'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 05 Jan 2017 17:01

deep TOT is an oxymoron - it cannot happen, no one has any incentive to give away their core technologies

screw driver giri is ok - IF it creates jobs and provides the basis for us to develop/improve our own R&D capabilities; I have no problem with screwdriver giri if it is part of an export model that builds scale

the R&D part is down to us

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jan 2017 18:02

Lalmohan wrote:deep TOT is an oxymoron - it cannot happen, no one has any incentive to give away their core technologies

screw driver giri is ok - IF it creates jobs and provides the basis for us to develop/improve our own R&D capabilities; I have no problem with screwdriver giri if it is part of an export model that builds scale

the R&D part is down to us

We Indians think like traders, among Traders Consumer is King, or if you selling something which many people can make, from accountancy services to most of the IT Services, BPO/KPO service - COnsumer is again King, but in weaponary and High end engineering- Producer is King. Our MOD will modify requirements for Imports but not for building up manufacturing ability within this country.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jan 2017 18:24

from taparia screw driver POV going with F16 has a lot of advantages
- much wider worldwide base than F18
- usaf has it - and will take another 15 years to retire them all
- just like pakis we could get some cheaper from JSF users like israel
- lower opex due to 1 engine
- less airframe compromise due to no naval role

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 05 Jan 2017 18:56

but the problem is this - lets say we make 200 for ourselves, who else will buy this bird? where will we get greater scale? I don't think it works unless there are other export customers

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 05 Jan 2017 19:31

There are lot of countries that don't trust US but have good relations with India(In asia particularly).
Also Indian popularity is growing by the day as a friend & helper.

US can take advantage of that & sell F16 @60mil or less to many countries that don't have a large budget . Only other plane that is that cheap is Gripen but it don't have numerical superiority (price/spares/options for upgrade etc).

F35 maybe the 5th gen plane but it has problems & those countries who wants to replace their F16 with F35 may want to see that plane (F35) to achieve the world class fighter TAG that it carries (with a huge price $$$$$).

With world security scenario changing rapidly everyone would want to keep/upgrade their F16 (workhorse/bomb trucks).

Not a big supporter of the teen's but with F16 deal with India PAF will be cutoff (no more F16's). People may say that they would get J10/Su35 etc but the fact is , they don't have the $$$ to buy or maintain any other fighter. New fighter will come with infrastructure/training etc cost & will take years to master.

Again F16 comes with lot of options & with Israel as a good friend who keep their F16's up-to-date the possibility are endless (upgrades/weapon's).

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 05 Jan 2017 19:35

Why don't we make a law that if Indigenous options is available (close tech to import) then the forces(govt/mod etc) will have to buy 1 Indian equipment for every 1 import equipment.

This can further be rectified as the scenario changes.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 Jan 2017 20:20

Rakesh wrote:Shrinking fleet poses tough choices for IAF: light, medium or heavy fighters?
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/01/s ... s-for.html

From the comments section:-

Anonymous said...
Ajai Sir, here's a solution for the IAF's needs...

The IAF should approach the global aviation majors for a 3-engined fighter aircraft. When all 3 engines are turned on, it becomes a heavy fighter.
2 engines turned on, it is a medium fighter.
1 engine turned on, it becomes a light fighter.
The IAF gets what it wants and everybody goes home happy.

--Diggy Raja.
4 January 2017 at 11:24

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 05 Jan 2017 20:34

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 05 Jan 2017 20:50

it might make more strategic sense to have a gripen production line (for both India and Sweden compared to US)

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Jan 2017 20:58

Marten wrote:We are unable to invest in small businesses that could be involved in ancillaries but want some special deeeeeeeep TOT. The only thing that will be given, will be by the Indian junta. In crass terms, will start with a blow and end with a job (or worse).

Cosmo_R is not going to provide one iota of viable Deep ToT. He is peddling nonsense in the name of screwdrivergiri. However, I will concede that licensed production of the F Solah will likely improve HAL's production capabilities, but ToT of any kind - Deep, Hard, Soft, Long, Shallow - is not going to happen. And as lalmohan said, if screwdrivergiri creates jobs then it is a good thing. I second Diggy Raja's comments - from abhik's post. What a comedy session this is.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Jan 2017 23:51

Rakesh wrote:However, I will concede that licensed production of the F Solah will likely improve HAL's production capabilities, but ToT of any kind - Deep, Hard, Soft, Long, Shallow - is not going to happen.

I'm pretty sure its to be assembled/built at a pvt sector facility. TASL Hyderabad most likely.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 06 Jan 2017 00:20

tushar_m wrote:There are lot of countries that don't trust US but have good relations with India(In asia particularly).
Also Indian popularity is growing by the day as a friend & helper.

US can take advantage of that & sell F16 @60mil or less to many countries that don't have a large budget .

Then we'll be selling american fighters to friendly nations instead of our own LCA!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jan 2017 00:51

Prasad wrote:
tushar_m wrote:There are lot of countries that don't trust US but have good relations with India(In asia particularly).
Also Indian popularity is growing by the day as a friend & helper.

US can take advantage of that & sell F16 @60mil or less to many countries that don't have a large budget .
Then we'll be selling american fighters to friendly nations instead of our own LCA!

True.

But, there are many factors influencing this picture. First, will India have enough LCAs to export (production rate being the bottle neck)? Next teh sales and support organizations.

I would expect the LM sales team to take the lead on the sales of potential F-16MII or F-16M2 (you heard it here first).

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 06 Jan 2017 07:21

Indranil wrote:
Indranil wrote:On what basis was it made two?
Basically, Aatre committee had said the strategic partner is not to bypass the DRDO/DPSUs. In fact, the latter is supposed to provide the competition. MoD has said that is not enough competition. But the next question that will arise (and has already arisen) is both strategic partners will seek assured orders to invest here. Both LM and Saab has made it very clear. How do we manage that?

That question was at the root of Aatre commission's original recommendation of only one SP. And at the start of this thread that was at the root of my confusion as to why Boeing was not being considered. But pieces are falling in place now:

Let's for sake of argument assume that Tata-LM is a done deal, for say 180 fighters. The idea is to use the initial order to nurture the SP over an initial period of time. And this involves two things - nurturing an assembly line, and building up the supply chain (or ecosystem, to belabor that term). So with our assumed order, one way is to build a "small" assembly capacity of say 12 fighters per year, stretching the build over 15 years. Beyond that, the same people in that assembly plant would be employed for, say, 5 additional years for deep overhauls and upgrades of the same 180 fighters. So our original order can sustain a SP assembly plant for about 20 years (give or take) purely on assumed Indian order. Beyond that, one can imagine other orders such as for AURA (as I speculated in my previous post). Another possibility is upgrades or overhaul of F16s belonging to other countries, given that the TX F16 manufacturing will move lock, stock and barrel. As for the plant itself, note that the Airbus C295 order will also be assembled by Tata, and so will Apache fuselages - presumably all at the same site. So there will be some economies of scale due to shared infrastructure like rail lines to the plant site, an airstrip, and so on.

The second part is building up the supply chain. This is where the real gains of having the entire manufacturing base helps, because the spare parts will be for a number much larger than the Indian order. Another expectation is that this is not ToT as in Su30MKI which was pretty restrictive. Let me explain - per my understanding, HAL can build, say, the gearshaft for this plane. However, they have the ability to that only for that particular design and that particular airplane. In contrast, for F16, one would imagine that LM would work with Tata to identify a Tier 2 supplier that can build airplane gearshafts, and transfer any necessary manufacturing technology for the same. The implication is that if nothing else, that supplier would then be able to use their plant to build gearshafts for other aircraft like Tejas, etc. So in other words, the supply chain is sustained not just by the original F16 order and foreign spare part sales, but by the ability to produce for other projects within the country. Though it may initially be pure screwdrivergiri, the main assumption I am making here is that India will now bargain to obtain ToT that enables that particular supplier to not just sustain itself through F16 orders, but also become a contributing component of the overall aerospace ecosystem that this DPP policy seeks to build within India.

This is why the stress here is on the partnership, and not on the actual platform (F16 in this case). This is a whole new way of doing business in India, and it builds on the cumulative experience of decades - the HAL experience with ToT, the failed MMRCA bid, the multiple aborted Arty competitions, the Tejas experience of difficulties in building up a MSME supply chain on a small order base. It is truly an exciting time, and the seeds are being sown for a lasting defense manufacturing ecosystem in several vital areas.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Jan 2017 08:20

Interesting perspective YI, but I do feel this is an attempt to kill of an indigenous product line. That means there is less competition worldwide. The future sales of f-16 to foreign nations from India, that someone talked about, would have been LCA's. We are giving that kitty away, as well as our ability to influence the world. If LCA continues to be at 30 million dollars, many players can afford those in large numbers. Other than hushed projections of what could be, and how this is all chanakayan, we are giving up a lot to play surrogates to a dead line, and that too for unvalidated gains. We become assembly line for US as they can't possibly do this in China and it serves their purpose.

We really out to get our playbook right. Mk-1A, Mk-2 and the future stealth single engined derivate LCA mk-3. We will need to buy single engined light fighters even 20 years from now. Any attempts to play someone else's game, means a lot less game for us. The PIE isn't growing, it's only shrinking. This is the best time to let F-16 die. LM cannot afford to keep this going, they would like to. It will be the last of this bird. More chances of us selling LCA Mk-2 to everyone and their aunt as the number of players shrink.

I personally don't see what's in it for us. WE are just GUBOing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jan 2017 08:24

have to agree with Cybaru. japan to its credit did not assemble F16 but derived the F2 from it. they will buy JSF but also fund the F-3 properly and make it work.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jan 2017 09:14

I have to go with YIP.

Too many holes in CY's args. Here are a few:

* production of LCA MKI and MKIA does not seem to be enough for the IAF itself, where are the numbers for the export going to come from? And when?
* By the time the MKII comes out, it will also face the same issues: production capacity. And therefore impact exports
* India has no sales team for such products. How about a support team? When?
* Dev of eco-system in India. Do we really want to drag it into the 40-50s (with the LCA as the lead product?) (yikes) (use the AMCA/FGFA to do that if at all)
* I just do not think India has the time (NOT funds) to catch up on such fronts.
*** F-16 all that can be handled by LM. Shorter sales cycle as compared to the LCA - that is IF the LCA is ever exported (note: the emphasis is on production and quality of the LCA)

* AMCA will be impacted. No teen, no engine. They are tied at the hips - the discussions are just to see how to make sure that they do not get untied

* And what exactly is a MK-3? I was checking into what the Chinese threat could be in 2030, do we really think that a Gripen-E rated plane would be sufficient? Have we seen what the Russians and the US have reacted to the Chinese fielding their stealth crafts? (that for another post)(but I would can the LCA beyond the MKIA - keep the line going tho')

* Japan is in a diff league. They are ahead of the curve as a nation - just look at their production capabilities. India is perhaps 20-30 years behind in some aspects (automation as an example) (that BTW from an NRI who studied in Japan in the 70s and led efforts at leading edge manufacturing joints in the US)

* Last but not the least, ALL this depends on a great RM and a visionary PM.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Jan 2017 09:21

Let us not dream of exporting LCA tejas without our own engine (kaveri or its derivative)

No body on this forum wants to have F16/Gripen production line over LCA. But the fact is that we need fighter's in large number & quickly.

LCA export version can't have american engine or Elta radar that's a fact & we all know it very well. If F16 line can create worker's who have experience in manufacturing fighter jet's this will help.

And one thing is for sure that HAL needs some competition , its working like a regular DPSU with babugiri & union reps creating trouble (nothing against HAL but the work pace). If our industry can't manufacture 4 LCA in a year then 16-24 production line is a distant dream.

On the other hand if TATA started producing 12-16 F16 in next 2 years that will put pressure on HAL to do the same or lose their production line so some private player (reliance/adani etc).

Remember the old days where your mom will tell you to get good grades because your friend got 90%.The tag line was "agar vo 90% la sakta hai to tum kyou nahi.?". The same will apply to HAL production line that if TATA with its indian workers & same tier 1-2-3 suppliers can produce F16 in number's why can't you?? .

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Jan 2017 09:38

In general if we can calculate the fighter requirement of IAF , Its just MASSIVE.

say we need 45 sqd with 20 fighters(including spares) = 900 fighters

Light Segment = 250(approx)

LCA 120 (done deal maybe more will come @ LCA mk2)
F16 120-150 (say we don't produce 200 fighters )

Medium Tier (lots of fighters)=270 +

Rafale = 36 (may get 36 more order )
M2k = 50 (will retire to make way for AMCA 2030)
MiG29 = 66(will retire to make way for AMCA 2030)
PAK-FA = 120-150

Heavy Fighters

Su30MKi = 270+

Other strike aircrafts = 140+

Jaguar = 140+ (will retire to make way for AMCA 2030)

Total = 250+270+270+140 = 930

Out of which 2030 retirement's are = 140+50+66 = 256 (Not counting the su30mki initial batch retirement in 2030 )

That mean's we are still short by almost 250+ fighters in 2030 even of F16 is inducted in good numbers. Also if the security situation keep getting tough we might need more then 45 sqd so say 50 sqd will mean 100 more fighters.

So the space is there for all fighter it's just upto HAL to deliver as many fighters as they can.

* This is the best thing to do in the morning

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jan 2017 10:07

^^ The PAK-FA/FGFA is hardly a medium fighter by any yard stick with a take off weight of ~ 35 T

M2K UPG and Mig-29UPG has a service life of 25 years after deep upgrade , So we will see them in service beyond 2035 possibly till 2040.

F-16 should not be a light fighter either they would come under medium category like M2K

Farooq · Post by **Farooq** » 06 Jan 2017 10:24

Austin wrote:^^ The PAK-FA/FGFA is hardly a medium fighter by any yard stick with a take off weight of ~ 35 T

M2K UPG and Mig-29UPG has a service life of 25 years after deep upgrade , So we will see them in service beyond 2035 possibly till 2040.

F-16 should not be a light fighter either they would come under medium category like M2K

PAKFA and later FGFA will be heavier than Su 30 MKIs. Basic mistake in the analysis posted above.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Jan 2017 10:40

ok so move them from medium to heavy category ....

does that mean we need less number of fighters ?????

Also people don't want F16 a 70's plane to be on IAF but want MiG29UPG/M2k to serve till 2040 ???? Don't get that concept

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jan 2017 10:58

Any aircraft purchased today or say by 2020 will last in IAF for next 40 years with 1 major upgrade like M2K/29s do , So yes if IAF sees F-16 in service by 2020 then we will keep them going till 2060.

Well if we see M2K/29 induction at 1985-90 then it being in service till 2035 would be like 45-50 years !

F-16 was a great aircraft for its time perhaps the best single engine fighter in 80-90's but it has long past its glory days , Gripen would still be a better buy but sticking to More Tejas is the best bet for single engine fighter

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Jan 2017 11:15

F-16 was a great aircraft for its time perhaps the best single engine fighter in 80-90's but it has long past its glory days , Gripen would still be a better buy but sticking to More Tejas is the best bet for single engine fighter

Totally agree with you @Austin but the same applies to Mig29/M2k also.

But if Gripen/F16 were the only option then considering technology, price,upgrade option,weapons commonality ,spares availability ,strategic partnership, pressure on enemy(pak), future upgrades(Israel) & Making some $$$$ out of a deal which one will be your choice. One can't deny that LM has better production experience then Saab.

Again not a fan of F16/Gripen production line's cutting LCA numbers. LCA should coming irrespective of Gripen/F16 in large numbers.

Also one point that we are missing is that does IAF like F16 at all ?

Anyone got the MMRCA competition details to compare Gripen & F16 ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jan 2017 11:27

The IAF chief in last Airforce Day Press mentioned that he prefers Gripen , It is now up to SAAB to come up with a good industrial proposal to satisfy the MOD and cost effective

http://idrw.org/why-iaf-chief-wants-gri ... -and-f-18/

Given just a forced choice between aircraft and if some were to ask which aircraft would you like to see flying in AF till 2055-2060 and if the choice was limited to F-16 vs Gripen , then easily the choice for me would be Gripen in light fighter category , atleast they can have some logistics commonality with Tejas in terms of Engine and is of more modern design with perhaps lower opex and better turnaround times

I recollect during MMRCA trials of Gripen getting hot refuelled in Leh the only one who could do it.

This whole exercise of selecting a Light Fighter is a Big Chutiyagiri if I may say so , We have an Indian designed light fighter Tejas flying running hopping skipping but we are happy to import another light fighter in some guise of Industrial benefit or strategic partnership ... Restricting Tejas to 123 type but more than happy to get 126-200 light fighter is case of Penny Wise Pound Foolish.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Jan 2017 11:44

tushar_m wrote:Let us not dream of exporting LCA tejas without our own engine (kaveri or its derivative)

...while the Swedish export the Gripen with an american engine.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Jan 2017 11:51

Austin wrote: F-16 was a great aircraft for its time perhaps the best single engine fighter in 80-90's but it has long past its glory days , Gripen would still be a better buy but sticking to More Tejas is the best bet for single engine fighter

I'm not a fan of this whole business of assembling a foreign fighter when we have Tejas, but what exactly does the Gripen offer that the F-16 doesn't?

brvarsh · Post by **brvarsh** » 06 Jan 2017 11:57

To keep LCA alive and kicking is so much important today if India ever seriously has to consider itself a global player. Our wise men in defense should consider this - If all they have are a bunch of Tejas to defend the country what strategy would they have around it? And evolve this strategy as LCA evolves. There is an anecdote - Why did Maharana Pratap choose a Spear as an arm of choice? Because he had Chetak! A fast moving Horse would quadruple the penetrating power of a heavy spear. Point is we don't get the best available today but what makes us completely free of any reliance.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Jan 2017 12:50

NRao wrote:I have to go with YIP.

Too many holes in CY's args. Here are a few:

* production of LCA MKI and MKIA does not seem to be enough for the IAF itself, where are the numbers for the export going to come from? And when?
* By the time the MKII comes out, it will also face the same issues: production capacity. And therefore impact exports
* India has no sales team for such products. How about a support team? When?
* Dev of eco-system in India. Do we really want to drag it into the 40-50s (with the LCA as the lead product?) (yikes) (use the AMCA/FGFA to do that if at all)
* I just do not think India has the time (NOT funds) to catch up on such fronts.

* Last but not the least, ALL this depends on a great RM and a visionary PM.

I agree with the last part. If that part is there, then nothing is a challenge. We want greatness, but we are not willing to work towards it. Everyone wants their pie today.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jan 2017 13:09

nachiket wrote:I'm not a fan of this whole business of assembling a foreign fighter when we have Tejas, but what exactly does the Gripen offer that the F-16 doesn't?

At the least lower flight cost per hour , more modern modular design (active canard/delta design ) , sensor fusion , small aircraft so low rcs like Tejas , As they use the same GF 404/414 engine like Tejas may be they can have atleast engine commonality

With F-16 there will be zero logistics commonality with Tejas and infact almost zero commonality in our fleet which will be first US fighter for IAF.

I dont know if IAF seriously thinks logistics as we operate French , Russian , UK/Indian fighters

F-16 is a 70-80's designed bird and like its peers M2K/Mig-29 even in modern avtar carries the same baggage as any 70's design aircraft would have and in true sense is not a light fighter but a medium type like J-10 of china , Over period of time F-16 also got more heavier retaining its single engine configuration

Given a forced choice between F-16 and Gripen its no brainer really and IAF Chief indeed says Gripen would be their first choice

My still hope they dump the single engine contest under what ever disguise they are planning to and opt for more Tejas that would be the ideal solution for Indian Industry and Make in India

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Jan 2017 13:29

nachiket wrote:
tushar_m wrote:Let us not dream of exporting LCA tejas without our own engine (kaveri or its derivative)
...while the Swedish export the Gripen with an american engine.

And are we buying the Swedish Gripen with US engine or US F16 fighter with US engine ???

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jan 2017 13:47

take a less competitive and political play - helicopters

despite a MASSIVE production run and 100s more assured orders of Dhruv, Rudra and LCH, HAL has been unable to sell it worldwide despite even tying up with israel for marketing.

you really think the big boys will welcome the Tejas with open arms at higher end and the chinese at lower end?

either you need tight allied client states to buy your gear, or be prepared to sell below price to poorer allies. our lack of hard power and political choices have ensured that only Bhutan is there as a faithful ally and a few more on transactional basis. we punch way below our weight in the basic areas like cheap rifles, handguns, ammo, arty which open the way to higher level items and build capital in foreign govts. everyone who exports high end gear is also exporting mountains of low end gear like colt, s&w, remington, h&k, berette, kalashnikov, FN, norinco etc....

we simply cannot walk in with a iphone9 and say its our first product pls buy it. you need a wide track record of lower tech products to pave the way and develop the production scale and marketing muscle. and not only that even your civilian side needs to be high tech and have exportable products at similar tech level like power plants, ships, cars, electronics , aerospace parts, production robots etc .

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jan 2017 18:43

The issue of export of helos is a good case in point.We screwed up the sale to Ecuador,which could've prised open the entire S.Am market. A Dhruv success would've benefited the sale of Tejas too. Typical shifting the blame onto the end user by babudom.Even if the crashes were in the main due to the client,we should've given them the red carpet treatment to show that we cared for them as a client. When we've gifted helos to small IOR nations ,offering to replace the crashed ones/leasing new ones and keeping a small maintenance team for a year or two would've established our long term commitment as well as our after sales capability. The goodwill created would've benefited us for a long time to come.Look how Embraer has become a world player in aviation. HAL was in operation decades ago making jets long before Emb.Ironically,we are buying Emb. platforms for our AEW aircraft!

If we are so shoddy at exporting a fundamentally good helo like Dhruv ,fat chance of us ever exporting a fighter aircraft,whether desi or firang if attitudes and management styles remain the same at HAL,etc. We have zero track record.
Even Pak has exported its trainers and now the JV JF-17 as well.

On a more positive note,we have a success which we can export apart from some missiles.Pinaka.This MBRL appears to have made the grade and has been very well received.The ER version should be showcased at defexpos part from the usual stuff.The Dhanush version of the erstwhile Bofors gun could also be another success,but for aircraft,v.tough going and there will be very stiff competition accompanied with huge diplomatic/strat. pressure which we will find hard to compete with.The price factor is where we can score if we get our act together. Right now,Tejas is on the cusp of success.We need to make it happen with better variants and soon.increasing production with another plant even in the pvt. sector.Once nations see the IAF flying sev. sqds. of Tejas,knowing the high stds. of the IAF,they would be keen to explore acquisition too.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 Jan 2017 00:53

Lalmohan wrote:but the problem is this - lets say we make 200 for ourselves, who else will buy this bird? where will we get greater scale? I don't think it works unless there are other export customers

How about Taiwan? That would be a poke in the eye for the Panda.

Scale of a/c purchases is likely to be less of a factor given the installed base (~4,500). The spares we could export individually add up to far more than the a/c cost in much the same way as your car manufacturer might pay for a a door handle ($1.50) when it builds the car. But if you need a spare, that door handle will cost you at $30. Boeing makes more money from its spares than it does from a/c sales (there is a WSJ article on this).

LM is on record saying they need just 100 a/c orders from the IAF to make the line in India viable and set the stage for $15 bn in total exports. If I were making the call for India, I'd snap up the offer, buy 100 F-16s and use the exports to offset the purchase of 100 F-35s for about the same price.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jan 2017 01:53

I agree with the last part. If that part is there, then nothing is a challenge. We want greatness, but we are not willing to work towards it. Everyone wants their pie today.

Things seem rather disjointed.

At times I wonder how the same India can send stuff to Mars, flawlessly and yet is unable to master other complex processes. Befuddled.

But, honestly, the time to think beyond supplying LCA to the IAF is gone. Better to concentrate on that one delivery and do a great job.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 Jan 2017 03:09

@Singha ^^^ +1

It is our political class' timidity, cupidity and stupidity. And we will pay for it for another two decades.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Jan 2017 15:45

Making spares is not the same as making the aircraft - its pretty much a different type of business

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jan 2017 19:21

Singha wrote:have to agree with Cybaru. japan to its credit did not assemble F16 but derived the F2 from it. they will buy JSF but also fund the F-3 properly and make it work.

Can India doo the XL...jingo dream

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jan 2017 19:30

The best overall from a multi-role perspective would have been the F-16U.

Some years later, I was talking with some people on the Eurofighter Typhoon program and mentioned the UAE’s delta F-16. “It would have killed us,” one said.

mandeepgujral · Post by **mandeepgujral** » 07 Jan 2017 22:23

Can't we simply replace all existing MIGs with Mig 29Ks instead of adding another fighter type to IAF ? This will help us save money on operational support as we already have infrastructure for Mig29s, also give us more breathing space to induct Tejas variants in large numbers and perhaps a LCA mk3/AMCA can eventually replace all these Mig29s. To solve spares and serviceability problem, Let a private player like TATA/Reliance/L&T do its local production and use the same ecosystem/suppliers to also manufacture LCA MK2/1a (in large numbers), HAL to only assemble LCA Mk2/1a and focus more on innovation. Add same weapons to Mig 29s as on Su-30 MKI and FGFA. Mig 29Ks and LCAs with long range BVR missiles can take care of most the paki and chini fighters.Air superiority can be provided by FGFA, Su-30Mki and Rafale.