Air Chief Marshal Raha to visit Sweden - LCA MK2 aka Gripen IN

[MilSpec]

just ignore and report derails.

Unless you can point out what floor the LCA has then please do keep your unsolicited opinions to yourself. The LCA has met every requirement the IAF has put in front of it and has not suffered a single airframe loss to date, what more can it do?

You wouldn't be doing this with a fundamentally flawed aircraft:

^Night time launch of the N-LCA from the ramp at the SBTF


In the day:

Maybe the PAF's experience with the JF-17 has inspired this entire post where, despite having their "own" fighter the JF-17, they are still desperatley trying to get the ancient F-16?

 

[randomradio]

How much does a rivet cutter costs in north-central France compared to Bangalore? I have been part of enough ToT's to tell you that estimated PLM costs for different geographical regions with different set of suppliers, tax regimes, and labor productivity are never consistent from the evaluation done on any other set.

I know. But I have provided a decent comparison of costs in France and India for the M-2000. The costs are in India's favour. So it should be lower than what's in France by the time production stabilizes.

And unlike before, Dassault will be heading the program in India, not HAL, so costs will be better controlled.

But I do agree that the LCC costs are not consistent with the bids. However, we have official spares and maintenance costs of Rafales from French operations, so it's not very difficult to get a figure using their market as a base.

There is no reason to doubt that there is an insurmountable difference between the EFT and Rafale when it comes to LCC costs in Europe.

What did it fail? what metrics, what were the criterions, let IAF make all of those transparent and we can discuss.

Turn rates because of the CFTs. And if you remove CFTs, the F-16 gets bad range. Its basic performance is woefully inadequate.

The graph I've posted shows a heaven and earth difference between the F-16 and Gripen-E, and among other aircraft like the Rafale/Tiffy and the Raptor. The Rafale's performance in the chart is legit, and SAAB has promised better performance than the other Eurocanards on the Gripen.

 

[Taygibay]

This is not a fight the LCA would win IMO as the IAF top brass are obsessed with maximsing operational capabilties and haven't quite switched over to the mindset of supoorting local industry.

No, simply no my friend!
The IAF already supports the local industry in all sectors by keeping it safe from enemy attacks on Bharat.
Don't forget that those pilots will risk their lives to defend LCA prod line whether flying a Raffy or a Fokker Dr.I.
Anyone from anywhere should want their armed forces to get the best equipment available. Even USA buys foreign at times.

France itself doesn't have a manned fighter project for post the Rafale, why not the AMCA? @Taygibay

Very complex question!
To answer it properly, I must be blunt to keep it simple which may ruffle a few Peacock feathers.

The difference of quality / experience & means is a little bit too important.
Going from DRDO drawing up a new tech to almost all DPSU producing it
shows how just making the product is a challenge. The industry tries to follow.
In France, the innovations stem from marrying the industrial research ( private )
with fundamental one, not only fulfilling but sometimes creating new mil goals.

Merging the two ( DGA's excellent job in Fr ) does not even follow the same process.

The research for fighter evolution is currently extant under the nEUROn/FCAS.
Not to mean that a different program would not make sense if it was for a purely
manned version with no compromises, i.e. not tied to diktats of stealth ab initio.
In that case, both money and roles in the project would be sticking points ( for short ).

The industrialization would be a heartbreak to both sides.
It is literally impossible that France would give away industrialization of higher tech.
India would get a lot of work, possibly more than 40% worth on all birds ever made
either screwdrivergiri for HAL et al or turned to the private sector which is not the norm.
Selling core industrial work would be as hard to sell to the French public opinion as
the GoI not getting full measurable, in the pocket advances and/or benefits to its own.

I'm not saying it's impossible though but I'll offer a new Franco_Indian nuke carrier class
as just as important and easier/faster to set-up with similar geo-stategic implications.


MilSpec said: ↑
along with a specialized LCA- Lift variants ( with specialized cockpit simulators for Rafale/MKI/FGFA/AMCA, instead of traditional control, why, because we can)
httx://defence.pk/threads/air-chief-marshal-raha-to-visit-sweden-lca-mk2-aka-gripen-in.433861/page-5#ixzz4Ay2BgmNe

Couldn't agree with this more, why any more effort is being given to the HJT-36 now I just don't understand. The need of the IAF is for a supersonic LIFT and the LCA can fit the bill perfectly and, as you have pointed out, all it takes is the will because the capability is there.

No specialized cockpits, guys! Simulated training missions yes but on a single cockpit.
Just think that your MKI has a throttle stuck on stick but the Rafale has dual joysticks.
And you couldn't simulate mechanical / FBW / FBL controls or would they be different?

It's the weapons systems that need to be trained in realistic flight missions, adapting to
an aircraft is the pilots' job. The LCA could indeed fit that requirement once stabilized.

When did the IAF's needs get so important?

They always were but it was compounded by technological advances that changed the
jetfighters' world in the last 50 years and dereliction in replacing its dwindling numbers.
The IAF's needs also follow geo-pol changes. Where was China's AF in the 1960s?

What did it fail? what metrics, what were the criterions, let IAF make all of those transparent and we can discuss.

No! Making such detailed results available would be wrong. If you are too precise in
revealing your choice criteria, the reasons and means you were looking for in a RFP
or other acquisition, you're giving away tactics at the same time. Just remember that
in international training exercises, sharing of sensors' results by way of data links is a
problem because it gives too much information on said sensors' way of functioning.
630 of them in MMRCA would almost give the whole IAF tactical book away.

Oh, and really, you were prompt, guys to answer hussain! I understand the national itch
but to be honest, I still have doubts on Tejas myself. Let's allow for differences of opinion?

Have a great day, Abingdon mate, Mil Spec and the rest, Tay.

 

[randomradio]

This is where the LCA Mk.1A comes in, it is more than sufficent to meet the IAF's point-defence/air policing role until the MK.2 comes in. If required HAL can even expand production beyond 16 MK.1A/year.

Bro, I already mentioned in my post that we will choose 2 aircraft if LCA cannot be purchased in enough numbers.

The benefiting organistion needs a competitor, since when has this been a consideration when making defence deals in India? Since when has the MoD/GoI sought to balance out the defence industry by giving mulitple contracts for the same role? Did the MoD do this with the C-295 deal? The SPG (K9) deal? This is very bizarre logic here sir. And IF this is the consideration then no Indian competitor will be formed by going for the F-18, Boeing will set up a 100% owned subsidary in India that will close down once the F-18 SH orders are complete. This is all rather long winded and clearly contradictory.

It's sensible and part of the govt process to build an aerospace industry.

LEMOA will ikely be signed this year but CISMOA and BECA won't and these agreements along with many others need to be signed for India to get US fighters but with elections in the US their govt will effectively stop functioning for the next 18-24 months. India isn't going to wait, the MII deal with Dassualt will be signed this fiscal (before March 2017) and then it is game over, no more foriegn MMRCA will be considered.

CISMOA and BECA are unnecessary for fighter jets. The American jets don't have sensor fusion. BECA is irrelevant here. And as for CISMOA, we plan to use our own radios, datalink and IFF which will make CISMOA irrelevant also.

The 36 Rafale deal will be signed this month, then the 90 unit deal will be given to Rafale that can be expanded at anytime. In addtion to this the LCA will be churned out at a respectable rate and by 2018/19 there will be 3 fighter production lines in India churning out a combined 50 jets a year. At this rate the IAF will have its needs met within 5-6 years ie by 2025.

When you say 3 production lines, are you saying it will be Rafale, LCA and another LCA or Rafale, LCA and imported MRCA?

The second LCA line is entirely irrelevant if that's the case. The requirement for imports is 300 and we apparently cannot afford that many Rafales for the IAF. And production demand should cater to the IN also.

For imports, it's like this:
Rafale - 90
SH/F-16/Gripen - 90

Basically, 300 imports are set in stone. The type of jets aren't. For now it could be 90, 90, 90 in 3 MRCA deals, or 120+, 120+ in two MRCA deals. But Rafale deal + another import is also set in stone.

And numbers could easily increase above that, based on a lot of unknown factors.

It's the simplest scenerio, I don't see where there is scope for a 4th or 5th production line, it doesn't make any kind of sense to me. If the MoD is really this concernedabout India's airpower they aren't acting like it, they are still messing around with the finer details of the Rafale deal instead of focusing on ordering it, the Super upgrade is still pending for the MKI and even the re-engining of the Jaguar DARIN IIIs hasn't been given the go ahead.

In terms of budget, IAF has $120B to spend over the next 12 years. With their projects getting higher priority, they can get 3 new MRCA programs easily.

Do you remember Rafale MMRCA was $120M each for 126 jets? That means SH and Gripen would be less than that. For arguments sake, let's assume SH is $100M and Gripen is $80M. At 90 jets each, that's $9B and $7B. That's just $31B for procuring the jets. Add training, infrastructure, weapons etc, which could add 50% to the cost of the procurement and we get about $46B. That's less than 40% of the IAF's procurement budget. So there's plenty of room for new technologies to be introduced in time, apart from upgrading our current jets.

and most importantly the IN is 100% commited to it,

The N-LCA Mk2 is a very different bird compared to the AF Mk2.

Very complex question!
To answer it properly, I must be blunt to keep it simple which may ruffle a few Peacock feathers.

The difference of quality / experience & means is a little bit too important.
Going from DRDO drawing up a new tech to almost all DPSU producing it
shows how just making the product is a challenge. The industry tries to follow.
In France, the innovations stem from marrying the industrial research ( private )
with fundamental one, not only fulfilling but sometimes creating new mil goals.

Merging the two ( DGA's excellent job in Fr ) does not even follow the same process.

The research for fighter evolution is currently extant under the nEUROn/FCAS.
Not to mean that a different program would not make sense if it was for a purely
manned version with no compromises, i.e. not tied to diktats of stealth ab initio.
In that case, both money and roles in the project would be sticking points ( for short ).

The industrialization would be a heartbreak to both sides.
It is literally impossible that France would give away industrialization of higher tech.
India would get a lot of work, possibly more than 40% worth on all birds ever made
either screwdrivergiri for HAL et al or turned to the private sector which is not the norm.
Selling core industrial work would be as hard to sell to the French public opinion as
the GoI not getting full measurable, in the pocket advances and/or benefits to its own.

I'm not saying it's impossible though but I'll offer a new Franco_Indian nuke carrier class
as just as important and easier/faster to set-up with similar geo-stategic implications.

According to an ADLA pilot on IDF, there will be a new air superiority UCAV post 2030, apart from FCAS.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

@Abingdonboy

Sorry I am late for this discussion. Still..

I will give you one word.. Only one word bcz of which DM MP won't talk seriously about Gripen ever unless he eats his words and changes multiple things including blacklisting a firm. The word is

Finmeccanica

If you do a simple google search and see what is that company's contribution in Gripen E program and you will come to know about radar, IFF, EW suite , IRST, expendable jammers, etc...

Now we know about Saab integration capabilities but replacing say the radar with 2052 will also require other set of things like IFF system, EW suite, IRST etc to be changed as well.. Also the missiles needs to be re certified .. LR BVR Meteor I am not sure with 2052 will be able to provide a complete midcourse update. Of course Derby, Derby ER and Python will become the mainstay and rest of the armamnets will be again more Israeli then the present weapon set of Gripen E unless all matching and re certification is carried out (with a cost which has to be norned by India).

Now imagine a situation where DM MP agrees for Gripen E with present Finmeccanica systems. So then why the drama of blacklisting. And on priority is Gripen E higher or blackshark Heavy water torpedoes which are not just for scorpenes but also for Arihant and Aridhaman and rest of the fleet of SSBN based on the past roadmap for blackshark torpedoes.

In case all Finmeccanica is swapped by Israeli products and other off the shelf sub systems what about the cost differential, time required for certification and the ability/capability of Gripen E with its European weapon set versus Israeli weapons plus Astra Mk1 combination.

I am sure DM MP won't like such headaches.. He would rather go for LSA project of Vstol or else its still LCA program with further increasing numbers to 24 and may be a new partner to build another 16 and make it 40 jets a year (24+16).

If we go by so called year needs versus actual steps being taken then we all know it's a farce unless we only do LCA, Rafale and FGFA in a big way under MII and also procure a good number off the shelf for Rafale and FGFA

 

[Nilgiri]

Thanks for the tags everywhere @Abingdonboy , I was on business trip and only got back now.

Interesting reads as usual and I mostly concur with you.

 

[randomradio]

If you do a simple google search and see what is that company's contribution in Gripen E program and you will come to know about radar, IFF, EW suite , IRST, expendable jammers, etc...

SAAB wants to replace those with the stuff being made for LCA anyway. That's their pitch. It would be great if they pick a new IRST from Israel and stick that into the LCA also.

An Israeli radar, Indo-Israeli EW suite, an Israeli IRST, Indian communication systems, Indian datalink which was designed by the Israelis and then fuse them all into one. And then stick whatever you get into both the LCA and Gripen.

I am sure DM MP won't like such headaches.. He would rather go for LSA project of Vstol

There is room for LSA also.

Avionics: The same stuff as above.