'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[Viv S]

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

That capability is still experimental at this time. But it can share data with other aircraft - fighters & AWACS. It particularly excels in terms of meshing with other F-35s linked together with the MADL (read: multi-ship sensor fusion). And in general, its expected to be employed as a four-ship flight for maximum efficiency.

However, "it has some Lone Ranger capabilities" is still a misstatement. In any head-to-head assessment (keeping the AWACS/satellites/Aegis out of the picture) it'll still dominate any and all previous gen aircraft (including the Rafale). That's what happens when you have the best radar, ESM system, MMI & sensor fusion packaged in a VLO airframe.

At $85 mil flyaway, LM has got upwards of 600 aircraft for exports lined up over the next 15 years... so obviously we're considering the F-16 instead in our long term plans. Just the way our system works I guess.

[shiv]

However, "it has some Lone Ranger capabilities" is still a misstatement. In any head-to-head assessment (keeping the AWACS/satellites/Aegis out of the picture) it'll still dominate any and all previous gen aircraft (including the Rafale). That's what happens when you have the best radar, ESM system, MMI & sensor fusion packaged in a VLO airframe.

That is still in dispute - and I see a clear line between those who echo the above statement and those who disagree. Of course - after spending so much if the F-35 was not pushed with over hyped sales talk and brochurits generating brochures it would be a terrible loss - and I personally believe that at least some of the F-35s potential capabilities are being hyped. This is the American answer to the hyping of J-20 and other Chinese aircraft that are hyped exactly the way the US hypes its products.

[Viv S]

That is still in dispute - and I see a clear line between those who echo the above statement and those who disagree. Of course - after spending so much if the F-35 was not pushed with over hyped sales talk and brochurits generating brochures it would be a terrible loss - and I personally believe that at least some of the F-35s potential capabilities are being hyped. This is the American answer to the hyping of J-20 and other Chinese aircraft that are hyped exactly the way the US hypes its products.

All aircraft salesmen hype their products including the ones from Dassault & Saab. However, I'm not reading from a brochure. Just extrapolating from known information, demonstrated capabilities (eg. F-22) and reports coming from the operators fielding the aircraft in exercises.

Take the APG-81 radar for example. You may say calling it superior to say... the RBE-2 is an unsubstantiated claim. However, that the former features 1650 T/R modules to ~850 for the latter is a fact. (Specs on Triquint & Cree's GaAs products are available publicly.) That NG has about a 10 year head-start over Thales on fighter AESA development is a fact. That (unlike Thales) it has already demonstrated EA capabilities on previous types (APG-77) is also a fact.

Similarly, on each of the factors involved, if you do the digging you'll find the information needed to build a reliable factual picture (without relying on PR reps & brochures).

[Austin]

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

Saab links Gripen bid with Tejas programme, to counter F-16 production numbers

[Manish_Sharma]

F-16 has already failed the leh tests miserably, which even mig was able to pass easily.

We can't use it on north east border against cheenis, so what it will do, against pakistan it will accompany jaguars over the maru-sthals of Rajasthan & Gujarat?

Even there america would have problems, "O please don't use it against pakistan as our forces are in afghanistan for next 20 years......

Have LM invested in improving its engines since the failure of leh tests? Nope!

Wait till some pressler amendment comes cause the archbishop of mumbai slipped on a banana peel one fine morning thrown by dirty Hindu kids conspiring against minorities.

[Austin]

Gripen certainly represents a more modern design and use of matrials if SAAB is willing to provide a more generous TOT for Indian Industry and help in speeding up Tejas and AMCA then it should be good deal for IAF and MOD.

On another board it was mentioned that F-16 never won a DACT with Gripen , The primary focus should be to build more of Tejas for IAF then F-16 or Gripen ......The latter should be the cream but not the cake itself which should be Tejas.

[Philip]

http://defencenews.in/article/F-16-and- ... -tag-18845

F-16 and Gripen in hot pursuit of the 'Made in India' tag
Friday, October 21, 2016
By: Business Standard

The contest to supply the Indian Air Force (IAF) a single-engine, medium fighter is currently playing out as a two-horse race. US giant, Lockheed Martin, is the Goliath looking to slay the David that is Swedish firm, Saab.

Lockheed Martin, which has offered to shift its F-16 production line to India, is the world's biggest defence firm, with $46.1 billion in sales last year and an order backlog of almost $100 billion. Saab, which has offered its latest fighter, the Gripen E, appears a relative minnow, with $3 billion in sales last year, and an order book of $12.9 billion.

Yet, Saab is an extraordinarily accomplished minnow. Visitors to the Swedish Air Force Museum near Saab's aerospace facility at Linkoping, two hours by train from Stockholm, encounter an aerospace tradition that has, since 1926, kept pace with the world's best.

The museum displays the J-29 "Flying Barrel", the first "swept-wing" fighter after World War II; the Draken, Europe's first supersonic fighter, which pioneered the "double delta wing", and the Viggen, the first mainstream fighter to feature the canard - now common in high-performance fighters. India came close to buying the Viggen but Washington, which provided the engines, blocked the sale in 1978. The IAF bought the Anglo-French Jaguar instead, which still remains in service.

As Saab's marketing team never tires of telling Indians, this excellence in defence production stemmed from Sweden's traditional strategic independence - similar to India's. After remaining neutral through World War II, Sweden declined to join NATO in 1949, choosing to cater for its own defence against Russia.

Responsible for its own defence, Sweden leveraged an existing scientific and engineering culture to develop an advanced aerospace and defence industry. In the late 1950s, the Swedish Air Force was the world's fourth largest, fielding over 1,000 frontline aircraft.

Anticipating that a Soviet invasion would quickly render its airfields unusable, the Swedish Air Force insisted on light, versatile fighters that could operate from short stretches of highway, refuelling and rearming in minutes before re-joining battle.

This is the tradition that shapes the JAS-39 Gripen E, Saab's latest and most advanced fighter that is expected to make its first flight by end-2016. Unlike Dassault's Rafale, which endured tortuous years of wait before Egypt became its first export customer, the Gripen E has been selected by Brazil even before its first flight. In winning the Brazil tender, the Gripen E beat the Rafale, and Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

In sheer aerodynamic performance, the Gripen E will probably be a match for the F-16 Block 70. While the former has still to fly, its predecessor, the Gripen D, was extensively evaluated by the IAF - mainly to its satisfaction - as part of the 2007 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender. The Gripen E, incorporating a new General Electric F-414 engine; is larger, heavier and more powerful than the Gripen D, which had an older F-404 power plant.

Even the avionics are comparable. The F-16's Northrop Grumman APG-83 airborne electronically scanned array (AESA) radar is a proven, highly effective combat system. But the Gripen E could score with more sophisticated data networks that bring together inputs from multiple sensors - such as airborne warning and control systems (AWACS), satellites and a fighter's own AESA radar - fusing data to present a comprehensive picture of the air battle in a cockpit arrangement that is amongst the world's most pilot-friendly.

With combat performance similar, the choice between the F-16 and Gripen E could boil down, as IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha said last month, to two factors - procurement and operating cost, and technology transfer.

In procurement cost, Lockheed Martin would score by transferring a fully amortised assembly line from Forth Worth, Texas to India. Further, by creating a vendor and sub-vendor eco-system in India to sustain a global inventory of 3,200 F-16s, spares and maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) would be cheaper.

[Kakarat]

I am planning to write to the PM through http://pgportal.gov.in/pmocitizen/Grievancepmo.aspx on not to go for a new Single Engined Multi Role Fighter but to invest on increasing the production of LCA Tejas Mk1 with a greenfield plant if requires and to consider developing LCA Mk2 into a semi 5th gen rather than a enlarged Mk1 with a new engine

[JayS]

http://defencenews.in/article/F-16-and- ... -tag-18845

F-16 and Gripen in hot pursuit of the 'Made in India' tag
Friday, October 21, 2016
By: Business Standard

As Saab's marketing team never tires of telling Indians, this excellence in defence production stemmed from Sweden's traditional strategic independence - similar to India's. After remaining neutral through World War II, Sweden declined to join NATO in 1949, choosing to cater for its own defence against Russia.

[Manish_Sharma]

Gripen certainly represents a more modern design and use of matrials if SAAB is willing to provide a more generous TOT for Indian Industry and help in speeding up Tejas and AMCA then it should be good deal for IAF and MOD.

1.) saab has no foundaries for GaN.

2.) they buy american engine and call it by a swedish name before fitting on grippen, so engine wise their are behind us, they don't have anything equivalent to Kaveri.

3.) As modi decided to buy 36 Rafales the daussalt immediately got orders from 3 countries; same way if we buy grippen they'll immediately get orders from other countries, as Bharat's selection process is most respected all over the world. Now the problem would be after impressing the hell out of arabs in airshow the Tejas has a chance of export to those countries, but buying grippen would show it as inadequacies of Tejas.

4.) After engine and GaN transistors, the only thing left is composites, which we already have for Tejas so what can 'saab the assembler' can offer us.

It seems IAF has deep attraction to buy anything from gora europeans no matter what. The MMRCA itself was insincere and showed this fetish, they included 30 ton f-18 and 7 ton grippen in it, and still called it "medium".

Even now like a brat they're blackmailing the govt that they'll only buy Tejas if they're given any other jet from superior race gora country, no matter what, even if they failed the tests in mmrca.

[Manish_Sharma]

I am planning to write to the PM through http://pgportal.gov.in/pmocitizen/Grievancepmo.aspx on not to go for a new Single Engined Multi Role Fighter but to invest on increasing the production of LCA Tejas Mk1 with a greenfield plant if requires and to consider developing LCA Mk2 into a semi 5th gen rather than a enlarged Mk1 with a new engine

I have already written this proposal :

As Ruag of Germany had offered to jointly produce Tejas with HAL, but HAL refused.

But now HAL has expressed inability to produce more than 16 Tejas a year.

A second line of Tejas can be done with a partenership of:
1. Ruag
2. TATA TASL
3. L & T
4. Kalyani
5. Mishr Dhatu Nigam

The might of these 5 giants, can make it possible to produce 36 Tejas a/c yearly, and continue even after fulfilling the order for IAF and IN to export to Sri Lanka, Myamar, Vietnam & various Arab nations. I'm sure at least Oman will buy it immediately.

It was pointed out previously that certain parts of Tejas like its single piece tail is made in France, and comes in limited numbers, so Ruag can take care of it as they'll have the capability to do it.

Tejas has passed everywhere that f-16 & grippen failed in tests.

Please everyone write your own alternative ideas to PMO, at least they should know that citizens are interested in this subject.

[Philip]

Yes,by not joining NATO,Sweden got itself removed from the list of USSR enemies Crafty devils the Swedes. "Dear Comrades of the Soviet Union,please do not enter Swedish roads but take the by-pass expressway into Norway just as Hitler did!"

But seriously,the Swedes will provide us with more openness in tech transfer without strings as was done with the Bofors gun which we are now making ourselves.In the late "80s,the then CNS of the IN said that the Swedes tech transfer for the IN sub offer was far more transparent and forthcoming than that of the Germans. However,a certain v.v.v.powerful gent of the time,no longer with us,allegedly SG by initials according to another source scuttled the deal in favour of HDW. Swedish tech is state-of-the-art on par with the best of the west.SAAB,Volvo,Ericsson are examples. The Gripen is a later design than the F-16,which Pak has been operating for decades.There is little point in operating the same aircraft whose characteristics they know better than us.

However,the Gripen is at best second choice,as ramped up production of the LCA should be the GOI's top priority.Whichever firang manufacturer is able to help us with an annual prod rate of at least 24,should be invited to set up a second line with a pvt. partner or even a JV for the same.Why not let them take a stake in the LCA as Rosneft has just done with ESSAR?

[JayS]

^^ 400% Agree that we will get far far better ToT from Swedes than anyone else. They are much better to work with and much more transparent people. But the problem is they do not own much of the IPR to share (Whatever SAAB is claiming is very unlike Swedish and pure hot air. In person the same marketing guy would frankly accept the truth in all probability). If only they had a better plane than Tejas I would have fully supported buying from them than from French, Americans or Russians. Whatever they have a world-class, but its too little for us. And time and again they have shown that they are fully susceptible to pressure from US. For example they shied away from supplying RM12 for LCA due to GE pressure even though both Volvo and ADA was very much willing. So this "Strategic Independence" is a big Joke.

Also Swedes hate Russians like crazy and perhaps are shit scared too (though they wouldn't show that up ).

[rohiths]

Instead of getting this single engined fighter, we can invest in 1000 Brahmos missiles. We can literally take out/disable the entire airforce of pakistan, key nuclear facilities and key army installations in a matter of minutes. It will be a single knockout blow which they will find it hard to recover from

It will be a much bigger and deadlier option than these obsolete F-16s. Afterall the financial resources are limited and we have to maximize firepower for the given budget.

[Gyan]

Govt should call Reverse Bids from Pvt Sector for producing 250 LCA MK-2 and maintaining them for 30 years starting from US$ 50 Billion which is the cost discovered for Gripen in Brazil Competition.

[shiv]

An acquaintance in Bengaluru owns a Lamborghini. It's ground clearance is so low that he has to take an oblique path over BLRs speed breakers. That aside - the car really comes (partially) into its own on the highway where 100 mph can sometimes be touched for as long as 2-3 seconds before finding oneself behind a Tempo Traveller racing along at 50 mph. Bengaluru just does not have the roads for it. So apart from status and affordability the car is only half utilized. As I see it F-35 will fit in the say way. Even if F-35 is so damn good as a one-on one fighter being able to kick every ass over the horizon, it still fails in the Indian context because it does not have the plethora of sister platforms that it can communicate with to work as a system.

[arsimovich]

Instead of getting this single engined fighter, we can invest in 1000 Brahmos missiles. We can literally take out/disable the entire airforce of pakistan, key nuclear facilities and key army installations in a matter of minutes. It will be a single knockout blow which they will find it hard to recover from

It will be a much bigger and deadlier option than these obsolete F-16s. Afterall the financial resources are limited and we have to maximize firepower for the given budget.

I don't think that will happen, ever. You do not put all your eggs in the same basket. BrahMos is a terrific weapon but it can't replace a fighter as a fighter operates many mission profiles that a cruise missile can't. There of course is the situation where Bakistanis somehow develop a counter for BrahMos, however unlikely it may be, and we are left with a plethora of those missiles that serve no practical purpose.

At present, BrahMos has a range of ~300 KMs which is not enough to engage all targets within TSP. A range upgrade is likely but as of now, we are stuck at 300. This is a limiting factor.

Cruise missiles are great for preemptive precision strikes but you'd need a multi role fighter to fly CAPs, lob some A2G ordnance and engage in some A2A combats when push comes to a shove. So, in terms of pure dollar value a Cruise may appear better but it would never match a fighter jet in terms of the offensive options that the platform provides. An armed UAV would be a stronger contender for that role.

[Pratyush]

The interesting thing is that earlier this year the government had called for a Pvt industry participation in the production of Tejas as 250 had to be built for approximately 12.5 billions US dollars. But nothing came of it.

[arun]

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.

On further digging turns out that that the Gripen E/F comes in at an MTOW of 16.5 making it "Medium".

Source for the MTOW figure is Gripen E In Brief.

Interesting that the above handout says that the 98Kn F414-GE-39E engine will give Super Cruise ability to the Gripen E ( Clicky)

Interesting that the F414-GE-INS6 that will go into the LCA also generates max thrust of 98Kn.

Does this mean the LCA will have a Super Cruise ability

[ragupta]

LCA is threat to Gripen.
The effort is to kill/delay LCA. this is not going to happen, so the best they are trying is to influence the decision makers.

The best option is to get F-16 production line and create a company in partnership with Gripen and DRDO/ADA/HAL for a second production line for Tejas for IAF and export. contributing 49/51 ratio. Share the booty then loose it. Gripen to Bring Model E capability to LCA M1A/II

[Gyan]

The interesting thing is that earlier this year the government had called for a Pvt industry participation in the production of Tejas as 250 had to be built for approximately 12.5 billions US dollars. But nothing came of it.

Interesting. Source? In any case, US$ 12.5 Billion is low for 250 LCAJ MK-2. Gripen cost was around US$ 5-6 Billion for 36 in Brazil. Hence the price offered for LCA to pvt sector is too low by factor of 3.

[Lilo]

However,the Gripen is at best second choice,as ramped up production of the LCA should be the GOI's top priority.Whichever firang manufacturer is able to help us with an annual prod rate of at least 24,should be invited to set up a second line with a pvt. partner or even a JV for the same.Why not let them take a stake in the LCA as Rosneft has just done with ESSAR?

Thats a great idea.
Will Saab or any other MNC with experience in fighter production Dassault,Kawasaki,Thales,Kawasaki,Mitsubishi,KAI or even LM or Boeing etc
be willing to setup a second line for Tejas in India on a purely commercial basis?
They can make a joint venture with an Indian MNC - Reliance ,TATAs etc
That would solve many problems at once - except the insistence on F16 by massa as a precondition for India to get access/support in other areas - military & nonmilitary.

[sohamn]

Instead of getting this single engined fighter, we can invest in 1000 Brahmos missiles. We can literally take out/disable the entire airforce of pakistan, key nuclear facilities and key army installations in a matter of minutes. It will be a single knockout blow which they will find it hard to recover from

It will be a much bigger and deadlier option than these obsolete F-16s. Afterall the financial resources are limited and we have to maximize firepower for the given budget.

No, Brahmos can't replace a single fighter or helicopter. They are meant for different roles.

I have never seen this level of immaturity in BRF ever in its history. Nowadays people are posting without doing any research which is lowering the standard of discussion. I request people to think and research before posting.

LCA Mk1a is a fine aircraft but it is a point defence interceptor, with it current fuel load it can't penetrate more than 200km into Pakistani airspace. Hence it cant be a Panacea for all issues plaguing our fighter squadron. Every airforce needs a balanced approach - short ranged low operational cost fighter, long ranged fighter, medium range strike etc. If IAF needs to fulfill its promise of 44 squadrons then it needs more than LCAs. The solution could be MCA, not LCA MK2, now IAF needs to see which vendor would give the biggest benefit for MCA. Network centric capability, AESA radar, supercruise engines etc are the technology transfer that IAF needs ( Stealth no one would give ) and hence this should be the core focus.

[JayS]

The interesting thing is that earlier this year the government had called for a Pvt industry participation in the production of Tejas as 250 had to be built for approximately 12.5 billions US dollars. But nothing came of it.

Interesting. Source? In any case, US$ 12.5 Billion is low for 250 LCAJ MK-2. Gripen cost was around US$ 5-6 Billion for 36 in Brazil. Hence the price offered for LCA to pvt sector is too low by factor of 3.

Been discussed on BRF previously.

An acquaintance in Bengaluru owns a Lamborghini. It's ground clearance is so low that he has to take an oblique path over BLRs speed breakers. That aside - the car really comes (partially) into its own on the highway where 100 mph can sometimes be touched for as long as 2-3 seconds before finding oneself behind a Tempo Traveller racing along at 50 mph. Bengaluru just does not have the roads for it. So apart from status and affordability the car is only half utilized. As I see it F-35 will fit in the say way. Even if F-35 is so damn good as a one-on one fighter being able to kick every ass over the horizon, it still fails in the Indian context because it does not have the plethora of sister platforms that it can communicate with to work as a system.

I have the same opinion.

No, Brahmos can't replace a single fighter or helicopter. They are meant for different roles.

I have never seen this level of immaturity in BRF ever in its history. Nowadays people are posting without doing any research which is lowering the standard of discussion. I request people to think and research before posting.

LCA Mk1a is a fine aircraft but it is a point defence interceptor, with it current fuel load it can't penetrate more than 200km into Pakistani airspace. Hence it cant be a Panacea for all issues plaguing our fighter squadron. Every airforce needs a balanced approach - short ranged low operational cost fighter, long ranged fighter, medium range strike etc. If IAF needs to fulfill its promise of 44 squadrons then it needs more than LCAs. The solution could be MCA, not LCA MK2, now IAF needs to see which vendor would give the biggest benefit for MCA. Network centric capability, AESA radar, supercruise engines etc are the technology transfer that IAF needs ( Stealth no one would give ) and hence this should be the core focus.

To me, your post seem as naive as the post you quoted. What is supercruise engine BTW??

[NRao]

An acquaintance in Bengaluru owns a Lamborghini. It's ground clearance is so low that he has to take an oblique path over BLRs speed breakers. That aside - the car really comes (partially) into its own on the highway where 100 mph can sometimes be touched for as long as 2-3 seconds before finding oneself behind a Tempo Traveller racing along at 50 mph. Bengaluru just does not have the roads for it. So apart from status and affordability the car is only half utilized. As I see it F-35 will fit in the say way. Even if F-35 is so damn good as a one-on one fighter being able to kick every ass over the horizon, it still fails in the Indian context because it does not have the plethora of sister platforms that it can communicate with to work as a system.

Bing, Bing, Bing ...... Which is I have said ALL along India is not ready for the F-35.

Let me state one more thing. India is not ready fottr an engine too. Forget a 5th gen engine. Just a plain simple Kaveri that can perform up to specs. Nyet.


Been digging around. India over the years has actually slid some. Had gone further behind the curve in many respects. Main culprit: ability to productize things. Especially big ticket items. That had impacted everything, because they feed into this one item.



Need a HUGE cultural change. What is happening on the internal political front is really hurting India.

[Cybaru]

Well not ready for f-35 is an interesting opinion. I think with all sorts of multipliers in play especially our own aew, we are more ready than ever to have a unit(Lca-mk1a/mk2/fa-18/f-35) that can perform very well on its own and stellar with multipliers as we add more of newer more capable units.

[Viv S]

So apart from status and affordability the car is only half utilized. As I see it F-35 will fit in the say way. Even if F-35 is so damn good as a one-on one fighter being able to kick every ass over the horizon, it still fails in the Indian context because it does not have the plethora of sister platforms that it can communicate with to work as a system.

I'm afraid that analogy doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. One, there is no metaphorical speed bump that applies to the F-35 but not to the F-16 & Gripen. Two, a Lamborghini costs about 3000% that of say... a Honda City, while the F-35 will cost maybe 30% more than the Gripen E (bit wider vis a vis the F-16) though Saab will probably offer a better ToT deal. A better comparison would be choosing between a Honda City at a cost of X and a Merc C at 1.4X.

[ShauryaT]

^The cost of the supporting infrastructure? Platforms? Training? Shiv ji is right in that analogy. It will be wrong to to compare the F-35 on a standalone cost. The F-35 is best exploited within a certain environment. Take that supporting environment out and its value also is maybe 30% extra, for twice the money maybe. NONE of the other nations would venture to deploy these assets, without this supporting environment, usually provided for by the US directly or indirectly. Anyways it is not on offer.

I find this entire BPO-giri of the F-16 line, which will NOT be in place without India making a commitment to buy these planes, a commercial win for Lockheed, a strategic win for the US, a small tactical win for the IAF, a wash from an economic perspective and a huge strategic loss for India.

[Cybaru]

I find this entire BPO-giri of the F-16 line, which will NOT be in place without India making a commitment to buy these planes, a commercial win for Lockheed, a strategic win for the US, a small tactical win for the IAF, a wash from an economic perspective and a huge strategic loss for India.

Agreed.

[NRao]

I find this entire BPO-giri of the F-16 line, which will NOT be in place without India making a commitment to buy these planes, a commercial win for Lockheed, a strategic win for the US, a small tactical win for the IAF, a wash from an economic perspective and a huge strategic loss for India.

Agreed.

Absolutely disagree.

For one the assumption is that India gets engine techs IF India decides take over the F-16 line.

Secondly, there are related technologies that can benefit India - IF India takes advantage of them, which I think it should be possible, including sales. After all the F-16 line is India will be the only line anywhere. Potential is there. Is there a drive to make things out-of-the-box happen? Beyond "BPO-giri"?

Finally, seen plenty of good args about the LCA being enough for Pakistan. I assume it means that the LCA is not as good for the China front. China is not going to sit idle for sure. Countering 300-400 LCAs would be the lowest hanging fruit to deal with for China and China will do it. India *needs* next gen planes, way beyond the AMCA too. Whether we like ti or not China has taken over Pakistan for all practical purposes.

Techs are the need of the hour. I do not have a good idea what the F-16 will bring - engine should come via the AMCA, what about radar, etc? The F-16 is filler for the IAF and a cherry on the top.

[Cosmo_R]

@Nrao ^^ + 1

[Viv S]

^The cost of the supporting infrastructure? Platforms? Training? Shiv ji is right in that analogy. It will be wrong to to compare the F-35 on a standalone cost.

'Supporting infrastructure' meaning infrastructure at the production end or the operations end? The F-35 assembly lines at Cameri (Italy) and Nagoya (Japan) costed about $1 bn give or take. For upfront costs for the operator, please refer to the South Korea FMS sale.

The F-35 is best exploited within a certain environment. Take that supporting environment out and its value also is maybe 30% extra, for twice the money maybe. NONE of the other nations would venture to deploy these assets, without this supporting environment, usually provided for by the US directly or indirectly. Anyways it is not on offer.

This assertion is... well.. wrong. Assuming that "maybe 30% extra" refers to a loss-exchange ratio of 1.3 to 1, let me just say there is no way any 4.5 gen aircraft is getting within that ballpark. And that difference in capabilities is magnified when it comes to missions within airspace covered by hostile A2/AD assets. Sure the aircraft is overkill for CAP & CAS type missions, but that's what the Tejas and Su-30 are for.

The idea that the aircraft needs force multipliers to be effective, ignores its contribution as a force multiplier in itself. It will, for example, be the single most valuable ELINT asset in its operator's inventory combining (LO-enabled) access with cutting edge ESM gear.

As for which nation can employ it without US support, I think the answer to that is obvious. Israel.

Col David 'Chip' Berke: 5th Gen Experience (05:30-13:00)

I think everybody in this room that's involved in that process understands that innovation takes time, and its painful, and its expensive. Not just expensive in terms of pure money but in what you need to invest in that to realise the capability of the airplane. Innovation is not easy. You need to sell people on innovation, you got to demonstrate that it works. Sometimes you can't tell them everything about it. You can't let them see behind the curtain, you just ask them to trust you and believe you and there is skepticism built into those things.

So innovation doesn't happen today, it doesn't happen tomorrow, its 15 years down the road. That's why the lens of 2015, 2020, 2025 is so critical.

You talk about where this airplane will be in 2025, don't forget to ask yourself what the F-16 will be in 2025, what the F-18 will be in 2025. The disparity then starts to grow dramatically and the answers to your questions become more obvious. But if you've not catered forward in 2015 to get there you will find yourself scrambling.

That's why these things are so valuable, so we don't find ourselves freaking out in 10 years that we wasted the last 10 years wondering 'should we' instead of asking ourselves 'how do we'. And the 'should we' question is yesterday's news.

If you are asking should we fly fifth generation airplanes, if you're asking whether a fifth generation fleet is necessary... you are old. You are behind. You are late. And you're going to lose.

Those are facts. And I only say that, I only offer you that perspective because of my experience. Take it or leave it based on what you think the value is of that.

[shiv]

Even if I contribute two dozen 24 karat pots to Tirupati as tribute the US is not going to make F-35 compatible with legacy Indian, Israeli and Russian systems in use in the IAF. Conclusion: F-35 is very good. It is Lord Ventateshwara of Tirupati who is weak.

[Pratyush]

The interesting thing is that earlier this year the government had called for a Pvt industry participation in the production of Tejas as 250 had to be built for approximately 12.5 billions US dollars. But nothing came of it.

Interesting. Source? In any case, US$ 12.5 Billion is low for 250 LCAJ MK-2. Gripen cost was around US$ 5-6 Billion for 36 in Brazil. Hence the price offered for LCA to pvt sector is too low by factor of 3.

Google : India Offers To Spend $12B To Break Monopoly

[Viv S]

Even if I contribute two dozen 24 karat pots to Tirupati as tribute the US is not going to make F-35 compatible with legacy Indian, Israeli and Russian systems in use in the IAF. Conclusion: F-35 is very good. It is Lord Ventateshwara of Tirupati who is weak.

Two simple questions -

1. how will the F-16 & Gripen be made 'compatible' with the IAF fleet?
2. how will the F-35I be made 'compatible' with their Israeli fleet?

(I'm assuming the solution doesn't involve tributes to Lord Venkateshwara.)

[shiv]

1. how will the F-16 & Gripen be made 'compatible' with the IAF fleet?
2. how will the F-35I be made 'compatible' with their Israeli fleet?

Sorry. Won't bite. Always easy to ask and then disagree with answers that one does not like. You give the answer if you know. If you don't I will still be comfortable with what I said. If you do I will choose whether to agree or not. Lord Venkateshwara can only give wisdom- not make F-35 useful for India

[Viv S]

Sorry. Won't bite. Always easy to ask and then disagree with answers that one does not like. You give the answer if you know. If you don't I will still be comfortable with what I said. If you do I will choose whether to agree or not..

I'm not asking for an opinion. I'm asking for an objective answer to a technical question.

'Is Kohli better than Tendulkar?' is a question where one can disagree with the answers that one does not like. In contrast, 'how many valves does a human heart have' is not a question where you can like or dislike the answer. It is what it is, there's no subjectivity involved.

[shiv]

Sorry. Won't bite. Always easy to ask and then disagree with answers that one does not like. You give the answer if you know. If you don't I will still be comfortable with what I said. If you do I will choose whether to agree or not..

I'm not asking for an opinion. I'm asking for an objective answer to a technical question.

You can ask whatever you like. Makes no difference to me. As I predicted - you did not accept my statement as an answer and are demanding more. I will be wasting my time arguing with you and getting clever rhetoric for replies. We have done this several times in the past. That is what I mean by the wisdom of Lord Venkateshwara. And I did not even have to give 1 pot of 24k gold as tribute for that. Like I said - even 2 dozen pots will not help the F-35 merge seamlessly into the IAF

[Viv S]

You can ask whatever you like. Makes no difference to me. As I predicted - you did not accept my statement as an answer and are demanding more. I will be wasting my time arguing with you and getting clever rhetoric for replies. We have done this several times in the past. That is what I mean by the wisdom of Lord Venkateshwara. And I did not even have to give 1 pot of 24k gold as tribute for that. Like I said - even 2 dozen pots will not help the F-35 merge seamlessly into the IAF

I'm offering 'clever rhetoric for replies'? Like the ones involving Lord Venkateshwara and X pots of gold?

Is the 'Super Sukhoi' going to retain the TKS-2 or an IAF F-16/Gripen, the Link 16? Where do you think the IAF's ODL & SDRs are coming from? This isn't 'rhetoric', just basic facts you'd expect to know before any discussion on networking/C4I related to the IAF.

[shiv]

I'm offering 'clever rhetoric for replies'? Like the ones involving Lord Venkateshwara and X pots of gold?

Yes you are. And so am I - because rhetoric is the button that switches you on most effectively and gets you going. But it bores me - although I enjoy doing it and waiting for a response from people who use it regularly. I am out of this discussion. I just played you and you bit. My apologies. I have stated my opinion about the F-35 and have no wish to get into any discussion with you on the issue.