Opinion - Is there Really a “Shortage” in Projected Squadron Numbers?

Aashish

PARIKRAMA
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
411
Location
India
Reactions
1,649 9 0
#1
Opinion Piece
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there Really a “Shortage” in Projected Squadron Numbers?

By Aashish , 02.12.17

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We have been seeing mind numbing articles for quite some time with an emphasis on

  • Tejas program not up to mark
  • IAF personnel wanting the end of Tejas Program
  • IAF wanting a Single Engine jet Deal in place of Tejas program
First one has to understand this is in backdrop of a so called Single Engine Fighter Plane requirement and with that context , certain vested interests have been taking pot shots on the Tejas program. The technicalities are a bit different from the topic in this small article but I certainly believe a Mark1A+ should be in a position to out match Gripen D, Mirage 2000 Vajras and will push the plane closer to capabilities to F16 Block 70 and Gripen E (barring MTOW) in particular mission roles.

The whole general perception that Tejas program may not able to match the expectations and time schedule and hence the additional 83 planes which has been awarded AoN as per IAF may be scrapped has built hysteria that there is a critical shortage in IAF inventory.

Let us take an example of such a possibility with this pictorial, courtesy dadeechi who took pain to understand how the whole scenario is being played out to weaken the psyche of all the Indians

1512155280600.png

Figure 1


As you can see the gap being shown makes a grim situation and a opening for a SE jet to pitch in quickly a so called make In India or MII Line and take a deal of 98+16 Flyaway + follow on possible option of at least 56 over time making a grand total of 170+ planes easily... The truth is such a SE fighter jet deal can eventually rise to 200 jets as well over a long time say by 2030.

So it made me wonder what if we don’t take these 170 jets by 2027 but rework something out better, how could different combinations look like?

Below is one such combination..


1512154850946.png

Figure 2


What I did is basically considered “magically” the 170 aircrafts possibility by 2027 and break it down into two halves.

~ 170+ = 105 + 72 by 2027

Apparently such a approach enables me to consider two existing platforms which has been invested a lot already (time, money, efforts and strategic willpower)

As you can see I have conservatively considered that a total of 7 squadrons can come in LCA Mk1A+ by end of 2027. This implies a clear cut additional 5 squadrons or approximately 105 planes over Figure 1 scenario.

Second I considered further batches of Rafale under MII program where for every batch component localisation and ecosystem creation increases. So two more batches of 36 under DRAL plant lets to a total of 6 squadrons as well.

Eventually 8 more squadrons of M2K, Jags and MiG 29 will be up for replacement as well post 2030 allowing at least another 5 squadrons of LCA fleet and 3 more for Rafales. Interestingly such a combination puts the whole LCA fleet at 14 sqd plus or 294 Jets and Rafale 12 squads or 216 odd aircraft's. The whole fleet is left with Just Super MKi, Rafales and LCA eventually AMCA comes in with AURA.

Now it's not that all these production facility can't be scaled up in either of the cases. For example in case of LCA we can scale up additional 8/year to bring it to 24/year as long as ecosystem support the same. Same is the case for DRAL Line. This means even the 2030 scenario of 40 sqd number can be achieved couple of years earlier as well. The chief challenge being timely "Ecosystem" growth & support + emphasis on ensuring higher efficiency in the whole chain.

The naysayers say the SE line can pump minimum 24-30-36 Jets per year easily from the very beginning of stable operations. But what people miss out is that a new SE Fighter jet manufacturing line will mean net investment from zero level. As an incentive government will share half the expenses of such a line set up with direct or indirect help, second for good amount of time they will focus on CKD or completely knock down route progressing to SKD or Semi Knockdown to finally sufficient localisation. Now all that is already under progress with existing 2 lines in LCA and DRAL (through offset localisation), so why again reinvent the thing and waste time and money?

Technically I believe the challenge to this proposition is simply the following

How to make French side commit for making Rafales in India and still support Tejas program?

Tejas program biggest challenge is the ecosystem and the outsourced parts... If there is a possibility that entire imported portion of Tejas can be augmented by a DRAL component manufacturing facility which is indeed making parts for Rafales under offsets, then this proposition is a win win for both the sides.. With enough of present LRUs and Components, you get a facility which becomes part of HAL Ecosystem naturally.

How so? Well let's for example contemplate the following –

  • Safransied Kaveri engine program which is under offset implementation for Rafale 36 deal is successful and the same 65/98 Kn engine gets qualified for LCA and later better 72/110Kn version becomes available as well..
  • Thales RBE 2 AESA family Radar into the radome with new cooling solution
  • EW suit internal + RWR
  • Internal re-arrangement and taking forward the open system architecture with more cores to boost the performance of the system
  • Avionics Package
  • Aerodynamic improvement in 0.8-1.2M zone
  • Rearranging landing gear to improve the central pylon capabilities
  • Arming Tejas with MICA IR and MICA EM and using the sensors to transfer data to main processing unit for enhanced target recognition and engagement
  • Improving the maintenance regime and making it more friendly with easier accessibility for quicker turn around, a health Monitoring system for plug and play approach with enhanced Quality Checks
Such an approach leads to creation of a much improved Mki1A and hence designated Mk1A+.

To further use the expertise of the French side, we should propose a simple block approach with each of the capabilities which can be later upgraded to latest standard.

To keep Program Tejas move ahead, there must be a Joint program with French side for AMCA and use the development of technology to seamlessly flow into all future iterations.

Is that all?

The answer is still No..

The reason being every program under aviation history will show dramatic cost over runs, delays and at times a black hole like situation. The major focus is not to lose hope and continue on the path of an indigenous development.. But at the same time reinventing the whole wheel is not needed. It's better to use the joint development efforts and bring in the best of synergistic congruence towards a better risk management in the project.

Developing Tejas program with such capabilities and AMCA joint program opens the path to future iterations of Tejas as well.. Our AURA program without the after burners can learn a lot from NUERON program as well.. So it's not a day dream to think a swarm of AURA drones can be controlled by LCA as well like below

1512154879875.png


This implies Rafale /AMCA remains our best access medium for 5th gen level capability and use many of the 5th gen functions in a network centric role with LCA iterations itself.. With so many possibilities and future potential, it's still hard to understand is the gap really there or forced to be there by some opinion makers in order to thwart such a incredible possibility.

So back to opening question
Is there Really a “Shortage” in Projected Squadron Numbers?

- In my humble opinion, No but it becomes a Yes if you do get a government which in spite of knowing the best course of action maintains the status quo for some other strategic motive.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
18
Reactions
16 0 0
#2
Opinion Piece
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there Really a “Shortage” in Projected Squadron Numbers?

By Aashish , 02.12.17

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We have been seeing mind numbing articles for quite some time with an emphasis on

  • Tejas program not up to mark
  • IAF personnel wanting the end of Tejas Program
  • IAF wanting a Single Engine jet Deal in place of Tejas program
First one has to understand this is in backdrop of a so called Single Engine Fighter Plane requirement and with that context , certain vested interests have been taking pot shots on the Tejas program. The technicalities are a bit different from the topic in this small article but I certainly believe a Mark1A+ should be in a position to out match Gripen D, Mirage 2000 Vajras and will push the plane closer to capabilities to F16 Block 70 and Gripen E (barring MTOW) in particular mission roles.

The whole general perception that Tejas program may not able to match the expectations and time schedule and hence the additional 83 planes which has been awarded AoN as per IAF may be scrapped has built hysteria that there is a critical shortage in IAF inventory.

Let us take an example of such a possibility with this pictorial, courtesy dadeechi who took pain to understand how the whole scenario is being played out to weaken the psyche of all the Indians

View attachment 47
Figure 1


As you can see the gap being shown makes a grim situation and a opening for a SE jet to pitch in quickly a so called make In India or MII Line and take a deal of 98+16 Flyaway + follow on possible option of at least 56 over time making a grand total of 170+ planes easily... The truth is such a SE fighter jet deal can eventually rise to 200 jets as well over a long time say by 2030.

So it made me wonder what if we don’t take these 170 jets by 2027 but rework something out better, how could different combinations look like?

Below is one such combination..


View attachment 45
Figure 2


What I did is basically considered “magically” the 170 aircrafts possibility by 2027 and break it down into two halves.

~ 170+ = 105 + 72 by 2027

Apparently such a approach enables me to consider two existing platforms which has been invested a lot already (time, money, efforts and strategic willpower)

As you can see I have conservatively considered that a total of 7 squadrons can come in LCA Mk1A+ by end of 2027. This implies a clear cut additional 5 squadrons or approximately 105 planes over Figure 1 scenario.

Second I considered further batches of Rafale under MII program where for every batch component localisation and ecosystem creation increases. So two more batches of 36 under DRAL plant lets to a total of 6 squadrons as well.

Eventually 8 more squadrons of M2K, Jags and MiG 29 will be up for replacement as well post 2030 allowing at least another 5 squadrons of LCA fleet and 3 more for Rafales. Interestingly such a combination puts the whole LCA fleet at 14 sqd plus or 294 Jets and Rafale 12 squads or 216 odd aircraft's. The whole fleet is left with Just Super MKi, Rafales and LCA eventually AMCA comes in with AURA.

Now it's not that all these production facility can't be scaled up in either of the cases. For example in case of LCA we can scale up additional 8/year to bring it to 24/year as long as ecosystem support the same. Same is the case for DRAL Line. This means even the 2030 scenario of 40 sqd number can be achieved couple of years earlier as well. The chief challenge being timely "Ecosystem" growth & support + emphasis on ensuring higher efficiency in the whole chain.

The naysayers say the SE line can pump minimum 24-30-36 Jets per year easily from the very beginning of stable operations. But what people miss out is that a new SE Fighter jet manufacturing line will mean net investment from zero level. As an incentive government will share half the expenses of such a line set up with direct or indirect help, second for good amount of time they will focus on CKD or completely knock down route progressing to SKD or Semi Knockdown to finally sufficient localisation. Now all that is already under progress with existing 2 lines in LCA and DRAL (through offset localisation), so why again reinvent the thing and waste time and money?

Technically I believe the challenge to this proposition is simply the following

How to make French side commit for making Rafales in India and still support Tejas program?

Tejas program biggest challenge is the ecosystem and the outsourced parts... If there is a possibility that entire imported portion of Tejas can be augmented by a DRAL component manufacturing facility which is indeed making parts for Rafales under offsets, then this proposition is a win win for both the sides.. With enough of present LRUs and Components, you get a facility which becomes part of HAL Ecosystem naturally.

How so? Well let's for example contemplate the following –

  • Safransied Kaveri engine program which is under offset implementation for Rafale 36 deal is successful and the same 65/98 Kn engine gets qualified for LCA and later better 72/110Kn version becomes available as well..
  • Thales RBE 2 AESA family Radar into the radome with new cooling solution
  • EW suit internal + RWR
  • Internal re-arrangement and taking forward the open system architecture with more cores to boost the performance of the system
  • Avionics Package
  • Aerodynamic improvement in 0.8-1.2M zone
  • Rearranging landing gear to improve the central pylon capabilities
  • Arming Tejas with MICA IR and MICA EM and using the sensors to transfer data to main processing unit for enhanced target recognition and engagement
  • Improving the maintenance regime and making it more friendly with easier accessibility for quicker turn around, a health Monitoring system for plug and play approach with enhanced Quality Checks
Such an approach leads to creation of a much improved Mki1A and hence designated Mk1A+.

To further use the expertise of the French side, we should propose a simple block approach with each of the capabilities which can be later upgraded to latest standard.

To keep Program Tejas move ahead, there must be a Joint program with French side for AMCA and use the development of technology to seamlessly flow into all future iterations.

Is that all?

The answer is still No..

The reason being every program under aviation history will show dramatic cost over runs, delays and at times a black hole like situation. The major focus is not to lose hope and continue on the path of an indigenous development.. But at the same time reinventing the whole wheel is not needed. It's better to use the joint development efforts and bring in the best of synergistic congruence towards a better risk management in the project.

Developing Tejas program with such capabilities and AMCA joint program opens the path to future iterations of Tejas as well.. Our AURA program without the after burners can learn a lot from NUERON program as well.. So it's not a day dream to think a swarm of AURA drones can be controlled by LCA as well like below

View attachment 46

This implies Rafale /AMCA remains our best access medium for 5th gen level capability and use many of the 5th gen functions in a network centric role with LCA iterations itself.. With so many possibilities and future potential, it's still hard to understand is the gap really there or forced to be there by some opinion makers in order to thwart such a incredible possibility.

So back to opening question
Is there Really a “Shortage” in Projected Squadron Numbers?

- In my humble opinion, No but it becomes a Yes if you do get a government which in spite of knowing the best course of action maintains the status quo for some other strategic motive.
Yeah but the numbers which are generally put up like the desired 45 squadron of jets by 2032,I feel that it is very small.

For full spectrum dominance over Pakistan and Tibet,we are gonna require 50-55 squadrons of jet fighters along with good number of AWACS and MARS system.

I say that because Chinese will start production of j-20 and j-31 by 2022/25 in full pace.and by 2032 they will have 600-700 5th gen jet and 1000 4th gen jets,and Pakistan will have approx 500 jets with some small number of j-31 in its inventory.

So that is like 2100-2200 jets to take on.

Chinese cannot put each and every aircraft of their air force against us but they can put 3rd of their air force against us,that is 700 jets and Pakistan will obviously put all of its strength.Thats 1200(60 squadron) jets to take on at least.

To take on such a force we will require a good numbers of jets and force multipliers (AWACS, Mars,long range aam,long range sam,cruise missiles).

I believe Chinese might have surpassed us in technological edge that we had 5-10 years back.

Air force can bring up the numbers of aircrafts by committing to Tejas aircraft,try to get all 14 squadrons by 2032 and for that we will have to increase production capacity to 24 at least,fast track development of Tejas mk2.Order 90 more Rafale and ask for French help on AMCA and AURA project.Simply buy su-57 and add French Israeli or whatever tech we need and pursue for license production.

So if the given plan is pursued so we can have about
294 Tejas mk2/mk1/mk1a+126 Rafale+100 Pak fa (considering it goes into production in 2027 at 20/year)+280 su-30mki(hopefully some super standard)+120 mig-29 and mirage 2000+80 jaguar upgraded.

So that puts up at 1000 jets(50 squadrons) by 2032.
 

Aashish

PARIKRAMA
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
411
Location
India
Reactions
1,649 9 0
#3
For a practical 2 front war yes 55-56 sqds are is definitely required.

The question to ask is what kind of timelines can be looked at fulfilling such a commitment.

As an example lets consider a simple scenario of additional 16/year LCA making it 32/year.. Will the ecosystem support it? yes provided the scaling is done gradually. The same lies with Rafales where we can achieve 24/year as well.

The real squadron number in say 2030-35 in just 5 years can add 80 LCAs and 30 Rafales easily implying 4+~2 - 6 squadrons as well

That pitches us closer to 45 squadron easily and rest 10 i would ideally hope from AMCA from 2035 onwards..

But i would prefer moving to have additional 10-15 squadrons above the manned planes.. At least AURA 10 sqds can be of greater benefits with complex missions being their forte versus manned flights..

So all depend upon our choice of evolution. The future wont be about large numbers alone.. It will be about survivable assets post the battle of attrition. It is here i hoping the change can be seen and accordingly LCA program is "re-positioned".
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
18
Reactions
16 0 0
#4
For a practical 2 front war yes 55-56 sqds are is definitely required.

The question to ask is what kind of timelines can be looked at fulfilling such a commitment.

As an example lets consider a simple scenario of additional 16/year LCA making it 32/year.. Will the ecosystem support it? yes provided the scaling is done gradually. The same lies with Rafales where we can achieve 24/year as well.

The real squadron number in say 2030-35 in just 5 years can add 80 LCAs and 30 Rafales easily implying 4+~2 - 6 squadrons as well

That pitches us closer to 45 squadron easily and rest 10 i would ideally hope from AMCA from 2035 onwards..

But i would prefer moving to have additional 10-15 squadrons above the manned planes.. At least AURA 10 sqds can be of greater benefits with complex missions being their forte versus manned flights..

So all depend upon our choice of evolution. The future wont be about large numbers alone.. It will be about survivable assets post the battle of attrition. It is here i hoping the change can be seen and accordingly LCA program is "re-positioned".
Given unofficial work on AMCA was started in 2009 and official from 2015,we can have that bird with FOC or maybe in serial production by 2030-32,the reason for my claim is we are very close to engine tech,we have created a good enough ecosystem thanks to Tejas program,and most of the tech has been developed.


So 50 squadrons is achievable by 2032.

Given tejas+ Rafale are given full priority or Tejas+se+Rafale are given full priority.

But we have to invest high in domestic r&d.

I have a question-can Tejas be modified to be made something what su-25/a-10 is????

Such an aircraft will give us psychological and massive military edge against enemy armour and personnel irrespective of terrain.

__________________________________________

All in all,let's invest in domestic ecosystem and please-i beg increase Tejas orders.
 

GuardianRED

Call Sign "RED"
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
229
Reactions
193 2 0
#5
Given unofficial work on AMCA was started in 2009 and official from 2015,we can have that bird with FOC or maybe in serial production by 2030-32,the reason for my claim is we are very close to engine tech,we have created a good enough ecosystem thanks to Tejas program,and most of the tech has been developed.


So 50 squadrons is achievable by 2032.

Given tejas+ Rafale are given full priority or Tejas+se+Rafale are given full priority.

But we have to invest high in domestic r&d.

I have a question-can Tejas be modified to be made something what su-25/a-10 is????

Such an aircraft will give us psychological and massive military edge against enemy armour and personnel irrespective of terrain.

__________________________________________

All in all,let's invest in domestic ecosystem and please-i beg increase Tejas orders.
In addition to high investment in R&D.

Capable and decisive ppl should be running the show and it should involve all parties + once specs are finalized - the same must be frozen and all waypoints/goals must be achieved and completed on time. Induct the system with later variants always be upgraded

The most important i feel is "Communication", we have seen many many articles trying to put down and charge the narrative so much that a project will dragged thru the dirt (where there is no dirt seen ) OR a project will be elevated to God like weapons ie "World Beating" or "Selective Group" thus when the same fails - we will ridicule (or be ridicule ) the system and every tom dick harry will have a say in why it failed (here i only ask to be humble from the beginning and except our achievements and improve on our failings)
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
18
Reactions
16 0 0
#6
In addition to high investment in R&D.

Capable and decisive ppl should be running the show and it should involve all parties + once specs are finalized - the same must be frozen and all waypoints/goals must be achieved and completed on time. Induct the system with later variants always be upgraded

The most important i feel is "Communication", we have seen many many articles trying to put down and charge the narrative so much that a project will dragged thru the dirt (where there is no dirt seen ) OR a project will be elevated to God like weapons ie "World Beating" or "Selective Group" thus when the same fails - we will ridicule (or be ridicule ) the system and every tom dick harry will have a say in why it failed (here i only ask to be humble from the beginning and expect our achievements and improve on our failings)
Yes.

The reason why Tejas took 30 years from design board to dropping LGB firing BVRAAM is lack of strong leadership across development authority+airforce+neta.

We were so lazy on Tejas that airforce changed the gsqr so many times that drawing board had to be revisited and technology either had to be developed or reviewed.Plus absolute lack of any kind of design department is also creating hurdle,then there is lack of vision-almost all of our il-76s will be reaching retirement from next decade and yet there is no plan on how to maintain our transport fleet,an-32 is the same story.No clear vision on what UAV and UCAV.Then their is their love of firangi maal.

List does not ends there-hal produced many defective parts for spares and maintenance,there was a news that they were using used up engines for su-30mki.

Then political leadership is a joke-they can easily be bought or are idiot enough to buy any foreign product.

The very answer to these problems are-get civvie babus out of mod and install technocrats and autocrats,same for HAL.

Say clear no to foreign maal which can easily be produced in India (like FRCV tender should be thrown in the garbage-simply improve Arjun platform and buy them in masses,no more Russia ka maal).

The path is long and involve a lot of kickbacks but we have to charter,there is no way out.

___________________________________________

And make people accountable.
 

GuardianRED

Call Sign "RED"
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
229
Reactions
193 2 0
#7
Yes.

The reason why Tejas took 30 years from design board to dropping LGB firing BVRAAM is lack of strong leadership across development authority+airforce+neta.

We were so lazy on Tejas that airforce changed the gsqr so many times that drawing board had to be revisited and technology either had to be developed or reviewed.Plus absolute lack of any kind of design department is also creating hurdle,then there is lack of vision-almost all of our il-76s will be reaching retirement from next decade and yet there is no plan on how to maintain our transport fleet,an-32 is the same story.No clear vision on what UAV and UCAV.Then their is their love of firangi maal.

List does not ends there-hal produced many defective parts for spares and maintenance,there was a news that they were using used up engines for su-30mki.

Then political leadership is a joke-they can easily be bought or are idiot enough to buy any foreign product.

The very answer to these problems are-get civvie babus out of mod and install technocrats and autocrats,same for HAL.

Say clear no to foreign maal which can easily be produced in India (like FRCV tender should be thrown in the garbage-simply improve Arjun platform and buy them in masses,no more Russia ka maal).

The path is long and involve a lot of kickbacks but we have to charter,there is no way out.

___________________________________________
Agree

Still lot of your points are based on reports coming in the news and

For eg : The used up engines - they are actually refurbished engines ( our desi reporters used the term second hand -which also was BS) done by HAL which is rated for use - which IAF has no issues - the Main reason for its Use is simply because the new engines from Russia is not keeping up the new built frames. Thus instead of having engineless frames lying around, refurbished engines was installed so atleast - the induction timeline is kept up.

Another eg : The FRCV . Now all article, post , comments are based on experience and possible interpretation of the tender correct? with these interpretation we have articles saying that the IA has junked the arjun - is this true? has this come out officially? the answer is NO

This is why - when i say communication is KEY, the MoD, IAF, IA (and even the IN) should officially come out and explain ie CLEAN the air of all BS and even put up journos by name with their BS reporting .

Case and point is the NLCA - for those who followed the project from the beginning knew that NP1 and NP2 (both Mk1s) will always be prototypes for testing and will never be SPs (ie SPs variants will never be built), ie the job for Mk2 (if you read on ADA annually report, the IN is already Invested in the same) BUT what we have - IN REJECTED the NLCA. (heck even in the article the IN chief didn't use the word rejected , that only the journo added) Now - playing the devil - Tomorrow the IN officially closes the NLCA project - Please provide reasons and learning of the same - ie please communicate - thus keeping the BS away
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
18
Reactions
16 0 0
#8
Agree

Still lot of your points are based on reports coming in the news and

For eg : The used up engines - they are actually refurbished engines ( our desi reporters used the term second hand -which also was BS) done by HAL which is rated for use - which IAF has no issues - the Main reason for its Use is simply because the new engines from Russia is not keeping up the new built frames. Thus instead of having engineless frames lying around, refurbished engines was installed so atleast - the induction timeline is kept up.

Another eg : The FRCV . Now all article, post , comments are based on experience and possible interpretation of the tender correct? with these interpretation we have articles saying that the IA has junked the arjun - is this true? has this come out officially? the answer is NO

This is why - when i say communication is KEY, the MoD, IAF, IA (and even the IN) should officially come out and explain ie CLEAN the air of all BS and even put up journos by name with their BS reporting .

Case and point is the NLCA - for those who followed the project from the beginning knew that NP1 and NP2 (both Mk1s) will always be prototypes for testing and will never be SPs (ie SPs variants will never be built), ie the job for Mk2 (if you read on ADA annually report, the IN is already Invested in the same) BUT what we have - IN REJECTED the NLCA. (heck even in the article the IN chief didn't use the word rejected , that only the journo added) Now - playing the devil - Tomorrow the IN officially closes the NLCA project - Please provide reasons and learning of the same - ie please communicate - thus keeping the BS away
Firangi companies buy defense patrakar mahashay and they keep on defaming the indigenous product.

I still keep on seeing the 47 or so shortfall in Tejas which were pointed out by cag back in 2009 or so, almost all of them have been sorted out.

Unnecessary dragging such critical projects in mud slows down the development and also demorlizing the team running it.

I seriously do not understand the point of having a light aircraft on board an aircraft carrier.There is absolutely no point of it given tejas is at best a point defense aircraft with ability to perform most of the tasks.I do not know how it will be capable on deck of an aircraft carrier,Rafale F4 standard sounds a neat idea to me.

__________________________________________

And yeah,you pointed out a very important part-"COMMUNICATION"
 

Aashish

PARIKRAMA
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
411
Location
India
Reactions
1,649 9 0
#9
Given unofficial work on AMCA was started in 2009 and official from 2015,we can have that bird with FOC or maybe in serial production by 2030-32,the reason for my claim is we are very close to engine tech,we have created a good enough ecosystem thanks to Tejas program,and most of the tech has been developed.


So 50 squadrons is achievable by 2032.

Given tejas+ Rafale are given full priority or Tejas+se+Rafale are given full priority.

But we have to invest high in domestic r&d.

I have a question-can Tejas be modified to be made something what su-25/a-10 is????

Such an aircraft will give us psychological and massive military edge against enemy armour and personnel irrespective of terrain.

__________________________________________

All in all,let's invest in domestic ecosystem and please-i beg increase Tejas orders.
There is two important things which we need to understand

1. What could be performance of LCA Mk1A+/iteration in subsonic regime especially around say 600kmph mark. This directly relates to possibly the loitering time (based on SFC) and maneuverability (based on G Limits)

2. We need to understand in such a condition for effective payloads. Will it be PGMs or Unguided Bombs or combo of both. This actually will determine the mission efectiveness/success rates..

The reason being the subsonic regime is basically teh highest needed thing in a CAS based mission where A-10/Su25 are beast of their own. Effectively Tejas can do the same but at a lower parameter than these giants. Its design and conception was not about dedicated CAS role at all.

Secondly, i do see a challenge in two parts
1. The ammunition required for any CAS mission will also mean effectively qualifying the same with Tejas.. Now these are expensive to maintain but indigenous ones can be an awesome addition for our whole MIC.

2 The CAS mission becomes tricky when identification of enemies from friendly is blurred. For example in case say we experience a mission over Desert and see IA and Enemy both in a densely packed formation fighting it out, i do see this mission to be tactical challenge for Tejas. The reason being by design i dont think Tejas is capable of sustaining a 500kmph mission needs for prolong time without exposing to threats. At standoff distance where there is a clear demarcation and we know there is no friendly in this zone, i see Tejas working out fine.

A bigger challenge also comes from Guns which is the main heartbeat of CAS mission.. Compared to other CAS birds or even our Jags again there is a limitation seen here.

Lastly the biggest challenge for the main CAS role will come for say flying low altitude consistently over all domains/terrains. Considering the plains it will still cope up but closer to mountains and in valleys, this limitation will stand exposed.

So by virtue of design optimization a variant of Tejas for CAS can be effectively prepared but it will require some major changes from present version. The biggest of that would be to plate up tons of armor in Tejas which will increase the weight a lot and still the whole other parameters should be adequately met.

Add to that the emerging AD environment, i certainly see this role being more effectively done by AURA like drone and Tejas managing it from stand off as described in the above picture. With all the internal EW, defensive suites, armor plating its going to be a major challenge for the new version for Tejas. But nonetheless its possible.. But dont expect massive combat radii for such roles.. Even if we achieve 500 km with such a mission with substantial loitering time, we should be happy for sure.
 

GuardianRED

Call Sign "RED"
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
229
Reactions
193 2 0
#10
There is two important things which we need to understand

1. What could be performance of LCA Mk1A+/iteration in subsonic regime especially around say 600kmph mark. This directly relates to possibly the loitering time (based on SFC) and maneuverability (based on G Limits)

2. We need to understand in such a condition for effective payloads. Will it be PGMs or Unguided Bombs or combo of both. This actually will determine the mission efectiveness/success rates..

The reason being the subsonic regime is basically teh highest needed thing in a CAS based mission where A-10/Su25 are beast of their own. Effectively Tejas can do the same but at a lower parameter than these giants. Its design and conception was not about dedicated CAS role at all.

Secondly, i do see a challenge in two parts
1. The ammunition required for any CAS mission will also mean effectively qualifying the same with Tejas.. Now these are expensive to maintain but indigenous ones can be an awesome addition for our whole MIC.

2 The CAS mission becomes tricky when identification of enemies from friendly is blurred. For example in case say we experience a mission over Desert and see IA and Enemy both in a densely packed formation fighting it out, i do see this mission to be tactical challenge for Tejas. The reason being by design i dont think Tejas is capable of sustaining a 500kmph mission needs for prolong time without exposing to threats. At standoff distance where there is a clear demarcation and we know there is no friendly in this zone, i see Tejas working out fine.

A bigger challenge also comes from Guns which is the main heartbeat of CAS mission.. Compared to other CAS birds or even our Jags again there is a limitation seen here.

Lastly the biggest challenge for the main CAS role will come for say flying low altitude consistently over all domains/terrains. Considering the plains it will still cope up but closer to mountains and in valleys, this limitation will stand exposed.

So by virtue of design optimization a variant of Tejas for CAS can be effectively prepared but it will require some major changes from present version. The biggest of that would be to plate up tons of armor in Tejas which will increase the weight a lot and still the whole other parameters should be adequately met.

Add to that the emerging AD environment, i certainly see this role being more effectively done by AURA like drone and Tejas managing it from stand off as described in the above picture. With all the internal EW, defensive suites, armor plating its going to be a major challenge for the new version for Tejas. But nonetheless its possible.. But dont expect massive combat radii for such roles.. Even if we achieve 500 km with such a mission with substantial loitering time, we should be happy for sure.
Do we have official numbers (based on loadout) the actually range and loitering time for the LCA (since we have many articles saying only 30mins combat and short legs - which i call BS and want it proved to be BS)
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
391
Reactions
654 90 0
#12
In addition to high investment in R&D.

Capable and decisive ppl should be running the show and it should involve all parties + once specs are finalized - the same must be frozen and all waypoints/goals must be achieved and completed on time. Induct the system with later variants always be upgraded

The most important i feel is "Communication", we have seen many many articles trying to put down and charge the narrative so much that a project will dragged thru the dirt (where there is no dirt seen ) OR a project will be elevated to God like weapons ie "World Beating" or "Selective Group" thus when the same fails - we will ridicule (or be ridicule ) the system and every tom dick harry will have a say in why it failed (here i only ask to be humble from the beginning and except our achievements and improve on our failings)
How do you address the sceptics? Members here would do well to recall how indigenization of Mig 27 upgrade program was achieved.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
391
Reactions
654 90 0
#13
Yes.

The reason why Tejas took 30 years from design board to dropping LGB firing BVRAAM is lack of strong leadership across development authority+airforce+neta.

Too generalized a statement and not completely tenable.


We were so lazy on Tejas that airforce changed the gsqr so many times that drawing board had to be revisited and technology either had to be developed or reviewed.
A blatant misrepresentation of facts. Why would you do that?

ASQR dated Oct 1985 was diluted by IAF towards granting permanent waivers to 54 critical parameters by 1993, just to get the plane in time. Result?

The HAL-ADA-MoD failed to deliver the product even after severe dilution of the ASQR. Yet your strange contention.



Plus absolute lack of any kind of design department is also creating hurdle,then there is lack of vision-almost all of our il-76s will be reaching retirement from next decade
Undergoing upgrade, proposal is in pipeline.

and yet there is no plan on how to maintain our transport fleet,an-32 is the same story.No clear vision on what UAV and UCAV.
Failure of Indigenous programs ... need we even bother?



Then their is their love of firangi maal.
Whose? If that was the case, why would IAF hurry and push for Mig 27 upgrade by HAL and DARE?



Rest came out a rant. Sorry.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
391
Reactions
654 90 0
#14
Agree

Still lot of your points are based on reports coming in the news and

For eg : The used up engines - they are actually refurbished engines ( our desi reporters used the term second hand -which also was BS) done by HAL which is rated for use - which IAF has no issues - the Main reason for its Use is simply because the new engines from Russia is not keeping up the new built frames. Thus instead of having engineless frames lying around, refurbished engines was installed so atleast - the induction timeline is kept up.

Another eg : The FRCV . Now all article, post , comments are based on experience and possible interpretation of the tender correct? with these interpretation we have articles saying that the IA has junked the arjun - is this true? has this come out officially? the answer is NO

This is why - when i say communication is KEY, the MoD, IAF, IA (and even the IN) should officially come out and explain ie CLEAN the air of all BS and even put up journos by name with their BS reporting .

Case and point is the NLCA - for those who followed the project from the beginning knew that NP1 and NP2 (both Mk1s) will always be prototypes for testing and will never be SPs (ie SPs variants will never be built), ie the job for Mk2 (if you read on ADA annually report, the IN is already Invested in the same) BUT what we have - IN REJECTED the NLCA. (heck even in the article the IN chief didn't use the word rejected , that only the journo added) Now - playing the devil - Tomorrow the IN officially closes the NLCA project - Please provide reasons and learning of the same - ie please communicate - thus keeping the BS away

What our enthusiasts failed to notice is, and here probably you all can help, use of "Project Arjun" and "Project LCA" while talking about them.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
18
Reactions
16 0 0
#15
Interesting. Are you sure?
I friend of my brother worked in DRDO from 2013-16 told me about it, mostly work on sensor fusion and VLO design.
Undergoing upgrade, proposal is in pipeline
Do we really have a plan to replace/upgrade il-76?????

I know about an-32 upgrade.


A blatant misrepresentation of facts. Why would you do that?

ASQR dated Oct 1985 was diluted by IAF towards granting permanent waivers to 54 critical parameters by 1993, just to get the plane in time. Result?

The HAL-ADA-MoD failed to deliver the product even after severe dilution of the ASQR. Yet your strange contention.
I believe aesa radar and in flight refueling was not planned in the early days of development-they were added later.


Failure of Indigenous programs
Agree

Whose? If that was the case, why would IAF hurry and push for Mig 27 upgrade by HAL and DARE?
The single engine fighter is no less than that.

Air force is asking for Gripen e which is still some 6-8 years away from FOC.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
391
Reactions
654 90 0
#16
I friend of my brother worked in DRDO from 2013-16 told me about it, mostly work on sensor fusion and VLO design.
He specifically said 2009 for AMCA? I find it a bit hard to digest (sorry, just had an awesome pizza ;)) because in 2009 even PAK-FA was not known to anyone :D

Do we really have a plan to replace/upgrade il-76?????
Avionics upgrade (glass cockpit) and Engine uprating to PS-90A-76. Planned. No money for new procurements.



I believe aesa radar and in flight refueling was not planned in the early days of development-they were added later.
LOL ........ why is it that everyone expects armed forces to stick to a decade old QR when our venerable DPSUs fail miserably?


Air force is asking for Gripen e which is still some 6-8 years away from FOC.
And who told you IAF wants Gripen?
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
18
Reactions
16 0 0
#17
He specifically said 2009 for AMCA? I find it a bit hard to digest (sorry, just had an awesome pizza ;)) because in 2009 even PAK-FA was not known to anyone :D
He did not specifically mentioned exactly why these technologies were developed but it done mainly for future Tejas aircraft variants and some other projects.
He was sure about this part and timeline.

Maybe the people and DRDO were visionary enough to understand the future requirements.

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:


LOL ........ why is it that everyone expects armed forces to stick to a decade old QR when our venerable DPSUs fail miserably?
Agree.


And who told you IAF wants Gripen?
Not exactly Gripen but recently during acm dhanoa was talking about single engine fighter.
 

GuardianRED

Call Sign "RED"
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
229
Reactions
193 2 0
#18
How do you address the sceptics? Members here would do well to recall how indigenization of Mig 27 upgrade program was achieved.
Good Question !! 2 sides here

On one side - we have sceptics mostly are not interested in achievements !.... no value to them, thus nitpicking and will overblow the issue as the NEXT BAD thing! (this is where we have over zealous Trolls who will use this to justify their trolling)

On the other side - we have sceptics who except the achievement but questions it (in other words - criticizes it), only way to look at this positively and make improvement (this is where we have over zealous Trolls who will pretty much run this sceptic down as a foreign paid stooge)

Honestly - There it is a catch 22 situation or rather a no win situation - can't make everyone happy

One can hope (wishful thinking) ... have journo reporting the situation neutrally (no over blown and end of the world BS) with Official Reports from MoD, IAF , IA and IN
 
T

Tarun

Guest
#20
well, the AMCA aka MCA aka NGFA plan was surfaced in 2008 but get their first fund for feasibility study in 2010


8.JPG



First preliminary design of AMCA at AI'09
On drawing board: desi stealth fighter
SUJAN DUTTA
New Delhi, Feb. 15: Twin engines, an airframe designed to deflect radar signals so it cannot be easily detected, a tandem-seat cockpit over a drooped nose — so what is it? A stealth fighter?
Wrong. Baking its latest pie in the sky for the Indian Air Force, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has unveiled models, mock-ups and pictures of a stealth combat aircraft that it hopes to build one day though its light combat aircraft (LCA) — that is finally beginning to look like what it is called — is more than a decade late.
The models were on show in the DRDO’s stall at Aero India 2009 in Yelahanka, Bangalore. DRDO chief and scientific adviser to defence minister M. Natarajan said its laboratory, the Aeronautical Development Agency, was ready to get cracking on it alongside the LCA Mark II programme.
The LCA’s long history has marred its development not only because of sanctions but also because, as Natarajan insinuates, the user (the IAF) took a long time to support the programme.
“Unfortunately in this country, we are used to buying perfumed soap from Paris instead of our very own Hamam,” he said, meaning (mistakenly, perhaps) that the armed forces have not steadily supported indigenous research and development efforts.
Natarajan was in error because Hamam is marketed by multinational Hindustan Lever. Mysore Sandal may have been apt.
Natarajan said the DRDO was also working on an unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV). A blue-coloured mock-up of Rustom — an unmanned spy plane being developed by the organisation — that was displayed opposite Bae System’s Mantis sleep spy plane had wings attached to the body by one-and-a-half-inch cheap screws and plastic wing-tips.
“We are confident that after the LCA, it will be the MCA (medium combat aircraft) and the UCAV,” said Natarajan. The MCA will weigh about 20 tonnes — the same category as the six aircraft that the IAF is now evaluating for its $12.5 billion-plus order for 126 aircraft.
The “next-generation” MCA would have a naval version, too, that would be capable of taking off from and landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Natarajan said the DRDO would have to take foreign help and about 30 per cent of the components would be imported.
“Along with the fifth generation stealth capability, the MCA would incorporate features like radar sensors, in-built weapons systems, fly-by-wire ops and, above all, would be of lesser weight than most in its category,” he said. The DRDO chief said it would be ready in 10 years.
The LCA did its first flight trial in 2001. It is yet to get initial operational clearance. But the IAF has been asked to place an order for 40 LCA Tejas. The DRDO and its principal partner Hindustan Aeronautics are to begin deliveries after the clearance in 2010-11.
The cabinet is also yet to clear the MCA programme.
The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Frontpage | On drawing board: desi stealth fighter