'Make in India' Single engined fighter

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2016 07:40

Vamsi31 wrote:Why add another fighter type into IAF we already have too many types of fighters. At least in the future we should standardize on a few fighters right?
I think we should build more Tejas instead of wasting our money on another completely new fighter.

Let me say this for the 3rd time in this thread - this is the thought process of a small lighweight European, Asian or African nation about the size of Bhutan or Sri Lanka situated in a low threat environment. Not for one of the world's biggest nations in a high threat environment and a need to dominate simply to provide our citizens with basic needs. We need to stop thinking like we are a small Pacific Island nation

The builders of Tejas are struggling to meet the goal of 8 a month - because we just don't have enough suppliers in the game who can produce quality parts fast enough. There is no easy way of ramping up those numbers. Screwdriver imports have the advantage that the manufacturer will supplly all those parts from his pre-existing supply chain while we slowly hunt for, find and fund workshops with the capability we need.

For its size India needs large numbers and depending on one type for large numbers is wrong on many counts. If all our fighters are of 2 types only and there is a peacetime crash that reveals some issue (like the Jaguar hydraulics story) or fatigue cracks in one of the 2 types - then half the Air Force will be grounded. If one single manufacturer produces all the aircraft - a labour issue can paralyse defence production

There are too many things wrong with the argument that we must reduce varieties ad nauseam and that we will be "overburdened" with logistics. Until we get there there is no point giving excuses for why we must not think big and be big.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2016 07:44

I would like to see BRF move ahead of curve and stop talking as if engine technology can be handed on a platter to anyone. Why has engine tech not been handed to Sweden? Or Poland? Or Switzerland. It is not about "show me the relevant pages of your book". It is about processes and hands on work that take years to build up and must never be lost or given away. We need to stop dreaming that someone will "give us" engine tech as if it is some kind of swayamvara where the engine manufacturer will garland us with the tech.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 12 Oct 2016 08:00

Karthik, if the orders for more than 40 overall were to be placed, we would see corresponding orders for components being placed with suppliers. Currently there is only talk, no indents have been placed. So all the talk of line expansion is just hot air. HAL dare not set up a line without MoD blessings and an order from its customer. So what is this B's propagated about external suppliers having enough spares but local ones being unable to ramp up? Place the orders first if you want them to ramp up. They're idle right now. Make no mistake, this is Tejas being throttled. And the excuses are amazing.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Oct 2016 08:19

Rakesh wrote:Apologies if this has been posted before.

Choosing India’s Make in India fighter
http://www.stratpost.com/choosing-india ... um=twitter

Saab has already stolen a march on it’s competitors by offering its ‘ITAR-free’ Galium Nitride AESA radar technology, something which even the U.S. hasn’t perfected yet. This is also technology that India would be eager to possess. It is doubtful if the U.S. would be willing to share it’s existing AESA radar technology.

One area where the U.S. could match up to the Swedes would be aircraft engine technology. This is also something India is interested in and there have been discussions on cooperation on development of aircraft engine technology under the bilateral Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI).
Saab adds GaN AESA co-dev to Make in India Gripen pitch
http://www.stratpost.com/saab-adds-gan- ... ipen-pitch

Tossman announced, “AESA Gallium Nitride ITAR-free (International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which are U.S. rules for controlling the export of defense technologies). That means we own our own technology. We decide what to do with it. So we are not dependent on any others’ approval if we can or cannot share that technology – it’s our decision,” adding, “We are now having the prototype and soon going to fly with the AESA GaN. That’s where we are and this is ITAR-free.”

What can I say. It is the old saying.There is a sucker born every minute. Saab offers to "co-develop" an AESA radar with us ? WTF ! They have to outsource production of the GaN chips (they dont have a fab), they have to design an radar, figure out LRUs, fit it into a fighter and they fly it ! In short WE will pay to develop their brand new radar, they of course will "share it with us" (oh, it is ITAR free alright, but what about he GaN module ? What if Unkil leans on that country to shut down that supply) , but only if we by Gripens! How stupid do they think we are ?

And they fly boatloads of idiot journos (From AL Hundi, Shiv Aroor, the Air Mag published out of Dilli with big advertisements from Saab,etc) and they shill for this nonsense !

Fact is Saab DOESN'T have a GaN airborne radar.What we have are "announcements" to put it charitably and Vapour Ware to put it in terms of reality. And pray, why will we buy the Gripen E/F that flies with a DIFFERENT aesa Selex radar. Are they saying that they will develop the radar, then put it on the Gripen E and sell it to us ? That is looking at a plane that gets qualified 6 years from now! And no, that will not be ITAR free either. ALl the weapons of the Gripen are ITAR dependent!

The off the shelf available and proven AESA airborne radar are Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Elta, Selex and Thales . Of those, with Selex blacklisted, the only options are the American ones and the Israeli Elta EL/M 2052. Elta EL/M 2052 is a drop in replacement and a clear upgrade path for the 2032.

Considering that and the weapons and the radar we have and planned for the LCA, he best option, if we are getting another airframe would be an F16 with Isreali weapons and avionics, along with the Elta 2052 radar. Will save a huge logistics chain by having commonality with the LCA .

Really Gripen has NOTHING to offer in real terms, except for jamborees to Sweden for journalists and interested shills.

GShankar · Post by **GShankar** » 12 Oct 2016 08:29

When an old 'friend' becomes frustrated with you for ignoring him or her, and, if you still 'like' to be friends with that person, may be you go visit.

If there are a FEW such friends who are pissed at you, or if you want to make some NEW friends, you throw a party!!

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 12 Oct 2016 08:55

As Gagan said, this is a a Geopolitical buy + Future Proofing for the industry and country.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2016 09:21

Future proofing takes place when you develop your own skills. With hand me downs, you are always a generation out of date. This new fighter will not be useful for producing the AMCA.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 12 Oct 2016 09:42

Austin wrote: MOD can still let the private player to get 2nd line for Tejas , these players can hire international consultant say Saab or LM or Dassault ,advisors or even workers to do the same job which is to build Tejas in bigger number and have 2nd line option beyond HAL

That's exactly what I was thinking.

The head of HAL says he'd welcome participation of private industry in building the fuselage, wings ..etc of the LCA as production rates could then be increased to 25 planes per year. Why not contract Saab to build some of the LCA's wings and parts? Saab surely already has a fully equipped aerospace factory sitting idle just waiting for such orders.

Instead of trying to set up another production line for the LCA, use the foreign manufacturers excess capacity to build what's needed. Hell even outsource it to LM if need be. Developing airframes, wings, parts in high numbers is their speciality.

I'm willing to accept parts of the LCA built by various suppliers to increase production rates. But shutting down the project is the height of idiocy. The fastest way to destroy all hope of ever having a local aerospace design industry that does something other than turning a screw driver is to kill the LCA project through these back door single engine plane imports.

HAL chief says :

How involved will the private sector be in the production of the LCA aircraft in India?

The first 20 aircraft will be completed by 2018, by when we have to make a Mk 1A version of the aircraft. We are ramping up production to 16 aircraft a year. We have recently issued request for quotations to the private players to supply modules like fuselage parts and wings. If we can get this from the private sector, we can increase production to 25 aircraft a year. So, we are looking for capacity augmentation with these private players. We are looking at a concept in which HAL is an integrator that has some 20% (of total) work in the hangers. The remaining 80% of work can be off loaded to the industry. If a private company for example is setting up a shop for composites manufacturing, it will be assured for business for many years.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2016 10:05

Neshant wrote:
HAL chief says :

How involved will the private sector be in the production of the LCA aircraft in India?

The first 20 aircraft will be completed by 2018, by when we have to make a Mk 1A version of the aircraft. We are ramping up production to 16 aircraft a year. We have recently issued request for quotations to the private players to supply modules like fuselage parts and wings. If we can get this from the private sector, we can increase production to 25 aircraft a year. So, we are looking for capacity augmentation with these private players. We are looking at a concept in which HAL is an integrator that has some 20% (of total) work in the hangers. The remaining 80% of work can be off loaded to the industry. If a private company for example is setting up a shop for composites manufacturing, it will be assured for business for many years.

Cross posting a post of mine:
viewtopic.php?p=2043558#p2043558

shiv wrote: Saw (in part) an interview of HAL director on DD last night. A few interesting points

2. He said LCA - the capability exists to make 8 a year and later 16 (per year) For larger numbers he said that Private players will have to chip in and produce components for integration in HAL

3. HAL has 2500 private player suppliers but most of them are "Tier 3" (lowest) HAL is now in a situation where they get raw material and come out with a finished product. This should not be the case. There should be more Tier 1 & 2 suppliers so that HAL becomes an "integrator" of manufactured parts rather than doing the whole hog from raw material to finished product

That is a fundamental national level problem.

I see people here giving "solutions" like "place big orders now". How does one place orders to companies that do not exist or have not yet invested in the infrastructure for large orders? Is it being suggested that companies are selected for placing big orders before they show capability (but only make promises) and then wait for them to invest and make the product and then see if the product meets specs?

You can place big orders and look stupid - ideally one places orders with people who have demonstrated a capability to met the requirement, or else you wait many years for that capability to develop. While we wait the IAF is getting depleted. Placing big orders is not a solution in a nation that does not have the capacity to fulfil those big orders

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Oct 2016 10:58

shiv wrote:
Saw (in part) an interview of HAL director on DD last night. A few interesting points

2. He said LCA - the capability exists to make 8 a year and later 16 (per year) For larger numbers he said that Private players will have to chip in and produce components for integration in HAL

3. HAL has 2500 private player suppliers but most of them are "Tier 3" (lowest) HAL is now in a situation where they get raw material and come out with a finished product. This should not be the case. There should be more Tier 1 & 2 suppliers so that HAL becomes an "integrator" of manufactured parts rather than doing the whole hog from raw material to finished product
That is a fundamental national level problem.

I see people here giving "solutions" like "place big orders now". How does one place orders to companies that do not exist or have not yet invested in the infrastructure for large orders? Is it being suggested that companies are selected for placing big orders before they show capability (but only make promises) and then wait for them to invest and make the product and then see if the product meets specs?

You can place big orders and look stupid - ideally, one places orders with people who have demonstrated a capability to met the requirement, or else you wait many years for that capability to develop. While we wait the IAF is getting depleted. Placing big orders is not a solution in a nation that does not have the capacity to fulfil those big orders

Long story short - The throughput of our aerospace industry with respect to a NEW fighter aircraft is 16 a/c per year when it reaches a stabilized production run.

Setting up a second production line will not help simply because we don't have the capacity to feed into this production line. the bottleneck is in the form of suppliers. And this is where the private foreign player comes in with his established process and vendor base.

However, I've a counter-questions:

(a) Why can't money be invested in HAL itself to create capacity which it is hoping comes from private sector?
(b) Give money to private players to set-up production facilities which feed sub-systems into HAL? Considering the strategic nature of this sector, government can surely subsidize the producers and remove the market risk.

Thoughts?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Oct 2016 10:59

JayS wrote:I am sure IAF has a plane even without F35. We are buying FGFA as well right??

The PAK FA is still in the prototype stage. The earliest we can acquire the FGFA is 2025.

I don't buy this sweeping argument that F35 will dominate everything 4/4.5th gen. In its eco-system on home turf, perhaps, but not as lone wolf or in a half integrated environment. Even USAF banks on F22 for initial SEAD/DEAD missions and for Aerial dominance.

I'm afraid its already doing so in exercises everywhere (incl. Red Flag). And quite often without any AWACS support. The advantages on a VLO airframe & multi-ship sensor fusion are not subject to the availability of off-board support. And no, SEAD/DEAD missions are an F-35 task which, unlike the F-22, will be equipped with an internal ARM.

The most sensible assessment of F35 vs other fighters I have seen so far is this: F35 will in all probability avoid contact with super manoeuvrable fighters (assuming it can positive id it from long range) and call in F22 and let it engage the enemy.

And you heard this sensible assessment from? Can I assume it was Axe or Briganti? Or (say it ain't so)... Picard?

For the record...

- The USAF has only 123 'combat-coded' Raptors. The USN, USMC, RAF/RN, IsAF, RSAF etc have none.
- The F-22s will not get into dogfights either. Far safer to lob a missile from standoff range.
- The value of 'super-maneuverability' is vastly diminished in the modern environment. With HOBS weaponry proliferating, even the Tejas can potentially shoot down a PAK FA at close quarters.

Point was quantity needed for India is much more. $450mil per plane and we can barely afford 2-4 Sq.

Also I am not talking about only linking comms. F35 stores its mission data on cloud. There must be a large scale sensor fused data received from multiple F35s and other systems such as AWACS, ground based RADARs etc giving a broad level picture of the theatre which can be accessed by all the forces and allies, everything being updated in real time and synchronised. I am talking of this kind of integration. If a F35 has a target in sigh and out of missile, it could easily command missile from another completely different plane say F16 or even from a SAM. I am not sure if it can already do that, but I am sure thats where they are heading.

$450 mil is the total cost to customize the type not the per unit figure. The unit acquisition cost is within 25% of the Gripen E & F-16 Blk 60. $85 mil flyaway for the F-35A compared to ~$70 mil for the F-16 & Gripen. Mission data is stored on local servers; it can function perfectly well without cloud access.

All fighters receive data from AWACS to help build the threat picture. Cooperative Engagement is an additional capability (currently in development) and its not a platform specific project. The same concept can be employed the E-2D, SH & a UCAV for prosecuting a target as well.

There is a need for an fighter to be acquired in numbers for basic roles... CAS, BAI, CAP, interception etc while operating under AWACS cover. As it happens, we already have a domestic fighter in production that can do all of that.

Acquiring a new type to replicate 90% of that mission set is a blow to the domestic industry, plain and simple.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2016 11:09

There are many Indian manufacturers/suppliers to the DRDO v.frustrated at lack of orders after developing components for the entity.Some are exporting their wares.A few air shows ago,we saw an Ind. entity making wing components for the LCA,so to say that there are not enough capable Ind. cos. for the same is ludicrous.HAL and the DRDO are behaving like dictators,for their own reasons.Once pvt. players show that they're more competent than the DPSUs,the babus will come under intense spotlight for their shortcomings.If ISRO can deliver time and time again,why can't HAL,etc.?

We just had a media report exposing how DRDO officials let a canteen boy make the AV presentation at a conf. where many supposed to be there opted out saying they were "sick",as it was being held in an outstation area.A "hire and fire" attitude should be taken by the MOD/GOI towards DPSU undertakings,which behave like parasites upon the nation's security well-being. A Stalinist approach should be used when it comes to the country's security.See how the Chinese are relentless in pursuing their defence industry's objectives. I've just posted in the IN td the latest news of the PLAN's new carrier about to be launched with its island already complete,being built in half the time that we're taking for the IAC-1,20,000t smaller too!

Mr.Modi and MP should demand that HAL produce 24+ LCAs /yr,plus open a second line with pvt. industry assuring it of at least 120 aircraft in the order book, or else those in charge should resign immediately and let more competent leadership take charge.Even if the LCAs thus built come in at $40+ M,they would still be at least $25M cheaper than any of the western single-engined fighters. If a second line of foreign fighters is set up as envisaged for the light fighter role,it will spell doom for India's "design and make in India" mantra and the LCA will inevitably be an "also ran" in the light fighter stakes.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Oct 2016 11:11

shiv wrote: Saw (in part) an interview of HAL director on DD last night. A few interesting points

2. He said LCA - the capability exists to make 8 a year and later 16 (per year) For larger numbers he said that Private players will have to chip in and produce components for integration in HAL

3. HAL has 2500 private player suppliers but most of them are "Tier 3" (lowest) HAL is now in a situation where they get raw material and come out with a finished product. This should not be the case. There should be more Tier 1 & 2 suppliers so that HAL becomes an "integrator" of manufactured parts rather than doing the whole hog from raw material to finished product

Indeed, this is THE fundamental problem. The HAL is not structured like a modern industry (think Autos for instance), where they do high level design , detail design and final assembly while the component level design and manufacturing is done by partners. Instead HAL is structured like how TELCO (now called Tata Motors) was when they first started making Benz trucks in late 50s. TELCO had to make everything inhouse, every single thing , because that was the only way possible.

Now visit a Tata Motors assembly line , it will be structured like any other auto major's lines.

The trouble wih HAL saying, private guys chip in , is all talk. Which guy will put his money and invest, when you have an in house competitor within HAL and whent he chips are down, the orders go that way and only the spill over /surge capacity comes your way. In addition, you are not allowed any value add in design and own anything in the IP, you are just another commodity producer in cost competition with HAL's inhouse team who will be resentful if you get higher margins and revenues than they get!

The only way out is for HAL to sell/transfer lock stock and barrel entire such lines (along with people) that would go to tier 2 and tier 3 guys, give them assured orders and cash flows , tell them to invest to enhance capacity, co invest if needed . HAL can monetise those lines by divesting to a private player / jv with a private player and that can invest in capacity and scale.

This kind of strategic restructiring was done by EVERY private player from Tata to Bajaj to Ashok Leyland etc, across industries. Will HAL as a govt PSU be able to do it ? That is in fact the fundamental problem.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Oct 2016 11:25

Let me stick my neck out and speculate why this RFI /RFP has come at this stage.

1. The time to pick the AESA radar for MK1A has come about. The obvious choice is 2052 which is a straight upgrade from 2032 in MK1. But if you are going to give a 200 radar set order (80 + another 100 possibly) and more, why not shop around to see what you can get ?

2. So, it seems both Unkil and Saab are willing to give radar (saab is vapourware at this point in time) if we buy airframes.

3. Okay, if you need to get airframes, can you get engines as well ? Unkil seems inclined to nod yes with the DTII stuff to help out with a 110KN thereabouts engine for the AMCA.

The tech gaps in AMCA are really sensors and engines, both of which unfortunately we cant get those without going along with Unkil /EU ecosystem in someway or another. The GaN module fabs are all in US/ Europe as well. If you can source the modules, we can possibly build the radar ourselves! Engine is what we REALLY need for AMCA.

In fact that is what the Chinese and the Russians need as well for the 5th Gen aircraft and I dont see it happening for either of those two (including Russia). I am really skeptical of Russia's ability to produce a fighter engine of the quality of the F119 / F135 or their GE equivalents .

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 12 Oct 2016 11:55

shiv wrote:I would like to see BRF move ahead of curve and stop talking as if engine technology can be handed on a platter to anyone. Why has engine tech not been handed to Sweden? Or Poland? Or Switzerland. It is not about "show me the relevant pages of your book". It is about processes and hands on work that take years to build up and must never be lost or given away. We need to stop dreaming that someone will "give us" engine tech as if it is some kind of swayamvara where the engine manufacturer will garland us with the tech.

Thank you ....... (nailed it)

How we do we know that if we buy the solah .... we get ze maegic phormula ?
Haan Jee ?

So are we buying it for magic phormiulae or geopolitik or just to arrest the drop in numbers.

By the way where can I host an image
I have some interesting data and graphs on IAF from now till 2040.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 12 Oct 2016 12:24

Folks talking about "investments" - for HAL, this would be orders from the IAF. Without this money, suppliers will not be given orders. Without the AR, the suppliers will not be able to sustain or indeed, expand "capability" - please note this refers to simply what they have already manufactured and supplied for the LCA (by hand/lathe/jigs). So the faux argument of no capability exists must be put to rest. If IAF > MoD places the order for 120 MK1A, and directs HAL to supply by a certain timeline, they will invest in the additional line(s). Without the orders, this talk of capability is just peddling BS.

Rohit has the right approach: should the second assembly line be managed by HAL or should it be a private player seeded by a few Team Tejas staffers in a mixed-mode approach. This has been done across all manufacturing industries and is a replicable model.

Basic question remains: HAL put up Rs 1250 cr of its funds, pending approval from MOD for the same amounts from IAF and IN. This has been held up for a year at MOD. Doesn't this make us look stupid? The capability exists - just that it has to be paid for upfront, giving armchair gyan for manufacturing is not going to materialize anything at all. Even the F-16 will need an order and 7 years for Tier 3 suppliers to ramp up. There is no way around this truth. Until then, it is screw-driver tech onlee.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 12 Oct 2016 13:38

What Indian military manufacturing needs is interest from small vendors in addition to biggies like PunjLyod, LT. As of now, these small industrialists have to jump through hoops dealing with sarkari baaboons who are way more interested in bribes, gifts and dinners rather than quality of product. As long as flow of money is being controlled directly by dumbasses in MoD and PSUs like BHEL, HAL etc and even the angophile jarnails in armed forces, no business owner will take the risk of going in to defence manufacturing.

We can all talk all day about local production, foreign investments and related stuff, but till these small factory owners are assured that their investments and labour will not be held to whims of the parasites mentioned earlier, all this talk will just remain talk.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Oct 2016 14:42

jamwal wrote:What Indian military manufacturing needs is interest from small vendors in addition to biggies like PunjLyod, LT. As of now, these small industrialists have to jump through hoops dealing with sarkari baaboons who are way more interested in bribes, gifts and dinners rather than quality of product. As long as flow of money is being controlled directly by dumbasses in MoD and PSUs like BHEL, HAL etc and even the angophile jarnails in armed forces, no business owner will take the risk of going in to defence manufacturing.

We can all talk all day about local production, foreign investments and related stuff, but till these small factory owners are assured that their investments and labour will not be held to whims of the parasites mentioned earlier, all this talk will just remain talk.

The small guys are more innovative . For e.g., check out this ET article Tonbo imaging wins $100m contract for Thermal Imaging Sights for Peruvian Army. Won against international competition by a small Koramangala based company.

BEL has been doing screwdrivergiri for close to 10 years and wont have a competitive product for night vision. But still will play dog in the manger, try to rig the bid (sit on the bid committee), try to lowball a bid and steer it to them for manufacturing and support in addition push for an imported system where they will get screwdrivergiri rights here in India. In all their existence, they would not have exported anything worthwhile and definitely not anything major they developed.

That is the fundamental problem. Much of the s/w , electronics work etc could have easily been farmed out to the dozens of shops here in Bangalore. But that simply never happens.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2016 14:45

Vina,xcellent example of the Kmangala firm.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 12 Oct 2016 15:01

Slightly OT. I think if Tonbo is given a chance and slight funding, they can produce an alternative to Catherine-FC thermal imager and it will save tons of foreign exchange and help build an ecosystem in India.

From above ET link.

"We have set up relationships with contract manufacturers who have the potential to scale up. With our current ecosystem, we can build up to 4,000 sights in a month. We currently don’t make anywhere near that number. But if the orders come in, our process is set up for scale and capacity." By owning the intellectual property for the design and manufacture of its products, Tonbo exerts control over the supply chain. As a next step, Tonbo plans to push its products across other military segments such as land systems, UAVs, weapon systems and missiles and create global adoption of Indian-made products.

They have fire, and they deserve encouragement and chances.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Oct 2016 15:05

kmkraoind wrote:Slightly OT. I think if Tonbo is given a chance and slight funding, they can produce an alternative to Catherine-FC thermal imager and it will save tons of foreign exchange and help build an ecosystem in India.

The sensor will still need to be imported and that is subject to global export controls. I am not sure that you can source such a military grade sensor alone without the entire equipment such as the Thermal imager..

But what they are doing sure beats what BEL has been doing for 60 years, which is import, assemble, skim margin off the top and then deter competition by being a designated monopoly. These guys atleast do tremendous value add on top of the sensor which gets imported .

chola · Post by **chola** » 12 Oct 2016 15:24

shiv wrote: Let me say this for the 3rd time in this thread - this is the thought process of a small lighweight European, Asian or African nation about the size of Bhutan or Sri Lanka situated in a low threat environment. Not for one of the world's biggest nations in a high threat environment and a need to dominate simply to provide our citizens with basic needs. We need to stop thinking like we are a small Pacific Island nation

Shivji, what big nation fills itself with a whole bunch of different types from foreign firms? The US? Russia? France? Nope.

The ones that have multiple foreign makes of the same class are all third world tinpots with illusions of grandeur -- Egypt, Pakiland, Iran, etc. The typical Pacific Island doesn't have an air force so that's a complete strawman.

All major powers standardize on a high low mix of indigenous aircraft for any given class. The US fighter force is standardized on a F-15/F-16 with a small force of the F-22 as a leading edge. The PRC, Flanker clone/Lavi clone. Russia's is on the Flanker with the lo -- MiG-29 -- being consigned to the dustbin. UK, Typhoon. France, Rafale.

So no, to think like a great power you DON'T buy a myriad of types, you standardize on a few homegrown products with a secure supply chain.

chola · Post by **chola** » 12 Oct 2016 15:40

shiv wrote:
I see people here giving "solutions" like "place big orders now". How does one place orders to companies that do not exist or have not yet invested in the infrastructure for large orders?

For national defense projects, there is only one place where a sale could come from! If the GOI doesn't put an advance order in then those companies (or divisions of existing companies) can't make the initial investments.

Using these billions on foreign firms only allows THEM to make further investment to THEIR industrial base. Using those billions on the Tejas allows US to add investment to OUR industrial base.

No great nation depends on a foreign supply chain.

You can place big orders and look stupid

Ffft! Sorry but I must scoff. Government place big orders on future technology all the time. Companies are formed, divisions invested in when they know there are sales coming.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Oct 2016 16:41

https://twitter.com/RSS_40/status/786099021077213184

MiG-35 to take part in upcoming competition for Indian AF. Rus will most likely offer Egyptian version of MiG-29M/M2

chola · Post by **chola** » 12 Oct 2016 16:50

What? Russia is entering a twin-engined plane in the GOI's single-engine RFI?

Or is this yet another MMRCA round? Maybe the RFI is misquoted?

Countless rounds of aimless spending that can and should be spent on the Tejas.

gaurav_w · Post by **gaurav_w** » 12 Oct 2016 16:58

Could it be that the reported request for information is for seeking collaboration/ consultancy on Tejas/AMCA and not for a new type of A/c. Also iirc there was some news of LM setting up weapon integration facility for tejas.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2016 17:24

chola wrote: All major powers standardize on a high low mix of indigenous aircraft for any given class. The US fighter force is standardized on a F-15/F-16 with a small force of the F-22 as a leading edge. The PRC, Flanker clone/Lavi clone. Russia's is on the Flanker with the lo -- MiG-29 -- being consigned to the dustbin. UK, Typhoon. France, Rafale.

So no, to think like a great power you DON'T buy a myriad of types, you standardize on a few homegrown products with a secure supply chain.

In the 1950s - post WW2 Britain was a prolific aircraft designer and producer and filled itself with its own aircraft
By the 1970s Britain and France both found it tough going - so they collaborated on The Jaguar while Britain bought and operated the Phantom II, C-130, Chinook. Britain was still competitive enough to give the US a Harrier and the Hawk. In future Britain will have imported onlee.

As the going got tougher Europe consolidated to create the Tornado and later the Eurofighter which are like Brahmos in terms of cooperation. Not indigenous. Not foreign

The US and Russia have a very large number of types - but mostly indigenous. China still has a huge legacy fleet of imported stuff including Tu -16 Badgers and MiG 21s

West Germany and Japan had to live on imports as "losers". East Germany again had a sizeable Soviet origin fleet.

Brazil is a large nation with multiple imported types.

India in 1965 operated

Vampires
Ouragans
Mysteres
Hunters
Gnats
Canberras
MiG 21s ( a handful)
Caribou
Fairchild Packet
An-12
Super Constellation
Mi-4
S-55 (I think)

in 1971

Hunter
Gnat
MiG 21
Su-7
Mystere
HF-24
Canberra
An-12
Caribou
Mi-4
Alouette II
Alouette III
Super Constellation
HS 748
Sea Hawk
Alize
Harvard
HJT 16 Kiran
Iskra

In 1999 we had

Jaguar
MiG 21
MiG 23
MiG 25
MiG 27
MiG 29
Mirage 2000
Alouette 2
Alouette 3
Sea King
Mi 8
Mi 25/25
Mi-26
Kamov
HS-748
Dornier Do-228
Harrier
An-32
IL 76
HJT 16
HPT 32
Il 38
Tu-142

In 2016 we have

Jaguar
Mirage 2000
Su-30
MiG 21
MiG 27
MiG 29
An-32
IL 76, 78
Embraer
C-130
C-17
Do-228
Dhruv
Alouette 2
Alouette 3
Kamov Ka 25/28/31
Mi 8/Mi 17
Hawk
PC-7
Il-38
Tu-142
P8

So for the last 50 plus years we have operated and serviced a multiplicity of types. In 10 years the MiG 21, MiG 27 , Alouette 2 and 3 and Il-38 will be gone.

So what is the exact new worry about logistics?
What sort of plans can be made to cut down the multiplicity we have had for 50 plus years?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2016 17:53

chola wrote: For national defense projects, there is only one place where a sale could come from! If the GOI doesn't put an advance order in then those companies (or divisions of existing companies) can't make the initial investments.

Using these billions on foreign firms only allows THEM to make further investment to THEIR industrial base. Using those billions on the Tejas allows US to add investment to OUR industrial base.

All correct except for one thing. Time

In this connection here is a post from the LCA thread that I agree with

kit wrote:I think it is the time factor that is pushing GOI for two single engine fighters to fill the IAF requirements. The foreign collaboration will bring in numbers faster.
This scenario is exactly repeated in the IN submarine requirement .
Again same logic

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 12 Oct 2016 18:20

Vina, Tonbo is a good example, but hte bulk of such vendors are much smaller with 1 or maybe 2 manufacturing plants and a workforce of 100 or so people with little capability for research. They are just manufacturers with limited ability but no industrial complex can survive without these. LCA, Arjun need these smaller vendors participation.
These are the people who make radar mounts, rubber covers for optics, special screws and other such simple but important stuff.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 12 Oct 2016 18:27

jamwal wrote:Vina, Tonbo is a good example, but hte bulk of such vendors are much smaller with 1 or maybe 2 manufacturing plants and a workforce of 100 or so people with little capability for research. They are just manufacturers with limited ability but no industrial complex can survive without these. LCA, Arjun need these smaller vendors participation.
These are the people who make radar mounts, rubber covers for optics, special screws and other such simple but important stuff.

I have been to Tonbo and I have met their complete top team except CFO and some younger members. Good bunch at Tonbo.

They are just getting out of start up phase and moving into big gears. Their founder and top boss Arvind Lakshmikumar is the main force. He brings in his experience from working US in related fields.

Tonbo does its own initial development and then as they get a contract for a particular development they get another desi manufacturer to complete the orders while Tonbo shepherds it. An excellent company though with a small team now. I met them in Feb 2016 and they were getting ready for a large order and scaling up.

http://tonboimaging.com/tonbo/about/team/

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 12 Oct 2016 19:35

^^Do you know who is that desi mfr?

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 12 Oct 2016 19:44

For one tonebo, we have hundred failed companies who tried to make a business with the desi MIC and failed.

Recently we went to CABS to give a presentation. They mentioned like "there are many companies we tried to work with in the past, but after a few years, they are not there". How can they be there? They put a lot of effort, and get nothing back.

The only strategy a desi company can use is to do something for the domestic MIC, and use that experience to snag work from abroad. Tonbo apparently didn't need that stepping stone to reach out. Good for them.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2016 19:46

Just had a thought - though someone may have mentioned it earlier. It makes me happier than the idea of F-16/Gripen

"New single engine fighter?" - Combat Hawk of course. We make LCA. We fluff up numbers with Combat Hawk and keep bashing on with AMCA/AURA

A large part of the "ecosystem" for Combat hawk is already there

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 12 Oct 2016 19:47

The only logical explanation of this RFI for a new Single Engined Fighter Aircraft is that GoI feels that HAL has mucked up setting up of the production line and there is no possibility of HAL producing even the first 40 let alone 120 aircraft within any reasonable time. Therefore they have decided to find a quick but dirty way to get Pvt sector to develop some expertise in the field. Personally I would prefer that even PAKFA be transferrred to Pvt Sector.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 12 Oct 2016 19:48

kmkraoind wrote:Slightly OT. I think if Tonbo is given a chance and slight funding, they can produce an alternative to Catherine-FC thermal imager and it will save tons of foreign exchange and help build an ecosystem in India.

From above ET link.

"We have set up relationships with contract manufacturers who have the potential to scale up. With our current ecosystem, we can build up to 4,000 sights in a month. We currently don’t make anywhere near that number. But if the orders come in, our process is set up for scale and capacity." By owning the intellectual property for the design and manufacture of its products, Tonbo exerts control over the supply chain. As a next step, Tonbo plans to push its products across other military segments such as land systems, UAVs, weapon systems and missiles and create global adoption of Indian-made products.
They have fire, and they deserve encouragement and chances.

Note the bold part. Orders first.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 12 Oct 2016 19:49

Dileep wrote:^^Do you know who is that desi mfr?

No. They said they have a "few".

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2016 19:49

Gyan wrote:The only logical explanation of this RFI for a new Single Engined Fighter Aircraft is that GoI feels that HAL has mucked up setting up of the production line and there is no possibility of HAL producing even the first 40 let alone 120 aircraft within any reasonable time. Therefore they have decided to find a quick but dirty way to get Pvt sector to develop some expertise in the field. Personally I would prefer that even PAKFA be transferrred to Pvt Sector.

May or may not be correct but the "second line of fighter" idea has been doing the rounds for at least 6 months and probably existed before that while Rafale negotiation was going on

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 12 Oct 2016 19:59

Dileep wrote:For one tonebo, we have hundred failed companies who tried to make a business with the desi MIC and failed.

Very true. With the kind of environment we have, even the most motivated give up after pursuing to the point where it becomes absolutely impossible.

I my short experience I have seen that its almost impossible to sustain based on desi projects. Best is to look for something from outside India for bread and butter and then on side-by-side basis keep trying for something in India.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 12 Oct 2016 20:03

rohiths wrote:
Gyan wrote:As per current production line capacity of 4 LCA per annum, slowly moving up to 8 LCA per annum, the production of 40+6 LCA will take upto 2023. Thereafter 8 LCA Mk-1A per annum will take production schedule till 2033. Even if Mod Sanctions enhanced production rate to 16 LCA, it will take 4 years to set up the production line. Hence MOD has already fuxked LCA though we are realising it slowly. My CT is that earlier Bada Bhai wanted to kill LCA to set up his own Rafale line, now this ambition has passed on Chota bhai.
The current production is slow because the final design of the LCA is not frozen yet and there are no firm orders. Mk1A is supposed to arrive only in 2021 or 2022 and IAF needs 40 aircraft till then. Why should you increase production to 16 per annum now. IAF has committed to additional 80Mk1A which will be produced in 10 years. Given these numbers no body will invest. At 16 aircraft per order, even the capital equipment will not even be depreciated. Imagine HAL building all the capabilities and no orders. There will be a CBI investigation on the poor HAL chairman.
I would have been happy if Rafale killed LCA because Rafale is a very capable bird and french are not as nosy as the Amercians.
However an F-16 killling LCA is simply disappointing

Production lines are generic and modular. They can easily accommodate minor changes. The argument that production line cannot be set up till IOC aid granted is absurd. Read up About product schedule of F-35. The only logical explanation of the RFI for a new Single Engined Fighter Aircraft is that GoI feels that HAL has mucked up setting up of the production line and there is no possibility of HAL producing even the first 40 let alone 120 aircraft within any reasonable time. Therefore they have decided to find a quick but dirty way to get Pvt sector to develop some expertise in the field. Personally I would prefer that even PAKFA be transferrred to Pvt Sector. Inspite of all the Blah Blah HAL will not be able to produce even 8 LCA per annum, in near future. Both Modi and Parriakar warned about delays in long running projects and now they have pulled the trigger. As the indigenisation jingo of BRF, even I am saddened and perplexed by this odd RFI. But there is no other explanation and Modi is not the one to sacrifice national interests on a whim.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2016 20:27

Folks - nowadays the only TV I watch is "Pawn Stars" and "Kings of Restoration". The latter in particular impresses me because
1. I have some DIY skills that most of my friend circle do not have but this blows my mind
2. I am unable to find, locally in Bangalore the type of skills that these "Kings of Restoration" people do

It is about machinery and hand skills. Scraping is done by sandblasting and cutting by water jet. Regular tinker skills are available in plenty in Bangalore but the infrastructure is 1930s. In a proper industrial nation you get small concerns doing high tech stuff - like that video I saw of a small workshop in the UK making blisks

I think we need to be realistic about Indian industrial development. We will get there I am sure - but we have a way to go

Just saying onlee..