'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[Madhup]

The road to a local aerospace industry is actually not a straight battle between n local and foreign entities.
While at a program level, issues like the progress of the AMCA program may offer some I signt into the forces
at work at a Moe generic technology level, there is a reasonable thrust towards 100% indigenization which seems
unaffected by any lobby. The delay in these programs is more due to beuracractic inertia and lack of govt. structures
to coordinate such large programs. Lack of an Indian Darpa is causing these issues and the creation of entities
like the army design bureau does help move things a bit.

The likes of IITs have started floating dedicated R&D and design centres to focus on specific areas. A case in
point is the centre for combustion at IIT M . Expect to see a lot more of these. They are independent societies without
Govt salary restrictions or adherence to govt hiring norms. These centers have started pairing up with pvt sector
entities for strategic products. Localization goals are typically update of 80-90% for these programs. Basically LCD
displays, GaN parts, chip fabrication, memory and commodity ICs are still a problem in electronics and avionics.
But you will start seeing India pioneering standards in areas like avionics buses. Already key strategic systems
are starting to use locally designed CPUs.

If things move at a reasonable pace by the 2025/2030 time frame we should be self sufficient in electronics and avionics.
There are also good programs for aero engine monitoring and control.

Interestingly the armed forces as a whole are now going the Navy way with a request for 90 + levels for localization. The import mania seen
these days are due to operational requirements and do not represent the long term goals. and in talks with the decision makers , I get clear demands for making everything locally. Obviously cannot talk about specific programs here but as an example!e the lower end UAVs will be fully local with local engines.

^The AMCA design is too far down the line to be redone. A new gen fighter would be unlikely as well.

I've been discussing this theory with a friend who might be in the know but wisely refuses to say so (and I do not wan't to confirm anything that may not be for public consumption): The current dispensation being technically sound believes the investments need to be in the area of unmanned aerial vehicles (where we are severely lagging behind). The LCA/F-16 is not where the real battle lies - we want the Predators and two other armed platforms that will take to the skies by 2030-32 (meaning the prototype for at least one is ready to be developed - as evinced by the Ghatak tender), and another larger platform that will probably be the AURA design that went black.

PS: Said gent flatly refuses to believe ADA deliver a proto by 2020 (which is required if we wish to induct the platform by 2030). AMCA is being throttled by all involved parties (different reasons, some being quite bizarre to be honest). I do not entirely believe the smoke and mirrors. We are at cusp of the rebirth of our aviation industry. Some capabilities will die, and will take another 20 years to re-acquire. If we fight a war in the interim, it will be at the mercy of our two major suppliers and this dependence is never going away. Jingos need to wake up and accept that no party involved gains much from local design and manufacture, until there is war.

[Cosmo_R]

At this juncture why go for a 4th gen plane. Why not pick up the F 35, for a simple reason, the issues faced with the LCA will also be present with the AMCA. As India will not have learnt the lesson of mass production of fighter jets from scratch.

Same arguments will be made in favour of the f 35 when constracted with the AMCA.

So let's make a decision to bring the airforce up to date and get the F 35.

As other have pointed out, getting the F-35 means being part of the US 'swarm'. Look at this description:

"the F-35 is likely to become the main combat aircraft of NATO and other US allies. According to Mevlutoglu, this also means that all the countries flying the F-35 will possess a US-brand net-centric combat structure. As such, the F-35 project will not just boost the military capabilities of the countries using the aircraft, it will also profoundly affect their strategic military cultures as they standardize to a US-based system.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origina ... z4OgOT3Mfj

For us, this means BECA, CISMOA and effectively being part of the US F-35 fleet. If we are prepared for such a relationship, the F-35 is a no brainer. And, the A version will probably be not too far off the F-16 in price given the build numbers being talked about. In fact, IIRC, LM talking about the F-16s being a 'transitional a/c' for the IAF to the F-35. This was back in 2005-6

I don't know about LM's ability to deliver 100 a/c in the same time frame as they could the F-16s but brar_w doubtless has an in detail exposition on this.

[soumik]

My blog post on the single engined fighter order, please read & comment

http://bengalraider.blogspot.in/2016/10 ... 1.html?m=1

[brar_w]

I don't know about LM's ability to deliver 100 a/c in the same time frame as they could the F-16s but brar_w doubtless has an in detail exposition on this.

There is no clear answer to that since the MOD does not want aircraft's delivered - they want them produced. The JSF production has a ton of more risk involved. The current ramp up effort has 50 or so aircraft deliveries this year, 60 next year and 90 in 2018 (out of the three sites). That's very aggressive and there is likely to be supply disruption for various reasons as they do that (it happened on the F-16 program as well). While there is capacity on the one a day line (F-35 max designed output) to support additional orders the limiting factor is the immense risk associated with an aggressive ramp up in production.

That is just the industrial issues. I've stated the technical challenges on quite a few occasions and you have laid them out quite nicely as well. Its just even more unlikely to happen in the medium term if at all. Moreover, the cost for any such deal with at the very least rival if not exceed that of the rafale to do the same.

[Kartik]

Indranil And Kartik Saar

The F 16 line closes in 2017.So if it is to be transferred and LM wants the suppliers to keep their line open then they have to have a deal by 2017.Else its Mirage 2000 scenario again or rather the GlobeMaster Scenario.

Also If this deal goes through,the falling number of IAF mean India may buy the first squadrons from Texas line till the assembly line is being set up in India.

If the time line is really what you are estimating then considering India may buy 150 F 16s,the last F 16 may come somewhere in 2030-32.By that time the F 16 will already be obsolete and will not make any sense whatsoever.

There is a likely order from Bahrain that will extend the production line. There were reports that the sale had been cleared. But even earlier, the plan was to extend production till 2019- those 8 F-16 Block 52s that PAF wanted were to have been delivered in 2019.

From AW&ST,

The “warm line” production gap is the closest the long-running line has come to closing since deliveries began in 1978. “It is the first time it has been this imminent,” says Susan Ouzts, vice president of F-16 and F-2 programs.

The last aircraft now on order will be delivered in 2017, but the Pakistani F-16s will be handed over in 2019. “There have been times before when the line has been very slow, but we have always mitigated a gap,” she says.

Lockheed has already invested in ordering some critical items to protect the line, including batch production of certain parts and last-time buys of components going out of production. “But to do bigger pieces we need to have an indication of interest in further orders,” Ouzts says.

Active F-16 sales campaigns are underway in Bahrain, Portugal and Indonesia. Bahrain and Indonesia are involved in the latest F-16V configuration based on the upgrade under development for Taiwan’s F-16A/Bs, which includes Northrop Grumman’s APG-83 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

The AESA in in flight tests along with a new mission computer, display and data processing capabilities. “We have had no technical issues,” she says. Initial delivery has been made of B-kits to modify Taiwanese aircraft, and the next milestone will be delivery of A-kits of radars and other systems.

South Korea has selected the same upgrade for its F-16C/Ds, but Lockheed is still negotiating a contract, Ouzts says. Singapore is also upgrading its F-16C/Ds with the APG-83 AESA. But she declines to comment other than to say “a couple of countries” are funding the upgrade via the Foreign Military Sales system.

The U.S. government is also reengaging with India on its 126-aircraft Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirement, which was shelved after the failure to reach a deal with Dassault on the Rafale. Lockheed is proposing the F-16, while Boeing plans to offer the F/A-18E/F.

If it becomes clear that the Indian order is coming their way, LM will do what is necessary to protect the line till it is transferred to India.

talking about becoming obsolete by 2030 or so, the F-16 Block 60 is itself more up-to-date in technology terms today, than certain other 4th generation fighters being offered or entering service. Our neighbours to the west are looking to add F-16s of any vintage that they can get their hands on and subject some to an upgrade that will bring them partially to the Block 50 level. And then they'll pin their future hopes on the FC-31 that they'll want to "co-develop" with SAC, like the JF-17.

the IAF plans on keeping its Jaguars in service till 2035 at least, so I doubt that the most capable F-16 variant ever, will be anywhere near obsolete by then. With the exponential cost growth in acquiring new generation fighters, most air forces will struggle to just about retain their existing 4th generation fighter capability. And so the F-16s in service today, especially the Block 50/52, which was exported quite a bit, will continue to serve till 2040-50 at least, that too likely without major upgrades.

looking to our east, the Block 60 is way more capable than the J-10A and the J-10B is just entering service now with an AESA radar and IRST and I doubt it will have the level of refinement or capability of the Block 60. it certainly will take a while before it is mature and all its systems are bug free. JF-17 of any block will not be a match.

I would also expect that the F-16IN will be a refresh of the Block 60 to tackle obsolescence and bring in the much more advanced computing capabilities available today to make it relevant for another 15-20 years. So I'd expect it to be either a F-16V + F-16 Block 61 mix or broadly similar to the Block 61 that was offered to UAE. And yes, there was a Block 61 that was offered to the UAE in 2014, which dealt with obsolescence issues with the Block 60. And importantly- the Block 61 was supposed to offer some serious stand off strike capability. JSOW and SLAM-ER stand-off missiles. Compared to buying expensive bombs and missiles from Europe, India could stock up on hundreds if not thousands of these at a far more affordable price.

The JHMCS/AMRAAM 120D/AIM-9X is quite capable for both BVR and WVR combat, although the IAF may well go with the Elbit Targo/DASH/Python 5/Derby-ER combo. The F-16 already has these weapons integrated as well. The original goal for getting the Derby by the Israelis for their F-16 fleet even though they had AMRAAMs from the US, was that they controlled the ECCM for the Derby and that meant it could not be jammed easily. AMRAAM ECCM code is very tightly controlled by the US, but its users knows its modes and its frequencies very well and so one must expect that the PAF will know how to jam this weapon. Astra will be a likely choice for whichever fighter is chosen for this precise reason.

Politics driving the deal one way aside, the IAF knows what the Block 60 offers already, thanks to its extensive evaluation of the type for the MRCA. Having exercised with them recently, they would know how the Su-30MKIs compare to it in BFM DACT. If they don't think highly of the type, they will swing towards the Gripen NG.

The key aspect here will be transfer of source codes for EW equipment on board. the IAF will want to have autonomy in this regard. There was a struggle with the UAE on the source codes for the EW system, although radar source codes were released, but not to UAE's full satisfaction. India will not be happy with anything less than full source codes for these systems, and I think that for that one large sale, LM will lobby the GOTUS very heavily for its release.

[RohitAM]

The key aspect here will be transfer of source codes for EW equipment on board. the IAF will want to have autonomy in this regard. There was a [url=https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 8/struggle with the UAE on the source codes for the EW system, although radar source codes were released, but not to UAE's full satisfaction[/url]. India will not be happy with anything less than full source codes for these systems, and I think that for that one large sale, LM will lobby the GOTUS very heavily for its release.

Would CISMOA be an absolute necessity for F-16 manufacturing in India? We utilize our own specific data links for communications and data sharing, which obviously aren't a problem for the US since the C-17 and the C-130's are integrated into our network, and the same is to be done for the Apaches and the Chinooks (whenever they arrive). Perhaps the major technological hurdles would be ToT for engines and the AESA radar, but then, we were facing this issue regardless of the CISMOA, as far as I can tell, especially if we get full access to the source codes for the EW equipment.

In all probability, we will have to sign CISMOA, BECA etc. if we are looking to manufacture the F-35 in-country once the F-16 production is winding down, but that has the potential to adversely impact the AMCA project. With 200+ new manufacture F-16's already inducted in the medium category (replacing the MiG-21's/27's once the agreement is made), and probably another 100-150 F-35's (as and when that deal will be signed, it will probably have to hit those numbers to simply achieve the economies of scale to bring per unit costs down) to eventually replace the Jaguar's/MiG-29's/M2K's, I do not see the space for the AMCA in the IAF Orbat , based on their High-Medium-Light classification.

[Kartik]

As far as being flying caffin concerned I think F16 was the original owner of that title. Of course as a mango man I may be wrong here. But that is what i read somewhere.

F104 - Widow Maker..

F-16s were affectionately (!) called 'Lawn Darts'.

The curse of a type being in such widespread service that normal attrition rates per 10,000 flight hours still translates into large numbers of fighters crashing or having Class A mishaps. The same curse that the MiG-21 suffered in IAF service, compounded by a bunch of other factors such as being used for missions it was never ever intended to be used for.

[sudeepj]

talking about becoming obsolete by 2030 or so, the F-16 Block 60 is itself more up-to-date in technology terms today, than certain other 4th generation fighters being offered or entering service. Our neighbours to the west are looking to add F-16s of any vintage that they can get their hands on and subject some to an upgrade that will bring them partially to the Block 50 level. And then they'll pin their future hopes on the FC-31 that they'll want to "co-develop" with SAC, like the JF-17.

looking to our east, the Block 60 is way more capable than the J-10A and the J-10B is just entering service now with an AESA radar and IRST and I doubt it will have the level of refinement or capability of the Block 60. it certainly will take a while before it is mature and all its systems are bug free. JF-17 of any block will not be a match.

Bingo! The only thing it will not be a match for are 5th gen platforms, which neither the Chinese nor the Pakis are likely to get in numbers at least till 2030.

[brar_w]

I would also expect that the F-16IN will be a refresh of the Block 60 to tackle obsolescence and bring in the much more advanced computing capabilities available today to make it relevant for another 15-20 years.

It will be based on the F-16V so a fair amount different from the Block 60. It will actually be closer to what the USAF want's its F-16's to eventually become (minus the CFT's) over time.

So I'd expect it to be either a F-16V + F-16 Block 61 mix or broadly similar to the Block 61 that was offered to UAE.

Block 61 was a UAE configuration that added some capability on top of their block 60's (such as stand off weapons and employing them) and replaced LRU's that are no longer in production. They own a lot of their own IP pertaining to many systems to the better reference is the USAF CAPES program and the work being done to allign for that. That is the hardware that is flying today and that will be the base upon which a potential F-16 IN will be formed.

The key aspect here will be transfer of source codes for EW equipment on board. the IAF will want to have autonomy in this regard. There was a struggle with the UAE on the source codes for the EW system, although radar source codes were released, but not to UAE's full satisfaction. India will not be happy with anything less than full source codes for these systems, and I think that for that one large sale, LM will lobby the GOTUS very heavily for its release.

The AESA on the F-16V and therefore the IN will be different sold at a different time so they'll probably be more open to negotiating on access to its technology (as opposed to TOT). The EW system will most probably be different and if one runs into trouble one can simply opt out and go for the Israeli systems.

The bottom line will still be that with that much access to technology, and some TOT including an exclusive on the assembly line this will not be CHEAP.

We utilize our own specific data links for communications and data sharing, which obviously aren't a problem for the US since the C-17 and the C-130's are integrated into our network, and the same is to be done for the Apaches and the Chinooks (whenever they arrive).

Of course the F-16 or any other fighter the IAF acquires would have to carry its own data-links and support its own net-centric model. Without such an option one can't evne market weapons systems anymore.

Perhaps the major technological hurdles would be ToT for engines and the AESA radar, but then, we were facing this issue regardless of the CISMOA, as far as I can tell, especially if we get full access to the source codes for the EW equipment.

There are three separate issues here. One is access to technology, i.e you have some control over it to make changes to it to support the aircraft. The second is owning the technical baseline as in you pay, and the seller agrees to transfer the technology over and you can do whatever you do with it as you please. The latter is not likely to occur for most of the high-end systems. Finally you have a IP rights but not technical rights as is the case with the UAE where they own IP rights to a lot many systems but don't own the technical baseline in some instances. The first scenario is likely to offer the best results in terms of agreements but will also not be CHEAP. The second and third options call for total ownership or massive customization and will come out at a tremendous cost just as the F-16 Block 60's and F-15 SA's have shown.

[Mihir]

Kartik, superb post, as always!

[RohitAM]

Bingo! The only thing it will not be a match for are 5th gen platforms, which neither the Chinese nor the Pakis are likely to get in numbers at least till 2030.

The Chinese might field substantial J-20's and J-31's numbers in Tibet and their Far East airfields, but by the time those numbers are available, I'm expecting them to come up against a substantially strengthened Eastern Air Command equipped with MKI's flying under Phalcon coverage and backed by a robust air defense network (with the first of the S-400's possibly being present in that sector). The F-16's and even the Jaguars will be expected to fight under this defense umbrella, with the MKI's providing long ranged air dominance coverage. It wouldn't be easy, but AESA and IRST equipped F-16's should be able to handle that problem with this sort of backing.

The Pakis can't afford to fly their single-engined 3rd generation jets right now, and expecting them to be able to substantially fly and train on even freebies J-20's and J-31's (both twin engined aircrafts) would be stretching it, especially since there is no guarantee that the Chinese W-15 engines will suddenly be world-class in terms of performance and efficiency (i'm fairly confident that the Chinese won't foot the fuel bill for operations and training for these planes once they've been handed over to the Pakis). Derby/Astra equipped F-16's flying in tandem with the MiG-29's and the LCA's would be more than a substantial match for anything the across-the-border beggars can afford to put into the air in the 2030 timeline.

[Kartik]

Thanks Mihir.

Another article that I'm posting on the F-16 from AW&St. Not fresh out of the oven, but with tasty stuff nonetheless.

FARNBOROUGH—Although Lockheed Martin is facing a gap in F-16 production starting next year, top officials say the company is keeping the line warm in anticipation of new international orders of the lightweight fighter before too long.

After delivering more than 4,500 F-16s to 28 customers in almost 140 different configurations, Lockheed is facing a possible shutdown of the Fort Worth production line after deliveries to Iraq are completed in 2017. But Orlando Carvalho, Lockheed’s executive vice president for aeronautics, is confident the F-16 production gap will be temporary.

“We are managing that gap because there still continues to be interested customers who want to buy F-16s,” Carvalho said. “I don’t consider the line cold. I don’t consider it stopped or anything like that. We’re going to be in a gap for a period of time, and then once we have the next customer we will be restarting the line again.”

In addition to extending the life of the U.S. Air Force’s Block 40 and 50 F-16 C/D aircraft by 50%, out to 12,000 hr., Lockheed also sees an opportunity for new orders of the latest F-16V configuration, according to Randy Howard, company director of F-16 business development. Lockheed currently has three customers on contract to upgrade a total of more than 300 aircraft to the F-16V or a similar configuration, and anticipates several hundred more orders over the next three to four years, he said.

The company has supported government-to-government discussions on the F-16V across Asia, particularly southeast Asia, as well as eastern Europe, South America and the Middle East, Howard said. He declined to name specific customers.

Lockheed hopes the next batch of F-16 orders will come from Bahrain, which is interested in upgrading its existing fleet of legacy F-16s and potentially buying a new batch of F-16Vs. The deal has recently been stalled amid negotiations for the U.S.’s new aid package to Israel, but Lockheed officials hope to finalize the contract soon. Colombia is also looking to buy F-16s, Carvalho said.

Meanwhile, Pakistan was considering buying eight F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, to be delivered in 2019, but the nearly $700 million deal fell apart over financing issues and opposition from Congress. The Pakistani government was required to provide a Letter of Acceptance for purchase of the jets by the end of May, but the document was never issued. Lockheed is no longer working on the Pakistan deal, Carvalho said. (Bye Bye new F-16s for the PAF! Next we'll see them scouting second-hand airframes all over the world, doing what they did to the Mirage in PAF service, to the F-16)

Despite the Pakistan loss, Lockheed is confident international orders for the F-16 will continue to flow in, CEO Marillyn Hewson said in a recent interview. “We do have interest in the F-16 from Bahrain, Indonesia, Colombia, India and others, so we’re trying to sell the aircraft,” Hewson said. “Our job is just to get the next tranche sold so we can get that line back up after it goes cold. We have gone to low production levels in the past, and we’re very confident that we can bring it back.”

In the immediate absence of new orders, Lockheed is taking steps to keep the production line warm. In particular, the company is looking to the planned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ramp up to absorb some of the skilled workers coming off the F-16 line, and anticipates no layoffs or reductions in force, Carvalho said.

“The timing actually is very good, because that’s in the same time that we will be in the ramp [up] on the F-35 side, so our expectation right now is that we will be able to bring those mechanics to F-35 and so we don’t anticipate any layoffs or reductions from force as a result of this,” Carvalho said. “If we choose to restart the line in Fort Worth then we have a pool of talent there that we can draw from to repopulate the production line.”

Lockheed is also looking to keep the supply base engaged to ensure key suppliers are available when the company reopens the F-16 line, Carvalho said. Support tooling and equipment will likely be put in storage after final deliveries are complete.

Carvalho contrasted the gap in F-16 production to the shutdown of Lockheed’s F-22 line, which was mandated by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates after producing just 187 aircraft. Restarting the F-22 line could cost as much as $17 billion, according to some estimates, because the last F-22 was delivered in 2012, and suppliers shut down their production lines in 2010 and 2011, Carvalho said.

“It’s a lot different to restart a line like the F-22 versus what we are doing to keep the line warm for F-16,” Carvalho said. “When we built the last F-22 the direction was there’s not going to be any more F-22s ... where in the case of the F-16 we’re making a very conscious decision to not shut it down and to keep the line warm so that once we have our next customer in place we can restart again.”

The future of the F-16 line arguably lies with the F-16V upgrade, which takes lessons learned from fifth-generation aircraft like Lockheed’s F-35 and F-22 and rolls them back into the fourth-generation F-16. The heart and soul of the F-16V is Northrop Grumman’s APG-83 scalable, agile-beam active AESA radar, which allows the pilot to collect significantly more data than the legacy mechanically-scanned array radar, Howard said.

The new radar improves detection range, allows for up to 20 simultaneous target tracks, and includes a high-resolution synthetic aperture capability that enables all-environment precision strike. It also includes advanced electronic protections, and allows the pilot to combine the air-to-air and air-to-surface modes into a single display.

The F-16V also adds a center pedestal display upgrade, integrating a 6-in.-by-8-in., high-resolution, full-color screen in the center of the cockpit so the pilot can take advantage of the vast amounts of data coming in from the radar. In addition, the upgrade includes a new mission computer, which provides two times the memory and 10 times the computing space of the legacy mission computer.

The new configuration will also include an auto ground-collision avoidance system, a joint helmet-mounted cuing system, the latest weapons and a Lockheed Martin sniper pod with an advanced electro-optical camera, Link 16 for better communications with other aircraft, and conformal fuel tanks to extend the jet’s range.

“All of that is designed to take the information and the technology that we’ve learned out of fielding F-35s and F-22s and roll that information back into the F-16 through the avionics infrastructure, because today’s modern warfare ... in many ways it’s about information into the cockpit,” Howard said. “That’s what we’ve learned through F-22 and F-35 is how do you get the maximum amount of data into the cockpit so the pilot can then be thinking tactically and can then be making tactical decisions?”

Now, with this kind of capability, the question of becoming obsolete doesn't arise for the next 20 years. It may not be cutting edge in 10 years, with the F-35 and Rafale F4 and even the Gripen E/F having some fancier features, but overall, this F-16IN configuration is for a very capable fighter out till 2040.

And as Brar mentioned, 12,000 hrs with a SLEP means the IAF will be really able to put this fighter to use. At even 300 hours per year, per airframe (viz. way more than expected usage per airframe!), this will allow for a 40 year service in the IAF.

Now, regarding the air to air and air to ground modes being viewed in a single display, is that capability in existence anywhere else? I thought inter-leaved modes (for e.g. on the Super Hornet with the APG-79 AESA) meant that the front seater accessed air to air modes and the WSO in the back could use air to ground modes at the same time.

I would also hope that India could demand more F-35 like sensor fusion as well.

[Amoghvarsha]

Indranil And Kartik Saar

The F 16 line closes in 2017.So if it is to be transferred and LM wants the suppliers to keep their line open then they have to have a deal by 2017.Else its Mirage 2000 scenario again or rather the GlobeMaster Scenario.

Also If this deal goes through,the falling number of IAF mean India may buy the first squadrons from Texas line till the assembly line is being set up in India.

If the time line is really what you are estimating then considering India may buy 150 F 16s,the last F 16 may come somewhere in 2030-32.By that time the F 16 will already be obsolete and will not make any sense whatsoever.

There is a likely order from Bahrain that will extend the production line. There were reports that the sale had been cleared. But even earlier, the plan was to extend production till 2019- those 8 F-16 Block 52s that PAF wanted were to have been delivered in 2019.

From AW&ST,

Awesome post Kartik bhai.

Any idea how long the USAF intends to fly the F16?Also do you expect the IAF to ask for some airframe changes?

300 F 16s will indeed be a handful for anything the Bakis and Cheenis can muster(except 5th gen fighters).This will also provide us with numbers.

Do you think that IAF is in some kind of expansion mode with this order and may ultimately be a 45-50 squadron Airforce by 2030-2035?

[Amoghvarsha]

Bingo! The only thing it will not be a match for are 5th gen platforms, which neither the Chinese nor the Pakis are likely to get in numbers at least till 2030.

The Chinese might field substantial J-20's and J-31's numbers in Tibet and their Far East airfields, but by the time those numbers are available, I'm expecting them to come up against a substantially strengthened Eastern Air Command equipped with MKI's flying under Phalcon coverage and backed by a robust air defense network (with the first of the S-400's possibly being present in that sector). The F-16's and even the Jaguars will be expected to fight under this defense umbrella, with the MKI's providing long ranged air dominance coverage. It wouldn't be easy, but AESA and IRST equipped F-16's should be able to handle that problem with this sort of backing.

The Pakis can't afford to fly their single-engined 3rd generation jets right now, and expecting them to be able to substantially fly and train on even freebies J-20's and J-31's (both twin engined aircrafts) would be stretching it, especially since there is no guarantee that the Chinese W-15 engines will suddenly be world-class in terms of performance and efficiency (i'm fairly confident that the Chinese won't foot the fuel bill for operations and training for these planes once they've been handed over to the Pakis). Derby/Astra equipped F-16's flying in tandem with the MiG-29's and the LCA's would be more than a substantial match for anything the across-the-border beggars can afford to put into the air in the 2030 timeline.

What about our own FGFA/PAK FA?You havent factored them in.

[Kartik]

Another point that has to be seen here is that the original MRCA requirement was for a fighter equipped with an in-flight refueling probe to allow the use of the IAF's existing tankers. LM was able to demonstrate, in quite a short period, the retractable refueling probe on the F-16 Block 60's CFTs. This system was known as Conformal Aerial Refueling Tank System (CARTS)

Now that hose and drogue refueling is mandatory for India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft contest, four companies teamed up to develop the Conformal Air Refueling Tanker/System (CARTS). The CARTS development, led by the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, has been in the works since July 2007.

Lockheed Martin is responsible for overall system engineering, integration, aircraft modification, and project leadership; Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (India) is responsible for CARTS tank design and probe integration; Flight Refueling Limited (UK) is responsible for the telescoping fuel probe design and integration; and Israeli Aerospace Industries Limited (Israel) is responsible for technical consulting associated with the tank design.

CARTS is an F-16 refueling probe which telescopically extends and retracts from a purpose-built right-side forward Conformal Fuel Tank. The right aft section and complete left-side conformal fuel tanks require no change. The mechanically driven probe quickly extends the nozzle to its fully extended position just in front of the front pilot’s eye position.

The probe’s prototype has been demonstrated and showcased at the Farnborough Air Show and it can be used on Block 50/52 and block 60 variants.

The production model will be available in 2012 and HAL is expected to sell the product to other vendors even if the F-16 is not chosen for the MMRCA.

Funnily enough, even the newest PAF F-16 Block 52s cannot be refueled by the PAF's Il-78 tankers since they lack the CARTS system. Older generation F-16s that lacked the CFTs were anyway not going to be able to use this system. Which means that the F-16s in PAF service are definitely going to be endurance limited. Gives PAF enthusiasts a lot of heart burn

[RohitAM]

What about our own FGFA/PAK FA?You havent factored them in.

We won't have substantial FGFA numbers by then, going by how we've proceeded till date on the various "Joint R&D" documents we keep signing twice a year for the aircraft. First of all, even the PAKFA is nowhere close to limited series production, let alone an initial definite IOC date, and we are already at the end of 2016 (the first IOC squadron of the basic PAKFA was supposed to be constituted by 2017). Secondly, with development incomplete on the PAKFA itself, when can we envision development to start on the India-specific FGFA? Finally, the FGFA is supposed to be serially produced in India, and expectedly, by HAL, which under current conditions, is a major problem in itself. Considering that the FGFA numbers have been almost halved from the initial 250 to around 140 now (Guru's please correct me if I'm wrong with the numbers here), how can we expect HAL to tool up to produce anything more than 8-10 units per year initially?

When 2030 arrives, we would probably have around maybe a squadron worth of FGFA's to field against the Chinese, and while they might be the best thing since sliced bread, they will only be put into combat for very specific missions, rather than the wide-ranging multi-role capabilities which the MKI's as the top end of the IAF will bring to the table.

[brar_w]

Now, regarding the air to air and air to ground modes being viewed in a single display, is that capability in existence anywhere else?

The capability exists on all AESA equipped fighters that have air to air and air to ground modes. Gripen E, Rafale, F-15E, F-16, F-35, and F-22 with Increment 3.2.

I would also hope that India could demand more F-35 like sensor fusion as well.

The JSF has a very different architecture and the way the sensors are fused. It is even different from the F-22 and Super Hornet in the way it is set up. You won't be able to replicate on the F-16 w/o paying F-35 prices. The F-16V is a result of USAF's system analysis that looked at the maximum capability at the most affordable price point. Add more capability and it becomes less cost effective. One may want different capability as in Israeli EW suite instead of the Raytheon system offered for the original IN's, but capability wise that is really a sweet spot that looks at the cost and what you get in return for that.

The F-16 V has a Raytheon or Boeing mission computers that support growth, AESA and utilizes OMS. It has an AESA radar upfront, and a podded IRST. It lacks a CFT but that is mostly an add on so won't change anything substantial. That is probably the capability one needs to look at if one were looking at fielding a lot of aircraft at something even remotely affordable.

Any idea how long the USAF intends to fly the F16?Also do you expect the IAF to ask for some airframe changes?

The USAF does not know till when it will fly the F-16's. Ideally they would have wanted to retire them as soon as physically possible. The F-35 delays meant that they could not (legally speaking) hit full rate production until OTE which happens in 2018. This forced the USAF to look at F-16 modernization and the F-16V is a reflection of those choices. Just as they were drawing up F-16 modernization plans the budget Control Act hit and the plans for modernization were put on hold, in favor of similar plans on the F-15C's and E's that have longer airframe lives and fill a more critical role (no direct in production replacement). Any estimate they may have is likely to change as soon as the BCA caps are lifted.

Do you think that IAF is in some kind of expansion mode with this order and may ultimately be a 45-50 squadron Airforce by 2030-2035?

Let me chime in here. This deal only makes sense if that is the case. If it isn't then it is still an extremely poor acquisition decision. It may be a bad decision (either F-16 or gripen) even despite the expansion needs but one would need to see what realistic alternatives are available and at what price point. Until the intentions mature and actual proposals requests are floated we wouldn't know. But you're not going to get the capability, with the added tie-ups or $60 million a pop. That's likely half of what these things are likely to cost.

Also do you expect the IAF to ask for some airframe changes?

Not unless the MOD wishes to pay as much for the F-16 as it did/would have for the Rafale.

LM was able to demonstrate, in quite a short period, the retractable refueling probe on the F-16 Block 60's CFTs. This system was known as Conformal Aerial Refueling Tank System (CARTS)

In other words, no CFT's = No IFR which means if you've configured the fleet for different roles the aircraft that may need IFR the most (those w/o CFT's) won't have it available unless you change the tankers.

[Cain Marko]

I would also expect that the F-16IN will be a refresh of the Block 60 to tackle obsolescence and bring in the much more advanced computing capabilities available today to make it relevant for another 15-20 years.

It will be based on the F-16V so a fair amount different from the Block 60. It will actually be closer to what the USAF want's its F-16's to eventually become (minus the CFT's) over time.

Would the F-16V based on the USAF Blk 50s be lighter than than the hefty 10 tons of the blk 60? I assume it will have lesser payload capability and therefore less strengthening (weight gain) than the latter. The one thing that we would want from the blk 60 though is the 15 ton engine. One can imagine what a powerful fighter this would be with a blk 50 airframe and the blk 60 engine...I can't recall one single-engined fighter with that kind of thrust - very comparable to some twin engined 4.5 gen birds such as the Rafale and possibly, the fulcrum. I guess i'm not the only one who has had this thought...

From:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... er-market/

With the F-16V, the planemaker is “coming to their senses,” Sprey said. “They’re saying, ‘we’ve got to compete with Boeing, which is marketing the Super Hornet aggressively overseas, and we’ve to compete with Rafale and Typhoon.’
“But to do that, we don’t need extra weight and glitzy electronics,” Sprey said. “If you could get back to F-16A weights and throw in the -132 engine, you’d have a smokin’ airplane.”

BUT

Lockheed is not proposing the -132 engine (which is unique to the block 60) for the F-16V, McHenry said. “The avionics, the radar and the modular mission computer are the focus,” McHenry said. “The aerodynamics and performance are pretty settled. There’s no customer requirement for more thrust or more aerodynamic performance out of the platform.” That means F-16V customers would have a choice of the 29,000-pound Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 or General Electric F110-GE-129 used on U.S. block 50/52s.

BWAAH

Hope this changes for the IAF version - it could be that we are looking at a Sufa variant with Israeli weapons mix and a few choice US weapons. Would be nice to have those 110-132ss though!

[brar_w]

One would be well advised to leave Sprey out of this. You can't get the F-16 down to F-16A levels with the mission system curve and wing loading. Its not going to be competitive to a Typhoon or Rafale as far as capability is concerned. The F-16V modernizes it in a way that is affordable and not crazy, over the top like the block 60. Its a sustainable, common sense upgrade which increases its mission effectiveness considerably compared to Blk. 50/52 and still offer great value for money and sustainable thanks to the opening up of the mission systems to competition over the decades that these aircraft's are likely to be in service around the world. The UAE could probably be operating 2x the number of 50/52s (later upgraded to F-16V's) had they not embarked on the path to customize the $hit out of their aircraft and then pay through their a$$ for upgrades because commonality in many areas is gone. They could have simply bought F-15E's at that price point.

[shiv]

F104 - Widow Maker..

True. There were a couple of others which also earned similar honours - the Vought F-8 Crusader was one.

[shiv]

Ok let me simply make "off the cuff" remarks - to provoke, if necessary. Conformal fuel tanks are useless for Indian usage. Amreeka has fought all its wars far away from far away bases and its hawai jahazes have to fly long distances to get to drop a bomb on slanteyes/commies and other enemies of freedom and democracy. The F 16 gets more loiter time with those ugly shoulder pads and loiter time was useful in hanging out over Iraq and Afghanistan enforcing a no fly zone. An air to air refuelling probe makes much more sense.

Conformal tanks increase drag. Cannot be discarded and above all look ugly - which is something we lay great premium on on BRF. That which does not look good can't be good ergo conformal tanks are useless.

[brar_w]

Amreeka has fought all its wars far away from far away bases and its hawai jahazes have to fly long distances to get to drop a bomb on slanteyes/commies and other enemies of freedom and democracy.The F 16 gets more loiter time with those ugly shoulder pads and loiter time was useful in hanging out over Iraq and Afghanistan enforcing a no fly zone. An air to air refuelling probe makes much more sense.

Conformal tanks increase drag. Cannot be discarded and above all look ugly - which is something we lay great premium on on BRF. That which does not look good can't be good ergo conformal tanks are useless.

USAF does not use CFT's on its F-16's. One reasons is that the USAF has heavier fighters that have the legs to go the distance, while also having ample tanker support to extend the radius for the Vipers if higher intensity ops are required. Another is that its not worth making the investment with the F-35 now online.

CFT's however offer plenty of other benefits. If you fly mixed missions, or require distance but can only afford to operate a single engine fighter, they provide a cost-effective way of getting excellent mission radius while freeing up stores for payload while also maintaining performance in many mission scenarios. Think of them as a cheaper way to buy range/payload without getting into an F-16 XL like design change.

If you have to cary EFT's for majority of your missions CFT's offer the benefit of larger payloads for strike missions. If you are primarily running air-air scenarios and occasionally need to go long distance for strike you are probably better off carrying larger EFT's and reducing payload on the few occasions you need the extra range.

[sudeepj]

Ok let me simply make "off the cuff" remarks - to provoke, if necessary. Conformal fuel tanks are useless for Indian usage. Amreeka has fought all its wars far away from far away bases and its hawai jahazes have to fly long distances to get to drop a bomb on slanteyes/commies and other enemies of freedom and democracy. The F 16 gets more loiter time with those ugly shoulder pads and loiter time was useful in hanging out over Iraq and Afghanistan enforcing a no fly zone. An air to air refuelling probe makes much more sense.

Conformal tanks increase drag. Cannot be discarded and above all look ugly - which is something we lay great premium on on BRF. That which does not look good can't be good ergo conformal tanks are useless.

Actually, US F16s dont use CFTs because they have tonnes of tankers. CFTs are for us poor cousins.

[Cain Marko]

One would be well advised to leave Sprey out of this. You can't get the F-16 down to F-16A levels with the mission system curve and wing loading. Its not going to be competitive to a Typhoon or Rafale as far as capability is concerned. The F-16V modernizes it in a way that is affordable and not crazy, over the top like the block 60. Its a sustainable, common sense upgrade which increases its mission effectiveness considerably compared to Blk. 50/52 and still offer great value for money and sustainable thanks to the opening up of the mission systems to competition over the decades that these aircraft's are likely to be in service around the world. The UAE could probably be operating 2x the number of 50/52s (later upgraded to F-16V's) had they not embarked on the path to customize the $hit out of their aircraft and then pay through their a$$ for upgrades because commonality in many areas is gone. They could have simply bought F-15E's at that price point.

Fair enough. I agree that trying to reduce weight to F-16A levels is a bit far-fetched, nevertheless, the blk-50 airframe seems a lot lighter than the blk-60 from most open source accounts. Almost all sources point to the 60 weighing in at 10 tons empty, while blk-50 figures vary from 8500-9000 kg. While India does not have to go to the extremes of Sprey F-16A (super light) or the UAE blk-60 (super heavy), it can still have a dramatic improvement in power if it sticks to the common-sense blk-50 airframe but with the blk-60's 110-132 instead. Would this require a structural change to the blk-50 airframe? GE specs for the 229 and 132 seem the same?

Does re-engining the blk50 automatically make it a non-sustainable set up? Keep all else similar to the F-16V framework?

[Schmidt]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/s ... epage=true

One can only guess what amounts are being negotiated right now to push through a foreign vendor to get a new single engine aircraft when the Tejas is ready for induction

Even govt to govt deals can be circumvented by engaging a 3rd party agent who would route the agreed funds to the top influencers / decision makers / media etc

Every single foreign purchase seems to be riddled with corruption , and still our IAF honchos / MOD / netas insist on going ahead with foreign purchases while trying their best to bury indigenous programmes

Shameful state of affairs indeed

[rohitvats]

Truth be told, the latest news item about domestic production of 200 fighters, which can go up to 300 numbers, makes lot of earlier assumptions redundant.

For one, I was looking at this production at home as a measure to fill balance 90 numbers of MMRCA after we scaled down the Rafale order. But this 200 minimum number makes it a different case all-together.

Vina has opined that we might be looking at replacement of Jaguar fleet as well - this does not make sense because I think ACM is on record about Jaguar engine replacement commencing sometime soon.

In the end, I hope this is an attempt to force Dassault to produce the Rafale fighters in India. Only then do the numbers make sense.

[Rishi Verma]

I live in an area among retired and serving military folks. My neighbour is an army major with the aviation wing. I often try to extract tid bits of juicy tales but he is very tight lipped about work (otherwise talkative in other topics).

Once I asked him about what he heard about the LCA Tejas. He said something like "it's iaf so he doesn't know, but in general services have zero faith in HAL", I asked him about some examples, again he went in mute-mode but did repeat "HAL deliveries and quality are the main issues".

No surprise here but hearing straight from the customers mouth, it does not bode well for Indian aviation to have HAL monopoly or hegemony ruining a fine plane like Tejas. Rafale had reservations about HAL and I wonder if how the next imported light fighter will be manufactured in 200+ numbers.

[Philip]

The Chinese have already decided to field their new stealth birds in Tibet once they're ready.The secret testing of a Chinese stealth fighter indicates what we're going to face in the future.These will be supported by their Flanker clones and if they procure enough SU-35s,still to arrive despite mush talk.Given the nature of the terrain,limited infrastructure available,twin-engined fighters will be preferable than single-engined ones.who we've sent our MKIs to Ar.P.It would make far more sense to have Rafales and MKIs facing the Chinese challenge rather than F-16s,of which they've got their own similar fighters in large number.

If the French come down on the price of Rafales,it would make more sense.At current p[rices,one would get 3 almost equiv in capability MIG-29s/35s for the price of one.Frankly,the French have missed the bus.

Latest news on the J-20.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... tary-might

China unveils J-20 stealth jet fighter in show of military might
Military watchers say J-20 is ‘clearly a big step forward in Chinese combat capability’ after its flypast at airshow in Zhuhai
A J-20 stealth fighter at an air show in Zhuhai, Guangdong Province, China
China unveils its J-20 stealth fighter at an air show in Zhuhai, Guangdong province, China, on Tuesday. Photograph: China Daily/Reuters
Reuters
Tuesday 1 November 2016 its Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter in public for the first time on Tuesday, opening the country’s biggest meeting of aircraft makers and buyers with a show of its military clout.

Two J-20 jets, Zhuhai’s headline act, swept over dignitaries and hundreds of spectators and industry executives gathered at the show’s opening ceremony in a 60-second flypast, generating a deafening roar that was met with gasps and applause and set off car alarms in a car park at the site.

US will 'sharpen military edge' in Asia Pacific, says Pentagon chief

Airshow China, in the southern city of Zhuhai, offers Beijing an opportunity to demonstrate its ambitions in civil aerospace and to underline its defence ambitions. China is set to overtake the US as the world’s top aviation market in the next decade.

Bradley Perrett of Aviation Week, a veteran China watcher, said: “It is clearly a big step forward in Chinese combat capability.”

Analysts say it is too early to say to what extent the new Chinese fighter can match the radar-evading properties of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air-to-air combat jet – developed for the US Air Force and the J-20’s closest lookalike – or the latest strike jet in the US arsenal, Lockheed’s F-35.

Two J-20 stealth fighters fly past at Airshow China in Zhuhai, Guangdong province. Photograph: China Daily/Reuters
Unofficial shots of a J-20 prototype fuelled discussion about the region’s power balance when first glimpsed by planespotters in 2010. Experts say China has been refining designs in the hope of narrowing a military gap with Washington.

Cao Qingfeng, an aircraft engineer watching the flypast, said the “stunning” display was a show of China’s strengthening aircraft industry and manufacturing – and western officials agreed.

“This shows they now have confidence to put it out in public,” said a western industry official who has monitored the biennial show from its inception 20 years ago.

“This is the airplane for China in the way that the J-31 is not; this is the one they develop for themselves,” he added.
The export-oriented J-31, was unveiled at Zhuhai in 2014.

President Xi Jinping has pushed to toughen the armed forces as China takes a more assertive stance in the region, particularly in the South China and East China seas.

It remains unclear whether or how the J-20 would be displayed after the flypast, or to what extent foreign executives and media would be allowed a close look as they try to figure out its role and effectiveness. Some foreign observers have questioned its stealth capabilities.

Aircraft that are already scheduled to be on display alongside the latest Chinese weapon systems, radar and drones include the Xian Y-20 strategic airlifter, and what organisers say is the largest amphibious plane now in production, the AG600.

The flying boat is officially promoted as a fire-fighting or search and rescue plane. But analysts note the AG600 – first unveiled 10 days after a Hague tribunal ruled against China’s claim to parts of the South China Sea in July – is well suited to resupplying military outposts in the disputed area.

Notably absent from the airshow schedule is the Comac C919 passenger jet, designed to compete with Airbus and Boeing, the rivals which dominate the global supply of airliners.

The 150-seater C919 is scheduled to stage an often-delayed maiden flight this year, but industry sources say this will now slip to 2017 – three years behind original plans.

Airbus and Boeing continue to expand in China with recent plant announcements. Boeing is expected to announce a new supplier partnership at the show, which runs until 6 November.

[Neshant]

While China unveils its domestically produced and increasingly advanced fighter planes,
IAF is trying as hard as it can to destroy the LCA program
and keep India dependant on foreign fighter plane imports.

Its almost as if it wants to keep India as a screw driver turning sweat shop for high priced
foreign imports in perpetuity.

I also note that these foreign deals are hurried through just as soon as the domestic
technology is starting to make headway. The speed at which the T-90 was
rushed through and approved despite various misgivings & failures during the tests
comes to mind.

[brar_w]

One would be well advised to leave Sprey out of this. You can't get the F-16 down to F-16A levels with the mission system curve and wing loading. Its not going to be competitive to a Typhoon or Rafale as far as capability is concerned. The F-16V modernizes it in a way that is affordable and not crazy, over the top like the block 60. Its a sustainable, common sense upgrade which increases its mission effectiveness considerably compared to Blk. 50/52 and still offer great value for money and sustainable thanks to the opening up of the mission systems to competition over the decades that these aircraft's are likely to be in service around the world. The UAE could probably be operating 2x the number of 50/52s (later upgraded to F-16V's) had they not embarked on the path to customize the $hit out of their aircraft and then pay through their a$$ for upgrades because commonality in many areas is gone. They could have simply bought F-15E's at that price point.

Fair enough. I agree that trying to reduce weight to F-16A levels is a bit far-fetched, nevertheless, the blk-50 airframe seems a lot lighter than the blk-60 from most open source accounts. Almost all sources point to the 60 weighing in at 10 tons empty, while blk-50 figures vary from 8500-9000 kg. While India does not have to go to the extremes of Sprey F-16A (super light) or the UAE blk-60 (super heavy), it can still have a dramatic improvement in power if it sticks to the common-sense blk-50 airframe but with the blk-60's 110-132 instead. Would this require a structural change to the blk-50 airframe? GE specs for the 229 and 132 seem the same?

Does re-engining the blk50 automatically make it a non-sustainable set up? Keep all else similar to the F-16V framework?

Its just not weight alone but also wing loading and other considerations since design has remain largely unchanged. The F-16A was a Light weight, pure dogfighter. It will get butchered in the current times, speaking nothing of the future. The F-16C (any block) is an aircraft that one can actually use, and is mostly used as a medium multi-role fighter.

The Block 60 carried lot many changes unique to the variant therefore it added weight that led to them seeking a higher thrust engine to compensate. Not sure what changes the 132 requires if any.

[chola]

While China unveils its domestically produced and increasingly advanced fighter planes,
IAF is trying as hard as it can to destroy the LCA program
and keep India dependant on foreign fighter plane imports.

Its almost as if it wants to keep India as a screw driver turning sweat shop for high priced
foreign imports in perpetuity.

I also note that these foreign deals are hurried through just as soon as the domestic
technology is starting to make headway. The speed at which the T-90 was
rushed through and approved despite various misgivings & failures during the tests
comes to mind.

Careful, Neshant. I mention the same a few months ago and was blasted by the our local jingos for whining and supporting prc commie propaganda. I do not want the same for you.

A decade and a half ago, I began tussling with the chinibots in the early days of the net over the LCA and J-10. They were truly at the same level back. Hope was high on LCA and Kaveri. The chinis were still exporting MiG-21s to porkis. The J-10 looked like vaporware with nothing but PS photos. We would win this race for sure ...

Then year after year, the J-10 progressed and the LCA remained where it was. Then all the other J's came on board ... and the LCA remained where it was. I see young bharati posters taking up the banner of the LCA, this time against the JF-17 as if that was the natural rival not realizing its original foe in the distant past.

I gave up on the LCA (and warplanes) for a long while, focusing on economics until a glimmer of hope came back to me with the FOC. At long last, the dream was coming to fruition. But in my heart of hearts I knew the good news cannot last. And it didn't with this RFI.

The LCA has aged me and its contest with the chinis painfully showed what could have been if we had stuck to it. We were at the same level if not a few steps ahead at the dawn of the LCA vis a vis the J-10. Today the J-10 is made in hundreds and in its 3rd or 4th mark. They are onto the J-20. And we are preparing another screwgiri project to kill off the LCA.

[Pratyush]

If the LCA is to be killed, let it be killed for a 5th generation jet and not for some 4th generation jet.

[kmkraoind]

I think they wont kill LCA. They will give HAL their own sweet time to produce LCA in numbers (ordered 20+20+80). F-16 is in MMRCA category. Since LCA FOC has pushed to mid 2017 (or be later if HAL does their usual thing), to complete the 120 LCA 1A will take more than 10 years. If my hunch is correct, F-16 assembly line will be big, i.e. 24-30 birds per year. Once the required F-16s are built, the same assembly lines will role out LCA MK2 and AMCA. In that time, many private companies will gain expertise in producing airframe structures, skins (alloy/composite), valves, wires etc.

Its a win-win for all. Nobody is reducing LCA orders, but F-16 will give some leg to private MIC and produce all types of engineers, foremans, technicians and even Tier1 and Tier 2 suppliers.

The current Govt controlled HAL will not attract and retain best talents. They currently act as launch pad for brighter candidates who after working a few years jump to NASA, LM, Boeing, etc. If private enterprises flourish, a good portion will be absorbed in India and some even may turn entrepreneurs (Global and Indian Tier1 and Tier2 suppliers).

[chola]

If the LCA is to be killed, let it be killed for a 5th generation jet and not for some 4th generation jet.

The F-16 deal will be our pathway to the F-35.

What other 5th gen are we talking about? PAKfa/fgfa? By the time that comes along the IAF might be down to 20 squadrons. I want us off russian crap.

No, if the LCA is killed I want the F-16 and a fresh start with American stuff. Part of the malaise we are in is because of us screwdrivering russian crap for decades and going nowhere and because natasha and her blond gori sisters have their hands around the luns of our netas.

[Viv S]

Thing is, we don't NEED a pathway to the F-35. We can just get the F-35 straight up. Right now. Negotiate a deal for a local assembly cum overhaul line, like Italy & Japan have (approx cost: $1 bn), and get cracking. Add to that additional industrial work on the aircraft that low cost companies like TASL are well poised to grab.

It'll lead to the delivery of an aircraft that can reliably prevail against kind of lopsided odds that the IAF faces while plugging a major gap in its deep strike capabilities (a gap that will persist even post-Rafale induction).

And make no mistake, by 2020, the F-35 will cost roughly the same as a new build F-16V as the production reaches full capacity and multi-year acquisition contracts kick in.

Even though its still technically in the running ('single engined' + 'medium weight'), the argument in favour of it is just too damned obvious, so we can be quite confident that the MoD will do something else entirely.

[Viv S]

talking about becoming obsolete by 2030 or so, the F-16 Block 60 is itself more up-to-date in technology terms today, than certain other 4th generation fighters being offered or entering service. Our neighbours to the west are looking to add F-16s of any vintage that they can get their hands on and subject some to an upgrade that will bring them partially to the Block 50 level. And then they'll pin their future hopes on the FC-31 that they'll want to "co-develop" with SAC, like the JF-17.

the IAF plans on keeping its Jaguars in service till 2035 at least, so I doubt that the most capable F-16 variant ever, will be anywhere near obsolete by then. With the exponential cost growth in acquiring new generation fighters, most air forces will struggle to just about retain their existing 4th generation fighter capability. And so the F-16s in service today, especially the Block 50/52, which was exported quite a bit, will continue to serve till 2040-50 at least, that too likely without major upgrades.

looking to our east, the Block 60 is way more capable than the J-10A and the J-10B is just entering service now with an AESA radar and IRST and I doubt it will have the level of refinement or capability of the Block 60. it certainly will take a while before it is mature and all its systems are bug free. JF-17 of any block will not be a match.

While of course calling the F-16 obsolete is an exaggeration, favourable head-to-head comparisons with the J-10B mask the basic issue i.e. numerical strength.

The Chengdu is delivered 3 J-10s per month to the PLAAF. That's 36 fighters annually. (Plus another two dozen Flanker variants, nearly as many JH-7s.)

Between today and four years from now (when off-the-shelf F-16 deliveries commence), the PLAAF will have already received nearly 150 J-10Bs. Now the F-16 may be a lot better, which I wouldn't be too confident about, but those are still some godawful numerical odds it faces.

At roughly the same time (i.e. 2020) the J-20 will be entering high rate production and that will definitely be superior to the F-16. If they can sort through the inevitable reliability & software hurdles it faces, it'll be superior to the Rafale as well.

We desperately need a solution to even those scales. One limb is clearly the Tejas, which is cheap enough be produced & inducted in high numbers for the grunt work. The other limb cannot be the F-16, which will be squeezing into the same trouser leg as the Tejas.

[Pratyush]

The thing is getting F 35 at a later date after having bought the 4th gen Jet essentially doubles the expenditure for the Indian tax payer.

[Viv S]

The thing is getting F 35 at a later date after having bought the 4th gen Jet essentially doubles the expenditure for the Indian tax payer.

Exactly. Forget about the later date. The RFI doesn't specify '4th gen', just 'single engined' & 'medium weight'. Tell LM to take the starters off the table and begin with the main course. 200 jets required over the long term (incl. naval aviation), now make a competitive offer, with Dassault & Sukhoi looking on, or walk away... from a $30 bn+ contract.

We're already too badly outnumbered vis a vis the PLAAF to start adding 10-15 yrs worth of obsolescence to the equation. Thus far we've at least had a technical & training edge over them. The training edge is rapidly receding as the PLAAF modernizes its human & technical element and steps up joint exercises with Russia, Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey & co. The IAF's technical edge, such as it is, will evaporate before the end of the decade, if not sooner.

My arithmetic is simple. F-35A. Flyaway <$90 mil. Worth it. Tejas Mk1A. Three for $100 mil. Worth it. F-16V. Flyaway ~$75-80 mil*. Not worth it. Same for the Gripen.


* See MDE component of DSCA release for PAF F-16 Blk 52

[JayS]

Exactly. Forget about the later date. The RFI doesn't specify '4th gen', just 'single engined' & 'medium weight'. Tell LM to take the starters off the table and begin with the main course. 200 jets required over the long term (incl. naval aviation), now make a competitive offer, with Dassault & Sukhoi looking on, or walk away... from a $30 bn+ contract.

Google tells me that latest expected Japanese deal for 100 F35 is estimated to be worth $40 Billion. Considering they are already integrated in US weapons platforms, have bought F35 before and thus have invested in infra, weapons, Japan specific changes already. By this matrix 200 F35 for us would be nothing short of $70-80 Billion...!! And if we want part of production, ToT, IAF specific changes, integration with our existing weapons systems its gonna go northwards only. India cannot afford it any more than we can afford 200 Rafale.

[Viv S]

Google tells me that latest expected Japanese deal for 100 F35 is estimated to be worth $40 Billion. Considering they are already integrated in US weapons platforms, have bought F35 before and thus have invested in infra, weapons, Japan specific changes already. By this matrix 200 F35 for us would be nothing short of $70-80 Billion...!! And if we want part of production, ToT, IAF specific changes, integration with our existing weapons systems its gonna go northwards only. India cannot afford it any more than we can afford 200 Rafale.

I suggest you check Google again. $40 billion is the program cost for Japan's new F-3 stealth fighter program. This includes R&D. And has nothing to do with the F-35.

Japan's acquisition of 42 F-35As meanwhile, is valued at about $10 bn. This includes the cost of a local assembly line.

As far as India is concerned -

1. India's modification requirement are similar to Israel's. Datalinks, SDR and a few weapons (Israel also wanted some add-on EW gear installed). The IAF's new ODL data-links are of Israeli origin (IAI), while the contract for radios went to the US (Raytheon). Cost to Israel: $450 mil

2. Cost of the Final Assembly & Checkout Line: $1 bn. (See here)

3. Acquisition cost of aircraft: $10 bn for 60 aircraft for the ROKAF. Incl. 50% offset (partially composed of ToT. (See DSCA release.)