'Make in India' Single engined fighter

arvin · Post by **arvin** » 29 Oct 2016 18:07

>>>LCA for it to reach 120 will need engines. No order for engines has been placed till now.

Probably things are going well with kaveri, along with french assistance might be nearing f404 thrust levels.

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 29 Oct 2016 18:44

arvin wrote:>>>LCA for it to reach 120 will need engines. No order for engines has been placed till now.

Probably things are going well with kaveri, along with french assistance might be nearing f404 thrust levels.

The orders haven't been placed as there is uncertainty beyond 40. Kaveri has gone nowhere. LCA is nothing but a science project as things stand now

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Oct 2016 18:51

is it possible for someone to give me a straight answer please .. all technicalities aside who among the main contenders can supply in numbers faster ? LM or SAAB ..or is it just a function of money available to spend by vendor ??

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 29 Oct 2016 18:56

http://in.reuters.com/article/india-def ... NKCN12T065

http://www.india.com/news/india/narendr ... a-1621421/

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india-m ... ers-354389

Which one is it going to be? SU35 may be or Mig 35. No chance. F18 or F16? Grippen people will be more than willing now. Hope it is Rafale, but I think it it is a long chance.

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 29 Oct 2016 19:01

The only hope for LCA is the tender getting delayed beyond 2017. The F16 line is scheduled for closure by Q2 2017 and once the line closes it is unlikely to be restarted. Keeping fingers crossed that our babus to deliver their usual delays

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 29 Oct 2016 19:04

Why is the argument being made that f16 will be out of date. If we get the line, I am sure, it will be upgraded from blk 70 overtime. It will never be a f35, bUT throughout its life it will remain a significant fighter produced in volume.

Amoghvarsha · Post by **Amoghvarsha** » 29 Oct 2016 19:09

Yagnasri wrote:http://in.reuters.com/article/india-def ... NKCN12T065

http://www.india.com/news/india/narendr ... a-1621421/

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india-m ... ers-354389

Which one is it going to be? SU35 may be or Mig 35. No chance. F18 or F16? Grippen people will be more than willing now. Hope it is Rafale, but I think it it is a long chance.

Considering that the last of the 200 fighters may only be inducted in the AF near 2030-32 it needs to be a fighter that can be upgraded and have life till 2050.Only Shornet fulfills that cricteria.Its should be the Shornet.

Amoghvarsha · Post by **Amoghvarsha** » 29 Oct 2016 19:10

Guddu wrote:Why is the argument being made that f16 will be out of date. If we get the line, I am sure, it will be upgraded from blk 70 overtime. It will never be a f35, bUT throughout its life it will remain a significant fighter produced in volume.

The Ariframe will likely remain the same.Thats a big issue if we are to operate the aircraft till 2050.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Oct 2016 19:17

rohiths wrote:The only hope for LCA is the tender getting delayed beyond 2017. The F16 line is scheduled for closure by Q2 2017 and once the line closes it is unlikely to be restarted. Keeping fingers crossed that our babus to deliver their usual delays

There is padding in Lockheed's near-term order potential to extend it by another year. The Gripen-E is already building a brand new production line (with TOT) in brazil, and that aircraft is not expected to declare IOC before 2023-2025 time-frame. It could be that SAAB plans on offering a C-->E transition however the C would most likely be uncompetitive when pitted with medium class requirements. Lockheed could probably push aircraft through much faster since they probably have a decent surplus capacity in the existing line to produce at least the initial squadron worth before moving everything over. They are probably also going to package mostly integrated avionics and mission systems into the India specific variant whereas the Gripen+E hasn't even flown yet and the one with the full load of mission systems won't be flying for a few years still.

While 200-300 order size does change the equation sizably (makes the case for a foreign aircraft somewhat stronger) it still is something that could potentially be hedged by ordering a few dozen more short term MKI's while the LCA is given some breathing room. If not, I would at the very least shift this to include the rafale which is already having its infra created to support the IAF for decades. At least let them compete and evaluate them as far as cost effectiveness is concerned.

I just don't see how the Gripen-E can compete on cost while having three different final assembly lines, and at least two TOT agreements for certain components. It can most certainly offer up technology and capability at or exceeding F-16 levels, but hitting the price, even with a smaller, lighter aircraft is going to be tough when the company is making financial and technology investments to support three customers all of whom want to produce in house.

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Oct 2016 20:14

Looks like they are planning a MIG 27 and jaguar replacement. The Jaguar engine upgrade made no sense and those two will need to be replaced. That replacement needs really long legs and the only affordable single engine flying today that fits the bill is f16. The Gripe E is a paper plane and the full capability there is 2025. F16 bk 70 is available now, and deliveries can start in less than 12 months from date of signing.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 29 Oct 2016 20:35

vina wrote:Looks like they are planning a MIG 27 and jaguar replacement. The Jaguar engine upgrade made no sense and those two will need to be replaced. That replacement needs really long legs and the only affordable single engine flying today that fits the bill is f16. The Gripe E is a paper plane and the full capability there is 2025. F16 bk 70 is available now, and deliveries can start in less than 12 months from date of signing.

How does the Gripen compare with the F16 Blk 60/70? The Gripen appears to be in the LCA or LCA MKII category.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Oct 2016 20:44

^^^" I seriously do not understand your insistence on criteria that "if and only if 200 LCA can be built by 2020/21". Would you place the same criteria for F16 that "if and only if we LM can manufacture 100 (not even 200, just 100 that MMRCS req is) F16 jets in India by 2020/21". Why this unfair demand from LCA only??"

It's not a demand from the LCA alone. If LM can't deliver 200 jets by 2021, they should not be contenders either. The 'magic 200' number is the IAF shortfall by that date. If there were no need to replace 200 a/c by then and we had units that could eke it out until 2028, betting on the LCA/AMCA is a no brainer.

BTW, I doubt that SAAB could deliver 200 a/c by then. The only one who has shown this capability is LM where at peak they produced 1 a day. I also very much doubt that HAL will be able to churn out the 140 LCAs it has orders for in under ten years

It's all about rapid delivery now since we've sat on our hands and other appendages since 2000. If we knew how to plan, we would not be in this mess now. The WSJ infographic is here

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/ima ... 180905.jpg

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 29 Oct 2016 20:51

The 42 squadron number is a magic number so as to speak and not a bottoms up number based on strategy and the desired capabilities. The IAF requirement can be higher or lower than 42 squadrons. No country in the world has done a one to one replacement of 3rd gen plane with a 4th gen plane. Even the PLAAF has reduced the inventory by almost 50%. We should have realistic plan based on capabilities required and not just top level numbers

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Oct 2016 20:53

vina wrote:Looks like they are planning a MIG 27 and jaguar replacement. The Jaguar engine upgrade made no sense and those two will need to be replaced. That replacement needs really long legs and the only affordable single engine flying today that fits the bill is f16. The Gripe E is a paper plane and the full capability there is 2025. F16 bk 70 is available now, and deliveries can start in less than 12 months from date of signing.

Exactly. Also, the real sweetener offered by LM is the sole exporter status for Block 70 (I would however, check that the earlier blocks are not a loophole). New build F-16s have a long future for those who are not willing to be part of the US' black box network of F-35s. Not to mention spares for the 4,000 existing F-16s in service.

What we have to insist on with the F-16s is that we get to integrate our own missiles and munitions. And, start by localizing consumables (seals, gaskets, fluids, nut, bolts etc). These are very high margin items and we could export these. Just by doing the two, we can offset a huge amount of the spend while building the ecosystem.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Oct 2016 21:24

So this thing is going forward. It is a sad day. We are going for another record. We are the first country to build our own product's competitors, right here at home. Congratulations. I have to learn not to give a damn about IAF/MOD affairs anymore.

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Oct 2016 21:32

brar_w wrote:
rohiths wrote:The only hope for LCA is the tender getting delayed beyond 2017. The F16 line is scheduled for closure by Q2 2017 and once the line closes it is unlikely to be restarted. Keeping fingers crossed that our babus to deliver their usual delays
There is padding in Lockheed's near-term order potential to extend it by another year. The Gripen-E is already building a brand new production line (with TOT) in brazil, and that aircraft is not expected to declare IOC before 2023-2025 time-frame. It could be that SAAB plans on offering a C-->E transition however the C would most likely be uncompetitive when pitted with medium class requirements. Lockheed could probably push aircraft through much faster since they probably have a decent surplus capacity in the existing line to produce at least the initial squadron worth before moving everything over. They are probably also going to package mostly integrated avionics and mission systems into the India specific variant whereas the Gripen+E hasn't even flown yet and the one with the full load of mission systems won't be flying for a few years still.

While 200-300 order size does change the equation sizably (makes the case for a foreign aircraft somewhat stronger) it still is something that could potentially be hedged by ordering a few dozen more short term MKI's while the LCA is given some breathing room. If not, I would at the very least shift this to include the rafale which is already having its infra created to support the IAF for decades. At least let them compete and evaluate them as far as cost effectiveness is concerned.

I just don't see how the Gripen-E can compete on cost while having three different final assembly lines, and at least two TOT agreements for certain components. It can most certainly offer up technology and capability at or exceeding F-16 levels, but hitting the price, even with a smaller, lighter aircraft is going to be tough when the company is making financial and technology investments to support three customers all of whom want to produce in house.

i suppose commonality with engines and avionics can help ??

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Oct 2016 21:47

Iirc LM started fulfilling Iraqi f16 orders within two years of signature. And that order was very small and came in two partial orders a year apart.

If we are looking at the numbers suggested in this non official sources article above, expect a few sqds to come directly from texas. How many can they deliver and how soon? That would hugely depend on how fast the decision is made...But one expects the well greased production and supply chain of LM to start chugging them out faster than any other save perhaps Boeing. I don't expect lead times to be the standard 36 month bit...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Oct 2016 22:15

Is there no law against a thread moving so fast?

So, 200-300 Indian order? Plus "export"s? That has got to mean at least 35-40 planes per year.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Oct 2016 22:28

45 squadrons was a 90s requirement for IAF 2 front war.
ideally need 65 squadrons for based on IDSA paper.
45 is challenging : holding pattern on one front while subduing other

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 29 Oct 2016 22:31

Question: How does f-16 block 70 / f-16 Super Viper compare against current Chinese aircraft and the emerging Chinese aircraft?
Does F-16 become obseleate by 2025? Or will it serve India up to 2030's!

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 29 Oct 2016 22:37

so will we sell spares to PAF?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Oct 2016 23:02

manjgu wrote:so will we sell spares to PAF?

Of course, just that they might have a few more defects than the norm.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Oct 2016 23:09

Indranil wrote:So this thing is going forward. It is a sad day. We are going for another record. We are the first country to build our own product's competitors, right here at home. Congratulations. I have to learn not to give a damn about IAF/MOD affairs anymore.

Not sure I follow. Orders have been placed for 140 LCAs if I understand the press reports correctly. That will take HAL ~10 years to fulfill. That plus the LM ecosystem ought to be a great foundation to build the AMCA which ought to be our next step.

What I don't mind seeing go is the science project called the FGFA which will not come if ever, before the mid 2030s.

All this could have been avoided if we'd ordered the 126 M2Ks in 2000 or in the 1980s when we took a left turn and went with the MiG 29s.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Oct 2016 23:15

NRao wrote:Is there no law against a thread moving so fast?

So, 200-300 Indian order? Plus "export"s? That has got to mean at least 35-40 planes per year.

"At peak production in 1987, under the stewardship of General Dynamics, which sold its aircraft manufacturing business to Lockheed in 1993, Fort Worth was pumping out one aircraft per day."

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

Say what one might about LM, they know how to pump them out. This is about the F-35

"By 2020, one year after the Fort Worth plant hits its full 17-jet-per-month stride, there will be more than 600 F-35s, including nearly 180 sent to U.S. allies.

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016 ... ls/128120/

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 29 Oct 2016 23:49

where are the contracts for LCA orders? it was a feint to get imported toys

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Oct 2016 23:56

VinodTK wrote:Question: How does f-16 block 70 / f-16 Super Viper compare against current Chinese aircraft and the emerging Chinese aircraft?
Does F-16 become obseleate by 2025? Or will it serve India up to 2030's!

Quite favorably vs. Current crop and also against bulk of non 5 gen future fleet. In absence of clear data, it is hard to say much about their stealth fighters, but if they function as intended, the f16s well find it very difficult...

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Oct 2016 01:09

With unlimited money chinese can also buy senators, congressmen to bring a pressler kind of bill against Bharat and sanction us on any pretext.

US is a very very unpredictable country, we may get in trouble like pakistan.

MohdKav · Post by **MohdKav** » 30 Oct 2016 01:18

manjgu wrote:so will we sell spares to PAF?

Just like we could buy or sell spares from or to China !

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Oct 2016 01:33

kit wrote:is it possible for someone to give me a straight answer please .. all technicalities aside who among the main contenders can supply in numbers faster ? LM or SAAB ..or is it just a function of money available to spend by vendor ??

LM..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Oct 2016 01:37

JayS wrote:
kit wrote:is it possible for someone to give me a straight answer please .. all technicalities aside who among the main contenders can supply in numbers faster ? LM or SAAB ..or is it just a function of money available to spend by vendor ??
LM..

And a function of money. Even with LM.

LM offers some other dimensions, that if India were to really take advantage of, it could be very beneficial.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Oct 2016 01:42

manjgu wrote:so will we sell spares to PAF?

No. LM will still supply Pakistan. LM is going to maintain an off-shore warehouse, to support the global clients. India will be a contributor to this warehouse, but so will other suppliers.

On a different note, India can sell the F-16 block 70/72, under certain conditions, to other nations. Guess those details are being worked out.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Oct 2016 01:48

Cosmo_R wrote:
Indranil wrote:So this thing is going forward. It is a sad day. We are going for another record. We are the first country to build our own product's competitors, right here at home. Congratulations. I have to learn not to give a damn about IAF/MOD affairs anymore.
Not sure I follow. Orders have been placed for 140 LCAs if I understand the press reports correctly. That will take HAL ~10 years to fulfill. That plus the LM ecosystem ought to be a great foundation to build the AMCA which ought to be our next step.

What I don't mind seeing go is the science project called the FGFA which will not come if ever, before the mid 2030s.

All this could have been avoided if we'd ordered the 126 M2Ks in 2000 or in the 1980s when we took a left turn and went with the MiG 29s.

Not 140 but 120. Thats an error from the report, i notices some other mistakes too, but let it be.

And not orders, only intent. First I thought only 40 orders are placed and 80 will follow. But it looks like actually only 20 IOC orders are placed so far.

As I said, in one of my previous posts, it looks like LCA was always gonna be restricted to 120nos (See Rohitvats' post). Now the only remaining question is what those 120 nos will be MK1A or Mk2.

F16 is happening, whether we like it or not. If you ask me the decision is made long time ago, only execution is remaining.

Now what I am thinking is F16 might affect AMCA as well, by replacing all medium category outgoing jets post 2030. Essentially leaving no place for AMCA anymore. Because we ain't throwing those F16 anytime soon, and by then even a stealthy-ish F16 might appear as an option (F16V). I mean the way things are going AMCA won't come up for production before 2035.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Oct 2016 01:53

NRao wrote:
manjgu wrote:so will we sell spares to PAF?
No. LM will still supply Pakistan. LM is going to maintain an off-shore warehouse, to support the global clients. India will be a contributor to this warehouse, but so will other suppliers.

On a different note, India can sell the F-16 block 70/72, under certain conditions, to other nations. Guess those details are being worked out.

Exactly. In any case LM will maintain huge inventory for the US fleet at the very least. (They would give India a leverage there would they??) Not only that other countries such as Turkey will also have supplies available for Pakis.

We can be assured that we will never have to get into embracing situation where we have to supply spares to Pakis. We will have ZERO effect on Paki fleet, neither positive nor negative. Let alone global fleets being dependant on India, Indian fleet itself will be heavily depending on global suppliers as well. We ain't gonna have 100% suppliers in India as such.

Correction: India can't sell, LM will sell and make it in India.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Oct 2016 01:55

NRao wrote:
JayS wrote:
LM..
And a function of money. Even with LM.

LM offers some other dimensions, that if India were to really take advantage of, it could be very beneficial.

Money is involved in every single option, and by that virtue its really trivial point.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 30 Oct 2016 03:10

JayS wrote:....
Now what I am thinking is F16 might affect AMCA as well, by replacing all medium category outgoing jets post 2030. Essentially leaving no place for AMCA anymore. Because we ain't throwing those F16 anytime soon, and by then even a stealthy-ish F16 might appear as an option (F16V). I mean the way things are going AMCA won't come up for production before 2035.

That is what the DTTI thing is all about. My guess is that some number of LCAs ordered which start laying the foundation for the AMCA ecosystem. The AMCA will be designed around an existing engine (as opposed to the Marut/LCA approach) and around the LCA infrastructure which might even be co-designed with the US (which is what GoI wants). Most of all, I'd really like to see us focus on the payload as well the platform. Domestic platforms that need foreign payloads are a contradiction in terms.

If we are smart, once we get the AMCA going, we will start looking at AI-based UCAVs with cyberwarfare capabilities vs. linear extrapolation to FGFA and avoiding the Light/Medium/Heavy/Obese taxonomy. For us, WRT PRC, it means cheap countermeasures to their expensive platforms. Make them spend the money to square up against the US but make them field their Mercedes against our self-driving Marutis.

It has to be asymmetric—we will not win/survive against the PRC 1 to 1. That chance faded in the 1980s with our chuckle headed economic and foreign policies.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 30 Oct 2016 03:23

rohiths wrote:LCA is nothing but a science project as things stand now

Another indigenous domestic program shit canned.

Nobody is going to believe the IAF/HAL/ADA..etc blabbering about any more indigenous programs after this.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 30 Oct 2016 03:52

Neshant wrote:...
Another indigenous domestic program shit canned.

Nobody is going to believe the IAF/HAL/ADA..etc blabbering about any more indigenous programs after this.

I think that is too pessimistic a view. The LCA IMHO will be ordered in numbers but HAL will will first have to show that it can produce 'blocks' that are of the same build quality so that each part is interchangeable and that it can do so in quantity.

'Chicken and egg' you say. But that is the hurdle startups face every time they approach venture investors. Investors want product and customers first, startups need money to build product and get customers.

The Gordian knot is usually cut when the the startups are led by or composed of people who've succeeded before.

HAL's problem is that while no one doubts their ability to get pregnant, most doubt they can deliver on time/on budget. They have good junior people but senior (??)

They have to perform out of their skin. It will take leadership. It remains to be seen if they have any.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Oct 2016 04:03

VinodTK wrote:Question: How does f-16 block 70 / f-16 Super Viper compare against current Chinese aircraft and the emerging Chinese aircraft?
Does F-16 become obseleate by 2025? Or will it serve India up to 2030's!

Wrong question ( or at least partially wrong). The correct question would be how the F-16, or the Gripen fit into and perform the roles the IAF is looking to give these now supposedly 200-300 aircraft. Think Air Defense, think Attack, think CAS, think recon etc etc. There are a lot many mission areas outside of simply going head to head against a Chinese legacy fighter.

Additionally, you can't isolate an aircraft from the IAF's net-centric construct and evaluate it..I guess one could try but it would be a purely academic and unrepresentative way of seeing how a particular force is likely to perform across the mission areas vs another. In the same way you can't take a Super Hornet and put it against a Chinese Flanker or a flanker clone. Its not the Rhino alone its the entire assets the USN and its sister services can bring to bear (and likewise for the chinese).

If (and a big IF) the F-16 finds its way into the IAF, you are looking at a minimum of 10,000 - 12,000 hour airframe life (pretty standard to do a SLEP or two ). That's at least 3 decades of operations.

"At peak production in 1987, under the stewardship of General Dynamics, which sold its aircraft manufacturing business to Lockheed in 1993, Fort Worth was pumping out one aircraft per day."

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

Say what one might about LM, they know how to pump them out. This is about the F-35

"By 2020, one year after the Fort Worth plant hits its full 17-jet-per-month stride, there will be more than 600 F-35s, including nearly 180 sent to U.S. allies.

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016 ... ls/128120/

As I've said earlier Lockheed probably has a way to push double its current production rate w/o much delay just as Dassault has done and plans to do over the next year or two. That much surplus capability probably already exists because 2 a month is really a minimum you look at from a footprint perspective and if you go lower you reduce shifts to prevent the line from going cold. On the F-35 front they are delivering 50 +/- aircraft by the end of this year, 60 in CY 17, and 90 in CY18 [ Including the FACO lines in Italy and Japan].

Given the amount of customization that the IAF is likely to demand of the Gripen or f-16, its quite likely that it is going to be the limiting factor as far as deliveries of the initial batch is concerned, and not production rates. On the Gripen-E however there is the issue of the aircraft not declaring IOC until at least another half a decade at the very minimum (likely 2023-2025).

Going through the list of items that were offered back in the F-16 IN days, a few of those are now more mature. The AESA is no longer the UAE IP controlled AN/APG -80 but the SABR (or I guess the RACR) which would be easier for lockheed to finish (software). The cockpit with the new ELTA panel is also finalized and the new mission computers competition is heating up with both Boeing and Raytheon having either tested or on the verge of flight testing their new mission computers that are a requisite for the new cockpit and AESA radar (plus future growth).

The problem here will be COST, and how much could have been gotten at a lower price point with alternative investments into existing types already fielded. If this was about 90 aircraft than I would have been suspect of the deal going through. If the IAF/MOD is looking at 200-300 aircraft than I think they will end up buying YET another foreign type.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Oct 2016 04:42

The following relates to my post on internal vs. external revenue streams, for the Indian MIC. The heading says it all, something IMHO India shoudl aim for ASAP:

Lockheed Martin wants nearly one-third of annual revenue to come from international sales

LM expects to reach 25% this year.

girnair · Post by **girnair** » 30 Oct 2016 07:39

As much as there is deep respect for SAAB Corporate history and entity, the bias here is for the Viper, on the assumption that geo-political relations stay where they are now or better for the next twenty years.

What is needed is a proven platform, industrial capacity for huge volume production at compact productions schedules and last but not the least the full range of pentagon and state department cleared ordnance including CBU-105 in unlimited quantities. And this is where Lock.Mart. fits the bill perfectly.

The IAF (as in our Yehudi friends) should be able to guide us through an accelerated training syllabus with a clear focus on deep Air-to-Surface strikes in a high threat saturated defence environment. The preference would be to use it more on the Eastern front than the Western border because of the general dis-similarity of the aircraft with our Johnny come lately wanabe Superpawer. The targets of opportunity would be SRBM's, Extended range MLRS and traditional artillery as well as severe interruption of surface logistics for men and material to the LOAC. I wouldn't be too concerned about their Jack-ass-sh.t air force.
A close up look at the handling characteristics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAnIBFcwiL4