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

[Kshithij Sharma]

Who's sabotaging anything? There's enough scope to buy a foreign SEF while buying more Tejas variants as well. If so, will the total number of LCA purchased be lower? Definitely. Can Tejas be produced in enough numbers to meet the 42 sqn level requirement of IAF before 2035? Definitely not! Ergo, you need two parallel lines producing LCA-class jets to meet the number.
Are you going to fight a war with just those 100 foreign jets? No. Does it add to the overall force levels? Definitely. So your question is moot.

No one wants India to be at the mercy of a foreign nation w.r.t the weapons they use. But the critical question is, do we have the capacity to produce each and every type of weapon system, in both quality and quantity that our armed forces need? No!
We have indeed started moving in the right direction. Can more support be given to increase indigenous R&D and production capacities? Yes.
But it's foolish to think that everything is going to proceed smoothly from this point on. It will take atleast a couple of decades for us to be entirely self-sufficient. Till then, we'll have to rely on imported stuff, albeit in a reduced capacity with every passing year.

Your concept of investment is flawed. We don't have the luxury of time to re-invent the wheel and waste billions of dollars to develop tech that are already available in the world today. We must absorb the already existing technologies and build on them, thereby catching up to the leading nations much quicker. Take the example of China. Yes they did copy almost all legacy systems rather than developing everything from scratch. But look at them now. They learned whatever they could from the old technology and started their of research. They've even surpassed the Russians in many fields and slowly but surely catching up to the US.

The Russian, Germans, British, US and everyone else had to spend those money on research because their survival depended on it. There was nowhere else to turn to for weapons other than themselves.

India is absorbing the existing technology. Tejas is a result of that. We are acquiring radars, seekers, engine to study them and reverse engineer. And we have made a lot of progress. Why buy imported items and sabotage funding when we are inches close to indigenous manufacturing?

We can make 1000 Tejas a year is we want to. Haven't you heard of something called scaling? What do you think today's mass production is about? All one needs is technology and mass production is a matter of time. We produce 1.8 crore 2 wheelers, 30 lakh cars, 3 lakh heavy trucks etc every year. This is what called mass production. Why don't we make that many Tejas? The reason is that we haven't perfected the technology of engine, radar etc. Also, India needs MK2 version for actual use. MK1 is actually a mistake of designing and India is forced to continue with it to protect the infrastructure and industry, to get feedbacks. MK1 is not desirable but a necessary evil. This is the reason why the production is slow. It is just enough to keep industry alive without wasting too much money or time. It is to buy time for MK2.

Because the Mk-1 does not meet the ASQR. ADA overreached and failed to deliver. Mk-2 also wont meet the original ASQR and the IAF will have to dilute the requirements to accept the jets. So how will we make up for this capability shortfall? Surely we could go for more twin-engined aircraft (TEF), but they'll be costlier to operate. So the only option is to buy another SEF that has higher capability than LCA but cheaper to operate than a TEF.

I'm a realist. I see facts for what it is. I don't let my patriotism blind me from seeing the truth. I know the capabilities and capacities of our MIC and how much they can achieve in the present scenario. US can make fighters at a much higher rate because they've been building aircrafts for almost a century. They've created an ecosystem where their armed forces, industries and research institutes work with each other. They have a robust supplier chain that has experience worth hundreds of years combined. Can you say the same for India? Political support is not the only factor in building an aircraft. You've to understand that first. We need to pour billion of dollars into R&D to build up technologies, mature them, and test them with the help of industries and need them to take over the production and they need the capability to produce high quality sub-systems in large quantities. We need to create a competitive ecosystem where we can achieve the highest efficiency and the the lowest time between prototyping and serial production. All this takes time and money, and India has already began its journey in this direction, but not quite there yet.

Please stop your production rate bullshit. The simple logic is that if we can make 5, we can make 50. Learn to understand the concept of technology. See above for my explanation as to why the production rate is slow.

What is the shortfall for Tejas MK2 regarding ASQR? The fact is that the retards kept changing ASQR continually and made MK1 deliberately fall short. So, MK2 was designed to undo that. Mk2 is similar to Gripen E. In fact, MK2 has lower empty weight than Gripen E. So, by all means, MK2 will be able to replace almost all the planes in Indian inventory except MiG29 and Su30 (MiG 29 has short take off and Su30 is heavy). Planes like Mirage 2000, Jaguar, MiG21, MiG27 etc will be replaced by MK2. Here is the comparisaon of Mk2 with F16:

F16, Gripen - Make In India Single Engine Aircraft - News and possibilities

I am sick and tired of your bullshit that USA has been building planes for a century. Today's world is based on supercomtputing. This has drastically altered the way things work. So, the world is indeed beginning from scratch since the 1990 for a fly-by-wire planes. India also started at similar time but couldn't do it faster. But, now, it is almost done. India too has been making this plane since 1990 and continually learning from it. 30 years of work is not small. It is one whole generation of experience.

Unnecessarily denigrating indigenous work doesn't make you realist or stating the truth doesn't make one a patriot. It is a fact that India has its own planes flying flawlessly as of now. Many subsystems are also in advanced stage. It is a matter of 6-7 years before Tejas Mk2 also flies.

If we had better options, I'd take it as well. But the reality is we don't if we need to build our force levels quickly. Will F-16s be more expensive than LCA? Definitely. Will it be more expensive than let's say MKI or Rafale? Definitely not. Infact, the LCA maintenance will cost more than the F-16's during the initial years. Spares wont be a problem as a lot of them can be MII and also they'll have to sign the PBL than means stocking adequate inventory to achieve high availability rates. No one's asking India to trust US blindly. Buying a hundred F-16 won't mean we're selling ourselves to them. And how are we risking our entire defence industry? Don't be melodramatic.

You don't understand the difference of internal cost and forex cost. Internal cost is not a big deal. Foreign exchange is the point here. India doesn't have infinite foreign exchange. Cost of tejas will always go within the country as an investment or as government expenditure to boost industrial output and develop infrastructure.
We needed to build our inventory yesterday. We didn't. That was the mistake. To correct the mistake, one can't take unduly hasty move to save 3 years and destroy the future 15 years. Sometimes we have to balance immediate needs with future needs. That is the call one has to take- which is more important, immediate 3 years or future 15 years. Since we are not directly in the middle of a war and also have a decent set of missile program, nuclear bomb inventory, SAMs, Navy to deter many enemies. Moreover, if F16 is ordered now, it will still take over 2 years to start delivering it. The assembly time itself is 10-12 months per plane of F16 after quality checks (tejas is 7 months).

UNSC is only namesake? Why do you think India is desperately trying to get into the superpower club then? Why is China blocking UNSC reforms? Who said there hasn't been any returns from the US wrt Pakistan? They have openly called them a terrorist states, added many terrorist organisations to the sanctions lists while pressuring them to give up on Hafiz Saeed and also openly endorsing Indian military assistance to the Afghans

Nothing is being brought under the F-16 deal. But they deal in itself would prove that India is willing to commit to a larger strategic partnership with the US. It is not to bring any economic benefits to India. You're just being overemotional, talking about being a 'vassal' for US and the likes. How will your freedom and independence be affected? We had a much deeper relationship with Soviets. Did our freedom and independence get affected then? So why now? We negotiate on our terms or none at all. As long as our politicians and policymakers are upto the job.
Yes, the French were pressure because we were under sanctions. Did you know, before the 70's, US was one of the major donors of economic aid to India? All that stopped when we became too close to Soviets and it was the height of cold war.

By no means am i saying that the US is completely trustworthy. But global events have compelled India and US to cooperate and our policies have converged on several issues. Why not make use of the opportunity while we can?!

UNSC position is irrelevant. One doesn't become great by getting permanent seat but gets permanent seat by becoming great. You are mixing up things. If you want UNSC seat, then you must become a military power. UNSC is not obtained by begging. One has to ensure that other countries are forced to respect India as no matter what anyone says, Indian say will have a weight on its own.

USA hasn't done much about Pakistan or Afghanistan to India. Endorsing or not, it is irrelevant to Indian position. What matters is what is the concrete steps taken? Has USA imposed economic sanctions on Pakistan, blocked US banks from dealing with Pakistan as in case of Iran?

USSR allignment was disastrous to India. Shastri was assassinated, Indian economy became command economy etc. So, it didn't end up well for India.

Commitment can't be one sided. Why not ask USA to also commit from giving what India needs in long term interest. India is ready to pay 15 billion dollars for just 1 plane of F16 but with ToT of engine. Why not ask for commitment from India while USA only gets to play big brother?

Since USA is not fully trustworthy, why should India sacrifice its limited resource available for buying F16 which can be instead used as better investment for MK2?


PS: I am not including French Barracuda here as thread is about IAF. We will discuss this elsewhere.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

True, that's why i gave a timeframe to that sentence -- the next hundred years!
The last century was dominated by the Europeans and US, along with the Soviets.
The one previous was dominated by the British and the Germans to a smaller extent.

Life goes on.

The fact that you mentioned sustainable economy with renewable resources is highly relevant for the coming century. It means that the current world order is inconsequential,. The amount of resources in your territory doesn't matter as much as it matters now.
What matters will be how you utilize those resources. Which mean, everyone starts from square one. Granted the current technology leaders will have an upperhand, but the gap between the developed/non-developed countries will be much smaller than now.

Please, you keep your 100 years with yourself, live in your ow trishanku swarga and speak anything that comes out of your behind.

The developed countries are rich due to natural resources, mainly oil. USSR was a super power due to presence of oil. Same with USA. USA also got muslims with oil to sell in dollars and thereby indirectly controlled even muslim oil. The muslim support was responsible for USA winning over USSR, China is now rising due to tapping of huge natural resources of China. China is the leading producer of most metals, coal, phosphate, rare metals etc and hence are dominating markets. China produces nearly half of world coal for example. USA can't be beaten unless oil is stopped to be sold in dollars. As long as oil purchases are in dolalrs, USA will have undue advantage. In reality, China has already surpassed USA as leading producers of actual goods. USA just overvalues its limited production, prints currency and shows a brave face. USA external debt is ballooning at 19 trillion dollars and has -0.5 trillion trade deficit every year. USA is running on the petrodollar effect. Nothing else.

Simply saying growth every time doesn't make sense.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

@Nick if you don't think F16 will sabotage funding, please try to give me an estimate of funding available for defence expenditure of Airforce and how much funds will be left after paying for F16, about 15 billion dollars. Also, consider the 8.5 billion dollars for Rafale. Then we can talk more about how F16 can/can't be afforded.

 

[randomradio]

@Kshithij Sharma
We are dependent on imports for at least the next 10 years.

Yeah, the future of economic growth is in Asia, as well as Africa and South America. There's a simple, obvious reason for that: you can go very, very fast when catching up because the road is open and you know where to go. Opening up that road, however, is a much slower prospect. So developed countries (mostly North America and Western Europe) have growth rates under 5%; while developing countries have double-digit growth rates.

Of course, once you finished catching up, then expect growth rate to fall considerably to reach very low values like in the developed countries. China is already suffering from this, as its growth rate is falling and some investments assumed it could keep its previous high values forever.

Also there's the question about whether developing countries can actually hope to reach the level of development of the North-West. The Earth has finite resources and we consume them faster than they can renew themselves, furthermore we're also damaging the environment's capability to renew these resources in the first place. Of course, there is an incredible economic potential in the development of a sustainable economy; but at the same time the old system with unsustainable practice and rapid consumption of non-renewable resources has tremendous political power since the people on the top are always personally interested in keeping the status quo. After all, something that got them to the top is something they want to keep, even when it's morally wrong and will provoke a worldwide disaster.

It will take at least 100 years for India's growth to slow down to current European standards. Even after that the population is so huge that new chances for economic growth will constantly keep happening. That's a big reason why I support turning the EU into one single country. All these little countries hit the wall once money dries up.

The earth has plenty of resources. It has the ability to sustain many times earth's current population with American standards of living. What we need is plenty of clean energy and the ability to dispose trash properly which we can assume will be taken care of by new technologies.

 

[Nick]

India is absorbing the existing technology. Tejas is a result of that. We are acquiring radars, seekers, engine to study them and reverse engineer. And we have made a lot of progress. Why buy imported items and sabotage funding when we are inches close to indigenous manufacturing?

We can make 1000 Tejas a year is we want to. Haven't you heard of something called scaling? What do you think today's mass production is about? All one needs is technology and mass production is a matter of time. We produce 1.8 crore 2 wheelers, 30 lakh cars, 3 lakh heavy trucks etc every year. This is what called mass production. Why don't we make that many Tejas? The reason is that we haven't perfected the technology of engine, radar etc. Also, India needs MK2 version for actual use. MK1 is actually a mistake of designing and India is forced to continue with it to protect the infrastructure and industry, to get feedbacks. MK1 is not desirable but a necessary evil. This is the reason why the production is slow. It is just enough to keep industry alive without wasting too much money or time. It is to buy time for MK2.

Nope we're not. The LCA was envisioned to be 100% made in India at the time it was envisioned by those imprudent fools at ADA and the ignorant babus who approved the plan. We wasted two decades building up infrastructure to help support the development of LCA and all subsystems that come with it, wasting valuable time. When the project began to miss deadlines, then various subsystems had to be important to get the jet flying. Imagine if we had done just that from the beginning while gradually building up engineering and technical capacity to develop alternatives to those imported systems for future variant (like we're doing now in hindsight). The best example would be SAAB, they made the airframe and bought almost every sub-systems from other OEMs saving both money and time.

We're not reverse engineering anything. JVs have been setup wherein the a system is jointly produced, while not obtaining the complete IP. We're not close to anything, full indigenization is atleast 20 years away, get you head out of your *censored* and look around.

1000 LCA/year? Do you hear yourself talking??
A total of 4,500 F-16s have been produced. Do you want to know the highest production rate they achieved?? 360/year.
A total of 10,000+ MiG-21 and its variants have been produced. Do you want to know the highest production rate they achieved?? 240/year.
So instead of teaching me about scaling, go study something about economics kid.

Please stop your production rate bullshit. The simple logic is that if we can make 5, we can make 50. Learn to understand the concept of technology. See above for my explanation as to why the production rate is slow.

What is the shortfall for Tejas MK2 regarding ASQR? The fact is that the retards kept changing ASQR continually and made MK1 deliberately fall short. So, MK2 was designed to undo that. Mk2 is similar to Gripen E. In fact, MK2 has lower empty weight than Gripen E. So, by all means, MK2 will be able to replace almost all the planes in Indian inventory except MiG29 and Su30 (MiG 29 has short take off and Su30 is heavy). Planes like Mirage 2000, Jaguar, MiG21, MiG27 etc will be replaced by MK2. Here is the comparisaon of Mk2 with F16:

F16, Gripen - Make In India Single Engine Aircraft - News and possibilities

I am sick and tired of your bullshit that USA has been building planes for a century. Today's world is based on supercomtputing. This has drastically altered the way things work. So, the world is indeed beginning from scratch since the 1990 for a fly-by-wire planes. India also started at similar time but couldn't do it faster. But, now, it is almost done. India too has been making this plane since 1990 and continually learning from it. 30 years of work is not small. It is one whole generation of experience.

Unnecessarily denigrating indigenous work doesn't make you realist or stating the truth doesn't make one a patriot. It is a fact that India has its own planes flying flawlessly as of now. Many subsystems are also in advanced stage. It is a matter of 6-7 years before Tejas Mk2 also flies.

See above for my above reply to understand what an utter fool you are!

I agree on the fact that IAF kept changing the ASQRs, but they did it so due to the changing security dynamics. It was no longer prudent to develop a jet that was just a MiG-21 replacement, but a true multi-role platform. This mean having an FBW like a contemporary fighter, imprved performance, payload and mission flexibility. And the ADA fellows just shook their head rather than arguing.

Yes, the Mk-2 was conceived to meet the ASQR while reducing the gap between Mk-1 and contemporary SEFs like F-16, and Gripen. But, even then the Mk-2 won't fully satisfy the original ASQR. But for the sake of indigenous sector, IAF is willing to overlook that.

30 years worth of work is not small, yet 100 year experience of USA is bullshit? Good argument there. I can see how smart you are!

The whole point of requiring a foreign SEF is because Mk-2 alone won't be able to able to fill the IAF requirement numbers as per the 42 sqn strength roadmap. But unless you understand the limits of increasing the production rate, nothing i say will get into your head.

You don't understand the difference of internal cost and forex cost. Internal cost is not a big deal. Foreign exchange is the point here. India doesn't have infinite foreign exchange. Cost of tejas will always go within the country as an investment or as government expenditure to boost industrial output and develop infrastructure.
We needed to build our inventory yesterday. We didn't. That was the mistake. To correct the mistake, one can't take unduly hasty move to save 3 years and destroy the future 15 years. Sometimes we have to balance immediate needs with future needs. That is the call one has to take- which is more important, immediate 3 years or future 15 years. Since we are not directly in the middle of a war and also have a decent set of missile program, nuclear bomb inventory, SAMs, Navy to deter many enemies. Moreover, if F16 is ordered now, it will still take over 2 years to start delivering it. The assembly time itself is 10-12 months per plane of F16 after quality checks (tejas is 7 months).

It all depends on how serious the IAF and GOI is w.r.t having a 42 sqn fleet by 2035. Refer to the timeline i calculated and posted in one of my previous reply.

UNSC position is irrelevant. One doesn't become great by getting permanent seat but gets permanent seat by becoming great. You are mixing up things. If you want UNSC seat, then you must become a military power. UNSC is not obtained by begging. One has to ensure that other countries are forced to respect India as no matter what anyone says, Indian say will have a weight on its own.

USA hasn't done much about Pakistan or Afghanistan to India. Endorsing or not, it is irrelevant to Indian position. What matters is what is the concrete steps taken? Has USA imposed economic sanctions on Pakistan, blocked US banks from dealing with Pakistan as in case of Iran?

USSR allignment was disastrous to India. Shastri was assassinated, Indian economy became command economy etc. So, it didn't end up well for India.

Commitment can't be one sided. Why not ask USA to also commit from giving what India needs in long term interest. India is ready to pay 15 billion dollars for just 1 plane of F16 but with ToT of engine. Why not ask for commitment from India while USA only gets to play big brother?

Since USA is not fully trustworthy, why should India sacrifice its limited resource available for buying F16 which can be instead used as better investment for MK2?


PS: I am not including French Barracuda here as thread is about IAF. We will discuss this elsewhere.

And you expect US to bend over backwards because we gave them $15 Billions dollars worth of business? That's not how world politics works. I've already replied to this question previously. If you didn't understand it then, well, i've got nothing more to say on it.

 

[Nick]

Please, you keep your 100 years with yourself, live in your ow trishanku swarga and speak anything that comes out of your behind.

The developed countries are rich due to natural resources, mainly oil. USSR was a super power due to presence of oil. Same with USA. USA also got muslims with oil to sell in dollars and thereby indirectly controlled even muslim oil. The muslim support was responsible for USA winning over USSR, China is now rising due to tapping of huge natural resources of China. China is the leading producer of most metals, coal, phosphate, rare metals etc and hence are dominating markets. China produces nearly half of world coal for example. USA can't be beaten unless oil is stopped to be sold in dollars. As long as oil purchases are in dolalrs, USA will have undue advantage. In reality, China has already surpassed USA as leading producers of actual goods. USA just overvalues its limited production, prints currency and shows a brave face. USA external debt is ballooning at 19 trillion dollars and has -0.5 trillion trade deficit every year. USA is running on the petrodollar effect. Nothing else.

Simply saying growth every time doesn't make sense.

It would do you good to go out and listen to people more, rather than daydreaming in your own 'trishanku' whatever and coming up with your own twisted logic while making up facts to support your frankly absurd explanations.

 

[Bharath]

let me put it this way as a way to show both sides of the argument:
8.7 Billion$ for 36 rafale
8 billion $ for 83 LCA Mk1A

36 rafale vs 83 LCA Mk 1A -> which is better?

i personally coudlnt pick any one.. i think we need both. this and the f-16s too.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Nope we're not. The LCA was envisioned to be 100% made in India at the time it was envisioned by those imprudent fools at ADA and the ignorant babus who approved the plan. We wasted two decades building up infrastructure to help support the development of LCA and all subsystems that come with it, wasting valuable time. When the project began to miss deadlines, then various subsystems had to be important to get the jet flying. Imagine if we had done just that from the beginning while gradually building up engineering and technical capacity to develop alternatives to those imported systems for future variant (like we're doing now in hindsight). The best example would be SAAB, they made the airframe and bought almost every sub-systems from other OEMs saving both money and time.

We're not reverse engineering anything. JVs have been setup wherein the a system is jointly produced, while not obtaining the complete IP. We're not close to anything, full indigenization is atleast 20 years away, get you head out of your *censored* and look around.

1000 LCA/year? Do you hear yourself talking??
A total of 4,500 F-16s have been produced. Do you want to know the highest production rate they achieved?? 360/year.
A total of 10,000+ MiG-21 and its variants have been produced. Do you want to know the highest production rate they achieved?? 240/year.
So instead of teaching me about scaling, go study something about economics kid.




See above for my above reply to understand what an utter fool you are!

I agree on the fact that IAF kept changing the ASQRs, but they did it so due to the changing security dynamics. It was no longer prudent to develop a jet that was just a MiG-21 replacement, but a true multi-role platform. This mean having an FBW like a contemporary fighter, imprved performance, payload and mission flexibility. And the ADA fellows just shook their head rather than arguing.

Yes, the Mk-2 was conceived to meet the ASQR while reducing the gap between Mk-1 and contemporary SEFs like F-16, and Gripen. But, even then the Mk-2 won't fully satisfy the original ASQR. But for the sake of indigenous sector, IAF is willing to overlook that.

30 years worth of work is not small, yet 100 year experience of USA is bullshit? Good argument there. I can see how smart you are!

The whole point of requiring a foreign SEF is because Mk-2 alone won't be able to able to fill the IAF requirement numbers as per the 42 sqn strength roadmap. But unless you understand the limits of increasing the production rate, nothing i say will get into your head.



It all depends on how serious the IAF and GOI is w.r.t having a 42 sqn fleet by 2035. Refer to the timeline i calculated and posted in one of my previous reply.



And you expect US to bend over backwards because we gave the 15Billion dollars of business? That's not how world politics works. I've already replied to this question previously. If you didn't understand it then, well, i've got nothing more to say on it.

Have you heard of maturity or saturation? The older pre-1990 technology have become obsolete except for engine. So, India only has to catch up with the post 1990 level technology. experience of 1 generation is big enough to catch up. We also have access to many planes of France, Russia to absorb the technology. As you mentioned, technology like Fly-By-Wire, AESA, EW, SPJ etc are recent and hence India has not started with a big backlog. With fly-by-wire, the older aerodynamics have become obsolete. It is a new era and hence older experience matters little now, just like there is no point having experience with Vaccuum tube computers now.

ADA was short sighted and made design mistakes of making Tejas MK1 too small to be just MiG21 replacement instead of making it a little bigger to keep space for future additions. This was the biggest drawback. Then the political support deteriorated in UPA. Tejas was purposefully scuttled and slowed despite a decision to import F404 was taken place in 2008 itself. The Tejas development hardly made any progress between 2009-2014 and that caused delays.

Tejas MK2 will satisfy Indian needs. For that matter, even F16 may not suit ASQR. ASQR can be twisted to ensure that it will never be satisfied. But, as long as the plane satisfies practical needs, it is excellent.

Your retarded number of 360/year is based on what limitations? In WW2, USA produced 3lakh planes! Of course, they were older generation, but still it was a big number. Why India can't manufacture Tejas Mk2 in larger numbers by setting up the similar factory Lockheed will set up to make F16 in USA had it been ordered, but within India?

For example, instead of asking LM to make 30 F16 per year and HAL and private sector making 20 LCA per year, why can't HAL and private sector be asked to make 50 LCA every year in India itself while not giving LM any orders? What is the limiting factor?

I don't expect USA to bend for 15 billion dollars. I am just saying that 15 billion dollars is a lot for Indian budget and is better invested in indian technology development. Giving it to USA and then creating perpetual control for USA in terms of delaying spare parts in war etc can be avoided

let me put it this way as a way to show both sides of the argument:
8.7 Billion$ for 36 rafale
8 billion $ for 83 LCA Mk1A

36 rafale vs 83 LCA Mk 1A -> which is better?

i personally coudlnt pick any one.. i think we need both. this and the f-16s too.

You will even buy the moon. The point here is you have to buy something which is usable in meaningful cicumstances. In war, attrition has to be taken care of, large quantity is needed and spare parts on time is needed. It is imprudent to wait for months for spare parts to arrive or assume that initial set of 00 planes will keep flying without getting shot down

It would do you good to go out and listen to people more, rather than daydreaming in your own 'trishanku' whatever and coming up with your own twisted logic while making up facts to support your frankly absurd explanations.

When you can't argue with proper facts or parameters, everything becomes nonsense, right?

 

[Nick]

Have you heard of maturity or saturation? The older pre-1990 technology have become obsolete except for engine. So, India only has to catch up with the post 1990 level technology. experience of 1 generation is big enough to catch up. We also have access to many planes of France, Russia to absorb the technology. As you mentioned, technology like Fly-By-Wire, AESA, EW, SPJ etc are recent and hence India has not started with a big backlog. With fly-by-wire, the older aerodynamics have become obsolete. It is a new era and hence older experience matters little now, just like there is no point having experience with Vaccuum tube computers now.

ADA was short sighted and made design mistakes of making Tejas MK1 too small to be just MiG21 replacement instead of making it a little bigger to keep space for future additions. This was the biggest drawback. Then the political support deteriorated in UPA. Tejas was purposefully scuttled and slowed despite a decision to import F404 was taken place in 2008 itself. The Tejas development hardly made any progress between 2009-2014 and that caused delays.

Tejas MK2 will satisfy Indian needs. For that matter, even F16 may not suit ASQR. ASQR can be twisted to ensure that it will never be satisfied. But, as long as the plane satisfies practical needs, it is excellent.

Your retarded number of 360/year is based on what limitations? In WW2, USA produced 3lakh planes! Of course, they were older generation, but still it was a big number. Why India can't manufacture Tejas Mk2 in larger numbers by setting up the similar factory Lockheed will set up to make F16 in USA had it been ordered, but within India?

For example, instead of asking LM to make 30 F16 per year and HAL and private sector making 20 LCA per year, why can't HAL and private sector be asked to make 50 LCA every year in India itself while not giving LM any orders? What is the limiting factor?

I don't expect USA to bend for 15 billion dollars. I am just saying that 15 billion dollars is a lot for Indian budget and is better invested in indian technology development. Giving it to USA and then creating perpetual control for USA in terms of delaying spare parts in war etc can be avoided

We do have one of the best FBW systems and CLAW on Tejas. But other than that what else is mature?
AESA, EW and SPJ are all still in developmental phase and a decade behind western counterparts.
"Older experience matter little now?" Do you actually think before saying stuff like this? Do you know how much research is still left to conceptualize AMCA? Which is still 20 years away? As someone who works in Aeronautical research field, take my word for it kid. Experience does matter. As well as the infrastructure to actually develop and test the aircraft.

Mk-2 is sufficient to satisfy most of our need. I agree but i'm talking about the production timeline. Can we induct them in time to fill the sqn shortfalls? Absolutely not. Especially at 16-24/year.

The 'retarded' 360/year limit is based on practical and economic limitations. Get that into that thick skull of yours.

Aircrafts aren't made of wood, aluminium and steel cables anymore. Each subsystem of any contemporary aircraft has a long lead time and need to be ordered well in advance, keeping in time with the production schedule. For the increase in production rate, each OEM that makes these sub-systems have to ramp up production rate as well. And once the order is complete, all the investment that went into increasing said production capacity of the company is wasted, making huge financial losses for said companies. Also, increasing production rate increase unit cost of the platform due to increased overhead costs.
Learn a bit about manufacturing and business management before making airheaded rants like these.

Here's a couple of article to learn from kiddo.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R1609.pdf
Production Ramp-up Reshaping How Industry Builds Aircraft, Engines
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA318512

When you can't argue with proper facts or parameters, everything becomes nonsense, right?

I did argue with proper facts, but you decided to ignore them. I don't know how to debate with someone like that.
I've shown you why the production timeline of LCA wont meet IAF roadmap for inducting 400 new SEF. Either prove me wrong on the timeline or calculate and prove to my the cost benefits of increasing the production rate to 1000/year!

 

[smestarz]

Am just talking about the highlighted point of production am not replying to you, just adding my views.

As the generations go on, producing the plane becomes much more difficult. Gone are the days of Spitfires, Mustangs etc which were produced more than 1000 a year. For example Focke Wulf was operational from 1941-1945 and in these approximate 5 years more than 2000 were built, thats basically 4000 a year. Thus 1000 a year, lets say is "possible" for the moment.

Now there are things which are critical

1. Air frame. Building an airframe is not that easy, and extremely strong alloys are used to produce the air frame and hence there is R&D in material required. If we use say Wood as they used in WW2, the airframe would be light, but too weak, if we used steel it would be too heavy and still weak. Bulding air frame takes a long time.

2. Engine. Building an engine is not very difficult, but building an engine with good thrust to weight and lower weight is difficult, add to that the complexity of producing SCBs we do not have that technology perfected yet.

Further there are many challenges mostly financial.

Due to complicated process, it would take
1. one Line to produce 50 planes a year, and each plane needing about 2 years to process, thus we shall require 20 such lines,
A line itself will cost few hundred million dollars, so 20 lines will take it to few billion dollars in itself.

Also producing Tejas will cost around $ 30 million a plane or so, and thus 1000 planes will be about 30 billion dollars, a year, This is only cost of production, there are missiles, pilots, air fields, also operating cost, lets assume that to cost of operation is say lower US$ 5000 an hour and we fly 240 hours a year, The first year it would cost us approx 1.2 billion a year, next year it will be 2.4 approx

The only way for this to happen, if India becomes like North korea and focuses purely on production of military aircraft.

Nope we're not. The LCA was envisioned to be 100% made in India at the time it was envisioned by those imprudent fools at ADA and the ignorant babus who approved the plan. We wasted two decades building up infrastructure to help support the development of LCA and all subsystems that come with it, wasting valuable time. When the project began to miss deadlines, then various subsystems had to be important to get the jet flying. Imagine if we had done just that from the beginning while gradually building up engineering and technical capacity to develop alternatives to those imported systems for future variant (like we're doing now in hindsight). The best example would be SAAB, they made the airframe and bought almost every sub-systems from other OEMs saving both money and time.

We're not reverse engineering anything. JVs have been setup wherein the a system is jointly produced, while not obtaining the complete IP. We're not close to anything, full indigenization is atleast 20 years away, get you head out of your *censored* and look around.

1000 LCA/year? Do you hear yourself talking??
A total of 4,500 F-16s have been produced. Do you want to know the highest production rate they achieved?? 360/year.
A total of 10,000+ MiG-21 and its variants have been produced. Do you want to know the highest production rate they achieved?? 240/year.
So instead of teaching me about scaling, go study something about economics kid.




See above for my above reply to understand what an utter fool you are!

I agree on the fact that IAF kept changing the ASQRs, but they did it so due to the changing security dynamics. It was no longer prudent to develop a jet that was just a MiG-21 replacement, but a true multi-role platform. This mean having an FBW like a contemporary fighter, imprved performance, payload and mission flexibility. And the ADA fellows just shook their head rather than arguing.

Yes, the Mk-2 was conceived to meet the ASQR while reducing the gap between Mk-1 and contemporary SEFs like F-16, and Gripen. But, even then the Mk-2 won't fully satisfy the original ASQR. But for the sake of indigenous sector, IAF is willing to overlook that.

30 years worth of work is not small, yet 100 year experience of USA is bullshit? Good argument there. I can see how smart you are!

The whole point of requiring a foreign SEF is because Mk-2 alone won't be able to able to fill the IAF requirement numbers as per the 42 sqn strength roadmap. But unless you understand the limits of increasing the production rate, nothing i say will get into your head.



It all depends on how serious the IAF and GOI is w.r.t having a 42 sqn fleet by 2035. Refer to the timeline i calculated and posted in one of my previous reply.



And you expect US to bend over backwards because we gave them $15 Billions dollars worth of business? That's not how world politics works. I've already replied to this question previously. If you didn't understand it then, well, i've got nothing more to say on it.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

We do have one of the best FBW systems and CLAW on Tejas. But other than that what else is mature?
AESA, EW and SPJ are all still in developmental phase and a decade behind western counterparts.
"Older experience matter little now?" Do you actually think before saying stuff like this? Do you know how much research is still left to conceptualize AMCA? Which is still 20 years away? As someone who works in Aeronautical research field, take my word for it kid. Experience does matter. As well as the infrastructure to actually develop and test the aircraft.

Mk-2 is sufficient to satisfy most of our need. I agree but i'm talking about the production timeline. Can we induct them in time to fill the sqn shortfalls? Absolutely not. Especially at 16-24/year.

The 'retarded' 360/year limit is based on practical and economic limitations. Get that into that thick skull of yours.

Aircrafts aren't made of wood, aluminium and steel cables anymore. Each subsystem of any contemporary aircraft has a long lead time and need to be ordered well in advance, keeping in time with the production schedule. For the increase in production rate, each OEM that makes these sub-systems have to ramp up production rate as well. And once the order is complete, all the investment that went into increasing said production capacity of the company is wasted, making huge financial losses for said companies. Also, increasing production rate increase unit cost of the platform due to increased overhead costs.
Learn a bit about manufacturing and business management before making airheaded rants like these.

Here's a couple of article to learn from kiddo.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R1609.pdf
Production Ramp-up Reshaping How Industry Builds Aircraft, Engines
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA318512



I did argue with proper facts, but you decided to ignore them. I don't know how to debate with someone like that.
I've shown you why the production timeline of LCA wont meet IAF roadmap for inducting 400 new SEF. Either prove me wrong on the timeline or calculate and prove to my the cost benefits of increasing the production rate to 1000/year!

Why is EW, AESA behind 1-2 decades? It is just behind by 3-4 years. Not every item is like jet engine. You speak of decades as if it has no value. India has had access to Israeli AESA which it has absorbed and is using to build UTTAM AESA. GaN technology is also in the works. Indian AESA development started in 2012.

Next, AMCA development is nothing but a derivative of FGFA which started to be designed in 2009 with Russia. The design was modified later to Indian needs, but shares the same history as FGFA. The design has already been completed and it ia time for building prototype. The subsystems development is running in parallel. Why would you call it 2 decades away when USA, Russia have developed 5th generation fighter in 10-15 years? The way I see it, by 2030,AMCA will be flying.

I am speaking practically about manufacturing of planes. If we can order F16 manufacturing in USA, we can instead order Tejas Manufacturing in India. The practical and economical limit applies only when you cut funds. If you give 1 lakh crore contract of F16 to HAL, the additional Tejas can be made in India itself.

Am just talking about the highlighted point of production am not replying to you, just adding my views.

As the generations go on, producing the plane becomes much more difficult. Gone are the days of Spitfires, Mustangs etc which were produced more than 1000 a year. For example Focke Wulf was operational from 1941-1945 and in these approximate 5 years more than 2000 were built, thats basically 4000 a year. Thus 1000 a year, lets say is "possible" for the moment.

Now there are things which are critical

1. Air frame. Building an airframe is not that easy, and extremely strong alloys are used to produce the air frame and hence there is R&D in material required. If we use say Wood as they used in WW2, the airframe would be light, but too weak, if we used steel it would be too heavy and still weak. Bulding air frame takes a long time.

2. Engine. Building an engine is not very difficult, but building an engine with good thrust to weight and lower weight is difficult, add to that the complexity of producing SCBs we do not have that technology perfected yet.

Further there are many challenges mostly financial.

Due to complicated process, it would take
1. one Line to produce 50 planes a year, and each plane needing about 2 years to process, thus we shall require 20 such lines,
A line itself will cost few hundred million dollars, so 20 lines will take it to few billion dollars in itself.

Also producing Tejas will cost around $ 30 million a plane or so, and thus 1000 planes will be about 30 billion dollars, a year, This is only cost of production, there are missiles, pilots, air fields, also operating cost, lets assume that to cost of operation is say lower US$ 5000 an hour and we fly 240 hours a year, The first year it would cost us approx 1.2 billion a year, next year it will be 2.4 approx

The only way for this to happen, if India becomes like North korea and focuses purely on production of military aircraft.

That is my point - India can be like North Korea and focus solely on defence production if necessary.

 

[Aashish]

Chatters on the meeting for LM F-16 by PMO/MOD with IAF

1. The meeting between PMO, MOD and IAF on F16 related discussion took place in a tense environment
2. PMO outlined a plan for a total of 170 odd F-16s which will require in the range of USD 25 Bn.
3. The plan of total numbers is the overall plan inclusive of the envisioned break up of first lot flyaway+ Indian production + follow on
4. The estimated amount pegged is close to over USD 145 Mn per plane for the complete deal
5. The above deal still has additional elements which will require further contracts with Indian entities which will push the price up eventually by another USD 25-30 Mn per plane.
6. It was discussed that since its a separate contract, the same figure is not clubbed in USD 25 Bn figure. otherwise, the overall figure is much closer to USD 29-30 Bn in range.
7. IAF responded saying the whole deal and price is not correct for fleet modernisation aspect
8. IAF said single engine Tejas Mk1A and future variants are envisioned for the planned roles and inclusive of program sunk costs the cost for such a platform with numbers would come down closer in the range of USD 60-65 Mn over time
9. IAF also pointed that if Rafale is considered since there is a considerable Sunk cost of Indian specific customizations, the average price will be cheaper than this F-16 deal average allowing better numbers
10. IAF is confident that for a total outlay of USD 30 Bn, close to 220+ Rafales can come in easily inclusive of MII and more strategic deals which benefits India overall
11. One of the major points IAF pointed was Tejas program role with AMCA route and network-centric warfare aspect coming in Rafale MII and proposal with MOD.
12. PMO insisted that F-16 deal may be better to look at for the time being as it adds to quicker inventory build up and will help IAF in forward bases.
13. IAF at that point clarified that F-16 Block 70 has issues as well and is not suited for the terrain India utilises all over the country
14. IAF said the specific packages built in like PBL, High altitude and anti-corrosion issues in the case of Rafales, will need to be built in the F-16 package escalating the overall USD 30 Bn figure further up.
15. In technical aspects, IAF said the modified Soufa test done had shown issues with hot and cold extreme climates, altitude performance limitations, payload and mission issues in different speed regimes, and a big practical issue of Infra Red heat emission in the engine portion.
16. IAF also said such a powerful bigger engine is also not enough owing to complexities involve for Indian terrain and the plane being overall bulky for the roles envisioned, requiring higher thrust which is now showing up in IR signatures
17. IAF said for the roles planned, the need is for a much lower MTOW and lower thrust engines with improved heat signature management.
18. MOD asked for a way out to then take this to a conclusion of either a buy or a rejection.
19. IAF insisted on a practical test of a block 70 plane in real-world conditions with a visual and technical scrutiny for evaluating versus its positioning and roles wrt IAF fleet fighters
20. IAF also said that this might require some time and hence priority should be for the Rafale deal asap over this platform with an increased focus on funds for the proper MII plan.
21. PMO agreed to both these points and asked MOD to take things forward accordingly.
22. If MOD/PMO does not call a proper block 70 for a practical test, the F-16 deal would be put out for the quiet burial as planned in dragging of timelines.
23. IAF still has a long way to fight but slowly it is fighting its way through for Rafales and Tejas plan
24. LM and USA will be informed about the meeting outcome and some urgent pending purchases will be made to keep the FMS route busy and focus on LM MII program for helo over fighter jets.

@Abingdonboy @halloweene @Hellfire @Parthu @Picdelamirand-oil @Bon Plan @randomradio @Nick @Ankit Kumar @GuardianRED @Ashwin @nair @Milspec @Tarun @halloweene @Ankit Kumar @all others

 

[vstol Jockey]

This is a wise and correct move by IAF. The road ahead shud be more Rafale and LCA Mk1A suitably upgraded with help from DA.

 

[Sathya]

Chatters on the meeting for LM F-16 by PMO/MOD with IAF

1. PMO insisted that F-16 deal may be better to look at for the time being as it adds to quicker inventory build up and will help IAF in forward bases.
2. MOD asked for a way out to then take this to a conclusion of either a buy or a rejection.
3. IAF insisted on a practical test of a block 70 plane in real-world conditions with a visual and technical scrutiny for evaluating versus its positioning and roles wrt IAF fleet fighters
4. IAF also said that this might require some time and hence priority should be for the Rafale deal asap over this platform with an increased focus on funds for the proper MII plan.
5. PMO agreed to both these points and asked MOD to take things forward accordingly.
6. If MOD/PMO does not call a proper block 70 for a practical test, the F-16 deal would be put out for the quiet burial as planned in dragging of timelines.

- What are all the planes suitable for forward bases ?
- MOD is asking whom for a way out ? i thought this is their decision to make
- Will LM make a block 70 f16 for testing ?
- With 30 + billion dollar on cards , wont Dassault partner with ADA to make MK2 tejas a single engine Rafale ?

lastly Rafale deal is helping us many other programs in offsets
is there any mention of any thing like that in F16 deal..

 

[Pundrick]

Chatters on the meeting for LM F-16 by PMO/MOD with IAF

1. The meeting between PMO, MOD and IAF on F16 related discussion took place in a tense environment
2. PMO outlined a plan for a total of 170 odd F-16s which will require in the range of USD 25 Bn.
3. The plan of total numbers is the overall plan inclusive of the envisioned break up of first lot flyaway+ Indian production + follow on
4. The estimated amount pegged is close to over USD 145 Mn per plane for the complete deal
5. The above deal still has additional elements which will require further contracts with Indian entities which will push the price up eventually by another USD 25-30 Mn per plane.
6. It was discussed that since its a separate contract, the same figure is not clubbed in USD 25 Bn figure. otherwise, the overall figure is much closer to USD 29-30 Bn in range.
7. IAF responded saying the whole deal and price is not correct for fleet modernisation aspect
8. IAF said single engine Tejas Mk1A and future variants are envisioned for the planned roles and inclusive of program sunk costs the cost for such a platform with numbers would come down closer in the range of USD 60-65 Mn over time
9. IAF also pointed that if Rafale is considered since there is a considerable Sunk cost of Indian specific customizations, the average price will be cheaper than this F-16 deal average allowing better numbers
10. IAF is confident that for a total outlay of USD 30 Bn, close to 220+ Rafales can come in easily inclusive of MII and more strategic deals which benefits India overall
11. One of the major points IAF pointed was Tejas program role with AMCA route and network-centric warfare aspect coming in Rafale MII and proposal with MOD.
12. PMO insisted that F-16 deal may be better to look at for the time being as it adds to quicker inventory build up and will help IAF in forward bases.
13. IAF at that point clarified that F-16 Block 70 has issues as well and is not suited for the terrain India utilises all over the country
14. IAF said the specific packages built in like PBL, High altitude and anti-corrosion issues in the case of Rafales, will need to be built in the F-16 package escalating the overall USD 30 Bn figure further up.
15. In technical aspects, IAF said the modified Soufa test done had shown issues with hot and cold extreme climates, altitude performance limitations, payload and mission issues in different speed regimes, and a big practical issue of Infra Red heat emission in the engine portion.
16. IAF also said such a powerful bigger engine is also not enough owing to complexities involve for Indian terrain and the plane being overall bulky for the roles envisioned, requiring higher thrust which is now showing up in IR signatures
17. IAF said for the roles planned, the need is for a much lower MTOW and lower thrust engines with improved heat signature management.
18. MOD asked for a way out to then take this to a conclusion of either a buy or a rejection.
19. IAF insisted on a practical test of a block 70 plane in real-world conditions with a visual and technical scrutiny for evaluating versus its positioning and roles wrt IAF fleet fighters
20. IAF also said that this might require some time and hence priority should be for the Rafale deal asap over this platform with an increased focus on funds for the proper MII plan.
21. PMO agreed to both these points and asked MOD to take things forward accordingly.
22. If MOD/PMO does not call a proper block 70 for a practical test, the F-16 deal would be put out for the quiet burial as planned in dragging of timelines.
23. IAF still has a long way to fight but slowly it is fighting its way through for Rafales and Tejas plan
24. LM and USA will be informed about the meeting outcome and some urgent pending purchases will be made to keep the FMS route busy and focus on LM MII program for helo over fighter jets.

@Abingdonboy @halloweene @Hellfire @Parthu @Picdelamirand-oil @Bon Plan @randomradio @Nick @Ankit Kumar @GuardianRED @Ashwin @nair @Milspec @Tarun @halloweene @Ankit Kumar @all others

I hope PMO/MoD won't go against IAF under any pressure from LM/USA.

It seems, Rafale + MK1A + MK2 is the way forward from now onwards.

I am only hoping for MK1A's first flight before 2021-22 and orders to be increased from just 83(4 squads) to 123-163 i.e. 6 to 8 squad just to keep the HAL facility busy for more years till MK2 materializes.

One thing is for sure that LM/USA are lobbying very hard via some people in PMO/MoD. No doubt people are cautious while siding with uncle sam.

Has SAAB surrendered their case or they have opted for another route to grab something out of this pie ?

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

- What are all the planes suitable for forward bases ?
- MOD is asking whom for a way out ? i thought this is their decision to make
- Will LM make a block 70 f16 for testing ?
- With 30 + billion dollar on cards , wont Dassault partner with ADA to make MK2 tejas a single engine Rafale ?

lastly Rafale deal is helping us many other programs in offsets
is there any mention of any thing like that in F16 deal..

F16 is canceled deal. Mark my words. USA is offering nothing. These f16 will only help boost USA MIC while keeping India at the mercy of USA and destroying funds for Indian MIC.

Even Rafale hasn't given any ToT. But, the offset for kaveri consultancy, leasing of test bed and certification process makes it worthy. The only reason to buy another set of rafales instead of investing in Indian MIC is if there was a deal that Kaveri completion assistance from france will result in additional Rafale sales.

I hope PMO/MoD won't go against IAF under any pressure from LM/USA.

It seems, Rafale + MK1A + MK2 is the way forward from now onwards.

I am only hoping for MK1A's first flight before 2021-22 and orders to be increased from just 83(4 squads) to 123-163 i.e. 6 to 8 squad just to keep the HAL facility busy for more years till MK2 materializes.

One thing is for sure that LM/USA are lobbying very hard via some people in PMO/MoD. No doubt people are cautious while siding with uncle sam.

Has SAAB surrendered their case or they have opted for another route to grab something out of this pie ?

Tejas MK1A will make flights in 2019 and the current MK1 will also undergo a refit at later stages to make it MK1A. Tejas MK1 and MK1A are not the planes desired but are only necessary evil to keep industry alive and get proper feedback to design a better plane eventually.

SAAB is out of contention now as the Gripen has imported engine, radar, ejection seat etc and the spare parts would be a nightmare. There is no ToT either as Gripen is just an assembly with most of the items from non Swedish country

 

[smestarz]

You seriously want us to be like Korea? No actual economic development, just development of new missiles thats all . the people suffering.
Sorry, I do not share your dream

Why is EW, AESA behind 1-2 decades? It is just behind by 3-4 years. Not every item is like jet engine. You speak of decades as if it has no value. India has had access to Israeli AESA which it has absorbed and is using to build UTTAM AESA. GaN technology is also in the works. Indian AESA development started in 2012.

Next, AMCA development is nothing but a derivative of FGFA which started to be designed in 2009 with Russia. The design was modified later to Indian needs, but shares the same history as FGFA. The design has already been completed and it ia time for building prototype. The subsystems development is running in parallel. Why would you call it 2 decades away when USA, Russia have developed 5th generation fighter in 10-15 years? The way I see it, by 2030,AMCA will be flying.

I am speaking practically about manufacturing of planes. If we can order F16 manufacturing in USA, we can instead order Tejas Manufacturing in India. The practical and economical limit applies only when you cut funds. If you give 1 lakh crore contract of F16 to HAL, the additional Tejas can be made in India itself.


That is my point - India can be like North Korea and focus solely on defence production if necessary.

 

[Nick]

Why is EW, AESA behind 1-2 decades? It is just behind by 3-4 years. Not every item is like jet engine. You speak of decades as if it has no value. India has had access to Israeli AESA which it has absorbed and is using to build UTTAM AESA. GaN technology is also in the works. Indian AESA development started in 2012.

Next, AMCA development is nothing but a derivative of FGFA which started to be designed in 2009 with Russia. The design was modified later to Indian needs, but shares the same history as FGFA. The design has already been completed and it ia time for building prototype. The subsystems development is running in parallel. Why would you call it 2 decades away when USA, Russia have developed 5th generation fighter in 10-15 years? The way I see it, by 2030,AMCA will be flying.

I am speaking practically about manufacturing of planes. If we can order F16 manufacturing in USA, we can instead order Tejas Manufacturing in India. The practical and economical limit applies only when you cut funds. If you give 1 lakh crore contract of F16 to HAL, the additional Tejas can be made in India itself.

Current gen AESA radars are atleast a decade away from catching up to western standards in terms of peak power, range, miniaturization, GaN etc. The bigger radars, for example the ones mounted on our AEW&C and proposed AWACS are fine. But for Medium and Smaller radar apertures, we're still behind. Why do you think we're still importing those radars that are being used for our frontline systems? Eg - MF-STAR, other volume search radars, GS100 LLTR, Medium Power Radars (MPR) currently being installed in the airfields, new Russian radar for MKI etc. The Uttam for LCA is fine as a first step since it won't be a frontline fighter and will have enough ground-radar support to overcome its shortfalls.

AMCA is not a derivative of FGFA, rather technologies developed for FGFA will flow into AMCA. Both are completely different projects. And no, the design hasn't been completed, it is still in the detailed design phase. Once that is complete around 2025, FSED funds will be allotted for prototype build and testing.
Because US, Russian and China all have decades of experience building fighter aircrafts and they already had the necessary infrastructure needed for the development of a new generation fighter aircraft. Remember, when LCA was conceived, the first one and a half decades went into the infrastructure buildup in parallel to the airframe development before the actual construction of the prototype began.
The same thing is happening now, DRDO has recently commissions an RCS testing facility, an EM emission testing facility, larger supersonic/hypersonic wind tunnels etc.
AMCA will be ready for serial production post 2035.

You still don't get it do you. Yes, it is about funds. But Billions have to be poured into creating the infrastructure to produce 100 more jets just to shut it down afterwards. Do you understand that?

LCA production line will not go above 24/year with just a total requirement of 400 SEF for the IAF. Even the 24/year figure will only be reached when Mk-2 starts coming online, after which the production line will be converted to assemble AMCA.
But if a foreign OEM with an SP starts a parallel production line, IAF can get fighter from both the lines at the same time, meaning they can fill the shortage faster. And since the foreign OEM invested all that money into opening that new production line, they have to find ways of sustaining it, which mean GoI or India won't be loosing money if they have to shut it down later.

 

[Nick]

Am just talking about the highlighted point of production am not replying to you, just adding my views.

As the generations go on, producing the plane becomes much more difficult. Gone are the days of Spitfires, Mustangs etc which were produced more than 1000 a year. For example Focke Wulf was operational from 1941-1945 and in these approximate 5 years more than 2000 were built, thats basically 4000 a year. Thus 1000 a year, lets say is "possible" for the moment.

Now there are things which are critical

1. Air frame. Building an airframe is not that easy, and extremely strong alloys are used to produce the air frame and hence there is R&D in material required. If we use say Wood as they used in WW2, the airframe would be light, but too weak, if we used steel it would be too heavy and still weak. Bulding air frame takes a long time.

2. Engine. Building an engine is not very difficult, but building an engine with good thrust to weight and lower weight is difficult, add to that the complexity of producing SCBs we do not have that technology perfected yet.

Further there are many challenges mostly financial.

Due to complicated process, it would take
1. one Line to produce 50 planes a year, and each plane needing about 2 years to process, thus we shall require 20 such lines,
A line itself will cost few hundred million dollars, so 20 lines will take it to few billion dollars in itself.

Also producing Tejas will cost around $ 30 million a plane or so, and thus 1000 planes will be about 30 billion dollars, a year, This is only cost of production, there are missiles, pilots, air fields, also operating cost, lets assume that to cost of operation is say lower US$ 5000 an hour and we fly 240 hours a year, The first year it would cost us approx 1.2 billion a year, next year it will be 2.4 approx

The only way for this to happen, if India becomes like North korea and focuses purely on production of military aircraft.

The entire issue of scaling up production rate only depends upon the funds available and the sustainability of the production chain. The production line receives funds that are allotted each year for the production of a certain number of airframes that year. This depends on the total numbers or total projected sales during the entire production timeline. If the orders are low, the production schedule has to be stretched so that the investment can be spread over a longer period. If the orders are large enough, the rate can be increased as the more numbers you build every year, the cheaper the production costs become BUT the production schedule still have to stretched over a sufficiently long period of time to spread the cost of building the additional infrastructure smoothly.

Another issue is the sub-systems providers. They need to ramp up production rate to match the assembly line rate. Otherwise it creates a bottleneck. And it wont be economically viable for them to increase their rate for limited orders.

The next issue is building up the assembly infrastructure. Imagine a hangar that can build 16/year. To ramp up production to 1000/year, you'd need 62 such hangars!! imagine the Billions or even a Trillion USD needed to build such a massive facility, the land costs, the time it would take to build such a large capacity.

Now coming to labour, imagine manning all these 62 hangars where you're talking about close to hundred thousand employees just for the assembly, and you have a total order of let's say 5000 jets. Imagine the rate of 1000/year is achieved from the starting of the production schedule. The entire production will be over in 5 years. What do you do with the people? how will you justify the costs and efforts that went into training them? Their pay?

You see where i'm going???

That is why even the most produced jets in the last 50 years, kept the production rate at an economical rate.
The F-16s that had a total order run of 4,500 were produced at a peak rate of 30/month (360/year) in the US while the Soviets achieved a peak rate of 20/month (240/year) for an order of 10,000 jets including all its variants.

 

[Nick]

Chatters on the meeting for LM F-16 by PMO/MOD with IAF

1. The meeting between PMO, MOD and IAF on F16 related discussion took place in a tense environment
2. PMO outlined a plan for a total of 170 odd F-16s which will require in the range of USD 25 Bn.
3. The plan of total numbers is the overall plan inclusive of the envisioned break up of first lot flyaway+ Indian production + follow on
4. The estimated amount pegged is close to over USD 145 Mn per plane for the complete deal
5. The above deal still has additional elements which will require further contracts with Indian entities which will push the price up eventually by another USD 25-30 Mn per plane.
6. It was discussed that since its a separate contract, the same figure is not clubbed in USD 25 Bn figure. otherwise, the overall figure is much closer to USD 29-30 Bn in range.
7. IAF responded saying the whole deal and price is not correct for fleet modernisation aspect
8. IAF said single engine Tejas Mk1A and future variants are envisioned for the planned roles and inclusive of program sunk costs the cost for such a platform with numbers would come down closer in the range of USD 60-65 Mn over time
9. IAF also pointed that if Rafale is considered since there is a considerable Sunk cost of Indian specific customizations, the average price will be cheaper than this F-16 deal average allowing better numbers
10. IAF is confident that for a total outlay of USD 30 Bn, close to 220+ Rafales can come in easily inclusive of MII and more strategic deals which benefits India overall
11. One of the major points IAF pointed was Tejas program role with AMCA route and network-centric warfare aspect coming in Rafale MII and proposal with MOD.
12. PMO insisted that F-16 deal may be better to look at for the time being as it adds to quicker inventory build up and will help IAF in forward bases.
13. IAF at that point clarified that F-16 Block 70 has issues as well and is not suited for the terrain India utilises all over the country
14. IAF said the specific packages built in like PBL, High altitude and anti-corrosion issues in the case of Rafales, will need to be built in the F-16 package escalating the overall USD 30 Bn figure further up.
15. In technical aspects, IAF said the modified Soufa test done had shown issues with hot and cold extreme climates, altitude performance limitations, payload and mission issues in different speed regimes, and a big practical issue of Infra Red heat emission in the engine portion.
16. IAF also said such a powerful bigger engine is also not enough owing to complexities involve for Indian terrain and the plane being overall bulky for the roles envisioned, requiring higher thrust which is now showing up in IR signatures
17. IAF said for the roles planned, the need is for a much lower MTOW and lower thrust engines with improved heat signature management.
18. MOD asked for a way out to then take this to a conclusion of either a buy or a rejection.
19. IAF insisted on a practical test of a block 70 plane in real-world conditions with a visual and technical scrutiny for evaluating versus its positioning and roles wrt IAF fleet fighters
20. IAF also said that this might require some time and hence priority should be for the Rafale deal asap over this platform with an increased focus on funds for the proper MII plan.
21. PMO agreed to both these points and asked MOD to take things forward accordingly.
22. If MOD/PMO does not call a proper block 70 for a practical test, the F-16 deal would be put out for the quiet burial as planned in dragging of timelines.
23. IAF still has a long way to fight but slowly it is fighting its way through for Rafales and Tejas plan
24. LM and USA will be informed about the meeting outcome and some urgent pending purchases will be made to keep the FMS route busy and focus on LM MII program for helo over fighter jets.

@Abingdonboy @halloweene @Hellfire @Parthu @Picdelamirand-oil @Bon Plan @randomradio @Nick @Ankit Kumar @GuardianRED @Ashwin @nair @Milspec @Tarun @halloweene @Ankit Kumar @all others

Trials of Block-70, even if approved, will take atleast a year and a half or more to start. I guess GoI will concentrate on TEF MII+MRCBF orders in the meantime. The GoI will wait for Navy to complete the RFI, RFP processes and once Rafales are shortlisted in 2019, they can go ahead and order them for both IAF and IN under MII.
The next 36 fly-away rumors we heard about could be a mix of Rafale-C and Rafale-M while the work on DRAL MII starts.