they could not build before!

Just look at the number of variants from the Su-27SK. Including a carrier version of the Flanker that Roos doesn’t even make anymore so there are no Su-33 parts for the Russkies to send over and the chinis to screwdrive.

You see the same with their Dauphin and Super Frelon contracts. Many variants with no limits to numbers.

Show me something Chinese that has exceeded what Russians or Israelis or French or Germans sold to them. They pay for confidentiality also - check the Kamov's Chief Designer's quote.


What an insane way of measuring ToT. If getting a successful ToT means you must surpass the OEM then you’ve just created a fantasy requirement. You wouldn’t need ToT at all if you could surpass whatever the hell you are buying.

Proper measurement is for the nation receiving ToT to be able build chit it couldn’t before and to build it in whatever fashion and numbers it wishes. No contractual straitjacket, otherwise it is just offsetting subcontract work not “transfer of technology.”

So think carefully.

Cheen couldn’t build a heavy fighter, a modern utility copter or a heavyweight copter before their ToTs.

After ToT, they are now building many variants of each — with many naval variants too, which we know from the IN dismissals of our own products include no small changes to the base models.

So why not call out the chitty contracts we have where HAL is straightjacketed to the exact variant of Su-30 where every additional number, every upgrade must be negotiated? Why aren’t we too allowed to pump out our Flanker variants like Shenyang does with the J-11B/BS/BH, J-15A/B/T and J-16XX?

There is seemingly no damned limits to the numbers or mutations of the base technology transferred to Shenyang. That is goddam true ToT, IMHO. An absolute contrast to HAL and the MKI, MiG-21 and MiG-27.

Cheen negotiated and got control of the blueprints and technology of Flanker. We negotiated and got the right to do subcontract work on the order — and only the order — we paid for.

There is no reason we should not take the babus who negotiated these contracts to task and negotiate better.

The MoD said as much about the MKI and FGFA.

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/after-sukhoi-mistake-india-to-go-for-russian-5th-gen-fighter-only-with-full-tech-transfer/amp_articleshow/57546519.cms

After Sukhoi 'mistake', India to go for Russian 5th-generation fighter only on full-tech transfer pact

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 21 Nov 2017 13:05

chola wrote:So why not call out the chitty contracts we have where HAL is straightjacketed to the exact variant of Su-30 where every additional number, every upgrade must be negotiated? Why aren’t we too allowed to pump out our Flanker variants like Shenyang does with the J-11B/BS/BH, J-15A/B/T and J-16XX?

How is churning out variants with no improvement in performance over the previous one a measure of ToT?

We got the best variant with canards and TVC.

chola wrote:There is seemingly no damned limits to the numbers or mutations of the base technology transferred to Shenyang. That is goddam true ToT, IMHO. An absolute contrast to HAL and the MKI, MiG-21 and MiG-27.

How is mutation a measure of receipt of ToT? Do you know about the Orpheus engine added to Packets to improve high altitude performance over the Himalayas? That was done by HAL without any ToT.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JayS » 21 Nov 2017 15:02

shiv wrote:
And I hate to say this but I think I must. It seems to me that to some extent our armed forces behave like a warrior clan who will protect using arms that someone else must make and give to them. They do not see themselves as engineers or boffins who contribute to the development of the weapons. I must not be harsh but it's almost like the kshatriya warrior not wanting to engage himself in non martial shudra stuff. The Shudra makes the sword and the kshatriya fights. If the sword is no good, give the shudra a kick on his backside - but the kshatriya ain't gonna involve himself in joining to shudra to make a better sword. The hard reality may be that this is the "warrior culture" that has come down from British days or earlier. This needs modificaation


Precisely why Armed Forces need to have a cadre who is not made up of typical fighter by temperament but basically engineer/technical/manager/finance guys (perfect if chosen from soldiers who can think like that, if not hire from outside) and can look beyond the primordial fighter thinking and work on the procurement process, be the bridge between the Fighter and the weapons' maker. And the maintenance engineers don't make the cut. They need engineers who are AF guys but think like RnD folks. Vice-versa for the RnD establishment if they want to improve their organizational thinking too.

I would not blame a fighter/soldier for demanding a good weapon without thinking of cost or geo-political considerations. But I definitely expect IAF or IA or IN as an organization/institution to consider those points and have specialized cadre who can focus on those areas specifically.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33999
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 21 Nov 2017 15:09

JayS wrote:
shiv wrote:
And I hate to say this but I think I must. It seems to me that to some extent our armed forces behave like a warrior clan who will protect using arms that someone else must make and give to them. They do not see themselves as engineers or boffins who contribute to the development of the weapons. I must not be harsh but it's almost like the kshatriya warrior not wanting to engage himself in non martial shudra stuff. The Shudra makes the sword and the kshatriya fights. If the sword is no good, give the shudra a kick on his backside - but the kshatriya ain't gonna involve himself in joining to shudra to make a better sword. The hard reality may be that this is the "warrior culture" that has come down from British days or earlier. This needs modificaation


Precisely why Armed Forces need to have a cadre who is not made up of typical fighter by temperament but basically engineer/technical/manager/finance guys (perfect if chosen from soldiers who can think like that, if not hire from outside) and can look beyond the primordial fighter thinking and work on the procurement process, be the bridge between the Fighter and the weapons' maker. And the maintenance engineers don't make the cut. They need engineers who are AF guys but think like RnD folks. Vice-versa for the RnD establishment if they want to improve their organizational thinking too.

I would not blame a fighter/soldier for demanding a good weapon without thinking of cost or geo-political considerations. But I definitely expect IAF or IA or IN as an organization/institution to consider those points and have specialized cadre who can focus on those areas specifically.


And typically anyone who says this is automatically accused of being a PSU apologist or corrupt Babu. I just went through a polite (I was polite) argument with an ex forces guy who kept calling me names because I did not agree with him. The problem is that I have spent my entire life being respectful to forces people. But the minute you speak up about something that seems to be a problem - some people think it is a big hamla on them and want to counterattack after switching brain off.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby deejay » 21 Nov 2017 15:14

^ Actually tempted to call both of you names right now. Really hard not doing so.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Nov 2017 15:14

Chola,you've put your finger on the spot!

Cheen negotiated and got control of the blueprints and technology of Flanker. We negotiated and got the right to do subcontract work on the order — and only the order — we paid for.
There is no reason we should not take the babus who negotiated these contracts to task and negotiate better.


I've also been saying the same thing,why after decades of license production,we never seemed to ask for a better deal in establishing an Indian design bureau,which seemed shut down after the HF-24 episode, Even in the late '80s/90,when we obtained M2Ks and MIG-29s,and were also able to pay for both fighters,enjoying the best of both worlds,we never leveraged either of them for being mass produced in India just a s we did with MIG-21s earlier.China realising the cost of only imports wanted more and after hard bargaining got it. The IAF too must share part of the blame as they fondly imagined that all they had to do the next time round was choose a firang fighter no matter what it cost and that the GOI would simply acquiesce!

Contract negotiations in general by the MOD have affected all 3 services. Poor timely supply of spares,ignoring order deadlines allowing late decisions raising costs heavily (Talwars ,second batch offered at same rates for the frist batch,Sikorsky helos-delays in executing the decision),which have often led to the collapse of the procurement with only one OEM left in the ring.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 21 Nov 2017 17:09

JayS wrote:
NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force's C-130 Super Hercules plane has set a new record for longest non-stop flight, the IAF said.

Was it completely on internal fuel? Is the US refueling system compatible with probe & drogue IAI Bedek system used by Indian Il-78?

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1743
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 21 Nov 2017 17:59

tsarkar wrote:
chola wrote:So why not call out the chitty contracts we have where HAL is straightjacketed to the exact variant of Su-30 where every additional number, every upgrade must be negotiated? Why aren’t we too allowed to pump out our Flanker variants like Shenyang does with the J-11B/BS/BH, J-15A/B/T and J-16XX?

How is churning out variants with no improvement in performance over the previous one a measure of ToT?



Again, a very bad set of assumptions. Even if there were no improvement in “performance,” the different variants meant they have the ability to tweak the base airframe to create optimized versions for different roles.

Then there is the all-important self-sufficiency angle that comes from getting the damn ToT in the first place.

The original J-11 were kits sent by Russia to Cheen, Russkie engine, Russkie radar and can fire Russian weapons onlee. BVR was a SARH R-27.

The J-11B has chini engine, chini radar and fires chini weapons. BVR is now a fire-and-forget AMRAAM equivalent PL-12.

And even your performance assumption doesn’t make sense. Every variants includes some improvements either situationally for roles or general improvement in “performance” otherwise why bother making different variants?

The J-16 carries far heavier loads because it has more powerful engines than the original Su-27SK. It has a better radar and fires more types of ordinance. How has this variant’s “performance” not improved from the original Russian kits?

We got the best variant with canards and TVC.


No, the chinis got the best variant — the Su-35. It was sold in such small numbers that it is in all likelyhood yet another ToT.

chola wrote:There is seemingly no damned limits to the numbers or mutations of the base technology transferred to Shenyang. That is goddam true ToT, IMHO. An absolute contrast to HAL and the MKI, MiG-21 and MiG-27.

How is mutation a measure of receipt of ToT? Do you know about the Orpheus engine added to Packets to improve high altitude performance over the Himalayas? That was done by HAL without any ToT.


How is mutations NOT a sign of TOT?

Does our single straightjacketed MKI variant allow us to fly it off a carrier like the J-15?

Can the MKI be a Growler-like EW platform like J-16D?

Hell, how about a MKI that can perform as the goddam engine-testbed we so urgently need like the J-11A test plane?

Lookie here: An AL-31 on left, WS-10 on right. Will Russia allow us to make a change on even one MKI frame like this?
Image

The answer to all the above is no. Mutations is the sign of ownership of the technology. The ability to play and tinker and do whatever the f..k hits your fancy.

That is TOT. Not the MKI contract where we are straitjacketed to one model and a specific number to screwdriver together.

(Yes, we added a firang Orpheus to a goddam gnat. Talk to me when we could add a F100 to the MKI so we can fix its damn maintenance issues. But pulling out this non sequitor is meaningless to the discussion.)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 21 Nov 2017 18:14

chola wrote:Yes exactly! We’ve built over 1000 MiG-21, MiG-27 and Su-30 MKI. But when it comes to building our own aircraft, the LCA, none of the Russian lines and techniques were useful at all. Our scientists needed to go to the US to work on critical subsystems including FBW (where they were caught up in the embargo after Pokhran.)

Russian “ToT” is a dead end. They put so many restrictions on us that HAL cries about the ending of MKI production. If those lines were real ToT where “transfer” had really taken place and we owned the technology then HAL should be able to use them for new projects involving the Flanker airframe.

But we can’t do anything outside the contractual straitjacket which is one plane variant and one production run at a time. That is not ToT, that’s nothing more than subtlcontracting work. Russian “ToT” is a complete lie.


You have mixed a lot of things up.

1. India received TOT from Russia which can allow us to make 80% of the systems on our own for a Sukhoi. Equally, a lot of raw material, and high-end items continue to come from Russia. This is by contract. This TOT allows us to provide much better support for the aircraft over its lifecycle and even integrate local weapons and systems.

2. The PRC received even less TOT than us, and its airframes were 2 generations behind ours. First gen Flankers basically.

3. The PRC didn't care about IP rights and followed a risky but brave strategy of deciding to go all Chinese (so what if Russians cut them off, they would offer bribes in the guise of other engine and missile orders).

4. They reverse engineered some systems, went to Ukraine for getting TOT for some items (engine maintenance for eg) and hence started PRC'izing their Flankers. This because they didnt have our Su-30 style of agreement and second, because they had huge funding & did whatever it takes without caring for Russian disapproval.

5. In return, Russia got huge orders for AL-31Fs for both Flankers and their J-10s, and S-3XX orders. Plus many other designs/JVs which will not be publicly declared. The J-20 looks like a LO version of the cancelled MiG fighter. Wouldn't be surprised if they bought out that design too.

6. China's next phase of "innovation" was to replace Russian subsystems in its Flankers with its own items to improve them. Like India with its LCA, Chinas tech generator is its J-10. So J-10 derived FBW, radar etc were all ported over to Flanker derivatives. It bears remarking though, that many of these derivatives ended up being prototypes and while these so called advanced PRC Flankers are in service, they are not the only ones (in contrast to the hundreds of local Flankers rumors spread by PRC blogs). A few regiments, gradually being built up.

7. China's biggest effort has been in putting its own engine in the Flanker family. While Chinese blogs all claim success, I remain skeptical and the ultimate truth will only be out once we see no Russian engine imports for the J-20.

8. China's own systems while significant improvements on the relatively primitive Gen1 Flanker, are still not as advanced as those on the Su-35S. Hence, for all the talk of AESA and Chinese engines, it bears remarking the PRC went to great lengths to import some squadrons or regiments of the Su-35S with its PESA Irbis radar and its 117S engines and its non canard TVC FBW. Expect several of these planes to be completely stripped down but the Russians would have given downgraded systems vs the standard Russian service variants. The rest will be used for some sort of Praetorian guard for Beijing, same as the S-3XX inductions when they began.

9. The above also tells me the J-20 for all its PR and bluster has significant limitations in manouverability and flight performance (heavy weight, earlier gen Russian engines from the Flanker, not the 117S), its avionics (its AESA radar may simply not be as good enough as the Irbis, let alone what's on the western birds).

10. TLDR version, China decided it could bribe Russia and ignore IP restrictions because it was willing to spend big on defense and even if Russia played hardball, China took a strategic decision, it would pursue the domestic option with the J-10 and J-20, no matter how hard the path.

11. India does not have the same toughness, foresight or even vision as the PRC displayed above. We want to maintain IP rights, maintain an equitable relationship with all our technology suppliers and don't want to spend as much as PRC does on defence (to grow our MIC to the level, it can compensate for technology embargoes, or order 5 J-10s if a Flanker is not available).

12. The issue is not that Russia put restrictions on HAL TOT or did not play fair (they are all the same, French, Russians, you name them, they have all done it). Its that we dont have a national policy to disregard IP and then proceed with our own derivatives, international law be darned, with the belief that anyhow the AMCA or whatever is the future, and we will prevail with the level of support we put into it, so who cares if Russia doesnt sell us any more FGFAs. And we can do the same to all the stuff we import from Russia. Or replace it with local derivatives.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 21 Nov 2017 18:25

Chola wrote:Can the MKI be a Growler-like EW platform like J-16D?

Hell, how about a MKI that can perform as the goddam engine-testbed we so urgently need like the J-11A test plane?

Lookie here: An AL-31 on left, WS-10 on right. Will Russia allow us to make a change on even one MKI frame like this?


You are completely mistaken. Nothing stops India from doing any of this, except its own asinine penny-pinching for which the buck stops with the MOD.

India is currently working on adding its own EW pods to the Su-30 MKI, after the Russian ones were found too heavy. And the Israeli ones didn't interface well with the Russian radar.

GTRE did put up a proposal for a Su-30 MKI. Its yet to be funded. The IAF obviously doesnt want to donate one of its precious Flankers.

Ditto for LRDE, they want a fighter testbed. Let alone a business jet, the big news is they finally received a Do-228.

With this sort of penny-pinching (for what, 8 years, DRDO did not even get its basic asked for funding, and the number of scientists was on a decline; services also got their revenue budget slashed, let alone capex), why blame the Russians?

India has integrated the Astra, SAAW, Spice 2000, Litening G4, Griffin LGB all on the Su-30 MKI without any special permission from the Russians.

The Su-30 contract is fairly liberal and we can use it far more extensively if we had funding to do so.

In short nothing prevents you from replacing Bars with Uttam or AL-31 with Kaveri. Is an Uttam variant even funded for the Su-30 or a Kaveri available for the Flanker?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 21 Nov 2017 18:27

The above does not mean the Russians didn't armtwist HAL or kept their contractual agreements for timely TOT or spares to HAL, they didn't. But the ability to modify is not something we are prevented from. At the end of the day, it was HAL which did the Brahmos mods and flight tested them. Structural mods not just avionics. But does HAL have the funding or the political support to make an all-new Indian Flanker? Clearly not. Nor does it have the leadership to push for developing any such capability. Its easier to rely on TOT, and move onto the next project. At best, HAL will gradually indigenize some subsystems but it won't really be an all-new airframe completely indianized, and lighter, more advanced with the Flankers basic shape.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1455
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby manjgu » 21 Nov 2017 18:30

Chola +100 ..beg borrow or steal or just being smart, the chinese are surely developing a very robust def industry. maybe still not as sophisticated as the western but getting there. their economic progress has enabled them to fund many programs.. they do have a vision for the future. Our vision just stops on how to best the NaPakis which inspite of being a economy many times larger , have not been able to achieve.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 21 Nov 2017 18:44

Does anyone in the MOD have the b!lls or the brains to ask LRDE to just make a radar for the Su30 as a test article, just as a benchmark/backup in case the Russian one doesn't work out? Or do the same for the engines, make the Kaveri a flight ready article, irrespective of which fighter is in the works for today?
File pushing is what we are good at. And if the above are suggested, I wouldn't be surprised if some guy at AHQ sees them as a threat to their planned upgrades and writes to the MOD asking for these testbeds to be cancelled. His peers who support domestic efforts will be overruled.

Or if AF supports it, CAG will write them a nasty letter.

With such shortsightedness, good hopes in catching up with PRC.

Hope remains some others do persist in indigenous efforts, without some backers in AF, Akash, AEW&C, Arudhra MPR would not have occurred either.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Nov 2017 19:16

COLUMN: The Indian Air Force’s Tyranny Of Arithmetic
Shiv AroorNov 15 2017
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/11 ... metic.html

Even after reading Shiv A's excellent piece,where he well puts the IAF's dilemma of numbers and sqd. replacements,while calling for cost-effective solutions money being scarce,he has not examined the option of at least 3 more MIG-29/35 sqds. which are the cheapest med. sized muilti-role aircraft available,where the engines of the 29s are being made here and we've a couple of decades operating and supporting the type.MKIs and Rafales are much more expensive,and an MKI requires an additional pilot with all the financial baggage that an extra pilot brings with him.perhaps the singe-seat SU-35 could've been looked at too.In the current crisis in the IAF,modernisation,upgrades,replacement,new acquisitions,future FGFAs,etc., every possible option needs to be looked at from both the tech. aspect as well as financial aspect,and what the GOI can afford. The IAF cannot beggar the def. budget where the other twos ervcies also have their crises ,IN with subs,ASW helos,MCMs,etc. and the IA building up its border infrastructure,mountain corps,badly reqd. arty,AVs,etc.

Sadly the MOD has also maintained its chalta hai attitude to the issue.Every tender for even radars has had its slippages. The MK-1A radar was to have been decided earlier this yr. but now looks nowhere on the horizon.That is essential for the Mk-1A prototypes to be rapidly built,the 80+ aircraft funded and Tejas would be well on its way to success. However,it does beggar the Q whether vested interests do not want the MK-1A at all and SEF interests are using their influence to dump the Tejas using their clout within the IAF too which has been sadly very derogative of the LCA,an unfair attitude when it should put its shoulder to the wheel to assist in making Tejas a success.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 21 Nov 2017 23:36

Yes more Russian junk will help kick the can downstream. Drama will start again.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 22 Nov 2017 00:01

Important factoids:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 532355.ece

1.
If the present development and capacity enhancement plans go as per schedule, the Indian Air Force will have 123 indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas fighter jets in its fleet by 2024-25.

2.
Mr. Raju said that about 45 improvements have been implemented in the 1A and HAL has already floated a tender for the Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar and Self-Protection Jammer (SPJ).

On the timeline for the development of the 1A, Mr. Raju said that the tender would be opened by March end after which technical evaluation and commercial negotiations would be held. “We will be able to prove it on the 1A by 2018 and start producing by 2019,” he observed.

3. On the issue of spares and supports which has been an area of constant concern from the services, Mr. Raju said they have now signed long term supply contracts with their vendors and stated that the availability of all platforms manufactured by HAL has now gone “above 65 percent.”

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 22 Nov 2017 00:03

Key Platforms made by HAL:
Su-30 MKI, ALH, Jaguar, Hawk, Pilatus, Tejas, MiG-21 Bison

On verge of retirement, MiG-21 M/MF, MiG-27

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3043
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakkaji » 22 Nov 2017 00:31

The 11-step process strikes again :(

6-year-old aircraft plan for private sector in doldrums

But the Rs 11,929 crore project for manufacturing 56 medium transport aircraft by the Tata-Airbus consortium to replace the IAF's aging Avro fleet is still nowhere close to being inked, defence ministry sources said on Monday.

This despite the fact the Defence Acquisitions Council (DAC) in May 2015, headed by the then defence minister Manohar Parrikar, had approved the Tata-Airbus project in what was seen to be a bold move after the previous UPA regime had developed cold feet under strong pressure from the PSU lobby.

MoD sources on Monday said the 'Avro-replacement' project is "going around in circles" at the commercial negotiations stage. "The CNC (contract negotiation committee) began its work eight-nine months ago after extended field trials of the twin-turboprop tactical C-295 aircraft on offer by the Airbus. But nothing much has happened...there seems to be a reluctance to go forward," said a source.

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1890
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Katare » 22 Nov 2017 01:53

For this Govt, all the good stuff like OROP, surgical strike, LCA as SEF and Dokalam is coming from the PMO. Unfortunately MoD performance is barely as good as what UPA delivered.

- Ammunition shortage still exists at critical levels
- MRCA saga reborn in SEF
- No movement towards appointing CDS or joint command
- No restructuring or integration of armed forces head quarters with MoD or bringing more uniformed personals to MoD
- No major initiative with private sector - FICV, Transport aircraft, Next batch of Submarines and rest is all in limbo
- LCA, Arjun, NAG and many more still gasping for air
- No radical changes in DRDO, DPSU or OFB performance
- No signs of FGFA, AMCA, no new next generation projects initiated (or at least not disclosed)
- Officer's shortage in armed forces continues
- Defense budget declining in % GDP term
- Capital portion of defense budget being returned unused
- Armed forces still hooked on to imported drugs - FRCV, Assault rifles, SEF to what not

We need a very strong DM like Gadkari who can cut through these petty turf battles and regulations to get things done. He was offered the post but he refused saying he don't want to handle tedious protocols of armed forces and wanted to take his work in transportation sector to 40KM/day from 23KM/day achieved last year. Instead he asked Modi to give him one more task/dept that is considered most difficult or impossible to do. He was given Ganga rejuvenation and I am sure we would see a sea change in Ganga's water quality.

May be in NDA2, we would get him to lead the defense ministry. There is no other way except an exceptional leader cutting through this weed infested jungle. This job tortured Manohar Parikker so much that he ran back to his cozy little home from the national stage. Piyush Goyal may be able to handle it too.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3043
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakkaji » 22 Nov 2017 03:07

I think Gen V K Singh is the appropriate person for the Raksha Mantri post, but for some reason he has been sidelined in the Modi cabinet.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2017 04:36

Kakkaji wrote:The 11-step process strikes again :(

6-year-old aircraft plan for private sector in doldrums

But the Rs 11,929 crore project for manufacturing 56 medium transport aircraft by the Tata-Airbus consortium to replace the IAF's aging Avro fleet is still nowhere close to being inked, defence ministry sources said on Monday.

This despite the fact the Defence Acquisitions Council (DAC) in May 2015, headed by the then defence minister Manohar Parrikar, had approved the Tata-Airbus project in what was seen to be a bold move after the previous UPA regime had developed cold feet under strong pressure from the PSU lobby.

MoD sources on Monday said the 'Avro-replacement' project is "going around in circles" at the commercial negotiations stage. "The CNC (contract negotiation committee) began its work eight-nine months ago after extended field trials of the twin-turboprop tactical C-295 aircraft on offer by the Airbus. But nothing much has happened...there seems to be a reluctance to go forward," said a source.


Why not just buy the whole lot. All TASL will do is reduce labor but charge the same price. It's 40 a/c

from Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_CASA_C-295

The Indian Air Force will be operating 56 C-295W. The order was finalised on 13 May 2015 by the Indian Ministry of Defense. The first 16 C-295s will be brought in fly away condition; the remaining 40 will be manufactured in India in partnership with Tata Advanced Systems.[45]

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cybaru » 22 Nov 2017 14:41

Because 40 can become80 and Airbus could move the line completely to India if it becomes a cost center.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1470
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vasu raya » 22 Nov 2017 23:04

Karan M wrote:GTRE did put up a proposal for a Su-30 MKI. Its yet to be funded. The IAF obviously doesnt want to donate one of its precious Flankers.

Ditto for LRDE, they want a fighter testbed. Let alone a business jet, the big news is they finally received a Do-228.

With this sort of penny-pinching (for what, 8 years, DRDO did not even get its basic asked for funding, and the number of scientists was on a decline; services also got their revenue budget slashed, let alone capex), why blame the Russians?

India has integrated the Astra, SAAW, Spice 2000, Litening G4, Griffin LGB all on the Su-30 MKI without any special permission from the Russians.

The Su-30 contract is fairly liberal and we can use it far more extensively if we had funding to do so.

In short nothing prevents you from replacing Bars with Uttam or AL-31 with Kaveri. Is an Uttam variant even funded for the Su-30 or a Kaveri available for the Flanker?


So, the very first Su-30 squadron or maybe just 8 planes that were returned to Russia for refurbishment and sold to Angola couldn't be used for above experimentation? would it have given us an option to supply them to Afganistan? if Angola can why can't Afganistan?

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1743
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 23 Nov 2017 16:29

Karan ji, thank you for a well thought out post which details a lot of the items in chini aircraft development that I too had looked at hard and long.

But I had come to a far different conclusion based on what I know of the chini practices known on Wall Street. And Wall Street has a huge amount of past and present experience with Cheen with unmatched intelligence in the ground in country.

The crux of your view is this:
We want to maintain IP rights, maintain an equitable relationship with all our technology suppliers


You assume 1) that Cheen does not have equitable relationships with the OEMs that partner with it. And 2) you assume that Cheen “took risks” by “reverse engineering” the Flanker and its subsystems.

Sorry, both assumptions are exceptionally wrong and they are very clearly wrong in the case of Cheen’s aircraft development. The PRC would still be flying 1960s MiG-21s and 1950s Mi-4s if they had pissed off the French or Russians.

Because after their tanks rolled over students at Tianenmen, the PRC was embargoed. Firms that stayed in China (including even many Amreeki ones) were given a privileged position. And why would Cheen take risks with the few aviation firms still available to it? It DIDN’T.

For all the endless variants of the Dauphins and Super Frelons and Flankers, the French and Russians are neck deep in the latest and most critical chini projects today. That alone should be clear evident that there were no breach of contract. Whether it is Russian engines for the J-20, JF-17 or French components for the Z-15 or C919, the proof is overwhelming that the Russians and French were not screwed with by the PRC attempting to reverse engineer their IP. If it did, both the French and the Russians, no weeping willows, would have left Cheen to wallow in its sanctions.

Which brings us to your second assumption — reverse engineering of highly sophisticated modern fighters and helos with their thousands of moving parts of different mayerials and tolerances.

I wrote about this ad nauseum. If you can RE a Fkanker then already have the damn ability to make a Flanker equivalent and would never have needed to buy the damn thing in the first place.

Those Flanker variants were not RE but were straight ToT agreements where the OEM worked with them to build and integrate all the local components.

That is not to say Cheen do not RE. They do and you can tell when something is reverse engineered on the sly and when something was done above board with the OEM. m

For one, without OEM blueprinted parts the RE stuff do not look exactly like the original while the OEM sanctioned ones do. But more importantly, RE takes a LONG time.

I wrote about this in the Cheen Mil thread:

This might be a real reverse-engineering project. Unlike the Flanker which took less than a decade for an exact version to be made, the Z-20 took close to 30 years to clone from Blackhawks imported during the 1980s and is not an exact copy owing to lack of OEM support.

Time comparison of a TOT with OEM support versus RE without:

J-11
initial access — 1998 (Su-27SK license)
first flight of copy — 2004 (J-11B with AL-31)
induction — 2007 (J-11B in PLAAF with WS-10 engine)

Z-20
initial access — 1984 (import of S-70C-2 Blackhawk)
first flight of copy — 2013 (Z-20 with P&W PTC6)
induction — 2017? PLA eval unit? at best LSP not mass production


So Karan ji, I suspect I am correct. There are desi assumptions about the PRC that are easy and stereotypical to make. But they very wrong for someone looking at them from the pov of Wall Street analytics. (Heck, I just read a post from TKiran that he knows of no Amreeki firm that profited from Cheen. The PRC is THE most profitable market for a vast number of the US Fortune 500. Profit margin for American products from cars to baby formula are two times or more of that in the US.)

The PRC is not where it is because it had some super ability to copy modern systems so they could take risks rupturing their relationships with the few partners they had.

No, Occram’s Razor tells us that their advancements were based on the mundane premise of properly negotiated TOT where the OEMs transferred them technology for a fee — not some super human copying ability.

That is where I have my issues. Getting “technology” to make maintenance better is nothing but subcontracting to make parts (and parts for a particular production run onlee.) And for all the gadgets you listed of us having planned for the MKI, they are all accessories, not variants. We cannot make a Flanker that flies off a carrier. Hell we cannot make one extra MKI beyond some number set by the Russians. That is the real reason why we could not have a Su-30 engine testbed. Why should the IAF give up a plane? HAL could just build an extra specialized craft — if we had negotiated real ToT.

But we didn’t and we don’t.
Last edited by chola on 23 Nov 2017 17:09, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60489
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 23 Nov 2017 17:09

Kakkaji wrote:I think Gen V K Singh is the appropriate person for the Raksha Mantri post, but for some reason he has been sidelined in the Modi cabinet.


people who shoot and talk straight and are proud of their flag and calling find less favour among the various pressure groups and lobbies.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 23 Nov 2017 20:02

chola wrote:Karan ji, thank you for a well thought out post which details a lot of the items in chini aircraft development that I too had looked at hard and long.

But I had come to a far different conclusion based on what I know of the chini practices known on Wall Street. And Wall Street has a huge amount of past and present experience with Cheen with unmatched intelligence in the ground in country.


Sorry the Wall Street stuff is nothing special, many of us here have dealt with PRC practises in detail & know about it first hand.

The crux of your view is this:
We want to maintain IP rights, maintain an equitable relationship with all our technology suppliers


You assume 1) that Cheen does not have equitable relationships with the OEMs that partner with it. And 2) you assume that Cheen “took risks” by “reverse engineering” the Flanker and its subsystems.

Sorry, both assumptions are exceptionally wrong and they are very clearly wrong in the case of Cheen’s aircraft development. The PRC would still be flying 1960s MiG-21s and 1950s Mi-4s if they had pissed off the French or Russians.

[/quote]

Sorry, but it is you who are completely and totally mistaken and you haven't followed their development enough.

There is still a huge ban on PRC from buying complete weapons systems from Europe and the US.

Multiple organizations in the civilian space have to jump through hoops to export to PRC.

PRC got around this by buying subsystems with dual-use permissions (and often a wink-nod-nudge from the host governments who wanted to follow the US led embargo on PRC but wanted to make dinero as well) and hence got access to many technologies and subsystems.

The PRC also accelerated its ties with Israel, South Africa, Russia - anywhere & everywhere it could buy out complete designs or projects.

Because after their tanks rolled over students at Tianenmen, the PRC was embargoed. Firms that stayed in China (including even many Amreeki ones) were given a privileged position. And why would Cheen take risks with the few aviation firms still available to it? It DIDN’T.


Of course it did take risks. And you don't know this! Look up sometime US aero firms deposition to the US Govt about how PRC illegally shifted technologies from ostensible civilian programs to military ones. And how they were censured in turn for lax oversight.

Heck, I personally attended a seminar where one of the speakers went into eye-opening detail about how PRC's beg-borrow-steal program continued unabated & they literally threw mountains of cash at people to make inspections disappear or make ostensibly mouth-watering civilian deals which transferred crucial production technology, which would end up in military factories.

US companies were part and parcel of this effort.

The PRC has taken risks, give them credit where it is due.

For all the endless variants of the Dauphins and Super Frelons and Flankers, the French and Russians are neck deep in the latest and most critical chini projects today. That alone should be clear evident that there were no breach of contract.



Again, you seem to be doing selective reading.

The Russians are under an international - read western - embargo today.

PRC offers them cold hard cash & barter, for cooperation in weapon systems while ripping off their earlier Flankers. Russia has chosen to look the other way, and counting on its belief that by the time PRC offers its Flanker variants on the WW market, their own Su-35S and Su-57 will still have pole position.

France wants to but cannot sell Rafales to PRC since the weapons embargo remains. Their dual-use subsystems are of course available to PRC researchers & trade continues. But there is a huge difference in being neck deep in the next gen PRC fighter (which France would have done) as versus offering dual-use items or "commercial contracts".

In short, PRC has strategic aims and has muscled its way to where it can be.

Whether it is Russian engines for the J-20, JF-17 or French components for the Z-15 or C919, the proof is overwhelming that the Russians and French were not screwed with by the PRC attempting to reverse engineer their IP. If it did, both the French and the Russians, no weeping willows, would have left Cheen to wallow in its sanctions.


Sorry, but the French and Russians are perfectly willing to look the other way to make more dinero. They are traders not some utopian idealists as you make them out to be.

The French offer us cooperation with MBDA not out of the goodness of their soul but because IAI will take the deal otherwise AND they need the revenue for their next gen designs, every bit helps.

Similarly, if Almaz Antei is working with PRC, its because they know selling tons of S-3XX to PRC will give them good money for developing S-4XX and S-5XX.

Which brings us to your second assumption — reverse engineering of highly sophisticated modern fighters and helos with their thousands of moving parts of different mayerials and tolerances.

I wrote about this ad nauseum. If you can RE a Fkanker then already have the damn ability to make a Flanker equivalent and would never have needed to buy the damn thing in the first place.


You may have written about this ad nauseum but clearly you don't have a clear understanding of what they are doing.

India RE's parts for its MiG-29s, do you know this? They are flying today because of this. Yet India has issues with making a full MiG-29. There goes your claim that if you can "RE a Flanker then you have the damn ability to make a Flanker equivalent and would never have needed to buy it in the first place".

The Flanker is the results of decades of Russian work in aerospace, in aerodynamics, in structures, in defining form, fit and function.

The PRC needs to do none of this, to systematically strip a Flanker & replace whatever systems it cannot obtain a basic TOT from Ukraine or the original Russian deal, and replace it with Chinese analogues developed from the J-10 and other projects. And at a fraction of the effort, get a fighter similar in performance to a proven platform, that flies well and is proven to work!

FYI, its called subsystem - designing for the same function. It need not be the same within. Different alloy, marginally different performance - the PRC doesn't care if the domestic Flanker is 80% of the original, much better in avionics & nearly 100% local in support! Its a better deal.

Ukraine makes a ton of components for the Flanker, many ex-SU companies do. PRC has good ties with most of them and routinely sends delegations to buy jigs and manufacturing equipment lying unused.

Guess what, even India has explored the same but gave up, taking the easy way out of dealing directly with Russia, and does not want to antagonize Russia either & does the easier "legal way".

PRC gives two hoots about all this.

Much ballyhoo on BR about 5 regiments of S-400 from Russia.

Anyone here counted how many S-3XX and S-4XX regiments PRC has purchased?

Each time Russia throws a minor fit, PRC has more orders ready and the promise of more. And anyhow the Russians have the Su-35S/Su-57 programs. They get what the PRC is doing and have a deliberate Nelson's eye, because strength respects strength and its not like what the PRC is doing is something the Russians didn't do, with their extensive history of espionage and reverse engineering concepts or borrowing design elements.

In contrast, India's establishment, does not fund its own programs, has no clear coherent strategy to indigenize, its services keep rejecting local programs & we keep running back to Russia. So Russia, France can all arm-twist us and they do so.

We are not cent per cent dumb. We indigenize subsystems. HAL even publishes the numbers.

That is not however equal to a strategic decision to make all-new build airframes using these local subsystems and with near complete localization and flipping a birdie to the original agreement. PRC does this, we don't.

Those Flanker variants were not RE but were straight ToT agreements where the OEM worked with them to build and integrate all the local components.


Err not really. The Russians only have a limited level of view of what's going in China. Their manufacturers are sought out by China on case to case basis and they jump at the chance because its easy money.

Phazatron was working with China for its radar designs. Do you think they knew there was a J-20 or J-16?

It seems you don't understand technology development.

China needs to give nothing to its Russian partner other than basic specifications about the system in question and get its cooperation. The Russians can guess about what is going on, but thats all.

If China says it needs to build a wave guide assembly able to handle 1.5KW average power in the X-Band, does that mean its only for the Flanker or it can't be used for a domestic program?

That is not to say Cheen do not RE. They do and you can tell when something is reverse engineered on the sly and when something was done above board with the OEM. m

For one, without OEM blueprinted parts the RE stuff do not look exactly like the original while the OEM sanctioned ones do. But more importantly, RE takes a LONG time.


Again, you are completely confused about what RE'ing is.

RE'ing does not mean you have to copy everything down to the last element.

All you need is form, fit and function. It needs to fit in the same area, it needs the right connectors, and it needs to function as well as the original. If you copy the design within to the last mm, very easy nowadays with digital tools & systems, you can actually do old style RE'ing even easier, with all sorts of capabilities if you have a decent metallurgical industry (the PRC does). But even better, if you have an aerospace industry which is busy making stuff for western companies, you can even give them the order for a device that does likewise & fits in the same place!!

This is how India makes subsystems for its MiGs. They are not out of Russian alloy but commercial Indian ones. They are aerospace grade but don't always correspond to Russian GOST. India runs these items through jigs which show they often perform better than the original Russian ones. And yeah, they do what the aircraft requires them to do.

Where this approach is limited is in engines & specific avionics, where the original Russian components cannot be mixed and matched with non Russian ones. An Indian COTS processor running a local firmware is not going to be able to run the Russian programming on it, because we dont have access to the Russian code! An Indian alloy to replace the Russian one will have to go through all sorts of painstaking certification & its easier to just buy the Russian one or swap the darn engine once its used up.

Now do you understand why the PRC is busy replacing the avionics on its own Flankers and is so interested in changing the engine?

Give them credit, and don't underestimate them - the J-10 has allowed them to literally build an aircraft from the ground up, by buying out Israeli tech and also developing their own.

The Sinic Flanker is basically a Chinese plane, with all the rough dimensions of the Russian one, with all the "function" being carefully evaluated and stored in dozens of PRC databases, with Chinese systems replacing whatever they can.

And if Russia whines, offer them more AL-31 F orders for J-10s and Klimov for FC-1 for TSP, this order that order, that JV.

I wrote about this in the Cheen Mil thread:

This might be a real reverse-engineering project. Unlike the Flanker which took less than a decade for an exact version to be made, the Z-20 took close to 30 years to clone from Blackhawks imported during the 1980s and is not an exact copy owing to lack of OEM support.

Time comparison of a TOT with OEM support versus RE without:

J-11
initial access — 1998 (Su-27SK license)
first flight of copy — 2004 (J-11B with AL-31)
induction — 2007 (J-11B in PLAAF with WS-10 engine)


You are mixing up apples and oranges here. The basic fact is the PRC has had the J-10 program to leverage tech from. The Z-series does not.

Z-20
initial access — 1984 (import of S-70C-2 Blackhawk)
first flight of copy — 2013 (Z-20 with P&W PTC6)
induction — 2017? PLA eval unit? at best LSP not mass production

So Karan ji, I suspect I am correct. There are desi assumptions about the PRC that are easy and stereotypical to make. But they very wrong for someone looking at them from the pov of Wall Street analytics. (Heck, I just read a post from TKiran that he knows of no Amreeki firm that profited from Cheen. The PRC is THE most profitable market for a vast number of the US Fortune 500. Profit margin for American products from cars to baby formula are two times or more of that in the US.)


Dude spare me the wall street analytics stuff, please. It sounds pretty bizarrely pompous and detracts from any sort of argument you seek to make.

Forget desi and stereotypical. Your post is full of the usual erroneous assumptions about what technology is, how its developed and what can and cannot be done.

Many WW firms are getting hammered in PRC. Each time I read about how "profitable the PRC market is for x US firm" from you, I have to grin, because quite frankly, you have no idea about the street level reality about what is happening & how agile & also thuggish PRC Govt is, and the amount of desperation in many firms to show "growth" in PRC whatever the price to their own strategy. Some are making money because of the sheer size of the PRC market, many others are getting taken to the cleaners. The smart ones even have ringfenced SOPs in place to deal with their own Chinese teams.

There is nothing special about Wall Street analytics or wutever - I can count a dozen people on this board, on my fingers who are working on so many technology domains, that if they were to spend the time, they can easily point to a zillion ways PRC or India or any country does things in reality far more than what "wall street analytics" can ever tell you.

The PRC is not where it is because it had some super ability to copy modern systems so they could take risks rupturing their relationships with the few partners they had.


The PRC is where it is, because it spent and took risks, period.

They are methodical and invested in their people, in their MIC and the amount of resources they deploy speaks for itself. As inefficient as it may seem to an Indian babu who sneers at spending so much money on "weapons", the PRC recognizes military strength as core to the communist party's legitimacy domestically and internationally and hence prioritizes it.

I have a dozen amusing stories about PRC copying - they are hilarious and frightening at the same time.

PS: We Indians are no better. Indians have often beaten the PRC at their own game. Indian delegations to PRC are often chaperoned for a reason.

No, Occram’s Razor tells us that their advancements were based on the mundane premise of properly negotiated TOT where the OEMs transferred them technology for a fee — not some super human copying ability.


Your premise is flawed. There is no "properly negotiated TOT" as anyone who has seen these issues for a long time would realize. Here is one more example to show how flawed your premise is.

The Russians kept the Su-27SK equivalent running in service by adding a bypass filter to its N-001V radar, and new DSP, which with new software enhanced its range by a huge amount, allowed active BVR missiles to be used, plus added A2G modes.

PRC had to replace its radars in its fighters to even employ basic equivalents. NIIP went on record stating these were Russia only modifications.

In contrast, our Bars radar on the MKI, was widely noted by NIIP to be superior to anything in Russian service till many years later, the Su-30SM was purchased.

So much for Russia gave PRC "proper TOT" and India didn't get it.

The difference is not in some negotiation, but what both countries did with it.

PRC took its 40% made it 60% by working with Ukraine and others, hired Russian contractors & begged borrowed and stole IP for the J-10 and other programs and is now at the point of a 99% PRC Flanker even if it is nowhere near as capable as a Rafale or Su-35S. For the next generation design, they will again do everything for a J-20.

India will get 80% TOT for an advanced Flanker, stick to it, and will only look towards buying the next generation Su-57 design as versus churning out its own Flanker variants and going all-out on its own AMCA.

There is a fundamental difference in strategy and as an Indian I see no shame in acknowledging there is a significant strength to PRC's high risk high reward strategy which is backed by copious investment and solid support from its establishment.

No public whining about how J-10 is inferior to Gripen or F-16.

That is where I have my issues. Getting “technology” to make maintenance better is nothing but subcontracting to make parts (and parts for a particular production run onlee.) And for all the gadgets you listed of us having planned for the MKI, they are all accessories, not variants. We cannot make a Flanker that flies off a carrier. Hell we cannot make one extra MKI beyond some number set by the Russians. That is the real reason why we could not have a Su-30 engine testbed. Why should the IAF give up a plane? HAL could just build an extra specialized craft — if we had negotiated real ToT.
But we didn’t and we don’t.


We don't and we won't because we are not willing to jeopardize an easy ride with Russia supplying us spares for all our Russian systems and we don't have the financial gumption to replace the T-90 with Arjun if Russia plays hardball on that if we RE the Su-30 MKI and start churning them out.

PS, all the systems i listed for the MKI include the very items you were claiming made the PRC Flankers variants. So India putting EW pods and configuring the Flanker is accessorizing, whereas PRC doing that is making a Growler.. funny how that works.

This is what I mean when you are doing selective cherrypicking to win arguments versus actually understanding what PRC is doing and giving credit where it is due.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby fanne » 23 Nov 2017 20:04

Some ideas - We have Canberra's that have either retired (or retiring and in boneyards). Can we not jury rig it, to carry an engine in its central pylon. Any other space used for instrumentation and then use it for engine test bed? Or if SU30MKI or Mig 29 are not available, use Jags (yes engines are small, but we are only testing engines, one engine can be Kaveri.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 23 Nov 2017 20:16

vasu raya wrote:
Karan M wrote:GTRE did put up a proposal for a Su-30 MKI. Its yet to be funded. The IAF obviously doesnt want to donate one of its precious Flankers.

Ditto for LRDE, they want a fighter testbed. Let alone a business jet, the big news is they finally received a Do-228.

With this sort of penny-pinching (for what, 8 years, DRDO did not even get its basic asked for funding, and the number of scientists was on a decline; services also got their revenue budget slashed, let alone capex), why blame the Russians?

India has integrated the Astra, SAAW, Spice 2000, Litening G4, Griffin LGB all on the Su-30 MKI without any special permission from the Russians.

The Su-30 contract is fairly liberal and we can use it far more extensively if we had funding to do so.

In short nothing prevents you from replacing Bars with Uttam or AL-31 with Kaveri. Is an Uttam variant even funded for the Su-30 or a Kaveri available for the Flanker?


So, the very first Su-30 squadron or maybe just 8 planes that were returned to Russia for refurbishment and sold to Angola couldn't be used for above experimentation? would it have given us an option to supply them to Afganistan? if Angola can why can't Afganistan?


Those Su-30s are gone.

We can easily get a few Su-30s today for DRDO/GTRE/ADA etc.

But we aren't. Why? Because buying a few airframes and their opex costs is beyond the means for DRDO and MOD won't even bother.

This is what I mean by penny pinching and stupidity.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 23 Nov 2017 20:17

fanne wrote:Some ideas - We have Canberra's that have either retired (or retiring and in boneyards). Can we not jury rig it, to carry an engine in its central pylon. Any other space used for instrumentation and then use it for engine test bed? Or if SU30MKI or Mig 29 are not available, use Jags (yes engines are small, but we are only testing engines, one engine can be Kaveri.


Those canberras were retired for areason, their parts were no longer available.

PS: China purchased an entire IL-76 testbed (the same one we hoist the Kaveri on) from Russia. We still send our engines to Russia.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Nov 2017 20:30

A former VCoAS.AM,told me when the LCA saga was being explained to me,that he couldn't understand why our engines had to go to Ru for testing,why the same facilities were not established at BLR,time was being wasted,which he'd recommended.He said that the failure to concentrate on the engine development (Kaveri) at that time,GTRE BS about its imminent arrival,and lack of the reqd. infrastructure for developing a range of indigenous engines,would make us constantly dependent upon foreign entities and lead to inordinate delays in our fighter aircraft programmes for the LCA and those afterwards.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14624
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 23 Nov 2017 22:51

^^ Well then, that VCOAS should go ask some of his own peers and predecessors who did all they could to stifle resources for the LCA. As recently as a few years back, the then COAS, who is now facing all sorts of claims over AW and this and that, and was busy trying to negotiate Siachen as well, spoke out against increased funding for domestic aerospace efforts at an international event. The MOD mandarins take this fratricidal behavior as an ample justification to deny funding.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JayS » 23 Nov 2017 23:05

Karan M wrote:
fanne wrote:Some ideas - We have Canberra's that have either retired (or retiring and in boneyards). Can we not jury rig it, to carry an engine in its central pylon. Any other space used for instrumentation and then use it for engine test bed? Or if SU30MKI or Mig 29 are not available, use Jags (yes engines are small, but we are only testing engines, one engine can be Kaveri.


Those canberras were retired for areason, their parts were no longer available.

PS: China purchased an entire IL-76 testbed (the same one we hoist the Kaveri on) from Russia. We still send our engines to Russia.


Even that we don't do. Its done only 2-3 times in entire Kaveri project and it costs like 100Cr or so for each trip (and years to get approval). Given 2000Cr budget for entire program over 20-25yrs, one can imagine how much money can be spared for testing in Russia.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JayS » 23 Nov 2017 23:05

Philip wrote:A former VCoAS.AM,told me when the LCA saga was being explained to me,that he couldn't understand why our engines had to go to Ru for testing,why the same facilities were not established at BLR,time was being wasted,which he'd recommended.He said that the failure to concentrate on the engine development (Kaveri) at that time,GTRE BS about its imminent arrival,and lack of the reqd. infrastructure for developing a range of indigenous engines,would make us constantly dependent upon foreign entities and lead to inordinate delays in our fighter aircraft programmes for the LCA and those afterwards.


So you heard one side of the story and assumed it to be the full truth..?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1018
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Khalsa » 24 Nov 2017 01:58

Karan M wrote:PS: China purchased an entire IL-76 testbed


How different is a IL-76 testbed from an IL-76 ?
Why can't the IAF let go of one of these ? (don't answer that it lessens the capability of the squadron, yes I know about that).

Please explain what needs to be done to this IL-76 craft to turn it into a test bed.

Image

Two Boeing 747 planes have been sold on the Chinese e-shopping website Taobao for more than 320m yuan ($48m; £36m).
The jumbo jets are from a defunct cargo company and the court handling the bankruptcy had been trying to sell them for years.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42076373

There are options available to us. Isn't Air India getting rid of its 747s.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4160
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 24 Nov 2017 02:56

Khalsa wrote:There are options available to us.

Khalsa-ji: See below...

Karan M wrote:Because buying a few airframes and their opex costs is beyond the means for DRDO and MOD won't even bother.

This is what I mean by penny pinching and stupidity.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4160
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 24 Nov 2017 03:11

I believe No 18 Sqn was destined for Rafales. But flying with Tejas is the ultimate tribute to one of the IAF's bravest fighter pilots --> Flying Officer Nirmaljit Singh Sekhon.

PVC recipient Sekhon’s squadron to fly again
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 02125.html

Coursemates of Param Vir Chakra recipient Flying Officer Nirmaljit Singh Sekhon with Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa.

Image

Coinciding with the golden jubilee of the commissioning of IAF’s only Param Vir Chakra recipient, Flying Officer Nirmaljit Singh Sekhon, the Air Headquarters has drawn up plans to revive the squadron that he had served in. The squadron will be re-formed on the indigenously-built Light Combat Aircraft Tejas. Sekhon’s outfit, No. 18 Squadron, also known as Flying Bullets, had been de-commissioned or “number-plated”, as it is called in Air Force terminology, two years ago after the MiG-27 aircraft that it was equipped with were decommissioned. “We met Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa this week and he told us that the IAF is making sure that Sekhon’s contribution to the nation and the force is never forgotten,” Air Marshal AK Singh, former Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Air Command, who is Sekhon’s batchmate, said. “The process of revising the war hero’s squadron is part of this endeavour,” he added.

The squadron was formed on April 15, 1965, with Gnat fighter aircraft. It first saw action during the 1971 Indo-Pak war and operated out of Srinagar with the task of defending the Kashmir valley. Sekhon, then just 28 and hailing from Ludhiana, was part of the deployment. On 14 December 1971, Sekhon, along with another officer, scrambled to counter an attack by Pakistan aircraft and shot three enemy Sabre jets in aerial combat. His own aircraft was hit and he went down. For his actions, he was decorated with the highest gallantry award. After the war, the Gnats were replaced with HAL Ajeet in 1975. In May 1989, when the squadron was at Hindon, it received the MiG-27 and its role changed from air defence to ground attack. It then moved to Kalaikunda in the North-East, where it was awarded the President’s Standards in 2015 before flying into the sunset.

Several of Sekhon’s batchmates from the 97th Pilots’ Course, who were commissioned in June 1967, had met the IAF chief and presented him a plaque dedicated to Sekhon that would be displayed in the Air Force Museum at Palam. Reviving the squadron, however, could take time as new aircraft are yet to come in. Last year, the IAF had raised its first Tejas unit, No. 45 Squadron, the Flying Daggers, to be based at Salur in Tamil Nadu, but it has just a handful of planes and is not fully operational.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 24 Nov 2017 16:38

The AM in Q was repeatedly chosen to be DG of the ADA, who spent a few years looking for an experienced aviator with a proven track record of succcess in aviation projects to be the suitable DG.He was finally chosen by the then PM ! But babudom and the DPSUs did not want the outfit to be headed by a powerful DG who would demand accountability, especially fiscal ,where some labs to this day have failed to deliver despite incurring huge dev.costs.Typical of the "perpetual development" disease afflicting some DPSUs.He was the first to fly and evaluate the MIG-25,responsible for DARIN upgrades for Jags,etc. They delayed the file and he wasn't interested in indulging in politics and retired gracefully.There's a lot more which can't be mentioned in an open forum. This is not "one side" of the story.It has been mentioned elsewhere too some time ago.It's now sev. years old. Had he been in charge, or even if HAL was responsible for design,dev. and management things would've been different.Here both the IAF and HAL were made subservient to the ADA .

In my opinion the ADA should be disbanded and absorbed by both the IAF ( project management oversight) and HAL ( design , dev. and production).It will save both time and money and get the IAF involved from the outset as the end-user and weaned away from demanding only firang birds.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1743
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 24 Nov 2017 18:27

Karan ji, I respect your opinions. And we are not that far apart.


They are methodical and invested in their people, in their MIC and the amount of resources they deploy speaks for itself. As inefficient as it may seem to an Indian babu who sneers at spending so much money on "weapons", the PRC recognizes military strength as core to the communist party's legitimacy domestically and internationally and hence prioritizes it.


I believe so as well. I always saw their commitment to a deep and broad MIC. Read my posts on their engine development and production. They might have a hard time with mil turbofans (and we can’t even really say that any more with so many J-11Bs) but what is really impressive is their range of products sporting pistons, turboprops and turbojets from light utility planes to UCAVs to trainers to light transports. Each one bring exported and making money for the industrial base entities.

So add a profit-making and a private sector component to their set of building blocks as well.

There is no disagreement between us on this point except I believe the biggest factor in their ability to make modern fighters and mil helicopters are properly negotiated ToT for the Su-27SK, the Dauphin and the Super Frelon. ToTs that have no restrictions on variants and number of systems.

They might be older than the top marketed systems at the time but that might be the reason why those were allowed a real ToT. The OEM would be willing to sell older systems while keeping the newest in its marketing stable.

The J-16D (a two seater) is different variant from the single-seat Su-27SK. The J-15, with canards and mavalized, is a different variant from the Su-27SK. Adding pods to the MKI is not building a new variant.

Without direct OEM help, the PRC would have never been able to plug in their own engines, radars and weapons suite. Especially not in the short period between 1998 and 2014.

Again I bring up the Z-20. The PRC had a LOT of precedent in the Z-9 and Z-8. They have been building those in even more variants than the Flanker for their army, air force and navy during the same 30 years they were persuing the the CopyHawk Z-20.

The one difference is the Z-9 and Z-8 had OEM support from Eurocopter but the Z-20 did not from Sikorsky.

RE is a supplement to the indigenization effort but the main pillar is the smartly negotiated TOTs.

PRC took its 40% made it 60% by working with Ukraine and others, hired Russian contractors & begged borrowed and stole IP for the J-10 and other programs and is now at the point of a 99% PRC Flanker even if it is nowhere near as capable as a Rafale or Su-35S. For the next generation design, they will again do everything for a J-20.

India will get 80% TOT for an advanced Flanker, stick to it, and will only look towards buying the next generation Su-57 design as versus churning out its own Flanker variants and going all-out on its own AMCA.

There is a fundamental difference in strategy and as an Indian I see no shame in acknowledging there is a significant strength to PRC's high risk high reward strategy which is backed by copious investment and solid support from its establishment.


Yes I am mostly in agreement with the above. The chini stratgy is different from ours and that is itself lends to vastly different contract negotiations. The PRC negotiated for full control of a technology hence the endless variants and numbers of J-11s, Z-9s and Z-8s. We negotiate for an off-the-shelf purchase with local offsets — not ToT.

You say India would get “80% TOT for an advanced Flanker” but how us that even a transfer of tech when you cannot use that tech for anything else other than the exact number and type of MKIs stipulated in the contract. The 80 percent is local offset not ToT.

In the end, I believe we are agreement with the difference in strategy between Cheen and India. They concentrate on creating a MIC even with lower tech levels as long as they can control it. We concentrate on getting the best on market to our armed forces with local offsets.

They are a makers market. We are an users one.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Arun.prabhu » 24 Nov 2017 20:08

How many planes in a squadron - 18 to 22? Let's assume 20. So, 3.33 billion dollars per squadron. 33 billion dollars for ten squadron. 2 lakh crores, in INR. That's almost a percent of our GDP right there.

But I'm digressing, aren't I? I was making a wild ass guess with my statement. Good of you to jump on that. Let's me focus on the numbers.

IAF's budget for 2017-18 is 58473 crores. Only a part of it is used for procurement, maintenance and operations of warplanes. Rest goes to salaries, maintaining air fields, water for the troops, food, missiles for air defence, that sort of thing. Modernization budget is actually just 19278 crores. About 3 billion USD. Of that, most of it would be already earmarked for purchases made earlier but for which we're planning in tranches. In 2016-17, only 12% of the modernization budget for the Indian Armed Forces was available for procuring new equipment of a total of 70000 crores. That's about 1.4 billion dollars. And here's the kicker. We did not use about 8000 crores of those 70000 in 2016-17. You feel a laugh coming on now? I'm laughing out loud here, btw.

So, out of maybe 2billion dollars for new contracts available this year - and I'm being wild optimistic - you want us to purchase aircraft worth 166 million USD. Aircraft worth a 1000 crores in other words. In what world do you think that the IAF would aggressively operate a fleet of aircraft worth 1000 crores in wartime risking destruction of craft and death of pilot when those puny infantry are worth cost so much less?

Oh, and here's the <edit>other</edit> kicker. After buying those 10 squadrons for 2 lakh crores, do you think that the IAF will be able to procure enough other planes to reach the 42 squadrons we need to fight a two front war. Without those planes, we can't sustain full fledged combat operations at peak tempo for any reasonable period of time. Equipment will break down, not enough will be up in the air to cover all sectors, aircraft will be caught on the ground because enemy planes slipped through gaps in our patrol, our army won't get CAS, we can't maintain air dominance or even air superiority, we would only need to lose one or two major air battles to totally lose all semblance of air cover...


And since my blood is up as I type this reply and even though this will likely get me banned...

The fact that IAF planners continue to push for hyper expensive warplanes when we have such a high quantity shortage... The fact that successive governments have allowed the IAF and the MOD babus to lead us to this position of weakness... As an Indian, my blood boils. When the East India Company conquered our little warlords and kings piecemeal, they found absolutely nothing wrong with the rank and file in our armies and cavalry - brave as brave can be and courageous to a fault. How else could Indian armies have fought so many forlorn hopes throughout history and died to the last man? But they held nothing but absolute contempt for most command level officers and the rulers. There were a few here and there who could find their behinds without floodlights, but those were the exceptions. The rest were wasting the air they breathed. It is disheartening to know that less than seventy years since our independence, we've devolved back to that level.

Our borders are open. Our defence forces are denuded without enough officers, without materiel/shoddy materiel and equipment. And instead of giving our armed forces the equipment that we can build and support and most importantly, fund with our limited budget, we want foreign maal because IT IS THE BEST OF THE BEST. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the insanity of it all.

Katare wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:And what would we do with those damned expensive planes? Hide them in bunkers in war because with each downed plane goes - what ten percent - of the IAF's annual budget? Stop dreaming of wasting good taxpayer monies. Spend on Indian. Even if LCA were not a world beater, it is Indian, it is cheap and we can field tons of it if the Government and the armed forces have the will. Quantity will always beat quality when quantity is of good enough quality.




Where did I say buy foreign not desi?
Do you think IAF's budget is $1.6 Billion (*so 10% of it will be $166 M)?

Guruji thoda padha karo dhyan se and also check you numbers. Bhavnao mein na bha karo....sab rakshak hai yahan!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17855
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 24 Nov 2017 23:11

The LCA is a good point defence fighter with added GA/CS capability.Equipped with both BVR and WVR AAMs that we are using on our marquee MKIs, and given its size and reduced stealth, it should be ideal for the fighter/ fighter-ground attack class that does most of the biz during wartime.The ball is now in the ,mantra.

.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests