Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[Immanuel]

They wont offer the F 35 just like that. They want us to buy the F 16 first and then will provide the option for the f 35. My view is that we should tell the Americans that if they hope to sell any fighters to India, nothing short of F 35 will do. We dont want their 40 year old designs.

Well the best way to proceed now is to get IN & IAF to agree to buy a common aircraft platform and then send the RFP to the only aircraft that can meet this requirement today. RFP should go out to Boeing for SH Block 3, Dassault for more Rafale and LM for the F-35. Dangle the real order size, i.e. 100+ for IAF and 60+ for IN. For IN these birds should also be able to serve from IAC-1, IAC-2 and potentially the LPD. Let's see what kind of offer the US put's forward. Make sure the RFP is open about TOT negotiations and make it clear that the best over-all TOT offer will carry a significant + Let's see how US reacts to this. For SH Block 3 I am sure a line would be offered along side a good amount of TOT for the F-35 an final assembly line would quite easily be offered but the TOT offer % can be expected to be much lower than the others, being an optimist I don't see more than 25% happening.

Dassault would have a huge advantage since they already have 36 on order. However, the F-35 & SH Block 3 are very serious contenders.

I don't think LCA MK-2 should need an RFP or should be subject to a competitive process. Best is to get off our ass and order 200 of these now and allow for strict delivery timelines starting 2026. For the rest focus on full speed ahead on LCA mk-2 dev and testing. Get the aircraft ready for flight latest by 2022/3 and follow-up with lot of testing. Push for first deliveries in mid 2025.

 

[Sancho]

Size comparison and engine thrust itself speaks about the kind of fighter one is being built with it.

In your opinion! But in reality, the Mirage 2000 after the upgrade has the same size and the same engine as before, but is much more capable. Just as a Gripen A/B which was limited in payload, was inferior to the later Gripen C/D, although both had the same size and engine too.

Like I said before if you are interested in waiting till 2027. Please wait. If you really want to know how it will look broadly before 2027 by yourself. Do pay a visit to upcoming Aero India and make sure you talk with people at Tejas stall.

I don't mind waiting, to seek and share facts, not just my wishes. I wished that Tejas would be a capable light combat fighter today, just for the sake of sticking it to some non Indian formers and to be happy about a real achievement for the Indian aviation industry. But that's simply not the reality today and I won't blind myself with pride and hopes to belive that it "someday" might be an MMRCA. So all I care for, is how the problems can be fixed ASAP and more importantly, how the nation can be defended, which also is not possible with DRDO promises and pride alone, but with more capable fighters!

Do read this quote, again and again, to deduce it in its totality.

Hilarious, but I only need 1 time to understand it, while you read it and still fail to understand, so let me break it down for your:

1. it is talking about NLCA MK2, not the AF version, which didn't required additional internal fuel

2. The wings remain the same, with the same number of hardpoints, but are moved 350mm outwards, which is significant because of the larger gears of the NLCA and the widening of the fuselage to integrate internal fuel tanks

3. Where does it say anything about MTOW similar to M2K-5, which was your claim?

So you basically posted something completely unrelated to your own point, because there are no official specs for MK1A or MK2. :biggrin2:

When Tejas shifted from F-404 F2J to F-404 IN20 it saw an increase in its MTOW by 1.5 ton. Earlier it had MTOW of 12000 and now it has MTOW of 13500 in MK-1

Which is exactly what I tried to make you understand, you can increase the MTOW by increasing the payload and I wouldn't be surprised if Tejas ends up in the 5t range of Gripen D, but without additional hardpoints, it only means, that it can carry heavier loads on the existing 7+1 hardpoints =>

Medium Gripen E Vs Light Gripen C/D

 

[Sancho]

Well the best way to proceed now is to get IN & IAF to agree to buy a common aircraft platform

Wrong, because both forces have different requirements and limitations.
Rafale was the best fighter for IAF in MMRCA, but it's certainly not the best fighter for IN, because of size limitations, high costs while IN faces budget constrains and most importantly the need to get EMALS, which is not possible with Rafale either.
IAF today wants to make up numbers and therfore aimed for 114 x SE MMRCA, for lower unit and operational costs.


So the best solution for India would be:

1) to buy 100 x F18 B3 + EMALS for IAC2
2) divert 36 x Mig 29Ks to IAF, fastest stop gap measure
3) buy 114 x Gripen E + common EW suite with LCA MK1A and F18 B3 + crucial know how of GaN technology!
4) make an Su 57 MKI deal for 100 fighters max (stop gap measure) and kill FGFA joint development
5) put all focus and "common sense" on an CATOBAR capable AMCA fighter and an AF varient

=> benefits:

- suitable fighters for each force
- minimising fighter types and logistics for IN
- licence production of F18 at HAL + licence production of Gripen E at Adani
- 2 squads of Mig 29s are already available in India and could be operational even before the 2 x Rafale squads arrive
- lower unit and operational costs, which can be re-invested into stealth fighters and the AMCA programme
- getting FGFA in an MKI deal in low numbers, counters China for the moment and gives us time and money for AMCA
- maximising industrial and political advantages, by procuring fighters from the US, Sweden and Russia at the same time frame

 

[Tactical Frog]

If we are thinking in terms of Technical aspects, we should buy 56 Rafale M for Navy and maybe 36 more Rafale for IAF. But if we chose(maybe forced) to think in geopolitical terms. Then it should be 56 F/A-18s for NAVY and maybe 2-3 squadrons for IAF. Which is certain to make IAF very very upset for sure. Navy, however, won't mind getting EMLS, E-2Ds and an active cooperation with Americans on carrier building. Which i wonder what it could be? Becuase Americans are always closefisted especially with respect to ToT.

In any case, this tender has to be joint Navy Airforce to materialise in desired time. If not the same faith will repeat itself in a couple of years for sure.

+ 1000 about the joint Navy /Air Force tender. That is also the only way to restore some kind of apparent sanity / logical thinking after such a U-turn.
Not convinced at all that there is any geopolitical advantage for India to get so close from US. It will only push China and Russia to strenghten their alliance.

 

[Sancho]

Not convinced at all that there is any geopolitical advantage for India to get so close from US.

Ehm, the same once that France get's?

- US catapults
- E-2D AEW
- US drones
- US transport aircrafts
- US naval support for force projection
- US intelligence and surveillance support (at least against China for us)

 

[BlackJay]

So much fruitful discussion going on.Here is something to chew on for everyone--->


India’s AWACS is low-cost, better than Pakistan’s, says DRDO chief
DRDO chief Dr S Christopher said the indigenous AEW&C built by DRDO using modified Brazilian Embraer jets is cost effective and better than the Swedish systems owned by Pakistan.
By: Express News Service | Ahmedabad |Published: March 1, 2018 10:25 pm

The indigenous airborne early warning and control system built by Defence Research and Development Organisation uses modified Brazilian Embraer jets. (File Photo)
RELATED NEWS

• Centre clears AWACS project
• Ousted ‘Agni man’ Avinash Chander oversaw many key projects
• India can export fighter planes, missiles: DRDO chief

The indigenous airborne early warning and control system (AEW&C) built by Defence Research and Development Organisation using modified Brazilian Embraer jets is cost effective and better than the Swedish systems owned by Pakistan, said DRDO chairman Dr S Christopher at an event in Gujarat University on Thursday.

Giving an insight into various modern technologies being developed for the military, Christopher, delivering the first i-talk organised by Gujarat Innovation Society (GIS), spoke about how DRDO’s AEW&C platform, christened “Netra”, was close to his heart since he was involved in it right from inception. “In 1985, we thought we should make an AWACS (airborne warning and control system) because at that time the US had brought in their own system,” Christopher said while narrating how the DRDO faced teething problems in the project, which also involved a crash.


The DRDO chief said they had gone for a simpler and smaller platform by using the Brazilian Embraer-145 jets when the project was restarted. “It started with a simpler and smaller platform that is the Embraer,” Christopher said, adding how the five-hour endurance of the system was expanded by adding a complex air-to-air refueling facility.

Claiming that the DRDO’s AWACS was cheaper than its Pakistani counterpart, Christopher said except for the aircraft, the electronics was indigenously made. “Except for the aircraft, all the electronics is ours. So when you compare the cost, it is less than what Pakistanis are having; the Swedish system. In addition to that, their aircraft itself is not as good as ours. It is because our is a jet and that is a turboprop,” the DRDO chief said. Pakistan has Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C from Sweden.


Tejas Mark-II to fly by 2022

Speaking of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas, Christopher said HAL had already got an order to manufacture 123 LCAs. “In addition to that, the air force has given in writing another 201 aircraft, which is the next version, that we call as Mark-II. We are working on it and by 2022 it will be flying,” he said

Link-
India’s AWACS is low-cost, better than Pakistan’s, says DRDO chief

 

[Tactical Frog]

So much fruitful discussion going on.Here is something to chew on for everyone--->

Let’s move to a new MMRCA 2.0 thread and have extra fruitful discussion for 5-7 years

 

[Adioz]

to buy 100 x F18 B3 + EMALS for IAC2

We are going to have AMCA in service before IAC 2.

crucial know how of GaN technology!

Or we could mail the foreign contractor offering us GaN tech the following:-

IISc to get Rs 3,000-crore foundry

^credits for pic: @tsunami

 

[Sancho]

We are going to have AMCA in service before IAC 2.

Just not a catobar capable version and if we remain with the current silly plan, to once again develop an AF version without any forsight to implement navalisation into the design, but aim for a re-design later, we will see another NLCA disaster.

Or we could mail the foreign contractor offering us GaN tech the following:-

You might need an update on that:

 

[Immanuel]

Wrong, because both forces have different requirements and limitations.
Rafale was the best fighter for IAF in MMRCA, but it's certainly not the best fighter for IN, because of size limitations, high costs while IN faces budget constrains and most importantly the need to get EMALS, which is not possible with Rafale either.
IAF today wants to make up numbers and therfore aimed for 114 x SE MMRCA, for lower unit and operational costs.


So the best solution for India would be:

1) to buy 100 x F18 B3 + EMALS for IAC2
2) divert 36 x Mig 29Ks to IAF, fastest stop gap measure
3) buy 114 x Gripen E + common EW suite with LCA MK1A and F18 B3 + crucial know how of GaN technology!
4) make an Su 57 MKI deal for 100 fighters max (stop gap measure) and kill FGFA joint development
5) put all focus and "common sense" on an CATOBAR capable AMCA fighter and an AF varient

=> benefits:

- suitable fighters for each force
- minimising fighter types and logistics for IN
- licence production of F18 at HAL + licence production of Gripen E at Adani
- 2 squads of Mig 29s are already available in India and could be operational even before the 2 x Rafale squads arrive
- lower unit and operational costs, which can be re-invested into stealth fighters and the AMCA programme
- getting FGFA in an MKI deal in low numbers, counters China for the moment and gives us time and money for AMCA
- maximising industrial and political advantages, by procuring fighters from the US, Sweden and Russia at the same time frame

Well IAF should buy more Rafales regardless of the new MMRCA tender, I think the Rafale number should be 100, 20 for each of 5 air commands . If the new tender is sent to LM for the F-35, there is no reason why both IAF & IN can't operate the same aircraft, I understand the Rafale isn't fit for the Navy but after trials it would be clear that the F-35 is more than usable for both services. Gripen E won't happen with the LCA mk-2 now having a potential order book of over 200. It is easier to have LCA MK-2 flying with avionics borrowed from the Gripen, I am totally fine with the Selex swashplate being intergated on the Tejas.

Mig-29K can be diverted to IAF and IN either buys F-35 or SH.

I think buying the SU-53 as is without an MKI version is silly and useless, in such a case a direct F-35 purchase will prove far more reliable, it also provide far better prospects for Indian industry.

 

[Sancho]

Well IAF should buy more Rafales regardless of the new MMRCA tender

Well IAF/India wanted, but Dassault blocked that and left us with the mess.

If the new tender is sent to LM for the F-35, there is no reason why both IAF & IN can't operate the same aircraft

Reason 1) F35 is not on offer, LM did not replied to INs RFI either

Reason 2) LM / US government want to sell F16s to India, to remain with the F16 production line and export potential to customers that can't afford or are not allowed to buy F35

Reason 3) GoI is obviously in cash trouble and limiting defence modernisations big time. So how should they afford a fighter, that currently has a higher flyaway cost than any MMRCA and also has far higher operational costs?

It is easier to have LCA MK-2 flying with avionics borrowed from the Gripen,

Not really, once because there is no MK2 other than on paper so far and it will need time for the re-designed airframe and the integration of the engine to get finished before it can fly, let alone be fully tested and certified. There is a reason why IAF expects MK2 only around 2027.
Secondly because they both have different size limitations. The Gripen E nose is larger and can not only include a swashplate version, but also is lengthened to house an IRST in front of the cockpit. Tejas doesn't have that space and might be limited to a smaller fixed AESA, while IRST remains a big ?

 

[Rahul Singh]

+ 1000 about the joint Navy /Air Force tender. That is also the only way to restore some kind of apparent sanity / logical thinking after such a U-turn.
Not convinced at all that there is any geopolitical advantage for India to get so close from US. It will only push China and Russia to strenghten their alliance.

Afghanistan is important for us. Still, we will never be putting boots on the ground beyond certain points(embassy and consulates) for sure. So how we will be able to secure it for our own cause? I won't elaborate here.

This is still one of many reasons.

Besides, China Russia bonhomie is gonna continue even if we drop the USA altogether.

 

[Rahul Singh]

In your opinion! But in reality, the Mirage 2000 after the upgrade has the same size and the same engine as before, but is much more capable. Just as a Gripen A/B which was limited in payload, was inferior to the later Gripen C/D, although both had the same size and engine too.



I don't mind waiting, to seek and share facts, not just my wishes. I wished that Tejas would be a capable light combat fighter today, just for the sake of sticking it to some non Indian formers and to be happy about a real achievement for the Indian aviation industry. But that's simply not the reality today and I won't blind myself with pride and hopes to belive that it "someday" might be an MMRCA. So all I care for, is how the problems can be fixed ASAP and more importantly, how the nation can be defended, which also is not possible with DRDO promises and pride alone, but with more capable fighters!



Hilarious, but I only need 1 time to understand it, while you read it and still fail to understand, so let me break it down for your:

1. it is talking about NLCA MK2, not the AF version, which didn't required additional internal fuel

2. The wings remain the same, with the same number of hardpoints, but are moved 350mm outwards, which is significant because of the larger gears of the NLCA and the widening of the fuselage to integrate internal fuel tanks

3. Where does it say anything about MTOW similar to M2K-5, which was your claim?

So you basically posted something completely unrelated to your own point, because there are no official specs for MK1A or MK2. :biggrin2:



Which is exactly what I tried to make you understand, you can increase the MTOW by increasing the payload and I wouldn't be surprised if Tejas ends up in the 5t range of Gripen D, but without additional hardpoints, it only means, that it can carry heavier loads on the existing 7+1 hardpoints =>

Medium Gripen E Vs Light Gripen C/D

I could do go point-to-point wasting my time again. But with your level of understanding, i won't.

Because my assertion "Mk-2 is in the same category as Mirage-2000" has be reiterated by Air Marshal(retd.) Patni (i guess, him as a source is 'official' enough). Skip to 12:15 in the following video.............Case closed!

 

[Sancho]

I could do go point-to-point wasting my time again.

Of course it's a waste of time, because it was clear that you can't back you claims up, since there is no official info on MK1A or MK2 specs, just as I told you from the start. :biggrin2:

 

[WolfPack86]

It's high time to close this thread.

 

[asianobserve]

Ehm, the same once that France get's?

- US catapults
- E-2D AEW
- US drones
- US transport aircrafts
- US naval support for force projection
- US intelligence and surveillance support (at least against China for us)

And active US military support to French adventures (in Lybia).

 

[Saichand K]

Ok close this thread now... :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

 

[Steven Rogers]

This thread started up, tejas vs single engine fighter. One member continued his theory to prove that tejas is not in league of this tender. In the end it ended up tejas as single engine MRCA option.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Immanuel]

Well IAF/India wanted, but Dassault blocked that and left us with the mess.



Reason 1) F35 is not on offer, LM did not replied to INs RFI either

Reason 2) LM / US government want to sell F16s to India, to remain with the F16 production line and export potential to customers that can't afford or are not allowed to buy F35

Reason 3) GoI is obviously in cash trouble and limiting defence modernisations big time. So how should they afford a fighter, that currently has a higher flyaway cost than any MMRCA and also has far higher operational costs?



Not really, once because there is no MK2 other than on paper so far and it will need time for the re-designed airframe and the integration of the engine to get finished before it can fly, let alone be fully tested and certified. There is a reason why IAF expects MK2 only around 2027.
Secondly because they both have different size limitations. The Gripen E nose is larger and can not only include a swashplate version, but also is lengthened to house an IRST in front of the cockpit. Tejas doesn't have that space and might be limited to a smaller fixed AESA, while IRST remains a big ?

A Gripen E induction in IAF also won't happen before 2027 either, besides Tejas has other options inlcuding the EL-2052 which is a great radar, IRST or OLS type solution will find it's way on the MK-2. Expect a LCA MK-2 test vehicle by 2022 latest Q1 2023, FOC should be done by Q4 2025. Gripen E has virtually no chance specially with the all the talk of MK-2 Tejas.

As said, sending an RFI to LM won't do since LM was already pushing the F-16 for IAF. One needs to get specific when sending RFI, IN's RFI was broad. They should have asked for RFI on F-35 specifically.

As for the F-35's flyaway cost is competitve VS the EF & Rafale, service life costs for the EF/Rafale are calculated on a 40 year basis, the F-35's costs are calculated certainly in the US on a 55 year service basis. Costs of the F-35 will only stabilize to a point where the EF and Rafale won't be able to match the price to capability ratio.

 

[Sancho]

A Gripen E induction in IAF also won't happen before 2027 either

That depends on how the deal is made. By the time we made the Rafale deal, France already had diverted own production Rafales to Egypt and Qatar, that's why no fast tracking was possible. But the delivery to Sweden begins from 2019/20 onwards and Saab might even increase the product rate, since recent news of additional Swedish orders, besides the prospect of more European orders. But even if they both would be inducted at the same time, it wouldn't be an issue anyway, since LCA and MMRCA induction was "always" planned to be in the same time frame and as a high lo mix. Even if we had bought 126 Rafales, they would had been inducted at the same time as LCA MK1 IOC, FOC, 1A too.

besides Tejas has other options inlcuding the EL-2052 which is a great radar, IRST or OLS type solution will find it's way on the MK-2.

The only other valid solution is the RBE 2 AESA, which however might still not offer the A2G modes IAF got via EL2032 and EL2052 in the Jags.
And the cockpit section of MK2 was not planned for changes so far which means there is hardly any space in front of the cockpit to fit an IRST and the internal systems.

As said, sending an RFI to LM won't do since LM was already pushing the F-16 for IAF. One needs to get specific when sending RFI, IN's RFI was broad. They should have asked for RFI on F-35 specifically.

Lol, IN is sending an RFI to LM for a carrier fighter and you think, LM didn't understood which fighter they meant??? :biggrin2:

the F-35's costs are calculated certainly in the US on a 55 year service basis.

The USN itself stated, that the single engined F35C will have 1.5 times higher operational costs than the twin engined F18SH. The main issue is the maintenance of stealth features and that won't ever be an easy of cost-effective task. That's why the operational costs are the biggest problem for any stealth fighter and why more and more countries seems to understand, that it's better to use stealth fighters in lower numbers for the tactical advantage and not see them as a 1 on 1 replacement for legacy fighters. After USN, that wanted the F35 next to a large fleet of F18SHs, UK, Australia, or Italy, that prefers interoperability of their F35 with EF or F18s, now Japan seems to move away from their initial plans and might go for an improved F18 Block 3 too, to complement the F35 and provide a cost-effective F2 replacement.