'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Sep 2017 08:50

Commerce stint may help Nirmala Sitharaman in defence deals
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 353846.cms

Make in India in defence is still to take off in a big way. “What she will have to look at is compressing the time taken between the issuing of a request for information for an equipment to the handing over of a contract. It takes about six years for this process to end and during that period we make huge investments, including in the trials,” explained a top industry executive. Another industry executives said there is no level playing field because defence PSUs are usually the ones who are handed over contracts by the ministry.

RFI for SE is about to be issued later this year or early next year.

If the above timeline is true, this deal will be finalised in the early 2020s.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 04 Sep 2017 09:25

Rakesh wrote:Commerce stint may help Nirmala Sitharaman in defence deals
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 353846.cms

Make in India in defence is still to take off in a big way. “What she will have to look at is compressing the time taken between the issuing of a request for information for an equipment to the handing over of a contract. It takes about six years for this process to end and during that period we make huge investments, including in the trials,” explained a top industry executive. Another industry executives said there is no level playing field because defence PSUs are usually the ones who are handed over contracts by the ministry.
RFI for SE is about to be issued later this year or early next year.

If the above timeline is true, this deal will be finalised in the early 2020s.

Even the fig leaf of shortage had been effectively shorn by babudom. No SE fighter will roll out before 2022/23.

Next, talks of job creation will be dispelled by revelations of less than 1000 jobs in all. Food processing units will employ ten times that number for the same capital, at higher ROI.

Then, gaping holes in security will be "exposed", to which the question will once again arise -- what will the SEP bring to the table that the LCA/AMCA does not? If we need production technology, Dassault offsets do that job.

If we want certain specific engine tech, well, GE in India should do that job (see, we will be buying close to a thousand of those engines + variants over the next thirty years!!!). The final straw will be cost based evaluations of what an SEP brings over the local programs (Solah so much better, Sir!). But but would a Mark 2 not bring much better capabilities in the same time frame? With multiple local partners, thereby ensuring local profits are deployed locally, and not expatriated.

Sorry, I still don't get it. But then again, only Tier 1 BR Industry certified experts are supposed to get this.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Sep 2017 06:06

Cabinet approves MoU between India and Sweden on IPRs
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=170025
16 August 2017

Pictures of Signing Event....
https://twitter.com/indiainsweden/statu ... 4812107777

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Sep 2017 11:51

Marten wrote: Sorry, I still don't get it. But then again, only Tier 1 BR Industry certified experts are supposed to get this.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Sep 2017 11:56

NRao wrote: I do not see the F35 as MII, in any form.

The current state of MII is a joke. Lets just buy the F-35 for IAF/IN and be done with it. If the FACO line comes with F-35, great, otherwise continue with LCA-mk2/AMCA/PAKFA for Made/Make in India efforts. There is enough other work for industry in pipeline. Lets just finish this scam and move on please. We need to make up both numbers and technology. It isn't just a numbers game. The F-16 doesn't add anything new. Today even Jags are ASEA equipped!

habal · Post by **habal** » 05 Sep 2017 14:50

If you are buying american engines, then why not just go ahead and buy american F-35 anyway. G2G and no chance of any future scandal like French or swedish. We anyways have MKI, 29s for backup so its not like they can embargo us to doom or anything.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Sep 2017 15:55

Marten wrote:
Sorry, I still don't get it. But then again, only Tier 1 BR Industry certified experts are supposed to get this.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Sep 2017 22:48

Adani-Ambani face off: How Modi's Make in India set the stage for defence rivalry in India
http://www.businesstoday.in/current/cor ... 59728.html

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Sep 2017 02:01

Carnegie Endowment in India: Promoting US Leadership With Indian Corporate Wealth
https://thewire.in/163918/carnegie-indi ... tank-role/

A must read article.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Sep 2017 02:02

The light fighter debacle
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 413_1.html

Only a blurb is available. You need to pay to read the rest. This is like the SE deal onlee

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Sep 2017 02:06

Making Profit the kingpin of National Security
https://www.newsclick.in/index.php/maki ... l-security

It appears that lessons of successful public ventures were studiously ignored and instead preferential treatment provided to the private sector as became evident in the Rafale deal struck with French corporation Dassault by RSS-BJP Government. Reliance Anil Ambani, the only private contender, was preferred over Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, the partner envisaged under the original deal for 126 Rafale jets signed by the Dr Manmohan Singh Government. Eric Trapper CEO of Dassault which manufactures Rafales fighter jets was reported as saying that his company signed up with Anil Ambani group because “we were told that HAL was fully booked. We talked to Reliance and they were very keen to create such capabilities in India. They have a track record and the financial capabilities as well”. Unfortunately, the business news daily failed to follow up on the issue of “track record” of the Reliance Anil Ambani group as well as failed to find out from HAL if their hands were actually “full” and they could not take up joint manufacturing of Rafales jets. Reliance Anil Ambani Group is known for its Rs 1.25 lakh cr (Rs 1.25 trillion) of Non Performing Assets where they are unable to even meet their interest payments. If despite this Dassault found them suitable it is because they came recommended by the highest echelons of Indian Government. Another OEM in contention Swedish Saab Gripen has tied up with Adani Group which is a new entrant to the military sector and has the distinction of being number 4 on the list of top 10 defaulting corporation with Rs 96,031 cr in debts. Dassault and Saab Gripen presumably believe that their chances improve if they join hands with cronies of the current dispensation. Question is how does such tie up between Indian corporate oligarchs with huge debts and a sullied record and foreign OEM advance India’s interest?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Sep 2017 06:31

Adani is not a defaulter as far as I know. They and RIL fellows do not have any tech record and expertise to make a SE thing at all. That can be an objection.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 06 Sep 2017 09:51

Yagnasri wrote:Adani is not a defaulter as far as I know. They and RIL fellows do not have any tech record and expertise to make a SE thing at all. That can be an objection.

The article looks like lifafa journalism. Adanis do have debt but Reliance has even more. Both of them are not defaulters so far. Both have zero experience of making anything remotely related to aircraft. Tatas are a little better only.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Sep 2017 04:20

Rakesh wrote:Carnegie Endowment in India: Promoting US Leadership With Indian Corporate Wealth
https://thewire.in/163918/carnegie-indi ... tank-role/

A must read article.

Shyam Saran states that US had not just asked for separation
of civilian & mil nuclear facilities, but also their personnel.
https://twitter.com/devirupam/status/905519746740867072

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 Sep 2017 06:19

"Making Profit the kingpin of National Security" ^^^

vs. loss making? PSU union paid stuff on first glance.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 07 Sep 2017 14:13

This is major push from American president.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/trump-a ... 403494.cms

I think the idea is to Hoover up all existing capability build up so far by DRDO and HAL and delay next generation research as much as possible while extracting maximum bucks. Yet we need to create this jobs so I will not mind US presence in Indian markets as long as India grows.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Sep 2017 19:21

I ask this again. How does building F-16 generate jobs and manufacturing Tejas doesn't?

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 07 Sep 2017 20:57

I think other companies are probably putting a number on how much employment they will generate, where and type of work etc. that's how they survive in their home countries and ensure one politician or group does not sabotage their plans. HAL needs to communicate plans along those aspects

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Sep 2017 22:04

Indranil wrote:I ask this again. How does building F-16 generate jobs and manufacturing Tejas doesn't?

Need to develop Intellectual Property locally or we are doomed
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/n ... 635467.ece

Since we are not getting IP (why would anyone?) on the engine, on the radar, on the missiles, on the other sensors of the F-16...then what is the point of this? The same is true for Saab, who despite providing (empty) promises on the Gripen, will be the same.

However, the Air Marshal appears to be preferring the Gripen bid.

He gave the example of Brazil which has teamed up with SAAB of Sweden and managed to develop significant technologies locally.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Sep 2017 01:20

Its US political push on GOI vs IAF preference for Gripen. IAF will never agree to just take an infra-dig fighter operated by their rival esp. since its upgrade path appears limited. Even if it does have lethal capabilities. IAF will rather take the "futuristic" Gripen E (whenever it really comes) with less of a proper weapons ecosystem and SAAB will promise one Unicorn per every HAL director to seal the bid.. oh wait Adani director. Even so, US lobbying via Trump will be in full force. Popcorn. "Develop your own IP says the vice-chief".. (left unsaid, the LCA, wot's that? seriously high-farce to point to Brazil and ignore what the LCA has done locally. this is the sad state of affairs from many of our leaders)

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Sep 2017 04:48

Rakesh wrote:Need to develop Intellectual Property locally or we are doomed
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/n ... 635467.ece

Same as above, but a bit more info....

Need to develop IPR in aerospace sector
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 409939.cms

Under the built to print process, manufacturers have been making equipment or components as per the designs provided to them, which according to critics does not allow technology absorption and innovation in the country.

In BRF, that is known as screwdrivergiri...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Sep 2017 05:00

The light fighter debacle: a case study of dysfunctional procurement
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/09/t ... dy-of.html

Will there be space for the Tejas, which is now close to completion? And can novice aerospace companies like TASL and the Adanis graduate straight to assembling complex fighters?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Sep 2017 05:17

Cross Post from the PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Russia pitches MiG-35 to India as FGFA project falters
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ct-falters

But acting defense minister Arun Jaitley said last month while inaugurating HAL’s Light Combat Helicopter facility: “Public-sector work culture and performance have the highest standards of professionalism,” making it clear that HAL was not ruled out of the fighter contest. (India’s first woman defense minister, former commerce minister Nirmala Sitharaman, took over from Jaitley this week and is thought to be like-minded).

He also said that Lockheed Martin is encouraging the two governments “to have a conversation” for future cooperation on the F-35 stealth fighter.

“Saab is willing to transfer state-of-the-art technology and skills. We will focus on the capability that is critical for true indigenization including design, system integration, maintenance and upgrade,” said Gautam Adani, chairman of the Adani Group. However, Kurt Ove Håkan Buskhe, the president and CEO of the Saab Group said “Most design and integration uses avionics software and onboard computer systems, and that is something we fully control.”

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Sep 2017 05:25

Anyone want to venture that if the Single Engine deal does go through, it will be HAL and not Tata or Adani having total ownership?

I said this before NUMEROUS TIMES in this thread and I ASK AGAIN....from where is Tata and Adani going to find people to assemble these fighters? Now hear it from the horse's mouth. So much for job creation and creating opportunities in other sectors of the economy. What was that....get the ball rolling...what bullshit!!

I do not know how to put increase size of fonts in the forum software, but I wish I could. Font Size 72

I would paste the entire article in this post, but I do not want to violate copyright laws.

BOEING FLAGS INEXPERIENCE OF PRIVATE SECTOR 'STRATEGIC PARTNERS'

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 051_1.html

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/09/b ... ivate.html

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Sep 2017 09:13

^ interesting. But then why the tie ups with Adani and reliance?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Sep 2017 10:57

Cain-Ji: You are probably older than I am, so I am going to stick with the Ji, okay?

All jokes aside, I understand what the pro F-Solah crowd on BRF is claiming. Make in India is meant to increase meaningful employment in the country. No one is disputing that. But I do not believe that the MII model can fit like a glove to a complex and crucial issue such as defence production. There are many reasons for this, but the main reason is this;

- Too many hands in the pot. Too many vested interests at play here. You cannot expect the PSUs - after 70+ years of monopoly - to take that lying down. To copy a dialogue from a Hindi movie I once saw...Toh Hum Kya Kahenge, Mitti ? HAL is going to fight this tooth & nail and they know they have a strong case and they have the government's ear. The fact that Finance Minister Arun Jaitley basically (see a few posts above) endorsed PSUs to be a player in this SE tamasha proves that point.

- This is not to suggest that Tata or Adani have no role to play, after all the Prime Minister's vision of MII is at stake here. The winner will play a very crucial role, but not one of ownership IMVHO. What will likely happen is the winner will partner with HAL and assemble the aircraft together. What that means is either Tata or Adani's investment (acquiring land for the factory, building the factory, buying the tools & jigs, etc....with subsidies from the GOI of course) will be present and HAL will provide the crucial influx of staff to assemble and train follow on staff (Tata or Adani employees) to do the same. That is a likely win-win situation for both - the PSU and the private sector - in the short term (with short term being the total number of SE aircraft purchased). The winds of change are coming, but one cannot expect it to change overnight. The reality of the matter is that neither Tata or Adani can assemble a fighter. Only HAL can do it, after all they have 70+ years of screwdrivergiri experience.

The issue lies in what does the IAF want? Because they are the END USER of the product. The IAF has come to the realization that after 70+ years, its local aerospace industry cannot come up with a viable product. We are still struggling to develop an aero engine for example. So the SE deal comes along and the IAF has a choice before it;

a) Go with F-16 which is in service with 28 countries around the world. Global supply chain. Strategic alignment with the US. Export to other countries. Upgrade other nations' F-16 to the Block 70 std. Lethal aircraft. Excellent weaponry. However end of life of product.

b) Go with Gripen E which is unproven and NEW, but Saab is offering the following --> operational performance, availability, cost effectiveness, technology transfer, industrial partnership, setting up of an aerospace eco-system in India, creation of a local supplier base of ancillary systems; employment of a well-trained Indian workforce. That italcized part...none of it is my own interpretation or imagination...I lifted that WORD FOR WORD from the Gripen for India website.

If you had to choose, which one would you pick?

Any professional air force around the world, in the IAF's predicament, would pick B. You would have to be certifiably insane to pick A. The fact that the Gripen shares the exact same "sanctionable" engine as the Tejas is a fact that is not lost on the IAF. And that is a HUGE bonus in this competition.

LM has not even come close - in the marketing game - to what Saab is claiming to offer. LM believes that the geopolitical push is enough for India to pick them as the winning bid. I would not bank on that, especially when you have $10+ billion (and only the Almighty knows how many billions more in "after sales" support) at stake.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Sep 2017 11:26

Boeing's interests are being handled by Tata's aren't they,so why the reluctance? The same argument was earlier used by Dassault about HAL being dodgy and incapable of local building of the Rafale to D's stds.!
Therefore,by virtue of these western OEMs,barring the Swedes,no one in India is capable of delivering top line fighter aircraft!

Now tell that to the Russians who've had so many types of MIG and Sukhoi aircraft built here by HAL. MKIs have now reached 70%+ local material content.That's some achievement.IN addition,Hawks are also being built by HAL,Jags too for long.The twists and turns in the SE fighter contest indicate that a lot behind the scenes is being played out,a veritable war between the rival manufacturers and their hopeful Indian partners.Boeing is now denouncing the pvt. entities becos they have felt a shiver up their spine with the Adani-Gripen tie-up. It's no secret that the Adani group are in the good books of the current regime.There is also a strong need to bring in the pvt. sector into defence development and p[roduction simply becos the DPSUs have in many key instances failed miserably.Let's atke a quick look.

OFB ,both in ammo and gun barrels for MBTs.Thousands of crores wasted. V.poor prod. rates by HAL.Barely 6-8 LCAs and LCHs envisaged. Avadi way behind schedule for tank production and tank upgrades.We can go on to other non-strat. missiles like Akash,Nag,etc.Delayed and some Q issues too.
Therefore ,without the pvt. sector being brought in,we will remain the world's largest or second largest importer of arms.Now if we look at the pvt. sector ass far as shipbuilding is concerned,they've performed quite well.L&T both for our N-sub programme as well as delivering the floating dock for the IN and other interceptor boats for the CG. What is needed if HAL cannot increase production is for the GOI to let the pvt. sector do so ,setting up their own plants but with confirmed large-scale orders.

Reg. the MIG-35 for the IAF.I've always said that this was the most cost-effective way in increasing numbers,sqds.,and capability without any need for a new plant etc.,as the earlier avatar the 29UG was already in service.Producing it at Nasik will be water off a duck's back for the unit there which has already in the past produced hundred of MIGs,plus the 29 upgrade was also done in India.

Reg. the FGFA,we will need it to counter Chinese stealth fighters which will definitely appear very soon,esp. after the Doklam stand-off.The IAF/GOI must look at least towards a 2 sqd. outright buy initially,just like the Rafale,while planning for prod. of the definitive desi version post 2020,round 2025.By this time,prod. of extra Flankers,MIG-35s would be tailing off and Nasik ready to begin building the FGFA. HAL BLR would be building LCAs post haste and also upgrading around 120 + 20/30 ex-French Jags.A stealth version of the LCA should also be in the works which could complement the FGFA.BY 2030,when the oldest med. sized aircraft start retiring,the AMCA prod could start.

The issue here is whether HAL has got the capabliity to deliver the LCA in current and improved avatars on time and at reasonable cost s has been assuured ad nauseum. There have been so many deadlines unkept that the bird has "died" several times ! It is this BS from the entity ,ADA.DRDO.whoever.,that has forced the GOI to seek an external solution. If HAL truly want to succeed with the LCA,then the faster they deliver results will get them mileage.Otherwise it is going to be inevitable that the pvt. sector will muscle in any which way.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Sep 2017 18:40

Rakesh wrote:Anyone want to venture that if the Single Engine deal does go through, it will be HAL and not Tata or Adani having total ownership?

I said this before NUMEROUS TIMES in this thread and I ASK AGAIN....from where is Tata and Adani going to find people to assemble these fighters? Now hear it from the horse's mouth. So much for job creation and creating opportunities in other sectors of the economy. What was that....get the ball rolling...what bullshit!!

I do not know how to put increase size of fonts in the forum software, but I wish I could. Font Size 72

I would paste the entire article in this post, but I do not want to violate copyright laws.

BOEING FLAGS INEXPERIENCE OF PRIVATE SECTOR 'STRATEGIC PARTNERS'
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 051_1.html

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/09/b ... ivate.html

Admiral, let me take liberty to post what Boeing India Chief said exactly. Because some of us have been saying this right from Page 1 of this thread. Coming from

“from the vantage point of a company that has been in the aerospace industry for 100 years, across the world,”

this should have more credibility than what we anonymously say on this thread. Hence I am quoting:

But Kumar, speaking at a seminar organised by the Centre for Air Power Studies, the air force’s think tank, pointed out that successful examples of ToT-based manufacture involved “co-opting of public enterprise and private enterprise in a way that leveraged the investment made in the public enterprise for multiple decades”.

The Boeing chief said he “tried hard, and could not find a single example [of successfully building an aircraft under ToT] where it was just the brand new private enterprise with limited aerospace experience. Look at Turkey, look at Japan, look at Brazil — look at multiple countries. In all cases, there is a fine balancing act of co-opting the capabilities of both public and private enterprise.”

I have said this exact same thing before, show me one OEM which started like we expect Ambani/Adani/Tata to start from out of nothing. There is no God here who can say "Let there be an OEM" and we will have an OEM out of newbies.

But let me also say this, I know why Boeing guy is saying this. Perhaps this is to shoot down the SP model, because its a lot of hard work for Boeing to work with it. When they have products like P8I which are basically competition-less and small orders why should they even bother about this..? Even for the expected 57-jet order for F/A 18 is not going to demand any manufacturing as such because it doesn't make sense to set up new line in any comprehensive manner (may be just screwdrivergiri from SKDs) for such low order. So perhaps Boeing has no real gain in co-opting SP model and every incentive to try to downplay it. Whereas LM and Saab has incentive to play up to the gallery and show rosy dreams to SDREs that they will make some of our baniyas experts in high tech Aerospace manufacturing just like that. So they wouldn't say anything directly against SP model. I would not talk more about SP model because that will lead to another separate thread.

Even the private Indian companies know what they are in it for:

Aspiring Indian SPs, like TASL, admit that their role in an SP contract would remain “build to print”, i.e. manufacturing sub-assemblies and assemblies to blueprints provided by the OEM. Yet, it would provide a lucrative growth opportunity.

“The need of the hour is for the ministry of defence to go forward with the two very large aerospace orders [for] single engine fighter and helicopters. Frankly, in my mind, there is nothing else to it”, said TASL chief, Sukaran Singh, at the same seminar.

"Make to Print" is quite profitable business. In fact Tier1/2/3 suppliers often make more margins that the OEMs. That what the Indian companies are after - steady and good profit. You need a little different character to an organisation which can be an OEM. I know exactly, since I see how our management behaves.

There is simply no way around DPSUs. We have very limited resources and they are concentrated in DPSUs. It makes no sense to spread them thin all over the place and endanger even those things which are slowly working out e.g. LCA. There is a structural issue with DPSU, but there are ways to deal with it intrinsically. Going for MII kind of models without trying to deal with issues at home is only marginally better than what previous dispensations have done by outright importing.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 08 Sep 2017 18:56

IMHO, both Embraer & Airbus models offers us a good path on how to reform our DPSUs. Let the state retain majority stake in these orgs but let it be run like a Pvt entity...initially let the Govt./MOD pamper them with copious amounts of funds to upgrade their infra as well as resources capabilities. But within a certain time frame, they will have to be responsible for their own sustenance...of course, the MoD/GoI still has a responsibility for funding major programmes but admin/resource/overhead management should be responsible by the org.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Sep 2017 19:03

Zynda wrote:IMHO, both Embraer & Airbus models offers us a good path on how to reform our DPSUs. Let the state retain majority stake in these orgs but let it be run like a Pvt entity...initially pamper them with copious amounts of funds to upgrade their infra as well as resources capabilities. But within a certain time frame, they will have to be responsible for their own sustenance.

Agreed. I have suggested complete autonomy to HAL on many occasions. Make the DPSU's corporations (I guess that's the only way in existing framework, but GOI can very well create new law to let them function as pvt companies while retaining government stake. They can be made public, but I would like GOI to hold majority stake to drive the policy actively. Being a public company has its own baggage too.) with full autonomy of all sorts, like a pvt company. The employees no longer remain govt employees, no govt rules of reservations, pay scales, appraisals blah blah are applicable. Actually companies like HAL do not need any more cash as such from GOI as well. They are literally debt free. They can borrow huge money very easily from market, if GOI let them to.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 08 Sep 2017 21:08

If India decides to opt for Gripen E then it will have to get Iron-Clad guarantees from Sweden that it's dependency on US for various spare parts and the engine will not threaten or jeopardise the continual production or flight availability status in India. We will do well to remember the Sea King helicopters saga post 1998 dhamaka.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Sep 2017 23:01

Vips wrote:If India decides to opt for Gripen E then it will have to get Iron-Clad guarantees from Sweden that it's dependency on US for various spare parts and the engine will not threaten or jeopardise the continual production or flight availability status in India. We will do well to remember the Sea King helicopters saga post 1998 dhamaka.

What does an 'iron clad guarantee' mean? Suppose they are barred by the US from providing XYZ—what are we going to do? Sue them?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Sep 2017 23:10

" Actually companies like HAL do not need any more cash as such from GOI as well. They are literally debt free. They can borrow huge money very easily from market, if GOI let them to."

There's a very good reason why they are not allowed to borrow. In fact, many reasons. First and foremost, they would be borrowing on the strength of GoI credit not their cash flows. Second, they will gamble with the money they borrow—fund projects that have no market demand and then expect the services to pick up the tab and so on. They have no revenues independent of the GoI and therefore cannot be allowed to borrow independently.

DPSUs either have to be privatized completely or remain 100% GoI owned. Hybrid ownerships never work: the GoI stake has more clout than its percentage and will therefore make it easy to manipulate politically. It's like any hybrid for example, the V22 Osprey—it's neither a great helicopter nor a a great plane.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Sep 2017 23:22

JayS wrote: I have said this exact same thing before, show me one OEM which started like we expect Ambani/Adani/Tata to start from out of nothing. There is no God here who can say "Let there be an OEM" and we will have an OEM out of newbies.

But let me also say this, I know why Boeing guy is saying this. Perhaps this is to shoot down the SP model, because its a lot of hard work for Boeing to work with it. When they have products like P8I which are basically competition-less and small orders why should they even bother about this..? Even for the expected 57-jet order for F/A 18 is not going to demand any manufacturing as such because it doesn't make sense to set up new line in any comprehensive manner (may be just screwdrivergiri from SKDs) for such low order. So perhaps Boeing has no real gain in co-opting SP model and every incentive to try to downplay it. Whereas LM and Saab has incentive to play up to the gallery and show rosy dreams to SDREs that they will make some of our baniyas experts in high tech Aerospace manufacturing just like that. So they wouldn't say anything directly against SP model. I would not talk more about SP model because that will lead to another separate thread.

Even the private Indian companies know what they are in it for:
Aspiring Indian SPs, like TASL, admit that their role in an SP contract would remain “build to print”, i.e. manufacturing sub-assemblies and assemblies to blueprints provided by the OEM. Yet, it would provide a lucrative growth opportunity.

“The need of the hour is for the ministry of defence to go forward with the two very large aerospace orders [for] single engine fighter and helicopters. Frankly, in my mind, there is nothing else to it”, said TASL chief, Sukaran Singh, at the same seminar.
"Make to Print" is quite profitable business. In fact Tier1/2/3 suppliers often make more margins that the OEMs. That what the Indian companies are after - steady and good profit. You need a little different character to an organisation which can be an OEM. I know exactly, since I see how our management behaves.

Oh man! That is too much sense.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 08 Sep 2017 23:27

Cosmo_R wrote:
Vips wrote:If India decides to opt for Gripen E then it will have to get Iron-Clad guarantees from Sweden that it's dependency on US for various spare parts and the engine will not threaten or jeopardise the continual production or flight availability status in India. We will do well to remember the Sea King helicopters saga post 1998 dhamaka.
What does an 'iron clad guarantee' mean? Suppose they are barred by the US from providing XYZ—what are we going to do? Sue them?

Yes definitely get damages. If going into a contract they know of the pitfalls of their dependency and inspite of that if they hope to make billions doing business in/with India, then they have to be ready to face that risk too.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 Sep 2017 05:05

Vips wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:
What does an 'iron clad guarantee' mean? Suppose they are barred by the US from providing XYZ—what are we going to do? Sue them?
Yes definitely get damages. If going into a contract they know of the pitfalls of their dependency and inspite of that if they hope to make billions doing business in/with India, then they have to be ready to face that risk too.

OK, so I'm MD at SAAB (imagine) and India says 'Supply us despite US sanctions" and I cannot because a) no alternative source and/or b) I risk sanctions myself by continuing the supply to India. In either of these cases, I look to see how far I've got the IAF hooked so as they have a vested interest in ensuring supply (they are pregnant) and present them with " sure you have a contractual right to demand performance, but we cannot deliver because of force majeure despite our very best good faith efforts to do so. If we have to pay damages, we will declare bankruptcy and be unable to fulfill even those terms/deliverables that are not subject to sanctions. In the interim, the contract stays because you are suing us to enforce it, so you may not seek alternatives to replace us. We will abide by the terms of a final court ordered settlement inclusive of any appeals, on a just basis."

It will be 10-15 years for the legal wrangling to to subside. In the interim, we will still have to pay SAAB for items delivered even if the a/c cannot fly. That is the reality and there are dozens of legal firms who would rush in to offer services to both sides.

There are no "iron clad guarantees". Chastity belts also rust.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Sep 2017 05:33

#1
If you want ready made fighters now, to deter the PRC, no option but the Block-70. Cons, its at the end of its aero upgrade path, only avionics and weapons upgrades, tied to Unkils intrusive apron strings, all your bases are open to EULA, and so are your AF and other crew some of whom might be targeted for info. This will IMHO still be the GOIs choice, because buys us brownies with US admin and "strategic ties".

Due to ITAR, forget about any detailed help for AMCA.

Also, F-16 Block 70 will have severe challenges vs any PLAAF J-20

#2 Buy SAAB. Vaporware jet will only come by 2025-30 in its definitive IAF form, after soaking up LCA funds. You may get some nice offset to make screws and harnesses in India, rest of the TOT, will all be notional working on half-baked stuff which some Air Marshal will state is JV because it will be made in a clean, new facility at Adani, impressive like heck vs some dusty run with fans at HAL. However, aero wise once developed it will be better than Block 70. Avionics wise, it will be ok & weapons wise wont carry as much as a Block 70 (the Khan ecosystem of everything from JDAM to AMRAAM to this to that is a class apart, the sheer breadth that is). You wont be so worried about EULA, etc and subversion but lets not kid ourselves, the fear of sanctions will always be there. From US and EU. SAABs Gripen is a fighter made via Walmart with supplies of components from across the world.

This IMHO will be the IAFs choice because it is "futuristic" and of course, because its not a variant of the plane the Pakis fly & know inside & out.

Also, Gripen will have severe challenges against any PLAAF J-20. We are buying 4.5G in an era of 5G.

Perhaps, if we have some hard nosed negotiators and SAAB actually plays fair, we might get some benefit for AMCA.
They may help there, but definitely won't for a rival LCA Mk2, which anyhow it appears the AF will be content to wither on the wine.

So, IF Modi govt goes by professional assessment alone, I would state it is the Gripens deal to lose. But arms purchases are all about politics.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Sep 2017 06:11

Vips wrote:If India decides to opt for Gripen E then it will have to get Iron-Clad guarantees from Sweden that it's dependency on US for various spare parts and the engine will not threaten or jeopardise the continual production or flight availability status in India. We will do well to remember the Sea King helicopters saga post 1998 dhamaka.

Vips, you are talking as if Gripen E is already chosen

Jokes aside, I would suggest that you do not go down the path of getting Iron-Clad guarantees. I will explain.

Among the pro F-Solah crowd on BRF, you have the classic bait-and-switch strategy. Dangle the bait and see if folks bite. If they bite, then hold on to that bait for dear life and keep feeding the propoganda to keep that bait alive. If they do not, then switch to another and repeat. And the cycle continues. So what is this bait? There are many. I list some that come to mind.

- Global Supplier Chain.
- Strategic Alignment with America.
- 4,500 F-16s world wide being used by 28 countries.
- Export to other countries from an Indian line.
- Improve India's unemployment.

They pull this stunt because they know (just like some of their counterparts in the Indian media), a large percentage of the Indian populace is unaware of defence matters and they will be willing to swallow the above as if it is a glass of Rooh Afza on a hot summer day in Dilli. I am sure you know what that is, so I am not going to explain. But I have provided a link, just in case.

Which brings me to your post. I am going to make it simple

- If Gripen E is chosen and America gets pissed off because of it, will they drop sanctions on India? May be. So go ahead and do it. When that occurs, India will realize all this talk of strategic partnership was just hot air.

- If F-16 Block 70 is chosen and tomorrow we make a move that is inimical to America's interests, will they drop sanctions on India? May be. So go ahead and do it then.

Look at the above two scenarios and we are in the same boat in both. So this scare mongering tactic that the Gripen is sanctionable is equally true with the F-16 as well. So why even go down that path? We are screwed either way. Some other scare mongering tactics parroted on BRF are ending joint military exercises, shutting down joint working committees, claiming that India will be on her own in the IOR (which is a load of complete & utter tripe, but an entirely different topic from this thread), etc.

Why ask for guarentees when you are going to get none? The only way to untie from this mess, is to end this tamasha and soldier on with the Tejas. But if the IAF is insisting on importing (and based on the two current choices)....the best scenario (the best of the worst IMO) is Saab's offer. The worst option is the F-Solah.

P.S. I am not sure how long you have been on BRF, but if you have been here long enough you will remember this is same load of bullshit they claimed in the first MMRCA downselect. And the opposite happened. India-US relations have only been on the upswing. The relationship between the two countries is far deeper than some dumbass plane deal.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Sep 2017 06:13

JayS: I am going to reply to your post. Hopefully soon

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Sep 2017 06:24

For Gripen, if SAAB actually works with LRDE to develop a proper GaN based radar with the foundry work done locally in India with local GaN devices & helps them finesse the operating software, then buying the darn Gripen-E may actually help. That and perhaps working with DARE on similar programs for EW pods & acting as a consultant for the AMCA design and test process. We need to get that up and running fast.