'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[nirav]

See nirav, I am not blindly believing that the Tejas is the next best thing since sliced bread. In a knife fight vis-a-vis an AESA-equipped F-Solah, Block 70....her survivability is moot.

Actually in a knife fight, Tejas has a good chance. The Block70 has added weight and is no sprightly early unit
Also, the Tejas will have a very good ITR, HMDS+ Python-V. The F-16 HMDS + Aim-9X. Can go any which way.

In BVR, the Block70 may have a more powerful radar (though not by a huge margin and not a decider in presence of AWACs), longer ranged missiles (Derby/Astra Mk1 vs latest AMRAAMs), powerful EW suite (which both sides will field), and what really counts - higher payload (means more BVR missiles) and longer legs (persistence) without IFR.

Agree on the wvr bit.

Disagree on the BVR bit.

Even with AWACS coverage being available for both fighters, the solah with bigger Aesa would have a first look/lock capability and a first shot capability with its longer ranged missiles.
Thats certainly a big edge to the solah wrt BVR engagement with the LCA.

Rakesh Saar,

This back and forth isn't headed anywhere.
Summary being your position that medium fighters aren't needed and that LCA a-line will suffice and that if solah/Gripen come in,LCA will get shit canned.

My position is, IAF says they need the medium fighters, solah imo is better suited for filling that role with reduced capacity wrt Raffles. And that the requirement for the light end of the fighters will be filled with enough LCA.

Sh Parrikar would have good reason to consider this single engine foreign fighter rather than taking the F35 plunge.

The second hand thing is never happening though.

[brar_w]

Sh Parrikar would have good reason to consider this single engine foreign fighter rather than taking the F35 plunge.

Cost. If 126 Rafale couldn't happen on account of cost there was no way that a triple digit purchase of F-35 would be viable with the sort of local production/assembly being sought. This seems to be (at least to me) a look at the cheaper of the MMRCA offerings and pitting them against each other. I see this as an attempt at acquiring the 80% solution, but in greater quantity. Regarding the F-16V and LCA comparison, I don't see it is that important given the roles the two aircraft are to be filled. If properly supported and invested in, the AN/APG-83 + Aim-120D capability is going to be quite lethal when coupled with good training and support. LCA also brings a high end capability with an AESA and Derby / ER.

On a different note, I'm not sure this has been shared here but this is the new Center Pedestal Display that the F-16V comes with. The first fighter that is currently flying is kitted in this configuration.

[Cybaru]

Agree on the wvr bit.
Disagree on the BVR bit.

Even with AWACS coverage being available for both fighters, the solah with bigger Aesa would have a first look/lock capability and a first shot capability with its longer ranged missiles.
Thats certainly a big edge to the solah wrt BVR engagement with the LCA.

That's a pretty narrow equal equal scenario. What makes your think their awacs will be able to provide any kind of support if a shooting war breaks out? Without awacs will the solah have the same edge?

The second hand thing is never happening though.

How do you know?

[Cain Marko]

Agree on the wvr bit.
Disagree on the BVR bit.

Even with AWACS coverage being available for both fighters, the solah with bigger Aesa would have a first look/lock capability and a first shot capability with its longer ranged missiles.
Thats certainly a big edge to the solah wrt BVR engagement with the LCA.

Quite importantly isn't the tejas radar diameter roughly of same size as a solah. Iirc, solah has a pretty small nose and tejas a rather large one for its size. Power difference could be more pronounced though considering engine size difference.

[Cybaru]

^CM

That's not what I wrote.. Wrong quotation.

[nirav]

Agree on the wvr bit.
Disagree on the BVR bit.

Even with AWACS coverage being available for both fighters, the solah with bigger Aesa would have a first look/lock capability and a first shot capability with its longer ranged missiles.
Thats certainly a big edge to the solah wrt BVR engagement with the LCA.

That's a pretty narrow equal equal scenario. What makes your think their awacs will be able to provide any kind of support if a shooting war breaks out? Without awacs will the solah have the same edge?

The second hand thing is never happening though.

How do you know?

Bhai,
I was replying to a hypothetical BLK 70s vs LCA BVR scenario... Not paki vs LCA.. context toh dekho !

@ used : i KNOW because rfi equivalents for the solah and Gripen have gone out last year..

There is zero/Nada/nyet talk of buying second hand M2K by IAF or MoD.

It's just a fanboi suggestion on this thread.thats ALL there is to it !!

[brar_w]

Deleted

[NRao]

My position is, IAF says they need the medium fighters, solah imo is better suited for filling that role with reduced capacity wrt Raffles. And that the requirement for the light end of the fighters will be filled with enough LCA.

* Why a second line, I do not know
* IAF, as far as I can see, would prefer the Gripen
* As I have said make a times, the F-16 would come as a bundle (so too the FGFA and even perhaps the Rafale). Same for the F-16 over F-35. I just do not see them competitors. I see the F-35 not as part of a bundle
* Of all of them foreign fighter, IMHO, the F-16 brings a lot of things to the table that others do not. Especially WRT the Block 70

* Finally, I do not see the LCA-foreign fighter as a zero sum game. I said this about 2 years ago - the LCA is a tech demo (and they are treating it as such). But the Indian competency in designing planes will not die because of competition. But then a plane is not just a flying object any more. It is a lot more than that and IF India cannot keep up with those "lot more"s, then the platform itself will have no meaning. But a Gripen/F-16 will not kill the LCA. IF at all, it will be the sensors, missiles, networks, etc that will make the LCA an obsolete platform - it will still be great is turn and at shows.

Also, the comparison to T-90 and Marut are apple/orange. Not the same.

[nirav]

Sh Parrikar would have good reason to consider this single engine foreign fighter rather than taking the F35 plunge.

Cost. If 126 Rafale couldn't happen on account of cost there was no way that a triple digit purchase of F-35 would be viable with the sort of local production/assembly being sought. This seems to be (at least to me) a look at the cheaper of the MMRCA offerings and pitting them against each other. I see this as an attempt at acquiring the 80% solution, but in greater quantity. Regarding the F-16V and LCA comparison, I don't see it is that important given the roles the two aircraft are to be filled. If properly supported and invested in, the AN/APG-83 + Aim-120D capability is going to be quite lethal when coupled with good training and support. LCA also brings a high end capability with an AESA and Derby / ER.

Spot on.
I believe the primary opposition to the "single" engined foreign fighter comes from an erroneous belief set that blk70 = Mk1A in capability as both are 'light"..

In my view, if blk70 is light, LCA is really light.

Anyway, the reason I support solah over the Gripen is that if desh intends to strategically embrace massa, we might as well go the distance and get the massa jet rather than the Gripen with Massa's engines and mijjiles..


Cain Marko Saar,

The size of the radar itself, the TR modules on the apg83 vs 2052 would decide which Aesa has larger range rather than nose diameter of the respective jets.

[brar_w]

You can get better performance within the same nose diameter as well. Case in point, the AN/APG-80 with 2nd generation T/R modules vs the AN/APG-83 with next generation T/R modules now aligned with those on the F-35's AN/APG-81. Northrop Grumman currently has a production demand for 20,000-25,000 T/R modules a year for their fighter-radar business so its actually smart to align these programs from an upgradability perspective. They currently produce components for the APG-81, APG-83, and SABR-GS from this line.

[Cain Marko]

Anyway, the reason I support solah over the Gripen is that if desh intends to strategically embrace massa, we might as well go the distance and get the massa jet rather than the Gripen with Massa's engines and mijjiles..

In any case, the solah is a more capable platform.

Cain Marko Saar,

The size of the radar itself, the TR modules on the apg83 vs 2052 would decide which Aesa has larger range rather than nose diameter of the respective jets.

True dat. But given that nose size constraints are similar, perhaps both fighters can have similar sized radar and trm fit?

[Cain Marko]

^CM

That's not what I wrote.. Wrong quotation.

Fixed Cy Saar.

[Viv S]

Cost. If 126 Rafale couldn't happen on account of cost there was no way that a triple digit purchase of F-35 would be viable with the sort of local production/assembly being sought.

This is where I get skeptical. How much will a Blk 70 run us? URF?

$60-70 mil would be my guess. With the F-35A tagged at $80-85 mil while clocking 15-1 kill ratios at Red Flag that cost-value equation is tilted rather sharply against the F-16.

They'd be some saving on the infrastructure side but not nearly enough to level the odds. Especially since the bulk of the aircraft are likely to be off-the-shelf deliveries or kit-assembled.

[brar_w]

This is where I get skeptical. How much will a Blk 70 run us? URF?

$60-70 mil would be my guess. With the F-35A tagged at $80-85 mil while clocking 15-1 kill ratios at Red Flag that cost-value equation is tilted rather sharply against the F-16.

URF prices track the cost of production with fees thrown in. If you are going to need to supply some component level manufacturing, final assembly (leave aside technology transfer or control) that cost will be very significant for the F-35 compared to the F-16. I don't know what Lockheed plans to offer but it is likely to be an integration of simply moving their assembly equipment from FW to India and perhaps asking their industrial partners to do the same for things which are going to be built in India by their Indian manufacturing partners. Hundreds of F-35's with those requirements are going to run up a huge bill..Second only to that being paid by the USAF for their A variants.

They'd be some saving on the infrastructure side but not nearly enough to level the odds. Especially since the bulk of the aircraft are likely to be off-the-shelf deliveries or kit-assembled.

Not sure on how LMA will approach this industrially but a lot is likely to depend on the #'s one is looking at here.

[Viv S]

Nirav bhai, su etla magad mari karechey tamey?

We were mainly thinking of uae m2ks and possibly qatari...these are pretty much same standard as iaf upg the 5/9. Not much money will go into getting them to just the right std.

Consider that the qataris were offering 12 birds for $ 750 million in 2006. Iirc, these airfames were quite new too. Now with time and depreciation, cost will come down and i would expect $50 mil per unit and that is without negotiation.

+1

Get them cheap. Flog them to 2030 and phase them out with the rest of the fleet.

Certainly makes a lot more sense than inducting a brand new 4th gen aircraft type when most air forces are transitioning to 5th gen. And in the process, forcing the IAF to maintain yet another logistical support line past 2050.

But saar, how Will that be possible. Isn't it like a consortium that produces the jsf with final assembly In usa? Definitely worth pushing though.

Its actually got three assembly lines. There's the one at Ft. Worth, TX and then one at Cameri in Italy & and a third at Nagoya in Japan.

[Rakesh]

This back and forth isn't headed anywhere.

Yes indeed. It is not going anywhere, because you have still failed to answer my fundamental question from my last post. You don't have an answer do you?

Certainly makes a lot more sense than inducting a brand new 4th gen aircraft type when most air forces are transitioning to 5th gen. And in the process, forcing the IAF to maintain yet another logistical support line past 2050.

Aiyoo! Don't say logical things like that. Only the global F-Solah supply chain will exist in 2050. Maintain a 4th generation platform in 2050. So wonderful!

[Rakesh]

Saab set to storm Aero India with Gripen
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... -1.1711035

This is what happens when you open a comical competition called single engine fighter....read below....I reserve comment, but not laughter...

brar, this one is for you buddy...you of all people, will see the irony!

“Gripen-E is the best in its class and experts have already rated it in the 6th-7th generation category. We are confident that it will be the best plane,” he said.

We are keen on forging a partnership that will see India build capabilities to build a next generation aircraft, which could serve for the next 100 years,” Jan said.

[Viv S]

URF prices track the cost of production with fees thrown in. If you are going to need to supply some component level manufacturing, final assembly (leave aside technology transfer or control) that cost will be very significant for the F-35 compared to the F-16. I don't know what Lockheed plans to offer but it is likely to be an integration of simply moving their assembly equipment from FW to India and perhaps asking their industrial partners to do the same for things which are going to be built in India by their Indian manufacturing partners. Hundreds of F-35's with those requirements are going to run up a huge bill..Second only to that being paid by the USAF for their A variants.

Setting up a local FACO line is a one-time cost. ToT costs will be the similar (platform agnostic; read: Korea). The real estate and manpower will cost the same. The salient difference is that the tooling, fixtures, jigs will need to be ordered in one case while the other will involve disassembly/assembly costs.

Will be difference be huge? Like I said... I'm sceptical. Given the long term implications of the deal - the F-16 appears to be a bad bet (neither particularly cheap, nor particularly capable). You could achieve the same results in terms of capability aggregation with Su-30s & Rafales, to say nothing of the Tejas & F-35.

Not sure on how LMA will approach this industrially but a lot is likely to depend on the #'s one is looking at here.

Take a look at the Su-30 production for a benchmark. Deliveries to the IAF began in 2004. The first locally manufactured Su-30MKI was delivered in 2015 (Phase IV). Even assuming a considerable more efficient pvt sector est. there are limitations to the degree of indigenization possible from a 6-7 squadron order (maybe less).

[Rakesh]

Its actually got three assembly lines. There's the one at Ft. Worth, TX and then one at Cameri in Italy & and a third at Nagoya in Japan.

Wait a second? Are you sure? There are three F-35 production lines? Whoa! Why are we negotiating for 100 (or 200) F-Solahs when Italy and Japan gets to have their own F-35 production line? What gives? So there are different levels of strategic partnerships for Amreeka? I guess we must be the chaprasi partner.

Viv, are you really sure?

[brar_w]

Setting up a local FACO line is a one-time cost. ToT costs will be the similar (platform agnostic; read: Korea). The real estate and manpower will cost the same. The salient difference is that the tooling, fixtures, jigs will need to be ordered in one case while the other will involve disassembly/assembly costs.

Will be difference be huge? Like I said... I'm sceptical. Given the long term implications of the deal - the F-16 appears to be a bad bet (neither particularly cheap, nor particularly capable). You could achieve the same results in terms of capability aggregation with Su-30s & Rafales, to say nothing of the Tejas & F-35.

I'm not a fan of the F-16 deal (or Gripen for that matter) but looking at the costs and business arrangements involved it is not going to be a cheap fix and the cost of producing the F-16 vs that of the F-35 with the same terms is not going to be insignificant. Establishing a FACO is not the hard bit. That deal is easy. Much like Japan and Italy it is business arrangement for component production that is tricky and can be costly if not offset by program workshare which is already squeezed out given the current distribution of production and sustainment work.

Take a look at the Su-30 production for a benchmark. Deliveries to the IAF began in 2004. The first locally manufactured Su-30MKI was delivered in 2015 (Phase IV).

That is only a benchmark if the exact same path is followed. I don't think LMA will approach this from the perspective of basically creating a parallel production or assembly line. That is a strategy that their competitor is going to have to go for but they are likely to start with FW deliveries as they slowly move production capacity over..ramp down at FW while ramping up in India.Given that most big deals are negotiated with the prime acting on behalf of many component suppliers the same strategy could be established for the components that they are likely to offer to the Indian industrial partners. I've seen numbers suggesting commonality between 70-80% between F-16 and F-35 component suppliers so much like LMA they will be adding capability elsewhere while reducing volume on this project so no real loss in contracts.

Wait a second? Are you sure? There are three F-35 production lines? Whoa! Why are we negotiating for 100 (or 200) F-Solahs when Italy and Japan gets to have their own F-35 production line? What gives? So there are different levels of strategic partnerships for Amreeka? I guess we must be the chaprasi partner.

Not production but final assembly lines. Japan for example has a FACO but produces only around 40% of the components. These nations realize that it is expensive to assemble locally but wan't to do it for industrial benefits and strategic reasons

[Rakesh]

Not production but final assembly lines. Japan for example has a FACO but produces only around 40% of the components. These nations realize that it is expensive to assemble locally but wan't to do it for industrial benefits and strategic reasons.

brar that is SCREWDRIVERGIRI!

We are planning to do that with the F-Solah anyway. Why can't we get the F-35 then? What am I missing here?

[Viv S]

Its actually got three assembly lines. There's the one at Ft. Worth, TX and then one at Cameri in Italy & and a third at Nagoya in Japan.

Wait a second? Are you sure? There are three F-35 production lines? Whoa! Why are we negotiating for 100 (or 200) F-Solahs when Italy and Japan gets to have their own F-35 production line? What gives?

Its a Final Assembly & Checkout Line (FACO) line. Not exactly a production line - parts will be shipped in from all over the world. Some components are manufactured locally (eg. wings at Italy) and then shipped to the Texas FACO line.

The FACO facility also does the MRO work. In Italy's case, they'd be doing overhauls & maintenance for all Europe-based (NATO) jets. It'll also be assembling aircraft for Turkey. The Japanese facility will be doing the MRO work for US Pacom jets (the Koreans obviously refused to send their equipment to Japan.)

For Asia... slot's still open. The TASL line could potentially be delivering F-35Bs to Singapore down the line while also overhauling Centcom/ROKAF/RSAF jets. Certainly a lot more feasible than the silly export-hub fantasy that LM is selling wrt the F-16.

[brar_w]

Not production but final assembly lines. Japan for example has a FACO but produces only around 40% of the components. These nations realize that it is expensive to assemble locally but wan't to do it for industrial benefits and strategic reasons.

brar that is SCREWDRIVERGIRI!

We are planning to do that with the F-Solah anyway. Why can't we get the F-35 then? What am I missing here?

I never said it was. The difference is likely to be in the cost. If there isn't a real difference LMA would be quite foolish to not offer the F-35 instead of the F-16 since it will give them a giant advantage over the Gripen.

[Rakesh]

Viv: Explain to me how that is different from the F-Solah production line that is being planned for India?

Parts for the F-Solah will be shipped from all over the US and we will do the final assembly in India.

Are we producing any bit of the F-Solah from the raw material stage?

[NRao]

Nirav bhai, su etla magad mari karechey tamey?

We were mainly thinking of uae m2ks and possibly qatari...these are pretty much same standard as iaf upg the 5/9. Not much money will go into getting them to just the right std.

Consider that the qataris were offering 12 birds for $ 750 million in 2006. Iirc, these airfames were quite new too. Now with time and depreciation, cost will come down and i would expect $50 mil per unit and that is without negotiation.

+1

Get them cheap. Flog them to 2030 and phase them out with the rest of the fleet.

Certainly makes a lot more sense than inducting a brand new 4th gen aircraft type when most air forces are transitioning to 5th gen. And in the process, forcing the IAF to maintain yet another logistical support line past 2050.

In place of the F-16/Gripen? Perhaps. Do not know if that is politically possible.

However, if India is will to spend billions on used M2K, then why not on the LCA production lines, supply chain, etc?

I would expect both the LCA and the imported plane to be exportable and thus earn some funds.

[brar_w]

Parts for the F-Solah will be shipped from all over the US and we will do the final assembly in India.

Are we producing any bit of the F-Solah from the raw material stage?

It is quite likely (almost to a point of certainty) that some components will be produced in India. Even on the F-35, industrial partners are producing components. Japan for example produces 40% of the parts for the aircraft supporting airframe assemblies and electronics. LMA will likely offer component production but much like SAAB and its suppliers a lot will depend upon how they work in the industrial partnerships with domestic Indian companies.

[Cybaru]

yeah and neither italy (60A + 30B) nor japan(42) have large order books either.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/italy-take ... -f-35-faco

If we added 100 f35A and 57 f35B for the navy, thats a very respectable order book and the 1 billion investment isn't too large.

[Rakesh]

It is quite likely (almost to a point of certainty) that some components will be produced in India. Even on the F-35, industrial partners are producing components. Japan for example produces 40% of the parts for the aircraft supporting airframe assemblies and electronics. LMA will likely offer component production but much like SAAB and its suppliers a lot will depend upon how they work in the industrial partnerships with domestic Indian companies.

As usual, you are correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... rocurement

In August 2013, it was confirmed that Japanese companies will manufacture 24 components of the F-35 related to the engine and radar. Mitsubishi Electric will manufacture 7 components of the radar, and IHI Corporation will manufacture 17 fan and turbine components of the engine. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries will also be included in some form in the manufacturing of the rear fuselage, wings, and undercarriage, which will allow Japanese industry to gain a greater understanding of low-observability stealth technology and manufacture.

If there ever was a reason to drop the F-Solah and the Gripen, this is it.

If we added 100 f35A and 57 f35B for the navy, thats a very respectable order book and the 1 billion investment isn't too large.

+100. Well Said.

[Viv S]

That is only a benchmark if the exact same path is followed. I don't think LMA will approach this from the perspective of basically creating a parallel production or assembly line. That is a strategy that their competitor is going to have to go for but they are likely to start with FW deliveries as they slowly move production capacity over..ramp down at FW while ramping up in India.Given that most big deals are negotiated with the prime acting on behalf of many component suppliers the same strategy could be established for the components that they are likely to offer to the Indian industrial partners. I've seen numbers suggesting commonality between 70-80% between F-16 and F-35 component suppliers so much like LMA they will be adding capability elsewhere while reducing volume on this project so no real loss in contracts.

That's not a very different path from that followed for the Su-30.

The F-16 is almost out of orders and production (at least post-2020) will be sustained by Indian orders alone. 1-2 squadrons will be delivered off-the-shelf from the 'ramping down' Ft Worth facility. At the same time, the TASL line will be readying to take over. 1 squadron from SKDs. 2-3 squadrons from CKDs. Maybe with wings & tailplanes built locally for the final lot. (You'd have to factor in the cost of infra. relative to the actual pending orders it would be serving.)

As Rakesh garu said, if you're doing screwdrivergiri may as well do it on a newer aircraft.

[brar_w]

eah and neither italy (60A + 30B) nor japan(42) have large order books either.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/italy-take ... -f-35-faco

If we added 100 f35A and 57 f35B for the navy, thats a very respectable order book and the 1 billion investment isn't too large.

$1 Billion is a FACO investment only. There are industrial agreements and industrial (and national) costs for component production as well. FACO only gets you the tooling, building and training required to assemble it. Depending upon what components you are talking about the deals could be significant. Nations have been subsidizing it for their industry on occasions and in other instances the business case supports private company investment. A recent Government of Japan dispute with MHI over $100 Million cost for manufacturing facility subsidy for airframe components highlighted such arrangements. Again, I haven't read the details of what the MOD is asking here but if the cost of doing the F-16 vs F-35 was insignificant vis-a-vis the single engine fighter, then LMA would be quite foolish in not offering the F-35A.

That's not a very different path from that followed for the Su-30.

Was the assembly line lifted, packed up and shipped off from Russia or did they set on up from scratch?

[Rakesh]

Viv, this is a whole other generation! This is not Saab's defintion of generation (scroll up for the news article I posted...you will get a good laugh), but the F-35 is a true 5th generation platform. Why are we wasting time with a 4th generation platform like the F-16 or the Gripen, when we can get our hands on the F-35...if Amreeka is willing to sell it to us like Italy or Japan has?

[Cybaru]

Was the assembly line lifted, packed up and shipped off from Russia or did they set on up from scratch?

You want to send a post card to putin and ask for some transparency? We could file an RFI?

[Viv S]

In place of the F-16/Gripen? Perhaps. Do not know if that is politically possible.

However, if India is will to spend billions on used M2K, then why not on the LCA production lines, supply chain, etc?

I would expect both the LCA and the imported plane to be exportable and thus earn some funds.

Absolutely. Tejas production should be the priority.

The only upside I can see for the Mirage is that it'll take some time for the Tejas production to be ramped up while Mirages are available in substantial numbers in short order just need minor customization with local IFF & comms modules (doable at BRD level I think).

[Cybaru]

Viv, this is a whole other generation! This is not Saab's defintion of generation (scroll up for the news article I posted...you will get a good laugh), but the F-35 is a true 5th generation platform. Why are we wasting time with a 4th generation platform like the F-16 or the Gripen, when we can get our hands on the F-35...if Amreeka is willing to sell it to us like Italy or Japan has?

Yeah, this is the only platform that makes sense. it won't hurt LCA either with its price point! It might mess up AMCA somewhat though.

[brar_w]

Was the assembly line lifted, packed up and shipped off from Russia or did they set on up from scratch?

You want to send a post card to putin and ask for some transparency? We could file an RFI?

LOL. My point was that here LMA is likely to include a proposal where they show initial production and delivery from CONUS, which tapers down as they sunset the Fort Worth line and begin assembly in India. They have excess capacity at the FW line right now which they have in storage that they could begin moving. Not sure whether Russia transferred excess capacity from its Assembly line for the Su-30's or whether India paid for a new one from scratch.

Using existing F-16 space and workforce on the F-35 ramp up actually saves them money and they are already transitioning F-16 workforce to the F-35 as it ramps up so its not likely they will indefinitely continue to produce F-16's with production gaps and at best a low rate. Here is an article on their F-35 ramp up : https://www.stripes.com/news/us/f-35-pr ... t-1.446311

[Viv S]

Was the assembly line lifted, packed up and shipped off from Russia or did they set on up from scratch?

Not sure. I doubt we could tell the difference either way.

Point is, most of the HAL-manufactured aircraft were actually HAL-assembled aircraft and even post-indigenization i.e. Phase IV just over 50% of the aircraft by value is from local input.

The F-16, given the much smaller volumes involved, is likely to be the same (even accounting for better performance by the local partner). Kit assembly keeping the (US-based) supplier eco-system in business.

[NRao]

In place of the F-16/Gripen? Perhaps. Do not know if that is politically possible.

However, if India is will to spend billions on used M2K, then why not on the LCA production lines, supply chain, etc?

I would expect both the LCA and the imported plane to be exportable and thus earn some funds.

Absolutely. Tejas production should be the priority.

The only upside I can see for the Mirage is that it'll take some time for the Tejas production to be ramped up while Mirages are available in substantial numbers in short order just need minor customization with local IFF & comms modules (doable at BRD level I think).

Well, I do not think you can deal with the two (increase squads and MIC dev) at the same time. I see the M2K as a shot in the arm for the prior at the expense of the later. I would reverse that order. The squad numbers can take a hit in the short term. But a MIC dev is a long term affair that needs funds at the moment (and perhaps political support?).


And, if moving to the F-35, it will probably kill everything. In that case India should move to a 6th Gen. ???? Keep the LCA line alive (need that for all times), AMCA as we know it, is of no use. Start with a 6th Gen naval version and move on. Including a 6th Gen single engine. Clean sheet.

[brar_w]

Was the assembly line lifted, packed up and shipped off from Russia or did they set on up from scratch?

Not sure. I doubt we could tell the difference either way.

Point is, most of the HAL-manufactured aircraft were actually HAL-assembled aircraft and even post-indigenization i.e. Phase IV just over 50% of the aircraft by value is from local input.

The F-16, given the much smaller volumes involved, is likely to be the same (even accounting for better performance by the local partner). Kit assembly keeping the (US-based) supplier eco-system in business.

While that will based on the industrial proposal I am fairly certain that if they wanted they could work in a fairly aggressive component level transfer of manufacturing give that very low demand for many of these things as it is. Since this is a competition, it could be one major differentiator between the two bids. Lockheed also has much higher influence over their supplier base given that they are providing them with decades of production business on the JSF and that there is little upside to not sunsetting very low rate of component production if that means a healthy profit from a sale.

[Viv S]

Yeah, this is the only platform that makes sense. it won't hurt LCA either with its price point! It might mess up AMCA somewhat though.

Unfortunately the AMCA isn't entering service before 2035. We've just delayed the start too long (we should've gotten started five years ago, if not earlier).

F-22: First flight (1990) - IOC (2005)
F-35: First flight (2001) - IOC (2015)
PAK FA: First flight (2010) - IOC (~2021)
J-20: First flight (2011) - IOC (~2018)

The latter two were in development since about 2005. There's at least a 15 yr window required to execute a program of this kind. If we can start full scale development by 2020 and have a PV up by 2025 and an LSP by 2030, then maybe we can look forward to a 2035 IOC.

The Su-30s should be starting retirements about that time - so perhaps those squadrons can transition to the AMCA.

[brar_w]

Actually on the PAKFA, Sukhoi was selected in April, 2002 only 6 months after Lockheed was selected to develop the JSF. On the J-20 there are US Congressional unclassified testimony suggesting as per their intelligence reports that China had been working on 5th generation fighter program from mid to late 1990s.

Piotr Butowski [Halfway to PAK FA] Interavia 2004

In early 2002, the government committee selected Sukhoi's T-50 proposal in the competition for PAK FA. The choice was made taking into account the financial viability of Sukhoi, as well as the experience of its design bureau, which in the current decade has been working with the greatest success among all design teams in Russia. The T-50 design was also considered as less risky than the ambitious design "E" submitted by RSK MiG corporation.According to the official position, the prototype of the PAK FA will fly in 2006-2007 and series production will start in 2010-2012. This is a difficult, but not impossible, task particularly because - also in the opinion of high level Russian aircraft industry officials - "if we do not build this aircraft before 2012, then afterwards we will not need to build it at all, because the market will be saturated".On the other hand - and this is another opinion from the same circles - "there is no chance of starting the series production of PAK FA before 2015-2018".