'Make in India' Single engined fighter

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Mar 2017 01:48

51 pages of very interesting set of across the board articles.

Posting it here hoping ot get max exposure. pdf.

Aeromag :: AI17

A keeper. Well written articles, with good amount of details for the layman.

Page 9 : IAF Takes to a Trajectory of Modernization: Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa
Page 11: DRDOequipped to face technology challenges of future: Dr. Christopher
Page 13: BDL: Dynamic Guidance in Missiles: V Uday Bhaskar
Page 15: BEL Supporting the Nation’s Safety and Security
Page 17: $1.1 billion Airport Modernisation: Opportunity for Indian Cos
Page 20: LCA, a Dream Come True for Many: CD Balaji
Page 22: Rafael : Re-enforcing Relations with India
Page 26: Tejas Proving its Air-Superiority

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Mar 2017 10:56

Sometimes one wonders if the single engined phyter competition is to dispel the energies of the arms dealers and their lifafa media away from the LCA.

If you let this gang sit idle, they will keep throwing peanuts at lifafa media to run the LCA and other indigenous products down.
Now at least they have a mission at hand to run the competition down, giving eternal peace to the LCA marketing and PR division, a much needed respite.

If this is so, nice move by Hon RM

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Mar 2017 11:15

A sensible approach,but this has afflicted ALL our aircraft deals in the past,barring perhaps the Jaguar ? It is the MOD that draws up the contracts with the OEM,not the IAF,therefore the blame must be laid squarely at its doorstep.Sandeep U's cover feature last week in IT well explained the malady that has prevented the "make/made in India"goal of self-sufficiency. One point though.What happens if a firang OEM grees to full TOT but welshes later on? What will and what can we do? There must be some concrete insurance on this aspect in the agreement.

The other point is very moot,about the FGFA deal containing a must to also assist in the AMCA programme. We can't be running around for another partner for it. Our aircraft inventory looks/will look as if it has come out of a museum! We need to leverage as much as we can from the FGFA into the AMCA prog. Russia has no med. sized stealth aircraft,though from time to time there is talk about a new stealthy light fighter. This bird could perhaps be sold later to the Russians. since as planned for us,is a replacement for the MIG-29s and M-2000s. It could be a similar replacement for some Russian types.Time for them to buy some of our stuff what?

There is one point in the report which needs to be clarified.There have been sev. MKI reports in def. mags,media,etc. about the indigenous content now "80%" made from desi raw material. That is no mean accomplishment. However,I do not think that in any fighter acquisition ever,there has been a clause saying that the deal must help us acquire the requisite design ability for desi fighters. Only the IN amongst the 3 services has an in-house design bureau (to the shame of the other 2 services),which is why almost all our warships,subs and now carriers coming out of the shipyards are Indian designed,even though their components may be a mixed bag. I would strongly advocate that the ADA comes directly under the control of the IAF so that whatever is designed will possess the genuine requirements of the service and cannot also be fobbed off or sneered at as has hapened in the past by the IAF at HAL and the LCA.

If the FGFA deal is to be wanted on such terms,then the same must hold good for the SE fighter too. This way we will get the best TOT from both east and west.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 546519.cms

After Sukhoi 'mistake', India to go for Russian 5th-generation fighter only on full-tech transfer pact

Rajat Pandit | TNN | Updated: Mar 9, 2017, 05.24 AM IST
HIGHLIGHTS
India will ink final R&D contract for the FGFA with Russia only if there is full-scale transfer of technology.
Decision has been taken in order to "not repeat the mistakes" of the entire Sukhoi-30MKI jet acquisition programme.
IAF has been unhappy with Sukhoi because the jet lacks proper stealth.
File photo shows aircraft Sukhoi at Aero India 2017File photo shows aircraft Sukhoi at Aero India 2017
NEW DELHI: India will go in for the multi-billion dollar joint development and production of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) with Russia only if there is full-scale transfer of technology as well as "benefits" for the indigenous effort to build a futuristic stealth fighter.
Defence ministry sources say this decision has been taken at the "highest levels" in order to "not repeat the mistakes" of the entire Sukhoi-30MKI jet acquisition programme from Russia, which cost India Rs 55,717 crore without any tangible help in developing indigenous fighter-manufacturing capabilities.
"Though bulk of the 272 Sukhois (240 inducted till now) contracted from Russia have been made by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL), they have been basically assembled here with imported knocked-down kits. HAL still cannot manufacture the Sukhois on its own," said a source. A HAL-made Sukhoi (around Rs 450 crore) also costs Rs 100 crore more than the price of the same jet imported from Russia.

So, despite Russian pressure to ink the long-pending final R&D contract for the FGFA, India now wants to know whether it will get good value for the estimated $25 billion it will spend to induct 127 of these single-seat jets. The two countries, incidentally, had inked the FGFA inter-governmental agreement way back in 2007, which was followed by a $295 million preliminary design contract in 2010 before the negotiations stalled.
India has now laid down two essential prerequisites for the FGFA project, apart from examining its entire cost-effectiveness. One, there should be extensive technology transfer, including the "source codes", to ensure India can in the future upgrade the fighter with integration of new weapons on its own. Two, it should directly help the indigenous FGFA project called the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), the preliminary design work for which is now under way, as was earlier reported by TOI.

"This is mandatory. A high-level committee headed by an Air Marshal from IAF, which includes an IIT Kanpur professor and former chiefs of HAL and National Aerospace Laboratories, is examining all these aspects. The government will take a call after the report is submitted in April," said the source. A swing-role FGFA basically combines advanced stealth, supercruise capability (achieving supersonic cruise speeds without use of afterburners), super-maneuverability, data fusion and multi-sensor integration on a single fighter.
But IAF has been unhappy with the Russian FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA because the jet lacks proper stealth and its engine does not have "enough thrust", which are among 43 critical modifications or shortcomings it pointed out earlier.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 11:41

Gagan wrote:Sometimes one wonders if the single engined phyter competition is to dispel the energies of the arms dealers and their lifafa media away from the LCA.

If you let this gang sit idle, they will keep throwing peanuts at lifafa media to run the LCA and other indigenous products down.
Now at least they have a mission at hand to run the competition down, giving eternal peace to the LCA marketing and PR division, a much needed respite.

If this is so, nice move by Hon RM

Won't the monkeys throw more mud at the LCA? When trying to bring in direct competitors and show them in better light? I think this is a cost/backup play if it all. The line costs one rafale fighter, if IAF has so much urgency, the govt can put another line for peanuts. Imagine the 1000s of crores needed to set up a new facility with a foreign vendor that will bring nothing to play for IAF as far as tech goes.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Mar 2017 12:12

CB,read the above report! You are quite right.Setting up another line will take aeons in time to negotiate,bargain,etc., plus the huge costs involved.
The LCA prod. line should be franchised out to Indian pvt. entities who are waiting for orders so that the prod. rate and acquisition will be speeded up.In the fig. accompanying the TOI report,it said that the MK-1A would arrive only by 2023/4! MIG-27s and legacy MIG-21s would also soldier on until 2020 or so.240 MKIs .

Sputnik's take on the latest FGFA report.It has a v.good diagram of the bird with its weaponry,sensors,etc.
https://sputniknews.com/science/2017030 ... -fgfa-jet/

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 12:21

Philip, didn't the report say all the MK1A will arrive by 2024? Also there is far more production happening with private sector with the LCA than would when you import a line from foreign vendor. Read the following reports

http://www.aeromag.in/articlesingle.php?article=9

HAL has drawn the following likely delivery schedules for 20 aircraft in LCA AF Mk1 (IOC) configuration, 20 aircraft in LCA AF Mk1 (FOC) configuration and 83 aircraft in LCA AF Mk-1A configuration.
Production Schedule is like this: 20 aircraft IOC Standard &4 aircraft FOC Standard are targeted to be delivered by 2018-2019 at the production rate of eight aircraft in an year in 2017-18 and 12 aircraft in an year in 2018-19. Remaining 16 FOC Standard aircraft are targeted to be delivered by 2019-2020.
83 LCA AF Mk1A standard Production will commence from 2020-21 with a Production Rate of 16 aircraft in a year

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 834356.cms

The first 20 aircraft will be completed by 2018, by when we have to make a Mk 1A version of the aircraft. We are ramping up production to 16 aircraft a year. We have recently issued request for quotations to the private players to supply modules like fuselage parts and wings. If we can get this from the private sector, we can increase production to 25 aircraft a year. So, we are lookin ..

If you want more you better get Modi to cough up the dough and IAF to increase the order size. Don't be going around saying its too late now!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Mar 2017 12:27

NO problem with :LCAs,but how will we get in 4 yrs time the extra 80MK-1As after the 40 MK-1s have been built? Will all 40 MK-1s be built by 2020? Even at a souped up rate of 16/yr we will get only 60+ MK-1A by 2024. Yes,Modi HAS to cough up the money whether it is a desi fighter or firang one,moolah is moolah. Unless there is a third line in the pvt. sector...and why not? LCA prod. will be painfully slow and after 120+ aircraft it will meet the same fate as the HF-24. I made that statement well over a decade ago and unless the GOI gives the LCA prog a heavy dose of steroids, we won't deliver on time.How one earth will the AMCA also arrive on time if we are able to produce the MK-2 only by say...2030?!

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Mar 2017 12:37

Increase orders of LCA to 250 units.

Establish 4 final LCA assembly lines:

Line 1 @ HAL -> 8 units/year - 12 units/year
Line 2 @ HAL -> 8 units/year
Line 3 @Private#1 -> 8 units/year
Line 4 @Private#2 -> 8 units/year

Total capacity: 32/year to 36/year

Time to delivery 250 LCAs: 7 or 8 years

Plus, outsource 80% of LCA components to Tier-1/2/3 private/public enterprises.

Right Wing
Left Wing
Tail
Rear Fuselage
Mid Fuselage
Front Fuselage
Flaperons
Landing Gears
Avionics - Radar, MFDs, Computers, etc
etc

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Mar 2017 12:47

Great idea! But I would advocate even more so that each line gets orders for at least 80-100 aircraft which will make the entire task profitable.If 3 lines can ramp up their prod to 12-16 a yr. we will get approx 40-50 aircraft /yr and in a decade will be able to complete delivery. HAL<etc. could then start production of the AMCA.By then even FGFA (deal if sealed) prod. should be in progress. Prof. Das advocates at least 300-400 LCAs of diff, variants to make up numbers so that we can achieve the 45+ sqd goal.Time to lobby NM,MP and the MOD.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Mar 2017 21:50

India's Standing Committee on Defence cautions MoD about
haphazard planning in fighter procurement.
MoD says 'Chill, we got this.'

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/839827888975269888

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Mar 2017 21:34

5 Reasons Donald Trump Should Love the F-35
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -air-19607

1) Contain China: Japan, South Korea and Australia are buying the F-35. Exporting it to Taiwan and India, and basing U.S. squadrons in the Philippines as well, would envelop the Chinese military in a decisive manner. The encircling aircraft would see without being seen, causing allied air power to dominate any conflict in the Western Pacific.

China fears the F-35 so much, its rushing its own stealth fighter into the sky
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... alth-19761

Has Israel actually sent the F-35 into combat already?
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/81 ... at-already

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Mar 2017 01:23

India unlikely to purchase more Rafale fighter jets

NEW DELHI, MARCH 12:
The government does not seem keen to place a follow-on order to buy twin-engine Rafale fighter planes made by French aerospace major Dassault Aviation even as the Indian Air Force (IAF) faces a depletion of its fleet.

The Indian government signed a contract to purchase 36 Rafale fighter jets in fly-away condition on September 23 for a whopping $8.8 billion. The original plan was to buy 126 Rafale jets. However, the plan was trimmed owing to the cost of each aircraft and only 36 were bought after protracted negotiations with France.

As a result, it is now unlikely that the government will place any further orders to buy these expensive planes even though it needs additional aircraft, sources in the Defence Ministry told BusinessLine.

“Follow on orders for the Rafale are a big question mark. Where is the money going to come from? There are much cheaper options available,” said a senior official.

At present, IAF has 34 squadrons out of the 42 required to guard the skies. This is the lowest count for the IAF in the last decade. Each squadron consists of 18 aircraft. Apart from this, 11 squadrons consisting of MiG-21s, are looking at retirement, which will pose an additional challenge.

So, the demand for fighter jets remains. Even though India chose to buy only 36 Rafales after cancelling the plan to acquire 126, the original requirement still remains.

However, sources said the government was now focused on acquiring single-engine fighter jets, the deal size of which is around $12 billion. The frontrunners in this are Saab’s Gripen and Lockheed Martin’s F-16.

Dassault Aviation has already made it clear to the government that it will not be able to go for full transfer of technology and create an industrial ecosystem by manufacturing the planes here under the ‘Make in India’ programme unless it is given additional orders.

Dassault eyes carriers
However, sources also said that Dassault Aviation is now lobbying with the government on the Indian Navy’s plan to purchase 57 Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters.

But, it seems the MoD will not be opting for Rafale due to its high price. As a result, Boeing and MiG are now eyeing the deal. Boeing has offered its F/A-18 Super Hornet, which is being used by the US Navy.

According to sources, the cost of maintaining Rafale jets is also higher than other aircraft offering a similar platform. Eric Trappier, Chairman and CEO, Dassault Aviation had said on the sidelines of the Aero India show last month that the company would set up a plant to manufacture the fighter jets in India only for an order of more than a 100 jets.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Mar 2017 02:01

Grp Cpt. (retd.) Suneet Krishna, former LCA test pilot on his experience flying the Gripen D at Aero India 2017

Video link

Avtar Singh · Post by **Avtar Singh** » 14 Mar 2017 02:20

all very punchy punchy from this IAF jet jockey..
hand on hips stance is typical of jet jocks the world over
but these IAF people really need to reset their mindsets and get with the
Prime Ministers program of "Make in India"
Even if it means that for a while all they have available to launch across the border is rocks
it will focus their minds

Nothing he describes about this wonderfull gripen is beyond any fadec/fbw aircraft,
which I believe India has??
Also India did not crash any, was it 5 of them, before they got it to fly
Beg your pardon wiki says THEY LOST 9 trying to make it work

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Mar 2017 02:54

I would really take what retd. Gp Cpt. Suneet Krishna has to say seriously. He was one of the most experienced Tejas TPs and at no point during the interview does he say that that the Gripen is better than the Tejas. He simply gives his view on his flight, and on the Gripen's ergonomics and avionics.

What does it say about our own PR for the Tejas, that he was at Aero India this year not as a TP, but as a spectator and no one seems to have interviewed him? He is a guy who has in the past said some of the most positive things about the Tejas.

This is why he resigned from the Tejas program

The row was over denying this ace test pilot, the captain’s seat (pilot-in-command) in the 'Eye-in-the-sky', the Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft developed by Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS), Bengaluru, and undergoing evaluation now ahead of its induction by the IAF later this year.

The reason? Group Captain Suneet Krishna (Retd) was considered a 'civilian test pilot' by the air strike wing because he opted for voluntary retirement from IAF in 2012, and therefore could not occupy the captain's seat.

"He was torpedoed by the air force though he holds the record of flying all types of fighters, and even some transport jets, for close to 5,000 hours. If Brazilian pilots could occupy the captain's seat when the Embraer-145 aircraft was bought for AEW&C project, how can the IAF prevent its former pilot from doing so? His exit will be a great loss for both 'Tejas' and AEW&C projects because no-one can match his expertise," remarked his former commandant who also played a key role in these projects.

The fact that he had served the IAF for more than two decades did not seem to count. Nor did the top brass of IAF, factor in his contribution to making ‘Tejas’ a completely pilot-friendly and world-class fighter jet because he logged the highest number of hours onboard the indigenous aircraft and his inputs helped modify the cockpit over the years. In fact, he has flown the prototypes, the production and operational versions of ‘Tejas’, even test-fired missiles and laser-guided bombs.

He was the pilot who demonstrated the military jet’s agility to Mr Parrikar in Bengaluru on January 17, 2015, the day when ‘Tejas’ was inducted into the IAF’s fleet. In fact, this ace test pilot encountered turbulence the moment he joined CABS in May 2015 with those at the helm at IAF's Aircraft & Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE), Bengaluru, insisting that only their officers could occupy the captain’s seat, although they were junior to Group Captain Suneet Krishna (retired). He flew 100 sorties as the tussle escalated. In the end though, with no solution in sight, he decided to join the corporate world and relocate to Mumbai.

Very petty politics on the part of the IAF.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Mar 2017 03:58

This is what he had to say about the Tejas

Love flying the Tejas- Test pilot

"It's a great plane and I love flying it," he added.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Mar 2017 04:50

There is a disconnect between what the IAF wants (the latest and greatest) and what the GoI wants (strategic partnership or whatever else you want to call it). Fortunately (or unfortunately) for the IAF (and the other two services), politicians and bureaucrats are largely ignorant of what a military platform is capable of doing and what it is not. Just take a look at the Arjun saga. The Govt is only looking at the geopolitical benefits that come with the single engine purchase.

On BRF we have somewhat of a similar situation, especially in this thread

When you get your service to decide what platform (happens the world over) best suits it, you set up a scenario where likely the platform chosen ≠ desired geopolitical benefits. However in India, the Bofors Scandal set the stage for future defence deals and thus any "volte face" from a publicily announced decision is harakiri for the Govt in power. Add our 24 hour-news-cycle-media to the mix and you have a situation that is a scandal in the making.

I would not discount anything what Group Captain Suneet Krishna (Retd) has stated about the Gripen. It is no doubt a great platform, however with a FOC of 2025/2026, it is going to be a long time before she enters service with the IAF. However - like I have said before - the IAF absolutely loves the Gripen E and what Saab has promised to offer. If they had any say in the purchase process, they would sign on the dotted line right now. The Gripen E is everything the Mk2 is, without the baggage and track record of HAL. The IAF also DOES NOT want the F-Solah. The fact that the Mk2 and the Gripen E share the exact same engine is going to be hard pressed to ignore and from the IAF's viewpoint it makes perfect sense to operate multiple platforms that share the same engine.

The Govt has the exact opposite view, but is ignorant of what the Gripen E can do vis-à-vis the F-Solah. For that, they rely on the IAF. This is what happened in the first MMRCA downselect on 27 April 2011 and this is what will likely happen again. The Govt will be forced to go along with it and the IAF knows it. They could care less about looking hypocritical (talking about squadron shortage) to the public, because the public does not care. It is the media that plays up this squadron shortage story to a gullible public. And you have folks on BRF as well, who sell the F-Solah on BRF because of perceived geopolitcal benefits.

Lockheed and the US Govt can still win this....with the right platform. Play the IAF's game.

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 14 Mar 2017 04:58

If IAF loves grippen they should have picked as the first choice only no for mrca? Now it feels like they want grippen because they dont want f solah (sounds more like us presidential election).

Anyway they will be happy with what goi decides even if it is only fbsolah or lca

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Mar 2017 05:02

But pandyan, remember the Rafale was there. And the Rafale is anyday a more capable platform than the Gripen. Take a look at the Swiss fighter replacement. They selected the Gripen and now they have rejected it. A new competition is underway.

The first MMRCA contest was a joke anyway. Multiple platforms with entirely different capabilites all pitted against each other.

That is like going to buy a Bajaj scooter (Mirage 2000) and you go and evaluate a Ferrari 488 (Rafale), a Honda Odyssey minivan (F-18), an Lamborghini Aventador (Eurofighter Typhoon), a Golf R (F-16IN), a BMW motorcycle (Gripen) and a Russian Lada (MiG-35) and then you have to decide which best suits you

None of the above even have a single unifying theme, apart from the fact that they can all fly (or in the case of cars/scooters...move).

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Mar 2017 05:11

Rakesh wrote: However - like I have said before - the IAF absolutely loves the Gripen E and what Saab has promised to offer. If they had any say in the purchase process, they would sign on the dotted line right now...........
.........Lockheed and the US Govt can still win this....with the right platform. Play the IAF's game.

What you are really saying without saying it is that Lockheed should give the IAF a superlative toy that they will just love. So rather than laying the emphasis on the GOI relationship with it's aerospace infrastructure build-out priority and Make in India objective, the primary emphasis for Lockheed should be to entice the IAF with an aircraft that they cannot say no to. The only answer in that case is the F-35. Lockheed should bring over a few F-35s to demonstrate them to the IAF. The IAF will then lobby with GOI to get that aircraft and negotiate the terms of any MII if at all.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Mar 2017 05:17

I believe whole heartedly the F-Solah is not going to win this competition. Remember in the first MMRCA competition, 126 planes were to be built in India. If F-16 won back then, the same line would be transferred no? It was the IAF that made the downselect on 27 April 2011 and not the GOI.

The GoI does not need to be convinced about an aerospace infrastructure build-out priority. They are already bought into the idea. You have to convince the IAF of that. The IAF is not really invested in MII as the GoI is. MII is not an IAF priority, it is a GOI priority. Whether the plane comes from India or Timbuktu, matters little to the IAF.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Mar 2017 05:23

Rakesh wrote:I believe whole heartedly the F-Solah is not going to win this competition. Also, the IAF is not really invested in MII as the GOI is. Remember in the first MMRCA competition, 126 planes were to be built in India. If F-16 won back then, the same line would be transferred no?

You are correct. At the end of the day given a choice between an immediate (2-4 years) purchase of capability and something as amorphous as a Make in India process, the former is always going to win out. Just look at the Rafale decision, a perfect illustration of that. And I bet that it will happen again. So you are right that Lockheed has to learn to play that game if they want to succeed. And the F16 is not going to win that game for Lockheed.

The biggest factor IMO in Indian defence purchases is inertia. Therefore for any seller, the most important thing is to get the foot in the door. Inertia will take care of the rest. And a 36 aircraft order can balloon over the years if the price-performance equation is not extortionate as in the case of the Rafale.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Mar 2017 05:37

ldev: the F-16 offers no value to the IAF. It offers tremendous value to the GoI, but not to the IAF. How viable is this platform going to be against the Chinese in 2050? Or are we planning to retire them before then?

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Mar 2017 05:40

Don't be too surprised in a few years when after the down-select and exclusive negotiation on ToT and price that India again finds the costs to be too high. Will India again make a token order of 36 fighters as a gesture of good faith on another deal gone south?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Mar 2017 06:03

Nothing less than JSF now is valid (capability wise) for a single engined fighter

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Mar 2017 06:43

SaiK wrote:Nothing less than JSF now is valid (capability wise) for a single engined fighter

That is probably the IAF's plan all along. In any major Indian procurement involving many billions of dollars with ToT and license production and competitive bidding, that is a 10-year process at the minimum. Anyone thinks otherwise is a fool. If the IAF asks for a single-engine fighter now (similar to what the IN is doing), then 10+ years from now when the bureaucracy finally signs the deal the IAF/IN will get a JSF.

Don't ask what will happen to the AMCA when that occurs ...

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Mar 2017 06:54

Rakesh wrote:ldev: the F-16 offers no value to the IAF. It offers tremendous value to the GoI, but not to the IAF. How viable is this platform going to be against the Chinese in 2050? Or are we planning to retire them before then?

Fortunately, Chinese media have announced that the J20 has entered service with the PLAAF. Even if it does not have it's full capability as of now, it is this future PLAAF capability that the IAF will confront. This should sharpen some minds in the Indian MOD and the IAF as to what capability the IAF needs circa 2050.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 14 Mar 2017 10:28

I like the idea of Chinese inducting all sorts of Stealth platform. GOI-IAF will be forced to step up their game from F16s/Gripen to something more that can meet its match (even if the saber rattling is just noise, a reaction will have to be done). If this sits on the table for a year or two, then no way either of those two will win. Tejas would in 12-20 number and IAF would have more confidence in it. It will end up as a toss up between Rafale or the JSF. There really isn't any other choice. FGFA will happen, I *HOPE* with some engine rider clause, where we are allowed to substitute our own engine in the future if we get there.

Rakesh, your long post above makes a lot of sense.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Mar 2017 11:22

People are forgetting that IAF is comprehensively upgrading its ADGES/AD system with Barak-NG/LR ,S-400 , Spyder ,Akash/Akash-NG,Maitri AAD/PAD,LRTR,MFR dozens of new types of radars for Low Level and Long Range , Penetrating such AD system would be like chewing a metal bullet even for very advanced nation much like potential one like China or Pakistan. That upgrade itself takes many many billions of dollah if one has to add figures to it

A range of stand off weapons from 300-450-900 km class supersonic missile is underworks , 1000 km class cruise missile then multiple MRBM , IRBM , ICBM systems

A reply to 5th gen fighter does not have to be another 5th gen one , its not that every time our 5th Gen or theirs fly will be met by ours .... Our response to them is cost effective and its not just China specific but technology driven to take care of any potential adversary.

Bottom line is if they buy 200 Light Fighter be it Gripen or F-16 its fine as it will be integrated into our AD system via data link with far greater SA and that will also be the case with Rafale,MKI , Tejas and other deployed fighter

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 14 Mar 2017 11:28

Austin wrote:
A reply to 5th gen fighter does not have to be another 5th gen one , its not that every time our 5th Gen or theirs fly will be met by ours

True! but IAF will want to match or exceed to gain their own stealthy SEAD/DEAD platform to be able to make gains against their air defense network.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Mar 2017 11:33

^^^
Austin,
With the AD upgrades (both India & China) and LR stand-off PGMs (450km-1000km), is there really an urgent need to acquire a 4th-Gen foreign fighter? A case would be made more for heavy fighters like the Su-30MKI that can carry all types of large arsenal under works. Stock up on the LR PGMs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Mar 2017 11:34

Cybaru wrote:
Austin wrote:
A reply to 5th gen fighter does not have to be another 5th gen one , its not that every time our 5th Gen or theirs fly will be met by ours
True! but IAF will want to match or exceed to gain their own stealthy SEAD/DEAD platform to be able to make gains against their air defense network.

Hence the development of many types of standoff weapons to overcome range of their long range missile and DRDO comprehensive work on EW system

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Mar 2017 13:00

The JSF is simply unaffordable even at the reduced prices announced after Trump's warning.$120M+ if and when it comes is the least we can expect. Boeing is now trying to keep production of SH's alive with a cut-price deal similar to what Lockheed has done,so that the US mil. will but the SH alternative to JSFs.The SH is being touted -latest news,at just under $70M a pop,but not sure whether this includes the engines.

MIG-35s at $35-40M,LCAs at $25-30M,and Jags around $20M offer at least "two-for-one" alternatives.No idea what the Gripen will cost,but one can be sure that it will try and price itself cheaper than the Yanqui birds.

Using these cheaper,but v.capable aircraft ,armed with the stand-off weapons at our discretion,from BMos ,KH series,Nirbhay,etc.,will give the IAF the "bomb trucks" needed in large number,saving money for more stealth birds,Super Sukhoi MKI UGs,etc.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Mar 2017 15:23

People are forgetting that IAF is comprehensively upgrading its ADGES/AD system with Barak-NG/LR ,S-400 , Spyder ,Akash/Akash-NG,Maitri AAD/PAD,LRTR,MFR dozens of new types of radars for Low Level and Long Range

While that is a formidable gauntlet to walk into, a good 5th gen is meant to overcome such challenges. If a "5th gen" asset finds these things difficult to overcome, then it is not a good 5th gen plane. A 6th gen is expected to be designed for even more challenging denial regimes.

One of the best examples was the F-111 Nighthawk over Bagdad. Saddam had plenty of defensive assets.

So, the question really is, how good are the Chinese "5th gen" assests.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Mar 2017 16:36

Austin wrote:Hence the development of many types of standoff weapons to overcome range of their long range missile and DRDO comprehensive work on EW system

Standoff weapons can give you ability to hit far-off targets, they cannot tell you where those targets are. Without accurate and upto-date intelligence, its only useful against static targets.

The most important role played by an F-35-type aircraft is an ISR asset. It can loiter undetected in enemy airspace and generate an electronic picture of the ADGE which in turn will enable identification of low-threat corridors for LRCM ingress. And where necessary it can carry out SEAD/DEAD missions to create those corridors.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Mar 2017 16:44

Philip wrote:The JSF is simply unaffordable even at the reduced prices announced after Trump's warning.$120M+ if and when it comes is the least we can expect.

Kindly don't engage in 'creative' writing to suit your agenda.

Trump's 'warning' didn't cause the F-35's price to fall; costs have fallen every year, long before the election, and will continue to fall upto 2020.

And the current flyaway cost is $95 mil (not '$120M+'). By 2019, it'll drop down to $80-85 mil.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Mar 2017 17:00

Viv S wrote:The most important role played by an F-35-type aircraft is an ISR asset. It can loiter undetected in enemy airspace and generate an electronic picture of the ADGE which in turn will enable identification of low-threat corridors for LRCM ingress. And where necessary it can carry out SEAD/DEAD missions to create those corridors.

Really , Undetected in Enemy Airspace , How ?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Mar 2017 17:13

Austin wrote:Really , Undetected in Enemy Airspace , How ?

What part exactly are you not getting? Enemy airspace /= 'over Beijing'. But unlike the Rafale or Su-34, the F-35 was designed from inception as a VLO fighter. For deep strike missions, it doesn't have any peers, aside from (to some extent) the F-22.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Mar 2017 17:18

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:Really , Undetected in Enemy Airspace , How ?
What part exactly are you not getting? Enemy airspace /= 'over Beijing'. But unlike the Rafale or Su-34, the F-35 was designed from inception as a VLO fighter. For deep strike missions, it doesn't have any peers, aside from (to some extent) the F-22.

Hmm , These are just unproven claims

How many times did F-35 flew over Beijing undetected and how does it back up such claim that it can flying undetected in Enemy Airspace and loiter to gather intelligence.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Mar 2017 19:01

Austin wrote:Hmm , These are just unproven claims

How many times did F-35 flew over Beijing undetected and how does it back up such claim that it can flying undetected in Enemy Airspace and loiter to gather intelligence.

Who said it flew over Beijing undetected? What did you think was the purpose of the LO airframe?