Bharat Karnad: Stop wasteful military deals

[Godless-Kafir]

If LCA's ASR wasn't "tampered" with, then PAF F-7PGs would have been more advanced, which it currently is.

What is the thrust to weight ratio of LCA vs JF-17?

Because heavier Apaches have longer range, larger payload, better electronics and better weapons.

We are inducting LCHs too, current orders are nearly 200.

I agree, it is more advanced but we dont need that. It is not necessary to have a heli with a radar no one else has. So where is the threat to buy one? I wont argue further it is only a doctrin stand.

It will be a better aircraft than LCA Mk2 in many areas.

The reason it will take so long is because in order to support indigenous capabilities, IAF wants it modified in India, so HAL can use that experience on LCA, MKI and Rafale when the time comes.

The french have retired it and what we wont get in Rafael you think we are going to get it through the upgrade!! What part of the upgrade will the LCA benifit from the Radar?

Because even Ajai Shukla is of the opinion that we need Russian tanks in the North East, not Arjun.

The upgrade cost of the T-72 will still be considerably lesser than half the cost of a brand new Arjun. Arjun Mk2's are pegged to cost 40 Crores according to the makers. A T-90S still costs Rs. 12 crores. This does not include the massive infrastructure costs required for Arjun. So, the overall project costs will be 5 or 6 times the cost of a T-90.

If they order limited series then the cost will shot up, only mass production can bring the cost down. The Army has bet on the T-90 so that is why the Russian tank is cheaper. Mass production always brings cost down, if they are going to order in small batches the cost will sore. That is not the problem of the product by again the problem of discission makers who have floundred with the requirments.

The new tender is too small. We have a million plus soldiers and the order is for 66000. Regardless, DRDO is making two new guns for the armed forces. They will take at least a few more years before it is fully ready and tested. They said it will be ready in two years only recently, which mean another two years or more of testing. The current tender seems to be a stop-gap.

IA has done that before too, when they ordered 100000 AK-47s as stop-gap before INSAS became operational.

The transfer of technology will meanwhile give OFB the kind of experience required in new manufacturing techniques for the future DRDO-mainstay rifles meant for F-INSAS.

Yup, they are never satsified with the upgrades and also the indian R&D is delibrately kept at low quality with poor inflow of scientists... yup it is delibrate.

ALH is good. But HAL is not able to produce in enough numbers. Orders are in the hundreds anyway.

Foreign helicopters will also be inducted so as to bring in more experience and money to HAL while still fulfilling the military's priorities.

Again something fishy... I dont trust a company can not improve its production rate for it better products. MOD delays and pay offs are for sure in line.

Artillery is delayed because of normal red tape which is a norm.

Nothing about corruption i am sure. End of case some should think but no you are like a robot you will never stop the replies p2p. So i will... This is my assement take it or leave it.

 

[p2prada]

What is the thrust to weight ratio of LCA vs JF-17?

Does it matter? You are comparing one shitty aircraft to another. Compare it to Mig-21.

I agree, it is more advanced but we dont need that. It is not necessary to have a heli with a radar no one else has. So where is the threat to buy one? I wont argue further it is only a doctrin stand.

Who told you we don't need it? Give me a source?

We needed attack helicopters as of yesterday. The current numbers ordered are too less.

Ever heard of Cold Start?

The french have retired it and what we wont get in Rafael you think we are going to get it through the upgrade!! What part of the upgrade will the LCA benifit from the Radar?

You think people don't gain experience while working on aircraft? The French haven't retired anything. Mirage-2000s will be part of their force structure for a long time. They will retire Mirage-2000s along with us.

What about the radar? It has nothing to do with LCA. But the people involved are.

If they order limited series then the cost will shot up, only mass production can bring the cost down. The Army has bet on the T-90 so that is why the Russian tank is cheaper. Mass production always brings cost down, if they are going to order in small batches the cost will sore. That is not the problem of the product by again the problem of discission makers who have floundred with the requirments.

Mass production won't bring it down because we are not yet capable of mass producing it. HVF was supposed to build 50 a year, but they are not able to do more than 30 a year, actually even less. T-90s already come with a mass production line from Russia and is being upgraded to produce 150 a year from the current 100.

The problem is people believe everything is hunky-dory with indigenous designs, the "assumption" that they work. Arjun units have started complaining that the tank isn't reliable anymore.

Yup, they are never satsified with the upgrades and also the indian R&D is delibrately kept at low quality with poor inflow of scientists... yup it is delibrate.

Do you even read what you type? This is one of the most idiotic statements in the thread.

Congrats, you just insulted our entire defence R&D setup. If the inflow of scientists and manpower is low, then that is not the armed force's fault, shoot a mail to the recruitment divisions within DRDO instead.

Again something fishy... I dont trust a company can not improve its production rate for it better products. MOD delays and pay offs are for sure in line.

Good. Proves you haven't been keeping up. Everything is fishy.

Nothing about corruption i am sure.

Nope. Nothing about corruption. It is a FMS type buy. So there is no need for corruption. The US lists a price, we buy. That's how the deal goes. There is no negotiation, no middleman.

End of case some should think but no you are like a robot you will never stop the replies p2p. So i will... This is my assement take it or leave it.

Sure. Like I said earlier, I am permanently allergic to BS.

 

[Simple_Guy]

We should encourage indigenous arms industry but cannot deny the best weaponry to our services.

 

[rugved]

We should encourage indigenous arms industry but cannot deny the best weaponry to our services.

We can either provide our defence forces mediocre quality indigenous weapons or the best quality imported weapons.

 

[arnabmit]

Counter Article on "Stop Wasteful Military Deals" | idrw.org
SOURCE: EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

In his article "Stop Wasteful Military Deals" published in The New Indian Express on November 1, 2013, Bharat Karnad attempts to reinvent himself as a knight in shining armour charging fearlessly at the Indian Air Force (IAF) on behalf of an imaginary indigenous brigade. By casting aspersions and denigrating the IAF's commitment to indigenisation based on inputs that range from flights of fantasy to half-baked truths and very few realities, Karnad is playing a dangerous game which has the potential to jeopardise national security.

Whenever civilian analysts and researchers offer critiques on military systems or strategies they do so with meticulous research that stands the test of rigorous professional scrutiny. Karnad adopts no such methodology and rides on his past reputation of being a maverick armchair defence analyst with a general disdain for the establishment.

Let me dismantle some of his propositions. First is that his claim that French and Israeli pilots have gone gaga over the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is sheer bunkum — no foreign pilot has flown the LCA — period. The LCA Flight Test Team comprises IAF and Indian Navy test pilots who are among the best in the world and do not need any certification from the French or Israelis. The Russian sale of the Tu-22 M3M strategic bomber along with its entire assembly line to China is a deal that has fallen through — the Internet is full of news of the falling through of the deal. Karnad talks of a fictitious trainer aircraft called the HJT-44 being "up and ready" and questions the proposal to buy additional PC-7 Pilatus Basic Trainer aircraft.

The truth is that the training aircraft being offered by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is called the HTT-40 and is still on the drawing board! A word about the Pilatus PC-7 and the circumstances of its induction into the IAF. Plagued by a series of problems on the HPT-32, the IAF's long-standing basic trainer aircraft, the IAF brainstormed for years with the HAL to resuscitate the trainer. When all attempts failed and when the IAF saw that there were just no trainers to address the needs of basic flying training, it had to literally go in for an emergency purchase of 75 Pilatus Trainers to ensure that the stream of pilots from the training academy to the operational squadrons does not stop.

With the requirement of trained pilot set to increase with the induction of large numbers of twin-seat Sukhois, C-130 J Super Hercules, C-17s and Mi-17 V5 helicopters, the IAF had to take decisive measures even if it meant having to import basic trainers. The Pilatus has been a resounding success at the Air Force Academy and with its excellent pedigree, reliability and global flight safety track record, $1.5 billion is a small price for an emerging power to pay for ensuring the safety of hundreds of our young flight cadets and instructors.

As for the follow-on purchase — it makes logistical and supply chain management sense to buy some more of the same aircraft considering that an indigenous basic trainer is not going to be "up and away" for at least a decade.

Going back to the seventies and the saga of the HF-24 Marut fighter, it is common knowledge that the Marut programme came to a premature end because we could not design or import a suitable engine for the aircraft and sustaining the two squadrons with derated Gnat engines was not going to be an operationally viable proposition for long.

The ensuing Jaguar deal was, without any doubt, one of the most successful deals in more ways than one for both the IAF and HAL. The manner in which the aircraft has been exploited by the IAF ushered in a new era of professionalism in the force; over three decades later, it still remains at the forefront of the IAF's strike capability. Staying with the Jaguar, the licensed manufacture of the Jaguar by HAL and the quantum indigenous upgradation in its avionics, radar and weapon systems in India itself has provided both Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and HAL with tremendous confidence to leverage the same for development of indigenous aircraft design and manufacturing capability.

Coming back to the LCA, Karnad is confused whether to call it the LCA or the Tejas. Let me set the record straight. The IAF has named the LCA as the Tejas; the Indian Navy is yet to decide on a name for the LCA. Karnad has also gone totally wrong in equating the LCA with the MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) by suggesting that the Mark II can be a used as an MMRCA. The two aircraft are completely different in terms of the weight class (the LCA is a 13 ton fighter, while the MMRCA is a 20 ton fighter). What this means is that the missions and roles they can perform are completely different. So is the range and the tonnage of armament that they can carry. For the common aviation enthusiast, the LCA can be said to be a replacement for the MiG-21, while the MMRCA is slated to occupy a mid-position between the LCA and the Su-30 in the years ahead.

To be fair to Karnad — yes, the flight control system of the LCA is top class, but to claim that the Mark II will be significantly superior to the MMRCA is far-fetched and devoid of any research strength. Blowing one's trumpet about the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar is premature at this stage, as it is not even on the drawing board. In such a situation it is not even clear whether it would be on the LCA Mk II. Having said that, the IAF is fully committed to the LCA and will share the same pride that Karnad exhibits when its first squadron becomes operational. The IAF is also cognisant that it remains the single largest repository of operational aviation knowledge in the country and to accuse it of scuttling indigenisation, as Karnad so easily does, is both unfair and dangerous. Let us not undermine the IAF in such a callous and cavalier manner.

Arjun Subramaniam is a serving Air Vice Marshal in the IAF and an air power analyst.

 

[ersakthivel]

IMHO the 200 Kg ballast must have been placed simulating excess weight component that will need to be added as new requirements arose which is a standard practice in any test flight program. For example if IRST needs to ne added to Tejas mk-1 . Then we can replace this ballast with IRST equipment .

In the same way this 200 KG extra weight will also replicate the performance of MK-2 .Since in the same way it will simulate the fuselage plug to be added for MK-2 to increase it's weight.

SO he is not far off the mark when he says this. may be he did not give detailed explanations but it is more or less correct.

Riaz Khokar in his critical article about Tejas mk-2 expectations also referred to this 200 KG ballast weight in tejas mk-2 and feigned ignorance of it. he should know any way that it simulates the excess weight that may be added in future if IAf asks for further additions. Since the many weight saving exercise were carried out already reducing the weight of the mk-1 close to a ton this ballast if it is still used in mk-1 will simulate the excess weight of the mk-2.

Who did all the IOCs and FOCs for SU-30 MKI? The sukhoi guys? No. Even before the SU-30 MKI was finished as a product IAF put money into it based on the performance of base line version of Su-30 . Without gettng so many OCs a squadron of less tested F-35 are already opertating. Also russian airforce is gearing up to introduce without insisting on so many changes and 2300 flight tests spanning 14 years ,
Just four or five prototypes of PAKFA are up in the air with older engines originally not meant for it. The new engine for PAKFA is yet toget certification.

Then how can the Russian airforce introduce PAKFA next year with fewer than 1000 sub standard test flights with fixtures on the air frame and old lesser power engines on which it is running now?

SO the author is correct on this count as well.

wiki states the Range 850 KM and ferry range 3000 KM for tejas MK 1.

MK 1 can fly 2X850 Km =1700 KM .

If MK 1 can fly 1700 KM than certainly MK2 with additional 40% fuel can at least fly more than 50 percent long distance.SInce reserve fuel back up levels will be the same for mk-1 and mk-2 along with the fact it is the take off and sharp manoeuvres which eat up most fuel not cruising at a comfortable fuel burn ratio as per design.

After all GE404 is a highly fuel efficient engine and GE 414 IN S 6 goes one step further and it is more advanced than the older engines on RAFALE .



.So MK2 will have close to 75 % of rafale's range in normal design load normal internal fuel condition in which most of the IAF missions are carried out.

You can't go lugging tons and tons of extra fuel (bullock cart level close combat performance config )into heavily defended PAk and Chinese air space defended by F-16 newer blocks and chinese flanker versions in the same way french are flying over next to no defence air spaces of male and Afganisthan. SO even if IAF attempts fly with such heavy external fuel tanks on the first blush of contact with defending fighters those fuel tanks will be dumped.

Fuel capacity of 2 engine Rafale with a few more tons of extra empty weight is 4700 KG against the few tons lesser weight single engine LCA MK2 which has 3000 to 3400 KG of internal fuel.

So for normal combat missions which demand high close combat performance with full internal fuel only tejas mk-2 will have almost close to the same range as RAAFLE.

In addition tejas mk-2 has air to air refuelling in buddy mode as well .

Mk2 can carryout 80 percent of the missions which Rafale can. And we have extra super Sukhois FGFA s to cover the remaining 30 percent. With french already wiggling out of TOT commitments with "HAL ---no good " certificate close to 30 billion dollar expenditure is a sheer waste of money on a redundant acquisition , if you consider the sjy high upgrading price for Mirage 2000 will repeat itself for RAFALE . then we can operate close to 250 tejas mk-2 and 50 extra Super Sukhoi fighters which has complete TOT including engine in our hands,

And last but not the least tejas mk-2 will have even lower wing loading with comparable TWR and a a ten percent higher top speeds of mach-2 meaning that tejas mk-2 has better designed air frame using the latest composite tech with close to 60 percent of it's weight in composites as suggested by CEMEILAC.

it will have the same long range BVRs and same powered ASEA radar with matching antena dia as RAFALE.

Some people are misquoting the clean config RCS of tejas mk-1 as a third of mirage -2000. But the proper quote that can be read from B. harry's vayu piece on tejas is

"tejas will have a third of clean config RCS of the latest 4th gen fighters in design phase. When this comment wa made i only TYPHOON and RAFALE was in the works not Mirage-2000.

So with no canards and more aerodynamic and RCS optimization that will take place for tejas mk-2 along with far lesser physical dimensions than the TYPHOON and RAFALE you can rightfully expect tejas mk-2 to have far lesser clean config RCS than the RAFALE as well.

Also the single engine of tejas mk-2 will release more than 40 percent lesser heat energy into the atmosphere . it means a substantially lesser IRST detection range as well.

So for the close to 20 percent shortfall in range over RAFALE Tejas mk-2 has some very significant advantage over RAFALE in home air space defence as well.

the ASEA for tejas mk-2 is also getting ready with foreign collaboration as well. And tejas mk-2 will always be upgradable with whatever longer range BVRs supplied in future from russia for FGFA as well. As we are doing the avionics and radar integration on FGFA we can port these close to 200 KM range BVRs on tejas mk-2 as well with no hefty fees and least hassles.

Thats what the test pilot Suneth krishna said that tejas is a modular fighter easily upgradable in batches as all it's design knowledge is here.

The weapon load is never a problem we can operate 3 Tejas mk-2 for the cost of one RAFALE with far lesser per hour operation cost as well.

That means fo the same price we will have three RAFALE sized ASEA radars with three EW suits along with 21 pylons carrying close to 30 air to air missile=s if dual rack launch pylons are added in future.

"



SO even though making a few mistakes like naming the HPT 40 as HJT 44 and mistaking the comments of french pilots as test flight comments the author is correct by and large, If at all the author mentioned the rejection by IAF of HPT-35 effort by HAL then there would be more qquestions to be answered.

It is pathetic that the program initially named as Light combat Aircraft by ADA is till compared to Mig-21 and JF-17 by some motivated interest here!!!!!!!!

 

[ersakthivel]

Dude no one is delaying these projects. You are simply not properly informed about these.

LCA: IOC-2 is still not given. The aircraft can only perform 6Gs. It has not fired a BVR missile till date, it hasn't performed wake penetration and lightning tests. Even the EW tests will be carried out in november. How can one buy Tejas at this stage?

Which IOC and FOC did Sukhoi got before getting paid for selling 40 low standard Su-30s which were not upto the IAF Su-30 MKI spec?
I don't remember ever crashing Mig-29s and Mig-21s queing up for IOC and FOC either.

How is the russian airforce airforce inducting PAKFA with just around 500 test flights from 4 or 5 prototypes with hotch potch fixtures on the airframe and older engine next year?

How did the USAF operationalize a F-35 squadron with severely restricted flight envelope without getting IOCs anf FOCs?

How did IAf buy those advanced trainer Jaguar with faulty NAV ATTACK system inducted it and then operationlize it with DARIN uppgrades from local industry.

What were the motives of these premature inductions in IAF? national security of course.

Reason induction of fighters in those nations were done with the aim of speeding them up. In Tejas 's case it is the exact opposite. Delaying it is the reason.

LCH: Still under development TD-3 hasn't even flown yet. How can anyone buy it?

Arjun: Already in production. mk-2 version still in testing. If mk-2 passes tests, the production of some 100+ mk2 will continue till 2020.

How the night blind no safe ammo storage T-90 which fared poorly against Arjun mk-1 is being ordered in thousands and then are fine tuned with french help? While superior combat ready Arjun mk-1 sits out in Avadi with just 124 number orders .

ALH: In production for a decade. Still production rate of 32 per annum not achieved. This is one product which has a high demand but HAL has not been able to meet it, showing incompetence. No foreign product has been brought instead of ALH

Then ask the IAF to lobby with the MOD to include private partner in this case.

Rifles: We already have INSAS which is being widely used.

Artilliery: What you said would have been correct if indigenious products were being snubbed in favor of foreign ones. However, take a look at 145 light howitzer deal with the US and you will find that the real reason for these delays is that decision making in mod is very slow, it has got nothing to do indian products. Even foreign arms manufacturers are feeling frustrated.

Just yesterday the FOC recieved Mig-29 (that too with twin engines !!!) crashed in Punjab. it seems Mig-29 too is headed the Mig-21 way.

But oblivious to allthis facts IAF is asking tejas to hop through all loops while it has inducted fighters with spurious quality all the while in the past.

All the test pilots of tejas are from IAf. And even with 6 G limitations tejas can complete a vertical loop in 20 seconds , the same time taken by RAFALE in aeroindia 2013. And firing missiles will happen with any fighter. Already it has fired r-73 and since backend radar processor for the MMR is from israel it will have no issues in firing Derby And there are no expected problems in future with Astra.

So there is nothing special about missile firing before induction. A higher number production order will

 

[ersakthivel]

If LCA's ASR wasn't "tampered" with, then PAF F-7PGs would have been more advanced, which it currently is.



Because heavier Apaches have longer range, larger payload, better electronics and better weapons.

We are inducting LCHs too, current orders are nearly 200.



It will be a better aircraft than LCA Mk2 in many areas.

The reason it will take so long is because in order to support indigenous capabilities, IAF wants it modified in India, so HAL can use that experience on LCA, MKI and Rafale when the time comes.



Because even Ajai Shukla is of the opinion that we need Russian tanks in the North East, not Arjun.

The upgrade cost of the T-72 will still be considerably lesser than half the cost of a brand new Arjun. Arjun Mk2's are pegged to cost 40 Crores according to the makers. A T-90S still costs Rs. 12 crores. This does not include the massive infrastructure costs required for Arjun. So, the overall project costs will be 5 or 6 times the cost of a T-90.



The new tender is too small. We have a million plus soldiers and the order is for 66000. Regardless, DRDO is making two new guns for the armed forces. They will take at least a few more years before it is fully ready and tested. They said it will be ready in two years only recently, which mean another two years or more of testing. The current tender seems to be a stop-gap.

IA has done that before too, when they ordered 100000 AK-47s as stop-gap before INSAS became operational.

The transfer of technology will meanwhile give OFB the kind of experience required in new manufacturing techniques for the future DRDO-mainstay rifles meant for F-INSAS.



ALH is good. But HAL is not able to produce in enough numbers. Orders are in the hundreds anyway.

Foreign helicopters will also be inducted so as to bring in more experience and money to HAL while still fulfilling the military's priorities.



Artillery is delayed because of normal red tape which is a norm.

When are you going to stop posting your stupid BS against tejas?

Do you have no sense of shame,

you were roundly driven out of the tejas thread with most of your lies exposed.

Now you are comparing it here with pak F-7

What is the fcking radar range of pak f-7 if you have any sense of accountability or responsibility answer it.

you are still faking Mirage-2000 is better than the lca mk-2.

even when test pilots themselves have stated that tejas mk-1 handles better and has a sharper take off even with restricted flight envelope.

the radar detection tracking range of tejas mk-1 itself in above 100 Kms and it will fire Astra mk-1 and mk-2 which too have ranges of over hundred Kms . Tell me the figure for upgraded Mirage-2000.

What is the TWR of upgraded mirage-2000? compare it to tejas mk-1 if you are interested in knowing the trurh.
Mirage- 2000 upgraded is at the trainer level for tejas mk-2 is the reality.

 

[ersakthivel]

What Bharat Karnad is asking the govt is to simply 'manage' the defence spending in better ways in resonance with the future budgetary challenges that India is going to face (huge budget cuts in the future). If anyone thinks budget cuts are not coming, they need to understand that there will always be a blowback when govt. mismanaged the country for several years with disastrous policies.

Let's take LCA for example, which most of our esteemed technical experts here tend to bash upon endlessly.

What IAF did is to change the ASR's repeatedly and MOD/govt's delayed funding of the project and lack of foresight to indiginize the aircrafts faster caused the LCA to be still struggling to be part of an operational squadron.

What could have been done instead?

IAF can clearly fund the project in advance like Navy did. Once the project is funded, IAF can clearly establish the order with a defined ASR.

For example, IAF places an order of 225 LCA's right at the start with a promise to release the funds in three installments each of which cater to each of the tranches. MK-1 will have the initial ASR frozen and will be asked to deliver 75 MK-1's within x set of years and MK-II of 75 planes within 5 years of the first release with upgraded ASR. Another ASR change to cater to the delivery of 75 MK-III's with stealth after 5 years of MK-II delivery starts. IAF dishes out ASR upgrades as needed every 5 years or so to be ahead of the game. The agencies dealing with the development of the craft gets a large order in advance with specific set goals and the suppliers will be aware of the requirements well in advance because of the promised order at the start itself. Every agency can plan better if there is what to expect and the IAF can always put pressure to cut the numbers if the quality requirements are not met.

This way economies of scale can be achieved with a 'continuous improvement' strategy. Ofcourse, some older MK planes can be dished out to friendly nations and can always be sent to defence expo's and show some unique features like apple showing it's 'fingerprint scanning' capabilities (even though it's useless) and can always point to the market that we are going to get a newer and upgraded version soon and ask the other countries to buy the newer versions of the planes. I am pretty sure that there will be countries who are willing to purchase and that will reduce our total expenditure on R&D costs. This is where govt. can pitch in and help mediate between IAF/Navy/Army to extract an agreement in favor of getting better indigenous capability along with expanding manufacturing production lines to cater to large volumes in PPP mode.

As BK pointed out, i still don't get why we need RAFALE when we can get MKI/PAKFA and LCA-MKII combo starting 2016 when we can get both big bad boys in terms of quality and LCA's in quantity with very low total lifetime costs. Or is it mandatory that we need 'Medium' weight fighters rather than the achieving the objectives within the limited defence budgets which can be used effectively elsewhere?

IAF will follow this procedure only with foreign fighters. the benevelonce shown to Sukhoi corp with buying 40 Sub ASR Su-30 plain fighters without even weaponization, and spend money operating them for decades just to hone tactics,will never be shown to tejas even if it is the second most capable fighter in IAF even with restricted ASR.

What is the BVR misslie range of upgraded Mig-29s? When Astra mk-1 and mk-2 is integrated tejas it too will have the same range.Since the HAL did the integration of 120 Km range BVR on Su-30 MKi , it will be no problem to integrate any long range russian missile in tejas mk-1 which has 5 pylons capable of supporting the weiaht of 120 Km range russian BVrs.

If at all such a strict follow the ASR model was shown to the Sukhoi corp for FGFA and Su-30 MKI,we can agree that IAf set the same standards for every one,

In fact both the above mentioned program ran with Indian tax payer money even without a single prototype is produced. But even after knowing Tejas mk-1 in and out IAF will ask it to complete this Ioc-1 that IOC -2 and just give 40 fighter orders.

Even according to Riaz Khokar the NTSE chief , Tejas mk-1 is superior to Mirage-2000 in many critical areas.'
but some fake scamsters still equate tejas mk-1 with PAF F-7PG

and call Mirage-2000 even superior to tejas mk-2!!!!

N

 

[ersakthivel]

Undermining national security - The New Indian Express

Undermining national security

By Arjun Subramaniam

Published: 07th November 2013 12:00 AM

In the comments section of the counter article from Arjun Subramanium , I have posted all the stuff I have posted here in DFI on comments page 4 and 5.

lets see what is the reaction.

 

[Yusuf]

In his article "Stop Wasteful Military Deals" published in The New Indian Express on November 1, 2013, Bharat Karnad attempts to reinvent himself as a knight in shining armour charging fearlessly at the Indian Air Force (IAF) on behalf of an imaginary indigenous brigade. By casting aspersions and denigrating the IAF's commitment to indigenisation based on inputs that range from flights of fantasy to half-baked truths and very few realities, Karnad is playing a dangerous game which has the potential to jeopardise national security.
Whenever civilian analysts and researchers offer critiques on military systems or strategies they do so with meticulous research that stands the test of rigorous professional scrutiny. Karnad adopts no such methodology and rides on his past reputation of being a maverick armchair defence analyst with a general disdain for the establishment.
Let me dismantle some of his propositions. First is that his claim that French and Israeli pilots have gone gaga over the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is sheer bunkum — no foreign pilot has flown the LCA — period. The LCA Flight Test Team comprises IAF and Indian Navy test pilots who are among the best in the world and do not need any certification from the French or Israelis. The Russian sale of the Tu-22 M3M strategic bomber along with its entire assembly line to China is a deal that has fallen through — the Internet is full of news of the falling through of the deal. Karnad talks of a fictitious trainer aircraft called the HJT-44 being "up and ready" and questions the proposal to buy additional PC-7 Pilatus Basic Trainer aircraft.
The truth is that the training aircraft being offered by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is called the HTT-40 and is still on the drawing board! A word about the Pilatus PC-7 and the circumstances of its induction into the IAF. Plagued by a series of problems on the HPT-32, the IAF's long-standing basic trainer aircraft, the IAF brainstormed for years with the HAL to resuscitate the trainer. When all attempts failed and when the IAF saw that there were just no trainers to address the needs of basic flying training, it had to literally go in for an emergency purchase of 75 Pilatus Trainers to ensure that the stream of pilots from the training academy to the operational squadrons does not stop.
With the requirement of trained pilot set to increase with the induction of large numbers of twin-seat Sukhois, C-130 J Super Hercules, C-17s and Mi-17 V5 helicopters, the IAF had to take decisive measures even if it meant having to import basic trainers. The Pilatus has been a resounding success at the Air Force Academy and with its excellent pedigree, reliability and global flight safety track record, $1.5 billion is a small price for an emerging power to pay for ensuring the safety of hundreds of our young flight cadets and instructors.
As for the follow-on purchase — it makes logistical and supply chain management sense to buy some more of the same aircraft considering that an indigenous basic trainer is not going to be "up and away" for at least a decade.
Going back to the seventies and the saga of the HF-24 Marut fighter, it is common knowledge that the Marut programme came to a premature end because we could not design or import a suitable engine for the aircraft and sustaining the two squadrons with derated Gnat engines was not going to be an operationally viable proposition for long.
The ensuing Jaguar deal was, without any doubt, one of the most successful deals in more ways than one for both the IAF and HAL. The manner in which the aircraft has been exploited by the IAF ushered in a new era of professionalism in the force; over three decades later, it still remains at the forefront of the IAF's strike capability. Staying with the Jaguar, the licensed manufacture of the Jaguar by HAL and the quantum indigenous upgradation in its avionics, radar and weapon systems in India itself has provided both Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and HAL with tremendous confidence to leverage the same for development of indigenous aircraft design and manufacturing capability.
Coming back to the LCA, Karnad is confused whether to call it the LCA or the Tejas. Let me set the record straight. The IAF has named the LCA as the Tejas; the Indian Navy is yet to decide on a name for the LCA. Karnad has also gone totally wrong in equating the LCA with the MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) by suggesting that the Mark II can be a used as an MMRCA. The two aircraft are completely different in terms of the weight class (the LCA is a 13 ton fighter, while the MMRCA is a 20 ton fighter). What this means is that the missions and roles they can perform are completely different. So is the range and the tonnage of armament that they can carry. For the common aviation enthusiast, the LCA can be said to be a replacement for the MiG-21, while the MMRCA is slated to occupy a mid-position between the LCA and the Su-30 in the years ahead.
To be fair to Karnad — yes, the flight control system of the LCA is top class, but to claim that the Mark II will be significantly superior to the MMRCA is far-fetched and devoid of any research strength. Blowing one's trumpet about the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar is premature at this stage, as it is not even on the drawing board. In such a situation it is not even clear whether it would be on the LCA Mk II. Having said that, the IAF is fully committed to the LCA and will share the same pride that Karnad exhibits when its first squadron becomes operational. The IAF is also cognisant that it remains the single largest repository of operational aviation knowledge in the country and to accuse it of scuttling indigenisation, as Karnad so easily does, is both unfair and dangerous. Let us not undermine the IAF in such a callous and cavalier manner.
Arjun Subramaniam is a serving Air Vice Marshal in the IAF and an air power analyst.

Email: [email protected]

 

[pmaitra]

Bharat Karnad has been vacillating between criticizing home grown products to going gung ho about inducting home grown products. He does seem to like to make volte face, from a holistic PoV. On the positive side, he is bi-partisan. His articles are best described as rhetorical. What is unforgivable is his lack of attention to detail and providing incorrect information.

 

[Yusuf]

His last few that I have read have all been kite flying, make belief theories,cooked up "facts". I think he is fast losing credibility if not already

 

[shiphone]

another 'disagreement' from the blogger(the owner of idp sentinel website) and an EX-Flying Instructor at the Air Force Academy...
-------------------------------------------------

Thum! Kaun Aata Hai?: Canard by Bharat Karnad?

Friday, November 1, 2013
Canard by Bharat Karnad?

The Op-Ed - Stop wasteful military deals - The New Indian Express - by the venerable Bharat Karnad, painting the IAF in bad light, is riddled with so many grievous errors that I am compelled to respond.

The following are some examples of statements by Karnad that need to be corrected.

"[IAF] bought PC-7s for $1.5 billion, an amount the Chinese Air Force spent to secure the entire production line from Russia of the latest, most advanced, Tu-22M3M strategic bomber!"

China has an industrial base to support production of Tu-22M3M. India doesn't. China perceives a need for a supersonic bomber to counter the US. India doesn't.

"This Pilatus purchase, moreover, was approved by defence minister A K Antony at a time when Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Bangalore, had its new HJT-44 turboprop trainer up and ready. Brazening out such mindless splurges, Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne advised closure of the HJT-44 line to enable purchase of more PC-7s!"

The HJT-44 exists as a mock-up only - It is not "up and ready." The IAF was compelled to acquire the Pilatus because HAL couldn't make the HPT-32 safe to fly even decades after the IAF accepted it. As a Flying Instructor at the Air Force Academy, I have had the misfortune of attending funerals of Army and Air Force officers and IAF cadets killed as a result of HPT-32 accidents. (I saw as many wailing wives and mothers at funerals during my short stay at the Academy, than I did during my entire career as a fighter pilot.)

HAL is struggling with the development of the HJT-36, Sitara, which the IAF is in desperate need of. My guess is that the IAF would eventually be forced to buy an intermediate trainer from abroad because HAL will fail to deliver. With all due respect to Bharat Karnad, I think his attack on the IAF Chief is quixotic and very unfortunate. (He got paid for the article in which he took a wild potshot at the IAF Chief.)

"IAF has at most tolerated licence-manufactured foreign fighter planes but sought stubbornly to kill off indigenous combat aircraft projects. In the past, it buried the Marut Mk-II, the low-level strike variant designed in the 1970s by the highly talented Dr Raj Mahindra, who won his spurs under Kurt Tank, designer of the Focke-Wulfe fighter-bombers for the Nazi Luftwaffe and of the original HF-24 at HAL, buying the Jaguar from the UK instead. History repeats itself."

The Marut Mk-II was a dream, not a project. The HF-24 Marut powered by two Orpheus 703 engines, which I flew extensively, was an underpowered fighter incapable of holding its own in a dogfight against any Pakistani fighter. The IAF inducted the fighter into service in the belief that a more suitable engine for the aircraft would be eventually procured. When India failed in its attempts to get a better engine, the IAF heartily supported an HAL project to develop a reheated version of the Orpheus 703. Alas! The reheated version of the 703 fell way short of the ASR thrust goals. The project ended when a senior IAF test pilot on deputation to HAL was killed in an accident while testing the reheated engine.

"French and Israeli pilots who have unofficially flown the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) have gone gaga over its flying attributes."

IAF test pilots have heartily endorsed the flying characteristics of the Tejas. Why talk about French and Israeli pilots, unless the intent is to falsely project the IAF as being against Tejas? The truth is that the IAF, through the MOD, has been pressurizing ADA and HAL to deliver on the promise of the Tejas. The IAF desperately needs the aircraft as MiG-21 replacement. No one in the IAF doubts the fine capabilities of Tejas. What the IAF cannot do is retire its MiG-21 fleet, put its frontline pilots currently flying the MiG-21s on deskjobs, and wait for HAL to deliver the Tejas on its own sweet schedule. How difficult is that to understand?

"The larger, heavier, longer range Mark-II variant of the near all-composite Tejas, in fact, fills the bill of "MMRCA". An LCA version of Tejas has already been flown weighted down with ballast to mimic the Mk-II plan-form. The fact that the Mk-II variant was coming along well, besides, was known to the IAF-MoD (ministry of defense) combo. So, how come the tender for MMRCA was not terminated midway?"

The LCA Mk-2 is a light weight fighter that does not meet MMRCA ASRs. Mk-2 is the light weight fighter that the IAF wanted to begin with when it backed the LCA project, not the Tejas. The IAF is inducting the Tejas after granting many critical concessions on the ASRs to encourage indigenous design and development of fighter aircraft.

"But the LCA has been prevented from entering squadron service after it obtained the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC)-1 last year, because of their insistence that IOC-2 and subsequent clearances be done by HAL rather than permitting the clearances to be obtained by the designated Tejas squadron, flying the aircraft, at the Sulur base in Tamil Nadu. The latter procedure will allow our fighter pilots to test the plane's flight envelope and performance, and to provide feedback to designers — normal practice of advanced air forces inducting a new locally-produced aircraft."

The Tejas is in service with the IAF. It's being extensively flown by the ASTE, an IAF establishment. IAF squadron pilots are not trained to conduct IOC; they are trained for war fighting. ASTE is the IAF organization earmarked to assist HAL with IOC and FOC on an aircraft.

Finally, MMRCA is Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft not "multi-role, medium range combat aircraft" as Karnad states in his op-ed.

While Mr Bharat Karnad is entitled to his opinion, it would be nice if the opinion is based on facts.

 

[Yusuf]

Undermining national security - The New Indian Express

Undermining national security

By Arjun Subramaniam

Published: 07th November 2013 12:00 AM

In the comments section of the counter article from Arjun Subramanium , I have posted all the stuff I have posted here in DFI on comments page 4 and 5.

lets see what is the reaction.

Oh BK has picked up all your comments and now blogging it! You are famous now @ersakthivel !!

Still it doesn't take away from the fact that BK wrote BS and left on his own, he would not have been able to justify anything technically. BK will be eternally grateful to you for helping him with some technical mumbo jumbo to give credibility to his piece. But I am sure he has got no grasp of the subject and it was not in his mind when he wrote that article.

 

[ersakthivel]

Bk could have contacted some one with strong aeronautical back ground and ran a rigorous check making the article fully technical compliant before publishing it.

He is a very famous person but he failed to do so leading to him being criticized on the article even though by and large he raised some solid point for debate.

many people are saying the same that tejas mk-2 can do 70 percent of the sorties the RAFALE can do with continuous upgradation prospects with no budget busting costs like Mirage-2000 program.

A few extra squads of Su-30 MKI or super sukhoi (whose whole tech including engines is in our hands) can cover the remaining 30 percent sorties ,

It will only increase the fighting power of Airforce. We can buy , upgrade and maintain 4 tejas mk-2 for the cost of buying maintaining and upgrading one RAFALE .

For the same price , we can have

28 pylons of tejas for 8 pylons of RAFALE,
4 same sized ASEA radars of tejas for one same sized ASEA radar of RAFALE,
4 EW suits of tejas for one EW suit of RAFALE,
4 IRST suits on tejas mk-2 for one IRST suit of RAFALE,

SO a deep debate comparing the two is needed before rushing to put 20 plus billion dollars into RAFALE. But no such impartial analysis has ever been done by IAF before rushing into the MMRCA deal.

IF IAF is impressed with RAAFLEs they can buy 40 RAFALEs and pair them with tejas mk-2 for effectively more lethal air power. that option too is not considered.

Every one knows IAF wanted just 126 Mirages and it was only in 2004 to avoid a single vendor situation that MMRCA circus for a 20 ton class is going on.

if it is not for the navy's more powerful Mk-2 version demand IAf would have made a Arjun out of tejas mk-1 making it a token presence.

There is nothing that the combination of three tejas mk-2s(for the price of one RAFALE) and Su-30 MKI can not do that will be done by RAFALE. The FGFA is also waiting in the wings.

SO why rush to part 20 plus billion dollars for RAFALE?Especially with Dassault issuing ,"good for nothing " certificate to HAL which makes Su-30 MKI from raw material stage and even exporting back 64 sets of avionic packages that include mission computers and radar computers along with weapon release software to Russian airforce Su-30 MKI version?

The RAFALE or nothing guys must know that nuclear ballistic missiles created by Indian scientists play as much a part in defending the nation as 20 billion dollar RAFALEs. SO it is sad to dismiss the local guys who made these stuffs as second rate guys and to pump 20 plus billion dollars into DASAULT while steadfastedly refusing to show interest in either tejas mk-3 or the AMCA.

the ASR for AMCA took ten years to be finalized. Can you believe that? Did IAf give any ASR to FGFA for SUKHOI. No . They will accept whatever the ruassains can offer as their best.then why such strict repeated upward revision of ASR for tejas and AMCA program while easing off on foreign buys?

IAF did not set aside a penny from it's own budget for tejas till navy pitched in with 900 cr for tejas mk-2 after seeing the potential!!!.

IAF repeatedly opposed the tejas program from the inception which resulted in Abdul kalam as SA to PM mediating to save the program to be run as two TDs first and PVs only after demo of all techs on TD formula.

It was this pared down program mode which is the reason for the delay in the development and the nuclear test sanctions added their own bit to it.

 

[Decklander]

IAF lobby will vigorously defend their stupid decisions to go for foreign buys but I agree with what Bharat Karnad had written. IAf has been making a fool of indians far too long and they can't justify their delay in placing orders for LCA and repeatedly changing the ASR. Anyone who says that LCA Mk2 is incapable of delivering what Rafale can, is shooting from the hips. I had posted here the Lancaster equations and the truth is that do apply equally for air warfare also. can anyone who contradicts BK here explain to me how much time does it take to arm a Rafale and what happens when the formation going out with 9.5 tons gets bounced by enemy fighters?
The first action is to clean up the aircraft and retain only A2A weapons to get into fight. A multirole ac is supposed to do all the job himself i.e fight strike escort all at once. The moment you make a strike drop its load, you remove that ac from battle for next 4-6 hrs. What happens in such a scenerio? If members may recall, one of the strategy of USSR airforce was to make high speed passes using Mig-21s thru the formations of USAF/NATO formations just to make them drop their load so that they are forced to abort the mission and return for rearming and reloading. That saved the targets from being hit while giving more time to plan defences to USSR airforce. In Indian scene, if we talk of two front war, we will need ac which can be acquired in large numbers and be capable of high sortie rate. high sortie rate is dependent on servicibility, availability and turn around time of an ac. In case of Rafale we are looking at high turn around time, less availabilty due to less numbers and good servicibilty. In case of SU-30MKI, we are looking at high turn around time and low servicibilty inspite of high numbers. LCA Mk2 surpasses all of them in servicibility and turn around time and if we place orders for them in large numbers, we will have highest sortie rate from them compared to Rafale and SU-30MKI per aircraft wise. Large sortie rate means you can dominate a larger battlefield with lesser number of ac. To explain it further let us examine a case of a flight of 4 ac each of Rafale, SU-30MKI and LCA Mk2. with 3 hrs as turn around time for SU-30MKI for 7.5 tons load, 4 hrs for 9.5 tons load of Rafale and 2 hrs for LCA MK2 for 5.5 tons load. Let us assume each ac does a flight of 21/2 hrs each after turnaround giving it a ROA of nearly 750Nm. so we have
4 ac su-30mki will fly four times dropping 30 tons each for a total of 120 tons.
4 ac Rafale will fly three times dropping 28.5 tons each for a total of 85.5 tons,
4 ac LCA MK2 will fly five times dropping 27.5 tons each for a total of 110.0 tons.
But considering that we get 2 LCA Mk2 for each SU-30mki and 3 for each Rafale, where does it lead us and what will happen to Lancaster equation? If we now replace the aircraft type by numbers which can be bought for the same amount of money, we will realise that we can have 12 ac for the cost of 4 Rafale and if we repace the figures in the above equations we find that compared to 4 Rafale conducting four flights a day and delivering a total of 118 tons, 12 LCA Mk2 can conduct 60 flights a day delivering 330 tons. Does this make any sense to you guys? Let us assume that Rafale does four flights a day same as SU-30MKI, even then 4 ac rafale formation will deliver only 152 tons.
LCA Mk2 wins hands down. LCA MK2 can cover a larger battlefield due to its high sortie rate and larger fleet size.
Now let us examine the role of Pilatus here. For so many years IAF was crying for AJT and lack of it was cited as the main reason for crashes due to pilot error. HPT-32 had no issues with its airframe and was very docile ac. It had problems with its engine. HAL offered upgrade of engine and even re-engining it with a turbine engine. But IAF in their love for foreign ac vetoed each of the proposals and a job which cud have been done in just a few million dollars went for 1.5 billion dollars. HPT-32 even today has considerable life left in its airframe.
P.S. I have given turn around time for LCA MK2 which will have pressure refueling and also computerised fault diagnosis system like Rafale and M2K.
The weapon loading time is dependent on type and number of weapons being loaded besides the number of pylons. for safety purposes simultaneous loading of multiple weapons is not done and ac are kept widely dispersed so that in case of explosion on one ac, we do not lose other ac parked close by. Similarly, fueling ops and weapon loading is also not done together.

 

[rvjpheonix]

IAF lobby will vigorously defend their stupid decisions to go for foreign buys but I agree with what Bharat Karnad had written. IAf has been making a fool of indians far too long and they can't justify their delay in placing orders for LCA and repeatedly changing the ASR. Anyone who says that LCA Mk2 is incapable of delivering what Rafale can, is shooting from the hips. I had posted here the Lancaster equations and the truth is that do apply equally for air warfare also. can anyone who contradicts BK here explain to me how much time does it take to arm a Rafale and what happens when the formation going out with 9.5 tons gets bounced by enemy fighters?
The first action is to clean up the aircraft and retain only A2A weapons to get into fight. A multirole ac is supposed to do all the job himself i.e fight strike escort all at once. The moment you make a strike drop its load, you remove that ac from battle for next 4-6 hrs. What happens in such a scenerio? If members may recall, one of the strategy of USSR airforce was to make high speed passes using Mig-21s thru the formations of USAF/NATO formations just to make them drop their load so that they are forced to abort the mission and return for rearming and reloading. That saved the targets from being hit while giving more time to plan defences to USSR airforce. In Indian scene, if we talk of two front war, we will need ac which can be acquired in large numbers and be capable of high sortie rate. high sortie rate is dependent on servicibility, availability and turn around time of an ac. In case of Rafale we are looking at high turn around time, less availabilty due to less numbers and good servicibilty. In case of SU-30MKI, we are looking at high turn around time and low servicibilty inspite of high numbers. LCA Mk2 surpasses all of them in servicibility and turn around time and if we place orders for them in large numbers, we will have highest sortie rate from them compared to Rafale and SU-30MKI per aircraft wise. Large sortie rate means you can dominate a larger battlefield with lesser number of ac. To explain it further let us examine a case of a flight of 4 ac each of Rafale, SU-30MKI and LCA Mk2. with 3 hrs as turn around time for SU-30MKI for 7.5 tons load, 4 hrs for 9.5 tons load of Rafale and 2 hrs for LCA MK2 for 5.5 tons load. Let us assume each ac does a flight of 21/2 hrs each after turnaround giving it a ROA of nearly 750Nm. so we have
4 ac su-30mki will fly four times dropping 30 tons each for a total of 120 tons.
4 ac Rafale will fly three times dropping 28.5 tons each for a total of 85.5 tons,
4 ac LCA MK2 will fly five times dropping 27.5 tons each for a total of 110.0 tons.
But considering that we get 2 LCA Mk2 for each SU-30mki and 3 for each Rafale, where does it lead us and what will happen to Lancaster equation? If we now replace the aircraft type by numbers which can be bought for the same amount of money, we will realise that we can have 12 ac for the cost of 4 Rafale and if we repace the figures in the above equations we find that compared to 4 Rafale conducting four flights a day and delivering a total of 118 tons, 12 LCA Mk2 can conduct 60 flights a day delivering 330 tons. Does this make any sense to you guys? Let us assume that Rafale does four flights a day same as SU-30MKI, even then 4 ac rafale formation will deliver only 152 tons.
LCA Mk2 wins hands down. LCA MK2 can cover a larger battlefield due to its high sortie rate and larger fleet size.
Now let us examine the role of Pilatus here. For so many years IAF was crying for AJT and lack of it was cited as the main reason for crashes due to pilot error. HPT-32 had no issues with its airframe and was very docile ac. It had problems with its engine. HAL offered upgrade of engine and even re-engining it with a turbine engine. But IAF in their love for foreign ac vetoed each of the proposals and a job which cud have been done in just a few million dollars went for 1.5 billion dollars. HPT-32 even today has considerable life left in its airframe.
P.S. I have given turn around time for LCA MK2 which will have pressure refueling and also computerised fault diagnosis system like Rafale and M2K.
The weapon loading time is dependent on type and number of weapons being loaded besides the number of pylons. for safety purposes simultaneous loading of multiple weapons is not done and ac are kept widely dispersed so that in case of explosion on one ac, we do not lose other ac parked close by. Similarly, fueling ops and weapon loading is also not done together.

Which AC do naval aviators train in? In which one did you learn?

 

[Decklander]

Which AC do naval aviators train in? In which one did you learn?

I was trained on Kirans all thru and did not fly HPT-32. IAF had trained only 10 such courses and we had very high attrition in terms of failures and crashes.
After that I flew Kiran Mk2s in IN, Hunters with IAF 20 sqn, then Helos for 10 hrs and finally Sea Harriers.

 

[p2prada]

IAF lobby will vigorously defend their stupid decisions to go for foreign buys but I agree with what Bharat Karnad had written. IAf has been making a fool indians far too long and they can't justify their delay in placing orders for LCA and repeatedly changing the ASR. Anyone who says that LCA Mk2 is incapable of delivering what Rafale can, is shooting from the hips. I had posted here the Lancaster equations and the truth is that do apply equally for air warfare also. can anyone who contradicts BK here explain to me how much time does it take to arm a Rafale and what happens when the formation going out with 9.5 tons gets bounced by enemy fighters?

Rafale is currently the only aircraft that can perform swing role. LCA cannot.

The first action is to clean up the aircraft and retain only A2A weapons to get into fight.

Rafale can move with a full bomb load + 6 missiles. LCA can carry a full bomb load and only 2 missiles and those are R-73s.

A multirole ac is supposed to do all the job himself i.e fight strike escort all at once.

LCA cannot do this with it's pylon config. Even in Mk2 form.

In case of Rafale we are looking at high turn around time, less availabilty due to less numbers and good servicibilty.

20 minutes with 6 people for air to air. 90 minutes for air to ground. Engine change time is 1 hour.

Engine change time for LCA is typically days.

To explain it further let us examine a case of a flight of 4 ac each of Rafale, SU-30MKI and LCA Mk2. with 3 hrs as turn around time for SU-30MKI for 7.5 tons load, 4 hrs for 9.5 tons load of Rafale and 2 hrs for LCA MK2 for 5.5 tons load. Let us assume each ac does a flight of 21/2 hrs each after turnaround giving it a ROA of nearly 750Nm. so we have

These figures are incorrect for Rafale. LCA can't handle ROA of 750NM. F-16's highest ROA is 630NM with 4000L of internal fuel and 7400L of external fuel on two tanks and two CFTs and 2 1000 Kg bombs + 2 Aim-9. LCA's total fuel load is 6000L, with just 2 500 Kg bombs and 2 R-73s. So, half that ROA and half the payload. That's around 300NM.

Rafale can drop twice that load at 1000NM while carrying 4-6 AAMs.

Rafale News: May 2011

"Two Rafales carry as much ordnance as two Mirage 2000-5 and four Mirage 2000D combined," notes Pierre G., adding that their sensor capabilities "are much greater even than that."

4 ac su-30mki will fly four times dropping 28 tons each.
4 ac Rafale will fly three times dropping 28.5 tons each,
4 ac LCA MK2 will fly five times dropping 28 tons each.

This comparison is incorrect since Rafale and MKIs can carry highly capable cruise missiles while LCA currently won't. Apart from that the highest combat load LCA has been rigged with is a 500 Kg bomb. Rafale and MKI can carry twice to four times the number. Rafale can carry 4 500 Kg bombs to 1000NM with tanks. MKI can carry 8 500 Kg bombs to 600-750NM without tanks. LCA can carry 2 500 Kg bombs to 300NM with tanks.

I don't know why you added the entire payload to your calculations. Nobody drops fuel, tanks and AAMs during a bombing mission.

So even with your figures,
4 ac su-30mki will fly four times dropping 16 tons each.
4 ac Rafale will fly three times dropping 6 tons each,
4 ac LCA MK2 will fly five times dropping 5 tons each.

In each of these missions, more LCAs are required for escort since LCAs cannot protect themselves while carrying bombs, unlike MKI and Rafale. To top it off, Rafale is designed for more than 4-6 sorties a day and has a faster turnaround time than what you quoted.

Using just internal tanks, Rafale's combat capability matches that of LCA's ROA with tanks and can drop two to four times the load depending on the payload in a single sortie and at the same time can carry at least 4-6 missiles to protect itself.

But considering that we get 2 LCA Mk2 for each SU-30mki and 3 for each Rafale, where does it lead us and what will happen to Lancaster equation?

We are short of 400 pilots.

You are not counting the infrastructure as well. For each Rafale we can get 3 LCAs, but we need 3x the pilots, 3x the maintenance personnel, 3x the base facilities + more bases, 3x the training facilities, 3x the funds to pay for it all and, most importantly, only 1x the govt sanctioned squadron strength. We will need many times more tanker, AEW&C, helicopter and transport aircraft too, since there are more fighter aircraft and way more personnel. Considering this, Rafale is actually way cheaper than LCA.

We have a 42 squadron limit. We will fill 20 squadrons with heavy aircraft. 9 squadrons with Rafale. 6 with LCA. The remaining for older aircraft that needs to be phased out. If we replace the 9 squadrons of Rafale with 9 squadrons of LCA, then our force capability will deplete by a huge extent because LCAs cannot protect themselves during strike missions. We will become a defensive air force and most of the strike missions will end up on the MKIs which will distract them from their main mission of ensuring air dominance.