LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 13 Oct 2015 09:27

^^^ A word of caution / my thoughts. IDRW article is a mistake in its very idea.

Please avoid all efforts to compare Tejas to Bundar. It will negatively impact Tejas's prospect in the international market.

From what I know, the qualitative difference of Tejas vs. JF 17 is very large and very much in favour of Tejas. Make all efforts to pitch Tejas on all forums vis-a-vis Grippen, F 16 etc.

Please desist all urges of Indo - Pak equal - equal or "greater than equal".

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 13 Oct 2015 09:33

Concerned parties - the IAF, technicians working on it, our enemies and knowledgeable BRFites know it well. DDM just produce sensational articles for the majority laymen. Prospective buyers dont depend on DDMs.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 13 Oct 2015 09:37

And 2nd thing Bundar is a Chinese plane, More parts of the Jaguar and SU-30 are made in India than JF-17 in Pakistan, which is basically screw driver giri. The losers in Rafale commission are winning.

member_25400 · Post by **member_25400** » 13 Oct 2015 09:47

Wickberg wrote:All this talk about "India should not have taken such a big bite in the 1980s and trying to build a multirole fighter, it was too ambitious" I think is bollocks. What was India suppose to do?

The project was overambitious in trying to come up with engine, avionics (eg mmr) and cutting edge plane design and manufacture and integrating them all on the first shot. It's not necessarily about multi-role. It's about risk management. Spiral development could have worked better. Some of these could have been derisked by trying out first on a different platform or officially having a second option (close to interchangeable) available earlier.

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 13 Oct 2015 11:20

i am convinced hectic negotiations on the second prod line is underway. If we need 400 LCA, we need to ramp up with two lines chugging out a squadron a year each.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Oct 2015 11:21

deejay wrote:^^^ A word of caution / my thoughts. IDRW article is a mistake in its very idea.

Please avoid all efforts to compare Tejas to Bundar. It will negatively impact Tejas's prospect in the international market.

From what I know, the qualitative difference of Tejas vs. JF 17 is very large and very much in favour of Tejas. Make all efforts to pitch Tejas on all forums vis-a-vis Grippen, F 16 etc.

Please desist all urges of Indo - Pak equal - equal or "greater than equal".

+1 wrong marketing startegy will close doors for export.

Ajay Sharma wrote:Very very interesting...

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/10/a ... -line.html

A sceptical HAL unsurprisingly scoffs at the notion of a rival private sector assembly line. Senior executives point to what happened three months ago when HAL, already preoccupied with three simultaneous helicopter programmes (the light combat helicopter, light utility helicopter and weaponised Dhruv), issued a proposal offering the private sector full technology transfer to build the Dhruv advanced light helicopter in India. HAL officials say not a single private vendor accepted the challenge.

I am not surprised at all. I have held an opinion for some time now (mentioned it on this forum also long time ago) - I somehow don't see any of these big corporate house will come forth to build full assembly line for LCA. I am rather skeptical of their expertise to carry out such task or the temperament. They will at the max be junior partner to some foreign OEM doing screwdrivergiri. You need to show these big corporates not just carrot on a stick but ready-made halwa to lure them into something. Most feasible option I see is a JV of HAL with pvt player, where HAL brings in technical expertise and GoI funding and pvt player brings in project management/HR/marketing skills (and with right kind of environment innovation and agility will flourish). I also think that rather than begging to one of those big corporate houses to do something for eternity, we should focus on SMEs today thorough supply chain grooming and encouraging them for R&D in hardcore technology (academia could be brought in at multiple levels in such model). Tomorrow some of them will be our tech innovation centers in various technologies feeding to the main integrator OEMs.

Wasn't there some mention of how GoI approached private players even while LCA was in nascent stage and no one stepped up?? I vaguely remember to have read this, perhaps on BRF only. Even NAL struggled to find a partner who is ready to MFG composite parts for LCA with full technology transfer they had developed. No one came forward and finally NAL ended up making those parts for LCA!! I hope they have got someone now.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 13 Oct 2015 11:39

I am still suspicious that this is Arjun 1994. As 20 LCA IOC orders have been pushed to FOC, while 20 FOC orders have been pushed back to MK1A and LCA MK2 shifted to AMCA.

Till IAF does not accept 160 IOC std to be upgraded AFTER induction; it's all smoke & mirrors; & import of micro lights.

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 13 Oct 2015 12:30

Hindustan Times, Mumbai, October 08, page 08, carries an article IAF wants Rafale, govt backs indigeneous Tejas.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Oct 2015 15:29

Ajay Sharma wrote:Very very interesting...

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/10/a ... -line.html

As this newspaper has reported, there has been a major breakthrough in one of India’s most ambitious and expensive weapons development projects --- the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) --- with the Indian Air Force (IAF) now willing to accept 100 improved fighters. The Tejas Mark IA, as some call the improved version, will have air-to-air refuelling, improved radar, missiles to strike enemy aircraft beyond visual range and electronic jammers to blind enemy radar. For Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which is struggling to build even the first 20 fighters, the IAF’s acceptance constitutes an embarrassment of riches. Going by HAL’s current rate of assembly, delivering 120 Tejas fighters will take a decade.

The real Tejas numbers will, in fact, be well above 120. Given that the IAF has finally accepted the Tejas Mark 1A as a capable replacement for its 13 squadrons of MiG-21s and MiG-27s, it will need at least 250 Tejas fighters before the end of the decade, when the obsolescent MiGs must be retired. Furthermore, the IAF requires another 20 more Tejas Mark 1A for training. The navy, meanwhile, has declared it needs at least 56 Tejas Mark II (with more powerful engines) for its two indigenous aircraft carriers. That adds up to well above 300 Tejas fighters.

It should be obvious to planners in South Block that the Tejas cannot possibly be built in these numbers, in an acceptable time-frame, without establishing another assembly line to double the efforts of HAL’s current Tejas line in Bengaluru. This is the golden opportunity the defence ministry has been seeking for nurturing a private sector competitor to HAL. The ministry must select a private company, transfer to it the technology needed to build the Tejas, and order 150 fighters in short order.

The ministry is already attempting to build up a private sector aerospace manufacturer, but in a misconceived project. A Tata-Airbus consortium has been asked to build 56 transport aircraft to replace the IAF’s venerable Avro fleet. There are many problems with this proposal: It does not envisage building an indigenous aircraft; it makes no economic sense to set up full-scale production infrastructure, including an airfield, for just 56 aircraft; a multinational giant (Airbus) will hold disproportionate clout in the partnership, and most crucially, the Avro has never had an operational role beyond ferrying air marshals around the country. Neither will its replacement.

In contrast, a parallel Tejas production line would be a perfect launch pad for a private aerospace corporation. Unlike HAL, which has an aerospace empire sprawling across the country, a private sector aerospace entrant would per force have to develop a network of vendors and sub-vendors, upon which it would rely for systems, sub-systems and components, while reserving for itself only final integration --- assembling the parts and rolling out, inspecting and testing full-built Tejas fighters. In contrast, HAL avoids sub-vendors, keeping profits within the company by farming out manufacture to its own numerous divisions.

A parallel private sector production line would also create competition to make the Tejas cheaper. For this, the private company must be encouraged to partner an established western corporation like Saab, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin or Dassault. Many have signalled interest in partnering India; Saab had even put forward a full-scale proposal that was largely ignored in New Delhi. The chosen foreign vendor should be incentivised to bring in contemporary aerospace manufacturing technologies and best practices.

While HAL’s single production line would not meet even the IAF’s requirements, adding a parallel line would open up exports. So far, with the IAF itself unwilling to accept the Tejas, there has been little prospect of exporting this excellent fighter --- buyers usually reason, “If the home air force is not interested, why should we be?” But, with the IAF now inducting the fighter in numbers, the Tejas can establish a presence in the global light fighter market. Even at its current cost of Rs 240 crore ($40 million), which includes the aircraft, ground equipment, test equipment and spares, it is reasonably priced, given its fourth-generation configuration --- a fly-by-wire fighter, built of composite materials.

The Tejas’ current price can be lowered, given that it is currently planned and built in the most uneconomical manner possible --- with little outsourcing, an inadequate assembly line and orders placed in penny-packets, which eliminates economy of scale. Instead of this, working on an assured order of 100-150 aircraft, with a vendor chain developed deliberately, and the incorporation of international best practices in assembly, would lower the Tejas’ cost substantially. This would boost the prospect of export, especially when backed by an international vendor’s marketing expertise and global marketing chains. This prospect of global export would be an added attraction for international vendors.

In sum, bringing in a private sector company to establish a parallel production line for the Tejas would do more than just create an aerospace alternative. It would also ensure the Tejas is inducted into IAF service at least twice as fast, filling up a worrying operational gap. Second, global standards and best practices would come into domestic aerospace manufacture. Third, modern assembly lines and competition would drive down the cost of the Tejas, benefiting the IAF as well as export prospects. Finally, the entry of the private sector into aerospace would spread dynamism and flexibility across the industry.

There are difficulties too, and the first is to select a private company that would benefit enormously from government largesse --- including access to airfield infrastructure, since demanding that the company establishes its own would raise the cost of entry unrealistically. Given the cutthroat competition between private sector aspirants in defence, the ministry would need a clear and transparent formula for selecting a winner, one that could withstand inevitably bitter scrutiny from the losers. This would naturally involve assessments of financial health, track records in manufacture, core areas of expertise, and past delivery records. Competition will be intense, given that the ministry would be giving the winner a leg-up into the ranks of global aerospace manufacturers, just as it spent taxpayer billions to make HAL what it is today. A clear public rationale will have to justify the decision.

A sceptical HAL unsurprisingly scoffs at the notion of a rival private sector assembly line. Senior executives point to what happened three months ago when HAL, already preoccupied with three simultaneous helicopter programmes (the light combat helicopter, light utility helicopter and weaponised Dhruv), issued a proposal offering the private sector full technology transfer to build the Dhruv advanced light helicopter in India. HAL officials say not a single private vendor accepted the challenge.

HAL also points out that the private sector Tejas line would run for, say, a decade, but the company would have to logistically support the fighter for the next thirty years. This is true, even if it betrays an unreasonable suspicion of the private sector that has a reasonable record of supporting products. What is true, though, is that if the private sector fails to respond to an invitation to build the Tejas, or does not support the fighter through its service life, this would be a black mark forever.

While the premise of privatization is right, the approach suggested by Shukla is wrong. These big conglomerates waiting on the sidelines waiting for government handout helping one of them get all setup almost "free-of-charge". It will just be another monopolistic player, who regardless of being private/public will spiral into the same decreasing performance and increasing price trap because of no competition. Better approach would be to slowly build up capability and capacity in the private sector by helping them move from Tier-3 to Tier-1 aerospace suppliers, who can build entire components like the fuselage or wings. This way you can create multiple Tier-1 suppliers, who can not only supply to Indian requirements but also compete for supplying components to foreign aerospace projects. Eventually, some of them would graduate into a true vertical integrator with their own full fledged assembly lines. It will take time ,but IMO, it would be a better approach than just trying to stand-up a "private HAL-like" entity.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 13 Oct 2015 15:38

barath_s wrote:
Wickberg wrote:All this talk about "India should not have taken such a big bite in the 1980s and trying to build a multirole fighter, it was too ambitious" I think is bollocks. What was India suppose to do?
The project was overambitious in trying to come up with engine, avionics (eg mmr) and cutting edge plane design and manufacture and integrating them all on the first shot. It's not necessarily about multi-role. It's about risk management. Spiral development could have worked better. Some of these could have been derisked by trying out first on a different platform or officially having a second option (close to interchangeable) available earlier.

I can agree on the engine part, but the rest, nahh. Every new fighter that comes out should be expected to have an cutting edge design and the newest super-duper radar. Some fool here tried to lie and claim that Volvo Aero just assembled the RM12 engines from GE404. Well, we all know that is´nt true. The RM12 contains over 60% patented changes that were, and still are, invented and produced by Volvo. Infact the whole engine is produced by Volvo Aero and is constructed in Sweden. Volvo Aero also produces and assmbles a whole lot of jet engines from different companies to the civilian market, perhaps that fool had made that mistake. Confusing Volvo Aero RM12 to the whole operation. BTW, the RM12 is the basis of GE414 wich is a 50/50 collaboration between Volvo Aero and GE.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 13 Oct 2015 15:59

DDM has managed to drag down Tejas to comparison with JF-17!

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Oct 2015 16:06

JTull wrote:DDM has managed to drag down Tejas to comparison with JF-17!

Not only that. The idea being thrown around is that only the Mk1A would be superior with a bunch of "fixes". The whole "obsolete" wording has caught on for Mk.1. DDMs are pretty effective at throwing labels that stick like a leech.

vinod · Post by **vinod** » 13 Oct 2015 16:49

Ajay Sharma wrote:Very very interesting...

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/10/a ... -line.html

There are difficulties too, and the first is to select a private company that would benefit enormously from government largesse --- including access to airfield infrastructure, since demanding that the company establishes its own would raise the cost of entry unrealistically. Given the cutthroat competition between private sector aspirants in defence, the ministry would need a clear and transparent formula for selecting a winner, one that could withstand inevitably bitter scrutiny from the losers. This would naturally involve assessments of financial health, track records in manufacture, core areas of expertise, and past delivery records. Competition will be intense, given that the ministry would be giving the winner a leg-up into the ranks of global aerospace manufacturers, just as it spent taxpayer billions to make HAL what it is today. A clear public rationale will have to justify the decision.

Why does it have to be a single company? If I were DM, this is what I would do.
1. Get the private companies competing to win this deal.
2. Now, for the twist, select all the companies who would bring something to the table. That is, create a new company, which will have all these companies as shareholders. Hopefully, limit to 3 or 4. Thus, each don't have to risk all their money but get a piece of action as well. They all bring their expertise, their contacts will useful when exporting or selecting a foreign vendor. Hopefully, not much of crab mentality from the sulking losers. Enough motivation or in other words money invested, so that they all work towards making the company successful.
3. As sweetener, if required, Increase the orders for LCA or give tax breaks etc..

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Oct 2015 17:27

Get a private sector consortium to built it instead of one single company with a foreign JV. Each member can then partner with an international partner to help them out in their particular area. And when it comes to the AMCA production line or even the pakfa production line, we'd have someone who can share and run decent numbers. Heck, these guys could probably market the LCA better for exports than a politically hamstrung HAL.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Oct 2015 17:29

Private sector basically wants zero risk and mucho $$. In short, complex programs like LCA, Arjun etc where they will have to do design and development support are not their interest area. Arty or other programs where they can get 90% TOT and do "localization" is what they want.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Oct 2015 18:00

Sorry for spoiling the party,but this looks alike a re-run of APJAK's "200 LCAs by 2010" statement made in 2003. No pvt. entity will want to play second fiddle to HAL,well knowing the immense clout that the DPSU's have with babudom. They will never take the risk of being short-changed by HAL ,and being made to run behind HAL for everything. Suspicion will be uppermost that if they do embark upon such a venture,HAL/Babudom might sabotage the same in order to prove that the pvt. industry cannot handle sophisticated weapons production. Pvt industry will only succeed if they have a firang partner in a JV like the BMos JV.

Neither will HAL by any stretch of the imagination deliver 50 LCAs/yr! In fact their current prod rate is that fig. ,a single digit minus the zero. If the good Lord above spares me till 2020,I will be able to say for the umpteenth time,"I told you so".One has been waiting from the last century for the arrival in sqd. form of the LCA.

Anyway,a huge positive has at last been achieved.Let's celebrate the IAF joining the LCA party and ordering 100+,but it is now upto HAL to deliver.Unless the MOD/DM threaten to pour some "Putin" poison down the throats of those who fail to deliver,or perhaps drop one of them onto HAL without a parachute,our poor Bisons may have to yet again be refurbished come 2020!

Yes,one is confident that the LCA will paste the Sino-Paki bird in combat,but the chief's statement about needing another 6 "Rafale like sqds" will continue to reverberate from time to time like a metronome,esp. if the LCA Mk-1/1A prod. keeps falling behind schedules. One note to ponder upon.The LCA's cost is now given as $40M.Not too long ago it was touted as being in the region of $25M.It is now costlier than a MIG-29. Let's see where this is leading. How come the sudden large increase?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Oct 2015 18:17

Do not know how many need to be produced. But this behavior by the DPSU and private companies is exactly like that of Dassault with the Rafale: no risk + lots of great returns. If it did not work with Dassault, then it should not with Indian companies, private or public.

srin · Post by **srin** » 13 Oct 2015 18:17

I recall from a statement from ADA (maybe one of the old Aero India seminars from Capt Maolankar ?) that ADA has learnt that the right way was to have started with Navy version first and then the AF version.

My guess is that once the LCA Navy Mk2 happens with all the benefits of Mk-1A, the IAF will immediately jump on to it.

srin · Post by **srin** » 13 Oct 2015 18:22

The Indian private sector hasn't typically shown an appetite for risk. The big businessmen typically turn into beggars, pleading for tax deductions, increased import duties and lower interest rates. Funding too is by public banks - they benefit if a venture succeeds and public pays (NPA writeoff) if it fails.

But that isn't the big challenge. We need to have regulation regarding defence technology - background checks for everyone, strict isolation of classified data etc. We just aren't geared up for that.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Oct 2015 18:27

NRao wrote:Do not know how many need to be produced. But this behavior by the DPSU and private companies is exactly like that of Dassault with the Rafale: no risk + lots of great returns. If it did not work with Dassault, then it should not with Indian companies, private or public.

With Publicly traded corporations you balance the risk with a margin as is done globally. If you want them to take a lot of risk then they have to be able to go to their investors and shareholders and show a clear path to tangible returns on the other side of that risk. The chance of failure is then offset by the high rewards of succeeding. If you expect them to take as much risk as PSU, regardless you will have to bail them out when they do fail. Its an arrangement the MOD will have to develop over the next many years. In the US there are several examples for example where some politician forced industry to take a lot of risk which generally translates to going to the capital market and raising money (incurring debt) and then without a tangible path to recover that money through a higher profit margin. This has had disastrous affect on the overall health of the MIC at times leading to a blanket BAN by the Congress on fixed price development contracts for anything above a threshold of complexity. Shareholders would obviously not like that arrangement because well there is a risk appetite and if higher risk does not translate to higher profit then its quite a poor proposition. There is good reason to let government develop the risky products through bodies like the ADA and let industry produce them, and when the industry is mature enough, development can also occur at their end where the risk is mitigated through a cost plus like incentive in the development phase as is the case in all MICs where there is corporate participation. If you go too early with development then you would essentially have treat the immature private companies like a PSU (handholding) which would sort of defeat the purpose. Give them production, and a clear path over the next 10-15 years as to what capability they should develop in the design and development portion and they can develop strategies to develop or acquire that capacity.

Another advantage of a shared developmental risk with industry is that it lets smaller and less diversified firms be competitive against the larger corporates when it comes to design and innovation. There may be a small player out there that has tremendous amounts of talent and design expertise but a fixed price "you assume the financial risk in design and development" effectively rules them out as they cannot absorb as much risk vs say a Reliance or a Tata.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Oct 2015 18:57

Wickberg wrote: I can agree on the engine part, but the rest, nahh. Every new fighter that comes out should be expected to have an cutting edge design and the newest super-duper radar. Some fool here tried to lie and claim that Volvo Aero just assembled the RM12 engines from GE404. Well, we all know that is´nt true. The RM12 contains over 60% patented changes that were, and still are, invented and produced by Volvo. Infact the whole engine is produced by Volvo Aero and is constructed in Sweden. Volvo Aero also produces and assmbles a whole lot of jet engines from different companies to the civilian market, perhaps that fool had made that mistake. Confusing Volvo Aero RM12 to the whole operation. BTW, the RM12 is the basis of GE414 wich is a 50/50 collaboration between Volvo Aero and GE.

That fool and lier would be me.

I don't think even GKN (no Volvo aero anymore, bought by GKN UK - I hope you know that) Marketing head could not have done a better pitch for their portfolio than you did. Good for you. Keep trolling.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Oct 2015 19:11

Every new fighter that comes out should be expected to have an cutting edge design and the newest super-duper radar.

Why then is the Gripen only getting an AESA something like 20 years after the first example was operationalized?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Oct 2015 19:21

sometimes we have to consider HAL in terms of moving mountains. if private is not interested to move forward, move HAL towards privitization! that would shackle the hackles from nutz&boltz to get them focus on concurrent engineering to integration problems all done in a fashion as required by IAF and driven straight outta PMO/DoM. they need a kick too!

vina · Post by **vina** » 13 Oct 2015 19:26

Every new fighter that comes out should be expected to have an cutting edge design and the newest super-duper radar

The Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen still dont field "super duper" AESA radars in service! The Rafale is farthest along the curve in that with the Eurofighter (with the largest number of fielded airframes of the three) bringing up the rear.

RM12 / Volvo version of the GE F404 , is a joke if someone calls it a Volvo design, sort of like Pakistan putting on a coat of green paint (the paint is imported too) on stuff imported from China and calling it Pakistani.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Oct 2015 19:31

The Rafale has an AESA operational although the last I checked less than a fourth of the fleet had received it. The Typhoon should get it in the next few years, while the Gripen would be the last Euro-Canard to get it when the E variant declares IOC sometime in the early 2020's. The best part about the Gripen and SAAB is their marketing where constant efforts are made to show that the Gripen C and E can replace any type ranging from the F-15E to the F-16A ( Facts be damned) when the aircraft, which is an excellent light-medium class fighter (C and E) is essentially a modern day F-5 (especially the C) and that is reflected in their business plan, and even the marketing material/strategy if one were to go back and look at some of the strategies Northrop employed to push the F-5.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Oct 2015 19:45

Philip, The better option is to fund a second LCA assembly line in HAL.
A new player will lead to pissing contest as they don't own the design.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Oct 2015 20:18

vina wrote:
Every new fighter that comes out should be expected to have an cutting edge design and the newest super-duper radar
The Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen still dont field "super duper" AESA radars in service! The Rafale is farthest along the curve in that with the Eurofighter (with the largest number of fielded airframes of the three) bringing up the rear.

RM12 / Volvo version of the GE F404 , is a joke if someone calls it a Volvo design, sort of like Pakistan putting on a coat of green paint (the paint is imported too) on stuff imported from China and calling it Pakistani.

India did not buy the Viggen because the US refused permission to the Swedes to export the engine to India. The claim about X% patented parts reminds me of the fact that if you add one drop of water to piss, it remains piss; but if you add a drop of piss to water, it becomes piss, not water. Even 99% of an engine being "indigenous Swedish" is worthless to India if the other 1% can be sanctioned.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Oct 2015 20:24

Just had a thought.

If an Indian private company does a deal with a western country to set up a plane manufacturing plant in India, the process, as I see it would be as follows:

The Indian company would produce the land and the buildings. Consultants from the Western company would be hired or deputed to select and ship the required machinery. Workers hired for the Indian company would be sent for training to the OEM. Initially the assembly line would be screwdriver tech, with parts from the OEM, but later there would be in house building.

Now if HAL were to do that in India they too would have to do exactly the same thing. Replace "western co" with HAL but the process wold have to be similar.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Oct 2015 20:34

nileshjr wrote: That fool and lier would be me.

vina wrote: ...

Add me to this list of fools please!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Oct 2015 20:38

shiv wrote:Just had a thought.

If an Indian private company does a deal with a western country to set up a plane manufacturing plant in India, the process, as I see it would be as follows:

The Indian company would produce the land and the buildings. Consultants from the Western company would be hired or deputed to select and ship the required machinery. Workers hired for the Indian company would be sent for training to the OEM. Initially the assembly line would be screwdriver tech, with parts from the OEM, but later there would be in house building.

Now if HAL were to do that in India they too would have to do exactly the same thing. Replace "western co" with HAL but the process wold have to be similar.

Somewhat close. HAL and the like have not been able to mitigate risks to the extent foreign companies have. But, that is to be expected and that dimension has to be absorbed for a higher goal.

Thus far the people of India have carried that risk.

The issue here is getting 200 LCA 1A. Focus on that and not on the risks it carries. (No need for lectures on share holders, etc. That is well understood.)

Focus on the risks and nothing will get done. Everything will go back to HAL, people will carry risk and another 20 years will slide. No MIC after that.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Oct 2015 20:49

I think the problem is HAL unable to keep schedule. from jigs, assembly lines on module/LRU-dependency management to testing and integration. it is a big task for them with current setup. It is not rocket science to get them to working order just using some concurrency, task management and queuing theory.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Oct 2015 21:14

nileshjr wrote:
Wickberg wrote: I can agree on the engine part, but the rest, nahh. Every new fighter that comes out should be expected to have an cutting edge design and the newest super-duper radar. Some fool here tried to lie and claim that Volvo Aero just assembled the RM12 engines from GE404. Well, we all know that is´nt true. The RM12 contains over 60% patented changes that were, and still are, invented and produced by Volvo. Infact the whole engine is produced by Volvo Aero and is constructed in Sweden. Volvo Aero also produces and assmbles a whole lot of jet engines from different companies to the civilian market, perhaps that fool had made that mistake. Confusing Volvo Aero RM12 to the whole operation. BTW, the RM12 is the basis of GE414 wich is a 50/50 collaboration between Volvo Aero and GE.

That fool and lier would be me.

I don't think even GKN (no Volvo aero anymore, bought by GKN UK - I hope you know that) Marketing head could not have done a better pitch for their portfolio than you did. Good for you. Keep trolling.

I cant resist this.
LCA vs Gripen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoV-Xx3B8NM

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Oct 2015 21:28

If you want private sector to contribute towards a second production line by providing parts like airbus outsourcing plane parts to china, that shuold be possible too right? Get somebody to build the composite wing, another to build landing gear and the tail etc etc. Get a couple of companies to get autoclaves and if we get production rate to 24/yr, we'll end up with 200 Mk1/1As in ten years. And as and when we get the mk2, switch over to that. And when AMCA comes along, some private company might want to take up an entire line all by itself.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Oct 2015 21:35

Prasad,
Do you know how specialized those autoclaves are and who is going to invest in them?
Also HAL and the aviation industry is woefully underfunded by MoD. Barely sufficient to be alive.
Same with DRDO/ADA.

Funding is sufficient to keep the indigenous flag flying but not enough tot make a difference.

Time to get to root cause.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Oct 2015 21:47

They should ask for more funds! openly and clear

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 13 Oct 2015 21:53

sorry for my ignorance, if Reliance can bid for katrina production why cant they step forward for tejas production ?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 13 Oct 2015 21:57

suryag wrote:sorry for my ignorance, if Reliance can bid for katrina production why cant they step forward for tejas production ?

Good question. Seems like all "keen" kumars for Katrina have developed cold feet for Tejas.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Oct 2015 22:04

Yes I do know autoclaves are highly specialised, you need people who can do the whole composite manufacturing thing. But, I am sure given that we had so many companies ready to jump in, it could be done. Yes, funding is lacking but this way you can get the private companies to find a part of the funding on their own.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Oct 2015 22:06

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=_5v ... J3&f=false

The Ge404IN20 on the LCA SP/Mk1A stated as being upto 89Kn. A fair bit up from the "thrust class" of 84 Kn mentioned by GE:
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/ ... Family.pdf

The latest reports indicate upto 3 more years available for Mk1A. Other reports note the LCA Navy may be leveraged.

Makes me think the following changes may be part of it. At least I hope so!!
- Levcons (CEMILAC reports investigation for better STR)
- Fuselage plug (wave drag reduction)
- Optimized pylons (drag reduction)
- More fuel possible (if fuselage plus is used)
- New LRUs (DFCC, FC etc)
- AESA radar + Mk2 avionics fit

Might turn out to be a rocket.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Oct 2015 22:17

^^^that is because, katrina masters were interested in Reliance being their bonded slaves, as Reliance themselves have no clue in management, engineering nor developing precision-safety-critical- systems like an advanced fighter jet. HAL has matured in many respects, but Reliance has not. They need solid backing and back scratching., and Dassault is more than willing because they have the controls., and can tame Reliance to dance to their tunes. with HAL, the maturity speaks.

Reliance is just a puppy! while with HAL, it is funds and process-change lethargy to an extent (later is correctable). Dassault refused to share technology due to this reason that HAL can easily take it while Reliance will struggle thru, and be always dependable. HAL, will bend time and light to do it in its own pace, and still pay their low salaries. Reliance can't afford that nor is capable to deliver given the complexity of the product.