Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

srin · Post by **srin** » 21 Mar 2018 21:35

^^^ There is also the Gsh 301 of the MKI.

This is also inline with IR's cryptic comments. Maybe there is no technical problem with either the gun or the aircraft for integration. But that maybe IAF hasn't decided yet on the gun - whether to go with a 2 barrel 23mm (Gsh 23) or a revolver cannon (like DEFA) with corresponding increase in weight etc or a 30mm single barrel gun like the MKI (Gsh 301)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Mar 2018 21:47

the Giat30mm of rafale fame would also be available if a more tfta gori chamri be desired.

I would have gone with a jaguar type 2 gun system to pound anything on the ground. but too late now.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Mar 2018 22:44

Indranil wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:So what is left for FOC to be completed now?
They have flown supersonic with the refueling probe. They have hot refueled. They just have to show dry contact with a refueler. That should not be a problem.

The envelop has been completely opened. There are some last few FCS upgrades left to be buttoned up.

The gun has been de linked from FOC. The problem is not with the gun or the aircraft. IAF has to figure out the next course of action.

FOC is firmly in sight.

Thank you for the updates. Is there a timeline in mind? It was also good to know that the new radomes will be retrofitted to all the IOC standard Tejas jets including those delivered to the IAF already. one question regarding that was whether those radomes would be built in India or imported from the UK.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 21 Mar 2018 23:23

All of this done without one single crash. Great safety management. Kudos to all involved. Important institutional learning that will be crucial to future projects. Is this being institutionalised Indranil. What are the mechanisms ? I believe this is an important aspect.

Also as the pilots of 45 Sqdn said ‘this is a completely new a/c and we will be operationalising it’ so they also have a lot of pioneering work to do.

And Indranil thanks for your discretion in keeping the gun info and other ops details quiet.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 21 Mar 2018 23:24

How’s the ADA HAL interaction.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Mar 2018 00:19

Akshay, When AM MSD Wollen was HAL chairman, he seconded his best designers to staff ADA. Later the relationship went south.
Now it should be good.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Mar 2018 00:21

Singha wrote:if the GSH23-2 is too powerful and vibratory, i wounder if the 30mm defa cannon on jaguar could be used?

the DEFA is single barrel
Rate of fire 1,300 rpm
Muzzle velocity 815 m/s (2,670 ft/s)

GSH23-2
Rate of fire 3,400-3,600 rounds/min (alleged)
Muzzle velocity 715 m/s (2,350 ft/s)

the DEFA is also heavier hence will not vibrate as much 85kg vs 50kg
it is already used in our Jaguar and Mirage2000, so we understand it and service it.

GD, On paper the DEFA looks good.
Heavier weight makes it less recoil.
Fires a heavier shell, Shell is made by OFB for the ADEN.
But problem is room for only one gun.

And recall the HF-24 Marut suffered from Aden Gun vibrations.

DEFA is same gun lineage.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2018 00:46

Kartik wrote: Thank you for the updates. Is there a timeline in mind? It was also good to know that the new radomes will be retrofitted to all the IOC standard Tejas jets including those delivered to the IAF already. one question regarding that was whether those radomes would be built in India or imported from the UK.

Yes. The radomes were ordered late and hence they did not arrive in time to be fitted with the initial SPs. They will all be retrofitted with the quartz radome. Right now 4 LSPs also sport the radome. I do't know for sure, but I don't think they will be produced here.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:All of this done without one single crash. Great safety management. Kudos to all involved. Important institutional learning that will be crucial to future projects. Is this being institutionalised Indranil. What are the mechanisms ? I believe this is an important aspect.

Also as the pilots of 45 Sqdn said ‘this is a completely new a/c and we will be operationalising it’ so they also have a lot of pioneering work to do.

They did not crash because they could not afford to. The program would have been canned. There is no doubt in anybody's mind within ADA regarding that. Even after demonstrated success of Mk1, every effort was done to kill the Mk2 (I have seen grown men at the verge of tears at the helplessness). They are doing a thankless job of designing an extremely challenging technological marvel of national pride. For 30 years, everybody only hurled abuses at them while they had gag orders. One of my friends said, "Sometimes I feel that drawing a salary for the work I do is a curse." The history of the Tejas program is checkered and miraculous. They were essentially flying aircrafts with hand carved parts built by people who had no idea about aircrafts. They were learning test flying and certification on the job. How did they not manage to crash is an enigma to me! It costs them time to do so though.

Is everything being institutionalized. To some extent, but there is a lot left to be desired. The program is too fractured at the moment. The parts come from various labs and production agencies. The labs and the production agencies make a lot of things opaque to get credit and keep secrets. One of the biggest knowledge base of the Boeing's and LM's of the world is the ability to farm out everything and yet have so much control. That learning cannot come without mass manufacture. It is a process which India is just embarking on. And that is why 100s of Tejas have to be ordered to even start that process of learning.

We also have to work in developing other design and manufacturing houses in parallel. A country cannot have a single point of failure. But ToT, license production is not the way. With all humility, IAF's knee jerk "Single engine fighter" or "Twin engine fighter" programs is incredibly short sighted. Building up numbers can be easily achieved in other ways. For design capability building they have to foster a design environment. Let's say: start a competition for an AJT cum light fighter that IAF will induct in 20 years, or light transport, or medium transport etc., and limit the competitors to say you can take design consultancy, but the design has to be new or at least an evolution of an existing design. For example, can you design an AJT whose land attack version can sport a small AESA radar, and an (50 kN) afterburning engine which is great for Kargil heights. It's job is to take of from Leh with 1500-2000 kgs worth bombs and two close combat missiles. It has to be very nimble in the mountains. Alternatively, it should be able to do CAP with a podded gun and 4 A2A missiles for 3 hours. The operating cost should be 70% of that of a Tejas. For every kind of aircraft that IAF will need in twenty years, there should be a design and build competition today!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2018 00:50

1. There are much better solutions than changing the gun at the moment. All I want to impress upon you guys is that "stop worrying about the gun". The IAF and ADA are working on it together. It will be fixed. FOC shouldn't and wouldn't wait for it.

2. Ramana sir, there are two low hanging fruits for DRDO: WVR A2A missile and a shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missile.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Mar 2018 01:09

Indranil wrote:Is everything being institutionalized. To some extent, but there is a lot left to be desired. The program is too fractured at the moment. The parts come from various labs and production agencies. The labs and the production agencies make a lot of things opaque to get credit and keep secrets. One of the biggest knowledge base of the Boeing's and LM's of the world is the ability to farm out everything and yet have so much control. That learning cannot come without mass manufacture. It is a process which India is just embarking on. And that is why 100s of Tejas have to be ordered to even start that process of learning.

For folks who believe AMCA is the next best thing and Mk2 should have been dropped, need to read the above and memorize it. Thank you IR. You cannot have AMCA without Mk2 and it is has nothing to do with technology. You have to master mass manufacture. Screwdrivergiri of F-16, F-18 or Rafale will not do that. Only continued production of a large scale Tejas order can do that, because you are making the product from scratch. With screwdrivergiri, you are assembling SKD and CKD kits. Nothing you will learn. When you learn how to mass produce a fighter (Tejas) - in various avatars - the next one (AMCA) becomes that much easier.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Mar 2018 01:20

It is for the above reason that LM could churn out F-16s at the rate of 30/month in the 1980s and the same concept has been adopted with the F-35 as well. Two aircraft that are night and day in technology and even raw materials, but the production concept is the same.

The same will now be true with Tejas (324 order in Mk1, Mk1A and Mk2 avatars) and AMCA. Nothing close to 30/month though

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 22 Mar 2018 01:52

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote: Thank you for the updates. Is there a timeline in mind? It was also good to know that the new radomes will be retrofitted to all the IOC standard Tejas jets including those delivered to the IAF already. one question regarding that was whether those radomes would be built in India or imported from the UK.
Yes. The radomes were ordered late and hence they did not arrive in time to be fitted with the initial SPs. They will all be retrofitted with the quartz radome. Right now 4 LSPs also sport the radome. I do't know for sure, but I don't think they will be produced here.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:All of this done without one single crash. Great safety management. Kudos to all involved. Important institutional learning that will be crucial to future projects. Is this being institutionalised Indranil. What are the mechanisms ? I believe this is an important aspect.

Also as the pilots of 45 Sqdn said ‘this is a completely new a/c and we will be operationalising it’ so they also have a lot of pioneering work to do.
They did not crash because they could not afford to. The program would have been canned. There is no doubt in anybody's mind within ADA regarding that. Even after demonstrated success of Mk1, every effort was done to kill the Mk2 (I have seen grown men at the verge of tears at the helplessness). They are doing a thankless job of designing an extremely challenging technological marvel of national pride. For 30 years, everybody only hurled abuses at them while they had gag orders. One of my friends said, "Sometimes I feel that drawing a salary for the work I do is a curse." The history of the Tejas program is checkered and miraculous. They were essentially flying aircrafts with hand carved parts built by people who had no idea about aircrafts. They were learning test flying and certification on the job. How did they not manage to crash is an enigma to me! It costs them time to do so though.

Is everything being institutionalized. To some extent, but there is a lot left to be desired. The program is too fractured at the moment. The parts come from various labs and production agencies. The labs and the production agencies make a lot of things opaque to get credit and keep secrets. One of the biggest knowledge base of the Boeing's and LM's of the world is the ability to farm out everything and yet have so much control. That learning cannot come without mass manufacture. It is a process which India is just embarking on. And that is why 100s of Tejas have to be ordered to even start that process of learning.

We also have to work in developing other design and manufacturing houses in parallel. A country cannot have a single point of failure. But ToT, license production is not the way. With all humility, IAF's knee jerk "Single engine fighter" or "Twin engine fighter" programs is incredibly short sighted. Building up numbers can be easily achieved in other ways. For design capability building they have to foster a design environment. Let's say: start a competition for an AJT cum light fighter that IAF will induct in 20 years, or light transport, or medium transport etc., and limit the competitors to say you can take design consultancy, but the design has to be new or at least an evolution of an existing design. For example, can you design an AJT whose land attack version can sport a small AESA radar, and an (50 kN) afterburning engine which is great for Kargil heights. It's job is to take of from Leh with 1500-2000 kgs worth bombs and two close combat missiles. It has to be very nimble in the mountains. Alternatively, it should be able to do CAP with a podded gun and 4 A2A missiles for 3 hours. The operating cost should be 70% of that of a Tejas. For every kind of aircraft that IAF will need in twenty years, there should be a design and build competition today!

Sir, I made a positive comment and and you went on a tangent. Why give a -ve sheen to everything ?

Anyway I don’t want an innocent and positive comment from me to descend into a derailment but I will say this - the so called kneee jerk thing you refer to is an almost 2 DECADE OLD REQUIREMENT called the MMRCA. It was sanctioned by the cabinet and followed due process of govt processes. If you call this knee jerk then I don’t know what to say. Second your ‘solution’ has left me scratching my head. The MMRCA requirement clearly is for a medium fighter - longer ranges and payloads than Tejas. And what is your expert non knee jerk solution (come up in 2 mins on a keyboard) ? What you call 70 pct of Tejas !

First of all 1.5 tons load and 3 hour CAP hour CAP patrol is ‘bale bale’ and exactly what Tejas is designed for. And great job it’s done too. But let’s say it’s just 70 Pct of Tejas as you say. Why on earth not have more Tejas then. Why design a whole new plane ?

Completely agree that TOT and license production is not the way. I also agree on MK2 if it can give more range and payload but in 2012 or was it 2011 the ADA and HAL committee said that it will give more thrust and more payload but not range. There were comments by Chairman HAL and I think Director ADA in the media (which I vividly remember) which is why after they chose the new engine the project was shelved.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 22 Mar 2018 01:54

Rakesh wrote:It is for the above reason that LM could churn out F-16s at the rate of 30/month in the 1980s and the same concept has been adopted with the F-35 as well. Two aircraft that are night and day in technology and even raw materials, but the production concept is the same.

The same will now be true with Tejas (324 order in Mk1, Mk1A and Mk2 avatars) and AMCA. Nothing close to 30/month though

The institutional issue of differents labs pulling in differnent directions and HAL and ADA objectives not been aligned will have to be addressed for this to happen.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Mar 2018 01:57

Akshay, He is using your suggestion to advocate a CAS cum trainer aircraft.
This a/c will be less expensive than Tejas.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 22 Mar 2018 02:00

He is saying it in the same breath as calling IAF knee jerk for wanting a medium a/c for medium role - requirement approved by the govt and mandated by it for 15 years atleast ? And How can a light CAS 70 pct of Tejas do a medium role ?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 22 Mar 2018 02:20

Indranil wrote:[For example, can you design an AJT whose land attack version can sport a small AESA radar, and an (50 kN) afterburning engine which is great for Kargil heights. It's job is to take of from Leh with 1500-2000 kgs worth bombs and two close combat missiles. It has to be very nimble in the mountains. Alternatively, it should be able to do CAP with a podded gun and 4 A2A missiles for 3 hours. The operating cost should be 70% of that of a Tejas. For every kind of aircraft that IAF will need in twenty years, there should be a design and build competition today!

Agreed, there has to be long term vision around design and local production. There is too much emphasis on short term filling out numbers. If IAF did have long term vision, they would have envisioned a follow on Marut. I think IAF needs to have a think tank that focuses on long term battle scape changes if they already don't have something like that.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Mar 2018 02:24

Indranil wrote:Line 1: full capacity = 8 aircraft per year: 5 at "LCA division" and 3 "Kiran hangar".
Line 2: full capacity = 8 aircraft per year at "Aircraft division" which is basically the erstwhile Hawk production line.

I have been meaning to ask you about this (from page 11 of this thread), but slipped my mind. So a few questions.

The goal for 2019 (and in the near future) is for 16 aircraft/year. What challenges exist (or might crop up) to increase that number, in the long term? Can we achieve 24? 36?

Also, with regards to Line 1 ---> Are LCA division and Kiran hangar two different lines or has the Kiran line been merged with the LCA division to form one line?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Mar 2018 03:06

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
Rakesh wrote:It is for the above reason that LM could churn out F-16s at the rate of 30/month in the 1980s and the same concept has been adopted with the F-35 as well. Two aircraft that are night and day in technology and even raw materials, but the production concept is the same.

The same will now be true with Tejas (324 order in Mk1, Mk1A and Mk2 avatars) and AMCA. Nothing close to 30/month though
The institutional issue of differents labs pulling in differnent directions and HAL and ADA objectives not been aligned will have to be addressed for this to happen.

Saar, as far as I understand it, ADA does not deal with production. It is HAL. Mk1 and Mk1A are HAL's responsibility now. Increasing production is solely HAL's purview.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Mar 2018 03:07

Not IR but here is my understanding.
The limitation is the number of equipment bays in which the aircraft are final assembled.
Line one is 5+3. Its the buildings.
The Tejas line was funded for 5 a/c per year.
Then 3/year added to the Kiran hanger.
And the Line 2 is 8/year.
I really don't know the real estate aspect of the buildings?
What spare area is there? And what is the final assembly time for a Tejas?
If they had some spare area, they should be able to build 20 to 24/year.

Do they move the aircraft through different bays as it gets completed?
For example bay 1 & 2 are for structural assembly, bay 3 &4 for avionics boxes, hydraulics lines, 5 finish assy? Then bottle neck would be bay 5.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2018 03:09

Akshay sir,

You got me wrong. I was not speaking of MMRCA program of 2001. I have supported that program all throughout. I am speaking of the new MMRCA program which is being talked about in 2018.There is a different thread for it and you can read about it there.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:He is saying it in the same breath as calling IAF knee jerk for wanting a medium a/c for medium role - requirement approved by the govt and mandated by it for 15 years atleast ? And How can a light CAS 70 pct of Tejas do a medium role ?

It is knee-jerk because within a span of 3 years, IAF has gone from only Rafale/EF will do -----> Gripen and F-16 will also do -----> No weight or engine restrictions at all. I would love to see the rationale behind how the operational requirements are changing so frequently.

The plan of an very light aircraft which can lift 2 tons and undertake CAP/recce duties in the Himalayas is not my idea. It is that of Abhishushan sir. He is retired IAF. He headed acquisition committees. IT makes perfect sense to me. Why would I use a Rafale for mudmoving?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2018 03:13

ramana wrote: I really don't know the real estate aspect of the buildings?
What spare area is there? And what is the final assembly time for a Tejas?
If they had some spare area, they should be able to build 20 to 24/year.

Do they move the aircraft through different bays as it gets completed?
For example bay 1 & 2 are for structural assembly, bay 3 &4 for avionics boxes, hydraulics lines, 5 finish assy? Then bottle neck would be bay 5.

This is all a function of the number of orders. If you have enough orders, you can amortize the cost of new real estate and tools. It is an embarrasingly parallel problem. You can replicate an assembly line as many times as you want. Double the orders and suddenly you will have all the incentives to double the throughput.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Mar 2018 03:23

ramana wrote:Not IR but here is my understanding.
The limitation is the number of equipment bays in which the aircraft are final assembled.
Line one is 5+3. Its the buildings.
The Tejas line was funded for 5 a/c per year.
Then 3/year added to the Kiran hanger.
And the Line 2 is 8/year.
I really don't know the real estate aspect of the buildings?
What spare area is there? And what is the final assembly time for a Tejas?
If they had some spare area, they should be able to build 20 to 24/year.

Do they move the aircraft through different bays as it gets completed?
For example bay 1 & 2 are for structural assembly, bay 3 &4 for avionics boxes, hydraulics lines, 5 finish assy? Then bottle neck would be bay 5.

Thank you Ramana-ji. Now I have more questions

1) Is Line 1 in two different buildings? So Line 1a (5 aircraft) and Line 1b (3 aircraft)? If so that might work in Tejas' favour (more on that later)*
2) By equipment bays do you mean jigs? Or am I talking of two different things here?
3) How did the MoD expect the IAF to accept aircraft at the rate of 5/yr? Or was this HAL?
4) Why would bottle necks be in bay 5 (final assy)? If anything, bottle necks should be in bays 1 through 4 no? After all, HAL is only assembling the bird right? If there are bottlenecks, it could be the Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers which will cause assembly issues in bays 1 through 4.

*Assuming Line 1 is *INDEED* in two buildings, can it not be converted into a whole other line at some point in the future? A Tejas line costs Rs 1300 crore ($200 million USD) which is peanuts for the MoD to fund. But like you said, real estate should exist for this and obviously lead times for the Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers to churn out the components for HAL to assemble.

If the above can happen, can each line churn out 12 aircraft a year, in the long run? Is this doable?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Mar 2018 03:26

Indranil wrote:
ramana wrote: I really don't know the real estate aspect of the buildings?
What spare area is there? And what is the final assembly time for a Tejas?
If they had some spare area, they should be able to build 20 to 24/year.

Do they move the aircraft through different bays as it gets completed?
For example bay 1 & 2 are for structural assembly, bay 3 &4 for avionics boxes, hydraulics lines, 5 finish assy? Then bottle neck would be bay 5.
This is all a function of the number of orders. If you have enough orders, you can amortize the cost of new real estate and tools. It is an embarrasingly parallel problem. You can replicate an assembly line as many times as you want. Double the orders and suddenly you will have all the incentives to double the throughput.

I just saw this. So this is doable. Thanks.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 22 Mar 2018 07:05

many times I think we are at cusp of things, either we can fall in the chasm or we can jump and reach to an entirely different orbit and trajectory. At the cost of brick bats, but our GDP, size/state of economy seems eerily similar to china in 2007-08. We can really cross hurdles like these and go our own way or keep importing stuff and be where we are forever. There are some tough choices ahead. 200-300 Tejas can kick off the aviation industry like mushrooms in rainy season

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Mar 2018 08:04

Indranil wrote:Akshay sir,

You got me wrong. I was not speaking of MMRCA program of 2001. I have supported that program all throughout. I am speaking of the new MMRCA program which is being talked about in 2018.There is a different thread for it and you can read about it there.

I agree with your points mostly. However I dont think its the IAF who is changing footing. Decision to open up tender is from MoD, just as it was in the case of first MMRCA. This is not about changing ASQR. This is about changing tailoring of tenders.

What I am amazed at is IAF's patiance and perseverance for MMRCA which is nowhere in sight even after two decades. MK2 should have been sanctioned long time back with larger size (Even today I wish MK2 to be larger than intended). Had IAF put its weight behind enlarged MK2, I fail to see why it could not have been made to fulfil every damn SQR of MMRCA when M2K was real intended aircraft to start with and Gripen E was always sufficient in IAF's own indications. Even today, in realistic terms MK2 looks far more certain than MMRCA2.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Mar 2018 08:05

From LCA-Tejas FB page

Expanding the operational flight envelope through flight flutter test with combination of all stores, has been incremental and cautionary over the years. This approach has yielded in a clean safety record in Tejas Development flight testing. PV-3 (KH-2005), one of prototype vehicle, seen here landing back with one such heavier configuration of 2X800 Ltr Drop Tanks, 2XLGBs, 2XR-73 CCMs and the LDP.
We dedicate this image to all the engineers, scientists and flight test crew who are involved in this kind of specialized flight test objective.
#LCATejas #IAF #HAL #ADA #NFTC
Copyright: ADA | Image not to be reproduced without permission

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2018 08:07

Indranil wrote: It is knee-jerk because within a span of 3 years, IAF has gone from only Rafale/EF will do -----> Gripen and F-16 will also do -----> No weight or engine restrictions at all. I would love to see the rationale behind how the operational requirements are changing so frequently.

The "unfairness" in this statement lies in the fact that the IAF has no independent decision making voice. This is something that few on BRF seems to have figured out in the 20 plus years of its existence. The Air Force simply has to go by what the MoD says. MoD said "select MRCA" and the IAF selected one. Then MoD said you won't get 126, and the IAF said OK we take 36 as you say. MoD (Parikkar) said "Take thou single engine fighter" and Air Force said "Ok lets take single engine". MoD said - yake Tejas and Air Force (right down from Arup Raha and earlier in fact )said "Ok we will take Tejas"

The rhetoric of "operational requirements changing frequently" is unfair if you see that the Air Force is asking for numbers and taking orders from the MoD. I think it should not be too difficult to understand that the IAF is not a separate constitutional branch like Karnataka government. It is part of the government but subservient to and taking orders from the MoD.

I think those of us who sit as armchair marshals need to see fighters as tools for a set of jobs What Pakistan uses its J-17 for, India is doing with Su-30 and MiG 21 today, China is doing with J-10, J-11, J-15, France is doing the same with Rafale, UK/Germany are doing it with Eurofighter, Sweden/Brazil/Thailand doing with Gripen. Same job. Different aircraft. NOT "change of operational requirements"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2018 08:11

putnanja wrote:From LCA-Tejas FB page

one of prototype vehicle, seen here landing back with one such heavier configuration of 2X800 Ltr Drop Tanks, 2XLGBs, 2XR-73 CCMs and the LDP.
https://scontent.fhyd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=5B3B2595

It is landing with that load.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Mar 2018 08:21

the MMRCA was a bullshit project hurriedly rolled out when the original iaf request to import and assemble some 150ish M2k in a single vendor deal ran into political headwinds both on account of no-open-tender and technology upgrade path(with M2K line shutting down). dassault was in favour as it would be a cash cow for zero investment and assembly machinery would be shipped to india while retaining the crown jewels like engines and radars.
we got a far better deal with the sukhoi license building.

how is the M2k "medium" and the tejas is "not" ? once you hang enough drop tanks off these french planes they all claim to medium! the only true LR birds on internal fuel are the heavies of the F15/su30 size. using the 3 biggest pylons for drop tanks to get the coveted medium tag is a joke esp for the strike role and the need to lay 1000kg bombs on target. atleast the Jaguar is honest to its own self and makes no pretentions to be be heavy.

the M2k/Rafale see some of the biggest drop tanks relative to their size which tells its own non-brochure tale. the M2K is also saddled with a old turbojet engine that is 1 gen behind the GE404 and 2.5gens behind the GE414.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2018 09:08

I think words are being put in my mouth about faulting IAF for MMRCA1. Where did I say so? CAn anybody show me a post of mine here or anywhere where I said so?

By the way, did GoI ask IAF for MMRCA1? Successive GoIs should be complemented that they completely stayed away from the selection process. From RFI in 2001 to selection in 2012, the selection was completely in IAF's court. They did a very thorough technical evaluation. Economics-wise? Well, I leave that to your judgement.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2018 10:54

Indranil wrote:
By the way, did GoI ask IAF for MMRCA1? Successive GoIs should be complemented that they completely stayed away from the selection process.

I would classify this as "word play". The Government asked the IAF to conduct the selection process and after that IAF did that the government failed to complete the purchase that the selection process was conducted for. No compliments from me. The government and IAF are one and the same. The IAF is an arm of the government but is subservient to the government and lacks powers.

About this statement:

Indranil wrote: within a span of 3 years, IAF has gone from only Rafale/EF will do -----> Gripen and F-16 will also do -----> No weight or engine restrictions at all. I would love to see the rationale behind how the operational requirements are changing so frequently.

Do you believe that the IAF made these choices independently while the government for its part was doing everything to give the IAF what it wanted? That is clearly not the case. The government could not conclude the Rafale deal as envisaged, made some noises about single engine and took the IAF for a ride. Why blame the IAF and praise the government when the govt is supreme?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Mar 2018 10:55

Indranil wrote:I think words are being put in my mouth about faulting IAF for MMRCA1. Where did I say so? CAn anybody show me a post of mine here or anywhere where I said so?

By the way, did GoI ask IAF for MMRCA1? Successive GoIs should be complemented that they completely stayed away from the selection process. From RFI in 2001 to selection in 2012, the selection was completely in IAF's court. They did a very thorough technical evaluation. Economics-wise? Well, I leave that to your judgement.

IR, you are mixing up SQR with tenders. IAF controls SQR but MoD controls tenders. There is no evidence suggesting any change in SQR in past 3yrs for example.

Frankly I think IAF has put money on wrong horse and continues to be doing so even when its quite evident that the horse is limping and may go belly up any time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Mar 2018 11:00

Singha wrote: the M2k/Rafale see some of the biggest drop tanks relative to their size which tells its own non-brochure tale.

You have put in words something that I noticed but was unable to verbalize..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2018 11:20

JayS wrote: IR, you are mixing up SQR with tenders. IAF controls SQR but MoD controls tenders. There is no evidence suggesting any change in SQR in past 3yrs for example.

I am not mixing them, Jay. The MMRCA was in two rounds. First round: a downselect was done solely on the basis of technical merit. Only those aircraft which cleared the technical requirements were downselected. F-18, F-16, Mig-35 and Gripen did not make that round. Correct?

Now, fast forward to 2015: 2 of these aircraft are back in the fray. Fast forward to 2018: all 4 these aircrafts are back in the fray. If the ASRs have remained the same, how is this possible?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2018 11:25

shiv wrote:
Indranil wrote:
By the way, did GoI ask IAF for MMRCA1? Successive GoIs should be complemented that they completely stayed away from the selection process.
I would classify this as "word play". The Government asked the IAF to conduct the selection process and after that IAF did that the government failed to complete the purchase that the selection process was conducted for. No compliments from me. The government and IAF are one and the same. The IAF is an arm of the government but is subservient to the government and lacks powers.

About this statement:
Indranil wrote: within a span of 3 years, IAF has gone from only Rafale/EF will do -----> Gripen and F-16 will also do -----> No weight or engine restrictions at all. I would love to see the rationale behind how the operational requirements are changing so frequently.
Do you believe that the IAF made these choices independently while the government for its part was doing everything to give the IAF what it wanted? That is clearly not the case. The government could not conclude the Rafale deal as envisaged, made some noises about single engine and took the IAF for a ride. Why blame the IAF and praise the government when the govt is supreme?

Hakeem, it was pretty simple. GoI could not or did not want to pay for 126 Rafale with ToT in India. The cost of acquisition alone had ballooned from $10 billion to over 30 billion dollars. Also Dassault started doing summersaults about laid down procedure, especially ToT. They openly said that India was not in position to absorb Rafale's hi-fi technology

. In the same time period, they also openly told the Aussies India will never get what the Aussies will get in their subs. Then suddenly all our Scorpene plans were in the open. But hey, our self respect is so high that ....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2018 11:40

Anyways, my goal was not to start a discussion on MMRCA. In fact I had no goal to start with. I will speak no more on this. It is unnecessary.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Mar 2018 11:55

Indranil wrote:
JayS wrote: IR, you are mixing up SQR with tenders. IAF controls SQR but MoD controls tenders. There is no evidence suggesting any change in SQR in past 3yrs for example.
I am not mixing them, Jay. The MMRCA was in two rounds. First, a downselect was done solely on the basis of technical grounds. In the second round, the price bid of only those who cleared the first round were to be opened. F-18, F-16, Mig-35 and Gripen did not make it to the second round. Correct?

Now, fast forward to 2018. These 4 aircraft are back in the fray. If the ASRs have remained the same, how is this possible?

I said "in past 3yrs", post the SEF tamasha was raised. SEF was a compromise based on economical considerations. SEF != MMRCA1. Now for political reasons GOI went ahead and converted SEF into MMRCA2. The mess is creation of GOI. IAF was happy with Rafales. They were told its too pricey so buy cheaper alternatives. Their pick was Gripen E (Stupid as it may be given LCA MK2). Even now GOI can choose to order 36 more Rafales and 40 more Su-30MKI and ask IAF to make do with Tejas MK2 for filling up rest of the numbers. But GOI chose to go ahead with MMRCA 2. The very top leadership *seems to be* fully sold on the idea that TOT can bring significant jobs and technology and that imports are needed today. On the other hand they have taken their own sweet time in being decisive about LCA and AMCA and other key aircraft programs.

No doubt things are far far better now than they were in past. Credit is due for that. But they also have to take blame for other things which are still in mess.

No more from me too on this here.

Vidur · Post by **Vidur** » 22 Mar 2018 12:27

Indranil wrote:Akshay sir,

You got me wrong. I was not speaking of MMRCA program of 2001. I have supported that program all throughout. I am speaking of the new MMRCA program which is being talked about in 2018.There is a different thread for it and you can read about it there.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:He is saying it in the same breath as calling IAF knee jerk for wanting a medium a/c for medium role - requirement approved by the govt and mandated by it for 15 years atleast ? And How can a light CAS 70 pct of Tejas do a medium role ?
It is knee-jerk because within a span of 3 years, IAF has gone from only Rafale/EF will do -----> Gripen and F-16 will also do -----> No weight or engine restrictions at all. I would love to see the rationale behind how the operational requirements are changing so frequently.

The plan of an very light aircraft which can lift 2 tons and undertake CAP/recce duties in the Himalayas is not my idea. It is that of Abhishushan sir. He is retired IAF. He headed acquisition committees. IT makes perfect sense to me. Why would I use a Rafale for mudmoving?

I really don't want to comment on ongoing projects. But I must clear the air on this as much as I can.

Sir, Rafale was indeed selected for MMRCA after a very rigourous process that that started with need defintion and approval - Raksha Mantrayala and CCS , then moved to competition - IAF and then down select - IAF and then contract negotiation - Raksha Mantralaya. The IAF carried out their mandate well. It was at CNC stage that problems came out. Govt in power vitiated the process. The only solution was to do the Rafale off the shelf purchase and stop the process. You must read Nitin Gokhale's book 'Securing India the Modi way'.

But the requirement did not go away. Our threats have only increased. But more RAFALES cannot be bought because of political reasons and and also because the process was stopped and EJ certainly cannot be bough now. There would be huge litigation from many sources. There are CVC guidelines etc.

So the single engine project was started - to fulfill the same requrement as MMRCA 1. It was again done with full compliance with guidelines and in full control of Raksha Mantralaya and after approval from CCS. Then it was realised that a single vendor situation may come up so it was considered opening it to twin engines. This decision is considered by the Raksha Mantralya who have the mandate and are the competent authority. There is also an opposition who is making wild allegations.

It is very very important for you to understand that decisions are not taken by IAF but by the Raksha Mantralya after due deliberation and consideration. I have taken the liberty of pointing this out to you before also so please forgive me. Its not an easy job and many many issues need to be considered including the politcial climate. We are lucky to have a PM who can take hard decisions in national interest.

Vidur · Post by **Vidur** » 22 Mar 2018 12:45

I also do not understand the angst when the LCA project is finally taking off and strong commitment has been made by all concerned. Why this negativity ? As far as I know the relationships between the IAF and ADA as evidenced by the NTFC are excellent. I have never seen such a high level of mutual respect and joint vision in the govt. There are concerns about the production agency though. But I really do not understand why this angst at a time when we should be looking forward with hope.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Mar 2018 13:06

<SNIP. not required> Let's leave it at the above note.