'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Oct 2016 07:34

Cosmo_R wrote:
Indranil wrote:^^^ 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.

There are two different customer segments here and according to who you are, you think the priority of one over the other is more important.

1. IAF
2. MIC/Universities/TaxPayer

The ultimate burden of whatever the country decides has to be borne by the taxpayer.

A. Some argue that IAF is primary- as it helps keeping the second lot safe and secure and allows them to do the job and that be the primary consideration
B. Some argue that we will never be able to go to war as long as we don't have an MIC
C. Some argue that primarily the responsibility if the government is to secure the borders and also bring scientific improvement and jobs to the economy
D. Some argue that there is no requirement for such imported items as the opportunity costs in building better infrastructure is money well spent rather than buying shiny toys
E. Some argue that there is no actual tech gained by buying a sunset program for IAF period

On a separate note:
Even if an agreement is signed for a TOT or a new line in India, the challenges of this foreign line are same as putting a second line for LCA or expanding the first line to get to 25-30 units a year, that is creation of MIC.

Given the size of defense aviation market size in India is very limited.
Given that we are going to invest in FGFA/AMCA and most likely continue to order MKI till PAKFA , the only thing that remains today is the light segment.

I feel that it's best to create tier 1/2/3 vendors and let HAL continue to play the role of integrator/QA (screwdrivergiri) which it so likes to do for LCA and create an industry outside to help with the PAKFA and AMCA programs. The more we push for numbers from HAL, the more will be the incentives to actually farm a lot outside, creating real value. Because at the end of the day, when the light segment needs replacement, we will be onto UCAV territory in 20-30 years down the road and there may not be place for 2-3 vendors like the USSR/USA model (Most of these don't exist anymore because there just isn't worldwide demand anymore). Infact to ensure we become important, we need to follow a joint venture model like Europe and find partners where we will be equal moving forward. Indian industry can be part of this under the HAL umbrella. Joint ventures with Ukraine/Brazil/South Africa/Russia/Europe/Sweden. We really need to create a underlying industry structure that supplies HAL its needs so that it can play integrator so that we have some sort of aviation industry. Nothing is instant and this will take its own sweet time to happen.

By having upgraded Mirages/Rafales/Jags/Mig29s/29K/27s/AEWs and 250 odd MKI's, one could argue that the borders are going to be as safe as any and the 90 extra light anything won't change the risk equation drastically.

So why not take this opportunity and create something of value that will serve us for a long long time? A real MIC that manages to fulfill majority of our needs.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 26 Oct 2016 08:05

200 by 2020? I mean give the shilling a break, man. Unless you're JD Shillinger, in which case, carry on.

F16 will not hit 12 a year for 3 years after the tender is awarded. And that is at least 3 years away. If nothing else breaks the process. Big If.

We have 50,000 cr for 120 of a new type but cannot invest 1, 250cr for setting up a new line for the LCA. Cannot imagine how anyone (Inc. IAF and HAL) would think a new type is not sabotaging the LCA. This Hi Mid Low approach is bring paid for with funds that would galvanize strengths across the board. But we are a really rich client state.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Oct 2016 08:15

rohiths wrote: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

Look at the gripen orders elsewhere. In the 2020 timeframe, be extremely happy if the 120 come for 24 billion.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 26 Oct 2016 08:41

"...One more minor point in favour of EJ200 was it had a TVC option, F414 doesn't have it. But its not very important anyway..."

Why??

Cobra maneuver ?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 26 Oct 2016 08:50

So BJP has learnt raj-Shastra!!!! So what is the difference between it and Congress?

$12 billion in orders to Russian shipyards over Indian ones, $20 - $40 billion projected outflows for fighters - and a load of unemployment for Indian youth/workforce.

Such a large investment in Indian industries would have made India unbeatable.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 26 Oct 2016 09:44

The key point that everyone missed is that the budget that was proposed for 126 fighters was consumed by an order for 36 Rafales.

After reaching the milestone of ordering the gold plated items based on a strategic need, we (i.e. IAF, MOD, RM, PM, Jingos & Shills all inclusive) are now focusing our considerable energies and scarce and vital finances on 120 MORE using the MRCA canard.

Now that is a scam, even if no one got rich off this one. India gets poorer, in terms of self reliance, aviation capabilities, and the sheer will to push through and build an MIC without taking recourse to the perennial situation that the labs are unable to scale. If we were to pour the same resources where required and used the global trips to bring in component partners for the AMCA (forget the LCA for a minute or so), would it provide a higher return on our investment than purely building sheds to assemble and then pretend TOT is happening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest scam in Indian defense occurs due to this simple cycle:
1. <indigenous maal> does not meet the requirements because current capabilities are lacking.
2. We will not have the capability for another ten years due to paucity of funds.
3. It is in national interests that we immediately import the capability from <abc/xyz> due to #2.
4. Divert available funds for #3 since it is now paramount!

Rinse and repeat. Leading to:
5. Higher tax incidences for the average citizen + heart burn for jingoes + Blue on Blue on BRF

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Oct 2016 10:46

Any guess on revenue India will/ can/ may earn selling spares, servicing F16 over long time period as claimed by LM?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 11:04

ramana wrote: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.

Interestingly the article in first link says:

Notably, James said Indian officials did not express interest in the US Air Force’s newest fighter, the F-35, which has amassed 10 international customers so far.

How about that??

Another pointers:
- Even US is not expecting any decision for at least a year.
- Times lines are uncertain,
- Extent of participation of local industry is uncertain.
- Extent of ToT is uncertain, can even be a sore spot in the deal

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 11:11

ShauryaT wrote: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.

And IAF pilots swear by Tejas and how its better than M2K. Some shortcomings which are there, could be compensated for by increasing numbers (not just LCA but may be 1-2 Sq of additional Su30 could also be the answer). LCA does not stand alone in the IAF, other aircrafts are there to take some load where it could not. Similarly LCA could take up some of the load of the big guys wherever it can so those are free to do stuff they excel at. Solving a coupled problem with decoupled POV can give some seriously wrong results.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 11:16

Cosmo_R wrote:
Indranil wrote:^^^ 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.

Whats the point of this statement Saar when not even LM can deliver 200 jets by 2020. May be God can, but I wouldn't depend on him for this one..

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Oct 2016 11:23

Indranil wrote:<SNIP>I think USA did the right thing in the interest of its people and companies. India should do the same.

Valid point.

The only BIG difference between USA and India is that Americans undertake stuff with enough buffer in terms of fleet replacement timeline. We don't have that luxury.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 11:27

Rammpal wrote:"...One more minor point in favour of EJ200 was it had a TVC option, F414 doesn't have it. But its not very important anyway..."

Why??
Cobra maneuver ?

Cobra manoeuvre only for Nagpanchami is not important only.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Oct 2016 11:35

JayS wrote: Whats the point of this statement Saar when not even LM can deliver 200 jets by 2020. May be God can, but I wouldn't depend on him for this one..

Peak production rate for F-16 in late-80s was 30 aircraft PER MONTH.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 26 Oct 2016 11:41

rohitvats wrote:Peak production rate for F-16 in late-80s was 30 aircraft PER MONTH.

What is the production rate today? How long would it take for everything to be moved to India and be up and running before we get to 30 jets a day?

Seems rather unlikely before 2020, don't you think?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Oct 2016 11:53

Latest report.India/MOD "not convinced" of the viability by the two offers of Gripen and F-16.
Reason being that after production for the IAF what next? UNness there is an export base as a result,there's no point.V.wise.
The F-16 is on its last legs of production and even if there is a "Block-7" specially for India,who wants this '80s hag with an overdose of makeyup? Almost all US allies are switching over (can't be stopped now) to F-35s,though numbers have reduced substantially,and the new tech,360 deg. coverage via the helmet display-no need for HUD,is wowing pilots. These allies will field a fleet of F-35s and legacy aircraft (late models like SHs) until another new aircraft emerges from the US stables.For Euro-peons,the Rafale and Eurofarter .and Gripen are available.

In the Indian context,while the helmet display would be most useful,the rest of the aircraft is barely able to meet F-16 dogfighting stds.,and limited internal weapons bay munitions compares poorly with the FGFA/T-50,why the AMCA,said to take to the skies after the FGFA,will have even superior characteristics,making it a poss. "6th -gen fighter".This however will be 2030+ after the FGFA production is complete.The AMCA as stated is meant to replace MIG-29UGs,M2K UGs,and Jaguars.

I get the feeling that realisation will dawn upon the MOD/IAF that investing more in Tejas will give us the export base for a cheap multi-role 4+++ fighter,vert attractive to our trad. friends should we be able to ramp up production to meet demand.Sri Lanka could the be the first customer,Vietnam and S.American states to follow.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Oct 2016 11:59

Kashi wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Peak production rate for F-16 in late-80s was 30 aircraft PER MONTH.
What is the production rate today? How long would it take for everything to be moved to India and be up and running before we get to 30 jets a day? Seems rather unlikely before 2020, don't you think?

The present production rate is 1 per day.
And I'm not claiming that LM will be able to produce these many numbers by 2020. I'd be happy if the production line becomes operational by this time. But fact of matter is LM has an established vendor base to push production numbers. As it is, production rate has to also match absorption capacity of IAF.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Oct 2016 12:12

rohitvats wrote:
Kashi wrote:
What is the production rate today? How long would it take for everything to be moved to India and be up and running before we get to 30 jets a day? Seems rather unlikely before 2020, don't you think?
The present production rate is 1 per day.

They delivered 11 f-16s in 2015. Back in the 80s maybe they were producing 1 a day. But I am sure they got rid of most of that tooling by now and have a minimal line.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... in-423293/

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Oct 2016 12:27

JayS wrote:
Interestingly the article in first link says:
Notably, James said Indian officials did not express interest in the US Air Force’s newest fighter, the F-35, which has amassed 10 international customers so far.

Only a matter of time. Wait for a few months. My IAF friend wanted f-22 a while back and now wants the f-35.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 13:23

rohitvats wrote:
JayS wrote: Whats the point of this statement Saar when not even LM can deliver 200 jets by 2020. May be God can, but I wouldn't depend on him for this one..
Peak production rate for F-16 in late-80s was 30 aircraft PER MONTH.

LOL. We should have ordered in 1987..!!

rohitvats wrote: The present production rate is 1 per day.
And I'm not claiming that LM will be able to produce these many numbers by 2020. I'd be happy if the production line becomes operational by this time. But fact of matter is LM has an established vendor base to push production numbers. As it is, production rate has to also match absorption capacity of IAF.

U meant, 1 per month not 1 per day?? The vendor base argument is valid if its produced in US. Even then I am highly sceptical that they will go beyond 20/yr for order of only 100 jets. Optimistically speaking, earliest date for all 100 to be inducted is 2024 if they are bought in fly-away condition and 2027-28 if they are to be ~~made~~ assembled in India.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Oct 2016 13:28

Prem wrote:Any guess on revenue India will/ can/ may earn selling spares, servicing F16 over long time period as claimed by LM?

If the margins were high enough, LM would have never let go of that business

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Oct 2016 13:34

http://defencenews.in/article/It-may-be ... -off-28892

It may be a while before Govt’s plan to build fighter jets in India takes off

Wednesday, October 26, 2016
By: The Hindu Business Line

The government’s plan to manufacture single-engine fighters in the country is likely to face delays even though the Defence Ministry has notified request for information (RFI) from three firms to participate in the programme under the ‘Make in India’ initiative.

US aerospace giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin and Sweden’s SAAB have approached the government as a response to the RFI with their “unsolicited proposals” that have apparently failed to “impress” the Defence Ministry, a senior official told BusinessLine.

This is because, even though these companies have enumerated their plans to manufacture these jets under the ‘Make in India’ programme, the Ministry is keen on plans to transform India into an export hub for these jets, the official said.

Once the RFI is issued, the government floats Request for Proposals (RFPs) to shortlist the competing firms, according to norms. However, the government is learnt to be taking one step at a time in selecting the firm that will finally be chosen to manufacture the fighter jets here.

“The RFP will take time to be issued. A lot of factors need to be ascertained here apart from Make in India, logistics and infrastructure. The issue here is that once the armed forces buy these, what thereafter? Hence, export is a big factor, and indigenisation will play a crucial part in it,” the official said.*(Make in India for export LCAs! Cheaper and about equal in capability)

Boeing has already offered to manufacture their F/A-18 Super Hornet here with full transfer of technology (ToT) to their Indian joint venture partners. Lockheed Martin has gone a step ahead and said it will develop a warplane F-16 Block 70 exclusively for the Indian market. The US government is also aggressively pushing for these two under the US-India Defence Trade and Technology Initiative.

On the other side, Swedish SAAB has said it will build an entire industrial ecosystem in India under ‘Make in India’ for the Gripen E. Talks on selling the Gripen E were held during the visit of Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven to India in February.

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha had earlier said that the proposals from these three firms had been received by the government but nothing had been decided. “An early decision on indigenous ‘Make in India’ fighter aircraft project will greatly enhance our operational capability in the near term,” he had said during the Air Force Day earlier this month.

The Defence Ministry plans to replace the ageing MiG-21s with these fighter jets. Last month, India had finalised a $8.7-billion deal to procure 36 French Rafale warplanes.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 13:41

Cybaru wrote:
JayS wrote:
Interestingly the article in first link says:

Only a matter of time. Wait for a few months. My IAF friend wanted f-22 a while back and now wants the f-35.

Matter of time, yes but whats the time frame??

I think we will have a thread in 2035 where LCA is replaced by AMCA and F16 is replaced by F35. Same people who now say why "waste" money on MK2 development and why not just jump to next generation will say the same thing then. Since we will have never learned manufacturing properly during LCA, we will not be able to ramp up AMCA production (remember its gonna be a step change in manufacturing for 4.5gen to 5th gen jet and will take time to overcome the challenge there). And Jaguars/Mig29s would be about to be replaced, I guess that time around. So numbers would be a priority again. More so perhaps due to increasing threat perception and need of increased Sq strength then. We will see same arguments how F35 is a mature platform and AMCA is not. How F35 can quickly fill the number and AMCA cannot. How our MIC is not ready for 5th gen manufacturing and F35 will teach us that and prepare us for 6th Gen. How AMCA is short-legged and cannot carry more weapons as compared to PAKFA that China would be buying that time around from Russia. Not to mention F35 will being in TFTA F135 ToT and help in in Kaveri 110kN.

We are a dog trying to catch its own tail..

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 13:42

Indranil wrote:
Prem wrote:Any guess on revenue India will/ can/ may earn selling spares, servicing F16 over long time period as claimed by LM?
If the margins were high enough, LM would have never let go of that business

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Oct 2016 14:01

Philip wrote:Latest report.India/MOD "not convinced" of the viability by the two offers of Gripen and F-16.
Reason being that after production for the IAF what next? UNness there is an export base as a result,there's no point.V.wise.
The F-16 is on its last legs of production and even if there is a "Block-7" specially for India,who wants this '80s hag with an overdose of makeyup? Almost all US allies are switching over (can't be stopped now) to F-35s,though numbers have reduced substantially,and the new tech,360 deg. coverage via the helmet display-no need for HUD,is wowing pilots. These allies will field a fleet of F-35s and legacy aircraft (late models like SHs) until another new aircraft emerges from the US stables.For Euro-peons,the Rafale and Eurofarter .and Gripen are available.

In the Indian context,while the helmet display would be most useful,the rest of the aircraft is barely able to meet F-16 dogfighting stds.,and limited internal weapons bay munitions compares poorly with the FGFA/T-50,why the AMCA,said to take to the skies after the FGFA,will have even superior characteristics,making it a poss. "6th -gen fighter".This however will be 2030+ after the FGFA production is complete.The AMCA as stated is meant to replace MIG-29UGs,M2K UGs,and Jaguars.

I get the feeling that realisation will dawn upon the MOD/IAF that investing more in Tejas will give us the export base for a cheap multi-role 4+++ fighter,vert attractive to our trad. friends should we be able to ramp up production to meet demand.Sri Lanka could the be the first customer,Vietnam and S.American states to follow.

Source?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 14:13

Philip wrote:http://defencenews.in/article/It-may-be ... -off-28892

the Ministry is keen on plans to transform India into an export hub for these jets, the official said.

The issue here is that once the armed forces buy these, what thereafter? Hence, export is a big factor, and indigenisation will play a crucial part in it,” the official said.*

This part is believable to me since it is aligned to what I have heard from offline sources.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 26 Oct 2016 14:22

Mihir wrote:
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.

Thread is moving fast, you may have missed this post :

deejay wrote:Disclaimer - I write below with my limited information and understanding.

Why I think that Lockheed and Saab are desperate to sell their 4/4.5 gen Single Engine Fighter line to India?

I am essentially flipping the coin and looking at why would Lockheed and Saab do such a thing. Most of us are looking from the Indian perspective (including me).

The answer IMO, is because this Indian need for 100+ 4/4.g Gen single engine aircraft is the last of its kind. There is no large scale demand for Single Engine fighters anymore - certainly not in 100s in a single order.

The host countries of both OEMs are Western world (First World). They supply to either their forces or allies. Lockheed is already supplying a 5th Gen Single Engine fighter to US and Nato plus other allies. They have no residual 4/4.5 Gen single Engine demand.

Grippen secured the Brazilian order and now there is no future large order. Swedish AF is not placing big future orders. All Nato or European countries are either on twin engines or moving to 5th Gen Single Engine.

The third world orders are split between Western, Russian and Chinese fighters. None of the African countries have an appetite where the order could exceed 50 fighters. The markets have little overlap between Western and the rest, though the Russian and Chinese markets may overlap.

The Gulf market has recently closed a lot of fighter deals which went to the Rafale mostly. East Asian markets like Vietnam may result in some 4th Gen fighter sales but will mostly likely not include western ware. One possible way is for the western ware to be sold in such markets, is as an Indian offer.

The other big operators like South Korea and Japan are moving into either twin engines or 5th Gen technology.

India is the only operator now which is buying large quantity of 4th or 4.5th gen Single Engine fighters. To be precise, this 100+ requirement did not exist as it was covered under MMRCA, where the Rafale was the chosen twin engine fighter for 126 aircraft and 60+ optional purchase. That order was curtailed and a need was created for a similar Gen but Single Engine fighter.

Assuming that the IAF is a 42 Sqn air force, we have a max size Air Force of 700 combat aircraft (42sqn x 16ac per sqn plus war reserves). Projecting in future where all Single Engine Mig 21s have retired and all Mig 27s have retired and the upgraded types are yet to retire (say 2029 is a safe year) the IAF will be with 100 LCAs + 100 foreign 4.5Gen Single Engine + 272 Su 30 + 36 Rafale + 50 M2k + 140 Jaguars + 66 Mig 29s = we already have a 764 aircraft air force or a 46 Sqn IAF (plus war reserve).

Except M2K, all other retirements due in next 15 years (2030 onward time frame) are in twin engine category (or medium weight). This means when IAF replaces these retirements, it will be either with equivalent or better aircraft in all measurements. In fact, the replacements are already known - FGFA and AMCA.

Assuming a fighter's life is 30 Yrs and knowing that 1st Tejas was inducted in 2014, the earliest of new induction Single Engines to retire will be 2044. Hence, once the current production ends say by 2028 (max), the next large scale requirements for producing Single Engine 4/4.5 gen aircraft will not be felt prior to 2044.

This brings me to the some conclusions:

> if the foreign fighter comes into India, this is the end of LCA development. There are no more orders for a 4th Gen or a 4.5 Gen Single Engine fighter for the IAF. Forget IAF there are no large orders anywhere in the globe. Piecemeal replacement of crashes in existing fleet or a Sqn or two purchased elsewhere are the only likely sales. This is the last big order. This is why Lockheed and Saab are ready to sell out their lines to India. They get a pie of the Indian market which should have exclusively belonged to Tejas.
> The future fighter aircraft technology is 5th Gen or beyond. If India has to invite a foreign player to develop an MIC, it makes sense if the technology being purchased is future ready or it is able to support 5th Gen technologies. The MIC expertise created under such foreign assembly line will marry very well for the development of our own AMCA which may enter production around 2030. A 4th Gen equivalent technology related MIC will not give the maximum returns that a once in history kind of deal offers.
> It is apparent through repeated articles in media that Lockheed is not interested in setting up the F35 line here but the F16 line in India. Saab's Grippen is also an equivalent 4/4.5 Gen aircraft.
> Both F 16 and Grippen are priced at 03 times the price of an LCA. Add cost of imported weapon systems and the cost differential will be more than 4X.
> The time gained by going for a foreign aircraft assembly line and not Tejas is between 02-05 yrs for full production run. If indeed we are time critical a sharp management of the project and some additional investments and quick decision making can narrow this time gap to max of 03 yrs for full production as per my estimates.
> All these and the finally the need in showing confidence in Desi home grown products is why we should not buy the foreign fighters but promote Tejas. Instead of sourcing the Assembly line, source Tier 1 suppliers from abroad till Indian suppliers come of age but do not buy foreign. If an Indian private player is not capable of setting up an independent parallel line and HAL is refusing to take on additional responsibilities, get Saab to take on its original offer to set up the Tejas Mk2 production line with conditions and road map on developing Indian Tier1, Tier2 and Tier3 suppliers.

In terms of capability with Tejas MKA or Mk1A, the fighter is a very maneuverable, multi/omni role fighter which will have AESA radar, BVR missiles, SPJ and IFR capabilities. The F16 and Grippen at best would provide little extra range and payload at most but will cost four times more and will always be a foreign product.

JMT.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Oct 2016 14:36

Reading the thread, I am taken back in time to the Arjun vs T 90 debates.

Sad that nothing has changed in out Outlook and strategic reality.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 15:01

Pratyush wrote:Reading the thread, I am taken back in time to the Arjun vs T 90 debates.

Sad that nothing has changed in out Outlook and strategic reality.

I am preparing myself mentally for same arguments in 15yrs from now for F35 vs AMCA. I have become a whiner in this process. Do we have a special whining thread where I can take out my frustration on current govt??

Even after 70yrs we think and act like a colony. We were captive market for British industry then, we will be a captive market for Chinese (low/mid tech)/US (high tech) industry now.

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 26 Oct 2016 16:20

We definitely need a special whining thread on this topic. Although the Modi government has done some good things in Roads, Railways, Power, Oil & Gas and general economy, the performance of defence ministry is not something special. It is of course miles above UPA but not to the level that is expected of a potential superpower. Our defence policy does not make any sense and is very suboptimal at this point of time

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 26 Oct 2016 17:27

rohiths wrote:We definitely need a special whining thread on this topic. Although the Modi government has done some good things in Roads, Railways, Power, Oil & Gas and general economy, the performance of defence ministry is not something special. It is of course miles above UPA but not to the level that is expected of a potential superpower. Our defence policy does not make any sense and is very suboptimal at this point of time

One good thing is the real stakeholders in Roads, Railways, Power, Oil & Gas have not really hindered the Govt. from executing..

In defence ministry not only is the complex DPP Of the past + fear of scam allegations are impediments, but (in some cases) the requirements of the stakeholder itself has become a hindrance.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Oct 2016 17:53

The market for a cheap light fighter is there but only the Gripen has some sort of future (apart from the LCA).That too with cash-strapped clients.MIG missed the bus by not developing a MIG-21 replacement and so has the US after the F-16.The F-35 is too expensive,too complex and too difficult to maintain for "turd world" nations.

Nations such as India,with a two-front enemy ,working in concert,needs numbers.There's no cure for a small fleet.The PRC can simply saturate the skies with their vast numbers operating out of the Tibetan bases all along the McMahon Line.Our assets will be spread thin and wide,specially if Pak simultaneously makes another concerted bid to wrest Kashmir from us.The 45 sqd. number is the bare minimum that we will need from 2020.The IAF requires at least 1000 aircraft,heavy,med and light.There are only two cost-effective ways in which this can be done.Buy the cheapest fighter existing in the inventory (MIG-29UG or 35 variant,available at $30M++),build more Jags (UG std.) and establish another LCA prod line with at least 2 sqds of aircraft being built /yr.This is becos we have to pension off 200-300 MIG-21s and 27s before 2020 and immediately after that the 120 MIG21-Bisons will also need replacement! This amounts to 300-400 aircraft in a timeframe of about 6-7 years.during this time we can expect only 36 Rafales,about a similar no. 2 sqds of FGFAs and at the current going rate,just around 60 LCAs.Just 6-7 sqds when 15+ sqds are being pensioned off.Even if another 2 MKI sqds are built, the shortfall will still be for 120-200 aircraft at least and there's little point in inducting a NEW type ,,at high cost,whose development is at a dead end.
The offer of spares production,etc. will make us merely "garage and tooth mechanics" for the equivalent of the venerable Amby!

Moral of the story,drop the new line of fighter idea,ramp up LCA production to replace MIG-21/Bisons and to keep numbers and sqds happy,order more UG Fulcrums and Flankers and perhaps 2 more Jag sqds for GA/close support to replace the MIG-27s.Let the Rafales and FGFA s come when planned and available.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Oct 2016 17:58

The market for a cheap light fighter is there but only the Gripen has some sort of future (apart from the LCA).That too with cash-strapped clients

As time goes by the Gripen C will likely transition fully to the Gripen E/F which is not a light weight, or cheap by most standards. There are currently two aircraft that hit a lower price point than even the current Gripen C - The LCA, and the KAI F/A-50/T-50. The latter has already secured multiple export customers and is likely to get more business over time. Once fielded the LCA has an excellent opportunity to succeed in that space provided HAL invests money in properly marketing it with global partners and proper life cycle support. Out of the two it is more capable and will probably be price-competitive to the F/A-50 provided HAL gets a good sized production order.

Depending upon what happens with the USAF T-X competition, there is plenty of opportunity to leverage that platorm and turn it into a cheap light weight single engine figther. In fact, Boeing, right of the bat came out and said that they are leaving hooks in place for weaponization. That program is 350 aircraft strong just for the USAF training need, and one can expect the USN to modify it for their training need as well. You are probably looking at an order book of close to if not more than 500 trainer variants, more than enough to subsidize an affordable attack fighter variant. Part of the trainer to --> Light fighter conversion may be subsidized by the USAF (shortly after it picks the winner) by asking the OEM to create an aggressor aircraft out of it (this could explain why the performance requirements are what they are).

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 26 Oct 2016 18:48

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Mihir wrote:
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.
Thread is moving fast, you may have missed this post :

deejay wrote:Disclaimer - I write below with my limited information and understanding.

> if the foreign fighter comes into India, this is the end of LCA development. There are no more orders for a 4th Gen or a 4.5 Gen Single Engine fighter for the IAF. Forget IAF there are no large orders anywhere in the globe. Piecemeal replacement of crashes in existing fleet or a Sqn or two purchased elsewhere are the only likely sales. This is the last big order. This is why Lockheed and Saab are ready to sell out their lines to India. They get a pie of the Indian market which should have exclusively belonged to Tejas.
>

I read that post. I do not agree. If the F-16 is acquired, it will not kill the LCA, just how the PLAAF acquiring Su-35s didn't kill the J-11 program. There is a huge requirement for both, and having a private player manufacture F-16s in India would be an excellent way to kickstart the private industry's effort in delivering finished products (rather than components for DRDO designs).

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Oct 2016 18:49

brar_w wrote:
Depending upon what happens with the USAF T-X competition, there is plenty of opportunity to leverage that platorm and turn it into a cheap light weight single engine figther. In fact, Boeing, right of the bat came out and said that they are leaving hooks in place for weaponization. That program is 350 aircraft strong just for the USAF training need, and one can expect the USN to modify it for their training need as well. You are probably looking at an order book of close to if not more than 500 trainer variants, more than enough to subsidize an affordable attack fighter variant. Part of the trainer to --> Light fighter conversion may be subsidized by the USAF (shortly after it picks the winner) by asking the OEM to create an aggressor aircraft out of it (this could explain why the performance requirements are what they are).

^^How would combat Hawk look vis-à-vis weaponised T-X??

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Oct 2016 18:54

T/F-X will have two advantages, one would be economies of scale and a largely established global network of OEM partners (all major competitors have an established relationship with secondary non US sources for things like avionics and weapons) and the other would be performance. Keep in mind that the Hawk is not in the T-X competition because it could not meet the performance requirements. Hawk has an advantage in that it is available right now..but that also applies to the F/A-50 which has secured a few small orders from Thailand, Iraq, Philippians, and Indonesia and is being marketed for this very role even now. The T-X will probably carve a place for itself in between the really legacy attack trainer aircraft like the hawk and the higher performing single engine light weight fighters like the LCA and Gripen-C. This is precisely the space that the F/A-50 occupies now and who knows perhaps Lockheed and KAI win this and get to refresh the F/A-50 with better capability if they win. Leonardo is also interested in playing in this space and have been marketing an attack variant of the M-346 of late. Given that a version of this aircraft exists with Russia and China as well there is even more competition from non-western sources.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Oct 2016 19:10

rohitvats wrote:
JayS wrote: Whats the point of this statement Saar when not even LM can deliver 200 jets by 2020. May be God can, but I wouldn't depend on him for this one..
Peak production rate for F-16 in late-80s was 30 aircraft PER MONTH.

This is the meaning of "broad industrial base". One must recall that the US was building something 3000 planes a month in WW 2. In 1988 they were building 4 B-1 bombers a month - i.e 48 a year.

This is not just factory floor space, but tens of thousands of ready to make suppliers of components as well as skilled workers available all the time to be employed or retrenched.

We in India want to head in that direction - but we have not been through the pain of war that the US and Europeans learned from

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Oct 2016 19:17

I still think that if things are desperate we should have 40-50 "Combat Hawks" as a stop gap for CAS and light attack roles in the Western theater to tide us over a decade while LCA numbers are ramped up. I may be wrong and deejay already made a post saying that this would not be desirable. But none of the alternatives, sound desirable to me as things stand.

As far as I can tell now the MiG 21s that we were using as "multirole" including close air support will go - as will the MiG 27s. If Tejas is not available for that we will have attack helos. I hope the army at least goes in for LCH in numbers. But still - for interdiction say 100 km inside enemy territory - dumps, convoys and supply lines Su-30 and Jaguar seem overkill - and under utilization of an asset. This is where Hawks may fit in as a stop gap until we get LCA in some numbers

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Oct 2016 19:40

I am opposed to any purchase of 4th gen over the LCA. Simply because of the fact, that unless we learn how to create a domestic ecosystem on our own, we will never become self sufficient in strategic matters. Any imported solution at this point will not teach any thing that we have not already learnt by over 50 years of screwdriver assembly.

Btw, HAL has a ready made supplier base for multiple types and for multiple items. Why can that supplier base not be tapped to supply subsystems for LCA and increase the capacities for manufacture of the LCA. I think that in order to do so, HAL will need a firm order book of large numbers. But I see no reason why it cant be done.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Oct 2016 19:41

Philip wrote:http://defencenews.in/article/It-may-be ... -off-28892
It may be a while before Govt’s plan to build fighter jets in India takes off

Hate to tell folks I told you so, but take a look at the second last post on page 17 of this very thread. This is Indian bureaucracy at its best. Do not be fooled by these shiny new toys. Forget getting 90 fighters by 2020, the IAF will not even get them by 2030!

Pratyush wrote:Reading the thread, I am taken back in time to the Arjun vs T 90 debates.

Sad that nothing has changed in out Outlook and strategic reality.

The IAF is doing what the Army did not too long back. They funded three separate programs - Arjun acquisition (in limited numbers due to political pressure), T-90 acquisition (with license production) and T-72 upgradation. Back then, every sensible person said the Army does not have the resources to fund all three programs simultaneously. But the Army - as they say in the Armoured Corps - Bashed on Regardless. Today, the Arjun is no where on the scene beyond the paltry 124 Mk.1s in service + 118 Mk.2s on order, screwdrivergiri is in full swing for the T-90 and the latest estimate is 2,011 T-90s in service or on order for the Army and I am unsure as to how far the upgradation program is going on for the T-72. But I am confident that it is a success...because that is what the Army WANTS!

The same scenario is now playing out in the IAF. Spending resources on upgrading legacy fighters (MiG-29, Mirage 2000, Jaguar), funding the development of the FGFA, license production of the Rambha, acquisition of the Rafale, development of the Tejas and AMCA and now the latest - 90 phoren, shiny new, F-Solah fighters. Which of these do you think will suffer in the long run? Resources are finite.

What lesson have we learnt? Nothing

JayS wrote:I am preparing myself mentally for same arguments in 15yrs from now for F35 vs AMCA. I have become a whiner in this process. Do we have a special whining thread where I can take out my frustration on current govt??

Even after 70yrs we think and act like a colony. We were captive market for British industry then, we will be a captive market for Chinese (low/mid tech)/US (high tech) industry now.

The govt alone is not to blame for this mess. The IAF takes a good share of the blame along with the MoD Babus. Like I said earlier. Dysfunctional!

Mihir wrote:I read that post. I do not agree. If the F-16 is acquired, it will not kill the LCA, just how the PLAAF acquiring Su-35s didn't kill the J-11 program. There is a huge requirement for both, and having a private player manufacture F-16s in India would be an excellent way to kick start the private industry's effort in delivering finished products (rather than components for DRDO designs).

Can I have a whiff of what you are smoking? If the F-Solah, Paper-NG or any new fighter (single or twin engine) arrive, you can kiss the Tejas goodbye. There is NOT a huge requirement for both. We are struggling to meet the 42 squadron demand. The IAF will not get the funds - at least now - to go beyond that number. So where is this huge requirement you are referring to? Show me the numbers please. How exactly is screwdrivergiri of the F-Solah going to kick start the private industry? Is Pratt & Whitney going to give us engine tech on a platter? Is Raytheon going to show us the blueprints of the APG-80 AESA radar?

WRT to the PLAAF. The Su-35 - like EVERY other purchase the Chinese make - was bought for one purpose alone. It is called reverse engineering. That is how their aviation industry survives. A smart strategy, not an ethical one, but quite effective. In India, we do not do that. We do screwdrivergiri and learn nothing as a result.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Oct 2016 19:43

Mihir wrote:I read that post. I do not agree. If the F-16 is acquired, it will not kill the LCA, just how the PLAAF acquiring Su-35s didn't kill the J-11 program. There is a huge requirement for both, and having a private player manufacture F-16s in India would be an excellent way to kickstart the private industry's effort in delivering finished products (rather than components for DRDO designs).

Well, the PLAAF has ordered a grand total of 24 Su-35s while its annual production of fighters stands at ~36 J-10s + 25-30 Flankers + 20-25 JH-7s.

In fact, as I recall the deal was delayed for a long time because the Russians wanted a minimum order of 36 units while the Chinese wanted to squeeze that figure down as far as possible; the quid pro quo being the clearance of AL-41 exports.

The orders for the F-16 in contrast are projected to be 100+ compared to 120 for the Tejas. Sure they'll co-exist 'successfully' but should they be allowed to?

Lets not forget the Marut program too resulted in the delivery of 140+ aircraft to the IAF. The true measure of the success of a domestic program is whether it mitigates the need for imports (or better still, generates exports).