Nick_76Scooter,
Let’s say India decides to align itself with the West…..Europe, US, maybe even Japan or Australia whoever. (maybe all) Is Russia going to tell them they can’t? Are they going to invade a disputed part of India! Then break every agreement to pull out………Sorry, I think many would change there minds if it was in there back yards.
__________________
As everyone – including several Indians are telling you, Georgia’s defeat @ the hands of Russia is either not known at all/ is of little concern (to 90% of the Indian population who couldnt give a damn about where Georgia is and what the conflict is about..) and the remaining mostly support Russia. So what are you on about?
India isnt going to plonk itself in the western camp unless the west plonks itself in India’s camp. Support India unequivocally on what matters to Indians and India would reciprocate. Fat chance of that happening & vice versa.
India is a regional power, and one day -“might” be more than that. It sees no benefit in joining any existing bloc and curtailing its sovereignty.
Todays India has more economic and domestic ability to chart its own path. There is a vocal pro US Camp – but they dont decide the states choices. There are vocal pro Russia camps too.
No orange revolution in India Scooter, its an established democracy with institutional memory of charting its own path, as much as it should and can.
As Misraji/Nirav have said – India will not snap ties with Russia or the US, both matter.
And before you go on accusing the Russians of being evil incarnate, do look at the US’s own history as recent as WW2. No point in throwing stones while in glass houses and all that..
Todays Russia is not the FSU either, and Putin is far more popular than GWB apparently, if one goes by what their respective nation states voters think of them. From your posts you seem to be stuck in the past (and several other US members as well) who simply cant abide the thought of a resurgent Russia & spare no attempt to run them down as the evil !@@$$ after the Georgian issue.
Well, each to his own, but India doesnt have the same historical grievances against Russia and is pretty ok with Russia, bar the occasional squabble over weapons and prices, thats ok, we can deal with it, we bargain hard.
Nick_76Professional courtesy? :diablo:
ROTFLMAO. Good comeback 😀
Nick_76Rahul M, you have PM.
Nick_76Long time since I was last on AFM, and probably so thereafter…
But:
I am sorry for the loss of civilian life in the conflict.
But provoked, Russia was well in rights to whack the Georgians. And to those who think talking about NATO, and this or that will deter Russia – you wish.
And for everything else:
What Misraji said.
Russia is a friend, was a friend, and will remain a friend.
The average Indian doesnt know,
But those guys who follow such things – Russia – Indians do understand and support you.
Scooter, we are a sovereign nation, we appreciate the US but we cant sacrifice our ties to Russia.
Regds.
Nick_767 Squadrons of the Akash = 14 Flights, ie 7 * 2, ie 14 Battery radars, 7 Central Acquisition radars, 14 Battery Control Centers, 7 Group Control Centers, and 7*8 , ie 56 launchers (4 per BLR) each with 3 missiles, ie 7*8*3 missiles. In all, 336 Missiles, considering the standard reload.
So:
14 Rajendra BLR
14 BCC
7 GCC
7 CAR
56 Launchers
336 Missiles
Substantial orders for the DRDO & industry partners.
For more details:
Comprehensive Akash gallery including pictures of the new BLR-3 on the T-72
Nick_76http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories115.htm
Akash for IAF
By Gulshan Luthra Published : May 2008
New Delhi. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has finally decided to home on the indigenous Akash Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) to protect its airbases.
Chief Controller in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Dr Prahlada (uses one name) told India Strategic in an interview that the all-weather, multi-target missile was accepted by the IAF recently after nine successful field trials, including a ripple fire in the electronic clutter. Further tests were likely but more for practice and building user awareness and confidence.
Initially, the air force would take two squadrons, and later, it should have another five squadrons.
He said that the Indian Army had also accepted the missile as effective but some modifications in their transport mode were being worked out to its specifications. The IAF units would be on Tatra trucks, built by the public sector BEML, while the army fire units would on T-72 tank chassis.Akash, meaning sky in Hindi, can be ferried by air, road or rail.
Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal F H Major also told India Strategic that IAF would be inducting the Akash missile as area defence weapons as part of a multi-layered approach.
Akash has an effective range of 25 km, extendable to 30 km, but as hostile aircraft fire from long range these days, a layered approach is essential to neutralize them as far away as possible.
Akash is an all -weather, 24 x 7, SAM capable of remote or autonomous management with advanced Electronic Counter Counter Meassures (ECCM) capability. In the recent trials, conducted before IAF and Army observers, the experimental clutter created to stray it off its course, had no impact on the course of the missile. (My note: In other words, deception Jamming was ineffective against Akash. The IAF has pods for deception jamming of French, Indian and Israeli origin). This speaks highly of the Battery radar & makes the system viable against state of the art jamming systems.IAF has already asked short-listed a version of the Israeli Barak medium range (MR SAM) missile which would be capable of precision-engaging hostile aircraft till a distance of 70 km. The Indian government has sanctioned US$ 2.5 billion for the indigenous production of this system in collaboration between the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and DRDO.
IAF has also asked for the quick reaction Spyder missile, which is also from Israel, as a mid-range interceptor.
All these missiles would be capable of engaging hostile low-level aircraft and missiles with precision.
The proposal however is stuck due to certain procedural problems, although the same missile is also cleared for use by the Indian Navy in a slightly different version.
New Generation technologies are being used both in the Akash and Barak, thanks to the collaboration offers now coming from worldwide.
Dr Prahlada said that there was a time when DRDO had to fabricate even its nuts and bolts.
“Today, 14 countries including the US, Russia, Germany, France, UK and Israel had offered the best of their technologies, some of which we really need as that cuts the development time.”
A distinguished and respected scientist who is also the interface between the DRDO and the Indian armed forces for induction of their needs, Dr Prahlada said that Commercially Available Off the Shelf (COTS) components were the order of the day, and now that technology denial regimes against India were largely going or gone, their acquisition would help save even money as these should be cheaper.
In fact, commercial availability of technologies and components now was one of the main reasons for scrapping the indigenous Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP).
The late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi encouraged development of indigenous missiles, and a coordinated plan was started in 1983 under Mr A P J Abdul Kalam as the Chairman of the Programme Management Board of IGDMP. A space scientist from the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), he was well aware of the propulsion and homing of projectiles. He was not only one of the founding fathers of the Indian missile programme but also became the President of India later.
Dr Kalam also emphasized the importance of stealth, super computers and precision and that direction is well integrated into the Indian missile programme now.
Dr Prahlada declined to mention what components India would specifically acquire from abroad, pointing out that every little thing was important.
“A missile has to have steady, designated course and must acquire the target for the latter’s destruction.
Propulsion and homing, both are equally important for precision engagement.”
Indian missiles use standard solid fuel propellants with variations as required. They fire quickly and ensure that a projectile or rocket is on a steady, set course. Akash uses ramjet – rocket propulsion for the sustainer phase, while for target acquisition, it uses the Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL)-made Rajendra phased array radar.
The hi-tech precision radar is the heart of the missile system, which uses sophisticated computers and secure, indigenous software for connectivity and precision engagement of the target to kill it.
As for the missile’s production, Dr Prahlada said that 90 per cent of the missile components would be made by private companies, and “we are doing every thing to encourage their involvement.” The integration of the system though would be carried out by the state-run Bharat Dynamics Ltd., (BDL).
Nearly a dozen private Indian companies have been assigned production of missile parts, and it should take a couple of years to formally induct the required numbers of squadrons.
Dr Prahlada said that the main responsibility of DRDO was to develop a system. As the designs are modular, the user and manufacturers would be able to stretch and expand the capabilities, upgrading as newer technologies are available during user trials.
He described Akash as a “multidirectional, multi-target” system with a kill probability of 88 per cent with a single shot, and 95 per cent with twin- fire. The missile can neutralize high performance air targets like tactical strike aircraft, UAVs, bombers, high altitude reconnaissance aircraft and armed helicopters.
Akash is made of: Integral Ramjet Propulsion, Command Guidance Unit, Digital Autopilot, Onboard Power Supply, Switchable Guidance Antenna System, System Arming and Detonation Mechanism and a 55-kilo Warhead with prefabricated tungsten alloy cubes.
The missile is 5.8 mtres in length with a diameter of 350mm and a wing span of 1105 mm. It weights 720 kg and flies at twice the speed of sound, or Mach 2.
© India Strategic
Nick_76i dont want to drag pissing contest into this but wish to share my unbiased view. their is no dough that india has contributed more to its LCA project then Pakistan has done to its JF-17.. we have tendency to call “licensed reverse engineering” as indigenous..
If you are noting that the LCA is about local contribution rather than the JF-17, then kudos, you would be one of the few of your countrymen to dispassionately note the same.
india also enjoys multi national ToT from France russia and israel
To be honest, if TOT was all it was cracked out to be, India wouldnt need the LCA. From TOT you get “know how”, but not “know why”, which is what is also essential.
and have learned a lot of “know how” ability to build their own components.
See above.
without the support of foreign inputs LCA would be simply dead by now!
Incorrect, it would be very much alive. Please read the TEJAS STORY to understand the LCA path. The foreign input has been vital from the POV of time, because India did not have any program for 2 decades between the Marut and the LCA. Foreign assistance so far has been in the form of consultancy- xyz comes and points out what India is doing too extensively and what it should focus on, that saves time.
-LCA at present is only pulling 6gs. ASR has been decreased to 8gs from 9g (For the benefit of LCA?) empty weight of LCA is 6.5 tons now.
-20 LCA will be produced by 2011 and the other 20 by 2016.
-Final Operational Clearance (FOC) expected by the year 2012-2013
-The second track should be for the re-engined Tejas Mk 2 which can be produced in the required numbers by 2020 or so. Finally, in the third track we can look at Tejas Mk 3 fitted with the Kaveri Mk 2 engine jointly developed with a foreign partner in the 2025 time frame. This aircraft should have Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar.
You are mixing up Subr.’s statements with Rajkumars advice. One is fact, other is estimate. The IAF production plan for the LCA is given earlier in this thread, it aims for some six squadrons of the LCA by 2020 approx.
This is what LCA program director has to say..
-Only for the FOC, we are planning to integrate the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile and some more conventional weapons.
-Kaveri engine was fine for the LCA programme when it started. But as we have shifted the goal-post, which is the LCA weight, the Kaveri engine does not meet the ASR requirement. In the meantime, I am also requesting GTRE that technologies are available in the world to make the Kaveri engine fulfil the ASR requirements.
We used GE 404 F2J3 engine for the test. However, the latest test of LSP 2 was done with GE 404 IN20 engine, which is slightly more powerful than the earlier one. The IAF, in what are called the Air Staff Requirements (ASR), is asking for certain parameters to be met. Both the engines now fitted on the LCA do not meet the ASR completely.
Third time you are posting this, even though it was posted much earlier in this very thread. And debated and discussed.
Any particular reason for doing so?
Nick_76Nick, I must say, my response to abhiman’s post is more informative than yours, viz.
anyway, sorry to do this to you, but IIRC you said something about weekend…… :dev2:
cheers !
Hey, my apologies..I read what you pointed me to and kudos, its very informative..this week I’ll try and put together some sort of review and post it at the open *spot.com website or mail it to you..
Its just that work has been killing..
Nick_76As mentioned earlier, the Tejas can carry the standard payload –by weight as well as variety — of 2-3 tons like the F-16 or F-18, that are useful for all types of conventional combat missions.
Your mentioning it wont make it happen.
I fully expect the LCA to take its time to weaponise.
Will it carry a range of ARMs overnight, for instance?
Lets be sober here, the LCA will take at least 4-5 years for complete weapons testing and optimisation.
Being proportionately lighter, it’s combat radius should also be similar to Gripen NG or F-16. The only difference between Tejas and the MRCA contenders is that because it’s weapon loading is not of the order of 8-9 tons, it cannot carry cruise missiles and some heavy types of nuclear tipped warheads.
What is this proportionately lighter business?
You do realise that the IAF has changed its ASRs and wants more items within than without, and the LCA is currently striving to meet those goals.
Yet you are here talking of the entire aircraft as if it is ready and operational!
We dont know anything about the actual range of the LCA Mk2 with the new engine under operational conditions, nor does the IAF.
Gripen-NG can carry 40% more fuel in order to accomodate the loading on 2 extra pylons and a heavier engine. In range-payload specifications, it is thus closer to F-16 only.
So? That is still more than the LCA as it stands today.
Again, many MRCA contenders themselves are “on-paper” only. As an example, MiG-35, Gripen-NG are very recent entrants (though have a tested history of earlier variants) and the Typhoon got a certain certificate for weapons firing only this year. It is doubtful whether it has even reached the equivalent of IoC/FoC within the EU itself.
I cant point out the reality if you fail to acknowledge it.
The LCA is a brand new aircraft. What it means is that development spirals will be cautious and time intensive.
In contrast, today, the Typhoon is pulling QRA’s and has an austere A2G capability demonstrated.
In 6-7 years time, it will be sufficiently mature.
As will the other aircraft to a substantial extent.
The MiG-35 is nothing but the MiG-29K avionics with some added pizazz and the OVT TVC is an option – again, its an evolution of a tested platform.
The NG exists as a prototype, and given SAABs history of excellent linkages with its OEMs which assists in rapid prototype to production, it too will have a short gestation period.
In contrast, the LCA is all about making items inhouse.
If India also adopts a worldwide OEM approach, it too can speed up the LCA deployment.
But then it defeats part of the purpose of the LCA, which is to build up an aero industry which can make stuff for the umpteen programs, MCA and what not.
As of today, the LCA is a risk averse (in terms of test flying), more timeline intensive project. No shame in acknowledging it.
It also means that it has more risks involved from the users POV about timeline.
It also means that when the LCA enters service in 2012-14, it will be still a “LCA” vs the M-MRCA, and the IAF cannot wait another 5 years for the IAF to become a MRCA.
And it would be foolish to hope for the same.
We should all note that the IAF takes the LCA for it is, not what they want it to be, every 5 years.
Now as mentioned earlier, as regards the F-22 it was part of a definite vision to procure a 5th G plane, whereas JSF ”ended up” as 5th G because it was the “natural evolution” to 4 & 4.5 planes like F-15, F-16 and F-18 (naval as well as terrestrial). In contrast, other countries do have a vision of a separate fifth G plane — akin to F-22 — but do not immediately plan to replace older planes by a 2nd 5th G plane, but by more like 4+++ plane. The latter example is that of Russia vis-a-vis planned Su-35 and variants, and EU & UK vis-a-vis Typhoon. In fact for UK, F-35 and Typhoon are in the same proportion as F-22 and JSF are for the US.
1. You are making little sense here. Please break up your post into shorter lines.
2. The US has long talked of the F-22 and JSF concepts and those lines, please find some AvLeak issues from the 80’s of the ATF and its light support.
3. Stop fixating on what others have done and not done, and start thinking about India’s own security environment.
4. Russia is building the Su-35 as a transitional fighter for its PAKFA, and will induct but a handful, while it is primarily meant for export.2-3 regiments are barely gloss.
5.India can well induct the PAKFA as its prime stealth fighter and use the lighter MCA as a JSF equivalent for the second line, along with the MKI.
Similarly, India may “ill-afford” a 2nd fifth G plane for replacement of older MiG series and Jaguars. The IAF has envisaged the MRCA primarily for this purpose, but I think this can also be done possibly by Tejas itself and more Su-30/35 variants.
The IAF plan is quite clear in what it envisages.
Please reread it instead of going in circles.
There will be no Su-35s in IAF service.
It was offered for the MRCA. It was rejected.
A single seat MKI was then offered. It was rejected.
Then the MiG-35 was offered.
Tejas is too light to be the MRCA.
Repeated ad nauseum, so that you understand.
The vision for having 5th G planes must be there — as it is with Russia, China, Australia etc.– but it must be fulfilled by MCA instead of a foreign plane. IAF may also specify the relatively ‘minor’ change of a twin-seat/trainer MCA also, if it so needs.
This must, should, business is useless.
The IAF needs a proper all aspect stealth fighter available and needs to plan for it today.
The PAKFA will be that fighter.
The MCA has potential to replace the remaining types. The numbers exist.
The PAKFA will be too expensive to operate as the only 5G type.
From all available reports and Mr. Fakruddin’s interview, the PAK-FA will be to India what JF-17 is indeed to PAF i.e. a foreign aircraft with local licence rights only.
Repeating the same thing ten times over does not make it the reality.
Please state what Pakistan has contributed to the JF-17 in terms of local contribution.
I doubt you have any evidence or data whatsoever.
My repeated queries on this very board have not been answered either.
So lets leave the JF-17 aside.
Whatever it is, it is.
It has little relevance to the PAK-FA aims viz India.
However, your tendency to drag the JF-17 into every discussion does have the potential to create a pyrrhic flame war.
Lets get back to the PAK-FA.
The PAK-FA builds upon the MKI program by involving India in design modifications and testing & integration, with HAL involvement.
This is a first.
The MKI program saw Indian involvement in providing local subsystems AND design inputs.
The JF-17 has nothing similar.
The PAK-FA is one step ahead of the MKI where India is both involved in the airframe modification, testing AND integration.
These are non trivial tasks.
And will help HAL immensely for the MCA.
However, as in case of Su-30 MKI, IAF had major custom-components indigenized, whereas PAF seeks the same custom-components from Europe. Thus, PAK-FA is not different from Su-30 model of development at all.
More rambling.
Please at least make an attempt to be logical.
The IAF did not have custom components “indigenized”.
They were developed for the MKI.
Nobody develops radar processors on an ad hoc basis.
Or display processors which have to be integrated to an entirely proprietary Russian system and a Mil Std Western one.
Etc.
India developed these items in specific for the MKI, building upon the LCA systems, and hence gained a level of insight into the MKI avionics architecture which the PAF does not have vs the JF-17.
India can integrate its own weapons & systems without OEM involvement onto the MKI. India is not running to Russia for the Astra project.
The PAF will need to rely upon CATIC and foreign OEMs.
To do otherwise, you need a robust local R&D and integration setup. Which costs money. Which costs time. Which India has done.
India can now contribute far more to the PAK-FA as it has moved on with almost a decades worth of development since the MKI program.
The MKI itself has seen improved EW eqpt, new displays, an entirely locally developed S/W integration rig for integrating new weaponry etc.
Comparing it to just procuring items off the shelf from a foreign OEM and then license assembling it locally, is a joke.
This shows is that you dont understand the key basics of the MKI program and how it is structured.
These btw, were about avionics.
In the case of the PAK-FA, HAL will be involved in developing the twin seat version.
Which means design work.
Which means structural work.
Which means modifications.
Which means testing.
Which means integration.
Please visit HAL and see the amount of work required for a basic modification change for something as “simple” as a Kiran.
Here, we are talking of a stealth fighter. With consequent investment in design packages, RCS measurement, etc.
HAL will also outsource a lot of this work to local partners.
All in all, this is good news for the Indian aero industry.
A substantial portion of the investment will be ploughed back as Offsets.
Again goes back to building the industry.
Open your eyes please.
I think there is still time for IAF to exit from the yet unconcluded negotiations with Russia, because once signed finally, it can be difficult for IAF to extract it’s customizations from PAK-FA. This is because there will be terms and conditions as to what India will be restricted and prohibited to modify on PAK-FA, and it’s expectations (except that of a twn-seater) are likely to “fall short”.
You may think so.
But the reality is: India is not exiting from the PAK-FA.
Every detail so far has been overwhelmingly in support of India’s commitment to the program.
If begun early now, the IAF can dedicatedly and teamingly work alongside DRDO to develop the MCA. As per Dr. Natarajan, it can be developed in 15 years’ time, and as per Mr. Pranab Mukherjee’s statement in Parliament in his capacity as Defence minister, India could seek assistance where needed on MCA (similar to Tejas’ model of development).
The DRDO is currently busy with the LCA.
The DRDO will not formally announce the MCA until the LCA reaches a mature stage of acceptance with the IAF (2014) AND enabling technologies which are critical to the MCA are also available in depth, locally – namely the radar, propulsion and actuators.
Only then will the MCA be launched.
The IAF cannot afford to wait till 2025 for its first stealth fighters.
Nick_76As it is known, Tejas in it’s present configuration is equivalent to Gripen C/D in weight, loading, internal fuel and is very likely to be so in range also. Though it is true that Gripen-NG has 2 more weapon stations than Tejas, it may not justify a totally new and unfamiliar purchase. Thus, Gripen-NG can be substituted by Tejas and as the Gripen-NG is deemed “fit” to be an MRCA contender by IAF, so can the Tejas.
Whatever are you talking about?
The LCA is a prototype at this stage.
The GripenC/D is an operational aircraft. The LCA final version may well turn out to be substantially different than the C/D and thats what counts.
Second, its the NG being offered for the MRCA, and not only does it have more pylons, it has some 30-40% more fuel and is stressed for a greater payload as well.
Third, it is a development of a mature aircraft, for which most subsystems are ready! Why cant you grasp this basic fact?
How can the LCA be offered for the MRCA when it first has to mature as an aircraft and its development itself is key to the Indian aeronautics industry, rather than falling prey to another round of requirements creep delaying the project further.
On top of it, leaving the IAF without 12 squadrons of a much needed fighter.
They will of course keep adding to the specs, and its best that a project which is already underway and meets most of those requirements is headed for the MRCA requirement, rather than stretch the LCA again.
Induct the LCA for what it is. Not what the IAF keeps saying it should be, every five years.
Please read about “Crossing the chasm” to get an insight into product launches.
Regardless of the fact that Tejas after addition of 90 kN engines may start to be inducted from 2014 onwards, a 2 year later introduction than MRCA in 2012 may not be justified to not consider it as an MRCA contender. In this case, the IAF must also keep in view the development of the indigenous industry also, savings in costs, complete immunity from global sanctions, on-demand availability of support, and total insulation from mid-stream contractual changes, price rises and geo-politics.
Why is it regardless? Because it goes against your belief?
The IAF is committed to 6 squadrons and 6 squadrons of the MRCA, the latter of which offers more payload and range than the LCA.
Why make it one type and reduce the IAFs punch?
What about production rampup, teething issues?
Add another couple of years? And then what, have the IAF go without needed fighters for 4-6 years?
All you’ll do is make them even more wary of supporting local development.
I reiterate that although 6 squadrons of Tejas are guaranteed, the IAF must induct — in addition to these 6 — a further 126 not only in order to avail of the benefits listed above, but also because it would assist in meeting the strategic requirement of “global strategic reach” by augmenting the number of Tejas units to 350. Further units must be procured to increase the number of serving units to 400-500. In this manner, the cost-effort of maintenance, inventory, logistics may also be “drastically” reduced.
You are speaking illogically.
The IAF will plan for what meets their threat perception.
Not just cost and logistics.
Otherwise, we should only have MiG-21s.
As of now, a lightweight fighter does not meet their criteria to constitute 50% of their planned fleet.
How can a light tactical fighter provide global strategic reach? It beggars the imagination.
What will the IAF do? Disassemble the LCA, cart it to the opponent country, reassemble it and fly it?
Supporting a light tactical fighter fleet over extended ranges will require far more supporting assets, as well.
Now, it is true that “evolutionary process” in USAF has resulted in the replacement of F-16 & F-18 units to be the JSF, which had to be 5th G (otherwise replacement would have been redundant). The F-22 on other hand, was a result of a purposeful strategic need of a 5th G plane. However, in this regard India may emulate Russia, where older MiG-29, MiG-27 etc. will be replaced by more “modest” Su-35 and variants thereof and only 1 type of 5th G plane is part of the purposeful 5th G strategy.
The USAF does not operate the F/A-18.
Why are you fixated upon emulating Russia?
Russia is currently focusing on its strategic forces vs its conventional arms.
So we should do the same?
Lets induct only a few units each year and bulk up our nuke arsenal.
How useful is that during conventional war.
The Russians never inducted the MKI in number.
Quick! Let us stop the MKI and do as the Russians do.
They have their own reasons. We have others.
Has it ever struck you that different nations have different security and national aims?
For India, it is to win wars AND develop a local aerospace industry.
For Russia, the second is done, which is partly why the Soviet Union collapsed as they focused on warfighting to the detriment of the national economy.
India has to strike a balance. Hence the induction of modern fighters via local assembly on shorter timelines, while longer gestation aero development projects are done in parallel.
Relying on one alone is not advisable.
Now, as regards the fifth G plane for IAF, the issue is developing an indigenous 5th G plane to further our aviation industry and also to “sever” and “wean” away from the perpetual dependence of highly expensive, foreign planes (this is regardless of whether the MCA’s induction is guaranteed over and above PAK-FA).
See above.
You conveniently omit the fact that the MCA or whatever will take a long time to develop and deploy and cannot be launched before the LCA is complete.
The LCA will be completed or reach a stage of maturity only by 2014.
That is unacceptable from the IAF’s POV for starting a 5G project.
Otherwise, even currently India can now openly afford the purchase of a few squadrons of PAK-FA and JSF (Lockheed Martin made a presentation of JSF to the IAF recently).
Incorrect.
LM said buying the F-16 is a development path to the JSF.
They didnt share any classified data or make a formal pitch to the IAF for the JSF, let alone its local assembly and customisation to the degree the PAK-FA will provide.
Please learn about the tough fight the RAF put up to get the kind of operational control, the IAF takes for granted with the MKI and plans for with the PAK-FA.
In fact more, so.
Procurement of the MCA in place of the PAK-FA (and also in addition to its guaranteed numbers (if there are any)), is that IAF will not have to bear the high costs of purchasing and maintaining 2 types of 5th G fighter planes. The IAF can begin to monitor and assist the MCA beginning now itself, just as it began “patronizing” the as yet unknown, unflown, unproven and on-paper PAK-FA.
Higher costs are balanced out by the timeline factor. The MCA will not come about overnight.
If the IAF could maintain a menagerie of a dozen different types with an economy a fourth of todays, it can maintain the MCA & PAK FA as well.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression, that all the IAF needs to do is say “boo”, and the ADA will start churning out MCAs at HAL.
It will easily take a decade to develop, that too with a proven partner in the field like Dassault or Saab. That, if things go to plan. And everything goes tickety well.
The IAFs specifications will demand nothing lesser than Grade A stuff, and add their usual requirements creep. Say another 4-5 years before its ready.
It will take another 2-3 years before such a plan is cleared. At the minimum.
We are talking of 2025 here before the MCA comes.
Guess when the MiG-29’s, Mirages, Jaguars retire? Same timeframe. Despite 9.5 Sq of the PAKFA.
It is for this reason that Tejas’ completion as a prerequisite to subsequent attention to MCA is an invalid reason to not pay attention to MCA presently.
This is in your imagination.
Reality: The IAF is a conservative force, and the lack of service faith in R&D, used as they are to imports means that they react conservatively to local developments.
The LCA will have to win its spurs.
Then the MCA will come.
In between, HAL will have to prove its spurs with the IJT and MRTA.
ADA will work on FBW for the latter.
ADE will be providing three new UAVs to the IAF. That too will build IAF confidence.
Rome wasnt built in a day.
But the single most important benefit in procuring the MCA is that the IAF will be able to ‘mould’ it from the drawing board itself. Every small requirement in MCA can be tailor-made to “perfection” keeping in mind the IAF’s tactical as well as strategic vision. It may be similar to a tailor-made suit in comparison to a ready-made one. This advantage CANNOT be provided by PAK-FA, which as per reports has been exclusively designed, frozen and put into production without an “iota” of IAF’s requirements, needs and expectations. It has been designed and already put into production solely as per the ASRs of the Russian Air Force only.
Sorry, your arguements fail to acknowledge the reality in the Indian context.
The problem is that this entire “molding it from the drawing board” itself is what causes the delay.
Pilot after pilot needs to put in his input. Specification after specification gets revised.
Each time AHQ changes its mind, the LCA Project Management team gets a new headache.
End result, the project chugs along – the end result may be worth it. But it takes time.
Meanwhile your neighbour goes and imports a half dozen squadrons of the latest type.
And AHQ gets a new fit and wants to import in turn.
So the only option is to do two things in parallel.
A) Develop locally and b) import/JV systems (in which you can use experience from A) to complement A.
The MKI program shows how a fighter also designed for the express requirements of another AF (the Su series) can be modified for the IAFs requirements.
The IAF is delighted with it.
The iota business is your bias speaking.
HAL is clear that the IAF may want a two seater (iota heh?)and its own mission specific avionics & systems.
The statements by Mr. Fakruddin were not in congruence with what the IAF and MoD have claimed since 2006. As per his interview, he was unsure about India’s percentage of workshare, uncertain about when India would “sign the dotted line”, and thus “salvage” the remaining possible work-share.
Your bias at play here.
When one interprets only what one wants to, it leads to faulty conclusions.
Fakruddin actually said that the IAF & Sukhoi are in talks to define the IAF specific config, which may be substantially different than the Russian version.
About “signing the dotted line”, please educate yourself about Indian procurement methods.
India signs when the partner demonstrates it can meet requirements and a substantial amount of work is done to ensure the same.
Only a few deals -notably those of the import crazy Army- have been different. Which is why there is so much egg on the IAs face over the T-90S.
Recently, the Embraer deal was signed. Almost 3 years of work have gone in from E’s side to prove that the Indian configuration can be met and realised.
The Naval rotary UAV deal was signed. Now. After IAI first developed and demonstrated its automatic control system. Not before, not after.
The IAI-DRDO LRSAM deal was signed- only a year or so back. After both parties undertook a couple of years preparatory work to ensure that the project could be done.
MKI 140 production deal was signed, after the first few batches were on Indian soil and the aircraft met IAF parameters. A follow on 40 aircraft deal was signed after the license production at HAL took off satisfactorily.
The second Darin 3 batch of Jaguars is under preparation NOW. After Darin 2 is almost complete, and HAL is finishing up its new build deliveries. It wasnt announced in 2002 when DARIN 2 Plans were developed.
Its the same here.
Sukhoi will be given the official deal, ONCE, both HAL & Sukhoi work out the exact work to be done, and much preparation goes in.
Already there has been communication of each sides needs to the other.
This is actually the fourth round of negotiations on the project.
FYI.
Besides, he categorically stated that India will limit it’s contribution to testing, integration of components, navigation systems and engine change only. He also admitted that the Russian side will NOT incorporate Indian changes; changes that will be limited to avionics and engine, which in effect implies that PAK-FA is exactly like the Su-30 MKI which was only customized for India instead of being “jointly developed”.
1. Why should India not limit its contribution to changes which it wants?
2.Why should India push for changes, for changes sake?
3. The PAK-FA is meant to be a Russian equivalent to the Raptor, why gild the lily! All that is required is to make it more compatible to Indian expectations in terms of ergonomics, MMI, maintenance procedures, and avionics.
4. Your statements dont reflect reality. The UK is not insisting that the US make it a UK specific JSF! It recognises that the JSF is an advanced system which its pilots can use and wants operational control over key criteria to make it RAF friendly. Thats all.
Not design the JSF to provide ham & eggs on cue, or fish & chips.
For India, the MCA will do the job of growing its own LCA derived stealth fighter.
The PAK-FA is for wresting air superiority from the PRC & PAF even with an integrated S-3XX IADS.
Thus, in total negation of what the IAF and MoD have falsely claimed since 2006, the PAK-FA to India may be akin to what JF-17 is to Pakistan : a 100% foreign aircraft to be licence-produced locally. In my view, the public claims of 50% “joint development” must be retracted, and a purchase agreement must be declared to the public.
More illogical statements.
How is the Indian PAK-FA 100% foreign derived, when the customer plays a vital role in designing its specs, and sending technicians and scientists to make critical changes, and has a workshare in executing those changes?
The PAFs role in the JF-17 is negligible in comparison. Why even compare.
I am yet to find a single Pak developed system in the JF-17 as compared to the several LCA derived units in the MKI.
In the case of the PAKFA, time will tell what India can provide. Timelines if properly planned out, shall see more Indian contribution to mission avionics & EW systems, than on the MKI, plus airframe development- composites.
India will also work on structural modelling & logistics.
Unfortunately, we are still lagging when it comes to propulsion, and airborne fire control radars (in particular A2G modes).
So we will contribute where we can, for now.
And the MCA shall benefit from the experience Indian designers gain from this project, in terms of learning from AND with Sukhoi in how to design a stealth fighter.
Again, the IAF may as well inquire about a twin-seat MCA also if a requirement for a twin-seater is present. As India is yet to enter the PAK-FA group, and as it is yet to make it’s debut flight, it may be far more tedious and time-consuming to transform a single-seater into twin-seater than to develop a twin-seat MCA (along with single seat version) from the beginning itself.
May be, should be, would be to justify a bias is not logical.
India has already entered the PAKFA group and is officially committed to it.
The Flanker project shows converting a single seater into a twin seater is possible. And is much faster than developing a fighter from scratch.
The PAKFA will be harder because it is an integrated, size restricted stealth airframe, and will be a learning challenge for India. But doable.
To insist that developing a MCA from scratch is easier, when the LCA is not even operational, and the Russians have the benefit of a much larger aviation infrastructure…is ludicrous.
Lets not get carried away.
In an ideal world, India would be strong enough to churn out 10,000 MCAs overnight and would not need any JV’s or learning lessons.
We dont live in that world.
Nick_76Since ADA says the same i said based upon what i read on NASA papers it shows how wrong and proud you are, you love being blinded by your own pride see
It actually says the exact opposite of what you have been blathering about in the thread.. it in fact supports the point that without canards, the LCA does fine. Ouch!!!
My pride flows from my professional qualifications and the work that I do. You might try a similar approach. Would help you.
Or try professional help. Clearly you have issues. Picking stupid fights on the internet accusing everyone else of being “proud” of being “blind” and this and that only testifies to your inferiority complex. Perhaps you are seeking to compensate for something?
While you have my sympathies for whatever is your problem, I cannot afford to waste my time and energy on your stuff beyond a point.
The tailless compound delta planform helps in keeping LCA small and light. It also means fewer control surfaces, wider choice of external stores and better close combat, high-speed and high-alpha characteristics.
LCA has been designed to be unstable. Relaxed static stability gives improved aerodynamic efficiency and enhanced agility and manoeuvrability.
[/QUOTE]
It actually shows you have been making silly comments all the while and wasting our time since ADA says exactly the opposite of what you have been tomtomming…but then again, I am not suprised. I also note ADA ‘s stuff is also generic. Like I posted many moons back, it too does not give the actual performance of the jet- which I pointed out to you, and you responded with your copy paste deluge.
Oh my sympathies btw, now you are reduced to copy pasting sites from “third world countries” and what not. I thought we’all were beneath you.
And even saying the opposite of what a website says.
Keep going on and on and on like that cute little bunny in the advertisement for the battery…I am sure somebody will find it worth their while to waste their time on the regurgitated stuff you copy paste.. clearly, its not like you have work to do apart from yammer on and on about a topic which you know little about and proclaim yourself as the self appointed canard guru. Contacted Burt Rutan , yet? :rolleyes:
Nick_76In my view, as the Su-30 and Tejas perfectly complement each other in combat roles, there may not be any need for a so-termed “medium” MRCA. Thus, the 126 Tejas units must be inducted as the MRCA. Similarly, as all 5 gen. planes have similar range-payload capabilities (based on global “trend”), PAK-FA may not be necessary.
Its good you said “in my view”, because what you said wouldnt pass muster otherwise.
First, the LCA is not ranged and heavy enough to provide the second line of defence to support the MKI vs the PRC.
Its a joke to state that the LCA should be the MRCA as of now. The MRCA needs to enter service starting 2012 as a mature platform. Bar the Gripen NG/MiG-35 – both of which do however draw upon legacy designs, the MRCA types do have operational and time demonstrated performance. The LCA otoh, will hit its stride (with the MK2 engine) from 2013-14 onwards..
Second, till the LCA is done, the MCA cant be launched with full gusto, so the PAK FA is necessary.
Though it is true that MRCA’s induction will not “hamper” the induction of Tejas planes (200 of which are guaranteed), the Tejas must also be inducted in 126 nos as the MRCA. This is not only because it meets all MRCA requirements (except carriage of cruise missiles), but also because streamlining of the variety of types of planes, and global strategic reach may require that 400-500 fighter planes of a single type be inducted — as is the case of USAF, PLAAF etc. The latter may be important against numerous “bunches” of 40-60 or 80 planes of one type in the IAF currently.
Whatever are you talking about? I have already posted the IAF plan in the thread, it clearly says six squadrons for the LCA, ie the same numbers as the MRCA. These numbers can in fact increase if the PAKFA is delayed, some MiGs are retired earlier etc.
The IAF has bunches of 60-80 planes currently because it didnt have funds earlier to do the MKI type large production runs or medium ones like the MRCA and LCA (6 sq each). Otherwise, there would have been 6-8 squadrons of the MiG-29 / Mirage 2000.
And otherwise, it does have substantial numbers of MiG-27s(over a 100) and Jaguars (over a 100 easy). So it is consolidating on chosen types.
Similarly, even if assuming that MCA’s induction may be guaranteed independent of PAK-FA, the MCA only must meet all fifth G requirements and the PAK-FA must not be inducted at all. It must be noted that Russia, UK, France, China, Australia, etc. are committed to one fifth G fighter plane only. In the exceptional case of US, multiple programs for a single purpose like 3 types of BMD, 2 types of fifth G planes and multiple types of bombers may be more due to the result of a natural ‘evolutionary’ procedure, rather than a purported or definite “vision”. In my view, corrupt defence planners in Indian Army and IAF are using the US practice of multiplicity as an “excuse” to justify REDUNDANT proposals/purchases like Patriot (despite successful tests of BMD), PAK-FA (despite MCA being on drawing-board since 8 years) and medium range missiles (regardless of Akash’s success).
Who cares about what other folks do or dont do unless it makes sense for local requirements? India marches its own path – our security needs are entirely different than most countries, and so is the economic aspect. You seem to forget that Uk et alhave the benefit of the US to wage the heavy lifting vs a potential foe, so they can do without a F-22. The Russians can afford to rely only on the PAKFA since after all it flows from them. India has to both build up its fighting power via the PAK FA and aerospace potential drawing from the LCA project,ie the MCA. Our needs are different. We need the PAKFA because the PRC is choc a bloc full of S-3XX type SAMs. And the MCA also has viability since as I clearly demonstrated, some 6-9 squadrons of MiGs, Jags and Mirages will need to retire. A medium strike aircraft can compensate. I hope India either ties up with SAAB or Dassault for the MCA and operationalizes it ASAP. By 2025, India would have paid its price (learning curve) for the currently yet to be attained things – airborne FCR, Engine & actuators which should also help.
Second, the Patriot proposal is for the 18 M-SAM RFP that was issued prior to Akash trials. Why mix things up.
In my view, the IAF is deliberately “ignoring” the MCA in favour of a foreign purchase. What may be “appalling” is that as per a top HAL source himself, there is not only total uncertainty on India’s percentage of workshare, but also indecision over exactly what India is supposed to “modify” (read: ‘tinker’) on the PAK-FA. This was in total contradiction to what MoD and IAF have communicated to media since past 2 years namely 50% joint-venture, 50-50 development etc. Mr. Fakruddin’s statements were “shocking” to say the least.
You are just shocked because you want to be shocked and dont want the PAK-FA. The IAF disagrees with you, and with reason. The PAK-FA is the lynch pin of their future air superiority. All these %’s are for internet debates. What matters is:
1. Will India be able to manufacture the bulk of spares locally for high serviceability
2. Will India source the rest from a reliable “we dont sanction” supplier
3. Will India have the ability to tinker with the design, add own/OEM equipment and weaponry?
All 3 of the above are true for the MKI, if the same holds true for the PAK-FA the IAF will be happy.
In the meantime, DRDO have to prove their spurs by operationalizing the LCA, which is also a learning step.
Obviously the IAF will take the MCA seriously, when the LCA is in squadron service & the manpower & infrastructure can work on other projects.
Lets not rush to hasty conclusions.
Nick_76Correct, it is yet to be formally sanctioned and launched as a stand alone project. But initial studies, definition have been done. And the LCA will serve as a technology development platform for the MCA.
I was also pointing out the fact that there is considerable potential for a MCA production run as well. This for people like Abhimanyu who are constantly worried that the PAK-FA will usurp the MCAs role. They are two different projects meant for different roles.
Nick_76Rahul:
Std Comm on Def, Presented to Lok Sabha on 16.04.2008
A representative of Air Force stated in this regard during oral evidence: –
“As of last year, if you recall, our force level was down to 32 squadrons. If no action
was to have been taken by us as a Government, this would continue to go down to
a sliding scale of 20.5 squadrons by the end of 2022. Therefore, we have put a
plan into motion and we have plan to induct, six squadrons (My note: This is the LCA), that goes up to 26.5.Then we have also initiated the case for the MMRCA, that will increase our levels to
32.5. (Six squadrons of the MMRCA,ie 126 aircraft)Finally, we have entered into a Government agreement which is signed with
Russia last year in November and that will take us to 42 squadrons with the fifth
generation fighter aircraft. (My note: The IAF is planning for 9.5-10 squadrons, ie some 180 PAKFAs upward with a minimum of 18 A/C per squadron)
I am happy to report to you today itself that as of this day, as of 1st April,
2008, from 32 squadrons we have gone up to 34 squadrons. We have inducted a
new Su-30 squadron in Bareily that is number eight squadron. Today itself the
papers have been cleared and we have formed an additional Jaguar squadron at
Jamnagar. So, this would constitute the 34th squadron. Of course, the phase outs
would also take place concurrently. But with this new strategy in place, we are very
confident that with the necessary budgetary provisions being given by the
Government and the utilization by the Air Force we would be able to meet our
target of 35.5 squadrons by the end of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (by 2012), and thereafter
progress towards 37.5 squadrons by the end of the 12th Plan (by 2017).”
My notes in red
So you have the IAF plans laid out:
By 2022, 42 Squadrons (Which will of course depend on PAK FA schedule).
@ 2022, there will be:
Six LCA sq, Six MRCA sq. So thats 12.
Another 10 PAK-FA. So thats 22accounted for.
Remaining 20 left.
We have 11 MKI sq planned for. 230 confirmed orders, 20 A/C per squadron. Say 10 spares.
Thats 9 left Sq Left.
Thats the 3 Mirage 2000 sq, 3 MiG-29 Sq, and probably 3 Jag squadrons. All these will have to be replaced by the MCA.
Nick_76What? The Rafale is rather elegant, in my opinion the best looking of the current crop of European fighters, & in a completely different league from the F-18 & F-18E. Whatever their good qualities, the F-18 & F-18E have the sort of looks that only their mothers, or someone with a similar emotional attachment, can find pleasant.
:eek::D:D
Completely agree…Rafale vs SH looks wise? They arent even in the same category.
Sign In
