IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi

[zinswinsin]

Are you saying that the cost of supporting/maintaining 2x sqn of Jet 'A' is the same as supporting 1x sqn of Jet 'A' and 1x sqn of Jet 'B'??
Cost of training 2x technicians on the same jet is the same as training them separately on different jets?
Maintaining 2x spare inventory of a jet is the same as maintaining an inventory for two different jets?
Cost of having 1x MRO facility for a jet is the same as having 2x MRO for two different jets?

If your answer is 'yes' to all the above questions, then I have nothing more to talk to you about commonality.



These additional procurements begin to mitigate the decline in [the Department of the Navy’s] strike fighter inventory and enable older aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades and rework to extend their service life.”
Navy Wants to Spend $7.1B on 80 More Super Hornets Over the Next Five Years

The Hornets were originally set to retire by 2035, but the Navy was forced to reevaluate that date in 2015 due to persistent delays in the F-35’s development.
The F-35Cs are expected to reach initial operational capacity this year, but the Navy needs additional Hornets to fill its inventory shortage until more of the new jets are purchased.
Trump wants 24 new Super Hornets, reverses Obama decision

Try again.



Royal Navy purchased 60 Sea Harriers
French Navy has around 50 Rafale M

How did that make their countries weaker??

As per your argument "Basically, IAF and IN should never operate the same aircraft. One must never become subservient to the other, it will only make our country weaker. "



Having independent programs doesn't mean having different fighters.



So? What does that imply?



USN operated SHornets because it won the competition, not because USN wanted a different fighter from the USAF.
By that logic F-35 program shouldn't exist!!



It's amazing, the stuff that you can just come up with out of nowhere!!

TBF, half the reason hornets are getting procured is their tanking role. The war on ISIS has chewed threw them like crazy. 6+ hornets PER year are getting retired flying hours wise for tanking.

 

[Nick]

TBF, half the reason hornets are getting procured is their tanking role. The war on ISIS has chewed threw them like crazy. 6+ hornets PER year are getting retired flying hours wise for tanking.

Yes, and the compounded issue of older airframes retiring at a much faster rate due to their high rate of use.

 

[Parthu]

The way the fighter procurement has turned, this might just be a blessing in disguise. There is a very real chance for IAF & IN to select & operate the same aircraft. If there are ways to bring the new MMRCA and the MRCBF under one roof, it should be pursued.

 

[Paro]

The way the fighter procurement has turned, this might just be a blessing in disguise. There is a very real chance for IAF & IN to select & operate the same aircraft. If there are ways to bring the new MMRCA and the MRCBF under one roof, it should be pursued.

Why is the front landing gear different from the other? Is the second one a carrier based aircraft?

 

[Parthu]

Why is the front landing gear different from the other? Is the second one a carrier based aircraft?

Yes, the one on the right is the Rafale-M (naval version). It has a different, stronger landing gear.

That's why I posted this pic - both Air Force & Navy versions of Rafale.

 

[RATHORE]

Yes, the one on the right is the Rafale-M (naval version). It has a different, stronger landing gear.

That's why I posted this pic - both Air Force & Navy versions of Rafale.

Can't wait until both are ours.

 

[vstol Jockey]

LCA's success or failure has nothing to do with the support of the user, all you need is money. If you are given all the money in the world to develop the MSA by the govt, why do you care if the IAF supports your project or not? All you have to do is deliver what you promised and they will themselves come knocking on your door. If you spend lots of money and end up with a lemon, how can you expect the IAF to support you?

IAF and IN support is needed from the very first stage itself to decide the sensors and weapons suite the aircraft is going to operate and the design has to be tuned to ensure enough space for all the gizmos that the user wants. Finally all those gizmos must work efficiently with antenna coverage as per requirements. No aircraft in the world has ever been designed without the user laying down exact specifications and monitoring the project. Take the case of Mirage series or teen series fighters.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Livefist is off track on this.. lifts are getting extended. Landing system and weapon bays getting modified plan sent for approval with MRCBF proposal. IN submission is still Rafale M not F18. Hornet SH has a limitation outside this forum scope. It's impractical for IN doctrine. Especially for something which is strategic and has supply chain limitation.

IN has a big dilemma to overcome. Rafale will fit only IAC-1 and with third carrier at least 15 yrs away, We will be operating two separate CBGs with nothing common between them. If Vikky goes to refit, Mig-29K will remain on ground, if IAC-1 goes for refit, all Rafale-M will stay on ground. This is what I specifically raised in my presentation and available to IN in writing. Anyone who does not find a good and plausible answer to these questions, will find himself hung.

 

[Bali78]

IN has a big dilemma to overcome. Rafale will fit only IAC-1 and with third carrier at least 15 yrs away, We will be operating two separate CBGs with nothing common between them. If Vikky goes to refit, Mig-29K will remain on ground, if IAC-1 goes for refit, all Rafale-M will stay on ground. This is what I specifically raised in my presentation and available to IN in writing. Anyone who does not find a good and plausible answer to these questions, will find himself hung.

If Vicky goes for refit, why can't Mig-29k operate from IAC-1. I guess they can operate from both carriers.

 

[Noodler]

IN has a big dilemma to overcome. Rafale will fit only IAC-1 and with third carrier at least 15 yrs away, We will be operating two separate CBGs with nothing common between them. If Vikky goes to refit, Mig-29K will remain on ground, if IAC-1 goes for refit, all Rafale-M will stay on ground. This is what I specifically raised in my presentation and available to IN in writing. Anyone who does not find a good and plausible answer to these questions, will find himself hung.

what is the best solution to this since a foreign purchase is inevitable?

 

[Shekhar Singh]

IN has a big dilemma to overcome. Rafale will fit only IAC-1 and with third carrier at least 15 yrs away, We will be operating two separate CBGs with nothing common between them. If Vikky goes to refit, Mig-29K will remain on ground, if IAC-1 goes for refit, all Rafale-M will stay on ground. This is what I specifically raised in my presentation and available to IN in writing. Anyone who does not find a good and plausible answer to these questions, will find himself hung.

If both Vikky and IAC 1 have only one type of fighters then still fighter of one carrier have to stay on ground if any one will go for refit.

 

[vstol Jockey]

If Vicky goes for refit, why can't Mig-29k operate from IAC-1. I guess they can operate from both carriers.

Yes Mig-29K can operate from both carriers. But Rafale is being bought for iAC-1. Normally we assign squadrons to a CBG. So effectively we will see that the carrier based in eastern command will have just one type of aircraft and the one based in western command will have the other type,

what is the best solution to this since a foreign purchase is inevitable?

I will anyday for for additional Mig-29Ks as the solution and think about IAC-2 when we actually lay down the keel for it.

If both Vikky and IAC 1 have only one type of fighters then still fighter of one carrier have to stay on ground if any one will go for refit.

yes but the aircraft can be rotated and logistics simplified.

 

[A Person]

That's a good comparison picture of the B/C and M landing gears. Notice how the M's landing gear gives it a higher angle of attack before take-off.

 

[Herciv]

M88 could equip tejas according to Michel Cabiro in La Tribune.
L'avion de combat indien Tejas bientôt propulsé par le moteur M88 du Rafale ?

 

[vstol Jockey]

M88 could equip tejas according to Michel Cabiro in La Tribune.
L'avion de combat indien Tejas bientôt propulsé par le moteur M88 du Rafale ?

The requirement for such an engine is huge for just Indian Market. Imagine how many will be needed for LCA+Mig-29s only. If it gets upto 115KN than add AMCA also. french have done a very wise thing by investing in this engine. They will reap a bonanza out of it.

 

[randomradio]

Are you saying that the cost of supporting/maintaining 2x sqn of Jet 'A' is the same as supporting 1x sqn of Jet 'A' and 1x sqn of Jet 'B'??
Cost of training 2x technicians on the same jet is the same as training them separately on different jets?
Maintaining 2x spare inventory of a jet is the same as maintaining an inventory for two different jets?
Cost of having 1x MRO facility for a jet is the same as having 2x MRO for two different jets?

If your answer is 'yes' to all the above questions, then I have nothing more to talk to you about commonality.

When you are talking of 1 squadron each, then no. But if you are talking about 5 squadrons each, then yes. Commonality goes to the dogs after 5 squadrons. Beyond that, it makes no difference.

If you go for 6 squadrons, you need 3 bases. If you go for 12 squadrons, you need 6. Cost of 6 bases of modern jets today will be similar. So it doesn't matter if you have two types or one.

For other bases, they send out detachments, which will cost the same. So a Rafale can operate in a F-35 base because the detachment will carry all the necessary equipment from base to base.

Cost of an MRO facility is not expensive compared to the cost of the LCC of hundreds of jets.

These additional procurements begin to mitigate the decline in [the Department of the Navy’s] strike fighter inventory and enable older aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades and rework to extend their service life.”

Navy Wants to Spend $7.1B on 80 More Super Hornets Over the Next Five Years

The Hornets were originally set to retire by 2035, but the Navy was forced to reevaluate that date in 2015 due to persistent delays in the F-35’s development.
The F-35Cs are expected to reach initial operational capacity this year, but the Navy needs additional Hornets to fill its inventory shortage until more of the new jets are purchased.
Trump wants 24 new Super Hornets, reverses Obama decision

Try again.

You have confused yourself between Hornets and Super Hornets. They are two entirely different aircraft. If the F-35s aren't coming in to fill up the space for Hornets, they are replacing the aging Hornets with Super Hornets. The numbers are not big enough to quality as a replacement program.

The USN doesn't like the F-35 program, that's why they are going for another as a SH replacement.

F/A-XX: The U.S. Navy's 6th Generation Strike Aircraft...in 2035?

Royal Navy purchased 60 Sea Harriers
French Navy has around 50 Rafale M

How did that make their countries weaker??

As per your argument "Basically, IAF and IN should never operate the same aircraft. One must never become subservient to the other, it will only make our country weaker. "

Change that to 600 Sea Harriers and 500 Rafale-Ms. Those are the numbers we are talking about.

Piddly numbers don't change anything, but when you start talking about huge numbers, enough to make an entirely new air force, you need complete abandonment of commonality, especially for India where IAF needs aircraft operating over mountains while IN needs to operate over the sea.

Having independent programs doesn't mean having different fighters.

Yes, it does. Or else, the guy with the bigger number creates ASR.

It's obvious that with the USAF wanting 1700 aircraft and the USN only 260, we know who's actually running the program. So how is that independent?

So? What does that imply?

It means the IN will be one of the largest air forces in the world. So it's obvious they will plan their procurement based on what they need, not what the IAF wants.

USN operated SHornets because it won the competition, not because USN wanted a different fighter from the USAF.

There was no competition for the SH. You are confusing Hornet/Falcon competition with the Super Hornet.

By that logic F-35 program shouldn't exist!!

They have come to the realization that the F-35 program is flawed. They should have gone for three different designs.

It is amazing, the stuff that you can just come up with out of nowhere!!

All thoroughly researched. Haven't you heard of Theater Commands?

 

[randomradio]

IAF and IN support is needed from the very first stage itself to decide the sensors and weapons suite the aircraft is going to operate and the design has to be tuned to ensure enough space for all the gizmos that the user wants. Finally all those gizmos must work efficiently with antenna coverage as per requirements. No aircraft in the world has ever been designed without the user laying down exact specifications and monitoring the project. Take the case of Mirage series or teen series fighters.

Basically, what you are talking about is the ASR. That's not support per se. The LCA program has already seen ASRs from both. The issue with LCA is, the IAF was asked to take the back seat by ADA themselves.

 

[Herciv]

Considering the needs not only in volume but also in technology from booth side (France and India) yes I think kaverised M-88 or safranised kaveri is good for both side.
If you consider the strategic needs for the next twenty years I think we are going to have much more fighters in the same class than J-20 or Pak FA. Then Safranised Kavery around 115 kn would be great.

 

[randomradio]

If the number is 500-600, isn't it foolish to go for imported planes? Assuming cost of 100 million dollars a plane, The cost of all planes will go to 60 billion dollars. Now add the cost of maintenance. This makes your statement for FA18 inconsistent

Dude, stop making stupid posts. I want a 57 twin engine CATOBAR capable jet deal signed in the next 5 years. Please give me the list of all the indigenous options. Indigenous programs are 15-20 years away. So let's talk about it when N-AMCA hits IOC.

And why will the cost of a $100M plane suddenly reduce to $60M? It will reduce to 0 because we don't have an indigenous plane.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Considering the needs not only in volume but also in technology from booth side (France and India) yes I think kaverised M-88 or safranised kaveri is good for both side.
If you consider the strategic needs for the next twenty years I think we are going to have much more fighters in the same class than J-20 or Pak FA. Then Safranised Kavery around 115 kn would be great.

M88 does not have the size of Kaveri/F414. So, the question of using M88 core does not arise. To make such a core, France will have to design a new core altogether which is as difficult as making a new engine. So, it is not possible to have safranised kaveri.

Moreover with Al31F engine having 124kN thrust, the same engine can be derated to get 110kN thrust flat rated engine for AMCA