'Make in India' Single engined fighter

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Oct 2016 05:47

Rakesh wrote:I believe I posted this earlier and vina has clearly stated that it is bunkum.

His arguments are more in depth though, than my one word - bunkum

Something is missing here (sorry for the double post). IF we know it to be bunkum, then there must be plenty of corruption in reporting or accepting it within the GoI.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 17 Oct 2016 06:07

Paul wrote:MIG corporation is working on a single engined 5 generation fighter to be rolled out by late 2020s.

Oh goody! another science project we can fund for the Russkies. Lets make it late 2030s to be accommodating while ponying up the xxx$billion some 10-15 years in advance.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Oct 2016 06:08

NRao: Probably a combination of both. His reply is on page six of this very thread - fourth post from the top. But I repost it here. In the quote section, second link. A similar article of Saab promising the moon to India. Very good rebuttal written by Vina Sir.

Rakesh wrote:Apologies if this has been posted before.

Choosing India’s Make in India fighter
http://www.stratpost.com/choosing-india ... um=twitter

Saab has already stolen a march on it’s competitors by offering its ‘ITAR-free’ Galium Nitride AESA radar technology, something which even the U.S. hasn’t perfected yet. This is also technology that India would be eager to possess. It is doubtful if the U.S. would be willing to share it’s existing AESA radar technology.

One area where the U.S. could match up to the Swedes would be aircraft engine technology. This is also something India is interested in and there have been discussions on cooperation on development of aircraft engine technology under the bilateral Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI).
Saab adds GaN AESA co-dev to Make in India Gripen pitch
http://www.stratpost.com/saab-adds-gan- ... ipen-pitch

Tossman announced, “AESA Gallium Nitride ITAR-free (International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which are U.S. rules for controlling the export of defense technologies). That means we own our own technology. We decide what to do with it. So we are not dependent on any others’ approval if we can or cannot share that technology – it’s our decision,” adding, “We are now having the prototype and soon going to fly with the AESA GaN. That’s where we are and this is ITAR-free.”

What can I say. It is the old saying.There is a sucker born every minute. Saab offers to "co-develop" an AESA radar with us ? WTF ! They have to outsource production of the GaN chips (they dont have a fab), they have to design an radar, figure out LRUs, fit it into a fighter and they fly it ! In short WE will pay to develop their brand new radar, they of course will "share it with us" (oh, it is ITAR free alright, but what about he GaN module ? What if Unkil leans on that country to shut down that supply) , but only if we by Gripens! How stupid do they think we are ?

And they fly boatloads of idiot journos (From AL Hundi, Shiv Aroor, the Air Mag published out of Dilli with big advertisements from Saab,etc) and they shill for this nonsense !

Fact is Saab DOESN'T have a GaN airborne radar.What we have are "announcements" to put it charitably and Vapour Ware to put it in terms of reality. And pray, why will we buy the Gripen E/F that flies with a DIFFERENT aesa Selex radar. Are they saying that they will develop the radar, then put it on the Gripen E and sell it to us ? That is looking at a plane that gets qualified 6 years from now! And no, that will not be ITAR free either. ALl the weapons of the Gripen are ITAR dependent!

The off the shelf available and proven AESA airborne radar are Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Elta, Selex and Thales . Of those, with Selex blacklisted, the only options are the American ones and the Israeli Elta EL/M 2052. Elta EL/M 2052 is a drop in replacement and a clear upgrade path for the 2032.

Considering that and the weapons and the radar we have and planned for the LCA, he best option, if we are getting another airframe would be an F16 with Isreali weapons and avionics, along with the Elta 2052 radar. Will save a huge logistics chain by having commonality with the LCA .

Really Gripen has NOTHING to offer in real terms, except for jamborees to Sweden for journalists and interested shills.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Oct 2016 06:49

SAAB does have an air borne version of GaN based radar it looks like. But, perhaps not in a fighter is the issue?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.ainonlin ... oid-att-us

And WRT to the fab, do not know. But since they did surprise people they either made it or via the US? Hard to believe it would be out of the country. But .....

The co-dev is perhaps for the fighter.

Seems to me the US is offering engine techs and Sweden radar techs. Both co-dev, co-produce.

I think the US gets it: F-16.

girnair · Post by **girnair** » 17 Oct 2016 19:07

The case of the Mirage -2000 being put back into production:

My first one in a while. IAF are in a set of circumstances, where there is a need for numbers to be built up in a relatively compressed amount of time, at a reasonable cost which invariably means it has to be an affordable legacy jet that can be upgraded and expanded on its design value.

If MTOW and block hour operating cost is a factor, then single engine it is.
If the tools and jigs of the Mirage-2000 are still available with Dassault and are not being cross-utilized for the Rafale production, then a viable option is to request for a complete transfer of the relegated/retired production line to HAL or any other competitive entity, not counting out IAF - Base Repair Depot.

Starting block tech. can start with the M-2000-5 standard and this would be a viable platform that has been tested, liked and exploited and can be maintained in inventory for the next 20 years. It should be able to replace the Mig-21,27, and 4,000> hr. Jaguars that will have to phased out. There isn't a learning curve here. Maintenance infrastructure already exists in-country.

From a historical perspective, Israel and South Africa have used the older Mirage-3 line with Dassault into what became the Kfir and the
Atlas-Cheeta for South Africa, which were successful production programs under heavy trade embargo conditions those many years ago. .

So a Mirage-2000 production re-start is a compelling option, in the acquisition matrix and can be proven platform for Air to air, air to ground and CAP missions. It eliminates the need for a new type for 'entry into service' and does not add to the logistics burden for fleet support and lastly does not conflict with LCA in any form or way.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Oct 2016 19:13

^^^

Sir no one will reopen an assembly line for you, just because you have a requirement for it, the only way for your needs to be met is by the following means,

1 having your own product.
2 by paying for the product that is currently sold by the vendor.

Now which catagory IAF falls in, is known to all.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Oct 2016 19:25

girnair wrote:The case of the Mirage -2000 being put back into production:

My first one in a while. IAF are in a set of circumstances, where there is a need for numbers to be built up in a relatively compressed amount of time, at a reasonable cost which invariably means it has to be an affordable legacy jet that can be upgraded and expanded on its design value.

If MTOW and block hour operating cost is a factor, then single engine it is.
If the tools and jigs of the Mirage-2000 are still available with Dassault and are not being cross-utilized for the Rafale production, then a viable option is to request for a complete transfer of the relegated/retired production line to HAL or any other competitive entity, not counting out IAF - Base Repair Depot.

Starting block tech. can start with the M-2000-5 standard and this would be a viable platform that has been tested, liked and exploited and can be maintained in inventory for the next 20 years. It should be able to replace the Mig-21,27, and 4,000> hr. Jaguars that will have to phased out. There isn't a learning curve here. Maintenance infrastructure already exists in-country.

From a historical perspective, Israel and South Africa have used the older Mirage-3 line with Dassault into what became the Kfir and the
Atlas-Cheeta for South Africa, which were successful production programs under heavy trade embargo conditions those many years ago. .

So a Mirage-2000 production re-start is a compelling option, in the acquisition matrix and can be proven platform for Air to air, air to ground and CAP missions. It eliminates the need for a new type for 'entry into service' and does not add to the logistics burden for fleet support and lastly does not conflict with LCA in any form or way.

Forget about reopening assembly line. Its gone, sold in scrap perhaps. A lot of product specific organisational knowledge/skills eroded, many suppliers might not be in a situation to remake the parts. All tooling/jigs/fixtures everything need to be remade.

Better just order 36 more Rafale and be done with it.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 17 Oct 2016 19:39

What is more important making engine locally or radar at this stage?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Oct 2016 19:55

Hands down...i will go with the engine any day. just my vote on that idea.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2016 09:01

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 19 Oct 2016 00:19

I think the above the picture posted by Karam M in terms of our thoughts to acquire ze maegic phormulae to make engine or radar.

As many have pointed... do the swedes have the magic phormula to make engines... no they use GE engines....
what give assurity that we will get it.

I think the slow realisation that is dawning upon us is ... that just as we had to learn to grow and invent a lot of tech to create LCA.
We now need to do the same to scale up production for LCA, Mk1 and Mk2 , AMCA etc etc.

The Single Engined Fighter is required to prevent the aircraft drop in numbers of 200 +.

gaurav_w · Post by **gaurav_w** » 20 Oct 2016 11:05

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 945552.cms

Seems like speculative journalism....

May be we don't need to fret about another line, going by past track record it will take 4-5 years for process to be completed any ways

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Oct 2016 11:35

M-2000Ds of the French air force,are being modernised/upgraded. The cost of just one M2K upgrade for us is far more than the cost a brand new MIG-29K! Reopening the line of the M2K in my opinion would be as bad as buying the F-16/F-18. It would I'm sure cost as much or more than brand new Gripens equipped with meteor and AESA.

arun · Post by **arun** » 20 Oct 2016 12:35

gauravwarrior wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 945552.cms

Seems like speculative journalism....

May be we don't need to fret about another line, going by past track record it will take 4-5 years for process to be completed any ways

Extracts from the above article by Manu Pubby:

The letter says that the requirement is for a `minimum fourth generation single engine aircraft’ to be indigenously manufactured under the Make in India initiative.

While the letter may not be the final word on India’s new planned fighter line, it brings down a selection to only two contenders with what is already being described as a `match fixing’ condition of a single engine fighter. The only operational fighters that practically meet this condition for an Indian contest are the Saab Gripen and the Lockheed Martin F 16.

I am not even sure if there are two contenders, to me it sounds more like one contender, the F16. The Single Engined choices listed by MTOW in metric tonnes available today on the market are:

KAI/LM FA-50 (MTOW 12.3)
HAL LCA (MTOW 13.5)
JAS 39 C/D (MTOW 14.0)
F16 Block 50/52 (MTOW 19.2)
F35A (MTOW 31.80)

Using the LCA as the benchmark to define “Light”, the F35A comes in as “Heavy” while the JAS 39 C/D and FA-50 comes in as “Light” leaving the F16 C the only aircraft in the “Medium” category.

If the contents of the IAF letter sent out are true, seems the fix to buy American is well and truly in.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 20 Oct 2016 14:02

^Don't forget Gripen was allowed in MMRCA as medium category.

Looks like a plot to take SAAB for a ride and waste their time.

F-16 it will be for sure.

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 20 Oct 2016 14:30

This is nothing but a big scam to loot Indian taxpayer as well as kill Indian capabilities. We should stop dreaming about being a "power" if we do end up buying the F-16

chola · Post by **chola** » 20 Oct 2016 15:12

I'm coming around to this. If it results in the F-16 and that in turn gets us off the Russian crap then I'll be happy.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Oct 2016 16:05

The Americans have suplied dozens F-16 to Pakistan and 100's of AMRAAM and PGM's that is designed to take our IAF fighter and Ground forces , not to mentions the billions of USD generous AID they get to fight so called terrorist

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Oct 2016 17:28

^Exactly, this will build a really harmonious relation, we pay for screwdrivergiri manfrg. of phat panting teens, and US will use that to fund munna porkistan's next gen supply of amraams, sniper pods and air to ground missiles.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 20 Oct 2016 18:26

JayS wrote:^Don't forget Gripen was allowed in MMRCA as medium category.

Looks like a plot to take SAAB for a ride and waste their time. F-16 it will be for sure.

I don't think there was any weight (light/medium/heavy) requirement in the MRCA tender. We invited everyone except the Chinese and sukhoi(from whom we were already buying fighters).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Oct 2016 18:51

Using the LCA as the benchmark to define “Light”, the F35A comes in as “Heavy” while the JAS 39 C/D and FA-50 comes in as “Light” leaving the F16 C the only aircraft in the “Medium” category.

I don't think SAAB will offer the Gripen-C. Whatever they offer is likely to be based on the Gripen E/F.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Oct 2016 18:54

abhik wrote:
JayS wrote:^Don't forget Gripen was allowed in MMRCA as medium category.

Looks like a plot to take SAAB for a ride and waste their time. F-16 it will be for sure.
I don't think there was any weight (light/medium/heavy) requirement in the MRCA tender. We invited everyone except the Chinese and sukhoi(from whom we were already buying fighters).

MMRCA = Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 20 Oct 2016 19:50

Karan M wrote:

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 20 Oct 2016 19:52

In a scenario when IAF sweet 16 faces mard-e-momin 16 afridi pathan, will they identify using IFF and visual identification or are there other means?

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 20 Oct 2016 20:00

May be in principle Deal has been agreed with uncil already.. when they stopped F16s delivery to Pakistan.

With buying F16, India will stop Pakistan getting new fighters from US. With Gripen, Uncil will get back to their own business.

Possible ?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 20 Oct 2016 20:07

Austin wrote:The Americans have suplied dozens F-16 to Pakistan and 100's of AMRAAM and PGM's that is designed to take our IAF fighter and Ground forces , not to mentions the billions of USD generous AID they get to fight so called terrorist

Now that you say it Austin, perhaps IFF "dependencies" for these 500 AAMRAMs might be "negotiated", perhaps. We're looking at one of the most potent weapons in the air. Even a Bandar hurling one of these would be a potent threat.

Will · Post by **Will** » 20 Oct 2016 20:18

Someone would have to be really dumb to buy the F-16. For one its a 70's platform. 2 , uncle is not going to share tech of the latest systems mounted on it like the AESA. 3, the Amerikans are sanction happy. If the Amrekians are so keep on developing relations with India why don't they offer to build the F-35 in India? To them we are just a 3rd world country that can be milked for dollars while dumping ancient material on us that no one else really wants anymore.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Oct 2016 20:32

^^^"If the Amrekians are so keep on developing relations with India why don't they offer to build the F-35 in India? "

Has India asked?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Oct 2016 20:36

@Will ^^^ Turkey is not exactly a first world country and yet:

"The plan is that the F-35 will be produced under license in Turkey by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI). TAI is one of the two international suppliers to Northrop Grumman (the other being Terma in Denmark).[178] A Letter of Intent (LOI) was signed between TAI and Northrop Grumman ISS (NGISS) International on 6 February 2007. With the LOI, TAI became the second source for the F-35 center fuselage. The number of center fuselages to be produced by TAI will depend on the number of F-35s Turkey procures and the number of F-35s produced worldwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ent#Turkey

Just asking (I don't know) --has Russia shared source code for the Bars radar with us as part of the 'deep ToT' SU-30MKI deal?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 20 Oct 2016 22:09

shiv wrote:
abhik wrote: I don't think there was any weight (light/medium/heavy) requirement in the MRCA tender. We invited everyone except the Chinese and sukhoi(from whom we were already buying fighters).
MMRCA = Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft

Over all these years I dont remember ever reading about any specific requirements in the MRCA tender for the fighter to be 'medium'. In fact if I remember correctly the 'Medium' part was added sometime in the middle chapters of this saga, probably after the Rafale and the Eurofighter were down selected.
I was looking through the BRF threads over the years and it does appear that the term "MMRCA" (as opposed to just "MRCA") became more more common around 2011.
Apr 2009: MRCA News and Discussion
Aug 2009: Vote for the MRCA
Jan 2010: MRCA News and Discussion
Apr 2011: India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist
Jan 2012: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions
Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

BTW hattip to those of you who, all those years back, thought that the MRCA order should be split into 2 or more fighters, you have shown great ahead-of-the-curveness

.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Oct 2016 22:50

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^"If the Amrekians are so keep on developing relations with India why don't they offer to build the F-35 in India? "

Has India asked?

Personally I think the F-35 will be useless without the ecosystem it operates in. It is a team player not a Lone Ranger although it has some Lone Ranger capabilities.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Oct 2016 22:58

Lockheed Martin first to respond to invitation to build single-engine fighter in India

On Monday, US defence giant Lockheed Martin became the first international vendor to respond to an Indian Air Force (IAF) letter, soliciting interest in building a single-engine, medium fighter aircraft in India, with full transfer of technology.

“We sent our acceptance [to the IAF] earlier this week”, Lockheed Martin’s Randy Howard, who markets the F-16 worldwide, told Business Standard.

Meanwhile, Swedish defence corporation, Saab, which was sent a similar invitation, is learnt to be finalising its acceptance. “We will definitely say ‘yes’; most likely by the end of this month”, says a Saab official.

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Oct 2016 01:04

Manish_Sharma wrote:^Exactly, this will build a really harmonious relation, we pay for screwdrivergiri manfrg. of phat panting teens, and US will use that to fund munna porkistan's next gen supply of amraams, sniper pods and air to ground missiles.

The Russians already provide the engine to the Paki mainline fighter. And they are talking to them about the Su-35.

At least with Unkil, you get first rate, indeed dominant tech across the whole hi-lo spectrum. Their "lo", the F-16, would be the hi in practically every other country not in the P5.

I know a pro-russkie jingo will bring up the MKI. But read up on the maintenance and serviceability nightmare of this thing. Being able to do the Cobra is worthless when your whole fleet gets grounded every so often.

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Oct 2016 01:14

tejas warrior wrote:May be in principle Deal has been agreed with uncil already.. when they stopped F16s delivery to Pakistan.

With buying F16, India will stop Pakistan getting new fighters from US. With Gripen, Uncil will get back to their own business.

Possible ?

More than possible. It will be definite. The US is leaning towards cutting the porkis from the F-16 even now. We get the F-16 and it is a given.

Think about this, the F-16 as our single-engine rank and file aircraft. Our "lo" of the hi-lo mix will be better than all the "hi" of both the pakis (we won't be getting A/B versions) and chinis (better than Flanker clones.) If anything would salve the wound of this RFI strangling future orders of the LCA for me, this is it.

Amoghvarsha · Post by **Amoghvarsha** » 21 Oct 2016 02:06

Is this where we will discuss the new Single Engine Aircraft acquisition?

Its a 2 horse race mainly. F 16 or Gripen. DOnt know why RFI was sent to MIG and Boeing.

How does the F16 block 70 and Gripen NG compare to each other?Also how does these two compare to the J10b?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Oct 2016 02:15

Maybe somebody got the RFI wrong and thats why Mig and Boeing are in the race as well and its still the old MRCA race but focused on cheaper alternatives.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Oct 2016 03:55

chola wrote: I know a pro-russkie jingo will bring up the MKI. But read up on the maintenance and serviceability nightmare of this thing. Being able to do the Cobra is worthless when your whole fleet gets grounded every so often.

Please don't post nonsense. The only time the "whole fleet" was grounded was after one or two of the very few crashes. This is common practice in the IAF if they feel the crash might have been due to a defect/fault that could occur again. It has been done for other types in the fleet as well.

The serviceability issues are well-known but there are several reasons for it which are being addressed after the new DefMin took over. The serviceability is being steadily increased to acceptable levels.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Oct 2016 05:09

shiv wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:^^^"If the Amrekians are so keep on developing relations with India why don't they offer to build the F-35 in India? "

Has India asked?
Personally I think the F-35 will be useless without the ecosystem it operates in. It is a team player not a Lone Ranger although it has some Lone Ranger capabilities.

To anyone listening, I am not shilling for the F-16/F-35. BUT, the whole point of the MII/Single whatever is "ecosystem". We are not going to get source code/blueprints/3D printers to magically clone a/c. Even if we did we would not know what to do with it/them. We don't have a MIC ecosystem. We cannot produce anything in quantity quickly. This last part is not trivial: every block has to be exactly alike so the parts are interchangeable.

The whole 'stuff' behind DTTI is that we get Single -engined line (F-16 is LM's idea with transition to F-35) in exchange for US help on 1. engine technology, 2. next generation fighter 3. aircraft carrier plus sales of armed drones etc.

That is the deal and IMVVHO, it's a good one because in addition to the product, you get a LM/Boeing/GE lobby to counter Huma Abedin

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Oct 2016 07:12

Cosmo_R wrote:
shiv wrote: Personally I think the F-35 will be useless without the ecosystem it operates in. It is a team player not a Lone Ranger although it has some Lone Ranger capabilities.
To anyone listening, I am not shilling for the F-16/F-35. BUT, the whole point of the MII/Single whatever is "ecosystem".

I think you misunderstood. The F-35 has seamless communication with other platforms - for example recently an F-35 designated a target and passed the info to another platform that shot down the target with a BVRAAM (or hit it with a PGM or something) . That is the ecosystem I am talking about - satellites, AWACS, "other platforms" etc. Not rivet and washer manufacturers

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Oct 2016 07:22

^^^ Yes I did misunderstand. I'm wrought up in how to make things ourselves and what the path is.

Never mind!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella