Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2013 13:18

I hope some kind soul in next govt has the guts to call the emperor naked, call the MTA bluff and order a 50 x C130J

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Oct 2013 14:20

Why not call the C 130j as the MTA and say that the project is underway. IIRC, the TATA's were open to a JV with the LM for assembly of the aircraft in India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2013 15:12

the MTA is even harder to kill than the 155mm SP gun thing. it aint happening in my lifetime for sure. my son can login to BR in 20 yrs and still hear all your children debating over mta and arty gun deals.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 31 Oct 2013 16:41

A healthy dose of realism is what the Indian aviation sector needs, pampered too long with easy money flowing in for both IAF and DPSUs. But if Boeing and LM can get together, there is always hope for others...

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 630684.xml

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Oct 2013 17:39

With the MTA split at 100 for Russia, 45 for India and another 60 for "export", the numbers too do not seem proper for an Indian "investment". IF the price includes learning to design, build, test, etc perhaps one could justify it, but then what other transport is India interested in? Avro replacements? And, then done?

And, Russia wants a puny 100?

Something seems fishy with this entire project.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Oct 2013 19:28

Avro replacement Programme on the Cusp of Hope and Despair

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 31 Oct 2013 19:56

indranilroy wrote:Avro replacement Programme on the Cusp of Hope and Despair

Excellent report with details of our world famous labyrinthine rubber-stamping and decision-making process but it has glossed over some areas. The project will not take off unless there are some minimum guarantees from the govt. They are not dealing with one of their own arms (HAL) with an open-ended wallet attached, these are private companies that need to take well calculated risks.

For example, it is not enough to say:

although the number of aircraft required by the IAF is small, it is expected that there will be a substantial demand for this aircraft by the para-military forces and even the civil aerospace sector, making the project commercially viable.

There needs to be a guarantee that the para-military forces will take xx number of aircraft and if a certain minimum is guaranteed, then the project will take off and India will get an enormously valuable capability. This minimum guarantee is not likely to be a huge number--80-100 may be all it takes, not a big deal for GoI, but 40 is likely to be too small. The entity will then go all-out for civil sales and exports without much trouble on their own. In fact, the govt could provide an attractive added impetus by providing tax incentives for civil airlines to use this aircraft. The author has said correctly that the project has the potential to produce an Indian version of Embraer.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 31 Oct 2013 21:26

rohitvats wrote:
NRao wrote:IMHO, it really does not matter. The way I look at "airlift" capability is a ref to a Russian study that claimed IAF needed 25 IL-476 (the proposed new ILs at that time). So, I did a very simple math exercise: tons/plane*max distance and came up with 25 IL-476 = 20 C-17. So, I suspect some combination of 16 C-17s and 12 C-130Js should suffice for the IAF. And 20 C-17s will foot the entire airlift bill. Which is why I think/feel that the IL-76/476 are of really no use.
Airlift capability is not a static thing.

For example, coming in of MSC and strengthening of Ladakh Sector will place addition demand - not to mention that we still cannot airlift the whole Para Bde at one go w/o committing a very large %age of out transport fleet.

Any requirement on the lines of air-mobile bde for out of area contingency will require more transport aircraft.

The planning has to be considering the future and not the past.

That would require us to order way more C17s

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2013 21:39

we continue not to consider obvious options like using 2nd hand 737/A320 as people/mail/bag movers using jumpseats along the sides or maybe sliding seating rows and pallets in the middle.

we continue not consider 2nd hand refueler conversions of A330/767 in favour of a half dozen shiny new MRTT only.

our needs and problems are so big, and budgets too small.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Oct 2013 21:42

>> we continue not consider 2nd hand refueler conversions of A330/767 in favour of a half dozen shiny new MRTT only.

I admit that puzzles me to no end. using 2nd hand civil liners would be a no brainer.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 31 Oct 2013 21:50

deleted. mistakenly responded.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2013 22:28

it seems gotus had a law barring israel from buying kc135 and kc10. thats why IAI learnt how to buy 707 and make refuelers from them. now Obama repealed that law.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 31 Oct 2013 22:33

Rahul M wrote:>> we continue not consider 2nd hand refueler conversions of A330/767 in favour of a half dozen shiny new MRTT only.

I admit that puzzles me to no end. using 2nd hand civil liners would be a no brainer.

civil spec tends to be much tamer than mil, so often not cost effective to mod them to mil dutieis

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Oct 2013 22:36

even for AAR duties ?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 31 Oct 2013 22:52

yes even for them, although that is generally easier

the 707 was a particularly robust airframe, was easier to adapt

the newer birds are designed to be much more in the margins of structural limits for a given mission profile, especially for repeated cyclic loading and rougher handling scenarios

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 31 Oct 2013 22:53

KrishnaK wrote:That would require us to order way more C17s

even refurbished older C 17s too should be available 'possibly' at affordable rates.

wrongly responded to Singha instead of Krishnak. sorry. can my post above be deleted please??

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 31 Oct 2013 23:39

Throw in the stalled Saras project and ambitious NAL Civil airliner in this mix. Once the MMRCA, BTA and IJT acquisition is over, transports are the next thing to bomb.

5 years back all IAF acquisition plans seemed sorted out. The Su-30s, AJTs, IL-78s, A-50s, C-130s, Bison upgrade .... everything had worked out. In the Army it is only the Infantry which has seen the real transformation. Navy is the only one to stand tall in this mess.

We need a versatile and not-necessarily uber-tech multirole aircraft.

Both C-130 and C-295 are successful and proven platforms with multiple variants including maritime, AEW and IFR aside from cargo.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Nov 2013 00:20

AdityaG,
I saw somewhere that Saras was resurrected as a military plane project. The NAL guys were complaingin about recieveing instructions for Center for Airworthiness (?) on what they need to comply with.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Nov 2013 05:28

ramana wrote:AdityaG,
I saw somewhere that Saras was resurrected as a military plane project. The NAL guys were complaingin about recieveing instructions for Center for Airworthiness (?) on what they need to comply with.

Probably the news article you were speaking of:
India's civilian aircraft project turns military

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Nov 2013 05:44

I think that news is making much ado over nothing. There was a long standing proposal that the first few Saras would go to the IAF, in which case they would have to be certified by the mil side, i.e. DGQA (Aeronautics) and CEMILAC.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Nov 2013 05:55

I agree, the reporter just came late to the party.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Nov 2013 07:41

BK has in today's Ind.Exp. come firing on all cylinders against "Wasteful Military Deals".He takes potshots at the IAF,two projects,MMRCA and the basic trainer.However,his lack of knowledge shows him up,as he says that the LCA MK-2 fills the role of the MMRCA,because an LCA prototype filled with "ballast" has mimicked the behaviour of the MK-2! French and Israeli pilots who have flown the LCA are "gaga about it".With its underpowered engine,where it has yet to achieve agility parameters like AOA,etc.,I wonder in what context.comparison with other similar aircraft it was thus lauded.

Now even being charitable to BK and the ardent proponents of the aircraft,include myself,LCA MK-1 is not yet in series production.The first 40 have yet to be delivered to the IAF which has ordered it and the ACM has gone on record as saying that these are "vital" for the IAF! How can it be criticised for that?

How can a Mk-1 with ballast even remotely serve as a prototype for a MK-2 with a larger engine,extended fuselage,etc.,which has yet to fly?! BR regulars well know that the LCA was devised to replace the several hundreds of MIG-21s and not a twin-engined multi-role aircraft in the class of the MMRCA.Which air force in the world will order an aircraft (MK-2) that hasn't flown ,when the MK-1 isn't even in service? He blames the IAF for the late commissioning of the aircraft on its insistence for IOC-2 to be done by the OEM,saying that instead the user,the IAF should do it!

Now coming to the "HTT-44".I have heard of the HTT-40,but not the "44".Such an aircraft does not exists,not even on paper like the HTT-40! Or is it some secret HAL project that we've yet to learn of? He also says that HAL has had the HTT-44 "up and ready"!

Some other glorious statements from BK.He criticises the IAF for buying the 70+ trainers for $1.5B,that too after the trainer was selected after a contest involving several contemporary aircraft/rivals.he compares it with China buying the "entire production line" for Russia's "latest most advanced strategic bomber ,the TU-22M3M"

His medicine for the shortfall.Order more (70) "Super-Sukhois"! "Arguably the finest aircraft flying". Now even though I have often been accused of being Russophile,the aircraft has yet to fly.It is not available at the moment and is a twin-seat heavy fighter which will mean from the cost of human resources,twice as much when we have a shortage of pilots in the IAF. Even the FGFA/PAK-FA /T-50 5th-gen stealth fighter is a single-seater,as is the SU-35.Our legacy MKIs are all being upgraded and the so-called "Super-Sukhoi",of which there were some details mentioned some time ago in the media,is supposed to have an internal weapons bay,etc.,involving much modification.Yes,this is an option but only if the MMRCA deal falls through.Secondly,at what cost per "Super-Sukhoi"? Even if the aircraft is near the price of a Rafale,as some on BR allege,one important point to remember that we have not got any TOT with the MKIs. In another artiocle today,about the IN's crew -1500+ already in Russia for the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya handover shortly,the price of the MIG-29Ks given work out to an incredibly low $35M only! This is why I've suggested that the best cost-effective option in the event of the MMRCA deal falling through would be the MIG-29/35.We would be able to get around 2 MIG-29/35s (35s a bit more expensive due to TVC and AESA radars) for the price of one Rafale.

Where BK is warmer is when he writes about the nitty-gritty of the MMRCA deal,full TOT,what will we actually get and who will deliver the offset clause from our end,saying reliance is being favoured over HAL,etc. He states that it would be better for the IAF which wants it desperately,to simply "buy off the shelf" the 126 Rafales,being such a critical need,"rather than pay for technology which we won't get".This option some on BR have advocated in the current eco-crisis and depleting defence budget as the GDP also declines.One has to admit that there are grey areas here,which not having access to classified info,we can but only speculate upon the issues and details.However,right from the start the MMRCA deal was being touted as a route to gaining access to cutting-edge aviation tech which we do not possess and choosing a western fighter would make us less reliant upon Russia where we were already very heavily involved in the MKIs,MIG-29Ks,FGFA,etc.

He then asks about self-sufficiency ,politico "public speeches and posturing" and is more accurate here.I posted some months ago the CII paper on indigenisation and other media reports, which shows that the money budgeted for indigenous R&D was drastically cut-a pittance, by the UPA for this year.However,the DPSUs have for decades enjoyed a total monopoly over defence production without any accountability and have to deliver the goods.If they do so,then one is sure that their wares will be bought.It appeasr that domestic DPSU/HAL interests are shooting from BK's shoulder,but like the OFB have given him mush faulty ammo!

The Indian Indian domestic aviation industry is in the learning curve.Let's face facts.We are unable to design and build aero-engines across the board either for turboprops or jets.We still import radars,avionics,sensors and almost all weaponry.Our very first indigenous AAM ASTRA has just arrived.The DRDO/OFB has a long way to go to develop and produce desi bomb kits for dumb bombs,PGMs especially,of which we are to import hundreds costing a massive amt. The LCA is on the brink of induction,the IJT in trouble,basic trainer "4o/44" whatever yet to fly,Saras bombed,etc.We therefore need projects like the MTA,LTA,etc. which will give us a leg up on the path towards future fully designed aircraft in India.However,increasingly the world over aviation projects are becoming multi-national.Even Russia is using western engines for the Sukhoi Superjet,helicopter engines from France,etc.All European projects are multi-national and the US has several manufacturers to choose aircraft ,components,and engines from.

PS:The IL-76s in service being upgraded are very valuable aircraft.Remember the role they played in Op.Cactus,plus successfully ferrying our aircrews,support,etc.,to the US for Red Flag exercises.With new IL-476 production on stream with at least 100 aircraft (40+ confirmed) on order for Russia alone,spares and support will not be a problem.In fact in the immediate future C-17 production will cease,and only IL-476s will be available for the heavy transport role.The IAF's airlift requirements will only go up once the MSC is established .Apart from the MTA,extra C-130s are required for the tactical requirement for special forces,etc.Another immediate purchase of 12 C-130Js would be very welcome.

The full article is being posted in the next post.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Nov 2013 07:50

http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/Sto ... 866740.ece

Stop wasteful military deals

By Bharat karnad

Published: 01st November 2013

Reduction of the Rs 4 lakh-crore fiscal deficit will require a drastic winnowing of defence expenditure programmes. The wasteful military procurement system that fetches, as it were, as much chaff as grain, offers obvious targets for excision. Among them the egregiously wrong-headed deals for the Swiss Pilatus PC-7 turboprop trainer and the French Rafale MMRCA (multi-role, medium range combat aircraft).

Consider IAF’s priorities: It bought PC-7s for $1.5 billion, an amount the Chinese Air Force spent to secure the entire production line from Russia of the latest, most advanced, Tu-22M3M strategic bomber! This Pilatus purchase, moreover, was approved by defence minister A K Antony at a time when Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Bangalore, had its new HJT-44 turboprop trainer up and ready. Brazening out such mindless splurges, Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne advised closure of the HJT-44 line to enable purchase of more PC-7s!

IAF has at most tolerated licence-manufactured foreign fighter planes but sought stubbornly to kill off indigenous combat aircraft projects. In the past, it buried the Marut Mk-II, the low-level strike variant designed in the 1970s by the highly talented Dr Raj Mahindra, who won his spurs under Kurt Tank, designer of the Focke-Wulfe fighter-bombers for the Nazi Luftwaffe and of the original HF-24 at HAL, buying the Jaguar from the UK instead. History repeats itself.

French and Israeli pilots who have unofficially flown the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) have gone gaga over its flying attributes. The Tejas will come equipped with an indigenous AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar — the heart and the brains of any combat aircraft, enabling it to near-instantly switch from air-to-air to air-to-ground missions. The Flight Control System (FCS) of the Tejas is so advanced, it can deal with the sort of turbulence in flight that its counterpart onboard the Eurofighter — supposedly technologically superior to the Rafale, plainly cannot, as per an expert familiar with the FCS in both aircraft. This deficiency nearly ended in disaster for the Eurofighter on several occasions but was not disclosed by EADS to IAF during the jockeying for the MMRCA contract. The larger, heavier, longer range Mark-II variant of the near all-composite Tejas, in fact, fills the bill of “MMRCA”. An LCA version of Tejas has already been flown weighted down with ballast to mimic the Mk-II plan-form. The fact that the Mk-II variant was coming along well, besides, was known to the IAF-MoD (ministry of defence) combo. So, how come the tender for MMRCA was not terminated midway?

The Mk-II’s chances were scuppered by IAF-MoD on the ground that Tejas was not operational. But the LCA has been prevented from entering squadron service after it obtained the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC)-1 last year, because of their insistence that IOC-2 and subsequent clearances be done by HAL rather than permitting the clearances to be obtained by the designated Tejas squadron, flying the aircraft, at the Sulur base in Tamil Nadu. The latter procedure will allow our fighter pilots to test the plane’s flight envelope and performance, and to provide feedback to designers — normal practice of advanced air forces inducting a new locally-produced aircraft. Further, rather than restricting the initial off-take to just 46 aircraft, MoD should order the full complement of 7-8 squadrons worth of Tejas to facilitate economies of scale and the farming out of work by HAL to private industry, thereby growing it. In the interim, additional “super Sukhois” could have been procured for a total force of some 70-plus of these planes, inarguably the finest combat aircraft now flying.

The fact is the original price tag for the MMRCA deal of $12-15 billion is set to balloon to $26-30 billion. Why? For one thing, having won the MMRCA contest, the French company, Dassault, doesn’t want to abide by the contract requiring the plane to be manufactured at HAL under license with transfer of technology (TOT). Dassault maintains it cannot guarantee Rafales made in India unless its chosen private sector partner, Reliance Aerospace, is tasked with its production. The arrangement with Reliance, however, is to have it import all of the most high-value assemblies and avionics as “black boxes” for the duration of the Indian production run, keeping over 500 French firms employing a workforce of 7,000 people, according to a French newsletter, L’Úsine Novelle, in the clover for the next few decades!

The real kicker here is the fact that while India will pay for full TOT — amounting to tens of billions of dollars — no meaningful technology (flight control laws and source codes) will, as in past such deals, ever actually get transferred. New Delhi as always will pay up, not caring whether India gets what it paid for or not and, even less, whether it will ever become self-sufficient in arms. It may be better to simply buy 126 Rafales off the shelf if the IAF deems it such a critical need, when it is not, rather than pay through our ears for technology we won’t get.

The conjoined Mk-II Tejas-Super Sukhois option will make Rafale redundant, and is the reason why those Indians who have pocketed French baksheesh (which totals a very hefty sum, indeed) will resist it. But for the country’s good, the best thing that can happen is that the Pilatus and Rafale contracts are immediately junked.

What about self-sufficiency that our politicians and uniformed brass keep yakking about? Alas, that’s only public speeches and posturing. When has the government ever insisted, or compelled the military to go with, a home-made product at the expense of a foreign item, and the armed services told that otherwise they would have to make do with nothing at all?

Militarily ignorant political leaders are easily stampeded into making capital acquisitions owing to public fear of a “growing gap” in aircraft, tanks, or whatever, generated with the help of a gullible media. Rather than laying down an iron law favouring indigenous hardware Antony, like his predecessors, has played into the institutionalised distrust of the Indian military of indigenous weapons platforms. IAF is merely the worst offender.

(Bharat Karnad is professor at Centre for Policy Research and blogs at http://www.bharatkarnad.com)

When did the HTT-44 production line open and when did the IAF chief advise closing it?

Was it some ultra-secret project? It is such way-off inaccuracies that bedevil some of our worthy defence analysts and lay them open to ridicule.Unfortunate,because in essence there are several important points to ponder over which we ourselves on BR have been debating for aeons.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Nov 2013 08:17

the P8I had a FCS change to permit 45' angle of bank among other things vs 28' in the civil version 737. there are enough margins and these planes also operate as cargo planes carrying pallets around the world.

AAR , NEACP, ELINT, AWACS roles mean operating from concrete rear area bases and no rough field, self backing, ultra low speed approach, STOL or high sink rate capabilities of dedicated mil transports are needed. no need for structural changes for high point loads either.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Nov 2013 08:42

Philip wrote:the price of the MIG-29Ks given work out to an incredibly low $35M only! This is why I've suggested that the best cost-effective option in the event of the MMRCA deal falling through would be the MIG-29/35.We would be able to get around 2 MIG-29/35s (35s a bit more expensive due to TVC and AESA radars) for the price of one Rafale.

You have to realize you will never get that price again.

Any future orders will be for more, significantly more. Simply look at the price escalation of the MKI for reference.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Nov 2013 08:58

Even at a price of around $45M,which was the price of the Gripen,it is a substantial saving.the best way of finding out is to ask.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Nov 2013 09:02

Philip wrote:Even at a price of around $45M

Try closer to $80M

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Nov 2013 10:06

Simply ask! Russia is ordering 36 MIG-35s for just $1.1B (Wik) ,this is just over $30M per unit.Special prices no doubt for the home country,but how much extra for export customers? Also remember that the 29K is a specialised naval variant which has extra eqpt. like tailhooks,stronger landing gear,non-rusting alloys for the engine and other metallic parts,all adding up in the extra costs.

Here is DID August report.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ted-01879/

A Better Baaz: Program Updates

India’s Fighter Modernization: Add MiG-29s to the List
Aug 29, 2013 17:31 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff
Latest update [?]
short MiG-29 UPG, 1st flight

MiG-29UPG

Aug 28/13: Industrial. Russia’s UAC signs $55 million in MiG-29UPG related contracts at the MAKS 2013 show. A $43 million contract will create an Indian maintenance and repair center for the fighters’ Zhuk-ME multi-mode radars, and a $12 million contract will create an Indian servicing center for the upgraded MiG-29UPGs.

Its MiG-29s have had reliability problems, but India needs them too much, and has to upgrade them. Planned buys have taken too long, and the IAF is dealing with the same fighter modernization numbers crisis that affects a number of air forces around the world. Its MiG-21s are retiring fast, and so are the subsequent generation of MiG-23/27 and MiG-25 aircraft. At the same time, India’s locally-developed Light Combat Aircraft (Tejas) program has been beset by numerous problems and ongoing delays, raising questions concerning its readiness and ability to begin filling some of that void in time. India’s MMRCA light-medium fighter competition will fill other gaps with 126 imported fighters, but it has yet to produce a contract, let alone a delivery date.

As the timelines for replacements stretch, more upgrades became necessary to keep their existing fleet viable. In February 2006, reports confirmed India’s existing fleet of MiG-29B, MiG-29S, and two-seat MiG-29UB “Baaz” (Falcon) aircraft as candidates. December 2006 reports indicated that a contract had been signed, but the deal wasn’t finalized until March 2008. Instead of arriving by 2010, therefore, they began arriving in 2013, at the MiG-29 fleet’s air base in the Punjab region, overlooking Pakistan and Kashmir.
Advertisement

Wanting a New Baaz: The Upgrades

Appendix A explains and details the numbers pressures that successive Indian governments, and poor execution by the Ministry of Defence, have created within the IAF. IANS reported in December 2006 that India was “finalizing” a proposal to have its fleet of MiG-29 lightweight fighters refurbished for $888 million by the Russian company RSK-MiG, which has a dedicated upgrade set designed to turn older MiG-29 air defense fighters into multi-role MiG-29SMT/UBT fighters. India’s focus on its domestic industries will ensure that its modifications will include their share of unique attributes and equipment, in addition to the standard set – an insistence that is now causing problems for the program.

The program last official total was $964 million for 62 upgraded “MiG-29UPG” fighters. They’re expected to remain in service for 10-15 more years, with their safe flight-hour lifetimes extended from 25 years/2,500 hours to 40 years/ 3,500 hours.

The planes will be fitted with upgraded weapons and a new avionics suite, including the Phazatron Zhuk-ME radar. The Zhuk-M/ME is a derivative of the baseline Zhuk radar, but its acquisition range has increased 1.5 times, with a wide scan and tracking area of + / – 85 deg. in azimuth and + / – 60 deg. in elevation. It also adds terrain following mode, and ground target acquisition including high-resolution SAR. To ensure readiness, a maintenance and repair center will be established in India.

Normally, these moves would accompany weapons upgrades. India’s MiG-29s are already believed to be capable of firing the R-77/AA-12 “AMRAAMski” medium range air-air missile, but photos consistently show the R-27/ AA-10. The new systems will offer certain R-77 compatibility, along with the ability to mount precision air-to-ground weapons. Upgraded electronic warfare systems round out the package, to improve survivability against modern threats.
short MiG-29 UPG, 1st flight
MiG-29UPG
(click to view full)

In terms of aerodynamic performance, India’s MiG-29s will be upgraded with extra fuel tanks in a thickened center spine, but even upgraded MiG-29s have Soviet short-legs syndrome. Adding mid-air refueling capability completes the upgrade, offering dramatic changes to the fighters’ deployment range. Unspecified engine modifications may also correct some of the problems experienced with the R-33 engine, such as the visible smoke trails that have already been addressed in the MiG-29M2. Local R-33 engine production will offer much improved maintenance turnaround time.

India will be left with an MiG-29UPG aircraft that’s comparable to the F-16C as a strike fighter, with air-to-air performance that’s arguably superior to all but the F-16E/F Block 60s with their ultra-advanced AESA radar.

RSK-MiG will be the sole vendor to perform the upgrades and service life extension tasks, delivering the first 6 aircraft from Russia and then supplying upgrade kits. Other components may come from a range of Indian, Russian, French, Israeli (Elbit has its own MiG-29 ‘Sniper’ upgrade program), and other vendors, per Indian specifications. The MiG-21 Bison upgrade worked that way, and the $130+ million MiG-27ML upgrade sources equipment from Russia, Israel, and Britain (Vinten optical pod), among others.

Indian media report that all of the upgraded MiG-29UPGs will be stationed at Adampur Air Force Base, located in the northwest Punjab region overlooking Pakistan and Kashmir. Adampur is also the home base for India’s Garud commandos.

Aug 28/13: Industrial. Russia’s UAC signs $55 million in MiG-29UPG related contracts at the MAKS 2013 show. A $43 million contract will create an Indian maintenance and repair center for the fighters’ Zhuk-ME multi-mode radars, and a $12 million contract will create an Indian servicing center for the upgraded MiG-29UPGs.

Why does this matter? Under the old system, if things broke, the IAF had to ship the problem component to Russia, then wait for replacements. The waiting times were generally measured in weeks and months, not days. The result is terrible, terrible readiness rates, which means an actual serving force that’s much smaller than the supposed fleet size. That’s why India has insisted on all kinds of local facilities as ancillaries to this upgrade set, including outright manufacture of the plane’s engines (q.v. Sept 4/06 entry) and awards like these. If you do the math, these industrial changes could make a bigger difference around the Pakistani border than the MiG-29′s technological upgrades. Sources: RIA Novosti, “India Signs $55M in Deals With Russia’s MiG Fighter Jet Maker.”

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Nov 2013 10:20

Philip wrote:Simply ask! Russia is ordering 36 MIG-35s for just $1.1B (Wik) ,this is just over $30M per unit.

The contract will be signed in 2016

That is all you need to know about the credibility of that contract.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 01 Nov 2013 10:56

When the project was launched, ACM Krishnaswamy had publicly declared intention to purchase ~10 Saras "LTA" for training purpose where it will replace Avros. So infact Saras was is originally a contender for Avro replacement (at least in some specific roles).

indranilroy wrote:
ramana wrote:AdityaG,
I saw somewhere that Saras was resurrected as a military plane project. The NAL guys were complaingin about recieveing instructions for Center for Airworthiness (?) on what they need to comply with.
Probably the news article you were speaking of:
India's civilian aircraft project turns military

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Nov 2013 11:38

Due to tech improvements,(Aug 2013 report) the RUAF is instead buying 16 MIG-29SMTs in the interim.The 35 will have an AESA radar,TVC and enhanced all-round performance over late model 29s.

However,I stand corrected on one report,that of the Super Sukhois.There is some confusion here.The SS of which 40 have been ordered by us,the last Sukhoi order,is intended to be the BMos capable version carrying upto 3 missiles.If so,there can be no integrated fuselage bomb bay as shown in one concept pic.That version which I was referring to soem time ago as being an "SS" ,which would also feature some of the 5th-gen tech meant for the FGFA.This is to now appear on the latest avatars of the SU-35.So should one call our Sukhois MKI-UGs (upgraded) ,like the MIG-29-UGs ,instead of "SS"?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2013 11:50

indranilroy wrote:Avro replacement Programme on the Cusp of Hope and Despair

The An 32s will be up for replacement some time between 2025-30. Perhaps, the Avro Replacement can target that as well. So that the IAF orders alone will cross 150. IF the other Paramilitary groups decide to get additional planes that will be bonus.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Nov 2013 20:47

I'm sure that the numbers of LTA's we will need will cross 100.What needs to be conceived is a dual civilian/military platform which the AVRO/HS-748 was.Even the AN-32 was a modification of a passenger design,the AN-26.If you look at the AN-26's history,one finds that there were 30 variants! These ranged from ELINT,flying hospitals,fire fighting,ECM,command centre,weather research,etc.,apart from cargo and passenger versions.We would need the LTA for all 3 services,plus the CG,BSF,special forces,etc.They could even be used by the CG/IN in a maritime surveillance/IT warfare version replacing Islanders and Dorniers.As the report says,this is not developing a new design,but choosing one from an existing proven bird that is in service.This could give the pvt. entity lucky enough to win the contract the entry ticket to a sunrise industry .

Equally important is throwing open the UAV/UCAV market to Indian pvt. industry.The requirements are massive, in the high hundreds as of now,which versions.At the moment firang manufacturers are all making a bee-line for India to win the contracts,with the Israelis in pole position with Heron upgrades,etc.This is a very achievable goal and the risks for Indian pvt. industry will be minimal.

Upgrading legacy aircraft whose airframes have considerable life in them is a very cost-effective approach.Air forces all round the world are doing the same,esp. in hard times.Legacy F-16s are being turned into drones.We have 260 MIG-21s!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Nov 2013 21:03

India has to juggle between on one hand increasing the number of squadrons in the immediate future + retain those number + maintain a qualitative edge vs. on another hand build upon the gains made in indigenous design/development.

My feel is that India has to pave her own path. With technical help from others. But, not leaning on them.

I would expect that the MMRCA and FGFA would be the last to lean on others. (I do not think the JSF is a viable solution for India.)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Nov 2013 20:08

'With the Induction of PC-7 MK-II Aircraft, the Training Syllabus Has Been Increased to 55 Hours Per Trainee From the Earlier 25 Hours

Interview Deputy Commandant, Air Force Academy, Dundigul, Air Vice Marshal V.R. Chaudhuri

Interview Air Commodore Nagesh Kapoor Chief Instructor (Flying) AFA Dundigal

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Nov 2013 00:36

Bharat Karnad on 1 Novemeber

Stop wasteful military deals

Stop wasteful military deals

By Bharat karnad

Published: 01st November 2013 06:00 AM

Reduction of the Rs 4 lakh-crore fiscal deficit will require a drastic winnowing of defence expenditure programmes. The wasteful military procurement system that fetches, as it were, as much chaff as grain, offers obvious targets for excision. Among them the egregiously wrong-headed deals for the Swiss Pilatus PC-7 turboprop trainer and the French Rafale MMRCA (multi-role, medium range combat aircraft).

Consider IAF’s priorities: It bought PC-7s for $1.5 billion, an amount the Chinese Air Force spent to secure the entire production line from Russia of the latest, most advanced, Tu-22M3M strategic bomber! This Pilatus purchase, moreover, was approved by defence minister A K Antony at a time when Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Bangalore, had its new HJT-44 turboprop trainer up and ready. Brazening out such mindless splurges, Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne advised closure of the HJT-44 line to enable purchase of more PC-7s!

IAF has at most tolerated licence-manufactured foreign fighter planes but sought stubbornly to kill off indigenous combat aircraft projects. In the past, it buried the Marut Mk-II, the low-level strike variant designed in the 1970s by the highly talented Dr Raj Mahindra, who won his spurs under Kurt Tank, designer of the Focke-Wulfe fighter-bombers for the Nazi Luftwaffe and of the original HF-24 at HAL, buying the Jaguar from the UK instead. History repeats itself.

French and Israeli pilots who have unofficially flown the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) have gone gaga over its flying attributes. The Tejas will come equipped with an indigenous AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar — the heart and the brains of any combat aircraft, enabling it to near-instantly switch from air-to-air to air-to-ground missions. The Flight Control System (FCS) of the Tejas is so advanced, it can deal with the sort of turbulence in flight that its counterpart onboard the Eurofighter — supposedly technologically superior to the Rafale, plainly cannot, as per an expert familiar with the FCS in both aircraft. This deficiency nearly ended in disaster for the Eurofighter on several occasions but was not disclosed by EADS to IAF during the jockeying for the MMRCA contract. The larger, heavier, longer range Mark-II variant of the near all-composite Tejas, in fact, fills the bill of “MMRCA”. An LCA version of Tejas has already been flown weighted down with ballast to mimic the Mk-II plan-form. The fact that the Mk-II variant was coming along well, besides, was known to the IAF-MoD (ministry of defence) combo. So, how come the tender for MMRCA was not terminated midway?

The Mk-II’s chances were scuppered by IAF-MoD on the ground that Tejas was not operational. But the LCA has been prevented from entering squadron service after it obtained the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC)-1 last year, because of their insistence that IOC-2 and subsequent clearances be done by HAL rather than permitting the clearances to be obtained by the designated Tejas squadron, flying the aircraft, at the Sulur base in Tamil Nadu. The latter procedure will allow our fighter pilots to test the plane’s flight envelope and performance, and to provide feedback to designers — normal practice of advanced air forces inducting a new locally-produced aircraft. Further, rather than restricting the initial off-take to just 46 aircraft, MoD should order the full complement of 7-8 squadrons worth of Tejas to facilitate economies of scale and the farming out of work by HAL to private industry, thereby growing it. In the interim, additional “super Sukhois” could have been procured for a total force of some 70-plus of these planes, inarguably the finest combat aircraft now flying.

The fact is the original price tag for the MMRCA deal of $12-15 billion is set to balloon to $26-30 billion. Why? For one thing, having won the MMRCA contest, the French company, Dassault, doesn’t want to abide by the contract requiring the plane to be manufactured at HAL under license with transfer of technology (TOT). Dassault maintains it cannot guarantee Rafales made in India unless its chosen private sector partner, Reliance Aerospace, is tasked with its production. The arrangement with Reliance, however, is to have it import all of the most high-value assemblies and avionics as “black boxes” for the duration of the Indian production run, keeping over 500 French firms employing a workforce of 7,000 people, according to a French newsletter, L’Úsine Novelle, in the clover for the next few decades!

The real kicker here is the fact that while India will pay for full TOT — amounting to tens of billions of dollars — no meaningful technology (flight control laws and source codes) will, as in past such deals, ever actually get transferred. New Delhi as always will pay up, not caring whether India gets what it paid for or not and, even less, whether it will ever become self-sufficient in arms. It may be better to simply buy 126 Rafales off the shelf if the IAF deems it such a critical need, when it is not, rather than pay through our ears for technology we won’t get.

The conjoined Mk-II Tejas-Super Sukhois option will make Rafale redundant, and is the reason why those Indians who have pocketed French baksheesh (which totals a very hefty sum, indeed) will resist it. But for the country’s good, the best thing that can happen is that the Pilatus and Rafale contracts are immediately junked.

What about self-sufficiency that our politicians and uniformed brass keep yakking about? Alas, that’s only public speeches and posturing. When has the government ever insisted, or compelled the military to go with, a home-made product at the expense of a foreign item, and the armed services told that otherwise they would have to make do with nothing at all?

Militarily ignorant political leaders are easily stampeded into making capital acquisitions owing to public fear of a “growing gap” in aircraft, tanks, or whatever, generated with the help of a gullible media. Rather than laying down an iron law favouring indigenous hardware Antony, like his predecessors, has played into the institutionalised distrust of the Indian military of indigenous weapons platforms. IAF is merely the worst offender.

(Bharat Karnad is professor at Centre for Policy Research and blogs at http://www.bharatkarnad.com)

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 Nov 2013 07:07

BK confirms that a fool and his money are easily parted. But China bought the assembly line jour the TU22M3? When?

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Nov 2013 07:15

^ Tu-22M backfire is that mythical beast which time and again both India and China have been rumored to operate .

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2013 09:33

BK is doing great disservice to IAF by basing his report on heresy and allegations , MMRCA has been delayed that is true but that is not IAF's fault , IAF did a thorough and professional task of validating all the MMRCA contenders and giving the result to MOD for evaluation no one doubts those and its unparallelled in IAF history when it comes to aircraft selection.

Every one knows neither Tejas Mk2 or some MKI variant is a substitute for MMRCA , if IAF was indeed keen for a Tejas type of fighter it would have gone with Gripen in interim till Mk2 bears fruit or would have opted for more advanced Su-35 .... but neither suits the Medium category nor does it meets IAF requirement.

If MMRCA deal gets cancelled then IAF squadron strength will be drastically reduced and it will have to go for some make shift arrangement not wise neither optimum when it comes to Operational needs , numbers and requirement.

IAF has already sounded an alarm on MMRCA and any further delay will hit the force hard much the same way as the Howitzer deal has hurt the army but it will be much worse for IAF which is already a depleting force and has to do with what it has.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Nov 2013 09:44

Kartik wrote:My guess is that they got to fly the simulator..there has been no report so far of any foreign pilot getting to fly the single seater variant..and the PV-5 twin seat barely has any sorties to its name, so it seems rather unlikely that any foreign pilot has actually flown on board a Tejas..but the simulator does use the FCS of the actual Tejas, so flying characteristics would be similar and that is what the Israeli and French pilots must have liked. Some day, hopefully, a detailed and factual report of the test flying program of the Tejas will come out from one of the seasoned NFTC pilots like Grp Cpt Suneet Krishna or Cmde Maolankar..

BTW, was speaking to an ex-ADA guy who worked on the structures and was involved in fatigue analysis of the LCA..had some very interesting snippets to share. He was of the opinion that the Pilot manuals will actually be prepared by ADA guys in collaboration with NFTC test pilots- they'll provide the direction and details, but the manual itself will be prepared by ADA.

Good stuff. Did he mention anything about total lifetime & how the weight optimization is shaping up? Any stuff on MK2 (Weight reduction) and any other interesting snippets?

Austin wrote:BK is doing great disservice to IAF by basing his report on heresy and allegations

Oh noes!!! Heresy!! Burn the heretic.