'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Jan 2017 04:53

Lalmohan wrote:Making spares is not the same as making the aircraft - its pretty much a different type of business

The business of making money is the same:

"Boeing Ramps Up Push Into the Airplane Parts Business
Company presses to cut costs and secure a new source of revenue more lucrative than building aircraft"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-ramp ... 1461317403

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jan 2017 05:17

brar_w wrote:The best overall from a multi-role perspective would have been the F-16U.

Some years later, I was talking with some people on the Eurofighter Typhoon program and mentioned the UAE’s delta F-16. “It would have killed us,” one said.

Might have been true if they had a half decent export record.

As things stand, the Saudi sales would remain unaffected being a non-US supplier. At best, the F-16U would have replaced the F-15SA orders. Same for Kuwait which might have ordered F-16s in lieu of SHs.

Same goes for Oman & Austria which too opted for the EF primarily on political grounds. That only leaves the EF consortium that had an obvious vested interest in buying domestic.

Similar situation for the Rafale as well.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 08 Jan 2017 21:29

rohitvats wrote: Parrikar said we're keeping LCA Mk2 case open and looking at 2024-2025 timeline).

"Keeping LCA MK2 case open"? That already sounds like they plan to cancel it and keep on buying foreign planes.

I wonder if these guys have any clue as to the damage they inflict on domestic aerospace industry.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jan 2017 23:03

rohitvats wrote: Parrikar said we're keeping LCA Mk2 case open and looking at 2024-2025 timeline).

I am very glad Parrikar said that. And, more.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jan 2017 12:32

mdgujral.That's what I suggested aeons ago! However, the anti-Ru /pro-Yanqui lobby will never accept ihis sensible solution.This would be the most pragmatic move,perhaps with an additional sqd. of Rafales thrown in,plus fster LCA production and Jag upgrades. IN fact,as the MIG-29/35 is under production in Russia,we could work out a deal to export from India MIG-29/35s.A TVC MIG_35 with an AESA radar either from east or west,would be a very formidable med multi-role fighter,esp. if BMos-M arrives later on.

The US lobby is desperate to sell us its second-hand "deep technology",whatever that means,for these aging hags,which will be vastly inferior to most aircraft in the skies post 2020.Neither of the two even measure up to the MKI.It would be most interesting for the IAF to exercise these two with the upgraded M2Ks and MIG-29UGs and see how they fare.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 10 Jan 2017 06:51

What better time to talk about this than on the day when we learn that Ashley Tellis might be a contender for the new Ambassador to India. The link below presents his updated analysis on the state of IAF (as of March 2016).

Recall that Ahsley Tellis did a detailed study for US via the Carnegie Endowment at the time of the original MMRCA tender. At that time, he gave an excellent articulation of why the IAF needed the MMRCA in large numbers due to the steady growth in the potency of PLAAF in the Tibetan region. He has now updated his original report, and it makes sobering reading. He might be a tad too dark regarding IAF's deterioration in conventional capabilities vis a vis PLAAF, but his arguments are substantive. Of special interest to this thread is that he articulates the case for a 55-60 squadron IAF to maintain conventional edge over combined PLAAF and PAF, in case of the worst case scenario of a two front war. If one accepts his numbers, then the currently envisaged policy of MIIF-single engine followed by MIIF-2 engines makes great sense, and there would be no problem in sustaining two strategic partners in addition to HAL.

His case makes most sense in the context of India's NFU policy. NFU can only be credibly followed by a power that can project a dissuasive conventional posture. If PLA were to somehow overrun Arunachal Pradesh through conventional means, what good would a minimum credible nuclear deterrent do?

http://carnegieendowment.org/2016/03/28 ... -pub-63123

This is a superb piece of analysis, and it has obviously benefited by the level of access AT enjoys with the Indian defense establishment. The summary page is educative and punchy enough, and the report is packed with eye-opening facts. I am not done with it, and will post later unless someone else wants to do the honors.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 08:51

The only we can get to 55 squadrons is to buy planes at 25-30 million dollars. Only thing that fits that budget is the LCA.

"Indian policymakers must especially guard against the temptation to prioritize indigenous design and manufacture over the imperative of providing the IAF’s able pilots with the best fighters available."

(Kill growth and get us to do after sales/support, I guess we will remain call center of the world if we listen to these mandarins)

Other than that, its a great sales pitch on why we need more. Buy American. Yeah, when the F-35 gets out of trouble and becomes useful in about 7-10 years from now, we will look at it.. For now no thank you should be our offer when either F-16 or F-35 are offered.

FA-18 esp the growlers is mature enough and IAF should look at that over this whole get into LM to pick up their need to get out of the platform yet someone wanting to support that program. If LM has to continue providing support, its gonna cost them a whole lot. if they quit, then no one will buy American as after sales sucked. They are in a quandry for sure. Lets not fall for it. If they want to move the line on their own to TaTas then do so on its own merits.I am sure if there is a business case then tatas/mahindras/reliance will do the needful. Asking Indian taxpayer under the guise of we are screwed if we don't order American is just plain as bs marketing that we shouldn't fall for.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jan 2017 09:56

The only we can get to 55 squadrons is to buy planes at 25-30 million dollars. Only thing that fits that budget is the LCA.

Only if they can make 30 or more a year.

Really no use making so many into the 40s.

IMHO, India needs to get out of this cycle where they keep needing squadrons and technology at the same time. That cycle has to be broken once and for all.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jan 2017 13:39

F-18 is indeed extremely "mature",like over ripe cheese,this 40 yr. old design stinks!

Other reports about increased availability of MKIs,now over 60% and setting up of spares/parts manufacturing in India for the same is better news. To face the huge numbers of PLAAF frontl;ine fighters like their Flankers/Flanker clones and now SU-35s too,the IAF need far better fighters than F-16s/F-18s. For Pak,4++ med.The best WVR fighter is the TVC MIG-35 and supported with UG 29s and M2Ks ,plus a few sqds of MKIs should ensure domination of Paki airspace. The Rafales will be needed first ,along with the bulk of MKIs for dealing with China in any Sino-Pak JV misadventure. If we can relocate IAF MKIs used for maritime strike,replacing them with new upgraded MIG-29Ks,giving the IN a greater share of maritime air defence,then these MKI sqds. could be sent to augment numbers against China. For large numbers,there is no alternative to the LCA,MIG-29/35s coming in second costwise. FGFAs will have to come in post 2020 to deal with any PLAAF stealth birds stationed in Tibet. The IAF should acquire at least 2 sqds. of Ru std. aircraft (with some desi eqpt.) before developing a major variant as the IAF appears to want.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 18:05

Philip wrote:F-18 is indeed extremely "mature",like over ripe cheese,this 40 yr. old design stinks!

Yes, but its the only teen (fa-18), should we need to purchase one, that doesn't cannibalize any of our own efforts and leaves a path for LCA-MK3 (stealth) in the future.

F-16 kills LCA
Gripen kills LCA

FA-18 helps LCA - Engine Commonality, helps number plate squadrons in dire straits.
FA-18 helps with full spectrum jamming ( growlers are a real possibility, perhaps the same version as Australia )
FA-18 helps with AMCA -( Gives it time to mature )

Rafale - Same as above (Perhaps not as good as growlers for full spectrum jamming and uber expensive). Maybe Dassault would like to move its line to India and Make it cheaper here. There order book is almost done.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Jan 2017 19:29

Philip wrote:F-18 is indeed extremely "mature",like over ripe cheese,this 40 yr. old design stinks!

.

If they called it F-28 like the Mig 35 - it would be fantastic

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jan 2017 20:33

FA-18 helps with full spectrum jamming ( growlers are a real possibility, perhaps the same version as Australia )

Where are you getting this? Australia not only bought the Growler, but bought into the US EW community including adopting the ranges and forming very close partnerships with the VAQ on how all this is generated. I haven't read on anything like this being offered. Boeing has certainly not talked of it.

As to the Rafale and the Growler. Apples and Oranges. The Rafale possesses self-defense jamming and EA protection as most modern fighters have to in today's IAD environment.

The Growler is primarily a Stand Off High power full spectrum jamming aircraft that can double in as an escort jammer as long as the package being escorted is subsonic (hence they practice 'modified escort' given the stand off abilities). The missions have absolutely no overlap much like the F-35 and Growler comparison that claimed a lot of bandwidth around the www last year.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 21:17

brar_w wrote:
FA-18 helps with full spectrum jamming ( growlers are a real possibility, perhaps the same version as Australia )
Where are you getting this? Australia not only bought the Growler, but bought into the US EW community including adopting the ranges and forming very close partnerships with the VAQ on how all this is generated. I haven't read on anything like this being offered. Boeing has certainly not talked of it.

As to the Rafale and the Growler. Apples and Oranges. The Rafale possesses self-defense jamming and EA protection as most modern fighters have to in today's IAD environment.

The Growler is primarily a Stand Off High power full spectrum jamming aircraft that can double in as an escort jammer as long as the package being escorted is subsonic (hence they practice 'modified escort' given the stand off abilities). The missions have absolutely no overlap much like the F-35 and Growler comparison that claimed a lot of bandwidth around the www last year.

That's right, thats what we ask for if they want us to buy the FA-18s.

Here are the holes (in some manner) for IAF.
1. SEAD
2. Full spectrum Jamming.

This solves both. If they won't sell, trash this program! We can add more MKIs.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 21:22

Either the F-18 (in Growler mode) or the F-35 would be nice. But not the F-16. I agree with cybaru.

To echo Cosmo_R...if we get deep ToT of either platform, it would be great. The US is indeed willing or at least that is what we are being led to believe on BRF

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jan 2017 21:24

I doubt this was offered. A successful partnership over an important area such as this will be a give and take beyond simply orders. EW and EA is a multi-domain operation with how the jamming system is developed and maintained being an important component. You have to integrate in order to reap the full benefits. It's either that or get technology control which on the NGJ would be virtually impossible to secure.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 21:26

brar saar: Let us not revisit the Ganga Jamuna Saraswati story all over again on merits of the F-16, but if Deep ToT is being offered to us by Lockheed Martin, then why not the F-35? It is single engine.

P.S. Don't answer that. I am being sarcastic. You are a valued poster. My barb is not directed at you

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 21:32

brar_w wrote:I doubt this was offered. A successful partnership over an important area such as this will be a give and take beyond simply orders. EW and EA is a multi-domain operation with how the jamming system is developed and maintained being an important component. You have to integrate in order to reap the full benefits. It's either that or get technology control which on the NGJ would be virtually impossible to secure.

Agreed! Therein lies the root of all problems. IAF does not enter strategic partnerships! ( Which smiley do y'all think is appropriate before I am burnt and trashed? )

IMO, there is no point teens if it doesn't come with these technologies. We need to start somewhere and buying, using and getting familiar seems like a good way to make progress and include it in our operational training. Partnerships will come later as we realize how valuable this is and why this must be something we need to focus on strategically if we don't already.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jan 2017 22:10

Not sure about teens, but this is about a teen in the F-16. The F/A-18 has been eliminated from the current single engine fighter acquisition program. It would be rather wastefull to buy the F-16 or Gripen and also buy the Rhino when you could simply buy more Rafale's.

Regarding what should come with it, that is subjective. The Rhino and Growler have completely different missions, and for all intents and purposes, are different aircraft that only happen to share a platform.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 22:17

brar, I am sure you know that EW plays a big role in any future war with China or Pakistan. Having a Growler type platform would be a tremendous asset to the IAF. I do not know why we went for the Rafale purchase - albeit there is still time to cancel that purchase and pay the penalties to Dassault - and then open a competition of 200 single engine fighters and then have another competition of twin engine fighters down the road. This is as per MP in press reports. Would it not make better sense to go in for a fleet of Growlers or the F-35 which would be even better. From a platform perspective, a Growler or the F-35 can be far more effective than F-Solah, Block 70. Or am I wrong in that assumption?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jan 2017 22:20

This to me looks like an MII extension of the original TOT and production deal for the MMRCA after negotiations on the latter fell apart on account of some very high cost. That they picked the likely cheapest 2 aircraft points me to that conclusion.

An F-35, in that size, capacity with MII will not be cheap, and definitely not cheaper than the Rafale with similar set of benefits. The Growler would involve a strategic partnership which imho is beyond the current bi-lateral relationship. It is something the US is comfortable with doing with Australia, Canada or the UK where there is quite a bit of information on the threat being shared already.

As I've said developing EW capability is a multi-domain operation that involves not only all the military services but other three later agencies as well. Neither is the bi-lateral relationship mature enough for that, I'm pretty confident that it is not at the moment in India's best interest to pursue that.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 22:21

Kinda funny, I really think its GOI that is pushing the F-16 deal, being forced too from special interests. IAF really wants more rafales and they don't really want this teen business. "IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha on Tuesday said the force would like to have more of the aircraft and insisted that the recently signed contract for 36 fighters was better than other such deals." I think thats the crux of it.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 22:24

brar: Agreed. Then saar, drop the pretense (not you personally!) of Deep ToT or MII. Just purchase them off the shelf. The IAF needs the numbers and if the US is willing to do it, then let's go for it. As cybaru says, the F-18 is anyways better for the Tejas and the AMCA. It would make better sense to do MII on the GE414 engine or other components, then do screwdrivergiri of an entire aircraft which makes no sense for the IAF.

cybaru: Dassault cannot see the value - for the life of me (perhaps too much wine) I don`t know why - of MII. They need to drop the price of the Rafale (long term profits vs short term profits), rope India in on the nEUROn project or offer some other juicy carrot. They already got an order for 36 Rafales. IF they cannot further that relationship, that is entirely Dassault`s fault. Everybody has a price.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jan 2017 22:37

That's right, thats what we ask for if they want us to buy the FA-18s.

The (entire) threat libs? For TSP and ChiCom?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 22:37

Rakesh wrote:It would make better sense to do MII on the GE414 engine or other components, then do screwdrivergiri of an entire aircraft which makes no sense for the IAF.

Agreed, start with 414, pay for EPE/EDE whatever it is, even if it crosses 1 billion dollars for the engine with bigger thrust and TVC nozzles and do this at home in our labs. Make 414 in India as much as they allow. By the time AMCA is ready to fly, both a TVC and more powerful engine will be ready. We need to start now though.

Rakesh wrote: cybaru: Dassault cannot see the value - for the life of me (perhaps too much wine) I don`t know why - of MII. They need to drop the price of the Rafale (long term profits vs short term profits), rope India in on the nEUROn project or offer some other juicy carrot. They already got an order for 36 Rafales. IF they cannot further that relationship, that is entirely Dassault`s fault. Everybody has a price.

Yeah, they should have separated the Engine and worked on Kaveri and M-88 eco in India, with Indians picking up the tab if they were smart. They could have also separated the radar and priced it separately as TOT for Rafale/LCA/AMCA etc. That would have helped them mitigate costs and reduced costs. They could have gone so many ways to make this work. Neither we nor them really found a nice way to slice the pie.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jan 2017 22:41

There is a thread for designing your air craft and they should accommodate your thoughts on an engine too.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 22:45

NRao wrote:There is a thread for designing your air craft and they should accommodate your thoughts on an engine too.

Why the heart burn?

Wow! I am amazed!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Jan 2017 22:45

rakesh - dassault will not be happy to shift strategic jobs out of france; aerospace is a strategic industry for them, high tech an important part of their industrial plan, unemployment a big worry - so why would they?
not entirely clear why in trumpistan LM or Boeing can do the same... something strange in the hood... need to call ghostbusters

I think the best on offer is screwdriver giri - which is ok if we use it to learn how to make a better screw driver for the next time (AMCA)

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 22:45

NRao wrote:There is a thread for designing your air craft and they should accommodate your thoughts on an engine too.

Naah, all yours! And they wonder how skirmishes start!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 22:50

Lamohan - I would have bought that argument, but Dassault was willing to do a MII of the Rafale locally but at exorbitant prices and not guaranteeing the quality of the build by HAL. I can understand the latter, but not the former.

I like how you put that into the 80s ghostbusters song. Pretty neat!

screwdrivergiri only makes sense if it has any commonality with the Tejas and AMCA. Otherwise what is the point of the screwdrivergiri?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 22:51

Lalmohan wrote: not entirely clear why in trumpistan LM or Boeing can do the same... something strange in the hood... need to call ghostbusters

I really think, they have to support existing units and the cost of keeping the line open for support must be prohibitive. This will also allow them to sell the line for a fair market value recouping some costs and adding to the bottom line, while at the same time getting an order of 100-200 more units. Frees them up to focus on F-35, better alignment strategically for them.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 22:52

cybaru: please check your PM.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jan 2017 22:54

t entirely clear why in trumpistan LM or Boeing can do the same... something strange in the hood... need to call ghostbusters

Lockheed Martin is already committing to absorbing all the folks freed up from the F-16 program into the F-35 program. As the latter ramps up they'll need to hire more people over and above that. If they go for the F-16 there is unlikely to be any job loss as a result of this. There are no new orders for the aircraft on the horizon that will keep the line humming along even at the current CRAWL (with production gaps).

To Trump or whomever else it will be either seeing the 2 lines at FW being consolidated into one giant one or letting the business generate additional revenue by transferring the outgoing line to a partner abroad. Unless Lockheed taps into a large F-16 acquisition wave their case vis-a-vis Trump's jobs program is sound.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 22:56

Rakesh wrote:cybaru: please check your PM.

Can't respond to you through the site. Please check hotmail.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 22:57

Cybaru wrote:Can't respond to you through the site. Please check hotmail.

Responded. No more of this on the forum. Let`s stay on topic before the admins remind us to

Cybaru wrote:Neither we nor them really found a nice way to slice the pie.

Oh they very well know how to slice the pie. Just plain, good old, corporate greed. Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Money

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 23:13

Do screwdrivergiri of the Rhino (brar, I give up on the Growler...your arguments are convincing indeed!) and do MII of the APG-79 AESA radar (a tender for AESA radar for the Tejas has already been issued) and MII of the GE414 turbofan. I don`t care if that MII means screwdrivergiri of those two vital components vs Deep ToT (what a farce that is!), but will help the Tejas and the AMCA tremendously. Both parties win.

Tejas Mk.1a and Mk.2 can take the place of the single engine fighter competition and Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric (and the US) win a fighter competition. brar, is this doable? Is this practical?

Can we purchase four more Katrinas to round up the 36 order to 40?

Transfer those 40 birds to the SFC.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jan 2017 23:19

Rakesh wrote:brar: Agreed. Then saar, drop the pretense (not you personally!) of Deep ToT or MII.

Although I'm not familiar with the extent of TOT demanded on the original MMRCA, my impression of pragmatic approach to looking at technology transfer has always been with an eye out on exercising control over the technology being acquired.

I view this something similar to what Israel has been able to do with its F-15's and F-16's as opposed to a silver-bullet capability that will magically transform the MIC's ability to tackle challenges in propulsion or any other area of interest.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Jan 2017 23:23

brar: is it safe to assume that we can have the same relationship with the US that Israel enjoys with the US? I was thinking more along the lines of a screwdrivergiri relationship (no sarcasm intended). Both sides are sending feelers to see how the other responds. An Israel type relationship may be a bit too much to expect now. Israel can modify the F-35 to put in IAI components in (they did the same with the F-15 and F-16). I could be wrong, but that needs the approval of the US no?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jan 2017 23:27

brar: is it safe to assume that we can have the same relationship with the US that Israel enjoys with the US? I was thinking more along the lines of a screwdrivergiri relationship (no sarcasm intended). Both sides are sending feelers to see how the other responds. An Israel type relationship may be a bit too much to expect now.

That is something we will have to wait and see. Given how recent the relationship is in terms of weapons platform sales one would think otherwise but then one also has not had such rapid movement between the two nations with signing of agreements, recognition of India's status through Congress etc. The meeting between Namo and Carter on his very last visit was also fascinating even though we know little about what actually was discussed. At the very least, if the F-16 is to be pursued, I'd suggest a hybrid based on the F-16 SUFA.

That to me is a better allocation of resources since it aligns you with the IDF that also has plan to keep their F-16's upgraded well into the future given that they relatively new. I don't see the MOD or IAF agreeing to an arrangement any less than the type of control they can exercise atm with the MKI. Think indegenous weapons, and tweeking some mission systems at the very least. The long term plan MUST be to take control of as many mission systems and keep them upgraded in house.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Jan 2017 23:38

the optics of any production shift to india will be bad in trumpistan regardless of the economic logic
why india? why not tennessee? or Arkansas?

with dassault - I think they sabotaged the production part of the deal by raising the price - in the end they got more to be made in france... that is probably why GOI is looking for another option

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jan 2017 23:49

Lalmohan wrote:the optics of any production shift to india will be bad in trumpistan regardless of the economic logic
why india? why not tennessee? or Arkansas?

Would Arkansas nor Tennessee add another 100-200 to order and then pay for the line itself?

Lalmohan wrote: with dassault - I think they sabotaged the production part of the deal by raising the price - in the end they got more to be made in france... that is probably why GOI is looking for another option

Yeah, more profits on 36 units or total overall profits on the life of the program. I think someone at Dassault needs to sit through their micro econ class again.