'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Jan 2017 10:33

NRao wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
That's pretty arrogant and rich! Yet, the answer seems to be privatization and throw money at it (Private sector, Reliance and what not)


Ah, a diff culture. The likes of reliance take risk.

"Throw money"? Nope. Make money. That culture has the notion of producing a good product for profit.

But, even there there can be mistakes of just plain simple goofs. But, that is part of that culture.


I don't understand what you are even saying. These people are from a special race and cut from different SDRE free cloth?? :)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8804
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jan 2017 10:51

Marten wrote:NRao, why would Boeing hand over whatever Snecma will not?

Good One :D

NRao wrote:To me it seems like a problem with the GoI.

It is not with the GoI, but with the bureaucracy. Manohar Parrikar himself has stated that procuring anything for the nation is an excruciatingly long process. Tender & Processes take forever in India. The Babus have mastered the art of RFI, RFP, RFQ, Endless Negotiation and so on. How these babus operate in their personal lives makes me wonder. But I digress. Beyond the scope of this discussion.

NRao wrote:All this is the fault of the French. I bet they are still expecting Ambani to pull a Rafale line at $30 billion in India. For 50 planes that too.

Don't blame the French or the Germans or the Italians or the Polish or the Americans. We are to blame for this mess. Air Marshals sitting in ivory towers are to blame. Successive Governments who don't know the difference between a WWII Spitfire and a Eurofighter are to blame. And the eternal babudom is equally to blame. All three have contributed to this mess.

Marten wrote:I hope this tender is dragged through babudom until it's bare bedraggled corpse looks like the MMRCA circus.

That will happen. You can be sure of that. The babudom train is never late.

Y I Patel wrote:The articles in Sputnik and DefenseNews don't quite gel with the tweets and Livefist article on page 45 of this thread, where MP appears to say that the MIIF1 contract will be signed this year (2017).

MP is once again talking when he should not be saying anything. The sheer complexity of this deal - with Deep ToT being a main point - will ensure that negotiations will continue for a few years....at least. Look, you cannot have ToT of any kind with a SP not being vetted by Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Electric, the US Congress and other players. If they read what the SP states, they are going to push back. And they are going to WIN. Because they know the IAF is in a tight spot.

The O-N-L-Y way a deal is being signed in 2017 is if India agrees to screwdrivergiri. Which means, transfer of the production line (which is what many on this forum have being saying from page one of this thread) from the US to India will happen in 2018/2019. A good chunk of 2017 will be spent on screwdrivergiri negotiation.

By the way, there is no clear cut winner who is going to screwdriviergiri these planes in the first place. Is it going to be HAL? A private player? If so, which one? Reliance? If India puts her foot down - and babudom will ensure that the GoI makes the point very clear to the US - rest assured, we are looking at negotiations dragging for 2 -3 years.

Once the player has been identified, then training of how to do production will begin. No Indian entitly will NOT, I repeat WILL NOT, be able to replicate what Lockheed Martin was doing in the US in the first or even the second year of production. This is not your garden variety HPT-32 propellor trainer that is being built. This is a complex piece of machinery of which how assembly is to be performed has to not just be taught, but MASTERED to match the production levels of the US plants. So now we are in 2021/22.

If the player is going to be HAL, good luck. I refrain from commenting further. If it going to be a private player, you need an educated workforce. You cannot take your local mali (gardener) or kakoos (South Indian word for toilet) cleaner and tell him to start doing assembly. The employee has to know what he is assembling in the first place. This means training people who possess a level of education that is commensurate to what is needed to get done. Where is the private player going to find this educated workforce?

BTW, screwdrivergiri means critical components such as;

- APG-80 AESA radar will arrive in SKD/CKD kits. Plug & Play. That's It. You can forget source codes regardless of what they report in the media.
- GE engines. same story. SKD/CKD kits. Plug & Play again. That's It. You can kiss engine tech goodbye. Not coming. As Marten said, why would General Electric hand over what Snecma will not?

The countrywide F-Solah supply line in the US will fly in the rest. Other non-US components of the F-Solah (like the Martin Baker ejection seat for example) will fly in as well from the UK. HAL or a private player will then assemble everything together like a giant LEGO puzzle. Mindless, Brain Dumbing, Assembly. Ever worked on a car assembly line? That is what will happen. Same story with Gripen E, Rafale F3, F-18 Rhino, etc. You will learn nothing, other than how to screw :mrgreen:

We have been producing (production) Su-30MKIs since the early 2000s.

Can India make an aircraft like the Su-30MKI from scratch?

Lockheed Martin, Dassault, Saab, Boeing (or whoever else) are playing us for suckers. And we are falling for it...hook, line and sinker. Or so I read in the media.

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 406
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby pandyan » 13 Jan 2017 11:24

Marten wrote:NRao, why would Boeing hand over whatever Snecma will not?


everything that is not in stock is on sale (no rain check). normal price when stock is replenished.

spare parts is a cash cow and most of the OEMs make real money in spareparts (atleast car business :wink: ).

Only reason that may work in India's favor is become a China for spare parts for manufacturers so that manufacturers can make more money.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Austin » 13 Jan 2017 12:02

Saab is keen on making India a global hub for next-gen fighter jets: Jan Widerström

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articlesho
w/56469923.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

How do you see Saab in India's journey to create its defence capabilities?


Jan Widerström: We began India journey in 2005 ­ the goal being to develop India into a home market. Wherever we have a substantial footprint, we develop that country as a home market. Like Sweden, Australia or the US and South Africa, we are keen to develop India as a home market. India is one of our main focus countries, where we are looking at long-term investments. Defence does not happen in one day ­ neither in India, nor elsewhere. It takes time in Sweden.We took 18 years in Brazil before we got one contract. We have patience (as far as India goes), know the business and are here to stay.India should become a net exporter of defence equipment. That should be the long-term goal for India and we are ready to be a part of that story. We want to establish an ecosystem for creating capabilities.

How long does it take to develop a country into home market and where does India stand in your global aspirations?


Jan Widerström: It takes about 5-10 years. India for that matter, is already a home market for us. We are slowly growing our footprint here; manufacturing for the Indian Armed Forces and exporting out of India.We are not here for one deal, which is big or small, but want to grow sustainable capabilities and be an Indian company. That's our long-term goal. On the other hand, everyone is here and there is a fierce competition. To be successful, you cannot do it on a quarterly basis as you have to be on the horizon.We have 600 products in our portfolio ­ from submarines to fighters and everything in between.We have 15% civilian products.

We are producing camouflage equipment in Gurugram and are targeting the Indian market as well.We are producing across facilities in India and have an R&D centre in Hyderabad with Tech Mahindra plus a JV in Belgaum for composites that are exported to Airbus and Boeing.We are looking at India as a globalsourcing hub. We will start exporting electronic warfare chips out of India by mid-2017, in collaboration with Tata Power. We see a lot of potential while working with MSMEs.

They are potential winners of Make-inIndia drive. Fighters would make big business deals. But we have to continue with the bread and butter of business. Hence, we are focusing on creating an ecosystem. We make systems for airports, surveillance for coast guards, produce electronic warfare systems, ground combat systems, and camouflage systems apart from an R&D centre. Our India turnover has grown ten-fold in the last seven years.

How significant is Saab India's R&D centre currently?

Jan Widerström: Our businesses from Sweden, Australia, South Africa and the US are already outsourcing their R&D to India. It is one of the biggest hubs outside Sweden.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rishi Verma » 13 Jan 2017 12:08

Rakesh wrote:
Once the player has been identified, then training of how to do production will begin....

If the player is going to be HAL, good luck. I refrain from commenting further....

Can India make an aircraft like the Su-30MKI from scratch?

Lockheed Martin, Dassault, Saab, Boeing (or whoever else) are playing us for suckers. And we are falling for it...hook, line and sinker. Or so I read in the media...


SirJi, you have asked a profound question in a gist... "can India make a plane such as Su-30MKI? "...

Answer depends on what you mean by "make"

A technology demonstrator, one or two pieces YES India can make a capable sample and show it, fly it, fly the president in it, fly the air chief in it, take them to Dubai, etc etc

10-15 planes, yes with lots of pain India can manage to LSP a dozen planes like SU-30MKI in 10-years

But if you mean volume production with a design that is geared for efficient manufacturing, no... Somehow India lacks in that field. I have some theories why, and some suggestions but OT for here.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3887
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby kit » 13 Jan 2017 13:26

Rishi Verma wrote:
Rakesh wrote:
Once the player has been identified, then training of how to do production will begin....

If the player is going to be HAL, good luck. I refrain from commenting further....

Can India make an aircraft like the Su-30MKI from scratch?

Lockheed Martin, Dassault, Saab, Boeing (or whoever else) are playing us for suckers. And we are falling for it...hook, line and sinker. Or so I read in the media...


SirJi, you have asked a profound question in a gist... "can India make a plane such as Su-30MKI? "...

Answer depends on what you mean by "make"

A technology demonstrator, one or two pieces YES India can make a capable sample and show it, fly it, fly the president in it, fly the air chief in it, take them to Dubai, etc etc

10-15 planes, yes with lots of pain India can manage to LSP a dozen planes like SU-30MKI in 10-years

But if you mean volume production with a design that is geared for efficient manufacturing, no... Somehow India lacks in that field. I have some theories why, and some suggestions but OT for here.


I used to believe in this theory. But no longer.Volume production means scaling up production by all the sub contractors and ancillary companies. You can have that once orders are assured . Private companies will scale up as profitability rises with production rates ..not to mention efficiencies. If I am investing in a production rate of 5 per month maybe I will get just one 6 axis cnc but a hundred ? ..I would go for a dozen . Same case with tier 2 and 3 suppliers. China had time to build that up ..more importantly their money is spend inside the country . Imagine if India was to spend the almost 50 billion USD it spends on foreign equipment was spend inside the country. The effect would a stupendous growth ..the products can improve down the line once they compete in international market. I would say the MI complex alone can raise the Gdp by at least 5 to 10 percent at the barest minimum.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nash » 13 Jan 2017 13:43

I think GoI won't press hard for Deep ToT for this project, otherwise it will go the MMRCA way and it will not make any sense.

Having said that, this project would be to create a private entity apart from HAL, one of the main driving factor of this project, and to do this GoI should allow a PE to do what HAL has been doing from past decades.This will not only create a HAL equivalent PE which will be give option to user : The IAF in next iterations of LCA and AMCA but also create jobs to masses and alternate Infrastructure to produce spares or complete product for domestic as well as International market.

PE can be more efficient to follow the time line than HAL because it doesn't have to bother about babudom and their lethargic process for simple things only thing they require is proper regulation and level playing field.We can take the example of ATAGS where Tata and Bharat Forge doing the major chunk of work and so far results are more than good.Here, DRDO is in designing and project management and different Entities doing their set of work with the IPs they have or got from their venture with foreign entity.This scenario can be the norm for future.

On a side-note, it can be very interesting what is there in SP model for DPSUs, are they also allowed to have their own venture with PE, either foreign or domestic. HAL-Private Entity(L&T) and Tata-LM can make the domestic Military Aviation a happening space.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Jan 2017 19:28

Marten wrote:NRao, why would Boeing hand over whatever Snecma will not?


Good Morning!!

First and foremost, a small nitpick, GE and not Boeing. But it does not matter. What Snecma will not "hand over" neither will GE (or Boeing or LM) (or Sukhoi, or Saturn). India can never expect ANYONE to "hand over" any crown jewels - and frankly, I hope and trust that neither will India.

[FOR_ENGINE_THREAD]

Having said that, #1, the relationship between the US and India is at a Gov level , not so much at a vendor level. DTTI has been Gov-Gov since Bush era (Rumsfeld started what Carter completed). #2, the US has denial of techs at the Gov + the Vendor level (I am not too sure how it works with either France or Russia, but it is rather clear that the Russians have not parted with jewels over the years and I very much doubt that teh French have either. AGAIN, this is NOT their fault - I just do not expect that from anyone of them. It is OK.)

Now, coming to your question - something I have been saying for months now - the reason the US has been willing to part with engine techs (seems like it is specifically the hot section) is .............. political. Every time India wanted some techs, the vendors (no matter who) said cannot, our Gov does not allow it. Well, in Dec, 2015 the GOTUS changed her laws to allow India access to these specific (and perhaps other? do not know yet) tech - something BR has very conveniently overlooked/disregarded. Parrikar was in DC and Carter stated during a press conf that the US (SD) had changed their laws. Let there be no doubt that there is a quid pro quo - all politics have it AND India (this GoI) has subscribed to it (like it or not) (more on that if interested in another thread).

So, THAT is the reason - I FEEL - that the engine techs will come to India.

The teams met last in Dec, 2016 at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Dayton, OH (I posted that link) to discuss the details of this deal - FROM AN ENGINE POV.

So, that is my theory based on news reports that have been out since about two years (whenever Obama visited India for RD parade).

[/FOR_ENGINE_THREAD]

It was Shukla that published a report that tied the "engine" to a F-teen purchase by India, which snowballed into this single engine effort.



So, the real question is NOT if the US will part with engine tech, it is is India willing to buy one of the F-teens. Dependency is on the F-teen and pertaining to this thread the F-16.

Questions?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Jan 2017 19:30

Two quick points:

1) Point made by IR is very, very valid. I many have doubts about it, but the thought/logic he posted is very valid
2) YIP's posts - IMVVHO - need to be pinned.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Jan 2017 19:49

Cybaru wrote:
NRao wrote:
Ah, a diff culture. The likes of reliance take risk.

"Throw money"? Nope. Make money. That culture has the notion of producing a good product for profit.

But, even there there can be mistakes of just plain simple goofs. But, that is part of that culture.


I don't understand what you are even saying. These people are from a special race and cut from different SDRE free cloth?? :)


Well ...............................

It is very sad to see "race" being brought into a technical/economic discussion. A LOT of the contributors - to US companies - are Indians. CMs would not be CMs without Indians. Not to talk of NASA, Boeing (CM), NG, BAE, ..........hot sections, specialized micro motors, name it ...............

Culture.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Jan 2017 20:18

NRao wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
I don't understand what you are even saying. These people are from a special race and cut from different SDRE free cloth?? :)


Well ...............................

It is very sad to see "race" being brought into a technical/economic discussion. A LOT of the contributors - to US companies - are Indians. CMs would not be CMs without Indians. Not to talk of NASA, Boeing (CM), NG, BAE, ..........hot sections, specialized micro motors, name it ...............

Culture.


Whatever! you brought it in. I don't even understand the premise of what you are saying here. You should quote the whole stack.

Also that post by YI IMO will ensure we will remain in dust.

Still waiting to see an answer of my original question: what you would like to cut from the current programs to enable this assemblygiri of f16 and f18s in India?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Jan 2017 20:39

Cybaru wrote:
NRao wrote:
Well ...............................

It is very sad to see "race" being brought into a technical/economic discussion. A LOT of the contributors - to US companies - are Indians. CMs would not be CMs without Indians. Not to talk of NASA, Boeing (CM), NG, BAE, ..........hot sections, specialized micro motors, name it ...............

Culture.


Whatever! you brought it in. I don't even understand the premise of what you are saying here. You should quote the whole stack.

Also that post by YI IMO will ensure we will remain in dust.

Still waiting to see an answer of my original question: what you would like to cut from the current programs to enable this assemblygiri of f16 and f18s in India?


1) I did NOT bring in "race". That stack started with your post.

2) YIP provided a synposis of what Indians had proposed and Indians are implementing. The proposal is based on the fact that India cannot do it alone. In previous years attempts to solve problems was via "consultants", this proposal is via the mentoring mechnism (and perhaps collaboration). It simply acknowleges that India needs hand-holding. Nothing wrong there

3) A ) Did GoI say they have to cut anything? IF at all this GoI is expendign efforts to see how future projects can be self sustaining - via exports. Check out teh discussions with Russia on the FGFA too. Even on the helos from the US India is making some products to reduce teh costs on teh final product

3) B ) I recall reading that the moneies the GOI got from people declaring untaxed funds the GOI got enough to fund the Rafale (and IIRC actually use that to pay for the plane too?).

Point being - I have been saying this for 30-40 years now - India is NOT a poor country, that cannot (in thsi discussion) afford such systems. There is absolutely no need to cut anything and yet grow. There is enough proof that India can do FAR better if Indians just what they were supposed to do - like pay taxes. It is that simple. But - do not like to be told, we will do what we want, who are you to tell, .............................waste of time for Indians .....

Added l8r:

For more: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7261&p=2101238#p2101013. :roll: We know, yet we do nothing. ?????

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 13 Jan 2017 21:28

NRao, sorry but your entire premise is merely shilling for US interests disregarding that the Rafael deal is also Gov to Gov. You also acknowledge tech denial and in the same breath say if India buys the teens, GE will arrange for?. GE has firm orders for 103 engines and can get 200 more for LCA mk1/2/3 - - why should India be arm twisted into buying teens if we merely want engine tech. Cannot these benevolent masters condescend to do business with us for dollars instead of whatever convoluted logic you propose? The rest of that long long engine tech content you wrote has no relevance to the Single engine tender.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Jan 2017 22:00

Seriously, everyone has a budget, even the insanely rich money printing countries and so do we. And all of our budget is not for defence like pakistan.

Assume for a second we do not have infinite budget and we are forced to cut something to get the Teens. What would you cut? It's a simple question.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Jan 2017 22:34

Marten wrote:NRao, sorry but your entire premise is merely shilling for US interests disregarding that the Rafael deal is also Gov to Gov. You also acknowledge tech denial and in the same breath say if India buys the teens, GE will arrange for?. GE has firm orders for 103 engines and can get 200 more for LCA mk1/2/3 - - why should India be arm twisted into buying teens if we merely want engine tech. Cannot these benevolent masters condescend to do business with us for dollars instead of whatever convoluted logic you propose? The rest of that long long engine tech content you wrote has no relevance to the Single engine tender.


Nope.

Up to India IMHO.

All I do is read the data points and predict. I am in no way attached to either outcomes.

On engine and teens. Just bargaining. You (and many others) are reading things in my post based on your own biases. That happens, not a knock. And then there is the internet, a very, very bad way to discuss.
Last edited by NRao on 13 Jan 2017 22:43, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4294
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Jan 2017 22:38

Cybaru wrote:Seriously, everyone has a budget, even the insanely rich money printing countries and so do we. And all of our budget is not for defence like pakistan.

Assume for a second we do not have infinite budget and we are forced to cut something to get the Teens. What would you cut? It's a simple question.

Currently India spends least percentage wise composed to US or Pakistan. Perhaps they can increase budget. And all this effort towards black money has to make a difference to govt coffers?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8804
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jan 2017 22:43

Yes I agree Cain Marko. It has made a difference. However wasting that money is just as criminal as when the money was black, no?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Jan 2017 22:53

CM,

Yes, I am sure we need to beef up the budget, but the list of things we need to enable is long and deep. No point putting up fighters with their pencil thin search beams when one Awacs can monitor a good 500 kms radius and look deep and low. Ofcourse when you do spot a bogie, you need to send a unit to investigate and confirm, but it cannot be lopsided procurement policies to appease and GUBO away. I am all for new units, but not at the cost of other platforms, which are as important or even more so than adding 3rd gen frames/designs with 4th gen electronics as a way forward (they are capable no doubt, but obsolescence will come sooner to them and they are not cheap when you add in customization) for political appeasements.

Today the engine is linked to this deal. What's stopping them to linking spares for other favors? How far will it go? Where do we draw the line? Package deals seem like a good idea, but a lot of crud gets packaged together to make it look good on the outside. Delink and buy if at all possible. The AESA radar tender is a good idea, it will give us a good idea on who the serious players are.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8804
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jan 2017 23:01

Any future fighter purchase - single engine OR dual engine - has to share commonality in some key area, with the Tejas and the AMCA development. Otherwise what is the point of this SP? What is the point of MII? The F-18 and Gripen E both use derivatives of the F414 engine which is used or planned to be used on the Tejas and the AMCA. Other than screwdrivergiri, Lockheed Martin does not offer anything that will be beneficial to the Tejas and AMCA programs. Neither does Dassault. I am still waiting to see or read, what exactly Snecma is going to do in terms of getting the Kaveri up and running. Only time will tell.

Boeing, Saab and Dassault - if they want to win this - have to step up and offer a carrot so juicy that it will be hard to resist. What LM is doing is throwing us a bone. Of the three, I believe only Boeing has the will to do so. Saab is just not hungry enough and Dassault is content on drinking wine and eating cake, instead of baking bread.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4294
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Jan 2017 23:03

Admiral saar,
But security of nation is not wasteful. How can India become a player at the stage it desires if it doesn't carry a decent stick. Perhaps one could argue that this mii fighter acquisition is wasteful, but surely it might be worthwhile if it sets the country on a path to self sufficiency in defence needs. The way i see it, engine tech is the last place where India is being held back, and if Nraos reading is accurate, it could propel us to areas where others like China simply can't compete. Could be a worthwhile investment imho if it gets the tech desired and helps creates a high tech aerospace industry to get out of the logjam created by Psus like hal and appalling decision-making machinery of which hal is just one part.

Cyji,
There are always going to be pros and cons. One very massive, in the face issue, faced by security apparatus is falling fighter numbers, which need to be plugged as quickly as possible. Awacs is a separate issue that can't mitigate this.
We will have to bite the bullet somewhere. If engines problem is resolved along with the above problem and an aerospace industry is also setup, $15-20 billion might be worth it imvho.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 13 Jan 2017 23:12, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4294
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Jan 2017 23:07

Rakesh wrote:Any future fighter purchase - single engine OR dual engine - has to share commonality in some key area, with the Tejas and the AMCA development. Otherwise what is the point of this SP? What is the point of MII? The F-18 and Gripen E both use derivatives of the F414 engine which is used or planned to be used on the Tejas and the AMCA. Other than screwdrivergiri, Lockheed Martin does not offer anything that will be beneficial to the Tejas and AMCA programs. Neither does Dassault. I am still waiting to see or read, what exactly Snecma is going to do in terms of getting the Kaveri up and running. Only time will tell.

Boeing, Saab and Dassault - if they want to win this - have to step up and offer a carrot so juicy that it will be hard to resist. What LM is doing is throwing us a bone. Of the three, I believe only Boeing has the will to do so. Saab is just not hungry enough and Dassault is content on drinking wine and eating cake, instead of baking bread.


Yes, i see the strength of the shornet too compared to solah. However, the engines are made by GE for both Boeing and Lockheed. So perhaps it won't matter if we buy solah or f18.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8804
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jan 2017 23:14

Cainji, for the umpteenth time, nobody is going to give India engine tech :D It is NOT going to happen.

Cain Marko wrote:Yes, i see the strength of the shornet too compared to solah. However, the engines are made by GE for both Boeing and Lockheed. So perhaps it won't matter if we buy solah or f18.

The F414 engine is planned to be used on the Mk 2 version of the Tejas. The F414 engine is planned to be used on the AMCA. The F414 powers the F-18. The F414 is planned to be used on the Gripen E.

The F-16 uses a F110 engine. Now factor Indian bureaucracy into the mix and see how long it will take HAL, ADA, GTRE or whoever does engine integration for this engine into the Tejas? You will be adding additional delays into a program that is already way past due. India cannot afford to waste time on this nonsense.

Get the Super Hornet and do screwdrivergiri or mass production of the GE414 engine. Everyone wins. In the meanwhile, identify the bottlenecks with the Kaveri (which already has occurred) and see what can be done with Snecma's offer (my hope is dim based on the last experience with Snecma) to revive the Kaveri, as part of the offset deal for the 36 Rafales.

Now if the Govt insists on a single engine fighter (for the life of me I do not see why, when we have a perfectly good aircraft in the Tejas), then go for Paper NG (aka Gripen E). At least in that way, India gets the same damn engine that is powering the Mk.2 and AMCA. Economies of scale brings the price down.

I believe each fighter goes through 3 engines in her lifetime. So lets assume for argument sake, the IAF gets 200 Gripen E, 100 Tejas Mk 2 and 100 AMCA. That is 400 aircraft x 3 = 1200 engines. If the F-18 is chosen, we could be looking at 100 Super Hornets, 150 Tejas Mk 2 and 150 AMCA. That will bring it to 1500 engines. General Electric is laughing all the way to the bank.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 13 Jan 2017 23:27

Any future fighter purchase - single engine OR dual engine - has to share commonality in some key area, with the Tejas and the AMCA development. Otherwise what is the point of this SP?

Those are all tactical topics. Strategic are more broad and much, much longer term.

What is the point of MII?

Economics. Employment primarily. WRT defense, to develop a viable, self sustaining MIC.




CM,

Budget, etc yes. But looks like Modi is insisting on exports. Which has a huge political component and therefore meaning to his or Indian FP.

It is ok to discuss a "single engine" as a topic. But this particular one is not insular. It has tentacles reaching into other topics related to the nation. Including things like Indo-Pacific region.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8804
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jan 2017 23:29

Rishi Verma wrote:SirJi, you have asked a profound question in a gist... "can India make a plane such as Su-30MKI? "...

Answer depends on what you mean by "make"

A technology demonstrator, one or two pieces YES India can make a capable sample and show it, fly it, fly the president in it, fly the air chief in it, take them to Dubai, etc etc

10-15 planes, yes with lots of pain India can manage to LSP a dozen planes like SU-30MKI in 10-years

But if you mean volume production with a design that is geared for efficient manufacturing, no... Somehow India lacks in that field. I have some theories why, and some suggestions but OT for here.

So if we cannot do volume production of a Su-30MKI type aicraft, that we have been doing screwdrivergiri to for the past 15+ years how in heaven's name are we expected to become a world leader in aircraft design & development when we screwdrivergiri 200 single engine fighters? Do you see the farce?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8804
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jan 2017 23:33

NRao wrote:
Any future fighter purchase - single engine OR dual engine - has to share commonality in some key area, with the Tejas and the AMCA development. Otherwise what is the point of this SP?

Those are all tactical topics. Strategic are more broad and much, much longer term.

What is the point of MII?

Economics. Employment primarily. WRT defense, to develop a viable, self sustaining MIC.

:rotfl: Dude, I give up with you. You believe that fairly tale.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 13 Jan 2017 23:44

Rakesh wrote: :rotfl: Dude I give up with you. You believe that fairly tale.

+1. I recognize that data without logic is incoherent, and this discussion is pointless. Admiral, beat your retreat and eat that mithai alone.

If the US or French or British corporations are genuinely interested in the business of making money, they will invest in component and ancillary manufacturers. Like I said earlier, we need to go one step beyond MII and 50% offsets etc and plan two lines based on the current financial and technical involvement of companies. Give them a year to boot up their ventures, enable their local ventures through Aero parks at Nagpur, Devnahalli, Madurai, Sriperumbudur and see how many want to enjoy this single window clearance. As for engine tech etc., the more we invest in the dated birds of the West, the less we invest in our own eco-system. If we want infusion, let us pay for the technology. And if they won't help us with the tech unless when we buy them birds, then surely we are missing the forest for the trees.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Jan 2017 23:54

NRao wrote:Economics. Employment primarily. WRT defense, to develop a viable, self sustaining MIC.


Yojgar yojna? :(( :roll:

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4294
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Jan 2017 00:21

Rakesh wrote:Cainji, for the umpteenth time, nobody is going to give India engine tech :D It is NOT going to happen.

I'm going to take a broad stance. The US can seem rather whimsical in such matters, and will take u-turn measures for certain even short term gains. At present they are feeling the pinch from the Chinese russian joint effort. India staying neutral is no help and worse, what if India joins this league?. an indi-russi-cheen combine is the last thing they would want. It would serve them much better to have India on their side, and slyly move the russkis away from china too.

Isolate the Chinese and put them in their place so that US position is maintained. This is done nicely by checking the Chinese in the Ecs and scs via soko, japan and india. I would not be at all surprised if they offered to handhold the engine effort in India and helped setup the aerospace sector in return for Indias support wrt China, and a gazillion dollars to boot.

they did something similar by supporting Indias nuclear reentry. This is on par with Nixon and cheen imvho. . They did this with western europe post ww2 to isolate the soviets. And right now and for the foreseeable future, the game will be played in Asia and indias role is key here.They will trade engine secret sauce if it furthers their bigger ambitions, probably not their latest and greatest, but enough to make it very worthwhile.

Rakesh wrote:The F414 engine is planned to be used on the Mk 2 version of the Tejas. The F414 engine is planned to be used on the AMCA. The F414 powers the F-18. The F414 is planned to be used on the Gripen E.

The F-16 uses a F110 engine. Now factor Indian bureaucracy into the mix and see how long it will take HAL, ADA, GTRE or whoever does engine integration for this engine into the Tejas? You will be adding additional delays into a program that is already way past due. India cannot afford to waste time on this nonsense.

Get the Super Hornet and do screwdrivergiri or mass production of the GE414 engine. Everyone wins. In the meanwhile, identify the bottlenecks with the Kaveri (which already has occurred) and see what can be done with Snecma's offer (my hope is dim based on the last experience with Snecma) to revive the Kaveri, as part of the offset deal for the 36 Rafales.

Now if the Govt insists on a single engine fighter (for the life of me I do not see why, when we have a perfectly good aircraft in the Tejas), then go for Paper NG (aka Gripen E). At least in that way, India gets the same damn engine that is powering the Mk.2 and AMCA. Economies of scale brings the price down.

I believe each fighter goes through 3 engines in her lifetime. So lets assume for argument sake, the IAF gets 200 Gripen E, 100 Tejas Mk 2 and 100 AMCA. That is 400 aircraft x 3 = 1200 engines. If the F-18 is chosen, we could be looking at 100 Super Hornets, 150 Tejas Mk 2 and 150 AMCA. That will bring it to 1500 engines. General Electric is laughing all the way to the bank.

Yes, it would serve better to ditch the solah and get hornets instead. 100 for IN and possibly a few for the AF. Along with lca and amca, there is plenty of commonality. In the short term from purely iaf interests in mind, it would be met if more lca mk1 are ordered at foc std along with extra mki, mig 29smt and m2k5. But a dew hornets will do as well, they'll manage with a menagerie. At least it won't be as bad as before. Not convinced about gripen....no leverage there and a direct competitor to lca.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 14 Jan 2017 00:34, edited 2 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 14 Jan 2017 07:26

Here is the time-line, for the SE-MII fighter, I have found - so far:

- By April, 2017 end: IAF to submit a "acceptance of necessity proposal", to the MoD, with "200 new single engine fighters to be made in India", "which will easily cost around $45 million apiece without weaponry" (request to "fast track")
- By 2017 end: Cabinet to select an Indian company as partner for the project
- First Q of 2018: Issue a global tender for the SE-MII
- Cannot find a start time for this: "a two or more year process will kick off to evaluate technical and financial bids and conduct extensive trials"
- 2021: Gov-2-Gov deal signing. I would think it would depend on the previous step


Betting on the Gripen or no SE-MII.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4294
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Jan 2017 08:48

^ where did you find this time line? MP's statements?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby SaiK » 14 Jan 2017 10:06

Cain Marko wrote:^ where did you find this time line? MP's statements?

from the makers of "The Ghazi Attack" releasing feb 2017?? :D

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 602
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Y I Patel » 14 Jan 2017 10:15

Some further insights into the land of smoke and mirrors that is MIIF-1.

The entire concept of a Strategic Partner Model based on the Aatre committee recommendation - it is still at a recommendation stage! Consider this report that I dug up from Indian Express, which is from July of last year:

http://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/defence-manufacturing-another-panel-to-finalise-strategic-partner-model-2900370/

While the whole thing needs reading, consider this particular doozie:

But private Indian defence manufacturers are worried about the delays already caused in the process. “By chasing the concept of strategic partnership, the ministry is causing further delays in the existing programmes such as the Naval Utility Hellicopters, P-75(I) submarines, recce and surveillance helicopters and combat aircraft,” said an executive of a private defence firm.

Experts feel that there are fundamental issues with the strategic partnership model which are difficult to be resolved at this stage. Amit Cowshish, a former financial advisor (acquisition) in the ministry and says that “there is a lack of clarity on what the strategic partnership means. The ideas that are being bandied around, if I may say for the want of a better word, are nonsensical. They are talking about awarding the contract to a private player on ‘cost-plus basis’. The ministry has no expertise to do this, and we will get objections from other cosmpetitors and likely objections from the CAG.”


Is this the right way of going about doing things? Well, what is the alternative? There has been formal enunciation of different versions of Defense Procurement Policy for decades now (e.g. of a clause - blacklist companies that employ middlemen.) The experience with them has been a worsening stalemate in arms procurement. Last year the government released the 2016 version which is a bold attempt at addressing previously experienced infirmities, and it was particularly well received by private industry in India. The recommended SP Model is intended to be a complementary guidance, in that it outlines in great detail how to go about identifying a private industry partner to procure defense products from over a long period of time, through a nurturing relationship. The Aatre committee admits that it is breaking new ground in policy making, since no similar structures exist elsewhere (they consulted UK, France and US as they went about their deliberations.)

This MIIF-1 initiative is being used as the first live implementation of the government's finalized version of the SP Model, which is what MP said is currently being deliberated and will roll out before end of this month. This is important - the goal is to identify the first SP for aircraft in a manner that is transparent, robust to challenge, and effective at achieving a set of ambitious long-term objectives. Over the past couple of decades, as the Indian economy opened up, policy making has been rife with badly formulated and implemented policies. Unless lessons learned are executed on, this purchase will be no different and will end up as another sorry example of a boondoggle. So the idea is to focus on the basics - the objective and formalized criteria and procedures - and then use the power of large purchases to give the identified SP a solid boost.

And it is instructive to speculate on the front runner for this - Tata. What is noteworthy is how many of Aatre committee's criteria a fulfilled by Tata, even before we consider all the aero-structure orders it has already fulfilled for Boeing, LM, and HAL. Tata has a great record at being a "system of systems" integrator, which is what Aatre committee identifies aircraft as. Tata has R&D experience at it's parent company level that rivals any other Indian company - Indica, Nano! It has the balance sheet, the reputation for integrity, and even international presence through the parent company. And then, of course, it has some experience in aero structures through existing orders, and with more to follow since it was identified by Airbus for assembling C295s in India.

So what does that mean? Do not look at this as a choice between F16 and Grippen. Or lust for Rafale or F18. Look at MIIF-1 vendors as who is willing to be a minority partner to to the assumed front runner Tata. The answer seems to be LM, so LM will most likely get the prize. But before all that can happen, a lot of negotiating will have to be tied up, because this is not going to be a ToT akin to what Sukhoi did with HAL. Aatre committee explicitly states that the idea is to set up an integrator as the SP, and work with the SP to set up/seed a distributed manufacturing system that involves Indian MSMEs. This means making a purchase from a foreign vendor that is willing to not just transfer technology, but to work with the Indian SP to set up the entire supply chain within India. Supply chain is not rocket science, but rockets can't be built without one. Ask ISRO, which was used as the Indian role model for setting up a supply chain by the Aatre committee and invited to provide inputs into their deliberations. Supply chain is boring management stuff, which companies like Tata live day in day out. They have the management expertise, and the thinking is that with a foreign vendor to hold hands and provide relevant domain knowledge (setting up assembly line, identifying suppliers, sourcing raw materials, hiring the right people, setting up QA protocols...) Nothing sexy, just stuff that is learned from long years of experience.

Bottom line, think of this as MMRCA redux and you will bust a gasket. View it in the right perspective as a bold adventure in policy making, and you will be up till midnight lapping up this stuff!

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 14 Jan 2017 10:25

NRao wrote:Here is the time-line, for the SE-MII fighter, I have found - so far:
"which will easily cost around $45 million apiece without weaponry" (request to "fast track")
Betting on the Gripen or no SE-MII.


:eek: :shock:
Brazil bought gripens at 130 Million a pop! Maybe the boneyard f-16A refurbed might cost us 45 million.

Where are you getting these time lines? Any rabbits/hats/wands/magicians harmed/involved in schedule creation? Penn/Teller perhaps? :rotfl:

Apart from the rotflies, it would be good to see some confirmation/source of your schedule document.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 14 Jan 2017 10:35

This means making a purchase from a foreign vendor that is willing to not just transfer technology, but to work with the Indian SP to set up the entire supply chain within India.


Not sure if it means "entire" within India, that, I think, is unattainable. But, the core aspects should be India based.

BTW, SC has moved to include integrated testing. A part supplied - at the most granular level - comes with a record of its test result/s captured and recorded/stored in RT. It is gathering speed as we type. Becomes easy to isolate issues.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 14 Jan 2017 10:37

Y I Patel wrote: "They are talking about awarding the contract to a private player on ‘cost-plus basis’. The ministry has no expertise to do this, and we will get objections from other cosmpetitors and likely objections from the CAG.”

Is this the right way of going about doing things? Well, what is the alternative?


Good question. IMO Cost plus model is useful, when the costs of development are totally unknown. It makes sense in case of Kaveri, home grown Radars, nirbhay, Agni etc, but may not make sense when the costs of development are known and the cost of production is well established.

When you production cost is known, you generally work on a transfer pricing model, where a comparable cost to create the same model is estimated and then profits added. This ensures that costs are well contained and reduce with volume production. There isn't much of a learning curve in this model as that is already fully exploited by the original vendor and the price to recreate captures that already.

Again this is my opinion.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8641
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 14 Jan 2017 11:12

Correct. Cost plus is meant for areas where there is elevated risk in development and development cost is hard to nail down with any reasonable level of confidence. Fixed price is when there is high certainty. If you use Fixed price contracting where Cost plus model is more appropriate the vendors will naturally demand a higher profit on account of taking more risk and given the unknowns.

Most high risk defense programs around the western world start off as cost plus and then transition into fixed price as the risk is mitigated. Those that carry smaller risk such as upgrades, or military hardware programs based on commercial technology generally tend to be fixed price from the start.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby JayS » 14 Jan 2017 11:32

Rakesh wrote:I believe each fighter goes through 3 engines in her lifetime.


They don't replace complete engines anymore. Just replace critical parts. Only one engine lasts entire a/c life. Considering spare parts replacement its effectively less than 2 engines. 6000h life for engine is possible without even changing any key parts.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8804
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jan 2017 00:53

Cybaru wrote:Apart from the rotflies, it would be good to see some confirmation/source of your schedule document.

He does not have any. I am more interested in the source for a F-16 Block 70 (weapons free) with APG-80 AESA radar...for only $45 million. I will buy one too at that price.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8804
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jan 2017 00:56

Marten wrote:+1. I recognize that data without logic is incoherent, and this discussion is pointless. Admiral, beat your retreat and eat that mithai alone.

Can I make one more mithai prediction? If F-Solah is chosen, I will rescind on the previous mithai distribution :mrgreen:

Marten wrote:As for engine tech etc., the more we invest in the dated birds of the West, the less we invest in our own eco-system. If we want infusion, let us pay for the technology. And if they won't help us with the tech unless when we buy them birds, then surely we are missing the forest for the trees.

Buy the teens, Gripen, Rafales or whatever else or don't buy anything, no engine tech will come. Why help a future competitor?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8804
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jan 2017 01:03

Cain Marko wrote:I'm going to take a broad stance.

You are reading a little too much into the Indo-US bonhomie. In the geopolitical world, there are NO friends, only interests. Take China out of the equation and where does India stand vis-a-vis the US? The only reason (and I don't blame the US for this) Amreeka is helping India, is to keep China at bay. We do not have a US-UK or a US-Israel type relationship...yet. Still lot of mistrust on both sides. Replace Indo-US relationship with China-Pak relationship and you will see what I am saying. China is using Pakistan like a whore and Pakistan is ever willing to be used. They have become a banana republic. Don't get me wrong, India is NOT Pakistan. But engine tech is not coming Cainji.

Cain Marko wrote:Yes, it would serve better to ditch the solah and get hornets instead. 100 for IN and possibly a few for the AF. Along with lca and amca, there is plenty of commonality. In the short term from purely iaf interests in mind, it would be met if more lca mk1 are ordered at foc std along with extra mki, mig 29smt and m2k5. But a dew hornets will do as well, they'll manage with a menagerie. At least it won't be as bad as before. Not convinced about gripen....no leverage there and a direct competitor to lca.

Solah or Gripen....both are dangerous for the Tejas. However with the latter, at least there is a common engine. I still don't like it, but if I had to choose...that is what I would do.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests