vikasrehmanNot exactly……
More than quality…..its about not upsetting the security and territorial integrity of India. India is the regional power and the current leadership here in SL is smart in that sense. They made it very clear that they won’t do anything that might upset India. Thats why we got the Indra-II RADARs and the Air-Defense system free. Off-course those RADARs did their job.
So when it come to certain purchases… it is indeed a phone call to New Delhi first……:D
SL leadership is indeed smart enough in this sense. They wouldn’t want to upset India, but I think Chinese help (which played a major part in routing of LTTE) is unlikely to be ignored either. Both SL govt and leadership have their own interests, and having a counterweight to Indian influence within SL might be considered advantageous by some…though it would mean delicate balancing of relations.
vikasrehmanBack to IAF, MMRCA, LCA etc. Please.
Earlier on someone presented an argument on this forum, MMRCA winner would most likely be a compromise between ‘what IAF wants’ and ‘what GoI’ wants. IAF would have couple of favourites, and GOI would also have couple of favourites, and decision would be reached on that basis. I, for one, believe (as I have argued before) that F-18 is the most likely winner. Regarding LCA, be it MK.1 or MK.2, it has absolutely no realistic chance of replacing MMRCA, unless of course there are some major changes in Indian defence/foreign policy, international genostrategic situation, and/or Indian economy.
vikasrehmanThere seems to be a bit of confusion about operational clearance.
I mean, according to the ACM, The induction of first squadron of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) to Indian Air Force (IAF) can take place by the end of 2010 or the beginning of 2011 and as some one pointed out according to the ACM FOC would be in 2012. In contrast according to the DM, LCA is expected to get final operation clearance by the end of 2010 and that the first delivery of the LCA to the IAF would take place in 2011.
When it comes to fighter aircraft, at what point a fighter is given FOC? Does it normally happen prior to or after entry into squadron service?
vikasrehmanNO, FOC latest by 2011, as told by IAF Chief.
Is that a deadline or a goal? Your post makes it sound like an absolute/unbreakable deadline.
vikasrehmanSee, from the above analogy Pakistan too did not have to start from making F-86s or F-7s. In it’s debut, it can now directly manufacture JF-17, which is the most advanced fighter jet currently in PAF — even more advanced than the 20 year old F-16s in it’s fleet, which lack basic BVR.
Similarly, Tejas too has transformed from being merely MiG-21 capable, to a modern 4.5 G fighter. India has also embarked upon a plan to make an indigenous 5th G fighter already at par with F-22, despite having far less experience than America in this field.
JF-17. Well, it was China (a nation with plenty of experience in fighter R&D…CAC were already working on a more advanced J-10) who did most of the work. Pakistanis were there becasue they had invested the money, and primarily to learn the whole process (from the start to end), i.e. to start their own fighter aviation industry.
As for Tejas, well if you think the current version can be classified as 4.5G, you are by all means entitled to your opinion. As for the 5th G, we are yet to see if it actually enters service in 2017/18.
vikasrehmanante_climax, from the above Tejas Mk.2 is most suited to be the MRCA because as per Vice-Admiral Raman Puri (retd) and Mr. Parthasarthy (ex-Scientific advisor to GoI), the Tejas is already capable to Mirage-2000, and even exceeds it in some features.
It may sincerely be hoped that the Gripen – NG “wins” the final round of the selection process. Then, DRDO as well as popular public opinion can pressurize an “adamant” IAF to accept the Tejas Mk.2 instead, for by then it would have been developed as much as Gripen – NG. It has happened in the past as in case of Bofors howitzers and light utility choppers.
This is the only way to force the IAF to accept Tejas Mk.2, given that it will obviously miss the August deadline of user-trials.
Abhi, take a look at your own post, and consider this.
We have recently heard from ACM of IAF that Tejas (the one which is already capable to Mirage-2000, and even exceeds it in some features) would enter squadron service either at the end of 2010 or beggining of 2011.
When Gripen entered operational service in late 90s, it was at least equivalent to Mirage 2000, and yet it would take SAAB another 15-20 years before Gripen NG would enter operational service (around 2014 or so).
Early F-16s were also equivalent to Mirage 2000 and in spite of various improvements it would take around 15-20 years before F-16 Block 60 would enter operational service.
Now if first Tejas enters squadron service in 2010, and squadron entry of MMRCA is slated for 2015, what makes Tejas so different from the above two examples? Considering the state of Indian aviation industry vis-a-vis Swedish or US, i.e. not as advanced, what makes you even think that an upgraded Tejas (equivalent to the above two so that at least could take part in this competition) will be ready by 2015? Please dont give us any quotes…but just some simple logical explanation.
In my opinion, Tejas offers only two advantage for MMRCA competition.
1. Indigenous
2. Cheaper than any MMRCA contender.
And that’s about it.
vikasrehman[QUOTE=zero;1409250]I understand it differently.
I do not have ready reconer. I did read about PAF flying f-16 less for preserving airframe life.
Here is some interesting stuff on F-16 PAF
You are entitled to your opinion.
Regarding life hours, I think those statements are quite old, when sanctions were in place and/or prior to F-16 agreement with US.
PS. One can always expect Gary Ackerman to ask such a question, i.e. what role would these modern F-16s would play in WAT (they are only India-centric), and now that the old machines are being used against insurgents, the question changes to why (these old machines) are being used against insurgents (conveniently forgetting his own role in F-16 saga). Does make one wonder.:)
vikasrehmanWhat he (Holbrooke) says is that currently the capability and training does not exists. Infact, some ex-pilots from PAF have said that F-16 are used sparingly and there is less training. Nothing to be defensive about. Ackerman asked a question. But the reply is from Holbrook.
Jets have been flown regularly in SWAT. But, the point is how accurate? IIRC Kargil war, the M2K’s were one of the most successful planes with modifications. ATLIS and Paweways are in PAF. But, again since the flying on f-16 is less, training is bad. Operation Black Thunderstorm, F-16 did perform.
IMO, what is being said is right in a holistic way.
Zero, all that Holbrook said was “I am told by F-16 pilots that F-16s with modern avionics can be used as a counter-insurgency tool, but quite honestly, it requires very sophisticated training. They did use aging F-16s in the battles in Swat.“, which (at least to me) does not necessarily imply that currently the capability and training does not exists. First, does Holbrook know that these PAF F-16s are able to carry out precision strikes mission (Atlis) and second is he aware of how PAF trains its pilots. Now let me turn the tables round. These jets are not equipped with up-to-date avionics or PAF has had training issues in the past because of people like Gary Ackerman…just check their track record.
Now regarding F-16’s sparing use, to be honest Im not aware of that, and hopefully you would be able to provide me with some reliable information on that vis-a-vis the recent Swat issue. I know from Kaiser Tufail’s article, that they were sparingly used during Kargil tension (due to limited spared parts), but those sanctions are not there anymore. But to tell you the truth I have no idea how often F-16s are being used right now.
Finally, of course jets have been used. Unlike the article implies, the whole area is not full of civilians like an urban population centre. It consists of mountains, valleys, riverbeds and all sorts of places, and for all we know (for the times being) these jets are being being used in sparsely populated areas???
Now take a look at the article as a whole…I only skimmed through it briefly…but it is biased beyond belief (if you would like me to mention, I would point various things to you). Right now I would mention just one thing.
Of course. During the Bush administration, the United States spent more than $10 billion to train and equip the military so that it could pursue an aggressive campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas. That was money flushed down the drain.
Fareed Zakaria recently asked Mr Musharraf the very question for his show on CNN called GPS. And the response was to the effect…’Of those (famously touted) $10 billion, half was for Pakistan (country) for providing the ‘services’ to US army, so that was no aid, rather money ‘owed’ to Pakistan for providing those services to US. Of the remaining $5 billion, half went to the social sector in Pakistan and Pakistan military was only given $2.5 billion’. The next bit of his reply was (for some reason) edited from the interview that was actually shown on CNN. It was to the effect, that ‘US has spent $143 billion in Afgahnistan up to date, and yet Taliban control 50% of Afghanistan. Compare $2.5 billion with $143 billion and the ground situation’.
vikasrehmanFrom what we have heard so far, Pakistan has mainly been using heli gunships in its battles against insurgents, though jets have also been used when required. We have heard that LGBs have been used, and of course some of their Mirages have precision strike capability and their F-16s are also compatible with the Atlis pod. If memory surves me right, I think I have seen at least one pic of F-7PG with LGBs.
As for Mr Gary Ackerman, if you do a simple google search, he has a very long track record when it comes to Pakistan and any sort of F-16s. Those F-16s would go through the MLU, which would make them a lot more capable in terms of precision strike.
vikasrehmanWing Commander Kukke Suresh VrC (retd) has written many articles for bharat rakshak, including the one posted by 21Ankush. This article and this article are some of his other articles posted on bharat-rakshak’s website. He was the relative of one of the owners of the site.
Thanks for that Abhi. I was first surprised to hear so, but on second thoughts, I dont think you can really inter-relate the forum (much less control just like what we have here on keymags) with the actual website which is quite informative.
vikasrehmanreminded me immediately of a great article on Bharat Rakshak, written by the Late Wing Cmdr ‘Kukke’ Suresh.
Just a simple question. Do these people actually write for this particular website?
vikasrehmanI would like to know what is the “life cycle costs” of each a/c in MMRCA.
A $64,000 question indeed.:)
As for the flying per hour costs are concerned, Gripen IN puts it at <$3000/hr (though I personally was not sure if this included fuel costs???). We have also seen a (somewhat older) figure of $6000-7000/hr for F-16. I remember seeing a brochure (I think it was) for Gripen (probably Aero India 2007?) stating that the flying/hr costs for Gripen were 50% lower than its closest competitor (most likely), and if so these figures for Gripen and US sound about right…but then we could only extrapolate considering the difference in the total number of units Sweden & US operates. OTOH, Mig-35 flying/hr costs are meant to be approximately 2.5 times lower than earlier model Mig-29, and F-18 is meant to be around 40% cheaper than F-14, though I have no idea of the relevant costs of Mig-29 and F-14s (must be in tens of thousands of $). Having said I think there is only one thing relatively safe to assume here; flying per hour costs would be cheapest for the Gripen. Next in line would most likely be F-16 (single engine) and following that would probably (guestimating now) eurocanards and then Mig-35/F-18???
vikasrehmanI think for the USAF/USN , the AIm-120 D is most likely the last Pure A2A BVR missile to be produced in decent numbers . The JDRADM is what the DOD envisions as the future for the fighter force and that is a DUAL ROLE (some say tri role) , it isnt a mature program and wont be seriously looked into for quite some time .
When I said ‘variant’, I didnt strictly meant another variant of AMRAAM…though I know it did sound like that. Whatever it would be, whether a more modified version of D (just the way C evolved with better this and that) or something totally different, the point was that US would be working on something better to keep one step ahead in the game, as is always the case.
vikasrehmanWhen is the First MRCA to be delivered ?? By 2015 the D should pretty much be the standard export varient for the SH , it would be stupid not to make it atleast for close allies.
Looking at the election results in India, I think by then India and US should be quite close allies, though a lot would also depend on China’s progress and more so on evolving US/chinese & Russian relations. All in all global overall geostrategic situation.
vikasrehman^^^
The other thing:
Are these on offer with the MRCA?
The PAF received the C5.
I was thinking we’d be lucky to get the C7 at best.
Recently UAEAF ordered C7s. I think by the time, MMRCA aircraft is ready to be inducted, IAF would have access to D, whereas USAF would should aleady be working on a more advanced variant. No one would never get their best from US…they always want to stay at least one (if not two) steps ahead. And why not, anyone in their shoes would want to.
Sign In
