who writes this nonsense that you quote ?

Shiv Aroor, an Indian defense journo…tends to rely a lot on hyperbole at times though, to be frank, and his knowledge of defense tech has got some solid holes.

Seahawk, can you explain your reasoning why you think so vis a vis the Typhoon?

Arthuro,

In response to an earlier post of yours, the Irbis is not 20Kw average but 20Kw peak, and 5 Kw average.

And perhaps the Gripen NG has no radar issues…

Even the Norwegian evaluation mentioned one of the reasons they rejected the Gripen NG was because of the risk associated with the radar, given this was Sweden’s first all up FCR (not prototypes) and some of the claims SAAB were making were optimistic and not verified.

For its part, Thales can draw on both experience with the (P)ESA RBE-2 plus its AESA prototyping, and has a functional AESA radar today, whereas the SAAB team is jumping from MSA to AESA directly & the Americans have ready, operational AESA radars. Only the Russian team would be similarly hampered, given that they too have a prototype Zhuk AESA, but even the baseline just about met the limited range requirements specified in the original RFP, which set liberal minimum requirements in terms of some parameters. In contrast, the Swedish radar was still in development at the time.

Well made points Kramer.
—-

Besides neither the NG or the MiG-35 made much sense for India anyhow. If they are dropped, I for one am glad. The first made no sense at all with the LCA in development – and if the IAF has considered this plus the radar as the reason to rank the aircraft lower, that speaks well of the thoughtfulness of their analysis.

Similarly, the problems with the MiG-35 are also obvious, overreliance on Russia, its not-ready-yet avionics suite, which even in finished form will have critical disadvantages versus the integrated suite fielded by aircraft like the Typhoon & Rafale.

Its great that the IAF has indicated the Rafale & Typhoon as its first choices, because both of which types are the sort needed to hold off the PLAAF. I have always maintained that if India is to rely on an aircraft for the next 40 years, it has to be one with the best airframe performance and an avionics suite that is already world standard at induction, to avoid expensive customization. Both these aircraft meet that criteria.

Aurel, the Tiffy may not have AESA but its firmly promised for the T3 derivative aircraft to be supplied to the IAF for the MMRCA, and its current radar is quite formidable. In terms of range, its at best equivalent, or at worst inferior to only the APG-79. In trials, as you’d know, it tracked std aircraft (MiG-29s, Phantoms) at 180 km plus. The EF/EADS team would have not found it hard to sell the point that with an AESA array, its performance would only improve.

See, nowhere is the yeoman service of the MiG-27 questioned. We all know its Kargil exploits. But its high time for it to go now, because its quite old and the PROBABILITY of its breaking down in mid-air (in whichever profile) is still quite greater than that of a brand new fighter jet like Tejas (even after all the MLUs etc.) Ultimately a new jet is a new jet, and old is old. Also, Tejas will be easier to fly and will give immense relief to the pilots.

You mentioned that its required to be flown in a strict lo-lo profile by IAF pilots, where a single mistake can cause an accident. But advanced jets like Tejas can take this demanding flight profile much better on virtue of its superior structurals as well as superior Flight-control technology. Its shocking that IAF intends to fly Soviet-era MiG-21s upto 2025 and MiG-27s upto 2015, whereas it has no concrete plan to augment fleet strength other than the bumbling decade-long MRCA saga, and a knee-jerk purchase of 42 more Su-30 MKIs.

You are preaching to the choir. There are several folk who noted that the Tejas MK1 could be a very useful addition in the A2G role, but for better or for worse, the IAF wants an all singing, all dancing LCA that can do everything, including being the best at air to air. So that means only 2 squadrons of MK1 will be ordered (for now) till the MK2 comes (another five to begin with). There are chances that more MK1 could be ordered if the MMRCA is delayed further. But that saga is now apparently on track.

Having said that, the old aircraft, probability stuff really does not factor that much because the newest MiG-27s were upgraded, and with the avionics upgrades, and other improvements, its attack profile can be varied considerably. The pilot effectiveness has also increased by an amazing amount. He has a state of the art RLG-INS suite and encrypted comms, new ECS keeping him tolerably cool and an effective EW suite to defend him. Can carry long range optical sensors for recce and strike, can designate LGBs himself or have them designated via third party.

In IAF exercises, the MiG-27 Upg has lobbed Israeli LGB with UAV designation. Consider the ramifications, given the number of UAV inductions and the Upg of 2 Sq completed. These aircraft are all night capable, and also have a secondary EW role – in other words, these are not the 80’s era, lic produced MiG-27s in terms of capability.

They are very useful platforms and offer the IAF substantial flexibility and combat punch.

The Qatari offer of 40 Mirage-2000-V seems more interesting now, given that 5 more years have passed since India refused them citing a high price. The French offer of 40 Rafales can be explored too. These two can be executed very fast, given that they’re ready to be delivered.

They wont buy Mirage 2000’s because the French/Qataris, in perception at the very least, were asking for an arm and a leg for them. The Rafales add a new type to the IAF at great logistics expense, and wont be considered either.

And might I add augmenting the orders of Tejas Mk.1 If HAL is so gung-ho about licence assembling MRCA, PAK-FA, light choppers, MASACA and CIBACA from all over the world, they can as well manufacture 2 more squadrons of Tejas Mk.1 too in addition to the 48 on order. Shouldn’t be a problem for them.

You have a bee in your bonnet about HAL, but HAL would be the happiest if more LCA were ordered. There is a huge HAL team allocated for the LCA & HAL/ADA both determinedly and successfully pushed the case for the second LCA squadron.

HAL’s license production days are transitioning to own builds. They have a huge range of plans underway to make the next generation of helicopters, aircraft – fighters and transport, with local involvement and are working closely with ADA, CSIR to develop these plans.

—–

Avionics upgrades are done to upgrade a jet’s fighting capability. However, no amount of structural MLUs can bring it close to a new jet. Old can’t become as-good-as-new. But the IAF thinks otherwise. True, in the 1990s and in this decade they went for a massive upgradation programme of MiG-21, 27 and Jags which was very useful, given that there was a cash crunch to buy new jets and we were under sanctions for a good part since the past 2 decades. But when quick and better alternatives are available NOW, why hang on to MiGs ?

You are somewhat mistaken here. It is a common practise to do life extensions by testing a sample representative specimen to destruction & in conjunction with simulations and then replace airframe components, remanufacture items to add several years to the earlier presumed TL. This capability has been established at NAL and successfully employed for MiG-21s and even other aircraft. It is used when original airframe design and materials data is not available from the OEM. However, in the case of upgrades such as the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000, the deal includes the OEM determining this data at their expense and applying that expertise back to the aircraft.

Upgrades are a very cost effective way of making expensive combat assets remain relevant.

What you dont understand is that “these MiGs” (ie why hang onto MiGs) are a substantial portion of our inventory and can be upgraded to remain combat effective for a long portion of time, till effective local replacements are available.

Replace them with ad hoc purchases of Mirages, then you have to spend on upgrading them as well to a common standard, and plus you reduce the potential pool of airframes for aircraft such as the LCA, beyond the initial five squadrons for Mk2. Plus these upgraded MiGs use local avionics extensively, off the shelf Mirages will use only MCs, from India. They are a money sink. E.g., we are paying through our noses for the Mirage 2000 V upgrade, and trying to link that to offsets.

Right now, we need to maximize our bang for buck, upgrading MiGs offers substantial advantages, we have a huge logistics chain for these aircraft already existent, and can with some avionics, mechanical tweaks make them much more combat effective and pilot, maintenance friendly.

The MiG-21 Bisons for instance can:
– Perform Air to Air – CAP & escort – R73E w/HMCS and RVV-AE (BVR)
– Perform Air to Ground – Dumb bombs, rockets, PGMs like KAB series (TVguided Bombs for C3I nodes)
– Perform SEAD – Kh-25 ARM
– Perform EW – Elta El/l-8222 SPJ (the MiG-27 UPG has this, plus now the new much more capable DARE EW suite)

They are easily very potent aircraft, if employed well. Otherwise, we’d have to procure six squadrons of aircraft off the shelf.

Similar is the case with MiG-27s.

There is no reason to overreact regarding the MiG-27. Its a fine aircraft which has served the IAF well in the low level strike role, and its higher attrition figures reflect what is demanded of it and its pilots.

Over the years, the IAF has made many of the spares and assemblies required for this inhouse, with HAL doing its bit, and the crucial engine can also be upgraded to the AL-31F standards, which engine type has a huge inventory thanks to the Su-30 MKI induction.

The IAF has also upgraded 40 MiG-27s to the UPG configuration, which makes these aircraft amongst the most potent in the strike role in the subcontinent, with an all new cockpit with HUD/MFD, new INS/NAV capability, new munitions and Litening integration, and improvements to comfort and survivability.

In particular, thanks to their EW fit, these aircraft are fairly powerful. The EW fit is a derivative of the one being fitted to the LCA. Called the EWSFA, it was commonly (and mistakenly) described by Defense News as Mayawi.

These very capable jamming suites can handle multiple, modern transmitters and are much more effective than the legacy Elta EL/L-8222 SPJ which by itself was fairly decent in the role, and the MiG-27 UPG was originally fitted for these systems as well.

Overall, with the upgrade, the legacy MiG-27s effectiveness has increased several times over both in terms of striking power and survivability.

The recent accident occurred near Kolkata. The location indicates it was one of the non Upg MiG-27s. The Upg MiG-27s were being deployed to the western sector while, the older airframes were shipped to Hashimara.

now now, no need to get sensitive over comments made about the Korean industry being more efficient than the Indian defense industry.. KAI got a bit more help with the over all design for T-50, but in the end both Tejas and T-50 use a heavy amount of foreign components, engines, radars, etc.

Tanks on the other hand is something else.. I think the K1A1 and the new K2 programmes are far more successful than the Arjun. the K2 already secured exports for its technology for Turkey’s new tank.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/asia/korea_south/main_battle_tank/k2/pictures/K2_Black_Panther_main_battle_tank_South_Korean_Army_South_Korea_011.jpg

What you & most folks who do these sort of comparisons dont understand is that for all practical purposes, South Korea works hand in glove with the United States. It has deep access to many US supplier lists, US technological assistance and furthermore, it can acquire systems off the shelf from Europe or even repackaged via JVs (Samsung Thales Techwin) without any political objections raised.

India faced (and still faces) a huge hurdle in terms of technological assistance. The K2 you mentioned above has systems from across the world, available to Korea off the shelf and customized, and the PM can concentrate on system integration and overall design. The K1 predecessor, was pretty much a US supported design. The cooperation extends beyond just design and technology transfer to the crucial field of heavy engineering. SoKo firms dont face any restriction in collaboration and procurement of both manufacturing equipment and even R&D. They built on this to get a fairly decent R&D setup in military, which piggybacks on the worldclass civilian R&D which again was setup without any sanctions/political issues dogging it.

In contrast, the average Indian PM has had to face a usual delay of 2-3 years to even get an off the shelf system, thanks to India’s non aligned position and its status which placed it directly in opposition to the United States political objectives. The limited funding means that a total develop from scratch approach is not possible either.

Take a look at the Arjuns gun sights. The Indians originally procured them from Europe, but the Germans said they could not help as the US would not allow them to, the Dutch who offered something, were in no place to support their systems a decade into the project as the crucial Thermal sight was American and they were denied a license, and it took several years of diplomatic efforts till France stepped in, agreed to work with India on supplying the imager.

The only way around this logjam is for India to invest heavily, in the tune of billions of dollars to develop its local R&D and manufacturing capabilities, along with creating an ecosystem of world class civilian capabilities (look at how Taiwan created its electronics ecosystem) for sustainability and long term commercial growth, but thats easier said than done in India, where widespread political corruption works hand in glove with vested interests (civil and military) to preserve the status quo. One Chief Minister recently spent around $420 Million to have her own statues made and installed. The great economist PM of India serves more as a figurehead and is busy pottering around with loony peace overtures in search of a Nobel prize whereas the economy takes on more and more debt, and corruption piles on. In such a milieu, India’s defence organizations have and will continue to face an uphill struggle.