'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 25 Oct 2016 03:28

Pratyush wrote:^^^

Sir no one will reopen an assembly line for you, just because you have a requirement for it, the only way for your needs to be met is by the following means,

1 having your own product.
2 by paying for the product that is currently sold by the vendor.

Now which catagory IAF falls in, is known to all.


They can't re-open it because there isn't a shuttered assembly line for the Mirage-2000 anywhere. It's tools, jigs, fixtures, moulds, whatever, were offered, we didn't take it and I'm quite sure that they haven't been stored anywhere, since even storage costs money and unless and until there is a business case to be made for storing these, they will simply be destroyed. Resources and suppliers moved on to the Rafale. So, the Mirage-2000 just cannot be brought back into production like the F-16 can. Therein lies the rub.

This lack of a Mirage-2000 assembly line is also probably one of the reasons for the high cost of the Mirage-2000 I/TI upgrade. Some of the tooling may have had to be re built.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

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

Postby sudeepj » 25 Oct 2016 03:51

Indranil wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Rafale is Mach 1.8+, fwiw. Much better radar in whatever it is that radars do!

This is your argument?


Does the LCA have an integral IRST? What is the relative size of the LCA and the F16 noses? Which will have the bigger radar? Is it a reasonable assumption to think that Apg83 is going to be much better than the first fighter AESA product from IAI? Derby is advertised with a max range of 50-60 kms. Late generation AMRAAMs are advertised with much bigger ranges. Just how many times has the Derby shot down another fighter in a combat situation?

sudeepj wrote:Are you seriously saying that a fighter with a max weapons load of 10 8 tonnes 'does not bring anything additional' compared to a fighter with a max weapons load of 3.5 tonnes?

First you are comparing a medium weight fighter with a light fighter, when the comparison is between light weight fighters.


Not me, it was being put forward by the person who claimed that the F16 did not bring in any additional capability over the LCA. Which is an absurd claim to make! The F16 indeed brings something to the table that we dont have in the LCA.

sudeepj wrote:Is it your contention that 2052 + Derby is better than/comparable to APG-83 + AAMRAAM?

They are comparable. Do you not understand what you are presenting is nothing more than fanboyism!


Hum karein fanboyism, aap karo tau? :-D Aim120D is advertised with a range of 160 kms. Derby with a range of 60kms. Is it fanboyism to assume that a 3rd generation product (APG83) is going to be more refined than a first gen product (El2052)?

sudeepj wrote:Actually, the only sane argument that you have presented till now is that GoI/IAF must be right because they know more. If you just say that as is, it is much stronger argument than what you are currently arguing.


First, acknowledge that they **do** know more.
Second acknowledge that the expertery of random fanboys commenting about as complex a topic as which fighter plane is best for the IAF is non existent.

When you have acknowledged these two facts, you will come to the conclusion that the best we can do is to analyse the different perspectives from which this deal makes or does not make sense. After that when you see people harrumphing and declaring that it could only be bribes, or that it makes ***NO SENSE*** at all.. because they are EXPERTS, EXPERTS I TELL YOU!! you will be :rotfl: like me.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9255
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 25 Oct 2016 03:53

sudeepj wrote:
But the F16 is a 9G fighter when the LCA is 8G! Also much faster than the LCA. It has much longer legs compared to the LCA, It can fire missiles that are proven to work! The radar is awesome! Why do you say it does not deliver anything over and above the LCA? Right now, if IAF has to take on the PLAAF, they will be in the unhappy circumstance of facing an adversary familiar with their primary heavy weight fighter, the Su30.


The F-16C is a 9G fighter, while the Super Hornet is not. Would you still go for a Block 50 F-16 Charlie against aerial combat against the latest gen rhino? Look into what the Viper can hit when it has CFT's, external stores (even lightly armed).

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 25 Oct 2016 03:54

sudeepj wrote:http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article781.html

"The flying qualities of the F-16 with CFTs are essentially unchanged when compared to a non-CFT equipped airplane," said Stephen W. Barter, chief F-16 test pilot and company CFT project pilot. "For most combat flight conditions, it's as if the CFTs are not even there. The surest way for me to tell if CFTs are installed is to look over my shoulder."

When the CFT's are empty or full?

sudeepj wrote:"The CFTs have very little adverse affect on the F-16's renowned performance," said Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, U.S. Air Force project pilot for CFT testing at Eglin. "The aircraft retains its full 9-g capability and flight envelope with the CFTs installed. The drag impact is very small - less than one percent in combat configuration at cruise conditions."

...
A shipset of two CFTs provide a total of 440 U.S. gal, or approximately 3,000 lbs of additional fuel for the F-16. The extra fuel can significantly extend mission range, time on station or time engaged in combat.

I have always contended this less than one percent figure. To me it appears to be increase in form drag alone (i.e. when the CFTs are empty). If, I take a very ideal 10:1 L2D ratio, 3000 extra pounds = 300 lbs of increased induced drag. That is 1.75% of full military thrust at sea level. As one goes higher this percentage will climb. Mind you cruise is typically never at full military thrust. So I am painting the rosiest picture.

sudeepj wrote:This range/persistence enhancement is very valuable for countries that do not have tankers for aerial refueling. For countries that do have tankers, CFTs can reduce the tanker offload demand and extend the fighter's penetration distance

CFTs also increase the F-16's payload flexibility. For medium range air-to-surface missions, CFTs can eliminate the need for wing tanks. This allows doubling the F-16's primary weapon capacity and flying with two, rather than one, types of large weapons in a balanced configuration.
[/quote]
The strengths and weakness of CFTs are well know. Although CFTs can undertake full 9Gs, your rate of turn with partially full or full CFTs will be lower. That is why you heard the test pilots asking the LCA designers not to keep the inboard pylons 8G capable for full drop tank loads. In aerial combats they will get rid of the fuel tanks immediately. If you get into an aerial combat with fuel in your CFTs, you can't discard them. You will have the advantage of staying longer in the fight, but you will not be as agile or maneuverable as your opponent. Therefore, you would like to fight to your strengths, i.e. bring the combat as low altitudes as possible where the fuel consumption rate is the highest.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9255
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 25 Oct 2016 04:03

sudeepj wrote:http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article781.html

"The flying qualities of the F-16 with CFTs are essentially unchanged when compared to a non-CFT equipped airplane," said Stephen W. Barter, chief F-16 test pilot and company CFT project pilot. "For most combat flight conditions, it's as if the CFTs are not even there. The surest way for me to tell if CFTs are installed is to look over my shoulder."

"The CFTs have very little adverse affect on the F-16's renowned performance," said Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, U.S. Air Force project pilot for CFT testing at Eglin. "The aircraft retains its full 9-g capability and flight envelope with the CFTs installed. The drag impact is very small - less than one percent in combat configuration at cruise conditions."

...
A shipset of two CFTs provide a total of 440 U.S. gal, or approximately 3,000 lbs of additional fuel for the F-16. The extra fuel can significantly extend mission range, time on station or time engaged in combat. This range/persistence enhancement is very valuable for countries that do not have tankers for aerial refueling. For countries that do have tankers, CFTs can reduce the tanker offload demand and extend the fighter's penetration distance

CFTs also increase the F-16's payload flexibility. For medium range air-to-surface missions, CFTs can eliminate the need for wing tanks. This allows doubling the F-16's primary weapon capacity and flying with two, rather than one, types of large weapons in a balanced configuration.


The F-16 C flight manual is online. Look at what it can do when it is modestly loaded at a given DI. Its a good performer, but the difference between 8g and 9g is practically negligible. The USN hasn't bought a 9G fighter, and hasn't been willing to pay for 9G capability (in terms of airfarme life) for decades. The Rhino isn't 9G capable, and they didn't want 9G capability in either the F-35C or the F-35B while the USAF did for the F-35A.

Same applies to kinematics in terms of acceleration and top speed. Unless you are gearing up for a speed run or a drag race you really need to look at this with combat representative fuel and weapon loads. For swing role fighters that spend most of their lives carrying EFT's, targeting pods and mixed loads there real world performance is quite a bit inferior to the spec sheet.

The rest of your argument has to do with mission systems. What you get in terms of capability (Northrop/Raytheon's vast AESA experience and F-35 technology that they are thinking about bringing in) you loose in control. Additionally things like IRST's can be bought stand alone. Once there is a pod selected by Boeing, it is fairly certain that either the Legion pod, or the Open pod wold be marketed for all customers given it utilizes open mission systems and can integrate with other architectures. Regardless, you could probably buy an IRST-21 based system from Lockheed even right now, just as others have done (Singapore, Saudi Arabia and soon Qatar). Given that India control's the LCA's avionics architecture they have full control over how and when they integrate an external IRST into the LCA, just has they have done with air-ground targeting pods.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... n-pod.html

The same applies to weapons or anything else. There is nothing holding back the IAF from integrating the AMRAAM, Meteor, or whatever replaces the AMRAAM into the LCA at a time of its choosing. It will take time, and cost money but the systems are owned by the IAF and that will not be the case for most of the sensitive systems on the F-16. Not unless you end up paying F-35 level price.
Last edited by brar_w on 25 Oct 2016 04:28, edited 5 times in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 25 Oct 2016 04:07

sudeepj wrote:
Indranil wrote:This is your argument?


Does the LCA have an integral IRST? What is the relative size of the LCA and the F16 noses? Which will have the bigger radar? Is it a reasonable assumption to think that Apg83 is going to be much better than the first fighter AESA product from IAI? Derby is advertised with a max range of 50-60 kms. Late generation AMRAAMs are advertised with much bigger ranges. Just how many times has the Derby shot down another fighter in a combat situation?

First you are comparing a medium weight fighter with a light fighter, when the comparison is between light weight fighters.


Not me, it was being put forward by the person who claimed that the F16 did not bring in any additional capability over the LCA. Which is an absurd claim to make! The F16 indeed brings something to the table that we dont have in the LCA.

They are comparable. Do you not understand what you are presenting is nothing more than fanboyism!


Hum karein fanboyism, aap karo tau? :-D Aim120D is advertised with a range of 160 kms. Derby with a range of 60kms. Is it fanboyism to assume that a 3rd generation product (APG83) is going to be more refined than a first gen product (El2052)?

sudeepj wrote:Actually, the only sane argument that you have presented till now is that GoI/IAF must be right because they know more. If you just say that as is, it is much stronger argument than what you are currently arguing.


First, acknowledge that they **do** know more.
Second acknowledge that the expertery of random fanboys commenting about as complex a topic as which fighter plane is best for the IAF is non existent.

When you have acknowledged these two facts, you will come to the conclusion that the best we can do is to analyse the different perspectives from which this deal makes or does not make sense. After that when you see people harrumphing and declaring that it could only be bribes, or that it makes ***NO SENSE*** at all.. because they are EXPERTS, EXPERTS I TELL YOU!! you will be :rotfl: like me.

You are right.

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 » 25 Oct 2016 06:26

Indranil wrote:Hakim, your ISRO analogy for heavy lifts using Ariane is flawed. ISRO does not have the capability to do so. The same analogy would be, if India needed heavy fighters, should it not have shopped abroad. The answer is yes. And that is why FGFA makes a lot of sense.

Would ISRO launch sub 2 Ton satellites using Ariane?

Analogies are always flawed - they are meant only to be pointers to a concept. The concept here is what India cannot do at this point in time. India cannot produce 200 fighters in the next 10 years within India. If India could there would be less talk of getting from abroad.

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 » 25 Oct 2016 07:03

brar_w wrote:
shiv wrote:Can the US be bought?

I say yes the US can be bought. The Chinese bought the US in low tech manufacture. Let us buy the US by involving them in so much that they are caught. I am saying this as a person who has written thousands of words cursing the US for its perfidy. But I see US power on the decline and it will seek helping hands. The signs of a decline in US influence are everywhere. Rapprochement with Iran. Philippines mocking the US and Pakistan not bending to anything the US did, and the US gradually accepting what China is catching up even as the US struggles with Russia


With the F-16 (or for that matter, the F-18) offer, the likely path is going to be an assembly line, and production of components that are already produced by foreign customers on it and other aircraft. It is definitely not going to be turned into a bespoke variant with a joint design team making the changes. Similarly, there is unlikely to be any significant TOT when it comes to the sensitive mission systems, or the propulsion technologies. Within those limits Lockheed would be more than happy to let the MOD buy the F-16...getting royalties back for a decade if not more is far better than shuttering a line and only making money through support.

Not only is this a bad deal from a capabilities perspective, its also a bad deal from an industrial perspective. Its clear that the MRCA levels of western aircraft, with the associated technology and/or co-production are unafordable, and the more time that goes by the cheaper MRCA options (such as the F-16) become less viable. If all you end up with are (in the absence of 120 rafales) are a bunch of bad choices, then why not take a risk and set an ambitious goal for the LCA production, with MKI numbers being the hedge?

I wholly agree with this viewpoint. But the risk of its coming true are there - to a small extent. Need to see..

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 » 25 Oct 2016 07:06

JayS wrote:
shiv wrote:What does ISRO do when it needs to launch a satellite that GSLV/PSLV cannot lift? It goes to Ariane.

But let me apply the logic that has been used on this thread. If ISRO must go to Arilane to do things that it is already doing, then someone is trying to kill ISRO.

This is obviously bullshit. ISRO goes on doing what it does and the help of an external agency is taken for things ISRO cannot do. But That does not shut ISRO down

Why would the situation for Tejas be different? The Tejas lline will go on and later AMCA. But when numbers cannot be met, we take the help of an external agency.


You are going tangent to the topic at hand here. The correct comparison would be, despite having PSLV, just because ISRO cannot do enough launches, GOI looks for some other Rocket in the same class as PSLV and then decide to invite them to set shop next to ISRO.

ISRO going to Arian for capacity beyond them is same as buying Su-30 or Rafale because we cannot build our own twin medium or heavy jet. Plus ISRO has been working on GSLV relentlessly and soon will eliminate need of Arian totally, just as, in ideal world, we will build AMCA and will not need to buy another medium fighter from outside.

For us to have a similar situation as Tejas vis-a-vis GSLV, GOI has to invite ESA to make and launch A5/6 from India. Then we will see if that will have any real effect on ISRO or not. Otherwise its Apples vs Oranges.

Fair enough JayS - but it is always counter productive to argue against analogies because that is only a diversion from the main issue. Analogies are always a part of rhetoric which I have employed there. The main issue is India is now incapable of producing 200 x 4.5 gen fighters in 10 years. What to do?

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 » 25 Oct 2016 07:10

Indranil wrote:
NRao wrote:

If the fleet strength is the cause, then buy 120 F-16s from LM under FMS deal. It will be much cheaper and faster, than moving the whole line here, training the people, indigenizing the effort for no technological gains.
.

This in fact might happen - because this is (IMO) the fastest route to increasing numbers until some future date when Indian manufacture catches up. However, as far as I can tell, it will not fit easily into the much bandied about talk of "make in India" any more than Apache and Chinook are being made in India

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 » 25 Oct 2016 07:19

JayS wrote:Noob question, is the F16 blk70/72 version ready for production the moment order is given??

This question reminded me of a thought I had. We kaeep talking Block 50/70 whatever. These "blocks" are, as far as I can tell, undates that will equip newer fighters for the US and its allies. India (knowing what we need and how we tend to go into detail about integration of platfors) is unlikely to accept unmodified "latest" Block XX. There may be a hotch-potch mix of earlier blocks and later ones. I suspect newer F-16s are meant to integrate well with the new network warfare that is being brought in with the induction of the F-35. India may not want that exactly - but something that leaves a "hole/gap" in an aircraft into which some Indian/Israeli avionics can go, capable of interacting with Russian avionics and weapons.

Just my guess..

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 25 Oct 2016 07:37

shiv wrote: I suspect newer F-16s are meant to integrate well with the new network warfare that is being brought in with the induction of the F-35. India may not want that exactly - but something that leaves a "hole/gap" in an aircraft into which some Indian/Israeli avionics can go, capable of interacting with Russian avionics and weapons.

Just my guess..


Customization has its own issues. It probably requires a whole lot of time to certify whatever you plug that hole with. Does it make sense to customize a sunset platform?

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 » 25 Oct 2016 07:52

Cybaru wrote:
shiv wrote: I suspect newer F-16s are meant to integrate well with the new network warfare that is being brought in with the induction of the F-35. India may not want that exactly - but something that leaves a "hole/gap" in an aircraft into which some Indian/Israeli avionics can go, capable of interacting with Russian avionics and weapons.

Just my guess..


Customization has its own issues. It probably requires a whole lot of time to certify whatever you plug that hole with. Does it make sense to customize a sunset platform?


There was a version of F-16 tested by the IAF in the MMRCA fly-off. It is probably that version that will be looked at, if at all. On the other hand we still have Gripen, Combat Hawk, and if we go twin - MiG 29/35 and even Yak 130 to look at while we play these forum games.. :D

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

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

Postby rohitvats » 25 Oct 2016 10:23

Indranil, I wanted to reply to a post of your regarding investing in HAL/Indian companies to grow production capability versus this new production line drama. But the thread seems to be moving fast and I've lost your post. But here is my reply to the same.

On the face of it, what you state SEEMS to be the problem. And solution being tendered runs contrary to logic if this is ACTUALLY the problem.

But let us step-back and take a look at data points and informed opinions shared by others.

First, HAL says that it cannot produce more than 16 aircraft/year without the private sector stepping in and taking up the role of
Tier-1 suppliers. This statement has two major takeaways:

- When it comes to LCA, the current ecosystem of aircraft manufacturing in India has a throughput of 16 aircraft per year with PRESENT level of manufacturing capability required for PRESENT level of domestic/foreign content to be made in India. This is sum-total of what HAL and its vendors can do.

- That increasing production numbers is not a linear process. Pumping more money into HAL to create additional production capacity for components which HAL makes is not available as a solution.

Now, comes the part about incentivising the private sector to step-up and become Tier-1 suppliers. This is how ideally it should be done. Arms manufacturing is a strategic industry and should be nurtured in every possible manner. Be it tax holidays or relaxed labor laws.

But the question here is by what time-frame can an existing or new player mature as a Tier-1 supplier for HAL to increase production run per year? And for something like this to happen, HAL will have to start handing over production know-how to private players and give-up control.

HAL will produce Tejas Mk1 by 2019-2020. Tejas Mk1A is expected to reach FOC by 2020 and enter production by 2022. Orders will start flowing to a private players only in the 2020-2022 time-frame. HAL and the private player(s) will take 24 months at least for production to stabilize at say 25 per year.

Let us take a hypothetical scenario: Vendor A is assured orders and transfer of production technology and hand holding by HAL. (Take January 2017 as start of timeline)
- Contract negotiations and closure: up to 1 year
- Land acquisition, clearances and construction (this is best case scenario): 24 months (sub-vendors to this Tier-1 vendor need to get their act together in parallel)
- Vendor receives final designs by 2020 when Tejas Mk1A receives FOC. And we’ve initial low rate production and Tejas Mk2 starts rolling out in 2022 (5 a/c in 2022)
- Let us further assume we straightaway hit 25 aircraft per year mark from 2023 onwards. We still require 3 years to clear the full order. That is 2026 time-frame.

What does IAF do till then? It will be get 120 aircraft and retire 200+ odd aircraft.

Any which way you slice and dice this, our ecosystem does not seem to be ready to deliver Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A at required speed for the required quantity. The additional line cannot be for Tejas simply because the ecosystem does not support production of additional numbers in required time-frame. It is not about money. It is about time.

Now, to the above hypothetical scenario add parallel effort of foreign production line. With all the warts and pimples of setting up production line in India, in the same time-frame we’ll have additional 90-100 fighters.

This is what I can make out could be the reason for a second production line from a foreign vendor.

Other option is to simply import more Rafale (one I prefer) or if cost is such a big concern, split the order between Rafale and Mig-29K (with additional goodies from Israel like AESA radar). That will ensure we’ve some respectable numbers of Rafale and Mig-29K can feed off existing infrastructure. And we save ourselves from adding another fighter type into service.

Frankly, I think this whole production line business from a foreign vendor looks like a high risk solution with too many ifs-and-buts. Too much hassle if you ask me. I’ll take imports any-day over this and invite participation in areas which can genuinely evolve aerospace MIC and create production base for Tejas and later AMCA. Because if we don’t use the Tejas manufacturing opportunity to grow aerospace MIC, we’ll be having same set of arguments when AMCA comes online.

But at the same time, I am veering towards the opinion that we genuinely lack ability to mass produce a fighter beyond what has been stated by the HAL chairman. It will require sustained effort to grow this base. But we’re also faced with crisis of falling squadron numbers which need to be addressed with utmost emergency. It can either be imports or this new gamble by the GOI.

Let’s see how this plays out.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 25 Oct 2016 11:02

Rohit the point made wrt the hand-holding of tier one supplier is well made. However, the same issue will be applicable with a foreign fighter that will be made in India, to an extent.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 25 Oct 2016 11:53

rohitvats wrote:First, HAL says that it cannot produce more than 16 aircraft/year without the private sector stepping in and taking up the role of
Tier-1 suppliers. This statement has two major takeaways:

On the contrary, the main takeaways are that either HAL has been misquoted or their statement was aspirational ('pvt sector should also step up').

There is no earthly reason why HAL would run into a production wall at a rate of 16 aircraft/yr and I cannot see why anybody would buy that argument.

Manufacturing aircraft is not fundamentally different from any other sort of manufacturing. The input factors remain the same: Land + Labour + Capital + Raw Material. And that applies to all of HAL's suppliers too.

HAL can hire and train more line workers (though manpower isn't an issue with them at the time). More land can be acquired. The assembly lines can be expanded with more tooling, jigs, fixtures etc. GE & Elta as well as other suppliers can be asked to step up production.

May not be as quick as reassembling a redundant F-16 assembly line but should be no slower than manufacturing a brand-new Gripen line.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 25 Oct 2016 12:56

Disclaimer - I write below with my limited information and understanding.

Why I think that Lockheed and Saab are desperate to sell their 4/4.5 gen Single Engine Fighter line to India?

I am essentially flipping the coin and looking at why would Lockheed and Saab do such a thing. Most of us are looking from the Indian perspective (including me).

The answer IMO, is because this Indian need for 100+ 4/4.g Gen single engine aircraft is the last of its kind. There is no large scale demand for Single Engine fighters anymore - certainly not in 100s in a single order.

The host countries of both OEMs are Western world (First World). They supply to either their forces or allies. Lockheed is already supplying a 5th Gen Single Engine fighter to US and Nato plus other allies. They have no residual 4/4.5 Gen single Engine demand.

Grippen secured the Brazilian order and now there is no future large order. Swedish AF is not placing big future orders. All Nato or European countries are either on twin engines or moving to 5th Gen Single Engine.

The third world orders are split between Western, Russian and Chinese fighters. None of the African countries have an appetite where the order could exceed 50 fighters. The markets have little overlap between Western and the rest, though the Russian and Chinese markets may overlap.

The Gulf market has recently closed a lot of fighter deals which went to the Rafale mostly. East Asian markets like Vietnam may result in some 4th Gen fighter sales but will mostly likely not include western ware. One possible way is for the western ware to be sold in such markets, is as an Indian offer.

The other big operators like South Korea and Japan are moving into either twin engines or 5th Gen technology.

India is the only operator now which is buying large quantity of 4th or 4.5th gen Single Engine fighters. To be precise, this 100+ requirement did not exist as it was covered under MMRCA, where the Rafale was the chosen twin engine fighter for 126 aircraft and 60+ optional purchase. That order was curtailed and a need was created for a similar Gen but Single Engine fighter.

Assuming that the IAF is a 42 Sqn air force, we have a max size Air Force of 700 combat aircraft (42sqn x 16ac per sqn plus war reserves). Projecting in future where all Single Engine Mig 21s have retired and all Mig 27s have retired and the upgraded types are yet to retire (say 2029 is a safe year) the IAF will be with 100 LCAs + 100 foreign 4.5Gen Single Engine + 272 Su 30 + 36 Rafale + 50 M2k + 140 Jaguars + 66 Mig 29s = we already have a 764 aircraft air force or a 46 Sqn IAF (plus war reserve).

Except M2K, all other retirements due in next 15 years (2030 onward time frame) are in twin engine category (or medium weight). This means when IAF replaces these retirements, it will be either with equivalent or better aircraft in all measurements. In fact, the replacements are already known - FGFA and AMCA.

Assuming a fighter's life is 30 Yrs and knowing that 1st Tejas was inducted in 2014, the earliest of new induction Single Engines to retire will be 2044. Hence, once the current production ends say by 2028 (max), the next large scale requirements for producing Single Engine 4/4.5 gen aircraft will not be felt prior to 2044.

This brings me to the some conclusions:

> if the foreign fighter comes into India, this is the end of LCA development. There are no more orders for a 4th Gen or a 4.5 Gen Single Engine fighter for the IAF. Forget IAF there are no large orders anywhere in the globe. Piecemeal replacement of crashes in existing fleet or a Sqn or two purchased elsewhere are the only likely sales. This is the last big order. This is why Lockheed and Saab are ready to sell out their lines to India. They get a pie of the Indian market which should have exclusively belonged to Tejas.
> The future fighter aircraft technology is 5th Gen or beyond. If India has to invite a foreign player to develop an MIC, it makes sense if the technology being purchased is future ready or it is able to support 5th Gen technologies. The MIC expertise created under such foreign assembly line will marry very well for the development of our own AMCA which may enter production around 2030. A 4th Gen equivalent technology related MIC will not give the maximum returns that a once in history kind of deal offers.
> It is apparent through repeated articles in media that Lockheed is not interested in setting up the F35 line here but the F16 line in India. Saab's Grippen is also an equivalent 4/4.5 Gen aircraft.
> Both F 16 and Grippen are priced at 03 times the price of an LCA. Add cost of imported weapon systems and the cost differential will be more than 4X.
> The time gained by going for a foreign aircraft assembly line and not Tejas is between 02-05 yrs for full production run. If indeed we are time critical a sharp management of the project and some additional investments and quick decision making can narrow this time gap to max of 03 yrs for full production as per my estimates.
> All these and the finally the need in showing confidence in Desi home grown products is why we should not buy the foreign fighters but promote Tejas. Instead of sourcing the Assembly line, source Tier 1 suppliers from abroad till Indian suppliers come of age but do not buy foreign. If an Indian private player is not capable of setting up an independent parallel line and HAL is refusing to take on additional responsibilities, get Saab to take on its original offer to set up the Tejas Mk2 production line with conditions and road map on developing Indian Tier1, Tier2 and Tier3 suppliers.

In terms of capability with Tejas MKA or Mk1A, the fighter is a very maneuverable, multi/omni role fighter which will have AESA radar, BVR missiles, SPJ and IFR capabilities. The F16 and Grippen at best would provide little extra range and payload at most but will cost four times more and will always be a foreign product.

JMT.

Rammpal
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 23 Sep 2016 12:21

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

Postby Rammpal » 25 Oct 2016 13:29

What's the contingency plan for LCA, vis-a-vis, engine ?

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

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

Postby rohiths » 25 Oct 2016 13:48

Rammpal wrote:What's the contingency plan for LCA, vis-a-vis, engine ?

It can and ideally should have been EJ200. They should have chosen that instead of F414 and Mark 2 business. LCA Mk1A should have had EJ200 and would be a kickass plane with the following additional features
1. Supercruise with Air to air weapons load
2. Lower empty weight of 100kgs
3. Additional range of alteast 50kms due to better fuel efficiency

Add to that the existing features namely RCS less than 0.5 sq m, AESA radar, superb maneuverability and the high availability it will be unmatched against any plane the pakis & chinese can throw at it

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 25 Oct 2016 13:56

deejay wrote:Disclaimer - I write below with my limited information and understanding.

Why I think that Lockheed and Saab are desperate to sell their 4/4.5 gen Single Engine Fighter line to India?

I am essentially flipping the coin and looking at why would Lockheed and Saab do such a thing. Most of us are looking from the Indian perspective (including me).

The answer IMO, is because this Indian need for 100+ 4/4.g Gen single engine aircraft is the last of its kind. There is no large scale demand for Single Engine fighters anymore - certainly not in 100s in a single order.

The host countries of both OEMs are Western world (First World). They supply to either their forces or allies. Lockheed is already supplying a 5th Gen Single Engine fighter to US and Nato plus other allies. They have no residual 4/4.5 Gen single Engine demand.

Grippen secured the Brazilian order and now there is no future large order. Swedish AF is not placing big future orders. All Nato or European countries are either on twin engines or moving to 5th Gen Single Engine.

The third world orders are split between Western, Russian and Chinese fighters. None of the African countries have an appetite where the order could exceed 50 fighters. The markets have little overlap between Western and the rest, though the Russian and Chinese markets may overlap.

The Gulf market has recently closed a lot of fighter deals which went to the Rafale mostly. East Asian markets like Vietnam may result in some 4th Gen fighter sales but will mostly likely not include western ware. One possible way is for the western ware to be sold in such markets, is as an Indian offer.

The other big operators like South Korea and Japan are moving into either twin engines or 5th Gen technology.

India is the only operator now which is buying large quantity of 4th or 4.5th gen Single Engine fighters. To be precise, this 100+ requirement did not exist as it was covered under MMRCA, where the Rafale was the chosen twin engine fighter for 126 aircraft and 60+ optional purchase. That order was curtailed and a need was created for a similar Gen but Single Engine fighter.

Assuming that the IAF is a 42 Sqn air force, we have a max size Air Force of 700 combat aircraft (42sqn x 16ac per sqn plus war reserves). Projecting in future where all Single Engine Mig 21s have retired and all Mig 27s have retired and the upgraded types are yet to retire (say 2029 is a safe year) the IAF will be with 100 LCAs + 100 foreign 4.5Gen Single Engine + 272 Su 30 + 36 Rafale + 50 M2k + 140 Jaguars + 66 Mig 29s = we already have a 764 aircraft air force or a 46 Sqn IAF (plus war reserve).

Except M2K, all other retirements due in next 15 years (2030 onward time frame) are in twin engine category (or medium weight). This means when IAF replaces these retirements, it will be either with equivalent or better aircraft in all measurements. In fact, the replacements are already known - FGFA and AMCA.

Assuming a fighter's life is 30 Yrs and knowing that 1st Tejas was inducted in 2014, the earliest of new induction Single Engines to retire will be 2044. Hence, once the current production ends say by 2028 (max), the next large scale requirements for producing Single Engine 4/4.5 gen aircraft will not be felt prior to 2044.

This brings me to the some conclusions:

> if the foreign fighter comes into India, this is the end of LCA development. There are no more orders for a 4th Gen or a 4.5 Gen Single Engine fighter for the IAF. Forget IAF there are no large orders anywhere in the globe. Piecemeal replacement of crashes in existing fleet or a Sqn or two purchased elsewhere are the only likely sales. This is the last big order. This is why Lockheed and Saab are ready to sell out their lines to India. They get a pie of the Indian market which should have exclusively belonged to Tejas.
> The future fighter aircraft technology is 5th Gen or beyond. If India has to invite a foreign player to develop an MIC, it makes sense if the technology being purchased is future ready or it is able to support 5th Gen technologies. The MIC expertise created under such foreign assembly line will marry very well for the development of our own AMCA which may enter production around 2030. A 4th Gen equivalent technology related MIC will not give the maximum returns that a once in history kind of deal offers.
> It is apparent through repeated articles in media that Lockheed is not interested in setting up the F35 line here but the F16 line in India. Saab's Grippen is also an equivalent 4/4.5 Gen aircraft.
> Both F 16 and Grippen are priced at 03 times the price of an LCA. Add cost of imported weapon systems and the cost differential will be more than 4X.
> The time gained by going for a foreign aircraft assembly line and not Tejas is between 02-05 yrs for full production run. If indeed we are time critical a sharp management of the project and some additional investments and quick decision making can narrow this time gap to max of 03 yrs for full production as per my estimates.
> All these and the finally the need in showing confidence in Desi home grown products is why we should not buy the foreign fighters but promote Tejas. Instead of sourcing the Assembly line, source Tier 1 suppliers from abroad till Indian suppliers come of age but do not buy foreign. If an Indian private player is not capable of setting up an independent parallel line and HAL is refusing to take on additional responsibilities, get Saab to take on its original offer to set up the Tejas Mk2 production line with conditions and road map on developing Indian Tier1, Tier2 and Tier3 suppliers.

In terms of capability with Tejas MKA or Mk1A, the fighter is a very maneuverable, multi/omni role fighter which will have AESA radar, BVR missiles, SPJ and IFR capabilities. The F16 and Grippen at best would provide little extra range and payload at most but will cost four times more and will always be a foreign product.

JMT.

deejay Sir lovely post but depressing as well. For every one step forward there are two steps back..

Rammpal
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 23 Sep 2016 12:21

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

Postby Rammpal » 25 Oct 2016 14:14

"...It can and ideally should have been EJ200. They should have chosen that instead of F414 and Mark 2 business. LCA Mk1A should have had EJ200 and would be a kickass plane with the following additional features
1. Supercruise with Air to air weapons load
2. Lower empty weight of 100kgs
3. Additional range of alteast 50kms due to better fuel efficiency

Add to that the existing features namely RCS less than 0.5 sq m, AESA radar, superb maneuverability and the high availability it will be unmatched against any plane the pakis & chinese can throw at it...."

1. Is EJ200 more reliable than GE 4xx ?
2. High availability - how relevant is this, vis-a-vis, Indian context, i.e.: would India ever get thrown into a situation where GE, SNECMA and Eurojet refuses to supply parts/engines, all at the same time ??
i.e.: how likely is that ?

and in the event that Does happen - what then ? :!: :?:

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 » 25 Oct 2016 14:36

Thought provoking post from deejay..

There is one alternative. and that is to accept that the fleet strength of the IAF will go down drastically before it goes up, and not have any "single engine fighter" drama. I must point out that deep inside I had some sort of inkling that a fighter deal would be "problematic" to say the least - without the depth of analysis that deejay has made

The loss of capability that is sure to ensue for a decade will have to be "covered" by some means other than the Air Force.

deejay I need to ask you this specifically.

The advent of "multirole" is only about 25-30 years old. This also means that many of our legacy aircraft were never ever multirole. Jaguar was and is not mutirole. Mirage 2000 was bought as a hedge against F-16, not as multirole but has grown into multirole. MiG 21 itself - a pure "interceptor" of yore gradually morphed into multirole. MiG 29 is pure air superiority not multirole. The point I am getting at is that we are on the cusp of an era when we still have legacy single role aircraft. And in fact modern conflicts have shown a need for dedicated CAS aircraft - which is what Russia pushes as the Yak-130 and the US seems to be doing with the Scorpion. Why can't we have a stop gap period when we take Hawks ("aka Combat Hawk") in a CAS role until LCA comes out in numbers? I did note your point that its capability is nothing compared with the Tejas or equivalent, but the other choices are horrifying.
Last edited by shiv on 25 Oct 2016 14:46, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9255
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 25 Oct 2016 14:42

..It can and ideally should have been EJ200. They should have chosen that instead of F414 and Mark 2 business. LCA Mk1A should have had EJ200 and would be a kickass plane with the following additional features
1. Supercruise with Air to air weapons load
2. Lower empty weight of 100kgs
3. Additional range of alteast 50kms due to better fuel efficiency


The difference between dry thrust b/w the EJ200 and the F414 are practically negligible. The Gripen E claims, under moderate loads. supercruise capability with the F414. Supercruise is a function of thrust to weight and drag and if a fighter can supercruise with the EJ200 it pretty much also can with the F414. As far as why they went with the F404 on the LCA, you would have to look into the history of the project. The F404 was probably a more secure choice at the time and had proven integration with diverse set of aircraft.

Lower empty weight of 100kgs


The F414-400 has higher thrust in afterburner than the EJ200 (98 kN vs 90 kN).

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 » 25 Oct 2016 15:02

Deejay saar, thank you for the post.

Would also like to point out to folks bringing in the APG 83 that the ASQR for the Tejas is what it is being built to! So the BS should be toned down. If the IAF wanted a higher powered radar, it would have known that the power requirements of the ac would require a larger or at least more powerful engine. Let us please drop the strawman arguments and stick to facts. Just stating that the F-16 is superiah in all regimes because of AAMRAM (C, btw, not D), and/or any TR-mineisindeedlargerthanyours-Radar should also take into account his own statement about the IAF knowing its job.

If the IAF wanted the F-16 instead of the M2K 2 decades ago, it would still not got it due to geopolitical positioning! However, it could have sent ADA or HAL on that wild goose chase 20 years ago itself. Stating now that the radar + AIM combo makes the difference between two ac is just disingenuous (primarily because you are still comparing a medium sized bird with the small sized one that the IAF ordered).

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 25 Oct 2016 15:17

brar_w wrote:
..It can and ideally should have been EJ200. They should have chosen that instead of F414 and Mark 2 business. LCA Mk1A should have had EJ200 and would be a kickass plane with the following additional features
1. Supercruise with Air to air weapons load
2. Lower empty weight of 100kgs
3. Additional range of alteast 50kms due to better fuel efficiency


The difference between dry thrust b/w the EJ200 and the F414 are practically negligible. The Gripen E claims, under moderate loads. supercruise capability with the F414. Supercruise is a function of thrust to weight and drag and if a fighter can supercruise with the EJ200 it pretty much also can with the F414. As far as why they went with the F404 on the LCA, you would have to look into the history of the project. The F404 was probably a more secure choice at the time and had proven integration with diverse set of aircraft.

Lower empty weight of 100kgs


The F414-400 has higher thrust in afterburner than the EJ200 (98 kN vs 90 kN).


I think the only point in favour of EJ200 was the available organic future growth was more as compared to F414, since its slightly more advanced that the later, lets say 0.5 gen difference. As we have discussed elsewhere we could bridge the gap by bringing in EE version at 110kN which is sufficient for our use. Both F414 and EJ200 will need some money for 110kN version. IMO GE is less risky option, more reliable OEM generally speaking and the F414 engine due to its large market size is easier for MRO. And FWIW, GE would be more willing to share design/manufacturing of some parts of F414 since its their older generation engine while Europeans would be less willing since EJ200 is the best they have right now.

One more minor point in favour of EJ200 was it had a TVC option, F414 doesn't have it. But its not very important anyway.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9255
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 25 Oct 2016 15:26

GE actually had funded research and development available when it came to having an actual viable path to higher performance variants. Not to mention that the tremendous success this engine family has enjoyed has allowed them to back that up with company money over the years. All the EJ had, and continues to has are some proposals that currently do not have any financial support or backing by either the prime customers in the Typhoon partner nations, or those in the export market. Moreover GE has worked with numerous design teams both within he US and outside when it came to integrating this engine family..The list of aircraft that fly with the F404/414 is huge while the EJ is still only flying on the Typhoons.

One more minor point in favour of EJ200 was it had a TVC option, F414 doesn't have it. But its not very important anyway.


GE does have a TV nozzle that it has offered along with the 404/414 family to its customers. The last such offer was made to SAAB with the Gripen. I have posted about it earlier..SAAB was actually in advanced talks with GE before they deemed the capability to be too much of a cost for too little return at that stage of the Gripen program.

Saab Military Aircraft (SMA) expects to have a JAS 39 Gripen thrust vectoring control (TVC) technology demonstrator aircraft flying by 2002. The demonstrator is to exploit a TVC‐adapted RM 12 engine to be developed under joint US‐Swedish auspices by GE and Volvo. SMA president Bengt Halse says the TVC Gripen should fly "in at least five years." The TVC demonstrator project is one of several initiatives intended to maintain effectiveness of the Gripen throughout its planned Swedish Air Force life until 2030. They are also intended to position the future Gripen as a competitor in cost and quality against the proposed US‐UK Joint Strike Fighter. A series of upgrades will also be implemented to lift the Gripen to a "comparable level" with the JSF, Halse said. Advances in radar (introducing active array technology as well as improved air‐to‐ground imaging and moving target indicator capability) are planned, with helmet mounted sight/display technology; multi‐function colour displays and modular avionics; infrared search and track sensor technology; weapons systems; low observable technology; and TVC. A Volvo official said talks with GE on a TVC development programme would cover "scaling down the nozzles that were used in GE's multi‐axis TVC trials with the F110 engine. We want to make them fit the smaller GE F404 engines used in the F/A‐18 and the Gripen's F404 derivative engine."


I don't have EJ's TV nozzle specs but I think the AVEN is still pretty much at par or superior to any other similar TV system available in the market even today.

viewtopic.php?t=3351&start=2680#p1821825

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

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

Postby rohiths » 25 Oct 2016 15:36

brar_w wrote:
..It can and ideally should have been EJ200. They should have chosen that instead of F414 and Mark 2 business. LCA Mk1A should have had EJ200 and would be a kickass plane with the following additional features
1. Supercruise with Air to air weapons load
2. Lower empty weight of 100kgs
3. Additional range of alteast 50kms due to better fuel efficiency


The difference between dry thrust b/w the EJ200 and the F414 are practically negligible. The Gripen E claims, under moderate loads. supercruise capability with the F414. Supercruise is a function of thrust to weight and drag and if a fighter can supercruise with the EJ200 it pretty much also can with the F414. As far as why they went with the F404 on the LCA, you would have to look into the history of the project. The F404 was probably a more secure choice at the time and had proven integration with diverse set of aircraft.

Lower empty weight of 100kgs


The F414-400 has higher thrust in afterburner than the EJ200 (98 kN vs 90 kN).


IMHO, choosing EJ200 would have prevented airframe modifications and would have saved us the trouble of developing Mk-2. We could have closed the LCA development on Mark 1A and moved all development resources to AMCA. EJ200 could have also helped in export sales as it did not need US approval. Other than that both the engines are in the same ballpark of performance and each has some minor advantages & disadvantages over the other.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 25 Oct 2016 15:42

rohitvats wrote:
Let us take a hypothetical scenario: Vendor A is assured orders and transfer of production technology and hand holding by HAL. (Take January 2017 as start of timeline)
- Contract negotiations and closure: up to 1 year
- Land acquisition, clearances and construction (this is best case scenario): 24 months (sub-vendors to this Tier-1 vendor need to get their act together in parallel)
- Vendor receives final designs by 2020 when Tejas Mk1A receives FOC. And we’ve initial low rate production and Tejas Mk2 starts rolling out in 2022 (5 a/c in 2022)
- Let us further assume we straightaway hit 25 aircraft per year mark from 2023 onwards. We still require 3 years to clear the full order. That is 2026 time-frame.

What does IAF do till then? It will be get 120 aircraft and retire 200+ odd aircraft.



Rohit, I think no one disagrees that LCA will be slightly late for 120+100 nos. And if we play our cards right and could hit 25/yr production rate, the time gap would be of order of 3-5yrs. I have raised this point previously, but deejay has articulated it in far better manner.

So the question is, can we as a country, pay this opportunity cost of 3-5yrs for having a desi fighter, a much more capable MIC (which will be more confident for AMCA project) and ability to produce more numbers to even reach 52 Sq number if economy permits that?? Can we sweeten the deal for IAF by giving them say 2 Sq more in return of their patience?? Or give MK2 is ready of Mk1A after the initial 120nos?? Would IAF be willing for that? Or can we give 2Sq of Su30MKI to IAF to fill in the gap (I suppose reduced sq strength will present issue of retention of skills due to reduction in flying, there MKI can help somewhat).

In short what plane-B IAF would find acceptable, in lieu of 3-5yrs of opportunity cost??

Other point is we cannot build MIC for 25/yr rate which will run only for 3-4yrs. No business man will invest in such venture. Even if GOI bankrolls it, it will end up increasing price of LCA too much. Neither it makes sense to let the MIC churning 25/yr jets vanish into thin air.

One way or other GOI has to make up mind and place numbers on the table right NOW. The more the better. Else this whole exercise in futile.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 25 Oct 2016 15:47

brar_w wrote:GE actually had funded research and development available when it came to having an actual viable path to higher performance variants. Not to mention that the tremendous success this engine family has enjoyed has allowed them to back that up with company money over the years. All the EJ had, and continues to has are some proposals that currently do not have any financial support or backing by either the prime customers in the Typhoon partner nations, or those in the export market. Moreover GE has worked with numerous design teams both within he US and outside when it came to integrating this engine family..The list of aircraft that fly with the F404/414 is huge while the EJ is still only flying on the Typhoons.


Agreed. Thus I said GE is less risky option for 110kN class engine. I mean I was keeping in mind the AMCA as well, since it makes whole lot sense to use same family of engines for AMCA that would be used on MK2.

brar_w wrote:GE does have a TV nozzle that it has offered along with the 404/414 family to its customers. The last such offer was made to SAAB with the Gripen. I have posted about it earlier..SAAB was actually in advanced talks with GE before they deemed the capability to be too much of a cost for too little return at that stage of the Gripen program.



Ohk..wasn't aware of this one. Never came up in my reading of F414. Thanks for that titbit. Anyways it was more relevant for AMCA rather than LCA.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 25 Oct 2016 16:05

deejay wrote:
Why I think that Lockheed and Saab are desperate to sell their 4/4.5 gen Single Engine Fighter line to India?

There is no large scale demand for Single Engine fighters anymore - certainly not in 100s in a single order.

<snip>

> The time gained by going for a foreign aircraft assembly line and not Tejas is between 02-05 yrs for full production run. If indeed we are time critical a sharp management of the project and some additional investments and quick decision making can narrow this time gap to max of 03 yrs for full production as per my estimates.
> All these and the finally the need in showing confidence in Desi home grown products is why we should not buy the foreign fighters but promote Tejas. Instead of sourcing the Assembly line, source Tier 1 suppliers from abroad till Indian suppliers come of age but do not buy foreign. If an Indian private player is not capable of setting up an independent parallel line and HAL is refusing to take on additional responsibilities, get Saab to take on its original offer to set up the Tejas Mk2 production line with conditions and road map on developing Indian Tier1, Tier2 and Tier3 suppliers.

In terms of capability with Tejas MKA or Mk1A, the fighter is a very maneuverable, multi/omni role fighter which will have AESA radar, BVR missiles, SPJ and IFR capabilities. The F16 and Grippen at best would provide little extra range and payload at most but will cost four times more and will always be a foreign product.


Excellent post Deejay saar. Thanks for highlighting the points in very articulate manner.

Precisely because there seems to be no demand for F16 class jet anywhere, I have been dismissive about the hogwash that LM is peddling about how India will become global hub for F16. Especially when 4-5 countries already have that setup, I don't see why someone would come to our half baked F-16 hub.

Just to add to your analysis:

For LM, selling 100+ jets from a line which would have been sold in scrap is like hitting a gold mine. They have nothing to lose even if the line is scrapped. So they are willing to ship it lock, stock and barrel to India.

For SAAB, its more of a survival question in long term. This order will not only keep them afloat for a decade or so but also would bankroll their next-gen RnD development. Otherwise, SAAB is going down in long term. They have already given up on Jet engine and don't seem to have capacity to go on for 5th Gen aircraft later.

And I fully concur with the opportunity cost of 3-5yrs that we would have to pay if we choose to go for all LCA single engine fleet. IMO its worth and we could make it happen. Also the continuity this would provide for our supply chain until AMCA starts production is also crucial.

The most crucial point is showing Confidence in desi projects. We are always ready to spread red carpet for foreigners but are very unwilling to give even a chance to our own companies to demonstrate their abilities, let alone committing for orders. I have also pointed out how government could tie up programs like LCA/LCH/LUH/AMCA/other defense products to sweeten the deal for desi suppliers and make a very good business case for them. In addition IMO ADA.HAL should offer co-design of AMCA (and if LCA Mk2 or silent LCA would come up that too) modules to the selected tier-1 companies. So that in future they can become true owners of those modules by having both design and manufacturing capabilities. As such now ADA hires small companies on contract on piece-meal projects. If the same definition work is offered to Tier1 companies, they can absorb those small contactors (by taking them over) who are working for ADA now for the same work and would consolidate the design and manufacturing capability of each module under one roof. ADA can always overseer the process in initial days.
Last edited by JayS on 25 Oct 2016 17:05, edited 1 time in total.

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 200
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

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

Postby Luxtor » 25 Oct 2016 16:54

All I can say is ...Let's not do a Marut to the LCA.

Marut's further updates and development and other fighters that might have come from the experience were lost when we decided to retire Marut and not pursue any further home-grown research and development into fighters. Instead, we went for the Russian MiGs exclusively. It should have been a parallel process. Get the Russian fighters to keep up with the Pakis and Chinese but also continue development of our own new fighter aircraft. It was so hard to get LCA research and development started. Now that LCA has come into fruition, let's not kill it by repeating the past, grave mistakes again.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 25 Oct 2016 17:06

Luxtor wrote:All I can say is ...Let's not do a Marut to the LCA.

Marut's further updates and development and other fighters that might have come from the experience were lost when we decided to retire Marut and not pursue any further home-grown research and development into fighters. Instead, we went for the Russian MiGs exclusively. It should have been a parallel process. Get the Russian fighters to keep up with the Pakis and Chinese but also continue development of our own new fighter aircraft. It was so hard to get LCA research and development started. Now that LCA has come into fruition, let's not kill it by repeating the past, grave mistakes again.

+1

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 25 Oct 2016 17:09

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote:Noob question, is the F16 blk70/72 version ready for production the moment order is given??

This question reminded me of a thought I had. We kaeep talking Block 50/70 whatever. These "blocks" are, as far as I can tell, undates that will equip newer fighters for the US and its allies. India (knowing what we need and how we tend to go into detail about integration of platfors) is unlikely to accept unmodified "latest" Block XX. There may be a hotch-potch mix of earlier blocks and later ones. I suspect newer F-16s are meant to integrate well with the new network warfare that is being brought in with the induction of the F-35. India may not want that exactly - but something that leaves a "hole/gap" in an aircraft into which some Indian/Israeli avionics can go, capable of interacting with Russian avionics and weapons.

Just my guess..


Precisely why I ask the question, typically IAF demands specific changes in platforms they buy. If so would be the case with F16 blk70/72, what would be the time penalty we will have to pay on that, what I was wondering. I am ready to discount this along with the cost assuming LM has enough experience to make it happen in the 3 interim year when then plant is being shifted/set up in India and prepared for 1st production.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 25 Oct 2016 19:17

This is block 60 video :


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 25 Oct 2016 19:26

Other than JSF, there is no other single engine fighter that can over power LCA versions (Mk2++). I am surprised we have 16 pages to discuss this!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 25 Oct 2016 23:02

Manish_Sharma wrote:F-16 has already failed the leh tests miserably, which even mig was able to pass easily.


Source please. And what exactly does "miserably" mean? Do you have any details on what tests were conducted, what particular ones the F-16 didn't manage to pass?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Oct 2016 23:07

Deejay: It should be pretty clear from the decades of so called "TOT", the DPSU based local "production" scam, BPO experience of the private sector with IT, Pharma, Automotive and even banking and financial services that IPR is never really shared. Forget the design, architectural and market needs analysis, even small evolutions to the product is never done in the outsourced country. The next generation of lipitor (a cholesterol/lipids control drug) is not going to come from an Indian pharma company. Neither is the next iPhone or Laptop of Dell. Even the IPR of the small components will be overwhelmingly part of the "western" supply chain.

So, when a private company like Lockheed is looking to outsource its 40 year old aircraft line to India, be sure there is no more cream left, no more evolution left. I am sorry to use these harsh words, but they look upon the IAF as a force of the third world, where its "past sell by date" products can be dumped.

This is the reason, I have said above earlier, this deal would be a win for Lockheed, a strategic win for the US, an economic wash for India and a huge strategic loss for India. It is best we hunker down like China did, protect our strategic assets and invest in them, build hedges to protect our vital security needs and invest in our MIC at a consistent pace. If we loose our MIC to another competing power with overlapping interests, it is game over for India. We might well as have our FP dictated to by the US and be at its mercy for our well being. Some or many in India and outside of it would not mind that outcome. Welcome to modern colonialism.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9781
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 25 Oct 2016 23:39

Kartik wrote:Source please. And what exactly does "miserably" mean? Do you have any details on what tests were conducted, what particular ones the F-16 didn't manage to pass?


From the good 'ol days, when the MMRCA contest was only worth $12 billion for 126 fighters :) I don't know how definitive this source is, but FWIW.

http://livefist.blogspot.ca/2010/03/four-mmrca-contenders-fail-leh-trials.html

It's the latest tidbit on India's $12-billion Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition that's doing the rounds (and it was first reported by The Hindu on Tuesday). Four of the contenders that underwent cold-weather evaluation trials at Leh didn't meet performance requirements. OK, major understatement. Four of the contenders bit dust in Leh. Read that again: four aircraft. That's huge. It's still unclear which part of the Leh test the four aircraft types failed at, though it is quite clear that it was either the switch off/on after landing, or the take-off with meaningful combat load at that altitude. The only thing that appears true is that four aircraft failed the trial -- it is totally anyone's guess which these are. Any want to hazard a try?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9781
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 25 Oct 2016 23:49

oye sirjee...can I guess? :)

F-16 Mallika Sherawat
F-18 Rakhi Sawant
Gripen
MiG-35

then there is this link, which says....

https://battlemachines.wordpress.com/2015/07/11/the-indian-mmrca-saga/

First of all, it was reported that 4 out of the 6 contenders failed to complete the trials in Leh. The airforce base at Leh is at an altitude of over 10,000 ft and the trials there were supposed to include landing, engine shut down, engine restart and take off from the base. Although 2 of the 6 fighters cleared the trials, only type off the 2 known is the Gripen D. While only the Super Hornet is the only type known to have failed during the engine start up. On the other hand, MiG-35D failed to achieve minimum parameters set for its AESA radar ie Zhuk-AE. It is also speculated that Rafale also failed the high altitudes trials due to its older variant of Snecma M88 engine, hence Indians found it under powered. It might have been selected as the new engine would enter service by the time Rafale would enter Indian service if selected. On the other hand F-16 Block 60 is said to be the other jet which did well in the trials at Leh, as it was designed for desert regions and the UAEAF pilots were impressed with its performance during regular operations by their airforce.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 25 Oct 2016 23:59

JayS wrote: For example they shied away from supplying RM12 for LCA due to GE pressure even though both Volvo and ADA was very much willing. So this "Strategic Independence" is a big Joke.


Now this is the first time I've heard about the RM12 being of interest to India..why would they want it for the LCA, when the Kaveri was the original engine planned and when that didn't pan out, it was the F-404-IN20.

Ericsson was on the other hand, approached for the radar technology used on the PS-05 radar and they refused to part with it.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests