[V.Narayan]

Gentlemen, thank you for keeping our warm little corner on aircrafts and warships friendly and one of information sharing. Let's keep it this way and not let it deteriorate to one of arguments or one upmanship that we notice so often in the threads on cars & bikes.As we are discussing defence it will very often be that the info or understanding of one member has is incomplete. Let us continue to educate each other with friendship. <Preaching talk over> My thanks to each member of this thread for enriching us all, especially me, with factoids and analysis that add to our body of knowledge.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

The only time the Viggen was considered by the IAF was during its DPSA( Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft) requirement of the mid-70s to replace its fleet of Hunters & Canberras. The Viggen faced off primarily against the Jaguar and Mirage F1, but also against the Soviet offer of Su-20 & MiG-23BN. In 1978. the Jaguar was eventually selected as it satisfied most of the DPSA requirement(advanced low level strike platform that had a sophisticated nav/attack system, long range at low level, supersonic performance, favorable licence production conditions etc).
The Viggen never really had a chance because of its Volvo RM8 engine(which was licence-built variant of the American Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine).

Very true. Also the Jaguar had two engines. IAF pilots were the first foreign pilots to fly the Jaguar sometime in c.1970 and BAe had been softly selling the Jaguar to the IAF for all those years till 1978.

When the Soviets saw that a western aircraft was selected by the IAF, they immediately offered to supply MiG-23BN in good numbers immediately and offered license production of the MiG-27M for the IAF's TASA( Tactical Air Support Aircraft) requirement to replace the fleet of Su-7s, HF-24s and Ajeets. In 1979, the govt signed a deal for the direct supply of MiG-23BNs & MiG-23UM trainers and license manufacture of MiG-27M in India.

Very true. In c.1975 two IAF pilots were sent to the USSR to evaluate the Sukhoi Su-20 {export version of the Su-17}. The Soviets allowed them only a few hours {IIRC} of flight time to make an evaluation! The verdict from our side was a thumbs down.

And, yes the Soviet offer of the MiG-29 threw a spanner into plans of procuring and license manufacture of the Mirage 2000 in India.

By dividing our resources we lost the opportunity to license assemble either plane. Alas.

Originally Posted by Ricci

Thank you Narayan sir, I understand some things you may not like to speak out ....

Thank you for understanding. This is one reason I never write on traditional defence forums.

I have a rough idea of what you mean, but if you can , please elaborate with some more detail. Back when I was a kid, I'd heard that the Mirage 2000 was a fragile plane, it needed to be stored in air conditioned hangars else the complex electronics would be damaged, whereas Russian jets were parked out in the sun all the time with no such hassle. Not sure how true that is. Also, more maintenance vs more expensive to maintain, are different measures and need to be balanced.

The Soviets were at par with the best in the West where design conceptualization & planning was concerned and often ahead of the West where clarity of thought and aims was concerned -- specifically on this point by the West I mean the West minus USA. Several military items designed by them were global firsts and remained iconic weapons for decades. The AK-47, the MiG-15, Gas Turbines to power warships, ASW rocket launchers RBU6000, the Styx SSM, their torpedoes etc. During and for sometime after the Cold War the Western literature often decried Soviet weapon systems often without fairness & balance. In aircraft and warships their designs gave a lot of thought to ease of access for repairs, a place to keep your tools, ease of how to remove an engine -- Moving the engine on rails, panels that opened up to reveal 90% of the engine, cowlings on a chopper engine strong enough for a man to sit on and work, repair by replacement by simply looking at that piece etc. For example they pioneered the concept that in a warship powered by gas turbines you extract and insert the turbine via the funnels. Ever since WW2 and superlative designs such as the Tu-34 tank and the Yak-9 fighter the Soviet design philosophy consciously aimed for - (i) simplicity in production; (ii) commonality in use of component parts across aircraft right down to actuators, motors, hydraulics, wires, windshields, etc (iii) maintainability in the tundra by conscripts. This is what made their designs appealing to third world countries with limited infrastructure.

Yes, that's a sad culmination of a long relationship, with a silver lining. As India's economy strengthens, we can get better more modern equipment for the forces.

Yes it is sad. But having said that it is a relationship that has endured and stood the test of time. I wouldn't yet trust the Americans. They need to be less powerful relatively speaking to be more trustworthy.

I hope to see the Rafale strength more than double, hopefully reach 150-180 eventually.

+1

I wonder how it would be if the IAF had bought only Mirage 2000s and no MiG-29s. I think this anecdotal story from ex-IAF Fulcrum pilot has been shared before, when in mid 80s, the IAF flew off the newly acquired MiG-29 against the Mirage 2000, and the MiG won handily. The author goes on to say the claims about poor reliability are "myths".

By nature each pilot genuinely believes that the machine he flies is the best. The job requires you to have such belief. And the machine becomes and integral part of you and vice versa. Also no pilot even after retiring will run down his Force on issues of maintainability etc. This fly off was in 1988 or 1989. I recall reading it in Vayu. I think I still have that copy. And yes in terms of maneuverability the MiG-29 topped the Mirage 2000.

Aside, I find my own thread on the MiG-29 here on Team-BHP copy-pasted verbatim on the MiG-29 and MiG-35 thread !

Indeed!

Originally Posted by skanchan95

No, it wasn't shortsighted. But the F-16 acquisition at that point of time was a game changer for the PAF as far as interceptors are concerned just like the F-104 acquisition was in the early 60s. We would have a much larger Mirage 2000 fleet with majority of them being manufactured at HAL .
There is no doubt that in the WVR regime, the MiG-29 will easily beat western fighters like the F-16 and Mirage 2000. But then western fighters clearly hold an advantage in terms of user friendliness and technology as was evident in the first Gulf War and Balkans War where Iraqi and Yugoslavian Fulcrum pilots, as brave as they were, could not even get close to marauding US and NATO interceptors.

Thanks for the lucid explanation

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Yes it is sad. But having said that it is a relationship that has endured and stood the test of time. I wouldn't yet trust the Americans. They need to be less powerful relatively speaking to be more trustworthy.

Sir, here is an article that I read with a fair bit of surprise; we tend to think romantically of the USSR & Russia with our cultural and military ties going back decades. But this article dispelled my rosy notions and reminded me of Chankaya's dictum that nations have only interests, no friends - https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/SJO...sian-ties.html

Excerpts:

There is no need to take a roseate view of our long relationship with Moscow. Nostalgia is not a viable foundation for any policy

The ongoing military exercises between Russia and Pakistan have touched off a wave of regret and nostalgia in India. Even seasoned observers and practitioners have lamented that our “best friend", who stood by us unwaveringly for decades, is now cosy with our worst neighbour. Before we ponder the road ahead, it is important to clear the cobwebs from our minds. The relationship, while undoubtedly of huge importance to India, was hardly a fairy tale. At all times, Moscow’s approach to New Delhi was shaped by its own strategic considerations.

The origins of this strategic relationship lay in Moscow’s growing rift with Beijing from 1959. The Soviets not only refused to support China in its territorial disputes with India, but also offered MiG-21s to India. Yet, in October 1962, when the Chinese conveyed to the Soviets their decision to attack India, Nikita Khrushchev, then Soviet premier, executed a volte-face. He told the Chinese that there was “no place for neutrality" and put the supply of MiGs on hold. During the war, Moscow shared with Beijing its intelligence on India. It was the Indian turn towards the US that led Khrushchev to revert to his earlier stance.

I never knew that Russia had shanked India from the back in the 1962 war. They knew of China's intent to attack us and they shared intel to help them out and put the Migs on hold!

Please do read the entire article. It is a nice one.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by locusjag

Sir, here is an article that I read with a fair bit of surprise; we tend to think romantically of the USSR & Russia with our cultural and military ties going back decades. But this article dispelled my rosy notions and reminded me of Chankaya's dictum that nations have only interests, no friends - https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/SJO...sian-ties.html

Thank you for sharing the article. Interesting read. All his facts are correct save one and some he has positioned a little out of perspective but the essence of the article is correct that Soviet friendship was not a straight sailing between 1960 and 1990 and a lot of it was driven by real politick. I liked his statement - 'nostalgia is not a viable foundation for any policy'. In one of the Universities I attended a professor used to say 'hope is not a strategy'!

On the other hand the author has overlooked the genuine warmth that existed between leaders at many layers - Indira G and Leonid B or the genuine affection Admiral Gorshkov had for the Indian Navy and his many gestures of help beyond the official; the bond between the MiG bureau and the IAF etc. Our risk vis-a-vis Russia today is not Pakistan and the odd overture they might make to that terrorist infested nation but China. Russian economic over dependence on China is our point of risk. But I believe three strong regional players {Russia, China, India} can balance their equation with a little tilt here and there. Russia, Japan, Israel and to a slightly lesser extent France are our strategic relationships that we need to nurture to help us not get over dependent on USA or overwhelmed by China.

[V.Narayan]

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/as-p...-plans-2228905

India plans to switch to locally-made fighter jets, two years after asking global companies to submit proposals to supply 114 combat aircraft in the world's biggest warplane contract.
The country's air force is finalizing plans to induct indigenously made Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas to boost the capability of its aging combat aircraft fleet, Chief of Defence Staff Bipin Rawat said in an interview in New Delhi. It will buy an additional 83 jets, apart from an earlier deal for 40 aircraft, for $6 billion, he said.

The PMs appeal to the nation to be Indian, buy Indian {to borrow an old phrase from the 1960s} has led to this. High time I’d say. The IAF can’t keep saying till it is perfect as measured against a moving goal post we can’t induct it. India and the IAF, I hope, will learn from this that all nations induct their indigenous designs at 85% to 90% ok stage and then keep improving it. You can’t improve a complex combat aircraft solely by keeping it forever at the prototype or pre-production model stage.

Now for HAL to step up its act.

[Sutripta]

India's involvement in the SU 57:- was the idea of embedding Indian engineers in the SU 57 design team ever discussed?

Sutripta

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

The current design with the hump on its back looks ugly! Looks like it got spondylities. Heck, even the Naval MiG 29 looks beautiful when compared to the UPG Fulcrums!

Agreed. The MiG-29UPG and the SMT are Frankenstein versions of the handsome and clean MiG-29A.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Very true. Also the Jaguar had two engines. IAF pilots were the first foreign pilots to fly the Jaguar sometime in c.1970 and BAe had been softly selling the Jaguar to the IAF for all those years till 1978.

I had read an interesting piece of trivia about the link between India, Jaguar and Iraq in Tom Cooper's book on the Iran-Iraq Air War.

In the 70s & 80s, despite the heavy Soviet & Ba'ath party influence, most senior Iraqi Air Force officers had a tendency to push for western equipment and training methods as they were initially trained by the RAF in the 50s and 60s. It seems these tendencies were also influenced unwittingly by the Indian Air Force, who continually had four to five officers in Iraq between 1968 and late 1980s (posted there with the understanding that they would not participate in any kind of combat operations). Just like the IqAF, the IAF too started out as a western equipped AF that transitioned into Russian and French fighters!!!

Consequently, in the 70s, Iraq had continuously tried to negotiate for deliveries of Mirage 5s from France and Jaguars & Hawks from UK. In fact, Iraq came very close to finalizing a deal for Jaguars and Hawks with the UK. But any such deals did not go through because of cautious politicians in UK and France not wanting to antagonise Iran & the US. However by 1974, the atmosphere had changed and the French - in part influenced by the massive sales of US weapons to Iran, but also increased fuel prices - suddenly signalled the readiness to sell fighters,helicopters and military equipment to Iraq- which eventually resulted in the sale of Super Frelon, Puma & Gazelle helicopters, SAM systems, Mirage F1EQ fighters & Matra R530F and R550 AAMs.

However, unlike the Russians, the French were very slow in deliveries. Most of these did not arrive in time at the outbreak of the Iran Iraq War. So from 1977 onwards, when war clouds started gathering in the Persian Gulf, the Russians accelerated deliveries of MiG and Su fighters and Mil(Hip & Hind) helicopters. And this is where Russia scored over the west, in the Soviet days - accelerated and no-strings attached deliveries for military equipment.

Iraq, at one point of time had such an exotic fleet of fighters that flew in the Iran-Iraq War with some very fascinating paint schemes (Hunters, MiG-21/23/25/29, Su-7/20/22/25, Mirage F1EQ series & Super Etendards)

Originally Posted by locusjag

They knew of China's intent to attack us and they shared intel to help them out and put the Migs on hold!

I feel it is unfair to say the Soviets held the MiGs on purpose. We need to know about the background and how favourable the MiG-21 deal was.

When it became clear that F-104s were being supplied to Pakistan and the Chinese were getting overly aggressive on the eastern Front, Pandit Nehru's govt requested for F-104s for the IAF, which was declined but F-5A/Bs were offered instead. EE Lightnings were declined by the British, Mirage IIIs from France were too costly and the French were reluctant in giving license production rights. It forced the govt to turn to Russia for MiG-21s. Just a couple of months before the 1962 war, the deal for the MiG-21 was signed in Indian Rupees(which included license manufacture of Type 77 MiG-21FLs in India). The chosen set of IAF fighter pilots and technicians were sent to the Soviet Union soon after.

The Chinese had chosen a very appropriate time to attack India in October 1962 as the US was entangled in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Pandit Nehru had personally requested President Kennedy to send a squadron of USAF F-104s for India's defence because it was feared that the PLAAF had supersonic MiGs and bombers based in Tibet which would be used to target Indian cities had IAF been committed offensively in the 1962 war. Help from US did come but in the form of USAF C-130As being employed to transport supplies to the front.

The first Type 74 MiG-21F-13s started being delivered in early 1963 and No.28 Sqdn was raised soon after that. The improved Type 76 MiG-21PFs and Type 66 MiG-21U trainers arrived in 1964). The plan was to manufacture the entire fleet of MiG-21FLs at HAL factories in India but till 1965 the factories were not ready. As a result, the first batches of the MiG-21FLs were shipped in CKDs from Soviet Union in 1966.

In view of the above facts, I feel it is unfair to bash the Russians for "stopping" MiG-21 deliveries to India because it sure wasn't deliberate.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/as-p...-plans-2228905


The PMs appeal to the nation to be Indian, buy Indian {to borrow an old phrase from the 1960s} has led to this. High time I’d say. The IAF can’t keep saying till it is perfect as measured against a moving goal post we can’t induct it. India and the IAF, I hope, will learn from this that all nations induct their indigenous designs at 85% to 90% ok stage and then keep improving it. You can’t improve a complex combat aircraft solely by keeping it forever at the prototype or pre-production model stage.

Now for HAL to step up its act.

Agreed. The shifting goal post is what has lead to delays in the Tejas development and induction.

[MegaWhat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/as-p...-plans-2228905

I'm all for HAL stepping things up and taking the Tejas mainstream; it's been an extremely long wait. But, aren't the Rafale and the Tejas rather different aircraft good at different things? I mean are we adjusting our requirements again?

Here's what I had posted on the financial stimulus thread. I'll stick to this thread to discuss aircraft now.

Damn, that's a big decision.
Imagine this, you're out looking for a car for 4 years almost. You come up with a comprehensive list of requirements, test drive almost every car in the market and finally decide that the Duster (just as an example) meets your requirements. And finally, after everything is done, you realise there's no money and you buy the Nexon instead (again, just saying as an example).

Both are great cars in their own way! But just that they are good at slightly different things. Same is the case if you compare the Rafale with the LCA. Both are great, but at slightly different things. Here's a basic difference between the two aircraft (source: Wikipedia):

Maximum take off weight:
Rafale: 24,500 Kg
Tejas Mk.1: 13,500 Kg
Tejas Mk.2 (expected): 17,500 Kg

No. of engines:
Rafale: 2 engines with a total thrust of ~10,000 Kg
Tejas: single engine with a total thrust of ~5390 Kg

No. Of hardpoints (for attaching extra fuel or missiles):
Rafale: 14
Tejas Mk.1: 8
Tejas Mk.2: 11

These can vary depending on the version of the aircraft.

Based on publically available information, there's not much difference in range, service ceiling and speed.

These differences and similarities can vary depending on the deal that was cut out with Dassault and now with HAL. But in any case, it's a big change.

Also, I think a few years back we were manufacturing around 8 Tejas aircraft a year. That's rather low. Has this increased lately?

I'm more trained on the theoretical aspects of aircraft and may lack on the practical front, so I could be wrong. Please correct me in that case.

Thanks!

[PGA]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

India's involvement in the SU 57:- was the idea of embedding Indian engineers in the SU 57 design team ever discussed?

Sutripta

Russians said NO to the proposals

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by MegaWhat

I'm all for HAL stepping things up and taking the Tejas mainstream; it's been an extremely long wait. But, aren't the Rafale and the Tejas rather different aircraft good at different things? I mean are we adjusting our requirements again?

Welcome to our cosy world of military matters. Always pleased to meet a new member. Rafale and Tejas are fulfilling very different operational needs. In American jargon they are the two components of our Hi & Lo mix respectively. Both are needed. The Tejas has to fill in the tactical roles left behind by the exit/exit in process of the MiG-27 & MiG-21

[MegaWhat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Welcome to our cosy world of military matters. Always pleased to meet a new member. Rafale and Tejas are fulfilling very different operational needs. In American jargon they are the two components of our Hi & Lo mix respectively. Both are needed. The Tejas has to fill in the tactical roles left behind by the exit/exit in process of the MiG-27 & MiG-21

Thanks for the warm welcome!
Glad that I came across this thread now, was following it for a while but quite a long time back.

Indeed, both aircraft fulfill different roles and hence, both are needed. But the news item seems to read that "instead" of the Rafale, we're now going to get the Tejas. No more Rafale. I checked for other sources of this news but almost all read the same. Hence the confusion.

[DrPriyankT]

Originally Posted by MegaWhat

Thanks for the warm welcome!
Glad that I came across this thread now, was following it for a while but quite a long time back.

Indeed, both aircraft fulfill different roles and hence, both are needed. But the news item seems to read that "instead" of the Rafale, we're now going to get the Tejas. No more Rafale. I checked for other sources of this news but almost all read the same. Hence the confusion.

Welcome to this thread. The 114 aircraft deal is slightly on the back-burner currently. The deal may still see the light of day, albeit a bit late and it will be in small increments. The IAF from what I hear is in no mood to backdown from the Rafale.

Also the article in my opinion is slightly click-baitish. The domestic deal for the Tejas will go through first as its firstly a domestic deal, with greater role for Indian domestic industry, hence will be good for optics for the people in power, and the Tejas deal is structured in such a way that the first 40 aircraft are of Tejas Mark 1 variant, a perfect replacement , for the Mig 21, whereas the next 83 are improved Mk1A birds. The Tejas is currently needed a bit more as it’s the replacement of the Mig 21. Ideally one should not compare the Tejas and the Rafale, as both are meant for entirely different roles in the IAF scheme of things.

[AlphaKilo]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

...The Tejas has to fill in the tactical roles left behind by the exit/exit in process of the MiG-27 & MiG-21

Sir, can you clarify if you meant that the Tejas has to replace both MiG-21 and the MiG-27?

Any updates on the follow up orders after the 120 first batch of Tejas? From the recent news HAL said they are already ready for Mk.1A orders of upto 24 birds per year with a new production line already in place along with the necessary logistics facilities. (Source: Tarmak talking - Tejas heros where Dr. Ananthakrishnan discussed it with the Tejas development and production team at HAL.)

[MegaWhat]

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

Also the article in my opinion is slightly click-baitish. The domestic deal for the Tejas will go through first as its firstly a domestic deal, with greater role for Indian domestic industry, hence will be good for optics for the people in power, and the Tejas deal is structured in such a way that the first 40 aircraft are of Tejas Mark 1 variant, a perfect replacement , for the Mig 21, whereas the next 83 are improved Mk1A birds. The Tejas is currently needed a bit more as it’s the replacement of the Mig 21. Ideally one should not compare the Tejas and the Rafale, as both are meant for entirely different roles in the IAF scheme of things.

Thanks! Makes sense. I guess I fell for the headline. As you rightly said, Tejas and Rafale cannot be compared.
There was another news in March this year:

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/...541462069.html

The numbers match in a way. I'm not sure if the news being published now is in any way connected to the one that came out in March. Or maybe just a misquote of the CDS.

Thanks for clarifying though.

[fhdowntheline]

I have a bit of a problem when slogans begin to dominate over rationale. As good an aircraft as the Tejas is, the story of its indigenous power plant (Kaveri) is a really sorry one. A "Self reliant" weapon system has perhaps its most important component that is reliant on a foreign country. I hope better sense prevails in critical matters.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

Sir, can you clarify if you meant that the Tejas has to replace both MiG-21 and the MiG-27?

That is the understanding I have. Also given the capabilities of the Tejas it is like a Light MRCA and hence a natural successor to both the MiG-21 and MiG-27. Request others to add to this.

https://www.oneindia.com/india/lca-t...g-2968966.html

Originally Posted by MegaWhat

But the news item seems to read that "instead" of the Rafale, we're now going to get the Tejas. No more Rafale. I checked for other sources of this news but almost all read the same. Hence the confusion.

I try not to rely on journalists. In my earlier career if I said X in an interview the journalist would publish X or X!!! It is equally likely that MoD put out some over reaching statements in a moment of enthusiasm.