migflug
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,102
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Rafale and the Rationale for another Light Weight Fighter
Published April 24, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: myind.net
India has scrapped the Rs 90,000 crore (approximately $15 billion) MMRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets, 108 of which were to be produced in India by HAL. The move followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement April 10, 2015 that India had requested France to supply 36 Rafale jets in fly-away condition as quickly as possible under a government-to-government contract.
Defence minister Manohar Parrikar briefed the Indian press on the PM’s announcement on Monday, April 13, 2015. Here are some important points that he made.
The exact number of Rafales to be eventually purchased has not been decided.
“We have not purchased all 36 aircrafts. When there is a PM or President level deal, it is matter of principle clearance. We have promised to purchase 36 aircrafts. The major reason for the deal is to induct it in the minimum time frame. It is a good deal.”
Parrikar went on to allude that the number of Rafales purchased could be larger.
In a later interview with NDTV he clarified that the option to produce Rafale locally remained on the table.
Rafale is unaffordable as one-to-one MiG-21 replacement, as also an overkill!
Parrikar said, “Rafale is a top end fighter and satisfies other criterion as well. The aircraft is expensive and hence we have to take steps. The deal for 126 jets would have cost Rs 90,000 crore. Rafale cannot replace MiG-21. Tejas can do that.”
He explained that the Rafale was far more capable than what a MiG-21 replacement like Tejas needed to be. Rafale can carry twice the payload (24 tonnes) of a Tejas (10-12 tonnes) and loiter for hours. The aircraft’s 1000-km combat radius far exceed the 300-450 km combat radius of existing IAF aircraft.
Rafale is a strategic purchase.
Parrikar referred to the Rafale purchase as being strategic in nature raising speculation in the press that he was alluding to the aircraft being a nuclear weapon delivery platform.However, this is unlikely. Rafale does have a formidable range and the inbuilt ability to suppress enemy defenses while penetrating heavily contested airspace, but it would still need standoff precision guided air-to surface missiles to deliver nuclear warheads on targets. There is no evidence that France would be ready to sell such missiles to India, not to mention that the US would almost certainly scuttle such a deal with less than subtle arm twisting.
The alternative mode of nuclear weapon delivery is toss bombing, which is highly inaccurate, not to mention dangerous for the aircrew. Indeed, the air leg of India’s nuclear triad is a very dubious, if not non existent. But that is another story. Parrikar was more likely referring to the ability of the Rafale to hit Chinese industrial base.
The IAF might induct another lightweight, single engine fighter besides the Tejas.
Parrikar said the IAF would replace its MiG-21 fleet with LCA and possibly another lightweight fighter to be locally produced.
“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under ‘Make in India’, that is also possible. If we build another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21″, said the minister.
Clear Vision
The government seems to have a clear vision. Its plan is to quickly halt IAF fighter fleet depletion caused by obsolescence of older MiG-21 variants, through an outright purchase of Rafale aircraft, and give itself time to explore more cost effective one-to-one MiG-21 replacement options.Strong on logic, Parrikar’s statement should have muted the press criticism of the Rafale purchase. Ironically, it has raised more hackles in a segment of the press.
Where does another lightweight fighter fit in when we have our LCA, is a recurring theme of the criticism being leveled. Why is ‘Make in India’ being abandoned? Here is a detailed explanation to both these queries.
MiG-21 Fleet Replacement Challenge
The MiG-21 fleet is large – almost 15 squadrons, or nearly 300 aircraft. The fleet is also far down the road towards obsolescence. The window of opportunity for the IAF to replace the fleet without dangerous depletion of its force levels is now small. Replacements need to take place at a steady and relentless pace as the looming obsolescence.
It’s true that the Tejas LCA Mk-1 is likely to become operational soon, but two important points need to be kept in mind. LCA Mk-1’s performance shortfalls and the LCA Mk-2’s uncertain development timeframe.The IAF doesn’t consider the LCA Mk-1 a worthy replacement for the MiG-21s on account of performance shortfalls caused by GTRE’s failure to develop the aircraft’s Kaveri engine; It’s well known that the Tejas doesn’t meet IAF Staff Qualitative Requirements.
The MiG-21 is primarily a home defense fighter with limited close air support ability. Tejas matches, or marginally exceeds the performance of the Bison, the most advanced MiG-21 variant. However, Tejas doesn’t have the required edge over Pakistan’s F-16 and JF-17 fighters, or Chinese J-10 and J-11 variant fighters. As a home defense fighter it should be clearly superior to enemy fighters. Remember the PLAAF will enjoy an overwhelming quantitative edge, and so will the PAF in any two front war. Without qualitative edge, the IAF will not be able to deliver on its commitment to safeguard Indian skies.The IAF is banking on the LCA Mk-2 to give it the qualitative edge that it so desperately needs Unfortunately, the Mk-2 is still on the drawing board!
In a proactive move, the IAF ordered 2 squadrons of Tejas LCA Mk-1 to streamline supply chain and maintenance support issues associated with operating the newly developed aircraft. This will ensure that when the Mk-2 (which is expected to feature large commonality of subsystems with Mk-1) is inducted into service, the aircraft can be operationally deployed in quick time.
ADA initially projected that LCA Mk-2 would make its first flight in 2014, with full-rate production to follow two years later. Considering that the final design of the aircraft has yet to be presented to MoD for release of development funds, first flight is unlikely before 2020. If you factor in the time required to complete the test program, obtain operational clearance, etc., it becomes clear that the LCA will at best partially replace the MiG-21 fleet. Another lightweight, single engine replacement in the force mix is inevitable.
Make in India Remains Enduring Theme
During the press conference, Parrikar clarified that “Make in India” continues to be an enduring theme of the current government.
“Make in India part of the deal will be discussed between ministries,” he said.
In his interview with NDTV referred to above, Parrikar explains why HAL is being kept out of the Rafale deal.”If HAL were to make Rafale, why would it push production of Tejas which would reduce our need for Rafale?” he asked?
The Rafale deals stipulates 50% offset obligation so its unfair to claim that the government has abandoned ‘Make in India.’ What the government has done is not allowed the ‘Make in India’ concept to compromise the nation’s security. Pragmatism has prevailed on a matter of national security. Can the government be faulted for it?
Rafale and the Rationale for another Light Weight Fighter
Published April 24, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: myind.net
India has scrapped the Rs 90,000 crore (approximately $15 billion) MMRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets, 108 of which were to be produced in India by HAL. The move followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement April 10, 2015 that India had requested France to supply 36 Rafale jets in fly-away condition as quickly as possible under a government-to-government contract.
Defence minister Manohar Parrikar briefed the Indian press on the PM’s announcement on Monday, April 13, 2015. Here are some important points that he made.
The exact number of Rafales to be eventually purchased has not been decided.
“We have not purchased all 36 aircrafts. When there is a PM or President level deal, it is matter of principle clearance. We have promised to purchase 36 aircrafts. The major reason for the deal is to induct it in the minimum time frame. It is a good deal.”
Parrikar went on to allude that the number of Rafales purchased could be larger.
In a later interview with NDTV he clarified that the option to produce Rafale locally remained on the table.
Rafale is unaffordable as one-to-one MiG-21 replacement, as also an overkill!
Parrikar said, “Rafale is a top end fighter and satisfies other criterion as well. The aircraft is expensive and hence we have to take steps. The deal for 126 jets would have cost Rs 90,000 crore. Rafale cannot replace MiG-21. Tejas can do that.”
He explained that the Rafale was far more capable than what a MiG-21 replacement like Tejas needed to be. Rafale can carry twice the payload (24 tonnes) of a Tejas (10-12 tonnes) and loiter for hours. The aircraft’s 1000-km combat radius far exceed the 300-450 km combat radius of existing IAF aircraft.
Rafale is a strategic purchase.
Parrikar referred to the Rafale purchase as being strategic in nature raising speculation in the press that he was alluding to the aircraft being a nuclear weapon delivery platform.However, this is unlikely. Rafale does have a formidable range and the inbuilt ability to suppress enemy defenses while penetrating heavily contested airspace, but it would still need standoff precision guided air-to surface missiles to deliver nuclear warheads on targets. There is no evidence that France would be ready to sell such missiles to India, not to mention that the US would almost certainly scuttle such a deal with less than subtle arm twisting.
The alternative mode of nuclear weapon delivery is toss bombing, which is highly inaccurate, not to mention dangerous for the aircrew. Indeed, the air leg of India’s nuclear triad is a very dubious, if not non existent. But that is another story. Parrikar was more likely referring to the ability of the Rafale to hit Chinese industrial base.
The IAF might induct another lightweight, single engine fighter besides the Tejas.
Parrikar said the IAF would replace its MiG-21 fleet with LCA and possibly another lightweight fighter to be locally produced.
“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under ‘Make in India’, that is also possible. If we build another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21″, said the minister.
Clear Vision
The government seems to have a clear vision. Its plan is to quickly halt IAF fighter fleet depletion caused by obsolescence of older MiG-21 variants, through an outright purchase of Rafale aircraft, and give itself time to explore more cost effective one-to-one MiG-21 replacement options.Strong on logic, Parrikar’s statement should have muted the press criticism of the Rafale purchase. Ironically, it has raised more hackles in a segment of the press.
Where does another lightweight fighter fit in when we have our LCA, is a recurring theme of the criticism being leveled. Why is ‘Make in India’ being abandoned? Here is a detailed explanation to both these queries.
MiG-21 Fleet Replacement Challenge
The MiG-21 fleet is large – almost 15 squadrons, or nearly 300 aircraft. The fleet is also far down the road towards obsolescence. The window of opportunity for the IAF to replace the fleet without dangerous depletion of its force levels is now small. Replacements need to take place at a steady and relentless pace as the looming obsolescence.
It’s true that the Tejas LCA Mk-1 is likely to become operational soon, but two important points need to be kept in mind. LCA Mk-1’s performance shortfalls and the LCA Mk-2’s uncertain development timeframe.The IAF doesn’t consider the LCA Mk-1 a worthy replacement for the MiG-21s on account of performance shortfalls caused by GTRE’s failure to develop the aircraft’s Kaveri engine; It’s well known that the Tejas doesn’t meet IAF Staff Qualitative Requirements.
The MiG-21 is primarily a home defense fighter with limited close air support ability. Tejas matches, or marginally exceeds the performance of the Bison, the most advanced MiG-21 variant. However, Tejas doesn’t have the required edge over Pakistan’s F-16 and JF-17 fighters, or Chinese J-10 and J-11 variant fighters. As a home defense fighter it should be clearly superior to enemy fighters. Remember the PLAAF will enjoy an overwhelming quantitative edge, and so will the PAF in any two front war. Without qualitative edge, the IAF will not be able to deliver on its commitment to safeguard Indian skies.The IAF is banking on the LCA Mk-2 to give it the qualitative edge that it so desperately needs Unfortunately, the Mk-2 is still on the drawing board!
In a proactive move, the IAF ordered 2 squadrons of Tejas LCA Mk-1 to streamline supply chain and maintenance support issues associated with operating the newly developed aircraft. This will ensure that when the Mk-2 (which is expected to feature large commonality of subsystems with Mk-1) is inducted into service, the aircraft can be operationally deployed in quick time.
ADA initially projected that LCA Mk-2 would make its first flight in 2014, with full-rate production to follow two years later. Considering that the final design of the aircraft has yet to be presented to MoD for release of development funds, first flight is unlikely before 2020. If you factor in the time required to complete the test program, obtain operational clearance, etc., it becomes clear that the LCA will at best partially replace the MiG-21 fleet. Another lightweight, single engine replacement in the force mix is inevitable.
Make in India Remains Enduring Theme
During the press conference, Parrikar clarified that “Make in India” continues to be an enduring theme of the current government.
“Make in India part of the deal will be discussed between ministries,” he said.
In his interview with NDTV referred to above, Parrikar explains why HAL is being kept out of the Rafale deal.”If HAL were to make Rafale, why would it push production of Tejas which would reduce our need for Rafale?” he asked?
The Rafale deals stipulates 50% offset obligation so its unfair to claim that the government has abandoned ‘Make in India.’ What the government has done is not allowed the ‘Make in India’ concept to compromise the nation’s security. Pragmatism has prevailed on a matter of national security. Can the government be faulted for it?
The purchase of Rafale fighters points to India’s failed defence indigenisation plans
Published April 24, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: ECONOMIC TIMES
In all the confusion that hangs over the Modi government’s decision to procure 36 Rafale fighters ‘off the shelf’, we need to focus on the real issues. First, the imperative of plugging the shortages in the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s combat strength. Second, to once again kickstart the decades-old effort to develop a fighter of our own.
We started to design and build our own combat aircraft in the late 1950s. The HF-24 Marut programme was a spectacular, though limited success. The country failed to build on it and allowed the capabilities built up through the programme to rust. Over the years, India has licence-manufactured or assembled the MiG -21, the Jaguar and the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI. Yet it has picked up little by way of an aviation design and manufacturing capability. Whatever we have is, unsurprisingly, the progeny of the HF-24 programme.
Many institutions, primarily the IAF itself, must share the blame for the current state of affairs. As Admiral Arun Prakash has noted, had the IAF assumed ‘ownership’ of indigenous projects like the HT-2, HJT-36 trainers and the LCA (light combat aircraft) Tejas early enough, it would not be seeking advanced fighters or even trainers from abroad today.
But is there a way forward? The first challenge is to deal with the crisis in 2017 when four MiG-21 and five MiG-27 squadrons retire. This amounts to some 200 aircraft. Already, there are some eight ‘number plated’ squadrons — formations without aircraft. This amounts to another 150 aircraft. The remaining six squadrons of MiG-21 Bisons are soldiering along, but are in the last stages of their lives.
The IAF brass seems to be insisting that these far less capable machines be replaced one-on-one by advanced fighters, which is simply not economically feasible. Even so, 36 Rafales will not do the trick. So presumably the government will go for another tranche, when it has the money. As of now, the statements of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikarhave resulted in more confusion than clarity.
Plugging gaps is one challenge. Developing indigenous design and development capability is another. Here, all is not lost. Today we have the LCA Mk 1 flying and the engineers and designers who have worked on it remain with the Aeronautical Development Agency. Despite its limitations, brought on by a flawed design, it is a good flying machine and perfectly capable of delivering close air support and functioning as a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT).
Some years ago, a well-known German company had offered to assist HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) to industrialise the LCA’s production and market it abroad, as it felt there was definite market for 250-odd LCAs in this role. The German company did not even merit the courtesy of a reply.
There has been a lot of talk about a Mark II version of the LCA aircraft with a slightly better (GE414) engine. However, the structural changes it requires will add weight to the existing design and negate the advantage of the new engine.
We need to cut the chase and go straight for the design of a twin-engined fifth generation fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) which is on the drawing board. The government needs to give it a determined push.
The US has the F-22 fifth generation fighter in combat service since 2005 and is now developing the F-35. China has two fifth generation fighters — the J-20 and J-31 under development with Pakistan as a potential customer. Russia has its T-50 FGFA. The French, Germans and British seem to have dropped out and want to develop unmanned aircraft like the Neuron.
The action is in Asia, with Japan (Mitsubishi ATD-X), Turkey (TAI-TFX) and South Korea (KF-X) having fifth generation fighter programmes. All of them have understandably sought deep design and development expertise from established companies like Lockheed Martin, Saab, BAE Systems and Boeing.
There are formidable technological challenges in such an enterprise and we need the help of established players to hold our hands. We had a deal with the Russians for the development of a fifth generation fighter, but it has been a rip-off. We have got little by way of R&D spin-offs and we will simply end up amortising the development costs of yet another fighter like the Mirage 2000 and Su-30MKI and, perhaps now, the Rafale.
At the heart of the problem is the dysfunctional defence management and planning process. The IAF — and the Indian Army’s — inflated assessment of their requirements are related to the defence minister’s operational directive to the armed forces that they prepare for a two-front war. This has led the IAF to claim that it needs 42 fighter squadrons and the army to raise a new Mountain Strike Corps.
The difference between planning for all-out war and a limited one is hundreds of thousands of crores of the taxpayer’s precious money. What the country needs are much sharper assessments of the threats it confronts through a document which is based on expert assessments and approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security.
Published April 24, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: myind.net
India has scrapped the Rs 90,000 crore (approximately $15 billion) MMRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets, 108 of which were to be produced in India by HAL. The move followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement April 10, 2015 that India had requested France to supply 36 Rafale jets in fly-away condition as quickly as possible under a government-to-government contract.
Defence minister Manohar Parrikar briefed the Indian press on the PM’s announcement on Monday, April 13, 2015. Here are some important points that he made.
The exact number of Rafales to be eventually purchased has not been decided.
“We have not purchased all 36 aircrafts. When there is a PM or President level deal, it is matter of principle clearance. We have promised to purchase 36 aircrafts. The major reason for the deal is to induct it in the minimum time frame. It is a good deal.”
Parrikar went on to allude that the number of Rafales purchased could be larger.
In a later interview with NDTV he clarified that the option to produce Rafale locally remained on the table.
Rafale is unaffordable as one-to-one MiG-21 replacement, as also an overkill!
Parrikar said, “Rafale is a top end fighter and satisfies other criterion as well. The aircraft is expensive and hence we have to take steps. The deal for 126 jets would have cost Rs 90,000 crore. Rafale cannot replace MiG-21. Tejas can do that.”
He explained that the Rafale was far more capable than what a MiG-21 replacement like Tejas needed to be. Rafale can carry twice the payload (24 tonnes) of a Tejas (10-12 tonnes) and loiter for hours. The aircraft’s 1000-km combat radius far exceed the 300-450 km combat radius of existing IAF aircraft.
Rafale is a strategic purchase.
Parrikar referred to the Rafale purchase as being strategic in nature raising speculation in the press that he was alluding to the aircraft being a nuclear weapon delivery platform.However, this is unlikely. Rafale does have a formidable range and the inbuilt ability to suppress enemy defenses while penetrating heavily contested airspace, but it would still need standoff precision guided air-to surface missiles to deliver nuclear warheads on targets. There is no evidence that France would be ready to sell such missiles to India, not to mention that the US would almost certainly scuttle such a deal with less than subtle arm twisting.
The alternative mode of nuclear weapon delivery is toss bombing, which is highly inaccurate, not to mention dangerous for the aircrew. Indeed, the air leg of India’s nuclear triad is a very dubious, if not non existent. But that is another story. Parrikar was more likely referring to the ability of the Rafale to hit Chinese industrial base.
The IAF might induct another lightweight, single engine fighter besides the Tejas.
Parrikar said the IAF would replace its MiG-21 fleet with LCA and possibly another lightweight fighter to be locally produced.
“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under ‘Make in India’, that is also possible. If we build another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21″, said the minister.
Clear Vision
The government seems to have a clear vision. Its plan is to quickly halt IAF fighter fleet depletion caused by obsolescence of older MiG-21 variants, through an outright purchase of Rafale aircraft, and give itself time to explore more cost effective one-to-one MiG-21 replacement options.Strong on logic, Parrikar’s statement should have muted the press criticism of the Rafale purchase. Ironically, it has raised more hackles in a segment of the press.
Where does another lightweight fighter fit in when we have our LCA, is a recurring theme of the criticism being leveled. Why is ‘Make in India’ being abandoned? Here is a detailed explanation to both these queries.
MiG-21 Fleet Replacement Challenge
The MiG-21 fleet is large – almost 15 squadrons, or nearly 300 aircraft. The fleet is also far down the road towards obsolescence. The window of opportunity for the IAF to replace the fleet without dangerous depletion of its force levels is now small. Replacements need to take place at a steady and relentless pace as the looming obsolescence.
It’s true that the Tejas LCA Mk-1 is likely to become operational soon, but two important points need to be kept in mind. LCA Mk-1’s performance shortfalls and the LCA Mk-2’s uncertain development timeframe.The IAF doesn’t consider the LCA Mk-1 a worthy replacement for the MiG-21s on account of performance shortfalls caused by GTRE’s failure to develop the aircraft’s Kaveri engine; It’s well known that the Tejas doesn’t meet IAF Staff Qualitative Requirements.
The MiG-21 is primarily a home defense fighter with limited close air support ability. Tejas matches, or marginally exceeds the performance of the Bison, the most advanced MiG-21 variant. However, Tejas doesn’t have the required edge over Pakistan’s F-16 and JF-17 fighters, or Chinese J-10 and J-11 variant fighters. As a home defense fighter it should be clearly superior to enemy fighters. Remember the PLAAF will enjoy an overwhelming quantitative edge, and so will the PAF in any two front war. Without qualitative edge, the IAF will not be able to deliver on its commitment to safeguard Indian skies.The IAF is banking on the LCA Mk-2 to give it the qualitative edge that it so desperately needs Unfortunately, the Mk-2 is still on the drawing board!
In a proactive move, the IAF ordered 2 squadrons of Tejas LCA Mk-1 to streamline supply chain and maintenance support issues associated with operating the newly developed aircraft. This will ensure that when the Mk-2 (which is expected to feature large commonality of subsystems with Mk-1) is inducted into service, the aircraft can be operationally deployed in quick time.
ADA initially projected that LCA Mk-2 would make its first flight in 2014, with full-rate production to follow two years later. Considering that the final design of the aircraft has yet to be presented to MoD for release of development funds, first flight is unlikely before 2020. If you factor in the time required to complete the test program, obtain operational clearance, etc., it becomes clear that the LCA will at best partially replace the MiG-21 fleet. Another lightweight, single engine replacement in the force mix is inevitable.
Make in India Remains Enduring Theme
During the press conference, Parrikar clarified that “Make in India” continues to be an enduring theme of the current government.
“Make in India part of the deal will be discussed between ministries,” he said.
In his interview with NDTV referred to above, Parrikar explains why HAL is being kept out of the Rafale deal.”If HAL were to make Rafale, why would it push production of Tejas which would reduce our need for Rafale?” he asked?
The Rafale deals stipulates 50% offset obligation so its unfair to claim that the government has abandoned ‘Make in India.’ What the government has done is not allowed the ‘Make in India’ concept to compromise the nation’s security. Pragmatism has prevailed on a matter of national security. Can the government be faulted for it?
Rafale and the Rationale for another Light Weight Fighter
Published April 24, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: myind.net
India has scrapped the Rs 90,000 crore (approximately $15 billion) MMRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets, 108 of which were to be produced in India by HAL. The move followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement April 10, 2015 that India had requested France to supply 36 Rafale jets in fly-away condition as quickly as possible under a government-to-government contract.
Defence minister Manohar Parrikar briefed the Indian press on the PM’s announcement on Monday, April 13, 2015. Here are some important points that he made.
The exact number of Rafales to be eventually purchased has not been decided.
“We have not purchased all 36 aircrafts. When there is a PM or President level deal, it is matter of principle clearance. We have promised to purchase 36 aircrafts. The major reason for the deal is to induct it in the minimum time frame. It is a good deal.”
Parrikar went on to allude that the number of Rafales purchased could be larger.
In a later interview with NDTV he clarified that the option to produce Rafale locally remained on the table.
Rafale is unaffordable as one-to-one MiG-21 replacement, as also an overkill!
Parrikar said, “Rafale is a top end fighter and satisfies other criterion as well. The aircraft is expensive and hence we have to take steps. The deal for 126 jets would have cost Rs 90,000 crore. Rafale cannot replace MiG-21. Tejas can do that.”
He explained that the Rafale was far more capable than what a MiG-21 replacement like Tejas needed to be. Rafale can carry twice the payload (24 tonnes) of a Tejas (10-12 tonnes) and loiter for hours. The aircraft’s 1000-km combat radius far exceed the 300-450 km combat radius of existing IAF aircraft.
Rafale is a strategic purchase.
Parrikar referred to the Rafale purchase as being strategic in nature raising speculation in the press that he was alluding to the aircraft being a nuclear weapon delivery platform.However, this is unlikely. Rafale does have a formidable range and the inbuilt ability to suppress enemy defenses while penetrating heavily contested airspace, but it would still need standoff precision guided air-to surface missiles to deliver nuclear warheads on targets. There is no evidence that France would be ready to sell such missiles to India, not to mention that the US would almost certainly scuttle such a deal with less than subtle arm twisting.
The alternative mode of nuclear weapon delivery is toss bombing, which is highly inaccurate, not to mention dangerous for the aircrew. Indeed, the air leg of India’s nuclear triad is a very dubious, if not non existent. But that is another story. Parrikar was more likely referring to the ability of the Rafale to hit Chinese industrial base.
The IAF might induct another lightweight, single engine fighter besides the Tejas.
Parrikar said the IAF would replace its MiG-21 fleet with LCA and possibly another lightweight fighter to be locally produced.
“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under ‘Make in India’, that is also possible. If we build another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21″, said the minister.
Clear Vision
The government seems to have a clear vision. Its plan is to quickly halt IAF fighter fleet depletion caused by obsolescence of older MiG-21 variants, through an outright purchase of Rafale aircraft, and give itself time to explore more cost effective one-to-one MiG-21 replacement options.Strong on logic, Parrikar’s statement should have muted the press criticism of the Rafale purchase. Ironically, it has raised more hackles in a segment of the press.
Where does another lightweight fighter fit in when we have our LCA, is a recurring theme of the criticism being leveled. Why is ‘Make in India’ being abandoned? Here is a detailed explanation to both these queries.
MiG-21 Fleet Replacement Challenge
The MiG-21 fleet is large – almost 15 squadrons, or nearly 300 aircraft. The fleet is also far down the road towards obsolescence. The window of opportunity for the IAF to replace the fleet without dangerous depletion of its force levels is now small. Replacements need to take place at a steady and relentless pace as the looming obsolescence.
It’s true that the Tejas LCA Mk-1 is likely to become operational soon, but two important points need to be kept in mind. LCA Mk-1’s performance shortfalls and the LCA Mk-2’s uncertain development timeframe.The IAF doesn’t consider the LCA Mk-1 a worthy replacement for the MiG-21s on account of performance shortfalls caused by GTRE’s failure to develop the aircraft’s Kaveri engine; It’s well known that the Tejas doesn’t meet IAF Staff Qualitative Requirements.
The MiG-21 is primarily a home defense fighter with limited close air support ability. Tejas matches, or marginally exceeds the performance of the Bison, the most advanced MiG-21 variant. However, Tejas doesn’t have the required edge over Pakistan’s F-16 and JF-17 fighters, or Chinese J-10 and J-11 variant fighters. As a home defense fighter it should be clearly superior to enemy fighters. Remember the PLAAF will enjoy an overwhelming quantitative edge, and so will the PAF in any two front war. Without qualitative edge, the IAF will not be able to deliver on its commitment to safeguard Indian skies.The IAF is banking on the LCA Mk-2 to give it the qualitative edge that it so desperately needs Unfortunately, the Mk-2 is still on the drawing board!
In a proactive move, the IAF ordered 2 squadrons of Tejas LCA Mk-1 to streamline supply chain and maintenance support issues associated with operating the newly developed aircraft. This will ensure that when the Mk-2 (which is expected to feature large commonality of subsystems with Mk-1) is inducted into service, the aircraft can be operationally deployed in quick time.
ADA initially projected that LCA Mk-2 would make its first flight in 2014, with full-rate production to follow two years later. Considering that the final design of the aircraft has yet to be presented to MoD for release of development funds, first flight is unlikely before 2020. If you factor in the time required to complete the test program, obtain operational clearance, etc., it becomes clear that the LCA will at best partially replace the MiG-21 fleet. Another lightweight, single engine replacement in the force mix is inevitable.
Make in India Remains Enduring Theme
During the press conference, Parrikar clarified that “Make in India” continues to be an enduring theme of the current government.
“Make in India part of the deal will be discussed between ministries,” he said.
In his interview with NDTV referred to above, Parrikar explains why HAL is being kept out of the Rafale deal.”If HAL were to make Rafale, why would it push production of Tejas which would reduce our need for Rafale?” he asked?
The Rafale deals stipulates 50% offset obligation so its unfair to claim that the government has abandoned ‘Make in India.’ What the government has done is not allowed the ‘Make in India’ concept to compromise the nation’s security. Pragmatism has prevailed on a matter of national security. Can the government be faulted for it?
The purchase of Rafale fighters points to India’s failed defence indigenisation plans
Published April 24, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: ECONOMIC TIMES
In all the confusion that hangs over the Modi government’s decision to procure 36 Rafale fighters ‘off the shelf’, we need to focus on the real issues. First, the imperative of plugging the shortages in the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s combat strength. Second, to once again kickstart the decades-old effort to develop a fighter of our own.
We started to design and build our own combat aircraft in the late 1950s. The HF-24 Marut programme was a spectacular, though limited success. The country failed to build on it and allowed the capabilities built up through the programme to rust. Over the years, India has licence-manufactured or assembled the MiG -21, the Jaguar and the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI. Yet it has picked up little by way of an aviation design and manufacturing capability. Whatever we have is, unsurprisingly, the progeny of the HF-24 programme.
Many institutions, primarily the IAF itself, must share the blame for the current state of affairs. As Admiral Arun Prakash has noted, had the IAF assumed ‘ownership’ of indigenous projects like the HT-2, HJT-36 trainers and the LCA (light combat aircraft) Tejas early enough, it would not be seeking advanced fighters or even trainers from abroad today.
But is there a way forward? The first challenge is to deal with the crisis in 2017 when four MiG-21 and five MiG-27 squadrons retire. This amounts to some 200 aircraft. Already, there are some eight ‘number plated’ squadrons — formations without aircraft. This amounts to another 150 aircraft. The remaining six squadrons of MiG-21 Bisons are soldiering along, but are in the last stages of their lives.
The IAF brass seems to be insisting that these far less capable machines be replaced one-on-one by advanced fighters, which is simply not economically feasible. Even so, 36 Rafales will not do the trick. So presumably the government will go for another tranche, when it has the money. As of now, the statements of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikarhave resulted in more confusion than clarity.
Plugging gaps is one challenge. Developing indigenous design and development capability is another. Here, all is not lost. Today we have the LCA Mk 1 flying and the engineers and designers who have worked on it remain with the Aeronautical Development Agency. Despite its limitations, brought on by a flawed design, it is a good flying machine and perfectly capable of delivering close air support and functioning as a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT).
Some years ago, a well-known German company had offered to assist HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) to industrialise the LCA’s production and market it abroad, as it felt there was definite market for 250-odd LCAs in this role. The German company did not even merit the courtesy of a reply.
There has been a lot of talk about a Mark II version of the LCA aircraft with a slightly better (GE414) engine. However, the structural changes it requires will add weight to the existing design and negate the advantage of the new engine.
We need to cut the chase and go straight for the design of a twin-engined fifth generation fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) which is on the drawing board. The government needs to give it a determined push.
The US has the F-22 fifth generation fighter in combat service since 2005 and is now developing the F-35. China has two fifth generation fighters — the J-20 and J-31 under development with Pakistan as a potential customer. Russia has its T-50 FGFA. The French, Germans and British seem to have dropped out and want to develop unmanned aircraft like the Neuron.
The action is in Asia, with Japan (Mitsubishi ATD-X), Turkey (TAI-TFX) and South Korea (KF-X) having fifth generation fighter programmes. All of them have understandably sought deep design and development expertise from established companies like Lockheed Martin, Saab, BAE Systems and Boeing.
There are formidable technological challenges in such an enterprise and we need the help of established players to hold our hands. We had a deal with the Russians for the development of a fifth generation fighter, but it has been a rip-off. We have got little by way of R&D spin-offs and we will simply end up amortising the development costs of yet another fighter like the Mirage 2000 and Su-30MKI and, perhaps now, the Rafale.
At the heart of the problem is the dysfunctional defence management and planning process. The IAF — and the Indian Army’s — inflated assessment of their requirements are related to the defence minister’s operational directive to the armed forces that they prepare for a two-front war. This has led the IAF to claim that it needs 42 fighter squadrons and the army to raise a new Mountain Strike Corps.
The difference between planning for all-out war and a limited one is hundreds of thousands of crores of the taxpayer’s precious money. What the country needs are much sharper assessments of the threats it confronts through a document which is based on expert assessments and approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security.
