'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[sudeepj]

The original requirement for the MMRCA was for 126 medium aircraft i.e. an aircraft that could lift a payload of around 5-6 tonnes to a distance of around 500 kms. With the latest radar, missiles and standoff weapons. We would have liked to buy 126 Rafales, but we are poor and we can get only 32 36. This leaves a 100 90 aircraft hole.

To now claim that this 100 medium aircraft requirement can be met with a **light**, in fact, the lightest fighter in the whole world! is wishful thinking.

The F16 gives all of what was wanted from the MMRCA except perhaps the maneuverability associated with the Rafale and the Typhoon. And is at a price point that we can afford and comes with a strategic partnership.

As someone else pointed out, the aircraft is in a different category than the LCA! To insist that this poses a threat to the LCA program is strange.

*If its a Gripen that is being picked, I would agree that its a threat, because of the similarities to the LCA.

[Rakesh]

36, not 32. Nitpicking yes, but please I am sad that only 36 are coming, but do not reduce that number.

Added Later: Thank You

[Kartik]

Source please. And what exactly does "miserably" mean? Do you have any details on what tests were conducted, what particular ones the F-16 didn't manage to pass?

From the good 'ol days, when the MMRCA contest was only worth $12 billion for 126 fighters I don't know how definitive this source is, but FWIW.

http://livefist.blogspot.ca/2010/03/fou ... rials.html

It's the latest tidbit on India's $12-billion Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition that's doing the rounds (and it was first reported by The Hindu on Tuesday). Four of the contenders that underwent cold-weather evaluation trials at Leh didn't meet performance requirements. OK, major understatement. Four of the contenders bit dust in Leh. Read that again: four aircraft. That's huge. It's still unclear which part of the Leh test the four aircraft types failed at, though it is quite clear that it was either the switch off/on after landing, or the take-off with meaningful combat load at that altitude. The only thing that appears true is that four aircraft failed the trial -- it is totally anyone's guess which these are. Any want to hazard a try?

With all due respect, I have a healthy bit of skepticism for Shiv Aroor's bombast. Just read the way in which he puts it, he just cannot get away from the "breaking news!" type mentality of a particular type of journalist.

We don't know anything about what particular parameters it didn't meet, which is why I wouldn't dismiss any of the MMRCA contenders on the basis of such nebulous reports.

Just for reference, across the border, PAF F-16s operate from Skardu, which at an elevation of 7,316 ft AMSL is not a Leh, but is still quite a high altitude airport. Now, what payload restrictions are imposed on the F-16 A/Bs or the F-16 C/Ds we do not know exactly, but if there was one thing the F-16 never lacked, it was thrust.

[sudeepj]

Some would say that an LCA MK2 is easily the F16 equivalent, and I will agree. But LCA MK2 as of today is a paper plane. Even the LCA Mk1A is only partly ready. Given the manpower constraints, (lack of skilled engineers and technicians) trying to make the MkII a reality means taking eyes off AMCA, which is the fighter of the future.

Today, the ADA is struggling to get the MK1 to the finish line, with FOC being pushed out to mid-2017.

To insist, that the IAF and the govt. not draw up any contingency plan by inviting proposals for MII some fighter plane to get the needed 100 medium fighters is amazingly shortsighted.

[JayS]

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.

Now this is the first time I've heard about the RM12 being of interest to India..why would they want it for the LCA, when the Kaveri was the original engine planned and when that didn't pan out, it was the F-404-IN20.

Ericsson was on the other hand, approached for the radar technology used on the PS-05 radar and they refused to part with it.

400% true. Don't remember exact time period, must be somewhere in 2005-2008. I guess it was between when they realised Kaveri ain't happening and F404 was chosen as final Engine.

[Indranil]

Some would say that an LCA MK2 is easily the F16 equivalent, and I will agree. But LCA MK2 as of today is a paper plane.

And so is an Indian-made F-16.

[JayS]

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

Source please. And what exactly does "miserably" mean? Do you have any details on what tests were conducted, what particular ones the F-16 didn't manage to pass?

While doing some google search I hit this post from KeyPub. YOu might find it interesting. Can't find from where the poster might be quoting.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ost1878394

Notably, from a Brazilian journalist who read documents of a conversation between the Brazilian FAB and a visiting IAF officer:

- The Rafale needed far fewer passes to perform the same amount of mission work as a Super Hornet. It also needed about half the runway space. Both these are applicable for the high-altitude Leh region.

- The Typhoon took off with the required load as did the Rafale. However it failed in some attack missions, while the Rafale passed. There was a claim (unverified) that the Rafale's AASM was hitting targets at around 50 KM within 2 meters.


As for the others:

- The canopy of the MiG-35 fell off.... The radar used fewer T/R modules as it was an early prototype and so failed the range requirements. It is a sophisticated radar and the missile fired from it hit the target but the radar was an early prototype (and as comparison with the Rafale, the RBE2AA was evolved over several versions with significant growth, including a 20 degree gain in azimuth). The engines were poor performers in Leh.

- The Gripen was considered to be a work in progress. There was just one prototype, and it was nowhere thought to be what the final jet would wind up being. The Swedish AF asked for some significant revisions in the structural design. The Raven radar is also an early prototype.

- The Typhoon was most effective in engine performance in Leh and passed a single engine flyaround. The Rafale was less impressive but still much better than the Super Hornet.


In the end, only the Rafale and Typhoon met the minimum requirements for 590 parameters to be met (both exceed 600 parameters). The American jets flunked this test and were both below the 590 parameter mark as far as passing grades.

If anyone know where is this from and have link, please share.

One of the things is quite obvious and thus look believable. That Typhoon was most comfortable at Leh of all six jets. Similarly one shouldn't be surprised to see if F18 turned out to be worst of all, at Leh.

On contrary, LCA can take-off with almost full load and that too some distance to spare on the strip.

[sudeepj]

Some would say that an LCA MK2 is easily the F16 equivalent, and I will agree. But LCA MK2 as of today is a paper plane.

And so is an Indian-made F-16.

{ new engine, new radar, new airframe, updated avionics, new major LRUs } <- This is a paper plane.
{ proven engine, proven radar, proven airframe, Same control law } <- This, is not.

[Marten]

Now if someone can explain how the M2Ks and MIG 29s were stationed to counter the PAF F-16 A/B > C/D and how a slice of MRCA overlaps now with MIG 21 replacements, I would be very grateful. Just to prevent folks using failed MRCA competitors as MIG 21 replacements using convoluted explanations and mythical capabilities.

[Rakesh]

With all due respect, I have a healthy bit of skepticism for Shiv Aroor's bombast. Just read the way in which he puts it, he just cannot get away from the "breaking news!" type mentality of a particular type of journalist.

We don't know anything about what particular parameters it didn't meet, which is why I wouldn't dismiss any of the MMRCA contenders on the basis of such nebulous reports.

Just for reference, across the border, PAF F-16s operate from Skardu, which at an elevation of 7,316 ft AMSL is not a Leh, but is still quite a high altitude airport. Now, what payload restrictions are imposed on the F-16 A/Bs or the F-16 C/Ds we do not know exactly, but if there was one thing the F-16 never lacked, it was thrust.

No need for with all due respect, because I fully agree with you. He is a reporter first and foremost. I do not know how accurate that report was. Just googled it and that came up. I am sure you remember those years (2010, 2011)....crazy speculation.

[Rakesh]

{ new engine, new radar, new airframe, updated avionics, new major LRUs } <- This is a paper plane.
{ proven engine, proven radar, proven airframe, Same control law } <- This, is not.

None of those proven items will be effective against America's prostitute - Porkistan. Try whacking them and see what happens.

[Indranil]

And so is an Indian-made F-16.

{ new engine, new radar, new airframe, updated avionics, new major LRUs } <- This is a paper plane.
{ proven engine, proven radar, proven airframe, Same control law } <- This, is not.

You missed my point completely. Nobody in India knows how to build parts for F-16. They have to be taught. How much effort LM will put in to find the garage mechanic on the outskirts of Pune who can do it is really questionable. Therefore, most part will come from abroad. Then why pay the price of moving everything here. Manufacture in America. It will be much cheaper and much faster.

None the less, let me correct you:
{ new engine, new radar, new airframe, updated avionics, new major LRUs } <- This is a paper plane.

GE414s are not new. 2052 is not new, and by the way the LCA Mk2 airframe is far from being a new airframe. Updated avionics is on par with most aircrafts. LCA or F-16s will see atleast 2 avionics upgrade in their life times. At least with LCA, we will have control over the same. OBOGs is going to be a new LRU. Actually, one the chief testers of that system is a good friend. All I can say is that thing is tested like hell. Any other new "major LRU" that you can think of?

By the way, do you know what US does when their own products are not ready. Let me give your two recent and ongoing examples:
1. 2006 KC-X RFP floated. Grunman offers (existing) A330 MRTT as solution. 2007 Boeing submits a "paper" plane! Ukraine's proposal with a modified An-70 outrightly rejected! In 2011, Boeing "paper" proposal accepted. Current status: K-46A still in testing (behind schedule). First induction: currently scheduled for 2018.
2. In 2003, USAF realizes that it needs to scout for trainers to be inducted from 2020 onwards. In 2006, a trainer fails due to fatigue sending alarm bells ringing everywhere. It prompts USAF to bring forward the induction date to 2017. LM, Grunman and Raytheon all offer "existing" solutions in T-50, Hawk and M-346 respectively. None of these were American designs and nothing happened till 2013 until Boeing finally presented a "paper" plane! Induction of the trainers is pushed out to 2024 (contrast this with the shelving of our Deepaks, killing of all desi plans since 1995 and final insistence on replacing them with imported Pilatus aircrafts only). In 2013, almost all players (except LM) realized that they did not stand a chance with an imported design, and presented American "paper" proposals.

I think USA did the right thing in the interest of its people and companies. India should do the same.

[Mihir]

Rakesh saar, why not? American Paveway-IIs worked just fine in Kargil, and this was when relations were at rock bottom, with India under US sanctions.

So why won't Indian F-16s work against Pakistan? If they don't, could we say with the same confidence that PAF F-16s won't work against India either? If the IAF's fleet of 90-odd F-16s neutralises the PAF's 70-something F-16s without firing a single shot, I'd say that it is money well spent. It would only tilt the (im)balance further in the IAF's favour.

In any case, Sudeep's point is that the F-16 is a mature design unlike the Tejas Mk-II. Even to a Tejas evangelist like me, this is a valid argument.

[Kartik]

Some would say that an LCA MK2 is easily the F16 equivalent, and I will agree. But LCA MK2 as of today is a paper plane. Even the LCA Mk1A is only partly ready. Given the manpower constraints, (lack of skilled engineers and technicians) trying to make the MkII a reality means taking eyes off AMCA, which is the fighter of the future.

Today, the ADA is struggling to get the MK1 to the finish line, with FOC being pushed out to mid-2017.

To insist, that the IAF and the govt. not draw up any contingency plan by inviting proposals for MII some fighter plane to get the needed 100 medium fighters is amazingly shortsighted.

Equivalent in what respect? Payload, range, thrust, weight specs? It was never going to be that.

The intended Empty Weight for the Tejas Mk2 IAF variant was ~7000 kgs, which meant a 500 kg increase over the Mk1. The F-16 Block 60 is a ~10,000 kg empty weight fighter with ~13,000 kg Normal TOW and has a MTOW ~21,000 kgs with an engine that produces ~14,700 kgs of thrust in AB. That would have been a full 5000 kg higher MTOW than the planned MTOW for the IAF Tejas Mk2.

The Gripen E/F has an Empty weight of 8000 kgs, a full 2000 kgs lighter than the F-16 Block 60 ..BTW, Saab originally advertised a 7100 kgs figure, which they missed by a huge margin..had this been done on the Tejas Mk2, our DDM would've gone to town proclaiming that the Mk2 was overweight and so on. Saab quietly let this out by changing the specs on brochures but the international media didn't seem to take much notice of this.

The planned Tejas Mk2 design increased the fuel and payload and internal space for avionics to the extent that was possible, akin to what the Gripen NG/E/F program did. Beyond that, and they'd have to start from almost the beginning and design all systems over again, which would be terribly expensive. But, it was not a F-16 class aircraft. The Gripen E/F and the planned Tejas Mk2 were light-medium fighters, which is not to say that they don't meet IAF requirements, such as they are. Just saying that they are in slightly different classes.

IMO, and I have a very good opinion of Saab, the Gripen NG (since E/F designation is apparently for Flygvapnet specs) will offer some real advantages, but the biggest issue on hand will be the likelihood that it will be a direct threat to the Tejas Mk1 and if its chosen, there will be no Mk2 variant. The IAF would then probably save that money and effort and invest them in other programs such as the FGFA and AMCA. That is a really big concern and one that will cloud all the benefits India could derive from what is essentially a good, reliable fighter with an enviable attrition record from a decent sized user base.

And so, IMO, F-16 IN with a more customized Indian specified fit of avionics, will suit the IAF more. There isn't a more proven airframe out there, there isn't a wider choice of weapons that are affordable, and with such a large base of customers for the F-16, sustainment of the worldwide fleet, even if we get just a share of it, will be a viable business for decades to come.

[Indranil]

Sudeep,

Actually, you asked me a good question yesterday which made me think quite a lot. LCA lacks an IRST, which is not present even in the Mk2 proposal. Why? At the very least, we can go for an external IRST pod. There are many examples configs that can be used from the F-15/16/18 stables.





It turns out that on the LCA, the LDP is indirectly doing the job of an IRST. This is achieved through a strong handshake between LDP and MMR. That's the job of mission computer. And IAF is happy because of the commonality of the LRU across the platforms. So much so that the IAF wants Litening to be integrated into the Rafales. By the way, let me give you another example of pursuing design capabilities within the country nationalistically. The French LDPs are not as good as the Israeli ones. The French Airforce and Navy knew this for a long time. They did not go for the "ready" solution. Instead in 2013, they asked Thales to develop a better LDP. That LDP will only come in 2018. That is 17 years after first Rafale was inducted! These are strategic capabilities which need to be developed and maintained at home.

The underlying point is not whether F-16 is a good plane or not. If there is a list of all time greatest fighters till date, the F-16 will rank very high on most people's lists. Even today, there is hardly an aircraft in our neighborhood which is much better than the latest F-16s. But moving its assembly line to India to manufacture aircraft which effectively eat into the orders of LCA. No sir, no way! That is the most foolish decision that Modi Sarkar will make.

[Kartik]

One question for those who may know something about this- did Saab inherit Ericsson's work on the AESA radar, after the NORA radar project started out as a joint project?

Because if so, they do have a serious background in this field and all this offer to transfer technology to India may not be just vapour ware. They are lacking a serious partner with funds and a timeline that suits them, but otherwise they have actually demonstrated the technology for the AESA radar and have a good functioning set as of today with the PS-05A with all modes that one expects from a modern mechanically scanned array radar.

Ericsson Microwave Systems, as of 1998, was running a program to develop an AESA radar and the original plan was to try to get it on board the Gripen by 2010..didn't materialize of course, but the core architecture of a mechanically rotated active electronic array was part of their plan for the radar..and we see that radar re-positioner solution on the Selex Raven for the Gripen E/F now as well as the Typhoon.

NORA was a demonstrator that Ericsson worked on, but they have always tried to go with another partner- they tried to interest Thales, they tried to interest a European GTDAR conglomerate which included GEC-Marconi and DASA.

Old article, dating back to 2004

Ericsson in European radar talks

Swedish defence electronics supplier Ericsson Microwave Systems has held talks with French rival Thales to jointly develop a fully-integrated multirole radar system for potential use in all European fighters.

Ericsson is preparing an upgrade programme for the Swedish air force's PS-05/A radar system - equipping its Saab/BAE Systems Gripens - from the Mk3 Jura single data processor version to the fourth generation Greta, a high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR). The company is also set to launch a demonstration programme of the fifth-generation Nora version of the radar, which uses an active electronically scanned array (AESA), on Swedish air force JA37 Viggens by the end of this year.

Ericsson has studied development of a sixth-generation, fully integrated multi-function system, dubbed Eira. Any such radar, fusing active and passive data, would only be possible as a combined European project, says Bertil Hellström, Ericsson Microwave Systems' vice-president, international business development.

"No European radar company could bear the costs of such a development on its own", says Hellström.

BAE Systems Avionics is offering the Captor SAR radar for Tranche 2 production of the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon, while the F2 standard Dassault Rafale will feature Thales' RBE2 electronically scanned radar. Both programmes will have a requirement for fully-integrated radar and electronic warfare systems for third-batch aircraft developments due towards the end of the decade, says Hellström. Ericsson is talking to "major suppliers" about assistance with Nora, leading to joint development. "Theoretically, if two suppliers are on the same timeline, they could jointly develop a system," he says.

Ericsson is in talks with suppliers including Thales alongside inter-governmental talks led by Sweden to define possible work share.

[Mihir]

Indranil, you're right about the LDP, but remember that the French also equipped their navy with F-8 Crusaders while the Étendard and Super Étendard matured.

FWIW, I don't think the F-16 will eat into the LCA. If anything, I get the feeling the two will complement each other very well.

[brar_w]

Both the Litening and the Sniper families have Air-Air modes and are used as such by most aircraft that use them including with the USAF. That however has not stopped them from asking for and contracting out for dedicated IRST pods on fighters already cleared to carry either the Sniper or the G4. Lockheed is developing the NG variant of the Sniper as well as the Legion pod which modernizes the hardware aspect of their IRST-21.

did Saab inherit Ericsson's work on the AESA radar, after the NORA radar project started out as a joint project?

Yes. Their first antenna for an AESA (NORA Phase I) was actually supplied by Raytheon that had an active AESA production line and was making deliveries to its customers (fighters) as early as the year 2000.

Pictures - viewtopic.php?t=7112&start=3440#p2031509

[Kartik]

Indranil, you're right about the LDP, but remember that the French also equipped their navy with F-8 Crusaders while the Étendard and Super Étendard matured.

FWIW, I don't think the F-16 will eat into the LCA. If anything, I get the feeling the two will complement each other very well.

I agree. I see it as the F-16IN slotting nicely between Mk1A and perhaps even the Mk2 and the Su-30MKI/FGFA. Sadly, Rafale's non-affordability seems to preclude it from being ever assembled in India at an economical price.

The F-16IN is just about economical enough to build and order in large enough numbers and costly enough that the Tejas Mk1A/Mk2 will still offer a good business case in order to add numbers..but that of course will hinge upon how much of a concerted effort DRDO/HAL combine makes to market and develop the future variants of the Tejas, the IAF 's strategic vision and of course the political disposition then..a Congress/SP/BSP type coalition govt. would be disastrous, from the POV of political will to push for indigenous programs. Remember back when Mulayam Singh Yadav was the Defence Minister? I shudder to even think of that happening today.

[brar_w]

In 2003, USAF realizes that it needs to scout for trainers to be inducted from 2020 onwards. In 2006, a trainer fails due to fatigue sending alarm bells ringing everywhere. It prompts USAF to bring forward the induction date to 2017. LM, Grunman and Raytheon all offer "existing" solutions in T-50, Hawk and M-346 respectively. None of these were American designs and nothing happened till 2013 until Boeing finally presented a "paper" plane! Induction of the trainers is pushed out to 2024 (contrast this with the shelving of our Deepaks, killing of all desi plans since 1995 and final insistence on replacing them with imported Pilatus aircrafts only). In 2013, almost all players (except LM) realized that they did not stand a chance with an imported design, and presented American "paper" proposals.

This isn't a very accurate depiction of events vis-a-vis the trainers. Between the initial anticipated timeline and the new established programatic timeline one major thing happened - Budget Control Act and the sequestration mechanism it triggered. They'd be lucky to get the T-X even in the 2024 delivery time-lines if the budget control act isn't reversed by early next decade. That was essentially what pushed the timelines out by the number of years that it did. The 3 programs that the USAF protected from the BCA were the F-35, LRS-B and the KC-X. Rest were all open to being trimmed or pushed to the right.

BTW, Lockheed was considering offering a clean sheet aircraft all along and only decided against it recently. Raytheon wasn't even supposed to participate and only came in when General Dynamics dropped out. Boeing could have easily chosen to partner on the M-346 but chose to instead work its design and refine it (the basic design was unveiled quite a number of years ago) through a partnership with SAAB and Northrop Grumman, the incumbent could have also partnered but chose to take on the challenge of fending off competition through a new design ONLY after they realized that the HAWK would fail to meet the threshold requirements.

As long as the USAF demanded a certain level of capability from a future trainer, the hawk would have failed to meet that regardless of induction date being 2017, or 2024 or 2030. Only once the RFI process was mature enough did the contractors make the call. This was the same with Lockheed, they waited till after the RFI process had matured before judging a new clean sheet design to be cost prohibitive and their existing design capable of meeting requirement. Based on what was being demanded Northrop was able to ditch the HAWK quite early on since they probably knew it would fail to meet threshold criteria in the evaluation. As things stand, even the M-346 barely meets the sustained G requirements with modifications and would fail without them.

At the end of the day the choices reflect the shape of the aerospace industry more than anything else. Lockheed had access to a very competitive trainer, that is most likely still going to be the best performer of the lot. Boeing had the most at stake since they have production dipping in St. Louis. Boeing also has the most cash to invest in developing and maturing something on their own. Northrop is the sole supplier of this class of trainers to the USAF so naturally for them they have to show up and be competitive. They however do not have the deep resources of a Boeing or the access to talent in order to run two simultaneous large developmental programs and should have partnered on a proven design. They wound up with an uncompetitive partner in the Hawk which would have been a tough sell to the USAF that isn't probably going to replace this trainer for the next 4-5 decades if not more. The M-346 finds itself in a tight spot..barely able to meet performance but the one that already offers a very mature and technologically advanced training aspect of the program. But then again, would the USAF jocks really want to share a trainer platform with the Russian and Chinese air forces?

[Indranil]

^^^ People in ADA/HAL disagree. Cmde Balaji and Dr. Deodhare openly said it. every squadron of F-16 is a squadron of LCA less. By the way, ADA and HAL are competing. HAL with Mk1A, and ADA with Mk2. True story. Don't ask for any more details.

[Rakesh]

Rakesh saar, why not? American Paveway-IIs worked just fine in Kargil, and this was when relations were at rock bottom, with India under US sanctions.

So why won't Indian F-16s work against Pakistan? If they don't, could we say with the same confidence that PAF F-16s won't work against India either? If the IAF's fleet of 90-odd F-16s neutralises the PAF's 70-something F-16s without firing a single shot, I'd say that it is money well spent. It would only tilt the (im)balance further in the IAF's favour.

In any case, Sudeep's point is that the F-16 is a mature design unlike the Tejas Mk-II. Even to a Tejas evangelist like me, this is a valid argument.

Attacking the Pakistani homeland and evicting terrorists from Indian soil (as in Kargil) are entirely two different things. Don't mix them up.

We tested five nukes in 1998 and the US sanctioned us. Remember the Sea King spares fiasco? The Tejas fiasco? What do you think the US will do if we invade Pakistan? Remember Hillary Clinton is winning the election in a few weeks and the Clinton tilt towards Pakistan is well documented. All the old actors - Robin Raphel, Madeline Albright, James Rubin (or their progeny) - are coming back.

We could get 90 Tejas Mk.1As (why talk about Mk.2) and that will still tilt the balance in the IAF's favour. You do not need 90 F-Solah, Block 70s for that. That is a straw man argument for a plane that is absolutely un-necessary for the IAF. The only serious aircraft they have right now are the 18 Block 50/52 F-Solahs which the Rambha is more than a match for.

While the Block 70 is a mature design, the Tejas Mk.2 will help India's aviation industry to mature. Is that not the goal here? Otherwise what is the point of the Tejas? At the end of the day, it is a platform. The fact that India has already developed a world class aircraft has been proven beyond doubt. What is more important is to get the aviation industry up and running.

The F-16 purchase is meant to further America's goals in containing China. While India is interested in the same thing, we should not lose sight of our other goals.

[Indranil]

In 2003, USAF realizes that it needs to scout for trainers to be inducted from 2020 onwards. In 2006, a trainer fails due to fatigue sending alarm bells ringing everywhere. It prompts USAF to bring forward the induction date to 2017. LM, Grunman and Raytheon all offer "existing" solutions in T-50, Hawk and M-346 respectively. None of these were American designs and nothing happened till 2013 until Boeing finally presented a "paper" plane! Induction of the trainers is pushed out to 2024 (contrast this with the shelving of our Deepaks, killing of all desi plans since 1995 and final insistence on replacing them with imported Pilatus aircrafts only). In 2013, almost all players (except LM) realized that they did not stand a chance with an imported design, and presented American "paper" proposals.

This isn't a very accurate depiction of events vis-a-vis the trainers. Between the initial anticipated timeline and the new established programatic timeline one major thing happened - Budget Control Act and the sequestration mechanism it triggered. They'd be lucky to get the T-X even in the 2024 delivery time-lines if the budget control act isn't reversed by early next decade. That was essentially what pushed the timelines out by the number of years that it did. The 3 programs that the USAF protected from the BCA were the F-35, LRS-B and the KC-X. Rest were all open to being trimmed or pushed to the right.

I know. My point is US (and for that matter any country) shows clear and definite favoritism towards domestic products. If there was a single all blue American aircraft in the list of 5 aircrafts, guess which one would be selected. Is the US wrong in doing that. Albeit, no.

BTW, Lockheed was considering offering a clean sheet aircraft all along and only decided against it recently. Raytheon wasn't even supposed to participate and only came in when General Dynamics dropped out. Boeing could have easily chosen to partner on the M-346 but chose to instead work its design and refine it (the basic design was unveiled quite a number of years ago) through a partnership with SAAB and Northrop Grumman, the incumbent could have also partnered but chose to take on the challenge of fending off competition through a new design ONLY after they realized that the HAWK would fail to meet the threshold requirements.

As long as the USAF demanded a certain level of capability from a future trainer, the hawk would have failed to meet that regardless of induction date being 2017, or 2024 or 2030. Only once the RFI process was mature enough did the contractors make the call. This was the same with Lockheed, they waited till after the RFI process had matured before judging a new clean sheet design to be cost prohibitive and their existing design capable of meeting requirement. Based on what was being demanded Northrop was able to ditch the HAWK quite early on since they probably knew it would fail to meet threshold criteria in the evaluation. As things stand, even the M-346 barely meets the sustained G requirements with modifications and would fail without them.

True. By the way, I love Northrop's proposal. It is interesting that they are probably the only one without an afterburning engine. It will be interesting to see if this aircraft can supercruise. Call me a purist, but it looks so simple and clicks all the right boxes for a trainer to me. Additional advantage is that the lineage to the T-38 is undeniable.

[brar_w]

I know. My point is US (and for that matter any country) shows clear and definite favoritism towards domestic products. If there was a single all blue American aircraft in the list of 5 aircrafts, guess which one would be selected. Is the US wrong in doing that. Albeit, no.

And that does not always turn out to be the right decision. The A330 tanker would have given them a viable second supplier going into KC-Y and KC-Z. The only saving grace was that Boeing bid aggressively, fearing an Airbus encroachment and agreed to (at the time of contract signing) eat up any financial liability arising during the developmental phase. They essentially paid billions out of their own pockets to remove airbus from competing in their domestic market. Not sure that works the best for the taxpayer though.

Regarding Northrop's proposal, if the design flown in Mojave was their final version they would have officially unveiled it.Hopefully they invest enough resources to actually show up to DemVal with a representative design unlike the YF23 where they paid a price for not doing so. They have one of the best CEO's out there in the defense industry, and he has been quite willing to spend a lot of money on things that have high payoff down the road. They have done this in electronic systems, in unmanned and with the bomber. Not sure they will put up that much of company money to win the T-X. Boeing has deep pockets and a real need to spend a lot of internal money on this. Just like the LRS-B where Northrop apparently agreed to eat a lot of the developmental cost as a board approved business decision, Boeing may do the same for the T-X. I doubt either a Lockheed or Northrop would be able to match that. Raytheon is just competing because..why not..No one really expects Raytheon to beat all these giant primes...

[sudeepj]

Sudeep,

Actually, you asked me a good question yesterday which made me think quite a lot. LCA lacks an IRST, which is not present even in the Mk2 proposal. Why? At the very least, we can go for an external IRST pod. There are many examples configs that can be used from the F-15/16/18 stables.

It turns out that on the LCA, the LDP is indirectly doing the job of an IRST. This is achieved through a strong handshake between LDP and MMR. That's the job of mission computer. And IAF is happy because of the commonality of the LRU across the platforms. So much so that the IAF wants Litening to be integrated into the Rafales. By the way, let me give you another example of pursuing design capabilities within the country nationalistically.

Ahh! I see. I didnt realize that litening could work as an IRST too! Is the litening as good as the dedicated IRST sensors?

The French LDPs are not as good as the Israeli ones. The French Airforce and Navy knew this for a long time. They did not go for the "ready" solution. Instead in 2013, they asked Thales to develop a better LDP. That LDP will only come in 2018. That is 17 years after first Rafale was inducted! These are strategic capabilities which need to be developed and maintained at home. The underlying point is not whether F-16 is a good plane or not. If there is a list of all time greatest fighters till date, the F-16 will rank very high on most people's lists. Even today, there is hardly an aircraft in our neighborhood which is much better than the latest F-16s. But moving its assembly line to India to manufacture aircraft which effectively eat into the orders of LCA. No sir, no way! That is the most foolish decision that Modi Sarkar will make.

Agreed with the national capability part. But look at it from a 'looking fwd' perspective. I just feel that ADA has nothing left to prove when it comes to the LCA. It is an excellent fighter in its class, one of four (JF17, Gripen, LCA, the Korean fighter) and its comparable, if not better than the best-among-the-rest Gripen. National capability will be better served if we devote our scarce human resources on next gen rather than the current gen. Its time to productionize the current gen by way of Mk1A and get 120 +- frames into service. Having ADA engineers work on MKII is a waste of national capability.

Now Come to the 'right now' perspective. IAF wants to be at the very minimum a 35sqd force. With a somewhat equal distribution of heavy, light and medium aircraft. Usually, forces go for a hi-lo mix, but we want a hi-med-light mix, with each platform being the cutting edge in its category. Sus have the heavy slot filled, light is going to go to the LCA while the medium (Mig27/Jaguar) is where the gaping hole is. We tried to shoehorn Typhoon/Rafale/ ... in, but it didnt work out. Unless we buy some fighter, be it LCA or ... right now, we will be in a poor shape. Further, the medium category is needed for work that the LCA might not be suitable for.

I am no aero guy, but my understanding is that the LCA with a meaningful combat load will have trouble reaching beyond a radius of 300kms in a strike role. While the F16 can reach 500kms and perhaps farther with CFTs. I am repeating my self, so Ill try to post less, but itll be interesting to see some range/payload charts/speculations for both the aircrafts, and unfortunately, I dont have the expertise to put up the same.

Lastly, there is the risk reduction perspective. You cant blame the IAF for being a little bit skeptical about HALs ability to deliver the LCA. What happens if there are just not enough platforms that HAL is able to deliver? Two or three years down the line, the problem is even more dire, and if the F16 line closes down, there goes another option! I remember some members complaining that the C17 line closed down while the IAF wanted more and the govt. delays meant the line shut down and an opportunity lost!

In this case, the govt. is taking some proactive action, the whole thing is at the RFI stage so we dont know what is on offer. Yet members are criticizing it like anything!

btw. Dont get me wrong.. Ill be super happy and proud if the LCA numbers are increased to 240.. I just feel, we need to be charitable to other stakeholders who may have a different view and come to a different conclusion.

[ramana]

I think future, future (>2030) will be UCAVs and heavy fighters.

[ramana]

Two related posts in Strat Forum:

viewtopic.php?p=2062807#p2062807

and

From UB:

viewtopic.php?p=2062831#p2062831

Looks like this lines up with Deejay's views also.

[ShauryaT]

To now claim that this 100 medium aircraft requirement can be met with a **light**, in fact, the lightest fighter in the whole world! is wishful thinking.

Did Parikkar not essentially challenge the medium aircraft requirement? The original idea was to buy Mirage 2000 until some MoD folks messed up and initiated the MRCA contest. The raison d'être was to act as a replacement to the Mig-21 fleet. We are well familiar with the entire saga of the MRCA leading to 36 beauties at gold prices. It is the 100 odd Tejas ordered that needs to replace the Mig 21. We need a total of about 200 to replace the Mig-21 category of planes. The Tejas Mk 1/1A and 2 will all be far superior replacements. You do pay a far higher operations cost for all the extra weight a heavier aircraft carries and ranges it could get to. Somewhere a line is drawn based on requirements, risks and costs. A line that the RM was wise to draw in the MRCA case.

[Rammpal]

Any chance India would look at producing F-5 or F-20 ?

[nachiket]

I agree. I see it as the F-16IN slotting nicely between Mk1A and perhaps even the Mk2 and the Su-30MKI/FGFA. Sadly, Rafale's non-affordability seems to preclude it from being ever assembled in India at an economical price.

If that is the case, why bother to buy the 36 Rafales? What exactly did we gain from it? Couldn't they have scrapped the whole thing altogether and then chosen between the F-16 and the Gripen if that's all we can afford? We will now have 2 squadrons of ginormously expensive aircraft that will use weapons no other type in our inventory except perhaps the M2ks (certain weapons only) can use. Spending 8 billion $$ on this and then buying another entirely new type to fill up the rest of the numbers would be downright criminal. I just can't fathom how both the IAF and the MoD can be okay with this colossal waste of resources when we have glaring shortfalls in our inventory in absolutely everything - artillery, APCs, PGMs, BPJs, NVGs, helmets and just about everything else.

[nachiket]

Any chance India would look at producing F-5 or F-20 ?

NO

[ShauryaT]

If that is the case, why bother to buy the 36 Rafales? What exactly did we gain from it? Couldn't they have scrapped the whole thing altogether and then chosen between the F-16 and the Gripen if that's all we can afford? We will now have 2 squadrons of ginormously expensive aircraft that will use weapons no other type in our inventory except perhaps the M2ks (certain weapons only) can use. Spending 8 billion $$ on this and then buying another entirely new type to fill up the rest of the numbers would be downright criminal. I just can't fathom how both the IAF and the MoD can be okay with this colossal waste of resources when we have glaring shortfalls in our inventory in absolutely everything - artillery, APCs, PGMs, BPJs, NVGs, helmets and just about everything else.

The IAF has a ready answer to shut all of us up and no further arguments can be made. The IAF NEEDS the Rafale for strategic missions!!

[Cosmo_R]

^^^ People in ADA/HAL disagree. Cmde Balaji and Dr. Deodhare openly said it. every squadron of F-16 is a squadron of LCA less. By the way, ADA and HAL are competing. HAL with Mk1A, and ADA with Mk2. True story. Don't ask for any more details.

Only if LCA can churn out 200 units to fill the shortfall by 2020 with certainty . Else, it's just an empty statement about buying local when local doesn't exist.

No details required. Can you deliver the shortfall? IAF pilots want to know.

[brar_w]

Ahh! I see. I didnt realize that litening could work as an IRST too! Is the litening as good as the dedicated IRST sensors?

All you can go by is that the operators that already operate the G4 and Sniper XR are going to add an IRST capability on top of the added A2A modes available and operational. Similarly, one of the changes to the Sniper Back end for the F-35 were hardware additions required to support the Air-Air IRST capability. Even export customers have chosen to go for dual capabilities when both have been on offer. Singapore flies the Sniper XR, and the IRST-21/TigerEyes. US services that operate close to 500 AN/AAQ-28's have requirements for a separate IRST pod (USAF - Legion/Open Pod, and USN-IRST).





Apparently, the F-15C community has been using the Sniper XR's A2A capability quite a bit in training and yet, they are the main drivers behind the decision to procure a separate IRST pod for that aircraft's ongoing modernization.

Both Lockheed and Northrop (That sells Liteinings in the US) that have sold over 1500 pods till date are developing dedicated IRST pods for legacy fleet while at the same time developing upgraded NG versions of their existing Sniper and Litening families.

[nachiket]

Only if LCA can churn out 200 units to fill the shortfall by 2020 with certainty . Else, it's just an empty statement about buying local when local doesn't exist.

And we are going to magically produce 120 F-16s by 2020?

[shiv]

Any chance India would look at producing F-5 or F-20 ?

None at all

[Rammpal]

"...I am no aero guy, but my understanding is that the LCA with a meaningful combat load will have trouble reaching beyond a radius of 300kms in a strike role. While the F16 can reach 500kms and perhaps farther with CFTs. I am repeating my self, so Ill try to post less, but itll be interesting to see some range/payload charts/speculations for both the aircrafts, and unfortunately, I dont have the expertise to put up the same...."

Engine loading profile as well

Lastly, there is the risk reduction perspective. You cant blame the IAF for being a little bit skeptical about HALs ability to deliver the LCA. What happens if there are just not enough platforms that HAL is able to deliver? Two or three years down the line, the problem is even more dire, and if the F16 line closes down, there goes another option! I remember some members complaining that the C17 line closed down while the IAF wanted more and the govt. delays meant the line shut down and an opportunity lost!

How about a contract that rides on delivery rate, i.e.: at end of 12 month, say, number of jet not delivered, vis-a-vis, agreed delivery rate, gets taken off contract, and equal number of F-16 or Gripen, etc added accordingly.

[Kashi]

Only if LCA can churn out 200 units to fill the shortfall by 2020 with certainty . Else, it's just an empty statement about buying local when local doesn't exist.

No details required. Can you deliver the shortfall? IAF pilots want to know.

Wouldn't the IAF pilots also want to know that while making up the shortfall, how prudent it is to induct a system that is nearing the end of its design/operational life, one that they will have to familiarise themselves with, set up completely new training and logistics setup and knowing all this time that their foes across the Western border have a >30 year head start in working with this system.

All this can be done by 2020?

[Rakesh]

To all the F-Solah enthusiasts on BRF...please remember India is STILL in the RFI stage. LM has responded, with Gripen still finalizing their response. There are a lot of stages to go through before a contract is signed. Then the production line has to be set up, the Tier 1 suppliers - in the US - have to be in sync with the Indian manufacturer and only then can serial production of the Block 70 begin. In an ideal scenario - we are dealing with Indian bureaucracy here - it will be 2030 before all 90 are delivered. I repeat - in an IDEAL scenario. All it takes is for one competitor - in this case Saab - to put a spoke in the wheel and shout corruption and the whole process will come crashing down.

While the RFI has been rigged for the Block 70, there has to be some semblance of fairness here and thus the MoD will cross every T and dot every I. And in India, that takes time. Take a look at the MMRCA saga.

[rohiths]

I was told that the cost of this single engined fighter tender was going to be $12 Billion for 120 aircraft. We have already spent $8.8 Billion of Rafale and will spend $24 Billion on FGFA with a combined total of $44.8 Billion.
Man ! We are a very rich nation