Abhimanyu.. that is NOT a state rumor.. check ACM’s interview from Paris where he has clearly mentioned that in the RFP they have added the figure of additional 63 aircrafts on TOP of 126.. as options.. and going by the way IAF is restructuring itself.. those options would be a definite reality..

Himanshu, in bharat-rakshak, the link from Feb 2009 quoting Mr. Fali Major was posted. Since I have been following MRCA, at no point of time has anyone indicated that 126 units will be increased to 200 units, or that the order will be split into 2 or more vendors.

We may distinctly recall various media statements by ex-CAS Mr. Tygai as well as ex-CAS Mr. Major stating that there will be NO splitting of the order into 2 or more vendors.

AFAIK only 40 have actually been ordered, and the last of those won’t be delivered until 2014.

The order for those 40 was placed back in 2005. Taking 9 years to produce 40aircraft is not encouraging.

The above is inaccurate. As Tejas is still under development, the production run for the 40 ordered units is yet to begin. Production will begin sometime this year and as per the statement of ex-CAS Mr. Fali Major, the first squadron of Tejas will be in IAF service by 2010-11. The entire order of 48 will be executed by 2012.

they still haven’t picked an engine for the Mk.2, so i really really doubt it’s going to be ready anytime soon

Note that as per a recent news report, the vendors GE and EADs will be sent the RFP for the new engine in September this year. EADs has already begun consultany on Tejas (which explains the accelerated flight-tests the past few months).

i said all that to say this: india needs a large number of aircraft fast to maintain the size of their airforce, and the LCA isn’t the answer

As repeatedly mentioned earlier, the dates estimated by ex-CAS Mr. Fali Major, for the introduction of MRCA and Tejas Mk.2 is the SAME i.e. 2014. Hence, Tejas Mk.2 can is perfectly on time to be the MRCA for the IAF. Foreign jets may not be needed.

PAK-FA (or some derivative thereof) is for FGFA, MCA is a different program . . .

Arey bhaisaheb, everyone knows that. What we are discussing is, that India must commit itself solely and only to the MCA, and abandon the PAK-FA because :- a) FGFA is practically a licence purchase agreement; India will have NO contribution in it’s development including twin-seat, and b) India will save billions of dollars which will rightfully be concentrated on the MCA and development of UCAVs, and c) No other country including Russia, China, Israel and Australia are pursuing more than a single 5th ge. fighter project (whether indigenous or partnership). So, India does not have to be different.

Although the IAF is trying to reduce the number of types it operates, your wishful thinking of 400-450 tejus units is unrealistic.

As mentioned earlier, the proposal of inducting 400-450 Tejas units was given by head of DRDO, Dr. Natarajan himself in an interview a few months back (also posted on this forum).

I agree with Dr. Natarajan’s view. The USAF has operated 1,600 F-16s, and 700 F-15s. Russia also operates similar numbers of a few types. Closer home, the PLAAF plans to induct 250 J-10 and has started development of J-10B, of which too a few hundred may be inducted, taking the J-10 fleet close to 500. It has to induct close to 300 Su-27 and variants (Su-30 and J-11, J-11 B).
Even Pakistan plans to induct 250 units of JF-17. Similarly, if IAF has to fructify it’s startegy of “global reach”, it must also induct these many numbers of a single fighter type.

If all the IAF wants are air defence fighters to replace the Mig-21’s, then the tejus in its current form is fine, it doesn’t need any further development. However, the IAF now wants multi-role fighters, which the LCA isn’t close to achieving as of it, your comparison with the Mirage 2KV is whoefully inaccurate. So just becoz the HAL chief says so, the IAF isnt going to induct 450 LCAs. As for LCA Mk2, I bet you will still be here on this forum expecting it to be inducted into the IAF in 10 years time.

Please note that the Tejas has been compared favourably to the advanced versions of Mirage-2000 by Dr. Parthasarthy (Scientific advisor to Government of India till 2006) and Vice-Admiral (retd). Raman Puri. As per a news report, the Tejas Mk.2 is likely to benefit from EADs consultancy by adding a bigger, powerful engine, lightened undercarriage and more weapon-stations. It is estimated to be introduced by 2014.

LCA dropping 1000 lb bomb at Jamnagar ranges. pic courtesy of Kakarat on BRF, scanned from Vayu magazine’s latest issue.

In the above image, the Litening target pod is also visible (attached on the center pylon, under the fuselage). Thus, it must have been used for the precision bombing. Another bomb/missile is also visible on the other wing, which indicates that Tejas as a weapons platform is maturing extremely rapidly.

Capt. Maulankar who has test-flown the Tejas extensively, has already stated that Tejas has “extremely long legs”. Thus, it is clearly meant for surgical strikes and not just for so-called, “point defence”.

Currently, all that it needs is radar integration after which Tejas Mk.1 will be complete and ready for induction in 2010-11.

Abhimanyu.. IAF is CONTEMPLATING enhancing the 126 MMRCA to 189.. 😀

Himanshu, the above is a “stale rumour” only. As recently as Feb 2009, CAS Mr. Fali Major (retired) had publicly declared that :-

a) The number of jets to be acquired is 126 only.

b) Only one vendor will be awarded the contract. It won’t be split into 2 or more vendors.

Unfortunately, it is time and again discussed in a reputed forum like Bharat rakshak also. It has already been clarified by Chief of IAF.

Sell it. Conditions of sale: majority Indian ownership, & HAL is to be given preferred bidder status on all new acquisitions, as long as HAL offers an indigenously developed product. If it offers something licence-built, it’s on the same level as foreign bidders.

Where local production is thought desirable but a foreign product is selected, don’t guarantee HAL the production work. Foreign manufacturers will be encouraged to enter into joint ventures with other firms for local assembly of their products. That should stop HAL sitting back & waiting for the production contract from whoever wins.

Swerve, I fully agree with your views. HAL has a monopoly “gifted” by the government. Only if it “feels the heat” from private contractors, who will compete with it for foreign licence production contracts, will it finally get to innovate and come up with indigenous designs. Then it will start treating ADA, NAL and their parent, DRDO, more “seriously”.

In the civillian space, Tata motors was not able to compete with Korean and Japanese assembly units in India. It’s own Tata Indica was an Italian licence design, complete with a foreign engine. It had to innovate with the Nano.

Similarly, Bajaj (formerly Bajaj-Kawasaki) and TVS (formerly TVS-Suzuki) cancelled their JV with Kawazaki and Suzuki respectively. They went solo and superbly innovated the world’s first twin-spark plug engines for motorbikes to keep Yamaha, Suzuki and Honda at bay in India (although Hero-Honda is still the largest selling).

Even Chinese motorbike makers were caught copying Bajaj’s designs in Latin American markets.

So the delays were caused due to IAF alone…hmm how about the Kaveri and MMR….isn’t this the easy way to wash away ones responsibility….And with this kind of blame games still prevalent you really expect that the bueraucratic delays will not affect MCA..especially with export lobby and ego kings still at large….

Please note that Kaveri and MMR were replaced with equivalent western counterparts, during the development phase like the earlier Martin Baker ejection seat. All these have no bearing on the whole program, just as how DRDL Pune’s ejection seat will now be installed. Kaveri will also be eventually installed once JV partner is selected.

The Indian Air Force is singularly guilty of NOT co-ordinating with the defence research establisment, as is the norm in most countries like US (Pentagon vis-a-vis private contractors), China (PLAAF vis-a-vis government Institutes) and even Pakistan (PAC Kamra is a PAF-run facility that got JF-17 in the air). The IAF must learn from these Air Forces on how to get weapons development done, and how to get what one “wishes” for.

As mentioned earlier, floating a mega tender is very effortless, but getting down with the defence research establishment at the labs and the drawing boards is where the hard work lies — something which the IAF has never ever done. You may read how they ‘killed’ the HF-24 Marut and how they ‘goofed’ on Tejas’ wing-loading in 2004 and complaining of “engine trouble” as late as 2008.

Comparing Indian aerospace indusrty to China is still childish. There is still a lot of people trying to gauge India and China all the same weighing balance….well the truth is India is very far behind, but having the potential to catch up, if the leaders and the country men are serious. Rajkumars book itself will give you the reasons.

Note that J-11 and J-10 are merely localized versions of a Su-27 and a cancelled Israeli fighter respectively. J-8 was an elongated J-7 (in turn, a MiG-21). J-8 II to be admitted, is a J-8 with side intakes.

The one indigenous design they have is FBC-1, for which credit is due. For FC-1 which PLAAF is not even inducting, there has been design consultancy from Mikoyan.

If CATIC has supposedly mastered so-termed “DSI” intakes, our ADA’s composite technology also flies on Airbus-A380.

But if you already have a fifth generation fighter in your hand, the technologies at least if you are familiar with, wouldn’t it help in better understanding of the requirement itself. When LCA started we said “ok it should be similar to Mig 21” and later we said “exceed capability of Mirage 2000”. The PAK-FA program will help in the successful completion of MCA and would also reduce the risk of sole dependecy on the MCA project too, just my opinion

Tejas is much more than merely a MiG-21. As per Mr. Parthasarathy and Vice Admiral Raman Puri, the Tejas is equivalent or superior to the latest version of Mirage-2000.

Abhimanyu,

Canceling MMRCA and FGFA will achieve drastic reduction in our combar Sqns when we want to increase them.

Arey, MRCA and Tejas Mk.2 are both estimated to be introduced in the IAF in 2013-14. So, why shouldn’t the IAF induct Tejas Mk.2 itself as MRCA, by increasing it’s production lines ?

LCA is a light fighter. It is no MMRCA. Even if Tejas Mk2 will have MMRCA specs, its not yet proven.

Firstly, terming Tejas Mk.2 as an “LCA” is a fallacy. It will have a more powerful engine, more weapons, more fuel, better undercarriage and a greater combat radius.

Tejas will enter squadron service next year or early 2011 with an IoC certificate. Upto 2014, it will be flown extensively by IAF in routine sorties, mock war games and excercises. By 2014 it get FoC certificate, which will deem it fully combat ready at par with experienced fighters.

however, to suggest that the PAK-FA will not fit into IAF operational doctrines as of now, is wrong.

The above is accurate. IAF has a need for a 5th gen. fighter. Any of these like JSF, PAK-FA etc. can “make the cut” in IAF. After all, the IAF purchased Mirages, Fulcrums, and MiG-23 / 27 — entire “rainbow” — in the 1980s for it’s single M-MRCA proposal.

Hence, it may as well procure the MCA and ONLY the MCA, instead of MCA & PAK-FA. This will save billions of dollars.

that is what the FGFA will be for the PAK-FA. the PAK-FA will be the Su-30MK type variant- i.e. generic. the FGFA will be the IAF specific variant. now for the PAK-FA, IAF requirements mean avionics that are completely of its own choice, weapons of its own choice, all of which could be indigenous or western sourced, and a twin seater to make it possible to use the PAK-FA in multi-role operations as well as to improve the odds of survival in hostile and dense EW and SAM environments.

See, it is true that Su-30 was a “cinderella” that IAF transformed into a “Princess”.

But in stark contrast, PAK-FA is NOT a ‘stripped’ version at all, but from the beginning it is a full-fledged 5th gen. fighter — a “born princess”. There is no point whatsoever in the IAF customizing it. Why replace Russian AESA radar by a western one ? Or Kh-31 with a western missile ? Or KS-172 with HARM ? Or Russian IRST with Israeli one ? Or Russian EW suite with French one ? This needless customization will entail billion of dollars of additional costs.

Su-30 didn’t have HMDS, or core avionics computer or a dedicated target pod. That’s why they were all put into it by the IAF. But PAK-FA will have everything a 5th gen. fighter should have from the very start. So, there is no use in removing the Russian systems only to replace them with equivalent western ones.

Hence, the entire argument that IAF enjoys the facility to customize the PAK-FA for it’s “specific” needs is moot, because there is nothing left to customize the avionics or weapons at all in the first place. The PAK-FA is NOT a baseline Su-30 that would need an Indian overhaul.

FGFA is nothing but PAK-FA — and all the “goodies” — with nothing more but a twin-seat. Somebody also said that it would have Fly-By-Light. Avionics “restructuring” would be required to an extent only if a twin-seat is added.

Hence, purchasing the PAK-FA would be totally needless and futile. There is nothing left to customize in it. Instead, the IAF may as well develop the M.C.A from scratch with utmost dedication, and ensure that it is moulded exactly to the IAF’s requirements

but, ALL technical details of the fighter, including source codes will be shared in this partnership, which is far from what we can say of the JSF partnerships. that alone makes it worth it for India to work on the PAK-FA and to use experience gained from that project on the MCA. and there will be cross-pollination, of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

See, as discussed earlier :-

1) Sukhoi — and not HAL — will add the second seat in the FGFA. It will do the necessary structural modifications for the same. It is similar to how Lockheed added the second seat for Israel’s F-16 Sufa. Always the original designer adds the second seat, and never the customer (or the customer’s designer).

2) Sukhoi will add Fly-by-Light and other underlying technologies, instead of HAL. This has clearly been stated by Mr. Pogosyan, that Sukhoi will finish work on Russia’s PAK-FA first, and then begin work on Indian PAK-FA. Besides this, till date NO official from HAL, MoD or IAF has stated that India will do any R&D in the FGFA’s making. But they have spun a good marketing yarn to make the Indian public believe that the FGFA really would be India’s engineering at it’s pinnacle.

3) Since from point 2 above, India is merely purchasing the licence-production rights for the customized PAK-FA (or FGFA), it is unlikely that it will get any ToT from th same. Other Russian examples are T-90, nuke submarine, Gorshkov, where ToT was denied. Hence, the view that ToT gained from PAK-FA would be useful in MCA is incorrect, because there wouldn’t be ant ToT in the first place.

Thus, from all of the above, it is imperative that India should pursue only the indigenous M.C.A project and abandon the PAK-FA. Brazil’s angel funding would also be sufficient for Russia to sustain it; Indian funding is not needed.

See, as per a news report posted earlier already Mr. Pogosyan has said in no unclear terms that he has to concentrate on Russian PAK-FA first, whereas he will start work on Indian PAK-FA later. In the same report, he added that HAL’s 50% share is an even further long term aspect. (news report has been posted in the IAF News & Discussion thread).

He has “let slip” that Sukhoi will design the PAK-FA. In the same sentence he said HAL’s 50% share is an even long term consideration, meaning HAL’s share is nothing but licence production.

I may request ANYONE to bring forth a news report in which HAL or it’s chiefs clearly say that “HAL will design FGFA”. They only repeatedly say that “FGFA will have twin-seat, so & so…”, but are careful not to say that “HAL will design FGFA”, or “50% FGFA will be designed by HAL”. Had it really been so, there wouldhave been no hesitation in saying simply that, “HAL will design FGFA”. It’s simple.

India has had numerous problems in acquiring ToT in Russian licence production contracts, like in T-90, and so this PAK-FA is unlikely to be any different. Thus, it would be much better if IAF commits only to MCA just like all other nations commiting to only 1 fifth G program (whether indigenous like China’s J-XX, or in partnership like Israel’s JSF).

UCAVs are a very long term proposition in India and separate from fifth G fighters.

Based on your interpretation of what Pogosyan says and what you choose to believe.

The IAF has drawn up a list of requirements which it expects from its FGFA. These list of requirements are compared to what Sukhoi is aiming to field for its PAK-FA. That determines the overall design.

Then Sukhoi comes back and says- FINE. You want to take all this and convert the basic design we had in mind, to “this” – it will take so much money, so much effort, so much time.

The above is exactly what is incongruent to developing the PAK-FA with much “touted” 50% Indian R&D. Regardless of whether the Indian version will have Fly-By-Light (as you claim) or twin-seat, the point is that it is Sukhoi, and not HAL which will be doing all the development. India will only fund it.

That is what Fakruddin et al said when they said twin seat et al – they didnt say more,…

Not that “they didn’t say more”, but as mentioned earlier, they didn’t say that Russia, and not India would be developing the aforementioned.

I repeat for the last time – the FGFA will not just be a “two seat” versus “one seat” or whatever stuff you pick up from the internet and start yammering away non stop – it will be an aircraft designed to meet the IAF’s personal requirements of its air superiority and strike doctrine in the twenty first century.

Arey uncle, we know that IAF needs a fifth gen. fighter. What I’m telling is that there is a general misconception that : a) India will do 50% R&D in the entire PAK-FA when it has been stated that India won’t do anything even on the modified FGFA, and b) India will get ToT from this project for it’s MCA.

The efficacy or lethality of PAK-FA or FGFA is not in doubt. It will be a very good fighter. However, as India will have close to nil R&D share in it’s development, it is equivalent to licence manufacture only without any ToT.

Hence, it would be better that IAF commits ONLY to MCA instead, to save billions of dollars and also accelerate the “learning curve”. The only impediment here is Tejas’ unfortunate record in 1990s of bureaucratic delays and hence a “sceptre” of history repeating with MCA.

As already discussed earlier, we can assume temporarily that India will involve in 50% R&D of FGFA and will get all ToT asked. Even then, the very efficacy of this PAK-FA is in doubt, because there is NO other country which is pursuing not one, but two 5th gen. programmes. Including China and Russia. Whay does IAF have to be “different” ?

DRDO already knows about the basics of ramjet propulsion via the Akash program and they also know what they lack and where they needed to collaborate with Russia.

If just by close inspection and observation, technologies could be mastered, India would have almost all the technologies it wanted.

Although not to be discussed further, it must be noted that DRDO is on record mentioning that had India tried to develop Brahmos on it’s own, it would’ve taken 15 years to master it’s ramjet propulsion. They have mastered it’s specifics by being in close quarters with testing, and assembly of live examples of the same.

See, as per the statement of Mr. Mikhail Pogosyan of Sukhoi corp. Sukhoi will develop the Indian version of PAK-FA, whereas HAL will licence manufacture 50% of the components of the same.

Even if Fly-By-Light etc. are being developed, they will be developed by Russia only, with India being given licence-rights to manufacture components only. If at all, some non-critical work like routine testing etc. may be “tossed over” to India.

Even in the Brahmos project, DRDO officials are on record stating that Russia did NOT transfer key technologies including Ramjet technology to India. DRDO had to gain the same knowledge by espionage via close observation and inspection of the same — which the Russians could not prevent (unlike a Russian nuke-sub which India leased in 1980s, that had a Russian officer manning the door to the reactor so as to prevent Indians from visually inspecting it and “getting ideas”).

In a “sleight of hand”, HAL under Mr. Baweja touted this 50% share in licence manufacture as a “50% Joint Venture”. Newspapers like Times of India and Indian Express endorsed this very line, that PAK-FA is a 50% Joint Development between India and Russia in which India will do 50% R&D.

Today, no Indian newspaper mentions the once-standard line of “50% JV”.