'Make in India' Single engined fighter

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Jun 2017 18:44

Kakarat wrote:
nirav wrote:
We have 20 odd permanent waivers on the ASR of the 80s for a Mig21 replacement.
Had this been a Chinese effort, we would have trolled and mocked them till eternity.

The LCA certainly will be updated. Current proposed update is Mk1A.

It still is a fine aircraft. We can't ask UnObtanium from it by expecting it to do a bigger fighters job. It would take radical engineering to get the LCA to Solah range payload capability.the Mk1A just can't match this capability of the Solah.

So how many should we go in for, considering that the light and cheap fighter is costing almost 90 million USD and still doesn't comply fully with ASR of the 80s?
You are not sill getting the point Tejas is a Light category and F-16 is Medium category their Range and capability will never match, they are not same category just because both are single engines. the main soviet competitor for F-16 are Mig-29 which is a twin engines aircraft and the power of single engine of Mig-29 is similar to Tejas engine (just for rough comparison) how do you expect the range and payload capability to match?

You are still to elaborate on the capability that F-16 brings in which IAF doesn't have?

@ToT, for now all we can do is speculate. But I doubt even after a contract is signed, we in the public domain would be aware of the exact nature of ToT. We still don't know how deep was MKI ToT. Yet we paid extra for it. Iirc there were reports that HAL built MKIs were expensive compared to Russian built ones. We still persist with it.
There have been suggestions that the ToT aspect is about 'jobs'. I disagree with it. The focus on 'jobs' is a western protectionism thing. Our thing has always been the ToT aspect.
The Javlin missile did not go through because USA denied source codes, do you think a country which did not give codes of a antitank missile going to transfer technology of a fighter aircraft? allowing to just build from drawings is not TOT. TOT is not just about jobs, Make in India could be about jobs. TOT is about building a Indian Industrial capability. No country will transfer technology or no company will want to create a future competitor, Indian Industrial capability will grow only through Indian designed and made products and investing on research

@composite %ages - it doesn't make sense to get into this comparison simply cause the Solah carries more and farther than the LCA.
Composite manufacturing is today's technology and its not about just carrying more and flying further. There are many more advantages like radar cross section reduction e.t.c

We haven't crossed the point to avoid Marut mistake yet

I don't think you get paid by LM just to express your opinion in a forum that can in no way influence the gov

Kakarat ji,

The point I'm making is, LCA is not an equal of the Solah performance wise to those people who think that not only is it equal, it's better.. hence the continued whataboutery while discussing the single engined fighter..

For an aircraft that's not even got its FOC yet, MoD/IAF have placed orders of 120 jets !
That's nothing to scoff at.

Rest of the MMRCA requirement of 126+63 options - 36 Rafales needs to be met, and for that Solah is a good candidate is what I'm saying,rather than the Gripen.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 19:15

Lockheed nears $37 billion-plus deal to sell F-35 jet to 11 countries
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airs ... SKBN1990S8

Those nations included Australia, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, South Korea, Britain and the United States.

Many of these above countries operate F-16s. It would be cheaper for them to buy new build, F-Solah Block 70s from the Indian production line, than acquire F-35As. Especially since the former is designed to be potent for the next three decades or so. Any takers?

The memorandum of understanding being negotiated between Lockheed and the customers aims to procure 135 or more jets in fiscal year 2018 for delivery in 2020 for about $88 million per jet, the people said. In the subsequent fiscal years, 2019 and 2020, procurement would ramp up to 150 or more jets per year. The average price in 2019 could be $85 million for the F-35 "A" variant and could drop below $80 million in 2020, the people said. That would mark the lowest price ever paid for an F-35, making this deal an important step in reducing the overall cost of each jet.

Even at $80 million per F-35A, the Block 70 would come in at far cheaper. Potent aircraft, with near F-35 type capabilities, for way cheaper.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 19:33

Oh and by the way, Italy is doing the final assembly of Dutch F-35s (see below) and could do the same for Denmark, Norway and possibly Britain. But we can offer way cheaper Block 70s.

https://www.f35.com/global/participatio ... ticipation

Currently, Cameri is assembling Italian F-35s - the first of which rolled out of the factory in March 2015 - and is scheduled to assemble Dutch F-35s in the future.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Jun 2017 19:53

^^^
F-35 is too advanced. India not yet ready for it. Only after it learns from F-16 would it be ready to take the step up

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Jun 2017 19:58

Rakesh Saar,

@F 35 pricing,
Iirc, the JSF program had a financial component while buying in @ the start of the program. The partnerships were staggered with level based partnership.

The oft quoted 100mn figure in here may not be for walk ins like us but for existing partners..

If it's available for a mere 100mn the MK1As price tag of almost 90mn looks increasingly bad.

Edit - this details all levels of partnership's and funds committed initially. The briturds coughed up 2.5 Billion dawlars in 1995, haggled for 10 years and only then managed to get 'source codes'.. their initial requirements was 138 odd jets..

We simply don't have the kind of relationship with the US to have a arrangement like the briturds or the Italians with their assembly line..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee ... rocurement

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 25 Jun 2017 20:06

The following link has a list of the major suppliers to the F-16 program, includes small and large companies. Assuming these vendors will move their production lines to India also is a major assumption and IF someone can provide evidence of such then this F-16 deal would be worthwhile both from a jobs perspective and technology/production skills perspective and a build up of our MIC. But I have not seen much to believe in this dream theory. But even that is a huge strategic cost.

As it stands now, this deal is about dumping a soon to be closed production line to a third world country, forcing them to acquire enough jets to offset the cost of the move and create a maintenance facility to service the vast numbers of F-16 and maybe produce some new F-16's for other third world nations like Eritrea? It is about ensuring the vast list of OEM suppliers continue to have a viable production line (LM is funding some of them now to keep the lines open), till they can move to something else. It is also about making India a dependent poodle in the game in all aspects but in name.

We loose the MIC to a major power, it is game over. All of this due to just an inability of our government to get their ball$ is order and do the needful with the Tejas and a refusal to invest on internal resources. Boggles the mind.

List of F-16 major suppliers. http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detai ... ing_Falcon

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 20:08

Nirav: Since the Block 70 is designed to potent for the next three decades, these countries could buy them instead of the F-35. That is the point I was trying to make. And I am glad you mentioned the unit cost of $90 million per Tejas Mk.1A. Since you mentioned it, can you care to provide the break down of that cost? And oh by the way, I will give you some data points to consider before you reply:

- On 7 November 2016, Parrikar approved procurement of 83 Tejas for the IAF, at a cost of ₹50,025 crore (US$8 billion). So to further bolster your argument, the unit cost of each Tejas Mk1A is over $96 million. But please provide a break down first.
- Just in case, you have a hard time figuring out to do a break down of cost, allow me to provide you this example. The Rafale deal cost 7.8 billion euros (or $8.7 billion US). So each Rafale works out to over $240 million per plane for the IAF. But that cost involves separate infrastructure and two sets of maintenance at two bases, training, armament storage facilities, weaponry and spares.

Brar: Are these countries required to buy the F-35, apart from their intial participation investment? I know the answer to this, but please advise.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Jun 2017 20:09

nirav wrote: ...

If it's available for a mere 100mn the MK1As price tag of almost 90mn looks increasingly bad.

Where did you get that $90 million for Mk1A?

It is more like $40 million for LCA Mk.1A and $26 million for Mk.1.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2017 20:14

Rakesh wrote:
Brar: Are these countries required to buy the F-35, apart from their intial participation investment? I know the answer to this, but please advise.

No they aren't required but they are all currently negotiating a pretty sizable chunk as the article you posted documents. Most of the partners would have concluded their acquisition programs by around the middle of the next decade iirc. Out of the FMS customers, I know that Israel will receive the last of its 50th F-35I in 2024, but they are likely to order more. South Korea will get its 40 aircraft between 2018 and 2021 and Japan is a special case since they will be assembling their own so they have incentives to continue to build based on follow on orders.

Specificly to the partners, had they wanted an F-16 or 4+ generation capability they would have bought the F-16 block 60 offshoot, or the Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon all of which could have delivered them aircraft earlier.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 25 Jun 2017 20:14

srai wrote: It is more like $40 million for LCA Mk.1A and $26 million for Mk.1.

Srai: Can you share the source of the Mk.1A figure for record purposes. Thanks.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 25 Jun 2017 20:19

nirav wrote: Kakarat ji,

The point I'm making is, LCA is not an equal of the Solah performance wise to those people who think that not only is it equal, it's better.. hence the continued whataboutery while discussing the single engined fighter..

For an aircraft that's not even got its FOC yet, MoD/IAF have placed orders of 120 jets !
That's nothing to scoff at.

Rest of the MMRCA requirement of 126+63 options - 36 Rafales needs to be met, and for that Solah is a good candidate is what I'm saying,rather than the Gripen.

That's what i am asking, How can you compare the performance of Light LCA and Medium F-16? How can they be equal

I am not against the F-16 if it comes today and not half a decade later. It seems that the decision on which aircraft to purchase is nowhere in sight. It seems now there is going to be another trials and then their is the Great Indian Negotiation, even half a decade could look too soon.

Has F-35 received FOC? When was IOC declared? how many orders it has and how any have been inducted?
FOC has nothing to do with orders

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Jun 2017 20:21

srai wrote:
nirav wrote: ...

If it's available for a mere 100mn the MK1As price tag of almost 90mn looks increasingly bad.
Where did you get that $90 million for Mk1A?

It is more like $40 million for LCA Mk.1A and $26 million for Mk.1.

50,000 crores approved by DAC for 80 mk1A.

50,000/6600 = 7.57 billion 7570 million for 80 jets.

94.62 million price per jet.

http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... es/440388/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 20:23

Nirav: Read my post please above.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Jun 2017 20:24

nirav wrote:
We simply don't have the kind of relationship with the US to have a arrangement like the briturds or the Italians with their assembly line..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee ... rocurement

Exactly!

We should know our place, we are only good enough for joothan crumbs from these Elite nations' table.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2017 20:25

Nirav, that sounds like total acquisition cost which would include elements of fly-away cost, non recurring basing costs and other integration and support costs. That # for the CTOL F-35 variant in 2017 is $111 Million {EDIT: It is actually $128 Million with total non-recurring cost thrown in} while the recurring fly-away cost (just the flying hardware end items) is in the $90-$95 Million range.

Also, The F-35 program was designed a certain way and higher tier partners that contributed billions to its development were going to reap those rewards through decades of production and support work for their industry. Now late in the game, an FMS customer can work around with offsets or bear a significant cost to have its industry partner with the supplier program and seek work to support its aircraft or the program in general.

So yeah, India could set up a FACO, and make components for Indian aircraft and partners and future customers but it will be expensive to negotiate that since industry around the world has made investments so you would have to take a slice out of that. Japan learned this as the only FMS customer to want a FACO and their initial and even subsequent plans fell through and were considerably modified because their industry did not obtain subsidy from the Japanese government in order to pay those costs and the small order size made private industry investment a poor proposition.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 20:28

brar_w wrote:No they aren't required but they are all currently negotiating a pretty sizable chunk as the article you posted documents.

Thank You

brar_w wrote:Specificly to the partners, had they wanted an F-16 or 4+ generation capability they would have bought the F-16 block 60 offshoot, or the Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon all of which could have delivered them aircraft earlier.

So my next question is why do they not want a Block 70, F-16 or a Gripen E or a Rafale or a Typhoon? But more specifically for the Block 70, the aircraft is meant to be potent for the next three decades no? If it is good for us, why is it not good for them?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 20:30

brar_w wrote:Nirav, that sounds like total acquisition cost which would include elements of fly-away cost, non recurring basing costs and other integration and support costs. That # for the CTOL F-35 variant in 2017 is $111 Million while the recurring fly-away cost (just the flying hardware end items) is in the $90-$95 Million range.

Thank You Again

Nirav read the above. Very easy to shoot numbers out of thin air to sensationalize an issue.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Jun 2017 20:32

I remember during mmrca I was super supportive of Rafale.

And I had written a post that how after manufacturing Rafale, we will use those jigs machines and tools to manufacture Nirbhay and AMCA.

IIRC it was Sarvshri Karan Malhotra and VivS who had explained that those will be only Rafale specific and not usable for other systems.

I wonder if f16's composites and alloys making tools machines can be used for other purposes? Does f16 even use composites?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 20:33

nirav wrote:We simply don't have the kind of relationship with the US to have a arrangement like the briturds or the Italians with their assembly line..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee ... rocurement

We have a better relationship than the British or the Italians. The entire production line is being transferred from Fort Worth, Texas to India. Italians are only getting a FACO (Final Assembly & Check Out) line. We are getting deep ToT.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2017 20:33

So my next question is why do they not want a Block 70, F-16 or a Gripen E or a Rafale or a Typhoon? But more specifically for the Block 70, the aircraft is meant to be potent for the next three decades no? If it is good for us, why is not good for them?

In the words of a former F-16 pilot ( video posted in IntAero threat), the F-16 is a lethal platform but not a survivable one while the F-35A in his view is lethal and survivable. So yeah, there are benefits to them of acquiring the F-35A, particularly at a time when they are shrinking their AF footprint in terms of both no. of aircraft, and manpower.

As to why the IAF wants an F-16 or Gripen fly-off, perhaps it has room for an advanced 4th generation aircraft in its force structure (It certainly did during the MMRCA analysis)? to sit alongside the FGFA and AMCA in the future. I don't know perhaps Rohit could elaborate on that.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 20:36

Thanks Brar as always for your info, albeit without emotions. I rest my case.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Jun 2017 20:37

Rakesh wrote:
brar_w wrote:Nirav, that sounds like total acquisition cost which would include elements of fly-away cost, non recurring basing costs and other integration and support costs. That # for the CTOL F-35 variant in 2017 is $111 Million while the recurring fly-away cost (just the flying hardware end items) is in the $90-$95 Million range.
Thank You Again

Nirav read the above. Very easy to shoot numbers out of thin air to sensationalize an issue.

Sorry sir.
I pointed out Mk1A numbers only cause you repeatedly keep mentioning F35 @ 100 million.

You keep writing off the Solah for its performance and price.

If one were to accept your argument against the performance and price of the Solah, the Mk1A doesn't have a leg to stand on, using the same logic.

They are not inducting blk70. But they are also not inducting Mk1A too !!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Jun 2017 20:49

I am writing off the Solah for its performance. Read what brar has quoted above....a lethal platform but not a survivable one. Do you want to sit in a cockpit of a Block 70 or a F-35 in 2030 and enter a dense AD environment over Tibet? Facing SAMs, Su-35 clones, J-20s, J-31s? Take your pick. It will be a one way mission with the Block 70. Gripen E is no better off.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Jun 2017 20:58

Rakesh wrote:I am writing off the Solah for its performance. Read what brar has quoted above....a lethal platform but not a survivable one. Do you want to sit in a cockpit of a Block 70 or a F-35 in 2030 and enter a dense AD environment over Tibet? Facing SAMs, Su-35 clones, J-20s, J-31s? Take your pick. It will be a one way mission with the Block 70. Gripen E is no better off.

I understand.
Please replace the Solah with LCA.I don't see a better outcome.

Procurement is set.
100 odd Solah/Gripen + 120 LCA.

The LCA line, if found satisfactory, will def see more numbers once production nears its end. If not, those orders will go to Solah/Gripen line.

The single engined fighter acquisition is to make up for the delay of the LCA+ scuttling of the MMRCA, in a cost effective manner and getting THAT ToT that MoD and IAF so desire.

126 to 200 Rafales would have cost us dearly.
With the monies saved, the LCA got a huge order + squadron numbers will see a spike with a decent 4th + gen single engined bird.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2017 21:05

Looks like totally fake news to me
Fighting Falcon puts off retirement: F-16 to fly for USAF through 2048

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Jun 2017 21:12

ShauryaT wrote:
srai wrote: It is more like $40 million for LCA Mk.1A and $26 million for Mk.1.
Srai: Can you share the source of the Mk.1A figure for record purposes. Thanks.

Here you go:

Mk1A -> Rs 190 crore (~$32 million)/unit
World's smallest combat jet's Mark-II avatar to be longer

...
Besides, the cost of Mark-IA, the upgraded version of the series production (SP) fighters, will be Rs 190 crore up from Rs 160-crore estimated last year, due to integration of more systems as requested by the Indian Air Force.
...
On the cost of the LCA MK-IA increasing by Rs 30 crore compared to the SP version, Sridharan said: "The cost is bound to go up when new things have to be integrated. And when some of the things include complex systems like the electronic warfare suit, new radar and mid-air refueling, it will (cost will go up)."
...

Mk1 -> Rs 162 crore (~$26 million)/unit
HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore

...
Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources tell Business Standard that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has quoted a price of Rs 162 crore per aircraft for the first 20 Tejas fighters that have begun production in Bangalore. That translates into a dollar price of approximately $26 million a fighter.
...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2017 21:30

Question: Is it OK to abandon the LCA if we got the F-35 instead?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2017 21:39

Under 'just saying':

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/VmDrOl ... rumps.html

Prime Minister Modi is expected to offer costly trade and economic deliverables to US President Donald Trump on Monday in return for Guardian drones and other defence items as well as Washington’s political support and intelligence-sharing, according to people familiar with details of the upcoming meeting.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2017 21:41

The F-35 as a program is not really designed to be competitive in terms of cost under an FMS MII like concept with progressive increase in MII with growing orders. It is really designed for a NATO setup and outside of Israel there is a limited customization ability given the closely linked software-hardware architecture on the platform. It is for this and other reasons why I have never considered the F-35 as a viable or serious candidate for the IAF's MMRCA requirement. Too many hoops to jump through and cost would be a factor. F-35 going forward will flourish in FMS like or FMS+Offset like deals where as close to SDD/FOD configuration being selected for potential operators. That is where its strengths lie when the hardware and software economies of scale can be made use of both to procure and support.

The LCA on the other hand should be treated as a strategic platform. While the iAF will be buying aircraft from outside those FOREX investments could imho be better focused towards acquiring capabilities that the LCA can't grow to provide, while more money, perhaps under strategic partnership structure be invested to increase its capacity to deliver, and capability as well.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2017 21:46

nirav wrote:Rakesh Saar,

@F 35 pricing,
Iirc, the JSF program had a financial component while buying in @ the start of the program. The partnerships were staggered with level based partnership.

The oft quoted 100mn figure in here may not be for walk ins like us but for existing partners..

The FMS price is quite close to what the existing partners are paying (ref: Israel, Japan). The real advantage for the partners is better initial workshare agreements.

And no source codes aren't available. Not to us, not to the Israelis and not to the Brits. A FACO line is an entirely different matter. Any modification or integration of 3rd party munitions will be through the JPO & LM.

The upside to that is that the aircraft's ESM suite comes programmed with extensive threat libraries on Chinese systems collected and compiled through the US ELINT network.

If it's available for a mere 100mn the MK1As price tag of almost 90mn looks increasingly bad.

Assuming HAL is following a PBL model, a significant chunk of that will be support costs. Case-in-point: 50% of the Dhruv's $40 mil unit cost is for PBL expenses guaranteeing 75% availability for 5 years.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2017 21:47

brar_w wrote:The F-35 as a program is not really designed to be competitive in terms of cost under an FMS MII like concept with progressive increase in MII with growing orders. It is really designed for a NATO setup and outside of Israel there is a limited customization ability given the closely linked software-hardware architecture on the platform. It is for this and other reasons why I have never considered the F-35 as a viable or serious candidate for the IAF's MMRCA requirement. Too many hoops to jump through and cost would be a factor. F-35 going forward will flourish in FMS like or FMS+Offset like deals where as close to SDD/FOD configuration being selected for potential operators. That is where its strengths lie when the hardware and software economies of scale can be made use of both to procure and support.

The LCA on the other hand should be treated as a strategic platform. While the iAF will be buying aircraft from outside those FOREX investments could imho be better focused towards acquiring capabilities that the LCA can't grow to provide, while more money, perhaps under strategic partnership structure be invested to increase its capacity to deliver, and capability as well.

^^Thank you

In other words introducing the F-35 into the debate about the choice between the Gripen and F-16 for India is a strawman. It is not on the table.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2017 22:04

The upside to that is that the aircraft's ESM suite comes programmed with extensive threat libraries on Chinese systems collected and compiled through the US ELINT network.

Downside being that you still need the program labs at Eglin if you want to program your own threats into the library. The program has really not begun to think of workarounds and opening up because they haven't had to till now and because it being one of the first large programs for the blanket_export clearance, they really don't want to get into incorporating and integrating capability that requires case by case export clearance for upgrades etc. Israel was able to add a layer of its own C2 systems and that will likely suffice along with other assets they have. But they have a separate relationship outside the JPO model and are using US funds to subsidize their program so that is an added angle.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 25 Jun 2017 22:07

Can someone also post source for MK1a indents aka confirmed orders. Intent is one thing. RM confirmation to Parliament or HAL annual report would be OK.

Nirav, you're comparing a jet designed from day one to be a light jet with a medium category. And jumping to wild conclusions.

Shiv saar, would a Predator like platform be more useful to counter J-xx? I hope Ghatak is either accelerated or dropped right away. A UCAV from the US would be far ahead of the BR curve.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2017 22:11

The Predator is not a survivable platform in the high end threat. There is a reason the USAF has a completely separate P-ISR (Penetrating ISR) side of the UAV portfolio and have also explored and war-gamed this for strike (X-45A, X-45C, and X-47B.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 25 Jun 2017 22:12

The 50,000 crores sanction for 80 Mk1A is by the DAC during Sh Parrikars time.

@wild conclusions - like ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jun 2017 22:15

Idea is for in to put predator heron and triton in future to work for surveillance and free p8i for asw keeping these higher opex platforms fresh.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 26 Jun 2017 00:10

Is there any way to get F-35 bypassing the still pending foundation agreements mainly the CISMOA

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 26 Jun 2017 01:25

shiv wrote:Question: Is it OK to abandon the LCA if we got the F-35 instead?

A better question would be

Would AMCA be still born if we got the F-35 and would it kill Tejas Mk2.
YES and YES.

We are not that one (or two) aircraft everything for us type aircraft like the French or Brits.
Different horses for different courses.

F-35 will kill the FGFA , AMCA and Tejas Mk2.

Over the last week I have turned for and against the F-16 a dozen times in my head.
I can imagine there would be a few people doing the same inside corridors that matter.

However interesting news from Ajai Shukla this morning.
GoI will not be talking the Solah in Amreeka.

There dilly dallying continues in the threads of media and forums.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Jun 2017 01:38

brar_w wrote:The LCA on the other hand should be treated as a strategic platform. While the iAF will be buying aircraft from outside those FOREX investments could imho be better focused towards acquiring capabilities that the LCA can't grow to provide, while more money, perhaps under strategic partnership structure be invested to increase its capacity to deliver, and capability as well.

This is probably what the gripen people are trying to do..... Offer the gripen as an access to cutting edge tech that will filter into local projects such as the lca, and especially the amca. These would include design, development and production knowhow.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Jun 2017 02:07

Would AMCA be still born if we got the F-35 and would it kill Tejas Mk2.
YES and YES.

We are not that one (or two) aircraft everything for us type aircraft like the French or Brits.
Different horses for different courses.

F-35 will kill the FGFA , AMCA and Tejas Mk2.

What will the FGFA Kill?

Is there any way to get F-35 bypassing the still pending foundation agreements mainly the CISMOA

What restrictions does the CISMOA status quo impose on military hardware acquisition? From my understanding, all NSA approved export communication waveforms are not allowed to be sold on aircraft barring this agreement. On the F-35, you can't simply take out the Link-16 / MADL and put a data link in there. The Link-16 and MADL are integral part to its stealth, how it communicates and how it targets. Both are closely tied to its fusion engine and cooperative targeting strategy.