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

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 19 Jul 2022 15:00

We will agree to disagree.

It may be school boy stuff for you but is not for a vast swathe of officers who join NDA after 10th std. after that their focus for the next 15 to 20 yrs is to become effective fighters / leaders of men and women.

Exposure to tech happens but exposure to how that comes about is lacking. This starts happening at Staff College to an extent but only seriously at NDC.

Then once they are in positions of influence the age old structural problems creep in. That coupled with a sort of tech myopia .

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 19 Jul 2022 15:40

What we All can seem to agree is that there is serious lacking in the vision and thought leadership of our Armed forces (all 3 of them). Time and again, in forums after forums this is starkly evident. The cases are repetitive in nature. Bad decisions/lack of vision to favoring foreign systems. Some recent examples

Navy: 3rd Aircraft Carrier, P 75 I
Airforce : AEWCS, LCA Tejas
Army: Arjun, INSAS, All artillery.

I propose it is time to train the armed forces (i suggest a revision of their staff college curriculum) to enable them to build a MIC in the country. Since the armed forces are not introspecting on this aspect, I guess it falls on the govt of the day to force this down the throat if required. Somethings got to give.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 19 Jul 2022 17:12

Rakesh wrote:They envision the Mk2 to replace the Jaguar and Mirage 2000 fleets. That is 6.5 squadrons (2.5 Mirage 2000 squadrons + 4 Jaguar squadrons). So literally a one-to-one replacement and thus the order book of six Tejas Mk2 squadrons (or 120+ aircraft).

Air HQ does not see the three MiG-29 squadrons being replaced by the Mk2. The Fulcrum is their current hot rod and they want to replace it with another hot rod. They are still thinking in very insular terms. Even with the ugly hump on the MiG-29UPG, the Fulcrum is still a very maneuverable fighter. And Air HQ wants a fighter that outranks the MiG-29. Only the Rafale F3R(I) does that now. The F-15EX is another hot rod, but the acquisition cost and the OPEX cost is horrendously expensive.

So do the math ---> 36 Rafales now + 114 MRFA + 63 more (that is the three units of the MiG-29). I am sure you remember 63 from the first MMRCA contest (it was 126 + 63 and now will be 114 + 63). The sum total of this acquisition is 213 birds or nearly 12 squadrons of Rafale/MRFAs. Some examples will head off to TACDE + serve as attrition reserves.

* 13 Su-30MKI squadrons
* 11+ Rafale/MRFA squadrons
* 6 Tejas Mk2 squadrons
* 4 Tejas Mk1A squadrons
* 2 Tejas Mk1 squadrons
* 2(+5) AMCA squadrons

The above is around 43 units in all. This looks to be the plan.

It this is their plan IAF is living in an alternate reality, they’ve been trying to get 126 MMRCA for over 2 decades now and this has only translated into 36 birds. 200+ of them going forward and we are looking well into the 2050s before such fantasies would ever be fulfilled

As it is I am 100% certain MRFA will be in this exact situation without even a contract signature 15 years from now

6 LCA MK.2 SQNs + 6 MRFA can pay for 18+++ LCA MK.2 SQNs

order 2-3 more SQNs of Rafale and order 10+ LCA MK.2 SQNs should be the GoI’s mandate to IAF after this recent debacle from the CAS, they have clearly lost the plot. They are saying they’ll only consider more orders AFTER LCA MK.2 enters service? If this isn’t outright sabotage it’s unforgivable incompetence. How are ADA/HAL meant to plan their production and scale? Do they plan for 6 SQNs over 5-8 year production run or 12 over the same period or 6+6 over a 10+ year production run (assuming IAF order midway through delivery of tranche 1)?

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 19 Jul 2022 17:27

LakshmanPST wrote:I'm guessing that IAF was asked the question by someone in MOD/GOI, "Why do you need MRFA when you have Tejas Mk2 coming in the same timeframe...?"...
If you read the statements given out by the Chief and some news bits/articles that came out to defend MRFA, it becomes amply clear... MRFA lobby is desperately trying to push the case...
----
Sample of the statements--->
1) "We are short of squadrons, we need new jets by the time MIG29s and Mirage 2000s retire in 2030..."
If you notice, both the jets were originally expected to be retired by 2035 but as soon as the new chief came, he said that both these planes will retire by the end if the decade i.e. 2030...
We Mango ppl will obviously not know the exact dates... But the sudden change in retirement year looked wierd...
The conspiracy theorist in me says that MRFA lobby wants to show artificial projected squadron shortage by 2030, and since Tejas Mk2 will be just ready by then, MRFA will become a necessity... If the retirement date is 2035, Tejas Mk2 will already be in numbers and all production hurdles will be overcome by then... It would be in active production churning out atleast 1 squadron a year...
-
2) "We are looking at some 5th Gen capabilities in MRFA"
What 5th Gen capabilities are IAF looking for in MRFA...? We are already developing all the capabilities for AMCA... What new capabilities are they looking for...?
It looked like they are randomly throwing in words to make a case for MRFA...
-
3) "We want to promote Aviation industry in Private sector..."
The logic given here is---> "HAL is a public sector entity... HAL will have a Tejas Line... And a production line should exist in the private sector also parallelly producing jets... So, MRFA is the answer..."
But fact is, MRFA is screwdrivergiri by a private sector entity... I doubt it will promote any real R&D in private sector...
Infact, Tejas program has achieved more progress in private sector as HAL is mainly only assembling the jets and many critical parts are manufactured by private sector... It created an entire ecisystem...
-
4) "Tejas Mk2 is different class from MRFA... MRFA is Rafale class..."
This is the most laughable defense by the MRFA lobby... Pardon me, but I often wonder if they pull out new classses right out of their After-burners...
For all practical purposes, Tejas Mk2 is equivalent to Gripen, F21 and MIG35... All the three are contendors in MRFA Tender... If MRFA is a different class, what are these jets doing there...?
Even a kid can see that the lobby is simply bluffing...
-
5) Also, in case ppl forgot, the MRFA lobby tried to connect MRFA Tender with AMCA Engine development...
But I feel this somehow didn't materialize and someone sensible separated them both before things could go further...
----
I feel MRFA lobby are trying to push the case in the minds of General public and veiled statements to Govt., but somehow somewhere I have hope that it is not working out as expected...
And the more its delayed, more ppl are understanding the issue...
Let's hope sense prevails...

I have a lot of time for this analysis, well done sir!

Classic manipulation tactic- create a fake sense of urgency and have your solution ready.

The most hilarious part of this is IAF saying that MRFA is the quick option that will build up Indian industry when the exact opposite is true. Not even RFI is out, best case scenario the first jet from this process lands in india in 2031/2, and Indian made (assembled) bird from MRFA process mid-2030s. Meanwhile AMCA MK.2 should be close to maturity at that point but Indian industry needs licence assembly to make build themselves up…..?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Jul 2022 20:04

KSingh wrote:It this is their plan IAF is living in an alternate reality, they’ve been trying to get 126 MMRCA for over 2 decades now and this has only translated into 36 birds. 200+ of them going forward and we are looking well into the 2050s before such fantasies would ever be fulfilled

As it is I am 100% certain MRFA will be in this exact situation without even a contract signature 15 years from now

6 LCA MK.2 SQNs + 6 MRFA can pay for 18+++ LCA MK.2 SQNs

They are living in an alternate reality all right. They got pilots dying in MiG-21 crashes, but will continue to operate the platform. A far better platform is on hand - Mk1A - but they will not entertain beyond what is already ordered. Then they will talk about the squadron shortage and how 42 squadrons are needed for full spectrum of operations. Then in the same breath they will mention that the IAF is fully capable of conducting a two front war.

If this was not a serious national security issue, this would be hilarious.

KSingh wrote:order 2-3 more SQNs of Rafale and order 10+ LCA MK.2 SQNs should be the GoI’s mandate to IAF after this recent debacle from the CAS, they have clearly lost the plot. They are saying they’ll only consider more orders AFTER LCA MK.2 enters service? If this isn’t outright sabotage it’s unforgivable incompetence. How are ADA/HAL meant to plan their production and scale? Do they plan for 6 SQNs over 5-8 year production run or 12 over the same period or 6+6 over a 10+ year production run (assuming IAF order midway through delivery of tranche 1)?

That would be the logical thing to do Saar, but logic is a rarity with defence procurement.

The PMO needs to crack the whip.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 19 Jul 2022 20:48

Is there a case for the chief be sacked for insubordination?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Jul 2022 20:50

Pratyush wrote:Is there a case for the chief be sacked for insubordination?

not yet. let's not wish that upon anyone.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 19 Jul 2022 21:00

Pratyush wrote:Is there a case for the chief be sacked for insubordination?

As noted by others this is not the case of one rogue chief- that would actually be good news as he’d be gone soon enough. This is about the IAF as a whole, MRFA demand has spanned 3 (maybe 4) CAS now (MMRCA ~10).

Even the most pro-LCA CAS you could think possible (the former head of NFTC) barely moved the dial on IDDM for IAF and stood firm by MRFA

The services have been blatantly ignoring the GoI’s instructions and intent for the entire 8+ year Modi term, how else do you get additions T90/Apache orders? P75I, MRFA etc pursued in that time?

The list of IDDM products the services simply refuse to touch (or do so in a very very limited manner) is only growing year by year under this PM, I’m sure this is not what Modi would want to see

HTT-40
LUH
LCH
ALH(NUH)
IMRH
ATAGS
Arjun
WhAP/Kestral
NAMICA
etc etc

bala · Post by **bala** » 19 Jul 2022 21:03

ks_sachin wrote:What is Indic thought?

.. or does one have to be a Hindu for that?

Tis just the Indian perspective, totally in sync with BharatVarsh. Being Hindu or not does not matter.

But you make a good point of "Incremental Development". The LCA, LCA MK1, MK1-A, MK2, ORCA, TEDBF are reflective of the same principle. However, as you rightly point out, you have to start somewhere, do some hand-holding like IA did with helos and evolve. The IA took that route because the "Air Wing" for IA is a second priority which the Govt told them they are on their own. The IA co-opted Desi HAL for their needs and bore the cross, so to speak, and quickly grew their fleet. Now they are the leaders by inducting LCH too. The same spirit is not displayed in core areas of IA like tanks, guns and artillery. Probably the "Air Wing" section can transfer some enlightened thinking to the core IA section.

Talking of incremental, the IAF can stop the insistent demand of perfection from day one (good enough is not enemy of best) and take things in stride. India is not at war, only skirmishes on the border which the IA is handling. You keep upgrading LCA and in matter of years you get a wonderful platform which you control completely.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 20 Jul 2022 00:51

Pratyush wrote:Is there a case for the chief be sacked for insubordination?

A certain Naval chief during shri George Fernandes comes to mind

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 20 Jul 2022 01:04

The rot is not individual, it is systematic.
The most charitable explanation can be that they know what they are talking about and we civilians do not know the real detail. In many cases I can see their point of view (and will make me highly unpopular here), but some defy any explanation.
I can understand IN not wanting ALH as NUH without folding blades (how they will otherwise stow the heli - a genuine concern).
Or T-90 preferred over Arjun (even though Arjun is way better than T-90, T-90 is adequate for TSP and Chicom, is cheaper (1/2 to 1/3rd of Arjun), by the last count over 96% can be produced in India (whereas major components for Arjun have to be imported), logistically similar to T-72, can be transported to LAC (where Arjun may not be, at least until a few years ago), the developer (Avadi) is seriously lacking, so on and so forth - Please remember, T-90 was designed by Russia, but for India).
But LCA (specially marked 1a) compared to Mig 21s and at least 10 number plated Squadrons? When the enemy is growing in size, that too with better planes, LCAMK1A is better than a nonexistent plane (or Mig 21s). At least it can drop bombs and be in a dog fight when PLAAF or PAF planes come visiting.
OR the upgrade of SU30MKI? It is like IAF has put a gun to the nation's head and said, unless you get me my MFRA, I will not buy/upgrade anything and lose the war.

basant · Post by **basant** » 20 Jul 2022 02:30

Sachin sir, as you say, let's agree to disagree. Lack of technical capacity to design is understandable, what is at stake here is the whole package of flying, maintaining and fighting. Just a day back I have seen videos on farmers making videos on youtube on their experience with newer generation (nano) fertilizers and presenting their analysis after experimenting in their own fields. If it is not surprising that select pilots of IAF, let alone those who have climbed the highest of positions, cannot grasp advancements, or worse, understand only for imported systems, we are doomed.

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 20 Jul 2022 09:25

IAF leadership is made up of fighter jockeys.
Govt should appoint chiefs from engineering and logistics sides more often.
War outcome is decided by logistics.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 20 Jul 2022 10:10

^^
If the issue was transport aircraft then would your call be to have chief from Transport stream?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Jul 2022 10:26

A Deshmukh wrote:IAF leadership is made up of fighter jockeys.
Govt should appoint chiefs from engineering and logistics sides more often.
War outcome is decided by logistics.

Does that mean that by the time a fighter pilot reaches the top of the IAF. Inspite of spending nearly 20 years in administrative position as wing commander and above. He has not learnt how to manage logistics of his unit. Or even understood how important a role, logistics and supply chain management are playing in his day to day life.

If this is true of 0.0001 percentage of the top brass. Then we have bigger problem then just a lack of support for indigenous platform.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 20 Jul 2022 15:31

Pratyush wrote:Is there a case for the chief be sacked for insubordination?

Me think ACM Chowdhay could (self edited) become first sample for insubordination, incompetence and misconduct.

basant · Post by **basant** » 20 Jul 2022 15:43

Objectively speaking, that would be the case only if his actions matches public statements AND he has jot taken IAF on board. That we don't know.

However, it can be argued that he did a service to Tejas programme with his glaring negligence whose affect, hopefully, will linger around and make him and any other future COAS wary. Conversely, it could also begin a systematic attack on the programme that's far more dangerous, perhaps akin to the Arjun saga. Nothing makes me feel happy about this episode, including the clarification. That we have to depend more on the shamed political leadership than the service is a matter of disgrace.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 20 Jul 2022 18:20

Haridas wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Is there a case for the chief be sacked for insubordination?
Me think ACM Chowdhay could (self edited) become first sample for insubordination and misconduct.

What law or what AF rule has he violated?
Is there a GOvernment Order around AtmaNirbhar Bharat around LCA that he has violated.
Is this conduct unbecoming of an officer in which case we need to sack the Navy Chief (S) the Army Chief (S) as well.
Just asking.

skumar · Post by **skumar** » 20 Jul 2022 22:02

Rakesh wrote:...
The PMO needs to crack the whip.

+1, get the ACM to eat his words in public.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 20 Jul 2022 22:39

I am playing devil's advocate. Let's say all these chiefs are right - They need MRFA at the cost of LCA or SU30MKI upgrade. And also assume, there is no ulterior motive, not even that budget if spent on SU30MKI upgrade or on LCA means less (or none) is unavailable for MRFA.

So it looks like IAF has calculated, against PAF and PLAAF, and upgraded SU30MKI and even 500 LCA does not make difference, because of technological inferiority (in case of SU30MKI- it's large radar cross-section, availability, and till now not a very seamlessly integrated platform; and in case of LCA - small range and carrying capacity, tech not cutting edge). They would rather go with 150 Rafale-like fighters, that would be sufficient to beat J-11, SU35s, J-20s. An upgraded SU30MKI or numerous LCA/MFA would not cut it, they cannot defeat a J-20 or an SU35 decisively, and thus, we cannot achieve air superiority and thus dictate the air war. Perhaps they know what they are talking about. I am not a pilot, and cannot see a mistake in this argument.
Having said that, from what I can see, this govt has always been willing to do more of Rafale (36 + xx). It is IAF that wants MRFA business, it can easily say I need 2-5 more sq of Rafale. At the same time, it can be supportive of LCA and su30mki upgrades, rather are dismissive or anti of it (without being explicitly saying so). Something is definitely rotten.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jul 2022 22:52

@ Fanne:

I will buy the IAF's argument of 114 MRFA, because the numbers are where they are. I will also buy the technological argument (i.e. Rafale-like aircraft are needed to take on the PLAAF's J-20 and J-31 aircraft).

So give Air HQ their 114 MRFA, but in turn they have to place an order for 200 Tejas Mk2s. In any negotiation, there has to be give and take. If they have a plan to induct 120 (six squadrons) of Tejas Mk2s, obviously they see value in the platform.

But to state that I must have 114 MRFA and everything else be damned (Su-30MKI upgrades + 200 Tejas Mk2s + additional Mk1As) and put on hold, till I get my 114 MRFA....is not an act of good faith. It reeks of something deeply sinister, regardless of whatever Air HQ's intentions are.

And Air HQ has to start working with ADA to get a viable Tejas Mk2 prototype out the door. If the Navy can have a Directorate of Naval Design, why cannot the air force have something similar? If Air HQ has got personnel to write detailed technical RFIs on 114 MRFAs, then I am sure there are officers who can be deputed to ADA to partner with them on the Tejas Mk2.

It boils down to priorities. This is where the PMO needs to step in. The PMO now needs to direct (order) Air HQ to work with ADA and HAL to get a Tejas Mk2 prototype flying. Regular program updates (and recommendations) need to land up on the PMO's desk and this should come from Air HQ. No one else. Give Air HQ the opportunity to take leadership and even more importantly, ownership.

And there should be only two recommendations (from Air HQ) that the PMO must not entertain;

1) I want to reduce the number of Tejas Mk2s*
2) I am not interested in block upgrades

*200 Tejas Mk2s is not some number that social media or even BRF pulled out of thin air. It was Air HQ's own number.

skumar · Post by **skumar** » 20 Jul 2022 23:13

fanne wrote:I am playing devil's advocate. Let's say all these chiefs are right - They need MRFA at the cost of LCA or SU30MKI upgrade. And also assume, there is no ulterior motive, not even that budget if spent on SU30MKI upgrade or on LCA means less (or none) is unavailable for MRFA.

So it looks like IAF has calculated, against PAF and PLAAF, and upgraded SU30MKI and even 500 LCA does not make difference, because of technological inferiority (in case of SU30MKI- it's large radar cross-section, availability, and till now not a very seamlessly integrated platform; and in case of LCA - small range and carrying capacity, tech not cutting edge). They would rather go with 150 Rafale-like fighters, that would be sufficient to beat J-11, SU35s, J-20s. An upgraded SU30MKI or numerous LCA/MFA would not cut it, they cannot defeat a J-20 or an SU35 decisively, and thus, we cannot achieve air superiority and thus dictate the air war. Perhaps they know what they are talking about. I am not a pilot, and cannot see a mistake in this argument.

In that case, a few questions need to be asked.
1. China has ~150 J20 fighters and <30 Su35s. Why does the AF think that only J20s/Su35s and all the J20s/Su35s will be deployed against India? What happens to the other 1000+ fighters they have? Is it like a gladiatorial contest that China will say here is my best gladiator, bring yours on and the fate of the war will be decided by one aerial contest?
2. Why did ASQRs not target them in the first place?
3. How do you explain previous statements from ACMs and current ACM saying we are ready for a 2 front war? That was clearly a lie.
4. Why do we think that Mk1As will be sitting ducks for J20s?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jul 2022 00:11

Fanne please explain how a Rafale can beat a J-20 or future variants one on one easily? If a Su-30 with a, far more powerful radar if upgraded, and much larger IRST type capacity, would struggle per you, how does the Rafale pull ahead?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 21 Jul 2022 00:16

@ Rakesh, We are both saying the same thing..

@skumar. I am nobody..I will use God given brain to make some logical statements (to the best of my ability)
1. How many planes can Chinese deploy against IAF in Tibet? I think it is limited by Geography. It is expanding and making new airports. I would say PLAAF can deploy anything between 100-300 planes. I doubt the number would be more than that. One good count would be how many hardened pen have they built? The planes in open will be targeted with missiles (so would be ours, I get a bad feeling on planes in the open in Leh or even Thoise).
2. Can the all 300 planes be best of Chinese planes - 100% yes. There is no country around China, (including Taiwan) that has the guts, intention, policy, logic, strategic need or the ability to attack China because best of its plane is deployed against India in Tibet. The only country that has the ability (maybe not the intention) to attack Chinese, if Chinese are thinly deployed is India.
3.Even if we are not ready for 2 front war, I doubt any chief would come out and say we are vulnerable. These things are best said behind closed door.
In my view, TSP is fighting an existential internal battle. Can it be the 2nd front if China is the first front, I doubt it. If TSP is the first front, can China be the second front - it was not in 65 and 71 and 99, need say more? Most likely it will be a 1 front war, with the other side making token noise (but that has to be deterred with force including AF, so some planes would be alloted for that). You can see, for 200-300 best PLAAF planes, IAF may need 200 of Rafale. It can use more of it, not very advanced plane (particularly north of HP and Nepal, where PLAAF planes maybe missing altogether) to either interdict logistic lines, or win land etc.
4. On J-20 vs MK1As, my belief (please feel free to disagree) is that J-20 is well ahead. But that it takes nothing away MK1As. It is our low-cost, low-end fighter. We cannot in theory have 900 Rafales. There has to be a spectrum. LCA is our lightest, low cost and a very good and capable aircraft that is in my opinion at least needed in 200 number.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 21 Jul 2022 00:48

Karan M wrote:Fanne please explain how a Rafale can beat a J-20 or future variants one on one easily? If a Su-30 with a, far more powerful radar if upgraded, and much larger IRST type capacity, would struggle per you, how does the Rafale pull ahead?

I will try my best - (and looking for answer on how capable J-20 is today and will be in the future - I will go with Chinese statement/propaganda - that it is really stealthy, and for my own sanity make another assumption that it's stealth is not in the league of f-35/f-22).

Rafale really enjoys a very low radar signature (at least the empty one is touted at .1 SQ m compared to 20 sq m of SU30MKI). It has supercruise, a very well capable EW and ECCM (spectra) and today a very capable A-A missile; perhaps in A-A config (without oil tanks), it will be hard (not impossible) to locate on J-20 radar. If J-20 is any less stealthy, the distance that each other detect the other is not much different. I am not putting AWACS or ground radar in the equation.

With SU30MKI, currently, it is severely handicapped. Nothing can be done about its radar signature. It will be picked at a distance (where Rafale has an advantage). Once upgraded (when?), the only counter it can have is, it also catches J-20 far ahead (before it can deploy its weapon). A good AESA radar ( Hopefully GAN, more effective with less power) will be helpful, but its power is constrained by the current engine, unless the engine is upgraded. Can it detect J-20 sooner to have a firing solution, in theory yes (based on assumption that J-20 is not very stealthy). The EO system is effective (more than the radar perhaps for LO planes), but very much dependent on the weather hence not very reliable. Having said all of this, there is a possibility with SU30MKI upgrade against J-20 and that is what we should be aiming for (plus the EW to hide itself). Rafale brings this capability now.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 21 Jul 2022 00:57

Point to note there is no current AESA radar either in RU (minus the propaganda) or India that fits into SU30MKI. Can Uttam get there, it can, but that should have been funded at least 1-2 years ago. Now is also not too late. And I am not defending IAF, with all said and done, SU30MKI upgrade (270 of them), makes them contemporary and formidable and it can beat 100% of TSPAF throws at it and at least 90% (if not 100%) of what PLAAF can throw at it. It also has a phenomenal range and payload, more than any dedicated bomber that IAF has or had. A very formidable plane, that IAF is in criminal neglect of not upgrading.

skumar · Post by **skumar** » 21 Jul 2022 00:58

fanne wrote: @skumar. I am nobody..I will use God given brain to make some logical statements (to the best of my ability)
...
1. How many planes can Chinese deploy against IAF in Tibet? I think it is limited by Geography. It is expanding and making new airports. I would say PLAAF can deploy anything between 100-300 planes. I doubt the number would be more than that. One good count would be how many hardened pen have they built? The planes in open will be targeted with missiles (so would be ours, I get a bad feeling on planes in the open in Leh or even Thoise).
2. Can the all 300 planes be best of Chinese planes - 100% yes. There is no country around China, (including Taiwan) that has the guts, intention, policy, logic, strategic need or the ability to attack China because best of its plane is deployed against India in Tibet. The only country that has the ability (maybe not the intention) to attack Chinese, if Chinese are thinly deployed is India.
...

@fanne, I am a nobody too

so we have something in common already.
I understand that you are merely playing the devil's advocate but using my God given brain, let me try to logically deconstruct your argument.

There is a difference between can and will. The answer to the question "CAN China deploy all its best fighters against India?" CAN be different from the answer to the question "WILL China deploy all its best fighters against India ?". I have used WILL below originally and intentionally.

Assume that the answer to both questions is YES => (it follows) India cannot invest a single rupee in the LCA or any other program that cannot defeat the J20/Su35.

Since above is not true, it follows that AFHQ believes that China WILL not deploy all its the best fighters.

So my questions remains, what happens to the 1000+ other Chinese fighters?

fanne wrote:...
3.Even if we are not ready for 2 front war, I doubt any chief would come out and say we are vulnerable. These things are best said behind closed door.
In my view, TSP is fighting an existential internal battle. Can it be the 2nd front if China is the first front, I doubt it. If TSP is the first front, can China be the second front - it was not in 65 and 71 and 99, need say more? Most likely it will be a 1 front war, with the other side making token noise (but that has to be deterred with force including AF, so some planes would be alloted for that). You can see, for 200-300 best PLAAF planes, IAF may need 200 of Rafale. It can use more of it, not very advanced plane (particularly north of HP and Nepal, where PLAAF planes maybe missing altogether) to either interdict logistic lines, or win land etc.
...

Agree with TSP not being a real front. Hell, they may not have fuel at some point during a war unless resupplied by their taller than... friends.

fanne wrote:...
4. On J-20 vs MK1As, my belief (please feel free to disagree) is that J-20 is well ahead. But that it takes nothing away MK1As. It is our low-cost, low-end fighter. We cannot in theory have 900 Rafales. There has to be a spectrum. LCA is our lightest, low cost and a very good and capable aircraft that is in my opinion at least needed in 200 number.

Agree entirely since this is not in line with your devil's advocate argument.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 21 Jul 2022 02:13

Rakesh wrote:@ Fanne:

I will buy the IAF's argument of 114 MRFA, because the numbers are where they are. I will also buy the technological argument (i.e. Rafale-like aircraft are needed to take on the PLAAF's J-20 and J-31 aircraft).

So give Air HQ their 114 MRFA, but in turn they have to place an order for 200 Tejas Mk2s. In any negotiation, there has to be give and take. If they have a plan to induct 120 (six squadrons) of Tejas Mk2s, obviously they see value in the platform.

But to state that I must have 114 MRFA and everything else be damned (Su-30MKI upgrades + 200 Tejas Mk2s + additional Mk1As) and put on hold, till I get my 114 MRFA....is not an act of good faith. It reeks of something deeply sinister, regardless of whatever Air HQ's intentions are.

And Air HQ has to start working with ADA to get a viable Tejas Mk2 prototype out the door. If the Navy can have a Directorate of Naval Design, why cannot the air force have something similar? If Air HQ has got personnel to write detailed technical RFIs on 114 MRFAs, then I am sure there are officers who can be deputed to ADA to partner with them on the Tejas Mk2.

It boils down to priorities. This is where the PMO needs to step in. The PMO now needs to direct (order) Air HQ to work with ADA and HAL to get a Tejas Mk2 prototype flying. Regular program updates (and recommendations) need to land up on the PMO's desk and this should come from Air HQ. No one else. Give Air HQ the opportunity to take leadership and even more importantly, ownership.

And there should be only two recommendations (from Air HQ) that the PMO must not entertain;

1) I want to reduce the number of Tejas Mk2s*
2) I am not interested in block upgrades

*200 Tejas Mk2s is not some number that social media or even BRF pulled out of thin air. It was Air HQ's own number.

IAF- no money for 10 LCH LSP airframes, no money for LUH, no money for SU-30 upgrades

Also IAF- I NEED 114 twin engine 4.5++ jets, upfront costs being >$20BN and life cycle costs $60+ billion

It’s these two positions that raise eyebrows. When billions were spent after galwan on ‘emergency procurements’, how much of that found its way to IDDM products? Why is the default only ever imports

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 21 Jul 2022 02:24

Karan M wrote:Fanne please explain how a Rafale can beat a J-20 or future variants one on one easily? If a Su-30 with a, far more powerful radar if upgraded, and much larger IRST type capacity, would struggle per you, how does the Rafale pull ahead?

Meteor and Spectra will remain a dominant combo for the foreseeable future in the region

J-20’s threat is overblown anyway. It doesn’t have all aspect stealth and those canards are like barn doors, to call it VLO is stretching the term very far.

J-20 is designed to be a long range interceptor in the Pacific theatre hence its large size

That said, what follows it should concern IAF, J31 already looks a decent upgrade on it and let’s not forget it’s proven that China has access to F-35 data it hacked from US servers. What PLAAF are fielding in 2030s will be even better, one thing about the commies is they don’t sit still (look at USSR sub development during the Cold War, they launched 3-4 classes for every 1 class the USN would develop)

Post 2030s IAF I hope is putting all their energy into AMCA, they will need it.

+ LCA MK1A and 2 will still be incredibly valuable with their small size, composite airframes and decent sensors/datalink capability. They can be the modern Bison that were deadly when employed correctly

kit · Post by **kit** » 21 Jul 2022 02:39

KSingh wrote:
Rakesh wrote:@ Fanne:

*200 Tejas Mk2s is not some number that social media or even BRF pulled out of thin air. It was Air HQ's own number.
IAF- no money for 10 LCH LSP airframes, no money for LUH, no money for SU-30 upgrades

Also IAF- I NEED 114 twin engine 4.5++ jets, upfront costs being >$20BN and life cycle costs $60+ billion

It’s these two positions that raise eyebrows. When billions were spent after galwan on ‘emergency procurements’, how much of that found its way to IDDM products? Why is the default only ever imports

IAF s only interest is in fighting wars and possibly winning., the mindset of fighting wars needs to change to building indigenous capacity that "they need" ., which country will tailor make to their requirements? maybe brochures. How will India replace attrition in war time? Spending through the nose to replenish draining foreign exchange reserves.

the main difference is IAF is trying to fight strategic wars with a tactical mindset; IN at least tries to be different

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 21 Jul 2022 02:50

kit wrote:
KSingh wrote: IAF- no money for 10 LCH LSP airframes, no money for LUH, no money for SU-30 upgrades

Also IAF- I NEED 114 twin engine 4.5++ jets, upfront costs being >$20BN and life cycle costs $60+ billion

It’s these two positions that raise eyebrows. When billions were spent after galwan on ‘emergency procurements’, how much of that found its way to IDDM products? Why is the default only ever imports
IAF s only interest is in fighting wars and possibly winning., the mindset of fighting wars needs to change to building indigenous capacity that "they need" ., which country will tailor make to their requirements? maybe brochures. How will India replace attrition in war time? Spending through the nose to replenish draining foreign exchange reserves.

the main difference is IAF is trying to fight strategic wars with a tactical mindset; IN at least tries to be different

Well said. They are approaching war fighting at a very very superficial level of platform vs platform or seemingly only consider short sharp limited conflicts like Balakot/27 Feb

But the current Ukraine conflict should highlight the folly of that thinking for any kind of protracted fight. Russia has only been able to sustain any kind of military initiative thanks to their domestic industry being able to replenish losses and support their efforts.

Within hours of any large scale conflict you’ll need replenishment, having war wastage reserves will never suffice.

It’s actually quite tragic to understand that the Indian military’s war colleges are clearly myopic and not imparting the right lessons. To think you can be a credible military with your backbone being imported weaponry is beyond farcical. A few specialised pieces of kit is fair enough but the majority of your frontline equipment? You deserve ridicule.

And it’s even more tragic that as Indian industry has built up they haven’t been more heavily tapped to reverse this trend and the import circus has not just continued but expanded (NUH,NMRH,P75I and MRFA are mega deals that represent in total the equivalent of most nations’ entire defence budgets for a few years)

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 21 Jul 2022 09:18

KSingh wrote:It this is their plan IAF is living in an alternate reality, they’ve been trying to get 126 MMRCA for over 2 decades now and this has only translated into 36 birds. 200+ of them going forward and we are looking well into the 2050s before such fantasies would ever be fulfilled

Air Fauj brass is club of non-warriers. If they had any sense of responsibility and shame few Air Chief s would have resigned over national security exposure due to delayed 126 MMRCA that was critical for Indian air security.

The pinnacle of incompetence was in 2004 letting go French option to close Mirage2000 factory, knowing well at that time india can't afford Rafale (or EuroFighter).

Air Commodore Mateshwaran was smugly riding his mountain size ego as owner of ASR for MMRCA as past-time ~2002. Sometimes I envey myself for having met such collection of grand illustrious sages (e.g. K Subramanian) and grand shitpots (e.g. Mateshwaran)

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 21 Jul 2022 09:30

Post Kargil, a no-bid contract to just buy mirages was politically unsustainable. The coffin import "scandal" was being used browbeat ABV's government. George Fernandes said if Pakis want to retreat India will let them retreat for which another hungama broke out "How can you give them safe passage and let them go?!". The govt was reeling.

Remember that ABV was technically in his third term. The first one for 16 days, the next one from 1998-1999 when ADMK withdrew support and crashed his govt and the next term 1999-2004 with stitched up coalition all ready to bolt for some flimsy reason or the other.

Post Kargil in addition to the coffin scam allegations, there was the Kandahar hijack, which if mismanaged had the potential to crash the govt again. Congress was looking for any opening.

I recall several newspaper articles that mentioned that IAF wanted more mirages because they were impressed by it's performance in Safed Sagar, but the govt decided on competitive bidding. This was in 1999-2000 timeframe.

Unlike NaMo's govt today which could go for a G2G for Rafale (even then pappu stood on the roof and shouted "chowkidaar chor hai", thankfully it didn't stick and Indian voters ignored it) ABV's govt didn't have the political capital, numbers or popularity.

bala · Post by **bala** » 21 Jul 2022 09:53

The Govt needs to hasten Tejas MK2, KungFlu is no more an excuse. Time for HAL / ADA to get this done quickly, delays are costing India while the Indian public needs to endure the circus of IAF chief lusting after videshi birds. Time to hasten the AMCA fighter too, now that S. Korea has demonstrated similar capabilities. GOI Min of Defense should shore up man power resources and material for quick turnaround of projects.

nits · Post by **nits** » 21 Jul 2022 10:30

Tejas Mark II To Replace Mirage 2000s With Capability To Deep-Strike Into Enemy Territory?

one thing which caught my attention is this article is -

The cockpit will be designed such that the ground control would be able to take over the controls of the aircraft in case the pilot becomes unconscious, after being alerted by a sensor in the helmet of the pilot.

Not sure above tech is being done or just some bad research; if we are devloping such tech its as good as or first step in unmanned Fighter aircraft

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Jul 2022 10:41

bala wrote:The Govt needs to hasten Tejas MK2, KungFlu is no more an excuse. Time for HAL / ADA to get this done quickly, delays are costing India while the Indian public needs to endure the circus of IAF chief lusting after videshi birds. Time to hasten the AMCA fighter too, now that S. Korea has demonstrated similar capabilities.

Snip...

Is there any point to such an activity? Given how the IAF is thinking.

PS they have sabotaged to AMCA as well by limiting the internal weapons bay to under 1.5 tons. When the F35 has a weapons bay of 2.8 tons.

I am quite sure that the IAF, once the aircraft is ready to enter service will turn arround and say that the IWB is too small we need F35.

konaseema · Post by **konaseema** » 21 Jul 2022 11:47

My humble 2 cents in this matter. If we look from IAF's perspective, they have already committed to an aircraft that hasn't hit the production line in Tejas Mk1A. They don't want to put all their eggs in this basket as it is yet to be proven, aka Tejas Mk2. There is a definite CAPEX budget for this year and minor increments in the upcoming years if they are lucky (if economy doesn't tank). But there is also an endless list of CAPEX to be made for earlier commitments and for new contracts. I don't think IAF is looking at the cost alone when it comes to MRFA. For them it might be the only opportunity (last one) with a BJP government in power, which has the people's mandate (majority with out coalition partners) and has the balls to make some not so popular decisions. So it is now or never to acquire a proven 4.5 generation platform before it is too late (with AMCA knocking the doors at the end of this decade). As an eternal optimist (and also realist) I think IAF and its new chief in 2 years time, will commit to a larger number of Tejas Mk2 once the Tejas Mk1A enters production. We all need to respect anyone who wears the uniform and especially those who have the guts to (still) fly a Mig 21.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 21 Jul 2022 12:52

nits wrote: one thing which caught my attention is this article is -
The cockpit will be designed such that the ground control would be able to take over the controls of the aircraft in case the pilot becomes unconscious, after being alerted by a sensor in the helmet of the pilot.
Not sure above tech is being done or just some bad research; if we are devloping such tech its as good as or first step in unmanned Fighter aircraft

Tejas Mk1 FOC has automatic stall prevention and recoovery during landing.
ADA has delivered or close to delivering this capabelity: Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS)

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight ... -software/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26230732

having a tool is one thing, applying it to use is another,
IMVHO This remote piloting use case need be more practical and useful.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Jul 2022 13:04

konaseema wrote:snip....
If we look from IAF's perspective, they have already committed to an aircraft that hasn't hit the production line in Tejas Mk1A. They don't want to put all their eggs in this basket as it is yet to be proven, aka Tejas Mk2.
Snip....

The quoted excerpt from the post is the most irritating thing I ever read about an Indian weapon system.

The Mk1A is not representing any structural changes to the airframe. At best it represents what is called a block update to the platform.

It will enter production when the previous order are complete.

The Mk2 being unproven.

How is a platform ever proven for the IAF?

Is it when it enters service with the home airforce? If that is the case then the IAF has no competence to design ASQR, or even evaluate the basis on which the aircraft was designed for the home airforce.

Because every thing they are doing is just a copy paste job.

We have a foundational problem with the people who are in the last 20 years of their respective service. As they are the ones who are both in administrative and leadership positions. They are also the ones who are going to plan for the future force structure.

Currently they are stuck in a force structure designed in the mid to late 60s.

With a plan to fight PRC in the 2040s.

This is not going to end well.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 21 Jul 2022 13:43

To add my 2 cents to the brouhaha, I would say that such kind of news is highly disappointing to the entire indigenization efforts in the country, whether it is DRDO, DPSUs, pvt sector, startups, MSME, etc. Many (including myself) have put a lot on the line and become involved in the technology development in this sector based on promises and policies made by the present govt. But now it looks like the end user has no strategic thinking at all.

I am trying to wrap my head around the recent comments of the ACM and the only thing I can think of is that he is like a kid who wants to try a spoonful of icecream before trying more of it. A kid is not concerned about how the icecream is made or the logistics of transporting it. They have tasted an icecream (Rafale) which they liked, so they want more of the same (MRFA) . So they want to taste the new icecream (Tejas Mark 2) and then take a call on whether they want more of it or not. This is what passes for Armed forces strategic thinking in the country!