Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

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.
Post Reply
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by ks_sachin »

shaun wrote:Indian Air Force: The need to embrace new-age technologies

While the emphasis on indigenisation and the boost given to the various variants of the LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) and AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft) programmes is laudable and must be fully supported by all stakeholders, the yawning gap in current capability must be speedily plugged. It is in this context that the pending acquisition of 114 MRFA (Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft) must be expedited along with the possibility of giving a meaningful mid-course correction through the various offset clauses of leapfrogging the Kaveri fighter engine quagmire that India finds itself in. Plugging both these gaps even as frontline combat aircraft such as the MiG-21 Bison are being phased out is essential for the IAF.
I don't get this air of condescension wrt to the LCA. Bloody hell it is as good if not a better platform even in its current state than the Mirage 2K and can definitely plug the capability gap. What will the MRFA bring to the table and when that the LCA Mk1A or the Mk2 can't bring to the table?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

MRFA will have range /payload advantages vs Mk1A and will be "proven" as versus Mk2. The latter is what counts for the IAF. They want something ready to deploy and yet, state of the art, bar stealth. This however, as you've picked up is a constant slog for product development and will always ensure ready imports are the answer. Only way out is for GOI to fund both. For which they've no budget. And that's why IAF always looks towards robbing Peter (development) to pay Paul (urgent operational necessity).
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Cain Marko »

I have a sense that the iaf reacts to keep the US minimally influential in it's fighting arm. The GE engine probly plays a role in their acquisition plans.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

If that were the case they'd have dropped the F-16 and F-18 from their MRFA outright, or pushed for Rafale/EF alone, let alone tried so hard to put a Honeywell engine in their Jaguars. They also had the option of insisting on a new engine for the MWF. Since they've not done that, it stands to reason this objection is not tenable.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Yagnasri »

Unfortunately there seems to be a concerted effort to send Mk2 in the way of Arjun by top brass of IAF. Really lack of long term vision at the top of the IAF thinking. They seems to think that they have no stake in local capabilities and systems. No stake in national efforts in having national aerospace industry.

This is what happens when we this idea that they are just customers and whatever toys they want GoI and tax payers have to fund them. GoI killed Marut and now IAF is trying to kill Tejas effort.

Same with IA and MoD baboons
which wants imported maal for things which private sector can easily provide.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

ks_sachin wrote:
Plugging both these gaps even as frontline combat aircraft such as the MiG-21 Bison are being phased out is essential for the IAF.
I don't get this air of condescension wrt to the LCA. Bloody hell it is as good if not a better platform even in its current state than the Mirage 2K and can definitely plug the capability gap. What will the MRFA bring to the table and when that the LCA Mk1A or the Mk2 can't bring to the table?
Forget the M2k. Being a larger aircraft it will always have range and payload advantages over the Mk1 and Mk1A. But why does the AVM prescribe the MRFA to plug gaps left by retiring Bisons? The Tejas Mk1 would have been more than capable of plugging those gaps. Not just the remaining Bison squadrons but the several Mig-21M/Bis squadrons already retired. But the IAF made the decision to only order 40. So now there are gaps which need to be plugged with imports. Rinse and repeat.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Cain Marko »

Karan M wrote:If that were the case they'd have dropped the F-16 and F-18 from their MRFA outright, or pushed for Rafale/EF alone, let alone tried so hard to put a Honeywell engine in their Jaguars. They also had the option of insisting on a new engine for the MWF. Since they've not done that, it stands to reason this objection is not tenable.
The IAF can't take that decision considering it's impact on phoren affairs and US-India relations, the US will be pissed and cry foul. Nor is it under iaf mandate to make such calls. I doubt the IFS types will appreciate such things. Ditto with the Russians too actually. The iaf doesn't want a Russian platform but allows the participation.

Rest assured, come technical trials, the US and Russian participants somehow never make it through. Heh.

The jags are on their way out and the iaf was hoping to squeeze out the last bit from them. But ultimately that didn't happen either. My guess is that this works in their favor as they'll start making noises suggesting the imminent retirement of the jags to push for mrca types.

All this is a theory only. But it fits IAF behavior and noises that suggest their suspicion of sanction prone engines.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Cain Marko »

nachiket wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
I don't get this air of condescension wrt to the LCA. Bloody hell it is as good if not a better platform even in its current state than the Mirage 2K and can definitely plug the capability gap. What will the MRFA bring to the table and when that the LCA Mk1A or the Mk2 can't bring to the table?
Forget the M2k. Being a larger aircraft it will always have range and payload advantages over the Mk1 and Mk1A. But why does the AVM prescribe the MRFA to plug gaps left by retiring Bisons? The Tejas Mk1 would have been more than capable of plugging those gaps. Not just the remaining Bison squadrons but the several Mig-21M/Bis squadrons already retired. But the IAF made the decision to only order 40. So now there are gaps which need to be plugged with imports. Rinse and repeat.
While I take your larger point, the m2k is not really much bigger than the Tejas. Esp. the MK2. The empty weights will be similar. But compared to the mk1, it's payload capacity and versatility is more.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

Cain Marko wrote: While I take your larger point, the m2k is not really much bigger than the Tejas. Esp. the MK2. The empty weights will be similar. But compared to the mk1, it's payload capacity and versatility is more.
I was talking about the Mk1. Mk2 as per design specs will match or exceed the Mirage 2k in all respects. Mk1 was not designed to be a Mirage 2000 class fighter and there is no point comparing the two at least in terms of payload and range. The only modern aircraft it can be compared with is the Gripen C/D. Mk2 is a natural progression from the Mk1 just like the Gripen E/F is from the C/D.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

On the other hand the Tejas Mk1's max A-to-A payload is practically the same as the much larger Mig-29 and it can carry twice the number of BVR missiles as the Bison with a much more capable radar to boot all the while being a lot more capable at a-to-g precision strikes than both. Hence I asked why the Mk1 can't be a good replacement for all the retired Mig-21's and the MRFA is needed.

Now obviously since the Mk1 was not ordered beyond 40 and the IAF insisted on the Mk1A we are in the situation where more imports are probably unavoidable. But I'm just calling out what I feel is a specious argument about why we are in this situation in the first place. A large order (100+) for Mk1's several years ago would have enabled HAL and its vendors to plan for a much larger production rate which would be bearing fruit today.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

Cain Marko wrote:
Karan M wrote:If that were the case they'd have dropped the F-16 and F-18 from their MRFA outright, or pushed for Rafale/EF alone, let alone tried so hard to put a Honeywell engine in their Jaguars. They also had the option of insisting on a new engine for the MWF. Since they've not done that, it stands to reason this objection is not tenable.
The IAF can't take that decision considering it's impact on phoren affairs and US-India relations, the US will be pissed and cry foul. Nor is it under iaf mandate to make such calls. I doubt the IFS types will appreciate such things. Ditto with the Russians too actually. The iaf doesn't want a Russian platform but allows the participation.

Rest assured, come technical trials, the US and Russian participants somehow never make it through. Heh.

The jags are on their way out and the iaf was hoping to squeeze out the last bit from them. But ultimately that didn't happen either. My guess is that this works in their favor as they'll start making noises suggesting the imminent retirement of the jags to push for mrca types.

All this is a theory only. But it fits IAF behavior and noises that suggest their suspicion of sanction prone engines.
On the contrary, IAF does and did have the right to specify each and every bell and whistle on the MWF. They haven't asked for an engine change or even flagged the Ge414. If they had we'd have heard about it. Jags with new engines would still be around for a decade plus. Why would the IAF re-engine them with a US engine and go to that much trouble? They'd have just chosen the Brit one.

Similarly what of the Apaches, dozen odd C-130s, around the same number of C-17s? These represent a huge portion of the IAFs scarce Capex.

All this IAF doesn't like the engine stuff IMHO is just trying to forcefit a complex theory to what is basically a simple issue.

They have a limited budget and can either take a mature 4.5G fighter or wait for the Tejas MWF. If they don't get funds for both, they'll obviously go for the mature, ready to induct ASAP option.

The US and Russian fighters didn't make the cut because they werent ideal for the IAFs needs. The MiG-35 is but a warmed over MiG-29, and the F-16/F-18 both have significant limitations from the IAF POV. If the F-35 were to be offered as the then CAS said, it'd be a different story.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

Karan M wrote: All this IAF doesn't like the engine stuff IMHO is just trying to forcefit a complex theory to what is basically a simple issue.

They have a limited budget and can either take a mature 4.5G fighter or wait for the Tejas MWF. If they don't get funds for both, they'll obviously go for the mature, ready to induct ASAP option.
I can understand their trepidation to an extent. They are worried the MWF will be ready too late and the rate of production will be too slow leaving them in an even more precarious state. But unfortunately this might be a self fulfilling prophecy. The success or failure of the MWF will depend on how much support it gets from the IAF. If the IAF buys 114 MRFA's there won't be money left for too many MWF's. Small order size again means a lower production rate and higher costs. Not to mention the development funding itself will be affected as well leading to the development and testing program taking longer. At that point the IAF can turn around and say See we told you it would arrive too late and we were right to insist on a foreign fighter and the media will be free to disparage HAL and ADA to their heart's content.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Cain Marko »

Karan M wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: The IAF can't take that decision considering it's impact on phoren affairs and US-India relations, the US will be pissed and cry foul. Nor is it under iaf mandate to make such calls. I doubt the IFS types will appreciate such things. Ditto with the Russians too actually. The iaf doesn't want a Russian platform but allows the participation.

Rest assured, come technical trials, the US and Russian participants somehow never make it through. Heh.

The jags are on their way out and the iaf was hoping to squeeze out the last bit from them. But ultimately that didn't happen either. My guess is that this works in their favor as they'll start making noises suggesting the imminent retirement of the jags to push for mrca types.

All this is a theory only. But it fits IAF behavior and noises that suggest their suspicion of sanction prone engines.
All this IAF doesn't like the engine stuff IMHO is just trying to forcefit a complex theory to what is basically a simple issue.

They have a limited budget and can either take a mature 4.5G fighter or wait for the Tejas MWF. If they don't get funds for both, they'll obviously go for the mature, ready to induct ASAP option.

TBH this seems too simplistic to me. It is virtually impossible for them not to know that they cannot get a 4.5 gen mature fighter in the numbers needed. From the byzantine baboodom and its impressively slow decision-making to the exorbitant costs involved, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the "ready" bird won't come on time or in numbers. It has happened before - the M2k and now with the Rafale, with only 36 ordered. IOWs, they MUST know that the only way to get numbers is via the LCA. They also obviously know that the LCA is far superior to the bird it is supposed to replace, the Mig21. The possibility of getting even more capable versions with a CIP is also very real. So why the dilly dallying?

WRT C17s etc. and limited chopper deals - these are not the fighter fleet. Also, there is the possibility that many of the US deals are a result of a quid pro quo for the Civilian Nuke deal - notice how most of these purchases happened post deal. But they aren't going close to the US fighters with a barge pole.

Either they are simply and absolutely jaundiced against the desi bird or there is more to it than meets the eye. Yes, it is a theory and perhaps a bit forced, otoh the alternative that a limited budget forces them to go for limited foreign acquisitions, seems too convenient and leaves unanswered questions as well.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Cain Marko »

nachiket wrote:
Karan M wrote: All this IAF doesn't like the engine stuff IMHO is just trying to forcefit a complex theory to what is basically a simple issue.

They have a limited budget and can either take a mature 4.5G fighter or wait for the Tejas MWF. If they don't get funds for both, they'll obviously go for the mature, ready to induct ASAP option.
I can understand their trepidation to an extent. They are worried the MWF will be ready too late and the rate of production will be too slow leaving them in an even more precarious state. But unfortunately this might be a self fulfilling prophecy. The success or failure of the MWF will depend on how much support it gets from the IAF. If the IAF buys 114 MRFA's there won't be money left for too many MWF's. Small order size again means a lower production rate and higher costs. Not to mention the development funding itself will be affected as well leading to the development and testing program taking longer. At that point the IAF can turn around and say See we told you it would arrive too late and we were right to insist on a foreign fighter and the media will be free to disparage HAL and ADA to their heart's content.
The bigger issue though is not wrt the Mk2 - it is related to the mk1. Why aren't there more orders here? These birds are better than the MiG21s and probably jaguars. So wtf is the hold up? Why not place an initial order of 126 mk1s followed by another 126 mk1a. Esp. considering that they can be upgraded to mk1a.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

Cain Marko wrote:

TBH this seems too simplistic to me. It is virtually impossible for them not to know that they cannot get a 4.5 gen mature fighter in the numbers needed. From the byzantine baboodom and its impressively slow decision-making to the exorbitant costs involved, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the "ready" bird won't come on time or in numbers. It has happened before - the M2k and now with the Rafale, with only 36 ordered. IOWs, they MUST know that the only way to get numbers is via the LCA. They also obviously know that the LCA is far superior to the bird it is supposed to replace, the Mig21. The possibility of getting even more capable versions with a CIP is also very real. So why the dilly dallying?
If this is too simplistic then what explains Air Chief after Air Chief pushing for the MRFA? Clearly they do believe GOI will listen to them. Or give them something.

As regards the Tejas, the point here is they want the MRFA vs the MWF. Where does the original bird come into the picture.

Sometimes the answers are that straight forward. It's a budgetary issue pure and simple.
WRT C17s etc. and limited chopper deals - these are not the fighter fleet. Also, there is the possibility that many of the US deals are a result of a quid pro quo for the Civilian Nuke deal - notice how most of these purchases happened post deal. But they aren't going close to the US fighters with a barge pole.
How many days would this nuke deal largesse last if that were the case? We are planning a $3Bn purchase of more UAVs, P8s now. How is the fighter fleet any less or more critical than the rear of the equally vital Capex.

And if the F35 was on offer vs the Rafale I do think it would have had a good chance.
Either they are simply and absolutely jaundiced against the desi bird or there is more to it than meets the eye. Yes, it is a theory and perhaps a bit forced, otoh the alternative that a limited budget forces them to go for limited foreign acquisitions, seems too convenient and leaves unanswered questions as well.
On the contrary there is nothing forced here, literally all three services would react the same way, minimising risk. Bird in the hand, ready vs one in the bush. They'd go for the ready option nine times out of ten. All the more because two of the services are relatively new to inhouse product development.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

nachiket wrote:
Karan M wrote: All this IAF doesn't like the engine stuff IMHO is just trying to forcefit a complex theory to what is basically a simple issue.

They have a limited budget and can either take a mature 4.5G fighter or wait for the Tejas MWF. If they don't get funds for both, they'll obviously go for the mature, ready to induct ASAP option.
I can understand their trepidation to an extent. They are worried the MWF will be ready too late and the rate of production will be too slow leaving them in an even more precarious state. But unfortunately this might be a self fulfilling prophecy. The success or failure of the MWF will depend on how much support it gets from the IAF. If the IAF buys 114 MRFA's there won't be money left for too many MWF's. Small order size again means a lower production rate and higher costs. Not to mention the development funding itself will be affected as well leading to the development and testing program taking longer. At that point the IAF can turn around and say See we told you it would arrive too late and we were right to insist on a foreign fighter and the media will be free to disparage HAL and ADA to their heart's content.
Precisely you covered the entire problem with the IAF approach if they were to go for the MRFA.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nam »

F404/414 are a concern, but not an major issue. GE engines are highly reliable, so you just pre-order lots of them. In the worst case scenario, we will have enough numbers to maintain the fighters for a while. When Iran can do it, why can't we.

Needless to say, we must invest in our own engine.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

Cain Marko wrote:
nachiket wrote: I can understand their trepidation to an extent. They are worried the MWF will be ready too late and the rate of production will be too slow leaving them in an even more precarious state. But unfortunately this might be a self fulfilling prophecy. The success or failure of the MWF will depend on how much support it gets from the IAF. If the IAF buys 114 MRFA's there won't be money left for too many MWF's. Small order size again means a lower production rate and higher costs. Not to mention the development funding itself will be affected as well leading to the development and testing program taking longer. At that point the IAF can turn around and say See we told you it would arrive too late and we were right to insist on a foreign fighter and the media will be free to disparage HAL and ADA to their heart's content.
The bigger issue though is not wrt the Mk2 - it is related to the mk1. Why aren't there more orders here? These birds are better than the MiG21s and probably jaguars. So wtf is the hold up? Why not place an initial order of 126 mk1s followed by another 126 mk1a. Esp. considering that they can be upgraded to mk1a.
Because the IAF no longer believes in the light fighter concept per se, and wants a MWF class fighter to hold off against both the PLAAF and the PAF. They want only a minimal force of 6 squadrons as light AD aircraft with secondary strike capability. They want a MWF/MRFA for escort and deep strike.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

Cain Marko wrote: The bigger issue though is not wrt the Mk2 - it is related to the mk1. Why aren't there more orders here? These birds are better than the MiG21s and probably jaguars. So wtf is the hold up? Why not place an initial order of 126 mk1s followed by another 126 mk1a. Esp. considering that they can be upgraded to mk1a.
The time to order the Mk1 in large numbers was five or six years ago. But the IAF refused and made the decision to wait for the Mk1A knowing it will take more time. It is done and dusted now. That is why I say that we are paying for the missteps of years ago and there are no easy solutions now. Best that can be done now is to up the order for the Mk1A and announce a massive amount of investment in setting up more production capacity. EVen that would take time to bear fruit but perhaps the MRFA can be avoided and eventually MWF production will be faster since we would already have more production lines which can be retooled to build it.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

Karan M wrote: Because the IAF no longer believes in the light fighter concept per se, and wants a MWF class fighter to hold off against both the PLAAF and the PAF. They want only a minimal force of 6 squadrons as light AD aircraft with secondary strike capability. They want a MWF/MRFA for escort and deep strike.
Then they need to severely curtail their expectations regarding squadron numbers and make it clear to the govt. that they will not have the numbers to handle a two front war because of being choosy.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Prem Kumar »

Karan M wrote: Because the IAF no longer believes in the light fighter concept per se, and wants a MWF class fighter to hold off against both the PLAAF and the PAF. They want only a minimal force of 6 squadrons as light AD aircraft with secondary strike capability. They want a MWF/MRFA for escort and deep strike.
Mark my words: when AMCA arrives, the IAF will say that they don't want "medium fighters" whose size limits the amount of ordnance carried in internal bays. Place a token order & gripe about falling squadron levels.

75 years of rot in the political dispensation has spread everywhere, including the armed forces leadership. Our services chiefs don't even pretend to prepare for war.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by LakshmanPST »

Karan M wrote: Because the IAF no longer believes in the light fighter concept per se, and wants a MWF class fighter to hold off against both the PLAAF and the PAF. They want only a minimal force of 6 squadrons as light AD aircraft with secondary strike capability. They want a MWF/MRFA for escort and deep strike.
This was my assumption as well...
IAF do not want 'light' fighters... Post Kargil, they wanted a Mirage 2000 equivalent fighter...
Somewhere in early 2000s, I believe IAF's plans changed after studying force structures of other major Airforces...
One can see around the world that no major Air Force is using Light Fighters... Only small airforces are planning to use them...

Mk1A is definitely superior to MIG21 and Jaguar... But our adverseries, atleast China, are not going to use J7s andJ8s in the coming years... They will be coming atleast with J10s...
One needs to understand that there is and will be a huge jump in capabilities of PLAAF jets, while the total numbers continue to remain at current levels...

The options infront of IAF right now are essentially Mk1A and MRFA...
IAF is choosing the latter...
Mk2 will meet MRFA requirements, but it is years away... It is not even unveiled...
-
If we look at the timelines
In best case senario, if everything goes well, Mk2 contract may be signed in 2027 and I strongly believe Mk2 jets will use Mk1 infrastructure and first SP jets will start rolling out only from 2030 onwards (after Mk1A order is finished in 2029)... It may take a couple more years for production to pick up fully like in the case of Mk1A...

Coming to MRFA, the only factor effecting the timeline will be the Contract-signing date... If they sign the contract atleast in 2023, the first jets will start arriving from 2026 and there won't really be any delay in deliveries, given the long experience of OEMs...

There is atleast a 5 year gap between the two jets...
-
Personally, I'd want IAF to order 36-72 more Rafales in these 5 years and then order 12 squadrons of Mk2 (instead of 8 squadrons)...
But then, looking at how things are going, it may not happen...
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by basant »

LakshmanPST wrote:IAF do not want 'light' fighters... Post Kargil, they wanted a Mirage 2000 equivalent fighter...
Rationale? I may have missed it (which is easy) but haven't seen anything to suggest that as a consequence of Kargil war, not even in the statements of various officers from time to time. In fact, in Kargil, the heaviest jet could not do the job of M2K. This has nothing to do with weight. Nor did MRCA specification reflect that. I agree with the view that there is deep reluctance to accept indigenous fighters, whatever the reasons might be.
Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Larry Walker »

In the short movie 'End Run' (rumored to be based on IAF;s Balakot strike) - the PAF Falcons seem to disengage and turn back when they are supposedly in the kill-zone of PA's LY-80 SAM's.
So will our recent successes in ADS SAM systems like Akash-2/Barak/S400 reduce the need for light AD fighters like Mig-21/29 and Tejas-Mk1 ? As for these systems to engage the enemy fighters - they will need IAF to exit their kill-zone?
Is this technically and operationally correct ?
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Barath »

nachiket wrote: Mk2 is a natural progression from the Mk1 just like the Gripen E/F is from the C/D.
And the Rafale is in a different tier/progression from the Gripen E/F (eg ~3t more payload) and therefore of Mk2/MWF.

[Due warning : Speculation follows - how I try to make sense of it]

The MRFA is a trade-off of cost, capability, industrial benefit, scale/numbers and risk. Without RFP, or even RFP evaluation parameters, or resulting selection, possibly one would just be reading tea leaves on how to weight these. I tend to assume tentatively that until then, one might think of MRFA as Rafale to lose

The cost is not in the hands of the IAF . It's likely that no RM would give a definite number or ultimatum early on to IAF on security/cost trade-off. And IAF can easily kick it upstairs as beyond their paycheck. Even if the end result is more delay.

It's also possible that there are differences in capability, especially in overall integration and access to individual technology/components that are not easy to evaluate publicly (eg Spectra/RWR/MAWS capability, ECCM, integrated weapons, etc]. Some of these *might* not be available on Mk2. Another is ability to integrate 5th/6th gen technologies in future (as the current ACM has specifically mentioned) [eg FCAS will bring in a system of systems, some will be integrated to French rafales, as also other AI/ML components etc. ]

Bringing all these to Mk2 would entail cost, time, and uncertainty, and there could be shortfalls in the given period (late 2020s-2030s] and value in having an assured access to these. The reality is that MRFA plans might be appropriate for comparison not to Mk1A, but to later Block 2 Mk2 (eg Mk2 with Uttam & other upgrades, etc). Thus risk hedge.

Similarly for industrial technology - having a private ecosystem boost with improved manufacturing/automation (and hand holding) is likely from MRFA as compared to that from Mk2. (especially given spending on Mk2 might be a bit limited*)

Similarly for numbers - the 'shortfall' of say 100+ aircraft in the late 2020s-2030s as against the envisaged 42 squadrons could be potentially more easily made up or with lesser risk. Especially if there is stickiness in spending on indigenous capital outlay. (as opposed to outsourcing*)

Ultimately, the IAF has more or less stated their envisaged force structure, but has given lesser public details as to why this force structure, let alone details of potential trade-offs.

There are possibilities for some tweaking down the road, but where are the (independent) institutions to study this force structure or estimate the cost and trade offs (especially publicly or even for parliamentary purposes). The small milestones would tend to be technology demonstration, for individual systems, approvals for various small projects, and reading the tea leaves on utterances of ACM and CDS and eventually the RFP/

* - Nachiket already covered the point about cost, numbers, IAF support and possibility of MK2 plans/fears becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by LakshmanPST »

basant wrote: Rationale? I may have missed it (which is easy) but haven't seen anything to suggest that as a consequence of Kargil war, not even in the statements of various officers from time to time. In fact, in Kargil, the heaviest jet could not do the job of M2K. This has nothing to do with weight. Nor did MRCA specification reflect that. I agree with the view that there is deep reluctance to accept indigenous fighters, whatever the reasons might be.
My apologies... I mentioned 'post Kargil' to refer to the time period of early 2000s, where I believe there were major change of plans by IAF...
Didn't mean that the decision was a consequence of something that happened in Kargil War...

Generally, whenever a war/battle happens, there comes a time when the whole machinery moves to study the preparedness of Armed forces for future battles...
So, when they study the entire system, existing gaps in force structure would definitely come up... Those gaps wouldn't have effected that war, but they would still exist which need correction/upgradation...

That is what I meant...
Also, I mentioned in the first line of my post itself that it was my assumption...
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Pratyush »

This insistence on medium weight fighters seems to be a "delayed knee jerk response' to the RMA demonstrated by the khan's in 91.

The inputs were available to the IAF from the availability of the F 16 with PAF. Should have made things very clear to them in terms of what would be needed in a future war.

But they were stuck on the old paradigm till sometime before 2010. When the demand for mk2 emerged.

While at the same time not placing any orders for the Tejas caused a significant decline in force.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by kit »

I would like to expound on the logic of a medium heavy fighter replacing light ones in the two front war scenario as suggested here., how exactly is a medium heavy fighter going to replace a lower weight fighter , no plane can be in two places at the same time, even a heavy one ?!

Having said that i think the answer is unmanned light fighter teamed with a manned medium/heavy fighter makes sense ?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by brar_w »

Pratyush wrote:This insistence on medium weight fighters seems to be a "delayed knee jerk response' to the RMA demonstrated by the khan's in 91.
The shift in "value" of a single engine fighter aircraft from a light configuration to a medium configuration happened much earlier and is a trend that partly due to technology cost and need. The USAF quickly changed its LWF program to essentially create a medium weight class fighter (F-16C) and it grew even more capable from there. SAAB kind of borrowed the F-20 marketing but even they had to eventually move to a medium weight configuration to sell through this decade and into next. Avionics, mission systems, and PGM's have materially impacted how aircraft costs vary with size. Your mission system costs could be anywhere from 30% to 40% of the total cost of the air-vehicle (minus the engine) and the absolute amount differs very little depending on whether you are putting these system son a small, light fighter or a medium sized fighter. In some cases your medium sized aircraft may be able to accommodate these things much easier and you can repurpose some systems from your heavy fighter programs. Almost universally, the moment you add multi-role requirements, and modern 4+ generation missions systems, the operator community, literally the world over wants a medium weight single or twin engined aircraft as it is there where it sees the value (cost, performance spectrum). When you step up (heavy) you do see a larger bump in terms of buying and operating economics but the bump from a light multi-role configuration to a medium multi-role configuration is relatively minor and the ROI much better.
isubodh
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 03 Oct 2008 18:23

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by isubodh »

brar_w wrote:
The shift in "value" of a single engine fighter aircraft from a light configuration to a medium configuration happened much earlier and is a trend that partly due to technology cost and need. The USAF quickly changed its LWF program to essentially create a medium weight class fighter (F-16C) and it grew even more capable from there. SAAB kind of borrowed the F-20 marketing but even they had to eventually move to a medium weight configuration to sell through this decade and into next. Avionics, mission systems, and PGM's have materially impacted how aircraft costs vary with size. Your mission system costs could be anywhere from 30% to 40% of the total cost of the air-vehicle (minus the engine) and the absolute amount differs very little depending on whether you are putting these system son a small, light fighter or a medium sized fighter. In some cases your medium sized aircraft may be able to accommodate these things much easier and you can repurpose some systems from your heavy fighter programs. Almost universally, the moment you add multi-role requirements, and modern 4+ generation missions systems, the operator community, literally the world over wants a medium weight single or twin engined aircraft as it is there where it sees the value (cost, performance spectrum). When you step up (heavy) you do see a larger bump in terms of buying and operating economics but the bump from a light multi-role configuration to a medium multi-role configuration is relatively minor and the ROI much better.
This all above is like juglary of jargon.
I am curious how is ROI defined for a fighter.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by brar_w »

isubodh wrote:
I am curious how is ROI defined for a fighter.
I didn't use ROI in the business sense of the word but what a potential operator would see as value delivered by a particular system. The trend, across the world is quite clear where a marked shift has happened from light fighters to medium single or twin engine fighters (for new developments or upgrades to older aircraft) in parallel to fighters also becoming multi-role and increasing the mission system footprint and PGM delivery. Increasing the number of missions (mult-role) comes with a cost of mission system and payload which has consistently pushed designs to the right on the weight spectrum. What you pay for the same isn't very different on a light or a medium sized fighter while the penalty (range and payload degradation) is more severe on a light when you begin looking at growth margins.

If you want to reverse this trend, then you have to bein going to single mission systems. That will happen with unmanned aircraft, once autonomy catches up to a point where these systems can be made resilient enough to a point where they are capable of taking over missions from manned aircraft where you begin counting them as part of your active inventory / force structure without them being just enablers that still require manned aircraft in the loop.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

basant wrote:
LakshmanPST wrote:IAF do not want 'light' fighters... Post Kargil, they wanted a Mirage 2000 equivalent fighter...
Rationale? I may have missed it (which is easy) but haven't seen anything to suggest that as a consequence of Kargil war, not even in the statements of various officers from time to time. In fact, in Kargil, the heaviest jet could not do the job of M2K. This has nothing to do with weight. Nor did MRCA specification reflect that. I agree with the view that there is deep reluctance to accept indigenous fighters, whatever the reasons might be.
Not the Kargil war but a consequence of the PLAAF going all in on heavy and medium weight fighters.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

Pratyush wrote:This insistence on medium weight fighters seems to be a "delayed knee jerk response' to the RMA demonstrated by the khan's in 91.

The inputs were available to the IAF from the availability of the F 16 with PAF. Should have made things very clear to them in terms of what would be needed in a future war.

But they were stuck on the old paradigm till sometime before 2010. When the demand for mk2 emerged.

While at the same time not placing any orders for the Tejas caused a significant decline in force.
PLA standardising on the Flankers and J-10 variants was the key motive. Not the Gulf War.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

Problem is we are working with a fraction of the PLAAF's budget and on top of that they produce all their aircraft in house. What makes sense for them may not do it for us. Especially when we have been struggling to reach sanctioned strength for quite a while.

I remember during the heyday of the MMRCA saga people were suggesting that the final numbers might go up to 180+ with additional orders without really trying to imagine how impossibly expensive that would be. But it appears the IAF had bought into the hype even post Rafale selection which is why they could be adamant about not buying the Mk1 because it was too light/small.

What people imagine we can afford vs what we actually can are two very different things.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

That's true but a lot of the blame stands with the political executives of the time who didn't take a firm stand and lay down the policy. Instead you lead the service on by claiming all needs will be met, giving unreasonable hope. UPA led the IAF and the nation on a decade long wild goose chase. IAF leadership would have asked for something else like the S300 etc in return or for tradeoffs and the politicians didn't want to spend, so no answer was a political ploy.
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Bala Vignesh »

Karan M wrote:That's true but a lot of the blame stands with the political executives of the time who didn't take a firm stand and lay down the policy. Instead you lead the service on by claiming all needs will be met, giving unreasonable hope. UPA led the IAF and the nation on a decade long wild goose chase. IAF leadership would have asked for something else like the S300 etc in return or for tradeoffs and the politicians didn't want to spend, so no answer was a political ploy.
Political machinations aside, the force's leaders are supposed to be thorough professionals who are able to see beyond the lip services by the politicians. In light of that, it blows the mind that they did not see the light when MP ji put his foot down on the LCA and order in number then. They could have amended the order post FOC to about 2-3 squadrons worth then and give them breathing room for the Mk1A and Mk2 too, instead of hoping for MRCA, MRFA and all such future alphabet soup.

They could have simply stated to the GoI that they need 72 Rafale as their silver bullet force till AMCA comes in and in the meanwhile they sign on to expanded Mk1 program, the Mk1A and the Mk2 as well.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

Karan M wrote:That's true but a lot of the blame stands with the political executives of the time who didn't take a firm stand and lay down the policy. Instead you lead the service on by claiming all needs will be met, giving unreasonable hope. UPA led the IAF and the nation on a decade long wild goose chase. IAF leadership would have asked for something else like the S300 etc in return or for tradeoffs and the politicians didn't want to spend, so no answer was a political ploy.
Yes the MMRCA saga was basically the govt. selling the IAF a a bigger dream than they actually had themselves only to tell them more than a decade later that they didn't have the money for it.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Manish_Sharma »

nam wrote:F404/414 are a concern, but not an major issue. GE engines are highly reliable, so you just pre-order lots of them. In the worst case scenario, we will have enough numbers to maintain the fighters for a while. When Iran can do it, why can't we.

Needless to say, we must invest in our own engine.
Engine can be bought in extra numbers and Tejas can be ordered in higher numbers to dilute the effect of sanctions. If we buy 200 F404 engines for 123 Tejas and manage extra buffer storage of engine maintenance parts it will still be more effective and much cheaper than 1600 crore Per peace Rafale.

360 Tejas mk.1 and 450 Tejas Mk.2 with extra engines will turn us into a power that can simultaneously crush chi-pork airforces.

Nambitiger1 sir said that Rafale is 80s design while Tejas Mk.2 is current design hence much advance.

Range can be increased by 9 imported a330 mrtt refuellers with latest Airbus engines.

IAF jock fighter club's IMPORT thirst can be quenched by additional 36 Rafale.

Before only Male population was available for pilot jobs now even female population is available so more pilots can be available for 360+450 Tejas plus adequate number of Tejas trainer aircrafts.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by suryag »

Btw I seriously doubt the need for exclusive specialized refuelers given the number of Rambas we have, look at it a flight of Rambas can top off 3 Tejas and get out at supersonic speed, if anything I would add a specialized squadron or two of Rambas to the fleet for A2A refueling
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Karan M wrote:That's true but a lot of the blame stands with the political executives of the time who didn't take a firm stand and lay down the policy. Instead you lead the service on by claiming all needs will be met, giving unreasonable hope. UPA led the IAF and the nation on a decade long wild goose chase. IAF leadership would have asked for something else like the S300 etc in return or for tradeoffs and the politicians didn't want to spend, so no answer was a political ploy.
Political machinations aside, the force's leaders are supposed to be thorough professionals who are able to see beyond the lip services by the politicians. In light of that, it blows the mind that they did not see the light when MP ji put his foot down on the LCA and order in number then. They could have amended the order post FOC to about 2-3 squadrons worth then and give them breathing room for the Mk1A and Mk2 too, instead of hoping for MRCA, MRFA and all such future alphabet soup.

They could have simply stated to the GoI that they need 72 Rafale as their silver bullet force till AMCA comes in and in the meanwhile they sign on to expanded Mk1 program, the Mk1A and the Mk2 as well.
I've heard this repeatedly but to be honest the forces don't track the Indian economy. They regard that their task is to present an operational view of what they need to the GOI. The GOI is then supposed to find the resources to allocate to the need. This mismatch between availability of resources and priorities is what the CDS is now supposed to fix and what this Govt has done post 2014 to a large degree with the services taking turns so to speak for big ticket procurements. Obviously the IAF and IN don't want any part of this arrangement as they feel their Capex should be dedicated for their needs alone and the IA's low Capex percentage (as a % of total needs and versus its needs) is for it to solve.

But the overall Capex figures are what they are.

Plus the expansion of the PLAAF means they aren't sure a 72 Rafale force can cut it. They want 114+36 MRFA class fighters and then the MWF, AMCA etc. Whether we can fund it is a different issue.
Post Reply