'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Viv S » 11 Oct 2016 07:47

vina wrote:3. The MMRCA contest has turned out to be NOT winner takes all. The French got a "consolation" price of 36 airframes. That I think will be for the nuclear strike role for the IAF which it doesnt want to give up. The Rafale is fine for that, it can self deploy and protect itself in deep strike missions.

4. The remaining part of the 126 odd MRCA has gone to the F16. This is a single engine, low cost, fully mature fighter. Perfect for multi role deep strikes and A2A roles. This will be cheap to maintain and run and with the advanced logistics, maintenance and support practices it will approach unprecedented availability and reliability in IAF. In fact, it might turn out to be the most reliable and available fighter in IAF service ever . (think of availability like a civil commercial airliner).

Neither of them are doing any 'deep' striking. Pakistan has no depth while China's developing a very formidable A2/AD capability, to the point where its giving the USN/USAF brass sleepless nights.

5. Remember, the F16 is a MEDIUM category aircraft . The BLK 70 will weigh in at 9 to 9.5 tons empty, 13 tons Loaded and MTOW of 21 Tons. For perspective, the Tejas weighs in at around 6 tons empty , 9 tons loaded and a MTOW of around 13.5 tons. The Gripen E /NG is a 7 ton empty wt fighter.

8 tons empty (7 tons was only on paper).

7. The MK2 will be a totally IN baby, which is perfect. They can concentrate on making a plane the want, without the Air Force interfering. In fact the IN badly NEEDS it. The Mig 29K by all accounts is an endangered species and will soon be extinct. The Navy needs a fighter that is single engine and cheap. The only other alternative is F-35 and the carrier borne versions and VTOL versions are above $300m per pop and simply unaffordable.

Could I ask where you're getting your numbers from?

8. Expect the following. Engine order goes to GE. You will see GE engines for F110 and F404 series being assembled in India, with hand holding to develop the engine for the AMCA. Also I would expect negotiation for a fab for GaAs/GaN , IR seeker kind of thing to take place as part of offsets . The critical gaps in tech the LCA program hasn't been able to fill is in engines and seekers . It filled in everything else (structures, FCS ,avionics)

The US isn't sharing AESA or IR tech with anybody. And if anybody else comes along offering to do so, it would be wise to keep a bit of salt handy.


Tech Transfer Hobbles South Korea's Fighter Program
The KF-X is linked to Lockheed Martin’s sale of 40 F-35As to South Korea under the F-X III program through the Foreign Military sales process. Lockheed Martin offered to provide 21 technologies required to build the KF-X fighter jet as part of F-X III offset deals. The US aircraft giant was also selected as the main partner to build KF-X with Korea Aerospace Industries.

At the request of Seoul’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Lockheed Martin also agreed to consult with the US government over the transfer of four more technologies related to the active electronically scanned radar (AESA), electro-optical targeting pod, infrared search-and-rescue systems, and radio frequency jammer.

In April, however, the DAPA received notice of the refusal to transfer the four technologies, according DAPA officials.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5627
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Dileep » 11 Oct 2016 08:07

vina wrote:Guys. Foggedabout any R&D (ie. Rhona & Dhona)

6. The LCA MK2 could have been a match for the F16 (similar range, but still lesser payload), but the IAF has decided that the Mk2 is something they dont want, and cannot wait for . They decided to load up the Mk1 with cutting edge radar and avionics and called it MK1A. The airforce is NOT interested in MK2.

7. The MK2 will be a totally IN baby, which is perfect. They can concentrate on making a plane the want, without the Air Force interfering. In fact the IN badly NEEDS it. The Mig 29K by all accounts is an endangered species and will soon be extinct. The Navy needs a fighter that is single engine and cheap. The only other alternative is F-35 and the carrier borne versions and VTOL versions are above $300m per pop and simply unaffordable.

9. So it is all falling together. Saves the ADA a lot of trouble with the Mk2 program. The Navy is a far more rational and mature customer than the IAF. The IAF and IA can only go shopping in the international arms bazaar given a budget. That is all they are good at. They cant develop a screw. So Go NAVY!


The scoop I got from inside is that the Navy is no longer interested in MK2, but the AF is. Navy wants a twin engine plane. AF apparently realized that they asked for a plane too small for the capabilities they wanted, so the MK2 looks perfect for them. At least that is what the impression at the shop is.

Now, let me put another angle to it. What if we are considering a leapfrog and get into UCAV directly? Would the current move make sense? UCAVs should never have strings attached, so it makes sense to trust only indigenous stuff onlee.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16283
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby NRao » 11 Oct 2016 08:24

4573 F-16s in 43 years. About 106 per year.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 11 Oct 2016 09:09

The US will want to make F-35 the F-16/MiG 21 of the next 40 years. That is not India's priority

India's priority is to give jobs - screwdriver turning if need be to thousands while doing (if possible) in a higher tech industry what China did to low tech manufacture

The F-16 is fine if they set up 5 sheds and assemble it and source components from a few dozen Indian companies who are given
1. CAD plans for component to be made
2. url of CNC machine manufacturer to buy the machine
3. Address of supplier of raw material/search for your own
4. Arrange visas for 2-3 people to get hands on training in Amreeka/Singapura/Jermani to make "left elbow of right knee of main gear"
5. Get house for gora/Indian American boss to check QC. Local golf club entry pass. Local "International School" for bacchas
Last edited by shiv on 11 Oct 2016 09:14, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7453
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Indranil » 11 Oct 2016 09:13

Dileep wrote:Now, let me put another angle to it. What if we are considering a leapfrog and get into UCAV directly? Would the current move make sense? UCAVs should never have strings attached, so it makes sense to trust only indigenous stuff onlee.

Boss, we are just taking first steps in making our first combat aircraft. Let us first learn to make lumbering UAVs with long slender wings. We can think about UCAVs later.

Another way of looking at it. We are at least 15-20 years behind the US in combat aircraft making. And US is probably 15-20 years away from developing their first UAV-fighter. So ...

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5627
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Dileep » 11 Oct 2016 09:30

^^Then, it is the right time to start, ain't it?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Singha » 11 Oct 2016 09:42

looking at how the rustom2 is coming along ... :roll:

our current situation is we have not yet made a domestic clone to match the searcher and heron which are 20 yrs old israeli level.

you think we are ready for a production design on ucav?

among the large military powers we are easily the worst in local uav and drone tech. someone dropped the ball bigtime and failed to see the revolution coming. even 72-bit word length jihadis in syria have better drones than our army!

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2314
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cybaru » 11 Oct 2016 09:44

Dileep wrote:The scoop I got from inside is that the Navy is no longer interested in MK2, but the AF is. Navy wants a twin engine plane. AF apparently realized that they asked for a plane too small for the capabilities they wanted, so the MK2 looks perfect for them. At least that is what the impression at the shop is.


Last months scoop by someone else (rahulm) who was in AdA/HAL was that Navy was interested in Mk-2. Now its not? I guess these are opinions of who the contact is and end of the day its all hearsay. If Navy wasn't interested, why would they continue pursuing the testing? HAL isn't probably the right place for really who is interested in the Mk-2. People at ADA probably are better clued into what the latest would be. I do appreciate you sharing all the tidbits though.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5627
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Dileep » 11 Oct 2016 10:15

Cybaru, the scoop didn't come from HAL. I haven't yet talked to any HAL guys.

Singha, wouldn't the response been the same in 1990 when ADA was working the very basics of the LCA? We are nowhere onlee... We don't even have a kite flying onlee...

Maybe by the time the UCAV is built to a level (like the LCA is today), we will get offers for UCAVs from the unkils of that day, like we do for fighters today. Who knows?

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Neshant » 11 Oct 2016 10:23

Is the LCA being killed ?

I hope not.

It will be the biggest joke if the flagship aerospace project of the nation is flushed down the toilet.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Austin » 11 Oct 2016 10:49

^^ Any Lic Production of Single Engine aircraft would mean IAF/MOD will conveniently kill/infinitely delay Tejas both in number & further development. This is a direct attack on Tejas program by powers that be that are happily releasing the RFI and later RFP

IAF would be more than happy to keep lic building Gripen or F-16 as the lead single engine fighter to replace the Mig-21 on the grounds that Tejas has failed to deliver and MOD would happily rubber stamp it.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Neshant » 11 Oct 2016 11:07

^^ If true, its hugely destructive to the development of any indigenous aerospace industry.

The Indian aerospace industry ends up as little more than an "import-and-use-screwdriver-to-assemble" joke.

The folks developing the Tejas are racing as fast as they can from one milestone to the next even as the IAF & unspecified goons are trying to shoot the project down and import a bunch of over-priced crap.

Tejas-SP3 completes maiden flight
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 564877.cms

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Singha » 11 Oct 2016 11:14

all I said was lets save the tejas first before dreaming of ucavs

tejas down the toilet means no aerospace / mech engg who wants to design new stuff will join hal ever.

instead there are lot of startups on orr in unrelated field to work for.

they might as well close the aerospace depts in colleges.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Austin » 11 Oct 2016 11:14

Neshant wrote:^^ If true, its hugely (and i mean hugely) destructive to the development of any indigenous aerospace industry.

The Indian aerospace industry ends up as little more than an "import-and-use-screwdriver-to-assemble" joke.

The folks developing the Tejas are racing as fast as they can from one milestone to the next even as the IAF & unspecified goons are trying to shoot the project down and import a bunch of over-priced crap.

Tejas-SP3 completes maiden flight
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 564877.cms


Why cant IAF/MOD rope in the same Pvt Player that builds single engine New Fighter to build Tejas in the same number if IAF is looking for quick bump in numbers and HAL cant deliver ?

what so great about F-16 or Gripen that cant be developed for Tejas ?

What about the sedation charges that the current GOI is happy to bring , How about bringing the same on who is hell bent on Sabotaging Tejas ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Austin » 11 Oct 2016 11:16

Singha wrote:all I said was lets save the tejas first before dreaming of ucavs

tejas down the toilet means no aerospace / mech engg who wants to design new stuff will join hal ever.

instead there are lot of startups on orr in unrelated field to work for.

they might as well close the aerospace depts in colleges.


+ 1 , In the future they will buy UCAV for the same reason they are proposing to buy another imported Single Engine Fighter , and then we will have the same R&D ( Rona Dhona ) on why Chinese have an Aerospace Industry and we dont

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Neshant » 11 Oct 2016 11:31

Someone in the Modi govt *really* needs to put an end to the perpetual destruction of national projects and habitual imports of foreign wares.

It is destroying all motivation, all nascent drive to set up & develop a local aerospace base. Destroying the fledgling aerospace R&D base is putting the country in an extremely vulnerable position having to depend on external powers for everything. Why is this not being factored into decision making ?

BAN the import of all single engine fighters. Put in place a law that 40% of the airforce planes have to be of local R&D and D&D. Unless this is done now, there is no hope. All aerospace R&D in the country would have to be shut down because there is no purpose to it with IAF insiders sabotaging every project!

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby vina » 11 Oct 2016 11:36

The Indian aerospace industry ends up as little more than an "import-and-use-screwdriver-to-assemble" jok


What else did you think it ever was , after the Marut project was shut down. It is an incestuous Natasha-Corruption-Import-Screwdrivergiri-Services game. That is what it has always been.

DRDO and HAL are part and parcel of it. For eg, if you TRULY want products to come out of India, you NEED to get the private sector involved. But no, that has been "prohibited" until now, defense "reserved " for public sector and the consequences are all too stark.

One good thing about this planned import coming about is that it will atleast give an entry into the airframe business to competent industry groups that can actually do engineering and have the temperament for it unlike the Mota/Chota Bhai types and hopefully something will come out of it in two generations.

Look at tube artillery. Kalyani and others can probably make anything far better than the OFB can manage as of today. Did they get a SINGLE order for a 155mm gun ? No . And why not ? And why did the OFB NOT produce a SINGLE gun until now when they had all the right and blue prints for the FH77B ?They then spent 30 years looking for further imports.

The IAF got the Ajeet line closed. Shot down the trainer that they built on the Ajeet, shot down the propsal for turbo prop replacement for the HPT32, spent close to 30 years single mindedly to get the BAe Hawk tilted the table to get the Pilatus that they wanted . THIS is reality.

Atleast now they are forced to lump it up with a 40 year old airframe and will be forced to sing "Hosannas" to it, when they explain to everyone how a 40 year old airframe is not a piece of turd, but a sweet smelling 4.5 gen rose, while they could go and bad mouth the LCA as a Mig 21++ or a 3 legged Cheetah or whatever. They will come to HAL and DRDO and throw their weight around and Harrumph at the "civilians" . Now, they will be the global laughing stock. LM and others will be laughing away at those suckers. But that is fine. That is Schandenfrueude.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2314
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cybaru » 11 Oct 2016 11:52

That is a sad tale Vina.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Philip » 11 Oct 2016 12:35

The first Q to be asked of the GOI/MOD is why we can't set up another Tejas line,with a pvt. player.It reduces the number of aircraft types in the inventory.If we need just a few sqds top make up numbers,as I've said many a time,the MIG-29UG std. or even 35 std. will suffice.The 29 in IAF exercises always beat the M2K.

To make matters easier,more Rafales could be ordered .Unless another light fighter is going to spur the LCA programme,it should be dumped.
I fear that this exercise is going to end up exactly like the MMRCA contest,with all and sundry throwing in their birds,yet another evaluation,etc.,etc. and we will be no better off come 2020!

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1652
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Zynda » 11 Oct 2016 12:45

Pvt players in India except a lot of hand holding to be done and most importantly the costs should be borne by someone else. With Tejas, I don't know if HAL is in the position or wants to do the hand holding part (or even if Pvt Players want to work with HAL. At least on the engineering side, most Pvt Players will avoid working with Govt entities like a plague). Thats where LM/SAAB comes in...Govt will take care of the financial side...LM/SAAB will take care of the intellectual side. Desi Pvt entities will be responsible for ancillary activities.

arsimovich
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 16:21

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby arsimovich » 11 Oct 2016 12:56

Not sure if the F 16 CFTs have been discussed at length before or if this particular article has been dissected, I sure did not find it in this thread.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-do ... 1712746714

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3583
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Oct 2016 13:24

So...LCA will take its time to fructify. Even now there is a chance to make it big if MP plays his cards right....push HAL to build capacity of 30 jets per year by 2021 - Mk1A standard. As a stop gap invest $ 2-3 billion in a sqd of MKI, 2 X Mig-29 SMT and 1 X M2k-5. All of which can come faster and be more easily inducted by the AF considering existing infrastructure, SOPs etc.

But this looks like an increasingly strategic tit for tat with the US. Obama's final touch....the US supports India's geopolitical and technology ambitions (NSG, engine etc.), and looks the other way when India decides to perform surgery on neighbor. And India reciprocates by buying hardware like the solah etc. This was bound to happen, sooner or later - but I expected it to be the Shornet since it has a much better developmental path.

Still, I'll take the Viper over the Gripen-E. The latter is still not ready and seems to have put on gobs of weight - 8 tons and counting. Not a good sign for a fighter that has a max thrust of 10 tons. Remember the IAF considers the M2k, which has similar thrust but is lighter @ 7.5 tons, to be under powered.

My guess is that we are looking at a Sufa-NG with max commonality with the Tejas in armament and sensors. EL-2052, IRST, Dash V + Derby/Python ityaadi. 9.5 tons empty, 15 ton engine, 7 ton payload and piss-poor fuel fraction with internal fuel at 2600kg. Of course the CFTs could help in bombing missions and as an interceptor/point defense type, the above will be more than enough.

Question is, how soon can even the US deliver via MII? If it was straight from Texas, perhaps they might have plugged some of the IAF's shortfall, but can they do it through MII? Perhaps we may see 2-3 sqds delivered by 2020 straight from Fortworth and a solid 90 plus manufactured in India over 5-8 years.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Philip » 11 Oct 2016 13:29

Look,if HAL have production drawings and tooling for the Tejas accomplished,along with flight/maintenance manuals for the IAF,with most key tech available at home,desi developed,what difficulty is there for pvt. entities to manufacture the same? ISRO is doing spectacularly well with the civilian space programme,where there is a huge input from pvt. industry,so why can;t' they do the same with Tejas? The "hand-holding" argument is v.weak.

There is a strong lobby that wants to sell the US's "cast-offs",the F-16 and F-18,whose prod. runs are almost at an end.These aircraft carry nothing with them for the future unlike the Rafale and Gripen-if western birds are preferable to a too-heavy Ru aircraft inventory as the FGFA deal is supposedly making much progress.Having a smaller number of types in service benefits the IAF which will be able to have a greater % of aircraft combat ready thanks to larger numbers of types.Incidentally,the Jag upgrade will hugely benefit mainly US cos. from the list of key components mentioned in the upgrade.There is no need to "stroke" the US every day!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3583
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Oct 2016 13:36

^Problem seems to be that for all practical purposes HAL has never done anything like this before - taking a design from ADA and productionising it. So, they have a steep learning curve to begin with - and the Tejas Mk1A is yet to be finalized by ADA (2020ish), which might requiring some further changes in production set up. For HAL to simultaneously hand-hold a pvt player while it is still a noob in this area might be too much. Over a period of time (say 10 years), no doubt HAL can be like ISRO, but the IAF doesn't have that kind of time...unless MP takes a route similar to the first option I suggested in my previous post to buy HAL some time.

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Bhaskar_T » 11 Oct 2016 13:46

Couple of good things actually I like with this single engine fighter decision going to private entity.

1. Because of this F-16/Gripen assembling in India that GOI has taken a strategic decision of moving towards private players (rather than handing over screw driver to HAL which has been the case) when it comes to fighter planes. HAL has been taken out of the equation. Dassault too didn't want to work with HAL. Removing HAL helps the Videshi companies to tie up with willing serious private business partners in India. 8)
2. Secondly, one can also hope that HAL feels pressure of a competitor and starts delivering quality products and on time. No more assured free-screwdrivergiri OR assured employment & no more easy fixed-deposit earnings for HAL. 8)
3. The best part is that LM has tie up with Tata and Tata's are not morally bankrupt as much as Ambanis are. The project management expertise of Tata's would be as excellent as Ambanis. 8)
4. Twenty years down the line, who knows privatization of HAL might be very feasible and HAL could be bought by Ambanis/Tata, once Ambanis/Tata have got the foothold in fighter aircraft business. :D

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4110
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby JayS » 11 Oct 2016 14:20

Viv S wrote:It doesn't work like. While we can't it exploit it to the extent that the USN can (through its NIFC-CA project), that doesn't change the aircraft's core capability in a 'conventional' role. Its a bit like saying that you're not ready for the new Iphone 7 because you don't have 4G service in your area.


Why would one buy iphone7 if he cannot exploit it fully and whatever he can perhaps could be done with some Samsung phone which costs 1/3rd the price haan ji?? Even some cons, if there are any, can be easily accepted as opportunity costs against saving of the 2/3rd money. And that money be invested in something else to bridge the capability gap.

Israel is a small country with far less defense needs as compared to India and they do not have China to counter with. They receive extensive US defense aid and they are far better integrated in US eco-system that we are currently. I don't see the comparison to be very much valid here. Of coarse we can do whatever we want to do with F35, but at what cost, that is the question.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Neshant » 11 Oct 2016 14:40

Does anyone know for real what is happening. Are vested interests at the IAF trying to kill the LCA to keep India dependant on importing expensive foreign sh@t with the single engine fighter tender?

On one hand, Lockheed, Wem plan to set up a $318m weapons integration facility (allegedly) for Tejas. Although I suspect it really isn't for the Tejas but for their own soon-to-be imported planes. On the other hand, there is a call for foreign single engine fighters that suspiciously looks like an attempt to kill the LCA program or marginalize it.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Neshant » 11 Oct 2016 14:56

Zynda wrote:Govt will take care of the financial side...LM/SAAB will take care of the intellectual side. Desi Pvt entities will be responsible for ancillary activities.


The only thing India will be doing is paying a shitload of money to subsidize the R&D base of foreign countries.
Local entities will be turning screw drivers (if that) to assemble stuff and little else.

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby rohiths » 11 Oct 2016 14:56

Refer to this article to understand this better
http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opini ... yens-delhi

Lutyens Delhi is sadistic towards the people of India and masochistic while interacting with its enemies, who get rewarded in proportion to the degree to which pain gets inflicted by them on India. Hence the delirious (and subsequently hugely expensive) welcome to the very Bill Clinton, who as President harried India to surrender its small nuclear deterrent and hand Kashmir over to the Wahhabi army of Pakistan. Or the gift of a fee of millions of dollars to a Robert Blackwill, who (despite knowing that any prospect of nuclear war was nonsense and that all the A.B. Vajpayee government was doing in Operation Parakram was posturing in order to impress voters at home) sparked off a global panic about an “imminent” nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Blackwill ordered several tens of thousands of US citizens to flee this country immediately, damping for a decade at least any possibility of India attracting as much external investment as China. Or the welcome greeting Henry Kissinger on his visits to India, despite that gentleman being significantly responsible for his President Nixon having ordered the genocide of Bangladeshis, Cambodians, Vietnamese and Laotians, for which he was subsequently rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Neshant » 11 Oct 2016 15:10

^^ That has no bearing on what's being discussed.

I found an interview with HAL chief. Seems to be pushing hard against F-anything planes and in favor of ramping up LCA production.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 834356.cms

The man leading India's top military aviation company feels that the US offer to produce F 16 and F/A 18 jets in India is not attractive, as both jets failed to meet the cut at an air force competition for new fighters. The chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Suvarna Raju, says that any gaps in the fighter force can be met by shoring up production of Indian developed Light Combat Aircraft , to which the private sector can contribute 80% of parts. In an interview ..

Ankar
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 02:57

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Ankar » 11 Oct 2016 15:29

So how come IAF is ready to consider F-16IN or Blk70 or whatever when it has already failed the MMRCA evaluation?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4110
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby JayS » 11 Oct 2016 15:42

We shouldn'y compare HAL with TAT/Ambanis. While TATA/Ambanis have full freedom in every respect, HAL's hands are tied by government. I do not understand why everyone gets into the bandwagon of privatization when private industry has record of producing minimal innovation in Indian industry in terms of hard technology so far, especially in Aerospace. HAL does not have authority to take decision on anything more than 1000Cr worth, whereas any pvt player is fully autonomous in financial terms. They can go for loans, they can get tax breaks from govt, while HAL has minimal autonomy in any such respect. On top of it, private players are free to bribe whereas HAL can't do it. CAG would seat on HAL's head if HAL takes risk on some new projects (say making its own 5th Gen aircraft) and it doesn't pay off. While a pvt company has full freedom to take such risks.

Let's first make HAL autonomous, fully out of MoD babus clutches, let it be on its own fully. And then we will see how competent it is compared to any other pvt player. A huge factor is ISRO's success is the autonomy it enjoys being a department under PMO directly. Even a private player cannot grow in Aerospace without full govt support. Govt is so ready to spread red carpet for pvt players but HAL's hands are tied by the same govt. Most of the autonomous organisations of central government are doing well today.

I have seen how much this one thing - autonomy - can transform a govt organisation in short span first hand. It would be a sad sad story if HAL be given no fair chance to prove itself and be sold as scrap.

I have zero expectations from Pvt industry. Expect same kind of screwdrivergiri. None of our biz houses have a temperament for ultra long term RnD investment.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8070
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Pratyush » 11 Oct 2016 16:03

Has anyone actually seen the IAF document which calls for a foreign fighter.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Cosmo_R » 11 Oct 2016 16:11

^^^" Why cant IAF/MOD rope in the same Pvt Player that builds single engine New Fighter to build Tejas in the same number if IAF is looking for quick bump in numbers and HAL cant deliver ?"

That is SAAB's value prop. They have said or rather been quoted by journos as willing to help productionize the LCA. The question is which LCA--the MK1 or the MK1A or Mark 2 and how long will it take? And whether they tie this into the Gripen.

What LM is saying is "For the price of 100 F-16s, we will build an aerospace ecosystem for you, plus exports which will offset the cost of the 100 and you will have a very capable gap filler."

IMHO, this does not have to affect the LCA from a funding standpoint but it will from a manpower standpoint. HAL does not have the experience of creating an ecosystem and any MII effort is going to suck up qualified people.

Those who would bash the IAF should remember that all they wanted since 2000 is the M2K as a follow on order. That's 16 years they've been waiting all due to 2 Babus who declared that the M2K-5 was a different ac and there should be a bake off called the MMRCA.

The F-16 is a 1970s design alright but the IAF is flying 1960s designs currently and the ~160 MiG 27s will reach EOSL between 2018-2020. Also some 245 MiG 21s will all be retired by 2022. No one can provide those numbers in such a time frame except for LM with the F-16 (and it wont be a 1:1 basis either) . Not the French, not the Swedes and not even LM if it was F-35.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4110
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby JayS » 11 Oct 2016 17:00

Dileep wrote:Now, let me put another angle to it. What if we are considering a leapfrog and get into UCAV directly? Would the current move make sense? UCAVs should never have strings attached, so it makes sense to trust only indigenous stuff onlee.


I actually like this idea of leap-frogging. If we want to go through the same cycle that US went through we will never catch up and it will always be 20yrs ahead of us. While keep doing what we are doing, we could invest in a technology which is expected to come 20 or 40 yrs later and try to leap-frog. We are trying to do similar thing in Hypersonics actually, but we need more investment and faster testing cycle there to succeed.

Developing UCAV is a whole lot less complicated than manned fighter in terms of security/reliability of the machine. We can leverage this advantage to fail and learn and hone our skills.

Only thing, we should not keep any hope from GOI or our forces to have any part in this. No one in the system is willing to work on indigenous development. I would rather expect private ventures to take up such project. A venture like SpaceX. Starting can be done from commercial UAVs for now to get a sustained income while working in background on long term project on UCAV. Only thing GOI has to do is get out of the way and let them do their work by not restricting some ridiculous laws/policy on them. The projects can be done totally for foreign customers. If IAF wants, it should pay for development, or to hell with it. I am sure many countries would be interested in getting this capability.

Team Indus is trying to send a rover to moon for Google Lunar X prize and they are gathering some 400Cr funding for that. If this kind of venture is possible in India, why not UCAV?? If its done for the sake of tech development and for pure commercial purpose, its possible.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 11 Oct 2016 17:07

Austin wrote:^^ Any Lic Production of Single Engine aircraft would mean IAF/MOD will conveniently kill/infinitely delay Tejas both in number & further development. This is a direct attack on Tejas program by powers that be that are happily releasing the RFI and later RFP

IAF would be more than happy to keep lic building Gripen or F-16 as the lead single engine fighter to replace the Mig-21 on the grounds that Tejas has failed to deliver and MOD would happily rubber stamp it.


This would be true as long as we think small - like Borneo, Thailand, Colombia. If we look at our air force as that of a big nation with huge needs - then two separate of fighters would both still only be just enough for our requirements.Our experiences are moulded by the ideas of a second rate slave nation that must not get too big for its shoes.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 11 Oct 2016 17:15

In my opinion fiddling with HAL to magically increase its production are ideas that are bound to fail because it is like having enough bricks to build one house but trying to rearrange and redistribute those bricks to build two houses. Everyone, HAL and IAF included are saying this openly and clearly.

We need a new line. A new private line in a country where the private industry has never done it can only mean a 100% (or 90%) foreign owned entity that assembles in India, employs Indians, supplies to India and others.

That was how Pakistan set up its Mushak trainer facility. That is how Nigeria, of all nations, is now getting an aircraft manufacturing industry, Unless we bite the bullet and stop cooking up excuses of all reasons for failure of everything we will never have anything more than HAL PSU making engine parts from iron and titanium ore.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Viv S » 11 Oct 2016 17:21

JayS wrote:Why would one buy iphone7 if he cannot exploit it fully and whatever he can perhaps could be done with some Samsung phone which costs 1/3rd the price haan ji?? Even some cons, if there are any, can be easily accepted as opportunity costs against saving of the 2/3rd money. And that money be invested in something else to bridge the capability gap.

Because unlike the Samsung, the F-16/Gripen don't actually cost 1/3rd of the F-35. Because even the Rafale is more expensive today. Because even when its functioning at less than 'full exploitation', it'll dominate every 4.5 gen fighter out there (including the Rafale, EF & Su-35) and wipe the floor with older 4th gen types. And because its the only fighter in production today that can operate against the latest gen of jam-resistant AESA based area denial weapon systems fielded by the Chinese (particularly AWACS & triple digit SAMs).

Israel is a small country with far less defense needs as compared to India and they do not have China to counter with. They receive extensive US defense aid and they are far better integrated in US eco-system that we are currently. I don't see the comparison to be very much valid here. Of coarse we can do whatever we want to do with F35, but at what cost, that is the question.

Except that Israel isn't making any compromises. Its jets will be every bit as capable as the US ones and a good deal more capable than any Eurocanard. As for the question of 'what cost'... try same or similar cost ($450 mil). May even be lower since we might be able piggy-back off much of the Israeli customization (seeing as our ODL & SDRs are of Israeli-origin). We'll be paying just as much (if not more) to customize the F-16 or Gripen too.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby Austin » 11 Oct 2016 17:38

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:^^ Any Lic Production of Single Engine aircraft would mean IAF/MOD will conveniently kill/infinitely delay Tejas both in number & further development. This is a direct attack on Tejas program by powers that be that are happily releasing the RFI and later RFP

IAF would be more than happy to keep lic building Gripen or F-16 as the lead single engine fighter to replace the Mig-21 on the grounds that Tejas has failed to deliver and MOD would happily rubber stamp it.


This would be true as long as we think small - like Borneo, Thailand, Colombia. If we look at our air force as that of a big nation with huge needs - then two separate of fighters would both still only be just enough for our requirements.Our experiences are moulded by the ideas of a second rate slave nation that must not get too big for its shoes.


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

After all the so called new single engine fighter will still use MOD fund to build the new type.

Having a new type will add to more logistical complexity for IAF for decades to come beyond what they already have.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Single Engined Multi Role Fighter with Transfer of Manufacturing Technology

Postby shiv » 11 Oct 2016 18:19

Austin wrote:Having a new type will add to more logistical complexity for IAF for decades to come beyond what they already have.

Austin logistical difficulty is something that we need to learn to handle as a big nation with nearly the world's biggest armed forces. Standardization across the board is neither feasible nor desirable given the multiplicity of environments and requirements.

For all our "defence preparedness" it was the diversity of equipment that helped in Kargil. Jaguars could not work effectively at that altitude. MiG 21 and 27s did not have the avionics. Ultimately it was a Mirage 2000 hack that started the process of pounding Pakis.

I want to use the analogy of surgery over the decades to see how our own attitudes to the armed forces and their equipment needs to change.

Surgical textbooks and surgical training 50 and more years ago created surgeons who did everything from brain surgery, bone surgery, gynecologic surgery, chest surgery, urological surgery, vascular surgery, plastic surgery etc. Even my own initial training was like that and some people were doing all that as recently as the late 70s and 80s. But as the body of knowledge grew and equipment expanded we started having surgical sub specialities with bone surgery, brain surgery, urology, gynaecology breaking away early followed by a whole lot of other sub-specialities, and the care requirements for each of these, the equipment, drugs, assistant and nurse training are all different. So complaining about logistical nightmares can only go so far especially in an essential area that is growing and is also something that we require as much as healthcare and on huge scale.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests