'Make in India' Single engined fighter

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

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

Postby K Mehta » 10 Oct 2016 15:12

How about getting the J10? Why not woo Chinese with our economy? After all this aircraft is the major replacement of mig21 for China. It is single engine and will be cheaper than any other alternative. The Chinese are committed to supporting the future upgrades and they will be willing to allow us to modify it, even if they don't, we can go ahead regardless.
We are already making the al31 for su30, so engine will not be an issue.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 15:13

geeth wrote:3. Kavaeri nowhere in the horizon. So the options in front of Parrikar are limited. What may come along with the F16 line is the full setup to manufacture the engine in India. If, along with that, if weget the permission to install our own avionics and weapons, then I would say it is a fair deal because
(A) It saves the LCA / NLCA/AMCA deeal from inordinate delay
(B) IAF has enough fighters in the meantime to fight any eventuality
(C) production is ramped up relatively faster
(D) somewhat better eco system for fighter production is set up.
(D) France is brought down to mother earth.


But F-16 has a completely different engine which has nothing to do with LCA/AMCA.

And if we have to fit in our own avionics and waste time on making a cocktail using components from all over the place, what's the point of buying F16 which is suppose to give quick numbers?? Integrating our own weapons means sharing code, either we share weapons code with LM or LM share system code with ADA. What do you think, which option is good here??

BTW, Does F-16 even have open architecture for avionics that we can replace anything easily on it??

Also an ROI issued now means, even on the quickest possible decision making by this govt it would take min 2 yrs on formulation of tender, selection, and price negotiation. And minimum 3 yrs from there on for jets to come out from production line from India. So we are looking at 5yr period most optimistically. Assuming this will not go into same kind of tamasha that MMRCA went through.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 10 Oct 2016 15:19

JayS wrote:
BTW, Does F-16 even have open architecture for avionics that we can replace anything easily on it??


There are 3 industry developed solutions for the F-16 avionics upgrade (offered to the US and International customers) - BaE, Lockheed and Elta, and all are with a modern open architecture approach.



But its still a very bad idea !

Also an ROI issued now means, even on the quickest possible decision making by this govt it would take min 2 yrs on formulation of tender, selection, and price negotiation. And minimum 3 yrs from there on for jets to come out from production line from India. So we are looking at 5yr period most optimistically.


5 years would be a very optimistic scenario for a host of reasons. Politics being one, bureaucracy being another, and custom-changes and a bunch of changes/upgrades and additions to any aircraft they choose would mean development, integration and testing so it will add time. This is a bad idea on so many levels and more so that they have specified SINGLE ENGINE that essentially eliminate the Super Hornet and Mig-29's.

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 » 10 Oct 2016 15:57

JayS wrote:And if we have to fit in our own avionics and waste time on making a cocktail using components from all over the place, what's the point of buying F16 which is suppose to give quick numbers?? Integrating our own weapons means sharing code, either we share weapons code with LM or LM share system code with ADA. What do you think, which option is good here??

BTW, Does F-16 even have open architecture for avionics that we can replace anything easily on it??


The F-16 is the plane that PIONEERED all that you are talking about and it is the plane that first implemented the Mil-STD-1553 avionics bus and the MIL-STD-1760 stores interface.

These are exactly the same standards that the LCA is built to as well (in addition to Gripen etc.). So, you dont need to share any code theoretically You can plug and play any mil std weapon into it (as long it clears carriage and separation ).

In fact, that is the reason why the Isreali stuff integrates easily with teh LCA. They are all compatible with MIL stds. You potentially are open the the entire NATO std inventory of stores.

The Russian and French weapons are not MIL Std compatible. The French have their own standards and the Russians for stuff like Mig 27 had none. In fact the IAF put the ADA on a wild goose chase in integrating the R73 with the LCA. The manufacturer wouldn't give the interface, the local DOOs would have had to analyse the protocol painstakingly bit by bit and reverse engineered whatever they could and they integrated the legacy R73 with the LCA (doubt about full integration with the DASH helmet though), clearly a nearly 2 year wasted effort. It is no surpirse they settled on the Python V and Derby package finally and let go of the R73 and R77.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 16:13

brar_w wrote:5 years would be a very optimistic scenario for a host of reasons. Politics being one, bureaucracy being another, and custom-changes and a bunch of changes/upgrades and additions to any aircraft they choose would mean development, integration and testing so it will add time. This is a bad idea on so many levels and more so that they have specified SINGLE ENGINE that essentially eliminate the Super Hornet and Mig-29's.


Wait until we have one more Twin engine jet tender as well. MP has said so many times we will manufacture a twin jet as well. Either we will see another twin jet tender or there is absolute chaos in MoD and they are changing decisions on daily basis.

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

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

Postby rohiths » 10 Oct 2016 16:16

The worst thing that can happen is calling for a tender and the process getting halted mid way due to which you will neither get the screwdriver jets or the LCA in numbers. This is the most likely scenario as well

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 16:18

vina wrote:The F-16 is the plane that PIONEERED all that you are talking about and it is the plane that first implemented the Mil-STD-1553 avionics bus and the MIL-STD-1760 stores interface.

These are exactly the same standards that the LCA is built to as well (in addition to Gripen etc.). So, you dont need to share any code theoretically You can plug and play any mil std weapon into it (as long it clears carriage and separation ).

In fact, that is the reason why the Isreali stuff integrates easily with teh LCA. They are all compatible with MIL stds. You potentially are open the the entire NATO std inventory of stores.

The Russian and French weapons are not MIL Std compatible. The French have their own standards and the Russians for stuff like Mig 27 had none. In fact the IAF put the ADA on a wild goose chase in integrating the R73 with the LCA. The manufacturer wouldn't give the interface, the local DOOs would have had to analyse the protocol painstakingly bit by bit and reverse engineered whatever they could and they integrated the legacy R73 with the LCA (doubt about full integration with the DASH helmet though), clearly a nearly 2 year wasted effort. It is no surpirse they settled on the Python V and Derby package finally and let go of the R73 and R77.


OK. My Avionics knowledge is limited only.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 16:20

rohiths wrote:The worst thing that can happen is calling for a tender and the process getting halted mid way due to which you will neither get the screwdriver jets or the LCA in numbers. This is the most likely scenario as well


I was thinking the same. :lol: :lol: That they will neither commit for LCA in time and it will keep going on at snails pace and this tender will also not be materialized for some reason. IAF will be left high and dry again and we are back to square one.

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 » 10 Oct 2016 16:21

PS - Sometimes I feel, some of us BRFItes should go to Jantar Mantar or somewhere around Parrikar's ji office and do AaMaran Anshan for LCA-16/24 capacity approval. Billions and Billions of Dollars being thought/pumped in imports but not sufficient thrust to desi LCA. I won't mind F-16 import but it should come along with 200 LCA's order and 16-24 LCA/year production capability.

Anyone willing to join me on Dharna, kindly PM me.

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 » 10 Oct 2016 16:31

Well, does this news now make more sense and helps to connect dots? :roll: (This is about 1.5 months old news)


http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/lca-manufacturing-facility-to-come-up-in-andhra/283353.html

Vijayawada, August 21, 2016 -
A weapons integration facility to manufacture Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), said to be the first-of-its-kind in the country in the private sector, will be set up in West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh at a total cost of Rs 2,135 crore.

Wem Technologies Private Limited is partnering with Lockheed Martin, the largest defence equipment manufacturer in the US, to set up this facility, Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu said.

“We have decided to allot 350 acres of land for this facility spread over Vatluru and Bhogapuram villages near Eluru in West Godavari district. In the first phase, they will invest Rs 635 crore and provide employment to 650 persons. In all, 2510 jobs will be created when the facility becomes fully operational,” Chandrababu told a press conference here last night.

Wem currently has orders worth Rs 560 crore on hand, he said.

Other details about the project or its Indian promoters are awaited. — PTI


deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 10 Oct 2016 16:38

JayS wrote:
rohiths wrote:The worst thing that can happen is calling for a tender and the process getting halted mid way due to which you will neither get the screwdriver jets or the LCA in numbers. This is the most likely scenario as well


I was thinking the same. :lol: :lol: That they will neither commit for LCA in time and it will keep going on at snails pace and this tender will also not be materialized for some reason. IAF will be left high and dry again and we are back to square one.


Actually this is a very scary situation and we should all be worried about this. IAF is not some Chief's personal property but our Air Force for our security.

What is infuriating is why are export lines for Tejas not being activated to justify a third assembly line or even a fourth. If we can get 02 Sqn worth orders fro Vietnam, Singapore, etc each with 05 orders we are close to 150 - 200 birds. Enough to continue production for a long time - create the local MIC and drive exports.

Instead of driving Tejas export line we are driving foreign import lines. How bizarre (anyone remember that song?)?

This next single engine fighter should be killed but the alternative is to ramp up production of Tejas. Presently we are looking at 40 aircraft manufactured by 2021. That is slow.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 16:47

^^ Since now we are seeing that Mk1A might come only by 2020-2021, the ramp up can happen at that time around. But we still have good 4-5yrs and as such not many things are gonna change in LCA - mainly it will be avionics upgrade with some weight saving for LG perhaps. So IMO we can easily use these 40 IOC+FOC orders to ramp up the production rate for MK1A. HAL says they can do 25/yr if they get pvt players taking up all modules (already wings, all metal components, some 50+ LRUs outsources so some more nudge is required here). GOI should then help HAL find them and offer soft terms for those pvt players to set up plants quickly. But we need to take the decision NOW and act fast. I don't know who the hell came up with this idea of new Single-engine tender.

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 » 10 Oct 2016 17:31

"Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter."

Ajai Shukla has 'some skin in the game' WRT to Gripen so I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt. SAAB's chief value prop is that it will help with LCA (:)) and that it will provide source code for the Selex (??) AESA radar. LM's offer is really for a supplier ecosystem in India plus the prospect of sole being parts sole source for some 3000+ F-16 or even vendor of full a/c in Block 70 config to third parties (I'm thinking Taiwan ;)) and a veto on sales to certain countries. No source code for AESA but object codes for integrating long range missiles.

FWIW, LM as a stakeholder gives real heft with the US Congress.

@RohiVats^^^"Indian order for F-16 is not going to be more than 140-160 a/c. This in itself does not seem attractive enough proposition to ship manufacturing base to India. "

LM's CEO has said that the threshold is 100 a/c

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 » 10 Oct 2016 17:32

^^ The AirChief said that he would prefer to opt for more modern Gripen design over an older F-16 during AF Day Interview.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 10 Oct 2016 17:33

SAAB's chief value prop is that it will help with LCA (:)) and that it will provide source code for the Selex (??) AESA radar.


SAAB of course CANNOT unilatierly start offering stuff that others own (such as TOT for radar and engine) so they have circumvented this by offering to use another radar (built by them) for their unsolicited offer on the LCA - the same GaN prototype that they first unveiled for South Korea's KFX where it was not a part of the design that was ultimately chosen. They have clearly said won't be flown until there is a customer. They have also ruled this radar out for the Gripen-E which will be relying on the Selex Raven and will be developing it over the next decade or two as that platform is fielded in 2023 and subsequently upgraded.

New clean sheet radar programs are expensive and no one is going to embark on one just to have something ready just in case. There needs to be a market demand, and/or a client to fund the work of development, and testing. The SAAB radar is unlikely to see the light of day unless there is an aircraft program with at least 50-100 orders funds them to complete development and integrate it. Given that they got rejected by the ROKAF, this leaves the AMCA and Turkey's fighter aircraft. AMCA will likely go for an indigenous AESA, while Turkey will probably look for something locally made as well. Regardless, those programs are years away from technical maturity so the talk of a new radar for the Gripen when the current development program for the NG version of that aircraft is still 5-8 years from completion is very very premature.

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 » 10 Oct 2016 18:06

My view on the toss up between F-16 and Gripen is as follows. India needs to "fill some numbers" with a plane somewhat more capable than the MiG 21 to cover our bases for the next 15-20 years. We should not be looking at a 40-50 year commitment.

There are 1200 odd F-16s in service that will require spares and overhauls and probably a few countries who will want new builds. The "installed base" of Gripen is lower - just a few dozen and Gripen probably has a lifespan of over 20 years. I see the F-16 as getting pretty long in tooth as design in 20 years. If the price is right and we get rights to supply others the F-16 may be a good choice.

I also see the F-16 as less of a competitor to the LCA. I think the Gripen can go to hell and let the Swedes buy F-35 like everyone else and be happy.

Despite our personal derisive opinions about Indians and Indian companies the world actually watches India carefully. The MiG 21 lived so long because of India. the Su-27/30/35 series is kicking ass because of India. Rafale got attention only after the Indian MMRCA fly off. The F-16 will get a breath of life from any Indian attention.

And I seem to recall that US sales of military equipment are in the nature of a lease. That is the US likes control of how it is used. As long as we have a healthy list of items uncontrolled by the US - ramping up numbers for 20 years while exporting to others sounds like an idea to me.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 190
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

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

Postby Chinmay » 10 Oct 2016 18:23

Does anyone have the link to the RFI? Otherwise we are debating all this based on one article by Ajai Shukla, without any official statement by the GoI.
In fact, his article says this
The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI), which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposal” (also known as a tender). However, it serves the same purpose, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer


Lets wait for the IAF/MoD to make a statement on this, shall we?

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 » 10 Oct 2016 18:33

Chinmay wrote:Does anyone have the link to the RFI? Otherwise we are debating all this based on one article by Ajai Shukla, without any official statement by the GoI.


Finally, search begins for a fighter to replace MiG-21s - Dinakar Peri

Within days of signing the deal to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from France, the Defence Ministry has issued a Request For Information (RFI) to global aircraft manufacturers, formally starting the process to select yet another fighter to be built in India under technology transfer.

Sources told The Hindu that an RFI for a single-engine fighter to be manufactured in India with extensive technology transfer was issued this week to countries involved in fighter aircraft manufacture. Based on the responses, a detailed RFP (Request for Proposal) would be issued later.

Last month, India and France concluded a government-to-government deal worth €7.87-billion deal for 36 Rafale multi-role jets in flyaway condition.

The selected aircraft is expected to replace the large number of MiG-21s in service, which will be phased out over the next few years.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1201
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 10 Oct 2016 18:34

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.

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

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

Postby rohiths » 10 Oct 2016 18:51

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 :((

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 10 Oct 2016 19:04

rohiths wrote:...
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 :((


If you are arguing that HAL should keep financial drivers as critical factors for decisions, then IAF is right in arguing security factors for decisions at its end. End result - Tejas is screwed both by the manufacturer and buyer.

If IAF is placing an order of 80, additional Naval orders are expected, HAL needs to hunt for export orders and get on with the second - third line. 100 ac order is good enough for Lockheed to shift from US to India, I am sure HAL can find reasons to justify expansion for 80.

Either we stop justifying HAL's hesitation or we see value with IAF hunting elsewhere. Or, we are pushing for Tejas. These are the three choices here.

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

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

Postby rohiths » 10 Oct 2016 19:34

I am just commenting that the domestic manufacturers are subject to a higher bar than foriegn players when it should be the other way round. The whole reason for buying fighters is to win wars and you won't be able to do it when unkil has you by the balls. Unkil can throw you under the bus anytime. While you could argue that LCA uses an American engine, engines can be stockpiled but you can't maintain ( or much difficult) a stockpile of all the spares.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 10 Oct 2016 19:40

rohiths wrote:I am just commenting that the domestic manufacturers are subject to a higher bar than foriegn players when it should be the other way round. The whole reason for buying fighters is to win wars and you won't be able to do it when unkil has you by the balls. Unkil can throw you under the bus anytime. While you could argue that LCA uses an American engine, engines can be stockpiled but you can't maintain ( or much difficult) a stockpile of all the spares.


True and hence imperative for HAL, IAF and MOD to think on these lines as one entity. The looking out for another type/make is stupidity and self defeating.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 19:49

@deejay

While your point is correct, it HAL cannot be held accountable for this kind of decisions fully. Thing is its GoI who should be cutting some slack on HAL. HAL is not an independent company. They have to go to MoD for signature for a financial decisions worth more than a certain number (1000Cr max as its Navaratna Company). If GOI gives nod for such risky preposition then I don't think HAL can have any issue with it. Currently the second line is waiting for approval at MoD since like an year or so now which is expected to cost more than 1000Cr.

This is the issue where GoI pays to GoI. I don't see why GoI should seat on the files for so long. We certainly cannot blame HAL in this scenario. Wherever it was under HAL's purview (<1000Cr), they have gone ahead and invested their own money on projects in recent times like on IJT or HTFE.

Even for the exports, HAL would need GOI to put its weight behind HAL or atleast give green light for export.
Last edited by JayS on 10 Oct 2016 20:14, edited 1 time in total.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 190
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

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

Postby Chinmay » 10 Oct 2016 19:53

Viv S wrote:
Chinmay wrote:Does anyone have the link to the RFI? Otherwise we are debating all this based on one article by Ajai Shukla, without any official statement by the GoI.


Finally, search begins for a fighter to replace MiG-21s - Dinakar Peri

Within days of signing the deal to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from France, the Defence Ministry has issued a Request For Information (RFI) to global aircraft manufacturers, formally starting the process to select yet another fighter to be built in India under technology transfer.

Sources told The Hindu that an RFI for a single-engine fighter to be manufactured in India with extensive technology transfer was issued this week to countries involved in fighter aircraft manufacture. Based on the responses, a detailed RFP (Request for Proposal) would be issued later.

Last month, India and France concluded a government-to-government deal worth €7.87-billion deal for 36 Rafale multi-role jets in flyaway condition.

The selected aircraft is expected to replace the large number of MiG-21s in service, which will be phased out over the next few years.


Again, 'sources said.' Actual RFI? Like this one for instance: http://tenders.gov.in/innerpage.asp?cho ... 6091&wno=1

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 10 Oct 2016 20:04

Viv S wrote:
Chinmay wrote:Does anyone have the link to the RFI? Otherwise we are debating all this based on one article by Ajai Shukla, without any official statement by the GoI.


Finally, search begins for a fighter to replace MiG-21s - Dinakar Peri

Within days of signing the deal to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from France, the Defence Ministry has issued a Request For Information (RFI) to global aircraft manufacturers, formally starting the process to select yet another fighter to be built in India under technology transfer.

Sources told The Hindu that an RFI for a single-engine fighter to be manufactured in India with extensive technology transfer was issued this week to countries involved in fighter aircraft manufacture. Based on the responses, a detailed RFP (Request for Proposal) would be issued later.

Last month, India and France concluded a government-to-government deal worth €7.87-billion deal for 36 Rafale multi-role jets in flyaway condition.

The selected aircraft is expected to replace the large number of MiG-21s in service, which will be phased out over the next few years.


So MR Dinakar Peri in Sweden on invite of SAAB. How reliable is his article??

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

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

Postby Marten » 10 Oct 2016 20:46

If the approval for line expansion is awaiting a nod at MoD for over an year, who should be holding accountable for the delays? Both HAL and its ultimate boss, Manmohan Parrikar. Best to hive off the Tejas Division (it's a separate company anyways).

Am still of the opinion that buying SaaB from the Wallenbergs makes more sense. $2bn gets you Selex, Kockums, and Saab!!! Plus they continue owning the other half and are guaranteed returns and revenue for the next two decades at least.

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 » 10 Oct 2016 20:59

JayS wrote: I don't know who the hell came up with this idea of new Single-engine tender.


That was Mr Modi himself and the much ballyhooed "Make In India" program. This is just that. Make in India! This idea has been bounced off Modi during his America visit and has got purchase from him.

Like Shiv said, it is going to be like this. Full FDI, Furrin Managers/Overseers/Engineers, Indian Workmen, Gated Community, a full "Aero Park" with the major components guys clustered together (think Auto Industry and their vendors brought along with them and clustered together), some 5000 to 10000 jobs, can even promise to be ForEx / 60% offset neutral like auto industry with this model (think Ford, VW, Hyundai,Nissan etc.. exports lot more than domestic sales by value). Same here. Produce F16s at $50m a pop with all bells and whistles (costs come down with cheaper Indian labor, if you move the entire production line and tooling and component vendors along with you to India. Auto industry showed that) , and you can continue flogging it in the global market for another 20 years. Not bad.

So, it is like this. LM & Saab proposes to make their planes in India and export them out of India and support global customers IFF (if and only if, like in math theorem proofs), we agree to take some 100 airframes. That is all there is to it.

Someone asks how will HAL benefit with ToT . Indeed what did they do from 60 years of screwdrivergiri. HAL gets cash flow, low risk and that is all they care about. What will they do with technology ? Are they going to design and build anything at all by themselves ? Nope. So why bother. HAL != India.

If the thought was to open a second line to make the LCA in India in the private sector, why there were tons of guys from Northrop Grumman, to Eurofigher to BAE with tons of experience who would have willingly partnered with Tata or L&T etc or whoever to make it here. That is not the intent.

The intent is purely make in India and possibly export and support from India. For that , you need to share the domestic market like in the auto industry and that is the trade. In addition you possibly kiss up to Unkil for strategic and other benefit, including possibly engine and getting a fab for GaAs /GaN and Infrared seekers / Radar seekers etc..

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 » 10 Oct 2016 21:01

Chinmay wrote:Again, 'sources said.' Actual RFI? Like this one for instance: http://tenders.gov.in/innerpage.asp?cho ... 6091&wno=1

JayS wrote:So MR Dinakar Peri in Sweden on invite of SAAB. How reliable is his article??

There are two possibilities - 1. The two journalists are mistaken. 2. They are colluding to fabricate the story.

Case 1 - Its unlikely that they'd arrive at the same (incorrect) story independently. More likely that there is some meat to it. Although keep in mind, an RFI is not binding. Its a request for a brochure and nothing else. Though in this case, it reveals the MoD/IAF's line of thought.

Case 2 - Fabricating the story doesn't help Saab's fortunes in India. The MoD could tomorrow start exclusive negotiations with Eurofighter Gmbh and these news report wouldn't hinder it in the slightest.

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 » 10 Oct 2016 21:04

So MR Dinakar Peri in Sweden on invite of SAAB. How reliable is his article??

It is "Al Hundi" . Pretty reliable. The Indian Embassy must have sounded those guys out. It is like the Pilatus acquisition again. They have already identified the plane they want and tilted the field that way. The rest of it is a dog and pony show.

The "single engine" requirement is a dead give away of what they want. There are globally only TWO planes that would qualify and they will absolutely want SAAB to participate in this, to give the appearance of competition and some leverage in negotiations and also to cover backside against allegations of sweetheart deal.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 10 Oct 2016 21:16

Just one question for the gurus. How hard is it for Dassault to give us the Mirage 2000 line? Yes it is closed since 2007. But if Dassault wants business (i.e. money) it might be an attractive option for all parties. If we are considering the F-Solah, the Mirage 2000 is of a similar era. The IAF already operates it.

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 » 10 Oct 2016 21:22

Rakesh wrote:Just one question for the gurus. How hard is it for Dassault to give us the Mirage 2000 line? Yes it is closed. But if Dassault wants business (i.e. money) it might be an attractive option. If we are considering the F-Solah, the Mirage 2000 is of a similar era. The IAF already operates it.

Its not enough to just have the assembly line and tooling. You need experienced workers to train your people, they've all moved on. More important there's an entire eco-system of large & small suppliers to the program that have shifted to other projects and rolled up their infrastructure. All of that can be rebuilt but it'll be prohibitively expensive.

The thing to keep in the mind here is that we're aren't really indigenizing the aircraft, the way we did the Su-30MKI and how we planned for the original MMRCA. Most of the real value-addition will still take place overseas.

Vashishtha
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 23:06
Location: look behind you

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

Postby Vashishtha » 10 Oct 2016 21:24

How do you guys expect any export orders for LCA when IAF itself abandoned it?

Writing is on the wall. LCA has been killed before its even born. I am afraid the same saga will repeat with the AMCA too.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1627
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 10 Oct 2016 21:26

Parrikar is on record as saying that the decision on this project will be made by the end of this financial year i.e. March 31, 2017.

The US Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee Jones after her trip to India in late August 2016 said that she does not expect India to make a decision for at least a year.

If Parrikar has turned over defence procurement on a new leaf I would expect a decision to be bracketed within those 2 dates.

While India may get the F16 line (if the F16 is chosen), I expect politically sensitive MROs to continue elsewhere e.g. Turkey has a fleet of more than 200 F-16s, I would expect that MRO to continue to operate and service Pakistan F16s.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 10 Oct 2016 21:30

Viv S wrote:Its not enough to just have the assembly line and tooling. You need experienced workers to train your people, they've all moved on. More important there's an entire eco-system of large & small suppliers to the program that have shifted to other projects and rolled up their infrastructure. All of that can be rebuilt but it'll be prohibitively expensive.

The thing to keep in the mind here is that we're aren't really indigenizing the aircraft, the way we did the Su-30MKI and how we planned for the original MMRCA. Most of the real value-addition will still take place overseas.

Thanks Viv Saar, but if they have moved on, it is to Rafale production - yes not all - but a sizeable Mirage 2000 production crew should be there no?

Really indigenizing the aircraft will take time and time is not something the IAF has. Off topic, so much for not having a Plan B :)

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

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

Postby Will » 10 Oct 2016 21:53

N here we go again :twisted: . Saga no???????. :P

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 » 10 Oct 2016 21:57

How hard is it for Dassault to give us the Mirage 2000 line?

How can you give something that doesnt exist ? It is like asking HAL to reopen the long closed Mig 21 line!

Forget it. This is MAKE IN INDIA! Just like the Auto industry model. Come, set up plant , bring your vendors along /do vendor development locally if you want, make it cheap in India, we will open the domestic market (even if you are selling outdated junk like many car makers do in India and stuff that is end of line in other markets), you export and support globally from here, make yourself dollar neutral, and for what we buy give 60% offsets!

Everyone is happy. Mota/Chota and other Bhais, IAF gets airframes , they might not like it,that they might end up with an airframe that first flew 40 years ago, and that they will be holding it and providing TLC when it is 80, but will have to lump it . Serves them right I suppose for being a bunch of pigs and their long history of actively sabotaging stuff from trainer to fighters from domestic sources.
Last edited by vina on 10 Oct 2016 22:04, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 10 Oct 2016 22:01

vina wrote:The "single engine" requirement is a dead give away of what they want. There are globally only TWO planes that would qualify and they will absolutely want SAAB to participate in this, to give the appearance of competition and some leverage in negotiations and also to cover backside against allegations of sweetheart deal.


Well... three planes actually. Depends on how well the F-16 proposal is received by the IAF.

My personal analysis...


F-16 Block 70:

Pros

- Low upfront cost
- Availability of cheap refurbished F-16s
- Potentially strong industrial package

Cons

- Threatens Tejas program
- Technologically, a step behind the Gripen E.
- Still fairly expensive (ref: UAE - Blk 60/61)
- Future evolution unsecure.


Gripen E:

Pros

- Good tech transfer prospects
- Potential assistance with the Mk1A & AMCA
- Rafale-level capability (minus payload)

Cons

- Threatens Tejas program
- High upfront cost
- Not in service; IOC scheduled for 2023
- Kills off Tejas Mk2 program
- Future evolution unclear
- No political fruits


F-35A (dark horse):

Pros

- Minimal threat to LCA program
- Capability (esp. in an anti-access area-denial environment)
- Stopgap to the FGFA (2025)
- Shared threat library with other operators
- Acquisition cost; within 25% of the F-16
- Future evolution secure
- Strong industrial prospects; MRO for IsAF, RSAF, ROKAF, RAAF

Cons

- ToT identical to F-16; iffy.
- Black box; all customization through LM only.
- Shared threat library with other operators
- High upfront cost; comparable to Gripen
- Politically... consequential
Last edited by Viv S on 10 Oct 2016 22:03, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 10 Oct 2016 22:02

So there ends that idea :) thanks vina.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3887
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 10 Oct 2016 22:03

Vashishtha wrote:How do you guys expect any export orders for LCA when IAF itself abandoned it?

Writing is on the wall. LCA has been killed before its even born. I am afraid the same saga will repeat with the AMCA too.


Kindly explain why you make this claim - Where has IAF abandoned Tejas?


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests