Tejas exports may not be the concern of ADA/HAL but I would think that the opportunity of creating a larger high technology industrial base would be highly desireable for the Indian economy. Countries go to great lengths to try to secure orders for their military aviation industries – visits of heads of state to potential buyers, offset agreements etc because the benefits to the seller to sustain its high technology industry are so great. Why is India’s approach different?

50 years ago many countries opted to equip their air forces with the inexpensive export version of the Northtrop F-5. Over 1,000 F-5A/B were made for the export market (and hundreds more of the later Tiger version). There are many countries worldwide now which cannot afford to replace their aged MiG/Mirage/other fleets. My guess is that the market for a Mk2 export version of Tejas with a “no foreign power approval needed engine” – an indigenous engine – might be huge.

Since India wants an indigenous engine for AMCA it would make commercial sense to me to spend $2 billion+ on getting an indigenous engine developed to suit both AMCA and Tejas. AMCA might require 300+ engines. Selling a Tejas Mk2 export version could more than double engine production.

All your points are well made. And correct.

In a nutshell, regarding your bold point, politics.

If you begin your nation based on a namby pamby thought process of world peace & non violence and pursue a hamfisted reactive policy of arming up only when forced to the wall, as in 1962…the end result is strategy goes for a toss.
Almost 90% of India’s independent history has been in the hands of one political party, and their economic policies have often been disastrous and held hostage to all sorts of unrealistic & even vested interests.
Now, with business no longer being a dirty word, unlike in Nehrus India, or even Indira’s – chances are that arms exports may begin, without much fuss, but may grow over time.

Precisely.

Sorry, but that only shows you are not tracking Indian defence programs in detail. The Tejas was both an attempt to get India the tech to make its own fighters and also, give the IAF a credible fighter.

In the process, India took heavy risks. The Kaveri was the biggest and went against the usual axiom of taking a proven engine to develop an airframe around, which would be the usual method attempted by first timers/relatively smaller aircraft industries.

One of the reasons all these were linked to the LCA were because this was the only funded program and since TDs were not done before, all were attempted in parallel with the program.

Now, the Kaveri program has been delinked from the LCA and is not cancelled either. A new RFP is out for cooperation with other engine houses and the aim is to develop a MK2 engine in time for the AMCA, which is still 10-15 years away. In the meantime, variants of today’s Kaveri are being developed for the IUSAV (a strike UCAV), the Navy (which wants a local gasturbine for its ships) and civil applications (power plants and a prime mover for the railways). Net, by the time a MK2 comes about, India would have also got some well needed lessons in terms of actually productionizing its own gas turbine and not just designing & prototyping it.

Bottomline – there are now several aerospace programs for which common modules/technology are being developed – apart from the LCA itself. This makes the LCA program managers life easier, because its no longer essential that they must and should use the Kaveri or specific items.

Having said that, one of the prime focus areas of the LCA remains indigenization, so they will continue that wherever possible, until and unless it negatively impacts the other primary raison de etre of the program, which is to make a fighter for the IAF.

It also impacts upon future exports, having to get the okay from the US first.
In a tight market, any single possible sale having to get the okay from Washington, among the other issues and conditions that come with this dependence, will be a crucial thing.

Which is a moot point, because the LCA was never intended to be driven by exports.

It, like most other Indian defence programs, is primarily intended for the home market, first and foremost.

Exports, if any, are an afterthought.

Furthermore, the Indian defence services are not too keen that the weapon systems developed for them, be exported. India simply does not have the time & resources right now to develop safe “export variants” of many of the systems it makes. Unlike the ALH or Do-228 for example, there is no quasi-civil role for the Tejas either. These dual use platforms are the only things that may be exported apart from some specific lower end defence items.

There is also the issue of production rates. India’s defence modernization needs are so urgent that almost all the production is being soaked up by local services.

Lets take two programs which were marketed at defence expos and drew some interest.

The Brahmos has often been cited as an example of a system India-Russia have agreed to export. Having said that, the Brahmos corp is struggling to meet Indian demand! They are now setting up another additional integration & assembly plant in India to meet existing orders from the IA/IAF and IN. Once the IAF ALCM variant or a sub launched variant is ready, more orders are expected (the IAF has already asked for 214 of the ALCM type), so wheres the possibility of exports at present.

Or the Akash program.

Interest from other SE Asian countries apart, the program has to deal with a substantial order backlog! 8 Squadrons for the IAF at production site 1 (Bharat Electronics Ltd) and 2 Regiments for the Army at production site 2 (Bharat Dynamics Ltd). Some of the vendors will be common..

And once that is done, there is a MK2 variant underway and next, the Indo-Israeli LRSAM/MRSAM to consider. The Navy already has some 3 hulls waiting for the missile system!

Similarly, with the LCA, after heavy prodding and file pushing, HAL has committed to putting up the facilities to ramp up LCA production to 16 aircraft per annum.

This will allow them to meet IAF demand of 40 MK1 + 83 MK2. Thats 8 years, plus 1-2 more for ramp-up. So when & where will any export slots be available for customers from abroad?

And the Indian Navy also expects to order 2-3 squadrons of the type, once the NLCA gets qualified with a Ge414 INS6. Given they are manically serious about indigenization and have funded the program, they are going to push for their orders as well.

Once the LCA MK2 is done, there is talk of a MK3 & then transition to the AMCA.

The existing facilities will be repurposed and upgraded for the same. HAL for instance expanded and upgraded (plus built new greenfield facilities) the MiG complex to make it the manufacturer of the Su-30 MKI.

Bottomline – exports of defence systems from India will only come when the private sector gets involved in defence manufacture in a big way. That is happening, but is a few years away for smaller items and at least a decade away for fighters!

Only they will be willing to take risks and keep pushing the system to export items for capturing profits from outside India.

And invest in building up scale for orders more than the immediate local ones.

The Indian DPSU manufacturing system as it stands is much more conservative and driven mostly by domestic demand, which in itself is huge!

For instance, apart from the LCA, the IAF wants approx

1. ~144-200 FGFAs (PAKFAs)
2. another 100 Su-30 MKIs (HAL has so far delivered 119), plus upgrades to the Super 30 standard/s once all Su-30 MKIs are delivered
3.126-189 Rafales (including the 63 options)
4. the 123 LCA Tejas (40MK1, 83 MK2 and not considering Naval orders or additional prototypes)
4. around 140 AMCAs (or even more)
5. plus the upgrades to 60 odd Jaguars (DARIN-3) and 50 Mirages (over a decade).

This is apart from the UAV/UCAV programs, transport aircraft programs (MRTA), Hawk assembly/IJT program etc etc.

HAL is sitting on more orders than it can shake a stick at.

Right now its boom time on local orders alone, well into the next decade and a half. Exports are nowhere in the picture.

Things may change once Tata, Mahindra etc manage to finagle an aircraft line – thats intended for the HAL AVRO replacement (some 50 aircraft) which are to be assembled by a local vendor.

The Indian Govt will only clear other private manufacturers to set up their own fighter assembly lines when they prove competence via other aero projects or make a very compelling business case (e.g. huge investments on their own). Plus they can guarantee local management control.

But as far as fighters are concerned, probably 15 years from now.

SPECTRA is supposed to be one of the best EW suites replacing it with something homegrown will be stupid.

The IAF will have any day more control over a homegrown suite and it will be preferable if it comes with similar performance. Only issues are the cost and time involved in terms of integration. Its not a joke to replace an integrated system with another one, especially when the system is built into the low observable airframe.

Su-30 update

When the upgrade? Why the long wait?

• During his inaugural press conference on October 5, 2012, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne said that modernization of the Su-30MKI fleet will start after all the aircraft on order have been delivered.

In other words, since the Sukhoi of the current mark is still a fair performer but IAF is facing declining numbers elsewhere with declining numbers and staggered upgrades, the decision is to build up Sukhoi strength to 270 and commence upgrades only then.
Drat.
Anyways with the IAF using the Su-30MKI force to stabilize the fleet and build up numbers..

Is the deal for the upgrade, done./serious etc.?
2010: Overall Project Finalized for first 50 aircraft

• India Today reported in its June, 2010 issue that the project to modernize the initial batch of Su-30s delivered to India by Russia has been finalized.
• The aircraft are due for major overhaul and Russia has proposed incorporation of the latest technologies during the major overhaul.
• Defence Ministry sources told Economic Times on July 4, 2010:
• “As part of IAF’s modernisation program, we are going to upgrade 50 Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft with help of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) from Russia.
• “Su-30 MKIs have been inducted into the IAF in four phases. The ones to be upgraded are from the first phase and the project is likely to be completed in the next three to four years,” they added.
• Of the 50 aircraft, around five would be sent to the Russian facilities while the remaining would undergo upgrading within India, they said.
• “The airframe of these aircraft would also be strengthened to equip them with air-launched version of the 290 km range BrahMos supersonic cruise missile,” the sources said.

2011: And, a year later, deal to be signed for 42 last batch, additional upgraded Sukhois when Indian PM visits Moscow
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pm-visit-india-to-buy-42–upgraded–sukhois/888064

The new version is expected to include a new cockpit, an upgraded radar and certain stealth features to avoid radar detection. Significantly, the upgraded Sukhoi-30 MKIs will be able to carry a heavier weapons load, especially the airborne version of the Brahmos cruise missile. India is also looking to upgrade most of its SU-30 MKIs in the long run.

2012: And at the time of Putins visit to India
[quote] NEW DELHI: India will soon ink defence deals worth around Rs 25,000 crore with Russia, including two mega ones for 42 more Sukhoi-30MKI fighters and 59 additional Mi-17 V5 armed helicopters.[/quote[

While India has no plans to acquire more than 272 Sukhois, it has an upgrade plan to convert a bulk of them into ‘Super Sukhois’ in the years ahead with more advanced avionics, weapons and AESA (active electronically scanned array) radars. “Earlier, the plan was to upgrade 80 of them into ‘Super Sukhois’ at the cost of around Rs 10,900 crore. Now, the plan is being re-drawn,” said the source.

Seems like the IAF is ok with the delay and just wants to build up the numbers for now, since the current Sukhoi is hardly obsolete and its tech is fairly better than what competitors field today operationally.
So, this Super 30 program might start only 4 years from now by which time HAL would have delivered another 76 aircraft, allowing the IAF to reach the 242 figure allowing them to spare the earliest airframes for series upgrades.
If the 42 last batch Sukhois, originally planned as Super Sukhois apart from the first upgraded 50, come upgraded directly from Russia, then it would automatically, boost IAF firepower immensely.

And on numbers produced so far:

• of 269 aircraft planned, 272 ordered, 3 crashed
http://hal-india.com/SU-30_MKI_Contract_24-12-12.asp

Delivered
• 119 by HAL, 50 from Russia, delivered
• So thats 169 delivered, three crashed, so 166 Su-30 MKIs.
• At 18 aircraft per squadron, thats 9 squadrons worth, with 4 spares

On Order
• Another 82 (ordered) from Russia with kits to be built up in India, percentage of indigenization at HAL unless IAF asks for majority built up, for quick assembly and induction. Plus 21 remaining from HALs order.
• That’s another 5 squadrons, with 13 aircraft spare
• Overall, 14 squadrons in future, with 17 aircraft spares (depute 3 to TACDE, keep rest as reserve, at central level). Or raise a last understrength squadron.

So, IAF today, per Press Reports and weblinks:

• In Feb 2012, IAF had seven Sukhoi squadrons – 2 in Lohegaon in Pune (20, 30), 1 in Jodhpur (31), 2 in Bareilly (8, 24), and 1 each in Tezpur (2) and Chabua (102).
• It has aircraft worth 9 squadrons today.
• Of the two possible raisings, one probably went to Jodhpur and another to Halwara as that was the plan per IAF reports in press.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/antiradiation-missile-by-drdo-to-be-ready-in-35-years/article4346998.ece

Anti-radiation missile by DRDO to be ready in 3-5 years

A new state-of-the art, anti-radiation missile that can target enemy radars and communication facilities is being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

At present there is no such missile in India’s arsenal, while some advanced countries, including the US, Israel and Russia, have such a weapon, top DRDO sources told The Hindu here on Sunday. (India does have the Kh-31P, Harpy and Harop, so it should have been no indigenous missile like this yet in the arsenal.)

Design work begins

The government recently gave the go-ahead for the project, and the design work has already begun at one of the key DRDO laboratories here.

Sources added that in any war scenario, radar and communication facilities of the enemy would be the first target.

The new air-to-surface 100-km range tactical missile picks up radiation or signals emitted by radars and communication systems, homes on to the target and destroys the network. (my note: wideband seeker?)

The missile’s front-end comprises a sensor to pick up various radio frequencies.

It will be a single-stage, liquid-propelled system, sources said. The missile is expected to be ready in the next three to five years. (similar to Kh-31P?)

After a series of developmental trials, it will be integrated with fighter aircraft, including Sukhoi and Light Combat Aircraft.

DRDO scientists have also started work on developing a 150-km range surface-to-air missile (SAM) as part of its plans to have SAMs of different ranges.

The Akash missile, which has already been inducted into the Air Force and the Army, has an interception range of 25 km. A long range surface-to-air missile (70 km) and a medium range surface-to-air missile (50 km) are being developed in collaboration with Israel.

Both the systems are likely to be inducted by the users in two years. Both the missiles will undergo a series of trials beginning this year. (great!)

While the 150-km range SAM will primarily be an anti-aircraft system, some of them will also have anti-ballistic missile capabilities, sources said. (my note: more like TBM capabilities)

A short-range surface-to-air missile (SRSAM), with a range of 20 km, is also being planned, and the government’s nod for the project is awaited. (my note: with MBDA)

It will be integrated with fighter aircraft, including Sukhoi and Light Combat Aircraft (this means a universal missile including a dogfight missile! Is this what caused the delay? )

This strikes me as a confusing & pointless use of the term CEP.

Its confusing and pointless if you want to be pedantic… On the other hand, if you want to understand the context in what I wrote what I did, that’s also your choice. It boils down to this, a very low/ negligible CEP plus a good fuze+warhead design usually translates to a good SSKP, which is the final metric of effectiveness.

Both references for SSKP.
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2011/12/terminal-guidance-made-in-india-seekers.html
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/March%202010/0310bombs.aspx

And, the combination of both accuracy + destructive effect:

In 1965, Davis was looking for a weapon with the accuracy to hit routinely within 30 feet of a target and powerful enough to destroy it.

Of these, about 5,100 were direct hits, and another 4,000 had CEP of 25 feet.

“For point targets and in good weather conditions, these weapons had nearly a single-shot kill probability,” said Gen. William W. Momyer, former commander of 7th Air Force, in his book Airpower in Three Wars. “If the target could be seen and the target was vulnerable to the explosive power of the weapon, the probability of damage with a single weapon was 80 to 90 percent.”

Its not that complex really. You can design for a decent SSKP by doing a variety of things. But @ a simple level here, plot the CEP and in the process you will keep a record of the miss distance for all the tests & plot them anyhow on the graph. See the max miss distance, and also calculate the miss distance which covers 80-90% of the shots, and then design a warhead & fuzing system which can still damage/destroy the target for that 80-90%. You went and got yourself a decent SSKP. So if you have a very low CEP, then by extension even the distribution for the larger number of rounds (80-90%) is likely to be low, and the munition is very likely to destroy the target provided you took the warhead design into account. Nobody designs for CEP in isolation, because then, it is pointless. But it is usually given as a standard figure because, it is an accepted metric and its a done thing.

Twinblade,

Seriously – if they do that, I will be mega surprised. One of the focus areas of the MMRCA was to get aircraft asap with the MMRCA…replacing the Spectra?

Seems doubtful, especially given the Mirage 2000 upgrade does not have an Indian made EW suite and will have the standard ICMS, again to save time and integration expense.

Perhaps they are referring to yet another Indian jammer being integrated onto the aircraft as an additional payload for enhanced coverage. All the latest Indian ones are integral to the aircraft (RWJ etc) but two were displayed as wingtop podded units for the Super 30 MKI model. Still don’t know whether those were from DARE or the Russian SAP pods though.

I wonder what AKM is referring to when he says BEL will get onboard for integration of SAR and EW suits(sic.)… since the SAR payload for UAVs is still under development by LRDE and a podded version is not (yet available) and the RBE-2 AA will itself have SAR.

If they are talking of integrating Israeli/third party SAR, why do they need BEL for that, confusing.

First off, thanks for a polite reply.

Then buy a A380 as a fighter. It will have enormous growth potential

Which is what the Flanker, F-15s are, for the fighter world. Just ask any Viper jock about the Eagle. 😉

Seriuosly
1. Operate autonomosly, isnt a problem for a Gripen, but its strongpoint is the opposite .
Dispersered assets that teams together is always much stronger. Information sharing and utiliesing is the force multiplier not size. Big size means higher costs and lesser pilot training, and therefore a force divider.

Look with regards to the cost issue…this is the thing.. An AF like the IAF is willing to pay the costs to pay upfront for high training AND wants high combat potential. With simulators, you can actually cut down on a lot of the mission avionics and task training and concentrate flight hours to a reasonable level (150 hours, 300 sorties plus). The IAF actually does much higher, but the 150 hours level is what one hears a lot nowadays from sim equipped forces..

Other AF’s which have budget constraints and don’t anticipate a war situation versus very heavily equipped foes (with many heavy fighters) and want to do air policing, limited operational tasks in peacetime or want to strike the ideal balance between peacetime costs and yet want high combat ability (albeit with constraints).. will appreciate the Gripen..and your argument is perfect for them.

2. Sensors is better if bigger, that is right if its at the same tech level, but a bigger fighter is more visible for enemy sensors. So this counteracts each other. bigger isnt better in that sense.

For many AF’s – they will still go active to detect other fighters.

If everyone is “off”, then nobody is seen, because there are no pings on any RWR/ESM system.

Countries like India cannot field many AEW&C/AWACS platforms, so they do appreciate long ranged sensors on their primary fighters as well..with low RCS platforms/ high ERP jammers, you need long ranged sensors to compensate for the shortfall..

3. Big Payload possiblity are only good in very rare occations and thats not in
A2A missions. Better fuelfraction is maybe possible for a bigger jet, but not always the case. That is better for endurance.

Thing is mixed missions are increasingly likely…the big advantage of Multirole heavies is you can send them into a deep strike mission loaded for both the A2A and A2G mission.

What I like about the Su-35 is that it has wet wings (which means longer endurance, and time on target). Its ideal for complete enemy air suppression. You send a Su-35 package out, they can take out your GBAD with long range ARMs (Kh-31), do DEAD with Kh-38s, take out AWACs or even unwary fighters at range with RVV-BDs, can carry RVV-SD/MD for BVR/WVR and after all that, still hang around to keep your remaining fighters off the runway…this sort of flexibility is possible with these zerstorers.. thats flexibility which offensive AF’s prize.

And it can do this without sacrificing range at the same rate a light fighter would, when it starts getting loaded towards it max limits..

4. Small jets will have equial potential. Normally a sensor is replaced these days, not added as on the 3 gen. and therefore equial potential.

I didn’t get this..
Anyways, just look at the radar aperture on a Flanker sized platform versus what is on a MiG-29/Tejas/Gripen etc. 1 sqr mtr versus 650mm. That translates to larger gain, and much better performance for the same ERP.