Ajai Shukla : Where Is India's Light Fighter?

[p2prada]

NAL, HAL, BEML, GTRE, LRDE, DARE, BHEL, ADE etc... the entire area is defence central, even ISRO. I lived right in the middle of it all before I moved.

Btw, GTRE and HAL are on the opposite sides of each other.

 

[Tshering22]

Will you blame the people because Nokia came out with a sh!tty product? Will you blame the people if the Nano catches fire every now and then. It is purely DRDO's fault for being hopeless.

DRDO is not even a parcel to the program. Please take a note as to how much PLAAF supported the J-10 program, USAF supported F-16, VVS supported each and every MiG and Sukhoi product. How much did IAF participate since grassroots level? Never. Only in 2001, it started showing reluctant interest. Had IAF been pressing and standing on top of ADA's head since day one, we would have had Tejas by now.

IAF kept changing requirements like a fussy girlfriend does with her fiance and this is what put pressure on ADA to keep changing specifications.

Here's a rule: When you plan to make a jet, make sure you're yourself sure of requirements rather than dancing from one parameter to another all the time.

IAF is doing nothing even now. They are the users, they post requirements and ask the company to deliver. The company cannot even deliver IAF's 1983 ASQR, how do you think they will deliver now?

At the rate at which IAF keeps changing requirements, how can ADA freeze the scope?

There is nothing IAF can say or do to make ADA work as required unless you hand over ADA to IAF.

Well I always supported ADA to be under IAF. Ask the UPA about it though.

But Saab did. Heck the Russians wanted one like LCA and they stopped like 2 decades ago because the requirement does not exist for them. Check the Mig-33.

VVS structure was very different from normal air forces around the planet. Their strategy and tactics were impossible to duplicate for us simply because of their doctrine. Don't comare VVS and IAF here.

The dung heap on this side is as green as the grass on the other side of the fence. Tejas's failure has nothing to do with IAF.

Firstly, Tejas is not failed. It has not even crashed once even in training phase, which speaks volumes about the class of jet we are getting. ADA is run by bureaucrats. Not scientists or businessmen. If either scientists of Businessmen replace the sarkari dodos making decisions, then see how things speed up. It is the government babus that are a hurdle, neither the minds in ADA nor the IAF pilots themselves.

 

[ace009]

@Tshering,
The 1998 sanctions were indeed bad for LCA, but the question is, why was ADA dependent upon Boeing alone? The French, the Russians had not sanctioned India. Why did it take ADA years to get another partner like Dassault or SNECMA? Before we blame USA for the failure of the Tejas, think about what it meant for them and what it meant for us. For the USA, it was just "business", India was not even in it's radar as a "strategic partner" back then, for India it was a matter of national pride and self-determination. It seems to me that different GoI bodies (including MoD, ADA, HAL, IAF) could not get it's act together and had made sure that the Tejas program would languish due to infightings.

@P2Prada
Every country which has it's own designed and manufactured aircraft, their national airforce has been a major source of support. Why is it that Sweden flies SAAB Gripens only? or before that they flew SAAB Viggens, Drakens and Lansens only?
Why is it that France flies Mirages, and Rafales only?
The Russians never fly anything except for Russian made fighters like MiGs and Sukhois.
The Americans, the Brits - every country that can make in-house fighters have their airforces support and partner with the aircraft manufacturers. Which is why the aircraft companies get into and stay in business of combat aircraft. Try reading the history of Dassault and you will see what the French Air force did for Dassault and vice versa.

The reason HAL/ ADA combo has failed to deliver on LCA is as much because they themselves suck, as because IAF has played a snooty customer, instead of being a in-house partner. And the GoI has played at being a stepmother to Indian defense companies (public or private) at the expense of foreign corporations who can provide bribes to ministers and officials.

 

[Tshering22]

@Tshering,
The 1998 sanctions were indeed bad for LCA, but the question is, why was ADA dependent upon Boeing alone? The French, the Russians had not sanctioned India. Why did it take ADA years to get another partner like Dassault or SNECMA?

From what I know, ADA had a multitude of advisors. Dassault was also an advisor but due to some disagreements, the contract ceased. So Boeing became the main consultant. The stuff was going all hunky dory for them until the sanctions happened.

You need to understand that strategic deals and contracts just don't happen overnight. It takes time and negotiations to get them through with 1 partner. Besides, do you really think Russia was in a shape to do something in 90s? It was in big trouble itself. There was a total disarray of industries there. How could they have helped us if they were struggling themselves?

Before we blame USA for the failure of the Tejas, think about what it meant for them and what it meant for us. For the USA, it was just "business", India was not even in it's radar as a "strategic partner" back then, for India it was a matter of national pride and self-determination. It seems to me that different GoI bodies (including MoD, ADA, HAL, IAF) could not get it's act together and had made sure that the Tejas program would languish due to infightings.

It was not about business or national pride alone. It was a DEAL. And it was our research that we were not allowed to take back. You get that? WTF are they to tell we can't take our stuff? This was thievery. Nothing less.

 

[ace009]

From what I know, ADA had a multitude of advisors. Dassault was also an advisor but due to some disagreements, the contract ceased. So Boeing became the main consultant. The stuff was going all hunky dory for them until the sanctions happened.

You need to understand that strategic deals and contracts just don't happen overnight. It takes time and negotiations to get them through with 1 partner. Besides, do you really think Russia was in a shape to do something in 90s? It was in big trouble itself. There was a total disarray of industries there. How could they have helped us if they were struggling themselves?



It was not about business or national pride alone. It was a DEAL. And it was our research that we were not allowed to take back. You get that? WTF are they to tell we can't take our stuff? This was thievery. Nothing less.

First, I need to make YOU understand something -
1. Boeing is an independent multinational company, it is not owned by the US Government. Just because US government sanctions a country does not mean that Boeing can force their potential client ADA to leave it's "research" behind. That indeed will be thievery. ADA can sue Boeing and even the US government - and trust me, such lawsuits does sometimes does happen - and generally the US government LOSES in US courts.

However, there is another side to it. If this research is done on Boeing technology, about Boeing capabilities, regarding how Boeing can hellp ADA in LCA Tejas - then Boeing can ask ADA not to take that data outside - it's part of a non-disclosure agreement. Although ADA personnel might be involved in that "research", it is NOT at all ADA property.
It's standard, anyone who works in the private technology sector knows it - the ADA people should know it too.

 

[p2prada]

DRDO is not even a parcel to the program. Please take a note as to how much PLAAF supported the J-10 program, USAF supported F-16, VVS supported each and every MiG and Sukhoi product. How much did IAF participate since grassroots level? Never. Only in 2001, it started showing reluctant interest. Had IAF been pressing and standing on top of ADA's head since day one, we would have had Tejas by now.

US and Russia are at a league of their own. Same with France and Sweden. China does not have a choice. It is either the J-10 or Russian jets which they already have. So, they have to stick to the J-10.

IAF kept changing requirements like a fussy girlfriend does with her fiance and this is what put pressure on ADA to keep changing specifications.

The LCA has the least number of changes since it was first mooted. The F-35 has the most, followed by the Flanker. If IAF is a fussy girlfriend, USAF and VVS are nagging wives. I personally think IAF should have been a lot stricter, like the USAF or VVS and kept the LCA more upto date.

At the rate at which IAF keeps changing requirements, how can ADA freeze the scope?

Design phase is 36 months, followed by prototype production phase for another 48 months followed by flight testing for 9 years according to ADA.

But LCA's design phase was more than 5 years, followed by prototype stage of 7 years followed by flight testing for 13 years. Tell me what IAF can do there?

VVS structure was very different from normal air forces around the planet. Their strategy and tactics were impossible to duplicate for us simply because of their doctrine. Don't comare VVS and IAF here.

VVS decided the aircraft is too useless, that's all. Other than that they were looking at Mig-21 replacement. They decided on the Flanker instead. Alas, they were right.

Firstly, Tejas is not failed. It has not even crashed once even in training phase, which speaks volumes about the class of jet we are getting. ADA is run by bureaucrats. Not scientists or businessmen. If either scientists of Businessmen replace the sarkari dodos making decisions, then see how things speed up. It is the government babus that are a hurdle, neither the minds in ADA nor the IAF pilots themselves.

A project is not determined by how many crashes it has had. It depends on how many test points have been achieved and how many flight tests have been conducted, all to be done within deadline. ADA is not run by bureaucrats, it is run by scientists. Your knowledge of Indian aerospace industry is enough to half fill an egg cup.

 

[p2prada]

@P2Prada
Every country which has it's own designed and manufactured aircraft, their national airforce has been a major source of support. Why is it that Sweden flies SAAB Gripens only? or before that they flew SAAB Viggens, Drakens and Lansens only?
Why is it that France flies Mirages, and Rafales only?
The Russians never fly anything except for Russian made fighters like MiGs and Sukhois.
The Americans, the Brits - every country that can make in-house fighters have their airforces support and partner with the aircraft manufacturers. Which is why the aircraft companies get into and stay in business of combat aircraft. Try reading the history of Dassault and you will see what the French Air force did for Dassault and vice versa.

The reason HAL/ ADA combo has failed to deliver on LCA is as much because they themselves suck, as because IAF has played a snooty customer, instead of being a in-house partner. And the GoI has played at being a stepmother to Indian defense companies (public or private) at the expense of foreign corporations who can provide bribes to ministers and officials.

You are comparing top of the line first world countries with a third world country with a non existent aerospace industry.

IA cannot afford to be an in house partner of companies that cannot deliver when enemies are all around.

The LCA as is today is a brick. An entire squadron will get wiped out by 3 or 4 Mg-21s.

 

[gogbot]

I feel like people can't maintain objectivity with the LCA program.

Is it too much to accept that a combination of India's own Technical ineptitude in the field and poor project management. , as well as the Financial and International sanction problems of the 1990's has resulted in a program that has so much controversy.

Why finger the IAF , And Corrupt ministers. When the IAF was only looking out for national security interests after waiting nearly 22 years for the product, forgive them if they don't want to hold their breath.
The ministers were probably as ambivalent about this as they are about anything other than their bank accounts.

IAF is still in regular consultation about the program . They are supposed to ask for reports regularly and have already trained up the pilots to fly the first squadrons. I still think they very much want they Tejas as a finished product and not a work in progress.

Imagine for a moment if they had Inducted the Tejas earlier and stationed one or two squadrons. If Delays had perpetuated into the development at that point IAF would be stuck with aircraft not fit for their role for at least more than a year. The worst part those pilots who would have flown the other planes like the Mig-21 , which are more capable if the Tejas cannot meet the ASR. Inducting the Tejas without meeting the ASR would only depreciate IAF force levels and lower their preparedness.

Tejas has never been stalled as s result of finances in the last 12 years. Some could argue a bigger budget might have meant more timely development, But all the roadblocks this project has encountered have been technical. And the aeronautics laboratories are repeatedly dropping the ball.

I don't think the IAF is blameless however, it is well known fact that the ASR was changed repeatedly. They should have exercised more restrain or foresight when planning out their Requirements. While this is by no means the biggest drop in the bucket , however the problems of feature creep cannot be brushed aside.

I just want to add however , if the LCA project had a proper technology road-map , with the ASR requirements mapped into the various Marks of the Tejas , I mean planning well into Tejas Mk4. The issues with feature creep could also have been better resolves . Alas poor management this is what we get. A mk1 not completely up to shape with everything else crammed into the mk2 , they should prioritize and set up a mk3 as well. To take some load of the Mk2. Push the radar back i say. Focus entirely on the Engine for the Mk2

 

[ace009]

You are comparing top of the line first world countries with a third world country with a non existent aerospace industry.

Yes and no. I am comparing a "third world" country like India, (although the concept is pretty much dead and buried, the term I prefer is "an emerging power") with deloped nations. but you are forgetting some important lessons -
1. Sweden developed a great aeronautical industry without being an economic OR a military superpower.
2. When France developed it's military industry, it was still recovering from WW-II and had barely functional industries. Heck they were getting their ass kicked from all the colonies.
3. China has developed NOT only the J-10 and J-11s (I know they are mostly stolen), but also J-15, JF-17 and J-20 - all of which are actually flying and being inducted into service (various stages). They even stopped buying Russian shit so that they can support their own companies.


It is simply not a question of buying a proven aircraft for national defense. If that was the case, then IAF should have bought more Mirages in the early 2000s and trashed their Mig-21s. There was no need for them to stick around for 7 years to get the MMRCA deal done. Where was the expediency there? The Migs were falling out of the skies regularly. Heck even the Mig-29s were full of problems. If the IAF could live with Russian shit for 2 decades, and refuse to accept LCA mk1 in place of the Pieces-of-shit Mig-21s, then I must question the mindset. IMHO, most of Indian defense professionals (older generation) and a lot of bureaucrats arte still beholden to the ex-Soviet technology ideas and think of Indian products as not being worthy of a trial. Give me ONE good reason why IAF has not pushed for the rapid replacement of ALL Mig-21s with LCA mk1. We all know that the LCA mk-1s are waay better than the crumbling Mig-21s. And don't BS with stuff like the
"Su-30 MKI will be replacing the Mig-21s. One squadron can replace all Mig-21s and do better than 120 LCAs" .....
As people have discussed ad nauseum, THAT is not what IAF envisions. They do want to have Hi-Med-Lo categories - the MKIs being the high, the Rafale being the Med and the LCA will be the low. But why nitpicking on the LCA for years when they could accept Mig-29s and Su-30Ks from Russia? Why can they still fly the Mig-21s and NOT get the LCAs in ASAP?

As for HAL/ DRDO/ ADA - they are also an incompetent bunch - we all agree. but their incompetency has been exacerbated by the MoD and IAF.

Tejas has never been stalled as s result of finances in the last 12 years. Some could argue a bigger budget might have meant more timely development, But all the roadblocks this project has encountered have been technical. And the aeronautics laboratories are repeatedly dropping the ball.

You do realize that you have made two contradictory statements here?

If ADA/ HAL had indeed encountered technical problems AND had access to lots of money, they could have BOUGHT their way out of it faster and sooner. That's what rich people/ companies / projects do. It should not have taken India 10 years to get over the fallouts of 1998 sanctions.

 

[p2prada]

Yes and no. I am comparing a "third world" country like India, (although the concept is pretty much dead and buried, the term I prefer is "an emerging power") with deloped nations. but you are forgetting some important lessons -
1. Sweden developed a great aeronautical industry without being an economic OR a military superpower.

Haha! You think they are not an economic power and you call us an emerging power. That's not how things work. Sweden is a tiny country with a small population and a percapita economy 40 times larger than India. They fit the bill.

The Swedish starting line was the same as US, Britain, France or Russia, say a decade behind. We are 30 years behind.

2. When France developed it's military industry, it was still recovering from WW-II and had barely functional industries. Heck they were getting their ass kicked from all the colonies.

Their population was educated, we have illiterate farmers who are trying to make ends meet. The country had a lot of American help after WW2, we did not.

3. China has developed NOT only the J-10 and J-11s (I know they are mostly stolen), but also J-15, JF-17 and J-20 - all of which are actually flying and being inducted into service (various stages). They even stopped buying Russian shit so that they can support their own companies.

The J-10A is at best a F-16 Block 20. The J-10B a decade later, could be as good as Block 52. JF-17 is not as good, perhaps eventually, but we will see. They never stopped buying Russian sh!t. They are still buying Russian engines and an order was placed last year.

It's nice to support your own companies when your economy is the second largest. In 10 years we will be where they are now. Then we will talk.

In 10 years, with a well progressed AMCA program, a successful LCA Mk2 and progress on the Kaveri K-10 will directly indicate the armed forces are supporting Indian companies, quite like how China is doing today. 10 years earlier, China was doing what we are doing today. Buying Russian aircraft, reverse engineering or license manufacturing foreign tech to build industrial capacity at home. What we did 10 years ago, China was doing 20 years ago. So, the cycle goes. In a decade, when we are mooting induction of AMCA, the Chinese would already be upgrading the J-20.

It is simply not a question of buying a proven aircraft for national defense. If that was the case, then IAF should have bought more Mirages in the early 2000s and trashed their Mig-21s. There was no need for them to stick around for 7 years to get the MMRCA deal done.

That's what IAF had been saying since 10 years. But ADA kept saying they will deliver the LCA, screwing up IAF's plans. After Kaveri failed, the MRCA deal came into being. They wanted to buy 126 Mirage-2000s since the Nuclear tests.

Where was the expediency there? The Migs were falling out of the skies regularly. Heck even the Mig-29s were full of problems. If the IAF could live with Russian shit for 2 decades, and refuse to accept LCA mk1 in place of the Pieces-of-shit Mig-21s, then I must question the mindset.

Replace one flying coffin with another. What do you think our pilot's lives are? Something you want to throw away to make some scientists happy. Sure the LCA won't crash, but come war and the pilots would love to be sitting in a MKI or Rafale instead. Give them top notch equipment, definitely not the LCA Mk1. Even the Bisons are better.

IMHO, most of Indian defense professionals (older generation) and a lot of bureaucrats arte still beholden to the ex-Soviet technology ideas and think of Indian products as not being worthy of a trial. Give me ONE good reason why IAF has not pushed for the rapid replacement of ALL Mig-21s with LCA mk1.

Because it sucks. The Mig-21 will outfly the LCA in every parameter, even in turning fights. The LCA Mk1, even after completing it's full development cycle will not fly above Mach 1.6, will not pull greater than 8Gs, will not pull lesser than 2Gs, will be underpowered and it's radar won't be any better than what's on the Mig-21 Bison today. It's payload will be 3 tons or 3.5 tons if they are lucky or in other words, if EADS manages to fix the landing gear for us.

If you want the LCA to be a success, then wait for the Mk2. According to ADA, it is the LCA Mk2 which is being made to conform to IAF's requirements placed in 1983. It is their own words.

If ADA/ HAL had indeed encountered technical problems AND had access to lots of money, they could have BOUGHT their way out of it faster and sooner. That's what rich people/ companies / projects do. It should not have taken India 10 years to get over the fallouts of 1998 sanctions.

GoI never allowed IAF new aircraft apart from the MKI, they were all eagerly waiting for India's first 4th gen fighter. It was only after the Kaveri failed that the first MRCA tender was released as a desperate measure. Once MoD realized IAF may end up being outgunned by China, a new tender was released for better aircraft. Nothing in my post is contradictory.

I did not come out with the 1 MKI = 10 Mig-21, it was the IAF who did. And this isn't some regular Joe statement. The MKI is 2 generations ahead of the Mig-21 in technology. It is obviously ahead by many times. It's quite like how USAF says the F-22 is 10 times superior to the F-15 in air combat.

India cannot buy technology just like that. The LCA Mk1 program is less than a Billion Dollars. Buying the same technology would be 5 or 6 times this amount. More importantly, no one will give it. It is nice to say that this is what rich people/ companies/ projects do. But have you never realized there is no such seller in the market? You wanna build a plane, then go to your own corner and build one. Heck, the others will try as much to sabotage the one you are already working on in the first place. You are naive. Why do you think USA never supported Israel's Lavi program? They simply did not want the competition.

Even Japan cannot simply buy American technology for their own 5th gen fighter program. Heck even Russia won't sell it to them. They are not participating in S.Korea's FX-3 program simply because they don't want to reveal the PAKFA's secrets so early on. They don't mind sitting out of a $7.3Billion contract.

 

[Mad Indian]

I have a Q, rather genuine one... so what is it that you two are arguing about here????

 

[gogbot]

I have a Q, rather genuine one... so what is it that you two are arguing about here????

Having had similar arguments myself :tinfoil3:
Let me say what it is at its core.

p2p's romanticised view of European and Russian defense development
clashing as it always does with
The romanticized view of the LCA project.

p2p maintains
Modern Russian/European plane = Superior
Tejas mk1 = Inferior (Inferior = wates of time/money/energy. Should not be Inducted into IAF )

Argument against
Tejas mk1 = May be Inferior but not waste of time and money. Should be inducted in more numbers.

Argument escalates
IAF and GoI is accused of not supporting the LCA project more

p2p states Defense labs are noobs(I am paraphrasing of course) and not worth the IAF time/resources till they show results to match Europeans.

now they are arguing the specifics on why their points have more merit.

Personally both sides make valid points, which i stated in my own post above.

----------

Just a note
i don't mean sound insulting to you p2p or to you ace.
I don't mean to simply your discussion or points. I only described what i think are the basics of the argument with a little bit of jest

 

[p2prada]

It's really simple. IAF happy, project success. IAF unhappy, project failed.

India: HAL Marut. Design success. IAF happy. IAF bought in good numbers, over 100, to support industry. Engine problems. IAF unhappy, project fail. Only feel good factor for industry.

Russia: Mig-21. IAF happy. High crash rate. IAF still happy. Project success.

Mig-29. IAF happy. Servicing issues. IAF ok with it. Successful over Kargil. Project success.

Anglo-France: Jaguar: IAF happy. Very few issues. Slightly underpowered at medium altitude and will get new engine. IAF still happy. Project success.

Mirage-2000. IAF happy. Good performance in Kargil. Some set backs during Kargil and some before that too, related to spares. But IAF still happy. Project success.

MKI. IAF happy. MKI crash 3 times, servicing issues. IAF still happy. Project success.

LCA. IAF happy but laugh at noobs. Sanctions. IAF unhappy. Kaveri fail. IAF unhappy. Flight test delays. IAF unhappy. More delays. IAF more unhappy. Promise IOC in 2009, but delay. IAF much more unhappy. 2011, IOC, but it wasn't IOC, just a function for induction. IAF very unhappy. Promised IOC in 6 months, but Feb 2012, still no IOC. IAF still very unhappy. N-LCA delayed. Now IN unhappy. Project limbo.

Do we see a trend here?

 

[ice berg]

The J-10A is at best a F-16 Block 20. The J-10B a decade later, could be as good as Block 52. JF-17 is not as good, perhaps eventually, but we will see. They never stopped buying Russian sh!t. They are still buying Russian engines and an order was placed last year.

It's nice to support your own companies when your economy is the second largest. In 10 years we will be where they are now. Then we will talk.

In 10 years, with a well progressed AMCA program, a successful LCA Mk2 and progress on the Kaveri K-10 will directly indicate the armed forces are supporting Indian companies, quite like how China is doing today. 10 years earlier, China was doing what we are doing today. Buying Russian aircraft, reverse engineering or license manufacturing foreign tech to build industrial capacity at home. What we did 10 years ago, China was doing 20 years ago. So, the cycle goes. In a decade, when we are mooting induction of AMCA, the Chinese would already be upgrading the J-20.

Just a minor correction. China still buying russian engines because it is cheaper to replace them. Many of their old fighters were based on russian engines. It makes no sense to remake the airframe to suit the chinese engines. If you see their new fighters, they are all with domestic engines. You cant judge their capacity based on the fact that they still buying russian engines.
Is the gap only 10 years? I doubt that.

 

[ace009]

It's really simple. IAF happy, project success. IAF unhappy, project failed.

Russia: Mig-21. IAF happy. High crash rate. IAF still happy. Project success.

Mig-29. IAF happy. Servicing issues. IAF ok with it. Successful over Kargil. Project success.

Mirage-2000. IAF happy. Good performance in Kargil. Some set backs during Kargil and some before that too, related to spares. But IAF still happy. Project success.

Anglo-France: Jaguar: IAF happy. Very few issues. Slightly underpowered at medium altitude and will get new engine. IAF still happy. Project success.

MKI. IAF happy. MKI crash 3 times, servicing issues. IAF still happy. Project success.

So, IAF happy even if the aircrafts fail, fall, fowl-up and falter - because they come from foreign sources - sources deemed to be "technologically advanced". But any missteps, mistakes, failures from homemade devices/ platforms are deemed to be "unacceptable".

LCA. IAF happy but laugh at noobs. Sanctions. IAF unhappy. Kaveri fail. IAF unhappy. Flight test delays. IAF unhappy. More delays. IAF more unhappy. Promise IOC in 2009, but delay. IAF much more unhappy. 2011, IOC, but it wasn't IOC, just a function for induction. IAF very unhappy. Promised IOC in 6 months, but Feb 2012, still no IOC. IAF still very unhappy. N-LCA delayed. Now IN unhappy. Project limbo.

Do we see a trend here?

Seriously, the IAF has no patience for this is one project that would make IAF self-sufficient, independant of foreign sources, which in case a big war breaks out may prove to be a pain in the butt for getting supplies, design updates, changes etc (as we have seen during 1971 ear, post 1998 and even during Kargil war).
Hmmm - I do see a trend.

 

[p2prada]

p2p's romanticised view of European and Russian defense development
clashing as it always does with
The romanticized view of the LCA project.

p2p maintains
Modern Russian/European plane = Superior
Tejas mk1 = Inferior (Inferior = wates of time/money/energy. Should not be Inducted into IAF )

Can you please take out all the European aircraft from the IAF's inventory and tell me what we have left?

i don't mean sound insulting to you p2p or to you ace.
I don't mean to simply your discussion or points. I only described what i think are the basics of the argument with a little bit of jest

I have no issues even if you did. You see, if I start praising American weapons, then I will have a neat little NRI fan club behind me. If I start praising French weapons then Armand will have no need to be in this forum. If I start praising Indian weapons with a complete disregard for logical thinking then I will have a massive fan base here with probably 10000 likes for every post.

I have been called a kid, teenager, fanboy and a lot of other things which I have already forgotten. Why? Because I am not a big fan of Indian weapons, which apparently never see service. I protect Indian purchases of Russians weapons which are actually good, unlike some members who don't see difference between good buys and bad buys as long as it's Russian. So, a little sarcasm does nothing to me.

Ray sir has repeatedly said IA buys weapons which fit roles and not simply because it is the best. If Russian weapons are really bad, then why are we buying them in the first place? As a matter of fact, Indian weapons are so good that the armed forces prefer Russian equivalents over the Indian products. So, where does that put us?

Europeans are glorified wannabe superpowers. Are we supposed to buy every claim they make? Rafale is good. EF too. But they market it as a F-35 beater. Do you wanna believe that? There are actually a lot of people who do believe that, luckily not on this forum. Heck EF is magically equivalent to the F-22 according to the British and will beat the PAKFA and J-20. Funny thing is I am yet to see them make a claim that their fighter can handle a 140:0 kill ratio, even if the exercise is scripted. But I guess they did manage a 4.5:1 in some DERA simulation. EF fanboys cite that stupid article to base this claim while Rafale fanboys stupidly bring in the 2% difference that was noted in the Dutch evaluation against F-35.

When I said repeatedly the Arjun isn't fit for induction, nobody wanted to believe. A bunch of foreigners came up with the same and now nobody has anything to say. You guys haven't even seen the stuff Ajai Shukla has written about the Arjun. All that disappeared in one night and replaced with the stories he writes now. But he is an honourable man.

Shukla's own words

The need for indigenisation is paramount; that needs no elaboration. But at what cost? If your indigenisation plan entails whipping up autarkic arguments to accept substandard equipment, you're doing a dis-service to both the defence forces and the DRDO. The latter has the manpower, the establishment, the skill levels and the funding required for producing world class equipment. The Dhruv helicopter is one example; even though it's having vibration problems with its main rotor, the forces are still flying it. That's because it has made it to acceptable levels. But accepting a product that hasn't reached battle standards would be to condone mediocrity, already a national trait with us. The DRDO can do better; don't be apologists for them.

Wrong sir... you just don't want to recognise the facts... because it seems it would interfere with your perception of Bharat Mata as this newly blossomed superpower... and our DRDO scientists as the modern day Manhattan Project pioneers!

Sir, you are clutching at non-existent straws in your last flailing attempts to imbue with a veneer of respectability... the Arjun... that baby of bastardised concepts... fathered by a generation of defence glossies... and deliverd by the incompetent midwives of the DRDO. The acceptance of the first batch of Arjuns was a staged drama... since the date had been fixed in advance... Pranab had to accept the tanks... even though they were nowhere near what the Army would accept.

Have you ever been in a T-72? The subsystems are so tighty packed together.... lego like... that you can barely get a finger in between them. The result: at 1000 metres on level ground, you can barely see the T-72. In the case of the Arjun... you can play hide-and-seek inside the tank in between the phoren sub-systems. The result: when you lay your tank gun on an Arjun 1000 metres away... you really have to make a decision: which part of the tank shall I hit? It looms like the now extinct World Trade Centre... and so... like the World Trade Centre... it is doomed to extinction.

And what is General Vij supposed to say? "Guys I know this is going to get me into serious trouble with the Defence Ministry and could even interfere with my chances of a governorship, but I have to tell the truth; the Arjun is a lemon".

All these posts were in reply to some BR members I don't want to name.

Anyway, a nice little post to remind you how the world works.

Many retired military officers work for foreign arms company as Liaison Officers.

Have you not seen the good Col Shukla change his tune?

He, too, is an honourable man!

I wish the article could give concrete evidence as to which one would have suited India in all its ramification, instead of generalities.

That would have been more authentic.

 

[p2prada]

Just a minor correction. China still buying russian engines because it is cheaper to replace them. Many of their old fighters were based on russian engines. It makes no sense to remake the airframe to suit the chinese engines. If you see their new fighters, they are all with domestic engines. You cant judge their capacity based on the fact that they still buying russian engines.
Is the gap only 10 years? I doubt that.

We are yet to see an operational one. Perhaps if we see a WS-10 in an air show or a WS-13 in tests.

Anyway, the gap between India and China is effectively 10 years, maybe lesser. We are able to move as quickly recently because of JVs. In a few years our air defence systems will be much more capable than most countries, ABM capability as well.

So, IAF happy even if the aircrafts fail, fall, fowl-up and falter - because they come from foreign sources - sources deemed to be "technologically advanced". But any missteps, mistakes, failures from homemade devices/ platforms are deemed to be "unacceptable".

There is an acceptable amount of risk and an unacceptable amount of risk. The foreign systems go through rigorous treatment as compared to the homemade ones. The homemade ones are allowed to have lesser capabilities.

The MRCA deal wasn't as big as you think it is. But we are the only country which was allowed to flight test all of them in India. Comparatively even countries like UK and Italy, which are making large purchases, were offered F-35 brochures to make their decision. While we got the vendors to pay for the tests, UK and Italy had to pay US to get the brochures.

Seriously, the IAF has no patience for this is one project that would make IAF self-sufficient, independant of foreign sources, which in case a big war breaks out may prove to be a pain in the butt for getting supplies, design updates, changes etc (as we have seen during 1971 ear, post 1998 and even during Kargil war).
Hmmm - I do see a trend.

IAF has no patience for lemons. Supplies and spares get a back seat if even minimum requirements are not met. I can't believe you are actually a R&D scientist. You sound more like a regular fanboy still wanting to argue over nothing.

 

[ace009]

We are yet to see an operational one. Perhaps if we see a WS-10 in an air show or a WS-13 in tests.

Anyway, the gap between India and China is effectively 10 years, maybe lesser. We are able to move as quickly recently because of JVs. In a few years our air defence systems will be much more capable than most countries, ABM capability as well.



There is an acceptable amount of risk and an unacceptable amount of risk. The foreign systems go through rigorous treatment as compared to the homemade ones. The homemade ones are allowed to have lesser capabilities.

The MRCA deal wasn't as big as you think it is. But we are the only country which was allowed to flight test all of them in India. Comparatively even countries like UK and Italy, which are making large purchases, were offered F-35 brochures to make their decision. While we got the vendors to pay for the tests, UK and Italy had to pay US to get the brochures.



IAF has no patience for lemons. Supplies and spares get a back seat if even minimum requirements are not met. I can't believe you are actually a R&D scientist. You sound more like a regular fanboy still wanting to argue over nothing.

Actually I speak as a R&D scientist. Just as you mention there are "aceeptable risks" and unacceptable siks", there is also the concept of "strategic decisions" vs "Tactical decisions". Although in case of IAF, none of them make sense.
You have LCA, which may not be the greatest bird flying, but which has a better safety record than the Mig-21s.
Mig-21s in IAF have recorded 116 crashes in the last 20 years, which means a crash ever two months on average or every 20 flight hours.
The last time the Mi-21 saw action was in the Atlantique incident when it shot down a fleeing recon aircraft from PN. In return PA stingers brought down two Mig-21s between 1997 and 1999.
Consider that against 81 dead pilots in 20 years, 116 fighters lost and hundreds of mmillions of dollars spent in upgrading, maintaining the Mig-21 fleet and tell me how the induction of the LCA will be ANY worse than that? I can bet my pants that the LCA will perform better than the Mig-21 even today. The strategic decision of inducting the LCA mk1 and keeping it in service will be invaluable knowledge and intelligence that you can ONLY get when you have something operational. In R&D we see that every time. The best design, the dest manufacturing practices still throw up nasty surprises and our learning processes have to accomodate for them. the longer IAF keeps the LCA away from service by stringent requirements, the longer they are delaying it's development, the longer they are delaying IAFs self reliance. Instead of basing their faith on the crappy 40+ years old Mig-21s, they should put some faith in the LCA. Pilots lives are being lost anyway, but we are gaining NOTHING in return. Maybe a few LCAs will crash, maybe a few pilots will die, but again, the losses will be MUCH less than the Mig-21 losses and as Ray had mentioned a 3% loss rate is acceptable. In return we learn a LOT and help develop our own aviation industry/ IAF self reliance.

FYI, Russian aircraft technology was mostly developed during the harsh era of Stalin. Losses of any amount were acceptable, as long as the goals were achieved. It's on the back of those sacrifices, that the Russian companies do business in India. And here we are talking about WHAT IF the LCA crashes - heck the Mig-21s are crashing every few months. Even the MKI has crashed.

As I said before, IAF is stuck in the mindset that "losses from imported stuff is OK, losses from homemade stuff is not."

Sad ....

 

[ice berg]

We are yet to see an operational one. Perhaps if we see a WS-10 in an air show or a WS-13 in tests.

Anyway, the gap between India and China is effectively 10 years, maybe lesser. We are able to move as quickly recently because of JVs. In a few years our air defence systems will be much more capable than most countries, ABM capability as well.

You are not saying that all their new toys still running on russian engines, right?:shocked:

There are plenty of pics of WS 10 on their new fighters...

Or videos for that sake.

 

[ace009]

So, Iceberg, what is the story on the J-10s? Is it replacing the J-7s and J-8s in PLAAF? Is it a strike fighter or an interceptor?