LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Oct 2017 12:45

This is a post for ramana.

2 or 3 years ago you had posted a link for book / article detailing the activities that are undertaken to sabotage domestic production by having a mole or an agent of influence making seemingly innocent suggestions that in effect delay the out come of the project or completely derail it.

I went through it with great interest. I will be thankful if you are able to repost it. Or make it a required reading for all the threads dealing with domestic weapons procurement program.

Like we have for the terroristan thread.

Thanks.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 28 Oct 2017 14:21

hahahaha... just pay a MP some money to raise suggestion of corruption .. and lo behold...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2017 16:10

Then why did Kalaam make that stupid claim in 2003 that by 2013 we would have 200 LCAs in service? My AM friend former VC warned him at a crucial meeting that the GTRE were lying when they said in 3 months time Kaveri would be ready.Kalaam believed them and made his famous statement thereafter. I had an opportunity to ask him about it once,but did not as he may have been embarassed and as he had done so much for the nation.I instead reminded him about his keen interest in a piece of eqpt. at an air show.He remembered it and was surprised that I had noticed it. We know how may LCA s are flying today! Kalaam was told point blank that the LCA programme at that time ,was "a fraud upon the nation".

The LCA has not had a supremo in charge of the programme.Yes Mally Wollen and many others were part of HAL,but such an important programme requires a chief with full powers to make it succeed.Committees do not augur success.

PS:In instances abroad we find a chief designer of the bureau like Sukhoi or MIG who often make statements about their design.China is reported to have a brilliant chief designer.These aero-scientists also retire very late or are kept on until they die in positions of respect and authority.Then one has the co. chairman or head responsible for admin. affairs.Tbey usually get rotated after years of service depending upon their success rate.
It would be v.interesting to compare our scenario,HAL,ADA,etc., and those of other intl. cos.

When the Bulava sub-launched ICBM missile kept failing on and off despite innumerable tests,thr chief designer a heavily devorated missile scientist responsible gor developing many land based missiles,Putin fired him
despite his awesome reputation,bringing in a man who specialises in naval missiles.Within a reasonable time he resolved the issue of design flaws and did the biz.

Anyway these are my last words on this issue.Sweeping unpleasant truths are common practice in govt. institutions in India.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Oct 2017 01:56

Philip wrote:A badly overweight LCA was put together in not perfect manner,which being obese hasn't met expected performance specs,that too after 3 decades of development.

Show me a single fighter based on the 80 kN engine which weighs less and does more. Otherwise, is it okay to call you names because you seem to be doing the same to other people and their work. As to 3 decades development, when the saga of Mk2 is written, I am sure the clock will start from 2008.

Philip wrote:Then why did Kalaam make that stupid claim in 2003 that by 2013 we would have 200 LCAs in service? ... Kalaam was told point blank that the LCA programme at that time ,was "a fraud upon the nation".

Thanks to Kalaam, and his conviction on his fellow Indians, India has reached self sufficiency in various fields (wherever imports where not possible). Thanks to people who always looked down on fellow SDREs, we continue the business of ToT. Earlier it was only the PSUs, now it is the private sector as well. It is a gravy train. For example, Tata is yet to put in a single screw for the C-295 deal signed 3 years back!

Philip wrote: When the Bulava sub-launched ICBM missile kept failing on and off despite innumerable tests,thr chief designer a heavily devorated missile scientist responsible gor developing many land based missiles,Putin fired him
despite his awesome reputation,bringing in a man who specialises in naval missiles.Within a reasonable time he resolved the issue of design flaws and did the biz.

Anyway these are my last words on this issue.Sweeping unpleasant truths are common practice in govt. institutions in India.

Thank you. Your sweeping Putin puja on virtually every thread is OT, boring and annoying anyways.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Oct 2017 02:22

For all those who are pushing for an LCA mk2, a few questions:

1. Who will be in charge of this program, ada or HAL? Why?
2. What is the proposed timeline for this project?
3. Keeping in mind that hals first task is to get the mk1a ready to fly.
4. Also keep in mind that Ada's task is to design and development a much needed AMCA
5. both these agencies and the lca teams are immediately tasked with achieving foc, increased production rates, providing adequate support to the newly formed IAF sqd and ensuring smoother inductions and debugging problems that crop up.
6. Where will the manpower come from?
7. What time will this fighter play in the IAF orbat and at what point in time?

Note that I have not really considered costs here... My personal take is Desi rnd costs are not high to begin with and such monies are well spent irrespective of failures.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Oct 2017 03:48

Cain Marko wrote:For all those who are pushing for an LCA mk2, a few questions:

1. Who will be in charge of this program, ada or HAL? Why?
A. ADA for design & testing and HAL (or private firm) for production. And as to why, because that is how it was done with Tejas Mk1. It should not be any different for Mk1a or Mk2.

2. What is the proposed timeline for this project?
A. I believe Dr Christopher of DRDO said 2025 for FOC. And that was in 2015 I believe he made that statement. As usual, we have wasted time. Some will say deliberately wasted time. I am in the latter camp.

3. Keeping in mind that HAL's first task is to get the mk1a ready to fly.
A. As per Dileep, no movement is happening on Mk1A or Mk2 because of SE deal. A better idea would be stop production of Tejas at 40 aircraft of Mk.1 configuration and move ahead with SE deal. Is that an acceptable solution?

4. Also keep in mind that Ada's task is to design and development a much needed AMCA
A. Developing Tejas Mk2 from Mk1 will be quicker for ADA to accomplish than getting a first flying prototype of AMCA Mk1. I do not see a flying prototype till well after the mid 2020s for AMCA. A better idea would be ask to ADA to focus on AMCA and when AMCA Mk1 comes out, we can follow the Tejas roadmap and stop production at 40 AMCA Mk1s and acquire 100 F-35Ds in 2030. Is that an acceptable solution?

5. both these agencies and the lca teams are immediately tasked with achieving foc, increased production rates, providing adequate support to the newly formed IAF sqd and ensuring smoother inductions and debugging problems that crop up.
A. Which LCA teamS are you referring to? There is only one LCA team who is doing all of the above you mentioned. The ADA team is twiddling thumbs because of the SE deal.

6. Where will the manpower come from?
A. Ambigious question, so you need to define manpower for WHAT exactly? Development? Production? If it is the former, I have answered it in question four. If it is production, HAL has gone on record stating that they are waiting for orders for the SE deal because Tata has never done fighter assembly before and after 2019, Rambha production will come to an end and HAL employees will be sitting around doing nothing. The import lobby on BRF has argued that Tata can effectively produce F-Solahs. Nobody (import lobby included) has any faith in Adani to stitch even a langoti together - so bringing Adani up for fighter assembly is a moot point.

7. What time will this fighter play in the IAF orbat and at what point in time?
A. What time will the F-Solah/Gripen E play in the IAF orbat and at what point in time? Because the first foreign produced plane (18 in flyaway condition) will arrive only in the mid 2020s. The same time that LCA Mk2 will get FOC. The first locally produced SE plane will roll out in 2027. And as per ACM Dhanoa, IAF will achieve the magic number of 42 squadrons in 2032...a mere five years later.

Cain Marko wrote:Note that I have not really considered costs here... My personal take is Desi rnd costs are not high to begin with and such monies are well spent irrespective of failures.

Bring that up. You have raised a good point. Also do you believe Mk2 will be a failure?

I am convinced that the IAF does not want the Mk2. As a sidenote, some BRFites get aneurysms when the term Import Pasand is applied against the IAF. However, I have no bones in saying so. The IAF is import pasand onlee. And save the patriotism drama (I-love-my-country-and-how-dare-you-accuse-the-forces-of-being-import-pasand) for someone else. I am not saying you do that, but a few BRFites have done that in the past.

Successive chiefs have talked about the importance of having 42 squadrons to effectively fight a two front war. The present chief even used a cricket analogy - as one cannot play effective cricket with just 7 players when you need 11. But the proof is in the pudding, no? Senior Air Marshals are willing to wait for the next 15 years (till 2032) to bring their squadron strength up to 42, when they can easily churn out Tejas Mk1s (infintely better than the MiG-21s which the IAF swears by), develop Tejas Mk1A and Mk2. But no, Air Marshals will go through the 11 step MoD process to acquire phoren fighters and waste valuable money i.e. FOREX. If that is not import pasand, then I am the direct descendent of Her Highness the Queen of England.

Secondly, if the IAF does not want the Mk2 and has no compulsion in saying so, ADA and HAL should still develop it. How many countries can do what Bahrain just did - buy F-16Vs at $145 million per plane? Gripen will be even more expensive. Which other 4+ generation fighter is out there that can be cheaper than ~$50 million? Develop Mk2 and you can sell it at ~$50 million a pop to a whole host of countries that need to boost her airpower. It can even be used as trainers by these countries, but that would be overkill.

Thirdly, the GoI does not even import wisely. The most recent example (there have been a number in the past) is the Rafale deal. Buy 36 Rafales, but then complain that they cannot acquire additional Rafales because they are too expensive. A follow on order of 36 Rafales can easily be signed, because both Hasimara and Ambala can house two squadrons each of the Rafale. But no, it must be single engine onlee because dual engines are expensive. This despite the fact that acquiring 100 SE fighters will be ridicously more expensive than a follow on order of 36 Rafales. And that deal for an additional 36 Rafales could have been confirmed when the French Defence Minister came visiting. But we gave her chai-biscoot and sent her on her way.

Moral of the Story - Money is not the issue. Manpower is not the issue. Time is not the issue. I quote BRF's own Ramanaji - The will to implement is needed. He put it best.

We have the will to spend the money, the will to train the manpower and the will to spend time to buy SE fighters, but not the same for local fighters. Ack Thoo!

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Oct 2017 04:11

+1

'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on both of us.'

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Oct 2017 05:20

Very well said Rakesh.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2017 05:44

Rakesh superbly put.We have such good pilots/airmen and officers in the IAF ,we see them doing so well in intl. exercises,but its profligacy is mystifying.One reason is a deep-rooted lack of confidence in HAL/DPSUs to deliver the goods to meet specs,performance and uniform high level of quality.I remember complaints that Desi MIG-21 prod. had engines badly aligned in the fuselage touching the fuselage panels.

Rectifying the deficiencies in the DPSUs is another mystifying fact,This time the responsibility of the MOD.
My feeling about aircraft design/dev. in India is that we are not following the methods used by firang majors.Almost every country has its design bureau and its head.The bureau's are responsible for design and dev. and prod,but the admin. head of the project could come from the service in Q.We've seen repeatedly in the past turf wars between the DPSUs/HAL and the IAF.It does not happen with the IN and Desi shipyards bros the IN designs everything in-house with the DND.

Either HAL and the ADA merge, remember how we developed the HF-24 with DR.Tank and HAL,or the ADA is hived off to the IAF as the core of its future in-house R&D team which will design/dev aircraft,solely or with a JV partner.In Ru. Sukhoi and MIG now both come under one Corp.In the UK BAe has swallowed up the other aircraft firms which earlier used to exist.

Finally the MOD/DM /GOO should take a call on the same esp. cost wise of equiv options,desi vs firang platforms and the IAF made to understand the same,what the nation cannot afford and what it can.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2017 06:23

Was it 10% of HAL on sale? we should bump it up all the way to 49% private in about 5 years.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 29 Oct 2017 06:38

Rakesh sir, can we email this somehow to PMO/DefMin or any powers that be, not that they dont know, but what goes in trying, can't we the BRF people put up a twitter #tag, or say a change.org campaign.
I dont have too much hopes, but hey what goes in trying. I can't write such convincingly or factually about the program, but will be more than glad to help you with pptgiri or in being the paperboy for this

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Oct 2017 10:33

Please don't call me Sir, Arjun Saar

I am all in for any idea to get the Tejas program rolling again. It is semi-comatose now because of SE deal. But I just provided an overview of future Tejas development. The ones you really need to rope in are Kartik, Karan M, Indranil and Cybaru. These are the guys who can give a more succint and detailed explanation and lay it out for you to create in PowerPoint. If they are reading this and want to help, then for sure.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2017 17:34

Rakesh, pl ck . BK's latest missive wherein he feels that the LCA,FGFA,AMCA, are about to be dumped in favour of back to the future 50 yr old F-16s,etc.He has some background history on NS too which some might find interesting.

PS:In it he alleges that MP wanted LCAs and extra MKIs to Super-Sukhoi std. to be the backbone of the service.Modi however overturned the plan by buying limited qty. of Rafales.MP probably wanted out as he could see what was coming in the future.

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 29 Oct 2017 19:03

Bharat Karnad questioning the defence minister's antecedents is slanderous IMO. The super Sukhoi-30 is still under discussion with no clear picture of what the upgrades are going to be and what they will cost. Also AFAIK the Indian investment into the FGFA program is somewhere around 300 million? Not the billion as BK is claiming.

Russia has also ordered a grand total of 12 Su-57s. Not something that inspires confidence in a prospective buyer. BK just sounds like an old man ranting about things using incorrect information.

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 Oct 2017 19:14

Well all his points about the freeze on Mk2 NLCA etc designs and the penchant for our planners to shoot themselves in the foot (with a ever eager for best brouchure IAF planners egging them on) arent really off the mark

He might be over the top in few points but some of his stuff do seem to be ringing true going by recent news ( and its sad to see it happen like a trainwreck in slow motion)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2017 20:11

Yes the snide remarks about NS in v.poor taste.What is intriguing and he could've shed more light on it is the apparent contra views of HAL, and the IAF and the rationale behind it.The desire to become Uncle Sam's bumchum by certain interests is well known.The HAL-IAF
tiff seems ever present.Firang OEMs salivating in anticipation.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 29 Oct 2017 23:56

^ MP has not been gagged, can easily state that "LCA essential to our nation's future, min. 200 orders required."

My take : IAF fears that LCA testing will take abt 8-10 years more, up to 2030 and SE can start coming in by 2020. They must have made their choice. The MK-1A, though better than Mig-21 / Jaguar ?? in inventory, is just interim version. Apparently does not meet all requirements as promised.

We see an example in "Japanese techno-nationalism." The intent to field an indigenous system , though inferior or unequal to a foreign import, will be carried out to fullest extent possible. The loss of performance will be tolerated. The succeeding versions will be better. Examples:

> Replace the 18 KN Orpheus engine with 11.6 KN J3 engine on 40 of the T-1 trainers.
> Build Oyashio "fleet type" submarine , which is considered obsolete.
> Accept and induct EF-2000 Typhoon w/o its Blue Fox Radar for 5 years after squadron service entry. They flew it with a cement ballast as recently as early 2000.

But, im sure IAF knows better.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Oct 2017 02:52

LCA shortcomings (still are many) - No proven radar and radar missile combo (we are vacillating between 2032/2052/French/Uttam). The radar would also need proven BVR (which e.g. Uttam may not have, or a 2032 hybrid may not provide). Without this, the plane is AA role is useless. It has a short range. Then as of today HAL cannot make enough of it. HAL has promised, but if even 50% promises came true from HAL/PSU/DRDO (I mean promises) we would be a superpower. At this point it has radar, engine and some other parts imported and we are short by 15 Sq from authorized number and probably 30 sq from where we should be.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2017 06:38

And the Short range AAM flutters.
Good part is Derby with 2032 works.

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Oct 2017 06:59

fanne wrote:... The radar would also need proven BVR (which e.g. Uttam may not have, or a 2032 hybrid may not provide). Without this, the plane is AA role is useless. It has a short range. ...

HAL Tejas successfully fires Derby BVR missile

16 MAY, 2017

The Hindustan Aernautics (HAL) Tejas light combat aircraft has successfully fired the Rafael Derby beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile.

The aircraft released the weapon in "lock-on after launch" mode, and successfully destroyed an aerial target, says India's defence ministry in a statement.

"The objective of the test was to assess the Derby integration with aircraft systems on-board Tejas including the aircraft avionics, fire-control radar, launchers and Missile Weapon Delivery System and to verify its performance," says the ministry.

The test was conducted at a test range near Chandipur on India's east coast.

"The test firing achieved all its planned objectives," says the ministry. "The Derby firing is a major step towards clearing BVR capabilities on LCA aircraft for Final Operational Clearance."

...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Oct 2017 07:03

ramana wrote:And the Short range AAM flutters.

Not R-73

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Oct 2017 07:06

fanne wrote:LCA shortcomings (still are many) - No proven radar and radar missile combo (we are vacillating between 2032/2052/French/Uttam). The radar would also need proven BVR (which e.g. Uttam may not have, or a 2032 hybrid may not provide). Without this, the plane is AA role is useless. It has a short range. Then as of today HAL cannot make enough of it. HAL has promised, but if even 50% promises came true from HAL/PSU/DRDO (I mean promises) we would be a superpower. At this point it has radar, engine and some other parts imported and we are short by 15 Sq from authorized number and probably 30 sq from where we should be.

What is the exact criticism people have against the air force? Some from the IAF - including AM Matheswaran have been saying pretty much this haven't they? Or is this another case of forum cursing third party when it comes to criticism of air force role in LCA saga

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Oct 2017 12:10

fanne wrote:LCA shortcomings (still are many) - No proven radar and radar missile combo (we are vacillating between 2032/2052/French/Uttam). The radar would also need proven BVR (which e.g. Uttam may not have, or a 2032 hybrid may not provide). Without this, the plane is AA role is useless. It has a short range. Then as of today HAL cannot make enough of it. HAL has promised, but if even 50% promises came true from HAL/PSU/DRDO (I mean promises) we would be a superpower. At this point it has radar, engine and some other parts imported and we are short by 15 Sq from authorized number and probably 30 sq from where we should be.

Completely unfounded and unnecessary criticism. LCA does have R73 and Derby integrated and working with Elta-2032. In that configuration (FOC) its quite potent A2A bird, sufficient to hold its own against majority of fighters the enemies can throw at us at this point of time.

I will not comment on the other parts. Discussed to many times.

I would urge people to think before pointing out short comings and criticizing, there are millions of them in LCA project. But when you pick wrong one it reflects badly on you, not the LCA.

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Oct 2017 12:42

^^^

fanne,

When was the last time you actually read up on the LCA? The information you are relying on is pretty dated ... or where you writing it as a sarcasm?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Oct 2017 16:28

No sir, it is how I feel. The 2032 combo (or whatever is in the lca right now) can fire r-73 and derby, but that is not the final radar lca will put (apperantely Israel is acting funny). That thing is neither proven ( few aa missile does not make a complete test) nor final. There is something missing. 17 years (almost 18) after first flight, when IAf is half its strength, enemy is breathing down our neck and we have some 4-5 in IOC config! Something is very very wrong somewhere, or many things perhaps.this plane could have easily seen a mk2 avatar by now with full foc and entered service. I have a feeling that lca will continue to stumble and then meet Marut fate

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Oct 2017 16:46

^^^
If it was easy, it would have been done ages ago

R&D is hard work. Things take time. Even the nations that have been building fighter planes for more than half-a-century take 20-30 years to R&D and perfect their new gen planes (mind you, that is with all their expertise and funding thrown at them). You want India to develop its own fighters then have patience and nurture it otherwise it will go the way to HF-24 Marut.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Oct 2017 16:48

There are many things wrong fenne sir. But most of it may not be with LCA as you say. I am a mango here but our testing seems to be quite extensive and hard one and if they say LCA passed in R 73 or Derby I take their word for it unless you can produce some data proving otherwise.

Schmidt · Post by **Schmidt** » 30 Oct 2017 17:35

https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/10/29/mod ... -to-tejas/

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Oct 2017 18:09

Schmidt wrote:https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/10/29/mod ... -to-tejas/

...in anticipation of the IAF fielding its own F-16s, and once again making a grievous historic blunder of the kind that led to GOI, on IAF’s say-so, junking the Marut Mk-II in the early 1970s, buying instead the British Jaguar deep penetration and strike aircraft that cannot strike hard and penetrate deep at the same time, and ending the prospects of locally designed and produced combat aircraft and aerospace industry, and sealing the future of the country as an arms dependency. ...

déjà vu?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Oct 2017 22:08

So instead of whining let me put some suggestions that may work (based on what I know having followed this program for over 25 years now as an amateur).
1. It needs a RM that can push for it purposefully (see examples of MP and GF, both wanted it to be in IAF, it flew under GF and 83 were committed under RM, wrinkles and all)
2. It helps if the RM knows a little technical, where he/she may not be blindsided with either MOD, IAF, HAL, ADA, or any 3/4 letter agency. If GTRE says don't buy F414 we will deliver Kaveri in two years, he/she should be able to ask the tough question or if IAF says it needs AESA and not something now, one can question the rationale...
3.Have the order ticked upto 200 LCA and extra be from a private line (even if it costs more). Having an extra design agency (other than ADA) or a manufacturing house (HAL), or engine development house (GTRE) will get in more competition and reduce single point of failures. A 42 SQ (or 60 for 2 front war, 10 sq of LCA, however bad/suboptimal will not hurt, it can only help).
4.Have a dedicated command under IAF that is responsible for design to induction of airplanes (like IN has a in house org). Let IAF own these products from beginning to end and let ADA/HAL/GTRE/Private companies complement that. The projects have long gestation periods, IAF is not used to inducting non proven aircrafts (in spite of Mig29, Su27/su 30mki fiascos, these planes were tested by the Russians before), but all indigenous products are going top be unproven for many years, before they mature into useful products. UK can afford to have cement slabs in place of radars in it's plane until they were replaced (as it's own companies were producing the radar and had transparency on what was going on), IAF cannot afford to fly a plane without radar (or maybe it can), as we have no proven radar nor a history of any successful one.
5.Have Radar (and missiles to go with it) and the engine be separately pursued. The plane will have 3 engines change if it serves for another 40 years (and if that good). Later versions can have any desi radar if it gets developed and is successful.
6. Increase indigenous content further where it can be
7. Further derisk the project by going with suboptimal config for first few Squadron. They don't have to be world beater in the first iteration (IAF has inducted far worse). Maybe a 2032 combo, if not then even a Mig21b's radar missile combo, no refueling. As long as it is safe to fly and shoot some missile (even if non BVRs) and drop bombs (that it can do in spades), it can be used in war, and will be very useful if we are in 2 front war in the next 10 years (by just being present, a 'bad' plane is any day better than no plane).
8.It would be good to have AESA/proven BVR combo. In that aspect, it may become the most potent BVR shooter in IAF (after Rafael). This will further hide any other lacuna it may have (range, TWR)
9.Develope next versions, iterate, MK2, maybe a bigger plane with same wings etc but wilth AL-31 engine, maybe stealth shaping. Possibilities are endless. Let the lower end of IAF be indigenous while Medium and heavy, we pick the best that we can get. gradually we graduate to medium and some day we make the best heavies. The Chinese are ahead of Russians in 5th gen fighter and sooner TSPAF will have them as well. We cannot compete with just foreign planes (they ma ynot be available, either Russia has not developed or USA has but cannot export to us), we need our own, we do not have a different choice unfortunately. A china of 1990, we could afford to look at external sources to counter their number and technology. Not anymore.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Oct 2017 22:24

There may be some hope as yet..the new Def Min has pulled up the IAF for cribbing about squadron shortage but not providing solutions that could be implemented to address it. The IAF has one possible solution- speeding up development of the LCA Mk2 but given their track record, they'll want a ready made solution and that will be the Single Engine Fighter program.

Defence Minister pulls up IAF

The top brass of the Indian Air Force has reportedly been pulled up by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman for inappropriate responses on its depleting squadron strength before a parliamentary panel.

At a meeting of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Defence on October 27, IAF officials, including Vice Chief Air Marshal S B Deo, were reportedly criticised by the minister, as they only talked about the problems related to depleting squadron strength, but did not offer any solution.

As the meeting discussed the IAF's depleting strength, Deo explained the problems to the lawmakers but stopped short of suggesting a solution to the crisis. This angered the minister, who wanted IAF and defence ministry officials to also tell the MPs about the possible solution.

The officials later told the minister that in the next meeting of the panel, they would come prepared with possible solutions on the vexed issue.

The IAF's squadron strength has come down to 33 in comparison to the sanctioned strength of 42. Of the 33 squadrons, nearly 10 squadrons are made up of old MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircraft that are being phased out.

The only new induction is 36 French origin Rafale aircraft. The first one is expected to be inducted by 2019. The IAF would also get another 36 Su-30 MKI aircraft and plans to induct more than 120 indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft.

To make up for the MiG multi-role combat jets on the verge of retirement, the IAF is looking at purchasing more single-engine fighter aircraft of the same class. The government, however, is yet to take a final decision on the proposal.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 30 Oct 2017 22:34

So IAF has "no PLANNED solution" to the main threat it faces today - depleting fleet strength? How credible is this report?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 30 Oct 2017 22:41

well the previous chief has said there is no plan B. What else is needed to confirm it.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Oct 2017 23:47

Good! the first step to containing any victim mentality is to ask the victim to offer solutions and not just lay out the problem. Hopefully they will offer solutions within budget.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Oct 2017 02:09

Not too long ago a crusty IAF spokesman said someting to the equiv of "only Rafales" when asked about alternatives.Fine ,I said if he plucked the money from his own pocket! The IAF unfortunately are not thinking holistically at all. Where would this lot be if they were sent back in time to '65 or'71? At that time we never possessed top order aircraft like the West had and Pak had superior Sabres and Mirages ,the latter used to devastating effect by the Israelis against the Arabs.Yet our gallant IAF pilots with their little Gnats and Hunters in '65 and MIG-21s and
SU-7s in '71 knocked the stuffing out of Pak.A Gnat even shot down a Mirage in '71.

Today we possess the best air-dominance fighter in the MKI barring the F-22, which has seen off all opposition in sev.air exercises.Both the upgraded MIG-29s and M2Ks are v.formidable multi-role fighters and our legacy upgraded Bisons shocked F-15s not too long ago!

Our current need is not to fall back both in qty. while maintaining our current qualitative advantage.There is a strong req for a stealth fighter from 2020+ to counter the Chinese stealth birds arriving.Why the FGFA progr. Where we have spent years of work and also some good money
needs to be sealed.This would allow us to acquire the desired tech as co-partners which will serve us well to develop our AMCA and other future fighters, perhaps even an LCA-S.That progr.has to be pushed to the hilt to give us the numbers/replacements for hundreds of retiring MIGs at reasonable cost.If newbies like Tata and Adani have great ambitions of making F-16s and Gripens without even making a paper plane before,well at least Tata has made helo components for Boeing, why can't they produce the LCA instead?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 31 Oct 2017 02:34

we have 270 (or 312) air superiority fighter in SU30MKI. We do not need another world beater in the IAF (we could if we can afford it). What we need is a cheap fighter (now that we have 36 Raf, 150 Jag, 51 Mirage 2000I and 70 Mig 29S), in number to fill the gaps, do all kinds of work that the other specialized fighter don't have to do (so that they can do what is best for them). The LCA does not have to be more modern that the USS enterprise. In current form, it is good enough, the next version in few years will be better, and the next still better. If IAF is so inclined to buy another SE fighter, buy one maybe between 110-150, still there is need for 200-300 to fill in the number. LCA should be pushed for that.

srai · Post by **srai** » 31 Oct 2017 02:56

Cybaru wrote:Good! the first step to containing any victim mentality is to ask the victim to offer solutions and not just lay out the problem. Hopefully they will offer solutions within budget.

One thing that needs to be made clear to the IAF is that their solution they come up with needs to be within the capital budget assigned to them over the next five years. It would need to be factored with all of their other purchases (ongoing/planned) during that timeframe. It seems fighter import demands are being made without budgetary constraints in mind.

Avtar Singh · Post by **Avtar Singh** » 31 Oct 2017 03:00

so much of what goes on India is the tail wagging the dog... defence procurement
…..understandable since Indian polity and babboonocracy is still eating imperialist and invader left overs

Also I appreciate that India has been saddled with the likes of manmoron spineless, cheetahbums and sundry other t#rds..
But surely at some point this buck passing has to stop..

Some politico/leader has to come along and grab babboons/higher ranks by the throats
for the babboons it can be a choice of functioning in a timely manner or the cliff edge
for the higher up ranks it is find whatever you need in India or go and throw rocks.

Having a population of 1.1+bn and youngest to boot all those that dont cooperate......
should be given the flick there is no shortage of youngsters waiting below.....
group captains, wg cdrs/captains, cdrs

oh, if only wishes were horses.

srai · Post by **srai** » 31 Oct 2017 03:27

Kartik wrote:There may be some hope as yet..the new Def Min has pulled up the IAF for cribbing about squadron shortage but not providing solutions that could be implemented to address it. The IAF has one possible solution- speeding up development of the LCA Mk2 but given their track record, they'll want a ready made solution and that will be the Single Engine Fighter program.

Defence Minister pulls up IAF

...

At this point, Solution is right in front ... LCA Mk.1. Keep the production lines humming and expanding. Five tier-1 private enterprises are already manufacturing major sub-assemblies of the LCA. Expand away (why not 32+/year?) -- rope in private players for final assembly too. (HAL chairman has said he wants a private player to setup a third-line. It can be a JV of sorts.)

LCA Mk.1 costs only $26 million (Rs 162 crore). Plenty to be had within the capital budget allocated to the IAF. [For example, $5 billion would get 200 LCAs (fly-away) plus extra for infrastructure and support]. Fully customizable too -- tweak avionics/computers, upgrade LRUs/capabilities, or integrate new indigenous weaponry coming online over the next few years.

In the long-term, these LCA Mk.1s could be moved to squadron LIFT training roles down the road when more advance platforms get inducted in required quantities. Plus, there would always be a need for secondary fighter reserves, which India has none at the moment.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Oct 2017 13:17

Yes,LCA prod. has to be kept v.busy,as if it were a life or death matter.saying it again,

Philip wrote:If newbies like Tata and Adani have great ambitions of making F-16s and Gripens without even making a paper plane before,well at least Tata has made helo components for Boeing, why can't they produce the LCA instead?

It will cost us a lot less than a firang SE bird and we also won't have to wait for the aircraft,it's already here in prod. at HAL never mind the slow prod. rate. The MOD?GOI should throw open the LCA to Indian industry and invite anyone interested in joining the prorgamme to make it a smashing success.