'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Feb 2017 23:19

Cosmo_R wrote:We are famous for having the Amby (AKA Morris Cowley) that no one else wanted.

Wrong

The Amby was based on the Morris Oxford Series IV and not the Morris Cowley which adopted her design from the Oxford Series III. And for your information (pls update yourself) almost ~60K were made (the Morris Oxford Series III that is) at UK in the late 50s.

Cosmo_R wrote:The breakdown of the suppliers ^^^ (graphic) is what I meant earlier when I said the Gripen and any US ac are all potentially and equally sanctionable.

We don't want sanctionable aircraft. I prefer not to be Amreeka's dalal and do her bidding.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Feb 2017 23:58

So much for the strategic partnership policy. What a joke. I thought we were strategic partners

Should be renamed to strategic poodle policy. Same acronym, whole different meaning

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Feb 2017 00:54

So the strategic partnership model for aircraft, submarine, helicopter
manufacturing in India is more or less locked. Details out next week.
https://twitter.com/nitingokhale/status ... 6657491969

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2017 01:08

The game plan was to role out the SP model in March and select an Indian entity/ies in Oct/Nov.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Feb 2017 04:47

Cybaru wrote:I don't think the Air force has ever been in a better shape than it is today. New weapons, extremely high uptimes compares to the last 3-4 decades, more load carrying capabilities, more force multipliers, better training, more simulators. Plus there is almost 20 new planes being (12 MKI + 8 LCA) inducted this year and which will change to 40 ( 12MKI + 16LCA + 12 Rafs) soon. We will have the ability to retire/induct two squadrons a year soon.

Good point.

So what's this urgency to acquire yet another legacy foreign fighter? It doesn't make sense.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Feb 2017 05:08

Rakesh wrote:India’s fighter aircraft building capability to get big push?
Saab offers 100% ‘Make in India’ for Gripen E jet
http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... 16/555656/

“What differentiates us from the competition is that when people talk about ‘Make in India’, you hear a lot about transferring assembly lines and manufacturing. Manufacturing is a tiny part of what is important – what India must have for its air power sovereignty in the future is the ability to design, develop and own those aircraft – not simply metal mashing and making somebody else’s airplane. The idea is to make an airplane for India,” Hewson, the Vice President, Head of Communications told FE Online.

“It is not just about being able to manufacture, but you must also have the skill, knowledge and control of all the critical technology – from the radars, weapons, systems, data links – all that makes a modern fighter. We are talking about building an entire fighter technology eco system so that India can build Gripens that are Indian aircraft for today – you can take those aircraft and build an airplane without any strings attached to us,” he elaborated. “The huge range of design and development skill and understanding for different components would feed into new projects for the next 40 to 50 years,” Hewson added.

So, what percentage of the Gripen E, if chosen by India, would be made here? “All of it, if India is able to absorb the learning,” quips Hewson. “We want to create India’s Gripen. Our objective would be that pretty much all the entire aircraft be made in India. We are offering the real secret stuff that makes fighter combat systems. This is a long and complex process, it will not happen overnight. This will be as much Indian as India wants, as much as India can handle, and as soon as India is ready. We are using the same philosophy in our Brazil programme as well,” he said.
While his theory is correct and he is singing the tune alright, he cannot offer 100% ToT of the Gripen E because the engine (just one of key components that are not Swedish in origin) is an American one. But he is singing to the choir, in the hopes that the GoI will fall for the tune.

All this would be fine and dandy if it weren't that India already does most of the "real secret stuff that makes fighter combat systems" in India itself. Saab couldn't help us in engine technology, ejection seat systems for instance, since it itself doesn't do much with those - it simply integrates systems sourced from other suppliers. Now that really is a systems integrator's work and I don't think that India (or specifically DRDO and HAL) cannot already do that.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Feb 2017 05:41

srai wrote:So what's this urgency to acquire yet another legacy foreign fighter? It doesn't make sense.

That is a mystery that many on this forum are still trying to figure out.

Every excuse is being offered - American help in containing China, global supplier base for the F-Solah, export F-Solah (or parts!) to countries, onlee $45 million for a weapons-free F-Solah, rapid induction of F-Solah because production line is being shifted, etc, etc, etc. However when you dissect their statements, you realise it is devoid of any substance. Just hot air.

The Gripen, OTOH, while newer is just as bad (in some respects worse!) as the F-Solah, because very few components in there are actually Swedish. I am sure you have seen the cutaways that cybaru posted. An eye-opener.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 28 Feb 2017 08:13

I hope the rumor is true - that a 3rd production line of the LCA is going to be set up.

MK2 is not going to be a whole lot different from MK1A. There is no excuse not to ramp up capacity to mass production levels (32 planes/year).
No country spends 3 decades and ton of effort just to produce 200 planes total. Typical production volumes in the west are 500 to 3000 fighter planes for the project to be economically viable. 350 in the case of the Gripen because the profits gain on exports.
Allies of India WILL buy our plane.

So start producing Tejas in numbers now and get guys putting the brakes on the project for silly reasons out of the way.

For LM and Saab, instead of buying their (expensive) single engine planes at great cost and destroying the LCA, connect with the supply chain of both companies through them. A lot of what they have developed for their planes can find a home on the MK2. They might insist India not export the variant of the LCA with their LRU on it (i.e only for domestic use) - which may still be OK.

There are so many better ways that flushing tens of billions down the toilet in endless foreign purchases.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Feb 2017 08:18

Only excuses possible a) BJP wanting to stack up for an election. The INs sudden turn around is also very hard to understand.
b) Some big tech transfer is on offer perhaps from the west.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2017 08:25

srai wrote: So what's this urgency to acquire yet another legacy foreign fighter? It doesn't make sense.

Part of the point is that MII effort encapsulates many factors: more jobs, improved manufacturing, exports, in some cases a bartered strategic deal, etc. And it is meant to encompass every aspect of Indian industry.

But BR sees MII pretty much through a single lens. And of course time lines WRT other AFs are never prominently discussed.

The IN has slid out of the MK2. I would expect the other shoe to fall in July. Pakalam onlee.

The INs sudden turn around is also very hard to understand.

And to seriously think of it, the MK2 is the best of the 3 variants. Go figure. There are reasons.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Feb 2017 09:10

^^^

The promise of MII is too good to be true

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 28 Feb 2017 09:10

ranjan.rao wrote:^^http://profprodyutdas.blogspot.in/2017/ ... s-and.html

It is refreshing for Prof das to sense which way the wind is blowing, and he has changed his tune slightly to suit the way things are moving on LCA by saying it will help LCA achieve large numbers.

He still believes all is not well on LCA and Mig 29 is great (completely ignoring issues that plague it and just stating the move to shift away from russians, which again is not untrue)

As always he has detailed information to beat most of so called defence analysts and articles we see otherwise.

Contrast it with this
http://profprodyutdas.blogspot.in/2014/ ... eview.html

I really hope Prof Das is on the committee that designs the AMCA.

Supposedly AMCA's basic plan is almost done - but who really has been involved in its design and how much thought have they put into it is not known. Bad project definition & planning from the start has sunk many projects.

So called 5th gen aircraft from F-35 to FGFA (which is not really 5th gen) are facing questions regarding what benefits they actually deliver versus the money spent on these project.

So far, these planes cannot even show a clear advantage over 4+ gen aircraft in many areas.

They better get the AMCA's design right before rushing off to do anything or we will be in an even bigger mess than the Tejas was in.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Feb 2017 09:12

Imagine, an underpowered Jaguar replaced the Marut. Developing the Marut may have removed the need for the MKI and the Rafale. Today, India's corrupt leaders and broken system are planning to steal from the people again by expending large fortunes on pie in the sky cold war relics that may not be well suited for Indian climes.

Will India never get leaders that love her as much as she needs to be loved? Or will she continually be sold for a fistful of dollars!

History repeats itself over and over again - Jags over Maruts, T-90s over Arjuns, and now Rafale over LCAs.

Will India ever shake its colonial yoke and work for "her people" and not for the Russians or the French or others....?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Feb 2017 09:14

People like Prof Das cannot build anything! Everything that is built includes compromises. Prof Das wants to show what a "nobel Laureate" he would be by sitting on the outside and criticizing those that work hard to create useful technologies.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2017 09:15

srai wrote:^^^

The promise of MII is too good to be true

Do you mean WRT the MIC or the wider and real meaning?

It is wider than just the MIC and that is what Modi seemed to have hung his hat on. You can see the ads even in NYT, WashPost, CNN, etc. Encouraging to manufacture in India. The single engine topic is but a small subset of a much larger picture - which is lost on BR.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Feb 2017 09:19

^^^

My context is related to this thread.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Feb 2017 09:57

see srai, that is what you call spin

Read this carefully srai (and others) - first there is the drive by shot at the beginning - with incomplete and incorrrect information - and then there is the memorized speech (which is fine tuned to the discussion at hand) to close the deal. However the details of the deal are never to be discussed, because the details are devoid of substance. They DO NOT exist. Examine & Understand (let it percolate through your brain!) the statements these folks are making and then logical questions will soon follow. Do not expect answers to those questions however, because they have none.

See how America is entitled to change her opinion (from one adminstration to the next), but we on BRF are narrow minded for not embracing Make In India. What a strategic partnership that is. Taali Bajao Amreeka Ke Liye! I really envy Pakistan now. We did not even get a chance to be sanctioned like them (Pressler Amendment). It would have been nice to feel the humiliation that our Pakistani brothers felt.

Vivek: No technology transfer - that has any actual value - is coming from anywhere. Don't believe that even for a second. That is what the spin doctors want you to believe. The real IP is going to stay with the host country itself. Why would they part with it? Think about this for a second. If the roles were reversed, would India give tech transfer to America? Absolutely not. So why would America (or any other nation) do the same for India? So you have to ask...what technology transfer is really coming? What is this technology transfer exactly that some on BRF and in the media are talking about?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Feb 2017 10:22

I totally agree! Look at one key tech - SC blades. Why would anyone even give SC blade tech to India - Russians gave it but only for use on assembling the MKI. As a result, the MKI experiment is a waste. IAF wants to buy Rafales on the pretext that the French would help India with the Kaveri .... if you believe in French charity then I have a charity that needs your money desperately. Please PM me ...!

I agree - why will another country help you become more powerful?? That is what some posters refuse to believe raising suspicions regarding their loyalties to India. India is being sold piece by piece to several East India companies and some on BRF stand by and cheer. That is the tragedy of India .

Why can we not stay with the LCA? Iterative development will bring in the capabilities required. India would be perfectly safe were it to be defended by a) LCAs, b) Arjuns, c) Shivaliks, d) Dhanush, e) INSAS, f) Arihant Class, g) Kolkata Class, h) INS Vikrant I) Astra and so on........

Makes you think why one would pay 4 times the LCA for a Rafale instead of buying 4 LCAs??

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Feb 2017 10:23

The only tech I wish India would "buy" from the French is the "GUILLOTINE"! Read up on how it was used and ye will know what I mean.

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 28 Feb 2017 11:16

^^Neeshant with all due respect to his knowledge and well intentions, he to me seems more like most of us an Armchair commentator. Can he add value to AMCA? Honestly, I dont know..may be some IITK alumni over here can add. Sticking to this thread only. The most important thing for us right now is to produce LCAs in 100s. We have made significant progresses in design and license manufacturing, it is the next and only logical stop

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Feb 2017 11:58

NRao wrote:
srai wrote: So what's this urgency to acquire yet another legacy foreign fighter? It doesn't make sense.
Part of the point is that MII effort encapsulates many factors: more jobs,

How is it more jobs? You will employ maybe 1000-2000 people assembling, whereas you will employ 50-100K people researching, designing, prototyping, productizing, testing, producing and finally assembling these LRUs, components and completed planes. Everything before the assembly stage is lost in the value chain. Infact there is no value in the portion of the chain being offered to India. What is that some of us don't get? And the same number and more will have jobs if go the LCA route.

If its manufacturing, the guys who make the manufacturing machines are independent and those can be bought directly from those manufacturers. LM/Boeing isn't in the business of manufacturing those machines. They focus on their core strengths and they aren't about to hand us those very core strengths.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Feb 2017 12:04

Vivek K wrote:People like Prof Das cannot build anything! Everything that is built includes compromises. Prof Das wants to show what a "nobel Laureate" he would be by sitting on the outside and criticizing those that work hard to create useful technologies.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 28 Feb 2017 14:19

It might be worthwhile to have Prof Das on the AMCA design committee.
The core design of the AMCA seems to have been concluded by a small, unknown committee with almost zero debate - which is a red flag!
The only buzzwords being thrown out is that "it will be a 5th gen plane" which is meaningless jargon.

Countries that have produced a 5th gen plane (i.e. there is only one, the US) are themselves struggling to define how a 5th gen plane is vastly better than a 4+ gen plane. Russia's FGFA has been more of a marketing exercise than anything substantially better than the Su-30MKI.

Now is the time to figure out what a 5th gen aircraft like the AMCA should incorporate and not midway through the development cycle.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2017 20:29

Cybaru wrote:
NRao wrote:
Part of the point is that MII effort encapsulates many factors: more jobs,
How is it more jobs? You will employ maybe 1000-2000 people assembling, whereas you will employ 50-100K people researching, designing, prototyping, productizing, testing, producing and finally assembling these LRUs, components and completed planes. Everything before the assembly stage is lost in the value chain. Infact there is no value in the portion of the chain being offered to India. What is that some of us don't get? And the same number and more will have jobs if go the LCA route.

Your concerns are well placed. BUT, you info, and therefore the logic, is misplaced.

MII is an all India effort, in the manufacturing sector, that covers ALL groups: manufacture bulbs, scooters, bail gadi, planes, ships, .......... anything and everything. The goal is to increase jobs in India - to cater to the 1 million Indians that enter the job market every month.

BR, in its infinite wisdom, has somehow tied MII to this single engine effort.

BUT, you are right that a single engine effort will not make a dent in the unemployment lines in India. However, you are wrong to think that is the goal of the single engine MII. (Sorry, internet, so please take it in the right spirit - not trying to attack anyone when I say "right"/"wrong").

If its manufacturing, the guys who make the manufacturing machines are independent and those can be bought directly from those manufacturers. LM/Boeing isn't in the business of manufacturing those machines. They focus on their core strengths and they aren't about to hand us those very core strengths.

And, that is not the expectation of the single engine effort.

However, on another note, I do see a decline in the Indo-US defense relationships. As an example, I would not be surprised to see all the Malabar exercises cancelled. Don't be surprised if the EMALS is taken off the table either. All the "working group"s could come to an end - I see that happening. India could be on her own WRT Chinese subs in the IOR. Let us see - but I expect a quick roll back, like in the next 6 months.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Feb 2017 22:47

NRao wrote:
Your concerns are well placed. BUT, you info, and therefore the logic, is misplaced.

MII is an all India effort, in the manufacturing sector, that covers ALL groups: manufacture bulbs, scooters, bail gadi, planes, ships, .......... anything and everything. The goal is to increase jobs in India - to cater to the 1 million Indians that enter the job market every month.

BR, in its infinite wisdom, has somehow tied MII to this single engine effort.

Do we need to buy SIngle engined fighters from USA to make bulbs, scooters, planes, ships anything and everything in India???

What has bulbs, scooters and other things to do with the offsets in the defence sector especially when the main argument is that this will create an infrastructure for aviation industry and fill in the missing capability matrix quickly.

I am sorry I also don't understand, how is my logic wrong/misplaced? Can you point out which parts and I am happy to try and re-evaluate things from that perspective.

NRao wrote: BUT, you are right that a single engine effort will not make a dent in the unemployment lines in India. However, you are wrong to think that is the goal of the single engine MII. (Sorry, internet, so please take it in the right spirit - not trying to attack anyone when I say "right"/"wrong").

Let me quote myself again (Not trying to beat my chest, but this point got missed above)

"How is it more jobs? You will employ maybe 1000-2000 people assembling, whereas you will employ 50-100K people researching, designing, prototyping, productizing, testing, producing and finally assembling these LRUs, components and completed planes. Everything before the assembly stage is lost in the value chain. Infact there is no value in the portion of the chain being offered to India"

Plus don't you think when you miss these steps "researching, designing, prototyping, productizing, testing, producing and finally assembling", you also miss the extremely big and most important step of understanding and creating a product based on requirements by and for our USERS!

Won't we end up with products that are designed for a different class of users?? quick example - T90 designed/produced in mind for colder temperatures. ( I am sure others have more valid and even more fitting examples)

NRao wrote: And, that is not the expectation of the single engine effort.

I don't know what you mean. Can you restate?

What is the expectation of adding another fighter type if it isn't to plug the missing capability. One acquires other companies/products to gain missing knowledge. One pays exorbitant prices for IP to be able to cross pollinate the missing technology in other products.

* If that cannot be done, what value does it add to your projects/products moving forward?
* What do we gain by just manufacturing it versus importing it without paying for TOT?
* How can one justify paying enormous TOT fees in these cases?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Feb 2017 23:10

NRao wrote:Your concerns are well placed. BUT, you info, and therefore the logic, is misplaced.

MII is an all India effort, in the manufacturing sector, that covers ALL groups: manufacture bulbs, scooters, bail gadi, planes, ships, .......... anything and everything. The goal is to increase jobs in India - to cater to the 1 million Indians that enter the job market every month.

BR, in its infinite wisdom, has somehow tied MII to this single engine effort.

BUT, you are right that a single engine effort will not make a dent in the unemployment lines in India. However, you are wrong to think that is the goal of the single engine MII. (Sorry, internet, so please take it in the right spirit - not trying to attack anyone when I say "right"/"wrong").

On the contrary, you are the one not making any logical sense. All the groups you mention we are manufacturing or doing screwdrivergiri in India RIGHT NOW. Bulbs, Scooters, Bail Gadis, Planes and Ships. Let me add tires, chaddi, baniyan, pens, cars, rockets, satellites...the list goes on. While MII is designed to increase jobs, moving an aircraft production line from the US (or from Sweden or Somalia) is not going to make any dent in unemployment in India. So since that is the case - as yourself have stated above - what exactly is your point? Because if MII is not tied to the single engine effort, why does it matter that it has to be the F-Solah or it is doom for India? Please explain.

NRao wrote:And, that is not the expectation of the single engine effort.

However, on another note, I do see a decline in the Indo-US defense relationships. As an example, I would not be surprised to see all the Malabar exercises cancelled. Don't be surprised if the EMALS is taken off the table either. All the "working group"s could come to an end - I see that happening. India could be on her own WRT Chinese subs in the IOR. Let us see - but I expect a quick roll back, like in the next 6 months.

Baap Re! Why did you stop there? Send our Ambassador also back home. Cut all diplomatic ties with India.

People - This is a classic example of what I said above. The drive-by shot at the beginning with incomplete & incorrect information (designed to scare and blackmail) and then the memorized (fine tuned) speech at the end. But below are the facts.

1) No Malabar Exercise is getting cancelled because of some deal. When Malabar exercises happened every year since 2011 (when the down select happened on 27 April 2011 eliminating the teens), why would it get cancelled now? Stop talking nonsense. In fact, they have only increased in scope. That is the reality.

2) There has been no movement on EMALS since the initial offer, as the design for INS Vishal is yet to be finalized. You are now catching at straws! If and when EMALS is taken off the table, then the Indian Navy will look at alternate options. India will not come to an end, because of no EMALS on INS Vishal.

3) Just because you see working groups coming to an end, that does not mean it is going to happen. Unless you have a crystal ball and can see the future. I see many things happening as well. I see myself visiting the Playboy Mansion in California. Then getting a job as a Swimsuit Illustrated photographer. None of that is obviously going to happen. Come back to Earth, where gravity exists and there is plenty of oxygen. Breathe In, Breathe Out. Now cover one one nostril with your finger and Breathe In. Now take that finger and cover the other nostril and Breathe Out. You feel that tingling sensation in your head? That is common sense coming back to you.

4) Oh my! Chinese subs in the IOR? I am dhoti shivering already. All recent incursions of Chinese boats in the IOR have been tracked by Indian boats. Go read up please. And if those Chinese boats go hostile, it will be India who face the music ALONE. Buying 100 or 200 F-Solahs is not going to change anything.

America is mature enough to know that a relationship with India is far more important than potentially losing an aircraft deal. The Indian defence market is HUGE. There are tankers, helicopters, transports, fighters, weapons, etc, etc, etc. You can't win them all. America knows that.

Regardless, your President appears to not even want MII. He wants LM to build planes in the US only. So why are you blaming India?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2017 23:49

Cybaru wrote: Do we need to buy SIngle engined fighters from USA to make bulbs, scooters, planes, ships anything and everything in India???

OK, let me try again.

* Make in India (MII) is about increasing jobs, specifically in the manufacturing sector, in India
* India is encouraging anyone who wants to manufacturing - anything - to do so in India. Off shoring of manuafcturing
* Defense happens to be a sub sector within the manufacturing sector, but it is NOT defense specific

What has bulbs, scooters and other things to do with the offsets in the defence sector especially when the main argument is that this will create an infrastructure for aviation industry and fill in the missing capability matrix quickly.

* The main argument of MII is employment and nothing else

* The filling of a matrix, etc is related to the Defense sector and its specifications of ToT, etc - absolutely nothing to do with MII. They both are two separate, independent requirements. The ToT/Matrix is a requirement of the MoD and the MII an encouragement of the GoI. The MoD has made the MII a requirement for the single engine air cra

Let me quote myself again (Not trying to beat my chest, but this point got missed above)

"How is it more jobs? You will employ maybe 1000-2000 people assembling, whereas you will employ 50-100K people researching, designing, prototyping, productizing, testing, producing and finally assembling these LRUs, components and completed planes. Everything before the assembly stage is lost in the value chain. Infact there is no value in the portion of the chain being offered to India"

Plus don't you think when you miss these steps "researching, designing, prototyping, productizing, testing, producing and finally assembling", you also miss the extremely big and most important step of understanding and creating a product based on requirements by and for our USERS!

(Your narratives are OK, not your emoticons. Sorry.)

The aim of both the ToT and MII are to increase the knowledge base AND employment. Earlier efforts in ToT were never formalized properly (I think India just assumed goodwill will carry them to glory and not contracts. ?????). Moving forward I just do not see Indians making similar mistakes - possible some will be made, but that is part of the game. I have no regrets with the MKI, could have been better, OK ..... move on.

I have no idea why/how Indian experts will be displaced by a MII single engine air craft. India will still have a vibrant MIC. Everything you talk of will be done with the AMCA - given a chance.

NRao wrote: And, that is not the expectation of the single engine effort.
I don't know what you mean. Can you restate?

The single engine import expects to fill squadrons quickly, bring good jobs, good supply chain (plugged into a world supply chain perhaps), knowledge of manufacturing top notch planes, etc. It has very specific goals (and I do not know all of them). BUT, it does not expect LM/Boeing to part with "core strengths".

What is the expectation of adding another fighter type if it isn't to plug the missing capability. One acquires other companies/products to gain missing knowledge. One pays exorbitant prices for IP to be able to cross pollinate the missing technology in other products.

If that cannot be done, what value does it add to your projects/products moving forward?
How can one justify paying enormous TOT fees?

Draw a timeline and see when India will get to all those targets you talk of. And, then tell me if teh "user" will wait that long. IN - the author of the MK2 - has already dropped out. Not because the plane is bad. ???????

Added l8r:

CY,

I am not advocating imports. BUT, India cannot get to where she wants to be if India PLANS on delivering a MK2 in 2030-35. By then the issue is not about how good the product is - it is great - but is it useful would be the question. I have said this before. ALL 4th Gen planes need to completed by 2022 (ish?) - delivered. I am not even confident the the MK1A will come into play. On time that is.

I suggest anything we propose needs to be drawn on a timeline.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Feb 2017 23:52

Rakesh,

I am unable to place you (or admin) on my ignore list.

But, please do not impose your picture on mine and interpret my posts. You have your thoughts, I have mine. And, yes, they are not even close.

I have CY on my ignore too, but for whatever reason I decided to respond to him. I hope I do not regret it.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 28 Feb 2017 23:53

India survived without US help, it they want to backtrack midway, it is their choice. Obviously all these efforts was to increase economic trade. What else US can provide India if not technology that will help increase economic activity. There are options coming out all over the world. If US goes protectionist way, it will reduce its influence, it won't sell, that is fine, it will lead to unemployment.

All the more reason India will scout for offers from rest of the world or will come up something on its own, one success will propell another, slowly reducing dependence on imports and more so increasing confidence in its own ability to go alone.

Interesting time... I would not care less if US wants to rollback or not. Better now than later. Trump has given one more reason for India not to trust US in terms of technology transfer.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 28 Feb 2017 23:57

NRao:
===
The main argument of MII is employment and nothing else
===

I would say it is also to build capability, Manufacturing will bring know-how as well. Employment is just one benefit of MII.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Feb 2017 23:57

NRao wrote:Rakesh,

I am unable to place you (or admin) on my ignore list.

But, please do not impose your picture on mine and interpret my posts. You have your thoughts, I have mine. And, yes, they are not even close.

I have CY on my ignore too, but for whatever reason I decided to respond to him. I hope I do not regret it.

Wonderful, but if you do push an agenda, I will ask you to clarify, explain and discuss. You may choose to ignore my posts, that doesn't bother me!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Feb 2017 23:59

See people? When given facts, they run for cover and make excuses of interpreting posts.

I am ignoring you too NRao. But for whatever reason today, I responded to you.
I do not regret it though. Everyone here can see right through your arguments.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Mar 2017 00:01

ragupta wrote:India survived without US help, it they want to backtrack midway, it is their choice. Obviously all these efforts was to increase economic trade. What else US can provide India if not technology that will help increase economic activity. There are options coming out all over the world. If US goes protectionist way, it will reduce its influence, it won't sell, that is fine, it will lead to unemployment.

All the more reason India will scout for offers from rest of the world or will come up something on its own, one success will propell another, slowly reducing dependence on imports and more so increasing confidence in its own ability to go alone.

Interesting time... I would not care less if US wants to rollback or not. Better now than later. Trump has given one more reason for India not to trust US in terms of technology transfer.

I agree.

What I said about rollback is more related to Trump and posted it as my reading of teh tea leaves. I could be totally wrong. Obama started -vely towards India and then changed colors and went to the other end of the spectrum. I expect Trump to "deliver on his promise". And, as a result he will disengage with everyone, not just India. Trump has no standing anywhere in the world. Japan, SK, Australia, Europe, just about anywhere.

And, I have always said, India - to do well - needs a Kargil. Trump just may be one.

I would say it is also to build capability, Manufacturing will bring know-how as well. Employment is just one benefit of MII.

Sure, but that is not teh main goal. Or is it?

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 01 Mar 2017 00:03

====
Draw a timeline and see when India will get to all those targets you talk of. And, then tell me if teh "user" will wait that long. IN - the author of the MK2 - has already dropped out. Not because the plane is bad. ???????
===

If India uses 20% of what it uses for import, and tap the private technology base, rather than just relying on public sector, lethargic bureaucracy, inefficient public sector workforce, it will cut down the development time by 50%. ATGS is prime example, let the private players be involved, India may not have to go for import of most of the product, but definately not as much as what they are doing now.

Also if armed forces start consolidating there needs on few products like other countries rather than wanting everything they see in the brochure, India logistics nightmare would lesson to a large extend. If India can convert diverse use of platform for getting business for support and supply chain then it would be worthwhile, but most of it lies in the armed forces and public sector that has no interest or motivation to take up that role.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Mar 2017 00:04

Cybaru wrote:
NRao wrote:Rakesh,

I am unable to place you (or admin) on my ignore list.

But, please do not impose your picture on mine and interpret my posts. You have your thoughts, I have mine. And, yes, they are not even close.

I have CY on my ignore too, but for whatever reason I decided to respond to him. I hope I do not regret it.
Wonderful, but if you do push an agenda, I will ask you to clarify, explain and discuss. You may choose to ignore my posts, that doesn't bother me!

No problem, as long as one keeps emoticons and hyperbole out. After all some of us have extremely diff views.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 01 Mar 2017 00:05

NRao wrote:
ragupta wrote:India survived without US help, it they want to backtrack midway, it is their choice. Obviously all these efforts was to increase economic trade. What else US can provide India if not technology that will help increase economic activity. There are options coming out all over the world. If US goes protectionist way, it will reduce its influence, it won't sell, that is fine, it will lead to unemployment.

All the more reason India will scout for offers from rest of the world or will come up something on its own, one success will propell another, slowly reducing dependence on imports and more so increasing confidence in its own ability to go alone.

Interesting time... I would not care less if US wants to rollback or not. Better now than later. Trump has given one more reason for India not to trust US in terms of technology transfer.
I agree.

What I said about rollback is more related to Trump and posted it as my reading of teh tea leaves. I could be totally wrong. Obama started -vely towards India and then changed colors and went to the other end of the spectrum. I expect Trump to "deliver on his promise". And, as a result he will disengage with everyone, not just India. Trump has no standing anywhere in the world. Japan, SK, Australia, Europe, just about anywhere.

And, I have always said, India - to do well - needs a Kargil. Trump just may be one.

I would say it is also to build capability, Manufacturing will bring know-how as well. Employment is just one benefit of MII.
Sure, but that is not teh main goal. Or is it?

it is main goal, because it is marketable, the people behind it realise the overall benefit, don't you think?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Mar 2017 00:08

ragupta wrote:====
Draw a timeline and see when India will get to all those targets you talk of. And, then tell me if teh "user" will wait that long. IN - the author of the MK2 - has already dropped out. Not because the plane is bad. ???????
===

If India uses 20% of what it uses for import, and tap the private technology base, rather than just relying on public sector, lethargic bureaucracy, inefficient public sector workforce, it will cut down the development time by 50%. ATGS is prime example, let the private players be involved, India may not have to go for import of most of the product, but definately not as much as what they are doing now.

Also if armed forces start consolidating there needs on few products like other countries rather than wanting everything they see in the brochure, India logistics nightmare would lesson to a large extend. If India can convert divert use of platform for getting business for support and supply chain then it would be worthwhile, but most of it lies in the armed forces and public sector which has not interest or motivation to take up that role.

I think (or at least the way I do it) is a "time-line" needs three things: User/client, provider/researcher and opponent (of the client/user). Only then will the picture be clear. So, I have no problem if the MK2 is delivered in 2035 - great plane, etc. But once placed in conjunction with what China MAY have, then the picture changes. IMHO it is too late. 2030 (not 2035) should be about when the AMCA should be delivered.

On a diff note they should get rid of the LCA-MK2 and call it something else - delink it from "LCA". It is a diff plane.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 01 Mar 2017 00:12

Grippen was never changed what changed was end letter, F-18 became C to E, why should Tejas change, it has the same lineage, call it Super Tejas. What it there in name, it is still a R&D project. I do not see a value of changing a name.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 01 Mar 2017 00:17

I think (or at least the way I do it) is a "time-line" needs three things: User/client, provider/researcher and opponent (of the client/user). Only then will the picture be clear. So, I have no problem if the MK2 is delivered in 2035 - great plane, etc. But once placed in conjunction with what China MAY have, then the picture changes. IMHO it is too late. 2030 (not 2035) should be about when the AMCA should be delivered.

On a diff note they should get rid of the LCA-MK2 and call it something else - delink it from "LCA". It is a diff plane.

We all know that the LCA and many other defence projects were delayed due to frequent spec changes.
If India needs to compete, then it needs to get the flatform in air, without waiting on all the specs being specified. They can easily learn from the ongoing projects in other countries.

I would say get the AMCA flying before 2020. GE will be delivering all the engines this year, integrate and get the prototype flying that will be a great boost, as they did for HTT-40 and LUH. Rest of it can come later.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 01 Mar 2017 00:24

I feel that LCA-Mk2 is deliberately delayed, because of IAF penchant for changing mind when they see something on the horizon, specially for local product. IAF has played lot of hard ball with R&D, so I think they want to make sure they get all that is ordered and use Mk1A, still a much better product that what is available at this price point anywhere in the world. But I get the feeling that the focus is on manufacturing rather than hurry up LCA-Mk2. Except for doing the same little more nothing is new in LCA-Mk2. so no question on not being able to achieve it.

The primary focus should be to get twin engine plane flying ASAP and start building knowledge base.