'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Jan 2017 04:36

Oh well. Give that puppy for 50-70 million$ and close this circus out...

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 04 Jan 2017 04:41

Rishi Verma wrote:Basically no strong manager with authority and integrity is in charge of the project of national importance.

Rishi Verma ji, you seem to believe that only phoreigners can have strong managers with authority and integrity.
Just because there are currently problems with HAL management does not mean that they cannot be fixed.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Jan 2017 07:05

Nick_S: I said the same thing in the previous page of this thread.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 04 Jan 2017 08:27

ragupta wrote: When we talk of LCA, why do we forget that there is still many component that will be imported.
We desire TOT, why would anyone share without us paying for it.

Importing parts and developing a plane around it is infinitely better than buying the whole plane lock, stock & barrel.

Secondly, TOT is nothing but a fancy word for handing over large sums of money to foreign plane manufacturers to learn how to do screw driver giri type work in India.

The brains for foreign scientists & engineers developed over the years of fighter aircraft design, will not be handed over in a jar to pour into the brains of Indian scientists & engineers.

Moreover, transfer of technology for what?

If every indigenous plane/tank project ends up being scrapped (Marut, Arjun, LCA) rather than working through the issues, there is no need for transfer of anything. Its worthless information since none of it will ever see use in the country.

The sellers may as well be transferring technology on how to build public toilets. That at least will have utility - unless public toilets too are scrapped.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 04 Jan 2017 08:27

Rakesh wrote:Strategic Partnership model to be finalised by Jan end, search on for another single engine fighter line: Manohar Parrikar
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... n=ETTWMain

3) The SP model is the Defence Ministry’s important Make in India policy. Under the model, the government is to select private Indian firms to exclusively manufacture military equipments for a specified period. The model was proposed by the Dhirendra Singh Committee in July, 2015. The Defence Ministry then formed an expert committee headed by former DRDO chief, VK Aatre, to formulate the criteria for selection of strategic partners. In April last year, the MOD made the Aatre report public.

4) Parrikar said the Indian company for the single engine fighter jet will be identified through the Aatre committee model. And the western partner for the new fighter line will depend on the Transfer of Technology (ToT) and the financial proposal of the Original Equipment Manufacturer..

This here is the key information to make sense of the whole ongoing process.

The Dr Aatre committee recommended that for every sector (Aerospace in this case) two Indian partners should be identified and nurtured with sufficient orders over several years (two decades I believe). This may be simple to state, but how, in India, can we have two proven designs for combat aircraft and two private players with sufficient financial resources and technical sophistication to produce them? LM catapulted to front runner by tailoring their offer to this policy: per reports linked in the first few pages of this thread, they offer to become minority partner with Tata and start a joint venture to manufacture F-16s. This checks many boxes - Indian partner identified and majority stakeholder, proven combat aircraft design, offer to transfer entire manufacturing base to India and make India hub for spare parts to establish a line busy for several years... wait, there's more - this also fulfills USG's pre-condition for engine tech DTTI, opens up opportunities for getting a world class AESA radar and offers numbers to sweeten deal for Raytheon to partner up for Tejas radar. Note, the biggest of all this is helping Tata make the quantum jump from being a Tier 1 supplier to becoming an integrator and assembler of combat aircraft. Also note Tata gets C295s to assemble from Airbus, Apache fuselages, Tejas assemblies, and so on to add to their order book once they have matured with LM's help.

So the big takeaway here is that F-16 is chosen for the eco-system, for fulfilling DPP criteria, and, not least, for opening up possibilities for further partnerships on engine tech. That's where the other payoffs come in - if there is a strategic partner for aerospace, would there not be a similar strategic partner for aeroengines? Already Safran has a foot in the door with Rafale offsets, and this MII single engine will enable GE to do the same. So a possible starting point for conversations on GE-414 enhanced (although of course, F-18 makes more financial sense in this case due to commonality of engines and therefore greater production numbers for engines but that's a separate issue).

But here comes the important corollary - what about the second partner as recommended by Aatre committee? This is where the second competition for two-engine fighters will kick in, plus some potential tweaks to DPP. Boeing has, notably, stated that it will open its own factory, with Indian Tier 1 suppliers etc. So also Saab, I believe. Dassault has tied up with Reliance in preparation for the two engine competition to conform with DPP, but to make it really meaningful and to prevent Dassault having India over the barrel again, maybe the DPP will be tweaked to allow an Indian incorporated subsidiary company of a foreign vendor. This might be more aligned with Boeing's offer and maybe Saab, and the tweak also sets stage for similar arrangements in other areas where GE and maybe Safran might be more amenable to making crown jewel technology in India through their own Indian holdings rather than through partnerships with Indian players. The good part is that if GE opens up with F414 enhanced with LM winning F16s then Boeing does not have a choke hold for the follow on competition.

So the kernel of Indian strategy is to go all out to make the DPP work by (a) dangling enough production numbers to make it worth the while of established foreign vendors and (b) using the numbers and competitions to extract maximum involvement of Indian partners and most favorable technology transfer terms. Of course it will be screwdrivergiri initially, but then that's how HAL got built up over the decades and now it's turn of private companies to take similar opportunities and do a better job of maturing into world class aircraft manufacturers. Diversity and competition are hallmarks of a good ecosystem, and the larger purpose is to use these two competitions (now single engine, then in a couple of years two engine) to seed the ecosystem and get it to bloom by the time AMCA design is mature and ready for a product development partner... for that, there could be three suitors - HAL, TATA-LM, one more from double engine MII - that can take up the challenge. And with similar partnerships for engines and sensors, AMCA will have proven and world class propulsion and sensor packages ready for made in India .

By the end of twenty years or so, we may have the following:
HAL Banglore - Tejas various marks plus trainers
HAL Nashik - SU-30MKI upgrades, followed by FGFA. I don't see FGFA happening unless India gets full autonomy in selecting its sensors and avionics at a minimum. Very likely through French or Swedish partners nurtured by the other radar/airframe projects
Tata-LM: F16, transport aircraft, possibly AURA?
Boeing/Saab/Dassault - 2engine IAF plus IN for Boeing and Dassault

And AMCA will go to one of the non-HAL players and be a truly world class gen 5.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 04 Jan 2017 09:43

Thank you YI Patel. Great post.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Jan 2017 09:54

So all in all we are set for the mother of all "red flags" by year 2023... We don't need to go anywhere, we have the whole zoo inhouse especially if Indian navy goes for f35B.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 04 Jan 2017 10:27

Nick_S wrote:
Rishi Verma wrote:Basically no strong manager with authority and integrity is in charge of the project of national importance.
Rishi Verma ji, you seem to believe that only phoreigners can have strong managers with authority and integrity.
Just because there are currently problems with HAL management does not mean that they cannot be fixed.

Incorrect Saar, I didn't imply that at all, on the contrary I believe India has plenty of skilled managers but babudom or the system doesn't allow one person to take charge. Examples of Delhi Metro guy, Anand co-op Dairy guy etc who can get the job done. The "LCA project" needs a strong individual with power to call shots. Currently it's being flown by HAL, ADA, IAF, MoD, Navy babus and being hounded by Babus from import lobby.

Even now we are being optimistic that "RM and Navy are on the same page", (how often have we been dissapointed?) We need an operations guy who cracks the whip on a thrice-daily basis and gets results, one with authority to fire HAL Babus (for example) if deadlines keep skipping.

It's not Parrikar's job to manage a project. He can give guidelines, funding, priorities to various projects but actual ring master need to be assigned to strategic projects who are under-performing. (LCA manufacturing issues, LCA variants, Kaveri Engine issues, etc etc)

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Jan 2017 10:43

Rishi Verma wrote: We need an operations guy who cracks the whip on a thrice-daily basis and gets results, one with authority to fire HAL Babus (for example) if deadlines keep skipping.

Boss, most of these are R&D projects. It's not making cookies, where if you slack off, you get fired. Technology and our understanding of what we don't have/know evolves in iterations, and firing and hiring new people only make it slower. There is only useful amount of marginal pressure you can exert on creative teams to deliver. After you exceed that amount you lose people due to stress and burnout. Even if you tasked hitler to run this project onlee, he could only do so much unless he was willing to roll up his sleeves and jump head in on to the project on a contributory level. Not everything runs on fear. A lot of People create because they enjoy the process, not because its a job.

In some situations yeah, $hit is mis-managed. But by using this yardstick for every delay may not be wise.

And yeah "ops guys" come in later when there is real shop floor to manage. You could perhaps beat HAL operations line for making more LCA mk-1, if you sign a letter of intent to purchase more that is.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 04 Jan 2017 11:37

^^ not talking of R&D but of a project that must go into mass production.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 04 Jan 2017 11:50

Cybaru wrote:So all in all we are set for the mother of all "red flags" by year 2023... We don't need to go anywhere, we have the whole zoo inhouse especially if Indian navy goes for f35B.

It may appear that Red Flags have had the required effect on the IAF and MOD babus. Perhaps they intend running the AF as an ongoing Red/Blue/Green flag by operationalizing every available type in the world. Would not be surprised if Textron is planning to bid with its twin engine model (and perhaps an uprated single engine model). They will shift their HQ to India if they win an order (given that selling 120 units is close to impossible elsewhere in the world).

PS: Hope I do not get warned/banned for this, but only in India, where circuses are now being banned, can such a dog-and-pony-and-alligator show continue with official sanction. Hat's off to all those that are turning this into a banana republic.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Jan 2017 11:58

Rishi Verma wrote:^^ not talking of R&D but of a project that must go into mass production.

Every DRDO project that is being produced isn't suffering from delays, more really like lack of orders. When it comes off the R&D line, its hardly a production issue. All these are on schedule. Arjun, Pinaka, Akash, Dhruv, Agni, prithvi etc.. Every TOT order is also on schedule: MKI, AJT etc.. It's the slow decision making, changing requirements during R&D phase or during FSED stage that is where the delay is. Some of it is understandable as no one can have perfect foresight (not even our armed forces) and some of it is just lack of doing homework on our part. Anyways this will derail the topic, so no more from me.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jan 2017 12:28

Its a "back to the future" policy! One report today says that the SH is being dumped because it is "twin-engined" This looks like another AW scam here. The requirement is being tailor made for Boeing.Why only a single-engined bird when what we're really in need of are another 100+ med. multi-role aircraft to complement the measly 36 Rafales on order. If one remembers,the requirement was for an initial 120+ aircraft with more to be built in India later on.Why the sudden change to a single-engined bird? Is this an acknowledgement (in pvt) that the LCA has failed to meet expectations and production will be torturous?

Super,building the F-16 while the Chinese build and sell their stealth bird to Pak as well as for the PLAAF. Since the western allies of the US are dumping their F-16s for the JSF,etc. why don't we instead pick up these secondhand birds at a far cheaper price? Perhaps we could even buy them from Pakistan!

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 04 Jan 2017 13:00

Cybaru wrote:
Rishi Verma wrote:^^ not talking of R&D but of a project that must go into mass production.
Every DRDO project that is being produced isn't suffering from delays, more really like lack of orders. When it comes off the R&D line, its hardly a production issue. All these are on schedule. Arjun, Pinaka, Akash, Dhruv, Agni, prithvi etc.. Every TOT order is also on schedule: MKI, AJT etc.. It's the slow decision making, changing requirements during R&D phase or during FSED stage that is where the delay is. Some of it is understandable as no one can have perfect foresight (not even our armed forces) and some of it is just lack of doing homework on our part. Anyways this will derail the topic, so no more from me.

I had clearly stated that the projects of national importance need to have a task-master program manager. Not each and every R&D project.

The cycle of order-first then we make need to be broken. The services have no faith in delivery timelines given by HAL or design timelines given by DRDO. If it's accepted that with guaranteed expedited delivery with guaranteed quality of build the Navy or IAF will order the maal then the manufacturing plan needs to be executed in the earnest.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 04 Jan 2017 14:07

I was referring to design know-how of critical sub-systems where we lack viz. FCR, Engine and perhaps other advanced avionics/EW suite. Also, has US provided a deep ToT (the kind GoI is hoping to get) to any other nation apart from its closest munna UK & Israel? Perhaps Japan is (was) privy to some of the secrets given that Japanese have the tech capability to come out with an equally advanced product albeit at a premium price. I think Turkey assembles some F-16s as well...no idea how deep ToT level of critical systems are.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Jan 2017 20:09

Shrinking fleet poses tough choices for IAF: light, medium or heavy fighters?
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/01/s ... s-for.html

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 05 Jan 2017 00:10

Philip wrote:Its a "back to the future" policy! One report today says that the SH is being dumped because it is "twin-engined" This looks like another AW scam here. The requirement is being tailor made for Boeing.Why only a single-engined bird when what we're really in need of are another 100+ med. multi-role aircraft to complement the measly 36 Rafales on order. If one remembers,the requirement was for an initial 120+ aircraft with more to be built in India later on.Why the sudden change to a single-engined bird? Is this an acknowledgement (in pvt) that the LCA has failed to meet expectations and production will be torturous?

Super,building the F-16 while the Chinese build and sell their stealth bird to Pak as well as for the PLAAF. Since the western allies of the US are dumping their F-16s for the JSF,etc. why don't we instead pick up these secondhand birds at a far cheaper price? Perhaps we could even buy them from Pakistan!

There is no requirement of a medium engined bird. What IAF says is a pipe dream, In reality it is light fighters which IAF needs due to decommissioning of couple of hundred Mig 21 bis and bisons. Moreover it is more expensive to maintain twin engine bird compared to single engine ones.

If SaaB or Boeing is willing to do a deep ToT then I will take it. Then apply the tech for our stealth bird MCA.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2017 00:35

Deep ToT of what? Even if I take it that they will do the deep ToT of know-how (extremely unlikely), who will tell us the know-why. Please don't expect us to learn any design knowledge to leverage for AMCA. All that learning will come from in house projects.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2017 06:22

For serious observers, understanding the Aatre committee report has become absolutely critical. It is looking like LM is going to be chosen as the strategic partner.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Jan 2017 06:30

Y I Patel wrote:Note, the biggest of all this is helping Tata make the quantum jump from being a Tier 1 supplier to becoming an integrator and assembler of combat aircraft.

... better known as screw driver giri.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Jan 2017 06:34

Indranil wrote:Deep ToT of what? Even if I take it that they will do the deep ToT of know-how (extremely unlikely), who will tell us the know-why. Please don't expect us to learn any design knowledge to leverage for AMCA. All that learning will come from in house projects.

The hunt for a strategic partner is all about paying for R&D in another country to do the hard work.

To disguise this total failure on the home front to manage projects and do home grown R&D, the claim is being put forth that manufacturing foreign planes locally under foreign guidance will make Indian companies competent. However the reality could not be further from the truth.

The moment a foreign single engine plane is done, consider the LCA as good as being on the scrap heap - alongside the Arjun tank.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2017 06:54

I know.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 05 Jan 2017 06:57

Indranil, thanks for the useful link. Do note that some of the recommendations were subsequently modified. For example, the committee recommended one strategic partner company for Group I which applies to aircraft. However, that has been subsequently modified to two partners.

Also, aeroengines is a category by itself, but recommended for later implementation.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2017 07:06

On what basis was it made two?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Jan 2017 07:28

^^^ Deep ToT is creating the ecosystem to manufacture in quantity according to spec. It's not being able to make every widget yourself but being able to have a supplier system (domestic and local) that can provide them on time on spec. That leads to efficient assembly by the lead integrator (for example LM) and you get a bird on schedule and at ~projected cost. Over time, you lead your ecosystem partners to delivering the next generation stuff.

LM more than Boeing (surprisingly) has done more ^^^ and has also gotten the India business angle right. The F-16/spares export angle to offset acquisition cost of 100 a/c is pretty ingenious and has the potential for a financial win/win for them and us.

But it's all too rational. Let's wait for the PAK/FA/FGFA/SU75s (next iteration of the SU-35s offered to PRC) filling in the gap with the fabled used Qatari Mirage 2000-9s at a mere $80MM a pop.

I realize that elections are a 24x7x52 affair for India but there must be some fleeting time available for a decision on operational necessity for the IAF.

The squadron picture over the next 2 years looks really bad.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2017 07:42

Yes, every thing westward is rational. Everything eastward and inward is fabled. All too rational indeed!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Jan 2017 07:57

Cosmo_R: I lost you after Deep ToT. So I echo Indranil's question he posed to sohamn.

Deep ToT of what?

Define Deep ToT

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Jan 2017 07:57

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^ Deep ToT is creating the ecosystem to manufacture in quantity according to spec. It's not being able to make every widget yourself but being able to have a supplier system (domestic and local) that can provide them on time on spec. That leads to efficient assembly by the lead integrator (for example LM) and you get a bird on schedule and at ~projected cost. Over time, you lead your ecosystem partners to delivering the next generation stuff.

Integration of off-the-shelf stuff is what HAL can already do. There is no case to be made for spending tens of billions of dollars on a foreign plane just to do the same old.

What's needed is an ecosystem of Tier-1 Indian companies capable of researching, developing and manufacturing all major sub-systems of an aircraft. That is what's missing.

The only way that comes into existence is by NOT running out to buy foreign planes at great expense at the drop of a hat. Working on LCA type indigenous projects and having local companies struggle through the development process of its major sub-systems is the ONLY way that will occur.

Some leeway can be given to import stuff that local industry is having a hard time developing with the understanding that local industry will close the gap within a few years. But it can't be for every sub-system of the aircraft.

The above is nothing like the whole sale purchase of a foreign plane where the entire ecosystem exists in the foreign country already. The foreign country is not going to redevelop the plane and re-certify it just because India wants to duplicate the development of sub-systems for the plane. Its also not going to "teach" Indian scientists & engineers how do become competent researchers & developers.

In short, nothing is learnt on these foreign plane projects. Terminologies like ToT are meaningless nonsense unless the R&D base exists within the country that can use that ToT.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 05 Jan 2017 09:46

Rakesh wrote:Cosmo_R: I lost you after Deep ToT. So I echo Indranil's question he posed to sohamn.

Deep ToT of what?

Define Deep ToT

Expect D-E-E-P onlee.

We are unable to invest in small businesses that could be involved in ancillaries but want some special deeeeeeeep TOT. The only thing that will be given, will be by the Indian junta. In crass terms, will start with a blow and end with a job (or worse).

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Jan 2017 09:57

I think we should henceforth be called "LegoLand of Militiary Industrial complex"! You get pre prepped parts and a map, which shows how to snap em together.

Is snapping things together really cheaper in India? I am asking a real question.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Jan 2017 10:36

Indranil wrote:On what basis was it made two?

Damn good question...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jan 2017 12:14

CyB.Excellent Q! Official statements about MKI prod. found that it was cheaper to import the aircraft from Russia than manufacture it here using local material. Since CVRDE cannot get its act together on T-90 production (supposedly due to inability to translate docs and drawings!) ,almost 400 T-90s are being imported from Russia instead. This "second-line" is going to be another monumental fiasco. Fiasco 1 appears to be the LCA.I feel that a lot is not being made public,why the LCA appears to be languishing despite announcements about extra orders,etc. The naval chief's bombshell that it isn't interested anymore in it has lifted the lid a little on the entire programme. If all that the IAF needd (instead of the hundreds of med MMRCA birds) are large numbers of light aircraft,then the best bet is still the LCA!

Instead are we bailing out Boeing or LM again? When it was not the highest priority on the IAF's wish list,MMRCA aircraft desperately needed,out of nowhere came a requirement for a heavy transport despite the IAF possessing over 20 IL-76s which had operated v.well over 2 decades.Boeing's C-17 plant/production was to close and Snake-Oil Singh made a pact with Uncle Sam, ("Bush,we love you"),to buy large qtys. of US arms in exchange for the N-deal. So the large order for Boeing C-17s kept the plant open for a couple of years more,and Apaches and Chinooks were added to the list.These were fast tracked in G-to-G deals,while the MMRCA -the most urgent requirement of the IAF,languished for years even after the Rafale was selected!
What stopped the GOI from going the G-to-G way with the French after the Raffy was chosen by the IAF for a faster acquisition? It then took Mr. Modi to break the logjam in Paris,buying just 36. This still leaves the ISF without at least 80 -100 more MMRCAs .How can either of the two rejected US hags which didn't even make it to the short list now be "acceptable" to the IAF? Frankly the GOI,led by the nose by Uncle Sam,is trying to shoehorn a US fighter into the IN's inventory,so that the US can then play both India and Pak against each other supplying both with weaponry,controlling events in the sub-continent.

Neither of the two US birds can measure upto the MKI,or even the MIG-29UG in WVR combat,as proven by the legacy MIG-29 in well-documented testing after some were available in the West (Germany) after the IUSSR collapsed. This is why the Paki F-16s at Kargil skedalled home when MIG-29s locked onto them. The only genuinely new light fighter is the Gripen,but it isn't US and stands less of a chance against the massive inroads that the Washington has made in the corridors of power in Lutyens' Delhi.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 05 Jan 2017 12:32

Philip wrote:This is why the Paki F-16s at Kargil skedalled home when MIG-29s locked onto them. The only genuinely new light fighter is the Gripen,but it isn't US and stands less of a chance against the massive inroads that the Washington has made in the corridors of power in Lutyens' Delhi.

Pakis weren't scared of the Mig-29's maneuverability. The F-16s and Mig-29s are more or less evenly matched and any WVR combat can go either way depending on the situation. They were scared of the R-27 missiles it carried, against which they had no answers since the paki F-16s weren't BVR capable at the time. That is no longer the case. In fact, considering our recent troubles with the R-77's, they probably have an advantage now, even over the upgraded Mig-29s.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 05 Jan 2017 13:30

^^Actually MiG-29 is can easily overpower F-16 in WVR given the combo of R-73 along with HMCS. But against a NATO BVR equipped F-16, chances are the MiG-29 would get whooped! But like you said, F-16s at that time did not have any answer to R-27s...

Indranil, with a lot of big words like strategic partnership and all being thrown by our RMji, I thought perhaps a Deep ToT involving know-why (thank you for using the right term) of some components could be part of the deal. Overall, it is to establish another competitor and hopefully it is up to the Indian company to take it forward from screwdriver-giri eventually.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2017 13:47

Indranil wrote:On what basis was it made two?

Oh, this is a good find which I had missed. Cross posted from the Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread.

Philip wrote: <SNIP>
http://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/englis ... d-55714658
MoD for partnership with 2 firms for each sub-sector
(20 Jul) In a major step to spur up the "Make in India" effort and to open up big-ticket collaboration with private companies that can offer their expertise in five critically important sectors for defence, the defence ministry is mulling "strategic partnerships" with not one, but two companies for each sub-sector. The initial idea was to rope in one private strategic partner for each platform. "The ministry is now looking at a two 'strategic partner' situation rather than a single 'strategic partner' ,one for each of the five critically important sectors of defence production," a top source told this newspaper. The five sub-sectors are armoured fighting vehicles (AFV), aircraft and helicopters, submarines, ammunition and macro process management of issues and for which five sub-groups, respectively, had been formed on the MoD's orders on May 24, 2016. Last month, the private companies made their respective presentations to the government. "Basically the idea is not to place all eggs in one single basket. Besides preventing a monopoly situation, it will also allow for a good price discovery," said the source, explaining the rationale for such a possible move. Another objective of such a policy is to fire up the competitive zeal in the defence public sector units (DPSUs). Defence minister Manohar Parrikar has not been too impressed with the track record of DPSUs. Openly critical of the work culture in DPSUs, he had asked them in the recent past to step out of the "cocoon of comfort". In many cases, at least two partners are being sought for logistical reasons as the requirements are big as well as with huge market potential.

Basically, Aatre committee had said the strategic partner is not to bypass the DRDO/DPSUs. In fact, the latter is supposed to provide the competition. MoD has said that is not enough competition. But the next question that will arise (and has already arisen) is both strategic partners will seek assured orders to invest here. Both LM and Saab has made it very clear. How do we manage that?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jan 2017 13:52

>>Actually MiG-29 is can easily overpower F-16 in WVR given the combo of R-73 along with HMCS

the F16 also has HMS and Aim9x which is much newer than r73. granted the pakis dont have the aim9x yet.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Jan 2017 13:57

Since IN has Mig-29K , it will boil down to RVV-MD/TowOwl HMD versus any thing else

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Jan 2017 16:06

Singha wrote:>>Actually MiG-29 is can easily overpower F-16 in WVR given the combo of R-73 along with HMCS

the F16 also has HMS and Aim9x which is much newer than r73. granted the pakis dont have the aim9x yet.

You can basically launch an Aim-9X Block II, ASRAAM, IRIS-T, or a Python 5 (all are intergated) from an F-16 and there are a few HMS and HMD options as well with the latest being the JHMCS II. irrespective of what kit any Mig-29 shows up with you really don't wan't to get into the booth with either HMS or HMD, HOBS missile combination unless absolutely necessary.

Despite the AIm-9x being a newer weapon (particularly Block II) to the R-73 the nature of the WVR engagement will probably result in lots of kills on both sides if one consistently ran simulated dogfights between these two aircraft equipped with any sight/display - weapon combo. Combat does not happen in a vacuum so there are likely to be as many other factors such as situational awareness, fuel state, training and tactics, support etc that could potentially outweighs any advantage either enjoys in terms of performance and/or weapons.

It also depends what the F-16 is configured with. Remove the CFT's, put the 32,000 pound GE engine and load it up with 6-8 missiles and you still have a hotrod...A lot different from a CFT carrying bomb truck.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jan 2017 16:34

from pics on the web the CFTs seem to remain on even if for AA loadout. I guess the user nations are not exactly facing any serious AA threat and its just used as a bomb truck with 2 wingtip amraams and sometimes 2 more tucked under fuselage.

turkey operates a mix of both CFT and older F-solahs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Jan 2017 16:42

Singha wrote:from pics on the web the CFTs seem to remain on even if for AA loadout. I guess the user nations are not exactly facing any serious AA threat and its just used as a bomb truck with 2 wingtip amraams and sometimes 2 more tucked under fuselage.

turkey operates a mix of both CFT and older F-solahs.

Yes, it's entirely user dependent. Most leave them on since it isn't as easy as taking off a bunch of EFT's from wet hard points. Israel has their F-16's kitted out for medium-long range penetrating attacks (hence all those EW/EA bumps and warts) while the UAE probably have no threat that justifies training without them.

One could however configure one's fleet differently if one wanted to if one had a portion of the fleet reserved purely for air-defense for example. That's how I imagine the US would do it if it ever looked at a CFT upgrade to its Vipers. In certain Air to Air scenarios one can imagine that it a user will have 2 hard points to spare for Tanks so CFT's may not be that big of a factor as long the TOS and range requirements are manageable.

CFT's offer one the ability to increase range organically, in the least drag inducing fashion possible while freeing up a couple of hard-points for munitions that would have otherwise been occupied with bags. It certainly has advantages in that sense but there are scenarios where you may simply not need that.