Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Light fighter showdown in India

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kuku
    replied
    The Rafale's will take time to be delivered and will be very important plane for the air force (nuclear weapons delivery). Dassault has formed the Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited with Reliance Industries Ltd, Reliance will work hard to increase the number of Rafale planes to be procured.

    Over the next decade there may be a requirement more than 250 which will be required for replacement and addition, and on top the security scenario is changing in the area in every aspect.

    I think this light fighter contract will be concluded very fast, from what i read in the news, some other military contracts have been awarded under the Prime Ministers pet "make in india" initiative, and these happened with the usual long time of tenders. Both Lockheed Martin and SAAB are partnering with very major private corporations in India.
    Last edited by kuku; 21 Feb 17,, 07:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Meanwhile, they are stuck with 36 Rafales as the only mid-sized fighter... I've read reports that the IAF needs over 100 more, to make up proper numbers, but I doubt this will ever happen, tbh...

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    Originally posted by kuku View Post
    Considering that this is going to happen, would the people here give some opinions on which platform will be good for replacing the mig-21/27 for the next 30-40 years for the indian security scenario?
    In my opinion might be better to go for the Gripen E, there are good chances of working towards a lot of components in common (engine, radar, weapons, avionics etc.)
    F-16 may be a better choice given the times demand a deeper alliance with US for the future.
    The super hornet may also be a good choice if the procurement is done for the airforce and the navy together (may cost more though).
    The F-35 is a better option, however i doubt it will be available in time (considering its orders) and if the requirement for tech transfer will be possible.
    From what I can tell, the Tejas 2 was canned in favor of producing the Tejas 1a. Unfortunately, if true that means there won't be any engine commonality with the Gripen E. I assume the other components could be shared with the Tejas no matter which aircraft is eventually chosen if it's reworked yet again.

    The F-16E (Block 60) is very good, and actually represents the only case in which a US export aircraft is actually better than what the USAF flies. The UAE laid out $3 billion for some very nice upgrades including: AN/APG-80 AESA radar, uprated engine with 144 kN of thrust, EW/RWR/Jamming system, built in FLIR/laser targeting, and conformal fuel tanks.

    If only the IAF is ordering, the F-16E would provide a larger aircraft with more payload and a bit more capability overall. If the IAF and Indian Navy want a common airframe, the Gripen E/Sea Gripen would be the way to go. Unfortunately I have no idea what a Sea Gripen costs or how much of a weight penalty is involved with the reinforced landing gear, etc. It could be pretty steep on such a small fighter.

    Super Hornets would be a step up in size and cost, and at that point you may as well swing for an F-35A/B mix in my opinion. If India could talk the US into selling F-35s, that would easily give them the most bang for the buck. I don't know if that level of trust has been established yet however. Still with rapid F-35 industrial expansion occurring right now, it would be the perfect time to setup another production line in India.

    Leave a comment:


  • anil
    replied
    1) Made in India
    and
    2) Assembled in India

    ...are two different things. Tejas falls in the first category if engine co-operates. The others don't matter whether assembled in india or abroad.

    Rafale was supposed to be MII through ToT. But after the French refused to account for quality, GoI changed the requirement. Now it is 36 over the shelf rafales with 50% offset in the form of Kaveri development for Tejas.

    m.economictimes.com/news/defence/manohar-parrikar-confirms-french-help-for-revival-of-indian-kaveri-engine/articleshow/57145943.cms
    Last edited by anil; 20 Feb 17,, 17:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skywatcher
    replied
    The Gripen seems to have a lot more upgrade potential, IIRC from the various industry literature (of course, it's industry literature we're talking about).

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by kuku View Post
    Considering that this is going to happen, would the people here give some opinions on which platform will be good for replacing the mig-21/27 for the next 30-40 years for the indian security scenario?
    That was supposed to be the Tejas...

    The "war" right now is down to the F-16 vs the Grippen... unless Korea drops in with the T-50, which is allready being marketed as a light fighter.

    As for "components in common"... what do you mean? What plane with what? Right now, afaik, there's zero communality in the IAF's gear or planned equipment.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuku
    replied
    Considering that this is going to happen, would the people here give some opinions on which platform will be good for replacing the mig-21/27 for the next 30-40 years for the indian security scenario?
    In my opinion might be better to go for the Gripen E, there are good chances of working towards a lot of components in common (engine, radar, weapons, avionics etc.)
    F-16 may be a better choice given the times demand a deeper alliance with US for the future.
    The super hornet may also be a good choice if the procurement is done for the airforce and the navy together (may cost more though).
    The F-35 is a better option, however i doubt it will be available in time (considering its orders) and if the requirement for tech transfer will be possible.
    Last edited by kuku; 20 Feb 17,, 14:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuku
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    India, not content with having to currently maintain 5 diferent fighers (not counting Mig-21 and -27...) including the now-being deployed Tejas, and of having ordered a 6th fighter type (Rafale), wants to buy/build another fighter. From another source. I can't even begin to imagine the logistics/maintenance nightmare...
    The fight seems to be down to the Grippen and the F-16, and both companies are ofering to build factories in India! Good luck with that...
    It seems the news is credible, the defence minister is on record saying that advanced talks are going on, and from the look of things lockheed martin has the edge.
    The F-16 and the Tejas will replace the Mig-21 and Mig-27 (i think plane by plane/ squadron by squadron), and then some more.
    Last edited by kuku; 20 Feb 17,, 05:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • anil
    replied
    All of India's fighter jet programs are awaiting a local engine - see the Kaveri engine program.

    The current GE engines are for testing purposes. In this game of balance, dependence = loss. With Kaveri program refusing to reach its conclusion, the Indian govt is again left with the tough decision of selective procurement which gets stranger and stranger.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuku
    replied
    The program was to develop the complete industry in a socialist setting, when the economy was not that good.
    Right now this program has Israeli Radar. Indian, French and Israeli Avionics. Israeli targeting pods and helmet mounted displays. American engine. Indian, Israeli and Russian weapons. Israeli and Indian EW Suites. Consulting going on from over the world (US, Europe, Israel, Russia). With gradual path to replacement of this equipment as domestic ones become available (which should have been the approach from the start as some here said, however it was not).
    The success will be in the next few planes that come out of this complex, which should be better as now the industrial situation is better.
    Important thing is that there is a need for 800-1000 advanced aircrafts, with a growing economy, improving administration and complex security environment. all of which together can sustain a industrial complex, with good measure of private and international collaboration.

    As for the light fighter, its a pitch from the companies under the "make in india'' initiative, which follows up on the failed MMRCA tender (disaster). There is no official request for such a fighter or its manufacturing facilities, if there is it will be done through the procurement mechanism (RFI, RFQ, tenders, etc. etc.) which will take years and be available to all for bidding.

    And a government to government deal for any light, medium or heavy plane will not happen before the next elections.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Dazed View Post
    The Tejas is a dated design at best that has yet to meet spec. If even building kits you will be improving you industrial bases/knowledge by leaps and bounds over the Tejas. Building an aircraft is not that simple look at the F-35, Boeing and Airbus latest and greatest all overdue. Japan has been building assembles for Boeing for over a decade as well as building F-4, F-15, SH-60 yet their MRJ is years behind schedule. Killing the Tejas while not cheap you are gaining a more capable HAL aircraft with modern manufacturing win win.
    Agreed; the Tejas is a 30+ year old project with outdated specifications, created before LO became critical. At this point, it would probably be better for HAL to either start over with a clean sheet of paper or, as it appears they are doing, consider an established 4.5-gen fighter, like the F-16 Block 60, or the F-18 Advanced Super Hornet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dazed
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    My point was: don't try to do everything from scratch yourself. Saab always licence-built their engines, which, afaik, has traditionally been the hardest part of an aircraft to design & build. Pakistan's JF-17 uses a chinese engine. Heck, even HAL's own Marut used a foreign powerplant. But now they tried to build one fromn scratch... didn't even try to licence-build one...
    I don't know of any airframe maker who is also a powerplant maker. They maybe a few who fall under a corporate umbrella. It's all hard, but building an aeronautical structure is probably the hardest. Cracks, Boeing had to redesigned the 787 wing box even thought it passed structural testing. Ditto Airbus on the A380 the box failed in testing and a un-contained engine failure led to redesign. Japan has built fuselages and wings for Boeing for decades. Yet their latest CX and P-1 aircraft have developed developed tears in the aircraft. These companies have decade of experiences in manufacturing and knowledge that HAL can't even approach. Building kits of a current fighter will accelerate their learning curve and will be money better spent than redesigning a dated design with dated manufacturing.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Originally posted by Dazed View Post
    I don't know about Pakistan Aerospace, but Saab has been building fighters and transport aircraft since the 1950's. There is a reason Boeing partnered with them on the TX
    My point was: don't try to do everything from scratch yourself. Saab always licence-built their engines, which, afaik, has traditionally been the hardest part of an aircraft to design & build. Pakistan's JF-17 uses a chinese engine. Heck, even HAL's own Marut used a foreign powerplant. But now they tried to build one fromn scratch... didn't even try to licence-build one...

    Leave a comment:


  • Dazed
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    They should have done what Sweden and Pakistan did: develop the airframe and buy & modify an existing engine. But noooo, they tried to do everything from scratch...
    I don't know about Pakistan Aerospace, but Saab has been building fighters and transport aircraft since the 1950's. There is a reason Boeing partnered with them on the TX

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    Originally posted by Maxor View Post
    The program has been floating around since 1985 publicly. Thus far HAL has built fewer than 20 airframes including prototypes. The plane as originally envisioned was going to be a low cost competitor to the F-16 think something like an F-20 tigershark. The airframe has essentially 0 going for it RCS wise you can actually view the turbofan blades standing 30 feet in front of it from the intakes. The Delta wing is ugly in that aspect as well. Gripens and Late block F-16s have the ability to super-cruise when lightly armed which is useful in a country the size of India. They have far more advanced avionics that are actually well tested while the Tejas has constantly had failures of its radar tests as well as questions about its ECM and other systems. It is under powered and over weight. It can be compared to Block 20 F-16s. The issue is that it is a decent enough fighter about 20 years later than it should have been with US engines vs the Indian ones it was supposed to have. The grippen and late block F-16's own it in BVR and both have a smaller RCS (the grippen ng considerably smaller) with much better maintenance records. The one thing that the Tejas has going for it currently is that is it a very safe aircraft. It is also getting much cheaper per copy currently.
    I still consider the Tejas a prototype, that said the Mk2 is an opportunity to rectify many of the shortcomings of the original design. Putting in an F414, making a few airframe modifications to reduce RCS such as a diverterless inlet, and putting in improved domestic or Western electronics would turn the Tejas into a respectable Gen 4+ light fighter.

    Still, I guess an F-16 would be ready to go as soon as it rolled off the line instead of requiring years of testing and certification. That may not be true with the Gripen NG depending on how extensive the changes were over the C/D models.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 15 Feb 17,, 18:23.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X