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: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 19:18

Rhetorical question:

Suppose there is no Single engine fighter and Tejas is delivered in whatever numbers possible by say 2020 . What will HAL do after that? AMCA?

Suppose a private player/players are involved in production of single engine fighter - and in 15 years they have delivered the goods. What will they do after that? Close shop?

What is the future for our aerospace industry after 2025?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3571
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 12 Nov 2017 19:40

^^^
IOC/FOC standard production of AMCA won't take place until after 2035. There will be some number of prototypes of it being built when the next phase of R&D commences.

LCA Mk.1, Mk.1A, Mk.2, LIFT etc would need to support the Indian aviation (combat) until 2035. The IAF, MOD, GoI, HAL, ADA, DRDO et al could work with the Indian industry to setup more lines if more orders are placed and continual orders are forthcoming. All of these partners could then graduate to building AMCA when that time comes (and sufficient orders are placed).

Importing another SE at this juncture at the expense of indigenous LCA is nothing but shortsightedness of everyone involved.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 19:55

srai wrote:^^^
IOC/FOC standard production of AMCA won't take place until after 2035. There will be some number of prototypes of it being built when the next phase of R&D commences.

LCA Mk.1, Mk.1A, Mk.2, LIFT etc would need to support the Indian aviation (combat) until 2035. The IAF, MOD, GoI, HAL, ADA, DRDO et al could work with the Indian industry to setup more lines if more orders are placed and continual orders are forthcoming. All of these partners could then graduate to building AMCA when that time comes (and sufficient orders are placed).

Importing another SE at this juncture at the expense of indigenous LCA is nothing but shortsightedness of everyone involved.


In other words HAL/ADA/HAL/ADA/HAL/DRDO/PSU. Period.

No private entity is required to put in the investment to develop a parallel aerospace industry. No parallel lines like Lochkeed, Gen Dynamics, Boeing etc. Just HAL HAL HAL and some supporting pvt actors

That sounds like tunnel vision to me from ahead of curve BRF

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3571
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 12 Nov 2017 20:03

^^^
Don't jump the gun doc shab :) No one is saying just the defense should be public only. The private industry is already participating in the manufacture of the LCA. Even HAL chairman has stated that the third line for LCA should be done by private company. More orders are needed for that to happen. You don't need to import a foreign fighter to get the Indian private companies going.

Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 20:11

srai wrote:^^^
Don't jump the gun doc shab :) No one is saying just the defense should be public only. The private industry is already participating in the manufacture of the LCA. [/img]

The participation is too little. Not merely Tier 1, 2 and 3 component suppliers. There should be production lines and design houses to come up from profits made by production lines. If foreign collaboration can help put up those production lines we need it. Collaborating with "Oh my hands and stomach are full" HAL for LCA simply does not cut it.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3571
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 12 Nov 2017 20:14

Yes, the word is "if foreign collaboration" will do magic. All these years, haven't seen it. Let's see if what you wish for is what India gets. Then that will be great.

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3513
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 12 Nov 2017 20:49

The Sqn calculations and the urge to make 42 (BTW, Hitch hikers guide to galaxy gives the answer to most import question in the universe and that is 42 :D ):

Q 1) Why does IAF need 42 Sqns? : Is there a Parliamentary requirement; Is there a doctrine; Is there are a fixed threat assessment irrespective of enemy developments;

Q2) Are the Hawks, Pilatus, Kiran, Heron, Searchers, part of the 42 Sqn count or the 42 Sqn here means that which fighter jocks will fly in combat alone? : Are the 42 Sqns defined in terms of roles (Strike, CAP, Deep Strike (how deep), Strategic, Multi Role, CAS, etc) - how many of each and where; Are the 42 Sqns defined in terms of serviceability (%, nos available at any time)- you get the 42nd drift?

Q3) Is there a forecast on increasing requirement or decreasing fighter requirement in the coming decade - will warfare evolve with 5th gen penetrating air space - as in will 5th Gen have their own sqn counts not part of the 42 (AoA 42 sound so much like 72!)

Q4) Naval Air arm is expanding. IA may get own fixed wing element. BSF is moving there too. If combat fixed wing enters IA and BSF, does the countries dedicated air arm redefine its role and switches to specialized roles only - what happens to 42?


The above are questions directed at those trying to analyse 42 Sqns and 200 LCAs. IMHO, a successful LCA will find customers in multiple air forces. IAF itself may evolve into a different force structure in future. Today we are a defensive 02 front IAF, tomorrow we may need dedicated expeditionary element within IAF too. If not maybe the naval air arm will grow further.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 12 Nov 2017 21:13

Hakeem: The idea that production lines from Lockheed Martin or Saab are going to give birth to design houses has been disproven. The issue lies not in the lack of design houses. The HF-24, the proposed but cancelled HF-73, the Tejas and the upcoming AMCA have proved that India can design a world class fighter. What design houses germinated in India from the Jaguar and the Hawk production lines? I am not going to bring up the production lines of the MiG-21 and Su-30MKI because Russian products are pieces of shit as per the import lobby.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6581
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 12 Nov 2017 21:31

Shiv saar,
We are not 1940s/1950s USA to fund development of multitudes of fighters and bombers and everything in between. HAL is ready to hand off production to tier 1 suppliers and become lead integrator. A company that wants to build fighters or airplanes in future would jump at the opportunity and get production experience and design,dev experience of lower sections and work towards their own design in future. A one generation jump from production to full fledged fighter design is asking for the moon imo. AMCA, Ghatak are all in the pipeline. They could collaborate in design of sub-systems for these. Lockheed Martin wasn't built in a day.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 22:03

Prasad wrote:Shiv saar,
We are not 1940s/1950s USA to fund development of multitudes of fighters and bombers and everything in between. HAL is ready to hand off production to tier 1 suppliers and become lead integrator. A company that wants to build fighters or airplanes in future would jump at the opportunity and get production experience and design,dev experience of lower sections and work towards their own design in future.

No. Aircraft numbers are very small and the private tier 1.2,3 suppliers will be totally restricted by HAL's capacity and drive. That is bondage. not autonomy and freedom to drive profits ahead

Ironically it was the government that kickstarted car production in India with a foreign collaboration as Maruti Suzuki. That model worked wonders for India.

Forget USA. Even China and Russia have competing design teams that give ideas to production lines. Russia had the lines and China set up parallel lines

Our design teams are gormint. Our single production line is gormint and dependent on gormint sloth or energy, farmer suicides, elections, political allies etc etc. This is not the way to expand an industry.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 22:06

Rakesh wrote:Hakeem: The idea that production lines from Lockheed Martin or Saab are going to give birth to design houses has been disproven.

That is not the argument that I made. We need production lines who want to make a profit and are independent of whether HAL lives or dies. If the production line must survive it must produce and sell like all private companies rather than live on government money like HAL, paying gardeners drivers, tea boys etc salaries and increments, DA/ADA, AADA for life whether there are orders or not

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 22:11

srai wrote:Yes, the word is "if foreign collaboration" will do magic. All these years, haven't seen it.

Not foreign collaboration. Foreign investment in an entire aircraft production line where parts are initially assembled "integrated" as HAL likes to call it and later components outsourced from Indian industries who will get more than the peanuts that HAL can throw at them. The private Indian collaborator has to be a business house interested in making profits and keeping profits flowing in. That is innovation. Of a sort.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47919
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 12 Nov 2017 22:12

deejay wrote:The Sqn calculations and the urge to make 42 (BTW, Hitch hikers guide to galaxy gives the answer to most import question in the universe and that is 42 :D ):

Q 1) Why does IAF need 42 Sqns? : Is there a Parliamentary requirement; Is there a doctrine; Is there are a fixed threat assessment irrespective of enemy developments;

Q2) Are the Hawks, Pilatus, Kiran, Heron, Searchers, part of the 42 Sqn count or the 42 Sqn here means that which fighter jocks will fly in combat alone? : Are the 42 Sqns defined in terms of roles (Strike, CAP, Deep Strike (how deep), Strategic, Multi Role, CAS, etc) - how many of each and where; Are the 42 Sqns defined in terms of serviceability (%, nos available at any time)- you get the 42nd drift?

Q3) Is there a forecast on increasing requirement or decreasing fighter requirement in the coming decade - will warfare evolve with 5th gen penetrating air space - as in will 5th Gen have their own sqn counts not part of the 42 (AoA 42 sound so much like 72!)

Q4) Naval Air arm is expanding. IA may get own fixed wing element. BSF is moving there too. If combat fixed wing enters IA and BSF, does the countries dedicated air arm redefine its role and switches to specialized roles only - what happens to 42?


The above are questions directed at those trying to analyze 42 Sqns and 200 LCAs. IMHO, a successful LCA will find customers in multiple air forces. IAF itself may evolve into a different force structure in future. Today we are a defensive 02 front IAF, tomorrow we may need dedicated expeditionary element within IAF too. If not maybe the naval air arm will grow further.


1) Yes, 42 (45 is my requirement) squadrons are the bare minimum to fight a 1.5 front war. And assumes that 0.5 front is holding/defensive pattern in NE and an Offensive pattern in West. I had done a calculation based on 30:15 using aircraft combat effectiveness, targets: area and point, attrition rate. By 96 hours there will be no point targets in West. All this is 2000 era aircraft capabilities. Since then the Migs have improved and the Su-30s have been added. So could manage with 2 fewer squadrons. Ideally, for two front offensive war need 65 squadrons as PRC bases are beyond Tibet. So I do not forsee offensive war with PRC. It will be defensive posture for a long time.

2) 42 combat squadrons. Does not include the rest. Each squadron has spares and availability requirements. That is what gives those numbers.

3) It's like driving in the fog and 5th generation will have its own impact and the numbers have to be re-visited. Force structure planning has to go on all the time. It provides headlights in the fog.

4) IN, IA and BSF having aircraft does not change the IAF's primary role. So those tasks currently allocated to IAF squadrons will be re-allocated and that gives more margin and flexibility for the force.

We do want a strong air force as it is a major deterrent to war. The quibble is what does that constitute and how to afford it with competing demands after so many years of neglect?

Very clear that UPA as a CBM to the US has let IAF strength rundown while buying non-combat aircraft from the US as jiziya.

The problem is how to emerge from this morass?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 12 Nov 2017 22:15

Hakeem: The same can be applied to the Tejas as well. Give production order to Tata (I have zero faith in Adani) for Tejas order of 100 aircraft. Let them make profit.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 22:32

Rakesh wrote:Hakeem: The same can be applied to the Tejas as well. Give production order to Tata (I have zero faith in Adani) for Tejas order of 100 aircraft. Let them make profit.

How does one "give production to Tata"? Is HAL going to shift its production line to say Maharashtra or Gujarat? Will HAL allow Tata's to use an exoisting airfield - say in Nasik? Or is Tata expected to invest on its own. Will HAL downsize and fire employees? Or do half the orders and give half to Tata. What profits and numbers can HAL promise Tata? Tatas will be totally dependent on the benevolence of a PSU which needs to do next to nothing nothing to break even.

And what happens after say 10 years? Does Tata return the machinery? Or pray that HAL gives them some more work. It does not sound like a good sound profit making business model to shift a full depreciated production line to a parallel line.

HAL need not show any charity to Tatas

Let Tatas find a partner from abroad. Tata signs the documents and takes the risks. IAF will get some, but to stay alive Tata will have to export as well and do its darndest to stay profitable rather than eat scraps thrown by HAL

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 12 Nov 2017 22:33

Hakeem: you want me to reply in this thread or the SE thread? We are having same discussion in multiple threads.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 22:40

This is the wrong thread for SE. But if we talk LCA this is the right thread. Depends on what you want to say.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 12 Nov 2017 22:41

Ok Saar, replying in SE thread.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 12 Nov 2017 22:43

Earlier the MOD had " Uncle George" as its patron, we now have "Aunty Nirmala" instead! Aunty N is going through the list of "shopping" and money reqd. for feeding the forces, and like a conscientious mistress of the manor is asking for " wherefore and why for" details of the recipes. The service "chefs" are unused to this as they've previously fixed the menu themselves!

The sqd. req. should be between 50-60 depending upon the mix.Approx. 30% heavy,25-30% med,10-%+ stealth/5th-gen,and the remaining 30%+ light , should be the mix depending upon the aircraft available.If the IAF agree upon the same, we could still build 200+ LCA MK-1/1As and acquire another 120+ SEFs.Both light fighters built simultaneously so that they enter service at the earliest and avoid early obsolescence.I've also mentioned from time to time the possibility of an LCA-S (stealth) which would require some amt. of redesign.There would be a v.good market globally for such a bird coming in at around $30-35M . if the current LCA's cost is approx. $25-30M.This could supplant the MK-2 and be the lead-in bird for a future twin- engined AMCA.

Given that the FGFA deal may still go ahead,with the basic bird with us and dxpected to enter service with the RuAF by 2020,the AMCA which will enter service post 2030,closer to 2035,could be conceived as a 6th-gen bird.
An LCA-S is far easier to achieve being developed along with the FGFA programme, our variant of the SU-57.Prototypes could be flying within 3-4 years,around 2022 and production before 2025.120 + LCA-S could easily complement the 200+ MK-1/1As by 2030.If the LCA-S arrives earlier, it could replace any MK-1 A aircraft unbuilt,but eventually arriving at the same % of the fleet.

With an LCA-S commitment there would be no need for another SE programme which would cost far more than an LCA-S too.Numbers can be kept happy by increasing the med. inventory with more MIG-29/35 variants ( very affordable) , and even cut- price Rafales .100-120 of these two types a far better acquisition than the same number of SEFs.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6581
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Prasad » 12 Nov 2017 23:15

shiv wrote:
Prasad wrote:Shiv saar,
We are not 1940s/1950s USA to fund development of multitudes of fighters and bombers and everything in between. HAL is ready to hand off production to tier 1 suppliers and become lead integrator. A company that wants to build fighters or airplanes in future would jump at the opportunity and get production experience and design,dev experience of lower sections and work towards their own design in future.

No. Aircraft numbers are very small and the private tier 1.2,3 suppliers will be totally restricted by HAL's capacity and drive. That is bondage. not autonomy and freedom to drive profits ahead

Ironically it was the government that kickstarted car production in India with a foreign collaboration as Maruti Suzuki. That model worked wonders for India.

Forget USA. Even China and Russia have competing design teams that give ideas to production lines. Russia had the lines and China set up parallel lines

Our design teams are gormint. Our single production line is gormint and dependent on gormint sloth or energy, farmer suicides, elections, political allies etc etc. This is not the way to expand an industry.

We can't do mil aircraft like mass-market. Only civil aircraft is a possibility and even there govt only has to push it through with intense lobbying and many suitcases from industry.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3033
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kakkaji » 13 Nov 2017 00:56

Did SP-5 and SP-7 fly yet?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1001
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Khalsa » 13 Nov 2017 00:58

Rakesh wrote:Hakeem: Russian products are pieces of shit as per the import lobby.


Minor quibble with that sentence, Admiral.
Depends, in which century are you talking.

or lets put it this way.
There is a Russian Import Lobby , Italian Import Lobby etc etc.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ashishvikas » 13 Nov 2017 01:20

Kakkaji wrote:Did SP-5 and SP-7 fly yet?


No. They need to fly at earliest to silent some of it's critics.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35361
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby SaiK » 13 Nov 2017 02:46

Khalsa wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Hakeem: Russian products are pieces of shit as per the import lobby.


Minor quibble with that sentence, Admiral.
Depends, in which century are you talking.

or lets put it this way.
There is a Russian Import Lobby , Italian Import Lobby etc etc.

Add this:

Indian Effigy burning lobby /sorry

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3328
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cosmo_R » 13 Nov 2017 04:04

shiv wrote:
srai wrote:Yes, the word is "if foreign collaboration" will do magic. All these years, haven't seen it.

Not foreign collaboration. Foreign investment in an entire aircraft production line where parts are initially assembled "integrated" as HAL likes to call it and later components outsourced from Indian industries who will get more than the peanuts that HAL can throw at them. The private Indian collaborator has to be a business house interested in making profits and keeping profits flowing in. That is innovation. Of a sort.


Yes! Let the foreign entity (LM/Boeing/SAAB whomever) function as the lead integrator through an Indian company (newco) they own 100% of and fund it all themselves (minimum investment clause). India agrees to buy x numbers at $y price. The purchase agreement calls for progressively increasing local content leading to (non-engine because they don't make engines) ~95%+ local content by year z through wholly owned Indian companies. 1 board member from GoI on newco, strict quota on employees below top management: they must be Indian (not even OCIs) citizens.

LM has publicly stated that they expect to deliver a 'fully locally sourced' F16 by year 7 (I assume w/o the engine) in India. Boeing was non-committal. I did not read any specifics from SAAB.

BTW, this is not specific to the SE, it's just a model that is easy for international firms to understand. The real 'ToT' comes from a workforce trained to build complex components. Hire the right types and you'll find that they get ideas about startups that could xyz better/cheaper. That's when you have liftoff. It's all about money dreams and creating a greed+fear ecosystem.

It is not about signing 'ToT' agreements like the OFB types for Bofors and then losing the password and plot on the blueprints.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1673
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby chola » 13 Nov 2017 04:44

The services insist on phoren, using MII to kill indigenous projects.

It is up to Modi and Doval to force them in line. At this point, “force” is the correct term. Otherwise, MII becomes a sham, a way to kill Indian projects. I’m all for getting the private sector involved. But not in this highly hypocritical approach to destroying our flagship indigenous projects.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/armed-forces-say-no-to-advanced-versions-of-tejas-arjun/articleshow/61620740.cms


Armed forces say no to advanced versions of indigenous 'Tejas', 'Arjun'

NEW DELHI: The armed forces have virtually given the thumbs down to the proposed advanced versions of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft and Arjun main-battle tank by strongly pitching for mega acquisitions of foreign single-engine fighters and futuristic armoured fighting vehicles through the 'Make in India' route under the 'strategic partnership (SP)' policy.


Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 13 Nov 2017 05:51

Deejay: Very Good Post and Points. Since Ramana has replied to your questions, I am just want to make this one point.

deejay wrote:Q 1) Why does IAF need 42 Sqns? : Is there a Parliamentary requirement; Is there a doctrine; Is there are a fixed threat assessment irrespective of enemy developments;

There is an IAF Doctrine that envisages the need for 42 combat aircraft squadrons to carry out a range of missions. To the IAF, that number represents an ideal scenario. It is a number that successive air chiefs have stated. I am providing sources below.

1) Air Chief Marshal Birender Singh Dhanoa

Ready For Two-Front War, There's A Plan B, Says Air Force Chief
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/air-for ... ps-1758926

"We need 42 squadrons to carry out full spectrum operations..."


2) Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha

India’s Air Force Will Field 42 Combat Squadrons by 2027
https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/indias- ... s-by-2027/

“We are looking forward to building up our combat fleet to 42 squadrons by the end of the 14th plan, by 2027. I think it is possible, it is viable, there are a lot of options available with us, and discussions are already on,” he told reporters last Saturday in New Delhi.


3) Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne

'IAF has much less combat jets than sanctioned strength'
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/iaf-h ... 131004.htm

"The authorisation is for 42 squadrons of fighter aircraft."


4) Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Vasant Naik

Indian Air Force: A Pilot's Vision
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... vision.htm

Strength. I have a vision of an IAF with at least 55 squadrons. Realistically we can, perhaps, go up to 42 squadrons. We need to maintain this strength because of a two front requirement. The edge against adversaries must never be allowed to be eroded. Unless our ongoing programmes deliver on time, I am afraid we shall be in for a long period of anxiety.


5) Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major

Rafale deal: Former Air Chiefs say 36 jets not enough for IAF's modernisation plans
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 507998.cms

"If we are looking at creating 42 squadrons of fighters for the air force, just two squadrons of the MMRCA (36 aircraft) would be too little by itself. My feeling is that a larger number has to be ordered," Major told ET.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 13 Nov 2017 05:52

shiv wrote:This is the wrong thread for SE. But if we talk LCA this is the right thread. Depends on what you want to say.

Since I will be bashing SE in my reply, I will post in SE thread onlee :mrgreen:

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5085
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 13 Nov 2017 06:51

Kakkaji wrote:Did SP-5 and SP-7 fly yet?

SP-7 will fly within weeks. SP-5 still have "some issue", not sure what.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47919
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 13 Nov 2017 07:00

Rakesh, How do they plan to use 42 sqds for two front war?
It will be defensive and not to win.
42 is good for 1.5 front war.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5085
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Dileep » 13 Nov 2017 07:02

Folks, remember the "flutter" problem with the python? Here is what I imagine what happened. Take it FWIW:

Test pilots fly the plane with all their six senses intensely focused. He senses a small vibration while passing through certain speed. He re tries the same speed and senses the feeble vibration again. It forms part of the report, and the proverbial "it" hits "the fan"

Bigg deal onlee!! The initial response from the missile mfr would have been "you guys are kidding, right?". I am pretty sure it will get cleared soon.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 13 Nov 2017 07:04

ramana wrote:Rakesh, How do they plan to use 42 sqds for two front war?
It will be defensive and not to win.
42 is good for 1.5 front war.

Agreed, but seeing how the IAF is now at 33 squadrons....let the IAF first get to 42 and then go from there. They seriously need to increase defense spending in India.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 07:30

Cosmo_R wrote: The real 'ToT' comes from a workforce trained to build complex components. Hire the right types and you'll find that they get ideas about startups that could xyz better/cheaper. That's when you have liftoff. It's all about money dreams and creating a greed+fear ecosystem.

It is not about signing 'ToT' agreements like the OFB types for Bofors and then losing the password and plot on the blueprints.

Well said. +1

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2576
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 13 Nov 2017 07:49

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KTUIFgWCzg

good talk on DD on Tejas (in Hindi)
Some salient points -
1. Tejas is better at low angle of attack than Gripen and need to improve at high AoA
2. Tejas is faar faar superior to Thundaar in all regimes
3.Tejas 1 a is the definite variant that IAF wants
4.Out of 30 components, 27 are made in India
5.It is highly advance, automated and maintenance friendly (LRU etc.)
6.AMCA team has been formed
7. True time line is 1991-92 when the money was sanctioned for LCA. it flew within 8-9 years of funds sanction - comparable with other programs worldwide.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2576
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby fanne » 13 Nov 2017 07:53

I have read an IAF paper, linked here at BR (but have been unable to find it since, was it accidently published and then pulled back and all traces removed?). It said IAF real need in 60 SQ force (55-65) of manned aircraft to deal with the reality (which is a two front war).

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 13 Nov 2017 08:47

^^^ ACM P V Naik said the same thing. 55 Squadrons is what he would like to see. Ramana-ji has also been arguing for that as well, but with 60 squadrons. Deejay has raised excellent points in his post. Do read it, in case you missed it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 09:14

What if Army says" Give us 2 sqns of LCA. It will be a good point defence fighter plus CAS. What would be wrong with their proposal?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6080
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby disha » 13 Nov 2017 09:42

^^ Nothing wrong., in fact India can go with their own "marines" which are elite with their own air force and navy and army incorporated into one as a strike package and relying only on Indian arms with suitable tech development. GOI can divert money and key national projects for such elite strike power. This Indian "marine" version can have their own Arjuns and LCAs and whatever else they need. Spending a $10 Billion dollar a year to get this integrated combat strike core would be a good start., except all of $10 Billion dollar goes as funding into Indian industry and universities.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby shiv » 13 Nov 2017 09:57

Precisely. The army has its own requirements for an air arm. Deep penetration strike into heavily contested airspace is not an army requirement. The Air Force demands aircraft for that role. Army can use Tejas the way they accepted LCH. I have been hearing about getting Tata's to market Tejas. heck why can't HAL market Tejas to the army? In fact why can't HAL make a presentation to army for Hawk-i? Talk about inability to see beyond one's nose.

French are showing Barracuda sub to IN chief with no deal in sight. HAL is not doing what it should.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ashishvikas » 13 Nov 2017 10:46

Stop the vilification campaign against Tejas

https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/11/13/sto ... tejas/amp/


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deejay, JayS, K_Rohit, nandakumar and 53 guests