'Make in India' Single engined fighter

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 472
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby maitya » 04 Nov 2016 16:26

Rishi Verma wrote:Can't believe the words being thrown around. "solve the problems with LCA", "induct the lca in large numbers", I have faith in NaMo and Parrikar and IAF. If LCA production issues were solved then they would have ordered more LCA.


Yup ... spoken like true-blue customer.

Somebody has to solve all such hands-dirty issues, so that lordships can lord over multiple signing-in-triplet-committees, over an unlimited supply of chai-somosas-biskuts, to do a favor and order a few.

In fact the NDTV interview "walk the talk" where CLaw guy says that even they were surprised by what the LCA can achieve. It's OK, it's a first fbw plane designed in India. But if the (designers) were unsure of the capability obviously customer wasn't either.

Wah!! Wah!! what a root-causal anal-ysis there.

And production wasn't envisaged early on.

Yup - ofcourse it wasn't. Don't you know it was a science project that went on for 3 decades? Never heard of any productionising etc of science projects that too of a khadi-gramodyog level - have you?

Now that LCA is slowly making its mark, going through improvement cycles, it will be inducted.

Ofcourse it will be ... there's already a confirmed order of super-giant, mammoth and colossal 20 platforms.
Those will surely be inducted ... and 20 are big-enough for the kallurams, how dare they dream of anything more.

F-16 or whichever import is not meant for "LCA killing", it's for killing pakis and chinnis. As long as the killing gets done, what does it matter with which plane.

Right ... you know there was once a guy who gave 3 laws of motion, and the 3rd law said some-thing like "... opposite reaction".
Unfortunately the "... opposite reaction" of this phrase "Killing" is "getting killed" - also called attrition.

And when that happens, I'm sure these lordships will make the innumerable shashtang-ashanas to the uber-lordships of the OEM countries, to ensure atleast some back-filling of these attrition-losses - of course, if these uber-lordships will very-kindly allow these platforms to be flown in anger in the first place,, when there's a remote chance of their favorite munna getting bitch-slapped etc.

Strategic independence indeed!!

(PS - there's a platform called Su-30MKI which is also MII for quite some time (ok ok, I agree, the making of these predates the invention of this super-sophisticated MII phrase - so that phrase shouldn't apply to those).
Of course, by now we can "make" any number of AL-31FP anytime we wish - as the OEM has whispered to our ears the secret recipe of SC blades, the LPC/HPC disk-blade joining, the applicable thermal-coatings, the combustor-lining mettalurgy etc etc etc etc etc).

MII indeed!!!! :roll:
Last edited by maitya on 04 Nov 2016 16:28, edited 3 times 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 » 04 Nov 2016 16:27

JayS wrote:If we induct these 200+100 (leaving 50 naval ones) jets along with 120 LCA and 144 FGFA all these together with 272 Su30MKI and 36 Rafale, give us in 2035:

200 F16
100 F18
120 LCA
144 FGFA
272 Su30
036 Rafale
--------------
872 Total

Which is more than 44 Sq. This assuming all other jets are retired by 2030. Even if we assume that Some FGFA will replace oldest Su30, i don't think it more than 2Sq (in 2014 Su30 are reported to have less than expected utilisation - 1500hrs in 14yrs for 1st overhaul whereas its designed life it 6000hrs..! Do the math when will they be retiring, and there is a fair bit of possibility that we might explore life extension of airframes). So we are still looking at 42Sq. which is sanctioned strength.

Where is the place for AMCA??? Unless of coarse GOI increases squadron strength.


I believe the AMCA will come around 2035 when M2K will retire.So we may ultimately have a 50squadron airforce.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1712
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 04 Nov 2016 17:32

China has already beat us on the Airbus & Boeing fronts. Airbus has opened its 2nd assembly line in China & Boeing expects to sign a contract for a similar 737 line soon there. China is a much more bigger and important market for them compared to India. Don't think both OEMs would want to have 2 plants in same geographic regions. Perhaps Chinese plant will supply components or complete finished products for Asian orders. Also on the MRO front, Middle East, APAC (Singapore, Malaysia) have better facilities & trained manpower. Sadly, we have treated aerospace sector as a luxury and for the elites onlee for a long long time and hence restricted ourselves to purchasing finished products.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 04 Nov 2016 18:48

^^ If potential $200B business is not enough to attract one or two assembly lines I don't know what is. China showed them carrots by pooling on all the orders. Why can't we do the same?? A single airline IndiGO ordered total of 400+ A320NEO. I think its the single largest order for A320 worth $40+B. What did we get in return??

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

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

Postby Amoghvarsha » 04 Nov 2016 19:03

JayS wrote:^^ If potential $200B business is not enough to attract one or two assembly lines I don't know what is. China showed them carrots by pooling on all the orders. Why can't we do the same?? A single airline IndiGO ordered total of 400+ A320NEO. I think its the single largest order for A320 worth $40+B. What did we get in return??


Chinese industry is controled by the PARTY.Indian Industry isnt. If Indigo and others would have asked for a assembly line from Airbus with 500 odd orders Airbus would have done it.But we placed orders and asked nothing in return.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Postby Mihir » 04 Nov 2016 20:18

JayS wrote:Rhetoric question:

Why LM insists on min 100+ order to shift the assembly line to India?? Why can't they first fly fully ready blk 70 config, set up the factory in India and demonstrate reasonable production rate with significant amount of supply chain also shifted to Inda for an initial order of say 20-40 jets?? And then GOI can decide on further orders based on their performance??

Please someone answer... :wink:

Non-rhetorical answer:

My guess is that for domestic purchases, "plans" and "intent" are enough for manufacturers to take the risk of investing in production resources. So if HAL and its suppliers invest in the capacity to build 120 LCAs at 16 aircraft/year now that Parrikar has made the commitment, the Air Force wouldn't be allowed to stop the purchase at just 40 airframes without compensating HAL for any losses incurred. The MoD wouldn't stand for it.

It appears that the US DoD is also ordering the F-35 in bits and pieces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ted_States

As of April 2010 the United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion...

...The United States Department of Defense was planning to buy 14 F-35Bs in fiscal year 2012 and 25 the following year. Instead, six will be bought next year and another six in fiscal year 2013...

...On 29 November 2012, the Pentagon reached an agreement on Lot 5 of the F-35 program, buying 32 aircraft. Lot 5 contains 22 F-35As, 3 F-35Bs, and 7 F-35Cs...

...Lot 6 was awarded on 28 December 2012. The contract is for 18 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 7 F-35Cs...

...As of 30 July 2013, Lockheed has delivered 67 F-35s from the first five production lots, with 28 still on order...

...A deal for Lots 6 and 7 was officially finalized on 24 September 2013...


All piecemeal orders, as you can see. It hasn't stopped Lockheed and other OEMs from pouring money into building a robust supply chain that can supply 2000+ aircraft to the US armed forces alone.

On the other hand, establishing a manufacturing line in a foreign country carries significant risk, so one can empathize with LM's demand for a firm commitment before an investment is made. Even so, they won't demand full payment up front, and I'm sure there will be performance clauses in the contract.
Last edited by Mihir on 04 Nov 2016 20:41, edited 2 times in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 04 Nov 2016 20:24

Mihir wrote:My guess is that for domestic purchases, "plans" and "intent" are enough for manufacturers to take the risk of investing in production resources.


Many in the Aerospace business world would disagree with that. Try asking around. :D

Mihir wrote:So if HAL and its suppliers invest in the capacity to build 120 LCAs at 16 aircraft/year now that Parrikar has given the commitment,


When you say HAL should/would/could invest money, when Parrikar gave commitment, who do you think, exactly takes that decision of investing money..??

Mihir wrote:All piecemeal orders, as you can see. It hasn't stopped Lockheed and other OEMs from pouring money into building a robust supply chain that can supply 2000+ aircraft to the US armed forces alone.


Do you see an alternative to F35 for US forces..???

Project F35, just like F22 was designed to be "too big to fail"...

Also, most of them are not starting from scratch in Aero industry. They have fair bit of established capacity, and many other programs to draw work orders from. So investment on F35 production is as such low, as compared to MIC which would *basically* be doing it from scratch, and has literally nothing to do if LCA does not happen or if it starts late. Every single idle minute on costly machine means loss for suppliers.
Last edited by JayS on 04 Nov 2016 20:42, edited 2 times in total.

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

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

Postby Viv S » 04 Nov 2016 20:33

Mihir wrote:My guess is that for domestic purchases, "plans" and "intent" are enough for manufacturers to take the risk of investing in production resources. So if HAL and its suppliers invest in the capacity to build 120 LCAs at 16 aircraft/year, the Air Force wouldn't be allowed to stop the purchase at just 40 airframes without compensating HAL for any losses incurred. The MoD wouldn't stand for it.

You sure? The Arjun production line at Avadi has been lying dormant for six years now. Is anybody in the MoD including Parrikar losing sleep over it?

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Postby Mihir » 04 Nov 2016 20:37

Viv, there is no intent or commitment from the Army to induct further numbers of the Arjun beyond the 124 Mk-IIs. However, the IAF is now committed to 120 LCAs, not just 40.
Last edited by Mihir on 04 Nov 2016 20:38, edited 1 time in total.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Postby Mihir » 04 Nov 2016 20:38

JayS wrote:Many in the Aerospace business world would disagree with that. Try asking around. :D

It was an uneducated guess on my part. I'd be happy to be corrected.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ragupta » 04 Nov 2016 21:35

HAL/ADA/GTRE/NAL is not enough for India.
There is need for more players, and they cannot be more of the same that is Public sector.
Public sector always finds excuses for blaming Babu/Bureacracy/Orders/Vendors/Mama/Chacha/Bhai/etc

Time to create infrastructure in private sector, who expectedly will be more efficient in decision making and will be free to acquire technology and asset as deem fit.
There is a short window available to be part of global supply chain and India should not leave this opportunity.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ragupta » 04 Nov 2016 21:52

There is enough order/intent for LCA,
HAL's plate is full, already enough projects in their hand, they are still playing catch up in many areas.
Helicopters are coming along fine, LCA manufacturing is slow, still some technology to be mastered, production needs to be streamlined.

HAL cannot be a bottleneck to India's indigenous capability.
Right now for aerospace, Public sector is a single point of failure. this cannot be allowed to continue.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7229
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 04 Nov 2016 22:25

Mihir wrote:Viv, there is no intent or commitment from the Army to induct further numbers of the Arjun beyond the 124 Mk-IIs. However, the IAF is now committed to 120 LCAs, not just 40.

The IAF isn't committed to anything. They have just expressed their intent to buy more LCA's beyond the initial 40 once the Mk1A/Mk2 is built and the IAF is satisfied with it. Just like the Army said they would buy Arjun Mk2s once it was ready. The situation is exactly the same. If we buy F-16s or Gripens, the result will be the same too.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 1005
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

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

Postby Deans » 04 Nov 2016 22:34

JayS wrote:Why Can't govt do anything on Civil airliner front for kick-starting Aerospace industry..?? We have requirement of hundreds of planes there as well. In fact $200Billion worth in coming decades. Why can't GOI invite Airbus or Boeing?? whichever is ready to Make in India gets all the orders from Indian companies. Why it has to be only Fighter jets?? Arguably it would make far more sense to do it with Civil jets - the market size there is far bigger, the MRO market is far bigger there and is much more sustainable for companies to cater Civil biz than mil biz. And we are nowhere near making any Civil jets.


True. When I was commercial head of Go Air, some years ago, I was part of a Govt task force on civil aviation and recommended this. India could easily have told Boeing or Airbus that airlines in India could only buy assembled in India aircraft. Nothing happened. I got Sukhoi to make a proposal to co-manufacture the SU-100 in India (smaller capacity than the Boeing 737 or Airbus 320) which was also not acted on. There's supposed to be a JV between HAL and Illushin, but I've no clue what happened with that.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 04 Nov 2016 22:46

IAF and IA coupled with their corrupt political masters making sure that India remains a big time beggar sorry meant an importer of arms. At the time of hostilities, politicians will have a field day buying ammo/munitions for all the imported weapon systems.

Billions flow out of the economy every year ensuring that India remains a consumer and not a producer!! Has there been a power in all of history that has depended on imports?? Rome? England, Germany, US?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7873
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 04 Nov 2016 22:53

JayS,

You stupid man from the aero industry. How can you not see the parallels of aero industry to the car industry or the bike industry? Can't you see how F-16 manufacture can bring up the private industry, but LCA manufacturing cannot. And how dare you ask for parity on orders. The production rate of LCA has to be be proven first, then orders will follow. Till then, they have the intent,no? What more can you ask for! However, LM has to be given orders of 100s first for it to make it feasible to have a good production rate. That is global norm after all. Also 40B for 300 light and medium weight imported fighters is the best deal for India. After all they are Made in India (and don't get into the meaning literally). Meanwhile, NAL can be given $3M for a national project called NCAD. Their other science project aka the Saras can be self funded by their employees down to the fuel.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1705
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

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

Postby sudeepj » 04 Nov 2016 22:59

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7229
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 04 Nov 2016 23:04

sudeepj wrote:Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

He was just collecting all the ridiculous arguments made in this thread into one post.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 05 Nov 2016 00:02

nachiket wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

He was just collecting all the ridiculous arguments made in this thread into one post.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7873
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 05 Nov 2016 00:25

Meanwhile, this is what one of the best looking aircrafts of all times has morphed into.
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 05 Nov 2016 00:50

Indranil wrote:Meanwhile, this is what one of the best looking aircrafts of all times has morphed into.


The V swaps this out and their shots in the SEAD configuration make it look really good again after the block 50/60 campaigns. Anyhow, this the new cockpit configuration that is flying aboard the V and is selected for the USAF CAPES program. The only real significant change is the new Elta center display.


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7873
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 05 Nov 2016 01:04

I actually went to LM's site for the F-16V. The more I read about the greatness of F-16V, the more I realize that all these touted capabilities are present with LCA and not served out on glossy paper.

Seriously, LCA is not a medium fighter and cannot replace the need for medium fighters. But F-16s/Gripen NGs, that's really questionable.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 05 Nov 2016 01:06

Deans wrote:True. When I was commercial head of Go Air, some years ago, I was part of a Govt task force on civil aviation and recommended this. India could easily have told Boeing or Airbus that airlines in India could only buy assembled in India aircraft. Nothing happened. I got Sukhoi to make a proposal to co-manufacture the SU-100 in India (smaller capacity than the Boeing 737 or Airbus 320) which was also not acted on. There's supposed to be a JV between HAL and Illushin, but I've no clue what happened with that.


Ex-HAL director Dr Tyagi wrote an article on this - his argument was - when we are ready to throw country's $200B, why can't we invest just 1-2% of that and develop at least 1 civil jet liner?? Let alone that, if we show the right amount of carrots any company will come forward to make aircrafts in India. Especially if we are ready to underwrite the financial risks. If GOI is hell bent of creating Aerospace industry, they are letting go this low hanging fruit by not leveraging this $200B potential market. If GOI takes all airliners on-board and negotiate as one party, everyone could get a good deal plus industry in India would get going. That would be far more sustainable than small orders for fighters. Instead of that GOI chooses to go by the path which might as well jeopardize our strategic independence. In last 40 yrs many things happened, so will in next 40yrs. But once we tie these big boulders around neck, we will have to be always factor in them while talking any stance. Already we are monkey-balancing many things by doling out contracts to everyone. Our mantra of strategic independence seems to be diversification of sellers rather than self-sufficiency to whatever extent possible. While GOI has very noble intentions of kick-starting private industry, they don't seem to be taking any note whatsoever on this option.

The NCAD program is in limbo for many yrs. Now HAL is looking for partner for 70-90 seat class. You would know better but i think if we have a homegrown RTA in this class, even if prop based, it could be a big boon for inter-city air travel in India. With our lower costs we could be very competitive. But GOI seems totally uninteresting in this. Russians keep offering but without GOI underwriting the financial risks of development no one would touch the project.

But may be you can give better perspective on this in the Civil aviation thread. I would love to hear what you have to say, since my knowledge is half-baked.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 05 Nov 2016 01:10

Indranil wrote:I actually went to LM's site for the F-16V. The more I read about the greatness of F-16V, the more I realize that all these touted capabilities are present with LCA and not served out on glossy paper.

Seriously, LCA is not a medium fighter and cannot replace the need for medium fighters. But F-16s/Gripen NGs, that's really questionable.


Very true. The F-16V is purpose designed as an upgrade to older types and therefore is within those restrictions (no class changes to the aircraft etc). Unless the requirement is truly to expand the IAF and introduce a lot of aircraft (including the LCA) over the medium term this entire exercise is nothing but a step backwards.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 05 Nov 2016 01:18

Indranil wrote:Meanwhile, this is what one of the best looking aircrafts of all times has morphed into.
Image


Woah..what is that behind the cockpit on the dorsal spine?? I never noticed that before..

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7873
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 05 Nov 2016 01:27

It is the 52 plus. They ran out of internal space, so housed the avionics and in an enlarged dorsal spine.

Image

Image

Can you imagine the reports if LCA designers went for this: "How dare a desi grow a spine?"

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Postby Mihir » 05 Nov 2016 01:38

nachiket wrote:
Mihir wrote:Viv, there is no intent or commitment from the Army to induct further numbers of the Arjun beyond the 124 Mk-IIs. However, the IAF is now committed to 120 LCAs, not just 40.

The IAF isn't committed to anything. They have just expressed their intent to buy more LCA's beyond the initial 40 once the Mk1A/Mk2 is built and the IAF is satisfied with it. Just like the Army said they would buy Arjun Mk2s once it was ready. The situation is exactly the same. If we buy F-16s or Gripens, the result will be the same too.

https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/10 ... -full.html
"Addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Saturday, in the lead up to Air Force Day on October 8, Raha declared: “We are ready to take more --- 120 (fighters), six squadrons of Tejas… We are ready to take it as soon as they (HAL) can provide it. That means they have to ramp up the production rate, which is running behind schedule… But we will take all 120.”

They have quoted a specific number and said that they'll induct them as soon as they're available. This is far better than hemming and hawing about further orders at the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time, etc. etc. This is precisely why HAL is scaling up capacity from 8 aircraft a year to 16 per year.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Postby Mihir » 05 Nov 2016 01:44

sudeepj wrote:Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

And I'm not sure to what end. The discussion here has been fairly cordial. :-?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 05 Nov 2016 01:55

LOL..

Well I found specific info on blk52+ structural strength requirement:

9g/3g Strength Capability at BFDGW of 28750 lb. with and without Conformal Fuel Tanks

Also the CFTs were purely designed based on Aerodynamic considerations - minimum changes in Pitching moment between 0-10deg AoA, lateral-directional stability and Handling at High AoA.

If one patches these two things, its easy to figure out that they never considered 9G capability with fully loaded CFTs. 9G capability would only exist below weight 28750lbs and there is no way one can have CFT filled at that weight unless internal tanks are empty proportionally, even if minimla weapons load is assumed.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7873
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 05 Nov 2016 02:02

Mihir wrote:https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/10 ... -full.html
"Addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Saturday, in the lead up to Air Force Day on October 8, Raha declared: “We are ready to take more --- 120 (fighters), six squadrons of Tejas… We are ready to take it as soon as they (HAL) can provide it. That means they have to ramp up the production rate, which is running behind schedule… But we will take all 120.”

They have quoted a specific number and said that they'll induct them as soon as they're available. This is far better than hemming and hawing about further orders at the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time, etc. etc. This is precisely why HAL is scaling up capacity from 8 aircraft a year to 16 per year.

:rotfl:
I am imagining HAL guys talking to part suppliers like GE or Elta, I have no formal orders but IAF chief has said he will take all in a press conference. So, ...

By the way, JayS is asking for parity. Let the ACM say that IAF will take all 120 f-16s. But let them set up shop in India first and ramp up production.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7229
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 05 Nov 2016 02:15

Mihir wrote:
nachiket wrote:The IAF isn't committed to anything. They have just expressed their intent to buy more LCA's beyond the initial 40 once the Mk1A/Mk2 is built and the IAF is satisfied with it. Just like the Army said they would buy Arjun Mk2s once it was ready. The situation is exactly the same. If we buy F-16s or Gripens, the result will be the same too.

https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/10 ... -full.html
"Addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Saturday, in the lead up to Air Force Day on October 8, Raha declared: “We are ready to take more --- 120 (fighters), six squadrons of Tejas… We are ready to take it as soon as they (HAL) can provide it. That means they have to ramp up the production rate, which is running behind schedule… But we will take all 120.”

They have quoted a specific number and said that they'll induct them as soon as they're available. This is far better than hemming and hawing about further orders at the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time, etc. etc. This is precisely why HAL is scaling up capacity from 8 aircraft a year to 16 per year.

Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between firm orders and statements by IAF brass?

What do you think Dassault's response would be if AM Raha declares that we are ready to take in 120 Rafales as soon as they start pumping out 16 (or whatever) per year without actually ordering anything more than 36?

And bear in mind that they have said in the past that the ones after the initial 40 have to be Mk2s. This was back when the Mk1A wasn't being talked about. So the subsequent 80 orders if they come would be for essentially a different aircraft than what is being built right now.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7229
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 05 Nov 2016 02:19

The Army said the same thing about the Arjun. We'll order 124 more but they need to be Mk2's with all required modifications made and tested and trialled. All the while they kept buying foreign tanks that were worse than the Arjun Mk1. I guess we have to be happy with small mercies. At least the aircraft the IAF is trying to buy from abroad aren't worse than the LCA Mk1.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Postby Mihir » 05 Nov 2016 02:29

nachiket wrote:Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between firm orders and statements by IAF brass?

Why is it so difficult to read my initial post without any preconceived notions? Why is it difficult to understand that Raha's statement was backed up by an official letter of intent? Why is it so difficult to understand that air forces typically drip-feed orders to OEMs, but the OEMs still invest in the required capacity because a formal declaration of intent is enough to justify the investment? Why is it so difficult to understand that HAL has already decided to scale up LCA production based on the IAF's letter of intent, and that HAL itself is not demanding the "firm orders" that you guys are?

And most importantly, why is it so difficult to understand that if one lacks the information to make a reasoned argument, he should avoid writing in a haughty tone?
Last edited by Mihir on 05 Nov 2016 02:41, edited 4 times in total.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Postby Mihir » 05 Nov 2016 02:30

Indranil wrote: :rotfl:
I am imagining HAL guys talking to part suppliers like GE or Elta, I have no formal orders but IAF chief has said he will take all in a press conference. So, ...

:rotfl:
I'm imagining Lockheed guys talking to parts suppliers like Pratt & Whitney and Martin-Baker, I have no formal orders, but USAF has plans. So, ...

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 05 Nov 2016 02:45

Mihir wrote:
Indranil wrote: :rotfl:
I am imagining HAL guys talking to part suppliers like GE or Elta, I have no formal orders but IAF chief has said he will take all in a press conference. So, ...

:rotfl:
I'm imagining Lockheed guys talking to parts suppliers like Pratt & Whitney and Martin-Baker, I have no formal orders, but USAF has plans. So, ...


LM has no competition whatsoever for F35. Unlike LCA...

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Postby Mihir » 05 Nov 2016 02:47

And that's a fair point. But HAL seems to be happy enough with the letter of intent to invest in the additional capacity.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 05 Nov 2016 03:06

When you say HAL is happy, Who do you think take such decision for HAL??

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7229
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 05 Nov 2016 03:08

Mihir wrote:And that's a fair point. But HAL seems to be happy enough with the letter of intent to invest in the additional capacity.

A letter of intent is not a commitment. Especially when the IAF is simultaneously looking to buy 200 other aircraft which might be close to the LCA in performance.

HAL is a govt. org and will eventually do whatever the govt. orders it to. But what happens if those orders do not materialize? Like the Arjun Mk2? HAL will be left with lot of capacity to build an aircraft no one wants. Further still, how is HAL going to make sure its ancillary suppliers invest their money into enhancing capacity without the orders to back it up? Those are private suppliers who do not accept govt. diktats based on 'letters of intent'. I guess HAL would have to actually give them large orders to make them comply and swallow the loss if the IAF decides it doesn't have the money for more LCA's after buying 200 Gripens or F-16s.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

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

Postby Mihir » 05 Nov 2016 03:28

nachiket wrote:
Mihir wrote:And that's a fair point. But HAL seems to be happy enough with the letter of intent to invest in the additional capacity.

A letter of intent is not a commitment. Especially when the IAF is simultaneously looking to buy 200 other aircraft which might be close to the LCA in performance.

HAL is a govt. org and will eventually do whatever the govt. orders it to. But what happens if those orders do not materialize?

Boss, I have answered this in my initial post. If you do not wish to read it, that's your problem, not mine.

nachiket wrote:govt. diktats based on 'letters of intent'.

Given the colourful terms you're using, you have no clue as to what a letter of intent is, do you? :roll:

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 597
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Y I Patel » 05 Nov 2016 03:51

BRF seems to have developed a serious case of information resistance. That is a real pity, because this is a fast developing picture, and there is a lot to be discussed beyond trying to find someone to blame for what is in reality a very exciting moment for India's aerospace industry.

Let's please try to move beyond the thought that this is to (a) kill Tejas or (b) because HAL is not doing well enough. I had a post two pages or so ago which goes into numbers, and I apologise if it did not register in collective consciousness by falling woefully short of the 500 word minimum. So some of the if you find some of the points below redundant or repetitive, please attribute it to a valiant and conscious effort to meet word count requirements.

(1) This buy is not intended in any way to kill Tejas or augment Tejas numbers. There is a genuine need in IAF for combat aircraft with longer ranges and payloads, plus an opportunity to actually enhance the attractiveness of the Tejas product. Think about this: we all agree a Tejas Mk II with 90-98 kN GE414IN will be hot stuff. So have you considered the possibility of what a Tejas MkII with a 110 kN GE414EPE of the same weight class will be like?

(2) This buy is not about CFTs or some such technical minutiae. It is pretty certain to be either LM or Boeing, but the actual platform almost does not matter. All this has been made clear by multiple number of people in a multiple number of articles. Note that it is not Grippen because then GE jet engine tech will be off the table, and it is not going to be the French because they screwed the pooch on the Rafale deal. With either LM or Boeing GE will be expected to offer some crown jewels, atleast for Make in India if not for transferring any know why. It is about the ecology and not just jet engine tech, but IMHO GE414EPE alone is worth all of this, for the possibilities it opens up vis a vis Naval Tejas, Tejas Mk II and AMCA. And I repeat again, this is not something that will be given out of goodness of heart. Fork out the money to make it worth the while for an American company, or try to develop something equivalent in 25 years when you want AMCA to acheive FOC.

(3) There may be the occasional instance of friction, but by and large, MoD/IAF/HAL/ADA have proven that they are on the same side. Much as gasbags would like to claim in media, there is quiet long term planning going on which is far sighted as well as pragmatic. It is hard for Indians to credit other Indians with any level of astuteness, but try to remove that filter and this will become plain to see. There is plenty of evidence waiting to be observed and evaluated, once the CT blinkers come off.

So apologies for the rant, and I will say it is not intended at any one single person. Attribute it to a chair marshal made cranky by following too much US politics. This is the one bright development to distract attention from what is otherwise an extremely depressing time, so please have mercy and recognize it as such. Celebrate that India and Indians have created a fantastic opportunity for themselves, and by all means give close scrutiny to every piece of information as it becomes available. But please, oh please, try to do something to reduce all this high pitched noise emanating from this thread!


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests