TeerGripen does offer something that Tejas Mk2 does not offer: lower risk of failing to meet performance criteria plus lower risk of being delivered late.
Hardly so. What is the exact quanitification of risk & what are the IAF’s stated performance criteria for such a categorical statement to be made? Second, again, with an indevelopment aircraft, all one has at this point of time are subjective metrics to quantify risk. The customer at least in one public instance openly disagreed with SAAB regarding its claims & even risk quantification.
If x% is allocated to somewhat lower risk for the Gripen, that can easily be counterbalanced by x% more risk allocated to the supplier diversity in the Gripen’s subsystems, and that unlike the Tejas, its lifecycle support is wholly based from a country India has virtually nil experience of dealing with, in aerospace.
The EF, Rafale are any day more “proven” both in terms of platforms with limited evolution in terms of avionics underway, and also from countries where India has dealt with.
Simply put, both the MiG-35 & Gripen NG are high risk, low reward options for the MMRCA.
The former is in a manner of speaking even lower risk than the Gripen NG, but adds risk in terms of (lack of) supplier diversity.
It is reported 22 Nov 2010 that Tejas Mk1 falls short of specified IAF performance criteria in several ways:
– sustained turn rate
– speed at low altitude
– angle of attack
– certain weapon delivery profiles
– how far performance falls short of specification remains classifiedSource: Aviation Week and Space Technology
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=190430&d=1290491503
And how exactly is this news? All these are known & exactly why the higher thrust Ge-404 engine is sought.
– In October 2010, the head of the LCA program himself pointed out the STR and noted that the inclusion of HMDS made up for the marginal difference & the IAF has been ok with it. With Python 5 & Elbit DASH the LCA will be pretty effective in WVR, as the pilots anyway praise its maneuverability & agility.
– So far LCA can go supersonic at low & high alt, which is still better than many of the IAF’s legacy fighters. Its achieved something like 1.6M at altitude & 1.15 M at sea level.
– Angle of Attack is being expanded with flight envelope expansion, which is why EADS has been signed up for consultancy. The aim is to speed up the process by FOC.
-Certain weapons delivery profiles are not applicable – again known – the Tejas cannot carry a maximal 4T of payload as originally planned. Again, when seen in context, this is hardly a great shakes as the average Air to Air & even A2G loadout does not top 2-2.5T max, and the Tejas was hardly planned to replace the Jaguar. This is a case of scope creep, where a point defense fighter went to the airsuperiority role and then multi-role, and then the last step is being touted as a problem, when the IAF has long operated fighters with far more limited capability, to effect. E.g the MiG-21 Bison, and the 4 AAM equipped Mirage 2000-H.
Most importantly, the above “shortfall” comparison is irrelevant, unless the exact deviation versus the Gripen variants are sought in the context of the discussion.
For instance, several subsystems on the Tejas MK1 outperform whats on the Su-30 MKI. Just another case of the IAF asking for the best. In the case of the LCA, I know for a fact that the ASRs were drawn up using the MiG-29, early block F-16 (the best dogfighters) and the Mirage 2000 as benchmarks.
So unless the IAF’s specific ASR’s are brought into detail, this “shortfall” is misleading, especially since the IAF’s test pilots are praising the LCA MK1 to the gills, especially the agility and maneuverability.
The IAF is however putting its bets on the second block, mark or tranche, as well they should, since why should they split money on two systems with different logistics. Plus the MK2 will come with a better avionics fit as well.
But the bottom line is, that as far as light fighters go, India has its bases covered, why spend more money and acquire something that is at best marginally more effective.
Buy something with significantly more punch, like the EF, Rafale or Superhornet. With $ 12 Billion of tax money going into this purchase, it better well be something India can rely on & is fairly developed already. Not an indevelopment aircraft “promised” by 2014 at “lower risk”. Hindsight is that new types invariably take at least 4-5 years for bugs to be ironed out.
In the case of the LCA,the developers are next door. Sweden is not next to India, and at least for the other “heavies”, they have been through the painful maturity curve already, with fighters being either flown off carriers, or exported in numbers to places like Saudi Arabia or UAE with pretty tough climactic conditions. The improvements they are receiving are at best a new radar and some more gizmos, not a substantial rework of the airframe, a new engine, new avionics, new mission computing, new EWS & all from disparate suppliers worldwide, and stated to be ready when the IAF wants it.
Teer@Teer,
theory is one thing praxis another!
Invariably, and it is for this reason I’d take the EF, or Rafale or F-18 over the paper Gripen NG, which makes a lot of theoretical claims, including the have Meteor will win against Su-35 sort of stuff..but in reality, who knows.
In short, my statement just pointed out that if we go by on paper specs, the Gripen NG does not bring anything to the table that will grant it automatic superiority against evolved PLAAF Flankers, tomorrow, irrespective of how much discussions end up with terms like “AESA”, “EWS”, etc etc. A heavier, more capable aircraft will anyday be better than the Gripen NG for Indian requirements.
TeerTejas MK-2 against the Chinese Flankers would pretty much fare as well or as bad as the Gripen -NG, provided Meteor would be integrated. And Meteor is offered by MBDA for integration with multiple fighters, not just the Gripen.
Both aircraft have reduced RCS, will have AESA radars, integrated EW, HMDS with advanced 5G missiles & BVR armament as well. The swash plate alone, is not a determiner as similar systems can be retrofitted to the LCA as well.
Having the same engine is simply put a plus.
And being in the same weight class as LCA MK2 is de-risking, in case the latter falls behind and/or don’t live up to expectations, so the order can be increased or discontinued, depending how LCA pan out to be.
Which is what SAAB may hope, but its not in India’s interests to acquire a fighter which does not offer much, if anything over the Tejas class aircraft & on top of it, seeks to supplant its local product.
TeerInterview: Dr Prahlada
Thanks, interesting to see DARE get the avionics job for the MCA. In otherwords, they are picking up a lot of what ADA originally did for the LCA, freeing up ADA to concentrate more on the core design and program management, and systems integration.
TeerTo break up the costs versus what LCA has cost so far and is allocated:
1. Tejas MK1 (basically, what has been spent/is in the process of being spent so far) – 12,520 crore (approximately $2.85 Billion). This includes Kaveri engine development so far, plus all other systems/items associated with LCA and re-used in upgrades of other aircraft.
1 Crore = 10 Million
Tejas, incidentally, has clocked around 1,420 flights with 10 prototypes till date. Its FSED (full-scale engineering development) Phase-I till March 2004 cost Rs 2,188 crore. The Phase-II, to be completed by December 2012, will cost another Rs 5,778 crore. NLCA FSED Phase 1 by 2014 – – 1715 crore. Kaveri engine – Rs 2,839 crore.
2. Tejas MK2 & NLCA Phase 2 – (actually even a portion of FSED Phase 1 of NLCA, but just kept that for simplicity with MK1).
Money yet to be spent, funded till 2018: 4749 Crore (~37.9% of Tejas MK1 cost) – $ 1.08 Billion
To add to that, there is fabrication of two Tejas Mark-II, with alternate engines, to be completed by Dec 2018 for Rs 2,432 crore, along with development of indigenous technologies for Rs 396 crore. Naval Tejas FSED Phase-II slated for completion by December 2018 for another Rs 1,921 crore.
TeerDon’t know much more, have heard that Indian industry or scientists have not been given time of day sometimes purely down to non technical reasons.
Scuttlebutt. By those standards, every program the world over can be alleged to have “dark deeds”. Brrrrrr.
Also would say that LCA due to its length and cost over run now needs a financial and technical independent review.
Enough committees look into the LCA periodically (hence the latest figures from a scheduled Parliamentary review) & there is a bi-monthly review team with the IAF already in place.
TeerWhat strict export controls (I know nothing about these)?
The MEA (Min of External Affairs) & several other stakeholders can anytime throw a wrench into the works. India still does’nt have any coherent policy to build or sustain an export agenda for its arms industry, bar offsets, which is tied to what you asked below.. the controls were akin to the earlier license raj, in that the process was so convoluted, from what one heard, that it was pointless to even attempt it.
Strange approach. Why does India see things so differently to Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, USA, Sweden? What advantage flows from India’s approach?
No advantages at all, bar the fact that only we know how these systems work in detail, but even that could have been addressed via export specific systems versus domestic ones.
India’s policies regarding exports and what not have a lot to do with its belief in setting a “neutral path” to the west/soviet union camps post independence and trying to follow a foreign policy around “we are peaceful and harm nobody”…while cursory attempts were made to develop a local arms industry, they were and are primarily directed towards internal needs.
End result is exports are pretty limited, and restricted to small arms/ammunition etc to allied states or ones which GOI has decided are ok, to export to after a lot of bureaucratic wrangling. Other systems have gone out in the form of subsystems, eg radar computers on Su-30 MKM/MKA display processors etc, some radars to Asian countries.
In recent days, there has been much talk of exports for more “dual use” items such as helicopters, plus weapons systems/platforms developed via JVs, eg Brahmos, MTA etc.
While the ALH is indeed being exported, there have been reports the MEA objected to an ALH deal in South America, plus there have been no large weapons systems sales yet.
Its a big lost opportunity really, because India has some really ok cost effective systems in naval systems, EW, radars, missiles, and small arms which can get some customers. Theres regular interest expressed in these items, but the Govt. of India has to enable and facilitate exports via a coherent policy
Things are changing now, but am yet to see any significant push towards exports/the international market for any key national programs from the Govt of India, even though developers/manufacturers do receive interest. Most programs continue to be very focused on the domestic market.
The growing involvement of the private firms in manufacturing should make some headway though in terms of targeting international requirements, plus the large JVs – FGFA, MTA, Barak-8 missile system should hopefully land orders thanks to the partner country
TeerAs a point defence interceptor the limited endurance in mind and be supported by a much better network maybe.
Bison is viable against Pak in both strike/escort (check out the AFB distances and basing on both sides) & of course point defence, against PRC its mostly point defense and battlefield support/CAS.
Bison weapons package includes RVVAE, R73, dumb bombs and rockets, Kh-25 ARMs, KAB 500 TV Guided Bomb.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Eqpmt/Walkarounds/MiG21Bison/Bison08.jpg.html
TeerYour sense of humor aside, there is a constant attrition rate of MiGs in the Indian ranks.
India is pretty much retiring all its MiG-21s bar the upgraded Bisons (125) and MiGs with MOFTU (~54 planes). These will get replaced by the LCAs.
MiG-27s will also be phased out bar the Upgrades, and MiG-29s are only 3 squadrons in number and are getting heavily upgraded, new avionics, life extension, new engines
Even with the Bison upgrade the MiG-21s are of limited military value, when pitted against FBW designs.
Most of the threats Bisons face are non FBW, Mirage-3s, J-7s etc.
Despite your claim the F-16 is either the upper end of the light-weight classs or the lower end of the medium size class. But your last sentence show, that you are not serious about the Indian claims at all. 😉
India classifies the F-16 newer variants as the medium weight class.
Teer@ Teer,
don’t get me wrong and I wholeheartly agree with You in all “facts”, really and I admire the archievments, ADA/HAL had made with the Tejas. Additionally as such I understand that You are – esp. as an Indian taxpayer – are quite enthusiastic or passionable (and surely You are ;)).
But in the end – and once again it’s my opinion or my conclusion – I think with these repeated changes, add-ons in requirements, necessary modifications, delay and cost-overruns it is sad.
It reminds me – You won’t like it – to the once proposed Chinese J-9 or even later J-13. The PLAAF wanted everything – like You said a fighter in the class of the MiG-21 with the performance of the Mirage 2000. To be powered by a moderne indigenious turbofan, to match the latest opponents. Then because of several technical difficulties, PLAAF-political interference, added and revised requirements, …. and again most of all the inability to master the technical challenges in time and on budget both types needed to be re-designed several times – similar to the re-engineing project of the Marut leading to the HF-73 … and finally shared the fate of both Chinese types: they were canceled in the end because each time the design was frozen, new changes were demanded and in the end it was much too late to be introduced into the PLAAF. Like Sens said, they better had chosen the J-9III… test it and modified it to a J-9IIV or V to be introduces; at least they would have gained some flight expiriences.
Deino,
Don’t get me wrong, but you are seeking to draw parallels to a topic which you are very interested and passionate about, namely the Chinese aircraft industry. Your knowledge and desire to learn more about the Chinese aircraft industry, relate things to them, is commendable but it can also lead to some apples to oranges comparisons. Please allow me to explain.
First one, being China is not India in terms of decision making processes, and the second is that India’s position is not the same as China’s as it was in that era which you are seeking parallels to.
1. China’s political decision making process is very different to that of India’s – I am not going to get into the topic at depth, because it will lead to an off topic diversion, but India’s decision makers seek consensus (which leads to a lot of delays, and what not) but it involves all stakeholders, and that decision once taken is implemented.
In other words, the LCA project’s respective stakeholders have been meeting regularly on the program and handling all sorts of difficult decisions. Just see how the LCA MK2 came about. It would have been easy otherwise to just cancel the program saying “no engine”.
In other words, India’s decision making is not as “fast” as that in a top down system, but I believe it is more sustainable, as all stakeholders are brought on board. Otherwise, the primary, user the IAF would not support the program. Here are the IAF’s views from AWST, Oct 29, 2010.
PVN – is the IAF’s current chief of staff, PV Naik. In India, if he is ticked off with the program, he would say so.
AW: Tejas is finally entering the pre-IOC (initial operating capability) phase, and there seems to be a renewed energy with the ADA (Aeronautical Development Agency)-HAL. Looking ahead, what are the lessons India learned from the Tejas program? What should be done now to ensure that the program does not slip further?
P.V.N.: LCA is a major landmark in our aerospace industry’s efforts to achieve self-reliance. Many valuable lessons encompassing various aspects of design and development of an aircraft have been learned from this project. The project required the development of state-of-the-art technology in the form of avionics and airframe, as well as engine and weapons integration to the platform. The project has witnessed a lot of interagency coordination – right from its inception, design and development, prototype production and air worthiness certification stage. I am sure these lessons will greatly benefit our future projects like Medium Transport Aircraft (MTA) and Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). Now that ADA-HAL has the requisite technology wherewithal in this project, I do not foresee any major slippages on the LCA project, and the aircraft will be inducted in initial operational configuration in a few months time.
Point 2:India’s position is not the same as China’s as it was in that era which you are seeking parallels to.
This is straightforward. Look at the number of firms/countries willing to cooperate with India today even if we disregard the fact that India itself has achieved a fair bit of maturity when it comes to aircraft design and development and onboard systems.
There are two things that are to note that countries are willing to cooperate, and second India can afford “good to have cooperation” as versus just “essential cooperation”.
India is taking consultancy from EADS to speed up the program (as it too has experience via the 4G+ EF program), its working with Israel to put some additional modes on the Indian radar for the LCA. It has put out a RFI for Europe/Israel to help with the NG radar for LCA MK2, it has integrated Israeli Dash Helmet and Litening pod on LCA MK1…
Now, you can surely see, was this kind of assistance available to China when it made its J-9, and did China (then) have the economic capability to seek such assistance.
I don’t disagree with you that inducting simpler fighters and keep working on them would be a simpler approach. But the IAF is a very finicky customer and will not agree, so that is the decider, and things go according to their specifications.
I can tell you for a fact, that even if we just took the LCA MK1 and did the engine change, and got into service ASAP, within 4-5 years, IAF would be pointing out it did not have AESA radar or some gadget which they are getting on their latest jets.
They have their justifications as well given developments in neighbourhood.
Given such constraints, the current path has been decided, of LCA MK1 to MK2.
Once again, now the aim to hold on is different … to develop a moderne, indepentent aerospace industry, and surely the IAF will get some Mk 1 in the next years and finally more (as You said to the original requirements) Mk 2 … but to introduce that type fighter in 2016-2020 is much too late to tell this an international competitive success. Sorry or simply my opinion.
But Deino who says that the LCA wants to be an international competitive success? The LCA’s first and foremost priority is Indian AF needs. Its very doubtful that the LCA will be ever permitted for export given India’s strict export control permissions and all sorts of political wrangling! Its of course a “waste” of a lot of revenue generating potential, the original program aims were never around export success.
To be honest, India simply does not care for the international market, the LCA is primarily, first and foremost for the local one.
I am reasonably sure that even the MCA may only be meant for Indian needs.
And more I won’t say on that(like Witcha asked me); promised. :p
Deino
Please forget what anybody else says. You are welcome to discuss your point of view & it’s always interesting to see well thought out statement as versus one liners “buy EADS, cancel this, buy that” and similar silliness.
TeerHow many Tejas MK1s are in frontline service right now?!
The first Tejas MK2s have to enter frontline service from 2012 to be of some use.
Just the Tejas MK3 could be delayed after 2015 to a reach a level close to a F-16 or to be similar to a JF-17+. 😉
There are no Tejas MK3’s. Hold on with all these numbers lest you get jumbled up.
There’s only the Mark 1, which in terms of avionics is already every bit as capable of some of the IAF’s upgraded fighters whereas the Tejas MK2 has a standard set even ahead.
So there’s no need for an intermediate type between the MK1 and MK2.
The Tejas MK1’s are entering service from 2011 onwards. Production, then will shift to the MK2 variant from 2016 onwards.
TeerIf mk2 comes into service in 2020 it might as well be cancelled.
Why should it be cancelled, when its coming into service from 2016 and India is acquiring similar aircraft from the MMRCA (4G and thereabouts) as well.
Skip a generation get help from eads.
EADS’s aircraft are itself one Generation behind current state of the art.
How will a forty year old unsuccessful design help the IAF in 2020?
How would a thirty year old unsuccessful design from EADS help the IAF in 2020?
TeerNot intending to start another heated argument on confirmed facts and whatnot, but back then many articles including at least a couple of IAF quotes(and some right here I believe) said that the IAF saw things differently from the Russians and were looking at a ’20 ton’ class fighter, and were thereby impressed with the MiG MFI proposal.
Going by those, I concluded that the IAF ultimately going for the 30-ton proposal in the end and the MCA not getting merged with the PAK-FA(as many thought initially given the economic sense in funding only a single 5th-gen fighter) meant that they were going to rely on MCA for a lighter 5-th gen solution. This may be my own deduction, but the paragraph above is true.
I am aware of those quotes, but like I said, beyond “he said this” or “that was said”, look at the conclusion today. If the IAF was accepting the FGFA only because it “must” it would not acquire 200-250 (some estimates suggest another 2 squadrons beyond this as well) fighters. It’s not hard to figure out why either, if one has kept track of whats being going on in the IAF once they started getting used to the Flankers. Suffice to say, its a very potent aircraft. The Flanker K variants we got were themselves an eye opener for the IAF. The result is the IAF’s wholesale acceptance of the MKI class platform.
That’s assuming there won’t be a repeat order for MMRCA, as well as disregarding the AMCA.
Even with the MMRCA additional order (3 more squadrons) the HCA category will far outweigh the MMRCA. When the MCA starts coming in, it will move closer to the HCA numbers, but the overall trend remains valid, that the IAF is moving towards heavier and more capable fighters.
Curiously, the Rafale also has a larger payload than the MKI, and with its sensor suite is at least as capable overall.:D
I doubt the Rafale has a larger operational payload today than the MKI with the kind of munitions that have been integrated onto the MKI already. Not to mention would like to see even the overall numbers and how they stack up. The Su-30MKI is an evolution of a long range air superiority platform into the multi-role element, and still holds up pretty well. It has Kh-59M, KAB-500, Kh-29 series LGMs, Kh-31 ARM/AShM, LGBs, apart from a range of air to air weapons, plus some other items, which is pretty ok and flexible. With the Glonass deal signed, expect more Glonass guided munitions as well.
The only advantage the Rafale has is in terms of AASM, and even that was offered for integration onto the MKI (google for it).
And you are incorrect about the sensor suite being as capable. The RBE-2 AESA “will” bring primary sensor capabilities somewhere on par with current Phase 3 while the MKI upgrade being discussed will again take the MKI far ahead, while the OSF currently lacks a Thermal element, though it does have a TV but then again, the advantage here is of limited use unless one needs visual recognition as a certainty for engagement.
The MKI also has more sensors integrated in terms of surveillance and recon capabilities, including an all weather SAR sensor & ARM capability via a long range sensor pod.
The advantage for the Rafale lies in sensor fusion and a pretty decent integrated EW suite, the Spectra, but the MKIs are getting advanced capabilities as well, both via the upgrade and other declared efforts.
Simple fact is size matters. The MKI & Rafale have different approaches to the problem, of look first, shoot first, with the Rafale choosing the discrete approach, but with a 1 mtr radar aperture, and substantial internal volume, the MKI has substantial performance already and continued growth potential in terms of newer avionics updates, with the right kind of investment
TeerAfter ten years in service-time every fighter is in need of an avionic upgrade or it becomes dated very fast, when the ones still in production will be built in advanced Blocks already.
http://de.rian.ru/industry_agriculture/20100818/257128736.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Fighters/Su30MKI/
A main setback from the long introduction run of the Tejas is the constant ageing of its avionics in the meanwhile.
An avionic upgrade is much more demanding than to replace some older items by new ones. Here the technical architecture, the power- and cooling-demands, the related space and possibility of system-integration becomes a costly challenge.
…….The Indians are well advised to start with a limited Tejas “A” to get practical experiences in front-line service a fast as possible.
After some years we will see a Tejas “C” and a Tejas “NG” like the Swedes did to make the best from their limited money. 😎
A:
The Tejas A is the Tejas MK1, and which is why 40 are being ordered to get practical experiences as fast as possible.
Philip Rajkumar:
The IAF says that they will take 40 LCA Mk-1 aircraft and those aircraft are important for the simple reason that it will enable both ADA and HAL to obtain spares consumption data as to how many maintenance hours are required per flying hour. This data can be accumulated by using the LCA Mk-1 over this decade to put product support in place. The hope is that by the time the LCA Mk-2 is ready to enter service; all these problems would have been ironed out.
B:
The Tejas C/NG is the Tejas MK2.
Program Director, Subramanyam, referring to the LCA MK2
Within the programme feasibility, we will be revamping the cockpit electronics to bring it more up to date with technologies that will be prevalent around 2016. There will be advanced electronics, improved cockpit displays and interfaces which will remain contemporary even in the 2020’s.
The advanced electronics include an AESA radar. Again, to compress time taken & development risk, the program includes a tieup with a proven radar house (Selex and Elta competing) which will provide the initial Tx/Rx chips, while India does the rest (exciter, receiver, signal/data processing)
In short, the Indians are doing exactly what you propose. The key difference is that they are trying to compress the production numbers in “Tejas A” while moving onto “Tejas C/NG”, and adding the numbers there.
TeerOn the move to heavy fighters:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-to-spend-over-25-billion-to-induct-250-5th-gen-stealth-fighters/articleshow/6685002.cms
“We are looking to induct 200 to 250 FGFA in phases from 2017 onwards,” confirmed IAF chief Air Chief Marshal P V Naik on Monday.
Along with 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft, which India plans to acquire in a $10.4 billion project, 270 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for around $12 billion and 120 indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, the FGFA will be the mainstay of India’s air combat fleet for the foreseeable future.
In other words, the number of Heavy Aircraft, FGFAs & Su-30 MKIs are more than double the number of MMRCAs & LCAs (which are both at the same level, 120 aircraft each). Even with additional MMRCA & LCA orders, the Heavy category will remain predominant.
Sign In
