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
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

To be honest I did a detailed scan of the budget and can openly state that there is no way in heck we can afford a MRFA right now, Unless GOI really opens the purse strings. And if it does that, bye bye MWF. Sincerely doubt we can run three programs together, MRFA, MWF and AMCA. It's best the GOI inform the IAF of the fiscal reality, and their aatmanirbhar policy directive so they can plan accordingly. Perhaps add a couple more squadrons Rafale to allow the IAF to field a silver bullet force in the meanwhile.
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 »

Karan M wrote:To be honest I did a detailed scan of the budget and can openly state that there is no way in heck we can afford a MRFA right now, Unless GOI really opens the purse strings. And if it does that, bye bye MWF. Sincerely doubt we can run three programs together, MRFA, MWF and AMCA. It's best the GOI inform the IAF of the fiscal reality, and their aatmanirbhar policy directive so they can plan accordingly. Perhaps add a couple more squadrons Rafale to allow the IAF to field a silver bullet force in the meanwhile.
Can the IAF be not so cognizant of capex challenges esp with the covid ? Are they really planning for a MRFA in their strategies ? one hopes they have a "plan B"
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

I mean we add "a couple of squadrons of Rafale" as if they come free. The Rafale is one of the most expensive fighters in the world today. Buying further Rafales will eat into domestic orders.

India needs to get its act straight. We want to support Indian jobs and be a strong nation - or we want to support jobs overseas and buy friends?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Nobody said they come free. This sort of over the top rhetoric in all your posts is why it becomes hard to take your otherwise valid points seriously.

If you want to be taken seriously by the forces you've to understand their constraints as well. They are concerned about their strength to take on two air forces. Being cavalier about their concerns is not advisable. They are charged with defence of the Republic, and they have skin in the game, its their lives at risk. If there are any delays in MWF etc their force structure will suffer.

When they are asking for 114, giving them 36 is not exactly being over generous. While funding it will undoubtedly be expensive, it will be far cheaper than buying 114, and ultimately we have to spend more.

We've enjoyed a peace dividend so to speak thanks to the US in Afghanistan, and China trying to grow, avoiding overt conflict. Its over now. For the past seven years we've focused on spending what we can afford, and optimising that. That time is now over and we have to spend on defence and the Govt has to find a way to do that. We are paying the price for the abject disaster that was the MMS-UPA dispensation, but we don't have a choice and a way has to be found to fund our modernisation.

By say, working with the RBI to fund a sovereign debt expansion focused purely on buying local, we might be able to address a significant chunk of our domestic sourced needs, expand the mil budget, and also have it act like an industrial policy with a multiplier effect. That would spare some money for imports. Anyways, the fiscal policy has to be finessed by the MOF, ideally, with better suggestions than what I've proposed, but they have to do it. MOF can't keep kicking the can down the road as they've done for many years now.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

There it is - if you don't see a solution from the perspective of the forces (right or wrong) you are being cavalier.

1. The IAF threw a spanner into the development of the LCA by changing goalposts - this is well documented.
2. The IAF has only 6 refuellers with maybe on a good day 50% of these being available. Yet the IAF made IFR capability a part of the requirements of the FOC. This added years to the project. Can the LCA rely on availability of refuellers for the next 3 years? With 60 odd M2ks, 60 odd MIg 29s, 270 odd MKIs - will the LCA be able to access these 6 refuellers (if magically they were all in the air?
4. And the release of orders - MK1 should have been ordered in numbers of 200-250 with production facilities that would be justified for that order.
5. Instead the Chief called the LCA a 3-legged cheetah or Mig-21++ to indicate to the force the company policy "against" the domestically produced fighter.

So can India be saved only by purchasing the Rafale? The MK1/1A/2 are incapable of fighting the enemy? A sad state of affairs of a poor country being taken to the cleaners by its armed forces! India's reliance on imports has destroyed the national economy and condemned future generations to poverty and a low tech country.
Jay
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

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

Post by Jay »

Pratyush wrote: But it's not Rafale. The silver bullet.
You don't need a silverbullet for everything. Tell me one good reason why Tejas needs to be a Silverbullet, a' be all and end all fighter' for IAF?
Jay
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

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

Post by Jay »

Pratyush wrote:No one said they are not good enough. The comment was in context of the Tejas only.
What is your perceived context for Tejas here?
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 »

Vivek K wrote:The Rafale is one of the most expensive fighters in the world today.
All fighters are at par with Rafale as far as cost is concerned. Last Arab country that ordered F16s had to pay 145 million dollars per plane. Be it F15 X in mrfa or ef2k which was beaten by Rafale on cost will all be much more expensive.

Our MWF Tejas Mk.2 has to be MRFA + many more.

IMPORT will break bank Rafale or otherwise, even grippen E will be 145 million plus today with military Inflation.

The debate should have ended the day Nambitiger1 Sir stated that Rafale is 80s conceived design while is latest 2020 design so far superior.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

^^ proof read your post please! It is difficult to connect the dots.
Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2426
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

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

Post by Brad Goodman »

My concern for Mk1 & Mk2 are not order numbers but assembly lines. I was speaking to Shiv on teetar but he just blew a gasket thinking I am virtue signaling. I think we need 2 more assembly lines in addition to current ones in Bangalore and Nasik. They need to ramped yesterday even if we are working in 40 + 83 Tejas MK1 & 1A. Because we know soon enough they will be repurposed to do MK2, AMCA, TEDBF and again for mid life upgrades to MK1... Also if HAL wants to sell 18 planes to Malaysia and perhaps more coming we need new assembly lines, the root of all problems is lack of these lines that can start churning things out . Feel free to roast me if I am totally off. I am giving AF the benefit of doubt because currently the timelines for MK2, AMCA look like 15 years away and add delays and we might be looking at retiring SU-30 by then.

Another thing I see is if we start churning MK1 at higher speeds then Navy might also order least 2 sqdns as a trainer, They definitely need a reliable trainer which can train pilots from shore and also allow pilots to log training hours. Tejas fits the role with its high availability and cheaper costs. Other countries will also take it seriously when they see planes rolled out faster
bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

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

Post by bharathp »

Brad Goodman wrote:
Another thing I see is if we start churning MK1 at higher speeds then Navy might also order least 2 sqdns as a trainer, They definitely need a reliable trainer which can train pilots from shore and also allow pilots to log training hours. Tejas fits the role with its high availability and cheaper costs. Other countries will also take it seriously when they see planes rolled out faster
you dont build a plane costing millions of dollars hoping that someone "might" buy it.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

Jay wrote:
Pratyush wrote:No one said they are not good enough. The comment was in context of the Tejas only.
What is your perceived context for Tejas here?
The post immediately before the silver bullet post.

Regarding Tejas with aesa and Astra MK1 &2 being good enough to corner TSP AF.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

bharathp wrote: you dont build a plane costing millions of dollars hoping that someone "might" buy it.
Pray tell us when you build assembly lines then.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

When you have orders justifying the outlays for the assembly line. Which is why it takes 3-4 years for the first delivery post the first order.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Vivek K wrote:There it is - if you don't see a solution from the perspective of the forces (right or wrong) you are being cavalier.

1. The IAF threw a spanner into the development of the LCA by changing goalposts - this is well documented.
2. The IAF has only 6 refuellers with maybe on a good day 50% of these being available. Yet the IAF made IFR capability a part of the requirements of the FOC. This added years to the project. Can the LCA rely on availability of refuellers for the next 3 years? With 60 odd M2ks, 60 odd MIg 29s, 270 odd MKIs - will the LCA be able to access these 6 refuellers (if magically they were all in the air?
4. And the release of orders - MK1 should have been ordered in numbers of 200-250 with production facilities that would be justified for that order.
5. Instead the Chief called the LCA a 3-legged cheetah or Mig-21++ to indicate to the force the company policy "against" the domestically produced fighter.

So can India be saved only by purchasing the Rafale? The MK1/1A/2 are incapable of fighting the enemy? A sad state of affairs of a poor country being taken to the cleaners by its armed forces! India's reliance on imports has destroyed the national economy and condemned future generations to poverty and a low tech country.
Yes you are being cavalier with rhetoric.

1. Is moot now. Most of the people involved with that flawed decision making have retired.

2. At least learn something about the topic. IAF wants all its fighters capable of AAR because with AAR it can do more with fewer aircraft. It's using its Su30s for buddy refuelling. As I mentioned earlier, its not ideal, but the average Su30 carries easily around 3x the fuel of the Tejas. Do you seriously think we should be discussing IAF tactics here? Who says BTW on a good day only 50% of our AAR are available. We will be maintaining high serviceability during conflict.

3. Mk1 was not ideal from the production engg point of view. Mk1A fixes those issues. IAF wants a single platform that can match heavies and mediums both. A light fighter can't. Nor can we afford swarms, IAF doesn't have the funds to induct 250-300 Tejas at one shot to balance out fewer mediums and then order more MWF besides. Where are you getting these numbers from?

4. No Chief called the Tejas a 3 legged Cheetah. A retd AM did but no Chief did. The Tejas, Gripen C/D, JF-17 are all MiG-21 ++ from the range/payload point of view.

Tejas Mk1A cannot take the fight deep into the TAR. Mk2 isn't available right away. On the one hand you claim India is a poor country. But on the other you state we should buy 250-300 Tejas and that would solve an impossible equation that a light fighter can't be expected to do, the task of a heavy or a medium. Then we have to add more MWFs later.

We are facing upwards of 600 fighters split across the PAF and PLAAF within the next few years and heavy integrated AD which will impose attrition on the IAF. In a two front war we need fighters now. As much as I support the Tejas, anyone sane has to admit the Mk1A is yet to fly, and the MWF is at least 4-5 years away before it enters service. Don't let your support for indigenization blind you to operational requirements and make you unaware of the gravity of the threat we face over the short term itself.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Pratyush wrote:
Jay wrote:
What is your perceived context for Tejas here?
The post immediately before the silver bullet post.

Regarding Tejas with aesa and Astra MK1 &2 being good enough to corner TSP AF.
The Tejas combat capability vis a vis its avionics and weapons isn't the issue. The fact it's a light fighter is. Unless you add CFTs (which will affect the aero to a degree), you can't really use it to its full potential because of the 7 pylons, 2-3 are always occupied by drop tanks. It's good as an AD aircraft and for escort. Moment you start hanging heavy A2G loads on it, fuel consumption will spike, so you need the DTs in which case only a couple of pylons are left for air to air missiles. In contrast the Su30 and Rafale carry far more bombload per sortie. More internal fuel, more pylons for drop tanks.

Same problem for the PAF with its JF-17. Our issue is we have to face both PLAAF with Flankers, J-20s and J-10s and PAF. And range deep to hit PRC logistics.

If we were facing the PAF alone, then Tejas should be sufficient to a degree. But I am not the IAF force planner and IAF doesn't think in terms of aircraft A for theater A and aircraft B for theater B. It wants aircraft A to take on threats in both theater A and B. The Mk1/A is hence replacing Bison like for like. If it were up to me, I'd open the funding spigot to the IAF with the proviso the funds went to accelerate the MWF, AMCA, complete the Su30 upgrade etc. I'd add a couple of Rafale squadrons only because we'd then have a core of mature platforms ready to hold the line while a bunch of new platforms entered the service and got matured. Add a couple of Mk1A squadrons too hopefully as it proves itself in service.

By 2030, we will have another bunch of retirals. And any delays in the MWF due to teething troubles etc would hit us hard and drop us even below 30 squadrons. Derisking is critical. And we have to spend. So any funding shortfall and aircraft induction delays can't be allowed to occur.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

This whole quagmire can be resolved if IAF, govt., HAL and ADA sit together and come up with a practically feasible solution to the issue. But it can only happen if all 4 parties are completely honest with each other. Govt. has to honestly tell the IAF that however much they want 114+36 Rafales/MRFA there is simply no money for it and they should stop believing there is. Any previous govt. promises of the same should be considered lies for which the govt. owes an apology. IAF needs to be honest with themselves about what is the smaller number they can live with and see what they can do if they let go of their insistence for a medium weight fighter to fill the numbers and try to incorporate larger numbers of Mk1A. Meanwhile HAL needs to be completely honest about how many Mk1A's they can produce and from when. No more making tall promises which they themselves know they can't keep about delivery timelines. And they need to honestly tell the govt. how much money they need to increase the production rate and what the holdups might be. Similarly ADA needs to be completely realistic about the full timeline for Mk2.

If a frank discussion like this is had with the MoD as the last word in any argument whose decision everyone has to accept, then they can maybe find a path forward that takes the IAF to atleast a minimally comfortable position in case of full blown war with China (with Pak possibly joining in).
SinghS
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Jul 2021 20:24

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

Post by SinghS »

In my opinion, you can't bring them all together without a no-nonsense, honest, technically educated, retired from the service defence minister with clear vision.

We need overhauling at MOD and politico level. Whatever the master say HAL would follow and deliver.

When myopia and complacency is at the top leadership level, nothing much can be achieved; however hard working and brilliant leadership you got at the lower level.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

hemant_sai wrote:Another may be gibberish qn,
With Rafales why can't we go for 15 instead of 18 as sqdn strength?
With total of 90+ it will give 6 sqdns to us.

Is it going to make too much difference in sqdn capability?

On plus side we can have 1 more airbase with 2 sqdns of Rafale.
Why not consolidate two squadrons into one jumbo sqn? I.e. 30-34 aircrafts per jumbo Squadron. Will optimize efficient manpower utilization
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

VinodTK wrote:
hemant_sai wrote:This is where we miss personas like Parrikar ji.
Kadi Ninda is not suitable for RM but we have strange benchmarks in political circle to decide the post.
Current DRDO chief Mr. Reddy must be given RM post and see the difference.
Or Mr. V K Singh ?
++100%

Need a person who has some technical knowledge and strategic vision (like the late Manohar Parrikar)
otherwise; DM will be reading what the MOD officials prepare and present to him/her as talking points
Surely armchair Field Marshals are most competent visionaries, while boots on ground are foolish entitled to "kadi ninda" of Field Marshals.

Wake up from your stupor and smell some coffee. :twisted:
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

Karan M wrote:To be honest I did a detailed scan of the budget and can openly state that there is no way in heck we can afford a MRFA right now, Unless GOI really opens the purse strings. And if it does that, bye bye MWF. Sincerely doubt we can run three programs together, MRFA, MWF and AMCA. It's best the GOI inform the IAF of the fiscal reality, and their aatmanirbhar policy directive so they can plan accordingly. Perhaps add a couple more squadrons Rafale to allow the IAF to field a silver bullet force in the meanwhile.
You said it, common sense to do some groundwork to understand reality. :)
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

Karan M wrote:
Yes you are being cavalier with rhetoric.
I would rather be that than an apologist that puts the forces on a pedestal and worship every right or wrong decision that they make. India has been importing weapons for 75 years. Add up the total in today's dollars. Imagine if progressively larger amounts had been invested domestically starting small in the 50s (5%) and moving to larger percentages today (50-75%), what the status of Indian economic might and ability to defend herself would have been. If we don't right this wrong even today, then India will remain a corrupt, unprepared nation that may need to become a vassal of a stronger power for its defense. Some of us think that during the heydays of INC, India was already a vassal!!

1. Is moot now. Most of the people involved with that flawed decision making have retired.
2. At least learn something about the topic. IAF wants all its fighters capable of AAR because with AAR it can do more with fewer aircraft. It's using its Su30s for buddy refuelling. As I mentioned earlier, its not ideal, but the average Su30 carries easily around 3x the fuel of the Tejas. Do you seriously think we should be discussing IAF tactics here? Who says BTW on a good day only 50% of our AAR are available. We will be maintaining high serviceability during conflict.
....
Tejas Mk1A cannot take the fight deep into the TAR. Mk2 isn't available right away.
Karan - i've a lot of respect for you but here you're being an apologist for bad decision making.

The Su30 carries 3x the fuel load of the Tejas because it was a specified large fighter. The Tejas could have carried as much fuel if that is what had been specified from day one as the design requirement. You cannot now say - oh the Tejas is no use because it cannot carry as much fuel as the Su30!

And please finalize what role you want the LCA for! IAF had 450 Mig-21s (even more if some accounts are to be believed). And these were interceptors with limited range and limited ground attack capability. The LCA can carry fuel in external tanks. IFR capability was being added - did it need to be in the FOC requirement, holding up production? Could it have been added once completed? The LCA offers comprehensive multi role capabilities. Is IAF planning to use IFR LCAs for deep strike inside mainland China?
IAF doesn't have the funds to induct 250-300 Tejas at one shot to balance out fewer mediums and then order more MWF besides. Where are you getting these numbers from?

On the one hand you claim India is a poor country. But on the other you state we should buy 250-300 Tejas and that would solve an impossible equation that a light fighter can't be expected to do, the task of a heavy or a medium. Then we have to add more MWFs later.
Really? India can order 6 Apaches for its army that has no infrastructure and would need extensive investment in spares, mechanics.... but cannot place an order for ONE LCH. India can order an extremely expensive Rafale (36 fighters) and like you said probably has ordered a couple of squadrons more. But we cannot order the LCA in numbers.

And look at IAF's payment record to HAL - does it pay for everything upfront? Deliveries of 250-300 aircraft would take upwards of 10 years at current production rates. Even if these were magically enhanced, perhaps 10 years to deliver 300 and paid for annually. You only need to pay 100% upfront for imports.

What has IAF's tactic been - move the goalpost, add requirements (different missiles, weapons) and then place a limited order of 40 under duress and then use the Arjun playbook - ask for MK1A for further orders.

But your statement - "On the one hand you claim India is a poor country. But on the other you state we should buy 250-300 Tejas" is key. This is what has been used to limit Tejas orders. Let me ask you this - do you understand the difference between imports and domestic production? There is an excellent post by one poster that I cannot remember that had listed the benefits of domestic production I would highly recommend for you. I would pay the Apache price for the LCH any day - because the money gets re-invested in India - or comes back to the government in "circulation" - taxation and so on. So please reconsider your mind set.
4. No Chief called the Tejas a 3 legged Cheetah. A retd AM did but no Chief did. The Tejas, Gripen C/D, JF-17 are all MiG-21 ++ from the range/payload point of view.
If that is factual - then it is my error. But nevertheless a blow to my pride in the Tejas. And the Mig-21++ comment was only for the Tejas. You it seems are helping the comment maker by adding an explanation that expands the derogatory comment to others.
We are facing upwards of 600 fighters split across the PAF and PLAAF within the next few years and heavy integrated AD which will impose attrition on the IAF. In a two front war we need fighters now. As much as I support the Tejas, anyone sane has to admit the Mk1A is yet to fly, and the MWF is at least 4-5 years away before it enters service. Don't let your support for indigenization blind you to operational requirements and make you unaware of the gravity of the threat we face over the short term itself.
And the future orders of the Rafale will arrive the minute they are ordered? Or will we use Akash launchers to fire the purchase orders at incoming hostiles? Wouldn't it be better to keep going with MK1 production to beef up fleet strength instead of waiting to order additional Rafales? With the political situation, isn't there a possibility that the additional order may not happen?
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

Are we making too much ado about nothing?
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

IR - explain please. Additionally, can you tell us if MK1 deliveries are continuing? How bad is HAL effected? Are they taking steps to protect their staff better in future?
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: If we were facing the PAF alone, then Tejas should be sufficient to a degree. But I am not the IAF force planner and IAF doesn't think in terms of aircraft A for theater A and aircraft B for theater B. It wants aircraft A to take on threats in both theater A and B.
But isn't that dependent on the strategy that we adopt for the adversary?

Isn't it our stated position that in case of a 2 front war, our objective would be to aggressively pursue the enemy in the western front while fighting a holding defensive battle in the eastern front? If this is the case, isn't the Tejas Mk1/A already well suited for this role? It can does have enough combat radius to go deep into porkistan either as an escort for a Jag strike package or as a self escort strike package while having enough endurance to stand CAPs along the cheeni front while the big boys go deep.

A quick look at Google maps shows that Ambala is the most eastern AFB on the western front and the distance as the crow flies between there and many significant military targets in Porkistan is between 500-550Kms, well within the capability of the Tejas. Add IFR and that puts the whole of porkistan under its combat radius.

Another point to be made is the total force that can be dedicated against the enemy combat force of ~520 aircrafts, most of which are in the same category as the Tejas, in the western front in a 2 front war. We would probably end up mustering the entire 123 Mk1/A/ or Bisons, 45 M2000's, 65 MiG29's and probably about 60-100 MKI's and 125 Jaguars, totalling about 420-460 aircraft, which could go up to 480-490 if the 21 MiG 29 deal goes through shortly and if you include a couple of dets of Rafale too . This results in a ratio of 1:0.81(worst case of 420) to 1:.95(best case of 490), in the enemy's favour. No doubt many of these assets would be dual tasked in the Northern command region but I am trying to keep it simple. This also just leaves about 160 MKI's and 26 Rafales as the dedicated force to the Eastern front facing the whole of the PLAAF combat assets dedicated to this front, which I approximate will be close to 500-600 of their total 1200+ fleet.

This is from a quick calculation, no doubt with a lot of guessing, from an arm chair enthusiast. I am pretty sure the professional staff at the Air operations and planning directorate can see it too. This also clearly shows that there is more than enough room to order at least another 60-80 Tejas Mk1 or Mk1As without including the MRFA.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

Lets take these calculations one step deeper

-- Many airfields (Srinagar, Jammu, Avantipur, few more extensions being built there), all are within 50 miles of the border where most of the action will take place ( including CAS, interdiction, CAP). LCA is imminently suited for that.

-- LCA maybe small, and one wrong inference drawn is that its unrefueled combat radius is less. HVT sir keeps on saying that the radius is similar to Jags (and it could be word play, maybe it is with all fuel tanks). But certainly it is not less.

--China has very few airfields around Tibet border, most at high altitude with HAS that limits planes numbers between 150-200 MAX (and that includes Hotan). It may have 3000 planes, but they cannot be placed in Tibet even if it wanted, not enough airfields (and almost all at height).

--Most of its logistic road and most important highways run at few KM to 100 KM from the border. Tibet is inhospitable, once these logistical nodes are destroyed, the 50,000 chinese army cannot eat even grass (as it does not grow there), nor breathe air (less supply) or drink water (except for some ice fed rivers, that place is one cold desert). There will be no where to run. Same applies for us, but we are mostly in the mountains and that makes targeting difficult (and there is ice to warm and drink water). Point is LCA can fly from bases 200 KM inland, go 100 KM further and destroy these.

- Whatever way one looks up, LCA has a role to play. It may not reach all enemy targets, but certainly can reach 50% of them. That relieves other long legged birds for deeper strike.

-- LCA numbers should be increased, MK2 is uncertain from R&D perspective. It could take few years more to have the canards and everything working together. Even when we need 5th gen birds, the IAF will need cheaper 4th gen birds to do most of the less risky job. Even mighty USAF is not going all 5th gen any time soon.

-- I am surprised (rather appalled) to hear the new chief saying that they do not need extra 36 Rafale. Now there is no plan B, only Plan A which is MFRA. Like TSPA, putting a gun to its head (and the country), if you don't give me what I want, I will pull the trigger
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

Overarching needs - quick injection of capable airframes and biggest bang for the buck. In the US it has been shown that every dollar invested in the local economy has an economic impact of $7 to the local economy. So the LCA checks these two boxes. We should not stop MK1 production lines - they should keep running and be enhanced to deliver a guaranteed 25 aircraft per year.
From an April 2021 post by Manish_P, a comparison between Arjun and T-90MS
Arjun Mk1A
Total purchase (say) = 2,633 tanks
Avge. Unit Cost = $10.9 M
Total Outflow = $29.1B
Additional spend over T-90MS = $9.7B
Total Taxes collected = $6.5B
Total Budgetary Excess = $1.6B
Supplier revenues = $11.5B
Supply chain investment = $ 9.3B
Economic Impact = $44.8B

T-90MS
Total purchase (say) = 2,633 tanks
Avge. Unit Cost = $ 6.7M
Total Outflow = $17.9B

Total Taxes collected = $0.0B
Supplier revenues = $0.0B
Supply chain investment = $0.0B
Economic Impact = $0.0B

....

The tax revenues generated by the domestic supply chain would augment the government's budgetary resources, funding incremental procurement, R&D into incremental improvements as well as the next MBT model.

The above is a case study for domestic vs imports in the case of the Arjun. It makes the point for the LCA vs imports.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

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

Post by Mort Walker »

Vivek K,

The Total Outflow will be reduced further by creating at least 500 high paying jobs for skilled technicians/engineers/scientists for which income tax will be collected. Roughly salaries will be Rs. 1,45,000/month for a skilled engineer or scientist.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

Exactly. That is why imports are a losing proposition. LCA MK1 manufacture should continue.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

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

Post by Mort Walker »

There is no reason why 200 Tejas Mk1 or 1A can’t be ordered. This doesn’t need to come out of IAF budget, but out of industrial and civil aviation budgets. The RBI is sitting on huge reserves, just borrow on paper for it.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Vivek K wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Yes you are being cavalier with rhetoric.
I would rather be that than an apologist that puts the forces on a pedestal and worship every right or wrong decision that they make. India has been importing weapons for 75 years. Add up the total in today's dollars. Imagine if progressively larger amounts had been invested domestically starting small in the 50s (5%) and moving to larger percentages today (50-75%), what the status of Indian economic might and ability to defend herself would have been. If we don't right this wrong even today, then India will remain a corrupt, unprepared nation that may need to become a vassal of a stronger power for its defense. Some of us think that during the heydays of INC, India was already a vassal!!


These personal attacks you make, apologist etc are why your posts come across as pointless rhetoric.

Nobody here is putting the forces on a pedestal or anything which you are assuming. We are talking facts and you are responding with poorly researched claims.

India's prior industrial policy is not under debate, we all know that and we've all advocated for more localisation. Its warfighting capacity is. We have to figure out a way to balance the two. What about this is so hard for you to understand without getting abusive and calling people names?

Is this how you function in the real world? If your business partner comes and says look the supplier you are asking me to depend on is unproven, is offering stuff which was designed to different specs and while I'd like to go for it, we have to either raise the overall budget to get far more of it, which is not possible so or have a mix of what works and what's risky would you froth at the mouth and start calling him names?

Think for a second. Step away from the keyboard and try to understand what is being said.
Karan - i've a lot of respect for you but here you're being an apologist for bad decision making.

The Su30 carries 3x the fuel load of the Tejas because it was a specified large fighter. The Tejas could have carried as much fuel if that is what had been specified from day one as the design requirement. You cannot now say - oh the Tejas is no use because it cannot carry as much fuel as the Su30!
Wow, so you literally don't understand anything what is written and start going off on these rants, apologist this, that.

The Su30 fuel was given to make you understand your claim that India had too few refuellers and hence the IAF didn't know what it was doing in adding AAR to all its fighters was wrong. Accept it and move on. India uses Cobham pods on its fighters.
https://defenceforumindia.com/media/iaf ... ng.77/full
Its not perfect but as always the IAF is doing what it can.

SuryaG raised this exact point earlier in the thread. But hey, do you even bother reading what others are saying.

Also, India's security situation has changed! In the 1980s and 1990s when the LCA was defined (ASR 1985), nobody predicted the Chinese would grow to be such a monster. At the time the bulk of IAF was the MiG21, so we defined a MiG21 sized superior platform based off of the MiG29 and Mirage. Today's threat scenario has worsened and we need more of our airframes beyond the Mk1. What about this is rocket science?

India took years to make the Tejas because it was starting from scratch. Now it can do more. That doesn't mean the original designers and the IAF had a crystal ball. Today they know they need a medium fighter. Again, times change. You want the IAF to use many more light fighters? Find them the money.
And please finalize what role you want the LCA for! IAF had 450 Mig-21s (even more if some accounts are to be believed). And these were interceptors with limited range and limited ground attack capability. The LCA can carry fuel in external tanks. IFR capability was being added - did it need to be in the FOC requirement, holding up production? Could it have been added once completed? The LCA offers comprehensive multi role capabilities. Is IAF planning to use IFR LCAs for deep strike inside mainland China?
Do you even read anything that's written in the forum? In this very thread even.

IAF has moved beyond MiG21s. That's the crux of the issue. They can't depend on light fighters alone. They are fighting both the PAF and PLAAF.

The Tejas has seven pylons. It cannot carry as many weapons as a MWF can without sacrificing scarce pylons and DTs. Of course they had to plumb and add the fuel upfront to know it could be done. The IAF has even accepted the IOC fighters without IFR and they can't be retrofitted.

The LCA is designed to be an AD fighter with secondary strike capacity. It's not a deep strike unit.

If you'd done even the most basic of research for your post, you'd know IFR allows the Tejas Mk1A to get out of its original MiG21 sizing issue and offer the IAF more flexibility in terms of how they base it, how they use it. Putting all our frontline fighters in bases close to the border is to invite a punishing first strike. They've thought of stuff you've not even bothered to look into it, yet here you are telling us about bad decision making.

And they are doing so because the budget is limited. Each Tejas they purchase is a fighter from elsewhere they haven't, out of a fixed budget which hasn't been increased. Obviously they are going to ask for as much as possible out of it.

If the GOI were to give them a "Tejas budget" and "rest of the fleet budget", both generous, they could afford to take more Tejas like the Chinese accepted work in progress fighters en masse along with imported SAMs galore and a huge budget to keep adding more. In that case quantity has its own quality. We don't have that budget. So IAF will try and squeeze every ounce of performance from what it has. This includes the Tejas, the Jaguar and every other airframe.

It has also got to balance new vs mature. When the Tejas MWF comes in, it will take time to operationalize. They need something to hold the line in the meantime because more MWF class fighters will start retiring already.
Really? India can order 6 Apaches for its army that has no infrastructure and would need extensive investment in spares, mechanics.... but cannot place an order for ONE LCH. India can order an extremely expensive Rafale (36 fighters) and like you said probably has ordered a couple of squadrons more. But we cannot order the LCA in numbers.


India has ordered a fleet of Apaches which will benefit from shared logistics as per the CDS mandate and they come with ready ATGMs and weapons. The LCH is dependent on HELINA which just cleared trials. At least till then the IA has something.

Do you understand the capability of the Rafale BTW? If you'd spent a fraction of the time you've spent here complaining, on understanding what it adds to the IAF orbat and how heavily each of those airframes would be tasked it would be one thing.
And look at IAF's payment record to HAL - does it pay for everything upfront? Deliveries of 250-300 aircraft would take upwards of 10 years at current production rates. Even if these were magically enhanced, perhaps 10 years to deliver 300 and paid for annually. You only need to pay 100% upfront for imports.
FYI, the IAF/MOD are so budget starved, they owed HAL over Rs 14K Crores till it was resolved. We are ~30% over committed liabilities defence budget wise. Again, basic facts which you can't be bothered with. The IAF has pushed out the Su30 upgrade, dropped the Su-57, reduced the number of S400s from 12 to 5, held off the Phalcon, all to purchase 36 Rafale and 83 Tejas, and you think they are sitting on a pile of cash and can order 250-300 Tejas. Talk about a flight of fancy.
What has IAF's tactic been - move the goalpost, add requirements (different missiles, weapons) and then place a limited order of 40 under duress and then use the Arjun playbook - ask for MK1A for further orders.
You literally don't understand care about the IAFs concerns. The IAF asked for more weapons and missiles because without them the Tejas would be vulnerable. Now with the new AAMs, it's lethal. It asked for the Mk1A because the Mk1 needed improvements for squadron level service and low turn around time. They need this because if they have few airframes, they need to move them around fast. Even the Mk1 is manageable but constant wear and tear on the composite structure, the harder to reach internals made squadron serving harder than what the Mk1A is to offer. If they hadn't done this then after intense usage, the Tejas would have to be back at HAL for an airframe rebuild.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/reveale ... as-chosen/
But your statement - "On the one hand you claim India is a poor country. But on the other you state we should buy 250-300 Tejas" is key. This is what has been used to limit Tejas orders. Let me ask you this - do you understand the difference between imports and domestic production? There is an excellent post by one poster that I cannot remember that had listed the benefits of domestic production I would highly recommend for you. I would pay the Apache price for the LCH any day - because the money gets re-invested in India - or comes back to the government in "circulation" - taxation and so on. So please reconsider your mind set.
Goodness gracious - you don't seem to have the slightest bit of understanding that the Tejas is not just a jobs and industrial benefit program. It's first and primary role is to be a combat aircraft. Understand this.

You are going on and on and on about ordering more Tejas when the Govt itself hasn't budgeted them to do so, and the IAF by virtue of having fewer aircraft needs each airframe to pull its weight and more. In contrast you are speaking of taxes and circulation and "comes back to the Govt".

In reality, the Govt is struggling to fund the defense budget and the wolves are at the door. And we need a mix of imports and domestic both to safeguard today and tomorrow. But your focus is purely on the industrial side of things without even understanding the IAF has to strike a balance.

Yes, I'd ask you to reconsider *your* mindset. Think like a rational individual for a minute from the perspective of a service that can be asked to go to war at a moments notice. They've already committed to six squadrons of an in devpt fighter, four of which are of a new variant. They badly need proven capability which is state of the art for the rest of their fleet. And you are busy name calling them for not having ordered 250-300 Tejas when to order what they've done, they had to give up additional imports and take a significant risk as is.

We are at around 30 squadrons today. Do you understand this is just enough to dominate the PAF numbers wise and the PLAAF will bring another 200-300 airframes to the fight once it ramps up its infra? And that starting the coming decade we will have to start retiring fighters which have longer range and more payload than the Mk1A? What happens then if the MWF is delayed by a year or two? Or we have war break out before that itself?

The GOI made the Tejas a success for aatmanirbhar Bharat, and it was the right thing to do, but we also need a mix of types beyond the Tejas alone.
4. No Chief called the Tejas a 3 legged Cheetah. A retd AM did but no Chief did. The Tejas, Gripen C/D, JF-17 are all MiG-21 ++ from the range/payload point of view.
If that is factual - then it is my error. But nevertheless a blow to my pride in the Tejas. And the Mig-21++ comment was only for the Tejas. You it seems are helping the comment maker by adding an explanation that expands the derogatory comment to others.
This over the top emotional response and accusatory behavior of yours is why it's so hard to have a sensible discussion.

Derogatory or not, it's the unfortunate truth, that light fighters in all the three categories are MiG21++. The JF-17 is literally that! It has design heritage from the Super Sabre project which took the F-7 and redesigned it into a modernised variant. All three fighters offer similar capabilities and are from the POV of range /payload expanded MiG21 class fighters.

Understand the context before getting upset. The media made it into a huge brouhaha and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. From the warfighters perspective is the Tejas a Mirage 2000? No. It was designed to replace the MiG21 with M2K style mission systems but at the end of the day it has sizing limitations.

Which BTW IFR is meant to bypass to a degree! But here you were busy accusing the IAF of bad faith by asking IFR for the Mk1FOC when it's literally the one thing that makes it a possible stand in if all our other options like MRFA, additional Rafales fail and the MWF gets delayed. You don't even get the context.
And the future orders of the Rafale will arrive the minute they are ordered? Or will we use Akash launchers to fire the purchase orders at incoming hostiles? Wouldn't it be better to keep going with MK1 production to beef up fleet strength instead of waiting to order additional Rafales? With the political situation, isn't there a possibility that the additional order may not happen?
You order Rafales today at least you book your slot in the process early, and build up to a deterrent force of 4 squadrons which while much smaller vs the numbers of 5G/4.5G fielded by PRC will still offer us a huge deterrence capability and deep strike ability. Egypt understood this. They saw the developments in the region and took their second batch. Greece and Croatia have ordered the Rafale. The slots are getting filled up.

We are going to use our Rafales for literally everything as our silver bullets because till the Su30 gets Astra Mk2, the Meteor is the longest stick we have. And the Rafales EW will make it the perfect strike asset for the SFC as well.

Despite the chances of info on its capabilities leaking out via Qatar to the PAF etc, it's still a huge force multiplier and many of our mission fit items are unique to us and it can at least serve as the core of an IAF which rapidly drops older fighters and moves to indigenous fighters despite their delays and risks. The IAF can do this provided the Govt funds them to do so.

We are not going to order more Mk1s. The Mk1A is far superior. Why would you order the Mk1? If anything if you'd even bothered to read my post, you'd realize I said we can use the money saved from cancelling the MRFA to buy 2 more Rafale/ 2 more Mk1A squadrons, Su30 upgrades, IFR, Phalcons, accelerate MRFA etc which would offer more bang for the buck in my view than the MRFA. That's meeting the IAF midway and also meeting industrial requirements and safeguarding our future. A lot of what goes into the upgrades would be desi. The two additional Mk1A would safeguard Uttam too.

But then again, when do you read other folks posts. Easier to make yourself into a super patriot who only understands industrial policy, whereas the rest of us are dunderheads, to be name called along with the IAF. Good going.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Post by Prem Kumar »

Karan M wrote:I said we can use the money saved from cancelling the MRFA to buy 2 more Rafale/ 2 more Mk1A squadrons, Su30 upgrades, IFR, Phalcons, accelerate MRFA etc which would offer more bang for the buck in my view than the MRFA. That's meeting the IAF midway and also meeting industrial requirements and safeguarding our future. A lot of what goes into the upgrades would be desi. The two additional Mk1A would safeguard Uttam too
This is really the only sensible way forward. Scrap MRFA and do the above with the money. The frustrating part for many folks on BRF is that this sounds logical to us, but successive IAF chiefs recite the MRFA kalma (as Ramana Ji brilliantly put it). They have a better idea of squadron strength requirements, budgets, how the MoD/MoF work etc than any of us. Still they behave as if they are living in some la-la land.

We can take the uncharitable view that they are truly deluded (or) the charitable view that they know exactly what they're doing and this repeated MRFA ask is to help them achieve a certain goal (which they can't achieve otherwise).

We are in a state of "war can happen anytime". Its important that all parties: MoD, MoF, IAF, DRDO, HAL all sit together and work on an immediate, mid-term & long-term vision. No time for people to second-guess, "ask for X so that I get Y", posturing etc.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

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

Post by k prasad »

Great point, Prem.... I think our armed forces and DRDO are stuck in contrasting cycles -- the armed forces are constantly readying for immediate to near-term war so much so that they're utterly unable to think of devoting some of those resources (financial, etc) to longer-term plans. In contrast, DRDO often has the more long-term scientist-mindset, which doesn't do well when systems are required quickly.

This brings to mind an interesting parallel of people with combat PTSD or living in poverty (link) being unable to hold jobs or make long-term plans. Our services seem to have been in this situation for so long that the inability to make long-term plans is now ingrained. Plus, when weaponry might be needed ASAP, no one would want to spend years and commit funds, or effort on risky local options. The times we've broken this cycle have been either when it was forced on us (Sanctions forcing local procurement, etc.), or when there was a strong person mediating between Armed forces and DRDO/PSUs (Parrikar).

That said, Israel is an example that comes to mind of a nation at near-constant alert, and they've done quite well shepherding indigenous systems. I think it'll take at least a decade of IA / IAF buy-in and true collaboration with DRDO or local manufacturers to get them to realize the benefits of constant support and iterative development. The Navy seems to be not too bad at this, probably because the last major conflict it was involved in was in '71, and they've always had to make a three-course meal with scraps and leftovers. The IAF's experience with the Mehar Baba competition hopefully leads to this as well (one of the winners was a fellow PhD student with me, so it's really impressive to see how they're encouraging talent).
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Kprasad, Prem, it's precisely what KP says "bird in the hand" mindset vs the develop for tomorrow one.

KP re Israel they've always had a nice pipeline of weaponry from the US and a dollar budget (US military aid) and a shekel one (locally funded), latter for domestic kit for several decades now. And the US funded Lavi was shut down in part because even Israeli AF guys also went for optimising their immediate dollar budget over "tomorrow's aircraft". Which shows the problem we had with the IAF and the Tejas, is similar to what even Israel faced, and lacking a strong indigenous lobby (the irony!) they lost out on becoming a true aerospace power. This is the key reason why putting the services in charge of a weapons program can only be done if it's clearly decided that fixing the program takes precedence, not just dropping it and moving on. The latter is OK only if a follow on program is launched or its in a non critical field where we already have huge expertise.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

Karan M wrote:These personal attacks you make, apologist etc are why your posts come across as pointless rhetoric.
Not my intent to make any personal attack. These are not anything personal but broad issues where India has a failing report card. Its forces and politicians have taken the treasury to the cleaners. It is time to right the wrong! We need to seize the moment with the resurgence in Indian tech to put these into manufacture to learn and improve. At one point we have to start with domestic weapons since price of imports is climbing steeply.
We have to figure out a way to balance the two. What about this is so hard for you to understand without getting abusive and calling people names?
My use of the term "apologists" was used in general. You are reading it as a targeted abuse directed at you. That was not the intent and I want to apologize if it came out as such.

That said, I have a completely different view on domestic vs imports. Have you read the economic difference I provided? India is missing out because billions of dollars are being sent abroad and we make poor decisions like the T-90, the Manpads, small arms, historically perhaps the Mig-23s and others. When will we make a conscious decision to do better for ourselves?
Is this how you function in the real world? If your business partner comes and says look the supplier you are asking me to depend on is unproven, is offering stuff which was designed to different specs and while I'd like to go for it, we have to either raise the overall budget to get far more of it, which is not possible so or have a mix of what works and what's risky would you froth at the mouth and start calling him names?
I think you're taking offense where none was intended.
But let's talk about this point - you say supplier you are asking me to depend on is unproven

What is unproven about the LCA? It has supposedly been tested to the extent all aircraft have. It has demonstrated its weapon firing capabilities and demonstrated them in exercises. It has demonstrated "better" cold start capability than some of the top MRCA. If your intent is to accuse HAL of slipups then have we funded them to the extent that Dassault, Lockheed Martin were supported by their air forces with orders?

You say - is offering stuff which was designed to different specs and while I'd like to go for it, we have to either raise the overall budget to get far more of it, which is not possible so or have a mix of what works
Designed to different specs - can you back that up? Or did you change goal posts after issuing one set of specs? Can you change specs mid way? The LCA has adapted to IAF's shifting goalposts and can continue to do so in future iterations. At a fraction of the cost.


Wow, so you literally don't understand anything what is written and start going off on these rants, apologist this, that.

The Su30 fuel was given to make you understand your claim that India had too few refuellers and hence the IAF didn't know what it was doing in adding AAR to all its fighters was wrong. Accept it and move on. India uses Cobham pods on its fighters.
https://defenceforumindia.com/media/iaf ... ng.77/full
Its not perfect but as always the IAF is doing what it can.
So now what you're saying is that even with severely depleted fleet strength and "600 PLAF fighters we have to face" per your post, we will use SU 30 s for buddy refuelling? Do you think that is a realistic scenario?
India took years to make the Tejas because it was starting from scratch. Now it can do more. That doesn't mean the original designers and the IAF had a crystal ball. Today they know they need a medium fighter. Again, times change. You want the IAF to use many more light fighters? Find them the money.
We cannot pay lip service to domestic systems and abandon them for imports at the first toy becomes available. We have to stay the course to realize the full benefit of the program. It is amazing that a country sitting on $500B plus reserves cannot spend $5-$10B on domestic program that may end up being export earners and actually make us money.
We are not going to order more Mk1s. The Mk1A is far superior. Why would you order the Mk1? If anything if you'd even bothered to read my post, you'd realize I said we can use the money saved from cancelling the MRFA to buy 2 more Rafale/ 2 more Mk1A squadrons, Su30 upgrades, IFR, Phalcons, accelerate MRFA etc which would offer more bang for the buck in my view than the MRFA. That's meeting the IAF midway and also meeting industrial requirements and safeguarding our future. A lot of what goes into the upgrades would be desi. The two additional Mk1A would safeguard Uttam too.

But then again, when do you read other folks posts. Easier to make yourself into a super patriot who only understands industrial policy, whereas the rest of us are dunderheads, to be name called along with the IAF. Good going.
Karan - for one that is accusing the other of personal attacks, you make several of your own. We should continue the MK1 production line till the MK1A matures and is actually available. A bird in hand like you said, is better than the AMCA, the MK2, the MWF, ORCA, the TEDBF and several others on the drawing board. There is no need for MRFA. We need to build a domestic aerospace industry and export AMCA, TEDBF, MK2 and others instead.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18262
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Vivek, the nature of air warfare has changed. When the Tejas was designed, it was supposed to be a MiG-21 replacement. While it has certainly exceeded that benchmark....the IAF requires a medium weight fighter due to the threat scenario that has evolved with the PAF and PLAAF. Hence the Tejas Mk2. Karan is right - there is no money for 114 MRFA, Tejas Mk2 and AMCA. Funding all three will not happen.

The silver lining is that there is no money for 114 MRFA, despite the Air Chief saying that is what he wants. Ask for 114, but they will get a few more units for now. Later on down the road, they will buy more MRFA if funding is available. But do the math, even with 114 MRFA...the IAF will not come anywhere close to 42 squadrons. So there is ample room for Tejas Mk2 and even AMCA.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

All this discussion is on the pretext that IAF is not in favour of Mk2.

IAF chief has to balance a lot of things. Put yourselves in his shoes and think what you would need to do to get some Mk2 and some MRFA. The MRFA birds are flying today and the Mk2 is development. Funds for Mk2s development is already secured.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Post by Vivek K »

Rakesh, why are we there are other ways of looking at the same situation. In a ugly fight, homeland defense from hostile aircraft, and attack into Pakistan may be tasks performed very capably by the Tejas while the Sukhois, Mirages and Rafales penetrate deep inside China. The Tejas could also be used for CAS against the Chinese in Tibet.

Let me ask you this - we don't want to increase MK1s, but we want to keep the Jaguars and spend limited resources in upgrading them while the aircraft remains underpowered. This type of decision making shows the mindset against domestic that needs to change. Why? So that we may be prepared to meet the evolving threat scenario in our neighborhood. Replacing the less capable Mig-21s (100 odd bisons in service) and the Jaguars, say 60-100 odd of the aging ones that have little airframe life left. You say we will never come close to 42 squadrons - Well, the MK1 provides a way to come really close to it. And the MK1 can be brought up to MK1A standards as a MLU.

So what I find stifling in India is that
a) we think so small, we think that injecting 50 aircraft will change our strength projection ability. We conveniently ignore the capabilities of the enemy and to make our case, pooh pooh the enemy's capability. Look around and see what our enemies are doing. How may J-10s, J-11 and J-20 the Chinese are putting up. And to their credit, while we kept pushing the Arjun through trials, the Pakistanis put the Al-Khalid into their force structure. The same with JF-17. Now we have already declared LCA (or its configuration) to be outdated for the current threat scenario and therefore the need to move to MK1A (which could be a MLU or a in-service upgrade).
b) We keep delaying induction and with our MIC not cash rich, we cannot build incremental improvements. And then out come the complainers - it isn't the spec i need today!!! China is at our door and we need Rafale capability urgently!! Not realizing that placing orders and then executing them does not happen overnight.
c) We complain that deliveries are not fast enough - the meagre orders are supported by laboratory like assembly lines leading to lower quality and efficiency of scale.

When we try to appease hard nosed idiots like me, we apply the balm of - " oh we will buy a few LCA along with our more desired toys". This helps to further destroy/erode our economic security and future. If we do not realize this then there is no point bringing the forum down insisting this point. You have to realize that the LCA and Arjun represent OUR future National Security (= Economic Security + Territorial Security + Sovereign Decision Making). We look in India at National Security = Territorial Security and gleefully sacrifice our economic security and some parts of Sovereign Decision making for the short term benefit. Buying the Rafale helps (to a limited extent) our territorial security only.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

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

Post by YashG »

114 MRFA 'might' be the institutional line of IAF to coax GoI into opening the purse strings.
Unlike Xi, our government faces re-election every 5 years. So it's only natural for governments to deploy budgets to win votes instead of 'possible' wars. Nationalistic or not - governments are political creatures. People like parrikar or lal bahadur shastri - who are beyond their politics are rare.

Given that, it's entirely possible that services also play for pulling the strings. (Still doesnt justify atags' arjunization or importing nasams or NoSam).
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

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

Post by YashG »

Indranil wrote:All this discussion is on the pretext that IAF is not in favour of Mk2.

IAF chief has to balance a lot of things. Put yourselves in his shoes and think what you would need to do to get some Mk2 and some MRFA. The MRFA birds are flying today and the Mk2 is development. Funds for Mk2s development is already secured.
But we can always plunk in more funds ( Unavailable, but shud be found somehow) into Mk1A lines, Mk2 teams, testing equipment to shrink development timelines.

IR, what technologies in Mk2 are so sticky that putting in more money wont accelerate them no matter how. Genuinely asking ?

---
On a separate note, Our national debt is 160% of GDP, while most european nations have > 250%, China> 330%. Our defence Budget is 2.1% of GDP. If we overnight only for defence production/acceleration - borrow say another 12% of GDP - in effect tripling our defence budget for next 3 years, it wouldnt be so bad;

Additionally - the 10% defence stimulus will only accelerate our technology base,
1. Adding atleast 50 basis points to our GDP growth for next 10 years
2. Reduce Opex on china borders through better deterrence signalling
3. Greater defence exports, helping us make money & increase our diplomatic sphere
4. Save on imports/emergency purchases
5. Atleast 20% of this additional 10% GDP debt will come back as taxes.

In total this program will pay for itself for sure. Plus the national self confidence we will earn, will reshape a new generation of young Indians.
RoI: Priceless.
Post Reply