LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Shreeman » 16 Jan 2016 19:09

The raffle is a replacement for the 2000 for spreading budhhist smiles. The 2000s are getting long in the tooth. Their leather seats are probably worn out. They are being traded in, so to speak, for the newer model. It is not just baki army that is famous for holding keys. No service will give up the extremely lucrative, most prestigious, best paying, and entirely financial disaster proof role of spreading smiles once it gets it. Even less of a chance if a sister branch has it. This is why you have OPVs lugging ballistic projectiles while all terrain vehicles are being tested underwater.

The rest of it is visible to anyone with half a screw still in. Even if the rest are missing. But greed gets in the way.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 16 Jan 2016 20:42

The 2000's will be around for a long while to come both with that gold plated upgrade and also:

http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=62

HAL on Jaguar



HAL’s ‘Overhaul Division’ is the approved repair agency for carrying out all major servicing of Jaguar aircraft and its engines, components and systems. At the time of visit, about 10 airframes of all the three versions Interdiction-Strike (IS), two-seat Trainer (IB) and Maritime-Strike (IM) were undergoing major servicing and upgrading, shown in different stages of disassembly. HAL technicians said the company already has indeginised about 520 items into the original Jaguar-IS, including the spoiler mechanical block, throttle box, front/rear canopy frame, excitation/demodulation unit, bottom panels and canopy beams.

Only each 5th airframe is reportedly showing issues of fatique or cracks, when they are inspected about every 10 years. That is seen as “an encouraging fact, given the stresses of mainly low-level work they are used in” a shop-manager underlined to ACIG. Not stressed beyond 8g with a design maximum of 12g, airframe-life was originally calculated at 3.000 hours for single-seaters and 6.000 for two-seaters. “Therefore it makes truly sense to invest in further improving and upgrading of the Shamsher”, the engineer said.

HAL on Mirage 2000

Now over 20 years old, all Mirage 2000s airframes like the six present on Feb. 7th were explained to ACIG as already in their second inspection- and overhaul cycles. The two operating sqdns. at Gwalior would usually send the fighters to HAL every 12 years or 2000 flying-hours, but so far all IAF Mirage 2000s have undergone overhaul and modernisations only after the calendar, not because of reaching 2000 hours.

HAL’s shop-personnel was proudly pointing to the fact, that even in the second cycle, “pratically no fatique or cracks are discovered in the very robust blended delta-structure, not the same case in the Jaguar-fleet for example.”

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 16 Jan 2016 20:45

There is a truth that nuclear deterrence role opens up purse strings, but IMO its not the real reason for the Rafale acquisition, which was to cover up the serviceability issues during UPA with Su-30MKI. With Parrikar's pressure on Russia and Sukhoi (plus HAL) for resolving this issue, the situation will hopefully improve.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Shreeman » 16 Jan 2016 20:53

karan,

the "widow maker" argument as you note, down to availability, is a manufactured myth to suit certain suppliers. Manufactured at the cost of many lives, yes.

Availability alone would not have opened the purse raffle wide. It had to be the valentine gift and roses wide for raffy, and that comes with only the french. Who are also conveniently reliable about a lot of other things, commissions included. But raffy is a seaparate matter, not relevant here.

Relevant is why there arent dozens of LCAs parked built waiting for FOC, the way IJTs are with that inferior roosi engine. If the problems were resolved, the ijts would magically be delivered practically overnight. There is no news that they have idled the line or stopped buying engines.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 16 Jan 2016 21:04

These along with the 36 (hopefully 50-70 odd later) Rafales will end up being the heart of the IAF. Hopefully the increased serviceability of the Su-30s will also be implemented asap.
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/the-mira ... ter-749715

Right now at 200 odd airframes, we have around six full squadrons of the Su-30 @ 60% serviceability.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 16 Jan 2016 21:09

Shreeman wrote:karan,

the "widow maker" argument as you note, down to availability, is a manufactured myth to suit certain suppliers. Manufactured at the cost of many lives, yes.

Availability alone would not have opened the purse raffle wide. It had to be the valentine gift and roses wide for raffy, and that comes with only the french. Who are also conveniently reliable about a lot of other things, commissions included. But raffy is a seaparate matter, not relevant here.

Relevant is why there arent dozens of LCAs parked built waiting for FOC, the way IJTs are with that inferior roosi engine. If the problems were resolved, the ijts would magically be delivered practically overnight. There is no news that they have idled the line or stopped buying engines.


Shreeman, i consider bribes to have been a given as far as previous admin was concerned. Thoroughly, 3rd rate, compromised turds led by a sycophant who wanted to hold on to power at all costs. Only kept in power to be robot-robot, yes ma'am, yes ma'am.

Hence zero progress on Su-30 serviceability or general disinterest would aid procurement of Rafale.

Having said that, IAF folks who would be unable to figure out why no pressure was maintained on the other greedy lumpkins at Sukhoi (who were busy salivating at Su-35 and FGFA sales while ignoring their existing customers) would push even more for Rafale.

Plus, imported fancy gear>>> than Tejas, which too was having a "go slow".

IAF wants prepackaged everything fixed solutions. Missiles, gizmos all working and fine without having teething issues. Rafale promised that.

At any rate, NOW, the Su-30 serviceability issue is getting the attention it deserves (per all reports, it is) reducing the pressure for a new Rafale. Which is buying new stuff without even fixing the previous gear.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54168
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2016 21:47

I think there is no signal passing from the aircraft to the Bomb. Hence all these aircraft are being talked about as delivery vehicles.

So any plane will do.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3297
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby fanne » 16 Jan 2016 22:14

Within BR only there was once a breakdown on maintenance cost of 67 Mig 29 and 51 Mirage 2000. The absolute number (from memory) for Mirages were 3x that of Mig 29. With that kind of money and differential, M2000 got to be more serviceable. I wonder if the story with SU30MKI is (on maintenance front) that not enough capital is spent on keeping inventory of necessary items, say something like 1000 Crore (worth 2.5 su 30mki). This investment of 1000 crore may increase availability by even 10%, that is availability of 20 SU30MKI at the cost of 2.5.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Shreeman » 16 Jan 2016 22:53

ramana wrote:I think there is no signal passing from the aircraft to the Bomb. Hence all these aircraft are being talked about as delivery vehicles.

So any plane will do.


ramana,

I suspect in the case of rose bouquets this may actually be true or who knows what latent worm in which release software prevents something from delivery. It probably identifies itself as a routine dumb gainda garland, dias beautification material for speech by vip. if attached, delivery is by button press only. nothing is crossing the borders without being armed to be applied to the stage and dias. safety checks are oprobably flight altitude and time, release arming, and who knows gps programming and what not. but not anything from a furrin targeting device. eVen f16s are just tossing them onlee.

while any platform will do, survivability and availability are probably top of the list for defenders that will come up to meet the speaking party. the vip probably travels in a convoy, identical cars and everything. Even so, the PM still wants the bullet proof BMW. That is the raffle, every other platform may be a lottery for availability and reliability.

The reason 2000s were SO available is just this. purse wide open so flowers remain fresh and ready. If 29s had the legs to do it they too would have had the availability. When 29ks get around to it, that subset of 29ks will take the overall availability of 29ks to 2000 levels. If OPVs are carrying around earth-loads, you can bet there is a ton or two spare among the 40,000 tons for this to happen eventually. Its a matter of operationalization of doctrine. Takes time until the russians are not hand holding.

But the broader point stands. For a single engine plane, where liMited articles are being imported at trickle rates now, why would availability ever be great? The 404s and 414s will long be out of fashion. No one expeCts GE to be making 4-8 414IN of limited thrust 10 years down the line. The same statistics will remain a stick for harassers to use.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4207
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Jan 2016 22:56

Fanne, as said earlier IAF is hot for rafale for two reasons...the mki/russia is not reliable enough ....nothing india can do if oem and mama bear doesn't play ball, which is what I feel anymore, the relationship with roos is at a nadir. And scm, parts support wise it always sucked. Second, IAF needs something totally ready...to deal with Chinese numbers and increasing tech prowess...only the rafale cuts it imvho. Yes, the jsf is remotely possible, but the iaf can't a) wait and b) trust the supplier what with all the acronyms that need sign off with the added question of their infamous whimsical decision making.

Only the rafale cuts the bill...its performance is exceptional and it has certain esoteric capabilities that provide it a decent chance. Two, the supplier is reliable in terms of supply chain and also politically, where both rissia and the us fall behind. It might cost a fortune, but the iaf can build a reliable fleet in time..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 16 Jan 2016 23:17

There is no guarantee the Rafale will be some magic bullet for serviceability either. Its expensive and hopefully, we won't have the corrupt curs of the progressive gang who ran the country did this.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... groundings

At the end of the day only your own programs wherein you can hold the people in charge responsible (hopefully) can deliver.

Unfortunately, even in the first budget, the morons at MOD basically cut the Revenue Budget.
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 047_1.html

This after the AF took a forthright stand.
http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defe ... ence_8.pdf

The representatives of Air Force informed the Committee that impact of shortfall in
Revenue Budget would lead to inability to support requisite spares and fuel procurement,
shortfall in training, affecting serviceability -older systems require more maintenance,
resulting in compromise of operational preparedness and expenditure for Humanitarian
Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) missions (Uttrakhand, J&K Floods) & General
Elections, thereby adding further pressure on already stretched resources.


Thereafter, in a reply to the Standing Committee of Defense, the MOD replied it had now applied to the MOF to increase the Revenue Budget to the proper levels. That was clearly the impact after Parrikar came in & realized what was going on.

The Ministry in its Action Taken Reply has stated as under :
-
'The requirement for additional funds under the revenue budget has been projected to
the Ministry of Finance.
Last edited by Karan M on 16 Jan 2016 23:25, edited 1 time in total.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nirav » 16 Jan 2016 23:19

CT : could IAF hots for French maal, be it mirage 2k or rafale have anything to do with frenchie mijjiles ?
The M2000 upg deal had a wild price for their mijjiles ... 9 billion tag could possibly include armament for the rafales..

200+ mil for rafale otherwise doesn't make any sense ..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 16 Jan 2016 23:29

^^ Imported weapons and systems are expensive.

IAF/IA/IN are desparate for the next big thing and project huge capex. The GOI then limits revenue expenditure. Of course, much money to be made via imports in years past under the grounds of "ZOMG sky is falling we need this now" as versus fixing what was already inducted.

The imports languish with reduced serviceability, due to design flaws, OEM disinterest and IAF/IA/IN lack of budgeting for keeping adequate spares (let alone for increased turnover for flawed designs).

This GOI has its task cut out to impose sanity on the system.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2217
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 17 Jan 2016 02:54

$25-30 million per LCA vs $250 million per Rafale. That means for 2 squadrons $4.5 billion or $ 45 billion for 25 squadrons. Or with LCA $11 billion approx. Since we don't have 45 billion, and IAF will not allow LCA in numbers, we will ever be able to deploy overwhelming force against Pakis or the Chinese.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8049
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2016 03:19

It is unfair to say that the RAfale costs 250 million dollar a plane vs the Tejas 25-30 million. We do not know what the Rafale package entails. I think the flyaway cost of single plane is between 80-100 million. However, I am ready to agree that at least 3-4 Tejas-es can be built and maintained at the same level of readiness as a single Rafale.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8049
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2016 03:26

I will also wager some money to say that if the same amount of money and effort is poured in, even the Su-30s will have an availability of above 70. And now, that there is no ToT involved with the Rafales, I have a hard time understanding that there is no plan B. Unless, it means that we don't want to antagonize the French!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Jan 2016 03:41

High availability of teh Su-30s and some extra funding for fixing niggles will actually obviate the need for the token force of Rafales..they really don't make sense unless we take at least some 72...4 squadrons worth, but for the same cost, how many more PGM, Tejas, and SAMs can we buy...!! Thats the other question.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Shreeman » 17 Jan 2016 06:27

Karan M wrote:High availability of teh Su-30s and some extra funding for fixing niggles will actually obviate the need for the token force of Rafales..they really don't make sense unless we take at least some 72...4 squadrons worth, but for the same cost, how many more PGM, Tejas, and SAMs can we buy...!! Thats the other question.


Karan,

It is a reasonable line of thought but for the raffle thread, so this is my last 2c on raffle here. Contemplate the 2000. What did it really do? An unprepared ungainly role around 98-99. Why the criticism? Because the fault lay in the doctrine re. PGMs at the time. They werent the weapon of choice, but last resort.

Now 15+ years later, if you can again be fooled and surprised then raffy isnt going to help you. So 1 airbase or 4, a non upgradable foreign platform (the 2000s went how many years waiting for one?) will fall out of fashion just like that. And the four fathers will counter balance. So we will remain in the present, forever.

An engine and a platform from home is the solution. One that evolves as needed and doesnt need the babus to run marathons for every minor bell and whistle. The staple has to be home cooked.

Now for the garnish, raffy serves the purpose. But I posit that any conflict where garnish plays a role the balliatics enter first. And that is not a predictable scenario.

So raffy is a. token for items not on the sales receipt, or b. homage to the french to keep on the right side of otherbarguments. A tax, so to speak.

member_29294
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29294 » 17 Jan 2016 08:04

I think what a lot of people here are forgetting that these 36 Raffles might be for N. Bomb delivery.

Raffles can fly very low to the ground, have low observance on radar, and have a good EW survival suite. This makes them very, very good Bomb delivery vehicles for a country that doesn't have plans for a dedicated stealth and strategic bomber like Amerikhan.

It would also explain the high price and obsession with giving them high availability and maintenance.


HAL and DRDO really need to speed up the AMCA prototypes though, I remember hearing about timeline by 2019 although I hope we can get at least 1 flying by late 2017 with interim F414 engine. Once those are here and flying with true 5th generation features IAF can't get from a Raffle, then I suspect they will quickly change their tune for larger Raffle orders. My main suspicion about why IAF is so determined to import foreign fighters it due to perceived poor support by HAL, and their military air drills with NATO countries where they have been starstruck by inter-operability between NATO jets and their sensor fusion with many other subsystems like ground radars and AWACS.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 17 Jan 2016 08:19

Why are we talking about Rafales and Su 30s on the LCA thread?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11203
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 17 Jan 2016 08:21

LCA for export is going to be a difficult proposition.
India does not make any weaponsystems except dumb bombs. The radar is israeli, the engine is american.
The BVR missile is israeli or russian - it is going to be difficult to find buyers for a system with so many varied sources.
I mean this all works out for the IAF for the time being, but for a middle eastern and an african and a SE asian nation? Difficult to manage.

China OTOH prolly offers a full range of weapon systems with the Bunders, still can't buyers, because it is such a crappy product.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2016 09:22

if we are to depend on manned bomb delivery game over

that zomg scam to push import is stale and exposed. you want delivery pay for 100 agni5.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hobbes » 17 Jan 2016 09:27

From Anantha Krishnan at OneIndia:

Tejas begins practice sorties at Sakhir Airbase in Bahrain

Great photo:
Image

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hobbes » 17 Jan 2016 09:50

Not sure if this was posted earlier:

IDN TAKE: UTTAM AESA Radar Progressing Well

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8049
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2016 11:19

Hobbes wrote:From Anantha Krishnan at OneIndia:

Tejas begins practice sorties at Sakhir Airbase in Bahrain

Great photo:
Image

It is from AI-15.

member_29294
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29294 » 17 Jan 2016 11:42

Gagan wrote:LCA for export is going to be a difficult proposition.
India does not make any weaponsystems except dumb bombs. The radar is israeli, the engine is american.
The BVR missile is israeli or russian - it is going to be difficult to find buyers for a system with so many varied sources.
I mean this all works out for the IAF for the time being, but for a middle eastern and an african and a SE asian nation? Difficult to manage.

China OTOH prolly offers a full range of weapon systems with the Bunders, still can't buyers, because it is such a crappy product.

Sweden does not make a whole lot of weapons for the Gripen either, just a lone anti-ship missile. Nor do they provide the AESA radar or the engines. Yet Saab has exported Gripen to many countries.

In the future India could offer UTTAM radar, Astra missiles, Brahmos (Permission of Russia), Helina, and Nirbhay cruise missiles. A few other missiles could be developed such as bunker busters, India has such capabilities, just not in priority right now.

What makes LCA export hard is bad reputation of HAL, our presstitue media tarnishing reputation of Desi products, and our own Air Force's reluctance to accept them. More than anything, IAF's attitude with regards to the whole project seems to be the biggest setback to LCA after the indigenous engines.

Privatization of HAL will probably be the only thing that will make them an export player. Government-owned entity will never be a major exporter due to inefficiency, just look at OFB vs Ashok Leyland when it comes to export of military trucks and vehicles.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ArmenT » 17 Jan 2016 12:37

Gagan wrote:LCA for export is going to be a difficult proposition.
India does not make any weaponsystems except dumb bombs. The radar is israeli, the engine is american.
The BVR missile is israeli or russian - it is going to be difficult to find buyers for a system with so many varied sources.
I mean this all works out for the IAF for the time being, but for a middle eastern and an african and a SE asian nation? Difficult to manage.

China OTOH prolly offers a full range of weapon systems with the Bunders, still can't buyers, because it is such a crappy product.

Could they not make the LCA compatible with other weapons systems as well? For instance, the Gripen fires a bunch of American and European armaments (e.g. Paveway, Sidewinder, Sparrow, Meteor etc.), along with one or two Swedish made weapons. Doing something like this could aid sales, especially if the buyer already has some other aircraft that uses those other weapons systems.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Jan 2016 12:50

Hobbes wrote:Not sure if this was posted earlier:

IDN TAKE: UTTAM AESA Radar Progressing Well


That is just such a mess of copy and paste from multiple websites and wiki. Guess we'll have to wait for Saurav to detail progress on Uttam.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Jan 2016 15:49

Shreeman wrote:Karan,

It is a reasonable line of thought but for the raffle thread, so this is my last 2c on raffle here. Contemplate the 2000. What did it really do? An unprepared ungainly role around 98-99. Why the criticism? Because the fault lay in the doctrine re. PGMs at the time. They werent the weapon of choice, but last resort.

Now 15+ years later, if you can again be fooled and surprised then raffy isnt going to help you. So 1 airbase or 4, a non upgradable foreign platform (the 2000s went how many years waiting for one?) will fall out of fashion just like that. And the four fathers will counter balance. So we will remain in the present, forever.


Shreeman, if we look at it from the IAF POV & keep their biases/historical behavior in account (need for quick ready made fixes, lack of interest in time consuming domestic development etc) the issue becomes of getting the latest tech and boosting combat power.

The IAF took the flawed route of asking for a MMRCA rather than persisting with Su-30 fixes. It was an "easy way out" to acquire the latest and greatest in tech (eg AES radar) at a time when even Taiwanese or Korean F-16s are getting it. And I sincerely question how they went around the process. Reports note ~130km radar range which obviates the need for an AESA & would thoroughly fail against LO targets like the J-20 in the future (in contrast, the large Aperture F-15s and EF's would at least have a good chance). Basically took the Mirage 2000-V specs/RFP dusted it off and made it into the MMRCA allowing everyone and their donkey to compete, hence the half baked MiG-35 caterwauling how their in development, prototype AESA was "good enough" whereas the Americans and Europeans were in all likelihood, sniggering.

IMO, the MMRCA would have provided a welcome temporary boost in combat power but would have again cost huge operational holes in resourcing (rob Peter to pay Paul) for the existing fleet. At least the reports now speak of negotiating the initial spares and expenditure together. But again, this WILL have to come from either the IAFs revenue or capital expenditure budget.

I have already posted how the present MOD is struggling to reverse the decade of "indoctrinated" decline in Revenue budgets (capital budget is anyways nowhere near the MMRCA reality).

There seems to be no rhyme or reason amongst the 3 armed forces procurements when considering the economic reality GOI operates in and even their own operational needs. For instance, did the IAF share, even once, a public assessment of how it would first fix existing serviceability hassles even in a non classified way, with the average taxpayer (we have leaks on all other topics to the media anyhow). Then you add reports of under-resourced capital and revenue budget (which again shows economic reality of GOI and at least now revenue budget is being reversed, but far cry from "excess") and these reports make sense (http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 006_1.html)

According to figures presented in those meeting (a) 20 per cent of the fleet, i.e. some 39 Su-30MKIs, are undergoing "first line" and "second line" maintenance or inspections at any time, which is the IAF's responsibility; (b) Another 11-12 per cent of the fleet is undergoing major repair and overhaul by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL); and (c) 13-14 per cent of the fleet is grounded, awaiting major systems or repairs - the technical terms is: "aircraft on ground".
..................
MoD was informed about serious problems with IAF's management of spares. By standard norms, a fighter fleet consumes five per cent of its worth in consumables and spares each year. By that benchmark the Su-30MKI fleet, currently worth about Rs 69,000 crore - 193 Su-30MKIs at Rs 358 crore a fighter - should consume spares worth Rs 3,450 crore annually. Yet, IAF orders from HAL add up to less than Rs 50 crore, including ground handling equipment.

Without competent inventory management by IAF, and with spares ordered piecemeal when defects arise, Su-30MKI fighters spend weeks on the ground awaiting spares.

To ensure that 13-14 per cent of the Su-30MKI fleet is not grounded for want of spares, HAL has stockpiled spares worth Rs 400 crore in Nashik. According to S Subrahmanyan, the chief of HAL's Nashik facility, the inventory is based on a study of consumption patterns of Su-30MKI spares over the preceding five years.

HAL says this buffer stock includes spares that are still purchased from Russia, because low consumption volumes make indigenisation non-cost-effective. Even so, non-availability of these spares could ground aircraft. Simultaneously, HAL has proposed to MoD that IAF must order spares required over a five-year period, stocking them at 25 Equipment Depot, IAF's holding depot for spares at Nashik.


So to avoid a hit on its revenue budget, the IAF basically has sought to delay spares orders OR offload them on HAL (HAL stocks them and pays upfront to Russia, IAF orders later, HAL transfers the spares & the IAF budget squeezes through). This gets even worse because of delays and lead time inherent in manufacturing and also Russian lack of responsiveness and domestic limitations (ONE YEAR to start the production for a spare, LOL; http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 075387.cms)

In short, you can see how dysfunctional the system is:

1. MOD which tries to skimp on IAF revenue and capex and projects wrongly to MOF, has zero interest in fixing things and where babus were least bothered.
2. MOF which was in years past run by a political crook who tried to use the entire apparatus to fund NREGA etc for the queen and hence siphoned money from all other areas, which attitude has now become entrenched in MOD (even first budget post new GOI ended up following the pattern and was fixed later)
3. IAF which wants the next greatest toy and instead of evaluating whether current serviceability boost is better than buying another white elephant, seeks to offload its budget woes elsewhere or ignores it entirely. How the next white elephant will soak up all money, not bothered. Lets have a rtd AM write an editorial asking for more budget.
HAL-IAF also delay MRO activities and facilities are set up late.
4. HAL, seeking to ensure its "finances" and bosses don't run afoul of MOD, is busy returning dividends to MOD but will not invest by itself in spares and customer support until situation becomes critical.
5. The great Supplier Russia, who is completely apathetic to its customers & won't step up until people like Parrikar raise the issue at Putins level and make a fuss. No wonder the IAF is skeptical about FGFA. Even key weapons need to be fixed. And IAF goes to Ukraine for interim fits.
6. Integration and TOT hassles as is common with any new program but become a big issue because the Great Supplier is invested into developing "the next great thing FGFA and ALSO the Su-35".

Is there any wonder then why we can't go to war without committee after committee sitting on the issue?

The only silver lining is that over the next year or so, thanks to that 400 crores worth of spares at HAL and work by Parrikar and co, the AOG component, 14% will be added back allowing the fleet to get to some ~70% serviceability.

But what a mess even so that was allowed to persist so long and the amount being spent on Rafale? Is it really the most optimal use of resources? That, I doubt since there are so many other needs that we need to be sure of.

Anyhow IAF wants 72 Rafales, though the new deal is stated to be 36 R + 18 follow on as part of the deal itself. Great, another silver bullet Mirage fleet.

member_29151
BRFite
Posts: 121
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29151 » 17 Jan 2016 16:11

Image
Image
Image

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 17 Jan 2016 17:36

Kumar ji, you'll find hi-res versions of those images here.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2237
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby manjgu » 17 Jan 2016 19:59

a friends of mine in EADS ( cassidian) is attending Baharin air show..any requests from forum members?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 17 Jan 2016 20:02

manjgu wrote:a friends of mine in EADS ( cassidian) is attending Baharin air show..any requests from forum members?

Video of LCA display

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19080
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Jan 2016 20:11

manjgu wrote:a friends of mine in EADS ( cassidian) is attending Baharin air show..any requests from forum members?


Video, first and foremost.

Scan a few of the brochures, ask the LCA folks about Mk1A, flight handling, performance maintenance, range, how do they perceive it, will fit in the IAF.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_26622 » 17 Jan 2016 20:38

Common sense dictates that MKI's long legs and LCA's huge numbers should suffice for deterring evil daemons. But we like bhel puri - so add 36 Rafales (for doing what?), Jaguars, M2000 and Mig 29's....

Seems like the Motto here is - We need to keep the global spares business booming so buy every version of anything that flies!

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1974
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Kakarat » 17 Jan 2016 21:06

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

And more at LCA Tejas FB Page (Total 10)

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7298
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby disha » 17 Jan 2016 21:14

The last one posted above is a beauty., surreal.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2016 21:17

per the tejas FB page, BVR trial will be done with existing radome. cobham radome(s) have arrived but in ground testing at present.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8106
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Mort Walker » 17 Jan 2016 21:18

indranilroy wrote:It is unfair to say that the RAfale costs 250 million dollar a plane vs the Tejas 25-30 million. We do not know what the Rafale package entails. I think the flyaway cost of single plane is between 80-100 million. However, I am ready to agree that at least 3-4 Tejas-es can be built and maintained at the same level of readiness as a single Rafale.


India is paying the French for logistics support which raises unit cost of the Rafale coming entirely out of CAPEX. The Tejas already has logistics support included in the operations and maintenance part of the defence budget, therefore CAPEX is $25 million.
Spending upto $10 billion on the Rafale makes no sense as there is no indication it will be available in any significant numbers in terms of availability by 2020 or even 2022. Between 2020 and 2022 India will have significant LCA development and manufacturing experience. It can employ several thousands of Indians in the aerospace industry IF the IAF is committed and forced by GoI to accept 20 squadrons of the Tejas.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2016 21:18

he has a great camera for sure, I wish he had video taped it from his DLSR...but perhaps some restrictions are in place there to prevent spoilers outside of the official event media.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests