'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Feb 2017 23:44

rohitvats wrote:Because that is the aircraft which will fill the gap when time-lag arises as IAF undergoes another major squadron make-over from 2028 onward. The way AMCA is progressing, I'd be happy if it ready for production even by 2030.

Its not happening by 2030. Its just not doable. If all goes well we may have the Tejas Mk2 by 2026-27. AMCA? Maybe LSPs by 2030 but SPs will only enter the picture by 2035.

There are some very big steps that need to be taken in terms of core technology in the coming years - particularly related to software (esp. sensor fusion), EW system (esp. A.I.) and LO materials & shaping (starting with setting up a basic RCS testing facility). The design & development followed by years of testing & debugging, with respect to a particular platform - that comes later.

I know people talk about money in context of Rafale but do remember we spend piddly sums on defense when compared to other nations. If we really want to be prepared for IAF to take on PLAAF or other Services to be able to defend their realm, we need to start taking about 3% of GDP on defense. But we digress.

We spend ~17% of the union budget (incl. pensions) on defence. That's a perfectly healthy sum compared to other nations (~20% for Pakistan & US). More than China. Much much more than UK (6%) & France (3%) though they have a larger public sector (with lower devolution).

Any hikes in defence expenditure come out of the investment in infrastructure or human capital - and that'll have an impact down the line. A bigger slice of the cake today means a smaller cake next year. At which point you'll need a still bigger slices just to maintain parity and so on.

The key here is focusing on cost effectiveness - maximizing the return on every rupee. (Its also what makes the argument for the Tejas & F-35 compelling.)

IAF equipped with F-16 gives a proper Heavy+Medium+Light Mix.

'Proper' why? What function does a medium fighter (like F-16) perform that a heavy fighter (like Su-30) is hampered at?

I can understand the babus in South Block buying into this IAF red herring but I can't understand why supposedly better informed BRFites are buying in as well.

What is this weight class aimed at? Is it cost? Why not classify them into low-cost/medium-cost/high-cost fighters then? Because lighter aircraft (eg. Rafale) aren't always cheaper than heavier ones (eg. Su-30).

Or is range? Why not classify them into short-range/medium-range/long-range fighters then? Because lighter fighters (eg. Mirage 2000) aren't always shorter ranged than heavier ones (eg. MiG-29). Not to mention longer range doesn't necessarily translate into better combat reach (eg. Rafale v. Su-30 or F-35A v. Rafale) - esp. where EW & stealth comes into play.

Would you be sceptical if one made the same argument vis a vis armor/mech forces? Or in other words, does an army require a proper mix of heavy tanks, medium tanks & light tanks, along with a similarly judicious balance of pure APCs & IFVs? Wouldn't an MBT do?

Scenario 1:
Heavy (Su-30MKI-14 squadrons) = 36%
Medium (M2K+Mig-29+Jaguar+F-16 [assuming 5 1/2 squadrons] +Rafale = 19.5 squadrons) = 49%
Light (Tejas IOC+FOC+Mk1A = 6 squadrons) = 13%

Why do you reckon the Jaguar at 7 tons is a medium fighter while the Tejas Mk1 at 6.8 tons (plus mods in both cases) is a light fighter?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 Feb 2017 23:47

A lot of imports could have been avoided if our institutions had managed to deliver on time.
We need to take stock of what went wrong and address it before we start the next round to ensure we don't make the same mistakes again.
I don't see anything wrong with the ACMs statement.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 00:32

Cain Marko wrote: Do consider the f-16 A/B blk 1 - 10 though - simply stunning performance. Ferry range on this beast was 2100 nautical miles
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-16A_ ... h_1984.pdf

That links says F16A on CAP mission with 500lb Missile + 3000lb bomb load will have 100mile combat radius on only internal fuel of ~7000lbs with 1hr loiter (total of 1.94hr mission time). Hmm. (interestingly this one is the minimum wing loading config of all that are listed there.)

What would be the range of LCA for similar load..??

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Feb 2017 00:35

Just caught the figures today from Sh. Philip Rajkumar's radio interview.

LCA can carry a load of 4000 pounds @ 300 Km radius.

Edited the error.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 00:43

^^ He said, 4000lbs weapons load over a radius of 300km. But no mention of fuel load. but looking at the weapons station config for LCA, for 4000lbs load it could carry only one EFT at the central point i.e. 800ltr fuel.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Feb 2017 01:17

It can carry:
1. 5 laser guided 1000 lb bombs: center*, inboard (X2) and midboard (X2).
2. 8 unguided 1000 lb bombs: two in tandem in the center*, two in tandem in the inboard (X 2) and midboard (X2). It will look like this:

3. Or they can do combination of LGBs and dumb bombs. It is unlikely, but it can do so.
4. They have never done range-determination flights. 300 km is the approximate radius is based on typical flight endurance of unrefueled light fighters (approximately 1.5 hour duration). One can always generate brochure numbers by choosing ideal conditions. Doesn't happen in real life.
5. Max payload for Tejas Mk1 is close to 4 Tons.

Jay, in order to provide more flexibility with the EFTs, they are planning to plumb the midboard stations.

*AFAIK center pylon has not yet been cleared for carrying anything other than the 725 ltr fuel tank.

Amoghvarsha · Post by **Amoghvarsha** » 14 Feb 2017 01:29

I have a question to all the SAARs here,irrespective of which fighter is selected,when will we finalise the deal?Can we expect the first single engine fighter to arrive with the 1st Rafale?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 01:30

^^ Hmm. We will see LCA doing all sorts of combinations in coming years as we can play with it as much as we want.

I am looking for SFC numbers for GE F110 and GE F404. I could find two references for F110. one from F16,net saying typical dry sfc for GE F110 family is around 0.64lb/hr/lb and another from an 1985 article for F110-400 for F14 which is same as F110-100 - 0.76 lb/hr/lb.

For F404, Wiki says dry sfc is 0.82lb/hr/lb.

In summary, F404 seems to have higher dry sfc but lower wet sfc as compared to F110. Which means for same fuel fraction, range for LCA and F16 should be comparable, with F16 being a notch better. But there cannot be a whole lot difference.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 01:33

Amoghvarsha wrote:I have a question to all the SAARs here,irrespective of which fighter is selected,when will we finalise the deal?Can we expect the first single engine fighter to arrive with the 1st Rafale?

He he. Best possible scenario is the deal is signed by end of this year and we buy flyaway jets from the OEM, at least initial few. Then we can have them before 2020 ends, latest.

Amoghvarsha · Post by **Amoghvarsha** » 14 Feb 2017 01:41

JayS wrote:
Amoghvarsha wrote:I have a question to all the SAARs here,irrespective of which fighter is selected,when will we finalise the deal?Can we expect the first single engine fighter to arrive with the 1st Rafale?
He he. Best possible scenario is the deal is signed by end of this year and we buy flyaway jets from the OEM, at least initial few. Then we can have them before 2020 ends, latest.

If we choose the Solah.And first few are bought in fly away condition then shouldnot we have the first aircraft by 2019 as F 16s dont have any other order?

Dont know the order book of the Gripen.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Feb 2017 01:43

Amoghvarsha wrote:I have a question to all the SAARs here,irrespective of which fighter is selected,when will we finalise the deal?Can we expect the first single engine fighter to arrive with the 1st Rafale?

I'd say time taken for the Rafale, from the time PM made the 36 announcement in France to contract signing or less.
Less as discussions have been going on from last year ..

There's been no data yet for how much the Solah is being offered or the Gripen..
It's quite surprising..

India's Rafale has already begun construction, so I doubt if Solah/Gripen will come before 1st Rafale

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Feb 2017 01:49

For a DCS sale perhaps. FMS deals will likely take 6-12 months to clear if put on a fast rack and then the US Government will contract out long lead parts for the aircraft. Once the US Government has place orders it will likely be a 2-2.5 year process for first aircraft delivery. There are a lot of production slots available but you still have to order long lead parts and that process only begins after a firm order has been placed. In between that time Lockheed would obviously need to make IAF specific changes, demonstrate that these works and the USAF would need to train an initial batch of pilots and maintainers. Subsequent deliveries will be faster i.e. Lockheed can committ a large volume of its annual US build rate to deliver jets to the IAF as it moves spare capacity to its Indian partner.

The contract is at an RFI stage. Once the USG gets an LOR they will post an FMS just like they have done for other military products acquired through FMS. Some foreign buyers float an LOR at the time of an RFI (South Korea, Japan, and most European customers do this) while others wait till a selection has been made.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Feb 2017 01:51

I disagree with the need for a mk2 lca. The mk1a will be good enough and so long a it's numbers increase marut part deux is unlikely.

It is extremely urgent for the ada team now to focus on and get the amca out by 2030ish.there is only so much that can be done with a smallish single engined bird and there is absolutely no 4 gen airframe that can play with a vlo opponent with any advantage, it's a losing battle. The big thing to concentrate on now in the short term is not a mk2 with 414s but a mk1a with kaveri. I think parrikar and decision makers have realized this and are moving in this direction.

Would hate for there to be delays in amca because limited resources were dispersed to multiple projects. The scope for the amca in terms of iaf and IN needs with a distinct possibility of exports is very high, and it will be a damned shame if India can't bag as many orders as possible. There are simply no medium sized 5 g birds in the market. The jsf with a nice price tag is not marketable to a number of countries because of the political strings attached.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 01:55

Amoghvarsha wrote:
JayS wrote:
He he. Best possible scenario is the deal is signed by end of this year and we buy flyaway jets from the OEM, at least initial few. Then we can have them before 2020 ends, latest.
If we choose the Solah.And first few are bought in fly away condition then shouldnot we have the first aircraft by 2019 as F 16s dont have any other order?

Dont know the order book of the Gripen.

It takes min 3yrs for Jet to be built from word go. Given we sign contract by end of this year, this 3yr limits gives us 2020 end. Yes, may be it will come earlier, but does LM have buffer to divert the jets from other orders..?? already they are thinking of reducing rate to absolutely minimun to stretch the production as far in future as possible. Other factor is, is the existing config on order is same as the one that IAF would order..?? If IAF orders something thats not already integrated in blk 70 then whats the development time needed for those components..?? Correct me if I am wrong, but there isnt a blk 70 prototype flying. Even if there is no real challenge to put things tgether it will take some time for sure. I would put my money on 2020 end, given contract is signed by end of this year.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Feb 2017 01:59

JayS wrote:^^ Hmm. We will see LCA doing all sorts of combinations in coming years as we can play with it as much as we want.

I am looking for SFC numbers for GE F110 and GE F404. I could find two references for F110. one from F16,net saying typical dry sfc for GE F110 family is around 0.64lb/hr/lb and another from an 1985 article for F110-400 for F14 which is same as F110-100 - 0.76 lb/hr/lb.

For F404, Wiki says dry sfc is 0.82lb/hr/lb.

In summary, F404 seems to have higher dry sfc but lower wet sfc as compared to F110. Which means for same fuel fraction, range for LCA and F16 should be comparable, with F16 being a notch better. But there cannot be a whole lot difference.

That would be on internal fuel but how often will they be going out with just internal fuel when we are talking about filling roles meant for the Rafale's/MRCA that never came? The option with F-16 and CFT's is that you can add 40-50% fuel while still remain supersonic and having all stores available. While it is not the best in terms of air combat it is still more efficient than EFT's in many multi-role scenarios particularly when considering strike, SEAD etc.

You can go even crazier as the IDF does with it's CFT equipped F-16 I's that also are cleared for the 600-gallon tanks. This is the sort of flexibility that sets the LCA/Gripen and the F--16/18/Rafale/Typhoon apart and what Gripen is trying to close in on with the E, and what HAL should be aiming for with the MK2.

A back of the napkin calculation puts it at 1950 Gallons of extra fuel in the 2 CFT's and 3 EFT's.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 02:05

Yes. I was looking at a particular "internal fuel only" CAP config that was mentioned in the link that I quoted before.

I agree that f16 as a bomb truck will far outweigh LCA. It could carry more load for same range or same load over longer range with CFTs and all those empty stations vis-a-vis LCA.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Feb 2017 04:11

Brar, what is stopping us from adding CFTs on LCA? You, of all people, must know that CFT development on LCA has not been taken up due to lack of priority. Developing CFTs is well within the design capability of Indian designers now. Would probably take 2-3 years to get certified, if they start today.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Feb 2017 04:14

JayS wrote:^^ Hmm. We will see LCA doing all sorts of combinations in coming years as we can play with it as much as we want.

I am looking for SFC numbers for GE F110 and GE F404. I could find two references for F110. one from F16,net saying typical dry sfc for GE F110 family is around 0.64lb/hr/lb and another from an 1985 article for F110-400 for F14 which is same as F110-100 - 0.76 lb/hr/lb.

For F404, Wiki says dry sfc is 0.82lb/hr/lb.

In summary, F404 seems to have higher dry sfc but lower wet sfc as compared to F110. Which means for same fuel fraction, range for LCA and F16 should be comparable, with F16 being a notch better. But there cannot be a whole lot difference.

I always found Nate Meier's compilation to be quite useful for engine dimensions and performance -

http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Feb 2017 04:22

Indranil wrote:Brar, what is stopping us from adding CFTs on LCA? You, of all people, must know that CFT development on LCA has not been taken up due to lack of priority. Developing CFTs is well within the design capability of Indian designers now. Would probably take 2-3 years to get certified, if they start today.

That is a valid point. However, despite having a triple digit demand for an MMRCA for more than a decade the IAF, AdA or HAL have never asked for or proposed such features on either the MK1 or MK2. I for one have been against the F-16 or Gripen purchase but it is strange that a demand had existed for so long and no one has ever decided to provide a competitive LCA variant to the block 60 F-16 or Rafale. As things stand the next big leap in terms of capability will come with MK2 around the middle of the next decade. Between then and now they will have to produce the MK1 and As at a decent rate and deliver those on order.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Feb 2017 04:40

JayS wrote:^^ Hmm. We will see LCA doing all sorts of combinations in coming years as we can play with it as much as we want.

I am looking for SFC numbers for GE F110 and GE F404. I could find two references for F110. one from F16,net saying typical dry sfc for GE F110 family is around 0.64lb/hr/lb and another from an 1985 article for F110-400 for F14 which is same as F110-100 - 0.76 lb/hr/lb.

For F404, Wiki says dry sfc is 0.82lb/hr/lb.

In summary, F404 seems to have higher dry sfc but lower wet sfc as compared to F110. Which means for same fuel fraction, range for LCA and F16 should be comparable, with F16 being a notch better. But there cannot be a whole lot difference.

Just wondering if induced drag will be more for a smaller airframe like LCA than say, F-16 with same external payload of 4000 lbs? Will this affect range?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Feb 2017 04:47

Indranil wrote:Brar, what is stopping us from adding CFTs on LCA? You, of all people, must know that CFT development on LCA has not been taken up due to lack of priority. Developing CFTs is well within the design capability of Indian designers now. Would probably take 2-3 years to get certified, if they start today.

Great question for guys @ aeroindia to try and get an answer..

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 14 Feb 2017 07:55

why all this CFT and fuel tanks, if you need range why not send MKI, I guess light and single engine fighter come with limitation why not just operate within its capability, when you have longer range fighter, it is a different matter when you do not have other option and trying to make jugaad.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 14 Feb 2017 09:48

Happy Val Day says Chief Dhanoa:

Question: One criticism is that the F-16 jets being offered to India are similar to the ones being operated by Pakistan. Is this a matter of concern?
ACM: At present, there is no case for procurement of the F-16 aircraft under process. However, the F-16 jets offered to India during the bids for 126 MMRCA were more advanced than the versions being operated by PAF. There are significant differences in the two variants and the one offered to India by Lockheed Martin have superior capabilities.This was not a matter of concern during the selection process.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 09:49

Cain Marko wrote:
I always found Nate Meier's compilation to be quite useful for engine dimensions and performance -

http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html

Am aware of this site. But this one doesn't have the data I was looking for - sfc of F110-GE-132.

Cain Marko wrote: Just wondering if induced drag will be more for a smaller airframe like LCA than say, F-16 with same external payload of 4000 lbs? Will this affect range?

Well, delta wing would have higher drag at lower speeds, less drag at higher speeds, and LCA is said to have worse supersonic drag due to bad area ruling. But the jets cannot have much difference in the drag values. These are highly optimized aero configurations and they would fall in the same ball park as far as drag is concerned. I would say +- 10%. Anything more than that and it would be a terrible design. The fixed drag value estimate for example, for both LCA and F16 are very similar at about 0.0210. Most fighter would fall in the same range.

One factor I forgot to consider is thrust. Even with lesser SFC value F110 would consume more fuel because its producing more thrust - 70 odd kN in Mil setting compared to 54kN for F404. So the actual fuel consumption for F16 per unit time would be same or may be slightly higher for F16. I need to calculate the numbers to see exactly. But in AB mode its would surely guzzle much more fuel than the F404, since itf SFC is more and its producing more thrust as well.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 14 Feb 2017 10:13

Just something to remember when doing rough calculations: Carrying more fuel in cfts/wing pods has its own issues. There is law of diminishing return for fuel as well. For every extra fuel carried, there is a larger proportion of fuel allocated to carrying that fuel. So it's not like doubling fuel doubles range plus there is weight of the pods/cfts.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Feb 2017 10:20

think of this, with same payload of say 8 x SDB + 2 AAM , which is the superior and survivable platform - saudi /usaf F15E(with the CFT) or F-16-block52(with CFT) ?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 14 Feb 2017 10:33

F 15 without cft

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Feb 2017 11:34

A loaded Weapon and Fueled aircraft is a flying brick , Add to that CFT it would be more so , These looks good on photos but such heavy load stresses the airframe and reduces its life not to mention these are just flying bricks.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 12:53

Austin wrote:A loaded Weapon and Fueled aircraft is a flying brick , Add to that CFT it would be more so , These looks good on photos but such heavy load stresses the airframe and reduces its life not to mention these are just flying bricks.

Actually having a lot of bombs help wings relieve their lift load which is the greatest of all. With lots of bombs anyways no jet does much of manoeuvring so you can neglect high G loads. Funfact - during V'nam war US plans saw a lot of wing structure cracking issues, because they were dropping too many bombs and returning empty. They were not designed to come empty all the time, but were designed keeping in mind that they would be bringing back most of the bomb load back, which is the case in peace time.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Feb 2017 15:54

On a strike mission where you would require EFT's, in some instances CFT's end up proving beneficial unless you are willing to ditch the EFT's and are fine with a mission kill. You can fly faster, use more of your fuel to add range and have a greater freedom to maneuver with them as opposed to the much more dragger EFT's. This should be more pronounced when you are penetrating in a low profile given the impact of drag. The problem with CFT's is in air to air scenarios where you are carrying the equivalent of a JDAM even when they are empty. In a multi-role strike mission across the spectrum they add capability and provide the most usable extra fuel. They also free up stores which means that you have can have more self defense capability on a strike mission for example.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Feb 2017 19:34

^ any idea how much f16 cfts weigh when empty?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Feb 2017 19:36

900 pounds

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 14 Feb 2017 22:09

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/831515877484879872

Saurav Jha says Gripen leading over Falcon in the SE fighter competition. FWIW

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 14 Feb 2017 22:25

Saurav is correct. I was told they are also willing to work with HAL which is a big plus. Am certainly not happy because it means LCA will die a quiet death while the E will become our "national make in India" bird. All said, Saab can bring its suppliers to India quicker because most of them have had Indian partners for years. The Typhoon would have been in a similar position, or better if the EJ200 tender went their way.

All hands on AMCA is my guess. Balaji Sir is going to be badgered the day after tom.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 14 Feb 2017 23:15

Chinmay wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/831515877484879872

Saurav Jha says Gripen leading over Falcon in the SE fighter competition. FWIW

This contract is for the Americans to lose.
I'd be very surprised if the Gripen actually wins it.Tad disappointed too..

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 23:28

Personally its a great thing for me if Gripen wins. But I would rather have F16 be selected than Gripen. Simply because we can extract more in return from US. Gripen doesn't really bring anything on the table either in terms of fighter capability or from strategic perspective. LM can easily outclass anything that SAAB can offer on industrial front.

I agree with Nirav above, this contract is for US to lose.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Feb 2017 23:37

If it is an urgent need to recapitalize squadrons, how do you do that with a platform that doesn't declare IOC with its first customer till the middle of the next decade?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2017 23:46

nirav wrote:
Chinmay wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/831515877484879872

Saurav Jha says Gripen leading over Falcon in the SE fighter competition. FWIW
This contract is for the Americans to lose.
I'd be very surprised if the Gripen actually wins it.Tad disappointed too..

I think, both the IAF and the Labs (HAL, etc) would prefer SAAB - just better "reliability" of product and other aspects.

However, MoD/PMO would prefer the LM/Boeing product.

On "American to lose", that may have changed with a temperamental Trump. Even if he were to bless the deal there could be too many unknowns moving forward. After all a "F-16" will be more than just a plane to both the nations, something one cannot say about the Swedes.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 23:57

brar_w wrote:If it is an urgent need to recapitalize squadrons, how do you do that with a platform that doesn't declare IOC with its first customer till the middle of the next decade?

I am not following Gripen development. What is the realistic date for Gripen E induction in IAF in case its chosen in this competition..??

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Feb 2017 00:03

Brazil the first customer has not received their first aircraft. The first aircraft has not yet flown either. Last time they announced a first flight delay Brazilian IOC target was 2024.