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: 15 August 2017

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 07:45

Indranil wrote:
If refueling is a luxury not accorded to India, then why put those draggy, heavy, RCS increasing probes on the fighters? We even got them on our C-130s for special-ops!

With IFR, you can stage your aircraft further inland. In combat sorties, especially in strike roles, an aircraft uses up a significant amount of its fuel in TO and reaching altitude. You could have your refuelers 100 km from the borders where they top off the fighters and let them play. You could strike 500 km inside Pakistan using Tejas. Also, imagine point defence or CAP roles. The fighters will be in our territory and the ideal configuration is a loadout of only A2A missiles and only internal fuel. IFR can help you reach this config, or as close to it as possible (small DTs) without sacrificing endurance.

I am dead against "F-35 for India". But, that is my opinion and OT for this thread.

I will stick to fighters initially and talk about C-130s later

In fact I am also asking why we are putting those heavy refuelling probes on all fighters. I do agree that for oversea roles and for overseas deployment refuelling is useful.

I have myself made the "takeoff with half fuel and full bomb load and top up" argument but I am questioning the utility of that in the India-Pakistan context and in the India China context for several reasons and I want to know the rationale.

Pakistan radars are watching India all the time. Refuelling is typically done at high altitude, in good weather. Refuellers cannot really be hovering around 30-40 km from the border - at least for long periods flying steadily at 20-25000 feet suckling fighters. That refuelling has to be done maybe 100km+ inside. They will still be visible clearly to Paki radar and any attacks will be met by a welcoming committee.

The situation over Tibet/China is not much better. But I do agree that refuelling can be done on the Indian side to give maximum range to Indian fighters. But the fact is that targets in Tibet are mostly in South Tibet - within 500 km. Chinese targets in the east are 2000 km away - out of reach without having refuellers flying over Tibet.

I would have thought that an aircraft loaded with dumb bombs going to dump on a target is not what the future is looking like. I see the future as a plane with a medium load of 2-4 smart munitions or stand off munitions and not a "full load" of 8-20 dumb bombs requiring overflying the target. Flying out with drop tanks is perfectly acceptable for this. Every single image of Gripens over Libya or F-16s over Iraq, despite having access to refuellers typicaly carried 2 drop tanks and 4 AAMs (maybe 6 depending on the aircraft). I do not believe that there is any point sending up fighters with 8 or 12 AAM for so many reasons. A combat air patrol even as escort would be 4 -6 AAMs - + 2 drop tanks. Drop the tanks and you have better agility and if there is no engagement you don't have to return with a huge load of AAMs whose carriage life you have used up in a fruitless flight. There is nothing wrong in doing a top-up refuel for a plane with drop tanks. It is done all the time AFAIK

The C-130 case is different. We (India) have had several instances where we have transported men and special forces over long distances for overseas ops or humanitarian work. Refuellers for that role should not be forgotten in our eagerness to talk combat combat combat

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 23 Nov 2017 09:23

shiv wrote:
In fact I am also asking why we are putting those heavy refuelling probes on all fighters.


In simple terms, because if allows more flexibility in planning to IAF. They can do little bit more with given aircraft, beyond its capability without IFR. The cost of IFR capability offsets the cost of acquisition of costlier or more number of fighters. Now the IAF needs to crunch the numbers and see whether it makes economical sense for it in real life or not.

IAF is asking for more payload and endurance and hence LCA is not acceptable. As you say there are only a limited situations where actually IAF would go to that limits. So the question is can LCA cover those handful of situations with IFR..? If yes then IAF does not need SEF at all and can do with cheaper and more numerous LCAs. There is no arguing that IFR certainly increases LCA's range and payload capability beyond its designed capacity without IFR.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 23 Nov 2017 09:28

With the success of the air-launched BMos,the MKI with its 1500km combat radius should be able to the biz anywhere in the IOR,at longer ranges with refuelling.There's really no need for little LCA to compete with this heavy class of fighter.This attempt to make the LCA be an underperforming MMRCA is quite misleading and a deliberate attempt to dump the LCA in favour of a firang bird.For enhanced strike surely a couple more MKIs to SS std. BMos equipped satisfies the "itch" for a PC Sorcar act on the LCA?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 09:40

JayS wrote: then IAF does not need SEF at all and can do with cheaper and more numerous LCAs.

Apart from recent "motivated" news reports - the IAF never asked for a SEF. The IAF had only asked for Mig 21 replacement and later Mirage replacement. That morphed into MMRCA and Rafale. That failed.

Now the government is saying Tejas + SEF.

IAF (officially) has not said Tejas is "not enough" they say "numbers are not enough". The IAF has to toe the government line

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 09:54

As an aside, if you ask me, I would say that the IAF really does not know how or when it's depleting fleet strength can be arrested and expanded to 42 or 45 whatever sqs. It is fundamentally gormint ji marzi

The IAF is going to get its 272 plus Su-30s. They will get their 36 Rafales. They will also get and approximate number of LCA-Tejas over the next decae.

None of this is going to 100% arrest depleting strength or increase sqn strength.

The only solution appears to be SEF

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 23 Nov 2017 09:58

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote: then IAF does not need SEF at all and can do with cheaper and more numerous LCAs.

Apart from recent "motivated" news reports - the IAF never asked for a SEF. The IAF had only asked for Mig 21 replacement and later Mirage replacement. That morphed into MMRCA and Rafale. That failed.

Now the government is saying Tejas + SEF.

IAF (officially) has not said Tejas is "not enough" they say "numbers are not enough". The IAF has to toe the government line


I am not convinced that if by some magical means we can get enough LCA to fulfil all number req, IAF would be still happy to let go SEF. But thats my opinion.

You can take my above post as "for example" for IFR related argument. A hypothetical case.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6616
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 23 Nov 2017 10:19

Shiv saar,
prime threat to "coalition" air forces in the past two decades has not been from derelict cold war era russian built fighters but AAD. The no-fly zone enforcement thing was just waving a big danda with no real effect except as deterrence against air attacks on saudi and kuwait. Once the war began, saddam buried his fighters or sent them to Iran. Overwhelming numbers tell.
Bulk of missions run by the air component was SEAD/DEAD mud mover missions. Be it afghanistan, iraq, syria or lybia.

We will not have that kind of advantage.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5887
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 23 Nov 2017 10:21

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote: then IAF does not need SEF at all and can do with cheaper and more numerous LCAs.

Apart from recent "motivated" news reports - the IAF never asked for a SEF. The IAF had only asked for Mig 21 replacement and later Mirage replacement. That morphed into MMRCA and Rafale. That failed.

Now the government is saying Tejas + SEF.

IAF (officially) has not said Tejas is "not enough" they say "numbers are not enough". The IAF has to toe the government line

No lesser the ex ACM Arup Raha has said it on multiple occasions. I can't remember the current ACM saying it, but I can't remember him refuting it either.

MP supported the SEF acquisition, but the current MoD seems to be questioning an over 1 lakh crore acquisition and hence all this discussion.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 10:32

IIRC the SEF deal was to be announced by the "end of the year" (2017)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 10:40

Prasad wrote:Shiv saar,
prime threat to "coalition" air forces in the past two decades has not been from derelict cold war era russian built fighters but AAD. The no-fly zone enforcement thing was just waving a big danda with no real effect except as deterrence against air attacks on saudi and kuwait. Once the war began, saddam buried his fighters or sent them to Iran. Overwhelming numbers tell.
Bulk of missions run by the air component was SEAD/DEAD mud mover missions. Be it afghanistan, iraq, syria or lybia.

We will not have that kind of advantage.
The no fly zone still meant continuous patrols by AWACS and air defence fighters that lasted for a long time. Long enough to build up a coalition. Build up forces and then attack. This luxury will not be available to India fighting alone. Imagine if we could have built up a no fly zone over Pakistan after the parliament attack 2002. That means we would have been shooting down anything Pakistani over Pakistan if they took off while we took our own sweet time to build up our forces. That essentially means air dominance.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6616
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 23 Nov 2017 10:49

Exactly. Even there, they had the luxury of staging from Saudi with enough distance between them that Saddam couldn't attack first (in 2003). Whereas we are pretty much like two balconies lined up next to each other in a mylapore apartment where your eyes start watering when neighbour throws chillies in the hot oil for tadka.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 10:51

Indranil wrote:MP supported the SEF acquisition, but the current MoD seems to be questioning an over 1 lakh crore acquisition

Is there any MoD release to support this or is this a rumour that has gradually generated itself by Chinese whispers the way the IAF "presentation" to MoD became a Power Point and how F-16/Gripen specs changed from report to report

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 10:55

Prasad wrote:Exactly. Even there, they had the luxury of staging from Saudi with enough distance between them that Saddam couldn't attack first (in 2003). Whereas we are pretty much like two balconies lined up next to each other in a mylapore apartment where your eyes start watering when neighbour throws chillies in the hot oil for tadka.

:D

They were flying in from all over. From carriers. From Europe. From Turkey. From KSA. Everywhere with safe airspace for refuelling as required in almost any direction.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9286
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Aditya_V » 23 Nov 2017 10:58

shiv wrote:
Prasad wrote:Shiv saar,
prime threat to "coalition" air forces in the past two decades has not been from derelict cold war era russian built fighters but AAD. The no-fly zone enforcement thing was just waving a big danda with no real effect except as deterrence against air attacks on saudi and kuwait. Once the war began, saddam buried his fighters or sent them to Iran. Overwhelming numbers tell.
Bulk of missions run by the air component was SEAD/DEAD mud mover missions. Be it afghanistan, iraq, syria or lybia.

We will not have that kind of advantage.
The no fly zone still meant continuous patrols by AWACS and air defence fighters that lasted for a long time. Long enough to build up a coalition. Build up forces and then attack. This luxury will not be available to India fighting alone. Imagine if we could have built up a no fly zone over Pakistan after the parliament attack 2002. That means we would have been shooting down anything Pakistani over Pakistan if they took off while we took our own sweet time to build up our forces. That essentially means air dominance.


To add to it, coalition forces at their time choosing kept attacking Saddam air defenses outside the no fly zone, this with 12 year sanctions, meant their was no Iraqi air force, no sams, no air defense. They wanted a walk over, in 1991 even though Iraq was routed in Kuwait trying to take whole country would not have been so easy.

We will definitely not have that kind of luxury.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5887
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 23 Nov 2017 11:02

shiv wrote:
Indranil wrote:MP supported the SEF acquisition, but the current MoD seems to be questioning an over 1 lakh crore acquisition

Is there any MoD release to support this or is this a rumour that has gradually generated itself by Chinese whispers the way the IAF "presentation" to MoD became a Power Point and how F-16/Gripen specs changed from report to report

I remember seeing a video in which MP said this. Can't exactly remember when he visited Bangalore or in an interview. If you insist, I can dig it out.

The goal was to get a private player in and placate the IAF who were kind of left in the lurch with the sudden culling of MMRCA numbers to just 36.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 23 Nov 2017 11:59

Indranil wrote:
shiv wrote:Is there any MoD release to support this or is this a rumour that has gradually generated itself by Chinese whispers the way the IAF "presentation" to MoD became a Power Point and how F-16/Gripen specs changed from report to report

I remember seeing a video in which MP said this. Can't exactly remember when he visited Bangalore or in an interview. If you insist, I can dig it out.

The goal was to get a private player in and placate the IAF who were kind of left in the lurch with the sudden culling of MMRCA numbers to just 36.


MP has repeatedly said, on multiple occasions, more than one fighters (at least once specifically - one Single engine and one twin engine fighter) are to be "Make in India" since right after MMRCA was cancelled. And much before IN issued RFI for naval jets. And from how the things are going so far, we will indeed have two such MII fighter programs in all probability.

Its rather difficult to look for videos but here is one that I could locate with some efforts where MP talks about both SE and TE requirements. This is from Aero India.

http://bharatshakti.in/india-looking-fo ... -parrikar/

See from 2:20 min.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 12:31

No. That is not what I am asking. I know Parikkar mooted the single engine fighter. I can dig out the reports myself. The question I am asking is if there is an official statement from the MoD under Jaitley or Nirmala Sitharam asking the air force to forgo the single engine fighter in favor of Tejas. That is a rumour as far as I can tell. In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF. Nothing to do with Parikkar.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 23 Nov 2017 12:41

shiv wrote:No. That is not what I am asking. I know Parikkar mooted the single engine fighter. I can dig out the reports myself. The question I am asking is if there is an official statement from the MoD under Jaitley or Nirmala Sitharam asking the air force to forgo the single engine fighter in favor of Tejas. That is a rumour as far as I can tell. In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF. Nothing to do with Parikkar.

True there is no official MoD statement. And we shouldn't expect (going by past experience) it from MoD for quite a while even if its true.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 23 Nov 2017 12:52

shiv wrote:No. That is not what I am asking. I know Parikkar mooted the single engine fighter. I can dig out the reports myself. The question I am asking is if there is an official statement from the MoD under Jaitley or Nirmala Sitharam asking the air force to forgo the single engine fighter in favor of Tejas. That is a rumour as far as I can tell. In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF. Nothing to do with Parikkar.


The "rumour" is based on the same India Today article that brought in the PPT and strange comparison numbers. The article said that the NSA wants to know why not Tejas instead of SE. Article is linked on first post of pg 28 of this thread.

India Today has been very aligned with some things of MoD recently- like the Doklam standoff.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 23 Nov 2017 13:37

deejay wrote:
shiv wrote:No. That is not what I am asking. I know Parikkar mooted the single engine fighter. I can dig out the reports myself. The question I am asking is if there is an official statement from the MoD under Jaitley or Nirmala Sitharam asking the air force to forgo the single engine fighter in favor of Tejas. That is a rumour as far as I can tell. In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF. Nothing to do with Parikkar.


The "rumour" is based on the same India Today article that brought in the PPT and strange comparison numbers. The article said that the NSA wants to know why not Tejas instead of SE. Article is linked on first post of pg 28 of this thread.

India Today has been very aligned with some things of MoD recently- like the Doklam standoff.


And this was rather different from those usual DDM reports. And flagged off the sixth sense that its possibly true.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 17:33

deejay wrote:
The "rumour" is based on the same India Today article that brought in the PPT and strange comparison numbers. The article said that the NSA wants to know why not Tejas instead of SE. Article is linked on first post of pg 28 of this thread.

India Today has been very aligned with some things of MoD recently- like the Doklam standoff.

There's a lot of opaque stuff here. PPT was quoted by BRFite Dileep as example - not the news IIRC

From my viewpoint - why should a news portal bluff numbers but be truthful about Doval

Of course the news could have been accurate about numbers also but the numbers are a combination of bluff and misleading white lies. So why should the Doval reference be true is what I was wondering? The other thing is Doval is not MoD - and while this leak could well be from MoD - someone is claiming "Senior Air Force officer says blah blah" "Doval says blah blah" and some of that blah is pure bluff.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5100
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 23 Nov 2017 17:47

PPT is a figure of speech. The report could have been printed in quadruplicate on fanfold paper using dot matrix printer. Do we really care how it was presented? The fact of the matter is, there was a 'formal information transfer' from IAF to the MoD.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15962
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby chetak » 23 Nov 2017 17:57

shiv wrote:
deejay wrote:
The "rumour" is based on the same India Today article that brought in the PPT and strange comparison numbers. The article said that the NSA wants to know why not Tejas instead of SE. Article is linked on first post of pg 28 of this thread.

India Today has been very aligned with some things of MoD recently- like the Doklam standoff.

There's a lot of opaque stuff here. PPT was quoted by BRFite Dileep as example - not the news IIRC

From my viewpoint - why should a news portal bluff numbers but be truthful about Doval

Of course the news could have been accurate about numbers also but the numbers are a combination of bluff and misleading white lies. So why should the Doval reference be true is what I was wondering? The other thing is Doval is not MoD - and while this leak could well be from MoD - someone is claiming "Senior Air Force officer says blah blah" "Doval says blah blah" and some of that blah is pure bluff.


why on earth would the NSA get involved with IAF procurement?? or even have an opinion on a topic that is not in his balliwick??

He is by far the most accomplished NSA that we have had so far. He will not blot his copy book by speaking out of turn, no matter which toilet paper rag says what.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2596
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 23 Nov 2017 18:03

Guys, is there law/mechanics that stops news givers (or peddlers) from deliberately misleading? In this day/age where information is power, you cannot deliberately mislead, not in public capacity (as a news distributor). It is like a doctor is wrong with its patient, he cannot say hey you have cancer when he does not (and reason behind it can be altruistic, maybe he wants to scare him to adopt good habits). News are same. Maybe the general public have not brought law against them, and fighting it out by naming/shaming (recently through tweets etc), but is there a law?
Like this news is easy, the govt would know if this kind of meeting happened, and these people said what they said. If it is untrue, as govt is having policy, withhold all public ad for 6 months. IT can hide behind sources and say sources mislead them, that could be a fair argument if that happened (but in that case they have to reveal sources and sources interviewed that they indeed mislead, if not, if it was totally made up than IT fires the person who consented this and pay a fine)....I this too utopian or draconian?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2596
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 23 Nov 2017 18:05

Well from my side, given the lack of talent (as in a person who will get things done, and get it done in spite of domestic/foreign obstacles), he is the best guy, he should be involved with this. This effect National Security and has players/institutions that are all over the place trying to derail it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 18:06

Dileep wrote:PPT is a figure of speech. The report could have been printed in quadruplicate on fanfold paper using dot matrix printer. Do we really care how it was presented? The fact of the matter is, there was a 'formal information transfer' from IAF to the MoD.

I understand that - but this thread is an example of Chinese whispers where you use a figure of speech and it becomes what "someone read recently". The reason I brought that up is because - if we stick to the original report and original report alone - there is no mention of MoD having asked IAF whether they need SEF. But along the way - the story has changed to "Nirmala Sitharam does not want SEF unlike Parikkar and hence the air force leaked a PPT"

This last sentence has zero facts.

In fact we don't even know if there was "formal information transfer' from IAF to the MoD."

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5887
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 23 Nov 2017 19:12

If not asked, why would IAF make such a "presentation", or should I call misrepresentation of the capabilities of the SEF entrants and LCA?

Sometimes we should call 2+2=4, and leave it at that.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 23 Nov 2017 19:35

Indranil wrote:If not asked, why would IAF make such a "presentation", or should I call misrepresentation of the capabilities of the SEF entrants and LCA?

Sometimes we should call 2+2=4, and leave it at that.

Did the IAF really make the misrepresentation is the question? That too to MOD. Know this, if facts were deliberately distorted in official capacity to the MoD, the officer concerned is liable for punishment.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 19:41

Indranil wrote:If not asked, why would IAF make such a "presentation", or should I call misrepresentation of the capabilities of the SEF entrants and LCA?

.

Apart from a media report that bluffs about the capabilities of various fighters what is the evidence that such a presentation was made at all.

Is it being suggested that we accept and believe that part of the media report that says the IAF made a presentation, but then we go ahead and dispute the data about SEF/Tejas in that same presentation. I would call that an arbitrary designation of what is true and what is not.

If we are going to dispute the data in that media report about SEF and Tejas why do we believe the rest of the report and swallow the story that such a presentation was actually made. That too may be a bluff. I believe it is. Why is one part of the report true and another part false?

This is the question I have asked. For the 4th time in this thread.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6616
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 23 Nov 2017 20:00

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 23 Nov 2017 20:56

Prasad wrote:falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

Thanks I learned something today and it is exactly applicable in this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in ... in_omnibus

SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SiddharthS » 23 Nov 2017 21:03

samirdiw wrote:
SiddharthS wrote:

By importing weapons Indian institutions have jeopardized nation's security. There is no appreciation of iterative development in the Army and Air Force , every equipment has to be up to the mark, no desire to build upon the product.

Services have impeded the growth of Indian MIC By giving very high requirements and then expecting DRDO to meet them in the first iteration. After the first flight in 2001 ,IAf should have ordered 60 aircrafts in the 2001 SOP with addition of few plugs after each batch ,producing it till 2010 and also parallelly developing Block 1, from 2010 to 2015 another 100 Block 1 should have been produced while concurrently developing Block 1a,and from 2015 to 2020 another 150 Block 1a should have been produced while developing the Block 2. Iterative development is the only way a novice nation can build a formidable MIC.

IAF would rather have nothing than make do with something that has few shortages. This mindset is perfectly captured by an old adage: will only wear a high quality saree or else will stay naked.


This should be framed on BR's front page!

But it is upto DRDO Product Management to take the initiative, propose this and layout what each block will contain and obtain pre-approved orders on the condition it meets the outlined goal of each block. Have they?

Can't depend on the client to create the model for delivery.


That would be an inefficient way of doing iterative development and would invite delays.

 The efficient way would be to have HAL/DRDO/ADA develop whatever they can in the span of five years and put that in production ,and while that block is in production for five years develop the next block.

It should have been done like this :

2001-2010  - production of 60 aircraft in the 2001 sop with addition of few plugs after each batch.
                  - whatever that came out after research-development-testing in 2010 call it a Block 1.   

2010-2015 - production of 100 Block 1 Tejas.
                 - whatever that came out after research-development-testing in 2015 call it a Block 2                                                                                              
2015-2020 - production of 100 block 2 Tejas.
                 - whatever that comes out after research-development-testing in 2020 call it a Block 3
.
.
.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6616
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 23 Nov 2017 21:58

shiv wrote:
Prasad wrote:falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

Thanks I learned something today and it is exactly applicable in this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in ... in_omnibus

OT: i actually learnt this from a tamil movie in which Karthik, the hero, is a lawyer arguing to save his dad from a murder case and uses this argument and explained it in tamil. So all that movie watching can be useful :D

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5887
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 24 Nov 2017 00:28

The data points in that report are beyond DDM. That much I can tell you.

My goal is not to win the argument or insinuate IAF. I rest my case.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4166
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 24 Nov 2017 00:58

Armed Forces are public institutions which must be open to critique --> one of the foundations of a healthy democracy. Silencing those voices reeks of hyper patriotism. No place in our society.

However there must be valid and verifiable evidence to criticize. If no evidence exists then the criticism is invalid. If otherwise, then the ones who maligned the Tejas need to be removed from service. Similar to the army personnel who supposedly drove the Arjun tank 1000+ kms in reverse. Wearing a uniform does not turn you into the Almighty and who must never be questioned. That is a dangerous path which will see us end up like Pakistan or China. The folks who wear the uniform and willingly put down or purposefully damage/destroy local products, malign the uniform for everyone else who wears them honorably.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Khalsa » 24 Nov 2017 01:45

shiv wrote:The question I am asking is if there is an official statement from the MoD under Jaitley or Nirmala Sitharam asking the air force to forgo the single engine fighter in favor of Tejas.
That is a rumour as far as I can tell.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
Nothing to do with Parikkar.


In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1818
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby PratikDas » 24 Nov 2017 01:59

The goal is to leave the door open for everyone to save face as the LCA is chosen instead of the SEF. Nothing else matters.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3687
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 24 Nov 2017 03:12

shiv wrote:
Dileep wrote:PPT is a figure of speech. The report could have been printed in quadruplicate on fanfold paper using dot matrix printer. Do we really care how it was presented? The fact of the matter is, there was a 'formal information transfer' from IAF to the MoD.

I understand that - but this thread is an example of Chinese whispers where you use a figure of speech and it becomes what "someone read recently". The reason I brought that up is because - if we stick to the original report and original report alone - there is no mention of MoD having asked IAF whether they need SEF. But along the way - the story has changed to "Nirmala Sitharam does not want SEF unlike Parikkar and hence the air force leaked a PPT"

This last sentence has zero facts.

In fact we don't even know if there was "formal information transfer' from IAF to the MoD."


That IAF report was in response to this earlier event.

Rakesh wrote:Reproduction of Kartik's post (only article) in the IAF: News & Discussion thread.
We
Defence Minister pulls up IAF
The top brass of the Indian Air Force has reportedly been pulled up by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman for inappropriate responses on its depleting squadron strength before a parliamentary panel. At a meeting of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Defence on October 27, IAF officials, including Vice Chief Air Marshal S B Deo, were reportedly criticised by the minister, as they only talked about the problems related to depleting squadron strength, but did not offer any solution. As the meeting discussed the IAF's depleting strength, Deo explained the problems to the lawmakers but stopped short of suggesting a solution to the crisis. This angered the minister, who wanted IAF and defence ministry officials to also tell the MPs about the possible solution.

The officials later told the minister that in the next meeting of the panel, they would come prepared with possible solutions on the vexed issue. The IAF's squadron strength has come down to 33 in comparison to the sanctioned strength of 42. Of the 33 squadrons, nearly 10 squadrons are made up of old MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircraft that are being phased out. The only new induction is 36 French origin Rafale aircraft. The first one is expected to be inducted by 2019. The IAF would also get another 36 Su-30 MKI aircraft and plans to induct more than 120 indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft. To make up for the MiG multi-role combat jets on the verge of retirement, the IAF is looking at purchasing more single-engine fighter aircraft of the same class. The government, however, is yet to take a final decision on the proposal.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3687
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 24 Nov 2017 05:15

Khalsa wrote:
shiv wrote:The question I am asking is if there is an official statement from the MoD under Jaitley or Nirmala Sitharam asking the air force to forgo the single engine fighter in favor of Tejas.
That is a rumour as far as I can tell.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
Nothing to do with Parikkar.


In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.
In fact that rumour has taken root on BRF.

Yes the Shining :)

People can call it rumors but it has been reported by multiple major Indian news outlets like the ToI, The Indian Express, and The Hindu. Obviously we don't know all the information but someone of "senior official" has been leaking selected sound bites to the media as a way to influence decisions. The lack of rebuttal from the IAF or MoD says something.

What if a major news outlet started saying things like their senior source(s) said the LCA fulfills all requirements and SE MII import is no longer needed. Will the IAF then respond? :twisted:

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5100
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 24 Nov 2017 07:26

shiv wrote:In fact we don't even know if there was "formal information transfer' from IAF to the MoD."


Yes, we do. I heard corroborating information from a very reliable source. The basic premises of the report are correct onlee.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, prasannasimha, Suresh S, Vinay_GR, Yahoo [Bot] and 48 guests