'Make in India' Single engined fighter

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 » 27 Oct 2016 11:15

ks_sachin wrote:JayS: good post mate. I would like to share it with some people if I may..


Please go ahead, no need to ask for it.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1547
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Oct 2016 11:17

JayS wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:JayS: good post mate. I would like to share it with some people if I may..


Please go ahead, no need to ask for it.


That is for you to say - not for me to assume!!

Sumair
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 02 Jun 2001 11:31

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

Postby Sumair » 27 Oct 2016 11:29

I think we all need to understand and accept that LCA production cannot be ramped up overnight regardless of the efforts or resources we put in the program TODAY. We needed the numbers yesterday and thus the immediate requirement for a second production line from an established manufacturer. Now the choice part; if the desire is to complement LCA then the choice is F16 but if the desire is to supplement the LCA then the choice is Grippen.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 11:32

shiv wrote:
Marten wrote:So, basically ACM Raha says, (of the 700 odd aircraft in the IAF stable), LCA can aspire the currently known figures of 120 and no more. At least until Mark 2 turns up. Basically we will remain a top heavy force for many more decades. To fix this imbalance, we shall buy 120 more F16is but not 120 more LCAs. And then we will become a medium heavy force.

I object to the term "Mark II". I was trying to locate the Arup Raha press conference where he clearly says "Let us not refer to them as Mark IA, Mark II"etc. Unfortunately I did not locate it. Saying that AM Raha is against Mark II is something I would like to see as a video clip or an interview transcript. That is a BRF myth that is being propagated because I do not find anyone from the Air Force referring to a Mark II LCA. Semantics - but in the light of hyper-emotional discussions we need to get facts tight. Does HAL refer to a Mark II in press releases. Someone set my qibla right if I am wrong, but did the Mark II term come from some BRFite or journo talking to a HAL guy are Aero India.


One question what does Airforce refers Su30MKI as - Su30 or Su30MKI?? And does that matter at all?? Does that change the aircraft??

I don't think anyone said ACM is 'against MK2', thing is he doesn't look to be 'for MK2' either.

BTW ADA, who is gonna make it calls it MK2.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 27 Oct 2016 12:32

The Yanquis will be laughing all the way to the bank if we buy either of their 2 "old ladies".Their "plant and machinery" will be shipped to us at a huge profit when in fact they're on the verge of being sold for scrap once the liners close down,as spares/components should come from vendors. With no further exports of the type,of what great use is either of these two types? AS the price of a desi built MKI is around $70M,and MIG-29s around $30+M,both typs in service,more of these should be acquired if LCA production cannot be ramped up enough for the INTERIM. It would be far better for theisecond line to be for the LCA as that aircraft has considerable export potential as a MIG-21 replacement in numerous air forces who do not have the moolah for more expensive western fighters. Egypt is buying MIG-29s and 35s because they're very cheap and have great bang for the buck. They also snapped up at speed both the Mistrals meant for the RuN and the KA_52 (mariitme version ) helos.Furthermore,unless we make the LCA a success,in all its aspects from design,development,production and suyport,all talk of the AMCA will be just that,talk!

Remember that decades ago,the HF-24 programme was linked to Egypt with its own Helwan fighter and engine.That engines was also meant for the HF-24,but the Mossad effectively scuppered the programme with threats to the Germans on the project.Had the LCA bene ins eries productioon,I'm sure that Egypt and many other nations would've been keen on acquiring it to beef up numbers of their air forces.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 13:22

Shiv saar, that is a strawman. I didn't say the ACM was against Mark 2.
The ACM said 120 of the LCA (specifically, the "slightly" improved version which will meet requirements during the FOC).

An aircraft is an evolutionary device - it needs to be nurtured and grown into a platform that suits every need of the user. The user in turn can set a vision and the strategic goals for this platform. Our environment is such that all parties squabble over ownership and direction, leading to chaos.

Now that you mention it: As the ACM of the INDIAN air force, one would expect to see him say something to the effect that "we can relook the numbers in the future once this version is in service and feedback comes through the pilots/officers." Indicating thought leadership and the ability to drive the market and labs to the goal. However, what does he say? 120 is what we need. The rest will be MRCA. Thereby indicating the labs are not up to scratch, nor does the long-term strategy of IAF involve the nurture and care of labs or manufacturers or local capabilities (which is understandable given our history). In effect, the IAF will be a user force and not a developers force. Also, given the achievements of teams (DARIN III or other upgrades), it is also probable that the rank and file will take to the Tejas and demand for more, down the line. At this moment, that appears to be a glass ceiling (pardon the bad pun) for the LCA. So there.
PS: I still don't see a convincing reason for the new RFI/Tender. Capabilities-wise, it will give us nothing. Technology-wise, nothing that we cannot purchase outright. Number-wise, only at the cost of a home-grown platform. The budget for the medium stack was consumed by the Rafael. That stack cannot be expanded at the cost of the "low" end. Makes no sense at all. Would be far more in favour of hiving off Tejas Division from HAL and finding ways to make both HAL and ADA more accountable for their deliveries, and the IAF for their choices. We cannot afford any holy cows, bar none.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 27 Oct 2016 14:42

For whatever reason, this thing looks like it is going forward. It will impact the LCA negatively no matter how we spin it. The resource and budget must come from somewhere for this phoren single seater and that must come from the domestic single seat fighter. I would have wanted this time, resource and effort to be put on the LCA but it is what it is.

But that said, receiving the production line from LM where we become by default the sole provider of F-16s in the world is by far the best solution. Even if we were screwdriving parts, the leverage we will have over the existing American part providers as the sole production line will be immense. And through that leverage, we'll impact the rest of the world's 3200 F-solah fleet.

Make no mistake, the IAF with 120 F-16 block 70 would dominate Asia. The Pakis creamed over a few dozen A/B block for years. Not without reason, I think in our hearts we know the LCA (lightweight as it is) simply can never be in the same league as the F-16.

And we might end up with an unlimited supply of them if we play our cards right. The last line is India, who says we need to shut it down after the 120th and we have an eco-system of part providers built up?

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 » 27 Oct 2016 15:07

Marten wrote:Shiv saar, that is a strawman. I didn't say the ACM was against Mark 2.
The ACM said 120 of the LCA (specifically, the "slightly" improved version which will meet requirements during the FOC).

Sorry. Miscommunication on my part - I did not mean that you said it -but there is an issue that I will bring up in my next post in reply to JayS. Please accept my apologies

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 » 27 Oct 2016 15:16

JayS wrote:
shiv wrote:I object to the term "Mark II". I was trying to locate the Arup Raha press conference where he clearly says "Let us not refer to them as Mark IA, Mark II"etc. Unfortunately I did not locate it. Saying that AM Raha is against Mark II is something I would like to see as a video clip or an interview transcript. That is a BRF myth that is being propagated because I do not find anyone from the Air Force referring to a Mark II LCA. Semantics - but in the light of hyper-emotional discussions we need to get facts tight. Does HAL refer to a Mark II in press releases. Someone set my qibla right if I am wrong, but did the Mark II term come from some BRFite or journo talking to a HAL guy are Aero India.


One question what does Airforce refers Su30MKI as - Su30 or Su30MKI?? And does that matter at all?? Does that change the aircraft??

I don't think anyone said ACM is 'against MK2', thing is he doesn't look to be 'for MK2' either.

BTW ADA, who is gonna make it calls it MK2.

OK this does not answer the question. But it offers me the opportunity to ask in again in some detail.

If Su 30 and Su-30 MKI are the same aircraft - the question is are Tejas Mk1, Mk 1A, Mk II, Tejas IOC and FOC the same? Everyone is using whatever term that seems to come to mind - which is OK if they were all the same like Su-30. But they are not

As far as I can tell we now have a Tejas just inducted with F404 engine, no AESA, no BVR capability, no EW suite and no refuelling probe. Since it is inducted it must be Tejas "IOC" as mentioned by ACM Raha. I am guessing Tejas Mk I == Tejas FOC of ACM Raha

ACM Raha also speaks of an FOC which I guess should include AESA, BVR missile capability, EW suite and refuelling probe. Is this Mk IA or Mk II? I am guessing the FOC=Mk IA, not Mk II

Finally ACM Raha speas of a "new design". He does not say Mk II. What is "New design". I guess it includes GE F414 engines. What else? What is Mk II
Last edited by shiv on 27 Oct 2016 15:29, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 15:28

ACM Raha in the video i have posted speaks of an AESA "Air Interception" radar and BVRAAMs on Tejas. In another interview I seem to recall that Tejas was slated to be used for air defence (of the homeland?) because it does not have the range to penetrate deep. So it seems to me that IAF is probably not interested very much in the Tejas's attack capability. This brings me back again to the so called "Combat Hawk". If LCA is going to hel in providing local air defence/air superiority and is not going to be set aside for attack missions - CAS can be done by a combination of Combat Hawk plus LCA. The only thing is that it does not appear to me that the IAF is thinking of replacing the CAS capability that is lost after the retirement of MiG 21s and MiG 27s with anything else. The are looking only at long range deep strike - with LCA as local air defence. CAS requires loitering and not high speed/supersonic capability

In past wars too there were some aircraft that served only as attack and not CAS. Canberras fell in this category. All other aircraft were used for attack and CAS and also air defence depending on capability. Hunters could do CAS and air defence to an extent. Mysteres and Su-7s were attack alone and CAS. Gnats were air defence alone - though they were applied in CAS in at least one instance that I can name

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 » 27 Oct 2016 15:59

shiv wrote:OK this does not answer the question. But it offers me the opportunity to ask in again in some detail.

If Su 30 and Su-30 MKI are the same aircraft - the question is are Tejas Mk1, Mk 1A, Mk II, Tejas IOC and FOC the same? Everyone is using whatever term that seems to come to mind - which is OK if they were all the same like Su-30. But they are not

As far as I can tell we now have a Tejas just inducted with F404 engine, no AESA, no BVR capability, no EW suite and no refuelling probe. Since it is inducted it must be Tejas "IOC" as mentioned by ACM Raha. I am guessing Tejas Mk I == Tejas FOC of ACM Raha

ACM Raha also speaks of an FOC which I guess should include AESA, BVR missile capability, EW suite and refuelling probe. Is this Mk IA or Mk II? I am guessing the FOC=Mk IA, not Mk II

Finally ACM Raha speas of a "new design". He does not say Mk II. What is "New design". I guess it includes GE F414 engines. What else? What is Mk II


My question was rhetoric one. It does not matter what IAF calls LCA. The versions would be known by what the developer call them as, they perform the version control. There is huge difference in vanilla Su-30 and Su30MKI. But it doesn't matter whether IAF calls it Su-30 or Su30MKI. Referring them by same name doesn't make the two versions equivalent. (IMO they should start getting used to this version nomenclature if they want to be part of concurrent development)

There is no "new design" with F414. He refers design with those 4 proposed changes as "new design" which is same as MK1A.

We know that BVR and IFR was already there for FOC. The new addition was AESA and EW suite. When the talks happened LCA was at IOC config i.e. incomplete MK1. The agreement was to add above four to it and come up with MK1A. So the 20 FOC upgrade to MK1A standard later was included in the agreement. What was not was upgrade of IOC to MK1A.

We know that the order is for 20 IOC (incomplete MK1) + 20 FOC (complete MK1) + 80 Mk1A. IIRC the 20FOC would be upgraded to MK1A standard and somewhere HAL said (can't recall reference now, must be there in LCA thread), even the 20 IOC could be modified to MK1A standard if IAF choses to and signs a separate contract for that one. So it is safe to assume that IAF could have all 120 to MK1A standard if they wish so.

So in summary:
20 IOC (can be upgraded to MK1A)
20 FOC = IOC + BVR + IFR = MK1 (will be upgraded to MK1A)
80 MK1A = FOC + AESA + EW (the "new design")

MK2 is a significant upgrade, I have never seen IAF talking about it officially. Even from the start we know it was a Navy initiative, IAF liked the idea so they were willing to go for it. But now it seems they are OK with MK1A and no more MK2 plans are talked about.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 17:29

JayS wrote:So in summary:
20 IOC (can be upgraded to MK1A)
20 FOC = IOC + BVR + IFR = MK1 (will be upgraded to MK1A)
80 MK1A = FOC + AESA + EW (the "new design")

MK2 is a significant upgrade, I have never seen IAF talking about it officially. Even from the start we know it was a Navy initiative, IAF liked the idea so they were willing to go for it. But now it seems they are OK with MK1A and no more MK2 plans are talked about.


Probably wrong thread but again there is some confusion. What has been inducted now (IOC?) has no refuelling probe and no AESA and that is probably Mk 1. Mk 1A will have the probe, AESA and BVRAAM + EW(??) - (I hope) and this I expect will be FOC

IIRC we have ordered only 40 GE F 404s, but there are 99 F414s coming after that - and that might be this mysterious Mk II with its "will be there/won't be there" fuselage plug".

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9264
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2016 17:55

IIRC we have ordered only 40 GE F 404s, but there are 99 F414s coming after that - and that might be this mysterious Mk II with its "will be there/won't be there" fuselage plug".


Have all the formalities been completed as far as ordering the 99 F414's are concerned? I always found it strange that the MK2, that is expected to come later had a higher engine order count compared to the MK1, especially given that fact that the 120 odd F404 based MK1's and 1A's would be delivered much before all the MK2's are. I've also not read reports of any F414 deliveries and some were expected by the end of 2015.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 18:25

shiv wrote:ACM Raha in the video i have posted speaks of an AESA "Air Interception" radar and BVRAAMs on Tejas. In another interview I seem to recall that Tejas was slated to be used for air defence (of the homeland?) because it does not have the range to penetrate deep. So it seems to me that IAF is probably not interested very much in the Tejas's attack capability. This brings me back again to the so called "Combat Hawk". If LCA is going to hel in providing local air defence/air superiority and is not going to be set aside for attack missions - CAS can be done by a combination of Combat Hawk plus LCA. The only thing is that it does not appear to me that the IAF is thinking of replacing the CAS capability that is lost after the retirement of MiG 21s and MiG 27s with anything else. The are looking only at long range deep strike - with LCA as local air defence. CAS requires loitering and not high speed/supersonic capability

In past wars too there were some aircraft that served only as attack and not CAS. Canberras fell in this category. All other aircraft were used for attack and CAS and also air defence depending on capability. Hunters could do CAS and air defence to an extent. Mysteres and Su-7s were attack alone and CAS. Gnats were air defence alone - though they were applied in CAS in at least one instance that I can name


WRT to use of Combat Hawk as CAS on western front - the aircraft will not last in a dense AD environment. It can get some purchased in a Syria like situation where AD is very sparse, untrained and compromises of WW2 level anti aircraft guns mostly (I know there are occasional missiles and around now the opposition is getting better equipped). Unless the opposition on the Western front really crumbles to that level, Combat Hawk will not deliver. It also will not carry a good load out of weapons (IMO).

A helicopter on the other hand is exceedingly slow and can go exceedingly low - to the point where it can actually hide behind a hump of mud on the ground. It does not have to climb very high for a dive attack and can get back close into NOE situation very quickly. However, their threat measures are high and helicopters do get shot down from ground very often.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 357
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ragupta » 27 Oct 2016 18:52

Given that, no one is going to share their knowhow or deep technology knowledge, how do you build local aerospace industry?

The only way to master anything is do it yourself, no spoon feeding or reading just technical manual is going to get you there.
So you have to design, build, use, get feedback, improve, go through the lifecycle and mature the process. This is what LCA is.

In the meantime, country has to defend itself, and use mature product, and use it to build local industry.

Govt helped/helps HAL to keep running and build expertise, what is wrong it the Govt does the same for private industry, they are also indian. some may call it greedy capitalists, but it has its own benefit.

What if HAL fails, it is a single point of failure, India needs to develop more players and companys that will meet the security needs if HAL fails.

So the way I see it, another line or 2 with the help of private industry is a strategic necessity

in the meantime, building effort is going on with LCA and it cannot succeed even today without the help of foreign participation, however we may dislike it. We are not there, Engine is dependent, Radome had issues and there was delay in that, Refuel probe is imported, Radar dependent on other players. So essentially for top of the line product, India is still dependent on import, best thing is that the platform design is Indian and all these products are replaceable if needed although it might not be the best in its class. worse come worse Kaveri can be fitted when Sh$t hits the fan. For now you can procure, use the best and take time to develop, is the what is going on, and it is going to take time.

Scaling can only happen if parts can be supplied on time, there are many dependency still, that needs to be overcome and will take time. IAF wants the best when they can have it so why not. It benefits the nation in the long run. Although I hate the continuously in development phase, but there is lot to catch up, and that effort is on, but dependent of single entity HAL.

No country can have a single point of failure, whether it is company, product or component. we need more players to build industry and it is time to get private industry involved, they cannot do it on their own, govt has to help, and that is what this process seems to be.

To build you have to start somehere, if it screwdrivergiri or assembly hand holding, so be it. I think it is a good start.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9805
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 27 Oct 2016 19:50

chola wrote:But that said, receiving the production line from LM where we become by default the sole provider of F-16s in the world is by far the best solution. Even if we were screw driving parts, the leverage we will have over the existing American part providers as the sole production line will be immense. And through that leverage, we'll impact the rest of the world's 3200 F-solah fleet.

And so will be the royalties we will have to pay to Lockheed Martin. Please remember this is NOT intellectual technology transfer but rather production technology transfer. What we are learning is how to assemble the aircraft. We are NOT learning how to make the aircraft from the raw material stage. The only difference here is the production line is being moved to India. Do NOT think this is somehow a boon for us. It is quite the contrary. Do NOT miss the woods for the trees or whatever that saying is!

chola wrote:Make no mistake, the IAF with 120 F-16 block 70 would dominate Asia. The Pakis creamed over a few dozen A/B block for years. Not without reason, I think in our hearts we know the LCA (lightweight as it is) simply can never be in the same league as the F-16.

We are already dominating Pakistan with the Rambhas, upgraded Mirage 2000s, upgraded MiG-29s, the soon to arrive Rafale. Do you honestly believe that getting 120 F-Solah Block 70s is going to change the equation with China? Please stop comparing the LCA to the F-16. That is precisely the thinking that has led us to this mess in the first place.

chola wrote:And we might end up with an unlimited supply of them if we play our cards right. The last line is India, who says we need to shut it down after the 120th and we have an eco-system of part providers built up?

For each additional aircraft we make beyond the 90 aircraft order, we have to pay Lockheed Martin a sum. No matter how we play our cards, LM is going to be laughing all the way to the bank. That eco-system is loyal to Ameerika not India. Please understand that.

I Ask Again. Which of the ToT items (from raw material stage) is occurring here with the 90 F-Solah, Block 70 purchase?

- Engine Tech? know how of crystal blade tech?
- Radar Tech? know how of GaN modules?
- Air to Air Missile Tech? AIM-9X or AIM-120D missiles?
- Ordnance Tech? AGM-154 JSOW? AGM-65 Maverick? AGM-88 HARM?

Is even one of the above coming Saar?

If not, then please tell us what exactly is coming?

I echo cybaru's words, albeit with the Malayalee attribution.

TOT = SIMPBLY Assembled in India.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 19:52

deejay wrote:
shiv wrote:A helicopter on the other hand is exceedingly slow and can go exceedingly low - to the point where it can actually hide behind a hump of mud on the ground. It does not have to climb very high for a dive attack and can get back close into NOE situation very quickly. However, their threat measures are high and helicopters do get shot down from ground very often.
And survive!!

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Neshant » 27 Oct 2016 20:44

What an excellent reply from JayS on the importance of building a domestic R&D base in aerospace.
It really needs to be saved and requoted anytime someone shows up to start babbling about Transfer of Technology as if handing over bags of money to a foreign aerospace company is going to lead to anything other than screwdrivergiri.

I'm requoting it here despite its lengths so everyone gets to read through it and understands. I'm sure many won't like the clueless IAF chief trying to kill the LCA.


JayS wrote:
Mihir wrote:Nobody has to give us anything on a platter. What it will do is equip a large number of Indian engineers and technicians with the skills required to commission, run, maintain, and optimize a modern aerospace manufacturing setup. If the cut their teeth on maintenance, overhaul, and upgrade work involving R&D, so much the better. That knowledge is sure to feed into the AMCA and other programs that India has going. This is real technology transfer; and goes beyond what the mere transmission of blueprints could achieve. Remember what that Russian scientist said to some BRF member at Aero India (I think it was shiv): "What is technology? I am technology!"


Mihir Saar, Please do not take Auto to Aero analogy too literally. While its OK to compare them in principle, reality is not the same. There are many differences which play crucial role. One thing is iterations are slow. While for a typical car company, concept to prototype is typically 9-12months, it could be a decade for even the best of the OEM. Things happen fast, thus feedback correction is much faster. Also you produce in millions which again gives you as many chances to improve. This is simply not true for Aerospace. Thus numbers matter a huge deal. Technology is not that much restricted in auto sector. Things are mostly driven by market forces. This is not at all true for defense sector. Also the profit in Auto sector is far more and break-even happens much earlier than any typical defense or aerospace project where margins are very thin and break-even could stretch as long as 20yrs in some cases. There is significant difference in the mindset - all critical parts in Aircraft are designed for a scenario which might happen only once for entire fleet of the aircrafts in entire of their lifetime taken together. A car could fail on the middle of the road, but an aircraft cannot. Also, unlike Auto, defense industry need large scale resource and technology infusion from government directly and indirectly. Elon Musk created Tesla without much help from govt, could he have done the same with SpaceX had NASA been not there to help in every aspect??

With this F16, precisely this is what gonna happen - transfer of blue prints and transfer of algorithmic step by step instruction to carry out manufacturing processes. This is what has happened so far, even in Su-30 which is the epitome of ToT. F16 will not reach to that level where we will build almost entire aircraft from raw material in India. Please talk to any HAL production engineer as and ask him how this ToT happened. There were many many gaps despite promise of full ToT, which HAL had to fill on their own. Indigenisation of Su-30 has been painstaking. And even after that it didn't teach HAL much that would help in LCA. Nor did hawk assembly did. Same thing will be repeated for F16. Please do not expect they will teach us all the intricacies of production.

Lets take welding as an example - foreign OEM/supplier will tell us what parameters to use for welding of certain parts. They will never tell what effect each parameter has and why this precise value is used here, what will happen if some value of some parameter is changed. This is technical-know-why. This comes only when you play around with the process by varying all parameters and actually seeing how each parameter affects the end result. You can't just take the exact same process and manufacture component for another aircraft. A new process parameter set has to be developed again based on changes inputs - geometry, materials, drawing requirements. This is the real manufacturing knowledge. Knowledge in defense is far more fiercely protected. And knowledge that comes from field experience is the most valued part of all (this is same in all fields, but testing a part in a car is far far easier that testing it in a fighter if you are mere a supplier for that part). As I have mentioned earlier, if you are tier-1 company and design some module from scratch and supply it to OEM, the OEM still never shares the data related to the real life performance of the part, unless they absolutely have to. Similarly the same tier1 company does not want to share their process knowledge with the OEM (I know real life examples). This happens among the companies of same people/country. Now imagine what will happen if the companies are from different countries and when they are creating potential competitors?? Its far easier to reverse engineer something in Auto sector because real life testing is much cheaper and easier to do and iterations thus can be done faster. If I am a casting company owner who wants to develop casting process for new type of engine block, for testing it i just have to buy few engines, design a replacement of the block in that engine and produce it, put it in the engine and start testing. Buy 2-3 cars put it into cars and drive it as much as I want. But imagine this same process for an Aero engine part supplier. Where will he bring the engine test facility or a fighter to test it from?? its not only way too expensive, but impractical as well. This is the reason why typically the suppliers , even tier1 most of times, do not have much of an idea of how their own designs work in real life. They have to take the OEM's word for it. (And that why I have said previously that being the system integrator is the most lucrative part for OEM).

In summary, you could learn process know-how, but not enough know-why that will enable you to apply same process elsewhere easily. Ex. Despite HAL knowing SCB blade manufacturing, they still cannot make blades for Kaveri using same thing. And please don't think its because all HAL employees are lazy. No there are some very good people trying to figure out things on this. Its just too complicated and Russians simply never gave enough info. No one will.

One might argue why it wouldn't be same when HAL does TOT to suppliers?? It won't be the same, because:
- NAL/HAL are very much willing to give out the manufacturing technology knowledge because they dont want to do it any more.
- If not real life data, at least good amount of process know-why will be percolated in MIC. This is true enabler.
- Unlike LM or its suppliers HAL isn't creating its own competition. Their position is secured in this. On contrary by enabling the suppliers they cement their position as system integrator and to focus on system design alone. So they actually have incentive to give as much process knowledge as possible.
- There is opportunity for Tier1 suppliers to get into design of the components they would be manufacturing for the next platform. ADA anyways outsource some of the definition work.

Another point is, the real understanding of "Design for manufacturing" only comes when you design something and then manufacture it, see how it fares, fine tune the process to get it right, or when you understand the limitations of the process, change the design accordingly. You do this a few times, the designer gets the experience of "Design for manufacturing". The precise problem why our Aerospace guys lack skills for "Design for Manufacturing" is we have either manufactured given design or designed some system but never manufactured it on any scale that would help us gain enough knowledge of manufacturing. And I am not even talking of back and forth iterations, since generally our products have been killed early in their product life cycle. Screwdrivergiri does not give you chance to learn "design for manufacturing" since all you do is manufacture, never design. Design is a given. F16 is already a frozen design and its so mature that their is hardly any scope to change or modify anything in it, unlike LCA which still has a lot of scope for optimization or changes. Which means a supplier making a component for F16 will merely manufacture it as per given instructions and he will not have much to tinker with the parts even if he wants to. While the same supplier for same part from LCA, can do much more while using his innovation. My company manufactures a big modules of Aero-engines, arguably the best in the world for that part, not even PW could best our capability for that particular part, GE might be able to match. We have done now about 6-7 iterations of that part over last few decades, all flying today. Exact same part, just different sizes, yet we still struggle big time in "Design for manufacturing". Thats Aerospace for you. I see all big three OEMs struggle, Boeing/Airbus struggle on daily basis, despite having so much of experience. Can one then really get hang of things by mere copying one of them for a short while for one particular project??

For all the things that our Auto companies have learned in last 25yrs of liberalisation of economy, our cars are still bottom dwellers in terms of quality and level of technology, by world standard. I would believe they learned some real deal when I will see truly world class cutting edge technology cars like Ferrari or Lamborghini rolling out from Tata or M&M. Because that what we are trying to do in Aerospace basically, competing with the some of the best in the business and trying to outdo them right in our first attempt.

I can accept all the reason for F16 buy, accept one - that it will somehow help create MIC which will then independently take up AMCA. This is a plain hogwash in even the most optimistic level of knowledge sharing by LM, which ain't gonna happen of coarse. It will not enable us to even upgrade F16 if we wanted to, let alone make new system.

Let alone manufacturing, even in design screwdrivergiri doesn't help much in building real capability. There are literally thousands of Aero-structural engineers in BLR, many of whom are working on Airbus/Boeing aircrafts. Ask them how do they design those parts (its not really design work but definition work). They use s/w codes given by those OEM which are basically black-boxes. Those who have used it for years do not know whats in there. Even if they see the code or the database, its really a bunch of fine-tunes empirical equations/data based on decades of experience in highly condensed form - for example - various types of cracks, and how the life of component will affect if you have one of those - one will never get the rationale behind it, the true engineering understanding of the fundamental logic. The moment you are asked to do same design for some other plane without that proprietary s/w, you are totally clueless what to do. Despite working for years, and knowing entire process, just one crucial piece missing and all your experience goes to toss. I have many friends from GE aviation. The way a GE employee works in India office, my reaction was GE's tagline should be "just do it" because thats what you are expected to do, just carry out the process, without asking questions why, what if, how etc etc. This is what I call as "mental screwdrivergiri". Imagine if this is the situation of GE's own employee, what kind of data/knowledge sharing will happen to suppliers if GE decide to manufacture F414 in India?? As a matter of fact I know exactly what happens in this situation. Case with LM is no different.

And on top of all this, the processes that have dual use and come under ITAR, cannot be easily used for things other than permitted work. Even if used they carry the same restrictions. The way ITAR is made, it follows everywhere the knowledge goes, no matter how many layers it passes through. Even if it may not restrict use, its pain in ass to maintain the legal requirements such as export control system on entire documentation, processes, people etc. Misuse would be punishable offense in US, no matter where the person seats in the world.

The only way to be a good system builder is to execute full loop of Product Life Cycle. Multiple times over. There are no short-cuts here.

PS: I once asked a top exec of a company, "you know that Chinese will copy whatever you give them, still you are going to China and opening a shop their, trying to show them how its done. You are creating a potential competitor in near future. For today's revenue you are jeopardizing tomorrow's business. How are you ensuring this not happens??"

He answered, "We are not Stupid.."

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 27 Oct 2016 20:58

Neshant wrote:What an excellent reply from JayS on the importance of building a domestic R&D base in aerospace.
It really needs to be saved and requoted anytime someone shows up to start babbling about Transfer of Technology as if handing over bags of money to a foreign aerospace company is going to lead to anything other than screwdrivergiri.


Good points. Lot of posts and some have the right questions.
One of the primary motive of the this offer is Pak and geo politics.
US has used F16 to build the image of Pak forces and now they have bring it down.

This offer of a product with now End of Life should not be used as a front line role.
It should be used only as a TRAINER for IAF.

But the primary purpose is still a mechanism to transfer other production process, mfg tech and some TOT to Indian entities.

Some of the question will still remain. But many may be under the radar?. So lot of posts are beating the bush and in wrong direction.

- Engine Tech? know how of crystal blade tech?
- Radar Tech? know how of GaN modules?
- Air to Air Missile Tech? AIM-9X or AIM-120D missiles?
- Ordnance Tech? AGM-154 JSOW? AGM-65 Maverick? AGM-88 HARM?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9805
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 27 Oct 2016 21:08

^^ It was the Air Chief who stated that the 90 new phoren fighters will have transfer of technology and final selection would be based on who provides the best ToT. I would like to know what technology is going to be transferred. I asked those questions rhetorically, because I know none of them are coming.

India Kicks Off New Search for MiG-21 Replacement
http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/india-kicks-off-new-search-for-mig-21-replacement/

“This is very much on the table and I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet,” Raha told the Business Standard.

“This will not be just licensed manufacture. It will be proper transfer of technology. Also, India will become a hub for manufacturing, as well as maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) for other air forces in the region,” he added.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 27 Oct 2016 21:12

Uncle is using a Zero Sum game with this offer.
India should not get into this

India should not be inside the geo political game of US and it needs to handle it correctly.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 21:44

svinayak wrote:
Good points. Lot of posts and some have the right questions.
One of the primary motive of the this offer is Pak and geo politics.
US has used F16 to build the image of Pak forces and now they have bring it down.

This offer of a product with now End of Life should not be used as a front line role.
It should be used only as a TRAINER for IAF.

But the primary purpose is still a mechanism to transfer other production process, mfg tech and some TOT to Indian entities.


Sorry, but this offer has nothing to do with Pak or their F-16s.

Don't you think its little too much money for mere TRAINER role?? We have a hawk line with us. We have LCA.

chola wrote:But that said, receiving the production line from LM where we become by default the sole provider of F-16s in the world is by far the best solution. Even if we were screw driving parts, the leverage we will have over the existing American part providers as the sole production line will be immense. And through that leverage, we'll impact the rest of the world's 3200 F-solah fleet.


This is simply not true. Even if we go by LM's boastful marketing, we will be sole line only for F6 blk-70. Nothing else (anyway no order will come for anything else). We won't be even producing all the parts for this, neither we would have capability to modify it. Other countries like Turkey would retain their ability to provide MRO support for rest of the fleet just as they have it today. In fact even LM itself will be having its own capability retained for MRO of US fleet. Do you think US jets will come to India for regular maintenance?? Or other countries for that matter, which already have alternative arrangements made. May be some small fleet of some small country might think of coming to India for some MRO in like 2040 or something. That's not very promising picture.

We will have absolutely ZERO leverage over American suppliers. Remember all of them are already prepared to scrap their business as all the juice is already extracted and this Indian offer is a bonus for them. You try to act smart with them, they will show middle finger to Indians, because we will need them more than they need us. Most of those supplier would have already started producing parts for F-35 which is going to go in full production rate in few years. You think they will take much headache for these 90 jets when they have 1000s lined up already?? Let alone what happens after the production run is over.

In fact its not at all cleared that there will be an Indian company who will do assembly for these jets. It could very well be 100% own subsidiary of LM - LM India. In best case scenario, lets assume, TAML do the assembly. Some of the parts will be localised that LM has control over. Remember LM does not produce 100% parts of F16. And it cannot transfer those 00's of suppliers to India, nor can force them to transfer their technology to some Indian company. We might just see some of those tier1/2 suppliers setting shop in India on their own, may be along with some Indian company. Who knows. So only a small (how small I don't know) part of F16 production will come to India, and even smaller part will be taught to Indian companies. Definitely LM can take some parts from US suppliers and give it to Indian companies but for that you need companies who can do it on their own. Don't expect LM to teach how to make each and every small part.

And after these 100 or so jets are finished, the line will be scrapped. There is only a slim chance anyone will buy blk70 post 2025. All those who can afford it would move to something better like F35 and most others wouldn't afford them. Anyhow assembly line is not needed once production is finished. The few suppliers that are created in India will supply parts for Indian fleet, but not all suppliers can do that since only some of the part need periodic replacements, not all. Now how much those suppliers could supply to other F-16s in the world is a big question mark. Also would they be able to supply to other US programs. I don't know. A few could. But remember there is a step change in manufacturing technology here. LM is not going to teach how to overcome that. Those who could on their own might be successful.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 22:11


enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

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

Postby enaiel » 27 Oct 2016 22:25

brar_w wrote:
IIRC we have ordered only 40 GE F 404s, but there are 99 F414s coming after that - and that might be this mysterious Mk II with its "will be there/won't be there" fuselage plug".


Have all the formalities been completed as far as ordering the 99 F414's are concerned? I always found it strange that the MK2, that is expected to come later had a higher engine order count compared to the MK1, especially given that fact that the 120 odd F404 based MK1's and 1A's would be delivered much before all the MK2's are. I've also not read reports of any F414 deliveries and some were expected by the end of 2015.


From GE's site, as of June 2015:

In October 2010, the F414-INS6 derivative of the F414 was selected to power India’s LCA Mk II aircraft. First engine to test occurred in 2014. India has committed to 99 installed engines, with the potential for more than 100 additional engines.

GE Aviation will supply the initial batch of F414-GE-INS6 engines and the rest will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology arrangement.

This selection follows earlier orders of 24 F404 GE engines in 2007, plus an initial 2004 purchase of 17 F404 engines to power a limited series of operational production aircraft and naval prototypes.


So,
24+17 = 41 confirmed orders for GE F404.
99 + 99 = 198 possible orders for GE F414.
ZERO confirmed orders for GE F414.

I have to ask, is there really a firm order of 120 Tejas MK1/MK1A? If an order for 80 GE 404 engines were placed, GE would have issued a press release and informed their shareholders.
Last edited by enaiel on 27 Oct 2016 22:36, edited 2 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9264
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2016 22:31

This is an interesting thing to look at. HAL is obviously not going to be sitting on engines without firm orders, so are unlikely to give delivery times until they have secured firm commitments from the IAF. On the other hand the contracts can't really be indefinite in that at some point, if they have indeed signed up for these aircraft, they would have to pay up or pay a penalty. I'm just facinated with the rush to go ahead and sign up for 99 F414's by HAL * if indeed this has occurred *.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

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

Postby enaiel » 27 Oct 2016 22:36

HAL did not place the order for 99 F414. They were "selected" by ADA.

India's Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has selected 99 F414 GE fighter jet engines to power the Mk II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the Indian Air Force.

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

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

Postby sudeepj » 27 Oct 2016 22:37

Rakesh wrote:sudeepj: I give you full marks for your optimism. So if you agree that it is the IAF's fault, then why should HAL suffer for it? Can you go to a car dealership and order a car in red colour and on the day of pick up, you say you prefer blue instead? Is that going to fly with the dealership? Why is the IAF any different?


More like I wanted to buy a truck, a car and a scooter. I agreed to buy a scooter from a family member who has a dealership, but being a bajaj scooter in the license/quota/permit raj days, it would take years of waiting before the scooter finally arrive. When it was actually time to buy the scooter, the family member asks me to skip buying the maruti car 'because you already have a truck' and buy two scooters instead - because I am family.

Truck = Su30.
Car = Yet to be decided.
Scooter = LCA.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9264
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2016 22:39

enaiel wrote:HAL did not place the order for 99 F414. They were "selected" by ADA.

India's Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has selected 99 F414 GE fighter jet engines to power the Mk II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the Indian Air Force.


Earlier reports mentioned that ADA selected the engine of choice for the MK2, place an order of a dozen or so and that HAL would place the order for 99 engines for the production variants. Its posted on the LCA thread.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

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

Postby enaiel » 27 Oct 2016 22:42

If any order was actually placed by either ADA or HAL, GE would have sent out a press release. I am sorry, but I don't believe the reports :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9264
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2016 22:48

I doubt that an order has been placed as well. Don't think that this is something they could have not reported as a company.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 27 Oct 2016 22:52

JayS wrote:
svinayak wrote:
Good points. Lot of posts and some have the right questions.
One of the primary motive of the this offer is Pak and geo politics.
US has used F16 to build the image of Pak forces and now they have bring it down.

This offer of a product with now End of Life should not be used as a front line role.
It should be used only as a TRAINER for IAF.

But the primary purpose is still a mechanism to transfer other production process, mfg tech and some TOT to Indian entities.


Sorry, but this offer has nothing to do with Pak or their F-16s.



You will see this in time. They are working on change of relations with Pak and this is route for that change.

Don't you think its little too much money for mere TRAINER role?? We have a hawk line with us. We have LCA.

That is the whole point. End of Life product has to be put into that role. :)

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 » 27 Oct 2016 22:54

enaiel wrote:If any order was actually placed by either ADA or HAL, GE would have sent out a press release. I am sorry, but I don't believe the reports :)

Spending time on Google - there are at least 3 reports - from 2010 to 2013 saying that a contract has been signed - with a value of 500 to 800 million dolahs. The 99 number is consistent.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 22:55

svinayak wrote:
Don't you think its little too much money for mere TRAINER role?? We have a hawk line with us. We have LCA.

That is the whole point. End of Life product has to be put into that role. :)

Too far fetched.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 27 Oct 2016 23:00

Why not

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9264
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2016 23:00

shiv wrote:
enaiel wrote:If any order was actually placed by either ADA or HAL, GE would have sent out a press release. I am sorry, but I don't believe the reports :)

Spending time on Google - there are at least 3 reports - from 2010 to 2013 saying that a contract has been signed - with a value of 500 to 800 million dolahs. The 99 number is consistent.


GE itself hasn't announced anything other than their selection for these 99 engines. No press release about any contract having been signed, which would be atypical for a public corp. given the size of the deal.

Here are three such announcements on selection and contracts for the F414 and F404

http://www.geaviation.com/press/militar ... 4205a.html

http://www.geaviation.com/press/militar ... 70207.html

http://www.geaviation.com/press/militar ... 01001.html
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Oct 2016 23:02, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 23:01

shiv wrote:Eeeeeek! :shock:


Not the first time. Did the same a few days ago as well. :lol:

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 » 27 Oct 2016 23:04

Flight global
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ii-381334/
22 January, 2013 BY: Greg Waldron Singapore

India has completed a deal for 99 General Electric F414 engines, the powerplant for the planned Hindustan Aeronautics Tejas Mk II Light Combat Aircraft.

In a call with Flightglobal, an industry source close to the 99 engine deal confirmed that it has been completed. Indian media reports peg the value of the deal at Indian rupees (Rs) 30 billion ($560 million).



http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... ontract-us
India has signed an Rs30bn ($558m) contract with the US for the supply of jet engines to power the Defence Research and Development Organisation's (DRDO) Tejas Mark-II light combat aircraft (LCA) fleet, which is currently being developed.

Unidentified DRDO officials were quoted by Press Trust of India as saying: "The deal worth Rs 3,000 crore has been finalised with the US for procuring 99 engines for the LCA Tejas MkII."

Initially covering the supply of 99 General Electric F414-GE-INS6 turbofan engines, the contract also includes options for the procurement of 100 additional powerplants in the future under negotiated terms.

The GE F-414 engines had already been selected by India's Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) against the Eurojet 2000 turbofan powerplant for the LCA Mark II programme in October 2010.


http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... -squadrons
NEW DELHI: India and the US have finalised a Rs 3000-crore deal for supplying 99 jet engines to be used in the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft 'Tejas' being developed by the DRDO.

Around two years ago, India had selected the American company General Electric over its rival European Eurojet 2000 for the LCA Mark II programme expected to be ready around 2014-15.


http://idrw.org/india-to-get-ges-f414-i ... ejas-mkii/
According to report prepared by a prominent journalist ” Ajai Shukla ” General Electric will supply the first batch of F414-INS6 engines to power Tejas Mk II Light Combat Aircraft later this year in September. General Electric F414-INS6 is a variant of F414 engines which power American F-18 Super hornet fighter jets has been modified to add enhanced safety features for operations on single engine fighter jet like Tejas MK-II. General Electric and India completed a deal for supply of 99 F414-INS6 engines in 2013 and GE started working on Indian specified variant from 2014 on wards. ADE and HAL have provided simulation data of Tejas MK-II to General Electric to carry out an internal assessment of airflow from air intake of the fighter jet and it was later found that No changes in air intakes were needed .




http://www.sldinfo.com/india-flies-indi ... -airspace/
In an article published last year, Jane’s Defence Weekly discussed the new engines for the aircraft.

India’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) will receive the first of eight General Electric F414-GE-INS6 engines for the Mk 2 version of its Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) by the end of 2015, officials said.

The F414 engine, which generates 90-98 kN thrust, will replace the LCA Mk 1’s General Electric F404-GE-IN20 powerpack, which generates 80-85kN thrust.

The Indian Air Force (IAF), which has 40 single-engine LCA Mk 1s on order from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), maintains that the F404 engine constricts the fighter’s manoeuvrability, angle of attack, and weapons load.

The F414 engine was designed for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, but has become the engine of choice for growth versions of the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen, and the Tejas.

Selected over the Eurojet EJ200 engine in 2010-11, it will eventually also power the navy’s LCA when it enters service in several years, programme director Commodore C D Balaji (retd) told IHS Jane’s on 8 July.

Until then the F404 engine will power LCA (N) prototypes and limited series production (LSP) platforms, he said.


http://www.liquisearch.com/general_elec ... 4/variants
F414-GE-INS6

India's Aeronautical Development Agency selected the F414-GE-INS6 engine to power the Mk II version of the HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the Indian Air Force. 99 engines were ordered in October 2010. The engine is to produce more thrust than previous F414 versions. It features a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) system. The F414-GE-INS6 is to have six stages. The engines are to be delivered by 2013.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9264
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2016 23:14

Moved to the LCA thread..
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Oct 2016 23:24, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 27 Oct 2016 23:14

sudeepj wrote:
Rakesh wrote:sudeepj: I give you full marks for your optimism. So if you agree that it is the IAF's fault, then why should HAL suffer for it? Can you go to a car dealership and order a car in red colour and on the day of pick up, you say you prefer blue instead? Is that going to fly with the dealership? Why is the IAF any different?


More like I wanted to buy a truck, a car and a scooter. I agreed to buy a scooter from a family member who has a dealership, but being a bajaj scooter in the license/quota/permit raj days, it would take years of waiting before the scooter finally arrive. When it was actually time to buy the scooter, the family member asks me to skip buying the maruti car 'because you already have a truck' and buy two scooters instead - because I am family.

Truck = Su30.
Car = Yet to be decided.
Scooter = LCA.

This is base trolling. We are talking about vehicle MANUFACTURE! But you probably do not understand the difference.
And your analogies are mixed up -
a) In the case of the LCA, one family member is footing the bill, while the other runs the shop. While you browse different brochures.
b) You could have gone the route of Swift, CIty, and A4. However...

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

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

Postby sudeepj » 27 Oct 2016 23:22

Marten wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
More like I wanted to buy a truck, a car and a scooter. I agreed to buy a scooter from a family member who has a dealership, but being a bajaj scooter in the license/quota/permit raj days, it would take years of waiting before the scooter finally arrive. When it was actually time to buy the scooter, the family member asks me to skip buying the maruti car 'because you already have a truck' and buy two scooters instead - because I am family.

Truck = Su30.
Car = Yet to be decided.
Scooter = LCA.

This is base trolling. We are talking about vehicle MANUFACTURE! But you probably do not understand the difference.
And your analogies are mixed up -
a) In the case of the LCA, one family member is footing the bill, while the other runs the shop. While you browse different brochures.
b) You could have gone the route of Swift, CIty, and A4. However...


Every man thinks he is smarter than the other chap and also that the other chap has more money than him. Its your prerogative to proclaim your greatness to the world and call out others as whatever you want to, it doesnt make one whit of a difference.

Fact is, there is a 90 aircraft hole in the projected 126 requirement for MMRCA. There is a separate requirement for 200-300 light aircraft, that LCA is on its way to filling up. The heavy requirement it already taken care of by the Sukhois.

The current forum brouhaha is a rehash of the howls that went up when the MMRCA requirement was mooted. Why MMRCA when we have the LCA?


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests