'Make in India' Single engined fighter

[Indranil]

Hakim, your ISRO analogy for heavy lifts using Ariane is flawed. ISRO does not have the capability to do so. The same analogy would be, if India needed heavy fighters, should it not have shopped abroad. The answer is yes. And that is why FGFA makes a lot of sense.

Would ISRO launch sub 2 Ton satellites using Ariane?

[brar_w]

Can the US be bought?

I say yes the US can be bought. The Chinese bought the US in low tech manufacture. Let us buy the US by involving them in so much that they are caught. I am saying this as a person who has written thousands of words cursing the US for its perfidy. But I see US power on the decline and it will seek helping hands. The signs of a decline in US influence are everywhere. Rapprochement with Iran. Philippines mocking the US and Pakistan not bending to anything the US did, and the US gradually accepting what China is catching up even as the US struggles with Russia

With the F-16 (or for that matter, the F-18) offer, the likely path is going to be an assembly line, and production of components that are already produced by foreign customers on it and other aircraft. It is definitely not going to be turned into a bespoke variant with a joint design team making the changes. Similarly, there is unlikely to be any significant TOT when it comes to the sensitive mission systems, or the propulsion technologies. Within those limits Lockheed would be more than happy to let the MOD buy the F-16...getting royalties back for a decade if not more is far better than shuttering a line and only making money through support.

Not only is this a bad deal from a capabilities perspective, its also a bad deal from an industrial perspective. Its clear that the MRCA levels of western aircraft, with the associated technology and/or co-production are unafordable, and the more time that goes by the cheaper MRCA options (such as the F-16) become less viable. If all you end up with are (in the absence of 120 rafales) are a bunch of bad choices, then why not take a risk and set an ambitious goal for the LCA production, with MKI numbers being the hedge?

[Indranil]

Brar sahab,

It has been late. But, please accept my hat tip to you.

[ShauryaT]

Thank you brar, for NOT articulating a view based on where you sit.

[sudeepj]

1. Please educate me on which of the following will we become an expert in by virtue of another fighter line building say 200 fighters: engine, radar, missiles, structures, control law, aero design expertise

It is the argument of the 240-400 LCA camp, that by manufacturing more units we will become experts in all kinds of things. My argument is that the new line will make more refined aircraft that can be surged, that can be integrated with other forces, that are more capable in general. Given that we will be integrating into a global supply chain, this will also give us the opportunity to better integrate into that market, instead of making LCA parts.

2. Please ask your friends in Boeing if they would invest in the same automation robots if they had to make 1 airplane per month.

Why dont you ask your friends in HAL if the second LCA line will be vastly more refined than the first or a clone of the first line? Will they attempt to make that riveting robot if India doubles its production order from 120 - 240?

3. You are asking the same industry to automagically manufacture a foreign fighter, aren't you

No, in collaboration with LM. If its the LCA, the tech infusion into our private sector, say reliance or TASL, will come from HAL. Itll still be a few generations behind what is going on at LM/Boeing/Dassault...

4. I would like you to show me how a Gripen with same payload and fuel fraction will be able to have longer legs than the Mk1A. The difference in range under the same laws of physics will by in +-5%. What India needs to invest in is refuelers. If we are going to have 800 aircrafts with in flight refueling capability, we should have at least 30-40 refuelers. Unfortunately, we go for the glamour of fighters.

Agreed, Gripen doesnt make sense. I would rather have the LCA Mk Any than the Gripen. I think its there just so we avoid the single vendor situation and to make LM work for the contract.

5. Did not understand your question.

I am making a point that the IAF buys 1-2 squadrons of planes every year, given that it is a 35 odd squadron force, and that a plane has a design life of 30 years. There may be a few years with more squadrons acquired, and few years with less, but that is the median number around which the numbers shall fluctuate. Given these small numbers, can India sustain a 'defense technology island'? To me the answer is no, we must integrate into some larger island, be it French, European, Russian or the US. Eu and French are substandard (no 5G), horrendously expensive, corrupt, politically unreliable. Russian interests are aligned with Chinese. What is left?

6. You do realize that you are saying that while our Su-30s, Mig-29s, LCAs, Mirages, Mig-27s all share the same armaments. So, if we want to be really prepared, we should get planes which share these same armaments, and then stock up on those armaments. Going for 120 airplanes which require specialized armaments and then beg or borrow their armaments in times of distress is not my definition of preparedness.

120 is a start. Next, it may not be your definition of preparedness, but it certainly works for other countries. Our TFTA neighbors were regularly infused with extra airframes whenever they chose to get a thrashing from us. These airframes were transferred with the explicit blessing of the Khan. Today, when Russia is embroiled in a conflict on its western border, you expect them to help you out with your conflicts when such help could land them in a two front disturbance kind of situation? Severe financial sanctions against Russia by the West are a possibility. If that happens, who will they sell their oil to? Will they risk that for some tuchha-muchha figher plane orders from the IAF?

GoI is not simply walking into a bazaar and trying to buy some airframes. They are also looking for security partners. There is only one partner with the needed heft besides the apna hath jaggan-nath.

[brar_w]

I've been calling the F-16 proposal as a bad deal pretty much since it was first floated. It made sense back in the day when the original MRCA proposal (that included the simple option of buying the M2K) was floated. Buying the F-16, that too through the slowest acquistion mechanism (co-production) is actually making an already bad problem (cost curve, fighter types and depleting fighter numbers) worst.

[sudeepj]

I've been calling the F-16 proposal as a bad deal. It made sense back in the day when the original MRCA proposal (that included the simple option of buying the M2K) was floated. Buying the F-16, that too through the slowest acquistion mechanism (co-production) is actually making an already bad problem (cost curve, fighter types and depleting fighter numbers) worst.

Interesting. Please elaborate..

[brar_w]

I don't think there is much that needs to be elaborated. By far the fastest way to acquire capability is through FMS or FMS like/term commercial deals. The slowest is to actually sit down create user specific changes, work up inter-governmental challenges when it comes to licences, technology transfers and other agreements. This would be fine if you are negotiating for a program like the F-35 or to co-develop the FGFA - figthers that have long life ahead of them when it comes to technology and modernization.

To go through the time consuming process over an end of the road figther program is rather absurd especially when you have alternatives such as boosting LCA production and hedging that by directing acquisition attention to the MKI such as a quick lease or a short term plan to buy a few dozen to offer them up for sale at a later date if there are concerns of too many heavy fighter.

I mentioned three major challenges, and going for such an option does not address any one of them -

* Cost Curve - Fighter acquisitions are trending upwards. A bespoke F-16 variant where a large portion of the deal goes toward buying technology or licencing production for components does nothing to address that.

* Fighter types - Obvious

* Fleet size - Its obvious that going through the longest (duration) acquisition cycle helps the least with fleet size. If there was an emergent or even an urgent need to increase fleet size, the fastest option would be to simply buy more flankers. A more ambitious, and strategic option would be to take that money and set a very ambitious short-medium term goal for the LCA and source help to meet it.

[sudeepj]

I don't think there is much that needs to be elaborated. By far the fastest way to acquire capability is through FMS or FMS like/term commercial deals. The slowest is to actually sit down create user specific changes, work up inter-governmental challenges when it comes to licences, technology transfers and other agreements. This would be fine if you are negotiating for a program like the F-35 or to co-develop the FGFA - figthers that have long life ahead of them when it comes to technology and modernization.

To go through the time consuming process over an end of the road figther program is rather absurd especially when you have alternatives such as boosting LCA production and hedging that by directing acquisition attention to the MKI such as a quick lease or a short term plan to buy a few dozen to offer them up for sale at a later day if there are concerns of too many heavy fighter.

Unless the F16 has a long life, what you are saying makes sense. But consider, that Chinese J10s and J16s will continue to be made for the next 10 years. At least until the J20/J30 production comes up and stabilizes. These numerous airframes will continue to serve for perhaps 30 years. They will definitely fly in Paki colors for the next 30 years, given the commitment that Xi has shown to Pak in recent years. It may be these fighters that the local F16s may be targetted against. Lastly, it may be a way to segue into the production of more advanced fighters of US origin at a later date. One has to start somewhere, and the JSF may be too complex at this time. Just my 2 cents.

[JayS]

What does ISRO do when it needs to launch a satellite that GSLV/PSLV cannot lift? It goes to Ariane.

But let me apply the logic that has been used on this thread. If ISRO must go to Arilane to do things that it is already doing, then someone is trying to kill ISRO.

This is obviously bullshit. ISRO goes on doing what it does and the help of an external agency is taken for things ISRO cannot do. But That does not shut ISRO down

Why would the situation for Tejas be different? The Tejas lline will go on and later AMCA. But when numbers cannot be met, we take the help of an external agency.

You are going tangent to the topic at hand here. The correct comparison would be, despite having PSLV, just because ISRO cannot do enough launches, GOI looks for some other Rocket in the same class as PSLV and then decide to invite them to set shop next to ISRO.

ISRO going to Arian for capacity beyond them is same as buying Su-30 or Rafale because we cannot build our own twin medium or heavy jet. Plus ISRO has been working on GSLV relentlessly and soon will eliminate need of Arian totally, just as, in ideal world, we will build AMCA and will not need to buy another medium fighter from outside.

For us to have a similar situation as Tejas vis-a-vis GSLV, GOI has to invite ESA to make and launch A5/6 from India. Then we will see if that will have any real effect on ISRO or not. Otherwise its Apples vs Oranges.

[brar_w]

Unless the F16 has a long life, what you are saying makes sense. But consider, that Chinese J10s and J16s will continue to be made for the next 10 years

Those are Chinese aircraft and not something they have acquired in 2016 from abroad to address future fighter aircraft needs. That's one major difference. It would be the same for the LCA - its a viable production platform well into the late 2020's and beyond in part because its a domestic design even though capability wise better options may be available from abroad.

[NRao]

then why not take a risk and set an ambitious goal for the LCA production, with MKI numbers being the hedge?

Simply because risk, in such matters, can be computed. Not that difficult (for those in the process).

Secondly, as much as BR would like to make this a LCA vs. F-16/Gripen matter, it simply is not (posted earlier on this).

Finally, do you really think either of these planes would make it deep into the mid-century?

I think the LCA should be made (no matter) for the simple reason that the line needs to be open. Unless I have missed something (and very likely I have, since I do nto read all the posts) the LCA cannot be made in numbers in a short enough time to meet IAF needs (??????).

[Indranil]

1. Please educate me on which of the following will we become an expert in by virtue of another fighter line building say 200 fighters: engine, radar, missiles, structures, control law, aero design expertise

It is the argument of the 240-400 LCA camp, that by manufacturing more units we will become experts in all kinds of things. My argument is that the new line will make more refined aircraft that can be surged, that can be integrated with other forces, that are more capable in general. Given that we will be integrating into a global supply chain, this will also give us the opportunity to better integrate into that market, instead of making LCA parts.

First of all, I don't buy it that F-16s and Gripens are much more refined aircrafts. Second, if we want to tap into the global supply chain we can with the LCA too. As far as I know, that is not the goal. ADA/HAL have been tasked to make as many LRUs within India as possible.

2. Please ask your friends in Boeing if they would invest in the same automation robots if they had to make 1 airplane per month.

Why dont you ask your friends in HAL if the second LCA line will be vastly more refined than the first or a clone of the first line? Will they attempt to make that riveting robot if India doubles its production order from 120 - 240?
[/quote]
No sir. Thankfully I have friends both at HAL and Boeing. Even an order of 240 LCAs will not make financial reasons to import such robots. However, NAL could be tasked to build the LCA wing with more co-cured parts. Did you know that many parts on the LCA like its tail, rudder etc. have 0 rivets? This leads to a 35% and 20% weight reduction to traditional assembly.The cost reduction is of the order of 30%. Saras's wing has the entire bottom skin and all the wing structures co-cured together. This significantly decreases the part count from 300 to 1, decreases weight, cost, and assembly time. So please go out and read more. Boeing applies a method that best suits its requirements. We can find one that suits ours. But we need to orders to make it financially viable to investigate these paths

3. You are asking the same industry to automagically manufacture a foreign fighter, aren't you

No, in collaboration with LM. If its the LCA, the tech infusion into our private sector, say reliance or TASL, will come from HAL. Itll still be a few generations behind what is going on at LM/Boeing/Dassault...
[/quote]
I think you don't understand what LM's proposal is. Also, I don't understand why you feel that LCA's tech is inferior to the F-16s. For 120 aircrafts, there will be no indeginization of any of the LRUs. Everything will come from outside. There will be an assembly line here which screws together these parts into a complete plane. That is all.

4. I would like you to show me how a Gripen with same payload and fuel fraction will be able to have longer legs than the Mk1A. The difference in range under the same laws of physics will by in +-5%. What India needs to invest in is refuelers. If we are going to have 800 aircrafts with in flight refueling capability, we should have at least 30-40 refuelers. Unfortunately, we go for the glamour of fighters.

Agreed, Gripen doesnt make sense. I would rather have the LCA Mk Any than the Gripen. I think its there just so we avoid the single vendor situation and to make LM work for the contract.
[/quote]
May be. However, I think right now SAAB has more traction than F-16.

5. Did not understand your question.

I am making a point that the IAF buys 1-2 squadrons of planes every year, given that it is a 35 odd squadron force, and that a plane has a design life of 30 years. There may be a few years with more squadrons acquired, and few years with less, but that is the median number around which the numbers shall fluctuate. Given these small numbers, can India sustain a 'defense technology island'? To me the answer is no, we must integrate into some larger island, be it French, European, Russian or the US. Eu and French are substandard (no 5G), horrendously expensive, corrupt, politically unreliable. Russian interests are aligned with Chinese. What is left?
[/quote]
No sane person argues for an island in today's economy. Wherever, India does not have the capability scout for it abroad. Buy it, screwdriver it, indigenize it. But where India does have a capability to produce a quality product, there is no reason to support its competitors. LCA by itself is not an island. It's parts and ammunition come from a myraid of nations. In fact, it does not have any sub-standard parts. Wherever, we can't build a quality part at home, we have imported the part from a global leader.

6. You do realize that you are saying that while our Su-30s, Mig-29s, LCAs, Mirages, Mig-27s all share the same armaments. So, if we want to be really prepared, we should get planes which share these same armaments, and then stock up on those armaments. Going for 120 airplanes which require specialized armaments and then beg or borrow their armaments in times of distress is not my definition of preparedness.

120 is a start. Next, it may not be your definition of preparedness, but it certainly works for other countries. Our TFTA neighbors were regularly infused with extra airframes whenever they chose to get a thrashing from us. These airframes were transferred with the explicit blessing of the Khan. Today, when Russia is embroiled in a conflict on its western border, you expect them to help you out with your conflicts when such help could land them in a two front disturbance kind of situation? Severe financial sanctions against Russia by the West are a possibility. If that happens, who will they sell their oil to? Will they risk that for some tuchha-muchha figher plane orders from the IAF?

GoI is not simply walking into a bazaar and trying to buy some airframes. They are also looking for security partners. There is only one partner with the needed heft besides the apna hath jaggan-nath.[/quote]

[brar_w]

Finally, do you really think either of these planes would make it deep into the mid-century?

You mean the LCA, MKI or the LCA and the F-16? Either way, if both cannot make it to the mid-century why spend a ton more money on importing an even more expensive option?

Simply because risk, in such matters, can be computed. Not that difficult (for those in the process).

Simple analysis. When can the F-16 be expected? MRCA saga shows, not in the short term..Perhaps the medium term. What's the MKI production rate (in house and russia)? When can the LCA production be sealed and boosted if everyone (MOD, IAF, HAL and private industry with the help of international partners if need be) made it a priority (backed by real $$'s). I don't know the answer to all these but the choice to go in for the F-16 that is unlikely to be delivered by the turn of the decade looks like as bad an idea as one could really get.

[Indranil]

I think the LCA should be made (no matter) for the simple reason that the line needs to be open. Unless I have missed something (and very likely I have, since I do nto read all the posts) the LCA cannot be made in numbers in a short enough time to meet IAF needs (??????).

If the fleet strength is the cause, then buy 120 F-16s from LM under FMS deal. It will be much cheaper and faster, than moving the whole line here, training the people, indigenizing the effort for no technological gains.

And please stop idolizing western products. The risk involved in moving the entire F-16 assembly line to India, and then manufacturing only 120 aircrafts from the same and a whole gamut of compatible ammunition is much higher than building a few more MKIs of existing production lines. Forget the time, effort and the money involved. Makes zero sense.

[ShauryaT]

Can the US be bought?

I say yes the US can be bought. The Chinese bought the US in low tech manufacture. Let us buy the US by involving them in so much that they are caught. I am saying this as a person who has written thousands of words cursing the US for its perfidy. But I see US power on the decline and it will seek helping hands. The signs of a decline in US influence are everywhere. Rapprochement with Iran. Philippines mocking the US and Pakistan not bending to anything the US did, and the US gradually accepting what China is catching up even as the US struggles with Russia

Yes, buy them for everything and setup an "outsourced" shop for everything from the US, deeply integrate our economy in EVERY area that we can, raise and double our manufacturing from 11% to 22% of GDP. Offer a 10 yr tax holiday for every factory moved from China with guaranteed IPR protection. Just leave our MIC in Indian hands, under India IPR and control. Let that one thing be a largely Indian owned venture and I have NO issues with the US and its "friendship" with India.

[sudeepj]

Indranil, you certainly have a right to your opinion. Given the speed and the purpose with which this govt. has moved, if they want to make it happen, they will make it happen in the needed time frames. In the end, its not just a technical question.

[JayS]

Indranil, you certainly have a right to your opinion. Given the speed and the purpose with which this govt. has moved, if they want to make it happen, they will make it happen in the needed time frames. In the end, its not just a technical question.

You know what, you have came here with a closed mind and no matter what anyone here would tell you, you are not going to listen or think or change your opinion about anything. You are just repeating the same things over and over again without giving a single sound argument or example to support how F16 will magically transform our MIC or how F16 will come up fast enough to fill the number, at the very least. On contrary, you expect the people who are supporting desi production to prove to you how 240 nos is better than 120nos. I was actually gonna write is long post as a last attempt to give you some perspective on how exactly Aerospace manufacturing works, but looking at the posts on this page, I realised that it is going to be a futile attempt, so why waste my time. Keep doing what you are doing and soon it will become trolling.

[JayS]

So folks, HAL is being dis invested. 10% in first attempt. Gear up for buying some shares.

I shared link in Mil Heli thread about LCH. Why I am bringing it up here is, HAL has gone ahead with Serial Production of LCH, and there is no contract given to HAL so far from IA or GOI. Such sorry state of affairs. How will any company, let alone HAL will even plan for production scale up??

Same story everywhere. We will be cursing HAL for slow production rate 2-3yrs down the line.

[NRao]

For what it is worth.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7220&p=2062266#p2062266

[sudeepj]

Indranil, you certainly have a right to your opinion. Given the speed and the purpose with which this govt. has moved, if they want to make it happen, they will make it happen in the needed time frames. In the end, its not just a technical question.

You know what, you have came here with a closed mind and no matter what anyone here would tell you, you are not going to listen or think or change your opinion about anything. You are just repeating the same things over and over again without giving a single sound argument or example to support how F16 will magically transform our MIC or how F16 will come up fast enough to fill the number, at the very least. On contrary, you expect the people who are supporting desi production to prove to you how 240 nos is better than 120nos.

JayS bhai, this business of changing opinions, mine and others, is tiresome. There are different perspectives, each with some kernel of truth. Ultimately, it will be the GoI which will decide, not you and me. They will have far more information and far more considerations than forum members.

I was actually gonna write is long post as a last attempt to give you some perspective on how exactly Aerospace manufacturing works, but looking at the posts on this page, I realised that it is going to be a futile attempt, so why waste my time. Keep doing what you are doing and soon it will become trolling.

Be my guest.. Shed your pearls of wisdom. if not me, you will certainly convince some one else! For the most part, I have put forward my perspective as best I could and have no intention of going on about it, so no need to worry on that count.

[JayS]

For what it is worth.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7220&p=2062266#p2062266

Similar hogwash as what SAAB is peddling.

[JayS]

JayS bhai, this business of changing opinions, mine and others, is tiresome. There are different perspectives, each with some kernel of truth. Ultimately, it will be the GoI which will decide, not you and me. They will have far more information and far more considerations than forum members.

Then just say your thing and be done with it. Stop asking people to prove their point of view when all you gonna say after that is "I don't care whatever you said just now, lets agree to disagree".

Be my guest.. Shed your pearls of wisdom. if not me, you will certainly convince some one else! For the most part, I have put forward my perspective as best I could and have no intention of going on about it, so no need to worry on that count.

Nope, Won't waste my 1hr now. May be later for someone who really wanna listen. Anyway you are done. Thank you for you point of view.

[brar_w]

Does not matter. Outside of a few points they will be about the same in what they face.

That makes the F-16 a highly expensive option that does not deliver anything over and above what the LCA with an MKI hedge strategy could get you.

That is my problem: too many IFs.

India needs to address pretty much every front at the same time. Just increasing the production of the LAC will only move one/two needles, that too over a long period of time. I would prefer they keep the LCA "line open", invest heavily in the AMCA/FGFA, get that moving and back fill the LCA.

Speed and agility in the acquisition system does not apply since clearly the proposal appears to be headed towards the slowest acquisition path available to any nation looking to buy military hardware (A step above since you are looking at proposals that move the sole production facility abroad). The cost argument is also invalid, since if acquired with the current prerequisites (move a production line, move tooling, train workforce, enroll Indian industry into the F-16 industrial base) you still end up with the highest cost possible for an F-16 acquired in 2010's. Going through a list of reasons why this may make sense I could only think of is that somehow this involves the private industry (local partnership) and they could be the one pushing for it (this applies as much to SAAB as well)

[JayS]

Noob question, is the F16 blk70/72 version ready for production the moment order is given??

[brar_w]

^ There is no Block 70 a in a customer defined variant. There are changes to the block 60 that are pretty much ready to go. A different radar, an upgraded IRST sensor in addition to avionics upgrades that address obsolesce and other technology inserts. These things are pretty much ready to go. Other things like new mission computers may be ready as well but they have most definitely not been flown or proposed as far as I can tell.

[JayS]

Speed and agility in the acquisition system does not apply since clearly the proposal appears to be headed towards the slowest acquisition path available to any nation looking to buy military hardware (A step above since you are looking at proposals that move the sole production facility abroad). The cost argument is also invalid, since if acquired with the current prerequisites (move a production line, move tooling, train workforce, enroll Indian industry into the F-16 industrial base) you still end up with the highest cost possible for an F-16 acquired in 2010's. Going through a list of reasons why this may make sense I could only think of is that somehow this involves the private industry (local partnership) and they could be the one pushing for it (this applies as much to SAAB as well)

Wouldn't that be a big joke on us if F16 could come only as fast as LCA could have for those same numbers?? And would end-up only marginally cheaper or even slightly costlier than Rafale on per unit flyaway cost basis had we orders 72 or 90 Rafale directily from France??

[NRao]

I am assuming that you too see this as a LCS vs. F-16/Gripen issue? I do not .

Finally, do you really think either of these planes would make it deep into the mid-century?

You mean the LCA, MKI or the LCA and the F-16? Either way, if both cannot make it to the mid-century why spend a ton more money on importing an even more expensive option?

Does not matter. The grace is that the Chinese have not made the progress they were expected to make thus far. But, I doubt what they can throw is other terms would be dealt more more LCA/MKIs. There needs to be a change in the platform itself AND then more of such platforms would greatly help.

Simply because risk, in such matters, can be computed. Not that difficult (for those in the process).

Simple analysis. When can the F-16 be expected? MRCA saga shows, not in the short term..Perhaps the medium term. What's the MKI production rate (in house and russia)? When can the LCA production be sealed and boosted if everyone (MOD, IAF, HAL and private industry with the help of international partners if need be) made it a priority (backed by real $$'s). I don't know the answer to all these but the choice to go in for the F-16 that is unlikely to be delivered by the turn of the decade looks like as bad an idea as one could really get.

Agreed on the (and other posts too) analysis.

But that is not my argument. More LCAs (other than the above arg) moves only one or two needles. Clearly Modi, et al are trying to move a LOT more needles - something lost on BR. India (Modi) cannot move at glacial speeds. India needs a game plan that moves many needles at the very same time: perhaps keep the LCA line open (at minimal cost) + invest very heavily in the AMCA/FGFA and plow back teh benefits from these newer techs (design, production, whatever) back into the LCA. So, even the LAC produced in 2025 would be far more advanced than the one made in 2020+.

The issue, as far as I am concerned, is not "LCA", but a LCA that is stagnant in techs because of a shift in focus to ramping up production and therefore starving the other areas such as research and newer products. Learning is a necessity, but one that India cannot afford because of time.

[sudeepj]

JayS bhai, this business of changing opinions, mine and others, is tiresome. There are different perspectives, each with some kernel of truth. Ultimately, it will be the GoI which will decide, not you and me. They will have far more information and far more considerations than forum members.

Then just say your thing and be done with it. Stop asking people to prove their point of view when all you gonna say after that is "I don't care whatever you said just now, lets agree to disagree".

Be my guest.. Shed your pearls of wisdom. if not me, you will certainly convince some one else! For the most part, I have put forward my perspective as best I could and have no intention of going on about it, so no need to worry on that count.

Nope, Won't waste my 1hr now. May be later for someone who really wanna listen. Anyway you are done. Thank you for you point of view.

Why declare war on me bro? If you have such deep profundities to bring to light, why make me center of that expression! Why indeed, restrict it to the forum! Send it to the GoI, the new bunch listens, I am told.

This type of thinking is only one step removed from 'they must have been bribed, thats why they are taking this obviously flawed decision that I in my expertise declare as totally flawed'. The only difference between the two streams of posts is one attributes the new line to bribes and the other to stupidity.. With the corollary being, that the person doing the declamations is either completely honest compared to the other side or really really smart!

Admit it, you dont have all the information, you dont have all the factors that are being considered, you dont have the details of the threat perception.. I am happy in the uncertainty of not knowing and happier still to consider both perspectives without coming to the conclusion that the only reason for a decision that I do not personally like is stupidity or malice. Ill be even happier than the F16 line if Messers Modi/Parrikar decide on a 240 LCA production run, because to me itll indicate that our desi fighter is inspiring confidence in the decision makers and is able to take on anything. But ill not insist that Modi/Parrikar place a 240 LCA production order today, because I (the great aeronautical engineer and fighter pilot!) feel, in my wisdom that its the right path.

Looking forward to read your great insights into aero-production!

[NRao]

Speed and agility in the acquisition system does not apply since clearly the proposal appears to be headed towards the slowest acquisition path available to any nation looking to buy military hardware (A step above since you are looking at proposals that move the sole production facility abroad). The cost argument is also invalid, since if acquired with the current prerequisites (move a production line, move tooling, train workforce, enroll Indian industry into the F-16 industrial base) you still end up with the highest cost possible for an F-16 acquired in 2010's. Going through a list of reasons why this may make sense I could only think of is that somehow this involves the private industry (local partnership) and they could be the one pushing for it (this applies as much to SAAB as well)

Wouldn't that be a big joke in us if F16 could come only as fast as LCA could have for those same numbers?? And would end-up only marginally cheaper or even slightly costlier than Rafale on per unit flyaway cost basis had we orders 72 or 90 Rafale directily from France??

Absolutely it would be a joke.

But, the question is are those the only factors being considered and nothing else? That has been my arg along, that there are other factors. Granted they have not been talked about by GoI/MoD.

[sudeepj]

Does not matter. Outside of a few points they will be about the same in what they face.

That makes the F-16 a highly expensive option that does not deliver anything over and above what the LCA with an MKI hedge strategy could get you.

But the F16 is a 9G fighter when the LCA is 8G! Also much faster than the LCA. It has much longer legs compared to the LCA, It can fire missiles that are proven to work! The radar is awesome! Why do you say it does not deliver anything over and above the LCA? Right now, if IAF has to take on the PLAAF, they will be in the unhappy circumstance of facing an adversary familiar with their primary heavy weight fighter, the Su30.

[NRao]

Speed and agility in the acquisition system does not apply since clearly the proposal appears to be headed towards the slowest acquisition path available to any nation looking to buy military hardware (A step above since you are looking at proposals that move the sole production facility abroad). The cost argument is also invalid, since if acquired with the current prerequisites (move a production line, move tooling, train workforce, enroll Indian industry into the F-16 industrial base) you still end up with the highest cost possible for an F-16 acquired in 2010's. Going through a list of reasons why this may make sense I could only think of is that somehow this involves the private industry (local partnership) and they could be the one pushing for it (this applies as much to SAAB as well

Parrikar/Modi, I bet, are expecting a much cheaper product with an eye on exports. A F-16 (or a Gripen) line in India is not just for the Indian market. IF it turns out to be "as expensive" it would be a blow to MII itself. One that Modi cam ill afford for the longer term Indian economy.

[UlanBatori]

And bonus! Anytime there is a war, the F-16 missiles will simply not detonate once beyond the LOC. Sooo simple to put a chip programmed to do that. And once the LCA project is killed off, Lockheed will oops! have to raise the price on those F-16s, sorree onlee.

[JayS]

OK so discounting any development time and assuming F16 can start production without any delay on account of blk70 development, here is what I think most optimistic timelines for 120 F16, assuming zero red-tapism on Indian govt part for Lands, infra, clearances etc.

2017 - tender floated. Technical evaluation, downselection and price negotiation.
2018 - order placed. LM gives contracts for long lead items immediately.
2019-2020 - Time taken for LM to shift facility in India and making it production ready.
2022 - 1st fighter coming out. one year taken for ramp up to full speed.
2023-2029 - 6yrs of production run with peak speed of 20/yr and taper off. Anything less than 6yrs is not worthwhile for doing all this IMO.

In the second option if we go for first few made in USA and then rest in India.
2017 - tender floated. Technical evaluation, downselection and price negotiation.
2018 - order placed. LM gives contracts for long lead items immediately.
2019-2020 - Time taken for LM to shift facility in India and making it production ready. They will shift the facility in phases where some jig/fixtures will be kept in US to start production of 1st few F16 while the facility in india takes shape.
2020-2021 - 1st fighter from US, 3yrs of lead time after contract signing.
2021-2022 - about 20 jets made at lower rate as some of the facility was shifted. While Indian facility is up and ready for production.
2022-2028 - next 100 jets made in India with peak rate of 20/yr, ramp up-taper down included.

So in my thinking getting some flyaway jets not gonna help much on timelines.

Comments are welcome on this. I only applied my limited knowledge on this, so might be wrong on some of the items.

[NRao]

That makes the F-16 a highly expensive option that does not deliver anything over and above what the LCA with an MKI hedge strategy could get you.

Which is why I have stated many a times, move on to the AMCA. At one point I had even mentioned it is better to stop the order for more MKIs and order PAK-FA (NOT FGFA).

That does not mean stop the LCA - keep it humming at the lowest rate possible. The IAF too needs to cooperate.

[Karan M]

JayS, kudos for the effort, but you can't make somebody unwilling to see.

9G vs 8G - so how much time is going to be spent in that 1+G in an era of HOBS missiles & HMS. Also, what of the F/A-18 E/F which too is 8G?
Much faster . - IAF is ok with 1.6M+ Rafale, same class as LCA but "much faster" F-16 didn't clear the trials.
Much better radar .. much better in what exactly? What is the level of control India will get for each to whit?
Proven missile .. OK, proven till India attacks TSP in which case they know all about the F-16..

err no wait, India will deploy F-16s against China and Flankers against TSP.
only that the IAF does no such basing strategy.

much better range.. with what # of pylons occupied with heavy DT and/or CFT and what happens to aircraft performance then against a heavy PRC style S-3XX/S-4XX IADS? wouldn't it make even better sense to build more LCAs against TSP (for which their 300km radius is sufficient and IADS can be countered with SPJ, protection aids and other LCAs as escorts) & build up Su-30 serviceability with a wider range of munitions, sensors and weapons against PRC for stand off strike.

[JayS]

Then just say your thing and be done with it. Stop asking people to prove their point of view when all you gonna say after that is "I don't care whatever you said just now, lets agree to disagree".



Nope, Won't waste my 1hr now. May be later for someone who really wanna listen. Anyway you are done. Thank you for you point of view.

Why declare war on me bro? If you have such deep profundities to bring to light, why make me center of that expression! Why indeed, restrict it to the forum! Send it to the GoI, the new bunch listens, I am told.

This type of thinking is only one step removed from 'they must have been bribed, thats why they are taking this obviously flawed decision that I in my expertise declare as totally flawed'. The only difference between the two streams of posts is one attributes the new line to bribes and the other to stupidity.. With the corollary being, that the person doing the declamations is either completely honest compared to the other side or really really smart!

Admit it, you dont have all the information, you dont have all the factors that are being considered, you dont have the details of the threat perception.. I am happy in the uncertainty of not knowing and happier still to consider both perspectives without coming to the conclusion that the only reason for a decision that I do not personally like is stupidity or malice. Ill be even happier than the F16 line if Messers Modi/Parrikar decide on a 240 LCA production run, because to me itll indicate that our desi fighter is inspiring confidence in the decision makers and is able to take on anything. But ill not insist that Modi/Parrikar place a 240 LCA production order today, because I (the great aeronautical engineer and fighter pilot!) feel, in my wisdom that its the right path.

Looking forward to read your great insights into aero-production!

My last post to you. Everyone here is only producing hypotheses on why the decision. No one is privy to Cabinet Committee thinking. I have already accepted Vina's explanation is most agreeable to me. Numbers, make in India, quid pro quo blah blah. I just don't accept the argument that it will enable our MIC for AMCA or whatever. Until I see some proof on contrary. And I am entitled to hold my ground on this because I am talking based on my field experience not from being a keyboard worrier. Wherever I talk as keyboard worrier I concede to more leaned folks here. And however big Bhakt I might be I am not a blind one.

[sudeepj]

9G vs 8G - so how much time is going to be spent in that 1+G in an era of HOBS missiles & HMS. Also, what of the F/A-18 E/F which too is 8G?
Much faster . - IAF is ok with 1.6M+ Rafale, same class as LCA but "much faster" F-16 didn't clear the trials.
Much better radar .. much better in what exactly? What is the level of control India will get for each to whit?
Proven missile .. OK, proven till India attacks TSP in which case they know all about the F-16..

err no wait, India will deploy F-16s against China and Flankers against TSP.
only that the IAF does no such basing strategy.

Rafale is Mach 1.8+, fwiw. Much better radar in whatever it is that radars do! Are you seriously saying that a fighter with a max weapons load of 10 8 tonnes 'does not bring anything additional' compared to a fighter with a max weapons load of 3.5 tonnes? Is it your contention that 2052 + Derby is better than/comparable to APG-83 + AAMRAAM?

much better range.. with what # of pylons occupied with heavy DT and/or CFT and what happens to aircraft performance then against a heavy PRC style S-3XX/S-4XX IADS?

Oh so now aircraft performance is needed!

wouldn't it make even better sense to build more LCAs against TSP (for which their 300km radius is sufficient and IADS can be countered with SPJ, protection aids and other LCAs as escorts) & build up Su-30 serviceability with a wider range of munitions, sensors and weapons against PRC for stand off strike.

Yes, it may make better sense. Point is, I can not know for sure, and neither can you because most of the relevant info is with the GoI, which is not saying much. But feel free to hurl allegations of corruption or stupidity! Its a democracy with a lot of tolerance!

[sudeepj]

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article781.html

"The flying qualities of the F-16 with CFTs are essentially unchanged when compared to a non-CFT equipped airplane," said Stephen W. Barter, chief F-16 test pilot and company CFT project pilot. "For most combat flight conditions, it's as if the CFTs are not even there. The surest way for me to tell if CFTs are installed is to look over my shoulder."

"The CFTs have very little adverse affect on the F-16's renowned performance," said Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, U.S. Air Force project pilot for CFT testing at Eglin. "The aircraft retains its full 9-g capability and flight envelope with the CFTs installed. The drag impact is very small - less than one percent in combat configuration at cruise conditions."

...
A shipset of two CFTs provide a total of 440 U.S. gal, or approximately 3,000 lbs of additional fuel for the F-16. The extra fuel can significantly extend mission range, time on station or time engaged in combat. This range/persistence enhancement is very valuable for countries that do not have tankers for aerial refueling. For countries that do have tankers, CFTs can reduce the tanker offload demand and extend the fighter's penetration distance

CFTs also increase the F-16's payload flexibility. For medium range air-to-surface missions, CFTs can eliminate the need for wing tanks. This allows doubling the F-16's primary weapon capacity and flying with two, rather than one, types of large weapons in a balanced configuration.

[Indranil]

Rafale is Mach 1.8+, fwiw. Much better radar in whatever it is that radars do!

This is your argument?

Are you seriously saying that a fighter with a max weapons load of 10 8 tonnes 'does not bring anything additional' compared to a fighter with a max weapons load of 3.5 tonnes?

First you are comparing a medium weight fighter with a light fighter, when the comparison is between light weight fighters. Anyways, let's indulge in some elementary math. Please calculate the thrust to weight ratio and wing loading of the Rafale while carrying its advertised MTOW. It is all fine when you fly over Libya. But, I would pity the IAF pilot flying that config and entering PAF/PLAAF territory. Now, imagine two LCAs carrying 7 Tons of payload. Now calculate their TWR and wing loading. In which cockpit would you rather place the pilots? Between what is the maximum Gs that the Rafale can pull at max MTOW?

Is it your contention that 2052 + Derby is better than/comparable to APG-83 + AAMRAAM?

They are comparable. Do you not understand what you are presenting is nothing more than fanboyism!

Actually, the only sane argument that you have presented till now is that GoI/IAF must be right because they know more. If you just say that as is, it is much stronger argument than what you are currently arguing.