I can not see your point. When the Kaveri is over 20000 lb’s, the LCA design is too to cope with that. The F404 installed in the LCA shares the same dimensions as the F414.
It is no secret, that India is forced by the delays from the Kaveri to use the F404 as an interim engine to get the LCA airborne. The LCA will be built in several batches at all. If the first batch is with Kaveri or not does not matter really. The LCA has to see “front-line” service as fast as possible to learn from that as fast as possible too. A Rafale F1 is good enough for A2A work only and did field M88-1 engines, when the later built will receive advanced M88 and the FBW will mature in software to widen the flying envelope and integration of missions. To find all shortcomings through testing alone is a never ending story and by that the LCA will become outdated some day. What the Chinese did with the J-10/F-10 or FC-1/F-17 since the 90s could be done by India in a similar way. When the F-35 will enter service in rising numbers, the stealth feature is no longer limited to the USA in general. Neither France, Sweden, Israel or China did start a new fighter project with a total new indigenous engine at the same time. In the 60s India may have learned that lesson with the HF-24/HA300 at all.

I think we both are approaching the matter in different way, I did not dispute your point of as soon as service and then slow mature I also agree kaveri is one of the product being responsible for the delay of LCA airborne (to put it better way developers knew the timelines by when LCA should have to be airborne was something not possible for kaveri to meet thus GE was choosen quite early), thats how things are done definitely, look at MKI project it took nearly a decade.

All I am saying is F414 is not needed for LCA as of now at all, HAL has paid developement cum order for upgradation of GE F404 engines to IN20 standards, and it will see it through IOC/FOC easily as quoted by one senior in a report.

Kaveri will come by then, thus this upgradation to F414 from F404 IN20 will be at the cost of kaveri, which naturally I dont want.

BTW I did not understood the bolded part of your point, also F404 and F414 are of same dimensions?

The Indian MMRCA does look like to keep pace with technology development of fighters. Just to keep insight into that at first. Normally that money had to be poured into the LCA-program to boost own aviation progress.
If a foreign fighter has to be selected, the F-18E will offer the most gains in technology. Stealth is still a “black hole” for India and many other countries f.e. The F-414 can replace the Kaveri to accelerate the LCA into service.
It does not matter, that the LCA did not fullfill all missions at first. Will it be the Rafale, Typhoon or Sukhois, they does offer some basics at first, when they does maturing with every lot built to the desired level of missions.

Sens, F- 414 will require serious modifications in the airframe and will not be in lieu with the ASR of what it wanted with LCA, plus has huge potential to kill the Kaveri programme which the US lobby in India would love to see.

Regarding stealth, the term is quite weird, if you ask me, VLO is something only F22 has achieved IMHO viz all aspects, VLO/LO cruise missiles et al are not that black hole for many countries, material stealth is something we have been working steadily and so are working on reducing IR signature of exhaust, RCS reductions etc etc. I dont think MRCA prioritises on ‘stealth’ as ‘al encompassing stealth’ is something extremely few planes are out there, rather most of the MRCA contenders are birds that are build keeping LO in mind, strong sensor suite etc which imho possibly what the IAF is prioritizing upon.

Compare it with the EJ2000 in general. First flight in 1994. First serial 2002.
Level two from 2007 and level three in ?? Rafale is similar.
First flight of Tejas in 2001. First serial in ?? Level two [A2A+A2G] in ??
Level three [full system integration] in ??
The Tejas is similar in size to the JAS39C. For the JAS39N the F414/EJ200 are options. The Tejas is flying with the F404 already. The Kaveri does not offer more thrust than the F404/R12 and has still to mature.
The Tejas started in 1983. The planned first flight in the 90s was delayed by the problems with the Kaveri for several years. The interim solution with the F404 did allow the first flight in 2001!!
It may ease the temper, that a similar solution was found for the JF-17 by the Chinese.

Sens, Tejas may have started in 1983, but there was zero government funding till 1991, Tejas started in 1983 is same as MCA starting in or before circa 2000.

I have made 3 posts regarding kaveri here, all extremely credible informations and from credible sources, the K9 has already reached/crossed the thrust level of F404 which will also be the one to fly in LCA first, while simultaneously the K10 version with foreign assistance in some specific areas will rebuild/retune those areas and the developers are highly hopeful that the design is being made in such a way that it will cross the design intent thrust or the actual ASR thrust from kaveri that is over 20000 lb’s.

Joey I respect you might be privy to information you dont want to give so wont push that and similarly on my side.

But what is in PUBLIC DOMAIN leads me to think that their are very few companies in India being able to match Tier 1 suppliers like for example Spirit Aerostructures, GKN Aerospace engineering, SAAB, MHI, KHI etc etc etc..

The aeronautical Sector was KILLED by our government. while Socialist and Commie policies made sure no private investment happens in these sector and on other hand our own government starved the government controlled sectors till we opened up in 1991 IIRC, Today we are in such a position (our aeronautical private industry I mean) that they are NOT in a profitable position to have their own BIG R&D because of cost and timeline being NOT feasible with the market user and expectations, thus they can only assist the government organisations at this stage right now. MRCA deal will lift their Economic status so that they can take further ‘risk’ to venture more into the market.

Even if these private companies learns proper production management to supply chain it will be a big gain for us. Think it this way, what I mean is they can share projects as small stakeholders and develope things but if your expecting them to do massive R&D into aeronautics sector (like one company making actuators, one venturing into SC blades), the time line they will take doing such thing, might not be feasible with user-time expectations. Now if government sector transfer the knowhow of these things and forms small private industries then its great.

They can do R&D but as small stakeholders and R&D where they have expertise in, and to have such a complete system working there needs to be good synergy between government and the sector, things are moving that way, Mahindra has signed up a civilian jet production deal with NAL, I hope the RTA happens soon, it will be a good boost for these Small Industries. Remember I’m talking of Aeronautical sector only.

yes, but country’s defense R&D depends on total defense budget. look how many fighters IAF are going to buy, repair, upgrade as well as development of advanced UAV, UCAV, MCA, PAK FA they r tlking about.

sometimes back i have read an article about IAF’s lack of strategic thinking/planning, it seems really correct. why we need a new MRCA, when we have huge number of MKI (230 totally)? If they need more fighters, why dont simply buy more MKI which is much cheaper than MRCA (126 for $ 10.4 bn)and put rest of the money in R&D of UCAV and MCA?

OK, if they need something like next generation sensors, we can surely get some (15) F-18G or Rafale (with Spectra) to get advanced EW and sensor suite. Other things like 5th generation avionics, AESA, stealth we can get from Israel, France and Russia. There is no need for huge fighter aircraft deal………………

one of the reasons could be lack of trust in LCA program, especially the timelines.

Ajay you know LCA timeline better than me. R&D is a important factor, you cannot throw it away citing the reason “I lack Trust” , that way we will forever remain a buyer and not producer. The first piece always takes time, plus see how many projects has been done through the LCA project.

Rajan stealth et al is not something you ‘buy’ and put up on something, things just dont work that way. but rest I agree but as I have said we are not talking something NEW but repeating the same old story over and over, get in JV with Israel for AESA, hang it inside MKI, etc etc, its useless to talk off when it aint gonna happen.

India could be in for an Aerospace Boom, just as any of the other BRIC nations infact but i secretly think Brazil probably has a better chance of an Aerospace Boom then India at the moment.

India needs more private venture First teir suppliers. Tanaja Aerospace is the only one that comes onto the radar and their capabilities are not so impressive.

Tata does some work but is not very impressive and the rest well they manufacture licensed “built to print” light aircraft that are still only sold in India.

The indian administration or even state ministers need to give special dispensation to people wanting to do anything Industrial/hitech. so that India may finally have its Industrial revolution.

All the “GHOOSE” that has to be given to police+government officials etc etc is a real quagmire.

Their are companies in India who have licenses to make materials for aerospace but yet you hear nothing of them. Its a shame and an wasted opertunity.

Thats incorrected, I know you might say why didnt you laid down in the thread started by me on private sector, but lets just say i donht feel comfortable giving out list of private firms working on various projects.

Other than that NO private industry in India will have profit margin and can maintain timeline and everything that calls on them to ‘design’ a fighter without public-private partnersip from ADA/NAL/ARDB/CASDE etc etc etc.

I dont think IAF have so much money to invest on so much fighters and projects. like

1. SU-30MKI production line
2. Mig-29SMT/K upg and repair
3. IJT production
4. Mig-27 upg
5. Jag production and upg
6. LCA final developments and production
7. Mirage-2000 upg
8. LIFT development and production
9. Hawk AJT production
10. Dhruv ALH production
11. LCH development and production
12. CAT development and production
13. MTA development and production
14. Saras production
15. Harrier upg

And now

1. MRCA production
2. PAK FA development and production
3. UCAV development (DRDO project)

these will be big burden for HAL as well as IAF, it will be more complicated if an US fighter been choosen.now India will operate fighters from Russia, India, US, UK, France and many inputs from Israel. Current LCA progrogramme have pretty good upgrades with AESA radar, sophisticated Mayavi electronic warfare system, advanced weapons and stealthy structure. So IAF should go for atleast 400 LCA for the next decade. And rest of the money should be invested in PAK FA and UCAV (DRDO).

And do you know a lot of them has been done? Thr jaguar/migs/harrier et al, mirage deal signed, jaguar production line will end by 2010, mig 29/MKI infrastructure for full support are already there, production line will end by 2014, so if you see it in a sense i dont think it wont be much burden by HAL but maybe financial issues which IAF might face.

For now I’m uncertain about the products like LIFT and CAT, so better take em off the list.

Joey,
I agree with most of what you said. And while I might not fully concur with 100 % of your analysis, I must commend the mature way in which you have put forward your arguments.

I also agree with you implying that as India is spending only 2.5 % of its GDP on defence, it should be accepted as reasonable and responsible – and hence not squeezing too much from poor farmers pockets. And if not, what might be my solution?

I’m glad you liked my mature way of putting arguments, I like it that way only. But it seems to me you still have not dropped the word of sqeezing too much from poor farmers pockets, I dont know if your aware of Indias Economic expenditure but if you consider a little bit of different way of interpreting things the Tatas contributes 2 to 3% towards GDP, so a couple of multinationals combined will be enough for its defence expenditures who are definitely not poor and sometime are hardcore Capitalists (like small companies), it does not have to squeeze pockets of the farmers to spent for defence nor would it add anything value that it can put up in its defence. Compare it with the number of 35% of GDP that is being spent for upliftment of living of the poor. I mean how can the poorer than sub-saharan african farmers, contribute towards defence expenditure?

All I can say is that Pakistan being a much smaller country than India, needs to spend much bigger percentage of its GDP, because IT HAS TO keep a credible defence against a real or perceived enemy, for its survival.

My thinking is that if Kashmir and Siachin disputes could be solved amicably(acceptable to the people of Kasmir, and off course India and Pakistan), then both countries could lower their respective defence expenditure even further, and plough the money thus saved into poverty alleviation programmes, like providing further relief to the farmers through schemes like interest free loan (even grants); subsidies on fertilisers and machinery; etc. I am sure there are eminent economists in India (Sardar Jee for one!) who could suggest best means for poverty alleviation amongs the hundreds of millions who are even poorer than the poor of sub-saharan Africa.

No where I said Pakistans defence spending should not be more than Indias (afterall its upto you guys and i concur with you that it should be more to keep parity with India) but it was my response to your analogy between poor farmers and indian defence expenditure that made me bring Pakistans expenditure in the scenario.

But I did not liked the second part of your observation, While Im no economist but it lacks proper facts in proper place.

1. Indias defence expenditure is unlikely to go down, as a nation with more than just one threat of Pakistan it will stay around 2.5% to 3% mark. India in its policies was never a Pakistan centric country but that is not true vice versa (in relative terms).

2. To say that India’s economic progress is hostage to Kashmir is absurd as India invests 35% of its GDP back in the development projects which speaks volumes about the way the things are done. Kindly follow the way 11th 5 year plan is being thought and put on papers and executed and then u will see where does India’s priorities stand and how the social upliftment is the top most priority for the Indian establishment. All these stories talking about India’s progress being hostage to issues revolving around Kashmir are the manifestation of some sections of the West controlled Indian media (well most mainstream are), some Self styled/hated wannabe Indian socialists and some other media including Pakistani (which inturn re-produces them). At the moment the only issue that holds us from doing over 10% GDP growth rate is bottle necks in infrastructure which is slowly evaporating, We will be investing around $475B just on infrastructure in the next 5 yrs.

3. I feel solving Kashmir issue ATM is not in Pakistans interest because Pakistan exactly wont like India using diplomatic clout to further strengthen its position in Asia with gaining access to Central Asian markets flawlessly from Pakistan etc etc etc. Besides, Pakistan definitely wont like the money spent in Kashmir to deviate further towards more defence productions as well, but saner peoples do want it to get solved and to me the only non-millitary amicable solution will be making LOC the IB, ofcourse this is debatable but this isnt the thread for this and talking about acceptable to people of Kashmir, its a tricky question but to reply it in shortly I dont know if Pakistan has any official record of the transmigrated demographic changes right from 47, or has any anti-property rights in its part of Kashmir, so you see yep it is a tricky question and it can be legally challenged/questioned.

4. Regarding Grants et al, again I have told you, Farmer suicide and other such social issues are a de-centralised phenomenon and all because of poverty, while de-centrally such aids will do wonder like take example the worst hit area of Maharashtras Vidarbha region, I’m all for giving farmers of Vidarbha more incentives than farmers of Punjab, and there are special packages for them, but you have excluded my one point answer in previous post which reads, “the funds that is available to farmers in respective constituency, injecting more will do any good than it is doing” – Yes funds are not a issue here (even the Finance Minister said this) corruption and proper implementation are issues, and we all know if the bureaucracy was corruption free I’m sure it would call for Pakistan to invest more for their defence than it is doing at this moment. Besides ofcourse there are states which likes to keep its farmers poor, afterall they needs peoples to wave the red flag for them and vote for them and they need illiterate peoples to buy their theories which comes very cheap at the cost of some perks which are like giving one fish to a whale each at a time, West Bengal is one such example where perhaps even after continous 33 years of communist rule not much has changed in ground zero, while Gujrat has doubled farmers income (in absolute value) within just 5 years and is the most economically prosporous state (3.2 times more PPP than that of the nation for a example to start with) and financially stable, recieves largest FDI and what not. So see These are all de-centralised issues, tripping funds from here and there is unlikely to do any good, proper implementation of what is already there is likely to do best.

5. Part of your post reflects the analogy of ‘trickle down effect’, little I feel do you understand the need to bake your cake first before eating it then distributing it, wealth distribution is not some magic quanta but a slow and gradual process, afterall we remained worlds largest contributor by GDP (either first or second) for a long time well over thousand years per data we have now. Even if you go to each farmers house to house and donate them monoey, poverty is unlikely to decrease, so all this flimsy talks of distributing wealth is being done in a gradual manner, it is not that easy to manage a country of this scale whose over 90% (guessmate, not sure about %) was under deep poverty just 60 years back. It takes time, let the cake bake first properly before you talk about ‘trickle down effect’.

There are many such points which can be talked into based on proper facts and understanding ofcourse the one your talking to should also have logic of reasoning and should not be in denial but I have kept it short as this is a aviation forum, IMHO as you can see Farmer plight are unlikely to end at the cost of lowering defence expenditure, and is not much related with Indo-Pak issue as well, If you still believe that lowering defence will do good to the farmers and it is tied with Kashmir issue without giving logic your either in denial or reading too much of The Economist.

Thornley, A. and Perera, R. (2000) Education and Human Development. Development Express. No. 03 1999 – 2000. Quebec: Canadian International Development Agency.

You see there are problems with these kind of reports (though I havent read the report), to make things simple because these reports are based on official government reports (in all its points) which itself are normally quite older than the reports, like all the recent economic report are based on data which are quite older and even they suffers from severe Economic clarities, they ignores the Macro economy and ofcourse a parallel Black Economy and many such incompetencies, From 1991 Economic crisis to 1998 FY not much had changed in the Economic front relative with from 1998~99 to 2007~08 a lot has changed.

To give you a example ,consider the recently out report that around 70% of the unorganised sector earns less than $2 per day, some media twist of 60% of population being earning less than $2 not withstanding, firstly, when they say people living on X amount, they mean consumption per capita, not income. Secondly, all data on income, wages, consumption, etc. is based on NSSO’s 1999-2000 round, i.e. the reported data were 8 years old, given in FY1999-2000 prices, and have all of the limitations of a CSO-run data collection process (viz. competence, discounting black money, etc.). I would posit that while 70% of the unorganised sectors population is poorly off by Industrialized standards ($2/day reported to the government by my is roughly equivalent calculation at PPP to the income poverty lines in the EU-15), they are still 4x as well off as Nigerians (where 70%+ of the population lives in below 1985PPP$1/day income poverty), i.e. the poverty of this group is relative not absolute.

Russia Tests Powerful ‘Dad of All Bombs’
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV – 6 hours ago
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jixX4YqeeXCrWvmEEv9JMABhXmVw

MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian military has successfully tested what it described as the world’s most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, Russia’s state television reported Tuesday.

It was the latest show of Russia’s military muscle amid chilly relations with the United States.

Channel One television said the new weapon, nicknamed the “dad of all bombs” is four times more powerful than the U.S. “mother of all bombs.”

“The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability,” said Col.-Gen. Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military’s General Staff, said in televised remarks.

Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn’t hurt the environment, he added.

The statement reflected the Kremlin’s efforts to restore Russia’s global clout and rebuild the nation’s military might while the ties with Washington have been strained over U.S. criticism of Russia’s backsliding on democracy, Moscow’s vociferous protests of U.S. missile defense plans, and rifts over global crises.

The U.S. Massive Ordnance Air Blast, nicknamed the Mother Of All Bombs, is a large-yield satellite-guided, air-delivered bomb described as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.

Channel One said that while the Russian bomb contains 7.8 tons of high explosives compared to more than 8 tons of explosives in the U.S. bomb, it’s four times more powerful because it uses a new, highly efficient type of explosives that the report didn’t identify.

While the U.S. bomb is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, the Russian one is equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives. The Russian weapon’s blast radius is 990 feet, twice as big as that of the U.S. design, the report said.

Like its U.S. predecessor, first tested in 2003, the Russian bomb is a “thermobaric” weapon that explodes in an intense fireball combined with a devastating blast. It explodes in a terrifying nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud and wreaks destruction through a massive shock wave created by the air burst and high temperature.

Thermobaric weapons work on the same principle that causes blasts in grain elevators and other dusty places — clouds of fine particles are highly explosive. Such explosions produce shock waves that can be directed and amplified in enclosed spaces such as buildings, caves or tunnels.

Channel One said that the temperature in the epicenter of the Russian bomb’s explosion is twice as high as that of the U.S. bomb.

The report showed the bomb dropped by parachute from a Tu-160 strategic bomber and exploding in a massive fireball. It featured the debris of apartment buildings and armored vehicles at a test range, as well as the scorched ground from a massive blast.

It didn’t give the bomb’s military name or say when it was tested.

Rukshin said the new bomb would allow the military to “protect the nation’s security and confront international terrorism in any situation and any region.”

“We have got a relatively cheap ordnance with a high strike power,” Yuri Balyko, head of the Defense Ministry’s institute in charge of weapons design, told Channel One.

Booming oil prices have allowed Russia to steadily increase military spending in recent years, and the Kremlin has taken a more assertive posture in global affairs.

Last month, President Vladimir Putin said he ordered the resumption of regular patrols of strategic bombers, which were suspended after the 1991 Soviet breakup.

(This version CORRECTS spelling of military official’s surname to Rukshin, not Rukhsin.)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL1111636620070911

A new ordnance, claimed by the Russian military the world’s most powerful non-nuclear bomb, explodes in a giant fireball during a test in this undated television image shown by Russian Channel One television, Moscow, Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007. The Russian military has successfully tested the air-delivered bomb, Russia’s state television reported Tuesday. Channel One television said the new ordnance, nicknamed the “dad of all bombs” is four times more powerful than the U.S. “mother of all bombs.” (AP Photo/Russian Channel One Television)