AbhimanyuFirst of all don’t quote my post out of context please! Secondly I said it before that it is mainly a Russian development, remember 25% Indian involvement? But that doesn’t change the fact that it is a partnership and not a simple procurement as I showed you at the examples of EF, or in comparison to Saudi Arabia!
You’re backing off from your earlier statement. You admitted that HAL’s involvement will be the same as it’s involvement in the Su-30 MKI — which is NOT regarded as a JV. Now you back the 25% development claim….
Yes, HAL produces the spares of other aircrafts, but not developed by HAL right? You are the one that wants more indigenous developments and now you are happy with HAL simply producing parts for others with no use for Indian forces?
Please comprehend posts properly. If HAL produces spares for F/A-18, it doesn’t mean IAF must buy the F/A-18. So similarly, let HAL develop parts for PAK-FA and earn profits. But don’t farcically call it a “JV” and so don’t force the PAK-FA down IAF’s throat.
Again, if you develop Indian parts and puts them into Pak Fa, or FGFA it is not a licence production and if you fund for R&D and produce parts it’s also not a licence production.
The wrong assumption in the above statement is that HAL will design the FGFA’s components. This is the single biggest myth propagated by HAL. I’ve argued variously on this forum that as per clear statements and hints from Sukhoi chairman Mikhail Pogosyan and HAL vice-chief, Sukhoi — not HAL — will actually design the twin-seater variant for India. It’s not that HAL will take the PAK-FA’s blue-prints and develop the twin-seater and add their composites. Sukhoi will do all of that. And then Sukhoi will give the finished FGFA to India. And HAL will copy it to mass produce.
Mate, you are so confuesed now, that you don’t even read your own source correctly!
HTT 40:
Again from your source:
No sir. IJT Sitara is a replacement for Surya-Kiran (refer wikipedia with it’s references). HTT-40 has Surya-Kiran specs (check it out) and can ideally replace it only, and not Deepak. It is a tandem-seater and it’s other specs too match the Surya-Kiran. The only difference is that it’s a turboprop.
NAL Hansa has HPT-32 Deepak’s specs, and so can replace the Deepak. Now, the question is why replace the Deepak with a tandem-seat trainer like HPT-40 or any import — instead of the side-seater Hansa. Only a token of 12 IJT Sitara have been ordered, which undoubtedly will be replaced by the imported option, as they have the same specs. So IAF is killing the NAL Hansa as well as IJT Sitara with these tandem-seat imports.
That is what you are claiming, but all reports and statements of Russian and Indian officials states something else right?
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-to-develop-25fifth-generation-fighter/381786/
Please learn posts comprehension. I said, Russian PAK-FA won’t use Indian composites and Indian computers. Please update yourself on what FGFA is. Like before, a clear lack of basic info (like many other examples of yours earlier). Whatever news reports that are there out there (including Business Standard) say that HAL’s contribs will apply to the FGFA. HAL’s got nothing to do with Russia’s PAK-FA, and so you can’t equate HAL to PAK-FA, vis-a-vis BaE, Yakolev and Alenia to F-35 JSF.
AbhimanyucoldFire2005, HAL’s so-called “25% workshare” in the customized PAK-FA was clearly reported by Business Standard correspondent, Col. Ajai Shukla in this report. Please also note that Russian reporters plainly call India as an “export customer” only.
NAL Hansa is used for ab-initio training, which has the same profile as HPT-32 Deepak that IAF wants to replace. Ab-initio trainers are used to get a rookie pilot take his “baby steps” in flying. HPT-32 was exactly like NAL Hansa :- a side-seater with same dimensions, top-speed, etc.
AbhimanyuYou always think in extreems only and don’t see that there is a way in between too!
India can’t develop and produce all arms on its own and especially not in the same quality yet, but it also don’t need to simply buy foreign arms like Saudi Arabia anymore. There exactly is the difference and advantages that we get through co-developments and jv, because we can integrate those indigenous parts that we are able to produce now (avionics for example) and also customize it for our needs!
Take MKI for example, it was way more than a simple procurement for India than the EF procurement for Saudi. We customized it from the start for those requirements and didn’t simply used techs that Russia offered us, we get the max of our advantage of access to foreign techs too.
I think you are quite confused between a JV and outright purchase. Actually, this is the problem in defence purchases nowadays too :- purchases are masked as JVs. Prime examples are PAK-FA, Barak LR-SAM/MR-SAM.
Pak Fa / FGFA will also be mainly a Russian development of course and we will do pretty much the same things that we did with MKI,
The above admission is welcome indeed, and must be done by the IAF and HAL. These 2 entities are reluctant to admit the “ground reality”.
but this time we will also produce parts for Russian and possible export fighters. Our industry will make parts not only for 230 MKIs, but for 500+ Pak Fa and FGFA, so with every new fighter, they will earn money too! Will Saudi Arabia have this advantage? No, because they are only a simple buyer, whereas India will be (maybe a minor, but) a partner!
Note that HAL already produces spare parts, doors and gun-bays for Boeing airliners, F/A-18 and many USAF transporters. HAL was also to export used Su-30s to Algeria, but the deal didn’t go through. So, if this is repeated on PAK-FA it won’t be anything new, but there should be no obligation on IAF to buy the FGFA.
I also want Indian forces to be less reliant on foreign countries of course, but I see indigenous developments as one option, not the only option like you!
It would be silly imo if we turn down the chances and the access to co-developments, or procurements of superior western techs, because that is one of the major advantages we have compared to China!
China refused the Russian PAK-FA offer, as they are developing their own J-XX. It is after that Russia turned to India, which obliged.
You may read some very recent articles on PAK-FA by Russian reporters. They clearly and frankly refer to India as an “Export Customer”, and as a “funder” of the PAK-FA. It is only in India that the JV “hysteria” rules.
Note that since the MiG-21 to Su-30, HAL has always sought to licence produce jets. It seeks to do the same with PAK-FA, but with a difference — it wants to disguise the licence production as a kind of JV.
You are turning in circles, because I answerd this question 2 times before:
NAL Hansa can be a gap filler, but won’t offer any advantages to get a foreign development partner for HTT 40. Why HAL and IAF want to develop a new trainer, instead of using NAL Hansa is a different question and might depend on the requirements they have, but I guess we are not in the position to answer that. The fact remains, it is not a simple procurement, but a search for a development partner too.
See, the HAL’s HTT-40 exists on paper only. (news report).
I reiterate : Deepak is a side-by-side seater. Deepak crashes.Now IAF wants a replacement. So, why replace it with a tandem-seater (regardless of HTT-40 or a foreign one) ? What’s so wrong with NAL Hansa, which is also a side-by-side seater certified by DGCA and mass produced ?
Besides, the HTT-40 is meant to be a replacement for the Surya-Kiran. Then what happens to IJT Sitara ? Though to it’s credit, a small token of 12 IJT’s are under development for IAF.
And you think the US is not able to build the landing gear or EW systems for F35? 🙂
UK could offer way more, but just as Russia in Pak Fa, the F35 is mainly an US fighter and that’s why even UK remains a minor partner.
The above is inaccurate (do update your details). Yakovlev was successful in designing the STOL for a Yak-141 fighter, while the US did not have success since 1960s. So, instead of re-discovering that technology, it sought Yak’s help. Unlike Yakovlev, HAL’s contribution on PAK-FA or FGFA is nothing to speak of. It is nada, nil, zilch.
About BaE, they could’ve developed the EW and aircraft parts more cost-effectively than the US contractors, Lockheed and Northrop (which are also as capable). This doesn’t translate to the same to PAK-FA vis-a-vis HAL. This is because, the Russian PAK-FA will NOT use HAL’s composites or HAL’s mission computers at all. Just like the airframe of Su-30 MKI, HAL will merely manufacture some components locally for local use only.
One may sincerely hope that IAF cancels participation in the Russian PAK-FA, and does not purchase it as it may stymie the indigenous MCA, and the learning curve associated with it. There is still time in the negotiations with Russia.
AbhimanyuAs I said before, in point of view such a development can only called a succsess, when it’s ready and in serial production.
Serial production has to be taken by HAL, the country’s mass producer / licence producer. NAL’s work is done, a formal air certificate will be obtained in mid-2010.
An excuse? It’s just logic to assume that a company that has made several 100s transport, or passenger aircrafts will have less problems to produce MRTA, which is very similar to other IL aircrafts, than a company that has hardly produced a trainer and a light transport aircraft, with no similarity to RTA. For IL developing MRTA is not a big deal and HAL can take it’s part and get more know how and experience, for NAL it would be a huge project and the risk of delays are clearly way higher!
Well, you may call it “risk”, or “lack of experience” or whatever. The IAF has to finally take the plunge, is what I’m saying. Otherwise, there is nothing to distinguish between itself and a banana-republic like Saudi Arabia, which has no choice but to import. IAF atleast has a choice.
And if it wants to meet it’s own target of indigenization, it has to make the tough choice. Cancel MTA, and support the RTA. Otherwise, IAF can always say, “we don’t want risk, we’ll import from good ‘ol Russia”.
And where was I wrong? That’s exactly what I said, IJT and Hawk are no stage 1 trainers like Deepak!
As I told you 2 times before, the fast replacement is related with the search for a development partner for HTT40. I gave you a source for that and the order for foreign trainers is some kind of appetiser for such companies, to join the development.
No. HPT-32 Deepak is a stage 1 trainer — which can be replaced by NAL Hansa. As I’ve already told you, IJT is an Intermediate Jet Trainer, which you mistook for a stage 1 trainer earlier.
Now, the stage 1 HPT-32 Deepak that IAF wants replaced, can be done so by the stage 1 NAL Hansa. But instead of doing that, IAF floats a tender of foreign tandem-seat turboprops, that too with specs closer to Surya-Kiran. And Surya Kiran’s replacement is actually the IJT Sitara !
Just answer one simple question : Why does the IAF want to import stage 1 trainers, despite the NAL Hansa being available ? Here you cannot give the usual argument of “risk”, “lack of experence” and “no serial production”, because Hansa is certified by Indian DGCA, and by Australia, and is already mass produced and used by many flying clubs in India.
Some questions to you, what do you think is the amount of UK in F35? More than Indias in Pak Fa?
Of course it has. BAe has given high technology of JSF’s landing gear and many EW systems. Yakovlev of Russia has provided it’s expertise in STOL technology for JSF. In contrast, India’s contribution to the so-called FGFA is zilch.
Don’t go by stories of Indian composites and mission computers on FGFA. Patching composites onto an already developed airframe is hardly any contribution. Even Russia can easily do it on it’s own; they’re simply tossing this work over to HAL so that, “kehne ko miley”, that HAL did some tinkering on FGFA.
Russians are no slouches in developing composites for airplanes. Refer this news report. They can just as easily do the same work on PAK-FA, thank you HAL.
Sancho, here I could use your own “experience” and “risk” argumnt. If I were a Russian, I would ask, “why is the composite work on PAK-FA being sourced to inexperienced HAL, which hasn’t even got Tejas operational yet ? There are so many companies in Russia that have done this work so many times…why take risk with HAL ? “
Even countries like US, or Russia with higher developed defence industries are considering foreign arms, if they are better, or more cost-effective (UH-72 Lakota, Mistral class LHD), so why shouldn’t we do it?
It is a stated policy in Russia and USA that they’ll always develop their own weapons. Otherwise they lose their military super-power status. Banana-republics like Saudi Arabia (and increasingly, India) will never become military powers till they keep importing arms. They will always remain under the “thumbs” of arms companies.
AbhimanyuSuccess of Saras? The prototype crashed and I’m not sure if they entered test flights again, however in point of view such a development can only called a succsess, when it’s ready and in serial production.
The crash was due to pilot error. Despite that, the govt. has infused more funds to procure a more powerful engine for it for the 3rd prototype, as well as simultaneously funding RTA-70 (news report). IAF has already placed a firm commitment of 15 jets and an option of 30 more (source).
Note that even Gripen’s prototype crashed before it could gain IoC (check wikipedia for news reports & refs).
Regarding MRTA as I told you before, NAL has no experience, no engine, avionics or any important part ready, that can be used to fasten the development. It should be more than clear that it’s totally the right decision to join Ilyushin with their experience and the common and proven parts of IL 76, to replace AN 32 as soon as possible!
The above is inaccurate. The Russian MTA is as much on paper, as the RTA. So, the IAF must opt for the RTA instead of MTA. So, the old excuse of “not-on-time” or “delay” cannot be used here. But now, you’re fielding the excuse of “experience”.
Again, IJT and Hawk are now 1 stage trainers and these procurements are meant as a gap filler, till the HAL trainer is developed. Btw, I think tax payers will have no problems to provide money, if our pilots won’t get killed during the training, don’t you think?
Arey you please get basic facts right, IJT is an Intermediate Jet Trainer. It is intermediate after basic turboprop and before supersonic training.
Currently, IAF pilots are trained like this :- HPT-32 Deepak—> Surya Kiran —> Hawk.
………………………………………………………….Ab-initio………………intermediate……..supersonic.
HPT-32 Deepak is an ab-initio turboprop, and side-seater. And so is the NAL Hansa.
Surya kiran is an intermediate jet trainer and tandem seater. And so is the IJT Sitara, which is meant to replace old Surya Kirans.
Hawk is a supersonic jet.
Now recently, an HPT-32 Deepak crashed killing both pilots. So, can’t IAF can replace it by NAL Hansas ? But no, this being the IAF, it floated a tender for turboprop tandem-seaters having Surya-Kiran specs ! This is TOTALLY inexplicable.
I was only away for the weekend and they quit F35? :confused:
Well, yes ! Why don’t you go through the F-35 thread ?
Tejas, Dhruv, LCH, LOH coming, Saras, IJT, Astra, Helenia, LGB, Kaveri engine, MMR, AESA radar, what else do you want from IAF?
The above sounds as though IAF is doing a huge favour by purchasing indigenous hardware. Anyway, of the above, Henia is of your own making, Kaveri and MMR are not separate purchases than Tejas, LGB is just a modified kit, AESA radar is on paper for the MCA and isn’t on order at all.
IAF ignored LOH/LUH to replace it’s Chetak and Cheetah choppers. While it is true that in this case, replacement was extremely urgent (as Cheetahs are very old) the order needn’t have been as large as 400. It could have been much smaller, so that it could replenish the fleet before LOH starts rolling out. HAL has to do the mass production anyway—better do it for LOH, than some import.
Tejas Mk.2 is totally ignored for 126 foreign purchases. The order of 140 is just a token order. Dr. Natarajan of DRDO had said that the order should be atleast 400 for viability. Even though some senior IAF officers say that Tejas (mk.1) can replace IAF’s Jaguars and MiG-27s, this has fallen on “deaf ears”.
NAL Hansa totally ignored for foreign turboprops.
RTA-70 totally ignored for some Russian MTA. MCA was ignored (until now) for Russian PAK-FA, which is farcically being called a JV. A latest Russian news report has called India just an export customer. It is only the Indian media that has created the make-believe world of “25% joint development”.
Most of these are only in development stage, actually only Dhruv is ready and operational now, so it’s mainly on HAL, but also on DRDO, LRDE, NAL… to show that they use their chances. Till now IAF only sees many developments, but only delays and no results!
The above is inaccurate. Saras and IJT are also under mass production to meet IAF’s orders.
Come on mate you call Pak Fa a purchase and these are partnerships now?
Partnerships are Pak Fa, MRTA, or the SAM development with Israel, of course these are not on eye to eye level, but that’s simply because we are not on the same level as these countires.
I called it “partnership” in double-quotes, meaning so many so-called partnerships (read : purchases) DRDO has done already. Aren’t these many purchases enough ? Do we have to purchase PAK-FA, MTA, turboprop trainers, and 126 MRCAs despite indigenous alternatives ?
AbhimanyuSo LCA will be delayed more at least 5 years for engine issue once again?
Not at all. Kaveri has been delinked from Tejas programme in September 2008. As already stated earlier, one amongst GE-F414 and EJ-2000 will be chosen to power first 100 Tejas Mk.2 units.
So, Kaveri’s development is a long-term development, which may power Tejas units after these 100 units are manufactured. It will also be used on the indigenous MCA. Currently, it is planned to be used on ships of the Indian navy (news report).
AbhimanyuRD-33 is not an option for Tejas. Only 2 companies, GE and Eurojet have officially submitted their bids for the contract to supply 100 engines for Tejas Mk.2. The bids ended in Dec. 2009.
RD-33 licence production in India is mainly to cater to it’s MiG-29 fleet in the service of IAF and IN.
Kaveri will be integrated on a Tejas example by this year. In a collaboration with Snecma company of France, Kaveri will be further developed to increase it’s max. thrust and meet other parameters. The collaboation with Snecma is expected to yield results after 5 years.
AbhimanyuHow if we don’t know what performance one of its important techs, the radar offers? If we still don’t know what weapons it will carry and what about its weight now?
Still too much seems to be unclear, even for MK1, but maybe after IOC we will know more.
Please note that Tejas Mk.1 equates Gripen C/D in range-payload specifications, and nearly all avionics. Both have 8 weapon-stations and same internal fuel. Empty weight is also same. MTOW of both is 13 tons and 14 tons respectively. Only radar integration remains and will be done this month.
Not to forget that the Indo – Russian relation itself is improving, from a simple buyer – seller relation, to a partnership level (Pak Fa/FGFA, MRTA, NG helicopter co-developemt on offer…).
PAK-FA is a purchase :- radar, engine, weapons, avionics, stealth technology, airframe are entirely Russian. India’s contribution is actually less than 2.5 % and not 25%. Those claiming it to be a “25% joint development” are in denial or simply ignorant.
MRTA :- Why purchase MRTA, when NAL too is pursuing the RTA, after success of Saras ?
Not even the 4. gen version is ready yet and will only get FOC, most likely 1 year after a decision about MMRCA is taken!
The above is inaccurate. Tejas is classified as a 4.5 gen. fighter. If the IAF can wait 9 years for MRCA, another 1 year will not make much difference.
Not sure what exactly is the problem with NAL Hansa, but Sitara is not a turbo prob, also this should explain why the search for a foreign trainer:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/20/stories/2009072057201100.htm
That means the new trainers will come as a fast procurement with the aim of teaming up with the winning company to design the HTT 40, that will replace the major part of HTT32.
Why can’t IAF pilots train from Hansa–>IJT–>Hawk ? What is the need to bypass Hansa and IJT and ask for a foreign turboprop ? IAF is criminally wasting taxpayer money by ignoring not one, but two indigenously available trainers, and going for an import option. I’m sure the foreign vendors themselves must not believe their luck, and must be sniggering at us.
Please, a paper Russian MTA that will mainly use the cabin of the IL 76 and even the same upgraded PS 90 engines + the experieance of the Russians in developing such transport aircrafts on the one side. On the other side a paper Indian transport aircraft, which will be completetly new, without any proven and ready parts, a company without any real experiance.
Exactly. The IAF must learn to get out of it’s cocoon of “safety with mummy Russia”, and take a bold plunge to support indigenous development. Forget NAL’s RTA, we don’t see it doing that for the turboprop trainers either.
Don’t you think they have enough to do with completing Saras development and start a production line?
The An 32 replacement is way too important and way too big for NAL so far!
Saras will be mass-produced by HAL. NAL’s job is only as a laboratory to develop the final working prototype. HAL will also be the manufacturer of the NAL’s RTA, which can also have a military role. Details of NAL’s RTA.
First of all, US will have two 5. gen fighters (F22 and F35), but I agree with you that two for India are not needed.
The above is inaccurate, as USAF (or US Congress) is considering not to induct the F-35, and use it solely for export. There is a thread on this topic on this forum.
Secondly, again as I said above on MRTA, on the one hand a experianced Russian companly with NG Russian radar, engine and weapons, improved from already ready and proven versions, with several prototypes ready and at least one already flying.
On the other side an unexperiance company, which has not even a 4. gen fighter ready developed, or operational yet. No indigenous radar, engine, or weapons available, which can be a base to improve them to the NG and the only prototype ready is a small wind tunnel model.
See, experience wil come only if IAF gives a chance. It is a chicken-egg situation. If IAF keeps giving the excuse that we buy only from experienced companies (chicken), then Hansa, IJT and RTA will never get a chance to gain any experience (egg). The indigenous “eggs” will never “hatch”.
Otherwise, like banana-republic Saudi Arabia, there is nothing stopping the IAF from shopping globally. The ball is in IAF’s court : it has to decide now.
Co-developments, partnerships, jv, gathering ToT, that is the way to go and to improve our capabilities and not jumping into developments that are too big for us now, just because of pride (I mean it generally, not about you) to make something indigenous.
For Saras and even for RTA, Pratt-Whitney engines are used. For Tejas, GE engines are used and mostly Russian weapons will be used. Israeli radar and Israeli HMDS are used. Isn’t so much “partnership” enough ?
What you’re suggesting is an outright licence production.
AbhimanyuThe best thing for IAF right now is to use the money for MRCA for :
-Set up a new production facility (40 plane per year) for LCA MK2. Otherwise vested interests will keep arguing low production rate as an excuse. Combined number of LCA variants: LCA MK2+ N-LCA+ LCA Trainers should be around 300. Quite reasonable number considering it is sum of all variants except MK1. 5.5 to 6 years of production should provide a large chunk of this number. Use EADS consulting extensively.
– Any time consuming modifications meant for MK2 be pushed to MK3
– Obtain most clearances post induction in IAF just like the French. Besides early induction provides early feedback for improvement/modification.
I fully agree with the above views. MRCA is a wasteful excercise, being executed only due to the panicky nature of the IAF. In it’s 77 year history, it has evolved a pattern of neglecting indigenous development (lookup : HF-24 Marut), and buying anything under the sun, that ANY foreign country has on offer. So, the requirement of the MRFA or MMCA (similar to today’s MRCA) in the 1970s was met by purchasing the ENTIRE MiG series from 23 through 29, Mirage-2000, and Jaguars. Only a few years ago, the IAF was operating a mind-boggling 8 fighter types from all over Russia, France & UK.
It is amply clear that these requirements could’ve been streamed down to a much lesser number, but for the tendency to push the panic button, whenever any nation starts “dangling” a new weapon platform in front of the IAF.
See, as a fast-growing economy, the government has practically given the IAF a blank cheque to shop the world for fighter jets, missiles, etc. that money can buy. But the IAF must realize that the actual hard-work lies not in shopping globally, but in working alongside the DRDO to develop products that match global standards.
The IAF must be the only Air Force in the world to :-
…float global tenders for 4.5 gen jets, despite having a 4.5 gen. fighter in late development stage.
…float global tenders for turboprop trainers, despite having an indigenous turboprop trainer Hansa, and an indigenous IJT Sitara.
…opt for licencing the on-paper Russian MTA, despite an indigenous RTA under design stage by NAL.
And this one takes the cake :-
…opt for a Russian 5th gen. fighter, despite DRDO beginning work on the MCA. Not even the USAF feels the need to operate two 5th gen. fighters. Not RuAF. Not PLAAF. Not Australia. But this is the IAF….
One can only fervently hope, that the negotitations on the PAK-FA eventually stall and break down to no conclusion. This is because, why must India bankroll the Russian project ? Why can’t the IAF have a chance to mould a fighter jet from the drawing board, for once ? The MCA provides this chance. Money saved on bankrolling the Russian PAK-FA can instead be put to good use on the indigenous MCA.
AbhimanyuCurious, the link of the video of Dr. V K Saraswat’s presentation is here.
Actually it’s a myth that DRDO delays it’s projects. This was actually exacerbated by real delays in 3 “big ticket” projects :- Arjun tank, Tejas and Akash missile. Arjun has been found to be a victim of irregularities in the Army (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Akash has already been vindicated with 1000+ orders by the IAF. Tejas, as we’ve seen, has a timeline not too different from Gripen and Typhoon. Besides, considering India’s total lack of experience and crippling sanctions in the late 1990s to early 2000s, it CANNOT be termed “delayed” by any stretch.
If one sees the wide range of radars, sonars, BMS systems, avionics etc. that DRDO has sold to the IAF, Navy and Army, they can hardly be termed as “delayed”. For example, how many members have heard of success stories like Rajendra radar, Bharani radar, Rohini radar, WLR, Pinaka rockets, Su-30 avionics, to name only a few ? But because these are not “big ticket” hardware like Arjun, Tejas or Akash, they go unreported — even if hugely successful.
AbhimanyuI can see your point in a way, i.e. as an Indian Engineer working in India developing aircraft. However if you are sitting on the other side of the fence as an end user, would you realistically want to wait for the Engineers who have already let you down or would you plump for something that has already flown and done by a company that has proved over and again that they can produce lethal aircraft?
Its a no brainer, you cant just keep putting the IAF on the hook all the time unless and until you pull up the babus that have caused the delays and under achivements in the home grown projects.
matt, I disagree with the above. There are some examples, where the armed forces have been shown a carrot by foreign companies, and they willingly follow, despite the indigenous equivalents being available :-
1) We have the NAL Hansa ab-initio trainer (already certified and operational) and IJT Sitara. But IAF ignores these two, and floats a global tender to import turboprop tandem-seaters. Why ?
2) Despite having the PAD-AAD under development, why were Patriot briefings even held in New Delhi ?
3) Despite having an 70-seater RTA being developed, IAF wants to go for a “paper-tiger” Russian 90-seater transporter.
4) Let us “pray” that the 120-km SAM that IAF is looking for, is sourced from the modified PAD that Dr. V K Saraswat explained so well on that presentation. If it goes for some Israeli/French solution, we can deterministically conclude that IAF is wantonly not interested in indigenous equipment.
5) The 126 MRCA vis-a-vis Tejas Mk.2 i.e. with a new engine. By practical estimates, the MRCA won’t start getting introduced before 2015-16 atleast, given the track record of procurement (it took 2 decades to finally ink the Hawk AJT contract). By that time, wouldn’t the Mk.2 be easily ready in half a decade’s time ?
6) We also have the so-called FGFA vis-a-vis MCA. Do you HAVE to buy each and everything Russians have on offer ? In 10 years’ time, they’ll start “dangling” UCAVs in front of the IAF. Does that mean IAF must buy it (under the guise of “joint development” ) ?
Except probably in the case of FGFA, one cannot provide the argument of “we-want-it-asap” for the rest. It is a plain case of neglecting & not supporting indigenous development, in a biased favour of imports. A 5th gen. fighter was never really in IAF’s plans until Russia “goaded” it into agreeing to it. This, despite IAF’s main objection of not being on board from scratch, being totally junked.
AbhimanyuGiven delays in various projects especially in the procurements of Admiral Gorhskov and Scorpeane submarine despite paying a handsome sum was more then enough to concerned authorities to wake from their slumber. Despite all this kickbacks and delays, I don’t think any branch of Indian armed forces would be able to meet their schedule target of modernization.
One of the reason for such a popularizing interest in Foriegn hardwares is nothing but our own growing economy which can ensure purchase at excessive price.
Arey bhaisahab, modernization does not mean purchasing anything and everything that western companies have on offer. The situation is so bad, that the armed forces think that just because something’s advertised on a brochure, then it has to be bought; otherwise how will we modernize ?
Just because the Russians suggested 8 years ago to fund the PAK-FA, the IAF is “gung-ho” about. Even though it DOES NOT meet preliminary requirements (source), they just don’t have it to flatly refuse the Russians (for whatever reasons like threat to open up to Pak, geopolitical reasons, etc). They panicked and are going ahead to bankroll the Russians, even though all indications suggest that there won’t be ANY worthwhile Indian engineering contribution on the FGFA.
Same is the case of the 126 MRCA contract. Considering that it has dragged on for nearly a decade now, it debunks the myth that IAF “urgently” needs the MRCAs. That’s why it has been called a “circus”. Same is the case of T-90 tank, which even the Russian army barely uses.
In a country where Padma awards are given to a former militant-mafioso, and some NRI hotelier embroiled in financial fraud cases, ANYTHING can happen in defence purchases also.
AbhimanyuThe following news is, in my opinion, a “recipe for disaster”, as it will keep the IAF “addicted” to foreign hardware for an even longer time period :-
India to open talks with Russia on stealth aircraft
After favouring the U.S. for its recent purchases of hi-tech military equipment, India has now turned to Russia, its old supplier, for the next generation fighter aircraft.
PAK FA, Russia’s fifth generation fighter, which boasts of radar evasion characteristics, made its maiden flight only late last month.
India inked an agreement with Russia for jointly developing this aircraft, but the time taken to complete the paperwork meant that 70 per cent of the plane was already developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau {then how exactly is it “joint development ?”}. Now India has planned to enter the project mid-way. It will discuss the development schedule for the coming years and the number of aircraft it requires with Deputy Prime Minister and Russia’s India point man S.S. Sobyanin when he visits India by the middle of this month, senior government sources said.
Though its force levels are depleting, the Indian Air Force wants to ensure that the replacements are world-class and the best in the region. The 250-plus Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter aircraft to be inducted gradually over the next decade fit the bill, and so will the 126 frontline multi-role fighter aircraft, which India plans to buy and for which six vendors are in the fray.
PAK FA, billed as a competitor to F-22 Raptor, developed by the U.S., is expected go into mass production after at least five years. The striking feature of this aircraft is its stealth characteristics: radars will find it tough to spot it. It will also be able to take off from short airstrips and remain in the air for longer than the current fighters in the inventory of air forces around the world. What has attracted India to the project is the cost factor: it will be a lot cheaper to make {read : licence produce} than F-22.
Besides the talks on the aircraft, the military-technical team accompanying Mr. Sobyanin will hold discussions on more T-90 tanks {arey, aren’t 1000+ faulty T-90s enough already ??}, the naval version of MiG-29, Sukhoi-30 MKI and the multi-role transport aircraft project {after ignoring the indigenous RTA by NAL}, said the sources.
The two sides have agreed on the price for refurbishing the aircraft carrier Gorshkov. Russia is poised to deliver more frigates to the Indian Navy. It will also transfer a nuclear-powered submarine to India by the middle of this year.
Recently India has favoured the U.S. while buying medium and heavy-lift planes and long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft. U.S. companies are also in the race for several types of helicopters and refuelling planes. But officials say the list of military ventures with Russia is still longer and more varied {a very sad state of affairs. At this rate, indigenization can take a back seat till 2055}.
Reference :-
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article102209.ece
AbhimanyuWhat is that supposed to mean?
Current MTOW of JAS39 was stated to be 12.5 tons. I pointed out that the MTOW of JAS39C/D, i.e. the current version, is 14 tons. You said that the original figure, 12.5 tons, is the MTOW of JAS39C/D. I linked to the SAAB website, which clearly states that MTOW is 14 tons.
I’m not disputing your clarification, but I’m trying to find sources that also claim Tejas’ MTOW to be as great as possible, as I do remember that while making comparisons, that it is a match for the C/D.
The 12.5 ton fig. for Tejas was as per a brilliant article written by the late B. Harry (a former mod on this forum). The article dates back to 2003-04 if I’m not mistaken. Now you referenced Saab’s webpage and gave a 14 ton figure, and I then referenced a much more recent article (a first hand account) that stated Tejas’ MTOW to be 13 tons. The all-up weight of 13.5 tons is again taken from B. Harry’s article, though I think even that might be greater now.
——–
DovinR, a top GTRE official was quoted sying that Kaveri’s excess weight was “killing it”, i.e. it was responsible for the shortfall in performance. I don’t know the technical details of how weight increase affects performance.
AbhimanyuI didn’t dispute the Tejas figure, but that for Gripen.
I’m bringing the Tejas figure as close to Gripen as possible. The all-up weight of Tejas is even greater, at 13.5 tons.
HAve You seen the date of that article (17 July 2008 … even if a very interesting one !) …. I don’t know if it is still valid.
The figures still hold.
The installed ratio does not tell it all, except for take-off run length f.e.
At first it does not give away the performance of the propulsion system.
I will not waste may time, because I did explain that in an easy to understand way several times before.
Despite that the drag versus thrust ratio is much more important and by that the Gripen does not differ from the F-16 f.e..
The data of that are kept by the producer, but the claimed climb/acceleration performance does give an idea about that ratio.
The big wing of the Tejas does allow a high lift from that, when the other side of that coin is a high http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift%E2%80%93induced_drag
See, I pointed out the T/W ratio of Tejas will be better than Gripen due to lower max. weight and higher max. thrust.
I’ve read posts about drag, etc. and they are subjective and not conclusive. Speaking of drag, it may be noted that Tejas doesn’t have canards, that do have a role in contributing drag. It’s wing is also not a simple delta, but a compounded & cranked delta. This very thread has a year old extensive debate between me and MiG-23 MLD (which a very patient member may go through) about Tejas’ wing design and it’s implication on aerial performance.
Sign In
