'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Nov 2016 23:58

I would not bye surprised if LM and US offer a very, very attractive offer to india...for strategically moving India towards their corner, esp. Under trump. If they can subsidize tsp, israel, egypt, and eurozone, they can definitely do this.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Nov 2016 00:03

Cain Marko wrote: If they can subsidize tsp, israel, egypt, and eurozone, they can definitely do this.

Touche!. You got my point.

aharam · Post by **aharam** » 14 Nov 2016 06:38

I am responding to some comments from a few pages ago and observations by Shiv. I will start by saying that I haven't flown the LCA and any comments here of mine are from an educated armchair perspective.

From the specs and flying videos I have seen, the LCA has the potential to be a superb 4+ gen fighter. What it is now, frankly, has nothing to do with what it can be. Aerodynamically it is excellent, and specs are not everything. In the light fighter category, weight is everything, because it determines the ability to recover energy under hard maneuvering. Yes, I know this is the BVR world, but maneuvering is not dead, even if it is for missile avoidance or a low entry, high AoA A2A shot against ground clutter.

The problem is not design or potential anymore, it is production, and that is an area where we have sucked historically. Those old enough will remember the Ambassador and the Premier Padmini. That's what protecting markets gets us. HAL has the critical mass for design, but as a production facility, it is in the Ambassador class. Production needs to be private sector - think Ford making Shermans in WWII. Given our measly order quantities, private sector is not going to invest in design, where everything said and done, HAL does a pretty good job. Take the design risk out, and move production to the private sector. We did this in the mid 90s post liberalization with cars and the Padmini is history - cars in India are pretty good and that's what private sector can do in manufacturing.

Building private sector design houses ala MiG or Northrop Grumman of yore will take a while, and the system is not setup for it. Those houses grew up in the era of large wars and had large orders to hone their skills. We don't. The best we can do is a mix of HAL for design and privatize production. And this can only happen if HAL is incentivized not by order book size, but by design skill and simplicity of productization.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers
Aharam

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Nov 2016 07:36

Welcome back stranger

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Nov 2016 22:22

^^^
Completely agree. HAL should be merged with ADA and do only design work. They can continue doing Russian assembly work if the PAK-FA happens, otherwise it should do pure design work. Using the automobile industry example, once Maruti came on the scene Premier Automobiles and Hindustan Motors died a slow death. Manufacturing is not a HAL strength.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 15 Nov 2016 00:33

Has HAL stopped manufacturing Jaguars + Sukhois + Hawk or doing Mirage upgrades? In which world is such a company incapable of assembly/manufacture? The bureaucracy/red tape can definitely be questioned, but talking about skills and comparing with Ambassadors is really taking it too far!

The solution was always to hive off the Tejas division and move it to Chitradurga (and free up HAL airport for commercial short-hop flights). Bring autonomy to the management teams and help them shape up the teams. If the unions oppose, set up a new unit and in lieu of workshare, hand over land + machinery a lease basis + give the local partner tax breaks for 10 years. Else, how will such firms come up? As for HAL being a design team/complex, perhaps that is at the core of the conflict. If the areas of responsibility were clear, Mk1A would not be proposed at the cost of Mk2. And mind you, Mk 1A will be a boon for the bird. It will be leagues ahead of the Gripen NG in both the ability to customize and upgrade.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 00:42

1. Please name one country which does not protect its defense aviation companies?
2. Please name one country whose fledgling fighter manufacturing capability took off with US assistance/alliance? Israel? Canada? Australia? UAE? Japan? TSP? Egypt? Eurozone?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Nov 2016 01:14

Indranil wrote:1. Please name one country which does not protect its defense aviation companies?
2. Please name one country whose fledgling fighter manufacturing capability took off with US assistance/alliance? Israel? Canada? Australia? UAE? Japan? TSP? Egypt? Eurozone?

Japan, Taiwan & South Korea. But yeah agree with your general point. Domestic industry needs to be favoured not just protected. Merely ensuring the 'survival' of the Tejas is shameful if its not given the scale to exploit its low cost strengths. The Marut program also delivered 144 units to the IAF, for all the good that did.

Same for the LUH & LCH, but some are satisfied with the status quo because we have 'room' in our force structure for them. Neither the US nor Russia are making room in their inventories for Indian aircraft but that doesn't seem to matter.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Nov 2016 02:58

As discussed earlier, phoren phyter has become wonlee route considering the conditions imposed upon decision makers/stakeholders, to repeat:

urgent deliveries of a non Russian fighter at a decent cost because for whatever reason, LCA cannot be produced any faster/earlier, and possibly because GOI wants to create a private alternative to HAL monopoly (even if it is only to compete in screwdrivergiri.

This is not a move to create another design house by any means - it is simply to push private players into a nascent industry - make India a manufacturing hub for high tech aerospace products. We are looking at economics more than in-house, from scratch innovation. Could the LCA and indigenous capabilities be hurt? Not if they play it right and protect and empower design/innovation centers. ADA should be fully backed for Aam Ka.

By 2030-35, this should bear fruit in that ADA will create design that could be mass produced by local industry. Methinks Su-30MKI and M2K/Mig-29 will be replaced by Pakfa and Aaamka. In due time Rafale too. In the meanwhile F-16+LCA will form the base of the pyramid (250-300 fighters) till 2050+ and be replaced with whatever light fighter ADA/private industry creates by that time.

JMTP

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 03:02

Viv S wrote: Japan, Taiwan & South Korea.

Taiwan?
Japan and South Korea are true to some extent. But then I would ask where is the competition there? Only the one aligned with LM has survived and well, their rate of new designs is the same if not worse than HAL/ADA at the moment.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 03:03

Cain Marko wrote:As discussed earlier, phoren phyter has become wonlee route considering the conditions imposed upon decision makers/stakeholders, to repeat:

urgent deliveries of a non Russian fighter at a decent cost because for whatever reason, LCA cannot be produced any faster/earlier, and possibly because GOI wants to create a private alternative to HAL monopoly (even if it is only to compete in screwdrivergiri.

This is not a move to create another design house by any means - it is simply to push private players into a nascent industry - make India a manufacturing hub for high tech aerospace products. We are looking at economics more than in-house, from scratch innovation. Could the LCA and indigenous capabilities be hurt? Not if they play it right and protect and empower design/innovation centers. ADA should be fully backed for Aam Ka.

By 2030-35, this should bear fruit in that ADA will create design that could be mass produced by local industry. Methinks Su-30MKI and M2K/Mig-29 will be replaced by Pakfa and Aaamka. In due time Rafale too. In the meanwhile F-16+LCA will form the base of the pyramid (250-300 fighters) till 2050+ and be replaced with whatever light fighter ADA/private industry creates by that time.

JMTP

CM, please answer why Tejas's production rate cannot raised, if money is spent into it. "Whatever reason" is not an argument. It is a baseless opinion.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Nov 2016 04:03

Whatever reasons.....is because they don't intend to raise it past 16 p.a. and not any earlier than 2020-21 when it is hoped that the actual product mk1a will be available. At this point, even if money is poured into it and HAL promises to to create the final product by said date and further promises higher rates of production too, it'll be taken with a pinch of salt....even if they had the experience to do so, as things stand they don't. when was the last time they met deadlines wrt lca? And even if they do promise higher production rates post 2021, what does that do for IAF numbers till that period? This is not to blame them...there were perhaps factors out of their control, but that does not help the ground reality of fast depleting numbers.

Not to say that other stakeholders can't do better, but nobody seems willing or possibly, capable - call it inexperience, institutional inertia, poor project management, poor leadership, bureaucracy, structural inadequacy, political apathy, ...Whatever. Not the IAF, which is happy to use ready made end products, not ADA, which is increasingly looking at amca, and not HAL who seems to be happy to manufacture based on hand holding from oems. It has not been able to bring a product to large scale production without delays, what guarantees wrt a homemade one that has a fledgling supply base?. Doubt we can handle another sitara, which was promised within 3 years iirc. And right now time is of essence...The time buffer that the iaf has so far been lucky enough to rely on, can't be guaranteed ad infinitum.

Private players can be held accountable for delays through penalties. It is hard to do this with a psu, which the govt essentially owns. So, phoren players are a better bet if we want quick numbers. And it would be a bonus if they can help setup a manufacturing rival to hal.

In terms of my previous comment, I don't claim it is anything more than opinion, but based on MPs inability to get all stakeholders to do more than their current commitments, I wouldn't think it is entirely baseless.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 04:18

So now you are saying that LCA numbers could be ramped up, but LCA is not desired in large numbers for whatever reasons.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Nov 2016 04:28

No. What I am saying is - I'm not sure if LCA numbers can be ramped up in the required time-frame - seems rather unlikely. And even if they could, no stakeholder is willing to take that chance, least of all the IAF and MP. Hence MP is turning to other manufacturers, that too in a big hurry.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Nov 2016 04:33

Why not leave a provision in the requirement to allow HAL to propose a particular capability at a particular price, by a certain time?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 04:36

CM, even if we don't do anything, i.e. no outsourcing out of HAL, nothing. Just spend the money to double the infrastructure within HAL, it will cost roughly 7.5 billion to manufacture another 83 Tejas in parallel. How much do you think will it cost to move the F-16 assembly line to India and then get say 60 F-16s out of it?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Nov 2016 04:44

brar_w wrote:Why not leave a provision in the requirement to allow HAL to propose a particular capability at a particular price, by a certain time?

HAL has already done so...123 odd LCA - 40 by 2021 (20 IOC II + 20 FOC) and MK1a thereafter at 16 p.a max iirc.

Indranil wrote:CM, even if we don't do anything, i.e. no outsourcing out of HAL, nothing. Just spend the money to double the infrastructure within HAL, it will cost roughly 7.5 billion to manufacture another 83 Tejas in parallel. How much do you think will it cost to move the F-16 assembly line to India and then get say 60 F-16s out of it?

.

Even if this is done - can we guarantee that HAl will have MK1a ready by 2021?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 04:51

There is no guarantee in anything, not even with the F-16 line. We can only engage in favouritism. So, instead let us do some risk analysis. I can only tell you the Mk1A deliverables:
1. 2052 integration. This is not a big deal at all. We are already working with the backend of a 2032. HAL will be doing the weight lifting along with Elta. by the way, everything that they do is usable on the Mk2.
2. Jammer integration. This is an external pod. Even if it is not ready by 2021 (highly unlikely). It can be added at whenever it is ready.
3. Rearrangement of LRUs. Right now HAL is working on IAF's recommendations for better placements for easier maintenance. This is a year or two's job.

That is why HAL says it can get a Mk1A airframe out in one year. Practically, it will be 2 but not much more.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Nov 2016 04:55

^^ Saar: I have a question. Why does it take a year or two to re-arrange LRUs?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Nov 2016 05:02

Indranil wrote:There is no guarantee in anything, not even with the F-16 line.

Yes but meaningful penalties can be enforced with private players. Also, there is the option of buying direct from LM in the first few years. Not to mention the track record enjoyed by us companies when it comes to on time deliveries.

A question...how far has the 2052 been tested and deployed on various platforms? Can this be done on lca seamlessly considering weight and cooling requirements for aesa and relative small size of lca?

Do note solah is ready, off the shelf relatively bug free product ready for production..

Btw, solah is no favorite of mine....LCA is. Just seeing the writing on the wall that's all.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Nov 2016 05:06

HAL has already done so...123 odd LCA - 40 by 2021 (20 IOC II + 20 FOC) and MK1a thereafter at 16 p.a max iirc.

I meant as part of the competition assuming it gets past the pre-RFI stage. Officially offering something within the parameters of the deal/competition.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 05:28

Rakesh wrote:^^ Saar: I have a question. Why does it take a year or two to re-arrange LRUs?

At most.

Cain Marko wrote: Yes but meaningful penalties can be enforced with private players. Also, there is the option of buying direct from LM in the first few years. Not to mention the track record enjoyed by us companies when it comes to on time deliveries.

Why would a private player come in for 100-odd F-16s, if it is not meaningful for it to do so for 100 LCAs, and vice-versa.

Cain Marko wrote: A question...how far has the 2052 been tested and deployed on various platforms? Can this be done on lca seamlessly considering weight and cooling requirements for aesa and relative small size of lca?

These CM are extremely low lying fruits for Elta. They can fit one for F-16, one for LCA, one for Jaguar in very short time periods.

Cain Marko wrote: Do note solah is ready, off the shelf relatively bug free product ready for production..

Btw, solah is no favorite of mine....LCA is. Just seeing the writing on the wall that's all.

LCA Mk1A is also almost ready. It is decision we have to believe in it, or go for the F-16, which IAF unequivocally rejected as an MMRCA.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 15 Nov 2016 05:45

"Why would a private player come in for 100-odd F-16s, if it is not meaningful for it to do so for 100 LCAs, and vice-versa."

Something called 'depreciation' vs 'greenfield' When one understands the difference, the 'break evens' makes sense

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 15 Nov 2016 06:32

Cosmo_R wrote:"Why would a private player come in for 100-odd F-16s, if it is not meaningful for it to do so for 100 LCAs, and vice-versa."
Something called 'depreciation' vs 'greenfield' When one understands the difference, the 'break evens' makes sense

How so? Are you saying that the machinery/jigs/manufacturing equipment for all components are fully depreciated for the Sola?
I assume you are familiar with manufacturing processes (specifically, with aviation). Please illustrate since one doesn't understand how this would work.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Nov 2016 06:56

Indranil wrote:Why would a private player come in for 100-odd F-16s, if it is not meaningful for it to do so for 100 LCAs, and vice-versa.

Indranil, the numbers are not firmed up yet, there was an article suggesting over 150 units. I recall pvt players like Tatas salivating over the prospect of doing work with LM for the MRCA - Ratan Tata even took a ride in the bird at one AI iirc.

These CM are extremely low lying fruits for Elta. They can fit one for F-16, one for LCA, one for Jaguar in very short time periods.

you could be right. Have they actually fit the 2052 in anything but a solah? Scant information available on testing and success of this radar. Even if it is a fully tried-tested product, it took them about 4 years just to do the LUSH upgrade on the Shar, and that was a less complicated, more proven piece of kit (2032). But perhaps HAL and ELTA can get it done, who knows.

I think the F-16 will prove to their liking in this category. LCA Mk1A is also almost ready. It is decision we have to believe in it, or go for the F-16, which IAF unequivocally rejected as an MMRCA.

The IAF rejected the F-16 in the MRCA competition - a medium-heavy category race not in a single-engined light fighter competition. Two different requirements.
My point is - I feel that MP is probably the most competent DM India has had in a long time, and a tech savvy one to boot. He must've done risk analysis and all sorts of other sims with a lot of information at hand before suggesting this new move. Frankly I doubt there is anyone on BR who wouldn't like to see 100s of Tejas in IAF service, but here we are - my aim is to simply investigate the rationale behind this move. Ultimately, we were slated to get 126-200 MRCA, and this might just be a move to make it more affordable - a mix of high end Rafale with low end single engined fighter.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Nov 2016 07:14

Rakesh wrote:^^ Saar: I have a question. Why does it take a year or two to re-arrange LRUs?

When (example onlee) wiring for some avionics unit is positioned in such a way that engine must be removed to access it - repostioning that is going to take a lot of effort in a plane that is jam packed and short of space.

aharam · Post by **aharam** » 15 Nov 2016 07:43

Responding to many comments in the thread including Marten. Haven't quite figured out how to thread a complex response. And please believe me when I say, I am not looking to start a flame war - just some observations from having been a consumer of HAL.

I am not questioning HAL's design capability. They were started by Kurt Tank - one of the foremost designers of WWII, the Focke Wulf 190 was a superb fighter, even if over-engineered. People talk of the P51, but the Focke Wulf had the numbers and that is not easy.

HAL has design, but its assembly has been limited to series production of other assembly lines, where the entire line jigs and all was available. They had improvised when the spares has been bad over the last decade + when Russian deliveries have been to put it mildly sub par.

This is qualitatively and quantitatively different from setting up an assembly line for a home grown effort from scratch. Believe me (wrong thing to say, I know), when I say designers under-estimate the constraints of serial production and as a designer that is not the first thing on your mind - meeting the spec is first and foremost.

Folks that create, build and manage assembly lines are different beast - it is a different problem and has its own set of issues. Most of which are non trivial. This is where private industry excels - they don't have the funds to design for moon shots and small order quantities. But given a design, an order quantity and a cost target they are very good at what they do and just because they are not designers doesn't make them any less important.

Secondly, HAL is not exactly organized for manufacturing because its incentive structure is not. Private industry is paid and makes money when it sells X units of Y. HAL is recognized for making (designing) X, because no one else in India can - they have the depth of design experience and exposure to the aeronautics world. Unless there is a fundamental realization that these are two different problems, we will continue to have issues.

I am not claiming HAL is in the Ambassador league in design - they are much better than that. They are in the Ambassador league in serial production. That analogy was for those old enough to remember that buying an Ambassador was a several year exercise on the waiting list.

Please tear away.

Cheers
Aharam.

P.S.: To Shiv, I have been on the road far too much. Finally getting time to be back a bit on the forums

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 10:24

I am not trying to be belligerent here. But I would love to know how it is not a greenfield setup for our private sector?

CM, The navy was the first user of airborne Elta radars. In their own words, "buy whatever you can buy from them".

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 10:30

Aharam Saheb, great to have you back. Actually, this is exactly what I have been saying. How will we create the design to manufacture know how if we don't serial produce and field large numbers of our designs. The same problems persisted with Marut. And the same problems will persist after LCA. We as a nation should not divert from creating this important step of the cycle.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 15 Nov 2016 11:11

+1 If we want an infusion of technology and efficiency, we need to look for private groups/consortia who are willing to partner with HAL.
Aharam Sir, please do not take offense to what I said. I understand the basic differences between previous ventures (boxpack/skd/ckd) vs. LCA. But differ with you on the opinion regarding assembly or skills. They do exist, but there is no incentive for this unit to flourish. If they were to be autonomous and free from the union, we might see a difference! Please feel free to differ.

PS: There was a very informative set of posts on the HAL Aircraft Design Bureau + arms and their role before ADA was set up. Is there any way to find this content? Also, what if HAL were to seed an independent design bureau or two (spin off ARDC?) to compete with ADA and go on with its plans to be an integrator. We need this culture of competitive designs but of course funding is the real issue. If RM MP is as sharp as they say he is, perhaps one could wish for such vision/strategy.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 15 Nov 2016 12:44

Marten wrote: Also, what if HAL were to seed an independent design bureau or two (spin off ARDC?) to compete with ADA and go on with its plans to be an integrator. We need this culture of competitive designs but of course funding is the real issue. If RM MP is as sharp as they say he is, perhaps one could wish for such vision/strategy.

ADA was formed in the way it is, to free it up from govt red tapism. IMO its prudent to integrate ADA with HAL and the single body to be fully autonomous. Let them work on LCA/AMCA/FGFA. Let them pitch projects like any other private company would. Free them up from babus' clutches. GOI should help them develop Tier1/2 suppliers through all means possible. Private industries will have a lot of business as suppliers. Whomsoever is willing to be Tier1 supplier can also be given design technical know how of those modules from ADA. Today they outsource some engineering work. The work can be taken up by design engineers of these Tier1 companies so they get full hands on training and ability to develop those modules and be independent in next iterations. For example, L&T who is making Wings assembly, would take up all wing design work that they can and learn how to do it with ADA. HAL already has more than sufficient experience with integration and assembly.

The private industry for assembly experience can be kick started through Civil Airliner business. We already have a lot of orders, renegotiate those for some offsets/assembly lines from Airbus. Invite companies like Bombardier/Embraer/Irkut/Sukhoi to make RTA in partnership of any Indian pvt company who is willing, either one of their existing designs or a clean sheet design as co-development. GoI can make sure they have a good market. We have $200B carrot there. And the business is far more sustaining than a Fighter business. And we already have lot of manpower working in Civil Jet industry who can help kick start the industry. The suppliers from defense projects can pitch in to supply parts for this work as well, while a big Pvt company like Tata will be the designer/lead integrator.

This way we can have sustainable industry, retained system design capabilities for Fighters as well as no compromise of national security. Also lets face it, even Uncle Sam cannot sustain two parallel fighter design houses for same type now. Europe already has given up and even the one they have is struggling. Russians struggling to do it. China might be able to sustain for a while, but not too long. We can't dream of having two parallel lines for same type of jet unless we start spending like 4% of our GDP on defense. This ain't happening. Consolidation is reality in Aerospace industry today not diversification.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 15 Nov 2016 13:32

I think after the DAC decesion has come out, All talk from Lockheed Martin and Boeing has stopped. It makes no sense at all. It will take atleast 5-6 years before an F-16 is rolled out of India. By that that time LCA and even possibly LCA MK2 production facilities will be there.

Lockheed Martin tried a last minute shot thats it.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 15 Nov 2016 15:28

Boeing pitch is coming soon. Manu Pabby is visiting Boeing facilities.

I have already noticed two such visits to LM and SAAB followed by marketing pitch for them in MSM.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Nov 2016 23:05

Not just Manu, Ajai Shukla, Shiv Aroor et al. To Boeing facilities, and to Australia to see imported F-18s in service.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Nov 2016 23:59

funny when the jounos take their little jaunts and write with not a hint of embarrassment, they will berate babus and politicians for fact finding and education jaunts but their own trips are soooooo important

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Nov 2016 01:23

The list grows: Nitin Gokhale, Saurabh Joshi

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 16 Nov 2016 23:39

What's the problem if they're doing so with full disclosure? Unlike babus and politicians, they aren't spending taxpayer's money on these junkets.

And for all the insinuations about him and others pushing favorable stories, the best "marketing pitchs" for the Tejas and Arjun have come from Ajai Shukla onlee. Aroor has also adopted a favorable stance towards domestic R&D work.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2016 23:47

We are seeing Boeing stuff being pushed by Twitter journos.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 17 Nov 2016 00:19

Not only twitter journos.
Colonel Shukla has been invited down under to RAAF airbase near Brisbane.

They are going with hard hitters and he has also written an article on the MRTT.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 17 Nov 2016 01:07

Mihir wrote:What's the problem if they're doing so with full disclosure? Unlike babus and politicians, they aren't spending taxpayer's money on these junkets.

And for all the insinuations about him and others pushing favorable stories, the best "marketing pitchs" for the Tejas and Arjun have come from Ajai Shukla onlee. Aroor has also adopted a favorable stance towards domestic R&D work.

The only aspect that is inappropriate about the visits is that the views are more PR after their visits rather than informed experts. Not that it will or has ever deterred any Indian journalists from being a lifafa, but that this is legitimizing the lobbyists and pretending they continue to be journalists. The unbiased and honest opinion doesn't seem to be valued any more so it should be just fine.