“Empires that rose & fell, including one which was explicitly non-Indian in origin & at times (I know, not always) tried to impose a pan-Islamic identity . . . come, come.”

Point remains though that as Boom said, a pan India identity existed before Indian independence and multiple Indian empires hence sought to bring political unity on those lines & several even achieved it to a large extent.

India’s marxist historians and their moonbat obsession with their self proclaimed definition of the term secular and other shibboleths has made them a disgrace to the profession, leading them to deliberately ignore and even distort history, but earlier sources before they started their tender attempts, do note these details.

There was no way modern India would have hung together if not for the shared identity in the past which has coalesced into political unity several times over. All said and done, terms like bharat, bharata, bharatvarsh are universally understood because of the past identity.

@Boom, Didn’t i read how you were defending Tejas not long ago ?
Now you are saying Tejas days are over before it even entered service ? :confused:

I think he, I and the other posters who track the IAF seriously have been fairly consistent that the IAF is now standardizing on heavy fighters.

The Su-30 MKI fleet is at around 15 squadrons planned, the MMRCA at 6 (+3) options. These MMRCA numbers are replacing the MiG-23 BN and MFs which recently retired, plus make up for some MiG-21s also.

The LCA at 2MK1+6MK2, again same levels as MMRCA. These will replace the MiG-21 Bisons and the few squadrons of MiG2-21 M/MFs still in service.

The LCA MK2 development is totally built around the IAF transition to more capabilities expected than originally intended for the MK1.

The FGFA is now planned at 214 units – around 11 squadrons (and more may come). Its clear the IAF has shifted to a heavy composition.

The MiG-27, Jaguar, MiG-29 all belong to the MMRCA class weight wise. Even the Mirage 2000 comes close to that. These will be replaced by the AMCA in turn.

Look at the transition, its moving to the Heavy Weight Class (with 15 squadrons of the Su-30 MKI and another 11+ of the PAK-FA).

Earlier, the IAF was dominated by the MiG-21.

All this business of fuel costs is kiteflying.

The IAF is facing a PLAAF heavy with Flankers (regarded by the IAF as its most capable planes) and a mix of medium J-10s. If the J-20 matures, it too goes into the heavy category. The J-7s etc wont really count in an offensive campaign against India. The PLAAF will rely on fighters with a decent payload and fuel combination. Especially if we factor in a hot and high combination.

The PAF needs to be dominated for any IA campaign to be effective in a sustained manner. For this, the IAF again needs heavy fighters with other classes, for the edge in payload and range. Since the PAF again relies mostly on point defence & medium fighters.

So, understand things in context – its not that light fighters are ineffective or the Tejas class is not required. Its that more is expected. The IAF in a two front campaign – if considering all out conflict – which is what the IAF is looking towards, will be outnumbered. It needs every bit of capability it can get. MiG-21 class aircraft will carry lighter payloads & fuel. The LCA MK2 and now clearance for the AMCA, FGFA etc clearly show the IAF’s thinking.

The fact that Russia offered India the option to collaborate in the development of the 2nd engine and the IAF now wants the same (at least procurement) shows IMO that in this case at least, the powers that be in Russia have decided to give the Indian side the best engine, as versus trying to fob off the previous version.

Engines are notoriously hard to develop, integrate and then validate, so its unlikely that there were will be a Russia variant and an India variant, but a common one for ease of production, and maintenance.

Coming to avionics, the training mode stuff also shows both countries have worked out means and methods to have each AF do its bit without compromising any IP of either side.

Now there will be differences over time, but I think mostly in weapons integrated from the Indian side (eg Astra, Israeli/Indian PGMs) and some additional pods etc (Indian EW kit etc).

Otherwise, in performance terms, I do think both countries will share whatever they have. Otherwise the entire coproduction thing breaks down, because per current agreement, what India makes (Eg structures, avionics subsystems) will go on all aircraft.

Could Russia if it so chose have a new engine and avionics suite developed which is PAK-FA+, possibly. But why spend so much and for what and where will it come from (other programs will suffer). The key reason India was granted access to this project was because the Su-30 MKI and Brahmos ones went so well, with IP respected and successful programs delivered. And a key Indian contribution is money. Which frees up Russian money for its other programs, Su-35, Su-34, MiG-31 MOD, buying helicopters not to mention the huge amounts required for strategic deterrence. Keeping that in mind, JVs with a partner which does not rip Russia off, respects its IP when given tOT, offers a large market, is a decent way for program success (aligned objectives).

But in contrast to the MKI, I do think export variants may be a bit downgraded eg for other countries. Reason being in MKI, India was an investor and limited partner. In this, its a dedicated co-developer, so India too will have some issues about sharing IP with certain countries which may exercise with or have ties with certain other AF. Plus, this aircraft is no Su-30 MK2 but incorporates the best of Russias technologies for the next two-three decades to build on. I would wager they will see whom to give what to, and what ties those nations have with other OEMs, political alliances etc and evaluate a level of tech capable of transfer. IMO, I dont see a PAKFA MK-X being as effective as the ones India and Russia will operate.

thanks for the updates Teer. Wish there were reporters who took the effort like you do, rather than just writing up half-baked statements that leave much to the imagination and knowledge of the reader.

BTW can confirm this, that despite all those only too eager to write the program off (Deino :p) – there is widespread support for the LCA now. Its seen to have matured significantly, of course AHQ wants it ASAP, but there is none of the talk of impossible, should not have attempted it etc. Now its just speed up, get it operational with bombs etc fast. The + change in attitude is because NFTC guys have really praised its handling, performance etc.

Now ironically, that has partly come because ADA etc being paranoid have not slacked off on the testing and test for many many hours and even the pilot has to do a lot of sim time before they can touch the plane.

Hope the consultancy can help with speeding up testing. On weapons front, I think BVR firing is probably next, and most probably with Derby.

A guy – and I am not sure which organization he belonged to – and what he worked on – described the MMR as Indian Hardware with Israeli software and said integration of Israeli weapons would not be a problem. A lot of guys simplify difficult topics, but if what he said is true then I would say Derby it is.

Much ado over nothing…just got off chat with a guy who attended a LCA specific event where this was apparently mentioned..

This thing is the IAFs projection based on IOC (Final) certification, which is yet to be done.

At beginning of year IAF had asked for additional items to be added to the IOC and granted IOC (Phase1) with some tests yet to be completed …some have been done, some are pending thanks to weather issues (apparently you need clear weather for certain tests & all verification and validation eqpt to work) and some need to be completed..

Off the top of my head, I remember wake penetration trials and others had to be held..

So some of these remain to be done …and hence IAF just added +1 year taking it as a delay since IOC final has not been completed yet..

But certification associated guys (non DRDO) mentioned that both IOC and FOC can proceed in parallel.

So the delays can be made up to some extent.

Basically, IOC is all about handling, safety, a bit of basic weaponization & 80% of envelope. FOC is all about advanced weaponization & remaining 20% of envelope.

Mark 2 project should not affected by this & it is already proceeding in parallel. Also, certification for MK2 will be easier, faster as many of the basic things are certified in MK1 itself. Which of course is going to be comprehensive and based on a document drawn up by CEMILAC with input from everyone especially IAF.

Teer: Do you mean in the context of the Super MKI, the integration of the new Russian jammers with the DARE suit?

If they end up on the Su-35C, the Su-30SM and the Su-34 that is a sizable market indeed.

I am not sure if the Su-34 is even fitted with SAP-518, it seems to have its own EW complex going on. We will see what the future holds.

This one:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/AeroIndia2009/pkartikk/AeroIndia2011/Hanger-ADA/DSC_0504.JPG.html

Could be a local suite or, equally likely the SPJs could these since these would already have passed the painful EMI/EMC tests. And if they indeed have been chosen, with competing pods from ELTA and ELETTRONICA etc available, Russian industry has crossed a milestone.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ac247354c-f727-431c-86c2-3004eb28a9aa

Ausairpower

The most recent defensive jamming equipment to be offered on Flanker variants is the new KNIRTI SAP-518 wingtip jamming pod, displayed at MAKS 2009. Concurrently KNIRTI displayed a high power support jamming pod, the SAP-14, intended for centreline carriage on a large pylon. To date little has been disclosed on these pod designs, which are likely to retain the wideband phased array / lens antenna system first used on the Sorbstiya.

http://www.ausairpower.net/KNIRTI-SAP-518-MiroslavGyurosi-1S.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/KNIRTI-SAP-14-MiroslavGyurosi-1S.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/Su-30MKI+SAP-14+SAP-518-MiroslavGyurosi-1S.jpg

Su-30MKI Flanker H model with KNIRTI SAP-14 and SAP-518 jamming pods on display at MAKS 2009. The pods have already been flown on the Su-34 Fullback (© 2009, Miroslav Gyűrösi).

@Teer – thanks for your explanations of how things are done in India and how that affects an industry where India has the possibility of becoming a player on the world stage – production of sophisticated fast jets

No problems!

Mmmm… not good. 🙁

It used to drive local project managers insane. They faced all sorts of red tape and when they tried to shortcut the process, the CAG (sort of India;s NAO) hits them with this process not followed, that explanation didn’t work etc. One positive is that so far, seniors in the organizations take the blame and press ahead, with the GOI turning a somewhat nelson’s eye to some of these issues. I used the past tense, because with India’s economy now having stabilized (somewhat) on a decent growth trajectory, foreign partnerships, new production or infrastructure investments, more funds for R&D are no longer treated with the amount of alarm, they earlier were. Eg in the mid 80’s – one IAF procurement guy asked the PM directly for help. PM deputed a senior bureaucrat who still tried to stall procurement. Finally, the IAF basically told these guys – forget missiles at least give us bombs which we can drop!

Good. 🙂

If indigenous projects are partially crippled by a “developing country” approach yet still provide “more bang for the buck” than buying foreign, just think what could be achieved if the procurement system were altered to avoid many of the self-inflicted problems that now beset it!

I don’t recall what LCA + Kaveri R&D have cost but I think it is less than US$5 billion equivalent. That would be cheap had India started with decades of experience in fast jet design. IMO to get where LCA is now starting from scratch is quite a phenomenal achievement at that cost.

Exactly. Unfortunately – India – like many developing countries, has many with a crisis of confidence in the countries own industrial capabilities, and sometimes due to operational requirements, unable to wait for the local industry to mature. This has meant, and still means, a bonanza for arms exporters.

Slowly and steadily though, local industry is climbing up the value chain. The R&D guys have managed to coopt private industry and public both for systems and integration. The LCA is one example of how despite all the criticism, local industry/R&D etc have managed to convince a demanding customer to support a program. A decade back, there were calls that the program be dropped. Now, there is a firm commitment to a MK2 which basically adds what should have been done earlier, were funds and politics (sanctions post the ’98 nuclear tests) not an issue, add a good relatively mature (or derived from one) engine.

Now, the next challenge is how to scale up for mass manufacture, to meet the huge domestic demand plus the needs for offsets.

This means a combination of privatization, pvt-public players or just open competition.

Things are ok-ok in aerospace missiles and electronics, not so great in land systems and worst in shipbuilding when it comes to timely production. Or even scale.

The last has significant labour cost advantage but always end up missing deadlines due to labour issues and what not.

However, with the offset bonanza beginning and pvt and public players both sitting up and taking note, Indian industry is gradually transforming. There are so many programs planned now, that development is now happening. One only hopes it accelerates.

For that to happen GOI has to admit that its policies need to change towards more competition and not less. It seems to be happening but time will tell!