'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[Viv S]

The F-35 as a program is not really designed to be competitive in terms of cost under an FMS MII like concept with progressive increase in MII with growing orders. It is really designed for a NATO setup and outside of Israel there is a limited customization ability given the closely linked software-hardware architecture on the platform.

Lets not kid ourselves. All of that is also true for the F-16. We may need to integrate some non-source munitions and swap out the IFF/comms but aside from that there are no modifications intended or indeed necessary for it to operate in IAF colours. It isn't very different from the F-35 in that respect - though much less significant politically.

Its quite simple - the F-35 offers far far better better value for the dollar, and can be assembled in a similar setup as what's envisioned for the F-16. The MII for the most part consists of assembling the aircraft from kits. And if selling it to India is a political problem for the US (most public discourse suggests that that's not the case but for the sake of argument) then India certainly should not be responding to that lack of commitment by gifting them a $15 bn contract. The current choice (F-16 v Gripen) is akin to deciding which of your own feet you should shoot.

Downside being that you still need the program labs at Eglin if you want to program your own threats into the library.

Except that, unlike Israel, our threats are not distinct from those being addressed at Eglin. Or rather they are a subset of the ones the US is focused on. We have two threats - China & Pakistan (with the latter being equipped with predominantly Chinese equipment). Period. Everyone else is of only marginal concern, at best.

[brar_w]

Lets not kid ourselves. All of that is also true for the F-16. We may need to integrate some non-source munitions and swap out the IFF/comms but aside from that there are no modifications intended or indeed necessary for it to operate in IAF colours. It isn't very different from the F-35 in that respect - though much less significant politically.

It is different in the sense that on the F-16 you have the option of swapping out US mission computers and putting in Elbit ones in there. Essentially the innards of the F-16 I.

Except that, unlike Israel, our threats are not distinct from those being addressed at Eglin. Or rather they are a subset of the ones the US is focused on. We have two threats - China & Pakistan (with the latter being equipped with predominantly Chinese equipment). Period. Everyone else is of only marginal concern, at best.

I don't know the threats and how they vary but only meant to point out that it will involve sharing. If you are contributing to building libraries, you are sharing the data you have. If that is ok then fine but it is a dynamic.

[Viv S]

On the F-35, you can't simply take out the Link-16 / MADL and put a data link in there. The Link-16 and MADL are integral part to its stealth, how it communicates and how it targets. Both are closely tied to its fusion engine and cooperative targeting strategy.

The Israelis don't use the Link-16 - they have their own datalinks & comm systems. Some form of CISMOA or a waiver where necessary will most likely precede an F-16 buy by India as well.

[brar_w]

The Israelis don't use the Link-16 - they have their own datalinks & comm systems. Some form of CISMOA or a waiver where necessary will most likely precede an F-16 buy by India as well.

To my knowledge Israel still has Link 16 and MADL, and have layered their Command and Control and comms node on top of that. At least that was what was told to me by an OEM representative at a recent expo in DC. The F-35 is designed to share more raw data over these waveforms than legacy aircraft and it is a part of the fusion engine and how it does its targeting. MADL is unique and data-fusion through it a major developmental effort (and source of some headache). You can't completely remove these systems without affecting how the aircraft is employed. Israel is a L16 MNWG member.

[Viv S]

It is different in the sense that on the F-16 you have the option of swapping out US mission computers and putting in Elbit ones in there. Essentially the innards of the F-16 I.

Why would you need to swap out US mission computers for Israeli ones?

I don't know the threats and how they vary but only meant to point out that it will involve sharing. If you are contributing to building libraries, you are sharing the data you have. If that is ok then fine but it is a dynamic.

That sharing will only involve F-35s (via the ALIS) and the data is likely to be a small fraction of the China-focused ELINT being hoovered up by US, Japan, SK, Singapore, Australia etc. Assuming the data passed on is secure, there are no real downsides to sharing technical intelligence.

[brar_w]

Why would you need to swap out US mission computers for Israeli ones?

In case you wanted to have more control on the hardware integration, and Electronic Warfare and EA libraries and waveforms. With the F-16 they have a totally different configuration with a totally different set of OEM's already integrated and this goes to the mission computers, data-links, electronic warfare/attack, weapons interface and IR side. On the F-35 this is not doable. Not without a multi-year, multi-billion dollar project to replicate what Lockheed and its partners have been able to do with its sensor fusion and MADL/L16 connectivity which may not be technically or financially feasible.

That sharing will only involve F-35s (via the ALIS) and the data is likely to be a small fraction of the China-focused ELINT being hoovered up by US, Japan, SK, Singapore, Australia etc. Assuming the data passed on is secure, there are no real downsides to sharing technical intelligence.

I am not talking about ALIS. I am talking about raw ESM/ELINT/SIGINT data that these labs use to create region specific mission data files. Not all of this data comes from F-35's, in fact at the moment none does. If you want your own stuff in there you have to work with the labs at Eglin to create them which entails sharing of data.

[KrishnaK]

It is also about making India a dependent poodle in the game in all aspects but in name.

We loose the MIC to a major power, it is game over.

Back in the day, anytime talk of opening India up to foreign business/investment was made, there would be an uproar about the new British East India company. The level of heat it generated for how absurd the arguments were was quite impressive. Same drama here.

[Viv S]

To my knowledge Israel still has Link 16 and MADL, and have layered their Command and Control and comms node on top of that. At least that was what was told to me by an OEM representative at a recent expo in DC. The F-35 is designed to share more raw data over these waveforms than legacy aircraft and it is a part of the fusion engine and how it does its targeting. MADL is unique and data-fusion through it a major developmental effort (and source of some headache). You can't completely remove these systems without affecting how the aircraft is employed. Israel is an L16 MNWG member.

Most media sources report that the Israelis will be equipping the F-35Is with locally supplied datalinks & radios. An entirely unnecessary modification if you're going use the hardware to run the Link 16.

In case you wanted to have more control on the hardware integration, and Electronic Warfare and EA libraries and waveforms. With the F-16 they have a totally different configuration with a totally different set of OEM's already integrated and this goes to the mission computers, data-links, electronic warfare/attack, weapons interface and IR side. On the F-35 this is not doable. Not without a multi-year, multi-billion dollar project to replicate what Lockheed and its partners have been able to do with its sensor fusion and MADL/L16 connectivity which may not be technically or financially feasible.

LM isn't pitching the F-16I (wherein they'd need to be partnered with IAI or Rafael), they're offering a Block 70 variant likely derived from the Emirati Blk 61. The OEMs are, for the most part, American. As far as India is concerned, ego issues driving a 'special' variant aside, we have absolutely no incentive to go through effort and expense of modifying the aircraft when the existing kit is already at par (which wasn't the case with a fair bit of Russian gear where modifications were genuinely necessary).

I am not talking about ALIS. I am talking about raw ESM/ELINT/SIGINT data that these labs use to create region specific mission data files. Not all of this data comes from F-35's, in fact at the moment none does. If you want your own stuff in there you have to work with the labs at Eglin to create them which entails sharing of data.

Doubt it. Who determines what you possess and what you're obliged to share? Its not like there's some public directory of national ELINT data caches. From what I gather Eglin labs are producing region-specific MDFs that will be standard issue. Singapore, for example, isn't involved in creating them but future RSAF aircraft will likely be equipped with those MDFs (with the raw/source data accessible only by the US).

[brar_w]

Most media sources report that the Israelis will be equipping the F-35Is with locally supplied datalinks & radios. An entirely unnecessary modification if you're going use the hardware to run the Link 16.

As I said, from my understanding they will be adding a layer of their own data-link using quite a bit of the existing hardware on the aircraft and its CNI system but Israel unique terminals will be added to the system. This was what I was told and I haven't yet come across anything that contradicts that. They will also be adding unique communication node so that it is compatible with their own C2 systems and other aircraft and UAVs. They have unique waveforms and those will be supported thanks to the expansion possible with the CNI suite. Israel has a link-16 alternative terminal for a TDL and the have incorporated it into their fighter fleet, however they do use Link-16 waveforms in other systems and to maintain interoperability.

LM isn't pitching the F-16I (wherein they'd need to be partnered with IAI or Rafael), they're offering a Block 70 variant likely derived from the Emirati Blk 61. The OEMs are, for the most part, American. As far as India is concerned, ego issues driving a 'special' variant aside, we have absolutely no incentive to go through effort and expense of modifying the aircraft when the existing kit is already at par (which wasn't the case with a fair bit of Russian gear where modifications were genuinely necessary).

Lockheed is offering that to what requirements? Has a full fledged RFP been released? Block 70 is most comparable to the USAF CAPES requirements and subsequent research. The Radar is the SABR (USAF), Raytheon supplies the new mission computers (also planned for USAF), and Elbit the cockpit large display. There is no navigation FLIR on the nose, and there is no Falcon Edge being pursued for this upgrade although everything will change based on what India asks for if this ever gets to that. It makes sense for Lockheed to offer the block 70 since it is flying at the moment but ultimately they have various configurations and customization options to choose from on this aircraft and can mix and match based on future discussions and negotiations if this advances to that stage.

Competitive systems of course include what Israel is doing including a major bump to their electronic warfare suite onboard that goes active in the early 2020s iirc. I had posted about it earlier in one of these threads. If India wants less restrictive control, and more customization that may well be the route that is pursued. It would all depend.

This option exists. The F-16 SUFA configuration is as mature as the block 70, its been operational for some time and has a defined path to upgrade. That will be one possible configuration if India seeks a level of control that LMA can't commit too based on the GOTUS position. This option does not exist on the F-35. Even Israel has its MDF lab in California and is working with the JPO to configure the aircraft.

Doubt it. Who determines what you possess and what you're obliged to share?

It is very simple. If you wan't your own ELINT, SIGINT, and ESM raw-data incorporated into the F-35 you must supply it to the team and work with them to build the F-35 thread libraries. You cant run your own lab in your own country, you have to work with the USAF squadron out of Eglin currently doing this work. Of course you can choose to not supply them the raw data but then it won't end up on the F-35 and you will have access to the region specific threat library released to everyone else. That may be fine but it is restrictive in the sense that most nations do have a SIGNIT and ELINT program of their own and may have inteligence out there that others may not and may or may not want to share that data.

From what I gather Eglin labs are producing region-specific MDFs that will be standard issue.

That is what comes with the aircraft as in what Lockheed and US DOD has configured based on what partners have shared with it and the data the US possesses and is cleared to share. If any operator has its own data and wants it to be incorporated into the MDFs it must work with Eglin to get it on the jet. One concession that was made was that the end-user specific EW team could include foreign nationals but 50% of the team would still be U. That is what they have and it works for 99% of the users out there since all are very closely tied to the USAF either through NATO or bi-lateral security alliances and that they are getting a 5th generation aircraft after having invested a pretty small amount of R&D money into the program.

Singapore, for example, isn't involved in creating them but future RSAF aircraft will likely be equipped with those MDFs (with the raw/source data accessible only by the US).

I don't know what Singapore wants but if they have their own inteligence data that they want incorporated into their F-35s they can do so working with the EW team that will be manned by Singaporeans and Americans. FMS customers have their labs at Point Magu iirc. The can't add or update the systems unilaterally without sharing the raw data and asking the Eglin lab to create the MFD changes.

[Rakesh]

Reading Brar's post above, it makes one realize the value of having your own product. F-16, F-35 or whatever...you can't even fart without permission. Just saying.

[brar_w]

Its more restrictive and controlled on the F-35 compared to other US aircraft where end users can add and tweak EW systems even though they do not have access to the source codes. On the F-35 it is not possible to de-couple the Low Observable charecteristics, RF and IR threat libraries and cooperative engagement fusion to allow such an approach. These things are very tightly tied to each other. Hence the arrangement that exists is the best compromise given this nature. This is a unique 5th generation problem.

[Viv S]

As I said, from my understanding they will be adding a layer of their own data-link using quite a bit of the existing hardware on the aircraft and its CNI system. This was what I was told and I haven't yet come across anything that contradicts that. They will also be adding unique communication node so that it is compatible with their own C2 systems and other aircraft and UAVs. They have unique waveforms and those will be supported thanks to the expansion possible with the CNI suite.

So the Israeli datalink will be able to function as an alternative to the also operational Link 16. Which implies that it should be able to operate an alternative in the absence of the Link 16 (or if the Link 16 were disabled). Not that it matters, since the COMCASA will in all likelihood be signed before a fighter contract is ready for signature.

Lockheed is offering that to what requirements? Has a full fledged RFP been released? Block 70 is most comparable to the USAF CAPES requirements and subsequent research. The Radar is the SABR (USAF), Raytheon supplies the new mission computers (also planned for USAF), and Elbit the cockpit large display. There is no navigation FLIR on the nose, and there is no Falcon Edge being pursued for this upgrade although everything will change based on what India asks for if this ever gets to that. It makes sense for Lockheed to offer the block 70 since it is flying at the moment but ultimately they have various configurations and customization options to choose from on this aircraft and can mix and match based on future discussions and negotiations if this advances to that stage.

This option exists. The F-16 SUFA configuration is as mature as the block 70, its been operational for some time and has a defined path to upgrade. That will be one possible configuration if India seeks a level of control that LMA can't commit too based on the GOTUS position. This option does not exist on the F-35. Even Israel has its MDF lab in California and is working with the JPO to configure the aircraft.

Its offering that in response to whatever indication is has gotten from the MoD. That the Sufa is an option doesn't mean its a relevant option.

Fundamentally, what it comes down to is that any fighter purchase from the US is indicative of a level of political comfort with major weapons purchases. In contrast, wanting to swap out mission computers is an example of significant discomfort with its origin. They're mutually contradictory terms. If you don't trust the OEM enough to retain the MC or dislike the EU agreement, then buying the F-16 is a stupid idea to begin with. The Sufa option doesn't change that fact.

The corollary to that is that if you're comfortable with buying sensitive military equipment from the US, may as well go the whole hog and invest in a platform that will remain current for the next three decades. Tweaking the EW systems is really only necessary when there are deficiencies in the base product that need ameliorating, which is the polar opposite of the case here.

It is very simple. If you wan't your own ELINT, SIGINT, and ESM raw-data incorporated into the F-35 you must supply it to the team and work with them to build the F-35 thread libraries.

Not an absolute necessity. US ELINT resources (particularly those focused on China) far outweigh our own, and the F-35 if inducted would by virtue of its sheer capability become the IAF's premier techint source also feeding raw data to Eglin via the ALIS to upgrade its MDFs. Of course the IAF would probably want some formal framework to exploit shared intelligence gather by an Indian platform so yeah that would need work.

A general intelligence sharing agreement with the US would also be useful in terms of what can flow back to enhance other IAF assets. (Could take a leaf out of the IN-USN book wrt naval intelligence in the IOR-SCS area).

[Manish_Sharma]

Reading Brar's post above, it makes one realize the value of having your own product. F-16, F-35 or whatever...you can't even fart without permission. Just saying.

Sardar Ullan Singh Batoriwal had pointed out many times in F35 hippo thread that Controlfreak US has TOTAL CONTROL of jsf like never before, no customer can make a move without US knowing / allowing it.

I think F35 will make Gulamikaran faster then f18/16 . We shouldn't touch it even with 10 foot pole.

[brar_w]

So the Israeli datalink will be able to function as an alternative to the also operational Link 16.

This is where they are quite hush hush about things. Will the Israeli comms node extend to the fusion and the way the F-35 exercises cooperative missions? Will it have the exact same characteristics to allow a software patch or would they need an extensive software program based on the unique characteristics of the waveform. We don't know that based on open source data. One thing to keep in mind that even within the L16 standard there are various iterations and there are many differences within tactical data links based on design trades and end user requirements. I am not yet sold on the Israelis looking to completely swap L16 based fusion and interoperability for their TDL, if so this will be a major T&E program. But whatever the reason may be there is no substitute fur the MADL which is the bedrock of the JSF's cooperative targeting and networking in contested environments.

Fundamentally, what it comes down to is that any fighter purchase from the US is indicative of a level of political comfort with major weapons purchases. In contrast, wanting to swap out mission computers is an example of significant discomfort with its origin.

No they are not contradictory. While the access to customization may be satisfactory on one variant of the F-16, it may be significantly better on another making it more desirable.

Not an absolute necessity. US ELINT resources (particularly those focused on China) far outweigh our own, and the F-35 if inducted would by virtue of its sheer capability become the IAF's premier techint source also feeding raw data to Eglin via the ALIS to upgrade its MDFs. Of course the IAF would probably want some formal framework to exploit shared intelligence gather by an Indian platform so yeah that would need work.

Being able to incorporate your own data into the EW solutions and modify it based on your own intelligence is an important feature to have and here the F-35 is more restrictive than even legacy US aircrafts simply because of the challenges in stove piping this aspect form other areas closely linked to how it operates. You simply can't say that the US must have more and better data than us so we are fine with it..

Intelligence sharing is one such thing that can overcome this as it has for practically all of the operators. The compromise as I had mentioned was that each partner and FMS customer was allowed their own lab, at either Eglin or Point Magu with the caveat that they be jointly staffed. FMS customers operate out of California while partners out of Eglin. As I had mentioned, the nature of the program suits this arrangement with NATO and other security partners like Israel and Japan.

Controlfreak US has TOTAL CONTROL of jsf like never before, no customer can make a move without US knowing / allowing it.

There is no aircraft program out there that does not control customization. India cannot change the radar of the Rafale or its mission systems without seeking control of those components from France. Same would apply to the Sukhoi. You have to obtain these things and often pay for them. Israel is paying for its unique customizations to the F-35 but yes they are more restrictive and it isn't because they are control freaks, it is because of the way the hardware-software architecture on the aircraft is and how all of this is tied to the low-observable and sensor fusion aspects of the aircraft.

Like I said, it matters less so to its customers because they have such relationships already in place where they have worked on these things with the US before and will do so even after the F-35. Where it becomes an issue is where you don't have such deals, don't have bi-lateral pacts on sharing etc. This is unchartered territory for the JSF and it is not something it is particularly designed to tackle. The aim with the JSF was to seek blanket export clearance for it and its mission systems for all approved customers and this meant that they had to show upfront that nothing will be shared that gives too much away that would warrant a more intrusive process. How it generates, tracks, and identifies RF and IR threats is closely linked to its fusion engine and how it processes all the information. Similarly how it presents solutions and data to the pilot is linked closely to its low-observable characteristics etc.

What I have referred to applies to only one aspect, be it the most sensitive - That pertaining to the closely coupled EW/EA/IR and data fusion capability of the aircraft. The F-35 program has incorporated other customization and weapon system requests from customers whether that is exploring internal and external weapons and support or other customer unique requirements.

[shiv]

Shiv saar, would a Predator like platform be more useful to counter J-xx? I hope Ghatak is either accelerated or dropped right away. A UCAV from the US would be far ahead of the BR curve.

Without knowing the capabilities of J-whatever a "counter" can only be generic by aiming to detect and deal with a stealth aircraft. IMO the key is detection. Once detected whether it is dealt with using manned or unmanned is moot. Current unmanned tech - at least for us is "not yet there"

[shiv]

Is there any way to get F-35 bypassing the still pending foundation agreements mainly the CISMOA

Among the strongest suits held by the F-35 is its ability to link seamlessly with other platforms. Who would link F-35 with our AEW, LCAs, Su-30s and Jaguars? If we don't have that we would be importing a 3 legged tiger

[Manish_Sharma]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6387
Thread Name:
Industrial development & the evolution of military aviation

This thread needs to be read again to realise how history will repeat, how Tejas will end up as another Marut and so will AMCA if f16 or grippen, jsf (basically AFF) are given a toe hold here.

[brar_w]

Shiv that is easy to do choosing the Israeli approach. The F-35's CNI systems has built in growth to allow for proprietary terminals and this is exactly what Israel is doing. IIRC there are 2-3 dozen conformal emitting antennas supporting get communication navigation and ID suite. How much data is shared and to what extent depends upon the internal protocols and standardization of the terminals being put in. In NATO there are minimum standards and that is what everyone meets. An F-35 to F-35 communication using the MADL is much more tactical-data rich than an F-35 to F-16 L16 data exchange. This is simply on account of the lowest common denominator. MADL has its own separate and dedicated directional AESA based antennas.

The problem as I explained has to do with CISMOA, and being comfortable with jointly developing the Mission data files. This is one of the reasons why I have been always pushing back at any suggestions that the F-35 can work in this context without significant political intervention to move things along. It is just not particularly well set up for these sort of deals.

[Viv S]

This is where they are quite hush hush about things. Will the Israeli comms node extend to the fusion and the way the F-35 exercises cooperative missions? Will it have the exact same characteristics to allow a software patch or would they need an extensive software program based on the unique characteristics of the waveform. We don't know that based on open source data. One thing to keep in mind that even within the L16 standard there are various iterations and there are many differences within tactical data links based on design trades and end user requirements. I am not yet sold on the Israelis looking to completely swap L16 based fusion and interoperability for their TDL, if so this will be a major T&E program. But whatever the reason may be there is no substitute fur the MADL which is the bedrock of the JSF's cooperative targeting and networking in contested environments.

Actually the real point to note here is that the IAF's ODL is of Israeli-origin. IAI-origin to be more specific. That parts necessary to ensure interoperability with the rest of the IAF fleet. There's no substitute for the MADL, but then that's only for intra-flight comms and would be covered under the COMCASA. Doesn't need a substitute.

WRT to Israel -

Israel’s F-35 App And Its Implications

Israel has announced it will equip the F-35s it starts receiving this December with its own command, control, communications and computing (C4) system. The software, produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), is an upgrade of an existing C4 system the Israeli air force flies on its F-15 and F-16s.

By adapting proprietary software to the F-35, Israel has leveraged the strike fighter’s open-architecture software design long touted by Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office (JPO). In effect, IAI has written the first “app” for the F-35 and, arguably, set a precedent for F-35 software independence.

“Imagine putting some new applications on your mobile phone,” says Benni Cohen, general manager of IAI’s Lahav Division. “It is not difficult. You can do it without touching the mission systems.”

His metaphor is a useful one. While the specifics are not exactly the same, think of the F-35’s software backbone as an “operating system” like Apple’s iOS and IAI’s C4 software, which sits atop it as an “application.” With the right application interface, developers can write new apps for the F-35, adding new functionality.

“Yes, it is straightforward to tap into that [F-35 system] data and build upon that information to make new applications or add new functionality that benefits the overall fight,” John Clark agrees. Clark is director of mission systems and software at Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works, which is working with the U.S. Air Force to craft a software protocol called Open Mission Systems (OMS), designed to enable faster technology insertion into existing and future platforms.

By standardizing the process for moving data around the F-35’s open architecture backbone, OMS will enable more rapid software development and mission systems integration. The protocol is still in development but is planned to be introduced on the F-35 “in the near future,” says Lockheed. By working independently, however, Israel may have already changed the game.

Israel will not add its C4 system using OMS but instead exploit the F-35’s existing openness. Whenever OMS does arrive, the fact that someone has already written an app for the aircraft now provides F-35 customers the option to add their own software, rather than waiting for upgrades planned by the U.S. Current plans for the JSF partner nations to develop a follow-on Block 4 software package are not expected to start until 2018 and will take six years.

No they are not contradictory. While the access to customization may be satisfactory on one variant of the F-16, it may be significantly better on another making it more desirable.

Given that the customization itself is being driven by political rather than technical objectives (nothing the Israelis are offering or is domestically available is superior to the Blk 70 configuration), the two are very much contradictory.

Being able to incorporate your own data into the EW solutions and modify it based on your own intelligence is an important feature to have and here the F-35 is more restrictive than even legacy US aircrafts simply because of the challenges in stove piping this aspect form other areas closely linked to how it operates. You simply can't say that the US must have more and better data than us so we are fine with it..

It is an important feature when available as an add-on. In the F-16s, local sources will likely be the sole sources of ELINT data in future years, especially if a Sufa-type variant is purchased. The folks at Eglin sure aren't going to be developing MDFs for Indian F-16s.

[brar_w]

Actually the real point to note here is that the IAF's ODL is of Israeli-origin. IAI-origin to be more specific. That parts necessary to ensure interoperability with the rest of the IAF fleet. There's no substitute for the MADL, but then that's only for intra-flight comms and would be covered under the COMCASA. Doesn't need a substitute.

I don't know if MADL would be covered without CISMOA. Its a gray area as far as I'm concerned. And as explained in my earlier post, Israel is putting its own terminals to support its data links and this is built into the F-35 comms suite. There is wideband antenna coverage all around the aircraft and the digital CNI suite allows for a software defined approach as Israel is exercising with its added layer of command and control suite.

But again I am not sure how MADL would be covered without CISMOA since this has never been touched primarily on account of this waveform and digital communication system not being on any other platform. In Principle, there is no difference between Link-16 and MADL..MADL s just more directional, higher end, sensitive, LPD and one aircraft specific waveform. They serve the same purpose, its just that in the case of MADL it is narrower in that it allows F-35's to talk to each other while in the case of the L16 it has to do with other aircraft, ships etc.

Given that the customization itself is being driven by political rather than technical objectives (nothing the Israelis are offering or is domestically available is superior to the Blk 70 configuration), the two are very much contradictory.

I wouldn't knock the Israeli upgrades down. They iare highly capable. Their mission computers are running quite a complicated Electronic warfare suite which is going fully digital (its partially digital at the moment) and they have integrated their data link terminals, and SATCOM as well.

The rest is essentially the US systems. Radar would be AESA, IR pods can be the same etc etc. Weapon interfaces that they use support US weapons and Israeli weapons with the exception that Israel can practically do whatever they want from the interface perspective, only requiring Lockheed assistance when it comes to some aspects of the airframe and flight controls.

ELINT data in future years, especially if a Sufa-type variant is purchased. The folks at Eglin sure aren't going to be developing MDFs for Indian F-16s.

Even the UAE has the ability to configure its own threats into its digital EW suite on its block 60 F-16s so India would not be having a lab in the US to incorporate threats into its potential F-16.. There aren't integrated mission data files on any variant of the F-16 that take an F-35 approach to the build where the platforms characteristics and the entire EMS on the threat is factored. It is a much simpler process where there are ways to allow end user access even if the end user has not purchased rights to the software codes.

[Katare]

Brar/Viv sahibs,
What is the current (2016 actual and 2017 plan) production rate of F35s? I would guess it should be hovering around 100+ aircaft/year now?

Nothing but F35 makes sense for Infian airforce and navy as far as I am concerned. 10-12 years back when this circus started, F35 was a paper plane, today its hottest selling, most produced and most suported fighter plane out there with no competing alternative visible in foreseeable future. If I were buying (thank your gods that I am not ) I would commit to buy 200 of these at $130mil a pop over the next decade, this will be our next MKI. At $2.6 billion/year between IAF and navy its affordable for the capability it offers. Just for an arguments sake ifvi over simplify and linearly project expenses, in 2018 it'll be ~6% of defense budget ($45bil) and in 2028 it'll be 3% of defense budget ~($90 bill).

It is still a lot of money but it'll provide better deterrent than alternatives. The ToT approach has failed to deliver what we seek and JSF offers us a more market based approach of getting involved into the worldwide supplychain for the program that is worth several trillions of dollars over next 3 decade.

Last but not least (iirc) India paid $4.1 billion for last batch of 40 mkis, at 100 mil a plane, ordered in 2012-14 timeframe. Next batch of mki would cost us more than $130mil an aircraft. I think and this is just one man's opinion so take it for what it worth to you, at the cost of an mki an F35 offers much better capabilities and deterrent to india.

[Guddu]

+35. We will waste a year or two discussing the F-16, then as time passes the star of the F-35 will beckon brighter than ever...

[nvishal]

A reality check for those who think the LCA/f16 will cross the line of control



Just because the americans and its allies are going all stealth at the basic level does not mean that india has the technology(or money) to do this. An f16 is no better than an LCA when it operates within the line of control. Just like a warship, it works in co-ordination(data) with desi satellites and round radars. A lot of the arguments about airframe, component superiority etc are not valid in this case.

To strike deep inside pakistan/china covertly, we need much more than a stealth aircraft. We don't have a stealth aircraft. We don't have the support system to back such an operation. We cannot strike at dawood. This is the reality of our current capability. Accept it and move on.

[Philip]

To strike deep inside pakistan/china covertly, we need much more than a stealth aircraft. We don't have a stealth aircraft. We don't have the support system to back such an operation. We cannot strike at dawood. This is the reality of our current capability. Accept it and move on.

Quite right,why I've been insisting that the IAF get their heads and eyes out of the sand and think strategically. There's an excellent piece in a recent report quoting an Ru general why the Bear is still being used .Reasons are excellent reliability,plus the ability to carry heaps of LRCMs. almost 60 years since its inception! It has immense strike capability why it was used in Syria. Blackjacks being upgraded to be even more capable range,payload,etc.

Now in the Indian context,with a 5th-gen aircraft most likely arriving say around 2022-2025,why would we need a smaller less capable AMCA,which could carry just half the payload of a larger FGFA which is Flanker size? The size of the internal weapons bay of the AMCA may not be able to carry even BMos-L. Our existing M2K,MIG-29UG and Rafales to come would be good platforms to deliver stand-off munitions/missiles at half the cost of an AMCA,which would need to use its underwing points. Therefore,as some analysts have argued,the AMCA programme must be for a larger version of it giving it true stealth bomber capability.If we are going to acquire a fair amt of TOT in the FGFA programme,we must leverage it for the AMCA just as a Pak-DA is being developed for Russia.In any case even if AMCA was given the green light soon,it would take at least 15 yrs to develop,2030 before it arrives.The maturity of UCAVs by then would further raise the Q about how many manned aircraft an air force would need.

The Super-Sukhoi upgrade programme which would allow over 240 of our MKIs to carry BMos,plus LR AAMs,would start to arrive by 2020,which would serve us v.well during the next decade for the LR tactical strike req.,esp armed with at least 300KM+ BMos-L missiles.Right now with the modifications,an MKI would be able to carry one std. BMos ASM. With BMos-L,it would be able to carry 3 of them while the smaller med. sized MIG-29s,Rafales and M2Ks would be able to carry one each.One hopes that the glitches in Nirbhay are ironed out asap,so that by 2020 it too will be in large-scale production.

Right now the LCA programme appears to be in a really slow state of dev/prod. The hope is that an improved Mk-1A,yet to fly and MK-2,design yet to be seen,arrive,as replacements for the retiring MIGs,etc. Emulating even the HF-24 numbers will be a tough job! Therefore,unless and ONLY IF any SE deal comes with a definite guarantee that the firang OEM will ensure parallel development of the LCA with tech transfer,etc.,so that at least 200 LCAs can be built before 2030. If not,we would be killing off any hope of an indigenous Indian fighter aircraft capability,plus throw the AMCA programme into severe doubt-if we can't even succeed with the LCA,and instead ensuring a v.lucrative buy of a foreign fighter of at least 300 aircraft by 2030 to replace all our MIG-21s/27s and even Bisons,A juicy plum tree for the firang entity! It would be an act of insanity to buy the vintage F-16 which the US and its allies are dumping and replacing with the F-35.The Gripen being newer would be a more sensible choice if we are still hell-bent upon a firang SE fighter.

[brar_w]

Brar/Viv sahibs,
What is the current (2016 actual and 2017 plan) production rate of F35s? I would guess it should be hovering around 100+ aircaft/year now?

This year around 65 aircraft up from 53 deliveries last year. In 2018 this number will climb to 90+ and then above a 100 a year after. They are currently negotiating LRIP 12-14 production lots that will take the annual build rate to 150. Total orders till date (counting LRIP11 which will be definitized this year) are 448 out of which 220+ have been delivered. LRIP12-14 currently under negotiation will add an additional 440 aircraft as part of a bulk/block buy.

[nvishal]

There is a misconception among many indian civilians who observe military developments as a form of hobby on the print media, the internet and elsewhere.

People think that all fighter jets are the same. They think that since the tejas is called a "light combat aircraft" that it is a cheap low quality aircraft. Whereas an aircraft that can carry more weight to long distances is an excellent aircraft. See: logic b/f from observation of ISRO rockets

The actual difference between fighter jets is its role. The role given to LCA is defensive and it operates in conjunction with other assets(satellite, radar, Surface to air missiles etc). This conjunction is more effective than what a f22 has onboard. A f16 is a strike aircraft but dont think that you can drive it into Pakistan/china LoC because the ground is littered with radars.

This is a long subject. Just know that LCA is an efrective patrol vehicle and affordable to operate and maintain. If you are thinking about using a strike aircraft as a patrol vehicle then you are unnecessarily wasting money. In actual practice, people don't estimate the cost of a job and allocate money; rather, they look into the pocket first and make do with what they have.

Someone right said(don't remember the name) that an effective air power is one that is affordable. Just because Americans have agreed to assemble f16 on indian soil doesn't mean you rush and buy it. First look at the role and then look into your pocket.

Currently LCA is pending arrival of Kaveri. Those who have followed karveri will themselves tell you that they have lost interest. I'm also somewhere in that stage. Part of the rafale offset is to conclude the Kaveri to a level where it can carry the LCA. This also proves that the LCA is not dead. In fact, LCA has become part of the negotiations with both Rafale and Saab.

[Manish_Sharma]

Just because Americans have agreed to assemble f16 on indian soil....

Some are claiming here that this f16 manufacturing equipment may also produce parts of Tejas part time!

[nvishal]

Without foreign orders, funding a production line is not viable. We already have one for mki. Now 1x each for LCA and f16 is ridiculous.

OEMs will automatically surface once HAL moves LCA from prototype phase to production. But without a desi engine, both HAL and govt are stalling.

There is a reason why India prefers to skip GE engines. History has made indian leaders the pragmatists they are today.

[nirav]

Without foreign orders, funding a production line is not viable. We already have one for mki. Now 1x each for LCA and f16 is ridiculous.

OEMs will automatically surface once HAL moves LCA from prototype phase to production. But without a desi engine, both HAL and govt are stalling.

There is a reason why India prefers to skip GE engines. History has made indian leaders the pragmatists they are today.

Not sure if I should laugh or cry wrt the bold part.
I have strong doubts over the export potential of the LCA.

Yet we allocated 50,000 crores for 80mk1a.
80 is by no means a piece meal order.
If it costs the Indian govt 50,000 crores to get 80 Mk1A into operational squadrons, the price for exports for a lesser number would be quite steep !

[Marten]

Nirav, the 50,000 cr is for the entire deployment. Including Capex for bases, training, spares, pbl, and not unit fly away costs. This was explained to you by Brarji as well as others. Planned unit fly away costs for each LCA Mk1a is Rs 160-180cr. For Mk1, it is even lower, by 30-40cr.

Is there a reason you choose to ignore the explanations?

[deejay]

...

Not sure if I should laugh or cry wrt the bold part.
I have strong doubts over the export potential of the LCA.

Yet we allocated 50,000 crores for 80mk1a.
80 is by no means a piece meal order.
If it costs the Indian govt 50,000 crores to get 80 Mk1A into operational squadrons, the price for exports for a lesser number would be quite steep !

Sir,

I am not a Finance whiz but let me put me put my foot in my mouth by commenting out of my depth. I think this 50K crore is capitalized cost. That means going forward, the cost of production per aircraft will be fairly lower than that of the initial 80 which needed to set up a manufacturing line.

Tejas is a capable platform. Needs to be sold, all jazzed up. SAAB was marketing a paper plane Grippen E; what are we waiting for in marketing the LCA. Another 40 pieces on export order and I think we would have recovered half the cost. Make it 80 in bits and pieces over the next 10 years for export and the Tejas would have paid back every paise spent on it. Jai Ho! (Couldn't help praising my own good thoughts )

[nirav]

Nirav, the 50,000 cr is for the entire deployment. Including Capex for bases, training, spares, pbl, and not unit fly away costs. This was explained to you by Brarji as well as others. Planned unit fly away costs for each LCA Mk1a is Rs 160-180cr. For Mk1, it is even lower, by 30-40cr.

Is there a reason you choose to ignore the explanations?

Okay,
Do tell.

Can you operate the jet in isolation?

Fly away cost ka kya karenge ?

The cost for standing up 5 squadrons of Mk1A is 7 odd billion.
Therefore actual cost incurred by IAF/MoD for 1 Mk1A is 94 million USD.

Stating flyaway costs doesn't do anything except window dressing @ the cost bit."look platform is cheap price wise".

If tomorrow the LCA receives an export order of say 40 jets, what do you think will the cost be ? Flyaway cost or the total cost + HAL markup ?

[nirav]

@deejay Saar,
I'll lungi dance if it does secure export orders.. however looking at the air forces needs and HALs production rate, I really doubt if we could ever have spare capacity to export.
The 80 Mk1A are scheduled to be inducted by 2025.. till then,for sure no chance of exports..

[brar_w]

Stating flyaway costs doesn't do anything except window dressing @ the cost bit."look platform is cheap price wise".

It absolutely does since it reflects the recurring cost of buying the hardware. You will incur non recurring costs regardless of what you recapitalize your aircraft inventory with given even advanced variants of existing types in inventory have avionics and other hardware differences that incur non recurring costs.

You will have non-recurring costs to take into account if you buy LCA, Gripen, Super Su-30, or MiG-35...The reason folks look at fly-away cost is to see how much the price of a set of flying hardware costs and tracks with other alternatives. If you plan on fielding the said hardware in large amounts you can absorb subtle or even significant differences in non-recurring costs..but its the recurring cost that is the determinant of affordability at numbers that go well above 100-200 aircraft.

[nirav]

Stating flyaway costs doesn't do anything except window dressing @ the cost bit."look platform is cheap price wise".

It absolutely does since it reflects the recurring cost of buying the hardware. You will incur non recurring costs regardless of what you recapitalize your aircraft inventory with given even advanced variants of existing types in inventory have avionics and other hardware differences that incur non recurring costs.

You will have non-recurring costs to take into account if you buy LCA, Gripen, Super Su-30, or MiG-35...The reason folks look at fly-away cost is to see how much the price of a set of flying hardware costs and tracks with other alternatives. If you plan on fielding the said hardware in large amounts you can absorb subtle or even significant differences in non-recurring costs..but its the recurring cost that is the determinant of affordability at numbers that go well above 100-200 aircraft.

Thank you for your detailed post.
I'd like to ask you,
What would be the price in crores for export of 80mk1a ?

[brar_w]

How can anyone answer that without first knowing what the parameters of the deal are, how many aircraft and what non-recurring products and services are on offer, or on order?

[nirav]

How can anyone answer that without first knowing what the parameters of the deal are, how many aircraft and what non-recurring products and services are on offer, or on order?

Well,
We aren't aware of the specifics of the 50,000 crs even for the IAF.

So for a theoretical exercise, assuming the foreign customer asks for a deal similar to what IAF is getting, what would the price be for 80mk1a ?

Greater than 50,000 crores or less than ?

[brar_w]

It will likely be more but that is the case for practically all of its peer competitors as well. Unit fly-away cost is an important metric to track and plays the biggest role in determining affordability unless one is planning to acquire an extremely small number of units where significant differences in non recurring costs do play a role in tipping the scales.

What India is investing to buy the first 80 aircraft is essentially building production capacity and preparing the IAF to absorb these aircrafts. A lot of those are non-recurring costs. Hence it is better to look at overall program acquisition cost for the total program of record whether that is 100, 200 or 500. Initial batches will be more expensive on account of both lack of EOS, untapped learning curve associated efficiencies and higher non-recurring costs associated with those batches. Subsequent lots will be cheaper. Even the cost of manufacturing the aircraft varies over time with learning curve efficiency kicking in once you have produced a significant amount of them. See THIS from a larger program (but relevant to how learning curve impacts price through reduction in time required to build it, and improving the yields of key components)

Same applies for exports. If HAL has delivered 100 aircraft to the IAF and has a robust production line and supply chain then that will be reflected in its export price competitiveness. If it has to incur setup costs in order to fulfill the export order that will be reflected in its price tag as well.

So it is entirely possible that the cost for the first 80 LCA MK1As to the IAF is more than the cost of 80 of the same aircraft acquired by an export customer in the late 2020s simply because HAL would have delivered 100+ aircraft by then, incorporated lessons learned, would be at a high production rate and would have lowered the cost to build through efficiencies.

[Marten]

Brarji, not sure if you are one man or ten, but you are worth many! Hats off to you Sir(s).

Deejay, you are spot on Sir. Unit cost will be lower for each subsequent order, tranche etc.

[Katare]

Out of that Rs 50K corer at least 30% would come back to the govt as taxes from HAL, other suppliers and income tax from earnings of individuals. Anyhow having 5 squads of domestic fighter aircraft is simply priceless.