LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

[Rakesh]

At the risk of going contrary to the popular opinion of jingoes on BR and inviting their wrath, I have to disagree and suggest that it is time to look past the LCA mk2.

JayS has provided an excellent rebuttal to your claim that we need to look past the LCA Mk2. I have nothing more to add on that. However, I have some questions for you.

1) It is redundant on a number of levels: Building a 4.5++ bird after having already built a 4.5 bird is a marginal improvement and the learning associated with the same will not bring to a design house any great experience - such as the kind that is required for building a 5 gen fighter. IOWs, no matter what you do, the mk2 will remainn a 4th gen fighter.

So will buying F-16 or Gripen be any different?

IOWs, no matter what you do, the F-16 or Gripen will remain a 4th gen fighter. Agreed?

1c) By the time the ADA comes out with a mk2 - after increasing its lenght and width, adding new engines, etc. etc., it will be no less than 2030 - a time when SAMs with v.long ranges and 5g birds will proliferate and very likely change the threat matrix. It might be rendered as a point defence fighter, same as the mk1a, at least in the initial part of any major war.

By the time the F-16 or Gripen production ends in early 2030, these 100 birds will be rendered useless against 5th generation platforms from China. Agreed?

2. The need of the not so far future will be a cheap 5 gen a/c - something that is high end and procurable in large numbers. I think the ADA iis currently best positioned to make this happen - spend the resources required for a mk2 on an AMCA that at once meets the needs of the IN and acts as a a replacement for IAF jags, mirages and fulcrums circa 2035.

Cheap 5th generation a/c? Which one do you know that is cheap? Define cheap and high end. You cannot put both in the same sentence. The only one that comes closest to that mark is the F-35A which is envisioned to be at $80+ million. You think Amreeka will allow us to buy the F-35 at $80 million? I do not.

3. Having said this, I feel that once FOC is achieved, the IAF should convert the order for Mk1a, which will take about 4-5 years to productionize, into mk1 - foc std. Additionally, it should also place an order for 126 Mk1a to be delivered by 2030.

Please advise how you can rationalize saying the above, because what you typed in point 1c is a direct contradiction. What is it? Johnny Walker - Red or Green Label?

I recall conversations on this forum where folks were critical of the IAF for jumping on the mk2 bandwagon simplly because the IN was going for the nlca. IOWs, the IAF never truly needed a mk2. So why all the hoopla now? IAF has settled for the mk1 and mk1a. Meets its current and foreseeable needs. And scape goating the IAF for the current state of affairs, seems even less useful. Considering the opinion of Vidur, himself a babu of the ministry and other past episodes, I daresay that amongst all the major stakeholders involved - MOD, DRDO, HAL, and the IAF, the last is the one with least influence and the civil service, with the most. The netas of course get the goldd for being the most nefarious. In any case, lets get back on topic - rant mode off.

Let me reply to your rant with a rant of my own. I alluded to this to you earlier as well.

Scrap the Tejas program. End it at 40 aircraft. I am serious. Obviously, the IAF has doubts about HAL's ability to deliver a plane in a time bound manner. So stop the Tejas program. Forget Mk2, why even develop Mk1A? Once the 40 aircraft production is complete, let us adopt your strategy of moving straight to AMCA. Because you have stated that there is not enough manpower or resources or time to develop both Mk2 and AMCA. So stop the Tejas program then. We can start off on a clean slate with AMCA.

However, if we are going to go down that route, remember this;

1) The IAF will ALWAYS associate ADA / HAL with providing a sub-standard plane with a dismal production record. Rather than try and resolve the issues, let us work to keep that mindset. It makes valuable business sense for the foreign military industrial complex (MIC) that such a view is cemented in the minds of the Indian Air Force.
2) When AMCA Mk1 comes along, glossy brochures will land on Air Marshal's desks with out-of-this-world capabilities on 5++ generation aircraft which they will demand on AMCA. Lasers, photon torpedoes, warp drive, etc.
3) Then ADA / HAL can come up with a strategy of AMCA Mk1 with AESA++ radar, AMCA Mk1A with SAMOSA (Static Active Multiple Ooohhh Scanned Array) radar and AMCA Mk2 with a 1 metre plug and SAMOSA++ radar.
4) Then IAF will put out a competition for 100 twin engine fighters (which should become single engine also, when one engine is removed) because AMCA is equally dismal.

Now why will the above be true? Because we want to run without learning how to crawl. AMCA will and should be the realisation of hard work (sweat, blood and tears) by our scientists. AMCA should represent that the best and brightest of Indian minds brought her to life. But AMCA will share the same fate as Tejas, if you stop development of the Tejas now. The F-16 started all the way from Block 1 to now Block 70 (which has some F-35 tech in it). However F-35 would likely never see the light of the day, if there was no F-16 that preceded it. Crawl, Walk and then Run.

[Kartik]

There was this news way back in 2015, about the indigenously developed OBOGS for the Tejas. And since then, we'd heard that it was slated to be integrated on the Tejas Mk2. But with the Tejas Mk2 not yet in development, what's happening with the OBOGS? And what happened to the EW suited developed by DARE?

An indigenously developed Integrated Life Support System (ILSS) based on the On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS), designed for the Tejas LCA was handed over by Dr VC Padaki, Director DEBEL (Defence Bio-medical and Electromedical Laboratory) to Dr PS Subramaniam, Programme Director (Combat Aircraft) ADA on 29 December 2014. Also present at the ceremony were Dr K Tamilmani, DG Aeronautical Systems and Dr Manas K Mandal, DG Life Sciences (see above). Developed by DEBEL, the ILSS-OBOGS addresses the need for preventing in-flight hypoxia (oxygen deprivation) and ‘G-force induced Loss Of Consciousness’ (G-LOC) during high-G manoeuvres. Designed for the confined space available in the LCA, this OBOGS replaces the previous liquid oxygen (LOx) based system by utilising bleed air from the engine and separating oxygen by a
process called Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA). The OBOGS offers unlimited endurance unlike LOx systems that are limited by oxygen storage capacity. It also improves safety, reduces logistics and significantly lowers operational costs.

The ILSS-OBOGS will now undergo ground trials on the Tejas, followed by flight clearance, and the system can also be customised for other IAF fighters including the MiG-29, Su-30MKI and Mirage 2000. Meanwhile, an advanced electronic warfare (EW) suite developed by the Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), flew for the first time on board LCA PV-1 (KH2003) on 10 January 2015 at Bangalore. The equipment was “noted to be detecting radar emissions operating in and around the flight path during the test”. In addition to a Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), the EW suite is also equipped with a self-protection jammer, which is capable of jamming radar threats detected by the RWR.

[shiv]

Let me go off on a slight tangent. I have noticed that stories and reminiscences from pilots about flying a particular type often involve a great deal of sentiment based on a deep understanding of the quirks of the machine and their own development of a superb ability to exploit its strengths and minimize its weaknesses.

HF 24 pilots learned to love her. MiG 21 pilots swear by her. Mirage pilots are proud of what they can do. I met a retired Air Marshal who used to fly Su-30s who told me how he could pull 9G. Talking of Sukhoi - the Su-7 earned a great reputation as a hard hitting survivor. The Gnat was full of quirks but pilots mastered them and plated games with others. Hunter pilots loved their Hunters like a paramour - the kind of love only given to MiG 21 I think.

The point is that only test pilots end up flying pretty much every type regularly and they rarely write love poems - they write about characteristics of each aircraft. It is the fighter jocks who write love poems. The point I am getting at is that in 2017 - consistently for the last 5-6 years I have only heard reports of how the Tejas is a dream to fly. I am guessing only a handful have flown them yet but as numbers increase you will have more pilots seeing what's good. Indue course will will have to see the performance of the Tejas squadron in competitive fly offs with live firing exercises. The other thing is that "reducing pilot workload" and "carefree manoeuvring" has to have a trickle down effect on how much attention the pilot can pay to identifying and zeroing in on targets. So I expect things will get more positive as long as maintenance, spares and uptime can be kept top notch by HAL.

There is something here that I suspect HAL is just beginning to learn. The US has developed a great reputation with the aircraft it sells to others because they sell, along with the aircraft a computerized logistics chain that keeps track of hours flown, likely hardware replacements requires and are ready with pre-orders of items that will require replacement at the next minor/major overhaul. IIRC HAL failed the Marut in this dept. I have myself seen the way ad-hoc servicing of my father's Fiat and manual "tuning up" of engine has moved on to time based inspections of specific parts in modern cars with availability of parts that require periodic replacement. The aircraft version is the same thing x 10,000 with hour by hour records from every sortie entered into a console to get into a central database. This is the reason also why the Mirage 2000 required special airconditioned hangars - but that reflected in super up-time, reliability and availability.

HAL will have to step into those shoes. If they do we will have a winner in our hands....

[Cain Marko]

CM - MK2 is a very important stepping stone to AMCA from engineering capability development, manufacturing set up, de-risking AMCA and jacking up IAF numbers POV. There is a huge gap between LCA MK1A and AMCA, time, technology and capability-wise. Without MK2 we will repeat the same mistake that we did by jumping from Marut to LCA. We are not like Khan where innumerable technology programs run below the radar providing readymade technology base for next thing in line. In India its driven from top and trickles down to bottom. No program no funding. The only way to bridge gap between 4th Gen and 5th gen is MK2 where we bring in some key technologies from AMCA to MK2. Develop-test-perfect them before putting in AMCA which is whole new thing. Remember - one miracle at a time. But since we do not have enough breadth and depth to our eco-system to do so, we should at least try to keep the number of miracles to the least. Engineering is all about doing. The more we do the better we get. New programs provide business case to develop whole technology base up. We do not have to worry about obsolescence at this juncture. Today our main focus should be to create the technology and manufacturing base. As such world is not gonna turn Star Wars in 2030. Every single AF in the world will be still using 4th Gen aircrafts in large numbers. As such MK2 and AMCA are two different programs and they need not eat into each other. In fact MK2 only will expedite AMCA.

The LCA mk2 was always envisaged as a follow on for a mk1 that was deemed inadequate by the IAF. It was never considered a stepping stone to the AMCA, at least not by the agencies involved in either program afaik. IIRC, ADA chief in an interview not too long ago mentioned that the Tejas had given them the ability to develop the AMCA - nowhere did he mention the nneed for a mk2 lca as a stepping stone for the amca. The argument above while logical in some ways, is not applicable because there are many an instance of nations buildinng 5gen birds without having first built a 4.5 gen one.

I submit that this case of needing an LCA mk2 for building the AMCA is a purely BRFconcoction - contrived, convoluted and rather anachronistic. Take for example the fact that AMCA wind tunnnel models have been seen but the mk2 has hardly gotten off the drawing board. As far as lack of support is conncerned, this is another red herring. The mk2 was sanctioned a decade ago - a competition for its engines was held - how was all this happening if there was no GOI support. The only difference now is that the support has been switched to the Mk1A. Main stakeholders have realized that the mk2 is not truly needed - not for the IAF and definitely not for the IN. The Mk1A is good enough.

Another important aspect apart from laying ground for AMCA, MK2 is the avatar in which LCA will have its true potential explored. Lets not forget LCA is still a late 80s - early 90s design as a concept. MK2 can be 2010s design with far better organic capability and margin for future growth. IAF's all the SQRs will be satisfied in MK2 avatar only, as multiple sources indicate. Not only it will have better kinematic performance parameters, extended range, extended payload capacity, it can have much more organic integration of some key 5th gen technologies such as better outer surface blending for reduced RCS, better RAM, sensor fusion, shape conforming internal electronic components making it a true 4.5++gen fighter (Simply put, It will be our Rafale). In its existing form, MK1A will have a limited capability of growth and will always remain bogged down by the short-comings which are associated with MK1 configuration. With a new program and opening up of design space will give designers far more flexibility to iron out the short-comings from MK1/1A.

This seems akinn to the euro model - note that today all their 4.5 gen models are easily challenged by modified legacy designs. Worse, none of these cann truly hand around airspace that is littered with modern SAMs. And even worse is the fact that they cost as much as a bloody 5 Gen bird.

Finally, you may not agree to these points. Its after all a personal thing, which all points a person consider more important among all. I personally feel we should go with incremental step rather than hopping one more time because it will delay AMCA further. And we will be in a quandary to buy F35 to jack up numbers in 2030-35 time frame because MK1A will be seen as grossly inadequate to replace M2K/Jags in that era.

Indeed Jay Saar - this last part is the only thing I can agree to.

[NRao]

likely hardware replacements requires and are ready with pre-orders of items that will require replacement at the next minor/major overhaul.

Gone way beyond that. Embedded intelligence has caught up. So, now it is preventive-order, not pre-order.

Lot of activity in India - centers of excellence, etc. Sadly for the West. China leads.

[Cain Marko]

JayS has provided an excellent rebuttal to your claim that we need to look past the LCA Mk2. I have nothing more to add on that. However, I have some questions for you.

And I find those arguments far fetched and tenuous. Nowhere have I heard of any DRDO honcho make such a claim. If the mk2 was the stepping stone for the amca - we wouldn't have heard of the amca before the mk2. IOWs, there was no plan for a mk2 until the mk1 was deemed inadequate circa 2006-7. By that time AMCA chatter was all over the place.

IOWs, no matter what you do, the F-16 or Gripen will remain a 4th gen fighter. Agreed?

Why bring the gripen or f-solah into this issue? I dont think either of these are a good idea at this point and have said so before as well.

By the time the F-16 or Gripen production ends in early 2030, these 100 birds will be rendered useless against 5th generation platforms from China. Agreed?

Yes, which is why I'm hoping for the F-35 if at all an import has to happen. The best optiionn has always been to just get a few 2nd hand mirage or fulcrums, upgrade them to currrent standards, supplement with additionall MKI if necessary, and wait on the LCA issues to resolve. Perhaps the pakfa will come through as well and in another 15-20 years, the AMCA.

Cheap 5th generation a/c? Which one do you know that is cheap? Define cheap and high end. You cannot put both in the same sentence. The only one that comes closest to that mark is the F-35A which is envisioned to be at $80+ million. You think Amreeka will allow us to buy the F-35 at $80 million? I do not.

I think it is rather obvious Admral saar that the cheap 5g fighter will be something that the ADA will create - this is my suggestion, a world's first perhaps, but i have faith that they can. Generally products built in india are much cheaper than counterparts manufactured elsewhere, the tejas itself is a case in poinnt. Perhaps it will be somewhat less advanced, and maybe not as tfta as the jsf, but better than any 4.5 gen fighter for sure. Btw, the f-16 wont be that much cheaper than a 5 g bird like the jsf, nor will the rafale.

Please advise how you can rationalize saying the above, because what you typed in point 1c is a direct contradiction. What is it? Johnny Walker - Red or Green Label?

What is so difficult saar? Timeline for FOC is any day now - say 2018. Timeline for mk1A is supposed to be 2020 - say it comes by 2023. So then just keep the lines humming with mk1 foc orders until the mk1a is available. Onnce, the latter is ready, let the lines produce it till kingdom come or the amca is available. No contradiction at all.

Let me reply to your rant with a rant of my own. I alluded to this to you earlier as well.

So moving to the AMCA is wanting to run before crawling? And BRF just realized this only now? How come ADA guys still havent - afaik they have never presented the mk2 as a stepping stone to the amca, it has ever and always been an alternative to the mk1, nothing more. I can see that there is a lot of frustration and therefore, rants, which is understanddable. However, I cannot find the IAF guilty as others might have - I believe they have extended the lca program as much courtesy/support (if nnot more)inn the last 10-15 yyears as could be expected. And so has the Navy. I'm more optiimistic - and not connvinced that the IAF iis hellbent on dmping the lca. It will order many more - either at FOC or when mk1a comes online. My guess is that about 250-300 units are definitely onn the cards.

[shiv]

Sadly for the West. China leads.

China leads what?

[NRao]

Sadly for the West. China leads.

China leads what?

In embedded intelligence and therefore preventive-ordering. By 2025 they are expected to be 50% ahead of the US, which leads the rest by a very long shot. The best paid jobs are in China. The best Labs/work shops are in China. They attract the best minds from the West. And, China is investing heavily in educating their own in related areas.

[Rakesh]

(not at you!)

Before I start - my apologies for using this underlined format to reply - it is the most convenient on the mobile device to which i'm presently restricted.

With your permission, can I edit your post?

[Cain Marko]

^ by all means..and again, I apologize.

[Rakesh]

No apologies needed. But editing that was a pain Read it first. I hope I did not delete anything you typed. If so, just edit it.

[shiv]

In embedded intelligence and therefore preventive-ordering. By 2025 they are expected to be 50% ahead of the US, which leads the rest by a very long shot. The best paid jobs are in China. The best Labs/work shops are in China. They attract the best minds from the West. And, China is investing heavily in educating their own in related areas.

What products have these things appeared in? China gets a lot of pant browning press from Amreeka

[atma]

I agree with shivji.

[Cain Marko]

No apologies needed. But editing that was a pain Read it first. I hope I did not delete anything you typed. If so, just edit it.

Looks fine. Dhanyawaad sir

[Cain Marko]

If a mk2 LCA must be built, then please let it be a twin engined beast - aim for an empty weight of around 10 tons and mtow of 22-25 tons. Even the current kaveri could power this @ 7.5 tons albeit the 404 will do true jjustice. This will work for both IAF med-light category and IN RFI.

[shiv]

I agree with shivji.

The point is this.. there are hundreds of Mirage 2000s operating several countries and an even larger number of F-16s. A still larger number of Western civilian airliners and 4x that number of engines are subject to the same strict inspection and replacement standards. These entities have several thousand years of collective experience. So who is saying that China will be 50% ahead? In what way? Without fleshing out details it is going to remain rhetoric - considering that high tech Chinese equipment in Aerospace is nowhere near being visible the world over.

Recall that "preventive" replacement can mean several things. "Embedded intelligence" for preventive replacement may be possible for avionics and some aerostructures. Not acknowledged by us at all is the old Russian model of preventive replacement where a GSh 23/30 is automatically discarded and replaced after 10,000 rounds (or some such thing) are fired. Engines automatically replaced after 150 hours of use. That is also "Preventive" - but inefficient and inexpensive.

And there is a bit of semantics in the words "predictive" and "preventive". The equipment may sense its own failure and demand replacement as a "preventive" measure, but the logistics chain supplying 100s of centers all over the world must have that item available quickly for swap - which is predictive based on experience

This is all OT. The LCA does not have to chase some imagined "predicted" Chinese ideal. They have to match what France does with Mirage 2000 and what US does with C-130

[JayS]

The argument above while logical in some ways, is not applicable because there are many an instance of nations buildinng 5gen birds without having first built a 4.5 gen one.

Show me one such Nation. Today only US has credible 5th Gen fighter deployed. Russians are yet to prove that they can deploy a 5th gen fighter and Chinese efforts are still half baked. Many others have paper planes including India. Among them all, they have experience of making F16 to a good extent and also have decent Tier1/2/3 suppliers supplying to global aviation industry, except India. India has only bare minimum experiencewith LCA and next to nothing for MIC.

[shiv]

When F-22 came out, 5th gen was all aspect stealth, AESA, super manoeuvrability, supercruise
With F-35 came all aspect stealth, kick ass situational awareness, 360 degree vision

What makes Chinese aircraft 5th gen? We are going OT here but this is a serious question. If 5th gen gets diluted down to frontal stealth and internal payload then that is no more than 4 plus gen

[Cain Marko]

The argument above while logical in some ways, is not applicable because there are many an instance of nations buildinng 5gen birds without having first built a 4.5 gen one.

Show me one such Nation. Today only US has credible 5th Gen fighter deployed. Russians are yet to prove that they can deploy a 5th gen fighter and Chinese efforts are still half baked. Many others have paper planes including India. Among them all, they have experience of making F16 to a good extent and also have decent Tier1/2/3 suppliers supplying to global aviation industry, except India. India has only bare minimum experiencewith LCA and next to nothing for MIC.

The US is the only nation in the world that has deployed 5G fighters but that means little. Russia has an active program - they did not create a 4.5 gen program as any stepping stone to 5G, Flanker/Mig-29/31 -> Su-57. Nor did China, J-10 -> J20. The tejas is as it is a 4.5 gen @ foc std, which matches the above 4.5G programs such as Mig-29SMT, J10, Mirage -2000-5. The currently in-developmment mk1A is actually superiour to all of these in most parameters. So, use what has been learned so far and move on.

Fact of the matter is nobody in the circles that matter (ADA/HAL/IAF) has ever presented the mk2 as some building block for the AMCA - this is pure BRF invention.

Can the Tejas be continuously improved - sure. Use a decent upgrade path, which is exactly what is happening with the Mk1A. Upgrades and MLUs will always be there but this is hardly the time for a drastic change like the mk2. And the services know this - hence nobody truly wants to support it. Down the road (end of tejas life), if a new 5th Gen single engined bird is required, I"m sure ADA will be in a better position to create it having already created the 5g bird called the AMCA. But making the AMCA contingent (stepping stone) to further development of LCA is unprecedented and unnecessary.

As far as developing solid MIC goes, thats what productionizing the Tejas will do - another 4th Gen fighter program will add little to this unless it is mainly a private effort, which is posssibly why the GOI is looking at the SEF program.

Now if the arguument was that the SEF program should actually have ADA tie up with a private player to produce more Tejas mk1A, I'd say the idea is more useful. But doing all this mk2 developmment is utterly unnecessary at this point. The mk2 at present serves nothing - not an operational requirement (since the mk1a meets it for the IAF and even the mk2 can't meet it for the Navy), not a means to develop the MIC (which is created via producing mk1+mk1a and later amca), and definitely not a stepping stone for a 5th Gen fighter (since it provides little learning more than the mk1, mk1a).

[Rakesh]

Yes, which is why I'm hoping for the F-35 if at all an import has to happen. The best option has always been to just get a few 2nd hand mirage or fulcrums, upgrade them to currrent standards, supplement with additional MKI if necessary, and wait on the LCA issues to resolve. Perhaps the pakfa will come through as well and in another 15-20 years, the AMCA.

Let us work with what we know (i.e. SE Competition and Tejas Mk1) before we get into hypothetical scenarios.

I want to highlight your statement on "waiting on LCA issues to resolve." Nothing is happening on the Mk1A (forget Mk2) development, because the SE competition has left it in a standstill mode. How long should we wait for LCA issues to resolve? What is "known" is that there is no confirmed order of 83 Tejas Mk1As because of the SE competition. Beyond the manufacture of 40 Mk1s, there is nothing concrete set in stone on the Tejas front because of the SE competition. So waiting on LCA issues to resolve is an ambigious statement. Hoping for PAKFA to work is equally ambigous and what will we learn in the process? NOTHING, because the Russians are not allowing us anywhere near the plane. They just want us to buy it (once "they" believe it is ready - warts and all) and we adopt a screwdrivergiri assembly like the Rambha. And we will go through the same bugging and maintenance issues, as we have with the Rambha now.

Let us not even talk about AMCA at this stage. You are talking about 15 - 20 years for AMCA. I am asking you what do we do "NOW" about the squadron shortage? Acquiring second hand M2Ks and MiG-29s is not on the cards, so that is out the window. PAKFA is a unicorn. AMCA is in model stage and using your own timeline, it will be 15 - 20 years before the first plane arrives. That is 2032 - 2037. Again, so what we know is the Tejas Mk1 and SE Competition. Both aircraft is in the SE competition has to go through the 11 stage MoD process of acquistion and it will be years before the first plane arrives. That is a confirmed fact that even both manufacturers have said. So what do we do "NOW" about the squadron shortage?

The answer exists, but the IAF chooses to ignore it. I have repeated it numerous times in this thread itself and I will say so again ---> continue production of Tejas Mk1 beyond the 40 order. And continue the development of the plane via Mk1A and Mk2. Developing both variants will come a lot quicker than AMCA or SE Competition. And that is also a fact. I have disproven the theory that there is a manpower shortage at ADA as well. That is a nonsense theory.

Let me use the IAF's own arch enemy as a good example. The JF-17 was inducted as Block 1 in the PAF, PAC Kamra has finished production of Block 1 (50 aircraft order) and are now making the Block 2 variant (16 aircraft production run per year). With blueprints from China, they are now designing Block 3 (inital order of 50 aircraft). Now are these planes serious contendors vis-à-vis 5th gen platforms? Absolutely not. But that is not the point. PAC Kamra is churning out JF-17s like pancakes albeit with China's assistance. The JF-17 will be their mass produced fighter.

Now what is the IAF doing? Senior Air Marshals want state-of-the-art of "EVERY" new fighter that is inducted in the IAF. And they are willing to wait for years for that to occur. For crying out loud, even the USAF does not do that. We have Su-30MKI which are to be converted into Super Sukhoi. We have the Rafale that outclasses anything in the Indian subcontinent, for now. Now the IAF wants a state-of-the-art, single engine fighter also? Which planet is the IAF living in? Which rarified oxygen are these Air Marshals breathing? Every air force has a hi-lo mix of state of the art and not so advanced fighters. Use state of the art (Super Sukhoi, Rafale) to break down the door, santize the airspace and send the less advanced fighters (MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and Tejas) to mop up the rest.

At the risk of inviting wrath from BRF members, I am disappointed in Prime Minister Modi. Or maybe the import lobby is feeding him nonsense. But to allow the IAF to hold a competition to import fighters from abroad, when you have one at home (with warts that can be resolved) is downright criminal.

I think it is rather obvious Admral saar that the cheap 5g fighter will be something that the ADA will create - this is my suggestion, a world's first perhaps, but i have faith that they can. Generally products built in india are much cheaper than counterparts manufactured elsewhere, the tejas itself is a case in poinnt. Perhaps it will be somewhat less advanced, and maybe not as tfta as the jsf, but better than any 4.5 gen fighter for sure. Btw, the f-16 wont be that much cheaper than a 5 g bird like the jsf, nor will the rafale.

ADA will create? But you believe there is not enough manpower to do Mk2 and AMCA. Now where will the manpower come from for a cheap 5g fighter and AMCA? Saar, I ask again -- Green or Red Label? I prefer Red Label myself. Just saying

Use the Tejas development as a backdrop, for this ALCA (Advanced Light Combat Aircraft) that you are talking about. Do you have any idea how long this will take? And when finally the first flight will be done for ALCA, the IAF will be crying hoarse that it is well past its prime. Work with what we have and what we know and that is Tejas.

What is so difficult saar? Timeline for FOC is any day now - say 2018. Timeline for mk1A is supposed to be 2020 - say it comes by 2023. So then just keep the lines humming with mk1 foc orders until the mk1a is available. Onnce, the latter is ready, let the lines produce it till kingdom come or the amca is available. No contradiction at all.

It is a contradiction Saar, because on one hand you are saying that Mk2 will be rendered useless as a point defence fighter and then you are saying keep producing Mk1/Mk1A which will be even more useless against 5th generation platforms. So which is it?

So moving to the AMCA is wanting to run before crawling? And BRF just realized this only now? How come ADA guys still havent - afaik they have never presented the mk2 as a stepping stone to the amca, it has ever and always been an alternative to the mk1, nothing more. I can see that there is a lot of frustration and therefore, rants, which is understandable. However, I cannot find the IAF guilty as others might have - I believe they have extended the lca program as much courtesy/support (if not more) in the last 10-15 years as could be expected. And so has the Navy. I'm more optiimistic - and not convinced that the IAF is hellbent on dumping the lca. It will order many more - either at FOC or when mk1a comes online. My guess is that about 250-300 units are definitely on the cards.

So let us see how 250 Tejas units will fit in a 42 squadron matrix shall we? And let us use ACM Dhanoa's statement that by 2032, the IAF will achieve a full 42 squadron strength. So please explain how 250 Tejas units will fit in a 42 squadron IAF, when all we know is 40 Tejas Mk1s + 90 Tejas Mk1As (hopefully!) + SE competition is where we stand at now.

So this is how the IAF could look in 2032 (the below comes to 41.5 squadrons);

- 15 Su-30MKI Squadrons - 272 aircraft (to be replaced with FGFA)
- 6 Single Engine Squadrons - 114 aircraft
- 2 Rafale Squadrons - 36 aircraft
- 3 upgraded MiG-29 Squadrons - 54 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2.5 upgraded Mirage 2000 Squadrons - 45 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 6 Jaguar Squadrons - 108 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2 Tejas Mk1 Squardons - 40 aircraft
- 5 Tejas Mk1A Squadrons - 90 aircraft

Now if SE competition comes to fruition, this is what will likely occur by 2032. Again the below comes to 41.5 squadrons;

- 15 Su-30MKI Squadrons - 272 aircraft (to be replaced with FGFA)
- 11 Single Engine Squadrons - 198 aircraft
- 2 Rafale Squadrons - 36 aircraft
- 3 upgraded MiG-29 Squadrons - 54 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2.5 upgraded Mirage 2000 Squadrons - 45 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 6 Jaguar Squadrons - 108 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2 Tejas Mk1 Squardons - 40 aircraft

Induct SE and you will "NEVER" see a 250 production run of the Tejas. The numbers do not add up Cain-ji. To adopt your scenario of a 250 production run, then this is what needs to happen. But it will not happen as along as SE Competition exists. I say again, the numbers do not add up. The below comes to 42.5 (not 41.5) squadrons;

- 15 Su-30MKI Squadrons - 272 aircraft (to be replaced with FGFA)
- 14 Tejas Squadrons - 252 aircraft
- 2 Rafale Squadrons - 36 aircraft
- 3 upgraded MiG-29 Squadrons - 54 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2.5 upgraded Mirage 2000 Squadrons - 45 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 6 Jaguar Squadrons - 108 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)

[KrishnaK]

Let me use the IAF's own arch enemy as a good example. The JF-17 was inducted as Block 1 in the PAF, PAC Kamra has finished production of Block 1 (50 aircraft order) and are now making the Block 2 variant (16 aircraft production run per year). With blueprints from China, they are now designing Block 3 (inital order of 50 aircraft). Now are these planes serious contendors vis-à-vis 5th gen platforms? Absolutely not. But that is not the point. PAC Kamra is churning out JF-17s like pancakes albeit with China's assistance. The JF-17 will be their mass produced fighter.

Now what is the IAF doing? Senior Air Marshals want state-of-the-art of "EVERY" new fighter that is inducted in the IAF. And they are willing to wait for years for that to occur. For crying out loud, even the USAF does not do that. We have Su-30MKI which are to be converted into Super Sukhoi. We have the Rafale that outclasses anything in the Indian subcontinent, for now. Now the IAF wants a state-of-the-art, single engine fighter also? Which planet is the IAF living in? Which rarified oxygen are these Air Marshals breathing? Every air force has a hi-lo mix of state of the art and not so advanced fighters. Use state of the art (Super Sukhoi, Rafale) to break down the door, santize the airspace and send the less advanced fighters (MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and Tejas) to mop up the rest.

One thing that stands out here is no comparison to be made between Pakistan and India. Their main enemy isn't going to attack them, ours might. Indian plan has been to maintain a qualitative edge over China, we can't match them on quantity. Given the number of times top brass are talking about it, India needs to be ready for a two front war. This is not me implying SEF is better than LCA MK2 or anything of that sort.

[Rakesh]

^^^ The IAF will retaliate against the PAF in full force. As per ACM Dhanoa, the IAF can overwhelm the PAF. But that is a moot point. If given the order, the IAF will attack. We are their main enemy. But in order for an IAF attack to happen against strategic targets in Pakistan or on PAF air bases, there has to be a strike on India first. Which will happen, going by Pakistan's past behaviour of 70+ years.

[Cain Marko]

Yes, which is why I'm hoping for the F-35 if at all an import has to happen. The best option has always been to just get a few 2nd hand mirage or fulcrums, upgrade them to currrent standards, supplement with additional MKI if necessary, and wait on the LCA issues to resolve. Perhaps the pakfa will come through as well and in another 15-20 years, the AMCA.

Let us work with what we know (i.e. SE Competition and Tejas Mk1) before we get into hypothetical scenarios.

I want to highlight your statement on "waiting on LCA issues to resolve." Nothing is happening on the Mk1A (forget Mk2) development, because the SE competition has left it in a standstill mode. How long should we wait for LCA issues to resolve? What is "known" is that there is no confirmed order of 83 Tejas Mk1As because of the SE competition. Beyond the manufacture of 40 Mk1s, there is nothing concrete set in stone on the Tejas front because of the SE competition. So waiting on LCA issues to resolve is an ambigious statement. Hoping for PAKFA to work is equally ambigous and what will we learn in the process? NOTHING, because the Russians are not allowing us anywhere near the plane. They just want us to buy it (once "they" believe it is ready - warts and all) and we adopt a screwdrivergiri assembly like the Rambha. And we will go through the same bugging and maintenance issues, as we have with the Rambha now.

1. Nothing is happening wrt 83 Mk1As.
If that is the case, then why was there a response from Thales for LCA radar? Why did the DAC approve 83 mk1A order? Linking the SE competition to LCA production esp. to those that have already been ordered is a unique connection made only on BRF. Largely based on what Dileep has said. But I'll wait a little longer before I make such large and bold connections. Especially considering that companies have responded to radar RFI/quote.

2. If LCA mk1a is ambiguous then what the heck does one call the Mk2? Fantasy?

3. If your whole point is that the SEF competition is derailing the LCA, it is irrelevant to what I"m saying, which is: mk2 is not a requirement at this point and specifically it is not a requirement for the AMCA.

Let us not even talk about AMCA at this stage. You are talking about 15 - 20 years for AMCA. I am asking you what do we do "NOW" about the squadron shortage? Acquiring second hand M2Ks and MiG-29s is not on the cards, so that is out the window. PAKFA is a unicorn. AMCA is in model stage and using your own timeline, it will be 15 - 20 years before the first plane arrives. That is 2032 - 2037. Again, so what we know is the Tejas Mk1 and SE Competition. Both aircraft is in the SE competition has to go through the 11 stage MoD process of acquistion and it will be years before the first plane arrives. That is a confirmed fact that even both manufacturers have said. So what do we do "NOW" about the squadron shortage?

If the NOW is what you are concerned about, pray tell me how a LCA mk2, which is likely to arrive in 2030 help?

The answer exists, but the IAF chooses to ignore it. I have repeated it numerous times in this thread itself and I will say so again ---> continue production of Tejas Mk1 beyond the 40 order. And continue the development of the plane via Mk1A and Mk2. Developing both variants will come a lot quicker than AMCA or SE Competition. And that is also a fact. I have disproven the theory that there is a manpower shortage at ADA as well. That is a nonsense theory.

Nobody is arguing against IAF ordering more mk1s. I said as much in a previous post. As far as mk2 is concerned, I am frankly not in the least convinced by arguments such as "stepping stone" to the AMCA.

Let me use the IAF's own arch enemy as a good example. The JF-17 was inducted as Block 1 in the PAF, PAC Kamra has finished production of Block 1 (50 aircraft order) and are now making the Block 2 variant (16 aircraft production run per year). With blueprints from China, they are now designing Block 3 (inital order of 50 aircraft). Now are these planes serious contendors vis-à-vis 5th gen platforms? Absolutely not. But that is not the point. PAC Kamra is churning out JF-17s like pancakes albeit with China's assistance. The JF-17 will be their mass produced fighter.

Now what is the IAF doing? Senior Air Marshals want state-of-the-art of "EVERY" new fighter that is inducted in the IAF. And they are willing to wait for years for that to occur. For crying out loud, even the USAF does not do that. We have Su-30MKI which are to be converted into Super Sukhoi. We have the Rafale that outclasses anything in the Indian subcontinent, for now. Now the IAF wants a state-of-the-art, single engine fighter also? Which planet is the IAF living in? Which rarified oxygen are these Air Marshals breathing? Every air force has a hi-lo mix of state of the art and not so advanced fighters. Use state of the art (Super Sukhoi, Rafale) to break down the door, santize the airspace and send the less advanced fighters (MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and Tejas) to mop up the rest.

At the risk of inviting wrath from BRF members, I am disappointed in Prime Minister Modi. Or maybe the import lobby is feeding him nonsense. But to allow the IAF to hold a competition to import fighters from abroad, when you have one at home (with warts that can be resolved) is downright criminal.

Your take on the current GOI might well be spot on. BUT i have a question for you too - where is the FOC std Tejas? FOC was to be achieved ages ago and it keeps getting postponed. BVR tests are still ongoing. The IAF has already ordered 120 birds, the DAC has approved this. It is ready to order more but where is the FOC std fighter? You say IAF should order in blocks - but that is exactly what IAF has done! Take your own example:
PAFs order of 50 Jf-17 @ blk 1 = IAF's order of 40 Mk1s (and this was promised and placed around 2006 iirc). Where is the aircraft? I"m sorry saar lekin "tali kabhi ek hath se nahi bajti"

ADA will create? But you believe there is not enough manpower to do Mk2 and AMCA. Now where will the manpower come from for a cheap 5g fighter and AMCA? Saar, I ask again -- Green or Red Label? I prefer Red Label myself. Just saying

I'm afraid you totally missed my point Admiralji - the 5th gen fighter that the ADA will create = AMCA. Let me explain: my preference is that ADA put all its efforts into the AMCA and not spend time in developing another 4th gen fighter called the LCA mk2, which entails extensive changes, and which as said before is unnecessary as of now and is likely to be only marginally better than the mk1a for the purpose that it will be tasked when it does come about in 2030.

It is a contradiction Saar, because on one hand you are saying that Mk2 will be rendered useless as a point defence fighter and then you are saying keep producing Mk1/Mk1A which will be even more useless against 5th generation platforms. So which is it?

Arrey saar, what label have you been enjoying? be honest wonlee. I'm saying that the Mk1 and Mk1A is good enough and should be procured in larger quantities. Which makes the mk2 redundant. And frankly, I think the decision makers have realized this and therefore the program seems to have stalled. Hell it was driven by the Navy anyway, and the IAF was just a pile on.

So let us see how 250 Tejas units will fit in a 42 squadron matrix shall we? And let us use ACM Dhanoa's statement that by 2032, the IAF will achieve a full 42 squadron strength. So please explain how 250 Tejas units will fit in a 42 squadron IAF, when all we know is 40 Tejas Mk1s + 90 Tejas Mk1As (hopefully!) is where we stand at now.

So this is how the IAF could look in 2032 (the below comes to 41.5 squadrons);

- 15 Su-30MKI Squadrons - 272 aircraft (to be replaced with FGFA)
- 6 Single Engine Squadrons - 114 aircraft
- 2 Rafale Squadrons - 36 aircraft
- 3 upgraded MiG-29 Squadrons - 54 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2.5 upgraded Mirage 2000 Squadrons - 45 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 6 Jaguar Squadrons - 108 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2 Tejas Mk1 Squardons - 40 aircraft
- 5 Tejas Mk1A Squadrons - 90 aircraft.

Now if SE competition, as we know now, comes to frutition....this is what will likely occur. Again the below comes to 41.5 squadrons;

- 15 Su-30MKI Squadrons - 272 aircraft (to be replaced with FGFA)
- 11 Single Engine Squadrons - 198 aircraft
- 2 Rafale Squadrons - 36 aircraft
- 3 upgraded MiG-29 Squadrons - 54 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2.5 upgraded Mirage 2000 Squadrons - 45 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 6 Jaguar Squadrons - 108 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2 Tejas Mk1 Squardons - 40 aircraft

Induct SE and you will never see a 250 production run of the Tejas. The numbers do not add up Cain-ji. To adopt your scenario of a 250 production run, then this is what needs to happen. But it will not happen as along as SE Competition exists. I say again, the numbers do not add up. The below comes to 42.5 (not 41.5) squadrons;

- 15 Su-30MKI Squadrons - 272 aircraft (to be replaced with FGFA)
- 14 Tejas Squadrons - 252 aircraft
- 2 Rafale Squadrons - 36 aircraft
- 3 upgraded MiG-29 Squadrons - 54 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2.5 upgraded Mirage 2000 Squadrons - 45 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 6 Jaguar Squadrons - 108 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)

Gurudev - I am nowhere supporting the SEF - please understand this. BUT if both SEF and Tejas are in play, then this is the likely orbat circa 2035 when the AMCA comes along:

15 sqd MKI (200 nos)
10 sqd LCA (200 nos)
3 sqd Rafale (36 nos)
6 sqd SEF (126 nos) - jag replacements
3 sqd M2k - to be replaced by AMCA
3 sqd Mig29 - to be replaced by AMCA
5 sqds - Pakfa
TOTAL = 45 sqds.

BTW, I am quite certain that the ADA/HAL will not be able to meet ACM Dhanoa's 42 sqd estimate by 2032 with the LCA mk2. At best they will have PVs running around by then and may be a production variant. Actual production is unlikely to begin before 2030. The ONLY way to get to that number by that time is via LCA mk1 and mk1A. OTOH, IF they achieve FOC soon, perhaps the IAF can order a couple more sqds till Mk1A is ready (2023-25ish). Thereafter, another 125 Mk1As can easily be produced till 2032. So 10 LCA sqds is very doable in the force.

[ArjunPandit]

Minor correction cm
20 sq for mki 300 planes
36 rafales 2 sq and not two..

[nam]

LCA has taken 16 years for squadron IOC from first flight. Even if we shave off 5 years for AMCA, that is 11 years.

We don't even have funding approved for FSED of AMCA, forget FSED. AMCA is not coming before 2030. Unfortunately it will become the LCA of 2030.

My very strict personal opinion, let HAL continue increment LCA versions and increase production to 24/32 year. On the topic of SE, order 200-300 F-35 instead of F16 and ask for some production rights like Japan or Turkey is doing.This will take care of naval requirements as well. It will be big enough order for the American to show some interest.

I don't know if T57 will arrive. If it is then HAL is anyways involved. That will become our 5th gen program.

Drop AMCA and concentrate all the resources on to UCAV( specially supersonic).UCAV testing & rollout could be faster given no human safety is involved . At least by 2030 we will have something contemporary.

No economy of our size is working on 2 5th Gen program. We don't have the resources( funds & technical resources) and we have missed the bus. A prototype AMCA should have been in FSE build by this time.
Even france with more technical & financial resources than us is not building a 5th Gen fighter.

This is again my view, which does not matter much.

[Rakesh]

1. Nothing is happening wrt 83 Mk1As.
If that is the case, then why was there a response from Thales for LCA radar? Why did the DAC approve 83 mk1A order? Linking the SE competition to LCA production esp. to those that have already been ordered is a unique connection made only on BRF. Largely based on what Dileep has said. But I'll wait a little longer before I make such large and bold connections. Especially considering that companies have responded to radar RFI/quote.

Thales flight-tests radar offered for India’s Tejas Mk1A LCA
http://www.janes.com/article/74960/thal ... s-mk1a-lca

^^^From the above article ---> "In a 16 October statement Thales said that it is offering the radar to Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which is set to build 80 Mk1A LCAs for the Indian Air Force (IAF) once development of the aircraft is completed."

I will wait for development to be complete By the way, Mk1A was supposed to have the Elta AESA no? So how long before that decision is made? And we should wait for how long for FOC to be complete of Mk1A because of this radar decision? Let us assume that 83 Tejas Mk1As + 40 Tejas Mk1s are delivered to the IAF. Did the ADA spend all these decades for the IAF to induct only 123 aircraft? Because that is where we stand right now. I say again, stop production of Tejas at 40 aircraft. Import lobby will be happy.

2. If LCA mk1a is ambiguous then what the heck does one call the Mk2? Fantasy?

And a cheap 5th gen must be ultra fantasy then? When do you forsee such a plane joining the IAF? Please provide a timeline. Please note, ADA and HAL are struggling to provide the IAF with a 4th generation fighter (because of lack of funding and not for any other reason), how are we going to develop a cheap 5th generation fighter and AMCA? Where is the funding going to come from?

3. If your whole point is that the SEF competition is derailing the LCA, it is irrelevant to what I"m saying, which is: mk2 is not a requirement at this point and specifically it is not a requirement for the AMCA.

On the contrary, it is very relevant. What money is spent on SEF, can be diverted to acquiring Mk1s and developing Mk1A. The SEF competition is very much derailing the Tejas. There is only so much money to go around. Under UPA, I believe the defence allocation was ~2% of GDP. Under the present government, it is now at 1.5% of GDP.

If the NOW is what you are concerned about, pray tell me how a LCA mk2, which is likely to arrive in 2030 help?

For the umpteenth time, continue production of the Tejas Mk1 beyond the 40 aircraft order. That is what we have NOW.

Nobody is arguing against IAF ordering more mk1s. I said as much in a previous post. As far as mk2 is concerned, I am frankly not in the least convinced by arguments such as "stepping stone" to the AMCA.

It is the IAF that does not want more Mk1s. That is why the Mk1A came about no? The fact of the matter is the IAF is refusing to acquire more Tejas Mk1s, but will gladly wait for the SE competition to go through the 11 stage MoD process to acquire 100 4.5 generation fighters which will be equally useless as the Tejas will be against a 5th gen platform. That is the height of hypocrisy.

Your take on the current GOI might well be spot on. BUT i have a question for you too - where is the FOC std Tejas? FOC was to be achieved ages ago and it keeps getting postponed. BVR tests are still ongoing. The IAF has already ordered 120 birds, the DAC has approved this. It is ready to order more but where is the FOC std fighter? You say IAF should order in blocks - but that is exactly what IAF has done! Take your own example: PAFs order of 50 Jf-17 @ blk 1 = IAF's order of 40 Mk1s (and this was promised and placed around 2006 iirc). Where is the aircraft? I"m sorry saar lekin "tali kabhi ek hath se nahi bajti"

Where is the FOC standard Gripen E that the IAF is gaga over? Oh wait, that will be in 2025. I forgot. But since that is phoren, so it is forgiven and they are allowed to take that time. Not directed at you, but at the IAF. Gripen E just went supersonic a few weeks back. Amazing for an aircraft that the IAF loves so dearly. But delays in FOC of Tejas must be highlighted at every committee meeting with Raksha Mantri and Pradhan Mantri.

Let me use your date stamp of 2006 of the IAF order of 40 Tejas Mk1s (SP1 to SP40). This is from wiki chacha's page on the HAL Tejas*;
(*The dates next to the aircraft are the first flight that particular aircraft flew)

- TD-1 (KH2001) – 4 Jan 2001
- TD-2 (KH2002) – 6 June 2002
- PV-1 (KH2003) – 25 November 2003
- PV-2 (KH2004) – 1 December 2005
- PV-3 (KH2005) – 1 December 2006. This is the production variant.
- PV-4 - no info
- PV-5 (KH-T2009) – 26 November 2009 – Fighter/Trainer Variant
- PV-6 (KH-T2010) – 8 November 2014 – Fighter/Trainer Variant
- NP-1 (KH-T3001) – 27 April 2012
- NP-2 (KH3002) – 7 February 2015
- NP-3 & NP-4 – Single-seat LCA MK 2 Naval variant - not yet flown
- NP-5 – Another Single-seat LCA MK 1 Naval variant is planned so as to enhance the pace of certification process for Naval LCA.

- LSP-1 (KH2011) – 25 April 2007.
- LSP-2 (KH2012) – 16 June 2008.
- LSP-3 (KH2013) – 23 April 2010.
- LSP-4 (KH2014) – 2 June 2010.
- LSP-5 (KH2015) – 19 November 2010. IOC standard.
- LSP-6 – Not built.
- LSP-7 (KH2017) – 9 March 2012.
- LSP-8 – First flight trial completed in March 2013. LSP 8 is the version that will go for production.

- SP-1 – 30 September 2014. On 17 January 2015, SP-1 was handed over to IAF.

So 2006 is a wrong date to use Saar, especially considering Tejas had its first flight a mere five years earlier. 2015 is the more correct date. A good nine years later. Nice try To echo your own words, "Saar lekin tali kabhi ek hath se nahi bajti."

And since you brought up timelines, let me also state this. Tejas first flight was in 2001. First production variant joined the IAF in 2015. That is a fourteen year timespan. Considering the sanctions placed on India (post the Pokharan tests), the piss poor funding to date and the constant undermining of the program, it is a miracle that the Tejas even entered IAF service.

And since the DAC has approved the 120 aircraft order for the IAF, what has the GOI, the MoD, HAL, ADA and the IAF done to ensure that this 120 aircraft order is met? But these parties got time - ADA excluded - to formulate a RFI for 100 Single Engine fighters? Even HAL wants in on the 100 SE order.

I'm afraid you totally missed my point Admiralji - the 5th gen fighter that the ADA will create = AMCA. Let me explain: my preference is that ADA put all its efforts into the AMCA and not spend time in developing another 4th gen fighter called the LCA mk2, which entails extensive changes, and which as said before is unnecessary as of now and is likely to be only marginally better than the mk1a for the purpose that it will be tasked when it does come about in 2030.

So will AMCA be twin engine or single engine? Because you also spoke about developing a cheap 5th generation fighter. Who is going to develop that and AMCA at the same time? Or is that going to be the same bird? Since Mk2 is useless (and Mk1A and Mk1 even more so) against 5th generation fighters, what will fill the gap with the retiring MiG-21s and MiG-27s? Please provide a timeline on how ADA will develop AMCA and have it ready for squadron service by the early of the next decade when MiG-21s and MiG-27s will start retiring.

Arrey saar, what label have you been enjoying? be honest wonlee. I'm saying that the Mk1 and Mk1A is good enough and should be procured in larger quantities. Which makes the mk2 redundant. And frankly, I think the decision makers have realized this and therefore the program seems to have stalled. Hell it was driven by the Navy anyway, and the IAF was just a pile on.

Saar, I was honest onlee when I told you Red Label. You are ignoring it

Yet another contradiction. When do you forsee FOC of Mk1 and Mk1A? How can the IAF procure in larger quantities of a plane that you believe must be inducted only in FOC mode?

Gurudev - I am nowhere supporting the SEF - please understand this. BUT if both SEF and Tejas are in play, then this is the likely orbat circa 2035 when the AMCA comes along:

15 sqd MKI (200 nos)
10 sqd LCA (200 nos)
3 sqd Rafale (36 nos)
6 sqd SEF (126 nos) - jag replacements
3 sqd M2k - to be replaced by AMCA
3 sqd Mig29 - to be replaced by AMCA
5 sqds - Pakfa
TOTAL = 45 sqds.

BTW, I am quite certain that the ADA/HAL will not be able to meet ACM Dhanoa's 42 sqd estimate by 2032 with the LCA mk2. At best they will have PVs running around by then and may be a production variant. Actual production is unlikely to begin before 2030. The ONLY way to get to that number by that time is via LCA mk1 and mk1A. OTOH, IF they achieve FOC soon, perhaps the IAF can order a couple more sqds till Mk1A is ready (2023-25ish). Thereafter, another 125 Mk1As can easily be produced till 2032. So 10 LCA sqds is very doable in the force.

Whoa!!! Hold on a second here. You said 250 - 300 Tejas aircraft first. Now in the above, you have assigned only "200" aircraft for Tejas. So which is it? So you are confident of a production run of 200? or 250? or 300? Please make up your mind.

The IAF uses 18 aircraft to make up a squadron and thus your numbers above are all wrong. There will be 272 Rambhas and not 200. Rafale is at 2 squadrons only and not three. Secondly, Jaguar replacements are scheduled for early 2030s. You cannot use single engine fighters to replace twin engine Jags in the early 2030s, when the IAF needs SE fighters NOW. Jaguar is one of the aircraft to be replaced by AMCA. Thirdly, as per the IAF the PAKFA is a useless bird. I put PAKFA in my own calculations as well as replacement for Rambha, but at the rate the project is moving...the plane will likely never see service with the IAF).

So we are back to square one (with your own initial assessment of a minimum of a 250 Tejas production run);

- 15 Su-30MKI Squadrons - 272 aircraft
- 14 Tejas Squadrons - 252 aircraft
- 2 Rafale Squadrons - 36 aircraft
- 3 upgraded MiG-29 Squadrons - 54 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 2.5 upgraded Mirage 2000 Squadrons - 45 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)
- 6 Jaguar Squadrons - 108 aircraft (to be replaced with AMCA)

You cannot induct both SEF and Tejas in large numbers. One will suffer. It is not sustainable. Where is the money going to come from? Please enlighten. There are numerous instances of this in the past. But let me give you two examples in which the latter won;

1) Arjuns vs T-90s
2) Maruts vs Jaguars

Even I know the IAF will not achieve the 42 squadron mark by 2032. That is nonsense.

[Rakesh]

From the Cockpit of LCA Tejas : An Interview with Air Cmde Rohit Varma (Part 1)

[Rakesh]

From the Cockpit of LCA Tejas : An Interview with Air Cmde Rohit Varma (Part 2)

[Rakesh]

From the Cockpit of LCA Tejas : An Interview with Air Commodore Harish Nayani (Part 1)

[suryag]

4 AF tejas flew in today to BLR at 10:30 i was hoping to see a yellow coloured bird but sadly didnt see

[JayS]

4 AF tejas flew in today to BLR at 10:30 i was hoping to see a yellow coloured bird but sadly didnt see

I saw three of them. Possibly 45th Sq flying training missions.

[suryag]

Yes sir three came in second batch one came 20 mins before.... before i could stop my car he went, mostly a tejas from the engine sound(i am an eggspert you see), one thing though all the three looked menacing

[Kartik]

I hope someone in the GoI is looking at this. Malaysian AF and the IAF already have had links through MiG-29 and Su-30MKI/MKM training and this is a real opportunity to export the Tejas Mk1 or even the Mk1A, depending on when the Malaysian RFI comes out.

Malaysia seeks light combat aircraft as part of wider modernisation plans

Malaysia is looking to acquire a new ‘low-end’ fighter and attack aircraft as part of wider plans to better tailor its combat capabilities to meet current and future threats, an air force official said on 7 November.

Speaking under the Chatham House rule, the official said that the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) procurement programme is looking for a single-engined, supersonic platform to augment its fleets of single-seat BAE Systems Hawk and twin-engined Boeing F/A-18D Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30 ‘Flanker’ fighters.

“The Royal Malaysian Air Force [RMAF] is looking at its capabilities for the next 15-years-or-so, and how best we can suit our requirements,” the official said, adding, “As part of our future capability plans we are looking at a new [LCA] that will have some air-to-air and a full air-to-ground capability.”

The official noted that Malaysia’s traditional approach of acquiring large twin-seat and twin-engined aircraft because of its large maritime areas is now just too expensive given the downturn in the economy caused by the drop in the international oil price. “We cannot now do this because of our economic situation and so must now find something that is cheaper to buy and operate.” As well as being an air defender and ground-attack aircraft, the LCA should also serve as a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT) platform and should be ready for fielding in about 2021/22.

Although the official said that all options are currently being considered, he noted a preference for the Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) T-50 Golden Eagle/FA-50 Fighting Eagle aircraft already in service with near-neighbours the Philippines and the Republic of Korea.

[ArjunPandit]

I hope someone in the GoI is looking at this. Malaysian AF and the IAF already have had links through MiG-29 and Su-30MKI/MKM training and this is a real opportunity to export the Tejas Mk1 or even the Mk1A, depending on when the Malaysian RFI comes out.

Would be a wonderful way to
1. get production rates boosted, we can have 1/2 extra lines some of which can also be used for our requirements
2. distribute development costs
3. give us another alibi of presence in these countries .aka military advisers/technical experts

[Philip]

Watch the Pakis and Chinese flying to KL tomorrow to hawk their JF-17! Frankly the LCA stands little chance simply becos of poor prod. and many dev. issues still to be sorted out.Malaysia will not want..or get an Israeli radar for instance.

A twin-engine LCA is an AMCA.If one goes by news in that td.,the project might/will take off next year according to an AM. What I've said sev.times dump the MK-2, it's going nowhere ,will be obsolete when it arrives and leapfrog into the AMCA prog. where a min. of 12-15 yrs. are required to bring the bird into serious production.RR is already smelling blood reg. the engine prospects--- they seem to know a thing or two.By 2030 our legacy med. sized aircraft plus Jags will be dropping from the skies for their last hurrah after serving some 40+ yrs.200 aircraft will be needed.

But at what cost? Assuming that AMCA replaces all MIG-29s and M2Ks only, it will have to be an LCA variant capable of replacing all Jags at low cost.We can't support an LCA Mk-2,AMCA ,Rafale and/or FGFA programmes simultaneously.There simply isn't t enough money to go around.

[srai]

I hope someone in the GoI is looking at this. Malaysian AF and the IAF already have had links through MiG-29 and Su-30MKI/MKM training and this is a real opportunity to export the Tejas Mk1 or even the Mk1A, depending on when the Malaysian RFI comes out.

Malaysia seeks light combat aircraft as part of wider modernisation plans

...

Product marketing and winning export package (i.e. G2G offer of credit, etc) are severely lacking for the Tejas. It also doesn't help that some elements of the IAF and desi media keep highlighting the shortcomings of the Mk.1 as related to the old ASR. Then the whole MII SE import competition doesn't really help the cause. First thing first, positive image at home is necessary.

[ramana]

Lot of Kalidasa behavior. I was shocked when the DRDO person told some high official to.paraphrase "saar this is our own plane!"
And it got reported.

[ramana]

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.

It took me a while to figure your question and then two minutes to find it on-line!!!

How Not to Sabotage Your Firm

Nathan Jaye, CFA: What is the original Simple Sabotage Field Manual of 1944?

Cary Greene: The manual was originally a classified document published at the height of World War II by the OSS; it was declassified in the 1970s. The OSS manual provides a set of tactics for Allied supporters to sabotage institutions behind enemy lines, tactics to disrupt and demoralize the enemy’s institutions without being detected. These were small, untraceable acts of sabotage designed to wear down the enemy over time and help the Allies win the war.

In particular, page 28 of the manual caught our attention. While most of the manual details physical acts of sabotage like slashing tires and draining fuel tanks, this page describes eight tactics for “General Interference with Organizations and Production.” It includes tips for wasting time (“insist on doing everything through ‘channels’” and “bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible”) and how to bring efficiency to a halt (“refer all matters to committees”). Basically, it’s a guide to sabotage the decision-making processes of an organization — very small acts that have large, damaging cumulative effects.

The manual intended the tactics to be done intentionally, but we found an ironic twist. We found that the eight tactics happen all the time in present-day organizations. But they’re acts that are performed by people who are doing them unintentionally. They don’t have a big plan to sabotage their organization, but the cumulative effect is just as damaging.

What kind of organizations?

Every organization is susceptible to these. We see them all the time in our work. Over a period of months, we showed page 28 of the Field Manual to hundreds of friends, colleagues, and clients. They all had the same reaction. They would laugh and say, “That list describes my [organization, department, volunteer group].” We heard them all.

These people were from big companies, small companies, for-profit and non-profit. That was our first revelation. The second thing was that there are ways to root out so-called sabotage and then do something about it. Hopefully, we can prevent it from happening again.

What is “sabotage by obedience,” as described in your book?

In every organization, there is a set of rules, processes, and procedures. Some of them are formal; some, informal. They define the way in which you operate, and they are designed to be followed. Obedience is “playing by the book,” which can be a good thing. However, we see cases where well-intentioned employees follow these rules to a fault.

For example, one of our clients relayed a story about a contract negotiation where the customer wanted a better price. To give them a better price, the employee would have had to get approval from his manager because the rule said you couldn’t go below a certain price unless you’ve got a series of signoffs. The customer needed to make an immediate decision. But no one in the company was available for signoffs.

The employee didn’t even consider violating the rule, even though he knew they could have easily recouped the costs in other ways. They ended up losing the business. The employee was obedient to a fault. The sabotage comes into play when a situation calls for good sound business judgment rather than just following a process.

We encourage clients to occasionally poll the employees. For example, “What’s the stupidest rule or process we have around here?” It’s amazing the responses you hear. Testing organizational procedures is really important — having people willing to revisit the rules they’ve put in place — especially if people are following them to the detriment of the organization.

Can an obedient saboteur be anyone? Can this person be a manager, an outside consultant, or even an owner?

Absolutely. And this goes for all of the sabotage tactics; it’s not isolated to your line employee. In fact, it’s fairly common to see well-intentioned saboteurs at the highest levels of the organization. CEOs, senior executives, or mid-level managers fall victim to these behaviors.

How do you detect it?

Obedient sabotage is a tough one to identify. But there are cases where you can spot it. An example would be if someone comes into a meeting and says, “Here’s the situation. Based on our rules and procedures, I recommend this is what we do.” Now, an astute person in the meeting may say, “That might be the way we’ve operated historically, but if we apply some further thinking, it probably makes sense to consider another route.”

If you’re able to spot it, you can actually do something about it. But it’s not uncommon to find out after the fact that you lost a piece of business or a customer complained because a rule was followed.

What’s the right amount of rules for an organization?

We talk about the concept of balance point. There’s no standard formula for an organization, but the balance is between control and flexibility. On the one hand, there are rules, and on the other hand, there’s flexibility and encouraging individuals to use their judgment to go outside of the rules as circumstances warrant. That varies for every organization.

For example, if I’m working in a manufacturing facility, I can only give people so much flexibility. There’s a certain way of doing things. It’s the same when it comes to safety or medical care or in other heavily regulated industries. But it’s different for employees at a hotel front desk, for example. They might have the ability to upgrade a guest’s room. Giving the folks at the front desk flexibility to make a decision makes a lot of sense.

Who are speech saboteurs?

Speech saboteurs are people (again, usually well intentioned) who talk frequently — typically using their personal experiences to make their point — but who are interjecting themselves in ways that are not particularly productive to the situation at hand.

We’ve all been in situations where we’re having a time-sensitive conversation. All of a sudden, a speech saboteur rears his head. These speech saboteurs come in a variety of packages. One is the “long talker.” This is the person who just talks and talks and talks. A point that could be made in two minutes takes five minutes. There’s never a quick yes or no answer. It’s always, “Yes, and let me tell you why.”

A second speech saboteur is called the “tangent talker.” This is the individual who inevitably barrels off in a direction that is completely unrelated — or, at best, marginally related — to the topic at hand. Sometimes this behavior can be productive (for example, as an icebreaker). But if they’re allowed to go on too long, they can significantly take away from your time and, in some cases, completely derail the conversation.

Another type of speech saboteur is the “lost talker.” They start with the best intentions, but as they continue to talk, they lose track of the point. A clue to this particular saboteur is that after the person talks for a time, someone in the room says, “Would you mind summarizing what you said? We’re not sure we’re following you.”

You also describe the “oh, oh talker” and the jargonista.

As we were writing the book, I had a vision of Horshack from the 1970s television series Welcome Back, Kotter. Horshack always raises his hand in class and says, “Oh, oh, oh, Mr. Kotter? Mr. Kotter?” This is the person who practically falls over himself to make a point. At their best, these are people like Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter series — they know the topic inside and out. They are people who really cut to the chase.

But the “oh, oh talker” can also be a saboteur. These folks feel the need to contribute to every conversation. On every topic, they have something to say. Sometimes they just parrot back what they’ve heard before. They’ll say, “I agree with Larry,” and they’ll just reiterate the same point Larry made. You end up in a spin cycle of a conversation. You just go around and around.

When the jargonista talks, he uses a lot of jargon, hence the name. In many cases, especially in investment banking and accounting and on Wall Street, there’s a lot of jargon. It can be helpful to have someone provide a level of technical expertise. On the other hand, sometimes a person can’t complete a sentence without using jargon instead of actual words. Inevitably, people start looking at each other and thinking, “I don’t know what that means.” One example is of a COO describing a product who said, “Succeeding with this product requires a soup-to-nuts approach.” There were a lot of young, smart people in the room who had absolutely no idea what that phrase meant.

Another time, I was in a meeting where someone used the acronym NAGI. I was facilitating the conversation, and I stopped the meeting and said, “What does that mean?” It means, “not a good idea.” Of course, a third of the room had never heard of it.

How do you fix speech sabotage?

One thing that’s helpful, especially in a meeting or group conversation, is to establish what the conversation is designed to achieve. Make sure you have an allotted time to have the conversation and someone accountable for watching the clock. Also, think about who really needs to be there. There tends to be an inverse relationship between the number of people in a room and the ability to make a decision within a given period of time.

Establishing ground rules also helps. One of the ground rules we use in our meetings is called “jellyfish.” If a speech saboteur emerges and we find ourselves on a tangent, anyone in the room can say, “This feels like a jellyfish moment.”

The reason this works is that “jellyfish” is a safe word. It’s established at the beginning of the meeting. No one needs to say, “Listen, I think we’re off topic here. Sorry to cut you off, but we have to get back to the topic at hand.” Anyone can say, “I think we’re having a jellyfish moment. Let’s park that for another time, because we have 15 minutes left and we have an important decision to make.”

What’s the antidote to sabotage by committee?

Here are three things to think about. When someone forms a committee, (1) make sure that there is a clear set of deliverables and the deadline is clear, (2) set a sunset date for when the committee should go out of existence, and (3) make the committee as small as possible. It’s wise to avoid the suggestion of the 1944 Simple Sabotage Field Manual, which recommends making them as large as possible (“never less than five”).

So the antidote (or part of the antidote) is to make committees small and focused. And make sure that your committee members are the right people; we do not usually advocate a volunteer approach.

Who are hagglers?

Hagglers are people who are continually debating or putting forward different viewpoints on how something should be written or said or how a key message should be conveyed. This can be a good thing when people are pushed to think further to consider more powerful words or ideas in communication. In some cases, hagglers can help an organization avoid potential embarrassment.

They become unintentional saboteurs when they’re left unchecked and they draw people into an editing exercise with no clear end in sight, deflating an otherwise enthusiastic effort and making everyone frustrated, wasting time quibbling over every word (as the OSS hoped).

The “defender” is the most common and most passionate haggler. Their focus can be anything; it can be a word, a phrase, the overall message. They just can’t resist the urge to demonstrate their value by marking up a document. It could be an email. It could be a press release, a client proposal, whatever. Often, they’ll refuse to relinquish their point of view, even when it’s clear the group doesn’t agree and is ready to move on. Then it becomes sabotage.

Another type is the “grammar police.” They go from one sentence to another, making suggestions usually related to grammar. They might say, “In the first sentence, you need a comma; in the second sentence, you are using a double negative.” Undoubtedly, proper use of grammar is important. But these individuals will come into a room with a long list of edits — that is their singular focus.

The solution is to be thoughtful about how you solicit feedback. Often, people ask an open question along the lines of “What feedback do you have on this press release?” That is like throwing red meat to a pack of wolves. You are essentially opening yourself up to anything and everything. If you ask a more targeted and focused question (“Imagine you’re a customer. What specific changes should we make to this email to increase the probability you will try our product?”), you will get much more valuable feedback.

What’s the danger in reopening decisions?


Two of the most common sabotage techniques are sabotage by committee and then this one: sabotage by reopening decisions. We have all been in situations where a decision was made and then at some point someone tries to reopen the decision. It can be totally and completely irritating. When not legitimate, it’s a total waste of time and creates tremendous resentment. There are cases where it’s OK (especially in the investment arena) in situations where new data has only recently become available or when the circumstances surrounding the decision have changed in a meaningful way. Often, it comes down to why the decision is being reopened.

When it’s sabotage, the saboteur (who didn’t agree with the decision in the first place) may attempt to reopen the decision simply because it didn’t go his way the first time. No new information is presented; circumstances have not changed. The individual just wants to make one more go at bringing people over to his side.

Another is, “I didn’t tell you during the process, but I am telling you now: I think we should have made a different decision.” The decision has been made, and she was part of the process, but she didn’t say anything at the time.

What’s the effect on the organization?


The consequences of reopening decisions without good reason — and doing it frequently — can be damaging and harmful to a business. If decisions are reopened frequently, people may become hesitant to make decisions at all. They’ll fear that whatever they decide is going to be reopened anyway.


Organizations thrive on making decisions and making them stick. If you have a culture where decisions don’t stick, that can significantly impact your organization’s ability to pursue an opportunity, to move in a certain direction.

You have to weigh the cost–benefit of reopening a decision. Our general rule is, if there is no new and relevant information, then you should think twice about reopening a decision. In the investment arena, however, there is constantly new information appearing. So that might be a good reason, but you really have to make sure the reason is sound.

You’ve added a ninth method of sabotage: sabotage by cc. Why?


When the original manual was written, they didn’t have email, so they weren’t so worried about sabotage by cc. Today’s data suggests that the average corporate email user sends and receives about 120 emails a day. Arguably, the more senior you are, the more email you receive. The amount of times that people are cc’d on emails as a percentage of that total is not insignificant.

More often than not, people are trying to cover for themselves. They may think, “If there is a doubt in anyone’s mind that I didn’t inform them about the email I’m about to send, I’m going to make sure they’re copied. No one can say I didn’t alert them.” From our standpoint, that’s sabotage. While unintentional, the frequency with which this occurs is quite high. People don’t even think about copying five or ten people in an email. Cc’ing isn’t a substitute for effective communication. When not necessary, it is another form of sabotage, shifting the burden to the receiver and taking the sender off the hook.

What can be done? Isn’t cc’ing a part of life?

One thing is be proactive about unsubscribing from as many internal lists as possible. If you don’t need it or you don’t want it, be proactive about removing yourself from the list.

The second thing is to be proactive about telling the individual who copies you to inform you personally rather than in an email. In terms of sending email, ask yourself, “Who really needs to know what I’m about to send, and is this the right means of communication?”

Email is not a substitute for personal dialogue. Be thoughtful about what’s the appropriate form of communication. Is it email or perhaps walking down the hall or into the next office to communicate? Or maybe I should pick up the phone and have a conversation? Those are often great substitutes for just copying someone on an email they may never read.

What’s your vision for a non-sabotaged organization?

We want to give people a language to recognize these unintentional behaviors that can do significant damage to an organization’s productivity. Our goal in writing Simple Sabotage is to raise visibility, to give people a way to acknowledge and talk about these things, and (ultimately) to help organizations overcome sabotage in their cultures.

Our hope is that people will start to call out these sabotage tactics as they occur or even prevent the sabotage from happening in the first place. Doing so will make organizations — big and small — more productive and more effective in their decision making and help build a greater level of trust as people have the vocabulary, the authority, and the tools to reduce sabotage and ultimately take the organization to another level of performance.

This article originally ran in the November/December 2015 issue of CFA Institute Magazine.

[Pratyush]

This is exactly what I was looking for. It fits the Indian defence procurement perfectly.

Can you make it a sticky and required reading for all procurement related threads.

[Kashi]

This reads like a case study of AKA's tenure as Raksha Mantri