vikasrehmanKramer ‘bang for the buck’ is an assumption on my behalf. But we dont know the precise capabilities of the the two systems to be able to work out the exact nature of this assumption? For example, the two may or may not offer the same capabilities in say range in AA mode. But what about its other modes, diversity of weapons they can operate or are integrated with, maturity, MTBF etc. In such things french system-with french expertise-is likely to outdo chinese & there is time factor. PAF have a specific requirement NOW. Chinese might be able to give them something similar in a few years down the line but may be PAF cant or doesnt want to wait. Its just like, in my opinion, MK-2 has the potential to b NG equivalent in a few years down the line & still would cost probably only half that of an NG. But i dont think IAF would be willing to wait for that long-cos it would be detrimental to their future plans. It would in fact be stupid for them to wait when they have the options & resources.
vikasrehmanKramer, i might b wrong but i think those comments by rimmer were in MMRCA context?
As for your comments about J-10/JF-17, why would PAF seek either when more F-16 block 52 can meet their requirements? Why would IAF seek same gen MKI/MMRCA/LCA when theres a massive price difference? To me the answer lies in different roles they are envisaged for, the capabilities they can offer to respective AFs, & to some extent the geopolitical situation.
As for china vs french avionics, simplest answer would be cos the latter provide better bang for the buck. Period.
vikasrehmanKramer, i understand your perspective. Just out of interest though how would you classify some of the following,
Mig-21 bis & bison
Mig-29 C, SMT, K & 35
SU-27, SM, -30, MKK, MKI
M2K & -5/9
F-16 Block 15, 40, 52. 60
F-15 C & E
Gripen A & NG.
PS.i really didnt mean to sound sarcastic or meant any insult by making those mki/lca remarks. It was just to highlight the overall capabilities of mki despite its structure containing relatively fewer composites.
vikasrehmanKramer, to me Bison with all these modification wil remain a 2nd gen structural design with 4th gen components added to it. But i wouldn’t try to reclassify it in any strict manner of speaking. I mean the upcoming M2K upgrade would give IAF machines 4+ gen avionics but how does go about reclassifying it? Does it become a 4+ gen machine or stay a 3rd gen? I dont know if this would involve any composites or no. I also dont understand what you mean by significant? Would adding couple of composite panels to a mig-19 be deemed significant & merit reclassification.
I do understand your pov. All im trying to question is whether the classification is as rigid or open to interpretation.
ps. I know LCA was designed to be a 4th machine while MKI content of composites is likely to be far less. But i know which one i would like to fly. So does a rigid classification systen really matter?
vikasrehmanYou are abs right Erkokite. French system is a whole package & would save them considerable time.
On another note, one must note that neither PAF nor the involved companies have said anything thus far. The anonymos source was from the president’s office- suggestive of a political motive behind this leak?- & iregardless of the reason the deal is only said to be held up (for the time being at least). Second batch would start production in 2012/13 so there is still sometime to go.
Now a genera question. Does anyone know which JF-17 components are currently being produced in Pak? Alan warnes put it at 20% for 09-111, the first one to roll out of PAC line.
vikasrehmanSomeone- may be Teer?- made a valid point earlier in that indian defence establishment should not b directly compared with the west. The latter with its decades of experience has great reserves of expertise to replace the lost talent from. Indian defence industry in its teeage years yet does not enjoy that luxury for the time being.
This, however, raises some other questions. While i agree that IAF might be perfectly happy with LSP3 delay or any other delays- n hence no public complaints- I wonder if IAF as an end user has anything to gain by making a hoo haa about it? Whether they get LCA tomorrow or 10 years down the line, their requirements will be met. Right? LCA is not exactly the end of line for them-is it? IAF started with x number of MKI, which was later increased by y & even later by z. Everyone talked of 120 odd MMRCA at start & then we hear that it might go up to 200-& if it does, there shouldnt be any surprise. So LCA is not a question of life or death for IAF the way lets say F-35 is for USAF. IA made some hoo haa about Arjun trials a while ago which resulted in gross accusations including the possibility of internal sabotage. But even their tank requirements are being met in one way or another. Take a look at Indian BM programme. Didnt really have any foreign alternatives, yet it has been smooth-er. What if IAF/IA didnt have foreign substitutes for products like LCA, Arjun etc, could the outcome have been any different?
On a final note, is this- what some term indian inaction over such delays- affecting Indian self reliance programme? While India does a lot more in-house stuff than before, does anyone have some figures for comparison reason, i.e. The targets, what percentage of armed force needs were met through imports say couple of decades back wrt to the situation now?
vikasrehmanErkokite, no need to apologise-at least not on my part. 🙂 Considering China doesnt pose a strategic threat to France, enjoys good trade relations with France (maybe some1 could check this but i think the bilateral trade vol between the two is around 4-5 times larger than that between France & India), French offer is not for the cutting edge tech, & China is unlikely to be too much behind in terms of what France is offering to Pak, prolif risk didnt sound v plausible: though of coure we cant be absolutely certain without firm evidence.
vikasrehmanErkokite, not too long ago french were the top supporter of lifting the arms embargo. They wanted to sell military stuff directly to china. Why this sudden change over something like this, which is not exactly top of the range if you look at the latest gadgets on rafale. A year or so ago there were similar reports though US concern wrt tech prolif was the cited reason-even when US is supplying more advanced stuff to Pak. As for taiwan connection, last i heard of those M2Ks was when when taiwanese were thinking of mothballing them cos of prohibitive operating costs.
vikasrehmanTeer, nobody can deny the constraints that shortage of funding would cause. I for one have never done so. But one cant & must not ignore the alternatives. It could be funding, indian pressure, pak’s demands for some tot & risk of prolif, French decision to wait 4 the outcome of MMRCA technical report, something else, or any of these in any combo. Point is unless we have something crystal clear-in this a named person with authority saying blah blah-there is nothing to prove or disprove for anyone.
vikasrehmanSamsara, no point in trying to convince Abhi about this. Saab with its decades of fighter R & D experience needs 5-6 years to turn a proven & mature design into something like NG (if i recall correctly NG demo came out in 2008, 1st prototype would be rolled out next year, & only then the final product will be ready after 2-3 years of extensive testing). While i totally understand Abhi’s desire 2 focus more on MK-2, & i could even agree that IAF-should it wish to do so-could become an equally capable AF even without MMRCA (for example by further upgrading MKI & even buying more of these & so on), what i have never been able to understand is how would ADA could turn an unproven design yet to attain IOC into a NG equivalent by 2013/14 timeframe with only ‘some’ foreign consultancy. Is there something that Abhi knows that no one else does? At least every other contender was able to take part in trials with their proven predecessors. What would ADA/HAL have sent? LCA prototype? At least the ones that took part-final products or predecessors-would have been able to get some ticks against their name, i.e. ability to fire a range of munitions, refuelling, well established logistics/maintenance, operational cost etc. How about LCA prototype. Yeah. To be done, to be done, to be done. Technical report might add…btw it was MK-1 which had a lot of to be dones. We should wait till all these to be dones are done & ticked, & then give ADA/HAL the second chance-just like NG-to enter their MK-2 for final trials. And sure the induction of NG equivalent MK-2 could start in 2013/14. No probs at all. 😉
vikasrehmanAbhi, are you sure that C-130 & IL-76 can move all present & near future-planned cargo for Ind armed services without the need of dismantling? Or do u just ‘think’ that to be the case? Someone did mention Arjun earlier.
On another note, when talking you sometimes dont seem to take into consideration ind future plans. Sure C-17 might not be needed today but then they are not coming tomorrow. Are they? These things take years before the actual delivery. Have you ever thought why India is planning to add 3 carrier bat groups or going towards nuke subs? I mean it could operate a much larger number of dest/frig/normal subs-than it presently has-instead of carriers or nuke subs, & still could protect indian shores equally well. But no. Ind as an emerging global power needs better equipped forces with much greater reach & influence in future, & power projection is an abs requirement for that. Im sure Indian planners are thinking years in advance, so they wont have to convert airliners into cargo vessels, lets say 15 years down the line, should the need arise.
vikasrehmanKramer, regarding fighter generation, the terms are quite loosely defined. A fighter can have third gen airframe but 4++ gen avionics. How could we classify that? For example, F-16A are given a structural upgrade to address airframe life, fatigue n so on. It could also receive SABR/RACR AESA n so on. What gen would it belong to? MKI is another example. To me it wud always be an extremely modified SU-27 just d way block 60 evolved from block 1. I dont know but i cant imagine similar sort of aircraft engineeing, composites, airframe life etc for this machine as is normally associated with lets say eurocanards. The latter-in my opinion-also have more modern cockpit layout. But then MKI does have top of the range avionics. I guess what im trying to say is that its difficult to label with a particular gen based on standard criterib since these criteria r themselves loosely defined.
As for french stuff making jf-17 more exportable, i think thats a myth. In fact i cant recall any official ever saying so. What they say is that its a modular design, & depending on a customer’s requirement it could b fitted with different avionics. This would have an impact on its price, & its upto a customer how much they are willing to pay. Finally we dont know what french deal involves. It probably includes weapons, local assembly, may be some sort of tot, integration etc. We simply dont know. BTW A Warnes did talk about Mica IR-& not EM-& i did wonder whether PAF might wish to go ahead with Mica IR/SD-10 combo???
Finally, i would once again suggest to all that we should not jump the gun, & wait for further clarification from the involved companies. There have been too many similar instances in the past.
vikasrehmanSamsara, are you sure that chinese propensity to copy etc. has much to do with it? Though i must admit im not aware of present french policies in this regard, but a while back at least French used to be the biggest proponents of lifting the chinese arms embargo off, i.e. they wanted to sell directly to them. & people used to talk about all sorts of possibilities such as rafale.
vikasrehmanKramer, i was a little surprised wrt your comments about 4th gen fighters & composites. I mean what sort of % composite material do fighters like J-11, J-10, Mig-29 constitute, & what gen do these belong to? MKI is def considered to be a 4++ gen…right?…& comp % is? What is the standard requirement in terms of % for re-classification? Should JF-17 make use of some composites-& i believe there are plans for this at some timepoint in future-would that turn it into a 4th gen?
I do agree about JF-17 & highway landings though. I dont think F-7 & Mirages were designed for this purpose & yet they are doing so. Shorter TO/LAND requirements for the former was more likely a general requirement for obvious reasons. As for the use of highways, its an old idea within PAF due to the lack of Pak strategic depth & no! of bases, & hence these highways were built keeping in mind PAF needs.
Regarding the french, well just wait & see. Remember how many times we heard such stories about RD-93 & so on? Even if true, i think it might have more to do with MMRCA than anything else. & if Rafale is kicked out in first stage, we’ll likely hear something different. As for the 6 bil figure that might be to do with the optional extras, i.e. The whole lot over the years.
vikasrehmanSamsara, over the past few weeks i have only read instead of posting. & I have come to realise how quickly people jump the gun & make assumptions. Its strange to see how quickly we start writing US off as an ally & so on, as soon as US does something contrary to our national interests. We tend to forget its about interests & not friendships. Of course geopolitical situation can change overnight-hence i keep saying IF it doesnt change drastically-but so far nothing drastic has happened vis-a-vis US-IND relations. No matter who the pres is in US (though it might have some impact), US as a nation has its own interests. Her short-med term interests require Pakistan but her long term interests need India. These are plain facts, though you never kno if US might require Pak in the even longer run to contain India. 🙂 So no need to worry in that sense. What Indian masses need to learn, however, that US is her own boss, & would or wouldnt do Indian bidding depending on her own interests.
Sign In
