AbhimanyuIn my view it is extremely fortunate that Gripen’s chances are “diminishing”. Now we may ‘fervently’ hope that such “backbiting” eliminates all the contenders one at a time.
1) Gripen is being pulled down by Dassault (excellent news).
2) The 2 US contenders will be “ousted” as they’ll come with restrictive end-user agreements and ‘political strings’.
3) MiG-35 & Eurofighter will be rejected on the grounds that they don’t have AESA radars.
4) Again, Eurofighter and Gripen come with US ‘strings attached’ too.
5) Rafale must be rejected on the grounds that it is very expensive (so are Eurofighter and F-18 too).
I think that the IAF is just under an obligatory protocol to entertain — and eventually choose — one of these 6 fighters, now that it has sent the RFP already. We may momentarily imagine if IAF suddenly announces that it is cancelling the MRCA tender. It will cause diplomatic embarrassment to India.
I am 100% of the view that many top echelons of the IAF have already begun seeing the Tejas Mk.II as the MRCA
Hence, some way must be found out by IAF to reject all the 6 contenders after evaluating them, and quietly “sneaking in” the Tejas, and ‘artificially’ engineering it’s victory in the MRCA competition.
AbhimanyuThe wikipedia article on JF-17 is inaccurate in many respects :-
1) JF-17 has 7 hardpoints, not 8.
2) It is not “inducted” into PAF. Actually the 8 prototypes that were delivered to Pakistan to continue testing there (after being rejected in China) are being tested by the PAF. Thus, mere delivery of these prototypes to PAF is being called “induction”.
3) None of the 8 “inducted” units are combat worthy because they are still undergoing routine tests. As per Pak forums, they are yet to go through weapons-testing, and radar tests.
4) Zimbabwe’s purchase of JF-17 is false. It’s news appeared in an opinion piece of a western magazine. No Pak or Chinese newspaper has reported this important development. (Besides, a nation with a million % inflation rate is unlikely to purchase this).
5) An unknown but interesting facet of JF-17 is that it is a privately funded project of China’s CAC company. The PLAAF neither endorses it, nor is obliged to evaluate it. (I was surprised when I got to know this inspite of following JF-17 since past 4 years). It is similar to the private F-20 project of Northrop, that the USAF rejected.
6) The PLAAF may accept JF-17 as a trainer at the most (because the L-15 trainer is delayed). It is not allowed to fly and appear in the ranges reserved for other aircraft under progress, evaluation or testing unlike J-10 next gen., new versions of J-11, J-8 etc.
7) It is the only fighter in aviation history that is a clear child of serving Russian and US fighters. It descended from the MiG-21 under the Super-7 programme; but after Pakistan’s inclusion in the project it featured wings that are remarkable copies of the F-16’s distinctly recognizable ‘flaperon’ configuration.
Sources :-
Sinodefence forum.
AbhimanyuNote : Tejas assumed is Tejas Mk.1 JF-17 is as described on the website of PAC Kamra.
Tejas : Debut flight on Jan 4, 2001.
JF-17 : Debut flight Aug 25, 2003.
Tejas : 7 prototypes in the air. 1000 test flights completed.
JF-17 : 8 prototypes in the air. Test-flights unknown.
Tejas : 8 weapon stations, 4 tons of load (max).
JF-17 : 7 weapon stations, 3.5 tons of load (max).
Tejas : 1 squadron + 20 trainers ordered.
JF-17 : PLAAF has rejected it. 2 squadrons ordered by PAF.
Tejas : Induction in 2011.
JF-17 : No firm date known.
Tejas : Need of changing the current GE-404 engine expressed.
JF-17 : Need of changing the current RD-93 engine expressed.
Tejas : Naval & trainer versions nearing completion.
JF-17 : No Naval version exists. Status of trainer unknown.
Tejas : Quad digital Fly-By-Wire.
JF-17 : FBW only in pitch axis.
Tejas : Achieved Mach 1.6, 15kms altitude and 6g.
JF-17 : Achieved figures unknown. Mach 1.6, 15 kms altitude and 8g targeted.
Tejas : Undergone weapons trials. Dumb bombs, drop tanks, missiles carried.
JF-17 : Status of weapons testing unknown.
Tejas : Elta radar.
JF-17 : Chinese KLJ-3 (?) radar.
References :-
AbhimanyuIn my opinion even if the India wouldn’t join the PAK-FA project Sukhoi company had a plan of creating the 2 seater and naval pak-fa versions and they did the detailed work about these versions.And if the first statement is right by mr. pogosyan,they will do the first flight of the basic versions of the two and one seater pak-fa prototypes in a year.
Wahi to baat hai ! Russia already has plans to make the trainer. Then why on Earth is Baweja trying to duplicate the effort, money and resources to make the twin-seater in India is what ‘flummoxes’ many (note there is little difference between trainers and twin-seaters).
AbhimanyuGiven that they hadn’t even hammered out what exactly India wanted from a joint PAK FA derivative until recently, how much did you expect them to have contributed?
CommanderJB, the above is accurate. When a fighter is designed from the drawing board, the requirements of all stakeholders must be considered. In this case, only the Russian Air-Force and only it’s specific requirements were considered. The Indian Air-Force was never consulted. Thus, this fighter will not “fit” in the IAF.
It may be ‘naive’ to assume that Mr. Pogosyan’s “local Indian producers” will design and manufacture plasma-stealth, AESA radars, weapons, EW suites etc. & etc. For, Russia only wants to source components on the dirt cheap from India and little else.
It’s a bit like saying anyone who joined the F-22 programme at the YF-22 stage couldn’t possibly contribute anything to the final aircraft. PAK FA still has a bit under a decade or so of development to go (probably more, judging by most examples) so why on Earth couldn’t India contribute as much as it wanted to its own version in that time?
The above argument is forceful and accurate. However, please note that in case of PAK-FA, top HAL officials in public interviews have already clarified India’s ‘nimble’ role in the PAK-FA :-
1) India will purchase the single-seat design and merely add a second seat. This, as per HAL is a “significant” contribution. Claims that this will involde “redesign” of the fuselage and wings are hollow.
2) There is speculation that India may provide some consultancy in composites given that Tejas’ technology was used to set the composite layout of the Airbus A380.
These news reports have been posted by me and others on this forum extensively. No other potential Indian contribution is mentioned. I needn’t post them again, as you may search.
My apologies but I doubt that cutting off Russia’s far larger aircraft design experience in favour of a project from an organisation that has yet to operationally deploy an indigenous jet fighter design is going to ‘yield far better results’.
The same argument may also have been used to piggyback Indian payloads of Chandrayaan (India’s first moon mission) on Russian or US rockets by claiming, “Oh, they’ve got 5 decades of experience sending rockets to moon & beyond, while we haven’t sent a rocket beyond earth’s orbit.”
However, India sent 5 of it’s own payloads and 6 foreign payloads to the moon using it’s own rocket.
Similarly, MCA would be a more strategic, feasible and viable option than purchasing the Russian PAK-FA (itself another maiden attempt and not based on any prior experience).
See, PAK-FA is also Russia’s debut attempt at designing a fighter jet; besides, Tejas Mk.1 is also of the 4++ generation (as per Dr. Natarajan of DRDO) like Su-30 and MiG-35. Thus, as far as the learning curve of 5th G planes is concerned, India and Russia are nearly at the same position.
AbhimanyuIndia, Russia to work on advanced fighter plane
MOSCOW: India will join Russia in practical work to develop the fifth-generation fighter plane later this year after the two sides sign research and development contracts.
It must be noted that as per the above, India’s “practical work” is to begin “later this year”. This, after the aircraft has already been designed, constructed and waiting to take off right as we read this post. Right now, she’s seated in a hanger in northwestern Russia, ready to be tested — without a single Indian screw in it.
It is similar to a country like Argentina “chipping in” the Tejas project after it’s prototypes are already developed and flying.
Thus, any talk of last minute “chipping in” by India is not only meaningless, infructuous and needless, it is tantamount to befuddling a fact that :-
1) The PAK-FA is designed, engineered and constructed by Russia only, and for the Russian Air-Force only.
Figuratively speaking, it is a fighter OF Russia, BY Russia and FOR Russian air-force.
2) Absolutely No Indian ASRs, resulting design requirements, and resulting engineering inputs have ever been incorporated, — nay even considered — in the construction of the PAK-FA prototype that is parked in a Russian hanger right at this instant.
3) Last minute pitching like this — after the first prototype has flown, with not an Indian screw aboard — is meaningless.
Now, it is speculated that India will contribute in “composites”. Though not insignificant, this is a “far cry” from the 50-50 workshare touted by Mr. Baweja of HAL, the IAF and Defence Ministry.
As another example, EADs is consulting Tejas. 10 years ago, LM provided consultany on digital FBW. That doesn’t mean Tejas is European or American.
Similarly, other than consultancy in composites (albeit significant), there is no other potential Indian contribution in the PAK-FA. Thus, PAK-FA remains, and will remain essentially a Russian fighter jet only.
“We have made good progress since concluding an inter-government agreement in 2007 for the joint development and production of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft and are ready to sign detailed contracts this year for implementing the programme,” said Mikhail Pogosyan, CEO of the Sukhoi aircraft building company, which is the chief contractor of the fighter on the Russian side.
“We have now reached a broad agreement with our Indian partners on technical requirements for the new aircraft. The Russian and Indian versions will be very closely integrated. This is extremely important for bringing down production costs.”
Please note the highlighted portions in red font. They have only reached a “broad agreement” and “detailed contracts” may only be signed by the end of the year. This means that even after 2 years of negotiations, only a broad agreement has been reached with not much consensus. This means that there might be “friction” still.
It may sincerely be hoped that this agreement is never finalized and India cancels the PAK-FA project. The $5 bn being “flushed” in this, if spent wisely and commitedly on the indigenous MCA will yield far better results.
Even though India joined the project five years after it was launched in Russia, Mr. Pogosyan said HAL and other Indian contractors would be able to make a 50 per cent input as envisaged by the inter-government agreement.
See, in the above Mr. Pogosyan is implying that local Indian contractors will get many contracts to manufacture “nuts & bolts” of PAK-FA, India being a cheap manufacturing destination. Many local firms that supply parts to ISRO, DRDO etc. are likely to be “roped in” for this also.
This is in conformance with HAL chief, Mr. Ashok Baweja’s strategy to make HAL a licence producer and integrator of foreign products only. There are corrupt vested interests in the private manufacturers who are “lusting” after the contracts and are lobbying extremely hard for HAL to licence build as many foreign jets as possible, like MRCA, helicopters and now this — even though India has ongoing indigenous programmes for ALL of the same.
AbhimanyuSteep climbs, the ability to fly inverted, high gravity turns and loops evoked praise? They have not been demonstrated in displays before, many years after first flight?
They have been demonstrated in Aero-India 2007 also. Videos of the same are available on youtube. The above is your own assumption only.
So after all these years the Tejas still has multiple shortcomings but is due to enter service in 2011? It’s a bit late to bring in a design consultant at this stage, isn’t it? It sounds like ADA should have done so years ago.
Note that Tejas Mk.1 will benefit little from EADs’ consultancy; it is these that will enter squadron service in 2011.
As mentioned in a latest news report, EADs’ consultancy will result in larger wings, redesigned undercarriage, more weapons, bigger engine etc. The beneficiary of this will be Tejas Mk.2 that will enter squadron service in 2013 (as per IAF chief Mr. Major in an interview).
Sounds to me like EADS would not be re-designing the aircraft but rather helping ADA to gain better situational awareness of the design problems they have.
Note that EADs will merely accelerate the flight-testing regime; ADA takes cautious steps with each test flight, but EADs will advise on how to conduct test-flights in a way so that maximum parameters are tested in the shortest possible test time.
Redesigning the undercarriage is a routine activity that was also undergone by Gripen C/D to result in Gripen-NG. Hence, Tejas Mk.1 and Tejas Mk.2 will be markedly different in this regard. Similarly, more weapons, bigger engine, etc. are NOT “design issues” as you said above, but a transition to a better fighter only. It is as routine as the next version of cars, computers etc.
Time for a bit of glasnost where the LCA is concerned?
See, it may be ironical that you are requesting Glasnost when your sources about Tejas’ so-called “delays” and “problems” are from the same Indian media itself which all of us here in India read too (I also post often on Col. Ajai Shukla’s blog from where you quote).
It’s not as though you have the “inside story” that others don’t know.
Instead, it is people on internet sites like BR who are “lighting the candles” on how the Indian media is wrong and mistaken, and how the Tejas programme is progressing very well. These people get the “inside story” on Tejas’ progress that the Indian tabloids will never report, and post it on BR fora. I suggest that you may visit BR forums.
AbhimanyuTest flights of the fifth generation fighter will be initiated during the year
February 12, 2009
/AVIA.RU/
February 12, AVIA.RU –
Remember, creating the fifth-generation aircraft will take place in conjunction with the Indian side.
The above last statement in the Russian report sounds like a sales pitch or someone talking like a sly marketeer or politician (“Remember, call 982..566 today!”)
It must be noted that this is probably the first time that a Russian media report has finally acknowledged Indian participation in PAK-FA no matter how miniscule it is. This speaks volumes about India’s negligible role in the PAK-FA. This proves that India is only purchasing the PAK-FA, and any claim of joint-production etc. is not only inaccurate, it amounts to falsification and cheating of the Indian public by HAL’s chairman Mr. Baweja, the Indian Air Force and the Defence Ministry.
AbhimanyuIn my view, a provision for dual launchers can be made on the station where the “green bombs” are attached. This will increase the number of weapon-stations on Tejas to 10, which will equal those of Gripen-NG.
I think a lot could have been done by the IAF in this “wasted” decade. It just mulled sending the MRCA RFP all these years (sent it in 2008 finally) and did little else.
A little more foresight and planning on it’s part could easily have transformed the Tejas into an MRCA.
Merely writing the ASRs and giving the file to ADA is not enough.
AbhimanyuTejas itself has US engine. and it would take time for Mk2 to fly and reach induction point.
even that version might have F414.
ajai_ijn, both the GE-F404 engines (F2J3 and IN-20) are for the first squadron and the 8 prototypes only. Thus, it is an interim engine only.
In my view, as EADs will provide extensive consultancy on Tejas, it can be safely assumed that their consultancy can best be executed & complimented on an EAD-produced engine itself i.e. Eurojet. Thus, GE-414 may not be selected.
AbhimanyuSee, if US approval is needed for aircraft like Typhoon and Gripen also — not to speak of F-16 and F-18 — then these aircraft are likely to come with various restrictions and “strings attached”.
It may be recalled that a few months earlier, the US firm (either Boeing or LM) were refused tender for Tejas’ consultancy, because they demanded that as per US law, the Tejas would contain American “technology”, and so it must also have a say in where and how IAF will deploy it’s own fighters.
In this way, 4 aircraft can already be disqualified by IAF. If Rafale has even “miniscule” US content, it too cannot be inducted ino the IAF. MiG-35, though free of US technology, is not at all a capable fighter as discussed earlier. It is a Russian “throaway” and is being offered to India simply to keep it’s empty production lines running (Russian airforce has stopped it’s induction and is phasing out the MiG-29s gradually). Even if we consider the last criterion, the F-16 and F-18 too are American throwaways — not inducted in the home airforce anymore, and being exported simply to keep jobs and ancilliary companies engaged. We may expect the Obama administration to fervently pitch for these 2 fighters.
Thus, as none of the 6 contenders are useful in any way to the IAF, the IAF must concentrate on the development of the Tejas Mk.II and have it inducted as the MRCA.
AbhimanyuChina never planned an indigenous engine for the J-10 so there is nothing to fail at.
The above is inaccurate. The WS-10 engine was an indigenous development, intended for the J-10. So far, it has not yielded good results and the PLAAF was forced to purchase the Russian AL-31 for the same.
Chinese approach to indigenous defence system manufacturing is very different and more sensible to India’s. They get what they can off the shelf instead of reinventing the wheel.
See, even DRDO opted for off-the shelf components which it did not have the capability to develop, or was in the process of developing. Examples are GE-F404 engine, Martin Baker ejection seat, Litening target pod from Israel, and display systems from Sextant. It also obtained consultancy on FBW integration and testing from Lockheed Martin.
However, the above are interim purchases because the indigenous counterparts are under development. They are : Kaveri engine, DRDO’s ejection seat, Siva HADF pod (though not target pod), and display systems from Samtel. The flight-control s/w, integration and testing was done indigenously under the guidance of Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, after India was imposed with sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests.
J-10 is operational and FC-1 is about to go operational.
The above is inaccurate. The FC-1 has been rejected by PLAAF as per informal Chinese sources. In Pakistan, only the prototypes are undergoing testing (much like Tejas’ 7 prototypes in India). However to portray an image of successful completion, the PAF will “induct” these pre-production prototypes also.
In case of LCA we are still looking for an engine and foreign partners.
Please note that PAF is also looking for a western engine for the JF-17, as it is unsatisfied with the Russian one and the Chinese engine has failed.
India could not even stop Russia, our biggest weapon supplier, not to sell RD93s to Pakistan for FC1s.
That won’t matter now, because as mentioned above, PAF is unsatisfied by the Russian engines and is seeking western engines.
AbhimanyuI have said it before and I would say it again. Abhimanyu your commitment to the Tejas programme is commendable, but you are not yet touching on ground realities. The ACM has pointed out that the MRCA is not a replacement for the MIG 21s (LCA will do that job). It is going to replace the MIG 23s and some of MIG 27s, which points to an aircraft with good strike capability.
Arey sir ! That is what I think needs to change in the IAF’s “stubborn” mindset (everyone knows what Major has been saying). 3 noted Aviation experts are already of the opinion that Tejas can indeed replace the MiG-29s and be the ideal MRCA. Range-payload specs of Tejas also match those of the MiG-23/27s also.
Note that I never refer to it as ‘LCA’, because this very word has led to it’s being boxed into a corner labelled as “Light MiG-21 replacement only (strictly nothing else)”.
It can carry as many weapons — by number as well as weight — as MiG23/27s. It’s composites make it so light, that Naval test pilot Mr. Maulankar said that it has “amazingly long range legs for it’s small size”.
The Tejas has only began its trials with live bombs recently, and there is a long way to go before it could be compare to some of the strike platforms offered in the MRCA, especially the Super Hornet, Viper and Rafale.
As discussed numerous times earlier, the Rafale, Typhoon and F-18 E/F would be redundant and needless additions in the IAF, because they have the same range-payload specs as the serving Su-30 MKIs.
MiG-35 is so useless — size of F-18, weight of F-15 and specs of F-16 — that it shouldn’t be allowed to even fly in the preliminary trials and thrown out.
As regards the single engined competitors, the Gripen and F-16, it has been discussed earlier that Tejas has nearly the same practical range-payload specs as these two. Now, with the “exciting” news that by EADs’ consultancy, it’s weight will be reduced and more weapon-stations will be added, the Tejas Mk.II will match the Gripen-NG and F-16 exactly, and I will not have to resort to approximations to inch and pull it ever closer to the practical specs of Gripen-NG and F-16 in most combat scenarios.
There is no final decision on the radar of the Tejas yet, and MK2 acc to ACM will only be ready by 2013, the year the selected MRCA will enter squadron service.
Haan baba, so if the year of the introduction of Tejas Mk. II and MRCA is the same, then why not 126 more Tejas’ ? Is it that necessary to entertain these foreign companies ? Is it a promise etched on stone, “we will buy only foreign MRCAs” ?
Note that all 126 won’t be delivered in 2013; only the first lot of 10 or so will be. These will be off-the shelf ones.
The ACM is right and you are wrong. He says CAN replace the MRCA, not WILL replace, there is a difference.
No. He was clearly asked about the role of the PAK-FA and he replied and meant exactly that PAK-FA will replace the MRCA. Word semantics may not matter.
Have you not read the reports that the Indian version of PAK FA will only be ready by 2017, it is in the PAK FA thread. So Yet again the ACM is right with his time frame.
A mere 4 years when MRCA inductions began, and already the replacement aircraft will start getting inducted ? I don’t think Major knew what he himself was talking.
The PAK-FA is not an Indian project his estimates change as per the Russian estimates change, they are saying 2017sh now. The IAF is developing the MCA with ADA and not DRDO, as of now its a paper plane, when we talk about MCA we are talking 2020+ at least.
Please note that ADA is a junior affiliate of DRDO, and it oversees the Tejas project. Dr. Natarajan, chief DRDO talks of it as “my project” in some interviews.
The IAF may want a better engine on the Tejas. So it does not matter if its 75KN or 79KN, the main indication to why it needs this is from the IAFs demand that better avionics must be integrated with the MK2 Tejas, which may cause added weight, compensated by the higher thrust engine. Also just being above the required 75KN of thrust does not give enough room for future integration of avionics, weapons etc.
See, the thrust of Eurojet or GE-414 will be o the order of 90-100 kN, which is significantly higher than the current 79 kN of F-404, or 83 kN of F404-IN20. So-termed “better avionics” shall be taken care of ‘open architecture’ system of Tejas so that it can retain and absorb the latest avionics developments in the coming years. This has been stated numerous times by Dr. Subramanyam of ADA.
Otherwise, why would IAF entertain 35 year old F-16s and F-18s ?
Bars variant being installed on MIG 35 ??? The Radar on Mig 35 is Zhuk AE it is NOT a Bars variant. Is the LCAs nose as Big as the MIG 35s ? If we are buying a factory radar we may as well buy the Elta 2052.
I agree I was mistaken; Bars variant is being installed on MiG-29 called Bars-29. It has been compacted to fit in the nose of MiG-29. Similarly, AESA radar of F-15 and F-35 was compacted to fit in the F-16’s nose too.
Similarly, when EADs made it’s offering of Tejas, it considered all relevant aspects for the same.
Besides, it is estimated that Tejas’ nose is of the size of F-16.
AbhimanyuI will be informal and “attacking” from this post onwards.
interview with AF Chief. posted by ante.
What types of aircraft will MMRCA replace?
We shall be phasing out Mig variants. The Mig-23s in our fleet will go, as well a portion of Mig-27 inventory.
I think Mr. Major is also likely to be aware that the Tejas can also carry 3,500-4,000 kgs of weapons in it’s present configuration and has equivalent combat radius as the MiG-23/27 that he seeks to replace.
Thus, the reason why Mr. Major is considering a foreign MRCA instead of Tejas is totally unclear.
When does the IAF plan to introduce Sukhoi’s fifth generation PAK-FA fighter into Squadron service?
When we are talking of fifth gen, we are talking of a plane that can replace MMRCA. We are talking of a huge time frame with design and development. If the MMRCA enters service in 2012-2013, it would be atleast 2018 before we start talking about Fifth Gen.
In my view, the above statement is the most “baffling”. The MRCA is expected to be in service till 2040 atleast. Thus, a replacement as he says would imply a plane that would be one that would mature fully around that timeframe, which in turn would be the consequence of slower development time. Only the MCA fits that criterion.
But the PAK-FA that Major is purchasing, would enter service in 2015 (as per his own earlier statements). So, how does it exactly reconcile replacing the MRCA that he wants to induct only 2 years earlier ????
Besides, note his confusing statement once again, “we can’t talk of fifth gen. before 2018”. He should be asked about the 2015 estimate that he himself gave of inducting the PAK-FA. Most importantly, he should be asked about the MCA, which the IAF will be developing along with DRDO starting very soon (and not 2018).
A new engine will be integrated by 2011. We need five squadrons of the Tejas Mk2 LCAs. The engine should be easier to integrate. We are looking at 75 KN of thrust. The GE F404 won’t do. When integrated, the LCA Mk2 should fly in 2013.
The above statement is not only confusing, but also laughable. It exposes Major’s utter lack of knowledge.
He must be reminded that the GE-F404 has 79 kN of thrust. The IAF threw a lottery figure of 100 kN that it thinks is “sufficient” for Tejas.
AbhimanyuErr will AESA radars increase fighter numbers :confused:
ante_climax, I did not understand the above. The IAF can place orders for 126 Tejas over and above the commitment of 150 (7 squads) it has made already.
110 MRCAs are scheduled to be assembled in India under licence anyway, in any case, under any scenario. So might those 126 be the Tejas.
but then they will have to redesign AESA for smaller tejas and bigger Su-30. also we have a JV with Israel on LCAs Radar.
EADs has already conducted preliminary study for the same and have made their offering accordingly. Another example of compacted radar is the variant of Bars variant being installed on MiG-35 also.
I hope you are right but I would like to ask why you think that. Can you cite an example of an indigenous program that has “worked” ie has produced what was supposed to be produced, when it was supposed to be produced, at the price at which it was supposed to be produced? I’m not suggesting there are none, by the way.
Spitfire, examples of the above would be Dhruv helicopter for the Army and IAF, Pinaka rockets, INDRA radar for IAF and Army, Rohini radars for IAF (Major said he was “pleased” with it and ordered 9), BFSR radar for Army, APSOH sonar for the Navy, Bharani field radar, INSAS rifles (used successfully by our Nepali brothers in Kargil operations), Shakthi C3I systems, 3rd gen. Nag missiles (500 ordered), Akash SAM for the IAF (2 squadrons ordered) and many others.
This is of course, besides the “usual” Prithvi, Agni, Brahmos, core avionics of Su-30 MKI & Jaguars etc. & etc. Besides, the first regiment of 50 Arjun tanks will be inducted by end of this month.
The project started in 1978 and in 2009, 31 Years later they are still looking for an engine and foreign partners. Lets get over our sentimental attachment and national pride and get some thing that works.
Birddog, the above statements are inaccurate. As per the ’88 report posted by yourself, ADA director VS Arunachalam Tejas has stated that Tejas was yet to begin design phase as of 1988. It was only “conceived” in 1978 and only “sanctioned” in 1983. Mere “conception” and “sanctioning” are bureaucratic formalities only, and do not indicate start of a project, as Dr. Arunachalam has said.
It may be mentioned that China too has failed completely in making the indigenous engines for it’s flagship J-10 fighter jet, and the FC-1 (a private venture with Pak). This, despite the fact that the WS-10 engine is an unauthorised copy of Russia’s AL-31.
References :-
Fali Major : We’re pleased with Rohini radar. Performance is excellent.
Sign In
