'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Feb 2017 08:00

NRao wrote:Well, I do not think you can deal with the two (increase squads and MIC dev) at the same time. I see the M2K as a shot in the arm for the prior at the expense of the later. I would reverse that order. The squad numbers can take a hit in the short term. But a MIC dev is a long term affair that needs funds at the moment (and perhaps political support?).

That's the thing, I don't think the Mirage acquisition will be very expensive.

The Qataris were offering us almost brand new aircraft for $62.5 mil a pop which we could potentially have gotten down to $50 mil.

Brazil in 2005 signed a $100 mil contract for 12 Mirage 2000B/Cs with France. That's $8.5 mil/unit all-inclusive. Admittedly these were older Mirages at par with our non-upgraded -Hs which the FAB retired 8 years later but still...

Given the depreciation, I wouldn't be surprised if we could get a full Dash 5 squadron for $500 mil. Leaving plenty in the kitty for a Tejas ramp up. Maybe reinforced by the F-35 - certainly the first choice in a naval role.

And, if moving to the F-35, it will probably kill everything. In that case India should move to a 6th Gen. ???? Keep the LCA line alive (need that for all times), AMCA as we know it, is of no use. Start with a 6th Gen naval version and move on. Including a 6th Gen single engine. Clean sheet.

I don't think anyone really knows what 6th gen is at this point. Maybe not even consist of an actual fighter (maybe a system-of-system type approach will be followed).

What might be doable is giving a UCAV project primacy. None of the aviation majors has a full scale dev. program funded yet so they have less of a head-start in that respect. Downside is that our existing body-of-work in the UAV sphere has been pretty dreadful - though ADA is probably a more reliable bet than ADE.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 12 Feb 2017 08:04

Viv S wrote: The Qataris were offering us almost brand new aircraft for $62.5 mil a pop which we could potentially have gotten down to $50 mil.

That was with spares and munitions.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Feb 2017 08:05

brar_w wrote:Actually on the PAKFA, Sukhoi was selected in April, 2002 less than a year after Lockheed was selected to develop the JSF. On the J-20 there are US Congressional unclassified testimony suggesting as per their intelligence reports that China had been working on 5th generation fighter program from mid to late 1990s.

Hard to say given the associated opacity. There would have been some risk-reduction tech dev. efforts preceding it that should perhaps not be counted towards the actual program. Similar to the CALF & JAST that emerged as the JSF (probably some substantial input via the ATF program too).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Feb 2017 08:10

Cybaru wrote:
Viv S wrote: The Qataris were offering us almost brand new aircraft for $62.5 mil a pop which we could potentially have gotten down to $50 mil.
That was with spares and munitions.

Truly mysterious are the ways of the MoD...

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 12 Feb 2017 08:18

Cain Marko wrote: Power difference could be more pronounced though considering engine size difference.

How does a fighter radar get its power? Directly from engines? meaning when engine is on after burner radar will have more power?

A sukhoi 30 with its more powerful engines will turn a radar into more powerful one?

Or radars have different generators and batteries to get power from?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Feb 2017 08:45

Viv S wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
That was with spares and munitions.
Truly mysterious are the ways of the MoD...

I do not track such things. But, IIRC, the problem was that the MoD wanted Dassualt to buy them and THEN sell them to India. And, I think that is where it fell apart.

The Q were expected to "trade in" their M2Ks for Rafale..............................

Did not work, because Dassualt felt it was too cheap of a deal. Wanted their commission IIRC.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Feb 2017 08:50

The F-35 checks all the boxes actually.

1) Make Amreeka, LM happy. As cybaru said, order a 100 F-35As for the air force and 57 F-35Bs for the navy. LM will be overjoyed. Make way more coin vis-a-vis the F-Solah.

2) Make the GoI and the IAF happy. The IAF gets shiny new stealth toys that will be a potent force to reckon with against China. Detterence is better than war.

3) Make DDM Happy. They don't know the difference between Deep ToT and a horses' arse. Just say it is Deep ToT and do Screwdrivergiri. Ignorance is Bliss!

4) Let Snecma/Safran continue development on the Kaveri turbofan and let ADA, HAL or whoever is running the Tejas program do what is needed to fix all the outstanding issues. The F-35 buys not just time, but rather gives the Tejas a lifeline. Guranteed to thrive rather compete to survive against another fourth generation platform.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Feb 2017 08:54

LM will be TRULY happy if India order (at least) 200 F-16, exports another 50 and THEN order the F-35.

Sorry to have shot it down with a simple post.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Feb 2017 08:56

Manish_Sharma wrote:How does a fighter radar get its power? Directly from engines? meaning when engine is on after burner radar will have more power?

A sukhoi 30 with its more powerful engines will turn a radar into more powerful one?

Or radars have different generators and batteries to get power from?

Aircraft's systems are powered by an electrical generator running off the engine. In the Tejas' case, delivering 30/40 kVA 3-phase AC - 120/200V @ 400Hz. Its run at a steady rpm so that doesn't vary with the pilot's throttle input.

Afterburners in any case would not make a difference since the AB piping is situated behind the exhaust to the engine core. [Compressor -> Combustion chamber -> Turbine -> Exhaust]

It enables thrust augmentation by expanding the exhaust air in the jet pipe. It cannot increase the turbine rpm and therefore cannot help generate electrical power.

Generally speaking larger aircraft like the Su-30 can be equipped with more powerful radars but that is primarily an outcome of being able to accommodate a physically larger array.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Feb 2017 08:57

Brar: a few questions for you (I am too lazy to do ask Uncle Googal).

1) Can the F-35B in STOVL mode carry a meaningful payload?

2) Can the F-35B be launched using EMALS? Will the payload increase?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Feb 2017 09:06

Rakesh wrote:Brar: a few questions for you (I am too lazy to do ask Uncle Googal).

1) Can the F-35B in STOVL mode carry a meaningful payload?

2) Can the F-35B be launched using EMALS? Will the payload increase?

1) Yes. On the last outing on the boat they tested it's full complement of internal and external load outs (no ski ramp) that included flying profiles with 2 x 1000 lb. bombs + 2 AMRAAM's in the bay and 2 x 1000 lb bombs externally.

DT-III evaluated and validated the Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) performance of the F-35B in high sea states, with full weapons loads (external & internal), with asymmetric loading (including taking off with a full load of externals, jettisoning one side and landing), live weapons and night operations. - http://www.sldinfo.com/f-35b-completes- ... s-america/

It can only bring back an internal payload however, although there it can do all of it (2 x 1000 lb bombs plus 2 AMRAAM's). The brits are working on SRVL for their QE's so that will go a long way in increasing bring back weight. Here is an example of an SRVL - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeyUk5pH0u0

2) Not without a redesign. If you have EMALS you ought to be looking into the F-35C..larger weapons bay, greater payload, longer range and same mission systems. Plus when in rate production (C variant) cheaper as well.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Feb 2017 09:08

Thanks as always brar. I asked about EMALS because the next aircraft carrier - INS Vishal - may have EMALS tech on board.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Feb 2017 09:15

Vishal WILL have a 90 meter EMALS. Per SAAB.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Feb 2017 09:23

Rakesh wrote:Brar: a few questions for you (I am too lazy to do ask Uncle Googal).

1) Can the F-35B in STOVL mode carry a meaningful payload?

2) Can the F-35B be launched using EMALS? Will the payload increase?

If I may..

http://content.yudu.com/A219ee/ETSWin12 ... ces/20.htm

Its got a 850 km+ combat radius when operating from a USMC flattop. That's with a 'standard' payload of 2 GBU-32s* (or 8 SDBs) + 4 AAMs.

From a ramp like on the QE it can take off at its MTOW which equates to a 6 tons of weaponry (+ 6 tons of fuel). 4 AShMs + 6 AAMs. With EFTs probably 1000 km+.

Can't be launched from a catapult however.

*1000 lb

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 12 Feb 2017 09:25

Various catapult lengths under "Steam catapults types"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 12 Feb 2017 09:29

Given that Russians are also interested in building a large carrier, some deal should be worked out for India to build their carrier in exchange for an offset of SU-30MKI or PAK-FA purchases. They supposedly have plans for a 100,000 ton giant carrier. To build just one of those would be incredibly expensive for them. But if they can be convinced to scale down their plans to something approaching 65,000 tons, India could produce a Vishal for them as part of carrier serial production.

It makes so much sense from the cost perspective.

However America will not help India on Vishal (including EMALS) if India opts to work with Russia on this project.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Feb 2017 09:33

There are off and on rumors regarding E-2D's, and the joint carrier workgroup is expected to meet next around the time the CVN-78 acceptance takes place (April/May). I don't that is going to go very far if there is a joint Indo-Russsian involvement in carrier development even if that means sharing of certain non US components.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 12 Feb 2017 09:40

Thanks Viv for the explanation..

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 12 Feb 2017 09:41

Brar,

Has any aircraft flown off those emals yet?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 12 Feb 2017 09:41

Supposedly Egypt is interested in purchasing the Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov once Russia completes its Shtorm (storm) carrier.

That might offset costs of building new carriers for the Russians.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Feb 2017 09:46

Cybaru wrote:Brar,

Has any aircraft flown off those emals yet?

At Lakehurst they've done 450 aircraft launches. The system is installed on the Ford and dead load testing has been completed. After April/May the USN will take possession of the ship and begin its test program at sea.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Feb 2017 09:49

Here's a video the on ship dead load testing-

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 12 Feb 2017 10:02

If you look at the early models of the Russian Shtorm (Storm) carrier, it also features a flat top with EMALS.

Although in later models, they seem to have ditched the idea for ski jumps. With powerful twin engine aircraft, they perhaps don't need the complications that come with EMALS. Its in line with their design philosophy to keep designs simple. Whether they can launch larger AWACS & ELINT type planes from there without EMALS is another question.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 12 Feb 2017 10:08

I think models are fine, but getting emals to work is going to take a long time. USN has been funding the emals program since 2002 and its probably got another few years of debugging till they get it right and launch everything they have.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Feb 2017 10:10

Here is a Next Gen Jammer pod - http://img.scout.com/sites/default/file ... 219844.jpg . A fully kitted EA-18G is expected to carry 2 of these, along with either a centerline fuel tank (or CFT's in the future), or another similar sized pod, plus weapons. You can't take off with such a payload without a Catapult. There are limits to how much you can play around with your thrust to weight ratios before your mission suffers. It isn't like only Russia has access to powerful engines. Same with heavy long range strike configurations. Of course if you are going to put large UAV's, AEW aircraft, COD aircraft and dedicated ASW you will require size as well. It really depends upon the spectrum of missions you expect your carrier and its associated air wing to perform.

Form follows function. It is not a design trade based on "simplicity" but on need. If you need those launch profiles, and your carrier air wing is diverse based on need you have to figure out a way to launch heavier aircraft. One can compare the Admiral kuznetsov air wing to that of a standard CVN deployment of late. Similarly one can compare today's CVN air wing to that of years past. They tend to scale up or down depending upon the threat and Catapults give you options. A 50 year operational life demands that flexibility.

There is a lot of work between having a model with model aircraft on it to actually getting to design, and then build something. The CVN-21 studies began in the late 90's and CVN-78 received advanced funding in 2002. It will be delivered as a first in class CVN in April or May of this year. Designing, developing, building and operationalizing a new carrier, especially one this large with cutting edge technologies is a very long process with lots of ups and downs.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 12 Feb 2017 10:27

Vishal is 10+ years away. if the 57 fighters are going to be bought now, they are going to be for the current carrier and the new one that is going to be commissioned. If it's not the 29K, then its most likely f-35B. Both Fa-18 and rafale won't perform as good from ski-jump. Why are sea gripen people talking about emals? That's still some ways away unless they think Indian navy is probably not going to purchase anything till the 65K ton carrier with emals arrives.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Feb 2017 11:41

^Sire Vishal with nuclear powerplant along with electrical systems to support EMAL in such a compact design (65k displacement class) is not going to happen even in next 10 years . If our top brass has any brains they should take a leaf out of the UK Navy who were planning to get EMALs on their next generation carriers (70k tonne class) with F35C the costs went up by more than twice so they ditched the idea and have stuck to F35B and STOVL. Our chaps in procurement are anyways bumbling idiots (the way we handled Gorshkov) we will get leeched by Ru and Unkil if we try to get a nuke plant from Ru and EMAls from Unkil and then try to make the hybrid jugad work on our own.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 12 Feb 2017 17:24

Rakesh wrote:
nirav wrote:This back and forth isn't headed anywhere.
Yes indeed. It is not going anywhere, because you have still failed to answer my fundamental question from my last post. You don't have an answer do you?

You consistently ignore the needs of the airforce wrt their squadron strength+ capacity building.

There no concrete evidence to suggest that F-solah line will kill the LCA or it won't !
Guess time will tell..

Rakesh wrote:
Viv S wrote:Certainly makes a lot more sense than inducting a brand new 4th gen aircraft type when most air forces are transitioning to 5th gen. And in the process, forcing the IAF to maintain yet another logistical support line past 2050.
Aiyoo! Don't say logical things like that. Only the global F-Solah supply chain will exist in 2050. Maintain a 4th generation platform in 2050. So wonderful!

Where's the logic in the advise of used M2K and LCA to save "billions" and on the other extreme get F35 instead of solah.

Where's the money?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 12 Feb 2017 17:56

Where's the money is the right question. Rs 30k crore is IAF annual capital expense. If Solah comes in, where is the money for LCA? Makes far more sense to get Raffys or Lightnings instead of the Solah, Atthara etc. At least capabilities are immensely more.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 12 Feb 2017 18:08

And disregard squadron strength ?

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 12 Feb 2017 18:30

The LCA makes up squadron strength. But you already know that.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 12 Feb 2017 18:42

LCA fills up squadrons in the light fighter category.

Heavy is filled by Sukhois.. Medium was planned for 126 Rafales , but since monies are a problem, medium is being filled by 36 Rafales+ 100 solah.

Why is it so hard to comprehend?

LCA is a light fighter and it CANT substitute the medium requirement.

This ridiculous LCA for every need of IAF must stop.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Feb 2017 20:36

nirav wrote:LCA fills up squadrons in the light fighter category.

Heavy is filled by Sukhois.. Medium was planned for 126 Rafales , but since monies are a problem, medium is being filled by 36 Rafales+ 100 solah.

Why is it so hard to comprehend?

LCA is a light fighter and it CANT substitute the medium requirement.

This ridiculous LCA for every need of IAF must stop.

Oh come now. You and I know this 'medium' hoohaa was cooked up by the IAF so they don't have to explain technical issues to the politicos & babus. No other air force in the world follows a three-tier weight class system and for good reason.

The whole MMRCA circus emerged from an IAF proposal to manufacture Mirages 2000s under license. At 7.5 tons empty (10% more then the Tejas) I don't think anybody has ever described the Mirage as a 'medium fighter'.

Even if we buy into the MMRCA argument, fact is, there was a stated requirement for 7 squadrons of MMRCAs. We'll get 4 sq. via the Rafale; 2 sq. x 2 airbases. And we've since ordered another 50 Su-30s.

Ramp up the Tejas requirement (& production) from 6 sq. to 9 sq., get 3 sq. of used Mirages and you've the IAF gets to its authorized strength of 39.5 sq. by 2025 within the existing budget. [14.5 x Su-30 + 6 x Jaguars + 3 x MiG-29 + 3 x Mirage 2K + 4 x Rafale + 9 x Tejas]

Add in another 3 sq. of F-35As and you get to the authorized 42 sq. mark.

nirav wrote:Where's the logic in the advise of used M2K and LCA to save "billions" and on the other extreme get F35 instead of solah.

Where's the money?

There's maybe a 25% cost differential between the F-35 & F-16V (less for the mooted Blk 70) while the gulf b/w their capabilities is massive. And with anti-access/area-denial systems proliferating in our neighbourhood, and no clarity on when the PAK FA/FGFA will enter the picture, the F-35 fits into a currently empty slot.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Feb 2017 20:43

Marten wrote:Where's the money is the right question. Rs 30k crore is IAF annual capital expense. If Solah comes in, where is the money for LCA? Makes far more sense to get Raffys or Lightnings instead of the Solah, Atthara etc. At least capabilities are immensely more.

*Export*.

Soviets survived via export. Russia will struggle if they are unable to sell abroad (FGFA?).

The US has and is surviving via exports - look at F-35, F-16, to a lesser extent F-15 and see what happened to the F-22 (without exports).

France!! Exports, even with the Rafale.

Sweden will survive *only* because of exports.

SK has roped in Malaysia(?).

Japan is teh only one I know that has or is going it alone. But with their laws modified, I am not sure what their plans are.

So, why are Indians thinking in terms of local funding for everything, especially when they do have product/s that others are willing to take a hard look at? I would think 1:1 ratio would be great for India. OK, 1 export for every 5 national use. That is doable.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 12 Feb 2017 21:07

Viv Saar,
I do not believe for a second that the solah line breaks bank or IAF budget. Would request you to quantify it.

Further, what really is the objective of re equipment of the IAF ?
Ensure 500 LCAs to fight a two front war.
Ensure IAF has a well balanced mix to fight a two front war.

Btw the Raffle is at 2 squadrons only for now not 4.

@Aero India stalls - I would like to request guys visiting the LCA stall to ask whatever happened to the 800-1000 Kg weight reduction that they had proposed for the Mk1A ?

@ the F35, maybe IAF and Sh.Partikar are in the know wrt progress on FGFA or PAKFA and have chosen to not go in for the F35 at this stage ?
Why is this possibility being discounted ?

Squadron strength can't be treated like just a number.

7 MMRCA squadrons combat capability is way higher than 7 squadrons of LCA.

2 Rafale sqdn + 5 solah sqdn also offer significantly higher combat capability than 7 LCA sqdns.

To say that IAF doesn't need the balanced mix it's proposing is simply being disingenuous.

Another crucial thing you guys are giving a total skip is, for the moment LCA has a grand total of 3 operational jets.

There's no clear idea about its actual availability rates and won't be for the foreseeable future.

With the solah, the IAF is getting an advanced bird which is operational worldwide and known downtimes/availability rates.

For a brand new unproven bird which hasn't achieved even FOC yet, a commitment of 20+20+83 is significant wrt the mix.Its HUGE actually..

At the end of the day, the airforce can't really plan on hojayega, chalega...
FOC ho Raha hai from 2015.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Feb 2017 21:14

NRao wrote:
Marten wrote:Where's the money is the right question. Rs 30k crore is IAF annual capital expense. If Solah comes in, where is the money for LCA? Makes far more sense to get Raffys or Lightnings instead of the Solah, Atthara etc. At least capabilities are immensely more.
*Export*.

Soviets survived via export. Russia will struggle if they are unable to sell abroad (FGFA?).

The US has and is surviving via exports - look at F-35, F-16, to a lesser extent F-15 and see what happened to the F-22 (without exports).

France!! Exports, even with the Rafale.

Sweden will survive *only* because of exports.

SK has roped in Malaysia(?).

Japan is teh only one I know that has or is going it alone. But with their laws modified, I am not sure what their plans are.

So, why are Indians thinking in terms of local funding for everything, especially when they do have product/s that others are willing to take a hard look at? I would think 1:1 ratio would be great for India. OK, 1 export for every 5 national use. That is doable.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=2114191#p2114191

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Feb 2017 21:50

nirav wrote:You consistently ignore the needs of the airforce wrt their squadron strength+ capacity building.

There no concrete evidence to suggest that F-solah line will kill the LCA or it won't !
Guess time will tell..

Since you have failed to answer my one question, your entire argument is pointless.

Rakesh wrote:Where's the logic in the advise of used M2K and LCA to save "billions" and on the other extreme get F35 instead of solah.

Where's the money?

In 2050...even the 51 Mirage 2000s the IAF has currently, will have long been retired...you expect the IAF to soldier on with a 4th generation platform like the F-Solah at that time? In 2050, the F-35 will still be around. The F-Solah will have a hard time against the Chinese stealth platforms that will be around at that time.

nirav wrote:2 Rafale sqdn + 5 solah sqdn also offer significantly higher combat capability than 7 LCA sqdns.

2 Rafale sqdns + 5 F-35 sqdns also offer significantly higher combat capability than 2 Rafale sqdns + 5 solah sqdns? Would you agree?

nirav wrote:With the solah, the IAF is getting an advanced bird which is operational worldwide and known downtimes/availability rates.

How many Block 70 squadrons are operational? Please tell me. I would love to know.

nirav wrote:For a brand new unproven bird which hasn't achieved even FOC yet, a commitment of 20+20+83 is significant wrt the mix.Its HUGE actually.

For a brand new unproven bird (Block 70) which hasn't even had her first flight yet, a commitment for 100 aircraft is HUGE.

At least the F-35 is flying and in service. Why buy a plane that no other air force is operating?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Feb 2017 21:55

Block 70 is hardly an unproven bird given that a lot of systems are highly low risk or are modifications of known systems. Engine is proven, airframe changes are absent, Radar is an iterative upgrade of AN/APG-80 using open architecture and components from the AN/APG-81 both operational. Even the full up radar is flying at the moment and is in production. It is also being scaled up for the B-1 bomber. The mission computers have flown and are modifications of an operational such mission system flying elsewhere. The sensors are proven, operational and taken from other programs (SNIPER XR, and IRST-21 both operational). The EW suite proposed here is the digital version of an in service system while 2 other EA/EW solutions are available and in service. The new cockpit display is a relatively ' low/no' risk and is currently flying. Really hard to see which aspect of the current block 70 proposal is unproven. It isn't a highly upgraded aircraft, just a collection of pragmatic bits and pieces from proven systems that enhance the block 50/52.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Feb 2017 21:55

Viv S wrote:Oh come now. You and I know this 'medium' hoohaa was cooked up by the IAF so they don't have to explain technical issues to the politicos & babus. No other air force in the world follows a three-tier weight class system and for good reason. The whole MMRCA circus emerged from an IAF proposal to manufacture Mirages 2000s under license. At 7.5 tons empty (10% more then the Tejas) I don't think anybody has ever described the Mirage as a 'medium fighter'.

Exactly!

The USAF has F-22s, F-15s, F-16s and F-35s. Going by nirav's logic the first is heavy, the second is medium and the last two are light!

The Russian AF has Su-27s (and variants) and MiG-29s (and variants). How many of them are heavy, light and medium fighters?

The Pakistan AF has F-16s, Mirage IIIs/Vs and F-7s. How many of them are heavy, light and medium fighters?

The Israeli AF has F-15s and F-16s. How many of them are heavy, light and medium fighters?

I can go on and on.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Feb 2017 22:01

Nirav: I know you (or others) will not have an answer for this question. But I ask anyway. This is a simple matter of cost.

IF the F-Solah, Block 70 is so bloody amazing as you (and others) are claiming it is, then why does'nt the USAF buy them first? Why make the switch to the F-35 which is more expensive than the F-16?

Going by your own logic of the global supply chain for the F-Solah, the USAF should be buying them instead no?