Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[pmaitra]

The point that Tejas usage is defined as light weight fighter and improving its performance is BLASPHEMY even though perfectly feasible just because it has already been defined is what I am peeved about.

Why define the developmental needs in such a narrow manner? Why not define it as 'as good as possible'. This is what I state as abrahamic fanatic - the revelation is final even though there is no reason to justify.

Let us be more open. I am trying to say that if it is possible to be done, then do it.

Indian primary security requirements is in its neighbourhood. There is little need to bring in heavy weight fighters with 4000km range for it. It is also possible to double up Tejas as a better fighter

This has nothing to do with blasphemy. It would be relevant in the theological/religious context, but not in the context of aviation. Think of Javagal Srinath and Wasim Akram. How they swing the ball is all about fluid mechanics and physics, and has nothing to do with religion, theology, blasphemy or Abrahamics. Similarly, how the aircraft flies should also be about build mechanics or physics.

The laws of physics are same for everyone. No amount of sloganeering will change that.

 

[pmaitra]

Addendum to the comment above:

Buy an RC plane and attach two weights at the wingtips. Then fly it and try to do some acrobatics.

Now, remove those weights and place them close to the fuselage. Now repeat.

Then come back and report how the acrobatics went in the two cases.

The same experiments can be done with other things too, such as increasing weights, different wing shapes, etc., but I suppose modeling is not an easy option in India.

 

[Sancho]

The larger number of Single engine fighter from start shows the need for cheaper platform

Back then yes, but that was 20 to 30 years ago, when you had only single role fighters with limited endurance and no force multipliers. Today in modern air warfare, where a single MMRCA squad basically replaces 1 Mig 21 and 1 Mig 27 squad per base, with swing role capability and mid air refuelling, you need less numbers and sorites, as long as your fighters are capable enough.

Medium class fighters so does Heavy have their own set of rules and roles ..

True, but they can also do the basic roles and that's the crucial difference! Any SE MMRCA can do more and still could do basic roles in a cost-effective way, while light class fighters are operationally limited to the low end. That capability gap forces IAF to medium class, while other Air Forces can do the same with a twin class combo and therfore less logistical burden and lower costs.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

MIG-21 was never single role, It was multi-role aircraft and was being used is such way since its induction, Its still takes the burden of air patrols and most sorties in war/ peace on its back, Nothing is much changed ..

Operating mid air-refueler has its own set of rules as they are not available all the time and cannot be used on regular basis they are assigned for specific needs of specific squadrons and this is how IAF operates ..

Indeed they can do, but that will put them in hanger more than in air, like i said every type has their own set of rules and role, One cannot mix up roles which they are not meant for, MIG-21 are more available than SU-30MKIs or MIG-29 or even Jaguar ..

but that was 20 to 30 years ago, when you had only single role fighters with limited endurance and no force multipliers. Today in modern air warfare, where a single MMRCA squad basically replaces 1 Mig 21 and 1 Mig 27 squad per base, with swing role capability and mid air refuelling, you need less numbers and sorites, as long as your fighters are capable enough.


True, but they can also do the basic roles and that's the crucial difference! Any SE MMRCA can do more and still could do basic roles in a cost-effective way, while light class fighters are operationally limited to the low end. That capability gap forces IAF to medium class, while other Air Forces can do the same with a twin class combo and therfore less logistical burden and lower costs.

 

[Sancho]

Tejas was meant to be a high-altitude interceptor and was meant to be a replacement of the MiG-21. With the passage of time and delays, without going into who is to blame, I can say it is reasonable to introduce modernity into what would have been simply a replacement of the MiG-21. If it is feasible, it should be done.

That's sadly a common issue that we see in discussions about Tejas, the reference to Mig 21. The problem is, that not the fighter that gets replaced is the benchmark, but the development goals, the possible threats it has to counter and the current level of capabilities for comparable fighters!

You don't need high amounts of composites or FBW "just" to replace Mig 21s, but to be a modern 4th gen fighter. That's why most modernisations required by IAF were due to the fact, that the whole development got delayed and delayed, while new capabilities became state of the art.

Initially R60 missile was planned, but by the time the fighter was developed and made it's first flight, modern HOBS capabilities became state of the art,,which is why all IAF fighters now use HMS and highly agile missiles. So should we reduce the benchmark for LCA then, just because it's development got delayed?

Same goes for radar and EW, where basic pulse dipper MMR + RWR and an external SPJ were enough in the past. But once again time has passed and sadly LCA still was not developed, which is why the MK1A upgrades brings it up to the current standard in radar and EW, just as any other new fighter IAF gets in that time frame.

So one has to understand why modernisations are required and not outright blame IAF for it. Just as we can't take the Mig 21 as a benchmark for LCA, especially not before it achieves FOC to be able to replace any Mig 21.

The 4th gen benchmark in the light class is the Gripen C/D and that should be the aim of Tejas to compete with, not MMRCAs. To be comparable to the Gripen C/D we need to improve the flight performance, payload, avionics EW and radar, that's what the MK2 upgrade was about.

 

[Sancho]

Operating mid air-refueler has its own set of rules as they are not available all the time and cannot be used on regular basis they are assigned for specific needs of specific squadrons and this is how IAF operates ..

And still IAF requires all fighters to be refuelable to extend their endurance (on of the key requirements in FOC!), because that extends the sorites, as suppose to need another set of fighters to take over, as you correctly explained wrt loiter time in CAS or interdiction roles. In the past you only had the option to fly to the target, strike and get back, today with more capable fighter or IFR, you can extend the operational time.

One cannot mix up roles which they are not meant for, MIG-21 are more available than SU-30MKIs or MIG-29 or even Jaguar ..

Of course you can mix it up, a upg Mig 29 can do more than a Jag today and can take over basic CAP and CAS too.
An F16 in the USAF or Israeli Air Force does the same basic roles that Mig 21 or LCA are planned to do in IAF.
There is simply no operational limitation downwards to basic roles, only upwards where the design limitations of light class fighters, restricts them from long range, high loads or certain integrated systems.

 

[Kshithij]

Back then yes, but that was 20 to 30 years ago, when you had only single role fighters with limited endurance and no force multipliers. Today in modern air warfare, where a single MMRCA squad basically replaces 1 Mig 21 and 1 Mig 27 squad per base, with swing role capability and mid air refuelling, you need less numbers and sorites, as long as your fighters are capable enough.



True, but they can also do the basic roles and that's the crucial difference! Any SE MMRCA can do more and still could do basic roles in a cost-effective way, while light class fighters are operationally limited to the low end. That capability gap forces IAF to medium class, while other Air Forces can do the same with a twin class combo and therfore less logistical burden and lower costs.

Your logistical burden is a made up concept. Don't keep bringing your own concepts and forcing it down everyone's throat.

A medium sized plane can do more but is also more risky and can get shot down more easily. A war is always about attrition. So, the more focus is on replacing the damaged plane than just your fuel cost. Otherwise, why would anyone need mass manufacturing? The whole point of wartime manufacturing is to make up the losses.

Please focus on minimising losses in the most needful hour - war than regular sorty. Also, don't expect the war to be like the 1990 Gulf war - while world against Iraq with no arms manufacturing, 1.6 crore population. One must always assume that the enemy will not be weak.

Expect massive losses and then make proper reasoned arguments as to which is better - 2 squadrons of light fighter or 1 squadron of medium one for usage in war. A light fighter can also take down a medium fighter by dogfight. A BVR missile is not 1 ton type missile that give advantage to MCA.

Attrition always trumps logistical burden in a big war against a decent enemy

 

[Kshithij]

And still IAF requires all fighters to be refuelable to extend their endurance (on of the key requirements in FOC!), because that extends the sorites, as suppose to need another set of fighters to take over, as you correctly explained wrt loiter time in CAS or interdiction roles. In the past you only had the option to fly to the target, strike and get back, today with more capable fighter or IFR, you can extend the operational time.



Of course you can mix it up, a upg Mig 29 can do more than a Jag today and can take over basic CAP and CAS too.
An F16 in the USAF or Israeli Air Force does the same basic roles that Mig 21 or LCA are planned to do in IAF.
There is simply no operational limitation downwards to basic roles, only upwards where the design limitations of light class fighters, restricts them from long range, high loads or certain integrated systems.

These refueling is meant for patrol duties, air superiority and escort jobs for AEWACS etc and not for active combat. In active combat, bombs and missiles are expended and a landing is needed to reload the ammunition. Just endlessly refueling is not meaningful.

So, first understand the difference between active and passive roles.

The situation where long range, high payload is required is not often. And for this scenario, we are making AMCA and also are capable of making Su30 if 125kN engine is finalised.

Generally, in most cases the payload can be split into 2 planes at the expense of some fuel.

 

[Sancho]

Good to see u here too

Entire thing can be summarised as- "India NEEDS a foreign OEM to create its aerospace industry,

And he is absolutely right about that, which is evident in so many of our developments.
LRDE is largely dependent on Israeli partnerships for their radars
Same goes for DARE, which are developing LCA and MKI EW upgrades with Israeli partnerships.
Dhruv, Rudra and LCH already use Saab's EW in high numbers.
Kaveri now gets French techs to make it work.
Brahmos and Nirbhay uses Russian techs.
And
So
On

So there is no going around partnerships if we want to be successful in the defence field. Partnerships bridge the gap of experience and know how, that we still have in many fields. And it prevents us from going the Chinese way, of investing billions into industrial capability, but end up copying Russian or US designs and techs.
China invested huge sums of money in their engine developments and still are dependent on Russia. We now get French partnerships, hopefully with enough ToT and know how sharing, to get us there too.

Partnerships are an advantage for India, because we have the unique possibility to team up to with Russia, Israel, Europeans ans slowly going in the same direction with east Asian countries and the US.
We only need to play our cards right and get the most out of the money we spend. That's why the MMRCA or now the SE MMRCA tender are crucial for the aviation industry too.

 

[Sancho]

In active combat, bombs and missiles are expended and a landing is needed to reload the ammunition. Just endlessly refueling is not meaningful.

That's not correct, a swing role fighter for example can strike it's targets and still have enough A2A missiles to automatically switch to air superiority or CAP missions. All it needs to stay operational is mid air refueling.

We have reports about MKIs doing air superiority missions for up to 8hs, thanks to IFR. So the sortie rate gets cut it you have force multipliers, even for LCA with IFR capability.

 

[Kshithij]

Good to see u here too



And he is absolutely right about that, which is evident in so many of our developments.
LRDE is largely dependent on Israeli partnerships for their radars
Same goes for DARE, which are developing LCA and MKI EW upgrades with Israeli partnerships.
Dhruv, Rudra and LCH already use Saab's EW in high numbers.
Kaveri now gets French techs to make it work.
Brahmos and Nirbhay uses Russian techs.
And
So
On

So there is no going around partnerships if we want to be successful in the defence field. Partnerships bridge the gap of experience and know how, that we still have in many fields. And it prevents us from going the Chinese way, of investing billions into industrial capability, but end up copying Russian or US designs and techs.
China invested huge sums of money in their engine developments and still are dependent on Russia. We now get French partnerships, hopefully with enough ToT and know how sharing, to get us there too.

Partnerships are an advantage for India, because we have the unique possibility to team up to with Russia, Israel, Europeans ans slowly going in the same direction with east Asian countries and the US.
We only need to play our cards right and get the most out of the money we spend. That's why the MMRCA or now the SE MMRCA tender are crucial for the aviation industry too.

Many ToT was to pacify india to ensure that it is not forced to make its own technology by creating a false sense of immediate security. I wouldn't buy too much into these things.

That's not correct, a swing role fighter for example can strike it's targets and still have enough A2A missiles to automatically switch to air superiority or CAP missions. All it needs to stay operational is mid air refueling.

We have reports about MKIs doing air superiority missions for up to 8hs, thanks to IFR. So the sortie rate gets cut it you have force multipliers, even for LCA with IFR capability.

Yes, air superiority involves extensive patrol and vigilance. It, however, does not include action in most cases unless enemy tries to fight back. Whenever there is strong action involved, there will be a need to reload. Otherwise, simple refueling will be enough to keep patrolling and surveillance.

 

[Willy2]

I am sorry that I can't contribute anything technical in this thread..

But when I try to understand the discussion in between posters , I lose the plot completely despite reading last 4/5 pages, It's like I fail to catch the main point in the debate in last 2/3 pages in between @Sancho @Kshithij and @TPFscopes ...

members can u provide a hint on what are the point on which u are fighting ? and the jist of ur debate so far ...

 

[Sancho]

I am sorry that I can't contribute anything technical in this thread..

But when I try to understand the discussion in between posters , I lose the plot completely despite reading last 4/5 pages, It's like I fail to catch the main point in the debate in last 2/3 pages in between @Sancho @Kshithij and @TPFscopes ...

members can u provide a hint on what are the point on which u are fighting ? and the jist of ur debate so far ...

There are posts moved from other threads to this one, which makes it a little bit difficult to follow I guess, since they are talking about different topics.

Kunal and I were talking about the different roles of light and medium class fighters.
Abingdonboy refered to the Saab video
Kshithij and I were talking about difference between LCA and MMRCAs.

 

[Sancho]

Translated

The Saab attack

The Swedish company Saab, which is responsible for manufacturing 36 fighter jets for the Brazilian Air Force, may acquire a stake in local suppliers to ensure the financial health of all those involved in the project.

This year, Saab has already purchased 25% of the shares of Brazilian Akaer, which specializes in the development of aeronautical systems.The Gripen project includes more than 30 local companies. Saab, for strategic reasons, said it did not reveal its plans.

Facts about the technology transfer program

On October 27, 2014, Saab announced the conclusion of the contract with the Brazilian federal government for the development and production of 36 Gripen fighters. The contract entered into force in September 2015 when all conditions requested were met. Deliveries to the Brazilian Air Force will take place between 2019 and 2024.

After two years since the program began, Saab has already delivered a substantial technology transfer to Brazilian partners such as Embraer, Akaer, AEL Sistemas and Atech.

The Gripen Project Development Center (GDDN) was inaugurated in November 2016 in Gavião Peixoto, state of São Paulo. GDDN is Gripen's technology development hub in Brazil for Saab and Embraer, along with partner companies and institutions.

The technology transfer program for Brazil includes four areas that will provide the Brazilian aerospace industry with the technology and knowledge needed to maintain and develop Gripen in Brazil:

• Theoretical training
• Research and technology programs
• On-the-job training in Sweden
• Development and production

Today, some 60 Brazilian engineers from partner companies are being trained at the Saab facility in Sweden and more than 100 professionals have returned to Brazil. Most of them are working on aircraft development in GDDN.

By 2024, more than 350 Brazilian professionals including engineers, operators, technicians and pilots from Saab and the Brazilian Air Force partner companies will participate in on-the-jobtraining and courses in Sweden.

Skills and knowledge will be acquired by the Brazilian industry, allowing an extensive work of development and production of Gripen, including the final assembly of aircraft in Brazil.The technology transfer program consists of more than 50 key projects, lasting up to 24 months.

http://www.defesanet.com.br/gripenbrazil/noticia/27884/O-ataque-da-Saab/

 

[Kshithij]

I am sorry that I can't contribute anything technical in this thread..

But when I try to understand the discussion in between posters , I lose the plot completely despite reading last 4/5 pages, It's like I fail to catch the main point in the debate in last 2/3 pages in between @Sancho @Kshithij and @TPFscopes ...

members can u provide a hint on what are the point on which u are fighting ? and the jist of ur debate so far ...

Sancho says Tejas is designed to be a light fighter and merely as a replacement for MiG21 and will not be any better to be used as a multirole fighter. He also says that expecting Tejas to be multirole and as a decent fighter is stupid as it was not designed for it.

I am claiming that design is done to provide best possible design under cost and time constraints and there is no reason to be adamant about Tejas being just a replacement to Mig-21. If Tejas can be designed better, it will be. I am also claiming that 2 Tejas Mk2 will cost less than 1 F16 and can perform even better role than F16. Overall, it is more prudent to use 2 TEJAS Mk2 as in war, the large number of planes is required to replace for attrition and here the losses is minimised by having lower coat fighter. Mere fuel cost increase shouldn't be a problem in full scale war.

This is the gist

 

[Sancho]

Sancho says Tejas is designed to be a light fighter and merely as a replacement for MiG21 and will not be any better to be used as a multirole fighter. He also says that expecting Tejas to be multirole and as a decent fighter is stupid as it was not designed for it.

Lol why are you making these things up? :biggrin2:

I said, that Tejas will be limited to basic roles, as Kunal said as well, because that is what light class fighters are aimed on.
Just as I told you that it's enough for Tejas to be a good light class fighters and it should not be burdened with unrealistic expectations, like competing with medium class fighters or carrying cruise missiles.

Don't put words in my mouth just to make a point!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In Indian context, It does not work as the IAF does with sortie math ..

.An F16 in the USAF or Israeli Air Force does the same basic roles that Mig 21 or LCA are planned to do in IAF.

 

[Sancho]

The technology transfer program for Brazil includes four areas that will provide the Brazilian aerospace industry with the technology and knowledge needed to maintain and develop Gripen in Brazil:

• Theoretical training
• Research and technology programs
• On-the-job training in Sweden
• Development and production

Today, some 60 Brazilian engineers from partner companies are being trained at the Saab facility in Sweden and more than 100 professionals have returned to Brazil. Most of them are working on aircraft development in GDDN.

By 2024, more than 350 Brazilian professionals including engineers, operators, technicians and pilots from Saab and the Brazilian Air Force partner companies will participate in on-the-jobtraining and courses in Sweden.

Skills and knowledge will be acquired by the Brazilian industry, allowing an extensive work of development and production of Gripen, including the final assembly of aircraft in Brazil.The technology transfer program consists of more than 50 key projects, lasting up to 24 months.

http://www.defesanet.com.br/gripenbrazil/noticia/27884/O-ataque-da-Saab/

Similar industrial offer for India =>

“We will build the world’s most modern aerospace facility and ecosystem in India. We will abide by the terms of the Strategic Partnership that would be set by the government for the single engine fighter aircraft programme and will undertake complete transfer of technology to the chosen joint venture partner,” says Widerstrom.

The Make in India program will be based on the Strategic Partnership model that the government has defined and follow the process, terms and requirements. Saab will work with its Indian joint venture partners to ensure that transfer of technology takes place in a manner that it not only transfer technology but also complete capability.

Saab sees a green field operation where the company will train people in India and in Sweden to be able to design, develop, manufacture and maintain in India. Saab is committed to building capability both from the bottom of the supply chain and from the top of the supply chain. “There will be a lot of training in Sweden and in India, and industry-academia-government cooperation. In that way we can reach an indigenous capability to maintain, to sustain, to further develop Gripen in India. We will not simply move an assembly line; we will build development capability. We will Design, Produce, Support, Innovate in India,” says Widerstrom.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

SAAB is doing a lot of PR for marking purpose, snake oil included ..

I have seen their mission of winning hearts and minds during MMRCA competitions at Delhi ..

 

[Sancho]

Saab technology proposal for LCA MK1A - AESA:

Saab technology proposal for LCA MK1A - EW:

Example of Saab EW parts in Malaysian Su 30 MKM:

Example of Saab EW in HAL Rudra:

Saab Arexis EWS on Gripen E:

AREXIS ELECTRONIC WARFARE FAMILY

Arexis is Saab’s new Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and Electronic Countermeasure (ECM) product concept supporting fighter aircraft requirements.

It provides the aircrew with essential situational awareness for self-protection due to its RWR, and tactical support via its ISR capabilities. The situational awareness provided enhances the survivability of the platform together with the aid of the appropriate ECM

Arexis is based on wideband digital technology specifically developed for robustness in the very complex signal environment of today. The core technologies in Arexis are ultra-wideband digital receivers and digital radio frequency memory devices, gallium nitride (GaN) solid state active electronically scanned array (AESA) jammer transmitters and interferometric direction finding systems.

Arexis products are adapted to fighter aircraft installation and environmental requirements. The architecture supports multi-function integration with other fighter aircraft sensors and countermeasures. One version of Arexis will be installed on board the new version of the Gripen fighter, Gripen E/F.

http://saab.com/arexis

Gripen E to feature next-generation electronic warfare capability
Reuben F Johnson, Linkoping - Jane's Defence Weekly
12 May 2017

...One of the standout improvements is the Gripen E's electronic warfare (EW) system, which takes advantage of the aircraft's fully-digital architecture. This and the more powerful jammer-emitter capability, which is made possible by the integrated set of jamming transmitters, radar warning receivers, and the Selex AESA radar set, make for a more powerful EW profile.

"The configuration of the EW system for the Gripen E allows you to focus the jamming signal in a narrower band, so the signal itself is stronger and directed at an individual specific threat," said one of the Gripen test pilots. The previous EW system produced a broader frequency band signal, which was designed to counter several threats at once.

The Gripen E's new EW system uses three types of signal generators to obscure the existence of the aircraft or cause confusion about its location and/or existence so that an adversary cannot choose a proper firing solution. The three types of signal generators are Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM), Doppler, and Noise. DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.

http://www.janes.com/article/70320/gripen-e-to-feature-next-generation-electronic-warfare-capability

Saab / Adani:

Saab and Adani Group JV to produce UAVs, military copters

...Asish Rajvanshi, head of the Adani Group’s Defence and Aerospace division, said the joint venture was focusing on developing “foundational capabilities” to produce a wide-range of products in the aerospace sector for the domestic as well as export markets. In September, Saab and the Adani Group had announced a collaboration in defence manufacturing entailing billions of dollars of investment and said the joint venture would produce Gripen military jets in India if it won the single-engine aircraft deal.

Chairman and Managing Director of Saab Group’s India operation Jan Widerstrom too said the JV was not only eyeing the lucrative fighter jet deal but also looking at other areas. Rajvanshi and Widerstrom said the joint venture was aiming at building unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs), military helicopters and various other aerospace components and equipment with a broad focus on developing a world-class ecosystem for the aerospace sector in India...

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/8...mp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=googleamp

Maybe this one?
http://saab.com/air/airborne-solutions/unmanned-aerial-systems/skeldar-v-200-maritime/