DRDO is not even a parcel to the program. Please take a note as to how much PLAAF supported the J-10 program, USAF supported F-16, VVS supported each and every MiG and Sukhoi product. How much did IAF participate since grassroots level? Never. Only in 2001, it started showing reluctant interest. Had IAF been pressing and standing on top of ADA's head since day one, we would have had Tejas by now.Will you blame the people because Nokia came out with a sh!tty product? Will you blame the people if the Nano catches fire every now and then. It is purely DRDO's fault for being hopeless.
At the rate at which IAF keeps changing requirements, how can ADA freeze the scope?IAF is doing nothing even now. They are the users, they post requirements and ask the company to deliver. The company cannot even deliver IAF's 1983 ASQR, how do you think they will deliver now?
Well I always supported ADA to be under IAF. Ask the UPA about it though.There is nothing IAF can say or do to make ADA work as required unless you hand over ADA to IAF.
VVS structure was very different from normal air forces around the planet. Their strategy and tactics were impossible to duplicate for us simply because of their doctrine. Don't comare VVS and IAF here.But Saab did. Heck the Russians wanted one like LCA and they stopped like 2 decades ago because the requirement does not exist for them. Check the Mig-33.
Firstly, Tejas is not failed. It has not even crashed once even in training phase, which speaks volumes about the class of jet we are getting. ADA is run by bureaucrats. Not scientists or businessmen. If either scientists of Businessmen replace the sarkari dodos making decisions, then see how things speed up. It is the government babus that are a hurdle, neither the minds in ADA nor the IAF pilots themselves.The dung heap on this side is as green as the grass on the other side of the fence. Tejas's failure has nothing to do with IAF.
From what I know, ADA had a multitude of advisors. Dassault was also an advisor but due to some disagreements, the contract ceased. So Boeing became the main consultant. The stuff was going all hunky dory for them until the sanctions happened.@Tshering,
The 1998 sanctions were indeed bad for LCA, but the question is, why was ADA dependent upon Boeing alone? The French, the Russians had not sanctioned India. Why did it take ADA years to get another partner like Dassault or SNECMA?
It was not about business or national pride alone. It was a DEAL. And it was our research that we were not allowed to take back. You get that? WTF are they to tell we can't take our stuff? This was thievery. Nothing less.Before we blame USA for the failure of the Tejas, think about what it meant for them and what it meant for us. For the USA, it was just "business", India was not even in it's radar as a "strategic partner" back then, for India it was a matter of national pride and self-determination. It seems to me that different GoI bodies (including MoD, ADA, HAL, IAF) could not get it's act together and had made sure that the Tejas program would languish due to infightings.
First, I need to make YOU understand something -From what I know, ADA had a multitude of advisors. Dassault was also an advisor but due to some disagreements, the contract ceased. So Boeing became the main consultant. The stuff was going all hunky dory for them until the sanctions happened.
You need to understand that strategic deals and contracts just don't happen overnight. It takes time and negotiations to get them through with 1 partner. Besides, do you really think Russia was in a shape to do something in 90s? It was in big trouble itself. There was a total disarray of industries there. How could they have helped us if they were struggling themselves?
It was not about business or national pride alone. It was a DEAL. And it was our research that we were not allowed to take back. You get that? WTF are they to tell we can't take our stuff? This was thievery. Nothing less.
US and Russia are at a league of their own. Same with France and Sweden. China does not have a choice. It is either the J-10 or Russian jets which they already have. So, they have to stick to the J-10.DRDO is not even a parcel to the program. Please take a note as to how much PLAAF supported the J-10 program, USAF supported F-16, VVS supported each and every MiG and Sukhoi product. How much did IAF participate since grassroots level? Never. Only in 2001, it started showing reluctant interest. Had IAF been pressing and standing on top of ADA's head since day one, we would have had Tejas by now.
The LCA has the least number of changes since it was first mooted. The F-35 has the most, followed by the Flanker. If IAF is a fussy girlfriend, USAF and VVS are nagging wives. I personally think IAF should have been a lot stricter, like the USAF or VVS and kept the LCA more upto date.IAF kept changing requirements like a fussy girlfriend does with her fiance and this is what put pressure on ADA to keep changing specifications.
Design phase is 36 months, followed by prototype production phase for another 48 months followed by flight testing for 9 years according to ADA.At the rate at which IAF keeps changing requirements, how can ADA freeze the scope?
VVS decided the aircraft is too useless, that's all. Other than that they were looking at Mig-21 replacement. They decided on the Flanker instead. Alas, they were right.VVS structure was very different from normal air forces around the planet. Their strategy and tactics were impossible to duplicate for us simply because of their doctrine. Don't comare VVS and IAF here.
A project is not determined by how many crashes it has had. It depends on how many test points have been achieved and how many flight tests have been conducted, all to be done within deadline. ADA is not run by bureaucrats, it is run by scientists. Your knowledge of Indian aerospace industry is enough to half fill an egg cup.Firstly, Tejas is not failed. It has not even crashed once even in training phase, which speaks volumes about the class of jet we are getting. ADA is run by bureaucrats. Not scientists or businessmen. If either scientists of Businessmen replace the sarkari dodos making decisions, then see how things speed up. It is the government babus that are a hurdle, neither the minds in ADA nor the IAF pilots themselves.
You are comparing top of the line first world countries with a third world country with a non existent aerospace industry.@P2Prada
Every country which has it's own designed and manufactured aircraft, their national airforce has been a major source of support. Why is it that Sweden flies SAAB Gripens only? or before that they flew SAAB Viggens, Drakens and Lansens only?
Why is it that France flies Mirages, and Rafales only?
The Russians never fly anything except for Russian made fighters like MiGs and Sukhois.
The Americans, the Brits - every country that can make in-house fighters have their airforces support and partner with the aircraft manufacturers. Which is why the aircraft companies get into and stay in business of combat aircraft. Try reading the history of Dassault and you will see what the French Air force did for Dassault and vice versa.
The reason HAL/ ADA combo has failed to deliver on LCA is as much because they themselves suck, as because IAF has played a snooty customer, instead of being a in-house partner. And the GoI has played at being a stepmother to Indian defense companies (public or private) at the expense of foreign corporations who can provide bribes to ministers and officials.
Yes and no. I am comparing a "third world" country like India, (although the concept is pretty much dead and buried, the term I prefer is "an emerging power") with deloped nations. but you are forgetting some important lessons -You are comparing top of the line first world countries with a third world country with a non existent aerospace industry.
You do realize that you have made two contradictory statements here?Tejas has never been stalled as s result of finances in the last 12 years. Some could argue a bigger budget might have meant more timely development, But all the roadblocks this project has encountered have been technical. And the aeronautics laboratories are repeatedly dropping the ball.
Haha! You think they are not an economic power and you call us an emerging power. That's not how things work. Sweden is a tiny country with a small population and a percapita economy 40 times larger than India. They fit the bill.Yes and no. I am comparing a "third world" country like India, (although the concept is pretty much dead and buried, the term I prefer is "an emerging power") with deloped nations. but you are forgetting some important lessons -
1. Sweden developed a great aeronautical industry without being an economic OR a military superpower.
Their population was educated, we have illiterate farmers who are trying to make ends meet. The country had a lot of American help after WW2, we did not.2. When France developed it's military industry, it was still recovering from WW-II and had barely functional industries. Heck they were getting their ass kicked from all the colonies.
The J-10A is at best a F-16 Block 20. The J-10B a decade later, could be as good as Block 52. JF-17 is not as good, perhaps eventually, but we will see. They never stopped buying Russian sh!t. They are still buying Russian engines and an order was placed last year.3. China has developed NOT only the J-10 and J-11s (I know they are mostly stolen), but also J-15, JF-17 and J-20 - all of which are actually flying and being inducted into service (various stages). They even stopped buying Russian shit so that they can support their own companies.
That's what IAF had been saying since 10 years. But ADA kept saying they will deliver the LCA, screwing up IAF's plans. After Kaveri failed, the MRCA deal came into being. They wanted to buy 126 Mirage-2000s since the Nuclear tests.It is simply not a question of buying a proven aircraft for national defense. If that was the case, then IAF should have bought more Mirages in the early 2000s and trashed their Mig-21s. There was no need for them to stick around for 7 years to get the MMRCA deal done.
Replace one flying coffin with another. What do you think our pilot's lives are? Something you want to throw away to make some scientists happy. Sure the LCA won't crash, but come war and the pilots would love to be sitting in a MKI or Rafale instead. Give them top notch equipment, definitely not the LCA Mk1. Even the Bisons are better.Where was the expediency there? The Migs were falling out of the skies regularly. Heck even the Mig-29s were full of problems. If the IAF could live with Russian shit for 2 decades, and refuse to accept LCA mk1 in place of the Pieces-of-shit Mig-21s, then I must question the mindset.
Because it sucks. The Mig-21 will outfly the LCA in every parameter, even in turning fights. The LCA Mk1, even after completing it's full development cycle will not fly above Mach 1.6, will not pull greater than 8Gs, will not pull lesser than 2Gs, will be underpowered and it's radar won't be any better than what's on the Mig-21 Bison today. It's payload will be 3 tons or 3.5 tons if they are lucky or in other words, if EADS manages to fix the landing gear for us.IMHO, most of Indian defense professionals (older generation) and a lot of bureaucrats arte still beholden to the ex-Soviet technology ideas and think of Indian products as not being worthy of a trial. Give me ONE good reason why IAF has not pushed for the rapid replacement of ALL Mig-21s with LCA mk1.
GoI never allowed IAF new aircraft apart from the MKI, they were all eagerly waiting for India's first 4th gen fighter. It was only after the Kaveri failed that the first MRCA tender was released as a desperate measure. Once MoD realized IAF may end up being outgunned by China, a new tender was released for better aircraft. Nothing in my post is contradictory.If ADA/ HAL had indeed encountered technical problems AND had access to lots of money, they could have BOUGHT their way out of it faster and sooner. That's what rich people/ companies / projects do. It should not have taken India 10 years to get over the fallouts of 1998 sanctions.
Having had similar arguments myself :tinfoil3:I have a Q, rather genuine one... so what is it that you two are arguing about here????
Just a minor correction. China still buying russian engines because it is cheaper to replace them. Many of their old fighters were based on russian engines. It makes no sense to remake the airframe to suit the chinese engines. If you see their new fighters, they are all with domestic engines. You cant judge their capacity based on the fact that they still buying russian engines.The J-10A is at best a F-16 Block 20. The J-10B a decade later, could be as good as Block 52. JF-17 is not as good, perhaps eventually, but we will see. They never stopped buying Russian sh!t. They are still buying Russian engines and an order was placed last year.
It's nice to support your own companies when your economy is the second largest. In 10 years we will be where they are now. Then we will talk.
In 10 years, with a well progressed AMCA program, a successful LCA Mk2 and progress on the Kaveri K-10 will directly indicate the armed forces are supporting Indian companies, quite like how China is doing today. 10 years earlier, China was doing what we are doing today. Buying Russian aircraft, reverse engineering or license manufacturing foreign tech to build industrial capacity at home. What we did 10 years ago, China was doing 20 years ago. So, the cycle goes. In a decade, when we are mooting induction of AMCA, the Chinese would already be upgrading the J-20.
So, IAF happy even if the aircrafts fail, fall, fowl-up and falter - because they come from foreign sources - sources deemed to be "technologically advanced". But any missteps, mistakes, failures from homemade devices/ platforms are deemed to be "unacceptable".It's really simple. IAF happy, project success. IAF unhappy, project failed.
Russia: Mig-21. IAF happy. High crash rate. IAF still happy. Project success.
Mig-29. IAF happy. Servicing issues. IAF ok with it. Successful over Kargil. Project success.
Mirage-2000. IAF happy. Good performance in Kargil. Some set backs during Kargil and some before that too, related to spares. But IAF still happy. Project success.
Anglo-France: Jaguar: IAF happy. Very few issues. Slightly underpowered at medium altitude and will get new engine. IAF still happy. Project success.
MKI. IAF happy. MKI crash 3 times, servicing issues. IAF still happy. Project success.
Seriously, the IAF has no patience for this is one project that would make IAF self-sufficient, independant of foreign sources, which in case a big war breaks out may prove to be a pain in the butt for getting supplies, design updates, changes etc (as we have seen during 1971 ear, post 1998 and even during Kargil war).LCA. IAF happy but laugh at noobs. Sanctions. IAF unhappy. Kaveri fail. IAF unhappy. Flight test delays. IAF unhappy. More delays. IAF more unhappy. Promise IOC in 2009, but delay. IAF much more unhappy. 2011, IOC, but it wasn't IOC, just a function for induction. IAF very unhappy. Promised IOC in 6 months, but Feb 2012, still no IOC. IAF still very unhappy. N-LCA delayed. Now IN unhappy. Project limbo.
Do we see a trend here?
Can you please take out all the European aircraft from the IAF's inventory and tell me what we have left?p2p's romanticised view of European and Russian defense development
clashing as it always does with
The romanticized view of the LCA project.
p2p maintains
Modern Russian/European plane = Superior
Tejas mk1 = Inferior (Inferior = wates of time/money/energy. Should not be Inducted into IAF )
I have no issues even if you did. You see, if I start praising American weapons, then I will have a neat little NRI fan club behind me. If I start praising French weapons then Armand will have no need to be in this forum. If I start praising Indian weapons with a complete disregard for logical thinking then I will have a massive fan base here with probably 10000 likes for every post.i don't mean sound insulting to you p2p or to you ace.
I don't mean to simply your discussion or points. I only described what i think are the basics of the argument with a little bit of jest
The need for indigenisation is paramount; that needs no elaboration. But at what cost? If your indigenisation plan entails whipping up autarkic arguments to accept substandard equipment, you're doing a dis-service to both the defence forces and the DRDO. The latter has the manpower, the establishment, the skill levels and the funding required for producing world class equipment. The Dhruv helicopter is one example; even though it's having vibration problems with its main rotor, the forces are still flying it. That's because it has made it to acceptable levels. But accepting a product that hasn't reached battle standards would be to condone mediocrity, already a national trait with us. The DRDO can do better; don't be apologists for them.
Wrong sir... you just don't want to recognise the facts... because it seems it would interfere with your perception of Bharat Mata as this newly blossomed superpower... and our DRDO scientists as the modern day Manhattan Project pioneers!
Sir, you are clutching at non-existent straws in your last flailing attempts to imbue with a veneer of respectability... the Arjun... that baby of bastardised concepts... fathered by a generation of defence glossies... and deliverd by the incompetent midwives of the DRDO. The acceptance of the first batch of Arjuns was a staged drama... since the date had been fixed in advance... Pranab had to accept the tanks... even though they were nowhere near what the Army would accept.
Have you ever been in a T-72? The subsystems are so tighty packed together.... lego like... that you can barely get a finger in between them. The result: at 1000 metres on level ground, you can barely see the T-72. In the case of the Arjun... you can play hide-and-seek inside the tank in between the phoren sub-systems. The result: when you lay your tank gun on an Arjun 1000 metres away... you really have to make a decision: which part of the tank shall I hit? It looms like the now extinct World Trade Centre... and so... like the World Trade Centre... it is doomed to extinction.
All these posts were in reply to some BR members I don't want to name.And what is General Vij supposed to say? "Guys I know this is going to get me into serious trouble with the Defence Ministry and could even interfere with my chances of a governorship, but I have to tell the truth; the Arjun is a lemon".
Many retired military officers work for foreign arms company as Liaison Officers.
Have you not seen the good Col Shukla change his tune?
He, too, is an honourable man!
I wish the article could give concrete evidence as to which one would have suited India in all its ramification, instead of generalities.
That would have been more authentic.
We are yet to see an operational one. Perhaps if we see a WS-10 in an air show or a WS-13 in tests.Just a minor correction. China still buying russian engines because it is cheaper to replace them. Many of their old fighters were based on russian engines. It makes no sense to remake the airframe to suit the chinese engines. If you see their new fighters, they are all with domestic engines. You cant judge their capacity based on the fact that they still buying russian engines.
Is the gap only 10 years? I doubt that.
There is an acceptable amount of risk and an unacceptable amount of risk. The foreign systems go through rigorous treatment as compared to the homemade ones. The homemade ones are allowed to have lesser capabilities.So, IAF happy even if the aircrafts fail, fall, fowl-up and falter - because they come from foreign sources - sources deemed to be "technologically advanced". But any missteps, mistakes, failures from homemade devices/ platforms are deemed to be "unacceptable".
IAF has no patience for lemons. Supplies and spares get a back seat if even minimum requirements are not met. I can't believe you are actually a R&D scientist. You sound more like a regular fanboy still wanting to argue over nothing.Seriously, the IAF has no patience for this is one project that would make IAF self-sufficient, independant of foreign sources, which in case a big war breaks out may prove to be a pain in the butt for getting supplies, design updates, changes etc (as we have seen during 1971 ear, post 1998 and even during Kargil war).
Hmmm - I do see a trend.
Actually I speak as a R&D scientist. Just as you mention there are "aceeptable risks" and unacceptable siks", there is also the concept of "strategic decisions" vs "Tactical decisions". Although in case of IAF, none of them make sense.We are yet to see an operational one. Perhaps if we see a WS-10 in an air show or a WS-13 in tests.
Anyway, the gap between India and China is effectively 10 years, maybe lesser. We are able to move as quickly recently because of JVs. In a few years our air defence systems will be much more capable than most countries, ABM capability as well.
There is an acceptable amount of risk and an unacceptable amount of risk. The foreign systems go through rigorous treatment as compared to the homemade ones. The homemade ones are allowed to have lesser capabilities.
The MRCA deal wasn't as big as you think it is. But we are the only country which was allowed to flight test all of them in India. Comparatively even countries like UK and Italy, which are making large purchases, were offered F-35 brochures to make their decision. While we got the vendors to pay for the tests, UK and Italy had to pay US to get the brochures.
IAF has no patience for lemons. Supplies and spares get a back seat if even minimum requirements are not met. I can't believe you are actually a R&D scientist. You sound more like a regular fanboy still wanting to argue over nothing.
You are not saying that all their new toys still running on russian engines, right?:shocked:We are yet to see an operational one. Perhaps if we see a WS-10 in an air show or a WS-13 in tests.
Anyway, the gap between India and China is effectively 10 years, maybe lesser. We are able to move as quickly recently because of JVs. In a few years our air defence systems will be much more capable than most countries, ABM capability as well.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ajai Shukla: Defence (procurement) minister | Strategic Forces | 12 | ||
Ajai Shukla: Defence needs projects, not FDI | Economy & Infrastructure | 11 | ||
Ajai Shukla: Pressing the reset button in MoD | Defence & Strategy | 12 | ||
Ajai Shukla: Failing to plan, planning to fail | Defence & Strategy | 0 |