LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jan 2015 23:54

you have highlighted two main modes of imagery, ie: satellite and airborne. now, that makes it "gnostic" to the platform.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jan 2015 01:26

Half-strength squadrons

On Saturday, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) handed over to the Indian Air Force (IAF) the first Tejas Mark I fighter built on its new production line in Bengaluru. Fifteen prototypes earlier produced were each hand-built to different specifications as the Tejas evolved. Now, however, HAL's production line will build to a controlled standard using modern manufacturing methods. The first Tejas fighter had flown in September, but the IAF had refused to accept it until HAL could hand over eight fighters together, half the complement of the first Tejas squadron. Eventually, the defence ministry ordered the IAF to accept each fighter as it was built, like every air force does.

This illustrates the continuing problems with the Tejas, and why it has taken so long to enter service. With diverse organisations contributing to its development since 1983 - including HAL and the National Aerospace Laboratories - the programme has been overseen by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), established by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). From the start, the IAF had convinced itself that building a modern fighter was an extravagant aim. Unlike the navy, which took ownership and control of warship-building programmes, an uninterested IAF highlighted flaws and demanded the purchase of expensive fighters from the international market - currently, the Rafale.

Every country that builds contemporary fighters has been through a tortuous learning process - a century for the United States, Germany, Italy, Britain, France and Russia. India has leapfrogged in technology by building what the IAF accepts is a fighter far better than the light MiGs it was intended to replace. The IAF's strength is down to 35 squadrons (each with 16 operational fighters), and with 10 more MiG-21 and MiG-27 squadrons retiring by 2018. But, even so, the IAF has made its preference for foreign fighters like the Rafale over the Tejas clear.

The Tejas has not achieved final operational clearance. Some capabilities remain to be validated before it can be fielded in combat. On the other hand, the test programme has, however, completed 2,800 flights, with only a few hundred more required. The problem is the delays. HAL needs to build the Tejas faster, so that 10 squadrons can fill the gap created by the retiring MiGs. But just two Tejas fighters will be built this year; another six in 2015-16; eight more the year after that; and only in 2017-18 would HAL hit a production rate of 16 planes a year. Clearly, this is too slow. If the Tejas is to help set up a domestic high-tech sector, then the defence ministry needs to be swifter, and HAL needs to indigenise further, developing Indian small-scale vendors to build systems and components currently being imported.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Jan 2015 03:53

NRao wrote:Half-strength squadrons

The problem is the delays. HAL needs to build the Tejas faster, so that 10 squadrons can fill the gap created by the retiring MiGs. But just two Tejas fighters will be built this year; another six in 2015-16; eight more the year after that; and only in 2017-18 would HAL hit a production rate of 16 planes a year. Clearly, this is too slow. If the Tejas is to help set up a domestic high-tech sector, then the defence ministry needs to be swifter, and HAL needs to indigenise further, developing Indian small-scale vendors to build systems and components currently being imported.

Sheesh, this is what the IAF ordered. if they order more, they will get more and if the MOD approves budget to make more in the coming years, HAL can ramp up.

As of now, we only have engines for TDs/LSP + 2 squadrons mk-1 and 1 squadron of maybe-coming-soon-order of trainers. They know there will be a gap in 3-4 years time when all the LCA will be handed over and the Mk-2 will still have 8-16 months to go. Can we not proactively order yet another squardon and an extra 20 engines to tide over this gap? They will huff and puff for no reason again. Time to up the order of 404 engines from 50 to 70.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Jan 2015 06:13

^^^

If there are no further firm orders the peak production in 2017/8 will only last one year. After that, the production would shut down waiting for new orders. Worldwide standard is around 3 years from order to delivery. It requires long-lead time for various suppliers/manufactures to deliver parts for final assembly. Also, budgeting, training and staffing need to be accounted for.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jan 2015 06:42

but the IAF had refused to accept it

IF true, where does one go to find 'hope'?

Dynamics are working against the LCA.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 23 Jan 2015 07:12

Eventually, the defence ministry ordered the IAF to accept each fighter as it was built, like every air force does

'hope' can be found in the Defence Ministry....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jan 2015 07:49

That is arm twisting, not hope.

Hope would be when the IAF accepts 1/2 a LCA jet. Gladly.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jan 2015 09:20

Or the IAF can be told by the MOD. That accept the LCA as is or fight with sticks & stones, bows & arrows.

Cause, the LCA as is better then, nearly all the current gen fighters of the IAF. It is a match for the un upgraded Mig 29s and M2Ks.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 23 Jan 2015 09:27

Yes it is not a love marriage...lets hope it is a smooth arranged marriage.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 23 Jan 2015 09:41

As a mango man I fail to understand this reluctance to accept LCA mk1 as a reasonable replacement for at least mig21/23/27 ACs for replacement. It certainly brings in more capabilities than what we have now. It is cheap. It is designed and produced here in India. There are no immediate alternative avaliable which are as cheap as L.C.A.

True that it may not be a desired level from IAF point of view. The nation is without money and the people who are to provide other kinds of AC are openly blackmailing us by increase the price to almost double. Then what? Be with out any kind of ACs ???

The basic logic is something is better than nothing and almost everyone is agree that LCA is not just "something".

I do hope MOD permits increase production to 32 p.a. so that 32 AC p.a. may start rolling out in 2/12, 3 years. Once Mk2 comes in to line we can surely have them in good number.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jan 2015 09:51

The logic appears to be nothing is better than LCA.

And motivated editorials without author names!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jan 2015 10:24

This is the same AF willing to accept a paper plane in a Rafale F3-R.

This is the same AF that took a huge risk with the MKI and accepted a lesser Su-27 squadron while waiting for the MKI.

Bailed one vendor, is bailing another and possibly re-bailing the first.

But cannot help a MIC from own nation.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 23 Jan 2015 10:33

ramana wrote:The logic appears to be nothing is better than LCA.

And motivated editorials without author names!!!

Engrish is a funny language -- nothing is better than LCA could be interpreted as a TFTA statement. If you were operating it.

As is the collect wording is "having no LCAs" is better than having any LCAs. Also, Natashas and le femme fatal josephines. I like them too.

ps -- the Mk1 will do better than Aljun. AI15 will clear some confusion. Really no reason for being upset for Mk1, or LCH or NLCA Mk1. The LUH, or IJT on the other hand are not out of the woods.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 23 Jan 2015 11:13

[Rant deleted, user warned and banned for 3-days. If you're reasoning behind issue(s) pertaining to Services and some indigenous product(s) is to question the 'nationalistic' credentials of the Services, then you need some other forum to air such views. Not here.

And this goes to everyone. Next time anyone decides to go down this route, the ban period will be longer. - rohitvats]

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 12:08

Shreeman wrote:
ramana wrote:The logic appears to be nothing is better than LCA. And motivated editorials without author names!!!
Engrish is a funny language -- nothing is better than LCA could be interpreted as a TFTA statement. If you were operating it.

As is the collect wording is "having no LCAs" is better than having any LCAs. Also, Natashas and le femme fatal josephines. I like them too.

ps -- the Mk1 will do better than Aljun. AI15 will clear some confusion. Really no reason for being upset for Mk1, or LCH or NLCA Mk1. The LUH, or IJT on the other hand are not out of the woods.

MODERATOR NOTE: Please stick to normal English here. Next time, I'll simply delete the post.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 23 Jan 2015 13:08

NRao wrote:This is the same AF willing to accept a paper plane in a Rafale F3-R.

This is the same AF that took a huge risk with the MKI and accepted a lesser Su-27 squadron while waiting for the MKI.

Bailed one vendor, is bailing another and possibly re-bailing the first.

But cannot help a MIC from own nation.

Strategic independence should be given due weightage on new purchases and tenders. Americans and Russians could armtwist any other country into not selling to us during time of war. Defense ministry has to drive the point hard that IAF should nurture local industry or suffer the consequence. One way is to put a percentage limit on their budget, of how much must be spent within the country.

Time value of money is another check - 10 years wasted in MMRCA cognizant of the biggest hole -absence of a plan B? There should be an audit of how much of the budgeted amount was used where and the force's effectiveness of the spend should be objectively analysed. If this is done with a long term perspective 1-2 decades, the practise would seep in and be institutionalized within ranks of IAF people making purchase decision.

There are plenty of countries who would gladly take the second hand LCA at a substantial discount, if IAF decides to move entirely to MK2. So why not more numbers? As guarding the nation and developing a local MIC need not be convergent in short term, getting american clearance to re-export the engine and keep orders coming in. I sincerely hope that in 10-20 years aircrafts come under the list of stuff that armed forces are not allowed to import.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jan 2015 13:14

The offset clause takes care of the amount of money that has to be spent in India.

At times, it appears that the services with the exception of the IN are spoilt brats. With the IN playing the diligent step child.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 23 Jan 2015 13:49

NRao wrote:
But cannot help a MIC from own nation.

Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it truth. IAF has not held up a single paisa for the development of the LCA.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 14:09

NRao wrote:This is the same AF willing to accept a paper plane in a Rafale F3-R. This is the same AF that took a huge risk with the MKI and accepted a lesser Su-27 squadron while waiting for the MKI. Bailed one vendor, is bailing another and possibly re-bailing the first. But cannot help a MIC from own nation.

The rant part aside, can you please tell me where the IAF has 'refused' to accept the plane?

What's with bringing Su-27 example? Is not IAF inducting IOC-2 level Tejas...if it is any solace, it will have 20 IOC-2 Tejas as against 18 Su-27. Hows that for a logic? Same, same, isn't it?

As for this bailing out business - What matters is what we get, not the benefit that comes to other party. Unless, you can use the situation to get a better deal.

May be, the MIC can help itself by NOT giving deadlines and then happily going back on them. And rather than hold token ceremonies about handing over an a/c to 'honor' one of their own before he retires, get down to building the aircraft. Had HAL met the it's own production deadline, the first Squadron would've had a substantial part of its a/c already.

And so much for editorials w/o the name of the author. Considering it's Business Standard, I would not be surprised if it is one Mr. Ajai Shukla. And his love for the IAF is pretty well known.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 14:22

Kailash wrote: Strategic independence should be given due weightage on new purchases and tenders. Americans and Russians could armtwist any other country into not selling to us during time of war. Defense ministry has to drive the point hard that IAF should nurture local industry or suffer the consequence. One way is to put a percentage limit on their budget, of how much must be spent within the country.

Can you tell me 'spend on what' in the country? What all stuff which the country is producing but the IAF is importing from abroad - given their lack of 'nationalistic' credentials, as one poster put it.

Time value of money is another check - 10 years wasted in MMRCA cognizant of the biggest hole -absence of a plan B? There should be an audit of how much of the budgeted amount was used where and the force's effectiveness of the spend should be objectively analysed. If this is done with a long term perspective 1-2 decades, the practise would seep in and be institutionalized within ranks of IAF people making purchase decision.

First - What should have been Plan B for MMRCA? Any thoughts on what the IAF could've done in last 10-years to make for MMRCA which might not come?

There are plenty of countries who would gladly take the second hand LCA at a substantial discount, if IAF decides to move entirely to MK2. So why not more numbers? As guarding the nation and developing a local MIC need not be convergent in short term, getting american clearance to re-export the engine and keep orders coming in. I sincerely hope that in 10-20 years aircrafts come under the list of stuff that armed forces are not allowed to import.

That is the crux of the matter - unless, you produce something, you cannot order it. And one does not order something purely because that is all you can produce at home. There is a small problem of having to fight a battle if it ever comes to that.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Jan 2015 16:16

rohitvats wrote:The rant part aside, can you please tell me where the IAF has 'refused' to accept the plane?

They have had to be armtwisted thats for sure, especially at IOC-1. On the plus side, the declining squadron numbers, limited budget, and MMRCA delay mean the IAF is likely to be much more appreciative of a decent aircraft.

May be, the MIC can help itself by NOT giving deadlines and then happily going back on them. And rather than hold token ceremonies about handing over an a/c to 'honor' one of their own before he retires, get down to building the aircraft. Had HAL met the it's own production deadline, the first Squadron would've had a substantial part of its a/c already.

TBH, I dont see much wrong with honoring Tyagi because it seems he has done an ok job of reversing HAL versus IAF acrimony on most topics (HTT-40 issue apart). Have you seen how few articles/leaks are now coming from IAF about HAL etc - they seem to be ok with HAL leadership and I guess the efforts HAL has made into meeting service demands for ALH serviceability, Su-30 MKI ROH etc (to compensate for Russian delays in parts etc) seem to have made the IAF less angry with HAL. Haven't seen this "low level" married couple fighting (HTT-40 vs IAF) as versus the earlier wife at in laws place stuff (daily leak about HAL).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jan 2015 16:48

rohitvats wrote:First - What should have been Plan B for MMRCA? Any thoughts on what the IAF could've done in last 10-years to make for MMRCA which might not come?

1. Second hand Mirage 2000s from UAE & Qatar.
2. Second hand MiG-29s from Hungary.
3. Parallel negotiations for EF T1s from European states.
4. RFI for a limited off-the-shelf delivery to UAC & LM.
5. Expansion of the Su-30MKI production line.
6. Earlier acceptance of the Tejas Mk1 (i.e limited concurrency).
7. Early investment in increasing the baseline Tejas production rate.

(The last one particularly rankles.)

rohitvats wrote:That is the crux of the matter - unless, you produce something, you cannot order it. And one does not order something purely because that is all you can produce at home. There is a small problem of having to fight a battle if it ever comes to that.

The IAF has been lobbying hard for the Rafale deal to be cleared. Does that improve our situation when in comes to fighting a war/battle, considering that the Chinese can buy four J10Bs for every Rafale we purchase?

Then we come to the second argument, that there is no shortage of funds for the Tejas. Given that HAL is still waiting outside the MoD's door for an expansion of the Tejas production line, that's certainly doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In addition, the ADA has also been forced (by necessity) to be conservative when it comes to development expenditure. Its become a natural state but its not an ideal one.

There is no way to escape the co-relation between the MMRCA deal and the Tejas deal. Our funds are limited. Large expenditure on any one item will inevitably result is less being available for everything else. And in that context, the IAF has taken a very firm position on the Rafale that doesn't bode well for the Tejas program.

And if I may make a somewhat broader generationalization, the IAF's track-record when it comes to long term planning is less than stellar (the Navy in this matter is somewhat better). Delays in clearances, funding gaps etc can be chalked up to MoD mismanagement. On the other hand, the service operates an absolutely absurd variety of aircraft today, the responsibility for which lies entirely with the IAF.

rohitvats wrote:The rant part aside, can you please tell me where the IAF has 'refused' to accept the plane?

That it hasn't. However compare the support received by the LCA program to any other in world (take a look at the Rafale F1 & EF T1 which were judged acceptable for service) and the IAF comes across as a reluctant customer. And given how many MiG-21s and MiG-27s it operates today, perhaps a myopic one as well. That said, it does appear the IAF's attitude to the aircraft is changin as pressure from falling squadron numbers mounts and the govt's focus on the domestic industry improves.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jan 2015 17:04

Viv the point is that hindsight is always 20 20. None of the options that you have listed would work for a major air force. Beyond the build up of Attrition reserves.

Having said so, we are not sure that the MMRCA will be scrapped. Even though the consensus may be moving in that direction. So the question of developing a backup program does not arise till the purchase is scrapped.

The LCA is a desired platform for us on BRF. We are also thinking in terms of how to increase the numbers of Mk1. Till such time the MK2 does not come into its own.

However, no one including me, has an idea of how to increase the orders for Mk1 from the IAF. Nothing that we do or say at this time will make a difference regarding the Mk 1. Unless the defense minister decides to tell the IAf that they must order more Mk1s. But we don't know at the moment that he will do such a thing.

On a personal note, sometimes I feel that on BRF people don't really understand the political & strategic dimensions of defense planning. The non funding of a suitable engine for the HF 24 and its non succession is a classic example of that.

I realise that my post is OT to the topic at hand. But the mess in terms of strategic air power that we are in today is largely a result of the lack of political & strategic thought process.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 23 Jan 2015 17:19

1. Leaving Rafale aside. One way of surely increasing the MK1 numbers is to split the training load between Hawk AJT and LCA (may be LCA as the LIFT) and TOFTUs for the MK2.

2. Also the NLCA MK1 would be a great platform to train Ramp Launch with ARs for the Mig29 K trainees.

in the light of point 1 for IAF it would be great to increase the numbers to more than 40. Ofcourse I am sure used Surplus LCAs could be gifted to Nepal/Lanka/Mauritius/Bhutan Blah Blah and maintenance costs taken from them. I find it difficult to see how the IAF can do with just 40 MK1.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 18:13

1. Second hand Mirage 2000s from UAE & Qatar.
2. Second hand MiG-29s from Hungary.
3. Parallel negotiations for EF T1s from European states.
4. RFI for a limited off-the-shelf delivery to UAC & LM.
5. Expansion of the Su-30MKI production line.
6. Earlier acceptance of the Tejas Mk1 (i.e limited concurrency).
7. Early investment in increasing the baseline Tejas production rate. (The last one particularly rankles.)

There is a reason I had put up the IAF re-equipment plan thread – so that people could see what IAF was up against in terms of current re-equipment requirement and what will be the scenario in post 2025 period. And ensure they make their recommendations on what IAF should do basis more realistic assessment and not some fancy thoughts.

This is what you’ve done above with-out bothering to take your recommendation(s) to their logical conclusion. It’s not a video game AF you’re trying to populate here!

Second hand Mirages were sought by the IAF but the price issue stalled the deal. So, you can remove that from your angst list. And Su-30MKI production is running behind schedule; if the HAL would’ve met the agreed timeline, IAF would be under lesser pressure. But this is not exactly a major source of concern.

And what good would’ve purchasing EF T1 done considering it would happen on time which is highly unlikely given the fact that it faces all the hurdles as Rafale deal.

Coming to second hand Mig-29s part and ordering some newer ones from UAC (what would LM deliver off-the shelf?) would have meant allocating funds on programs which have relatively shorter life span as compared to long term planning and solution.

For example, your second hand Mig-29 (and even off-the-shelf MiG-29SMT) would’ve become part of the upgrade package to keep them relevant along with our original purchase. So, the cost is not in terms of original purchase but requirement for technological upgrades as well which needs to be factored. Not to mention the maintenance part – which is the reason that while IAF was OK to look at second hand Mirage-2000-5 but doesn’t want to touch Mig-29 with barge pole.

Question – where would’ve funds come for these purchases and whatever makes you believe that decision would’ve been taken on time? The problem lies with decision making process and not in planning. IAF had asked for a more reasonable solution of Mirage-2000-5 as MMRCA and had these come on time, we’ve been in a comfortable situation with respect to numbers and technology. No requirement for second hand stuff.

If second hand stuff was to be ordered, it should've been done when MMRCA first came up and had to be instead of MMRCA and not a back-up; even that decision for Mirage-2000-5 was stuck for donkey years and we landed into new MMRCA soup.

The IAF has been lobbying hard for the Rafale deal to be cleared. Does that improve our situation when in comes to fighting a war/battle, considering that the Chinese can buy four J10Bs for every Rafale we purchase?

What China can do is their strength and opportunity – what matters is how we intend to deal with the situation. When a time comes where we can field a fighter in J-10 class, we’ll also purchase it in-house and not go shopping outside. Hopefully, with coming of AMCA in 2028-2030 timeframe, this part will be addressed as well.

Then we come to the second argument, that there is no shortage of funds for the Tejas. Given that HAL is still waiting outside the MoD's door for an expansion of the Tejas production line, that's certainly doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In addition, the ADA has also been forced (by necessity) to be conservative when it comes to development expenditure. Its become a natural state but its not an ideal one.

Which part of Tejas/Tejas Mk-2 development stuck up because of shortage of funds? And why is HAL asking MOD for funds for Tejas production? Why can’t it fund the same through accruals? Last I checked, for FY 2012-13, it had PBT of ~INR 3,500 Crore. Where does this money go? Thing is, HAL behaves as a commercial entity which seeks to balance its cash-flows and returns while claiming to do everything from ‘national’ perspective.

<SNIP>

And if I may make a somewhat broader generationalization, the IAF's track-record when it comes to long term planning is less than stellar (the Navy in this matter is somewhat better). Delays in clearances, funding gaps etc can be chalked up to MoD mismanagement. On the other hand, the service operates an absolutely absurd variety of aircraft today, the responsibility for which lies entirely with the IAF. [\quote]

I’ve seen you make this statement about ‘variety’ of a/c operated before as well.

Have you ever stepped back to see what was the economic + geo-political situation and what India could afford and who would sell to India? Not to mention the typical decision making process and treatment of higher defense management in India?

Do a simple exercise for each a/c operated by India and you’ll get your answer.

That it hasn't. However compare the support received by the LCA program to any other in world (take a look at the Rafale F1 & EF T1 which were judged acceptable for service) and the IAF comes across as a reluctant customer. And given how many MiG-21s and MiG-27s it operates today, perhaps a myopic one as well. That said, it does appear the IAF's attitude to the aircraft is changin as pressure from falling squadron numbers mounts and the govt's focus on the domestic industry improves.

Air forces which accepted Rafale and EF in their nascent avatar did not have to bother with enemies and conflicts in post 1991 scenario. And they always had big brother in USA to help them out with almost everything.

Coming to your assertion about Mig-21 and Mig-27, they’re operational and fighting platforms. Tejas was not before IOC-2. So, the comparison is mute. Even if Mig-21 and Mig-27 have limited capability, they’re platforms which will go to war and do their job within acceptable limits. Not to mention that they’re part of an established chain from platform to weapons to spare parts to manpower.

You don’t yank an established system from your inventory just because you’ve a new kid on the block.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 18:26

Karan M wrote: They have had to be armtwisted thats for sure, especially at IOC-1. On the plus side, the declining squadron numbers, limited budget, and MMRCA delay mean the IAF is likely to be much more appreciative of a decent aircraft.

And what exactly did IOC-1 achieve? Apart from photo-opportunity and press-statement?

Secondly, if DRDO itself says that IAF has been on-board since 2007, then I don't think the issue is with appreciation of a/c but that of project management at DRDO and now, HAL.

You could make a case for ordering at least one or two more Tejas Mk-1 squadron. To me, here IAF simply seems to be hedging its bets about ability of HAL to meet the delivery timeline. IAF could make a case for importing more Rafale (1 more squadron) of the shelf to arrest declining numbers.

BTW - before people on BRF shout blue murder on this, this is something which is happening with Su-30 MKI as well. But guess who is ordering these a/c from Russia? Horror of horrors, it's HAL to meet the production delays in delivery!!!

TBH, I dont see much wrong with honoring Tyagi because it seems he has done an ok job of reversing HAL versus IAF acrimony on most topics (HTT-40 issue apart). Have you seen how few articles/leaks are now coming from IAF about HAL etc - they seem to be ok with HAL leadership and I guess the efforts HAL has made into meeting service demands for ALH serviceability, Su-30 MKI ROH etc (to compensate for Russian delays in parts etc) seem to have made the IAF less angry with HAL. Haven't seen this "low level" married couple fighting (HTT-40 vs IAF) as versus the earlier wife at in laws place stuff (daily leak about HAL).

Actually, even I don't

But then don't make it seem as if IAF was not accepting single a/c earlier and it was only MOD which made it do so and ergo, IAF is somehow against the LCA program. When the fact is that Parrikar had made a statement in Parliament in second week of January that 2 x Tejas (SP-1 and SP-2) will be handed over to IAF by March 2015.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 23 Jan 2015 18:37

rohitvats wrote:Which part of Tejas/Tejas Mk-2 development stuck up because of shortage of funds? And why is HAL asking MOD for funds for Tejas production? Why can’t it fund the same through accruals? Last I checked, for FY 2012-13, it had PBT of ~INR 3,500 Crore. Where does this money go? Thing is, HAL behaves as a commercial entity which seeks to balance its cash-flows and returns while claiming to do everything from ‘national’ perspective.

Lol

HAL's proposal with MoD As reported in these columns earlier, HAL had submitted a proposal to MoD for augmenting the production of Tejas from eight per year to sixteen. "We have submitted the proposal at the cost of Rs 1200 crore and are hopeful of completing the process in 30 months," an HAL director said. He said the Company is seeking no funding from government for the augmentation of Tejas series production. "We will fund 50 per cent of the total cost with the remaining 25 per cent each expected to come from the IAF and the Navy," he added.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 23 Jan 2015 18:57

HAL had submitted a proposal to MoD for augmenting the production of Tejas from eight per year to sixteen. "We have submitted the proposal at the cost of Rs 1200 crore and are hopeful of completing the process in 30 months," an HAL director said. He said the Company is seeking no funding from government for the augmentation of Tejas series production. "We will fund 50 per cent of the total cost with the remaining 25 per cent each expected to come from the IAF and the Navy," he added.

Great !!
Ready to spend 600 crore and the rest 300 crore each coming from IAF and NAVY. Till then things cannot progress for this project at HAL. Fantastic and then..

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 289_1.html

However, with the IAF blocking funding for the HTT-40, HAL was forced to commit Rs 180 crore of company funds in July 2013. In early 2014, that was upped to Rs 350 crore, with three prototypes to be built for accelerated flight-testing.

Amazing priorities !!!!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 19:09

[Self-deleted by poster]

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 23 Jan 2015 19:11

Ahh "priorities", brings back memories !!! Then

7. Customer Involvement. During the design and development process itself, it is vital that comprehensive knowledge of aviation in general and military aviation in particular is made available to the program. Scientists and design engineers do not have that knowledge. The Indian Air Force is the only repository of comprehensive military aviation knowledge in this country. Either its expertise was not sought or it was denied. Also we probably have the only aviation companies in the world that do not have aviators embedded into design teams. As a result, while the designers concentrated on getting the technology airborne, the design necessities of turning the aircraft into a maintainable, deployable and employable weapon platform were missed to a large extent. Originally a reluctant customer, the Indian Air Force involved itself sufficiently only after contracting for supply of the aircraft in 2006. It was late in the program and hundreds of ‘Requests for Action’ had to be raised in order to retrieve the situation to some extent, but this lead to time and cost overruns.

and now

However, with the IAF blocking funding for the HTT-40

Imported fighters FTW !!!

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 23 Jan 2015 19:14

[Post deleted due to security concern expressed by Seclet Selvices]

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 19:17

[Self-deleted by poster]

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 19:29

BTW - can anyone please answer the following:

1. Are SP-1 to SP-6 going to hand-build (for lack of better word) and balance to roll out from proper production line?
2. Or, has HAL established the production line completely for 40 aircraft on order?
3. And what is this 'augmentation' of production facility being talked about? There is a December 2013 Business Standard report which talks about the cost for production line for Tejas as ~1500 crore with IAF and IN pitching with 25% each. And which has been sanctioned by MOD.

So, is the production line yet to be set-up? Because unless, it is there already and IAF orders more Tejas Mk-1, what augmentation worth INR ~1,500 Crore are we taking about here?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 23 Jan 2015 19:34

[Post wajib-ul-cuttled by F 35 "Raptor"]

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 19:39

[Self-deleted by poster]

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 23 Jan 2015 19:40

rohitvats wrote:1. Are SP-1 to SP-6 going to hand-build (for lack of better word) and balance to roll out from proper production line?

The production line is already their, there was a Tarmak article for the same with pics. SP LCA's are not coming out of somebody's imagination.

rohitvats wrote:2. Or, has HAL established the production line completely for 40 aircraft on order?

Yes the existing production line at present can roll out all the 40 aircrafts on order.

rohitvats wrote:3. And what is this 'augmentation' of production facility being talked about? There is a December 2013 Business Standard report which talks about the cost for production line for Tejas as ~1500 crore with IAF and IN pitching with 25% each. And which has been sanctioned by MOD.

So, is the production line yet to be set-up? Because unless, it is there already and IAF orders more Tejas Mk-1, what augmentation worth INR ~1,500 Crore are we taking about here?

If you only care to read what has been posted

HAL's proposal with MoD As reported in these columns earlier, HAL had submitted a proposal to MoD for augmenting the production of Tejas from eight per year to sixteen.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 23 Jan 2015 19:42

[Post deleted for failing Seclet Selvice aptitudde test]

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 23 Jan 2015 19:43

rohitvats wrote:BTW - can anyone please answer the following:

1. Are SP-1 to SP-6 going to hand-build (for lack of better word) and balance to roll out from proper production line?
2. Or, has HAL established the production line completely for 40 aircraft on order?
3. And what is this 'augmentation' of production facility being talked about? There is a December 2013 Business Standard report which talks about the cost for production line for Tejas as ~1500 crore with IAF and IN pitching with 25% each. And which has been sanctioned by MOD.

So, is the production line yet to be set-up? Because unless, it is there already and IAF orders more Tejas Mk-1, what augmentation worth INR ~1,500 Crore are we taking about here?

The production line is ready, the augmentation is for increasing the capacity of production line which would require more orders from IAF. Given the dire state of squadron numbers, IAF will most probably relent. There is already talks of more trainer aircraft that might be ordered.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Jan 2015 19:44

[Self-deleted by poster]

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 23 Jan 2015 19:45

[Mijjile strike by F22 "Super Hornet"]