'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 28 Oct 2016 19:45

rohitvats wrote:How can you have a builder's air force in a system where even the aircraft designer has no control on the final design and production? What is HAL's business of proposing Tejas Mk1A?


How do you know that the MK1A was not proposed by the ADA / HAL. As an interim measure to insure that the line for the Tejas was not idle for the time the MK2 was not on stream.

The most important aspect of the MK1A is the iterative improvements to the Mk1. This is the beginning of the process of taking control of the end product by the IAF. But if the orders are not increased this will remain just a flash in the pan. Till the MK2 comes on stream.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 Oct 2016 19:49

rohitvats wrote:
Don't argue for sake for it. And spend sometime in understanding what the other person has posted before you go ballistic with your comments.


"Simplistic" "ballistic" "arguing for the sake of " are you lables.

I have taken the central theme of your post and raised points about it, without making any lable on you.

But continue.....

Anyway going back to reading only mode as far as this thread is concerned. :roll:

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

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

Postby sudeepj » 28 Oct 2016 20:59

brar_w wrote:
The IAF has surely considered a split between the Su and the LCA.. Splitting the difference is easy and Indian politicians and defense forces do it often when faced with difficult choices.


A few months ago, we were all discussing about how there wasn't a plan B, and not there is and apparently it involves buying either the Gripen or the F-16. Prior to that everyone thought that 126 Rafale's with TOT and licensed production would come in at $12 Billion and apparently that was what along with the performance allowed Dassault to win that competition. Is anything of that sort materializing? NO.

The way it is being passed on as is that soon the world including the US will be buying their F-16 components from a common pool of spares some if not most of which will be made in India. On the latter the OEM is promising yet another production line which would make it what the 3rd in three continents along with the sale of a prototype radar that for the LCA.


That is manufacturer hype and they have a right to hype their offer. Its the job of GoI to see through the hype and get to reality.

I am speculating here, but I think the issue might not be with the aircrafts themselves, but the sensor suite and the weapons available for them.


If that is the case then the solution is acquiring sensors and mission systems. What exactly stops the IAF and the MOD from buying these? The IAF is already wanting Israeli AESA for the LCA and you could also expand it to cover other mission systems.

If the problem is with weapons, whats stopping them asking the AMRAAM, MICA, ASRAAM, or Meteor from being integrated on to the LCA at a future date?


I wasnt aware that Meteor/AMRAAM-D APG83 was available for integration into the LCA.. Are you aware of something like this? If so, why are we going for Derby/python/R73? Secondly, will it not cost money to integrate these weapons into the LCA?

Both the LCA and the Su30 can not match the sensor chain and the weapons suite that is available on the F16.


The MKI has a huge diameter radar, PESA or AESA you are trying to compare apples to oranges here. You aren't going to drive the performance from a SABR or RACR to match what the PESA on the MKI will get you and that is a simple fact. Aperture size, power matter and larger aircraft provide that. Look at the F-35, it does not make the same mistake the F-16 does (which it gets from its LWF legacy)...It sports a 1500 T/R element AESA instead of a 1000-1200 AESA that is possible on the F-16 family. The NG or Raytheon radars will come with excellent Electronic protection and multiple modes but again you won't be hunting down J-20's with those. At best the AESA bumps will allow you to draw maximum capability out of the AMRAAM-D.


There are many many clever signal processing ways to get max performance out of radars. Big antennas help a lot, but gain is a function of signal processing silicon rather than just antenna size. And in silicon and software, the US is king-emperor.

We can not integrate American or French weapons on the LCA because they are simply not available.


Says who?


AMRAAM-D/Meteor is available for integration on the LCA? or the Sukhoi?
In this case the 126 Rafale's would have been cost-prohibitive..but acquiring yet another MRCA even more so given that you have essentially invalidated the original analysis that led to the MRCA down-select deeming the entire process as deeply flawed - since you could never afford to buy the aircraft you yourself selected within even a moderately affordable budget even w/o the TOT and domestic production that you thought would come within that price point. Keep in mind that the IAF rafale price paid is going neck and neck with USAF F-35 price paid - and the latter has many many times the budget of the former. That is clearly not sustainable and the only long term way of reversing that curve is to develop the Light combat aircraft, and then make a light-medium aircraft (MK2) out if it and fielding a new medium class aircraft (AMCA) as soon as possible. Any deviation from that does actually hurt the overall national defense capability in the long-term.


Indo-Pak conflict is coming sooner than the AMCA and possibly the LCA MKII. $10-15 billions is a small price to pay to prepare for the coming conflicts and to align with a super power with which we have uniquely aligning interests for the first time in decades. Yes, Rafale acq was deeply flawed. I dont know why India has acquired just 36. But waiting for the AMCA/LCA MKII without any backup plans, especially when the LCA has not even cleared FOC does not make sense to me. 120 platforms is more than enough to get a domestic industry started. Let HAL/ADA show an MKII and a couple of years later an additional tranche can be ordered.

*Btw we have 120 orders before they have shown an MK1A. Going by publicly available info, even the MK1A is going to be a stretch goal for these two organizations. Going by what Indranil has posted, we arent even past the project definition stage with HAL/ADA fight about MK1a and MK2.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

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

Postby titash » 28 Oct 2016 21:16

In this recent video (shekhar gupta visiting HAL and talking to suvarna raju & air cdr. muthanna...chief test pilot):

both garus explicitly state that the meteor is "too big for the LCA". case closed. that missile is not happening. See 5:50 onwards in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eltduCt4fa4

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Oct 2016 21:25

Indo-Pak conflict is coming sooner than the AMCA and possibly the LCA MKII. $10-15 billions is a small price to pay to prepare for the coming conflicts and to align with a super power with which we have uniquely aligning interests for the first time in decades.


While many have argued your other points with a good deal of merit, I feel this is a crucial part of the equation. These birds are needed fast, and I would not be surprised if the first 36 or so are direct deliveries from the US in a couple of years as the ground work is laid for local production.

The original plan was for 126-190 fighters, and now they are needed post haste. Unfortunately due to babudom and price escalation a single type ala rafale has become cost prohibitive, hence the single engined pitch. Chootiyas could have started out with 126 m2ks and later ordered more rafales if an uber silver bullet was desired. IAF numbers would have been taken care of and financially too, could have been viable. The previous Goi really mucked this up.

But at this stage with Modi willing to take the fight across the border, the numbers gap needs quick redressal...between these two purchases, iaf can have 72 birds in next 3 years or so. There is no cheaper non Russian way to do it. As much as we'd all like the Lca to be the choice, it looks rather unlikely...latest news is disappointing with foc being delayed by another year and mk1a slated for early 20s.

Personally, I always felt the viper was outclassed in the mrca competition, but as a single engined lighter fighter, it hits all the sweet spots....tried, tested, available. Plenty of opportunity for local private players to come up against the hal monopoly, which I believe is another goal of MP and Modi, can be customized just enough ...imagine a Soufa with blk 60 engines, apg83, and irst.. to make it very competitive in the intended role.

Yes the iaf will be another menagerie, but I think they are used to it..
Last edited by Cain Marko on 28 Oct 2016 21:29, edited 2 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7931
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 28 Oct 2016 21:26

AMRAAM-D/Meteor is available for integration on the LCA? or the Sukhoi?


As long as we are discussing the LCA (let's not get into the MKI since that wasn't being discussed) then have these been denied? Why can't the AMRAAM or the MICA be integrated on the LCA with the ELTA AESA? For this the IAF has to be dissatisfied with the Derby and the aircraft needs to be able to actually utilized the longer ranged missiles. I'll give you an example, one of the reasons to go to an AN/APG-79 radar for the USN was that it would support the eventual Aim-120D which would have not been properly utilized with the legacy hornet radar. If the IAF feels an AESA bump on the LCA allows them longer ranged engagements, what's stopping them from asking HAL to officially explore the Derby ER, MICA, or AMRAAM? even if we totally ignore the ASTRA and ASTRA future development! You don't go out and buy a new fighter if all you need is a longer ranged weapon.

I wasnt aware that Meteor/AMRAAM-D APG83 was available for integration into the LCA.. Are you aware of something like this?


Much like the ELTA, both the SABR and RACR are scalable, open ended sensors. The SABR itself is being upsized to fit the B-1 Bomber. It is a scalable system that works for smaller and larger platforms. The RACR, is also scalable and a slightly scaled version is for sale as an upgrade to classic hornet's. As far as availability, you have to solicit offers before you find out but the entire point of developing these sensors is to make them attractive for various applications.

From Jane's International defense Review -

Although the radar is aimed at F-16 customers unable to acquire the AN/APG-80 AESA radar that equips F-16 Block 60 fighters supplied to the United Arab Emirates, the company emphasises that it is "scaleable" and can be tailored to fit other platforms and missions. One possible application cited by Sheppard is the A-50 derivative of the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainer (which made its show debut at the airshow).


The SABR (no referred to as AN/APG-83) is export cleared.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 28 Oct 2016 21:59

JayS wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Can some guru ji explain if the ge f110 in the blk 60 with the higher thrust fit on the blk 50-airframe, which seems lighter by a good 1500kg? Perhaps the payload won't be equal but the requirement is for a light fighter after all. We'd get a stupendous a2a performer for sure


Hay allah, blk-50?? Tobah tobah... How can we have same version that Pakis have?? :lol: :lol:


:lol: true dat. But saar otoh the yehudis and yankees also have the same...and if yanks have them, they are saalid wonlee. Also, it is correct wonlee that yindoos should stick to yyy nexus, no?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 28 Oct 2016 23:29

Long time observers of the IAF are befuddled of the "logic" of this light, medium, heavy categories. Do not get me wrong, the mechanics of the categorization are well understood. What is not understood is the linking of this philosophy to our budgets, threats, IAF needs and capabilities and opportunities. The question is not even about an argument on WHY such a demarcation or there are alternative approaches adopted by others. It is a more basic question. How did this thinking come about and to what purpose? Maybe someone can enlighten on this thread.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 29 Oct 2016 00:12

OT:

Indo-Pak conflict is coming sooner than the


Exactly how large will this "Pak" be, when the conflict comes?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 29 Oct 2016 01:39

sudeepj wrote:Indo-Pak conflict is coming sooner than the AMCA and possibly the LCA MKII. $10-15 billions is a small price to pay to prepare for the coming conflicts....


I remember few years back there was a discussion on BRF about TACDE tactics etc. for Airforce and how after a new fighter is inducted it takes time for it to be given to TACDE to create the tactics etc. and its long process when complete tactics are developed to exploit the strenghts of aircraft.

So even after manufacturing hiccups etc. finally jets reach AF they'll take time in developing all this. SO AGAIN IT WILL BE TIME CONSUMING... for quick use in war forget any new jet...

For that best is to buy UAE & Qatar's 126 + 12 Mirage 2000-9s quickly, TACDE etc. are all worked out.

True the farce of ToT and MII can't be played with that but to quickly prepare for war that is the only way.

......and to align with a super power with which we have uniquely aligning interests for the first time in decades.

Pakistan also once aligned with them, pattons and sabres rotting and burning in the fields, pakistan split in two and bangladesh born.

Then the superpower kicked them with pressler amendement, not only sanctioned the F-16s but also kept the money paid for them for 17 years before removing the blocks.... :wink:

As NRao ji says usa isn't a monolithic entity, that one part is selling us f-16 doesn't guarentee that the other part won't sink its fangs in us injecting poison...

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4615
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 29 Oct 2016 03:20

Mihir wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Can I have a whiff of what you are smoking?

No point getting nasty. We can have different views about this and still be polite, can't we? You still haven't given any evidence to show that the F-16s would stop working upon crossing the LoC from what I see. So perhaps I'm not the only one smoking something strong?

Rakesh wrote:If the F-Solah, Paper-NG or any new fighter (single or twin engine) arrive, you can kiss the Tejas goodbye.

I may be wrong here, but the Tejas now has institutional support. It is not going anywhere but into large-scale squadron service. F-solah or not.

Rakesh wrote:There is NOT a huge requirement for both. We are struggling to meet the 42 squadron demand. The IAF will not get the funds - at least now - to go beyond that number. So where is this huge requirement you are referring to? Show me the numbers please.


RohitVats has written an excellent analysis of what the future requirements might be here. His conclusion is that 5 squadrons of the MRCA are necessary for the IAF to field 38 fighter squadrons by 2027. That is if the induction schedule he's proposed in the post is met "with clock-work precision".

Where are these 5 squadrons going to come from? LCA Mk-II? The status of that project itself is not clear, with some on this forum claiming that it has been dropped in favour of the Mk-1A, and others saying that it is still going strong. Who knows what the reality is? My point is that it would be far too risky. The IAF and MoD may not be prepared for such risk.

Rakesh wrote:How exactly is screwdrivergiri of the F-Solah going to kick start the private industry? Is Pratt & Whitney going to give us engine tech on a platter? Is Raytheon going to show us the blueprints of the APG-80 AESA radar?


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 optimise 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. Reminds me of something a Russian scientist said to some BRFite at Aero India (I think it was shiv): "What is technology? I am technology!"

This is exactly how the private automotive industry did it. Unlike government-owned enterprises like HAL, they are far more cutthroat and less averse to copying what foreign entities have done in the pursuit of profit. Hindustan Motors stagnated in spite of manufacturing the Ambassador and Contessa for years, but Tata and Mahindra were quick to absorb the know-how they acquired from partnerships with Mercedes-Benz/Jeep/Ford/Renault - as well as the skilled manpower they poached from the likes of Maruti-Suzuki - to develop their own designs. I have a little bit of personal experience with this, so I'm not just pulling arguments out of a hat.

Rakesh wrote:WRT to the PLAAF. The Su-35 - like EVERY other purchase the Chinese make - was bought for one purpose alone. It is called reverse engineering. That is how their aviation industry survives. A smart strategy, not an ethical one, but quite effective. In India, we do not do that. We do screwdrivergiri and learn nothing as a result.


Fair enough. But this is not too different from what Modi/Parrikar are trying to achieve with the Make-in-India initiative for the aero industry. It is very similar to the Chinese purchasing Russian-made Su-27s and Su-30s while their J-10 and J-11 programmes matured.


agree 100% with you Mihir.

This thread is moving too quickly to be able to even keep up!

The day a TASL, L&T or even Reliance Aerospace actually gets its hands on the technology behind a large scale assembly line, production and sustainment of a fleet, India would have truly achieved something. LM or Saab's job would be to do the hand-holding required to get them to that level. They depute their people, they help in installing machines, doing the training, all of which requires a lot of effort and if anyone believes that HAL can do that job while keeping their current programs on track, then well, what can I say?

IMO, it would be a massive stretch and HAL stands to gain diddly squat from that, on the contrary, they create a competitor for themselves. Why would HAL even bother attempting such a thing?? It's hard enough doing their own job and keeping to the timelines, and now some people think that HAL would take it upon themselves to do most the legwork for a second line for a private sector firm just because the Govt. may call it a "strategic partner"? How is that going to be possible, someone pray tell, especially those who keep telling us that 126 firm orders are not a sign of a major commitment and want more ordered immediately. Deliver those 126 first, at a pace that meets your one and only customer's urgent operational needs and then ask for more! If you can't and complain about the lack of an eco-system of aerospace suppliers in India, then what is your customer supposed to do till then? Fight with a subsonic AJT cum 'Combat Hawk' as its MiG-21 and MiG-27 replacement? And then people claim the customer is 'killing' the program? They have slated 6 of their squadrons to get that fighter and someone says the program is being killed? Which world are we living in?

This is a very unique situation- just compare it to the shipyards in India, where at least 3 separate govt. owned shipyards have their hands full and still more orders can feed private shipyards and the Krivak deal may go towards that. India's aerospace requirements are actually huge and only going to get bigger..and importing everything or having HAL assemble through licence is not the way forward for the next 100 years. Especially when the cost of each single import has now reached the proportions of the Rafale deal. Even for the indigenous products, having a public/private partnership that expedites large scale production, export and sustainment is required. People talk about exports, but can HAL in its current state even dream of landing a significant export deal? How will they scale up to meet that goal that the GoI has now set?

HAL has no competition and its Tier 1 suppliers are basically just producing parts to order. The step up from Tier 1 to OEM/Integrator is where the GoI wants them to get to and this is a big opportunity. Ideally, they should've done it for a Tejas Mk2 design. But for it to happen, just too many things have to go right and even the fundamental agreement between the design agencies in ADA and HAL isn't there. Where is the Tejas Mk2? And people dream about 200+ Tejas fighters.

The IAF, in all fairness, asked for 126 medium weight fighters way back in 2006 or so and in 2016 got a commitment for 36. As far as they're concerned, that original requirement is still not met. The Tejas Mk1 was never a contender for that original requirement, since they envisioned a 3 tier orbat to meet their strategic and tactical missions. Comparisons with other nations won't work since India isn't a Euro nation with only air policing requirements or whatever and has two rather strong militaries that it may come to blows with. And if they don't get 90 medium weight fighters, they basically will have to get more MKIs. And try to make do with a token 2 squadron Rafale force that becomes a silver bullet force and try their best to beg/blackmail the GoI into ordering at least 36 more. And Reliance Aerospace will "dispose the offsets" for those jets as well. Whatever the heck that means, its too nebulous.

is that so bad- getting 60 more MKIs and dropping this entire MMRCA requirement and going with a 2 tier force - Su-30MKIs at the top and Tejas at the bottom with a silver bullet Rafale force? Probably not, but India will likely not get a private sector aerospace ecosystem going that way.

That MTA program with HAL as the prime partner for Ilyushin, where did that go? Nowhere. Possibly because HAL itself had other more pressing programs on hand. Then this govt. attempted to get a private aerospace sector going with the HS-748 Avro replacement program but that got stalled due to lack of any serious interest from private players, and frankly that requirement was not half as important as this one is. The IAF could simply go in for 12 more C-130Js and deal with the retirement of the Avro fleet. But can the same be done for the fighter fleet? Either the GoI changes its stance and says that a two-front war is no longer tenable and the IAF can water down its requirements for a large enough fleet in the 2020s OR- they somehow try to circumvent the combination of byzantine MoD red tapism that drowns the original MRCA tender + HAL's inability to quickly scale up that means even getting 120 Tejas fighters into service will take too much time, forget 120+126.
Last edited by Kartik on 29 Oct 2016 04:54, edited 1 time in total.

Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

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

Postby Bart S » 29 Oct 2016 03:22

sudeepj wrote:
Indo-Pak conflict is coming sooner than the AMCA and possibly the LCA MKII. $10-15 billions is a small price to pay to prepare for the coming conflicts and to align with a super power with which we have uniquely aligning interests for the first time in decades.


I haven't been following the entire discussion but I think this is a salient point that might explain some of the decisions of the Modi sarkar that might seem 'perplexing'.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4615
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 29 Oct 2016 03:26

NRao wrote:
Kartik wrote:My one and only worry about the F-16 Block 70 is related to the level of technology transfer that will be approved. With a new GOTUS coming in place soon, lets see how these things transpire.


Key.

Despite LM making so much noise, looking for land, organizing meeting with potential locals, etc, this is far from a done deal.

but people of the betting kind are looking at it favorably.

With the stakes so high , LM will make it happen with a private partner.


I have little doubt about LM's ability to do it, should they get the contract. They have set up assembly lines for both the F-16 and F-35 FACO outside of the US and have a real skin in making sure this full relocation works out.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

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

Postby Cosmo_R » 29 Oct 2016 04:00

Alas, the LCA appears very much like the INSAS saga

"It’s encouraging that they’re going ahead with this, but it’s discouraging that it’s not made under ‘Make in India,’ ” said Anit Mukherjee, a former major in the Indian Army and assistant professor at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. “The fact that it took 10 years for Indians to go ahead and say, ‘we’re importing’ means the bureaucracy is still holding back modernization of the armed forces. That’s problematic.”


"India needs 65,000 rifles within 28 months of signing the contract and has asked global manufacturers to reply by November 7, the ministry said. India plans to issue a tender for procuring rifles in April 2017.

This is India’s second attempt since 2011 to procure assault rifles for its infantry. The 2011 tenders were issued to Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC, Italy’s Fabbrica d’Armi Pietro Beretta S.p.A., Swiss Sig Sauer Inc., the Czech Republic’s Ceska zbrojovka and Israel Weapons Industry Ltd. But it was canceled in 2015 after the rifles offered up by the global manufacturers did not meet the multi-caliber requirements of the army."

"The fact that you can’t even design your own small arms system reflects very poorly on the military ecosystem in India,” he said. “The military innovation cycle is dysfunctional and broken down and it should be a matter of huge concern.”

Tangential to to LCA but relevant nonetheless. If the existing Indian MIC cannot produce an assault rifle without tripping on its toes, what hope do we have of fielding the LCA in quantity on time?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

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

Postby sudeepj » 29 Oct 2016 04:04

It is orthogonal to the LCA issue.. Countries like India have uneven levels of innovation, one sector can be quite good while another is lagging. I feel, LCA is an excellent light weight fighter provided it has the right sensors-shooter chain and a good engine. At present it doesnt have it, but as a platform, it can take on the right stuff and be excellent. I just feel, F16 brings something else to the table. It also costs us in some ways.. up to the GoI to decide if the tradeoffs are worth it.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

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

Postby Cosmo_R » 29 Oct 2016 04:13

sudeepj wrote:It is orthogonal to the LCA issue.. Countries like India have uneven levels of innovation, one sector can be quite good while another is lagging. I feel, LCA is an excellent light weight fighter provided it has the right sensors-shooter chain and a good engine. At present it doesnt have it, but as a platform, it can take on the right stuff and be excellent. I just feel, F16 brings something else to the table. It also costs us in some ways.. up to the GoI to decide if the tradeoffs are worth it.


The question is the ability to deliver 200 units by 2021. My POV is simply that if we can get 200 LCAS to replace the retiring fighters by 2020/2021, I'm all for it above the F-16.

If the INSAS is an example of PSU capability, the F-16 is a no brainer.

Personally, I'd prefer getting the F-35 instead of the the F-16 but there are some issues on access to code. An interesting article in that regard

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/orig ... skies.html

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1699
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

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

Postby sudeepj » 29 Oct 2016 04:19

> If the INSAS is an example of PSU capability, the F-16 is a no brainer.

Not the same PSU !! And even the F16 will not reach those numbers by 2021. :(

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 29 Oct 2016 04:34

And even the F16 will not reach those numbers by 2021


Sorry I missed the discussion on that. How many are you expecting by 2021?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4615
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 29 Oct 2016 04:56

I would be happy if we saw a single squadron worth inducted by 2021.

astal
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 03:06
Location: virtual back bench

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

Postby astal » 29 Oct 2016 05:00

Indeed this is a very fast moving thread.
Some thoughts on the single engine multi role fighter "documents" sent to several embassies.
When ACM Raha said there is no plan B, Shri Modi and Shri Parrikar asked him to make a plan B, C, D, E and so on. In short the Air force is now tasked to prepare a Capabilities/Costs matrix with many options. These will be discussed and used to inform future aircraft acquisition decisions.

One of the main shortcomings of the MMRCA disaster was that they compared aircraft with very different cost and capabilities. We also had special requirements for Strategic Forces Command which further confused the deal.

This time they have separate "RFI's" for different aircraft types. This does not mean that they will select both single engine and twin engine aircraft. RM Shri Parrikar has gone on record to say we may have one or two aircraft made in India. Obviously this depends on cost and capabilities on offer. As we all know, some of the short term goals of the exercise are:

1. Fill depleting squadron strength.
2. Build local manufacturing and skills.
3. Break HAL monopoly.

Lets see what happens. I think they will still go in for the Super Hornet because of engine commonalities, the desire for a strike oriented aircraft (as opposed to Su 30 for air superiority or Tejas, which is also excellent for air superiority but lacks range. Like Commodore Muthanna said, it is a mini Sukhoi) and more powerful radar. Weapons are pretty much the same on all U.S. aircraft. They navy could also get a few squadrons.

Now that they have gotten nuclear strike out of the way with the very expensive Mirage 2000 upgrade and 36 nuclear hardened, made in France Rafales, they could also go with more, less expensive, make in India Rafales if Dassault puts in a realistic proposal for the second 'rfi'. So in my humble opinion, it is all still in the air but the powers that be are working towards specific targets and need numbers to make decisions.

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 245
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

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

Postby Amoghvarsha » 29 Oct 2016 05:01

Kartik wrote:I would be happy if we saw a single squadron worth inducted by 2021.


You dont expect a single squadron in 5 years? :eek:

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7776
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 Oct 2016 05:25

Amoghvarsha wrote:
Kartik wrote:I would be happy if we saw a single squadron worth inducted by 2021.


You dont expect a single squadron in 5 years? :eek:

Be extremely happy if that can happen.

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 245
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

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

Postby Amoghvarsha » 29 Oct 2016 05:26

Indranil wrote:
Amoghvarsha wrote:
You dont expect a single squadron in 5 years? :eek:

Be extremely happy if that can happen.


Accoridng to the RM the selection will be made by March 2017.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4615
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 29 Oct 2016 05:26

No, since the deal won't even go through till 2018 and assuming that the first 18 F-16s are delivered direct from Fort Worth, they will take ~36 months from placing the order to delivery. Long lead items typically take around 24-36 months from order to delivery.

And yes, that is assuming a minor miracle happens and all the ducks line up and a contract gets signed by 2018.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7776
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 Oct 2016 05:30

Amoghvarsha,

If the selection is made in March 2017, it will at least take 2 years to set up a new assembly line in India. So even if things are extremely smooth, don't expect the first F-16 to come out of the new line till 2021 or so. The first squadron of 20 planes cannot be supplied in less than 2 years. So 2023. Realistically, you are looking at the first squadron in 2024-25 and a squadron per year thereafter.

As an example look no further than the line being set up for the C-295s.

P.S. Kartik, I wrote this post in parallel.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Oct 2016 06:25

NRao wrote:
And even the F16 will not reach those numbers by 2021


Sorry I missed the discussion on that. How many are you expecting by 2021?

sorry to butt in, but cosmo's highly optimistic figure side, I would hope for 36 ....direct from fort worth, tx. In the meanwhile LM will do what it does to bring a local private entity, prolly Tasl online.

If we can have 36 rafale + 36 f16 + 36 LCA by 2021ish, I'd take it happily. So, by 2021 IAF will look like
5 sqd bison
14 sqd mki
6 sqd jaguar
6 sqd mirage and fulcrum
6 sqd of above
2 sqd flogger upg
Total ..... 39 sqds

The issue of getting sops and tactics may possibly be addressed concurrently by a leasing a sqd from the US...

If we are more conservative and assume 18 solah by that time, we can hope that the lca has kicked in with about one sqd worth if mk1a. In case that too had not happened the above total can be revised to 38.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 29 Oct 2016 06:47, edited 1 time in total.

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 245
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

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

Postby Amoghvarsha » 29 Oct 2016 06:36

Indranil And Kartik Saar

The F 16 line closes in 2017.So if it is to be transferred and LM wants the suppliers to keep their line open then they have to have a deal by 2017.Else its Mirage 2000 scenario again or rather the GlobeMaster Scenario.

Also If this deal goes through,the falling number of IAF mean India may buy the first squadrons from Texas line till the assembly line is being set up in India.

If the time line is really what you are estimating then considering India may buy 150 F 16s,the last F 16 may come somewhere in 2030-32.By that time the F 16 will already be obsolete and will not make any sense whatsoever.

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 » 29 Oct 2016 07:03

ShauryaT wrote:Long time observers of the IAF are befuddled of the "logic" of this light, medium, heavy categories. Do not get me wrong, the mechanics of the categorization are well understood. What is not understood is the linking of this philosophy to our budgets, threats, IAF needs and capabilities and opportunities. The question is not even about an argument on WHY such a demarcation or there are alternative approaches adopted by others. It is a more basic question. How did this thinking come about and to what purpose? Maybe someone can enlighten on this thread.

Exactly Shaurya Exactly. I was amazed that the CAS said it. In Kannada - cooks refer to a balance of "uppu-huli-khara" or salt-sour-spice. Gustation is not an air force and until India went for "heavy" Su-30 there was no concept in any IAF document that I know of, of "light-medium-heavy" fighters

What there was spoke of "roles" in tandem with what was happening in the milavia world. There were attack fighters, interceptors, air defence and air superiority and later multirole fighters . Small, light and agile was considered a requirement for air defence fighters especially in the immediate post-Vietnam era when the F-16 was born, while something larger with more heft-lugging capacity was for attack aircraft. Ironically the IAF never got anything more "heavy" than the Canberra, classified as a "light bomber" in Western air forces. The Su-30 - a heavy agile aircraft initially designed for air dominance was converted secondarily into a "heavy" end attack aircraft - again ironically nowhere as heavy as the real heavies like the Tu-22, Tu 160 or B-52, B-1 and B-2.

What was sought as a "Medium aircraft" (MMRCA) has now given us a Rafale that carries as much as a Su-30.

The IAFs own requirements have morphed with time. Only one half of the issue can be pinned on Indian slow development cycle of the LCA. The other half is of the IAF itself not being able to predict its own future role other than generalities of the aerospace domain. Perhaps the hangover of the Air Force not being utilized against China blinded the old and now retired planners of the IAF into concentrating on Pakistan. Perhaps it was budgets. Most probably it was an equal blindness of our polity, babus and ministry of defence. But these are excuses. the navy managed to plan 30 to 50 years ahead.

The IAF wanted a MiG 21 replacement - so a light fighter was planned in an era when light and agile with an intercept radar was thought adequate, along with some multirole attack capability in the days before air refuelling. The fact that the Air Force somehow bypassed air refuelling in the past comes from two data points. First the "DPSA" - "Deep Penetration" aircraft - the Jaguar. Deep penetration into where? Only Pakistan, not China. And certainly useless for the Himalayan region. And the air refuelling plumbing was left out. Clearly the vision of longer ranges and high altitudes was absent when the Jaguar was selected. The same thinking asked far a "MiG 21 replacement"

Along the way we got BVRs, Air Refuelling, AESA, Self protection in a high threat environment and now stealth. Every one of these requirements has been secondarily painted on to the LCA when the Air Force wanted, and STILL WANTS and MiG 21 replacement.

OK - forget LCA for a minute and answer this one. Why does the Air Force want a MiG 21 replacement today? Is it a specific capability they are looking for or just numbers? If they are looking for simple light air defence capability - the MMRCA fly off could have thrown up the F-16 as a good choice. But the IAF was not looking for that. they were looking at medium range swing role. The existing MiG 21s are definitely not Medium range swing role. So with the MMRCA fly off the air force requirements have changed from "Light air defence/light attack" to "Medium-range/medium load" swing role. Fine. So be it. But what capability is the IAF now going to lose by the loss of MiG 21s? What capability is the IAF looking to replace? It is certainly not "weights" like light-medium-heavy. And even today the Air Force is not talking about the capability to fly across oceans and hit the Chinese East coast.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7776
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 29 Oct 2016 07:32

Amoghvarsha,

No Saar for me. You can't have the assembly line in two places at the same time. People here are expecting a miracle out the f-16 line. It would be set up post haste. It will drum out only 120 f-16s but at alarming rates from the get go and at great economic value.

In other words,the benefits of economics of scale, but without the scales.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 29 Oct 2016 13:29

There are three possible mode's for LM line in India, as far as I can see, and even GOI seems to be confused on this one:
- LM India - 100% owned subsidiary
- LM_Indian pvt co - JV (26:74 or 49:51)
- 100% Indian pvt co owing Assembly line.

There are two modes of production, that I can think of (Assuming MII is compulsory)
- All F16 manufactured in India: LM orders all parts from suppliers and meanwhile sets up assembly plant in India. Usually it takes 36 months for jet to roll out. Thi mode will push it to 4-5yrs (after the contract is signed. They would need land, all clearances, time to contruct new plant, hire/train people). Then as well production ramp up will take atleast 1 more yr.

- 2sq flyaway, rest in india: LM will manufacture about 2 sq in US retaining some tooling there while rest of the tooling being transferred in India, and plant being set up and production starts here. rest 4 sq will be assembled in India.

This 36month timeline is standard when existing supply chain gonna supply parts. If LM decides to shift some of its suppliers to those suppliers will take their own sweet time to get started with production. For small small parts it doesn't matter but if things like aircraft structural components are to be shifted here that will add some significant time to the lead time.

Another point - lets say GOI is doing all this for numbers as primary concern for whatever future threat perception it sees in near future. Can GOI pay for 100 F16 blk70 jet coming is very quick time?? Last I checked 15% advanced payment for Rafale pushed some deals to next financial year already.

A crude price estimate considering following points:
- UAE deal for F16 blk60 order which came at approximately $200Mil per piece (quick google)
- assuming it came with all weapons package, some kind of PBL for few years etc,
- considering that UAE would not have needed to pay for setting up new bases for them as they already have infra for F16, but we will have to pay
- and considering cost of shifting line/suppliers to India,
- adding some margin for inflation
- considering blk70 is better than blk60 and so will be costlier. And we will have to bankroll dev cost at least partially, if not fully.
- Some IAF specific changes will be there for sure.

I would say the cost per F16 blk70 in the whole package would touch $300Mil easily >> $30Billion for 100jets. How fast do you think GOI can pay $30Billion for F16?? Where this money will come from?? Considering we already signed $50B deals already and some more is in pipeline.


Cosmo_R wrote: The question is the ability to deliver 200 units by 2021. My POV is simply that if we can get 200 LCAS to replace the retiring fighters by 2020/2021, I'm all for it above the F-16.


I seriously do not understand your insistence on criteria that "if and only if 200 LCA can be built by 2020/21". Would you place the same criteria for F16 that "if and only if we LM can manufacture 100 (not even 200, just 100 that MMRCS req is) F16 jets in India by 2020/21". Why this unfair demand from LCA only??

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

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

Postby Neshant » 29 Oct 2016 14:31

The objective is to kill off the fledgling domestic aerospace R&D and keep the country dependant on endless imports of foreign arms. Vested interests are trying to do an Arjun tank cancellation on the LCA.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 29 Oct 2016 14:56

Cosmo_R wrote:
"The fact that you can’t even design your own small arms system reflects very poorly on the military ecosystem in India,” he said. “The military innovation cycle is dysfunctional and broken down and it should be a matter of huge concern.”


Somebody had posted a story of how McNamara kept the "M" series rifles inferior due to saving money and the american soldiers suffered but they kept with indigenous product instead of importing german, italian or british guns. I BOW DOWN MY HEAD IN RESPECT TO THOSE GREAT BRAVE AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS WHO STILL SUPPORTED INDIGENOUS AMERICAN PRODUCT.

Even after the "huge" problems world war with torpedoes, aircraft they didn't go for producing already successful british aircrafts but stuck to their faulty inferior aircrafts and went to fight the enemy, I SALUTE THOSE BRAVE AMERICAN AIRFORCE MEN who stuck to "Flying Coffin" F-104 but didn't import.

Those army and airforce men make america a powerful nation that it is today.

We have two choices now :
1.) Easy one : Go for readymade foreign jet

2.) Correct one : Show grit and determination put in all national resources like we did in IGMDP, manufacture LCA Tejas in great numbers.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3470
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 29 Oct 2016 15:05

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:
"The fact that you can’t even design your own small arms system reflects very poorly on the military ecosystem in India,” he said. “The military innovation cycle is dysfunctional and broken down and it should be a matter of huge concern.”


Somebody had posted a story of how McNamara kept the "M" series rifles inferior due to saving money and the american soldiers suffered but they kept with indigenous product instead of importing german, italian or british guns. I BOW DOWN MY HEAD IN RESPECT TO THOSE GREAT BRAVE AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS WHO STILL SUPPORTED INDIGENOUS AMERICAN PRODUCT.

Even after the "huge" problems world war with torpedoes, aircraft they didn't go for producing already successful british aircrafts but stuck to their faulty inferior aircrafts and went to fight the enemy, I SALUTE THOSE BRAVE AMERICAN AIRFORCE MEN who stuck to "Flying Coffin" F-104 but didn't import.

Those army and airforce men make america a powerful nation that it is today.

We have two choices now :
1.) Easy one : Go for readymade foreign jet

2.) Correct one : Show grit and determination put in all national resources like we did in IGMDP, manufacture LCA Tejas in great numbers.


Quite agree !! But dear Sir ., did America at any time have the threat perception of a war ., that too a two front one at any time .. for India the option has to be both .. but definitely a judicious judgement when coming to foreign procurement

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 29 Oct 2016 15:14

World war, korean war, vietnam war, cold war...

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 » 29 Oct 2016 15:33

Government Offers To Buy 200 Foreign Combat Jets - If They're Made-In-India

New Delhi: India is offering to buy hundreds of fighter planes from foreign manufacturers - as long as the jets are made in India and with a local partner, air force officials say.

A deal for 200 single-engine planes produced in India - which the air force says could rise to 300 as it fully phases out ageing Soviet-era aircraft - could be worth anything from $13-$15 billion (Rs. 1 lakh crore approximately), experts say, potentially one of the country's biggest military aircraft deals.

After a deal to buy high-end Rafale planes from France's Dassault was scaled back to just 36 jets last month, the Indian Air Force is desperately trying to speed up other acquisitions and arrest a fall in operational strength, now a third less than required to face both China and Pakistan.

But Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration wants any further military planes to be built in India with an Indian partner to kickstart a domestic aircraft industry, and end an expensive addiction to imports.

Lockheed Martin said it is interested in setting up a production line for its F-16 plane in India for not just the Indian military, but also for export.

And Sweden's Saab has offered a rival production line for its Gripen aircraft, setting up an early contest for one of the biggest military plane deals in play.

"The immediate shortfall is 200. That would be the minimum we would be looking at," said an air officer briefed on the Make-in-India plans under which a foreign manufacturer will partner local firms to build the aircraft with technology transfer.

India's defence ministry has written to several companies asking if they would be willing to set up an assembly line for single-engine fighter planes in India and the amount of technology transfer that would happen, another government source said.

"We are testing the waters, testing the foreign firms' willingness to move production here and to find out their expectations," the person said.

Operational Gaps

India's air force originally planned for 126 Rafale twin-engine fighters from Dassault, but the two sides could not agree on the terms of local production with a state-run Indian firm and settled for 36 planes in a fly-away condition.

Adding to the military's problems is India's three-decade effort to build a single-engine fighter of its own which was meant to be the backbone of the air force. Only two of those Light Combat Aircraft, called Tejas, have been delivered to the air force which has ordered 140 of them.

The Indian Air Force is down to 32 operational squadrons compared with the 45 it has said are necessary, and in March the vice chief Air Marshal BS Dhanoa told parliament's defence committee that it didn't have the operational strength to fight a two front war against China and Pakistan.

Jet Makers Respond

Saab said it was ready to not only produce its frontline Gripen fighter in India, but help build a local aviation industry base.

"We are very experienced in transfer of technology - our way of working involves extensive cooperation with our partners to establish a complete ecosystem, not just an assembly line," said Jan Widerstrom, Chairman and Managing Director, Saab India Technologies.

He confirmed Saab had received the letter from the Indian government seeking a fourth generation fighter. A source close to the company said that while there was no minimum order set in stone for it to lay down a production line, they would expect to build at least 100 planes at the facility.

Lockheed Martin said it had responded to the defence ministry's letter with an offer to transfer the entire production of its F-16 fighter to India.

"Exclusive F-16 production in India would make India home to the world's only F-16 production facility, a leading exporter of advanced fighter aircraft, and offer Indian industry the opportunity to become an integral part of the world's largest fighter aircraft supply chain," Abhay Paranjape, National Executive for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Business Development in India said in an email.

US Top Supplier

Lockheed's offer comes on the back of expanding U.S.-India military ties in which Washington has emerged as India's top arms supplier in recent years, ousting old ally Russia.

Earlier this year Boeing also offered India its twin-engine F/A-18 Hornets, but the level of technology transfer was not clear.

India has never previously attempted to build a modern aircraft production line, whether military or civilian. State-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) has assembled Russian combat jets including the Su-30, but these are under licensed production.

"We have never had control over technology. This represents the most serious attempt to build a domestic base. A full or a near-full tech transfer lays the ground for further development," said retired Indian air marshal M Matheswaran, a former adviser at HAL.

He said the Indian government would be looking at producing at least 200 fighters, and then probably some more, to make up for the decades of delay in modernising the air force.
© Thomson Reuters 2016

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 29 Oct 2016 16:03

Is this the same offer that Govt gave to Indian pvt players?? Perhaps because they refused to stand up for whatever reason?? Because numbers are same - 200 and 12B.

200nos in $12-13B = $60-65Mil. This would be expected price of bare jet I suppose. Seems too low to me.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7931
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2016 16:22

JayS wrote:Is this the same offer that Govt gave to Indian pvt players?? Perhaps because they refused to stand up for whatever reason?? Because numbers are same - 200 and 12B.

200nos in $12-13B = $60-65Mil. This would be expected price of bare jet I suppose. Seems too low to me.


$60-$65 million would fit well as a total fly-away cost for an F-16 including the engine, and the initial bed down of spares including the non-reccuring element. If we go by the last decent rate procurement of a 4-5 generation US aircraft we get a Total Flyaway cost of the around $62 Million for the purchase of 26 F-18E/F's by the Navy in FY2013. Add a little more for support, and that will probably come to around $65-$70 Million. I'd say the F-16 would be a good 10-12% cheaper to produce given its smaller, lighter and has just one engine but you can perhaps bake that cost back due to a new production line so the estimates are actually not very much off.

Given how much Brazil is paying for the Gripen E/F domestic production, you really wouldn't be able to get the most advanced Gripen down to those levels. These estimates do not include the cost to set up a line, the cost to train a workforce, create a supply chain, absorb production processes and of course weapons and other ancillary costs.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 29 Oct 2016 17:04

Hmm...

LM will grab this offer with both hands anyhow. I think only real hurdle in the entire thing is - ToT. Rest all things will work out anyhow. And the decision for F16 is made quite some time ago by Modi himself, it seems. Rest are to make it happen in best possible manner.

So going by Rohit's post, LCA's always gonna be 120 jets only, only question that can be debated is whether it will be all Mk1A or all MK2. This 200nos is getting carried forward from the MMRCA tender of 126 purchase + 69 (?) options.

As I have said, the least I expect from GOI is a speedy execution of this project.

PS: 200nos changes some equations.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 29 Oct 2016 17:42

LCA for it to reach 120 will need engines. No order for engines has been placed till now.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7931
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2016 17:48

They could have simply baked in options when they ordered the last batch in 2008 (iirc) which would mean about a couple of years worth of advanced notice and payment before deliveries. Even otherwise, given the LCA specific changes have already occurred with delivered 404's there probably isn't a very long lead time required for delivery especially given the production for the USN is probably slowing down.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests