'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Locked
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7829
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by rohitvats »

Viv S wrote: That's not what he said. You're twisting his words here. The private sector is already involved in the Tejas production and will inevitably participate in any scaling up of the production. He was answering a very specific point on HAL's efforts to increase pvt sector participation (which the govt is promoting). He was NOT laying out any limitations on production.
On the contrary, your own post states that this is exactly what he said - read the bold part below:
The first 20 aircraft will be completed by 2018, by when we have to make a Mk 1A version of the aircraft. We are ramping up production to 16 aircraft a year. We have recently issued request for quotations to the private players to supply modules like fuselage parts and wings. If we can get this from the private sector, we can increase production to 25 aircraft a year. So, we are looking for capacity augmentation with these private players. We are looking at a concept in which HAL is an integrator that has some 20% (of total) work in the hangers. The remaining 80% of work can be off loaded to the industry. If a private company for example is setting up a shop for composites manufacturing, it will be assured for business for many years.


I don't see him equating higher production rate with higher order numbers. While he categorically states that capacity augmentation can happen only with private sector participation.
Has someone done some sort of analysis which says for X numbers ordered, Y production rate/ annum. And if it is 2X, production rate is 1.5 Y.
Doesn't require any elaborate analysis, simple arithmetic will suffice. Assuming the production is to cease at the same day, it remains a linear relationship. For a 2X order, production rate must be 2Y.
The above does not address my question.

HAL has production capacity of 16 a/c per annum. And this is with 40 a/c order. The same production rate is to be carried over for Tejas Mk2 (with 80 a/c order) if the timeline for its induction are taken at face value.

So, why doesn't the 16 a/c per annum production become 25 per annum with 80 a/c order?

Secondly, I understand that Tejas Mk2 might cost X at 16 a/c per annum production which increases to x+delta if we wish to push it up to 25 a/c per annum. Has this been explored?
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

But K Tamilmani, the DRDO’s aerospace chief, has, more recently, said that the modified version of the LCA addressed most of the air force’s concerns relating to electronic warfare systems, flight computer, radar and maintenance problems.

In pushing the LCA in the IAF’s face, the government has dealt with one of the two big problems faced by the project - the IAF's refusal to take ownership of the LCA.

In contrast, the Indian Navy has ‘owned’ the LCA-Navy project and has worked with the DRDO to tweak the aircraft to meet its requirements.

Some of these modifications — a stronger undercarriage and Levcons to provide it greater agility — will figure in the aircraft that will now be made for the IAF. It needs to be noted that the LCA, which will be used for close air support or countercounter air missions, will not need the kind of sophisticated electronics that an aircraft designed to operate deep in enemy territory needs.

Third party assessments are that the LCA is a capable fighter, better than its counterparts like the Sino-Pak JF-17. Its use of composites which cover 90 per cent of its surface provides it natural stealth. Its design makes it highly stable and easy to fly, a fact attested to by Ruag specialists who wanted to market a tandem-seat version as a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT).

Manufacturing

But the government still needs to deal with the second big problem - getting the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to deal with the project with the seriousness it deserves.

As the C&AG report noted, the manufacturing facilities at HAL currently cater to the production of only four aircraft per year, as against the eight needed, because of delays in procuring plant and machinery, tools and the construction of production hangars.

Likewise, repair and overhaul (ROH) facility for LCA, as specified in the ASR, has not been fully created. HAL, which makes a great deal of money through licence-producing aircraft like the Su- 30MKI, for which it charges the government Rs 100 crore more than the cost for an off-the-shelf item from Russia, couldn’t be bothered with the need to encourage an Indian project.

Indeed, some years back, the Swiss-German giant Ruag wrote to HAL offering its expertise in setting up assembly lines to manufacture the LCA and offering an industrial partnership to sell the aircraft abroad. But HAL did not even have the courtesy to reply.

This would be a good time for the government to look into the IAF’s claim that it needs at least 45 squadrons to take on the ‘two-front collusive threat’ from Pakistan and China. As of now, says the IAF, it only has 35 active fighter squadrons, and even this could go down to 32.

There are two issues here - the nature of war of the future. Given the fact that India, Pakistan and China are nuclear-armed states, the chances of any kind of an all-out war are low. At worst, we may see localised clashes such as the Kargil mini-war.

Capabilities

But this is not something which the IAF can decide, it requires the government to make an overall strategy assessment and then pinning down the kind of capabilities India’s armed forces need.

This will enable a planned acquisition of capabilities, instead of the present chaos which has led to the fiasco of the Rafale buy and the decision to halve the size of the mountain strike corps.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiaho ... z4OquPBqmw[/url]
Is RuAg as capable technically as Bosch or SIEMENS?

Like it is said that certain "Aviation Grade Alloys" are built by french company for Tejas.

If a separate line of Tejas is put up with group of private companies like RuAg - L&T - Kalyani - TASL is it an empty fantasy OR doable?

Like we are buying "Seeker tech" from Israel for 50,000 crore as it will help our many platforms across the spectrum. The "Aviation Grade Alloys" will be needed for AMCA, Regional Jet too, so can be buy or get company to put up a plant here in Bharat 100% owned by them to supply our needs?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

Viv S wrote: HAL has 'admitted' nothing of the sort. HAL is not a movie theatre or an art gallery. Its a manufacturing house. Unless its run out of land or capital or labour there is no earthly reason why production would hit a wall at 16/unit.
.
Aha! Now you are getting somewhere. Somewhere, but not there yet - but I will write more in reply to others.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7829
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by rohitvats »

The per unit cost of Tejas Mk2 is pegged at ~INR 300 Crore as per Wikipedia.
With 80 aircraft on order, that is Rs 24,000 Crore order book. Assuming 50% of it can go to vendors. That's Rs 12,000 Crore. Is that not good enough money for investment in this sector?

Secondly, can HAL assure orders from other production lines and existing work to these vendors to ensure continuity of business?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

Pratyush wrote:
shiv wrote:
I am just waiting for the penny to drop and someone to ask "Why can't HAL expand?" But no one has asked yet. Everyone says "Pay more . Order more. Ask for more. More should be possible" Well that's not what the MD of HAL is saying..

Why can't HAL expand?
Thanks for asking. At least you asked and did not assume you know the answer or delusionally imagine that the answers have all been given.

Actually I think the question should go to the HAL MD who put a cap on HAL's ability to manufacture Tejas at 16 a year and no more unless private parties are involved. There is not enough information in that statement, but the MD has also said that HAL does not have enough Tier 3 (highest by his defn) suppliers but mostly tier 1 and 2 so that HAL has to manufacture parts rather than integrate.

I can hazard a few guesses as to what holds HAL up - some of it is informed guesswork based on what has been said in other interviews i read over the last few years. Basically HAL does not have the capacity to make every single part for Tejas. They have to give orders to others - who have to produce the parts. I suspect that those other companies are hard to find and engage and the reasons that I have heard on and off is the way government entities work in placing orders and making payments. Even on BRF people who have worked with HAL and PSUs point out that getting payments out of a PSU is not easy. This is a complaint I have heard from many who engage with PSUs. There are many private industrialists I know who say that things don't move unless people are bribed - though I am not sure how far this is true for HAL. But I do know that PSUs have a long "chain of command" - a tortuous "pipe" through which an approval of payment must come from - and someone on this chain has to be bribed. If company X delivers 1,000 O-rings to HAL the store must accept and then send to supervisor. Supervisor must approve and send to finance. Finance must seek approval from QC. etc. Ultimately a payment comes after 6 months after multiple appeals and maybe a bribe or two. This is how India works - and I say this for BRFites who migrated abroad in their 20s and live there. You don't know India until you live here for many decades.

So the idea that we should pay HAL 1.2 lakh crore for 200 aircraft rather than 24,000 crore for 40 aircraft does not address the fundamental issue of PSU inefficiency in engaging private players. PSU heads cannot change the bureaucratic rules. The money will not flow any better. it is not "voltage" overcoming resistance. It is simply a tank that will overflow in every direction into a lot of pockets

It gets worse. If HAL itself has to expand or if a private company has to expand it may need more floor area. For that they have to either rent or buy. Either way permissions are required from state governments that are uniformly and deeply corrupt. Permissions for land, power, water, environment - every damn thing. Banks must approve financing and even they may want favours. In a place like the US where everything is already working, or China where a draconian central govt simply blows away opposition these may not be issues. But in India they are fatal delays.

I could write a lot more and illustrate with examples, but will stop
arsimovich
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 16:21

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by arsimovich »

I see that a lot of questions are being raised in this forum about HAL's ability to scale up even when firm orders for larger number of LCAs eventually materialize. Is that fear rational? Has the HAL never in its past so many years managed to ramp up the production of a particular aircraft to the desired numbers? Since we are talking about HAL's management capabilities, would it be possible to extrapolate it from past history? Admittedly, the history would not tell us anything about completely indigenous manufacturing processes but if there is evidence of HAL having accelerated let's say the rate of production of say the Su 30, Jaguar or even MiG 21 significantly over a short period of time then we can at least surmise that it is within the realms of possibility that HAL could possibly replicate the same for the LCA.
rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 404
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by rohiths »

arsimovich wrote:I see that a lot of questions are being raised in this forum about HAL's ability to scale up even when firm orders for larger number of LCAs eventually materialize. Is that fear rational? Has the HAL never in its past so many years managed to ramp up the production of a particular aircraft to the desired numbers? Since we are talking about HAL's management capabilities, would it be possible to extrapolate it from past history? Admittedly, the history would not tell us anything about completely indigenous manufacturing processes but if there is evidence of HAL having accelerated let's say the rate of production of say the Su 30, Jaguar or even MiG 21 significantly over a short period of time then we can at least surmise that it is within the realms of possibility that HAL could possibly replicate the same for the LCA.
HAL is manufacturing 12-16 Su-30s per year. So doing the same or exceeding for LCA is not out of question. They can do the same screwdrivergiri after outsourcing parts to vendors. Most of the critical parts like engine, radar, nose cone, ejection seat are outsourced. India has a strong composites industry in the private sector. If there is will they can easily ramp up production to 16-24 per year which should deliver 160-240 LCAs from 2020-2030
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

JayS wrote: The cost associated with any production plus a reasonable profit has to be recovered from the cost of product. There are two ways - low units produced at high margin and high number of units produced with lower margin. Which one will give less price/unit??

If HAL can make one Tejas in 6 months and have 4 jigs they can manufacture 8 Tejas per year. If they have to increase the rate to 16, either they have to increase number of Jigs to 8 or reduce number of months required for production of one LCA to 3 months. For the first option HAL and suppliers both have to invest. For second one, suppliers still have to invest the same but HAL's investment is reduced now. Which option is better overall??

The money goes to whoever end up at loss for higher production rate since the fixed upfront investment has to be amortized on lower number years on lower number of units produced, increasing the price per unit effectively. Whether HAL and/or supplier. The capital expenditure increases monotonically with the capacity for production. how difficult it is to understand that production capacity of 25/yr needs more investment than 16/yr, and that for the same order, the now increased investment has to be amortized over the same number of units, jacking up price per units??
The theory is impeccable. It is the practice that is a problem. I don't want to be rude and say things that sound insulting - but what I say is meant in a "good sense" - not accusing you or anyone of anything . So please don't take anything I say that way.

You speak of increasing the number of jigs. Fine. But when a Tejas under construction is on the jig it will never leave the jig until every single part that needs to go in has arrived and has been fitted. That means that the supplier of those parts have to expand concurrently with HAL increasing the number of jigs. Let me just look at what the supplier must do to start producing for HAL

HAL will call for tenders for the supply of some part for Tejas. Let us say the part is hose clips of a particular size and material. They put a tender out and give a date. Let us say they get 3 bidders. Those bids have to go through a bureaucratic process - the finance team will probably OK only the lowest. The engineering team will then look at the clips. they may select or reject. Depending on pressures being applied on MD, on finance team or engg team there may be some back and forth rejecting this and accepting that bid as better. During this period the bidding companies cannot simply invest. their investment to increase capacity can only come after they win the order. And HAL will not pay them any advance - or may only pay a token advance - so any capacity expansion has to be done on their own steam. If an order is won, the company then has to start supplying - for a token payment initially. the clips will then be installed and used. Payment may not come through until engineering flies those clips on an aircraft, and certifies that the clips are holding up to the stresses. With an initial rate of production of 4 a/c per year certification of those clips may take 6-8 months. The engineering office may not even more the approved file to the finance dept because they are not bothered about that. The supplier makes 4-5 enquiries before the file moves from engineering to finance. In finance the file sits awaiting various approvals. Were all the parameters met? Who certified that. Have the total numbers been accounted for. An enquiry goes out to the store. Finally the payment may come after a year or two. Any supplier who invested tens of lakhs or crores will by sick and tired by the time this happens. The supplier has to be really "patriotic" to work with a system like this. Multiply this process for 10,000 parts to be supplied by 10,000 different suppliers.

In private firms (mainly hospitals) that I see there is a purse holding boss who looks at every aspect and signs cheques phataphat. This does not happen in PSUs that have a huge top-heavy system of thousand of departments and employees who can block or move things

You can throw any amount of money at HAL but this will not change. Please excuse me if you think I am wrong - but I think BRF itself is divided up into 2 groups. One group sits in America and thinks throwing more money will work. The other group sits in India and like me are saying "Balls"
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

rohiths wrote: HAL is manufacturing 12-16 Su-30s per year. So doing the same or exceeding for LCA is not out of question. They can do the same screwdrivergiri after outsourcing parts to vendors.
In the case of Russian aircraft - HAL has to make everything in house - not many "vendors". HAL has many different factories set up specifically for Russian aircraft based on the Soviet model. And while HAL was gaining expertise or setting up the machinery - all the "vendors" were in Russia, Ukraine or other former Soviet colonies.

It is completely ridiculous that HAL actually has to take metal ore and forge parts that later go into Russian aircraft. But that is the truth. Probably no other company in the world does that.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Cosmo_R »

"The contradiction sounds like a man who buys his wife expensive jewellery while he bangs his neighbour's wife. "

Maybe that's the price the wife demands for allowing it. It's also known as "bang for the buck". :)
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Cosmo_R »

shiv wrote: ...
...
It is completely ridiculous that HAL actually has to take metal ore and forge parts that later go into Russian aircraft. But that is the truth. Probably no other company in the world does that.
This is one of many roadblocks to scaling up. External suppliers can amortized fixed costs over a larger run that may involve making slightly different parts for other industries. Vertical integration means all aspects of the ecosystem have to scale up simultaneously. Not an easy or efficient way to produce.
arsimovich
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 16:21

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by arsimovich »

rohiths wrote:
arsimovich wrote: Most of the critical parts like engine, radar, nose cone, ejection seat are outsourced. India has a strong composites industry in the private sector. If there is will they can easily ramp up production to 16-24 per year which should deliver 160-240 LCAs from 2020-2030
I suppose the lead time for these outsourced parts should not be a huge impediment given the fact that they are used on multiple fighter platforms. If that be true, then the issue probably lies with outsourcing the currently in-sourced but non-critical parts to local industry. At the risk of appearing as a Johnny come lately, has there been any digging up as to what these parts may be and why is it that local industry has so far not shown any indications of measuring up to the task. For example, I found this on the HAL site for indigenization of Su 30 parts.

PROJECTS FOR MAKE IN INDIA- LRUs/ ITEMS FOR SU-30MKI ROH

The list is exhaustive with more than 250 parts and ranges from ball bearings to programmable signal processing units. It also seems that there has been ToT from the Russian OEMs and HAL will probably share it with the private industry partner or interface with the OEM. The reason I cite this example is to juxtapose an argument that if such an effort can be mounted for a Su 30, then same for LCA can be done too. If you look at the Proposed Annual Requirement column in the above link, the numbers are not that big considering a 272 strong fleet. Can we hazard a guess then that even at these low numbers a private partner can operate and make some money out of. That is of course assuming that any private industry did respond to the advertisement and I have no proof that anyone did.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

arsimovich wrote:Can we hazard a guess then that even at these low numbers a private partner can operate and make some money out of. That is of course assuming that any private industry did respond to the advertisement and I have no proof that anyone did.
I have stated my view on this several times and will do so again. Having admired the level of industrialization I saw in the UK and indirectly in Germany, I returned to India and realized that we simply do not have the "industrial base" of those nations. Yet. For example - imagine a high tech part of some special material that has to be machined to very fine tolerances down to micron level (thinner than hair). In an industrial nation that has been doing this for 60-70 years you will find a dozen small workshops capable of doing this in every small town of maybe 50,000 population. In India you will not find a dozen even in the biggest cities. You will find several lakh low tech welders, lathe operators and machinists on every roadside but with India not having done really high tech manufacturing (ever) or has done in in very low volumes dominated by PSUs like HAL, HMT and BEL we just do not have the industry base or the skilled labour. Yet

Incidentally China has developed this. But India has a long way to go.

But let me post an anecdote. this year, for Dussehra SHQ wanted a "stepped display shelf" We found a fantastic self assembly (like Lego) made of composite material used in cars - manufactured for someone by Mahindra. All the parts were moulded and honed to be a perfect fit and it was a pleasure for me to help SHQ assemble and then disassemble
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

Cosmo_R wrote:"The contradiction sounds like a man who buys his wife expensive jewellery while he bangs his neighbour's wife. "

Maybe that's the price the wife demands for allowing it. It's also known as "bang for the buck". :)
It's fun, but not relevant to argue about analogies. The wife may allow it, but she does not have to like it. the same way, we may allow some foreign co to set up a fighter plant in India. We may not like it because it kills Tejas.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

shiv wrote: You can throw any amount of money at HAL but this will not change. Please excuse me if you think I am wrong - but I think BRF itself is divided up into 2 groups. One group sits in America and thinks throwing more money will work. The other group sits in India and like me are saying "Balls"
Sincere discussion is always welcome. Because even I get to learn a thing or two every-time.

But why would you assume I seat in USA?? :((
I am closer to HAL than you think. :wink:

Well, about the lethargy in the system, if you remember what karanM mentioned in one post - things are improving on this front. HAL is more willing to give out work. I once met the person who is in-charge of LCA assembly line in HAL. He was quite categorical about it. In fact he said, entire metal components in LCA are already outsources. HAL doesn't make any. That was some time ago, and a lot of water have flown meanwhile. But anyway, I see this to be one issue where GOI has to put its weight through. Both PM and RM have to give some personal attention. If NaMo can remove all the corruption in top bureaucracy within a short, it shouldn't be a big deal for him to straighten out LCA division. I have to say this but I do not see sincere attempts by GOI on LCA. MP is doing something, but much more needed to be done. The ball needs to be set rolling. Some personal attention from NaMo could do wonders here. Likewise I see no serious attention to DRDO. They started with a bang but then the turkey went cold. Nothing has changed in last 2.5yrs or so.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Viv S »

rohitvats wrote:On the contrary, your own post states that this is exactly what he said - read the bold part below:
Oh come on, this is just base semantics. Its quite clear the HAL chairman is referring to outsourcing as a well deliberated policy decision not as a 'quick fix' for HAL's internal shortcomings.

1. The Tejas production had already been outsourced to a great extent.
2. There is no reason why any of the suppliers would be unable to scale up production.
3. If theoretically, the pvt sector was not in picture it would be HAL that would be doing the work in-house (not throwing in the towel).
I don't see him equating higher production rate with higher order numbers. While he categorically states that capacity augmentation can happen only with private sector participation.
The private sector is already participating in Tejas' production. So of course HAL would expect it to participate in any capacity augmentation effort.
The above does not address my question.

HAL has production capacity of 16 a/c per annum. And this is with 40 a/c order. The same production rate is to be carried over for Tejas Mk2 (with 80 a/c order) if the timeline for its induction are taken at face value.

So, why doesn't the 16 a/c per annum production become 25 per annum with 80 a/c order?
I'm not getting you at all.

-> 80 Mk1As @ 16 units/per year is five years worth of production. HAL will deliver these aircraft between 2021 & 2026. The supply chain is geared accordingly.

-> You want HAL and everyone down the supply chain to invest hard capital and expand capacity by over 50% to 25 units/yr.

-> Thereafter, HAL delivers all 80 aircraft taking slightly over three years.

-> What then? The infrastructure is lying idle. How's the industry (not just HAL) supposed to recoup its investments in expansion?


You want a production rate of 25/yr? contractually commit the MoD & IAF towards acquiring 125 Mk1As and industry will happily expand its capacity.

Secondly, I understand that Tejas Mk2 might cost X at 16 a/c per annum production which increases to x+delta if we wish to push it up to 25 a/c per annum. Has this been explored?
It'll decrease to x-delta if we increase the production rate. Simple economies of scale. This of course assumes that the original proposition (16/yr) was a profitable one.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5369
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by ShauryaT »

chola wrote:what rational desi wouldn't want to see the F-35 in Indian colors?
ME.
In this fast moving thread, i saw this flipping by this morning, but thought it is important to answer the question. Do not think, I am the only one.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

shiv wrote:
rohiths wrote: HAL is manufacturing 12-16 Su-30s per year. So doing the same or exceeding for LCA is not out of question. They can do the same screwdrivergiri after outsourcing parts to vendors.
In the case of Russian aircraft - HAL has to make everything in house - not many "vendors". HAL has many different factories set up specifically for Russian aircraft based on the Soviet model. And while HAL was gaining expertise or setting up the machinery - all the "vendors" were in Russia, Ukraine or other former Soviet colonies.

It is completely ridiculous that HAL actually has to take metal ore and forge parts that later go into Russian aircraft. But that is the truth. Probably no other company in the world does that.
They had to replicate the model that Russians use. Thats how ToT works. Copy-paste. And Russians have applied lot of "chuna" to HAL. :wink:

Also as per contracts they cannot even buy raw material from elsewhere, imagine getting parts from supplier instead. Now theoretically its possible than HAL could have bought the raw material and give it to suppliers and get parts made from them. But that assumes that Sukhoi was willing to let the technology outside HAL. The wholesole reason the Russian planes are made in Nashik is that Russians wanted a segregated facility. We do not have enough proof to say than HAL could have developed supplier base but they didnt. Also some of their attempts to supplant parts have been shot down by Sukhoi - for example the LG Tires, remember.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:You speak of increasing the number of jigs. Fine. But when a Tejas under construction is on the jig it will never leave the jig until every single part that needs to go in has arrived and has been fitted. That means that the supplier of those parts have to expand concurrently with HAL increasing the number of jigs. Let me just look at what the supplier must do to start producing for HAL
The supplier in question is already 'managing' the bureaucracy and red tape at 16/yr. His situation does not fundamentally change, even when the value of his contract goes up by 50%.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Viv S »

ShauryaT wrote:ME.
In this fast moving thread, i saw this flipping by this morning, but thought it is important to answer the question. Do not think, I am the only one.
I can understand not wanting to see a US aircraft in Indian colours (political debate not relevant to the thread). But assuming one was being bought either way, I can't understand why would anyone prefer to see the F-16 over the F-35?
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

F-35 is the pinnacle of "control" by US the ultimate control freak.

There was a youtube docmentary on PAK FA by russians, in which they pointed out that how F-35 has been built from ground up to be remote controlled by usa.

Funny isn't it that 90s F-22 isn't being sold to allies like japan although they keep asking for it, while latest greatest advancest jet F-35 is available to be bought by all and sundry?

BIG NO FOR F-35.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

arsimovich wrote:I suppose the lead time for these outsourced parts should not be a huge impediment given the fact that they are used on multiple fighter platforms. If that be true, then the issue probably lies with outsourcing the currently in-sourced but non-critical parts to local industry. At the risk of appearing as a Johnny come lately, has there been any digging up as to what these parts may be and why is it that local industry has so far not shown any indications of measuring up to the task. For example, I found this on the HAL site for indigenization of Su 30 parts.

PROJECTS FOR MAKE IN INDIA- LRUs/ ITEMS FOR SU-30MKI ROH

The list is exhaustive with more than 250 parts and ranges from ball bearings to programmable signal processing units. It also seems that there has been ToT from the Russian OEMs and HAL will probably share it with the private industry partner or interface with the OEM. The reason I cite this example is to juxtapose an argument that if such an effort can be mounted for a Su 30, then same for LCA can be done too. If you look at the Proposed Annual Requirement column in the above link, the numbers are not that big considering a 272 strong fleet. Can we hazard a guess then that even at these low numbers a private partner can operate and make some money out of. That is of course assuming that any private industry did respond to the advertisement and I have no proof that anyone did.
The numbers are laughable. I hope they do not actually want someone to manufacture at the rate of 5/annum for 40yrs. Who would do that?? :lol: :lol:
Some of those thing are so small and insignificant.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

Manish_Sharma wrote:F-35 is the pinnacle of "control" by US the ultimate control freak.

There was a youtube docmentary on PAK FA by russians, in which they pointed out that how F-35 has been built from ground up to be remote controlled by usa.

Funny isn't it that 90s F-22 isn't being sold to allies like japan although they keep asking for it, while latest greatest advancest jet F-35 is available to be bought by all and sundry?

BIG NO FOR F-35.
More like they realised the development costs would be too large and wanted to share it with other "friends".
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Viv S »

JayS wrote:Coming from Shiv Aroor, i would take it with pinch of salt. He was in US recently. No price for guessing why. :wink:
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/ ... india.html
A significant jump in life after a service life extension of the F-16 Block 70 platform. Total Indian autonomy on who can buy made-in-India F-16s or be part of the resulting supply chain that will be governed entirely by India. A choice of avionics and kit currently under test on the F-35 family of fifth generation fighters. These are the three broad pitch points Lockheed-Martin puts forth as it looks to win India’s next big fighter contest — the Make In India Fighter (MIIF, unofficially). Lockheed-Martin, which had one of the most visible campaigns for India’s erstwhile M-MRCA contest, has clearly re-energised itself for what is, by all accounts, a much more significant piece of Indian pie this time, a contest reported first here on Livefist. As the world’s largest defence firm primes itself for a face-off against what could be a much smaller line-up than the six-horse M-MRCA, Livefist puts some questions to Abhay Paranjape, National Executive for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Business Development in India:

1. Outline the major contours of L-M’s Make in India (MII) F-16 Block 70 offer.
Lockheed Martin is offering India the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft. Exclusive F-16 production in India would make India home to the world’s only F-16 production facility, a leading exporter of advanced fighter aircraft, and offer Indian industry the opportunity to become an integral part of the world’s largest fighter aircraft supply chain.

2. How does the current programme differ qualitatively from the M-MRCA programme, which also envisaged a major MII component?
Leveraging technologies from our 5th Generation fleet of aircraft, the F-16 Block 70 aircraft is the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered. These advances include the APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, a new high resolution center pedestal display, a new mission computer significantly enhancing processing and storage capacity, and a new 1 gigabit Ethernet databus. Further leveraging recent structural life extension efforts performed for the U.S. Air Force, the F-16 Block 70 will deliver a 50 percent or more increase in additional service life to 12,000 hours or beyond – a significant increase over competing aircraft. From an industrial program perspective, Lockheed Martin’s offer to move all future F-16 production to India is unprecedented, as it would place Indian industry at the center of the world’s most extensive fighter aircraft supply base. None of our competitors can offer that.

3. How does L-M address concerns that the F-16, albeit upgraded, is a legacy fighter at the end of its active life?
The F-16 is the most combat proven aircraft in history and the F-16 Block 70 is the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered. The updated avionics suite leverages technologies developed as a part of Lockheed Martin’s efforts on our fleet of 5th Generation fighter aircraft. Major elements of these advanced avionics are included in major upgrades for multiple F-16 customers around the world and already slated for integration on more than 300 aircraft that will be flown for decades. These elements will also form the basis for upgrades and aircraft life extension for U.S. Air Force F-16 aircraft as they seek to operate their fleet for 30-plus years into the future. Global demand for new production F-16 aircraft also remains strong in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and South America

4. If the Indian government presses a single-engine stipulation, the F-16 could square off against the Gripen NG. What’s your pitch on how the F-16 Block 70 over the Gripen NG?
Lockheed Martin is the recognized leader in the design, development and manufacture of the world’s most technologically advanced fighter aircraft. The F-16 Block 70 aircraft leverages avionics technologies from our 5th Generation fighter aircraft to deliver an aircraft with unrivaled speed, agility, range, and payload. We offer proven, unmatched experience developing international fighter production capacity having previously established F-16 production lines in four countries and F-35 production lines in two countries. Our offer to establish exclusive F-16 production in India to meet worldwide demand for new F-16 aircraft is without precedent and the opportunity for Indian companies to play a major role in the industrial base that supplies necessary parts for a global fleet of more than 3,200 aircraft is unmatched.

5. Pakistan operates F-16s and looks to operate more. Would the future of Pakistan’s fleet be in Indian hands in the event of a successful MII F-16 programme?
As has always been the case, future F-16 production decisions would be subject to government-to-government discussions.

6. Sweden’s Saab has sweetened its Gripen pitch to India by offering Gallium-Nitride (GaN) radar technology as a spin-off. How does Lockheed-Martin propose to beef up its offering?
Lockheed Martin’s F-16 offer to India—the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft—is without precedent. In addition to proposing the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered to the Indian Air Force, exclusive F-16 production in India extends this Make in India opportunity beyond mere “assemble in India” or “manufacture in India,” to a long-term industrial opportunity for India. Our experience developing fighter production capacity around the world is unmatched. Lockheed Martin has previously established F-16 production lines in four countries and F-35 production lines in two countries. Our F-16 offer also includes the unmatched opportunity for Indian companies to play a major role in the industrial base that supplies parts for a global fleet of more than 3,200 aircraft. The long-term effect of establishing the sole F-16 production line in India will be to position Indian industry as a major contributor in the production of components and sub-components necessary to support the growing worldwide F-16 fleet.
^This is their pitch for the F-16. :roll:
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Surya »

ShauryaT wrote:
chola wrote:what rational desi wouldn't want to see the F-35 in Indian colors?
ME.
In this fast moving thread, i saw this flipping by this morning, but thought it is important to answer the question. Do not think, I am the only one.
FWIW I am told by friends that the IAF is some ways from absorbing the tech around the F35 and having systems to take advantage of it
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Viv S »

JayS wrote:More like they realised the development costs would be too large and wanted to share it with other "friends".
Actually about 90% of the F-35's development cost is US-funded. What they really needed was confirmed orders to increase the production rate and reduce costs. Plus commonality with their NATO & PacRim allies.

The F-22 was banned for export for two reasons. One, it would negatively impinge upon the effort to squeeze down the F-35's costs. Two, its sub-systems were not export-compliant, which IIRC was a result of the systems architecture employed.

F-35 in contrast was built from ground-up to be 'export-safe' (which BTW is why there is no monkey-model for sale). Downside for a customer is that no independent customization is possible. Upside is that critical operating frequencies/modes are secure (IIRC there was a major cleanup after the Chinese hacks), and a Scorpene-type scandal is very unlikely.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by JayS »

Surya wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: ME.
In this fast moving thread, i saw this flipping by this morning, but thought it is important to answer the question. Do not think, I am the only one.
FWIW I am told by friends that the IAF is some ways from absorbing the tech around the F35 and having systems to take advantage of it
Same point has been argued here before. Some agree some do not. Are your friends from IAF??
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

Here's a bet: F-35 ain't coming to the IAF. All those partner countries did not pay money simply to have an outsider like India set up a parallel supply line. I I don't like it but F-16 is possible
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

JayS wrote:
Same point has been argued here before. Some agree some do not. Are your friends from IAF??
Having friends who feel some aircraft is good means zilch.

In the sixties - as a little boy I got hooked onto military aviation when my hero and my cousin late Wing Co Suresh VrC, (retd) gave me a copy of the 1962 edition of the Observers Book of Aircraft. I still have it. On the page with an image of the Hawker Hunter he has written "Me- I fly this" But when I asked him which was the best plane in the world - he pointed to the F-4 Phantom II.

Admiring a reputed good aircraft and actually getting to fly it are two different issues
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:Here's a bet: F-35 ain't coming to the IAF. All those partner countries did not pay money simply to have an outsider like India set up a parallel supply line. I I don't like it but F-16 is possible
I think that would address the issue of 'what we're likely to buy'. So far we've been discussing 'what we ought to buy'.

Also, 'assembly line' =/= 'supply line'. Nobody has any issues with an Indian FACO line. As for work-share, that'll be proportional to our order book. What the partner countries lose in work-share, they'll gain in production volume.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

JayS wrote:
shiv wrote: You can throw any amount of money at HAL but this will not change. Please excuse me if you think I am wrong - but I think BRF itself is divided up into 2 groups. One group sits in America and thinks throwing more money will work. The other group sits in India and like me are saying "Balls"
Sincere discussion is always welcome. Because even I get to learn a thing or two every-time.

But why would you assume I seat in USA?? :((
I am closer to HAL than you think. :wink:
If NaMo can remove all the corruption in top bureaucracy within a short, it shouldn't be a big deal for him to straighten out LCA division.
Again no hurt intended. But I have, in the past mentioned a thing called "American hawa".

Indians who say "PM can do this or that" are affected by American hawa. The US President has great powers to push some things through despite opposition. He is a powerful man. The PM in India does not wield such power. Namo cannot clean up PSUs the way you say. It is a fundamental defect in out Indian education system that Indians grow up not understanding how Indian government works but see the publicized American model and think it is similar here
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by shiv »

Viv S wrote: I think that would address the issue of 'what we're likely to buy'. So far we've been discussing 'what we ought to buy'.
What we ought to buy is LCA in large numbers
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Viv S wrote: The F-22 was banned for export for two reasons. One, it would negatively impinge upon the effort to squeeze down the F-35's costs.
So until the f-35 was conceived there was no ban on F-22 export?
Two, its sub-systems were not export-compliant, which IIRC was a result of the systems architecture employed.
Hmmm so "system architecture" on F-35 is designed to be fully in control of usa. Thats why "control freak" usa is comfortable to export it.
RohitAM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 21:28

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by RohitAM »

To be very honest, while the IAF might have improved its network-centric war fighting capabilities significantly, we are still far away from being able to bring to bear the kind of technological overload that the US can in a conflict, and this is when we are not even considering the kind of sensor fusion architecture that the F-35 brings to the table. IMHO, the F-35, IF it operates as optimally as it is advertised to be, is the only true 5th Generation fighter out there right now, and that list includes the F-22. The USAF will probably have to upgrade the F-22 to bring its sensor and networking capabilities on par with what the F-35 allegedly brings to the table - the F-35 is about a decade ahead of the F-22 in terms of the aforementioned capabilities, given their development timelines and the fact that the F-22 did not really have a separate tranche which integrated F-35 development items on to the platform. In effect, F-22 is legacy compared to the F-35.

This leaves the F-16 holding the can, technically, given that the platform is long in the tooth anyways. The thing to note here though, is the fact that the F-16 is open to being upgraded (hence the F-16IN/F-16 Blk 70) and probably some non-tech restricted items from the F-35 dev lineup can be put on to the platform. If that can be done, and we can achieve a certain degree of autonomy in terms of future production, usage, and upgrade paths for the same, it will seem a more viable alternative which can be purchased in the numbers being thrown about (200-300). I'm sure all of us agree here that the F-16 isn't lacking as a fighting platform - it is simply old and will be older whenever a fight with the Chinese breaks out.

I would be more than happy to see us setup a production line for the Tejas similar to what LM had done for the F-16 all those decades back - not producing 1 aircraft a day (the IAF and GOI can't afford it, period), but at least 4-6 per month to complete a 300 aircraft order in 5-6 years, instead of this entire MRCA carnival. That production tooling scale-up will take us at least 2 years, unless we do a Chinese and force people to work night and day and build the production capability up in 6 months. But that will never happen, and so this aircraft order probably is not so much to kill the Tejas, but to make sure that the IAF does not roll over and die in the face of overwhelming Chinese fighter numbers if a war breaks out in less than a decade going forward.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by brar_w »

So until the f-35 was conceived there was no ban on F-22 export?
F-22A was never really designed for export. Neither the USAF, nor the Pentagon pushed to get export considerations into it as a program. It could have come down the road on a B or C variant but it was cost-prohibitive to do it on the A for small orders. During its development or even pre-development there was no export consideration baked in to the development. When it came, it came at the last minute.

Besides, the JSF program made a down-select in 2000/1 but the program itself had international participation so it was well known that it would be an export compliant from the start. All the mission systems had export clearance from the SDD onwards.
mmm so "system architecture" on F-35 is designed to be fully in control of usa. Thats why "control freak" usa is comfortable to export it.
No, all the networked stuff that requires sharing data with LM servers can be deselected just as Israel is doing.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Thanks Braw warrior!
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Surya »

JayS wrote:
Surya wrote:
FWIW I am told by friends that the IAF is some ways from absorbing the tech around the F35 and having systems to take advantage of it
Same point has been argued here before. Some agree some do not. Are your friends from IAF??
Yes
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5369
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by ShauryaT »

Viv S wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:ME.
In this fast moving thread, i saw this flipping by this morning, but thought it is important to answer the question. Do not think, I am the only one.
I can understand not wanting to see a US aircraft in Indian colours (political debate not relevant to the thread). But assuming one was being bought either way, I can't understand why would anyone prefer to see the F-16 over the F-35?
Buying aircraft is unlike buying a commodity. It is not a partisan political debate but more about alignment of interests. India has independent ambitions NOT allied with any other force. When key assets and capabilities impinge on this ambition, questions towards it are not political but yes they are strategic decisions. The political problem is for those who start with the assumption that all things this government does is right because they are better then the previous. I have never conflated a political view with a policy decision. Imagining aircraft selections to be a simple exercise of which aircraft technically is best is at best a myopic exercise - as Parikkar explained to the IAF a la MMRCA saga.

As for me, do not want to see ANY American fighter aircraft in Indian colors. Above, was simply letting the fan boys know the views of some who have not given up on this independent ambition as the best way to serve Indian interests.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5369
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote: Indians who say "PM can do this or that" are affected by American hawa. The US President has great powers to push some things through despite opposition. He is a powerful man. The PM in India does not wield such power. Namo cannot clean up PSUs the way you say. It is a fundamental defect in out Indian education system that Indians grow up not understanding how Indian government works but see the publicized American model and think it is similar here
Shiv ji, it is OT. I hold a well researched view that the Indian PM is actually more powerful in law and privileges than the American one. Not only the position enjoys more rights in theory, but in practice too the powers they hold in fact question the checks and balances of our constitutional scheme.

What you are referring to is not an issue of power but an issue of the level of herculean change needed to move the system. It is a very big strategic decision. A decision that a Modi has not taken, despite some rumblings. He is more comfortable in working with the system than in destroying it. IMO: A far bigger challenge. His approach is to reform from within. I personally fundamentally disagree with the approach. But he has the right to try his way. Need to see some results though. We have had only one partial start in NDA 1 to enact this level of a change but the headwinds are so great that political leadership usually backs down. Waiting for my Hercules :)
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:What we ought to buy is LCA in large numbers
Well for once we're in agreement.

Of course if the IAF/MoD does proceed with a program for a 'single engined', 'medium weight' import, it'll be down to a choice between the Gripen E, F-16 & F-35.
Locked