LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 17 Aug 2014 10:45

^^^ The problem is they never mandate private companies in India to develop these components and sub-assemblies. They either make these themselves or simply shop abroad. They have the 'dog in the manger' attitude. Indian private companies are treated as untouchables due to socialist hangover and fear of PSUs that if parallel capabilities get developed in the private sector, it may harm their monopoly.

If Tata or L&T were given mandate to develop Dhruv seats, they would have done the job in two years by hiring best consultants from around the world. But babus would rather die than allow potential competitors to be created in private sector. Tyres of MIGs and Sukhois were being imported for decades from Russia, paying through our nose. Then MRF developed these easily when given the mandate.

Desi Tyres on Sukhoi Fighters a Runway Hit

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 17 Aug 2014 15:25

vic wrote:ALH was started in 1980s, so I am to understand that HAL could not set up a vendor for ALH seats in 30 years(?).

I wish you good luck in finding a vendor to manufacture a few hundred crashworthy seats.

SanjayC wrote:^^^ The problem is they never mandate private companies in India to develop these components and sub-assemblies. They either make these themselves or simply shop abroad. They have the 'dog in the manger' attitude. Indian private companies are treated as untouchables due to socialist hangover and fear of PSUs that if parallel capabilities get developed in the private sector, it may harm their monopoly.

If Tata or L&T were given mandate to develop Dhruv seats, they would have done the job in two years by hiring best consultants from around the world. But babus would rather die than allow potential competitors to be created in private sector. Tyres of MIGs and Sukhois were being imported for decades from Russia, paying through our nose. Then MRF developed these easily when given the mandate.

Desi Tyres on Sukhoi Fighters a Runway Hit

Ah the legendary pvt. capabilities as can be "clearly" seen in automobile and IT industry. Also to note how "easily" MRF went ahead and developed these tyres

The idea to approach Indian companies was taken up during P V Nayak’s tenure as the IAF chief.

“The MRF agreed to do all design, development and quality tests at their own cost in the nation’s interest,” an IAF official said.

The MRF took the tyres for dynamometer tests thrice to a facility in China, incurring a cost of around `10 crore. (A dynamometer test simulates the entire sequence of taxi, take-off, landing and braking loads on the tyre.)

“Later, the tyres were sent for trials at the IAF bases in Bareilly, Jodhpur and Leh in 2011. They were finally cleared for getting on to the IAF assets in 2012........................................

“Currently, the fitment trials are over and they are being taken to China for dynamometer tests. By June, these tyres will be sent to Bangalore for the clearance of the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification,” the official added.

Put to trials in 2011 so most probably from 2010 MRF was working on the programme. 2010-2014 a measly four years to develop certified tyres, easy peasy bahhh !!!!!

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 17 Aug 2014 15:56

Favour Tejas to Meet IAF Needs
By Bharat karnad

Winston Churchill, as the First Lord of Admiralty in 1911, is credited with “technological prescience” by British commentators for building the 12-inch gunned Dreadnought-class battleships. When the First World War began, the Royal Navy’s Grand Fleet was the British force to keep Kaiser Wilhelm II’s seaward ambitions in check even as an unprepared army was mowed down by the German juggernaut, in the opening phase.

Remarkably, the Churchillian kind of prescience was manifest in Jawaharlal Nehru’s nursing a weapons-capable nuclear energy programme because he believed India could not afford to miss out on the “nuclear revolution” as it had done the “gun-powder revolution” consequenting in its enslavement. And, in the conventional military field, it was evident in his seeding an indigenous defence industry with combat aircraft design and development at its core. Nehru imported, not combat aircraft but, a leading combat aircraft designer—the redoubtable Kurt Tank, progenitor of the Focke-Wulfe warplanes for Hitler’s Luftwaffe. Tank succeeded in putting an HF-24 Marut prototype in the air by 1961 and in training a talented group of Indian designers at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

By the time the Tank-trained Raj Mahindra-led team designed the successor Marut Mark-II, Nehru was gone and neither Lal Bahadur Shastri nor his successor, Indira Gandhi, unfortunately had the strategic vision or technological prescience to provide political support for it. Indira permitted the purchase of the British Jaguar aircraft for low-level attack, leading to the termination of the Marut Mk-II optimised for the same mission. It ended the chance of India emerging early as an independent aerospace power in the manner Brazil and Israel have done in recent years. The inglorious era of importing military hardware was on. The resulting vendor-driven procurement system has decanted enormous wealth from India to arms supplier states—Russia, UK, France, the United States, Israel and Italy.

Arun Jaitley, the BJP finance minister-cum-defence minister, is saddled with the familiar problem of too many high-cost government programmes and too little money. He has an opportunity to reduce the huge hard currency expenditure involved in buying foreign armaments and reverse the policy of ignoring indigenous options and private sector defence industrial capability. He can give the lead to the Indian military as the British Treasury had done to the Admiralty in 1918-1938 by pushing for the development of aircraft carriers when the Royal Navy was stuck on the Dreadnought.

There are two far-seeing decisions he can take. With the US bid of $840 million for 150 M-777 light howitzers (without technology transfer) rejected as cost prohibitive, Jaitley can instruct the army to test and induct the modern, ultra-light heliportable gun, to outfit the new offensive mountain corps, produced jointly by a private sector company and an American firm, Rock Island Arsenal, that’ll cost less than half as much. And he could terminate the Rafale contract and, importantly, restore responsibility for the Tejas programme to the IAF, which was kept out of it by the science adviser—SA—to defence minister V S Arunachalam in the 1980s. It will mean IAF funding further developments in the Tejas programme from its own R&D budget which, according to an ex-senior defence technologist, can be increased to any amount, and was the course of action recommended by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and SA. It will render IAF accountable to Parliament.

The choices before the BJP government are stark. Is it pragmatic to channel in excess of $30 billion to Paris that’ll keep the French aerospace sector in clover and help amortise the multi-billion Euro investment in developing the Rafale, which has no customers other than IAF? Or, use the present difficulties as an opportunity to fundamentally restructure the Indian military aviation sector? This last will involve getting (1) HAL to produce the low-cost (`26 crore by HAL’s reckoning) Tejas Mk-1 for air defence with 4.5 generation avionics, low detection, and other features, for squadron service, and to export it in line with prime minister Narendra Modi’s thinking and to defray some of the plane’s development costs, and (2) ADA and the Aircraft Research & Design Centre at HAL to redesign Tejas Mark-2 as a genuine MMRCA with the originally conceived canard-delta wing configuration (whose absence has made the Mk-1 incapable of meeting onerous operational requirements, like acceleration and sustained turn rates in dogfights) and having it ready for production by 2019—the dateline for Rafale induction.

With the Rafale potentially out of the picture and IAF left with only a limited-capability Tejas for air defence, security needs for the next 15 years until the Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft enters IAF in strength, can be met by buying additional Su-30s and MiG-29s off-the-shelf and/or contracting for larger numbers of the Su-30s to be built by HAL with a deal to get the private sector to manufacture the required spares in-country, all for a fraction of the cost of Rafale. Some Service brass do not care for Russian aircraft but Su-30MKI and MiG-29 are already in IAF’s employ, and are rated the two best warplanes available anywhere (barring the discontinued American F-22) for combat and air defence respectively. A new Su-30MKI, moreover, costs $65 million, which is slightly more than what India forks out for upgrading the 30-year-old Mirage 2000.

Had the design-wise more challenging canard-delta winged Tejas, recommended by four of the six international aviation majors hired as consultants, not been discarded and international best practices followed from when the Light Combat Aircraft programme was initiated in 1982, ADA (design bureau), HAL and IAF would have worked together. IAF would have inputted ideas at the design and prototype stages, HAL produced the prototypes, and IAF pilots flown them. The design validation and rectification, certification, pre-production, and production processes would then have been in sync and progressed apace. The Tejas air defence variant will have entered squadron service and the larger Mk-2, close behind, occupied the MMRCA slot. The lessons are that indigenous weapons projects demand integrated effort, weapons designers need to be less diffident and Indian military ought to helm indigenous armaments projects. Jaitley can ensure these things happen.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 17 Aug 2014 16:05

Sagar G wrote:I wish you good luck in finding a vendor to manufacture a few hundred crashworthy seats.

This is where Government needs to step in to fund a part of the R&D budget to defray the costs. I mean how difficult would it be to design helicopter seats?

Sagar G wrote:Ah the legendary pvt. capabilities as can be "clearly" seen in automobile and IT industry. Also to note how "easily" MRF went ahead and developed these tyres ......... Put to trials in 2011 so most probably from 2010 MRF was working on the programme. 2010-2014 a measly four years to develop certified tyres, easy peasy bahhh !!!!!

This is one-time R&D effort and investment which the company spent from its own pocket in national interest. Imagine the foreign exchange that would be saved over the decades, and the money will circulate in Indian economy rather than Russian economy. Additionally, how difficult will it be for MRF now to move into civilian aircraft tire market? A significant capability has been created in the country. So what is all this "baaah" "baah" about?

vic · Post by **vic** » 17 Aug 2014 16:34

HAL management has broken all records of incompetence and delay. Their prime interest seems to be getting cuts from foreign vendors by entering into JVs in which we get no real ToT. All important projects are being handled by foreign experts who are supervising right onto shop floor. I think that whole board of HAL should be sacked and replaced with people from IAF, DRDO, ISRO and BARC.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 17 Aug 2014 17:26

SanjayC wrote:This is where Government needs to step in to fund a part of the R&D budget to defray the costs. I mean how difficult would it be to design helicopter seats?

For that to happen first their has to be a QR coming out from the relevant agency for the same so that the government agency taking up the project doesn't have to live in fear of answering CAG which would otherwise ask the necessity to take up a project without a QR.

SanjayC wrote:This is one-time R&D effort and investment which the company spent from its own pocket in national interest. Imagine the foreign exchange that would be saved over the decades, and the money will circulate in Indian economy rather than Russian economy. Additionally, how difficult will it be for MRF now to move into civilian aircraft tire market? A significant capability has been created in the country. So what is all this "baaah" "baah" about?

I was talking about your indication of "easiness" regarding military projects. for which standards are always higher than the civilian one's. Pvt. enterprises won't touch military projects till they are assured of big orders which unsurprisingly never comes and rarely they have invested their own money into military projects. Even in the example you post there is clear assurance of orders for several years since the aircraft in question will be serving IAF for a long time. National interest and all are just fancy journalism. Go ahead and try to find an example of any big Indian pvt. firm investing it's own money to supply a few critical components while taking loss for the same. As DRDO chief puts it, pvt. funding of R&D is practically nil. I am not putting all the blame on them but simply pointing out a fact.

vic wrote:HAL management has broken all records of incompetence and delay. Their prime interest seems to be getting cuts from foreign vendors by entering into JVs in which we get no real ToT. All important projects are being handled by foreign experts who are supervising right onto shop floor. I think that whole board of HAL should be sacked and replaced with people from IAF, DRDO, ISRO and BARC.

What do you take to get high ???

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Aug 2014 08:16

^^^

The singular goal of any private company is to make profits. They won't make profits if they are spending huge amounts on R&D and infrastructure only to win few interminent orders from the armed forces. Procurement practices of the armed forces have to be more predictable with sufficient volume, duration and growth potential. Most of the R&D would need to be covered by the GoI with the armed forces also chipping in: 60/20/20 cost split.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 18 Aug 2014 09:15

^^^ Cost split of R&D for a project between defence ministry, armed forces and private sector, assured orders from Govt., and freedom to export -- these three things are essential for Indian MIC to take off. Govt. needs to provide money to two-three private companies to build competing prototypes of everything it needs to buy.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 18 Aug 2014 13:55

agupta wrote:Fantastic... more transparency please !

Implicitly, are the IAF guys admitting that they too treat Program Management as 2nd class assignment ?

LCA Navy vs. IAF question: answer is rather simple; the Navy came late - and luckily had no history of being lied to repeatedly. As far as IAF concerned, I expect they think Mk.2 is what was originally promised - and they've paid up; wether we do it in 2 steps or 1, that's just execution/PR and H&D strategy

No. Answer is not that simple. Using your own words, don't you think that DRDO would have "lied" to the IN as well. If so, IN was way smarter than the IAF and don't have problems as such with the LCA.

Reading all the IAF folks quotes above does not give me a good feeling with respect to their vision.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Aug 2014 14:31

Sanjeev,you're spot on,but the Churchillian decision needed to have been made over a decade ago,in fact before 2000."Fraud upon the nation" was what a former VCoAS told APJAK.APJAK believed the BS and made his infamous statement in 2003 about 200 LCAs being produced between 2003-2010 (http://corruptionindrdo.com/tag/we-will ... -and-2010/).The LCA was nobody's baby and the GOI/MOD/DRDO/ADA/HAL/GTRE/IAF/Babudom simply passed the buck.The chief stakeholder was/is the GOI who have poured huge amts. of moolah into the project ,managed it abysmally and even techncially,missed the bus as the definitive Mk-2 is what the IAF will accept.That bird has yet to fly and only the dear lord knows when it will enter production and service in IAF colours.

Is that why there is little apparent progress on the Mk-2 while the action is all about getting the MMRCA deal sealed? As knowledgeable critics of HAL say,they prefer being "hand held" by foreign entities than develop their own technology. 20 years from now,and one does not know whether one will be alive by then,BRF may be debating the same issue ,again and again.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Aug 2014 16:13

Philip,

That 200 LCAs by 2010 is getting old. Please retire that stud. He is no longer wining an races.

vic · Post by **vic** » 18 Aug 2014 19:15

What is the achievement of HAL Management? LCH, LUH, HTT-40, IJT, Rustom, LCA, Saras, Su-30MKI license manufacture all delayed and except Su-30MKI nothing in production.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 18 Aug 2014 19:34

Can HAL be broken into 1-3 vertical orgs, where then each compete with one another and gradually, the private sector gets in as integrator? For the 1-3 govt org, the mandate should be that ore than 50% of the systems to be built in India, has to be sourced from private sector. Can this be mandated? Will there be small manufactureres willing to invest and give the quality needed? Can the order be big enough and for longer periods so that these players can jump in? So Maybe HAL1 decides it will treat LCA as $hit while it invest money in HTT40, the other HAL2 may be more eager to go ahead with LCA as it may not have money/mandate to invest in HTT40? Maybe later on we may have competing design aganecies ADA1-3 alingned with these orgs?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Aug 2014 02:36

NR,sometimes the nag needs to be displayed for the sake of posterity,in context.But it does grate on the nerves I agree.I'm waiting with bated breath for the next announcement of the LCA FOC ,supposed to be scheduled before the year end and when the first sqd. is formed at Sulur as we've been told.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Aug 2014 09:00

An episode on LCA by kannada news channel TV-9. Has some good footage on the assembly hangar of LCA, along with other stuff that we have already seen. One can see SP-1 under assembly, looks like still more stuff to get done.
Couple of new snippets:

1. SP-1 will be handed off to IAF next month
2. One or two Asian countries have expressed interest in LCA trainer.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 20 Aug 2014 07:24

From Tarmak007 on Facebook:

"2 Bangalore defence scientists to be honoured by Modi. ADA boss P S Subramanyam, DRDO DG K Tamilmani to be honoured for ‪#‎Tejas‬ contribution."

PIB: DRDO Awards Function 2014 – A Curtain Raiser

DRDO AWARD FOR PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE are being conferred on Shri PS Subramanyam, Distinguished Scientist & Director, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) Bengaluru and his team along with Dr. K Tamilmani, former Chief Executive, CEMILAC and his team towards accomplishing an unprecedented milestone in Defence Aviation through indigenous design, development and certification of a state-of-the-art fighter aircraft, Tejas for induction into services. Tejas has been granted Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in Dec 2013. This rare feat of the team has catapulted India into the elite club of nations which possess the technological capabilities and infrastructure to build and roll out their own fighter aircraft with state-of-the-art technologies.

Also pertaining to LCA:

DRDO Life Time Achievement Award 2013 is being conferred on Dr. Dipankar Banerjee formerly Director, DMRL and Chief Controller R&D of DRDO for his distinguished contributions to the field of Metallurgy, Materials science & Combat Aircraft Program.

SPECIAL AWARD FOR STRATEGIC CONTRIBUTION 2013 is being conferred on:
<snip>
· M/s Aerospace Engineers, Salem, Tamil Nadu, has displayed profound technical expertise in absorbing various technologies and has delivered high-precision and quality elastomeric products manufactured out of these technologies for use on various airborne systems developed by DRDO that include LCA, Lakshya, Nishant, Missiles, Life Saving Systems, aircrafts and helicopters.

Lots of good info in the PIB link.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Aug 2014 06:02

I will wait till what IAF says about SP1. This is important for ADA/HAL to understand IAF needs.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 25 Aug 2014 08:15

We've had some recent discussions on the HF-24 Marut, the LCA Tejas and foreign procurement of combat aircraft. This recent discussion from Bharat Karnad's blog by a former AOC-in-C of an operational IAF command is fascinating, pertinent and sheds much light on hitherto obscure issues relating to indigenous design and procurement which have seen much impassioned discussion but very little clarity. The original page is at http://bharatkarnad.com/2014/08/12/a-fo ... nd-writes/ and I copy and paste the content herewith:

I read your pieces Fire Up Defence Industry & Favour Tejas to Meet IAF Needs with great interest as indeed I do your other writings.

I thought I would take the liberty of sharing with you my personal experiences borne out of having been intimately involved with the IAF Plans Branch and as a test pilot both with DRDO and the Industry.

In ‘Fire Up the Defence Industry’ whilst talking of the HF 24 programme you make the point about a foreign aircraft fixated Air Force and the aircraft being aborted for being underpowered. Also that this has resulted in an endless cycle of licensed manufacture.

Whilst it is true that the HF 24 did not get the uprated Orpheus and hence fell short of level supersonic performance, we had found it to be a first class ground attack platform. I can say with confidence that the squadrons were happy and if HAL had continued to promptly address its technical, maintenance and other design problems, perhaps it would have served the IAF well.

HAL could not introduce design changes to clear the aircraft to fire its four 30mm canons in service and there were in-service fire problems that led to serious accidents and prolonged grounding. In my view having got the HF 24 into service, the HAL design team lost interest in keeping up with in -service design changes (which are essential for any aircraft-I think the Hunter clocked many thousands in service modifications).

Instead they had their eyes on the HF 24 Mk 1R which was the airframe with GTRE modified Orpheus Reheat engines. We had many a lively discussions with the design team and I recollect their complete belief that this should enter service, not with standing the fact that modification of the rear fuselage to accommodate the reheat had increased drag and affected speed performance to below that of the Mk1! Sadly Gp Capt Das’s fatal accident put an end to this futile debate.

The HF Mk 2 was proposed with the Mig 21 (If I remember the R 25 engine). Again this would have involved major aerodynamic changes and we were not sure how this would affect the performance of a Kurt design with an ‘area ruled’ fuselage shape. Ultimately I think the proposal was dropped by HAL itself when they saw that the IAF had reservations. Such a programme even if it were viable would not have achieved fruition in time to prevent seriously depleting the IAF’s strike capability.

(You do mention Raj Mahindra in the context of the HF Mk II and if I recollect he did appreciate our reservations on modifying the HF 24 fuselage for an R 25 engine. I may mention that we worked very closely with him on clearing the HJT 16 for the IAF including the difficult spinning trials. He was truly a hands-on designer who worked so closely with us that we were one team. Perhaps this is one reason the HJT 16 has served the IAF so well for so long)

In the late sixties IAF had identified a requirement of a Fighter-bomber, as we could see that Medium Bombers like the Canberra were becoming vulnerable. After the 1971 operations, some instances of corrosion were reported from both the Hunter and Canberra fleets. This would have had a serious impact on our strike capability. This, along with our ASR for a DPSA resulted in the Jaguar induction, which was cleared by the Morarji government.

In the mid seventies the following areas were drawing our attention in the Plans Branch.

· Reduce multiplicity of types

· Reduce total dependence on Only Soviet source

· Aim for a balanced Force- Mix of High performance/High Cost & Light/low cost. Keep affordability fully in mind

· Ensure that indigenous design and production expertise grows

That is why the Ajeet programme was launched by HAL even as the LCA requirement was being formulated.

Unfortunately, in a way, the Ajeet followed the same trajectory as the HF. As soon as it entered service our industry started to look for the next design project. Not surprisingly the Ajeet, like the HF was prematurely withdrawn from service. Having been part of the HAL team during the Ajeet development I can say that enough was not done by the industry to keep this programme afloat perhaps because they had their eyes on the LCA!

It was the desire for a relatively light, maneuverable and not very high speed and low cost primarily a ground aircraft in our inventory that resulted in our evolving the initial LCA ASR. Unfortunately this was hijacked by the scientific community who wanted to build a world-class light aircraft with multi role capability. What we were promised was an indigenous design with indigenous engine and indigenous multi mode radar in a time frame to replace our ageing Mig 21. Having deliberately kept the IAF out during the Project Definition Phase when many critical decisions were taken (Arun Singh was told that IAF was coming in the way of a fast track project) the IAF was finally asked to comment of the PDP report. I can say with hindsight that every cautionary note that we struck in that report has been more than proven by subsequent events. I have often written that purely as an exercise to learn lessons, an institution like the College of Defence Management should conduct a management study of how this vital project has been mishandled by personalities for egoistic ends.

As if this was not a challenge itself, HAL Design was kept out and instead a Society to oversee ADA was formed to manage the project. So we have ADA as the design authority, HAL as the production agency and one responsible for providing product support to the IAF. ADA will be busy with the next generation design and when in service problems arise, one can visualize passing the buck between HAL and ADA with the IAF facing the consequences! I do not wish to be a pessimist, but my experience cautions me of a repeat of the HF 24 and Ajeet histories. Sadly at great cost to the nation.

Let me also say that the IAF could boast of the finest Plans Branch and planning systems starting from the sixties. Integrated within the system were not just test pilots and engineers but financial planners as well. Our Air Staff Requirements were thoroughly made and then not compromised. Because planning is a long-term activity, people with experience were rotated within the system.

ASRs were what the IAF needed not what others thought we needed. So when the LCA ASR was being discussed and the DRDO wanted these to be moderated, the ASR was not changed. Instead the concession was mentioned against the required performance. In the ASR. Similarly, if for some reason of cost or availability, the MOD wanted concessions to be made, these were recorded as concessions with reasons and not as changes to ASR.

I must say to my regret that from the early nineties IAF leaderships, for whatever reason, failed to maintain the integrity of the Planning Branch. Whether it was external pressures or those from within, it is not for me to say, although I have my serious reservations on some of the leaderships of the time. Committing the IAF to the Su 30 heavy fighter within a year of the Chief saying there was no such requirement (and that too a two cockpit fighter which has a huge impact on pilot demands) is I believe an event that has not been studied enough nor commented upon. The rot was setting in and the recent revelations about the VVIP helicopter Staff Requirements being changed due to extraneous factors merely confirms this and does not surprise me.

I have always believed and advocated that we as a nation have the wherewithal to become a producer of world-class aeroplanes. What is lacking is a strategy and to work as one. When Dr Kalam was President of the Aeronautical Society of India a paper was put up for a National Aeronautics Policy. In 2004 the AeSI revised the proposal and a paper titled ‘National Aeronautics Policy’ August 2004 was put up to the government. As one of the Vice Presidents of the Society at the time I was one of the principal architects of this paper. I understood that the then NSA Mani Dixit was pursuing it, but perhaps because of his untimely demise no follow-up took place.

I do share concern of where IAF plans are leading us. I thought that as a historian and academic you may be interested in some of the more hidden aspects from the other side as it were, aspects which otherwise will die as generations move on, depriving us to draw appropriate lessons.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Aug 2014 10:06

@Hobbes: Thanks for posting the above reply. It helps to clear a lot of issues.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 25 Aug 2014 13:36

Should a separate thread not be created for LCA Tejas MK-2 discussions? Sorry if the below has been posted already.

With Separate Project team from ADA and HAL already in place for Tejas MK-2 , MK-2 Team are targeting to carry out first flight in early 2017 as per sources close to idrw.org . under MK-2 Project HAL will roll out two Prototypes by 2016 which will be be powered by the more powerful GE-F414-INS6 engines .

In 2013 Initial contract for 8 GE-F414-INS6 engines was awarded to Ge and GE will start delivering engines by end of 2015 and will also help in Integration of the engines with the MK-2 airframe in India for which a dedicated team will arrive from US , Currently GE team in US has carried out design reviews for integration of the engines in the MK-2 .

MK-2 Project team also been tasked to make it more Maintenance friendly and increase operational availability of the aircrafts once it enters service with IAF. MK-2 not only will get new engines but also will get Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar , onboard oxygen-generating system; an advanced Electronic Warfare (EW) suite,Pilot friendlier cockpit display, retractable mid-air refuelling system . older PV-1 aircraft currently has been used has a Test Bed for Electronic Warfare system.

http://idrw.org/?p=41645

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 25 Aug 2014 13:45

putnanja wrote:An episode on LCA by kannada news channel TV-9. Has some good footage on the assembly hangar of LCA, along with other stuff that we have already seen. One can see SP-1 under assembly, looks like still more stuff to get done.
Couple of new snippets:

1. SP-1 will be handed off to IAF next month
2. One or two Asian countries have expressed interest in LCA trainer.

Have a look at SP1 status at 8:03. Gurus, how long before we see it take off...(if that can be inferred from the pic).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Aug 2014 18:21

I don't think we need two LCA dhaagas. Content-wise, Mk2 will not add much to the noise and whine we get in a single dhaaga. If Mk2 designs are frozen, some decent pics can help especially with a Mk1 side by side view.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Aug 2014 17:54

Hobbes wrote:http://bharatkarnad.com/2014/08/12/a-fo ... nd-writes/It was the desire for a relatively light, maneuverable and not very high speed and low cost primarily a ground aircraft in our inventory that resulted in our evolving the initial LCA ASR. Unfortunately this was hijacked by the scientific community who wanted to build a world-class light aircraft with multi role capability. What we were promised was an indigenous design with indigenous engine and indigenous multi mode radar in a time frame to replace our ageing Mig 21. Having deliberately kept the IAF out during the Project Definition Phase when many critical decisions were taken (Arun Singh was told that IAF was coming in the way of a fast track project) the IAF was finally asked to comment of the PDP report. I can say with hindsight that every cautionary note that we struck in that report has been more than proven by subsequent events. I have often written that purely as an exercise to learn lessons, an institution like the College of Defence Management should conduct a management study of how this vital project has been mishandled by personalities for egoistic ends. As if this was not a challenge itself, HAL Design was kept out and instead a Society to oversee ADA was formed to manage the project. So we have ADA as the design authority, HAL as the production agency and one responsible for providing product support to the IAF. ADA will be busy with the next generation design and when in service problems arise, one can visualize passing the buck between HAL and ADA with the IAF facing the consequences! I do not wish to be a pessimist, but my experience cautions me of a repeat of the HF 24 and Ajeet histories. Sadly at great cost to the nation.

This is the whole & complete truth. There are so many posters on this forum viciously berating the IAF for not supporting Tejas or spreading the falsehood of IAF revising ASRs leading to delays, this should be an eye opener. The 5500 kg weight and other design specification was drawn up by the overoptimistic design team without even consulting IAF, and without any firm technological basis.

The Marut Mk 2 story defies basic aeronautical knowledge. The careful area ruling of the original Marut design was discarded for accommodating the more powerful engine hoping it would compensate. Unfortunately, physics works differently, and when area ruling was lost, even with an engine generating more horsepower, the Marut Mk2 was slower!

ravip · Post by **ravip** » 27 Aug 2014 21:44

tsarkar wrote:
Hobbes wrote:http://bharatkarnad.com/2014/08/12/a-fo ... nd-writes/It was the desire for a relatively light, maneuverable and not very high speed and low cost primarily a ground aircraft in our inventory that resulted in our evolving the initial LCA ASR. Unfortunately this was hijacked by the scientific community who wanted to build a world-class light aircraft with multi role capability. What we were promised was an indigenous design with indigenous engine and indigenous multi mode radar in a time frame to replace our ageing Mig 21. Having deliberately kept the IAF out during the Project Definition Phase when many critical decisions were taken (Arun Singh was told that IAF was coming in the way of a fast track project) the IAF was finally asked to comment of the PDP report. I can say with hindsight that every cautionary note that we struck in that report has been more than proven by subsequent events. I have often written that purely as an exercise to learn lessons, an institution like the College of Defence Management should conduct a management study of how this vital project has been mishandled by personalities for egoistic ends. As if this was not a challenge itself, HAL Design was kept out and instead a Society to oversee ADA was formed to manage the project. So we have ADA as the design authority, HAL as the production agency and one responsible for providing product support to the IAF. ADA will be busy with the next generation design and when in service problems arise, one can visualize passing the buck between HAL and ADA with the IAF facing the consequences! I do not wish to be a pessimist, but my experience cautions me of a repeat of the HF 24 and Ajeet histories. Sadly at great cost to the nation.
This is the whole & complete truth. There are so many posters on this forum viciously berating the IAF for not supporting Tejas or spreading the falsehood of IAF revising ASRs leading to delays, this should be an eye opener. The 5500 kg weight and other design specification was drawn up by the overoptimistic design team without even consulting IAF, and without any firm technological basis.

The Marut Mk 2 story defies basic aeronautical knowledge. The careful area ruling of the original Marut design was discarded for accommodating the more powerful engine hoping it would compensate. Unfortunately, physics works differently, and when area ruling was lost, even with an engine generating more horsepower, the Marut Mk2 was slower!

Sir i respect your view and have been following your posts since 7 yrs on BR infact from the pattern of your posts I always thought you are from the establishment or insider, but however in my opinion the IAF in its all wisdom could have interfered with MOD or could have advised PMO if need be, as in US every strategic decisions are run through review by a red team, sadly that is not the case in India. Because wat matters in war is can we drop certain amount of bomb at the place and time of our desire or can we defend certain place wen needed. To build a robust MIC there should be an all out national effort and not blame game or ego. To achieve such a goal if the situation demands then we should be ready to beg, borrow or steal.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Aug 2014 07:15

Product development is both about fulfilling customer's requirements and at the same time making the technological leap to stay competitive. It is hard to achieve both when basic foundations in aerospace technologies and experiences are lacking. In hindsight, we can find faults in all parties involved (depending on which perspective you chose to look at it from), but the more important point is has India learned from its mistakes and not make those same ones going forward?

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 28 Aug 2014 11:25

Hobbes wrote: In the mid seventies the following areas were drawing our attention in the Plans Branch.

· Reduce multiplicity of types

· Reduce total dependence on Only Soviet source

· Aim for a balanced Force- Mix of High performance/High Cost & Light/low cost. Keep affordability fully in mind

· Ensure that indigenous design and production expertise grows

That is why the Ajeet programme was launched by HAL even as the LCA requirement was being formulated.

The things is, all of those bullet point issues are much bigger problems today. So the IAF is an infinitely worse situation then it started!

Multiplicity of types: IAF, even though we already have the IL-78 for our refuellers and AWACS, ordered some C-17s at 4x the price. This is pure madness. DRDO, having selected Embraer for our AEW, switched planes to Boeing!!!!
We also have the P-8I which is a Boeing. And our new refuellers are Airbus. Is this an Air Force or a menagerie?

Mig-29, Su-30 MKI and PAKFA are more vital today than they ever were. Our reliance on Russia is greater.

Our mix of high performance high cost is totally broken. We have a lot of heavy and medium size fighters who are expensive to far more expensive. We have almost no low end fighters. We need more Tejas+Kaveri.

The last point has improved, but we have no engines. We didn't have engines that led to the failure of the HF-24, and we don't have engines now! Not one single thing has gotten better in over 40 years.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 28 Aug 2014 11:26

srai wrote:Product development is both about fulfilling customer's requirements and at the same time making the technological leap to stay competitive. It is hard to achieve both when basic foundations in aerospace technologies and experiences are lacking. In hindsight, we can find faults in all parties involved (depending on which perspective you chose to look at it from), but the more important point is has India learned from its mistakes and not make those same ones going forward?

We not only didn't learn a single thing, we have made every single mistake much much worse.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Aug 2014 20:28

ravip wrote:To build a robust MIC there should be an all out national effort and not blame game or ego. To achieve such a goal if the situation demands then we should be ready to beg, borrow or steal.

srai wrote:Product development is both about fulfilling customer's requirements and at the same time making the technological leap to stay competitive.

Rien wrote:We not only didn't learn a single thing, we have made every single mistake much much worse.

Good points here.

The basic problem is we've not allowed an ecosystem to grow. The reasons cited 1. Lack of domestic expertise and 2. Lack of capital are nonsense.

Humans, and especially Indians have an immense capability to learn and this has been shown in other industries. The Pharma industry is extremely protective, but Indian companies have begged, borrowed, stolen, elbowed & gatecrashed their way in. We may not be cutting edge but we're there. Lack of capital too is nonsense. When their is a business opportunity, people will invest. Private Shipbuilders like L&T, Pipavav, Bharati & ABG built infrastructure on their own finding their own capital. They also acquired know-how. The biggest irony is more & more warships are increasing being built to COTS standards.

What is hindering industry & ecosystem growth are -

1. DPSU's & Unions wanting captive business - GCF workers going on strike on news of private Indian players building arty, OFB Medak Union going on strike when it was announced VFJ will also manufacture BMP2 or MDL Unions going on strike on Pipavav being allowed to build sections for MDL.

2. ToT Lobby - These are organizations like BEML who white label Left Hand Drive Tatra trucks or MDL which buys components from DCN and white labels them as MPM (MDL Procured Materials) or HAL MiG Complex, which just assembled 2007 order for 18+40 MKI and recent order for 42 MKI and calls them indigenous.

3. Scientific Lobby - That will not allow people outside Government labs to design aeroplanes, in the interest of "national security". On asking why don't we open aircraft design to anyone in the nation, one reason I was cited by one very Senior Scientist was Naxals might start designing & building fighter planes or someone might build & sell to them. HAL Deepak and Sitara are just plain design disasters, yet the monopoly continues.

4. Procurement Lobby of Politicians+Bureaucrats+Military Leaders who make money buying. Its plain knowledge that ACM Tyagi's cousin's company was front-ending for Politicians+Bureaucrats+Military Leaders. Or Admiral Nanda being known as Chor Nanda in the Navy by IN Officers.

A country like India has the potential to design & build everything, provided we're unshackled.

We do not allow export. Why not export Dhruv or Arjun or INSAS or P-17/P-28 class at cost just to keep the production lines running and gaining manufacturing experience. This will also generate employment. Countries like Vietnam and Philippines are desperate for low cost corvettes & frigates. If MDL/GRSE cant build then because of existing order backlog, then allow DND to share watered down designs to private shipbuilders. This will also allow designers experience in creating alternate designs.

But again we cite obscure peacenik reasons.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 29 Aug 2014 00:28

tsarkar: Great post. Would you mind posting these thoughts on mygov.in ?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 29 Aug 2014 08:05

Its when I see posts like tsarkar's that I wish we had Like & Retweet buttons on BRForum

ravip · Post by **ravip** » 29 Aug 2014 10:17

tsarkar wrote:
ravip wrote:To build a robust MIC there should be an all out national effort and not blame game or ego. To achieve such a goal if the situation demands then we should be ready to beg, borrow or steal.
srai wrote:Product development is both about fulfilling customer's requirements and at the same time making the technological leap to stay competitive.
Rien wrote:We not only didn't learn a single thing, we have made every single mistake much much worse.
Good points here.

The basic problem is we've not allowed an ecosystem to grow. The reasons cited 1. Lack of domestic expertise and 2. Lack of capital are nonsense.

Humans, and especially Indians have an immense capability to learn and this has been shown in other industries. The Pharma industry is extremely protective, but Indian companies have begged, borrowed, stolen, elbowed & gatecrashed their way in. We may not be cutting edge but we're there. Lack of capital too is nonsense. When their is a business opportunity, people will invest. Private Shipbuilders like L&T, Pipavav, Bharati & ABG built infrastructure on their own finding their own capital. They also acquired know-how. The biggest irony is more & more warships are increasing being built to COTS standards.

What is hindering industry & ecosystem growth are -

1. DPSU's & Unions wanting captive business - GCF workers going on strike on news of private Indian players building arty, OFB Medak Union going on strike when it was announced VFJ will also manufacture BMP2 or MDL Unions going on strike on Pipavav being allowed to build sections for MDL.

2. ToT Lobby - These are organizations like BEML who white label Left Hand Drive Tatra trucks or MDL which buys components from DCN and white labels them as MPM (MDL Procured Materials) or HAL MiG Complex, which just assembled 2007 order for 18+40 MKI and recent order for 42 MKI and calls them indigenous.

3. Scientific Lobby - That will not allow people outside Government labs to design aeroplanes, in the interest of "national security". On asking why don't we open aircraft design to anyone in the nation, one reason I was cited by one very Senior Scientist was Naxals might start designing & building fighter planes or someone might build & sell to them. HAL Deepak and Sitara are just plain design disasters, yet the monopoly continues.

4. Procurement Lobby of Politicians+Bureaucrats+Military Leaders who make money buying. Its plain knowledge that ACM Tyagi's cousin's company was front-ending for Politicians+Bureaucrats+Military Leaders. Or Admiral Nanda being known as Chor Nanda in the Navy by IN Officers.

A country like India has the potential to design & build everything, provided we're unshackled.

We do not allow export. Why not export Dhruv or Arjun or INSAS or P-17/P-28 class at cost just to keep the production lines running and gaining manufacturing experience. This will also generate employment. Countries like Vietnam and Philippines are desperate for low cost corvettes & frigates. If MDL/GRSE cant build then because of existing order backlog, then allow DND to share watered down designs to private shipbuilders. This will also allow designers experience in creating alternate designs.

But again we cite obscure peacenik reasons.

Great post sir, but for me as a military jingo I am yet to see even a whiff of a news which can assure me that in the next five years there will be some development in aviation industry. Even as of today we cannot see DRDO or iaf on the same page, I must certainly give credit to navy in this regard who accept the product even if it falls short of staff requirement's. So if DRDO and iaf start the work even today it will take years to reach some stage, so there should be a political will to get both these institutions on the table and make them accountable. Same is with the army who rejected the ack ack gun developed by DRDO just for the reason that it had less rpm in firing the bullets, in fact the rpm difference was was negligible. If they had inducted then, today we could have have mk3 which would have exceeded the staff requirements. I think we should have a hall of shame thread which has only the list weapons developed DRDO but rejected by army and air force.

I don't know wen i will see a day wen indegeneous mmrca bombs paki land. It is time to make the four star general accountable for development of products whether he does it by joint venture, steal, beg or borrow but it should be made in India with a capability to produce the next versions without any dependence on foreign manufacturer.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 Aug 2014 02:11

Taneja Aerospace Ltd. is one of the oldest and biggest pvt. firm involved in the aerospace sector having huge experience in the same.

Here I give you an example of the "scientific lobby" totally not allowing TAL to manufacture a UAV

The defence ministry has placed an order to build fuselages of 14 unmanned air vehicles (UAV) with Bangalore-based Taneja Aerospace to augment its fleet of 35 intelligence gathering UAVs. The shadow Indo-Pak unmanned air vehicles race has come into the open following the shooting down of the Pakistani aircraft in Gujarat last week.

This is the first time the defence ministry is using a private company to build aircraft fuselages. Earlier, public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) had an exclusive sway over all defence aeronautics orders.

Sources said Taneja will build the fuselage while the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) will produce the intelligence gathering and other payloads for the sophisticated unmanned plane......................

Go to the TAAL site and they have a huge list of programs where the "scientific lobby" isn't allowing the pvt. industry to grow w.r.t. the aerospace sector

2. TAAL was involved in building up the first three prototypes of the 14 seat, SARAS aircraft for the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL). TAAL has manufactured the entire airframe of the aircraft (excluding the wings which are manufactured by HAL) including tooling, parts and assembly. The first prototype is now under flight-testing.

3. TAAL was associated with the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) for the production of the two-seat all composite (glass fiber) trainer aircraft called the “HANSA”.

4. TAAL is manufacturing the airframes for the full composite (carbon and glass -wet lay up and room temperature cured) NISHANT, Remote Pilotless Vehicle developed by the Aeronautical Defense Establishment (ADE).

5. TAAL is manufacturing all the composite components (Tail cone, Nose cone and air-intake) for the LAKSHYA, Pilotless Target Aircraft (PTA). This aircraft is now in series production.

6. TAAL is manufacturing the Elevator and Stabilizer for the Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) manufactured by HAL.

7. TAAL is manufacturing a variety of aircraft tooling (bakelite), Sheet Metal Parts etc., for the Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH); Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Light Combat Helicopter ( LCH);Sukhoi (SU-30 ) & MIG Series projects of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited ( HAL).

8. TAAL is manufacturing Auxiliary Fuel tank, stretcher, Armour Panel and interiors for Advanced Light Helicopters of HAL and also interiors for Defence Service Helicopter.

9. Parts for Jaguar Drop tanks and Incendiary Containers.

12. In the past TAAL has undertaken certain sub-contract work for the Israel Aircraft Industries (ISI) in India.

13. Number of Modifications and Installations on Indian Navy Helicopters and Aircraft.

14. Interiors for Indian Air force Aircraft.

Another pvt. company named Tata Advanced Materials Limited (TAML) also provides us with a good example that how the "scientific lobby" is suppressing the pvt. industry

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... l#p1516358

Another significant development was the projected requirement from HAL for the supply of LCA-TEJAS composite parts for the series production of the aircraft. HAL approached CSIR-NAL with a formal proposal for production and supply of twenty sets of thirteen composite parts for the series production of Tejas aircraft for the IAF. These parts were earlier produced and supplied by the Advanced Composites Division of CSIR-NAL for LCA Technology Demonstrators, Prototype Vehicles and Limited Series Production aircraft. I must stress here that CSIR-NAL has taken up this major responsibility on a special request from HAL only because of the project’s national importance and the tight delivery schedules involved. We have hence brought in Tata Advanced Materials Limited (TAML), Bangalore, a prestigious Tata Group Company in Bangalore, as the production partner to execute this project.

Go to their site and they have even put FEA pics of specific programs where they have been suppressed by "scientific lobby" so that Indian public gets to know about this horrific injustice being met to them.

I mean the "scientific lobby" is so determined to not allow the pvt. industry that they have even formed a JV to achieve the same

http://www.tatahal.com/

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Asia’s premier aerospace manufacturer and Tata Technologies, a global leader in engineering services outsourcing, merge their formidable engineering, design & manufacturing resources and market reach through the formation of their joint venture company – Tata HAL Technologies Limited.

With Mahindra Aerospace the same story of suppression by "scientific lobby" gets repeated

India's CSIR-National Aerospace Laboratories (CSIR-NAL - a constituent laboratory of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research), and Mahindra Aerospace jointly developed C-NM5 aircraft, marking an important milestone in their collaborative aircraft development programme.

Engineers from CSIR-NAL and Mahindra Aerospace spent close to three years designing this all-new aircraft using cutting-edge design and analysis tools. The prototype was built over a 10 month period by the rapid prototyping team at GippsAero in their facilities near Melbourne, Australia.

Sheesh !!!!!

As a matter of fact the "scientific lobby" has even brought out a list of pvt. firms to be targeted for suppression and shit and ironically named it "DRDO-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP Synergy & Growth" LOL LOL

Some of the pvt. firms targeted for suppression being

AEROSPACE ENGINEERS

Aerospace Engineers has been designing, developing and manufacturing non-metallic parts for
aerospace applications for various projects of DRDO.

Contribution to DRDO Projects/Programs
Aerospace Non-metallic Parts
Seals, oil seals, backup rings, shock mounts, flame proof hoses, “P” clips and clamps, sheet gaskets,
firewall gaskets

CADES DIGITECH PRIVATE LTD

Cades provides projects, consulting and R&D services to aerospace, defence and automotive industry.
The company has core competencies in the areas of engineering design, engineering analysis, multibody
dynamics, virtual prototyping & testing, manufacturing engineering, product data management and
technical publication. Cades is approved by CEMILAC and DGCA for Aerospace and Defence Product
design. Cades is certified for ISO 9001:2000, ISO/IEC 27001 and AS 9100B. Cades has been involved in
concept design, detailed design, analysis, manufacturing and certification support to various DRDO
establishments for aerospace, armament, combat vehicles, missiles and UAV programs

Composite dorsal unit for AEW&C program.

Internal & external layout visualisation model for AEW&C aircraft.

lDigital mock up, assembly tools and technical documentation for K9 project.

Centre fuselage of an UAV

Wind tunnel model design, analysis, fabrication and wind tunnel testing of UAV configurations

Thermal analysis of an ESM POD of fighter aircraft

Pressure Vessels and metal lined composite Air Bottles.

Engine air intake cowl mechanisms and simulation of heat shield separation for HSTDV program

Fixtures for vibration tests and impact analysis of bomblets

CFD estimation, in-bore dynamics, sabot separation and trajectory of a projectile

Transmission system of a combat vehicles

Design optimisation of suspension system of a truck

Roof mounted and nose mounted Sighting System & Gimbal assembly including weight optimisation
and improved heat management performance.

COMPUPOWER PRIVATE LIMITED

Compupower Private Limited, Hyderabad, India, over the years has earned the recognition of Indian
Aerospace industry for its capability to produce highly reliable Data Bus Couplers for MIL STD-1553B
avionics applications. Data bus products have been qualified, type approved and are being used by
various aerospace organizations for various programmes for MIL STD-1553B applications for the last 16
years. The Data Bus Couplers conforming to MIL STD-1553B were developed as import substitute
primarily for LCA, Jaguar and MIG-21 upgrade projects in the year 1992 and the necessary qualifications
and type approvals were obtained from CEMILAC.

Data bus harnesses/networks

Bus networks for use in missile and aircraft
Contribution to DRDO Projects/Programs

MANJIRA MACHINE BUILDERS PVT LTD

Manjira Machine Builders Pvt Ltd, a leading name in India in the field of aerospace quality ferrous and
non ferrous forgings, defence equipments ground handling systems was established in the year 1981.
Manjira has supplied various types of aerospace equipment to DRDO labs and its associate
organisations and ISRO, Sriharikota, Tirunelvelli and Ahmedabad, like missile sections, gas generators,
control surface unfolding mechanisms, relay boxes, CP winding fixtures, lifting beams, pressure vessels,
SS bowls for Russian mixers, test rig for axial and external load testing, wire tunnel components, DS#1
single component test fixtures, CG mass measurement fixtures, static test stands, electro hydraulic
winches, Agni hardware, feed horns, Agni grain fixtures, etc.

The company has developed following equipment and systems and supplied to DRDO labs:

Toroidal air bottles

Battery shells – for underground torpedos

Shock absorption systems

TATA ADVANCED SYSTEMS

Contribution to DRDO Projects/Programs

Keeping in mind the nature and the evolution path of the battlefield, TATA Advanced Systems is focusing
on the following areas:

Network centric warfare

Precision technologies missiles, seekers and sensors

Surveillance technologies

UAVs: All ranges and payloads

Radars

Aero-structures and aerospace

Electronic and information warfare

Homeland security and disaster management

Go see the list yourself to see the full range of sectors where active suppression is being done by our "scientific lobby". I hope this effort by me gives conclusive/undeniable "evidence" for the same.

Now coming back to the real world from la la land the top aerospace scientist was probably so bored with the company he was in that he resorted to trolling. If the naxal part didn't give it in then nothing will. I would like to challenge each and every la la land vaasi to come here and point out any pvt. sector firm we have which can design a military or civilian aircraft from scratch without any hand holding from already established players from the govt. sector. This bogey has been created before regarding some martian capability existing in the pvt. industry regarding aircraft R&D and being asked to provide info for the same unsurprisingly nothing came out. When the pvt. firms haven't invested in creating the R&D infrastructure required to take up such projects then how come are they going to design aeroplanes ??? Daydreaming about some non-existent capability isn't going to solve any real world problem which the current setup is facing. So please stop providing bunkum theories of suppression by non existent "scientific lobby" when they don't even have any competition in the first place and policy making is an area of GoI not the "scientific lobby" hence the "scientific lobby" cannot be blamed for the piss poor policy making that we have been getting from the Nehru-Gandhi family.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 Aug 2014 02:31

Forum poster's spreading falsehood regarding doodh ka dhoola IAF might be driven by agenda but what I don't understand is the same "falsehood" being propagated by very senior IAF personnels themselves. Like the falsehood spread by Air Marshal M.S.D. Wollen (Retd)

Depending on what is stated in the (updated) ASR, it could take two years and around 1,500 hours of flight testing to move from IOC to FOC.

The article is from 2001 so even before the 2004 update there is a previous update to the ASR as well. Another example of falsehood being spread by Air Commodore K.A. Muthana, VSM who is the NFTC chief regarding the participation of doodh ka dhoola IAF

7. Customer Involvement. During the design and development process itself, it is vital that comprehensive knowledge of aviation in general and military aviation in particular is made available to the program. Scientists and design engineers do not have that knowledge. The Indian Air Force is the only repository of comprehensive military aviation knowledge in this country. Either its expertise was not sought or it was denied. Also we probably have the only aviation companies in the world that do not have aviators embedded into design teams. As a result, while the designers concentrated on getting the technology airborne, the design necessities of turning the aircraft into a maintainable, deployable and employable weapon platform were missed to a large extent. Originally a reluctant customer, the Indian Air Force involved itself sufficiently only after contracting for supply of the aircraft in 2006. It was late in the program and hundreds of ‘Requests for Action’ had to be raised in order to retrieve the situation to some extent, but this lead to time and cost overruns.

Can someone explain why IAF personnels are spreading "falsehood" about Ganga pavitra IAF ???

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Aug 2014 02:57

There are plenty of stories, counter stories and counter, counter stories and it goes on and on.

In my thinking the problem arose and still exists because of a total lack of leadership, perhaps in the form of a national body that directs traffic. As each Head of comes and goes the wind direction changes, priorities change, ........... change, change, change ............... Difficult for any entity to produce anything when there is no proper direction and continuity.

But, each Head of, is actually, in her/his capacity trying to bring stability to the best of their ability (exception: perhaps politicians, lobbies, etc). The system itself is flawed - no proper structure. So, we tend to see all sorts of weird ghosts all over the place. Within each "administration" there is an uneasy (need to explain that some time) balance.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Aug 2014 03:36

checked this thread after long. very disappointed to see it turn into a jingo battle between armed forces jingo's and swadeshi jingo's ...

I hope the LCA moves towards FOC and eventual induction without anymore slippage.

Jingo wars in the meantime dont serve any purpose.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Aug 2014 04:16

TS,good points.Decades ago,after the fall of the USSR,Indonesia wanted us to revamp its entire navy,then heavily dependent upon legacy Soviet wares! we dithered.We had the same opportunity earlier with an African nation,to plan and build a whole navy for it.Babudom approved two naval officers to look into it one year later!
There is one silver lining though,the Goa shipyard is churning out PCs like sausages,one per month for the CG/IN,ahead of schedule,with NOPVs also being launched at regular intervals.This is a very welcome development.Other pvt.shipbuilding yards like L&T are also doing their bit.For foreign low cost requirements,these shipyards could be roped in for building them,the navy designs them,the shipyards-both DPSU and pvt. build them.

If only a similar situation could be created for the aviation requirements.Unfortunately,we have a monolithic fossil called HAL that dominates the sky,where some of its divisions perform better than others,but with no competition or accountability.Mr Modi's "chalta hai" comments to the DRDO are worth repeating.In the case of shipbuilding,unlike the case of HAL,there are differently managed DPSU and pvt. yards competing for orders.With aviation,there is simply no competition.The pvt. sector must be given a free run and monolithic HAL broken up into smaller independent entities.The helicopter division could be "Hindustan Helicopters" for instance and the GTRE/HAL engine division turned into "Hindustan Aero-Engines".Civil and transport aircraft could come under an Airbus style entity with HAL confined to developing and manufacturing military fighter aircraft,UAV/UCAVs,etc.The entire caboodle could come under a holding co. that monitors performance and finance ,which would be able to spot sick entities.This independence will spur the smaller more compact and cohesive entities to deliver the goods and grow faster.This has to be established asap,otherwise we will be in the deep well of permanent imports and screwdriver JVs,where HAL is described as used to being "handheld',"spoonfed",by the foreign entities,which it prefers to be rather than a driving force developing indigenous aerospace tech.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Aug 2014 04:22

Jingo wars in the meantime dont serve any purpose

Tell me one nation that does *not* have jingo wars.

Such wars are not the issue, in fact they are very good provided the outcome is directed in a direction that is constructive.

There were top notch people at places (even like skunk works) that said certain techs will never work (the lift fan for the F-25B for an example), but managers directed traffic. And, now all is well.

Wars are good, under controlled conditions they are excellent.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 31 Aug 2014 18:23

Philip wrote:<snip>
If only a similar situation could be created for the aviation requirements.Unfortunately,we have a monolithic fossil called HAL that dominates the sky,where some of its divisions perform better than others,but with no competition or accountability.Mr Modi's "chalta hai" comments to the DRDO are worth repeating.In the case of shipbuilding,unlike the case of HAL,there are differently managed DPSU and pvt. yards competing for orders.With aviation,there is simply no competition.The pvt. sector must be given a free run and monolithic HAL broken up into smaller independent entities.The helicopter division could be "Hindustan Helicopters" for instance and the GTRE/HAL engine division turned into "Hindustan Aero-Engines".Civil and transport aircraft could come under an Airbus style entity with HAL confined to developing and manufacturing military fighter aircraft,UAV/UCAVs,etc.The entire caboodle could come under a holding co. that monitors performance and finance ,which would be able to spot sick entities.This independence will spur the smaller more compact and cohesive entities to deliver the goods and grow faster.This has to be established asap,otherwise we will be in the deep well of permanent imports and screwdriver JVs,where HAL is described as used to being "handheld',"spoonfed",by the foreign entities,which it prefers to be rather than a driving force developing indigenous aerospace tech.

Reforming HAL is key to putting us on the aerospace map. We have to target the current incumbents: Boeing, Airbus Embraer etc. What would it take for us to surpass them?

A privatized reformed HAL along with Indian private industry could certainly do the job. The cheapest major economy in the world is one of our big edges. So we can definitely beat any other country on cost. We have a large pool of trained labour. We can make software and services. This is a large amount of technical advantages, but we need to combine this into a cohesive whole.

A reform project that will result in HAL eclipsing Boeing and Airbus is our target. We might as well aim for the Moon.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Aug 2014 18:44

Since you are talking about manufactering and particularly competing with the giants in the commercial aircraft manufacturing domain. Have a look at the neighbor to the east. China is the big Manufacturing Gorilla and the one to compete against. It competitively produces everything from electronics, to consumer products to aircrafts. Lets try matching their volumes in the commercial domain.

http://www.airbus.com/company/worldwide ... -in-china/

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 02 Sep 2014 10:42

Suraj wrote:tsarkar: Great post. Would you mind posting these thoughts on mygov.in ?

Hello Suraj, I'm not very active on the internet, but will surely visit that site.

@Sagar G

What you exhaustively posted is just creating a supplier base for existing programs or offsets from foreign purchases. That is equivalent to NREGA or Food Security Bill from a aviation or shipbuilding industry perspective.

While NREGA builds village infrastructure, does it lead to massive national infrastructure building like roads, dams, power plants, etc? No.

While Food Security Bill gives rotten food grains from FCI godowns with massive pilferage to people, does it lead to healthy & productive citizens? No.

So the elevator and tailfin manufacturing subcontracts for IJT cited by you are equally pithy and miniscule like the actual work done in NREGA. Factually, the IJT is not even in production, so Taneja just probably manufactured less than 10 sets of elevators & tailfins. Just like the actual infrastructure created by NREGA.

Now, aircraft & ships & tanks need hundreds and thousands of subcomponents, so you can fill pages after pages in BR on the tail cone, nose cone and air-intake of Lakshya PTA, like one can fill pages on the successful statistics like NREGA giving employment to millions of people and building village roads & wells and Food Security Bill feeding billions of people.

However, allowing an Indian Organization to build dams or roads or powerplant, will lead to creating of national infrastructure, acquisition of know how and sustained, quality & steady employment. The outcomes are much bigger, larger & better than NREGA or Food Security Bill. Let the organization raise it own capital via capital or debt markets. Let the organization buy beg borrow steal know how.

Similarly we need to open Aviation and Shipbuilding to all Indians. Allow any & every Indian the freedom to design & manufacture aircraft & ships. Let them find their own capital. Let them figure out the know-how.