Indian Air Force - News & Discussion # 12

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 314

You want 378 LCA instead of 126 MMRCAs? 3 x LCA would cost around $70 million dollar, similar to 2/3 of the MMRCA, so not very cost-effective or?
boss, you might want to check those figures again.

they are waaaaaay off.

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 242

The above is inaccurate, as changes to wing design and air-intake design are NOT needed at all in Tejas Mk.2.

As numerously mentioned earlier, wing-redesign had already been done from Jan 2004 and incorporated in PV-2 onwards to all LSP series. What EADs will do is it will add a new weapon-STATION on the middle pylon of both wings. The number of wing-PYLONS will remain the same as in Mk.1.

Intake redesign :- As per this article, intake redesign was already done, (photos are available) with LSPs to incorporate them.
Now, as per a latest article quoting Eurojet officials, integration of EJ-2000 into Tejas will require nil modifications to Tejas' fuselage as well as air-intakes. Only minor internal changes are needed, and all that can be accomplished in just two years.

I am not suggesting, IAF is, for more pylons and wing redesign IIRC as per what I read recently which in my opinion is another way to delay.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

One can add multiple weapon stations on a single wing-pylon. Good examples are JF-17 and Gripen. EADs consultancy is said to do the same on the Tejas Mk.2.

Now, Eurojet claims it can have the EJ-2000 up and running on Tejas Mk.2 in "two years flat". The only thing that remains now is the redesign of Tejas' undercarriage. As per informed members on BR forum, the designers wanted to avoid taking risks, which is why they adapted the Jaguar's proven underfuselage on the Tejas. However, it is not the optimum design and turns out to be heavier. This is expected to be resolved by EADs.

goonerkid, this search result provides a number of photos above 1024 resolution. For N-Tejas, only brochure photos are available so far. I don't think we have the actual photos of it under production yet.

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 242

You want 378 LCA instead of 126 MMRCAs? 3 x LCA would cost around $70 million dollar, similar to 2/3 of the MMRCA, so not very cost-effective or?

3 LCA: 2 MRCA makes it 189 not 378. and 2 LCA: 1 MRCA makes it 252

3 LCA pylons when equipped with Meteor/Python5 and an 2032/2052/other aesa can do more damage than 2 or 1 MRCA equipped with similar missiles. not to mention better likelihood of escaping SAMs than being a Fat target.

3 LCAs would cost $70 million, 2 MRCA would cost $110 million (using SH figure)

Why do you see only little increases? IMO only the Gripen NG and offers a little performance increase, compared to a possible LCA MK2, all other fighters should offer clearly more.

In today's SAM environment all these fighter are inadequate and that is the reason for developing 5th gen. When current 4th gen are inadequate vs defences, the Numbers vs Quality theory suggests more numbers.

Fewer SH have more likelihood of being shot by the SAM before it uses its "truckload" of payload for anything useful. India does not enjoy as much asymmetry with its neighbours as there was in the wars where SH "proved" itself. So you need more nimble and agile fighters and not sitting ducks. Its effective use would necessitate a further purchase of EA-18G thereby raising the cost. Buying in steps, SH first Growler next, to deceive MRCA budget, does not make something cost-effective. Do you want to repeat what happened with T-90 purchase?

That means instead of waiting decades till all these LCAs could be produced, IAF can also have less, but more capable fighters in time to do the same job.

and
First we need to start the production at all, then we can talk about increasing the rate

NO. First we need to put a big order. Order 40 planes and they will make at the rate of 10-12 planes/year. Order 200 and that would makes sense for a facility making 30-40 planes per year. But who would set up a 30-40 plane/year facility for a total order of just 40? Hire the engineers and technicians only to fire them in a year !!!!

And counting time taken to supply 200 using a production rate of 10-12 planes/year is a Deceptive Logic with Sinister intention. This is an accusation at Procuring people, not a suggestion.

btw wasn't there enough simulations, where F22, or even EF takes out numbers of older, or less capable fighters?

- Every Simulation starts with an assumption and Simulations are only as good as the assumptions they are based on.

- Even the best simulations results are far from reality even when money and stakes are not involved. What to talk about when huge money and stakes are involved ?

- A plane can only shoot down as many enemy planes as the AAMs it can carry in a face-off between few quality going against not-so-behind quantity. Things wouldn't reach canon-fire exchange. Any ridiculous numbers 20:1 and 100:1 is a joke to justify high budget programmes to taxpayers.

- High kill ratios 50:1, 100:1 are achieved by a networked system going against fragmented and disconnected numbers. However, Older fighters or local fighters too can be integrated as a system. As an integrated system going against another integrated system, the numbers can wreak more havoc. Success of an integrated system is falsely attributed to exaggerated superiority of individual fighter. Looking at the money and stakes involved, studies are biased.

- You can always equip older fighters with newer radars and better missiles. Cheaper to put a Meteor and an imported radar on indian platform than importing entire aircraft. Are you saying an LCA equipped with Elta 2032 or 2052 and a top-of-line Meteor and Python5 would be less capable even in numbers???? And those simulations results still be valid.

- If the simulations are only between aircrafts few quality vs many quantity kinds but do not take into simulation casualty of quality aircrafts to the modern ground based air-defences then the simulation results are meaningless

- F22 is extreme example here not applicable to comparisons between 4th gen. And still even a nation fielding a dozen of F22s could be over run by a nation fielding 100s of 4th gen.

- Extreme differences are assumed in simulations between the high performance fighters against the fighter in numbers. Avionics gaps have been largely narrowed now. Most simulations are about purely western platform going against purely russian but not against a composite or hybrid western-eastern platform.

- Regardless of fighter capability, old or new, one SAM destroys one fighter. Numbers especially one not too behind technologically would always overwhelm a minor tech lead qualitative system.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 2,626

Now, Eurojet claims it can have the EJ-2000 up and running on Tejas Mk.2 in "two years flat".

Would the engine need modification? I remember it is narrower than the GE 404 but about 30cm longer. If the engine does not need modification does the 2 years refer to the amount of time it would take to modify Tejas into a MkII version?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 442

Would the engine need modification? I remember it is narrower than the GE 404 but about 30cm longer. If the engine does not need modification does the 2 years refer to the amount of time it would take to modify Tejas into a MkII version?

As per this article by Shiv Aroor,


According to Tenter and his team, for the Tejas to be able to take in an EJ200 engine, the engine will need "minor" modifications. These include some changing to the mounting assembly, a different hydraulic pump and an additional generator pack for starters. In addition, engine interfaces might need changes depending on how the LCA is configured. All in all, Eurojet believes its tailor-made EJ200 for the LCA can be ready -- certification tests and all -- in two years flat

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 243

I don't quite understand the above view, but please note that N-Tejas is under an advanced stage of production at HAL's plant in Bangalore (source). In stark contrast, the Sea-Gripen and N-Typhoon exist only on powerpoint presentations and fancy art-work only.

The last article I found was this:

India To Seek Partners For Naval LCA Development

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4302013&c=ASI&s=TOP

That's why I thought the development will be further delayed.

The above is inaccurate. As we've seen earlier, the Tejas Mk.1 as it flies today, equates the Gripen C/D in all parameters, like range-payload and avionics.

MK1 is still only in testing and integrating stage, let it be operational and we can compare it with Gripen C/D, or Mirage 2K-5 and of course JF 17.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 243

3 LCA: 2 MRCA makes it 189 not 378. and 2 LCA: 1 MRCA makes it 252

3 LCA pylons when equipped with Meteor/Python5 and an 2032/2052/other aesa can do more damage than 2 or 1 MRCA equipped with similar missiles. not to mention better likelihood of escaping SAMs than being a Fat target...


But you will need a 3:1 ratio to equalise most of the MMRCAs!
A single Rafale for example can carry 6 AASM, or Paveway bombs, also up 8, possibly even 10 AA missiles and each config with 2 fuel tanks. How many LCAs do you need to equalise this? Also only because it's smaller doesn't make it better against SAMs, you need capable defense systems and avionics and those will be Indian on LCA, not western like on MKI.
Btw last time I checked LCA was about to get low cost weapons like R73 and R77, or Astra, highly doubtful that IAF goes for the costly Metor.
Be it payload, weapons, radar, or other avionics, the LCA is not comparable to MMRCAs and MK2 specs are totally unknown at the moment and we could only speculate.
In today's SAM environment all these fighter are inadequate

I think that's a claim that has to be proven first, especially the Rafale and F18SH are known for their latest EWS systems and performance against ground threats and only the MKI might offer comparable systems, but it's large RCS makes him also a large target. That's why IAF needs a new fighter with good A2G performance and also western weapons, to not rely only on Russian weapons.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

The last article I found was this:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4302013&c=ASI&s=TOP

That's why I thought the development will be further delayed.


See, as already mentioned earlier, this is still better than non-existent Sea-Gripen and N-Typhoon. Atleast N-Tejas is under construction.

MK1 is still only in testing and integrating stage, let it be operational and we can compare it with Gripen C/D, or Mirage 2K-5 and of course JF 17.

We can compare it even before it is operational, because ADA has publicly released the current specs of Tejas Mk.1 at Aero-India 2009. 2 months ago in Goa, it's flight envelop reached IoC standards already. By the end of this month radar-integration will complete.

According to this source Barak-2 LR-SAM for the air force has a range between 120 - 350 km!! I thought it was 70 km. All together Barak-2, LR-SAM, MR-SAM, Barak-NG, Barak-8 are like khichdi! :confused:

http://www.8ak.in/8ak_india_defence_news/2010/02/barak2-lrsam-maiden-flight-later-this-year.html

Rajan, you're right the LR-SAM is indeed of 70 kms range only. As per a latest video presentation of current DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat (posted on this forum also), the LR-SAM is of 70 kms range only. He also demonstrated that the 120-150 km range SAM will be based on the PAD, and which will also be able to counter cruise missiles.

The so-called MR-SAM is a navy designation for the very same Barak-8 / NG, and that too is of 70 km range. We sincerely hope that the Bark ... er.... I mean Barak saga ends at 70 kms only, for both, navy and air force. The navy can also use the PAD-based SAM for ranges of 120-150 kms.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

I doubt you'd be offered unfettered access to the Growler and it's subcomponents. You'd be better off using Flankers to tote around EW kit, considering they have much better excess energy ratios. It's not the size of fighter that makes it survivable, no, it's how much excess energy you have and how you use it. This is why the LCA is not going to replace medium and heavy fighters anytime soon.

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 343

Rajan, you're right the LR-SAM is indeed of 70 kms range only. As per a latest video presentation of current DRDO chief Dr VK Saraswat (posted on this forum also), the LR-SAM is of 70 kms range only. He also demonstrated that the 120-150 km range SAM will be based on the PAD, and which will also be able to counter cruise missiles.

Hi, Ab, can u post the link, cannot seem to locate it

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

The following news is, in my opinion, a "recipe for disaster", as it will keep the IAF "addicted" to foreign hardware for an even longer time period :-

India to open talks with Russia on stealth aircraft

After favouring the U.S. for its recent purchases of hi-tech military equipment, India has now turned to Russia, its old supplier, for the next generation fighter aircraft.

PAK FA, Russia’s fifth generation fighter, which boasts of radar evasion characteristics, made its maiden flight only late last month.

India inked an agreement with Russia for jointly developing this aircraft, but the time taken to complete the paperwork meant that 70 per cent of the plane was already developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau {then how exactly is it "joint development ?"}. Now India has planned to enter the project mid-way. It will discuss the development schedule for the coming years and the number of aircraft it requires with Deputy Prime Minister and Russia’s India point man S.S. Sobyanin when he visits India by the middle of this month, senior government sources said.

Though its force levels are depleting, the Indian Air Force wants to ensure that the replacements are world-class and the best in the region. The 250-plus Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter aircraft to be inducted gradually over the next decade fit the bill, and so will the 126 frontline multi-role fighter aircraft, which India plans to buy and for which six vendors are in the fray.

PAK FA, billed as a competitor to F-22 Raptor, developed by the U.S., is expected go into mass production after at least five years. The striking feature of this aircraft is its stealth characteristics: radars will find it tough to spot it. It will also be able to take off from short airstrips and remain in the air for longer than the current fighters in the inventory of air forces around the world. What has attracted India to the project is the cost factor: it will be a lot cheaper to make {read : licence produce} than F-22.

Besides the talks on the aircraft, the military-technical team accompanying Mr. Sobyanin will hold discussions on more T-90 tanks {arey, aren't 1000+ faulty T-90s enough already ??}, the naval version of MiG-29, Sukhoi-30 MKI and the multi-role transport aircraft project {after ignoring the indigenous RTA by NAL}, said the sources.

The two sides have agreed on the price for refurbishing the aircraft carrier Gorshkov. Russia is poised to deliver more frigates to the Indian Navy. It will also transfer a nuclear-powered submarine to India by the middle of this year.

Recently India has favoured the U.S. while buying medium and heavy-lift planes and long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft. U.S. companies are also in the race for several types of helicopters and refuelling planes. But officials say the list of military ventures with Russia is still longer and more varied {a very sad state of affairs. At this rate, indigenization can take a back seat till 2055}.

Reference :-
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article102209.ece

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 61

The following news is, in my opinion, a "recipe for disaster", as it will keep the IAF "addicted" to foreign hardware for an even longer time period :-

India to open talks with Russia on stealth aircraft

After favouring the U.S. for its recent purchases of hi-tech military equipment, India has now turned to Russia, its old supplier, for the next generation fighter aircraft.

PAK FA, Russia’s fifth generation fighter, which boasts of radar evasion characteristics, made its maiden flight only late last month.

India inked an agreement with Russia for jointly developing this aircraft, but the time taken to complete the paperwork meant that 70 per cent of the plane was already developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau {then how exactly is it "joint development ?"}. Now India has planned to enter the project mid-way. It will discuss the development schedule for the coming years and the number of aircraft it requires with Deputy Prime Minister and Russia’s India point man S.S. Sobyanin when he visits India by the middle of this month, senior government sources said.

Though its force levels are depleting, the Indian Air Force wants to ensure that the replacements are world-class and the best in the region. The 250-plus Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter aircraft to be inducted gradually over the next decade fit the bill, and so will the 126 frontline multi-role fighter aircraft, which India plans to buy and for which six vendors are in the fray.

PAK FA, billed as a competitor to F-22 Raptor, developed by the U.S., is expected go into mass production after at least five years. The striking feature of this aircraft is its stealth characteristics: radars will find it tough to spot it. It will also be able to take off from short airstrips and remain in the air for longer than the current fighters in the inventory of air forces around the world. What has attracted India to the project is the cost factor: it will be a lot cheaper to make {read : licence produce} than F-22.

Besides the talks on the aircraft, the military-technical team accompanying Mr. Sobyanin will hold discussions on more T-90 tanks {arey, aren't 1000+ faulty T-90s enough already ??}, the naval version of MiG-29, Sukhoi-30 MKI and the multi-role transport aircraft project {after ignoring the indigenous RTA by NAL}, said the sources.

The two sides have agreed on the price for refurbishing the aircraft carrier Gorshkov. Russia is poised to deliver more frigates to the Indian Navy. It will also transfer a nuclear-powered submarine to India by the middle of this year.

Recently India has favoured the U.S. while buying medium and heavy-lift planes and long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft. U.S. companies are also in the race for several types of helicopters and refuelling planes. But officials say the list of military ventures with Russia is still longer and more varied {a very sad state of affairs. At this rate, indigenization can take a back seat till 2055}.

Reference :-
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article102209.ece

Given delays in various projects especially in the procurements of Admiral Gorhskov and Scorpeane submarine despite paying a handsome sum was more then enough to concerned authorities to wake from their slumber. Despite all this kickbacks and delays, I don't think any branch of Indian armed forces would be able to meet their schedule target of modernization.

One of the reason for such a popularizing interest in Foriegn hardwares is nothing but our own growing economy which can ensure purchase at excessive price.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

Given delays in various projects especially in the procurements of Admiral Gorhskov and Scorpeane submarine despite paying a handsome sum was more then enough to concerned authorities to wake from their slumber. Despite all this kickbacks and delays, I don't think any branch of Indian armed forces would be able to meet their schedule target of modernization.

One of the reason for such a popularizing interest in Foriegn hardwares is nothing but our own growing economy which can ensure purchase at excessive price.

Arey bhaisahab, modernization does not mean purchasing anything and everything that western companies have on offer. The situation is so bad, that the armed forces think that just because something's advertised on a brochure, then it has to be bought; otherwise how will we modernize ?

Just because the Russians suggested 8 years ago to fund the PAK-FA, the IAF is "gung-ho" about. Even though it DOES NOT meet preliminary requirements (source), they just don't have it to flatly refuse the Russians (for whatever reasons like threat to open up to Pak, geopolitical reasons, etc). They panicked and are going ahead to bankroll the Russians, even though all indications suggest that there won't be ANY worthwhile Indian engineering contribution on the FGFA.

Same is the case of the 126 MRCA contract. Considering that it has dragged on for nearly a decade now, it debunks the myth that IAF "urgently" needs the MRCAs. That's why it has been called a "circus". Same is the case of T-90 tank, which even the Russian army barely uses.

In a country where Padma awards are given to a former militant-mafioso, and some NRI hotelier embroiled in financial fraud cases, ANYTHING can happen in defence purchases also.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 4,441

Just because the Russians suggested 8 years ago to fund the PAK-FA, the IAF is "gung-ho" about. Even though it DOES NOT meet preliminary requirements (source), they just don't have it to flatly refuse the Russians (for whatever reasons like threat to open up to Pak, geopolitical reasons, etc). They panicked and are going ahead to bankroll the Russians, even though all indications suggest that there won't be ANY worthwhile Indian engineering contribution on the FGFA.

I can see your point in a way, i.e. as an Indian Engineer working in India developing aircraft. However if you are sitting on the other side of the fence as an end user, would you realistically want to wait for the Engineers who have already let you down or would you plump for something that has already flown and done by a company that has proved over and again that they can produce lethal aircraft?

Its a no brainer, you cant just keep putting the IAF on the hook all the time unless and until you pull up the babus that have caused the delays and under achivements in the home grown projects.

If you want the IAF, IA, and IN to be dependent on Indian industry than put the onus on the DRDO to deliver world beating items in these fields.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

I can see your point in a way, i.e. as an Indian Engineer working in India developing aircraft. However if you are sitting on the other side of the fence as an end user, would you realistically want to wait for the Engineers who have already let you down or would you plump for something that has already flown and done by a company that has proved over and again that they can produce lethal aircraft?

Its a no brainer, you cant just keep putting the IAF on the hook all the time unless and until you pull up the babus that have caused the delays and under achivements in the home grown projects.

matt, I disagree with the above. There are some examples, where the armed forces have been shown a carrot by foreign companies, and they willingly follow, despite the indigenous equivalents being available :-

1) We have the NAL Hansa ab-initio trainer (already certified and operational) and IJT Sitara. But IAF ignores these two, and floats a global tender to import turboprop tandem-seaters. Why ?

2) Despite having the PAD-AAD under development, why were Patriot briefings even held in New Delhi ?

3) Despite having an 70-seater RTA being developed, IAF wants to go for a "paper-tiger" Russian 90-seater transporter.

4) Let us "pray" that the 120-km SAM that IAF is looking for, is sourced from the modified PAD that Dr. V K Saraswat explained so well on that presentation. If it goes for some Israeli/French solution, we can deterministically conclude that IAF is wantonly not interested in indigenous equipment.

5) The 126 MRCA vis-a-vis Tejas Mk.2 i.e. with a new engine. By practical estimates, the MRCA won't start getting introduced before 2015-16 atleast, given the track record of procurement (it took 2 decades to finally ink the Hawk AJT contract). By that time, wouldn't the Mk.2 be easily ready in half a decade's time ?

6) We also have the so-called FGFA vis-a-vis MCA. Do you HAVE to buy each and everything Russians have on offer ? In 10 years' time, they'll start "dangling" UCAVs in front of the IAF. Does that mean IAF must buy it (under the guise of "joint development" ) ?

Except probably in the case of FGFA, one cannot provide the argument of "we-want-it-asap" for the rest. It is a plain case of neglecting & not supporting indigenous development, in a biased favour of imports. A 5th gen. fighter was never really in IAF's plans until Russia "goaded" it into agreeing to it. This, despite IAF's main objection of not being on board from scratch, being totally junked.

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 68

Its an old discussion in many forums, but if your own country won't buy from you, how would DRDO get the chance to go up the value chain ? This used to happen in software too, even now but a little less. Indian enterprises won't buy indian products because they are not as shiny. Eventually a US company would buy out the indian IP rights, put some shine and brand and sell it to indian companies at 4 times the original cost.

I can see PAK-FA arrangement with Russia can be good for india, but not at the cost of killing our own development efforts. The military has to be told that X percent of their budget can only be used to buy indigenous systems, whether they like it nor not.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

Curious, the link of the video of Dr. V K Saraswat's presentation is here.

Actually it's a myth that DRDO delays it's projects. This was actually exacerbated by real delays in 3 "big ticket" projects :- Arjun tank, Tejas and Akash missile. Arjun has been found to be a victim of irregularities in the Army (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Akash has already been vindicated with 1000+ orders by the IAF. Tejas, as we've seen, has a timeline not too different from Gripen and Typhoon. Besides, considering India's total lack of experience and crippling sanctions in the late 1990s to early 2000s, it CANNOT be termed "delayed" by any stretch.

If one sees the wide range of radars, sonars, BMS systems, avionics etc. that DRDO has sold to the IAF, Navy and Army, they can hardly be termed as "delayed". For example, how many members have heard of success stories like Rajendra radar, Bharani radar, Rohini radar, WLR, Pinaka rockets, Su-30 avionics, to name only a few ? But because these are not "big ticket" hardware like Arjun, Tejas or Akash, they go unreported --- even if hugely successful.