HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[sancho]

Question is, in the history of fighter exports it is pertinent that some local usage be demonstrated first before exports are undertaken.

Of course, but that is dealt by the order and coming induction of 40 x MK1s into IAF, the only difference would be the weapon pack and partially some avionics (data links for example).

The Israelis just got off modernization contracts

Exactly, "only" modernisation contracts, where they have to compete with US, European or other foreign countries (see IAF, SPICE vs AASM, Python V vs ASRAAM, Iris-T, MICA, AIM9). If they can sell Israeli avionics and weapons as a packag with new fighters instead, the ammount of their sales will be higher and have more potential for later follow orders or simpler upgrades, where they won't have to compete with others necessarily.
If the US wouldn't had blocked the Israeli aero industry, they would sell fighters on export markets and get benefits out of it, LCA actually gets them a way around that.

Middle eastern clients would back off due to Israel which leaves just places in the far east. The Central Asian states are very Russian bound as well. So the market sector really needs further exploration before committing to export.

The middle eastern market is a low chance market for low cost fighters like LCA or JF17, since these countries can afford way better, the only question was, can they get it. Today when they can get F15SAs, F16s B60s, Rafales, or EFs, they don't need light class 4th gen fighters anymore.
Instead there are a lot of countries that used F16s and Mig 21s in the past, infact any smaller western countries (especially some of the ex eastblock countries in Europe), that don't want to go for Russian, but can't afford European fighters other than the Gripen, could be aimed. Keep in mind that the F16 is going out of production soon, so only Gripen (which doesn't have the C/D in production anymore) would be a contender in the light to medium class. Asian and South American countries are on the list as well, Vietnam as you pointed out, which even can remain with Russian weapons, since they will be integrated for IAF's use anyway (R73 and most likely Kh35), but I don't see why Israel should deny them weapons, nor why they wouldn't go for them if they can afford them. The remaining Russian weapons can still be used with their Flankers.

The point is, the market of an Indo-Israeli LCA MK1 can aim on, is different than a JF17 or J10 could aim on, since they can't reach most F16s customers for political reasons and the advantages of marketing we could have with Israeli political or industrial back up, would be a huge advantage, since LCA otherwise would only be seen as any other South Asian product, low cost / low quality, so it would be a big PR boost too.

 

[SQ8]

Of course, but that is dealt by the order and coming induction of 40 x MK1s into IAF, the only difference would be the weapon pack and partially some avionics (data links for example).


Exactly, "only" modernisation contracts,.

The point with the modernization contracts was that for now the requirements of these various forces have been met. Ecuador for e.g. has recently upgraded its Kfir's and bought refurbished M-III Cheetahs. Their A-37 fleet is to be replaced by Super Tucanos so there is no requirement there. Chile has been an Israeli customer but at the moment their fleet is full with low hour F-16s and as such in no need for additional purchases.

Peru has gone all Russian and as such no types are up for replacement and Uruguay is too poor. Argentina is as such the only contender and a very ripe one at that because they have operated Israeli equipment in the past and are supported on and off by the US. Right now, China is taking the lead in market penetration efforts into Argentina.
Paraguay may be another market but possibly at max 8-12 aircraft and that too if they can afford it.

Both the LCA and JF-17 have their main contender in second hand F-16's which still might be available(and like it or not.. the F-16 is still IMHO a more potent fighter than either in its upgraded form). The other contenders to the LCA or for that matter the JF-17 is the South korean T/A-50 which also had the added benefit of being used as a LIFT. Although I honestly thing that the LCA(with the LEVCONS) is a great LIFT and possibly a better contender than the T-50 in that role.
Anyway, the remaining potential markets are then states like Malaysia(not Indonesia as it does not recognize Israel and the LCA has a lot of Israel in it) or perhaps certain African states(but these are falling to the Chinese like flies in terms of influence).

Honestly, I dont think neither the Tejas or JF-17 have much export potential unless the Chinese push their influence for the latter for their existing F-7 customers(if they dont sacrifice the J-10 sales for that). Fighters like the Mig-21, F-4 and F-5 were "sold" because of bloc alignment during the cold war. Right now, the market is open and people prefer established market entries if they can afford it. Even Romania went for second hand F-16s.

One possibility for sales of the LCA would be to align it with a former colonial power like France(in lieu of the MRCA agreement). That might entice the french to offer more than they in the other program while gaining a product they can add to their portfolio. Sales are quite possible then to states like Libya and other former French colonies.

 

[SQ8]

As proof of the pudding @sancho :

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/b39390212b18

Israel is already producing the new AESA for the upgraded Block 60 Kfir that it is building for it an unnamed customer.

And the main competitor that already took a possible order that could have been the LCAs

So far, KAI’s predictions seem to be bearing out … to an extent. On Oct. 17, South Korea signed a memorandum of understanding with the Philippine government to sell that nation 12 FA-50 fighters for $450 million. A final contract is expected soon.

Other potential markets include countries in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. Iraq, Peru, Poland and Chile have all been named as potential customers, according to a report in Flight International.

Not sure how Iraq will agree to the Elta radar unless they replace it with the APG-67.

 

[Hulk]

@sancho The recent article by ex IAF chief about time taken by LCA to replace its engine being greater. Do you know if there is any attempt to address that in LCA MK2. I kind of felt that his article was on the spot on what HAL should try to do with LCA MK2.

 

[sancho]

Both the LCA and JF-17 have their main contender in second hand F-16's which still might be available.

Of course and as long as it will be produced, it remains to be the most interesting choice, for countries that can afford and buy it for political reasons (Rumania), but there are still a lot of countries that either require cheaper fighters and still want to remain with western technology. That's where neither the Russian, nor any Chinese fighter can make a deal (while I see the biggest potential for Chinese fighters in Africa anyway).
Btw, the T50 is mainly a trainer not a real fighter and would fall short if it enters competitions with Gripen, F16s, or even LCA, JF 17 and J10.

Anyway, the remaining potential markets are then states like Malaysia

Malaysia has already a new fighter competition and is likely to follow IAF with Rafales.

One possibility for sales of the LCA would be to align it with a former colonial power like France(in lieu of the MRCA agreement). That might entice the french to offer more than they in the other program while gaining a product they can add to their portfolio. Sales are quite possible then to states like Libya and other former French colonies.

I would be more than in favour of common parts like AESA and FSO for Rafale and LCA, the problem however is, that the LCA then would be just another competitor for the Rafale (obviously far less capable though), most countries might prefer a cheaper LCA with Rafale techs and weapons, than buying the Rafale itself (pretty much the same issue that China has with JF17 and J10, which share the same market and where China obviously benefits more from selling J10 instead of JF 17), which doesn't get Dassault anything, so I don't see them going for this option.
That's the advantage of Israel again, they don't have any own product on the fighter market, only parts and techs. So they would just benefit from being a partner.
Libyia btw is likely to go for UAE's M2Ks as soon as they fix a Rafale deal and might get Rafales later too. Even Gaddafi was close to buy Rafales, the only issue was that the French blocked Scalp cruise missiles, which he wanted.

Imo, when you look at Europe for example, Poland (lot of old Russian fighters in their inventory), Greece (although possibly bind to buy 2nd hand EFs or Rafale), Check Republic (alternative to Gripen lease extention), or Bulgaria would be perfect for LCA MK1 sales. Mainly to replace older Russian fighters and to provide them a cost-effective alternative with western techs. That's the niche LCA must aim on, but where it has to offer something now and not only when IAF has got their MK2. 

@sancho The recent article by ex IAF chief about time taken by LCA to replace its engine being greater. Do you know if there is any attempt to address that in LCA MK2. I kind of felt that his article was on the spot on what HAL should try to do with LCA MK2.

Depends on how credible the changes of the fuselage will be. If the only aim will be the integration of the new engine, possibly no, if they say we have to make changes, than improve this problem too, it might, lets wait and see. But that's what I mean, there is still so many things we will learn about LCA only, when MK1 is available and in service. That's why all the thinking about MK2, MK3, or even AMCA does not make any sense at the moment.

 

[SQ8]

I would be more than in favour of common parts like AESA and FSO for Rafale and LCA, the problem however is, that the LCA then would be just another competitor for the Rafale (obviously far less capable though), most countries might prefer a cheaper LCA with Rafale techs and weapons

Imo, when you look at Europe for example, Poland (lot of old Russian fighters in their inventory), Greece (although possibly bind to buy 2nd hand EFs or Rafale), Check Republic (alternative to Gripen lease extention), or Bulgaria would be perfect for LCA MK1 sales. Mainly to replace older Russian fighters and to provide them a cost-effective alternative with western techs. That's the niche LCA must aim on, but where it has to offer something now and not only when IAF has got their MK2..

I dont think the LCA will be a competitor, a complement perhaps in a high low mix. Libya may go for a frenched LCA but not for an Israeli one. The Poles are content with the F-16 as their multirole which has taken over the strike role from the Su-22s and will continue with the Mig-29 as their air superiority jet for the time being. The Greeks are too poor for anything and if they do it will be european stuff. The Czechs already have their Gripen which is almost in the same class as the LCA while offering logistical and overhaul benefits. That leaves you the Bulgarians, the Serbs and the Croats. Within them the Bulgarians and the Croats are considering a joint purchase of fighters for commonality and logistics and the leading contenders are the Eurofighter and the F-16. The Serbs then are the best possibility for an export order and considering their aircraft industry was once about to manufacture the baby Rafale(novi avion) and they have excellent relations with Israel. So there you have it, the best chance the LCA has for export is Serbia.. write to your local Neta now.

 

[Abingdonboy]

@sancho @Oscar- the question is why does the LCA need to be exported so badly? Is it purely to legitimise the project? If it is about recouping costs the domestic orders of the IAF and IN will more than offset such development costs. I certainly think HAL need to be focussing on meeting the orders of the IN and IAF before they go off trying to market the fighter to others. The IAF and iN are respected worldwide and if the fighter has their seal of approval this is surely one of the best advertisements the LCA could have.

 

[faithfulguy]

@sancho @Oscar- the question is why does the LCA need to be exported so badly? Is it purely to legitimise the project? If it is about recouping costs the domestic orders of the IAF and IN will more than offset such development costs. I certainly think HAL need to be focussing on meeting the orders of the IN and IAF before they go off trying to market the fighter to others. The IAF and iN are respected worldwide and if the fighter has their seal of approval this is surely one of the best advertisements the LCA could have.

LCA is like an update version of Mirage 2000. I'm surprised that Dassault do not try to collect loyalties. In any case, unless India induct LCA is large numbers. Per unit price of LCA will remain out of reach of most 3rd world or eastern bloc countries. The reasoning is simple, if India would not buy its own fighters in large number, why would others? Also, for similar price point, would a country buy Rafale or LCA? LCA need to position itself around the price of JF-17. Because fair or not, LCA is regarded as the same class of fighter as JF-17.

 

[Abingdonboy]

LCA need to position itself around the price of JF-17. Because fair or not, LCA is regarded as the same class of fighter as JF-17.

That's impractical tbh, the LCA especially the Mk.2 has some very expensive tech in it (weapons, much of the avionics, engine etc) so the basic price of the LCA is likely to always be more than the JF-17 for these reasons no matter how many units of the LCA are ordered.

 

[SQ8]

@sancho @Oscar- the question is why does the LCA need to be exported so badly? Is it purely to legitimise the project? If it is about recouping costs the domestic orders of the IAF and IN will more than offset such development costs. I certainly think HAL need to be focussing on meeting the orders of the IN and IAF before they go off trying to market the fighter to others. The IAF and iN are respected worldwide and if the fighter has their seal of approval this is surely one of the best advertisements the LCA could have.

As long as the cost of the program is kept under the sanctioned Rs 15547(14047 orig + 1500 extra in FY2012) crore or $2.3 billion(averaged for inflation) for the program(I am not sure if the GE F414 deal is part of these costs).. the 170 fighters on order now will each appropriate costs of approx $15 million dollars. However the current costs for the LCA program so far according to estimates are

Official recent government information
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=97831
Which means that out of the allotted 15547 Crore some 7965.56(or 7*10^7 rupees) Crore has been spent on Development of aircraft (PDP + FSED-I and II) which are a total of 11 aircraft . That leaves some 7582 Crore for the production of 40 Mk-1 combat aircraft. If HAL can ensure that the flyaway cost of Tejas at 180 Crore it wants then the budget will be met but the trends in the program dont show this. As such the spirited defence put up by articles in blogs along with PS Subramanyam failed to include inflation and their predictions fell short as further delays ensued. A lot of the development costs are sunk costs and their R&D value immense.. but that is true for any fighter aircraft and so these costs go into the equation. With exports, there is a possibility that India will be able to recoup some further investment and also establish foothold markets for other follow on products such as the 

That's impractical tbh, the LCA especially the Mk.2 has some very expensive tech in it (weapons, much of the avionics, engine etc) so the basic price of the LCA is likely to always be more than the JF-17 for these reasons no matter how many units of the LCA are ordered.

That could be fixed if private sector is allowed to invest. Costs of the JF-17 are kept down ONLY because the Chinese are offering systems are subsidized rates. However, additional systems procured from other nations such as European Nations and SA do raise the cost. The Tejas could take advantage of investment by private sector and local procurement to reduce costs.

 

[Abingdonboy]

That could be fixed if private sector is allowed to invest. Costs of the JF-17 are kept down ONLY because the Chinese are offering systems are subsidized rates. However, additional systems procured from other nations such as European Nations and SA do raise the cost. The Tejas could take advantage of investment by private sector and local procurement to reduce costs.

But much of the foreign systems on the LCA are amongst the best such products available on the market. It's hard to say that the Chinese products on the JF-17 are up to that spec. The only reason China hasn't gone down that route is because of necessity- it's highly unlikely these Western manufacturers offering high-end stuff would risk selling to China with their reputation for not respecting IPR. India is in a position where it can get the best stuff available on the open market. Naturally this isn't a particularly sound plan for the long-term but that's why India is slowly but surely investing more into R&D.


I'm sure you'd agree sir that on the technical side the LCA (and especially the MK.2) is a pretty decent little bird in terms of the hardware onboard and its capabilities.




Also, it's entirely pointless to keep using an India vs China analogy, for oh so many reasons India is NOT China.

 

[SQ8]

But much of the foreign systems on the LCA are amongst the best such products available on the market. It's hard to say that the Chinese products on the JF-17 are up to that spec.

I'm sure you'd agree sir that on the technical side the LCA (and especially the MK.2) is a pretty decent little bird in terms of the hardware onboard and its capabilities.

Also, it's entirely pointless to keep using an India vs China analogy, for oh so many reasons India is NOT China.

Again, to try and gauge Chinese tech based on age old assumptions(at one time the term "japani maal" was used in a derogatory way).. but that is a different argument. The LCA Mk2 may be a decent fit but using western components to achieve that decent fit drives up the costs. By involved private sector industries who have more assets by which to offset costs and achieve business parity; the costs of the avionics on the Mk2 could also be reduced.

 

[rockstarIN]

[quote="Oscar, post: 4920879, member: 14956"]I dont think the LCA will be a competitor, a complement perhaps in a high low mix. Libya may go for a frenched LCA but not for an Israeli one. The Poles are content with the F-16 as their multirole which has taken over the strike role from the Su-22s and will continue with the Mig-29 as their air superiority jet for the time being. The Greeks are too poor for anything and if they do it will be european stuff. The Czechs already have their Gripen which is almost in the same class as the LCA while offering logistical and overhaul benefits. That leaves you the Bulgarians, the Serbs and the Croats. Within them the Bulgarians and the Croats are considering a joint purchase of fighters for commonality and logistics and the leading contenders are the Eurofighter and the F-16. The Serbs then are the best possibility for an export order and considering their aircraft industry was once about to manufacture the baby Rafale(novi avion) and they have excellent relations with Israel. So there you have it, the best chance the LCA has for export is Serbia.. write to your local Neta now. [/quote]

Practically both are different class, you can see the Gripen(same class) competing with the middle weight rafales and EFs in European fighter competition, like Swiz. It is due to the less operating cost with single engined fighter, as Europe is not in a good shape in terms of economics.

 

[sancho]

I dont think the LCA will be a competitor, a complement perhaps in a high low mix.

Of course, but the difference between modern light class fighters and medium class fighters is not as different as a F15/F16 high lo combo anymore, guess why the French and the US blocked techs for the Gripen, to make it less competitive compared to Rafale, F16/F18, although it still is far away from the performance of an Rafale or F18SH. So providing LCA with the same techs or weapons that Rafale offers similarly might be a problem for Dassault (US denied F18SH AESA as well).

The Poles are content with the F-16 as their multirole which has taken over the strike role from the Su-22s and will continue with the Mig-29 as their air superiority jet for the time being.

I have read other things about there Migs, in fact there is already talk about them replacing them, the only question is how much they want to spend for the replacement. With their current defence spending, they could even go for EFs or Rafales.

The Czechs already have their Gripen which is almost in the same class as the LCA while offering logistical and overhaul benefits.That leaves you the Bulgarians, the Serbs and the Croats. Within them the Bulgarians and the Croats are considering a joint purchase of fighters for commonality and logistics and the leading contenders are the Eurofighter and the F-16.

The EF is no contender in these countries, because it's by far too expensive even as 2nd hand buy, that's one reason why Rumania didn't went for German offers. Not to mention that these countries mainly needs fighters for air policing and we had seen it in Switzerland that no matter how good the performance of certain fighters can be, if they are simply too expensive. Here an Indo - Israeli LCA offers a good mix of cost and capability for a light class fighter, especially for cost-effective air policing roles. Infact, if such an LCA could had been offered in the Swiss competition, it would had been very interesting if LCA could had been offered to Swiss.

The point is, that too many countries can't afford the expensive Eurocanards, let alone 5th gen fighters and when the F16 production runs out, there is a gap that could be filled with it.

@sancho @Oscar- the question is why does the LCA need to be exported so badly? Is it purely to legitimise the project? If it is about recouping costs the domestic orders of the IAF and IN will more than offset such development costs. I certainly think HAL need to be focussing on meeting the orders of the IN and IAF before they go off trying to market the fighter to others. The IAF and iN are respected worldwide and if the fighter has their seal of approval this is surely one of the best advertisements the LCA could have.

When we keep waiting for our forces to induct it in useful numbers, we are talking about exports only by the next decade. The MK1 is not interesting for the navy and there will be a production gap between MK1 and MK2 for IAF, so exporting MK1s now, besides IAFs MK1 order would not only extend the production, but also reduces the overall costs.
For example, Afghanistan would be the most logical choice for a fast sale, one reason why I would love to sell them some Jaguar squads, but LCA MK1s might be even more interesting to them. Some of the European nations that I mentioned would be interested, especially if marketed by Israel.
Only because our forces hav

 

[sancho]

That leaves some 7582 Crore for the production of 40 Mk-1 combat aircraft. If HAL can ensure that the flyaway cost of Tejas at 180 Crore it wants then the budget will be met but the trends in the program dont show this.

Which means $29 million each, at current exchange rates, compared to around $23 millions for 2nd hand Gripen C/Ds that the Swedes want to sell, which shows the cost advantage that is possible today.
The rest of the development costs or possible increases are based on the further developments for IAF and IN requirements, which doesn't necessarily would be related to an export MK1, so wouldn't be included for export fighters, since you can't add development costs of the N-LCA for exports of the land based MK1.