Saturday, June 30, 2007

HAL Tejas and the MRCA

Heard something quite interesting. If it’s true, it will gladden a lot of hearts, especially some on this blog. Rumour is out that HAL will be the seventh agency that receives an RfP document from the Defence Ministry when the tender is opened in July/August. Sources say the government has decided to involve the Tejas programme in the sweepstakes, but is not in the least serious about considering it. In fact, it has apparently been decided (these are rumours, please remember, and totally unconfirmed) that the Tejas will be eliminated in the first down-select itself. The rationale – project a semblance of transparency and propriety to satisfy the swadeshis and communists (you’d be surprised, the kind of clout they have). The elimination of the aircraft would then justify and legitimize the IAF default views on the LCA. Sounds like too deep a plan, but it’s possible.

However, HAL chairman AK Baweja actually spoke out today to a reporter, and this seems to fly in the face of rumours. He said, “An order for 28 LCAs has already been placed by the air force and more orders are likely to follow. The Tejas is in a different weight category to what the MRCA tender is looking for, so there is no question of participating.”

It is, however, possible – possible, but unlikely – that Baweja is not aware that HAL will receive an RfP. The whole idea of sending HAL a tender invitation will, if it happens, be political, and possibly, in one way to offset the attention on foreign, foreign, foreign and the attendant dirt that comes with it.

54 comments :

Anonymous said...

Hi Abiman..you got one more supporter sorry few more in the way of "Sources" :D

Joe

Abhiman said...

Mr. Aroor, thank you for bringing this update. It is extremely heartening news because finally justice may said to have begun to be done to the Tejas.

However, it is unlikely that the negative effect as you mentioned will happen because as it is a matter of the nation's security, the IAF will scrutinize every contender---including the Tejas---seriously. The Tejas offers such advantages like immunity from sanctions, ready availability of critical spare parts, on-demand access to technical issues etc. that none of the foreign, far-off and unfamiliar contenders can provide.

The criterion of weight-class is a highly mis-construed term. Russian jets having the same range-payload as their equivalent western counterparts, have much larger sizes and empty-weights than them because of their typical hooded shapes (ex : Su-30 MKI and MiG-29). This hooded shape allows for more lift (and hence superb maneuverability) but at the tradeoff of maximum external load carried.

Thus, although the Su-30MKI is of the same size and weight-class as an F-15 Eagle, its max. load is 4000 tons lesser than an F-15 and is the same as that of the Rafale, Typhoon and F-18---all of which are quite smaller in size and empty weight than the massive Su-30.

The same explains why the MiG-35 being larger in size and weight than an F-18 Hornett, has an max. external load capacity that is slightly lesser than the much much smaller F-16.

Thus, if the winner of the MRCA is either of F-18, Rafale or Typhoon, then although I am not in the IAF or even have an aeronautics background, I would say (at the risk of being rude) that it would be the most foolish decision by the MoD and IAF. That is because, these fighters are no lesser than a fighter that already serves the IAF---the Su-30 MKI. It would simply add to redundancy.

The IAF has a deep-striker in the form of the Su-30 MKI. The Tejas can perfectly complement it as a medium-range attack or precision-strike fighter. The Tejas would be the perfect MRCA. A foreign plane adding to redundancy and logistic problems may be unnecessary.

Thank you.

Teews said...

"Thus, if the winner of the MRCA is either of F-18, Rafale or Typhoon, then although I am not in the IAF or even have an aeronautics background, I would say (at the risk of being rude) that it would be the most foolish decision by the MoD and IAF."

Well if you don't know about aeronautics and you are not in IAF and if you don't know anything about strategy and war, why make bold statements like you do? You are no different than someone like Shiv Aroor and Ajai Shukla and the others who have an agenda (good or bad) and will go to any lengths with their arguements.

Abhiman said...

Mr. Aroor thank you once again for bringing to us this news update.

Teews, you may compare the external load capacity of Russian fighters Su-30 and MiG-35 with their equivalent western counterparts of the same weight class and size. The Su-30 is of the same weight class and size as the F-15 Eagle, yet it has an external load capacity which is 4000 kgs LESSER than the F-15 E. Its actual western counterparts in this criterion is the F-18, which is 5000 kgs lighter and smaller and size.

The same may be said of the MiG-35 that is of the weight and size class of the F-18 Hornett (infact its empty weight is 1.5 tons heavier than the F-18) but yet its external load capacity is just as much as that of the F-16, which is lighter in empty-weight by a 6 tons and is of course much smaller in size.

All this is due to the hooded shape of Russian fighters. This allows for more lift, but at the expense of the external load capacity.
Thus, a Russian fighter that must carry an external weight equal to that of the F-15 Eagle (which is 12 tons), would have to have an empty weight of around a huge 22,000 kgs and be the size of a small bomber.

Hence, empty-weight as a definite criterion of performance is misleading. Hinging the performance of fighters based solely on empty weight must not be used by the IAF to select the MRCA. So the IAF cannot chose the F-18, Rafale or Typhoon on the claim that these fighters have weights between the "light" Tejas and "heavy" Su-30 MKI. This is because their performance is exactly the same as that of the Su-30 MKI in terms of external load and range, even though they are quite lighter in weight and smaller in size than the Su-30. Their selection would only be the addition of a western Su-30 MKI and not infuse anything new to the IAF except logistical burden and an unfamiliar fighter.

The F-16 (whatever block) also cannot be chosen because Pakistan Air Force already operates it and shall be procuring more units of the same. The MiG-35 cannot be procured because at just 1.5 tons lighter than a Su-30 MKI, it has an external load capacity lesser than the much smaller and lighter F-16. Its operating costs would thus be much higher.

The Gripen cannot be chosen because choosing it would be meting an injustice to the indigenous Tejas. Hence, Tejas can be the ideal MRCA for the IAF.

Thanks.

Teews said...

Abhiman,

read through this.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
IAF_to_buy_all_126_aircraft_from_one_company_Report/
rssarticleshow/2164871.cms

"Major said the Air Force wanted to reduce the inventory in its combat jet arsenal to three aircraft systems only, and over the next few years, it would use the home-made Tejas as the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), the new MRCAs as the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) and the 35-tonne SU30-MKIs as the Heavy Combat Aircraft (HCA)."

So you can argue all you want fot LCA to become MMRCA, but if IAF feel that they need LCA, MMRCA and HCA then thats what they will get. I guess to make people happy they will send an RFP to LCA but eventualy LCA and Grippen will fall short of the requirement.

Abhiman said...

Teews, I have read the report. Its credibility appears doubtful because the MCA is the DRDO's 5th gen fighter project and not the MRCA. The term 'HCA' has been encountered only in discussion fora.

I am sure that if the IAF finds that if the operating cost of carrying an external load of 8000 tons and internal fuel of 5000 kgs in the F-18, Rafale and Typhoon is greater than that of the serving Su-30 MKI, then these 3 fighters can be rejected outright.

The F-16 cannot be chosen because of its extensive familiarity in the Pakistani Air Force. Similarly, the operating cost of the MiG-35 would be unjustified given that its size and weight are equal to F-18 but its warload capacity is slightly less than the F-16, which weighs only half as much.

The only viable option would thus be the Tejas (it will be prefered over the Gripen).

That the IAF has decided to send an RFP to the Tejas is justified because it has also sent an RFP to the Gripen. If it is of the view that the Gripen can be the MRCA then it shall also duly consider the Tejas.

Thanks.

sniperz11 said...

The ToI interview with Marshal Major seems to confirm what I had been saying... that the IAF is not worried about the LCA any more, and is now focussed on shoring up the strike core aircraft.. the mid-weight class aircraft, the Mig-27s & Jaguars.

However, if the Tejas does indeed fit the IAf requirements, then all the better, although I doubt that they will be sent the RFP. It may have easier to kick out the Gripen as being too close to LCA class. Anyway.

As for the MCA issue, Abhiman, I think the project will still be on (I think Major was talking more about the weight class rather than the aircraft, in the interview). Remember that the 126 plane requirement was in 2001, and its almost 200 now. This is without taking into account future Mig-27 & Jaguar retirements. This means that even with the MRCA tender, there will be a need for at least 250 medium-class aircraft, which the MCA & Indo-Russian Fighter will surely fill.

I have a feeling that the IAF is looking at the tender more as a stopgap measure till the MCA is ready. We need to remember that the MCA will be ready for prduction only by 2020, when the last Jaguars & Mig-27s (70s platforms) will be retired. But there is already an urgent need for numbers in that class, which is where the MRCA comes in.

You make an excellent point about the Mig-35s weapons capabilities, Abhiman, which i think will surely count against it... Rafale seems to be a better option on that count, although its underpowered and has a very small radar aperture. If the 35 can gets its load up to at least 5500 kg, it would make an excellent platform.

P.S. Abhiman, I think you've got the weapons load of the MKI wrong... it can carry up to 8000 kg of weapons. Its empty weight is 17 tons and MTOW is 39 tons.

vinay said...

i heared some news that MCA will be called NGFA (next generation fighter aircraft) in the agency from now onwards ,and article of MMRCA been called MCA might prove my news is right but i will wait for official word on this


vinay

admin
www.lca-tejas.org

Abhiman said...

sniperz11, I was referring to the same figures as you quoted for Su-30. The F-15 Strike Eagle has an external payload of 11,000 kgs, which is a significant 3000 kgs more than that of the Su-30 MKI.** This, when the F-15 Strike has an empty-weight of 12,500 kgs. There is absolutely no difference in the combat radius.

You may imagine if a Russian fighter is to carry the same loads, it would have to have an empty weight of 22,000 kgs and be larger than the size of the B-17 Flying Fortress bomber.

In my view, the IAF is yet to guage the Russian fighter design and the western fighter design philosophies. The F-18, Rafale and Typhoon are much lighter and smaller than the Su-30, but still they can carry the same or more loads and have the same combat-radius. Inducting any of those 3 would only be tantamount to inducting a western Su-30 which just would add to redundancy. HENCE, EMPTY-WEIGHT HAS NO MEANING.

Going strictly by the IAF's measurement, the IAF may as well induct the F-15 E Strtike Eagle as the so-called 'HCA' and keep the Su-30 as the so-called 'MCA'.

Tejas : 4500 kgs
Su-30 : 8000 kgs
F-15 : 11,000 kgs


Thank you.

Reference :

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/ Max. external warload of F-15 SE is 23,000 pounds ~ 11,000 kgs.

** Earlier I incorrectly mentioned it as 4000 kgs lesser, instead of 3000 kgs.

Zero said...

Queenie Aroor brand of defence news. Something akin to news of lost sheeps and buffalos in paper.

Anonymous said...

This is a joke shiv is playing on abhiman and others who believe the same. A parliamentary defence committee has already stated that MRCA acquisition and LCA induction are different and their fates are not linked. That i think is the bottomline and nothing else.

Dear abhiman, I love the LCA but it is not we who decide whether it competes in MRCA or not. And it has been decided to keep it out of competition. The parliamentary report states that comprehensively.

this is what defence secratary in the committee report says:
"Every Air Force of any substance has aircraft of various types, ranges and weight class. As the name suggests, it is a Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Currently, what we are talking about is F-16 and other things like Multi Mission Combat Aircraft, a medium aircraft. Then, there are slightly heavier class of aircraft like SU-30, or the American F-18. These are in the heavier category. Now, every Air Force likes to have a combination of heavy, medium and light aircraft. The LCA will fit very well into the front line requirement of a Light Combat Aircraft”
http://164.100.24.208/ls/committeeR/Defence/2rep.pdf page 75

Anonymous said...

>>i heared some news that MCA will be called NGFA (next generation fighter aircraft) in the agency from now onwards

Hi Vinay...love to hear more on this..."Next generation fighter aircraft" Is that means 5th gen fighter. Then what happens to joint Indo-russian 5th gen one ? Or, is it the Indian name/version for the PAK FA ?

Joe

sniperz11 said...

Exactly... my head is spinning right now trying to figure which projects India is involved in.

theres:

1. MCA (NGFA)
2. Indo-Russian 5th gen fighter (FGFA)
3. PAK FA
4. MiG LFI (Light Fighter Project)

So, is the Indo-Rus FGFA the PAKFA project, MiG-LFI or a separate project by itself?

Also, any idea about whats going on about the MCA project. Last I heard, it was in semi-limbo, with design studies going slowly (seems like the MCA progress is depending upon the indo-Rus FGFA negotiations).

vinay said...

hi joe

i donot want to add mirch masala to whispers what i have heared , but i think it will be indian 5gen concept and not pak-fa ,if given go a head a prototype will take to air by 2016/17 IAF mentioning new MMRCA fighters as MCA may suggest something is cooking and what i have heared is that only MOD needs to sanction funds now so if shiv can try his sources we might get some clear idea about NGFA ,some questions i have in my mind are

1) is design work on NGFA completed ?
2)is it the same MCA concept given a new name (NGFA) or it is completely new concept ?
3 ) what is going on with PAK-FA ?

Vinay

admin

www.lca-tejas.org

Anonymous said...

Vinay,

Probably, i think, seeing the way the discussion went on regarding joint indo-russian 5th gen project, i would say, NGFA is the indian equivalent of PAK FA.

Equivalent in the sense, it will impart some of the design features of PAK FA to the indian design or the otherway. But, it is not going to be simply choosing of equipment/avionics as in the case of Su-30 MKI.

See the date, if what you said is right, it is not going to be PAF KA, probably, a modified indianized PAK FA.

Joe

Abhiman said...

Anonymous, that very sentence from the Parliamentary committee report has been discussed by me on this blog earlier.

The statement that, and I quote, "...Air Force like to have light, medium and heavy aircraft", may speak volumes about the seriousness or the credibility of this report. The language appears lay-man like.
Besides, no airforce has such a 3-tier force-mixture. The USAF uses only 2 planes viz. F-16 and F-15. The French Air Force uses only Mirages/Rafales and older Mirage F-1. The Russian Air-force only uses heavy types of fighters.

Even the Pakistani Air Force shall use in the next 10 years, only F-16s, J-10 and JF-17 as its mainstays. The PLAAF shall use JF-17 and J-10 as its mainstays; the J-11 is not being pursued after 2004, after a mere 100 units were delivered.

The "unshakable tag" of "Light" Combat Aircraft on the Tejas is only in nomenclature and not performance. The Tejas' composite structure allows for significant warload capacity and fuel capacity. According to the Swedish Defence Materials procurement site, the external warload of the 7000 kg weighing Gripen, is about 5,300 kgs. Its MTOW is 14 tons. The Tejas weighs exactly 1.5 tons lesser, and its MTOW is also 1.5 tons lesser than Gripen :- implying that the external load of Tejas must atleast be 5,300 kgs.

To sniperz11 and Vinay I may say that as per the speech of Dr. Natarajan in Feb. 2007, the DRDO is pursuing the MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft). The PAK FA was announced during the Russian President's visit on Republic Day this year. It is a Russian project with India as a major financier.

There are no other projects in which India is taking part like the aft-mentioned MiG LFI and so-termed FGFA.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Dear abhiman,
LCA acquisition is not linked with MRCA. Both are different. Through MRCA IAF wants to get new techs like AESA, Long range BVR missiles and precision munitions which the LCA project does not envisage. Indian products are being given preference by giving a different mode of acquisition, doesnt mean Indian products are any less good. It just means that indigenous equipment are encouraged over and above import and the newer tech which can come by imports and tech transfer is being got by MRCA deal.

Abhiman said...

Anonymous, the arguments being put forward against the consideration of Tejas as MRCA are pointless.

The following are some of the arguments :-

1) You and I cannot decide. The Air Force decides.

2) Tejas is already getting a separate order and so it won't be "dead". Hence, don't worry about MRCA.

Regarding point no. 1, then I think this blog and Bharat-rakshak forums have no purpose. There are people who voice their opinion about AESA equipped Gripen, and F-16 Sufa for MRCA. So I too can voice my opinion about Tejas as MRCA. Now, there has even been unofficial confirmation about its candidature.

Regarding point no. 2, there is no doubt about Tejas' induction in the IAF in quantities of 220. But that does not mean that Tejas' quota or ration is over. I have enumerated its advantages as a possible MRCA and am of the view that it can ALSO be the MRCA. Thus, its induction figures would be 220+126.

Now regarding technology, AESA radars, "fancy" Israeli, French and US missiles, etc. can be bought separately and integrated into the Tejas also. There is no need to purchase an entire aircraft with these installed. As an example, if our car does not have a CD-player, then I shall purchase a CD-player and install it instead of purchasing an entire new car with a player pre-installed.

Besides, except AESA radar and a datalink suite comparable to Gripen, Tejas has nothing lacking in technology. It is already being equipped with the Elta Phased Array radar, which also quite contemporary. Any weapons from Israeli, French, Russian or US weapons can be integrated upon asking.

As another point regarding an earlier discussion of cost-effectiveness. I agree that the operating cost of transporting 8 tons of warload and 6 tons of internal fuel in an F-18 Hornett shall be lesser than that of the Su-30 MKI, because the engine of the Su-30 MKI is rated at 142 kN thrust at full afterburners as compared to 95kN in case of the F-18 Hornett. This is because the Su-30MKI is much heavier and larger and hence requires more thrust to perform the same mission.

In my view, if cost-effectiveness is the criterion of purchase of the MRCA, then the Su-30 MKI should not have been purchased in the first place. To carry 8 tons of load for roughly 1500 kms it requires 2 engines rated at 141 kN thrust. The F-18 can perform the same job in far less engine power (2x95 kN thrust). However, The Su-30 can maneuver at full 8.5 G at full loads; something that only the F-15 Strike Eagle in the western hemisphere can perform. It can also be loaded with a high density fuel to increase its range. These qualities are very appreciable and priceless in any fighter.

Having said that, the cost-benefits offered by the F-18, Rafale and Typhoon won't be significant as compared to the Su-30. Being western fighters this difference will be even less, not to mention logistic problems of introducing a new fighter. These 3 fighters are thus unlikely to be chosen by the IAF.

As a side note, I fully trust the authenticity of Mr. Aroor's information---not only because I want to believe it---but because his news is credible, and reliable (though I may often disagree with his views).

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

now where did he mentioned his "source"? The only source he has is "Abhiman". hehe. go queenie........

Abhiman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Abhiman said...

In my view, HAL Tejas may still have a good chance of being considered by the IAF.

I may not argue about the merits of Tejas, or even the moral justification of sending Tejas an RFP for the MRCA tender. I have already exhausted my arguments.

I may conclude by saying that I FOUND IT HIGHLY SHOCKING THAT EVERYBODY REJECTED TEJAS' CANDIDATURE ON THE LURE OF (I DARESAY) "FANCIFUL" FOREIGN AIRCRAFT even when the weapon-loads and ranges offered by them are no more than either of that of the existing Su-30 MKI, or the Tejas. 'Technology' like AESA radras, Israeli missiles etc. can be purchased separately and integrated onto the Su-30MKI and Tejas; there is no need to purchase entire new aircraft to acquire an AESA radar or some missiles.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

abhiman,
to counter your point why is Su-30MKI not being considered as an MRCA candidate? It is the lure of LOGIC not foreign planes. I love tejas, but I know its not being given RFP for MRCA.
Please shiv if you are really a credible source of information, tell us the source of your information. If you are indeed worth your grain of salt you would tell the truth. From whom did you hear this? a Def Min official? A HAL employee? IAF official? Otherwise stop posting jokes on people like Abhiman.

Anonymous said...

shiv, why did u remove the paf thing? i had marked it to be read later but it is gone? are u being coerced?

Abhiman said...

Anonymous, the IAF will make a distinction between the Russian and US fighter design methodologies. Empty-weight alone is not the sole criterion of performance i.e payload-range.

Much lighter western planes like F-18 and Rafale can carry the same payload for the same range as the heavier Su-30 MKI. Their selection as MRCA simply on the basis of lighter empty-weight vis-a-vis Su-30 is impossible.

No Russian fighter has a western counterpart for the F-15 Strike Eagle (payload 11-12 tons compared to just 8 tons for Su-30 MKI).

Now because the Su-30 MKI is equated by the F-18, Rafale and Typhoon, these 3 fighters are unlikely to be chosen as the MRCA, even though they come under the so-called 'medium' weight category i.e. lying between the Su-30 and Tejas.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Anon,

The moron did not know what he copied and posted.

You know, Pakis actually bite unlike Indians.

Shiv Aroor said...

anon@10.55AM: no, not coerced. sorry for just yanking it off like that. truth is the person who shared the document with me suggested i paraphrase the doc so it's not the exact thing that is reproduced. so i'll need a few days to do that. sorry about that!

Anonymous said...

Shiv, that pak one has lot of information.

abhiman: Su-30 MKI is a modified Su -27, u know. Su - 27 is designed as air superiority fighter mainly to counter the F-15 not just as ground attack one to carry so many tons. Many things which Su-27 do in air superiority role cant be done by F-15. With better engine it can also carry so many tons.

Except Typhoon, F-18, Rafale are compromised design both as fighter and attacker.

As been told, IAF is looking at MRCA for earth movers. Given the air-superiority fighter Su-30mki in the stable, IAF needs some solid ground attack. So thats all about it. No point in equating as you are doing.

And dont just take this analysis in the angle of single/double engine. China has Su-27, Su-30mk, and they are working on 5th gen aircraft. And there is news abt Su-33, Su-35 & J-11B. If you sum it up, it crosses 300+ a/c with double engine in the coming decades. In our case, leaving the old ones, it will be 300+ with Su-30 & MRCA, if it is a double engine. Both sides are almost same. Given the threat from both sides, it is better to have more of this. Economy can be done with LCA & NGFA. Remember, the sanctioned strength is 45 sqd.

Give a break, lets wait till the RFP. There is no point beating the same donkey again & again.

Joe

Abhiman said...

Joey, China has only 176 units of Su-30 and J-11, and all production has been stopped. Also, F-15 Strike Eagle is a multi-role fighter. The MRCA contract (incorrectly) forsees a need for so-called "medium" weight fighters and has no concern with ground-strike etc.

Thanks.

References :-

1) Sinodefence.com

2) Boeing website on F-15 Strike Eagle :-
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/index.htm

Anonymous said...

Abhiman...I dont want to be harsh. With the kind of rhetorical debate you are doing every other day i think you can understand what i have written. If not,either you are naive or trying to build the house with the door you have.

Ok, lets play the same game ur playing...from your own reference, Sinodefence..

"Both companies believe that the PLAAF will eventually have to upgrade all of its 273 Sukhoi fighters (Su-27, Su-30, and J-11) with the new engine"

Reference:http://sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/su27modernisation.asp

Now, will you stop ur utter conjencture, till the RPF release.

Joe

Teews said...

Joe, do you think people haven't tried? Abhiman just won't listen to reason. We have been saying to him all the BS we discuss regarding MMRCA is BS until we know what RFP has defined. But he is adament in his rhetorics. He will find a bizarre argument and even find some vague reference just to back his argument. He is no different than all the journos we pound on. I bet you anything he will have a reply very soon debunking with another argument and he will back it up again with some vague references.

Abhiman said...

Joe, your assertion appears to be right compared to my erroneous point earlier. I calculated the figure 176 as 100 J-11 + 76 Su-30. I did not pay attention to the fact that 24 more Su-30 MKKs were delivered later; in addition to that some Su-27 (other than J-11) were also delivered.

Still, that number is only 276, that too which is HALTED. This number is not much more than India's projected 240 Su-30 MKI. Adding to that are 65 MiG-29s taking the total to 305. Further induction of twin-engine planes will not and must not exceed this figure.



Please note that PLAAF is twice as large as the IAF.


Thanks.

Abhiman said...

teews, there is no entity termed as 'M-MRCA'. It is a media propagated conjecture.

I have also provided precise range-payload specifications to support my arguments from official websites like Swedish Defence Material site or Boeing's website on F-15 E Strike Eagle.
As corrected by Joe, I was wrong on the actual number of twin-engine fighters in the PLAAF, but yet that number being leseser than IAF's projected twin-engine fighters, my argument holds (I think).

Thnks.

Anonymous said...

Teews is right.

Abhiman, r u not bored is doing such a fallacious conjecture with arguments ranging from incoherent illogical one to bizzare one.

>>Joe, your assertion appears to be right

Better way to say this is, your assertion is wrong not only in this case but everywhere.

If you keep on doing this, you are creating opinion pollution here. You criticized this blog as propaganda weapon some time back. I dont know which way you are different from the criticism, if you keep on polluting this space.

Joe

Anonymous said...

>>As corrected by Joe, I was wrong on the actual number of twin-engine fighters in the PLAAF, but yet that number being leseser than IAF's projected twin-engine fighters, my argument holds (I think).

No again wrong. Read the news of Su-33 purchase ? Will the stiutatiohn going to be stagnant ?

Lets leave the furture. At present, IAF has around 100 double engined fighter, and PLAAF around 300. In which way ur right. Ur argument holds no water.

Joe

Abhiman said...

Look, I forgot about Su-33, but it is for PLAN and not PLAAF. Please note that that is again countered by IN's MiG-29 SMT (similar number) for INS Vikramaditya and possibly ADS.

>>Joe said :

>>"Lets leave the furture. At present, IAF has around 100 double engined fighter, and PLAAF around 300. In which way ur right. Ur argument holds no water."

IAF and PLAAF will not operate more than 300 twin-engined fighters eventually. IAF will simply "catch-up" with the PLAAF in 2014.
It is nearly impossible that the IAF will purchase a new set of 126 twin-engine planes to take this figure to 436. The operational costs would be unjustified and wasted.


Personal comments etc. are not needed for a mistake in stating 100 Flanker aircraft less in the PLAAF that I made earlier. I have written numerous posts in this page and on the comments sections of other articles by Mr. Aroor. Both of you may respond to the points made in my other posts and not keep revolving on this one mistake.

Thanks.

Abhiman said...

To my previous post I may add that the PLAAF is twice as large as the IAF and has thrice India's land-area to defend. Thus, 300 of PLAAF Flankers are not equivalent in percentage-cost or significance as 300 twin-engined fighters in the IAF.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

>>To my previous post I may add that the PLAAF is twice as large as the IAF and has thrice India's land-area to defend. Thus, 300 of PLAAF Flankers are not equivalent in percentage-cost or significance as 300 twin-engined fighters in the IAF.

Wht kind of logic is this..By your logic, Canada should have more a/c than USA. Is there any rule that states IAF strength should not go beyond PLAAF? It all depends upon the threat level, kind of role envisaged.

>>IAF and PLAAF will not operate more than 300 twin-engined fighters eventually.

Dont put your opinion as authoritative report. By that way, i can state 100 odd things like u r saying.

>> IN's MiG-29 SMT
It is not SMT. How many fallacies u r going to make ?

Will u eventually stop this singing after IAF selected their MRCA a/c ?

Joe

sniperz11 said...

>>>> teews, there is no entity termed as 'M-MRCA'. It is a media propagated conjecture.<<<<<

NO. PIB (GoIs official press board), as well as IAF have called it the M-MRCA tender.

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=28894

please read it...

Teews said...

Pleeeeaaaaz, what does GoI know, or for that matter the IAF. The only person who knows is Abhiman. Well so be it.

Abhiman, you throw articles and numbers. Whats makes your stuff more credible than ours? Because you said so???

Abhiman said...

Joe, I am not implying 'rules', but prevalent trends. I have already stated earlier that if the PLAAF is not pursuing twin-engined fighters, then there MUST be prohibitive costs behind it.

You may have also read what I said earlier, that No Air-Force (except Russian) operates more than 2 types of twin-engined fighters. It is because of the cost of operation of twin-engined fighters.
Thus, I stated that the IAF need not outpace the PLAAF in twin-engine fighters because if they are not inducting them any further, the IAF need not do too (after 240 MKI).

This is because they are indeed not favoured by the PLAAF which can be guaged from the fact that as a percentage of its total fleet, and given China's land-area, it is a far lesser number in proportion than in the IAF. The IAF has much greater proportion of twin-engined planes in its fleet of 1/2 of PLAAF to defend 1/3 of the land-area. It is thus UNLIKELY (and not so-called "rules" that you are incorrectly hinting at) that IAF shall procure further twin-engined planes.

Thus, if the PLAAF is inducting J-10 and JF-17, the IAF will also do so too---NOT as a "copy-cat" move, but because the strategic planners in both the Air-Forces will arrive at the same conclusion, and I estimate that, that conclusion is high operating-costs.

sniperz11, the PIB link is from 29 June 2007 i.e. only 2 weeks back which I did not come across. It is more likely the Govt. is adopting media-generated acronyms in a feedback loop, just like how the official website of ADA continues to term it as 'LCA' instead of its formal christianed name, Tejas. You may bring any prior PIB link that mentions "M-MRCA".

Joe, it may be STM or MST, but it does not change the validity of my argument >> that it is a twin-engined naval MiG-29 for the ADS and INS Vikramaditya, and that it counters PLAN's Su-33 acquisition.
Hence, I think you are arguing for argument's sake by pointing out trivial errors like mistake in terminology, or 100 Flankers more in Plaaf.

Thanks.

Shiv Aroor said...

abhiman: i think joe's being fair when he says let's wait for the RfP. too much has been said about the M-MRCA (and you are wrong once again that it's a media generated acronym.. it was actually the IAF which came up with the acronym in early 2004. you cannot dismiss an official name just because it doesn't suit your peculiarly fixed notions of the deal on weight or whatever! you are remarkably passionate about the tejas, and that's amply clear to anyone who's even briefly visited this blog, but as someone pointed out recently, the debate on whether the tejas should be invited to participate isn't moving forward. so how about something about something apart from the goddamned M-MRCA?

Abhiman said...

Mr. Aroor, I have only argued that Tejas must get an RFP. These arguments have to be made before the RFPs are out. If the RFP's are released without the Tejas getting one, there would be no use arguing after that.

I hope that someone in the upper echelons of the IAF may breifly read through your popular blogs, what I have to say. It is not to say that I regard your blog as a "public venting place"----before writing every post, I duly acknowledge your ownership to this blog, and your immense contribution to the discussion of HAL Tejas as MRCA.

Thank you.

Teews said...

Logic only works when one is fully aware of facts and how things work within a spectrum of a given strategic plan. So what I say, or for that matter Shiv, Joe, Abhiman or anyone else does not matter. It needs a credible IAF person (or a credible defence personal) to figure out what his enemies potenital strengths are going to be in the next 10-20 years and then plan how to counter it. So it isn't a game where knowing range and payload is enough. There are other criterias to be considered. The earlier we understand this the better.

Abhiman is passisionate in his arguments because he believes Tejas should be given its due. But what he forgets is he is not in a defence organisation, so no matter what, he will never know the complete information to take an informed decision, neither will any of us. We are arguing only as amateurs and nothing else, so lets keep that in mind.

Anonymous said...

Shiv: There is limit to everything. One can air their opinion, if it was kept-on going, it became whinning, and further, it became utter non-sense. This is what happening here.

One can understand this obdurate loudmouth campaign, if Tejas has not been ordered by IAF as "passionate about Tejas". Given, Tejas order confirmation in number with the timeframe, this campaign more sounds to me like a spastic child vying for more chocolates.

Many questioned, why Shiv, made this piece. I am now into the conclusion that its all to stop Abhiman laying his eggs in other topics. So, all the whinning can happen here.

Shiv..With the rule of priority for desi products if one such exist to videsi one, how one can imagine MOD to issue RPF to Tejas. Will not CAG pull-up MOD ?

Teews: You are double right. Taking the indications from PM speech,even IAF dont know whether their choice will be selected. What is been done so far here is speculation on speculation. Will abhiman head the advice is a million dollar question.

Abhiman:I dont know how one can engage in meangiful discussion with you. Throughout, you switched and changed tract when confronted from main argument.

When i told Su-30 and F-15 is not designed in similar fashion in ur Western/Russian masala topic, you popped out with F-15 is multirole. Even, a/c which can do recce is considered as multirole. There is proposal of equipping B2 spirit with AAM, even new Indian MPA SR is said to have AAM for weaponload. Can we term these planes as figher as they are doing multirole with AAM? what a idotic notion you are bringing up. Heck, have you anywhere seen F-15 designated as F/A-15 ?

When i quoted the Su-33 news to indicate in the expansion-spree Chinese military nothing is stagnant/crystallised to take a conclusion, you take a branch off to indicate it is for PLAN.

Now, you are talking about trends..Wht you know abt trends to talk about. IAF was paltry compared to voluminous chinese in 60s..So can we say, IAF pls follow the trend dont think of any more a/c ?

>>I have only argued that Tejas must get an RFP. These arguments have to be made before the RFPs are out. If the RFP's are released without the Tejas getting one, there would be no use arguing after that.

If this your real intention, then you should be knocking the IAF/MOD/babus door, not to accuse everyone here for not towing ur line.

Joe

Abhiman said...

Joe, I have provided the official Boeing link which mentions that the F-15 Strike Eagle is a multi-role fighter. The PLAN's acquisition of Su-33 can be countered by the IN's acquisition of naval MiG-29 on INS Vikramaditya and possibly ADS. The IAF and PLAAF are likely to have an upper-limit of 300 of twin-engined planes----both have plans of J-XX and MCA, but for conventional twin-engined planes, it is over.

You asked me not to accuse anyone here, for not "towing my line". You may read the posts above to know who is posting not only accusations, but personal comments like "Spastic child" (possibly loaned from a recent quarrel at BR forum). I would suggest that you are not arguing about specifications, but only indulging in foul-language.

If anybody can argue as to why F-18 Super Hornett or Typhoon are indeed "medium" fighters that are neatly placed exactly between the extremes of the Tejas and Su-30, then I am willing to discuss. I have put forth that they are not medium fighters, but tend very close to the already existing Su-30, and are thus unnecessary.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

There is no point in discussing with you Abhiman. You dont understand what others are writing and you dont understand what you are writing.

This is what you have written,"I FOUND IT HIGHLY SHOCKING THAT EVERYBODY REJECTED TEJAS' CANDIDATURE ON THE LURE OF (I DARESAY) "FANCIFUL" FOREIGN AIRCRAFT. If this is not an accusation then what else ?

Again, I am not accusing you as spastic child, only your action. there is a difference. If u dont understand the term "spastic child" the see the mov 'Mercury Raising'. And i am not equating that to whatever BR thing you are saying...

Goodbye for ever.

Joe

Abhiman said...

Joe, I may clarify that that was a generalized criticism of prevelant conventonal wisdom. It was not a personal comment on anybody or any group of people.

The inclusion of F-18, Rafale and Typhoon is questionable because their performance is close to an already existing fighter in the IAF, the Su-30 MKI. Their lighter empty-weight than the MKI is misleading as an indicator of performance because of basic differences in Russian and western fighter designs.

Thank you.

sniperz11 said...

Abhiman, wrt your position about twin enginer Aircraft, check this report:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2872990&C=airwar

"The jet should be powered by twin turbofans that provide thrust of between 25,000 and 30,000 pounds, yielding a top speed of Mach 2 and a range of more than 2,500 kilometers, an Indian Air Force official said."

The IAF has confirmed that it wants a twin engine aircraft.

Abhiman said...

sniperz11, I have answered your question on this thread :-

"DAC clears purchase of 126 MRCA"
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6050542&postID=1229580355246142047&isPopup=true

teews had quoted the same article, which was read by me earlier.

Thanks.

sniperz11 said...

Abhiman, your comment in that thread is posted below:

"teews, the statement of the IAF official may be his personal view, otherwise F-16, Gripen (and possibly Tejas) would not have been sent an RFP. These single-engined planes were the original contenders, of course after the Mirage-2000 (again single) became unavailable.

IAF already operates the Su-30 MKI and MiG-29, and thus another twin- twin-engined fighter would be very cost-prohibitive. Since we "ritually" compare ourselves with China in most respects like economy, it may be mentioned that the PLAAF also operates only one twin-engined fighter i.e. Su-30 MKK (the JH-7A bomber is a failure after only 20 units were ever built). No further units of the Su-30 MKK have been inducted after 2004.

The current priority of the PLAFF is the J-10, and to an extent the JF-17---both of which are single-engined. This when China has thrice India's land-area, and has military thrust towards Taiwan, Japan, US and India.

In the same way, it is highly unlikely that the IAF shall choose yet another twin-engined plane as the MRCA. The MRCA shall be single-engined, and in that the Tejas shall be the most cost-effective choice.

Vivek Raghuvanshi does not appear to write for the ToI any longer, which may be indicative of the lesser credibility of his articles, though ToI itself is a highly biased and often exaggerative paper."


This is probably why people here are so irritated by your stubbornness. You actually try to discredit the IAF OFFICIAL by giving your Personal views... and try to justify by providing some sort of logic.

We should probably just accept what officials say as most likely being accurate, instead of trying to wash it as their 'personal opinion'. You are not the decision maker, nor do you know what they want, so when they actually come out and make a statement, its logical that you accept it in principle.

It may not be accurate, especially since it is an unnamed official, but it certainly is more credible than your opinions.

Abhiman said...

Look, I gave my opinion about what I thought was the perdonal view of an IAF official.

You may further say that, "Oh I don't think it was his personal opinion", but getting (as you said now) "irritated", or "angry" is unclear.

Mr. Shiv Aroor has also stated the comments of unnamed IAF personnel, as per which the IAF prefers 6-8 ton category planes like F-16 and Gripen. The only difference was that it was unquoted, and not only unnamed.

Thanks.

Reference :
Indian Express report about Gripen's participation in Aero-India 2007, which was posted in other threads.

Teews said...

Alright Abhiman, I will try to make it as simple for you to follow what everyone in this world is trying to say to you.

You said it yourself there are conflicting unnamed and unofficial statements being made. Each one of us are quoting the articles that suit our arguement. So at this time everything is mere speculation. Agreed?

So when should we start discussing these aspects? Once we know what IAF wants for themselves. When is that going to happen? When RFP comes out.

So in essence until the RFP comes out you and I and the rest of us can cry hoarse but it will not help. So do us all a favour, stop bringing up LCA for MRCA posts in each and every one of your posts. Wait till the RFP to do that.

We all understand your passion. But you are actually making people who support LCA to get irritated and fight you instead. And you are only hurting LCAs public opinion.

If you don't stop, then I have to assume that you are actually against it and doing this to alienate LCA in public opinion. So its upto you now.

sniperz11 said...

All well and good Abhiman. The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that its your opinion only, and has about the same level of proof that our viewpoint has.

It would have been great if you agree that its your personal viewpoint, and you are using these reports to build a case for it. Unfortunately, you have instead decided that your viewpoint (of LCA being the best MRCA ) is correct, and you're now trying to fit the pieces to suit your view.

I may be wrong, and I'm willing to acknowledge. But I think we must agree that the IAF requirements are not known clearly at the moment. If the IAF indeed wants an LCA type machine, then yes, I agree with your point. But if the IAF has moved on and now wants a mid-weight, twin-engine aircraft, then the LCA is most ill-suited for it.

All I ask is that you continue arguing your case logically, but also not try to portray your opinion as the gospel truth, which it isn't (neither is mine, but I admit to that).

Abhiman said...

Despite having not made personal comments, it is unclear why some of you are "angry" or "irritated". This, even when the thread's topic is relevant (I am not posting in the Indradhanush thread, or the Bofors thread). We are not discussing Japanese cartoons, but the HAL and MRCA right ?
If in some case you don't agree, then you may say so with reasons.

Otherwise it is a waste of time as the previous 10 posts only discussed out of topic things like my so-called "accusations", "irritation", "anger" etc.

I have not said, "Oh sniperz11, just stop your foolish rant", or like this, "teews, just stop your pathetic whining like a hungry dog".
Then I only cannot understand the immense hostility to a relevant and an on-topic discussion.

Look, I am not sparring. I now conclude that my posts may be reflecting a sort of "who can challenge me" message, which you find offensive. I reiterate that it is not the case. If Tejas is selected in any way for the MRCA, I will delete ALL my posts made in Mr. Aroor's blog that remotely pertain to MRCA. This I shall do to remove any apprehension that I am taking 'credit' or some such".

I was banned from another popular discussion board for similar reasons. I would definitely like to know as to how I should write my posts that they do not appear offensive.


As I have already expressed my views (be it in case of Rafale or Tejas), I will anyway not post. Anyway, most replies are off topic and are personal comments.

Thanks.