'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Mar 2017 00:28

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Rakesh wrote:I thought manufacturing was non-existent. We need F-16 to save us!

No one said that

Now, Now, Now...let's play fair.

What is the quote below then? How to improve banana production?

Any MII effort in India is simply a way to redirect as much of the spending on defense to create a multiplier effect in other sectors of the economy. It won't make huge dent but even a small one will start the ball rolling.

What ball needs to get rolled? I provided a small list of other sectors of the economy that are booming without F-Solah srewdrivergiri in India. And you come back with, "You should always strive to improve yourself even more." WOW! Which of those sectors that I listed, will see a boost in production or profit if F-Solah production comes along? Please explain.

GeorgeWelch wrote:If handled properly, it can be much more than that and make a substantive difference

Please explain how it will make a substantive difference.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Make in India is more sophisticated than just assembly, but I think the first step is to not let HAL anywhere near it. As you mentioned, they've had plenty of opportunities and haven't done anything with it.

Okay if it is more "sophisticated" than assembly, please explain in what areas does India need to be taught sophistication. We are not getting radar technology, we are not getting engine technology. Would you agree on that? LM is not expected to part with that. So other than assembling the fighter, from the vast global supply base, what else are we doing?

Someone mentioned learning how to market the fighter. So I ask again, is India allowed to market and sell the fighter to the following countries? Venezuela? Iran? Syria? Myanmar? Vietnam?

GeorgeWelch wrote:Even ignoring that LM uses more sophisticated manufacturing processes than Russia, skills are perishable. They require constant use or else they disappear. Also working with LM opens up far more future possibilities than working with Sukhoi. If Sukhoi is impressed with your work, so what. If LM is impressed with your work, they have a huge range of products they might come back to you for.

You mentioned sophisticated manufacturing processes vis-à-vis Russia, so I am not going to ignore it. Please explain what is so sophisticated that LM does. Secondly, what use was this sophistication when Russian fighters -- flown by Indian pilots -- flew circles around F-16s and F-15s during the various Cope India exercises? Even the 3rd generation MiG-21 was soundly beating the 4th generation American fighters. There is a running joke on the internet. That NASA wasted millions on developing a pen for their astronauts, that could write in space. The Russians gave their cosmonauts a pencil. What is the point of this sophistication, if the end goal is achieved?

Unless you have been living under a rock, India is already working with LM. But I already know your counter to this - "You should always strive to improve yourself even more." But I list it anyway.

Tata-Lockheed Martin Joint Venture Delivers 50th C-130J Super Hercules Empennage
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... nnage.html

India operated six C-130Js. One crashed with five remaining in service. So that means, out of the above 50 aircraft, 44 of them have been exported out of India to be assembled in the US, correct? However it does not end there. TASL (Tata Advanced Systems Limited) has been doing the same for the Sikorsky S-92 helicopter - another American product.

Tata-Sikorsky Deal Ends HAL Aerospace Monopoly
http://defense-technologynews.blogspot. ... space.html

Tata Advanced Systems and Sikorsky to Manufacture Helicopter Cabins in India
http://machinist.in/index.php?option=co ... 0&Itemid=2

Now both these articles are from June 2009 - almost 8 years old. So I decided to ask Google Chacha how far has S-92 component production reached. See what I found from Wiki Mamu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Advanced_Systems

By the end of July 2013, assembly of 39 cabins had been completed.

I also checked who in India operates the S-92. As of 03 March 2017, not one single entity does. So where did those 39 cabins go then? Were they exported out of the country or did they go to the Himalayas for meditation?

The above link also gave me these two nuggets of information.

In partnership with Airbus Defence and Space, the company fielded the EADS CASA C-295 for the Indian Air Force light-cargo fleet renewal program, which the Indian government approved on 13 May 2015. Under the project 16 complete aircraft will be imported, while 40 aircraft will be manufactured in India.

The company has also entered an agreement to produce structures for the Pilatus PC-12NG from 2016 to 2026.

Here is another American aviation giant (this time Boeing) building components in India. Read through the whole thing - an amazing read.

About Boeing in India
http://www.boeing.co.in/boeing-in-india ... india.page

Soon after, the Indian Prime Minister launched the “Make-in-India” initiative in September 2014, Dynamatic Technolgies and Boeing inaugurated a plant to manufacture critical parts for the Chinook Heavy Lift Helicopters. In a state-of-the-art facility with TAL Manufacturing Solutions Ltd., Boeing supports manufacture of complex floor beams for the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, one of the most advanced airplanes in the world. TAL also makes ground support equipment for the C-17.

Dynamatic Technologies and Tata Advanced Materials Limited (TAML) have delivered P-8I power and mission equipment cabinets, and TAML is on contract to provide P-8I auxiliary power unit door fairings and composite tailcones for the P-8I. Avantel has delivered the mobile satellite systems for the P-8I and Maini. Hyderabad-based Cyient (formerly Infotech) has supported a number of critical design-engineering projects for Boeing airplanes, and currently provides design and stress support on the 747-8 Freighter and the 787-8 and 787-9.

Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has delivered the Indian-designed Data Link II for the P-8I. Data Link II is a communications system that enables exchange of tactical data and messages among the Indian Navy aircraft, ships and shore establishments. BEL has also delivered the identification friend-or-foe interrogator, a battle management system that enables the aircraft to distinguish friendly aircraft and forces. Finally, BEL is on contract to provide F/A-18 flight deck cockpit panels. Electronics Corporation of India (ECIL) has provided the speech secrecy systems for the P-8I.

This is why it makes way better sense for the Trump administration to let India to build (perform screwdrivergiri) components rather than an entire fighter. Transferring a line to India, could be political suicide for President Trump. LM/Boeing can copy the same model above for a fighter as well. Let India screwdrivergiri the F414 engine for the Tejas and AMCA. That is one among many components that the US can provide for India without having to violate Make America Great Again.

GeorgeWelch wrote:The goal is to create up a network of suppliers and build your aerospace industrial base.

If that is your theory, then that is a theory that can be learnt. You do not need to purchase 100 F-Solahs on how to create a network of suppliers and build your aerospace industrial base. That is bakwaas.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Mar 2017 00:32

Will wrote:Arrghhhhh and now this forum is becoming a place to post ones political views? 7 per cent growth with crude prices what they are today is an achievement to boast about? :roll: I don't have any gr8 love for the congress but lets call a spade a spade. Let's keep this forum apolitical . India is our country and all of us here want the best for it. So lets keep the propaganda and politics out. Sad to say this forum is turning more into a political one then a defence one. People try to push their views and those who don't support it are considered anti-national. Lets not turn this into something like pakdefence. The ones in charge should clean up this forum.

Saar, what phor this much venom? I don't have much louve for the Congress either. I was just pointing out how various sectors in India are already booming without F-Solah production. What can I do if the 7% growth chart was produced by the BJP? I was making a point, not endorsing the BJP. I am apolitical onlee, with the exception of Rahul Gee.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Mar 2017 01:11

Karan M wrote:Rakesh saar, and orders for 1.1 Lakh crore of local designed eqpt were placed in the past one year and a half itself. Thats $17 Billion, Make in India.

Saar, I did not even see your post. Sorry and Amazing. That is fantastic. Another one for the books! Thank you for pointing that out.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 03 Mar 2017 01:55

Karan M wrote:Rakesh saar, and orders for 1.1 Lakh crore of local designed eqpt were placed in the past one year and a half itself. Thats $17 Billion, Make in India.


That is the Made in India category.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GeorgeWelch » 03 Mar 2017 02:15

Rakesh wrote:Okay if it is more "sophisticated" than assembly, please explain in what areas does India need to be taught sophistication.


what's the current LCA manufacture rate?
what's the current F-35 manufacture rate?

There is a world of difference between hand building everything and a true assembly line

Rakesh wrote:So other than assembling the fighter, from the vast global supply base, what else are we doing?


Rapid assembly to tight standards is an important skill.

Rakesh wrote:You mentioned sophisticated manufacturing processes vis-à-vis Russia, so I am not going to ignore it. Please explain what is so sophisticated that LM does.


Rapidly and efficiently build fighters while maintaining tight quality control

Rakesh wrote:Secondly, what use was this sophistication when Russian fighters, flown by Indian pilots, flew circles around F-16s and F-15s during the various Cope India exercises? Even the 3rd generation MiG-21 was soundly beating the 4th generation American fighters.


1. Lots of that is nonsense, wild exaggeration and traditional fighter jock boasting
2. Regardless, you're confusing design quality and manufacturing quality.

This contract is about an existing plane, so there is little to no design work, so that's irrelevant to this discussion. But the ability to quickly and efficiently manufacture while maintaining tight quality control is very much of interest.

Rakesh wrote:There is a running joke on the internet. That NASA wasted millions on developing a pen for astronauts that could write in space. The Russians gave their cosmonauts a pencil. What is the point of this sophistication, if the end goal is achieved?


Of course that joke is false for multiple reasons (NASA spent nothing to develop the pen and pencils are dangerous in space because the graphite can break off and short out components)

As for what is the point? How about being able to manufacture the LCA at a reasonable rate? Or the AMCA? India is facing a huge shortfall in fighter aircraft, and if you ever want to be able to fill that gap without relying on imports, you will need a more modern, efficient manufacturing capability.

Rakesh wrote:Unless you have been living under a rock, India is already working with LM


Of course, and that just demonstrates the potential of even more contact with LM.

If they put an F-16 line in India, more subcontractors will be investigated for locally sourced parts and get the opportunity to build relationships with LM and become part of their supply chain.

Rakesh wrote:If that is your theory, then that is a theory that can be learnt. You do not need to purchase 100 F-Solahs on how to create a network of suppliers and build your aerospace industrial base. That is bakwaas.


You have this bizarre all-or-nothing mentality. Indian firms has some contracts with LM and Airbus. Therefore you have a completely developed aerospace base and nothing further should be done.

Instead you should look at it as an F-16 line would help that base grow even more. It's undeniable that if you bought 100 F-16s, more firms would get more LM contracts than they do currently.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 03 Mar 2017 02:21

GeorgeWelch wrote:Rapid assembly to tight standards is an important skill.


Important skill for?
Does it not exist in India today?
Assuming it does not exist, If we add this skill how will it change things for us?
What portion of the value chain will that bring to the table?

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GeorgeWelch » 03 Mar 2017 02:36

Cybaru wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:Rapid assembly to tight standards is an important skill.


Important skill for?


A country that wants to be self-sufficient in fighters but needs enough to counter China and Pakistan

Cybaru wrote:Does it not exist in India today?


Do you see any rapid manufacture of fighters in India today?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 03 Mar 2017 02:46

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
Important skill for?


A country that wants to be self-sufficient in fighters but needs enough to counter China and Pakistan

Cybaru wrote:Does it not exist in India today?


Do you see any rapid manufacture of fighters in India today?


You only answered a tiny portion of the question GW and it may be a valid point, but is that the reason we are where we are?

Is the manufacturing ability not geared for fast manufacturing or is it limited to other reasons? For eg: one could be our ability to afford so many fighters in a financial year?

Assuming it does not exist, If we add this skill how will it change things for us? What portion of the value chain will that bring to the table?

How many fighters a year do we need to produce to counter pakistan/china?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Mar 2017 03:07

GeorgeWelch wrote:what's the current LCA manufacture rate?
what's the current F-35 manufacture rate?

There is a world of difference between hand building everything and a true assembly line.

From H Siddesha, project director and technology director of LCA,
http://www.indiatvnews.com/politics/nat ... ets-370263

"Every year, 16 Tejas aircraft will be built on two assembly lines. By 2024, all the aircraft will be inducted in the IAF whereas Tejas Mark 2 version will be ready by 2021," Siddesha was quoted as saying by Times of India.

And yes, that is lower than the F-35 production rate and for that very reason - that you so beautifully typed above (thank you) - I have been asking (on this VERY thread) for a FACO line that Japan and Italy have. You want to give us a true assembly line? Give us the F-35 then. I would be happy if India did screwdrivergiri on a 5th generation platform that is viable in 2050 versus a 4th generation platform in that same time period. The spin-offs for the AMCA would be fantastic, at least in terms of production. We do not need to know how to assemble 4th generation planes. We have been doing it on the Su-30MKI and on the Tejas.

Rakesh wrote:Rapid assembly to tight standards is an important skill. Rapidly and efficiently build fighters while maintaining tight quality control.

Bakwaas bandh kar! :D The folks who developed the Tejas did not lose one single plane during her development. NOT ONE. Three aircraft are now in service with No.45 Flying Daggers Squadron of the IAF. Yes, onlee three, but still :) Now let us examine how many F-16s crashed during its development. AFAIK, one belly landed. Here is the video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuFmTPdIE2k

What happened to your rapid assembly to tight standards now? OTOH, we can teach you a few things on how not to belly land planes :wink:

GeorgeWelch wrote:This contract is about an existing plane, so there is little to no design work, so that's irrelevant to this discussion. But the ability to quickly and efficiently manufacture while maintaining tight quality control is very much of interest.

Dude, you guys parroted this same nonsense during the first MMRCA contest. Still you guys lost. You repeat the same thing again, you will get the same result. As you so eloquently put in your post, F-35. Put that on the table. Changes everything. Same company, same manufacturing philosophy no? :) We can learn about rapid assembly to tight standards while wearing tight undies :)

GeorgeWelch wrote:Of course that joke is false for multiple reasons (NASA spent nothing to develop the pen and pencils are dangerous in space because the graphite can break off and short out components).

That is why I said it was a joke. You don't need to explain the science of it :lol:

GeorgeWelch wrote:As for what is the point? How about being able to manufacture the LCA at a reasonable rate? Or the AMCA? India is facing a huge shortfall in fighter aircraft, and if you ever want to be able to fill that gap without relying on imports, you will need a more modern, efficient manufacturing capability.

Hai! Hai! Kya Dialogue Mara! If the project & technology director of the Tejas has said - as explained above - that 16 aircraft will be produced a year, then that is what will happen. You do not get to determine what is reasonable. We can figure that on our own, with regards to a fourth generation platform. Onlee the design of the AMCA has been frozen. Not a single prototype has been built yet. So that argument of yours is moot.

Oh yes, India is indeed facing a huge shortfall in fighter aircraft. But with LM stating that it will take 36 months from contract signing to delivering the first aircraft and with Paper-NG having her FOC onlee in 2025/2026, the IAF will be waiting for a LONG time indeed.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Of course, and that just demonstrates the potential of even more contact with LM.

So basically like you said earlier, there is always room for improvement :)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby srai » 03 Mar 2017 03:16

GeorgeWelch wrote:what's the current LCA manufacture rate?
what's the current F-35 manufacture rate?


How many F-35s ordered VS how many LCA ordered?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Mar 2017 03:19

saar, why are you asking logical questions? tsk...tsk...tsk....

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Karan M » 03 Mar 2017 03:46

this guy reminds me of the american version of that obnoxious rafale fanboy who would constantly post here about how great the rafale was and how bad the su-30, lca etc were and only rafale would be purchased.
each time welch goes on his evangelical posturing about the mmrca, it seems more and more obvious the f-teens wont be chosen

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Karan M » 03 Mar 2017 03:47

will, the facts are the facts and the numbers about india's manufacturing prowess speak for themselves. you have an issue with the current PM, vote against him if you will but don't sling mud on the forum and its members for talking up india's achievements. its quite ironic that on the one hand you claim everyone here is for india and then in the same breath you castigate rakesh for merely having posted a bunch of media links about indian manufacturing. by comparing the forum to some random site and getting upset, you are wearing your political views on your shoulder and then imposing them on others.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GeorgeWelch » 03 Mar 2017 03:51

Cybaru wrote:Is the manufacturing ability not geared for fast manufacturing or is it limited to other reasons? For eg: one could be our ability to afford so many fighters in a financial year?


I could look at the amount invested in the Rafale and then the amount they're looking at investing in MiI single engine fighter and then the amount they're looking at investing in a naval fighter, and the amount they're investing in LCA currently and the amount they're investing in MKI production, it does not appear that money is the limiting factor

Cybaru wrote:Assuming it does not exist, If we add this skill how will it change things for us?


already addressed

Cybaru wrote:What portion of the value chain will that bring to the table?


Not having to rely on foreign designed planes, even if a substantial percentage of components are still imported, would be quite a savings

Cybaru wrote:How many fighters a year do we need to produce to counter pakistan/china?


More than HAL can build by hand.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GeorgeWelch » 03 Mar 2017 04:14

Rakesh wrote:We do not need to know how to assemble 4th generation planes. We have been doing it on the Su-30MKI and on the Tejas.


Not really. HAL can do their hand assembly, but they can't really scale up efficiently.

That's why it's time to give someone else the opportunity to make a true, scalable assembly line.


Rakesh wrote:Bakwaas bandh kar! :D The folks who developed the Tejas did not lose one single plane during her development. NOT ONE.


It doesn't matter how well they handcraft each plane if you don't have enough of them to matter.

Rakesh wrote:Three aircraft are now in service with No.45 Flying Daggers Squadron of the IAF. Yes, onlee three, but still :)


What are 3 aircraft going to do to China?

Rakesh wrote: Now let us examine how many F-16s crashed during its development. AFAIK, one belly landed. Here is the video...


Again you're confusing design issues and manufacturing issues. However, the F-16 was on the bleeding edge of design while the LCA is a very conservative, well-understood design.

Rakesh wrote: What happened to your rapid assembly to tight standards now? OTOH, we can teach you a few things on how not to belly land planes :wink:


1. Design issue not manufacturing issues
2. That was over 40 years ago. The industry has come a long way in 40 years.

Rakesh wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:This contract is about an existing plane, so there is little to no design work, so that's irrelevant to this discussion. But the ability to quickly and efficiently manufacture while maintaining tight quality control is very much of interest.

Dude, you guys parroted this same nonsense during the first MMRCA contest. Still you guys lost.


And clearly I was right. They ignored cost and ended up with this ridiculous situation where they are spending tremendous amounts of money for not enough Rafales to be useful. If they had gotten SH to begin with, you could have had just one fighter everywhere, greatly saving costs. Instead you're going to end up with a runt group of Rafales, a completely separate 'single engine fighter' and yet another fighter for the Navy

Rakesh wrote:You repeat the same thing again


Because I'm still right

Rakesh wrote:you will get the same result


That would be unfortunate for India

Rakesh wrote:As you so eloquently put in your post, F-35. Put that on the table. Changes everything. Same company, same manufacturing philosophy no? :) We can learn about rapid assembly to tight standards while wearing tight undies :)


It has been informally offered several times, but India has never shown any interest. If India wanted it, they could get it. But they don't want it, so . . .

Rakesh wrote:Hai! Hai! Kya Dialogue Mara! If the project & technology director of the Tejas has said - as explained above - that 16 aircraft will be produced a year, then that is what will happen. You do not get to determine what is reasonable.


I didn't determine what is reasonable, the IAF did, and they want 42 squadrons. Even 16 a year is a drop in the bucket compared to the need.

Rakesh wrote:Onlee the design of the AMCA has been frozen. Not a single prototype has been built yet. So that argument of yours is moot.


How so? Once it is ready, India will want it to enter service quickly. Having production drag out over multiple decades does not serve India's needs.

Rakesh wrote:Oh yes, India is indeed facing a huge shortfall in fighter aircraft. But with LM stating that it will take 36 months from contract signing to delivering the first aircraft and with Paper-NG having her FOC onlee in 2025/2026, the IAF will be waiting for a LONG time indeed.


So you should just give up and say we'll never produce planes fast enough? Rome was not built in a day. A modern assembly line is just one of many components necessary for a fully indigenous fighter force, but you just have to keep attacking the problem

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 03 Mar 2017 04:22

GeorgeWelch wrote:More than HAL can build by hand.


How do you guys build?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Mar 2017 05:44

Cybaru wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:More than HAL can build by hand.

How do you guys build?


Using Robots Onlee :) See below. So Advanced! We SDREs bend the metal by hand :)

Image

Robots are also used for F-35 production. See again. That is a robot sitting on a chair. So life like no? :)

Image

Tejas Production...so SDRE. Shame, Shame! :roll:

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Mar 2017 05:54

Karan M wrote:this guy reminds me of the american version of that obnoxious rafale fanboy who would constantly post here about how great the rafale was and how bad the su-30, lca etc were and only rafale would be purchased.
each time welch goes on his evangelical posturing about the mmrca, it seems more and more obvious the f-teens wont be chosen

Saar, I now understand what it means to get the ball rolling. The poster forgot to put 's' after the word ball. Allow me to explain. I may get banned for this, but oh well!

Rapid Assembly to Tight Standards only occurs when wearing Tight Undies. That causes balls to roll (words such as squeeze and compressed can also be used)...hence the term get the balls rolling. This result of balls rolling causes acute pain which forces one to speed up production. Since the production line is coming, I am sure tight undies come along with them. As long as they are new & fresh and not used, we should be good no?

Allow me to add 'condescending' to Evangelical Posturing. And you are right...it appears F-Solah may not be chosen after all.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GeorgeWelch » 03 Mar 2017 09:02

Rakesh wrote:Allow me to add 'condescending' to Evangelical Posturing.


*shrug* And yet HAL's underperformance in speedy manufacturing remains something that needs to be addressed. I'm hardly the first person on this forum to point it out.

Rakesh wrote:And you are right...it appears F-Solah may not be chosen after all.


So you're saying that the India's best decision makers with access to far more information than any of us are influenced by these rambling discussions? That's pretty insulting to them actually.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Mar 2017 09:36

GeorgeWelch wrote:And yet HAL's underperformance in speedy manufacturing remains something that needs to be addressed. I'm hardly the first person on this forum to point it out.

Well as per you, HAL is not going to manufacture these single engine fighters no? So why are you concerned what HAL is doing or not doing?

GeorgeWelch wrote:So you're saying that the India's best decision makers with access to far more information than any of us are influenced by these rambling discussions? That's pretty insulting to them actually.

Far from it. They don't need to read this rambling discussion to decide what is best for them. They have already decided :)

Just seeing you whining brings back fond memories from the previous MMRCA discussion and how you were so confident that your teens would be chosen.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Not really. HAL can do their hand assembly, but they can't really scale up efficiently. That's why it's time to give someone else the opportunity to make a true, scalable assembly line.

So what does LM do to assemble planes? Use Robots?

Rakesh wrote:I didn't determine what is reasonable, the IAF did, and they want 42 squadrons. Even 16 a year is a drop in the bucket compared to the need.

How is LM even going to fulfill that need when LM has said it usually takes 36 months from contract signing before the first aircraft is delivered. And we are still in the RFI stage. There is the RFP stage, technical evaluation stage, negotiation stage and then the contract signing. Indian bureaucracy takes forever. At the rate the SP policy was finalized (took them over a year to write the one chapter of SPP!), this tamasha is going to take a long time. How long is LM planning to keep this line open waiting for India?

GeorgeWelch wrote:So you should just give up and say we'll never produce planes fast enough? Rome was not built in a day. A modern assembly line is just one of many components necessary for a fully indigenous fighter force, but you just have to keep attacking the problem.

Why give up? Once LM transfers the line, we should match the same number of production as in Forth Worth no? :)

Even taking a compressed timeframe and if we sign that contract by 2019, transfer the line by 2020, it will take time to complete 100+ aircraft. And since HAL is not going to be involved in this, where is this trained workforce going to come from to assemble these planes?

GeorgeWelch wrote:If handled properly, it can be much more than that and make a substantive difference

Please explain how it will make a substantive difference.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Make in India is more sophisticated than just assembly, but I think the first step is to not let HAL anywhere near it. As you mentioned, they've had plenty of opportunities and haven't done anything with it.

Okay if it is more "sophisticated" than assembly, please explain in what areas does India need to be taught sophistication. We are not getting radar technology, we are not getting engine technology. Would you agree on that? LM is not expected to part with that. So other than assembling the fighter, from the vast global supply base, what else are we doing?

Someone mentioned learning how to market the fighter. So I ask again, is India allowed to market and sell the fighter to the following countries? Venezuela? Iran? Syria? Myanmar? Vietnam?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 03 Mar 2017 09:41

Just thinking out aloud about the technical evaluation stage - since neither plane exists, what plane is the IAF going to fly to determine their technical merits?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 03 Mar 2017 09:41

Ran across this comment by Edward Linhart (in AWST on the AMCA article):

Edward Linhart on Feb 24, 2017
I was in India on the Tejas program in 2014. I recommended some parts be changed to machine parts from sheet metal. They also could have redesigned some of the sheet metal parts for produceability. The main issue was the lack of understanding on adding sub-assembly positions to achieve rate(which I recommended and helped them on the design concepts). HAL was getting more modern by going to automated drilling machines which will be a great improvement for production. HAL was supposed to be at a four per month rate and was at a four per year rate. I attribute that problem to thinking in a proto type method. I hope that my contribution achieved getting them into a production mode.

I was impressed by their young engineers. They only needed some training to allow them to jump ahead on the learning curve. I understand that all of the training has been accomplished now.

I was asked to help them on the stealth design. However, when answering my question on who was helping them on the design, the answer was the Russians. That is when I stated that there was no way I could help them if I wanted to keep a security clearance.

I believe they are geared to not make the same mistakes as they did on the Tejas. However, they have a ways to go on composite technology.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 03 Mar 2017 09:55

NRao wrote:Edward Linhart
Edward Linhart on Feb 24, 2017
HAL was supposed to be at a four per month rate and was at a four per year rate.

I was asked to help them on the stealth design. However, when answering my question on who was helping them on the design, the answer was the Russians. That is when I stated that there was no way I could help them if I wanted to keep a security clearance.


4 per month is 48 per year. There is no way that number is right and his comments seem extremely exaggerated. This is not a 2 year run but a 9 year ramp-up & run.

Russians or No Russians, he will need all sorts of clearances before he can help! So that seems a bit off too! I am sure there are others here who can comment on this.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 03 Mar 2017 10:12

The imp part:

I attribute that problem to thinking in a proto type method. I hope that my contribution achieved getting them into a production mode.


Anyways.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 03 Mar 2017 10:22

Really not sure about design capabilities, he seems like a supply chain guy.

http://www.ecbb-3dplm.com/Pages/default.aspx

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 03 Mar 2017 10:44

NRao wrote:The imp part:

I attribute that problem to thinking in a proto type method. I hope that my contribution achieved getting them into a production mode.


Anyways.


Seems like impression about prototype mode from couple of years ago?
=I was in India on the Tejas program in 2014

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 03 Mar 2017 11:20

Please read Sandeep Unnithan's cover feature in IT ,"unmade in India",about the entire defence industry's woes at home and who are responsible for the same. The poor delivery /performance of DPSUs coupled with babudom's tentacles and red tape,plus a suspicion ny the establishment of pvt. India industry is stifling the goal and task of greater indigenisation,better quality of desi products and providing the armed forces with the eqpt. they need at the right time,right price and right number. Even when they provide a good product,it is delayed and too little rorcing crisis imports as was done recently for mundane items like ammo,etc. from Russia and Israel,over a billion$$,so that we can fight intensely for a week!

It is an excellent report,giving facts and figs,plus lists key items chosen but not "cooked"and served" as yet.The Modi regime is still hobbled by babudom and in another US report elsewhere about IN and USN naval cooperation,it warns that despite Mr. Modi's push for greater cooperation,there is strong resistance in the establishment about certain aspects of the cooperation. We and the Chinese are on the same side when it comes to EEZ and other maritime issues. There appears from this report to be a great reluctance in India to be drawn into a maritime spat with China by joining a US led naval alliance,akin to a de-facto Asian NATO.

What is striking about the "SE fighter" requirement is to somehow,shove a "square peg" Solah or SH into a "round hole",thus tying our bootstraps to those of Uncle Sam. The US def. establishment is making a massive pitch to "capture and control" the Indian armed forces,especially as our strategic deterrent and ABM defences mature. Once we possess the two in all aspects and deploy both systems in strength,we will be arguably "immune" to the provocations and pressure from any nation. The plot to control our civil and weapons-related N-capability ( and stunt our FBR programme) was attempted through the N-deal. Here,we had to segregate our N-weapons establishments from civil power production and the hope was to bind us into a perpetual fuel "marriage" with the west through their supply of fuel for their N-plants.This hasn't taken place becos of our N-Liability Bill,very necessary after the Bhopal catastrophe,where US MNC Union Carbide ,and their chairman, were allowed to escape their liability of $billions. With Russia agreeing to the Indian safeguards,the western major N-plant OEMs are in a bind. The KKNPP was thus ubject to sabotage by western paid agitators,which delayed the plan'ts opening by a whole year!

Thus,the nation has no option but to press ahead with LCA dev. and production,fielding whatever HAL can build with the whip at its back. Here too the pvt. sector can also open another prod. line with a guaranteed order of 100+ aircraft,just as Tata's want an order for 100 LTAs.Why can't the BJP govt. go ahead with this as it fully fits in with the "Make/made in India" mantra of Mr.M? The light fighter shortfall could be covered by other options,"more of the same types in service" (more Rafales,MIG-29/35s,Jaguars,MKIs) ,and if there is still a need,the Gripen seems the best choice. To avoid another sanctions possibility,we must also develop an LCA tech-demo fighter with an EJ TVC engine. That work should start right now s the basis for the Mk-2.

The whole point of the MMRCA requirement was to augment the IAF with a western multi-role aircraft and thus prevent us from putting all our eggs in the Ru basket.There is no point in doing exactly the same with the light fighter need,putting our engine eggs into Uncle Sam's basket,who notoriously through sanctions delayed the LCA project for sev. years! At least the LCA's future variants will be less liable to sanctions from the Zero-peons who are in a crisis over Brexit.

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

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rishi Verma » 03 Mar 2017 12:08

NRao wrote:The imp part:

I attribute that problem to thinking in a proto type method. I hope that my contribution achieved getting them into a production mode.


Anyways.


Nrao Ji that's a good documented evidence you got. To be in "prototype method" vs "production mode". And what minor design changes need to be carried out with DFM methodology to make the design as conducive to manufacture as it is to performance. It's easier said than done but can be done and it's not done on LCA thus the low production numbers and thus the need to import. There are major subsystems made by different entities (landing gear by HAL, composites by NAL, other parts by L&T etc) and there really needs to be a single program office that cracks the whip on every stake holder. There is no other way. HAL establishing 2nd line etc will not increase efficiency of manufacture.

Also HAL should be broken down into rotary and fixed wing manuf divisions. Right now their plate is full with helicopter design and manufacture and they have a list of excuses ready when they can't and won't deliver the 83 odd Mk1A as promised.

GeorgeWelch +108

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Indranil » 03 Mar 2017 12:20

increasing production rate of LCA could use some help. And if this guy did help, thanks to him.
But I can tell you that evil Yindoos are going alone on the RCS effort other than the RAM coatings. The RCS figures of the desi fighter has stayed with the Indians. We have full scale RCS measurement facility at JOdhpur. You heard Dr. Tamilmani refer to it for the upcoming RCS measurement of a full scale metallic model of Ghatak. That facility has been in use for a while. Let me leave it at that.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 03 Mar 2017 14:16

* Is Dr. Tamilmani still around? I thought he had retired. Great news about RCS. Now if they can build a good all around wind tunnel and an all weather test facility ......

* Ed Linhart used to be the VP for Global Production for the F-35. He retired in 2007. CY, the citing you have have is his own company on Supply Chains AND Design. He apparently was in India in that capacity.
* Yes, in 2014

* RV. I have no idea why there are issues with products like the PCS - outside of the fact it is the first product. Especially with a sister institution like ISRO. Even the sky is not the ceiling

* Philip, any URL? Thx.

*GW. I had wrapped everything you pretty much posted in " manufacturing processes". I would also add two things: supply chain, especially the software. And, the issue is not about India getting to a point, India always will, but it is about when. Point being users cannot afford to wait. And cumulative wait - in multiple products - could be crippling. Anyways .....

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Philip » 03 Mar 2017 19:36

The IT site should have the cover story. I bought the issue from the news stand.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GeorgeWelch » 03 Mar 2017 19:50

Rakesh wrote:Well as per you, HAL is not going to manufacture these single engine fighters no? So why are you concerned what HAL is doing or not doing?


First you understand the problem then you understand the solution. If the problem is both rapid manufacturing prowess and increasing your aerospace industrial base, the LM is clearly the better choice than Saab. LM just operates at a different scale and is far more likely to come back to industrial partners in the future.

Rakesh wrote:brings back fond memories from the previous MMRCA discussion and how you were so confident that your teens would be chosen.


I was confident the SH was the best choice (and still am). I never expressed any belief about what India would actually do.

Rakesh wrote:How is LM even going to fulfill that need when LM has said it usually takes 36 months from contract signing before the first aircraft is delivered.


LM is never going fulfill India's need for rapid indigenous production because they aren't Indian.

What they can do is give their Indian partner experience in the field and increase the local supplier base so that 'next time' their partner will be ready to do it themselves.

This is all about building for the future

Rakesh wrote:Why give up? Once LM transfers the line, we should match the same number of production as in Forth Worth no? :)


It isn't just about one line, it's about applying that experience to other applications. Such as an LCA line or an AMCA line.

Rakesh wrote:Please explain how it will make a substantive difference.


When the AMCA is ready, it's the difference between inducting 8 a year and inducting 30 a year.

Rakesh wrote: So I ask again, is India allowed to market and sell the fighter to the following countries? Venezuela? Iran? Syria? Myanmar? Vietnam?


Again, it's not about the F-16, it's about applying those skills to future indigenous projects that you will be able to sell around the world.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 03 Mar 2017 20:56

GeorgeWelch wrote:what's the current LCA manufacture rate?
what's the current F-35 manufacture rate?

What is the current Su-30MKI manufacture rate? Ans: 16/yr.
What is the current F-16 manufacture rate? Ans: 10/yr.

What is the proposed F-16 production rate in India? Most likely 16/yr.
Tejas production rate. 16/yr (deliveries 2019 onwards).

On the Tejas v F-16 issue:

F-16:
Aluminium - 78.4%
Steel - 17.8%
Composite - 9.8%

Tejas:
Aluminium - 40%
Steel - 4.5%
Composite - 45%

Its just plain silly to suggest that India go from serial manufacture of one metal airframed (Su-30) to serial manufacture of another metal airframe (F-16), to gain the experience require to scale up production on a more modern composite airframe (Tejas).

Nevermind the fact that the two will be built at different facilities by different companies.

There is a world of difference between hand building everything and a true assembly line

The prototypes were hand built. Production units are not.

Rapid assembly to tight standards is an important skill.

Production rate - 16/yr
Mfg tolerance - upto 80 microns.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 03 Mar 2017 21:07

GeorgeWelch wrote:I was confident the SH was the best choice (and still am). I never expressed any belief about what India would actually do.

The F-16 & SH are both dead-end platforms that have been rendered pointless with the advent of the F-35.

Its just a stupid idea to buy an F-16 for $65 mil or a SH for $75 mil when the F-35A is available for $85 mil and wiping the floor with the other two. Although being a stupid idea there's a good chance the MoD will go that way (not unlike the US DoD that might still order more SHs despite the F-35C being available).

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 04 Mar 2017 01:38

Cybaru wrote:Really not sure about design capabilities, he seems like a supply chain guy.
http://www.ecbb-3dplm.com/Pages/default.aspx


NRao wrote:* Ed Linhart used to be the VP for Global Production for the F-35. He retired in 2007. CY, the citing you have have is his own company on Supply Chains AND Design. He apparently was in India in that capacity.
* Yes, in 2014


Yes, I noticed that it is his own company. The reason I posted the link was to point out he is a supply chain/process guy and not a stealth designer like his message came across. I was trying to understand things in context and share for others as well.

I also wanted to highlight that his comments were valid for 2014 when we only had a few prototypes and we were still in mid testing phase (Pre IOC)

I thought the interesting bit from Ed Linharts comment was : "I was impressed by their young engineers. They only needed some training to allow them to jump ahead on the learning curve. I understand that all of the training has been accomplished now."

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby NRao » 04 Mar 2017 06:42

Cybaru wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Really not sure about design capabilities, he seems like a supply chain guy.
http://www.ecbb-3dplm.com/Pages/default.aspx


NRao wrote:* Ed Linhart used to be the VP for Global Production for the F-35. He retired in 2007. CY, the citing you have have is his own company on Supply Chains AND Design. He apparently was in India in that capacity.
* Yes, in 2014


Yes, I noticed that it is his own company. The reason I posted the link was to point out he is a supply chain/process guy and not a stealth designer like his message came across. I was trying to understand things in context and share for others as well.


Actually, his firm claims both, supply chain and design.

However, to your point, he is a production guy - was the VP at LM for the F-35.

So he takes a design and if need be he suggests a better alternative from a production point of view - without changing the design. The first paragraph is just that. He is not suggesting change in design, but a change in the way the part is made.

I also wanted to highlight that his comments were valid for 2014 when we only had a few prototypes and we were still in mid testing phase (Pre IOC)


Very true on your conclusions. But, production people look into the future. The assumption is what they see will carry into the future. If anything changes in the design of the product, they revisit the production aspect of it - the way it is made.

I thought the interesting bit from Ed Linharts comment was : "I was impressed by their young engineers. They only needed some training to allow them to jump ahead on the learning curve. I understand that all of the training has been accomplished now."


That has been my take for a while. If a few million Indians can make a difference by leaving the country, imagine what those that stayed behind can do. HTT-40 is a great example. And of course, ISRO, which seems to have caught the attention of some US Senators. : ) Seems like ISRO built a high alt test facility. Recently.

And it's not like things in the US are great. There is ample politics and back stabbing, etc here too.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2294
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 04 Mar 2017 07:03

NRao wrote:Actually, his firm claims both, supply chain and design.

However, to your point, he is a production guy - was the VP at LM for the F-35.

So he takes a design and if need be he suggests a better alternative from a production point of view - without changing the design. The first paragraph is just that. He is not suggesting change in design, but a change in the way the part is made.


Aren't we all extrapolating way too much just based on some post which had amazing amount of hyperbole built into it already (need to be at 48 vs 4)? Unless you have talked and interviewed the guy extensively, I am not sure we should do that. I would leave it at them being some persons opinion and not a fact finding mission on the state of affairs at the moment.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby ramana » 04 Mar 2017 07:59

Philip wrote:The IT site should have the cover story. I bought the issue from the news stand.


From Spinster:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/defe ... 89372.html

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 04 Mar 2017 08:38

Good posts Viv_S. +110 to you! :)

Viv S wrote:On the Tejas v F-16 issue:

F-16:
Aluminium - 78.4%
Steel - 17.8%
Composite - 9.8%

Tejas:
Aluminium - 40%
Steel - 4.5%
Composite - 45%

I checked Paper-NG's composite content. Even that has a higher composite content than the F-Solah!

It is around 30% for the Gripen. See below...

https://defenseissues.net/2013/02/16/sa ... -analysis/

To minimize weight, 30% of the structure is carbon-fibre composite. Aircraft is inherently unstable, and SAAB claims that it is first inherently unstable canard fighter to enter production.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby GeorgeWelch » 04 Mar 2017 11:17

Viv S wrote:The F-16 & SH are both dead-end platforms that have been rendered pointless with the advent of the F-35.


Same for the Rafale. The difference is that the SH is actually affordable.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest