F16, Gripen - Make In India Single Engine Aircraft - News and possibilities

[Kshithij Sharma]

If India abolishes/scraps or discards MK2 story completely, i dont mind Gripen E as MK2 but would like to use its FOC date and mate it with a Safransied kaveri as well as look at say a similar radar and avionics as present in Indian MIC ecosystem. Be it a Thales based radar or even Dare based RWR etc..

Weapons i would like it to be common between LCA Mk1A/ Gripen E and Rafales.

Presumably, i would like Gripen E to be of limited number not beyond say what was envisioned for Mk2 sqd numbers.

Also one must understand that Gripen E as Mk2 is just a light to lower strata medium fighter.. There is no way it can replace twin engined Rafales in a true medium category or in ops. For us Gripen E will become a FW base fighter jet only. Like the other contender F-16.


The downside of course will be that with Mk2 replaced, AMCA will also need time and French cooperation in a joint effort (if we go that path) , will need good confidence building measures with orders for Rafales and involvement in projects liek LCA and gripen E /LCA Mk2.

The possibility of say 80 odd LCA Mk2a and 90 odd Gripen E with almost limited commanlity will be worst course of action and decision making ever. Whatever be the circumstances, striving for commanlity is the key for future for all jets which go in FW bases and are SE fighters with missions envisioned for LCA series of aircraft

When Tejas Mk1 is already flying, AESA radar, Turbofan engine in final stages of development, why would India back off from Mk2 which only requires an additional airframe development and fly by wire adjustment?

The hardest part of making a plane is making its subsystems, not the airframe. Also, Gripen has large number of metallic components which reduce the stealth.

Let us look at comparison:

Tejas Mk1 has MToW of 13.2 tons with 19000lbf egine (86kN). Tejas Mk2 is expected to have 100kN engine (F414 type) which will have MToW of 15.3 tons. Due to modifications and improvisation, the weight of MK2 is expected to be same as MK1 (ballast removal, design improvement). This will give healthy 2 ton extra payload and fuel over current Tejas Mk1A.

As of now, Tejas Mk1A has empty weight of 6.7 tons, 3000 litres fuel (2.4 tons), 600kg of SPJ, EW, LDP and 3.5 ton payload while MK2 will have empty weight 7.3 ton with SPJ and EW internal and 200kg LDP in addition to 4000 litre fuel(3.2 ton) and 5+ ton payload.

Now, let us compare to F16.
F16 has empty weight - 8.8 ton with 200kg LDP, fuel of 3.4 tons and 9 hardpoints. The engine is 125kN and has MToW of 19.2 tons, thus giving 7 tons of payload.

The fuel to empty weight ratio of F16 is 3.4/8.8 = 39%. For Tejas Mk2, it is 3.2/7.3 = 44%. So, on internal fuel, Tejas is expected to be on par with F16 or better in terms of range.

Now, let us consider usage of drop tanks and actual war scenario:

Tejas Mk2 :
scenario 1 (medium range mission):
1 centreline tank of 800kg (1000 litres),
2 x 1000kg bomb/cruise missile
2x 500 kg bombs
2 x Astra BVR
This amounts to 4.1 ton. In addition, 20% pylon weight will make it 5 ton

Scenario 2 (long range mission):
2 tanks of 800kg ( 1000 litres) under wings
1x 1000 kg bomb/cruise misisle
2x 500kg bomb
2x Astra BVR
This amounts to 3.9 tons which along with 20% pylon weight comes to 4.7tons

Scenario 3 (full air superiority/patrol):
2 tanks of 800kg ( 1000 litres) under wings
2x Astra BVR racked under fuselage
4x Astra BVR racked under wings
2x Astra BVR with one each under extreme end of wings

Scenario 4 ( short ranged mission)
3x 1000kg bombs (one under fuselage, one under each wing)
2x 500kg bomb
2x Astra BVR
Total of 4.3 tons and with pylon 5.1 tons

F16:
scenario 1 (medium range mission):
1 centreline tank of 1000kg (1200 litres),
2 x 1000kg bomb/cruise missile
4x 500 kg bombs
2 x BVR
This amounts to 5.3 ton. In addition, 20% pylon weight will make it 6.4 ton

Scenario 2 (long range mission):
2 tanks of 1000kg (1200 litres) under wings
1x 1000 kg bomb/cruise missile
4x 500kg bomb
2x BVR
This amounts to 5.3 tons which along with 20% pylon weight comes to 6.4 tons

Scenario 3 (full air superiority):
2 tanks of 1000kg (1200 litres) under wings
2x BVR racked under fuselage
8x BVR racked under wings
2x BVR with one each under extreme end of wings

Scenario 4 ( short ranged mission)
3x 1000kg bombs (one under fuselage, one under each wing)
4x 500kg bomb
2x BVR
Total of 5.3 tons and with pylon 6.4 tons

Conclusions:
The ability ratio of Tejas Mk2 to F16 across scenarios are:
1)2:3
2)3:5
3)2:3
4)5:7

The range of Tejas and F16 is comparable in all mission roles above due to similar fuel to weight ratio and hence is not a factor. The efficiency wise, Tejas is about 66%. This means, 3 Tejas is equivalent to 2 F16. F16 is also less stealthy than Tejas which adds to advantage of Tejas.

So, to replace F16, Tejas has to be made in 1.5 times the quantity of F16. This equation is not fully correct in air superiority as 3 sets of eyes is far better than 2 sets of eyes, even though number of BVR missiles may be lower.

Now we have to consider several aspects :

1) Attrition in war (losses)
2) Cost of production
3) Ease of production
4) Ease of maintenance and repair

The Tejas is extremely cheap, about 30% of F16 and the maintenance and repair is extremely simple as it is fully Indian. India has vast industrial base which makes 25 million automobiles a year, large number of other goods etc and hence also has a healthy number of educated and trained people. This should also mean that production in large numbers shouldn't be a problem and neither should wartime repairs.

Considering the huge cost advantage, low cost of attrition, large spare parts manufacturing ability and ease of maintenance, it is only logical that Tejas Mk2 will be far better than F16. The higher cost of logistics is easily offset by indigenous production at cheaper rates. The threat scenario of India also mostly calls for short/medium range combat - Pakistan or Bangladesh.

The only time when F16 will be better than Tejas is during peacetime patrol whereby the losses are low and most of the cost is for fuel which is less for 2 F16 than 3 Tejas. If we compare it to Rafale, then 1 Rafale = 2 Tejas will be the ratio in terms of payload. The stealth will be similar.

So, unless there is absolute requirement for a single plane doing maximum damage, even Rafale can be replaced with 2 Tejas. The cost of Rafale comes out to be 4-5 times that of Tejas Mk2.

Almost all planes in Indian inventory - Mig21, MiG27, jaguar, Mirage 2000 can be replaced with Tejas Mk2. Only MiG29 (due to short take off), Su30 (heavy payload and very long range) is not replaceable by Tejas Mk2.

There is absolutely no reason to go for F16. Gripen is almost same as Tejas but at twice the cost and poor stealth. So, there is no point in it

I don't think it's totally true.

It is a very agile platform, and quite affordable. But developped as a light fighter, it can't offer medium plane perf (range, load).

It's a nice fighter for peacefull country. But when you need to be ready for war, maybe a little bit more away from your own borders, it's not a first choice.

In the indian case, as a Mig21 replacement, it's a nice solution. But THE nice solution is Tejas.
As a replacement for Mig 23 and Mig 27, it's too light.

As I mentioned above, Gripen or Tejas Mk2 can offer the role of medium plane. Tejas or Gripen can double up in production numbers. Lightness of fighter also means that lesser fuel drop tanks are needed for extended range. See my figures above. So, only heavy bombers can't be replaced by Tejas. The only other plane not replaceable is short take-off ones due to unique ability

 

[ranadd]

SAAB can sell its wares to India, if India is able to replace all the parts on their plane with Indian components.

Engine and Radar for starters.

Basically, shut down the jet division in HAL and get SAAB to do SE.

However, as someone with a pony in this race. It will again mean India falls behind. Granted India is already behind by decades infront of R&D heavy nations. Indian Engineers are not good enough and for those who are good, they are bogged down my corruption.

Current governemnt is doing everything it can to scuttle the domestic industry. We don’t need the hi tech components for every war.

An Indian product designed by Indians paid by Indian Rupees.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

SAAB can sell its wares to India, if India is able to replace all the parts on their plane with Indian components.

Engine and Radar for starters.

Basically, shut down the jet division in HAL and get SAAB to do SE.

However, as someone with a pony in this race. It will again mean India falls behind. Granted India is already behind by decades infront of R&D heavy nations. Indian Engineers are not good enough and for those who are good, they are bogged down my corruption.

Current governemnt is doing everything it can to scuttle the domestic industry. We don’t need the hi tech components for every war.

An Indian product designed by Indians paid by Indian Rupees.

Scuttle? Shut down HAL? Engine and radars from Gripen?

When did Gripen get engines or radars of SAAB? Gripen is a big scam. It is an assembly and not original aircraft. It has nothing worth mentioning that is made by SAAB.

India is not decades behind in R&D. India is 1 decade behind R&D. The current supercomputing revolution has changed things extremely drastically and has forced everyone to redesign many things from scratch. So, that gave India a second lifeline to catch up quickly.

 

[Aashish]

When Tejas Mk1 is already flying, AESA radar, Turbofan engine in final stages of development, why would India back off from Mk2 which only requires an additional airframe development and fly by wire adjustment?

The hardest part of making a plane is making its subsystems, not the airframe. Also, Gripen has large number of metallic components which reduce the stealth.

Let us look at comparison:

Tejas Mk1 has MToW of 13.2 tons with 19000lbf egine (86kN). Tejas Mk2 is expected to have 100kN engine (F414 type) which will have MToW of 15.3 tons. Due to modifications and improvisation, the weight of MK2 is expected to be same as MK1 (ballast removal, design improvement). This will give healthy 2 ton extra payload and fuel over current Tejas Mk1A.

As of now, Tejas Mk1A has empty weight of 6.7 tons, 3000 litres fuel (2.4 tons), 600kg of SPJ, EW, LDP and 3.5 ton payload while MK2 will have empty weight 7.3 ton with SPJ and EW internal and 200kg LDP in addition to 4000 litre fuel(3.2 ton) and 5+ ton payload.

Now, let us compare to F16.
F16 has empty weight - 8.8 ton with 200kg LDP, fuel of 3.4 tons and 9 hardpoints. The engine is 125kN and has MToW of 19.2 tons, thus giving 7 tons of payload.

The fuel to empty weight ratio of F16 is 3.4/8.8 = 39%. For Tejas Mk2, it is 3.2/7.3 = 44%. So, on internal fuel, Tejas is expected to be on par with F16 or better in terms of range.

Now, let us consider usage of drop tanks and actual war scenario:

Tejas Mk2 :
scenario 1 (medium range mission):
1 centreline tank of 800kg (1000 litres),
2 x 1000kg bomb/cruise missile
2x 500 kg bombs
2 x Astra BVR
This amounts to 4.1 ton. In addition, 20% pylon weight will make it 5 ton

Scenario 2 (long range mission):
2 tanks of 800kg ( 1000 litres) under wings
1x 1000 kg bomb/cruise misisle
2x 500kg bomb
2x Astra BVR
This amounts to 3.9 tons which along with 20% pylon weight comes to 4.7tons

Scenario 3 (full air superiority/patrol):
2 tanks of 800kg ( 1000 litres) under wings
2x Astra BVR racked under fuselage
4x Astra BVR racked under wings
2x Astra BVR with one each under extreme end of wings

Scenario 4 ( short ranged mission)
3x 1000kg bombs (one under fuselage, one under each wing)
2x 500kg bomb
2x Astra BVR
Total of 4.3 tons and with pylon 5.1 tons

F16:
scenario 1 (medium range mission):
1 centreline tank of 1000kg (1200 litres),
2 x 1000kg bomb/cruise missile
4x 500 kg bombs
2 x BVR
This amounts to 5.3 ton. In addition, 20% pylon weight will make it 6.4 ton

Scenario 2 (long range mission):
2 tanks of 1000kg (1200 litres) under wings
1x 1000 kg bomb/cruise missile
4x 500kg bomb
2x BVR
This amounts to 5.3 tons which along with 20% pylon weight comes to 6.4 tons

Scenario 3 (full air superiority):
2 tanks of 1000kg (1200 litres) under wings
2x BVR racked under fuselage
8x BVR racked under wings
2x BVR with one each under extreme end of wings

Scenario 4 ( short ranged mission)
3x 1000kg bombs (one under fuselage, one under each wing)
4x 500kg bomb
2x BVR
Total of 5.3 tons and with pylon 6.4 tons

Conclusions:
The ability ratio of Tejas Mk2 to F16 across scenarios are:
1)2:3
2)3:5
3)2:3
4)5:7

The range of Tejas and F16 is comparable in all mission roles above due to similar fuel to weight ratio and hence is not a factor. The efficiency wise, Tejas is about 66%. This means, 3 Tejas is equivalent to 2 F16. F16 is also less stealthy than Tejas which adds to advantage of Tejas.

So, to replace F16, Tejas has to be made in 1.5 times the quantity of F16. This equation is not fully correct in air superiority as 3 sets of eyes is far better than 2 sets of eyes, even though number of BVR missiles may be lower.

Now we have to consider several aspects :

1) Attrition in war (losses)
2) Cost of production
3) Ease of production
4) Ease of maintenance and repair

The Tejas is extremely cheap, about 30% of F16 and the maintenance and repair is extremely simple as it is fully Indian. India has vast industrial base which makes 25 million automobiles a year, large number of other goods etc and hence also has a healthy number of educated and trained people. This should also mean that production in large numbers shouldn't be a problem and neither should wartime repairs.

Considering the huge cost advantage, low cost of attrition, large spare parts manufacturing ability and ease of maintenance, it is only logical that Tejas Mk2 will be far better than F16. The higher cost of logistics is easily offset by indigenous production at cheaper rates. The threat scenario of India also mostly calls for short/medium range combat - Pakistan or Bangladesh.

The only time when F16 will be better than Tejas is during peacetime patrol whereby the losses are low and most of the cost is for fuel which is less for 2 F16 than 3 Tejas. If we compare it to Rafale, then 1 Rafale = 2 Tejas will be the ratio in terms of payload. The stealth will be similar.

So, unless there is absolute requirement for a single plane doing maximum damage, even Rafale can be replaced with 2 Tejas. The cost of Rafale comes out to be 4-5 times that of Tejas Mk2.

Almost all planes in Indian inventory - Mig21, MiG27, jaguar, Mirage 2000 can be replaced with Tejas Mk2. Only MiG29 (due to short take off), Su30 (heavy payload and very long range) is not replaceable by Tejas Mk2.

There is absolutely no reason to go for F16. Gripen is almost same as Tejas but at twice the cost and poor stealth. So, there is no point in it



As I mentioned above, Gripen or Tejas Mk2 can offer the role of medium plane. Tejas or Gripen can double up in production numbers. Lightness of fighter also means that lesser fuel drop tanks are needed for extended range. See my figures above. So, only heavy bombers can't be replaced by Tejas. The only other plane not replaceable is short take-off ones due to unique ability

Good points .. Will like to add one small thing

1. The Mk2 might carry a LDP like Litening most of the times.. its usage will be more of mission involving A2G role over A2A.
2. The dual rack can be a good way forward but I still believe we need to see if dual rack and inter-distance between pylons will match or not and remains stable over all speed regimes.
3. Wing end/Wing tip is difficult .. Astra is too big.. You need smaller pylon and missiles/dummies in order to ensure the structural and aerodynamic stability and reduce wing flutter a lot more. In turn, they will create drag as well

In terms of attrition, high chance that FW bases will be taken out in first opening salvo either by full barrage or cleverly making runway incapable for take-off. Thus attrition part will be even more as planes will be unavailable for sortie and possibly with reduced runway, the missions load and optimum miox may be a bigger challenge.

In terms of maintenance, as of today, the internals of tejas is a maintenance intensive nightmare. Nothing wrong in saying that. All first lot of planes face similar issues. With feedback from crew and re-alignment many things can be changed. That will also need replacing many of the internal subsystems with smaller and compact ones (if available via our own making or off the shelf). Up till that point is achieved, Tejas maintenance will be below any other contemporary modern fighter.

The Tejas design is good but Mk1A and in future its other iterations depend upon good project management skills which we still dont acknowledge as issues.. The ecosystem can only support HAL to a limited extent and unless there are government backing and a larger attraction for the companies, the support chain to HAL: and LCA ecosystem will be a cause of worry. This will directly mean the production rate and parts available will be a challenge at all times.

nevertheless, we should now wait for Mk1 crafts delivery and Mk1A timeline as well. Once its out for production, then MK2 timelines and all other feature addon will be very clear.

 

[Kane]

The Tejas is extremely cheap, about 30% of F16 and the maintenance and repair is extremely simple as it is fully Indian.


The cost of Rafale comes out to be 4-5 times that of Tejas Mk2.

Good Analysis. Would like to point out few things:

• The cost figures you have stated as very wrong. Tejas MK2 cannot be 30% the cost of F-16.
• Similarly Rafales cannot be 4-5 times the cost of MK2. Let suppose Tejas MK2 costs 40Mn, are you saying Rafale costs 200-240 Mn per plane? BDW 40Mn for Tejas MK2 is very aggressive and will be very difficult.
• MK2 development as of today is very unpredictable. Given the resources we have, I very strongly believe that we can either focus on MK2 or AMCA. We cannot run both in parallel
• Mig 21 can be replaced by Tejas MK1A, mig 27 are being replaced by Rafales. By the time M2K, Jaguars and Mig 29s are up for replacement ( by 2035) we need to be looking at AMCAs. In the meanwhile inducting more Rafales will be enough.
• Therefore, we do not require MK2 in future. We needed it yesterday, but its too late. Therefore, instead of spending time and resources on MK2, I feel it is better to go all guns blazing on AMCA.
• In the meanwhile MK1A and their iterations will always take care of the lower end.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Good points .. Will like to add one small thing

1. The Mk2 might carry a LDP like Litening most of the times.. its usage will be more of mission involving A2G role over A2A.
2. The dual rack can be a good way forward but I still believe we need to see if dual rack and inter-distance between pylons will match or not and remains stable over all speed regimes.
3. Wing end/Wing tip is difficult .. Astra is too big.. You need smaller pylon and missiles/dummies in order to ensure the structural and aerodynamic stability and reduce wing flutter a lot more. In turn, they will create drag as well

In terms of attrition, high chance that FW bases will be taken out in first opening salvo either by full barrage or cleverly making runway incapable for take-off. Thus attrition part will be even more as planes will be unavailable for sortie and possibly with reduced runway, the missions load and optimum miox may be a bigger challenge.

In terms of maintenance, as of today, the internals of tejas is a maintenance intensive nightmare. Nothing wrong in saying that. All first lot of planes face similar issues. With feedback from crew and re-alignment many things can be changed. That will also need replacing many of the internal subsystems with smaller and compact ones (if available via our own making or off the shelf). Up till that point is achieved, Tejas maintenance will be below any other contemporary modern fighter.

The Tejas design is good but Mk1A and in future its other iterations depend upon good project management skills which we still dont acknowledge as issues.. The ecosystem can only support HAL to a limited extent and unless there are government backing and a larger attraction for the companies, the support chain to HAL: and LCA ecosystem will be a cause of worry. This will directly mean the production rate and parts available will be a challenge at all times.

nevertheless, we should now wait for Mk1 crafts delivery and Mk1A timeline as well. Once its out for production, then MK2 timelines and all other feature addon will be very clear.

1) I mentioned LDP as it doesn't take much space but occupies the edge of the fuselage, another side being cannon. Yes, for air superiority, it is irrelevant. I just ignored it.
2) Dual rack is only for the non-wing tip missile and that too when using lighter missile like BVR
3) I am speaking of Tejas Mk2. It will have a slightly bigger wing and I am expecting it to be able to hold Astra of 155kg. Currently in Tejas Mk1, Derby of 120kg is capable of being fired from it. So, expecting a 40kg upgrade with increase in size is not far fetched.

I personally have little hope for Tejas Mk1A. It is simply too small and too light. Things like EW and SPJ can't be kept outside. That is incorrect design. I am focusing on MK2 only. MK2 has been confirmed by Bhamre and has stated that it will get FOC by 2025. There is no doubt about MK2 being scrapped.

I am expecting a massive government backing in India soon. As of now, several subsystem like engine, AESa are in final stages and need a few years for completion. Unnecessarily ramping Tejas Mk1 with lot of imported parts will unnecessarily increase India's reliance on foreign spare parts in the future too. I feel that government is being forced to order MK1 to maintain the production line and expertise to be ramped up later as and when MK2 is available. It will also provide valuable feedback for improvement. The production of Mk1 is being kept low as it is not really a desirable plane but a necessary evil to keep the infrastructure alive till MK2 will roll out (2024-25).

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

Good Analysis. Would like to point out few things:

• The cost figures you have stated as very wrong. Tejas MK2 cannot be 30% the cost of F-16.
• Similarly Rafales cannot be 4-5 times the cost of MK2. Let suppose Tejas MK2 costs 40Mn, are you saying Rafale costs 200-240 Mn per plane? BDW 40Mn for Tejas MK2 is very aggressive and will be very difficult.
• MK2 development as of today is very unpredictable. Given the resources we have, I very strongly believe that we can either focus on MK2 or AMCA. We cannot run both in parallel
• Mig 21 can be replaced by Tejas MK1A, mig 27 are being replaced by Rafales. By the time M2K, Jaguars and Mig 29s are up for replacement ( by 2035) we need to be looking at AMCAs. In the meanwhile inducting more Rafales will be enough.
• Therefore, we do not require MK2 in future. We needed it yesterday, but its too late. Therefore, instead of spending time and resources on MK2, I feel it is better to go all guns blazing on AMCA.
• In the meanwhile MK1A and their iterations will always take care of the lower end.

Tejas is costing 30-35 million dollars a piece as of now. When it will be scaled up, the cost will hit drastically. As more components will become indigenous, the cost will become lower and lower - 150 crores per unit is my expectation.

Rafales cost heavily with all the customisations involved. It indeed costs a lot

MK2 development started long ago and Bhamre has given the timeline of 2025 for FOC.

Mig21, jaguar will be replaced by Tejas Mk1A and Mig27 and Mirage 2000 will be replaced by Tejas Mk2.

AMCA and MK2 will be using the same subsystems like AESA, EW, SPJ, ejection seat, pylons etc. Even composite, and engine making will be related. Both projects will run in parallel without draining much resource. Tejas Mk2 is based on Mk1A but with some refining while AMCA will be a new design.

Mk1A is too low end. It is poorly designed, probably due to lack of experience. MK1A only serves to provide feedback and keep the industry alive and consolidate. Several private players will be roped in and production stabilised. Once the quality and teething problems settle down, the MK2 can be rolled out quickly

In today's world, merely MiG21 is wasteful. Replacement for MiG 21 mentality is what made Mk1 a poor plane. What was needed was a full fledged single engine plane.


Rafales are just temporary. No wars can be won using imported technology. It will be like Ottoman empire in WW1. Rafales, as I see are useful as they have provided us with consultancy and test bed for testing our Kaveri engine regularly. Now we don't need to run to Russia every time to test. Rafale is not worth ordering more. It is a waste of money. In war, you must be able to manage attrition, not just hope and pray that your 100-200 planes will do the job. Though, I think Government will order more rafale if the Kaveri engine is successfully run with France help. It could be a carrot and stick approach

 

[ranadd]

India is not decades behind in R&D. India is 1 decade behind R&D. The current supercomputing revolution has changed things extremely drastically and has forced everyone to redesign many things from scratch. So, that gave India a second lifeline to catch up quickly.

I wanted to respond to you, then I read the bullshit you wrote.

I used to *censored*ing work with this Indian MICs. L1. I obviously cannot say more.

Don’t trust me at all. Cannot care less.

India is still in the 80s in technological terms. Red tape and corruption still holds India back. Same work done in multiple agencies with no coordination. Indian approach of minimum work maximum politics is absurd. For the last 20 years, we haven’t even made any proactive actions towards growth. There are no funds for research.

And you are saying 10 years?. I hope you are not working for any of the departments I used to work with. If you are, I am not surprised either.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

I wanted to respond to you, then I read the bullshit you wrote.

I used to *censored*ing work with this Indian MICs. L1. I obviously cannot say more.

Don’t trust me at all. Cannot care less.

India is still in the 80s in technological terms. Red tape and corruption still holds India back. Same work done in multiple agencies with no coordination. Indian approach of minimum work maximum politics is absurd. For the last 20 years, we haven’t even made any proactive actions towards growth. There are no funds for research.

And you are saying 10 years?. I hope you are not working for any of the departments I used to work with. If you are, I am not surprised either.

India is how china was in 2010 roughly speaking. You are simply overly exaggerating. 1980s is when there was very little digital technology.

Don't you see SAM, seekers, supersonic cruise missiles, LCH, NAG, AEWACS, radars etc being made today?

 

[Sahil.ecclstone]

I would say we are at the technological level of 2005 on average.
Although in some fields we do excell beyond that.
Witb the onset of better education n a larger more educated workforce, the developmental gap will only decrease from now on. Maybe by 2030s we will be at par with the western nations or maybe even better in some cases.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

I would say we are at the technological level of 2005 on average.
Although in some fields we do excell beyond that.
Witb the onset of better education n a larger more educated workforce, the developmental gap will only decrease from now on. Maybe by 2030s we will be at par with the western nations or maybe even better in some cases.

USA has stagnated technology wise since 2010. The only improvement is GaN AESA radar which too is not yet complete. So, technology matures and saturates which makes it possible for others to catch up. India is behind by 10 years in terms of technology levels to USA.

This is also the reason why USA has been shouting about China dominance. China will have caught up with USA by 2020 technology wise and 5 more years for implementation/production.

 

[Bon Plan]

As I mentioned above, Gripen or Tejas Mk2 can offer the role of medium plane. Tejas or Gripen can double up in production numbers. Lightness of fighter also means that lesser fuel drop tanks are needed for extended range. See my figures above. So, only heavy bombers can't be replaced by Tejas. The only other plane not replaceable is short take-off ones due to unique ability

Question is : the Tejas Mk2 will be developped? absolutely not sure. And in the affirmative, it takes time....
Medium plane the Gripen E ? light in the medium so, as SH18 is heavy in the medium.

 

[Bon Plan]

Tejas is costing 30-35 million dollars a piece as of now.

are you sure? With the very low delivery rate, the cost is probably higher than calculated.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

are you sure? With the very low delivery rate, the cost is probably higher than calculated.

I read in 2015 that cost is 171 crores (65 rupee/dollar). With addition of Radar, it may be a little more. Though, it may be dependent on order numbers.

Question is : the Tejas Mk2 will be developped? absolutely not sure. And in the affirmative, it takes time....
Medium plane the Gripen E ? light in the medium so, as SH18 is heavy in the medium.

Everything takes time. But the point here is that it was decided in 2013 itself that new upgrade is needed to Tejas and work for design started back then itself. The subsystems are being developed too. It is in advanced stages. When the development has been confirmed and FOC fixed as 2025, how can you say that you are not sure? This statement was made in the parliament by minister of state for defence.

Gripen E/Tejas Mk2 is indeed light-medium range plane. But, Tejas Mk2 is utterly cheap and hence it is better to make 2 Tejas instead of 1 Rafale. The numbers can be increased to offset size disparity. That is why I gave the comparison above

 

[ranadd]

India is how china was in 2010 roughly speaking. You are simply overly exaggerating. 1980s is when there was very little digital technology.

Don't you see SAM, seekers, supersonic cruise missiles, LCH, NAG, AEWACS, radars etc being made today?

I really wish to take your seriously. But cannot.

BJP is usually hawkish about defense. I agree. However, again, political parties can only create manifestos in India. Most Indians are gullible in nature. Yes, I am being condescending.

All the things you talk about was cutting edge in 80s and I give in, even the 90s.

India’s problem is more to do with how the R&D is done or treated more than anything else.

India’s Top SAM project, is Akash IMO. How well do you think the product was accepted and portfolio maintained?

You meant, we are still using foreign seekers in most of our expendable missiles?

What about LCH? We have a project for that?. Hint: I know someone who saw it in drawing board in the 90s. He works in the US now and drives a yellow Corvette Z1.

AWACS and radars?. What about it? We have shortage of it. GOI is not placing orders for it? We still looking for perpetual orders?

See my friend, product development does not end at R&D. There needs to be a market for that. There needs to be follow on or spin offs for that.

Note: I am sure you can come up with lots of answers to everything I say by scouring internet. But I am going to ignore you. As I cannot answer you with both my hands tied to my back.

 

[ranadd]

I would say we are at the technological level of 2005 on average.
Although in some fields we do excell beyond that.
Witb the onset of better education n a larger more educated workforce, the developmental gap will only decrease from now on. Maybe by 2030s we will be at par with the western nations or maybe even better in some cases.

I am not answering to you in particular. Just trying to dispel this myth of years.

Here is a common way of discrerning it.

I am talking about heavy engineering and state of the art development here. Not small arms or so. Think submarines, radars, missile complex etc.

The most heavily worked product today will only see the light in say 5 to 7 years. That will be for DVT. There will be EVTs in before that.

DVTs for larger equipments will be for major sub systems first. Then we have something called Integrated phase. This will have almost all things together. These phases will go on for atleast 3 to 7 years depending on the product. Patent filing will happen in these years and usually the leaks will happen in these years as well. Note: make a list of Indian product leaks here.

Then user trials kick in. That depends on the users.

All these are normal timelines depending on budgets and technological constraints.

So technically, the products you work in today will only see the light in min 15 to 17 years. Usually it takes upto 20 or more in government contracts.

Now take India’s top projects. See the competitors products in that area. You made the list above for this.

Current Indian tech is NOT in 2000s. You can only build on top of that.

Now I come to Indian governemnt tech development in particular. This is applicable in inter governemnt agencies and espionage as well. It’s during the leaks and patent filings, others will get to know the new direction. And they will also start on the AVAILABLE information. I hope you see the problems here.

So everyone, you do not have to accept this, Indian tech is truly pre Y2K.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

I really wish to take your seriously. But cannot.

BJP is usually hawkish about defense. I agree. However, again, political parties can only create manifestos in India. Most Indians are gullible in nature. Yes, I am being condescending.

All the things you talk about was cutting edge in 80s and I give in, even the 90s.

India’s problem is more to do with how the R&D is done or treated more than anything else.

India’s Top SAM project, is Akash IMO. How well do you think the product was accepted and portfolio maintained?

You meant, we are still using foreign seekers in most of our expendable missiles?

What about LCH? We have a project for that?. Hint: I know someone who saw it in drawing board in the 90s. He works in the US now and drives a yellow Corvette Z1.

AWACS and radars?. What about it? We have shortage of it. GOI is not placing orders for it? We still looking for perpetual orders?

See my friend, product development does not end at R&D. There needs to be a market for that. There needs to be follow on or spin offs for that.

Note: I am sure you can come up with lots of answers to everything I say by scouring internet. But I am going to ignore you. As I cannot answer you with both my hands tied to my back.

Creating manifestos is different from making arms research. Don't mix up your own theory. We are using foreign seekers as of now. We are making strides in seeker development with Astra, NAG, Akash missile seeker etc. The seekers have been successfully tested. Hence, it will replace imported ones soon.

LCH may have been tarted in 1990s, but has been perfected now. Saying that the project existed in 1990s is invalid excuse. Even USA apache has gone only little upgrade. Helicopters don't change every now and then. There are many things that saturate.

AEWACS and radars technology are available. If ordered, can be produced quickly. When we are speaking of tchnology, why are you speaking of quantity? India is not producing in mass quantity as budget is limited and it is better focused on bettering the technology to perfection and then ordering later.

Akash SAM is maturing. Even BARAK-8 is almost indigenised. Seekers are being developed as I mentioned above.


You are not answering in specifics as to what is missing that makes Indian technology 1980-1990s? Which country had 3rd generation ATGM in 1980s or AEWACS of AESA?

The world technology has stagnated. What technology exists today, also existed in 2010. No new improvement has been made. Even if Indian technology is 2000, it is only 10 years behind due to this stagnation. Just saying 1990s, 2000 will not work. Your friend is going to put his head in his underwear once oil runs out. Good luck with his USA stay. The first country to collapse when oil runs out is USA. USA consumes 20 million barrels a day of hich 10 million barrels is imported. If that is what you glorify, you have some serious problems with yourself. Get well soon

 

[randomradio]

I am not answering to you in particular. Just trying to dispel this myth of years.

Here is a common way of discrerning it.

I am talking about heavy engineering and state of the art development here. Not small arms or so. Think submarines, radars, missile complex etc.

The most heavily worked product today will only see the light in say 5 to 7 years. That will be for DVT. There will be EVTs in before that.

DVTs for larger equipments will be for major sub systems first. Then we have something called Integrated phase. This will have almost all things together. These phases will go on for atleast 3 to 7 years depending on the product. Patent filing will happen in these years and usually the leaks will happen in these years as well. Note: make a list of Indian product leaks here.

Then user trials kick in. That depends on the users.

All these are normal timelines depending on budgets and technological constraints.

So technically, the products you work in today will only see the light in min 15 to 17 years. Usually it takes upto 20 or more in government contracts.

Now take India’s top projects. See the competitors products in that area. You made the list above for this.

Current Indian tech is NOT in 2000s. You can only build on top of that.

Now I come to Indian governemnt tech development in particular. This is applicable in inter governemnt agencies and espionage as well. It’s during the leaks and patent filings, others will get to know the new direction. And they will also start on the AVAILABLE information. I hope you see the problems here.

So everyone, you do not have to accept this, Indian tech is truly pre Y2K.

When it comes to truly Indian products, large systems, we are pre-2000 or pre-80s or pre-60s or non-existent depending on technology.

When it comes to Indian R&D capability, we are 10-20 years behind Europe and the US, but we are also catching up, consistently.

 

[randomradio]

I really wish to take your seriously. But cannot.

BJP is usually hawkish about defense. I agree. However, again, political parties can only create manifestos in India. Most Indians are gullible in nature. Yes, I am being condescending.

All the things you talk about was cutting edge in 80s and I give in, even the 90s.

India’s problem is more to do with how the R&D is done or treated more than anything else.

India’s Top SAM project, is Akash IMO. How well do you think the product was accepted and portfolio maintained?

You meant, we are still using foreign seekers in most of our expendable missiles?

What about LCH? We have a project for that?. Hint: I know someone who saw it in drawing board in the 90s. He works in the US now and drives a yellow Corvette Z1.

AWACS and radars?. What about it? We have shortage of it. GOI is not placing orders for it? We still looking for perpetual orders?

See my friend, product development does not end at R&D. There needs to be a market for that. There needs to be follow on or spin offs for that.

Note: I am sure you can come up with lots of answers to everything I say by scouring internet. But I am going to ignore you. As I cannot answer you with both my hands tied to my back.

Akash is doing well. $4B worth of SAMs have been ordered.

LCH will be getting IOC soon. The first 16 have been ordered.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

When it comes to truly Indian products, large systems, we are pre-2000 or pre-80s or pre-60s or non-existent depending on technology.

When it comes to Indian R&D capability, we are 10-20 years behind Europe and the US, but we are also catching up, consistently.

Which are the large systems which are pre-1980s, pre-2000s? Don't tell me things which have saturated like rifles, tanks etc. The same dragunov sniper rifle of 1960 still works excellent today, for example. But, dynamic systems which have shown growth, please state the pre-1980 ones