Would IAF have worked to induct 80-120 Tejas mk-1 if no MRCA alias MMRCA program

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by icecoolben, Dec 6, 2010.

?

If MMRCA program is dropped, will tejas mk-1 be given life with 80-120 more orders?

  1. yes

    35.7%
  2. no

    64.3%
  1. icecoolben

    icecoolben Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    4
    Tejas near IOC; but induction?

    The Tejas mk-1 is nearing compeltion of its development. LSP-5 all the gizmos that are going into the production model of tejas. The frantic pace of missile tests, countermeasures, drop tank testing and gearbox certification says that all the hardware are in place. once the developer ADA verifies their performance, LSP-7,8 will be handed to IAF for testing and Trials. In such heightened expectations, the reality tends to get blurred.
    The User IAF is not going to order anymore than 20-40 Tejas mk-1 aircraft.The IAF is expecting an improved Tejas mk-2 with various next generation systems such as indian AESA radar, new engine and other stuff. So whatever we are have developed and testing now would be no more than demonstration of technological competence. Knowing the User's past attitude towards induction of weapon systems, prefering a completely developed product to a phased upgade approach. The platform tejas mk-1 now is will be carried forward the same till there is any dire need for upgrade. The programmed induction of tejas Mk-2 could suffer this same inertia hence runs the danger of being held hostile to failures in AESA, other development efforts.

    MRCA alias MMRCA requirement relevence and Developments to tejas

    By 2001, the Indian Air Force had projected a requirement for 126 multi-role combat aircrafts and approched the MOD for the mirage-2000. the proposal was shot down and told to wait for tejas which had just made its initial flight. It was expected to fill up some 400 number of combat aircraft in IAF. Besides the IAF had just inked a deal to licence assemble 140 Su-30 mki multi-role aircrafts in HAL, in which the mirage-2000 had been found to be costly but low on performance compared to Su-30. Yet seeking the same plane for another requirement was a choice that seemed prudent in IAF eyes. But not for the GOI which had further plans such as lobbying for the LFI design with Russia. But change of gaurd in centre and consensus with Russians on su t-50 resulted in favor of acquiring a single engined fighter to make up for shortfalls that result from prolonged Tejas development, that was the MRCA program in 2006.
    Fast forward to 2010, we have Tejas program staring at IOC around Dec 2010- early 2011. But IAF is not going to order no more than 20-40 of the planes.
    The reason or perhaps excuse given is redesign of air-inake, which might have taken a year or so to modify , test and certify. But add to that air show tricks sorry combat manouvers cannot be performed using the present aircraft configuration, the culprit GE supplied F404 f2j3 engines that produced 50/75 kn of thrust. Anyway Kaveri Engine which was conceived to produce 13% more thrust was holding the tejas programme to its hostage, hence delinked from the initial prototypes and production models. These in turn were decided to be powered by GE F404 IN20 engines which produced 85 kn in bench testing, just as much the GTRE gtx-35vs kaveri had hoped to acheive. IAF after this order would order no more and required the aircraft to have a new engine, which necessiated changes to fuselage, add to that larger wing with heavier load, add to that more internal fuel naturally resulting from wing and fuselage modification. All these design changes have been factored and a time frame for production has been pushed back to 2018. In a nut shell, technology thats been developed for 2010 IOC has been effectively put off till 2018, while keeping the developer busy all the while.



    http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/05/stories/2008120561301400.htm

    http://*************directory.blogspot.com/2010/06/lca-tejas-mk-2update.html


    Is the IAF justified in making such demands on Tejas also needs to be analysed? When it was realised that Tejas would not be available post 2005 even, RFI was released to generally accepted light category fighters namely F-16 bk-52, Mirage 2000, Mig-29 ovt and Jas -39 c/d gripen. Of all these the only aircraft very contemperory and had a similar profile to Tejas was Gripen. Branded as cheap and affordable, the aircraft was built with the same goals Tejas was developed to meet, amazingly with the same technology needing to be developed. But Gripen induction started in 1996, while tejas still languished for first flight. Thus procuring 126 gripens would have been ideal. But the pace of the Indian bureaucracy meant that tejas program caught up, confident in tejas grew and outpaced that had been achieved by the four contenders. IAF finiding itself in a hard place of not being able to shun Tejas from the competition did something detriminal to the very essence of quick procurement, it raised the bar. Thus the Max take off weight of 20 tons had to go higher bringing two other manufacturers raising the competition to MMRCA. Theoretically had the IAF selected Gripen, it would have been akin to acknowledging its own lack of technical competence. As we know other than Tejas, most other aircraft were fabricated around an existing engine at least in a prototype stage. SAAB chose F404 for gripen, whose empty weight after development stands at 6500 kg and max take off weight at 12,500 kg with a combat radius of 1600 km. The Aircraft has been accepted into sweedish air force. On contrast IAF wanted a 5500 kg fighter with the same engine, same take off wt and same combat radius. When Saab with all its experience has prefered to stick to 6500 kg empty even after using 30% composites. Sadly ADA with its limited experience has max-ed out the weight reduction possible for a machine of this complexity, since 45% composite already employed. But IAF remains stubborn not to accept Tejas or make sensible choices that may expose its past unrealistic expectations from contemperory technology. While IAF is willing to compromise with 1970s airframe like the Super Hornet, there is little doubt a latest airframe like Tejas or Gripen would prove to be superior. The last time IAF abandoned Indian programme to go for Jaguar, it ended with a 1960s airframe, which became obselete soon after induction whose original orders still languish in HAL till date. In such circumstances, do we need foreign weapons systems that would soon be abandoned by their manufacturer once new programs start, while the IAF languishes with it for half a century in service.

    Legacy of HAL at stake

    Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Banglore through hook or crook has become South Asia's largest or perhaps the sole Aerospace enterprise, courtesy - Socialist, Spineless politicians and beareaucratic Babus. By late 1970s, after consolidation by Indira Ghandi, HAL had become the alpha and omega of Indian Aerospace. It was showered with Ratna awards, its tp brass regularly received national awards, there was no academic participation in R&D. It was an end in itself. HAL by then had settled into a nice rhythm where first India buys some planes off the shelf from Russia then gets licence to manufacture them in HAL, to offset the Russian leverage buys an aircraft with similar aircraft from europe and licenced to be manufactured by HAL.
    The hot gas produced by Licence production kept HAL going until ADA was formed. Instead of working with the agency, HAL considered it a challenge to its turf which meant ADA had to hire people outside HAL and kept functioning not as close as they need to have. Though the prime contractor for Tejas, until recently HAL's participation in the programme has been minimal, compounded its manpower shortage which needed to cater to an array of programs. To maintain its Technological excellence on par with ADA, HAL has looked no further than its dirty old method of Licence production through TOT from western Europe. I wonder what it stands to gain that the Su-30 mki licence production with 100 % TOT couldn't give that it needs 60% TOT from MMRCA contenders. one reason could be that the idle manufacturing facility that catered to Jaguar assembly. the top to bottom is only bent on holding onto their jobs while keeping their bigger heads intact.Probably their Cool idea is replacing russian mig-27 line with Su-30 now Jaguar line with MMRCA to duplicate the previous cycle, how much pathetic can this agency get.
    the worse part is they can't even leave upgrade programs alone, e.g RD-33 engines for mig-29 upgrade, Jaguar upgrade. They didn't even leave the LCA tejas Mk-2 programme alone.
    http://kuku.sawf.org/News/59037.aspx


    Vested Public Relations Sabotoge


    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/11/22/AW_11_22_2010_p34-270650.xml&headline=LCA%20Tejas%20Falls%20Short%20of%20Earlier%20Expectations


    http://indiadefenceonline.com/2315/lca-faces-huge-cost-escalation/



    Even at this Twilight hour, there are vested interests that try desperately with sensationalism and so autentically realistic propaganda to destroy the Programme's public image. But has such a thing happened in countries like Sweden, Brazil when they tried to invent Systems that cater to their particular demand. Their achievements stands in testament to their decisions which in stark contrast to India's.

    All of these factors have led me to only a single question

    Debate Question:Would IAF have worked with ADA & MOD to induct 80-120 Tejas in Mk-1 configuration if there was no MRCA alias MMRCA competition?

    scenarios that could topple MMRCA
    The Gripen comes out as the one that meets all parameters and emerges L1.What if the Govenment was so hell bent on tejas that it refused to entertain an aircraft that would duplicate its capabilities.

    the evaluation report is scrutinised in parliament that ends in a JPC which results in a conclusion "the capabilities afforded by the newer aircrafts are offset by their higher procurement and operating costs, thus recomends air staff to buy Mk-1 to plug gaps till mk-2 is developed"

    A CAG report implicts rules had been bent and the purpose of the procurement had been compromised by waiting till 2015 to induct and with unit prices at $100+ million was unacceptable to the excheaquer.

    The IAF sees that tejas mk-1 meets its operational requirements perfectly, goes in for standardisation orders the equipment that it was impressed with in the trials to be integrated with tejas mk-2, and absolves the MMRCA to escape complexing of logistics.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2010
  2.  
  3. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,408
    Likes Received:
    968
    Interesting question, I think it deserves an investigation.

    I voted yes. I think, there definitely is a vested interest in keeping the Tejas operational in relatively small numbers, or in rejecting Snecma's joint proposal for a combined-Kaveri engine development. But, the ADA has also been guilty of delays in integrating the platform's air data and digital flight control systems, or in inputting software for the multi-mode radar, delays, for which it, alone is to blame. Overall, perhaps no MRCA contract would've led to a more augmented order for the MK-1. But we also have to remember that the MRCA is a different category of aircraft from the Tejas. So a smaller order for the MRCA would've been required regardless.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2010
  4. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    The answer lies to the question is the MRCA requirement same as the LCA? Is the Typhoon, SH the same as Tejas?

    MRCA set out originally to fill the gap that Tejas was not filling due to delays, but then staff requirements changed over time. So we have two diff categories of fighters.
     
  5. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    ^^ More than that, Yusuf. Tejas was developed to replace MiG-21s and MiG-23s as lightweight multirole fighters and during 80s, it was a program way ahead of its time. What IAF projected as a requirement in 1987, is still the mainstay of most air forces and emerging countries. Which means despite 20 years+ gone in the program, it is still an advanced platform. This question itself is very shadowy in the sense that since we never adopted a "indigenous at any cost" policy like PRC, we had no restrictions on importing foreign made fighters. But had GOI banned direct sales and only allowed co-developments that had significant chances of local industries to grow, I believe IAF would have chosen to participate in Tejas project a bit more earlier than 2006. Developing Tejas along the lines of USA knowing that it is an unreliable supplier was the biggest mistake that took away more than a decade from the program. Instead had we considered Russian/European engines, we could have got Tejas in IAF till now.

    MRCA is a competition that would be unlikely to be not considered because Tejas doesn't fill the role of MiG-29 and Mirage 2000- 2 main star fighters of IAF. That is only filled by the contesting jets in the competition. Hence, I feel that unless the government had mandated a "no complete imports" policy, IAF would have still continued wit MRCA. Only such a policy as this would have prompted ADA and IAF to covertly collaborate with third party countries like France and Israel in designing something along the lines of what China did in J-10. No matter how much we call it a rip off, it is distinctive from both F-16 as well as Lavi (which was nothing more than a delta-wing canard-based F-16 in itself).

    Offtopic but J-10 is more or less a hybrid between SU-27 (neck, cockpit and spine region), Mirage and Lavi and since most 4th gen fighters share something or the other, we can safely accept that China was smart in using this technique and developing its own industry.
     
  6. plugwater

    plugwater Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,149
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    First it was AMCA for MRCA then F-35 for MRCA and now LCA for MRCA!!!

    How can LCA be the substitute for MRCA.. both are different class..
     
  7. Patriot

    Patriot Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    538
    Location:
    Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
    The need of the hour is MRCA that role can not be filled up by Tejas with the underpowered engine,range, radar & sophisticated missile etc. We must choose & procure MRCA with latest & advanced technology & weapons. The Tejas MK-1 is fine to fill up the numbers and in a role point defence fighter what Mig-21 is doing but that much is not sufficient.

    When we get the MK-2 ready that will support and add numbers to the MRCAs.
    Main reasons that we must go ahead with MRCA are:

    • Delay & uncertainty from our agencies ( HAL, MOD, DRDO etc.)
    • Latest technology & weapons which are available in the market with ToT.
    • No advanced bomber in IAF Inventory( Mirage-2k, Jaguar shall be irrelevant , outdated & be sitting ducks after 5 years).

    In addition , we suppose to have formidable multirole fighter in our inventory seeing the threat perception from almost all the borders.

    Tejas programme & development of required technology, radar & weapons must go on but canceling the MRCA will be a blunder IMO.
     
  8. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,450
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    Wrong question.

    It is assumed that LCA mk 1 is close to MMRCA contenders .I think this is baloney

    LCA mk1 is a worthy replacement of Mig 21 since it can carry 4 AAM and has FBW and composites . LCA mk1 will be used primarily as point defence fighter or CAP

    IAF had way back in 2000 AD after the kargil war asked for Mirage 2000-5

    Instead Govt went for the MMRCA

    The IAF would happily accept LCA mk 2 with AESA but it will be ready for serial production in 2017

    The importance of LCA lies in the fact that India 's defunct aeronautical industry has now come back with a new life

    We were happy with Licence production of Migs and jaguars

    The design ,development and system integration experience India has gained will help us for AMCA
     
  9. vijay jagannathan

    vijay jagannathan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    10
    LCA cannot be linked with MRCA. both have different sets of air staff requirements. LCA is unwittingly drawn into MRCA only because of one thing-- The prescence of Gripen.

    Now this really is perplexing. Gripen is similar class with similar engine but with superior avionics and performance---??? attributed to superior engineering of a mature JAS- perhaps. This I had alluded to in a scathing criticism of the LCA's LSP -5 hush hush test.

    Nobod till now has been able to rationalise this - why is the gripen a top MRCA contender and why isn't the LCA. I think the answer is LCA Mark 1 is a technological demonstartor - no more - no less -which has managed to wake up the Indian aerospace agencies froma deep slumber. If the IAF does not support the waking industry who else will? So it has to grind its teeth and accept a few token LCAs ---- and pray the mark 2 would be a mature platform-- a full 10 years behind the gripen nG.
     
  10. icecoolben

    icecoolben Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    4
    The answer lies to the question is the MRCA requirement same as the LCA? Is the Typhoon, SH the same as Tejas?
    The medium class of aircraft the IAF so desperately lacks. Funny that of all the Air Forces only IAF evaluates its aircraft in terms of weight instead of capabilities. Just curious, of the 600+ air staff specifications, is weighing the aircraft in a balance there,too?

    yes, the Super Hornet's or eurofighter's capabilities cannot be mimiked by Tejas, So is the same that tejas's low deveolpment, initial procurement and operating costs cannot be beaten by others. If there are specifically three categories heavy, medium and light, i take it we are arguing all of their capabilities are mutually exclusive. if that was the case then we are actually implying an invading pakistani F-16 cannot be intecepted by Su-30 or tejas, if promto F-16 was a medium category fighter. some have argued that MMRCA is going to give us a premier strike fighter, that makes me doubt if the Su-30 has any air to surface capability at all. But it seems according to wiki , we are wrong. if we still aspire to be right then the following munitions hanging from pylons are no more than stars, bells and whistles hanging from a christmas tree.

    Air to Surface Missiles:

    * 3 × Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile, 115 km
    * 3 × Kh-59MK active radar homing anti-ship missile, 285 km
    * 4 × Kh-35 Anti-Ship Missile, 130 km
    * 1 × PJ-10 Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile,300 km
    * 6 × Kh-31P/A anti-radar missile, 70 km
    * 6 × Kh-29T/L laser guided missile, 30 km
    * 4 × S-8 rocket pods (80 unguided rockets)
    * 4 × S-13 rocket pods (20 unguided rockets)

    Bombs:

    * 8 × KAB-500L laser guided bombs
    * 3 × KAB-1500L laser guided bombs
    * 8 × FAB-500T dumb bombs
    * 28 × OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs
    * 32 × OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs
    * 8 × RBK-500 cluster bombs
    The is a sense of humour in the strike capability arguement, the Eurofighter Nations themselves still depend on legacy tornados for their strike role and we are offered a lethal strike aircraft in the Eurofighter.

    The issue of light and heavy fighters came about first in the VVS when MFS programme was launched to counter american F-15. The program would have resulted only in Su-27, but since fielding the aircraft in large numbers was cost prohibitive, an aircraft of knocked down capability for point defence, at the lowest cost mig-29 was also developed. similarly it was no more than pure economics that prompted the development of XF-16. The same F-16 evolved from a fighter in its inception to a venerable Fighter bomber in the 1990s. since fielding fighters in large numbers is not a requirement for europeons they have reduced thier inventory towards a single type of aircraft. even the United states with interests spread all over the globe, due to which it needs to acquire capabilities to operate accross the entire spectrum is desperate to shift to a common platform for all its services. Please don't point out delays, to justify MMRCA is correct. The US policy makers have made a decision and sticks to it to make it work. While the GOI has left it to IAF, whose motto is "I have no satisfaction whatsoever and the sky is the limit" wake up people there is no sky, its an illusion. For those who believe the Semi-stealth of MMRCA is a capability, IAF rejected twin-engined LCA with semi-stealth capabilities, that should intrigue something. There is no job that the Su-30 cannot accomplish that the MMRCA can.
    One reason perhaps the IAF seeks to incorporate a western origin aircraft may be due to the fact that Russian supplies air to ground munitions flopped big time in Kargil, but the su-30 deal had already gone forward before and the IAF still preffered to have a wholly western fighter guarenteeing best of all the world in its midst. the service chiefs who strategise do not care about logistics, engineers in the IAF are burdened with the task. the Su-30 deal has had its share of problems, of the 40+ complaints only a handful were solved by sukoi, is that a reason to go for a western fighter? does not seem so after the Hawk deal, reports of french armtwisting in supply of mirage spares. Atleast we had 100% TOT with Sukoi, in this deal we only get 60%.. The platform whatever we buy is going to be summation of train wreak of problems that we faced with Jaguar, mig-27 etc.

    Yes, I agree ADA was a laggard in the testing front,but that should not become a reason for continuing to rely on imports. "Of course, we have problems with our LCA but we should be working to solve that. Why should we be so keen to become dependent?".

    What if the situation we find ourselves in is due to inistitutional inertia in which a particular lobby has thrived due to imports. The lobby has come together from within IAF, MOD and HAL cojoling together so that the influence created by a successful tejas programme may not shrink their clout . They are desperately trying to box out tejas program and the medium weight category has been their brainchild. they feel their influence that derives from dealings with western military powers being threatened by tejas program success that they have decided to muscle out Tejas using MMRCA contenders. the MMRCA was legitimate till it was MRCA, once the name changed its been a desperate attempt by these congregation of big headed baboons to get even with their foreign collegues and give a sense of importance among foreign military powers using buying power, whatever that means. This is clear amateurish short-sigtedness.The nexus of forces forged by western lobby is hardpressed to introduce a platform that is going to be outdated by 2017 according to P S Subramniyan, ADA, unless we pay for AESA radar development, engine upgrade etc if not overtly then through increased unit procurement costs. We are looking forward through 2020 for FGFA and 2025 for AMCA. Introducing three other platforms inbetween 2010 tejas mk1, MMRCA in 2014 and Tejas mk-2 in 2017, is it really worth the trouble? i would rather have Tejas making smooth transition from tejas mk-1 in 2010, through a re-engined F414 mk-1 in 2015, then a complete mk-2 in 2017,this way the aircraft capabilities would have increased to catch up with the MMRCA candidates, on whom IAF now is prepared to spend a fortune, Induction and strategy making would be incremental as well, besides we would have a world class fighter for export as an extension of hard power, whose production can continue till AMCA production hits the lines.

    Has anyone thought why Su-30 production has to cease at 2014, its to make way for MMRCA production, hence not allowing us to capitalise on Su-30 technology transfer either. With MMRCA, India has effectively given up Indegenisation of capabilities but still put up tejas as a publicity stunt.
     
  11. icecoolben

    icecoolben Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    4
    why so obsessed with classes, pls explain how u define the classes qualitatively

    The answer lies to the question is the MRCA requirement same as the LCA? Is the Typhoon, SH the same as Tejas?
    The medium class of aircraft the IAF so desperately lacks. Funny that of all the Air Forces only IAF evaluates its aircraft in terms of weight instead of capabilities. Just curious, of the 600+ air staff specifications, is weighing the aircraft in a balance there,too?

    yes, the Super Hornet's or eurofighter's capabilities cannot be mimiked by Tejas, So is the same that tejas's low deveolpment, initial procurement and operating costs cannot be beaten by others. If there are specifically three categories heavy, medium and light, i take it we are arguing all of their capabilities are mutually exclusive. if that was the case then we are actually implying an invading pakistani F-16 cannot be intecepted by Su-30 or tejas, if promto F-16 was a medium category fighter. some have argued that MMRCA is going to give us a premier strike fighter, that makes me doubt if the Su-30 has any air to surface capability at all. But it seems according to wiki , we are wrong. if we still aspire to be right then the following munitions hanging from pylons are no more than stars, bells and whistles hanging from a christmas tree.

    Air to Surface Missiles:

    * 3 × Kh-59ME TV guided standoff Missile, 115 km
    * 3 × Kh-59MK active radar homing anti-ship missile, 285 km
    * 4 × Kh-35 Anti-Ship Missile, 130 km
    * 1 × PJ-10 Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile,300 km
    * 6 × Kh-31P/A anti-radar missile, 70 km
    * 6 × Kh-29T/L laser guided missile, 30 km
    * 4 × S-8 rocket pods (80 unguided rockets)
    * 4 × S-13 rocket pods (20 unguided rockets)

    Bombs:

    * 8 × KAB-500L laser guided bombs
    * 3 × KAB-1500L laser guided bombs
    * 8 × FAB-500T dumb bombs
    * 28 × OFAB-250-270 dumb bombs
    * 32 × OFAB-100-120 dumb bombs
    * 8 × RBK-500 cluster bombs
    The is a sense of humour in the strike capability arguement, the Eurofighter Nations themselves still depend on legacy tornados for their strike role and we are offered a lethal strike aircraft in the Eurofighter.

    The issue of light and heavy fighters came about first in the VVS when MFS programme was launched to counter american F-15. The program would have resulted only in Su-27, but since fielding the aircraft in large numbers was cost prohibitive, an aircraft of knocked down capability for point defence, at the lowest cost mig-29 was also developed. similarly it was no more than pure economics that prompted the development of XF-16. The same F-16 evolved from a fighter in its inception to a venerable Fighter bomber in the 1990s. since fielding fighters in large numbers is not a requirement for europeons they have reduced thier inventory towards a single type of aircraft. even the United states with interests spread all over the globe, due to which it needs to acquire capabilities to operate accross the entire spectrum is desperate to shift to a common platform for all its services. Please don't point out delays, to justify MMRCA is correct. The US policy makers have made a decision and sticks to it to make it work. While the GOI has left it to IAF, whose motto is "I have no satisfaction whatsoever and the sky is the limit" wake up people there is no sky, its an illusion. For those who believe the Semi-stealth of MMRCA is a capability, IAF rejected twin-engined LCA with semi-stealth capabilities, that should intrigue something. There is no job that the Su-30 cannot accomplish that the MMRCA can.
    One reason perhaps the IAF seeks to incorporate a western origin aircraft may be due to the fact that Russian supplies air to ground munitions flopped big time in Kargil, but the su-30 deal had already gone forward before and the IAF still preffered to have a wholly western fighter guarenteeing best of all the world in its midst. the service chiefs who strategise do not care about logistics, engineers in the IAF are burdened with the task. the Su-30 deal has had its share of problems, of the 40+ complaints only a handful were solved by sukoi, is that a reason to go for a western fighter? does not seem so after the Hawk deal, reports of french armtwisting in supply of mirage spares. Atleast we had 100% TOT with Sukoi, in this deal we only get 60%.. The platform whatever we buy is going to be summation of train wreak of problems that we faced with Jaguar, mig-27 etc.

    Yes, I agree ADA was a laggard in the testing front,but that should not become a reason for continuing to rely on imports. "Of course, we have problems with our LCA but we should be working to solve that. Why should we be so keen to become dependent?".

    What if the situation we find ourselves in is due to inistitutional inertia in which a particular lobby has thrived due to imports. The lobby has come together from within IAF, MOD and HAL cojoling together so that the influence created by a successful tejas programme may not shrink their clout . They are desperately trying to box out tejas program and the medium weight category has been their brainchild. they feel their influence that derives from dealings with western military powers being threatened by tejas program success that they have decided to muscle out Tejas using MMRCA contenders. the MMRCA was legitimate till it was MRCA, once the name changed its been a desperate attempt by these congregation of big headed baboons to get even with their foreign collegues and give a sense of importance among foreign military powers using buying power, whatever that means. This is clear amateurish short-sigtedness.The nexus of forces forged by western lobby is hardpressed to introduce a platform that is going to be outdated by 2017 according to P S Subramniyan, ADA, unless we pay for AESA radar development, engine upgrade etc if not overtly then through increased unit procurement costs. We are looking forward through 2020 for FGFA and 2025 for AMCA. Introducing three other platforms inbetween 2010 tejas mk1, MMRCA in 2014 and Tejas mk-2 in 2017, is it really worth the trouble? i would rather have Tejas making smooth transition from tejas mk-1 in 2010, through a re-engined F414 mk-1 in 2015, then a complete mk-2 in 2017,this way the aircraft capabilities would have increased to catch up with the MMRCA candidates, on whom IAF now is prepared to spend a fortune, Induction and strategy making would be incremental as well, besides we would have a world class fighter for export as an extension of hard power, whose production can continue till AMCA production hits the lines.

    Has anyone thought why Su-30 production has to cease at 2014, its to make way for MMRCA production, hence not allowing us to capitalise on Su-30 technology transfer either. With MMRCA, India has effectively given up Indegenisation of capabilities but still put up tejas as a publicity stunt.
     
  12. sayareakd

    sayareakd Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,623
    Likes Received:
    11,702
    i think the question we need to ask is why so many planes ???

    If IAF dont want LCA, then i can say that they dont want MRCA, they should go for SU 30 MKI and later versions then LCA and MRCA.

    It will unnecessary create training, servicing and other facilities for such type of MRCA, rather then this why not invest in SU 30 MKI and other higher versions ???

    If MRCA is to take care of china and pakistan then SU 30 MKI can do the same job with higher range and higher weapons load.

    Can some one put some light into this............:emot0::emot100: (is it me or that some people think it is better way of making money by having different types of fighter planes for IAF) :emot0::emot100:
     
  13. icecoolben

    icecoolben Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    4
    When we had the MRCA requirement of 126 aircraft, if we had commenced a programme to replace a large parts of the metal airframes with composites on Su-30 mki, sort of a Sukoi Design Bureau-NAL-HAL consortium. even without having to change the engines we would have had a 4.75 gen Su-30MkI with frontal rcs reduction comparable with Typhoon or Super Hornet yet more agile and maneouverable. the aurcraft would weigh lesser, yet with greater structural strength and payload capabilities. But IAF was too stubborn to see sensibly they were rejoicing the victory parade of the mirage 2000 and believed it was the aircraft to run over the LCA tejas with.
     
  14. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    A good question one i have been asking for awhile do we really need the MRCA?? and 3-4 planes LCA,MRCA,PAKFA,MIG 29 all being inducted close to each other??
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2010
  15. ashicjose

    ashicjose Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    58
    i thing we need lca beside mrca becoz both are diffrent in every aspect.lca is the baby of our country and we have to take care it to make our country efficient in making futer fighter aircrafts of our country state of the art.
     
  16. JBH22

    JBH22 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    What's the problem with India indeed the modernisation of the armed forces lack a clear vision and political backing.
     
  17. icecoolben

    icecoolben Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    4
    now we are talking of baby raising

    What do u suggest, we foster mig-35, gripen ng or the others? Aircfaft building, Security are professional work, emotional attachments have no revelance. Support arguements with data and analysis.
     
  18. icecoolben

    icecoolben Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    4
    India must be wary of defence imports: Narayanan

    India must be wary of defence imports: Narayanan

    Kolkata, Dec 18 (IANS) West Bengal Governor M.K. Narayanan Saturday made a scathing criticism of the Indian military and the defence production industry and said there was a vested interest in 'buying than making' the needed equipment at home.

    The former national security advisor blamed the military for its deep seated complex about using indigenous equipment, and said the country needed to be careful about importing defence hardware as foreign companies were 'highly capricious' and 'largely influenced by their government's viewpoints towards India'.

    Addressing a Conference on Industry-Defence Linkage 2010 organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry here, Narayanan said India needed to change its mindset to endorse and use indigenous defence equipment.

    Opposing the idea of procuring defence equipment from the developed countries, Narayanan said: 'India has expertise to produce the same indigenously. But there is a deep seated complex in the military about the indigenous ability.'

    'This mentality needs to be changed and the military must show and display greater faith in our indigenous capabilities,' said the former national security advisor.

    'The defence bureaucracy blames the defence public sector units for delays in manufacturing and delivering military hardware. But there are delays across the world. The foreign defence vendors are notorious for cost escalation and delay in delivery. There is a vested interest in buying than making,' said Narayanan.

    'Foreign manufacturers are highly capricious and largely influenced by their governments' policies and view point towards India. So we need to be careful about importing military hardware,' he said.

    'It is estimated that 35 percent of country's total defence acquisition comes from indigenous sources. However, a major portion of that consists of components of smaller items. Currently 65 percent of it comes from imports. Though the government has aimed to reverse the situation to 70 percent of indigenous products, yet there is scope for more to be done,' he said.

    'India is one of the very few countries in the world capable of building an aircraft carrier and its first indigenous aircraft carrier is expected to be launched by 2015,' he said.

    Adding that several defence modernisation plans have run into serious problems of late, since many foreign companies, including Bofors, HDW, Dennel, IAI and Singapore technologies, often were seen to violate the stringent conditions laid down by the government regarding acquisition, he urged: 'Defence PSUs need to adopt a more flexible approach to capable private players because of their high technological knowledge base.'

    http://www.sify.com/finance/india-must-be-wary-of-defence-imports-narayanan-news-default-kmssklhdega.html


    :angry_1:
     
  19. mattster

    mattster Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    518
    Location:
    California

    Thank You Vijay for finally making some sense on this thread.

    The job of the IAF Chief is to give his pilots the best chance against any adversaries given the budget and other constraints. He must be a retard if he decides to induct a sub-par fighter aircraft in large numbers even if it is locally made.
    As for the IAF changing specs on the LCA....well when you take 30 years to develop a 3+ gen aircraft - you should expect the end-user to change the specs on you.

    The IAF is doing exactly what you said - taking a few token planes. The Gripen is way ahead of the LCA. Tejas is a sub-par fighter and should be considering a learning experience - nothing more.
     
  20. icecoolben

    icecoolben Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    4
    The long development itself is due to IAF not giving oppurtunity to design new fighter aircraft after HF-24 marut. Real reason why there is a program called Gripen NG, neuron, Tranis exist is to keep that capability of designing aircraft, which India was not given by IAF.

    Why should GOI give the IAF a very costly, very advanced and capital draining platform, when its adversaries are less capable JF-17 and a similar equvalent J-10. If it needs more long range it can order more 40+ Brahmos capable SU-30, atleast it brings down the unit costs of the plane from present $ 108 million.

    I'll post a file in my next post that would put to rest how much fighters cost and about their cost escalations.
     
  21. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    i think the question would be better posed as "If foreign procurement of fighter aircrafts is dropped, will tejas mk-1 be given life with 80-120 more orders?" rather than "If MMRCA program is dropped, will tejas mk-1 be given life with 80-120 more orders?"

    if its the former i would say yes since that blocks the russian sales, for the latter, which is what the question is, my answer is no, my sense is even if mmrca was to be scrapped IAF would rather rely on more su30MKIs or possibly orders for su35. additional orders for LCA mkI, highly unlikely if IAF has the option to procure from over seas.
     

Share This Page