LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

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.
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ashishvikas » 03 Oct 2017 08:57

Gyan wrote:6 months have passed in FY 2017-2018, HAL has been whinning about lack of new (screw driver assembly import) orders of Hawk & Su-30MKI but TOTAL production of LCA is measely 2 from 2 production lines.


And what's the claim of HAL by March-18 ? How many more ?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Khalsa » 03 Oct 2017 10:15

Sigh.....
this thread has turned from most clickable to most worrri_able

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 03 Oct 2017 10:24

If you look at some stealth designs,there are conformal pods/bays for AAMs underwing,nearer the root.These could house upto 4 WVR AAMs,or the fuselage/intakes so designed that two bays are located immediately below the side intakes.Of course there will have to be major redesigning of the fuselage,etc.,but it isn't beyond the capability of HAL to study the options for such a bird,LCA-S.Reg. my earlier post,here's someone who says much the same thing reg. the engine being the core of any fighter project.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/ ... r-yet.html
IAF at 85, but no indigenous fighter yet
Published Oct 3, 2017,

HAL at present produces “eight platforms per year, which will go up to 16 from 2019-2020”.
In this file photo, an Indian Air Force's (IAF) AN-32 transport aircraft releases chaff as it flies past the IAF Day Parade in New Delhi, India. (Photo: AP)
In this file photo, an Indian Air Force's (IAF) AN-32 transport aircraft releases chaff as it flies past the IAF Day Parade in New Delhi, India. (Photo: AP)
As the Indian Air Force completes 85 years next Sunday, October 8, it is time to take stock and look to the future. It is remarkable that for the past eight years, since 2009, things seem to changed very little for our warriors in the air. In 2009, the IAF’s combat inventory comprised two types of fighters — the twin-engine MiG-29B Fulcrum and single-power plant MiG-21FL and twin-engine fighter-ground-attack Sukhoi-30 MKI Flanker, various versions of the single-engine Mirage-2000, single-engine Mig-27ML Flogger, the two-engine Jaguar, and various types of vintage single-engine MiG-21 Bis-93. But not a single indigenous aircraft was in the IAF fleet eight years ago. This single factor – the absence of indigenous combat aircraft — should be the sole focus and future concern for the country, its government, the Air Force and all political parties, irrespective of their ideology. Else, stark bankruptcy stares at India owing to its extravagant shopping spree for the “best and latest technology” in combat aircraft imported from the West. To make matters worse, India must also face a rising, aggressive China’s growing strength in the air, backed by an exhaustive production line of indigenous fighters. China’s looming overwhelming superiority in the number of indigenous combat aircraft may lead to a potential conflict situation, perhaps even without any shorts being fired.

We must face the stark reality that despite five decades of efforts to develop a capable domestic arms industry, India still heavily depends on the import of several categories of weapons, the foremost of which are combat aircraft. France, Russia and the United States are the mainstay of our aircraft imports. Why? SIPRI 2016, by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, spells it out: “India’s attempts to design, develop and produce its own advanced major weapons remain beset with delays, spiralling costs and quality problems. A key reason for India’s high level of imports is the failure of its industry to consistently produce indigenously-designed weapons that are capable of becoming real alternatives to the equivalent designs from other countries.” The words “real alternatives to equivalent designs from other countries” is the crux. In a way, it implicitly concedes that India is capable, but incapacitated, in producing capable aircraft for long. Why? Successive political parties that have been in power since 1947 need to answer that question.

Military Balance 2017 notes that the IAF inventory now includes the MiG-29 Fulcrum; fighter-ground attack Jaguar IB/IS; MiG-21 Bison and M/MF; MiG-27 ML Flogger; Mirage-2000 and Sukhoi-30 MKI Flanker and a “few Tejas” – the last produced by HAL Bengaluru. Some consolation prize at last, and perhaps not even that. The influential Jane’s Defence Weekly recently reported that “HAL aims to double the production of light combat aircraft (LCA) over next three years”. That is doubtless good news, but there are still doubters and naysayers and also the powerful import lobby pushing the “latest and the best”. HAL at present produces “eight platforms per year, which will go up to 16 from 2019-2020”. It is, however, interesting to note that HAL is involving private entrepreneurs in a partnership programme, in line with Western and Japanese systems of collective development of industrial capacity. Thus, for the first time in India’s defence industry, there will be a “local aerospace ecosystem around the LCA”.

The cacophony, however, refuses to die down. A Western analyst noted that “envisaged as a replacement for the IAF’s ageing fleet of Soviet-era MiG-21 fighters, India’s LCA has been handicapped by technological challenges, cost overruns and delays over a decade” since the programme began in 1983. But what some tend to forget is that cost and time overruns have afflicted many other well-known projects too, including a few in the West. It is undeniable of course that the LCA was beset by “delays in formulating the aircraft’s flight manuals and other essential documentation… (which) further deferred its induction into squadron service until January 2015, 32 years after the LCA programme began”. Let’s now examine the best fighter programmes of the West – the time taken from conception to commission, and the teething problems and glitches faced. There was a time of course when the US could do things in record time. The twin-engine Boeing F-15 Eagle took four years, 10 month and 10 days from the official go-ahead on February 24, 1984 to entering service on December 28, 1988. The twin-engine Boeing F-18 Hornet too took eight years from the “requirement issued” in 1991 to being inducted into service on November 17, 1999.

But the times have changed, with quite “un-Western” performance at times these days. Consider the single-engine Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning multi-role fighter, which is yet to stabilise its performance and the cost and time overruns thereof, along with recurring technical glitches, have caused embarrassment to the manufacturer. Thus, from the “requirement issued” in November 1994 to the IOC (initial operational capability) of the F-35B on July 31, 2015 has been 21 years, and the legendary Lockheed Corporation is still struggling. :rotfl: Should novice India then be castigated so sharply 24/7? No one knows better than the West on what it takes to manufacture the “latest and best” fighters. China too has of course managed to do it, but the methods adopted by Beijing have always been dubious, questionable, unethical, corrupt. Even the Chinese are reported to concede now, when they approach the West to obtain technology, that “we have improved now”.
*(Yes,but they've done the business!)

Today, in India’s case, the main challenge is fighter engine development. First, engine-fuselage interfacing, and second, the power of the engine. There are, at present, five prominent single-engine fighters in the world. Two American (F-16 and F-35); one Chinese (J-10); one Swedish (Saab JAAS 39 Gripen) and India’s Tejas. The bottomline is: no single-engine fighter can be less than 25,000 pounds in static thrust to be effective in operations. The US F-16 has 29,100 pounds thrust; the F-35 power plant is 28,800 pounds static and 43,000 pounds thrust with full afterburner; the Swedish Saab 39 Grippen is 18,100 pounds static and 22,000 pounds afterburning thrust; China’s J-10 stands at 17,857 pounds static and 27,558 pounds afterburning thrust. In comparison, the Tejas needs to enhance from its 19,100 pounds afterburning several notches higher. In short, the more the engine power, the better are speed, service ceiling, range, endurance, combat radius, armament payload, avionics and systems. It is time to concentrate fully on developing a suitable fighter engine in India for the Air Force. Start indigenisation and look for import substitutes, else the nation is looking straight at penury.


PS:The CMan of HAL was presumably referring to the 40MK-1s on order which could be finished before 2020 and not the 83+ MK-1As also approved by the govt.The reporter may have got his facts wrong.12 X 3 years equals 36 plus the few that have been built so far,= 40!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9773
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rakesh » 03 Oct 2017 19:56

LCA Tejas to Receive India-made Brake Parachute
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/20834/ ... _Parachute

Aerial Delivery Research and Development Establishment (ADRDE), Agra, a wing of India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) has transferred technology to manufacture brake parachutes for India’s home-made fighter jet, LCA Tejas to Ordnance Parachute Factory (OPF), Kanpur. The documents pertaining to the technology were handed over in a function held on 20 July 2017, according to DRDO information. The documents have been duly vetted by the Center for Military Air-worthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) which is the certification authority for military aviation in India. The brake parachute for LCA Tejas is made of nylon and Kevlar material. The textile material used in the system has been developed as per ADRDE specifications and is available indigenously.

The Indian Air Force will have 123 indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas fighter jets in its fleet by 2024-25, according to plans of the MoD. The serial manufacture of the LCA Tejas is being undertaken by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The IAF has placed orders for 40 jets in two batches of which the first 20 are in the Initial Operational Configuration (IOC) while the remaining 20 are in the Final Operational Configuration (FOC). Last July the IAF declared operational the first Tejas squadron ‘45 flying daggers’ with three aircraft. The Defence Acquisition Council of India’s MoD has okayed the procurement for 83 aircraft in the Mk-1A configuration with specific improvements sought by the IAF.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby enaiel » 03 Oct 2017 20:18

Philip wrote:PS:The CMan of HAL was presumably referring to the 40MK-1s on order which could be finished before 2020 and not the 83+ MK-1As also approved by the govt.The reporter may have got his facts wrong.12 X 3 years equals 36 plus the few that have been built so far,= 40!


In the video the HAL Chairman clearly states that *if* the indian industry can supply the major components for 8 LCA a year, then along with HAL's own output of 16 LCA a year, the total output would be 24 LCA a year, and with that total output they can make the 83 Mk1A aircraft in a little more than 3 years.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby enaiel » 03 Oct 2017 20:23

The approval to setup the infrastructure to increase production to 16 a year was only given by MoD in 2016. That work is completed as per the video. But, it takes 11 months to assemble a LCA, so even if there are 16 jigs now, you will only see the increased rate of production in 2018.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kartik » 03 Oct 2017 22:59

Gyan wrote:6 months have passed in FY 2017-2018, HAL has been whinning about lack of new (screw driver assembly import) orders of Hawk & Su-30MKI but TOTAL production of LCA is measely 2 from 2 production lines.


SP5 should be in the last stages of checks before ground runs begin. From the CNBC-TV18 videos posted, SP7 was in final assembly as well and looked to be at most a couple of months away from first flight.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 04 Oct 2017 00:44

Gyan wrote:6 months have passed in FY 2017-2018, HAL has been whinning about lack of new (screw driver assembly import) orders of Hawk & Su-30MKI but TOTAL production of LCA is measely 2 from 2 production lines.

That's like saying, "I was promised 1 Tuesday every 7 days, but there is only one Tuesday in the next 13 days!"

ashishvikas wrote:And what's the claim of HAL by March-18 ? How many more ?

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

Here's the planned rate:
Calendar year 2017: 6
Calendar year 2018: 8
Calendar year 2019: 16

Here's what has been delivered:
Calendar year 2017: 6: SP 4-9
Calendar year 2018: To be seen
Calendar year 2019: To be seen

You guys want to see March 2017 - March 2018
SP 4 - SP 11. So seven aircraft.

TELL ME HOW IS HAL SLIPPING IN THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 04 Oct 2017 00:52

Philip wrote:PS:The CMan of HAL was presumably referring to the 40MK-1s on order which could be finished before 2020 and not the 83+ MK-1As also approved by the govt.The reporter may have got his facts wrong.12 X 3 years equals 36 plus the few that have been built so far,= 40!

No, he means that if the PRIVATE players can deliver the parts fast enough, HAL can produce 24 aircrafts per year from 2019 onwards. IF, the order of 80 odd Mk1A orders are given, then HAL can finish this off at 3 to 3.5 years.

As of today, THERE IS NO ORDER OF MK1A. THE PROJECT IS NOT EVEN SANCTIONED! There is "acceptance of necessity" by DAC. I am told that the modifications for Mk1A have been finalized, but there is no go ahead yet :D.

SO SIRS, MAY BE YOU GUYS SHOULD FIND OUT BEFORE YOU BASH AHEAD!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 04 Oct 2017 01:00

enaiel wrote:I thought that LSP2 was undergoing ground integration with Uttam radar for Mk2 preparation, while Mk1A is supposed to use Elta's 2052 radar.

Thank you for correcting me on that one. You are right. I think they were planning to modify an LSP for Mk1A too to reduce the time. Let me find out :wink:

My only peeve with HAL is that it went ahead with its own money for LCH and HTT-40 prototypes and LSP production for LCH, but they are waiting for the sanction of Mk1A.

On the other hand IAF/MoD say wonderful things in public, but have not formally sanctioned it yet. That is the ground reality.

Being an LCA-jingo is like watching an orphan of (IAF and MoD) being neglected in an orphanage (HAL), and the bystanders (import pasand guys) jeering it for its unkept hair and nails.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby enaiel » 04 Oct 2017 01:04

Mk1A is not even sanctioned? Then what's the talk about "we'll accept them as soon as HAL can make them"? How is HAL going to make any Mk1A if it is not sanctioned yet? Things are much much worse than I thought :(

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 04 Oct 2017 01:14

Making announcements doesn't require following any procedures. All procedures are cited the moment money has to be provided.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 04 Oct 2017 01:56

Philip, That Abhijit Bhattacharya article talks about engine thrust without talking about what tis the weight of the plane.

Just having a high thrust engine wont get you anywhere except in the hanger.

I don't know why Indian commentators cannot take a holistic view of any India developed weapons system but have to go an rant about everything under the sun.

Was LCA funded like JSF?

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 470
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Rishi_Tri » 04 Oct 2017 02:36

Rakesh wrote:LCA Tejas to Receive India-made Brake Parachute
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/20834/ ... _Parachute

Aerial Delivery Research and Development Establishment (ADRDE), Agra, a wing of India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) has transferred technology to manufacture brake parachutes for India’s home-made fighter jet, LCA Tejas to Ordnance Parachute Factory (OPF), Kanpur. The documents pertaining to the technology were handed over in a function held on 20 July 2017, according to DRDO information. The documents have been duly vetted by the Center for Military Air-worthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) which is the certification authority for military aviation in India. The brake parachute for LCA Tejas is made of nylon and Kevlar material. The textile material used in the system has been developed as per ADRDE specifications and is available indigenously.


Chalo bhai after 100 years of toil we finally transition to manufacturing parachutes besides the legendary 'muslin'. :D
I am sure the documents were gold plated with pop up figures of parachutes, to cover all ends and all kinds of people reading those docs. :rotfl:

Jokes asides, indicates that our high strength materials research and development capability has matured.
Last edited by ramana on 04 Oct 2017 03:07, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited. ramana

samirdiw
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby samirdiw » 04 Oct 2017 06:51

enaiel wrote:The approval to setup the infrastructure to increase production to 16 a year was only given by MoD in 2016. That work is completed as per the video. But, it takes 11 months to assemble an LCA, so even if there are 16 jigs now, you will only see the increased rate of production in 2018.



Apart from the additional infrastructure can other methods be employed to increase the rate of production like 3 shifts per day? The production line today must be silent for 16 hrs a day at least (maybe more for Chai time?).

What kind of resources are needed to do this work and can they be obtained on a contract basis and trained quickly, after all, its line production? Has HAL looked into/thought of this? Cost wise typically human resources are way cheaper in India than Infrastructure cost.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srin » 04 Oct 2017 07:34

enaiel wrote:
Philip wrote:PS:The CMan of HAL was presumably referring to the 40MK-1s on order which could be finished before 2020 and not the 83+ MK-1As also approved by the govt.The reporter may have got his facts wrong.12 X 3 years equals 36 plus the few that have been built so far,= 40!


In the video the HAL Chairman clearly states that *if* the indian industry can supply the major components for 8 LCA a year, then along with HAL's own output of 16 LCA a year, the total output would be 24 LCA a year, and with that total output they can make the 83 Mk1A aircraft in a little more than 3 years.


Why would the industry invest (ie incur upfront capital expenditure and hire labour) in making components when they don't know what'll happen after 3 years ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 04 Oct 2017 08:05

samirdiw wrote:
enaiel wrote:The approval to setup the infrastructure to increase production to 16 a year was only given by MoD in 2016. That work is completed as per the video. But, it takes 11 months to assemble an LCA, so even if there are 16 jigs now, you will only see the increased rate of production in 2018.



Apart from the additional infrastructure can other methods be employed to increase the rate of production like 3 shifts per day? The production line today must be silent for 16 hrs a day at least (maybe more for Chai time?).

What kind of resources are needed to do this work and can they be obtained on a contract basis and trained quickly, after all, its line production? Has HAL looked into/thought of this? Cost wise typically human resources are way cheaper in India than Infrastructure cost.

What for? Finish production in one year? That is foolishness.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Khalsa » 04 Oct 2017 08:27

The video with HAL chief has the HAL chief saying that 5 aircraft with the 45 Squadron.
Is that in error ?
Does he mean 2 Fighter + 1 Trainer with the squardon and 2 with ASTE ?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Cain Marko » 04 Oct 2017 08:37

Hope the 24 per year projection comes true. Hell I'll take 16 pa...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 04 Oct 2017 08:47

Khalsa wrote:The video with HAL chief has the HAL chief saying that 5 aircraft with the 45 Squadron.
Is that in error ?
Does he mean 2 Fighter + 1 Trainer with the squardon and 2 with ASTE ?

No. SP1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are in squadron service already.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 04 Oct 2017 09:54

Indranil wrote:
enaiel wrote:I thought that LSP2 was undergoing ground integration with Uttam radar for Mk2 preparation, while Mk1A is supposed to use Elta's 2052 radar.

Thank you for correcting me on that one. You are right. I think they were planning to modify an LSP for Mk1A too to reduce the time. Let me find out :wink:

My only peeve with HAL is that it went ahead with its own money for LCH and HTT-40 prototypes and LSP production for LCH, but they are waiting for the sanction of Mk1A.

On the other hand IAF/MoD say wonderful things in public, but have not formally sanctioned it yet. That is the ground reality.

Being an LCA-jingo is like watching an orphan of (IAF and MoD) being neglected in an orphanage (HAL), and the bystanders (import pasand guys) jeering it for its unkept hair and nails.


Since the acquisition committee has sanctioned 83 MK1A it is mostly up to Finance Ministry. MOD moves the files for approval. I think it is just stupid that the second approval of finance ministry is required for the final order. Either the first or the second FinMin approval needs to be done away with. IMHO, the first approval should clarify on when and how from the FinMin side.

I will defer to Vidur jee on this. I was trying to make a decision tree kind of thing for the current approval process and found myself missing (authoritative) info on this. If Vidur jee can share something then we can have a flow chart to refer and be sure where is the current bottle neck for each procurement process by just plotting the last known approval.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Philip » 04 Oct 2017 11:44

Going through sev. reports one has it that the MIG-21s/27s will be retd. only by 2024.That gives at least 5-6 yrs. of ramped up LCA production where the full 40+LSP/MK-1s and 83 MK-1As can be completed for around $3-4B. Why would we then need another SE programme costing upoto $15B? The other req. for a fleet of around "200" med. fighters would be a better prospect to pursue.If we include in the 200,the 50 M2Ks,60+ MIG-29UGs and 36-40 Rafales to come,then we would have around 140-150 med fighters,requiring perhaps another 60-80 more ($3-4B).This could be best solved by acquiring/assembling another batch of Fulcrums/MIG-35s,3 for the price of just one Rafale. This would then leave us with a large amt. of money which could be spent on the LCA-S/U,and FGFA /AMCA programmes. Thus at least $10B would be saved,more than enough for 2 sqds. of FGFAs ($5B),plus another $3-4B for dev. stealth tech/prod. facilities,etc. for both the FGFA and AMCA.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 04 Oct 2017 12:03

Indranil wrote:
Philip wrote:PS:The CMan of HAL was presumably referring to the 40MK-1s on order which could be finished before 2020 and not the 83+ MK-1As also approved by the govt.The reporter may have got his facts wrong.12 X 3 years equals 36 plus the few that have been built so far,= 40!

No, he means that if the PRIVATE players can deliver the parts fast enough, HAL can produce 24 aircrafts per year from 2019 onwards. IF, the order of 80 odd Mk1A orders are given, then HAL can finish this off at 3 to 3.5 years.

As of today, THERE IS NO ORDER OF MK1A. THE PROJECT IS NOT EVEN SANCTIONED! There is "acceptance of necessity" by DAC. I am told that the modifications for Mk1A have been finalized, but there is no go ahead yet :D.

SO SIRS, MAY BE YOU GUYS SHOULD FIND OUT BEFORE YOU BASH AHEAD!


HAL Chairman has been saying since two years that HAL can hit 25/yr if Tier-1 suppliers can supply enough sub-assemblies as envisaged. I have also pointed it out here (I was the first one to point this out IIRC, In fact I have reported in this thread, HAL's intention of outsourcing way before this came up in news, when I attended a session by LCA assembly line in charge) and in SE MII thread multiple times. By the look of it things are going well as per plan with no visible snag as of now. But some people here and outside as well simply cannot grasp this simple thing. I am sorry to say but some posters simply seem to be blinded by their prejudices and fail to see simple things. I have said before and say it again, there are million bad things about our desi programs but when people whine on wrong points they only lose their own credibility as a commentator. A little bit of thinking before posting on poster's end would do good for BRF. HAL is in a process to set up a proper supply chain for the first time in Indian MIC history. And it is million times better that what any screwdrivergiri project has ever brought including Su-30MKI, or any will ever bring, such as SE MII. But things move slowly in Aerospace. One needs to show some basic understanding of how things work and some patience for things to pan out when they are looking good. Some folks are OK for F16 screwdrivergiri to take 7 yrs to come to its full potential (in whatever half-baked format it might be) but want LCA production to ramp up in 1 year. That's absurd.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 04 Oct 2017 12:20

deejay wrote:
Indranil wrote:Thank you for correcting me on that one. You are right. I think they were planning to modify an LSP for Mk1A too to reduce the time. Let me find out :wink:

My only peeve with HAL is that it went ahead with its own money for LCH and HTT-40 prototypes and LSP production for LCH, but they are waiting for the sanction of Mk1A.

On the other hand IAF/MoD say wonderful things in public, but have not formally sanctioned it yet. That is the ground reality.

Being an LCA-jingo is like watching an orphan of (IAF and MoD) being neglected in an orphanage (HAL), and the bystanders (import pasand guys) jeering it for its unkept hair and nails.


Since the acquisition committee has sanctioned 83 MK1A it is mostly up to Finance Ministry. MOD moves the files for approval. I think it is just stupid that the second approval of finance ministry is required for the final order. Either the first or the second FinMin approval needs to be done away with. IMHO, the first approval should clarify on when and how from the FinMin side.

I will defer to Vidur jee on this. I was trying to make a decision tree kind of thing for the current approval process and found myself missing (authoritative) info on this. If Vidur jee can share something then we can have a flow chart to refer and be sure where is the current bottle neck for each procurement process by just plotting the last known approval.


Indranilji, as a moderator I wish you would make some effort to understand the DPP and the financial sanctions process. IAF and MOD have different roles both of which have been adequately discharged in this case. I am attaching DPP 2016 (without amendments) from the mod.nic.in website. http://mod.nic.in/sites/default/files/DPP-2016.pdf. Kindly read. You will note on page 6 the different steps of the process. Each has several sub steps. Point j is what Deejayji is referring to.

I also refer you to my post in another thread which enumerates the issues with the defence planning and financial sanction process. Kindly read in conjunction to above and you will be able to understand the situation. I will not be able to make these points again so kindly request you to spend some time reading them.
Last edited by Vidur on 04 Oct 2017 12:25, edited 1 time in total.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 04 Oct 2017 12:22

Deejay ji, you are correct and please feel free to ask any questions. I would be happy to answer without commenting on specifics of current acquisitions.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 04 Oct 2017 12:25

enaiel wrote:The approval to setup the infrastructure to increase production to 16 a year was only given by MoD in 2016. That work is completed as per the video. But, it takes 11 months to assemble a LCA, so even if there are 16 jigs now, you will only see the increased rate of production in 2018.


he proposal was sent by Dec 2015 (that's the earliest reference I have seen for it in one of Nitin Gokhale's article). The approval came in 2017, a few months ago.

There are no 16 set of jigs. You don't need so many. 11 months is for entire time spent by one LCA in structural assembly hanger. But the number of jigs required and production rate is set by the bottlenecking process which is "equipment" phase currently. From all the indications it looks like they have only one station for equipping phase for a line of 8/yr. I expected at least two but it looks like they have only one in the first line and 1 more was put up in secondary line. The new line sanctioned by MoD will have similar setup as existing 8/yr line I believe. Once the Tier-1 suppliers pick up pace, HAL can remove/reduce the structural sub-assembly jigs from their line and put up additional equipping station/s and increase output. Intended outsourcing by HAL is 80%, while current oursourcing with the 4 tier-1 suppliers is hitting 60+%. So some more scope for outsourcing is there. Once the basic set up is there, the growth in output will be exponential. Hopefully LCA Mk2 comes up to fill gap between MK1A and AMCA and the supply chain can be slowly graduated to 5th Gen tech level. A bridge between LCA Mk1A and AMCA is a must from MFG perspective as well, apart from design and Tech RnD perspective. Hopefully GOI and IAF/IN sees the elephant in the room and act accordingly.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 04 Oct 2017 12:32

deejay wrote: Since the acquisition committee has sanctioned 83 MK1A it is mostly up to Finance Ministry. MOD moves the files for approval. I think it is just stupid that the second approval of finance ministry is required for the final order. Either the first or the second FinMin approval needs to be done away with. IMHO, the first approval should clarify on when and how from the FinMin side.

Agreed. In fact its absurd that MoD has to go back to MoF for fund sanction on case-by-case basis when majority of the expenditure is planned and is budgeted. Ideally once the Defense budget is approved in GOI budget, the money should be given to MoD to be spent at their discretion without additional red-tapism from MoF. A lot of money remains unspent and returned to MoF due to lack of timely sanctions from MoF. MoF seems to care more about its own balance sheet more than the National Security at times.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Vidur » 04 Oct 2017 12:37

Indranil wrote:
enaiel wrote:I thought that LSP2 was undergoing ground integration with Uttam radar for Mk2 preparation, while Mk1A is supposed to use Elta's 2052 radar.



On the other hand IAF/MoD say wonderful things in public, but have not formally sanctioned it yet. That is the ground reality.


Incorrect. Sanctioning authority (MOD level) is DAC not IAF and DAC approval has indeed been given. After that comes financial sanction from MOF, CNC etc. All other relavent information is in my above post.

Request to all posters - kindly visit mod.nic.in and read the procurement policy and manuals and annual reports.


Some other useful material http://www.indiandefencereview.com/10-q ... o-ask-mod/
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/13th ... -the-past/ . The second article is a must read for any serious student of defence planning, financial sanctions and approvals in India.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2724
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby darshhan » 04 Oct 2017 14:33

JayS wrote:
deejay wrote: Since the acquisition committee has sanctioned 83 MK1A it is mostly up to Finance Ministry. MOD moves the files for approval. I think it is just stupid that the second approval of finance ministry is required for the final order. Either the first or the second FinMin approval needs to be done away with. IMHO, the first approval should clarify on when and how from the FinMin side.

Agreed. In fact its absurd that MoD has to go back to MoF for fund sanction on case-by-case basis when majority of the expenditure is planned and is budgeted. Ideally once the Defense budget is approved in GOI budget, the money should be given to MoD to be spent at their discretion without additional red-tapism from MoF. A lot of money remains unspent and returned to MoF due to lack of timely sanctions from MoF. MoF seems to care more about its own balance sheet more than the National Security at times.


Now you know the reason why Namo continued with jaitley for so long as both MOF and MOD.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby srai » 04 Oct 2017 16:02

Gagan,

Can you do one of your renderings for LCA production partners like this one of EF?

  • front fuselage -> Dynamatic Technologies Ltd, Bengaluru
  • centre fuselage -> VEM Technologies, Hyderabad
  • rear fuselage -> Alpha Tocol, Bengaluru
  • wings -> Larsen & Toubro, Coimbatore
  • tail fin and rudder -> National Aerospace Laboratory and Tata Advanced Materials Ltd.

Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 04 Oct 2017 16:57

darshhan wrote:
JayS wrote:Agreed. In fact its absurd that MoD has to go back to MoF for fund sanction on case-by-case basis when majority of the expenditure is planned and is budgeted. Ideally once the Defense budget is approved in GOI budget, the money should be given to MoD to be spent at their discretion without additional red-tapism from MoF. A lot of money remains unspent and returned to MoF due to lack of timely sanctions from MoF. MoF seems to care more about its own balance sheet more than the National Security at times.


Now you know the reason why Namo continued with jaitley for so long as both MOF and MOD.


I am pretty sure the reason is a political one rather than out of concern for expediting MoD processes. Though that's an advantage, its a lame excuse for not having dedicated RM.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Gagan » 04 Oct 2017 19:12

srai wrote:Gagan,

Can you do one of your renderings for LCA production partners like this one of EF?

  • front fuselage -> Dynamatic Technologies Ltd, Bengaluru
  • centre fuselage -> VEM Technologies, Hyderabad
  • rear fuselage -> Alpha Tocol, Bengaluru
  • wings -> Larsen & Toubro, Coimbatore
  • tail fin and rudder -> National Aerospace Laboratory and Tata Advanced Materials Ltd.

Yes saar
Will do so

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4505
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby putnanja » 04 Oct 2017 19:31

Video of interview with former director NFTC, Air Commodore Rohit Verma (retd) from Facebook LCA page

https://www.facebook.com/tejas.lca/vide ... 639829012/

Quotes on LCA

Easy to fly
Newbies can easily learn to fly LCA after using simulator
One of few aircraft that can operate from Leh
Flight control law very good

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 04 Oct 2017 19:36

I am going to either start a new thread or x-post Vidur's posts in OFB/DPSU/MoD thread.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 04 Oct 2017 19:42

New thread please for Defence Procurement Policies Issues and Discussions.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3287
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Kakkaji » 04 Oct 2017 20:06

ramana wrote:I am going to either start a new thread or x-post Vidur's posts in OFB/DPSU/MoD thread.


There is already a 'Military Acquisitions and Partnerships' thread

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby ramana » 04 Oct 2017 20:09

I know. However that thread is about defense collaborations.
If its germane will merge it.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8225
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby Indranil » 04 Oct 2017 20:16

Vidur ji,

No "ji" for me please. I will read the policies that you have linked. But, has any money been released for the program to go ahead? No.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby JayS » 04 Oct 2017 20:21

ramana wrote:I am going to either start a new thread or x-post Vidur's posts in OFB/DPSU/MoD thread.

OT here, but since the feedback thread is locked in GDF posting here. I would suggest to keep the thread on tight leash a la gyan thread. Any poster willing to comment should show that he has put some thoughts before posting and not just shooting from the hip. Question and suggestions are OK when they are asked/given with an intention to listen to others and not just to peddle own half-baked and uneducated opinions. This is a involved topic and needs some serious reading/thinking before one should post on it. Else soon we will end up in dissing each and everyone in the system without any real critical commentary on the system.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Postby deejay » 04 Oct 2017 21:09

Indranil wrote:Vidur ji,

No "ji" for me please. I will read the policies that you have linked. But, has any money been released for the program to go ahead? No.

I think the point made was that neither IAF nor MOD is holding the order as suggested in your earlier post.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests