Know Your 'Rafale'

[p2prada]

I wish IAF had the power to make such decisions, then this whole MMRCA drama wouldn't have taken place. We would be flying 126 Mirages happily

If the LCA was successful, MRCA wouldn't have been necessary. Our development timeline should have coincided the Chinese timeline. We should have been inducting the AESA version of the LCA today, just like the Chinese are with their J-10B.

 

[ersakthivel]

If the LCA was successful, MRCA wouldn't have been necessary. Our development timeline should have coincided the Chinese timeline. We should have been inducting the AESA version of the LCA today, just like the Chinese are with their J-10B.

How could IAF team conclude that a 90 KN engine will not be enough for IAF needs?

Eventhough GE-414 gives 96 KN it weighs considerably more and has a bigger diameter.

SO it means that the tejas mk2's weight will go up are stay the same with more substitution of composites. But with more substitution of composites with the K-10 tejas weight could have stayed the same or reduced to less than the current 6.5 ton ,even with the 0.5 meter fuselage length increase.

Also since the fuselage has to be enlarged it will add to more skin friction drag and fuselage weight.

A 90 KN engine with the same dimension of K-9 and lesser dia won't have these issues. SO the shortfall of just 8 KN is not going to matter.

Also this engine can be used by Mig-29s also. A big problem with Mig-29 is the engine. Besides that AURA and AMCA could have used this engine as a test flight engine to speed up the development(same way in which chinese are using AL-31 engines for J-20 and J-31 and french using GE-404 on Rafale till M-88 was developed).

The JV would have given india its first working modern jet engine with a engine thrust weight ratio closer to that of M-88, since core used is the same.

Another plus is since K-9 is flat rated to give optimum thrust to give good performance across varying temperature ranges specifically suited to indian atmospheric conditions , it would have been much better fit on tejas.

But IAF stepped into give unsolicited advice. Who in the MOD allowed IAF to do this? DO they know whether IAF has any technical competence to do this?

And if IAF wanted a bigger engine it could have insisted on a newer engine jv for bigger K-10 as a replacement engine for Ge-414 and AMCA. But strangely IAF did not insist upon this either,They simply asked for the closure of the project saying that 90 Kn engine does not meet their requirement.

If at all IAf-MOD combine wanted to enter into a JV for higher powered brand engine with higher dia and weight equivalent to GE-414 they could have got it by holding Mirage-2000 and rafale deal as a bait.

It would be useful for Snecma also as JV gives a bigger engine with higher thrust.

They chose to do nothing offering lame excuse

Snecma played along with negotiation till mirage-2000 upgrade and rafale winning the bid was done, then refused TOT.

IAF objected tooth and nail the proposed GTRE-Snecma JV for Kaveri saying that it will not meet their need

and there will be no"learning process for GTRE",Since Snecma was proposing to to induct its already fully developed M-88 core into the JV,

and it was all over.

I don't know Why IAF was interested in teaching GTRE on SCB. Now the same Snecma is delivering rafale with the M-88 core(same Eco core that IAF did not want for K-10) and IAF is perfectly happy over it.

I hope Snecma teaches IAF all the nitty gritty of making SCB blades of M-88 , so that in future IAF base repair depots will have learned how to make SCB on their own and help in designing of futre engines for IAF fighter projects, which IAF feared could not be done by GTRE, which at least has a working k-9 that meets the dry thrust needs and close to 85 percent of wet thrust needs.

The proposed JV (if bundled with the Mirage-2000 deal and rafale selection would have made it impossible for Snecma to say no to TOT.)would have given us a 90 Kn engine which could have been used as replacement engine for Tejas mk1 and could have good export prospects. But as it turned out , it was not to be.

The proposed JV ,if bundled with the Mirage-2000 deal and rafale selection would have made it impossible for Snecma to say no to TOT. But we all know how the UPA joint worked.

Atmost care was taken so that indian mil aviation sector faces the prospect of orphaned child for another two decades through the manner in which the three separate deals were worked out in three separate tracks and the most important one was buried with little fan fare.

Any hard nosed negotiator would have held Snecma to the proposed TOT terms by dangling the cumulative close to 30 billion MMRCA and Mirage-2000 upgrade that will be a cash cow for Dassault for the next two decades ,

There were many fighters in IAF and IN like MIG-29, Mig-29K that would have benefited from this 90 Kn engine, but for reasons known to itself IAF wanted GTRE to learn for another decade!!!!

Strange that an important JV is scuttled in such a mysterious manner.

Now GTRE is back to square one with a new international JV for engine development tender for AMCA . Almost a decade was lost in pursuing this Snecam JV .

Does Russian airforce has a mid segment as IAF is desperately wants to have like a three tier air force?

Why is all NATO airforces are largely not looking for the famous three tier structure advocated by retired gents of IAF?

Any air force in the world that has SU-30 MKI,

so good that russian airforce is ordering 64 of them after looking at the success of IAF SU-30 MKI ,

called as the deadlier flanker version in the world with exemplary performance in red flag exercise ,

with integrated Brahmos missiles and looking for Super Sukhoi upgrades,

is going to buy another costly fighter like Rafale which performs more or less the same job.

What is the optimum course of action for IAF?

standardize on Tejas mk2 and SU-30 MKI(both have bigger radar dia design which allows for larger more powerful ASEA radar which is important in any strike or air to air mission, not to say about the fact thatthe powerful ASEA radar can itself be used as an effective EW stand alone EW weapon) ,

and spend big on the coming FGFA and AMCA programs. BUt IAF is exactly doing the opposite.

Any rational civilian govt will see through this game. But UPA could not!!!!

If it is not for Navy's seed funding of1000 crore tejas mk2 in 2009 the entire tejas project could have been buried like HF-24 Marut. IAF simply killed the Snecma -GTRE JV and made no effort to push the MOD for a higher powered engine in place of K-10 they opposed.

And even in stratpost conferences various retired IAF officers are bundling out tons of lies like they never asked for any ASR revision and tejas falls short of original 1984 ASR!!!

DO they think people are fools to forget the entire FSED phase-2 started in 2004 was in response to IAF's request for higher weight , higher launch stress WVR missile R-73 in place of the older R-60, which led to the redesign of wing?


Instead of replacing the aging IAF 14 squadrons consisting of Mig-21s,23s, 27s and Jags speedily with Tejas mk2 by supporting the K-10 JV with snecma what they are doing is this,

 

[Defcon 1]

Actually, the K-10 was a fiasco. What GTRE wanted was Snecma would simply develop the entire engine and transfer the license to HAL for manufacturing. They wanted screwdriver technology. It wasn't a JV, it was something like the Volvo RM-12, where the entire engine is basically American.

IAF didn't like this, so they asked GTRE to modernize the Kaveri by themselves. That's how the deal fell through. As of today it is not clear where K-10 really is.

You do realize you are talking to a person "who gets to talk stuff to IAF guys" while us mortal souls can only read it. Look at him. He agrees that K10 was delinked from LCA, yet he somehow believes that IAF should have scrapped its tender for engines and gone for K10, and even blames IAF for not doing so. He can't even see how is he contradicting himself.

If the LCA was successful, MRCA wouldn't have been necessary. Our development timeline should have coincided the Chinese timeline. We should have been inducting the AESA version of the LCA today, just like the Chinese are with their J-10B.

I doubt the Chinese put any kind of requirements at all. They have traditionally been accepting whatever their scientists give them. However I feel that probably MRCA tender also had to do something with Kargil war. If not, I will hang the IAF top brass. They should have known back in 1990 that LCA wasn't going to be on time and therefore started the MRCA project in 1990 instead of 2000. The delay was foreseeable.

 

[ersakthivel]

You do realize you are talking to a person "who gets to talk stuff to IAF guys" while us mortal souls can only read it. Look at him. He agrees that K10 was delinked from LCA, yet he somehow believes that IAF should have scrapped its tender for engines and gone for K10, and even blames IAF for not doing so. He can't even see how is he contradicting himself.

There are lot of guys who here who claim they have friends in ADA, LM and where not , but still say they think that wing loading is a parameter related to passenger aircraft and a pair of mig-21s could wipe out a squadron of Teja mk1!!!!!

I doubt the Chinese put any kind of requirements at all. They have traditionally been accepting whatever their scientists give them. However I feel that probably MRCA tender also had to do something with Kargil war. If not, I will hang the IAF top brass. They should have known back in 1990 that LCA wasn't going to be on time and therefore started the MRCA project in 1990 instead of 2000. The delay was foreseeable.

In kargil like situation even tejas mk1 with far lower wing loading and far higher thrust to weight ratio than the 45 per million dollar upgraded Mirage-2000 ,
can do a much better job today. Where no 3000 KM (!?!?!)range is needed.

That is why this 20 billion dollar MMRCA is simply a monumental waste of resource in the form of inducting a 4.5th gen fighter in 5th gen time frame that to just for 6 squadrons!!!!

With the tejas mk2, mk1 and SU-30 MKI (with brahmos and super sukhoi upgrades in hand what is the special role that will be performed by Rafale in IAF that cant be done by both of the above(both have far higher dia design forASEA radar than Rafale as well!!!)

when funding for TDs was sanctioned only in 1993, when do you expect the tejas to take flight, with one more design change request from IAF in the form of FSED phase-2 in 2004?

Tejas production line is ready and you need not hang anybody in IAF for not foreseeing the delay.

And argument that mig-21 pilot deaths were due to tejas delay was already busted by me many times.

F35 won't kill AMCA, its just being bought for one ship. Likewise, Rafale didn't do anything to either FGFA or Tejas. Only ADA has got to be blamed for Tejas's failures. But that isn't the topic of discussion

When did tejas fail in the first place. It has orders close to 200 now. It is rafale which has zero orders and looking for indian tax payer money.


DOn't put your own subjective judgements on who failed on what and , then bail out saying that is not the topic of discussion.

Then I too can post that no major airforce in the world is having rafale in it(especially with the fleet of 270 su-30 MKI). And IAF's insistence on this is just a ploy to kill Tejas mk2 prospect. And I will paraphase it with a standard term , that it is also a topic for another discussion.

Does Russian airforce has a mid segment as IAF is desperately wants to have like a three tier air force?

It is using the same flanker fleet to do the job of rafales that will be performed in IAF

Why is all NATO airforces are largely not looking for the famous three tier structure advocated by retired gents of IAF?

Any air force in the world that has SU-30 MKI,

so good that russian airforce is ordering 64 of them after looking at the success of IAF SU-30 MKI ,

called as the deadlier flanker version in the world with exemplary performance in red flag exercise ,

with integrated Brahmos missiles and looking for Super Sukhoi upgrades,

is going to buy another costly fighter like Rafale which performs more or less the same job.

What is the optimum course of action for IAF?

standardize on Tejas mk2 and SU-30 MKI(both have bigger radar dia design which allows for larger more powerful ASEA radar which is important in any strike or air to air mission, not to say about the fact thatthe powerful ASEA radar can itself be used as an effective EW stand alone EW weapon) ,

and spend big on the coming FGFA and AMCA programs. BUt IAF is exactly doing the opposite.

Any rational civilian govt will see through this game. But UPA could not!!!!

If it is not for Navy's seed funding of1000 crore tejas mk2 in 2009 the entire tejas project could have been buried like HF-24 Marut. IAF simply killed the Snecma -GTRE JV and made no effort to push the MOD for a higher powered engine in place of K-10 they opposed.

And even in stratpost conferences various retired IAF officers are bundling out tons of lies like they never asked for any ASR revision and tejas falls short of original 1984 ASR!!!

DO they think people are fools to forget the entire FSED phase-2 started in 2004 was in response to IAF's request for higher weight , higher launch stress WVR missile R-73 in place of the older R-60, which led to the redesign of wing?

Instead of replacing the aging IAF 14 squadrons consisting of Mig-21s,23s, 27s and Jags speedily with Tejas mk2 by supporting the K-10 JV with snecma what they are doing is this,

How could IAF team conclude that a 90 KN engine will not be enough for IAF needs?

Eventhough GE-414 gives 96 KN it weighs considerably more and has a bigger diameter.

SO it means that the tejas mk2's weight will go up.

Also since the fuselage has to be enlarged it will add to more skin friction drag and fuselage weight.

A 90 KN engine with the same dimension of K-9 and lesser dia won't have these issues. SO the shortfall of just 8 KN is not going to matter.

Also this engine can be used by Mig-29s also. A big problem with Mig-29 is the engine. Besides that AURA and AMCA could have used this engine as a test flight engine to speed up the development(same way in which chinese are using AL-31 engines for J-20 and J-31 and french using GE-404 on Rafale till M-88 was developed).

The JV would have given india its first working modern jet engine with a engine thrust weight ratio closer to that of M-88, since core used is the same.

Another plus is since K-9 is flat rated to give optimum thrust to give good performance across varying temperature ranges specifically suited to indian atmospheric conditions , it would have been much better fit on tejas.

But IAF stepped into give unsolicited advice. Who in the MOD allowed IAF to do this? DO they know whether IAF has any technical competence to do this?

And if IAF wanted a bigger engine it could have insisted on a newer engine jv for bigger K-10 as a replacement engine for Ge-414 and AMCA. But strangely IAF did not insist upon this either,They simply asked for the closure of the project saying that 90 Kn engine does not meet their requirement.

If at all IAf-MOD combine wanted to enter into a JV for higher powered brand engine with higher dia and weight equivalent to GE-414 they could have got it by holding Mirage-2000 and rafale deal as a bait.

It would be useful for Snecma also as JV gives a bigger engine with higher thrust.

They chose to do nothing offering lame excuse

Snecma played along with negotiation till mirage-2000 upgrade and rafale winning the bid was done, then refused TOT.

IAF objected tooth and nail the proposed GTRE-Snecma JV for Kaveri saying that it will not meet their need

and there will be no"learning process for GTRE",Since Snecma was proposing to to induct its already fully developed M-88 core into the JV,

and it was all over.

I don't know Why IAF was interested in teaching GTRE on SCB. Now the same Snecma is delivering rafale with the M-88 core(same Eco core that IAF did not want for K-10) and IAF is perfectly happy over it.

I hope Snecma teaches IAF all the nitty gritty of making SCB blades of M-88 , so that in future IAF base repair depots will have learned how to make SCB on their own and help in designing of futre engines for IAF fighter projects, which IAF feared could not be done by GTRE, which at least has a working k-9 that meets the dry thrust needs and close to 85 percent of wet thrust needs.

The proposed JV (if bundled with the Mirage-2000 deal and rafale selection would have made it impossible for Snecma to say no to TOT.)would have given us a 90 Kn engine which could have been used as replacement engine for Tejas mk1 and could have good export prospects. But as it turned out , it was not to be.

The proposed JV ,if bundled with the Mirage-2000 deal and rafale selection would have made it impossible for Snecma to say no to TOT. But we all know how the UPA joint worked.

Atmost care was taken so that indian mil aviation sector faces the prospect of orphaned child for another two decades through the manner in which the three separate deals were worked out in three separate tracks and the most important one was buried with little fan fare.

Any hard nosed negotiator would have held Snecma to the proposed TOT terms by dangling the cumulative close to 30 billion MMRCA and Mirage-2000 upgrade that will be a cash cow for Dassault for the next two decades ,

There were many fighters in IAF and IN like MIG-29, Mig-29K that would have benefited from this 90 Kn engine, but for reasons known to itself IAF wanted GTRE to learn for another decade!!!!

Strange that an important JV is scuttled in such a mysterious manner.

Now GTRE is back to square one with a new international JV for engine development tender for AMCA . Almost a decade was lost in pursuing this Snecam JV .

 

[p2prada]

I doubt the Chinese put any kind of requirements at all. They have traditionally been accepting whatever their scientists give them.

The Chinese present strict requirements. They did not induct the WS-10 without its flaws being fixed first.

And their scientists probably work with a gun at their heads, that's why they deliver. Plus they have competition, unlike ours. They wouldn't induct the LCA either.

J-20 isn't something we can develop ourselves. They are at least 10 years ahead compared to us.

However I feel that probably MRCA tender also had to do something with Kargil war. If not, I will hang the IAF top brass. They should have known back in 1990 that LCA wasn't going to be on time and therefore started the MRCA project in 1990 instead of 2000. The delay was foreseeable.

In the early '90s, the IAF was more interested in getting the Su-30. It was after the Su-30 was a done deal that IAF started asking for the MRCA. And that happened during Kargil war.

Also they had just inducted the Mirage-2000, so they were coming to terms with the aircraft. They couldn't ask for more Mirage-2000s without confirming that the aircraft that they had were good enough.

Kargil was just a coincidence, but it further strengthened the need for MRCA.

You ask for your most capable and most expensive fighter first, then you present a requirement for a less capable fighter. Everybody follows this mantra. The F-16 followed the F-15, the F-35 followed the F-22, the Mig-29 followed the Su-27, the AMCA will follow the FGFA and the J-XX will follow the J-20.

They should have started the MMRCA competition with the new requirements back in 2004 instead of wasting 3 years. We would have been taking deliveries today.

 

[Defcon 1]

In the early '90s, the IAF was more interested in getting the Su-30. It was after the Su-30 was a done deal that IAF started asking for the MRCA. And that happened during Kargil war.

Also they had just inducted the Mirage-2000, so they were coming to terms with the aircraft. They couldn't ask for more Mirage-2000s without confirming that the aircraft that they had were good enough.

Kargil was just a coincidence, but it further strengthened the need for MRCA.

You ask for your most capable and most expensive fighter first, then you present a requirement for a less capable fighter. Everybody follows this mantra. The F-16 followed the F-15, the F-35 followed the F-22, the Mig-29 followed the Su-27, the AMCA will follow the FGFA and the J-XX will follow the J-20.

They should have started the MMRCA competition with the new requirements back in 2004 instead of wasting 3 years. We would have been taking deliveries today.

Agreed that they couldn't order Mirage back in 1990. What I am saying is that they should have given the MRCA tender back in 1990. Or since they failed to do so, they should have gone for Mirage in the year 2000. What worries me about this MMRCA tender is that everything has been by the book, there have been no delays due to corruption allegations for example, which means IAF and MoD should have known back 10 years ago that if they go through with the tender, this is where we will end. Why did they chose to let our pilots fly the Mig 21 knowing all this beyond comprehension. If one look at the huge transaction costs involved in the MMRCA tender, its simply not worth it. 126 Mirages ordered back in 2004 would have done a lot more good than what we have today.

 

[p2prada]

Agreed that they couldn't order Mirage back in 1990. What I am saying is that they should have given the MRCA tender back in 1990. Or since they failed to do so, they should have gone for Mirage in the year 2000. What worries me about this MMRCA tender is that everything has been by the book, there have been no delays due to corruption allegations for example, which means IAF and MoD should have known back 10 years ago that if they go through with the tender, this is where we will end. Why did they chose to let our pilots fly the Mig 21 knowing all this beyond comprehension. If one look at the huge transaction costs involved in the MMRCA tender, its simply not worth it. 126 Mirages ordered back in 2004 would have done a lot more good than what we have today.

There was a significant section within the IAF, including within the brass, that the LCA will succeed. The idea was that the LCA will take care of the minimum required strength while MKI and MRCA would fill up the rest of the requirement. Instead what happened is LCA got delayed indefinitely, IAF was forced to modernize the Mig-21, place orders for 10 more Mirage-2000s, place orders for 37 Jaguars and increase the number of MKI from 190 to 270, apart from launching the MRCA program.

Btw, today's concept of tendering started only in 2002. And like I said earlier, there was no incentive to start a MRCA process when MKI was a more important program. The IAF requirement for 126 MRCA was older than Kargil war, it just gained momentum in 1999, BJP gave the IAF the green signal for the program in 2001. And in the early '90s we were broke. That's why even LCA was delayed by a year or two at the time. We didn't have the kind of money to purchase both MKI and MRCA at the same time. Just getting the MKI was a big deal.

MRCA wasn't realistic throughout the '90s. 126 Mirage-2000 was realistic in the beginning of the 2000s, but the threat changed with China buying hundreds of Flankers and J-10s. We had to up the ante by moving towards newer high end aircraft which were mature. It would have been great if we could induct all 126 Mirage-2000s back in the '90s itself. But it didn't happen. Regardless of what happened in the past, what is happening today is right. We can't fight the Chinese with sheer numbers on our side. The Lancaster equation goes for a toss when quality becomes overwhelming. The Israelis had a field day shooting down older Arab jets without any losses ever since the F-15 was inducted. The Flanker provided the same level of threat that a Mirage-2000 couldn't cope against.

And if you think Rafale is expensive, what other alternative do you have in mind? Forget about more MKI and LCA. MKI is not a medium weight MRCA and LCA is far from ready. Do you have any other alternative today?

 

[Defcon 1]

There was a significant section within the IAF, including within the brass, that the LCA will succeed. The idea was that the LCA will take care of the minimum required strength while MKI and MRCA would fill up the rest of the requirement. Instead what happened is LCA got delayed indefinitely, IAF was forced to modernize the Mig-21, place orders for 10 more Mirage-2000s, place orders for 37 Jaguars and increase the number of MKI from 190 to 270, apart from launching the MRCA program.

Btw, today's concept of tendering started only in 2002. And like I said earlier, there was no incentive to start a MRCA process when MKI was a more important program. The IAF requirement for 126 MRCA was older than Kargil war, it just gained momentum in 1999, BJP gave the IAF the green signal for the program in 2001. And in the early '90s we were broke. That's why even LCA was delayed by a year or two at the time. We didn't have the kind of money to purchase both MKI and MRCA at the same time. Just getting the MKI was a big deal.

MRCA wasn't realistic throughout the '90s. 126 Mirage-2000 was realistic in the beginning of the 2000s, but the threat changed with China buying hundreds of Flankers and J-10s. We had to up the ante by moving towards newer high end aircraft which were mature. It would have been great if we could induct all 126 Mirage-2000s back in the '90s itself. But it didn't happen. Regardless of what happened in the past, what is happening today is right. We can't fight the Chinese with sheer numbers on our side. The Lancaster equation goes for a toss when quality becomes overwhelming. The Israelis had a field day shooting down older Arab jets without any losses ever since the F-15 was inducted. The Flanker provided the same level of threat that a Mirage-2000 couldn't cope against.

And if you think Rafale is expensive, what other alternative do you have in mind? Forget about more MKI and LCA. MKI is not a medium weight MRCA and LCA is far from ready. Do you have any other alternative today?

The deal for 10 additional Mirages had been there since 1990s.
Anyways, I know that we don't have any alternative today. Thats why I am a supporter of MRCA deal. However I think that us reaching here has got more to do with bad planning rather than simply failure of LCA. FSED-I started in 1993. That was enough indication that LCA will be delayed. Mig 27 upgrade was cancelled. This has exacerbated the problem of aircraft strength.

The process of tendering has been around for a long time. The infamous Bofors scandal was also a tender. It was only DPP which started in 2002. We could have floated a tender in 1990s, let it run for 10 years, and then bought the winner in 2000s. But IAF lacked foresight.

 

[p2prada]

The deal for 10 additional Mirages had been there since 1990s.
Anyways, I know that we don't have any alternative today. Thats why I am a supporter of MRCA deal. However I think that us reaching here has got more to do with bad planning rather than simply failure of LCA. FSED-I started in 1993. That was enough indication that LCA will be delayed. Mig 27 upgrade was cancelled. This has exacerbated the problem of aircraft strength.

There was always indication that LCA would be delayed. But the ADA/HAL officials used to tell barefaced lies to our service chiefs. What do you want them to do?

Video: Vayu-StratPost Air Power Roundtable V | StratPost

With the LCA program, in fact I was involved in – at one time were making air defense for India 25-year plan. I was one of those who actually wrote that. '94 and '95, it nearly got approved. LCA, we went to see – the then chief and I. And we went to Bangalore. They actually made us sit in the aircraft and they said this is all ready and by – this was the month of May or June – they said December it'll be taking off. In fact, 125 upgrade of MiG-21, were only done interim because I, at that point in time, in next two years – they told us that. That by '98 we'll start inducting and we said by 2000 we'll have a whole lot of aircraft, so that's why we said we'll upgrade only 125. It's fine for all of us to be very concerned about the cost escalations, but please understand, with our own industry when we depend, when they promise you that I'll give you this, I say okay, I'll accept this and I'll modify my plan and we'll work out and plan our air defense plan for 25 years. And all these changes have started coming after 2000 because LCA didn't see that side of the runway till then.

They are barefaced liars, the whole lot of them in the industry. When you go down to ADA in 1995 and they assure the successive air chiefs that LCA will be inducted in 2000, what do you think IAF is going to do?

It is clear here that only 125 Mig-21s were inducted instead of the planned 175 just because ADA/HAL are a bunch of ----ing liars. They tell the same lies to the MoD and MoD has to clear all these future proposals. The IAF can't make one report for themselves and then make another report for approval from MoD.

If your plumber tells you he will have your waterline fixed in time for your daughter's wedding and then it turns out that he has not even started working on it on the day of the wedding, what are you going to do, instantly build a new house? Maybe it is your fault for not building another house in parallel and relying on your plumber instead?

The process of tendering has been around for a long time. The infamous Bofors scandal was also a tender. It was only DPP which started in 2002.

The DPP process removed single vendor situations, or tried to. This is unlike before where even single vendors were part of the process. The DPP basically removed any power the forces had over buying equipment through govt contracts when other equivalent equipment was available elsewhere. Mirage-2000 wasn't the only MRCA around, so tendering was the only route.

We could have floated a tender in 1990s, let it run for 10 years, and then bought the winner in 2000s. But IAF lacked foresight.

That's not how it works. When you are in a democracy, you work based on democratic processes, which are equal to all. The IAF can't put up requirements when there is none, especially when more important requirements are put up by other wings. The other wings won't let you do that anyway.

Logically, it is right. They should have started the process in 1990 and things would have come to a close in 2000. But from 1990 to 2000, the army and the navy would have put a stop to it entirely. For every program, you need approval from other wings too, that's how the yearly budget is allocated. This decade is the year of the air force. They have been able to convince the importance of both MRCA and FGFA enough to get proper budget allocations. Logically, the navy also should have started the P-75I project parallel to the Scorpene. Then we would have started manufacturing the new subs around the same time the Scorpenes were delivered, thereby completely removing the threat of depleting submarine levels. But would the IAF and IA have allowed that? No.

Also, in 1990 India had no money.

1991 India economic crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, when we have no money, we can't start such large tenders. By the time we could start such large tenders, the IAF asked for the MRCA and the MRCA happened. Now, it is entirely different that our bureaucratic procedures are from the stone age, so you can't blame the IAF in anyway.

IAF's evaluations were very quick too. Paper evaluations were completed in one year, tests were done in the next and final shortlist was done in a year. So, they took less than 3 years out of the 7 to date.

 

[Defcon 1]

There was always indication that LCA would be delayed. But the ADA/HAL officials used to tell barefaced lies to our service chiefs. What do you want them to do?

Video: Vayu-StratPost Air Power Roundtable V | StratPost


They are barefaced liars, the whole lot of them in the industry. When you go down to ADA in 1995 and they assure the successive air chiefs that LCA will be inducted in 2000, what do you think IAF is going to do?

It is clear here that only 125 Mig-21s were inducted instead of the planned 175 just because ADA/HAL are a bunch of ----ing liars. They tell the same lies to the MoD and MoD has to clear all these future proposals. The IAF can't make one report for themselves and then make another report for approval from MoD.

If your plumber tells you he will have your waterline fixed in time for your daughter's wedding and then it turns out that he has not even started working on it on the day of the wedding, what are you going to do, instantly build a new house? Maybe it is your fault for not building another house in parallel and relying on your plumber instead?



The DPP process removed single vendor situations, or tried to. This is unlike before where even single vendors were part of the process. The DPP basically removed any power the forces had over buying equipment through govt contracts when other equivalent equipment was available elsewhere. Mirage-2000 wasn't the only MRCA around, so tendering was the only route.



That's not how it works. When you are in a democracy, you work based on democratic processes, which are equal to all. The IAF can't put up requirements when there is none, especially when more important requirements are put up by other wings. The other wings won't let you do that anyway.

Logically, it is right. They should have started the process in 1990 and things would have come to a close in 2000. But from 1990 to 2000, the army and the navy would have put a stop to it entirely. For every program, you need approval from other wings too, that's how the yearly budget is allocated. This decade is the year of the air force. They have been able to convince the importance of both MRCA and FGFA enough to get proper budget allocations. Logically, the navy also should have started the P-75I project parallel to the Scorpene. Then we would have started manufacturing the new subs around the same time the Scorpenes were delivered, thereby completely removing the threat of depleting submarine levels. But would the IAF and IA have allowed that? No.

Also, in 1990 India had no money.

1991 India economic crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, when we have no money, we can't start such large tenders. By the time we could start such large tenders, the IAF asked for the MRCA and the MRCA happened. Now, it is entirely different that our bureaucratic procedures are from the stone age, so you can't blame the IAF in anyway.

IAF's evaluations were very quick too. Paper evaluations were completed in one year, tests were done in the next and final shortlist was done in a year. So, they took less than 3 years out of the 7 to date.

Thank you for information about ADA lies, didn't know this was going on.

About DPP, it was possible for the government to approach directly to the government of France for MRCA deal. Even after DPP program was introduced, lots of intergovernmental deals have happened which had single vendor situations. Also there is a question of increased costs such as additional logistics for a new platform, tactics prep, pilot training, long time taken in case of tender, etc. I am not saying that IAF should have simply scrapped MRCA tender. But I am surprised by the fact that above factors were not considered while deciding to go a tender. This clearly indicates lack of planning somewhere. But then whats done is done, and closing Rafale deal is our best bet.

 

[p2prada]

Even after DPP program was introduced, lots of intergovernmental deals have happened which had single vendor situations.

Only in two cases. One, when a second vendor did not have an equivalent. Like C-17.

Second, when it was an emergency purchase. Like T-90.

Also there is a question of increased costs such as additional logistics for a new platform, tactics prep, pilot training, long time taken in case of tender, etc. I am not saying that IAF should have simply scrapped MRCA tender. But I am surprised by the fact that above factors were not considered while deciding to go a tender. This clearly indicates lack of planning somewhere. But then whats done is done, and closing Rafale is our best bet.

All of these are taken into consideration.

From the same link,
Video: Vayu-StratPost Air Power Roundtable V | StratPost

And the last issue is cost-related. Cost of LCA and cost of MMRCA cannot be compared because in cost, it depends on what elements you've included. So in the first 20 order we placed, it was just for the aircraft. Fully formed aircraft. When we wanted to include – and there was a small component for ground-support equipment. That ground-support equipment became a major issue because HAL said 'we did not know what were the specifications' and another, additional amount had to be earmarked later. So if you include all the elements which are: MRLS – that is Manufacturer Recommended List of Spares – warranty, product support for certain period – eight years, normally. Five to eight years – training, all the infrastructure and at times the differed revenue cost, or the set-up cost. Then all this becomes comparable and if we add all that and the development cost, then LCA is not a very cheap aircraft. But since the figures which we're comparing, the figures which we compare tend to create a distorted picture. – Air Marshal (retd.) Nirdosh Tyagi

He is talking about why LCA and Rafale costs shouldn't be compared because of these differences. Some of the differences that you yourself have noted.

Anyway, this is for the F-35.
Australia orders 58 F-35 Lockheed Martin stealth fighters | Reuters

Australia will order 58 more F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) for A$12.4 billion ($11.61 billion), Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Wednesday, a purchase that will raise its air combat power to among the world's most advanced.

This cost includes everything you talked about plus maintenance for 40 years. And the expectation is that the F-35 is more expensive than Rafale as of today.

This is also important.

So the person who said there's always been a conflict between HAL, DRDO and air force – there's never been a change of stance of air force. Constantly, there's an accusation that goalposts have been shifted by air force. The ASR was approved with everybody involved in 1985 and there were two concessions given in 1989 – no other change has ever been made. It is their inability to conform the ASR, for a variety of reasons. – Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran.

 

[Punya Pratap]

If the LCA was successful, MRCA wouldn't have been necessary. Our development timeline should have coincided the Chinese timeline. We should have been inducting the AESA version of the LCA today, just like the Chinese are with their J-10B.

Exactly what I have been saying from the very beginning... only we failed! I suppose I shall be shouting at the walls if I keep saying it was IAF to an extent with ineptitude of DRDO that made it easy.
Its going to be the Marut saga all over again.... call it coincidence but Snecma also played a part in burying the Marut which was called Super Hunters by the pilots who had flown it for its exceptional handling. After Orpheus we approached Snecma then also!!

All the above, if you co relate with Tejas sounds like unfolding of the Marut saga all over again.... As an old IAF hand pointed out Tejas and Marut both have commonalities such as exceptional handling and also has the same problems plaguing it to the extent of the gun firing & failure to produce indigenous engine!!! Any ways I think the old man was just being superstitious but I think his words that IAF will not allow more than 7/8 squadrons of Tejas would also mean he is right again when comparing coz only 147 Maruts were built about the same number for Tejas!!

 

[p2prada]

Exactly what I have been saying from the very beginning... only we failed! I suppose I shall be shouting at the walls if I keep saying it was IAF to an extent with ineptitude of DRDO that made it easy.

The only fault of the IAF is that they actually believed ADA/HAL. The truth is there for all to see. Where is the LCA?

Its going to be the Marut saga all over again.... call it coincidence but Snecma also played a part in burying the Marut which was called Super Hunters by the pilots who had flown it for its exceptional handling. After Orpheus we approached Snecma then also!!

Snecma had nothing to do with it. The British wanted money which we didn't have and the Egyptians failed. That's why Marut failed.

 

[Punya Pratap]

Actually, the K-10 was a fiasco. What GTRE wanted was Snecma would simply develop the entire engine and transfer the license to HAL for manufacturing. They wanted screwdriver technology. It wasn't a JV, it was something like the Volvo RM-12, where the entire engine is basically American.

IAF didn't like this, so they asked GTRE to modernize the Kaveri by themselves. That's how the deal fell through. As of today it is not clear where K-10 really is.

Beg to differ with you p2prada coz K 10 was supposed to be like Brahmos JV as I have been led to believe. Secondly the IAF's objection about a mating of Eco Core to Kaveri was all hedging for Rafael. If you read the link I posted earlier Snecma was willing earlier coz they also stood to gain with a new higher thrust engine

I quote from this link : The Failed Negotiations with Snecma for Engine Technology

MoD then began negotiations with Snecma for a joint venture for the development of the Kaveri. Minister of State for DefencePallamRajutold Business Standard: "(Snecma) is willing to co-develop an engine with us; they are willing to go beyond just transfer of technology. It is a value-added offer that gives us better technology than what we would get from ToT from Eurojet(the maker of the Typhoon's engine) or GE." This was misleading. GE and Eurojet were not contenders for the collaboration with GTRE. The technology they were offering was part of a deal for the import of 99 engines for the LCA Mark II. The kind of technologies sought for the collaboration on the Kaveri engine were not sought for this deal. Officially, no specifics of what technologies Snecma would offer have been disclosed. A senior DRDO official said two years ago that the work share between GTRE and Snecma would be 50:50; that price negotiations would be completed "within a month"; and that GTRE would gain the intellectual property rights for the new engine. Aviation Week reported in March 2012 that an agreement on the joint venture to develop and build a 20,230-lb-thrust engine would be reached by June that year. Snecma would provide "exhaustive know-how" on the technologies and manufacturing processes GTRE lacked, the sources for the report claimed.


ALSO NOTE BELOW THE POSTURING OF PARTIES INVOLVED AS PER ACM RAJKUMAR

As Air Marshall Philip Rajkumar (rtd.) recounts in his book The Tejas Story, the DRDO and the IAF had a falling out in the 1980s over the choice of partners for developing the LCA's flight control system. The IAF wanted to go with Dassault, while the DRDO preferred Lockheed Martin. This disagreement had caused the IAF to wage a decades-long cold war against the DRDO and the LCA project in particular. Quite possibly,DRDO bought peace with the IAF by accepting the latter's preference for Snecma.

THE REASON WHY IAF WANTED SNECMA IS COZ THEY PLAYED ALONG WITH IAF WHO WANTED TO KILL THE KAVERI SO THEY COULD GET MMRCA & SNECMA THE MONEY OUT OF IT!!

I quote below from this link : DRDO gets nod for French tie-up for Kaveri project - The Hindu

Snecma chairman and chief executive officer Philippe Petitcolin told The Hindu: "Yes we first stated a 15-year period to hand over the design technology, but now we have indicated that the technology can be given as fast as the Indians can assimilate it."

GTRE director Mohan Rao said the capabilities of "the existing French core will be enhanced to suit the IAF's requirements."

THE IAF FIRST SAID THE K 10 WILL TAKE VERY LONG SINCE SNECMA SAID IT WILL TAKE GTRE 15 YEARS BUT THE ABOVE STATEMENT BY SNECMA CEO CONTRADICTS IAF CLAIMS.
SECOND CLAIM WAS ECO CORE CANNOT BE USED SINCE AS PER IAF IT WONT PRODUCE MORE THAN 2000 lbs THRUST AND THERE IS NO FURTHER POTENTIAL TO ECO CORE....READ MY WORDS THE ECO CORE WIL BE THE BASE FOR THE NEXT HIGHER THRUST ENGINE OF SNECMA ONLY MMRCA DEAL WILL BE FUNDING THAT DEVELOPMENT AND FRENCH WOULD BENIFIT NOT GTRE OR TEJAS!!!

 

[Punya Pratap]

When did tejas fail in the first place. It has orders close to 200 now. It is rafale which has zero orders and looking for indian tax payer money.


DOn't put your own subjective judgements on who failed on what and , then bail out saying that is not the topic of discussion.

Then I too can post that no major airforce in the world is having rafale in it(especially with the fleet of 270 su-30 MKI). And IAF's insistence on this is just a ploy to kill Tejas mk2 prospect. And I will paraphase it with a standard term , that it is also a topic for another discussion.

Does Russian airforce has a mid segment as IAF is desperately wants to have like a three tier air force?

It is using the same flanker fleet to do the job of rafales that will be performed in IAF

Why is all NATO airforces are largely not looking for the famous three tier structure advocated by retired gents of IAF?

Any air force in the world that has SU-30 MKI,

so good that russian airforce is ordering 64 of them after looking at the success of IAF SU-30 MKI ,

called as the deadlier flanker version in the world with exemplary performance in red flag exercise ,

with integrated Brahmos missiles and looking for Super Sukhoi upgrades,

is going to buy another costly fighter like Rafale which performs more or less the same job.

What is the optimum course of action for IAF?

standardize on Tejas mk2 and SU-30 MKI(both have bigger radar dia design which allows for larger more powerful ASEA radar which is important in any strike or air to air mission, not to say about the fact thatthe powerful ASEA radar can itself be used as an effective EW stand alone EW weapon) ,

and spend big on the coming FGFA and AMCA programs. BUt IAF is exactly doing the opposite.

Any rational civilian govt will see through this game. But UPA could not!!!!

If it is not for Navy's seed funding of1000 crore tejas mk2 in 2009 the entire tejas project could have been buried like HF-24 Marut. IAF simply killed the Snecma -GTRE JV and made no effort to push the MOD for a higher powered engine in place of K-10 they opposed.

And even in stratpost conferences various retired IAF officers are bundling out tons of lies like they never asked for any ASR revision and tejas falls short of original 1984 ASR!!!

DO they think people are fools to forget the entire FSED phase-2 started in 2004 was in response to IAF's request for higher weight , higher launch stress WVR missile R-73 in place of the older R-60, which led to the redesign of wing?

Instead of replacing the aging IAF 14 squadrons consisting of Mig-21s,23s, 27s and Jags speedily with Tejas mk2 by supporting the K-10 JV with snecma what they are doing is this,

How could IAF team conclude that a 90 KN engine will not be enough for IAF needs?

Eventhough GE-414 gives 96 KN it weighs considerably more and has a bigger diameter.

SO it means that the tejas mk2's weight will go up.

Also since the fuselage has to be enlarged it will add to more skin friction drag and fuselage weight.

A 90 KN engine with the same dimension of K-9 and lesser dia won't have these issues. SO the shortfall of just 8 KN is not going to matter.

Also this engine can be used by Mig-29s also. A big problem with Mig-29 is the engine. Besides that AURA and AMCA could have used this engine as a test flight engine to speed up the development(same way in which chinese are using AL-31 engines for J-20 and J-31 and french using GE-404 on Rafale till M-88 was developed).

The JV would have given india its first working modern jet engine with a engine thrust weight ratio closer to that of M-88, since core used is the same.

Another plus is since K-9 is flat rated to give optimum thrust to give good performance across varying temperature ranges specifically suited to indian atmospheric conditions , it would have been much better fit on tejas.

But IAF stepped into give unsolicited advice. Who in the MOD allowed IAF to do this? DO they know whether IAF has any technical competence to do this?

And if IAF wanted a bigger engine it could have insisted on a newer engine jv for bigger K-10 as a replacement engine for Ge-414 and AMCA. But strangely IAF did not insist upon this either,They simply asked for the closure of the project saying that 90 Kn engine does not meet their requirement.

If at all IAf-MOD combine wanted to enter into a JV for higher powered brand engine with higher dia and weight equivalent to GE-414 they could have got it by holding Mirage-2000 and rafale deal as a bait.

It would be useful for Snecma also as JV gives a bigger engine with higher thrust.

They chose to do nothing offering lame excuse

Snecma played along with negotiation till mirage-2000 upgrade and rafale winning the bid was done, then refused TOT.

IAF objected tooth and nail the proposed GTRE-Snecma JV for Kaveri saying that it will not meet their need

and there will be no"learning process for GTRE",Since Snecma was proposing to to induct its already fully developed M-88 core into the JV,

and it was all over.

I don't know Why IAF was interested in teaching GTRE on SCB. Now the same Snecma is delivering rafale with the M-88 core(same Eco core that IAF did not want for K-10) and IAF is perfectly happy over it.

I hope Snecma teaches IAF all the nitty gritty of making SCB blades of M-88 , so that in future IAF base repair depots will have learned how to make SCB on their own and help in designing of futre engines for IAF fighter projects, which IAF feared could not be done by GTRE, which at least has a working k-9 that meets the dry thrust needs and close to 85 percent of wet thrust needs.

The proposed JV (if bundled with the Mirage-2000 deal and rafale selection would have made it impossible for Snecma to say no to TOT.)would have given us a 90 Kn engine which could have been used as replacement engine for Tejas mk1 and could have good export prospects. But as it turned out , it was not to be.

The proposed JV ,if bundled with the Mirage-2000 deal and rafale selection would have made it impossible for Snecma to say no to TOT. But we all know how the UPA joint worked.

Atmost care was taken so that indian mil aviation sector faces the prospect of orphaned child for another two decades through the manner in which the three separate deals were worked out in three separate tracks and the most important one was buried with little fan fare.

Any hard nosed negotiator would have held Snecma to the proposed TOT terms by dangling the cumulative close to 30 billion MMRCA and Mirage-2000 upgrade that will be a cash cow for Dassault for the next two decades ,

There were many fighters in IAF and IN like MIG-29, Mig-29K that would have benefited from this 90 Kn engine, but for reasons known to itself IAF wanted GTRE to learn for another decade!!!!

Strange that an important JV is scuttled in such a mysterious manner.

Now GTRE is back to square one with a new international JV for engine development tender for AMCA . Almost a decade was lost in pursuing this Snecam JV .

Thanks ersakthivel but I do believe it is useless to help others see the facts as they stand. K 10 JV was killed off due to the following objections raised by IAF:

1) ECO Core does nt have any future potential and cant go beyond 20000 lbs
2) Snecma would nt part with the know how and GTRE would nt lean anything
3) It will take 15 years for the ECO to me mated to Kaveri

I have posted a while back refuting all the above allegations as below :

1) Eco core and its growth please read http://www.snecma.com/IMG/pdf/Fact_sheet_Snecma_M88_pack_CGP_VA_OK.pdf
2) Snecma CEO and State Defense Minister are on record saying that it will be JV in true sense with full access to tech
3) Snecma CEO says categorically that tech can be transfered within 5 years provided GTRE can absorb it.

I would also like to point out that if you go through my entire posts I have never said IAF should scrap GE engine procurement but I shall state again...IAF WANTED TO KILL THE INDIGENOUS ENGINE FOR TEJAS and I have given the reasons why!! Some Well READ folks with limited comprehensions are wrongly saying I am contradicting myself whereas all I have tried to prove out of the k10 JV discussion is that we wil lalways be stuck with screwdrivery if there are no hard decision taken by the GoI coz IAF shall again come up with such nonsensical objections to indigenous efforts which I have refuted in above and this post with links!!

 

[Punya Pratap]

The only fault of the IAF is that they actually believed ADA/HAL. The truth is there for all to see. Where is the LCA?

p2prada I hope you understand that IAF is nt at all a knight in shinning armour without any taint on it... The reason why I have taken the K10 issue was coz I wanted to prove with links and facts how IAF also put up the hurdles to Tejas becoming a success. I do hope if not a nameless person like me you will atleast believe what Arun Prakash the IN Retd chief had to say about IAF not willing to participate in developing Tejas monetarily or intellectually

Snecma had nothing to do with it. The British wanted money which we didn't have and the Egyptians failed. That's why Marut failed.

Snecma was approached for and I quote :

Originally planned to fly with the 3700 Kg afterburning Orpheus B.Or 12 (Bristol Orpheus) engine and let down by successive failures to acquire the RB-153, SNECMA Atar 09K-53. the super Atar M-53 and finally the RB-199, the HF-24 entered service and served for the rest of its 15 year career with the critically underpowered license built Orpheus 703.

 

[Punya Pratap]

Double Post

 

[p2prada]

THE IAF FIRST SAID THE K 10 WILL TAKE VERY LONG SINCE SNECMA SAID IT WILL TAKE GTRE 15 YEARS BUT THE ABOVE STATEMENT BY SNECMA CEO CONTRADICTS IAF CLAIMS.
SECOND CLAIM WAS ECO CORE CANNOT BE USED SINCE AS PER IAF IT WONT PRODUCE MORE THAN 2000 lbs THRUST AND THERE IS NO FURTHER POTENTIAL TO ECO CORE....READ MY WORDS THE ECO CORE WIL BE THE BASE FOR THE NEXT HIGHER THRUST ENGINE OF SNECMA ONLY MMRCA DEAL WILL BE FUNDING THAT DEVELOPMENT AND FRENCH WOULD BENIFIT NOT GTRE OR TEJAS!!!

Regular engines like K-10 are obsolete. The future is VCE.

IAF did not want an expensive JV for K-10, and mind you that K-10 has nothing to do with LCA. K-10 was meant for AMCA. IAF did not want GTRE to spend a lot of money over something that they could develop by themselves. Kaveri was delinked from LCA and this was ADA's decision. GTRE can't simply jump back into the program when ADA has already signed the contract for F414.

I will repeat again, K-10 has nothing to do with LCA. LCA's engine is GE F414, not K-10. Whether K-10 fails or not, it won't affect LCA. Nor does it affect MRCA. But it does affect AMCA.

So, keep your K-10 conspiracy restricted to AMCA, not LCA or MRCA.

ECO core is not a base for any new engine development program in France. Even the French are moving on to higher 5th and 6th gen technologies that they will develop with the British in the FCAS program.

IAF wants GTRE to continue developing Kaveri into more advanced engines. They can achieve K-10 level technology without major foreign input.

Btw, K-10 was a poorly thought out program, that's why it had to be canceled. Basically, they ----ed up. The K-10 did not come with core 5th gen features like supercruise. It was just a regular engine meant to complete the Kaveri program. What IAF needs now is a new gen engine, with reduced IR, UV and radar signatures, with supercruise and variable cycle technologies. Something that is part of the FGFA program, but not part of K-10.

There is a chance HAL will be tasked to develop a new engine for AMCA. There are rumors going around that GTRE will "shut shop" after Kaveri program is complete.

 

[p2prada]

Snecma was approached for and I quote :

Originally planned to fly with the 3700 Kg afterburning Orpheus B.Or 12 (Bristol Orpheus) engine and let down by successive failures to acquire the RB-153, SNECMA Atar 09K-53. the super Atar M-53 and finally the RB-199, the HF-24 entered service and served for the rest of its 15 year career with the critically underpowered license built Orpheus 703.

I will repeat again. Snecma had nothing to do with the failure of Marut. It was the British, us and the Egyptians to blame.

Everybody was approached for engines, everybody refused. That doesn't mean only Snecma is to blame.

 

[Punya Pratap]

Regular engines like K-10 are obsolete. The future is VCE.

IAF did not want an expensive JV for K-10, and mind you that K-10 has nothing to do with LCA. K-10 was meant for AMCA. IAF did not want GTRE to spend a lot of money over something that they could develop by themselves. Kaveri was delinked from LCA and this was ADA's decision. GTRE can't simply jump back into the program when ADA has already signed the contract for F414.

I will repeat again, K-10 has nothing to do with LCA. LCA's engine is GE F414, not K-10. Whether K-10 fails or not, it won't affect LCA. Nor does it affect MRCA. But it does affect AMCA.

So, keep your K-10 conspiracy restricted to AMCA, not LCA or MRCA.

ECO core is not a base for any new engine development program in France. Even the French are moving on to higher 5th and 6th gen technologies that they will develop with the British in the FCAS program.

IAF wants GTRE to continue developing Kaveri into more advanced engines. They can achieve K-10 level technology without major foreign input.

Btw, K-10 was a poorly thought out program, that's why it had to be canceled. Basically, they ----ed up. The K-10 did not come with core 5th gen features like supercruise. It was just a regular engine meant to complete the Kaveri program. What IAF needs now is a new gen engine, with reduced IR, UV and radar signatures, with supercruise and variable cycle technologies. Something that is part of the FGFA program, but not part of K-10.

There is a chance HAL will be tasked to develop a new engine for AMCA. There are rumors going around that GTRE will "shut shop" after Kaveri program is complete.

I am very well aware of the fact that Kaveri was delinked from Tejas and I know the exact year for delinking and K 10 JV also which is clearly stated by me earlier also.

K 10 was conceived to be the MLU for Tejas and as long as there are 4th Gen & 4.5 th Gen planes flying in India and 3rd world country k10 will have plenty of scope. You cannot expect GTRE or any other Indian establishment to take an elevator to the top floor and design a 5th Gen engine with the parameters you are stating IAF set for K10.

The issue of K10 is brought up by me to highlight how the whole Tejas saga has unfolded and how interested parties manipulate... I am not supporting GTRE or IAF here but laying out the fact.

As I stated earlier we have messed up big time thanks to IAF/GTRE