[SmartCat]

Indian Air Force to hold limited trials of American F-16, Swedish Saab Gripen fighter aircraft
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/i.../1/976479.html

"We have chosen the two planes based on evaluation done by us seven years ago. For the Make in India project, we will now hold trials of only those capabilities which they were found to be lacking in these aircraft in those days," an IAF officer told Mail Today. Sources said during the M-MRCA trials, the F-16 was not selected as it was found that there was no potential for developing the aircraft further while the Saab Gripen did not have advanced radar called AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array), which was mandatory requirement in that project.

IAF sources said both the firms have informed the air force that they would be fully compliant to the requirements now as the American firm has come up with a latest version of the F-16 known as Block 70 while the Swedish firm has also acquired the advanced AESA radar.
"To test the new capabilities, there would a limited trial only and we are hoping to select and finalise the foreign partner within the next one year," the IAF sources said.

Hmm, deal maker Trump might push India for acquiring F-16 in return for? Easing the H1B norms for Indians?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Indian Air Force to hold limited trials of American F-16, Swedish Saab Gripen fighter aircraft

12 years have gone by in this evaluation that led to the Rafale being selected. Then the Govt couldn't conclude a contract because of the clause that HAL should be the license producer and Dassault opined HAL was simply not efficient or organized enough for tech transfer that Dassault could stand warranty on. Now we half re-start again. The organization that suffers is the IAF - not the IAS babus or HAL. Why is our nation held ransom to the likes of HAL.

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

12 years have gone by in this evaluation that led to the Rafale being selected. Then the Govt couldn't conclude a contract because of the clause that HAL should be the license producer and Dassault opined HAL was simply not efficient or organized enough for tech transfer that Dassault could stand warranty on. Now we half re-start again. The organization that suffers is the IAF - not the IAS babus or HAL. Why is our nation held ransom to the likes of HAL.

I beg to take a different point of view.

The Rafale contract could not materialize because of Dassault's obduracy and arm-twisting. It knew all along that the tender terms require the vendor to give guarantee for all the 126 planes, including the 108 to be built by HAL in India. If this requirement was not acceptable to Dassault, it should not have responded to the tender. The tender terms clearly specified that Indian assembly is to take place at HAL. You cannot ask for change of tender terms after you have been selected. The IAF and Govt. of India also messed up things. Knowing fully well that Dassault was acting tough, the IAF chief Raha made the entirely avoidable and foolish statement that IAF does not have a Plan B if the deal with Dassault does not materialize, seriously compromising the country's bargaining position viz a viz the French.

What is the need to float a tender for single engined fighter when the home grown Tejas is ready? At a time when air forces all over the world are reducing the number of aircraft types to improve logistics management, our IAF is needlessly multiplying the aircraft makes, inducting them in sub-optimal numbers. As a matter of policy, IAF should not be inducting less than 10 squadrons of any combat aircraft.

This tender should be scrapped and the order should go to Tejas. If necessary, we should set up yet another production line since even the "soon- to-be-increased" production rate of 16 planes per year is inadequate to meet the shortfall.

HAL may not be having the best work culture but it is certainly not holding the nation to ransom. It is the only Indian company with the demonstrated capability to design/build/service/overhaul military planes. On the contrary, it is the likes of Dassault that hold the nation to ransom but then our decision makers aren't complaining are they? Where is the guarantee that the likes of Reliance will not hold the nation to ransom if military production were to be handed over to them? Unlike China, India's defence purchases aren't guided by national interest. They are guided by the commercial interests of foreign vendors who have deep pockets to influence our decision makers. India uses its defence orders as a tool of diplomacy. We buy from Russia to keep the Russians happy. We buy from France to keep the French happy. We buy from US to keep the Americans happy. National interest is the last priority.

It's a sad state of affairs. It seems Tejas is headed the Marut way!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by directinjection

I beg to take a different point of view.

I always look forward to your posts as they are rich with facts and offer a varied perspective.

It knew all along that the tender terms require the vendor to give guarantee for all the 126 planes, including the 108 to be built by HAL in India. If this requirement was not acceptable to Dassault, it should not have responded to the tender. The tender terms clearly specified that Indian assembly is to take place at HAL. You cannot ask for change of tender terms after you have been selected.

Agree with you. My bad to have poked only HAL. Dassault acted over clever and we did not have the negotiating acumen or political will (which we ought to as the single largest export customer by a mile)

What is the need to float a tender for single engined fighter when the home grown Tejas is ready? At a time when air forces all over the world are reducing the number of aircraft types to improve logistics management, our IAF is needlessly multiplying the aircraft makes, inducting them in sub-optimal numbers. As a matter of policy, IAF should not be inducting less than 10 squadrons of any combat aircraft.

Agree 101% on each count. I am all for inducting Tejas and then improving it step by step. That's what the Chinese do.

HAL may not be having the best work culture but it is certainly not holding the nation to ransom. It is the only Indian company with the demonstrated capability to design/build/service/overhaul military planes. Where is the guarantee that the likes of Reliance will not hold the nation to ransom if military production were to be handed over to them?

I am no friend of the big R any more than I am of HAL. For the sake of the nation a PSU monopoly is as bad as a private sector one. We need to develop our private sector to contribute to defence production and R&D and free our Armed Forces from the likes of DRDO, HAL and the Ordnance Boards.

It's a sad state of affairs. It seems Tejas is headed the Marut way!

I sincerely hope not.

[Redline6800]

It is important to remember that Dassault actually played around with our procurement system and was eventually rewarded with an order for 36 airplanes.

There is no doubt however, that the Rafale is a fantastic airplane and since it is wholly French made, there will be no issues with sanctions at any time in the future. India is free to use it for any offensive role (even nuclear carriage).

India will be the first country in the region to induct the Meteor very long range ramjet powered beyond visual range air to air missle, which will be a game changer as it will allow for engagement of fighter class targets at double or even triple the range of existing missiles in the IAF inventory.

Just as a happy ownership experience with a particular brand, often leads to a repeat purchase, The same was the case with the IAF, the Mirage 2000 was the apple of the IAF's eye and everyone I have spoken to on the Mirage 2000, absolutely loves the aircraft.

Hence, the Rafale was always the logical class for a fighter aircraft for the IAF - especially when India is focusing more on defence against China.

Two-engines, excellent electronic warfare (EW), large weapons-payload and ability to defend itself deep in Enemy territory - is the primary reason for the purchase of an aircraft that costs more than Rs 600 crore a piece and atleast double that amount to operate over a service life of 30 plus years (including a mid-life upgrade).

[Nav-i-gator]

US can never be relied upon when it comes to defence. They will never allow full ToT of critical technologies like engines, AESA radar etc and may restrict parts availability to arm - twist us in case of a war. It is better to collaborate with Israeli industries as it is more or less the same technology the US uses.

Tejas is still not having a capable engine to make it as potent as its airframe capabilities. But is definitely a stepping stone worthy enough for the next generation AMCA project.

36 Rafale jets deal is basically a single squadron with a few aircrafts for trying out reverse engineering. With Russian air-frames being used and redesigned extensively by China, it is a need to go for distinctively non-russian origin aircrafts to maintain some degree of equilibrium on our northern front.

I don't think IAF would ever like to go for the ageing F-16 airframe. The test flights I guess are for collaborating under "make in India" to use some of the "still relevant" technologies that can be used on Tejas/AMCA or any future similar indigenous project.In that sense, F-16 is not a bad deal to get if we get full ToT and a dedicated assembly line here in India.

[Patriot_Vishwas]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

US can never be relied upon when it comes to defence. They will never allow full ToT of critical technologies like engines, AESA radar etc and may restrict parts availability to arm - twist us in case of a war. It is better to collaborate with Israeli industries as it is more or less the same technology the US uses.

No such thing as "Full ToT" in my opinion.
And even collaboration with Israel in niche areas may be subject to US approval.

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Tejas is still not having a capable engine to make it as potent as its airframe capabilities.

Quantify please.

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

36 Rafale jets deal is basically a single squadron with a few aircrafts for trying out reverse engineering.

Two Sqns. 18+18.
And no "reverse engineering".
India does respect Intellectual Property rights of the developers.

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

I don't think IAF would ever like to go for the ageing F-16 airframe. The test flights I guess are for collaborating under "make in India" to use some of the "still relevant" technologies that can be used on Tejas/AMCA or any future similar indigenous project.In that sense, F-16 is not a bad deal to get if we get a *poof* dedicated assembly line here in India.

Agreed.
India needs to develop her young workforce in high skill areas such as these and this deal if and when it gets signed, will be a very good "dhakka start".

I for one want to see the F16s in the VayuSena.
Several thousand in service, proven in combat, has the IAF's respect and can be MKIsed in the "Sufa" manner to suit our requirements.
And it makes sense to team up with the Americans as the Chinese will get more belligerent in the coming decades.

"We have to start looking at how do we carry out counter-encirclement for our future adversaries. Developing alliances, developing friends to overcome the (current) deficiency is important. That must be part of our strategic thought process," he said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/58521177.cms
My 50Paisa.

[Redline6800]

The IAF just like a diligent car buyer had projected its requirement for a new platform and secured budgetary approval, quite some time earlier, so there is no surprise on what the IAF wanted.

It estimated correctly, that replacing its Mig-21 (equivalent to Maruti 800 in car terms) and MiG-27 (equivalent to HM Contessa in car terms) would be an expensive proposition.

At that time - LCA (equivalent to Tata Indica in car terms and budget wise) was thought to be the ideal solution.

I would like to compare the LCA and the IAF to the car buyer and his purchase.

1. Does the car buyer expect his purchase to be of comparable performance and as reliable to similar products on the market? YES

The LCA is often compared to the Gripen, which has better performance and is more reliable. Of-course this also because Saab was/is better aligned to the global order and has been making aircraft since the 50’s, while India became isolated from the world from the 60’s to the 90’s and resorted to license production of fighter aircraft, after the Marut.

The LCA simply requires more time to get to the level of the Gripen and the user, which is the IAF, would prefer an aircraft which meets its requirements for performance and reliability. This is to be met by the Tejas Mk2 - which has not flown yet.

2. Consider usage of the car buyer - urban (light steering, fuel efficient, softer-suspension, avg-brakes acceptable, range or boot space not a major consideration, normally driven with only 1 or 2 people on board or Highway - heavier steering, stiffer suspension, good-brakes a must, range and boot space a major consideration and normally driven with four passengers or lots of luggage.

The LCA performs well in the air-combat role with short-range (read: urban use) and less so as a multi-role bomb truck with longer-range (read: highway use).

Again no fault of the aeroplane – expecting an Alto be as equivalent on the highway as the Baleno is unfair and the Alto is better suited to tackling narrow roads with heavy traffic and will be more fuel efficient and cheaper to maintain.

While the IAF initially wanted a light fighter for air-defence with some ground-attack capability (against Pakistan), it now needs an aircraft that can also conduct offensive missions with a useful bomb load and with sufficient performance to escape or make it through enemy defences such as fighters and SAM defences (read: China).

3. Does it matter to the car buyer and his family that the product is designed and made in India or not - especially when the lives of the driver and his family are dependent on the product? NO

An argument often put forward, is that, since the LCA is made in India - it is by definition totally awesome and the IAF and its pilots should bend-over backwards and accept the product, even if the aircraft is over 10 years behind schedule and the requirements of the service have changed.

In-fact the LCA Mk1 has a very good comparison with the Tata Indica - great products, poor execution (initial models), not so-great service support and a driving and ownership experience, that left early owners frustrated.

The LCA Mk2 – is essentially an Indica V2 with the engine, suspension, interiors of the Bolt but what the IAF really wants now is an i20 diesel.

Once the design is finalised on an aircraft or automobile - there is not much that can be done to change the final product. Changes are done in iterations and are rarely as good as a good design out of the box and are more expensive/time consuming.

When you think of the IAF as Team BHP – honest, fair, uncompromising in its requirements when it comes to a particular platform (hatchback, sedan, SUV, etc and HAL/DRDO as Tata Motors (as an example and before it acquired Jaguar -Land Rover) it becomes clear.

The IAF is a highly professional air-arm that has won the respect of its adversaries and admiration ot its professional contemporaries world-wide. It is however, a harsh customer and will only buy the product that meets its very stringent requirements. Nothing less can be expected from the custodian of the nation’s air-defence in a very tough neighborhood.

India’s aerospace industry at the present moment can be considered to be in the same position as India’s automotive industry in the late 90’s/early 2000s (Indica, Scorpio, Pulsar).

It requires at least another decade to come up with competitive world-class products.

In-fact this is exactly what the Tejas Mk2 and its follow-on products will be.

The reason the IAF wants to buy another single-engine fighter now is ramping up Tejas production will take some time and the IAF will need a new plane, as large numbers of MiG-21s and MiG-27s retire in the next 5 years.
It will also take time to create the infrastructure and training pipeline for a new aircraft type.

The new aircraft will also have to cater to the threat perception and aircraft that will be available with our adversaries over the next 20 years at the very least.

[Patriot_Vishwas]

Rebuttals to some points,from my side

Originally Posted by Redline6800

The LCA is often compared to the Gripen, which has better performance and is more reliable.

Untrue.
The LCA/Tejas has an unblemished record in flight safety.
Zero Indian lives lost because of this machine.
And I'd bet on the Tejas as far as performance is concerned as well: Lighter aircraft, comparable MTOWs, More powerful engine, Higher fuel capacity(internal).
Saab is well known for exaggerating the specifications so please take their data with a pinch of salt.
And the Tejas has to work in more brutal conditions:From the oxygen starved airfields high up in the Himalayas in mid May conditions to searing deserts of Jaisalmer.

Originally Posted by Redline6800

The LCA simply requires more time to get to the level of the Gripen and the user, which is the IAF, would prefer an aircraft which meets its requirements for performance and reliability. This is to be met by the Tejas Mk2 - which has not flown yet.

Again I disagree.
The Tejas in it's FOC avatar will be better than the Gripen C/D.
The IAF has already expressed intent to purchase the Mark 1A(83 Units, IIRC) and this fully meets the IAF's immediate requirements.
Will have an AESA Radar, self protection Jammers and other essentials to make it more survivable.
This is in addition to the Tejas' already small Radar signature.

Originally Posted by Redline6800

The LCA performs well in the air-combat role with short-range (read: urban use) and less so as a multi-role bomb truck with longer-range (read: highway use).

Disagree again.
The Tejas is fully multirole.
The range issue is specific to allin her class and can be addressed with Air to Air refuelling.
The Tejas is a LightCombat Aircraft.

Again no fault of the aeroplane – expecting an Alto be as equivalent on the highway as the Baleno is unfair and the Alto is better suited to tackling narrow roads with heavy traffic and will be more fuel efficient and cheaper to maintain.

+1

Originally Posted by Redline6800

An argument often put forward, is that, since the LCA is made in India - it is by definition totally awesome and the IAF and its pilots should bend-over backwards and accept the product, even if the aircraft is over 10 years behind schedule and the requirements of the service have changed.

That is an argument made by the ignorant and I am against it.

On a cheerful note:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_7HGD61wLQ

[V.Narayan]

Page 5 post #74 ... my thoughts from an earlier thread on the step by step methods of the Chinese.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commer...fighter-5.html

They don't at first attempt try to reach the sky...they go step by step in improving the product and accepting that in the earlier years it will not be perfect or meet every specification. And with time they develop a combat aircraft that is 90% of what they need but fully indigenous.

The Indian Navy followed the same route which is why today they have put in service INS Arihant in the same time frame that DRDO & HAL and IAF could not put in to service the Tejas LCA. Mind you I love Tejas and hope it is put into at least limited squadron service so that we learn how to develop our own machines & how to make them better - these matters need to be measured over the lifetime of a nation. The IAF (whom I otherwise have the deepest respect & love for) adopted an approach we need standard 3X and don't care if it comes from HAL or Mig USSR or Dassault France. The Navy said hey we need 3X specs but if it can be built in India (mainly Max Docks) I'll settle for 2.5X and help design it and work with the PSU to build it and buy 6 indigenously built instead of 3 foreign built. Other big big big difference is that the Navy designs its own warships from top to bottom. The designers called the Naval Constructor Corps are men & women in naval whites. They kept the DRDO out by and large.

We cannot compromise with IAF needs but we can say lets commission 3 squadrons to help boost numbers and get some value for the investment the nation has made in Tejas. Let it be our second line but let it be in service.

Clearly Smartcat has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons.

[himanshugoswami]

Will have an AESA Radar, self protection Jammers and other essentials to make it more survivable.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt the GE 404 too underpowered to support an AESA? The GE 414 EPE is yet to be integrated with the LCA.

[Redline6800]

AESA radar and GE 404 are two separate things.

The GE 414 is for the Tejas MK2

An Israeli radar has already been selected for Tejas Mk2

[Redline6800]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Page 5 post #74 ... my thoughts from an earlier thread on the step by step methods of the Chinese.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commer...fighter-5.html

The Indian Navy followed the same route which is why today they have put in service INS Arihant in the same time frame that DRDO & HAL and IAF could not put in to service the Tejas LCA.

We cannot compromise with IAF needs but we can say lets commission 3 squadrons to help boost numbers and get some value for the investment the nation has made in Tejas. Let it be our second line but let it be in service.

Sir, Many of the Chinese aircraft are overrated and use technology that is decades old. It is in the interest of western arms manufacturers and major western powers to create mythical status for these products for greater exports of their own products and increased defence budgets.

India has been intelligent enough not to make a copy of a Su-30 and has taken the harder route of developing a credible indian aerospace capability.

The Arihant has been in development for decades and is essentially a copy of an dated Russian design.

The Arihant is not yet a credible part of India's nuclear triad and while it does have nuclear tipped missiles, it is more likely being used as a technology demonstrator and only the follow-on submarines from the class can be counted as being of deterrent value.

India's greatest success in the field of defence manufacturing has been its missile development programmes and HAL's rotorcraft programme.

We now have a family of homegrown helicopters in the Dhruv and LCH and LUH (both under development).

With regards to Tejas - orders have already been placed for 40 and will order atleast 80 Tejas Mk2 variants.

[Redline6800]

I provided the analogy of the aircraft with an automobile, so as to as to illustrate the difficulty in developing in high-technology products.

In the case of Tata, Mahindra and Bajaj, these were Indian private sector companies that had to fight for market share and had to develop products to stay relevant in the market.

India’s defence PSU’s have a captive buyer in the armed forces – every product they make is touted as world-class, when that is obviously not the case.

Access to high-technology items for India’s defence industry is also difficult.
Tata could purchase Jaguar and Land-Rover, Bajaj could purchase KTM, it is almost impossible for HAL or BEL to purchase a company for technology purposes.

The orders for 40 Tejas aircraft were placed in 2006 (20) and 2009 (20), only three have been delivered till date.

Is it fair that the armed forces have to buy indigenously developed and built products, especially when many of these products are decades behind contemporary military tactics/technologies of the day?

Would any of us as customers wait for years for a car we have ordered and believe the manufacturers claims (sir, we will fix all these problems before delivery).

All this when we have an urgent requirement for a car?

Would we not in such a case buy a car from another manufacturer, why must the IAF then, be made to wait and buy a product, which is not yet ready?

The LCA/Tejas has an unblemished record in flight safety as a developmental aircraft (an achievement definitely worthy of applause indeed) and not one that is in squadron service.

Yes, the aircraft has an excellent safety record thus far and this is because each sortie is flown by a highly experienced test pilot, the aircraft makes most of its sorties right outside its factory in Bangalore and the other sorties have considerable maintenance support.

Regards, the other comments, please remember airborne tankers and AWACS assets are vulnerable to enemy attack.

They are treated as force-multipliers but cannot make up for the shortfall in the aircraft’s basic performance.

Hence, the requirement for the Tejas Mk2 which should meet all the requirements of the air force, but it is yet to fly.

I Have had the good fortune to closely observe not only the Tejas but also other indigenous Indian military aircraft, and am confident that India’s will soon have its place in the Sun, when it comes to aerospace products that the world will want to buy.

[skanchan95]

The sad truth is the Tejas is simply not good enough in its current form. There was pathetic video on youtube in which someone form HAL was claiming in an interview that the LCA was better than the Mirage 2000!!! With such ostriches working in HAL, how can one expect HAL to do well and bring out world class, indigenously developed fighter?

The Navy's lack of interest and Air Force's reluctance to accept it (in its current form) just proves it. The need for a bigger Mk.2, which will take a long time to develop (considering the time it too for the Mk.1) just might prove to be the final nail in its coffin. But I sincerely hope that its not.

What really hurts is that the JF-17 seems to be developing at a far faster rate than the Tejas. Surely it may be 99.9% Chinese developed and the Pakis have nearly zero percent contribution in developing the jet, but when it comes to the JF-17,the Pakis have a lot to gloat about.

Myanmar bound JF-17s (replacements for Nanchang A-5s) just took off on their first trial flights, and HAL is still developing an acceptable Mk.1A variant!!!!