'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[arsimovich]

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.

If I am not much mistaken, Combat Hawk was an export only proposition. Has the IAF shown any interest in using this platform in CAS mission profile? Although radical, the idea does not sound bad under the current circumstances. Is there any information on what engine and radar is going to be used on it?

[Rakesh]

Combat Hawk does not equal F-Solah, Block 70. Not shiny enough.

A great idea, but not shiny enough.

[Mihir]

Can I have a whiff of what you are smoking?

No point getting nasty. We can have different views about this and still be polite, can't we? You still haven't given any evidence to show that the F-16s would stop working upon crossing the LoC from what I see. So perhaps I'm not the only one smoking something strong?

If the F-Solah, Paper-NG or any new fighter (single or twin engine) arrive, you can kiss the Tejas goodbye.

I may be wrong here, but the Tejas now has institutional support. It is not going anywhere but into large-scale squadron service. F-solah or not.

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.

RohitVats has written an excellent analysis of what the future requirements might be here. His conclusion is that 5 squadrons of the MRCA are necessary for the IAF to field 38 fighter squadrons by 2027. That is if the induction schedule he's proposed in the post is met "with clock-work precision".

Where are these 5 squadrons going to come from? LCA Mk-II? The status of that project itself is not clear, with some on this forum claiming that it has been dropped in favour of the Mk-1A, and others saying that it is still going strong. Who knows what the reality is? My point is that it would be far too risky. The IAF and MoD may not be prepared for such risk.

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?

Nobody has to give us anything on a platter. What it will do is equip a large number of Indian engineers and technicians with the skills required to commission, run, maintain, and optimise a modern aerospace manufacturing setup. If the cut their teeth on maintenance, overhaul, and upgrade work involving R&D, so much the better. That knowledge is sure to feed into the AMCA and other programs that India has going. This is real technology transfer; and goes beyond what the mere transmission of blueprints could achieve. Reminds me of something a Russian scientist said to some BRFite at Aero India (I think it was shiv): "What is technology? I am technology!"

This is exactly how the private automotive industry did it. Unlike government-owned enterprises like HAL, they are far more cutthroat and less averse to copying what foreign entities have done in the pursuit of profit. Hindustan Motors stagnated in spite of manufacturing the Ambassador and Contessa for years, but Tata and Mahindra were quick to absorb the know-how they acquired from partnerships with Mercedes-Benz/Jeep/Ford/Renault - as well as the skilled manpower they poached from the likes of Maruti-Suzuki - to develop their own designs. I have a little bit of personal experience with this, so I'm not just pulling arguments out of a hat.

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.

Fair enough. But this is not too different from what Modi/Parrikar are trying to achieve with the Make-in-India initiative for the aero industry. It is very similar to the Chinese purchasing Russian-made Su-27s and Su-30s while their J-10 and J-11 programmes matured.

[shiv]

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.

If I am not much mistaken, Combat Hawk was an export only proposition. Has the IAF shown any interest in using this platform in CAS mission profile? Although radical, the idea does not sound bad under the current circumstances. Is there any information on what engine and radar is going to be used on it?

It won't be anything like the old Hawk 200 air defence fighter with bulbous nose phor radar as per reports I have seen. It will be a dedicated ground attack aircraft with short range AAMs a laser designation pod, PGMs etc.

To be fair, the Air Force has not shown interest in F-16 or Gripen either let alone Combat Hawk. But the Hawk line is already here as are the engines. It won't be an F-16 but it will fulfil a role and free up some assets for other roles. In a hot war any damn asset we have will be used and this would be better than allowing numbers to keep on dwindling.

[Indranil]

What do you mean by not shown interest. An RFI was issued.

[Viv S]

Nobody has to give us anything on a platter. What it will do is equip a large number of Indian engineers and technicians with the skills required to commission, run, maintain, and optimise a modern aerospace manufacturing setup. If the cut their teeth on maintenance, overhaul, and upgrade work involving R&D, so much the better. That knowledge is sure to feed into the AMCA and other programs that India has going.

Not exactly. Our main challenge vis a vis the AMCA is design experience coupled with technological deficiencies at the component & especially software level.

What the F-16 delivers is experience with 4th gen manufacturing processes, something we're already fairly familiar with via the Su-30MKI & Tejas. The difference is really just matter of degrees.

Except of course that this will involve TASL as an integrator. On the other hand, TASL will still remain devoid of critical design experience and current & future manufacturing projects (FGFA, AMCA) will still be HAL-led.

[shiv]

What do you mean by not shown interest. An RFI was issued.

Yeah I forgot that the "IAF" has asked for RFIs for a "single engine fighter" as per reports- but not specifically F-16 or Gripen.

Here is one report
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 638_1.html

The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI), which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposals” (also known as a tender). However, it serves the same purpose, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.
<snip>
Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter.

The IAF is keeping an open mind. On Thursday, Raha stated: “I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet.”

[Viv S]

The Combat Hawk is non-starter because its utility only really exists in CI Ops or other unconventional warfare situations of the kind that the West (and now Russia) gets involved in. The IAF, in contrast, doesn't do CI Ops (aside from Casevac & CSAR). In any conventional war, the Hawk is simply unsurvivable until the enemy air force has been knocked out and the ADGE reduced. Unlike the IAF multi-role jets it cannot really defend itself and unlike the Jag, it cannot infil/exfil rapidly and has a limited payload.

[Viv S]

Yeah I forgot that the "IAF" has asked for RFIs for a "single engine fighter" as per reports- but not specifically F-16 or Gripen.

Only three single engined fighters in production today. (Not counting the Tejas & FA-50.)

[Mihir]

Viv, far be it for me to posit what's truly lacking as far as building the AMCA goes. Going by some old posts on this thread, it looks like the design teams are still struggling with simpler things like design for manufacture as well. That is definitely something an MII F-16 could help address.

Also, license manufacture is so much more than mere assembly. There's supply chain management, sourcing strategies, managing ToT to smaller suppliers so that they deliver the required quantity of parts and subsystems at the desired quality, component testing, integration testing, application of modifications to the design etc. etc. I would rather not go into specifics, but I entered the auto industry with similar ideas of the futility of license-manufacturing obsolescent designs (in one case, a design that was more obsolete that the latest in-house product). But I was surprised how quickly the know how acquired from the imported product fed into the next generation of designs. It requires a motivated and dynamic workforce led by aggressive managers to accomplish, but there's no shortage of those at TASL or Reliance.

[Rakesh]

No point getting nasty. We can have different views about this and still be polite, can't we? You still haven't given any evidence to show that the F-16s would stop working upon crossing the LoC from what I see. So perhaps I'm not the only one smoking something strong?

I am not being nasty. But if I came across like that to you, then I apologise. I did reply to that query on the F-16s. Perhaps you did not see it.

I may be wrong here, but the Tejas now has institutional support. It is not going anywhere but into large-scale squadron service. F-solah or not.

It is not. Neither has the IAF committed to a large scale order. At the institutional support that it has now, it is going the way of the Marut.

RohitVats has written an excellent analysis of what the future requirements might be here. His conclusion is that 5 squadrons of the MRCA are necessary for the IAF to field 38 fighter squadrons by 2027. That is if the induction schedule he's proposed in the post is met "with clock-work precision". Where are these 5 squadrons going to come from? LCA Mk-II? The status of that project itself is not clear, with some on this forum claiming that it has been dropped in favour of the Mk-1A, and others saying that it is still going strong. Who knows what the reality is? My point is that it would be far too risky. The IAF and MoD may not be prepared for such risk.

Getting 90 new fighters of an additional, new type is just not necessary. Forget the Mk.2, even the Mk.1A is more than sufficient for us now. India's aviation industry will not learn squat from getting 90 new fighters. The HAL Chief has said that from 2017, he can produce 16 Mk.1As each year. So what exactly is the point of these new fighters? Going by TS Raju's own statement, then in 2027 you can have 160 Tejas Mk.1As. If the F-16 deal goes through, let us touch base in 2027 and see how far HAL (or a private manufacturer) has reached in completing the 90 aircraft order. What the IAF needs RIGHT NOW is numbers not shiny new toys.

Nobody has to give us anything on a platter. What it will do is equip a large number of Indian engineers and technicians with the skills required to commission, run, maintain, and optimize a modern aerospace manufacturing setup. If the cut their teeth on maintenance, overhaul, and upgrade work involving R&D, so much the better. That knowledge is sure to feed into the AMCA and other programs that India has going. This is real technology transfer; and goes beyond what the mere transmission of blueprints could achieve. Remember what that Russian scientist said to some BRF member at Aero India (I think it was shiv): "What is technology? I am technology!"

Transferring a line from Lockheed Martin in the US and being told how the production line works is not equal to commissioning, running, maintaining, and optimizing a modern aerospace manufacturing setup. HAL is been doing exactly that with the Rambha right now for 10+ years and what has India's aviation industry learnt? Nothing. We did that with the MiG-21 and Jaguar as well. What have we learnt? Again Nothing. HAL has been overhauling and maintaining MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s for eons now. But yet when it came to a serious upgrade, the IAF had to go back to the manufacturer itself. What have we learnt? Again Nothing. There is no technology transfer. That is an erroneous term to continue to justify the purchase of phoren maal at the expense of learning anything of value in return.

Fair enough. But this is not too different from what Modi/Parrikar are trying to achieve with the Make-in-India initiative for the aero industry. It is very similar to the Chinese purchasing Russian-made Su-27s and Su-30s while their J-10 and J-11 programmes matured.

You are quite wrong in that assessment. What Modi/Parrikar are trying to achieve is Make in India, but what is ending up happening is quite the contrary. That is not Modi's or Parrikar's fault...but rather the blame lies with the IAF and the MoD who do not see eye to eye on anything. The J-10 is a direct copy of the Israeli Lavi program, while the J-11 is a direct copy of the Su-27. Is India now going to make a copy of the F-16, after these 90 fighters are done production past 2030? Absolutely not. This purchase is going to kill the Tejas. That is what the IAF wants and the MoD does not see. What China did with the J-10 and J-11 is they sucked up everything they could by reverse engineering every component. What we are doing is getting the parts from the suppliers in the US and then screwing them together. A BIG difference there. India will not be making the F-16 from the raw material stage. The J-11 has a Russian radar and a Russian engine or a Chinese one. The J-10 has a Chinese designed radar (may be a piece of crap or may be the best thing out there....but they designed it, it is THEIRS) and again a Russian engine or a Chinese one. What radar and engine are we going to put in the AMCA? What will we learn exactly from buying these 90 fighters?

Also Mihir, I will agree with you on one thing. The F-Solah, Block 70 is a great aircraft. Way better than the Mk.1A or the Mk.2 But then scrap the Tejas. I am not being sarcastic with you...I am serious. Scrap the AMCA program as well. Just buy the F-35D in 15 years from now. Because we have been doing that for the past 70 years, we might as well continue doing that in the future. The main problem to solve here is for India's aviation industry to mature, not buy a mature, proven - but sanction prone - platform. If the Block 70 is that great, why does'nt the USAF buy it? Forget the Block 70, just get the USAF to commit to one squadron of Block 60 (the UAE version) aircraft.

[Cybaru]

The Combat Hawk is non-starter because its utility only really exists in CI Ops or other unconventional warfare situations of the kind that the West (and now Russia) gets involved in. The IAF, in contrast, doesn't do CI Ops (aside from Casevac & CSAR). In any conventional war, the Hawk is simply unsurvivable until the enemy air force has been knocked out and the ADGE reduced. Unlike the IAF multi-role jets it cannot really defend itself and unlike the Jag, it cannot infil/exfil rapidly and has a limited payload.

IMO everything exists in an ecosystem. Not every plane has to be designed to fight it out alone. If the ecosystem has failed, the single gold plated plane has almost zero chance of making a dent in the situation.

Even AN-32 can be useful if we have a robust system in place. A G550 loaded with EW gear can blanket out large swathes of territory (look at G550 SEMA news. http://aviationweek.com/defense/sudan-r ... pability-1) allowing even toothless aircraft to play a pivotal role.

[Paul]

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

Hawks may not be able to take on AD guarding armored columns or carry heavy enough armament for defending themselves.

If the focus is on ground attack, we could have gone for another 100 Jaguars. They are sufficient for ground attack role in Rajasthan and with the coming Honeywell engine would have done well in other regions. We recently made 37 new Jaguars so the line and the skills are all inhouse for HAL.

[shiv]

Hawks may not be able to take on AD guarding armored columns or carry heavy enough armament for defending themselves.

If the focus is on ground attack, we could have gone for another 100 Jaguars. They are sufficient for ground attack role in Rajasthan and with the coming Honeywell engine would have done well in other regions. We recently made 37 new Jaguars so the line and the skills are all inhouse for HAL.

Jaguars are useless for close air support. They fly low and fast and will circle the entire state of Punjab after one pass before returning for another pass which is what a loitering CAS aircraft is required to do. MiG 27s and MiG 21s were better. Jags are good for single pass hitting of targets deep inside Shitistan. Hawks will be no worse than attack helos, and will be able to take out trains, convoys and dumps within 50-100 km of the frontline. Of course Jags can pepper tank formations with cluster bombs - but if there is local air superiority Hawks should be able to hold their own - especially if equipped with targeting pods and standoff munitions

[shiv]

IMO everything exists in an ecosystem. Not every plane has to be designed to fight it out alone. If the ecosystem has failed, the single gold plated plane has almost zero chance of making a dent in the situation.

Even AN-32 can be useful if we have a robust system in place. A G550 loaded with EW gear can blanket out large swathes of territory (look at G550 SEMA news. http://aviationweek.com/defense/sudan-r ... pability-1) allowing even toothless aircraft to play a pivotal role.

True. In war everything will be used. And has been used. Sometimes with tragic losses and at other times with spectacular success.

[Cybaru]

If we want private participation in Aviation industry and grow this segment, produce a dual purpose plane which has civilian use as primary and military use as secondary. Something like the Airbus(319/210)/Boeing (737Max) line in India for local consumption and dual purpose. Military use would be awacs/SEMA/transport/MPA/light refueler roles and all sales in the ASEAN region get funneled through this factory. The market for defense is extremely high risk. Even the mention of recession has defense budgets get slashed under "precautionary measures". And it does not make any sense to put in energy where the max order size is 90. Its just not sustainable and the gains if any will be minimal. Cut HAL out of this, get TASL and L&T to put in a joint bid to make this.

[Pratyush]

Adding a subtype for specific roles to the IAF is something that IAF is not very keen on. The reasons are understandable, as it is not interested in one trick pony. It wants multi role jets and justifiably so. Cold hard fact remains that tech transfer will not do the job that India needs it to do.

The only cloice for the IAF for a long terms and lasting impact in terms of capability building is LCA. By identifying the bottle necks in production and eliminating them. Jusut because the HAL chief says that with present investment 16 LCA can be made, dosent meant that ths the absolute limit of production per year.

The nembers can be changed if the numbers of orders are increased. Ideally it should be that MK1A and 1B or 1C will continue to be build till the MK2 is not perfected. regardless of the fact that it may take 5 years of 7 years or 10 years for the MK2. When the MK2 takes off, the orders are shifted to it.

Continue with the exercise till the AMCA comes on stream. rinse and repeat the maturation process as the case may be with the AMCA.

But no more imports. Because the alternative to domestic capability is domestic capability and never import and definitely not so called TOT.

[Mihir]

It is not. Neither has the IAF committed to a large scale order. At the institutional support that it has now, it is going the way of the Marut.

These days all you hear from the IAF and it's voices in the media are words of support and encouragement. The cribbing comes from has-beens like Matheswaran, whose influence is decidedly limited.

Forget the Mk.2, even the Mk.1A is more than sufficient for us now.

The main issue with the Mk-1A is the lack of range and time on station. It is a great light fighter/strike aircraft, but it cannot do what a medium like the F-16 Blk 60/70 can. If the IAF is willing to live with a reduction in combat capability in order to support a fleet of some 200 Mk-1A's, I'm all for it. But unfortunately, that won't happen. And so here we are...

The HAL Chief has said that from 2017, he can produce 16 Mk.1As each year. So what exactly is the point of these new fighters?

I thought we were discussing the Mk-II and not the Mk-1A? Dr. Christopher has said that the Mk-II won't be ready for series production until 2024-2025.

Transferring a line from Lockheed Martin in the US and being told how the production line works is not equal to commissioning, running, maintaining, and optimizing a modern aerospace manufacturing setup.

I disagree. They don't just disassemble the thing and replicate it wholesale in India. There are multiple modifications that need to be made to suite local conditions and take local conditions into account. In the process, a lot of information and data flows back and forth between the OEM and the local manufacturer, and much can be learned from the effort.

HAL is been doing exactly that with the Rambha right now for 10+ years and what has India's aviation industry learnt? Nothing. We did that with the MiG-21 and Jaguar as well. What have we learnt? Again Nothing. HAL has been overhauling and maintaining MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s for eons now. But yet when it came to a serious upgrade, the IAF had to go back to the manufacturer itself. What have we learnt? Again Nothing. There is no technology transfer. That is an erroneous term to continue to justify the purchase of phoren maal at the expense of learning anything of value in return.

Fully agree. HAL hasn't been able to do much, just like Hindustan Motors, led by a lackadasical bunch who preferred to rest on their laurels rather than grow aggressively, failed to achieve much with the Ambassador and Contessa. The Tatas and Mahindras on the other hand, used the knowledge gained and applied it to future designs with great success. The success of the Bolero, Scorpio, or the Indica wouldn't have happened so quickly if not for collaboration with more established majors.

This purchase is going to kill the Tejas. That is what the IAF wants and the MoD does not see.

If BRF can see it based on public domain information, then the MoD can too. They're nobody's fools.

The J-10 is a direct copy of the Israeli Lavi program, while the J-11 is a direct copy of the Su-27. Is India now going to make a copy of the F-16, after these 90 fighters are done production past 2030? Absolutely not.

My point is that it doesn't have to. But the technology and know-how can give a boost to Indian R&D efforts.

The J-11 has a Russian radar and a Russian engine or a Chinese one. The J-10 has a Chinese designed radar (may be a piece of crap or may be the best thing out there....but they designed it, it is THEIRS) and again a Russian engine or a Chinese one. What radar and engine are we going to put in the AMCA? What will we learn exactly from buying these 90 fighters?

If you're asking me for specifics of the design, then I have no idea whatsoever. The AMCA is likely to be powered by the GE F-414. For that it is going to have to undergo all sorts of integration and testing. Could it help if there existed a manpower base and engine test facilities already capable of doing this in India? Is this something the F-16 production setup could help with? How about radar test facilities? Prototyping technologies? Experience with design for manufacture? How about tapping a supplier of some critical component for a few extra parts to use on the AMCA prototype as an interim measure until local solutions are developed?

There are many ways this could go. If it goes to a private player, it could give local efforts a pretty significant shot in the arm, like the auto industry's collaboration initiatives did. Or it could end up in a dead end if the MoD just hands it over to HAL and HAL displays little initiative to learn from it like it did with the Su-30MKI.

[shiv]

Adding a subtype for specific roles to the IAF is something that IAF is not very keen on. The reasons are understandable, as it is not interested in one trick pony. It wants multi role jets and justifiably so. Cold hard fact remains that tech transfer will not do the job that India needs it to do.

The MiG 29 and Jaguar are one-trick ponies. One is attack only and other is air defence only. Neither are suitable for close air support. Of course I have seen the argument between army and air force about CAS. Air Force cannot always provide CAS where and when the army needs it but AF will "shorten the war" by interdiction of C&C and logistics lines some way behind the frontline - causing enemy action to peter out in a few days. This does nothing immediately evident for the Jawan on the frontline which is why the army wants an armed air wing of its own. sooner of later BSF will want one too for the same reasons

[Cybaru]

[

Forget the Mk.2, even the Mk.1A is more than sufficient for us now.

The main issue with the Mk-1A is the lack of range and time on station. It is a great light fighter/strike aircraft, but it cannot do what a medium like the F-16 Blk 60/70 can. If the IAF is willing to live with a reduction in combat capability in order to support a fleet of some 200 Mk-1A's, I'm all for it. But unfortunately, that won't happen. And so here we are...

The range it has and the onstation time was their requirement!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nachiket]

Shiv, what kind of CAS mission do you see the Jaguar not being able to carry out? The Mig-29 upgrade also adds full ground-attack capability to the aircraft.

[Rakesh]

These days all you hear from the IAF and it's voices in the media are words of support and encouragement. The cribbing comes from has-beens like Matheswaran, whose influence is decidedly limited.

Has the support and encouragement translated into orders? It was Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha who has gone on RECORD stating that the IAF has no interest in the Mark 2. Therefore all this talk of support and encouragement - while true and documented - means nothing if no orders are coming. This is like telling your girlfriend - not you specifically - that you love her deeply, but actually your eye is on Playboy's playmate of the month. Isn't that what the IAF is doing here? Fantastic aircraft, world-class, better than even Mirage 2000....but guess what we need 90 Block 70s. There is a disconnect here.

The main issue with the Mk-1A is the lack of range and time on station. It is a great light fighter/strike aircraft, but it cannot do what a medium like the F-16 Blk 60/70 can. If the IAF is willing to live with a reduction in combat capability in order to support a fleet of some 200 Mk-1A's, I'm all for it. But unfortunately, that won't happen. And so here we are...

The Mk.1A has faults. It has warts. It is not perfect. Just like the F-16, Block 1 was not perfect either. But Lockheed Martin worked on it. They developed it into something quite great. HAL is not being given that opportunity by the IAF. The Fundaar - for example - is not great either. Yet the PAF has nothing but 100% support for it. From ACM Sohail Aman down they support it and are developing it further. What the IAF wants is something world class at the get-go and if it is not, then from the Air Chief down it is nothing but empty words of support and encouragement. This lack of range and time on station is something initial versions of the MiG-21 and the MiG-29 suffered from as well. But yet the IAF bought it in numbers! That is not a valid reason to not buy the Mk.1A when the IAF's past decision making shows otherwise.

I thought we were discussing the Mk-II and not the Mk-1A? Dr. Christopher has said that the Mk-II won't be ready for series production until 2024-2025.

We are discussing the Tejas. The Mk.1A is eons better than the MiG-21 it was supposed to replace. Yes it has problems, but those problems are workable if the IAF is willing...which it is not.

I disagree. They don't just disassemble the thing and replicate it wholesale in India. There are multiple modifications that need to be made to suite local conditions and take local conditions into account. In the process, a lot of information and data flows back and forth between the OEM and the local manufacturer, and much can be learned from the effort.

Would you agree the same happened with the MiG-21 production, the Jaguar production and the Rambha production. What have we learned from these three? All this talk about India not having a reliable supplier base - after producing three different types of combat aircraft - for the Tejas defies logic.

If BRF can see it based on public domain information, then the MoD can too. They're nobody's fools.

This is the same MoD who cancelled a repeat order of 126 Mirage 2000s for a multi-vendor situation. They are definitely fools.
This is the same MoD who said no to six Krivak Class frigates for the price of three in the late 90s. They are undeniably fools.
I can go on. These fools don't know the difference between a bullet and a pencil. This is the legacy the British left us. Babudom.

My point is that it doesn't have to. But the technology and know-how can give a boost to Indian R&D efforts.

Let us agree to disagree there

If you're asking me for specifics of the design, then I have no idea whatsoever. The AMCA is likely to be powered by the GE F-414. For that it is going to have to undergo all sorts of integration and testing. Could it help if there existed a manpower base and engine test facilities already capable of doing this in India? Is this something the F-16 production setup could help with? How about radar test facilities? Prototyping technologies? Experience with design for manufacture? How about tapping a supplier of some critical component for a few extra parts to use on the AMCA prototype as an interim measure until local solutions are developed?

I do not see how buying F-16, Paper-NG or any other aircraft helps with what you have said above. Please illustrate. You know Dassault was right when they vehemently refused to guarantee the quality of Rafales being built by HAL. India's aviation is not mature enough for that. And by killing the Tejas, we are just lending credence to Dassault's claim. Why would any manufacturer help a future, potential competitor. No Saar, we have to develop this on our own.

[Kartik]

By the way, ADA and HAL are competing. HAL with Mk1A, and ADA with Mk2. True story. Don't ask for any more details.

So unless and until they themselves don't resolve their own internal squabbling over which design to go for, can we expect the customer to put their faith in them and wait while a whole bunch of jets are retired?

[Rakesh]

Kartik: Competition does not necessarily translate into squabbling.

The YF-16 and YF-17 both competed against each other for the USAF's light fighter competition. The YF-16 won and became the F-16. The YF-17 lived to see another day and became the F-18A/B/C/D/E/F/G!

Similarly, the YF-22 and the YF-23 competed against each other for the USAF's future air superiority fighter. The YF-22 won.

Similarly, the JSF had a competition as well. Boeing's X-32 and Lockheed Martin's X-35, with the latter winning.

Competitions are not necessarily a bad thing if there is a clear vision. Alas, that is lacking in India.

[Indranil]

Mihir sir, don't go by marketing brochures. F-16/LCA mk1/Gripen C have all similar internal fuel fractions and engines with similar SFCs. Expect their combat ranges to be similar, with F-16 having a slight edge.

[nachiket]

Kartik: Competition does not necessarily translate into squabbling.

The YF-16 and YF-17 both competed against each other for the USAF's light fighter competition. The YF-16 won and became the F-16. The YF-17 lived to see another day and became the F-18A/B/C/D/E/F/G!

Similarly, the YF-22 and the YF-23 competed against each other for the USAF's future air superiority fighter. The YF-22 won.

Similarly, the JSF had a competition as well. Boeing's X-32 and Lockheed Martin's X-35, with the latter winning.

Competitions are not necessarily a bad thing if there is a clear vision. Alas, that is lacking in India.

The problem here being that ADA needs HAL to manufacture a working prototype of the Mk2. HAL will always treat it as a step-child.

Secondly if ACM Raha says IAF is not inetersted in Mk2, why is the ADA bothering with it at all? It will only end up like the Arjun.

[Rakesh]

By the way, there have been incidents of the Fundaar crashing. The PAF will not admit to it because of H&D, but that is besides the point. Mihir, just imagine what would happen to the Tejas if it crashed. You will have mass hysteria among the phoren-aircraft-are-best lobby. They will shout from the rooftops --> see the Tejas is crap. It is useless. It cannot even fly.

In fact a Tejas crash is bound to happen. Just a basic law of flight. Each time you take to the sky, there exists a potential of a crash. But I don't even want to think of what will happen. It is that scary. Had the Tejas crashed during its developmental phase, there will be no Tejas today. I say that with full confidence.

[Indranil]

By the way, ADA and HAL are competing. HAL with Mk1A, and ADA with Mk2. True story. Don't ask for any more details.

So unless and until they themselves don't resolve their own internal squabbling over which design to go for, can we expect the customer to put their faith in them and wait while a whole bunch of jets are retired?

Actually, these can be settled in a few ways.
1. Marry HAL and ADA. Will not happen.
2. Marry ADA to a private sector major. Task them with building the Mk2. HAL is making presentation after presentation about how Mk1A obviates the Mk2. ADA/IAF is not convinced. Let there be a faceoff. This F-16/Gripen screwdrivergiri will not generate any actionable "knowledge" or "expertise". The marriage of ADA and (say) Tata will relieve ADA of the "rahu" status, and generate a true design house with manufacturing capability challenging HAL. The problem is HAL makes many of Tejas's parts and will not cooperate with Mk2. MoD will have to intervene and use the other parts of Mk1A as ransom.

[Indranil]

The problem here being that ADA needs HAL to manufacture a working prototype of the Mk2. HAL will always treat it as a step-child.

Secondly if ACM Raha says IAF is not inetersted in Mk2, why is the ADA bothering with it at all? It will only end up like the Arjun.

Actually, I have more friends in ADA than HAL and hence my view is biased. But Mk1A is trumped up much more than required. I support it, but all this 600 kgs lighter is crap. 100-200 kgs is approximately it.

By the way, did others notice that the IAF day show was more energetic than the Bahrain show? Because production SP1 is 350 kgs lighter than the LSPs, thanks to no instrumentation.

[Indranil]

I would love it LM came in with the KF-X proposal to manufacture in India with Tata. That will be learning that is not present in India currently. LM does not have any firm orders, we provide that. They manufacture them from a modified F-16 assembly in India. I am all for that.

[Marten]

Actually Mark 1A is a boon for both, because it gives ADA time to wrap up Mk2 and plan upfront to work with 3 or 4 Tier 1 suppliers/integrators. We need healthy competition and the funds for the industry to grow. Not imported screwdrivers.

[nachiket]

Actually, I have more friends in ADA than HAL and hence my view is biased. But Mk1A is trumped up much more than required. I support it, but all this 600 kgs lighter is crap. 100-200 kgs is approximately it.

I never believed that 600kg crap. Kartik asked me sometime back on this thread (or LCA thread) where I got that number from. I clearly remember reading it here. But can't find that article again.

Do you know from your contacts what the situation is now? Are both teams (ADA and HAL) furiously working to get their respective designs prototyped? Has ADA even frozen the design at this point? This endless arguing and bickering only strengthens to the "Let's by the super-duper F-16" fanboy camp.

By the way, did others notice that the IAF day show was more energetic than the Bahrain show? Because production SP1 is 350 kgs lighter than the LSPs, thanks to no instrumentation.

350kgs? In that case, maybe the ~100kg reduction in the Mk1A would be enough to improve performance and endurance enough for the IAF to be happy. No need for the Mk2, except perhaps for the Navy.

[nachiket]

Although I have to say, more than an improvement in the T:W ratio, I was looking forward to improved area-ruling and reduced drag in the Mk2 compared to the Mk1. That was originally on the cards, when the Mk2 was first proposed. I don't know if that's still the case. That can of course never happen in the Mk1A, which is a shame.

[Indranil]

Synergy between ADA and HAL with respect to LCA is a chimera. We have to live with it. There is push from IAF to develop Mk2. I am hearing that GoI is supportive, but no funds allotted yet. LCA Mk2 is a logical conclusion to LCA's learning. In my view, ADA should support HAL on Mk1A, and buy support for Mk2 in return. Mk2 can undergo more extensive changes than currently portrayed. Right now, Mk2 only accords extra fuel, more thrust and internal SPJ. There is significant scope of improvements. Even if they don't make it stealthy. Atleast they can introduce better wing body blending, sharper pylons, and 3 pylons in the fuselage.

[Kartik]

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?

No, but then you have another foreign OEM, with an established record, which has a big stake in setting up an Indian assembly line and train the private sector guys to build the jets. Let HAL and ADA first focus on resolving their squabbles and get down to building at least 16 Tejas per year. Nothing points to them being able to scale up to being able to build 200 Tejas fighters in a reasonable timescale.

[Rakesh]

Kartik: Please tell me you meant that in humour There is no way LM is going to produce 120 F-16s in three years.

[Mihir]

I would love it LM came in with the KF-X proposal to manufacture in India with Tata. That will be learning that is not present in India currently. LM does not have any firm orders, we provide that. They manufacture them from a modified F-16 assembly in India. I am all for that.

You're being creative and thinking out of the box. It will never fly with the MoD or IAF

Mihir, just imagine what would happen to the Tejas if it crashed. You will have mass hysteria among the phoren-aircraft-are-best lobby. They will shout from the rooftops --> see the Tejas is crap. It is useless. It cannot even fly.

Agreed. Folks will be jumping over themselves to claim credit for coining the term "Flying Coffin". But then again, I have hope. The Dhruv has suffered more than its fair share of crashes, but news coverage has been shockingly sober.

[nachiket]

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

No, but then you have another foreign OEM, with an established record, which has a big stake in setting up an Indian assembly line and train the private sector guys to build the jets. Let HAL and ADA first focus on resolving their squabbles and get down to building at least 16 Tejas per year. Nothing points to them being able to scale up to being able to build 200 Tejas fighters in a reasonable timescale.

If what you said now was what the original poster meant, he would have said that. But he brought up the bogey of not having 200 Tejas flying by 2020 as being a failure of HAL/ADA. And LM was somehow going to make that happen was the implicit message. I called it out as the hogwash it was.

[NRao]

Kartik: Please tell me you meant that in humour There is no way LM is going to produce 120 F-16s in three years.

LM, right now, produces one per month. At its peak they produced 30 a month.

[ShauryaT]

I would love it LM came in with the KF-X proposal to manufacture in India with Tata. That will be learning that is not present in India currently. LM does not have any firm orders, we provide that. They manufacture them from a modified F-16 assembly in India. I am all for that.

Could potentially be a Mark III Tejas also. The temptation to go foreign is very tempting. What we need is, someone higher up to simply say NO to foreign designed single engine fighters. I refuse to believe the country does not have the base competence to evolve to a J-10 or a K-FX type of aircraft, if we put the right focus and money behind it. Mark III can be that fancy S intake, internal weapons and more stealth? Engines and radars need as similar focus.

Arrest the temporary numbers shortfall with the Mig-35, the only downside to it is higher operations cost but will keep IAF happy. Modi and team need to understand that Make in India cannot be at the cost of Made in India!!