'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[JayS]

I find it mind-boggling to see why USAF didn't go for CFT. There is literally no argument against it and its doesn't look very costly modification as well. Even if they have shit load of tankers, having CFT would allow them to relieve some strain over those tankers. I mean the kind of rosy picture that is painted for the CFTs, I just can't think why USAF should not have gone for CFTs at least for some of the few hundred blk50/52 F16s they have. Its not like they had to compulsorily use them in every mission, and removing them seems fairly trivial.

[sudeepj]

Rohit time was when we gave token respect to serving men because this was an Indian Defence Website and military discussion forum. No more. No one gives a flying fork. It's called liberalism, freedom of expression.

The fact that people who are experts say absurd things while trying to Arjun domestic products is evidence of either incompetence or dishonesty. If he wants to make public comments then he has to face public scrutiny & criticism. If military service is sole criteria then all Jairnails are always correct on all issues including Gen Kaul of 1962 victory fame. Tyagi was also correct on Augusta. Who was the Pilates and anti HTT-40 expert?

You are also making public comments.. no?

[Viv S]

I find it mind-boggling to see why USAF didn't go for CFT. There is literally no argument against it and its doesn't look very costly modification as well. Even if they have shit load of tankers, having CFT would allow them to relieve some strain over those tankers. I mean the kind of rosy picture that is painted for the CFTs, I just can't think why USAF should not have gone for CFTs at least for some of the few hundred blk50/52 F16s they have. Its not like they had to compulsorily use them in every mission, and removing them seems fairly trivial.

Yeah. Rafale and EF too.





Although the EF T3s will probably still get it since they're replacing the Tornado but have only three hardpoints for heavy stores (usually taken up by two EFTs with an LDP on the centreline).

[Atmavik]

Can the F-16 CFT fuel be dumped. The NLCA has developed a fuel dump systems but i think thats more for safe carrier landings.

i found this for the F15 http://www.f-15e.info/technology/fuelsy ... p/dump.htm

[RKumar]

The fact that people who are experts say absurd things while trying to Arjun domestic products is evidence of either incompetence or dishonesty. If he wants to make public comments then he has to face public scrutiny & criticism. If military service is sole criteria then all Jairnails are always correct on all issues including Gen Kaul of 1962 victory fame. Tyagi was also correct on Augusta. Who was the Pilates and anti HTT-40 expert?

You are also making public comments.. no?

Sorry ... are you saying something? What is wrong with his public statement? Feel free to do scrutiny and criticism if he said something wrong.

[Amoghvarsha]

^quite right.

What we have instead is a committee to "fix" BCCI.

MOST pressing need of the country!

OT, but BCCI is probably the only world beating institution and 800lb gorilla dominating its category that the country has ever produced, and our judges and Shashank Manohar are intent on sabotaging and cutting it down in power.

Bhai The committee members get paid huge money for each meeting plus expenses. They are just milking the BCCI.This ex judges panels must be made illegal.

[Kartik]

The cost associated with any production plus a reasonable profit has to be recovered from the cost of product. There are two ways - low units produced at high margin and high number of units produced with lower margin. Which one will give less price/unit??

If HAL can make one Tejas in 6 months and have 4 jigs they can manufacture 8 Tejas per year. If they have to increase the rate to 16, either they have to increase number of Jigs to 8 or reduce number of months required for production of one LCA to 3 months. For the first option HAL and suppliers both have to invest. For second one, suppliers still have to invest the same but HAL's investment is reduced now. Which option is better overall??

The money goes to whoever end up at loss for higher production rate since the fixed upfront investment has to be amortized on lower number years on lower number of units produced, increasing the price per unit effectively. Whether HAL and/or supplier. The capital expenditure increases monotonically with the capacity for production. how difficult it is to understand that production capacity of 25/yr needs more investment than 16/yr, and that for the same order, the now increased investment has to be amortized over the same number of units, jacking up price per units??

The theory is impeccable. It is the practice that is a problem. I don't want to be rude and say things that sound insulting - but what I say is meant in a "good sense" - not accusing you or anyone of anything . So please don't take anything I say that way.

You speak of increasing the number of jigs. Fine. But when a Tejas under construction is on the jig it will never leave the jig until every single part that needs to go in has arrived and has been fitted. That means that the supplier of those parts have to expand concurrently with HAL increasing the number of jigs. Let me just look at what the supplier must do to start producing for HAL

HAL will call for tenders for the supply of some part for Tejas. Let us say the part is hose clips of a particular size and material. They put a tender out and give a date. Let us say they get 3 bidders. Those bids have to go through a bureaucratic process - the finance team will probably OK only the lowest. The engineering team will then look at the clips. they may select or reject. Depending on pressures being applied on MD, on finance team or engg team there may be some back and forth rejecting this and accepting that bid as better. During this period the bidding companies cannot simply invest. their investment to increase capacity can only come after they win the order. And HAL will not pay them any advance - or may only pay a token advance - so any capacity expansion has to be done on their own steam. If an order is won, the company then has to start supplying - for a token payment initially. the clips will then be installed and used. Payment may not come through until engineering flies those clips on an aircraft, and certifies that the clips are holding up to the stresses. With an initial rate of production of 4 a/c per year certification of those clips may take 6-8 months. The engineering office may not even more the approved file to the finance dept because they are not bothered about that. The supplier makes 4-5 enquiries before the file moves from engineering to finance. In finance the file sits awaiting various approvals. Were all the parameters met? Who certified that. Have the total numbers been accounted for. An enquiry goes out to the store. Finally the payment may come after a year or two. Any supplier who invested tens of lakhs or crores will by sick and tired by the time this happens. The supplier has to be really "patriotic" to work with a system like this. Multiply this process for 10,000 parts to be supplied by 10,000 different suppliers.

In private firms (mainly hospitals) that I see there is a purse holding boss who looks at every aspect and signs cheques phataphat. This does not happen in PSUs that have a huge top-heavy system of thousand of departments and employees who can block or move things

You can throw any amount of money at HAL but this will not change. Please excuse me if you think I am wrong - but I think BRF itself is divided up into 2 groups. One group sits in America and thinks throwing more money will work. The other group sits in India and like me are saying "Balls"

I think that the GoI figured this out a while ago when it decided that India needs to have a private aerospace sector. The systemic faults are simply too entrenched to be remedied overnight. It will take a long time and this govt. will not wait for that long to get the manufacturing sector going. They tried to kick start the process with the Avro replacement but it went nowhere. Now, they'll do it with this Single Engine Fighter competition and HAL will continue to build 8 Tejas going up to 16 per year. Anyway they had to spend a fortune to replace the IAF's retiring fleet, so use that money that will be spent in order to get the private sector involved. Even if it means assembly initially. Eventually, with the order size going up, they can tie up with LM or Saab, do more upgrades and hopefully, scale up to be able to contribute on the AMCA.

Since HAL isn't interested in the Tejas Mk2, for which they would be responsible for a bunch of the systems and sub-systems on board, I began to think that it would never actually go beyond models built for Aero India shows; but the fact that HAL is not a part of this Indian Single Engine fighter competition may work out in the Tejas' favor and be a boon. Had HAL been tasked with this new tender, the Tejas was a goner. HAL would've had zero motivation to spend more effort on the Tejas Mk2 and would've happily built the F-16 or Gripen NG. But now, HAL will have to compete with the private sector built F-16/Gripen NG and actively look for orders past the 80 Mk1As. And that is where the Tejas Mk2 may come in as HAL's only conceivable competitive offering. And then it'll be up to the IAF to decide what it wants.

[Kartik]

I find it mind-boggling to see why USAF didn't go for CFT. There is literally no argument against it and its doesn't look very costly modification as well. Even if they have shit load of tankers, having CFT would allow them to relieve some strain over those tankers. I mean the kind of rosy picture that is painted for the CFTs, I just can't think why USAF should not have gone for CFTs at least for some of the few hundred blk50/52 F16s they have. Its not like they had to compulsorily use them in every mission, and removing them seems fairly trivial.

Yeah. Rafale and EF too.





Although the EF T3s will probably still get it since they're replacing the Tornado but have only three hardpoints for heavy stores (usually taken up by two EFTs with an LDP on the centreline).

Add the Advanced Super Hornet to the list as well. And the MiG-29SMT. The dorsal hump was nothing but a conformal fuel tank.

[Indranil]

Amoghvarsha, Bart S.,

Show me a reason of not warning you for thread derailment.

[Bart S]

Amoghvarsha, Bart S.,

Show me a reason of not warning you for thread derailment.

Apologies for the OT, please delete the posts.

[Amoghvarsha]

Amoghvarsha, Bart S.,

Show me a reason of not warning you for thread derailment.

Apologoies

[Kartik]

Well, having any heavy stores hanging off your wing, on a pylon, will mean that you're g restricted. If the configuration is such that the F-16 carries CFTs, but replaces the drop tanks with heavy stores, the g limit will remain as is since the weight hung off the wings will still be high- but if not, and if you're replacing the drop tanks with 2 AMRAAMs or something, the load on the wing join will be lower while pulling high g's and your g limits will be higher.

Absolutely correct.

But if it comes to a question of a quick getaway then stores or drop tanks can be discarded. Not CFTs. If they are not empty it gets worse

On the question of the advantage of Conformal Fuel Tanks on the F-16 versus more tankers for the IAF, tankers will give every IAF aircraft more range. CFTs will work only for F-16 if we get them. CFTs per se should not be a reason for selecting F-16s when what we need is more tankers

The MiG-29UPG, with the dorsal fuel tank, is also basically doing what the F-16 Block 50/52/60/V will do with the CFTs. They're bolted on to the airframe, which means that they don't impose the same penalties on g limits that the drop tanks do. And in fact, I don't think that the dorsal CFT on the MiG-29UPG can be removed unless the airframe is sent to a BRD. So it lacks that flexibility, but makes up for it by not having the probe fitted on the tank. And, the MiG-29SMT/UPG retain the 9G airframe. Capable of 9Gs, but progressively, as more and more of the fuel gets consumed.

Yet, the overall improvement in range and endurance is of far greater value, and will be of value in every mission where loiter time or combat radius matter, than some performance penalty as a result of a 400 kg tank being fitted on to the airframe.

It is always necessary to add the "sales talk filter" while accepting that it might not be sales talk

yes, but a test pilot who was involved in the test program saying something is one thing and a marketing person saying it is another. If someone who is an exec had said it, I'd say yes, take it a with a big pinch of salt. But a test pilot, even a company test pilot associated with the program, I would think that they would be a lot more believable.

[Cosmo_R]

....

T.... then all Jairnails are always correct on all issues including Gen Kaul of 1962 victory fame. Tyagi was also correct on Augusta. Who was the Pilates and anti HTT-40 expert?

Kaul, just checked himself into a hospital in true cowardly fashion. He was into the theory of war but not its practice. The Ancestor of all sycophants. But he reflected JLN's reliance on 'Kashmiris' as the TFTA. Many Kauls, Dhars etc. who wanted to star in their own videos while suffering those south of the Vindhyas.

As a 15 year old, I could sense in person BMK and TNK as people not worth hero worshiping. TNK was more into deriving his latest Mercedes from Stuttgart to Moscow.

Just my experience.

[brar_w]

I find it mind-boggling to see why USAF didn't go for CFT.

The USAF acquisition even for upgrades follows a needs-assessment and prioritizes upgrades or new system development based on need. The F-16 upgrade program is stuck in a limbo but there they actually stressed on survivability and better performance for that was what would bring up the capability the most. Keep in mind that the USAF would have had 3-4 times as many operational F-35s by now had the delays not occurred. Despite those they'll have hundreds operational by the turn of the next decade and the beginning of the next decade so between those, the F-15's, the F-22's and the long range bombers and UCAV's the needs and priorities for the Viper fleet are different.

They are just not investing in the F-16 enterprise given the F-35 rate increase is happening at the moment. All the upgrade funding is going to the F-15 and F-22 enterprise.

[Kakkaji]

How about this for a further twist in the tale.

Can someone with a subscription to Business Standard post the full article?

Boeing says IAF inquiry for twin-engine fighter coming soon, hopes to build 200 in India

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has already approached major global fighter vendors, inviting them to build single-engine, medium fighters in India. Now the spotlight is expanding to encompass heavier, twin-engine fighters as well. On Thursday, Pratyush Kumar, President of Boeing India revealed that he expected a second inquiry from the IAF, asking international manufactures for interest in building twin-engine fighters in the country

I do recall that last year when Parrikar had announced about possible orders of 120 for the LCA Mk1A, he had also mentioned that in addition to the LCA and the Rafale, India would need another single-engine fighter and a twin-engine fighter to be made in India to fill the numbers in the IAF. We on BRF were so carried away by the announcement for LCA Mk1A that we did not pay much attention to it at that time. Now the next steps are being taken.

It is a well thought out plan of this Government. They know the situation is dire, and they are taking steps to address it long-term and short-term.

I don't think the LCA or the AMCA are going to be killed. They will be developed, produced and inducted. However, aerospace ecosystems parallel to the DRDO/ HAL will be built in the private sector with foreign joint ownership and know-how.

JMHO

[shiv]

The MiG-29UPG, with the dorsal fuel tank, is also basically doing what the F-16 Block 50/52/60/V will do with the CFTs. They're bolted on to the airframe, which means that they don't impose the same penalties on g limits that the drop tanks do. And in fact, I don't think that the dorsal CFT on the MiG-29UPG can be removed unless the airframe is sent to a BRD. So it lacks that flexibility, but makes up for it by not having the probe fitted on the tank. And, the MiG-29SMT/UPG retain the 9G airframe. Capable of 9Gs, but progressively, as more and more of the fuel gets consumed.

Yet, the overall improvement in range and endurance is of far greater value, and will be of value in every mission where loiter time or combat radius matter, than some performance penalty as a result of a 400 kg tank being fitted on to the airframe.

The theory is very simple. Force=Mass X Acceleration

If the mass is increased, more force is needed for the same acceleration. Of course in aircraft the act of turning is acceleration - the faster the turn the faster the acceleration. So the loading becomes an important issue. If two aircraft can achieve the same G forces, and one is heavier then the latter may require a more powerful engine to get the same G force. (the reason that I use the word "may" is not relevant here). The other possibility is that power plant is the same but the heavier aircraft carries a lesser load of fuel/payload (or uses up some fuel) and manages to achieve the same 9G or whatever. Exactly where the mass is situated - i.e on the wings or on the center fuselage makes no difference. Mass is mass and some part of the aircraft structure - most likely the wing roots have to bear the burden of G forces and as JayS pointed out weights hanging off the wings partly compensate for high upward G on the wings - which is the very reason why F-16s carry a dummy missile even in clean configuration

That is the theory. But let me say what I think about the LM test pilots statement separately below

yes, but a test pilot who was involved in the test program saying something is one thing and a marketing person saying it is another. If someone who is an exec had said it, I'd say yes, take it a with a big pinch of salt. But a test pilot, even a company test pilot associated with the program, I would think that they would be a lot more believable.

A Lockheed Martin test pilot speaks for Lockheed Martin and other pilots may not agree with him - just like senior IAF pilots with no experience of the LCA are not parroting what Tejas test pilots say. But let me state my view - I am no pilot

That LM pilot's statement was "measured". He says the F-16 with CFT is 9G capable and that he does not know that his aircraft has CFT without looking over his shoulder and spotting them. I am sure he is telling the truth. But what he does not say is under what conditions of weight and payload carriage this is true.

The only example that I have that colours my view goes back to the 1970s when my late cousin was praising the MiG 21 saying that it has a T/W ratio of nearly 1. After I discovered the meaning of T/W ratio and referred to my series of volumes of aircraft books I questioned him about this and he said that in operational conditions, some fuel gets used up and that is the time when the T/W ratio approaches unity and aids agility.

All "new developments" of aircraft - be it the F-16, the MiG 21 or newer MiG 29s have all gained weight over the years and all have had more powerful engines installed. But none of them (to my knowledge) have had engines powerful enough to compensate fully for the extra weight gained. This inevitably affects performance. So yes while range and loiter time are increased by extra fuel and "hitting power" increased with better payload, the question of agility in terms of acceleration and turn rate are affected in ways that we are not told. But physics theory tells us that they are affected.

That makes a difference to mission profiles as they are planned. Mission planning as far as my knowledge goes requires planning of what munitions the target requires and how far away it happens to be. The actual amount of fuel and weapons that an aircraft carries for a particular mission is unlikely to be the absolute maximum that is physically possible. If maximum range is desired the profile will call for maximum fuel and somewhat less in weight of munitions. Another variable would be whether the approach to target will be low or high. That also dictates time on station - whether the attack must be conducted in one pass or more than one pass is possible and how much fuel is left for 5-10 minutes of diversion or manoeuvring (with afterburner if need be) in case the aircraft is bounced. It is possible to argue endlessly on details but let me post just one scenario:

Imagine 4 F-16s with CFTs taking off for a mission. Two are optimised for attack with low ingress and have a heavy load of fuel and weapons. The other two have enough fuel for that mission plus - just 6 AAMs even if their total loadout allows more. On the way in the attacking F-16s are very vulnerable because they are heavy. No one tells us whether a fully loaded F-16 can pull 9G. The escorts on the other hand are likely to be ready to meet "any challenge"

The point I am making is that the need for CFTs depends on what types of mission are planned and the ranges at which they must be conducted. An air superiority mission with a light loadout 4-6 AAMs will get great loiter time with CFTs. But a "deep penetration strike" over hostile enemy territory would require more care especially during ingress because the very CFTs that enable higher range and payload also add to vulnerability on the way in. And that vulnerability cannot be discarded if the threat is high.

[shiv]

Rohit time was when we gave token respect to serving men because this was an Indian Defence Website and military discussion forum. No more. No one gives a flying fork. It's called liberalism, freedom of expression.

The fact that people who are experts say absurd things while trying to Arjun domestic products is evidence of either incompetence or dishonesty. If he wants to make public comments then he has to face public scrutiny & criticism. If military service is sole criteria then all Jairnails are always correct on all issues including Gen Kaul of 1962 victory fame. Tyagi was also correct on Augusta. Who was the Pilates and anti HTT-40 expert?

Absolutely correct.

But this is a two edged sword.

Any statement in the media by a public servant or on an internet forum by a private individual are both "public statements". Whether these public statements are lies, absurd, stupid, corrupt, idiotic, moronic etc are a matter of perception.

For a "third party" like me - I don't know anyone on the forum and I don't know CAS Arup Raha. But I know more about the latter and I might choose to believe that he is telling the truth and that a person who accuses ACM Raha is a liar who makes absurd statements.

Now here's the rub. This is an internet forum. On this forum it is OK for me to call Raha a liar. But if I call you a liar it becomes ad hominem and then admins can take action against me based on a complaint. The result is that on this forum it is possible to make allegations against people who are not on this forum, but making exactly the same statement about you would attract punishment. So the forum rules are themselves biased in favour of random people who may themselves be fools, being allowed to make character judgements of people outside the forum. This is what I mean when I say that this forum is a private club. You can say what you think about Raha but I cannot say what I think about you. And if you say the same things about me that you might want to say about ACM Raha, I could complain and ask for admin action against you.

One "solution" that was applied in the past on BRF was to try and stop the bias by assuming that public servants and forum members are both allowed to be fools/morons. But since accusing forum members leads to flame wars, the rule was "Do not flame/troll each other AND do not make accusations about public servants." That way you can't say what you think about Raha and I can't say what I think about you. But now we have a situation where the liberal rules allow YOU an advantage. You can curse Raha but I can't say what I really feel about you if you criticize people whom I may admire.

I have already alerted admins to this anomaly. I doubt if anything will change - but I want people to understand the issue as I see it.

[shiv]

Once upon a time in the distant past someone threatened BRF with legal action for defamation. I recall there was some downhill skiing on BRF. I was an admin back then and helped write the first "Cover Your Ass" disclaimers for BRF. But my right to curse anyone should ideally be accompanied by an equal right for anyone to curse me. But we are not there. Yet.

[ldev]

How about this for a further twist in the tale.

Can someone with a subscription to Business Standard post the full article?

Boeing says IAF inquiry for twin-engine fighter coming soon, hopes to build 200 in India

Here it is:

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 4th Nov 16

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has already approached major global fighter vendors, inviting them to build single-engine, medium fighters in India.

Now the spotlight is expanding to encompass heavier, twin-engine fighters as well.

On Thursday, Pratyush Kumar, President of Boeing India revealed that he expected a second inquiry from the IAF, asking international manufactures for interest in building twin-engine fighters in the country.

Along with other vendors, Boeing had received the earlier inquiry for single-engine fighters. With nothing to offer in that category, Boeing wants to sell and build the twin-engine F/A-18E/F Super Hornet --- the US Navy’s frontline fighter.

Boeing had offered the Super Hornet in response to India’s 2007 tender for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), but lost out to the twin-engine Rafale fighter, fielded by French aerospace vendor, Dassault.

Even so, with New Delhi having procured just 36 Rafale fighters, Boeing assesses that, even after buying single-engine fighters, the IAF will face a major shortfall of twin-engine fighters.

Said Kumar to journalists in New Delhi today: “There is a gap of about 200 fighter aircraft that the Super Hornet can fill, including the naval requirement. This is the assessment of Boeing.”

Like the Rafale, the Super Hornet can operate from land-based airfields, and also aircraft carriers. The US military only uses it off aircraft carriers, but other air forces, such as the Royal Australian Air Force, operate the Super Hornet off land bases.

Boeing has already submitted a plan through the US-India Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI), a government-industry coordinating body, to build the Super Hornet in India.

Unlike “other companies” that are offering to shift existing lines, says a politely dismissive Kumar, in a thinly disguised swipe at Lockheed Martin, Boeing would establish “A brand new, state-of-the-art factory of the future.” {Lol!!)

Boeing’s global arch-rival, Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defence corporation (Boeing is the second-largest), has offered to shift its older F-16 line from Fort Worth, Texas to build the single-engine fighter in India.

The F-16 faces competition in the single-engine category from the Gripen E, which Swedish company Saab has offered to build in India. Saab has sweetened its proposal with an offer to assist the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) with completing an improved version of the indigenous Tejas light fighter, called the Tejas 1A.

Boeing’s competition in the twin-engine fighter segment comes from Dassault and Eurofighter. Usually well-informed sources say Dassault, buoyed by its sale of 36 ready-built Rafale fighters to the IAF, is readying a proposal to build a significantly larger number in India.(Lol!!)

Boeing, unlike other fighter manufacturers, leverages its military business in India with a major non-military presence in the world’s fastest-growing market for airliners.

Kumar argues that Boeing’s dual presence --- in civilian and defence aerospace --- creates a compelling business case for establishing manufacturing facilities in India. “Manufacturing volumes are needed to create a business case for manufacturing in another country. In defence, volumes are initially limited. So it is a great advantage when commercially viable volumes come from defence and civilian business combined”, he explains.

Boeing is readying to generate those volumes. In June, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar inaugurated a new manufacturing facility in Hyderabad, where 300 employees will build fuselages for Boeing’s Apache AH-64E attack helicopter, which India has contracted to buy.


The facility, which will become the world’s sole source for Apache fuselages, is owned by a joint venture between Boeing and Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, called Tata Boeing Aerospace Ltd (TBAL). Kumar says the facility will commence production in mid-2017 and the first fuselages will roll out in 2018.

[ldev]

^^
Great, the more the merrier!!

So the IAF will have the following aircraft at the end of 5 years:

F16/Gripen
F18
Rafale
SU30
Jaguar
LCA
Mig 21
Mig 27 (retired?)
Mig 29

and waiting for

AMCA
PAKFA
F35 maybe if neither the AMCA or PAKFA materialize and China deploys J20s in large quantities then India will do a panic buy of the F35.

[Rammpal]

^^^"....The facility, which will become the world’s sole source for Apache fuselages, is owned by a joint venture between Boeing and Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, called Tata Boeing Aerospace Ltd (TBAL). Kumar says the facility will commence production in mid-2017 and the first fuselages will roll out in 2018...."

Interesting.
Looks like Boeing is definitely a better bet.
They did deliver.

[ldev]

Fighter aircraft capability is positively co-related with price. What is astounding is that in the MMRCA, there was no guidance that India has say xx dollars to spend and to get the best possible deal for y number of airframes within that budget. Instead the IAF was told to go and evaluate the best possible aircraft which they did and settled on the Rafale and the consequences are that India could get only 36 of them. I am sure that if the F22 was available and fielded in the competition the IAF would have gone for that and India would have got maybe 12-18 of them!!

[Pratyush]

Great, never ending drama. I don't know to laugh or cry. WRT, the Boeing news piece.

[kmkraoind]

Since the discussion is hovering on CFTs. Can HAL design-n-build CFTs to SU-MKIs. They have FCS (to tweak), has producied air frames and external fuel tanks. SU-MKIs are in huge numbers and they are going to be out limbs for a long time, so HAL has every reason to go to drawing board and come up with CFTs to SU-MKIs.

[shiv]

Since the discussion is hovering on CFTs. Can HAL design-n-build CFTs to SU-MKIs. They have FCS (to tweak), has producied air frames and external fuel tanks. SU-MKIs are in huge numbers and they are going to be out limbs for a long time, so HAL has every reason to go to drawing board and come up with CFTs to SU-MKIs.

Again the answer lies in a 30 second video I posted. Ignore the question but listen to the answer
https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/794001016031244288

[Chinmay]

All this talk of absurd numbers of foreign-built fighters leaves me with the question of whether all of this is just a pressure tactic on Dassault to give more goodies in exchange for more numbers? Dassault will not say no to more business and IAF is pretty happy with French fighters. If all this talk of 200 single-engine AND 200 twin-engined planes' is true, then money is the least of our concerns.No official RFI has been issued in either case which is even more puzzling.

*tinfoil hat on* MoD wants France to give more tech ToT in exchange for more numbers of Rafale. *tinfoil hat off*

[Philip]

The Rafale is great to savour,but when the bill is served,you collapse at the table and have to be taken to trauma centre. For the rest of your life you will be in and out of hospital paying huge bills.If sheer numbers are what is required,then why import another brand new fighter like the F-18? We just need to order a few more sqds of MI(G-29/35s at half the price. A couple more sqds of Flankers,SU_34s would be great,would greatly improve LR strike capability.If multi-role birds are the need,then more upgraded MKIs as well,the so-called Super Sukhoi BMos capable ones.Thes eaircraft would be far superior to any F-18 types and woukld require abso no investment for infrastructure,etc. as MKI production facilties already exist with at the last figures,"70%" of material used were desi.

[Deans]

I have followed this thread with great interest, though I don't consider myself qualified to comment. I have a more fundamental question though:

Our problems of shortages / ad-hoc procurement etc, stem from our inability to meet the IAF's budgeted strength of 40 squadrons.
Why does the IAF need 40 squadrons ?
The need for 40, was established 2 decades ago. Since then, aircraft costs have increased more than inflation, but more importantly so have the aircraft's capabilities. All major air forces have fewer aircraft than they had in the past, to fulfill the same roles as earlier.
How will our requirement for aircraft change, if we get (for e.g.) more SAM's, AWACS, Air to air refueling capability etc ?
There is no scenario where we are going to be at 40 squadrons of modern aircraft, in the next 10 years, so we have to think of plan B.

Can someone comment on :
If we have to fight a conventional war with China, while retaining a minimum level of deterrence against Pak (a realistic worst case scenario):
- How many aircraft can be deployed against us ? (PLAAF in the East + PAF)
- If we have 10 batteries of S-400's , 30 of Akash + Gaps filled with a dozen batteries intermediate range SAM like the Barak &
- Double the number of AWACS, Electronic warfare aircraft & refueling tankers than currently planned for (all doable in the next 5 years):
What is the number of aircraft we would need to defend our airspace and army formations and provide some ability to interdict the enemy ?

This would require a bottom up approach, but the result would probably be a better thought out analysis of what we really need as a minimum deterrent.

To clarify - I am not suggesting that we don't need 40 squadrons, just asking how that number was derived. I have read the IDSA study
which is opaque as far as actual calculations are concerned and suggests 53-63 IAF squadrons for a 2 front war, but assuming the entire
strength of the PLAAF is deployed against US.

[Pratyush]

All this talk of absurd numbers of foreign-built fighters leaves me with the question of whether all of this is just a pressure tactic on Dassault to give more goodies in exchange for more numbers? Dassault will not say no to more business and IAF is pretty happy with French fighters. If all this talk of 200 single-engine AND 200 twin-engined planes' is true, then money is the least of our concerns.No official RFI has been issued in either case which is even more puzzling.

*tinfoil hat on* MoD wants France to give more tech ToT in exchange for more numbers of Rafale. *tinfoil hat off*

Things don't work that way. IAF needs numbers every one knows it. All they have to do is quote to price.

[Philip]

There is a table in the latest VAYU showing the IAF's combat strength and numbers of types ,now,2020,2025,etc. A large number of MIG-21 and 27 types will be pensioned off before 2020.There are no immediate replacements for them.Even the long-suffering MIG-21 Bisons were expected to retire by 2020. It is a tribute to the etch teams of the IAF and the aircraft in particular that it has stayed the course in service for over 50 years! For a combat fighter to that in frontline service is simply unprecedented.One may expect transport types to do so.

The objective manner in which this shortfall in numbers can be met is by simply ordering "more of the same",types in service.sadly the M2K is not in production,but the MIG-29/35 is,in fact all 29 upgrades being done in India are supposedly almost complete.The engine is also made here. So is the MKI as mentioned in an earlier post.Safest and cheapest way to go,but the flyboy top brass want shinier goodies from western shops. Even "old lamps for new" from panwshops like Lockheed and Boeing!

[Pratyush]

No one is looking at the most obvious solution. Solve the production related issues with the LCA by giving the necessary orders to replace the 21 , and 27 today. When the mk2 comes out, use it to get rid of the Jaguar, and possibly mirage.

[vina]

This is the new make in India model.. cross posting the link to Shiv Aroor's blog Yes , India wants a lot more Apaches

In September last year, India signed up after protracted negotiations for 22 AH-64E Apaches, half of which will be Longbows. The Boeing-Tata manufacturing joint venture that’s coming up in Hyderabad will deliver the first Indian-built Apache fuselage in 2018, and will service standing orders for at least 200 new airframes for Boeing’s customers around the world. When ready, it will be the world’s sole global supplier of Apache fuselages. Boeing is also believed to be looking to actively expand its supplier base in India, so it’s likely that the ‘Make in India’ component of finished AH-64s could step incrementally up over the next decade.

[Rishi Verma]

Can't believe the words being thrown around. "solve the problems with LCA", "induct the lca in large numbers", I have faith in NaMo and Parrikar and IAF. If LCA production issues were solved then they would have ordered more LCA.

In fact the NDTV interview "walk the talk" where CLaw guy says that even they were surprised by what the LCA can achieve. It's OK, it's a first fbw plane designed in India. But if the (designers) were unsure of the capability obviously customer wasn't either. And production wasn't envisaged early on.

Now that LCA is slowly making its mark, going through improvement cycles, it will be inducted.

F-16 or whichever import is not meant for "LCA killing", it's for killing pakis and chinnis. As long as the killing gets done, what does it matter with which plane.

[Rammpal]

^^^^"....F-16 or whichever import is not meant for "LCA killing", it's for killing pakis and chinnis. As long as the killing gets done, what does it matter with which plane...."

Neat tattva..

[Zynda]

This may be slightly OT...but so far no big Indian private entities have any kind of partnership with Russian companies. Even the latest Ka-226 is a JV with HAL. Agreed, Russians have screwed with us when it comes to complete ToT etc., in the past...but with a new India which is more confident as a buyer, I'd imagine Russia wouldn't want to miss the pie. Russians aerospace engineering & manufacturing standards may not be as advanced as compared to Western, but I am sure they can bring a lot of a value to the table perhaps at a cheaper price. Also, it seems like if had a choice, Indian Private entities would go with Western entities rather than Russians for obvious reasons, primarily, their business interests are mainly in the West and hence more credibility.

[JayS]

The drama gets even funnier. I suppose the name of this thread should be changed to include new twin-engine RFI as well, instead of starting new thread for that one... We could call it Screwdrivergiri MultiRole Fighter under MII...

Why Can't govt do anything on Civil airliner front for kick-starting Aerospace industry..?? We have requirement of hundreds of planes there as well. In fact $200Billion worth in coming decades. Why can't GOI invite Airbus or Boeing?? whichever is ready to Make in India gets all the orders from Indian companies. Why it has to be only Fighter jets?? Arguably it would make far more sense to do it with Civil jets - the market size there is far bigger, the MRO market is far bigger there and is much more sustainable for companies to cater Civil biz than mil biz. And we are nowhere near making any Civil jets.

[Amoghvarsha]

How many are we going to buy?

Lets assume 50 for the Navy.

So 200 LwF and 150 twin engine jets.

350 jets in next 15 years for IAF?

Will that cover the retirement of Migs Jaguars and MK2s or exceed that?

[JayS]

If we induct these 200+100 (leaving 50 naval ones) jets along with 120 LCA and 144 FGFA all these together with 272 Su30MKI and 36 Rafale, give us in 2035:

200 F16
100 F18
120 LCA
144 FGFA
272 Su30
036 Rafale
--------------
872 Total

Which is more than 44 Sq. This assuming all other jets are retired by 2030. Even if we assume that Some FGFA will replace oldest Su30, i don't think it more than 2Sq (in 2014 Su30 are reported to have less than expected utilisation - 1500hrs in 14yrs for 1st overhaul whereas its designed life it 6000hrs..! Do the math when will they be retiring, and there is a fair bit of possibility that we might explore life extension of airframes). So we are still looking at 42Sq. which is sanctioned strength.

Where is the place for AMCA??? Unless of coarse GOI increases squadron strength.

[rohiths]

The drama gets even funnier. I suppose the name of this thread should be changed to include new twin-engine RFI as well, instead of starting new thread for that one... We could call it Screwdrivergiri MultiRole Fighter under MII...

Why Can't govt do anything on Civil airliner front for kick-starting Aerospace industry..?? We have requirement of hundreds of planes there as well. In fact $200Billion worth in coming decades. Why can't GOI invite Airbus or Boeing?? whichever is ready to Make in India gets all the orders from Indian companies. Why it has to be only Fighter jets?? Arguably it would make far more sense to do it with Civil jets - the market size there is far bigger, the MRO market is far bigger there and is much more sustainable for companies to cater Civil biz than mil biz. And we are nowhere near making any Civil jets.

Very simple reason: No bribes or commissions

[JayS]

Rhetoric question:

Why LM insists on min 100+ order to shift the assembly line to India?? Why can't they first fly fully ready blk 70 config, set up the factory in India and demonstrate reasonable production rate with significant amount of supply chain also shifted to Inda for an initial order of say 20-40 jets?? And then GOI can decide on further orders based on their performance??

Please someone answer...