Thread by @Firezstarter1

The scientific community was not responsible for setting the SQRs in toto. It takes the user to define realistic ones as well. The SQRs asked for Mirage 2000 class avionics in a MiG21 sized airframe, systems and capabilities that existed in no other IAF aircraft of the time.

https://twitter.com/KesariDhwaj/status/1879851587444625751

For instance, rtake a look at the radar performance, for which the Mk1 was held up. Compare it to a MiG21 Bison. Bison upgrade, decades later, could accomplish only a 50km class performance against a medium fighter sized target. Tejas SQRs were double that for a smaller target.

The Tejas radar was to have A2G performance with DBS, later on SAR was expected. CAG reported the Bison unit suffered not only from poor reliability but was never able to demonstrate functional A2G mapping modes.

It gets better. The Tejas was to have an internal self protection jammer. An aircraft of the size of the Tejas, with an internal SPJ yet, no IAF aircraft of that era bar the Mirage 2000 had one. The Su30 MKI had to add external pods, and the IAF added then post induction.

IAF tells CAG (and Parliament) that the Tejas has a critical issue, it lacks electronic warfare capacity. What was left out, 7 pylons were available on Tejas. It could add an EW pod. Of course if ADA added a pod on its own without SQR, IAF refuses, CAG censure follows.

So, Tejas Mk1 languished without a pod till Modi Govt got involved. EW pods added to the Tejas Mk1, and Mk1A program was also started with a new EW pod. Before this, this is how the SQR "game" is played. No interest in induction because "better imports" are easily available.

But lets take Tejas Mk1A itself. Tejas Mk1 wasnt suitable for the IAF, even with a new Israeli hybrid MMR, EW pod (which could have been added but wasn't) and we now need a new AESA radar and maintenance mods. Why the former, when not a single IAF aircraft bar Rafale had AESA.

So, again SQR game. Delay induction, create a new standard with "advanced features", meanwhile PAF inducted over a 100 Block 1 and 2 with less capability then a Mk1A and kept ordering. The difference, they wanted a domestic fighter and were not chasing constant imports.

The best part, and everyone knows this or should, there was no interest in the Tejas till the late Shri Parrikar arrived, saw how absurd the treatment of the Tejas program was & kicked it off. Even then IAF wanted only 40 of the Mk1A. HAL said we've a MOQ, please give us 80+.

It was only after Modi Govt put an atmanirbharta mandate, did IAF get quasi-serious about Tejas. Multiple meetings, last minute requests to "fix" issues that should have been picked up way earlier.

All these engineering change requests are noted early. No developer constantly keeps iterating to a moving target. If user says x is not met vs y, there is a time window to action after which no changes are done. Tejas otoh is a constantly moving program.

And the reason for that was simple. IAaf was complacent in that it's Sukhois, MiGs, Mirages could easily handle the upstart PAF with it's "inferior" JFs and "handful of F16s". Chinese airfields had altitude limitations, MRFA would "handle them" with ease.

So why compromise. Keep demanding the moon, best of the best, don't really care that the Tejas is already capable of replacing earlier MiGs, keep kicking the can down the road. Import Gripen or Mirage 2000s, assemble, ask for a fancier Tejas Mk2.

And that program was also in flux with no real urgency in funding it or moving it along. Only after the MRFA became stuck, only 36 Rafale were inducted, and the declining standard numbers become evident, did we move on that.

And what happened in 2019? Your fancy upgraded Mirages of which you only had a few because upgrades are so expensive, complex, that you upgrade them at artisanal rates, got swarmed by the PAF in the post Balakot strike. If not for PAFs rude aversion we would have had losses.

PAF did not navel gaze on how the JF17s were not "perfect", they kept inducting and iterating. It had nothing to do with PAF running the program either, another smokescreen put up. The JF17s were mostly made by China, assembled in Pak after all.

*risk aversion

The PAF knew it had no fancy import pipeline available, so it took what was available, examined all possible options to make them usable, embraced tactics, and systems that would enable this further. We chased MRFA, asked for changes (reluctantly).

Blaming the scientific community for creating a 'science ptoject' stems from a mindset that is unable to accept the IAF has had a huge role to play in setting unrealistic specifications many of which were not expected of any other programs that it had.

And furthermore, not even exploring workarounds which were blatantly obvious and being implemented on far more primitive IAF aircraft which had bigger issues in integrating third party weapons and sensors.

Furthermore that even today, the Tejas Mk1A orders were released in an ad hoc fashion with zero interest in scaling up the industrial ecosystem to make future aircraft programs or even the Tejas sustainment more affordable, capable.

Why these 83 and 97 unit orders after all. You could have as well created a roadmap for both and indicated total quantum of orders upfront. HAL, ADA, suppliers, labs everyone involved would have known the details up front, planned ahead.

If not for the Tejas *program* and the *scientific community*, the IAF and GOI today would be in deep distress regarding the PLAAF and PAF both. Thanks to the Tejas *program*, the IAF now has *options*.

With Mk1A it has 180 modern, current gen aircraft capable of taking on anything in the PAF inventory, it can actually build a plane that can do much of what the Rafale will, at a fraction of the cost, and thanks to the Tejas, almost all the IAF fleet is upgraded.

If not for the Tejas, AdA, HAL, DRDO, pvt firms whi collaborated on it AND the IAF test crew who silently enabled all this, the IAF would not have upgrades on MiG27, Jaguar, MiG29, Su30 MKI.

The Su30 MKI came about because we added display processors, mission computers, radar warning receivers, radar computers from our work on the Tejas. If that stuff was all imported, sub par Su30, no new weapons, sensor upgrades. Today we would be desperate for a replacement.

The MiG27, kept in service because of a comprehensive upgrade enabled by DRDO and HALs work on the Tejas. New displays, HUD, navigation, RWR, EW pod (!!!), and mission computer. All learned via Tejas Mk1 itself.

And the Tejas internal EW suite program was used to develop one for the MiG27. IAF canceled it stating MiG27s would be phased out. The move was short sighted, we'd have built the competence for future programs and Mk2.

The DARIN 3 program for Jaguars was run by HAL, all using the learnings from it's work along with DARE (DRDO) on the MiG27s and other upgrades. Now, a new Jaguar upgrade usesan internal EW suite, D-JAG, thanks to the original Tejas->MiG27->lineage.

But it gets better, the IAF MiG29s already have a new DRDO EW suite, thanks to the Tejas, it's called the D-29 and today if the MiG29s fight into the 2030s, it's because of these constant upgrades.

But lets not stop there, the Su30 MKI is now relevant not just because of its original Tejas derived avionics suite, but because an upgrade will allow it to fight against both PLAAF 4.5G and 5G platforms.

The IAF chased Rusdian upgrades for over a decade. Nothing came of them. The Russians sold their beat Su30 class tech to the Chinese in the Su35 as well. IAF was now out of options. Enter the Tejas.

Same Tejas Mk1A which the IAF didn't even plan for, has a new Indian AESA radar and SPJ pod which has established the basis for both in India. And guess what, the same tech is now being used for the Su30. No imports available, turn local, realise it was the best option all along.

The AESA radar via Indian tech will be constantly upgradeable and keep entire batches of the Su30 viable into the 2030s along with Astra AAMs. Guess who developed the Astra? The scientific community. Which was the platform it was meant for? The Tejas.

The IAF has a chance of bring viable into the 2030s without mass importing aircraft only because one program, and one program alone developed almost all the technologies that are going into their aircraft. The scientific community's far sightedness in the 1980s paid off.

They correctly identified all the important technologies that went into a modern 4th generation aircraft, identified a single program that would develop them, despite every risk, hurdle, challenge (sanctions, user disinterest, funding) persevered with local tech versus imports.

At every stage they chose a path that would allow the program and technology development to keep progressing. Today we have an AESA radar because despite issues with MMR, "scientific community" didn't drop it for an easy import from France, Israel, US, all three were on offer.

They first made a Multi Mode radar (MMR) that took what was ready (the complex antenna and gimbal assembly) paired with an Israeli hardware back end, flew it on the Tejas , had it meet ASQR. Developed radar tech further via 2 naval surveillance radar programs and AEW&CS.

At every stage modular tech that was transferred from one program to the next and the most important factor, the human element. The technical program director of the Netra AEW&CS program, shifted over to the Uttam AESA fire control radar.

By the time the IAF realised the Russian option was a no go for the Su30 MKI, and the Russians would not easily sign off on putting an Israeli suite on the Flanker either, we now had an Indian option available. And that will allow a Su30 to fly into the 2030s.

And that is how the 'scientific community' has kept IAF viable with their 'science project ' as versus imports like the MiG29, Mirage 2000, Rafale etc which cannot add to the long term future of the IAF beyond an immediate need. In a decade from now, Rafale will be obsolete.

It will be AMCA tech that might keep it and the IAF viable. The IAF already wanted Astra on the Rafale. Which outranges French Micas, was developed for the Tejas. And an anti radiation missile, the NGARM. Just see it. Astra aero configuration. Tejas tech is now flowing to Rafale.

This short sighted approach of lets aak for the moon, and at verge of success, lets cancel the tough development program issue is not unique to the IAF either. The Israelis did much the same. Their successes, failures are instructive.

The IDFAF was in charge of the Lavi, designed and developed for the Israeli AF and which was shaping up to be a fine aircraft. The US was however rightfully concerned. Developed in part with US funds, it was a F16 rival and they wanted it cancelled, offered the F16.

The Israeli AF, prompt decided the Lavi was too much effort and cancelled the program. Later, they sold whatever remained to China which leveraged it's tech (in part) for the J10, Israel lost its ability to make fighter aircraft and is now restricted to upgrades.

Literally all the tech that Israel now shops across the world for combat aircraft sensor and EW upgrades comes from the Lavi. Good business but nothing compared to the loss of business via dropping the Lavi and also their complete reliance on one supplier.

Now consider the IAF, if not for the Tejas 'science project' as versus some cobbled together import, the IAF would have had to replace it's Jaguars, it's MiG29s, it's Su30s (430 aircraft) all of which would have languished without upgrades.

A mere 36 aircraft cost us $9 Bn recently, above fleet replacement would be $100Bn. With no Indian mission computer, EW, sensors and abilities to add weapons, we would be in an absolute, unaffordable crisis.

And then you'd be beholden to a plethora of countries abroad for your foreign policy, your trade and defence policies after having signed away your sovereignty because you needed en masse fleet replacements. All because you chose "easy imports" at every stage.

Only reason now you've a fighting chance is because you are developing a Tejas Mk2 and an AMCA in a compressed timeframe. Because we developed FBW, actuators, sensors via Tejas Mk1A despite sanctions, that can be leveraged across multiple programs, allow rapid follow on programs.

Thank goodness India across orgs had men and women who took the hard path and put India on the path of becoming an aerospace achiever. They had sagacity & now thanks to them we've a fighting chance of facing the PAF, PLAAF without going absolutely bankrupt in the process.

The Israeli example also shows how putting the "user" in charge of a program is also another smokescreen. The IDFAF cancelled the Lavi and are now completely reliant on US made aircraft. No successful aero power has "users" taking over programs for this reason.

If you want to run a procurement program, then that's one thing. But asking a pilot to run a R&D or mfg org or vice versa is absolutely pointless. Instead create a system which values free and frank discussions, mutual support and understands iterative development.

If there is anything we need to learn from China, it is this. Constant iteration, understanding of local industrial capacity and no disparagement of their own based on some belief system that "martial beliefs/discipline " trump hard won scientific grind.

The new JHXX program builds on their decades of prior effort. They didn't stick around attacking their developers for not developing the best of the best of the best, vs better funded peers who were already ahead, but kept taking what was available, leveraging it to the max.

Today their designers see an engine that doesn't match whatever P&W or GE has, and they use three of them. Would we grant our designers that flexibility in a similar mature fashion. If not, we need to introspect and fix that. Period.

And FFS, understand that nothing comes easy. All this 'science project' stuff is just absolutely inaccurate. You need infra, trained manpower and actual programs to develop to a roadmap that needs to take risk. Otherwise you'll be always playing catchup.

With Tejas Mk1A we are at Gripen NG level avionics wise in a Gripen C/D airframe. Tejas Mk2 is Gripen NG/Single Engine MMRCA class. AMCA is firmly 5th Gen, and again here we intend Mk1 and Mk2. None of this would have been possible without Tejas.

Last but not least, the scientific communities choice of technologies in the Tejas was spot on. It has enabled the IAF & Indian industry both to remain viable. SQRs though deserved to be more practical and the IAF should have inducted the Tejas in successive Marks earlier itself.

If not for the Tejas technology development roadmap set out by the Indian scientific community in the 1980s, we would be nowhere near any attempt to even have parity with two heavily armed rivals.

In this case it is instructive to see how the Chinese developed the J-20. They set out a policy paper in early 2000s, when J10s were yet to mature and were still in early development. Tied it to the development of multiple technologies including an AESA, new engines, stealth.

All specifications set were moderate. Note the point here, just like the Indian scientific community they defined an ambitious program with multiple technologies based on developments worldwide. However, SQRs were "moderate" for lesser risk, quicker induction.

So the J20 as it was originally devised was not anywhere meant to be a F22. However, now the J20 is being rapidly iterated and as technologies improved obviously they'd be retrofitted into the early J20s or future variants.

Compare, contrast to our approach across not just Tejas but Arjun and many programs. We set incredibly high benchmarks because they are contradictory, pulled from different spec sheets, platforms. Want them all in one. And then delay that platform's entry into service.

Arjun, delayed in service because it can't fire at move greater then 70%. Specs wanted 90%. Meanwhile had T72s which couldn't fire on the move at all. Didn't bother to add a pod on Tejas which had 7 pylons. But flew Bisons with only 4 pylons, where if you want a pod, drop an AAM.

It is this " We will hold out for the best of the best of the best" while we operate the worst, otherwise we will import mindset, that has often both delayed induction and also left us in crippling need.

For the Bison post Balakot, if the pilot wanted to add a pod, he'd have to drop one of the AAMs from the 4 pylons under his wings. Tejas has 6 spread out across both and can operate a mix of FT, AAMs, sensors. LDP on a special 7th. And a FT under the fuselage.

Keep setting unrealistic SQRs, and then go up against adversaries who set more realistic ones and outperformed your prior benchmarks, that was enough for them. But no, we simultaneously want the "best" and we also want it without "science". No such combination exists.

If the original Mk1A and Mk2 (PDR 2014) here had been cleared, we would have had a fleet of Tejas in service already. No, we kept dilly dallying, setting new and new SQRs, while of course an imported MRFA would solve all our issues. A complete lack of seriousness, maturity.

Finally, once it became clear Modi Govt would not fund a financially ruinous MRFA, we had renewed interest in Mk1A (97 more orders), Tejas Mk2 (program finally cleared), and AMCA. Something which should have happened much earlier if we were mature.

Does the PLAAF care that the J20 cannot dogfight the F22 or F35? Or is it more bothered with mass manufacturing a "good enough" platform that can meet the vast majority of opponent assets and has a good enough mix of RCS, sensors and AAMs to overwhelm the US, allies.

PLAAF's capacity building reflects that. You will never see a PLAAF general or fan mock their industry in public either. They didnt sit around insisting that only an imported Russian Su-57 would solve their needs either. Built for themselves based on achievable specs.

And the reason that China is (currently) ahead in specific areas is that anyone serious there, realises that none of this would be possible if they hadn't chased the 'science project' that was the J10 against high odds and made it happen, with an imported Russian engine as well.

The J10 validated the classic canard plus delta wing design layout, radar, EW tech, actuation,plus FBW tech. All of which flowed into the J20. Just like India, they leveraged the J10 tech for their Flankers as well.

Now they've a follow onto the J20 where they take higher risks thanks to the science that started from the J10. We will do so with AURA and post AMCA as well. Thanks to the Tejas. Bottomline, science and build local. They work.

@cash19701 My other issue is we seem to lack this introspection and are reactive. For instance the very fact we've been shopping around for 5-6 disparate fighters each designed to a different set of benchmarks reflects this. MRFA has F-15s, F-18s, F-16s, Gripens, EF, Rafale.

@cash19701 With such wide disparity in performance benchmarked to what are by now, criteria which are too understated to deliver wide competition, how do we actually deliver war winning performance after spending $30Bn or thereabouts. Absolute and total procurement snafu at all levels.

@cash19701 So the J20, J10 etc are shaped to that Chinese way of how they envisage war with each platform filling some specific gaps. Here we are, import away, we will shoehorn & make it work. But will it even work against an adversary who is bringing an entire system of systems set up.

@cash19701 Furthermore, their investment, commitment to local allows rapid upgrades. Here despite paying heavily for 36 Rafale, we need French assistance to add anything. Completely locked to what the French think is OK (or not). Can Spectra even account for our payloads. Don't know.

@cash19701 Can we add those heavy pods made for the Su30 to the Rafale. We can't do that either. And there we have it, locked into a system designed by someone else, to their needs, which we hope is good enough and which we can't touch till we pay others for the privilege of doing so.