Air Chief Marshal Raha to visit Sweden - LCA MK2 aka Gripen IN

[Abingdonboy]

Tejas, Gripen, Rafale, MKI and Super Hornet. We are guaranteed to buy at least one American fighter.

Come on sir, not this again! The IAF can't be and isn't buying every single MMRCA out there, they are looking to stremline their operations, inducting peicemeal inductions of different types is only going to increase their operational costs many fold.

The force of the future is clear:

MiG-21------> LCA
MiG-27------> Rafale
Jaguar------>Rafale/AMCA
MKI------> FGFA

Clean and simple.

Instead of:

MiG-21------> LCA/F-16/Gripen
MiG-27------> Rafale/ F-18/Gripen
Jaguar------>Rafale/AMCA/F-18
MKI------> FGFA

What an absolute mess that NO ONE is interested in.


No US fighters are coming, DTTI has nothing to do with it, India isn't signing the foundational agreements like CISMOA, BECA or LEMOA (maybe a diluted version for the navy's sake will be). There will be no ToT and why the hell would the IAF want to induct an obsolete fighter like the F-16 that their opponant has been operating for decades?

Yes, LCA and Rafale it is .. but we will be going for another platform if Dassault does not play ball (and it seems it won't).

I don't know where you get this impression brother. Dassualt are the ONLY OEM to be in advanced talks with the GoI for an Indian production line and the G-G deal for 36 Rafales off the shelf will be signed this month (June), the DM has confirmed as much. The delay has been because Parrikar is playing some very frustrating games for his personal gains.


The F-18 (and any US fighter) has no chance.

I do not have any indication of Gripen coming in, and am at odds with @dadeechi over his views on Gripen and F-16s for IAF .... not likely.

Neither will serve any benefit to the IAF or India other than to kill the LCA and the GoI will simply never allow this to happen. Every action we know of by this GoI/DM has been to promote the success of the LCA, they aren't about to throw it to the wolves and induct either the Gripen or F-16.

@Abingdonboy Back from your sojourn away? Nice to see you back!!

Thanks brother.

That's the thing. With MK2, the convergence will increase.

Exactly and it is more than likely that by that time the MK.2 will be able to compete head to head (especially on cost) with the Gripen-NG and with India's far superior "weight" in global affairs will be signifcantly advantadged over the Gripen-NG so, again, why would SAAB want to promote the success of the LCA MK.2? This is still something no one has been able to explain to me.

Something else no one else seems to want to address is what exactly does SAAB bring to the table? They are effectively a lead intergrator with SAAB itself owning very little of the IP on the key elements (propulsion, senors) that HAL/India would be most interested in.

The Gripen/SAAB offer makes no sense on any level be it from an operational level or for industrial benefits both of which are frankly non-existent.

 

[randomradio]

Come on sir, not this again! The IAF can't be and isn't buying every single MMRCA out there, they are looking to stremline their operations, inducting peicemeal inductions of different types is only going to increase their operational costs many fold.

The decision is political and economic in nature. The main goal is to build an aerospace industry. That's not possible with just one type. Apart from HAL we need two private companies that can build fighter jets. So minimum 2 will be imported for the sake of the industry. We are aiming for a 50,000 manpower strong fighter jet industry in a 200,000 manpower strong aerospace industry.

This is how I see the future.

1st gen: Many small and cheap MRCA 4th gen fighters. Could be as many as 3 or 4 types. 1st gen UCAVs.

2nd gen: FGFA, AMCA followed by FGFA Mk2 and AMCA Mk2. One or two types of 2nd gen UCAVs.

3rd gen: A multirole UCAV at the FGFA class for near earth operations, a suborbital/orbital air superiority UCAV, a heavy SSTO manned/unmanned orbital spacecraft.

We can't get to 3rd gen without the 1st gen. So we need to build an aerospace industry starting now or we will get left behind. I like the new govt.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The decision is political and economic in nature. The main goal is to build an aerospace industry. That's not possible with just one type. Apart from HAL we need two private companies that can build fighter jets. So minimum 2 will be imported for the sake of the industry. We are aiming for a 50,000 manpower strong fighter jet industry in a 200,000 manpower strong aerospace industry.
.

You don't need 3-4 different MMRCAs to do that, not at all. ADA are already looking to outsource much of the LCA's production to private entities:

There may even be a second (private) production line for the LCA opened.

Then Dassualt will be operating a Rafale production line in India with a private partner, this takes care of the second private company within India that can build fighter jets. There is simply no need for any others.


+ how is the F-18 or F-16 going to help create a credible aerospace industry in India? Or SAAB for that matter? The US is REFUSING ToT and Boeing have already said their F-18 production line in India would be 100% owned by Boeing and thus there would be prectically no benefit to local skill development and Boeing could pull out at anytime. Furthermore, what skills would SAAB bring to India? They are effecitvely a lead intergrator, there is almost no benefit to India for having them in the Indian market.

 

[ayesha.a]

hmmm so this is more of a political move. But would this effectively kill the LCA project? I mean if you go for a JV from the start then i understand that you can have your inputs and get a lot to learn and gain. But if you go for a mature aircraft that is already being used by different air forces, calling it a JV is merely a cover up. It is more of a procurement if you ask me. Anyway, thanks for your sensible reply.

Here's a fun fact. If you go by news reports over the past six months, India is looking to build F-16s, F-18s, Gripen-NG and Rafales all at home. Not to mention Tejas, Tejas Mk2 and FGFA, while designing AMCA in their spare time. There have been plenty of "news reports" claiming the same for each aircraft. Only poor Eurofighter and Mig-35 seem left out.

I don't understand why everybody, especially Indian members, haven't yet learned to ignore these "articles" and blog posts that appear everyday, and are a dime a dozen.

From the past month alone (and google for hundreds more such articles and predictions):

F16

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/i...as-F16-partner-for-next-big-India-jet-de.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...a-as-f-16-partner-for-next-big-india-jet-deal

F18

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...per-hornet-fighter-jets-for-iaf/1/626657.html
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india...buy-american-f/a-18-fighter-jets_1873034.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-keen-on-USs-F/A-18-jet-offer/articleshow/51706566.cms

People, if you keep discussing reports like these every day, the joke is really on you.

 

[randomradio]

You don't need 3-4 different MMRCAs to do that, not at all. ADA are already looking to outsource much of the LCA's production to private entities:

A small correction here. ADA is not the production entity. It's supposed to be HAL.

There may even be a second (private) production line for the LCA opened.

I doubt this will happen. HAL doesn't want to dilute its powers. They are looking to add another 8 or 16/year over the current plan of 16/year. They basically want to monopolize anything ADA designs.

They want IAF to double their LCA orders, but they don't want to hand any extra business over to the private industry.

Then Dassualt will be operating a Rafale production line in India with a private partner, this takes care of the second private company within India that can build fighter jets. There is simply no need for any others.

That's not a second private company, that's the first private company, probably Reliance. That's why a second company is required. TATA hopefully.

We basically need two major private players who have their own projects, and not playing second string to someone else like TATA working under Reliance or HAL. It's going to be a big blunder if you do not create competition within the private industry. HAL will eventually lose steam and Reliance will monopolize the aerospace industry. You may as well rename the IAF as Ambani's Flying Club then.

Two MRCAs have to happen, without fail.

+ how is the F-18 or F-16 going to help create a credible aerospace industry in India? Or SAAB for that matter? The US is REFUSING ToT and Boeing have already said their F-18 production line in India would be 100% owned by Boeing and thus there would be prectically no benefit to local skill development and Boeing could pull out at anytime. Furthermore, what skills would SAAB bring to India? They are effecitvely a lead intergrator, there is almost no benefit to India for having them in the Indian market.

I don't know how the Americans fit in, that's why I support SAAB. SAAB has plenty of skills, they have their own outsourcing industry, like Dassault. But I have hopes Parrikar will force the Americans to form proper JVs with Indian companies.

Parrikar has asked the American companies to get all the technologies cleared by Congress and then tell him what Congress has allowed to transfer. He said he will make a decision based on that. They can't screw us over like they did the Koreans.

To tell you the truth, IAF is looking for 100+ Rafale apart from the FGFA. So they don't really care what else they get apart from that. It can be hundreds of LCAs or F-16s or anything else. Parrikar is using that to the country's advantage by putting more emphasis on political and economic advantages. He's a shrewd chap. As far as the IAF is concerned, they only need 5 to 6 squadrons of each type for costs and maintenance to be manageable.

Here's a fun fact. If you go by news reports over the past six months, India is looking to build F-16s, F-18s, Gripen-NG and Rafales all at home. Not to mention Tejas, Tejas Mk2 and FGFA, while designing AMCA in their spare time. There have been plenty of "news reports" claiming the same for each aircraft. Only poor Eurofighter and Mig-35 seem left out.

I don't understand why everybody, especially Indian members, haven't yet learned to ignore these "articles" and blog posts that appear everyday, and are a dime a dozen.

Parrikar himself has confirmed that apart from Rafales, at least one or two more aircraft will be chosen for MII.

Twin engine:
In the first phase, 90 Rafales will be made in India. There may be a simultaneous production of 90 SHs or this contract may go to Rafale again depending on costs. Follow on orders may go to one or the other depending on costs.

Single engine:
120 LCAs will be made. Either 120 more will be made or a new contract may go to F-16 or Gripen, subject to the success of the LCA program. This has been confirmed.

The MRCA program has been separated to single engine and twin engine, and production numbers have roughly quadrupled.

 

[ayesha.a]

Parrikar himself has confirmed that apart from Rafales, at least one or two more aircraft will be chosen for MII.

Parikkar has been quoted making that statement, which is a far cry from him officially confirming it. He has also made one statement about another twin engine aircraft. Parikkar has a habit of making statements off the cuff, which get lapped up by the media and recycled as gospel. I would wait for a real, official statement - one that is given in a press conference is what can be termed "confirmation".

It just doesn't stand to reason that India would build an assembly line for yet another fighter type. We do not have the money or the talent pool. As it is, the talent pool required for such high tech manufacture is very sparse in India, which was why the original MMRCA competition was mooted to build a new line, and develop the talent and the ecosystem in the aerospace sector.

You can't simply throw money and expect qualified engineers and technicians and skilled labourers to show up for work the next day. It doesn't work that way. Producing F-16s simply for exports etc is a delusional fantasy, when we can't yet build the proper ecosystem to produce the Tejas as fast as we need. We could not afford to set up a line for the Rafales that we desperately need - the hope is that in the next few years we will slowly have the money and expertise. So making two more jets for "MII", is out of the question.

For the above reasons, and simply by common sense, it is obvious that we will not attempt to build yet another fighter, when we barely have the experience and skill pool for one. If you still want to speculate on the minister's off the cuff remarks, and hypothesize about all these jets being built in India in the next few years, I can't stop you. I'm out.

 

[randomradio]

Parikkar has been quoted making that statement, which is a far cry from him officially confirming it. He has also made one statement about another twin engine aircraft. Parikkar has a habit of making statements off the cuff, which get lapped up by the media and recycled as gospel. I would wait for a real, official statement - one that is given in a press conference is what can be termed "confirmation".

Lol. Okay. His words are confirmation enough for me. I can also watch how the foreign companies move as well, so it's easy to see all that if you actually follow it.

His off the cuff statement is official statement. It has been leaked since a year now.

It just doesn't stand to reason that India would build an assembly line for yet another fighter type. We do not have the money or the talent pool.

Wrong. We have both.

 

[Ahmed_Vohra]

How many HAL Tejas has Indian Air Force inducted so far?

 

[Abingdonboy]

@dadeechi @randomradio if you lined up all fighters the IAF could get in the next 10 years (Mig35, F-16IN, F-18IN, EFT, Rafale, LCA, FGFA ) which OEM and product would be most congruent with India's interests- meeting IAF's needs for a balanced strike fighter, more fighters/replacing legacy machines (MiG-21/27 and non-DARIN III Jaguars) AND boosting the local industrial base by creating a credible aerospace industry?

MIG-35- there would only be marginal benefits for the IAF for the MiG-35, it is basically a air supremacy fighter, would offer low availability and industrial benfits would be limited. Addtionally, the Russians are basically no-shows where "Make in India" is concerned. They can't seem to operate within its framwork, take the Ka-226T2 deal as an example, the deal is floundering as Russian Helicopters is hopelessly failing at meeting the MII requirements.

EFT- Another optimised A2A fighter that is only now boosting its A2G capability. Working with the 4 nation consortium would be highly time/respource consuming and there seems to be little indication that the EFT consortium has made much effort to formulate a MII policy.

Rafale- The Rafale's strike capabilties are well documented and it is easily the most logical strike platform on offer to the IAF. The Rafale's future upgrades are also fully funded beyond 2030 and India could be a partner in this for the coming decades with more and more customers lining up for it. Furthermore, France is easily the nation that has most aggressivly pursued MII and one can see that from the visits of Hollande and Modi to one another's nations. From rail, power (solar and nuclear), defence, infrastrucutre etc etc India and France are working across the board. Further furthmore most French defence OEMs (Thales, Safran, Dassualt, Airbus etc) already huge presence in India which they are expanding considerably.

F-16IN- A single engined fighter that is very very long in the tooth, that doesn't have the strike capabilties the IAF is looking for, had failed the IAF's technical selection process (along with the MiG-35, Gripen and F-18) and is in operations with the PAF for decades. On the industrial side, the US is not offering ToT and just like any US fighter it would be subject to US Congressional approval every single time India wanted even a nut or bolt from them. Neither the engine nor the AESA radar tech would be transfered to India and the source codes would remain with the OEMs.

F-18IN- The F-18 ASH is a paper plane with no concrete funding roadmap and no clear upgrade potential beyond 2020. The industrial benefits are almost negligable with all the issues remaining the same as with the F-16IN (no ToT, clearance/end-user agreement issues) but we know for a fact that Boeing has NO interest in partnering with an Indian private entity and has made it clear the F-18 would be made in India only in a 100% Boeing owned subsidary. Pretty much kills any interest dead.

Gripen- From an operational point of view the Gripen doesn't stack up. It isn't a MMRCA, it is a light weight fighter with multirole capabilties. It would effectively kill the LCA project. And from an industrial point of view there is little SAAB owns the IPRs on that would benefit India itself. SAAB is a lead intergrator much like HAL and bringing them into India would merely lead to friction without results.


LCA- it will do the job the IAF wants (replacing the MiG-21) and then some. It is also being further enhanced to be anything the IAF could want in a point defence fighter with improved avionics, an AESA radar, IFR probe etc etc. This project clearly offers the best industrial benefit potential of any option available and the LCA project itself has effectviely created the entire Indian aerospace industry single handidly to date. With further scope to grow (MK.2 and beyond) there is ample room for the LCA project to further enhance India's postion as an aerospace power.

FGFA- A neccesity for the IAF's future and a natural successor to the MKI. Much of the infrastructure for the FGFA will be building on the MKI's that is already established and further enhancing it, they will be made in the same HAL production facility for instance. With 50% of the workshare of this new type there is a great deal of groundbreaking tech the ADA and HAL will be able to be involved in from the outset.



From the above, the optimal solution to meet the IAF's needs AND the industrial needs of India are the LCA, Rafale and FGFA. This would also be optimal for ensuring ease of maintainence and minimal duplication of services. And isn't it funny that this is EXACTLY what the GoI/MoD/DM are pursuing? The LCA is being pushed agressively under this Govt, the Rafale deal was personally intiated by the PM himself and the FGFA has been picked up with new vigor by the MoD and the phase-2 contract will be signed with Russia in the coming weeks. It can't be a coincidence. The cream is rising to the top and if you look past all the noise from vested interests there is a very clear plan at work here.




@PARIKRAMA @Nilgiri @Koovie @Echo_419 @nair @SpArK @MilSpec @scorpionx @Water Car Engineer @acetophenol @Roybot @skyisthelimit @Dash @Archie @SR-91 @hellfire @cerberus @Sri @Levina @Taygibay @Vauban @Parul @ayesha.a @BON PLAN @Picdelamirand-oil @Joe Shearer @kadamba-warrior @GURU DUTT @gr!ffin @sathya @Roybot @kbd-raaf @ito @Mike_Brando @bloo @ni8mare @Sam. @Jamwal's @fsayed @Kal Muah @egodoc222 @Terminator

 

[Sri]

@dadeechi @randomradio if you lined up all fighters the IAF could get in the next 10 years (Mig35, F-16IN, F-18IN, EFT, Rafale, LCA, FGFA ) which OEM and product would be most congruent with India's interests- meeting IAF's needs for a balanced strike fighter, more fighters/replacing legacy machines (MiG-21/27 and non-DARIN III Jaguars) AND boosting the local industrial base by creating a credible aerospace industry?

MIG-35- there would only be marginal benefits for the IAF for the MiG-35, it is basically a air supremacy fighter, would offer low availability and industrial benfits would be limited. Addtionally, the Russians are basically no-shows where "Make in India" is concerned. They can't seem to operate within its framwork, take the Ka-226T2 deal as an example, the deal is floundering as Russian Helicopters is hopelessly failing at meeting the MII requirements.

EFT- Another optimised A2A fighter that is only now boosting its A2G capability. Working with the 4 nation consortium would be highly time/respource consuming and there seems to be little indication that the EFT consortium has made much effort to formulate a MII policy.

Rafale- The Rafale's strike capabilties are well documented and it is easily the most logical strike platform on offer to the IAF. The Rafale's future upgrades are also fully funded beyond 2030 and India could be a partner in this for the coming decades with more and more customers lining up for it. Furthermore, France is easily the nation that has most aggressivly pursued MII and one can see that from the visits of Hollande and Modi to one another's nations. From rail, power (solar and nuclear), defence, infrastrucutre etc etc India and France are working across the board. Further furthmore most French defence OEMs (Thales, Safran, Dassualt, Airbus etc) already huge presence in India which they are expanding considerably.

F-16IN- A single engined fighter that is very very long in the tooth, that doesn't have the strike capabilties the IAF is looking for, had failed the IAF's technical selection process (along with the MiG-35, Gripen and F-18) and is in operations with the PAF for decades. On the industrial side, the US is not offering ToT and just like any US fighter it would be subject to US Congressional approval every single time India wanted even a nut or bolt from them. Neither the engine nor the AESA radar tech would be transfered to India and the source codes would remain with the OEMs.

F-18IN- The F-18 ASH is a paper plane with no concrete funding roadmap and no clear upgrade potential beyond 2020. The industrial benefits are almost negligable with all the issues remaining the same as with the F-16IN (no ToT, clearance/end-user agreement issues) but we know for a fact that Boeing has NO interest in partnering with an Indian private entity and has made it clear the F-18 would be made in India only in a 100% Boeing owned subsidary. Pretty much kills any interest dead.

Gripen- From an operational point of view the Gripen doesn't stack up. It isn't a MMRCA, it is a light weight fighter with multirole capabilties. It would effectively kill the LCA project. And from an industrial point of view there is little SAAB owns the IPRs on that would benefit India itself. SAAB is a lead intergrator much like HAL and bringing them into India would merely lead to friction without results.


LCA- it will do the job the IAF wants (replacing the MiG-21) and then some. It is also being further enhanced to be anything the IAF could want in a point defence fighter with improved avionics, an AESA radar, IFR probe etc etc. This project clearly offers the best industrial benefit potential of any option available and the LCA project itself has effectviely created the entire Indian aerospace industry single handidly to date. With further scope to grow (MK.2 and beyond) there is ample room for the LCA project to further enhance India's postion as an aerospace power.

FGFA- A neccesity for the IAF's future and a natural successor to the MKI. Much of the infrastructure for the FGFA will be building on the MKI's that is already established and further enhancing it, they will be made in the same HAL production facility for instance. With 50% of the workshare of this new type there is a great deal of groundbreaking tech the ADA and HAL will be able to be involved in from the outset.



From the above, the optimal solution to meet the IAF's needs AND the industrial needs of India are the LCA, Rafale and FGFA. This would also be optimal for ensuring ease of maintainence and minimal duplication of services. And isn't it funny that this is EXACTLY what the GoI/MoD/DM are pursuing? The LCA is being pushed agressively under this Govt, the Rafale deal was personally intiated by the PM himself and the FGFA has been picked up with new vigor by the MoD and the phase-2 contract will be signed with Russia in the coming weeks. It can't be a coincidence. The cream is rising to the top and if you look past all the noise from vested interests there is a very clear plan at work here.




@PARIKRAMA @Nilgiri @Koovie @Echo_419 @nair @SpArK @MilSpec @scorpionx @Water Car Engineer @acetophenol @Roybot @skyisthelimit @Dash @Archie @SR-91 @hellfire @cerberus @Sri @Levina @Taygibay @Vauban @Parul @ayesha.a @BON PLAN @Picdelamirand-oil @Joe Shearer @kadamba-warrior @GURU DUTT @gr!ffin @sathya @Roybot @kbd-raaf @ito @Mike_Brando @bloo @ni8mare @Sam. @Jamwal's @fsayed @Kal Muah @egodoc222 @Terminator

I agree with you that these 3 fighters are the best solution to our operational needs.But the abyss that has been created with lack of induction of new airframes ( apart from MKI) cant be plugged by just these three. I believe there is a need for another fighter and if purchased/inducted from purely operational purpose ( to plug the numbers) then it would make sense. In this context I believe silent/stealthy FA-18 would be best bet. even though it may not bring any TOT etc, it will definitely give some bargaining points to India. this can be quickly manufactured. There is definitely an upgrade program available for US navy and India will not have shell money for funding each and every system upgrade. I do not see much use considering other platforms. Seniors any comments please

 

[randomradio]

@dadeechi @randomradio if you lined up all fighters the IAF could get in the next 10 years (Mig35, F-16IN, F-18IN, EFT, Rafale, LCA, FGFA ) which OEM and product would be most congruent with India's interests- meeting IAF's needs for a balanced strike fighter, more fighters/replacing legacy machines (MiG-21/27 and non-DARIN III Jaguars) AND boosting the local industrial base by creating a credible aerospace industry?

MIG-35- there would only be marginal benefits for the IAF for the MiG-35, it is basically a air supremacy fighter, would offer low availability and industrial benfits would be limited. Addtionally, the Russians are basically no-shows where "Make in India" is concerned. They can't seem to operate within its framwork, take the Ka-226T2 deal as an example, the deal is floundering as Russian Helicopters is hopelessly failing at meeting the MII requirements.

EFT- Another optimised A2A fighter that is only now boosting its A2G capability. Working with the 4 nation consortium would be highly time/respource consuming and there seems to be little indication that the EFT consortium has made much effort to formulate a MII policy.

Rafale- The Rafale's strike capabilties are well documented and it is easily the most logical strike platform on offer to the IAF. The Rafale's future upgrades are also fully funded beyond 2030 and India could be a partner in this for the coming decades with more and more customers lining up for it. Furthermore, France is easily the nation that has most aggressivly pursued MII and one can see that from the visits of Hollande and Modi to one another's nations. From rail, power (solar and nuclear), defence, infrastrucutre etc etc India and France are working across the board. Further furthmore most French defence OEMs (Thales, Safran, Dassualt, Airbus etc) already huge presence in India which they are expanding considerably.

F-16IN- A single engined fighter that is very very long in the tooth, that doesn't have the strike capabilties the IAF is looking for, had failed the IAF's technical selection process (along with the MiG-35, Gripen and F-18) and is in operations with the PAF for decades. On the industrial side, the US is not offering ToT and just like any US fighter it would be subject to US Congressional approval every single time India wanted even a nut or bolt from them. Neither the engine nor the AESA radar tech would be transfered to India and the source codes would remain with the OEMs.

F-18IN- The F-18 ASH is a paper plane with no concrete funding roadmap and no clear upgrade potential beyond 2020. The industrial benefits are almost negligable with all the issues remaining the same as with the F-16IN (no ToT, clearance/end-user agreement issues) but we know for a fact that Boeing has NO interest in partnering with an Indian private entity and has made it clear the F-18 would be made in India only in a 100% Boeing owned subsidary. Pretty much kills any interest dead.

Gripen- From an operational point of view the Gripen doesn't stack up. It isn't a MMRCA, it is a light weight fighter with multirole capabilties. It would effectively kill the LCA project. And from an industrial point of view there is little SAAB owns the IPRs on that would benefit India itself. SAAB is a lead intergrator much like HAL and bringing them into India would merely lead to friction without results.


LCA- it will do the job the IAF wants (replacing the MiG-21) and then some. It is also being further enhanced to be anything the IAF could want in a point defence fighter with improved avionics, an AESA radar, IFR probe etc etc. This project clearly offers the best industrial benefit potential of any option available and the LCA project itself has effectviely created the entire Indian aerospace industry single handidly to date. With further scope to grow (MK.2 and beyond) there is ample room for the LCA project to further enhance India's postion as an aerospace power.

FGFA- A neccesity for the IAF's future and a natural successor to the MKI. Much of the infrastructure for the FGFA will be building on the MKI's that is already established and further enhancing it, they will be made in the same HAL production facility for instance. With 50% of the workshare of this new type there is a great deal of groundbreaking tech the ADA and HAL will be able to be involved in from the outset.



From the above, the optimal solution to meet the IAF's needs AND the industrial needs of India are the LCA, Rafale and FGFA. This would also be optimal for ensuring ease of maintainence and minimal duplication of services. And isn't it funny that this is EXACTLY what the GoI/MoD/DM are pursuing? The LCA is being pushed agressively under this Govt, the Rafale deal was personally intiated by the PM himself and the FGFA has been picked up with new vigor by the MoD and the phase-2 contract will be signed with Russia in the coming weeks. It can't be a coincidence. The cream is rising to the top and if you look past all the noise from vested interests there is a very clear plan at work here.




@PARIKRAMA @Nilgiri @Koovie @Echo_419 @nair @SpArK @MilSpec @scorpionx @Water Car Engineer @acetophenol @Roybot @skyisthelimit @Dash @Archie @SR-91 @hellfire @cerberus @Sri @Levina @Taygibay @Vauban @Parul @ayesha.a @BON PLAN @Picdelamirand-oil @Joe Shearer @kadamba-warrior @GURU DUTT @gr!ffin @sathya @Roybot @kbd-raaf @ito @Mike_Brando @bloo @ni8mare @Sam. @Jamwal's @fsayed @Kal Muah @egodoc222 @Terminator

I will remove LCA, Rafale and FGFA from the discussion because they are going to be part of the IAF anyway.

This post takes into consideration that we can't purchase too many Rafales or LCA due to whatever reasons, which leaves us with Mig-35, F-16IN, F/A-18SH and Gripen-E.

Twin engine:-
Mig-35:
The Mig-35 is the best option for us right now in terms of cost, it is the cheapest out of all the aircraft mentioned above if you consider unit flyaway price. The ruble's fallen by two times, so what was originally a $45M aircraft is now a little over $20M. It is an air superiority aircraft and IAF wants the MRCA for this particular role. Mig-35 can absorb a lot of the technologies that are going into the FGFA. Even though that will jack up the costs, the Mig-35 is still going to be quite cheap because of the weak ruble. But it has no chance simply because it is Russian.

F/A-18 SH:
Personally I don't believe the SH is cheaper than the Rafale, unless we purchase the vanilla SH that the USN operates. Add internal IRST, advanced MAWS/LWS, AESA based EW suite with EA, and strengthen the airframe for 9G operations and we get a heavier and very pricey jet. Even though it is a paper plane, you can be sure that Boeing won't disappoint. Manufacturing ToT is going to be very critical, and Parrikar will ensure it will happen. Boeing is capable of churning these aircraft out very quickly and in time. It has a pretty decent future upgrade potential because the USN will want to operate them into the 2040s.

Among twin engine aircraft, neither of them really match up to the Rafale. Even with FGFA technologies, the Mig-35 is still an old airframe and the SH is not going to be any different. Mig-35 has the aerodynamics advantage and potentially an electronics advantage with FGFA tech versus the SH while the SH will have an advantage when it comes to engine and airframe quality along with better maintenance and spares support. Sticking FGFA tech into the Mig-35 is going to take years, and we can't wait that long.

If we buy the SH, we can get a far more favourable deal for engines for the AMCA program. It has better export potential than the Mig-35. We can potentially end up manufacturing jets for Canada which is a big boost to our industry. I won't be surprised if some of the USN upgrade work for the SH comes to India, they have about 700 jets there. RAAF is a potential customer too.

EFT: No chance. They are not even in the competition and they know the reason why.

Single engine:-
For the single engine deal, it is actually very simple. IAF wants an air superiority fighter, and the jet should be an excellent dog fighter. Gripen trumps the F-16 in that department. Period.

Selex's Raven may be a no-go for the Gripen, but the aircraft comes with Meteor and ASRAAM. Nothing beats that combination in the West today. We can go for the Israeli EL/M-2052 instead, we are getting ToT on the radar through the LCA program. The radar's better than the Raven too, GaN, baby. Plus an advantage when we negotiate with GE for the F414. The Gripen also boasts real sensor fusion, like the Rafale.

Both jets are cheap, but Gripen comes with newer technologies and has a real future upgrade potential. And it actually has export potential. The F-16 provides no significant advantage in that sense. The F-16 sacrifices performance for range, the Gripen does not, so put that under the list of drawbacks for the F-16.

In conclusion, if we are going for two more fighters, they have to be the SH and Gripen.

If we are going for only one of these fighters, then we should go for Gripen. SAAB's JV partner is going to be TATA, the best competitors for Reliance. Whoever hooks up with SH is going to get really lucky in terms of business potential though.

 

[The Huskar]

Well this particular news is considered, there wont be any split. The LCA MK2 will be Gripen NG and that is it.That is why i raised this question.


WHAT question?
Just do not jump to conclusion that i am criticizing LCA only because you see my flag, here, below i have quoted my own post again. WHAT QUESTION ARE YOU ANSWERING TOO IN YOU ABOVE QUOTED LINES? Where the hell was i questioning the readiness of any thing?



That is WHAT i was asking. That with MK1 reported to be on par with 4/4+ gen planes, and being the test bed for future technologies for Mk2 (meaning that those are better then the ones on MK1) why the need for "inducting these cutting edge technologies".

Anyway, its useless, i understand that there are no logical answers here, everyone is being driven by patriotism and will jump in to defend every single stupid move that is actually either a lie or a mistake.

Here's the gist of it all.HAL keeps repeating that Mk2 will be user ready by 2024.But looking at the pace of HAL and constituting in the fact that simple design changes in flight control surfaces changes a lot of aerodynamic properties and hence requires new series of testing and validation, IAF is not sure that HAL is capable of delivering on time. And looking at the de induction rate of IAF, we are looking at a squadron capacity of about 25-30 if those jet's are unavailable in time. Hence the Gripen NG contingency.

 

[MilSpec]

@dadeechi @randomradio if you lined up all fighters the IAF could get in the next 10 years (Mig35, F-16IN, F-18IN, EFT, Rafale, LCA, FGFA ) which OEM and product would be most congruent with India's interests- meeting IAF's needs for a balanced strike fighter, more fighters/replacing legacy machines (MiG-21/27 and non-DARIN III Jaguars) AND boosting the local industrial base by creating a credible aerospace industry?

MIG-35- there would only be marginal benefits for the IAF for the MiG-35, it is basically a air supremacy fighter, would offer low availability and industrial benfits would be limited. Addtionally, the Russians are basically no-shows where "Make in India" is concerned. They can't seem to operate within its framwork, take the Ka-226T2 deal as an example, the deal is floundering as Russian Helicopters is hopelessly failing at meeting the MII requirements.

EFT- Another optimised A2A fighter that is only now boosting its A2G capability. Working with the 4 nation consortium would be highly time/respource consuming and there seems to be little indication that the EFT consortium has made much effort to formulate a MII policy.

Rafale- The Rafale's strike capabilties are well documented and it is easily the most logical strike platform on offer to the IAF. The Rafale's future upgrades are also fully funded beyond 2030 and India could be a partner in this for the coming decades with more and more customers lining up for it. Furthermore, France is easily the nation that has most aggressivly pursued MII and one can see that from the visits of Hollande and Modi to one another's nations. From rail, power (solar and nuclear), defence, infrastrucutre etc etc India and France are working across the board. Further furthmore most French defence OEMs (Thales, Safran, Dassualt, Airbus etc) already huge presence in India which they are expanding considerably.

F-16IN- A single engined fighter that is very very long in the tooth, that doesn't have the strike capabilties the IAF is looking for, had failed the IAF's technical selection process (along with the MiG-35, Gripen and F-18) and is in operations with the PAF for decades. On the industrial side, the US is not offering ToT and just like any US fighter it would be subject to US Congressional approval every single time India wanted even a nut or bolt from them. Neither the engine nor the AESA radar tech would be transfered to India and the source codes would remain with the OEMs.

F-18IN- The F-18 ASH is a paper plane with no concrete funding roadmap and no clear upgrade potential beyond 2020. The industrial benefits are almost negligable with all the issues remaining the same as with the F-16IN (no ToT, clearance/end-user agreement issues) but we know for a fact that Boeing has NO interest in partnering with an Indian private entity and has made it clear the F-18 would be made in India only in a 100% Boeing owned subsidary. Pretty much kills any interest dead.

Gripen- From an operational point of view the Gripen doesn't stack up. It isn't a MMRCA, it is a light weight fighter with multirole capabilties. It would effectively kill the LCA project. And from an industrial point of view there is little SAAB owns the IPRs on that would benefit India itself. SAAB is a lead intergrator much like HAL and bringing them into India would merely lead to friction without results.


LCA- it will do the job the IAF wants (replacing the MiG-21) and then some. It is also being further enhanced to be anything the IAF could want in a point defence fighter with improved avionics, an AESA radar, IFR probe etc etc. This project clearly offers the best industrial benefit potential of any option available and the LCA project itself has effectviely created the entire Indian aerospace industry single handidly to date. With further scope to grow (MK.2 and beyond) there is ample room for the LCA project to further enhance India's postion as an aerospace power.

FGFA- A neccesity for the IAF's future and a natural successor to the MKI. Much of the infrastructure for the FGFA will be building on the MKI's that is already established and further enhancing it, they will be made in the same HAL production facility for instance. With 50% of the workshare of this new type there is a great deal of groundbreaking tech the ADA and HAL will be able to be involved in from the outset.



From the above, the optimal solution to meet the IAF's needs AND the industrial needs of India are the LCA, Rafale and FGFA. This would also be optimal for ensuring ease of maintainence and minimal duplication of services. And isn't it funny that this is EXACTLY what the GoI/MoD/DM are pursuing? The LCA is being pushed agressively under this Govt, the Rafale deal was personally intiated by the PM himself and the FGFA has been picked up with new vigor by the MoD and the phase-2 contract will be signed with Russia in the coming weeks. It can't be a coincidence. The cream is rising to the top and if you look past all the noise from vested interests there is a very clear plan at work here.




@PARIKRAMA @Nilgiri @Koovie @Echo_419 @nair @SpArK @MilSpec @scorpionx @Water Car Engineer @acetophenol @Roybot @skyisthelimit @Dash @Archie @SR-91 @hellfire @cerberus @Sri @Levina @Taygibay @Vauban @Parul @ayesha.a @BON PLAN @Picdelamirand-oil @Joe Shearer @kadamba-warrior @GURU DUTT @gr!ffin @sathya @Roybot @kbd-raaf @ito @Mike_Brando @bloo @ni8mare @Sam. @Jamwal's @fsayed @Kal Muah @egodoc222 @Terminator

Great Post, let me try and carry the discussion further.

MIG-35- there would only be marginal benefits for the IAF for the MiG-35, it is basically a air supremacy fighter, would offer low availability and industrial benfits would be limited. Addtionally, the Russians are basically no-shows where "Make in India" is concerned. They can't seem to operate within its framwork, take the Ka-226T2 deal as an example, the deal is floundering as Russian Helicopters is hopelessly failing at meeting the MII requirements.

Not fully accurate, If you look carefully at the development of the Mig29 Platform, it had two distinct variants, The Mig29S (9.13) and the Mig 29M that was a specialized strike variant. Due to collapse of the USSR, the M variant couldn't go any further until it was reborn as the Mig29K and later went on to become the Mig35 variant. I will not go too much into evaluations, from the flight evaluations, it was obvious that rafale was deemed as the best, I won't second guess the experts, the only add would be it would be an affordable platform, and brings unprecedented value for money. In addition it lowers the service and operational costs with a fleet of around 100 existing fulcrums of In and IAF.

Now as for the Make in India tag is, let me remind you we made every component of the Mig21, every rivet
, every nut, every bolt, even the switch gear on the bison. So russia has been making in India before Make in India was a big program. More than russia I am more concerned with India's performance in the Make in India program where every ToT that has local component development to replace Phase 3 items never coming to fruition. Example Bofor and Ofb.

EFT- Another optimised A2A fighter that is only now boosting its A2G capability. Working with the 4 nation consortium would be highly time/respource consuming and there seems to be little indication that the EFT consortium has made much effort to formulate a MII policy.

It came pretty close to the Rafale though. I personally do not see a huge difference between a Air Supremacy platform optimised for strike and platform that was designed to be a Multirole to begin with.As long as it meets operational requirements I am on the fence about the choice. So yes I think, if performance was close, EFT's could have been a good choice, but personally I felt rafale was the better choice.

Rafale- The Rafale's strike capabilties are well documented and it is easily the most logical strike platform on offer to the IAF. The Rafale's future upgrades are also fully funded beyond 2030 and India could be a partner in this for the coming decades with more and more customers lining up for it. Furthermore, France is easily the nation that has most aggressivly pursued MII and one can see that from the visits of Hollande and Modi to one another's nations. From rail, power (solar and nuclear), defence, infrastrucutre etc etc India and France are working across the board. Further furthmore most French defence OEMs (Thales, Safran, Dassualt, Airbus etc) already huge presence in India which they are expanding considerably.

It is the most logical choice, but I dont' buy it's lifecycle costs as presented one bit. That entire exercise was hogwash.

F-16IN- A single engined fighter that is very very long in the tooth, that doesn't have the strike capabilties the IAF is looking for, had failed the IAF's technical selection process (along with the MiG-35, Gripen and F-18) and is in operations with the PAF for decades. On the industrial side, the US is not offering ToT and just like any US fighter it would be subject to US Congressional approval every single time India wanted even a nut or bolt from them. Neither the engine nor the AESA radar tech would be transfered to India and the source codes would remain with the OEMs.

All true about MII, but from performance standard. F16 is the benchmark of LWF, period. There is no single engine fighter that can match F16 and in alternate universe it would have been the best platform for IAF.

F-18IN- The F-18 ASH is a paper plane with no concrete funding roadmap and no clear upgrade potential beyond 2020. The industrial benefits are almost negligable with all the issues remaining the same as with the F-16IN (no ToT, clearance/end-user agreement issues) but we know for a fact that Boeing has NO interest in partnering with an Indian private entity and has made it clear the F-18 would be made in India only in a 100% Boeing owned subsidary. Pretty much kills any interest dead.

industrial benefits are HUUUUGE. F/A 18's manufacturing process is like clock work, boeing (or more mcdonald douglas) style of PD is a clas apart, sometimes the industrial benefit is not a very easily quantifiable, but I think MoD even if not a great business case should try and bring in atleast one Boeing product into production in Inda, and the effect would be transformation of the entire industry. (managers would be dicks though)

Gripen- From an operational point of view the Gripen doesn't stack up. It isn't a MMRCA, it is a light weight fighter with multirole capabilties. It would effectively kill the LCA project. And from an industrial point of view there is little SAAB owns the IPRs on that would benefit India itself. SAAB is a lead intergrator much like HAL and bringing them into India would merely lead to friction without results.

The only way I can think of Gripen in IAF colors is if Tata buys Saab out. I am not sure why the gripen was even in contention.

LCA- it will do the job the IAF wants (replacing the MiG-21) and then some. It is also being further enhanced to be anything the IAF could want in a point defence fighter with improved avionics, an AESA radar, IFR probe etc etc. This project clearly offers the best industrial benefit potential of any option available and the LCA project itself has effectviely created the entire Indian aerospace industry single handidly to date. With further scope to grow (MK.2 and beyond) there is ample room for the LCA project to further enhance India's postion as an aerospace power.

I am hedging my bets on LCA 1P, It will eat into a lot of other areas that we havent thought of yet, And I will bet my bottom dollar that LCA 1p (not Mk2) will see twice the numbers that are in the public domain.

FGFA- A neccesity for the IAF's future and a natural successor to the MKI. Much of the infrastructure for the FGFA will be building on the MKI's that is already established and further enhancing it, they will be made in the same HAL production facility for instance. With 50% of the workshare of this new type there is a great deal of groundbreaking tech the ADA and HAL will be able to be involved in from the outset.

FGFA will come to IAF, it's too soon to comment on final configuration. I think ADA's confidence on AMCA is being bolstered and with this government in power I think we can rest assured that home grown projects will not be sabotged by the forces. Before I was the proponent of just having a FGFA/PMF Pakfa variants, but now AMCA seems like a viable option with the MoD's priority finally being in the right area.

From the above, the optimal solution to meet the IAF's needs AND the industrial needs of India are the LCA, Rafale and FGFA. This would also be optimal for ensuring ease of maintainence and minimal duplication of services. And isn't it funny that this is EXACTLY what the GoI/MoD/DM are pursuing? The LCA is being pushed agressively under this Govt, the Rafale deal was personally intiated by the PM himself and the FGFA has been picked up with new vigor by the MoD and the phase-2 contract will be signed with Russia in the coming weeks. It can't be a coincidence. The cream is rising to the top and if you look past all the noise from vested interests there is a very clear plan at work here.

I would add a N-AMCA to the list , along with a specialized LCA- Lift variants ( with specialized cockpit simulators for Rafale/MKI/FGFA/AMCA, instead of traditional control, why, because we can)

 

[Abingdonboy]

There is no single engine fighter that can match F16 and in alternate universe it would have been the best platform for IAF.

The F-16 taking part in the MMRCA never made sense, it isn't really a medium class fighter and I would not wish it in the IAF for one simple reason, the existence of the LCA. No doubt the LCA would not be able to compete with the F-16 Blk.70 at first but as time went on and it was further developed the fight would soon be between ordering more LCA vs ordering more F-16. It would be a very similar problem to what the PAF faces today ie they have to choose between suporting the local fighter/industry and getting the best platform it can afford. This is not a fight the LCA would win IMO as the IAF top brass are obsessed with maximsing operational capabilties and haven't quite switched over to the mindset of supoorting local industry. I'm glad the LCA has carved out its own niche within the IAF and won't be infringed upon by orders for the MKI/FGFA or Rafale.

industrial benefits are HUUUUGE. F/A 18's manufacturing process is like clock work, boeing (or more mcdonald douglas) style of PD is a clas apart, sometimes the industrial benefit is not a very easily quantifiable, but I think MoD even if not a great business case should try and bring in atleast one Boeing product into production in Inda, and the effect would be transformation of the entire industry. (managers would be dicks though)

But if the production line is a 100% subsidary of Boeing and no ToT would be on the table there is no real long term industrial benefits for India beyond creating a limited support ecosystem in India. This would be little more than an outsourcing contract, this wouldn't build up India's aerospace industry.

I am hedging my bets on LCA 1P, It will eat into a lot of other areas that we havent thought of yet, And I will bet my bottom dollar that LCA 1p (not Mk2) will see twice the numbers that are in the public domain.

Let the LCA get into service, 100% the IAF will be ordering more LCA Mk.1As once they see what it can do for them.

FGFA will come to IAF, it's too soon to comment on final configuration. I think ADA's confidence on AMCA is being bolstered and with this government in power I think we can rest assured that home grown projects will not be sabotged by the forces. Before I was the proponent of just having a FGFA/PMF Pakfa variants, but now AMCA seems like a viable option with the MoD's priority finally being in the right area.

The AMCA has been given a HUGE boost under this GoI that I can confirm and if they show the same kind of innovation/out of box thinking as they have in other ministries/projects then the AMCA could take a really interesting form in the years to come. In an ideal world Dassualt would be brought in as a Tier 1 partner and India and France could work on the AMCA to be the next generation fighter for both India and France. Dassualt, Thales, Safran etc will all be heavily involved in the Indian market thanks to the Rafale and Mirage 2000 upgrade deals. France itself doesn't have a manned fighter project for post the Rafale, why not the AMCA? @Taygibay

I would add a N-AMCA to the list

Absolutely. The N-AMCA could be the most important a/c of the future as it will allow the IN to build on its expereince operating the Rafale-M and would ensure the supremacy of the IN's CBGs in the region. I also think this is exactly why the IN is commiting itself to the N-LCA when it is abundently clear the type has almost no real value to them beyond being a learning exercise for bigger and better projects.

along with a specialized LCA- Lift variants ( with specialized cockpit simulators for Rafale/MKI/FGFA/AMCA, instead of traditional control, why, because we can)

Couldn't agree with this more, why any more effort is being given to the HJT-36 now I just don't understand. The need of the IAF is for a supersonic LIFT and the LCA can fit the bill perfectly and, as you have pointed out, all it takes is the will because the capability is there.

Here's the gist of it all.HAL keeps repeating that Mk2 will be user ready by 2024.But looking at the pace of HAL and constituting in the fact that simple design changes in flight control surfaces changes a lot of aerodynamic properties and hence requires new series of testing and validation, IAF is not sure that HAL is capable of delivering on time. And looking at the de induction rate of IAF, we are looking at a squadron capacity of about 25-30 if those jet's are unavailable in time. Hence the Gripen NG contingency.

No, there is no need for that. The LCA Mk.1A has been explicitly developed/conceived to cover any possible delay in the LCA Mk.2. The MK.1A with an AESA radar, IFR probe, imporved avionics etc etc will be more than enough to perform as the IAF's lowest teir fighter in the point defence/air policing role. The LCA is the MiG-21 replacement, not a MMRCA don't forget that.

If we are going for only one of these fighters, then we should go for Gripen. SAAB's JV partner is going to be TATA, the best competitors for Reliance.

The Gripen in IAF service will kill off the LCA MK.2 GURANTEED. It isn't a price worth paying.

Whoever hooks up with SH is going to get really lucky in terms of business potential though.

Except Boeing have explictily stated they are't willing to tie up with any Indian partner and would only manufacture F-18s in India under a 100% owned subsidary.

The Gripen and F-18 propositions are far too heavily weighed in favour of operational benefits for the IAF but do not acknowledge that India's priority is now about creating a credible manufacturing base and the aerospace industry is a key part of that. The Gripen and F-18 offer very little in the way of long term industrial benefits to India. When did the IAF's needs get so important? The GoI has been consistently ignoring them so I'm sure that they would feel that the LCA and Rafale (with FGFA a bit later) is more than enough to keep them content.

 

[randomradio]

It came pretty close to the Rafale though. I personally do not see a huge difference between a Air Supremacy platform optimised for strike and platform that was designed to be a Multirole to begin with.As long as it meets operational requirements I am on the fence about the choice. So yes I think, if performance was close, EFT's could have been a good choice, but personally I felt rafale was the better choice.

The EFT is a terrible choice and that's due to multiple reasons.

1. The EFT is too expensive. 25% more than the Rafale when Rafale had better specs. Nothing much has changed on the EFT since then while Rafale has introduced some really incredible new technologies.
2. The EFT has still not been through full fatigue tests. It's only been tested to 3000 flight hours and the Germans have reduced that by half due to manufacturing defects in the fuselage. Otoh, Rafale has been certified for a full 7000 hours and can be doubled in a life extension program.
3. The EFT has a dead end future upgrade potential.
4. The EFT has no advantage against the Rafale in any role, proven by Swiss evaluations. Since the evaluations, Rafale has been heavily upgraded.
5. The EFT still has older 4th gen avionics, not even an AESA. Nowhere near the 5th gen and higher technologies on the Rafale. Rafale will get new conformal arrays in 2021, plus DIRCM, a DEW pod. In the immediate future, 2018, Rafale will be getting a new multipurpose data link, active cancellation, uprated engines etc.
6. Did I mention the price difference?

There's really no point second guessing the IAF's choice.

The only advantage the EF has is a small difference in supersonic performance and high G maneuverability at higher altitudes which will be rendered obsolete by the FGFA anyway. And this is not considering the Rafale's uprated engines.

It is the most logical choice, but I dont' buy it's lifecycle costs as presented one bit. That entire exercise was hogwash.

According to French Senate documents, the LCC cost of Rafale is very low. Spares and maintenance throughout a Rafale's life comes to less than $100M per jet. And that's for 40 years at 240 hours a year.

According to the French senate, the CPFH of a M-2000 is $8000 and that of a Rafale is $10000.
According to HAL, the CPFH of a M-2000 is $3000. So this will give you an idea about how much the Rafale will cost in India. In comparison, according to HAL, the CPFH of a MKI is $12000.

There is no single engine fighter that can match F16 and in alternate universe it would have been the best platform for IAF.

The F-16IN failed IAF's MRCA performance standards. Gripen Demo cleared it.