During the last year, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Navy (IN) confirmed what must have been the worst kept secret in New Delhi: that the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, for all its achievements, was unsuitable as a strike-fighter for their near-term modernisation requirements.
Where the IAF was concerned, the request for information (RFI) for a new single-engine fighter issued in the United States, Russia, and Sweden in October 2016 marked a further twist in its long-running saga to complete the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) acquisition that first began in 2001. After the aborted competition led to an off-the-shelf purchase of just 36 Rafales in 2015 — instead of the 126 aircraft originally intended — the question of how the IAF would overcome the deficit of the 90 remaining fighters was still unanswered. There were some in India who argued that the IAF should jettison the MMRCA requirement altogether and fill out the remainder of the force with more Su-30s at the high-end and additional Tejas fighters at the low-end.
Given the shortcomings of the Tejas — some, but not all, of which can be rectified — it is not surprising that the IAF finally threw in the towel and decided to seek an advanced foreign fighter to satisfy its MMRCA requirements, even if only partially. That the 90 aircraft now considered for acquisition will be single-engined suggests that this segment of the IAF may eventually end up bifurcated. The single-engine platform, which hopefully will be announced in the next year or so, will complement the 83 Tejas fighters already approved for procurement: together serving as replacements for the retiring MiG-21s in the IAF inventory. Because the 90 future selectees and the 123 Tejas aircraft that will eventually be acquired will still not suffice as one-to-one replacements for the MiG-21s, it is possible that the IAF may consider acquiring additional medium-weight twin-engined Western fighters down the line, if and when finances permit, in order to further strengthen the IAF for counter-air operations involving China and preserve the three-tier force that the service has sought to maintain more recently.
Obviously, there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about a three-tier force structure in the abstract. If the foreign single-engine fighter met the multirole requirement effectively, the IAF could simply expand its numbers to maintain a larger component that straddles the light- and medium- weight categories, as this new acquisition would in any case bring more to the air superiority campaign than a defensive counter-air fighter like the Tejas ever could.
The Indian Navy, in contrast, has moved in a different direction from what appeared to be initially contemplated. Although the navy has been the strongest supporter of India’s indigenous defence development efforts, the sea service too finally rejected the naval version of the Tejas that was originally intended for deployment aboard the INS Vikrant — Indian Aircraft Carrier-1 (IAC-1) — currently under construction. This decision is eminently sensible given the navy’s special requirements: because an aircraft carrier hosts a relatively small number of combat aircraft aboard a single-engine fighter is a risky proposition at even the best of times. The technological and operational limitations of the Tejas only implied that these risks would be magnified, even if it were to be deployed merely as a second-string complement to a more advanced strike-fighter, such as the MiG-29K, which has been bedevilled by serious serviceability problems of its own. Consequently, the IN has prudently chosen to seek a new advanced twin-engine fighter that hopefully will populate the entire combat air wing on the INS Vikrant and possibly the follow- on vessel (IAC-2) as well.
Both the IAF and the IN have thus ended up similarly: although the former, seeking a twin-engined airplane originally, has now settled for a single-engine combatant, and the latter, investing in a single-engine fighter initially, is now exploring a twin-engined aircraft, both have decided to look abroad rather than at home for good reason. A direct purchase of the aircraft finally selected, however, is not on the cards. Thanks to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emphasis on ‘Make in India,’ the final winners in both the IAF’s and the IN’s competitions will be decided not simply on operational excellence and costs — the traditional criteria that dominated fighter selections hitherto — but equally on how best they leaven India’s domestic manufacturing capabilities. And the traditional Indian interest in using its defence acquisitions to strengthen its strategic partnerships abroad still remains unchanged; if anything, these geopolitical imperatives have only intensified since Modi took office.
The renewal of a global search to supply India with advanced fighters has unexpectedly pushed the United States back into the game after both its entrants, the F-16IN Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, were ejected from the previous round of the MMRCA competition. Because the IAF’s new RFI specifies a single-engine platform, however, the only two aircraft capable of satisfying this requirement are Lockheed Martin’s venerable F-16, offered to India in its latest and most sophisticated Block 70 variant, and Saab’s Gripen, which has been offered in a new, larger, and more impressive E variant that flew for the first time on 15 June 2017. The IN’s requirement for a twin-engined naval fighter has similarly left only two contestants in the race — Dassault’s Rafale, the previous selectee in the IAF’s MMRCA competition, and Boeing’s Super Hornet, the principal strike-fighter on the US Navy’s aircraft carriers today.
The return of Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block 70 Fighting Falcon and Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet into the IAF’s and IN’s competitions respectively has irked some Indian commentators, such as Bharat Karnad, who view them as examples of ‘technologically obsolete weaponry.’ This criticism is misplaced and fails to appreciate what makes combat fighters effective.
Tricolour Roundels on a Falcon?
Starting with the IAF race first, the F-16 is a storied fighter that has been in continual production since 1976 with over 4,500 aircraft built since. Although designed initially as a light fighter for within- visual-range combat, it has evolved into a formidable multirole platform over time, all the while remaining one of the most agile air combatants ever produced by the United States (US). Today, the F-16 in the US Air Force (USAF), for example, is employed for all-weather counter-air operations: these include both beyond- and within-visual-range air-to-air engagements as well as anti- surface strike (including specialised missions such as the suppression of enemy air defences).
That the F-16’s basic airframe has evolved only modestly over the years has proven to be completely irrelevant where manoeuvring superiority is concerned. This is evinced in the fact that, although the aircraft first flew in 1974, its sustained and instantaneous turn performance (when flying without its conformal fuel tanks) at both low and high altitudes is virtually identical to that of the Gripen and its thrust-to-weight ratio is unambiguously superior — not bad for an aircraft that was designed almost 15 years earlier! It would be surprising if the Gripen E, with its heavier airframe in comparison to its predecessor and its lower-thrust engine in comparison to the F-16, could improve upon this feat dramatically.
Success in modern air combat today, however, is not simply a matter of manoeuvring performance, even though the F-16 is fully the Gripen’s peer in this regard. Rather, the aircraft’s sensors, electronic warfare and information management systems, and weapons make an enormous difference — as do pilot training, doctrine, and the concepts of employment. If pilot training is excluded from the comparison, it is in the other realms that the F-16 has undergone a truly transformative metamorphosis over time, making it a worthy competitor to the Gripen in both the air-to-air and the anti-surface warfare regimes.
The F-16’s primary sensor, the AN/ APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Active (AESA) radar, for example, employs fifth-generation AESA radar technology that is derived from the advanced radars developed for the F-22 and the F-35. The F-16’s electronic warfare systems will be sophisticated Israeli systems, selected in accord with IAF preferences, and its weapons are more or less comparable to those of the Gripen E (and are, in fact, interchangeable should India require it). The Gripen’s information management capabilities are undoubtedly exquisite, but whether they are superior in an operational context to those of the F-16 is not obvious. At any rate, the F-16’s larger weapons load and, when used, its conformal fuel tanks give it a larger radius of action in comparison to the Gripen E, which makes it more attractive for theatre strike operations involving China.
None of this derogates from the Gripen E’s technological excellence, which is conspicuous, but it does indicate that the F-16 is at no particular disadvantage to its Swedish competitor where its combat capabilities are concerned. Its age in particular has posed no special impediment as its avionics and weapons — the capabilities that really matter, given that its aerodynamic characteristics are already superlative — have been continuously modernised, as required by the complex operating environment facing its principal and most demanding customer, the US Air Force (USAF). Parenthetically, it may be noted here that the F-16 Block 70 offered to India is so dramatically superior to the version in Pakistan’s employ as to defy serious comparison.
Given the difficult financial constraints facing the IAF today, the unit flyaway and life cycle costs of the two aircraft will be critical factors affecting the Indian decision. Unfortunately, good comparative data on these issues is hard to come by. The original Gripen had a well-deserved reputation for having low operating costs (the F-16’s being somewhat higher), but whether this will be equally true for the Gripen E is as yet unclear. In any case, the price at which the F-16 and the Gripen E are being offered to India today is publicly unknown; suffice it to say that, the closer they are in price, the more attractive the F-16 would be to the Modi government, given its other advantages for defence industrial cooperation and deepening the US-India strategic partnership.
It is in these latter arenas that the F-16’s advantages over the Gripen E are most pronounced. Because Lockheed Martin is transitioning toward the manufacture of the F-35 in the United States, the company has committed to transferring the entire F-16 production line to India, should this aircraft be selected in the IAF’s single engine fighter competition. The transfer of the line would enable Lockheed Martin and its Indian partner, Tata Advanced Systems, to complete the final assembly of the aircraft in India along with manufacturing of its various structural components, while eventually shifting towards the fabrication of some of its combat system components as well.
While Saab is certain to table a similar offer, sweetening the pot with financing in addition to technology transfer, the Lockheed Martin-Tata joint venture promises to advance Modi’s employment generation objectives far more ambitiously because it would integrate India into the global aviation supply chain at a level that Saab cannot match. Beyond supporting the IAF’s own F-16s, all future F-16 sales globally — including to the four-six countries that are currently exploring new acquisitions — could occur from production in Indian plants. Furthermore, India would become a critical node in supporting the 3,200 F-16s still in service in 25 countries (including the 950-odd F-16s that will remain in US Air Force (USAF) service for another two decades), in contrast to becoming a supplier for a much smaller market — at best 200-300 Gripens in some six or seven countries — were it to select the Gripen E eventually. The advantages of the F-16’s global popularity, and its still expanding market, are thus obvious for India.
The gains to a deepened US-India relationship are no less consequential. At a time when President Donald J. Trump seeks transactional benefits to the US from all its foreign partnerships, an Indian purchase of American F-16s would go far in protecting its bilateral ties with the US — still the most important power in the international system — without compromising the IAF’s capabilities. New Delhi’s selection of the Gripen E would obviously strengthen the IAF in similar ways, but a strategic partnership with Sweden is meaningless in the face of the problems posed by China’s rising assertiveness in Asia.
The significant proportion of US technologies in the Gripen further complicates matters: it has been estimated that between 40 to 50 per cent of the original version’s components are of American origin, meaning that the US license regime would apply even if India purchased the Swedish aircraft. This fact diminishes the attractiveness of the Gripen where political considerations are concerned, because New Delhi would end up substantially buying American but without getting the requisite credit. In any event, Saab appears to be attempting to replace the Gripen’s American components with other substitutes, but the success of this effort and its impact of the aircraft’s effectiveness are thus far unclear.
On balance, therefore, whether India finally chooses the F-16 Block 70 or the Gripen E, the IAF comes out ahead because both aircraft are indisputably superior to the Tejas in manoeuvring performance, sensors, electronic warfare and information management systems, weapons load, and in radius of action. There are marginal differences in operational capability between the F-16 and the Gripen, some favouring the former and some the latter, with the F-16 having an indisputable advantage in range and in the weight of the payload carried. Both aircraft will continue to evolve in the areas that really matter for air superiority over the long term — sensors for passive and active detection, advanced fire and forget weaponry, cooperative targeting using off-board data, and fire control systems for air and ground operations — and therefore, Indian interests would be well served by choosing either airplane for its air force. Both the F-16 Block 70 and the Gripen E are highly capable multirole fighters, and, as a result, the Indian government will be confronted by the difficult dilemma of juggling operational effectiveness and cost on one hand with the benefits for defence industrial cooperation and deepening the US-India partnership on the other hand. Pulling off such a balancing act cannot be easy, but New Delhi is better off being spoilt for choice than having to cope with skimpiness.
Super Hornets at Sea?
If the F-16 is the worthwhile revenant in the IAF’s single engine competition, Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet actually has an upper hand in the IN’s search for a twin-engined fighter for its future aircraft carriers. The fleet’s requirements here are complicated by the fact that the aircraft selected as its primary strike-fighter must be capable of operating from both the INS Vikrant, the ski jump equipped short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) carrier currently being built in Cochin, as well as from its future large deck catapult take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) carriers, such as the IAC-2, which will begin construction at some point in the future.
The IN has concluded that the Tejas is unsuitable for either vessel because, despite the structural improvements made to the test airframe in support of carrier operations, the final product did not meet the standard of acceptability at a time when Indian naval aviation is preparing to meet formidable adversaries, such as China, in the Indian Ocean.
Being able to successfully defend against — and overcome — Chinese aircraft carriers with their deployed air wings consisting of Su-33/J-15s, and possibly indigenous J-20s and J-31s in the future, should constitute the real metric for judging the acceptability of a given strike-fighter for the IN’s prospective carriers. This implies that rather than obsessing over some arcane detail pertaining to the increased tensile strength of the Tejas’ undercarriage or the extent of the nose droop improvements intended to expand its pilot’s vision, its worth as the mainstay of Indian carrier aviation must be judged by its effectiveness as a combat system rather than merely by its aerodynamic viability.
Obviously, achieving success on the latter count is a precondition for satisfying the former. But the challenge facing the IN here is that the indigenous Tejas is hopelessly behind the times relative to the threat that it faces from more mature opponents in the here and now — adversaries whose war-fighting performance is now steadily being expanded even as the Indian test-bed struggles to become merely a worthwhile flying platform for carrier operations.
Given this asymmetry, it is not surprising that the IN has chosen to look for an advanced strike-fighter from abroad right away, partly because it cannot wait in hope that the Tejas Mark 2 will eventually make the cut as an effective strike-fighter for the Vikrant. If it is to have a combat aircraft manufactured in India and ready for operations by the time this carrier enters the fleet in 2021, the selection and procurement processes will have to be completed by early 2018 at the latest. Given the development timelines associated with the Tejas Mark 2 thus far, it would be simply miraculous if the aircraft could be certified as combat ready, let alone superior to its likely adversaries, by that date.
Because an aircraft carrier has only a small number of aircraft, the qualitative superiority of both aircraft and pilot are critical, while maintainability — meaning the reliability of the airframe and its combat subsystems as well as the ease of diagnostics and repair — contributes towards the ability to turn an aircraft around quickly for repeated sorties, thus making it a vital combat multiplier, particularly for small- or medium-sized air wings. Of the foreign contestants in the IN’s search list, neither the Swedish Sea Gripen — as yet only a notional alternative — nor the Russian MiG-29K have demonstrated the capacity for both ski jump and catapult launches, and the Sea Gripen additionally fails to meet the RFI’s requirement that it must already be in service in its country of origin. Consequently, only the French Rafale and the American F/A-18 Super Hornet remain as plausible contenders and each offers India the opportunity to dominate the adversaries it is likely to face in the Indian Ocean.
But the two rivals are not evenly matched. The Rafale, unlike the Super Hornet, does not have fully foldable wings and, hence, cannot use the Vikrant’s elevators without major modifications that would add to its already high unit costs. The IAF’s Rafale came out at close to USD160 million per copy and the naval variant, of which less than 50 have been produced, is likely to be even more expensive. But cost aside, the Rafale’s lack of fully folding wings implies that fewer aircraft can be spotted on the carrier’s flight deck, a disadvantage when more aircraft there mean faster cyclic operations and by extension greater combat capability. And its maintenance requirements and operating costs are much more substantial than that of the Super Hornet.
Beyond these issues, even when both aircraft are compared one-on-one, the F/A-18 E/F compares favourably with the Rafale. The Super Hornet’s organic sensors and its capacity for integration with the E-2D airborne early warning aircraft, which is likely to be eventually deployed by the IN ashore and most likely on board the IAC-2, are unparalleled. The F/A-18 E/F’s primary sensor, the APG-79 AESA radar, has no peer among fourth-generation combat aircraft, and its huge detection and electronic attack advantages ensure first look-first shot opportunities that even sophisticated rivals often cannot match. Its advanced electronic warfare suites, one area where the Rafale’s capabilities are indeed comparable, make it exceptionally survivable in a variety of war-fighting environments, while its ability to swing effortlessly between air-to-air and air-to-surface missions make it just as versatile as its French competitor — but in a much cheaper platform.
To make a long story short, the F/A- 18 E/F Super Hornet has been designed for standoff air superiority as well as for flexible multirole operations and for that reason will remain the US Navy’s workhorse strike-fighter well into 2040, if not beyond. Both the Super Hornet and the Rafale are superb strike-fighters, but the IN is likely to find the F/A- 18 E/F better suited as the primary aviation battery for both its STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers. The cost advantages of the Super Hornet are considerable and, when considerations relating to defence industrial cooperation and deepening strategic partnerships are taken into account, it also does just as well as, if not better, than the Rafale on both counts. Because Boeing already has major production activities underway in India, including a joint venture with Tata that fabricates the fuselage for the Apache attack helicopter, as well as Indian suppliers that already manufacture components for US and international F/A-18s, such as Sasmoss, Rossell Techsys, and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the selection of the Super Hornet by the IN would yield expanded partnerships with Indian industry for the manufacture of its airframe sections, wings and control surfaces, parts of its engines, and various other subsystems.
These activities, which would result in the transfer of proprietary knowhow, advanced manufacturing technologies, and industrial fabrication processes, would help to nurture a production complex that can oversee the delivery of an advanced weapon system that the US has never before sold to India. Developing such an infrastructure would not only create high technology jobs dispersed throughout India, but it would build indigenous proficiency that could aid in the development and manufacture of other civilian and military technologies. Even as these benefits come to fruition, India would position itself to support the nearly 600 F/A-18s that are in operation globally. It would also open the door to possible co-development and co-manufacturing of components for the Advanced F/A-18 Block III, with its conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapons pod, and an enhanced General Electric 414 engine that could serve as a common power plant for the Super Hornet, Tejas, and eventually the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft concurrently. These kinds of benefits would obviously not be comparably available with the Rafale because of its smaller global market.
The deepening of the US-Indian strategic partnership would also be an obvious consequence of an Indian decision to purchase the Super Hornet for its prospective aircraft carriers. The same would be true for India’s partnership with France were the IN to settle for the Rafale. But important though this latter political affiliation is for New Delhi, the twists and turns in the earlier MMRCA endgame demonstrated how the extraordinarily high costs of French equipment made it difficult for India to fuel its strategic partnership with France through large defence transactions. In this instance, therefore, the case for the IN selecting the Super Hornet is persuasive because it would bring combat capabilities on par with the Rafale but at much lower cost while simultaneously enhancing India’s industrial base and strengthening its partnership with Washington.
Taking the Long View
There is little doubt that India has good options as it moves forward to fulfil its air force and naval requirements for an advanced strike-fighter. In both cases though, there will be challenging tradeoffs to be made as the government of India juggles the operational excellence of the various contenders, their unit and lifecycle costs, their contributions to leavening India’s defence industry, and their capacity to deepen the country’s strategic partnerships.
When these variables are assessed synoptically, the American offerings prove to be remarkably competitive — not entirely a surprise, even if the circumstances that permitted their re-entry were not initially anticipated. In any event, India should treat the winners chosen in both the IAF and IN competitions merely as ‘interim’ acquisitions despite the fact that these aircraft will be in service for several decades. Because combat aviation is steadily moving towards the dominance of stealthy platforms, India should be seeking to leverage these purchases towards the development or the acquisition of fifth-generation fighters — a technology area where, at least to date, American suppliers dominate in the international marketplace. Perhaps that is one more reason for giving Lockheed Martin and Boeing serious consideration in the current competition.
Comments(24)
Comprehensive analysis. While benefits to India of acquiring US systems are thoroughly delineated, what about benefits to USA - other than what the transactionally-minded Trump seeks? Absent enumeration of those benefits, one might walk away from this reading that USA is doing a "yuge" favor to India.
USA, as much as the Indians would like to be a strategic friend, has many times failed to be a trusted friend. That's the issue. India has not been able to rely on the USA when shit hits the fan.
How much and how further can you update the F-16 in future? None , but Gripen is truly a future ready aircraft, so as far as I know gripen is more maneuverable than F 16's due to it's canards and as far as We want to modernise our airforce Gripen is suitable but if we choose F16 then After 20 years we will be searching for another new aircraft coz these junks can't fly for that long.
and what are the rcs difference of f16 and gripen since those numbers are so important when they talk f35 why aren`t they mentioned here
At the end of the day India can not be considered to be strategically independent until and unless it becomes self sufficient, and not dependent on external sources for its weapons systems needs, like China has become over the years. India will for the foreseeable future remain vulnerable to US sanctions and arm-twisting, as long as it can not do a China on this matter.
The F/A-18E/F ‘Super Hornet’ will be extremely well placed in the competition if EA-18G ‘Growler’ is included in the “package”. With new generations of large, electronically scanned array radars designed for sophisticated air defences proliferating across major aerospace powers, stealth aircraft designs will be compelled to weave through a narrowing number of cracks in coverage, resulting in more reliance on electronic warfare and attack to disable, distract or fool the new generation of air defences and less emphasis on stealthy airframe designs. Sayan.
SayanIndia : do you know that Rafale's ECM is much more powerful than Growler? Mr.Tellis doesn't even know that Rafale is NOT a 4th gen fighter. Considering it also has active+passive radar+IR stealth and can use only passive sensors, it's even a 5.5th gen aircraft
LCA Tejas is a potent platform, IAF should endorse it, and DRDO and HAL should work over their heads to make this a success ASAP. F-16, Gripen, F-18 are all good, better platforms than the current Tejas, but indigenization is the success for future, and having multiple platforms for any Air Force is a logistical nightmare. IAF already has Mig-21, Mig-29, Mirage-2000, Jaguar, Su-30MKI, and Rafale and LCA Tejas to join them soon. Most top air forces have 3 varieties of platforms, and here we already have 7. To have another new platform is crazy. Wars are won by a combination of men, weapons, and logistics. WW2 was dominated later by Allied forces because of their capability to repair and supply spares for their aircraft and tanks at a moment's notice. I hope that IAF's sensible thinking prevails over its wishful thinking to have alls shiny toys.
Need to reduce the number of seats in IITs and NITs and increase the basic entry level salary in DRDO, ADA, NAL, BEL and HAL. And give the thrust joining hands with private aviation industry, India's own super performing Aircraft will come out.
What is nice is that Tejas Mk1A will share engine+Radar+ECM with Rafale and Su-57 FGFA will share stuff with Su-30Mk1. Definitive Tejas Mk1A wil do the job of 3 F-16 and Rafle, the job of 3 FA-18, ust by the number of sorties they can generate. They also have more advanced missiles and stealth features. Moreover, the bulding of factories have begun, but they're associated with Reliance, not Tata, while US are, this is why Mr.Tellis promotes inferior F-16 and FA-18.
What is nice is that Tejas Mk1A will share engine+Radar+ECM with Rafale and Su-57 FGFA will share stuff with Su-30Mk1. Definitive Tejas Mk1A wil do the job of 3 F-16 and Rafle, the job of 3 FA-18, ust by the number of sorties they can generate. They also have more advanced missiles and stealth features. Moreover, the bulding of factories have begun, but they're associated with Reliance, not Tata, while US are, this is why Mr.Tellis promotes inferior F-16 and FA-18.
What is nice is that Tejas Mk1A will share engine+Radar+ECM with Rafale and Su-57 FGFA will share stuff with Su-30Mk1. Definitive Tejas Mk1A wil do the job of 3 F-16 and Rafle, the job of 3 FA-18, ust by the number of sorties they can generate. They also have more advanced missiles and stealth features. Moreover, the bulding of factories have begun, but they're associated with Reliance, not Tata, while US are, this is why Mr.Tellis promotes inferior F-16 and FA-18.
How is it that the discussion has never included the F-35? I would think the F-35 would be the most natural craft for the situation. Granted it may not qualify for the Make in India component of the narrative.
have a look at norway and denmark and se the problems they are having
best article i have read so far
Good and informative article. However, there are many intricate details in the development of Jets. The maiden flight of Gripen E was postponed more than 6 months in order to finish and validate the new software platform for the aircraft. As it was described, SAAB modularized it in a similar way as mobile phones, however, more complex of course. The importance of this was the ability to add new features much faster that earlier, similar as to add apps to a phone, such as implementing new weapons or sensors, in the matter of weeks or months, which otherwise takes much much longer. This achievement is made by keeping the avionics software separated and secure and represents one example where modern aircraft excel. It is simply a truly modern weapon system. Another aspect on this commenting on Jets such as F-35: That type of aircraft is designed as a stealth aircraft. If using more than one radar, you will detect those jets quite easily, which is the purpose using Gripen four at a time and communicating information using the superior datalink. If the F-35 is to use the cannon, it has better to open the cover before as that might take a second or so to get the cannon ready, important time in combat. Another issue is that a Jet like Gripen is a platform for weapons while F-35 is the weapon. This means that a new weapon no one thought of beforehand might not fit into the Jet, or the plane has to be redesign altogether. That is not the case with a jet such as Gripen. Gripen was the jet used in developing the meteor missile, second to none in beyond visual range missiles, and the new long range RBS-15 air-naval missile.
i agree have you seen how long it takes for the f35 to open bay doors drop rocket before it fires compare that to pilon rocket instant fire my question how long does the enemy need to see an f35 when the f35 get lock on open doors then drop and fire missile it better hit
With due respect to Mr. Tellis, he has not even considered for once that India should be a Strategic Force, independent and achive Sustentative Self Reliance. He only supports american aircraft induction. He has put down the LCA. he has not even mentioned the thought process of Boeing supporting the AMCA or the LCA Mk 2 programme in India by ToT for aircraft and engines which would have earned greater respect. We do not want to make Gripen or F-16 in India Sir. We want the sweat and toil of our engineers and scientists to bear fruit through a well designed combat aircraft. It is high time we promoted the Tejas and AMCA to meet our requirements. TATA Strategic affairs should concentrate on National Strategy. Do you think a War is imminent. NO. Only LICO will take place as is now. India as a nation has good relations even with China. Read some of the Centre for Airpower reports. let us consolidate our country towards Self Reliance in Military Engineering rather than stall it for another 3 decades by producing vintage stuff. Tellis sir, the MTBF, MMH/FH and MTTR of the F-18 are very poor. did you know that. Read the reports of US sailors maintaining the F-18 on the carriers. You want our sailors to suffer the same fate. Who will address Obsolescence? Is India in a state to produce parts for the F-18 and be self sufficient? Can you guarantee a sustained SCM over the next four decades? Impossible. I rest my case
@Iyenger ... Ashley Tellis is an American first, who simple expressed what he thought is right. Reading your post one is likely to have the impression that you are a complete moron ... !! ... Who stopped Indian scientists' and engineers' sweat and toil from bearing fruits, which never showed up in the past 30 odd years ... ??!! ... who stops Indian leadership from taking the right decision in its own strategic interests ... ??!!
@Anjaan. Dear Sir, Thankyou for respecting me with those words. Regards, Air Commodore Ki Ravi
Help to join the Navy? Aside from providing the training and education you need to be in service to the United States, the Navy fosters personal development and leads to excellent career opportunities. To join, you'll need to meet several qualifications and make a commitment to service. Read on to learn what you need to know to get started help to join the navy you can send a message to this email jd3765809@gmail.com by name john david thanks.
Except that Rafale has passive stealth but also active stealth features allowing to DELETE returned radar waves, being so the ONLY western aircraft having flew over S-300/400 radars without being detected at all (this was classified "Secret défense" by France until Dec.2015), that it has Quantum-Well IRST/EO allowing to detect J-20/31 and F-22/35 from an enormous distance, especially if used in interferometry with Damocles or Talios pods, that Rafale has serious cooling of exhausts and anti-IR paint. Mr.Tellis also seems to forget that the Rafale contract has a 50% offset, meaning $3.9bln have to be invested in India to create an eco-system to build Rafale under make-in-India, the meaning of the first order of 36 units "off the shelves" is because you need several years to build facilities and train the 5700 employees o be hired by Reliance/Dassault/Safran/Thales and 200 MSME! Mr.Tellis also lies about the price per Rafale! The $3.9M to buy the 36 units would be $108/aircraft? NOT EVEN! Meteor, SCALP-EG, MICA missiles are being bought, but also spare parts and spare engines! He also forget the integration of many Indian, Israeli and Russian weapons (normally, such integration is done once for all, but costs $100M), and also custom features lie having the Elbit HMD, custom pylons for the aforementioned weapons, training of personnels, etc etc etc! Another point Mr.Tellis forgets is that Tejas Mk2 s cancelled due to Dassault/Safran/Thales help as the offset contract is also here to have them helping! So, Safran proposed a 98kN version of Rafale's engine. This engine is MUCH smaller/lighter than GE F404/414 thus allowing more than the additional thrust planned by fitting F414 on Mk2 (97.9kN) without having to add an 1m plug to the fuselage to fit more fuel. It took 10 year to Saab to achieve this on Gripen, the Safran engine get rids of this problem and the subsequent years of flight tests now Saab has to do with Gripen-E. Safran has just fielded a version of RBE-2/AESA to fit into Teas Mk1A and if SPECTRA fits, at $42M, Tejas Mk1A becomes the cheapest 5th generation aircraft on market! If OSF-IT, which is a 2nd gen QWIP is fit, it also becomes a serious threat to anything stealth, even using active cancellation and/or plasma. No surprise US make anything they can to KILL Tejas or Rafale : their proliferation makes F-22 or F-35 absolutely IRRELEVANT! But Mr.Tellis also forgets to say that he's from the company that has signed a MoU with Lockheed-Martin in India and is likely to get the Boeing contract! That 60% of F-16V technology relies on subcontractors and you can doubt Turkish ones are likely to allow any technology transfer, same for stuff US will refuse too! At $70M for a F-16 or FA-18, how can they even stand the sortie rate of 5.5th generation Rafale or Tejas Mk1A as they're able to be pushed up to 10-11 missions a day in case of intensive need while at best, Super-Hornet or F-16 might sustain 3-4? Tejas Mk1A will end with the thrust and fuel of Mirage-2000/Gripen-E while weighting 2t less... And a M2K has 6.3t payload... You end with Tejas Mk1A having more payload than the Super-Bug or F-16! With an excited neighbour like Pakistan, but another becoming hungry for lebensraum and has 5th gen. aircraft on par with US ones, which BTW, all US think tanks dream India to start a war with as China's economy is already over the US one but due to Indian growth, in 15-20 years, India will also be bigger than USA, thus the PFNAC (Project for a new American century) would be definitively finished : USA would end behind China, EU and India, this can't be tolerated in Washington. Remember that Israel had to blackmail Washington to obtain Sidewinders in 1973, and if they can do so (and didn't perished in a Shoah v.2.0), it's thanks to the French having built Dimona... It were also Mirages' ToT (disguised as a spy thing) but the Dassault's Jericho-1 ballistic missile and some other . In fact, Israelis even get US aircraft for... Free! Nevertheless, take a look at the map of US overseas military bases : they're trying to surround both Russia and China! Soon they'll propose to help, let's say on terrorist issues their Pakistani, Saudi or Qatari friends would have created and so they'll have bases in India... And you'll see tensions growing with China. I'd advise India to keep a strong but independent way but at the same time, building good neighbourhood relations with China, keeping the friendship with Russia and strengthening relations with the EU and all BRICS countries. The US military adventurism will only lead India on the path of war.
difference between India and china is China is improving life for their people
Cancelling the single engine tender might be good. Instead of 123 tejas and 100 F-16/ Gripen, IAF can get 300 tejas, make a combined deal with france for rafale for IN and more of those for IAF. 57 for IN and another 54 for IAF (as IAF wants 3 more squadrens of rafale) will gives us a leverage. We already have 36 on order add another 102 and that's substantial. We could easily bargain for technology. Due to this increases cost, IAF might have to cancel FGFA (which they seem to have interest in anyways) and fast-track AMCA and AURA. This option can make rafale the last foreign fighter India would ever buy for it's armed forces. Rafale is already working with GRTE for upgrading the Kaveri engine for tejas as part of it's 36 fighter deal offsets. This would give India an Indian engine freeing it once for all from foreign dependancy for high-tech equipment. More over a 300 tejas would mean HAL can outsource major production to private companies and become an integral of of sorts for tejas and build India's aviation complex. GRTE is also looking to replace the engine on SU-30 MKI with the updated kaveri when it comes for a mid-life upgrade for those planes. This would save money on the Super sukhoi update to our SU-30. At 272 planes with 2 engines each and 300 for tejas and some for replacement, we would make close to a 1000 engineer which would perfect the engine for future AMCA and AURA project.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.