Build vs Procure [5th Generation Aircraft]

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
1,712
2,149
United States
Nasik is where the "third line" will be set up. The first two lines are in Bangalore.

HAL plans 3rd LCA line to keep workforce engaged | India News - Times of India

The Bangalore line isn't enough for the delivery of all LCAs and MWFs in time, unless of course MWF is delayed by a few years.



No. MMRCA was supposed to be built in Bangalore. Of course, now it's a different situation.

Hind Aeronautics calls bids for new MMRCA complex
Defence aircraft maker Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has invited bids to build a new design and manufacturing complex in Bangalore for MMRCA fighter planes.

HAL plans to locate it at Challaghatta where it has large tracts of land. The integrated ‘green' factory complex will include hangars, runways and residential units.

But Nasik will continue building fighter jets. Also, AFAIK, HAL will be kept out of the MRFA tender.


A lot of technologies, including IRST, did not make it to the F-22 in order to keep development costs low. This was the time of sequestration after all.

Good to know, as of yesterday there has been no movement for LCA in Nashik, that I can confidently report.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
7,852
5,257
India
Good to know, as of yesterday there has been no movement for LCA in Nashik, that I can confidently report.
The third line will be considered after Mk1A contract is done with. Without new orders there's no chance for the third line of course.
I fully agree with you. I had stated it manytimes when people asked me the rational of putting wingtip WVRAAMs on my design.
It depends on how much the AAM will increase RCS.
 

Defc0n

Well-Known member
Sep 8, 2019
355
342
India
I fully agree with you. I had stated it manytimes when people asked me the rational of putting wingtip WVRAAMs on my design.
I have a question, possibly a noob quesiton, but here it goes -

Won't putting weapons on the wing increase the visibility of the plane to radars?
Shouldn't all up coming designs consider having an internal weapons bay?
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
949
782
Canada
In case of a conflict, take for example 28th Feb as the latest air skirmish between two 4+ gen. jets with AWACS guiding them,
In case of 27th Feb, the biggest issue was that of stance and not that of fighters themselves. After 26th strike, entire political leadership was in a de-escalation mode. The statements were of kind "We will not do any further action". The rules of engagement was not to engage a fighter in the Pakistan airspace. The strength of fighters present in J&K bases were minimal. Pakistan was aware of this situation and deployed the ENTIRE PAF. That time entire PAF was in air. Add to that Abhinandan crossed boundary to follow and attack the retreating invaders and hence was shot down.

If IAF was deployed with full alert and rules of engangement were fire at will, the result would have been different.

Actually, scratch that. EVEN IF India had F-35 on her side, the results of Feb 27 would have been same. Because IAF was NOT engaging the enemy. Once a bunch of missiles are launched towards you, as a pilot your first duty is to ensure you are not shot down and evade the missiles. Thats what Su-30 pilots did. Thats what F-35 pilots would have done. In BVR engagement, the side which see first and shoots first is more likely to win. But the given part is that side should be willing to shoot. If the side is restricted from shooting after seeing, then any kind of engagement will turn in a defensive one.

Its more the question of intent and not equipment.

@vstol Jockey @randomradio comments?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Defc0n

Defc0n

Well-Known member
Sep 8, 2019
355
342
India
In case of 27th Feb, the biggest issue was that of stance and not that of fighters themselves. After 26th strike, entire political leadership was in a de-escalation mode. The statements were of kind "We will not do any further action". The rules of engagement was not to engage a fighter in the Pakistan airspace. The strength of fighters present in J&K bases were minimal. Pakistan was aware of this situation and deployed the ENTIRE PAF. That time entire PAF was in air. Add to that Abhinandan crossed boundary to follow and attack the retreating invaders and hence was shot down.

If IAF was deployed with full alert and rules of engangement were fire at will, the result would have been different.

Actually, scratch that. EVEN IF India had F-35 on her side, the results of Feb 27 would have been same. Because IAF was NOT engaging the enemy. Once a bunch of missiles are launched towards you, as a pilot your first duty is to ensure you are not shot down and evade the missiles. Thats what Su-30 pilots did. Thats what F-35 pilots would have done. In BVR engagement, the side which see first and shoots first is more likely to win. But the given part is that side should be willing to shoot. If the side is restricted from shooting after seeing, then any kind of engagement will turn in a defensive one.

Its more the question of intent and not equipment.

Ok. Understood. Sad though, I wonder when our leadership will actually grow some spine.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
949
782
Canada
Ok. Understood. Sad though, I wonder when our leadership will actually grow some spine.
Post 27th I guess rules of engagement have changed. Now any side who will see first will shoot first. Plus India acquired updated missiles too. Basically it comes down to this : do you want to escalate situation or de-escalate situation. This is a policy call. Even US did that. After a massive barrage on their bases, they did not return fire. They had done what they wanted to do and let Iran get away with attack.
I am sure there would have been some damage in those attack, possibly some casualties if not deaths then some people might have been wounded.
 

Defc0n

Well-Known member
Sep 8, 2019
355
342
India
Post 27th I guess rules of engagement have changed. Now any side who will see first will shoot first. Plus India acquired updated missiles too. Basically it comes down to this : do you want to escalate situation or de-escalate situation. This is a policy call. Even US did that. After a massive barrage on their bases, they did not return fire. They had done what they wanted to do and let Iran get away with attack.
I am sure there would have been some damage in those attack, possibly some casualties if not deaths then some people might have been wounded.

Yeah, I read about this change of policy.
What astonishes me is this, we have been at war with Pakistan since as long as I can remember.
How on earth can we have a policy where Pak jets are spotted and allowed to shoot at India air assets?

I don't think India - Pakistan can be compared to US-Iran, reason: USA had a HVT, where as India killed a house full of terrorists, which was quite inconsequential with respect to PAK's modus-operandi, they have thousands and lakhs more to spare.

If India did a strike on Hafeez Saeed it would have been a different game.
I really don't see the point of what India did, other than showing Pak that IAF can go inside and strike if needed.
Now if that did any good for us is another question, in future, can IAF repeat the feat without suffering any casualty as Pak will be ready for it.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
949
782
Canada
How on earth can we have a policy where Pak jets are spotted and allowed to shoot at India air assets?
India till recently never wanted to escalate. I will guess even now, it will not like to escalate.

I don't think India - Pakistan can be compared to US-Iran, reason: USA had a HVT, where as India killed a house full of terrorists, which was quite inconsequential with respect to PAK's modus-operandi, they have thousands and lakhs more to spare.
The value is always relative. I have my fair share of doubts about deaths that happened there. My understanding was the attack was meant to shatter the Pakistan's promise of a nuclear retaliation in response to any kind of escalation from India. Post that they have a slightly harder time selling their nuclear nuclear snake-oil. What followed after that attack was more arty bombardment by Indian army targetting posts, mostly empty, and pushing Pakistan Army back.

If India did a strike on Hafeez Saeed it would have been a different game.
Why do you want to kill the goose that lay the golden eggs? Its the albatross across Pakistan's neck.

I really don't see the point of what India did, other than showing Pak that IAF can go inside and strike if needed.
Now if that did any good for us is another question, in future, can IAF repeat the feat without suffering any casualty as Pak will be ready for it.
I guess I answered that point above. Now a days Imran shouts nuclear nuclear nuclear at all opportunities without getting much traction. Its the shifting of stance that helped Indian diplomatic position. In all the meetings the point will come to this that if India sends another attack package, you will again respond with you F-16s. Problem for Imran and his diplomats now is that they cann't deny that PAF can be used as a response for attack without putting the entire credibility of Pakistan defence forces into question and if he accepts that he will send the PAF then there is no point of a nuclear escalation. A new level of engagement has been reached between two nuclear armed states. The one which does not involve nuclear weapons. It essentially creates a hole in Pakistan's nuclear umbrella.
 

Defc0n

Well-Known member
Sep 8, 2019
355
342
India
India till recently never wanted to escalate. I will guess even now, it will not like to escalate.


The value is always relative. I have my fair share of doubts about deaths that happened there. My understanding was the attack was meant to shatter the Pakistan's promise of a nuclear retaliation in response to any kind of escalation from India. Post that they have a slightly harder time selling their nuclear nuclear snake-oil. What followed after that attack was more arty bombardment by Indian army targetting posts, mostly empty, and pushing Pakistan Army back.


Why do you want to kill the goose that lay the golden eggs? Its the albatross across Pakistan's neck.


I guess I answered that point above. Now a days Imran shouts nuclear nuclear nuclear at all opportunities without getting much traction. Its the shifting of stance that helped Indian diplomatic position. In all the meetings the point will come to this that if India sends another attack package, you will again respond with you F-16s. Problem for Imran and his diplomats now is that they cann't deny that PAF can be used as a response for attack without putting the entire credibility of Pakistan defence forces into question and if he accepts that he will send the PAF then there is no point of a nuclear escalation. A new level of engagement has been reached between two nuclear armed states. The one which does not involve nuclear weapons. It essentially creates a hole in Pakistan's nuclear umbrella.
I agree with most of what you have written except one -
May be HS is an albatross across Pak's neck, but he has the blood of lot of Indians on his hand.
Can you imagine the effect it would have on Pak's morale if India managed to blow him up?
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
949
782
Canada
Can you imagine the effect it would have on Pak's morale if India managed to blow him up?
It won't have much effect. He is merely a face. Another bearded one will show up. Remember, this terror support has history in 1947 when Jinnah pushed the Push-toons into valley. HS is merely continuation of this asymmetric war. Think about it, after Samosa and Bur-hand were killed there were still more of these cretins trained and pushed into Kashmir. Pakistan may be short of all the things but bearded mullahs are not one of them.

If you really want to send the message, it goes through the GHQ. But then we are talking about open war.
 

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,298
1,063
switzerland
n case of 27th Feb, the biggest issue was that of stance and not that of fighters themselves.
That's nthing new, we Indians have been caught with our pants down because we fear escalation. It's a land of Ahimsa and Bapu.
After 26th strike, entire political leadership was in a de-escalation mode. The statements were of kind "We will not do any further action".
As I said, there must have been conflict of views in the PMO. NSA wanted to escalate but Modi wanted to de-escalate. Yeh to hota aya hai is desh mein. ahimsa parmo dharma, we need to be 5 trillion economy, now you can't fight for next 4 years or else you cannot be 5 trillion economy.

Actually, scratch that. EVEN IF India had F-35 on her side, the results of Feb 27 would have been same.
I have said this many times, and I can't agree more on this. You have hit the nail. Just want to add, that we would have lost one F35 as well to F-16

If IAF was deployed with full alert and rules of engangement were fire at will, the result would have been different.
No point in IF and Buts. There are no IFs and BUTs in Military. It's do or die. They did it , and took the show.
Post 27th I guess rules of engagement have changed. Now any side who will see first will shoot first
No we haven't learn and wait for Pakistan to hit again. And the drama will repeat. RoE might have changed but escalation is something which Indian leaders avoid because that will lose them election due to poor economy later.
(mark this post)


Is desh mein , elections desh se zada zaruri hai. Beshak desh rahy na rahy.


You can't build any latest technology weaponry, because of lack of budget, lack of test facilities and lack of idea what military actually wants. Their demands keep changing every now and then.
 

Saaho

Well-Known member
Dec 27, 2019
949
782
Canada
No we haven't learn and wait for Pakistan to hit again. And the drama will repeat. RoE might have changed but escalation is something which Indian leaders avoid because that will lose them election due to poor economy later.
Lets face it, NO democracy wants to escalate with ANY enemy that can actually retaliate. No government wants to go in an election with a war on hand. Wars are simply too unpredictable.
Is desh mein , elections desh se zada zaruri hai. Beshak desh rahy na rahy.
I view elections as "exams". I does not matter how great of student you had been but if you fail exam, you don't go anywhere. And yes, war can be like that traffic jam which would have prevented you from going to examination centre.

Now ask yourself, practically will you like to fail your exam while being a great student? I doubt.
 

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,298
1,063
switzerland
Lets face it, NO democracy wants to escalate with ANY enemy that can actually retaliate. No government wants to go in an election with a war on hand. Wars are simply too unpredictable.

I view elections as "exams". I does not matter how great of student you had been but if you fail exam, you don't go anywhere. And yes, war can be like that traffic jam which would have prevented you from going to examination centre.

Now ask yourself, practically will you like to fail your exam while being a great student? I doubt.
Yes I can accept your points no one wants to fail the exam, but here if one fails the other wins and when other wins it's still a democracy. My point is, there is urgent need to streamline what military actually needs. Every officer tries to implement his own ideas on procurement and this damages the process. Their training on psychological aspect and thought process building is not efficient. And this becomes the major hurdle when it comes to technology/weapon procurement.

For example, IAF while procuring does not take Navy or Army in confidence that when they need an aircraft do we have system in Navy or Army to match the compatibility and what role would it play if it is attached to Navy or Army. What we do is we simply follow the western process.

The western process of procurement is for such psychology which believes in over seas expedition and missions. What is India's military doing when it comes to overseas expeditions? Nothing.

I hope the CDS is that person who would streamline the procurement and decide what they actually need and for what missions.
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
4,622
2,472
You guys are Over Analysing and Over Critical

When Pakistan released Abhinandan , we
Did NOT have any reason to escalate