India Considering The F-16?

[Ivanhoe]

But what you said makes perfect sense- if joint development was offered rather than lic production, it would be very hard for India to refuse!

144880[/snapback]

 

What I would go for is for the basic airframe and powerplant to be sole sourced to US firms, at least for the design, to speed the process. But a mix of joint and sole development of all the expensive mission gear. For example, simple stuff like aerial refueling and cargo handling could be joint, and maybe the core avionics package, but comm, SIGINT, surface radar, and airborne radar would be home built to ensure compatibility and parts commonality.

 

The key thing is to get the basic airplane designed and flying, to prevent the development spiral from spinning eternally. Once its flying and proven carrier-capable, it would be much harder to kill off.

[Vijay Reddy]

Then, given that IAF Su-30MKI already have strike capability, why not just standardize on them?

144975[/snapback]

 

The requirement is to replace the Mig-21s with a light, strike capable platform. If IAF orders 125 more MKIs, it will have to significantly increase its annual budget to sustain the operational costs.

 

Personally, I think that this has gone beyond the ridiculous. I don't think any other country's airforce deliberates this much before buying a platform. The Mirage 2000-5 was a shoo-in until the governments changed in 2004 and soon afterwards they were back to square one. Also hanging in the balance is a plan to buy 12 used M2K-5s from Qatar.

 

Sometimes one can be too clever/cautious for one's own good.

[nitin]

Its not just the MiG21's- mostly obscolescent FL's and M's (4 Sq M/MF plus 2Sq FL and the FL training detachments at Mig Operational Flying Training Unit etc) that the IAF is worried about- its the retirement of a bunch of MiG23's as well.

The BN's- some three Squadrons worth -were part and parcel of the IAF's strike role and the MF variant had a useful A2A role. Though in peacetime the MF's were all consolidated into a single squadron and used as a BVR training aggressor sq at the IAF's TACDE training and op tactic evaluation establishment.

If you add up the numbers thats quite a few airframes leaving the IAF in the next few years! In the meanwhile the PLAAF is ramping up with J-11's and Su30's.

If the IAF proceeds on a properly planned technology glide path as indicated by the 125 a/c purchase, the PAF will be a sideshow and the PLAAF threat will be met.

Edited February 14, 2005 by nitin

[Rickshaw]

It is quite clear that you do not understand what ICBMs are and how they are to be used. Also, you are aparently mystified about the US-Pakistan-India dynamic and its ramifications. Have a nice day. - TSJ

144944[/snapback]

 

 

I am very good understanding of what an ICBM is. I also have quite a good understanding of the US-Pakistan-India "dynamic" and its ramifications. I would suggest that you are being very naive to base your views upon what you have picked up in conversation with the "sons and daughters" of "serving Indian Officers" in internet chat rooms. Further you have failed to address the points I made, about the increasing rapproachment between Washington and New Delhi. Hardly, I'd suggest a symptom of deap-seated mistrust and fear of a sufficient kind to warrant the development of ICBMs and the problems associated with threatening the USA with them.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Baron Samedi

[TSJ]

I am very good understanding of what an ICBM is.  I also have quite a good understanding of the US-Pakistan-India "dynamic" and its ramifications.  I would suggest that you are being very naive to base your views upon what you have picked up in conversation with the "sons and daughters" of "serving Indian Officers" in internet chat rooms.   Further you have failed to address the points I made, about the increasing rapproachment between Washington and New Delhi.  Hardly, I'd suggest a symptom of deap-seated mistrust and fear of a sufficient kind to warrant the development of ICBMs and the problems associated with threatening the USA with them.

145085[/snapback]

 

What part of "on-line Indian newspapers" don't you understand? I wouldn't base my opinion just on an on-line chat forum. However the chat forum helps to bring resources that I would never read otherwise, so it does give depth. A combination of various resources not just one which you have conveniently ignored in my messages. Do you or do you not read the resources posted here on tank-net? Does it help to keep you informed or, are you here just for the tifts?

 

If the Indians were to purchase ICBMs and abandon their own programme, they would be intended for use against their traditional enemies - Pakistan and China, rather than the US, which has very cordial relations with India. Even at their lowest, during the 1960s and 70s, Indian relations with the US were far from being frosty.

 

If this is your example of knowledge then please, don't bother me OK? The Indians aren't going to purchase ICBMs. They are developing in stages. Right now, from what I have read, they are capable of hitting most of China. They will build on this. Plus they are pursuing knowledge in orbiting satellites, reentry cones for their space development, etc. So no, they are not going to buy them. They didn't buy their nuke weapons either. It was a series of stages of development. As sure as god made little green apples, India will have ICBMs. It's not going happen overnight but it will happen. More knowledgeable people than you are in agreement with me. At the risk of repeating myself due to your selective reading of my messages get this point: India's goal is to be able to deter agression from *anywhere* in the world. They believe that it is part of their destiny and their right of territorial imperative. As far as rapproachment, it is based first last and always on what is happening in the India-Pakistan-US triangle. They are not stupid and they will go for the tech gear even though it is the official US policy of even handed treatment with Pakistan. Get it? (Except for the F-16s which I have elaborated in detail (as well as others have on this thread) as to exactly why India won't buy the damn things.)

Edited February 14, 2005 by TSJ

[nitin]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/

 

 

AeroIndia.....

 

The F16's on offer!

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/readreport.php?id=55

[Gregory]

The requirement is to replace the Mig-21s with a light, strike capable platform.  If IAF orders 125 more MKIs, it will have to significantly increase its annual budget to sustain the operational costs.

 

145034[/snapback]

 

Do we know for sure what the F-16 support costs are vs Su-30MKI? Judging by some of the recent contracts, where the total cost of the tender came to about 65-70$ million per F-16 (including support), it does not strike me as "cheap".

[swerve]

Do we know for sure what the F-16 support costs are vs Su-30MKI?  Judging by some of the recent contracts, where the total cost of the tender came to about 65-70$ million per F-16 (including support), it does not strike me as "cheap".

 

I think the "Support" included in the tender cost you quote is the cost of initial spares stocks, ancillary equipment, & initial training of ground & air crews for the new plane & its systems. It's not the same as the operating cost of the aircraft.

 

Consider the Su-30 vs Mirage 2000.

Two crew, one crew.

Su-30 is bigger, & burns more fuel. Also requires more ramp space & hangar space, which cost money.

Two engines vs 1 - more maintenance, if engines are equally reliable.

A bigger plane usually needs more ground crew in general.

 

All these are continuing costs, over the life of the plane, in addition to the cost of purchase, even if purchase costs includes lifetime spares supply (unlikely) & are higher for the Sukhoi than the Mirage.

[alfa]

hi nitin

 

it may be lower than even 11%. turbomeca has got a sweet deal. bribes? no wonder they are pushing for chetan and variants.

 

i dont bother to maintaon links. my interest is only curosity based. you can confirm at aero show.

[nitin]

Alfa,

 

As far as I know, HAL is happy with the Shakti- since they got to participate in the codevelopment.

 

As regards the TM333B2, its a different story, since HAL is merely importing the Engines from Snecma ; some feel even the TM333B2 should have been manufactured at HAL.

 

Besides, there werent really that many options in chopper powerplants.

 

Ok here we go:

 

http://www.turbomeca.com/public/en/actu/ne...id=000100009815

 

 

Bangalore, 9 February 2005

 

 

Turbomeca confirms its strong link with India

 

Turbomeca, world leader in helicopter engines, has confirmed its strong link with India, following the signing of three major contracts concerning the Dhruv.

 

This is the result of a longstanding and successful relationship between Hindustan Aeronautic Limited (HAL) and Turbomeca which began back in 1961, when the Turbomeca Artouste engine was first licensed to power the Indian Armed Forces’ Chetak (Alouette) and Cheetah (Lama) fleets.

 

In February 2003, Turbomeca and HAL signed three major contracts

One contract covers the co-development and co-production of Ardiden 1H (Indian name: Shakti) engines: a large number of Ardiden 1H / Shakti engines are expected to be produced.

 

11 % of the development will be carried by HAL out in India. A first batch of engines will be produced at Turbomeca, France, and progressively most part of the production will be transferred to India.

 

As a consequence of this close cooperation between HAL and Turbomeca, Indian engineers are now learning all the Shakti production know-how at the site in Bordes, France, Turbomeca's headquarters.

 

The first rotation is scheduled for September 2005, and the EASA certification is scheduled for December 2006.

 

The second contract covers the supply of TM 333 2B2 engines, for application on the HAL Dhruv helicopter, and the third contract the repair and overhaul license for the TM 333 2B2.

 

The hundredth TM 333 2B2, destined to the Dhruv of HAL was delivered in August 2004.

 

The Dhruv helicopters will be used by the Indian Army Aviation, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guards, depending on the missions to be carried out. The Dhruv is also considered by civilian customers.

[swerve]

According to Flight International this morning, Saab is still seriously offering the Gripen, with plans for production of 108 in India after initial delivery of Swedish-built models, & Boeing is talking in upbeat terms about the suitability of the F-18 for the IAF.

 

I don't know if it's relevant, but I came across a report from Chile that during the Chilean evaluation of contenders for its recent fighter purchase (which was originally mooted as the first phase of a much larger requirement), Saab gave the Chileans presentations about a re-engined Gripen (M88 & EJ200 were mentioned as having been evaluated, & design studies done) with Mica integrated. Supposedly, the cost would not be prohibitive. Hmm. I wonder.

[Rod]

The problem with selecting F-16s would be about technology transfer and the capacity for India to be self sufficient in many parts of the F-16. Afterall, the most likely use of the F-16 would be against Pakistan or some form of clash along the 1999 Kargil conflict. India is afraid that the U.S. could impose a momentary embargo on weapons and parts against all parites involved (India and Pakistan). Given that India would have many more F-16s than Pakistan, such action would be at a disadvantage for India.

 

Regardless, what is going on with India's LCA and MCA? If India is getting their LCAs soon, why get the F-16? Would the F-16 still be superior to the LCA?

[swerve]

Regardless, what is going on with India's LCA and MCA? If India is getting their LCAs soon, why get the F-16? Would the F-16 still be superior to the LCA?

 

MCA?

 

LCA is flying, & seems certain to be ordered, but the air force has had very unhappy experiences with ambitious indigenous developments in the past, & doesn't want to rely on it. There may be an issue with timescales as well: a fully developed foreign fighter can be service in numbers earlier than the LCA, & the IAF is facing the prospect of large numbers of MiG-21s, MiG-23s & MiG-27s having to be retired soon. The LCA should be available in time to replace the MiG-21 Bisons, I think, when their life-extended airframes finally run out of hours.

[nitin]

MCA?

 

LCA is flying, & seems certain to be ordered, but the air force has had very unhappy experiences with ambitious indigenous developments in the past, & doesn't want to rely on it. There may be an issue with timescales as well: a fully developed foreign fighter can be service in numbers earlier than the LCA, & the IAF is facing the prospect of large numbers of MiG-21s, MiG-23s & MiG-27s having to be retired soon. The LCA should be available in time to replace the MiG-21 Bisons, I think, when their life-extended airframes finally run out of hours.

145950[/snapback]

 

 

I wouldnt say the IAF has had very unhappy experiences with Indigenous items earlier- the record has been mixed.

 

The Kiran Mk2 and Mk2 have been well received and are still popular.

The HAL built propeller trainers are also popular.

The Marut had a mixed record- good combat record, bad logistics record and didnt develop to its full potential.

 

And the IAF has a host of local gizmos- EW, radars, ADGES C3I eqpt in service.

 

But the IAF is essentially a conservative service when inducting new eqpt, whcih doesnt descend from a proven lineage. Thats against the LCA and they are wary of delays.

[swerve]

I wouldnt say the IAF has had very unhappy experiences with Indigenous items r-

 

That's not quite what I said. I didn't say the experience has been universally unhappy, but with the ambitious developments (e.g. the Marut). The Marut must, overall, be said to have been unsuccessful. Took forever, never achieved anywhere near the targeted performance. The many successful indigenous developments, of which you mention some, have all been less ambitious. I think the IAF is wary of another Marut. The LCA may be coming good now, but its development has been extremely protracted, & it won't be in service for a while. They won't trust it until they see it in service & operating well. So they want something proven ASAP, as insurance & gap-filler.

[Rod]

MCA?

145950[/snapback]

 

I thought i read about a Medium Combat Aircraft that India wanted to develop to follow the LCA. Perhaps i was mistaken.

[swerve]

I thought i read about a Medium Combat Aircraft that India wanted to develop to follow the LCA. Perhaps i was mistaken.

 

Or maybe you were right but the idea's been dropped.

[Rod]

Or maybe you were right but the idea's been dropped.

146135[/snapback]

Perhaps not:

http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/02/11/1102aerotrainer.html

[swerve]

Perhaps not:

http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/02/11/1102aerotrainer.html

 

Thanks. Interesting. I hadn't heard of it. Looks like a paper aeroplane so far.

[Daniel Papp]

Well, the same MCA concept was around for the last five years at least, basically a tailless double LCA with some stealth, and TVC. Basically the same job what the French had done with the Mirage 4000. Looking at the timeframes and the current delays in Indian R&D, I doubt it would ever fly,

It is supposed to be stealthy, not only with stealth features, but the articles I read didn't mention any weapon bays. The tailless design the needs TVC, but even the first production batch of LCAs is powered by GE engines, as the Kaveri is still worked on. As the LCA is being inducted around 2008-09, When would you expect the MCA fly, around 2012? But this is the timeframe for the proposed Russian-Indian coproduction stealth fighter/JSF-lookalike.

And I haven't even mentioned yet the Su-30s, or the 126 planes this thread is about. Morover, for a dedicated strike platform, i found the 2x52kN dry (81kN AB) thrust for two Kaveris insufficient, especially if they want to supercruise.

[nitin]

That's not quite what I said. I didn't say the experience has been universally unhappy, but with the ambitious developments (e.g. the Marut). The Marut must, overall, be said to have been unsuccessful. Took forever, never achieved anywhere near the targeted performance. The many successful indigenous developments, of which you mention some, have all been less ambitious. I think the IAF is wary of another Marut. The LCA may be coming good now, but its development has been extremely protracted, & it won't be in service for a while. They won't trust it until they see it in service & operating well. So they want something proven ASAP, as insurance & gap-filler.

145982[/snapback]

 

The Marut came out pretty ok and did serve with distinction in the Indo-Pak conflict, it achieved its design performance vis a vis the powerplants it was assigned with. The lack of a higher power turbojet was more of a Guns vs butter thing than anything else.

In 71, Maruts routinely went in under heavy AAA, escaped defending Sabres by outflying them at low level and even knocked one down.

 

Regarding ambitious developments- most of the Integrated Ballistic Missile strategic projects have been incredibly ambitious- developing a program of that scale with limited resources was a bugbear, but they did it.

The Agni and Prithvi are both acknowledged to be successes.

 

It is however quite true that the IAF is wary of committing resources to local production- that was so in the past, when freebies - for all practical purposes-from the Soviet Union were readily available. Not so today, since the IAF has apparently realised the need for a local industry to pull their oats out of the fire.

Just see the amount of "push" the previous service chief gave HAL, ADA etc -testifying to changing times within the IAF...

 

*MiG27 and Jaguar upgrades carried out inhouse; Mind you these are deep upgrades not merely cosmetic avionics improvements

*Inducting the ALH and making the IAF part and parcel of an export push

*Supporting HAL in its venture to locally modify the Lama's and Cheetah choppers with newer powerplants, controls and weaponry

*Dedicating an entire test establishment to the LCA

*Getting HAL to design local jigs and maint support facilities for the Jags at the BRD level

*Support for the IJT and now the AJT

 

They realise they need the LCA for the whole bunch of stuff it gets along with it.

 

At the end of the day, its all about strategic priorities and how they dovetail with economic reality. Today, India has the money to spend what it wants and not run defence R&D programs on a drip irrigation basis. And thats part of the reason why more and more stuff is appearing out of local R&d double quick.

 

My apologies for the ramble, but all these things are interrelated. In effect, what I am trying to say is that thanks to a whole bunch of factors, the IAF knows that if its acts like a prima donna wrt the LCA, it will end up shooting itself in the foot in the long run; plus there is now considerable project management and technical experience to support the program - which can be seen by quick development timelines of follow on programs *and* finally, India now has the Rs/- to spend on defence. A combination of all the above is a bit of a plus.

Edited February 19, 2005 by nitin

[nitin]

Well, the same MCA concept was around for the last five years at least, basically a tailless double LCA with some stealth, and TVC. Basically the same job what the French had done with the Mirage 4000. Looking at the timeframes and the current delays in Indian R&D, I doubt it would ever fly,

 

Thanks to the LCA, Indian R&D was able to design and develop an Integrated Jet Trainer within 22 months and which is well into a flight test program.

 

The IAF's Mig27 and Jaguar upgrades also extensively use LCA derived technology and were done double quick. The IJT alone uses 250 LRU's directly transferred from the LCA.

 

The level of confidence wrt aerospace is now so high that HAL has even proposed a Combat Trainer with FBW and the works, to enter service round 2010. Given their IJT experience they can do it.

 

The entire point is that India , via the LCA and similar programs, is attempting to make world class systems from essentially scratch. The learning curve will be high and delay inevitable, but the spinoffs are vast.

 

For eg, when Smiths Aerospace hiked up its price for developing an Open Arch Mission Computer, HAL told them to take a hike and turned to DRDO- who delivered double quick.

 

The current Mission Computers, HOTAS controls, Utility and Stores Management systems, EW kit, Enviro and Cooling System and a whole host of other non glamourous but vital kit required for the IAF's next gen fighters are currently being inducted via Mid Life upgrades. None of these technologies were available without the LCA, and because they have been already developed, they kickstart other programs!

The Malaysians bought Maintenance simulators from India- for the MiG 29! Originally designed for the LCA and then ported over to other platforms.

 

HAL is now recognised as having proven capability in composites and Irkut has asked HAL to work upon Su-30 weight reduction by using the same; these improvements could then be implemented worldwide. Where did this experience come from?

Both HAL and other research agencies became proficient in composite aerospace structures via the LCA- making carbon fibre wings, rudders and assorted composite structural items gave them an edge.

 

India was also able to provide high power processors for the Su-30 MKI thanks to the LCA. The radar computers designed for the Bars are now being exported to Malaysia for their MKM program.

 

It is supposed to be stealthy, not only with stealth features, but the articles I read didn't mention any weapon bays.  The tailless design the needs TVC, but even the first production batch of LCAs is powered by GE engines, as the Kaveri is still worked on. As the LCA is being inducted around 2008-09, When would you expect the MCA fly, around 2012? But this is the timeframe for the proposed Russian-Indian coproduction stealth fighter/JSF-lookalike.

And I haven't even mentioned yet the Su-30s, or the 126 planes this thread is about.  Morover, for a dedicated strike platform, i found the 2x52kN dry (81kN AB) thrust for two Kaveris insufficient, especially if they want to supercruise.

146534[/snapback]

 

The MCA is designed to have internal weapons bays and the Kaveris proposed for the MCA are higher thrust versions.

The MCA and PAK-FA need not be mutually exclusive; the PAK-FA is primarily designed for air superiority, the MCA is more oriented towards a strike role, though its to be a multirole design.

[swerve]

Nitin,

 

do you think the IAF is likely to be interested in our Jaguars & Sea Harriers & associated spares stocks when they're retired? The airframes all have a few years life in them: they're being retired early for financial reasons.

 

I'd say the Marut achieved the aims set for it after its aims had been scaled down considerably. Moving goalposts . . . It was originally intended to vastly overmatch the F-86, not "even knock one down". If only the originally specified engine had been available, eh?

 

Paul

[nitin]

Nitin,

 

do you think the IAF is likely to be interested in our Jaguars & Sea Harriers & associated spares stocks when they're retired? The airframes all have a few years life in them: they're being retired early for financial reasons.

 

Oh definitely! The CAG beancounters will love it, the IAF will be happy - till of course, the beancounters find out that "x"unit failed and issue a stern rebuke to the IAF.

 

The Sea Harriers are apparently getting a missile upgrade ( the Israeli Derby) and HAL's Aircraft Upgrade & Research Center (dealing with the Mig, Jag upgrades) is now in negotiation with Elta to retrofit them with the Elta 2032. HAL- IAI previously retrofitted the Jag Maritimes with pretty much the same radar. So the sea harriers will be around for quite some time!

 

I'd say the Marut achieved the aims set for it after its aims had been scaled down considerably. Moving goalposts . . .  It was originally intended to vastly overmatch the F-86, not "even knock one down". If only the originally specified engine had been available, eh?

 

Paul

146955[/snapback]

 

The lack of a suitable engine and the combined apathy at the MOD and the IAF killed the Marut. The plane was a gem at low level(gotta give it to Kurt Tank for his design skills and making a German - indian team deliver) and a higher thrust powerplant would have worked wonders, but the MOD routinely shot down all proposals on ground of costs; why bother developing something unless you are prepared to go the distance!

As a sidenote, HAL apparently drew up more than dozen plans to develop the Marut further and extend its legacy - all of those ended up in the dustbin. By the middle-end 80's, the Marut design team was all but non existent, HAL's own design ability had been significantly downsized and but for the LCA, India would still be in the buy- use and crib, model.

Luckily, India didnt lose all that went on with the Marut- one of HAL's key designers associated with the project, kickstarted the Saras- which is now flying.

[Cookie Monster]

TSJ,

 

India needs a ICBM to reach Beijing. With Agni III, they have to put the launchers right up by the Indo-Sino border in order to reach Beijing and that is after compromising payload to reduce the weight which translate into a less powerful nuke. That means those missiles are highly vulnerable to Chinese raids.

 

India needs a 5000 km missile to reach Beijing from the center of India where they would be safe from any sort of raids with a large enough payload that they don't have to compromise the nuke power.

 

And remember a 5000km missile is automatically classified as ICBM,

 

 

As for MCA, I think MCA is sort of a designation where IAF require some sort of capabilities. It may not refer to a design. I view the MCA designation as the JSF designation. MCA is a deep inderdiction strike platform that can withstand 21st century EW and missiles and perform the role. I think it is designed to replace the Jaquars and Mig-27s.

 

If I were the IAF, I would for go MKIs as the premier air dominance strike fighter, MCAs as the premier deep interdiction strike attack plane, and LCAs as the jack of all trade designed to support MKIs and MCAs and supplant the roles of MKIs and MCAs for low priority or secondary targets & roles.