LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

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.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3876
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby chola » 20 Jun 2017 07:32

Kashi wrote:What technologies can we reasonably expect to gain from the TATA-LM agreement to shift F-16 production to India?


Maybe an efficient production process and the beginning of a real MIC that involves the private sector?

Obviously decades of screwdriver giri with mainly Russian planes in PSUs have left us with an aeronautic industrial base that struggles to manufacture even a locally designed plane, a plane that should be and probably is taking advantage of local manufacturing infra.

The fact that HAL and the PSUs cannot build the LCA in numbers is what caused this single-engined tender in the first place. For all their incompetence, the babus would not have issued it if the 126 LCAs ordered for the IAF were coming in reasonable batches.

Right now, 45 Squadron flies exactly TWO (2) LCAs after the IAF received its first serial production LCA in 2015 (the same year the IAF made its initial order of 100 Tejas MK1.)

All of HAL's manufacturing processes and equipment accumulated over decades of building MiGs and Sukhois have given us the delivery rate of one light indigenous fighter a year.

So fvck yeah, I want to see if Tata (and the private sector) and a American jv won't leave us with better capital manufacturing assets and processes.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1489
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby yensoy » 20 Jun 2017 07:50

^^^^ very true, couldn't have said it better! We can create the technology, we are unable to create the process and environment to get things done.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1489
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby yensoy » 20 Jun 2017 07:53

JE Menon wrote:No. Both will be produced.


Also would be a great opportunity for L&T or Reliance or someone like that to partner with Boeing for make in India Super Hornet. Once both have (committed) production lines the bidding can begin. Hell we can even order 200 of each over the next 20 years! That is in addition to Tejas.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3027
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 20 Jun 2017 07:56

^^^Chola your argument would have been perfectly fine had tejas not been there.... Please give why reason why same amount of money would not yield better results. Why I think tejas will be better is
1. Faster stemming of depletion
2. Fleet standardising..Lesser servicing issues
3. Future development potential.. unless engine tech or some critical tech is not available
.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 20 Jun 2017 08:11

Private final assembly line can be opened for LCA too. Place another 126 order and select any one. BTW, HAL wants any additional lines (beyond the two lines it has invested) to be done by a private player.

Note: Beyond the final assembly line, most of the major components are outsourced to Tier 1-3 private entities like wings to L&T, central fuselage to Vem Technologies, etc. The whole ecosystem within India is being built up. Real ToT (from DRDO/NAL/ADA/HAL) is being transferred to these private production partners. It is in India's best long-term interest to nurture this.
Last edited by srai on 20 Jun 2017 08:29, edited 1 time in total.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3876
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby chola » 20 Jun 2017 08:28

ArjunPandit wrote:^^^Chola your argument would have been perfectly fine had tejas not been there.... Please give why reason why same amount of money would not yield better results. Why I think tejas will be better is
1. Faster stemming of depletion
2. Fleet standardising..Lesser servicing issues
3. Future development potential.. unless engine tech or some critical tech is not available
.



Yes, the Tejas is here. You see it. I see it. So what makes you think the babus cannot see it?

It's a rhetorical question. Of course they see the LCA. The IAF has already ordered the aircraft!

Yet, they issued this tender for single-engine planes. Not because they dislike the LCA but more likely they don't believe that HAL can deliver.

And HAL has proven them right by giving us a two-ship LCA squadron since the IAF accepted SP1 in 2015.

The LCA orders are already there. MoD cannot make HAL anymore efficient besides providing them with those orders.

Tata making the F-16 can revolutionize our industry. I can tell you as a Wall Streeter any private firm will make better use of its capital investments than a government entity because money is earned not simply doled out like a state organization.

Tata WILL be able take advantage of a F-16 line/eco-system and use that for next indigenous project that comes along -- maybe the AMCA. Tata will not waste its capital expenditure after setting up the Solah line. It is not in the business of writing off capital assets which HAL has done repeatedly with its screwdrivergiri projects.

I don't care if you can "indigenize" 70% of the MKI but if you can't fvcking build me a homegrown variant of Flanker or help build me more than a single fvcking LCA a year then all that equipment is basically written off when the Russian license ends.
Last edited by chola on 20 Jun 2017 08:33, edited 1 time in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 20 Jun 2017 08:31

^^^
Time will tell what TATA will be able to do or not. Too early to heap praise on them.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3608
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kashi » 20 Jun 2017 08:45

chola wrote:Tata making the F-16 can revolutionize our industry. I can tell you as a Wall Streeter any private firm will make better use of its capital investments than a government entity because money is earned not simply doled out like a state organization.

Tata WILL be able take advantage of a F-16 line/eco-system and use that for next indigenous project that comes along -- maybe the AMCA. Tata will not waste its capital expenditure after setting up the Solah line. It is not in the business of writing off capital assets which HAL has done repeatedly with its screwdrivergiri projects.


I have always wondered how much TATA acquiring JLR and Corus revolutionised Indian auto and steel industry. Surely these two companies had access to tech not available or still not developed in India. Is there any evidence that TATA absorbed and brought back advanced techniques in auto engineering and steel production back into India?

Mind you these were outright acquisitions and not "partnerships".

If the answer to the above is "No" or "We don't know". Then how can we be certain that the above "partnership" will "revolutionise our industry"?

neeraj
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 12 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: UK

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby neeraj » 20 Jun 2017 08:50

^^^
Outright purchases does not mean outright access to technology. Technology know-how is determined by the country's export control laws.
Bypassing it can risk serious consequence for Tata who have numerous businesses in UK

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3608
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kashi » 20 Jun 2017 08:58

I understand that part. The technology may not be transferred outright, but can be "absorbed" in many ways. TATA engineers with access to this tech could study them, understand them and then implement the same back home in India. Would that constitute a violation of export-control laws?

I ask this because I have a very limited understanding of how these things work.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3027
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 20 Jun 2017 09:00

Don't have to drop your wall Street status .. At least on me.. Having working and living right there only...
Now coming to this thing.. Please enlighten us on the innovation done by Tata aerospace or Tata group itself.. So they're gonna do is same as reliance except a bit more honestly. They always had deep pockets to kick-start innovation in military or any other area. The answers is front of you

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby geeth » 20 Jun 2017 09:22

The Tejas is aerodynamically far superior to the Gripen. The fact that India has been able to develop and protect it from the many attempts to kill it is nothing short of astonishing, in my view. Indian leaders should be respected.


+101

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 20 Jun 2017 09:26

^^^
On that similar note, if the IAF says they want another 126 LCAs the GoI would quickly approve that request and make funds available for purchase. It is there for the taking.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1886
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kakarat » 20 Jun 2017 12:15

Even LM or TATA wont create a production line of 20 per year when only 40 jets are on order, the next 83 was ordered just now. Its not completely correct on blaming HAL for everything the Gov and IAF have to do their part too. I am not a fan of HAL but HAL has recently started a second line with its own resource and space available to it and any new product entering production will face teething troubles. you cannot expect any company to set up a big production line without order and HAL is a company and not a gov department

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rishi Verma » 20 Jun 2017 12:23

Kashi wrote:What technologies can we reasonably expect to gain from the TATA-LM agreement to shift F-16 production to India?


"Transfer of technology" (ToT) .. This is the fifth most frequently used indian-english phrase after "techie", "topper", "dharna", and "dalit".

The phrase means nothing, nobody is going to transfer nothing via c-130 transporters. Only tech we master is what we develop with hard work and after frequent failures.

Just get the planes and bomb the pakis. Its that simple.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4222
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Jun 2017 14:09

srai wrote:^^^
On that similar note, if the IAF says they want another 126 LCAs the GoI would quickly approve that request and make funds available for purchase. It is there for the taking.


Tejas doesn't have luxury that foreign fighters has. We are very flexible as far foreign armaments​ are concerned. During mmrca the eurofighter was allowed to demonstrate their aesa radar on a helicopter :shock:

While Tejas was ridiculed as 3 legged cheetah,

Only yesterday Grippen E has flown first time but it already became a competitor against f16 in new single engine fighter deal since last year.

This is a fight where one man has his arms and legs chained cuffed (Tejas) while others can do whatever they want (grippen / f16)

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby negi » 20 Jun 2017 15:49

Kashi wrote:What technologies can we reasonably expect to gain from the TATA-LM agreement to shift F-16 production to India?

Not much because the guys working on F-16 line will be learning things on need to know basis ; another fact is LM clearly said Indian facility will not lead to cut in jobs in Austin what that means is we are going to start on lines of C-130 albeit at a larger scale . Initially we might be mostly doing assembly of SKD >CKD modules. Eventually we might end up building air-frame parts and that's pretty much about it Radar and Engine will always come as plug and play components with no tampering sticker . May be in 5-10 years time we might be able to do complete engine overhaul here but that would need some heavy lobbying.

Whatever learning we expect will only come from Tejas and similar programs . ISRO's story should be our template there is no better exemplar to follow and emulate.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 20 Jun 2017 16:22

I don't think that is what Lockheed said since there are no F-16 jobs in Austin. Lockheed is moving its Fort Worth F-16 FACO to South Carolina, and will if selected pack it off to India once an initial batch is delivered. I think what they said in the release was that the program will continue to support jobs in the US, which will be with component level suppliers. Advantages for Tata will be that they'll get a foothold in the fighter aircraft assembly business...some component production may move to India for Indian suppliers but there is nothing that will be "learned" or significant from a technology transfer realm. The same applies to a potential SAAB/Adani deal btw. There is really no advantage here besides boosting squadron strength.

May be in 5-10 years time we might be able to do complete engine overhaul here but that would need some heavy lobbying.


Engine facility to support will be a given. This for both the GE and P&W on both the F-16 and Gripen E.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2503
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby darshhan » 20 Jun 2017 19:38

srai wrote:Private final assembly line can be opened for LCA too. Place another 126 order and select any one. BTW, HAL wants any additional lines (beyond the two lines it has invested) to be done by a private player.

Note: Beyond the final assembly line, most of the major components are outsourced to Tier 1-3 private entities like wings to L&T, central fuselage to Vem Technologies, etc. The whole ecosystem within India is being built up. Real ToT (from DRDO/NAL/ADA/HAL) is being transferred to these private production partners. It is in India's best long-term interest to nurture this.


But why would HAL nurture and support a competitor?

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1977
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Manish_P » 20 Jun 2017 19:43

Avarachan wrote:India's MoD is neither stupid nor treasonous. The French offered to transfer the Mirage 2000 line to India to kill off the Tejas. The MoD wisely rejected that offer. Instead, India ordered more Su-30 MKI's as a capability boost.


Sorry to come in late on this Sir, but why do you think so?

Why would a production line from France kill of the Tejas, but importing/license producing Su 30 would not?

Is it just because of the Mirage 2000 being single-engined or something else..

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby negi » 20 Jun 2017 20:27

brar_w wrote:Engine facility to support will be a given. This for both the GE and P&W on both the F-16 and Gripen E.

We have been down this road many times before and I know for a fact that even when first ACs will start rolling out of the assembly here we won't have engine overhauling capabilities . Look at what HAL does for the AL-31s and in what time frame were these capabilities achieved during the course of the MKI programme . Not only Al-31s but other engines which we overhaul took long time to get there.

Mind you operations like switching engines or taking it out for checks and general maintenance is fine for that will be needed for operations however complete overhaul is different even for the M-53 on M2K we saw Snecma forming a MRO with private entity only in 2015. Harriers always had their engines shipped to the UK for overhaul same with Tu-142 and IL-38s I am sure same is true for Seaking as well.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 20 Jun 2017 20:59

darshhan wrote:
srai wrote:Private final assembly line can be opened for LCA too. Place another 126 order and select any one. BTW, HAL wants any additional lines (beyond the two lines it has invested) to be done by a private player.

Note: Beyond the final assembly line, most of the major components are outsourced to Tier 1-3 private entities like wings to L&T, central fuselage to Vem Technologies, etc. The whole ecosystem within India is being built up. Real ToT (from DRDO/NAL/ADA/HAL) is being transferred to these private production partners. It is in India's best long-term interest to nurture this.


But why would HAL nurture and support a competitor?


Here is an old post about HAL Chairman stating that the 3rd LCA final assembly line be setup by private players. On top of that 80% of the parts and components are being (or will be) produced by Tier 1-3 private enterprises.

srai wrote:^^^

While we are on the topic of what Shri Suvarna Raju has said, here is a piece where he wants private players to set up 3rd LCA assembly line.

Private sector must play a larger role in defence manufacturing: Hindustan Aeronautics’ T. Suvarna Raju
September 2, 2016
...

Do you have plans to work with private entities in India?

Yes, we want a third (assembly) line to be run by the private sector. In fact we want the private players to come in now and produce LCA or light combat helicopter (LCH) as we don’t want to make more investments into this space. As of now, our LCA project is doing well and the government has already placed orders for 100 LCA. We have also started a series of productions.

What role do you see for Indian manufacturers and suppliers in defence production, in the light of Make in India initiative?

We want to increase our production to 16 LCA a year. In the past, HAL would have added a third (assembly) line to create a capacity of 24 planes a year. But we don’t want to do it now; we want the industry people out there to come up with it. As for the ‘Make in India’ initiative, it is an opportunity for the Indian industry and they can make components and supply to us.
...

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2503
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby darshhan » 20 Jun 2017 21:28

The report is dated september 2016. And therein lies the answer. What steps has HAL taken to identify and mentor a private sector partner for producing LCA in the last 10 months. I seriously doubt if HAL would be interested in nurturing a competitor for its bread and butter business.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2503
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby darshhan » 20 Jun 2017 21:33

This is one of the reasons why Strategic Partnership model involving foreign techonology suppliers is being pursued to develop private sector 'cause PSUs wouldnt di the needful mentoring.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2801
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 20 Jun 2017 21:41

The single engine fighter rfp is such a waste of national resources - no meaningful ToT is expected - refer the Javelin proposal posted earlier. In my opinion, production of Mk1 FOC should be expedited to 24-30 a year on a war footing, including setting up a new line elsewhere if HAL Bangalore lacks real estate.

And ADA needs to drop everything else and complete Mk1 FOC. Achieving FOC is a crucial litmus test for Indian Aviation.

TSR's statement in Srai's post is the right way for HAL and India to go.

I hope Arun Jaitley takes a decision similar to that taken on IA SRSAM requirement.

Let's get real - no one, whether Poland, Russia, US or France - will transfer core technology or manufacturing skills to us.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9554
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Yagnasri » 20 Jun 2017 22:02

We all know that but Babus of MoD make us buy the same snake oil.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2503
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby darshhan » 20 Jun 2017 22:46

tsarkar wrote:The single engine fighter rfp is such a waste of national resources - no meaningful ToT is expected - refer the Javelin proposal posted earlier. In my opinion, production of Mk1 FOC should be expedited to 24-30 a year on a war footing, including setting up a new line elsewhere if HAL Bangalore lacks real estate.

And ADA needs to drop everything else and complete Mk1 FOC. Achieving FOC is a crucial litmus test for Indian Aviation.

TSR's statement in Srai's post is the right way for HAL and India to go.

I hope Arun Jaitley takes a decision similar to that taken on IA SRSAM requirement.

Let's get real - no one, whether Poland, Russia, US or France - will transfer core technology or manufacturing skills to us.


It is a Waste if you are looking solely from a defence procurement perspective. I agree not much will be achieved in this regard in short or medium term time frame.

However if you plan to get a decent private sector competitor to HAL which is able to manufacture combat aircraft in 2025-2030 range, this is the way to go.

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

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 20 Jun 2017 22:57

tsarkar wrote:The single engine fighter rfp is such a waste of national resources - no meaningful ToT is expected - refer the Javelin proposal posted earlier. In my opinion, production of Mk1 FOC should be expedited to 24-30 a year on a war footing, including setting up a new line elsewhere if HAL Bangalore lacks real estate.

And ADA needs to drop everything else and complete Mk1 FOC. Achieving FOC is a crucial litmus test for Indian Aviation.

TSR's statement in Srai's post is the right way for HAL and India to go.

I hope Arun Jaitley takes a decision similar to that taken on IA SRSAM requirement.

Let's get real - no one, whether Poland, Russia, US or France - will transfer core technology or manufacturing skills to us.

Thank you Sir. imvho, HAL already would have considered Chitradurga (or Tumkur since choppers are moving there)! Chitradurga primarily because of the air strip. They need to monetize the airport land and find a way to use that money to fund R&D projects and expansion on their own.

I understand the hullaballoo about Mk1 not meeting IAF requirements, but still do not understand why these cannot be considered as short-term lease alternatives until a more capable tranche comes online. We do not need a private player for integration -- we need private players and enterprise to take up component manufacture! Until there are enough suppliers with expertise to ensure HAL can keep integration going at the planned pace, IAF will never trust them as a supplier. Unless there are orders, there will never be enough component manufacturers willing to take the risk of expanding capacity. Unless the MoD invests some monies into developing the sector, and showing some foresight by offering a ten year tax holiday and additional sops exclusively for Tejas suppliers, we will not see any ascendancy in indigenous capabilities.

This is our ONLY opportunity. AMCA will never happen if the LCA Mk2 doesn't happen.
PS: This will probably go offtopic so my apologies in advance. If the SE RFP goes through before 2020, Mk 2 will not happen even if the first prototype actually rolls out by then!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4598
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 20 Jun 2017 23:09

Paris Air Show- Tejas likely to be armed with I-Derby ER BVRAAM

The Hindustan Aeronautics Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and Saab Gripen fighters are likely to be the first foreign aircraft to be armed with the Rafael I-Derby ER air-to-air missile.

Last year Rafael, unveiled the new extended-range version of its beyond-visual-range active radar-guided missile, which is equipped with a new seeker that employs an advanced solid-state software-defined radar.

According to the marketing manager of Rafael’s air superiority systems division, the range of the I-Derby ER is 54nm (100km), and it can be carried on rail launchers or on a "shove" pyrotechnic launcher.

The latter deploys the missile from the aircraft's fuselage, after which the motor ignites, and enables it to carry the missile on centre hard points or those that are located near the fighter's conformal fuel tank.

He said that while the earlier version of the I-Derby is already carried by the Indian air force's LCA and Sukhoi Su-30, an effort is being made to allow the integration of the I-Derby ER on these aircraft.


The Rafael official said the main obstacle is the greater weight of the new version.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Avarachan » 20 Jun 2017 23:13

Manish_P wrote:
Avarachan wrote:India's MoD is neither stupid nor treasonous. The French offered to transfer the Mirage 2000 line to India to kill off the Tejas. The MoD wisely rejected that offer. Instead, India ordered more Su-30 MKI's as a capability boost.


Sorry to come in late on this Sir, but why do you think so?

Why would a production line from France kill of the Tejas, but importing/license producing Su 30 would not?

Is it just because of the Mirage 2000 being single-engined or something else..


The Mirage 2000 is a competitor to the Tejas in a way that the Su-30 MKI is not. Look at the empty weights.

Tejas Mark 1: about 6500 kg
Mirage 2000: 7500 kg
Su-30 MKI: about 18,500 kg

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Avarachan » 20 Jun 2017 23:31

tsarkar wrote:The single engine fighter rfp is such a waste of national resources - no meaningful ToT is expected - refer the Javelin proposal posted earlier. In my opinion, production of Mk1 FOC should be expedited to 24-30 a year on a war footing, including setting up a new line elsewhere if HAL Bangalore lacks real estate.

And ADA needs to drop everything else and complete Mk1 FOC. Achieving FOC is a crucial litmus test for Indian Aviation.

TSR's statement in Srai's post is the right way for HAL and India to go.

I hope Arun Jaitley takes a decision similar to that taken on IA SRSAM requirement.

Let's get real - no one, whether Poland, Russia, US or France - will transfer core technology or manufacturing skills to us.


I'm not sure that the RFP will turn into an actual purchase. Let's wait and see. I agree with you that Shri Jaitley made a great decision with the recent SRSAM Akash purchase.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rakesh » 21 Jun 2017 00:40

You cannot mimic what LMT did in the 1980s - 30 F-Solahs a month - in the first year or two. As I have said before, this is not assembling your chacha's bicycle. This is a sophisticated piece of machinery that requires an advanced knowledge of aircraft manufacturing. Where are you going to find these people from? HAL is the only one that has any knowledge - even if you believe it is caveman like compared to Western standards - of aircraft manufacturing.

How many reading this thread can understand how to assemble a F-Solah? Actually better yet, let me rephrase that...how many engineers reading this can actually understand what their role is in assembling a 4+ gen fighter such as the F-Solah or the Gripen E - if you got the opportunity - from the very get go on the production line? I am not an engineer by profession, so that rules me out. Do you believe - as an engineer - you can be handed a screwdriver and say go assemble? Is it that easy? Their is a learning curve here.

If a decision is only expected by 2018, then land has to be sought to build the factory, then the factory has to be built, people have to be trained on how to assemble a 4+ generation fighter and only then can production start. And all of this ... will take time. But unfortunately for the IAF, time is not a luxury they have.

And this is only for Transfer of Production. There is NOT going to be any Transfer of Technology. LMT and the US is not entitled to give us anything and rightfully so. It is their product and they can do with it as they please. Don't jump on me for that...that is the reality.

By the way, as a side note...we also have an acute shortage of pilots. No point in assembling fighters at the rate of 30/month, if no one is there to fly it. What ACM Dhanoa said about playing cricket with 7 members, instead of 11, is equally true of the squadron strength as it is of the pilot strength.

I still believe and want LMT to win this competition. Nobody can do logistics like the Amreekis. I just don't want...to quote Bharat Karnad (the only thing I agree with him on)...the museum ready F-Solah. But my wishes do not matter. I am onlee Admiral Emeritus :)

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kakkaji » 21 Jun 2017 00:56

Avarachan wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:As a side note, I think one of the biggest acts of treason against independent India was committed by the two MoD Babus who refused to allow the purchase of 126 M2K-5 as a follow-on order.


India's MoD is neither stupid nor treasonous. The French offered to transfer the Mirage 2000 line to India to kill off the Tejas. The MoD wisely rejected that offer. Instead, India ordered more Su-30 MKI's as a capability boost.


Avarachan Sir:

I respectfully disagree.

The 126 M2K-5, if purchased, would have fulfilled the MMRCA role (for which a 12 year circus followed with minimal results) and replaced the Mig-23 and 27.

The LCA program was meant to replace the Mig-21s. It would not have been impacted by an M2K buy. If anything, experience in assembling the M2K by HAL might have been beneficial for the LCA program.

JMHO

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2017 01:51

Folks thanks for all the nice post but I find a few jarring.

For starters, chola please stop using profanities even if miss spelled to get away from the spell checker. The forum is read by many people from all walks and genders. So on this page go back and edit those out. And don't use them in future.

Others, No need for rants and whines let the facts speak for themselves.

Thanks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2017 01:54

Kakkaji, While the goal was for LCA to replace the Mig21s, take a look at LCA strike capability.
Its more than a Mig 21.


Marten, The 1A will be better aerodynamically with that extra 1 m midsection which improves its flight characteristics. I believe its a more producible plane with the LRUS and electric harness routed for ease of installation and maintenance.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7220
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby nachiket » 21 Jun 2017 01:56

ramana wrote:Marten, The 1A will be better aerodynamically with that extra 1 m midsection which improves its flight characteristics. I believe its a more producible plane with the LRUS and electric harness routed for ease of installation and maintenance.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 0.5m (not 1m) fuselage plug is only for the Mk2, not the Mk1A. Weight reduction, if significant should improve aerodynamics to an extent though.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2017 01:59

Rakesh, Since Chacha Nehru times, GOI was hopeful of having a UK/US supersonic plane manufactured in India.
Initially it was the English Electric Lightning and the F104 but when mfg clause came the vendors balked and the govts., also did not give permission.

I don't know if sticking point was HAL or private manufacturer?**

Then FSU offered the Mig-21 and IAF found it was fit for their use provided it carried a gun pack. Rest is history.

NaMo has broken the paradigm.

** Maybe Abhibhushan saar can clear my understanding.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2017 01:59

nachiket you are might beright.

1.AESA Radar co-developed with Israel's ELTA corp.
2.Aircraft's weight reduced by 1000 kg from its initial weight of 6500 kg.
3.Made maintenance friendly by re-configuring some of its LRUs and proper distribution of the dead weight in the aircraft.
4.In-flight refueling capability.
5.An integrated electro-optic Electronic Warfare (EW) sensor.


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4598
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 21 Jun 2017 02:08

Image

From the LCA FB page-

KH-2018 (LSP-8) landing back after a test sortie with the IFR.
Slowly but steadily, these tests will culminate in dry and wet engagement to the feeder machine.

Jai Hind..

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rakesh » 21 Jun 2017 02:11

ramanaji: I am not discounting anything you have said. You are right. But we need to dispel the notion that F-Solah is the cure to all the evils that plague the IAF wrt to squadron shortage. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have yet to read one post on BRF or an article elsewhere that proves otherwise. Acquiring any foreign platform has a geopolitical advantage (or disadvantage...how one chooses to look at it) as well as a technological advantage as well. I am convinced of the former in relation to China, however I am not convinced of the latter.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 58 guests