'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 24 Mar 2017 02:28

Indranil wrote:Moving the existing F-16 line from Texas to S. Carolina is generating a grand total of 300 odd jobs.

on top of what it takes to run the F-16 factory
or
the existing factory folks move on to F-35 and new 300 people take over.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Mar 2017 10:42

Lockheed to Move F-16 Production to South Carolina

The F-16 production line in South Carolina will be small, but is still expected to create between 200 and 250 new jobs in Greenville.

Upstate Air Force veterans weigh in on Lockheed Martin moving F-16 production to Greenville

The new, smaller F-16 production line in Greenville is expected to create up to 250 jobs.

Lockheed Martin moving F-16 production to South Carolina

A company spokeswoman says the move will create about 250 jobs in Greenville.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Mar 2017 11:11

Indranil wrote:Upstate Air Force veterans weigh in on Lockheed Martin moving F-16 production to Greenville

A Lockheed employee said they've been told that production will begin around October 2020.

Both South Carolina and Texas are right-to-work states, though 606,000 employees in Texas are represented by unions, compared to 52,000 in South Carolina, which in some cases also makes it attractive to industry. The average hourly wage in South Carolina is also lower than in Texas.

The number of orders for the F-16 is way down from the past, though Bahrain is expected to order as many as 19 jets and additional orders are anticipated from Indonesia and Colombia. Those orders will be filled in Greenville. If Lockheed wins a proposed India fighter deal, its first jets would likely be built in Greenville until a factory is ready in India.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2017 21:33

Thank you to you both (Indranil and Viv_S) for posting these articles and highlighting key points.

To the folks who pushed for this deal - go eat crow soup now. We are onlee in the first quarter of 2017. With the first plane expected to come out of the Greenville, SC facility only in the last quarter of October 2020, when do you expect the F-16, Block 70 to join the IAF?

When the sane (who live in reality) on BRF said that the F-Solah would not come prior to 2021/22, we were laughed at.
Well who is laughing now?

In fact, the October 2020 date, pushes a whole new timeline to the platform. LM has stated that it usually takes 36 months (3 years) from contract signing to the first delivery. So now we are looking at 2024/2025?

Good luck, getting this deal signed before 2021! Indian bureaucracy is at work.

IAF will receive 123 LCA Tejas by 2024-25
http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=251069

So I ask again...now why do you need to purchase another 4th generation fighter, when a viable 5th generation fighter is already there?

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 24 Mar 2017 21:44

With Parikkar gone and LM opening a facility in South Carolina, the chances of IAF buying an F16 has dropped dramatically.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Mar 2017 21:52

Rakesh wrote:Thank you to you both (Indranil and Viv_S) for posting these articles and highlighting key points.

To the folks who pushed for this deal - go eat crow soup now. We are onlee in the first quarter of 2017. With the first plane expected to come out of the Greenville, SC facility only in the last quarter of October 2020, when do you expect the F-16, Block 70 to join the IAF?

When the sane (who live in reality) on BRF said that the F-Solah would not come prior to 2021/22, we were laughed at.
Well who is laughing now?

In fact, the October 2020 date, pushes a whole new timeline to the platform. LM has stated that it usually takes 36 months (3 years) from contract signing to the first delivery. So now we are looking at 2024/2025?

Good luck, getting this deal signed before 2021! Indian bureaucracy is at work.

IAF will receive 123 LCA Tejas by 2024-25
http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=251069

So I ask again...now why do you need to purchase another 4th generation fighter, when a viable 5th generation fighter is already there?

Although I don't take the prospects of the F-16 in IAF colors seriously the delay in the South Carolina production line has a lot to do with the forced break in production on account of lack of orders and the realization that FMS process is rather slow and it takes time from a 'wish' to go through the DOD and SD hoops before the USAF places an order with Lockheed. If some magical demand were to appear they could well look at starting their operations earlier. It also has little bearing on their offer vis-a-vis the IAF Single engine MRCA tender since Fort Worth or Greenville they will likely plan to deliver some aircraft from there before moving production locally. There is a lot of F-16 production infrastructure that they would not be using since the new FACO is expected to produce between 8-10 aircraft a year.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2017 23:42

Brar: Agreed, however you forgot the devil is in the details - Indian bureaucracy is at work. This will take forever!

Here's why the DRDO announcement today is significant
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/845279723563319296

Interesting & significant: DRDO today claims to have made substantial headway in Gallium-Nitride (GaN) tech
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/845279509284716546

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2017 23:54

Examining the Case for Complete Transfer of Technology
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... echnology/

By Kevin A Desouza - Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies & Analyses, New Delhi.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Mar 2017 00:04

From Angad Singh....
https://twitter.com/zone5aviation/statu ... 5445364736

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Mar 2017 00:17

Greenville is an operational site for Lockheed so who knows how many people are going to be changing jobs from supporting one program to another. This is also the chosen site of their T-X offering. Regardless, as I said they are seriously downsizing their F-16 production plan and moving to South Carolina helps since it frees up space in Fort Worth for the F-35 as it expands to 10 aircraft a month over the next couple of years and it allows them to leverage earlier and current investments at an existing site.

That is about the only thing you can infer from this. What will be interesting to track down is their plans when it comes to the stored F-16 production equipment that they have been maintaining at Fort Worth. An indication of their future plans may come from any move to dispose of it but outside of that the move to South Carolina does not impact their offer to India or any other customer when it comes to an assembly line.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Mar 2017 00:18

I am not sure where will MOD get the money for such a large Single Engine Fighter deal , Now IAF is buying 60 Transport aircraft , IAF just bough Rafale at such high cost , In the end MOD will be forced to make more Tejas once reality of funding so many program for IN and IA sinks all ...All 3 service have big ticket items on nego for many years so far IAF has been lucky to get what they wanted , the other service are still on nego stage for years

They could have bough 200 F-16 or Gripen had Rafale deal ~$9 billion was cancelled but now that they bit the bullet they will have to face reality in months to come.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 25 Mar 2017 01:07

There is a reason why the IAF consumes the largest part of Capital purchases within the defence budget.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Mar 2017 04:01

^^^

It seems the services don't consider their Capital budgets when selecting foreign weapon systems. They select the "best" and then let the GoI/MoD figure out how to pay for it.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 25 Mar 2017 13:45

Trump admin asked to push for F-16 sale to India

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 662863.ece

Will · Post by **Will** » 26 Mar 2017 04:20

ashishvikas wrote:Trump admin asked to push for F-16 sale to India

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 662863.ece

Only if the US gives us the design of a state of the art SSN along with the reactor design

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Mar 2017 06:56

ashishvikas wrote:Trump admin asked to push for F-16 sale to India

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 662863.ece

The last F-16s made for USAF was in 1999. India wants to acquire 200 F-16s 20-years+ later! Any foreign power take India seriously?

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 26 Mar 2017 07:41

srai wrote:
The last F-16s made for USAF was in 1999. India wants to acquire 200 F-16s 20-years+ later! Any foreign power take India seriously?

At least till AMCA arrives, F-16IN will be better than anything in our inventory other than Rafale and maybe MKI. In our immediate region that is populated with J10 and JF17 type fighters, a F-16IN is still going to be very relevant. So, the relevant powers will still take it seriously.

Question is how will the CISMOA related stuff impact the performance. Though, they must be willing to part with radar codes as that was one of the requirements of MMRCA.

I think in a bigger scheme of things, F-16 might be a better option vs. Gripen. F-16 is different enough from LCA to potentially not cannibalize future LCA orders. I think once locally manufactured Gripen NG comes, IAF is going to try to scuttle LCA Mk2.

Ironically, IAF wanted more M2000s as MMRCA and F-16 is the closest to that. To think that all those M2000s would have been inducted by now!

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Mar 2017 07:58

^^^

Doesn't matter if F-16 or Gripen is chosen for 200 fighters; it is going to eat into potential LCA orders. Billions of dollars being wasted when an technologically equivalent indigenous option is there. Which country that designs and builds their own fighters go with a foreign equivalent fighter to kill its indigenous capabilities? Rather, they do everything possible to protect their hard-earned indigenous capabilities.

If India really wants to make its FOREX count, then import the latest generation stuff that will allow it be remain competitive and learn something new from. Don't waste money buying from abroad the things that you yourself are already capable of building at home.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Mar 2017 04:49

Gurneesh wrote:At least till AMCA arrives, F-16IN will be better than anything in our inventory other than Rafale and maybe MKI. In our immediate region that is populated with J10 and JF17 type fighters, a F-16IN is still going to be very relevant. So, the relevant powers will still take it seriously.

Gurneesh, think long term. Think how good will this platform hold up to a J-20 and future Chinese stealth platforms. Against the Chinese, India cannot achieve parity - plane for plane, tank for tank, ship for ship. But you can achieve a technological advantage. AMCA is still ways off. PAK-FA is nowhere on the scene. Like I said earlier, maybe the J-20 is a piece of crap. But do you really want to take that chance? Actually that is not a question, that you and I or even the Govt can answer. That is a question for the IAF pilot who has to go up against a J-20.

If the F-16, Block 70 is such an amazing plane then why does not the world's largest user - the USAF - buy them or upgrade their present aircraft? Way cheaper than buying brand new F-35s no? That should give you a clear idea.

The Chinese invaded us in 1962, because they knew we were unprepared. Nehru and his minion - Krishna Menon - did the real damage to our armed forces in the decade prior. The Chinese just mopped up the mess, because they knew we were pushovers. Therefore, you have to make war expensive for the Chinese - in terms of men and machine. They need to think - a moment of pause - is it really worth the effort? We may win the war, but at what cost? War has to made unpalatable for them. Deterrence is the key. No one wants war. Unless you love 72 virgins

Gurneesh wrote:Question is how will the CISMOA related stuff impact the performance. Though, they must be willing to part with radar codes as that was one of the requirements of MMRCA.

Not going to happen and neither is the US obligated to do so. Why should they? If you want that, then you have to develop that on your own. Neither is the US obligated to give you engine technology. You take the product as is. Why do we live in this fantasy world?

That is like getting married and expecting your spouse to look like Sunny Leone and behave like her in bed. Not going to happen. If you want that, then you have to marry someone like Sunny Leone.

Gurneesh wrote:I think in a bigger scheme of things, F-16 might be a better option vs. Gripen. F-16 is different enough from LCA to potentially not cannibalize future LCA orders. I think once locally manufactured Gripen NG comes, IAF is going to try to scuttle LCA Mk2.

Think from the IAF's perspective for a second. They have two platforms before them to choose - F-16 and Gripen. The IAF could care less about the geopolitical angle. That is not their job or their concern. They want the best plane. When the trials occur, which platform do you think the IAF is going to pick? Do you honestly believe that the IAF is concerned about the fact that the many parts of the Gripen E represent the United Nations? They do not care. The Gripen E is everything the Mk2 is, without the baggage of HAL. The IAF does not want the F-16. They are fully aware of what that platform is capable of (and what it is not) against the many exercises with the USAF and the Singapore Air Force. Now if the IAF knows, imagine Pakistan who has been operating this plane for the past 35 years?

The only way the F-16 is going to adorn IAF colours, is if the Govt pushes it down the IAF's throat. They cannot do that for desi platforms - Tejas, Arjun, etc. Why would anyone think they can do that for phoren platforms?

If they did this, I would be awe of the BJP Govt. I truly would.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 27 Mar 2017 06:03

Rakesh saar, just to add another perspective: perhaps there will be a deal over the next 12-18 months. No chai wallah here, but MP is unable to participate in any corrupt practices. And whether we like it or not, a general election is due two and a half years from now and the party would not mind a war chest. The entire business of a new deal and the change in RM, and the clamour/ noise can be attributed to perhaps some these factors as well.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Mar 2017 06:14

Gripen-E -> IOC in 2023 and FOC in 2026. Production of all LCA Mk.1 and Mk.1A would have completed by 2024 (@16/year) and factories sitting idle for couple of years. LCA Mk.2 would also be ready by then

https://www.copybook.com/news/gripen-e-multirole-fighter-debuts

...
Gripen E Launch

The Saab Gripen E launch occurred during a ceremony that 500-plus guests attended. They included Peter Hultqvist and Mats Helgesson, Swedish Minister of Defence and Swedish Air Force Chief of Staff, respectively. The ceremony took place at Saab’s Linköping factory and involved Gripen E 39-8 – the first of three prototypes. Flight testing, Saab says, will start by December 2016.

Deliveries to two air arms – the Swedish and Brazilian air forces – are scheduled to begin in 2019. Sweden will get 60 while Brazil is to receive 36 or more, comprising 28 single-seaters and eight two-seat variants in the first instance. Sweden’s Gripen Es, it’s been reported, are set to attain IOC (initial operational capability) status in 2023 and FOC (full operational capability) status by 2026. Potential future Gripen E customers include Belgium, Columbia, Finland, India and Switzerland.
...

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Mar 2017 06:17

Marten wrote:Rakesh saar, just to add another perspective: perhaps there will be a deal over the next 12-18 months. No chai wallah here, but MP is unable to participate in any corrupt practices. And whether we like it or not, a general election is due two and a half years from now and the party would not mind a war chest. The entire business of a new deal and the change in RM, and the clamour/ noise can be attributed to perhaps some these factors as well.

In the Indian context with major defense contract, nothing possible in that short of time (12-18 months). The GoI already pulled off 36 Rafale in G-2-G deal for $8 billion. There is no way they will be willing to sign another import deal worth over $15 billion that too with complex negotiation for ToT and license production. Where is the money? If there were enough money around, they would have sealed 126 Rafales instead with ToT and license production deal.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 27 Mar 2017 06:22

Signing a contract, and building the war chest are not always in that order, Sir.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 27 Mar 2017 09:34

Rakesh wrote: Gurneesh, think long term. Think how good will this platform hold up to a J-20 and future Chinese stealth platforms. Against the Chinese, India cannot achieve parity - plane for plane, tank for tank, ship for ship. But you can achieve a technological advantage. AMCA is still ways off. PAK-FA is nowhere on the scene. Like I said earlier, maybe the J-20 is a piece of crap. But do you really want to take that chance? Actually that is not a question, that you and I or even the Govt can answer. That is a question for the IAF pilot who has to go up against a J-20.

Well, what are the current options? IAF needs 200 single engined fighters, and the only new options that we could potentially start inducting by 2020 are F-16, Gripen, F35, and LCA Mk-1A/2.

Don't get me wrong, I think that getting extra 80 Mk1A and 120 Mk2 using a parallel private line should be better for our mil-industrial capabilities as well as for easier transition to AMCA production. But, I do not think that IAF has enough confidence in probably both LCA and HAL to do that. So, they want foreign fighters as a safety net.

Of the three foreign fighter options, Gripen is probably the worst as Sweden does not control a lot of technology and is still a tech-demo. It will also kill Mk2 for sure.

F-16 is probably easiest to get and build in India. This will at least create a competent private alternative to HAL, which should help when the AMCA will ahve be made in numbers. Though, from the recent news, it seems that US might only offer limited production in India.

F-35 is the best option in terms of capability, but producing it in India is probably a non-starter. Maybe some screwdriver giri from CKD's (which might be what ultimately happens with F-16 too).

Thinking long term, F-35 will be the best option for achieving tech edge over China. But I think, even an advanced F-16 will beat the supposed Chinese fifth-gen stuff. China wouldn't be running after Su-35s if their stealth planes were so great.

Not going to happen and neither is the US obligated to do so. Why should they? If you want that, then you have to develop that on your own. Neither is the US obligated to give you engine technology. You take the product as is. Why do we live in this fantasy world?

Because it would be required by the contract! If the RFI states something, then the product has to offer it or be disqualified. Again, I agree that developing our own stuff is the best option, but what matters is if IAF believes in that philosophy.

With the change in RM, maybe this whole drama will be delayed enough for the Mk-1A to arrive and impress the IAF.

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 27 Mar 2017 10:56

Gurneesh wrote:Don't get me wrong, I think that getting extra 80 Mk1A and 120 Mk2 using a parallel private line should be better for our mil-industrial capabilities as well as for easier transition to AMCA production. But, I do not think that IAF has enough confidence in probably both LCA and HAL to do that. So, they want foreign fighters as a safety net.

I am sure everybody needs a safety net. if one foreign fighter does not provide sufficient safety net, they can have two separate fighter lines for additional safety net. one could argue that safety net is already there in the fleet of su30, availability/parts improvement, rafale, m2k and LCAs that are entering service.

From HAL/DRDO/Local companies perspective, they need safety net in that services fully and totally commit to the products that are built locally. They would prefer an order for 300-400 LCA variants. They feel abused by constant attack from paid media and vested groups.

All these years of bazillion $$$ imports has not provided the safety net. time to try something different!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Mar 2017 12:52

Gurneesh wrote:F-35 is the best option in terms of capability, but producing it in India is probably a non-starter. Maybe some screwdriver giri from CKD's (which might be what ultimately happens with F-16 too).

Precisely the point. If you're going to screw things together (aside building bits and pieces for the global supply chain), may as well as do it with the F-35. You'd have commonality with the Navy (F-35B), a superb ISR platform, a hedge against delays/shortcomings in the FGFA and a future proof design. There may be fair bit of business in the overhaul market as well (what with it being used by Israel, Singapore, US, Australia and many more in the coming years).

Thinking long term, F-35 will be the best option for achieving tech edge over China. But I think, even an advanced F-16 will beat the supposed Chinese fifth-gen stuff. China wouldn't be running after Su-35s if their stealth planes were so great.

China isn't running after the Su-35. In fact, its trying to buy as few of them as possible.

The Russians made the sale of the 117S engine (and possibly some associated technologies) conditional on a purchase of Su-35s. China wanted to buy no more than 18 aircraft while the Russians insisted on at least 36 of them. They compromised and 24 fighters were ordered.

And make no mistake with a defence budget of $150-200 bn, the Chinese had the capacity to order the Su-35 in huge numbers if they were genuinely interested in its capabilities.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Mar 2017 13:09

Media report today about the AMCA required sometime around 2030+. Plans show 4 AAMs in an internal bay,plus loads of ordnance underwing in a "non-stealthy" mode. The huge Q is why do we then need a stealthy bird at huge expense ,which will be non-stealthy in a strike mode? We might as well use a cheap legacy med. strike fighter .Surely Rafales in 2030 will be able to do the biz,apart from the upgraded M2Ks and 29s,supposed to soldier on for 2+ decades from now? Thus the AMCA will be truly stealthy ONLY in an air defence role,which the hopefully finalise deal for FGFAs ,will in far greater measure perform.The FGFAs will also carry BMos-M,planned,plus at least 6-8 BVR and WVR AAMs.

It brings me back to the argument for a dedicated strike bomber ,why we should leverage the stealth UCAV programme we're engaged with, be maximised to the utmost.Even here,from available info,there are only 4 ASMs that can be carried on the platform.A manned larger stealthy aircraft with a far greater payload internally would be a far better option than a non-stealthy AMCA. For the stand-off ASM delivery,the entire fleet of around 300 MKIs will be upgraded to "Super-Sukhioi" std. carrying BMos. and other ASMs. These aircraft will obviate the need for AMCA delivery and are available right now instead of around 15 years hence!

Bringing in another expensive firang bird simply using the single-engine designation,when better performing twin-engined birds are available at lesser cost (MIG-29 UG/53s), is highly questionable. What exact role are these birds expected to perform? What is v.clear from the types that they are to replace,a large number of around 180+ will be of MIG-27/21 types meant to carry out GA.close support duties.These require armoured cockpits,etc. for survivability,plus have to be relatively inexpensive as from our past air war experience,over 60% of all aircraft lost was due to ground fire.Even in Kagril,all our losses were due to ground fire,not air combat. F-16s,Gripens,etc.,cost twice as much as a MIG-29UG,far more than our LCAs or even Jags,which we could build at far lower costs and avoid billions ins etting up an obsolete aircraft plant.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Mar 2017 13:17

Philip wrote:...Plans show 4 AAMs in an internal bay,plus loads of ordnance underwing in a "non-stealthy" mode. The huge Q is why do we then need a stealthy bird at huge expense ,which will be non-stealthy in a strike mode? ...

There is enough space in the internal weapon bay for 2 x 1000lb LGBs or 4 x BVR AAMs. Plus, there is separate internal area for 2 x CCMs.

Or 8 x SBDs + 2 x BVR AAMs.

Or 2 x 1000lb bombs + 2 x BVR AAMs

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Mar 2017 13:28

Are two ASMs enough and of what type and range? There is no BMos or even smaller KH type equiv. How will an AMCA enter enemy airspace,launch its ASMs and fight off another stealth attacker (as even the Pakis will by then definitely acquire Chinese stealth birds) with just 2 AAMs? Plus the AAM shown is certainly not a BVR missile. If the AMCA is meant to be a complementary stealth fighter to the FGFA meant primarily for air defence/combat using its internal AAMs,then there is greater relevance,but for strike,just like the JSF,with underwing ordnance,it will be easy meat for stealth fighters and legacy aircraft designated for air superiority/air combat.For LR strike,the alrger FGFA with a much greater sized internal weapons bay,plus the two internal bays for 4 AAMs underwing,will be far better strike platforms than the AMCA.AMCAs could instead escort hevaily armed legacy strike fighters like 29UG/M2K/Rafales ,to deal with enemy aircraft.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Mar 2017 13:39

^^^

AMCA is a JSF sized medium bird whereas FGFA is a heavy bird the size of MKI. What you are asking for is a heavy bomber like B-2 or something like that.

Besides, can you show me photos of IAF fighters that are carrying more than 2 PGMs? Stealth profile is to be used mostly in the opening phase and after enemy AD network has been disabled aircraft can do non-stealthy strikes.

Also, let's not take "multi-role" concept too far. Why does one AMCA need to bomb and defend itself? Won't there be air-to-air configured AMCA as escorts?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Mar 2017 04:24

Gurneesh: Since Viv_S and pandyan already replied to key points in your posts, I am just going to reply at a few points raised by you but not replied to.

Gurneesh wrote:Of the three foreign fighter options, Gripen is probably the worst as Sweden does not control a lot of technology and is still a tech-demo. It will also kill Mk2 for sure.

Yes and Yes. Now answer this. Why would the IAF care?

Look at the previous MMRCA saga. Who had the largest military-industrial complex on 27 April 2011 (date of MMRCA downselect)? The US. Who had the capacity to provide large numbers of fighters at competitive prices? The US. Which of the six competitors - in the first MMRCA contest - actually had the ability to stand up to China? Onlee the US. The same holds true today.

So why did the F-18 and the F-16 lose then? Because we sent a kid into a candy store and we asked the kid to pick the best candy out there. What result were you expecting other than that? Is it the IAF's job to care about how expensive the Rafale is? No. If they had their way, the IAF would have ordered 126 instead of 36.

With HAL's previous track record, do you honestly believe that the IAF wants the Mk.2? It is a great plane, but does the IAF want it? They could not trust HAL - during ACM Browne's tenure - to assemble a basic propellor trainer, so why would they want HAL to build the Mk.2 then?

What different result are we expecting in this contest of the F-16 and Gripen E? srai mentioned - cybaru said the same thing - that the FOC is onlee in 2026. Guess what else will be ready in 2026? Tejas Mk2. But which do you think the IAF is going to pick, given HAL's track record?

Gurneesh wrote:F-35 is the best option in terms of capability, but producing it in India is probably a non-starter. Maybe some screwdriver giri from CKD's (which might be what ultimately happens with F-16 too).

Assuming Parrikar and Carter (and the Obama Administration) was still in their jobs. The F-16 deal was signed. What do you think was going to happen? We were going to produce the F-16? We were going to be doing screwdrivergiri onlee from parts. That is it. Nothing else.

Gurneesh wrote:Thinking long term, F-35 will be the best option for achieving tech edge over China. But I think, even an advanced F-16 will beat the supposed Chinese fifth-gen stuff. China wouldn't be running after Su-35s if their stealth planes were so great.

Incorrect assumption. China usually never buys Russian weaponry in large quanities. They buy enough to study and then reverse engineer them.

- 59 Su-27s were bought by China which they reverse engineered into 253 J-11s. The J-16 is a further development of the J-11B.
- 1 Su-33 prototype was acquired by China which they reverse engineered into the J-15, which they are churning out like pancakes.
- J-7 is a reverse engineered MiG-21 of which 2,400+ were produced.

Do you know how may Su-35s China has contracted for? A paltry 24 aircraft. Guess what they will do!

The J-20 is an unknown quantity. May be it is a piece of shit. But should we take the chance?

Gurneesh wrote:Because it would be required by the contract! If the RFI states something, then the product has to offer it or be disqualified.

Really? Written in the contract? And what will happen when the US flat out says NO during the negotiation (even before the contract signature)? We are going to arm twist them to give us source codes? Really? We ain't getting squat, other than what the US is willing to provide. Take it or leave it.

Gurneesh wrote:With the change in RM, maybe this whole drama will be delayed enough for the Mk-1A to arrive and impress the IAF.

The IAF is impressed enough with the Tejas. What they are not impressed is with HAL's inability to deliver a quality product on time.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Mar 2017 11:08

In none of our wars with Pak,barring the E.Pak theatre did we totally overcome enemy air defences and most of our casualties were due to ground fire,even our losses during the Kargil spat. Given our Cold Start doctrine which blows hot and cold (pardon the pun) at times,will require extensive air support and face fierce fire from AAA,MANPADS,and mobile SR SAMs. We cannot expect our aircraft engaged in the ground war to escape unscratched. THis is why the US and Russia are still using their heavily armoured A-10s and SU-35s which can withstand significant fire tx to their titanium armoured cockpits,etc. These aircraft also cost far less than the ultra-expensive toys like F-35s,etc.,which were expected to take up the A-10 slack,but lo and behold,the A-10 is not being pensioned off as yet for this very purpose.

Similarly,the IAF need large numbers of cheap fighters which can do the GA biz,and have a reasonable survival rate against such ground fire.Smaller LCAs,Jags, will be far better at the job than med. sized v.expensive stealth birds like AMCA.AS said before, for deep penetration/strike,the larger FGFA will be better suited to do the biz along with MIKIs upgraded to Super Sukhoi std. carring BMos,etc.AMCAs will have v.limited stealth strike capability,better used for stealth air combat carrying their AAMs in internal bays and using conformal stealth aux fuel tanks.

There was some time ago in VAYU a pic of an SS MKI with an internal weapons bay between the two fuselage engine intakes.This should be large enough to carry BMos-M ,air-launched versions of Nirbhay LRCM,etc.

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 28 Mar 2017 12:24

How would an LCA/Jag be more survivable than the AMCA? In a SAM/AAA infested environment, I would take my chances with a fast jet than a low and slow A-10, no matter how well-armoured it is. I assume that you meant the Su-25 and not -35, when you said Russia is still using a heavily armoured jet. Just FYI, Russia also is using Su-34s and Su-24s which aren't exactly heavily armoured.

In any case, that argument doesn't stand, as we will be fighting far better equipped adversaries in China and Pakistan, rather than a bunch of imbeciles with VBIEDs that ISIS is.

All of this is OT for this thread.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Apr 2017 13:46

Applies, currently, mostly to this thread.

Crucial defence ministry meeting today to look at “strategic partner” policy

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Apr 2017 14:02

NRao wrote:Applies, currently, mostly to this thread.

Crucial defence ministry meeting today to look at “strategic partner” policy

I saw Nitin Gokhale tweeting DPP will not be looked at today's meeting.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Apr 2017 19:59

In a recent VAYU issue,one article called for a rework on the AMCA design to turn it into a med. sized bomber. True,a variety of air power is being used in Syria and elsewhere,but from our past experience,hard stats/facts,the majority of our losses-over 60% were from ground fire where aircraft went into support the troops in the ground war. The major work is still being done by the "bomb trucks" and heavy,survivable attack helos.There is a major diff. between the western theatre (Punjab plains,deserts,etc.)and the northern (Himalayas).The vastness of Tibet calls for long-legged aircraft which can carry a heavy payload,PGMs,BMos,etc.,required to dstroy China's mil infrastructure and cut off Tibet from the rest of mainland China.Here,a couple of sqds. of SU-34s would do the biz very well.Our lack of any bomber capability is a massive drawback when faced with China ,which can send in swarms of dozens of legacy Soviet-era bombers ,with Flanker/stealth escorts.

Why the IAF has no strat. bombing agenda is a great mystery to me.The US,Russia,China all have their large dedicated bomber fleets,which can carry both tactical weapons as well as strat. weapons.

If we dd another 24 Rafales,60+ MIG-29UG/35s and the 80-120 LCAs,there would be no need for another new line of "single-engine fighter",a nomenclature which is heavily weighted in favour of the F-16! The talk that another med. sized fighter would also be needed smacks of a chaotic "policy',when we've already chosen Rafales and can buy upgraded 29s/35s.(at half the cost)to make up the need for sqds. and numbers.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 05 Apr 2017 02:25

Philip wrote: If we dd another 24 Rafales,60+ MIG-29UG/35s and the 80-120 LCAs,there would be no need for another new line of "single-engine fighter",a nomenclature which is heavily weighted in favour of the F-16! The talk that another med. sized fighter would also be needed smacks of a chaotic "policy',when we've already chosen Rafales and can buy upgraded 29s/35s.(at half the cost)to make up the need for sqds. and numbers.

For a change I agree with you.
The Gap needs to be filled with perhaps one squadron of Rafael or two with Mig-29 / 35.
Meanwhile ramping up LCA
and pouring the F-16 factory money into the AMCA.

FGFA is not coming till 2030
F-35 will suck all budgets dry if we buy those in strong numbers
Su-30 MKU run the risk of being categorised as one size fits all and therefore flog it to death and flog it again.

1 More Squadron of Rafael with 2 Squadrons for Navy.
60 or so Mig-35s
LCA X (as the numbers are required)

Move on to AMCA
Move on to FGFA-2040

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Apr 2017 09:37

Khalsa wrote:
Philip wrote: If we dd another 24 Rafales,60+ MIG-29UG/35s and the 80-120 LCAs,there would be no need for another new line of "single-engine fighter",a nomenclature which is heavily weighted in favour of the F-16! The talk that another med. sized fighter would also be needed smacks of a chaotic "policy',when we've already chosen Rafales and can buy upgraded 29s/35s.(at half the cost)to make up the need for sqds. and numbers.

For a change I agree with you.
The Gap needs to be filled with perhaps one squadron of Rafael or two with Mig-29 / 35.
Meanwhile ramping up LCA
and pouring the F-16 factory money into the AMCA.

FGFA is not coming till 2030
F-35 will suck all budgets dry if we buy those in strong numbers
Su-30 MKU run the risk of being categorised as one size fits all and therefore flog it to death and flog it again.

1 More Squadron of Rafael with 2 Squadrons for Navy.
60 or so Mig-35s
LCA X (as the numbers are required)

Move on to AMCA
Move on to FGFA-2040

IMO, not wise to go with additional MiG-29/35 at this point in time. By 2035 or so, all MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Jaguar will be retired. That would leave the IAF with Su-30MKI, Rafale, LCA Mk.1A/2, FGFA and AMCA. Get more of any of these ones that will remain long-term (past 2035). Order a mix of MKI, Rafale and LCA squadrons over the next 10-years. Post 2030, order more of FGFA and AMCA.

If at all adding legacy airframes, go with second-hand MiG/Mirage airframes and upgrade them to similar UPG standards and/or use them for spare parts.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Apr 2017 11:23

The entire issue is being obfuscated with the supposed choice befor eus,"either the Gripen of F-16",when in reality we have other much better choices like -as stated above,more LCAs,Rafales,MIG-29UG/35s,MKIs or even SU-34s to give the IAF a reasonable bomber capability.

The 60 transports are v.urgently reqd.,to replace ancient AVROs,plus increase med. capacity now that the MTA has crashlanded.The AN-32s are also old,but have had a life-extension programme for the entire lot. Wiht the increased HImalayan requirements,these light-to med. transports /c-295s,will enhance our logistic capability where we need it most.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 06 Apr 2017 05:12

srai wrote:
Khalsa wrote:

For a change I agree with you.
The Gap needs to be filled with perhaps one squadron of Rafael or two with Mig-29 / 35.
Meanwhile ramping up LCA
and pouring the F-16 factory money into the AMCA.

FGFA is not coming till 2030
F-35 will suck all budgets dry if we buy those in strong numbers
Su-30 MKU run the risk of being categorised as one size fits all and therefore flog it to death and flog it again.

1 More Squadron of Rafael with 2 Squadrons for Navy.
60 or so Mig-35s
LCA X (as the numbers are required)

Move on to AMCA
Move on to FGFA-2040
IMO, not wise to go with additional MiG-29/35 at this point in time. By 2035 or so, all MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Jaguar will be retired. That would leave the IAF with Su-30MKI, Rafale, LCA Mk.1A/2, FGFA and AMCA. Get more of any of these ones that will remain long-term (past 2035). Order a mix of MKI, Rafale and LCA squadrons over the next 10-years. Post 2030, order more of FGFA and AMCA.

If at all adding legacy airframes, go with second-hand MiG/Mirage airframes and upgrade them to similar UPG standards and/or use them for spare parts.

I agree with you in the sense that I don't want the INDigenous focus to be dilluted.
But I did the number crunching way way back and there is just no bloody way we can arrest that massive gaping hole which will be brought on by the retirement of a massive number of aircrafts.

Thats just numbers right but the actual service_ability of the squadron looks even more dire.
If we try and flog old Mig-29 UPG airframes we run the risk of re-running the saga with the old Mig-21s.
Spares/ Price / Quality/ HumanLife Risk

We need a stop gap.
Bring an Amreekan or Western one, it risks killing our INDigenous efforts by direct murder (sucks up all the space, engineers, screwdriver wallahs etc etc)
Bring a Russian one, it risks killing our INDigenous efforts by indirect murder by sucking up funding. Russian will pretend to sell for $100 and eventually sell it you for $372 and 5 years too late with 3 wheels missing and no close defence capability.
I say choose the second.
Fake it til you make it.
Fake we have numbers and strength till our industry starts churning.

The Rafael suggested price is important, it shoulders the AMCA till it churns out.
else we will be pressed to look at Typhoon or F-18 or even the Su-34 (who knows).

Today I read an article that we are looking at buy the remaining the Mig-29s from Malaysia.
Who knows maybe your predictions are coming true and I welcome that too.

Whatever it is I think we agree that IAF needs to get off the chair and into the air.
Time for discussing with babus is over
Time for talking with HAL for Tejas , Mk1A , MK2 and AMCA is now and its ripe.
Fal Pak Chuka Hai !!