Indian Military Aviation

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Apr 2010 14:17

Dmurphy wrote:Well, technically the Viet Cong did it first. So Pak is just about "following" them and hence not inventing them. They don't deserve the credit meant for "inventors"

This is what you said

Dmurphy wrote:To put things into perspective: What if tomorrow the americans come up with a novel technology that makes soldiers invulnerable in the battlefield? Would you still turn away from that technology and swear not to use it here, just because they got there first?

Dmurphy wrote:I was just giving a hypothetical example to explain how useful and 'unignorable' an invention could be, regardless of who invented it. Period.

You spoke as if a concept of an invincible army that was already invented by lateral thinking earlier was yet to be invented by the Americans and asked if India should not follow if the Americans did that. You completely ignored the fact that that someone other than the Americans had already come up with an innovative solution.

Why is it that American solutions are found unignorable while other solutions are ignored as non existent or useless? I have seen two generations of Indians do that and am seeing a third generation go down that route.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Apr 2010 14:29

Carl_T wrote: In that vein do you think it is necessary to continue with the MCA? I feel it might be redundant with the Pakfa coming.

Absolutely right. MCA plus PAKFA means DRDO has no plans for the future and is simply pulling the wool over our eyes. Either india goes for MCA or FGFA/PAKFA. And you know PAKFA is already flying while MCA is a solid aluminium model. And we have 4.5 gen MRCA coming anyway

We need to get out of this. Cancel MCA. I have not seen a more pointless exercise in recent days. Concentrate on LCA mark 2. Make a good stealthy UCAV Develop good standoff PGMs. Get a good engine for the UCAV. Use a stealthy UCAV to research on how to beat stealth and how to shoot down stealthy intruders. Build a transport aircraft and other categories. Make a good trainer although its already too late for that also.

Or else make MCA into stealthy UCAV

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 Apr 2010 14:35

shiv wrote: Why is it that American solutions are found unignorable while other solutions are ignored as non existent or useless? I have seen two generations of Indians do that and am seeing a third generation go down that route.

Where is the $$ coming from? Shiv, this question cannot be answered in isolation to defense technologies only. But, yes, someone has to say, stop! Think, what makes sense for us, in our time and space and then provide meaningful answers, in context.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Apr 2010 14:51

shiv wrote:Absolutely right. MCA plus PAKFA means DRDO has no plans for the future and is simply pulling the wool over our eyes. Either india goes for MCA or FGFA/PAKFA. And you know PAKFA is already flying while MCA is a solid aluminium model. And we have 4.5 gen MRCA coming anyway

We need to get out of this. Cancel MCA. I have not seen a more pointless exercise in recent days. Concentrate on LCA mark 2. Make a good stealthy UCAV Develop good standoff PGMs. Get a good engine for the UCAV. Use a stealthy UCAV to research on how to beat stealth and how to shoot down stealthy intruders. Build a transport aircraft and other categories. Make a good trainer although its already too late for that also.

Or else make MCA into stealthy UCAV

Makes Perfect Sense

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 28 Apr 2010 17:28

shiv wrote:Or else make MCA into stealthy UCAV

I can see someone's coming around on the UCAV front

*ducks for cover*

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Apr 2010 18:02

I had grave doubts on the MCA front for many years, but chose not express them openly. the design is too advanced
for the current state of our mil-industrial complex - we dont have a reliable and working desi engine yet nor the vast range of ground infra that even china has built up to test planes , stealth, engines etc.

tejas Mk2 will be a doable project and more realistic, while the gee-whiz platform can be the pakfa moulded to our 2seater needs...soak up whatever we can from that and apply to tejas Mk2 and a small strike/sead Ucav based on tejas airframe but a derated engine, less payload and conformal bays, with engine outlet hidden from ground (yf23 style). that will be a good challenge.

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 28 Apr 2010 18:24

shiv wrote:
Carl_T wrote: In that vein do you think it is necessary to continue with the MCA? I feel it might be redundant with the Pakfa coming.

Absolutely right. MCA plus PAKFA means DRDO has no plans for the future and is simply pulling the wool over our eyes. Either india goes for MCA or FGFA/PAKFA. And you know PAKFA is already flying while MCA is a solid aluminium model. And we have 4.5 gen MRCA coming anyway

We need to get out of this. Cancel MCA. I have not seen a more pointless exercise in recent days. Concentrate on LCA mark 2. Make a good stealthy UCAV Develop good standoff PGMs. Get a good engine for the UCAV. Use a stealthy UCAV to research on how to beat stealth and how to shoot down stealthy intruders. Build a transport aircraft and other categories. Make a good trainer although its already too late for that also.

Or else make MCA into stealthy UCAV

Seems like DRDO is over-doing it. They are over-compensating for the depleted strength of aircraft. LCA+ MMRCA+ MCA+ PAK-FA+ more Su 30s. IAF will be overburdened! We'll be having the best aircraft lying around with no pilots to fly them!

As shiv pointed out, DRDO is wasting its resources and money on an aircraft whose role is being fulfilled by PAK-FA.
A Joint Transport Aircraft is being developed, I presume? With Russia?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Apr 2010 19:08

Singha wrote:I had grave doubts on the MCA front for many years, but chose not express them openly. the design is too advanced
for the current state of our mil-industrial complex - we dont have a reliable and working desi engine yet nor the vast range of ground infra that even china has built up to test planes , stealth, engines etc.

I doubt if the Air Force would even take these guys seriously until they deliver on LCA and IJT. After that I think ADA/HAL need to sit with IAF and ask what needs to be developed
a) In the next 10 years
b) Next 20 years
c) next 30 years

For delivery in next 10 years we can only develop using tech we have NOW. No MCA/shem-C-A. No Supercruise. No thrust vectoring. No UCAV. So what's left? Get a goddam UAV in the air first - even that incredibly ugly blue Rustam. Get one friggin engine.

UCAVs should be possible in 20 years. But what munitions do we have to sling on them? Where are our navigation satellites? Where is our transport aircraft building capacity on which we will base future AWACS/refueller? Build one decent reliable transport aircraft first! Get the engine right. No bloody supercruise shoopercrooze. No Thrust vectoring. Get a reliable engine that will run 10,000 hours trouble free. Don't even think of 1 million hours trouble free like CFM 56.

30 years onwards - will there be oil for supecruise? What fuels are we looking at. What space based capability will we have for accurate nav/targeting?

PS and in the meantime for God's sake these guys should do a good job of delivery of upgrades, Su 30s, ALHs, LCAs, Light Helos, IJTs, MRCA and everything else they have their hands in...

And one damn transport a/c please?

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 28 Apr 2010 21:04

IMHO, India's stride in aerospace should be in following order in the next 30 years.

1) Progressing on LCA front in several iterations like how F-16 and Mirage turned out. This includes engine tech and different iterations that can be retrofitted into existing airframes as engine upgrades.

2) Different classes of UAVs. When more or less on path to induction, look into weaponising same UAVs.

3) Training aides and related subsystems, like fusing a simulated environment into the cockpit. Say a projector inside sets up an incoming missile or bullets streaking across the canopy to train the pilots to take evasive manoeuvres. These to be retrofitted into existing trainers.

4) When 3) is maturing come up with plans to replace different classes of trainers existing at that time. IJT and AJT class can be built around engine used by LCA; so that early Gen engines from LCA can be used in trainers to maximise ROI.

5) different subsystem upgrades to existing aircrafts like Su-30 MKI and achieve subsystem commonality. Though I believe we are more or less on this path

6) Cruise missiles and associated engine tech (turbo fan, scram jet, yada yada)

6) Precision guided munitions from mortars, artillery shells, rockets to bombs. Preferably units that can turn current dumb rounds to guided rounds.

7) assorted satellites to support above and more. Indigenous launch vehicles (reusable) for all payload classes.

8 ) Next generation (defined by us) combat aircraft. Depending on maturity of technology and requirements, can decide if to be manned stealth fighter or a stealthy dedicated UCAV.

9) different classes of transport aircraft using same engine. Engine iterations will facilitate upgrades to all.

10) Non conventional fuel to replace conventional aviation fuel. New fuel to be compatible with existing engines (least possible modifications). However, I believe this will be part of larger effort to wean away from petroleum.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 28 Apr 2010 21:17

^ plasma engines should also be researched.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2010 21:27

IMHO:
1) Communication skills: written, spoken, email, listening. Top notch English/Hindi/local language. No Bollywood/Mumbai language influence (It would behoove even bloggers to take courses in English. I find them writing pretty bad articles. Or hire English majors to write your articles/posts. KS, during those nuclear wars, was an excellent example of a person who had ideas and could not convey them well enough)
2) Management: project, people research-to-product, publish paper (start top notch publications) and Vision/strategy
3) R&D in related fields (met, structural, materials, electronics, etc, etc, etc). Start from ground up, no short cuts
4) Supply chain
5) Other

In that order. Build it with 2025/30 in mind.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Apr 2010 21:47

shiv wrote:Cross post - reply to OT post in LCA thread
..... The F-35 is the last manned fighter that will be developed by the US .......

Shiv. You are an old timer, by any yardstick.

You must have heard of the Meccano Magazine. For those who have not, Meccano was a game with a large number of different perforated parts (strips, plates, flats) rods, ears motors etc. to be put together by nuts and bolts. It was a very popular hobby especially in UK upto perhaps 1970s or maybe 1980s. There used to the Meccano Magazine for the Meccano fans, like our BR. Meccano Magazine had a section on Air News.

Air News gave an article that the P 1 would be the last manned fighter and soon all tasks would be taken by missiles

This article was published in Air News of Meccano Magazine sometime in late 1950s !!

The P 1 aircraft was christened Lightning.

So today when anyone (everyone) says that F XYZ would be the last manned combat I become cynical and super sceptical

In a clean condition Lightning could exceed Mach 1 in level flight / shallow dive WITHOUT afterburning. (In 1960s)
Hey Yankees what's that new word super-some, some super soemthing ahhahahha it is called sssuupperrrcruise !!!

When Pakistan got Mirage IIIE / V, IAF wanted a Mach 2 aircraft. IAF was considering the Lightnings.
When IAF wanted Lighting in the 1960s, the Britishers said NO, this aircraft is too advanced and sophisticated for you.
When IAF wanted Tornado in the 1980s, the Britishers said NO, this aircraft is too advanced and sophisticated for you
When IAF wants a super advanced aircraft in 2012 the Britishers are saying "Please go for the Eurofighter. It is the most advanced and sophisticated for you !!!

RAF retired Lightnings in 1988. In 2018 IAF may be still flying the MiG 21

The Lightnijng is probably the ONLY all British supersonic combat aircraft.

Kersi

PS I hope I have not bored you to much

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Apr 2010 21:52

Kersibhai it takes old codgers to remember history. As my kids say - history was current affairs when my dad was young. This "last manned fighter" rhetoric is like "This is my last drink" or "This is my last fling before I go back to my wife forever"

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Apr 2010 22:00

shiv wrote: Kersibhai it takes old codgers to remember history. As my kids say - history was current affairs when my dad was young. This "last manned fighter" rhetoric is like "This is my last drink" or "This is my last fling before I go back to my wife forever"

You must learn history on your own or else history teaches you, at times in a very nasty way !!!

I hated history in school but now I really know that "history repeats itself"

Kersi

I Like that phrase "This is my last fling before I go back to my wife forever". I must remember it. It will be useful one day.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 29 Apr 2010 19:16

IAF's radars 'inadequate, obsolete': MPs' panel

The committee was also "surprised" that none of the Air Defence Ground Environment System (ADGES) plans prepared after 1971 had been approved by the government "although some components have been sanctioned a piece-mean basis".

"The fact that additional radars are being procured itself indicates that the present position regarding planned hours versus what is actually being achieved is not adequate for proper air defence of the country,"

it said.

Ankit

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Apr 2010 21:48

Ankit Desai wrote:IAF's radars 'inadequate, obsolete': MPs' panel

The committee was also "surprised" that none of the Air Defence Ground Environment System (ADGES) plans prepared after 1971 had been approved by the government "although some components have been sanctioned a piece-mean basis".

hey, we are buying 10 C-17s for $5.8 billion, that will prevent the hostile aircraft from flying in.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Apr 2010 22:50

putnanja wrote:
The committee was also "surprised" that none of the Air Defence Ground Environment System (ADGES) plans prepared after 1971 had been approved by the government "although some components have been sanctioned a piece-mean basis".
hey, we are buying 10 C-17s for $5.8 billion, that will prevent the hostile aircraft from flying in.

Yes they will fly around in circles and spell boo...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Apr 2010 06:17

With Chinese moving on to 5th gen with stealth we will not need radars. They will be worthless anyway no??? Why spend money on outdated concepts? (We need not worry about Pakistan or they will also get stealth from 3.5)

The question is worded sacrcastically but is a serious one and I will not mock and be waiting to knock down the answer with a "Ha Ha you are wrong" if anyone takes a shot at replying..

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Apr 2010 09:52

Wow interesting thing about Pakistan fizzaiya and Pakistan.

Pakistan has 3.5 benefactors.

China's fighter that is assembled in pakistan from CKD kits - and which does not have radars or avionics yet - the JF-17 Bandar is a 3.5 gen aircraft!

LOL!

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 30 Apr 2010 16:47

Shivji, I had noticed this similar to US approach in the future Indian missiles talk by Dr. Saraswat, and had a similar discussion with one of my aero-freak friends. He said this, the US achievements serve as a benchmark for technological progress till you reach the cutting edge, since India is a long way to go to reach cutting edge on various fronts of aero engg. This approach is being carried out!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Apr 2010 17:13

K Mehta wrote:Shivji, I had noticed this similar to US approach in the future Indian missiles talk by Dr. Saraswat, and had a similar discussion with one of my aero-freak friends. He said this, the US achievements serve as a benchmark for technological progress till you reach the cutting edge, since India is a long way to go to reach cutting edge on various fronts of aero engg. This approach is being carried out!

I don't want to/cannot dispute the fact that the US is often the leader. But let me also point out that India, of all countries has a population who are "more prone' to following a US lead and less prone to thinking about how to defeat the US because we fundamentally see the US as an ally, on our side. My father and I studied in the US no? My son is working in the US no? In Silicon valley no? I have to go there and see my grandson no? Indians see the US as a friend and award leadership to the US and take the benign approach that it is OK for us to copy and remain a generation behind. This is a bit like the Brits "handing over" to the US. We the commonwealth follow this Brit tendency. The US is now our spiritual leader.

But as has been discussed time and again the US leads because it wants leadership and will keep anyone down, including India if its own position is threatened.

The only countries who have theratened the US (or even checkmated, restricted or defeated the US) are countries who have been unwilling to award the US with the automatic certificate of "leader" that we give the US (Yes even our scientific establishment does that). Once you start seeing the US as a threat or a competitor you will always start thinking of how to defeat what the US does. Till then you will only watch with gaping mouth as we do.

If the US gets stealth, you must think of how to defeat stealth. If the US gets a satellite system to navigate - think of how to defeat the US's satellite system. And finally the ultimate game - if the US wants nuclear war, give the US nuclear war. The USSR did that. China did that. The US's advancements must be studied not just because they are leaders. We must imagine what we are going to do if the latest US tech is gifted to our foes. We spend hours whining on the strat forum blaming an MMS for softness. But the rest of India too is soft in the head. We automatically credit the US with leadership and do not even open our minds to methods of defeating US tech. Note that if you watch the US's every move and do your own research to develop antidotes/counters to US moves - you can develop a huge market. But as long as all we want to do is "follow the US' and copy the US why blame someone else for being soft. We just don't have it in us. How stupid can an entire nation be to get hit by US arms in 1965, in 1971 and again in 1999 and still believe that the US is a benign leader to be followed.

I am banging my head against a wall here. it is not about forum members. Indian think this way we all love and slobber after the US and cannot even get ourselves to think "Hey those jokers have a stealthy supercurise aircraft. How can I spoil his fun and shoot it down?"

Instead people all the way up to Saraswat accept that US is leader. I know why Saraswat talks that way because I have some ("up close and personal") insights into his background, although he does not know me. Once you take the operational rule to be "US is leader" you are ruling out all possibility of doing or thinking anything to usurp that leadership. Vietnam was better than us. Russia and China are leagues ahead. We are slaves of the first order as a nation. We will not move forward one millimeter by giving a walkover to anyone especially the US.

Indian have no brains. We appoint Saraswats and Arunachalams - the latter is/was a Prof in the US. All have relatives in the US or live there of visit the US for personal reasons. How can they even think anything bad and plan anti-US weapons? . You call MMS a traitor? We are all traitors because we all wear blinkers. It angers me greatly. We don't even have thinking patriots in the research establishments who can think "OK we may not want to hit the US but we must defeat anyone with US arms"

We people rant about the elite being traitors, We are the elite traitors ourselves, as are our own relatives and friends. We will not admit it, thats all. I have a very close friend - and NRI milionaire in the US whose *** <first degree relative> is a very high up advisor to the GoI on defence issues. Now that man will never advise GoI to fund reserach into US-tech defeating weapons. Only Kalam was able to do that. So how do we lead by following? We wll never be leaders until we tread our own lonely path, tearing down those who currently lead by doing anything to bring down their lead. But that is not in our slaving Macaulayite DNA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Apr 2010 17:55

If you are a defence advisor in India and you think like an American you will say "The latest and best is supercruise, stealth, UCAV which the US has therefore we need that"

But if you are a defence advisor and think like an Indian you will say "The latest and best is supercruise, stealth, UCAV which the US has. We don't have it and the US already has it. The US may be our friend, but they make money from our foes who will buy US tech. So I must plan first to defeat US tech and in the long term learn to emulate the US"

Does any Indian defence planner ever think like this? If not it only goes to show how Indians en masse suffer from a deep degree of Americanitis with slavery in our jugulars.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 30 Apr 2010 19:27

Shivji, you're so right that it hurts.

It is shameful that we don't even have the courage to openly talk of building anti-satellite weapons. Instead, we take pride in possessing the "building blocks", like there is a Lego competition going on. Assuming we have everything necessary, why be so annoyingly modest? And if we still had one or two components to prepare, why not just say that we plan to have the weapon? I'm quite certain we could launch the weapon into the emptiness of space with a simple reflector that unfurls as the "warhead", so that multiple earth-based radars could triangulate the exact location of the missile and confirm that it is bang on an imaginary target. Is that so hard for a country that sent Chandrayaan to the moon? Absolutely not! Just prove that we have the capability and maintain a voluntary moratorium on live tests. It would achieve deterrence.

Also, have we any production-ready EMP warheads? Have we tested these? If not, why not?

Sorry for being off-topic, but posts that good deserve a response IMHO.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 30 Apr 2010 19:37

shiv wrote:The only countries who have theratened the US (or even checkmated, restricted or defeated the US) are countries who have been unwilling to award the US with the automatic certificate of "leader" that we give the US (Yes even our scientific establishment does that). Once you start seeing the US as a threat or a competitor you will always start thinking of how to defeat what the US does. Till then you will only watch with gaping mouth as we do.

Shiv though I truly understand the point of view, but there are few things that I learned from my job.

1. You would always be a follower before you take the lead
2. Even when one leads, he still may be a follower
3. If I am a lean & unhealthy person, announcing to the bully that I am going to beat him tomorrow is the last thing I would do. First is survival. Second stand up then walk and last run fast.

In the world I still am yet to see a country which threatened US the super power and has become a leader. Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and even India in NAM. I am yet to see a nation which still believes they can threaten US without its own peril. Look what Russia does today, it just creates irritants but still does not directly challenge US. China after all the economic and the rising military clout is no where near US. All the wise nations, unlike Iran and Venezuela, does is create impediments and extract concession from US. The best example would be the Iran nuclear crisis.

Even in academic and R&D, I am yet to see book shops filled with any other than Western books, which just shows the gap that we need to cover. The level of quality of the writing is another one. It would need 100's of Abdul Kalams, Homi J Bhabha, Ratan Tatas in each and every field not just to take the lead but to even to reduce the gap. But then you would already know where I would next point to get it all corrected.

What I hate the most is, by the time Indians get there, I would be long gone; all left of me would be just dust.

I am impatient and if could have a wish, I would like it to happen now, in front of my eyes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Apr 2010 19:51

Correct PratikDas and there is a philosophical point here. People love the term "cutting edge". And we in India seem to relate to the term cutting edge in the following manner: "Cutting edge is over there so I want to be over there". This is actually an idiotic argument but just try and argue with anyone who makes that argument. He will tell you that you are stupid and that you don't want to be at the cutting edge.

It only reveals lack of clarity of thought and the mindset of a person who has been indoctrinated to look for a leader and follow that leader. I will try and explain that:

Imagine a continuous and everlasting running race in which one particular person is leading. The person who is leading can see several paths ahead of him. One leading left, one leading right, one leading up, one leading down, one rocky, another thorny etc. Since he is the leaders he makes a decision about which path he is going to take. Until he makes that decision, he does not know where cutting edge is going to be. But once he decides - it is cutting edge. It is not the only path - but in the leader's judgement it is the best for him. And because he is leader, we call that path as "cutting edge" and any thoughts of other paths as "not cutting edge"

The people who are following can also see the other paths provided they keep their eyes open. They could, if they wanted, take another path, a path that the leader has not taken and then become leader in that alternate path. In fact it might be that the leader takes the difficult uphill path but the person who is second takes a rocky but downhill path. The real life parallels to this are the F-16 and the MiG 29. Both classics in their own right - of the 1980s (more than 20 years ago). The US went down the fly-by-wire path. Russia went down the analog path with the best aerodynamics they could find.

This happened because Russia was not running behind the US watching the US's ass, ready to follow the "leader"

Indians have got their eyes fixated on the USs musharraf. They will not look ahead or to any side to see if there are alternate rocky paths, high paths, low paths etc. For India, the only path to follow is the path that the US's musharraf has covered in the past. How can we lead? It is easy to follow the person who is at the cutting edge and think you will get there. But you will never overtake him unless you sidestep the path the leader is taking and take a path that the leader has not yet had a chance to follow. But that requires a bigger thinking effort and possibly bigger risk than following the musharraf of the person in front, which is all that we indians seem to want to do. We name a guru and then recall our ancient texts and tell each other sanctimoniously "It is good to follow the Guru no?" Once we designate someone as Guru, we are afraid to question him but bold enough to bash down anyone else from our side who questions him.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Apr 2010 20:00

JimmyJ wrote: Even in academic and R&D, I am yet to see book shops filled with any other than Western books, which just shows the gap that we need to cover. The level of quality of the writing is another one. It would need 100's of Abdul Kalams, Homi J Bhabha, Ratan Tatas in each and every field not just to take the lead but to even to reduce the gap. But then you would already know where I would next point to get it all corrected.

Things are actually not so bad when Indians allow themselves to break Western set rules. It happens all the time in medicine. But Indian doctors will get their musharrafs rapped if they admit what they are doing in journals. Probably happening in other fields that I don't know about. But we need to stop imagining that we can't lead by doing something different from the US. This in fact is a self imposed "White man's burden". The white man has the burden of bringing us up to scratch because we have anointed him with thought leadership. We come up with excuses like "We must be followers before we become leaders". We never set a time limit that says, my life may last only 40 years more from today. I will follow for 10 more years and then I will do something different. And we remain followers for generations.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Apr 2010 20:15

one cannot deny that america has the worlds biggest and best collection of univs for foreign students . that is why since decades india has been sending
a lot of students there.

a lot of local indians also work for american cos (though really they are mnc's but HQed in america). even those who dont work have relatives who work
or who are settled in america.

academic collaboration from here is probably most with america.

pretty much ALL of our business leaders and political elites had an education abroad - chairman of cipla, both the ambanis, adi godrej,
harsh goenka, MMS, PC, analjit singh, Ratan tata -- pretty much 100% in US or UK.

america is the biggest trading partner in exports. and probably the biggest source of technology and FDI transfers.

where are you going to find someone in any position of power (let alone a strong national elite cabal) who will work day and night to
break the image and work out ways and means to checkmate all of american weapons of war ?

the +ve side I see is the younger generation may wear Levi's and guzzle coke but they have their own mind and no fear and awe of the
goras unlike our parental generation. they will take what they can and then use it themselves. as you know the penetration of
western 'value systems' in our society is very minimal and superficial. underneath the jeans and t-shirts the india mentality is still
strong.

as the country develops in physical infra and material possessions, the awe of looking at america's musharaff will die its
natural death.

I am sure someone in say singapore or south korea, slogging in some rice field 30 yrs ago were in our same avg possession.
today they dont need to feel lacking in anything.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Apr 2010 20:19

Singha wrote: where are you going to find someone in any position of power (let alone a strong national elite cabal) who will work day and night to
break the image and work out ways and means to checkmate all of american weapons of war ?

Exactly my point. Its not just MMS who is the traitor is it? How easy is it to point fingers. We are sold out to America as a nation.

GD - let me make an OT observation. You used to post on BR after using a wacko editor that made your posts appear narrow and long. A similar disease is now back with the new forum software - your posts have weird line breaks.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 30 Apr 2010 21:32

The single simple issue is that we do not know paranoia... despite having 2 nuke armed neighbors on either side... 3000 saal pehle they ... 3000 saal aur rahenge that kinda mentality, coupled with the unnecessary deluded forced unenlightened reverence to Gandhian philosophy and Nehruvian peaceniks makes paranoia impossible...
The other thing is global exposure... we havent yet understood how the new integrated world works...lets face it... we are a modern nation with an ancient population... look at China,Japan... they have destroyed the old order....Mao did it his way... WW2 did away with the Meijis... so they started afresh... we on the other hand have escaped that, hence we are all over the place... there is no linear progress... no clear goal... Some1 from Guntur will think that his passport to the US is the best deal for him... some1 from a city like Mumbai will feel the US is no big deal and will try his luck here... boils down to how exposure shapes your mind and expectations and the idea of what can be done and achieved.
We need paranoia... something behind our musharrafs... wasnt it Boycott who said.. why does ur cricket team need coaches.. u just need some1 to kick the backside of ur talented folks...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Apr 2010 21:47

Hmmm ... I came here to read about Indian Military Aviation ... I see a lot of "India should" and "India shouldn't" OT stuff! get back to aviation guys!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2010 21:49

shiv wrote: Absolutely right. MCA plus PAKFA means DRDO has no plans for the future and is simply pulling the wool over our eyes. Either india goes for MCA or FGFA/PAKFA. And you know PAKFA is already flying while MCA is a solid aluminium model. And we have 4.5 gen MRCA coming anyway

We need to get out of this. Cancel MCA. I have not seen a more pointless exercise in recent days. Concentrate on LCA mark 2. Make a good stealthy UCAV Develop good standoff PGMs. Get a good engine for the UCAV. Use a stealthy UCAV to research on how to beat stealth and how to shoot down stealthy intruders. Build a transport aircraft and other categories. Make a good trainer although its already too late for that also.

Or else make MCA into stealthy UCAV

The number of assumptions made in this post and the categorical prescriptions that follow from it are mind-boggling. A) That the PAK-FA and MCA do essentially the same role - in which case why does the IAF differentiate between the MKI and MRCA, and that

DRDO is pushing this and C) A good stealthy UCAV is more required than a MCA

This article http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/04/ ... ombat.html
Clearly confirms that the push for the MCA comes from teh fact that huge numbers of mid-weight IAF fighters would retire and need to be replaced with something better suited for the next gen of threats.

So the assumption that the MCA is pointless and pushed by the DRDO alone is clearly wrong.

Next, is the prescription that a UCAV be made and it is somehow tied to the MCA - a UCAV is being in fact made but it is a mandate for the ADE team which is developing Rustom and Nishant and maturing UAV technology before it adds the C in UAV. It is not ADAs mandate.

Third, a "good LCA MK2" is being made - the issue is of the IAF not settling for a "good LCA MK1" which as it stands is already superior to several IAF platforms and only going for the best.

Fourth: Transport aircraft projects are currently led by HAL (MRTA) and NAL (RTA etc), again ADAs role is of a systems provider/ design assistant

So these are not tied to the MCA.

Making combat aircraft and then retaining those capabilities is a painstaking exercise. India screwed up the first time by relying on similar conclusions about the future and letting aircraft development die out after the Marut,. and to make the same mistake again, would be criminal.

Otherwise we might just hand over aircraft production to the Russians and why even persist with the farce that 25% or 30% workshare will come our way. Even the MMRCA will bring us TOT and 50% in offsets. Just hand them the money and be done with it. Talk about being colonized.

On the one hand, you make the claim that we have to be superior to the US...OTOH, you propose cutting off the knees of programs that give us the very technologies the west has so zealously guarded and does not want to share. How can India develop counter stealth technologies if it has no stealth of its own? How can it make next gen systems when the basic building blocks of technology are unavailable. And then the claim that Saraswat is somehow beholden to the west and "follows" the US. On what basis is this claim made? Nowhere in the umpteen presentations that Saraswat has made has he talked of mimicking or following the US. However his BMD program is as ambitious in some respects as that of the US. Just because Saraswat speaks of possible ABL does not mean it is the same as that of the US. If that were the case, there would be no PAD/AAD or AD-1 or AD-2 or PDV. These are unique solutions because Saraswat and his team developed them for scratch for Indian requirements.

Its quite ironic that on the one hand we talk of matching excelling the west, and on the other dismiss the very people who dont look upto the west for guidance but chart their own path as being western in thought etc merely because they chart their own path.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 30 Apr 2010 22:04

On the topic of copying the US, just to note that the US has had only 2 fighter types, in about 5 years it will be 4 types, and when the earlier ones retire it will be back to two. Compared to that the IAF is running a zoo.

Mrinal wrote:

The number of assumptions made in this post and the categorical prescriptions that follow from it are mind-boggling. A) That the PAK-FA and MCA do essentially the same role - in which case why does the IAF differentiate between the MKI and MRCA, and that DRDO is pushing this and C) A good stealthy UCAV is more required than a MCA

In that case can you tell us what the role of the MCA is such that the PakFa, LCA, and MMRCA cannot accomplish operationally? Why is a middle plane needed? If we look at the USAF, they only have a light/heavy combination for fighters.

These projects are tied to the MCA because resources devoted to developing the MCA can be used more efficiently elsewhere, to daydream a little bit - More variants of Tejas - Tejas stealth version, Tejas UCAV, Tejas EW, ENGINE etc. We could also develop anti-sat weapons that can be mounted on fighter planes (US invention!)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2010 22:21

The biggest problem India faces is mastering the value chain. Doing so required decades of persistent effort. Something such as a UAV is easy to mention, but nations such as the UK which has a far more comprehensive aeronautical setup than India, have struggled with them. So much so that it currently relies on Israeli UAVs and BAe is now getting back into the UAV game with Herti et al. The steps required at every stage of aircraft design and development (D&D) are zealously guarded. Each time tested way to do something "better" ie faster adds upto competitive advantage. Companies and national research houses maintain databases of aerodynamic and systems tests conducted over decades at massive cost. India has to see all these steps before it grows a generation of people (who like the Saraswats will be in their 50's and 60's) who will then be familiar with all the stages of this process. The aim is to then codify the knowledge and make it institutional for the next generation of leaders to step up and continue. This has little to do with "following the west" or "following the east". In the years following WW2, NATO and Warsaw Pact countries both did everything they could to take each others IP, whereas the "tiger economies" of the east rose on borrowed IP as much as they did thanks to their own hard work and persistence. The problem is and has been that India adopted an economic model that stifled its rate of growth and left it saddled with a limited economic capability to match the dreams of its technologists. Its all very well to dream of a hyperplane superior to what the west dreams, in the 80's. But then the dream lies in a dusty cabinet because the Govt cannot afford even test flights with a representative model. Furthermore, there is no overarching Aeronautics Commission in India which can lead long term planning for strategic projects and programs. The end result is a huge mess wherein multiple levels of Govt are involved for the simplest of things. Folks interested in seeing the effort that goes into functional project management may check the layered IGMDP model, which had representation from almost all sections of GOI to make things work.

To summarize - there is no easy way out. Whether India likes it or not, it will have to work its elbow grease on multiple programs, learn its lessons and apply them. This means consistent effort and iterative development without any gaps. A LCA MK1, followed by a MK2, followed by a MK3...followed by a MCA...and so on and so forth are essential. Only then can Indian designers innovate and start coming up with new and innovative products because they have all the basic understanding and systems at their fingertips.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2010 22:36

In that case can you tell us what the role of the MCA is such that the PakFa, LCA, and MMRCA cannot accomplish operationally? Why is a middle plane needed? If we look at the USAF, they only have a light/heavy combination for fighters.

Its ironic that in the midst of a conversation which focuses on how Indians ape the US, the above statement pops up, asking why we should not do what the US does! India does not believe in a light/heavy combination of fighters. That is because it needs a mix of capabilities which the above combo does not provide. The US will have (even after retirement of the earlier ones) several hundred F-15s along with 187 F-22s. They are going to be backed up by over a thousand F-16s iteratively replaced by F-35s. To support this massive fleet (and check the weight of the F-35, its no light fighter but has the highest thrust engine ever developed for its weight) the US fields a plethora of AWACs, ESM support, refuellers etc. Plus it has bombers!

In India with a 39.5 squadron cap, we have opted for a mix of light-medium-heavy for our tactical requirements. The light LCAs will mostly meet Pak, whereas the medium-heavy fleet can be used against deeper PRC assets. The medium offers a lot of the capability of the heavy fleet with lesser operational costs. The IAF's budget is not infinite.

Given that, the replacement for medium weight fighters needs to be something similar in terms of weight (and operational costs) but more capable. The MCA is intended to be that system.

As to why the PAKFA and MMRCA/LCA cannot hold their own in the future, they can, but you will have to pay through the nose to surround them with support assets ..the PRC is setting up one of the world's most expensive and capable SAM networks with layers of defences. Long range PGMs/CMs are expensive. Relying on conventional 4-4.5 G aircraft, armed with limited range munitions against a network which will encompass even tactical air support is going to be deadly. Like it or not, RCS reduced platforms will be required.

Unmanned systems can assist but they cannot replace the capabilities of manned systems given current and projected limitations in bandwith, realtime processing and decision making and complex decision making.

It is the same reason why the US is investing so much time and effort in the JSF despite having the option of iteratively developing the F-15, F-16 and even the F/A-18 E/F which last aircraft, is essentially a new build aircraft.

The era of manned cheap "Gnats" is effectively over in the Indian subcontinent given the kind of systems that are in place and are being put in place. The Israelis, are wary of the S-300 system, the IAF faces batteries of the S-300 PMU2 already.

These projects are tied to the MCA because resources devoted to developing the MCA can be used more efficiently elsewhere, to daydream a little bit - More variants of Tejas - Tejas stealth version, Tejas UCAV, Tejas EW, ENGINE etc. We could also develop anti-sat weapons that can be mounted on fighter planes (US invention!)

Again, mistaken! Resources tied to the MCA will not get used up in entirety for future products of limited scale you envisage. If these are not used, these capabilities built up with so much effort via the LCA will wither away and only laments will be heard later, with ample finger pointing on who exactly was to blame!

Furthermore, the IAF has never asked for "LCA stealth" or "LCA EW" - by the way, how exactly can the LCA have the power generation capability and loiter of a dedicated EW platform! I would rather look at something like the AN-32 or IL-76 or MKI for a dedicated jamming role.

The MCA is driven by IAF requirements of a medium weight aircraft which is sophisticated enough to meet credible threats and is reliant on local technology, ergo local product support and upgrade ability. The alternative is to import and kiss goodbye to operational sovereignty unless you make significant concessions elsewhere. India is no Israel where topup munitions stocks and airframes will be flown in during the middle of conflict, with say Pak or PRC

The MCA is the culmination of India's efforts to develop a worldclass aviation industry, I find it bizarre that claims are made that it be shut down for the benefit of a PAKFA - the same manner in which "aluminium models" of HF-24 Maruts follow ons were derided while we went for the "sensible" option of licensing Jaguars and MiG-27s, only to be caught with the realization 2 decades late, that we had been subsidizing other folks aircraft industry's and effectively cooked our own goose.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Apr 2010 22:47

I had a aha moment, I think I now know who Mrinal is (w.r.t. a prior incarnation). The posting style is similar and so the knowledge base. (I wonder if others also realize)

--------------------------------

Mrinal; I think what Shiv is saying has nothing to do with what you are. It is quite all right to put your shoulder on the wheel and what not. (I will also agree that probably DRDO rank and file dont think that they are following the US)

However you err in looking at this as a DRDO alone problem. In combination with the forces and the MoD -- a clear cut charter has to be made.

This is what we can do completely in house, this need JV assistance and this we must acquire, the above judgments must be made in context of a FULLY developed product and a fully developed time lines.

While there is ample need and space for science projects (which are critical) -- it is time that we make and stick with what we can make in house. With Marut, to use your example we failed primarily because what Shiv said, depedence on outside. The engine killed the Marut. The British made sure the Egyptians could not deliever and they themselves would not give us the engines. Dr Shiv does not that (as I am sure you know that he knows)

IF the Marut was designed with a engine which was also within Indian capabilities, instead of trying for something as Ambitious as Marut, we would have Marut flying (albiet a plane generation behind the worlds best then) AND then on that Base Marut II could be made instead of landing in a situation that we jump from Marut to Tejas.

We Indians are trying to hop to the standards set by the leaders, and fall in between. Can we not instead trot by a different path? After all Gnat continued to serve us for such a long time, perhaps we should have tried a Gnat (type) first instead of Marut?

Shiv's point is valid, a ecosystem development and what not is all fine. But in the end, what is needed is a fully Indian product and their is no need for it to be so called "world class" all it has to be is a "Indian class to take on the world"

This is not about DRDO (a point which always makes you needlessly touchy) but the entire way our Armed forces + MoD does business today.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2010 23:07

I think you are mistaking with me someone else but lets get to the meat of your post.

I fail to get your point and its not about being touchy about DRDO or Army or Navy or whatever - some gentleman on another forum was advising me that private industry is capitalist and responsible about the Maoists and disagreeing with me there as well.

Furthermore, I dont get your post.

You then speak of a "Gnat type" first - yes, it was indeed tried. It was called the Ajeet. A few are now desultorily parked all around India at various junctions being the target of pigeons.

The Marut was in entirety different. It was a chance to develop our own aircraft not modify someone elses (Flightglobal has a good series of articles on the Gnat) - well, we blew it. All I can find about the Marut are references to this website, and some German ones.

Shiv is talking of "being Indian and not being western" and always being the follower. He then quotes the MCA. He then speaks of various other things. Problem is none of these things logically flow together.

To be innovative, you first have to know the basics. Then after learning the basics, you have to start doing something thereafter. And then continue. After a period of time, you have a team of people comfortable enough to start taking risks.

After the Marut, the LCA is the next "class". The logical conclusion is the MCA. Cancelling the MCA is akin to telling a kid that he'll be in twelfth forever and need not start preparing for college entrance.

Then you speak of an "Indian class to take on the world" - this so called Indian class will not develop unless Indians are all over the place, doing all the things the "west" did. Or the "east". I am a big fan of the Chinese - they dont sit and squabble about such theories, they just go ahead and do it.

Whole world mocked them for decades over their "junk" - they didnt give a damn and copied, purchased whatever they could and made that Flying Dragon-10 or whatever. Now they are making next gen variants while planning for their version of the MCA. I'd quite certainly bet their first Flying Dragons were not anything great, but they are still around and the Chinese will not let quixotic debates stop them from what is being done.

My point is "being Indian" or anything has little to do with a topic where "being Korean", "being Taiwanese" and "being Japanese" can all equally work when you learn from whatever is out there and keep at the job..

Which is why I support the NAL SARAS program as well, regrettable crash aside, if it kickstarts the development of a series of passenger aircraft in India, well we are all better off for it, especially if Mahindra also gets into the business in a large way.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Apr 2010 23:12

Carl_T wrote: In that case can you tell us what the role of the MCA is such that the PakFa, LCA, and MMRCA cannot accomplish operationally? Why is a middle plane needed? If we look at the USAF, they only have a light/heavy combination for fighters.

Why do we presume that we know everything here. Hell, most of us dont know 1/10th of the parts of a plane, nor have we ever operated even a midget of a plane, or do we understand the logistics of providing the gamut of operations undertaken by the IAF. Can somebody come out and give me a comprehensive strategy for build up and operations. Then why do we come up such statements as what is the role of the MCA. Hell, wouldnt the IAF/DRDO know more?!!! Why are we pretending to always know more. Or are we saying that we are bigger nationalists/patriots/visionaries?

Carl_T wrote:
These projects are tied to the MCA because resources devoted to developing the MCA can be used more efficiently elsewhere, to daydream a little bit - More variants of Tejas - Tejas stealth version, Tejas UCAV, Tejas EW, ENGINE etc. We could also develop anti-sat weapons that can be mounted on fighter planes (US invention!)

with all due respect, are you saying that these projects would be easier than developing the MCA! There is always that criticism that we developed LCA in 2 decades, but how much of a knowledge gap have we bridged in this 2 decades. A LOT !!! And all this knowledge would go into developing the MCA, which IMHO is the next logical step! Other people took that step ahead of us to go stealth, doesn't make it illogical, does it? I don't understand the logic, "Hell we would go with non-stealthy planes, and beat the crap out of stealthy planes". Can somebody enlighten me how are we going to achieve this? Any idea would greatly enhance my knowledge! What will your kill vehicle look for which your opponent stealth vehicle cant search for in you? Its simple, isn't it. You have to suppress your signatures to stop yourself from getting hit before you can fire something. VOILA what else are we speaking of rather than stealth itself!

Somebody might say, put up big radars (read AEWACs) and detect them at 300 kms away. Using data from the AEWAC, guide the missile to the target! The biggest problem is when the other guy has AEWACS in the air too. He would notice you more quickly than when your AEWAC notices his fighters!

GEtting back to the day dreams:
Tejas stealth version: When would we say that it is stealth? If it attains the stealth levels of EF, we will say, ARGHH it's a 4th gen stealth fighter. hat do we do with it 15 years from now! If we want 5th gen stealth, we might need to design ground up once again. How different will it be from developing the MCA!!!

Tejas Engine: well there is no new development for the MCA engines apart from the Kaveri which we want on our LCAs

Tejas UCAV: Name one technology that is being developed for our MALE which would not be required by the Tejas UCAV? Let us get there first! Then you can get it into Tejas, if you want a true-blue fighter UCAV. That will be a logical step forward from the Rustom, with more complex aerodynamics, weapons suite, control, range (literally everything). Besides, present day UCAVs are more like high altitude reconnaissance vehicles. What is the role that a Tejas UCAV that you want to see? Would we settle for anything less than what the LCA can do without the pilot in it? Oh and then since it would not always be loitering in at 30,000 ft, so it has to be stealth! So sir you are asking for tech, which is beyond countries who are decades ahead of us in avionics/aerodynamics.

Day dreaming is fine. But accusing other people that our day dreams are not coming alive as fast as we want is something else!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Apr 2010 23:20

Mrinal wrote:You then speak of a "Gnat type" first - yes, it was indeed tried. It was called the Ajeet. A few are now desultorily parked all around India at various junctions being the target of pigeons.

Ajeet was not Gnat type. Ajeet WAS Gnat. A Bison to Mig 21.

What I meant was NOT modification of existing design. But perhaps something a generation behind if need be.

The Marut was in entirety different. It was a chance to develop our own aircraft not modify someone elses (Flightglobal has a good series of articles on the Gnat) - well, we blew it. All I can find about the Marut are references to this website, and some German ones.

Which was because of the engine. You know that right?

Which was because we couldnt make the engine for Marut.

After the Marut, the LCA is the next "class".

Is it? I am not sure. Marut and LCA are separated by something like 20 years. What lies in between in actually Mig 21.

The logical conclusion is the MCA. Cancelling the MCA is akin to telling a kid that he'll be in twelfth forever and need not start preparing for college entrance.

Fine, the problem is that we DONT have a all Indian LCA today. You want some one to appear for college entrance when he does not know when he will clear 12th?

I think he needs to KNOW for sure when he clears 12th

Then you speak of an "Indian class to take on the world" - this so called Indian class will not develop unless Indians are all over the place, doing all the things the "west" did. Or the "east". I am a big fan of the Chinese - they dont sit and squabble about such theories, they just go ahead and do it....

Which is exactly what Shiv is saying. They can Make a Mig 21 derivative completely in house (of course assisted by generous cheating) and have no strings attached in that product from outside (strictly not true but you get the point)

NO MCA till we have a 100% Indian LCA. If you want to improve, improve that first. (BTW I think India can do both LCA and MCA) its just that we are jumping too much.

Which is why I support the NAL SARAS program as well, regrettable crash aside, if it kickstarts the development of a series of passenger aircraft in India, well we are all better off for it, especially if Mahindra also gets into the business in a large way.

Which is fully fine -- just let it be a FULLY Indian product. Do it with your hands and in a way that the timelines converge and there are no remaining strings attached.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Apr 2010 23:22

Quote: KMehta

"Shivji, I had noticed this similar to US approach in the future Indian missiles talk by Dr. Saraswat, and had a similar discussion with one of my aero-freak friends. He said this, the US achievements serve as a benchmark for technological progress till you reach the cutting edge, since India is a long way to go to reach cutting edge on various fronts of aero engg. This approach is being carried out!"

The economic capability that is enshrined in the US allows them to achieve these benchmarks. But the success achieved by Korea, Japan, and Taiwan in the fields of electronics, heavy engineering and automobiles can be replicated by India provided the GOI shows enough vision and more importantly, execution.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Apr 2010 23:26

Mrinal wrote: But the success achieved by Korea, Japan, and Taiwan in the fields of electronics, heavy engineering and automobiles can be replicated by India provided the GOI shows enough vision and more importantly, execution.

OT>
I must remind that all three countries are Class B munnas (behind Ozzies etc and ahead of Saudi types) They are fully integrated members of Pax Americana in every sense, to this they owe everything currently including their various economic successes.

This IMVHO is an example of *following a leader* India has to chart its own destiny, in a very different manner.

Indranilroy and others, apologies for OT