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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 19 Nov 2015 05:49

ramana wrote:
Left to themselves these guys will ensure IAF wont have any planes to fight a war.
Need to start with ACM Raha.



Not fair. I object to this statement - particularly from one of the senior most forum moderators. With no in depth knowledge or acknowledgement of how the Air Force operates - making a sweeping statement that they are committing professional suicide and sabotaging the nation and calling for disciplining of the Chief of Air Staff by the defence min sounds to me like Mani Shankar Aiyar asking for Modi's ouster in Pakistan.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9685
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 19 Nov 2015 09:01

It is unfortunate that ACM seems to be not aware about the planned attempts to sabotage ( Most of us agree that there is such attempt) in which there is a serious possibility that some of the senior officers of IAF may be involved. I am sure he is also reading newspapers with planted news items with alleged quotes of the IAF officials. We do not know what action was/is being taken on any one who stepped out of line to deliberately and mercilessly attack an indian weapon system. There is also no press reports from IAF supporting the LCA after the planted news items. The silence of IAF speaks volumes about the media management by forces.

This culture of

"We are the customers. We have no obligation to buy/use Indian products. We want best irrespective of both the financial and strategic costs to the nation."

has to go. Particularly in IA and IAF.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 19 Nov 2015 10:20

^^On the question of what is unfortunate and what is not, I would add that what is unfortunate in my view is that we the outside observers and judges of the Air Force do not understand that the IAF, MoD and Government of India are not 3 separate bodies but simply limbs of the same organization. The IAF says and does nothing without the MoD and GoI being involved. Individuals in the IAF, or MoD or GoI or for that matter CAG may have views and opinions but imagining that there is autonomy for the IAF to choose is a myth.

Remember that aircraft inductions take several years and the life span of a particular type of aircraft, once inducted, is longer than the career of many IAF personnel. There is no incentive to sabotage anything and even making money is difficult if something that you promote may not get inducted - or gets inducted 10 years after you retire.

If punishment of errant people is the aim them punish HAL, DRDO, IAF and MoD babus. Imagining that this Stalin style system can be brought into India is another "unfortunate" error that we make. There are no easy solutions but any solutions should aim for gradual comprehensive change in mindset along with accountability from manufacturing agencies who design things knowing that crucial basic material like aviation grade aluminium, titanium, carbon fibre fabric, actuators and sensors need to be imported and the exporters have a "queue" when you cannot buy off the shelf. Place an order today and get after 2 years. Our nation may be moderately advanced but the glass is half full. We are pretty backward.

We are also backward and under informed on this forum when we talk of combat combat combat when we talk of Air Force. How many of us have visited a local police station where we live and demanded punishment of police because they have not caught any criminals last light? No one thinks of Air Force as a body that is maintaining airspace vigil and supplying troops and performing support roles in difficult conditions. This requires organization in logistics and training, and constant vigil requires flying training and uptime for existing aircraft and not wishlists for mythical aircraft whose flying characteristics and maintainability are unknown.

The government has not used the Air Force for its combat roles and as pointed out elsewhere in this forum Fali major was ridiculed for demanding an air offensive after 26/11. On the other hand the nation is constantly using the air force in support roles for disaster relief, troop supply etc. Yes and even in Mumbai 2008 the Air Force was used to insert special forces. That being the case the Air Force has to plan for what the government (elected by the people) want from it rather than feed our fantasies about a USAF like air combat forces. Of course we want more combat aircraft. By what makes us experts and not the IAF? The IAF need transport aircraft and large helicopters. Why are we not calling for punishment of IAF chief for importing those. Indian Industry has never produced any transport aircraft ever while logistics are crucial in war. What is the point in this online kicking of ACM Arup Raha's butt for not supporting LCA? What Indian transport aircrfat is there for him to support?

In 1947 Air force role was mainly Casevac and Logistics. Some ground attack

In Hyderabad action it was Casevac and Logistics

Goa action saw some ground attack, logistics casevac

1962 Logistics and Casevac. No combat

1965: Logistics, Casevac and combat

1971: Logistics, combat and casevac.

1999: Combat, Casevac, Logistics

1947 to 2015 - all years Training, Casevac and Logistics have been the main role except for a total of about 4 months of hot combat in 68 years. (22 days in 1965, 16 days 1971, maybe 3 months in 1999 and the odd day here and there)

Why are we cursing IAF for not supporting combat aircraft, forgetting that there are huge holes in our own industrial capability? Exactly what makes us experts in this regard?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nirav » 19 Nov 2015 13:04

ramana wrote:



IAF is doing its utmost to sabotage LCA. Please read article to see how many behaviors of concern you can identify in IAF brass.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/workplace ... -sabotage/

Parrikar needs to trim the brass. No doubt about it.

Left to themselves these guys will ensure IAF wont have any planes to fight a war.
Need to start with ACM Raha.

Or get MAF to give them a talk and tell how he had to fight in 1965 against all odds.


The defence minister has done what was needed to be done all these years. We cant really apportion the blame on IAF procurement as the MoD leadership all these years allowed imports.

Thats not the case now, and when Shri Parrikar said a firm NO to 126+options Rafale, LCA orders were quietly upped to 120. And it wont stop at that number.

Shri Arup Raha has been talking in govt speak post the LCA decision. Thats a good sign.

srai wrote:Second production line for 120 units: a Red Herring!


Its still not confirmed if the second line is for meeting these 120 or not. Even if it is, why is it a bad thing ? Will lead to faster induction of the MK1A and build squadron numbers at a rapid pace while building that capacity for higher numbers of MK1A+ and MK2.

If HAL could churn out 36 a year, they would have proposed that. Fact that they are aiming at a production rate of only 16/year warrants the need for a second line.

Assuming that HAL manages a production rate of 16/year from 2016, they will take almost 8 years to complete the 120 order. i.e. 2024

Second production line gives us a faster rate @ numbers + gives space to order more.

Vivek K wrote:These are the traitors that have mew sure that India remains a weak puppet in the hands of foreign suppliers and nations and have allowed Pukis to be a force. If the Marut had survived think where we could have been aircraft industry wise!


I too have been critical of IAF for its procurement policies but id never use that term.
Its the civilian leadership that responsible for the mess.The kind of leadership that accepted Adm Joshi's resignation and asked the navy to not "fritter away precious national resources"

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 19 Nov 2015 13:37

shiv wrote: Not fair. I object to this statement - particularly from one of the senior most forum moderators. With no in depth knowledge or acknowledgement of how the Air Force operates - making a sweeping statement that they are committing professional suicide and sabotaging the nation and calling for disciplining of the Chief of Air Staff by the defence min sounds to me like Mani Shankar Aiyar asking for Modi's ouster in Pakistan.


Well, if ramana had had his way, the IAF leadership would've been long cashiered from service because he sees ghosts of conspiracies every where. No questions on why is the IAF asking for second line of production or maybe, there is some issue with respect to HAL...it is all bloody a conspiracy to stymie the LCA project!

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 19 Nov 2015 14:43

I do not agree with the enthusiasm of the BRF jingoes that Gordian Knot of LCA production has been cut by DM. In fact Arjun 1994 has been done to LCA. Initially 20 LCA IOC version were supposed to be produced alongwith 20 LCA FOC version. Now the bar has been raised higher (not lowered). The first batch will now consist of 16-20 LCA FOC versions and not IOC versions and second batch will consist of LCA SP18 (or Mark-1A) version rather than FOC version. The machines/equipment for production line even for 8 aircraft has not been ordered let alone setting up production line for 16 LCA Per annum. I think that IAF & HAL have been able to successfully befool the DM.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nirav » 19 Nov 2015 15:10

Gyan wrote:I do not agree with the enthusiasm of the BRF jingoes that Gordian Knot of LCA production has been cut by DM. In fact Arjun 1994 has been done to LCA. Initially 20 LCA IOC version were supposed to be produced alongwith 20 LCA FOC version. Now the bar has been raised higher (not lowered). The first batch will now consist of 16-20 LCA FOC versions and not IOC versions and second batch will consist of LCA SP18 (or Mark-1A) version rather than FOC version. The machines/equipment for production line even for 8 aircraft has not been ordered let alone setting up production line for 16 LCA Per annum. I think that IAF & HAL have been able to successfully befool the DM.


http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/h ... 617119.ece

HAL has about 2600 SMEs registered with it. They are actively seeking Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers. The higher 120 confirmed order and talk of a second production Line by MoD(indicating more orders) is incentive enough for Pvt sector to take up the opportunities in becoming Tier 1 Tier 2 suppliers.

HAL does have manufacturing capacity of 8/year. it was only on Sept 23 2015 that the contract for a total 120 was signed. Need time for the 16/year capacity to be set up.

Things are moving in the right direction finally. Why this Kolaveri :?:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 19 Nov 2015 18:28

nirav,

The idea of second line is not bad in itself. However, the current orders are too low to warrant it. Businesses are not going to take on that risk with only hopes that there will be more orders down the road. Split of 120 units evenly would mean each line only gets to assemble 60 aircraft. R&D of new variants take their own time and the production run of current batch may finish before new standards are ready. Mk-2 FOC won't be ready for production until after 2023. There is already uncertainty with current orders regarding Mk1A and when that will be ready for production. All of this needs to be factored in when determining how many per year is optimum, not just from user perspective but also from business sense.

Fledging Indian aerospace industry needs to be brought up gradually. Let more private players reach Tier-1 levels where they can produce an entire component like a wing or fuselage. Then they can move up the chain to become a vertical integrator with their own final assembly lines. But, IMO, Indian quantity requirements are too low to sustain multiple HAL-like entities.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby jamwal » 19 Nov 2015 18:47

It's all fine to not blame IAF based on just assumptions, but given the past record of senior officers including even the chiefs, I have little hope that the actions of IAF (and of IA for that matter) are what they should be.

General V.K.Singh had laid bare the deep rot and corruption within armed forces when he played whistle blower on Tatra trucks scam. If someone thinks that the bribe offer was one time thing and armed forces are not corrupt at even the highest levels, then I have one Taj Mahal for sale. How can you people forget that half-paki Ramdas, Tyagi,Nanda and a few others ? Everyone forgot so soon how Gen VK SIngh was shunted out so unceremoniously for not playing to the tunes of import lobby ?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 19 Nov 2015 18:48

shiv wrote:... Indian Industry has never produced any transport aircraft ever while logistics are crucial in war. ... What Indian transport aircrfat is there for him to support?
...


Apart from lack of industrial capability, the quantities required are bit too low to be profitable from business perspective. For example, the IAF requirement for MTA (whatever happened to it) is for around 40 units only. Similarly, for heavier transport planes like C-17s the requirement is for 13 units and if you add IL-76 then around 25 units. The Avro replacement called for around 50 units. Typically, AFAIK, you need close to 150 to 200 units production run to be considered financially viable (or you will need to jack up per unit costs to exorbitant amounts or make it at a loss).

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2708
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 19 Nov 2015 19:25

Quantities were never an issue for IAF to encourage domestic product. Pilatus and LCA are good examples.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 19 Nov 2015 19:33

srai wrote:
shiv wrote:... Indian Industry has never produced any transport aircraft ever while logistics are crucial in war. ... What Indian transport aircrfat is there for him to support?
...


Apart from lack of industrial capability, the quantities required are bit too low to be profitable from business perspective. For example, the IAF requirement for MTA (whatever happened to it) is for around 40 units only. Similarly, for heavier transport planes like C-17s the requirement is for 13 units and if you add IL-76 then around 25 units. The Avro replacement called for around 50 units. Typically, AFAIK, you need close to 150 to 200 units production run to be considered financially viable (or you will need to jack up per unit costs to exorbitant amounts or make it at a loss).

In fact this is true for all aircraft but particularly so for transports

There is a military transport aircraft glut in the world.

But there is also a 4 and 4.5 gen fighter aircraft glut.

What this means is that if we make we have to take the risk for our own market. And the risk is more than just failures and delays like the IJT delays that make us crinkle our noses at our incompetent fellow countrymen. When push comes to shove - when we make 100 of our own rather than importing 100, the people who have Rafales, Gripens and EFs to export will cheerfully export to say Pakistan just to stay in business.

There are no easy answers. China is going full steam ahead with its own new designs - copied or not. They want to pull the export carpet from under western companies. We have a long lonely road ahead. I do admit that choices are difficult and we need to bargain hard. If we import, for the money we pay we must write clauses that prevent export to our foes. Or we tell the seller to take a hike and do his worst.

All OT here

adityadange
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby adityadange » 19 Nov 2015 21:44

we are forgetting export potential of lca. there was talk of exporting lca few months back. if that is plan of govt then second line makes sense.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ShauryaT » 20 Nov 2015 08:04

srai wrote:Apart from lack of industrial capability, the quantities required are bit too low to be profitable from business perspective. For example, the IAF requirement for MTA (whatever happened to it) is for around 40 units only. Similarly, for heavier transport planes like C-17s the requirement is for 13 units and if you add IL-76 then around 25 units. The Avro replacement called for around 50 units. Typically, AFAIK, you need close to 150 to 200 units production run to be considered financially viable (or you will need to jack up per unit costs to exorbitant amounts or make it at a loss).
Why not add civilian aircraft in the same category. Also, when you plan for such a venture, the time frame is over decades. There may be a global glut in these type of air crafts but as military tactical transports, regional civilian transports and other uses such as AWACS, gunships on the same frame, including maybe ASW craft on the same frame, the numbers will quickly add up in the 100's quite easily over a 10+ year time frame. We should not cede this space to foreign products. Control over logistics is everything. Indigo alone has ordered over 250 A320's!

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby jamwal » 21 Nov 2015 18:45

shiv wrote:What Indian transport aircrfat is there for him to support?

In 1947 Air force role was mainly Casevac and Logistics. Some ground attack

In Hyderabad action it was Casevac and Logistics

Goa action saw some ground attack, logistics casevac

1962 Logistics and Casevac. No combat

1965: Logistics, Casevac and combat

1971: Logistics, combat and casevac.

1999: Combat, Casevac, Logistics

1947 to 2015 - all years Training, Casevac and Logistics have been the main role except for a total of about 4 months of hot combat in 68 years. (22 days in 1965, 16 days 1971, maybe 3 months in 1999 and the odd day here and there)

Why are we cursing IAF for not supporting combat aircraft, forgetting that there are huge holes in our own industrial capability? Exactly what makes us experts in this regard?



Going by this logic, what's the use of having armed forces ? Just divert the resources to NDRF !

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 21 Nov 2015 19:00

jamwal wrote:Going by this logic, what's the use of having armed forces ? Just divert the resources to NDRF !

That option does not exist in the poll. Make your own poll with the option if you think that is a good option

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Nov 2015 05:47

As they say, the truth is always found in the middle. We have to take a balanced view of things until we hear it with clarity. And matters of defence, that would be never the case! end of the story for anyone siding one way or the other.

I think, it is important for everyone: Gov, Forces, and the Labs to adhere to best practices when it comes to information sharing.. there is a big gap in the planning process. Again, it could be all because of how we did things earlier and how we are doing now, and how we are changing it to be done for the future.

This ain't a hard thing to achieve.. we have to break certain barriers of closed cycle but open-loop organizational setups, and begin periodic meetings with closed-loop inter-org/dept support.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 22 Nov 2015 09:26

ramana wrote:



IAF is doing its utmost to sabotage LCA. Please read article to see how many behaviors of concern you can identify in IAF brass.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/workplace ... -sabotage/

Parrikar needs to trim the brass. No doubt about it.

Left to themselves these guys will ensure IAF wont have any planes to fight a war.
Need to start with ACM Raha.

Or get MAF to give them a talk and tell how he had to fight in 1965 against all odds.


+1

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6823
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby habal » 22 Nov 2015 13:16

Let IAF rest in peace with their imported planes and comissions. LCA should be handed over to IA (another import customer no doubt) subject to condition that Army Aviation Corps can operate tactical fighter fleet provided only LCA and no other aircraft will be made available. The range and radius of LCA is very useful for army's tactical airstrikes objective. Whatever remains can be given to Import Air Force as second priority.

Let us see whether army bites.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 22 Nov 2015 13:48

I think Army should be permitted to buy any fixed wing aircraft and helos provided they are indigenous.

member_29245
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29245 » 22 Nov 2015 14:03

SaiK wrote:It makes logical sense for IAF to wait for Mk2 which perhaps will be tailored majorly for IN. They can take those inputs from Mk2, and do a Mk2A for IAF. This also gives a chance to upgrade the Mk1A to Mk2A specifications where possible.

Significantly, I hear two major concerns - range and airframe/inlet changes for 414s. Maybe gurus can tell if on a tranche mode, it would be difficult to convert Mk1A to Mk2A specs (name ref above)?


then they can wait forever for NlCA Mk2 / Mk3 and then refine it as Mk3A

while it is being developed

another NLCA Mk4 will apprear then they can again wait for LCA Mk4A

why not ?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Nov 2015 15:42

did I say the word "forever"? did you pay attention to the words - tranche mode and upgrades?
your sarcasm is not helping here.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1637
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 23 Nov 2015 00:17

Gyan wrote:I think Army should be permitted to buy any fixed wing aircraft and helos provided they are indigenous.


I disagree with fixed wing and especially disagree if the fixed wing may have combat capabilities.


I believe more fixed wing combat should be provided to the Air Force and the art of working under a single unified command structure be re-introduced.

Else we will double on Pilot training programmes, admin overhead etc.

No thank you... the Army should be a 11/10 Land Force. The suggestion dilutes our focus.
The CDS needs a big review and force down the throats of everyone.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 23 Nov 2015 00:41

Folks here are smoking something really exotic if they believe the IA will go for domestic products. The IA and IAF both love imports and look down upon desi stuff!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7982
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 23 Nov 2015 03:39

People, this is LCA dhaga. Vivek k instead of a rhetoric, please try to add some data points once in a while.

member_27845
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_27845 » 23 Nov 2015 10:46

Maybe the MOD can set up a new Bharat Rakshak Force ( BRF ) made up of army + air force units that would be purely kitted with indigenous products such as INSAS / EXCALIBUR / ARJUN / LCA

And take the funds out of current IA/IAF budgets to finance this new unit

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9685
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 23 Nov 2015 10:58

Old habits die hard and pathetic record of HAL gives grounds for complaining etc. But with MOD firm on LCA all the MSM rudali dramas will end up as failure. As I have many times posted there is simply no money for any other option.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20435
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 23 Nov 2015 14:32

After the DRDO was reorganised into clusters,the cluster heads will get one hell-uv-a "cluster migraine" if they don't deliver on time.Monthly reports directly to the PMO have been demanded as the current regime has had enough of DRDO "talk" .With leadership comes responsibility and accountability.

To my mind,the LCA programme has turned the corner after the MK-2 was dumped.
The decision to go in for large numbers (120+) of the MK-1A,shows that pragmatism has prevailed. 2016 wills ee the first sqd. commissioned and hopefully after that series production will gather pace. What is worrisome is the cost.First touted at being around $25M ,but some figures have now given $40M as a fig. If accurate,this is more than the cost of a brand new MIG-29K .The quantum of imported content with the rupee slide may be a prime factor.Engine,radar and most weaponry is firang,barring Astra,expected in the future. If the LCA actually arrives around $30M,it would be a great achievement.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8276
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 23 Nov 2015 15:44

$30 Million, or $40 Million is immaterial because overall its the cost of the product over its lifetime that is more important in determining how much the MOD pays for a piecee of hardware over time. $40 million is unlikely to make it unaffordable vs $30 million. With a single engine, much lighter weight and much more modern components the LCA should be able to easily exceed (by a sizable margin) the lifetime affordability of the Mig-29K allowing it to (in a much better way vis-a-vis the Mig) form the backbone of the IAF.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 23 Nov 2015 16:10

HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore
January 11, 2014
...
The Tejas Mark I will be one of the world's most affordable fighters in its class. Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources tell Business Standard that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has quoted a price of Rs 162 crore per aircraft for the first 20 Tejas fighters that have begun production in Bangalore. That translates into a dollar price of approximately $26 million a fighter.
...


That's the flyaway price. Lifecycle costs (LCC) would be more but should be way cheaper than MiG-29K.

yantra
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 03:46

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby yantra » 23 Nov 2015 19:26

Importantly, 30-40% of the Rs.162 crores is ploughed back into Indian Economy as taxes (direct and indirect), wages and expenses.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 23 Nov 2015 19:30

we should only put mk-2 on sales beating mig29K price/performance tag.
the ge-f414 or equivalent ej200 is important milestone to achieve that.
kaveri should be rejuvenated, and not let it dry!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8276
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 23 Nov 2015 21:50

It will be virtually impossible to export the MK2 until the IN, IAF or preferably both acquire it first. One of the biggest issues with modern procurement of military systems is the life cycle cost, and most importantly life-cycle upgrades and improvement programs where developer-nation procurement is seen as strong likelihood that there will be a strong technology pipeline for the product's future upgrades. The MK1 in my opinion should be a highly competitive export prospect since most nations looking at that price point are unlikely to spend considerably to acquire a larger engine, AESA etc with the biggest determinant of success being G2G relationships (trade balances...), confidence in after sales support and the price difference vs the lowest cost Russian (and in some cases Chinese) products. The best option would be to create an export variant of MK1 with 100% indian sub-systems.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 26 Nov 2015 07:58

X-posting:

Rafale vs LCA production timelines

srai wrote:Rafale deal to be signed on eve of Hollande’s India visit
...
The draft contract, which envisages supply of the first fighter within 36 months of signing the deal, has been finalised.

The supply of full complement of 36 fighters to the Indian Air Force (IAF) will be completed within seven years of signing the deal.
...
Industry sources said the price of a Rafale fighter in the current deal has been fixed at the 2007 base rate plus an escalation formula agreed upon by both sides. As per commercial bids received for 126 fighters, plus an increment of 5.5-7.5 per cent per year applied on different sub-systems, items and services as per the escalation formula, the final price for the 36 fighters is expected to be around $8.3 bn.
...


Standard timelines. From contract signing to first lot delivery is usually around 3 years (unless they pull some from other orders in scheduled pipeline like ones destined for French AF). Also, add some time for offset fulfillment. From there, it depends on the number of units/year that is economical for the production line to output. It seems for Indian delivery that number of units/year will be around 8 aircraft/year.

Any additional customization that the IAF would desire will push the price up and timelines further.

So much for deriding HAL by some for "slow" delivery of first lot IOC-2 standard aircraft and "low" peak production output/year for LCA ;) If HAL can deliver first 4-5 LCA IOC-2 by March 2016, it would have delivered (mind you, from new production line) within 27 months from Dec 20, 2013 standard freeze and production commencement. That would be 9-months quicker than what the French will be doing from established production lines.


Also, note the price/unit of Rafale @ $231 million a fighter (not clear as to what LCC & weapons package it includes in that deal) vs what HAL has quoted for LCA--Rs 162 crore per aircraft (approximately $26 million a fighter) (flayaway price). While two occupy different category and hence can't be directly compared (cost/capability), it is still a stark per unit price difference (5-8 LCAs for one Rafale). Rafale, as is, is not affordable beyond limited numbers; bulk of the fleet needs to be filled up with more affordable but effective fighters like the LCA.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 26 Nov 2015 08:52

So roughly USD250 million for a Rafale in a massive Recession world wide. Cool.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 26 Nov 2015 09:57

10 LCAs for the price of one rafale?!? Is it that good?

36 rafales or
360 lcas or
240 lcas with 12 emb145 (each flying with a squadron)

60% Uptime or Utilization:
22 rafales or
216 lcas or
144 lcas with 7 emb145s available.

member_29172
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_29172 » 26 Nov 2015 10:08

no matter how different rafales and lcas might be in terms of weight class and roles in combat, a 1:10 ratio is quite significant. Unless we are getting something really extraordinary, I am starting to wonder if the deal is even necessary.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 26 Nov 2015 10:42

BharatShakti.in: Exclusive interview with Manohar Parrikar - part 1

NG: What about LCA, although it is not directly DRDO?

RM: Yes, the LCA model is being given a final shape. Let me tell you in product development, nothing comes perfect, be it an Indian product or a foreign product. Take the example of the Boeing P 8I. They have a long track record but there were some glitches. Over the last two years, most of the glitches were taken care of. The company reacted quickly and most of the issues are sorted out now. There are still some issues but I am sure these will be taken care of in the next one year, so that there is 100 per cent efficiency in this vital asset.

If that is the case with a well-established company like Boeing, how do I expect ADA or HAL product to be perfect in the first instance? So we inducted the LCA and by March 2016 most of the initial problems would be taken care of. And the production line will be initiated and the first squadron of LCA will start flying for the IAF. Once they start flying, further problems, if any, will be sorted out over the first batch. In principle, approval for first 100 LCA 1 A, procurement has been accorded, as per requirement of the Air Force and as agreed to by all concerned.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_22539 » 26 Nov 2015 12:30

PratikDas wrote:BharatShakti.in: Exclusive interview with Manohar Parrikar - part 1

If that is the case with a well-established company like Boeing, how do I expect ADA or HAL product to be perfect in the first instance?


If only IAF and some BRFites could understand the same as well, or maybe the just don't care.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 26 Nov 2015 15:54

^^^

You can only understand if you have been involved deeply in product development ... not just an end-user.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests