LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Dec 2017 06:25

BEL and BDL are system integrators - huge number of vendors for Akash, including some big names like L&T and Tata. If there is price escalation at vendor, BEL/BDL will seek to pass it onto customer aka IAF who having capex issues will fight tooth and nail.
This is typical MOD sitting and fiddling while kids squabble issue IMHO. Hope our new RM will fix it.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 21 Dec 2017 06:28

Manish_P wrote:Tsk tsk Look how non supportive is the IAF

83 after 3 decades of project development? JSF had confirmed plan orders of 3000+ before a single flight. It has production rate of 100+/year in IOC stage. That is called supporting a product.....well not sure what to call 20, 20, 83 to replace 500 mig 21s that we had.

These 83 were coerced by Shri Parikker ji so no credit to IAF in my books.

IAF can still hold it indefinitely if it chooses too by doing endless rounds of trials and requests of improvement followed by promise to buy mk2 and than eventually issuing an global RFI for future ready light single engine medium weight fighter plane.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 21 Dec 2017 06:40

It looks like MK2 is moving...notwithstanding Dileep/Inddranil chaiwala report that it is not moving. We just received some more f414 engines. So what is going on, is it moving or not?
I think at Political level the intent is there to progress it. I wont be surprised that the political leadership is forcing/guiding IAF to buy LCA, just as it did in case of Mig 21/SU30MKI (they were not IAF's first choice). That leads me to believe that MK2 is moving (it is DRDO/ADA project and Def Min controling the budget)

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 21 Dec 2017 06:44

milindc wrote:#IAF issues request for proposal to HAL for procurement of 83 #Tejas light combat aircraft: Official sources (PTI)

https://twitter.com/EconomicTimes/statu ... 5320913920

This is both 'Big' and 'Not Big'.

Big because:

All the HALs, GEs, NALs, L&Ts, Dynamic Techs, Vems, Alphas can get down to work (if they have not been already) - first preparing response to the RFP and then start manufacturing their respective parts. No escaping, no excuses, no twiddling of thumbs, no chai biskut. IAF can spank the vendors on their hind quarters for any slippages.

Every Tom Dick Harry vendor has assured, paid for work for the next 5 years at least. Which industry has this luxury nowadays? That is 1000s of jobs.

IAF is sure to have at least 6 new squadrons of 4th+ gen aircraft by 2022-2023. Avionics perhaps close to 5th gen.

Sets stage for Tejas Mk2. Lets have more foreign SEF presentations, make people run around, ask for more information - lead them on a wild goose chase.

Shining Example of true 'Make In India'

Not Big because:

This is like a Balkan Revolution, you hear it for years before it actually comes.

BTW - found this interesting note on Typhoon.

http://www.janes.com/article/76525/luft ... capability

Sometimes wonder, Navy has announced plans for 6 SSNs based on experience of one baby nuke sub, and Air Force hesitates even though we literally have a squadron of birds in various configs flying which could very well be fielded in battle.

Anyway, looking forward to 2025 when first Mk2 may come out of assembly and 2030 when first AMCA could roll out.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2017 06:50

Katare wrote:
Manish_P wrote:Tsk tsk Look how non supportive is the IAF
83 after 3 decades of project development? JSF had confirmed plan orders of 3000+ before a single flight. It has production rate of 100+/year in IOC stage. That is called supporting a product.....well not sure what to call 20, 20, 83 to replace 500 mig 21s that we had.

These 83 were coerced by Shri Parikker ji so no credit to IAF in my books.

Every time we compare with America we put our nation down a little - like a boy who gets second rank in class and is ridiculed for not coming first rather than encouraged for beating everyone else. As Indians we always have an eye on America (or the west) and are always ready to put anything Indian down by comparing unfavourably with the US. This is the kind of mental colonization that the west has on us. This is the second time an unfavourable comparison has come up in the last 12 hours on this forum.

Why must we do this? Is it really necessary to point to ourselves and say how hopeless we are? Who actually gains when people do this? It is a sad commentary on the mental state of the most highly literate among Indians.

We are completely unaware of the state our nation was in 50 years ago - and like the cousin of mine who was born in a village and after age 20 his life was village to Bangalore to Mumbai to New York. And all that this sorry bugger did all his miserable life was compare his village with New York. He still takes people on tour of his house "This is car. This is remote control for curtains. etc"

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 21 Dec 2017 07:26

"MK2 is dead. Long live MK2". The concept of bigger airframe and engine are dead. Many proposals are on for MK2 elements that can get into the current airframe.

The 414s will be used for AMCA TD as I understand. Two of the TDs are apparently sanctioned.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 21 Dec 2017 07:28

Ajai Shukla's report:

Indian Air Force initiates Rs 33,000-crore buy of 83 Tejas fighters

With HAL sources placing the ticket price of the Tejas Mark 1A at about Rs 400 crore per aircraft, the 83-fighter deal would generate Rs 33,200 crore worth of business to HAL and a range of Indian and foreign upstream suppliers.

At 400 crores, the LCA Mk1A will cost over $60m. Looks like adding the AESA radar + SPJ has resulted in almost doubling the original cost of the LCA.

Still much cheaper than the imports, and at least 50% of the value added will be in India.

Expect rona-dhona soon from the usual suspects in the media and 'analyst' community about the cost, and how you can buy an F-16 for that price.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 21 Dec 2017 07:31

400 carore includes tools etc. + some kind of weapon package? Then the real per aircraft price (or marginal cost) maybe be much lower. The next batch after 83 maybe much cheaper.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 21 Dec 2017 07:43

Dileep wrote:"MK2 is dead. Long live MK2". The concept of bigger airframe and engine are dead. Many proposals are on for MK2 elements that can get into the current airframe.

The 414s will be used for AMCA TD as I understand. Two of the TDs are apparently sanctioned.

Dileep Saar,

As an evolutionary path do you think we have now developed a sufficient body of knowledge to be able to go down the AMCA path - bypassing MK2.

Was there anything in MK2 that would have been useful for AMCA.

thanks

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Dec 2017 07:46

fanne wrote:But now from intent (or is it indent), 83 is a formal contract (i.e. a order) for HAL to execute. It is a milestone. Now no one will complain that IAF has intent to buys 83 but not placed firm orders. It did today. I have follow on question - what happened for this step to be taken, did LCA achieve some internal milestone? Or was it practical decision (perhaps tied to Guj election, NDA now feels second term uncertain and want IAF to commit to LCA so that UPA-3 does not cancel it?)

If the firm orders were for Mk1 then ok great! But intent to order Mk1A doesn't support smooth production run of the LCA as Mk1A is still some ways away from being developed and certified. Meanwhile, production run of Mk1 will end in the next two-three years with 16/year rate achievement. Remember that it takes 24-36 months lead time for production to start deliveries.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Dec 2017 07:46

Guys let's celebrate the IAF decision instead of second guessing, making in correct comparisons and worry about Mk2.
Or AMCA.
All that can wait for next week

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Dec 2017 08:00

fanne wrote:400 carore includes tools etc. + some kind of weapon package? Then the real per aircraft price (or marginal cost) maybe be much lower. The next batch after 83 maybe much cheaper.

It would be nice to know the breakup. Wonder if it includes the 10 year maintenance package as well. They should just push for 75% uptime for all units that we buy. It reduces the amount we need to buy.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Dec 2017 08:01

Dileep wrote:"MK2 is dead. Long live MK2". The concept of bigger airframe and engine are dead. Many proposals are on for MK2 elements that can get into the current airframe.

The 414s will be used for AMCA TD as I understand. Two of the TDs are apparently sanctioned.

Weren't we going to try the Mk2 for the Naval version however late that might be? Or even that has been shelved?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Dec 2017 08:14

Dileep wrote:"MK2 is dead. Long live MK2". The concept of bigger airframe and engine are dead. Many proposals are on for MK2 elements that can get into the current airframe.

The 414s will be used for AMCA TD as I understand. Two of the TDs are apparently sanctioned.

Is there a particular strong reason not to go for Mk2? Keep Gripen E sale alive?

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Dec 2017 08:18

Cybaru wrote:
fanne wrote:400 carore includes tools etc. + some kind of weapon package? Then the real per aircraft price (or marginal cost) maybe be much lower. The next batch after 83 maybe much cheaper.
It would be nice to know the breakup. Wonder if it includes the 10 year maintenance package as well. They should just push for 75% uptime for all units that we buy. It reduces the amount we need to buy.

Here's an old post on unit price estimate of Mk1A.

srai wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Srai: Can you share the source of the Mk.1A figure for record purposes. Thanks.
Here you go:

Mk1A -> Rs 190 crore (~$32 million)/unit
World's smallest combat jet's Mark-II avatar to be longer
...
Besides, the cost of Mark-IA, the upgraded version of the series production (SP) fighters, will be Rs 190 crore up from Rs 160-crore estimated last year, due to integration of more systems as requested by the Indian Air Force.
...
On the cost of the LCA MK-IA increasing by Rs 30 crore compared to the SP version, Sridharan said: "The cost is bound to go up when new things have to be integrated. And when some of the things include complex systems like the electronic warfare suit, new radar and mid-air refueling, it will (cost will go up)."
...
Mk1 -> Rs 162 crore (~$26 million)/unit
HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore
...
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.
...

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 21 Dec 2017 08:49

ks_sachin wrote:
Dileep wrote:"MK2 is dead. Long live MK2". The concept of bigger airframe and engine are dead. Many proposals are on for MK2 elements that can get into the current airframe.

The 414s will be used for AMCA TD as I understand. Two of the TDs are apparently sanctioned.
Dileep Saar,

As an evolutionary path do you think we have now developed a sufficient body of knowledge to be able to go down the AMCA path - bypassing MK2.

Was there anything in MK2 that would have been useful for AMCA.

thanks

There is no straight answer to this. But we sure can bypass the "bigger airframe and engine" version of MK2.

At this point, the only gaps we have for AMCA realization are:

1. Twin engine propulsion, and its integration to the 'brain' of the aircraft. This include the power train design, FCS, FADEC, fuel management etc.

2. Stealth. a lot of theoretical and mock-up work was going on, and what I hear is that they have pretty good clue on the body shapes already.

The AMCA TDs are being planned to close this gap. The current electronics platform will be used for the TD with the necessary expansion of sensors, actuators and other infrastructure. Meanwhile, the new gizmos will be developed and tried on the current platform.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2017 08:52

srai wrote: Mk1A -> Rs 190 crore (~$32 million)/unit

Mk1 -> Rs 162 crore (~$26 million)/unit

I cannot understand how these estimates of Rupee vs dollar are arrived at on BRF

There is a site that lists average Rupee-Dollar value on any given year
http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=US ... &year=2014

In 2014 Rs 162 crore was:

25.8 million dollars in December

In 2015 190 crore was

28.6 million dollars in December

In 2016 190 crore was

28 million dollars in December

The difference between 162 crore in 2014 and 190 crores in 2015 is just 1.4 million dollars - 117%
The difference in the dollar figures of 25.8 and 28.6 is 111 %
By 2016 the dollar difference between 190 crore and 162 crore was even smaller

So exactly what is being calculated in dollar terms? Eventually this mess is going to be GIGO and I suspect we have been making GIGO arguments forever by converting Rupees to Dollars without looking at the exchange rate

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 21 Dec 2017 09:03

MK1A also will be an asymptote.

Remember that there is no change in the basic plane. Only some of the innards will change. So, the obvious tactics will be that stuff will get developed, qualified and phased in into production, and back-upgraded in due course. We desis are experts in this. The only significance of this RFP is that it will clear the paperwork to build SP-41 onwards. What exactly is going to be built will be decided by the time they are actually ready to start on building it.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 21 Dec 2017 09:29

Out of 83 Mk1-A order being planned, 10 are going to same MK1(FOC) Trainers.

Can all these 10 Trainers manufactured before MK1A start rolling out if there is some delay in between so that gap is minimal between MK1 -FOC & MK1-A ?

What's remaining for Trainer ? Has SOP fixed for them ?

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Dec 2017 09:51

As I have said in that post, it's an old post. Rupees have been included for people like you to do your own conversion

shiv wrote:
srai wrote: Mk1A -> Rs 190 crore (~$32 million)/unit

Mk1 -> Rs 162 crore (~$26 million)/unit
I cannot understand how these estimates of Rupee vs dollar are arrived at on BRF

There is a site that lists average Rupee-Dollar value on any given year
http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=US ... &year=2014

In 2014 Rs 162 crore was:
25.8 million dollars in December
In 2015 190 crore was
28.6 million dollars in December

In 2016 190 crore was
28 million dollars in December
The difference between 162 crore in 2014 and 190 crores in 2015 is just 1.4 million dollars - 117%
The difference in the dollar figures of 25.8 and 28.6 is 111 %
By 2016 the dollar difference between 190 crore and 162 crore was even smaller

So exactly what is being calculated in dollar terms? Eventually this mess is going to be GIGO and I suspect we have been making GIGO arguments forever by converting Rupees to Dollars without looking at the exchange rate

Instead of the long windy post on conversion rates, you could have simple just said at today's exchange rates, the dollar amount would be xxx

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 21 Dec 2017 10:12

ramana wrote:It is a huge milestone. Even last month the HAL chairman was not sure of IAF plans beyond the 20 (IOC) + 20 (FOC) orders in place.

IAF has shown its commitment to LCA Mk1A. And that's a great step.

This is a huge milestone. India has now (albeit only semi-officially at this point) ordered twice as many Tejas's (123 units) as it has Mirage-2000's (50 units). Think about that.

A colony exports its raw materials and imports its finished, value-added goods. For the past seventy years, India has exported its talented youth and imported its weapons. Those days are coming to an end. Jai Hind. Jai Bharat.

disha · Post by **disha** » 21 Dec 2017 10:16

Indranil wrote:It is more than 500 km in IOC-2. I am told that the number is being revised upwards.

Thanks Indranil'ji. I was more circumspect since this (and the missile thread) have several right-hearted indics who will caution me on going overboard or going overconfident.

From an engineering perspective, and assuming there is no other budgetary influence., LCA can serve as a platform to several evolutionary and revolutionary upgrades.

For example paper design of LCA Mk2 is already known. In LCA Mk3 one can remove the large dorsal fin and replace it with a small stub when paired with thrust vectoring engines on a single plane. Several of the improvements meant for Mk2 are already finding its way into Mk1A (one has to really compile the list of the 43 improvements over Mk1 which are finding its way into Mk1A).

If the Sukhoi design bureau can come up with oddities like Su-47 Berkut, I think ADA can also try out experiments on the LCA's. And not all of the designs has to see the day. Only some, like LCA Mk1A. Whether it is called Mk2 or Mk2.5 or Mk 3.0., it is just versioning.

At this point, India needs a working Jet engine. GOI must pick up going for a Jet engine in mission mode and that is the only stumbling block to full fledged aeronautical industry.

It is truly an inflection point.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 21 Dec 2017 10:38

Avarachan wrote:
ramana wrote:It is a huge milestone. Even last month the HAL chairman was not sure of IAF plans beyond the 20 (IOC) + 20 (FOC) orders in place.

IAF has shown its commitment to LCA Mk1A. And that's a great step.
This is a huge milestone. India has now (albeit only semi-officially at this point) ordered twice as many Tejas's (123 units) as it has Mirage-2000's (50 units). Think about that.

A colony exports its raw materials and imports its finished, value-added goods. For the past seventy years, India has exported its talented youth and imported its weapons. Those days are coming to an end. Jai Hind. Jai Bharat.

It absolutely is!

The cost debate is a bogey. I feel that even at 2x the unit cost of an equivalent import, it is worth going for a home grown design. The ramifications are numerous - growth in technical, engineering, process and operations capabilities (what's the alternative - to perpetually import?), ancillary industries and industries to support sub-assemblies, jobs - direct and indirect, sovereign ownership and insurance against future denials, taxes collected internally, the list goes on. It would even be possible to tap the export market down the road, and this has a strategic angle to it (it's not the same as exporting towels and bedsheets).

Refinements to the basic design will continue as they should. Weight will be pared down, allowing more fuel/range to be carried; electronics, sensors and armaments will improve.

IAF may cry a bit, and for the sake of diversity it may even be worth importing a couple of squadrons of state of the art Western fighters (as we did). But we need to build our MIC first.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 21 Dec 2017 10:41

When LCA programme was first funded in 1993 we were 90 years behind, today we are 20 years behind.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 21 Dec 2017 10:48

Wow! The LCA thread since yesterday has been like a microcosm of Indian ability to see a zillion possibilities out of a single event. We each drew our own conclusion. From posts which raised doubts:

Katare wrote:
Manish_P wrote:Tsk tsk Look how non supportive is the IAF
83 after 3 decades of project development? JSF had confirmed plan orders of 3000+ before a single flight. It has production rate of 100+/year in IOC stage. That is called supporting a product.....well not sure what to call 20, 20, 83 to replace 500 mig 21s that we had.

These 83 were coerced by Shri Parikker ji so no credit to IAF in my books.

IAF can still hold it indefinitely if it chooses too by doing endless rounds of trials and requests of improvement followed by promise to buy mk2 and than eventually issuing an global RFI for future ready light single engine medium weight fighter plane.

to posts which celebrated and calibrated

Kartik wrote:Can't believe the BRF thread is so silent on this. Finally a RFP was issued to HAL by the IAF for 73 Mk1As and 10 twin seat trainers at FOC SOP. This is a red letter day, the conversion of Acceptance of Necessity to a formal RFP, which will then translate to a formal order if HAL doesn't give an exorbitant quote. This quote will include the development costs for the Mk1A which IAF will probably share with HAL.

...

To posts which looked ahead

ramana wrote:90 days reply to RFP means all the Mk1A changes are ready to be put in place.
And 2019 for first flight is good.

Does this ensure no production gap at HAL?

I think the two year delay was to ensure its ready to be ordered.

...

to posts which celebrated

Cain Marko wrote:Now that the mk1a order is totally confirmed can naysayers and iaf bashers please go it eat some kawwa biryani.

Great holiday gift this...

to posts which cautioned against celebrations

srai wrote:...
If the firm orders were for Mk1 then ok great! But intent to order Mk1A doesn't support smooth production run of the LCA as Mk1A is still some ways away from being developed and certified. Meanwhile, production run of Mk1 will end in the next two-three years with 16/year rate achievement. Remember that it takes 24-36 months lead time for production to start deliveries.

Tejas has meant so much to all of us. Its more than a project, it is our passion and for some our vocation. Good to see the diverse view.

I will join those who are cautioning against celebrations. Remember the DPP. IAF may have issued the RFP, MoD decides when what is ready to go online.

2015, ACM Raha announced IAF intent for 83. 2016 DAC cleared the acquisition. I think both the events were near to the end of the year. RFP has been issued at the end of 2017. HALs response, its evaluation will take most of the year before next step being announced by end 2018 (my guess).

I will celebrate the day the contract is signed. And no it is not the IAF which will sign the contract, it will be signed when the MoD says that contract can be signed. To explain my caution -

Refer DPP here:https://mod.gov.in/dod/sites/default/fi ... .pdf_0.pdf

Based on the DPP, I place the MK1A acquisition under category Buy (Indian -IDDM) [(Refer Pg 1, Chapter 1, Pt 4) (after the Preamble) and refer Pg 2, Chapter 1, Pt 6)].

The Acquisition process is in Chapter 2, beginning (refer Pg 9, Pt1, Chapter 2). Reproducing the steps:

Acquisition Process
1. The acquisition process for the five categories of procurement under the „Buy‟ and „Buy
& Make‟, schemes will involve the following processes:-
(a) Request for Information (RFI).
(b) Services Qualitative Requirements (SQRs).
(c) Acceptance of Necessity (AoN).
(d) Solicitation of offers.
(e) Evaluation of Technical offers by Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC).
(f) Field Evaluation.
(g) Staff Evaluation.
(h) Oversight by Technical Oversight Committee (TOC).
(j) Commercial negotiations by Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC).
(k) Approval of the Competent FinancialAuthority (CFA).
(l) Award of contract/Supply Order (SO).
(m) ContractAdministration and Post-Contract Management.

11 steps before contract and 1 after. If I understand correctly, the Mk1A acquisition is at Step (d) or the 4th step. (refer Pg 15, Pt 29, Chapter 2) .

Solicitation of Offers
29. Solicitation of offers will be as per „Single Stage - Two Bid System‟. It will imply that a
RFP would be issued soliciting the technical and commercial bids together, but in two separate and
sealed envelopes.

30. It would be open for the Acquisition Wing in MoD to procure „Commercially Off The Shelf‟
(COTS) equipment, not available on DG S&D rate contract as per provisions in Para 26 (Chapter
II), on the basis of open tenders.
RFP : Vetting And Issue
31. The procedure for RFP vetting and issue will be as follows:-
(a) All activities internal to SHQ (Hainji! Yahan bhi SHQ? Don't underestimate the power of the SHQ) for preparation of RFP, which includes consultation
with all agencies concerned such as procurement and maintenance directorates at SHQ,
Quality Assurance agencies, DRDO etc. would be completed prior to consideration of the
case by SCAPCC/SCAPCHC. All issues identified after internal vetting of draft RFP at
SHQ, which merit incorporation in the SoC for AoN, be included in the SoC for
consideration by SCAPCC/SCAPCHC.
(b) Concurrent to the circulation of the SoC, a draft RFP will be circulated to AM, TM,
FM and other stakeholders. Observations, if any, will be intimated to the SHQ, based on
which the SoC and the draft RFP will be amended accordingly. Collegiate vetting of RFP
will be done after the accord of AoN.

...

So sit back in relax. This is just one more step. At least 07 more steps to contract. Apologies for the long post and spanner in the discussions. DO read the DPP. A lot will be explained by the document.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 21 Dec 2017 11:47

deejay wrote:
I will celebrate the day the contract is signed. And no it is not the IAF which will sign the contract, it will be signed when the MoD says that contract can be signed.

Agree 400%. Jingos are forgetting that the main argument was "HAL needs firm orders". HAL still is long way from having it.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 21 Dec 2017 11:48

Dileep wrote:MK1A also will be an asymptote.

Isn't every damn product the same..? Never 100% developed and always something more to be done. What was always lacking is realism on program management side while managing the milestones. Rather than keeping hard limits on features to be included in given iteration, things get added and iterations get delayed.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 21 Dec 2017 11:58

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 061609.ece

Hindu reporting order will be done in 5 months...

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 21 Dec 2017 12:04

Bharadwaj wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 061609.ece

Hindu reporting order will be done in 5 months...

90 days to submit RFP, that's 03 months and we will be able to complete the rest, draft a contract and sign it in 5 months? Hmmm. I think we will find the Hindu report being overly optimistic.

YashG · Post by **YashG** » 21 Dec 2017 12:11

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 184429.cms

The gentleman in the above article does hi sbest to malign LCA. For him 'FOC' or "Combat Ready' is the same. He argues that LCA is till not combat ready because it has not achieved FOC! (FOC != Combat Ready) This is deshdroh.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 21 Dec 2017 12:23

We regularly go through steps (e) thro (m). A 'committee' can shortcut pretty much anything technical. 'commercial' is a different animal though. So, steps e,f,g and h will happen in a day over chai biskoot. Some final nitpick wouldhappen, but those will be short and done offline before the meeting. j and k will take some time because of the beancounters.

One of the most illogical things is the "price negotiation" AFTER you decide L1. I mean.. you competed with ten other vendors, including a couple who have no clue on what they are getting into and another two who knowingly quote low to get in. Became L1. Even after the beancounter want to "negotiate", just for "indelligence" sake

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 21 Dec 2017 12:26

Dileep wrote:We regularly go through steps (e) thro (m). A 'committee' can shortcut pretty much anything technical. 'commercial' is a different animal though. So, steps e,f,g and h will happen in a day over chai biskoot. Some final nitpick wouldhappen, but those will be short and done offline before the meeting. j and k will take some time because of the beancounters.

One of the most illogical things is the "price negotiation" AFTER you decide L1. I mean.. you competed with ten other vendors, including a couple who have no clue on what they are getting into and another two who knowingly quote low to get in. Became L1. Even after the beancounter want to "negotiate", just for "indelligence" sake

He he. I can co-relate to that very well. The PNC would like to reduce at least some cost, just to show that they had done their job, even if its nominal and/or senseless.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 21 Dec 2017 12:27

YashG wrote:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 184429.cms

The gentleman in the above article does hi sbest to malign LCA. For him 'FOC' or "Combat Ready' is the same. He argues that LCA is till not combat ready because it has not achieved FOC! (FOC != Combat Ready) This is deshdroh.

Dogs got to bark to please their masters na?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 21 Dec 2017 12:33

Dileep wrote:We regularly go through steps (e) thro (m). A 'committee' can shortcut pretty much anything technical. 'commercial' is a different animal though. So, steps e,f,g and h will happen in a day over chai biskoot. Some final nitpick wouldhappen, but those will be short and done offline before the meeting. j and k will take some time because of the beancounters.

One of the most illogical things is the "price negotiation" AFTER you decide L1. I mean.. you competed with ten other vendors, including a couple who have no clue on what they are getting into and another two who knowingly quote low to get in. Became L1. Even after the beancounter want to "negotiate", just for "indelligence" sake

Agree but even then 5 months is excessively ambitious. I think end 2018 will be more like a reasonable time frame provided no other hiccups.

Will be happy if The Hindu timeline can be met.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 21 Dec 2017 12:36

JayS wrote:
Dileep wrote:We regularly go through steps (e) thro (m). A 'committee' can shortcut pretty much anything technical. 'commercial' is a different animal though. So, steps e,f,g and h will happen in a day over chai biskoot. Some final nitpick wouldhappen, but those will be short and done offline before the meeting. j and k will take some time because of the beancounters.

One of the most illogical things is the "price negotiation" AFTER you decide L1. I mean.. you competed with ten other vendors, including a couple who have no clue on what they are getting into and another two who knowingly quote low to get in. Became L1. Even after the beancounter want to "negotiate", just for "indelligence" sake
He he. I can co-relate to that very well. The PNC would like to reduce at least some cost, just to show that they had done their job, even if its nominal and/or senseless.

And consider this: The 'asymptotic development' (I am copyrighting this BTW) gets into this very tight commercial space . We get in at TD stage, but the commercial terms are for fully developed product: Tightly squeezed price and schedule, Payment after acceptance. Late Delivery penalty applies etc. The technical team of customer wants all kinds of research, experimentation, exploration, alternates, wishful features etc. So, we end up spending way over budget, and paying LD penalty. Screw the bloodsucking 'private enterprise' is the mantra onlee.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 21 Dec 2017 13:07

Dileep wrote:
JayS wrote: He he. I can co-relate to that very well. The PNC would like to reduce at least some cost, just to show that they had done their job, even if its nominal and/or senseless.
And consider this: The 'asymptotic development' (I am copyrighting this BTW) gets into this very tight commercial space . We get in at TD stage, but the commercial terms are for fully developed product: Tightly squeezed price and schedule, Payment after acceptance. Late Delivery penalty applies etc. The technical team of customer wants all kinds of research, experimentation, exploration, alternates, wishful features etc. So, we end up spending way over budget, and paying LD penalty. Screw the bloodsucking 'private enterprise' is the mantra onlee.

Couldn't agree more. Been there, done that and all.. You are expected to deliver Moon rock in the price of ordinary Earth rock.

If our enemies get to design our systems and procedures and enforce them on us to keep us down for long time, they would have come up with exact same system we enforced ourselves on us.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 21 Dec 2017 13:11

Onlee 2 Test Flights by LSPs in last 3 weeks.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Dec 2017 15:08

The decision must be cheered! The IAF has at last come aboard for the 120+ LCAs.Mk-2 is another matter,which we shall see next year when extra Rafales/SEFs compete for deal sealing. Now with the 120+ orders assured,the GOI/MOD must start touting the LCA with friendly nations who have limited budgets,large numbers of MIG-21s,etc. requiring replacement.Why, the LCA could even challenge the F-16 once we can assure support for the same.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 21 Dec 2017 15:10

^Perhaps you missed the mail 02 years ago. IAF has been aboard this ship for 02 yrs now. Lets not cheer the same thing over and over again.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 21 Dec 2017 15:51

Not sure if this video has been shared earlier.

Frontlines S02 Ep16 - LCA Tejas - Indian Air Force's Make In India Fighter

https://www.indiatimes.com/videos/front ... 30984.html