Design your own fighter

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 15:44

Abhibhushan wrote:... prescribing just what an old fighter jock would love. While all of you go all out to design a 5th gen ++ super duper fighter, I want to take a detour and come up with some thing that my pongo friends would love to see in the sky.

Brilliant Sir Brilliant.

Thanks for joining in. A wish-list post from a fighter jock who has actually seen action should be food for thought!!

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 27 Oct 2010 15:50

a fighter with two versions can be done, i guess... i'm more familiar with the F-15/Strike Eagle thing than the mig-23/27, so I'll talk about that.

The problem would be that you're designing an air-superiority-only variant when there's no need for one, along with developing a strike fighter that you do need. bit of a waste of time. otherwise, yes, i think it can be done - you'd want something like the Strike Eagle's LANTIRN pod (probably mounted internally, to preserve stealth), maybe heavier armour. i'd keep the afterburners, though, better for survival.

re the strike fighter, we need to look at what the plane WON'T be doing:
1) will it be assigned to tank-killing? (in which case a sub-sonic plane is better, more like an A-10)
2) are we looking at deep strike? (in which case a sub-sonic plane won't work at all)
3) are we looking for it to fight on its own at all, or only under cover of air-superiority jets? both naval and AF variants
4) are we looking for it to carry larger weapons (Brahmos, standoff weapons) internally, or are we ok with compromising stealth for this?
5) what are the threats the plane will face? both in terms of other aircraft and other defences, and should it take those on symmetrically and asymmetrically?
6) what do we THINK the IAF will want? an inexpensive, competent plane, or a world-beater?
7) do we think we'll use it mostly in high- or low-intensity conflicts? the designs would be very different

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 16:13

Abhibhushan wrote: Let me now design this beast.

Take a basic Kiran. Retain the wings/tail. Build it as light as possible using composites. Redesign the main body for a single pilot and lots of internal fuel. Give it an internal bay for carrying about 50 x 68mm or 57mm unguided rockets and four hard points fit for 350 kg class loads. Give it a light contour mapping / imaging radar slaved to an HMS. Replace the 2 machine guns of the Kiran Mk 2 with one GSh23. Give it a glass cockpit and a DARIN III fit. Give it an integral laser target designator. Power it with an unreheated Adour (as used in the Hawk). Play around with the wing structure a little to improve its low speed turning performance. See if the RCS can be reduced by tinkering with the intakes. If possible, give it one or two short range light air to air missiles carried over the wing like the Jaguar. Give it a self defence electronic suit. If the Adour is unable to lift all this load then make it really an overpowered beast by fitting an unreheated Kavery!

Produce it in 36 months. Test and certify it in the next 24 months. Produce it in large numbers. In 1962, we could not / did not use offensive air power. Let there not be a repeat of that situation.

PS. I do not foresee a dense air defence air presence in the projected hostile area. If one comes along, I shall need top cover by the air dominance fighters you all are designing.

Sadly I think such a beast was proposed and then thrown into the dustbin. This may be yet another story of inexcusable negligence

Here are the brochures of the "CAT" Combat Attack Trainer from Aero India 2005. It was said that this was achievable in 2-3 years. One could have been flying today..

Click on thumbnails..

Combat Attack Trainer

Cockpit mock-up of CAT

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 27 Oct 2010 16:17

>> The problem would be that you're designing an air-superiority-only variant when there's no need for one, along with developing a
strike fighter that you do need. bit of a waste of time.
Point taken.

1) will it be assigned to tank-killing? (in which case a sub-sonic plane is better, more like an A-10)
---- I guess this task is better left to the specialists...choppers, ground troops etc. However if pressed should do a reasonable job.
2) are we looking at deep strike? (in which case a sub-sonic plane won't work at all)
---- i think yes.
3) are we looking for it to fight on its own at all, or only under cover of air-superiority jets? both naval and AF variants
---- This is a difficult question to answer. But to keep cost down why not only under cover?
4) are we looking for it to carry larger weapons (Brahmos, standoff weapons) internally, or are we ok with compromising stealth for this?y
--- I think for specialist heavy weapons like Brahmos or Long range cruise missiles we need separate heavy aircrafts/ bombers like Su-30 which we already have. However should be able to carry couple of standoff missiles like storm shadow. This would mean atleast two heavy hard points.
5) what are the threats the plane will face? both in terms of other aircraft and other defences, and should it take those on symmetrically and asymmetrically?
---- Really sorry not much idea on this. The problem is the more capable we would make it the more expensive it would be.
6) what do we THINK the IAF will want? an inexpensive, competent plane, or a world-beater?
----- hmmmmmm
7) do we think we'll use it mostly in high- or low-intensity conflicts? the designs would be very different

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 27 Oct 2010 16:30

Shiv sir,

One of the engine options you said was Adour, however don't you think thats its probably has too low thrust to weight ratio. I know a better version is under development, but we do not have license to manufacture that, do we?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 17:01

bmallick - all our Jags are flying on that engine even today. We make it here and that is the primary reason that I asked. Even the Al 31 I am sure has thousands of imported components because we cannot set up a production line for every single component. But the Adour has been with us a long time and I am sure we can indigenize anything that we have not already done.

As I see it - the Jingo Aircraft should be totally sanctions proof. Very few of our systems are sanctions proof and that is why we have to take the sancti-monious attitude that "Everyone in the world is dependent on someone". That may be true but the fellows who can do most things by themselves are the world leaders.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 27 Oct 2010 17:49

what about a fixed-wing UCAV instead of the CAT? good loiter time, maybe a Gsh-30 instead of a Gsh-23. of course, the proposal is for something we can make in just a few years' time, so my suggestion doesn't help

but maybe in the future?

agree with shiv on the sanctions-proof thing... if we can make the adour in-house, great, but would it have the punch we need? 27kN dry x 2 = 54kN, probably not enough for this plane, no?

also (and this is a serious suggestion, not just for the BRAC Jingo, but for the AMCA)... why not co-opt Israel in the effort? Israel wants a fifth-gen fighter as well, and doesn't really like the F-35 very much. IAI has plenty of experience designing fighters, and their help on radar would be much appreciated. and we can look at integrating the excellent python missiles as well. if we were to broaden the effort, countries like Japan and S. Korea are also looking for something like this, wanting the F-22 and being offered only the F-35.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 18:07

Vardhank the biggest issue I have about "co-opting Israel" or "co-opting" someone else in this exercise is that it is basically an admission that we cannot make a totally sanctions proof jet for our air force with our existing tech and 6 decades of licence manufacture. that should tell us something about what another 4 decades of "licence manufacture" will teach us.

For this jingo fighter. No coopting. No consultancy. Nothing Everything must be readily available right here in India right now and not something that is available after 2 years or 7 years.

One of the reasons I am insistently saying these things is that I believe that if we must produce something on our own in 5 years and if it has to be 100% sanctions proof and fully, completely, totally indigenous - it will be no better than JF 17.

This may be hard for us to swallow - but this is where 60 years of licence manufacture, "transfer of tech" and "consultancy" have done for India. I think its time the entire country swallowed its pride and bite the bullet. A steel bullet if necessary. So far nothing on this jingo thread has made me feel any different.

We have named only the Adour and Al 31 as engines. No one has named a radar yet. We are all looking at 5th gen and beyond. India just does not have the technical capability to do that. We are only looking at phoren for collaboration, funding, joint development etc. Every one of these things leaves the country at the mercy of some patriot in his country. can't we even design a low tech item that we can call our own so that on a dark day when the whole world is against us we can use that damn indigenous, low tech plane to nuke someone with a 10 kt fission bomb?

Aren't we all assuming "Oh we can do it?" We can do a simple low tech 3rd gen. we need to move ahead because we are such a smart nation"? Really? When did we do it? We don't even have one example to show that is 100 percent Indian and not prone to sanctions. Please? We are fooling ourselves.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 27 Oct 2010 18:54

Shiv,
Fair enough, but to me, co-development is just another step up the ladder, not an admission that we can't do it on our own. First licensed manufacture, then co-development, then do-it-yourself. It's also about not reinventing the wheel: if you've got a 'friendly' nation (to whatever extent that may be), which has the resources you need, why huff and puff over doing them yourself right away? And again, I agree with you that we might not be able to develop a fifth-gen fighter all by ourselves, which is why the co-development.

Also, sorry, I might have been unclear - by co-opt I meant take Israel on as a partner as Russia's taken us on with the FGFA, NOT buy stuff off the shelf from Israel. I mean we should develop fifth-gen tech together, and build planes both in India and Israel, some components built in India, some in Israel. If Israel decides to deny us parts for some reason, we deny them parts. As sanction-proof as we can hope to be, and also should speed up the time-frame.

As to building a completely sanction-proof, 100% Indian plane, let's go ahead and do it as a parallel project - maybe we do need to understand our raw abilities.

But that, I thought, wasn't the scope of this thread: my understanding was, we're trying to design the kind of fighter the IAF WOULD want to induct in the near-ish future, using tech that's either available to us from reasonably sanction-proof sources, or which we can reasonably expect to develop ourselves in that time-frame.

There are three questions running around here, I think:
1) What 100% Indian, completely sanction-proof plane can we develop within the next five years? The answer, as you said, is likely to be the JF-17.
2) What plane can we develop soon (say 10 years), using mostly existing technology (as much in-house as possible), to supplement the fighters we expect to have at that time? The answer, I suspect, would be a light, twin-engine MMRCA-type jet or a twin-engined LCA, a bit weak on thrust, using the Adour and a bit weak on radar, using our MMR. If we decided to risk things a bit, we could use the GE-414 and an Elta-2032 or Bars.
3) What fighter do we project India could usefully count in its inventory in the near-ish future, to sit alongside the FGFA/PAK-FA, Su-30, LCA-2, etc? This would be the beginning of the future, a fifth-gen project either done largely by India or a joint project led by India. This is my FMSF/BRAC Jingo, in a way is my attempt to second-guess what the AMCA will be like.

Let's decide what we're looking for right now, because the thread can very easily go haywire, and we'll end up with planes from the Sopwith Camel to the Firefox

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 19:09

I don't want to fine tune the direction of this thread. People really should feel free to state their vision, but if you look at a plane as components you get

1) The Fuselage, wings and tail
2) Engine
3) Cockpit systems - ejection seat, display, electronics
4) Radar, sensors and electronics.
5) Weapons
6) Self protection systems

1) Can we design and make the the fuselage, wings and tail without external assistance? Yes provided we do not include special alloys and components that we have to import. there are certain grades of alloy including Aluminium that are imported. Even for LCA IIRC. These must not be used. Does the design require high tech CNC machines. If it does we have to make sure that we have those machines in house. Not imported. Or we must not use them at all.

2) Engine. Our choices are limited to Orpheus (Kiran), Adour (Jaguar), R 25 (MiG 21) and Kaveri (untested). Period. It will have to be one of these Or else we import

3) Cockpit systems: Do we make ejection seats in house? Display electronics? Who in India is making these

4) Radar, sensors and electronics: What aircrfat radar do we make in India? Forget AESA. Just mechanically scanned. I don't know. Can anyone name ONE usable radar that is now made fully in India? IR sensors? Helmet mounted sights? Night vision equipment?

5) Weapons. 23 mm cannon. Check. Dumb bombs. Check. But do we make Litening pod like sensor-designators for LGBs? AAMs? What AAM do we make? R 60?

6) Self protection systems: I know we make some. Someone please name a few.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 27 Oct 2010 19:18

^^^

But then isnt that a Mig 21 bis then?

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 27 Oct 2010 19:38

Well, Instead of talking about our choices of a fighter plane or component, I would suggest if we could start sharing our ideas of design/limitations. We can also put our observations or query. I hope we all together can find some beautiful answers and aspects of fighter jets from design perspective.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 27 Oct 2010 19:42

Shiv,

As an exercise in doing something completely ourselves at the moment, fine... but does ANYONE work that way, with every piece of raw material, every piece of brain-power, every finished component, being made completely in-house? I doubt it. The closest to this is possibly Russia - I think a lot of components of US weaponry are made outside.

No one is completely sanction-proof, in my opinion. And if you want that, you have to be able to find all fuel, all building materials for military bases, all food, all water, everything from beginning to end, in your own country. Otherwise, you WILL remain dependent, for one thing or the other, on someone else. We can build a 100% sanction-proof aircraft, but all someone has to do is stop our supply of aviation-grade fuel and the jet is no better than a doorstop. Or stop our supply of paracetamol and everyone will be down with a cold and unable to fly it, whatever.

Fortunately, we don't live in a world where EVERYONE hates us and where NO ONE will supply us what we want, no matter what the price we're offering. That's what alliances are for.

If that weren't the case, it wouldn't matter what kiloton n-bombs our little pot-iron fighter could drop and where - we'd be finished anyway.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 27 Oct 2010 19:46

See, I agree we should make as much of this as possible ourselves, maybe even all of it, but the fact is, we can't expect to do that immediately. We have to learn how to make a lot of this stuff, and the best way to do it is to learn from someone who already knows how - otherwise you'd spend years trying to reinvent the wheel, when you could get it done very quickly if you're willing to temporarily give away some of your independence and money. And I'm not even proposing ToT or licensed production that we can duplicate at some point, I'm talking proper co-development, two partners with reasonable trust in each other, the trust made cast-iron by co-dependency.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 27 Oct 2010 19:55

1. MMR for Radar. Said to have some issues. We can try to perfect it.

2. Project Vetrivel has helped us to develop vatious items items. Spinoffs from our SU30 involvement. We take them.

3. Computer, software, FBW are all available or can be developed. Once again we have done some work in SU 30.

4. Kaveri can be perfected to the extent possible. Can have reasonable thrust. Better than other options.

5. SHIVA targeting pod can be used.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 20:45

Tanaji wrote:^^^

But then isnt that a Mig 21 bis then?

Well that's brilliant isn't it? If we look at what sanctions proof tech we have today. We have MiG 21.

Why are we setting ourselves up for sanctions then?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 20:48

vardhank wrote: No one is completely sanction-proof, in my opinion. .

But India and her sister country Pakistan are more sanctions prone than China. And who will put sanctions on the US? Or Russia?

Tells us a few things about our rank. But that is OT. We may not be that bad if we can dodge sanctions and say fugoffubustard to anyone who might want to apply sanctions. I believe that is better than the rationalization we have done for decades that "No one is sanctions proof". I never hear anyone but Indians saying that. That is the language of losers. IMO We are totally sanctions prone and are taught to think that everyone is like that. Everyone is not like that.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Oct 2010 20:55

shiv wrote:2) Engine. Our choices are limited to Orpheus (Kiran), Adour (Jaguar), R 25 (MiG 21) and Kaveri (untested). Period. It will have to be one of these Or else we import

3) Cockpit systems: Do we make ejection seats in house? Display electronics? Who in India is making these

I think you can include the RD-33 as well, which we license produce now.

4) Radar, sensors and electronics: What aircrfat radar do we make in India? Forget AESA. Just mechanically scanned. I don't know. Can anyone name ONE usable radar that is now made fully in India? IR sensors? Helmet mounted sights? Night vision equipment?

I'm pretty sure we should stick to Martin Baker for the ejection seats. No point in reinventing the wheel. I believe Samtel will soon be manufacturing the Topsight-E HMS. Also the MMR should be in service soon.

6) Self protection systems: I know we make some. Someone please name a few.

Only the Tejas' Mayawi EW suite comes to mind.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 21:05

Narayana Rao wrote:1. MMR for Radar. Said to have some issues. We can try to perfect it.

2. Project Vetrivel has helped us to develop vatious items items. Spinoffs from our SU30 involvement. We take them.

3. Computer, software, FBW are all available or can be developed. Once again we have done some work in SU 30.

4. Kaveri can be perfected to the extent possible. Can have reasonable thrust. Better than other options.

5. SHIVA targeting pod can be used.

Good points.

Another thing about design - (my views).

Every time we talk about any weapons system - or any aircraft we are instantly told by the "top" weapons suppliers "Your tech will be shot out of the sky. Our tests have shown that we are 7th gen and there is a 7500:1 advantage of our tech over yours 1.5 gen. And guess what. We are going to give Pakistan that. So what are you going to do nyahahahaha"

And guess what? We believe that and we scramble to buy that tech.

What China did was to say "We'll nuke you you twits" and then went on to develop the most low tech forces this side of Jupiter while they built up their economy. We have never done that We have tried quality over quantity. We have never achieved higher quality than Pakistan except in the last 10 years. And we are still crapping shit scared of China. Our tstratgic thinkers prodly boast that no war can go on for more than 1 month before "it is ended by the UN" or "We run out of spares" I haven't heard such shameful crap from any nation on earth other than my matrubhoomi, Bharat mata.

We don't have guts in any direction we look and are hoping that US screws Pakistan, Israelis hit Paki nukes, and that every country wil help us develop tech and then put us by their side in UNSC. "Come beta. Come. Idhar baitho"

Sorry to go OT. We simply must count what we have and be ready to beat the world with what we have, not with what we hope the world will give us to beat them.. Even if the world comes with 200th generation and we are 4th gen. Just see the way world powers get kicked by low tech nations. Only India gets scared and subjugated. I believe we are being conned by the merchants of death.

Anyhow. My rant has ended. A few people have pointed out what we do have - I will make a separate list of that.

Later.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 Oct 2010 21:16

I think Shiv's point on the "need" for a completely indigenous fighter needs to be taken head on. If opponents accept that point, we land close to a JF 17 and variants thereof in five years.

Although I do think, it is a bit harsh given where we are today with Tejas. A CAT like aircraft, with variants for the IN along with a Kaveri, AESA, AAM, LGB and ALCM based on the the Tejas platform, should be deliverable in five years.

One can extend this model all the way into the future for stealthy and UCAV variants, and other fifth generation needs such as super cruise ALL based on the single engine paradigm. Here, I am modifying the idea that, what we deliver in five years, the tech for it should all be available in the country today. It is my guesstimate, of what can reasonably be done within five years and delivery of such an indigenous aircraft made. It does not have to be a new aircraft, and should be based on the Tejas platform.

At a conceptual level, the nation should think that India will not EVER import a single engine aircraft after five years, for any role. We should scrap the AMCA or restrict it to a TD category only. Leaving only heavy and other air superiority platforms for imports, joint development, TOT, whatever.

At a high level, what is needed is a commitment, by all parties concerned to separate a "delivered" craft from high risk technology demonstrations that designers and engineers want to experiment with. Also, clearly demarcate, what is reserved for imports and what is not.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 21:29

ShauryaT wrote:I think Shiv's point on the "need" for a completely indigenous fighter needs to be taken head on. If opponents accept that point, we land close to a JF 17 and variants thereof in five years.

Although I do think, it is a bit harsh given where we are today with Tejas. A CAT like aircraft, with variants for the IN along with a Kaveri, AESA, AAM, LGB and ALCM based on the the Tejas platform, should be deliverable in five years.

Good points Shaurya. I think the Tejas is an amazing leap forward. But have you see how the "world" reacts to competition? The Tejas is already decried as obsolete. We need F-22. We need F-35. We need PAKFA. We need FGFA. We need AMCA. We need stealth. Supercruise. Gods eye. The stealth of the Gnat and the MiG 21 and even LCA mean nothing to us.

And so - even before we consolidate and make the technology we got with the Tejas completely our own and completely sanctions proof - we will be heading off on a wild goose chase about something that is "even superior" to what we have.

We simply must draw the line somewhere and look at what we have. After all We are far faaaar better off in terms of an aviation industry than perhaps 140 countries on earth. But like randy dogs running after a bitch in heat we are always sniffing at the tails of the top 5 nations. We do this voluntarily when we actually have a choice of going our own way.

Forget China for a moment. Imagine Pakistan with 24 F-35s and 40 F-16s.

Do you think we wil need, or even get F-35s to beat them? We will still kick Pakistani ass with what we have. If we can kick Paki ass with what we have what would Pakistan have achieved by getting F-35? Nothing. What would we achieve by getting F-35 if we are going to kick Paki ass anyway. The the only country that benefits by giving Pakistan f-35 and scaring the crap out of us is a country that will make money out of selling F-35s.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Oct 2010 23:18

We have manufactured the Vampire, the Gnat, the MiG 21, MiG 27, the Jaguar and the Su-30.

Every one of these has been "licence manufacture". We have heard the words "transfer of technology" for years and we have believed it. I have believed it for years before BR came into existence. I recall BRF when people were going ga ga over deep deeeeeep tech transfer for the Su 30.

But for all that what have we got today that we can call our own?

Our buddhi is so dharmic that we worry that we will be breaking rules if we modify the Gnat. Heck ultimately it is only our jugaad that helped us. In Kargil it was an Indian modification of Spanish bombs that allowed the fitting of Paveway kits and made the first breakthroughs. It was our army that conceived of using Howitzers in direct fire mode rather than lobbing shells over mountains.

Unless we break free from the mental colonization that tells us that the west is always ahead of us we will never respect ourselves or even try to go further than we have reached. Imagine the deadly folly of actually buying the F 35. It frightens me to see the gushing joy and positivity that the F 35 evokes among Indians especially young Indians who should take India into a future with heads held high. I have spent my entire life being told that America is the best and I can offer no arguments to prove that America is not the best. But as long as America, or Russia or China are the best in our minds, our own minds will not allow India to even try to be anything but second best. And so there we are - we are second, or third or fourth best or worse. It reflects in the level of technology we have achieved after decades of "ToT" and deep tech transfer. Whenever there is a choice between ours and theirs, theirs is better. Ours is worse and will not stand a chance in our minds and so we reject ours. We cannot have pride in what we do when our pride comes from having what others have.

You have all read what Abhibhushan asked for. He is the only person here who knows anything about military flying. Is he asking for AMCA? Is he asking for "God's eye" or supercruise? Plasma stealth? TVC? 60 degree angle of attack?

One comment made by an Air Force officer to me after the Kargil was as that if there had been widespread conflict India may only have been able to devote about 4 aircraft for the Kargil region operations rather than the entire IAF being at the disposal of the Kargil boys. Our air force needed 45 squadrons decades ago. How much would we have lost if we had made up our strength with 300 reliable 3rd gen Indian made aircraft? Heck we are still using 3rd gen anyway. In 60 years the maximum number of pilot casualties and aircraft losses have been due to attrition. Attrition of aircraft such as the MiG 23, 27 and 21. Could we not have looked for reliability and safety as a first step in our quest for an indigenous fighter? Of course FBW, self diagnostics and replaceable modular architecture etc are spectacular advances, but when you look at the crashes of single engined fighters wouldn't twin engine have made sense? For India?

We are still looking at numbers. And now our numbers are going to be with "Licence manufacture" and "deep ToT" with MKI and MRCA. Oh how i would love to see an Indian fighter that cannot be sanctioned fluffing up the numbers and doubling the air force.

250 MKI
126 MRCA
40 Tejas
300 BRF JingoViman - 3.5 gen Completely Indian

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Oct 2010 23:35

Shiv, what you are advocating is a radical change in IAF's thinking regarding aircraft procurement. If we today (or in 5 years) develop an aircraft with 400% indigenous components, will such an aircraft be acceptable to the IAF, considering the fact that such an aircraft would be inferior to the LCA Mk1? If the answer is no, then designing such an aircraft is a purely academic exercise.
If we drop the purely indigenous requirement, what the Indian aerospace industry can (and should) deliver in the next 5-7 years is the LCA Mk2 with the higher thrust engine, better aerodynamic performance, AESA radar, slightly higher payload perhaps and equipped with indigenous Astra BVR missile (we do not have an indigenous SRAAM in development do we?). May also be possible to add gizmos like the Mayawi EW suite, MAWS, DIRCM for greater survivability.

iparvas · Post by **iparvas** » 28 Oct 2010 00:05

I agree with the posts above which mention that Indian like FOREIGN stuff for defence .. Our country has been heavily dependant on foreign fighters but somewhere down inside me a voice keeps saying India can produce advanced fighter to defend our country .... It is not difficult design a airframe for indigenous fighter or even to put togeher the avionics .. thereisa vast pool of talent within the country and they can deliver what the IAF needs in a timeframe... also the people incharge of such critical projects should be give a time period to deliver results or be terminated not delvering ... funds should be accountable ...

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Oct 2010 00:11

iparvas wrote:I agree with the posts above which mention that Indian like FOREIGN stuff for defence ..

Er.., I hope you are not referring to my post, because I said nothing of the sort. I only said that there is a certain level of quality/capability that the IAF expects in any new acquisition and sadly, if we add a "100% indigenous components only"condition, IAF's requirement will not match the capability of the indigenous industry.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Oct 2010 00:36

shiv wrote:

I think the Tejas is an amazing leap forward. But have you see how the "world" reacts to competition? The Tejas is already decried as obsolete. We need F-22. We need F-35. We need PAKFA. We need FGFA. We need AMCA. We need stealth. Supercruise. Gods eye. The stealth of the Gnat and the MiG 21 and even LCA mean nothing to us.

Sorry for deviating from the main topic. Tejas first flew in Jan 2001. In Feb 2001 I had my first AE 2001. Believe me I felt the laymen (laywomen or layperson) in Bangalore was fairly excited. All the BR men were excited. The DRDO, HAL, NAL. ADE were on their way to seventh heaven. An who was not at all excited..... IAF !!!!!!!!

We had one of our mother-of-all meets with late Wg Co K Suresh, and IAF Eastern Command bigwig etc. I asked on senior jock about LCA and he simoly said "but it is not stealthy", probably comparing with F 22 and F 35/34/36. Thrwoing caution to the winds I simply asked him "Which are the stealthy combat aircraft flying today ? What is their cost ? Will USA sell it to us or will WE but it form US ?" This gentleman did not answer and we changed the topic.

I was not sure at that time but now I feel that IAF does like fancy toys as compared to "good working toys". Today IAF just wants the state-of-fart equipment because GOI has a lot of money. Let there be some sanctions and IAF top brass may be breathing down HAL / NAL / ADE / DRDO's neck to develop some good product for them

K

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 Oct 2010 01:42

Kersi D wrote: I was not sure at that time but now I feel that IAF does like fancy toys as compared to "good working toys". Today IAF just wants the state-of-fart equipment because GOI has a lot of money. Let there be some sanctions and IAF top brass may be breathing down HAL / NAL / ADE / DRDO's neck to develop some good product for them

K

I will venture into haraam territory here, with no proof, whatsoever. The IAF and indeed the top brass in the entire politico-military establishment are not interested in building the indigenous industry.

I think, jumping to conclusions that they are all interested in pay offs and perks from the foreign vendors, is way too simplistic, there is something deeper.

It is OT but it has something to do, with our sense of who we are, our security interests, our vision and mission and how we perceive our enemies.

This maybe OT again, but the "structure" of our labs and production organizations and the way they form relationships with the customer is also a serious impediment.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Oct 2010 03:13

Considering the primary constraint put by Shiv, there is wonlee one answer or possibly two:

1) Stick an AL-31 into the LCA, stretch the fuselage, enlarge the wings and viola you have a F-16XL cum Mirage 2000 that weighs about 8 tons empty, carries 7 tons payload (9hps), has 4tons internal fuel and a ferry range (on internal fuel) of 2000km+. OR (easier still), talk to the Frenchies, get the M2k rolling in India with an AL31 to boot!

Stick a nice 750mm radar in there (MMR mk2 will do), along with the abiity to carry a single gun, possible IRST.

Future possibilities in a block wise upgrade might include - TVC, CFTs, conformal weapons, AESA radar.

2) Will take more time - but the original idea with 2 kaveris instead of 1 AL 31 might do the trick. A tad heavier (10 tons) but much more capable.

Else, option 3) Take the MiG-21, redesign with large amounts of composites, enlarge wings/spine (more internal fuel), ensure 6 hps, 3 wet stations, use the RD-33MK or Kaveri as engines. Empty wt = 5500kg, payload - 4500kg, range - 1600km (internal fuel).

CM

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Oct 2010 04:17

CM, Shiv's constraint is very stringent. We need to be able to manufacture the engine from scratch. Without importing anything. Is this the case with the AL-31? Your second idea sounds more plausible.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 28 Oct 2010 04:22

This is what I think LCA will be like. First 100 LCA's Multirole light weight aircraft good replacements for Mig 21 Bisons. In latter stages we need to advanced version with maybe re-eingineered canards , maybe 2d TVC and a powerful engine and feild an indegenious AESA radar or the ZHUK Aesa. An aircraft at par with the Gripen.

the most important aspect is to make Astra BVR a more competent plattform. Add TVC to Astra like the MBDA Mica and improve range by adding a potent ramjet like the R77md.

Maybe 10 years from now look at LCA with quad redundant digi FBW with AESA radar and 1.1 thrust/weight engine with maybe canards and/or TVC. Augumented by flankers Fulcrums and mmrca

doesn't look that bad

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2010 05:52

Below is a collection of posts from people who have attempted to stay within the limitations of what this thread demands. The more I look at those posts - the more doable it seems. The demands are not high and the specs not unreachable. The tech is already there.

But one thing I can guarantee. If India were ever to start making an aircraft of the sort envisaged in this thread with the sort of inputs I have posted below - every major aircraft manufacturer in the world will see a threat to his business and will howl bloody murder. Aviation magazines will be full of opinions on how India's plans are all crap and several steps backwards and how one of their modern aircraft will shoot down 20 of this aircraft in one Alamesque sortie. And any imported component that India uses will be instantly sanctioned.

As long as India toes the line and looks at its phoren suppliers and says "Guru.Tumhee ho maata, pita tumhee ho. You lead I will follow. You teach I will learn" India will get good press as a modern developing nation. And as long as some foreigner is praising India a whole lot of Indians in senior positions get a warm fuzzy.

sumshyam wrote:Well, Instead of talking about our choices of a fighter plane or component, I would suggest if we could start sharing our ideas of design/limitations. We can also put our observations or query. I hope we all together can find some beautiful answers and aspects of fighter jets from design perspective.

Pratyush wrote:
I will start with the very low end first. The country in future may face a situation where the TSP has failed and it is controlled by anti India warlords who are constantly launching raids in the country. They are also being beaten up by the armed forces. In this situation the FGFA is an overkill, as is most of the fast jet capability of the IAF, as the PAF is no longer able to contest the mastry of the skies. NOR is their a viable SAM threat.

In this situation what is required is a capability to keep the warlords under constant survailance and attack, Here a reaper like capability becomes very usefull. Also in addition to this the reaper will also act as the eves to a manned aircraft. The aircraft has to be very simple and basis. Minimum EW fit as it is not required. But the ability to stay over the battlefield for long periods of time and carry a decent payload, possibily in the region of 6 tons or more and an endurance of 8 at 250 km redius hours on station no refueling. The piolet will be an avaiator who can use the AC effectily with minimum training say 25 hrs of flight time. The same will be the case with the ground crew as well.

Also it should be the Maruti 800 of air in terms of Fuel effiency. Whether it is jet or not is left to the designers.

Numbers required 250 to 300.

I had initialy thought of a B 52 type capability but later discarded that approach as it may be too complicated in terms of what I was looking for.

For the rest I will continue in the subsequesnt posts.

Abhibhushan wrote: There is one huge battlefield that might one day call me in for offensive air support which I am unable to provide today. I need an aircraft that can operate over Wallong and Along and perhaps a hundred kilometres north of it for releasing weapons in marginal visibility and if possible even by night. I need an aircraft that will take off from Leh or Chshul with one and a half tons of ordnance and be able to operate comfortably with full load at 20000 feet or more. I want an aircraft that can have a radius of action of 200 km flying at 15000 feet above sea level.

Let me now design this beast.

Take a basic Kiran. Retain the wings/tail. Build it as light as possible using composites. Redesign the main body for a single pilot and lots of internal fuel. Give it an internal bay for carrying about 50 x 68mm or 57mm unguided rockets and four hard points fit for 350 kg class loads. Give it a light contour mapping / imaging radar slaved to an HMS. Replace the 2 machine guns of the Kiran Mk 2 with one GSh23. Give it a glass cockpit and a DARIN III fit. Give it an integral laser target designator. Power it with an unreheated Adour (as used in the Hawk). Play around with the wing structure a little to improve its low speed turning performance. See if the RCS can be reduced by tinkering with the intakes. If possible, give it one or two short range light air to air missiles carried over the wing like the Jaguar. Give it a self defence electronic suit. If the Adour is unable to lift all this load then make it really an overpowered beast by fitting an unreheated Kavery!

Produce it in 36 months. Test and certify it in the next 24 months. Produce it in large numbers. In 1962, we could not / did not use offensive air power. Let there not be a repeat of that situation.

PS. I do not foresee a dense air defence air presence in the projected hostile area. If one comes along, I shall need top cover by the air dominance fighters you all are designing.

vardhank wrote: 2) What plane can we develop soon (say 10 years), using mostly existing technology (as much in-house as possible), to supplement the fighters we expect to have at that time? The answer, I suspect, would be a light, twin-engine MMRCA-type jet or a twin-engined LCA, a bit weak on thrust, using the Adour and a bit weak on radar, using our MMR. If we decided to risk things a bit, we could use the GE-414 and an Elta-2032 or Bars.

Narayana Rao wrote:1. MMR for Radar. Said to have some issues. We can try to perfect it.

2. Project Vetrivel has helped us to develop vatious items items. Spinoffs from our SU30 involvement. We take them.

3. Computer, software, FBW are all available or can be developed. Once again we have done some work in SU 30.

4. Kaveri can be perfected to the extent possible. Can have reasonable thrust. Better than other options.

5. SHIVA targeting pod can be used.

Viv S wrote:
shiv wrote:2) Engine. Our choices are limited to Orpheus (Kiran), Adour (Jaguar), R 25 (MiG 21) and Kaveri (untested). Period. It will have to be one of these Or else we import

3) Cockpit systems: Do we make ejection seats in house? Display electronics? Who in India is making these
I think you can include the RD-33 as well, which we license produce now.

4) Radar, sensors and electronics: What aircrfat radar do we make in India? Forget AESA. Just mechanically scanned. I don't know. Can anyone name ONE usable radar that is now made fully in India? IR sensors? Helmet mounted sights? Night vision equipment?
I'm pretty sure we should stick to Martin Baker for the ejection seats. No point in reinventing the wheel. I believe Samtel will soon be manufacturing the Topsight-E HMS. Also the MMR should be in service soon.

6) Self protection systems: I know we make some. Someone please name a few.
Only the Tejas' Mayawi EW suite comes to mind.

Cain Marko wrote:Considering the primary constraint put by Shiv, there is wonlee one answer or possibly two:

1) Stick an AL-31 into the LCA, stretch the fuselage, enlarge the wings and viola you have a F-16XL cum Mirage 2000 that weighs about 8 tons empty, carries 7 tons payload (9hps), has 4tons internal fuel and a ferry range (on internal fuel) of 2000km+. OR (easier still), talk to the Frenchies, get the M2k rolling in India with an AL31 to boot!

Stick a nice 750mm radar in there (MMR mk2 will do), along with the abiity to carry a single gun, possible IRST.

Future possibilities in a block wise upgrade might include - TVC, CFTs, conformal weapons, AESA radar.

2) Will take more time - but the original idea with 2 kaveris instead of 1 AL 31 might do the trick. A tad heavier (10 tons) but much more capable.

Else, option 3) Take the MiG-21, redesign with large amounts of composites, enlarge wings/spine (more internal fuel), ensure 6 hps, 3 wet stations, use the RD-33MK or Kaveri as engines. Empty wt = 5500kg, payload - 4500kg, range - 1600km (internal fuel).

CM

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2010 06:03

ShauryaT wrote:I will venture into haraam territory here, with no proof,
whatsoever. The IAF and indeed the top brass in the entire politico-military
establishment are not interested in building the indigenous industry.

Shaurya this is not a statement that can be dismissed outright. The thought
process that we (India) cannot come up with anything useful or good and that anything
taken from abroad represents the goal we need to reach permeates the nation and
I am by no means accusing BRFites of having a copyright/monopoly on such
thoughts. We have spent decades building someone else's industry.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2010 07:36

Let me throw in another thought that has been troubling me for a few days.

How does India test a new engine. Right now the new engine has to be carried by hand to a bullock cart, by bullock cart to truck, by truck to airport, by air to Russia where the Russians put it on their aircraft while SDRE engineers who normally eat only vada pav (or idli vada) shiver in Russia.

How can we hitch a jet engine to the HS 748 to act as a test platform is my current problem.

Here is a 3 way profile drawing of the HS 748

Putting an engine dorsally as was done to a Packet will likely put the tailfin of the 748 in the exhaust stream of the jet. I am no expert but that sounds unhealthy to me.

There does not appear to be enough clearance below the 748 to sling an engine below the fuselage.

One alternative would be to stick an engine on one side of the mid upper fuselage so it looks like one of the engines of the A-10 Warthog. But that would be asymmetrical in terms of weight as well as thrust. The other question is whether two engines can be placed - one on either side, with one an "old, proven" engine like the Orpheus and the other the Kaveri.

The other alternative is to mount an engine like the one at the base of the tailfin and tail in this Boeing 727

Does anyone have any ideas in this regard. Don't you think that it is shameful to try an develop an engine without a test platform?

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Oct 2010 07:46

^ Russians use the IL-76 (Cheena uses the badger) no reason why we cannot use the IL-76 platform , a 4 engine heavy lifter is an ideal platform (enough excess installed thrust to even land on two engines) to serve as a high altitude engine test bed with growth potential (to accept heavier/newer engines).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2010 07:51

Good thinking negi. I didn't think of that.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Oct 2010 08:34

In case the IAF cannot spare a IL-76, would it be possible to buy a second hand one specially for R&D purpose. We can use it to test engine, radars etc.

Also how about using some of the old Canberra's?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 28 Oct 2010 08:49

Abhibhushan's Kiran is the perfect workhorse for the AP theater and more than enough to stymie most any incursion on the ground--nothing fancy but a solid danda. They are basically flying precision artillery and we need droves of them. Another more modern option would be to develop a ruggedized single-seat version of the HJT-36 that is nearing operational clearance. However the Kiran is a fully proven design and safer choice.

A turboprop powered CAS aircraft similar to the Tucano is yet another option and might be more capable of weaving in and out of the hilly terrain against ground troop movements, helos and transports which would be employed in that area. Both could also be used by the CRPF against maoist-type threats.

Locally made turboprop engines we can build something like this around are the Garrett TPE-331-5 that powers the India-made Do-228 (and the Brazillian Tucano) and the older (and therefore more sanction-proof-we probably make it 100% in house) Rolls Royce Dart which powers the HS-748. These planes would be faster than helos, rugged and capable of operating out of short semi-prepared airstrips and roads but still have all-weather capability, precision-delivered munitions and AA missiles--all doable with the tech we have. Handling qualities will be similar to an intermediate trainer.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 28 Oct 2010 09:00

shiv wrote:
But one thing I can guarantee. If India were ever to start making an aircraft of the sort envisaged in this thread with the sort of inputs I have posted below - every major aircraft manufacturer in the world will see a threat to his business and will howl bloody murder.

The Israelis designed the Kfir by mating a Mirage airframe with a Phantom's engine and we need a similar mentality.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Oct 2010 10:00

Victor wrote:Abhibhushan's Kiran is the perfect workhorse for the AP theater and more than enough to stymie most any incursion on the ground--nothing fancy but a solid danda. They are basically flying precision artillery and we need droves of them. Another more modern option would be to develop a ruggedized single-seat version of the HJT-36 that is nearing operational clearance. However the Kiran is a fully proven design and safer choice.

A turboprop powered CAS aircraft similar to the Tucano is yet another option and might be more capable of weaving in and out of the hilly terrain against ground troop movements, helos and transports which would be employed in that area. Both could also be used by the CRPF against maoist-type threats.

Locally made turboprop engines we can build something like this around are the Garrett TPE-331-5 that powers the India-made Do-228 (and the Brazillian Tucano) and the older (and therefore more sanction-proof-we probably make it 100% in house) Rolls Royce Dart which powers the HS-748. These planes would be faster than helos, rugged and capable of operating out of short semi-prepared airstrips and roads but still have all-weather capability, precision-delivered munitions and AA missiles--all doable with the tech we have. Handling qualities will be similar to an intermediate trainer.

When we look at numerical strength of air forces you find that no large air force in the world can afford "latest gen" in large numbers. We can, by all means import, share or develop new tech, but I think at least 40-50 % of a huge air force - perhaps 60 squadrons (given our environment) should be made up of aircraft such as the ones suggested above - effective and sanctions proof.

There is an urgent need to develop an effective series of aircraft in house and induct them is large numbers. We spend large amounts of money and inordinate amounts of time ensuring "free and fair" competition and avoidance of kickbacks - only to remain forever dependent and make lame excuses like "Anyway we will have to stop fighting in 1 month. Luckily Pakistan will stop in 2 weeks" and "Whole world is interdependent"

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Oct 2010 10:15

What prevents us from using modifying the Do-228 to be used as a CAS aircraft? Its internal cabin means we can probably carry weapon loads inside the body. It has a very low stall speed hence ideal, however may not have enough power for high altitude takeoffs.