Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3910111213
Results 361 to 384 of 384

Thread: Indian Air Force Thread 21

  1. #361
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    alexz



    Sure, buy Tejas if sufficient production level is achieved but how likely is that? IAF can't fight with promised planes. It needs real planes. It would be great if India produced Tejas at a rate of 2 per month next year (or let's say 16 in the year) but let's look at past and present performance to get an idea of how likely that would be. Would extremely unlikely be an unfair assessment? If so, someone please xplain why.
    Over the years, Tejas does not seem to have received the support (from IAF), it needed and deserved as a home grown fighter. ADA/HAL were no Boeing or LM. With Tejas being their first serious effort in recent times to develop a home grown fighter, it would have many short comings, maybe a lot to start of with. These could have been improved over time and valuable lessons could have been learnt in every aspect including production. But IAF wanted the best right from start and local/foreign design does not seem to matter with them. They missed a great opportunity with Tejas...they should have started induction 5 years ago and HAL would have overcome many production bottlenecks by now. All this, however, does not exonerate HAL et al. of their mistakes, especially overpromises (even when this was done due to lack of experience or to keep IAF interested).
    Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes

  2. #362
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,324
    And is the F-16 or Gripen E going to be ready for production by 2021-22 or so when the Tejas assembly line should be producing 16 fighters per year? Will it be producing even 8 per year by 2023? Or 16? So, how do these fighters meet an IAF requirement for more squadrons by 2024-25?

  3. #363
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    258
    F-16/gripen as additional fighters by 2025? If from indian production line, probably 1 squadron at best?

    Also by 2025 what fighters would be retired? Will the jaguars/mirages still be around by that time?

    Another way to add more fighters by 2025 is to simply order more Su-30MKI's. The current additional orders are getting the line open until 2021 at least, ordering more up till 2025 would get at least 50 additional MKI's.

  4. #364
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,929
    Mirages yes, they're just modernized by now, so they definitely should still be around for more than ten years from now

  5. #365
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,587
    alexz

    Another way to add more fighters by 2025 is to simply order more Su-30MKI's. The current additional orders are getting the line open until 2021 at least, ordering more up till 2025 would get at least 50 additional MKI's.
    IMO would have been much, much more cost effective to have ordered 50 more Su-30MKI's than 36 Rafales. Anyway, that's not what happened. Is Tejas Mk1A going to be late? Based on past performance, I would guess it will be, so why not order an extra 16 Mark1's to replace a squadron of MiG's and keep the line busy until Mk1A production can be started?
    Sum ergo cogito

  6. #366
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    127
    The decision is planned to be made in 2021.
    After that it will take two years to get the first aircraft.

  7. #367
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    alexz



    IMO would have been much, much more cost effective to have ordered 50 more Su-30MKI's than 36 Rafales. Anyway, that's not what happened. Is Tejas Mk1A going to be late? Based on past performance, I would guess it will be, so why not order an extra 16 Mark1's to replace a squadron of MiG's and keep the line busy until Mk1A production can be started?
    IAF is already a very top heavy machine (not cheap to operate) and more MKIs would make that even worse. Tejas was the best solution, cheap and light, and could still be if IAF don't keep asking for F16 capabilities in LCA airframe.
    Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes

  8. #368
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,587
    IAF is already a very top heavy machine (not cheap to operate) and more MKIs would make that even worse.
    I would be VERY interested to see (a) what 36 extra MKI's cost to procure (b) cost to operate over, say 10 years, to compare with the cost of procuring, inducting and operating a similar number of Rafales over 10 years. Of course, those comparative figures will never be available.


    Tejas was the best solution, cheap and light...
    If you have to replace 10+ squadrons of aged light Russian fighters, I agree Tejas is the best solution: cheap, more capable than the kit they would be replacing, largely home-grown (eg don't think F-404 is of Indian origin). Got to be available, though. If HAL can DEMONSTRATE (not promise/give assurances) they can make MK1's at the rate promised, I would suggest India should buy another 40 to cover the period where Mk1A production is delayed. Will be, won't it?
    Sum ergo cogito

  9. #369
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    I would be VERY interested to see (a) what 36 extra MKI's cost to procure (b) cost to operate over, say 10 years, to compare with the cost of procuring, inducting and operating a similar number of Rafales over 10 years. Of course, those comparative figures will never be available.

    If you have to replace 10+ squadrons of aged light Russian fighters, I agree Tejas is the best solution: cheap, more capable than the kit they would be replacing, largely home-grown (eg don't think F-404 is of Indian origin). Got to be available, though. If HAL can DEMONSTRATE (not promise/give assurances) they can make MK1's at the rate promised, I would suggest India should buy another 40 to cover the period where Mk1A production is delayed. Will be, won't it?
    Regarding MKI vs. Rafale, no doubt the latter would prove to be more expensive when you put it that way. But aircrafts are inducted for 40 odd years and over the years the differences is likely to narrow down. But you are right in that we have no real numbers to compare. On a side note, adding more MKIs would mean putting more eggs in the same basket. From time to time, aircrafts are grounded for any number of reasons. Just imagine IAF operating a 300+ MKIs has to ground them for a few weeks.

    As for HAL demonstrating the capability, I absolutely agree. But at the same time, IAF has to demonstrate the willingness to accept LCA wholeheartedly. They accepted SU-30K which was not a lot more than a baseline flanker but gradually morphed into MKI. LCA did not have to be a super duper machine right from the word go. It is a light machine and IAF should accept what someone would normally expect from something like this. Size does matter a lot when it comes to fighters.
    Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes

  10. #370
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    258
    From open sources you know that 36 MKIs would cost less than usd 2 billion.

    You also need to consider the current rafale availability in french service is actually lower than MKIs in indian service.

    Btw if you have to ground the whole flanker fleet, a paltry 36 rafales with less than 50% operational availability would not mean much.

  11. #371
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    258
    The cost of the rafale buy is more than enough to fund a better manufacturing base for the tejas, to enable 2-3 tejas at least to be built per month. A near future fleet made of MKI and tejas, with 5th gen stealthy platforms coming in 10 years time, would be a good fighter mixture. But now the plan is to add more different type of 4th gen fighters to the mix. In 10 years time i don't think india could catch up any advancements in fighter technology compared to china, and it might be encircled with neighbours like bangladesh, myanmar and pakistan fielding stealthy chinese made fighters while itself still inducting another type of 4th gen fighters.

  12. #372
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,149
    They have committed to Rafale so discussing that...questionable...decision is moot.

    But talking about another foreign type, let alone a light one which has nearly the same engine as the Tejas....It is halfway through 2017, Tejas should be running off the production lines.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  13. #373
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,324
    But now the plan is to add more different type of 4th gen fighters to the mix. In 10 years time i don't think india could catch up any advancements in fighter technology compared to china, and it might be encircled with neighbours like bangladesh, myanmar and pakistan fielding stealthy chinese made fighters while itself still inducting another type of 4th gen fighters.
    Relax, nothing of this sort is going to happen. India has nothing to fear from Bangladesh or Myanmar (which it has decent relations with) and they are unlikely to be able to afford any Chinese "stealthy" fighter (the FC-31). India has other 5th gen options it is studying- the FGFA and the AMCA.

    The whole point of this Single Engine MRCA competition is to be able to bring in the private sector in a big way, for meeting India's future needs. It aims to do two things- break the Public Sector monopoly on defence R&D and manufacturing, and also to bring in a mid-tier fighter into the IAF's orbat.

  14. #374
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,929
    @ alexz

    your statements about the Rafale have a couple deficiencies:

    - the price paid was for the initial buy, including spares, infrastructures and whatnot.. fact is that it has to be paid for, sso, unless you keep using the same aircraft for 80 years, from time to time you'll have to buy new models which will require those investments. Buying additional batches of Rafales won't mean paying the same price "per plane" simply because the infrastructures would have been paid for. Another thing is that the offsets dassault signed for are that much money coming back into Indian economy, reducing even more the "real" price India spends per aircraft

    - about availability in french service, you forget (on purpose?) to take into account the fact that it is the result of the french policy much more than the aircraft itself. The government in France allows a budget tailored for peacetime operations, for electoral reasons, but uses its fighters in different theaters of operations continuously (Mali, Syria, Irak, Afghanistan...) which costs a lot (and where the Rafales have near 100% availability) How they do it? they simply use the budget in priority for real combat operations, taking the spares they need and so on.. and those spares lack, then, for the aircraft considered as "non essential" (operating in France), aircraft that sit and wait for spares the government haven't allocated the fundings for

    Once in India, the availability of the Rafale will, once more, reflect the indian commitment to make it fly.. if their budgets are coherent with the use they make of it, it will have very high availability rates, if they play the same game as the french, it won't.. just as any aircraft

  15. #375
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    258
    - the price paid was for the initial buy, including spares, infrastructures and whatnot.. fact is that it has to be paid for, sso, unless you keep using the same aircraft for 80 years, from time to time you'll have to buy new models which will require those investments. Buying additional batches of Rafales won't mean paying the same price "per plane" simply because the infrastructures would have been paid for. Another thing is that the offsets dassault signed for are that much money coming back into Indian economy, reducing even more the "real" price India spends per aircraft
    if that is the case, buying more MKI or Tejas would bring more money to the indian economy, as the percentage of parts build locally is bigger in those planes. As for infrastructures, even for the current MKI, a lot of them still does not have their own hangar, or even a sun shelter and being kept in the open exposed to the elements. Compare that to another similar sukhoi user which houses each of them in airconditioned hardened shelters. Would it be better to spend those money on infrastructures for the MKI instead? As for "offsets", it is just a creative accounting trick to show that something is "related" to the project. In saab gripen case, they counted the export values of all companies it "collaborated", even if the exports have nothing to do with the gripen.

    - about availability in french service, you forget (on purpose?) to take into account the fact that it is the result of the french policy much more than the aircraft itself. The government in France allows a budget tailored for peacetime operations, for electoral reasons, but uses its fighters in different theaters of operations continuously (Mali, Syria, Irak, Afghanistan...) which costs a lot (and where the Rafales have near 100% availability) How they do it? they simply use the budget in priority for real combat operations, taking the spares they need and so on.. and those spares lack, then, for the aircraft considered as "non essential" (operating in France), aircraft that sit and wait for spares the government haven't allocated the fundings for

    Once in India, the availability of the Rafale will, once more, reflect the indian commitment to make it fly.. if their budgets are coherent with the use they make of it, it will have very high availability rates, if they play the same game as the french, it won't.. just as any aircraft
    it is relatively easy to have 100% availability when you only fly 4 aircraft with tons of spares and rotate them frequently with fresh aircarfts from home. Those that is in need of repairs rotated home for good planes. That is why the availability at home suffered, as broken planes from deployments increases and not able to be repaired on time. Look also at what happened to US navy's hornet readiness. If current IAF policy fighter availability is to be seen as a benchmark, I don't see the rafales would have more budget for operational readiness compared to the current IAF fighters.

  16. #376
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,929
    "relatively easy" is very relative.. the fact is that the spares for combat operations are taken from the total allocation calculated on peacetime flying... the low availability you cite is that of the aircraft in France (whose parts are not delivered as by the choice of government they aren't funded enough), not counting those in operations...

  17. #377
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    201
    The right availability is at the maximum level when you need it and at the minimum when you do not need it. In fact, if you have a very good availability when you do not need it, you have spent money and used staff for nothing...
    General Denis Mercier, former Chief of Staff of the French Air Force
    http://www.sldmag.com/fr/archives/ar...-de-l-activite

  18. #378
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    Presently commander for transformation in NATO, no?

  19. #379
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,550
    IAF is already a very top heavy machine (not cheap to operate) and more MKIs would make that even worse.
    Not to nitpick but the IAF Su-30s cost less to maintain than the IAF Mirages. Fuel consumption is higher but with the fall in oil prices globally, share of fuel in the operating cost has fallen proportionately.

    Mirage 2000
    Su-30MKI


    The F-16, I agree, is an absolutely terrible idea. On the plus side, given the likely time-line for the acquisition (esp. workshare & offset negotiations) and rising costs (lower volumes) I wouldn't be surprised if the deal falls through at some point.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 8th July 2017 at 00:43.

  20. #380
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,318

  21. #381
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,324
    That's one less trainer for the soon to be retired MiG-27 fleet.

  22. #382
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,324
    Cross-posting from the Tejas thread, since there is a likelihood of the I-Derby ER BVRAAM being slated for integration on whatever single-engine fighter the IAF chooses, apart from the Tejas.

    As suspected, the Tejas will use the I-Derby ER variant as its primary BVR missile till Astra integration occurs. the prior tests involved the older Derby BVRAAM. The enhanced range and improved seeker will give the Tejas a potent long range weapon.

    Tejas nears missile test after I-Derby ER integration


    Rafael has completed the integration of its I-Derby beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile on India’s Aeronautical Development Agency Tejas light combat aircraft, with a first test firing scheduled for the end of this year.

    Yossi Horowitz, director of marketing and business development at the Israeli company’s air superiority systems division, says the I-Derby will become the Tejas fighter’s main air-to-air weapon following the completion of testing. India could also later equip its single-engined aircraft with Rafael’s latest extended-range (ER) version of the missile, he adds.


    According to Rafael, the I-Derby ER has a range of up to 54nm (100km), with the weapon also carrying a new radar seeker. The missile can be deployed from a fighter’s rail launchers, or by using a “shove” pyrotechnic charge that jettisons it from a fuselage stores station before its rocket motor ignites.
    ..

  23. #383
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad
    Not to nitpick but the IAF Su-30s cost less to maintain than the IAF Mirages. Fuel consumption is higher but with the fall in oil prices globally, share of fuel in the operating cost has fallen proportionately.
    I have suspected that the Su-30MKI would be rather cheap to run.. That would explain forces like Vietnam or Uganda running a fleet of F-15E-class fighters, something unheard of in the previous years..

  24. #384
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,324
    IAF Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa flew in a Rafale today at Saint Dizier
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dhanoa-Rafale-1.JPG 
Views:	63 
Size:	79.5 KB 
ID:	254781   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dhanoa-Rafale-2.JPG 
Views:	57 
Size:	92.7 KB 
ID:	254782  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES