'Make in India' Single engined fighter

maxratul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 16:44

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

Postby maxratul » 13 Oct 2016 12:17

If the priority is to boost IAF strength, then anything other than the F35 does not make sense. If priority is some sort of MII play, then it makes sense to buy the most mature platform, i.e F16. Unkil ji is ordering laddoos as we speak.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

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

Postby Marten » 13 Oct 2016 13:48

K Mehta wrote:This thread should be titled Single engine MUlti Role Fighter (SMURF) thread.

:rotfl:

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 13 Oct 2016 18:17

shiv wrote:
Gyan wrote:The only logical explanation of this RFI for a new Single Engined Fighter Aircraft is that GoI feels that HAL has mucked up setting up of the production line and there is no possibility of HAL producing even the first 40 let alone 120 aircraft within any reasonable time. Therefore they have decided to find a quick but dirty way to get Pvt sector to develop some expertise in the field. Personally I would prefer that even PAKFA be transferrred to Pvt Sector.

May or may not be correct but the "second line of fighter" idea has been doing the rounds for at least 6 months and probably existed before that while Rafale negotiation was going on


I am not connecting the new RFI with Rafale deal. My "guess" is that we are underestimating the political resolve of present dispensation. They may be polite but they mean what they say. When Modi and Parrikar told Defense sector to buck up, I think that their comment was underestimated. Now they are putting alternate action plan into effect. I am coupling this "guess" with another of my "estimate" that HAL is nowhere producing even 4 LCA per annum let alone 16-25 LCA per annum which were claimed by HAL Chairman in his April 2016 interview. Companies like TATAs are now in aerospace sector for 11-12 years and have substantial production of hundreds of crores. People here on BRF do not like to hear it but HAL/DPSU are producing products with 90% foreign components (in the material value of the product). Take a low tech Carl Gustaf, inspite of production for many years, inspite of of ToT agreement, the foreign components are 75%+ of the material value of the product. OFB is unable to increase production inspite of heavy demand from Army. In this scenario, with no prospects of old players improving, New blood will be given a chance. Pvt sector will also start with license manufacturing but I think it is hoped that they will be able to absorb technology and scale up unlike OFB-DPSU

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 13 Oct 2016 18:51

shiv wrote:
I find "Combat Hawk" an attractive alternative. The downside is HAL again - unless private players can be roped in.

HAL was doing excellent there in Hawk, wasn't it?? Some 18/yr or something and prod run to finish ahead of dead line, IIRC??

Wonder if IAF has given it a thought. As per what I have heard IN is very interested in Combat Hawk.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Oct 2016 20:28

I think Combat Hawk will be a good CAS and interdiction aircraft - which could probably combine with Tejas as escort to perform missions into shitistan. I am not talking DPSA here but 100-150 km inside hitting logistics, bridges etc should be perfectly feasible

If numbers is the problem - then pumping up numbers by 100 (6-7 squadrons) should be easier to do than F-16 or Gripen line

In the longer term we are still looking and AMCA/PAKFA/whatever

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 13 Oct 2016 20:38

Gyan wrote: I am coupling this "guess" with another of my "estimate" that HAL is nowhere producing even 4 LCA per annum let alone 16-25 LCA per annum which were claimed by HAL Chairman in his April 2016 interview. Companies like TATAs are now in aerospace sector for 11-12 years and have substantial production of hundreds of crores.

To be fair the MD never said 16-25. He said in a TV interview that 16 is max and it won't happen till 2018-19 at the earliest (Could be later also) Tatas etc may be able to help with Tejas but right now all they do is make cabins or doors. That does not mean that they can't do more but it is a question of time.

Ideally
1. There should be NO depletion in numbers by 2021 - but this ain't gonna happen
2. Numbers should actually go up to 42-45 squadrons by 2025-30. This WILL NOT happen without "infusion" of some other aircraft and GoI and IAF know this well. Tejas will not be cancelled because any hope of making up fleet strength is dependent on the induction of at least 100-120 Tejas, Even with that we will need another 100-150 aircraft to make it to 45 squadrons

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 13 Oct 2016 20:45

Another news:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/india-launches-global-search-for-single-engine-fighter-jets


India Launches Global Search for Single-Engine Fighter Jets

By: Vivek Raghuvanshi, October 12, 2016 (Photo Credit: Indian Ministry of Defence)

NEW DELHI - India has begun a fresh program to acquire single-engine fighter aircraft to be built in India on the basis of foreign technology, as invitations have been sent privately through Indian Embassies to "some overseas participants" to partake in the program, according to an official at the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
Among the planes expected to be in the running are Lockheed Martin's F-16 Block 70 and Saab's Gripen E.

"If it is single-engine fighter, there are mainly two: Lockheed Martin and Saab," Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired Indian Air Force Air Marshal says.

"It appears that Lockheed Martin and Saab would get shortlisted if it is confirmed that only three countries, including Russia, have been

approached to seek their response
," Daljit Singh, retired IAF Air Marshal and defense analyst, said.

The announcement for a fresh fighter program comes within a month after India committed to buying 36 Rafale fighters from France at a cost of $8.85 billion.

Defense officials here have given no detail about the how the overseas vendor will be picked, but analysts say a government-to-government transaction will be the preferred path.

"It would also be reasonable to infer that India is mulling a Government-to-Government (G2G) deal. Selection will, of course, be

based on trials and price offered by the manufacturers from these countries," says Amit Cowshish, MoD's former additional financial adviser.
The new fighter program is meant to replace 11 squadrons (one squadron equals 18 aircraft) of the Russian MiG 21 and MiG 27 aircraft, which are retiring in the next ten years. The Indian Air Force is already facing shortage of combat jets as it has around 33-34 operational fighter squadrons, while officials believe they would need 45 squadrons in a hypothetical confrontation with China or Pakistan.

The recently contracted Rafale, the domestically-produced Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and the Sukhoi SU-30MKI will not be able to fill the gap in the fleet strength, said an Indian Air Force official.

The purchase of an additional single-engine fighter aircraft will not affect the homemade Tejas, say analysts.

The new plane, if eventually acquired, would be the ninth type of Indian fighter aircraft, joining an inventory of Sukhoi-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Jaguar, MiG-29, MiG-27, MiG-21, Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and Rafale jets.

While IAF hunts for a new vendor to build planes in India, analysts say the government can ensure in the selection that adequate technologies are transferred that can help other ongoing aerospace programs.

" A long-term partnership that involves large production in India and addresses exports jointly will result in significant technology flow. ... The partnership should be mandated such that maximum advantage is gained for Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) development," says Matheswaran.

The Indian Air Force IAF has proposed to build locally a fifth-generation aircraft, the AMCA, but the program is only in the concept stage.


Why would they go to Russia?? Just a formality??

Would be best if its G2G deal.

If this new fighter is suppose to replace MiG-21 as well, WTF is Tejas replacing?? :wink:

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

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

Postby vina » 13 Oct 2016 20:51

Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired Indian Air Force Air Marshal

This gent and the recently deceased Parvez Khokar are the original shills for Gripen, who were bent on sabotaging and running down the Tejas at EVERY stage whether justified or not . To think that this gent fancied getting the "reigns" of HAL and was indeed even an advisor of sorts for HAL . Thank Goodness, he has been put out to pasture.

I am waiting for the day when their ilk will be forced to sing "Hosannas" to the 40 year old F16 when it enters service in India (it will be closer to 50 then) and will probably outlive many of them to be close to 90 in India and how they will praise that as a "state of art" 4.5G whatever when it enters service, while they bad mouthed the LCA as "obsolete when it enters service ". Then you can ask them , how is it that a 40 year old piece of t*urd smells sweet , while a far newer design is deemed "obsolete" and why did they buy the 40 year old lump of turd and how will they keep it for another 40 more and do LM and their peers in other countries think of them as a bunch of suckers?

That dear folks will be SCHADENFREUDE. Like they say, "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold", wait for the day when you can kick their credibility in the gonads and really rub it in.
Last edited by vina on 13 Oct 2016 20:57, edited 1 time in total.

asinh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 23:26

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

Postby asinh » 13 Oct 2016 20:54

Actually what we need is a single engine Rafale. Think of the commonality.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 13 Oct 2016 21:05

JayS wrote:
shiv wrote:
I find "Combat Hawk" an attractive alternative. The downside is HAL again - unless private players can be roped in.

HAL was doing excellent there in Hawk, wasn't it?? Some 18/yr or something and prod run to finish ahead of dead line, IIRC??

Wonder if IAF has given it a thought. As per what I have heard IN is very interested in Combat Hawk.


The hawk is no where in the league of LCA or alternatives being sought. This not a game of fun alternatives but a gap in the fleet for the roles India needs out of an Air Force. We live in a serious threat environment and aircraft are not just for the purpose of numbers. I am firmly in the LCA camp on this tender. I am sure a few more experiments can be tried like a consortium of Pvt Sector before giving up to foreign players.

Gyan ji post resonates with me in terms of actual delivery timelines of LCA from HAL. The production rate needs to be scaled up. I hope HAL manages. SP3 has been delivered (I think). Someone posted in Mar-Apr that 03 yrs needed to steady the assembly has been achieved and we should see better production rate. It is still not there. If HAL can do 18 Hawks per annum (and it is marginally cheaper to Tejas) why can't HAL do 18 Tejas per annum?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 13 Oct 2016 21:18

shiv wrote:To be fair the MD never said 16-25. He said in a TV interview that 16 is max and it won't happen till 2018-19 at the earliest (Could be later also) Tatas etc may be able to help with Tejas but right now all they do is make cabins or doors. That does not mean that they can't do more but it is a question of time.


HAL would help set up the facility with full ToT to willing organisation. Similar arrangement was in HTFE25 tender as well.

In one interview TSR said HAL can ramp up till 25/yr if all the component manufacturing and assembly is outsourced which is 80% of total work, and HAL would do only 20% of the work which is integration, testing, qualification/certification etc.

From what I have gathered so far. Wings assembly already outsourced (L&T). Tenders were out for Front Fuselage and Mid Fuselage assembly. These are the three modules for which Tier1 company is needed. There are ~170 LRUs being made in India in LCA and 50+ out of these have been already given out. All the metal components of LCA are outsourced. Some composite components are being manufactured by TAML.

The new fighter 99% will be F-16. Even SAAAB cannot scale the way we want. Only LM can do. The tender needs to be issued, evaluations to be done, price negotiation to be done and deal finalised. It will take min 2 yrs for that. It will take min 1yr to set up bare plant here (Land/Legal/Manpower/Construction etc etc). Then shifting the assembly line and restarting it here will take about a year. Meanwhile after the deal is signed LM would give order to all its suppliers for components. Which will take 2-3yrs for long lead items (IIRC LM line in US has work till 2017 only, so LM does not have buffer orders to divert anything to India, it has to be from scratch new batch). These two things can happen simultaneously, but anyhow the first fighter cannot come in less than 3yrs from the deal signing. Most optimistically we are looking at 2+3=5yrs for 1st jet to come out. That is Early 2022. This all assuming the India specific blk70/72 will be ready by 2019-20 latest.

So questions are:
1. what will be the order size and what will be the max rate of production of second fighter.
2. Can LCA production be indeed bumped up to 25/yr by 2021 if GOI fully throws its weight behind HAL??
3. Which opportunity cost is better in long term, taking hit in years to fill same number or having to deal with another type of fighter for long time.
4. What is it that this new fighter could do and LCA couldn't in 2022.

I am only thinking from IAF perspective here. From other point of views there are other factors to the Opportunity cost.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

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

Postby Kakkaji » 13 Oct 2016 21:26

vina wrote:
Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired Indian Air Force Air Marshal

This gent and the recently deceased Parvez Khokar are the original shills for Gripen, who were bent on sabotaging and running down the Tejas at EVERY stage whether justified or not . To think that this gent fancied getting the "reigns" of HAL and was indeed even an advisor of sorts for HAL . Thank Goodness, he has been put out to pasture.


Matheswaran is now heading Reliance Aerospace and thus most likely in-charge of offsets from the Rafale order. He played his cards right, and is not going anywhere. :(

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 13 Oct 2016 21:32

deejay wrote:The hawk is no where in the league of LCA or alternatives being sought. This not a game of fun alternatives but a gap in the fleet for the roles India needs out of an Air Force. We live in a serious threat environment and aircraft are not just for the purpose of numbers. I am firmly in the LCA camp on this tender. I am sure a few more experiments can be tried like a consortium of Pvt Sector before giving up to foreign players.


No it is not but we have been discussing this option before and in short term to achieve 45-50 Sq this could be a valid option. I am as much as you are, in LCA camp. :mrgreen:, In fact I have previously even opposed idea of combat hawk as a cheap mud-mover second-front fighter, and endorsed strip-down LCA for that role. Just so that we get to manufacture more of our own product and learn more out of it and IAF will have huge commonality advantage. But this is passé. Let it be.

deejay wrote:Someone posted in Mar-Apr that 03 yrs needed to steady the assembly has been achieved and we should see better production rate. It is still not there. If HAL can do 18 Hawks per annum (and it is marginally cheaper to Tejas) why can't HAL do 18 Tejas per annum?

Current line can do 8/annum it seems, second line in proposal if cleared could take it to 16/yr. But to go beyond that HAL need Tier1 suppliers which they are looking into. As I said, GOI needs to throw its weight behind HAL here. But I do not see a sincere attempt to do so. If I were in govt, I would have even gone to such an extent that entire tier1 projects be bankrolled by govt with assured business for x no of years. Essentially a govt owned company run fully by pvt player. He can buy back equity as per contractual time bound plan and own it. This is to remove risk from the venture and give all the motivation for willing players to come onboard. I don't see why someone like Tatas could refuse such offer.

OR GOI know something about ability of pvt sector that we have no idea about. In that case its all invalid. But then in that case, those same companies are equally useless in participating this new Fighter manufacturing as well. Because one can only take you to a well, finally you have to drink yourself.
Last edited by JayS on 13 Oct 2016 21:38, edited 2 times in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 13 Oct 2016 21:33

Kakkaji wrote:
vina wrote:This gent and the recently deceased Parvez Khokar are the original shills for Gripen, who were bent on sabotaging and running down the Tejas at EVERY stage whether justified or not . To think that this gent fancied getting the "reigns" of HAL and was indeed even an advisor of sorts for HAL . Thank Goodness, he has been put out to pasture.


Matheswaran is now heading Reliance Aerospace and thus most likely in-charge of offsets from the Rafale order. He played his cards right, and is not going anywhere. :(


Investment in retirement plan starting very early. Bhery fhrudent only.. :lol:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Oct 2016 21:59

7 fighter types + 2.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... f_2016.htm

AR The capability build-up in the IAF is a continuous process and is being carried out through the procurement of state-of-the-art aircraft and upgradation of legacy fleets. [B]The induction of remaining contracted Su-30 MKI, LCA and Rafale aircraft, the ‘Make in India’ Fighter, the FGFA and the AMCA will ensure that the IAF transforms into a modern and a formidable force. At the same time, upgrades of MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and Jaguar aircraft will ensure that these aircraft continue to maintain combat and operational relevance.[B] Similarly, in the Transport and Helicopter fleets, the induction of C-17, C-130, Apache Attack Helicopters and Chinook Heavy Lift Helicopters will give an added boost to these fleets. IL-76 and An-32 aircraft and Mi-17 helicopters are also being upgraded with better avionics and systems to enhance their performance. With the induction of Hawk-132 and Pilatus PC-7 Mk-II aircraft, the IAF trainer fleet is already a modern and capable fleet.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Oct 2016 22:21

Aero India mag.

Observers assert that the long-delayed
deal was finalised because India has
identified the French fighters for their
‘strategic’ role — to deliver nuclear
weapons. At present, IAF is supposed to
use modified Mirage-2000 fighters in a
nuclear strike role. But these upgraded
Mirages are scheduled to be phased
out of service from 2030 onwards. A
replacement for them would be needed,
and India’s comfort with Paris on these
matters makes it logical to go with Rafales
for this critical task[b].


Though the Modi government would
claim savings of several million in the hard
bargain, there is some disquiet about the
exorbitant cost of the acquisition. With
India, Dassault had already established
a benchmark in the MMRCA acquisition,
where it had quoted a price for 18 fully
built Rafales, just like the 36 fighters that
India is now buying. Rafale's bid for 126
aircraft was for about Rs. 90,000 crore – Rs.
715 crore per fighter after adding all costs.
Now, India would be paying over Rs 1,600
crore per aircraft – more than double
the earlier price. With that, some critics
say, the IAF could buy two-and-a-half
Sukhoi-30 MKI fighters – a heavy fighter as
capable as the Rafale.

However, officials would point out that
the current contract includes elements
that were not there in the 126 fighter
MMRCA tender, including a superior
weapons package with Meteor missiles;
and performance-based logistics, which
bind Dassault to ensure that a stipulated
percentage of the Rafale fleet remains
combat-ready at all times.

The induction of these 36 fighters is
expected to bridge the shortfall in the
depleting number of fighter squadrons
in the IAF. The IAF currently has 32 fighter
squadrons against an authorisation
of 42, and this number is expected to
come down to 25 by 2022. Rafales, to be
inducted between 2019 and 2023, will
make for only two squadrons.


This still leaves a huge gap, to be filled by either
the indigenous Tejas fighters, or another
foreign fighter such as the Swedish Gripen
or the American F-16, both of which have
offered to ‘Make in India’.

In 2015, Defence Minister Parrikar
suggested the Rafale order could be
scaled down without worry because
future gaps in the IAF’s fleet could be
plugged with indigenous light combat
aircraft.

This line of thinking has been
vehemently opposed by large sections
of the IAF saying that the indigenous
LCA fighter (Tejas) would have a different
role and should not be confused with
the requirements of a medium multi-role
fighter like the Rafale.
:roll:

[b]India’s is now one of the most diverse air
forces, with Western and Russian- origin
aircraft with Indian and other systems
incorporated in them. The IAF has been
attempting to narrow the diversity to
optimise utilisation and bring down the
cost of operations. IAF logisticians, who
already struggle to maintain, repair and
support six different types of fighters –
the Sukhoi-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Jaguar,
MiG-29, MiG-27, MiG-21 and the Tejas Light
Combat Aircraft – may hardly welcome
the prospect of a seventh fighter type,
which would require expensive, tailormade
base infrastructure, repair depots
and spare parts chains.


The government is scouting for another
fighter to be inducted in large numbers
and produced in India under the ‘Make in
India’ initiative. In the years to come, the
indigenously built Light Combat Aircraft
Tejas and the Fifth Generation Fighter
Aircraft from Russia may join the force,
adding to the diversity.


Defence sources
have made it clear that the deal for 36
Rafale jets does not come with an option
clause. This means that more orders will
come only through fresh talks.


WTF onlee.

This has led
to fresh pitches from those who lost out
on the first deal including Boeing, Saab
and Lockheed Martin. India is looking at
shortlisting one more aircraft, besides
Tejas, to be manufactured domestically.
Rafale entered service with the French
Navy in 2004 and with the French Air Force
in 2006. In 2015, Egypt and Qatar ordered
24 Rafales each. As of June 30, 2016, 152
Rafale aircraft had been delivered.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4609
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 13 Oct 2016 22:56

Neshant wrote:Is the LCA being killed ?

I hope not.

It will be the biggest joke if the flagship aerospace project of the nation is flushed down the toilet.


if it is being killed, then HAL has a very big part in the killing. They are the ones who are not able to deliver fast enough or scale up to large enough numbers fast. Pouring scorn on the IAF on this matter will no longer be right. Where in the world does an order for 120 fighters come up easily nowadays? And yet, with such a large order in the kitty, HAL is only thinking of at most 16 airplanes per year and even that I somehow don't believe they'll achieve. This is a firm that had more than enough warning that Tejas production needed to be stepped up. And we are still where we are.

D.Mahesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 02:57

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

Postby D.Mahesh » 13 Oct 2016 23:07

vina wrote:
Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired Indian Air Force Air Marshal

This gent and the recently deceased Parvez Khokar are the original shills for Gripen...SCHADENFREUDE. Like they say, "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold", wait for the day when you can kick their credibility in the gonads and really rub it in.


Question their judgment, which as the keyboard khamandus we are, we will. That's as far as you should go. Late A.Cmde. Khokar commanded the ITPS and AM Matheswaran wrote our current offensive ops manual. They earned the right to demand the airframe of choice. Disagree, but stay classy

D.Mahesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 02:57

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

Postby D.Mahesh » 13 Oct 2016 23:12

Kartik wrote:
Neshant wrote:Is the LCA being killed ?

I hope not.

It will be the biggest joke if the flagship aerospace project of the nation is flushed down the toilet.


if it is being killed, then HAL has a very big part in the killing.


Do you guys realise that producing an operational aircraft in quantities is not merely a matter of designing and building one ship - it's a matter of building an ENTIRE industry. If IN is builders Navy it's been 50 years in the making.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4609
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 13 Oct 2016 23:41

Austin wrote:
Neshant wrote:
Why cant IAF/MOD rope in the same Pvt Player that builds single engine New Fighter to build Tejas in the same number if IAF is looking for quick bump in numbers and HAL cant deliver ?

what so great about F-16 or Gripen that cant be developed for Tejas ?

What about the sedation charges that the current GOI is happy to bring , How about bringing the same on who is hell bent on Sabotaging Tejas ?


Probably because the new private sector company needs a LOT of hand-holding, a lot of training/teaching and a lot of infrastructure building and machinery..and there is no way on earth that HAL, which is the only firm in India that knows anything about manufacturing and assembling airplanes, can spare it's engineers for that task? What LM is proposing is to actually transfer the assembly line, and also to provide the knowhow and the expertise to the Indian private sector company to ramp up. There will be a lot of engineers on deputation for several years who will train the Indian firm's engineers and technicians till they are able to take over all operations on their own.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4609
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 14 Oct 2016 00:35

Zynda wrote:Pvt players in India except a lot of hand holding to be done and most importantly the costs should be borne by someone else. With Tejas, I don't know if HAL is in the position or wants to do the hand holding part (or even if Pvt Players want to work with HAL. At least on the engineering side, most Pvt Players will avoid working with Govt entities like a plague). Thats where LM/SAAB comes in...Govt will take care of the financial side...LM/SAAB will take care of the intellectual side. Desi Pvt entities will be responsible for ancillary activities.


Agree 100%.

And I have seen how ADA/HAL come along to some large private sector companies with engineering experience, and then engage in talks that go nowhere. Eventually the private sector firms stop looking at these companies as having any possible opportunities. I've seen ADA people having talks on AMCA and even after 6 months of talking, it just went nowhere. No work came out of it and I don't really expect any to come in the future either.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 14 Oct 2016 01:15

Kartik wrote:
Neshant wrote:Is the LCA being killed ?

I hope not.

It will be the biggest joke if the flagship aerospace project of the nation is flushed down the toilet.


if it is being killed, then HAL has a very big part in the killing. They are the ones who are not able to deliver fast enough or scale up to large enough numbers fast. Pouring scorn on the IAF on this matter will no longer be right. Where in the world does an order for 120 fighters come up easily nowadays? And yet, with such a large order in the kitty, HAL is only thinking of at most 16 airplanes per year and even that I somehow don't believe they'll achieve. This is a firm that had more than enough warning that Tejas production needed to be stepped up. And we are still where we are.


Kartik - HAL cannot scale up for 120 fighters when they have an order for only 40 (which is the situation Parrikar changed) & when their entire capex plans went awry under the dividends fund UPA scheme (look through the PSU annual reports - not just HAL, under the guise of dividends all the money was soaked up). HAL was/is under MODs thumb and everything is/was micromanaged by vested interests.

This is where it becomes bizarre & the contours become clear - HAL doesn't have money because no firm orders are placed. Goes to MOD. MOD says ask IAF. Rtd gent heads commission which writes report on how PSUs are sitting on piles of cash, and are doing nothing. Yet no orders are placed beyond 40. Lets just say a lot of strings are pulled in a variety of ways and folks who are pulled won't even know who got what done. Others are placated as they are told "Ask airframe of your choice"... errr.... when the revenue budget has never been met for current ops airframes, what moonshine is being peddled to ask for the best (read most expensive), 4.5 Gen fighter? why would the AF do this?

where will that money come from, won't it affect overall MOF outlay for programs like LCA. DRDO head went public last year and revealed most programs were stalled because budget was not there for the projected manpower let alone infra.

The LCA program was targeted - both from outside (the Gripen lobby in particular), from within (folks like rtd gent who repeatedly decried its capabilities even against TSPAF stating as a class light aircraft should give way to MMRCA & others were used to land jibes via media leaks).

Only way HAL spoke back was by using people like Shukla and Tarmak without whom we would have no idea of what/where the LCA was.

Programs can be killed in a multitude of ways - LCA, Arjun et al have faced "realities" most of which can never be spoken of on in an open forum..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 14 Oct 2016 01:41

all said and done more i look into this, more the french (over) confidence on the rafale becomes clear. the original deal was clearly murky as hell. it would have put paid to most of pending requirements (and su-30 would have remained at 48% serviceability, LCA would have trundled along endlessly).. even as we imported white elephants..

best way to fix HAL? get the politicians out of the way and demand results.. their new ceo (mr suvarna raju) is ex R&D and has spoken up for the LCA. support such people.

whether BEML or HAL or others -- psu's are a convenient scapegoat for a whole bunch of wheeler dealers who use them to make their corrupt activities legit.. like passing off imported tatras as "indigenous" or tomorrow.. some MMRCA as "indian" ..

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4609
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 14 Oct 2016 01:48

Ankar wrote:So how come IAF is ready to consider F-16IN or Blk70 or whatever when it has already failed the MMRCA evaluation?


because the performance bar was set so high that a couple of the fighters that are themselves considered as the benchmark when it comes to performance, could not meet it. And the only ones who could, the Typhoon and the Rafale come with a price tag so prohibitive that even purchasing 2 squadrons will eat up a vast amount of the IAF's capital expenditure budget.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 14 Oct 2016 02:08

^^ looks like the performance bar was all over the place in some criteria - eg radar performance - set so low that the MiG-35 guys went to town about meeting it. (and weren't selected) and the bar elsewhere (performance of airframe) was very high.
i suspect IAF took mirage-2000-9 specs (which were very similar to some of the "leaked parameters") and refined the rest based on su-30 etc and went out with it.. the whole MMRCA thing happened and then there were reports of IAF considering impact of J-20 once pics emerged...serious lacunae about how we forecast threats and prepare to face them.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4609
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 14 Oct 2016 03:55

deleted by self- double post.
Last edited by Kartik on 14 Oct 2016 03:59, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4609
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 14 Oct 2016 03:58

Kartik wrote:
Marten wrote:Karthik, if the orders for more than 40 overall were to be placed, we would see corresponding orders for components being placed with suppliers. Currently there is only talk, no indents have been placed. So all the talk of line expansion is just hot air. HAL dare not set up a line without MoD blessings and an order from its customer. So what is this B's propagated about external suppliers having enough spares but local ones being unable to ramp up? Place the orders first if you want them to ramp up. They're idle right now. Make no mistake, this is Tejas being throttled. And the excuses are amazing.


Indent has been placed for 80 Mk1As. The ACM is on record stating that the IAF has ordered, not looking to order, 120 Tejas fighters. And forget the rest of the orders, they are just about managing to get to the 8 aircraft per year, despite having known that this was the smallest viable number for an assembly line. And if you read Ananth Krishnan's report, it is by having some of its engineers slog on weekends. And despite having had the order for 20+20 Tejas fighters for a long time. Why the last minute rush, like this entire order came out of the blue? Why hasn't HAL gone all out to build 16 Tejas per year to shorten the delivery period? And what happens to Navy orders? Add 50-60 of those and given this snail's pace of manufacturing, they won't get any till 2026 or thereabouts.

By the end of this year, the IAF was supposed to have 4 Tejas fighters, now was that calendar year or fiscal year? I don't think they'll have SP4 delivered by the end of the calendar year. Meanwhile, even a PAC Kamra is churning out 20-25 JF-17s per year..yes its an all alloy and metal fighter, but for PAC Kamra that itself is a huge step up. HAL is not PAC Kamra, it is a PSU that has been assembling Su-30MKIs for God's sake, hundreds of them. For us, the composite manufacturing process was not supposed to be such a big bottleneck.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 14 Oct 2016 04:07

Kartik, Mk1A SOP was defined but recently. It can be substantially different internally from Mk1. So the indent for the first production run remains 40 airframes. 8/yr i.e. 5 years till Mk2 is established makes sense in that respect.

First 40 Mk1s are also not to same standard, first 20 were IOC, second 20 FOC. Again, IOC would need a different SOP and then be upg to FOC. It won't just be software.

Also, production won't be linear. The actual production run will move from something like 4-6 per year to 8 and beyond (if the agreement is for 16 in the final run itself).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 14 Oct 2016 04:13

HAL IMHO just wants to keep the first LCA line up and running till Mk1A starts being made. That means a low production run (8-12/year) makes sense from retaining LCA experienced folks on that line itself. Second order for 80, in five years is where the 16 number comes from hence 2017-2021 (exact five years). Its just plain scaling. The same approach has been followed on all our prior programs too. The rapid inductions come via imports from a much larger facility abroad (e.g. Irkutsk etc).

In short, if we want larger numbers of LCAs/year, and the line to remain active.

1. Order more Mk1s or
2. Simplify MK1A & rapidly move production to it.
3.Add Mk1A orders or move to Mk2 (with further iterative changes to Mk1A), not easy, see Gripen NG, but easier than Mk1 to Mk2

My take is Mk1A is nothing but Mk2 - avionics etc with only the engine change & internal fuel increase, plug change not there. It will still have new avionics planned for Mk2 in all likelihood, and all or most of the LRU reallocation planned for Mk2. So certification challenges.

Also, very skeptical of Israeli statements of "ready" 2052. Is it really? Where are the inducted fighters. I suspect we are the launch customer & many of the A2G modes will require painstaking debugging and verification.

That's where the timeline is being challenged.
The icing on cake would be if ADA/HAL truly have a proper weight saving and aero improvement plan for Mk1A which has it meet IAF ASR without the Ge414 engine. Very hard.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 14 Oct 2016 04:32

My view of Mk1A is as follows: If this is what is required for HAL to feel that Tejas is their baby, then so be it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 14 Oct 2016 04:37

^^ requires a mindset change at HAL leadership level.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 14 Oct 2016 04:48

Karan M: Sent you PM. Pls Check :)

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

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

Postby vina » 14 Oct 2016 07:02

The LCA program was targeted - both from outside (the Gripen lobby in particular), from within (folks like rtd gent who repeatedly decried its capabilities even against TSPAF stating as a class light aircraft should give way to MMRCA & others were used to land jibes via media leaks)


Oh , absolutely. Consider idiocies that were floated around like the following. Just a few examples .

1. "Brake Problem " - Sure, the tuning of the ABS system will go through a couple of iterations. But as far as I can see, the brakes of the LCA are carbon-carbon brakes. The absolute cutting edge there is and outside of aviation , the place you will find it is in Formula 1! . Then the canard , oh, brakes are "underperforming" . Anyone who knows anything about those (watch videos of F1 brakes in action), for the first few hundred milli seconds (say 1 sec), the brakes WILL underperform, the carbon brakes work best only when they are red hot (F1 brakes glow red when braking , sort of like a lump of iron heated and pulled out of a furnace) and that is when they grip like a demon and the brakes are heating up initially! So, you take this fact and spin it into a "problem" and the assorted Village Idiots who dont know better, in the media and otherwise start spreading it

2. "Aerodynamic Problems" - This refinement cycle is part of EVERY development, aerodynamic refinements happen even after planes enter service and are refined continuously as issues get identified. Again Village Idiots pick up whispers floated by motivated insiders and blow it up as "problems"

3. "Performance Shortfall" - Perish the fact that the FCS in it's current release, is not fully certified to allow the airplane to operate at design limits , so turning rates etc will fall short of full design potential. Then you hide that part, go to town about "performance shortfall" , IAF "forced" to accept less than ASR aircraft (WTF, the eurofighter entered service with a lump of concrete in place of the radar in it's nose, the Rafale STILL doesnt have an AESA in French Service.. why the very same IAF got Mirage 2000s with barely any capability beyond it's internal cannon) and don't mention that future s/w upgrades will provide full capability.

Trouble is the ADA (whatever reason - govt org, official secrecy whatever, IAF apathy-nay hostility) has not been communicating enough and putting out information on development timelines and issues and road maps. In fact, we know more about the F-35 and it's issues and problems and fixes than about the LCA. Sure one can argue, why bother. But that is not how the world works. You NEED to SELL the plane , or you leave interested parties to bad mouth your product . No one talks about those and in the presence of silence from official folks, the field is left open to the Village Idiots.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 14 Oct 2016 08:24

indranilroy wrote:My view of Mk1A is as follows: If this is what is required for HAL to feel that Tejas is their baby, then so be it.

There was an interview or an article that pointed out that the ADA did not design Tejas as an aircraft that could be easily manufactured or maintained. That was not on their minds. A lot of components would have been chosen or placed differently if a hands-on manufacturer had played a role in the design process. I don't know if this is a lame excuse blame game or not.

I recall Kota Harinarayana in an interview stating how they needed, for the Tejas, a pipe that had to be shaped in a specific way. After much searching he found someone who would do it in Mumbai. Now when you hand this design to HAL and say "Find someone to make that and supply it in numbers" the problem hits a new crest.

kapilrdave
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 13:10

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

Postby kapilrdave » 14 Oct 2016 10:26

shiv wrote:I think Combat Hawk will be a good CAS and interdiction aircraft - which could probably combine with Tejas as escort to perform missions into shitistan. I am not talking DPSA here but 100-150 km inside hitting logistics, bridges etc should be perfectly feasible

If numbers is the problem - then pumping up numbers by 100 (6-7 squadrons) should be easier to do than F-16 or Gripen line

In the longer term we are still looking and AMCA/PAKFA/whatever

Please tweet it to Parikkar.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4843
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Neshant » 14 Oct 2016 11:20

How about getting foreign aircraft manufacturers to produce the LCA or parts of it in their factories? They have massive surplus capacity sitting idle.

Saab and LM can surely produce wings & fuselage and other stuff to LCA's specs.

It would be a lot easier to swallow than watching the IAF & import lobby bury the LCA and piss away tens of billions on a single engine foreign plane. More than the money, the blow to national pride will be so great that I don't think i'd be able to stomach hearing anymore about "indigenous" projects without feeling bitterly cynical.

Once the single engine foreign fighter gets in, it will be a gradual moving of the goal post to kill off the LCA. It will go from "lets reduce the # of LCAs to fund this foreign plane's manufacture" to "lets get rid of the LCA altogether as there's no point making 2 single engine planes". With it will die all hope of a local aerospace R&D base and with it will grow the disgust with the incompetence of the Indian management running any defense project.

An even more nauseating feeling will arise when someone talks about spending another 20 yrs and tons of money developing a 2 engine MCA. But its like the boy who cried wolf one too many times. Nobody in their right minds would trust a bunch of incompetents to deliver on an even bigger project when they have never delivered any indigenous big ticket aerospace product into production.

Given their limited resources & smaller size, Pakistan rolling out junk CF-17 can literally hold their heads higher and claim to have a better track record at delivering than HAL.

The more I read this thread, the more ill i feel. I'm going to stop reading or at least try to. I got the LCA book by my bedside and read it for inspiration from time to time but I'm going to banish it to the drawers from now on.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7701
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 14 Oct 2016 11:44

Given the discussion we've had so far, what has become clear is that real bottleneck in mass production of LCA Mk1A in requisite timeline is the lack of industrial base in the country.

Apart from above, we've the other broken pieces of our military-industrial complex but the bottom-line remains above. The problem is exacerbated before we're stuck with our back against the wall due to falling squadron numbers.

The GOI in its wisdom feels that it absolutely needs a third, independent foreign player to mass produce fighters in compressed timeline. And also use the deal to get genuine technological inputs for our aerospace sector.

And this seems more like GOI driven decision than IAF recommended one. IAF would ideally like to have 126 Rafale and be done with it. GOI in its wisdom has come to this conclusion and it looking to address multiple issues with one deal - numbers, technology, private production line etc.

However, there is one question that still remains in my mind - Have we exhausted all means to produce LCA MK2 in required numbers and timeline?

I ask this because the decision for additional production line is pretty drastic.

And while adding another a/c type would not be to liking of IAF, I can see why they would get on board - (a) mature platform by an established entity (b) it serves as a hedge against delays in LCA MK2 - both in terms of R&D and production (c) Push comes to shove, production can be ramped up. (d) IAF does not have to deal with HAL and attendant bureaucracy.

Somewhere I see Rafale numbers going up to 72 or 106. But that is a guess.

My guess is that GOI has tried to address two issues which it could given the timeline - IAF numbers and 'Make-in-India' with genuine tech transfer. After all, production of F-16 Block 70 or Gripen in India with potential to service world market has tremendous optics.

It may have felt that putting together the present MIC in shape with all its attendant issues is something which needs to happen in parallel. Getting it right + IAF numbers + tech boost might not be feasible. GOI has deconstructed the problem and addressed those modules first which are less complex.

GOI commitment towards local MIC is evident from getting HAL+ADA to promise LCA MK2 and making IAF to agree to it with definite numbers. As Karan M said, getting this much done itself has been a tremendous achievement by Parrikar. During course of coming up with this solution, he might have become aware of the challenges and short-falls.

This is a political decision where GOI has got all stakeholders on board. I feel MOD is finally beginning to act as the boss.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 14 Oct 2016 12:20

If the lack of an industrial base is the problem,how come we are able to do so well with ISRO's rockets and sats? For 50+ yrs now we'eve been licence producing both western and eastern/Ru aircraft,helos,engines,etc.Our auto industry is also world class with Mercs,Audis and Beemers...and Jags being made here too.It is the entire management culture and lack of accountability in the DPSUs that is the problem.No hire and fire policy as Mother India/GOI will always forgive delays,poor prod. quality and cost overruns,,with the babus finding a litany of excuses and BS as to why X or Y project hasn't arrived in the hands of the armed forces.Look at the OFB and quality of ammo. Had it been a pvt. contractor/manufacturer,he would've been crucified! This parasitical culture of the DPSUs with huge vested interests waiting to swallow massive budgets,and being in the defence industry concealed with a veil of secrecy,any amount of mischief can be hidden in the name of the "national interest,security reasons".

This is where Mr.Modi has to clean up India first,Swach Bharat has to begin at home,in the corridors of DPSUs and PSUs.

By this argument of a poor industrial culture/infrastructure,then every project whether firang or desi will fail.

saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 334
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

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

Postby saumitra_j » 14 Oct 2016 12:56

Philip wrote:If the lack of an industrial base is the problem,how come we are able to do so well with ISRO's rockets and sats?

Sir, may I remind you that operational life of a rocket is 25 mins to an hour at the most, as opposed to an aircraft which can last for anything from 4000 to 8000 hours so it is not an apples to apples comparison. I understand your frustration about the situation, especially the PSUs but the fact of the matter is that in India, even the private manufacturers have a LONG way to go before they can start supporting a booming aerospace sector. For those thinking why we can't produce LCA in large numbers given our success in auto industry, have we given a thought that to this day, why are the auto companies not designing their own IC engine? Why, in the small segment of cars, the Diesel engine used by multiple manufacturers comes from the SAME company i.e. Fiat? The answer to this will easily explain why we cant build more LCA IMHO.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5691
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 14 Oct 2016 15:09

Kakkaji wrote:
vina wrote:This gent and the recently deceased Parvez Khokar are the original shills for Gripen, who were bent on sabotaging and running down the Tejas at EVERY stage whether justified or not . To think that this gent fancied getting the "reigns" of HAL and was indeed even an advisor of sorts for HAL . Thank Goodness, he has been put out to pasture.


Matheswaran is now heading Reliance Aerospace and thus most likely in-charge of offsets from the Rafale order. He played his cards right, and is not going anywhere. :(


No. He is now "Strategic Consultancy - Defence & Aerospace Business" previously of Reliance Defence Ltd.

What his "friends" said to me was like "he was kicked out from RDL and is jobless now". The "affection" was palpable.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests