Indian Air Force admits can’t fight China, Pak at the same time

[tharun]

Gripen is being offered with full TOT and full local production. No comparison with Rafale.
Mig-35 is not a serious contender.
American planes are always possible, but any significant TOT is unlikely.

The advantage with Gripen is that it will help in maturing the LCA.

Gripen initial cost and operating expenses are much lower than Rafale.

Gripen costs about 50-60 million $...
Why can't we take just the bare fuselage and just change it to our needs like lca & gripen uses same engine.....

 

[garg_bharat]

Engine is very important. If purchases are in high quantity, then GE will put up an Engine plant in India. This will help India in supporting its fleet.

If we buy Rafale, LCA and Rafale have different engines. So we shall be dependent on French for the life of Rafale, plus we will never have large enough quantity for GE to come here.

Gripen will be made in India. That answers your question.

 

[tharun]

Engine is very important. If purchases are in high quantity, then GE will put up an Engine plant in India. This will help India in supporting its fleet.

If we buy Rafale, LCA and Rafale have different engines. So we shall be dependent on French for the life of Rafale, plus we will never have large enough quantity for GE to come here.

Gripen will be made in India. That answers your question.

Yes.....I fucking hate rafale and french let's go for gripen it's cheaper and we can make it in india

 

[garg_bharat]

People who say No to Rafale, looking for "indiginisation", but then want Mig 35/ F-18 / Gripen ..bla..bla shit - LOL.

The French projects are suffering as French are not keen on TOT. The sub project was delayed due to this. India wants to learn and mature its local industries as a result of such mega contracts.

If Indians are not learning and paying billions, then obviously the relationship is not sustainable.

USSR/Russia have transferred a lot of tech to India. Many programs that are running today have close correlation to Soviet/Russian technology. You may say this tech is not at Western level. Maybe. But West is not keen on giving its tech to us. So it is a mute point.

When we buy P8 or C130 from USA, there are some offsets, but these are normally structural components, which we know how to build. The critical components are not made in India. But we have to buy American as India has a big trade surplus with USA, so that is needed to be offset.

India has a trade deficit with EU, as India buys lot of Engineering goods from EU. So there is no need to buy military goods at unfavorable terms.

 

[tharun]

The French projects are suffering as French are not keen on TOT. The sub project was delayed due to this. India wants to learn and mature its local industries as a result of such mega contracts.

If Indians are not learning and paying billions, then obviously the relationship is not sustainable.

USSR/Russia have transferred a lot of tech to India. Many programs that are running today have close correlation to Soviet/Russian technology. You may say this tech is not at Western level. Maybe. But West is not keen on giving its tech to us. So it is a mute point.

When we buy P8 or C130 from USA, there are some offsets, but these are normally structural components, which we know how to build. The critical components are not made in India. But we have to buy American as India has a big trade surplus with USA, so that is needed to be offset.

India has a trade deficit with EU, as India buys lot of Engineering goods from EU. So there is no need to buy military goods at unfavorable terms.

Very good point we don't need screw driver jobs we need an industry to make india even stronger

 

[Rahul Singh]

Instead of this rona dhona, IAF should come up with XX year plan to bring the situation around. Because you like it or not, ready or not, it is a reality that sometime in future IAF will have to face two front war. So get yourself prepared, draw a plan and execute it. After having spent billions we deserve solution oriented approach instead of rona dhona and chati pitna.

BTW no not even 200 Rafale can make you capable to fight two front war. Your sister services also needs money and i am not sure if France will stand with us the way we need in time of hour. So think Navy go indigenous and surely you can become 1000 fighter air force in 20 years.

 

[garg_bharat]

The government is saying something very simple - that is you have twin engine and single engine in 1:1 ratio. Typically this ratio should be tilted in favour of single engine.

So far IAF is retiring single-engine and inducting twin-engine in its place. Obviously we are creating a high cost structure in this policy.

The Govt. is ready to approve another single engine fighter line. Since IAF wants a Western fighter, the option is limited to Gripen or F-16.

 

[Rahul Singh]

This concept of another line is confusing. 10 years ago Mirage 2000 line was rejected in favour of open competition and now we are thinking of doing it. What benefits it will bring other than establishment of a competing line? Specifically when its major owner will be foreign OEM.

I for one firmly believe that selection of Gripen will be a blunder. Gripen is just a greater reflection of Naval LCA Mk-2. Its trim down version can very well serve IAF. Why do unnecessary duplication?

F-16 though much more capable than LM-MRCA like Gripen E and NLCA MK-2 will obviously come up with enough restrictions to make everything go sour.

I agree with Broadsword when he says second production line should be a Tejas line. Hera you might invite SAAB to become a partner in production. But i don't think SAAB will join.

IMO MOD should take a bold step by setting up another aeronautical coplex like HAL. And once erected start selling it step by step.

 

[Jangaruda]

The IAF needs to admit a lotta things a sense of being stupid among them... I mean damn it is it the same IAF that pounded the PAF during the 1971 war... The IAF would rather let down their own country nd make evry1 panicky so that the govt might buy them rafales... Bt the current govt is not easily moved by such childish tantrums

 

[garg_bharat]

This concept of another line is confusing. 10 years ago Mirage 2000 line was rejected in favour of open competition and now we are thinking of doing it. What benefits it will bring other than establishment of a competing line? Specifically when its major owner will be foreign OEM.

I for one firmly believe that selection of Gripen will be a blunder. Gripen is just a greater reflection of Naval LCA Mk-2. Its trim down version can very well serve IAF. Why do unnecessary duplication?

F-16 though much more capable than LM-MRCA like Gripen E and NLCA MK-2 will obviously come up with enough restrictions to make everything go sour.

I agree with Broadsword when he says second production line should be a Tejas line. Hera you might invite SAAB to become a partner in production. But i don't think SAAB will join.

IMO MOD should take a bold step by setting up another aeronautical coplex like HAL. And once erected start selling it step by step.

1. Gripen has been bought by several countries. It is being regularly updated. I don't know why you compare it to M2000.

2. LCA Mark2 is not there today, so again comparing is not fruitful. The basic reason for Gripen is that it is a good and mature aircraft with features like high availability and low maintenance, something we want to duplicate in LCA.

3. Even if Gripen is brought in, still there will be a second line for LCA in private sector. It will be for LCA Mark-2.

4. Inviting SAAB in production of LCA is illogical. LCA's ecosystem is already established. It is a product of local R&D and its character should stay as it is.

 

[chex3009]

Although I am not in favor of any of the Khan's birds but the way things are shaping up recently, it seems that we are tilting towards either of the teens.

 

[Rahul Singh]

1. Gripen has been bought by several countries. It is being regularly updated. I don't know why you compare it to M2000.

2. LCA Mark2 is not there today, so again comparing is not fruitful. The basic reason for Gripen is that it is a good and mature aircraft with features like high availability and low maintenance, something we want to duplicate in LCA.

3. Even if Gripen is brought in, still there will be a second line for LCA in private sector. It will be for LCA Mark-2.

4. Inviting SAAB in production of LCA is illogical. LCA's ecosystem is already established. It is a product of local R&D and its character should stay as it is.

I am not making direct technical comparison between Mirage and Gripen. I am only speaking of irony.

Anyway Gripen and LCA MK-2 together! I don't see how smart this is. First of all Gripen will be costlier than NLCA MK-2. And if IAF agrees to use trim down NLCA MK-2 as it airfield version then there will be too much technical commonality between it and Gripen E. Gripen is only 0.5 m longer than NLCA MK-2. But this doesn't mean a greater volume because Gripen E has a longer nose section and slimmer fuselage. With this advantage gone what advantage it can bring in tactical arena is something i can't make out.

On timeline, well if NLCA MK-2 is due then surely Gripen E is too. How long you see any deal with respect to Gripen E maturing to first delivery? Of course SAAB can deliver few from its own factory but won't it be defeating the purpose of establishment of a domestic line?

Anyway my prime concern is regarding duplication of capability at greater price.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Although I am not in favor of any of the Khan's birds but the way things are shaping up recently, it seems that we are tilting towards either of the teens.

I don't get as how Teens will add what extra SU-30MKIs can't. Especially when we are talking about upgraded Sukhois called Super Sukhois. No one is willing to invest in future it seems.

Creating a dire situation and crying that sky is falling has became regulation. In mean process ultimate burden falling on part of tax payer.

 

[Superdefender]

Surprisingly, IAF has rejected Gripen. I don't think MOD is also not too much fond of Gripen. Case closed.

 

[garg_bharat]

Surprisingly IAF has also rejected F16, despite being the most numerous fighter in the world.

By this logic, everybody except IAF is wrong.

 

[garg_bharat]

I don't get as how Teens will add what extra SU-30MKIs can't. Especially when we are talking about upgraded Sukhois called Super Sukhois. No one is willing to invest in future it seems.

Creating a dire situation and crying that sky is falling has became regulation. In mean process ultimate burden falling on part of tax payer.

Heavy fighters are based in interior airbases. For forward airbases, you need high sortie rate (quick turnaround time).

High quality single engine planes are ideal for filling forward airbases.

 

[garg_bharat]

I am not making direct technical comparison between Mirage and Gripen. I am only speaking of irony.

Anyway Gripen and LCA MK-2 together! I don't see how smart this is. First of all Gripen will be costlier than NLCA MK-2. And if IAF agrees to use trim down NLCA MK-2 as it airfield version then there will be too much technical commonality between it and Gripen E. Gripen is only 0.5 m longer than NLCA MK-2. But this doesn't mean a greater volume because Gripen E has a longer nose section and slimmer fuselage. With this advantage gone what advantage it can bring in tactical arena is something i can't make out.

On timeline, well if NLCA MK-2 is due then surely Gripen E is too. How long you see any deal with respect to Gripen E maturing to first delivery? Of course SAAB can deliver few from its own factory but won't it be defeating the purpose of establishment of a domestic line?

Anyway my prime concern is regarding duplication of capability at greater price.

Gripen has been very aggressive in chasing Indian contract, and is quite flexible on terms.

I do not see conflict with LCA as it needs time to mature. Actually size of gripen is a plus as it fits into shelters built for mig21.

I think Saab can meet timeline offered by dassault.

The commonality if any is beneficial as same line can be converted to LCA mark2 line later.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Gripen has been very aggressive in chasing Indian contract, and is quite flexible on terms.

I do not see conflict with LCA as it needs time to mature. Actually size of gripen is a plus as it fits into shelters built for mig21.

I think Saab can meet timeline offered by dassault.

The commonality if any is beneficial as same line can be converted to LCA mark2 line later.

How and how much SAAB's flexibility which will benefit us is only time will tell. So far all TOT package offered to us has turned out to be hog wash.

Maturity issue is ok, i agree here. But what benefit is offers if Gripen comes couple of years before or MK-2 comes couple of years after. How much difference it will make in long run?

But i stress on high degree of tactical commonality. Besides i don't get why you can't put up another Tejas line in place of proposed Gripen line when you have such large order to fulfill.

Heavy fighters are based in interior airbases. For forward airbases, you need high sortie rate (quick turnaround time).

High quality single engine planes are ideal for filling forward airbases.

My point of stress is having stop gap arrangements till MK-2 arrives followed by AMCA.

Anyway, you have Tejas MK-1 as of now. In future there will be MK-2. And for time being you have a mix fleet of Mirage 2000, Mig-29, and Jaguar for strike missions.

Network MKI with MK-1 and you have one deadly BVR package that i don't see anything in PAF getting through.

Tejas MK-1 IOC has turnaround of less than 20 min. Which will be further brought down in MK-1A version and will be comparatively close to Gripen. And since it is our bird, fleet availability will always get better with time.

 

[garg_bharat]

I would not believe any Tejas turnaround figures until it spends couple of years in iaf service.

Manufacturing Tejas has exposed many issues and this has resulted in tilt towards local manufacturing of an established western design.

 

[Rahul Singh]

I would not believe any Tejas turnaround figures until it spends couple of years in iaf service.

Manufacturing Tejas has exposed many issues and this has resulted in tilt towards local manufacturing of an established western design.

Well that's upto you. It is however other thing that LCA being a local product will have its figures in open and with much authenticity than a foreign OEM.

Tejas has problems same as other newly developed product will have, with time things will get better as has been case with others.