Poor IAF role in R&D, manufacture - HAL/IAF tiffs to blame?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 15 Apr 2015 18:29

I think this is exactly the logjam that the current defence minister is trying to get out of. May be they are trying to put one against the other and see if something comes out of it. IMO IAF must take as much blame as HAL or DRDO in this current fiasco. The babus and netas have really screwed the country.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Apr 2015 18:32

geeth - it looks like a frightening mess to me. At least for the Air Force we will be an import only force for a long time to come - unless deep reforms can be put into place

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 15 Apr 2015 23:37

Our options to have a world class "Made By India" Fighter aircraft is narrowing down by the hour.
Best option to kickoff Indian Aerospace for meeting world class standards is to do a M&A of a major European player.
Run a onsite offshore model like IT for the acquired company.
Develop some skills by providing onsite opportunity for talented mechanics and engineers.
In a decade move most of onsite skills to offshore.
It works in IT, will it work in Aerospace ? I have no damn clue.
At least we have a chance with skilled workforce.

Reliance or TATA can take that bet. Mahindra can chip in for some part of the deal.
It will be nothing short of a miracle if Modi can stitch a M&A with either SAAB or Rafael.

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 15 Apr 2015 23:49

Machining or process tools may have export control gates. Consequently just learning to operate certain processes may not be enough.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2015 03:56

Altair wrote:Our options to have a world class "Made By India" Fighter aircraft is narrowing down by the hour.
Best option to kickoff Indian Aerospace for meeting world class standards is to do a M&A of a major European player.
Run a onsite offshore model like IT for the acquired company.
Develop some skills by providing onsite opportunity for talented mechanics and engineers.
In a decade move most of onsite skills to offshore.
It works in IT, will it work in Aerospace ? I have no damn clue.
At least we have a chance with skilled workforce.

Reliance or TATA can take that bet. Mahindra can chip in for some part of the deal.
It will be nothing short of a miracle if Modi can stitch a M&A with either SAAB or Rafael.

HAL is ahead of any other private player in this game by a long margin. In fighters there is definitely no way that HAL can be excluded.

I just wonder if there is any merit in reconsidering the idea of aircraft assembly/manufacture by the Air Force's Base Repair Depots who actually do a lot of innovation and "import substitution" on their own. What would have to be the policy changes (or changes of mindset) to achieve this?

When it comes to civilian aircraft both Taneja Aerospace and Mahindra have taken different routes but have actually licence produced aircraft bearing their own names.

If private sector can even assemble a civilian/transport aircraft and remove that from HAL's domain I believe we will be one step ahead. HAL currently has its fingers in so many pies it pains me deeply to see that the IAF cannot get what it needs from HAL. That appears to be partly because HAL is unable to meet demands made by IAF and IAF is also unwilling to accept HAL except to the extent that they are forced into it. For example Jags and MiGs and Su 30 - no choice for IAF. But anything coming out of HAL - the IAF retains have the power to say "Balls this is no good for us"

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Apr 2015 04:13

I had posted this a long time ago:

srai wrote: If we look at the European model for aircraft production, major sections, such as left/right wings, main fuselage, tail and front section, are subdivided amongst many industrial partners, and they all deliver to a final assembly plant (which could be one or a few).

Let's take Eurofighter work share between BAE, Alenia and EADS as an example:

So rather than just thinking as one entity doing all of the work, India should look at work share arrangement (i.e. HAL, TATA, Mahindra, L&T, Reliance etc.) to build up its national capability utilising both private and public sectors.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Apr 2015 06:55

Just a word of caution, FWIW.

Actually, the above model is not very efficient, as it is mostly governed by Euro-politics rather than smart economics. For example, the left wing is built in Spain, while the right wing is built in Italy. The rear fuselage is built either in Britain or in Italy. If all these could be manufactured "efficiently" near the assembly agency, then why should I pay for transport, double the tooling etc.?

Also, the above model requires Tier 1 manufacturers, which each of the above companies are. We only have TASL and (to some extent) TAML outside of HAL.

This was the reasoning behind why ADA was created to avoid redundancy, which we cannot afford in our nascent aero industry. Unfortunately, this has not got us what we wanted. But, in order to overhaul ADA/HAL we should not lose sight of what we need to do.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2015 08:01

indranilroy wrote:Just a word of caution, FWIW.

Actually, the above model is not very efficient, as it is mostly governed by Euro-politics rather than smart economics. For example, the left wing is built in Spain, while the right wing is built in Italy. The rear fuselage is built either in Britain or in Italy. If all these could be manufactured "efficiently" near the assembly agency, then why should I pay for transport, double the tooling etc.?

I think what is missed here is the fact that every factory, be it Italy, or Britain or France has achieved a degree of standardization that I am told HAL has not achieved between plane to plane (at elast in some instances). Let alone hundreds of km separation. A few meters of separation is still not good enough to achieve micron level standardization ensuring that components coming from thousands of km away fit like key into a lock in the final assembly unit.

What the EU is doing is maintaining a body of workers and machinery sophisticated enough to meet those standards across many states. In India - if you find such workmanship in one place you will not find it again anywhere else. Cost is obviously important but the absence of top notch manufacturing units spread across the country for us Indians has meant that we keep all those Italians, French and Britons employed.

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Apr 2015 08:26

shiv wrote:I think what is missed here is the fact that every factory, be it Italy, or Britain or France has achieved a degree of standardization that I am told HAL has not achieved between plane to plane (at elast in some instances). Let alone hundreds of km separation. A few meters of separation is still not good enough to achieve micron level standardization ensuring that components coming from thousands of km away fit like key into a lock in the final assembly unit.

What the EU is doing is maintaining a body of workers and machinery sophisticated enough to meet those standards across many states. In India - if you find such workmanship in one place you will not find it again anywhere else. Cost is obviously important but the absence of top notch manufacturing units spread across the country for us Indians has meant that we keep all those Italians, French and Britons employed.

Fact is all the LCAs until now, the TDs, LSPs, the early SPs were all hand built. It is like calling a carpenter home and giving him wood and telling him to make tables of a certain design. Yes, a hand made table will have variations across and you will not be able to take a leg out of another table and interchange it with the leg of another. That you can do with a table bought out of IKEA or any other modular assembled furniture (or like Zuari if you want an Indian e.g.). It couldn't have been any other way. The designs were undergoing iterative changes and the sequential model of traditional industry is to wait for final specs to be frozen and then set up an assembly line to crank the standardised copies out. I believe that for the later SP models, HAL indeed has set up an assembly line and is cranking out standardized stuff.

We had had this discussion eons ago , about how all this is old school and modern manufacturing doesn't work this way, but rather multiple activities happen in parallel,that the first thing a auto manufacturer who sets up shop is to do vendor development , there is joint design, and design for manufacturing etc / concurrent engg etc.. (the equivalent of rapid prototyping/ RAD models in IT/vity). The LCA did not have that part of engineering mgmt baked in if you look at the project plans. That is okay. Desinging that thing is complex itself, the attendant new engg design and manufacturing schemas from the next gen is probably not something that they should have tried. This kind of thing matured in the late 80s and 90s and bloomed in early 2000s. Yeah, we could adopt these things for the next stuff. Sure, is this a failure at one level, yes. HAL could have stepped up in the mid 90s and done this. But you know how things are. It wasn't their baby, no skin off their nose, and couldn't have been bothered.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 16 Apr 2015 08:45

I am Satya Nadella and just had a 2 day visit by Prime Minister of Toga. He is offering me a tax haven but also asking me to open a state of the art Development Center in Republic of Toga.
Tax haven is awesome for me but I cannot ask my people in Redmond to go and work in Toga!! People in Toga are best in industry in Coconut farming but how can that help me?
I need people with even moderate IT skills so that I can employ locally. Else, my deal with Toga will not work. Hence I asked PM of Toga to invest in Microsoft Education Program to develop local skills. He obliged and in 5 years we will have a sizable workforce in Toga.
All Indians in Hyderabad IDC will now learn Toga and apply for Toga passport.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2015 09:00

vina wrote: the first thing a auto manufacturer who sets up shop is to do vendor development , there is joint design, and design for manufacturing etc / concurrent engg etc.. (the equivalent of rapid prototyping/ RAD models in IT/vity).

The auto analogy is interesting. My father bought a Fiat (or was it Premier Padmini?) in 1978. He died in 1994 and the car was still there and I eventually sold it. But for nearly 20 years that car was assured spares that would fit where they were supposed to fit. Wipers, head gasket, tail light, brake shoe, distributor cap, air filter etc. The ecosystem was created along with the car. But I know that this "one part does not fit the next" issue occurred with HF 24, HS-748 and even MiG 27 if I am not mistaken. What is happening with Su 30?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 16 Apr 2015 09:16

..to acquire strategic reach and capabilities across the spectrum of conflict that serve the ends of military diplomacy, nation building and enable force projection within India’s strategic area of influence.

The above quote is from MOD annual report and is part of IAF doctrine as mentioned in that document.

I have previously stated that the IAF needs to be more specific than its vague vision on required capabilities and till there is a vision that is as vague as the quote, actions will not be consistent and will appear confused. No wonder IAF sees National Defence in imported solutions. Mercenary weapons for local jocks.

We have two stealth programmes (one Indian and one shared (%?)), a successful helicopter programme, 02 more designs of helicopters are under development, we are working on piston engine trainer, jet engine trainer, there is / was Saras, there is / was MTA but wait the main focus is LCA. LCA itself has Mk 1, Mk2 and NLCA all under development. Also add to this list some of the UAV's under development. There is also the AWACS. There is also a host of other systems we are working on to be used on military aircraft. Then there are the Aeroengines.

This will be one of the largest Aerospace R & D efforts going on in the world. After US, Russia and China, ours will be fourth on the list (my guess).

Except the Saras, NLCA and UAV's, rest of the projects are all with or for the IAF or IAF plus IA/ IN.

When I see this, I often wonder... (some of my wonders are listed below)

Given the effort and diversity of the effort where is the priority list? Where is the joint committee / working group? Who authorised the development projects and under what conditions can the project be terminated / alternatives be sought? Can any amount be spent without such accountability? Have HAL / DRDO started these programmes on their own or is IAF an equal stake holder? I know that LCA has an IAF ASQR but what about others?

Is there some degree of arbitrary decision making going on? Is IAF supposed to be involved in all such projects or should it involve itself in projects that only it has authorised? Why should it stay away from other projects? Tomorrow, if a private entity starts a military aerospace venture, should IAF get involved in that? For Eg: MRF developed tyres for aircraft. Did IAF get involved and if yes then at what level? Was the programme a success? Were there time slippages and who / what caused those slippages? Should IAF depute officers to Reliance / Tata's / Mahindra's etc if they start a military aircraft project? Or should the IAF only tie up with PSU's?

Is there any forum which can take decisions on such matters? If such forums do not exist do we need MOD or a forum set up by it for such things? What will guide such a forum on decisions taken by it?

I think the answers to my questions lie in better definition of the vision. It has to start there to give direction to all decisions taken. Otherwise, we have meandered from one import to another. We can meander forever.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 16 Apr 2015 09:20

I think the days of hand-machined parts are long gone. Earlier, the parts used to be hand-machined in lathes and other machines. These days, most of them have been replaced with CNC machines where you enter the dimensions etc and it machines the parts accordingly. There is huge difference between how Jaguars are manufactured and how the BAe Hawks are at HAL.

HAL has now manufactured quite a few Hawks at its Bangalore complex. Surprisingly, we don't hear much about build quality of those airframes. Many still remember from the times of Jaguar, Kiran etc where parts from one plane wouldn't fit the next one.

At one time, HAL used to manufacture more than 90% of the items itself. It has a huge foundry and forge division where parts would be cast and machined etc. Now, HAL is trying to outsource as much as possible. Even some of composite skins of LCA are actually manufactured by Tata Advanced Materials etc. HAL chief is on record saying they want to be lead integrators rather than building everything from scratch. When each part is obtained from different vendors, they better have good tolerances. And it makes sense to outsource parts to companies who have domain expertise.

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Apr 2015 09:25

The auto analogy is interesting. My father bought a Fiat (or was it Premier Padmini?) in 1978. He died in 1994 and the car was still there and I eventually sold it. But for nearly 20 years that car was assured spares that would fit where they were supposed to fit. Wipers, head gasket, tail light, brake shoe, distributor cap, air filter etc. The ecosystem was created along with the car. But I know that this "one part does not fit the next" issue occurred with HF 24, HS-748 and even MiG 27 if I am not mistaken. What is happening with Su 30?

Well, the Premier Padmini analogy is not exact. That is a line that was imported wholesale and just reproduced in India, sort of like the Migs and Sukhois. Import everything from the tooling/jigs, figures, body stamping presses etc. In Italy when the Fiat was prototype stage, it would have been hand built and then when the design finalised, the manufacturing thrown around it.

How things happen these days , especially with CAD/CAM and CIM tools, is that for most parts which will be handed out to the suppliers, when you design, it becomes available in near real time to them. In many cases, the suppliers themselves are going to be embedded in your teams and they are part of the design cycle and give real time inputs about whether the design is optimal from the manufacturing standpoint, is there a tweak in the design which will allow easier manufacture, if a new process/ plant / setup needs to be done on the manufacturing side it happens concurrently. In fact, ADA hinted that much that the output from their Dassault CATIA tools were given to HAL and available , when HAL whined they they hadn't got the designs.. If someone imagines, that a "completed" design these days is a huge truck load of paper drawings and specs that is stamped and triplicated and laminated by multiple Baboons with a Govt of India seal on top, is some 25 years behind the curve. Doesn't happen that way anymore. So what happens, is that the assembly line and manufacturing gets ready at roughly same time as the design is getting iterated through, tested and frozen and happens in parallel.

HF24 and HS748 were built in very low numbers and nearly all hand built in that day and age. Today, even small lots you would do with Cellular / Lean manufacturing techniques. I had told this about the HS748 earlier. You couldn't have taken a door from one plane and fitted it on another plane, without a highly qualified expert fitter adjusting, tweaking and getting it done (just the word fitting makes a cold sweat break out on my spine. The words I remember are : You have not come to the Fitting Shop , but a Fitting Jail and get handed a "ba*tard" file with the surface as smooth as hema maline's cheeks and asked to file a channel down to a level surface!) . Mig 27 probably had huge process variability, but I would be surprised if that was the case. It was a fully imported line , and they would have imported the jigs, fixtures, dies and presses along with that for mass manufacture.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 16 Apr 2015 11:15

You either achieve standardization by machining to micron level tolerances of the design or you waste time at assembly. You are given that design to machine out, because someone already tested a fully assembled prototype and those tolerances is the demand that must be fulfilled. The distances et al, between two manufacturing centers matters not, since most of the manufacturing and transport can be handled in climate controlled circumstances in India, nowadays.

Privatization of HAL into a publicly traded entity (for enforcing "competence not seniority") and stringent failure reviews like ISRO's might help with quality control. Might!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Apr 2015 12:07

hnair wrote:You either achieve standardization (by machining to micron level tolerances of the design) or you don't. You are given that design to machine out, because someone already tested a fully assembled prototype and those tolerances is the demand that needs to be fulfilled. The distances et al, between two manufacturing centers matters not, since most of the manufacturing and transport can be handled in climate controlled circumstances in India, nowadays.

Privatization of HAL into a publicly traded entity (for enforcing "competence not seniority") and stringent failure reviews like ISRO's might help with quality control. Might!

Publically traded company status also means a lot of undue pressure for coming up with some profit numbers on balance sheet anyhow. That's all what the investors care about. There have been many frauds just due to this reason. It also sometimes hamper innovation as investing in risky long term internal projects become an issue. Dell actually went private just for this reason and now they are indeed coming up with much more competitive laptops. Indian IT companies with humongous market capitals are not doing anything technologically ground breaking or innovative. They are just money making machines making big bucks. And so investors love them. Also companies go public for capital. GOI can pump in as much capital as HAL might need. It can always borrow as its balance sheet is impeccable. If privatization means just selling stocks I don't see the point. Rather form JVs with private players which will help promulgate Aerospace expertise of HAL to the private sector.

How about forming a Department of Aeronautics (and defense may be) using Atomic energy/space model and bring all related activities under it (HAL/AD, representation from forces etc)? Make the organizations autonomous and free from Babus'/netas' fiddling, stupid govt employee attitude. Autonomous bodies of GOI seem to work in much better manner. Let them hire or fire whoever they find good rather than forcing govt policies like fixed salary slabs or reservations, holding hands and what not. Is there any problem in doing a structural change in the system?? GOI has done these for some other establishments (Security printing and minting corp of India is one example I can think of right now. They seem to have improved a lot from their old days).

If this is not possible I think GOI should look for JVs between GOI entities and private players. Let them bring the management expertise and HAL provide the technical expertise.

I would rather have GOI hold the reins of strategically important field like Aerospace/Defense (at least as top level integrator).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Apr 2015 12:51

I've spent some time thinking about this issue,lack of synergy,trust between the IAF and HAL. From previous quoted experiences,whenever the IAF want one of their top offciers,AM rank and above integrated into HAL,like the post of DG ADA ,who would've been totally in charge of the LCA project with "hire and fire " powers,which the AM selected was kept out of time and time again by babudom/HAL whoever (even after the then PM approved the post!),they've been rebuffed.Their candidate has been rejected. HAL/ADA/DRDO whoever, do not want the IAF inside the tent telling them what to do.
The political bosses,ignoramuses of defence issues and the technical aspects,are entirely at the mercy of the MOD which does not allow a service chief to speak directly with the PM,as used to be the case when Mrs.G was PM.Babudom,the IAS army has effectively placed barriers between the services and the political masters sanitizing,filtering and censoring dissent.The DM himself has just spelt out the horrors of executing the MMRCA deal (MMRCA td).

Decades ago,the IN,the "Cinderella of the services",led by legendary admirals and chiefs ,silently worked out their own solution to make the IN a "builder's navy",since they received such a small piece of the defence budget cake. They started their own design bureau,"corps of naval constructors" as it was then called. Their integrity was also unquestionable. They thus laid the groundwork for the In to become what it has become,relying upon Indian built warships for almost every type.This is the real "made in India" success that Mr.Modi has spoken of !

The IAF on the other do not design anything,despite being the end-user since Independence,barring upgrade programmes like DARIN,etc.where there was great work done by IAF officers,the entire design,development,etc of aircraft was handed over to HAL,who seemed to have an attitude of "take it or leave it" to its only customer. It is primarily the fault of various GOIs not to have integrated the IAF into HAL/DPSU aircraft industry where its involvement right from the beginning would've sorted out many issues.Remember the tale of the IAF presentation to the air chief about the LCA when it was first mooted? The team said that the design was too ambitious as the tech reqd. was unavailable in India and doubted the capability of HAL/DRDO to deliver. The GTRE's dismal performance with Kaveri does not need to be retold here.

Unless the top bosses of the GOI take stock and bring in radical reform,nothing is going to change as far as aircraft design,development and manufacture is concerned.The IAF are addicted to their friang birds,with some justification because HAL is unwilling to take them on as equal partners. This battle between the GOI,babudom,DRDO,HAL,IAF,etc. for control of India's aerospace industry will be
bloody and long-drawn out and only a Stalin,Putin or Indira (or a Modi?) is capable of cracking heads and sacking those who refuse to obey orders.

Here is one radical solution which will work!

Reduce the IAF's responsibility of defending Indian air space.Hand over the defence of most coastal/oceanic airspace and all island territories to the IN,at least in an arc from Goa to Vizag. 180 deg. of the country,the entire southern half of it ,hand over to the IN as this in any case is IOR/maritime territory,where the IN would be better placed to deal with threats from any dimension. If you look at the US too,the USN with its carrier task forces provides the bulk of air support for its expeditionary warfare. Inter-service confusion,disharmony,etc will be completely absent The IAF can then look after defending the skies of sub-continental India,especially the western,northern and eastern boundaries/airspace where we have to deal with the most potent threats from the PAF and PLAAF.The air threats from the maritime region will be far less and the IN would be able to handle these threats with aircraft ,helos,etc.,better suited to maritime warfare. The IAF would then have more numbers and resources to beef up its fleet with the best aircraft available,firang and desi to dominate the skies in support of the IA as well. Of course this would mean increasing the IN's budget significantly,but since the IN would be dealing with mainly surface and sub-surface threats,it would not need as many of the ultra-high performance aircraft that the IAF require.Extra MIG-29Ks land based as is being done at Vizag would suffice for the present,along with the NLCAs ,which it is pursuing very vigorously with HAL. Extra LRMP aircraft armed with a variety of anti-ship and sub missiles/weaponry would be required more than strike fighters. It is going to be a decade+ before PLAN carriers start regular forays into the IOR. If 5-6 sqds which are tasked by the IAF for maritime duties are removed and added to their air-dominance role east,north and west,they would add significantly to the IAF's fleet strength along with extra sqds on order ,increaasing numbers and capability to fend off the Pakis and Chinese.

With building/acquiring more cost-effective aircraft for the IN (instead of Rafales) ,there would be savings too,the money saved going to the IAF for its acquisitions. Example,a sqd. of MIG-29Ks can be bought for around $40M at the most (earlier price $32M),NLCAs at $25-30M only! Therefore,one could acquire two sqds for IN maritime duty instead of just one sqd. for the IAF. Instead of basing an MKI sqd. in the A&N islands and around the coast in the southern arc,we could base MIG-29Ks and NLCAs instead.Tankers could be used when reqd. for longer ranged missions.Think about it!

PS:The GOI/MOD could achieve this by simply increasing the IN';s Fleet Air Arm assets/numbers without affecting in any manner the IAF.Just relocate the IAF's sqds,they can dust off the "number-plated" sqds!

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 16 Apr 2015 13:16

nileshjr, agree on the need for an umbrella body with, preferably, direct PMO access.

What my post was about "manufacturing issues", which seem to be what is holding back LCA at this point. HAL seemed to have problems with QC across suppliers (internal and external), based on what one hears about assembly

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2015 14:07

Philip wrote: Here is one radical solution which will work!

Reduce the IAF's responsibility of defending Indian air space.Hand over the defence of most coastal/oceanic airspace and all island territories to the IN,at least in an arc from Goa to Vizag. 180 deg. of the country,the entire southern half of it ,hand over to the IN as this in any case is IOR/maritime territory,where the IN would be better placed to deal with threats from any dimension.

Something like this crossed my mind but I could not put it into words

Also expand the Army's air force - give them transports? And a few CAS aircraft apart from helos?

If you can't take Mahomet to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mahomet.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2015 18:45

Philip, As I said in an earlier thread Carl Builder of RAND has examined institutional culture among US Army, Navy and Air Force in 1989. True his database is US forces but he does sanity check by looking at UK. The short answer is Army takes most casualties and will be most reluctant to engage in a fight. But having engage they work to win.
Air Force attracts people who like to fly. Fighting is last on their priority. So the culture of it being all about fighting has to be incubated in Air Force.
Navy has to fight far from shores and has to be self contained. Can't depend on anyone anywhere. Hence they have a total plan to get into a fight, win and comeback.

BTW RAND is a USAF funded think tank!!!!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 16 Apr 2015 19:32

Philip wrote: Here is one radical solution which will work!

Reduce the IAF's responsibility of defending Indian air space.Hand over the defence of most coastal/oceanic airspace and all island territories to the IN,at least in an arc from Goa to Vizag. 180 deg. of the country,the entire southern half of it ,hand over to the IN as this in any case is IOR/maritime territory,where the IN would be better placed to deal with threats from any dimension. If you look at the US too,the USN with its carrier task forces provides the bulk of air support for its expeditionary warfare. Inter-service confusion,disharmony,etc will be completely absent The IAF can then look after defending the skies of sub-continental India,especially the western,northern and eastern boundaries/airspace where we have to deal with the most potent threats from the PAF and PLAAF.The air threats from the maritime region will be far less and the IN would be able to handle these threats with aircraft ,helos,etc.,better suited to maritime warfare. The IAF would then have more numbers and resources to beef up its fleet with the best aircraft available,firang and desi to dominate the skies in support of the IA as well. Of course this would mean increasing the IN's budget significantly,but since the IN would be dealing with mainly surface and sub-surface threats,it would not need as many of the ultra-high performance aircraft that the IAF require.Extra MIG-29Ks land based as is being done at Vizag would suffice for the present,along with the NLCAs ,which it is pursuing very vigorously with HAL. Extra LRMP aircraft armed with a variety of anti-ship and sub missiles/weaponry would be required more than strike fighters. It is going to be a decade+ before PLAN carriers start regular forays into the IOR. If 5-6 sqds which are tasked by the IAF for maritime duties are removed and added to their air-dominance role east,north and west,they would add significantly to the IAF's fleet strength along with extra sqds on order ,increaasing numbers and capability to fend off the Pakis and Chinese.

With building/acquiring more cost-effective aircraft for the IN (instead of Rafales) ,there would be savings too,the money saved going to the IAF for its acquisitions. Example,a sqd. of MIG-29Ks can be bought for around $40M at the most (earlier price $32M),NLCAs at $25-30M only! Therefore,one could acquire two sqds for IN maritime duty instead of just one sqd. for the IAF. Instead of basing an MKI sqd. in the A&N islands and around the coast in the southern arc,we could base MIG-29Ks and NLCAs instead.Tankers could be used when reqd. for longer ranged missions.Think about it!

PS:The GOI/MOD could achieve this by simply increasing the IN';s Fleet Air Arm assets/numbers without affecting in any manner the IAF.Just relocate the IAF's sqds,they can dust off the "number-plated" sqds!

The IAF sees this as a turf war and will NEVER agree to this. They do not want their strength to be reduced even by one single solitary aircraft. Philip saar's suggestion is most logical, cheap and best. just leave the maritime domain in all it's dimensions to the IN who obviously know it best.

I don't want to start a flame war here by recounting all the shenanigans that the IN, over the years, has had to put up with from the dill chair bound samurai, both uniformed and otherwise.

never ever understood the what was meant by the term "maritime jaguar". with no independent in house capability of detecting, tracking or locating a maritime target WTF was the need for a "maritime jaguar"

the CDS has also been effectively blocked by the IAF, in connivance with the baboo(n)s, in turn, the baboo(n)s themselves have deigned to divide the Forces and thus have ruled the roost by keeping them out of the decision loop.

and so we stumble on like a drunken geriatric close to seven decades after independence while even tiny srilanka has a CDS.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2015 20:21

chetak wrote: The IAF sees this as a turf war and will NEVER agree to this. They do not want their strength to be reduced even by one single solitary aircraft.

There is a sad irony here that can only be compared to my torrid affair with Angelina Jolie over that last 20 years. It's all in the head. Their numbers are falling, and the numbers are falling because the IAF has chosen to play no role in shaping the future of Air warfare. For that they would have had to get into the design and manufacture business. As a culture they have never done that. I am certain the youngsters who enter NDA are not even taught about what it means to plan for a future war and collaborate to design an aircraft to meet the demands of that future air war.

If we read an inflection point in future where the army inducts trainers like HTT 40 they are only a half step away from a fixed wing attack force. The Air Force may simply be able to do nothing because they rely on exorbitant imports that come with strings and do not want to genuflect in front of mere engineers and industry people.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 16 Apr 2015 22:10

^^^ The above reference to turf wars is absolutely true. There is a divide and there are tussles. Then there are gulfs and then there are chasms. Wait there is even the Challenger Deep, Maraina Trench. For the sake of convenience, I will club these under the head "The Great Divide"

The Great Divide.
The IAF's divides can be seen in three different parts:
1) Internal to IAF
2) Inter Services
3) External

Internal to IAF: Even this has different parts and I am listing out only some which are visible IMO:
> Pilots Vs. the Rest
> Pilots Vs. the Engineers
> Fighter Pilots Vs. Transport Pilots Vs. Helicopter Pilots (Hain ji? Haan Ji.)
> Operations Vs. Maintenance
> Air Superiority Fighter Jocks vs. Ground Attack Fighter Jocks vs. Multi role Jocks

Inter Services:
>IAF vs. IA
>IAF vs. IN
>IAF vs. the other services combined

External to IAF:
> IAF vs MOD
> IAF (military) Offrs vs. Babus (This is the Challenger Deep, Mariana Trench)
> IAF vs. HAL
> IAF vs. DRDO

Now, some of these may be mild gaps / divides which mostly plays out as a Healthy Rivalry. But a few are very deep. IAF vs. HAL is only second to Mil Offrs vs. Babus. One does not hear of the vs. Babu thing much and the Babu's are wining hands down. This is the big mess which will never let our military issues settle.

Additionally, the IAF as part of its training inculcates a big ego and I believe an average Joe needs a super size ego to go fly a fighter plane and become a jock. Few wise ones grow out of it. The rest carry it. The joke is that a fighter pilot on a date spends half the time talking about himself and then says " Enough about me, now lets talk about flying"; or How do you know there is a Fighter Pilot in the party - don't worry he will announce it. Such is the level of self importance and image boost that goes in to a Jock's mental make up. It is needed in war but on a quite peaceful day it can be painful. Watch the StratPost round table, one Gentleman is on full Fighter Pilot mode. Even retirement has not taken it out of him.

This super ego is automatically set up for a clash - a clash with everything. So unless, the wisdom of age mellows one down turf wars are part of Fighter Pilot existence.

With HAL, IAF can do a better job of coordination by taking simple steps (IMO): like instead of a fighter jock advising them it could be an equally senior IAF Engineering officer. HAL is an Engineering company. IAF guys who are from Operations do not understand Engineering (a rare exception excluded). IAF Operations folks are used to a way of dealing with their Engineers which does not work in a civil set up. So the least IAF can do is nominate Engineers to work with HAL.

P.S.: I am not a fighter pilot so my views may have biases but then these refer to umpteen discussions and some of these were with Fighter Pilots themselves.

prat.patel · Post by **prat.patel** » 16 Apr 2015 22:12

Actually it would not be a bad idea by the MOD/politburo to look towards strengthening the air arm of Navy further with a mandate that it has to NLCA.
Navy is already in full gear to make NLCA happen; a success on NLCA front would make it impossible for LCA to be side-tracked any further.
Indirect pressure on IAF?

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 16 Apr 2015 22:38

Why indirect pressure? Why not direct pressure? IAF must be forced to order 300 Tejas MK2. IAF doesn't trust the Project Management of HAL/ADA? They should contribute their own PM folks. IAF doesn't trust the Engineering of HAL/ADA? They should contribute their own Engineering folks. IAF doesn't have PM or Engineering folks that could contribute to something as complex as the Tejas MK2? Well then, it's high time they started building these skill sets. After all they are going to be needed for AMCA and FGFA as well. IAF should be given no option but to make Tejas MK2 work for the sake of the nation. The nation cannot afford for the IAF to be a pure importers air force any more.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 16 Apr 2015 22:55

I think that a simpler way would be let Army and Navy buy HTT-40 and LCA. ( I mean non carrier capable ordinary LCA for Navy) Navy can take over all air bases within 100km of coast and Army can take over all airbases within 200 km of land borders. Restrict IAF to two engined long range fighters.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2015 23:10

How about making more Plan B and Plan Cs?

That is contingency planning should be a big requirement.

ACM Raha didn't help anyone by claiming there is no Plan B.

He should not have been the one to say that.

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 16 Apr 2015 23:46

The Indian Navy has a Directorate of Indigenisation! Just read below and see how much more forward thinking the Navy is from the IAF!

http://indiannavy.nic.in/naval-commands ... genisation

Directorate of Indigenisation

INDIGENOUS PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT – A GUIDE

Product development is a highly technically challenging task and professional task. The multitude of agencies involved in development of equipment and systems for our Naval platforms not only within the Navy, but also outside the Navy, demands a very high degree of patience, perseverance and a deep understanding of all the processes involved. These processes range from financial, commercial, contractual as well as technical.

INTRODUCTION

Development in the field of Naval systems is inherently technology intensive and requires substantial investment of time, money and resources. Advancements in technology are no longer the preserve of defence and it is often the civil sector and the commercial concerns which drive the technology today. Industry, including the private sector and the academia can therefore play a vital role in meeting sophisticated needs of the armed forces through cost-effective utilisation of its know-how and existing infrastructure.

Naval equipment is designed to withstand very harsh marine environment and is generally built to NES/IN specific standards promulgated by professional dte/DME specs/EED Qs by DEE/NCDs by DNA. Some of the characteristics that differentiate Naval equipment from general purpose equipment are shock standards, Environmental testing as per JSS 55555 and EMI/EMC testing. The various standard to which an equipment is required to developed along with the testing procedure will be specified in SOTRs, which form part II of RFP.

The Navy as a customer and the industry as a supplier of the equipment and systems need to have a clear understanding of the requirements, and the plan for induction and Indigenous Development. Keeping this in focus and within the induction plan of new platforms, the ‘15 Year Indigenous Development Plan’ was first prepared and promulgated in 2003. This plan was to be reviewed after every five years. The 15 Year Indigenous Development Plan has been revised based on requirements up to 2022 and formulated under the following major heads:-

(a) Marine Engineering

(b) Electrical Engineering

(c) Weapons and Sensors

(d) Submarine Equipment and Systems

(e) Project – 75 Equipment and Systems

This 15 Year Indigenous Development Plan can be accessed at http://www.ciidefence.com/ann_new_15year.asp?id=5

VISION AND OBJECTIVES

Vision. To counter the problems of spiraling import costs of equipment and spares, and embargoes/ technology denial by foreign countries on a long term basis, the Navy aims to achieve Self-Reliance in maintaining and supporting its vital assets through Indigenous Development route within the ambit of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

To achieve the stated vision, a self-contained Indigenous Development Organisation capable of identifying needs, generating paper particulars and undertaking development of equipment and spares for all discipline has been created. This organisation is named Directorate of Indigenisation (DOI) at the IHQ MoD (N), which in the field/ Command level is assisted by Indigenisation Units (IUs) West and East under the administrative control of HQWNC and HQENC respectively.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Apr 2015 06:28

deejay wrote:Additionally, the IAF as part of its training inculcates a big ego and I believe an average Joe needs a super size ego to go fly a fighter plane and become a jock. Few wise ones grow out of it. The rest carry it.
<snip>
This super ego is automatically set up for a clash - a clash with everything. So unless, the wisdom of age mellows one down turf wars are part of Fighter Pilot existence.

With HAL, IAF can do a better job of coordination by taking simple steps (IMO): like instead of a fighter jock advising them it could be an equally senior IAF Engineering officer. HAL is an Engineering company. IAF guys who are from Operations do not understand Engineering (a rare exception excluded). IAF Operations folks are used to a way of dealing with their Engineers which does not work in a civil set up. So the least IAF can do is nominate Engineers to work with HAL.

Interesting and informative.

A few years ago, based on BRF discussions I bought and read three books on the behaviour and psychology of men in combat. One of the points that was made in one book was the role of popular literature and the media in shaping public attitudes and the attitudes of the entrants/recruits to the military forces. The author made the point that popular literature (fiction, books, stories) tended to give a false but crystal clear picture of a (land) battle which was totally removed from reality in which the soldier is actually cold, wet, frightened and cannot see anything that is happening, cannot see the enemy and does not know what is happening.

I find that on BRF as well the popular way in which the Air Force is viewed is like the movie Top Gun where the air force's role is not just fighting but specifically air combat/dog-fighting and BVR kills. This is the imagery that probably drives many young men to join the air force. To the IAFs credit they do not advertise themselves as a fighter jock force - they do speak of transport and helicopters. But the lay media skew the view so much that air combat is about all that anyone knows about and talks about. No talk of the role of logistics, ATC, navigation, air defence artillery, engineering, maintenance, rescue ops or even attack missions. Helos get a small role in popular discussions because they are seen as tank killers in the battlefield. Supplying Siachen and Casevac are for the wimps, not the real fighters.

So the entire perspective with which the "informed public" views the air force may well be creating a positive self image among those who enter the air force - with the fighter jocks - those handsome Top Gun hunk walking with a swagger knocking the baddies out the sky and everything else gets only "supporting actress" award. A romantic but seriously skewed image.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Apr 2015 07:54

srai wrote:I had posted this a long time ago:
srai wrote: If we look at the European model for aircraft production, major sections, such as left/right wings, main fuselage, tail and front section, are subdivided amongst many industrial partners, and they all deliver to a final assembly plant (which could be one or a few).

Let's take Eurofighter work share between BAE, Alenia and EADS as an example:

So rather than just thinking as one entity doing all of the work, India should look at work share arrangement (i.e. HAL, TATA, Mahindra, L&T, Reliance etc.) to build up its national capability utilising both private and public sectors.

indranilroy wrote:Just a word of caution, FWIW.

Actually, the above model is not very efficient, as it is mostly governed by Euro-politics rather than smart economics. For example, the left wing is built in Spain, while the right wing is built in Italy. The rear fuselage is built either in Britain or in Italy. If all these could be manufactured "efficiently" near the assembly agency, then why should I pay for transport, double the tooling etc.?

Also, the above model requires Tier 1 manufacturers, which each of the above companies are. We only have TASL and (to some extent) TAML outside of HAL.

This was the reasoning behind why ADA was created to avoid redundancy, which we cannot afford in our nascent aero industry. Unfortunately, this has not got us what we wanted. But, in order to overhaul ADA/HAL we should not lose sight of what we need to do.

You are right on this model not being very efficient. I was more alluding to the idea of how to build up quickly multiple aerospace companies in India using one indigenous aircraft production. These companies would then be able to compete with each other for future platforms or get into JV with others more on an equal footing. Short-term inefficiency for long-term gains.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Apr 2015 08:19

srai wrote: You are right on this model not being very efficient. I was more alluding to the idea of how to build up quickly multiple aerospace companies in India using one indigenous aircraft production. These companies would then be able to compete with each other for future platforms or get into JV with others more on an equal footing. Short-term inefficiency for long-term gains.

It's a catch 22 situation.

companies will not invest (plant and machinery) unless they see confirmed and very substantial orders and orders will not be forthcoming unless there is already already a substantial investment in plant and machinery with demonstrated proven capability.

The govt of the day will not fund any private company without (justified) accusations of favoritism and kickbacks. Chicken and egg. Every dilli baboo(n) and PSU bigwig already have their "candidates" to push with sweetheart quango deals pre setup. look at the b@stards from the last PMO and how they openly raped the country.

It took a COAS to upturn the garbage pile and we all know what happened to him. It was a public burning at the stake to serve as a warning to others. and now the CDs of the bribery recording have gone "missing". The long and dirty hand of the corrupted pigs feeding at the public trough have reached out through the new govt to silence the general.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Apr 2015 08:23

shiv wrote: A few years ago, based on BRF discussions I bought and read three books on the behaviour and psychology of men in combat. One of the points that was made in one book was the role of popular literature and the media in shaping public attitudes and the attitudes of the entrants/recruits to the military forces. The author made the point that popular literature (fiction, books, stories) tended to give a false but crystal clear picture of a (land) battle which was totally removed from reality in which the soldier is actually cold, wet, frightened and cannot see anything that is happening, cannot see the enemy and does not know what is happening.

Shivji,

would you please give details of those books, names, authors et al. TIA

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Apr 2015 08:47

enaiel wrote:The Indian Navy has a Directorate of Indigenisation! Just read below and see how much more forward thinking the Navy is from the IAF!

http://indiannavy.nic.in/naval-commands ... genisation

Because they did not have money and ready made ships are just not available from other navies at the drop of a hat like aircraft from other air forces can simply be diverted to IAF as "quick induction"

Chetak:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/postin ... &p=1603743

shiv wrote:
1. Men against Fire by SLA Marshall (this is an old classic)
2. Acts of War - the behavior of men in battle by Richard Holmes
3. On Killing - the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society by Lt Col Dave Grosman

If you had to choose just one, I would suggest "Acts of War"

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Apr 2015 08:56

^^^ Shiv Sir, have your read Tom Wolfe's - The Right Stuff. It is based on men who went onto become Astronauts in the 60's but is a good book to generally understand Fighter Pilots.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Apr 2015 09:48

One of things I will advocate is to ban all exports in certain sections of the forces. For example - ban all imports of IA. If we are still thinking of importing replacements for INSAS then there is something seriously wrong with this approach. We can now make light aircraft like LCA and trainers also. So ban all imports in those areas. We can produce serious kinds of ships and it does not make any sense to import for example mine sweepers. Just prepare a list of the requirements and anything with is technically possible in India shall be banned for imports immediately.

This will not be proper in the present production under OFB type white elephants. Legislate a Corporation to take over OFB. HAL etc are to be partially privatized. Allow private sector competition to these entities and make them more competitive.

On the research side DRDO should revamped in the same lines of ISRO and it should mainly concentrate on tech capabilities and not on any specific weapon systems unless it is things like nukes, Agni, K series, Nirbhay etc. If HAL needs some composite materials then it should ask DRDO for that and pay them the cost etc. Same should be for other private players. Once technology is developed the same should be transfered for production to private and public players in the industry. This may create some challenges in security etc but that needed to be managed.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Apr 2015 10:07

Guys. Lets get a grip on this. This is no "magic bullet" here. The "solution" is right there in front of us, as shown by a sister service for the SAME program. I am talking about the LCA and the NAVY. Let us contrast the differences between the two here.

1. The IAF couldn't be bothered to even update the ADA about the probable weapon fit and this needed a wing redesign . I remember one IAF Air Marshal who had gone to court over promotions who was kicked out to Bangalore to run the LCA program. That guy had clearly had "Sucker.. Kicked upstairs" written on him! The air chief marshal had to be cajoled and pleaded with to grace the LCA's first flight! This is the ownership shown by the IAF

Contrast that with that of the Navy. They APPROACH the ADA and ask if the LCA can be adopted for carrier ops. Work with them, station high quality folks (very impressive people indeed) in Bangalore and embed them in the program. And pony up something like what 900 crores for the program (I don't think the IAF spent a dime on the LCA in the early stages , maybe they have chipped in some cash now).The likes of Mao and his fellow folks, sure know what they are doing, know what they want, have full authority delegated to them to take a call on designs and in fact actively participate in the design,testing and feedback process in what might be a plane that the Navy probably will need a decade from when the got in and that too if AT ALL. If that isn't called INVESTMENT and ownership, I don't know what is

2. Look at the MK2. The Navy learnt from the TD/prototypes, that is the NP1 and NP2 and have asked for a config that is finely optimised for their needs. In fact the entire Mk2 program and the GE414 is due to the Navy's requirement and the IAF lamely latched on to it. I am still not sure if the IAF is fully on board the Mk2 with it's stated goals and commitment.

It is not rocket science. It is an ATTITUDE problem at the root. I have said it earlier, and I say it again. The NAVY starting off with the Leander class gradually builds capabilities and ,today builds an aircraft carrier , nuke sub and also an airplane designed and built here, and the latest Navy stuff like P15 and P17 are world class and competitive with anything out there. Sure, it didn't come without pain . The Trishul failed, many ships were commissioned without primary important stuff, the P15 saw huge time overruns because of equipment delays, but it is all coming together in the end. Net results, navy builds nuke subs and carriers and combat aircraft here, while the IAF goes and imports a primary trainer (with watered down specs) and gets into a fight with HAL on why they shouldn't make a competing one to what they imported! Go figure.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Apr 2015 10:50

I'm pleasantly surprised that so many agree with me and laud the efforts of the IN to indigenize and make it self-reliant as far as possible. It is astonishing and mind-boggling that when you list out what the Nay has achieved,from humble frigates to N-subs and carrriers,major surface warships...and pursuing a desi carrier fighter too,the IAF and IA should hang their heads in shame. They have recd. far more money that the IN since Independence. As some have rightly said,it is an ATTITUDE problem.
The lack of inter-service cooperation between the IA and IAF is also well known,the late FM Sam Manekshaw made his views about IAF non-cooperation too.

Since so many are of the same thinking,why don't we send the DM a paper on the same,increasing the responsibility and size of the IN and IA's air assets,which will allow the IAF to still have its best foot forward against the Pakis and Chinese. AT the very least we could start a debate in the media on the same.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Apr 2015 11:47

Philip wrote:I'm pleasantly surprised that so many agree with me and laud the efforts of the IN to indigenize and make it self-reliant as far as possible. It is astonishing and mind-boggling that when you list out what the Nay has achieved,from humble frigates to N-subs and carrriers,major surface warships...and pursuing a desi carrier fighter too,the IAF and IA should hang their heads in shame. They have recd. far more money that the IN since Independence. As some have rightly said,it is an ATTITUDE problem.

It indeed is. See, it goes back beyond just hulls. The Navy actively funded and got folks into sonar efforts . A young sailor who joined at 16 and who showed promise, got to work with signal processing profs at IIT, resulting in very good sonar systems using cutting edge techniques (I don't think we have imported any hull mounted sonars after that), among the best in the world , and the young man leaves after 22 years with a PhD under his belt and goes on to Stanford as a Prof in Elec Engg and works in cutting edge fields such as MiMo. I can't imagine a 16 year old airman having a similar path in the IAF from doing work in say radars!

I remember a gent from long ago, Mohan Ram (if I remember his name correctly). Those guys must have been really brave to go in front of the brass and say, "We think we can have an improved Leander class with larger hull and same top speed with same main machinery" and braver for the brass to back them and say, okay , go ahead,lets see. Mohan Ram, after retirement, I remember landing up in TVS Suzuki as head of product development. With people like him, no wonder TVS could tell Suzuki to f*ck off and roll out their own motorcycles and engines and are fully self sufficient and guys like BMW wanting to work with them. Same story with Bajaj Auto , whose size, heft and R&D muscle could tell Kawasaki to F*ck off.

Contrast this with the largest license producer Hero Motor. Flew very very high when Honda gave them the license and they cranked out Honda's designs in high volumes . But when Honda entered the market themselves, they are toast. They are in the news today. They seem to have 600 engineers on their rolls, but ZERO products until now. And, they invested $25m in Eric Buell Racing of US for tech, and that declared bankruptcy today! Now they are flailing around with a couple of Austrian and other guys, and have hired a couple of Germans and Japanese two wheeler folks ,per newspaper reports. Long term, Hero Motors unless it gets a couple of hit products out seems like a dead story. They failed strategically and failed to invest (okay , Honda forbade them from doing so, I must admit, they had them by the gonads, invest in your own competing products, we cut the licensing and you go nude) in R&D. Sure, their bottomline looked good coz they didn't have that expense on their books, but they wrote their long term death sentence.

The IAF is like HeroMotors. I can't imagine any IAF airframe guy to land up in Hero Motors and do product engineering. Remember, the original Vespa scooter was built on a monocoque chassis because of war surplus and aero expertise of the guys who built planes during the war. Think an ex IAF person could design a scooter for Hero Motors ? They desperately need a hit scooter.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Apr 2015 15:10

Vina Sir, Do not know if an IAF guy can design a Scooter but all aren't failures exactly. There are some who set up their own firms too.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Apr 2015 21:38

deejay Err no he point